Keeping a Close Eye on the Right Wing, Part 2

This is the second installment of a four-part series. Previously: Part 1.

Keeping a Close Eye on the Right Wing
Part 2: The Transatlantic Connection

As mentioned in the introduction to this series, the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) held a conference in London on March 13 to study the “New Far Right” in Europe, with a special focus on the English Defence League. Paul Weston has described the event as preparation of the virtual battlefield in advance of a takedown of the EDL by Prime Minister David Cameron and the British government.

Based on the conference report, “A Neo-Nationalist Network: The English Defence League and Europe’s Counter-Jihad Movement”, the EDL was indeed the major focus of the ICSR event. But was the conference convened to launch the report? Or was the report commissioned in advance to help justify a predetermined conclusion, namely that the EDL needs to be banned?

In either case, the paper fails to provide meaningful documentation of any dangerous tendencies in the English Defence League and its allies. The authors seem to be of two minds, analyzing the EDL using loaded terms, yet providing a great deal of material that is intended to be positive. The result of their efforts is a schizophrenic document.

As you will see, they pay the necessary lip service to their concerns in the form of vague misgivings about what lies behind the EDL’s actions. Despite the public endorsement by police and the official statements, they seem to feel there may yet be some sort of secret crypto-fascism behind the European Counterjihad and the EDL. Even so, the examples presented in the report are almost all quite positive, and take pains to show how much the movement overlaps mainstream political discourse.

This is important for all of us, because their insights will enable a civil discourse to be engaged on the issues and policies. It may help put aside the ad hominem attacks so beloved by extremist groups such as UAF and Antifa, and their close allies among doctrinaire Islamists such as Anjem Choudary.

If Hope not Hate, under the umbrella of ICSR, has come around to a more sensible view of Tommy Robinson and the English Defence League, then more power to them! Despite the report’s reflexive scowl at the EDL and all it represents, the actual data presented reflect quite positively on Tommy Robinson, Kevin Carroll, and the European Counterjihad.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Now let’s get down to the report itself, which has been posted as a 72-page pdf at the ICSR website. It’s too large for a complete analysis here, even in three parts, so readers are advised to download it and read the entire thing. Be warned, however: much of it is written using the mind-numbing academic jargon so typical of government-funded research papers.

As mentioned above, the report appears schizophrenic in its approach to the topic, as if it is somehow subverting the ostensible intent of the document, or as if there were two very different authors. And the report does indeed have two authors, Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens and Hans Brun.

I don’t know anything about Hans Brun, but Mr. Hitchens (the son of the late Christopher Hitchens) seems not be a shill for the Multicultural Left. He has contributed to The Weekly Standard — hardly an organ of the Left — and is considered enough of a right-wing ideologue to merit his own Powerbase entry. In other words, he’s not someone you would expect to be viewed positively by Hope not Hate.

Although its ostensible focus is on the EDL, the report devotes more attention to activists and websites of the American Counterjihad than it does to Tommy Robinson. Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Gates of Vienna (blush) and other Americans and their sites receive massive coverage in this document. Try searching on “Geller”, “Atlas”, “Spencer”, “Gates”, and so on, and you’ll see what I mean.

This transatlantic focus is part of the ongoing effort by the Left to depict anti-Islamization movements in Europe as somehow instigated and/or directed by American agitators, who are seen as behind-the-scenes funders and pullers of strings for their European protégés.

My analysis below will focus mainly on those parts of the American and European Counterjihad with which I’m most familiar, which means that I will omit coverage of much of the text on the EDL. That task will be left to one of our British correspondents, and will appear as Part 3 of this report.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

According to Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens and Hans Brun, the European Counter-Jihad Movement (ECJM — I like that acronym) is spearheaded by “Defence Leagues” modeled on the EDL and coordinated by Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from across the Atlantic. On page 24 the authors note:

The ECJM has begun to implement this model in its European operations. Defence leagues inspired by the EDL have emerged throughout Scandinavia and are organising joint rallies and conferences, helped on by so-called ‘ideas people’, including Robert Spencer, who provides much of the ideological fuel, and Pamela Geller, whose organisational skills the ECJM has employed to some effect.

And on page 52:

Above all others, two names in particular are legend within the ECJM: Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. Through their respective blogs, Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs, they have helped inspire the Counter- Jihad movement in Europe.

It’s good to see credit given where credit is due. Yet the implication is that the Counterjihad in Europe lacks indigenous roots, and is largely instigated by American operatives.

How true is that?

I’ve been working every day for more than seven years with European anti-sharia activists. They were there before I joined the scene, they were there when I came onboard, and they were there when Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller first became involved in October 2007. The movement is hardly an American creation; it was and remains a spontaneous European phenomenon.

The authors may be forgiven for their misplaced emphasis on the American element, however, since such a wealth of material is available from American sources, in English. To make a proper investigation of the full range of Counterjihad activities in Europe, they would have had to read the extensive material available in Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish, German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish, etc. That’s a daunting task — it’s much easier to concentrate on the English-language archives of sites in the UK and the USA.

Hence the Anglocentric focus.

Taking into account the transatlantic bias, let’s see what the report has to say about the “Neo-Nationalist Network” of “Europe’s Counter-Jihad Movement”. From the Executive Summary (page 1):

While the ECJM uses tactics that are reminiscent of traditional incarnations of the European far-right, it also has a message that identifies a new and supposedly existential threat to Europe: Islam and Muslim immigration. Unlike most other far-right organisations, however, the ECJM is a one-issue movement, and has yet to show an interest in expanding its scope to cover other popular concerns. [emphasis added]

This is reasonably accurate. Yet the weasel-word “supposedly” telegraphs the Multicultural orthodoxy behind the analysis. Is the existential threat only “supposed”? Or does it really exist?

And will the authors investigate the latter possibility?

Strangely enough, and perhaps unintentionally, they do — by quoting and summarizing so much of what the “Islamophobes” have to say. They are fairly scrupulous (although somewhat superficial) in their précis of Counterjihad writings, so the existential threat may be inferred from the material they collect.

Next they discuss what they describe as “cultural nationalism”:

The ECJM is not a conventional far-right movement. While other farright strands in Europe are usually defined by their adherence to forms of racial or ethnic nationalism, the ECJM espouses an assertive cultural nationalism. Some of its views and concerns overlap considerably with those voiced by commentators on the left and right of mainstream politics. This means that taken at face-value the movement is less extreme and feels less threatening than the traditional far right, making it harder to categorise, and also allowing it to be more amorphous and transnational.

Cultural Nationalism

The authors of this report have categorised the ECJM’s nationalism as a form of cultural nationalism, according to which the nation and its citizens are defined primarily in terms of a shared culture and history. The movement’s self-proclaimed mission is to ensure the survival and prosperity of that culture, which might be represented by its fundamental principles such as free speech and equality before the law. [emphasis added]

This is actually a fair characterization of what we say. And it acknowledges something that the European Union and many national political leaders in the EU would prefer to deny: There is a common European culture, shared by the individual nations of Europe and the European diaspora. This is what we strive to preserve.

The authors obviously noticed that the values cherished by that culture and its defenders — free speech, equality before the law, etc. — are not easy to depict as scary “Nazi” characteristics. Messrs Hitchens and Brun find it “awkward” (I would have said “embarrassing”) to deal with this aspect of our movement, since to oppose us they must make common cause with murderous ideologies that consider those same values anathema.

However, we must be opposed, so that circle must be squared:

It becomes awkward to categorise a group positioning itself in defence of liberal enlightenment values as “far-right” or extreme but this report demonstrates that the ECJM’s cultural nationalism does indeed manifest itself as a form of far-right extremism in its portrayal of Muslims as a threat to European culture, an “enemy within”, and in its proposed, highly illiberal responses to this perceived threat.

In other words:

“It’s ‘awkward’ to try to square this circle and call the defense of classical liberal principles ‘far-right extremism’, but we must do it anyway: THE CIRCLE IS SQUARE.”

The defenders of free speech and equal rights for women are “far-right extremists”, because they propose (unspecified) illiberal responses to a threat that only they can perceive. Thus, they must be dangerous and pose a threat.

And what would that threat be? Three guesses:

The Threat

The ECJM poses three serious problems:

i) Though it does not specifically call for violence, the sensationalist character of the ECJM narrative, which includes a paranoid tendency towards conspiracy-theory, can act as inspiration for violent terrorist attacks like those carried out by Breivik, who emerged from the ECJM’s ideological milieu;
ii) the movement can serve to incubate, protect and add a veneer of plausibility and acceptability to traditional forms of far-right xenophobia and extremism;
iii) its amorphous nature and ability to tap into popular concerns about immigration, religion, terrorism and the economy increases the likelihood of violent confrontation and jeopardises Europe’s social fabric.

Yes, that’s right: the threat is another Anders Behring Breivik. Ever since July 23, 2011, there has been no other threat. Everyone who holds “xenophobic” opinions like ours is and forever will be a “potential Breivik”.

No evidence is required: they just know it’s true. QED.

Now it’s time to look at the dangerous, threatening, xenophobic “rock stars” of the movement: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Tommy Robinson:

Since its emergence, the EDL has garnered support from prominent Counter-Jihad figures in the United States. The popular American Counter-Jihad activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, for example, have praised the emergence of the group and are currently assisting in the organisation of a coherent, pan-European movement.

With their help, the EDL has inspired the creation of a number of other “defence leagues” around Europe, with a specific focus on Scandinavia. EDL leader Tommy Robinson now holds almost legendary status within this nascent movement, and is considered the “rock star” of the ECJM.1 In the last year, the EDL has made a concerted effort to spread the defence league concept throughout Europe, using both online networking and organised, on-the-ground demonstrations.

This is the basic thesis of the entire ICSR report: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Tommy Robinson, and other transatlantic agitators are working together to stir up trouble across the whole of Europe, trouble that would not exist without their insolent meddling.

There is one thing in the Executive Summary, however, with which I find myself in complete agreement:

The ECJM is a loosely-organised, decentralised network of sympathetic groups and political parties that have used the internet to coalesce into a more effective and international anti-Islam movement.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The body of the report is too extensive to analyze in its entirety. I will concentrate on those portions which are most relevant to our mission here at Gates of Vienna and cover material with which I am sufficiently familiar.

The first thing to note is that the report seems, generally speaking, accurate in most of the factual points it presents. The authors make some errors, but they are not huge. Tendentious descriptions that support the predetermined conclusions are widespread in the text, of course, but a surprising amount of information is presented in a fair and neutral manner.

Unfortunately, the authors’ knowledge of their material seems to be shallow and superficial, as if they had acquired most of it by reading the some of major mainstream Counterjihad websites, attending a couple of Defence League events, and interviewing Tommy Robinson.

Part 1, the Introduction, begins on page 7:

With commentators and analyst offering descriptions ranging from populist street movement to racial-nationalists and fascists, it is clear that a great deal of uncertainty remains regarding the true nature of the English Defence League (EDL) and its European affiliates. The rise of this self-described “Counter-Jihad” movement in Europe, which seeks to combat the perceived threat of “Islamisation” through Europe-wide protests and awareness and advocacy campaigns, has added a new and complex element to the study of the far-right in Europe.

Putting keywords in quotes is a time-honored method of deprecating your opponent’s position. It’s an effective way of indicating that there is some doubt about whether his concepts have any objective meaning outside his own (presumably deluded) mind. I’ve been known to employ the technique myself from time to time…

But there is no “uncertainty… regarding the true nature” of the EDL unless one takes all of one’s information from The Guardian and other mainstream British outlets that refuse to write about the EDL in honest terms.

People who are part of the movement, who hang out in the same circles and are involved in its activities, are in no doubt about its “true nature”. Only someone in a state of permanent denial about what is happening in Britain could be.

