Sunday, 29 May 2011

The Lib Dems and the Question of National Identity



Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne are Lib Dem because they don’t know who they are

‘I think I’m English, therefore  I am’ ?

Nick Clegg describes himself as the “Son of a Dutch mother and half-Russian father”.  He thinks he’s ‘English’ by virtue of having been born and having been raised in England. Is he?  Clegg is certainly British because he possesses a British passport.

But English? He isn’t simply by thinking that he is. Clegg’s confusion arises because he denies the natural rights of blood inheritance and asserts rights solely by virtue of environment.  The English are English, he is saying in effect, because of the purely contingent facts that they were born and raised in England.  Therefore he is English (he deduces) because he was born and raised there.

England was named after the English; not vice - versa

This of course begs the question as to why the strip of territory named England was called that in the first place.  In fact, rather than the English being so-called because they lived in England, England was so-called because it was the home of the English or the ‘Angles,’ ie an ethnicity. The country was named after its people, not vice- versa.  It follows that you do not become English simply by living in the country, any more than you are Welsh or Scots or Irish simply by living in the appropriate country.

To be a Member of an Ethnicity is a two-way Acceptance

So one is not English simply because one is born in England and thinks one is.  One is not a member of a family (and an ethnic nation like the English is an extended family) simply by saying that you are. You must be accepted by the bulk of other members of that ethnic family.  If the bulk of the ethnically English do accept you, it will be first and foremost on grounds of close ethnic affinity.

If Clegg is accepted as English by most it is because he looks and behaves English

Now it may be the case that most English people do accept Clegg as English because he looks  English, ie he conforms to the racial characteristics  of the English and appears to conduct himself like a certain type of Englishman.  But would all these people still accept him as English if they knew his background, which (I am guessing) they don’t?  I suggest not.  At the back of their minds of many  of them at least there would always lurk the knowledge of his foreign background which would to a greater or lesser degree colour their attitudes to him.
 
Clegg knows he is not English

Clegg surely knows this. While at one level he asserts his Englishness, and even though most English people accept him as such, at another level he is uncertain of it, because he understands  that the acceptance of the English depends to a certain degree at least on their ignorance of his foreign background and his ways of thinking which I suggest must derive  from it.  His mostly foreign background  must have  been a key  theme of his childhood, home life and his feelings about who he is;  one that is not on public display.  He might for example not even have spoken English as first language when with his family  and relations, or used other languages interchangeably.

This Knowledge is why he is a LIb Dem

That, fundamentally, is the reason why  Clegg is a Lib Dem who is at pains to try to deny and destroy the English people as an ethnicity. It is to rid himself of the insecurity of the uncertainty of truly belonging. Thus the English must suffer mass immigration; they must be made to feel like strangers in their own country, because the personal psychology of selfishness of Nick Clegg and his like  -  all the other  ethnically insecure people such as the Jewish Jack Straw and Mark Damazer, the Asian Mishal Husain, the Liverpool  Irish Cheri Blair; her Scottish husband, etc  etc  - demands that England  be drowned in non-English  like themselves so that they personally can feel more secure there.

 What about Chris Huhne?

The same remarks could very well be made of Chris Huhne,   Clegg's rival (if he survives the present scandal).  Huhne’s full name is actually Christopher Murray Paul - Huhne.  Now ‘Huhne’ is a very strange name. It certainly isn’t English. ‘Huhn’ mean’s ‘chicken’ in German. Is Huhne of German or Jewish descent?  It seems one or the other or both  is very likely.  ‘Paul’ certainly  certainly occurs among  Jews as a surname  but ‘Christopher’  comes from  the late Greek name Χριστοφορος (Christophoros) meaning "bearing Christ’’.   It seems unlikely that Jewish people would give this name to their son. (Unlikely but not impossible -many people are ignorant of its meaning).  And he doesn’t look Jewish.  But you never know.  Perhaps like David Cameron he has Jews among his forebears.

But in any case, he is probably not English in any sense acceptable to those who are.  He keeps very quiet about his antecedents. Whatever those who imagine that being English purely a matter of having been born and been brought up here  (as Huhne was) might think, clearly Huhne thinks his background matters.

And he’s right.

2,000 EDL protestors march in Blackpool


Click here for the news report and video

Saturday, 28 May 2011

Open Letter to David Cameron Concerning the Removal of Parachute Pay from Members of the Parachute Regiment and Airborne Forces


From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: Prime Minister, David Cameron MP
Date: 27th May 2011 AD
Re: Open Letter to David Cameron Concerning the Removal of Parachute Pay from Members of the Parachute Regiment and Airborne Forces

Armed forces that can transport highly trained troops over long distances and insert them by parachute enjoy a level of tactical surprise and flexibility that is still essential for a modern army. The Parachute Regiment is an absolute élite regiment which time and time again, from World War Two, through Suez, Radfan, Aden, Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq and, currently, to Afghanistan, has demonstrated a remarkable ability to generate violence and to kill Britain’s enemies. Moreover, its élite status is not based on money, class or privilege. A wealthy parent can buy his son a place at Eaton, Harrow and Ampleforth: he cannot secure his son a place in the Parachute Regiment by waving his cheque book. The right to wear the maroon beret, the wings, and when I served in the Parachute Regiment, the right to wear the iconic airborne jump smock has to be earned not bought.

In the light of the Parachute Regiment’s demonstrated record as a battle-winning, tactically flexible asset, the decision to remove the additional pay for being parachute-trained and part of an airborne unit is not merely short sighted it is also spiteful, even treacherous. It is no way to treat soldiers who have just returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan and who are due to return in the near future.

Savings do have to be made but targeting our best soldiers is not the proper way to behave. If you seek to make savings then here are some suggestions:

(i). Serve compulsory redundancy notices on selected generals, admirals and air marshals;

(ii). Stop all foreign aid to Third World states with immediate effect. If Pakistan has sufficient money to buy atomic weapons, it has sufficient money to feed its teeming and seething population. The same shall apply to India and, above all, to sexually delinquent Africans. Foreign aid to Africa merely encourages reckless and destructive breeding. Let Malthus rule;

(iii). Cease all attacks on Libya. Libyans can solve their own problems and if that means slaughtering one another, they are free to do so. It is none of our business;

(iv). Begin an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. There are no vital British interests in Afghanistan;

(v). Expel all illegal immigrants from Britain;

(vi). Call an immediate referendum on UK withdrawal from the European Union;

(vii). Urge the Scottish National Party (SNP) to call a referendum on Scottish independence as soon as possible so that England can be free;

(viii). Declare that Britain shall make no payments to any bail out for EU states;

(ix). Cut spending on the National Health Service, abolish National Insurance Contributions and let people provide for their own medical care (this would not apply to service personnel who have sustained injury in the Armed Forces);

(x). Abolish all polytechnics that masquerade as universities and deny state funding for all universities that insist on teaching gender studies; black studies and other charlatan subjects (to this end draw up a list of bogus subjects that are to be terminated). Remove all state funding from universities. This could be phased in over a specified period to permit universities to secure other funding;

(xi). Launch a coordinated attack on the welfare state and the parasitism it engenders: all prisoners to work on public maintenance projects; sterilise serial criminals; deny all state benefits to the long-term unemployed and unemployable apart from bare subsistence in state-controlled hostels located in urban areas (easy to maintain surveillance and deploy the police and military in the event of any resistance); and review sickness benefit which is wide open to abuse. Publish a full list of all people receiving any and all public benefits (Internet). Once they cease to receive state benefits their names can be removed;

(xii). Abolish the BBC license fee so getting rid of a massive parasitic stratum.

