defender

A Communism for the 21st Century

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:31:00 +0000

logo
Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
A Communism for the 21st Century
By Fjordman
Created 2007-05-14 16:45

I’ve received some criticism for trying to figure out the ideological and historical roots of Multiculturalism. Critics claim that it’s all about hate, about a desire to break down the Established Order at any cost. Many of the proponents don’t believe in the doctrine of Multiculturalism themselves, so we shouldn’t waste any time analyzing the logic behind it, because there is none. A desire to break down Western society is certainly there, but I do believe there are some ideas about the desired end result articulated as well.

On one hand, we’re supposed to “celebrate” our differences at the same time as it is racist and taboo to recognize that any differences between groups of people exist at all. This is hardly logically coherent, which is why Multiculturalism can only be enforced by totalitarian means. Perhaps it boils down to the fact there are no major differences, just minor quirks, all cute, which should be celebrated at the same time as we gradually eradicate them.

We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion accessories, shirts we can wear and change at will. The Multicultural society is “colorful,” an adjective normally attached to furniture or curtains. Cultures are window decorations of little or no consequence, and one might as well have one as the other. In fact, it is good to change it every now and then. Don’t you get tired of that old sofa sometimes? What about exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it’s slightly less comfortable than the old one, but it’s very much in vogue these days and sets you apart from the neighbors, at least until they get one, too. Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume to go with that sharia?

We should remember that this view of culture as largely unimportant is essentially a Marxist view of the world, which has now even been adopted by segments of the political Right, united with Leftists in the belief that man is homo economicus, the economic man, the sum of his functions as worker and consumer, nothing more. Marxism doesn’t say that cultures or ideas are of absolutely no consequence, but that they are of minor or secondary importance next to structural and economic conditions.

I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn’t matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won’t make a big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in different ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that all political ideologies “basically mean the same thing.” They simply don’t view religious or cultural ideas as significant, and thus won’t spend time on studying the largely unimportant details of each specific creed. This is Marxist materialism.

The unstated premise behind this is that the age of distinct cultures is over. All peoples around the world will gradually blend into one another. Ethnic, religious and racial tensions will disappear, because mankind will be one and equal. It’s cultural and genetic Communism. Nation states who create their own laws and uphold their own borders constitute “discrimination” and an obstacle to this new Utopia, and will gradually have to be dismantled, starting with Western nations of course, replaced by a world where everybody has the right to move wherever they want to and where international legislation and human rights resolutions define the law, upheld by an elite of — supposedly well-meaning — transnational bureaucrats managing our lives.

What the proponents of this ideology don’t say is that even if it were possible to melt all human beings into one people, which is in my view neither possible nor desirable, this project would take generations or centuries, and in the intervening time there would be numerous wars and enormous suffering caused by the fact that not everybody would quietly allow themselves to be eradicated.

All aspects of your person, from language via culture to skin color and religion, are treated as imaginary social constructs. We are told that “all cultures are hybrids and borrow from each other,” that we were “all immigrants” at one point in time and hence nobody has a right to claim any specific piece of land as “theirs.”

Since “we” are socially constructed, we can presumably also be socially deconstructed. The Marxist “counter-culture”of the 1960s and 70s has been remarkably effective at attacking the pillars of Western civilization. It is, frankly, scary to notice how much damage just one single generation can inflict upon a society. Maybe it’s true that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Our education system is now used to dismantle our culture, not to uphold it, and has moved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction. Socialism has destroyed the very fabric of society. Our countries have become so damaged that people feel there is nothing left fighting for, which no doubt was the intention. Our children leave school as disoriented wrecks and ideological cripples with no sense of identity, and are met with a roar of outrage if they demonstrate the slightest inkling of a spine.

Codie Stott, a white English teenage schoolgirl, was arrested on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offense after refusing to sit with a group of South Asian students because some of them did not speak English. She was taken to Swinton police station, had her fingerprints taken and was thrown into a cell before being released. Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank said: “A lot of these arrests don’t result in prosecutions – the aim is to frighten us into self-censorship until we watch everything we say.”

Bryan Cork of Carlisle, Cumbria in the Lake District, was sentenced to six months in jail for standing outside a mosque shouting, “Proud to be British,” and “Go back to where you came from.” This happened while Muslims were instituting sharia laws in British cities and got state sponsorship for having several wives.

Antifascistisk Aktion in Sweden, a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. According to AFA, this is done in order to fight against global capitalism and for a classless society. They subscribe to an ideology that killed one hundred million people during a few generations, and they are the good guys. Those who object to being turned into a minority in their own country through mass immigration are the bad guys.

The extreme Left didn’t succeed in staging a violent revolution in the West, so they decided to go for a permanent, structural revolution instead. They now hope that immigrants can provide raw material for a violent rebellion, especially since many of them are Muslims who have displayed such a wonderful talent for violence and destruction. The Western Left are importing a new proletariat, since the previous one disappointed them.

A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. “Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings,” Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at 100 million. 40 percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that “a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left.”

I have personally read statements by leading media figures not just in Sweden, but all over Western Europe, who openly brag about censoring coverage of issues related to mass immigration and the Multicultural society.

The Muslim writer Abdelwahab Meddeb believes that as a result of French influence, the whole of the Mediterranean region “is suited to becoming a laboratory for European thought.” First of all, I don’t think Islam can be reformed, and even if it could, France currently lacks the cultural confidence to lead such an effort. Behind their false pride, they are a nation deeply unsure about themselves, and still carry psychological wounds from their great Revolution of 1789. And second: A bridge can be crossed two ways. Will France be a bridge for European thought into the Islamic world or for Islamic thought into Europe? Right now, the latter seems more likely. And finally: I greatly resent seeing tens of millions of human beings described as a “laboratory.” Unfortunately, Mr. Meddeb is not alone in entertaining such ideas.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said: “Belgium is the laboratory of European unification.” What kind of confidence does it inspire in citizens that their supposed leader talks about their country as a laboratory? Are their children guinea pigs? Apparently, yes.

In 1960, 7.3% of the population of Belgian capital Brussels was foreign. Today the figure is 56.5%. Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, can hardly hide his excitement over this great experiment in social engineering, and believes this population replacement “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.” Yes, it is probably the first time in human history that a nation demographically has handed over its capital city to outsiders without firing a single shot, but judging from trends in the rest of Europe, it won’t be the last. The European Union and the local, Multicultural elites will see to that.

The Dutch writer Margriet de Moor provides another example of why Multiculturalism is a massive experiment in social engineering, every bit as radical and dangerous as Communism. Ms. de Moor lives in some kind of alternate reality where “Europe’s affluence and free speech” will create an Islamic Reformation. But Muslim immigration constitutes a massive drain on the former, and is slowly, but surely destroying the latter:

“When I’m feeling optimistic I sometimes see the Netherlands, a small laconic country not inclined towards the large-scale or the theatrical, as a kind of laboratory on the edge of Europe. Now and then the mixture of dangerous, easily inflammable substances results in a little explosion, but basically the process of ordinary chemical reactions just continues.”

What kind of person refers to her own country as a laboratory? Ms. de Moor sounds like a scientist, dispassionately studying an interesting specimen in her microscope. I’m sure Theo van Gogh would be pleased to hear that he was basically a lab rat when he ended up with a knife in his chest for having “insulted” Islam, along with that of the “racist” Pim Fortuyn the first political murder in Holland for centuries. What was once one of the most tolerant nations in the world is now being ruined by Muslim immigration. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? These murders were an unfortunate business, no doubt, but one mustn’t call off the entire Multicultural experiment because of a few minor setbacks.

We all told that Arabs triggered the Renaissance in Europe. Michelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to paint the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel within the Vatican. He painted God creating Adam. Did any of the Caliphs or Sultans ever commission an artist to pant the image of Allah in Mecca? Why not, if all cultures are one and the same? Likewise, the political works of the ancient Greeks were never translated to Arabic, as they presented systems such as democracy where men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous to Muslims. The same texts were later studied with great interest in the West.

Far from being irrelevant, culture is a massively important factor in shaping a society. Islam’s hostility to free speech is why Muslims never had any Scientific or Industrial Revolution, for instance. If you believe in evolution, isn’t it then also likely that some cultures are more evolved than others? That kind of blows Multiculturalism away, doesn’t it?

British PM Tony Blair is stepping down after having ruined his country more in one decade than arguably any other leader has done before him. He ran on the platform of New Labour, but as it turned out, his party was still wed to the same old ideas of international Socialism.

According to the writer Melanie Phillips, “He is driven by a universalist world view which minimises the profound nature of the conflicts that divide people. He thinks that such divisions belong essentially to a primitive past. (...) Hence his closely-related obsession with ‘universal’ human rights law. Hence also his belief that national borders no longer matter, that mass immigration is a good thing and that Britain’s unique identity must give way to multiculturalism. This is the way, he thinks, to eradicate conflict, prejudice and war, and create a global utopia. What a profound misjudgment. It is, instead, the way to destroy democracy and the independent nations that create and sustain it.”

Marie Simonsen, the political editor of the Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote in March 2007 that it should be considered a universal human right for all people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This statement came just after a UN report had predicted a global population growth of several billion people to 2050.

It doesn’t take much skill to calculate that unlimited migration will spell certain death for a tiny Scandinavian nation — not in a matter of generations, but theoretically even within a few weeks. Ms. Simonsen is thus endorsing the eradication of her own people, and she does so almost as an afterthought. Her comments received no opposition from anyone in the media establishment, which could indicate that most of them share her views, or at least have resigned themselves to the fact that our death as a people is already inevitable.

Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property. Let’s assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the “property” of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its political institutions and instilled in its people the mental capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created?

According to Marxist logic, yes.

Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is “racist” and “against international law” for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.

This is what is happening to the West today. Europe itself could become a failed continent by importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your country is “racism, xenophobia and bigotry,” is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably lead to immense human suffering.

One of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist thinking has penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the universities to the media. While the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we mistakenly deemed it to be less threatening.

Ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse. By hiding behind labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship they could never have achieved had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.

According to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, “the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost. Boot believes that democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word.

In a culture where language is power and words are used as weapons, those who control the most fearsome of these weapons control society. In the West, where equality in all walks of life is the highest virtue and “discrimination” is a mortal sin, the “racist” is the worst of creatures. Those who control the definition of “racist,” the nuclear bomb of glossocracy, have a powerful weapon they can utilize to intimidate opponents. The mere utterance of the word can destroy careers and ruin lives, with no trial and no possibility of appeal.

Currently, the power of definition largely rests in the hands of a cartel of anti-racist organizations dominated by the extreme Left, often in cooperation with Muslims. By silencing all opposition to mass immigration as “racism,” they can stage a transformation of society every bit as massive as that of Communism, yet virtually shut down debate about it.

Boot totally rejects the claim that Marxism has been misunderstood:

“Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on industrial conditions that either were already obsolete at the time or had never existed in the first place. That is no wonder, for Marx never saw the inside of a factory, farm or manufactory. [...] Whatever else he was, Marx was not a scientist. […] Marx ideals are unachievable precisely because they are so monstrous that even Bolsheviks never quite managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For example, the [Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both Marx and Engels) prescribes the nationalization of all private property without exception. Even Stalin’s Russia of the 1930s fell short of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in private hands [...] Really, compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family should be done away with, with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either. So where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it.”

The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, thinks that while the West won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas: “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.”

Bukovksy is right: We never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2, and we are now paying the price for this. Many Marxist ideas have been allowed to endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or that it is OK to stage massive social experiments on hundreds of millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society, tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay. But Marxist ideals of forced equality can only be enforced by a government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably lead to a totalitarian society. There is no “enlightened Marxism,” and the idea that there is has ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in modern history.

Marxism is an organized crime against humanity.

The Australian writer Keith Windschuttle warns that the consequence of cultural relativism is that if there can be no absolute truths, there can be no absolute falsehoods, either, which explains Western weakness when confronted with Islamic Jihad. Our sense of right and wrong has been deeply damaged by Marxist thinking. Windschuttle praises Greek historian Thucydides’ writings about The History of the Peloponnesian War from the 5th century BC:

“Rather than being impelled by great impersonal forces, political history reveals the world is made by men and, instead of being ‘absolved of blame’, men are responsible for the consequences of their actions. This was the very point that informed Thucydides’ study of the Peloponnesian War: the fate of Athens had been determined not by prophets, oracles or the gods, but by human actions and social organisation.”

Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and truth exists. We used to know that. It’s time we get to know it again, and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are not racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor are we evil for resisting to be treated as lab rats in social experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of transnational Multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud by exposing it for what it is: A Communism for the 21st century.
cover of How the West Was Lost How the West Was Lost
Author: Alexander Boot
ASIN: 1850439850
Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2125

FREEDOM IS NOT YOURS TO DISH OUT!!

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:35:00 +0000

FREEDOM IS NOT YOURS TO DISH OUT!!

November 21, 2008 by centurean2
Fight the good fight
On April 14th, 2008 Jane Birkby (not verified) says:

I sincerely hope that John Harris makes a difference where others have failed, and that the courts recognise the lawfulness of his actions, for it affects every one of us, and our future.
The enemies of this country, who walk the halls of power seemingly with impunity, must be brought to book, or our long standing laws will be as nothing, and we face a terrifying future, because the EU have an enabling act in the Lisbon Treaty which will allow them to quash and grind those who disagree with the EU and it’s aims.
Hitler had an enabling act, Stalin had Lenin’s Article 58 of the criminal code, Tony Blair pushed his enabling act through parliament under cover of the hunting bill (Civil Contingencies Act 2004), and the EU protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality can be used if you do not show proper respect for the principles of Subsidiarity i.e. the EU.
George Orwell prophesied it would happen in 1984, but his dates were a little out, instead it is 2008 onwards.

This country is under threat from multiple sources, who do not believe in the nation state or democracy.

GOLDEN PRINCIPLES OF BRITISH CONSTITUTION

Sovereignty is the inalienable birthright of the people, entrusted to the Monarch and administered by

Parliament which has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender, lend or transfer (even temporarily) sovereignty except when
conquered in war.

No one (neither Monarch, nor Prime Minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the Statute and Common
Law of the United Kingdom that form the British Constitution (including Magna

Carta [1215], the Declaration and Bill of Rights [1688/89], Acts of Union, Succession and Settlement

[1701-07], the Coronation Oath Act [1689]).

British Citizens have an inalienable right to be governed justly, lawfully and exclusively by their

Parliament in Westminster (the Crown, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and freely elected/replaceable representatives in the
Commons), all of whom are servants of the people. Parliament’s power is not supreme but conditioned by oaths of office under the
Constitution and the people’s immutable franchise.

No Taxation is lawful without representation, nor may taxes be oppressive, unnecessary,

confiscatory or contain double tax (eg VAT on petrol tax).

Trial by Jury, habeas corpus, right of appeal are inalienable right of all accused under British jurisdiction.

6. Innocence is presumed unless proved guilty in court. If acquitted, no retrial on same charge.

No fine or forfeiture before conviction by a court (eg arbitrary speeding and parking fines).

The British Constitution is sworn by solemn oaths of office and/or allegiance to be upheld and defended impartially in perpetuity
without exception by the Monarch, ministers, politicians, judges, members of the armed forces, police and others in authority.

The Government must always act within limits and constraints imposed by the Constitution; including the making and unmaking of law;
it may not diminish or transfer its own power so to act; nor weaken, ignore or over-ride the Constitution whether to serve its own
or others’ ends; it may not suspend or dispense with the law; nor impose harsh or punitive law without cause.

Constitutional Law takes precedence over administrative law. It may be improved, or expressly repealed if not entrenched; however it
may never be supplanted or repealed just by passing a newer statute or administrative instrument and its breach may be treason.

British Citizens may petition the Monarch if all other remedies fail, without fear of reprisal or prosecution. The Crown is sworn by
oath to protect all subjects from violation of their lawful rights and liberties, retaining the power and responsibility to ensure
redress is exercised.

Guaranteed Justice. There must be no undue to delay in legal proceedings. Immigrants must adhere to British laws and customs. If
wronged, British Citizens are entitled to a remedy and to seek redress in law. Punishment must fit the crime and must not be
excessive or unusual, such as torture. Judgements must be exercised with compassion and mercy at every level.

Right to be defended from our enemies.

Right to defend self, family and property by whatever reasonable means necessary.

15. Right to private ownership of property and assets.

16. Right to engage in any activity not specifically banned in the national interest or safety.

17. Right to associate freely or not to associate with any political party, trade union or

organisation, except those posing a threat to security and interests of the United Kingdom.

18. Right to freedom of speech, writing and publication.

19. Freedom of religion and worship, except the Protestant Succession shall be maintained.

20. Royal Prerogative shall be exercised personally by the Sovereign on all Constitutional issues

and foreign treaties, never on behalf of the Crown by government ministers.

21. Separation of Powers between Crown, Executive and Legislature be invariably maintained.

22. The Crown shall always retain the absolute right to dissolve and open Parliament; call General

Elections; refuse Royal Assent to any Bill that does not enjoy the settled will of Parliament or

the interest of the nation or is unconstitutional; receive and act upon public petitions declare

war if unavoidable only in self-defence of the United Kingdom and or our vital interests.

OUR BIRTHRIGHT OF GUARANTEED LIBERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS ABSOLUTE & ETERNAL

TPUC. ORG

The Environmentalists' Greatest Trick

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:13:00 +0000

The Environmentalists' Greatest Trick
If the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world that he doesn't exist, arguably the Environmentalist' Greatest Trick is convincing the world that they really stand for conserving, rather than spending flagrantly.

Case in point Barack Obama who calls for everyone to rotate their tires, drive less and use less energy-- even while unveiling a massive spending program that would choke even the 2004 GOP elephant. In other words make sure to limit your showers to 1 minute of cold water, while shelling out your money to fund Barack's own domestic civilian corps. Cut back on toilet paper so Obama can blow hundreds of billions on pet projects that the country can't possibly afford.

But then why be surprised, conservation for the greater good was always a staple of planned economies in the USSR or China or Cuba, just so long as you knew that the greater good was the good of the authorities.

Hypocrisy is no obstacle to being an environmentalist prophet as Al Gore's sprawling mansion and bouts of jetting around the world with rock stars has shown us. But then again the mansions of the Party elite have never created any kind of contraction to demanding that the peasant cut down his ration of bread by another few ounces. The beauty of collectivism is that it divides humanity neatly into masters and slaves, and if you're smart enough to wield the rhetorical whip or come up with another convincing argument for cutting the rations, you get to split the vigorish.

With all the tirades about the oceans rising, the polar ice melting, the atmosphere dissolving, the globe heating up, the polar bears dying out and all the catastrophe hysteria that has overrun the country, the last thing you should expect is to have the Prophets of Disaster actually listen to their own alarmist rhetoric. As everyone knows, preaching chastity excuses the parson for his own adulteries, and preaching green excuses the politician for his three swimming pools. With carbon credits as the new indulgences, cutting back is only for those too slow to jump on the bandwagon and preach it to others.

