On The Re-Making Of The West
by Fjordman

As I’ve said before, Political Correctness was pioneered by feminists, including the totalitarian changing of the language to make it more gender-neutral and less “oppressive.” Those who successfully manage to enforce their definition of words win the ideological contest.

There was an interesting book called The New Totalitarians written by British historian Roland Huntford about Sweden in the early 1970s. It is especially noteworthy how the Socialist government deliberately broke down the nuclear family. This was presented as liberation from the oppression of women, but was in reality about tearing down the religious fabric of society and eliminating the Church and Judeo-Christian thinking as ideological competitors.

It was also about increasing state control over all citizens by breaking down a rival institution that obstructed the uninhibited state indoctrination of children. Besides, the state could foment animosity between men and women and step in as an arbitrator, thus further enhancing its powers. During the past few elections in Sweden, there has been virtually no debate about mass immigration, but a passionate debate about “gender equality” in which almost all contestants call themselves feminists, and only debate which ways to implement absolute equality between the sexes.

Mr. Huntford demonstrated how, when it was decided that a woman’s place was not at home but out at work, there was a rapid change in the language. Page 301:

“The customary Swedish for housewife is husmor, which is honourable; it was replaced by the neologism hemmafru, literally ‘the-wife-who-stays-at-home’, which is derogatory. Within a few months, the mass media were able to kill the old and substitute the new term. By the end of 1969, it was almost impossible in everyday conversation to mention the state of housewife without appearing to condemn or to sneer. Swedish had been changed under the eyes and ears of the Swedes. Husmor had been discredited; the only way out was to use hemmafru ironically. Connected with this semantic shift, there was a change in feeling. Women who, a year or so before, had been satisfied, and possibly proud, to stay at home, began to feel the pressure to go out to work. The substitution of one word for the other had been accompanied by insistent propaganda in the mass media, so that it was as if a resolute conditioning campaign had been carried out. Very few were able to recognize the indoctrination in the linguistic manipulation; in the real sense of the word, the population had been brain-washed.”

For my own part, I find it interesting that the same people who, in the 60s and 70s, broke up the traditional family structure in Western countries and warned people against the dangers of overpopulation, telling people to lower their birth rates, come back a few years later and say that we have to import millions of immigrants because we have such low birth rates.

Author Daniel Horowitz has written about the highly influential American feminist Betty Friedan, whose 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique” is widely seen as marking the beginning of the Second Wave of feminism. Horowitz documents how Friedan had for decades before this been a hardened Marxist. It is revealing that she tried to hide her background, presenting herself only as an average suburban housewife. In the early drafts, Friedan quoted Friedrich Engels, but these quotations were cut out before the book was published. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had called for the abolition of family. Friedan denounced the American suburban family household as “a comfortable concentration camp.”

Roland Huntford noticed that the teaching of history was severely curtailed in Swedish schools because it was “impractical.” Religion, and Christianity in particular, was presented as superstition designed to fool the masses, which had been liberated from this ancient oppression by the Labor movement.

As he noted, “Scrapping historical knowledge deprives pupils of the instrument for criticizing society here and now. And perhaps that is the intended effect.” Journalist Christopher Hitchens later wrote that “For true blissed-out and vacant servitude, though, you need an otherwise sophisticated society where no serious history is taught.”

“The State,” in the words of Mr Ingvar Carlsson, then Minister of Education, “is concerned with morality from a desire to change society.” Mr. Carlsson, who was later Swedish prime minister until 1996, also stated on one occasion that “School is the spearhead of Socialism.”

According to Huntford, the word “freedom” was almost entirely confined to the sexual field in Sweden:

“The Swedish government has taken what it is pleased to call ‘the sexual revolution’ under its wing. Children are impressed at school that sexual emancipation is their birthright, and this is done in such a way as to suggest that the State is offering them their liberty from old-fashioned restrictions.”

He describes a meeting with Dr Gösta Rodhe, the head of the department of sexual education in the Directorate of Schools. She stated: “You see, since there’s a lack of tension in Swedish politics, younger people have got to find release and excitement in sexual tension instead.”

