Inside the mind of the Ideological Caste(and Kleptocracy)

Often, in researching for an article like this, I find it is almost impossible to believe what I am reading. I am reminded that we are fortunate. We have attained a perceptive grasp and know how to read between the lines. But if you talk to the average punter in the pub, in the shops or on the bus, you will find that they are still not free from propagandists deceit. They believe much of what they have been told by the media.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P3tAP38GuxI/Sh....h/Scan10074.jpg
The UK is ruled by an ideological caste which is a self-selecting elite that requires total acceptance of the belief-system to advance in life; the practical aspect is a Kleptocracy as they rob the population by deceit and theft from public funds. If you meet that criteria you can fiddle yourself a fortune. Blair’s expenses records have now been accidentally shredded! Opening the door to immigration is a nice, little earner if your wife is a Human Rights lawyer.
They transfer other peoples’ taxes to fellow Kleptocrats in the Third World with whom they are in alliance under the guise of giving to the starving or poor but make little effort to ensure that starving people actually get the aid. These are their two main activities and both utilise a talent for deceit, deception, dissembling and good old-fashioned lying and stealing. They have a common way of thinking and make allowances for themselves.
There is an awakening going on, but the media are still dictating opinion for the mass of people in the soggy centre. Everyone talks of the gutter press, and of their lies and deceit. (1)
(2) http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/maguire/2007/10/bnps-king-harold-claim-is-bonk.html
But people still form their opinions on what the press tells them. The propagandist nature of that is apparent in the dumbing-down that we see in the coverage of politics and areas that the elites want to control, while the analysis on the sports pages of, say, football tactics, or analysis of football managers and their styles, is thoughtful, informative stuff. (2)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2....15875-21341228/

It assumes a great deal of both the intelligence and knowledge of the reader. The political coverage, however, treats him as an empty vessel to be filled with filled with foreign thoughts.
How do the establishment and their media deal with people who form their own conclusions from life, and see through the lies told by the media? They ignore our perceptions and argue to the man. They insult the speaker. Why don’t they calmly and reasonably explain why we are wrong? Because our views are natural and traditional and instinctive. They cannot face what they also think deep down, so they project on to us. Those in charge, the “caste”, are the same as us deep down but don’t have to express it because they have good lives in nice areas and exclusive jobs; underneath, they have the same instincts as us and, though cushioned, feel the same shocks. What they do when they feel unease sneaking in is to repress the doubt, and when dark thoughts bubble to the surface they force them to the back of their minds. This tension is barely perceived as it is projected on to us. They see what they cannot face in us, and that is why they never give a reasoned explanation to us. All the press hate the BNP with a passion. When I read their hate I look for sensible points in case there is a real expose, but it is always lies.
The BNP are a genuinely popular movement that recalls Huey Long in the States and Poujade in France, have an opportunity at grassroots level and an enormous opportunity now they have two MEPs.
Griffin has made some inroads into gaining the vote from middle-class voters which should make a lot of difference in the long run. There are a several BNP councillors who own businesses and who, through networking, will probably help to increase the popularity of the party. Maybe that explains part of why the media went to war with them!
What else is it about the BNP that the media hate so much? Is it that its policy is completely different from the norm, thus they attack people who are not like “us”? General dislike of the leaders? Revenge, then? It was the BNP’s Michael Barnbrook who exposed Conservative MP Derek Conway and started the expenses scams ball rolling. Or are the media, like the politicians, scared the BNP will expose them too? The press are, as an institution, liberal-Socialist. Individually they want to keep their jobs so they toe the line. The media put a great deal of money and effort into their Anti-BNP campaign, with every single newspaper and even The Publican, Accountancy Age and Caterer & Housekeeper joining the biased fray!
If not for the internet, the BNP website, blogs etc and the activists on the ground, the party would have been hammered at the ballot box. I can honestly say that I have never seen such a campaign of hatred towards any party, which destroys the media pretence of being fair and unbisased and leads me to suspect that the NUJ is probably still the closed shop that it was back in the 80’s. And I only hope that the claims of vote-rigging aren’t true (though I’m not as naive as to believe that there won’t have been some discussions of vote-rigging going on). It is of profound importance to tackle this bias.
It is built into people like animals to defend our territories, and when they have uncomfortable thoughts or feelings they often project them onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they cannot face in themselves to an alternative target. Neurotic projection is seeing in others what they find objectionable in themselves and unwanted thoughts, and emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person’s unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.
When the Establishment attacks its rivals it generalises, but even when corruption is widespread amongst the Establishment parties, as with the expenses scandals, it is presented as an individual matter. Although it is clear that the expenses scandal is a matter of the party as a whole, the media, being corrupt, focus on individuals. Party politicians, for their part, try hard not to focus at all. (3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY3YNW0TFV8