If you can churn out a commercial featuring a multiracial panoply screaming TICK TICK TICK at the audience, in between reciting prospective disasters, you can go on showering as long as you like. At most you might be expected to buy a SMART Car and drive it to the premiere of your latest movie being shot on three continents for enough money to feed all of Africa well into the 22nd century.

Among the elite, conspicuous consumption has given way to conscious concern about consumption. The thing isn't to cut back, but to spend money and buy something that signals your concern about consumption, such as expensive organic products, electric cars or a DVD of Al Gore using his beak to point out melting icebergs on a slideshow of the Arctic. As Conspicuous Concern becomes the new hip, shallow people show how deep they are by spending more money on the status symbols that show just how opposed to wasteful consumption they are.

And environmentalism at the government level is truly no different. Obama's campaign isn't being run on a platform of spending less, but spending more. More programs. More projects. More logos and slogans and money all somehow geared toward using less energy. But can you spend more to spend less and waste more to waste less? The laws of thermodynamics would seem to say otherwise.

And while the mindless celebrities who circle any trend like starved vultures continue to preach to us that we need to stop using toilet paper and drink rat's milk, the political culture of consumption that gave birth to their idiocy continues rolling along just fine. That culture is perfectly happy with oil prices because it doesn't affect their own padded pocketbooks but does drive public disaffection that they hope to exploit.

It isn't that they really want the public spending less, but their business allies want the public spending more on the things they want to sell, things with a Recycled logo or Biofuels or Ice Cream guaranteed not to harm the habitats of Polar Bears. The trick is to get the public to buy less and spend more, on the products they buy and on the government they're forced to accept.

Real conservation has never been on their agenda or they might actually listen to the Sierra Club when it opposes immigrant. Real cutbacks in waste are not on their agenda or they might stop jetting around the country and the world for conferences and concerts. Real reductions in energy use is not on their agenda or they might actually cut back on their own energy use instead of buying carbon credits. But it's much easier to victimize Asthma patients and working class people who find themselves having to pay more for everything they buy thanks to the mesh of regulations they implement, than to actually show more responsibility in their own lives.

The Politics of Green is all about appearance over reality, about a sprawling mansion with a green sticker on it and a SMART car parked right in front of the driveway with that embarassing SUV inside.

WHO IS IN CONTROL

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:31:00 +0000

defender

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Wnston Churchill
Wednesday, 5 September 2007
WHO IS IN CONTROL?
Maybe this following article will help you to start to see the reasons why our political "leaders" do the things they do. For instance Mr. Milliband is very aware of what he is doing in Turkey today, helping to open the EU door http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL0584853820070905?rpc=401& , his reasoning though eludes us. The plan is unfolding rapidly but they are past the point of weakness and believe they have enough strength to be bolder and more progressive. Many people look at the elite as bumbling, disconnected, incompetent, directionless and downright stupid. Do not believe it, they are very smart, charming, articulate, educated, focused, connected and determined.

They have a strong, binding common goal. The obvious unifying bond must be the party they belong to one would think, but I believe there is more to it than that. Party politics in the UK can be too fluid, needs to change some what from time to time for lets say, appearances. Only a little mind and usually a few speeches and waffle, a new name, a law or two and it is put aside and back to the agenda as soon as it is appropreate to do so. So what is the guiding light that keep them on track. Have you ever heard of The Fabian Society? Its been around for a long long time, it is very influential, for instance, every labour prime minister, ever, has been a member up to and including the current Priminister, most of the past and present labour MP's have been and are members. The labour party emerged as the political arm of the Fabians, the Liberals are also historically closely connected, I have found that a number of conservatives are also members.

We see today that the liblabcon are hardly different politically, might that be because of a common goal?

Fabianism believes in what it describes as “the democratic control of society in all its activities.” The key word is control – whereas most people see democracy as based on the freedom and liberty of the individual, Fabian socialism places the emphasis on control of the individual – a sort of “we know what is best” attitude. It sees this as being best achieved through some form of global government, a goal it shares with Communism, (which is also based on centralised control). Some time ago an elderly friend of mine told me how she had attended Fabian Society meetings in the 1930s, and she confirmed that world government was what was discussed even then. In short, those who adhere to Fabian philosophy, seek a highly centralised power base – the elimination of national sovereignty is fundamental to the process. The emblem of the Fabian Society is the tortoise, which represents slow but steady progress. The Labour Party has always included Fabians, but Blair’s Labour now seems riddled with them. This political philosophy, widespread throughout the so called centre left parties of Europe must explain so much about how and why the EU has developed in the way that it has and why our government is so committed to the single European state. It has also had influence within the U.S. Democratic party. Members of the Fabian Society founded the London School of Economics, which has traditionally ensured that budding socialists receive a thorough grounding in traditional economics and monetary policy! http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=402

I hope you would read the full article by clicking the link and also do your own search to find out more.

Am I right or am I wrong, time will tell.
Posted by defender at 17:08
4 comments:

BFB said...

Am I right or am I wrong

Of course you are right. Check out this link

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/8/23/3177099.html

BTW, I see you have only been online for a couple of months, which explains why I haven't linked to you yet. This has now been rectified. You are now linked at 'Battle For Britain'

http://bfbwwiii.blogspot.com/

Keep up the excellent work,

Phil (BFB).
05 September 2007 20:28
BFB said...

I think maybe the above link is too long for this window. Try

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/

and scroll down to the article '2010 - Its coming, your freedom is going'.

In fact, just bookmark the blog and visit regularly, it's brilliant.

Phil.
05 September 2007 20:36
defender said...

thanks very much for that BFB. the pieces fit almost perfectly.
05 September 2007 21:00
The Green Arrow said...

Hello Defender. Good information.

I see the famous Battler Britain as linked you. A good egg.

So have I.

Good Luck
09 September 2007 06:27

FINAL WARNING

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:00:00 +0000

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarning
The Modern History Project Featured commentary:
Propaganda, Terrorism and Hypocrisy
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarning
*NEWS*ArticlesDatabaseLinksMailHelp!

Articles > Books > FinalWarning
Final Warning: A History of the New World Order
Illuminism and the master plan for world domination
-- by David Rivera, 1994 source: View From the Wall

:: With hyperlinks to the MHP database. Follow links for related info ::
Table of Contents
MHP Editors Preface
About this book
1: The Birth of Tyranny
The Freemasons, the Illuminati, and the House of Rothschild
1.1: The Freemasons
A brief history of the Freemasons in England and America
1.2: The Order of the Illuminati
The development of the Order of the Illuminati, and their infiltration of the Masonic Lodge
1.3: The Illuminati in America
The Illuminati organization spreads from Europe to America
1.4: The Rothschilds
The formation of the Rothschild banking dynasty and their support of the Illuminati program
2: Financial Background
The history of U.S. central banking, the income tax, and the private foundations of the elite
2.1: The Bank of the United States
European financial interests attempt to recapture the United States
2.2: Creation of the Federal Reserve System
Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, Jekyll Island and the creation of the Fed
2.3: The Federal Reserve System Begins Operation
Theft of the gold, fiat currency, inflation, and debt slavery
2.4: The Federal Income Tax
Collecting the interest payments for the owners of the Federal Reserve
2.5: Tax-exempt Foundations
How the elite protects their wealth while controlling education, research and public policy
3: World War I and the League of Nations
War profiteering, the League of Nations, and the seal of the Illuminati
4: Communism and Racial Tension
Promoting racial tension to destabilize American society
5: Elite Political Organizations
The Fabian Socialists, the Round Table and the Council on Foreign Relations
5.1: The Fabians, the Round Table, and the Rhodes Scholars
The Rhodes-Milner group continues the Illuminati program
5.2: The Council on Foreign Relations
The origin and goals of the elite U.S. policy organization
5.3: CFR Influence in Government, Media and Business
The pervasive influence of CFR members over all aspects of society
5.4: The Rise and Fall of Richard Nixon
Nelson Rockefeller, the CFR, and their role in the Nixon Presidency
6: World War II
How the Illuminati engineered the war to further the world government program
6.1: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
A document of dubious origin that reveals the Illuminati program of control
6.2: World War II and the Buildup of Communism
The rise of Adolf Hitler, the financing of German industry, and the buildup of Soviet Communism
6.3: The Pearl Harbor Deception
Roosevelt intentionally provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor
7: The Spread of Communism
The origin and worldwide spread of Communism
7.1: The Origins of Communism
Socialist and communist experiments during the 1700s and 1800s
7.2: Marx, Engels and the Socialist International
Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto, and the rise of Socialism in Europe
7.3: Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolshevik Revolution
The Soviet Union is formed with the financial support of the Western oligarchs
7.4: Stalin and Western Support of the Soviet Union
Stalin takes power, the Soviets fight the Nazis, and the bankers control both sides
7.5: Communist Revolutions in China and Asia
Communists allowed to take over China, Korea, South Asia and Vietnam
7.6: Communist Revolution in Cuba
Fidel Castro takes power in Cuba with U.S. support, leading to a showdown with the Soviets
7.7: The Soviet Challenge to America
Soviet rhetoric, subversion, military preparation, and deception
8: Moving Towards Global Government
The United Nations, the European Union and other global organizations
8.1: The United Nations
The founding of the U.N. and the push for a Socialist world government
8.2: The European Union
European cooperation after WW2 and the formation of the European Union
8.3: The Bilderberg Group
The origins and influence of the premier international policy planning group
8.4: The Seven Sisters
OPEC, the Seven Sisters, and control of the petroleum industry
8.5: The Club of Rome and Population Reduction
The Club of Rome, the Limits to Growth, and the AIDS epidemic
8.6: International Trade Agreements
The globalisation of the economy via GATT, NAFTA and the WTO
9: Consolidating Government Power
The Trilateral Commission, the Federal government, and the rise of the police state
9.1: The Trilateral Commission
The Trilateral Commission, the CFR, and control of the White House
9.2: Centralization of Government Power
Federal districts, Executive orders, replacing the U.S. Constitution
9.3: The Rise of the Police State
Social instability, military police, gun confiscation, and detention camps
List of Source Documents
Sources referenced in Final Warning
People - Organizations - Events
modernhistoryproject.org

Islam is Democracy's cancer

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:05:00 +0000

The most basic demand for participating in any program is the ability to abide by its rules. When it comes to Democracy, the most basic rule is that there is no absolute power and that the democratic system remain place. Winning and losing in a democracy is not a zero sum game and multiple parties and multiple viewpoints come to the table, hammer out compromises and keep the country running. A party may lose one election but then come back and win another one. Violence gets shelved as a tool of transition.

Politics outside Democratic rules often yields zero sum games, ruthless contents of will and power, in which the punishment for political failure is imprisonment or death. Democracy is meant to shift that balance by allowing different sides to participate. What it requires however is that all sides abide by the premise of democracy, that the democratic system itself remain in place from turn to turn. That is the one thing Islamic parties can't and won't do.

Within a democracy, totalitarian parties are a trojan horse, whether they are Communist or Nazi or Islamist. They cannot be allowed to exist because they participate in the democratic process only with the endgame of ending democracy once they have amassed enough power.

Yet many British seemed to have trouble understanding this when it came to the Communist party, because the Democratic process, like the Geneva Convention and the Constitution and other consensual agreements, has been mischaracterized as universal. But no agreement is universal. An agreement can only exist between peoples or groups who agree to abide by its terms. Human rights cannot apply to those who violate them. Conventions on the treatment of prisoners do not apply to those who do not follow them. Democracy does not apply to the un-democratic and the anti-democratic.

Islamist party in the Muslim world and the West have learned to mimic the tactics of the Communist parties, to put on a Democratic facade for the West, to give lip service to the Democratic process while slowly taking over from the inside.

The election of a Muslim party to power is a De Facto coup, it's only a matter of time until the actual takeover happens. When it does, there may still be elections as in Iran, but the only ones running will be approved Islamist parties. Because while we may fail to understand that Democracy is a consensual agreement, the Islamist enemy understands it quite well and their system is quickly set up to suppress non-Islamist and Anti-Islamist organizations from within any electoral process.

And that is why Islam is Democracy's cancer, adept at exploiting Democracy's institutions and rules, its respect for human rights and sentimental willingness to believe that anyone can participate and become ennobled by the process, to come to power.

The false view of democracy as universal, rather than limited to those who accept its premises, has led to multiple disasters as the Government has championed "Democracy" in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Egypt and Pakistan, only to be rewarded with terrorism and the rise of the Islamists, time and time again.

Now Rice is set to join the EU in backing Erdogan's Islamist party in Turkey over its secularist opponents. Never mind that the secularist military and political establishment were reliable American allies, while Erdogan has fed hatred of America. Never mind that Erdogan's AKP has conducted an assault on its opposition and subverted the judiciary. Never mind that Erdogan's AKP has undermined the War in Iraq from the start. Erdogan wants Turkey to join the EU... and that is enough for the EU to support him and apparently enough for Rice to stab the United States and its allies once again in the back... and back the totalitarian ambitions of an Islamic party.

Many "thinkers" such as John Esposito and Noah Feldman have resumed championing the discredited idea that Islam is Democratic or leads to Democracy, when the overwhelming evidence of history and geo-politics is not on their side. Not only is Islam not democratic, but by its very nature it is anti-democratic.

The Separation of Church and State in Turkey or anywhere else, protects government from religion and religion from government. Religion by its very nature holds by uncompromising absolutes. Government in a democracy deals in compromises. When government and religion bleed into each other, either religion becomes compromised or government becomes uncompromising. The former leads to the sort of hollow secularized religion you can see in the Church of England. The latter leads to the sort of fanaticism that drowns half a world in blood.

The fusion of Islam and democracy is a nightmare written in blood. It's an old nightmare over a thousand years old brought to life again by rising oil prices and Western weakness.

Meanwhile the consensual agreements that have formed the institutions of the West have become mischaracterized as universal, leaving Western institutions with no defense against the cancer of Islamism.

Modern Britain: No Laughing Matter

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Thu, 01 May 2008 08:49:00 +0000

Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
Modern Britain: No Laughing Matter
By A. Millar
Created 2008-05-01 09:03

Earlier generations of Britons believed that certain things simply could not happen in Britain. Even in the country’s darkest moments of war or depression, this conviction differentiated the then proud nation from the U.S.S.R., third world countries, and unstable regimes that might fall to dictatorship any moment. News blackouts, and the banning of a book or film of course occurred here or there, but these never seemed very serious events.

When the Thatcher government banned the sale of the novel, Spycatcher, in Britain, it was smuggled into the country from abroad, and reported in the press despite legal challenges. Humor was the public’s usual way of dealing with such things, and the banning of a book that most people could get ahold of, turned politics into a laughing stock. And not for the first or last time either. Before the outbreak of the Second World War, when Oswald Moseley’s “black shirt” fascists were parading through London, Lady Astor commented that if they should ever gain power the British people would die laughing. How prophetic this was. A few years later Charlie Chaplin denounced and mocked the Nazis in his film, The Great Dictator, even as prime minister Neville Chamberlain sort to win “peace for our time” by appeasing Hitler.

In the 1980s and early 1990s the satirical puppet show, Spitting Image, which mocked the politicians of the time, became a staple of television viewing, even for those who generally did not like television that much. The puppets were grotesque, but politics at that time – and before that time – was raw, unscripted. Thatcher, like other leaders, spoke from the gut as well as the brain, and the picture was not always pretty, but it was human, and it represented the British people. In an excellent op-ed piece for The Daily Mail recently, Lord Tebbit – Thatcher’s once right-hand man – spoke of his love for his puppet-portrayal as a “leather-clad bovver boy,” his dismay at the banal, politically correct, mainstream parties who seem indistinguishable from one another, and constant political failings that are, “so ridiculous that it is beyond satire.”

Political correctness has cowed society and politics, and trodden down common sense and humor. Unlike the defiant, bawdy Brit of the past, today he thinks before he speaks, running through the list of forbidden words, and making sure not to let one slip. And so much now is taboo. The English Democrats Party is under investigation for racism, for using the term, “tartan tax,” a student was arrested for calling a police horse “gay,” and, if you need to see the proof of such extreme “politically correct” intolerance, a Youtube video showing a young man being arrested for singing, “I’d rather wear a turban” (deemed racist by the arresting officer), can be seen here.

A common language is one of the traditional, defining marks of a nation, and the criminalization of words will have a very profound consequence for the British. Though rarely acknowledged as such, humor is another defining mark, and one that makes use of the nation’s language in particular ways that relies on the audience having a good general knowledge of culture, history, and politics. Notably, Voltaire once commented that tragedies could be translated from one tongue to another, but that comedies could not. Anyone wishing to grasp the English comedy would need to, “spend three years in London, to make yourself master of the English tongue, and to frequent the playhouse every night,” he suggested.

Political correctness has changed British politics and society, the latter of which has been famed for its ability to laugh at itself – an ability that has certainly helped to keep it free and democratic. Extremists – whether of the fascist, politically correct, or Islamic type – are united in their suspicion – even rejection – of humor. Humor shows them for what they really are. When the “Mohammed cartoons” provoked riots and death threats by Islamic radicals, Jack Straw could only remark,

I said at the time that the cartoons were reprinted in Europe – though not here in the United Kingdom – that doing so was needlessly insensitive and disrespectful. The right to freedom of expression is a broad one and something which this country has long held dear. […] But the existence of such a right does not mean that it is right – morally right, politically right, socially right – to exercise that freedom without regard to the feelings of others.

With those words Straw beheads the figure of humor before our eyes, in order to appease those who might be offended. Not every Muslim is humorless, of course, and in the U.S., for example, there is a comedy show called “Allah made me funny,” with Muslim comedians who are able to poke fun at themselves. The show was the initiative of Preacher Moss, who wanted to bridge the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims after 9/11. Yet in Britain we see that appeasement has become de facto policy of the “liberal” media, with various controversial words or subjects banned. Ben Elton – a comedian and author once noted for his staunchly Left-wing politics – recently accused the B.B.C. of being too “scared” to poke fun at radical Islam, noting that he was even told not to use the entirely innocuous phrase, “Mohammed came to the mountain” apparently for fear of the consequences.

A few days ago, it emerged that the B.B.C. and rival television broadcaster I.T.V. insisted that the Christian Choice political party make changes to the language of its electoral broadcast concerning their opposition to the building of Europe’s largest mosque in London. The party had described Tablighi Jamaat, the group behind its planning, as “separatist,” and noted that some “moderate Muslims” were against the mega-mosque. But the B.B.C. was worried, and insisted the group be described as “controversial” instead. And, it disallowed the term “moderate Muslims” as it implied that Tablighi Jamaat was not moderate. I.T.V. would not even allow the group to be described as “controversial,” although this would certainly appear to be an appropriate – if mild – term. Tablighi Jamaat is opposed to Muslims mixing with non-Muslims, and wants to separate their flock from Jews and Christians by – according to one of their advocates in Britain – creating, “such hatred for their ways as human beings have for urine and excreta.”

Ten years ago, we would have laughed at a comedy sketch in which people were banned from describing hate mongers as “controversial.” We would have laughed at a sketch of a student being arrested for calling a horse “gay.” The lunacy of it all seems so Monty Python or Spitting Image, yet this is the reality of modern Britain.

But I wonder if bawdy, rowdy humor is not now being confined to the past, and along with it an entire way of thinking, and an effective weapon that has proved the best defense of common sense and ordinary people. Gone, it seems, is the type of politician that was feisty and unapologetic in the pursuit of liberty. Contrast Churchill – drinker, cigar smoker, and a man with a quick wit and sharp tongue – with those who embody modern politics – Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, Ken Livingstone, Tony Blair, or David Cameron – and one cannot help but feel that the future of Britain may be no laughing matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3220

An Anatomy of Surrender

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:12:00 +0000

Bruce Bawer
An Anatomy of Surrender
Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.
Spring 2008

http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=2567

Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, KhoÂmeini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. u.s. muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s american muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11. The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito want to understand islam? start here.

Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but today’s movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Little Mosque on the Prairie and CW’s Aliens in America. Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that there’s no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.

Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Fox’s popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversy’s overwhelming impact on Denmark, “not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.” Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.

In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisis—but Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. “We were happy,” she told an interviewer, “that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.”

Then there’s the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves “respect.” Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. London’s Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was “space constraints,” but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallery’s Muslim neighbors. Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of London’s White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though “very few people have explicitly admitted” it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who has—and his reluctance isn’t about multicultural sensitivity. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,” he told the Times of London, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

More recently, high-profile Europe experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced “accommodation,” which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen’s call for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including those “who consciously discriminate against their women.” Sharia enshrines a Muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britain’s best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K., what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, “a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources.” Gratifyingly, his proposal, short on specifics and long on academic doublespeak (“I don’t think,” he told the BBC, “that we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights, simply because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it”) was greeted with public outrage.

Another prominent accommodationist is humanities professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University, author of an August 2007 essay in the New York Times Magazine so long and languorous, and written with such perfect academic dispassion, that many readers may have finished it without realizing that it charted a path leading straight to sharia. Muslims’ “full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected,” Lilla wrote. For the West, “coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle.”

Revealing in this light is Buruma’s and Garton Ash’s treatment of author Ayaan Hirsi Ali—perhaps the greatest living champion of Western freedom in the face of creeping jihad—and of the Europe-based Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. Because Hirsi Ali refuses to compromise on liberty, Garton Ash has called her a “simplistic . . . Enlightenment fundamentalist”—thus implicitly equating her with the Muslim fundamentalists who have threatened to kill her—while Buruma, in several New York Times pieces, has portrayed her as a petulant naif. (Both men have lately backed off somewhat.) On the other hand, the professors have rhapsodized over Ramadan’s supposed brilliance. They aren’t alone: though he’s clearly not the Westernized, urbane intellectual he seems to be—he refuses to condemn the stoning of adulteresses and clearly looks forward to a Europe under sharia—this grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and protégé of Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi regularly wins praise in bien-pensant circles as representing the best hope for long-term concord between Western Muslims and non-Muslims.

This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described “the Islamists’ aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law” as “bold and noble.”

With the press, the entertainment industry, and prominent liberal thinkers all refusing to defend basic Western liberties, it’s not surprising that our political leaders have been pusillanimous, too. After a tiny Oslo newspaper, Magazinet, reprinted the Danish cartoons in early 2006, jihadists burned Norwegian flags and set fire to Norway’s embassy in Syria. Instead of standing up to the vandals, Norwegian leaders turned on Magazinet’s editor, VebjÃ¸rn Selbekk, partially blaming him for the embassy burning and pressing him to apologize. He finally gave way at a government-sponsored press conference, groveling before an assemblage of imams whose leader publicly forgave him and placed him under his protection. On that terrible day, Selbekk later acknowledged, “Norway went a long way toward allowing freedom of speech to become the Islamists’ hostage.” As if that capitulation weren’t disgrace enough, an official Norwegian delegation then traveled to Qatar and implored Qaradawi—a defender of suicide bombers and the murder of Jewish children—to accept Selbekk’s apology. “To meet Yusuf al-Qaradawi under the present circumstances,” Norwegian-Iraqi writer Walid al-Kubaisi protested, was “tantamount to granting extreme Islamists . . . a right of joint consultation regarding how Norway should be governed.”

The UN’s position on the question of speech versus “respect” for Islam was clear—and utterly at odds with its founding value of promoting human rights. “You don’t joke about other people’s religion,” Kofi Annan lectured soon after the Magazinet incident, echoing the sermons of innumerable imams, “and you must respect what is holy for other people.” In October 2006, at a UN panel discussion called “Cartooning for Peace,” Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor proposed drawing “a very thin blue UN line . . . between freedom and responsibility.” (Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether that line would strike through the First Amendment.) And in 2007, the UN’s Human Rights Council passed a Pakistani motion prohibiting defamation of religion.

Other Western government leaders have promoted the expansion of the Dar al-Islam. In September 2006, when philosophy teacher Robert Redeker went into hiding after receiving death threats over a Le Figaro op-ed on Islam, France’s then–prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, commented that “everyone has the right to express their opinions freely—at the same time that they respect others, of course.” The lesson of the Redeker affair, he said, was “how vigilant we must be to ensure that people fully respect one another in our society.” Villepin got a run for his money last year from his Swedish counterpart, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who, after meeting with Muslim ambassadors to discuss the Vilks cartoons, won praise from one of them, Algeria’s Merzak Bedjaoui, for his “spirit of appeasement.”

When, years after September 11, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged publicly that the West was at war with Islamic fascism, Muslims’ and multiculturalists’ furious reaction made him retreat to the empty term “war on terror.” Britain’s Foreign Office has since deemed even that phrase offensive and banned its use by cabinet members (along with “Islamic extremism”). In January, the Home Office decided that Islamic terrorism would henceforth be described as “anti-Islamic activity.”

Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the “spirit of appeasement.” In 2005, Norway’s parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that country’s most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because it’s arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our society’s norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim woman’s request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.

Those who dare to defy the West’s new sharia-based strictures and speak their minds now risk prosecution in some countries. In 2006, legendary author Oriana Fallaci, dying of cancer, went on trial in Italy for slurring Islam; three years earlier, she had defended herself in a French court against a similar charge. (Fallaci was ultimately found not guilty in both cases.) More recently, Canadian provinces ordered publisher Ezra Levant and journalist Mark Steyn to face human rights tribunals, the former for reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the latter for writing critically about Islam in Maclean’s.

Even as Western authorities have hassled Islam’s critics, they’ve honored jihadists and their supporters. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth knighted Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, a man who had called for the death of Salman Rushdie. Also that year, London mayor Ken Livingstone ludicrously praised Qaradawi as “progressive”—and, in response to gay activists who pointed out that Qaradawi had defended the death penalty for homosexuals, issued a dissertation-length dossier whitewashing the Sunni scholar and trying to blacken the activists’ reputations. Of all the West’s leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlands—where Muslims will soon be a majority in major cities—“it would be a disgrace to say, ‘This is not permitted!’ ”

If you don’t find the dhimmification of politicians shocking, consider the degree to which law enforcement officers have yielded to Islamist pressure. Last year, when “Undercover Mosque,” an unusually frank exposé on Britain’s Channel 4, showed “moderate” Muslim preachers calling for the beating of wives and daughters and the murder of gays and apostates, police leaped into action—reporting the station to the government communications authority, Ofcom, for stirring up racial hatred. (Ofcom, to its credit, rejected the complaint.) The police reaction, as James Forsyth noted in the Spectator, “revealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself.” Only days after the “Undercover Mosque” broadcast—in a colossal mark of indifference to the reality that it exposed—Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair announced plans to share antiterrorist intelligence with Muslim community leaders. These plans, fortunately, were later shelved.

Canadian Muslim reformist Irshad Manji has noted that in 2006, when 17 terrorists were arrested in Toronto on the verge of giving Canada “its own 9/11,” “the police did not mention that it had anything to do with Islam or Muslims, not a word.” When, after van Gogh’s murder, a Rotterdam artist drew a street mural featuring an angel and the words thou shalt not kill, police, fearing Muslim displeasure, destroyed the mural (and a videotape of its destruction). In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid “racist backlash.” And in August, the Times of London reported that “Asian” men (British code for “Muslims”) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of “white girls as young as twelve”—but that authorities wouldn’t take action for fear of “upsetting race relations.” Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the “Asian” men’s contempt for the “white” girls was a matter not of race but of religion.

Even military leaders aren’t immune. In 2005, columnist Diana West noted that America’s Iraq commander, Lieutenant General John R. Vines, was educating his staff in Islam by giving them a reading list that “whitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito”; two years later, West noted the unwillingness of a counterinsurgency advisor, Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, to mention jihad. In January 2008, the Pentagon fired Stephen Coughlin, its resident expert on sharia and jihad; reportedly, his acknowledgment that terrorism was motivated by jihad had antagonized an influential Muslim aide. “That Coughlin’s analyses would even be considered ‘controversial,’ ” wrote Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, “is pathognomonic of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global terrorism.” (Perhaps owing to public outcry, officials announced in February that Coughlin would not be dismissed after all, but instead moved to another Department of Defense position.)

Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.

The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they’re incapable of defending it when it’s imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passively—and some, approvingly—while their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.

But we certainly can’t expect them to take a stand for liberty if we don’t stand up for it ourselves.

Bruce Bawer is the author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within. He blogs at BruceBawer.com.

CRIMINALITY OR JIHAD

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:11:00 +0000

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020797.php

Fitzgerald: Criminality or jihad?

"I think this is just criminality, fair and square. We should just call them criminals. You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine," he said. "But adding the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' certainly doesn't help our cause as Americans. It's counterproductive. It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way. And certainly that's not something that we want to do." -- from this article
Criminality is the work of individuals, who break the law because they feel like it. It is prompted not by ideology, but rather by what has prompted criminal activity since the beginning of time.

Terrorism by Muslims is quite different. It can be the act of a collective, of Muslims acting in concert, and supported financially and morally by other Muslims who may prefer to participate in violent Jihad indirectly -- the better, for example, to participate in other, non-violent, but just as dangerous and possibly more effective methods of Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and dominance, of Islam. Where an individual Muslim may be acting, he is doing so not on his own behalf, not to enrich himself, but to further what he has learned -- and learned from the texts, not mistranslated and not misunderstood, of Islam itself: Quran, Hadith, and Sira.

Furthermore, it is important that Infidels understand that they are having war made upon them, and that the war is not limited to what non-Muslims correctly identify as "terrorism." Rather, many or most Muslims are easily persuaded that it is not terrorism at all, but rather a form of qitaal, or combat, simply updated to meet modern conditions, where the Infidels have military superiority -- so unfair! -- and bombs in restaurants and on busses and planes smashed into buildings is merely a form of "equalizing," of leveling the grimmest of playing-fields.

It is important to use the phrase "Islamic terrorism," if the only alternative is "terrorism." But it would be most helpful to speak and write of Jihad, to explain what Jihad means -- what it means and has meant to Muslims over the past 1350 years, and to quickly get over the ludicrous business of those who pretend the word's main meaning is something about an interior struggle to maintain a virtuous life, or somesuch variant.

Why is it important to use the word "Jihad"? Because emphasis, exaggerated emphasis, on "terrorism" makes people pay no attention to much more effective and dangerous instruments of Jihad -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa aimed at the psychically and economically marginal, and demographic conquest. The latter is especially worrisome. Consider the Netherlands, where there were 1,500 Muslims in 1960, 15,000 in 1970, 800,000 in 2004, and over a million today.

It is unfortunate that none of the political leaders in the West, and few in the press, radio, television, feel they have a responsibility to learn the contents of Islam, or to learn something of the history of Islamic conquest, and subjugation of non-Muslims, over the past 1350 years. A great deal could be learned. It requires some effort and some time, and nowadays how many, in the class of people whose responsibility it is to protect and instruct us, would take that time, and make that effort?

The answer is: very few.

And we will all pay. We have already paid in the countries of Western Europe -- in Great Britain and France, in Germany and Spain, in Belgium and Italy and the Netherlands and Denmark and Norway and Sweden. We have all paid and will be grimly paying for the fact that the political and media elites were so criminally negligent over the past 35 years as Muslim immigrants by the millions were allowed in and given every conceivable benefit, and allowed to build mosques and madrasas. They were allowed to settle in without anyone questioning what this meant, what Islam was all about, and whether or not the "problems" -- as they are demurely called -- with Muslim migrants were merely, as some continue to pretend, the same problems that all immigrants experience or present, or whether there was something about that "problem" that had to do with the nature of Islam as a Total Belief-System. That Total Belief-System is inculcated with a brainwashing, and reinforced at every level, in states, societies, communities, even families suffused with Islam. That explains why, in every Infidel land, no matter what its makeup or what its politics or what the attitude of its citizens, the same problems are posed by one particular group of immigrants and by no other group -- not by Chinese, Hindus, Vietnamese Buddhists, not by Caribbean blacks, nor by non-Muslim blacks from sub-Saharan Africa, not by Mexicans, not by Central Americans, not by Andean Indians, not by any group at all. But they are posed by Muslims, to the extent that they take their Islam seriously, wherever they come from.

And that is the fix that Western Europe, and therefore the historic West, is now in. It was a problem that, had the handful of cassandras -- see for example the writings of Jacques Ellul -- been heeded, could have been avoided. Entirely manageable once, it is manageable -- with great difficulty – today.

But it is manageable only if Muslim migration is halted, and funds from Saudi Arabia and other rich Arab states are prevented from being used to build up a fifth column within the Infidel lands through mosques, madrasas, propaganda, and armies of Western hirelings, some of them merely venal, some of them something worse, all of them traitors to the West, who deserve to be seen, and to be treated, as we would have treated those who were in the pay of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

For St Georges day

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:26:00 +0000

Britishness and our Flag. 23.4.2008.

In this year of two-thousand and eight,
The EU flag has become a symbol of hate,
Given the same status as our own “Union Jack”,
Brought in by stealth- behind people’s back.

Year upon year, we watched with shame,
While a few British MP’s that thought the same
To ratify a Treaty quickly, was the race
For a political Union we should forever embrace.
In the UK Flag they wrapped themselves up,
And like Judas as he, from that cup did sup,
They called for “Britishness” to come to the fore,
Ere that Treaty once ratified, made it no more.

For shame now taint’s our once proud flag,
So still, no flight, for chastened, a rag,
For home-bred traitors lent their hand
Sing no British Anthem for that too was banned.

Yet privately and safely behind closed doors,
We celebrate all that we once had before,
Until the day comes, as surely it will,
We can proudly declare and we will fulfil
Our destiny once more, independent and free,
For that is all we ever wanted to be,
Proud to be British, embracing all,
Our Commonwealth friends, a welcoming call.

Our flag will flutter once more in the breeze,
Not still, nor close to the pole in shameful freeze
Only those that are true to Oath and Queen
Will understand what true freedom means.

So hoist your flag high this St George’s day,
Do not let anything get in its way,
Sing out our Anthem in voices loud,
Of all that is British once more be proud.

Posted by Anne Palmer on April 23, 2008 6:50 AM

HANGING IS BACK

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:33:00 +0000

But not for serial killers, murderers, kiddy fiddlers, child murderers or traitors.
Its for political offenses.

http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/
Monday, April 21, 2008
Lisbon Treaty introduces EU-wide death penalty
Helga Zepp-LaRouche is no-one that Cranmer has ever heard of, but she is chair(wo)man of the German political party Civil Rights Solidarity Movement (BüSo). She spoke recently on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, and drew attention by analysis by one Professor Schachtschneider, who is also not someone with whom Cranmer is acquainted.

However, it appears that the Treaty of Lisbon reintroduces the death penalty in Europe, which Helga Zepp-LaRouche thinks is ‘very important’ (just a bit), ‘in light of the fact that Italy was trying to abandon the death penalty through the United Nations, forever. And this is not in the treaty, but in a footnote, because with the European Union reform treaty, we accept also the European Union Charter, which says that there is no death penalty, and then it has a footnote, which says, "except in the case of war, riots, upheaval"—then the death penalty is possible. Schachtschneider points to the fact that this is an outrage, because they put it in a footnote of a footnote, and you have to read it, like really like a super-expert to find out!’

Cranmer has not bothered to check this footnote to a footnote, not least because, although he has never heard of Helga Zepp-LaRouche or Professor Schachtschneider, he is inclined to trust them impeccably against the scheming and manipulating liars in Brussels.

Let us not forget that the Union is acquiring the legal authority to ‘provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies’, which means raising its ‘own resources’ to finance them, which may be regarded as conferring on it revenue-raising powers, which will eventually be subject to QMV instead of unanimity. But it may also be the authority to crush any opposition, especially that which does not accord with its ‘objectives’.

The European Union not only possesses such symbols of statehood as its own flag, anthem, motto and annual official holiday. It now has its own government, with a legislature, executive and judiciary, its own President, its own citizens and citizenship, its own human and civil rights code, its own currency, economic policy and revenue, its own international treaty-making powers, foreign policy, foreign minister, diplomatic corps and United Nations voice, its own crime and justice code and Public Prosecutor.

And the citizens of the Union now owe allegiance to that Union, and to its aims and ‘objectives’, even though no-one in the UK has any idea what these objectives may be.

But Cranmer thinks it noteworthy that the death penalty is reintroduced for political offences, even as vague and undefined as ‘unrest’, but not for serial killers, rapists, paedophiles or child murderers.

One wonders why…
posted by Cranmer at 7:23 AM

I personally am not surprised. Could this be the 4th Reich?
2010 dear readers, thats when the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified and become law.
After that, its not going to be nice for those who wont comply.
Comply, submit or die. The moslims would gladly support this.

FORTY YEARS AGO TODAY.

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:46:00 +0000

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3189
Forty Years On: Sleepwalking Toward the Tiber’s Edge
From the desk of A. Millar on Sun, 2008-04-20 08:35

Anyone who reads the British newspapers on a regular basis will have noticed an alarming repetition. The same few stories, with minor adjustments, seem to appear over and over again: youth violence, mass immigration, Islamic extremism, terrorists planning attacks, compensation and human rights for criminals, an apparent over-sensitivity to religious minorities and an apparent lack of sensitivity to those of the majority religion and ethnicities. Rather than telling the reader something new, news serves only to clarify what he already suspects. Persue readers’ comments and, unsurprisingly, more and more do you find expressions of genuine frustration and anger.

But these voices, which speak for so many, are not heard in parliament, nor does the public seem to make any demands on politicians. A march against war in a foreign country can amass thousands, and protests against China’s treatment of Tibet are frequent, but to defend one’s heritage or culture against erosion by political design, or to voice opposition to such a scale of immigration that one’s way of life is changed or threatened, is seen as potentially dangerous – the first step toward full-blown fascism. History repeats itself, yes; but history does not repeat itself as we might expect. Today, we are obsessively fighting the last war. Everyone’s enemy is a “racist” and a “fascist.” These terms are invoked by the far-Left, Jack Straw, David Cameron, and even the B.N.P., to describe their opponents. Yet at the same time we see an extreme ideology spilling out from politics and becoming increasing absorbed by the judiciary, police, schools, local councils, etc., all against the common sense of the public. And we also see a rapidly expanding Islamic militancy, occasionally becoming linked to public figures such as Ken Livingstone, and, consequently, accepted by the public.

Free speech – which has been so horribly eroded in Britain – was meant to guard against extremism and the persecution of both individuals and larger groups because of the establishment of some dubious ideology. Today, it would appear, that prosecutions for hate speech are based not on what is said but who is speaking. Protests in support of al-Qaeda are deemed free speech, as is downloading terrorist material and discussing the validity and possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks. Similarly, as think tanks such as the Centre for Social Cohesion and CIVITAS have said, Britain’s governmental and judicial establishments have failed to tackle honor crime, with police, councils, and teachers afraid of being branded racist if they make any attempt.

Yet such is the extreme nature of the willingness to prosecute anyone who might be suspected of racism against a non-White British person, that a Down’s Syndrome boy with the mental age of a 5 year old was recently charged by the police with “racism and assault” after he pushed a girl in a playground scuffle. The charge hung over he and his family for 7 months, before they received an apology from the courts. Again, after the English Democrats party put up posters with the slogan “save London from Labour's tartan taxes” the police received complaints that this was racist, and are currently investigating the matter. These incidences are far from unique, but merely 2 reported in the week prior to my writing this article.

The effect is stifling. The accusation or even the mere faint suspicion of racism has silenced debate and even the voicing of discontent about mass immigration, discrimination against Whites in employment by the government or government-sponsored institutions, or the rise of Islamic extremism. When, in 2001, Lady Thatcher said she, “had not heard enough condemnation from Muslim priests,” of the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C., her Conservative Party publicly rebuked her. When Margaret Hodge suggested that British people had valid concerns over housing, considering the level of immigration, her fellow Labour M.P.s accused her of “using the language of the B.N.P.” When Lady Warsi (a Conservative M.P. and a moderate Muslim) suggested that people had legitimate concerns over immigration she was accused of supporting the B.N.P., and, again, when Prime Minister Gordon Brown dared to utter the words “British jobs for British workers,” members of his Labour Party were “appalled” and accused him airing a policy of the B.N.P.

With problems so glaring to the ordinary man and so thoroughly repressed by the main political parties, Enoch Powell – M.P., philosopher, poet, man of the people, and visionary – is being rehabilitated, and not just here on The Brussels Journal. Simon Heffer in The Telegraph has said recently that, “Powell was the greatest Conservative thinker in political life in living memory. He foresaw what were then unimaginable tensions caused by forcibly altering the character of a country.” Looking at the visible characters of today’s Conservative Party one could be forgiven for thinking that Powell was the only Conservative intellectual of our time. The Conservative Party seems to have no real vision for the future, and no real appreciation for the past. But, in such an oppressive atmosphere of “political correctness,” and, indeed, political fear, no intellectual development can occur within popular party politics. As such, we are unlikely to see any solutions to growing problems originating with political parties themselves. It is true, of course, that the B.N.P. is the one party that unceasingly opposes political correctness, “Islamification,” etc., but it has yet to transform itself into an intellectual party, and remains one for which the issue of race is central.

Today we are faced with a “multiculturalism” that has eroded British culture and the constant drumbeat of racial “equality” that treats people not as human beings but mere racial blocks. As Rageh Omaar has said in an op-ed piece on Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech for The Daily Mail, “Instead of multi-culturalism, we are getting tribalisation,” – a point I made some time ago here. When this is applied to voting and politics it is especially alarming, yet Equalities Minister Harriet Harman, has recently proposed that all-Black shortlists of parliamentary candidates be drawn up, to increase the number of Black and Asian M.P.s – a proposal rejected as “colonial” by those it was designed to promote. Likewise, the Conservative Party now has its own Muslim Forum and the current mayor, Ken Livingstone, is supported by Muslims 4 Ken, while his main rival, Boris Johnson, has also been careful to let his Muslim heritage be known. Again, we have seen the B.N.P. attacked in the last few weeks by Operation Black Vote (which aims to promote, within government, the supposed needs of Blacks and Asians), but on what grounds? Racial exclusivity?

We have reached a point, then, at which racially or culturally distinct ghettos – the unfortunate results of long-term multiculturalism – are mirrored at both lower and higher levels of government and party politics. Moreover, if some young Muslims are surfing the net, and finding inspiration in al-Qaeda and websites peddling Islamic radicalism, so too do we see a similar phenomenon at government level, with, for example, Livingstone now having gained the support of suicide bombing apologist Dr Azzam Tamimi – which he has not rejected. It is remarkable to think that not only Muslims, but Muslim extremists, are now playing an important, if not decisive, role in British politics. Yet, it is not difficult to imagine that Britain fifty years from now will have a political reality not entirely unlike that of Lebanon’s today. We must hope that it does not take the same sort of upheaval – such as Powell predicted for a multicultural Britain – to get there, but such a hope seems to be fading. Two thirds of the residents of Britain now believe immigration will lead to violence.

The last words are Powell’s:

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organize to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK, Yawnnnn.......ZZZZZZ

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:13:00 +0000

Maybe we would wake up if we saw how others see the situation.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2008/04/memo-to-europe-youre-israel.html

For every European who ever sat in snide judgment about Israel, who thought things would have been hunky dory if "that shitty country", in the words of a French ambassador, had never existed, I have bad news. You are Israel.

In the early 20th century Britain took over and began attracting large numbers of Arab laborers. A few decades later those Arabs combined with some of the existing natives had a manufactured identity as Palestinians, a flag, an anthem written for them by a Greek Communist composer, guns, bombs and Western bleeding hearts on their side. They've spent the intervening period, rioting, looting, raping and killing any way they can.

Sound familiar? It should.

Israel's Muslim problem pales by comparison to France's 5 million Muslim problem. And Britain didn't simply attract Arabs to Israel, it attracted them to the home country as well. Europe is overrun with guest laborers, con artists, smugglers, students, second wives and the whole bubbling goulash of Muslim immigrants who are reproducing in great numbers. They have held their first Intifadas, blown up buses, burned cars, built Mosques where the same flavor of hatred is preached as in Gaza or the West Bank and declared their intentions to reclaim Spain and whatever other parts of Europe the Ummah feels it has a claim on.

If Israel was supposed to be the new Europe, Europe instead is turning out to be the New Israel, saddled with defunct socialist bureaucracies and a growing Muslim terrorist threat that socialist governments do their best to whistle and pretend isn't there or try to frantically appease.

Oslo may have been the setting for Israel's Going Out of Business sale, but Norway and Sweden may well be the ones to go out of business first as even the coldest lands have filled up with the cries of Allah Akhbar, the lusty calls of newborn Muslim infants and the sobs and screams of raped Swedish women. This will make little difference in Israel or any other Western country which is on the conveyor belt to the same place, the Sharia Abattoir.

Israel's situation didn't come about because the Jews have some special quality for antagonizing perfectly peaceful people, as too many Europeans would like to believe. All it really takes to turn any European country into Israel is a few hundred thousand savages squatting on carpets, demanding their rights and grabbing the knife or the detonator if they don't get them. And the only thing that can prevent it is a good strong immigration policy and a great deal of boats to ship anyone back home who isn't happy with it.

Contrary to the endless bewailings of phony refugees in decades old refugee camps, Israel didn't expel Arabs from its territory. Instead Israel sent soldiers to reassure them that they wouldn't be harmed and to invite them back in. Madness? Yes, but a quite familiar madness to anyone who watches Prime Ministers declare that Islam is a religion of peace and welcome in more refugees and immigrants, even as the Muslims make it clear that if they had their way, the Prime Minister's head would be decorating a sharp stick outside a Mosque somewhere.

Welcoming the apocalypse may be madness but it's the madness of shortsighted politicians and like their European counterparts, the Israeli politicians were motivated only partly by soft-minded humanitarianism, in the mix too was the delectable thought of a reliable Labor voting base that could never possibly cast a vote for a conservative candidate and cheap labor too. That the voting base would wind up opening fire on their grandchildren was not a thought they took seriously, because it was an inconvenient thought.

The way things are has moved from inconvenient thought to inconvenient reality, but that has not diminished the desire of politicians, both European and Israeli, to wish it away in favor of a New Middle East, a New Britain, a New Ireland, a European Union -- some magical utopian socialist reality where college degrees are all the wealth anyone needs, where governments care for everyone and any immigrant can be assimilated no matter how many wives they have and what prophet they believe in.

The more bombs go off, the more politicians cling determinedly to their fantasy and look for some pesky reactionaries to blame for the whole thing. Israel blames the settlers. Europe blames Israel. European left wing parties blame the Right. The Right blames America. America blames Republicans. Republicans blame a tiny minority of extremists, effectively negating their own argument.

And as the fingers point, the chorus bellows, pointless propositions are put forward and struck down in favor of lunatic appeasements, the West is turning into Israel. And as far as both the Muslims and the Left are concerned, like Israel, the world would have been a better place had Western civilization never existed and they are doing their best to put theory into practice.

THE FORGOTTEN HEROS

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:16:00 +0000

The forgotten heros, This lot never got recognition.

Britains secret army

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Auxiliary Units or British Resistance Organisation in World War 2 - 1940-1944.

"Auxiliary Units" was the innocuous codename given to a force of civilian volunteers intended to carry out sabotage, guerrilla warfare and spying from behind the enemy lines in the event of a successful German invasion of the British Isles during World War 2.

They are also connected with the only MI (once up to 20 MI branches now only MI5 and MI6 are commonly remembered) branch not to be designated by a number refered to as MI (R). More and more info is coming to light about these unknown warriors who, often, met with dirision being fit men, capable of being called up but forced to stay at home carring out mundane tasks - even the bovvy boys (conscripted miners) had more kudos!!!

Following the fall of France in May 1940, Winston Churchill ordered Colonel Colin Gubbins (later to "set Europe ablaze" in SOE) to create a force of civilian volunteers, recruited primarily from the ablest Home Guard personnel, to operate from secret underground bases located behind the enemy lines of occupation.

Initially, Gubbins was aided in this by a few "Intelligence Officers" responsible for setting up fighting patrols of six to eight men, led by a Sergeant and co-ordinated by a local commander, usually a Lieutenant or Captain, in their designated regions.

The organisation consisted of 3 main groups Fighting Patrols, Special Duties and Signals.

Ideal recruits were countrymen, farmers, foresters and gamekeepers although eventually all occupations, factory and office workers and students were represented. The main requirements were fitness, knowledge of their own areas and an ability to be trained in the necessary skills for guerrilla warfare.

Volunteers were uniformed for cover as "Home Guard", latterly being absorbed into one of three "GHQ Special Reserve Battalions" with the distinctive numbers of 201 (Scotland and the North) 202 (The Midlands) and 203 (Southern Counties)

Final numbers were in excess of 3000, located mainly in coastal areas but covering the whole of the British Isles.

They created underground O.Bs (Operational Bases or bunkers) from which to carry out attacks and acts of sabotage against enemy targets (supply dumps, railway lines, convoys and enemy occupied airfields) in the event of over run. Their stores were also kept in such bunkers.

In 1940, Britain was at her most vulnerable, and a successful German invasion at that time was considered highly likely.

The Regular Forces, depleted in men and equipment after Dunkirk, may not have withstood an attack on the South Coast and would have withdrawn to the so-called "G.H.Q.Line" just south of London. The Auxiliary Units were intended to harry and disrupt the enemy supply and lines of communication to relieve some of the pressure on the opposing forces.

Operational stores and rations were sufficient for 14 days only - the anticipated useful life of the fighting patrols. Those auxiliers who survived this period would have reverted to their civilian occupations in the hope and anticipation of a successful British counter attack.

The Operational Bases were built, either by the Royal Engineers or by civilian contractors. They, and any curious locals were told that these were to be emergency food stores. Situated usually in dense woodland, these O'Bs were constructed of pre-formed corrugated iron segments, sunk into the ground with concrete pipe access and escape tunnels.

Ingenious methods were used to camouflage and operate the entrance trap doors. Accommodation included wooden bunks for the patrol members, heating, ventilation and ration and water stores. Explosives and ammunition were stored separately.

Most O.B's were destroyed at the end of the war, although the remains of many still exist throughout the country and have been identified by the "Defence of Britain" project.

Formed in May 1940 they were maintained until Stand Down in November 1944, despite the receding risk of invasion. Before D Day, additional Auxunits were deployed on the Isle of Wight in the event of a German counter invasion against the Overlord ports.

At the time of Stand Down, volunteers were told that "no public recognition would be possible due to the secret nature of their duties" and that, since no written records of service had been kept, they were not eligible for the Defence Medal. Subsequent events have shown this latter statement to be false and belated awards have been made to some auxiliers.

Concurrently, but entirely separate from the Fighting Patrols were the Special Duties personnel, men and women recruited secretly and intended to provide an intelligence gathering service, spying on and observing enemy formations and troop movements. They were provided with insignia recognition information and individual "Dead Letter" drops from which their intelligence reports would be collected.

A network of underground radio stations was established which, following a successful invasion would have been manned by men and women of the Royal Signals, who would transmit the intelligence gathered by the Special Duties to the Headquarters of the opposing forces.
Their operational bases were similar in construction to those of the Auxunits, with the addition of electricity generators for their radio equipment.

Highworths' Fertilizers catalogues

do their stuff unseen - until you see results!
This was printed on a booklet resembling an agricultural catalogue, issued to all Auxunit volunteers. Its innocent title covered a handbook on explosives, timing devices and suitable sabotage targets. Selected recruits would be sent to Highworth, Wilts, where, after reporting to the then Postmistress, they would be collected and taken to nearby Coleshill House, their secret H.Q. for a weekends training in fieldcraft, sabotage and unarmed combat, before returning to their patrols to pass on this training.

A museum situated in Parham, Suffolk, where a group of enthusiasts have set up a museum dedicated to the 390th. Bomber Group, U.S. Air Force that operated there during the war. The land is owned by the Kindred family, who were members of an Auxunit patrol in the area, and an adjoining museum has now been created to honour the British Resistance Organisation. This contains many artefacts relating to the Auxiliary Units and has an extensive amount of archive material. A replica Operational Bases is under construction. The museum collection is superior to that in the Special Forces section of the Imperial War Museum.

Most of the above taken from http://www.warlinks.com/pages/auxiliary.html

WHERE AM I ?

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:11:00 +0000

I nicked this piece from Peter Hitchens,

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

It is still just possible to imagine that this is a normal country, if you don't pay too much attention.

But the story of the couple who were spied on in case they were cheating to get their child into a popular school shows just how strange and alien Britain has become.

Usually when I say I feel I am living in a foreign land, my enemies accuse me of making some veiled remark about immigration. But that's not what I mean at all.

Immigration is a problem, sure enough, but if I want to talk about it, I'll make it clear that's what I'm doing. I'm not ashamed of being against mass immigration on its current absurd scale.

I feel no need to disguise my views.

What bothers me just as much is the sense of being transported, when I wasn't looking, into a very bad dream from which there is no waking up.

When exactly did it happen? When did my town hall change from being a friendly, efficient place into a headquarters of fussy political correctness where I feel like an unwanted interloper?

When did the BBC news become a shameless propaganda show, instead of a discreet one?

When did my GP surgery start asking me for my ethnic origin? Worse, when did they start treating parents as guilty suspects if they bring a child into hospital after a fall?

When did it become impossible ever to speak to anyone who will take responsibility for anything?

When did I start getting the feeling, as one of these episodes begins, that there is absolutely no point in complaining or resisting, because if I don't accept this, sooner or later, 'security' is going to be called and I will be worse off than I was before.

It was not always like this. I know it wasn't. I can remember when it wasn't. What I cannot remember is, at any stage, asking for the changes that have happened, or being asked if I wanted them.

They just happened, and now they're here.

And, while there will be some outrage in the newspapers about the spying episode – since newspapers are one of the last places where common sense survives – nothing will change.

Other couples will be spied on in the same way, under the same law, which will not be changed.

So let us look at this case and see why it happened. First of all, the spying. Authority is immensely powerful in this country now.

It has hidden itself in a tangle of quangos and interlocking authorities, effectively nationalised and often Europeanised, too, run by people whose names we can never find out.

There's no scrutiny. The main political parties are dead things, job creation schemes for people who couldn't make it anywhere else, where independence is punished.

The law is beyond the reach of most of us, unless we want to use ambulance-chasing lawyers to make grotesque claims for damages.

Then there's the question of the school. Everyone knows that the official propaganda about education is a lie. We do not have a comprehensive school system, as we pretend, but a viciously unequal selective system which fails hundreds of thousands of children from the beginning.

Selection is done by money and influence. And people try to cheat, by singing hymns and saying prayers they don't believe, by renting flats in catchment areas or lying about their circumstances.

Replacing this with a just system based on merit is ruled to be 'politically impossible' and 'cruel' – so the unfairness has to be maintained, and policed by snooping.
This has happened for years. I know of head teachers who have done it personally.

If only they'd realised that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act allowed them to use taxpayers' money to stake out people's homes and follow them about.

So there it is. Lies, unaccountable authority and the seeds of a secret police force – checking today on school catchment areas, and tomorrow on what? One thing's for sure. You'll find out too late.

Charlton knew it: The bad guys will always have guns

Charlton Heston was a good and decent man, as well as a fine actor and a brave one, who did his own stunts.

Some people can't work out how the same person courageously went on civil rights demonstrations long before it was fashionable, and equally courageously opposed the authoritarian, futile silliness of 'gun control' when that cause wasn't fashionable either.

The two things are completely linked. Both are causes of liberty and justice, and both got him into trouble with received opinion.

Gun control, much imposed by dictatorships, restricts gun ownership to the State, to criminals and (in this country) certain officially approved terrorists.

It bans law-abiding people from defending themselves, even where the State is not doing its job.

As Mafia turncoat Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano once said: "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters.

"I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun.'

Boys in blue, but not ours

Funny, in a way, to see China taking over from the USA as the world's most-protested-against country.

Peking will be a lot less relaxed than Washington about having its flag burned all over the place, but it is a sign of being a real superpower.

So expect more men in blue tracksuits who, by the way, were not the first example of an aggressive approach to protecting China's fragile image abroad.

In 1999, British police took placards from demonstrators during a State visit by Chinese President Jiang Zemin.

They later admitted they were wrong, to avoid court action. That's why they couldn't use quite such heavy-handed tactics to protect the Olympic flame, and presumably that was why the Chinese supplied the mysterious tracksuited men.

_______________________________________________

Amazingly fast, the world we knew is slipping away from us. Britain's seat on the UN Security Council – and so its veto – is now under direct threat.

I wonder how long it will be before serious moves are made to indict Anthony Blair for war crimes – it is only leaders of weak nations who need to face this sort of thing.

_______________________________________________

TV executives tell me that no mainstream channel can now show old episodes of The Sweeney because they are considered too violent. Interesting how tastes change.

Last week the BBC's supposedly gentle, quirky comedy Love Soup showed a suicide in which a woman's body thudded into the pavement and oozed blood and, shortly afterwards, a scene in which a dog has sex with a woman.

When did the taboos against such things dissolve, exactly?

How come this seriously strange programme has one of the most enviable slots on licence-funded terrestrial TV?

Still, at least we know that the central character, played by Tamsin Greig, is an OK person because she is shown reading The Guardian on her day off from her job as boss of a cosmetics counter.

_______________________________________________

A jury of adults, after listening to great mounds of evidence that Princess Diana died in a car accident, concludes that it was 'unlawful killing'.

With this level of stupidity stalking the country, how much longer can democracy survive?

WE ARE MUGS.

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:01:00 +0000

If a culture doesn't want to defend itself, no one else will. But certainly, no one has to admire it.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=292203948245247

Why U.S. View Of Britain Is Tanking
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Public Opinion: Most global surveys on image spotlight negative views of the U.S. But a new poll of U.S. perceptions of Britain shows a plunge. Since it's the U.K.'s turn under this microscope, we'll venture some reasons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: Europe & Central Asia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, it's no pleasure to see U.S. perceptions fall so precipitously for our oldest and closest ally — the one with whom we went through two World Wars and the Cold War, and in each simultaneously elected great leaders who rose to the occasion.

But from a BBC World Service poll of 1,000 Americans, it's clear U.S. views of Britain have fallen sharply. The BBC said "positive views" of Britain stand now at 45%, down from 67% a year ago. Those holding negative views are at 42%, up from 18%.

What happened? The poll gives no reason for the big shift, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to gauge at least some possibilities:

First, it's clear Britain is no longer the ally it once was. In the great war on terror, its leaders are going wobbly, despite the valor of British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Britain's weakening commitment signals an unreliable partner, which whatever the rationale, isn't admirable.

Recall that, amid public sentiment against the war, the U.K. pulled its troops out of Basra in 2007, saying they'd finished their job, but leaving a region in chaos. U.S. troops have had to clean up the mess, raising their risk and burden.

And under direct fire, some British forces looked downright soggy. When an Iranian National Guard boat brazenly took British sailors hostage in 2007, the U.K. military leadership sought to free them at any cost, including national honor.

The released seamen disgraced themselves further by whining about iPods, praising their captors when they were let go and then accepting Iranian swag bags on the way home. The British public completed the sorry picture by making a tabloid spectacle of it.

Although some of these bad moves were eventually halted, the fact that they happened at all signaled a military gone soft.

That brings up a second repellent trend — a culture gone so soft it won't defend itself. Several events happened to show it.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who leads the Church of England, said Britons will eventually accept some aspects of Muslim Shariah law — the same rules that cut off hands for stealing, heads for blasphemy, and force women behind the veil.

As practiced, it's the very system responsible for the stagnation and poverty of Arabic and Muslim cultures over a thousand years — which happens to be why many Muslims flee to Britain in the first place. If the Archbishop won't stand up for British values, who will?

Meanwhile, an unassimilated Muslim immigrant population attends radical madrassas and adopts radical views seen on satellite TV and seems to want Britain to assimilate — not vice versa. That's why some 80% of British Muslims in one poll said they believe suicide bombing to be an acceptable form of Jihad against the West.

The U.S. is constantly bombarded with news stories of Piglet mugs being banned to avoid offending Muslims, U.K. flags being taken down in prisons because their crosses offend Muslims, and mosque Minarets rising among the historically dreaming spires of Oxford.

All these are strikes against some of the strongest and most beloved symbols of Britain. If a culture doesn't want to defend itself, no one else will. But certainly, no one has to admire it.

Then there's the lack of seriousness about terrorism. Against the Orwellian quality of British law enforcement, such as ubiquitous street cameras, there's been remarkable inefficiency in fighting terrorism — and Britain has been hit by three terror strikes as a result.

Despite its role as ally, British officialdom is loaded with anti-Americanism, which frequently spills over to the public. Everyone from Prince Andrew to local pop stars feels it's OK to make anti-American statements. The fact that Mark Malloch Brown, who has expressed open contempt for Americans, can reach a high advisory post in the government, or that crazy leftists like Ken Livingstone or George Galloway can even be elected, dampens our affection, too.

It is, of course, just an opinion poll. And fortunately opinions can change. The one bright spot in all this is that it does show that negative sentiment runs both ways, and that America still holds Britain dearly enough to become angry at it when they fail.

Best of all, shifting public sentiment inside Britain is a good reason to believe Britain can still turn itself around. Let's hope so. ARTICLE ENDS

We here in England have gone through a social revolution without even seeing it. A mass hypnosis during which so many rules and regulations have gone through without objection. We were busy enjoying "prosperity" without responsibility. We were on a binge of drink, credit,drugs nothing was going to spoil it.
We are now realising just how much it has cost us. Not just finalcially there is also family, community, moral, intelectual, educational breakdowns. We are broke, skint and in big debt, a debt as big as a major war would have cost.
This is a different war to any we have ever experienced before. Nothing to do with large armed forces and major conflicts. It is being fought every single minute without most of knowning its happening. How do you fight a beast like that?
I wonder what it will be called in the future

THE VIRUS OF TOLERANCE

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:41:00 +0000

The Virus of Tolerance
Tolerance is the credo of the age, the great rallying call of modern liberalism. Tolerate and be tolerated, they say. Tolerate to all alike.

But what are the limits of tolerance? To tolerate is to accept things that are strange or unpleasant to you. You tolerate things that are different from you in nature and expectation. Without a reasonable amount of tolerance, no society would be able to function for long. But at the same time the flip side of tolerance is that to tolerate a behavior is to perpetuate it.

If your neighbor plays loud music at 1 o'clock in the morning and you tolerate it for a while, you've given permission to him to continue doing so and getting him to stop will now prove much more difficult than if you had put your foot down from the beginning.

And that is the crux of the matter, because there are behaviors that we accept, behaviors that we tolerate and behaviors that are unacceptable. The liberal credo of tolerance though has eliminated two of the categories and warped language and attitudes to equate tolerance with acceptance and to all but eliminate the idea of unacceptable behaviors entirely, as long as they are grounded in a different culture.

Tolerance for liberals means acceptance. While the larger society may not accept, when it begins to tolerate, acceptance is the next and final step of the process. When liberals say tolerate, what they really mean is not 'tolerate' in its original sense of not interfering, but to mean acceptance and accommodation.

That is why we must be careful of what we tolerate, because intolerance is the gatekeeper, the immune system that acts as a barrier. There are things for which that barrier should be lowered and things for which it should remain in place. A society that universally tolerates everything is a society without values or defense mechanisms.

When the defense mechanisms no longer exist, when the gate is permanently raised and the immune system disabled, the society is open and vulnerable to conquest, exploitation and colonization. A society eager to tolerate its intolerant enemies is like an AIDS patient with no working immune system welcoming in cold sufferers or an unarmed man offering a hug to an opponent who is trying to stab him to death. Yet that is almost exactly the situation we are in.

Liberalism does not promote a universally tolerant society. Instead it promotes something far worse. Intolerance toward the immune system itself, toward the gatekeepers and the traditional and conservative elements of the society combined with a limitless tolerance toward the foreign invasion. This is not merely apathetic tolerance, it is tolerance turned virulent. It is tolerance turned into a virus that kills the host society.

Liberal society today is the AIDS patient actively seeking infection and throwing out his medication. It's the unarmed man going to the most dangerous part of town and threatening the police with a lawsuit if they try to protect him.

Like most things tolerance is a dangerous thing. To tolerate is to give your consent, your permission to an act or a way of life. Be careful of what you tolerate and remember to be wary of whether the things and people you tolerate-- are equally willing to tolerate you.

THANK YOU SULTAN

Terrorism, liberty and a question of liberty

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:41:00 +0000

Terrorism, liberty and a question of liberty
Last updated at 22:51pm on 13th April 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=559477&in_page_id=1787

It is no coincidence that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith chose this weekend to warn - in a tabloid newspaper interview - that the Islamist terror threat to the British way of life is "severe and growing".

With Parliament soon to decide on her proposal that detention without charge in terror cases should increase from a maximum of 28 days to 42, she was giving rebellious Labour MPs an unsubtle reminder of where their loyalties lie.

She had nothing new to say but the message was clear - support this Bill or you are soft on terrorism and the blood of future victims may be on your hands.
Oh no, she is playing a new guilt trip card

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith: Islamist terror threat is 'severe and growing'

But is this really true? Surely only the most slavish of her colleagues will swallow Miss Smith's hollow arguments.

For example, why 42 days? Why not 90, as the Government first wanted, or seven as it was until 2003, or 56, as was floated last year, or 14, as it was before 2006. Indeed why not 28 days, as it is now?

Since the 28-day limit was introduced, there is no evidence that any terror investigation has been hampered because charges had to be brought prematurely, and even the police - though broadly in favour - are not pushing for the extension with any zeal.

Senior Government law officers are opposed, some believing that such Draconian legislation targeting one section of the community might create more terrorists than it catches.

Everyone understands the seriousness of the terror threat and when society is under attack from within, civil liberties inevitably suffer.

However, that does not mean they should be surrendered lightly - or, worst of all, for short-term political gain.

Miss Smith knows that if the Bill falls, it will be a calamity for the Prime Minister.
that would be better than her bill
As the latest polls show Mr Brown less popular even than Neville Chamberlain following his humiliation by the Nazis, a Commons defeat might quickly lead to an issue of confidence.
that took some doing, well deserved methinks

There are already mutterings about threats to his leadership.

I would rather hear the sound of the gallow makers at work than mutterings

So, in order to balm her party's selfinflicted wounds, Miss Smith is prepared to manipulate the fears of both the public and her colleagues to drive through a piece of ill-conceived and muddled legislation.

In any circumstances this would be cynical in the extreme.

When individual liberties and the defence of the realm are involved, it is nothing short of disgraceful.
Try treason, much more accurate

Licence to flout law

If you are a normally law-abiding motorist who happens to stray into a bus lane, be ten minutes late back to your parking meter, or be caught on speed camera doing five mph over the limit, the chances are you will be pursued quickly and with the full rigour of the law.

If you are part of the underclass of two million rogue drivers, without tax, insurance, and frequently even a licence, you are likely to enjoy many years of trouble-free motoring.
Underclass, who would that be?
Figures showing there are 63 per cent more tax evaders now than in 1999, yet only half as many successful prosecutions will leave most motorists speechless with impotent rage.

Only one in 20 tax-evaders is ever prosecuted.

With the proliferation of spy cameras under this overbearing, snooping Government - not to mention some deluded chief constables who seem to think hounding decent motorists is a higher priority than tackling crime - car drivers are oppressed as never before.
dont pay any tax I say
The least they are entitled to expect is that some of the billions extorted from them every year for trivial offences should be spent on pursuing those drivers who really make our roads unsafe.
Thats your road tax going up to pay for it then. More extortion, good idea.
But then, that might seem far too much like hard work.

TO PAY TAXES OR NOT

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:00:00 +0000

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=559506&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770

More than 2m untaxed and uninsured drivers are laughing at the law as prosecution rates more than halve in eight years
Last updated at 01:12am on 14th April 2008

Rogue drivers: There are 63 per cent more road tax evaders than eight years ago - yet only half the number of successful prosecutions
More than two million rogue drivers escaped prosecution last year as an underclass of untaxed and uninsured drivers grows at an alarming rate, figures reveal today.

They show that there are 63 per cent more road tax evaders than eight years ago - yet only half the number of successful prosecutions.

Today, a driver who does not pay road tax has a one in 20 chance of being prosecuted against a one in six chance in 1999.

The figures were unearthed by Tory transport spokesman Theresa Villiers from answers to a series of parliamentary questions.

Miss Villiers said: 'These figures are a shocking indictment of the Government's truly hopeless record on dealing with rogue drivers.

'The Government needs to get a grip on this issue. What these stats highlight is that, under this Government, things have been getting steadily worse.

'Rogue drivers without tax or insurance are a menace to other road users.

The direct result of Labour's incompetence in dealing with rogue drivers is that our roads are more dangerous.'

The Department for Transport figures show the estimated number of untaxed vehicles on the roads has soared from 1.33million in 1999 to 2.17million in 2006, an increase of 63 per cent.

Yet over the same period, the number of successful prosecutions for car tax offences has almost halved from 204,606 to 103,108.

Ministers estimate the lost revenue is £79million for 2007-2008 alone.

In January, a report by the Commons public accounts committee said the Government's record on road tax was 'poor' and it was 'losing ground' against the evaders.

The system risked becoming 'a complete laughing stock' and spiralling out of control.

A flood of foreign motorists driving illegally, many from eastern Europe, has been blamed by MPs for contributing to the number of cars that are untaxed or unlicensed - where the documents required to get a tax disc are not in order.

Edward Leigh MP, chairman of the public accounts committee, said: 'Motorists and motorcyclists who refuse to pay road tax are stealing from law-abiding taxpayers. Unlicensed cars are often associated with other forms of crime.'

Sheila Rainger, of the RAC Foundation, said the figures were a ' wakeup call for better enforcement'.

She added: 'Motorists driving without tax are also more likely to be driving uninsured and without an MoT.

Responsible motorists are not only picking up the tab for evaders, they are also being put at risk by them. The Government needs to boost the number of traffic police carrying out on-road crackdowns, so that the motoring underclass and the hardcore tax dodgers are the ones feeling the pressure, not the law-abiding motorist.'

Paul Watters, of the AA, said: 'We fear that today's road tax evasions figures are actually the tip of the iceberg. In January, the public accounts committee reported that losses to the Treasury in 2006 were £214million, more than double that quoted today.'

A Department for Transport spokesman said: 'The DVLA and the department, together with the police and local authorities, are determined to force tax evaders off the roads. We are targeting persistent evaders and seizing 100,000 unlicensed vehicles each year.

'From September, new legislation will allow police, DVLA and local authorities to take action against unlicensed vehicles even if they are not parked on public roads.'

Under the law, motorists will receive an £80 penalty charge notice through the post if they fail to tax their cars on time, with a theoretical maximum fine for non-payment of £1,000.

But critics say the sanction is toothless against persistent offenders, who are also likely to be uninsured, without a valid driving licence, or MoT. This 'underclass' does not show up on the DVLA computer as having a valid address. article ends.

This road fund tax is not used for the road, it breaches the trade decription act, it should not be payed.
As a matter of fact all taxes should be with held. Taxes are what is paying for the destruction of this nation.
NO TAXES UNTIL WE GET A REFERENDUM

BRITAIN'S LESSONS IN CULTURAL SUICIDE

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:21:00 +0000

Published in full
hat tip: DP111
Published: December 12, 2007
Britain's Lessons in Cultural Suicide
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1385864
Adrian Morgan

Lesson 1: Don't Fly The Flag

Imagine, if you will, that you had served your country in the U.S. military for 22 years, and viewed yourself as a patriot. To this end, you have tattooed on your arm a small image of the Stars and Stripes and the words "U.S. Army'. When preparing to retire from the army, you then decide to join the police. How would you feel if you found yourself turned down for the job, because you are told your tattoo of the national flag could be seen as "racist"?

Fortunately for Americans, such a scenario could never happen in the near future. Yet for British soldier Sgt. Ivan Ivanovic, his patriotic tattoo prevented him from joining a police force in the north of England. Because Ivanovic has a two-inch Union Jack flag tattooed on his arm with the words "British Army", he was not even considered for employment by Cumbria Constabulary. He said: "I can't see why anyone would think that the flag of the country might be seen as racist."

Sergeant Ivanovic had served Queen and Country in the first Gulf War, in Kosovo and in Iraq, yet the national symbol of the country he served was deemed "racist". Ivanovic should not have been surprised. Since May 1997, Britain's Labour government has been undermining almost every aspect of British heritage in a misguided drive to foist its leftist policies of "multiculturalism" onto an unwilling public.

When in 2002 Derek Stone stood as the Conservative candidate for mayoral elections in the London borough of Lewisham, his posters bore a Union Jack. For this act, he was condemned by his opponents as "racist".

A precursor of the Union Jack first appeared on April 12, 1606, when James I (formerly James VI of Scotland) was king. This flag incorporated the Saltire or cross of St Andrew (Scotland's patron saint) and the cross of Saint George, patron saint of England. The modern design of the Union Jack - which also includes the cross of Saint Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, was drawn up in 1801 by the College of Arms, to celebrate the "Act of Union" officially unifying Scotland and England.

Wales has its own language (my Welsh father did not learn English till he was seven) yet was not regarded as a separate country when the first Union flag was created. Wales had been incorporated into the union by two acts passed in 1536 and 1542, and was not included in the design of the Union Jack.

How did a flag which symbolically represents "unification" become associated with racism? A report on racial and inter-religious disturbances in Britain, which took place in northern England in 2001, stated: "The Union Jack, the flag that 'represents' Britain is seen as a racist flag the symbol of colonialism and the BNP... Ordinary people can no longer display the flag without being labeled right wing racists."

It is true that in the 1970s the far-right (and racist) group called the National Front adopted the Union Jack as its political logotype. The British National Party (BNP) also briefly adopted the flag. The Union Jack has been a symbol of national identity for 200 years - and continues to be a visible sign of Britishness, despite the attempts by extreme nationalists to hijack it.

In 2003, one British supporter of multiculturalism tried to reintroduce a revamped version of the Union flag where black lines were added to the design, to represent the non-white citizens of Britain. This individual, Nigel Turner, said: "If I flew the union jack from a flagpole in my garden, many people would see it as a racist statement." The issue of Britain's flag being viewed as racist seems to be a notion beloved by multiculturalists and leftists.

In the 1990s, I designed publicity for an art exhibition in the London Borough of Hackney. The work was by young black artists. One item was a massive screen print of the Union Jack in red ink. It was comprised entirely of the names of black people who had contributed to British culture, from Olaudah Equiano and Mary Seacole to contemporary athletes, broadcasters, writers and actors. My layout, intended to be placed on Hackney council's magazine, featured this artwork sized down to only an inch and a half wide. When the magazine was published, there was a hole in the design. I rang the council, and was told the Union flag image had been removed, as it was seen as "racist".

The report on the northern England riots of 2001, where Muslims and white British fought running battles in Oldham, Bradford and Burnley observed that: "as others have noted in relation to the 1998 (soccer) World Cup the St George's flag was felt to represent a multi-ethnic Britain, whereas the Union Jack is associated with colonialism and white racism. The obvious irony of course is the St George's flag's older historical symbolism of the crusades, of an earlier conflict between Christian Europe and Islam. Yet British Muslims readily took it up as a symbol of a component of their identity, as a symbol of their belonging within and support for England."

The St George's flag, national flag of England since the 13th century, has not escaped controversy. For many people living in England, irrespective of race, it is seen as a national flag when England competes in a sporting contest. In June 2006 a senior officer in North Wales Police warned during the soccer World Cup that flags of St George would lead to racism and violence. He felt that Welsh citizens would be offended if they saw the St George's flag displayed on vehicles.

In Hounslow, west London, the local council had previously displayed the Palestinian flag on its civic center, but decided in February 2005 to refuse to allow the flag of St George, as it was deemed "socially divisive". A motion to hoist this flag on St George's Day (April 23) was almost unanimously defeated by council members.

When in 2006 Jackie Meldrum, Labour-supporting deputy council leader of Lambeth Council in south London, commented that the St George's flag was a symbol of "multiculturalism", she received racist hate mail. One letter read: "Cllr Meldrum you are an anti-white, racist shit. I hope every member of your family dies as slowly as Britain has been dying from your poisonous anti-white propaganda and I know millions of others would agree. Long live Britain!"

Though Lambeth Council's Labour spokespeople believe the St George's flag is a sign of multi-ethnic values, the Liberal Democrat borough council of Pendle, Lancashire, believes that the same flag is "racist". Matthew Carter works as a refuse collector for the council, and as he has dreadlocks, he uses a bandana to tie back his hair when he works. Mr. Carter, who is black and comes from Barbados, had been using a St George flag for this purpose. In June this year, Mr. Carter was banned from wearing the St George flag. He said: "I received a verbal warning. They told me the St George's Cross was not allowed to be seen on any clothing we wear because it could be considered offensive and racist."

Anne Owers is Britain's Chief Inspector of Prisons. In 2005 she wrote in a report that officers in Wakefield jail in Yorkshire had been seen wearing St George tie-pins. These items were in support of a cancer charity. Owers claimed that such symbols should not be worn, as they could be "misinterpreted" as a racist symbol.

For some fanatical Muslims, the sight of a St George's cross is a sign of the Crusades. During the 2006 World Cup, a chain of pubs banned any displays of the flag, following threats by extremists linked to the outlawed group Al-Muhajiroun. Cable company NTL and the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency also banned the flag.

In June this year, Islamists connected with Al-Muhajiroun burned handmade St George's flags at Regents Park Mosque. They were protesting at the knighthood that was given to author Salman Rushdie. Other protesters carried placards stating "God Curse the Queen."

Lesson 2: Divided We Fall

With Britain's populace uncertain whether its national flags represent unity and inclusiveness or division and racism, the Labour government has nonetheless widened the fault lines dividing Britain. The most obvious sign of this came in the form of setting up parliaments for Scotland and Wales, while allowing English citizens no such regional body.

When the Labour government came to power in May 1997, it had promised devolution for Scotland and Wales in the form of creating regional parliaments. For Scottish citizens, a referendum was held on September 11, 1997. This gave approval for the formation of a Scottish Parliament, a measure which became enshrined in the Scotland Act of November 19, 1998. This Act allowed for the parliament to have 129 elected members.

Welsh opinion was evenly divided over having a separate parliament. A referendum held in September 1997 found 50.3 percent in favor, and 49.7 percent against. The Government of Wales Act of 1988 ruled that a National Assembly for Wales (NAW) should be created, with 60 elected members. The NAW has less powers than the Scottish parliament.

The Scottish parliament began operations in May 13, 1999 in a temporary location in Edinburgh, while construction began on a purpose-built edifice at Holyrood. In October 2004 the new Scottish parliament building finally opened. This had taken five years to complete, at a cost of $900 million - ten times the original estimate. Scotland has introduced laws that require the state to fund the care of the elderly. In the rest of Britain, the elderly must first spend all their assets above $41,000 before they receive free nursing care. The Scottish elderly care scheme is now in chaos.

Though designed to give people greater say over local issues, devolution has not reversed the decline of national feelings of pride. The Union - once the bedrock of British identity which allowed people from any part of Britain to feel some sense of collective belonging - has lost support in England, Scotland and Wales. People in all regions feel less proud to be British than they did in the 1980s.

Gordon Brown had been the Chancellor since Labour came to power in 1997 and cannot evade responsibility for the damage that Labour has done to Britain's national identity. Shortly after he assumed power in June of this year, Brown ordered that all public buildings in Britain should hoist the Union flag for 365 days a year. In Scotland, whose parliament is governed by the Scottish National Party, the Scottish culture minister affirmed in July that the St Andrew's flag, or Saltire, will have precedence over the Union flag.

Under Labour, more and more power has also been devolved to Europe. With increased treaties and directives agreed by an ever-expanding European Union, Britain's citizens have lost many of their traditional rights. In 2003, shopkeepers were banned from displaying measures of produce in pounds and ounces, and were obliged by law to display only metric measures.

In 1998, Labour introduced a Human Rights Act, which made all of Britain's laws subservient to the European Convention of Human Rights, originally written up in 1950. Russia also signed this convention, but has never allowed the convention to interfere with human rights violations. Britain's 1998 law has prevented the deportation of terrorists and those already convicted in their home countries from being deported. On May 1, 2006, a European Union law, the 2004 Free Movement Directive, came into force. This ruling similarly prevents deportation of foreign-born criminals.

Labour's biggest blow to cultural cohesion has been to allow uncontrolled immigration. Since Labour came to power in 1997, 1.7 million new jobs were created. According to a recent report, 81 percent of those new jobs went to foreign-born workers.

Since 2001 Labour has stuck to a mantra that immigration is good for the economy, based on one report made at that time. Last month, a new report cast doubt on the accuracy of that statement. At the end of September 2007, Britain's left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published the findings of an economic profile on British immigrants. The report maintained that overall, immigration was good for the economy. However, it also found that among immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Turkey and Somalia, more of these people were unemployed than in work.

The IPPR report notes that Polish immigrants were well-represented in the workforce. However, the amount of legal immigrants from Eastern Europe over the past three years has escalated dramatically, arriving at twenty times the annual rate that was expected by government. Since 2004, there have been 700,000 Eastern European immigrants. This massive influx has led to housing and public services becoming severely stretched. Other EU countries imposed strict limitations on the numbers of migrants from Eastern Europe. Britain was the only EU country which did not impose limits.

A government report from July this year on Eastern European migration was not intended to be published publicly. It was leaked, and revealed that the government was alarmed at the sale of migration, and the strain it was placing on services and social cohesion. The report's author, Joan Ryan of the Home Office, also noted that Britain's policy of not paying such migrants welfare benefits if unemployed could be illegal under European Union law.

In July and again in September of this year, prime minister Gordon Brown pledged to create "British jobs" for "British workers". In October, a parliamentary study claimed that Brown's pledge to create jobs for British citizens could be illegal under European Union law as it discriminated against migrant workers from the EU. Under the EU treaties approved by Labour, these migrants who come predominantly from Eastern Europe must "enjoy equal treatment".

Many migrants bring their children, and as a result, it was revealed in September last year that one in eight schoolchildren speak English as a second language. Few schools can compare with the Isambard Brunel School in Portsmouth on Britain's south coast. Here, teachers struggle to educate pupils who come "from 41 countries who, between them, speak 58 different languages, but often little or no English."

Any American politician who wishes to destroy his or her nation's identity is unlikely to copy most of Labour's policies, primarily because the United States does not belong to a disparate coalition of 26 nations such as the European Union. The egalitarian/communistic nature of the EU allows each of its member states to have a say in policy. Its two latest arrivals are Bulgaria and Romania, both economic basket cases struggling to implement real democracy. Turkey is attempting to join as it lurches further towards Islamofascism.

However, the United States has exercised scant control over its southern border, and consequently has a burgeoning population of illegal migrants. In Britain, the government estimates that there are 570,000 illegal immigrants in the country, though the true figure is more likely at least 800,000.

In Britain, there have been rallies by leftists and bleeding-heart liberals to give amnesty and eventual citizenship to Britain's illegal immigrants. In 2006, the leftist think-tank IPPR recommended an amnesty for illegal migrants.

Such amnesties have already been allowed in Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Cyprus, all EU member states. Currently, the Liberal Democrat party, which has little chance of winning an election, supports an amnesty.

Last year, George W Bush was criticized for supporting a virtual amnesty plan for illegal migrants. One American politician who supports the granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants is Hillary Clinton. With her plans to introduce a health system not unlike Britain's cash-devouring National Health Service, Hillary is almost a token European.

Lesson 3: Trash Your Traditions

America is protected by a written constitution. Britain has no such document, though the latest European Union Treaty which Gordon Brown has thitherto supported is regarded as a "European constitution". With no written constitution, it was easy for Tony Blair to remove some of the hereditary peers who sat in Parliament's Upper House, replacing them with individuals of his own choosing.

The only fixed constitutional item in Britain is the figurehead of the monarch. Currently, Queen Elizabeth II has fulfilled her "constitutional" role admirably since 1953, attending official and ceremonial functions without showing political favor. The British monarch is also the head of the Anglican church, carrying the title "Defender of the Faith". Her successor as monarch and "Defender of the Faith" will be Prince Charles, who famously imagined himself as a tampon belonging to his then-floozy, Camilla Parker Bowles.

Despite his marital infidelity and bizarre ruminations, Charles declared in 1994 that he wanted to abandon the title of "Defender of the Faith". This sobriquet has been held by every British monarch since Henry VIII in 1521. Prince Charles wanted to replace it with the title "Defender of Faiths", to make Muslims and other non-Anglicans feel "included". He has since claimed that he wishes to be called "Defender of Faith". Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, contends that the title of "Defender of the Faith" is not negotiable, nor is it subject to Charles' personal whims.

Two months after 9/11, Charles condemned what he perceived as anti-Muslim attitudes in America. He claimed: "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational." At the time, Charles was accompanied by Iqbal Sacranie, who notoriously said after Salman Rushdie's death-fatwa that "death is, perhaps, too good for him." Sacranie has also called Osama bin Laden an "Islamic scholar".

Charles may wish for more understanding between faiths, but he has patronized some insidious organizations, such as the Saudi-funded King Fahd Academy in west London. This institution uses Saudi textbooks which call Christians "swine" and Jews "apes and pigs". Interfaith understanding is not assisted by pandering to religious bigotry. In March 2006, he attended Imam Muhammad bin Saud University in Saudi Arabia, where he delivered a speech praising Islam. The same university has educated Salafists who preach hate, including Abdullah el-Faisal. Faisal served time in a British jail after calling for the murder of Jews and Hindus.

Since the 1980s, Britain's Labour-controlled local councils have promoted policies of multiculturalism. So-called "representatives" of minority ethnic groups were given cash hand-outs to set up their own groups, with little critical analysis of these groups' roles. In the mid-1990s, Muslims who had previously been fellow-travelers on the racial rights bandwagon began to demand that their religion be granted "special status".

In universities, Muslim extremists from Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun campaigned to win the "hearts and minds" of students. Often, these groups used violence to force Muslim women students to wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf. In 1995, members of Hizb ut-Tahrir killed an African student at an east London college. At that time, no action was taken against the group as a whole and its then-leader, Omar Bakri Mohammed, continued to preach hate and intolerance.

When Labour came to power in 1997, policies which had thrived in so-called "looney left" councils became embedded in the government's ethos. Instead of governing the economy and enforcing existing laws, Labour set out to engage in changing society artificially by social engineering. In this climate, local councils grew bolder in their efforts to be politically correct. In 1998, Birmingham City Council decided that the term "Christmas" was potentially offensive to non-Christians. As a result, it renamed its celebrations and seasonal illuminations "Winterval".

In 2001, Luton Council decided to call its seasonal celebrations "Luminos", which bizarrely featured fictional apprentice wizard Harry Potter. In 2005, Lambeth Council expunged the word "Christmas" from all literature describing its Christmas illuminations. Instead, the terms "winter lights" and "celebrity lights" were employed.

Such skewed thinking has infected schools. Last Christmas, the head teacher of Walter Street Primary School in Brierfield, Lancashire decided to remove any mention of the Virgin Mary from the school's Christmas cards. She said: "We mention the birth of Jesus, but we cut reference to the Virgin Mary to just Mary because Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, not the son of God."

Twenty percent of the pupils at Oakwood school in Rotherham are Muslim, but for its 2006 Christmas meal, the school decided that all the chicken to be served should be halal. Halal meat must be slaughtered ritually by having the animal's throat cut and the blood drained. Naturally some parents and teachers rebelled. Eventually, the school relented, and decided to offer a choice of halal and normal chicken.

In fairness, it should be noted that many of these bizarre decisions to downgrade the Christian aspects of Christmas are mostly the work of non-Muslims. Walter Street Primary School, 90 percent of whose pupils are Muslim, was condemned by Muslim spokespeople for banning the word "virgin" from its Christmas cards. Last year, Muslims complained that the town of Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire had replaced the words "Christmas Greetings" in its Christmas light displays. Instead, the council had chosen the "neutral" slogan "Season's Greetings".

Jews have thrived in Britain since the time of Oliver Cromwell, but no British institutions have ever attempted to worry about whether images of pigs would offend Jewish sensibilities. In recent years, British individuals and institutions have made utter fools of themselves to appease what they consider to be Muslim sensibilities. In October 2005, two major banks in Britain decided to ban all images of pigs from their branches. The Natwest and Halifax banks announced that no images of piggy banks should appear in any of their promotional material. I lived in an Orthodox Jewish area of London in the 1980s to 1990s, and used the local Natwest branch. I never noticed any Jews appearing offended by posters of piggy banks.

At Ramadan in 2005, Dudley Council in the Midlands ordered its staff not to display any images of pigs in its offices. A Muslim councillor had objected to the sight of pig-related items on workers' desks, including a tissue box emblazoned with a picture of Winnie the Pooh and Piglet. The edict was later reversed.

Schools have been affected by pig prohibitions. In 2003 Barbara Harris, headmistress at the Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery School in Batley, West Yorkshire, banned all books containing pig stories from classrooms. As the majority of her pupils were Muslim, she decided on the ban in case any were offended.

In March this year, Honley Church of England Junior School in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire was preparing to partake in a June music festival with other schools. The festival organizers decided that their performance, entitled "The Three Little Pigs" should be altered to "The Three Little Puppies" in case Muslims were offended. The performance was a section from Roald Dahl's verse play, Little Red Riding Hood. The decision to rename the performance was subsequently overturned.

The issue of potentially offending Muslims means that non-Muslims are made to "opt in" to Islamic appeasement plans. In Brixton prison in south London, no prisoner need worry about answering calls of nature and offending Allah. In April 2006, all of the toilets in two newly-constructed lavatory blocks at the prison were designed so that they did become aligned with Mecca.

In Nottingham, even in death one's body can be buried in an Islamic direction, appropriately aligned towards Mecca. High Wood Cemetery opened in July last year. Only 15 percent of the graves to be dug there will be occupied by Muslims, but it was Nottingham City Council's desire that all bodies be buried in the same direction. It was felt more convenient to align all tombs to Mecca. Only if a relative makes a specific request will the coffin be aligned East/West in traditional Christian manner.

Britain's National Health Service (NHS) was founded in 1948 by a Labour government, a product of post-war socialist idealism. Now the NHS relentlessly swallows taxpayers' funds and has become a haven of political correctness. In September 2006 a Lancashire branch of the NHS introduced a hospital gown for Muslim women, designed to mimic the burka. The NHS should be concerned about health, and not pandering to Islamism, especially when burkas have been linked with a resurgence of rickets in babies. This is being caused by pregnant Muslims who wrap themselves up and starve themselves and their unborn babies of vital Vitamin D, created by sunlight. The most recent reported outbreak of rickets has affected 56 individuals from Lancashire.

In August 2007, a department of the NHS in Lothian, Scotland, announced an edict. Hospital staff were told not to eat food at their desks during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, in case they offended Muslims who were meant to be fasting.

The latest example of NHS multiculturalism is happening in Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust. Here, nurses have to move the beds of Muslim patients five times a day at prayer times, so that the beds are facing Mecca. Initially, the move was made for all Muslim patients, to create "a more comfortable stay in hospital." A few days later, after receiving criticism, the ruling was amended so only the beds of terminal patients would be moved to face Mecca.

I could continue, with tales of young non-Muslim schoolchildren being made to copy out the Shahada, the oath made by those who convert to Islam, as a handwriting exercise or a teacher sacked for stating the truth that most suicide bombers are Muslim. I could mention how Britain's Channel 4 TV decided in 2006 to have its Christmas message delivered by a burka-clad Muslim woman. When the woman pulled out of the engagement, another shrouded Muslim woman was brought in to replace her. This individual belonged to an extremist sect.

In April 2007 the Judicial Studies Board ruled on a legal case that had been stopped when the judge could not hear the voice of a lawyer, as her mouth was covered with a niqab or face-veil. The ruling allowed for face-veils and burkas to be worn in British courts. In August a woman lawyer mentioned the April ruling, and argued that judges should never wear a face-veil. She stated: "The United Kingdom is not a sharia state." Her comment was branded as "astonishingly offensive". Fatim Kurji wrote "this is what I call 'the BNP argument'."

This is Britain today, throwing away all of its traditions and heritage, constantly moving the goal-posts to conform to the alien and alienating values of "multiculturalism". A multiracial society is a positive and achievable goal. A multicultural society is not a single society but a mess of competing societies, a haggler's market where the loudest complainer gains the most.

And did I bother to mention that only 3 percent of Britain's population are Muslims?

Can someone explain to me why?

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:26:00 +0000

Following on from my previous post, today I read this.
BNP gives platform to a UKIP Member
By Chris Brown ⋅ December 13, 2007 ⋅ Email this post ⋅ Print this post ⋅ Post a comment
Joan Martin, a UKIP member, and former PPC for Winchester has produced a most interesting piece of research, and by so doing has answered questions such as these:

“Why is Gordon Brown so determined to force this treaty down our collective necks when it is clear that he has no mandate to do so, there seems to be a huge majority of people against it and he appears to be in danger of committing political suicide by doing so?

Can someone explain to me why? What is so worth throwing away 1000 years of “we the people” culling our freedoms and rights, such as they are, from an uncaring aristocracy just to give it away to an uncaring bureaucracy? “

Yet, UKIP, her own Party, has not bothered to publish the research, no doubt its leader, Nigel Farage

,

has been too busy, pointlessly grandstanding inside the EU Parliament building to notice. Or is it that Mr Farage, friend of the BBC, does not want you to know of the plan? We couldn’t possibly comment.

The responsibility to publish Joan Martin’s research has therefore fallen to the BNP.

Joan Martin’s research is set out below:

“A WORLD COUP d’ ETAT IS PLANNED TO BRING ABOUT WORLD GOVERNMENT

The time-line explained:

KARL MARX.1818-1883

Marx was a German Jew with radical views.

In 1842 he became a member of the Hegelians an anti-religious, radical group with Satanic interests.

In 1843 he left Germany and went to Paris where he met Engels who helped him financially.

In 1845 he was expelled from Paris.

In 1848 went to live in Brussels were he wrote the Communist Manifesto.

In 1849 Marx moved to London and lived there for the rest of his life.

In 1864 following the establishment of Working Men’s Association. Marx worked for many years on the affairs of First International.

“Das Kapital” was published 1867.

MARX died in 1883 in London and is buried in Highgate.

THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO INCLUDES.

The Abolition of Private Property

The Abolition of the Family.

The Abolition of Countries and Nationalities.

The Abolition of all Religions, morality and Religious Liberty, this shows the Hegelians Idealism.

The Abolition of Freedom of conscience. In a Democracy people believe in the freedom to choose.

The word Communist covers anyone who aspires to World Government.

Marxism works towards achieving World Government and World Dictatorship.

MARX WITH HIS FRIENDS

Marx and his friends Engles and Balunin received their ideas from Moses Hess the founder of the German Social Democrat Party. Moses Hess taught that to gain a World State it could only be brought about by a revolution using class and racial hatred. He said race struggle is primary, class struggle is secondary.”

Mikhail Balunin said “That what ever the name or label of those who aspire to world government they must be prepared to awake the devil in people and stir their passions for them to act.” Passion as with football hooligans, vandals and various peace groups and the race groups.

THREE REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A MARXIST

Marx wrote three requirements for those who wished to join the fight for World Government.

1 To read the Communist and Revolutionary teachings of Marx and associates and work accordingly.

2 To work to destabilise nations both morally and financially.

3 To work to gain political control of the MONEY supply and the ASSETS of each Nation and put them BEYOND the REACH and CONTROL of each Government by ensuring that nations become INTER-DEPENDANT on each other for FOOD, MACHINERY and through LOANS.

Marx also said, “Steps should be taken to provide a master race to produce Leaders and Dictators”

(2007.Could the first or second generation now be in place.?)

RUSSIA. 1917.

The Bolsheviks needed a good military base to succeed in their bid for world government.

In the 19th Century the Bolsheviks tried to taker-over Russia and failed. In 1917 under cover of the First World War they started their second Campaign against RUSSIA, this time from a good military base. They seized control of BANKS and THE MONEY SUPPLY and STOCKS of FOOD.

As the food ran out the people became too weak to fight the Bolsheviks terrorists. (They are now called Soviets) They are one arm of an organisation which seeks to bring about a one world state.

When Russia fell to the Bolsheviks. LENIN who was the LEADER of the SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY became the first DICTATOR of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS. Many of the countries surrounding Russia also became Communists states.

COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.1928.

In 1928 The Communist International presented a three-stage plan for world government.

1 To level the economies of all nations by introducing a single currency.

2 To bring about REGIONAL UNION between various groups of socialist Nations.

3 To amalgamate all these REGIONAL groups into the finale World-wide Union of Socialist States.

COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL 1938

In 1938 in the Communist International there appeared an official statement.

It said “Dictatorship can only be established by the victory of Socialism in different countries. Then the joining of all the other republics could complete the UNION OF SOCIALIST SOVIET REPUBLICS.”

1942 STALIN’S COMMUNIST GOAL. A WORLD MADE OF REGIONS.

Stalin defined the Intermediate goals of Communism necessary for the final take-over of the World.

1 TO CONFUSE, DISORGANISE AND DESTROY THE FORCES OF CAPITALISM AROUND THE WORLD .

2 TO BRING ALL NATIONS TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE WORLD SYSTEM. REGIONALISM.

3 Force advanced Countries to pour prolonged finance into under developed Countries.

4 Divide the world into REGIONAL groups at the transitional stage to total World Government, then populations will more readily abandon their loyalty to their countries and accept loyalty to their REGION instead. Later the REGIONS can all be brought together into WORLD DICTATORSHIP.

5 We will indoctrinate the youth to embrace Marxism (under other labels ) as the correct and political social viewpoint.

6 Neutralise youth against religious influences of home and all other concepts of rigid morality which might interfere with the acceptance of Marxism and communist doctrine.

1942 at the same time STALIN was co-operating with nations in the West to lay the foundations for the United Nations Organisation.

1943 A PAN NATIONAL ORGANISATION. THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION.

1.The formation of the United Nations Organisation was a necessary preliminary for the Russian Soviets.

2.In 1943 it was agreed that the post of Secretary General and Political Affairs should always be held by a nominee of the USSR.

3.The United Nations Buildings in New York contains a Satanic Chapel. This reflects the same theme.

4.In 1947 a Document was published “Design for Europe” promoting a United Nations Army. The army was eventually inaugurated in 1993.

The creation of the EEC, The Treaty of Rome and the Treaty to Establish the European Union has been absolutely crucial for the plans for Communism and World Dictatorship.

THE DESTABLISATION OF THE BRITISH POLITICAL SYSTEM.

In 1946 THE UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION gained influence into the Sovereignty of the UNITED KINGDOM by THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENT ACT.1946 and three weeks later the UNITED NATIONS ACT 1946 which was brought before the HOUSE OF COMMONS when most Members had gone home. These two Acts ensured that the COMMUNIST wishes of the UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT and UNESCO are implemented in this country without making it obvious.

HAROLD WILSON signed an agreement with Soviet Union committing the British Government to back plans for a WORLD GOVERNMENT DICTATORSHIP.( Command paper 5924.)

2007 THE WORLD GOVERNANCE GROUP IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 2007.

An all Parliamentary Group for World Governance met in the House of Commons on 12 June 2007.

The Group’s purpose is to promote democratic reform of the United Nations, Global Institutions and International law. Chairman Dr Gavin Strange, Vice Chairmen, Dr Nick Palmer and Joan Wally.

AFTER 1946 SOME TREATIES WERE DIFFERENT THEY CAME WITHOUT SUBSTANCE

Since 1946 there has been a lack of substance to some of the Treaties made with Great Britain they became thin and ambiguous to be filled out later.

In 1996 John Major complained in a letter to Jaques Santer that after the Maastricht treaty was published he found it was not as he, or the British Government had intended, or signed for.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s Ministers made trade visits to Russia and under treaties and agreements they exchanged goods and materials. Many of our industries where closed down or given away. Car and steel making. ships and shipbuilding.

In 1964 the Treaty with the USSR signed by Fred Mulley and Wedgewood Benn did not actually mention the words Nuclear Power. Yet under that treaty the whole of Britain’s nuclear know-how was given away to the USSR.

In 1968 another treaty signed by Goromy Roberts paved the way for the run down of Britain’s Merchant Navy and the handing over of ships and our shipping routes to the USSR. The terms of this Treaty were so outrageous that it was not printed until after the statutory period for prosecutions for TREASON had expired. This Treaty had been implemented right away.

THE COMMUNIST HIDDEN AGENDA.

Infiltration from the top.

In Britain in 1940 at a meeting in Oxford the speaker Harold Wilson explained to the understanding audience how they could help make World Government happen. They should not join the Communist party they should join the Conservatives or Labour parties and lean to the Right and Left of those parties, so that when the time was right they must then create a smoke screen and come together as a party of national unity. He said confidently that one day he would be Prime Minister and so he was.

BRITAIN’S APPLICATION TO JOIN.THE EEC.

In 1972 The British Government applied to join the EEC. Prime Minister Edward Heath assured the British people that they would not lose their sovereignty, although his friend Lord Kilmuir had warned him in a letter that it could happen. Under articles 189 and 191 of the Treaty of Rome the EEC Commissioners are empowered to formulate Directives and Decisions that take precedence over Britain’s national laws.

In October 1972 Mr Heath attended a meeting in Paris to negotiate with M.Pompidou (a former employee of Guy Rothschild) the conditions of Britains entry. This included that Britain’s Fishermen should fish under the EEC. quota system and that our maritime limits should be surrendered.

In 1972 Edward Heath invited Victor Rothchild to head-up and choose members for the Central Policy Review staff. Victor Rothschild wrote a white paper on research and development, since that time official Treasury policies have included eradication of our aircraft, shipbuilding, Coal mining, car making, steel making, machine-tool industries and others.

Speaking at a meeting at the time, John Davies the then Secretary of State for Industry said that Britain had agreed with the EEC that UK technology should be merged with European Industry.

In 1962. At Dounray in Scotland a fast breeder reactor power station was begun, it was the first of its type in the world and after 15 years it was closed in 1977. At the same site a second type of fast breeder reactor was begun in 1974 and closed in 1994.The Specialist teams of scientists were dispersed and the nuclear know-how given to France. The Rothschilds acquired much of the available Uranium.

Britain agreed to run down Stirling. Mr Heath agreed to renounce national sovereignty and for Britain to become part of a Federal Europe. He agreed to change the local government structure from counties to Regions also to reorganise Government departments so that the British Parliament could be replaced.

GAINING CONTROL OF THE FOOD SUPPLIES

In 1998 at a meeting of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels the EU’s long term plans for Britain were unfolded They said; Live stock farming in the Britain would be abolished and changed to Arable farming. This would take place without the consent of the British people.

FORWARD PLANNING

The abolition of our Abattoirs .

In the 1990s many British abattoirs were closed because they did not reach EU standards. A few larger ones were built instead; this is why animals have to travel long distances for slaughter.

BSE IN CATTLE. This disease is not a contagious disease between animals and man. In Britain BSE in cattle is caused by painting Organo Phosphate nerve poison onto the heads and spines of cattle at four times the normal strength. The poison was laced with oil to help it penetrate the skin to stop warble-fly damage. This EU practice only took place in BRITAIN and Switzerland, but has now been discontinued. Starting in 1986 this poison was also used in sheep-dip but not in the same strength. Hundreds of farmers have become ill from contamination. 200 have died. This poison was also used in the Gulf War with similar effects.

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.

Early in 2001 the British Press reported the Government Laboratories at Porton Down had lost phials of Foot and Mouth virus. Soon after, came the outbreak of Foot and mouth disease in England resulting in 14 million animals being killed and buried or burnt. Only three million animals were diseased the other 11 million lived within the contamination zones. This is not a killer disease in animals or man. It is a recoverable disease. Vaccination could have been used to save 11 million healthy animals. The Cull was managed from Brussels. Four areas on the map of England had a high concentration of cases, the Solway Firth, Wales and the Midlands and Devon. These areas are shown on a UN map for re-wilding. The Farmer blamed for the outbreak was exonerated in 2007.

In 2007 came a second outbreak of Foot and mouth in England. The Virus was found in the land drains around Government laboratories at Pirbright in Surrey. The outbreak began on a farm 3 miles away to the south west of Pirbright. Local people on TV stated that the water table drains naturally from the Farms towards the laboratories. Not the other way around.

When Foot and mouth has finally run its course there will be fewer farms or farmers left to raise Cattle and sheep and arable farming is a whole new Industry. Grain can only be grown on the flat land of eastern Britain. Western Britain is hilly sheep country and unsuitable for growing crops.

2003. A GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE reported that. “THE ROLE OF RURAL ENGLAND AS A FOOD PROVIDER FOR THE NATION IS NO LONGER AN ESSENTIAL ONE.” To put the Nation’s food supply in the hands of a Foreign government is TREASON. As an Island nation we must ensure that we grow and raise our own food supply. Britains population is estimated to grow to 70 million by 2050. Already we are vulnerable; our milk supply is an important part of our diet for the young and elderly. YET, for years the EU have only allowed our farmers to produce 60% of our requirement the rest must be bought from abroad.

BY STEALTH BRITAIN HAS BEEN EASED INTO THE CONTINENTAL SHOE

In 1973-1975 John Prescott was a delegate to the Council of Europe and from 1975-1979 he was a member of the European Assembly.

In 1999 John Prescot introduced his 30 year old Dream for EU Regions in Britain. Under the EU plan Britain has been divided into 12 Regions. Scotland is a Region, N.I, Wales, London and England. ENGLAND has been divided into eight EU Regions. THEN ENGLAND’S NAME WAS TAKEN OF THE EUROPEAN MAP IN 1997.

In 1998/99. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescot handpicked 60 people in each of the EIGHT ENGLISH REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES to direct the building of 3 Millon new houses. .

Sixty-six volunteer local Councillors were invited to become Members of the ASSEMBLY along with 40 Stakeholders or Partners. Together all three groups are known as the Regional Assembly. There is a support office of Civil Servants.

In 2004 the voters in the Northeast of England voted ‘NO’ to ELECTED. REGIONAL ASSEMBLIES. So the unelected Development agencies combined with one layer of local council will be the new Regional Government. These new Regional Assemblies will work with the “Committee of the Regions”in Brussels, cutting out national Parliament giving the EU Commission direct access to all Regional Assemblies in Europe. All things traditional will be abolished; All sovereignty will pass to BRUSSELS bringing a Foreign government nearer to the people.

STOP PRESS.15 NOVEMBER 2007. On Friday David Miliband strode into this story bringing it full circle back to the sleeping giant Russia.

In a Speech today he said “THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD WORK TOWARDS INCLUDING RUSSIA, THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE NORTH AFRICAN COUNTRIES. He continued THAT THE E.U.WOULD NOT BECOME A SUPER POWER BUT SHOULD BE A ROLE MODEL FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD.

THE EU COULD BE A MODEL OF POWER FOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATION, DEDICATED TO FREE TRADE. THE ENVIRONMENT AND TACKLING EXTREMISM.”

David Miliband’s Grandfather Samuel Milliband fled to England from Belgium before the war and at first was refused the right to remain. David’s father Ralph Miliband was born in Belgium he came to England and joined the Royal Navy. Later he became a Professor of Politics at Leeds University and lectured at the London school of Economics.

Our Common law is being eradicated and the 1972 Act gives precedence to Community law.

UNLESS BRITAIN RESCINDS (1) THE 1972 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT.(2) THE 1946 UNITED NATIONS ACT AND (3) THE 1946 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ACT, BRUSSELS WILL GAIN ACCESS TO BRITAIN’S SOVEREIGNTY AND EU LAW WILL BE SUPREME.

For the first time in over a Thousand years, Britain will be ruled by a Foreign Power.
Joan Martin.”

Discussion
2 comments for “BNP gives platform to a UKIP Member”
Very interesting item and it shows how much sense Tony Benn spoke when opposing the entry into Europe.Now of course Benn loves Europe as his grand-daughter is set to become the fifth member of the Benn family to enter Parliament rather in the same way that the Tories have jessica lever who wants to be the future Chancellor of the exchequer.jessica is a grand-neice of Milton Friedman who had policies which Thatcher followed as did Blair/Brown to the ruination of this country financially whilst making a lot of money for a few people mainly foreigners and bankers.

Milband and his brother have been raised from the cradle to be politicians whilst never having roots here.ralph Miliband changed his name when he returned here with his family after the War ended despite the rules which said refugees could not stay.His stay plus all his family staying was made possible by a senior Labour member of Govt after the War.ralph is the name he took to appear British.When he arrived here as a 17 year old refugee he went straight away into a college for three years whilst British lads that age were being called up to fight.Why was he so different?

Raplph Miliband like his father and Marx were communists.

Posted by David Little | December 13, 2007, 4:49 pm Please go http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/LTPD07/

This is a petition to the PM demanding a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty.
Of course, as we no longer live in a democracy, it probably won’t make any real difference, but at least it will allow you to voice your opinion.

Posted by true_brit58 | December 13, 2007, 6:00 pm Post a comment

"TOO LATE, TOO LATE!!!!" shall be the cry

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:34:00 +0000

I wonder, do you think we are all pawns on a big big chessboard?

Major treaty signing tomorrow in Lisbon, we are apparently not allowed to have a say in, we are just the electoral what the heck do we know about treaties anyway.
If this was a contract regarding your house you would not touch it because it is clearly not in your interest, but its only about your nation and identity so no big thing, right.

Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship
By Paul Belien
Created 2006-02-27 22:13

Bukovsky and Belien
Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.

An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky about the impending EUSSRIn his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.

Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.

An interview with Vladimir Bukovsky
Listen to it here

Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?

Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.

According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

PB: Do you think the same thing can happen when the European Union collapses?

VB: Absolutely, you can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but don’t forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.

PB: But all these countries that joined the European Union did so voluntarily.

VB: No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.

PB: What do you think young people should do about the European Union? What should they insist on, to democratize the institution or just abolish it?

VB: I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.

Transcript of Mr Bukovsky’s Brussels speech
Listen to it here

In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.

According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?

Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so – pb]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.

Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.

It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberaties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.

Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, some kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency is not supposed to be political.

I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads.

This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen.

We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time.

More on this topic, see:

Czech President Warns Against Europeanism, 27 August 2005

Attachment Size
bukovsky-interview.mp3 1.76 MB
bukovsky-speech.mp3 7.11 MB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

A WELL UNDERSTOOD PROBLEM

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:42:00 +0000

A must read if you are still having doubts.

http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Islam-West-Razzia.htm
Islam and the West
One Enormous Razia

by Warner MacKenzie
20 Jul, 2007

The recent phenomenon of Islamic terrorism against the west, and certain unwelcome aspects of the increasing Muslim presence in Western countries, seem new to us but, in reality, owe more than just a passing nod of acknowledgement to the Arab Bedouin tradition of the plundering raid (ghazwa or razzia.). The razzia, with its opportunistic seizure of spoils (anfal) was undertaken by a desert people who were unable or unwilling to contribute to the creation of their needs; so the Bedouin, who neither grew nor made anything, simply pillaged what they wanted from others. Likewise, Muslim emigrants keep their “eyes on the prize” when choosing a destination country and seem to find nations that are devoid of generous welfare systems and high standards of living, singularly unappealing.

Migration for financial betterment is neither reprehensible nor new, and has been a primary motivating factor for many former immigrant groups; however, no group in the past has sought to bend the host country to its will, rather than assimilate, as have those of the Islamic faith. Unprecedented concessions have been made to Muslims and will continue to be made as they persistently chip away at the Western edifice. We can expect that any concessions granted will do no more than embolden the petitioners and encourage even more, and greater, demands in the future. If the demands are resisted or denied, and their numbers are sufficient, there will be civil disruption and confrontations as we see regularly in the media. The foreign policies of several European countries have been, or are in the process of being, modified to prevent a Muslim backlash, either physical or electoral.

It’s evident that a two pronged pincer manoeuvre is well under way, with one faction of Islam softening us up by threatening to blast and terrorise us into submission, and the “good-cop” wing, represented by the various national Islamic councils and other Muslim interest groups, who are “grooming” us with assurances that, by dealing with them, we can avoid all the unpleasantness and bloodshed by acquiescing and “going along quietly”. Option “B” is merely option “A” by stealth, with a sugar coating; both lead to an identical outcome; and that is an influence on our way of life disproportionate to their numbers. Our governments have warmed to the sweeter, soft option without realizing it is merely the other side of the jihadi coin. Rather than recognising and confronting this insidious and incremental erosion of our culture, our leaders have decided that it’s easier to retreat a yard than advance an inch.

Recently, a British survey found that : “According to a poll of 1,003 Muslims, 37 per cent of 16- to-24-year-olds said they would prefer to live under Sharia law, the same number of young Muslims said they would prefer to send their children to Islamic state schools while 74 per cent said they preferred Muslim women to wear the hijab headscarf in public and a small overall minority, (7 per cent,) said they "admire organisations like Al Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West".

