Click here to watch Muslims in Britain pray funeral prayer of Muhamed Merah
__________________
Hat Tip: Reconquista
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Saturday, 24 March 2012
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
Remembering Beslan Seven Years On
Seven years ago today the siege at a school in Beslan North Ossettia by Islamic militants, who took over 1,100 hostages, began. The siege ended three days later with the death of over 334 hostages, 186 of them children. Many more were injured and a number remain missing. This, like the many other such crimes, must never be forgotten.
Saturday, 30 July 2011
To explain the inexcusable
The events which took place in Oslo a week last Friday can not be defended, let alone excused, under any circumstances. The killing and maiming of innocent people, many of them children, no matter who’s children they may have been, was an act of evil and barbarity which no reasonable person, whatever their views or political ideology, can condone or forgive.
For a Nationalist to resort to violence not only runs contrary to the love which inspires our very nationalism, but it is immensely damaging to our cause and to everything we hold dear. On a practical level, it also alienates any potential support and is a gift to our enemies who will use the actions of one deranged monster to smear all those of us who resist the invasion of our lands.
Thus it has been with the Norwegian horror of July 22nd 2011. The madman, Anders Breivik, already referred to as Europe's Timothy McVeigh, is no friend to the white race or to the preservation of a European culture. His actions have put back the native European cause by decades, and may well have advanced the Islamification of Europe which he claims to oppose. For how often in the last week have we read of heard the serpent like calls of those seeking to exploit this evil, that the best way to express our opposition to this atrocity is to support increased immigration.
We should never underestimate the vileness of our enemy, or how they will enlist any horror for their cause.
No good can come from Breivik’s insanity, and in no way can this monstrosity be excused. However, the same can be said of the carnage in New York in September 2011, Madrid in March 2004, London in July 2007 of Mumbai in November 2008, these too we acts of bloodthirsty evil which can never be forgiven or ever excused.
That did not, of course, prevent twenty thousand pundits from attempting to explain them or to outline the culpability of Western government policies in bringing them about.
In similar manner this event can be explained and a light also shone upon the role played by western governments in causing it to happen.
All systems of political repression and ongoing political persecution will eventually lead to acts of violent opposition, and had it not been for the repression and persecution now practised by the Western establishment in suppressing all opposition to multiculturalism, Breivik is unlikely to have ever committed his heinous act.
It was he who planted the bombs and shot at the children of the elite, but much of the blood he spilt is also on the hands of that very elite and with those within politics and in the controlled media who actively denied him a voice and who vilified his legitimate concerns.
That may sound absurd to those who share the current political orthodoxy or who, at least pay lip service to so doing, as they can have no comprehension of the level of political repression under which we all live, and the degree to which political dissent is now persecuted.
Those of us who do not share the state approved attitudes, and especially those who attempt to speak out against them know full well how dangerous it is to do so and how overwhelming the current levels of repression actually are.
In Britain, the degree of political terror which currently exists within our so called democracy is evident by how often ordinary, decent, members of the public will start any less than glowing reference to race, immigration or multiculturalism with the urgent assurance that they are “not racist”, whist at the same time they will invariably lower their voice and even often glance over their shoulders, to check they are not overheard, before speaking.
It is clear from every poll that a significant majority of the public hold significant concerns about mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the increasing influence of Islam, yet there is no platform within any of the three main political parties which reflect those views. Neither has immigration or the islamification of Europe featured in any in any of their manifestos - with the exception of a fuzzy aspiration by the Conservatives at the last election to reduce annual non-European immigration to a still overwhelming “Tens of thousands” (which could amount to numbers equal to the current UK prison population or two towns the size of Salisbury arriving each year)
Those few and tiny political parties which actively seek to reverse immigration and oppose the European Caliphate are universally vilified. Meanwhile, government funded QUANGOs such as the EHRC actively seek to crush them and repeated attempts are made to imprison their leadership.
The state controlled media (the only available mainstream media in the country) misrepresent and pillory the parties and anyone who publicly dares to support them, whilst the main journalist union prevent their members from fairly reporting them.
As this is going on, party members are prevented from working in various occupations, such as the police and they are even excluded by the church.
At the same time popular figures within the entertainment media, such as public school poser Russell Howard, will mock and lampoon the supporters of non-state approved organisations, including those who speak authentically in the accents he pretends to imitate.
Like most people, I totally condemn Anders Breivik’s actions but, also like most people I share many of his concerns. Yet neither he, I nor the millions who feel the same, can express those concerns without being condemned and there is no political party representing those concerns, which has a chance of gaining power that I can vote for.
Yet they are views which are held to some degree by the majority of the population
How surprising is it that an unbalanced man might decide there was no peaceful or democratic means of opposing what he perceived quite rightly to be the ethnic cleansing of his homeland?
Dagenham, supporters of the multiculturalism, with the connivance of the British state, will go to the extent of importing thousands of new ethnic minority voters into an area in order to defeat a Nationalist candidate.
After what we have witnessed, there can be few reading this article which do not share my feelings of frustration, anger, grief and impotence when considering what passes for democracy in Britain. Not only am I unable to change anything, but I can not even participate because the dictatorship under which I live will not allow a viable option, which I can support, to exist.
How easy would it be for that frustration, that anger and those feelings of grief and impotence to turn to rage?
Is that what happened to Anders Breivik?
After all, what happens in Britain is no difference that what is happening across Europe.
The treatment of the Vlaams Belang party by the Belgian government, and its attempts to stamp on political opposition would make a third world dictator like Mugabe blush. Scandinavian governments like the Swedish, and to some degree the Norwegian and the Fins, impose their draconian brand of selective tolerance with Stalinist levels of oppression, often accompanied with state sponsored political violence.
Any real democrat would look upon the treatment of Jobbik in Hungary and shudder. Yet, how many real democrats are their left in European politics?
Where were the political voices raised against the show trials of Geert Wilders in Holland, Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria, or even Nick Griffin in England?
