Monday, 30 November 2009

William Shatner on Gun Control

video

I am not actually a huge supporter of the Second Amendment, but this is excellent!


Visit YouTube and comment by clicking here

___________________
Hat Tip: RR

Sunday, 29 November 2009

Swiss voters ban the building of Minarets


Swiss voters have supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of Islamic minarets.

More than 57% of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons - or provinces - voted in favour of the ban.

The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People's Party, (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which says minarets are a sign of Islamisation.

The government opposed the ban, saying it would harm Switzerland's image, particularly in the Muslim world, however, voters worried about rising immigration - and with it the rise of Islam - have ignored the government's advice.

"The Federal Council (government) respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted," said the government in a statement, quoted by the AFP news agency.

News report here

_____________________

This is probably why our government keeps finding reasons why we shouldn't be allowed referendums, we might get to say what we really think.

Saturday, 28 November 2009

The Wilding of Sarah Palin

I really like this article by Robin of Berkley which appeared on the American Thinker site earlier this week, as it very much reflects my own opinion of Liberals, of whom I was once one, and their true attitudes towards women. As I have said before, there are few things on Earth more vicious, brutal and vindictive than a pack of Liberals defending an agenda, and they are seldom more brutal than when their victim is a white woman who refuses to fit into one of the two roles Liberals will permit a white woman to play, victim of Feminazi.

Robin writes from an American perspective, but she expresses a universal truth that to find true bigotry, real hatred, real racism and full blown misogyny one need look no further than to a swarm of Liberals in pursuit of an independently minded female. At present, with Margaret Thatcher in her dotage and Hillary Clinton successfully sidelined, the swarm have one main target, and that target is Sarah Palin.
_________________

The wilding of Sarah Palin
By Robin of Berkley

When I was in college, I read a book that changed my life. It was Susan Brownmiller's tome, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, which explained rape as an act of power instead of just lust. What I found particularly chilling was the chapter on war -- how rape is used to terrorize a population and destroy the enemy's spirit.

While edifying, the book magnified the vulnerability I already felt as a female. Fear of rape became a constant dread, and I sought a solution that would help shield me from danger.

The answer: seek safe harbor within the Democratic Party. I even became an activist for feminist causes, including violence against women. Liberalism would protect me from the big, bad conservatives who wished me harm.

Like for most feminists, it was a no-brainer for me to become a Democrat. Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women's issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance -- therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn't want to see.

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn't exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn't do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don't hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

What finally woke me up were the utterances of "bitch," "witch," and "monster" toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn't coming from conservatives, but from male and female liberals.

I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.

Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women's reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.

And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don't have to.

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it's far worse: many are perpetuators.

The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

A strong, self-sufficient woman, Palin eschews liberal protection. Drop her off in the Alaskan bush and she'll survive just fine, thank you very much. Palin doesn't need or want anything from liberals -- not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, and not abortion, which she abhors.

Palin is a woman of deep and abiding faith. She takes no marching orders from messiah-like wannabes like Obama.

And so the Left must try to destroy her. And they are doing this in the most malicious of ways: by symbolically raping her.

Continue reading here

_____________________
Hat Tip RR

Faces from a Multicultural future

Warning: Readers who click on the following link: Terrorism that's Personal should do so with caution as it features some very graphic and disturbing images showing the victims of Islamic honour.

Acid attacks are especially cruel, they cause agony, flesh and bone melt resulting in terrible disfigurement and often blindness, however, in many cases they are not fatal and lead to a lifetime of suffering for the victim. This is clearly the intention when such a terrible weapon is used, the attackers wish the victims to suffer forever, and they invariably do.

The incidence of acid attacks are increasing worldwide, and we are now seeing growing numbers of these horrific crimes in Europe. Most attacks are on women, although men are also victims, as with the horrendous attack in Leytonstone in July, where a young man had Sulphuric acid thrown over him and poured down his throat.

No doubt supporters of multiculturalism will cry that this sort of violence is not exclusive to Islam, and it is true that there are numerous reports of acid attacks on little children in Nigeria who's families and local communities, often Christian, have declared them to be witches.

There are also an alarming number of acid attacks in Cambodia, which is a predominantly Buddhist country, and India, where 80% of the population is Hindu.

Also, I do not know of what religion was Daniel Lynch, who after brutally raping TV presenter Katie Piper arranged for an accomplice to throw acid in her face. However, if he and his accomplice Stefan Sylvestre were Muslims their photographs do not suggest that they were especially devout.

Yet, there is one community amongst whom this vicious form of violence is extremely rare, and that community is the white European community. It has happened, but the numbers are tiny, and mainly confined to a criminal underworld. It would be unthinkable for a European father to throw acid on a child who disobeyed him.

Not so in Asia and in parts of Africa and the Middle East where acid is the weapon of choice for those seeking to punish a victim, usually a disobedient wife or a daughter who has looked at the wrong man or worn too high heels.

Acid attacks are a cultural thing, they originate from a cruel culture uncommon amongst European peoples, but are another multicultural delight which mass immigration is bringing to our shores.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

The Official figure - or the truth?

A report published this week reveals that record numbers of immigrants arrived in Britain in 2008. The official figure was 590,0000, up by “just” 16,000 from the year before (yeah right! I really believe that). The report goes on to state that “about” 427,000 left Britain, which it claims is an increase of 86,000 from 2007. Therefore the report suggests that the net increase in population is slowing, reducing to a net population growth of a mere 163,000 last year.

Even if one found a net increase of 163,000 reassuring, am I the only one who finds these figures less than credible?

For a start the report does not make clear quite how many of the 590,000 arrivals were heavily pregnant women, whose anchor offspring will be automatic British citizens, or the fact that the overwhelming majority of the rest will have been men and women of breeding age. This means that at an extremely conservative estimate, the 2008 arrivals alone will, by their own fertility rate have doubled to well over a million within five, or at the outside, ten years, what does that do to the overall net increase?

The figure also does not include those who arrived here illegally, an unknown but, almost certainly, huge figure, those who arrived on student visas, not all of whom tend get around to leaving or those, “on holiday” who may “decide” to stay on, after all the government no longer keeps a record of those actually leaving the country.

And that's another thing!!!

Even if the government was keeping an accurate count of people leaving tBritain, which we know they are not, how exactly would they know that the “about” 427,000 people are actually leaving the country “permanently”, and, if they leave and then decide to come back, how are they counted? As new immigrants?, unlikely, as returning residents they are probably not counted at all, and you can be damn sure that the official “net increase” figure is not adjusted to take into account their return.

Also, who are the people who leave the country permanently? You can, again, be sure that the overwhelming majority taking the flights out are white native Britons, who can no longer stand the multicultural carnival of horrors this country has become.

Therefore, the net change to the racial demographic of our little island is far greater, hugely greater, than even these terrifying figures suggest.