On page 8 we read:

…The primary research goal of this study is to provide an insight into the thinking of the movement’s core leadership by focusing on its history, tactics and intellectual background. As such, the report does not claim to analyse the views or inspirations of rank-and-file followers and supporters.3

How can the motives of the leaders be understood without understanding the motives of those who follow them? The imperative behind this report requires the authors to reach certain conclusions that cannot be justified by any facts they might uncover. Therefore they cannot really provide any “insight into the thinking of the movement’s core leadership” without addressing the motives of the followers, which, as mentioned in the referenced footnote (#3), they are unable to do:

Due to the lack of anything beyond anecdotal data on followers of ECJM groups it has been very difficult to reach any firm conclusions about their inspirations and motivations.

So, in effect, Messrs. Hitchens and Brun are acknowledging from the start that they cannot do what they say they are attempting to do, that they are unable to accomplish their self-declared “primary goal”.

Therefore the rest of the report may be considered boilerplate and filler used to flesh out the conclusions they are required to reach.

Part 2 (pages 9-15) covers a lot of ground on “The EDL’s History and the International Network”. It touches on material with which I am insufficiently familiar, and will leave to our British correspondent to tackle in Part 3 of this series.

The section includes an account of the formation of British Freedom and Paul Weston’s stint as the leader of BF. It’s obvious that the ICSR is worried by Paul Weston — as they well should be, since he is intelligent, articulate, well-educated, effective, and cannot be dismissed as just another “fascist street thug”.

Gates of Vienna comes into their sights due to its long history of featuring the writings of Paul Weston:

Weston, the architect of BF’s shift away from racial-nationalism, is also a regular contributor to the Gates of Vienna blog, one of the leading websites of the ECJM and home to well-known ECJM blogger Fjordman (whose real name is Peder Nøstvold Jensen). Under Weston’s stewardship, the Islamisation issue was placed at the top of the BF agenda.

So far, so good: that is clear, factually accurate, and neutral in tone. If the entire report were written in this fashion, one could only commend it.

Quibbles can be made here and there, however. In the section on the influence of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer on the Defence Leagues, footnote #6 (page 9) tells us this:

This is led by Robert Spencer, who runs the popular anti-Islam blog Jihad Watch, and Pamela Geller, who rose to prominence as the head of a campaign to stop the building of an Islamic centre near the site of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center

As far as I am aware, Pamela Geller “rose to prominence” long before the Ground Zero Mosque issue entered the news. She was featured on national network television during the Rifqa Bary case, the disputes over bus ads, and on other occasions too numerous to note, extending back several years at least.

But we’ll let that one go; it’s a minor issue.

On page 17-19 we encounter details on a topic I know well, namely this blog:

The EFI and the European defence leagues were not in fact the first European Counter-Jihad network; rather, they have joined on to and to a large extent co-opted a pre-existing movement. An earlier attempt to create such a network was made in 2006 in the form of the 910 Group which began with an article posted on 26 September 2006 on the Gates of Vienna blog by an individual using the pseudonym Baron Bodissey (later revealed to be Edward S. May, one of the operators of the blog). The author argued that the internet, and particularly the blogosphere, was a potential source of ‘enormous power,’ while also complaining that one major weakness of other existing Counter-Jihad blogs was their solely reactive character.53 He therefore suggested a change of direction: the creation of a web-based anti-Islam activist group that was able to organise physical gatherings and events in order to apply pressure on governments to act against the perceived Islamisation threat.54 Blogs and other forms of new media were becoming weapons with which the movement could fight its cultural civil war within Europe:… [emphasis added]

This is a partially accurate presentation of how the 910 Group came into being. But the weasel-word “perceived” has been appended to the “threat”, denying the concept any objective validity. And notice the loaded terminology used in the last part of the paragraph: what I described as an information war to take back the culture has morphed into “weapons” that wage a “cultural civil war”.

Thus we return to Anders Behring Breivik. Since Mr. Breivik is known to have read this blog, what I said must be shoehorned into a “narrative” that supports the contention that Mr. Breivik got some of his ideas from me.

Spurious reasoning and tendentious rewording in order to reach false conclusions: that’s typical of leftists when they mischaracterize the thinking of non-leftists.

Yet much of the presentation is factually accurate and neutral in tone. So what’s going on here? The schizophrenic nature of the ICSR report manifests itself yet again.

Or was the neutral wording of the draft report carefully rewritten by the editors to achieve the necessary semantic result?

A year later, in 2007, the 910 Group renamed itself the Centre for Vigilant Freedom (CVF) and under the directorship of Edward S. May sought to build international partnerships. It claimed to have a presence in seven countries, including the UK, US, Thailand and Australia.58 It also began to organise international meetings and conferences, with the first of these taking place in Copenhagen on 14 April, 2007. Reports claim that activists from Norway (including the aforementioned Fjordman), Denmark, the UK, the US, and Sweden were present, as well as ‘members of a Swedish political party,’ which, though unnamed, is likely to be the Swedish Democrats, a far-right nationalist anti-Islam and anti-immigration party.59 [emphasis added]

The bolded text in the paragraph above is factually false. CVF was never under my “directorship”. I was listed as one of the officers in the incorporation papers, but I was never the director. I never had any control, nor would I have wanted any — what a ghastly job that would have been.

Then comes another inaccuracy:

Months later, on 18 October, a second more expansive conference took place in Brussels organised under the auspices of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang…


Closely involved in organising both of these conferences was a Dane named Anders Gravers, who in 2007 founded Stop the Islamisation of Denmark (SIOD) in his native country…

Anders Gravers played no role in the organization of the first Brussels Conference in 2007. That event was organized entirely by CVF.

On pages 22 through 24 the report presents a fairly lucid account of my writings about distributed networks (although I would take issue with the insertion of the word “prosperity” into the description, since I have always maintained that such structures require little or no funding — but perhaps the authors envisaged a more generalized form of prosperity):

A Decentralised Distributed Network in Europe

The creation of the above mentioned defence leagues in Europe is part of the EDL’s strategy, with assistance from its allies in America, to internationalise the Counter-Jihad movement and the defence league framework in particular. It appears that they are helping to create a decentralised network of groups based upon a model provided by an entry on the Gates of Vienna blog (an important information and analysis hub for the ECJM) in June 2009, which called for the implementation of a form of the distributed network model to ensure the survival and prosperity of the ECJM.