Of course, the politicians of Europe were silent because they are all part of that oppression, they approve the suppression of undesirable thought and silently they applaud the snuffing out of any voices of dissent.
So, what did these demagogs expect?
Have they learned nothing? Or worse, did they know this would happen, and just not care? If you seek to destroy a people, and tha,t as surely as night follows day, is what they are seeking to do. If you take away any means of resistance and deny them even hope, there can be only one result, and there will be blood.
Events such as the carnage in Oslo became inevitable when those who rule us set out to impose the tyranny of political correctness across a continent, and when they with their lackey propagandists in the media, together with the state police, decided to silence the voice of a once great people.
I hold no brief for the maniac of Oslo, he is a vile and deluded man, who, as he sits smugly in this cell imagining himself a warrior, can not start to comprehend the evil he has done, not only to the innocents he has killed but to his own people and to the great culture he claims to be defending.
However, whilst I condemn utterly his actions, I would lie were I to say I do not understand and share many of his concerns, for they are the concerns shared by most Europeans. I would lie also if I said I did not understand his rage, for it comes from a place where our frustrations, our fear, our grief and our feelings of helpless at what is happening could well lead us all.
Yet he is not our creation. He is the creature of those who hate us, for it was they who cultivated the fertile soil in which his rage and madness grew.
It was those who are destroying us that created him.
Our politicians, leaders, multicultural fanatics and selfish capitalists seeking a cheap and obedient labour force, our craven media, our “right on” anti-racist pop stars and liberal entertainers together with advocates of political correctness and intolerant toleration should look to themselves when seeking to apportion blame for Oslo and find the cause for what occurred.
For it was they who nurtured the hate which grew in that maniac, and in their foetid souls lies the dank and malodorous womb from which the monster, and who knows how many others, came to crawl.
For a Nationalist to resort to violence not only runs contrary to the love which inspires our very nationalism, but it is immensely damaging to our cause and to everything we hold dear. On a practical level, it also alienates any potential support and is a gift to our enemies who will use the actions of one deranged monster to smear all those of us who resist the invasion of our lands.
Thus it has been with the Norwegian horror of July 22nd 2011. The madman, Anders Breivik, already referred to as Europe's Timothy McVeigh, is no friend to the white race or to the preservation of a European culture. His actions have put back the native European cause by decades, and may well have advanced the Islamification of Europe which he claims to oppose. For how often in the last week have we read of heard the serpent like calls of those seeking to exploit this evil, that the best way to express our opposition to this atrocity is to support increased immigration.
We should never underestimate the vileness of our enemy, or how they will enlist any horror for their cause.
No good can come from Breivik’s insanity, and in no way can this monstrosity be excused. However, the same can be said of the carnage in New York in September 2011, Madrid in March 2004, London in July 2007 of Mumbai in November 2008, these too we acts of bloodthirsty evil which can never be forgiven or ever excused.
That did not, of course, prevent twenty thousand pundits from attempting to explain them or to outline the culpability of Western government policies in bringing them about.
In similar manner this event can be explained and a light also shone upon the role played by western governments in causing it to happen.
All systems of political repression and ongoing political persecution will eventually lead to acts of violent opposition, and had it not been for the repression and persecution now practised by the Western establishment in suppressing all opposition to multiculturalism, Breivik is unlikely to have ever committed his heinous act.
It was he who planted the bombs and shot at the children of the elite, but much of the blood he spilt is also on the hands of that very elite and with those within politics and in the controlled media who actively denied him a voice and who vilified his legitimate concerns.
That may sound absurd to those who share the current political orthodoxy or who, at least pay lip service to so doing, as they can have no comprehension of the level of political repression under which we all live, and the degree to which political dissent is now persecuted.
Those of us who do not share the state approved attitudes, and especially those who attempt to speak out against them know full well how dangerous it is to do so and how overwhelming the current levels of repression actually are.
In Britain, the degree of political terror which currently exists within our so called democracy is evident by how often ordinary, decent, members of the public will start any less than glowing reference to race, immigration or multiculturalism with the urgent assurance that they are “not racist”, whist at the same time they will invariably lower their voice and even often glance over their shoulders, to check they are not overheard, before speaking.
It is clear from every poll that a significant majority of the public hold significant concerns about mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the increasing influence of Islam, yet there is no platform within any of the three main political parties which reflect those views. Neither has immigration or the islamification of Europe featured in any in any of their manifestos - with the exception of a fuzzy aspiration by the Conservatives at the last election to reduce annual non-European immigration to a still overwhelming “Tens of thousands” (which could amount to numbers equal to the current UK prison population or two towns the size of Salisbury arriving each year)
Those few and tiny political parties which actively seek to reverse immigration and oppose the European Caliphate are universally vilified. Meanwhile, government funded QUANGOs such as the EHRC actively seek to crush them and repeated attempts are made to imprison their leadership.
The state controlled media (the only available mainstream media in the country) misrepresent and pillory the parties and anyone who publicly dares to support them, whilst the main journalist union prevent their members from fairly reporting them.
As this is going on, party members are prevented from working in various occupations, such as the police and they are even excluded by the church.
At the same time popular figures within the entertainment media, such as public school poser Russell Howard, will mock and lampoon the supporters of non-state approved organisations, including those who speak authentically in the accents he pretends to imitate.
Like most people, I totally condemn Anders Breivik’s actions but, also like most people I share many of his concerns. Yet neither he, I nor the millions who feel the same, can express those concerns without being condemned and there is no political party representing those concerns, which has a chance of gaining power that I can vote for.
Yet they are views which are held to some degree by the majority of the population
How surprising is it that an unbalanced man might decide there was no peaceful or democratic means of opposing what he perceived quite rightly to be the ethnic cleansing of his homeland?
Dagenham, supporters of the multiculturalism, with the connivance of the British state, will go to the extent of importing thousands of new ethnic minority voters into an area in order to defeat a Nationalist candidate.
After what we have witnessed, there can be few reading this article which do not share my feelings of frustration, anger, grief and impotence when considering what passes for democracy in Britain. Not only am I unable to change anything, but I can not even participate because the dictatorship under which I live will not allow a viable option, which I can support, to exist.