(xiii). Abolish universal child benefit;

(xiv). Tackle the problem of overpopulation and unsustainable breeding in the UK before we are overwhelmed. Act now.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis

Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, his Research and the Call for his Dismissal - An open letter from Dr Frank Ellis

From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: Professor Rees, London School of Economics (LSE) v.mizgailo@lse.ac.uk
Date: 27th May 2011 AD
Re: Dr Satoshi Kanazawa, his Research and the Call for his Dismissal.

The quality of arguments deployed against Dr Satoshi Kanazawa for his article on the theme of black female attractiveness does not inspire confidence in the intellectual calibre of the authors. I suppose this is just one consequence of applying a policy of affirmative action for students and faculty who do not have to meet the same standards as whites. Too many black students and faculty do not seem to grasp the abstract concept of free speech and the role of academic freedom in the pursuit of truth and the eradication of error. Black hostility to free speech and academic freedom is not surprising, since blacks have shown themselves to be quite incapable of creating advanced societies or sustaining any kind of intellectual milieu in which the right to dissent is enshrined in law and custom. At times we whites find it a strain in dealing with white dissenters: for blacks with their generally less developed capacity for abstract thinking it is an impossible burden.

Unable to grasp the abstract nature of free speech and its essential role in scientific and technological progress blacks perceive the exercise of free speech by non-blacks, especially as it concerns the discussion of low mean black IQ, black educational failure, appalling levels of black crime in First and Third World states, incompetence, unbelievable savagery and the pitiful state of sub-Saharan Africa and, of course, Islamic terrorism, as racism. This is always at all times, in all places, the default position for blacks and their white manipulators when confronted with evidence of black failure. This is the reason that blacks, encouraged by whites who should know better, are attacking Dr Satoshi Kanazawa and demanding he be sacked. I have read articles by Dr Satoshi Kanazawa and I have found them to be well researched, clearly written and very interesting.

Despite all the accusations of “scientific racism” and the associations of Kanazawa’s research with Jim Crow, Apartheid, the Holocaust and the slave trade, the genetic, psychometric and historical data demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the mean intellectual and cultural achievements of blacks are way below those of whites. The only conclusion – and it is not a happy one for blacks and their white, xenophiliac manipulators – is that intellectually and culturally blacks are, as judged by the objective, unforgiving measure of achievements, not by sentimental, emotional, ad hoc evasions and multicultural propaganda, inferior to whites, Jews and north-east Asians. Denouncing Kanazawa as some version of a racist does nothing to change this state of affairs. It merely encourages blacks and their white manipulators always to scream racism when unpleasant truths emerge or are posited.

Behind the public debate of this matter I have no doubt that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has already demanded that LSE take some form of action against Dr Satoshi Kanazawa. In the first instance this will mean that Dr Kanazawa is expected to withdraw his research and issue a suitably grovelling apology. I can only hope that Dr Kanazawa will resist any such demand. He has said or written nothing for which he should apologise.

In the event that Dr Kanazawa refuses to grovel the EHRC will threaten LSE with a diversity audit, arguing that by failing to take action against Dr Kanazawa, the LSE is violating its obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. At this stage, in order to propitiate blacks, their white manipulators and to remove the threat of a diversity audit, the LSE will move to suspend Dr Kanazawa and seek to secure his dismissal through an internal hearing. As far as LSE is concerned, this has the advantage of immediately reducing the negative publicity for LSE and creates the impression that LSE has responded in a politically correct manner to the clamour of so-called anti-racists. The threat by EHRC to carry out a diversity audit will be made behind the scenes so as to avoid the impression that LSE is being placed under any pressure to act from outside the institution. I urge LSE to stand up to the bullies, the ignorant, the plain gullible and above all the viciously anti-white racist EHRC.

In 2006, when teaching at Leeds University, I was subjected to the same sort of treatment when I highlighted the complete failure of multiculturalism. I was profoundly shocked by the despicable cowardice of administrators and faculty members. I argued then, and I argue now, that for all the words in their charters on academic freedom and free speech, universities on the themes of multiculturalism, feminism, non-white immigration, race and IQ are craven and corrupt. I hope that LSE proves me wrong. For all the unpleasantness, I nevertheless learned a great deal. Be advised that should LSE succumb to the temptation to suspend Dr Kanazawa and initiate an internal hearing with the aim of securing his dismissal, I and others shall contact Dr Kanazawa and offer our experience and services as witnesses for the defence. Please, do the decent thing and reject the mob and the hideous EHRC and all its works.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

Yes, of course Richard Barnbrook is a nationalist!

By Richard Barnbrook

The posting which has just been put up on the internet, ‘Richard Barnbrook a nationalist?’ raises some interesting points, but basically, it’s simply an attempt to avoid discussing the crucial issue that I am trying to get all genuine, concerned nationalist sympathisers to focus on. The question is, how can we best move forward to become a force to be reckoned with in British politics? The answer is, by joining forces and burying our differences.

It’s because I’m a sincere nationalist that I care about the country’s future. We can’t carry on as we are any longer. We have to look upwards and outwards, and for some, especially our leaders, think the unthinkable. We have to formulate a way to harness the talents, support, activism and goodwill of every man and woman in the land that can already see just what a con the Con-Lib/Lab conspiracy really is!

I realise that I may have upset some activists last year resigning the BNP whip. I did it because I felt I had to make a stand on a question of principal, and it was the only way I could think of to get the concerns across. Since then, I have been expelled from the Party. And I have been denied the opportunity to appeal against my expulsion. I don’t see why I should resign my seat because I never resigned from the Party; my political views remain the same. Unfortunately, I was chucked out just for speaking out. And that’s why I’m where I am.

I have been the victim of many smears, and there is far more that I could say on the matter but to do so would embarrass individual fellow nationalists and not help the cause. There are always two sides to every story, and unfortunately I have been sadly let down by a number of people who perhaps should have known better. However, far too much mud has been slung already and to throw yet more would simply be doing our enemies’ work for them.

What is important to me now, is the issue of unity. I cannot stress it enough, ‘unity, unity, unity!’ The biggest problem we face today comes from within. We have to find a way to resolve our differences. To build on what we all agree on. To nurture what we hold in common.

If any nationalist party is to succeed in London at the GLA next year, there has to be action now, and there has to be unity. We need to let the opposition and the media know we mean business. If we could formulate a unified nationalist party during the summer, I would be only too glad to return the seat to the nationalist fold under a united banner.

If the campaign for London does not start in September, with the BNP, the English Democrats, UKIP and all nationalist political parties, along with other supporters united, there will be NO nationalist representative on the London Assembly in 2012, for certain. It will be a repeat of the Welsh Assembly result this month- NO seats for any nationalists.

I’m trying to get the ball rolling. We need to get everyone who shares the same values to work together. We need to be strong and united.

Yes, of course I’m a nationalist! I always have been and I always will be. Because I care about the future of our nation. If we, who say we care, can’t unite and resolve our differences for the good of all, then the future of our nation is doomed!

It really makes no difference who makes a suggestion if it’s a good one. And I’m sure that this one really is a winner, if only we have the strength and largess of heart to work together to make it work.
 

