Bolton Voters Labour hate, detest and fear the the English working class

Labour has deliberately destroyed British National identity.

Labour hate, detest and fear the the English working class

'The English are potentially very
aggressive, very violent" - Jack Straw

Published at Cromblog
So this is what they've been doing for the past twelve years...
".....replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a large influx of migrants whose presence in the population would require the wholesale deconstruction of the country's sense of its own identity."

"New Labour tide brought with it in the beginning: the contempt for history and the Year Zero arrogance with which they set about "modernising" the nation's institutions."

"But the subtext was always self-examination and personal guilt: the indigenous Briton must be trained (literally, by the education system) always to question the acceptability of his own attitudes, to cast doubt on his own motives, to condemn his own national identity and history, to accept the blame even for the misbehaviour of new migrants – whose conduct could only be a reflection of the unfortunate way they were treated by the host population." - Green Arrow

Hidden agenda
When the Labour control freaks came to power twelve years ago they had a secret agenda to destroy British identity and national pride, with Englishness as public enemy number one.

At the time of their election victory, anyone who suggested that Labour were setting out on a deliberate campaign of nation-wrecking would have been regarded as a loony conspiracy theorist. But recently overwhelming evidence has emerged showing that this was their intention all along.

Politically motivated attempt to radically change the country
The first revelation of their hidden agenda came from Andrew Neather, a former government adviser

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its core working class vote." - Telegraph

Secret policy paper proposed a cultural jihad against Britishness
Then, confirmation came from the release of the full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit – the gist of which had already been made public by a former Labour adviser – released under Freedom of Information rules. It is political dynamite.

What it states quite unequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at least as much for "social objectives" as for economic ones. Migration was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the Labour government saw itself as representing.

Connecting the dots
Knowing what we do now, we can also make sense of a number of apparently disconnected events such as Jack Straw's anti-English ravings and the demonisation of St George's Day.

We can now see that the campaign to destroy our identity had (and still has) the following components:

- Import huge number of Labour voting Muslim immigrants.

- Muslim immigrants are especially favoured because they are unassimilable and fast-breeding.

- The resultant population explosion will eventually destroy the countryside and much of Britain's heritage, again helping to erode national pride and sense of identity.

- Give preferential cheap social housing to Muslims, while allowing the cost of commercial housing to rise astronomically. This makes finding a home and starting a family very difficult for the British working class.

- Denigrate all British achievements and history. Brainwash students with a sense of guilt about colonialism, slavery and the British Empire and completely airbrush British achievements out of history. This will ultimately produce a nation obsessed with guilt and self-loathing.

- Wreck the educational system (while ensuring Labour MP's own kids go to the best schools)

- Destroy all non-state controlled institutions where proles can meet and exchange unauthorised opinions (eg use of taxation and licensing legislation to destroy community centres such as pubs and village halls)

- Humiliate and demoralise the British working class by allowing aggressive Muslims unrestricted rights to attack and rape British children without risk of prosecution.

- All tensions are the result of inadequate community cohesion, which is the fault of the indigenous proles and must be remedied by vigorous brainwashing.

- Get the BBC (the Labour Party propaganda machine) to tell the British working class that they are worthless, while Muslims are the people of the future.

Cultural enrichment
Despite all the hype about cultural enrichment, this was never the intention. Tony B. Liar intended immigration to produce cultural impoverishment and inflict a very unpleasant experience on the hated indigenous proles, who would have 'their noses rubbed in diversity' like a puppy gets its nose rubbed into its doings - except that our noses are being rubbed into Tony B. Liar's doings, and so will our chidren's and grandchildren's.

The government predicted that crime would rise, but nevertheless went ahead with their scheme of importing millions of implacably hostile jihadist predators and parasites.

Weak horse, strong horse
But what do Labour intend to do with the Muslims once they have outnumbered the British? Do they really think they can secularise them into good socialist citizens?

As Osama bin Laden said, if people have to choose between going with the strong horse or the weak horse, they will choose the strong horse. In Britain today Islam is the strong horse, and Labour's Politically Correct Marxism is the knackered old nag. The Muslims are now getting numerous enough to know that Britain will soon be theirs without the need to co-operate with a bunch of clapped out Marxist creeps.

The damage that Labour has inflicted is irreversible. They have planted a demographic timebomb which will only wreak its full devastation when the Muslims now being born (25% of all births in Britain and rising) reach adulthood:


To appease their post-colonial guilt and self-loathing, the Metropolitan Marxist Elite have allowed millions of jihad-crazed supremacist predators into the country. But it isn't Tony B. Liar, Jack Strawman or Harridan Hormone who are getting their 'noses rubbed in diversity' - it's the long-suffering English working class.


From the Salisbury review...

"When one of my old Labour Party acquaintances expressed anxiety over Islamic terrorism, I asked him why he had always been so keen on getting as many immigrants here as possible. A case of foreigner good: Brit bad, immigrants had all the desirable qualities and every one of them would be a great asset to this country. He told me that he had been ‘trying to make the revolution’. So, while it had not been possible to storm Buckingham Palace and set up Soviets in Westminster, you could still change the population and supplant the hated ‘other’. Ironically, it happened that the flesh and blood other was not made up of filthy capitalists or parasitic aristocrats, but the ordinary working class people we had grown up among, and for and with whom, socialism would create a new world. [...]

Throughout the decades of mass immigration the claim has ever been that migrants just take the jobs we do not want or cannot fill. In the ’60s and ’70s it was also the houses; I recall teenagers in a civics class shouting at a teacher who was trying to counter their toe-curling racism by saying that the Caribbeans moving into their streets were simply occupying houses nobody wanted. ‘We want them’, ‘we live in them’, ‘what’s wrong with them?’ the boys yelled.

What may have been wrong was that the indigenous population was not being divested of them fast enough in reparation for the sins of Empire. Labour MP Frank Dobson spoke to a mainly Bangladeshi audience in Tower Hamlets a few years ago and urged them to help themselves to benefits, education, services, housing and much, much more. All we had was rightfully theirs and we could never compensate enough for our past oppression. Dobson is one heir of that political alliance of the new left with minorities which became active in local politics from the mid 1970s. This alliance enabled white radicals to portray themselves as part of the international movement combating imperialism, with the world’s black and brown people, the downtrodden proletariat.

The New East End by Kate Gavron, Geoff Dench and Michael Young (Profile Books, £15.99) shows how life has changed over the last half century in the area of Family and Kinship in East London, since 1957. It is a dreadful story of dispossession. [...]

Cooperation between the local authorities and ethnic leaders led to blocks of flats being set aside for Bangladeshi occupation, along with a substantial proportion of new and renovated housing. Provision has come to depend upon housing associations and co-operatives, through which the local authorities collaborate with central government and local residents. Attuned to cultural sensitivities, these provide six-bedroomed houses for men with multiple wives and many children; despite angry rants to the media about housing requirements being ignored.

Strong family connections, including ties to others in Bangladesh, are useful to demonstrate a need for housing that does not apply to existing citizens. These are hard-pressed to make any case for housing at all, and are said to ‘choose’ to move out. Unless, that is, they resort to ‘strategic single parenting’. Having a child unwed may be the only route for whites to the grail of council housing. Many engage in undisclosed cohabitation which they do not want to discuss in case they lose benefits; married couples live apart to maximise entitlements and families must make their offspring ‘homeless’ if they are to stand any chance of accommodation. Not only has there been decisive support for indigent outsiders, but antipathy to married, two-parent families.

The loss of local housing-control produced sink estates along with a crescendo of applications to enter the county. In one of the most rapid settlements ever to take place in Britain, wards of Tower Hamlets where Bangladeshi occupation was virtually nil in 1991 had 40 per cent or more in 2001, as population replacement spread to neighbouring boroughs like Newham and (now) Ilford and Barking. Bangladeshi children made up one third of primary school pupils in 1981 and two thirds by 2004, as extra resources were pumped into schools with names like Bangabandhu to help minority children.

Bangladeshi respondents in The New East End recount how nobody in London has to worry where the next meal is coming from, how if you do not have a job ‘they give you money’, how you ‘can have somewhere to live, without any rent’, how your ‘children can go to school’ and, even then, they still ‘give you money’. Omitted from the text is a further observation that you are paid to have as many children as you like.

When means-tested welfare benefits increase with the number of children, they produce a very high worklessness rate. Nationally, the proportion of working age people living in workless households is highest for Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups, at 27.4 per cent in 2004, compared with 10.9 per cent for whites (where lone motherhood is concentrated). Muslims have the highest male unemployment rate at 13 per cent; three times the rate for Christian men at 4 per cent. Add to this an ‘inactivity’ rate of 31 per cent. These men are purportedly ill or disabled, as are a high proportion of Bangladeshi women, who also draw disability benefits for various mental problems. Such disparities in benefit receipt by ethnic groups raise many questions about collusion and validation, and just how much assessment is possible through the burka and in the face of ethnic awareness and anti-discrimination strictures.

With their habitat gone, there are many fewer whites in family households; the average number of children in a Bangladeshi household is more than seven times that in a white household. This helped increase the population of Tower Hamlets by 45 per cent in twenty years (national growth rate, 6 per cent). The decline in white children is steeper in Tower Hamlets than anywhere else in the country. White families are in direct competition with immigrants for scarce resources and services, especially housing and education. Those who remain often last only to the point of school transfer at eleven. Fewer children mean fewer relatives generally. Family ties no longer give white people access to those who control local resources, or links to jobs and housing. Men are no longer organised into socially useful lives as husbands and fathers, so the proportion of unwed births and lone parents among whites is also among the highest in the country, when these were lowest in the first half of the twentieth century.

A double victory for leftists and a double whammy for the white working class, who have seen their family structure smashed and their locality colonised. Highly educated ‘yuppies’ can move around freely, occupationally and geographically, and can take a high-minded view, since they are not in competition with anybody for local resources, not least because they are usually childless. Instead they can enjoy the sense of belonging to a ‘vibrant’ cosmopolitan community without any demands being made on them. It is like being on ‘one big foreign holiday’ as you eulogise — like Richard Morrison in The Times — about the cheap labour and wonderful restaurants.

The whites who oppose the rhetoric of need and rights and resent the loss of their locality are mocked as pathological inadequates who are incapable of living alongside people different from themselves. Use of the racist card both suggests that there is something wrong with the people who feel hostile and avoids the real issues. Promoting cohesion is only ever understood one way: combating white racism. No adjustment is ever demanded of newcomers who live inward-looking lives organised around a religious culture which grants little respect or merit to anyone else’s. Unlike now, immigrants had to work hard to get full admission to the nation where incorporation meant forging ties with the members of the national majority.

Middle class leftists do not learn from history and have instead been drawn by their sympathies into consolidating the rights of minorities against indigenous whites. By 1998, more whites were reporting themselves as victims of racial incidents than were reported as perpetrators. Harassment on estates has been defined by council officials in ways which effectively condones any behaviour by Bangladeshis as ‘defensive’, while white tenants are threatened with the loss of their home or delays in dealing with their claims. The fear of municipal victiminisation prevented some respondents speaking fully to the New East End researchers. In education, the bulk of conflict management is directed at white parents. As schools have become more Bangladeshi, most entrants and their parents do not speak English.

These people have been disinherited and disenfranchised and go unrepresented in a way that contravenes the basic rules of our democracy. While an elected representative is supposed to represent all those in his area, many in Tower Hamlets make it clear that they are only there for the Bangladeshis who vote them in.

Funds from the European Union to build a community centre are used to build a mosque instead. There are provisions for ‘mother tongue’ teaching to make immigrants feel at home. But when one non-Bangladeshi councillor entered a classroom to an abusive reception, he found the lesson devoted — not to Bengali — but to the development of Muslim identity around Arabic. The Muslim boys’ secondary schools are bottom for the borough; not surprising because at east a third of lesson-time is devoted to memorising the Koran. The segregation and disadvantage imposed on pupils can be blamed on them being denied chances by white racism. [...]

Galloway’s Islamofascism represents the growing identity of immigrants as members of the ummah or the worldwide community of Muslims. The old Bengali Islam, softened by local Hinduism and the Sufi tradition, is giving way to jihadist Iranian and Arab models. Its integration, not into mainstream British society, but into militant Islam, is increasingly accompanied by calls for autonomous Muslim areas governed by Sharia law. The mechanisms for government funding have already encouraged local councils to take in more immigrants than their boroughs could cope with and there is not the space for Banglatowns to expand at the same pace — whether in London or elsewhere. Yet, the influx continues, not least as spouses are brought in from the homeland — which sets integration back another generation. Many on the left still embrace untrammelled immigration and insist that the houses, education and benefits can always be found for the millions who would substantially improve their chances by coming here.

The implications for security, not just national cohesion, are terrifying. There is a growing drift into a welfare dependency shared with the lower reaches of the white population whose own lives are shrivelled by the rights culture. What opens up is the kind of prospect we see in the Middle East, where unoccupied, testosterone-fuelled young men, succoured on welfare, spend their time banging guns and making babies. Those antagonistic to their own people and society are eagerly fostering the emergence of a state within a state.

Yes, Mr Dobson, they came, they saw and they are taking it.

Stop the rot - Support the English Defence League!

Everything you need to know about Islam

Everything you need to know about Labour

Wind Farms: A “It's Nice Little Earner” For Some

Wind Farms: A “Nice Little Earner” For Some

Posted by BNP Ideas 2011

By Clive Wakely. The message that onshore wind farms are not just overrated, but a blot on the landscape, has clearly not filtered through to the Government, leading some to question whether politicians and “decision makers” have shares in the foreign companies involved in the manufacture, installation and maintenance of such facilities.

According to Government experts Britain needs 4,500 more giant turbines if the Government’s climate change targets in respect of alleged “sustainable development” are to be achieved.

That this figure is based on Britain’s current level of population, meaning it takes no account of further (largely immigration related) growth, ensures that it is a moving target.

We have previously reported on this site how the Government plans to “liberalize” planning legislation – making it easier for developers to get wind farm and other projects through the planning maze; a change in emphasis that will require protestors (that is, local people) to prove the detrimental consequences of development rather than the developers having to establish the benefits.

The principle reason why the Government now proposes a change in emphasis in local planning policy is to shift local planning decision making in favour of the developer; many big Government projects (such as Heathrow’s Terminal Five) having suffered grievous delays arising from the “unhelpful” objections of concerned local people.

Now the Government has determined that wind farms are necessary for economic growth and that the objections of local people are to be frustrated at every turn; such is the state of “democracy” in Britain.

Consequently it is no surprise that the proposed planning policy changes are being criticized by groups concerned with the protection of both the countryside and our national heritage, groups such as the National Trust.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is also reportedly upset.

The CPRE being a liberal organization; one conscious of the link between overpopulation and environmental degradation; yet one unable or, rather, unwilling, to acknowledge the only too obvious correlation between immigration, population growth and overpopulation.

However it is quite right when it asserts: “One would assume the default ‘yes to development’ applies to wind farms as it does with all kinds of development like roads and housing.”

It is also reported that some Tory MPs, particularly those representing marginal suburban and rural constituencies (often home to influential and vocal anti-wind farm protest groups), are also “concerned”.

Whether they are concerned for the countryside or for their parliamentary survival, is a matter very much open to debate.

The same draft national planning framework will require that local authorities should identify “suitable areas for regeneration”, thus making it easier to get planning permission for wind farms in particular.

Coincidentally(?) a separate “independent” analysis recently published by the Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, surprisingly(?) supports the Government assertion that planning reforms are essential to “deliver the infrastructure we need to reduce our carbon emissions”.

To be precise the renewable energy strategy states that onshore wind power will need to supply up to 13GW of Britain’s energy by 2020; which is good news for foreign wind turbine manufacturers and their British shareholders.

In response the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity collating and publishing data on the energy sector, said the target would result in the construction of around 4,500 new wind turbines.

Presently Britain has 2,000 wind turbines, which is around 2000 too many for a growing number of people.

A spokesman for the charity is reported as claiming that the new Government planning proposals have been specifically formulated to make it easier for developers to build turbines against the wishes of local people.

The spokesman said: “The UK’s planning system prevents development where the damage of the proposal exceeds the benefits,

“It would be very foolish to distort the planning process as a quick fix for a broken energy policy or, worse still, to produce unsustainable flash-in-the-pan economic growth.”

This accusation has naturally been denied by a spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government, who retorted: “It is wrong to suggest the presumption in favour of sustainable development is a green light for wind turbines, or any other type of development.”

Meanwhile, up in Yorkshire, a thousand-year-old church near Selby is planning to host an event to raise awareness of plans to build two unsightly wind farms in the area.

St. Mary’s, in the village of Birkin, is widely recognized as one of the oldest Norman churches in Britain.

Local residents fear that if the proposal for the two wind farms is approved that they will spoil the views and atmosphere of the area.

A spokesman for the local anti-wind farm campaign explained: “When you approach the church you are travelling through open countryside. If these wind farms get built it will spoil the view every way you look”.

To raise public awareness it is intended to fly a large balloon over the village this weekend at 410 feet – which residents claim will be the height of the proposed two-dozen wind turbines.

As far as we can determine there are no plans by West Oxfordshire District Council to approve any wind farms within view of Witney, where Tory Prime Minister David Cameron has his large luxury “constituency” home.

EU Parliament Committing “Treachery and Theft” Against Taxpayers

Posted at BNP Ideas on Oct , 2011

The European Parliament has committed “treachery and theft” against taxpayers across Europe by putting the interests of illegal immigrants before native Europeans, Andrew Brons MEP has said.

Speaking during a debate on access to healthcare by “migrants in an irregular situation” in the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs subcommittee of the European Parliament yesterday, Mr Brons said even the wording of the debate was a “verbal monstrosity.

“I am, at best, sceptical about the need for euphemisms. However, the use of euphemisms in Politics is usually motivated by a desire to control thinking and avoid free thought,” Mr Brons said.

“The term ‘irregular migrants’ was bad enough but ‘migrants in an irregular situation’ is a verbal monstrosity.

“If you want to use a euphemism and avoid the use of the word ‘illegal’ (and I don’t) then why do you not simply refer to them as ‘unauthorised immigrants.’

“Providing health care to those who have not contributed to it and are not even legally present in the country concerned, is self-evidently in their interest and sounds a generous thing to do, so perhaps we should all be in favour of it?” he asked.

“However, this would involve a misuse of the word ‘generous’. Generosity is exercised when a person gives something at his or her own expense – when the person takes money from his own pocket and donates it to a worthy (or even unworthy) cause.

“If we have spare resources at any particular time – a doctor without a patient (or even the prospect of a patient) to treat or even to patronise with unwanted advice, then there could be little objection to the illegal or irregular immigrant receiving the benefit,” Mr Brons continued.

“However, usually the demand for health care resources exceeds the supply and even people who have contributed through their taxes to the cost of care are forced to go without.

“Others have to join waiting lists that reduce their chances of recovery.

“In the United Kingdom, we hear every so often that a particular effective treatment is routinely withheld because it is too expensive.

“This week it was treatment for skin cancer. This means that the cost of treating every non-contributing patient is the extra contributing patient being left on a waiting list or refused treatment altogether,” he said.

“If a patient in a queue for health care were to voluntarily forgo treatment so that an illegal or irregular migrant might be treated instead, that would indeed be an act of generosity.

“However, for well-paid MEPs, who can afford private health care but who don’t have to afford it because we receive two-thirds of our private health care subsidised, to tell contributing patients that they must make way for non-contributing patients to receive treatment, is not an act of generosity, it is an act of treachery and an act of theft.

“However, I have a suggestion,” Mr Brons added. “It is that MEPs in favour of free health care, should establish a fund financed from their own net incomes to pay for this care. Now that would be real generosity but I suspect that we shall not see much of it.”

BBC; the Truth without Fear or Favour?

BBC; the Truth without Fear or Favour?

Written by Albion

October 2011

It is hard to pinpoint an exact moment in time when the BBC ceased to be the world flagship for the dissemination of true, balanced and unbiased news reporting on local and world events. The subtle changes in its presentation of programmes did not occur overnight but slowly over maybe a number of decades but it might have coincided with the government using its National broadcaster as a conduit for a post war ideology, that being Multi-Culturism using much of its programming as the conduit using subliminal indoctrination throughout its programming of ‘soaps’ to Children’s broadcasting, particularly News, Talks and Current Affairs using non indigenous presenters in abundance, out of proportion to the English population. It became a tool to perpetuate an ideology. It was the magicians three ball and cup trick. One might ask the question why did this event not just take place in the UK but has been blindingly apparent throughout the whole of Europe? One has to assume that this order for political and social change came from a Central Committee, and so it did, Brussels the seat of the emerging federation of European nation states, has caused the most momentous change in the demography of the land mass of Europe triggering the social unease throughout most of Europe. In truth it was neither a Federation nor a Union but the formation of an oligarchic illegal government by stealth. In 1939 when war was declared the BBC closed all regional radio stations and replaced them with one channel, The Home Service. The reason for this was to prevent the Germans from using local radio stations for direction finding. Most of the transmissions were endless record programmes. Indeed it was so boring that early wartime programming was criticised as being old fashioned, staid and boring; with a seemingly endless cycle of gramophone records, variety on gramophone records, Sandy Macpherson on the BBC organ, and first aid instructions. Indeed it was so dull that it was blamed by the Government for driving audiences to Lord Haw-haw on Radio Hamburg! The wartime BBC was given a completely new task of moral boosting. To combat this criticism the Home Service was supplemented by a special programmes ‘For the Forces’ on existing Medium wavelengths in a more informal programmes the weekly fare being Workers playtime. Round the Horne, ITMA, Desert Island Discs, Hi Gang, Radio Doctor, Vera Lynn’s Sincerely Yours, and Band Wagon and in the 50’s and 60’s, Paul Temple, Dick Barton Special Agent, Mrs Dales Diary, The Archers, