An Outbreak of the Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers* in Hackney

The article below isn’t all that significant, but I’m posting excerpts from it for two reasons:

1.   It very clearly illustrates the rule of the Uni-Party in the UK, much the as franchises of the same party rule in France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United States.
2.   It mentions (blush) Gates of Vienna.
 

Notice that the author is one “Adam Barnett, Local Democracy Reporter”. Why a “democracy reporter”? Could his beat instead be “fascism”, “despotism”, or perhaps “totalitarianism”?

And which of those isms better fits as a description of the rule of the Tory-Labour Party in Britain?

Anyway, here’s what the article from The Hackney Citizen says, with a few baronial comments interpolated:

Tory candidate in Hoxton suspended for anti-Muslim posts on social media

Alexander van Terheyden went to a far-right rally and has defended the crusades

Oh, NOES! Far-right, how ghastly! And defended the Crusades!

That was a day that will live in infamy…

A council candidate in Hackney has been suspended by the Conservative Party for anti-Muslim posts on social media, the Citizen can reveal.

Alexander van Terheyden, standing for the Conservatives in Hoxton West, has called Islam a “violent political ideology” comparable to fascism and communism, and recently attended a rally headed by the former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson.

Yep. Tommy Robinson. Enoch Powell. Benito Mussolini. Adolf Hitler. All the same, and all far-far-far-right.

He has also called the UK’s refusing entry to alt-right activists who target NGO ships rescuing migrants a “disgrace”, and said the crusades were “simply a response to Islam spreading through Europe by the sword”.

The Hackney Conservative Party says it was not aware of Terheyden’s social media posts and is “urgently investigating”, adding that Terheyden has been “suspended with immediate effect”.

Here’s the part that made me cringe, though:

Terheyden claims he is not anti-Muslim, only anti-Islam.

Anyone who has the ambition for any sort of political career, however marginal, is required to issue disclaimers such as this one. Everyone who holds “far-right” opinions like Mr. Van Terheyden’s feels compelled to do so.

But it never helps. As long as they continue to oppose mass immigration and Islamization, they will be demonized in the media and hounded by their opponents — including members of their own party — until they are brought low and have their faces ground into the gravel. In other words, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The Hackney Conservative Federation, in a statement today, said: “Yesterday, we were forwarded an email from Adam Barnett of the Hackney Citizen regarding posts made by Alex van Terheyden on social media.

“We were unaware of these posts and are urgently investigating this matter.

“Mr van Terheyden’s membership of the Conservative Party has been suspended with immediate effect.”

Imtiaz Lunat, the Conservative Party’s candidate for Mayor of Hackney, has been contacted for comment but has not replied at time of publication.

The fact that the Tory candidate for mayor is a Muslim tells you all you need to know about the “Conservative” Party in Hackney.

Terheyden, a video blogger, DJ and former Pirate Party candidate, attended the Tommy Robinson “free speech” rally in Hyde Park on 18 March, and shared photos and a video of the event on Facebook and YouTube.

In a Facebook discussion about Islam under the photos, Terheyden said: “A political ideology that was born out of violence and pushed upon the world with violence by a dishonest tyrant deserves as much criticism as it can get and hopefully in time people will see it for what it really is.”

In the same post he endorsed a piece from the far-right website Gates of Vienna titled “The Crusades: A Response to Islamic Aggression”, and said: “As David previously stated the crusaders were simply a response to Islam spreading through Europe by the sword.

“Should they have sat back and done nothing and watched while Christians were taxed into submission or beheaded?”

It makes me laugh whenever I see this website described as “far-right”. Go ahead, punk! Call me far-right, and make my day!

But I can afford to laugh, because I’m not running for political office. I pity anyone holding opinions like mine who is trying to enter politics.

* See “The Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers”, July 2011.

Hat tip: JJ.

21 thoughts on “An Outbreak of the Screaming Nazi Heeber-Jeebers* in Hackney

    • It does look like the British Columbia flag. I’ve no idea how it would fit into this story—but, why not? It serves to make a strange report even stranger.

