Sunday, 15 February 2009

A Week in England

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Anonymous said...

Don't worry about the ridiculous C of E. Marrying church and state is the worst thing that can happen to a religion; it becomes not an individual conscientious and moral act to belong to the church - but rather the thing to do out of compulsion, expediency, peer pressure or whatever; and a tool of the state to control its subjects.

I see it as a pathetic liberal (spineless) middle-class social club. I don't think Jesus would be impressed.

alanorei said...

Thanks, Sarah

Great new picture, btw.

Re: Wilders film, no-one has thus far said it is untrue. But in war, it is said that truth is the first casualty.

We have undeniable proof, therefore that a war is being waged against Britain from within Britain, many of the enemy able on the surface to pass themselves off as British. It is therefore a civil war of the most dangerous kind.

Re: the C of E. It has been hollowed out. As John Charles Ryle, the first Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, said back in the 1890s, his emphases:

"A sapping and mining process has been long going on under our feet, of which we are beginning at last to see a little. We shall see a good deal more by and by."

We are. It is called Common Purpose.

Dr.D said...

Very interesting post, Sarah. Thank you.

The cowardice displayed by the British government in refusing entry to Wilders was simply amazing. It was abundantly clear that the government was completely intimidated by the muzlims. This means, without any doubt, that the muzlims are in control of (no longer Great) Britain. The government were afraid of a confrontation with the muzlims because they knew that the muzlims would win. When it comes to that, you know that you have lost control of your country.

With regard to the CofE, it has appeared that the Church has suffered from serious rot for a very long time. Apb. Fisher seems to have been the last really faithful Archbishop of Canterbury, and that was a good ways back. Since his time, it has been down hill all the way.

The good news is, you still have the BCP 1662 - I'm sure you have a copy - and the words on the page have not changed one bit. You know what they mean, even if the local vicar hasn't a clue. I encourage you particularly to make us of Morning and Evening Prayer on your own. These can go a long way to sustain you in your present wilderness. I speak from experience having lived years without a parish in reasonable distance and having said MP and EP within our family countless times. What you have is worth holding on to, and eventually it will return in some form. It is just hard to say exactly when and how it will look.

Anonymous said...

Islam's compulsive aggression and profanity .

alanorei said...

Dr D.

Agreed, The 39 Articles of Religion are to be commended as well, e.g.

Article 37:

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

In other words, out goes the EU, a Vatican project to be expelled from these shores along with Islam (the Vatican's hit men at street level). See The Principality and Power of Europe by Adrian Hilton.

I also urge all genuine C of E parishioners to stay loyal to the AV1611, which has kept this nation's foes at bay for as long as it was read, believed and preached from Anglical pulpits.

To illustrate, consider the following. Note I do not advocate blood sports or cruelty to animals, the RSPCA being a spinoff from the ministry of the KJB. But the incident has a point, if you regard the names of the 3 dogs mentioned as Marx, Muzzie and Multi-culti. One of them survived, not sure which one but it beat a hasty retreat. The identity of the Lion, figuratively speaking, needs no explanation.

From The Men Behind the KJV, by Gustavus Paine, p 10.

“When [King James 1] had to return to town for the first Parliament of the new reign, he occupied the new royal apartments in the Tower of London and there, in the Lion’s Tower, the king watched three dogs set upon a lion, which tore two of them apart.”

The KJB, England's WMD, Weapon of Multiple Deliverance.

Anonymous said...

At least the House of Lords viewed 'Fitna'. Even most people against Geert are against what the UK has done to him and are against killing Free Speech. These incidents of the Dutch prosecution and the UK has helped to spread 'Fitna' even farther.

Defending your life and culture is not racist or xenophobic.
FREE Partij voor de Vrijheid! The Koran shouldn't be banned. Mein Kampf isn't a 'Holy Book', but it shouldn't be banned either, but you should be able to criticize it and the idiots who agree with it.