At this point Messrs. Hitchens and Brun couldn’t help themselves; they just had to put some more words in my mouth:

For the purpose of avoiding accusations of incitement to violence, the article does not use the term “leaderless resistance”, and the author instead opts for the term ‘distributed network’,81 a term usually applied to computer and telephone networks… [emphasis added]

I “avoid accusations of incitement to violence” by not inciting violence. That’s easy for me to do, since I don’t advocate violence and never have — unlike, say, Anders Behring Breivik. Violence is the outcome that my efforts aim to avoid.

That’s why I didn’t use the term “leaderless resistance”, which is not something that I would ever have thought of, but has now been welded into the text to suit the purposes of ICSR. Nice going, guys!

I called it a “distributed network” because that’s exactly what it is. My background is in systems analysis, so it’s only natural that I think in such terms. But the authors need to fit Breivik into all this, so my words have been reshaped.

The rest of the paragraph and the following two present an accurate précis, and even provide a footnote with references to authoritative sources on distributed networks:

…The major benefit of this type of network is that without a set command and control hierarchy, no single node is indispensible and thus the network has no single point of failure.82 As envisaged by ECJM strategists, such a model can be applied to multiple Counter-Jihad groups and individuals in different countries and regions, allowing them to act relatively independently of one another while pursuing the same overarching strategy and agenda.

These groups and individuals act as the nodes in the network, the author explains, with certain nodes acting as gateways to country or region-specific networks which are also connected to the wider international movement. Each of these nodes can fulfil specialised functions such as event-organising or multimedia creation, or simply offer general support to the movement. According to the author, the most specialised function is that of the ‘idea man’; individuals who ‘contribute components of the ideological framework that guides the entire network.’83

The internet also plays a crucial role in this model, allowing for the rapid spread of ideas, and the planning of gatherings and protests at short notice. Indeed, it is the internet which is the primary connector for the multiple nodes of the network throughout Europe, and as demonstrated above some of the defence leagues have identically designed websites created and managed by the same people.

But then I start “claiming” things — presumably “perceived” things:

The article gives three reasons for the importance of a Counter-Jihad distributed network model, claiming that:

i)   The political elite and the governments in the Western world are repressive of Counter-Jihad organisations;
ii)   a number of left-wing groups exercise unofficial repression, violently attacking Counter-Jihad followers with tacit government support;
iii)   there is a substantial risk of being attacked by militant Muslims.84

Yes, those are indeed things that I “claim”. But are they accurate? Does such repression actually take place? Are Counterjihad activists ever physically attacked by militant Muslims?

Well, the attempted assassination of Lars Hedegaard in Copenhagen may have occurred too recently to be mentioned in this report. However, the attacks on Lars Vilks in Sweden — including the firebombing of his house by Muslim “youths” — occurred several years ago. And the attempted murder of Kurt Westergaard was not only early enough to warrant inclusion in the report, it targeted someone who is not at all a Counterjihad activist, but simply a guy who drew a cartoon.

Alas, the authors of the report appear uninterested in the “mere facticity” of anything I say. To suit their purposes, my statements must remain “claims”, and thus lie beyond any possible verification.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Section 3 of the report is entitled “Finding a Place for the Movement”. On page 25 we read:

The ECJM’s apparent obsession with preserving European culture is not, on its own, sufficient reason to define the movement as ultranationalist, and therefore far-right… [emphasis added]

Once again, the insertion of the derogatory word “obsession” denies the legitimacy of what we say. When concerns become “obsessions”, otherwise conscientious citizens are given permission to ignore those who voice them.

However, the explanation that follows — distinguishing nationalism per se from fascism — is quite reasonable, providing additional evidence that at least two minds were working at cross-purposes to produce the report.

The section goes on to characterize the BNP, populism, and the Far-Right. On page 30 it provides this important nugget of information:

The authoritarianism often found in far-right groups revolves around a reactionary desire to “preserve” society through the imposition of arbitrary and highly restrictive laws incompatible with individual rights that underpin liberal democracies.113

Why is “preserve” in quotes? Is it abnormal or undesirable to want to preserve a society?

And it’s true that some authoritarians seek “the imposition of arbitrary and highly restrictive laws incompatible with individual rights that underpin liberal democracies”. But where is there any indication that this is the goal of the English Defence League, Paul Weston, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, or any other activist mentioned in the report?

Anything can be mentioned in juxtaposition with anything else — but are the two things connected?

There has to be a term for this method of defamation. Could we call it “association through mentioning”?

The pervasive schizophrenia of the authors appears again in the following description:

Xenophobia (Greek for “fear of the foreigner/stranger”) refers to a strong, usually irrational belief that an exogenous or otherwise new social group is a serious threat to the society it has entered… In many sections of the ECJM, and particularly visible in its very active online community, there is a clear trend towards demonising Islam and Muslims, and presenting them as the source of the West’s ills. [emphasis added]

I find it interesting that the authors chose to modify the adjective “irrational” with the adverb “usually”.

This is an implicit acknowledgement that the fear of Islamic supremacy is NOT irrational.

That is, that “Islamophobia” may not be a “phobia” after all!

This is an important concession by Messrs. Hitchens and Brun, a sign that their research into what the leaders of the ECJM say has subliminally altered their opinion about the “perceived” threat.

But then, on page 33, they return to the prepared script:

At first glance, it would appear that the ECJM exhibits elements of at least three of the aforementioned identifiers for fascism:

  • the inflammatory and divisive nature of ECJM marches and speeches suggests little concern for the societal consequences of their actions and a glorification of force associated with fascism;
  • it has an irrational view of Muslims in Europe as an “enemy within”;
  • its devotion to cultural nationalism contains an authoritarianism which calls for actions that are in direct conflict with Europe’s liberal institutions and can be defined as a form of populist ultra-nationalism.

Once again, this is proof-by-assertion: “These organizations are fascistic in nature because we say they are.”

No proof is adduced; but then, no proof is required.

The authors describe “Cultural Nationalism” on pages 33-34:

The nationalism of the ECJM is characterised by an aggressive integrationism that requires immigrants and any other foreigners to conform to a set of cultural and political values including, but not limited to women’s rights, human rights, freedom of speech, and democracy. Indeed, the movement couches many of its activities in such liberal terms in order to counter accusations of far-right extremism.