    • My guess is that the photo was taken at Tommy Robinson’s Hyde Park rally (the attendance at which being what got Mr. Van Terheyden in such deep trouble) where Tommy’s supporters converged from far and wide. It would be like those EDL rallies from a few years ago, where numerous national and regional flags would appear.

  1. It could be that this article is one result of the “BBC Local Democracy Reporter Scheme” – set up last year, I discovered. I searched for “Adam Barnett” and found he appears to be more of an activist than a journalist. He retweeted about this article three days ago on his Twitter account but so far has not generated any interest.

    This “Local Democracy Reporter Scheme” (which I’d never heard of and which sounds Orwellian) apparently has power and control as its motivation. Here’s the link:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38843461

    In searching a bit, I found this:

    “James Harding, director of BBC News and Current Affairs, said it would strengthen local news coverage. ‘As more power is devolved across the UK, it’s more important than ever that we cover, understand and hold to account local politicians and public services,’ he said.”

    So, it appears that the BBC feared being out-of-touch in certain localities and sent out its recruits to report back to the Politburo (sorry, BBC headquarters) in order to “enhance democracy.” (I’m not making this up.) Adam Barnett did his bit and followed through by informing the Hackney Conservative Federation about its candidate’s opinions on the ideology of Islam and the Crusades which resulted from centuries of Islamic aggression. Then he wrote an article on all of it and sent it to the Mothercorp so it could keep track of the rumblings coming from the common man.

    It’s a real eye-opener to realize that in modern day Britain “defending the Crusades” can result in one’s removal as candidate for political office.

    • They forget a certain Richard the Lionheart, who used to be something of a national hero, led one of those crusades.

  2. It is settled law that only human beings are protected by human rights legislation – political and religious doctrines are not. It’s about time someone took this issue to a human rights court (so long as we’re still in Europe, haha) and defeated this sort of persecution legally, & set a precedent to against it.

    Easier said than done, I know. And an expensive process for any individual to undertake. But surely there is someone out there who can do this, or who can raise the finances one way or another to do so.

    And once the case is won, then they could sue the other party for damages, loss of earnings, etc. Make them really feel it, for a change.

    • Taking a case of political bias and persecution to a human rights court is like protesting the eating of meat to a family of wolves.

      Human rights courts are generally a globalist enterprise designed to squelch any actions by a state or militia to defend their territory or people. The general strategy is to allow identity-based infiltrators the maximum freedom to organize, while penalizing any steps taken against them.

      Patriots are shooting themselves in the foot by pinning their well-being on a suit in a human-rights court. Even if they win a particular case, they are setting up their own chains by giving more power and prestige to an organization which will sooner or later eat them up.

      It’s almost exactly like using US regulatory agencies to make sure megacorporations like Facebook or Twitter do not discriminate in the ideas they present. Once you concede the power of government agencies to regulate any content of speech, you’ve poisoned the environment for the real journalists: shoestring bloggers who operate beneath the regulatory swamp.

        • My point is that even if you win a particular battle in the mega-national human rights courts, you lose the war. The reason is that by conceding the authority of the courts in national affairs, you open the way for the courts to squelch other vital moves a nation would have to take to protect itself.

          Nationalists are far better off in the long run by denying the venue of such courts, even if it costs them a possible tactical skirmish.

    • In the alternative, perhaps they could use whatever public forum is available, such as Speakers’ Corner, to read aloud material such as this:

      “The right to freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed under Article 19 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which affirm that everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through any media and regardless of frontiers.

      The Special Rapporteur has consistently underlined the importance of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, not only as a right that should be guaranteed to all, including individuals belonging to marginalised groups, but also as a means to claim and enjoy all other rights. Indeed, it is a fundamental right that safeguards the exercise of all other rights and is a critical foundation of democracy, which depends on the free flow of diverse sources of information and ideas. […] Moreoever, freedom of expression is essential to creating an environment conducive to critical discussions of religious and racial issues. […] As the Special Rapporteur has previously emphasised, for the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion to be fully realised, robust examination and criticism of religious doctrines and practices – even in a harsh manner – must also be allowed.”

