Far Right – Delingpole World

Austria Gets the Extremist President It Didn’t Deserve

JOE KLAMAR/AFP/Getty Images

The Austrian presidential election result has been a triumph for the cause of extremism in Europe.

We were continually assured by the left-liberal media how awful it would be if the (supposed) “far-right” candidate Norbert Hofer won.

But actually the victory of Green candidate Alexander Van der Bellen – on, likely, a rigged ballot – is far, far worse.

It’s bad for democracy: Hofer lost by just 31,000 of the 4.64 million votes cast. Suspicions are bound to fall on the 700,000 votes cast in the postal ballot, which appears to be what swung it for Van der Bellen. But postal votes as we know – especially from the experience of Muslim-dominated constituencies in the UK – are prone to rampant fraud. Austrians who voted for Hofer are talking about “betrug” – fraud – and this may well be more than sour grapes. In some areas there was a remarkable 146.9 percent voter turnout. This stinks of a stitch up by the bien-pensant elite in unholy alliance with the immigrant bloc vote. As with the EU, so it is increasingly in national elections: the social democratic ruling class refuses to listen to the people.

It’s bad for social cohesion. Figures from Der Standard newspaper, show that university-educated voters split 81-19 for Van der Bellen, while lower-skilled workers split 86-14 for Hofer. What does this tell us? That the native working class in Austria – as in the US and across much of Europe – are angry about immigration and feel unrepresented by the liberal political elite. That academe is now such a hot bed of left-wing indoctrination and political correctness that the “educated” would rather keep drinking the Kool-Aid than think for themselves. This cannot end happily. Indeed, it was under similar circumstances in the 1930s that another Austrian-born citizen, considerably more “far-right” than Norbert Hofer, began his rise to power.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Memo to the BBC: It’s Not the ‘Far Right’ Which Decapitates Aid Workers or Rapes Schoolgirls

September 18, 2014

Here is the news: in Australia, a plot by Islamic State sympathisers to capture random members of the public and chop their heads off has been foiled by security services; in Syria, two Americans and a British hostage have been beheaded by an Islamist nicknamed Jihadi John – and another innocent Briton (a taxi driver captured while working for an aid convoy) has been told he is next on the list; across Britain, in the aftermath of the Rotherham enquiry, more and more evidence is emerging that in towns and cities all over the country mostly underage white girls have been systematically groomed, raped and trafficked by organised Muslim gangs, with the complicity of local government authorities, charity workers, police officers and the broader Muslim community.

Luckily, thanks to the BBC, we know what the real problem is here. It is, of course, our old friends, “Islamophobia” and “the spectre of a far right” backlash.

Both of these alleged threats featured prominently on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, including an interview with a former, self-confessed “far right” thug who revealed – presumably to no listener’s especial surprise – that the organisation to which he had belonged was racist, prone to violence, and likely to react strongly to issues like the Rotherham rape gangs.

Today also ran an interview with Tell Mama – the one-man activist organisation run by Fiyaz Mughal which has long since been exposed for its exaggerations and its threadbare methodology in cooking up an alleged spate of “anti-Muslim” hate crimes.

When, for example, last year Tell Mama reported that there had been 212 anti-Muslim incidents, it turned out that 57 per cent of these comprised disobliging comments on Twitter or Facebook, many of them emanating from outside Britain.

And the BBC Today show rounded off with a Muslim spokeswoman who was given space to assure listeners that mosques around Britain were already doing a great deal to combat extremism but hadn’t been given credit for it.

Phew. So that’s all right then.

Except, of course, it’s really not all right.

Perhaps it wouldn’t matter so much if this BBC feature were a rare aberration. But it’s not. It’s long-term house policy. Barely were the bodies of the 52 victims of the 7/7 London bus and tube suicide bombings cold than the BBC’s reporters were out pounding the streets looking for evidence of the real issue of concern – not Islamist extremism and its numerous fellow-travellers, of course, but yes, for the spectre of Islamophobia and an anti-Muslim backlash by “the far right.” It responded in the same way after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby – complete, of course, with an interview about the “cycle of violence against Muslims” and the “underlying Islamophobia in our society” by our friend Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

One thought on “Memo to the BBC: it’s not the ‘far right’ which decapitates aid workers or rapes schoolgirls”

salgak says:18th September 2014 at 5:27 pmWe keep ignoring those Peaceful, Moderate Muslims. You know, the ones who are too busy to do anything about extremism, because they’re up in the hills somewhere, tending their Unicorns . . . .

Comments are closed.

Everything is the fault of the ‘Far Right’. Everything… | James Delingpole

September 3, 2014

Andrew Norfolk is the heroic, crusading Times chief investigative reporter who broke the Rotherham child sex story. But admirable though he surely is, does anyone else find something a bit disturbing about this statement he made this week?

“I didn’t want the story to be true because it made me deeply uncomfortable. The suggestion that men from a minority ethnic background were committing sex crimes against white children was always going to be the far right’s fantasy story come true. Innocent white victims, evil dark-skinned abusers. Liberal angst kicked instinctively into top gear.”

The thing that disturbs me is this: that Norfolk was apparently less discomfited by the enormity of the crime itself than he was by the spectre of the “far right’s” likely response. I’m sure he didn’t mean it to come out that way. I’ve no doubt he cares deeply about the suffering of the children he interviewed in the course of his investigations.

But the fact that he even raised the issue speaks volumes about the mentality of the liberal-left: so great is its fear of the Far Right Bogeyman that it will do almost anything avoid incurring its wrath – even, in some cases, if it means turning a blind eye to rape, fraud and worse.