Counter-Currents
2,138 words
Martin Frost holds an Israeli flag moments before burning a Koran
We made a swift arrest at the time and recognise the right people have for freedom of expression, but when this crosses into intimidation to cause harm or distress we will always look to take action when it is reported to us.
-Assistant Chief Constable Stephanie Parker, Manchester Police Constabulary, after the public burning of a copy of the Koran
You have the right to free speech
As long as you’re not dumb enough
To actually try it.
-The Clash, “Know Your Rights”
On Saturday, February 2, an Englishman named Martin Frost tore out and set light to a few pages of a copy of the Islamic holy book, the Koran, in public. The event was clumsy and embarrassing, and Frost didn’t seem to have rehearsed his supposedly outrageous statement of defiance by maybe practicing on a telephone directory at home before venturing outdoors to try it out with the central text for almost two billion people. The setting for this stunt, which was inflammatory in more senses than one, was symbolic, taking place as it did in Manchester, England, at the site of the memorial to those killed and injured in the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017, in which a Muslim detonated a bomb at the venue during a pop concert, killing 22 and wounding many more. Frost announced the desecration in advance on social media, and live-streamed it.
This rather silly gesture was also dedicated to another Koran–desecrator, Salwan Momika, a Swede who also burnt the book in public in 2023 in his home country. Momika was unable to attend this dedication to his act, having been shot to death in a Stockholm apartment three days before Frost’s gesture. Five people are under arrest for the murder, and are unlikely to be Scientologists or Seventh-Day Adventists.
Frost’s actions have not, as some vaguely right-of-center midwits have claimed, “started a national debate” about free speech – a creature already as extinct as the dinosaur in Britain – but has rather further opened an already unlocked door to introduce blasphemy laws in the UK. Frost was also rewarded with what is known as “doxxing”, whereby his name and address were made public, effectively drawing a large target on the man’s back. I can find no evidence that this has ever happened to a Muslim arrested and charged by the police in Britain.
The timing was impeccable, as Keir Starmer’s Labour government had just announced the creation of a Council on Islamophobia. Frost’s little piece of absurdist theater was so badly timed – or perfectly timed, dependent on your point of view – that I thought it might have been a false-flag event.
Dominic Grieve, a former Tory Minister, has been recommended to head the 16-strong council. Grieve is an old friend of Keir Starmer, further confirming the two traditional main parties as marginally differing wings of the same uniparty. Impartiality is unlikely here, and one of the appointees to the council is an imam previously dismissed by the Tories for defending the banning of a film called The Lady of Heaven, the subject of which was Mohammed’s daughter.
The main purpose of this council will be to drive through a new and legally binding definition of “Islamophobia”, a word which is proving every bit as toxic as the late Cristopher Hitchens in 2009 warned it would be. There may, at first, appear to be no problem with the recommendations of the new council, as they will be subject to the same checks and balances as any other piece of UK legislation in its formative stages. Except that they won’t. British Acts of Parliament have to go through a constitutional process beginning with Green and White Papers, consultative documents which are debated at every level and in both houses. But there will be no such “Islamophobia Bill” on this occasion, as this de facto blasphemy law is designed to be railroaded through with the approval of leading Muslim clerics and activists. It will be the equivalent of the US President’s prerogative of signing Executive Orders which need not be debated and passed by Congress, although this is unlikely to be as good for the UK as President Trump’s onslaught is already proving for the US.
The definition of “Islamophobia” which the All-Party Parliamentary Committee will be working with is so absurdly open-ended that it will effectively shut down any criticism whatsoever of Islam: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
Critics have endlessly pointed out – while they are still legally able to do so – that Islam is not a race, and so “Islamophobia” cannot be equated with “racism”. This is to miss the point, however, that “racism” here does not mean to give offense on racial grounds, but refers to any comment made by whites (or even dissenting Muslims) which the Muslim caucus would rather not hear. It would enforce a ban on any discourse which “offends” Muslims. As I have pointed out (doubtlessly ad nauseam), the word “racism” fulfils the same role today that the word “fascism” did for the Orwell of Politics and the English Language in 1946; it serves to cover anything the person using it doesn’t like. I wonder what George would have made of all this.
The unpacking of the core definition of “Islamophobia” can be found in this article in The Daily Telegraph, but some of its points serve to make its already broad central tenet even more expansive. In fact, if you read the whole thing – and, if you live in the UK, I would make sure you familiarise yourself with it – it meticulously closes down any avenue of criticism which can conceivably be levelled at Islam. But can these injunctions, if enacted, really be called “blasphemy laws”?
British blasphemy laws, dating back to the 14th century, were only abolished very recently, repealed in England and Wales in 2008 and in Scotland just last year. But blasphemy was always defined as insulting or contemptuous statements about the deity of a religion, or anything that religion considers sacred. In the case of Islam, that would cover sacrilege concerning Allah or the Koran, but the new definition in its expanded form goes far further than the trappings of religion and concentrates rather on the religious themselves, in this case prohibiting any criticism of actual Muslims.
The “blasphemy laws” everyone is clucking about (but not too loudly) are already in existence. In March of 2023, a 14-year-old boy with learning difficulties was suspended from school in Wakefield for supposedly “scuffing” a copy of the Koran. His mother was then humiliated by appearing at a local mosque to plead for her son’s safety. She covered her hair, naturally. Criticism of Islamic dress codes will also be out of bounds under the new rulings, which will stop feminists complaining about Islamic attitudes towards their sisters. Oh, wait. My mistake. They never started. It’s only ever been white men who exercise their anger.
So, when Labour MP Tahir Ali asked for blasphemy laws to be introduced in the UK, in the House of Commons in November of last year, purportedly to protect “the Abrahamic faiths”, what he meant was (and he will have been fully aware of this) that he and his fellow Muslims wish the government to rubber-stamp the de facto laws which already exist. Theologically speaking, these Abrahamic faiths all believe that the others blaspheme to begin with by not accepting what they “know” to be divine truth. This introduces an interesting new possibility. Watch for the first legal action brought under the new laws against a Christian church for effectively denying the existence of Allah by worshipping the Christian god. If that sounds absurd, you may not have grasped exactly what is taking place in the UK at the moment.
This appeasement is generally ascribed to the supposedly deliberate importation of Muslim immigrants to further bolster a sympathetic voting tendency in favor of the ruling party in the same way the recently deposed Biden administration attempted by opening America’s borders, but this is fiddlesticks. If the Labour Party believe they can maintain their grip on power using the Brechtian stratagem of electing a new people by importing a Muslim voting bloc, they may have misread the nature of the Islamic beast. Muslims work incredibly effectively at the grassroots political level, gaining elected councilors until a power base is consolidated. This is often achieved by using proxy parties – such as Labour or the Greens – to provide a platform for election. Then, when their power is sufficient at local level, new Islamic parties form and any previous electoral affiliations will be replaced. They are stepping-stones.
Labour should already know this on the basis of last year’s General Election. Jess Phillips, who has a Ministerial title so stupid I won’t bore you with it, and Wes Streeting, a nasty little Blairite talked of as a future party leader, both had their majorities stripped in their respective constituencies from thousands to hundreds in last year’s General Election, and both by Muslims running on the Gaza ticket.
This is once again exemplary of something I have been writing about for a decade; it is not possible to debate with people – and I am not referring solely to Muslims, who are merely exploiting weakness in the system – who change the definition and meaning of words and are backed in those changes by government. Powerful people now tell those who lack power what words mean, not a tradition or a dictionary. And Muslims in Britain are becoming the most powerful people in that union of countries, backed as they are by a government who openly despise its indigenous, white, kafir citizenry.
Burning a Koran is the needlessly provocative act of a cretin, in my view, but can it really be made equivalent to the statements of people who offer “stereotypical views” of Muslims, as the recommendations suggest? If I write that all Muslims have read the Koran, that is obviously stereotypical, but they have. What is so offensive about accusing Muslims of being “more loyal to the ummah” than to the countries they live in, when this is manifestly true? Why must it become illegal to “Accus[e] Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims”, to quote directly from the report. Muslims may hate Jews, but they have learned well from them, and one recalls the old saw: the Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you. Now, it is Muslims who have learned to cry out while striking those they wish to conquer. And it is working.
This is a huge victory for Islam in Britain. The proposed new laws cover every angle from which it is conceivably possible to criticize Muslims, and they will use this new freedom to full effect. If the Council on Islamophobia has its way, it will no longer be possible to talk about “Muslim grooming gangs”, even though they have been shown to exist. Criticism of the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation will be illegal. Talk of “Islamic terrorism” will be inadmissible. All criticism of sharia law, or even any mention of the 70 or so sharia courts already believed to exist in the UK, will be off the table. A cordon sanitaire is being placed around Islam and Muslims which, although it is primarily intended to further hobble the freedom of expression once prized and cherished by the British, will also affect every non-Muslim in the UK. The British Sikh Association has called the imminent legislation “dangerous”.
