The Wilding of Sarah Palin

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

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

_________________

The wilding of Sarah Palin
By Robin of Berkley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading here

_____________________
Hat Tip RR

Lies told often enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________
Hat Tip: Dina

Breaking their own people down for dispossession.

By Mister Fox

(Article first posted at the BNP site )

In his review of “The Memoirs of Granville Sharp” in The Edinburgh Review, “Capital Punishments”, of July 1821, William Hazlitt rehearsed an anecdote about Prince Naimbanna: “If a man should try to kill me, or should try to sell me and my family for slaves, he would do an injury to as many as he might kill or sell; but if any one takes away the character of Black people, that man injures Black people all over the world; and when he has once taken away their character, there is nothing that he may not do to Black people ever after. That man, for instance, will beat Black people and, and say “Oh, it is only a Black man, why should I not beat him?” That man will make slaves of Black people; for when he has taken away their character, he will say,” Oh, they are only Black people, why should I not make them slaves?”

The word which is used to dehumanise us is “racists”, with today’s teacher trainees being told that “only whites can be racist.” It is not to make us slaves as the prince feared for his people, but is a way of excusing the importation of cheap labour or allowing Muslims to take over our country.

In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, did that which had so alarmed Prince Naimbanna. He “took away the character” of white people by describing nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 till 3rd November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. The report on the inquiry was given in March 2005. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.” There his prejudice was laid bare.

When the Establishment attack those they hate, they generalize, but when corruption is widespread amongst the Establishment parties as with the expenses scandals, they treat it as an individual matter. Although it is clear that the expenses scandal affects the parties as a whole, the media focus on individuals.

In an article entitled “Why Sir Ian Blair was right in his fight against racism,” in The First Post 3rd December 2008, novelist William Self repeated mindless ideology and slandered a whole people: “The outgoing Metropolitan Police commissioner had the courage to call wider society out on its more revolting prejudices … he confesses to regretting two or three things that he said to the press, his infamous remarks concerning the Soham murders are not among them. According to Blair, his contention that he couldn’t see what ‘all the fuss was about’ — referring to the media circus that got going in the aftermath of Holly and Jessica’s deaths — is something he’s determined to stand by.

“What Blair meant by this — and he was happy to elaborate — was that a disproportionate amount of attention was paid to these particular murders because the victims were young, white girl children, while the media are considerably less exercised by the death of young, black males.”

Has Self not heard of Stephen Lawrence or Damilola Taylor? Well, more than he has Kriss Donald. When it comes to the unfashionable issues, these writers talk in mindless clichés. There is no creativity, no pushing back boundaries when it comes to the Establishment ideology, just robotic repetition.

As for Blair — you would expect that sort of talk from a psychopath who would have an excuse, but these media elites have none. Ian Huntley’s murder of two young girls is not as bad as the imaginary prejudice against ethnics by whites! The elites are prejudiced against whites but that is not “disgusting”? Police Chief Colin Cramphorn once said concerning Muslim child-rape of young white girls that we must learn to live with it! These comments show the underlying hatred the elites have for white people.

The Telegraph of 10th November 2008 shows how these base minded people prop each other up. Sir Ian Blair will receive a pay-off worth up to £400,000 when he stands down as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in three weeks’ time. The additional sum is on top of the estimated £3.5 million pension pot, worth £160,000 a year, which he is set to receive after 30 years’ service as a policeman.
The traditional elites: the Archbishop of Canterbury, Judge Butler-Sloss and Stephan Hickman, QC, are calling for the introduction of Sharia Law. Consider that we’re told that Islam is a ‘Religion of Peace’ — both Tony Blair and Boris Johnson have asserted as much. If you care about the future for women under Islam in the west look up The Despatches programme filmed inside mosques.
A sick judge sentenced Stuart Wood, with previous convictions for violence and indecent assault on young girls, to just seven years for a vicious rape, then praised him for converting to Islam: “You have turned to Islam and this promises well for your future, particularly as you are now an adherent of a religion which respects women and self-discipline.”

Under Sharia Law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape, without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men who subsequently develop a conscience, are taken as confessing to having sex.

A consequence of the Macpherson Report is the reduction in legal protection for those under suspicion. Ostensibly, the repeal of Double Jeopardy in 2005 followed a marathon campaign by Ann Ming after her daughter was murdered in 1989. This was a convenient case to use because the removal of Double Jeopardy was a recommendation of the Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and would enable the state to repeatedly try “racists” until they can get a conviction.

Many Labour ministers have extremist links and pasts but the media cover that up. If the media had wanted, they could have exposed Labour, but because they share the same idealogy, they did not. Don’t blindly trust the media but question every statement and look things up for yourselves in search engines.

The Times, in 1954, gives evidence that even then we were being cleansed from our communities. There were 200 a month arriving without work or accommodation which was causing concern in London, Liverpool and Birmingham.

“On Merseyside, where 121 disembarked on Tuesday from the liner Ascania, there is a coloured population of about 10,000. It is estimated that 2,000 of them are receiving public assistance … all the Government departments concerned say they have no means of assessing how many of the immigrants from the West Indies and to a small extent from the African colonies, are drawing welfare allowances. This is because all the immigrants are recorded as British subjects, and have equal claims.”

When public figures make the usual biased pronouncements on us and racial issues, research their hidden agendas. On Radio Four, Simon Hughes stated that they would have to start exposing the BNP’s argument such as exploding their ‘myth’ that asylum seekers get new houses, etc. He claimed this was not true. Not only is it true, but ‘asylum seekers’ get massively preferential treatment. Hughes was deceiving the public and behind his apparently reasonable words wants to submit us to Islam.

Andrew Marr tells us what he thinks should be done to Britons if we object to being dispossessed: “Only people who understand the economic forces changing their world, threatening them but also creating new opportunities, have a chance of being immune to the old tribal chants.

“And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress. It may be my Presbyterian background, but I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain ‘natural’ beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off. The police are first in line to be burdened further, but a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too.”

Marr is advocating fascism and “ethnocide.” The present bunch of elites are the most selfish crowd of beggars on horseback ever to attain influence. They browbeat ordinary people into having their communities taken off them but keep asylum centres out of their countryside paradises! David Dimbleby's home was recently described as”palatial” by an interviewer who was only allowed into the converted barn.

Where do Paxman and Andrews Neill and Marr live? Not in the middle of Southall or Brixton! Sometimes they do when they are young like Billy Bragg but when it comes to bringing their children up they move to nice areas.