The British Holocaust: by Jim Dowson = 7 Million Dead And Still Counting

The British Holocaust: by Jim Dowson

at  Nationalism Today

FACT: Every abortion stops a beating heart, kills a human being, and robs our nation of its future.

I have gathered together some interesting and non-rabid information on the thorny issue of abortion.
Why? Because abortion affects our race and nation’s survival. Imagine if an enemy had slaughtered 7 million British citizens since England won the World Cup, we would be reeling in deep despair and shock at our losses.
Yet this is the number of fellow British people that have been destroyed by abortion in this country. Just imagine if we were today enriched by 7 million young vibrant Britons.

How very different our towns and cities would look and how our future would be more secure. Instead, we have been brainwashed into believing that by destroying our most precious asset – our own children – we are exercising our ‘freedom of choice’. What total madness, what destruction and what shame we have heaped upon ourselves in this suicidal folly that engulfs our people.
I am profoundly proud to be British, I love my nation with all my heart but our nation is we, the people.
It was our ancestors that built this country, it was our kin that fought to defend these shores and it was our people who suffered wars, famine, disease and hardship to make Britain truly Great.
Therefore, why, if we believe this nation to be so special, do we deny millions of our blood the right to be born and enjoy the privilege and blessing of being British? Please read the article below:

“Every aborted (dead) white child represents a small gap in the ‘Bio-spiritual Continuum’, further weakening the chain of descent and hindering us in our intended ascent toward the higher state… Abortion is racial treason in not only a physical sense, but a distinctly spiritual level as well, and the same can be said of miscegenation.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

PATRIOTS WILL NOT REJECT ABORTION UNTIL THEY HAVE SEEN ABORTION IN ACTION…

To view a shocking and highly graphical video of abortion in action please visit the following website. Warning – this video is highly graphic:
- SHOCKING ABORTION VIDEO CLICK HERE

Abortion: the Hidden Holocaust

More than 7 million babies have been aborted since the Abortion Act 1967 came into force in Britain and around 85 million in the USA! There are 500 abortions every day in England and Wales and the figures show 67% of are carried out before the 10th week, and 89% before the 12th week.
There are about 190,000 abortions a year in England and Wales. The official practice is that an abortion can be performed up to 24 weeks and needs the consent of two family doctors’ (in reality its abortion on request).
The woman can seek a second opinion or go private. It is usual in cases when the child is likely to be disabled or not expected to have a high quality of life, again even the slightest excuse can be used to abort right up until birth in the UK!

The debate is between liberals and feminists on rights, but is never on the woman’s duty to our posterity: the needs of our ethnic group are ignored. The two sides argue where the rights lie, couching the argument in rational terms.

But what about our natural instincts?What about our emotional bonding with our people and the consequent responsibility for one another and the continuity of our people and race?

This is part of the “Ideological Castes” war on nature and the separation of sex from procreation is instilled in sex education, which has a little bit about how to do it but is mostly about how to avoid the consequences through contraception.
Abortion is the next step in this process of avoiding children, and because it is the common prejudice even women who morally object feel obliged to have abortions. The authorities could encourage acceptance of deformed people and make more help available but promote abortion.
Like other liberal causes it is always discussed as an individual matter: one that only affects individuals. It is also personalised in a feminine way:” Oh, dear how you must have suffered.”
However, it is a collective issue and concerns us as a group. It was revealed that a quarter of births in Britain are to foreign mothers and this together with the promotion of homosexuality is part of our demographic decline.
What libertarians and liberals overlook is that they who advocate individual rights does so as part of a people by history, tradition and emotional bonding, are brought up and formed in that culture and made what they are by it and are not really independent individuals. That imposes an obligation to the group not just the self. The following shows the falsity of this pretence:
Let us consider non-productive sexual activity and the dispute over the Wolfenden Report of 1963 highlights the gap between the two liberal positions involved. The report did not equate crime to sin, and morality was private, a matter of choice and free judgement for individuals.
The law should only be concerned with immorality for two purposes: to preserve public order and decency, and to protect vulnerable people from corruption or exploitation. It is separating pleasure from responsibility.
The other side of the Liberal gap was represented by Lord Justice Devlin who disputed the distinction between a private sphere of morality and the public sphere for a single sphere of morality which often conflict but “shared moral attitudes, the public morality, is an essential bond of society: if this dissolves, society dissolves.”

"It's only a fetus!" All humans, including YOU, were at some stage of development a fetus. A "fetus" is a small human, with a beating heart, a functioning brain and the ability to feel pain. The Latin word "fetus" means small or young child.

This did get close to the need for men to father babies and do their duty to the group as whole not just think of personal pleasure.
From the 1960s the New Left changed the Liberal concept of individual rights to “Group Rights” and Women’s rights are an important part of this ideology and abortion a major principle: the other justifications, “It’s a women’s right to choose” a “women can do what she likes with her own body” follow from that.
Women’s rights override inhibitions about killing the foetus even though it has been found to be more developed into a person in the womb than thought in the early 60’s since Leslie Neilson’s ultra sound pictures in the late 80’s. These abstract universal, rights do not allow for changes in awareness.
If women have no control over their pregnancy they are denied a public role. This abstract but highly emotional argument helps separate a woman from her people her community and replaces them with an artificial, abstract category of “identity” and “group rights”. The issue is not how much of a person the foetus would become but that it would become one: it would become one of our men or women to keep our people going into the future.
The National Health service is a State body for socially engineering the population and in 2005, for example, the NHS funded 84% of abortions.  Of these 52% were carried out by independent Doctors on NHS contracts, and 89% were foetuses under 10 weeks.
Medical abortions were 24% and of these 1% or 1,900 were because there was a risk that the baby would be handicapped. There were 7,900 non-residents in hospitals or clinics in England and Wales.
Theoretically, The Abortion Act allows doctors and nurses with a conscience to opt out of “treatment authorized by this Act” except in emergencies, but they have to prove their “conscience” in a court of law.
The tenth report of the Social Services Committee of 17/10/1990 showed that despite the conscience clause those who dissent from the orthodoxy are penalized by having great difficulty in getting appointed or training in Obstetrics and Gynacaelogy. In practice to further their careers they have to conform to the state orthodoxy.
An MP who supported abortion, Emma Nicholson, told the House of Commons, “General Practitioners in my constituency and elsewhere tell me it is virtually impossible for a doctor to refuse an abortion under the workings of the Act.” (Commons Hansard. Cols 249-250. 24/4/1990)
There is the aspect of decadence or what Mark Steyn calls civilisational exhaustion. It works by progressives providing rationales for our moral and spiritual weakness: On the 24th of October 1963 Professor Dennis Gabor gave the Thompson Lecture and claimed that “Having large families is the one luxury civilisation cannot afford.”