Sunday, 22 May 2011

A final glimmer of Britain


I began writing this article a few weeks back shortly after the local government elections on May the 5th . As everyone in Britain knows, those were elections which saw significant success for the Tories and some success for Labour too, except in Scotland, where a Scottish party, calling themselves “Nationalist”, but which welcomes multiculturalism to the point where it will surely destroy all dreams of a true Scotland, scored a massive and unexpected triumph. 

All other parties suffered varying degrees of defeat. 
  
In the wake of that further affirmation of what seemed like a national death wish, I sat down and wrote the following:
____________

When was it I wonder the English stopped loving their children? when did we become one of the very first people in history, who do not care a damn what future our offspring will face? 

There are many, I am sure, who would claim to take offence at what I have just written, and who would angrily insist they are entirely devoted to their children.  But how can I believe them in the face of overwhelming evidence that they must be lying?

As the mother of son's I quake at the thought of what they will face when they become part of an ethnic minority in their homeland, an event likely to occur much sooner than we once thought. Recent figures suggest the tipping point, when non-whites become a majority in Britain, could be as soon 2043, thirty two years from now, not 2060 as previously thought. 

Ethnic minorities do not fare well in third world countries, but that's the future my sons will face when they are still young men.  Other mothers' sons and daughters face the same fate, but, unlike me, it seems those mothers, and those fathers simply do not care.

How can they love that which they would so lightly sacrifice to such a hell?  

The British people embraced their death again on May the 5th, how many more chances will they have before it is too late, assuming it has not already past that point?

Seemingly without a care they meander forward towards a dark place which will be terrible to see, complicit in their own destruction,they are the stained handed murderers of their children's dreams. 

Most suicidal of all were those of the white working class, who voted for Labour, a party  which despises them and has for at least four decades been conspiring for their destruction.  A party which has already engineered the ethnic cleansing of  working class communities from Bradford to Bristol and from Leeds to Lancashire, and which has transformed our ancient capital into a majority non-white city, driving, amongst others, London’s Cockneys into Essex and into history.

We all mocked those American teenagers a few weeks back when then tweeted onto Twitter “who is Bin Laden and why’s it good he’s dead?”, but are they really dumber than those who still believe the old lie that “Labour is for the Common Man”. Not if that common man is white they’re not, at least they haven't been since the 1950’s.

Like livestock voting for the horrors of halal, working class Britons went in their millions to put their crosses next the poison rose which spells their doom. Should I really pity such stupidity?

Even less deserving of pity are Liberal Democrat supporters, whether they voted for the party or, horrified by the realities of power voted  Labour, they are equally suicidal. However, given it is now quite clear Liberal Democrats are not grown up, they deserve little more than our contempt.

In some ways, of course, those who voted Tory are the most shameful, in their hearts the average Tory voter knows the truth but they dare not face it and would sacrifice their children before they do.

I look upon them and I wonder, do they deserve what is coming to them, these stupid. immature and cowardly people who flocked to sign their death warrants in polling booths across the land, do they want to be saved and are they in fact beyond saving?

Other races have died before and other civilisations have fallen, is it our turn to follow the Aztecs, the Minoans, Incas and the Babylonians into the echoing void of history?  Is our great civilisation, surely the greatest the world has ever seen, set to follow Rome and Ancient Egypt into defeat, destruction and decay, our crumbling monuments, magnificent ruins, the only evidence of what went before?

Do our people know their death awaits, surely they too can see what is plain to me, and if they do, can it be they really do not care? Is there nothing left of the Britain that we were? Has our blood run cold?         

Within one hundred years the descendants of those immensely brave Britons who celebrated VE day in 1945 on the streets of London will have been driven from that city.  They are already a minority there.

Did it take just sixty short years for our race to come to this?  We are not the same people our forefathers were.  We spring for the loins of greatness but have forgotten how to be great.
____________

I stopped writing then, and put the article aside.  I wondered if what I had written was of any benefit, and if anything was to be gained from exposing one woman's despair at a nation wilfully engaged in writing its own epilogue.

It was then that I watched a TV programme called “Wooten Bassett the town which remembers”.  As the world now knows Wooten Bassett is the Wiltshire Market town which lies between RAF Lyneham, the Royal Air Force's principal transport hub, and Oxford's John Radcliffe Hospital.  It is therefore the route which the hearses have to take when transporting fallen soldiers when they are brought home from Afghanistan.

The people of Wooton Bassett have taken to welcoming those brave young men home, standing along the roadside in silent tribute and comforting the families of the dead.  Over the months and years more and more have travelled to join them until the repatriations have become a sombre, but hugely well attended and symbolic event.  Those who come do not do it for the cameras, or or the bemused and patronising journalists who turn up to record what is to them a bizarre spectacle. Way out of sight of the cameras, along the roadside and in the lay-bys they stand silently and they salute, as the tragic cavalcade goes by, carrying those they have come to mourn.

The people of Wooton Bassett were interviewed and they were a rare sight, they are a type of people, although legion in our land, who are not usually welcome on our TV screens. They were not the dissembling creeps who claim to represent us in Parliament, the chattering classes who usually dominate the airways or the mockney accented public schoolboys who pose as entertainers. They were not the slimy treacherous judges or avaricious white hating lawyers who administer what passes for justice in this land, or the broadcasters who learnt to hate us on their Stalin praising fathers' knees. They were the reality of England, a people motivated and filled with love of their country who come to honour the brave and beautiful young men, sacrificed in illegal wars by the crooks and monsters who currently rule over us.                     

They were also anything but multicultural, certainly not in any way which would be permissible now in any staged media event.  As the cameras scanned the crowd anxiously attempting to light on an ethnic face amongst the mass homogeneous whiteness, they could have been the scene of any British city of forty years ago, or indeed the myriad British towns which they do still represent.

Then I thought of another event in recent weeks, the Royal Wedding, and the million strong crowd  thronging the streets, a crowd not ethnically mixed, as our dishonest media claimed they were, but massively, overwhelmingly, white.  The chattering commentators expressed their horror at the almost total whiteness of the congregation, but dared not admit that same whiteness extended to crowds outside.  Where would that leave, inclusive, integrated multicultural Britain?

However, multicultural Britain was no more on show on the streets surrounding Westminster abbey on the day of the Royal Wedding than it is on the streets of Wooton Bassett at each repatriation.

Whatever you may think of the current Royal family (and I personally an cautiously optimistic about the two princes) one could not help but marvel at the massive crowds of English men and women crowding the streets of our capital, as they have done for 1,000 years, their hearts swelling with an innate sense of their heritage and cheering for even the least impressive of our nation's monarchs.

As I considered those two events, I began to realise how wrong I was in what I wrote at the beginning of this article.  Britain is still out there, our people still exist, there are merely hidden from us by the gaudy pallet screen which the media places before us, and, of course, before them.

Although it may not seem that way from what we see on out TV screens and on many city streets, native Britons are still by far the majority in this country and they can still be saved.  The majority of native Britons never voted for multiculturalism and are deeply suspicious of it, they resent and oppose mass immigration and they are seriously concerned about the rise of Islam.  They also worry deeply about the sort of country their children will inherit.

They have not expressed those views because they have been taught to feel guilty about them  by a tiny minority with monopoly access to the communications media, and they have never yet voted in support of those views because they have never yet been offered a viable Nationalist alternative.