Be in no doubt my friends, the 11th hour is approaching far more quickly than you may believe and we do not have long left to put this great wrong right.

A vote for the Tories will not save us, they look at immigrants and see only cheap labour, whereas New Labour see only potential Labour voters, and the Liberal Democrats view anything short of abject surrender as racism. There is only one hope left for Britain and that is the BNP, the challenge is to make people see that.

Deaths in Pretoria

Pretoria - The caretaker and gardener of a smallholding to the east of Pretoria, have been found tied up and murdered.

The bodies of Martin "Tienie" Jacobs, 65, and his gardener were found under boxes and pillows on Wednesday morning, about 12 to 18 hours after their deaths.

Jacobs and his gardener, whose identity and age have not yet been determined, were both presumably strangled. Jacobs was found with a wire around his neck, tied to a trailer.

"I don't understand why they had to tie up an old man like a dog," said his brother William, 60, after seeing the body on Wednesday.

"It's ugly. It's horrible. They're bent on murdering each and every one of us."

Full news story here
_________________________
NB: Although the identity of the gardener has not yet been revealed, I am assuming at this stage that he is probably black. however, given the circumstances described I think it is very likely that he died because he was with Mr Jacobs at the time of the attack. As has been seen in some previous farm attacks and also in farm attacks in Zimbabwe, loyal employees and farm workers have sometimes been attacked when their white employers are targeted.

I have therefore included Martin Jacob's murder as a further incidence in the ongoing genocide of white South African farmers.

___________________
Hat Tip: Dina, Johann and William

Monday, 23 November 2009

Meet the President of Europe

President Van Rompuy (Or "Rumpy" as The Sun will surely call him)

The Following Article by

Herman Van Rompuy. Get used to the name. He is the first President of the European Union, which with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by all the 27 EU member states in early November was transformed into a genuine United States of Europe.

The President of Europe has not been elected; he was appointed in a secret meeting of the heads of government of the 27 EU member states. They chose one of their own. Herman Van Rompuy was the Prime Minister of Belgium. I knew him when he was just setting out, reluctantly, on his political career.

To understand Herman, one must know something about Belgium, a tiny country in Western Europe, and the prototype of the EU. Belgians do not exist as a nation. Belgium is an artificial state, constructed by the international powers in 1830 as a political compromise and experiment. The country consists of 6 million Dutch, living in Flanders, the northern half of the country, and 4 million French, living in Wallonia, the southern half. The Belgian Dutch, called Flemings, would have preferred to stay part of the Netherlands, as they were until 1830, while the Belgian French, called Walloons, would have preferred to join France. Instead, they were forced to live together in one state.

Belgians do not like their state. They despise it. They say it represents nothing. There are no Belgian patriots, because no-one is willing to die for a flag which does not represent anything. Because Belgium represents nothing, multicultural ideologues love Belgium. They say that without patriotism, there would be no wars and the world would be a better place. As John Lennon sang “Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.”

In 1957, Belgian politicians stood at the cradle of the European Union. Their aim was to turn the whole of Europe into a Greater Belgium, so that wars between the nations of Europe would no longer be possible as there would no longer be nations, the latter all having been incorporated into an artificial superstate.

A closer look at Belgium, the laboratory of Europe, shows, however, that the country lacks more than patriotism. It also lacks democracy, respect for the rule of law, and political morality. In 1985, in his book De Afwezige Meerderheid (The Absent Majority) the late Flemish philosopher Lode Claes (1913-1997) argued that without identity and a sense of genuine nationhood, there can also be no democracy and no morality.

One of the people who were deeply influenced by Dr. Claes’s thesis was a young politician named Herman Van Rompuy. In the mid-1980s, Van Rompuy, a conservative Catholic, born in 1947, was active in the youth section of the Flemish Christian-Democrat Party. He wrote books and articles about the importance of traditional values, the role of religion, the protection of the unborn life, the Christian roots of Europe and the need to preserve them. The undemocratic and immoral nature of Belgian politics repulsed him and led to a sort of crisis of conscience. Lode Claes, who was near to retiring, offered Herman the opportunity of succeeding him as the director of Trends, a Belgian financial-economic weekly magazine. It is in this context that I made Herman’s acquaintance. He invited me for lunch one day to ask whether, if he accepted the offer to enter journalism, I would be willing to join him. It was then that he told me that he was considering leaving politics and was weighing the options for the professional life he would pursue.

Continue reading at the Brussels Journal

__________________

Hat Tip: Dr. D

Sunday, 22 November 2009

Hate by any other name

I wonder how many white Americans know that if they were attacked by a gang of Blacks, Hispanics or Asians, who beat them to the ground and then set about them with machetes, Clubs and bats, while shouting “We hate you you white [expletive] Cracker, we are doing this to you because we hate you and your whole [expletive] white race!” their attackers could not be charged with a hate crime. Even if the gang then pulled out guns and fired a dozen bullets into their heads while screaming “We hate you, hate you, we hate you!” Their murder would still not be a hate crime.

They could be murdered, raped, tortured, even dismembered alive, but, no matter how much actual hate was involved in their dispatch from this earth, it would still not count as a hate crime.

Meanwhile, however, the act of tugging a headscarf, could well be a hate crime even if no physical injury occurred. That is provided, of course, that it was not a heterosexual, white Christian wearing the headscarf at the time it was tugged, in that case, it would not be a hate crime, even if the headscarf tugging were accompanied by an assault with a 50 pound mallet.

The reason for this is that as white people, unless they are gay (since October 2009), disabled or, in some limited circumstances, female, are not a “protected class” under US anti-discrimination legislation, they are therefore, not protected by the current hate crimes legislation, and, as such, can not be the victim of a hate crime.

Technically white people over 40 are protected from discrimination, but only when the discrimination relates specifically to age, which isn't much help when they are being battered around the head by a 200 pound Negro.

Believe it or not, the same distinction does not apply in Britain, however, the effect is the same, as we all know, the police and crown prosecution service would rather crawl over red hot coals than charge a non-white person with a racially motivated crime against a white person. The terrible killing of Kriss Donald was an exception only because the authorities could not deny the racial motive of his killers, who went out looking for a white boy, snatched an innocent child from the street and tortured him to death for no reason other than the colour of his skin.

Even the CPS could not find a way to ignore that, although they certainly tried, and the media have been busily burying all memory of the case ever since.

In America that would have made no difference. In the USA, Kriss's skin colour, the very thing his murderers killed him for, would by law have prevented his murder being treated as a race hate crime. The law deliberately denies white males protection from hate crimes.

The hate crimes legislation was recently extended to include hate crimes against gays and lesbians. This move was strongly opposed by the so called Religious Right, and by many Nationalists. By doing so, they again demonstrated their seemingly suicidal instinct for picking the wrong target.