He foresaw a transition over the next 40 years into a life of leisure because of modern technology replacing human labour. At the same time a Bill to provide free family planning on the National Health Service was being promoted by a working party under Profesor Lafite of Birmingham University. On the 1st of November 1963 the Cambridge Union society voted 147 to 136 against the motion “This House considers that abortion should be made legal.”
Avoiding children is also part of feeling civilized and in the effete middle-class ethos it is civilized to limit the size of one’s family to maintain their comfortable standards and to be rational about one’s life. There is a sense of taming the wild nature! Several children would entail a less self-consciously controlled way of living.
Then there are school fees. There is a new but not cultured middle-class from ordinary backgrounds who want to enjoy themselves without responsibility for bringing children up. The Economy of decadence and luxury: After the destruction of our manufacturing industry people like Mrs Thatcher were telling us we were to become a service industry.
The concern about animals becoming extinct is a projection onto nature of our willing our own extinction and saves us having to face it.
The fear of overpopulation does not apply here naturally but because we are not replacing our population. The shortfall is filled by unassimilable immigrants. Our population is getting older and we are not producing a workforce.
It seems that when a civilization becomes comfortable and feels safe it ceases to strive and philosophies of ease are developed to rationalise decadence and to justify it. This entails a gradual loss of individual responsibility for the wider community and civilization as they no longer see their duty in perpetuating it.
Paradoxically, abortion is part of our modern civilized view of ourselves, but beneath this the same barbarous instincts to survive only now are justified by science or rationalism rather than religion and they come out in a different way.
We look back on certain practices of the past and regard them as utterly barbaric – human sacrifice, burning heretics, by reading, say, Thucydides and think how primitive, or we shun the Bible out of our sense of progress as a barbarian tract, but support a woman’s wish to have her babies murdered – future ages will look back on allowing women to kill their own babies in their thousands because they might be inconvenient, with the same feeling of disgust as we at former barbarian practices.
There are of course biologico-philosophical arguments about when human life starts, but it seems distinctly forced to suppose that a few hours between pre- and post-birth constitute a moral difference; and, the argument about a woman doing what she likes with her own body is another self-centred and indefensible view. Always in these arguments people think of themselves as living in bubbles without responsibility to our group and to future generations.
One faction in the liberal parameter does not regard the unborn child as a person, and on those grounds say it has no right to life.  The emphasis is on whether the mother has the right to give birth or not, or what right has another to force her to give birth. To the opposing side the foetus is a person.

Their debate is between conflicting rights. We have a lack of control over our fertility and this is something to control in a rational, civilized society. Nature, and that includes us, must be tamed as we flatter ourselves that we have transcended human nature.

What about rape, incest or health problems? 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest, 6% are because of potential health problems and 93% of abortions occur because for social reasons i.e. because the child is not wanted or inconvenient. Surely this is unacceptable is any society. So, if we did keep abortion open for rape, incest or health problems only, we would drop from 190,000 abortions per year to only 13,500. This would be a pragmatic compromise most pro life activists could live with.

It hampers our public and social lives and young women want to continue in a life – style. This is separating women from their natures. Most women want to feel they have a rational choice and are not determined by their being.
We have been degraded by the elites to “Partial-Birth” abortions which is up till 9 months pregnancy.
These were performed legally in the United States until banned by George Bush in 2003. It is not done just on babies who are severely deformed or dying but also on the inconvenient ones.
The method is that the abortionist is guided by ultrasound till he finds the baby’s leg and grabs it with forceps and pulls into the birth canal whence the abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
Then the abortionist then rams scissors into the baby’s skull and opens the scissors to enlarge the hole, removes the scissors and inserts a suction catheter to suck the baby’s brains out, the skull collapses and the dead baby pulled out. Is that all our children are worth?
If that is not a brutal murder what is? Little wonder that these people are often obsessed with the Third Reich’s eugenics programmes. They themselves are just as evil, perhaps moreso as they do this not for ideals or because they were ordered to but for a wealthy, comfortable life for the convenience of the group-rights of women.
Proponents of abortion claim that it is rare for women to regret having had an abortion, but post-abortion services like BVA and Life receive hundreds of calls every year from women suffering deeply after abortions, sometimes years after the abortion. Post-abortion trauma is a recognized medical condition.

As abortion is often undergone to keep a pregnancy secret from husband, parents or others, there are strong reasons for denial that can worsen the effects of PAT. It is a consequence of women acting against their own instincts and brings a heavy price.

Forty two-years of prejudice in favour of abortion has led to a loss of respect for human life and an acceptance of a utilitarian approach to human life as we see in the acceptance of embryo research, passive euthanasia and the arguments now being used in favour of physicians assisting death.

There is a growing counter movement among the public as developments like 4D images have caused discomfort among about late-term abortion, but the majority of abortions are carried out during the first three months and there is less shift in public opinion on early abortion.
However, the fact that junior doctors appear to be increasingly reluctant to be involved with abortion suggests that the message may be getting across to those who are directly caught up in the practice.
Abortion is part of the attitude the Establishment is enforcing. If you rebel you are oppressed, labelled negatively or punished. BBC News 29/6/2007 reported that Sarah Scott a teenage mother was prohibited from wearing an anti-abortion T-shirt to school in Aberdeenshire.