The EDL has also recently adopted the motto ‘Protecting our Culture’. Similarly, its ally BF describes itself as a British cultural nationalist party. The authors will argue here that the ECJM’s nationalism is a form of cultural nationalism which is endemic to the current political climate in Europe.

These are good things. ICSR has done the EDL a service by pointing out that it supports women’s rights, freedom of speech, and other civil liberties.

Or does ICSR oppose these things?

And there’s even this:

It should be noted here that the desire to protect and promote certain values, whether they be thought of as specifically British cultural imperatives or “shared values” is not the preserve of the far-right.

I consider this a major concession on the part of the authors. It’s generous of them to acknowledge that the preservation of cultural values is not just a right-wing preoccupation, but the concern of many people of divers political views who happen to love their country and their culture.

But do the authors share that concern themselves?

There is more, much more on cultural nationalism, much it difficult to read because of the pervasive jargon.

On page 41 the report moves on to Part 4, “The Islamisation Conspiracy”, quoting Anders Gravers and Nicolai Sennels, and describing the “Islamisation narrative”. From there they continue to Sharia and Taqiyya.

They state this about Robert Spencer:

Robert Spencer’s blog, Jihad Watch, which has provided much intellectual guidance for the ECJM, argues that Islam is unique among religions in that it ‘includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia.’

This is an accurate account of what Mr. Spencer says, and it’s good to see it presented here.

A long section beginning on page 43 describes “The Coming Civil War in Europe”, and this is where we get into the meat of the imagined (“perceived”?) connections to Breivik. After that come synopses of Bat Ye’or’s work on Eurabia — described as a “conspiracy theory”, naturally.

On page 51, under “The Demographic Threat”, the report tackles the writings of Mark Steyn:

Steyn, like many in the Counter-Jihad movement and beyond, holds that although there are moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam. The four main schools of Islamic thought cannot accommodate, he argues, Muslims who wish to follow liberal values and reject violence.

Once again, this is simply presented in neutral terms, which is good. The authors are letting Mr. Steyn have his say.

Allowing Counterjihad writers to have their say — without inserting weasel-words or rewriting their sentences — is a good thing, and Messrs. Hitchens and Brun are to be commended for doing it.

It’s a pity they couldn’t have done the same thing throughout their paper — then they would have been making our case for us. But that’s the peculiar thing about this report: it seems to be the product of a house divided against itself.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Before I close out this analysis, a few interesting and amusing notes are in order.

The ICSR report includes “sidebars”, narrow-gauge features on a grey background with thumbnail sketches about various topics. One of them attempts to summarize Gates of Vienna, and actually misquotes the motto on the header of this blog (and even includes a footnote as a reference):

At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are now in a phase of a very old war

Scroll up to the top of this page to see the correct version.

The new WordPress version of our blog features the motto as an image, but the old Blogger blog (almost certainly the one used by the authors, based on their footnotes) had a text header. It could easily have been copied and pasted into the report to ensure accuracy. Why the authors neglected to do this remains a mystery.

On page 64, the report has this to say:

A favourite reference point for the ECJM on this subject is Turkish Prime Minister Reccip [sic] Tayyip Erdogan’s quoting the following line from a famous Islamic poem while he was an opposition figure in the 1990s:

The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.261

The line, an unremarkable piece of aggressive bluster from a politician seeking to shore up his Islamist support-base, …

How do the authors know that Mr. Erdogan’s words were “an unremarkable piece of aggressive bluster”, and that his intention was “to shore up his Islamist support-base”?

Are they that well-versed in the intricacies of Turkish domestic politics?

Or are they simply recycling the received wisdom of the Western Left, which seeks to minimize what the Turkish prime minister said and deflect attention away from it?

Is it possible that Recep Tayyip Erdogan meant exactly what he said, and quoted the poem with full Islamic fervor?

If we rely on the research conducted by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, we’ll never learn the answer to that question.

Finally, on page 67 the authors reach Part 6, their “Conclusion”:

The ECJM’s application of terms like dhimmi to refer to cultural “traitors” signals the creation of a dangerous terminology which is reminiscent of neo-Nazi references to “race traitors”…

This was the predetermined conclusion. This was what the report was commissioned to “discover”. The authors — or the editors — delivered the goods and sealed the doom of the European Counterjihad Movement by bringing in the dreaded N-word.

Yet in the preceding 66 pages, the paper manages to present much of the case made by the EDL and other Islam-critical actors, without exaggeration and without transforming them into “neo-Nazis”.

If you toss aside the weasel-words, and screen out some of the inserted text, the Counterjihad is allowed to make its case in the ICSR report.

Was that inadvertent? Or was it what the authors intended?

Next: The British Counterjihad Movement

39 thoughts on “Keeping a Close Eye on the Right Wing, Part 2

  1. Many thanks Baron, for the in-depth anaylsis here. You have a knack for diving into a tsunami of information and emerging with the concise and pertinent facts we all need to know. I wish I had your patience…..Great job, really great job. Thank you.

  2. Thanks Baron, this must have cost ‘dead-eye Ned’ a lot of pain and effort, We are obviously to be painted as pirates of the internet ocean, hi-jacking and ravisthing the onnocent and the benign.

    What comes across to me it that whilst they have a very obvious agenda to fulfil (in order to get their fees), their starting point is very ill defined.

    It is obviously extremely difficult to accuse the ECJM of intolerance (their basic mandate I assume) whilst ignoring the rather obvious intolerance of the so-called ‘victim’ of that (sponsor designated) intolerance, the Jihadis. The weasel words are obviously inserted to try and spice up the twaddle with some semblance of the objectivity required by the sponsor.

    It looks as if we can safely assume that the academics who wrote the document found no smoke, so the politicians involved had to light some fires…..