It matters not a jot that an additional minority group has been included amongst the preferred groups who have been selected for protection, what matters is that the legislation deliberately denies protection to another politically chosen section of the population.

By opposing the extension of the legislation, the Right left themselves open to, in some instances legitimate, accusations of homophobia, whilst by their very actions appearing to imply that the hate crimes legislation, as it stood, was acceptable, when it was most certainly not.

The Right allowed themselves to appear beset by irrational prejudice, whereas, in fact, the law itself was drafted on that very basis. The iniquity of the US hate crimes laws are that they exclude selected groups, based on race, gender and (now) sexual orientation, the Right should be challenging the left to defend their anti white racism and bigotry, rather that providing them with diversion to hide behind, not to mention an open goal through which they could and did call us bigots.

A law should protect everyone, or it is a bad law. The current hate crimes legislation in both its prior and post October 2009 forms is a bad law because it enshrines racial and sexual discrimination into US law, and it is that iniquity which the right should have been fighting.

Those who opposed the Matthew Shepard Act in the manner they did were defeated, because it is indefensible to argue that a law should not protect a particular group, however, that is what the law already does and why the law itself is indefensible. The exclusion of whites from the protection of hate crimes legislation is indefensible, and results entirely from bigotry and racial prejudice on the part of the left wing zealots who drafted the law.

The exclusion is based on the politically and racially motivated fantasy that most hate crimes are committed by young heterosexual white males, which is patently untrue. In fact young white males are most likely the main victims of hate crimes, statistically they are the main victims of interracial violence, and it denies all credibility to suggest that the majority of that violence does not have racial animus at its root.

There are vast areas of many US cities where an unarmed white man dare not go in peril of his life, there are far fewer, if any, areas where a black man would be at similar risk, yet it is the black man, not the white who the law protects.

Everyone knows that to send a young white man to an unsegregated American prison is cruel and unnatural punishment, the lowlife scum in Hollywood, who out sick society treat as heroes, laugh and joke about the multiple gang rape and violent abuse of white men in prison, crimes which are far less likely to be inflicted on a black man. Yet, at the same time political correctness bars the authorities from even acknowledging this let alone protecting the victims, for no reason other than that the victims are white and their abusers black.

America is littered with hidden hate crimes which are not acknowledged as such because the law is not intended to protect white people.

In 2002, the Carr brothers, Reginald and Jonathan, raped, sodomised and tortured five young whites in Wichita, inflicting acts of extreme violence and humiliation on them including forcing the three young male victims to perform involuntary sexual acts both on each other and on the female victims, before taking them naked into the frozen winter countryside and shooting each, execution style (amazingly one of the two female victims survived). Shortly after killing four of their victims the Carrs attempted to hijack another woman, again a white one, almost certainly with the same motive.

Despite the fact that the brothers were black and all their victims white and in the face of the obvious hatred involved in their crime, the authorities laughably (should that be contemptibly?) declared that “race played no part” in the crime and the brothers did not face hate crimes charges. This was of course a charade, they could not have been charged with a hate crime because of the skin colour of their victims.

Likewise, none of those charged and currently standing trial for the brutal 2007 rape and murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom in Knoxville can face hate crimes charges, despite the level of brutality involved. Brutality minimised and suppressed by the national media, who even denied that genital mutilation had been inflicted, until one lawyer fainted in court at the sight of the photographs.

I defy anyone to suggest that the killers in both the Wichita and Knoxville cases would not have been automatically charged with hate crimes had the races been reversed.

The abject hypocrisy was exposed n the Knoxville case when the prosecution argued that racism could not be involved because one of the defendants had previously dated a drug addled white girl. This ignored the fact that he had actually beaten the woman, and also than out in Virginia, Bobby Ray Brewster faced hate crimes charges for allegedly beating and raping his own black girlfriend, a crime the alleged "victim" now claims never occurred.

in ways such as this the authorities will perform somersaults to avoid charging a non white person with a hate crime against a white person, because they don't want to admit that the law does not permit them to do so.

Some actually argue that whites are not entitled to such protection because “whites have power”. This echoes that deeply evil and unpleasant old bigot Jo Brand's claim that you can't be racist against whites for the same reason. These claims completely ignore the fact that in numerical terms both in America and in Britain there are more deprived white people living beneath the poverty line than all other racial groups .

The lying media will throw statistics at us to suggest otherwise, but in terms of the numbers of people officially living in poverty, there are more whites than any other group, in America it is more than twice as many.

They have no power, why are they not entitled to protection?

The left will no doubt claim that even deprived whites have power because other whites do. However, this is like claiming that the average citizen in a third world dictatorship has power because those at the top of their society have billions of dollars in Swiss bank accounts and enjoy more power over others in their country than a white man has dreamed of since the Romanovs were shot in Ekaterinburg.

The assertion is not merely hypocritical it is deceitful, and deliberately so.

The reason that “Hate crimes” do not protect white people because they are designed to fit a fake world view within an entirely fake world, which exists only in the agenda deluded minds of the true believers and and possibly the script writers of CSI Vegas and Law and Order Special Victims Unit. A politically correct fantasy world where all hate victims are black or brown and all hate criminals are white, male and preferably “preppy”.

As the left in Britain cling to their tiny number of totem white perpetrator hate crimes, such as the tragic murders of Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker, whilst ignoring the far higher number of crimes which do not fit their chosen narrative, the American left have their celebrated handful of anti-black hate crimes, which they constantly roll out whenever they need to distract the public from what is really happening. The most famous of this relatively small number of white perpetrator hate crimes is the truly terrible murder of James Byrd Jnr.

However, even that awful crime is not exactly what it seems. The main perpetrator in the killing of James Byrd Jnr, a man called John King, had himself been the victim of multiple hate crimes, having been subjected to repeated gang rapes by black men in prison not long before the killing.

King had shown no previous evidence of being a "racist" before he went to prison, but he had become one by the time he came out. This does not, in any way excuse what was done to James Byrd Jnr, but who can doubt that had a black man been repeatedly raped and brutalised by white men, this would most certainly have been held up as mitigation no matter how awful a crime he then went on to commit.

It is not my purpose to defend John King, merely to point out our society does not permit him the claim to mitigation which they would willingly grant a black man, merely because King is white.

The fact hate crimes legislation enshrines anti-white racism into US law is hardly surprising in a country where a Hispanic anti-white racist and feminist bigot has just been appointed to the Supreme court, and where the legal system conspires to deny “standing” to anyone attempting to question the highly dubious eligibility of their affirmatively appointed president. However, the prejudice behind this law goes further, as anti white racism has become an increasingly prominent feature in popular culture.

In music hip-hop and rap are not only valued above blue grass, but they is now valued above the classical greats, and certainly never mocked and disparaged in the same way. When the public watch the popular soaps they see dim and dawkish whites confronting bright and confident blacks and their cop shows are all about white crime, black heroes and politically correct victims.