Those who say “they could have voted BNP” are fooling themselves.  The BNP have never yet found a means of disproving the media lies about them.  In fact, in many ways despite the herculean efforts of many activists, too many BNP members (and their leaders)  have done everything in their power to prove the liars right              

There are actually BNP members and supporters who appear to believe that, for instance, if they make “funny” Nazi salutes at cameras or are filmed giving their child a gollywog, the public will perceive these as ironically humorous gestures. 

The BNP has politicians who indulge in fisticuffs in front of the national media because an Asian spits at them (what do you think the spitting Asian wanted you to do when he spat?). It employs security guards who stick their fingers up the noses of unfriendly journalists when they forcibly eject them from meetings in front of a blaze of flash bulbs, whilst adopting facial expressions not unlike that of a particularly malevolent pit-bull.

Nationalists climb over each other so as to get into debates or write articles expressing moral and sexual attitudes which would sit more comfortably in down town, Islamabad than they would in a modern British household, and when doing so use language Jim Davidson might consider a tad off colour.  (If you want to go on a moral crusade, go on a moral crusade, but get out of our way, we are trying to save our race.)

Much has already been said about the quality of people appointed to positions of power.  However, if the party is seriously considering replacing one non-telegenic leader with a criminal record and a history of Holocaust denial with an equally non-photogenic (and older) leader with a criminal record and a history of Holocaust denial, they will need to work out:

a)  how they are going to sell him to modern Britain    
b)  how he might come across on Question Time

(Yes I know the convictions are establishment imposed war wounds, but such nuances matter more to history and to the party faithful than they do to the wider public)

Across Europe, Nationalism is in the ascendency, in Britain it seems to have stalled, and although many Nationalists have worked tirelessly, many others have to accept their responsibility for that.  Too many British Nationalists have spent the last 43 years since Enoch Powell warned us what was happening, squabbling amongst ourselves, sniping at other nationalists and indulging their own particular prejudices, issues and hang-ups rather than presenting the public with a party they feel comfortable in voting for.

It is true that Nationalist parties are subject to constant smears from the media, but in honesty, many Nationalists have made it very easy for them to smear us.

I am sure we all reach the point which I did when I started writing this article, and it is true that, in many ways the circumstances are dire.  However, there is nothing to be achieved in bemoaning a situation when we are part of the problem. 

We should be better placed, Our enemies have overplayed their hand, in particular the New Labour open door immigration policy was a spectacular own goal, which the country is starting to wake up to. The non-white population of Britain has grown by 40% in the last eight years, if that rate continues, and why wouldn't it?, at a conservative total of 9.1 million, not including another 1 million of mixed race, that total will grow to almost 35 million by 2043 (you do the maths).  If the Nationalist movement can not advance on the strength of that fact alone, we do not deserve to.

In many ways the situation is as dark as I described at the beginning of this article, but it is always darkest before the dawn, and everything is still to play for. If, after over four decades of self indulgence, squabbling, gaffes and pure stupidity, we can finally get out act together, there is a chance, faint but still viable, that we could save this country.

Our people are still out there, we only have to reach them.

Saturday, 21 May 2011

Terrorist killings - Church Street Anniversary

Yesterday (20th May) was the 24th anniversary of the Church Street bombing in Pretoria, carried out by ANC terrorists acting under the authority and approval. Adriana Stuijt, has published an account of the atrocity, which can be read hereWarning the report includes some very gruesome images.

 "In his book  Long Walk to Freedom Nelson Mandela wrote that as a leading member of the ANC’s executive committee, he had “personally signed off” in approving these acts of terrorism

Floods, Tides and Pools

By August Pointneuf

Floods, Tides and Pools.

Prologue: Human communities have spread and retreated since pre-history, often into the domiciles of other humans, for shorter or longer periods. That is their nature. These migrations have often been resisted by warfare. The outcomes have depended upon battleground success, together with factors such as distance from the migrant’s base as logistic access became progressively more difficult.

The results of such migration have, at times, caused one group, (and therefore that culture) to overlap the pre-existing culture with varying degrees of smothering. At other times, the invading forces have withdrawn leaving very little residue, as demonstrated by the Roman invasion of Britain and to a lesser extent the Norman invasion of Britain. On other occasions the invasions have been no more than short forays, as in the Franco-Prussian War, with prompt retreat and very little residual cultural or genetic trace.

These extensive conquests of lands, which could be considered as "tides" and comparable to floods. Like water, these eventually subsided either by absorption into the land, drainage back from whence the tide originated or spilling over into other drainage areas.

Of the many tides that have occurred within the historic area, four stand out in relation to European history:

First Tide: the Roman Empire. This ultimately failed because of loss of central control and political failure, ending in a combination of retreat and absorption.
The Roman Empire was destroyed by Barbarian invasions. "Barbarian" was a general term, and included a variety of people from different origins such as the Angles, Burgundians, Franks, Goths, Huns, Lombards, and Vandals, to quote a few.

The Roman Empire was in economic decline, primarily because it had lost its empire. The corn it consumed had previously been supplied as a tribute (for that read tax) from Africa and Sicily. As the empire was eroded, payment for corn was demanded from the Barbarian-controlled North Africa. Rome did not produce manufactured goods and the population lapsed into enjoying the bread, wine and circuses. Its chief trade was money-lending. The emperors struggled to pay the army. The easiest, but disastrous, solution taken was to debase the coinage. The value of the denarius fell in 150 years to one 40th of its original value. The prudent invested in land, which produces an agricultural return, and so countered the inflation.

In Rome the state continued with its social handouts, distributing bread, wine, oil and pork, either free or at nominal prices.

The Roman armies became infiltrated with Barbarians and became relatively impotent in their role of protecting the Empire. Sidonius Apollinaris recorded the "heavy burden of hospitality" which he had to provide for the infiltrating Barbarians. He disliked their language, their songs and their smell and his house was invaded.

The Roman citizens shut their eyes to the immensity of the changes about them. They could not fail to realise that they were living in a time of crisis, but they could, if they chose, ignore the extent and permanence of the barbarisation that had already taken place. Various factors kept the Barbarians apart from the Romans; at once they were both outsiders and intruders. Amongst these two factors were religion and law. The Barbarian Law differed significantly from the Roman law and eventually the law ceased to be territorial, and instead was divided amongst the Barbarians. The Franks lived by Frankish law; Visigoths lived by Visigothic law and so on, while the Romans continued to live by Roman law. The situation of law became intensely complicated as happened when one group went to law against another and this doctrine of "personal law" was disastrous for the Empire. Ultimately Roman law ceased to have any real meaning when rival systems of law jostled with each other within the frontiers of the Empire.

Because the Barbarian invasions were gradual it was possible for many Roman citizens to ignore their significance. Although they bewailed the fact that times were not as good as they once had been, they tried to go on living as if nothing had changed. But every now and again a sudden shock would wake them up to reality and force them to acknowledge the extent of what had already decayed or been destroyed. It was only the more insightful, like Salvian, who insisted on reminding everyone that the Barbarians were not no longer at the gates but were within them. Most people tried to imagine that things were not as bad as they seemed. Nevertheless it was necessary for everyone to adjust to a new circumstance. Many people reacted without any coordinative response. St Augustus wrestled with the central problem of his time, which was why God had allowed the Roman Empire to fall. The pagans were convinced that the Empire had been destroyed because it had deserted the pagan gods and become Christian.