The European Union and U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in a pathetic and obvious concession to the Muslim community, declared that the words “Islam, Islamic and Muslim” must not, under any circumstances, be used in conjunction with any mention of terrorism.

The familiar modus operandi of strike―withdraw―regroup―pause― strike again, is a feature of the time honoured Middle-Eastern stratagem of deceptive triangulation. Analogous to the story of the “slowly boiled frog”— which is unable to detect the gradual increase in water temperature—the West, in a very short period of time, has been lulled, beguiled and manipulated into a position of passive acceptance. Reports of terrorist acts no longer surprise us and the hypocrisy of “lowered expectations” toward Islam and Muslims forces us to put up with all manner of absurdities and irrationality from them. We’re like rabbits mesmerized in their headlights and all we can offer up is the plaintive whine “why do they hate us”

They hate us because we are their antithesis. Everything about us reminds them of their failings and shortcomings. We are the embodiment of post-enlightenment rationalists; generous, compassionate, the innovative and industrious creators and discoverers of everything the Muslims rely on every minute of their day. Every communication system, all forms of travel and transport, medical devices and procedures, pharmaceuticals and synthetics. Everything, in fact, down to their wristwatch and even the process that prints their Koran; all are a living testament to the infidel’s ability to organise his thought processes, to strive, through co-operative effort, with others in the development and constant improvement of the products of his disciplined, inventive mind. The chaotically fractious, nepotistic, corrupt and violent nature of what passes for a civil society in Islamic countries is, by contrast, their legacy. Like an insect trapped in amber, Muslim countries are museums, little more than a static display of seventh century pre-rational tribalism.

They adore the trappings of modern technology but having a cell phone up to the ear doesn’t mean there’s a twenty first century mind on the other side of the eardrum.

Having concluded that it is impossible for them to catch up to, let alone compete with, the rest of the modern world, they seek to force us back to their benighted state.

In the same manner that we are accepting the “good-cop” alternative, the sedentary rural and artisan communities of Arabia came to accept Bedouin brigandage and rapine as an unavoidable fact of life, for at any time and without warning, a camel mounted raiding horde could swiftly descend on their defenceless settlements and in a frenzy of sword brandishing, blood-curdling ululations and dust, the Bedouins, within a matter of minutes, would have made off with whatever they wanted—valuables, goats, chickens, produce and young women— decamping into the sandy wastes as rapidly as they had appeared. The only way to avoid these raids was to enter into a servile agreement to surrender a percentage of the annual date or grain crop and livestock to the marauders.

Despite being born an Arab in what is present-day Tunisia, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) lived for a number of years in the city of Granada in Muslim Spain. In his master work, al Muqaddimah,(written in 1377) Khaldun describes the nature of the desert Arab in, what to us, would seem to be extremely uncomplimentary terms. Despite this, Arabs, generally speaking, identify strongly and proudly with the uncompromising “black and white” absolutist Bedouin outlook. This hard-line attitude of the desert was spread with the expansion of Islam. An Arabocentric emphasis with its seventh century Arabian values eventually came to be superimposed on the more contemplative religious, and tolerant cultural traditions of Asia.

Khaldun also suggests, and history appears to support him, that an advanced civilisation steadily loses its asabiyya, i.e. its group identity, filiations and cohesion, through leading a soft, sedentary lifestyle. The citizens no longer need to be constantly fending off invaders in order to survive, the over indulgent society, having lost its martial skills, then degenerates to a point where it becomes unable to defend itself from a determined attacker or “Trojan horse” insurgents. Civilisations then tend to become vulnerable, their group-identity becomes diluted and weakened and finally non-existent. The challengers succeed by retaining the wild-animal hunting pack ethos; they still have that most primeval sense of belonging to a common and cohesive identity, their asabiyyah, complete with a single-minded determination to further the self-interests of their tribe, and their tribe only. I would suggest that the Muslim world, despite its manifold schismatic divisions, is far more conscious of its asabiyya than we, in the West, are of ours. With indistinct, blurred, and polarised populations coupled with subversive and seditious fifth columnists, we no longer know what we believe in. Our common heritage and history are no longer taught in schools for fear of offending those late arrivers who do not share that heritage. To what extent are we prepared to abandon and sacrifice those values that made us what we are, on the altar of inimical interlopers? The West will only recover its lost asabiyyah when nations recognise that whilst they can certainly prosper as multi-racial societies, an original core majority culture must be the dominant identifying factor and the divisive policy of multiculturalism will need to be abandoned as a flawed concept and failed experiment based entirely on how some utopian, well-meaning “progressives”, would prefer Western society to be, rather than accept, and more importantly, support and celebrate how it is in reality.

If we read the following excerpts from the Muqaddimah we can see just how well ibn Khaldun’s assessments of Arab cultural propensities have stood the test of time over the last six hundred plus years.

For all intents and purposes, Khaldun’s words could have been written in 2007 rather than 1377. It contains some sobering advice for those who would take our dealings with Arab culture, and its accompanying religious zealotry, lightly.

[“On account of their savage nature, (the Arabs) are people who plunder and cause damage. They plunder whatever they are able to lay their hands on without having to fight or to expose themselves to danger. They then retreat to their pastures in the desert. …Every stronghold or (locality) that seems difficult (to attack); they bypass in favour of some less difficult (enterprise). They do not attack it. Tribes that are protected against (the Arabs) by inaccessible mountains are safe from their mischief and destructiveness. The Arabs would not cross hills or undergo hardship and danger in order to get to them.

Flat territory, on the other hand, falls victim to their looting and prey to their appetite whenever they (have the opportunity of) gaining power over it. Then they raid, plunder, and attack that territory repeatedly, because it is easily (accessible) to them. Eventually, its inhabitants succumb utterly to the Arabs and then they are pushed around by them. Eventually, their civilization is wiped out.”

Places that succumb to the Arabs are quickly ruined.

“The reason for this is that (the Arabs) are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood, too, is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwellings. So, they tear down roofs to get the wood for that purpose. The very nature of their existence is the negation of building, which is the basis of civilization”

“Furthermore, it is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess. Their sustenance lies wherever the shadow of their lances falls. They recognize no limit in taking the possessions of other people. Whenever their eyes fall upon some property, furnishings, or utensils, they take it. When they acquire superiority and royal authority, they have complete power to plunder (as they please). There no longer exists any political (power) to protect property, and civilization is ruined.”

[“Since they use force to make craftsmen and professional workers do their work, they do not see any value in it and do not pay them for it. The sedentary population disperses, and civilization decays.”

“The Arabs are not concerned with laws. They care only for the property that they might take away from people through looting and imposts. When they have obtained that, they have no interest in anything further. For this (reason), greater fortitude is found among the savage Arab Bedouins than among people who are subject to laws. [ those who rely on laws and are dominated by them from the very beginning of their education and instruction in the crafts, sciences, and religious matters, are thereby deprived of much of their own fortitude.”

“Under the rule of (the Arabs), the subjects live as in a state of anarchy, without law. Anarchy destroys mankind and ruins civilization,

Furthermore, (every Arab) is eager to be the leader. Scarcely a one of them would cede his power to another, even to his father, his brother, or the eldest (most important) member of his family…. Civilization, thus, decays and is wiped out.”

“It is noteworthy how civilization always collapsed in places the Arabs took over and conquered, and how such settlements were depopulated and the (very) earth there turned into something that was no (longer) earth. The Yemen where (the Arabs) live, is in ruins, except for a few cities. Persian civilization in the Arab Iraq is likewise completely ruined. The same applies to contemporary Syria.”

“Every Bedouin who is attracted to city life quickly shows himself unable (to compete) and is disgraced.”

Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, found no need to explain or justify his unprovoked looting raids which suggests that the attitude of, “it’s there for the taking” and the lure of “something-for-nothing” was already well established and accepted as normal behaviour. This barbarous and predatory conduct may have, in time, changed—as it did with the Vikings— had it not been for Islam. Muhammad’s divinely sanctioned marauding of booty-laden merchant’s caravans became the imprimatur that entrenched opportunism and predation as, not only legitimate, but in fact exemplary, thereby immutably casting the die for eternity.

With Islam’s belief that all is preordained, where even the most minute detail in day to day life only happens because Allah has previously willed it, (the inshallah mentality), it doesn’t require a great stretch of the imagination to conceive that, in the Muslim mind, Allah has permitted Western society to develop, succeed and prosper so as to present the “faithful” with a ready-made “walk-in-walk-out”, “under new management” takeover, complete with a functioning infrastructure and a populace steadily retreating into an ever increasing degree of subservient “dhimmitude”.

Only an identity ‘reconquista’ can provide us with a defensive moat against this opening ghazwa of the third great jihad.

Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah can be read online at: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Table_of_Contents.htm ........end

the comments are also well worth reading.
For me , the heading for this blog says it all.

WE ALREADY HAVE A CONSTITUTION

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:44:00 +0000

What is treason exactly? Why is it so important that it is more vile than murder? Who brings charges of treason?
I have been looking into this matter of treason and trying to answer these questions.
If treason has been committed by the powers temporally in charge of running the affairs of the nation , how does a nation put a stop to it?
From the following article by Booker it seems treason has been committed. How does one go about bringing the case to court, and can it be brought about on legal aid?

http://www.britsattheirbest.com/

What is this poison? Of course there is a British Constitution
Matthew Parris recently wrote, “We are not hugely interested in constitutions. That’s why we don’t have one.”

What is this poison that drips incessantly into the public veins?

John Adams, a U.S. President and drafter of the American Constitution, called the English Constitution “the most stupendous fabric of human invention” in all history.

OF COURSE THE BRITISH PEOPLE HAVE A CONSTITUTION.

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE COMMON LAW established by Alfred the Great in 871 and developed by British people for the next thousand years. The Common Law incorporates the Charter of Liberties (1100), which makes the Sovereign subject to the Common Law. It incorporates the Council of Westminster (1102), which ended slavery in England. It specifically states that any slave who sets foot in England becomes instantly free (Cartwright, 1569). It defends property rights and the right to be secure in one own’s home (‘his home is his castle’). It plainly states that judges are to be guided by stare decisis, "standing by things decided" – the rulings of previous cases.

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT, 1701, which states that the Common Law is the Birthright of the people and may never be taken away.

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN MAGNA CARTA, which established that justice would not be sold, refused or delayed, that habeas corpus is our right, that if we are accused of a crime we have the right to a jury trial, and that we will be protected from fines so large that they consumed our livelihood.

The right to a jury trial is essential because it places justice in the hands of citizens, not of the state. Crucially, a jury always has the right to give a not guilty verdict even if it runs counter to the interpretation or logic of statute (Parliamentary) law. Thus the people have the power to decide that a law is unjust and overturn it.

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE CORONATION OATH, which is the covenant between the British sovereign and the people of Britain. If the people freely and willingly affirm their Sovereign, the Sovereign in turn gives them a solemn promise - his or her Coronation Oath. First pledged by Edgar in 973, it binds King or Queen to deliver justice, equity, and mercy. Elizabeth II promised to uphold the respective laws and customs of the people of the United Kingdom.

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE PEOPLE'S DECLARATION OF RIGHTS (1688) AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1689), when the Oath became an undoubted and express contract for the governing of Britain. Significantly this contract takes place not between Parliament and the Crown but between the people and the Crown.

This is why John Adams believed that the British people had brought “the great idea” of three separate branches of government described by Cicero to perfection. They had 1) an executive in the Crown, 2) a legislature in Parliament, and 3) an independent judiciary.

However, Adams warned that if the executive power is seized by “an aristocratical or democratical assembly, it will corrupt the legislature as necessarily as rust corrupts iron. . .and when the legislature is corrupted, the people are undone.”

This is exactly what has happened. Over the course of the 20th century, executive power has been taken by Parliament.

"It is the Sovereign’s duty to ensure redress and remedy and to protect the people. Should a breach of the Constitution arise through mishap or mischief it must be recognised as misgovernance and declared unconstitutional by the Sovereign." Yet today The Queen appears unable or unwilling to use her power of Royal Refusal and Royal Assent.

It may seem odd for an American, with an elected president, to see any positive qualities in an executive whose powers are inherited. But isn’t it a relief to have an executive who is not partisan, is not pushing for his party, who has a sense of history?

If the people agree to such an executive, and limit its powers, what is undemocratic about it? It may be eccentric or timeless or rich in ceremony, but it is not undemocratic, particularly when you consider that sovereigns who did not pass muster were sent packing, among them William II, John, Richard II, Richard III, Charles I, James II, and (by Brits in America) George III.

I have not mentioned the British right to bear arms (Bill of Rights 1689) or how the Common Law protects freedom of association, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the right to silence, all won by extraordinary British men and women who were willing to die so that we might be free.

And for those interested in the EU, THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IS PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1689), which states "That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm". According to the Bill of Rights, to give the EU authority over the British people is unconstitutional.

Yes, the written British Constitution is a bit long. But taking the essential parts I doubt you would find it much longer than the New Testament. It seems to me that if American John Adams could read and admire the British Constitution, the British might give it a try.

The British Constitution is plain and visible. It has been betrayed by the small men and women of Parliament and by those people who have yet to read it, stand up and defend it.

The Freedom Network and Your Own Choice have more.

May your week be good.

So we have from the above information a long history of legal protection, protections of the State and its peoples and on the other side a group of people who are removing those protections. Akin to robbery I would say. So surely there is a case to be made or is there.
Surely we have people capable of taking on this case, it would be the most important case in British law for more than a century. Is it not the case that law makers are obliged to up hold the constitution as it stands and are there to bring such cases to justice.

TRAITOR

noreply@blogger.com (defender) — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 08:36:00 +0000

Is there a political solution?
Reading this posted on the comment section of the Express there is'nt one.

http://www.express.co.uk/comments/viewall/22493
THE TYBURN TREE MAY FLOWER AGAIN!!
19.10.07, 8:34am

I read with a degree of wry amusement the assurance from Mr Broon that his "Red Lines" had been agreed and, therefore, we could all sleep soundly in our beds. One of these Red Lines was, according to The Great Leader, the preservation of our Justice System and Our Law Making Freedoms. Oh, Yeah? Not according to some VERY highly placed Constitutional experts. Read below to expose yet ANOTHER blatant lie from Broon.
In my researches on our Sovereignty and Constitution I had cause to write to Lord Falconer in August 2006 when he was Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I pointed out to him that, on the 29th September, The Rt.Hon.Alderman Sir Gavyn Arthur, then Lord Mayor of London, gave the 2003 "Denning Lecture" in Gray's Inn before a audience of distinguished and undoubtedly learned lawyers. His subject was "The City and the Law". As an introduction he gave a summary of our Common Law but then pointed out that there are TWO systems of law operating in the UK today and that since the enactment by Parliament of the ECA1972 there had been a quiet revolution in our legal system. He went on to say that it was not until the House of Lords handed down their judgement on the Factortame case that it became apparent that where English Law and the Law of the European Community(EC) conflicted that the EC Law prevailed. From that he drew the conclusion, (that had also been arrived at by many others that I can quote), that Parliament was no longer sovereign. (Sir Gavyn confirmed to me that there had been no dissent from his audience at his conclusion). From such a statement, and knowing that Parliament consists of Her Majesty the Queen who is the only person Sovereign in Parliament and the two Houses which are not sovereign of themselves, I could only draw the conclusion that the Queen had not been Sovereign since the moment She gave the ECA1972 the Royal Assent. She had effectively abdicated Her Sovereign status and surrendered up all constitutional power and authority on giving the ECA1972 the Royal Assent and the sovereignty of the British people had been surrendered to the EU. I was reluctant to draw such an awesome conclusion. I asked Falconer if he could confirm that I was wrong and that the Queen was still Sovereign and thus so was Parliament.

A Mr.J.Copeland replied on Falconer's behalf. This is what he wrote:
"I can confirm that the Queen is Head of State, Head of the Executive, Head of the Judiciary, Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Crown and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. However, as a result of a long period of evolution the Monarch's absolute power has been progressively reduced. Minsters of the Crown in the name of the Sovereign govern the United Kingdom. The powers of the Crown, that is the Sovereign in Her constitutional capacity - are executed almost exclusively by Ministers. The enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 has not altered this.". In point of fact no British Monarch has had absolute power though many tried to exercise such power. It was to prevent such an attempt at absolute power that the Magna Carta was brought into being in 1215 and which is a foundation stone of our Constitution. Article 61 states specifically the power held by the people if the Monarch departs from the lawful way."
Copeland went on:
"However, as outlined in your letter, one of the most significant new sources of the British Constitution in recent years has been the EU. When Britain signed the Treaty of Rome and passed the European Communities Act 1972, the superiority of European Law was accepted, and parliament was no longer sovereign (although the UK can leave the EU any time it wishes). As a result, British Courts now have the power to review Acts of parliament and in the light of EU legislation, suspend Statute Law.". Again here we have an assumption of power by the EU, with the agreement of Parliament, to write our "Constitution" for us! Why is there no argument in the Commons regarding the constitutional treaty? All parties had agreed our subjugation to the EU in 1972.

The incongruities and constitutional errors in these two paragraphs are self evident. However they plainly point to the fact that the British are no longer a Sovereign, independent and self governing nation. That the Queen is no longer our Sovereign, ( She is now subject to the superiority of EU Law), as She became on the death of Her Father George VI; as She herself confirmed in Her Declaration of Sovereignty before Her Accession Privy Council on 8th.February 1952 ;and as we elected Her to be on Her Coronation in exchange for Her Coronation Oath in which She declared how She would govern us. Our Sovereignty has been removed from us by an act of High Treason. However this situation will undoubtedly gladden the hearts of all LibLabCon adherents as this is precisely what Sir Arnold Toynbee said was the objective of the Fabians Socialists in 1932 in Copenhagen. He is reported to have said:"If we are frank with ourselves, we shall admit that we are engaged on a deliberate and sustained and concentrated effort to impose limitations upon the sovereignty and the independence of the fifty or sixty local sovereign independent States.... The surest sign... that this fetish of local national sovereignty is our intended victim is the emphasis with which all our statesmen and our publicists protest with one accord...at every step forward which we take...that the sacred principle of local sovereignty is really being encroached upon and its sphere of action reduced and its power for evil restricted. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly.". In order to achieve the intended end he went to say "I will merely repeat that we are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And at all times we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be... ostracised and discredited.". It is also High Treason.

Therefore it would seem to me that in all honesty the Fabian Society and the LibLabCon Pro-EU traitors should now be cheering from the rooftops the final achievement of Sir Arnold's stated aims. What a scoop for The Daily Express to have a front page spread
"THE QUEEN ABDICATED ALL OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN 1972. BRITAIN NO LONGER SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT OR SELF-GOVERNING". However I suspect LibLabCon deceit long ingrained in their activities will prevent such an admission that they are the ones who engineered the destruction of our Constitutional Monarchy and, it would seem, with the tacit agreement of Elizabeth Windsor a.k.a. Queen Elizabeth II.

With thanks to David Bourne, scholar and patriot

• Posted by: BlackBuck • Report Comment