Well, Radovan Karadzic has finally been caught!
The left are having fits of euphoria, running all the old anti-Serb propaganda, talking of the innocent Muslims, and the nasty Serbs!
They have already condemned Mr Karadzic, even though they insist he will face a trial! Why? The result is already known, they will find him guilty! He opposed elite liberal opinion, he stood by his own people, he waged a war for the survival of the Serbs in Bosnia, and for this, he will be found guilty.
The left don't care if you kill people or have responsibility for thousands or millions of deaths, the only care why you killed them! If, you killed them to return your country to a year zero, or if you killed people to redistribute property or just killed those who opposed you, they don't care, as long as you are a lefty, as long as you have signed up to all the trendy modern causes, they will give you a pass!
If, on the other hand, you fight for your ethnic group, against another ethnic group who also are of a different religion, and you do it for ethnic, national and religious reasons, then any deaths resulting are evil! Look at the difference in treatment between the rulers of China, Vietnam and South Africa on the one side and the Christian Lebanese, Bosnian Serbs, Russians and Kosovan Serbs on the other!
There seems to be a pattern, if you are white, and you fight against blacks then the whites are evil, Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa and Darfur are examples of this, if you are 'ethnic', but you are Christian and are fighting the Muslims, (Same colour) then it's the Christians you are baddies, the Maronite Christians and Armenians are in this category.
If both are white but one side is Muslim, then they become the default 'goodies' in the MSM and among western governments, who, never missing an opportunity to fuck their own up the arse in favour of Muslims, will align themselves to our enemies!
The MSM reaction to the capture of Mr Karadzic is perverse, as was the treatment of the Serbs in the Yugoslavian wars of the 1990s. We were told day after day, week after week that the Serbs had started the wars, that they were purposefully continuing the wars and were the only ones killing 'innocents'.
And most of us believed it!
Well it is now known that Chechens, Afghans, Iranians and other Muslims were in Bosnia fighting the Serbs, that they would viciously murder the Serbs they captured, video it and use it in pro-Islamic propaganda. Hizbollah, Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood were in Bosnia, funded not only by their own people, but by Western governments, especially the British and American governments!
Now, I'm sure most of us are quite used to knowing our governments are at best whores, and at worst traitors, but surely this is unbelievable? That the British and American governments were sending money to Iran so that they could fund Hizbollah who were murdering Christian Serbs in Bosnia!
So in effect we were funding Hisbollah! Through our taxes!
But of course, it's always the cartoon baddies that the MSM goes after, never after the traitors in our governments (well, they wouldn't, would they)
And what is ironic, is that we may have to look for many Mr Karadzics in the West to ethnically cleanse us of all the hordes of minorities who reside here and are still coming in!
Who will look the fool then?
Showing posts with label Decent Chap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Decent Chap. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
A good man died today!
Ian Smith was for 15 years the Prime Minister of Rhodesia, a great African nation that has now been reduced to ruin by a black communist terrorist Robert Mugabe, with the full moral support of the West and it's corrupt leaders.
Ian Smith was a true gentleman, he did not, as his detractors insist, hate black people, he only thought them unable for self rule, and who can now dispute that?
He declared independence from a white hating socialist government, with a declaration much the same as that issued by the Americans two centuries previously, instead of being welcomed into the supposed civilised world, he was smeared and hated, the Americans, the British in league with the Soviets worked hard to bring down this legitimate government, the Soviets, with the full knowledge of the west funded and trained terrorists to murder white farmers and their black farm hands.
Rhodesia was once a wealthy, civilised nation, a proud nation of a few million blacks and three hundred thousand white settlers, the black Rhodesians had at that time one of the highest standards of living in Africa, now they are living in a squalid prison nation, starving to death. But at least they are 'democratic' those white people who destroyed Rhodesia will no doubt say!
Shame on Harold Wilson, shame on Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford and Edward Heath, shame on all of those who sold the people of Rhodesia down the river for mistaken ideology, the lie of 'democracy'.
Long may the memory of Ian Smith live on, may he rest in peace.
Wikipedia's Ian Smith article
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Enoch Powell's 'River of Blood' speach
Note how moderate it really is, and remember how this man was smeared by the establishment who were in fear after he spoke the truth. He was smeared and destroyed, has anyone learned? Apparently not as Nigel Hasitlow has discovered! Much to Cameron's continued shame!
"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."
I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.
I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.
There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.
The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.
Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.
I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.
I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.
Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.
The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendant should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.
The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.
This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.
Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.
But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.
I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.
“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.
Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.
We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'
All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal."
"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."
I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.
I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.
There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.
The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.
Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.
I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.
I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.
Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.
The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendant should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.
The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.
This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.
Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.
But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.
I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.
“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.
Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.
We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'
All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal."
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Why America must vote for Ron Paul!
Americans have only one real choice for president in 2008 and he is Ron Paul! He is the only candidate who will limit government, he is the only candidate who will lower taxes, he is the only man who will attempt to reign in America's reckless spending, borrowing and printing of money.
Most importantly, he is the only candidate who could spark a restoration of the West.
Ron Paul is something unusual for an elected representative, he is honest, decent, honourable, wise, moral and straightforward!
He is a Christian, who is repelled by abortion, he opposes the heavy handedness of government, its theft of people's money (tax) and is committed to the abolition of the IRS, Income Tax, the CIA, FBI, NSA, Dept of Labour, Education, Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, Dept of Health, etc...
He is committed to getting rid of America's deficit, restoring sound money and pulling all American troops out of ALL foreign fields, not just Iraq and Afghanistan!
Social Welfare and Medicare would be put on a transition to abolision.
He opposes any amnesty of illegal immigrants and will act to build a fence on the Mexican border, he would withdraw from the UN, OAS, NAFTA, WTO, World Bank, NATO and a myriad of other useless international organisations.
This truly is radically different to any other candidate and must be a truer representation of many conservative's views.
Some of these things are stuff I can only dream about, and you Americans have the chance to support him and deliver yourselves from Big Government and socialism for good!
The reason I want Paul to win, is that the example displayed to the rest of the world would inspire so many to ask, "well if the Yanks are getting rid of their Income tax, then why can't we"?
People will ask, "well the Yanks left the UN, what is it actually for"?
If Those United States abolish whole departments of state, then they may ask, "do we actually need these twenty or thirty departments"?
And if a President Paul stops illegal immigration into those United States, people over here may ask, "well if America can stop illegal immigration with a thousand mile border fence and good policing, why can't we do it when we are an island"?
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are lost, they were a long time ago by weak willed and lily livered politicians who can only do something once they have the latest polling results before them. there is no point supporting Guilliani or McCain because they support the war, Guilliani is not exactly someone who supports liberty and McCain is all for illegal immigration and amnesty. Why any conservative would vote for Romney with his doubling of public spending whilst governor of Massachusetts or his legalising of gay marriage is beyond me, he is no conservative.
Paul is the only true conservative, he could inspire us all, he could be exactly what our elites fear and would hate, an honest man of integrity who can't be smeared by this hateful clique.
All this elite desires is our money, power over our lives, the opportunity to control what we think and do, and increasingly the desire to know us inside out, to implement an ID card, not only in the UK but in those United States too. They are even touting plans to put microchips(called RFID) inside of us!!
Most importantly, he is the only candidate who could spark a restoration of the West.
Ron Paul is something unusual for an elected representative, he is honest, decent, honourable, wise, moral and straightforward!
He is a Christian, who is repelled by abortion, he opposes the heavy handedness of government, its theft of people's money (tax) and is committed to the abolition of the IRS, Income Tax, the CIA, FBI, NSA, Dept of Labour, Education, Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, Dept of Health, etc...
He is committed to getting rid of America's deficit, restoring sound money and pulling all American troops out of ALL foreign fields, not just Iraq and Afghanistan!
Social Welfare and Medicare would be put on a transition to abolision.
He opposes any amnesty of illegal immigrants and will act to build a fence on the Mexican border, he would withdraw from the UN, OAS, NAFTA, WTO, World Bank, NATO and a myriad of other useless international organisations.