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/articl....in g-No-10.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment....icle6445961.ece
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.co....0-expenses.html
David Cameron acknowledged that many people will be angry at the main parties over the MPs’ expenses, but he urged them not to react by voting for the BNP. Cameron is a civilised and polished man. But he became very angry with a member of the audience at the Bath and West Show in Shepton Mallet, Somerset - and this was an example of when what cannot be faced is projected. The member of the audience argued that the BNP “have a point when it comes to immigration” and Cameron retorted: “If you vote for the BNP you are voting for a bunch of fascists who want to divide this country over the issues of race and the colour of skin.” Cameron told him: “Go and have a look at what the BNP have said. Do not be naive about what these people stand for. “They dress up in a suit and knock on your door in a nice way but they are still Nazi thugs”. Yes, look at what they really stand for and do not trust the media. (4)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....ths- later.html
He told the audience:

“There is a proper national debate that we should have about immigration. I want us to limit the number of people coming to Britain, but do not believe that the way to beat the BNP is to half agree with them.”

He knows full well that debate and honest expression of fears have been suppressed by the Ideological Caste who cannot bear to hear the truth! But what is his hidden agenda?

Cameron revealed the establishment agenda to de-culture as well as dispossess us:

“Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.” (5)
http://www.movinghere.org.uk/galleries/histories/asian/origins/origins.htm
To accelerate the socially-engineering of our society Cameron set up the Conservative Muslim Forum, a sort of Tory equivalent of the National Black Police Association, which ‘advises’ the Conservative Party on how best to assimilate us to Muslims. The CMF wants the compulsory history curriculum in schools changed to give full recognition of the “massive contribution (sic) that Islam has made to the development of Western civilisation”.

His totalitarian response to comments by Patrick Mercer and Nigel Hastilow show what this “freedom” means - persecution of dissidents. But what does he stand for, in his lovely suits?

“There is no domestic or foreign any more. In this world today, we are all in it together.”

He abandoned his constituency in Whitney during severe flooding to visit Rwanda. His view that immigration has benefited Britain “immeasurably”, and we are they “free” and not frightened of being persecuted by the state, would not find an echo in the hearts of the masses. What Cameron really means is that he wants people to be free to say what the Caste wants them to say, and to have control over their lives so that the Caste can manage them in the way they want to.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew....-on-floods.html

Nick Clegg, another member of the Ideological Caste, saw himself staring straight back at him when he looked at the BNP:

“They peddle hate and they don’t actually provide people with hope.”