The Romans were forced to admit that military power had passed to the Barbarians, and Rome "the unconquerable" was sacked by the Goths and then the Vandals. If the Romans were to save anything of their civilisation, the Barbarians would have to be absorbed into Roman society and educated. This could only be a practical policy if the Barbarians wanted to educate themselves and discipline themselves according to the rule of law.

The most dramatic penetration into the Roman Empire was by the Visigoths (376 A.D.) who had implored Rome to offer them asylum from the Huns. The Roman Emperor Valens granted this asylum. Unfortunately the imperial authorities found the task of regulating and feeding these refugees beyond their resources. Because of the failure of the Romans to deliver, the Visigoths took to arms. The emperor’s army was defeated and Valens was killed (378 A.D.).

The Barbarians moved to the cities while the wealthy Romans sought refuge in their country villas. As a result there was unemployment in the towns which began to shrink. An aggravating factor was that the total population of the Empire was declining.i Instability began. There was a series of revolutions in the Roman State.

Odovacar (434-493) probably entered Italy about 465, became the first barbarian ruler in Italy and eventually gained possession of Italy in 476 A.D., this ending the Western Roman Empire. Although he appears not to have wished to destroy the civilisation of Italy, he had done nothing to save it.
Theodoric, an Ostrogoth, marched into Italy in 488 A.D. and within two years another barbarian had won control over most of the country.

It was useless for the Italians to try and repel the Barbarians. Ultimately the vast barbarian population caused the barbarisation of the Romans.

By the end of the 5th century the infrastructure of Italy could not be maintained. Bushes and trees grew in the aqueducts and the water supply to Rome began to fail. The Coliseum and the theatres were in ruins. Great blocks of stone fell from decrepit buildings, obstructing the streets. Bands of thieves stole bronze statues that adorned the city to melt them for the metal. Whilst the Romans had the skill and education required by the civilisation, the Goths lacked all these.

By this time Roman laws were being replaced by barbaric laws which were regarded by the Barbarians as their birthright, resting on notions of kinship and a whole complex of values which were totally foreign to the Romans. The varied religions, apparently a policy of toleration, was in effect a policy of racial segregation, founded on the assumption that all Romans would be Catholics and, for example, all Goths would be Arins.1ii

So began the “Dark Ages” when established cultures, as they then existed, disappeared.iii

Second Tide: The Muslim Conquest. The Muslims advanced through the Mediterranean, conquering vast swathes of land, and usurping the civilisations of parts of Southern Europe and the Maghreb. Long and costly struggles to remove the Muslims followed, marked by epic sieges and battles, land and sea. Christians hoped that the sea-battle at Lepanto would mark the end of Muslim intrusion and domination. However the Crusaders, a multinational armed force - the European Union of its time - began to squabble amongst themselves and failed to follow that resounding victory with pursuit and elimination of the enemy. The Muslims regrouped and began invading Europe once more. The Europeans lost vast lands, abandoned to Muslim control, which Muslims retain to this day.

Third Tide: The European Colonial Empires. This was the greatest tide, if measured by land area and people incorporated. This began in the 1500s and spread slowly in many directions. This tide was unique because of its slow, and entrenching, colonisation. Steady advances were systematically consolidated. The Empires increased incrementally over the colonised lands by chain and array. At each stage the colonists established themselves on what they expected to be a permanent basis. Because of this they grouted in their civilisation, establishing churches, schools, health care and communications, patterns of behaviour and supportive law as well as much more. Their belief was that this would be permanent, and for the betterment of the colonised lands, and the world as a whole. Most of this spread was over sparse and uninhabited, never cultivated, fallow lands. Because of its slow pace forward, it sculpted a stable society and a stable expression of European culture. There was repeated reinforcement from Europe with movements of Europeans back and forth to Europe. However the colonists considered themselves as residents in the new lands.

Some have chosen to debate the benefits to the lands so colonised with the amnesia of senile hindsight. Much of this denialism has been designed by the politician to placate their international political peers. However, when viewed objectively there seems little ground for dispute that by most parameters the European – and notably the British -colonisation  was beneficial to the lands which were colonised. Peoples previously living a Stone Age existence were brought forward into educational and other systems. The Europeans hoped that the natives would now aspire towards the standards which the Europeans had set themselves in Europe. The Europeans sought to donate their capacities to the indigenous peoples of the colonised lands. Law was applied where previously custom only, not law, had existed. Communication produced dramatic changes in lands where the wheel and the horse were unknown. This tide slowly moved forward for at least 400 years. In doing so huge tracks, which had previously been uninhabitable were made inhabitable and productive. This tide produced a remarkable, widespread social equilibrium characterised by greater safety of the populations. Orderliness by finely tuned legal mechanisms and sophisticated systems of justice and policing was introduced.

It was the greatest empire ever for another reason. It brought with it the technical and administrative mechanics by which humans were able to forcefully combat the circumstances and chance which entropic nature inflicts upon humans. Humans became better sheltered, warmer, better fed, better protected, safer and healthier than ever in history, as these European empire builders evolved and disseminated their capabilities. So desirable was this that the colonists were often invited into other lands once the existing inhabitants recognised the benefits of being colonised, in order that those lands could also could also benefit from European civilisation.

However, this civilisation began to fail. There was too great a central control of the colonies. Political ineptitude and insufficiency was associated with extraordinary attitude changes. Societal integrity began to fragment. Politicians, with pretentious delusions of capability, began to engineer society. The needs of individuals began to be considered superior to those of an integrated society. European apathy descended. Productivity declined, and money-lending replaced industry as Britain’s chief trade. The populations interested themselves in food, alcohol, material possessions and sport. A cabal of politicians (called the “United Politicians of the World”, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn), motivated by the fantasy philosophy of “Globalisation”, allowed the Empire to be suffocated by the next great tide:

Fourth Tide: The African spread out of Africa. This began in the middle of the 19th century.

The mechanics of this were complex. There were many contributing factors to the sycophantic surrender of the Europeans in the Northern Hemisphere to the invasion. An initial exuberant triumphalism after the Second War led eventually to intoxication with materialism. The focus of concern now rested on the possession of ostentatious dwellings and motor vehicles and “leisure and travel”. Socialist politicians unjustifiably claimed that they would nurture and protect their populations. This tainted their populations with the contentment and trust and belief in political promises. The former prudence, caution and guarded concern were abandoned.  Nothing was perceived to be able to go wrong, nothing could perturb the population. The British had seen themselves as the “conquers of the world”. Fear of intruders into their nations ceased to exist. Indeed such was the arrogance that, with the grandiose gestures of hedonistic millionaires, their heritage was blissfully cast aside, and the European nations appeared to thrive on a misplaced, fallaciously magnanimous and spendthrift scattering away of their control of their land.

The early movement of the Fourth Tide, in comparatively small numbers, was by tribal capture of adversaries and the sale of these slaves in a variety of directions, but primarily to the East.


The main regulating force of large-scale human movements, from time immemorial, was the restriction by poverty. The windfall of hydrocarbon energy, and mechanisms to translate this into travel (which originated in the European Industrial Revolution) allowed expansive migration on a grand scale. Very rapidly, and often without the opportunity to consolidate, this Tide out of Africa became an unregulated flood which spread over the top of the European civilisations.  It spread over the erstwhile European colonies of the Caribbean and into and over North America as well as large tracts of South America. Apart from direct invasion, there were complex turbulent eddies and retrograde flows which also spilled back into Europe. Stagnant pools now remain in the slums of all the large cities of the erstwhile European world, such as Detroit and Bradford, and in every large European city, as derelict ghettos.