Herbert Marcuse, one of the major theorists of the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism, identified faith-based morality as the chief obstacle to a Socialist society. In his 1955 book Eros and Civilization, he argued for freeing sex from any restraints. He made a huge impact in the 1960s. Although he may not have coined the term “Make love, not war,” he undoubtedly endorsed it.

Mr. Huntford ended his book with a warning that this system of soft-totalitarianism could be exported to other countries. This was in the early 1970s, and he has been proven right since:

“The Swedes have demonstrated how present techniques can be applied in ideal conditions. Sweden is a control experiment on an isolated and sterilized subject. Pioneers in the new totalitarianism, the Swedes are a warning of what probably lies in store for the rest of us, unless we take care to resist control and centralization, and unless we remember that politics are not to be delegated, but are the concern of the individual. The new totalitarians, dealing in persuasion and manipulation, must be more efficient than the old, who depended upon force.”

“As political and economic freedom diminishes” said Aldous Huxley’s in Brave New World, “sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” This fits perfectly with Huntford’s description. The state strips away your personal, economic and political freedom, yet grants you sexual freedom in return, boldly hailing itself as your liberator.

Language is underestimated as a source of power. Those who control the language and the school curriculum control society.

George Orwell said: “If freedom of speech means anything at all, it is the freedom to say things that people do not want to hear.” In his book 1984, a totalitarian Party rules much of Europe. Their three slogans, on display everywhere, are: War is peace, Freedom is slavery and Ignorance is strength. It’s the ultimate glossocracy, even creating an entirely new language called Newspeak:

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”

I love Orwell’s book, but frankly, it fits an openly totalitarian society more than it does Western nations. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, with its hedonistic society where people derive pleasure from promiscuous sex and drugs, is closer to the mark.

[This brilliant analysis of The New World Dis-Order and the agents of chaos who are it's architects is excerpted from the article The Rise Of Glossocracy by Fjordman which was recently posted at Gates Of Vienna and is reproduced here with full attribution. The fine people at GOV are outstanding fellow laborers in the ongoing battle for the imperiled soul of Western civilization and their site is a virtual repository of vital infomation. - Martel]


Mexican Illegals Versus American Voters
by Tony Blankley

It's lucky America has over two centuries of mostly calm experience with self-government. We are going to need to fall back on that invaluable patrimony if the immigration debate continues as it has started this season. The Senate is attempting to legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public. The Senate Judiciary committeemen -- and probably a majority of the Senate -- are convinced that they know that the American people don't know what is best for them.

National polling data could not be more emphatic -- and has been so for decades. A Gallup poll (March 27, 2006) finds 80 percent of the public wants federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3, 2006) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses).

Time magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26, 2006) found 74 percent favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, and 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism. Fifty-seven percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border.

NBC/Wall St. Journal's poll (March 10-13, 2006) found 59 percent opposing a guest worker proposal. Seventy-one percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.

An IQ Research poll (Mach 10, 2006) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of The White House and Congress.

Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.

I commend to all those presumptuous senators and congressmen the sardonic and wise words of Edmund Burke in his 1792 Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe: "No man will assert seriously, that when people are of a turbulent spirit, the best way to keep them in order is to furnish them with something substantial to complain of."

The senators should remember that they are American senators, not Roman proconsuls. Nor is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee some latter-day Praetor Maximus.

But if they would be dictators, it would be nice if they could at least be wise (until such time as the people can electorally forcefully project with a violent pedal thrust their regrettable backsides out of town).

It was gut-wrenching (which in my case is a substantial event) to watch the senators prattle on in their idle ignorance concerning the manifold economic benefits that will accrue to the body politic if we can just cram a few million more uneducated illegals into the country. (I guess ignorance loves company.)