Hope? If you are hopeful for the future for women in an increasingly Islamicised West, just look at the Despatches programme that was filmed inside Mosques. If you are hopeful for a just life for the native British, just look at how immigrants enter our country without question and officials say nothing. But if we speak we are shut up with the usual insults of “racism”, “xenophobia” and “hate”. In normal, non-Marxised times there are rules of etiquette that govern how we approach others and are approached. The idea that the present vile censorship constitutes hospitality and openness to strangers is utterly false, and just a cover because the Caste are too weak to acknowledge the enormity of what they have done to us.
"Police are investigating money laundering allegations over the Liberal Democrats' acceptance of £2.4m from a donor later convicted of fraud.
Michael Brown's donation hugely boosted the party's 2005 election campaign, the BBC's Newsnight programme said.
Mr Brown was convicted of fraud in 2008 but vanished before being sentenced to seven years in jail last month.
The party said its auditors were "satisfied that we do not need to make provision for repayment".
Mr Brown's victims say the Liberal Democrats were using their stolen money.
Now one of them, Robert Mann, who is already suing the party to get it back, has instructed his lawyers to ask police to investigate whether the party breached the 2002 Proceeds of Crime Act"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8110452.stm
Sir Ian Blair, who as commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was in charge at the time of the London bombings, was paid £580,000 during his final eight months in office, more than double his annual salary, and a pension of £3.5 million. No wonder he was compliant!
Complementary Projection is the act of assuming that others do, think and feel in the same way as you. The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”. He told Radio 4’s World at One on 7th February 2008 that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. Williams also tried to cover up the exposures of MPs’ expenses. (6)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment....icle6345624.ece

Another who wants to destroy Britain and her people is the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe. He said recently that anyone who votes BNP is not a Christian!. (7)
http://www.manchester.anglican.org/news/209/faith-leaders-sign-antibnp-pledge

Lowe also took it upon himself to ban I vow to thee my country from his services for being too nationalistic:

“Honestly, nobody can really, if they read that hymn, sing it in any seriousness anymore.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3557750.stm
He added that he was raising the issue in the wider context of the “vilification” of foreigners in the media and had noticed it was being sung at “various national occasions”. He was seeing villification of the indigenous population who are vilified in the media IF they stand up for themselves but projecting it.

The Bishops talk as if the BNP operates in a vacuum where no changes and no events ever impel political consequences. They seem to think that their faux-holy response has no foundation in culturally Marxist ideology. But it does: it is all part of their ideology. And what do they really think? Archbishop Murphy-O’Connor tolerated child abuse by priests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/840594.stm

In reality, hospitality implies that someone needs refuge ... you welcome them ... but after a time they leave. They do not move in or push your own children out. That is not hospitality. That is dispossession.

Certainly the most comic but also the best example of repressed racism was the classic bloomer by famous football manager Ron Atkinson in what is known as a Freudian Slip. On 21 April 2004, he said, “… he (Desailly) is what is known in some schools as a lazy thick nigger”. Transmission in the UK had finished - his comment was broadcast to the Middle East. He also gave up his column for The Guardian “by mutual agreement”. He has no idea why he said it. He believes it was an aberration and that he is not racist, stating that his West Brom side was the first high-profile British club to have a significant number of black players.

Last November, Brown and Mandelson went to Saudi to ask for funding for the IMF and Western economies, and offered them some influence over our affairs. Darling has introduced Sharia banking and the EU have signed “The Barcelona Deal” which gives open immigration into Europe. The consequences are very ugly. Last January thousands of Muslims marched through London and other European cities chanting “Jews to the gas”.

It is important that intelligent young people start looking into what is actually happening - not what we are told is happening. Don’t take my word for it. Look into it.

The quote in that article of Cameron saying we should adapt to Muslims is only different in degree, but not kind, from the submission of Simon Hughes to Muslims. (9)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZYXOm898Q

The traditional elites such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Judge Butler-Sloss and Stephan Hickman QC are calling for the introduction of Sharia Law. Consider how we are told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”. Both Tony Blair and Boris Johnson have stated as much. Well, if that’s true, wouldn’t you expect such a force for “goodness” to be evident in culture, and society? But is that the truth of Islamic societies?

Saudi Arabia (Muslim) has a legal system that uses savage penalties. How does a ‘Religion of Peace’ feel about criminals getting their hands chopped off? The protesters who called for death to a cartoonist who drew Mohammed in a way that they saw as offensive. Did Muslims across the world declare that this was in no conceivable way an appropriate response? Were the Muslim “extremists” who in their hundreds called for death to Gillian Gibbons, the teacher working in the Sudan who made the cultural error of permitting a pupil to name a teddy bear “Mohammed”, mere ‘freaks’, totally insane, totally unrepresentative of any version of Islam? In our own country we saw what they really think when they burnt Salman Rushdie’s books.