  3. You have this quote from the “report” in your article –
    “The authoritarianism often found in far-right groups revolves around a reactionary desire to “preserve” society through the imposition of arbitrary and highly restrictive laws incompatible with individual rights that underpin liberal democracies. “113

    I’ve re-written it to conform with reality –
    The authoritarianism often found in far-left groups revolves around a neurotic desire to destroy society through the imposition of arbitrary and highly restrictive laws incompatible with individual rights that underpin liberal democracies.

    {The smearword ‘reactionary’ has been being used by communists and socialists for over 50 years. It’s always a tip-off to who you’re dealing with. ~~ Also, I’m always suspicious of these phony groups like this Centre which spring up out of nowhere, and are funded by unseen and unnamed people. There is nothing “international’ about them. It’s just two guys! … And if they are studying radicalization and Political Violence, why are they not critiquing the violent political radicals of the Socialist and Islamist type? You know, the people that are ACTUALLY being violent, rather than those who are just writing against it?. }

  4. As ten thousands of other people of the West my interest in Islam awakened after 9/11. The first counter-jihad people I encountered, via books and the internet, were ex-muslims, among them Ibn Warrack and Ali Sina, but also many others who were active in a number of discussion forums on the Internet.

    These brave people, and their honest confrontation with Muslims through books and the internet, was my eye opener regarding islam and multiculti.

    I would argue that these people were pioneers in the counter-jihad movement. All these people live with the constant danger of being killed. They are living proof of the counter-jihad movements justification, and that’s may be why men like Brown and Hitchens ignore them?

    • There was a loud silence in that regard, yes.

      Also, the condescending notion that the only way there could be a ECJM is if Americans went over and started one. How insulting, on all sides.

      Wilders needed US approval? Elisabeth Sabbaditsch-Wolff asked anyone’s permission? The EDL is home-grown and served as an inspiration to other countries, though the concept didn’t translate well into the politics of the continent.

      What amuses me most is how little they know, or can ever know. That’s even more important than what they get wrong – i.e., the large gaps in their knowledge about what is going on.

      Again, ICSR, “studying” means accepting a certain amount of humility as you approach your subject. It means a full internal recognition of the fact that there are things you don’t know because they are hidden. Trust must be earned.

      Then there are even more things you can’t ever know simply because your mindset won’t permit you to see past the bright lights created by your own cognitive blindness.

      Too bad you didn’t interview Lars Vilks on *his* point of view. Mr. Vilks understands there are worse things than dying. Do you?
      “Perceived” indeed.

      • “Wilders needed US approval?”

        Pim Fortuyn was assassinated on May 6th, 2002. On the eve of him sweeping into power as the new Prime Minister of Holland. Plenty of evidence that the Dutch political elite had him assassinated.

        I assume that Gates of Vienna used their time machine to go back to the 1990s and advise Pim on the dangers of islam. Poor old, gay Professor of Sociology could not have understood islam by himself.

        These deluded “academics” don’t have enough historical insight to see back to the first years of this century. How can they possibly understand what happened to Salman Rushdie in 1989, let alone the siege of Vienna in 1683.

        The ICSR are clearly johnny-come-latelys who have jumped at the opportunity of appearing to understand current affairs. It’s embarassing to think they don’t even understand the history of the last 30 years. Just goes to show how appallingly low the standards are in British universities.

  5. I have looked at the PDF now, and I begin to understand what I am looking at, THIS IS A RELIGIOUS TRACT, not a scientific document.

    The basis of the document is that accepted liberal opinion is assumed to be existential FACT, the acceptance of ‘myth’ as fact is generally understood to be the basis of religion. Note that ‘liberal’ in the UK, is different to liberal in the US. In English English ‘liberal’ supposedly equates to ‘tolerant’, but in the hands of the left establishment this becomes a quasi-religiously enforced tolerance of designated groups and intolerance of other designated groups (‘fascism’ aka ‘far-right’, ‘Zionism’ ):

    “The article is typical of EDL rhetoric in depicting a fight to preserve liberal
    ideals, beginning with a plea for the government to uphold ‘the right
    of assembly and the right to peaceful protest enshrined not just in
    the Magna Carta, but in the European Charter on Human Rights.

    After explaining the injustice done to the EDL by the authorities in
    Birmingham, the author presents the group as defenders of these
    [Birmingham Council] have laid down a challenge to the rule of law,
    the rights of free Englishmen and the people of Great Britain…The
    EDL will pick up the torch of Freedom and Free speech”

    The implication here is that the EDL’s right to free expression, enshrined in western culture and law, is somehow intolerant, and Birmingham’s illegal action in banning the demo was correct in the context of enforcing ‘tolerance’.

    This is a very worrying position, it was the position taken by Robespierre in the French Revolution, and which lead directly to the “Committee for Public Safety” and its ensuing ‘Terror’ where a multitude of innocent people were put to death for ‘intolerance’ of the ‘ Liberte, Egalite & Fraternite’ of their peers.

    It is also the position which has lead to the illegal coverup of the non-muslim child rapes in Muslim sensitive areas also exposed by the EDL.

    We, the ECJM are being judged on the basis of the emotional gushings of touchy-feely socialism; after all, Mohammed is a name one should call ones favourite teddy bear.

    I wonder where the money for this report came from…..

    • “… the acceptance of ‘myth’ as fact is generally understood to be the basis of religion.”

      Generally understood by whom?

    • When Great Depression 2.0 finally hits these shores, all bets are off.

      35% of the electorate don’t bother to vote. When they decide they want political change, they won’t be waiting for the ballot paper to arrive.

  6. We have a new crime: “cultural nationalism”? Multiculturalism assumes that the target of inclusiveness shares a similar commitment to inclusiveness. But on this pivotal point, Muslims cannot. Indeed, the more a Muslim adheres to the core doctrines of Islam, the more they are required to overthrow any non-Muslim society.

    In short, the secular left has committed Europe not to a multi-cultural society at peace, but to a society at war. Some wiser (as distinctly different than smarter) people are waking up to this reality. Western society will move heaven and earth to protect “indigenous peoples”, and yet is blind to the danger that Muslim immigrants pose to the indigenous peoples and cultural heritage of Europe. The wiser people in the west are puzzled over this because the end point it implies is a bloody mess. It is almost as if secular progressives have such self-loathing for themselves and their cultural heritage that they want to utterly wipe it off the face of the earth, and out of history books as well.