A "woman's choice"? The time to make "choices" about the life or death of a baby is BEFORE pregnancy/conception. Should any human hold the right of life or death over another innocent human being? Absolutely not. Every unborn baby is a distinct, unique, alive and growing human being, with its own DNA identity, and left alone and not slaughtered will blossom into a fully developed human being just like YOU. YOU are alive today because your mother decided NOT to abort you.

She was threatened with “exclusion” because a teacher found it offensive. Her views had been formed following the birth of her four-month-old son Jacob: “I was not just wearing the T-shirt for the shock factor … it is wrong to kill a baby.”
“I feel I am the one being targeted because I am anti-abortionist. Yet other pupils’ have T-shirts displaying the Playboy logo, which promotes pornography, were not threatened with exclusion.” The ploy that words cause offence is used when the authorities want to suppress dissent.
We have a duty to our ancestors when we inherit what they left us to pass it on to our posterity – ours! We cannot do that while we are aborting our children.  It is the moral duty of our young people to have as many babies as possible to save our people from becoming extinct or pushed out of homes and communities by faster breeding immigrants. We might be giving our children up to servitude to Islam if we do not resist the evil intentions of our rulers.
(Majority Rights)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Conclusion by Jim Dowson

Proof that the extreme left are firmly in charge of the abortion industry is easy to find: the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) – who pull in £25 million per year from holding the unenviable position of being the UK’s largest providers of late abortions (post 20 weeks) – is run by Anne Ferudi .
This woman’s husband is one of the world’s leading Frankurt School players. Frank Furedi (born 1947, in Budapest, Hungary) is professor of sociology at the University of Kent. Here , some of his protégés – like Dr Elli Lee – have openly argued (BBC moral maze) to legalize the killing of children up to the age of consciousness, perhaps 3 or 4 years of age!

A former student radical, he became involved in leftwing politics in the 1970s and emerged as founder and chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party.

In the 1990s he was actively involved in humanist focused issues, especially campaigns for free speech.

Frank Furedi: Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party and leading Frankfurt School fanatic.

Furedi is a supporter of the British Humanist Association. He is also involved in the ‘Living Marxism’ organisation and the notorious lefty group ‘Spiked online’.
These are the people who fanatically promote and actually carry out the slaughter of tens of thousands of British babies every year in ‘private clinics’ across the country, and make a fortune from it.
These people are being paid to destroy our race and nation hidden under the banner of Liberalism, Women’s Rights and Equality. Millions of British children have been sacrificed on the alter of liberalism and yet most nationalists and patriots ignore the abortion issue.
Dear friends, it’s time to wake up. Our people are perishing at a rate of 500 per day in clinics like Feredi’s.  No more I say, and I call upon all true patriots to defend our children from the Abortion Holocaust.
I hope the above article has been a good overview of the abortion issue, but let us be mindful that websites, ideology or fine speeches do not win wars. Young men, stout of heart, and filled with a patriotic zeal and love of their people, win wars.
In 20 years our sons will have to boldly stand shoulder to shoulder in a Holy crusade to halt the onslaught of the Mohammedans as they rampage through our Continent.
Yes, we need strong political direction, but we need strong sons and lots more of them. Remember, the secret of survival for our people, nation and culture is our women – we need virtuous women willing to bear and nurture the seed of our race if we ever hope to survive.
May God grant us young men and women willing to bring forth a generation of warriors for Britannia’s darkest hour.
If you have had an abortion and require assistance of any kind please contact Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline on 0845 603 8501.

Plan B Written by Mister Fox

Plan B

Written by Mister Fox

Friday, 01 April 2011 18:30

What see around us is a changed world and countries like China and India forging ahead while we languish, dispirited and led by corrupt and inadequate people who are prejudiced in favour of “other” ethnic groups and against their own people. This is an inversion of nature as it is natural to put your own first. Classic Liberalism was replaced by the ideas of the New Left in the 1960s who took over the title Liberalism but changed the content. For example, and this is profoundly important, the individual rights advocated by Classic Liberals became group rights. This shifted everything into totalitarian thinking because individual rights applied to individuals per se but group rights gave minority groups (victims) preferential treatment over the host population (oppressors). This is parallel with the Nazis advocacy of superior groups over inferior groups and is no more moral as it gives preference to outsiders over the indigenous people. (1) There was a shift to developing the correct attitudes instead of educating which is why education was changed so much until many at state schools don't get a proper education - little history, no grammar. It leaves them largely dysfunctional but with the right opinions. Classical Liberals believed in education and pupils expressing themselves. (2) It is eye-opening to analyse the worldview of the opinion formers. I looked at the BBC reports of the inquiry into the London bombings. The criticisms were directed at the security services for not having foreknowledge and the emergency services, particularly the ambulance service, for being incompetent. Everyone is to blame apart from those who planted the bombs! In reality this was a terrorist plot, not a natural disaster that has no human agency. This saves them having to confront 3 million Muslims and facing that there is much more than a tiny minority against us. We saw this with the Brazilian who was shot by the police. He was a legitimate cause of concert to them as he lived with a bomber. The opinion formers left that bit out and concentrated on blaming the police. They believe in their own fantasies and become very angry if one from the EDL or BNP points out reality to them because they are trying to avoid facing reality and a contradiction of their vision of the world throws them into fear and panic. Those who live in fantasy fear contradiction. They have constructed their own world which is out of touch. It is easy for them to live a fantasy because it is remote from their own lives as they themselves live in delightful villages or smart London areas. If the multi-racial experiment was actually working or if they set an example and lived in it themselves they might command respect. They are cruel, vicious, hypocrites who denounce people who have to suffer from far away in their privileged worlds. They have no compassion and no conscience and never ask themselves: "What have we done to the poor people?” They don't have to care because they dehumanise the poor: "Don't worry about them they are just racists”. They are educated and know about history and culture and are aware that a hundred years ago Europe was at its height of power and prestige. The whole world was enthralled to White man: America in the west, us in Africa and Russia in the east. The Tzar, the Kaiser and King George were cousins and looked alike. The Tzar looked like King George V. There was no rival power so they fell out amongst themselves. A hundred years on and the new elites who have inherited can see this great fall. They are trying to make amends and to ingratiate themselves with other ethnic groups. At he same time the descendants of the formerly oppressed peoples remember how the humiliation of their ancestors. The educated ones bear a grudge and see the largess of our rulers not as penitence but weakness because our rulers use taxpayers money to bribe them not their own. It is an empty gesture; while our rulers try to show how they have changed. In the past we could take what they wanted like palm oil, sugar. The ruling class had the ancestors of those who bear grudges working for us. We introduced tea into India from China. The Assam province was perfect for it as it catches the rain. The cliffs of Cherrapunji receive heavy rainfall because of Monsoon winds blowing from the Bay of Bengal and is the wettest place on earth. The rulers were in control and directed affairs. They no longer do and if they refused to trade with us there is nothing we could do. Our only superiority now is technology and China has been stealing our intellectual property. They are sending students here who take our ideas back with them. Our advantage is being exported. They also bought Rover and Indian companies own Rolls Royce and Jaguar and have all that technology. When the immigrants started coming they had to let them in because they were frightened of offending them. They also thought that as they had dominated them for so long they were culturally superior. But the ordinary people are being made to pay through taxes already mentioned and by having whole areas of their towns taken off them. The elites perception of the newcomers is not only unrealistic but immoral because their duty is to there own. They neglect this for helping Africa by using other people's money. (3) They are lying and they know they are. They do so because what they fantasised, a coffee-coloured utopia with everyone coming together, is demonstrably coming apart and to salve their consciences they present us as the problem: they scapegoat Whites for the failure of their unrealistic dreams of racial harmony. Most people did not realise what was happening as it was done by deceit: publicising false figures of immigration and covering up racial attacks on Whites. It was the former that prompted Sir Andrew Green to form Migration Watch to offer the public the real figures. A democracy can not work unless the public are given accurate information to base their views on. The public took it on trust and voted for political parties who said they would look after their interests. They could not conceive that the politicians would use them for votes but actively work against their interests apart from bribing them with welfare benefits or tax cuts to keep them passive and loyal. Even in the decline of the Roman Empire the Roman elites did not actively encourage the invasions of their own country or work to have their own people replaced while boasting that they live in a democracy where the will of the people counts, but our elites have. This is one of the most evil acts in human history – ruling elites destroying their own countries and allowing their own people to be mugged, raped and children gang-raped but take the side of the perpetrators. Enoch once said that this country is like France on the eve of the revolution because the rulers do not care how their people live. But people are now realising what is happening as we see from comments in the online versions of major newspapers. If the topic is a central issue like some aspects of immigration the editors “disable” the comments facility to avoid facing the “hollow murmuring under ground” that is the yawning gap opening between rulers, opinion formers and the public.(4) However, People are confused about what to do: some are waiting for a leader but most go out and vote for not only their usual tribal party which means the whole vote for different tribal parties which means no concerted action can follow but it is beginning to find a focus. They can not understand why elected officials don't stop it – because this what they want! The growing realisation of what is happening needs more co-ordination. At the moment the intellectual front line, bloggers and writers are operating in isolation. There is common ground in love for our country and local areas to build on, but economics would need to be less partisan – Labour bribing the working-classes, and Tories the middle-classes. The trick to suppress us was to use images of Nazi camps to tell people if you don't follow multi-racialism you know where that leads. The implication was that we would all turn into Nazis ready to operate gas chambers. But this wicked insinuation insults overlooks that we fought Nazism and many lost family in the effort. One of the great ironies of mass immigration and Europe falling to Islam is that Israel will be surrounded by hostile Muslim states; if America continues to implode, as it is under mass immigration, then Israel will be starved of money. Influential Jewish people and apostate Jews, who promote mass immigration are bringing this about. George Sorros with his open borders, David Milliband and Sarkozy with their suicidal European-Mediterranean Partnership are also bringing persecution on European Jewish communities with their myopic anti White schemes. If Jews have to flee to Israel but are surrounded by hostile Muslim states along with the problems of providing basic supplies like water and with America bankrupt, they are screwed as they aren't viable on their own. It was said that the Zionists wanted non white immigration into the US so has to make the overall population less anti Semitic but this was a great error and puts Israel in great danger. We are being decultured - it is for us to maintain our culture and pass it on from our ancestors to our descendants not let foreigners take it over because they start to reform it through their own prejudices and cultural needs. The opinion formers talk about the world in a universal way and think if we behave like ethnics we are showing respect yet the ethnics recognise the superiority of European culture - electricity, motor vehicles, welfare provisions, hot and cold running water, computers and the Internet. At the same time our ways are downgraded – bad manners, foul-mouthed vulgarity presented as working-class norm, untidiness. This is a decline from when we had pride in the country and ourselves as worthwhile and valuable things. They appreciated learning, standards of honour, manners, decorum. It was part of the fabric of our lives. Now our culture is said to be no better than anyone else's so they promote foreign things – Indian cuisine, imported music styles. They want us to have as much respect for their ways as our own traditions; this undermines us as we cease to be sustained by our cultural infrastructure like the aforementioned manners and laws. We no longer know instinctively what the right thing to do is as we are told the only value is tolerance. If tolerance is the main virtue where does it end? It is not real tolerance anyway as it is one-sided. You are supposed to tolerate what thy tell us to tolerate and be intolerant of what they don't tolerate. For example, I am tolerant of the EDL, BNP and other patriotic movements but the elites are intolerant of them. The institution as it were, sits on the top of the people, but we are being dehumanised and made a non people. We must abandon this inculcated niceness, this apologetic approach and assert our selves. We need to give our people a sense of their collective worth for the common good must abandon this inculcated niceness, this apologetic approach and assert our selves. We need to give our people a sense of their collective worth for the common good. He treats them with respect by asking questions. The next generation need to be built up to inherit the responsibility for our life and culture. At the moment the media are occupying them with what to wear, how to get their hair done and where to have a tat! It is done to get their money and is morally evil. They are being debauched by temptations and enticements. It is Global Capitalism that is doing this and weakening ideologies like those from The Frankfurt School are being used to proceed in weakening national and tribal wills and identity. The Catholic Church is a buffer against the Culture Wars but Anglican leaders here are batting for the other side. Catholicism provides a huge spiritual comfort whereas Marxist Global Capitalism is destroying people. We had a long tradition of Conserving homogeneity until Hitler and must regenerate that positive approach. Churchill had tried to have a Bill introduced to control immigration in 1955 and there is a wealth of important quotes from Disraeli, Baldwin et al. In 1601 Queen Elizabeth1 Had “Blackamores” “voided from the realm.” Another thing that has held us back are the timid Tories of the Conservative Patriotic wing. I know they have a lot to lose and their children get ostracised at posh schools but The Salisbury Review and The Quarterly Review could have done more to oppose the colonisation of Britain instead of criticising it in private but capitulating to it in public. The Monday Club meekly submitted to Conservative Central Office and allowed itself to be purged. The Traditional Britain Group have more fire but their guest speakers are tame. There are very clever and aware members of these groups who have much to offer when they realise what the real situation is. The State outwitted everyone by infiltrating the opposition parties like UKIP and the BNP which is now being destroyed from within to prevent opposition to immigration and the EU in what is effectively a one-party state. The political front line needs rebuilding but there are other things to do We need to take meaning from life, not just ideas. They do this in religion and constantly repeat the same thing and conserve the behaviour of the ritual. The religion is kept alive in attendance and in the acting out and this is not something to analyse or question but to do. We appeal to continuity as tradition embodies our collective continuity. Morality and value run down from our ancestors like threads binding us together. The Progressives are always changing, overturning preconceived ideas. Their problem is they are now the purveyors of preconceived ideas. To them the present and the future means atoning for the past in an eternal masochistic confessional. We must not allow our children to be taught about homosexuality in primary schools? Why don't parents take them out of school and form Home Schooling networks? Part of our answer is to educate children into the history of the country. It is like growing plants and food, one gets satisfaction from having grown it oneself: its a smaller version of producing children that look like oneself. By association you take a pride in it as the new rich of China are buying old Chinese vases as Russians have been buying old art works. This is nationalism being expressed by rich ones buying their nations traditional art. It is their national spirit expressing itself and there are many ways of conserving things. Why conserve these artifacts? We need to relegate the alien forms we are being inducted into like rap or jazz for our own forms of music. This could be developed organically by like-minded people renting rooms above pubs to play and, with an enthusiastic audience, they would have a community of interest to play and listen to our traditional forms. They could have Arts Labs for traditional music and poetry and add new stuff to this thread to continue traditions. The increased revenue might also save some of our community pubs that are closing. We should be forming social clubs. Having communal meals is an efficacious way of bringing people together. It paces your life and brings meaning in. We need our own commemorative days like one on the anniversary of Enoch's great “Rivers of Blood” speech. That was a very significant event because support for it was like war time support for a national leader with dockers and meat porters marching and masses of letters of support. A statue of the original campaigner against mass immigration Cyril Osborne should go on the Fourth plinth in Trafalgar square.(5) We have to manage our own affairs and form our own institutions. Become pioneers in our own country. __________________ Click here for the reference notes to accompany this article