All the while Americas superpower strength is falling away, its streets are less safe and its infrastructure is crumbling. As its once great cities like Baltimore, Cleveland and St Louis follow New Orleans and Detroit into crime ridden decay and social collapse one is left to wonder if this was somehow the aim.

We in Europe should tremble as we watch, because what happens in America today will most likely happen here tomorrow and the same dark forces that steer our course steer theirs. There is an agenda to what is going on and it is not an agenda designed to serve us of European origin well.

As with so much else, the true hate behind the hate crimes laws lurks in the hearts of those who drafted them, and they have only just begun.

Saturday, 21 November 2009

Update on "Racism Alive and Well in South Africa"



Further to the posting earlier this week regarding Vodacom SA's "No Whites" share sale, readers may be interested to know that John who runs the Cape Independence Movement blog has set up a new blog Boycott Vodafone calling for boycott of the Vodafone group until this discriminatory and racist policy is withdrawn.

UPDATE: There is also a Boycott Vodafone Facebook Group

Friday, 20 November 2009

Deceiving the British People



We are taught that we live in democracy, but in reality our lives are run by a power hierarchy where policies percolate downwards through a chain of influence. Many of these policies are not even mentioned to the public and have been covertly implemented for years — like mass immigration.

People wonder when the authorities will do something about it, ignorant of the fact that this is the ruling elite’s policy. It is a way of destroying our civilisation in the sub-Marxist belief that from the ruin, a raceless, coffee-coloured harmonious utopia will emerge.

A review of some of the evidence for this mass deceit of the British people proves the point.

David Cameron broke his promise to the British people without taking office, by declining to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. In this move, Cameron is in league with other elites against the interests of the people who are bonded by central beliefs such as “anti-racism” and the movement towards a one-world government.

Every now and then, some of these elitist truths slip out, mainly because of rivalries amongst this clique. In his diaries, The Blair Years, Alaistair Campbell recalls Tony Blair flying to Australia to win the support of Rupert Murdoch. He also recalled Neil Kinnock saying: “It won’t matter if we win as the bankers and stockbrokers have got us already by the f*****g balls. And that is before you take your 30 pieces of silver.”

In 2007, The Independent reported “How Murdoch had a hotline to the PM in the run-up to Iraq war” and that “the Cabinet Office said there were six telephone discussions between Mr Blair and Mr Murdoch in 20 months, all at crucial moments of his premiership. The subject of their calls was not revealed.”

Mr Murdoch’s personal direction and intervention in the run-up to the war in Iraq is evident in a comparison of the dates of many of these phone calls and the headlines which appeared the next day in The Sun:

Phone call: 11 March 2003.

The Sun says on 12 March 2003: “Like a cheap tart who puts price before principle, money before honour, Jacques Chirac struts the streets of shame. The French President’s vow to veto the second resolution [on Iraq] at the United Nations — whatever it says — puts him right in the gutter.”

Phone call: 13 March 2003.

The Sun says on 14 March 2003: “Charlatan Jacques Chirac is basking in cheap applause for his ‘Save Saddam’ campaign — but his treachery will cost his people dear. This grandstanding egomaniac has inflicted irreparable damage on some of the most important yet fragile structures of international order.”

Phone call: 19 March 2003.

The Sun says on 20 March 2003: “Time has run out for Saddam Hussein. His day of reckoning is at hand. The war on Iraq has begun… The courage and resilience of Tony Blair and George Bush will now be put to the ultimate test.”

The Guardian of 24 October 2008 revealed that David Cameron had accepted free flights to hold talks with Rupert Murdoch on his luxury yacht off a Greek island: “. . . the Tory leader was flown by private jet to Santorini on August 16 where he joined the media tycoon for drinks on his 184ft (56m) yacht, Rosehearty.”

His wife, Samantha, and two of their children flew with Matthew Freud’s party on his jet when it left Farnborough for the Mediterranean. Matthew Freud, the public relations guru, is married to Murdoch’s daughter, Elisabeth. A spokeswoman for the Conservative leader said: “Everything in connection to August 16 has been fully and properly declared.”

Although Cameron registered the flights last month, until now nothing had been made public about his visit to Murdoch’s yacht.  Murdoch’s News Corporation owns The Sun and The Times, as well as a large stake in Sky News, and other media businesses around the world.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne visited Oleg Deripaska, the Russian billionaire, on his yacht off Corfu. Though Osborne denied claims by financier, Nathaniel Rothschild, that he tried to solicit a £50,000 donation for Tory party funds, yet he has admitted he was present when a possible donation by Deripaska was discussed.

David Rockefeller and Kissinger are powerful Bilderberg Group members and Murdoch attends most of the meetings each year. In May 2009, Canadian investigative journalist Daniel Estulin reported that the Bilderberg Group would force the Irish to vote on the Lisbon Treaty again to found an EU superstate.

Dennis Healey once said: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”  This requires a tyranny such as the EU and the so-called North American Super Highway.

It is clear that David Cameron has done some deal with Mr Murdoch in the run-up to the next general election. Why else would The Sun have started early with their smears and gutter stories? Already we have seen that paper running a story about Gordon Brown’s spelling mistakes in a letter to the mother of a young soldier killed in Afghanistan.

These Western elites have removed themselves from the tribulations of ordinary life and have associated themselves with the super-rich, who rival royalty as the Continent’s new elite.

They sail in expensive yachts and holiday in fabulous villas, have a playboy lifestyle amongst the super rich and share their bounty with elected and unelected officials.

It seems no one in the government in Britain is interested in running an orderly country. They are in it for themselves. The Tory and Labour parties are run by self-interested elites who know that if they serve the rich, they will be raised into a rarified milieu. They don’t use public transport, public hospitals or state schools.

It was Messrs Blair and Straw who deceitfully engineered secret immigration and pretended it was beneficial to the country. It has been beneficial to the elites. The Mail of 7 October reported that the Blairs had just bought their sixth large house. “Cherie paid £1m cash for mews home.”

Public anger is rising. Millions face economic meltdown and Mr Cameron talks about cutting social services and imposing a draconian system on unemployed people who cannot compete with imported cheap labour.

All this occurs while the “elected representatives” live it up with international financiers. The Telegraph of August 11 gave us an insight into their world. “After a week dining with bankers and Hollywood billionaires in the secluded cliff top mansion, Britain’s stand-in Prime Minister… accompanied by the interior designer Nicky Haslam, a fellow guest of the Rothschilds for the week.”

Yet in November 2008, Gordon Brown and Business Secretary Lord Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to ask them to fund our shaky economies by putting billions into the International Monetary Fund.