Beyond the Senate last week, in a remarkable example of intellectual integrity (in the face of the editorial positions of their newspapers) the chief economic columnists for the New York Times and the Washington Post -- Paul Krugman and Robert Samuelson, respectively -- laid out the sad facts regarding the economics of the matter. Senators, congressmen and Mr. President, please take note.

Regarding the Senate's and the president's guest worker proposals, The Post's Robert Samuelson writes:

"Gosh, they're all bad ideas...we'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking; many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate; many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished...[it] is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico...The most lunatic notion is that admitting more poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers...Far from softening the social problems of an aging society, more poor immigrants might aggravate them by pitting older retirees against younger Hispanics for limited government benefits. [Moreover] It's a myth that the U.S. economy 'needs' more poor immigrants. The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force."

For all of Mr. Samuelson's supporting statistics, see his Washington Post column of March 22, 2006, from which this is taken.

Likewise, a few days later, the very liberal and often partisan Paul Krugman of the New York Times courageously wrote:

"Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the [government] benefits they receive...As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, 'We wanted a labor force, but human beings came."

Krugman also observed -- citing a leading Harvard study -- "that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration. That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants 'do jobs that Americans will not do.' The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays -- and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants."

Thusly do the two leading economic writers for the nation's two leading liberal newspapers summarily debunk the economic underpinning of the president's and the Senate's immigration proposals.

Under such circumstances, advocates of guest worker/amnesty bills will find it frustratingly hard to defend their arrogant plans by their preferred tactic of slandering those who disagree with them as racist, nativist and xenophobic. When the slandered ones include not only the Washington Post and the New York Times, but about 70 percent of the public, it is not only bad manners, but bad politics.

The public demand to protect our borders will triumph sooner or later. And, the more brazen the opposing politicians, the sooner will come the triumph. So legislate on, you proud and foolish senators, and hasten your political demise.

Tony Blankley is a nationally syndicated columnist as well as the author of 'The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?' published by Regnery Publishing.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate


Scenes From The Global Jihad

Australia: Australia's foremost Muslim cleric triggers an uproar when he likens women who don't wear an Islamic headscarf to "uncovered meat" and blames them for attracting sexual predators. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or the park...and the cats come and eat it," says Sheik Taj al-Din Hilali, "whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat? If [the woman] was in her room, in her home, in her headscarf, no problem would have occurred."

Afghanistan: The kidnappers of Italian photojournalist Gabriele Torsello threaten to murder him unless Abdul Rahman, an Afghan Christian convert, is returned to Afghanistan and handed over to an Islamic court. Rahman lives in Italy, which granted him asylum earlier this year, when he faced the death penalty under Afghanistan's sharia law for converting from Islam to Christianity.

Iran: The president of Iran calls Israel "a group of terrorists" and threatens to harm any country that supports the Jewish state. "This is an ultimatum," warns Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the elimination of Israel and the United States. "Don't complain tomorrow." Days later, the deputy director of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization confirms another stride forward for the country's illicit nuclear program: With the injection of gas into a second cascade of centrifuges, Iran has doubled its uranium-enrichment capacity.

Thailand: Islamist terrorists bomb a column of Buddhist monks as they collect offerings of food in Narathiwat, a city in southern Thailand. One person is killed; 12 are injured. The attack is the latest in a bloody week that has included multiple shootings and another fatal bombing.

France: Another Muslim intifadah rages in France. Hundreds of cars are torched nightly and passenger buses set ablaze with Molotov cocktails. One such fire in Marseille leaves a 26-year-old woman in a coma with burns covering 70 percent of her body. "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists," says police union leader Michel Thoomis. "This is not a question of urban violence any more. It is an intifadah, with stones and firebombs." So far this year, more than 2,500 police have been wounded in clashes with rioters.

Britain: In a "true Islamic state," sexually active homosexuals would be executed, says Arshad Misbahi, an imam in Manchester's Central Mosque. According to interviewer John Casson, the imam explains that while executions "might result in the deaths of thousands," they would be worthwhile "if this deterred millions from having sex and spreading disease."