It is impossible not to applaud the speed and efficiency with which the Muslim caucus has locked down British freedom of speech. The Council on Islamophobia will bend in the direction the Islamic wind blows, and the kufr serving on it are merely cosmetic, in much the same way as Jews put goyim in important seats on their representative bodies, and the head of the Muslim Council of Britain is (pending term-limit elections) a woman. This council is a de facto lawmaker, and when leading Muslim clerics shout “jump!”, the only response required from the government will be to ask politely; “how high?” This clash of ideological civilizations centers on the separation of church and state traditional in Europe, and Islam sees no such separation.
If Britain is truly being Islamized, then it proves that it is now a weak country (or, rather, collection of countries), and Islam looks for those the way a lion looks for a limping antelope on the veldt. Boxers win fights not simply because they are stronger, but concomitantly because their opponent is weaker. History, as Nietzsche pointed out, belongs with the strong. The Council on Islamophobia may not deal a knockout blow to the indigenous British, but it may well deliver a victory on a points decision.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
12 comments
Yeesh. I don’t know who’s got it worst, but it’s bad all around the West, sad to say…
Excellent article, as always – though what I wish Dr. Gullick would provide is his insight into why the British are so weak, not merely more analyses of the shapes and consequences of that spinelessness. It’s your own bloody country in which you’re being made dhimmi!
The way I see it, it’s not the people who are at fault, but the politicians. Presently the government is less popular than rattlesnakes. As of now, the British government is addressing its unpopularity by doubling down on the very things that made it unpopular. Other than that, they’re using their massive surveillance apparatus to stifle criticism. It’s a very dangerous gamble for them, of course; I predict that sooner or later, the politicians who made war on their own people will spend the rest of their lives in a prison cell.
If they do manage to stifle their own people indefinitely, the Muslims they empowered one day will deal with the globalists in the traditional Islamic way. If they win, they lose.
Yes, but at some point, prowhites need to stop blaming others and making excuses for our own people. There has been no excuse for White non-action on the catastrophe of pan-European Third World “immivasions” at least since the 90s, if not earlier. No one with an ounce of awareness can deny what’s happening. And yet, stupid Brits (and Germans and French, etc) keep stiff upper lipping their own replacement and conquest.
Our side has yet to fully explain all the causes of suicidal liberalism – a pathology, an evolutionary biological defect, unique to Whites.
Of course, there are the liberal weenies who think diversity is our greatest strength, and radicalinski whack-jobs who want to burn everything down and rule a pile of ashes. These indeed are a problem.
What I mean to say is that the reason we don’t see much visible resistance in Britain, Germany, etc. is that these are massive surveillance states enabled with the latest in technology, having laws enforcing The Narrative. The people are disarmed. Their governments enforce the law selectively. If Third World migrants riot, flip over cars, loot stores, and burn buildings, well, the poor dears are oppressed and need extra gibs to placate them. If you’re a White guy who posts something naughty on Fakebook or puts up naughty stickers on lampposts or says the wrong things about history, then it’s off to the slammer for you… It’s about as tyrannical as it gets short of massive gulags with starvation rations, or at least reeducation camps. The Powers That Be think that this strengthens their rule, but that sort of attitude all too often eventually bites tyrants in the butt.
So that’s why anyone sensible over there has to tread very carefully, staying within invisible tripwires, but they get hassled anyway. Even in the USA, the people have been held back for ages by fear of consequences for speaking out. I remember a letter to Instauration some time in the 1980s complaining about how muggles react, something like this: “You’re paranoid and completely wrong about these wild conspiracies, but please don’t talk to me again because I don’t want to get put on a list.” Fortunately the tide is starting to turn, but we have to keep at it until the job is done.
See Mark Gullick “The Union Jackal December 2024”, posted December 26th 2024 for an at least partial, possible explanation in regard to the UK’s unfortunate current predicament with my comment #3 of January 8th 2025 @ 1:31pm, responding to yours #2 posted December 27th 2024 @9:40am
I have never liked England, they were instrumental in escalating hostilities in two world wars, when they could have acted as mediators and peacekeepers. Yes, I know that the jews were working behind the scenes to exacerbate everything, still they have always made bad decisions that have adversely effected the long term survival of the white race—just as America does!
They are like the Pulp Fiction of nations. Praised to high heavens, uncriticizable from an old European perspective of them being naturally assumed top dog of Europe while treating other Whites horribly, like another White movie auteur whose pasticcio never ceases to take shots against Whites with the boring sam jackson.
This has always been my experience with Brits. They love trashing and spitting on other whites. I’ve never met a Brit I liked their behavior stank of taking advantage of your morality and relying on you being a good person that wouldn’t punch them over their bs. That all being said I really do hope the best for them; it twists my stomach into knots thinking about those poor little girls at that dance studio. I can’t stand Brits personally, but it is horrifying what’s happening to them.
In response to the British-bashing here, I’ll put in my 2 cents, but first some tuppence from Neil Oliver, who is Scottish for those who don’t know. Oliver spoke a couple of weeks ago about the Globalists, and why they have been relentlessly targeting Britain for a while now:
“… their greatest obstacle on the way to one-world government is any country with a self-governing, usefully-educated, wide-awake population, neither needing nor wanting any meddling from unelected, unaccountable, mostly faceless bureaucrats doing the bidding of billionaires and trillionaires, dedicated to the eradication of the very idea of nation-states and independent sovereign people. And in that context, Britain has been their prime, numero-uno, top of the list target. How else to explain the efforts to make everything about British culture and history shameful and destined only for the dustbin. Colonialism, Imperialism, Slavery. These are some of the words used as sticks with which to beat Britain and the native British. When anyone with a glance at world history knows that those are the behaviors of the entire human species, white, black and brown.
“Slavery is innately human, practiced by people of every color, every creed, on every continent, forever. Only Britain, in all the world, in all of human history, spent fortunes and spilled its own people’s blood in a bid to eradicate slavery everywhere. By far the most murderous, in terms of death toll and cruelty, the worst part of the so-called Atlantic slave trade was the acquisition of those slaves, acquired by African people, of other African people, and their movement to the coast for sale to others, and loading onto ships. That was the worst part, that’s where most of them died….
“Genocide is innately human, and it’s happening now. The displacement or destruction of inconvenient or unwanted people is innately human. Conquest and acquisition of new territory is innately human. It’s been done by everyone.
“Championing freedom is not innately human. Establishing and maintaining a culture that values and champions equality for all is anything but innately human…. The determination to protect the most powerless from the appetites of the most powerful is not innately human. Look around the world and see, that for almost everyone who has ever lived, everywhere, life has been nasty, brutish and short, under regimes that are criminal. For a period of time, here in Britain, a relative blink of an eye, in that grand scheme of things I already mentioned, something quite different has been possible. The proof of it is there, in our traditional, native culture and history. And that, that is why Britain has been targeted for destruction by those for whom those values, that culture and that history is anathema…. And the least we can do is remember.”
I understand that not everyone here appreciates “a culture that values and champions equality for all,” but some of us still do–especially equality under the law–which has done much good for many people over the centuries, white and otherwise. The roots of it stretch way back beyond the abolition of slavery: the Anglo-Saxon councils, Magna Carta, Parliament and King jockeying for power, the Bill of Rights, etc., etc. The settling and founding of America was English. And we’re in debt to those English colonists for what is good about America.
I also appreciate much else about Britain, and especially England, which is under threat now. Even the quiet countryside for which Britain was renowned has been under assault for decades. Ed Miliband and others are trying to cover it over with solar panels. The polite queuing for a bus is becoming a thing of the past. As you can guess this is in large part because of migrants. We’ve all heard of Isaac Newton, Shakespeare, and Dickens. They would not have arisen as they did anywhere else.
And I have encountered and known many English who have been kind, loyal, respectful, polite, and generous. It should go without saying that there are jackasses in every culture.
For those who want a stop to the “Brother Wars,” it’s time to stop doing that here also.
Wouldn’t it be fun of the Israeli flag were turned into a hate symbol due to the actions of fools like Robinson and this guy
There is some truth to “free speech contributed to the holocaust” in the sense that the enemies of the Jews (the whole world really but in this case, Germany) used “free speech” to discuss and disseminate the truth about global Jewry (it’s bad!) and the result was enough people finding out this truth and moving to do something about it. The Jews absolutely hate free speech (boo hoo it’s antisemitism!) for anyone but themselves because it exposes the disgusting truth about them to people from whom this information is being kept.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.