This truly is radically different to any other candidate and must be a truer representation of many conservative's views.
Some of these things are stuff I can only dream about, and you Americans have the chance to support him and deliver yourselves from Big Government and socialism for good!
The reason I want Paul to win, is that the example displayed to the rest of the world would inspire so many to ask, "well if the Yanks are getting rid of their Income tax, then why can't we"?
People will ask, "well the Yanks left the UN, what is it actually for"?
If Those United States abolish whole departments of state, then they may ask, "do we actually need these twenty or thirty departments"?
And if a President Paul stops illegal immigration into those United States, people over here may ask, "well if America can stop illegal immigration with a thousand mile border fence and good policing, why can't we do it when we are an island"?
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are lost, they were a long time ago by weak willed and lily livered politicians who can only do something once they have the latest polling results before them. there is no point supporting Guilliani or McCain because they support the war, Guilliani is not exactly someone who supports liberty and McCain is all for illegal immigration and amnesty. Why any conservative would vote for Romney with his doubling of public spending whilst governor of Massachusetts or his legalising of gay marriage is beyond me, he is no conservative.
Paul is the only true conservative, he could inspire us all, he could be exactly what our elites fear and would hate, an honest man of integrity who can't be smeared by this hateful clique.
All this elite desires is our money, power over our lives, the opportunity to control what we think and do, and increasingly the desire to know us inside out, to implement an ID card, not only in the UK but in those United States too. They are even touting plans to put microchips(called RFID) inside of us!!
Already in England, the government is ready to roll out a programme that would be able to track all vehicles in the UK from satellite, they talk about a new 'pay as you drive scheme', but don't bet that they will then abolish the Vehicle Tax once this has been implemented. Every vehicle in the country must now have a black box which records the speed of the vehicle, which can be checked by police at any time.
Now it they can do that with cars, imagine what they could do with us? Implant a chip and hey presto, they will have complete power over our lives. Granted they are probably too stupid to go round being deliberately evil, but you don't have to be smart to fuck someone life up!! Think of all the mistakes government and government agencies make on a regular basis!
Our masters continue to allow massive third world immigration, why? Not only to these people form a very handy pool of loyal votes, patrons of the government, they also are guaranteed to attack us, usually mugging us or raping our women, but the odd time they detonate a bomb on bus or a train, all very convenient for governments, who can grab more power and tell us they are doing this for our good!!!
When we protest we are labelled 'racists', 'homophobes', 'xenophobes', 'right wing nuts', 'mean' and they go on doing exactly what they always wanted to do, namely fuck us sideways.
It all seems so convenient, they unleash these savages on us, we get attacked and then the government, the very same people who unleashed the savages on us, come to our rescue, only there is a price, we must give up some liberty, just a small bit, not a lot, but then this happens year after year, always they come to rescue us from the same thing, the beast they have unleashed on us!
Strange no? Suspicious even?
Our elites are already too powerful, they control the MSM, education and every branch of government. They control the international establishment, trade and currencies. There is little we can do against such raw power and might, but, there is one thing you can do if you are a citizen of those United States, you can vote for Ron Paul and shake things up, this act could undo much that this international elite of slimy backstabbing shits, have worked so hard for over the past 60 years, go on please do us all a favour and vote Ron Paul.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
Howard slams Obama!
John Howard the brilliant Prime Minister of Australia, who has been in power since 1996 and has won 5 general elections has slammed that pathetic excuse for a Senator Barack Obama.
"If I was running al-Qa'ida in Iraq I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Mr Howard said on Sunday, referring to Senator Obama's plan to pull US troops out of Iraq by March next year.
He was critisised by his 5 time losers, the Labor opposition for 'interfering' with internal potitics of the US! Bloody cheek of those lefty morons, as Howard so eloquently puts it.
"If I hear a policy being advocated that is contrary to Australia's security interests I will criticise it,"
"I don't apologise for criticising Senator Obama's observation because I thought what he said was wrong," he said, accusing the Labor leader of "double standards".