Unskilled aliens from failed lands were not only invited into Britain, but paid to do so with employment assured even before arrival. Much of any wealth created by these immigrants did not remain in Europe, but was fed back to disappear into the impoverished regions from which the immigrants came. The political mantra, that “immigration was needed to make Europe economically powerful” has not been supported by objective assessment. Instead the reverse seems to be the case.

The loosening of the ties of poverty allowed not only more invited Africans into lands which promised a cosseted existence, but equally gave lease to marauding bands, some referred to euphemistically as “illegal immigrants”, but which should include the pirates and desperados who now rampage throughout the continents and oceans of the world, lead by “war-lords” and “freedom fighters” with a variety of denominations. The previously colonised, “liberated”, nations failed.iv

The effect of this flood out of Africa was to drown most of the constructs of the European Empire, degrading the economics, and social structures in both hemispheres.2 The European colonists retreated, leaving once magnificent cities to become the bones of the rotting corpses of passed civilisations. Nations once highly prosperous, such as Haiti or Madagascar, became derelict.

Intermingling with the flood out of African was the Muslim flood into the West, not initially confrontational, not so easily visible, and reversing the long-past partial victory over the Second Tide. There is no need for obvious confrontation as this invasion has been invited and encouraged by European politicians. Instead there is a slow, irreversible insinuation of the Muslim into every aspect of European society to include the political, judicial, administrative and military frames.

Epilogue: Floods of water by typhoons, tsunamis and hurricanes draw rapid and immediate attention, and their disastrous effects recorded instantly and graphically. However, these physical calamities, even when they affect hundreds of thousands of people, have had nothing like the destructive effect on so many millions of people as has the emigrant flood out of Africa as it has degraded the great civilisation of Europe and their culture and colonisation. It is improbable now that humans will ever again be as well protected from nature’s vicissitudes as they were at the height on the European Colonising Empire. It is unlikely that there has ever been such a dramatic and comprehensive loss of the benefits of human endeavour and the destruction of human creativity in the history of mankind. The rapidity of this collapse, within a century and a half, is evidence of the power of this destructive force. Progressive erosive excoriation of the relatively small remaining European population, now reduced to 7% of the world population, seems likely to continue. It should be expected that European civilisation will be expunged within the next half century.

Thursday, 19 May 2011

South African Entertainer takes on Julius Malema


Steve Hofmeyr is an Afrikaner entertainer resident in South Africa who is taking on Julius Malema the ANC  Youth Leader, who is currently on trial for the singing the song "Shoot The Boer".  Earlier this month Hofmeyr posted a stinging rebuke to Malema at his website.  I have posted a copy at South of the Zambezi here.  

ROY BENNETT- ADDRESS TO SA BUSINESS CLUB - 4 MAY 2011

Following the news in today's papers that MDC member, opponent of Robert Mugabe and one time white Zimbabwean farmer Roy Bennett and his family have fled to London after he and his family were the victims of repeated death threats, I have posted the text of a speech Mr, Bennett gave to the South African Business Club on May 4th, over at South of the Zambezi.  It can be read by clicking here.

Invitation to a Nationalist Leaders’ Meeting to Find a Way to Power


We share a number of common values and a heartfelt commitment to saving our nation and sovereignty, and wresting power back from the liberal elite. It is a tragedy that we are divided.

The results of the recent elections were uninspiring for the various Nationalist parties of either British or English persuasion. No meaningful gains were made by any party. At best it was stagnation, at worst it was decline.

Nationalism is little short of an irrelevance in British/English politics, because we lack any real political clout, which is why the media can afford to ignore us. A look at the votes of various elections, monies raised and activists fielded shows clearly that only by uniting and pooling our abilities, experience and resources do we have any viable hope of forming a government in our own life-time.

Self interest, petty rivalries and dislikes and minor points of manifesto detail have to be subjugated to the best interests of our common cause. If we were to succeed in doing this, we would have the prospect of real, tangible power in sight. There are enough seats and positions out there to be won that would satisfy most people’s ambitions. By being one strong, united and cohesive force we can attain them.

Patriotic causes in the course of history have always floundered and died, due to internal battles caused by the inability of individuals to recognise that a that one united force is far stronger than a collection of smaller disparate entities. Since the last war, every patriotic and nationalist group has collapsed which has prevented there being any real alternative to the 2-3 main parties and this has assisted the opposition.

For too long different parties have squabbled accusing each other of various faults which helps no one except our enemies; each hoping to emerge as the big nationalist party we all want. However, time is running out. The General Election after the next will arrive in some 6 years. It will be upon us in the comparative blink of an eye. During that time if we allow all the deleterious trends apparent today to continue, our cause will be lost. Very soon it will be too late. As leaders of your respective parties you each bear responsibility for taking the action that will lead to the salvation of our country. Or not.

It would be presumptuous of me to make suggestions as to how any of you, as existing leaders, would take authority in this possible new, agreed coalition of nationalist parties. It would be for the leaders (and members) themselves to discuss the practicalities and how a fair and equable distribution of roles could be attained so that everyone’s expectations and concerns could be addressed.

Possibly the best way would be, if you are agreeable, to appoint a deputy to discuss the feasibility of talks, with a view to seeing what might be on the agenda, anticipated problems and so on. I do not have a personal axe to grind in all of this as it my intention to take a back seat in politics once my term at the GLA is completed. But I would like to be instrumental in opening the doors to change which will hopefully lead the way to nationalism becoming a major, dynamic, political force with the exciting prospect of attaining real power within its grasp.

It is simply a matter of common sense. We’ve all tried to go it alone and we are getting nowhere. But by working together and uniting we can set the political scene alight.

I look forward to hearing from you.


Yours sincerely

Richard Barnbrook
Independent Nationalist Member of the GLA
Greater London Authority
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
London SE1 2AA

Wednesday, 18 May 2011

Rhonda Robinson Geert Wilders Presents: 5 Steps Americans Must Take to Avoid the Fate of Islamized Europe


CLICK HERE for a report on a speech by Geert Wilders gave recently in Nashville, Tennessee. 

UPDATE
The full text of Wilder's speech, which was delivered in a CHRISTIAN church can be read at the Breussels Journal by CLICKING HERE
 

Today in Britain



Today in a British court, and in a highly politicised case, a judge quashed a "Not Guilty" verdict in order to allow the state to have another go at convicting a man cleared of murder 15 years ago. 

In so doing he showed us that the protection granted to Englishmen by the Magna Carta in 1215 AD no longer applies in this land. Again we see that, today in Britain, none of us are safe.

Tuesday, 17 May 2011

Conflict in the Cradle of the West

More and more it is becoming clear that the root causes of the financial collapse in parts of the Eurozone such as in Ireland and in Greece is not quite as the media would have us believe.  Yes, it is true, especially in the case of Greece, that unrealistic social policies and the payment of benefit levels which the country can not afford has been part of the problem.  However, other factors have also been at play, in particular the countries whose economies are now collapsing, have been exposed to unprecedented levels of mass Immigration in recent years resulting in major social and economic problems. All of this has been cheered on by left wing anarchists whose goal is to see the collapse of Western Nations, and cynically supported by socialist parties, who anticipate gaining electoral advantage as a result of the demographic change.