Sorry No British National Party Candidate for Horwich 2011

Press Announcement,

Due to heavy work commitments last years British National Party Candidate for Horwich Ivan Cooper  is unable to stand for the Horwich North east ward this year , and also due to reorganisation within the local party, no other candidates could be found in time for the borough or town council elections. 
Mr Cooper has stated that " I feel awful that the people of Horwich have no true British candidate this year and are just stuck with the old traitors parties, but what with work and business commitments I could not this year devote myself exclusively to my duties as a candidate.and a replacement candidate could not be found in time. rest assured we shall be back next election full of vim and vigor with a full list of candidates for both Horwich wards"
 

Paedophiles and the ‘Labour Party 25′

Paedophiles and ‘Labour 25′

London Patriot published an article on 14th March 2011, http://www.londonpatriot.org/2011/03/14/babies-and-the-joy-of-sex/ which I believe has a connection to the following piece.

A Warning to all Parents.
Parents, please warn your families and friends about the ‘Labour25′ Convicted paedophiles in the Labour Party & their agenda to ‘Groom’ our Children.
‘Labour25′ – the Labour Party’s Convicted Paedophile List.
Liam Temple – Labour Councillor and former Mayor (Halton/Cheshire), convicted of `Inciting a child under 16 to commit an act of gross indecency` after the 58-year old Labour pervert had attempted to molest a 12-year old girl.
Stewart Brown – Former Labour Mayor of Hebden Royd, Yorkshire, pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to 21 offences of possessing indecent images of children and one of distributing the depraved pictures.
Sam Chaudry – Labour Councillor and Mayor-Elect (Merton/London) – Due to become Merton’s first Asian Mayor before he was arrested – tried and convicted of multiple sex attacks on young girls. One of his victims was a 5-year old.
Nicholas Green – Labour Mayor and Council Leader (Westhoughton/Lancashire)- convicted and jailed for 10 years for 3 rapes and 13 counts of indecent assault against little girls between the age of 6 and 10.
Keith Potts – Labour Party Councillor and junior School Governor
Alan Prescott – Labour Councillor (Hornchurch/Essex), also a senior magistrate, convicted and jailed for 2 years for molesting children at the East London care home where he was the superintendent.
Terry Power - Labour Party Councillor, sex attacks on boys.

Joseph Shaw – In April 2009 A former Wigan Labour councillor who downloaded child porn and had a gun and ammunition in his safe was jailed for six years. A court heard that Joseph Shaw’s offending came to light after his daughter found the indecent images on his computer. Liverpool Crown Court heard that Shaw had been a Labour councillor for Wigan West for three years and also a member of the Greater Manchester Transport Authority.
George Harding – Labour Party Councillor, indecent assault on a child.