      United Nations General Assembly, 67th Session: Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 7th September 2012, document A/67/357, paragraphs 35-36. Accessed 21st April 2018: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/GA67session.aspx

    • Or this:

      “The Special Rapporteur remains concerned about the continuing existence and the use of flawed domestic laws that purport to combat hate speech but are in fact used to suppress critical or opposing voices. […]

      The Special Rapporteur also reiterates his concern in relation to anti-blasphemy laws, which are inherently vague and leave the entire concept open to abuse. He wishes to underscore once again that international human rights law protects individuals and not abstract concepts such as religion, belief systems or institutions, as also affirmed by the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 48).

      Moreover, the right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards, does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule. Indeed, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to scrutinise, debate openly, make statements that offend, shock and disturb, and criticise belief systems, opinions and institutions, including religious ones. […]

      With regard to discussion of history, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that historical events should be open to discussion and, as stated by the Human Rights Committee, laws that penalise the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 49.) By demanding that writers, journalists and citizens give only a version of events that is approved by the Government, States are enabled to subjugate freedom of expression to official versions of events.”

      Source: As above, paragraphs 51, 53 & 55.

      • Nick, the quoted material you’ve posted here from the UN would be a perfect defence for Mr. van Terheyden when he’s hauled in front of the Hackney Conservative Federation. It’s hard to see how they could argue against his right to express opinions on historical events and ideologies.

        • Well, I just hope he visits GoV & reads it.

          I once had occasion to employ Mr. David Burnside, one of the most respected (and feared) solicitors in the country.

          His reputation is well deserved, I can tell you. He turned in an utterly brilliant performance, and when we broke for lunch he smiled and said to me, “That went well. I had them [the other side] squirming and going round in circles.” I won my case and the other side had to get their cheque book out, big time.

          If he can get the English equivalent of David Burnside to represent him, & hit the other side with those long-established & very clear legal principles … well I’d like to see that.

  3. Oddly I find Mr van Terheyden’s views quite reasonable and measured. Nothing extreme there and if fact I would think his opinion would be agreed with by many in Britain.
    He really needs to find another party, or form his own as the Conservatives are hopelessly PC and Common Purpose infiltrated.

    • Mr. van Terheyden does indeed sound like a real moderate.

      ” ….. Terheyden said: ‘A political ideology that was born out of violence and pushed upon the world with violence by a dishonest tyrant deserves as much criticism as it can get and hopefully in time people will see it for what it really is.'”

      Nothing there one can argue with (true and factual), and

      ‘As David previously stated, the crusaders were simply a response to Islam spreading through Europe by the sword’

      is also a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

      And this gets a political candidate into hot water!

  4. The Tory Party is nowadays a Trotskyite Globalist party like the rest of the formerly free members of the modern Communist junta. Britain is an occupied country.

  5. You should be encouraged by the mention of your name. If you were unknown or unimportant you’d not be mentioned. It’s got also to be a measure of your influence.

  6. It’s encouraging to have your name mentioned – it indicates you are being taken notice of.

  7. Sounds like this guy didn’t get the memo… the Tories are no more the party of Churchill, Thatcher and Enoch. They’re now the party of Theresa “Sharia Law is great” May, and Amber “Youtube must censor more stuff” Rudd… hence they ban activists who do social experiments like holding banners saying “Allah is gay”, and ban free speech even at Speakers Corner!

    Most likely because top Tories connected to powerful sheikhs in Qatar and Saudi who may be very disappointed if the Tories didn’t take any action on these heinous blasphemers, and may hence buy less Eurofighters or grossly overpriced properties belonging to these Tories.

    • That’s the question isn’t it? We all know they’re doing it, but why are they doing it?

      They can’t be doing it because they themselves are believers in Mohammad’s doctrines, or they would all be shooting down the local mosque every five minutes.

      Why then?

      Have they really given themselves over to Satan, and they’re trying to destroy everything good in the world?

      Is it really that simple? Occam’s razor, and all that?

Comments are closed.