Lord Mandelson acknowledged they offered the Saudis some financial influence over Britain and the West. This is the move to Eurabia — allowing Islam to take over Europe.

Lower down the hierarchy, journalists push the elites’ values and demonise those who defend the interests of British people. When they talk about the BNP or any patriots, the elites accuse them of “hating” others. The reality is that the only “hate” going around comes from these elites against the indigenous British people. On at least three occasions on Question Time, David Dimbleby swung his left arm across the front of Nick Griffin in a gesture of contempt.

Journalists with the wrong opinions are replaced by those with the correct ones. Sir Peregrine Worsthorne was apparently sacked as editor of The Sunday Telegraph because of his racial views.

Two days after the riots outside Question Time, Jack Straw was quoted in The Times as defending the Socialist Workers Party as “decent.” Mr Straw said, “What it showed is that there is something basically decent running through Britain and British politics from UKIP to the Socialist Workers Party. But he (Griffin) is beyond the pale on that.” Mr Straw was the man who was so happy to see Robert Mugabe take power in Zimbabwe.

The elites have no morals or conscience. Their only rule is that they must support each other in their ideological goals no matter what. If they do cross the line, they are summarily dispensed with.

In May 2004, the BBC reported that Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan was sacked after the newspaper conceded that photographs of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake. The Mirror said it was taken in by a “calculated and malicious hoax” and that it would be “inappropriate” for Morgan to continue.”

The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment said The Mirror had endangered British troops by printing the pictures. Mr Morgan was not out of the picture for long, though. In December 2008 we learned that he would get £40,000 an hour for his new ITV chat show. This makes his salary a cool £1 million per year.

The same media cover up racist attacks on whites. Fifteen-year-old Kriss Donald was abducted off the streets of Glasgow by a gang of Muslims. They tortured and repeatedly stabbed him throughout a three hour journey. His end came in a park by the River Clyde where they held his arms and stabbed him 13 times. He sustained internal injuries to three arteries, one of his lungs, his liver and a kidney. He was castrated, had his tongue cut out, was doused in petrol, set on fire and left to die. His last words before they cut his tongue out were: ”I am only fifteen.”

He tried to crawl to the river’s edge to put out the flames, but died just short of the river. The Muslim murderers were protected by members of the local Muslim community in Glasgow. They were smuggled to Manchester Airport and flew to Pakistan but eventually were brought back and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Now I ask, if Kriss had been Asian or black and his attackers white, how much more widely reported would this case have been? Who has not heard of Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor? Few members of the public know about this Kriss Donald case or the sickening details.
If Kriss had not been ”guilty” of being white but a “victim,”  say, Asian, the story would have been national headlines for months and constantly brought up to incite other ethnic groups against white people and instill a sense of guilt onto us.

But no, Kriss is largely forgotten by the moral reprobates in politics and the media. You only hear about it on the Internet. A full enquiry about why it was ignored must be held. The Kriss Donald case highlights the effect of the sustained de-humanisation process to which white people are subjected. It is a major international incident if a non-white person is attacked and murdered, but white victims are not counted as important enough to even mention.

The great journalists have long since gone, leaving behind them only a gaggle of tame and frightened scribblers.

For example, Michael Wharton, alias Peter Simple, who was possibly the greatest satirist of the twentieth century writes no more. He was a columnist on The Daily Telegraph who mocked trendy bishops, Hampstead thinkers and the “anti-racist lobby” with several spoof characters and a device to alert people to prejudice. His words suffice to explain: “The Macpherson Report’s definition of a racist incident as ‘any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’ is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids. It calculates degrees of racial prejudice — ‘prejudons,’ which is the ‘internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice’ — simply by pointing it at the suspected racist. At 3.6 degrees on the Alibhai-Brown scale, it sets off a shrill scream that will not stop until you’ve pulled yourself together with a well-chosen anti-racist slogan.”

Like robots contemporary journalists repeat meaningless clichés: click . . . racist . . . .whirr. . . click . . . haters . . . clunk . . . Nazis . . . whirr . . . thugs . . . click . . . clunk . . . whirr . . . .

I went in search of the establishment’s ‘rational argument’ for its ideological position. I’m still in search of it.

They know they are not capable of presenting a refutation of our defence of the British people. They know that they have created the current situation through deceit, social engineering, propaganda and lies.

They also know that we have seen through them.

Defending the Natural Society



We are encouraged to pretend that people coming here from countries we have invaded are bringing benefits and bear us no ill will. Can you imagine what people would have said if we had been allowing 700 Germans to enter the country each month when we were at war with the Nazis? Well, 700 a month are entering from Afghanistan but contemporary elites have lost touch with reality and are trying to compel us to do the same.

The whole notion of building a multiracial society is so unrealistic and artificial that it causes perverse behaviour. The media have to constantly lie to us to make it appear that it is working, but this attempt to create an artificial society is leading to racial tension and mutual racial hatreds. The elites blame us when things go wrong but they themselves have caused it.

Many Conservatives have been more hard-line than us. During the war, the Duke of Marlborough wrote to his cousin, Winston Churchill, asking him to keep Black GIs away from white women.

Three-times British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, on 24 May 1929, said: “…that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for our race.”

The natural society is organic and evolves naturally among people who belong together. The living honour the dead by passing on what they have inherited to their children, but now we are perversely having our inheritance dissipated by the elites and shared with outsiders they bring as cheap labour.

Edmund Burke defined a nation which involves a shared identity, history and ancestry, and continuity: “… it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

One deceitful trick is to label patriots as Nazis, Fascists or uneducated. A racial world view is a traditional world view and goes back to our Anglo-Saxon tribal days.

We have a tradition of conserving our homogeneity and had better and more pleasant lives for being homogenous.

Queen Elizabeth I sent an “open letter” to the Lord Mayor of London, in 1596, stating “there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie”.  A week later, she repeated: “good pleasure to have those kinde of people sent out of the lande” and commissioned the merchant Casper van Senden to “take up” certain “blackamoores here in this realme and to transport them into Spaine and Portugall.”

In 1601, she again complained about the “great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which [as she is informed] are crept into this realm … infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel,” and had them repatriated.

There is concern that the immigrants will come to dominate us. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities.

Part of the fantasy is to pretend immigrants are like empty bottles waiting to be made like us but they are fully-formed people with the same basic human nature as us and as likely to have grudges against us for the past or to want to take advantage of us for themselves and their kin as we were during the Empire.

Another pretence is that of equality. Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli wrote in Chapter 24 of Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (1852), “The particular equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.”

The fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grandson of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendant of Lord Burleigh, adviser to Queen Elizabeth, wrote to Viscount Swinton in 1954, in a letter preserved at the National Archive: “…  though it is only beginning to push its ugly head above the surface of politics. The figures which we have been given make it clear that we are faced with a problem which, though at present it may be only a cloud the size of a man’s hand, may easily come to fill the whole political horizon …The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State.”