The Caste behave with studied generosity towards immigrants, and pretend they are harmless. If you cannot face some danger you may well pretend it is harmless, or even not real. If there is a gangster in the area terrorising others you wish it away. Oh, he’s a good bloke ... he doesn’t bother me. It’s a way of putting off catastrophe. And perhaps they will get to like us. Perhaps they will realise that we are nice people. It’s like being so frightened you pretend something is not happening. It is too painful for the elites to acknowledge and would lead to sufficient anguish for them to strike out, blaming us.

The timid rulers have capitulated to everyone from Communists in South Africa and Zimbabwe to Muslims throughout Europe. They can not assert themselves over anyone but their own compliant people. There is a great deal of emasculated masochism bound up with the shame and lack of moral courage of our rulers.

They give overseas aid to countries who don’t need it and pass oppressive laws against their own people. An early example of the state oppressing its own people and privileging foreigners was the the race battles in Notting Hill of 1958. Evil Judge Salmon gave excessive sentences of around 4 years to the young working-class local lad but let the Black youths off.

The 1961 race battles in Dudley were similar. Young men were fearful of losing their jobs to immigrants but even worse, the immigrants were pulling their women while many young locals were away serving their country on national service. The police arrested them and the magistrates punished them just for acting naturally. The state was breaking down the primary instincts of its own menfolk to keep their women and territory!

In his excellent book “The Deculturalisation of the English People”, John Lovejoy told of how, on his return from Australia where he had worked closely with Aborigines, he was horrified to see that his own people were being decultured in the same way (and by the same Globalist forces). The most important factor in a people’s decline is when the men lose their women, and that is what the Caste are doing to us by constantly promoting ethnics. How often in a normal day do we encounter advertisements and other representations of the typical family unit as a Black with a white woman. I urge people to look for themselves and not trust the Caste who are trying to destroy their own people for no better reason than their own underlying fear of other races!

(10)

In the most noble speech ever made in the House of commons Labour MP Frank Tomney explained how his young constituents were persecuted by the elites. Speaking in Cyril Osborne's Immigration (Control) debate HC Deb 05 December 1958 vol 596 cc1552-97
"I do not want to take up too much time, but I have a special consideration to put to the Under-Secretary of State arising out of the race riots in my constituency. Nine young men were arrested. There is no one in the constituency who takes the view that what they did was not wrong, severely wrong, but the sentence they received, boys of 17 years of age, was four years' imprisonment, and there has been considerable feeling in Notting Hill and that neighbourhood against these sentences, and it is still there today, so that even coloured people are going round organising petitions on behalf of those boys.

I wrote a letter on behalf of the parents of those boys to the Home Secretary, asking him to see me about this matter. He replied that it was sub judice and he could not do so. The case was subject to appeal a week ago and the Appeal Bench confirmed the sentences. So far as I know—and I made sure—none of those boys had a previous conviction. Not one of them. It may be that there will be a change of attitude towards this case on the part of the Home Office after time has elapsed. I mention this case only to demonstrate that, despite the fact that there may have been some unsavoury people, some people out looking for trouble, some people out to spread trouble in these areas, there were people who were genuinely concerned about their own position.

I want to refer to an issue which has been put to me. It concerns the Manchester Guardian and some of my constituents. We all know that frequently there is landlord and tenant trouble. We know about the problems that arise between white landlords and coloured tenants, between coloured landlords and white tenants, between coloured landlords and coloured tenants, between English landlords and English tenants, between Irish landlords and English tenants, and between English landlords and tenants from Commonwealth countries.

These are things which are spread by gossip and otherwise through our constituencies. The case I have in mind was a classic one in so far as the Manchester Guardian treated it in a special article. Some of my constituents did not agree with the contents of the article. They sent me a petition on the matter and upon the issue which gave rise to the article. That was all right. I investigated the case personally. I interviewed the coloured family concerned. I interviewed their white tenant, the police, and the neighbours, and I came to the conclusion that the Manchester Guardian article was not right either in fact or in presentation. The tenants in the area wrote to the Manchester Guardian protesting that this was not a true summary of the position and asking the editor to publish their letter. This great Liberal newspaper refused to do it.