How easy would it be for that frustration, that anger and those feelings of grief and impotence to turn to rage?
Is that what happened to Anders Breivik?
After all, what happens in Britain is no difference that what is happening across Europe.
The treatment of the Vlaams Belang party by the Belgian government, and its attempts to stamp on political opposition would make a third world dictator like Mugabe blush. Scandinavian governments like the Swedish, and to some degree the Norwegian and the Fins, impose their draconian brand of selective tolerance with Stalinist levels of oppression, often accompanied with state sponsored political violence.
Any real democrat would look upon the treatment of Jobbik in Hungary and shudder. Yet, how many real democrats are their left in European politics?
Where were the political voices raised against the show trials of Geert Wilders in Holland, Lars Hedegaard in Denmark, Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria, or even Nick Griffin in England?
Of course, the politicians of Europe were silent because they are all part of that oppression, they approve the suppression of undesirable thought and silently they applaud the snuffing out of any voices of dissent.
So, what did these demagogs expect?
Have they learned nothing? Or worse, did they know this would happen, and just not care? If you seek to destroy a people, and tha,t as surely as night follows day, is what they are seeking to do. If you take away any means of resistance and deny them even hope, there can be only one result, and there will be blood.
Events such as the carnage in Oslo became inevitable when those who rule us set out to impose the tyranny of political correctness across a continent, and when they with their lackey propagandists in the media, together with the state police, decided to silence the voice of a once great people.
I hold no brief for the maniac of Oslo, he is a vile and deluded man, who, as he sits smugly in this cell imagining himself a warrior, can not start to comprehend the evil he has done, not only to the innocents he has killed but to his own people and to the great culture he claims to be defending.
However, whilst I condemn utterly his actions, I would lie were I to say I do not understand and share many of his concerns, for they are the concerns shared by most Europeans. I would lie also if I said I did not understand his rage, for it comes from a place where our frustrations, our fear, our grief and our feelings of helpless at what is happening could well lead us all.
Yet he is not our creation. He is the creature of those who hate us, for it was they who cultivated the fertile soil in which his rage and madness grew.
It was those who are destroying us that created him.
Our politicians, leaders, multicultural fanatics and selfish capitalists seeking a cheap and obedient labour force, our craven media, our “right on” anti-racist pop stars and liberal entertainers together with advocates of political correctness and intolerant toleration should look to themselves when seeking to apportion blame for Oslo and find the cause for what occurred.
For it was they who nurtured the hate which grew in that maniac, and in their foetid souls lies the dank and malodorous womb from which the monster, and who knows how many others, came to crawl.
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.
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)
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.
Friday, 4 March 2011
A letter to Mohammad Sidique Khan
By Pym PurnellSo you expressed regret to your daughter that you will be leaving her. Who will look after her now you have gone, who will educate her, feed her, clothe her, treat her when she is ill, pay her bills, and look after her Mum too?
We (the British public) will contribute to this, while you do not.
Seems strange to me that a man who obviously dislikes this country so much he personally killed 6 people, and himself, trusts us enough to look after his most prized possession.
We (the British public) will contribute to this, while you do not.
Seems strange to me that a man who obviously dislikes this country so much he personally killed 6 people, and himself, trusts us enough to look after his most prized possession.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
The British establishment nurtures terrorists
By Mister Fox On the first day of the new decade, some very telling comments were made which showed the emasculated British establishment’s complicity with the enemy forces and its failure to understand the nature of war. Gordon Brown invited international partners to discuss countering radicalisation in Yemen after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian, tried to blow up an aeroplane bound for Detroit: “It’s strengthening counter-terrorism co-operation; it’s working harder on the intelligence efforts.”
Officials said the UK and the US would jointly fund a counter-terrorism police unit in Yemen in the wake of an alleged bomb airline attack over Detroit. It was announced later that Britain was giving £120 million to Yemen.
Why transfer British taxpayers’ money to stop terrorism in Yemen when the authorities allow it here? Because our rulers cannot deal with the fact the there is a war going on between the West and Muslims which is mainly organised from Britain.
In January 1999, the Yemeni government challenged Britain to show it was not a haven for terrorists by extraditing a London-based Islamic terrorist accused of sending British Muslims on a bombing mission to Yemen.
There have been many cases of British authorities refusing extradition of terrorists who were wanted by other countries. Before 9/11, the governments of France, India, Turkey, Israel, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had protested about Britain’s refusal to extradite terrorists.
It is outrageous that our decadent authorities are exporting terror to Muslim countries. Somalia’s transitional government accused Britain of being the main source of money and soldiers for the fighters of the Islamist Courts Union.
Deputy prime minister at the time, Hussain Mohammed Aideed, stated: “The ICU’s main support was coming from London, paying cash to the ICU against the government. Among those who died in the war with the ICU were British passport holders.”
The bodyguards of Sheik Yusuf, an Islamist commander, included two brothers from Wood Green in North London. One, Hamid, said: We are doing our duty by fighting for the cause of Islam, which is above all countries.”
University College London, where Abdulmutallab was president of the Islamic Society, allowed the spread of radicalisation and has been accused of “failing grotesquely” to prevent extremists from giving lectures on campus.
In 2007, the Islamic Society held a five-day series of lectures and seminars against “The War on Terror” that were advertised on YouTube. This happens on most university campuses and Muslim students use the block vote to gain influence in students’ unions.
Brown also stated, “It is because we cannot win through a fortress Britain strategy that we have to take on extremists wherever they are based: in Afghanistan, Pakistan and all around the world, including here in Britain” — but they do not take on extremists “here in Britain” — they allow them to use it as a base to carry out terrorist operations abroad.
The preacher who influenced Abdulmutallab is Al-Awlaki. He was born in New Mexico but entered the UK to give a series of lectures in December 2002 and January 2003 at the London Masjid al-Tawhid mosque. In those lectures, he described the rewards martyrs receive in paradise.
