Sunday, 28 December 2008

Imported Culture

The young girl begged for her life, “Please don't kill me, let me live!” she cried, but her pleas were in vain, as she was dragged into the centre of the stadium where she was to die a terrible death. To the jeering crowd she was guilty of the great sin of having sex outside marriage, and for that she must die, no matter that she was the victim of gang rape, no matter that she was a a thirteen year old child. (Not 23 as the news media bizarrely first tried to suggest)

The child's age aside, it was a scene unchanged from that described two millennia earlier, where, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ confronted a group of men about to stone a young woman to death, with the words “Let he who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone”. Such words would have fallen on deaf ears, had anyone dared to repeat them in that stadium in Somalia, where no less than fifty adult men picked up stones and set about their evil deed.

This girl was not tortured to death two thousand years ago, but two months ago, and it was no isolated incident, across the Muslim world young women and girls face a similar fate at the cruel hands of their culture. I have decided not to include any pictures from the scene as they are too violent. However, I have included some equally distressing images below

Similar horrors face young men who fail to comply with the strictures of Islam, and again age is no barrier to barbarity. The picture above shows two allegedly gay youths, one only sixteen who, in 2005, were led blindfolded through the streets of Tehran, their bodies showing the signs of earlier beatings, before they were lynched from cranes in front of cheering crowds of men, screaming for their blood.

Islamic apologists later attempted to claim that the boys had raped a younger boy, but such claims have been widely discredited, it is generally accepted that they were executed for having sex, and there is certainly no dispute that in the lands of Islam men and boys face similar deaths, often far crueller ones, merely for expressing their nature in a manner disapproved of by the cult of the dead paedophile.

I am aware that some of my readers have strong views on homosexuality, however, I am sure that despite those views, like all decent people they are horrified by such savagery, and grateful that our Western society long ago did away with the horror of officially sanctioned public executions, and the casual cruelties which are commonplace elsewhere.

Sharia law prescribes all sorts of imaginative and painful deaths and mutilations, for a variety of crimes, including many which are no longer crimes in our society. Hence it is even more disturbing to note that around 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law in the UK.

Whatever, the crimes of the child in the pictures above, I doubt they were sexual, and even the most persuasive of Islamofascists would have difficulty claiming that he was a rapist. However, clearly certain cultures believe that torturing a child in this manner is acceptable.

However, that is the crux of the issue, culture, and things which are viewed as acceptable within different cultures. The whole point of a multi-cultural society is to import different cultures into our society and pay them equal regard to our own long established cultures.

The question the supporters of multiculturalism fail to address is how do we prevent the sharper sides of foreign cultures from being imported together with the marginally less unattractive ones, because the answer is that you can not.

Many undesirable aspects of foreign cultures are already being seem within our British communities, just a few examples:

  • Instances of so called honour related violence, including frequent “honour killings” are now regular occurrences in the UK, as are arranged and forced marriages.
  • We have churches where children are accused of witchcraft and subject to violent abuse.
  • We have already seen one instance of Muti killing - aka medicine murder (an increasingly common phenomenon in sub Saharan Africa) and a disturbing number of “missing” black and Asian children.
  • Female circumsism is being practised in Britain and bush meat is being imported and consumed.
  • We have a special police force (Trident) which exclusively deals with gun crime in the black community, and we have seen acts of Islamic terrorism on our streets.
  • A new and far more vicious imported gang culture, has devastated communities in ways undreamed of back in the 50's and 60's, the Kray brothers not withstanding
These are not cultural benefits, and what else will follow.

There is no point in claiming that our laws will stop undesirable cultures from flourishing, because they patently are not doing so. Furthermore laws are frequently changed to accommodate newcomers or simply are not applied to them. Free speech was banned in Britain in the 1970's because of immigration, and as we have seen repeatedly, for instance with the Danish cartoon protests, only certain people now get prosecuted for incitement to murder.

As for grooming minors for sexual purposes, as we all know if the victim is white and the “groomer” is not, the police will not dare to touch it.

Year by year the ugly face of many foreign cultures are becoming part of every day life in Britain, and throughout Western Europe. It is only a matter of time before the very worst is here, much of it already is, gang rape was once all but unknown in Europe, it is now occurring with sickening regularity, and as events, such as the hideous (but unreported in Britain) 2006 death of Ilan Halimi show us, it does not take much to turn the streets of Paris into those of Baghdad.