But there can't be much question that at this point in the war against radical Islam, the radicals are on the march. From Ahmadinejad's swagger to Hezbollah's war on Israel to the plot to blow up jetliners leaving London, our enemies are aggressive, relentless, and unequivocal in their determination to defeat us. Meanwhile, Western Europe is turning into Eurabia before our eyes, as a fading native population with its effete secular culture of pacifism and relativism is superseded by a surging Muslim cohort. Most Muslims are not Islamists or terrorists, of course. However, most of them keep quiet in the face of the radical offensive. That is all the radicals need to keep driving the jihad forward.

[When Muslim riots in France broke out last year, it drew worldwide media attention. The ongoing riots which have occurred thus far this year have hardly caused a ripple in the world press. Where are our valiant guardians of journalistic integrity and freedom? Why so silent in the face of the rising tide of global Islamofascism? Because our media watchdogs have become passive lapdogs. Which is all the more reason why we in The Counter-Jihad must be ever vigilant. With so much at stake, not just for America but for the world, we cannot afford to remain silent. - Martel]


Toy Soldiers On The Border
The Washington Times - January 9, 2007

It sounds like Iraq or some other foreign land, but it happened on U.S. soil last week. Outside Sasabe, Ariz., a band of armed assailants stormed a National Guard border post and forced the Guardsmen to retreat without a shot. It was a personal affront to the Guardsmen, who should never have been in the unnatural position of being incapable of defending themselves in the first place. But they were, thanks to the Bush administration's look-tough, act-weak immigration policy.

The observation post fell because most Guardsmen at the border are not even allowed to carry loaded weapons, much less defend themselves. The attackers, in this case probably drug or alien smugglers, quickly returned to Mexico after the assault. It's past time to rethink this policy of placing Guardsmen at the border but defanging them with overly restrictive rules of engagement, which now results in a humiliation for the Guard, and for the rest of us.

The center of the problem is President Bush's "Operation Jump Start," which is showcased as a supposed key element of the administration's generally toothless border policy. This farcical "initiative" has placed 6,000 Guardsmen on the border but disallows them the ability to do much of anything -- not even defend their positions. No wonder the uniformed personnel we know are so angry.

In May, when the president announced that these 6,000 Guardsmen would be deployed, some heralded it as a step in the right direction. Then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert called the decision to send the Guard "the shot in the arm we need to strengthen our borders and protect our families."

Well, no. The opposite was true. Even the president said as much. "Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities -- that duty will be done by the Border Patrol," Mr. Bush said as he announced the move. The Guardsmen would assist the Border Patrol by "operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol roads and providing training." But they won't be able to enforce the law or guard the border.

"The nanny patrol" is how unnamed Border Patrol agents have described the current arrangement to Jerry Seper of The Washington Times, and little wonder. We should point out that this is no fault of the Guardsmen, who are simply trying to do their jobs. Rather, the administration is at fault for depriving them of the means of fending off an attack. Administration policy makes a kind of costume of their uniforms -- just for show.

If the administration can present any evidence whatsoever that "Operation Jump Start" is not simply a gimmick to look tough on illegals, it should do so now. We haven't seen any. Instead, we've seen an utterly ineffectual border policy and an "Operation Jump Start" which places Guardsmen in harm's way without allowing them to defend themselves. That's an abuse of the Guard.

Let the Guardsmen carry loaded weapons, and let them defend themselves. Anything less makes them playthings in the administration's immigration policy.



Keith Ellison's Friends...Our Enemies
by Joe Kaufman for FrontPageMagazine
January 4, 2007

Today, Keith Ellison will be sworn in as United States Congressman from Minnesota's 5th District, a prestigious title indeed. But prior to him getting to this position, he has carried much radical Islamist baggage, the kind of baggage that could make him (or anyone else) unworthy of such a title. Considering his actions with America's live-in enemies, whilst running for office and even after being elected, we can most probably expect these dangerous associations of Ellison to continue well into his term.

