A Week in England

A series of events occurred this week which reveal with chilling clarity quite how far down the green brick road to Khalifah we have skipped, encouraged on by a motley assortment of straw-headed morons, moral cowards and a fair few wicked witches.

The first of these events was the decision by the Church of England synod to join the UK Stasi - that is to say the British Police - in banning its employees from membership of a legal and legitimate political party, the BNP. The fact that this received, scant, fourth to sixth news item, coverage in the media, and probably passed unnoticed by the majority of the population, demonstrates how irrelevant the once mighty Church of England has become, and how little most people now care about the waffling, bleating and bickering at what progressively resembles a gathering of dodgy piano teachers in frocks.

However, I care, I was brought up in the Church of England, christened and later confirmed into the church during my early teens, after having first gone into retreat in a beautiful old Abbey to prepare myself for what was, even then, as recently as the 1980's, considered a big deal.

My parents, whilst being an amusing and sophisticated couple, were quite religious people, who were committed members of the C of E. My father in particular was very active in the church, for at least a decade acting as Sidesman, every Sunday handing out prayer books to the congregation or taking the collection. A man who could talk at length on any subject, from politics to art culture and sport would spend hours speaking of scripture, philosophy and of the church, subjects which he dearly loved. Meanwhile, my mother would take her turn every six weeks or so, in preparing the flowers in the Church or delivering the parish news letter, and it was she who taught us the prayers of her own childhood in our infancy, which I then taught to my son in his.

Both, having left us recently, now lie buried in the shadow of their church, and are remembered with affection among the congregation to which they belonged, in a corner of old England which is still clinging on.

I may not be as involved in the church as my parents were, but I was married there, my son was christened in church, and throughout my life I have never gone more than a month without taking holy communion. The Church means a lot to me, it has been part of my life, and I have been more a part of it than the vast majority if my fellow Britons can now claim to be.

However, the church in which I was raised has rejected me, and when they did so they threw lies about me in my face. One of the befrocked old liars stated that the BNP, a party I have voted for, supported the "forcible eviction of people of different faiths and races". He lied, forcible repatriation is not BNP policy, and has not been for many years, if it ever was. Voluntary repatriation, funded by the taxpayer, certainly is, it is much cheaper in the long run than having them stay, but certainly no law abiding citizen, who is here legally would be thrown out by the BNP. What the BNP would do is halt the relentless tide of new immigrants, and it is that which the deceitful old cleric could not stomach.

However, as proof that they are united in their campaign of distortion, not one of his peers stood up and shouted "That is untrue you dishonest old git!" although they must surely all have known it was.

The Church may not (yet) have banned BNP supporters from its pews, but how can I, with honour, remain with a Church which has told me that what I believe in and what I am fighting for is a sin? My church has forced me to make a choice, I have done so, and I have not chosen them.

My faith will have to sustain me for a while. The Church of Rome has embarked upon its own campaign against thought and, as such, offers no alternative. However, something will emerge, as through history other churches have sprung up to offer a home to previous victims of other bigotry. As more eyes are opened, more people will move away from the shameful, cringing, irrelevance the established church has become.

We who have been rejected will move on, we will become stronger and we will still worship a Christian God, meanwhile the Church of England which has long only paid limited lip service to such an act, will continue its inevitable decline to something only suited, or relevant, to the mad black bigots of sub Saharan Africa.

******************************

A second thing which occurred this week was the announcement that Prince Harry would be sent for re-education, disingenuously referred to as "diversity awareness training", but which might be more accurately described as Multicultural brainwashing.

To our media, leaders and thought controllers, it matters not that, unlike many of his critics such as the deeply unattractive Keith Vaz or the unfunny comedian Stephen K Amos, Harry has spent time working tirelessly in Africa, to make life better for Africans, and can be seem affectionately cuddling black children in scores of photographs taken during his time in Africa. In a land where a man's actions are meaningless when compared to his utterance of an ideologically impure word, our controllers have judged young Harry guilty of the unspeakable heinous and unforgivably evil act of failing to be sufficiently politically correct when making a private video, or engaging in a private conversation.

As punishment for his breach of party rules, a grovelling apology not withstanding, Harry must suffer public humiliation, and submit to political retraining.

Is it just me, or do images from life within the Soviet sector of East Berlin circa 1961 spring to your minds as well?. Are we to assume that if Harry were to "re-offend" he will then be banished to some goulag north of Strathclyde?.

I guess it should not surprise us that so much in Britain today has overtones echoing, at the very least, the psychology of life within the GDR between 1950 and 1990. It is after all the beliefs and teachings of those same people who applauded the Soviet Empire, the drawing of the iron curtain, and the thought control imposed on half of Europe, for the better part of a century, which have brought us to where we are. For it is their prize winning students who are now running our lives and dictating our language.

******************************************

Finally, in my account of this week I shall turn to the shameful decision to ban film maker and elected Dutch politician Geert Wilders from Britain, where he was planning to attend the screening of his documentary FITNA. By a single, and deeply contemptible act of capitulation Britain was exposed not only as a country no longer possessed of the spirit needed to face down intimidation, but a land where freedom of conscience is no longer safe.

That a country which once ruled half the surface of the earth has been reduced to a cringing submissive before the advance of a crusading Islam, came as no surprise to those of us who have watched and railed at our nations rapid surrender, but it must have come as a shock to those who had been looking the other way and imagined brave Albion retained some vestige of the courage it once had.

Much as been said about how, by banning Wilders, the United Kingdom has renounced any remaining pretence to a belief in free speech, and indeed, how can we deny that we have now abandoned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which clearly states: "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people".

I have already made my views clear on that, and frankly any honourable person will realise that what was done was an act of cowardice and a betrayal of free speech, even if their political agendas prevent them from admitting to it. Therefore, I shall let others comment on these aspects, and shall instead focus not on the cowardice and betrayal which was involved, but on the lies and deceit which was used in support of it.

First there is the official justification given for banning Mr Wilders, namely that his presence would be a threat to social harmony and likely to incite racial hatred. This implication being that Wilders and his supporters would act in a disharmonious manner, and commit acts of racial hatred, this certainly was what Lord Ahmed and his government sought to suggest. However, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It was rioting Muslim protesters, such as those Ahmed threatened us with, and the racial hatred which they would perpetrate against Wilders and his supporters which the government feared.

However, on account of the warped doctrine which now rules us, it was he, the potential victim, and not they , the potential aggressors, our government chose to ban! How exactly does such a policy differ from one which seeks to prevent rape by banning women from going out?!

Turning from the act to its supporters brings us to a second vaudevillian performance from the thankfully, inimitable Keith Vaz. Vaz is a man famous for his inability to appreciate his own ludicrousness, but he must have exceeded even himself in lack of personal awareness on Thursday night. Anyone watching BBC2's Newsnight must have surely sensed the smell of old lavender and the flutter of purple chiffon, while the ghost of Mary Whitehouse rode once more, as Vaz announced, without apparent irony that he "did not have to see FITNA to know it was racist".

The evening before and on a different channel , a toad like creature mascaraing as a reporter for More4 news accused Wilders of "selectively quoting" from the Qur'an. This was from a member of a profession which bases its entire output upon selective quotations in order to tell a story or to report on an issue. In effect the toad-like reporter was criticising Wilders for doing exactly the same thing as his employers pay him to do, except that there is probably more truth in FITNA than in the average week's Channel 4 news output.

Given that Geert Wilders does not belong to that select circle with "journalist" on their CV, who are apparently permitted by some by-law to quote selectively, did the More4 toad expect him to sit in front of the camera and read out the entire Qur'an for the sake of balance? That smacks of the agenda behind those attempting to impose that oppressive (some might say fascist) and most certainly misnamed "Fairness doctrine" on US talk radio, which is designed to achieve censorship through boredom, and hide facts under a mountain of irrelevance.

Clearly those sections of the Qur'an urging its followers to throw homosexuals off mountains, or not to pay interest on loans, have no direct relevance to why Muslims might decide to blow up trains and disco bars, or fly aeroplanes into tall buildings, and I am sure Wilders does not suggest they do. However, the bits which call upon followers of Islam to carry out acts of violence against non-believers just might have some relevance, and that is what Wilder's film is about.

Finally we get to the main lie about Geert Wilders and about FITNA, which is the allegation that the film distorts or misrepresents the Qur'an's teachings. This claim takes media misinformation to a new level, and needs to be exposed for what it is.

Wilder's film shows us words from the holy text, it then shows us those same words being used by preachers when calling for acts of violence and finally it shows us acts of violence committed by followers of that same holy text. What FITNA shows us is a sequence leading from cause, through application, to effect. If there is an act of dishonesty being perpetrated within the sequence it is by the preachers who use the words to incite the violence, not by Wilder in reporting them doing so.

You can argue, as some try to, that the words in themselves are innocent, but you can not argue that the words are being used to incite acts of terrible brutality, because they self evidently are, whether or not that is the intent of the author. By reporting that fact Wilders is distorting nothing and misrepresenting no-one.

We can choose to decide whether it is the words which are at fault or the people using them. What we should not be doing is pretending that these questions do not exist. But that is exactly what our media or our leaders want, they don't report the facts, because without them, we can't ask the questions, and that is why Wilders was banned.

Thus we passed through another week on this crowded, near bankrupt and Orwellian little island.

____________________________________