Louise Ellman, MP for Liverpool (Riverside), mentioned the relationship between al-Awlaki and the Muslim Association of Britain, which is a Muslim Brotherhood front organisation founded by Kemal el-Helbawy, a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in the House of Commons, as far back as 2003. So why was he allowed in?
A cousin of Abdulmutallab insists he was influenced by extremist groups while in Britain, not the Yemen. He regularly visited the East London Mosque, which has hosted extremist Muslim preachers. Earlier this year, the East London Mosque hosted a pre-recorded talk by Anwar al-Awlaki, who the US Department for Homeland Security says acted as spiritual mentor to three of the 9/11 hijackers. This distracts people from the real centre of Muslim world terrorism — Britain.
The Sunday Times has reported that Scotland Yard warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style bomb attack. In a briefing on 8 December, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, announced: “Mumbai is coming to London.” Then why allow them to stay here to carry out such attacks?
Islam4UK announced a protest in Wootton Bassett where the bodies of our dead soldiers are brought off the plane. This was denounced by “moderate” Muslims. Shahid Murasaleen, from London-based Minhaj-ul-Quran International UK, said: “These kinds of extremists do not represent the British Muslims. This march will achieve nothing other than to incite hate crime against innocent law-abiding British Muslims.”
Note the nature of their objection to the march. They oppose it not because it is insulting to this country or offensive to the families of fallen troops or that it is an insult to the memory of brave servicemen. No, it is condemned because Muslims will suffer. They do not condemn Choudary’s views but his tactics — they share the same goals.
What is behind the security services allowing Muslim extremists to weapon train and develop networks here? This is a clue: former Italian President Francesco Cossiga admitted in the Italian paper Corriere della Sera in 2008, that in the 1970s, the Italian government allowed Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks.
The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a “secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organisations, including terrorist groups. Moro designed the terms of the agreement with Arab terrorists, Cossiga said. “The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organisations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services.”
The security services have operated a similar deal in Britain. On 22 August 1998, the newspaper Al Sharq Al Awsat quoted Omar Bakri: “I work here in accordance with the covenant of peace which I made with the British government when I got (political) asylum.”
This covenant allowed Muslim extremists to plan attacks abroad and develop terror networks here. In 1999 it was reported that each year approximately 2,000 Muslims were trained about Holy War at camps in Britain run by Bakri’s organisation al-Muhajiroun.
In Birmingham and London the trainees learnt hand-to-hand combat and survival skills. For further training they were sent for military training in Yemen and Afghanistan. After the London bombings, The Times reported that “a dozen members” of Al-Muhajiroun “have taken part in suicide bombings or have become close to Al-Qaeda and its support network.” He was protected here for 20 years.
In January 2007 Bakri revealed that Islamist extremists were infiltrating the police and other public sector organisations. The Daily Mail exposed eight members of al-Qaeda in the police.
MI5 investigate what the Government instructs them to investigate and ignore what the Government wants them to ignore.
As far back as 4 May 2003, The Sunday Telegraph’s Alasdair Palmer wrote: “Britain has become the headquarters of choice for extremist Islamic preachers, who now have a network of organisations dedicated to sowing pure hatred: hatred of the West, of democracy, and of the values of tolerance and freedom — the very values that give them the freedom to operate here: ‘Your task against the infidel,’ says one video, ‘is to kill their children, take their women, destroy their homes.’”
In January 2009, the head of domestic security service MI5 revealed that 2,000 people in Britain were involved with Islamist terrorist plots and many more support terrorism through fundraising and propaganda.
From 11 September 2001 to the end of March 2008, British authorities arrested 1,471 Muslims for terrorism-related offences. Yet just six months later, The Daily Mail reported the security services were scaling down checks on Muslim terrorists.
Commander Shaun Sawyer of Scotland Yard’s counterterrorism command gave the green light to Muslim extremists by telling the Muslim Safety Forum that security services would scapegoat “whites” and scale down surveillance on them — “far right” groups could be planning a terrorist “spectacular” to stoke up racial tensions,” he said.
I wouldn’t put it past security services to do one and blame the “far-right.” This followed an order to the police to “go easy” on Muslim terrorists.
The London bombings of 9/5 resulted from British security services allowing the development of terror networks throughout Britain. A threat assessment by the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre a mere month earlier stated: “There was no group with current intent and capability” to commit a terrorist attack in Britain.
Colin Cramphorne, chief constable of West Yorkshire from 2002 until his death in 2006, was mocked for warning that extremist cells ran training camps in national parks, such as the Yorkshire Dales.
After being alerted by local farmers, the British National Party reported to Yorkshire police that young Muslims were weapons training with guns in local woods and fields. The media obscured this by mocking the claims and the police refused to investigate.
Attempted attacks like the series of attacks known in Europe, America and the Middle East in 1999 and 2000 were planned in London. There were terrorist cells in Milan and Hamburg but London was the control centre.
It was known that Abu Qatada was running the al Qaeda cells in Spain and Germany from London. The two terrorists who bombed Mike’s Place in Tel Aviv were Muslims with British passports.
Not long after 9/11, the Prime Minister’s office published an analysis of terrorism that showed there was evidence available: “Al Qaeda retains the capability and the will to make further attacks on the US and its allies including the United Kingdom… other cells like those who carried out the tasks must be assumed to exist … al Qaeda functions on its own and through a network of other terrorist organisations. These include Egyptian Islamic Jihad and other North African Islamic extremist terrorist groups, and a number of other Jihadi groups in other countries including the Sudan, the Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and India. Al Qaeda also maintains cells and personnel in a number of other countries.”
On its website, the Egyptian State Information Service announced in its article “Call to Combat Terrorism,” that Britain harboured seven of the 14 most wanted terrorists. These included one who plotted the failed assassination of the Egyptian prime minister.
In August 2006, the US government put the highest terrorism alert ever for commercial flights from Britain to US after “the liquid terror” attack was foiled.