These are the things underneath which give rise to feeling. It is not colour, it is not race, it is utter and complete frustration. The Daily Herald first drew attention to this matter when they took up the case and published a leading article headed "Cut it out", which made direct reference to the position in that area. These are responsible people. The tenants have lived in the house for 21 years, but it is understandable that when people from the Commonwealth take a lease they are charged high prices and they must get their money back somehow before the lease runs out.

The result is that we have these cases of crowding more and more people into the available accommodation. Cannot something be done? Surely it is not beyond the guile of a Government Department to frame regulations which provide that where there is a change of tenancy of this character protection can be given to both parties. These are the human things, which have not been mentioned hitherto in this debate, that give rise to these troubles.

To return to the case of the four boys, there are no more loyal people than the Cockneys. They are loyal to our institutions and to the nation, but they are also informed. They read the newspapers and look at television. When they read about comparable cases and find variations in the sentences imposed by the courts they come to think that our law does not provide justice. In one case of alleged rioting which concerned coloured people, one man was sentenced to prison for a year and others were fined. The man who was sentenced to a year's imprisonment had a former conviction in 1948 for shooting a policeman—I will not give his name—and if I know the Public Prosecutor that is a crime with intent to kill. Yet these boys, with no previous convictions, got four years. I do not want to take up too much time, but I have a special consideration to put to the Under-Secretary of State arising out of the race riots in my constituency. Nine young men were arrested. There is no one in the constituency who takes the view that what they did was not wrong, severely wrong, but the sentence they received, boys of 17 years of age, was four years' imprisonment, and there has been considerable feeling in Notting Hill and that neighbourhood against these sentences, and it is still there today, so that even coloured people are going round organising petitions on behalf of those boys.

I wrote a letter on behalf of the parents of those boys to the Home Secretary, asking him to see me about this matter. He replied that it was sub judice and he could not do so. The case was subject to appeal a week ago and the Appeal Bench confirmed the sentences. So far 1594 as I know—and I made sure—none of those boys had a previous conviction. Not one of them. It may be that there will be a change of attitude towards this case on the part of the Home Office after time has elapsed. I mention this case only to demonstrate that, despite the fact that there may have been some unsavoury people, some people out looking for trouble, some people out to spread trouble in these areas, there were people who were genuinely concerned about their own position.

I want to refer to an issue which has been put to me. It concerns the Manchester Guardian and some of my constituents. We all know that frequently there is landlord and tenant trouble. We know about the problems that arise between white landlords and coloured tenants, between coloured landlords and white tenants, between coloured landlords and coloured tenants, between English landlords and English tenants, between Irish landlords and English tenants, and between English landlords and tenants from Commonwealth countries.

These are things which are spread by gossip and otherwise through our constituencies. The case I have in mind was a classic one in so far as the Manchester Guardian treated it in a special article. Some of my constituents did not agree with the contents of the article. They sent me a petition on the matter and upon the issue which gave rise to the article. That was all right. I investigated the case personally. I interviewed the coloured family concerned. I interviewed their white tenant, the police, and the neighbours, and I came to the conclusion that the Manchester Guardian article was not right either in fact or in presentation. The tenants in the area wrote to the Manchester Guardian protesting that this was not a true summary of the position and asking the editor to publish their letter. This great Liberal newspaper refused to do it.

These are the things underneath which give rise to feeling. It is not colour, it is not race, it is utter and complete frustration. The Daily Herald first drew attention to this matter when they took up the case and published a leading article headed "Cut it out", which made direct reference to the position in that area. These are responsible people. The tenants have lived in the house for 21 years, but it is understandable that when people from the Commonwealth take a lease they are charged high prices and they must get their money back somehow before the lease runs out.