Lee Benson – Labour Councillor (Halton/Leeds), convicted after pleading guilty on 12 counts of possession of indecent images of children, featuring youngsters between the ages of 5 and 11.
Raymond Coates – Former Labour Councillor (North Yorkshire), charged along with his son Philip Coats with child rape, using threats to procure a woman for sex and, wait for it… inciting a woman to have sex with an animal. Coates junior was sentenced to 13 years in prison for his part in the Father & Son rape and bestiality double-act, although the trial of 76-year old Raymond Coats was abandoned after the court ruled he was too ill to stand trial.
Les Sheppard – Labour Councillor (Coxhoe/Durham) – convicted on ten counts of indecent assault on young girls between the ages of 9 and 13. Jailed for 2 years, and placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years.
Martyn Locklin – Labour Councillor (Newton Aycliffe/Durham – In Tony Blair’s Sedgefield constituency), convicted on 8 counts of rape and indecent assault on teenage boys and jailed for 15 years (reduced to 12 on appeal). Locklin was a top local Party bigwig on first-name terms with Tony Blair,
Nelson Bland – Labour Councillor (Wokingham/Berkshire), convicted on 16 counts of possession and distribution of hardcore child porn.
Greg Vincent – Labour Councillor (Newham/London), Election Agent to Labour MP Tony Banks at the 2001 General Election – convicted and given a 2-year community rehabilitation order for possession of hardcore kiddie porn films
Alec Dyer Atkins – Labour Councillor (Northampton/Northamptonshire), and former School Governor, convicted and jailed for 2 years for downloading more than 42,000 pictures and films described in court as “Horrifying images of child abuse”. Dyer-Atkins was a member of an international paedophile ring called `The Shadows Brotherhood.
Keith Rogers – Labour Councillor (Westlands/Worcestershire), convicted, fined, and placed on the sex offender’s register after downloading over 2,000 hardcore child porn photos on his computer.
Paul Diggert – Labour Parliamentary candidate (Cheadle/Cheshire), subject of a 2002 police investigation into the alleged procurement of underage girls for sexual purposes via internet chatrooms. According to the `Sunday Mirror` (3/11/02), Diggert had admitted to having four underage girls that he was `grooming` for sex. In 2004 Diggert was convicted of making and distributing indecent pictures of children.
Peter Tuffley – Labour Party Official (North West England Regional Officer, and parliamentary adviser to one time Home Office Minister responsible for crime and policing, Hazel Blears), convicted and jailed for 15 months and placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years in 2006, for the sexual molestation of a 13-year old boy that he had previously `groomed` on the internet. Tuffley was described as a `rising star` within the Labour Party.
Mark Trotter - Labour Party member & super activist – child rapist with Aids
Yusef Azad - Labour Party on the Greater London Assembly. Computer seized in anti-Child Porn Operation.
Gilbert Benn – Labour Party Councillor. Molesting a boy.
David Spooner – Labour Councillor (North Lincolnshire), convicted and jailed for 1 year for masterbating in front of 2 young boys.
Mark Tann – Prominent Kent Labour Party activist (who met Tony & Cherie Blair at Party functions) convicted and jailed for 15 years in 2002 for sexually assaulting a girl of 9, and raping a 4-year old girl on 2 separate occasions.
Lestyn Tudor Davies – Labour Councillor (Bridgend/South Wales), convicted, jailed for 7 years, and placed on the sex offender’s register for life in 2005, for repeatedly raping a 9-year old girl.
Plus Two more paedophiles…
Michael Barnes – Labour Party Councillor – downloading Child Porn
On trial…
John Friary – Labour Party Councillor – Grooming a child on the internet on Facebook for Sex. She is only 13 years old.
This is the reason why paedophiles are attracted to the Labour Party. The Labour Party’s whole agenda is paedophilia with our Children.
The Labour Party Sex Education films for minors – why are our Children being ‘Groomed’ in the Classroom ?
Why did the Labour Party decide without warning to introduce Sex Education for children as young as 5 years old? One publication is called ’4you’ which included a section on masturbation. You wouldn’t allow a child to watch an X rated video, so why is it ‘acceptable’ to watch it in Schools?
Why would a child that young need to know about Sex or how to use Condoms?
Children are being asked at 10 years old about whether they are gay, lesbian, cross-dressing or straight. Why?
Why would an adult need to know this?
What is the gain for this to children?
What is the gain for this with a Paedophile ?
The Labour Party’s Hariett Harman was involved With ‘PIE’ (Paedophile Information Exchange.) wanting to ‘water-down’ Child Porn Laws. ”As long as the child is not hurt it’s ok” she said. Also, she wants to lower the age of consent to 14. She also wanted to decriminalise incest.
The Labour Party’s Hariett Harman & child killer Myra Hindley connection…
Hariett Harman’s uncle was Lord Longford ! The only person who campaigned for child killer Myra Hindley to be set free !!
And further North.
A number of Scottish Labour Party officials were/are allegedly involved in the Paedophile sex ring called ‘The Speculative Society’.
Downs Syndrome girl Hollie Greig was ritually abused by this paedophile satanic group, and the establishment is trying to hide the evidence due to the high profile of those allegedly involved. Was Holly Greig’ uncle murdered (maybe) for trying to expose the truth?
In Scotland, the Dunblane massacre uncovered a paedophile ring which involved numerous Labour party officials, the most high profile of which was the Labour Peer and former Secretary General to N.A.T.O. Lord George Robertson. The facts were ‘buried’ when an outrageous 100 year ‘gagging’ order was imposed. A 100 year gagging order is as rare as hens teeth, what was the reason for the imposition of this one?
Tim Russo, a Labour party worker who arranged the visits for Charles Clarke as home secretary, has a conviction for procuring young boys for sex.
Google ‘Labour25′, that’s the new name we have given to the Labour Party.
Only a Paedophile would put Paedophiles in power !
‘PaP’ (parents against paedophiles)
Contact us @
parentsagainstpaedophiles@msn.com

Hypocrite Archbishop of Canterbury ~ Islamic Law Protects Christians~

~UK: Archbishop of Canterbury ~ Islamic Law Protects Christians~

By admin at Logans Warning

Now, this is exactly what I am talking about when I assert that there are FAR too many non-Muslims who are clearly supporting the ideology of the enemy. Such “sympathetic” non-Muslims are aiding in the destruction of Western Civilization. To make matters worse, some of the enablers of Islam are people in high positions of power, the UK’s Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, for example. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the head of the Church of England. With that position, one would think that he would actually stand up for his own religion and those who are supposed to be his flock. Think again!
Besides being a big supporter of the UK’s Sharia Courts, The Archbishop is now spreading false information about Sharia Law. Propagating such misinformation about Sharia is detrimental to Christians.