Michael Chertoff, Homeland Securities Secretary, said that this “plot may indeed be suggestive of Al-Qaeda, but its real incubator is the atmosphere of Londonistan: the political correctness of Britain that keeps British officials from confronting the jihad ideology that spreads in British mosques and Islamic schools.”
A Muslim school in London famously taught that Christian and Jewish people are “pigs”!
How did this situation come about?
After the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and her Arab neighbours, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) struck back at the West through an oil embargo on America and by increasing prices by 70 percent on her European allies. This caused the cost of a barrel of oil to rise from $3 to $5.11. In January 1974, they raised it further to $11.65, forcing industrial nations to submit to Arab influence.
Then the EC bowed to Palestinian Liberation Organisation terrorist threats and blamed America for putting “vital European interests at risk” — a euphemism for Palestinian terrorist threats should the West not support Arab policy.
From then on, the Euro-Arab working commissions under the president of the European Commission and the Secretary-General of the Arab League were started.
They have developed into something now known as the European-Mediterranean Partnership which has built institutional structures for mass Muslim immigration and the Islamification of Europe.
Europe’s anti-Israeli policy and anti-Semitism are part of this. Talk of “Holocaust denial” is only used to inhibit whites — Muslims routinely deny the Holocaust but the authorities ignore it.
Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, revealed that British authorities bowed down to the Saudis and abandoned the bribery investigation into the arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems because of a threat by the Saudis that if the case continued, “British lives on British streets would be at risk.”
Meanwhile, Mr Brown has announced that technology that sees through clothes is expected to be introduced at airports. Our Prime Minister said it was “essential” to tackle the new terrorist threat. Once again everyone is penalised because the state has allowed Islamist terrorism to flourish.
The solution to the problem is not “new body scanners. The answer is simple:
Firstly, stop the massive influx of Third Worlders into the West. If they cannot fly here, they cannot blow up our planes (but think: Lord Mandelson just cut grants to universities which means they will need more foreign “students” to make up financial shortfalls).
Secondly, instead of nurturing and protecting radicals and terrorists, their citizenship needs to be revoked and they need to be sent back to where they came from.
Thirdly, the already available repatriation programme needs to be fully activated and implemented.
Officials said the UK and the US would jointly fund a counter-terrorism police unit in Yemen in the wake of an alleged bomb airline attack over Detroit. It was announced later that Britain was giving £120 million to Yemen.
Why transfer British taxpayers’ money to stop terrorism in Yemen when the authorities allow it here? Because our rulers cannot deal with the fact the there is a war going on between the West and Muslims which is mainly organised from Britain.
In January 1999, the Yemeni government challenged Britain to show it was not a haven for terrorists by extraditing a London-based Islamic terrorist accused of sending British Muslims on a bombing mission to Yemen.
There have been many cases of British authorities refusing extradition of terrorists who were wanted by other countries. Before 9/11, the governments of France, India, Turkey, Israel, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had protested about Britain’s refusal to extradite terrorists.
It is outrageous that our decadent authorities are exporting terror to Muslim countries. Somalia’s transitional government accused Britain of being the main source of money and soldiers for the fighters of the Islamist Courts Union.
Deputy prime minister at the time, Hussain Mohammed Aideed, stated: “The ICU’s main support was coming from London, paying cash to the ICU against the government. Among those who died in the war with the ICU were British passport holders.”
The bodyguards of Sheik Yusuf, an Islamist commander, included two brothers from Wood Green in North London. One, Hamid, said: We are doing our duty by fighting for the cause of Islam, which is above all countries.”
University College London, where Abdulmutallab was president of the Islamic Society, allowed the spread of radicalisation and has been accused of “failing grotesquely” to prevent extremists from giving lectures on campus.In 2007, the Islamic Society held a five-day series of lectures and seminars against “The War on Terror” that were advertised on YouTube. This happens on most university campuses and Muslim students use the block vote to gain influence in students’ unions.
Brown also stated, “It is because we cannot win through a fortress Britain strategy that we have to take on extremists wherever they are based: in Afghanistan, Pakistan and all around the world, including here in Britain” — but they do not take on extremists “here in Britain” — they allow them to use it as a base to carry out terrorist operations abroad.
The preacher who influenced Abdulmutallab is Al-Awlaki. He was born in New Mexico but entered the UK to give a series of lectures in December 2002 and January 2003 at the London Masjid al-Tawhid mosque. In those lectures, he described the rewards martyrs receive in paradise.
Louise Ellman, MP for Liverpool (Riverside), mentioned the relationship between al-Awlaki and the Muslim Association of Britain, which is a Muslim Brotherhood front organisation founded by Kemal el-Helbawy, a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, in the House of Commons, as far back as 2003. So why was he allowed in?
A cousin of Abdulmutallab insists he was influenced by extremist groups while in Britain, not the Yemen. He regularly visited the East London Mosque, which has hosted extremist Muslim preachers. Earlier this year, the East London Mosque hosted a pre-recorded talk by Anwar al-Awlaki, who the US Department for Homeland Security says acted as spiritual mentor to three of the 9/11 hijackers. This distracts people from the real centre of Muslim world terrorism — Britain.
The Sunday Times has reported that Scotland Yard warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style bomb attack. In a briefing on 8 December, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, announced: “Mumbai is coming to London.” Then why allow them to stay here to carry out such attacks?
Islam4UK announced a protest in Wootton Bassett where the bodies of our dead soldiers are brought off the plane. This was denounced by “moderate” Muslims. Shahid Murasaleen, from London-based Minhaj-ul-Quran International UK, said: “These kinds of extremists do not represent the British Muslims. This march will achieve nothing other than to incite hate crime against innocent law-abiding British Muslims.”
Note the nature of their objection to the march. They oppose it not because it is insulting to this country or offensive to the families of fallen troops or that it is an insult to the memory of brave servicemen. No, it is condemned because Muslims will suffer. They do not condemn Choudary’s views but his tactics — they share the same goals.
