Moslems enjoy Teds Conference
Mon 2:50 am +00:00, 5 Oct 2026 4There were no punch ups (verbal or otherwise) at this year’s English Democrats’ (Teds) AGM and conference. All went smoothly and the unwitting Stefan Korte of the AfD was the only one who tried to stir a very minor side comment of anti-Moslem sentiment. Most other speakers realise that the Turkish contingent will defend unjustified attacks on their religion, and be quite upset by it. In this case, they merely shrugged. Stefan’s speech and presence otherwise were uplifting, offering hope for Germany and Europe with his U-Turn Europe campaign.
As those of a Moslem persuasion point out in discussion, there are more versions of interpretation of The Koran than Sunni and Shia, and the actions of an extremist sect cannot be attributed to the whole of Islam. Turkiye has another interpretation of Islam and is neither Sunni or Shia, but Hanafi.
There are millions of Zionist Christians who support genocide as well as head-chopping Wahhabist Moslems. You need to look at each person as an individual human being, and drop the reference to all Moslems as the equivalent to terrorists.
Even the rape gangs which are Pakistani based, are not exclusively Pakistani Moslem. Police, social workers, teachers, council officials, judges can all be involved in the mass rape of English girls. There was serious sexual exploitation of children by powerful upper class groups pre mass immigration. Kincora Boys Home for example, and Jersey where Edward Heath sailed his yacht Morning Cloud.
Moslems are from that respect, no different.
In fact, Moslems are more defiant against the perpetrators of evil in the world than original English, who are inclined to silent inaction, currently with much focus on materialism, with minds rendered impotent by mass media, Hollywood, Disney, education and our own ‘liberal’ cultural programming, which was the topic of Niall MacRae’s excellent presentation on the influence of Cultural Marxism.
The attendants of the English Democrat conference could not be so accused of having closed minds as the active debating demonstrated. It had a lively and cheerful atmosphere. It was good to see good attendance and new faces.
Moslems are a very important element to bring into the English Democrats, especially such excellent people as appeared at recent conferences. They make good companions and always have an interesting take on the matters under discussion.
Far from being our enemies, as the media would like us to believe, they make great friends and allies, believing in the same things as Christians, having the same God, and a desire to live good lives, raise families and prosper, while dedicating their lives to goodness as they believe it to be.
We are natural allies, and should carry on working together to stop the war ratchet in the media, and the Zionists from driving us apart and trying to make us into enemies, when we are in fact the most natural friends and allies.
Moslems being good people just doesn’t fit the current war drumming news narrative. Well. Stop worrying. Relax and build the new England, and Europe in Stefan’s case. We can’t send everyone back anyway. We can gain from each other’s positivity instead. Goodness is welcome, unprogrammed, unwoke, and spiritually aware.
The main leaflet visible on display was the same one as the previous four years –
‘Don’t just give a peace a chance. Vote for it.’
You might add. ‘We must become the peace’.
Teds are still the only party to advocate an end to the wars and sanctions, and to demand the opening of genuine negotiations with Russia etc seeing them as equals and basing negotiations on their proposals.
“You need to look at each person as an individual human being, and drop the reference to all Moslems as the equivalent to terrorists”
Absolutely, that’s the bad guys meme isn’t it
Particularly now that the Zionists have turned again to demonising Muslims as part of their war strategy. Talking up Israel and Zionism is not really viable now that the whole world has seen their genocidal tendencies. So they continue to make the Muslims the bad guys. Same objectives, different propaganda
Also it’s easy to fall into the anti-Muslim trap when one considers the ongoing foreign invasion of our shores, that the Zionists have facilitated and supported, too. Many Muslims involved
But, at the individual level then, who can blame them? Swapping a war torn, or totalitarian, or desperately poor, regime for Blightey? Which young person wouldn’t take that option if given half a chance?
Compare and contrast to South Africa where many whites would love to come and live here. Similar heritage and similar, if more rugged, values. Many trapped in violent urban areas that are literally unsafe after dark. But denied entry here, so have to jump through hoops if they even get the support of Brit relation. Very difficult without that sort of support, unless wealthy
The Turkish attendants at conference say that they can’t understand why the British government tolerates Islamic extremist views to be openly expressed in the UK, when this would not be tolerated in Turkey.