The result is that we have these cases of crowding more and more people into the available accommodation. Cannot something be done? Surely it is not beyond the guile of a Government Department to frame regulations which provide that where there is a change of tenancy of this character protection can be given to both parties. These are the human things, which have not been mentioned hitherto in this debate, that give rise to these troubles.

To return to the case of the four boys, there are no more loyal people than the Cockneys. They are loyal to our institutions and to the nation, but they are also informed. They read the newspapers and look at television. When they read about comparable cases and find variations in the sentences imposed by the courts they come to think that our law does not provide justice. In one case of alleged rioting which concerned coloured people, one man was sentenced to prison for a year and others were fined. The man who was sentenced to a year's imprisonment had a former conviction in 1948 for shooting a policeman—I will not give his name—and if I know the Public Prosecutor that is a crime with intent to kill. Yet these boys, with no previous convictions, got four years. I do not want to take up too much time, but I have a special consideration to put to the Under-Secretary of State arising out of the race riots in my constituency. Nine young men were arrested. There is no one in the constituency who takes the view that what they did was not wrong, severely wrong, but the sentence they received, boys of 17 years of age, was four years' imprisonment, and there has been considerable feeling in Notting Hill and that neighbourhood against these sentences, and it is still there today, so that even coloured people are going round organising petitions on behalf of those boys.

I wrote a letter on behalf of the parents of those boys to the Home Secretary, asking him to see me about this matter. He replied that it was sub judice and he could not do so. The case was subject to appeal a week ago and the Appeal Bench confirmed the sentences. So far as I know—and I made sure—none of those boys had a previous conviction. Not one of them. It may be that there will be a change of attitude towards this case on the part of the Home Office after time has elapsed. I mention this case only to demonstrate that, despite the fact that there may have been some unsavoury people, some people out looking for trouble, some people out to spread trouble in these areas, there were people who were genuinely concerned about their own position.

I want to refer to an issue which has been put to me. It concerns the Manchester Guardian and some of my constituents. We all know that frequently there is landlord and tenant trouble. We know about the problems that arise between white landlords and coloured tenants, between coloured landlords and white tenants, between coloured landlords and coloured tenants, between English landlords and English tenants, between Irish landlords and English tenants, and between English landlords and tenants from Commonwealth countries.

These are things which are spread by gossip and otherwise through our constituencies. The case I have in mind was a classic one in so far as the Manchester Guardian treated it in a special article. Some of my constituents did not agree with the contents of the article. They sent me a petition on the matter and upon the issue which gave rise to the article. That was all right. I investigated the case personally. I interviewed the coloured family concerned. I interviewed their white tenant, the police, and the neighbours, and I came to the conclusion that the Manchester Guardian article was not right either in fact or in presentation. The tenants in the area wrote to the Manchester Guardian protesting that this was not a true summary of the position and asking the editor to publish their letter. This great Liberal newspaper refused to do it.

These are the things underneath which give rise to feeling. It is not colour, it is not race, it is utter and complete frustration. The Daily Herald first drew attention to this matter when they took up the case and published a leading article headed "Cut it out", which made direct reference to the position in that area. These are responsible people. The tenants have lived in the house for 21 years, but it is understandable that when people from the Commonwealth take a lease they are charged high prices and they must get their money back somehow before the lease runs out.

The result is that we have these cases of crowding more and more people into the available accommodation. Cannot something be done? Surely it is not beyond the guile of a Government Department to frame regulations which provide that where there is a change of tenancy of this character protection can be given to both parties. These are the human things, which have not been mentioned hitherto in this debate, that give rise to these troubles.

To return to the case of the four boys, there are no more loyal people than the Cockneys. They are loyal to our institutions and to the nation, but they are also informed. They read the newspapers and look at television. When they read about comparable cases and find variations in the sentences imposed by the courts they come to think that our law does not provide justice. In one case of alleged rioting which concerned coloured people, one man was sentenced to prison for a year and others were fined. The man who was sentenced to a year's imprisonment had a former conviction in 1948 for shooting a policeman—I will not give his name—and if I know the Public Prosecutor that is a crime with intent to kill. Yet these boys, with no previous convictions, got four years."