What is behind the security services allowing Muslim extremists to weapon train and develop networks here? This is a clue: former Italian President Francesco Cossiga admitted in the Italian paper Corriere della Sera in 2008, that in the 1970s, the Italian government allowed Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks.
The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a “secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organisations, including terrorist groups. Moro designed the terms of the agreement with Arab terrorists, Cossiga said. “The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organisations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services.”
The security services have operated a similar deal in Britain. On 22 August 1998, the newspaper Al Sharq Al Awsat quoted Omar Bakri: “I work here in accordance with the covenant of peace which I made with the British government when I got (political) asylum.”
This covenant allowed Muslim extremists to plan attacks abroad and develop terror networks here. In 1999 it was reported that each year approximately 2,000 Muslims were trained about Holy War at camps in Britain run by Bakri’s organisation al-Muhajiroun.
In Birmingham and London the trainees learnt hand-to-hand combat and survival skills. For further training they were sent for military training in Yemen and Afghanistan. After the London bombings, The Times reported that “a dozen members” of Al-Muhajiroun “have taken part in suicide bombings or have become close to Al-Qaeda and its support network.” He was protected here for 20 years.
In January 2007 Bakri revealed that Islamist extremists were infiltrating the police and other public sector organisations. The Daily Mail exposed eight members of al-Qaeda in the police.
MI5 investigate what the Government instructs them to investigate and ignore what the Government wants them to ignore.
As far back as 4 May 2003, The Sunday Telegraph’s Alasdair Palmer wrote: “Britain has become the headquarters of choice for extremist Islamic preachers, who now have a network of organisations dedicated to sowing pure hatred: hatred of the West, of democracy, and of the values of tolerance and freedom — the very values that give them the freedom to operate here: ‘Your task against the infidel,’ says one video, ‘is to kill their children, take their women, destroy their homes.’”
In January 2009, the head of domestic security service MI5 revealed that 2,000 people in Britain were involved with Islamist terrorist plots and many more support terrorism through fundraising and propaganda.
From 11 September 2001 to the end of March 2008, British authorities arrested 1,471 Muslims for terrorism-related offences. Yet just six months later, The Daily Mail reported the security services were scaling down checks on Muslim terrorists.
Commander Shaun Sawyer of Scotland Yard’s counterterrorism command gave the green light to Muslim extremists by telling the Muslim Safety Forum that security services would scapegoat “whites” and scale down surveillance on them — “far right” groups could be planning a terrorist “spectacular” to stoke up racial tensions,” he said.
I wouldn’t put it past security services to do one and blame the “far-right.” This followed an order to the police to “go easy” on Muslim terrorists.
The London bombings of 9/5 resulted from British security services allowing the development of terror networks throughout Britain. A threat assessment by the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre a mere month earlier stated: “There was no group with current intent and capability” to commit a terrorist attack in Britain.
Colin Cramphorne, chief constable of West Yorkshire from 2002 until his death in 2006, was mocked for warning that extremist cells ran training camps in national parks, such as the Yorkshire Dales.
After being alerted by local farmers, the British National Party reported to Yorkshire police that young Muslims were weapons training with guns in local woods and fields. The media obscured this by mocking the claims and the police refused to investigate.
Attempted attacks like the series of attacks known in Europe, America and the Middle East in 1999 and 2000 were planned in London. There were terrorist cells in Milan and Hamburg but London was the control centre.
It was known that Abu Qatada was running the al Qaeda cells in Spain and Germany from London. The two terrorists who bombed Mike’s Place in Tel Aviv were Muslims with British passports.Not long after 9/11, the Prime Minister’s office published an analysis of terrorism that showed there was evidence available: “Al Qaeda retains the capability and the will to make further attacks on the US and its allies including the United Kingdom… other cells like those who carried out the tasks must be assumed to exist … al Qaeda functions on its own and through a network of other terrorist organisations. These include Egyptian Islamic Jihad and other North African Islamic extremist terrorist groups, and a number of other Jihadi groups in other countries including the Sudan, the Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and India. Al Qaeda also maintains cells and personnel in a number of other countries.”
On its website, the Egyptian State Information Service announced in its article “Call to Combat Terrorism,” that Britain harboured seven of the 14 most wanted terrorists. These included one who plotted the failed assassination of the Egyptian prime minister.
In August 2006, the US government put the highest terrorism alert ever for commercial flights from Britain to US after “the liquid terror” attack was foiled.
Michael Chertoff, Homeland Securities Secretary, said that this “plot may indeed be suggestive of Al-Qaeda, but its real incubator is the atmosphere of Londonistan: the political correctness of Britain that keeps British officials from confronting the jihad ideology that spreads in British mosques and Islamic schools.”
A Muslim school in London famously taught that Christian and Jewish people are “pigs”!
How did this situation come about?
After the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and her Arab neighbours, the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) struck back at the West through an oil embargo on America and by increasing prices by 70 percent on her European allies. This caused the cost of a barrel of oil to rise from $3 to $5.11. In January 1974, they raised it further to $11.65, forcing industrial nations to submit to Arab influence.
Then the EC bowed to Palestinian Liberation Organisation terrorist threats and blamed America for putting “vital European interests at risk” — a euphemism for Palestinian terrorist threats should the West not support Arab policy.
From then on, the Euro-Arab working commissions under the president of the European Commission and the Secretary-General of the Arab League were started.
They have developed into something now known as the European-Mediterranean Partnership which has built institutional structures for mass Muslim immigration and the Islamification of Europe.
Europe’s anti-Israeli policy and anti-Semitism are part of this. Talk of “Holocaust denial” is only used to inhibit whites — Muslims routinely deny the Holocaust but the authorities ignore it.
Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, revealed that British authorities bowed down to the Saudis and abandoned the bribery investigation into the arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems because of a threat by the Saudis that if the case continued, “British lives on British streets would be at risk.”
Meanwhile, Mr Brown has announced that technology that sees through clothes is expected to be introduced at airports. Our Prime Minister said it was “essential” to tackle the new terrorist threat. Once again everyone is penalised because the state has allowed Islamist terrorism to flourish.