Whilst the IMF (in the absence of their head, who is currently retained in Rikers Island) and the EU debate extending a further bail out to Greece, the following article at the Alternative Right  gives a troubling account of what is currently going on there:

Conflict in the Cradle of the West

By Demetris Demopoulos

The University of Athens, in the heart of the city, is a building of great emotional significance to Greeks. It was built in 1837 during the reign of King Otto (1815-1867), to celebrate Greece’s liberation from almost four centuries (1453-1821) of Turkish occupation and oppression.

Designed by the Danish architect Christian Hansen, it has an imposing Ionic portico of great beauty and simplicity. The Austrian painter Carl Rahl (1812-1865) executed a large patriotic composition inside the portico representing the regeneration of arts and sciences under Otto. In front of the gateway are statues of two national heroes—the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory V, hanged by the Turks on Easter Day in 1821, and the poet-martyr Rigas Ferraios, strangled in Belgrade in 1798 on the orders of the Ottomans. At the top of the external staircase is a statue of the Greek-French scholar Adamantios Korais (1746-1833, whose linguistic work bolstered Greek self-awareness), in the garden a statue of the British statesman William Gladstone and nearby a pillar in memory of the young students who died during the liberation struggles.

But on 16 November, this iconic setting was marred by a strikingly incongruous sight, as over 1,000 Muslims held public prayers inside the portico on the first day of the Muslim festival of Eid.

Continue reading at the alternative right

________________
hat tip: JP

Sunday, 15 May 2011

On-Going Debate

Readers may be interested in the ongoing debate which has been taking place in the Comments tread beneath the recent Colonial Inheritance posting.  You can view the exchanges by clicking here and scrolling down to the comments.

Friday, 13 May 2011

Problem with Blogger

There appears to be a problem with Blogger, and as a result recent postings and comments have disappeared, hopefully things will be back to normal soon.

Thursday, 12 May 2011

The Fates of Evil Men


I am going to start this article by believing the premise that a team of US army SEALS, acting under president Obama’s specific instructions, did indeed raid a compound in Pakistan last Monday and shot the world’s most wanted terrorist, when the elderly invalid was unarmed and eminently capturable.

I am going to accept that the soldiers took photographs of the corpse, to prove he was dead but that these were later considered too gruesome to release, because they might antagonise his supporters even more than their tender sensibilities might be inflamed by widely circulated film of Infidel youth celebrating the assassination of an unarmed middle aged cleric. (what other explanation could there be?!)

Going further, and for the purpose of argument, I will believe that DNA tests were carried out which showed a direct link with one of the bin Laden’s sisters. The authorities were, no doubt, able to conclusively rule out the possibility they had accidentally shot one of the many other bin Laden brothers instead of Osama.

I will not question the claim that the US administration assumed that quickly chucking the body of the FBI’s most wanted felon into the sea within 24 hours of his death, and before announcing that death to the world, would not raise any suspicions whatsoever.  I am sure that they truly believed that burial at sea was “in accordance with Islamic tradition” (whereas, in fact, burial at sea is only permissible when it is not possible to bury the body in earth before decomposition sets in – which was not a factor in this case)

I will even struggle to accept that the al Quada leader did indeed make home movies of the back of his own head as he watched himself on TV, from time to time zooming in on his own ear as he did so. It follows that the dishevelled and rather pathetic looking figure in the videos released a few days ago was indeed OBL and not some lookie-likie Arab-American from Battle Creek, Nebraska, flown in specially.

Whilst I am in the mood to extend credibility to lengths which would challenge Ping the Elastic Man, I will also believe that it is merely coincidence that the successful climax of the nine and a half year search for Osama bin Laden coincided so closely with President Obama being forced to publish a rather dubious looking document purporting to be his Hawaian birth certificate, whilst the President’s approval ratings were heading below sea level, and that extremely suspicious conflict in Libya was starting to settle into an uncomfortable and very long stalemate.
                                                                 
More difficult for me is accepting the word of the current US Attorney General Eric Holder, a man who makes Alberto Gonzalez appear a paragon of truth and honesty, when he assures us that the killing was not an “assassination”, but heck, if I’ve gone this far, I may as well go the whole hog, as they say.

Not everybody is rejoicing at the death. Various, Mullahs, jihadis and tenured university professors aside, the arch Bishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams confesses to a degree of queasiness over the shooting of an unarmed man. However, Rowan has a queasy reaction to so many things it is hard to take his moralising very seriously.

Despite Rowan’s nervous stomach, and any quibbling over the legal definition of what took place, the American government takes the view that they were entirely justified in taking out Osama bin Laden. Assuming, as I have for the purpose of this article, that rather than blowing him to smithereens in Tora Bora in 2002, they really did take him out last week, and then chuck him in the sea, bizarre as that may sound.

In that case, many might conclude that they were justified in that view, and I certainly find myself feeling sympathetic to that argument. Bin laden was the self confessed mastermind of violent acts of terrorism which left many American citizens dead, a man who embraced the ideology of violent insurrection against those he viewed as the oppressors of his people, and someone who was the inspiration for others who went on to commit acts of terrible cruelty and barbarism.

Of course, one might be able to argue the something similar about individuals currently employed, on an elected basis, within the Northern Ireland Assembly, and of course, even more so, about one internationally revered elder statesman, currently enjoying a luxurious retirement in South Africa.

It is true many thousands more died in the World trade centre in 2001 than were killed in the Church Street bombing in 1983, which Mandela freely admits he approved.  However, the victims of Church Street were no less dead, and neither were the 130 left with varying degrees of horrific injury any less the victims of terrorism just because they were attacked in Pretoria rather than New York.

If numbers of victims are anything to go by, although worldwide al Quada has killed more, the ANC, under Nelson Mandela’s leadership were responsible for the violent deaths of far greater numbers of South African citizens, mostly black, than the number of American citizens killed by a bin Laden led al Quada. By the most conservative estimate the ratio is almost seven to one. (and the killing still continues)

Hence if the US government is justified in “taking out” Osama bin-laden in 2011, why would the pre-1990 National government of South Africa not have been justified in “taking out” Nelson Mandela?  Both men led terrorist organisations both were equally guilty of orchestrating acts of violent terrorism against states which they perceived as oppressors, resulting in the deaths of many thousands of innocent citizens.

These are men of blood with much blood on their hands, it is only the fashionable prejudice of the world, and the outcomes which they faced which differentiates the two.  One, reviled by the West, and dead at 54, now, allegedly, feeds the fishes of the Pakistani coast, the other, still thriving and applauded in his 10th decade, is held up to our children a some form of living saint.       

When I wrote the article “Mandela the legend and the legacy” I started by saying that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, very little illustrates that point more clearly than the differing fates of Osama bin Laden and Nelson Mandela.
 

Mishal Husain: BBC Race Hypocrite

By Tim Heydon

Mishal Husain the Female Asian BBC autocue reader was involved in an incident in a supermarket where she claims her children were ‘racially abused’ to the extent that she felt the need to call the manager of the supermarket to make a complaint, demanding that the perpetrator of this heinous offence be ‘confronted’. What did this ‘offence’ consist of? Well, it seems that an elderly native Briton took exception to the behaviour of Husain’s children and told her that they should ‘behave like proper English children’.

In a sensible world most people would regard an elderly person telling off a parent for the behaviour of his /her children in this manner as what happens in life. The behaviour of the children might well have richly merited it in which case all credit to the elderly citizen. But this is of course not a sensible world.