Our leaders claim that we receive great benefits from immigration, but with escalating unemployment, stretched public services, and a health service beset by health tourism and third world standards of hygiene, that lie is gradually being exposed for what it is.

And what of the so called moral argument for immigration, that we should welcome people here so that they can enjoy a better life than in the third world hell holes they are escaping. This is self evidently madness in that, in the long run, it simply enables the despotic or criminal regimes from which those seeking asylum come, to perpetuate.

If you live near a school where the teachers are murdering the children, you do not solve the matter by offering sanctuary to those kiddies who are fortunate enough to escape. At some point, someone has to sort out the school.

Offering asylum to those who escape tyranny, can only ever be a humanitarian act in the short term, beyond that it serves only to aid and abet the tyrants. Unless you believe that the entire population of the third world can move here, whilst, Africa and huge swathes of Asia and the Middle East are handed back to nature, as maybe some on the lunatic fringes of multiculturalism probably do, the international community must aim to improve the lot of the third world, within their homelands.

The so called benefits of immigration extend to some individual immigrants, but certainly not their homelands, to some politicians seeking to add to their voters, and to a small number of ruthless businessmen who believe that an unending flow of low paid immigrants will forever keep wages low. For the rest up us, the benefits are far less easy to identify.

Even those cynical politicians and businessmen may soon find the benefits are not what they imagined. Across Europe new immigrant based parties are popping up, and we now face an economic crisis, fuelled in great part by politically correct politicians forcing banks to lend to immigrants and minority groups, which has caused immeasurable damage in the financial sector.

Is it too much to hope that, at last, even they will wake up to the madness of the multicultural dream?.


Anonymous said...

Another excellent article, Sarah! Perhaps you can let me know on GA's forum where you obtained the very powerful images you used?

As Enoch Powell once said:

"Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre."

Ted said...


Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution -- the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors -- it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.

Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.

Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” -- dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth -- albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will -- rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)

ravlen said...


I've been out of touch with the Nationalist movement in the UK but back in the sixties when I hit the streets of London, we weren't anti-Arab or anti-Moslem. Neither did we peddle the idea that Christinity was somehow superior to other religions. Since that time, I've spent 17 years in the Middle East, Jeddah, Bierut and Dubai.

You refer to the cult of the dead paedophile. What do you call Catholicism or the C of E? The former could be referred to as the Cult of the Papists and the latter the Cult of the Adulterer.Either way, they peddle silly stories about a virgin called Mary who somehow conceived a boy, Jesus, who died for our sins on a cross.

My view is that all the monotheistic religions have a nasty past and are responsible and will be responsible for countless acts of violence, all committed in the name of their jealous God. But this doesn't mean that all the adherents of monotheistic religions are bad or odious people or that one religion is somehow worse (or better) that any of the others.

When I lived in the Middle East, my three children lived with me and would you believe, I never had to worry about them playing outside. There weren't gangs of thugs on street corners with knives or pedophiles lying in wait to steal a child away, never to be seen again. Next time you decide to lecture about sharia law which you misrepresent, think about this!

As the BNP belives in hanging flogging etc., you should welcome sharia you understand it. When I was in Saudi, murderer's drug peddlers and pedophiles were executed, all having "confessed" their crimes prior to being depatched. And then there were the cannings, followed by coffee.

Much of the stuff I read on the BNP website about Islam and life in the Arab states is inaccurate.What happens in Iran is not typical of life in other Arab states. Also, you may like to inform your deputy chairman who enjoys a flutter and a day at the races,that there would be no horse racing industry in the UK today without the Maktoum family who incidently gave land in Dubai for Christian churches to be established.


alanorei said...

Re: Islam, I would very much appreciate it if all 2,000,000+ Muslims in the UK and those in the Old Dominions, including my homeland Australia, would spontaneously emigrate to their countries of ethnic origin to make them even better places than apparently they already are, by means of their Sharia Law.

Mohammedanism isn't wanted here, much less needed. English Common Law is more than sufficient for all serious and capital offences, once the latter-day Common Purpose-Marxist-EU corruptions (and corrupters) are removed.

I think most ordinary Brits, including BNP members, would be entirely happy with that.

Anonymous said...

hey thanks for being an intelligent nationalist who is tolerant of gay people. I have never chosen my sexuality it is how I was born, and I would have loved to have changed it if I could. There are many gay men and woman who support the BNP but who would be repelled by hatred.