A truly Islamic state protects Christians
London – In the history of some countries there comes a period when political and factional murder becomes almost routine – Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, Germany and its neighbours in the early 1930s. It has invariably been the precursor of a breakdown of legal and political order and of long-term suffering for a whole population. And last week, with the killing of Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister for Minorities, Pakistan has taken a further step down this catastrophic road.
To those who actually support such atrocities, there is little to say. They inhabit a world of fantasy, shot through with paranoid anxiety. As the shocked responses from so many Muslims in this country and elsewhere make plain, their actions are as undermining of Qur’anic ethics as they are of rational politics.

In your eyes, it is reasonable for the Koran to call for the dominance of Christians?

Koran verse 009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Or, perhaps the Archbishop is only going on the word of Muslims, and he himself has never even bothered to read the Koran?

But to those who recognise something truly dreadful going on in their midst – to the majority in Pakistan who have elected a government that, whatever its dramatic shortcomings, is pledged to resist extremism – we have surely to say, “Do not imagine that this can be ‘managed’ or tolerated.”

Define “extremism” Archbishop. Was Mohammad who called for the dominance of Christians, an “extremist”?

Muslim Hadith Book 019, Number 4366:
It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Did you not notice the name of the country is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

The government of Pakistan and the great majority of its population are, in effect, being blackmailed. The widespread and deep desire for Pakistan to be what it was meant to be, for justice to be guaranteed for all, and for some of the most easily abused laws on the statute book to be reviewed is being paralysed by the threat of murder. The blasphemy case of the Pakistani Christian woman, Aasia Noreen, so prominent in the debates of recent months, and the connected murder of Salman Taseer, the Governor of the Punjab, make it crystal clear that there is a faction in Pakistan wholly uninterested in justice and due process of law, concerned only with promoting an inhuman pseudo-religious tyranny.

Dr. Williams, why do you act like you speak for the Muslims of Pakistan? You do not!There is a reason that they wanted their own state, their sovereignty, and I’m pretty sure it has something to do with Islam…
Apparently, you have not read the Koran. So, now I have to ask if you have ever even glimpsed the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan? If not, I will gladly help you out by supplying it here.

PART II
Fundamental Rights and Principles of Policy
Chapter 1. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
25. Equality of citizens.
(1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.

Sounds nice, but then there is this part.

PART IX PART IX
Islamic Provisions
227. Provisions relating to the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah.
(1) All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this Part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions.
[242] [Explanation:- In the application of this clause to the personal law of any Muslim sect, the expression "Quran and Sunnah" shall mean the Quran and Sunnah as interpreted by that sect.]
(2) Effect shall be given to the provisions of clause (1) only in the manner provided in this Part.
(3) Nothing in this Part shall affect the personal laws of non- Muslim citizens or their status as citizens.

Now we see the double-talk. Because the injunctions of Islam do affect non-Muslims.

Pakistan was created by Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a consciously Muslim state in which, nonetheless, the non-Muslim enjoyed an absolute right of citizenship and the civic securities and liberties that go with it. In common with the best historical examples of Muslim governance, there was a realistic and generous recognition that plural and diverse convictions would not go away and that therefore a just Muslim state, no more and no less than a just Christian or secular state, had to provide for the rights of its minorities.

Here’s a look at one of the “best historical examples of Muslim governance”.

The Christians of Najran, Medina, refused conversion to Islam in 631 A.D. and offered Mohamad to maintain their faith, accept the dominance of Muslims and pay an annual tribute (the jizya), he accepted and the pact was sealed between them.

Unfortunately, the Archbishop is not done bowing to Islam…

If the state’s willingness to guarantee absolute security for minorities of every kind is a test of political maturity and durability, whatever the confessional background, Pakistan’s founding vision was a mature one. The disdain shown for that vision by Bhatti’s killers is an offence against Islam as much as against Christianity in Pakistan.

Islam is an offence against Christianity. So why are you standing up for it?

What needs to change?

Suicidal Westerners, like you need to change!

Most Muslim thinkers are embarrassed by supposedly “Islamic” laws in various contexts that conceal murderous oppression and bullying. Their voices are widely noted; they need to be heard more clearly in Pakistan, where part of the problem is the weakening of properly traditional Islam by the populist illiteracies of modern extremism.

Name them Williams, who are these voices? I have already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that Islamic Law is oppressive. So have some integrity and stop fabricating things as you go along!
SNIP

Bhatti died, for all practical purposes, as a martyr – let me be clear – not simply for his Christian faith, but for a vision shared between Pakistani Christians and Muslims. When he and I talked at Lambeth Palace in London last year, he was fully aware of the risks he ran. He did not allow himself to be diverted for a moment from his commitment to justice for all.

What shared vision? The same one that you have about Christians being “protected” by Islamic Law? As in the remainder of his article, the Archbishop continues to make statements without any factual foundation. Well here is a FACT: Christians are “protected” under Islamic Law. They are “protected” from Muslims! in as much as they pay the jizya (extortion) and bow to Islamic dominance.

o11.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam or pay the non-Muslim poll tax, than their agreement with the state has been violated. (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

Once the agreement is “violated”, under Sharia, Christians can be put to death or enslaved!
Why did The Archbishop leave out all of those pretty important facts?! Was he exhibiting ignorance or weakness? Either way, he is a no Christian leader. But, in actuality, he is a thorn in the side of Christianity!

