Dear Ms Swiss - By August Pointneuf

Dear Ms,

You were piqued when your fellow Swiss gained a majority vote against the building of further minarets. To show your displeasure you put yourself on display with a notice which said “Swiss passport for sale “

Please would you tell me where you intend to live, once your otherwise highly sought-after passport has been sold?

Would you go to a country where there are no passports, because there is no paper to print them?

Perhaps you wish to be where the wait for new passports might be five years, or where passport are never given?

You might choose a land where you would need an exit visa each time you wish to leave. Not that would make much difference, because you probably would not be earning enough to pay for your passage out.

Would you like to find residence where there is none of the socialist trivia of Switzerland, and instead relish dubious health services, receive no social benefits, and find self-insurance un-affordable?

You could choose to be governed by those so corrupt and incapable that your life savings becomes worth less than a single wooden match – where brave men, reduced to abject penury, shoot their wives before they shoot themselves.

Would your choice be a country where only one eighth of the population provides the entire tax base, and your paid tax would be channelled away to support eight non-productive indigents, half with AIDS?

How about a land where you, as a white female, will be selectively targeted for a rape? Perhaps you might choose an arena where there is selective assassination of those who try and succeed in business?

You also have a wide choice of places where no one dares to walk out alone at night.

Perhaps you would prefer to go to a region where you would not be permitted to drive? Would you like being prohibited from walking outside your home, unless formally chaperoned?

Would you like to go where there are no Christian churches, and any symbolic reference to Christmas is a criminal offence?

Or you could go where you will be forced to wear an abaya and a gishwa whenever in public, throughout the hottest summers.

Would you think to choose somewhere where you could be married into a harem, and dispense with your privacy forever?

Alternatively you could go where your adultery would be rewarded by being stoned to death.

You might choose to be where everyone with any petty authority will capitalise on their trivial rank unmercifully, constantly demanding, at every turn, some form of favour, bribe or a ransom. You might find, if you succeed, that you are damaged as an overriding authority plays out its ruthless, manipulative agenda.

Would you instead prefer to live where crimes are not reported because the criminals will return and kill the complainer?

Perhaps you would choose a nation which has immovable, corrupt and authoritarian politicians who will suffocate any attempt at attaining human rights by immediate incarceration?

Is your choice to be where there is perversion of law at every level, from policeman to prosecutor to judge?

Would you like to be domiciled where you could be summarily dumped in stinking prisons, with no mechanisms of legal defence, appeal or cries for help? Of course you would have no need to bother the Swiss diplomats to extract you, but you would need friends to bring food and bedding, and then fight your savage inmates to retain a fraction of that food, or a space to sleep. You will need good friends if they are to support you for years on end.

Or instead will you search out one of the small residues of white success, such as Australia or Canada? You could then continue your campaign, aiming to destroy those cultures in the way you wish to destroy your patrimony. It should not be too difficult to succeed, since only 7% of the world's population is white.

Ignorance, arrogance, egocentricity, stupidity and zero insight and foresight form a related continuum, often resulting in the type of behaviour found in people like you: People who are unable to value what has been given to them. Have you any inkling of understanding of the striving that was demanded of your predecessors in their aim of creating a safe society, one which has provided you with security, warmth, shelter and an excess of food?

Are you making piffle of a nation which has proffered you a deep, entrenched, and rewarding culture, in the expectation that you would transmit it to the next generation? How unforgivably corrupt that you are working at destroying that heritage. What a shame that you are jeopardising your compatriots.

Perhaps those compatriots might forcibly remove the passport that you so despise.

Vous seriez fort amiables de nous répondre le plus tôt possible.

August Pointneuf

________________________
News story: 300 people protested outside the Parliament building in Berne. In front of a model of a minaret they held up signs saying: “This is not my Switzerland”. A young woman pinned to her jacket a piece of paper saying: “Swiss passport for sale”.

Switzerland under pressure

If the British public ever paused to take notice of anything other than the X-Factor, this week’s Soap operas or the latest developments in the unappetising saga of Tiger and the three skanks, (UPDATE: Make that eleven skanks) they might notice that some very troubling events are taking place amongst our allies across the channel, and indeed elsewhere.

The first of these relates to the aftermath of the recent referendum in Switzerland, where 57.5% of Swiss voters voted in favour of a proposal banning the building of Islamic minarets. The result confounded pollsters, who had predicted the proposal would be defeated, and who were clearly put out that the Swiss people had seen through their efforts to influence the result.

The result shows why politicians are so reluctant to allow the public to vote on specific issues, instead of the carefully selected handful of innocuous, crowd pleasing but meaningless promises which make up the average election manifesto. No British government has permitted a referendum in the last 34 years, and the Swiss minaret vote will have convinced them of what they will have seen as the “wisdom” of that position.