The solution to the problem is not “new body scanners. The answer is simple:
Firstly, stop the massive influx of Third Worlders into the West. If they cannot fly here, they cannot blow up our planes (but think: Lord Mandelson just cut grants to universities which means they will need more foreign “students” to make up financial shortfalls).
Secondly, instead of nurturing and protecting radicals and terrorists, their citizenship needs to be revoked and they need to be sent back to where they came from.
Thirdly, the already available repatriation programme needs to be fully activated and implemented.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
The bottomless bucket.
By August Pointneuf
The president of the United States has chosen to repeat failure as he sets about multiplying all the old methods of trying to "protect airline passengers” by more airport searches, and more visa bureaucracy. It is of course a pathway to nowhere, and his ordering a subservient Europe to force the rest of us to comply with America’s perceived needs by dictat will simply pour away more of the world’s money and cost travellers more time and more money. Increasing airport taxes will progressively strangle the industry, reversing all the economies of scale which currently exist.
An analogy of the Anglo-American "anti-terrorist" campaign is to send foragers into distant forest to kill hidden predatory animals, whilst leaving all the doors of the Homestead open. Those promoting foraging in Afghanistan and elsewhere for "dangerous animals" seem to forget that however many predators are killed, the species will continue to regenerate. The greater the area which the Anglo-Americans seek to "cleanse" (of those who they believe wish to destroy the societal integrity of Britain and America) increases in costs as an exponential. Simple logic determines that no group of people can continually afford that quantum of what would otherwise be productive energy (as reflected by money). They will go insolvent, and still fail to kill the marauding predators of the outer extremes of the world.
The historic necessity of self protection in and immediately about the Homestead should be trenchantly apparent to all Europeans. They need only to look at the relics of the past, castles, town walls and outer city gates all about them, or the names which represent past imperatives to protect themselves at home, such as Southgate, the Tower, the Barbican and all the others. And yet they choose, in dismissive arrogance, to ignore those lessons, and instead empty the motes, to tear down the drawbridges, and invite intrusion, pretending that all will "come right", and so seal their fatal destiny.
August Pointneuf
An analogy of the Anglo-American "anti-terrorist" campaign is to send foragers into distant forest to kill hidden predatory animals, whilst leaving all the doors of the Homestead open. Those promoting foraging in Afghanistan and elsewhere for "dangerous animals" seem to forget that however many predators are killed, the species will continue to regenerate. The greater the area which the Anglo-Americans seek to "cleanse" (of those who they believe wish to destroy the societal integrity of Britain and America) increases in costs as an exponential. Simple logic determines that no group of people can continually afford that quantum of what would otherwise be productive energy (as reflected by money). They will go insolvent, and still fail to kill the marauding predators of the outer extremes of the world.
The historic necessity of self protection in and immediately about the Homestead should be trenchantly apparent to all Europeans. They need only to look at the relics of the past, castles, town walls and outer city gates all about them, or the names which represent past imperatives to protect themselves at home, such as Southgate, the Tower, the Barbican and all the others. And yet they choose, in dismissive arrogance, to ignore those lessons, and instead empty the motes, to tear down the drawbridges, and invite intrusion, pretending that all will "come right", and so seal their fatal destiny.
August Pointneuf
Sunday, 27 December 2009
Yet again a "British" connection
Given how the terror attack at Fort Hood has been covered up and dressed as something entirely different than what it actually was, how long do you expect it will be before the news media are trying to persuade us that wearing explosive underwear is merely a fashion statement?Was anyone surprised to discover that the 23 year old Nigerian who allegedly attempted to bring down a crowded aircraft landing at Detroit airport on Christmas day, by detonating his explosive packed Y-Fronts, had very recently been a British resident? A British resident, no less who lived at an address so exclusive that most British natives wouldn't have a hope of living there outside their dreams.
Of course he had lived in Britain, virtually every crazed terrorist, every genocidal maniac and every radicalised nutter on Planet Earth has lived in Britain at some point, or, in some cases, continue to do so. What our leaders refuse to admit is that if you open your doors to everyone some very unpleasant people will walk in.
At the present time the evil men whom we have permitted to make Britain their commant post mostly use our country as a base where they can plot acts of terrorism, or as a staging post when carrying out attacks elsewhere in the world. However, that will not last, and the day will come when we will reap the whirlwind for what we have allowed to happen.
Saturday, 7 November 2009
A lone voice?
One man, at least, speaks the truth, click the image, or click here, to play the video at Live Leak_______________
Hat Tip: dabex
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
British in name only
Were I to take a trip to Mexico and buy a Saguaro Cactus, which I then brought back to Britain and planted in my own garden, the cactus would not suddenly metamorphose into a British plant merely on account of its change of location, neither would it become so, were I to take a cutting and re-plant it in a different part of Britain. Indeed, were I to spread the seed of my imported cactus across the country from Bolton to Brighton via Blaenau Festiniog it would remain a Mexican cactus which I had imported to Britain.Likewise, I would be roundly mocked were I to claim the sea hibiscus to be a British plant merely because I had successfully cultivated a couple of generations of it in a green house in Tring. I would face more than mere mockery in the case of certain other plants, such as the invasive Japanese knotweed, the Virginia Creeper or the South American water hyacinth (one of the fastest growing of plants currently choking rivers and waterways across the countries it has invaded) more likely I would be accused of environmental terrorism were I to bring it here, no matter how much it might thrive at the expense of the local population.
An elephant is not a British species, even if it is the third generation calf of a mother born in a travelling circus and now living in Regents Park Zoo. Tiger breeding programmes at Longleat do not claim to be producing “British Tigers”, neither are the giraffes and zebras which contentedly live out their days in the same “Safari Park” ever anything other than African animals.