During Ellison's campaign for U.S. Congress, the issue of his relationship with the Nation of Islam (NOI) was brought up repeatedly. NOI, under the leadership of Louis Farrakhan, for decades, has been the perpetrator of countless verbal and written attacks against the Jewish community. Full documentation of Ellison's involvement with NOI can be found at the Power Line blog.

On May 26, 2006, Ellison sent a letter to the Executive Director of the local Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) acknowledging his participation in the hate group. In the letter, Ellison wrote, "I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, as well as other issues. Like most people, I look back at my mistakes with regret. That said, my mistakes have not been futile because I have learned from them."

However apologetic Ellison appeared to be, his words ring false, as he proceeded to cavort with those that not only exhibit the same kind of hatred as the NOI, but that have longstanding ties to terrorist groups as well. And he continues to do so.

Much of the money that was funneled into the coffers of Ellison�s campaign can be traced to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that has ties to Hamas. In June of 1994, three leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a group that was the brainchild of Hamas deputy Mousa Abu Marzook (Marzouk), incorporated CAIR. One of the leaders was CAIR's Executive Director and, himself, a Hamas supporter, Nihad Awad.

Awad, who stated at a September 2000 rally, "The Jews have a saying next year in Jerusalem; we say next year to all Palestine" personally gave thousands of dollars to Ellison's campaign. The other head of CAIR, the group's National Chairman, Parvez Ahmed, also gave large sums to Ellison. In addition, CAIR sponsored numerous fundraisers for Ellison, including secret fundraisers held outside the candidate's state where the group raised tens of thousands of dollars for him.

In October of 2000, then-candidate for U.S. Senate Hillary Clinton announced that she was returning $50,000 in campaign donations raised by the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), due to the group's support for terrorism against the state of Israel. Not only did Ellison not give back CAIR�s money, but following his election, he spoke at the group's November banquet (via video).

At the same time the CAIR banquet was taking place, Ellison found himself speaking at another organization�s event in Minnesota. That organization was the North American Imams Federation (NAIF). This was discovered shortly after six imams coming from the conference were removed from a U.S. Airways flight headed to Arizona. One of the imams, Omar Shahin, was formerly a representative for KindHearts, a "charity" that was shut down in February for raising millions of dollars for Hamas.

On the program for the conference, Ellison's picture is found alongside two other individuals. One is Siraj Wahhaj, who is currently the imam of the At-Taqwa Mosque in Brooklyn, New York. Wahhaj's name was placed on the U.S. Attorney's list of potential co-conspirators to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Wahhaj, soon after, served as a witness for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the spiritual leader of the attack, during the bombing trial.

The other individual in question is Mazen Mokhtar, currently the Youth Director for the New Jersey chapter of the Muslim American Society (MAS-New Jersey). Mokhtar, prior to 9/11, created a mirror website for one of the main sites raising funds and recruiting fighters for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Jihad In Chechnya. The site was also a portal to the official website of Hamas. In addition, Mokhtar has posted numerous statements on the web in support of Hamas and suicide bombings.

On Sunday, December 24, 2006, Ellison was the keynote speaker at yet another Islamist venue, the national convention of MAS and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), held in Dearborn, Michigan. Both MAS and ICNA have their roots in the violent Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and Pakistan, respectively. Mokhtar was also featured at this event, along with a former official from the IAP, Raeed Tayeh. Tayeh, in November of 2001, was fired from his job as a speechwriter for then-United States Representative Cynthia McKinney for referring to the United States Congress as "Israeli-occupied territory".

One cannot help but question Keith Ellison's motives for participating in events such as these. In front of crowds, he speaks of tolerance and justice. On his website, he discusses bringing peace to the masses. Yet his actions say something entirely different.

Keith Ellison spent 10 years of his life associating with the Nation of Islam. Since running for office, it seems, he has traded his loyalties to that group for organizations and individuals that are at least equally dangerous. When Congressman Ellison places his hand, today, on the Quran, to which people is he swearing an oath to protect? Is it the American public many of which went blindly into the voting booths to choose him? Or is it his friends, our enemies?


Terror Links Of The Tottenham Ayatollah

Nick Fielding for The Sunday Times

Once glibly described as the “Tottenham Ayatollah” and often portrayed as a figure of fun, the radical Islamist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed has an increasingly strong claim to the title of the godfather of British terrorism.

It is becoming clear that al-Muhajiroun (ALM), the group formed by Bakri in London less than a decade ago, has played a pivotal role in radicalising young Britons who have gone on to wreak terror in Britain and across the world.

The Sunday Times has identified more than a dozen members of ALM who have taken part in suicide bombings or have become close to Al-Qaeda and its support network. It has also established that:

# At least one of the bombers who killed himself and six other people in the Edgware Road Underground blast two weeks ago associated with ALM acolytes in Britain and Pakistan.

# British-born ALM recruits have travelled abroad to commit suicide bombings and other terrorist acts in Pakistan and Israel.

# ALM money raised in Britain supported military training camps in Pakistan and Kashmir.

# British-based ALM members have been responsible for assaults on police and an attack on an army base in Britain.

Like other British radicals, Bakri has long been regarded as little more than a loudmouth by parts of the British media and the intelligence services. With his sidekicks Anjem Choudhury, leader of ALM, and Hassan Butt, Bakri has been seen more as an irritant than a threat.

The authorities may have been lulled into a false sense of security because Bakri, who acts as ALM’s spiritual leader, insisted that his followers obey a “covenant of security” which, while encouraging terror abroad, forbade them from carrying out attacks in Britain.

Seven days after the September 11 attacks Bakri issued a fatwa (religious ruling) containing a death threat against President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Last week, in an address to the nation about the London bombings, Musharraf referred to it with indignation.

“There are extremist organisations in the United Kingdom — Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun — who operate with full impunity,” he said. “They had the audacity to pass an edict against my life . . . I know that they also give sermons of hate, anger and violence. Therefore I would like to say that there is a lot to be done by Pakistan and may I suggest that there is a lot to be done in England also.”

M J Gohel of the Asia-Pacific Institute agrees. “Al-Muhajiroun is involved in the softening up process, preparing and indoctrinating people so that they are susceptible when the Al-Qaeda recruiter comes along,” he said.

Last November Bakri announced that ALM was disbanding. Three months later he said the “covenant of security” was no longer in force. Experts note that the London bombings followed four months later.

A Sunday Times investigation shows that long before the bombings ALM supporters had built a reputation for violence and religious intolerance. Among its members are:

# Abdul Rahman Saleem, known as Abu Yahya, who admitted undergoing military training in Afghanistan and to recruiting Britons to be trained abroad.

# Sulayman Keeler, who was imprisoned for 28 days for assaulting a police officer at a demonstration outside Downing Street.

# Amer Mirza, who was sentenced to six months for petrol bombing a Territorial Army base in west London.

More worrying is the number of ALM members associated with violence abroad. One journalist who visited an ALM safe house in Lahore before the authorities closed it said that recruits from Britain referred to Indians as “subhumans” and were violently opposed to homosexuals and Jews.

The house was run by Sajeel Shahid, known as Abu Ibrahim, who holds a computer science degree from Manchester. In January he was freed after three months in jail and expelled from Pakistan for his alleged support of Al-Qaeda.

Back in London, Shahid told an Arabic newspaper that he was a close friend of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, a computer expert now in a Pakistani prison, who planned to launch a bombing campaign in London. The plot was foiled when the London cell was arrested last year.

One of those who passed through the house is Bilal Mohammed from Birmingham, who in 2001 blew himself up in an attack on an Indian barracks in Srinagar, Kashmir.

Others in Pakistan with close links to ALM include Zeeshan Siddiqui, from Hounslow, west London, who is thought to have been in contact with the London suicide bombers. He was arrested in Pakistan in May. Siddiqui was also a close friend of Asif Hanif, one of two British-born suicide bombers who attacked Mike’s Place in Tel Aviv in 2003, killing three and injuring 60. Hanif, too, was an ALM member.