I would slightly qualify one point: it would probably be too strong to say that the UK Government does nothing. The UK does have Prevent and other counter-terrorism mechanisms aimed at radicalisation and terrorism.
However, Türkiye has a much more centralised approach to mainstream religious services through the Diyanet system, and the state is generally more directly involved in the organisation and supervision of religious institutions and religious teaching.
That distinction is actually very close to what I think the English Democrats should consider.
The state does not need to be against Islam, or against Muslims practising their religion, in order to take a firm position against extremism, coercion, criminal activity or unlawful organisations.
A recent example in Türkiye is the investigation involving the group commonly known as the Süleymancılar.
I think this example is useful, but it is important to describe it accurately. The Turkish authorities have specifically stated that the investigation is not against a religious belief or simply against people because they belong to a religious community. The allegations concern an alleged organised financial and criminal structure, including matters such as money laundering, fraud, tax offences and organised criminal activity.
To me, that demonstrates an important principle:
Target the unlawful conduct, not the religion.
If somebody prays, fasts, follows halal rules, attends a mosque, lives according to Islamic morality or regards Sharia as the religious framework of their personal life, that in itself is not the problem.
But if an organisation becomes involved in terrorism, extremist recruitment, coercion, organised crime, illegal financing, incitement to violence or attempts to exercise compulsory legal authority outside the law of the country, then the state should intervene firmly.
I think this distinction could actually help strengthen the direction already appearing in the latest EDP manifesto draft.
The draft already proposes education for Islamic community leaders and Imams, a legal code of conduct for religious establishments, stronger rules concerning unacceptable teaching, bringing religious legal systems into compliance with English law, and acceptance that the law of the land is supreme.
I can understand the reasoning behind those proposals.
Where I think the manifesto needs further clarification is immediately before them.
The current wording moves from the fact that very few mosques are described as “modernist” to the conclusion that increasing numbers of Muslims are becoming radicalised and want Sharia, and then describes the Sharia legal code as incompatible with democracy, equality and human rights.
That is where I think the definitions become too broad.
Instead of treating Sharia itself as the problem, I think it would be clearer to identify the actual conduct that England will not accept:
Islamist extremism and terrorist activity;
terrorist financing and recruitment;
coercion carried out in the name of religion;
criminal organisations hiding behind religious institutions;
preaching or activity encouraging violence;
and any attempt to create compulsory legal authority above or in place of English law.
At the same time, the manifesto could make equally clear that peaceful religious practice remains protected:
“We respect the right of every individual to practise his or her religion peacefully within English law.”
I think that would give the Party a much clearer position:
One law for everyone.
Freedom of religion within that law.
Firm action against extremism and unlawful organisations.
No religious or political authority above English law.
For me, Türkiye is useful not because England should simply copy the Turkish system — the constitutional, historical and legal systems are obviously different — but because it demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish between Islamic religious life and organised activity that crosses the legal boundary.
This is really what I was trying to explain in my earlier message.
I do not think the EDP needs to become less firm on extremism.
I think it needs to be more precise about what it is being firm against.
If that distinction is made clearly, a law-abiding Muslim should be able to read the manifesto and understand:
“They are not against me praying, fasting or living according to my religion. They are against terrorism, extremism, coercion and anyone trying to place another compulsory legal system above English law.”
I think that would be a much clearer distinction.
Freedom to worship, or refrain from worship, is one on the basic principles of God’s, or Natural, Law. It cannot be taken away by any human law. It is an inalienable right, God given and above any of man’s laws
God’s laws are bestowed on every human born. They cannot be taken away by any mere human act. They supersede all Government laws. They cannot be removed by legislation.. They are retained for life
It’s a real shame that more folk don’t realise all that. We would live in a far better world if the majority did
But our “Education” systems never mention the important facts do they? Like,
Natural Law
Fiat money and Central Banks
The legal “Person”
etc etc