More than 6 million babies have been aborted since the Abortion Act 1967 came into force in Britain and around 75 million in the USA! There are 500 abortions every day in England and Wales and the figures show 67% of are carried out before the 10th week, and 89% before the 12th week. There are about 190,000 abortions a year in England and Wales. The official practice is that an abortion can be performed up to 24 weeks and needs the consent of two family doctor’s. This is an indefensible slaughter of potential people - our people.
The debate is invariably between Liberals and Feminists on rights but never the woman’s duty to our posterity: the needs of the our ethnic group are ignored. The two sides argue where the rights lie. It is couched in rational terms but what about our natural instincts? What about a nationalist conservative view on this? What of our emotional bonding with our people and the consequent responsibility for one another and the continuity of our people?
This is part of the “Ideological castes” war on nature and the separation of sex from procreation is instilled by social engineering through Sex Education which has a little bit about how to do it, but is mostly about how to avoid the consequences through contraception. Abortion is the next step in this process of avoiding children and because it is the state prejudice, even women who morally object feel obliged to have abortions.
Like other Liberal causes it is always discussed as an individual matter: one that only affects individuals. It is also personalised in a feminine way:” Oh, dear how you must have suffered.” However, it is a collective issue and concerns us as a group.
What libertarians and Liberals overlook is that the advocates of individual rights do so as a part of a people created by history, tradition and emotional bonding and are brought up and formed in that culture and made what they are by it and are not really independent individuals. That imposes an obligation to the group not just the self. The following shows the falsity of this pretence:
The decadent side of a race committing suicide is homosexuality: a non productive sexual activity and the dispute over the Wolfenden Report of 1963 highlights the gap between the two liberal positions involved. The report did not equate crime to sin, and morality was private, a matter of choice and free judgement for individuals. The law should only be concerned with immorality for two purposes: to preserve public order and decency, and to protect vulnerable people from corruption or exploitation. It is separating pleasure from responsibility. The other side of the Liberal gap was represented by Lord Justice Devlin who disputed the distinction between a private sphere of morality and the public sphere for a single sphere of morality which often conflict but “shared moral attitudes, the public morality, is an essential bond of society: if this dissolves, society dissolves.” That at least recognises the group. Men are to father babies and do their duty to the family and the group as whole not just indulge in personal pleasure.
From the 1960s the New Left changed the Liberal concept of individual rights to “Group Rights” and Women’s rights are an important part of this ideology and abortion a major principle. Other justifications: “It’s a women’s right to choose” a “women can do what she likes with her own body” follow from that. Women’s rights override inhibitions about killing the foetus even though it is known to be more developed into a person in the womb than thought in the early 60's because of Leslie Neilson’s ultra sound pictures in the late 80's.
These abstract universal, rights do not allow for changes in awareness and whatever is discovered is ignored if it does not fit into the ideology. If women have no control over their pregnancy they are denied a public role. This abstract but highly emotional argument helps separate a woman from her people her community and replaces them with an artificial, abstract category of “identity” and “group rights”. The issue is not how much of a person the foetus would become but that it would become one: it would become one of our men or women and help perpetuate our people into the future.
The National Health service is a State body that socially engineers the population. In 2005, for example, the NHS funded 84% of abortions, of these 52% were carried out by independent Doctors on NHS contracts. 89% were foetuses under 10 weeks. Medical abortions were 24% and of these 1% or 1,900 were because there was a risk that the baby would be handicapped. There were 7,900 or non-residents in hospitals or clinics in England and Wales. If the caste want us wiped out the NHS will manage the gradual genocide of our people.
Theoretically, The Abortion Act allows doctors and nurses with a conscience to opt out of “treatment authorized by this Act” except in emergencies, but they have to prove their “conscience” in a court of law. The tenth report of the Social Services Committee of 17/10/1990 showed that despite the conscience clause those who dissent from the orthodoxy are penalized by having great difficulty in getting appointed or training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. In practice to further their careers they have to conform to the state orthodoxy. An M.P. who supported abortion, Emma Nicholson told the House of Commons “General Practitioners in my constituency and elsewhere tell me it is virtually impossible for a doctor to refuse an abortion under the workings of the Act.” (Commons Hansard. Cols 249-250. 24/4/1990)
There is the aspect of decadence or what Mark Steyn calls civilisational exhaustion.(2) It works by progressives providing rationales for our moral and spiritual weakness: On the 24th of October 1963 Professor Dennis Gabor gave the Thompson Lecture and claimed that “Having large families is the one luxury civilisation cannot afford.” He foresaw a transition over the next 40 years into a life of leisure because of modern technology replacing human labour. At the same time a Bill to provide free family planning on the National Health Service was being promoted by a working party under Profesor Lafite of Birmingham University. On the 1st of November 1963 the Cambridge Union society voted 147 to 136 against the motion “This House considers that abortion should be made legal.”
Avoiding children is also part of feeling civilized and in the effete middle-class ethos it is civilized to limit the size of one’s family to maintain their comfortable standards and to be rational about one’s life. There is a sense of taming the wild nature! Several children would entail a less self-consciously controlled way of living.
Then there are school fees. There is a new but not cultured middle-class from ordinary backgrounds who want to enjoy themselves without responsibility for bringing children up. The Economy of decadence and luxury: After the destruction of our manufacturing industry people like Mrs. Thatcher were telling us we were to become a service industry. The concern about animals becoming extinct is a projection onto nature of our willing our own extinction and saves us having to face it.
The fear of overpopulation does is artificial in Britain but because we are not replacing our population but unassimilable immigrants are outbreeding us Our population is getting older and we are not producing a workforce. It seems that when a civilization becomes comfortable and feels safe it ceases to strive and philosophies of ease are developed to rationalise decadence and to justify it. This entails a gradual loss of individual responsibility for the wider community and civilization as they no longer see their duty in perpetuating it.
Paradoxically, abortion is part of our modern civilized view of ourselves, but beneath this are the old barbarous instincts to survive only justified by science or rationalism instead of religion. We look back on certain practices of the past and regard them as utterly barbaric - human sacrifice, burning heretics, by reading, say, Thucydides and think how primitive, or we shun the Bible out of our sense of progress as a barbarian tract, but support a woman’s wish to have her babies murdered - future ages will look back on allowing women to kill their babies in their thousands because they might be inconvenient, with the same feeling of disgust as we at former barbarian practices.
There are of course biologico-philosophical arguments about when human life starts, but it seems distinctly forced to suppose that a few hours between pre- and post-birth constitute a moral difference; and, the argument about a woman doing what she likes with her own body is another self-centred and indefensible view. Always in these arguments people think of themselves as living in bubbles without responsibility to our group and to future generations.
One faction in the Liberal parameter does not regard the unborn child as a person and on those grounds say it has no right to life and the emphasis is on whether the mother has the right to give birth or not or what right has another to force her to give birth. To the opposing side the foetus is a person. Their debate is between conflicting rights. We have a lack of control over our fertility and this is something to control in a rational, civilized society. Nature, and that includes us, must be tamed as we flatter ourselves that we have transcended human nature.
It hampers our public and social lives and young women want to continue in a life - style. This is separating women from their natures. Most women want to feel they have a rational choice and are not determined by nature.
We have now been degraded by the elites to the sickness of “Partial-Birth” abortions which is up till 9 months pregnancy. These were performed legally in the United States until banned by George Bush in 2003. It is not done just on babies who are severely deformed or dying but also on the inconvenient ones. The method is that the abortionist is guided by ultrasound till he finds the baby's leg and grabs it with forceps and pulls into the birth canal whence the abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head. Then the abortionist then rams scissors into the baby's skull and opens the scissors to enlarge the hole, removes the scissors and inserts a suction catheter to suck the baby’s brains out, the skull collapses and the dead baby pulled out.
Is that all our children are worth? If that is not a brutal murder what is? Little wonder that these people are obsessed with Hitler and his eugenics programmes. They themselves are just as evil, perhaps more so as they do this not for ideals or because they were ordered to but for a wealthy, comfortable life for providing convenience and for the privileged group rights of women.
A quarter of births in Britain are to foreign mothers and this together with the promotion of homosexuality is part of our demographic decline. (1)
Proponents of abortion claim that it is rare for women to regret having had an abortion, but post-abortion services like BVA and Life receive hundreds of calls every year from women suffering deeply after abortions, sometimes years after the abortion. Post-abortion trauma is a recognized medical condition. As abortion is often undergone to keep a pregnancy secret from husband, parents or others, there are strong reasons for denial that can worsen the effects of PAT. It is a consequence of women acting against their own instincts and brings a heavy price.
Forty two- years of prejudice in favour of abortion has led to a loss of respect for human life and an acceptance of a utilitarian approach as in the acceptance of embryo research, passive euthanasia and the arguments now being used in favour of physicians assisting death.
There is a growing counter movement among the public as developments like 4D images have caused discomfort over late-term abortion, but the majority of abortions are carried out during the first three months and there is less shift in public opinion on early abortion. However, the fact that junior doctors appear to be increasingly reluctant to be involved with abortion suggests that the message may be getting across to those who are directly caught up in the practice.
Abortion is part of the attitude the establishment is enforcing. If you rebel you are oppressed, labelled negatively or punished. BBC News 29/ 6/ 2007 reported that Sarah Scott a teenage mother was prohibited from wearing an anti-abortion T-shirt to school in Aberdeenshire. She was threatened with “exclusion” because a teacher found it offensive. Her views had been formed following the birth of her four-month-old son Jacob: "I was not just wearing the T-shirt for the shock factor ... it is wrong to kill a baby." “I feel I am the one being targeted because I am anti-abortionist. Yet other pupils' have T-shirts displaying the Playboy logo, which promotes pornography, were not threatened with exclusion.” The ploy that words cause offence is used when the authorities want to suppress dissent.
We must shun the liberal, Marxist and feminist views of abortion for a natural and socially Conservative one. We have a duty to our ancestors when we inherit what they left us to pass it on to our posterity and cannot do that if we are aborting our children; this requires taking responsibility for our community and its continuity through re-production.
Our children as yet unborn bear the rights and privileges endowed by their Britishness which derives from our ancestory. The other side of the indulgence we are encouraged to crave as consumers, is our inherited responsibility to preserve what we have and we can only do that as a people. We are not just an here and now people but a permanent people, one of the great civilisations of history and we ensure that when we individuals pass it lives on, without us, in our descendents. It is something great, something honourable, something noble, and we have a bounden duty to cherish it and hand it on to our own.
The elites think of civilisation and separate the British conceptually as if it is ours by accident and think all other ethnic groups should come and share it, but it is a lineal inheritance that is passed down by our forbears not a universal right for the whole world to share.
It is a moral duty of our young people to have as many babies as possible to save our people from becoming extinct or pushed out of their homes and communities by faster breeding immigrants. It is evil to let the elites leave our children to servitude under Muslim masters and they are safer in large numbers of their own.
Some interesting reading on our demographic decline.
(1) http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=201
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0312285485.asp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkEYoKC-kA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1519371/posts
(2)
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/1100....mum-from-abroad
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
The Terror Alliance
In my last article I stated that it is clear that the police are in league with Muslim extremists and that although we could disagree over their motives the intentions are clear. (1) It is clear from the following examples that they share the goal allowing Muslims to take over. I do not accept the standard explanation that the Caste is making mistakes or do not realise what they are doing. They might be frightened or decadent but they know what their actions are bringing about.
The traditional elites are actively promoting Islamification and the Socialist elites are in league with Muslim extremists. What holds these different elites together is their sharing the central ideas in the ideology and anti-racism is the main one. The trick is that by attacking “racists” or “ far-right extemists” it takes the public eye of the promotion or covering up for Muslim extremists. To put it bluntly they are creating a war for the ownership of our homeland and stealing our children’s inheritence. Remember as you read this that the security services and the media are allowing the development of Muslim extremism as well as terror cells by concentrating on “far-right extremists” and misleading the public into thinking there is as big a threat.(2)
The Daily Telegraph of August 10th revealed that the new security "strategy to tackle extremists is to focus on white racists.” This follows the police being ordered to go easy on Muslim terrorists. Scotland Yard warned last month that such groups could be planning a terrorist "spectacular" to stoke up racial tensions. This was a clear indication of the new tactics. Commander Shaun Sawyers, signalling the complicity of the security services with Muslim extremists and that they can carry on developing their terror structures because security services would focus on “Whites. When goes told Muslims that they are alright because we are equating "far-right extremists" with you to divert the public gaze while we allow you to continue developing terror structures.
The Met's counter-terrorism command has increased the number of officers in a special unit monitoring Right-wing extremists because of "the threat" as well as having members of al-Queda in the police. If you can not see partiality in that, gentle reader, I don’t know.
Shalid Malik said that aspects of the Government's approach to extremism have alienated some British Muslims.
The report, “Reassessing Prevent”, tries to shift the trror label to the BNP because of their election success in the European elections as well as 55 local councillors "underlines the fact that racial hatred and extremist ideology is not limited to any one faith or community". Comparing a defence of your people with terrorism shows the corrupt minds of these nonentities. Anna Turley, author of the report, said: "While Islamist extremism remains a very serious threat to our security, this kind of extremism is not the only threat to the stability and security of our communities." (3)
This is at the same time that the Telegraph warned of a European demographic time-bomb and just after Malik said that Muslims would take over. (4) This is why traitor Gordon Brown brought him back into Government despite his expenses scandal. Don’t forget Brown and Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in the first week of November 2008 to ask for billions for the International Monetary Fund and offered them some control over Britain and the West.
In The Eurabia Code Fjordman reveals: “...since 2006 is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam. ... in 2002 Louis Michel, then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe.
Fjordman says:” EU leaders consider their people to be defeated and irrelevant. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored. Open plans for a "Mediterranean Union" or "Union for the Mediterranean," which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, was launched in mid-2008, under some concern among Arabs that such a Union might normalize their relationship with Israel”
This came with plans for the creation of a "north-south co-presidency" and a permanent secretariat as well as the definition of a ''short-list'' of priority projects for the region. The European Commission proposes the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a Mediterranean (Muslim) country, chosen with consensus for a two-year term. Brussels is
drawing the institutional profile of what will be called "Barcelona Process — A Union for the Mediterranean."
Writing in an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, former Italian President Francesco Cossiga in 2008, admitted that the government of Italy in the 1970s agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks. The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a "secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups." According to the former president, it was Moro himself who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists. "The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were 'handled' by the secret services." As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that he learned PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. "The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country."
This can only be seen as Jizya, and the practice has spread to the entire European Union, which pays the Palestinians tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Euros annually.” (5)
Barclays Bank, has had almost £6 billion invested from Abu Dhabi and Qatar.
Islamist ideas are also spread through Islamic study centres attached to our universities. Professor Anthony Glees revealed eight universities — including Oxford and Cambridge — have accepted more than £233.5 million from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995, spreading radicalism and creating two separate identities and sets of allegiance. Now the education system is being used to brainwash our children to excuse and encourage Muslim terrorism.
The elites showed their submission to Saudi ignored the law and abandoned the bribery investigation into the arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems when the Saudis threatened that, if the case was not dropped: ‘British lives on British streets’ would be at risk” - former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. These are the controllers of terror groups in the West that EU officials are colluding with against the European people!
Muslim terrorists were welcomed into Britain and financed by state benefits. They needed to answer no questions and needed to show no papers and this began under Thatcher who herself lives safely in a gated community. They got free education, free health care even when they openly developed terrorist cells and trained bombers for active service in other parts of the world. These are boosted by a deceitful system called “Asylum.” Hardly any have any legal entitlement to enter this country but are allowed to stay and provided extra benefits we do not get like free cars, mobile phones and decorated houses. This is bribing them to come here. This was after the London bombing of 7/7. Can the authorities be innocent? Without this encouragement al-Queda could not have got into the West to launch bombing attacks like those in London and Madrid. It is truly ludicrous to think the authorities do not know what they are doing. The
Government also advertise in terrorist countries like Pakistan for immigrants to come here. In November 2006 a Foreign Office pamphlet adevertised: 'Multicultural Britain - A Land Of Immigrants'. It encourages immigrants to move here because of the Human Rights Act and well-paid jobs. The Foreign Office put it in our embassies across the world.
Behind the customary pretence of moral superiority is self-interst. Cherie Blaire is a human rights lawyer. No wonder immigration increased so much under Blair! In June 2004 it emerged that while Conservative leader Michael Howard was campaigning against asylum to win the General Election, he had investments in communications firm Incepta. A subsidiary company Citigate Lloyd Northover won two Home Office contracts to develop Websites and communications technology to speed up applications from immigrants to enter the UK. The company also profitted from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website for the Government which eases the entrance and settling of asylum seekers.
Remember, the newspapers trying to cover up Muslim involvement in the Birmingham Street battles and blame the BNP or “far-right extremists” as the security services want, look at the terrorist involvement in Birmingham that follows because I accuse these lying journalists of covering up Muslim terrorism.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories....15875-21586141/
Eight young Muslim terrorists from Birmingham, London and Luton on active service were arrested in Aden in December 1998, planning terror attacks against British targets. p 82-3 The security services then claimed they had no idea that Muslim street soldiers were being recruited in British mosques and trained in terror camps! Do we believe them?
Lord Bingham, speech to Commonwealth Law Conference. 14 Sept. 2005
Of these terrorists one was Abu Hamzas son, another a godson! The authorities still allowed him to preach war against us in Finsbury Park mosque.
As far back as 1999 it was reported that around 2,000 British Muslims being trained in British terror camps, mainly in London and Birmingham. As well as studying Holy war the trainees were also taught hand-to-hand combat, survival skills for guerilla warfare and advised to get real military training in warzones like the Yemen and Afghanistan which they do because Birmingham accents have been heard by RAF Nimrod. (5)
Why did security services not see it coming? There were signs.
In December 2001 Richard Reid a supporter of al-Queda tried to detonate a shoe-bomb on a Paris to Miami aeroplane.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1731568.stm
Activities of some BritishMuslims; In 2002, Ahmed Sheik, organised the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.
Then Mohammed Hanif and Omar Shariff were involved in a suicide bomb attack in Tel Aiv.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1804710.stm
Abu Qatada ran the Spanish, Milan and German al-Queda cells from London.
British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments such as Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American have protested against our elites allowing the Islamist terrorist infrastructure and refusing to extradite wanted operatives.
The Muslim community shelters extremists and illegal immigrants. The reason they are attacking us is because we and Jews are their enemies.
Palestinian mores glorifies suicide bombers as ' shahid ' or martyrs and terrorism is part of the Palestinian mentality and many British Muslims hero worship them. In Britain they are bombers because of Ideology not social conditions. The extremists are middle class, Muslims born and educated in Britain. This is an “enemy within”, that does not have to invade because it was imported by our elites who pour tax payers money into their communities, such as Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Keighley..
There is an alliance between Socialist-Totalitarians and Muslims. The Labour-Islam axis in Leeds used taxpayers' money to help finance the London suicide bombers. The Labour-run Council gave more than £125,000 to premises and projects used by the Edgware Road bomber to recruit and train his terror cell. The money was spent on building work and equipment at two Leeds properties used by the bombers, as well as on Al Qaeda away-days, including the whitewater-rafting trip used as the final 'bonding' activity for the bombers just before they planted the bombs. Edgware Road bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan received massive funding for four Leeds-based Muslim youth groups. He got £106,000 for the Leeds Community school, based in Beeston, where some of the bombs were made. The secrecy he needed for such activities was guaranteed by a council grant of £1,582 ”to improve security at the premises. Khan also raked in grants for the Iqra Learning Centre, a Muslim bookshop which distributed videos glorifying suicide bombers, and £16,000 for equipment for a Muslim boys only gym in the basement of a mosque in Hardy Street, Beeston, where he recruited two of the other 7/7 murderers, Shehzad Tanweer and Hassib Hussain. The gang went on away-day trips paid for by a £1,535 grant to the Youth Support Service to take Muslim youths on sporting activities and educational trips. It is not just a few extremists funded by taxpayers' money from Islamophile Labour councillors. At Shehzad Tanweer's memorial funeral in his home village in Pakistan, an estimated 10,000 mourners chanted Jihad, Jihad, Jihad and eulogised the suicide bomber.
How do the elites deal with Muslim professions of hatred for us? On 27 July 2005 BBC reporter Phil Mackie admitted on Radio 5 Brian Hayes 10 pm programme that the BBC censors the truth about Muslims and that the BBC is selective in its broadcasting of Muslim statements. The function of the media is to prepare the public for whatever measures the establishment plan to further the Muslim extremists interest as the examples of lies about the Battle of birmingham inthe Mirror show and by Sarah:Maid of Albion catching the mail lying. (6)
Anyone protesting peacefully, or opposing Islamification is labelled far right
(1) http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/08/battle-of-birmingham.html
(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....lice -warn.html
http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1745
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/06/far-right-terrorism-threat-police
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....e-stations.html
http://www.wikio.com/themes/Shaun+Sawyer
(3) http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/shahid-malik-mp/
http://www.nlgn.org.uk/public/nlgn-staff/anna-turley/
http://twitter.com/annaturley
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/new....m-fanatics.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew....co ntinent.html
(4) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1401
(5) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....re-accents.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi....t-enclaves.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZYXOm898Q
(6) http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/08/daily-mail-removes-truth.html
Li
The traditional elites are actively promoting Islamification and the Socialist elites are in league with Muslim extremists. What holds these different elites together is their sharing the central ideas in the ideology and anti-racism is the main one. The trick is that by attacking “racists” or “ far-right extemists” it takes the public eye of the promotion or covering up for Muslim extremists. To put it bluntly they are creating a war for the ownership of our homeland and stealing our children’s inheritence. Remember as you read this that the security services and the media are allowing the development of Muslim extremism as well as terror cells by concentrating on “far-right extremists” and misleading the public into thinking there is as big a threat.(2)
The Daily Telegraph of August 10th revealed that the new security "strategy to tackle extremists is to focus on white racists.” This follows the police being ordered to go easy on Muslim terrorists. Scotland Yard warned last month that such groups could be planning a terrorist "spectacular" to stoke up racial tensions. This was a clear indication of the new tactics. Commander Shaun Sawyers, signalling the complicity of the security services with Muslim extremists and that they can carry on developing their terror structures because security services would focus on “Whites. When goes told Muslims that they are alright because we are equating "far-right extremists" with you to divert the public gaze while we allow you to continue developing terror structures.
The Met's counter-terrorism command has increased the number of officers in a special unit monitoring Right-wing extremists because of "the threat" as well as having members of al-Queda in the police. If you can not see partiality in that, gentle reader, I don’t know.
Shalid Malik said that aspects of the Government's approach to extremism have alienated some British Muslims.
The report, “Reassessing Prevent”, tries to shift the trror label to the BNP because of their election success in the European elections as well as 55 local councillors "underlines the fact that racial hatred and extremist ideology is not limited to any one faith or community". Comparing a defence of your people with terrorism shows the corrupt minds of these nonentities. Anna Turley, author of the report, said: "While Islamist extremism remains a very serious threat to our security, this kind of extremism is not the only threat to the stability and security of our communities." (3)
This is at the same time that the Telegraph warned of a European demographic time-bomb and just after Malik said that Muslims would take over. (4) This is why traitor Gordon Brown brought him back into Government despite his expenses scandal. Don’t forget Brown and Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in the first week of November 2008 to ask for billions for the International Monetary Fund and offered them some control over Britain and the West.
In The Eurabia Code Fjordman reveals: “...since 2006 is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam. ... in 2002 Louis Michel, then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe.
Fjordman says:” EU leaders consider their people to be defeated and irrelevant. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored. Open plans for a "Mediterranean Union" or "Union for the Mediterranean," which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, was launched in mid-2008, under some concern among Arabs that such a Union might normalize their relationship with Israel”
This came with plans for the creation of a "north-south co-presidency" and a permanent secretariat as well as the definition of a ''short-list'' of priority projects for the region. The European Commission proposes the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a Mediterranean (Muslim) country, chosen with consensus for a two-year term. Brussels is
drawing the institutional profile of what will be called "Barcelona Process — A Union for the Mediterranean."
Writing in an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, former Italian President Francesco Cossiga in 2008, admitted that the government of Italy in the 1970s agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks. The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a "secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups." According to the former president, it was Moro himself who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists. "The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were 'handled' by the secret services." As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that he learned PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. "The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country."
This can only be seen as Jizya, and the practice has spread to the entire European Union, which pays the Palestinians tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Euros annually.” (5)
Barclays Bank, has had almost £6 billion invested from Abu Dhabi and Qatar.
Islamist ideas are also spread through Islamic study centres attached to our universities. Professor Anthony Glees revealed eight universities — including Oxford and Cambridge — have accepted more than £233.5 million from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995, spreading radicalism and creating two separate identities and sets of allegiance. Now the education system is being used to brainwash our children to excuse and encourage Muslim terrorism.
The elites showed their submission to Saudi ignored the law and abandoned the bribery investigation into the arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems when the Saudis threatened that, if the case was not dropped: ‘British lives on British streets’ would be at risk” - former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. These are the controllers of terror groups in the West that EU officials are colluding with against the European people!
Muslim terrorists were welcomed into Britain and financed by state benefits. They needed to answer no questions and needed to show no papers and this began under Thatcher who herself lives safely in a gated community. They got free education, free health care even when they openly developed terrorist cells and trained bombers for active service in other parts of the world. These are boosted by a deceitful system called “Asylum.” Hardly any have any legal entitlement to enter this country but are allowed to stay and provided extra benefits we do not get like free cars, mobile phones and decorated houses. This is bribing them to come here. This was after the London bombing of 7/7. Can the authorities be innocent? Without this encouragement al-Queda could not have got into the West to launch bombing attacks like those in London and Madrid. It is truly ludicrous to think the authorities do not know what they are doing. The
Government also advertise in terrorist countries like Pakistan for immigrants to come here. In November 2006 a Foreign Office pamphlet adevertised: 'Multicultural Britain - A Land Of Immigrants'. It encourages immigrants to move here because of the Human Rights Act and well-paid jobs. The Foreign Office put it in our embassies across the world.
Behind the customary pretence of moral superiority is self-interst. Cherie Blaire is a human rights lawyer. No wonder immigration increased so much under Blair! In June 2004 it emerged that while Conservative leader Michael Howard was campaigning against asylum to win the General Election, he had investments in communications firm Incepta. A subsidiary company Citigate Lloyd Northover won two Home Office contracts to develop Websites and communications technology to speed up applications from immigrants to enter the UK. The company also profitted from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website for the Government which eases the entrance and settling of asylum seekers.
Remember, the newspapers trying to cover up Muslim involvement in the Birmingham Street battles and blame the BNP or “far-right extremists” as the security services want, look at the terrorist involvement in Birmingham that follows because I accuse these lying journalists of covering up Muslim terrorism.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories....15875-21586141/
Eight young Muslim terrorists from Birmingham, London and Luton on active service were arrested in Aden in December 1998, planning terror attacks against British targets. p 82-3 The security services then claimed they had no idea that Muslim street soldiers were being recruited in British mosques and trained in terror camps! Do we believe them?
Lord Bingham, speech to Commonwealth Law Conference. 14 Sept. 2005
Of these terrorists one was Abu Hamzas son, another a godson! The authorities still allowed him to preach war against us in Finsbury Park mosque.
As far back as 1999 it was reported that around 2,000 British Muslims being trained in British terror camps, mainly in London and Birmingham. As well as studying Holy war the trainees were also taught hand-to-hand combat, survival skills for guerilla warfare and advised to get real military training in warzones like the Yemen and Afghanistan which they do because Birmingham accents have been heard by RAF Nimrod. (5)
Why did security services not see it coming? There were signs.
In December 2001 Richard Reid a supporter of al-Queda tried to detonate a shoe-bomb on a Paris to Miami aeroplane.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1731568.stm
Activities of some BritishMuslims; In 2002, Ahmed Sheik, organised the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.
Then Mohammed Hanif and Omar Shariff were involved in a suicide bomb attack in Tel Aiv.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1804710.stm
Abu Qatada ran the Spanish, Milan and German al-Queda cells from London.
British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments such as Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American have protested against our elites allowing the Islamist terrorist infrastructure and refusing to extradite wanted operatives.
The Muslim community shelters extremists and illegal immigrants. The reason they are attacking us is because we and Jews are their enemies.
Palestinian mores glorifies suicide bombers as ' shahid ' or martyrs and terrorism is part of the Palestinian mentality and many British Muslims hero worship them. In Britain they are bombers because of Ideology not social conditions. The extremists are middle class, Muslims born and educated in Britain. This is an “enemy within”, that does not have to invade because it was imported by our elites who pour tax payers money into their communities, such as Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Keighley..
There is an alliance between Socialist-Totalitarians and Muslims. The Labour-Islam axis in Leeds used taxpayers' money to help finance the London suicide bombers. The Labour-run Council gave more than £125,000 to premises and projects used by the Edgware Road bomber to recruit and train his terror cell. The money was spent on building work and equipment at two Leeds properties used by the bombers, as well as on Al Qaeda away-days, including the whitewater-rafting trip used as the final 'bonding' activity for the bombers just before they planted the bombs. Edgware Road bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan received massive funding for four Leeds-based Muslim youth groups. He got £106,000 for the Leeds Community school, based in Beeston, where some of the bombs were made. The secrecy he needed for such activities was guaranteed by a council grant of £1,582 ”to improve security at the premises. Khan also raked in grants for the Iqra Learning Centre, a Muslim bookshop which distributed videos glorifying suicide bombers, and £16,000 for equipment for a Muslim boys only gym in the basement of a mosque in Hardy Street, Beeston, where he recruited two of the other 7/7 murderers, Shehzad Tanweer and Hassib Hussain. The gang went on away-day trips paid for by a £1,535 grant to the Youth Support Service to take Muslim youths on sporting activities and educational trips. It is not just a few extremists funded by taxpayers' money from Islamophile Labour councillors. At Shehzad Tanweer's memorial funeral in his home village in Pakistan, an estimated 10,000 mourners chanted Jihad, Jihad, Jihad and eulogised the suicide bomber.
How do the elites deal with Muslim professions of hatred for us? On 27 July 2005 BBC reporter Phil Mackie admitted on Radio 5 Brian Hayes 10 pm programme that the BBC censors the truth about Muslims and that the BBC is selective in its broadcasting of Muslim statements. The function of the media is to prepare the public for whatever measures the establishment plan to further the Muslim extremists interest as the examples of lies about the Battle of birmingham inthe Mirror show and by Sarah:Maid of Albion catching the mail lying. (6)
Anyone protesting peacefully, or opposing Islamification is labelled far right
(1) http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/08/battle-of-birmingham.html
(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....lice -warn.html
http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1745
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/06/far-right-terrorism-threat-police
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....e-stations.html
http://www.wikio.com/themes/Shaun+Sawyer
(3) http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/shahid-malik-mp/
http://www.nlgn.org.uk/public/nlgn-staff/anna-turley/
http://twitter.com/annaturley
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/new....m-fanatics.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew....co ntinent.html
(4) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1401
(5) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....re-accents.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi....t-enclaves.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZYXOm898Q
(6) http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/08/daily-mail-removes-truth.html
Li
The Battle of Birmingham
During the Battle of Birmingham of 8th August 2009, the police had the English Defence League cordoned off by the Town Hall end of New Street and would let no one out of the circle nor anyone in. The Muslim rioting against the police was at the other end of New Street by the Bull Ring.
A large shout went up and onlookers ran from where the EDL was down to New Street where gangs of young Muslims were pelting the police and the police were charging them. The main Muslim attacks were against police and were outside the Bull Ring at the top of New street.
Some young white men had young children with them and were returning from the Aston Villa, match and were furious because their young sons had been terrified by the violent behaviour of the Muslim soldiers. They warned onlookers not to go down New Street as Muslims were attacking whites indiscriminately.
It was young whites who were being attacked even those not involved in the rioting.
At the Bull Ring end of New Street the police repeatedly re-grouped and charged the Muslims
who ran while others shouted "Stand your ground, stand your ground."
There were rumours spread around by the UAF that the "BNP had set fire to a mosque" which was enraging people. This is what evil Peter Hain has been calling for even though the BNP were not there, many Muslims had been told they were.
All the while a police helicopter circled overhead. The pubs and hotels in the area were closed and customers ushered out for their protection. To be fair it was a difficult situation for the police but their senior officers bring this on them by capitulating to Muslims like female officers wearing Burkas and signalling that the police are on their side and identify with them.
This was re-inforced by police stopping white protesters getting into the City and thus supporting the Muslims. our worthless politicians are letting up to 500 Muslims into the country every day to augment these people.
The UAF played it's part in stirring things up. The MCB's preachers of hate address UAF conferences and even Nu Labour have had to sever ties with the MCB due to their anti-Semitic views. We know Hain condones violence but does Cameron?
The UAF use holocaust victims as anti-racist propaganda, yet align with the holocaust denying MCB against us! Before the protest a group called “Socialist Resistance” were collecting signatures to “Boycott Israel.”
The anti-white genocidal race war has begun but The Lion has awoken. But the Lion has both the Establishment and Muslims extremists against it.
The news that MI5 has been infiltrated by Muslim terrorists should come as no surprise. MI5 is responsible for protecting Britain against national security threats yet may have recruited up to six al-Qaeda sympathisers. Six Muslim recruits were expelled including two who had been to training camps in Pakistan. others had unexplained gaps of up to three months unexplained.
Mercer has written to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who is encouraging more immigration, calling for an investigation. Two of the men had several weeks training while the other four were identified before they entered training. They are openly giving priority to recruiting Muslims.
In fact the police force admitted they can not or do not want to expel 8 al-Queda agents! Don’t forget that MI5 did not know the 9/11 bombings of London was planned. Further, the bombers were financed by Leeds councillors. (2)
London is the world centre for Muslim terrorism and this is being encouraged by the police and security services. We can disagree over the motives of our elites but not their intentions: they are encouraging Muslims to take over our country. There have been stories of young Muslims having terrorist training in remote areas in this country? Have MI5 noticed or do they deliberately allow it? (3)
Throughout the 1980s and 90s our Keystone Cops and security services allowed Muslim terror groups financed by Saudi money to develop and to produce literature fostered the hatred of Britain and the Jewish communities.
Their banks financed terrorist and anti-Western groups with the authorities allowing it. They even gave safe haven to terrorists wanted in other countries and allowed them to preach violence against us in the streets and arrested Brits who objected. The police protected the terrorists many of whom went on to mount terrorist attacks in other countries like Israel and America.
Abu Hamza, who was a significant figure in global terrorism, was allowed to incite murder and hatred of us and Jews; also, the police and MI5 allowed him to gather a massive stock of weapons for fighting us on our streets and recruit for terror cells.
Three of the London Bombers were influenced by him. To be fair the police did try to prosecute him twice but the CPS stopped it. Who in the CPS stopped it?
It was only when the Americans wanted him extradited did the authorities act as if to prevent him being sent to Guatanamo Bay in 2004. Then, Washington named Abu Hamza as a "terrorist facilitator with a global reach" and he was arrested pending extradition. Five months later, he was charged with 15 UK offences associated with his sermons and information contained in the Encyclopaedia of Afghan Jihad.
Sir David Calvert-Smith was head of the CPS from 1988 till 3rd November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales deal with racism within their ranks. The inquiry reported in March 2005.
At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.” There is his prejudice laid bare. Racism is a buzz word for oppressing us so this evil man was turning the police ahgainst us and by use of the same word, protecting
Muslims. He also said: "willingness to change at the top is not translating into action lower down, particularly in middle-management where you find the ice in the heart of the Police Service.” (4)
The Belgium government banned Vlaams Blok in November 2004. Now the Equality minister Harriet Harman is trying to disintegrate the BNP with her new equality Bill which will also give ethnic groups like Muslims legal privileges in employment over white men. The BNP’s “apartheid” constitution will be outlawed under legislation before parliament, according to Commons leader totalitarian Harriet Harman.
Harman said she was “shocked and horrified” by the election of BNP leader Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to the European Parliament last week. She said there was “no place” in Britain for having a political party that only accepted white people as members and that the Equality Bill would prevent this. They do accept Jewish people so her interpretation is false. This nothing to do with equality but is totalitarian Harman’s political attempt to destroy rival elites.
She is a hypocrite and a liar and this is not the first time she has been found to be liar. She was found out in her dispute with fathers-4-justice (4) Is it ironic that a woman of Jewish ancestry should bring in a law so close to Hitler’s Nuremberg Race Laws? It is people like this that cause anti-Semitism. (5)
A spokeswoman for the Government agency of Inquisition the Equalities Office said: “The Equality Bill would give individuals a right to take legal action against the BNP, in respect of it excluding anyone from membership on grounds of race.” Then why exclude white men from employment on grounds of our race? These people are corrupt, evil, liars.
Hamza had been found to be linked to terrorism abroad 7 years before but was not prosecuted. The police for years covered up he widespread Muslim child-rape of young white girls. What else do they allow to go on?
This is part of a general trend and there are many precedents.
Ostensibly out rulers pose as morally superior. If any point out that their lives are being ruined they are silenced by being called “racists.” They begun on a course which becomes more frightening by the day and the corresponding pressure to avoid facing reality so much greater.
The crucible was the opening of the camps in eastern Europe and the consequent fear of self-assertion that griped the rulers. MacMillan and Operation Keelhaul.
They rationalise this as progress, as having risen above primitive emotions and established a tradition of tolerance which is to make us weak so the invaders can take everything off us.
They treat immigrants like pets and if they do something right praise them up and if they do something wrong, according to severity, either make-up excuses for them or keep the incident quiet. Even when they try to stand firm they capitulate like Phil Woolas did to actress Joanna Lumley.
They are not of the stamp of previous political leaders. Can you imagine Lord Palmerston being browbeaten by an old lady? Lord Kitchener campaigning for Muslims to join the army? T
hey are weak, petty-minded people and not the firm, manly types of yore.
The stronger people now go into big business or finance. Government is no longer the top-ranking aspiration for young people. It is a tawdry business, top-flight financiers measure their corruption in millions not claiming for bath plugs on their expenses.
There is a big moral mistake over immigration: it is a big, vast lie. It attracts people who will go along with it, petty, dishonest people who are prepared to go along with the lie for personal gain.
This ideology is their tool and they know the right things to say by heart and never question it or if a dark thought obtrudes, repress it immediately. They become proficient at debating and are usually trained in law or another of the talking professions.
We are told what we know is wrong is the right way. It runs counter to people’s instincts and they become uncomfortable and this undermines them. Because they no longer feel sure of themselves they can not discipline their children who are getting out of hand.
People feel powerless as they are led by people who are on the wrong track. They were inspired by Enoch and even dockers and Smithfield porters marched in support of him, a Tory! Then he was sacked by lesser man(?) Heath and vilified in the media which further confused the public.
This takes their confidence and feeling worthy away from them by dishonest rulers who are deceiving us.people instinctively know immigration is wrong but are told it’s a blessing!
They try to suppress our natural reactions because they fear losing control of us. The prosecution of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett began a mere 5 months after the Muslim bombing of London!
They are frightened of us reacting and depend on our acquiscence. This a reason why they can not debate this with us - they are frightened of activating the British people and abuse and slander helps them void the issue.
The Home office is at the forefront of this move to allow Muslims to take over. (6)
Like Rome we have been conquered, but not by outside forces, but our own elected representatives like evil Harman who lives in Herne Hill, London. This is not a question of our racism as the “caste” slander us but by treason at the very top of the state.
The Romans became decadent after success like us and gave up defending themselves - they began to take it easy and wanted others to defend them.
Meanwhile, the barbarians outside wanted the benefits of their civilisation and were also being pressed from tribes in the east. This is comparable to our situation now except that our rulers have deliberately softened us up to have out homes and communities taken off us and encourage the barbarians here and give them better treatment than we get.
Valens allowed the barbarians in, similar to our rulers who support the invading forces against us.
The rulers make moral statements “All races are equal” they have no sense of time or the continuity of a people and there civilisation and this is reflected in the way the teaching of modern history has changed.
They did not use to teach recent events for a couple of generations but now they teach them immediately if they fit into the ruling ideology. Now it’s the Second war to serve up Nazism as the evil alternative to the multi-racial orthodoxy and HenryVIII as an example of tyranny! This is propaganda.
The rulers have no sense of a future. You see this even in the North Sea oil which is squandered , but the Norwegians id not waste theirs. The Chinese and Indians are buying our companies and when they get the knowledge won’t want us but will take over industrially.
They have indoctrinated us for years to be tolerant which means passive and malleable!
The whole business of opening your country up is more than error of judgement - its morally wicked. The general population suffer because of it but the top don’t care and preen themselves because it shows how tolerant they are but the are not in it, but most people feel as though something has been done to them.
If they comment on the change of their town they are cruelly put down as “racists.” People instinctively feel that this wrong.
The rulers assume that strangers are automatically our friends but this not so. They might wan to pay us back for the past or with strength in numbers take over.
(2141) http://1kewldude2.blogspot.com/2009/07/anger-tower-hamlets-london.html
http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/07/31/ga....n-mass-wedding/
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/08/so-what-turns-you-on.html
http://davidmartin-hamilton.blogspot.com/2009/05/child-rape-spoils-of-war.html
(1)
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/
(2) http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&q=green+arrow+forum+The+Defensive+Alliance+against+the+Axis+of+Hatred&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en-GBGB333GB333&ie =UTF-8&aq=t&oq=green+arrow+forum+The+Defensive+Alliance+against+the+Axis+of+Hatred
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....-sack-them.html
(3)http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/dec/04/guardianobituaries.martinwainwright
(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/05/immigrationpolicy.ukcrime
http://www.answers.com/topic/david-calvert-smith
http://www.achilles.org/ftp/annual/2002-1.pdf
Margaret Hodge’s husband
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/tribunals/vol8_issue1/mf_03.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....P-comments.html
(5) http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest....-the-bnps-trap/
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman
(7) http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/1131....sts-police-told
A large shout went up and onlookers ran from where the EDL was down to New Street where gangs of young Muslims were pelting the police and the police were charging them. The main Muslim attacks were against police and were outside the Bull Ring at the top of New street.
Some young white men had young children with them and were returning from the Aston Villa, match and were furious because their young sons had been terrified by the violent behaviour of the Muslim soldiers. They warned onlookers not to go down New Street as Muslims were attacking whites indiscriminately.
It was young whites who were being attacked even those not involved in the rioting.
At the Bull Ring end of New Street the police repeatedly re-grouped and charged the Muslims
who ran while others shouted "Stand your ground, stand your ground."
There were rumours spread around by the UAF that the "BNP had set fire to a mosque" which was enraging people. This is what evil Peter Hain has been calling for even though the BNP were not there, many Muslims had been told they were.
All the while a police helicopter circled overhead. The pubs and hotels in the area were closed and customers ushered out for their protection. To be fair it was a difficult situation for the police but their senior officers bring this on them by capitulating to Muslims like female officers wearing Burkas and signalling that the police are on their side and identify with them.
This was re-inforced by police stopping white protesters getting into the City and thus supporting the Muslims. our worthless politicians are letting up to 500 Muslims into the country every day to augment these people.
The UAF played it's part in stirring things up. The MCB's preachers of hate address UAF conferences and even Nu Labour have had to sever ties with the MCB due to their anti-Semitic views. We know Hain condones violence but does Cameron?
The UAF use holocaust victims as anti-racist propaganda, yet align with the holocaust denying MCB against us! Before the protest a group called “Socialist Resistance” were collecting signatures to “Boycott Israel.”
The anti-white genocidal race war has begun but The Lion has awoken. But the Lion has both the Establishment and Muslims extremists against it.
The news that MI5 has been infiltrated by Muslim terrorists should come as no surprise. MI5 is responsible for protecting Britain against national security threats yet may have recruited up to six al-Qaeda sympathisers. Six Muslim recruits were expelled including two who had been to training camps in Pakistan. others had unexplained gaps of up to three months unexplained.
Mercer has written to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who is encouraging more immigration, calling for an investigation. Two of the men had several weeks training while the other four were identified before they entered training. They are openly giving priority to recruiting Muslims.
In fact the police force admitted they can not or do not want to expel 8 al-Queda agents! Don’t forget that MI5 did not know the 9/11 bombings of London was planned. Further, the bombers were financed by Leeds councillors. (2)
London is the world centre for Muslim terrorism and this is being encouraged by the police and security services. We can disagree over the motives of our elites but not their intentions: they are encouraging Muslims to take over our country. There have been stories of young Muslims having terrorist training in remote areas in this country? Have MI5 noticed or do they deliberately allow it? (3)
Throughout the 1980s and 90s our Keystone Cops and security services allowed Muslim terror groups financed by Saudi money to develop and to produce literature fostered the hatred of Britain and the Jewish communities.
Their banks financed terrorist and anti-Western groups with the authorities allowing it. They even gave safe haven to terrorists wanted in other countries and allowed them to preach violence against us in the streets and arrested Brits who objected. The police protected the terrorists many of whom went on to mount terrorist attacks in other countries like Israel and America.
Abu Hamza, who was a significant figure in global terrorism, was allowed to incite murder and hatred of us and Jews; also, the police and MI5 allowed him to gather a massive stock of weapons for fighting us on our streets and recruit for terror cells.
Three of the London Bombers were influenced by him. To be fair the police did try to prosecute him twice but the CPS stopped it. Who in the CPS stopped it?
It was only when the Americans wanted him extradited did the authorities act as if to prevent him being sent to Guatanamo Bay in 2004. Then, Washington named Abu Hamza as a "terrorist facilitator with a global reach" and he was arrested pending extradition. Five months later, he was charged with 15 UK offences associated with his sermons and information contained in the Encyclopaedia of Afghan Jihad.
Sir David Calvert-Smith was head of the CPS from 1988 till 3rd November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales deal with racism within their ranks. The inquiry reported in March 2005.
At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.” There is his prejudice laid bare. Racism is a buzz word for oppressing us so this evil man was turning the police ahgainst us and by use of the same word, protecting
Muslims. He also said: "willingness to change at the top is not translating into action lower down, particularly in middle-management where you find the ice in the heart of the Police Service.” (4)
The Belgium government banned Vlaams Blok in November 2004. Now the Equality minister Harriet Harman is trying to disintegrate the BNP with her new equality Bill which will also give ethnic groups like Muslims legal privileges in employment over white men. The BNP’s “apartheid” constitution will be outlawed under legislation before parliament, according to Commons leader totalitarian Harriet Harman.
Harman said she was “shocked and horrified” by the election of BNP leader Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to the European Parliament last week. She said there was “no place” in Britain for having a political party that only accepted white people as members and that the Equality Bill would prevent this. They do accept Jewish people so her interpretation is false. This nothing to do with equality but is totalitarian Harman’s political attempt to destroy rival elites.
She is a hypocrite and a liar and this is not the first time she has been found to be liar. She was found out in her dispute with fathers-4-justice (4) Is it ironic that a woman of Jewish ancestry should bring in a law so close to Hitler’s Nuremberg Race Laws? It is people like this that cause anti-Semitism. (5)
A spokeswoman for the Government agency of Inquisition the Equalities Office said: “The Equality Bill would give individuals a right to take legal action against the BNP, in respect of it excluding anyone from membership on grounds of race.” Then why exclude white men from employment on grounds of our race? These people are corrupt, evil, liars.
Hamza had been found to be linked to terrorism abroad 7 years before but was not prosecuted. The police for years covered up he widespread Muslim child-rape of young white girls. What else do they allow to go on?
This is part of a general trend and there are many precedents.
Ostensibly out rulers pose as morally superior. If any point out that their lives are being ruined they are silenced by being called “racists.” They begun on a course which becomes more frightening by the day and the corresponding pressure to avoid facing reality so much greater.
The crucible was the opening of the camps in eastern Europe and the consequent fear of self-assertion that griped the rulers. MacMillan and Operation Keelhaul.
They rationalise this as progress, as having risen above primitive emotions and established a tradition of tolerance which is to make us weak so the invaders can take everything off us.
They treat immigrants like pets and if they do something right praise them up and if they do something wrong, according to severity, either make-up excuses for them or keep the incident quiet. Even when they try to stand firm they capitulate like Phil Woolas did to actress Joanna Lumley.
They are not of the stamp of previous political leaders. Can you imagine Lord Palmerston being browbeaten by an old lady? Lord Kitchener campaigning for Muslims to join the army? T
hey are weak, petty-minded people and not the firm, manly types of yore.
The stronger people now go into big business or finance. Government is no longer the top-ranking aspiration for young people. It is a tawdry business, top-flight financiers measure their corruption in millions not claiming for bath plugs on their expenses.
There is a big moral mistake over immigration: it is a big, vast lie. It attracts people who will go along with it, petty, dishonest people who are prepared to go along with the lie for personal gain.
This ideology is their tool and they know the right things to say by heart and never question it or if a dark thought obtrudes, repress it immediately. They become proficient at debating and are usually trained in law or another of the talking professions.
We are told what we know is wrong is the right way. It runs counter to people’s instincts and they become uncomfortable and this undermines them. Because they no longer feel sure of themselves they can not discipline their children who are getting out of hand.
People feel powerless as they are led by people who are on the wrong track. They were inspired by Enoch and even dockers and Smithfield porters marched in support of him, a Tory! Then he was sacked by lesser man(?) Heath and vilified in the media which further confused the public.
This takes their confidence and feeling worthy away from them by dishonest rulers who are deceiving us.people instinctively know immigration is wrong but are told it’s a blessing!
They try to suppress our natural reactions because they fear losing control of us. The prosecution of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett began a mere 5 months after the Muslim bombing of London!
They are frightened of us reacting and depend on our acquiscence. This a reason why they can not debate this with us - they are frightened of activating the British people and abuse and slander helps them void the issue.
The Home office is at the forefront of this move to allow Muslims to take over. (6)
Like Rome we have been conquered, but not by outside forces, but our own elected representatives like evil Harman who lives in Herne Hill, London. This is not a question of our racism as the “caste” slander us but by treason at the very top of the state.
The Romans became decadent after success like us and gave up defending themselves - they began to take it easy and wanted others to defend them.
Meanwhile, the barbarians outside wanted the benefits of their civilisation and were also being pressed from tribes in the east. This is comparable to our situation now except that our rulers have deliberately softened us up to have out homes and communities taken off us and encourage the barbarians here and give them better treatment than we get.
Valens allowed the barbarians in, similar to our rulers who support the invading forces against us.
The rulers make moral statements “All races are equal” they have no sense of time or the continuity of a people and there civilisation and this is reflected in the way the teaching of modern history has changed.
They did not use to teach recent events for a couple of generations but now they teach them immediately if they fit into the ruling ideology. Now it’s the Second war to serve up Nazism as the evil alternative to the multi-racial orthodoxy and HenryVIII as an example of tyranny! This is propaganda.
The rulers have no sense of a future. You see this even in the North Sea oil which is squandered , but the Norwegians id not waste theirs. The Chinese and Indians are buying our companies and when they get the knowledge won’t want us but will take over industrially.
They have indoctrinated us for years to be tolerant which means passive and malleable!
The whole business of opening your country up is more than error of judgement - its morally wicked. The general population suffer because of it but the top don’t care and preen themselves because it shows how tolerant they are but the are not in it, but most people feel as though something has been done to them.
If they comment on the change of their town they are cruelly put down as “racists.” People instinctively feel that this wrong.
The rulers assume that strangers are automatically our friends but this not so. They might wan to pay us back for the past or with strength in numbers take over.
(2141) http://1kewldude2.blogspot.com/2009/07/anger-tower-hamlets-london.html
http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/07/31/ga....n-mass-wedding/
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/08/so-what-turns-you-on.html
http://davidmartin-hamilton.blogspot.com/2009/05/child-rape-spoils-of-war.html
(1)
http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/
(2) http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&q=green+arrow+forum+The+Defensive+Alliance+against+the+Axis+of+Hatred&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en-GBGB333GB333&ie =UTF-8&aq=t&oq=green+arrow+forum+The+Defensive+Alliance+against+the+Axis+of+Hatred
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....-sack-them.html
(3)http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1190000/1190971.stm
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/dec/04/guardianobituaries.martinwainwright
(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/05/immigrationpolicy.ukcrime
http://www.answers.com/topic/david-calvert-smith
http://www.achilles.org/ftp/annual/2002-1.pdf
Margaret Hodge’s husband
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/tribunals/vol8_issue1/mf_03.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....P-comments.html
(5) http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest....-the-bnps-trap/
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman
(7) http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/1131....sts-police-told
Friday, 14 August 2009
Ideological Judges - Replacing our Culture with Islam
The contribution of the British judiciary to the attack on our people and way of life has two main prongs: destroying our nation through undermining our culture and promoting Muslim extremists to challenge our possession of our homeland. Here are some of the judgements that have made the law an instrument in the war against our culture, traditions and mores.
Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference, of all things, that she supported gay adoption, the legal recognition gay partnerships, enhanced legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit, and the removal of fault from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows that there will be no impartiality if this aspect of “the Culture Wars” comes about. She has said beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values and will take sides in any case.
Lord Judge’s predecessor, Lord Bingham, expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities. It is, he said:
“intrinsically counter-majoritarian ... [it] should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.”
Well, I don’t know about that, but he was admitting that he is a radical who is against us. For him, we the majority are always wrong but the minorities never are.
In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family judge. Lord Bingham, in answering a question, responded that the law needed to “keep in touch with changing social attitudes.” In one case heard in his court Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family. His opinion that “family” need mean neither marriage nor blood relationship shows beyond any doubt that the judiciary is seeking to reform families for the New Utopia.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against local planning law must be allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are required to obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This ruling was later overturned but the signal that other ethnic groups had legal prejudice over indigenous Britons had gone out.
Human rights law is the political judiciary’s principal weapon of attack on us. The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the propostrous idea that a transexual can retrospectively say that gender at birth was what he or she now claimed it was and agreed by a panel of experts. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born. Therefore their birth certificate is now deemed a lie!
A very important test case brought by 16 year-old Shabina Begun was decided in March 2005 when the Court of Appeal ruled that the school had denied her the right to manifest her religion in public under the Human Rights Convention. The school had refused to allow her to attend in a full-length jibab but wanted her to wear school uniform which included shalwar kameez and an approved headscarf. The headmistress explained that allowing this would expose other Muslim girls to recruitment by fundamentalists. This was obviously a political wheeze to get more Muslim culture accepted. In court, the defence was that the school only banned it to counter “vilification of Muslims after 9/11”. Even though Miss Begum was supported by Hizb ut-Tahir, a group campaigning for Sharia Law here, the Court took her side. The judgement was later overturned by the Law Lords in March 2006. The Law Lords took the view that a person’s right to hold a particular religious belief was absolute, but that a person’s right to manifest a particular religious belief was qualified. Three of the five Law Lords held that Begum’s rights had not been interfered with (Lord Bingham, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Hoffmann), and two held that they had (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Baroness Hale of Richmond). All five agreed, however, that in this particular case there were justifiable grounds for interference, one of the grounds being to protect the rights of other female students at the school who would not wish to be pressured into adopting a more extreme form of dress.
But the proceedings had already hinted to Muslims that our way of life is open to Islamification: Miss Begum was represented in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords by Cherie Blair (Booth) QC wife of the former prime minister.
Why the bias? Why, for example, are many judges campaigning for the introduction of Sharia Law.
In December 2008 the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council that he was willing to see Sharia Law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments. He also suggested sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements. In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England’s first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a sharia divorce. This would extend to Muslims the rights created for Jews under the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002, to prevent obstructive husbands withholding divorces from their wives. Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights.
In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council, reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But:
“The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.” (1)
Saudi Arabia has a legal system that uses savage penalties. Thieves get their hands chopped off! 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”, unrepresentative of any version of Islam? In our own country we saw what they really think when they burnt Salman Rushdie’s books.
Its noteworthy that Judge Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009) is being investigated for making political comments:
Judge Ian Trigger, a High Court judge, could be sacked after the Lord Chief Justice personally ordered an investigation into his attack on Britain’s immigration system. He remarked that “hundreds and hundreds of thousands” of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to two years in jail last week. He said the system was “completely lax” and a drain on public finances.
Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, referred the comments to the Office of Judicial Complaints to rule on whether it was too political. The OJC will now investigate the comments to determine whether he has overstepped the mark by making political comments.
Judge Trigger’s comments were clearly a political statement, but most judges now make political decisions if not political statements. This is what I mean when I call the Establishment an ideological caste. It is all the elites who are united by central ideas like anti-racism, Internationalism and certain abstract beliefs like social justice and progress towards a utopia where what they regard as primitive things like prejudice, discrimination and oppression are transcended. To speak against them means you have to publicly apologise like in the Soviet Union, or your career suffers. Even Prince Harry was subjected to thought training for offending against the ideology. Leading professor James Watson was sacked, and Jade Goody was publicly excoriated by media show trials. This type of thought correction training originated after the Second World War in the American programme for re-educating Germans headed by Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School. (2)
The judiciary began to move into overt political activity in the 1980s because Mrs.Thatcher attacked the cosy Social Democracy and introduced vulgar greed with vulgar people from working-class backgrounds making “loads of money”. In the nineties the European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and, even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU, abetted political union in Europe and a move to One World Government. They judiciary acted ideologically and challenged government on many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab, who shared the ideology, came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.
In the sixties Liberalism had changed from individual rights to group rights, and from this we the people became the objects of liberal prejudice. But because of a distorted version of our past (slavery, racism etc) we were seen as deserving it. This is what is commonly known as Cultural Marxism, but it is more appropriate to call it Cultural Nazism. The ruling Ideological Caste changed form bossing other races around to giving them preference over us and became prejudiced in their vour wjle we became the object of their prejudice and discrimination: the groups Hitler had disliked became privileged and treated as superior.
The sustained and deliberate deculturation of indigenous people makes possible the promotion of the views and beliefs of minority groups. For example, Democracy became power-sharing between the priviliged groups instead of majority rule among citizens. Christianity was replaced by multiculturalism. Our natural anger and will to resists was managed bythe imposition of guilt for imaginary evils in our history. We were rendered passive so as to accept to be tolerant and non-judgmental of ther “lifestyle choices”. Our traditions like monogamy, heterosexuality, Christianity and British identity became taboo, and were demonised as inherently prejudicial and discriminative towards minorities.
Human rights prohibit torture or degrading treatment. So the removal of illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to where that judges belief torture might be practiced is also prohibited. But the British courts applied the law more strictly than other European Courts. Their interpretation of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees was more “tolerant” than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. This meant we gave asylum to countless people even when they were a danger to the state - as long as they said they were in danger in their destinations! Even more foolish decisions were made under human rights law, like the ruling that stopping welfare payments to asylum seekers denied their rights to a family life. The judges have used this legislation on many occasions to grant rights to people refused asylum and who then disappear into the ethnic communities. As they could not be sent back to their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger.
To interpret the prohibition of torture to protect people who are a threat to the state is political activity. Arguing that if sending them back to a country that practices torture is like practicing torture yourself is an excuse for destroying our communitiesl. There has even been a case of a Taliban soldier who had fought our troops yet was granted asylum because he feared persecution.
That the judges have breached our security was illustrated by Home Office figures in December 2005 revealing that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since 9/11 were asylum seekers. Two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities. Algerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992. In 1995 the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen. After various failed attempts he lived in North London posting videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encouraging Muslims to join the Jihad.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article715558.ece
International law is not based in national habits and conventions or even democratic jurisdictions but is current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials.
If any judge has done his utmost to destroy our country it is notorious Judge Collins.(3) Judges can pick the cases they sit on. Collins takes asylum types and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers (which usually means Muslims). The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why he hates this country?
The key sentence in the limked article is:
”The Daily Express caught up with the judge’s wife, an ex-barrister, outside their “large detached home in leafy Dulwich, South London”. “It’s outrageous to say he’s not in touch with the real world,” she exclaimed. “He goes shopping in Sainsbury’s, for goodness’ sake."” (4)
It is not that he or the other judges are out of touch but that they are prejudiced against white British people and in favour of other races.
(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173779/EU-judges-want-Sharia-law-applied-British-courts.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197478/Sharia-law-UK--How-Islam-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html
(2) See Paul Gottfried. The Strange Death of Marxism.
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=297
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1603/article_1403.shtml
(3) http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/BriefingPaper/document/61
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/pdfs/8_2_Immigration_Appeals_System_Vers3.pdf
http://www.ilpa.org.uk/briefings/ILPAHL2ndR.htm
He is a sponser of
http://www.canoncollins.org.uk/about/people.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/feb/17/guantanamo.usa
(4) http://www.thelawyer.com/ill-be-my-own-judge/100798.article
Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference, of all things, that she supported gay adoption, the legal recognition gay partnerships, enhanced legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit, and the removal of fault from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows that there will be no impartiality if this aspect of “the Culture Wars” comes about. She has said beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values and will take sides in any case.
Lord Judge’s predecessor, Lord Bingham, expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities. It is, he said:
“intrinsically counter-majoritarian ... [it] should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion.”
Well, I don’t know about that, but he was admitting that he is a radical who is against us. For him, we the majority are always wrong but the minorities never are.
In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family judge. Lord Bingham, in answering a question, responded that the law needed to “keep in touch with changing social attitudes.” In one case heard in his court Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family. His opinion that “family” need mean neither marriage nor blood relationship shows beyond any doubt that the judiciary is seeking to reform families for the New Utopia.
The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against local planning law must be allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are required to obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This ruling was later overturned but the signal that other ethnic groups had legal prejudice over indigenous Britons had gone out.
Human rights law is the political judiciary’s principal weapon of attack on us. The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the propostrous idea that a transexual can retrospectively say that gender at birth was what he or she now claimed it was and agreed by a panel of experts. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born. Therefore their birth certificate is now deemed a lie!
A very important test case brought by 16 year-old Shabina Begun was decided in March 2005 when the Court of Appeal ruled that the school had denied her the right to manifest her religion in public under the Human Rights Convention. The school had refused to allow her to attend in a full-length jibab but wanted her to wear school uniform which included shalwar kameez and an approved headscarf. The headmistress explained that allowing this would expose other Muslim girls to recruitment by fundamentalists. This was obviously a political wheeze to get more Muslim culture accepted. In court, the defence was that the school only banned it to counter “vilification of Muslims after 9/11”. Even though Miss Begum was supported by Hizb ut-Tahir, a group campaigning for Sharia Law here, the Court took her side. The judgement was later overturned by the Law Lords in March 2006. The Law Lords took the view that a person’s right to hold a particular religious belief was absolute, but that a person’s right to manifest a particular religious belief was qualified. Three of the five Law Lords held that Begum’s rights had not been interfered with (Lord Bingham, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Hoffmann), and two held that they had (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Baroness Hale of Richmond). All five agreed, however, that in this particular case there were justifiable grounds for interference, one of the grounds being to protect the rights of other female students at the school who would not wish to be pressured into adopting a more extreme form of dress.
But the proceedings had already hinted to Muslims that our way of life is open to Islamification: Miss Begum was represented in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords by Cherie Blair (Booth) QC wife of the former prime minister.
Why the bias? Why, for example, are many judges campaigning for the introduction of Sharia Law.
In December 2008 the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council that he was willing to see Sharia Law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments. He also suggested sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements. In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England’s first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a sharia divorce. This would extend to Muslims the rights created for Jews under the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002, to prevent obstructive husbands withholding divorces from their wives. Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights.
In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council, reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But:
“The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.” (1)
Saudi Arabia has a legal system that uses savage penalties. Thieves get their hands chopped off! 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”, unrepresentative of any version of Islam? In our own country we saw what they really think when they burnt Salman Rushdie’s books.
Its noteworthy that Judge Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009) is being investigated for making political comments:
Judge Ian Trigger, a High Court judge, could be sacked after the Lord Chief Justice personally ordered an investigation into his attack on Britain’s immigration system. He remarked that “hundreds and hundreds of thousands” of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to two years in jail last week. He said the system was “completely lax” and a drain on public finances.
Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, referred the comments to the Office of Judicial Complaints to rule on whether it was too political. The OJC will now investigate the comments to determine whether he has overstepped the mark by making political comments.
Judge Trigger’s comments were clearly a political statement, but most judges now make political decisions if not political statements. This is what I mean when I call the Establishment an ideological caste. It is all the elites who are united by central ideas like anti-racism, Internationalism and certain abstract beliefs like social justice and progress towards a utopia where what they regard as primitive things like prejudice, discrimination and oppression are transcended. To speak against them means you have to publicly apologise like in the Soviet Union, or your career suffers. Even Prince Harry was subjected to thought training for offending against the ideology. Leading professor James Watson was sacked, and Jade Goody was publicly excoriated by media show trials. This type of thought correction training originated after the Second World War in the American programme for re-educating Germans headed by Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School. (2)
The judiciary began to move into overt political activity in the 1980s because Mrs.Thatcher attacked the cosy Social Democracy and introduced vulgar greed with vulgar people from working-class backgrounds making “loads of money”. In the nineties the European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and, even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU, abetted political union in Europe and a move to One World Government. They judiciary acted ideologically and challenged government on many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab, who shared the ideology, came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.
In the sixties Liberalism had changed from individual rights to group rights, and from this we the people became the objects of liberal prejudice. But because of a distorted version of our past (slavery, racism etc) we were seen as deserving it. This is what is commonly known as Cultural Marxism, but it is more appropriate to call it Cultural Nazism. The ruling Ideological Caste changed form bossing other races around to giving them preference over us and became prejudiced in their vour wjle we became the object of their prejudice and discrimination: the groups Hitler had disliked became privileged and treated as superior.
The sustained and deliberate deculturation of indigenous people makes possible the promotion of the views and beliefs of minority groups. For example, Democracy became power-sharing between the priviliged groups instead of majority rule among citizens. Christianity was replaced by multiculturalism. Our natural anger and will to resists was managed bythe imposition of guilt for imaginary evils in our history. We were rendered passive so as to accept to be tolerant and non-judgmental of ther “lifestyle choices”. Our traditions like monogamy, heterosexuality, Christianity and British identity became taboo, and were demonised as inherently prejudicial and discriminative towards minorities.
Human rights prohibit torture or degrading treatment. So the removal of illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to where that judges belief torture might be practiced is also prohibited. But the British courts applied the law more strictly than other European Courts. Their interpretation of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees was more “tolerant” than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. This meant we gave asylum to countless people even when they were a danger to the state - as long as they said they were in danger in their destinations! Even more foolish decisions were made under human rights law, like the ruling that stopping welfare payments to asylum seekers denied their rights to a family life. The judges have used this legislation on many occasions to grant rights to people refused asylum and who then disappear into the ethnic communities. As they could not be sent back to their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger.
To interpret the prohibition of torture to protect people who are a threat to the state is political activity. Arguing that if sending them back to a country that practices torture is like practicing torture yourself is an excuse for destroying our communitiesl. There has even been a case of a Taliban soldier who had fought our troops yet was granted asylum because he feared persecution.
That the judges have breached our security was illustrated by Home Office figures in December 2005 revealing that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since 9/11 were asylum seekers. Two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities. Algerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992. In 1995 the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen. After various failed attempts he lived in North London posting videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encouraging Muslims to join the Jihad.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article715558.ece
International law is not based in national habits and conventions or even democratic jurisdictions but is current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials.
If any judge has done his utmost to destroy our country it is notorious Judge Collins.(3) Judges can pick the cases they sit on. Collins takes asylum types and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers (which usually means Muslims). The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why he hates this country?
The key sentence in the limked article is:
”The Daily Express caught up with the judge’s wife, an ex-barrister, outside their “large detached home in leafy Dulwich, South London”. “It’s outrageous to say he’s not in touch with the real world,” she exclaimed. “He goes shopping in Sainsbury’s, for goodness’ sake."” (4)
It is not that he or the other judges are out of touch but that they are prejudiced against white British people and in favour of other races.
(1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173779/EU-judges-want-Sharia-law-applied-British-courts.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197478/Sharia-law-UK--How-Islam-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html
(2) See Paul Gottfried. The Strange Death of Marxism.
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=297
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1603/article_1403.shtml
(3) http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/BriefingPaper/document/61
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/pdfs/8_2_Immigration_Appeals_System_Vers3.pdf
http://www.ilpa.org.uk/briefings/ILPAHL2ndR.htm
He is a sponser of
http://www.canoncollins.org.uk/about/people.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/feb/17/guantanamo.usa
(4) http://www.thelawyer.com/ill-be-my-own-judge/100798.article
An Ideological Nation?
An Ideological Nation?
We have been conceptually transformed into a people that fit into an ideological view of the world from a nation founded on kinship and land by stealth. There are two different views of a nation. The progressive or ideological view is that a nation is not held together by the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, kin and territory, but by abstract ideas. An abstract or ideological nation is supposed to be united by a set of ideals or are just an economy! They think that a fondness for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Free Speech binds immigrants into a nation. But without the ethnic-cultural core a nation dissolves.
Neither Democracy and Equality nor free markets are enough to hold a people together. The progressives think we can transcend our history and origins as a common people. This is the view I remarked in “Filling the Reality Gap” where people think they are creating a new nation. This follows the rationalist idea that if you get the premise right the right conclusion will follow but in practice human nature, accidents and circumstances prevent the perfect conclusion. (1)
The natural equality ideal was well shot by Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in Chapter 24 of “Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography”(1852): “The Jews...are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man... but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.”
Queen Elizabeth in 1596, sent an "open letter" to the Lord Mayor of London, stating "there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie," ordering that they be deported..
In 1601, she again complained about the "great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which (as she is informed) are crept into this realm," "infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel," and had them repatriated.
There is concern that the immigrants will come to dominate us. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities. The immigrants are human and like us, are subject to the same failings and are likely to treat us badly as we did them. They would not be human if they did not bear us a grudge.
Sir Winston Churchill tried in 1955 to have a bill to control immigration drawn up which was not ready until June, two months after he stepped down because of his health. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan "Keep England White." (2)
The fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grand son of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendant of Lord Burleigh adviser to Queen Elizabeth, fought in Cabinet to stop immigration. A letter preserved at the National Archive written to Viscount Swinton in 1954: “We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.”
Oliver Lyttletton (later Lord Chandos) wanted to introduce deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants: “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”
Britain allowed anyone to immigrate but other Commonwealth countries were trict on admissions and refused “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependents as he shall bring with him to the island”.
Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.
(Lyttleton letter to Swinton 31/3/1954.)
The battle between proponents of the two views have been nasty with representatives of the dominant view treating their traditionalist opponents with contempt. I invite anyone to read in Hansard the despicable way the great Cyril Osborne was treated in his many attempts in the House of Commons to introduce Bills to control immigration. He first tried in 1954 under the 10 minute rule. Before it got to Parliament the Commonwealth Affairs committee had 17 present, 14 spoke but only one supported the bill.
In May 1958, 3 months before the race battles of Notting Hill and Nottingham, Osborne wrote to Labour leader Hugh Gaitskill who left it to his secretary to reply: “The Labour Party is opposed to restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country.” Three months after he instigated a Commons debate on the 5th of December 1958. Labour spokesman Arthur Bottomley stated, “We are categorically against it (restrictions).”
At the second reading of the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961) he said: “The world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.”
Norman Pannell a Conservative MP in Liverpool had served in the Nigerian Legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years. He proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the U.K. let anyone in.
He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. The debate was stage-managed to stop Cyril Osborne speaking. Pannell stated that though Home Secretary RAB Butler in 1958 disagreed with limiting numbers, had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes but done nothing.
In a letter to the Times of 13th December 1960, Birmingham Conservative Harold Gurden wrote, “on the health question we find the middle ring of the city, where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country...We have a duty to our constituents.” In 2007 it was admitted that we had a record number of cases of TB which the elites have imported.
When we were homogeneous, we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed; now they regularly have to shoot people in the street, we are under constant surveillance and have totalitarian race laws the rulers use to oppress us.
http://steadfastonline.org.uk/journal/?cat=5
At Birmingham Town Hall, on 18 April 1968, two days before Enoch’s Rivers of Blood speech, Sir Ronald Bell warned of the forthcoming Race Relations Act, "I am profoundly convinced ... many further uses of law and of the power of the state for shaping men’s minds will follow...“To control thought totalitarians redefine words and change the meaning of legal terms.”
In 1981 K.Harvey Proctor announced the Monday Club plan to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. At a Monday Club dinner in early 1984, guest of honour Enoch Powell told that the Conservative party had threatened tosend Proctor to Coventry which would have been the first time in their history they had refused to speak to one of their MP’s !
In “The Unarmed Invasion”(1965) Lord Elton wrote:” We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.” In a biography Rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts he saw while touring Jamaica for immigrants and it was clear they were being brought as cheap labour.
The issue is not our “racism” but treason of the ruling caste that is held together by ideology. They have used propaganda and social engineering constantly to wipe us out and give our country to immigrants and their descendants. Protest and you are called a Nazi or smeared by the media with no regard to the Democratic principles they pretend to uphold. (3)
They have presented Patriotism as something evil or primitive because it is the soul of a nation and a barrier to reconstructing the nation along ideological lines. Patriotism is presented as nation-worship or the nationalism that denigrates or wants to dominate other nations, but it is an emotional bond with one's own country - its land, its people, its past, its heroes, literature, language, traditions, culture, and customs.
A nation is more than a "division of labour" or a "market,." and communities of interests makes commercial treaties. An economic union like the European Union is not a nation and can only be stopped from fragmenting by identity checks for every transaction, political police and surveillance.
An economy is not a country it operates within one and an economic system should strengthen the bonds of national union, but the nation is of a higher order than the construct of any economist. A nation is organic; lives and grows and can be destroyed.
A constitution does not create a nation it gives it order but that is after it lives in the hearts and minds of its people..
This belief that"that people of any culture or continent can be assimilated grows from John Locke’s funny idea that humans are Tabla Rasa - blank slates for experience to scribble on
and make them what they are. It’s nurture versus nature. This is why the believers or what Peter Brimelow termed “Immigration Enthusiasts” see no harm in immigration. (3)
Nation, is from a Latin root nascere, to be born, which intrinsically suggests a blood link, and a common community - an extended family. An “Ethnocultural community is”, wrote Peter Brimelow, “an interlacing of ethnicity and culture, that speaks one language”. It is handed down to the current generation by their ancestors and they have a duty to preserve it and pass it down to their children ad infinitum.
The immigrants are human like us and have attachments to their own tribe, race, nation, culture, community whence they came. Any man or woman, of any color or creed, can be a good person and law abiding citizen but will their grand children merge? The Muslims fighting us on our streets are from the smiley, servile immigrants of the fifties. They are now showing their teeth.
French counter revolutionary Joseph de Maistre wrote: "During my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians... but I must say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere; if he exists, he is completely unknown to me." It is what is left out of the abstraction "tribal behavior" is what makes us human. Take it away you do not get "pure man" or "liberated man" but dehumanised man.
To traditional conservatives, this "abstract nation" is an intellectual construct, which inspires love nor loyalty. They have the superficial idea that people speaking in local accents are as British as us! But what are they speaking about? (4)
Every true nation is the creation of a unique people. Indeed, an ideological nation based on abstract ideas only appeals to the reason not the heart and it is emotion that unites people not high minded attitudes and citizenship classes. We no longer speak the same language nor do we share the same faith. We are splitting into warring factions.
We have been trained to despise our heroes yet immigrant communities are encouraged to identify with theirs. But our glorious past is treated as shameful history.
Edmund Burke definied a kin and territory nation which involves a shared identity, history and ancestory, and continuity: “As the ends of such a partner-ship cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
Around ten years ago President Bill Clinton proudly told some Arab leaders that he was looking forward to whites becoming a minority in the states! Our children are having their future taken away.
I hear that artists and with his new film sacha Baron Cohen is pushing the boundaries back. Well that sounds such fun that I thought I would push some back: We are not going to be wiped out and we are going to give our children a future and we do it by re-asserting our being as Patrick J. Buchanan’s “Blood and Soil people.” As three times British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin put it On May 24 1929 :“Let us keep this thought ever in our mind: “that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for Our Race”. (5)
(1) http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/07/filling-reality-gap.html
(2) http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2008/11/keep-england-white-winston-churchill.html
(3) http://www.vdare.com/alien_nation/
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnAvwB9zn5Q&feature=related
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttz8-ucWhYc
(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEO1yqJVXEU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYtti8MzvBk&NR=1
We have been conceptually transformed into a people that fit into an ideological view of the world from a nation founded on kinship and land by stealth. There are two different views of a nation. The progressive or ideological view is that a nation is not held together by the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, kin and territory, but by abstract ideas. An abstract or ideological nation is supposed to be united by a set of ideals or are just an economy! They think that a fondness for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Free Speech binds immigrants into a nation. But without the ethnic-cultural core a nation dissolves.
Neither Democracy and Equality nor free markets are enough to hold a people together. The progressives think we can transcend our history and origins as a common people. This is the view I remarked in “Filling the Reality Gap” where people think they are creating a new nation. This follows the rationalist idea that if you get the premise right the right conclusion will follow but in practice human nature, accidents and circumstances prevent the perfect conclusion. (1)
The natural equality ideal was well shot by Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in Chapter 24 of “Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography”(1852): “The Jews...are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man... but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.”
Queen Elizabeth in 1596, sent an "open letter" to the Lord Mayor of London, stating "there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie," ordering that they be deported..
In 1601, she again complained about the "great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which (as she is informed) are crept into this realm," "infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel," and had them repatriated.
There is concern that the immigrants will come to dominate us. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities. The immigrants are human and like us, are subject to the same failings and are likely to treat us badly as we did them. They would not be human if they did not bear us a grudge.
Sir Winston Churchill tried in 1955 to have a bill to control immigration drawn up which was not ready until June, two months after he stepped down because of his health. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan "Keep England White." (2)
The fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grand son of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendant of Lord Burleigh adviser to Queen Elizabeth, fought in Cabinet to stop immigration. A letter preserved at the National Archive written to Viscount Swinton in 1954: “We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.”
Oliver Lyttletton (later Lord Chandos) wanted to introduce deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants: “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”
Britain allowed anyone to immigrate but other Commonwealth countries were trict on admissions and refused “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependents as he shall bring with him to the island”.
Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.
(Lyttleton letter to Swinton 31/3/1954.)
The battle between proponents of the two views have been nasty with representatives of the dominant view treating their traditionalist opponents with contempt. I invite anyone to read in Hansard the despicable way the great Cyril Osborne was treated in his many attempts in the House of Commons to introduce Bills to control immigration. He first tried in 1954 under the 10 minute rule. Before it got to Parliament the Commonwealth Affairs committee had 17 present, 14 spoke but only one supported the bill.
In May 1958, 3 months before the race battles of Notting Hill and Nottingham, Osborne wrote to Labour leader Hugh Gaitskill who left it to his secretary to reply: “The Labour Party is opposed to restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country.” Three months after he instigated a Commons debate on the 5th of December 1958. Labour spokesman Arthur Bottomley stated, “We are categorically against it (restrictions).”
At the second reading of the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961) he said: “The world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.”
Norman Pannell a Conservative MP in Liverpool had served in the Nigerian Legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years. He proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the U.K. let anyone in.
He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. The debate was stage-managed to stop Cyril Osborne speaking. Pannell stated that though Home Secretary RAB Butler in 1958 disagreed with limiting numbers, had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes but done nothing.
In a letter to the Times of 13th December 1960, Birmingham Conservative Harold Gurden wrote, “on the health question we find the middle ring of the city, where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country...We have a duty to our constituents.” In 2007 it was admitted that we had a record number of cases of TB which the elites have imported.
When we were homogeneous, we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed; now they regularly have to shoot people in the street, we are under constant surveillance and have totalitarian race laws the rulers use to oppress us.
http://steadfastonline.org.uk/journal/?cat=5
At Birmingham Town Hall, on 18 April 1968, two days before Enoch’s Rivers of Blood speech, Sir Ronald Bell warned of the forthcoming Race Relations Act, "I am profoundly convinced ... many further uses of law and of the power of the state for shaping men’s minds will follow...“To control thought totalitarians redefine words and change the meaning of legal terms.”
In 1981 K.Harvey Proctor announced the Monday Club plan to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. At a Monday Club dinner in early 1984, guest of honour Enoch Powell told that the Conservative party had threatened tosend Proctor to Coventry which would have been the first time in their history they had refused to speak to one of their MP’s !
In “The Unarmed Invasion”(1965) Lord Elton wrote:” We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.” In a biography Rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts he saw while touring Jamaica for immigrants and it was clear they were being brought as cheap labour.
The issue is not our “racism” but treason of the ruling caste that is held together by ideology. They have used propaganda and social engineering constantly to wipe us out and give our country to immigrants and their descendants. Protest and you are called a Nazi or smeared by the media with no regard to the Democratic principles they pretend to uphold. (3)
They have presented Patriotism as something evil or primitive because it is the soul of a nation and a barrier to reconstructing the nation along ideological lines. Patriotism is presented as nation-worship or the nationalism that denigrates or wants to dominate other nations, but it is an emotional bond with one's own country - its land, its people, its past, its heroes, literature, language, traditions, culture, and customs.
A nation is more than a "division of labour" or a "market,." and communities of interests makes commercial treaties. An economic union like the European Union is not a nation and can only be stopped from fragmenting by identity checks for every transaction, political police and surveillance.
An economy is not a country it operates within one and an economic system should strengthen the bonds of national union, but the nation is of a higher order than the construct of any economist. A nation is organic; lives and grows and can be destroyed.
A constitution does not create a nation it gives it order but that is after it lives in the hearts and minds of its people..
This belief that"that people of any culture or continent can be assimilated grows from John Locke’s funny idea that humans are Tabla Rasa - blank slates for experience to scribble on
and make them what they are. It’s nurture versus nature. This is why the believers or what Peter Brimelow termed “Immigration Enthusiasts” see no harm in immigration. (3)
Nation, is from a Latin root nascere, to be born, which intrinsically suggests a blood link, and a common community - an extended family. An “Ethnocultural community is”, wrote Peter Brimelow, “an interlacing of ethnicity and culture, that speaks one language”. It is handed down to the current generation by their ancestors and they have a duty to preserve it and pass it down to their children ad infinitum.
The immigrants are human like us and have attachments to their own tribe, race, nation, culture, community whence they came. Any man or woman, of any color or creed, can be a good person and law abiding citizen but will their grand children merge? The Muslims fighting us on our streets are from the smiley, servile immigrants of the fifties. They are now showing their teeth.
French counter revolutionary Joseph de Maistre wrote: "During my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians... but I must say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere; if he exists, he is completely unknown to me." It is what is left out of the abstraction "tribal behavior" is what makes us human. Take it away you do not get "pure man" or "liberated man" but dehumanised man.
To traditional conservatives, this "abstract nation" is an intellectual construct, which inspires love nor loyalty. They have the superficial idea that people speaking in local accents are as British as us! But what are they speaking about? (4)
Every true nation is the creation of a unique people. Indeed, an ideological nation based on abstract ideas only appeals to the reason not the heart and it is emotion that unites people not high minded attitudes and citizenship classes. We no longer speak the same language nor do we share the same faith. We are splitting into warring factions.
We have been trained to despise our heroes yet immigrant communities are encouraged to identify with theirs. But our glorious past is treated as shameful history.
Edmund Burke definied a kin and territory nation which involves a shared identity, history and ancestory, and continuity: “As the ends of such a partner-ship cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
Around ten years ago President Bill Clinton proudly told some Arab leaders that he was looking forward to whites becoming a minority in the states! Our children are having their future taken away.
I hear that artists and with his new film sacha Baron Cohen is pushing the boundaries back. Well that sounds such fun that I thought I would push some back: We are not going to be wiped out and we are going to give our children a future and we do it by re-asserting our being as Patrick J. Buchanan’s “Blood and Soil people.” As three times British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin put it On May 24 1929 :“Let us keep this thought ever in our mind: “that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for Our Race”. (5)
(1) http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2009/07/filling-reality-gap.html
(2) http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2008/11/keep-england-white-winston-churchill.html
(3) http://www.vdare.com/alien_nation/
Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnAvwB9zn5Q&feature=related
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttz8-ucWhYc
(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEO1yqJVXEU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYtti8MzvBk&NR=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