Colonial Secretary Oliver Lyttletton (later Lord Chandos) wanted to introduce deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants: “If there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”

He checked on restrictions imposed on our people by Commonwealth countries.  Some refused to accept “persons who are likely to become a public charge”, “illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” and had “unsuitable standards or habits of life”. Many had quota systems and even dictation tests.

Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependents as he shall bring with him to the island. Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission” (Letter to Viscount Swinton 31/3/1954). Only Britain allowed anyone in.
Cyril Osborne MP (Louth) first tried in 1954 to introduce a bill to control immigration. In May 1958, three months before the racial battles of Notting Hill and Nottingham, Osborne had written to Labour leader Hugh Gaitskill who handed it to his secretary to reply, “The Labour Party is opposed to restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country.”

Then three months after he instigated a Commons debate on the 5th of December 1958 when Labour spokesman Arthur Bottomley stated, “We are categorically against it (restrictions).”

Labour’s Frank Tomney remarked on elected representatives ignoring their constituents. “We have been sent here by the electorate to give expression to issues which concern them.”

At the second reading of the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961) he stated, “The world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.”

Norman Pannell Liverpool (Kirkdale) served in the Nigerian Legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years. He proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the UK had an open door policy and let anyone in.

“When I visited Nigeria two years ago as a member of Parliament without ultimate responsibility for the affairs of that country, I was given an entry permit valid for 14 days and renewable subject to good behaviour.”
He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. Pannell stated that though Butler had disagreed with limiting numbers, he had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes but nothing had been done.

There is the importation of diseases which puts the population at risk. In a letter to The Times of 13th December 1960, Harold Gurden MP wrote, “On the health question we find the middle ring of the city (Birmingham), where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country… We have a duty to our constituents.”

In 2007 it was revealed that we have a record number of cases of TB. This has been imported by the authorities.

When we were homogeneous we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed but to build an artificial society the elites need a surveillance state and totalitarian race laws to oppress us.

At a Society for Individual Freedom meeting at Birmingham Town Hall, on 18/4/1968, two days before Enoch’s famous Rivers of Blood speech, Sir Ronald Bell QCMP warned of the Race Relations Act: “I am profoundly convinced that if this immediate threat is not sharply challenged and then fought with as great a persistence as has been shown over recent years by those who have worked for this engine of oppression, then many further uses of law and of the power of the state for shaping men’s minds will follow.”
To control thought, totalitarians redefine words and change the meaning of legal terms.

In 1981 K. Harvey Proctor published the Monday Club’s official policy to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. The forward to the document was by Sir Ronald Bell.

In The Unarmed Invasion (1965) Lord Elton wrote, “We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.” In his autobiography, rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts that he saw in Jamaica for immigrants to come here and it was clear that they were being brought here as cheap labour.

A TV poll marking 40 years since Enoch’s “Rivers of Blood” speech found most people anticipate racial conflict over the years to come. The unprecedented level of prosperity Europe has enjoyed for years had prevented the civil unrest but we are now heading into recession.

In an echo of Enoch’s warnings on “racial civil war,” The Sunday Times of 11 June  2006 reported that Rear Admiral Chris Parry, one of Britain’s most senior military strategists, warned that Western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman Empire. He said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while North African “Barbary” pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Somali pirates are already at work.

Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a “reverse colonisation” as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the Internet and cheap flight.

Thirty four years before 7 July 2005, Enoch told the Southall Chamber of Commerce on 4th November 1971, “Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him possession of his native land.”
 __________________________________________________________________________________

Related Promotion From Excaliber Online

It is not widely known that between 1596 and 1601, Queen Elizabeth I ordered the expulsion of all non-indigenous Third World people, whom she called “blackamoores” from Britain.

Now, for the first time ever, Excalibur is proud to exclusively offer reproductions of the original expulsion orders.

In 1596 Queen Elizabeth I wrote to the lord mayors of major cities that there were “of late divers blackmoores brought into this realm, of which kind of people there are already here to manie. Those kinde of people should be sente forth of the land.”

In 1601, Elizabeth issued a further proclamation expressing her “discontentment by the numbers of blackamoores which are crept into this realm. . . . they are fostered and relieved here to the great annoyance of [the queen's] own liege people, that want the relief, which those people consume.”

Reproduction copies of these can be purchased from Excaliber by clicking here

_________________________________
NOTE: Sarah: Maid of Albion has no connection with Excaliber Online Shopping and does not receive commission on purchases.

Reconquista - From Titans to Lemmings - Part 8 and Conclusion

Many apologies to Reconquista fans, I missed the last two parts of his brilliant and thought provoking series "From Titans to Lemmings - the suicide of the white Race" which he recently posted to the Home of the Green Arrow. However, here are part eight and the series Conclusion:


From Titans to Lemmings Part 8


By Reconquista

From Titans To Lemmings - The Suicide Of The White Race

8. Genocide Of The Titans
Background
Before I continue with this the final part of this series of essays explaining how I believe the white race is committing suicide, let's just have a quick recap as to the main issues covered thus far. This final part of the Titans series is quite a lengthy essay so you may wish to make yourself a brew before continuing as there are many important issues raised and discussed in detail.

In the first part, Selected For Extinction, I asserted that the future of the white race is seriously threatened. Although Christianity has been almost abandoned, the moral inversion inherent in it and identified by the brilliant German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche - whereby the weak and the oppressed are regarded as moral whereas the strong and the powerful are regarded as immoral - has been retained and is being used to allow minorities to dominate our society, e.g. homosexuals, Asians, women etc. It is being underpinned with a gross distortion of history to always portray whites as exploiters and oppressors. I also explained that Marxists are deploying this moral inversion through the new godless religion they created: Liberalism and its holy trinity of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and Tolerance.

Part Two, Halting The Tide discussed the false notion of equality of all peoples and all races and in Part Three, Walking The Wheel, I gave a brief description of the state of Multiculturalism in white western societies along with an assertion that whites are repeatedly behaving in the same flawed ways yet expecting different results and I compared this to Einstein's definition of insanity - with very good reason because I assert that the white race is consciously making a choice for extinction.

Continue reading Part 8 by clicking here

 
From Titans to Lemmings Conclusion




By Reconquista

From Titans To Lemmings - The Suicide Of The White Race

Can The Titans Be Saved? An Invitation To Debate
Whilst writing the eight essays of the "From Titans To Lemmings - The Suicide Of The White Race" series, several major issues arose and I would like to share my thoughts with my fellow nationalists here on the Home of the Green Arrow. The issues raised have caused me think very deeply about the current situation and consider how best to wage the battle to save Great Britain and preserve the identity of the British people. One of the biggest questions I considered is:
Can The Titans Be Saved?
Great Britain really is in a desperate situation, so desperate that it may now no longer be possible to not only to halt what is being done, but also to restore Great Britain to what it was and indeed one could say the same about Western civilisation.