The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide by Geert Wilders in Rome

The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide by Geert Wilders

Written by Speech by Geert Wilders

Speech by Geert Wilders, Rome, 25 March 2011 Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture. Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization – the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known. As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem. It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture. I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst. It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.” My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots. Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land. The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours. It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning. Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago. In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival. Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border. At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked. The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote – I quote – “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote. Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it. This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant. Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds. The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said – I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said – I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.” Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion,  stated that – I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.” Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said – I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.” Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West. In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said – I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote. Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote. Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci. However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture. Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans  would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote – I quote – a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again. Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” – End of quote. Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties. Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to – I quote – “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain. Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.” Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures – it is plain common sense. Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands. Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate. My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said. Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” – End of quote. Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” – End of quote. In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth. Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years. Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible. This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others. The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology. Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom. Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom. I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off. Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya. Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of – I quote – “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities. And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees. Ladies and gentlemen, It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us. Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law. Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good. The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam. It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam. While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations. “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.” For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so. The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind. Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society. While today – at last – our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization. There are a few things which we can do in this regard. One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be travelling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe. Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says – I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.” A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it. National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture. I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and – what an ironic coincidence – on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.” Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future. The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future. On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare. The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved. Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty. In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must – I quote – “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” – end of quote. In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that – I quote – “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” – end of quote. This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies. The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making. We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies. My friends, Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally – better late than never – come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom: First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake. Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity. Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom. Let me end with a final – and a positive – remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall. The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe. I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it. Thank you very much.

The Real Story Behind the UK Budget: Benefits

Behind the Budget: Benefits

News Team @ http://www.bnp.org.uk/

This is the first in a short series of articles looking behind the headlines at the real effect of the ConDem austerity budget.
According to the spin from some newspapers and the ConDem coalition, individuals will only be worse off from the income tax and national insurance changes announced in the budget once their income gets close to £50,000.
But the reality is very different. Their spin does not take into account all the VAT and benefit changes.
From 2012, when many of the tax credit changes kick in, all households will be worse off, even the poorest.
The ConDem coalition want to slash welfare and benefits for the most vulnerable in our society.
They have changed the way benefits and tax credits will be uprated each year to match the consumer prices index, not the often-higher retail price index. This sleight of hand will cut benefits for the sick and poor year by year.

Undermining Families
The ConDem coalition is also slashing individual benefits. Over one million households will be ineligible for tax credits next year (all households earning over £40,000).
Currently nine in ten families with children can get some help from tax credits. By 2012–13 this will fall to six in ten.
Mr Osborne said he would abolish the universal "health in pregnancy" grant from April 2011, worth £190, and restrict the Sure Start maternity grant to the first child only.
Child benefit, to which all families are entitled, will be frozen for the next three years.

Pressure on the Disabled
The government will also introduce a medical assessment for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from 2013 for new and existing claimants, specifically aimed at cutting down on the numbers claiming it.
DLA is the weekly allowance that can be claimed by people so physically or mentally disabled they cannot wash or dress themselves, can't eat unaided or use the toilet independently. It helps them pay for a helper.
Charities working in the sector have expressed alarm at the plan. Richard Hawkes, the chief executive of Scope, said: "The proposal to introduce a new medical assessment for DLA appears designed purely to reduce the number of people eligible for this support. DLA is not a benefit but a basic recognition that it is more expensive to live as a disabled person in our society."
The ConDem austerity coalition have not learned from history. In 1997, the New Labour government took over a similar project, the Benefits Integrity Project. This aimed to re-assess thousands of disabled people’s benefit entitlement. As news spread that disabled people were being forced into abject poverty and some were considering suicide, the government discovered that unfairly cutting benefits can quickly become very unpopular. The Daily Mail and its Sunday sister were particularly critical, and disabled demonstrators chained their wheelchairs to the gates of Parliament.

Caps on Housing Benefit
One of the most serious measures in the budget was the restriction of housing benefit to a maximum limit of £400 a week. From April 2011, Local Housing Allowance Rates will be capped at £250 per week for a one-bedroom property, £290 per week for a two-bedroom property, £340 per week for a three-bedroom property and £400 per week for four bedrooms or more.

The rates still look fairly high until you consider that they are often for households, not individuals, and that there is little affordable social housing anymore in our larger cities. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that some families could find themselves forced into “poor quality, overcrowded housing” in areas where private rents were high, such as London and the south-east.
According to the UK homeless charity Shelter, up to nearly half of current claimants are already making up a shortfall in rent (not paid by Housing Benefit) of nearly £100 a month. Campbell Robb, Shelter’s chief executive, has said: “If this support is ripped out suddenly from under their feet, it will push many households over the edge, triggering a spiral of debt, eviction and homelessness.”
With thousands in the borough facing shortfalls in their rent due to Housing Benefit caps, at least one Council, Westminster, has warned [1]: “If you do not make up the shortfall in your rent, take insufficient action to resolve the situation and are evicted for rent arrears, you could be considered intentionally homeless.”
When someone is declared intentionally homeless this means that the council no longer has a statutory duty to provide housing, even for vulnerable residents. This can often apply to those with children. In the past this has led to some homeless families being informed that a council will house the children (by issuing care proceedings), but the parents are not eligible for help.
The attack on benefits for the poor and sick is accompanied by bank bailouts and the sight of those who got our country into this economic mess in the first place living high on the hog. We are clearly not "all in this together". Many are questioning how we as a country set our priorities. How is it that dropping bombs on Libya is more important than buying equipment for local hospitals?
Our welfare system certainly needs sensible reform, but this isn't it. There is a lack of value based on the family unit in cuts targeted at them. The British National Party recognises that families are the basic building blocks of our Nation.
The budget does not recognise the problems and additional costs of the disabled in our society. The British National Party knows that disabled people have a big contribution to make to our Nation but also need help and support to facilitate that.
The cuts affecting the unemployed are not accompanied by any strong programme of rebuilding our industrial and manufacturing base, protecting our home markets and investment and co-ordination of research. Housing benefit caps are being introduced without any strong programme of building affordable social housing. The British National Party will introduce a Base Technologies Project to co-ordinate national research in key economic areas. We will pursue an economically nationalist policy to rebuild our home market. We will launch major public works to build affordable social housing.
Whilst we support measures that crack down on those abusing our Welfare State, we still want to provide assistance for those in genuine need. We also want to give life-chances to all our people to improve themselves. Only economic nationalism that builds secure employment with good pay and conditions for our people will do this.
[1]http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/housing/housingoptions/hphoptions/housing-benefit-changes-April-2011/
If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.