As many sane people know, Geert Wilders is NO racist. He is simply against out-of-control immigration; and against immigrants who won't assimilate; and the ones who beat Gays and rape non-Muslim women for not being covered up. He is also very much against the ones who kill their own daughters and sisters for their 'family honor'.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't criticize religions

just use Christian words
substitute for Islam's words

here's an absurd thought -
your Supreme God knew
Jesus as a pedophile

and a raping terrorist
converting slaves by the sword
Muslims are not a 'race' anyway, they are followers of a religion/ideology and its Sharia Law. Most Muslims aren't even Arabs, which by the way, is also not a 'Race'.

But their duty is, according to their Koran, to spread Sharia law over the whole Earth. It might take 100-200 years, if they succeed.

Is that the kind of world we want for our great-grand childrens' great-grand children? A Taliban Planet? I bet not. Muslims are the biggest victims of Islam. Wilders is NOT against Muslims, he is against Islamic Fundamentalism.

We all should read the Koran, but be careful, for some strict Islamists prohibit non-Muslims from having or holding one. Also, it is only 'official' in Arabic, and some Muslims say Non-Muslims can't understand it. I wonder why.

This is BIG, this is REAL BIG! SPREAD THE WORD to the world everyone! The EU Mandarins have crossed the line! If this goes to court, how much more of the public will become aware of this tyranny?
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. If there is no freedom of speech, then there can be no real freedom.

The Christians and Jews don’t riot when somebody makes fun of Christ or Jews. People must learn to be civilized, and held to account when they are not. Muslims included.

Geert Wilders is a hero spreading the painful truth. He MUST be protected!
here's an absurd thought -
your Supreme God says
Christians are a race

who love the Jewish race
and the peaceful Buddhist race

absurd thought -
God of the Universe wants
Sharia Law for ALL

submit to glorious life
slavery and servitude

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
outlaw self-defense

exposing violent crimes
shall be deemed hate speech

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
decide to change your race

just simply change religions
your religion is your race

All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech there can be no real freedom.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
Help Halt Terrorism Today!


Anonymous said...

Hi Sarah, I left the Netherlands at the tender age of 13 way back in 1956 when my parents brought us to South Africa as they saw no future for their children. I am now old and retired and still live in the RSA but I feel as insecure here now as my parents did more then 50 years ago in Holland. I often watch the International broadcasts from the Netherlands and watch with horror how that country has allowed itself to be overrun with people from all over the world, granted a lot of people are from former Dutch Territories and are therefore Dutch Citizens, but the rest are from countries that have no historic ties with the country. I know that Geert Wilders is not a racist but is simply concerned with the way the Netherlands is becoming a melting pot of Muslim extremists. I have seen Fitna and I find it reprehensible that the UK government sees fit to stop Geert Wilders from entering the UK. On the other hand, his banning has just brought more attention to this film than if he had been allowed in the country. I feel unsure about the future here in RSA, but I would really be worried now if I was still living in the Netherlands.

Anonymous said...

Hi Sarah, I left the Netherlands at the tender age of 13 way back in 1956 when my parents brought us to South Africa as they saw no future for their children. I am now old and retired and still live in the RSA but I feel as insecure here now as my parents did more then 50 years ago in Holland. I often watch the International broadcasts from the Netherlands and watch with horror how that country has allowed itself to be overrun with people from all over the world, granted a lot of people are from former Dutch Territories and are therefore Dutch Citizens, but the rest are from countries that have no historic ties with the country. I know that Geert Wilders is not a racist but is simply concerned with the way the Netherlands is becoming a melting pot of Muslim extremists. I have seen Fitna and I find it reprehensible that the UK government sees fit to stop Geert Wilders from entering the UK. On the other hand, his banning has just brought more attention to this film than if he had been allowed in the country. I feel unsure about the future here in RSA, but I would really be worried now if I was still living in the Netherlands.

Anonymous said...


The Muslims are currently waging a propaganda war against us, trying to intimidate us and weaken our morale. They are also trying to destroy our right to free expression with regard to criticism of Islam.

We need to counteract this by destroying their morale and belief in their death-cult, but to do this we need to understand their psychology.

The Muslim mind is pre-rational, predatory and tribal. Appeals to reason are no use because they believe that faith is superior to reason, and the fact that the Koran is full of contradictions doesn't bother them in the slightest. Islam hasn't had an enlightenment and is still in the Dark Ages. In fact, the cult justifies itself in terms of a power-structure maintained by physical threats and lynch-mobs rather than reason or spirituality.

Appeals to normal human decency as an antidote to Islam are pointless. Muslims believe it is their duty to kill, maim, rape, swindle and rob the kaffirs (unbelievers) - this is an intrinsic part of their cult. The 'Golden Rule' - 'do unto others as you would they do unto you' , does not extend beyond the boundaries of the Ummah-tribe. So displaying picture of the aftermath of Muslim atrocities is a waste of time - this will actually encourage them. Many Muslim men and boys get sexually aroused by watching jihad-snuff videos of kaffirs being tortured and beheaded.

Pointing out that Muslims are useless parasites on the West is also not going to make them change their ways, because that's what they are unashamedly here for.

The way to get at them, is to damage their inflated and fragile egos. Because Muslims are at a tribal state of pre-civilised development, they venerate the totems of their tribe, and will go into tantrums if these are 'disrespected'. Like unstable adolescents they are constantly seeking 'significance' and 'respect'.

The quest for 'significance' often appears as dhimmi TV programs and exhibitions which claim that the Muslims invented everything and the success of the West is due to Islam.

The quest for 'respect' is aimed at silencing any criticism of their death-cult by use of bullying, intimidation and censorship. The UK Muslim party is called 'Respect'.

Islam is an honor/shame and dominance/subjugation culture, which places great emphasis on humiliation, both avoidance by self and infliction on other.

Allah is the only deity that can be 'humiliated' by humans!

Muslims do not want kafirs to like them, in fact they are not allowed to take kaffirs as friends. Muslims expect to be feared and hated (the gangsta's version of respect) by the kafirs. However what they don't expect is to be mocked. This is their great weakness, as Ali Sina pointed out.

Above all, Muslims expect to be taken seriously, they just can't stand being ridiculed themselves, and especially having their totems ridiculed. In fact, since every Muslim models himself on Mohammed - 'the perfect man' - to insult Mohammed is to insult each and every Muslim. This is what the cartoon riots were about.

So to undermine Muslims' self worth and destroy their morale, we need to ridicule and humiliate their three major totems - Allah, Mohammed and the Koran. Note that because of their pre-rational state, intellectual criticism is relatively ineffective in producing a response. The totems have to be physically 'humiliated' to get masses of Muslims into rage mode.

So theological critique of Allah, a biography of Mohammed or textual criticism of the Koran might attract a few death threats, but it won't cause full scale riots. However, if Allah appears on an ice-cream wrapper , Mohammed in a cartoon , or the Koran is parodied or left down a toilet , then a billion fragile egos are punctured.

More mockery, satire, 'desecration', humiliation and unfettered exercise of free speech can be found at Muslim jokes.

Robert said...

Dear Maid,
You havee my sympathy.

Anonymous said...

Great post. Can’t wait to read the next ones :).

Anonymous said...

Really informative blog post here my friend. I just wanted to comment & say keep up the quality work. I’ve bookmarked your blog just now and I’ll be back to read more in the future my friend! Also well-chosen colors on the theme it goes well with the blog in my modest opinion :)

Anonymous said...

Thank you amazing blog, do you have twitter, facebook or something similar where i can follow your blog

Sandro Heckler

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Sandro

I am afraid I don't Twitter and have lost control of my Facebook page.

However, you can follow this blog either via blogger or by e-mail, the instructions are at the top of the right hand column at the blog.