It is strikingly obvious that Marxism, with its Liberal-Multiculturalism spawns, is now THE dominant ideology throughout ALL Western societies. With the advent of the Marxist European Union, Great Britain will cease to exist as a sovereign state. Democracy in Britain is now well and truly dead, and no matter which of the established parties wins the next "election" it will be more of the same: The EU, mass immigration, foreign aid, multiculturalism, economic instability, punitive taxation (and without representation at that) and social degeneration.

Did I say "economic instability"? Better make that economic collapse because the entire global economy is utterly and catastrophically bankrupt and it is a matter of time as to when it completely implodes.

The entire print and broadcast media will continue to brainwash the people with the Multicultural doctrine through lies and deceit - an act of war against Britons - and the media have so much power over the people they will also shape which way the masses will vote in what is nothing more than a sham election, a pretence of democracy conducted to fool the people and anaesthetise them to the unpleasant totalitarian Marxist reality that is being established by stealth.

Borders are not enforced, immigrants have more rights than indigenous peoples and MPs are now redundant as laws are passed by an unelected politburo in a foreign land, a group of people who the British people do not even know the names of never mind vote for, a group who is not answerable or accountable in any way to the British people. Such power is a Marxist dream.

The Marxists have triumphed, they have achieved what Hitler wanted, socialism for Europe, a Federal Europe designed and now ruled by socialists and it has been done by criminals and traitors engaged in conducting a Coup d' État. Threats and unfair pressure have been applied to governments who disagreed, to Presidents who stalled and even results of elections have been ignored.  Those who oppose the Marxists are publicly vilified yet the ones who have conducted the coup have no hesitation in deploying violence, mob rule, lies and deceptions to achieve their aims. The fascists aren't the patriots who are smeared and dehumanised relentlessly, the fascists are the ones in power and they are determined that now they have achieved it, they will never let it go.

And the reigning British Monarch hasn't said a word in defence of the British people.


Continue reading the series conclusion by clicking here

A library of Reconquista's articles and postings can be found at the Home of the Green Arrow by CLICKING HERE

_____________________________
Reconquista's views are his own and do not necessarily, in their entirety represent the views of this Blog

At the End of the Day, Diversity has Jumped the Shark

By Ann Coulter

It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: "Our diversity ... is a strength."

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- I mean the beautiful mosaics -- in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

Continue reading here

______________________

Note: The expression “jumping the shark” means that something has gone too far or gone on too long, referring specifically to an episode of “Happy Days” that let everyone know the writers had run out of ideas.

Thursday, 19 November 2009

Cartman - minorities song

video

Islamic justice

A Somali woman was stoned to death after being found guilty of adultery in breach of Islamic law.

Halima Ibrahim Abdirahman, a 29-year-old married woman, was executed after confessing to having had sex with a 20-year-old unmarried man, Sheikh Ibrahim Sheikh Abdirahman, the judge at her trial, told spectators at the execution yesterday at Eelboon in southern Somalia.

The 20-year-old man, who was unidentified, was sentenced to 100 lashes, Sheikh Ibrahim said.

Full story here

Somebody's daughter

When I checked the news sites this morning she remained unidentified, a young blonde woman aged in her late teens or early twenties. From what remains of her clothes she seems to have been smart and well groomed, she had manicured nails and coloured highlights in her hair, she apparently cared about her appearance, and was probably pretty.

She was found on Monday on a road side in the Vaal Rand, not far from from Johannesburg. She had no identification, her body had been set alight and she was burnt beyond recognition. Early post mortem results suggest she may well have been alive when first set on fire, and who knows what horrors she lived through before that final agony.

She was killed not long before she was discovered, as smoke still hung in the air when a passing motorist went to investigate what was burning and found a horror which will no doubt haunt him. No effort had been made to hide the body and car tracks were found near the scene.

She is someone's daughter, maybe someone's sister, but nobody has yet reported her missing. Perhaps they are travelling and do not know she is gone. Maybe it was she who was travelling and those who love her are in another country awaiting her call, three days is not long to go without hearing from a grown up child on holiday.

Whoever she is, and wherever she comes from, she will become another statistic, if she is even recorded at all, the South African police are not that fastidious when recording violent crime, especially against whites. News of her final suffering will be reported briefly, but, unless she is a tourist, only in South Africa itself, portrayed as if it is a rare aberration rather than the routine, every day brutal murder that it is. She will be mentioned again briefly, if her killers are caught, but they probably won't be, so few are. Then she will be forgotten, cast into the void of the unmentioned, together with all the other young lives prematurely snuffed out in terror and in pain to feed the depravity of brutal men and crimes unacknowledged by a dishonest world.

Somebody's daughter died on Monday, but the world will soon look away.

______________________
Hat Tip: Dina

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Lies told often enough

An earlier post to the Home of the Green Arrow by Sir Percival linked to an article on the Voice Online website. The article written by the black journalist and famously anti-white racist Darkus Howe was a sneering and hate fuelled diatribe asserting the fait accompli which is how the enemies of the native British population now seek to portray the multi racial nightmare which has been forced upon our benighted nation without ever allowing the us a democratic vote.

This claim is usually made with the smug malevolence of a rapist reminding his victim of her rape, and Howe certainly stuck to tradition in this respect, as the reader could all but visualise the bile dribbling into his keyboard and mingling poisonously with the toxic residue of his earlier work as he typed.

As I pointed out in the comments section of Sir Percival's posting, I noticed the following line lurking menacingly amongst Howe's corrosive prose:

"It is clear to me that at this point in time the path out of recession can only powered by new and huge injection of immigrant labour."

Given that the huge injection of immigration has already taken place over the last ten years, during which time we have seen the most comprehensive invasion of sovereign European nation in history, and at the end of which we find ourselves in the midst of the worst recession ever recorded, my fist reaction was that Howe must have written the line as some cruel and tasteless jest. However, upon reading further, it became clear that the deluded and vengeful old fool most probably believed the piffle he composed.

Opinion is split as to whether it was Goebells or indeed Lenin who first said that a lie if repeated often enough becomes a truth, however it seems they both said something very similar, and that device forms the foundation upon which the entire argument in favour of a multicultural, multi-racial and diverse society is built.

We all know the lies, but I will mention just a few:

“Whites commit the majority of all race hate crimes”, a total fabrication of course, but it is a lie believed by the majority population because it has been told to them so often.

“Britain is a nation of immigrants”, a deeply dishonest lie, which Bonnie Greer attempted to promote on Question Time with her retelling of history, based on extremely dubious authority. In fact 75% of Native Britons can trace their genetic ancestry back to the end of the last ice age However, sadly and deliberately damagingly, it is the Greerite fairy tale which is taught in our schools.