"Apparently it is in order for any number of people in the Labor Party to regularly attack George Bush, to regularly attack the American administration,"
"That is OK, but dare anybody criticise somebody who might agree with them on Iraq and then somehow or other I am interfering in the domestic politics of the United States."
God, I love Howard! He is the sort of guy I would like to have as leader of the government of my country! He has balls and is not affraid to say what he means!
Unfortunatly he is currently behind in the polls, but, he has been behind in the polls before every election in the past and has ended up winning!
Lets hope Johnny baby can do it once more!
"If I was running al-Qa'ida in Iraq I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats," Mr Howard said on Sunday, referring to Senator Obama's plan to pull US troops out of Iraq by March next year.
He was critisised by his 5 time losers, the Labor opposition for 'interfering' with internal potitics of the US! Bloody cheek of those lefty morons, as Howard so eloquently puts it.
"If I hear a policy being advocated that is contrary to Australia's security interests I will criticise it,"
"I don't apologise for criticising Senator Obama's observation because I thought what he said was wrong," he said, accusing the Labor leader of "double standards".
"Apparently it is in order for any number of people in the Labor Party to regularly attack George Bush, to regularly attack the American administration,"
"That is OK, but dare anybody criticise somebody who might agree with them on Iraq and then somehow or other I am interfering in the domestic politics of the United States."
God, I love Howard! He is the sort of guy I would like to have as leader of the government of my country! He has balls and is not affraid to say what he means!
Unfortunatly he is currently behind in the polls, but, he has been behind in the polls before every election in the past and has ended up winning!
Lets hope Johnny baby can do it once more!
Monday, August 07, 2006
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
Good sense in Portugal!
It's good to see that their are sensible people outside the English speaking world!
This Blog is by a Portugese blogger, I can't speak Portugese although with my French, I can guess most of it. If you are a Portugese speaker go check it out, hell, even if your not, go check it our anyway!
O Islamismo na Europa
This Blog is by a Portugese blogger, I can't speak Portugese although with my French, I can guess most of it. If you are a Portugese speaker go check it out, hell, even if your not, go check it our anyway!
O Islamismo na Europa
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Colonel Tim Collins : Fort Blair Mayne camp in the Kuwaiti desert about 20 miles from the Iraqi border, Wednesday 19 March 2003.
"We go to liberate, not to conquer.We will not fly our flags in their countryWe are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.Show respect for them.
There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.Tread lightly there.
You will see things that no man could pay to see-- and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.Allow them dignity in death.Bury them properly and mark their graves.
It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive.But there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.
The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done.As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.
It is a big step to take another human life.It is not to be done lightly.I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts.I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.
If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest -- for your deeds will follow you down through history.We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.
It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.
As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
Our business now is north."
"We go to liberate, not to conquer.We will not fly our flags in their countryWe are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.Show respect for them.
There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.Tread lightly there.
You will see things that no man could pay to see-- and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.Allow them dignity in death.Bury them properly and mark their graves.
It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive.But there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.
The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done.As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.
It is a big step to take another human life.It is not to be done lightly.I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts.I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.
If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest -- for your deeds will follow you down through history.We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.
It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.
As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
Our business now is north."
Friday, July 21, 2006
Stephen Harper is a decent chap!
Stephen Harper the Prime Minister of Canada, has proven again, his decency and clarity of vision! He understands, unlike that creepy git Paul Martin, his predecessor, how the world works and who is deserving of his support! He has aligned himself unashamedly on the side of good, of Israel and the United States. He is a stout defender of the monarchy, a loyal Prime Minister to Her Majesty!
His wisdom, decency and good common sense are badly needed in the old Dominion, I believe he can turn Canada around and begin the fightback against the socialist rot of the past 40 years!
Canada is not a country lost to us, it is a British nation, a great British nation, one that shed it's blood in both world wars in it's fight for God, King, Empire and the freedom of Europe. Bad things sometimes happen to good countries! Lets hope that now, good things will shower upon that greatest of Dominions!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