Outside Zoos and Safari parks a number of foreign animal species run wild in the British countryside, mostly introduced unnaturally through the stupidity of man, and most cause havoc and devastation to the natural environment and indigenous fauna, such as in the case of the vicious and carnivorous mink, freed from fur farms by so called “animal lovers” in the 1980's, and which have spent the last twenty years eating the natural wildlife, such as the water vole, almost to the point of extinction. No environmentalist refers to the mink as a British species, neither do they the, north African love birds, accidentally released into Britain during the late 20th Century and now plaguing fruit growers across the country, the poisonous North American bullfrog, or the foreign crayfish which have so far killed over a fifth of the native varieties.
The reverse can apply, after many centuries, the rabbit, descendants of the European wild rabbit introduced to Britain by the Romans, but not recorded in the wild until the 12th Century, is now widely viewed as a native animal, but it remains a serious pest, although not to the extent it became when introduced to the truly alien environment of Australia.
A, thankfully dead, piranha was recently found in a Devon river and, if global warming is real and continues, it is more than possible that, crocodiles or alligators could survive in English rivers, were anyone crazy enough to import them, however, few would want to, and nobody would call them British.
Yet we grant the honour of being called British to far more dangerous, murderous and indeed no less alien creatures than crocodiles, we grant it unquestioningly to men and women who's only claim to Britishness is an accident of birth, but who's true inheritance, culture and, in most cases, if the truth be told, true national allegiance, lies far from our shores.
Last night, I lost count of the number of times that various newscasters referred to the men convicted of conspiracy to blow seven packed aircraft out of the sky, as “British”, yet they are not British in any true or natural sense. They have been granted British passports because their parents happened to be here when they were born, but location does not change a nationality, their nature, culture, race and inheritance has come down to them, through thousands of generations, from their ancestral homelands, and, as we saw from their pre-recorded suicide videos, that is where their hearts and souls belong also.
Their alleged handler Rashid Rauf (above) was also born in Britain, but left hurriedly after his uncle was stabbed to death. Rauf is believed to be a leading Al-Qaida operative behind terror attacks across the world, including the attacks in London of the 7th and 21st of July 2005. There are doubts as to whether Rauf is still alive, or, as the Americans claim he was killed by a bomb dropped from an unmanned “drone” in November 2008. However there are less doubts as to whether he considered himself “British” or where his loyalty lay, despite his accident of birth.
There are many like them, whilst one anchor baby gives a dynasty access to our country, the skies approaching Britain are full of pregnant women grasping entry visas long enough to get them in and out of the maternity wards. Yet the children, who by chance of Birth, have anchored their parents, and often their grandparents to our country, are no more part of the indigenous people of Britain than I would be Czech had I been born prematurely whilst my parents were enjoying a City break in Prague.
I would still be British had I been born on the open seas, for it is to Britain that I trace my genes and my bloodline. These men have no such claim, and to grant them one, is not only artificial but it denies them their true culture.
Commentators, speak of a “common British character” as if British genes are injected into arrivals at what is laughably called 'Immigration control'. A British character is no more something one develops by the act of getting off a plane at Heathrow than a French Character is something you gain by arriving at Paris Charles de Gaulle.
No matter how many laws the treacherous governments of this land may have written they can not change nature. An Englishman does not become Chinese by being born in Beijing and a Somali does not become British by being born in Telford. Location does not change genes, and to claim otherwise is all part of the fantasy world created by political correctness, where, to take it to its logical conclusion to become a horse, a sheep need only to be born in a stable.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Tanvir Hussain and Assad Sarwar owe their claim to Britishness to a piece of paper and the malevolence of politicians. It is merely ethnic cross dressing which can be locked away when the pantomime is over, and certainly will be when we are all called to take a stand. In their genes, hearts, souls and allegiance they are Pakistani, and that is what matters to them.
They are also not British Muslims, the only British Muslim involved was the convert Donald Stewart-Whyte, who was cleared of all involvement in the airliner bomb plot. The others are only British by dint of political whim. However, politics change only transitory perceptions, it does not change reality. To call these men “British” would be correct only if you define nationality in the narrow terms of geographical location at the point of birth, I do not accept that definition, and self evidently neither do they.
_________________________________
There are many like them, whilst one anchor baby gives a dynasty access to our country, the skies approaching Britain are full of pregnant women grasping entry visas long enough to get them in and out of the maternity wards. Yet the children, who by chance of Birth, have anchored their parents, and often their grandparents to our country, are no more part of the indigenous people of Britain than I would be Czech had I been born prematurely whilst my parents were enjoying a City break in Prague.
I would still be British had I been born on the open seas, for it is to Britain that I trace my genes and my bloodline. These men have no such claim, and to grant them one, is not only artificial but it denies them their true culture.
Commentators, speak of a “common British character” as if British genes are injected into arrivals at what is laughably called 'Immigration control'. A British character is no more something one develops by the act of getting off a plane at Heathrow than a French Character is something you gain by arriving at Paris Charles de Gaulle.
No matter how many laws the treacherous governments of this land may have written they can not change nature. An Englishman does not become Chinese by being born in Beijing and a Somali does not become British by being born in Telford. Location does not change genes, and to claim otherwise is all part of the fantasy world created by political correctness, where, to take it to its logical conclusion to become a horse, a sheep need only to be born in a stable.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Tanvir Hussain and Assad Sarwar owe their claim to Britishness to a piece of paper and the malevolence of politicians. It is merely ethnic cross dressing which can be locked away when the pantomime is over, and certainly will be when we are all called to take a stand. In their genes, hearts, souls and allegiance they are Pakistani, and that is what matters to them.
They are also not British Muslims, the only British Muslim involved was the convert Donald Stewart-Whyte, who was cleared of all involvement in the airliner bomb plot. The others are only British by dint of political whim. However, politics change only transitory perceptions, it does not change reality. To call these men “British” would be correct only if you define nationality in the narrow terms of geographical location at the point of birth, I do not accept that definition, and self evidently neither do they.
_________________________________
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
Beslan - five years ago today
The survivors
On the eastern fringe of Europe, these were victims of a war, which has been declared, and which we will all one day be fighting.What the media did not tell us about Beslan
___________________________________
Hat Tip : Up Pompeii
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)