    Judging from how Islamists work at destroying the cultural heritage of societies they take over, this is Europe’s future as well. I recall that just recently a cleric in Egypt called for the Pyramids themselves to be torn down. (see: Fodor’s: Egyptian Pyramids to be demolished) Islam is hell-bent on destroying every aspect of western society.

    Maybe the hatred shown by secular progressives to those they call criminal cultural nationalists is really just projection of the realization of how spectacular a failure multiculturalism is shown to be. And how dangerous it is so peaceful and civil society that secular progressives claim to want.

  7. Paul Weston said it in the first comment, and it cannot be improved upon–
    Well done!

    My question is: Did the authors do this because of grant money (like people who research the love lives of snails), or for the sake of the spurious “prestige” to be gained among their mates in the academic Bedlam?

  8. It is true: we Americans are a special threat to the pseudoliberal power-grabber totalitarians. After all, we annoy them in that we may still can give our opinions without being arrested.

    Our lingering freedom of speech is an ugly reminder to the social-expansionists that will always be those who will refuse to submit.

    The world social-expansionists movement leaders correctly see that Anti-Jihad is a part and parcel of a Pro-Western Civilization stance. It scares them, they know their position could fail since the AJ/Western Civ. thesis is strong. And so they attempt to MINIMIZE the Counter Jihad with “so called” and putting quotes around it (“counter jihad”). They are implying before they even begin the discourse, that the CJ is a front for something else, a foggy evil, which the Baron describes so well. I half agree: Counter Jihad IS for something else: we battle for the preservation of the goodness inherent but on the decline in our civilization.

    • Bill Ayers (President Barack Obama’s good friend) figured that it would be around 25 million Americans that would have to be exterminated.

  9. These are from finnishpolice -report (vastajihad=counter-jihad):$file/Maria%20Paaso%20VASTAJIHAD%20Supo%20tutkimusraportti%201%202012.pdf

    And you can find there:

    “The Guardianin analyysissä vastajihadia edustavat edellä mainittujen sivustojen ( ja lisäksi,,,,,,,, sekä Amazonin kirjaesittelyt Bat
    Ye’orin, Robert Spencerin ja Paul Freqosin teoksista. Lehti luokittelee brusselsjournal.
    com -sivuston eurooppalaiseen nationalismikategoriaan”

    “Merkittävänä yksittäisenä tapahtumana vastajihadilmiön muodostumisessa
    etenkin amerikkalaisessa keskustelussa voidaan pitää vuoden 2001 terrori-iskuja,
    joiden vaikutuksesta Pamela Geller9 perusti Robert Spencerin10 kanssa Stop
    Islamization11 of America -järjestön (SIOA)”

  10. I have noticed the same thing while following the MSM discussion concerning Counterjihad in the post-Breivik era. In the Finnish media, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Baron Bodissey were portrayed as some kind of criminal masterminds behind the movement.

    The aim was to tie The Finns party parliamentarian Jussi Halla-aho to the Counterjihad and make the audience believe that Halla-aho had copied the ideas from Spencer, Geller and Baron. All this was done right after the Breivik massacre. Even I was tied to the same shady network in the largest Finnish daily Helsingin Sanomat. There were three foreign sites linked from my blog and it was kind of spooky to watch Yle current affairs program to browse through Brussels Journal and Gates of Vienna, to which I had linked.

    Halla-aho was in hot water right after the massacre, because his statement was quoted in the Breivik manifesto in a Fjordman article copy-pasted to the manifesto and originally published in GoV. In the eyes of the Finnish MSM this made him one of the people that had inspired Breivik.

    Fjordman referred to feminism in some of his articles. Recently, a group of academics demanded that anti-feminism should be made a hate crime. Their report contained references to Counterjihad and featured an article by Mattias Gardell, a Swedish academic, who participated in the infamous Gaza flotilla.

    The other tactic used by the left is to lump Counterjihad together with the Neo-Nazis with the label “far right”. This way all the bad things the left doesn’t like get the same stigma. The more moderate voices are blamed for enabling the things that the Neo-Nazis do.

  11. The Cultural Marxist British establishment is busy re-writing our history at a frightening rate. The Marxist opening ceremony of last year’s London Olympics showed Afro-carribeans and Asians in places in our history where they simply were not. The same has happened with a recent series of Robin Hood,
    adaptations of Dickens etc., asking those old enough to know differently to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief. What frightens me is that those who are not old enough may actually believe what they are seeing. The most recent example is the dvd version of the Revd W Awdry’s Thomas the Tank Engine books. These were written in 1948 when the non-white population of Britain was less than one per cent, especially on the mythical island of Sodor situated somewhere in the Irish Sea. I remember reading the original books. Yet – and I wonder what Mr Awdry, who died in the 1990s would think – suddenly black and Asian faces have appeared on the island. I have no doubt that today’s indigenous under tens would not question this and believe it to be the truth. Anybody questionning it would be told that they were there but our “racism” kept them hidden and not discussed. If I were to write a letter to the Times questionning it, would it be published and if it was, would my name and address be noted down as an enemy of the people?

    I can see the same thing happening with Islam. We will soon be told that there were always many peaceful muslims here during the last 1500 years, even during Anglo-Saxon times but that Christian propagandists have erased them from the history books. This historical revisionism is quite alarming but totally in line with totalitarian socialism, be it Nazism or communism or its softer version cultural Marxism. I am horrified at the prospect that those of us who were born during the 1950s and before might be the last possessors of the truth. Of course our history books and newsreels will still tell a different story. But in the end I can see them being confined to the bonfires lit by the anti-fascist fascists, who are, I fear the bulk of politicians who rule this country. I don’t think that Churchill even in his wildest whisky-induced nightmares could ever imagine that Britain would be reduced to this.

    • ” The Marxist opening ceremony of last year’s London Olympics showed Afro-carribeans and Asians in places in our history where they simply were not.”