It’s ‘racist’ if an ethnic say it is

In the Soviet-Style era of oppression in which we now live, the law is undoubtedly on Husain’s side. When she went running to authority in the expectation that it would spring to her side against the native Briton in this piffling incident, she was correct. According to the 1986 Association of Chief Police Officers definition, a ‘racist incident’ under the various Race Relations Acts is:-
 'any incident in which it appeared to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person as being one that should be classified as racist’.
 Recommendation 12 of the 1999 Macpherson Report the said that the definition of a racist incident should be 'any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person'.
 
(Ethnics of course cannot be guilty of ‘racism’ because according to its Marxist definition, as members of minorities they do not have social power, an essential ingredient apparently).

Super –Sensitivity Encouraged by the Law

That Hussein thinks this citizens’ remarks amounted to ‘racial abuse’ reveals nothing so much as  super sensitivity on her part on the one hand and a total lack of sensitivity towards the feelings of the native British on the other.

She seems on one level to be oblivious to or chooses to ignore the resentment that the people of the country rightly feel about the way they are being dispossessed of it by their political class through the importation of millions of aliens like herself.

On another she is probably very much aware of it. For all the ‘authority’ which she is said to convey on screen, her sensitivity almost certainly derives from a deep sense of insecurity. Insecurity in herself as a parent and the way she is bringing up her children and insecurity originating in the fact that those children, like herself will never be regarded by the bulk of the population as English.

Hussein’s BBC Career. Racial and Sexual Discrimination is OK when it’s in your Favour.

But let’s look at her career in the BBC. Whatever her capabilities – and it doesn’t take much to read off an autocue or indeed to ask people questions (It’s answering which is difficult) she was quite clearly chosen for her present position for three main reasons:-

1) She is Asian. The BBC quite clearly has a policy of slotting ethnics into high profile, up-front positions of this kind in order to propagandise a sense of establishment, authority and of ‘belonging’ for ethnics. Ethnics are also given jobs in programmes dealing with British cultural and historical matters for the same reasons, thus discriminating against whites.

2) She is Female. Having an Asian and Female as a news presenter is killing two birds with one stone since both ethnics and females score high points on the hierarchy of Political Correctness as ‘oppressed’ groups. White males are discriminated against wherever possible.

3) She is a good-looking in a European sort of way and for an Asian quite light-skinned. In the minefield which is the lexicon of Politically Correct sins (there are so many, aren’t there?) this of course is ‘lookist’ and also quite possibly ‘sexist’ as well as ‘racist’. However BBC apparatchiks seem to have concluded that there are limits beyond which the viewers will not go.

So we see that in the incident in the supermarket and when it comes to her career, Hussein is apparently more than willing to accept racial and sexual discrimination – when it is in her favour. There is only one word to describe this attitude: Hypocrisy.

BBC Lies of Omission

BBC's report of EDL Leader Tommy Robinson's trial omits certain key details.

Click here to read the details at the New English Review

___________
Hat Tip Mister Fox

Sunday, 8 May 2011

Meanwhile in Amsterdam ......


Written by Diana West

... Geert Wilders made his final statement in court yesterday where he is still on trial for telling the truth about Islam. This, as often noted, is a judicial outrage, a public nightmare, and an existential threat to liberty as we have known it which doesn't end because bin Laden is dead. There is a raw, ugly fear of Islam in the non-Islamic world, and the grotesque reflex of the frightened power classes is to side with the raw, ugly power of Islam, which, never let it be forgotten, is derived solely from their own fear. The results are to be seen in the travesties around us from the Netherlands' campaign to silence, penalize and make an example of the courageous Wilders, to the USA's grotesque staging of a dignified, Islamically correct "funeral at sea" for a mass murderer whose corpse should have been disposed of as the human trash that it was.

Reading Geert's words is a sobering experience, spoken as they are in the face of a thoroughly craven but still powerful establishment-machine. In this desperate hour for free speech, they sound an SOS we seem powerless to answer. But they are inspiring, too, for the example they set. Here in the 21st century is a man whose allegiance to liberty is paramount.

Geert Wilders:
Mister President, members of the Court. I recently tried to have Your Honors removed from the case for your refusal to register a statement of perjury against Mr. Hendriks. My challenge of the court did not succeed. I must accept that. I do wish to say, however, that I was more annoyed by another declaration of the President of the Court on the day of the official hearing of Mr. Jansen. He said that I was a free man, that I could not be compared to Mr. Nekschot because I was a free man.

Mister President, you could not be more wrong. For almost seven years now, I have not been a free man. I lost my freedom in 2004. I live as a prisoner with guards without you having convicted me. Without protection I am even less certain of my life than I am now. Mister President, you would not use the words “free man” if you could change places with me for one week.

Mister President, members of the court, I am here as a suspect again today. I have said so before: This penal case is a political trial. An attempt is being made here to silence a politician who speaks on behalf of one and a half million people and who already pays a heavy price for that every single day. Formally, only I stand on trial here, but in practice the freedom of speech of millions of Dutchmen is on trial.

This trial is not merely a political trial. It is also an unjust trial. When you look at the order of the court (to prosecute me) it is clear that the verdict has already been passed. The court has issued an order to prosecute me in which it concludes that I am guilty of incitement to hatred. The court has concluded that my statements as such are of an insulting nature. The court has concluded that I am guilty of the most serious charge: the incitement to hatred and discrimination. The court has concluded that it expects that the criminal prosecution will indeed lead to a conviction. Mister President, members of the court, the court has already done your job. Long before I was brought to trial before you, I was found guilty and was condemned. Hence my right to a just trial has been violated.

Alas, this is but the tip of the iceberg. Without any doubt, the judges who presided this case have conveyed a semblance of partiality. I have been denied 15 of the 18 witnesses whom I wanted to call. Every high representative of the judicial power has given his view on this case, and often to my disadvantage. But Counselor Schalken was the worst.

Counselor Schalken, who co-authored the decision to prosecute me, makes a habit of discussing my trial and arguing his case at elegant dinner parties for intellectuals. Counselor Schalken dined with my witness, Mr Jansen – note that he was one of the only three witnesses whom I was allowed to call – three days before Mr. Jansen was to be interrogated by the court. During this dinner Mr. Schalken TRIED to influence Mr Jansen. The fact that he did not succeed is irrelevant.

Mr. President, members of the court, stop this unfair, political trial. Respect our Dutch freedoms. If this trial continues, despite the fact that the principle of the presumption of innocence has been violated, and if I am convicted, not only my freedom will be infringed, but also the right of all Dutch people to hear the truth. The 19th century black American politician Frederick Douglass, the son of a slave, put it as follows: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

Mr. President, members of the court, I end with a quote of George Washington, who said: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” Mr. President, members of the court, do not let this warning become reality. Stop this charade, this political trial where I have already been convicted by the court even before I was a suspect. Stop it now. If you do so, and I passionately hope you will, this will benefit freedom of speech as well as the respectability of the judicial power and the rule of law.

Source
________________________________

Note: Here is a further example of the Dutch approach to free speech, an article on Dutch News.nl regarding the judge's refusal to investigate one of the prosecution witnesses for perjury, has the following footnote: 
"Comments have been disallowed for this article. We know from experience that some subjects generate a massive stream of comments which conflict with our guidelines for submissions and this is one of them. 
Translation:  "We don't like what you might say, so we won't let you say it!!"
 _____________________

 Dutch judges discuss the Wilders trial