“Foreigners are entitled to live in Britain because many of then fought for us during the war”, does that mean we, the British, can go and occupy Korea, Malaysia (as was), Kuwait and Sierra Leone because we fought for them?. Furthermore, is it okay to boot the Somalis and Eritreans out, given that most of them were on the other side?

What about the laughable old fiction that “diversity is strength”, a lie accepted by this generation alone. Every generation before ours knew that strength lies in unity whereas diversity leads to division and weakness. Diversity does not enhance, it destroys, or, at the very least, changes things irrevocably, seldom for the better. However, the claim is repeated by our leaders, over and over again, until they sound like an aviary full of one trick parrots

Then we have the lie, enshrined in Darkus Howe's snarl about the recession, that Britain's society and economy benefit from immigration, another falsehood repeated over and over again in the hope we will believe it. It is when telling this lie that politicians bleat statements such as “All parties must counter the threat from the BNP by pointing out the benefits of immigration!” yet they never quantify what they actually mean. Where, or what, exactly are these benefits?

As I stated above, and in earlier postings (although it is worth repeating) following a human landslide of these so called benefits, we are experiencing the worst recession on record, our economy is in the worst state it has ever been in during peacetime, and national debt is now so high that our children and probably our grandchildren will still be paying off in many years time. Yet, madman like Darkus Howe are calling for more of the same?! What is it that makes you think they might not have our best interests at heart?

Even if there were “benefits” to mass immigration, beyond easier access to couscous, okra and a proper curry, which have not yet been revealed to us, lets not forget that there are also health “benefits” to smoking. Up until the 1960's some doctors actually recommended that certain patients take up the habit. None do now, of course. because the down side turned out to be one hell of a lot bigger than the benefit.

In the same way, the mythical benefits of Immigration would have to be quite something to top the downside.

An article on the BNP's website estimates the cost of immigration to the British Tax payer to be around £13 billion per annum. Their figures are very well sourced, but, as they concede probably underestimate the amount which immigrants send out of the country each year (type the words “sending money home” into Google and see how many results you get – make sure you are sitting down when you do so). In addition, a report back in July revealed that foreign criminal gangs are costing Britain over £40 billion per annum, this would not be possible without immigration.

On top of a conservatively estimated annual net loss of £53 billion,we can not ignore the negative impact which immigration has on our society.

We are now in a situation were our cities are becoming segregated and balkanised, crime is out of control leading to added pressure on the police, the prison service and, of course, the public. We are seeing new and nastier types of crimes, not only are new and far more vicious types of street gangs roaming our streets, but previously unheard of crimes such as gang rapes, honour killings and even suicide bombings have been brought to Britain, and, as if that was not enough, we have, so far, had at least one muti killing

A report just last week revealed that London needs an extra 50,000 school places. Our health service, which now has third world standards of hygiene, is under such pressure that it views an eighteen week waiting list to be an achievement. Our roads are congested, our cities polluted and we can not build houses fast enough to accommodate the relentless invasion. (the environmental impact of immigration is huge but hushed up)

Previously eradicated diseases, such as tuberculosis have reappeared in Britain as a direct result of immigration, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

On top of all this we are subjected to progressively more oppressive and draconian legislation so that these enforced changes can be imposed upon us, which, in itself is a curtailment of our freedom. This is all but entirely the result of enforced multiculturalism.

Frankly, if the fanatics running this country remain unable to quantify a benefit of mass immigration which outweighs the clear and easily quantified downside of immigration, it would be fair to conclude that no such benefit exists.

Demented bigots like Darkus Howe may still believe in the myth, but any sane politician, even those most committed to mass immigration knows that there is no actual benefit to it, certainly not one which the wider public would either understand or welcome.

So why do they continue to promote this insanity when they must know that no good will come of it? Why do they continue to grant access to plane loads of pregnant women and to the sort of young males who could only be welcomed by agenda driven zealots, anarchists and that small group of white women who would not understand the concept of patriotism, honour and decency if it bit them on the backside, right next to their “Give me one Kwame” tattoo?.

Why do they follow a policy which wins approval only from sluts, freaks and fanatics unless there is an ulterior motive or, perhaps another lie?

Various possibilities spring to mind. Firstly it is quite possible that the “establishment” has been taken over by a group of totally evil people who gain a certain nihilistic pleasure out of watching the destruction of a once great civilisation.

Mad as that may seem, there is another possibility which is perhaps even madder. It is possible that they truly believe that all the cost, all the strife and all the inevitable blood-shed will be worthwhile if they can create a mono-race. It may be that they actually believe that if through forcing the races together they can produce a single race of caramel coloured people with curly hair in that shade of reddish brown which you do not see anywhere else in nature, and that will eventually lead to social harmony and what they see as fairness.

If this is what they really believe, then they are indeed truly deluded.

Believing that breeding a homogenised single race from the racial mix they have selected will lead to a better world ignores some very uncomfortable facts, in particular that amongst these particular groups the greatest level of conflict exists where there is the least ethnic difference. The Sunni Muslims hate the Shiites possibly more than they hate anyone else. One of the current greatest risks of nuclear conflict is between India and Pakistan. Meanwhile, the West Indians loath the Africans, and the Africans hate them back, it is no secret that much of the gang violence on our streets is due to conflict between African and West Indian street gangs.

The history of Europe is clear evidence that a common ethnicity does not prevent conflict and the same apples to Asia and to Africa. Inter tribal violence is amongst the most bloody, we do not have to go back to Rwanda to see evidence of that, many died in Kenya in 2007 merely for being from the wrong tribe. The so called “xenophobic” violence in South Africa continues, as recently as last week there were further attacks on Zimbabwean immigrants by members of the blood thirsty Xhosa tribe from which the allegedly peace loving Nelson Mandela originates.

When was the last time anyone in Europe set fire to an immigrant? Such acts have been horribly common in the outbreaks of sub Saharan tribal “xenophobia” despite the fact the ethnic divide is significantly less obvious.

This latest conflict has not been reported in the British Press, but that is of course the repeated lie of omission whereby suppression of the truth creates a new truth for the public to believe in.

Ending race even if it were possible will not end conflict in fact it could well make it worse.

To believe otherwise sounds like madness, but in the world of lies which our leaders inhabit who knows what they may think and what mad dreams they may dream.

Another possibility course is that they were silly teen aged idealists believing the silly things which teen aged idealists believe but they then went into politics and never grew enough to admit they were wrong, even when it became patently obvious that they were.

So, which is it? Are we ruled by the bad, the mad or just the very, very silly? To my mind, most likely it is a mixture of the three. However, the one thing which is certain is that, for whatever their reasons, they are lying to us, those lies are leading us towards the abyss and we can not allow that to continue.

_____________
Hat Tip: Dina