      I still get angry thinking about that opening ceremony. You would be stupified to realise how many graduates did not even notice this glaring anomaly. When I first saw it, I thought “they will argue that the black people in the industrial revolution were not meant to be black.”. When I saw the later scene were the black immigrants arrived, but there were no white people in that scene, I realised that the whole farrago was just anti-white racism.

      I didn’t think I could get any angrier, until at the end when a mostly black group (including the mother of murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence) came on in the highest position of honour.

      White people are the majority of the victims of racist murders in Britain! That means, most of the racists who murder in Britain are not white. Why was this media-hog in the limelight, and not the family of some white man who’d been murdered by racist immigrants?

      It was our government and national broadcaster wiping us out of our own history and our own present. And I say that as someone where half the next generation of my family are not white.

      If a recovering liberal-leftist like me can have these thoughts, I wonder what the 35% who don’t vote are thinking. The future of this country lies with the uneducated (the unindoctrinated), the non-voters, and the EDL. It certainly doesn’t like with the “experts” from ICSR

  12. They have been rumbled and now they know they have been rumbled, a deceptively banal tract building the case to prosecute the ECJM as a proscribed organisation.

    The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets,the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.
    Houari Boumédienne, Algeria’s undisputed ruler until his death in 1978, said it clearly In 1974:
    Boumedienne said in a U.N. speech: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the
    Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends.Because they will go there to conquer it. And they
    will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
    Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green | 1899

    “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is
    as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are
    apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce,
    and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism
    deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.The fact that in
    Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a
    concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power
    among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the
    social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being
    moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central
    Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong
    arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might
    fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

  14. “The authors of this report have categorised the ECJM’s nationalism as a form of cultural nationalism, according to which the nation and its citizens are defined primarily in terms of a shared culture and history. The movement’s self-proclaimed mission is to ensure the survival and prosperity of that culture, …”

    Funny, when the intellectualoids look at any non-European-rooted nation or society, they believe that ensuring the survival of its shared culture and honoring its history is an honorable and morally worthy mission. But as we all know, European-rooted cultures (and those cultures alone) lack any right of self-preservation. I’ve never heard a cogent explanation for that.

  15. I thought the EU was pushing Pan-Europeanism as a good thing.

    Who was this report written for?

  16. ‘the weasel-word “supposedly” telegraphs the Multicultural orthodoxy behind the analysis. Is the existential threat only “supposed”? Or does it really exist?’

    According to MI5, since 2001 around 250 deeply-religious muslims in Britain have been convicted of terrorist crimes.

    Since 2009, EDL has had perhaps 60 mass demonstrations of angry patriots. Yet not one supporter of the mostly secular EDL has been convicted of terrorist crimes.

    Which group poses a threat again?

    Our Prime Minister says how much he admires islam and muslims, and how much he despises the people in the EDL and despises everything they stand for.

    Are we to believe that these experts and leaders truly grasp the problem? A group that is less than 5% of the population is producing 25 terrorists a year. People who are brainwashed to kill, believing they have god on their side, people who’s own community refuse to assist the police in prevent these things from happening.

    A Dutch terrorism expert recently said that Holland is facing “a tidal wave” of home-grown jihadis, and that their security services cannot cope with the scale of the problem.

    • Joe, shouldnt Cameron and the UK government be defending the EDLers against charges that they are dangerous undesireables and a threat to British society….using the small minority gambit? Smearing the entirety of the EDL just because a few violent or unsavory sorts identify with the movement is exactly the reasoning used to defend Mohammedeans and smear people who criticize them and their movement in it’s entirety. Anders Breivik was participating in Anti-Counter-Jihad activity…..just as Islamic terrorism is referred to as Anti-Islamic activity by the UK government.

      Why are not all groups being treated in the same manner? Arent all groups to be embraced and celebrated under the doctrine of Multiculturalism? Even if as this document makes clear, they dont embrace women’s rights, human rights, free speech, and democracy. So shouldnt Neo-Nazis have government outreach programs, lining the pockets of the leaders with government grants to promote Neo-Nazi culture in the New Cool Britania? I mean, imposing values like democratic rule of law and free speech on Neo-Nazis is just as nefarious as imposing it on Muslims, is it not?

    • Yep. It is going to come down to the people of Netherlands themselves dealing with the problem….after the state shows itself incapable of providing security and enforcing the rule of law.

  17. I suggest The Baron owns up, and admits he wrote Pim Fortuyn’s “Tegen de islamisering van onze cultuur: Nederlandse identiteit als fundament” (1997) “Against the Islamisation of our Culture: Dutch Identity is Foundational”.

    And the distinctive tone of Dymphna can be found in Fortuyn’s “50 jaar Israel, hoe lang nog?: Tegen het tolereren van fundamentalisme” (1998) “50 Years of Israel, How Much Longer? Against the Toleration of Fundamentalism”.

    Dymphna, the lengths that you and The devious Baron go to are extraordinary.

    Admit it – not only did you both spend a decade learning Dutch so you could write these books, but you managed to use your time machine to go back to 1997 and browbeat a tractable gay, communist, professor into putting his name to these right-wing screeds.

    Shame on you. Proof beyond doubt, that you are the puppet-masters extraordinaire. I am forwarding this evidence to ICSR. No doubt they will find it entirely convincing. All they need do now is find out where you have hidden the time machine. The noose is closing. They will square the circle.
    The view of ICSR is that European academics are incapable of thinking for themselves. ICSR seem to be determined to prove that by producing this kind of unthinking, ahistorical, contradictory nonsense.

  18. Pingback: Keeping a Close Eye on the Right Wing, Part 3 | Gates of Vienna

  19. Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations… From My Cold Dead Hands Edition

  20. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations… From My Cold Dead Hands Edition | askmarion

  21. Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations |

  22. Pingback: An Afterword on the Fisking of the ICSR Report | Gates of Vienna

  23. Pingback: ICSR Report And Its Implications For Civil Liberties And Human Rights :: Liberties Alliance

  24. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations…From My Cold Dead Hands Edition » Virginia Right!

  25. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results |

  26. Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 04/05/13

  27. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results 04.05.13 | askmarion

  28. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results » Virginia Right!

  29. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations…From My Cold Dead Hands Edition

Comments are closed.