Predictably the result has caused outraged amongst the ranks of the perpetually offended and the professional surrender monkeys in international politics, the media and at the head of the Christian churches. In the midst of the inevitable cries of “racism”, accusations of intolerance and the usual and, as they always are, unsubstantiated claims about increased attacks on mosques, the occasional notes of calm common sense have provided some relief. One example being the entertaining letter in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. After the usual 'shocked' and outraged letters on religious tolerance the reply in the letters page was a very brief one-liner. The writer simply asked whether some spokesperson from the Saudi and Iranian embassies would be so kind as to explain their nation's policy regarding building regulations for synagogues and churches, and detail how they have been implemented over the past two decades and how many have been built.

However, there have also been some very sinister noises amongst the squeaking, baying and clucking of the usual suspects. Amnesty International for one have declared that the referendum result is illegal and will have to be overturned either by the Swiss Supreme court or by the European Court of Human Rights . Meanwhile voices from within that bastion of ethical democracy the United Nations, have been making similar statements, whilst another paragon of Human rights, Turkey, has been calling on the Swiss government to “correct” the result.

Let us be clear about this, those voices are not talking about some new law passed by a government which infringes some international law, they are talking about an overwhelming democratic vote by a sovereign people. By suggesting that a national plebiscite can be corrected, or overturned by their institutions if it does not produce the desired result, demonstrates the contempt with which such people view democracy.

Of course, we have seen this before with the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, where it appeared the government were prepared to keep forcing the public to vote until they got the answer “right”. Prior to that, the previous votes cast by both the French and the Dutch were effectively disregarded when the EU leaders merely changed the word Constitution to Lisbon Treaty and carried on regardless.

However, even with that travesty, nobody actually went so far as to suggest that there was a court higher than the democratic vote of a sovereign nation which could overturn their will. Ironically this solution was first muted by an organisation allegedly dedicated to the opposition of tyranny, however, like most left wing lobby groups Amnesty International are very selective as to the tyrannies they oppose and those they are happy to snuggle up with.

That the high ranking individuals within the United Nations, not to mention the EU would appear to take a similar view suggests that their self proclaimed passionate dedication to the right of self determination extends only to certain nations in selected continents. One would have to also ask that if Switzerland is in contravention of international law how can Saudi Arabia which entirely bans the building of churches, synagogues and temples possibly not be?

If this result were overturned by a court or international body, rather than by a further referendum, this would be an outrageous and very dangerous precedent, as it would signify the end of democracy and of national self determination in any meaningful way. What next? Regime change by tribunal?

However, we have to ask to what extent this has already come to pass, a devastating analysis by Prof, Anthony Coughlan in Monday’s Brussels Journal describes in chilling detail what the Lisbon Treaty, which Prof. Coughlan describes as “a constitutional revolution by stealth” has actually brought about. I strongly recommend that you read Anthony Coughlan’s powerful article, and I would like to thank Mister Fox for bringing it to my attention.

I recently had an e-mail exchange with regular and highly valued commentator and good friend Dr D, in which I expressed a positive view of Europe. I am certainly less antagonistic to Europe than many of my contemporaries. I am British, I blog from Britain and will vote for the BNP, however, I believe it is equally vital that we seek to preserve and protect the native European race, both in Europe and their descendants in such places as North America, Australia, New Zealand and of course South Africa. To a spectacularly overwhelming degree most things good and worthwhile came from Europe, that is not to say that we are better than anyone else, but we are a great people, and a people who are worth saving.

I believe it is essential for the European peoples to form strong alliances between ourselves and adopt a unified approach to a common and very serious threat. In this respect I am delighted that the BNP have formed alliances with other nationalist groups as we have interests and needs in common, we share a common Christian heritage and culture and we most surely face a common danger.

However, as far as the EU is concerned it is becoming very clear that what has been created is a malevolent leviathan which does not have the true welfare of the European peoples at its heart. Indeed, in the way that it is now formed, and most evidently in its approach to immigration, it is clear that its aim is to minimise and maybe even destroy the very concept of a European nation state.

Do its aims in fact go well beyond even that? It is telling to note the recent comments by our recently appointed president the disarmingly Yoderish Herman Van Rompuy in which he compared decisions taken at the Climate Change talks in Copenhagen as the first evidence of world government in action. I am not clear as to whether he was referring to the fact that various African states have just voted that we should give them lots of money, but if he was, that would not come as a huge surprise to many of those reading here.

I am not going to enter into discussion on climate change, as the comments it would generate would overwhelm the points I am seeking to make. However, right or wrong the issue has the potential to be misused to serve a political agenda as well as an environmental one.

What better way than to use the treat of potential global catastrophe, real or imagined, to achieve global aims in the same way that international migration has been used for the same purpose in recent decades?

Some may feel that I attribute to much importance to this matter. It is true that what has happened this week is a minor detail in an ongoing struggle, however its outcome may be very significant indeed. Switzerland is an independent democratic nation, it is not part of the European megalodon yet its people have acted in a manner which the forces currently governing our planet do not approve of, and it is being made clear that this will not be tolerated, it remains to be seen what will be done about that.

If the Swiss vote stands it is a huge achievement for democracy, independence and national sovereignty. If it does not stand, then it is further evidence that those things which all nations once held dear, democracy, nation, people and indeed our very freedom is at greater risk now than it has ever been in our history. Will our people put their Ipods down long enough to notice though?

_____________________
Hat Tip: Mister Fox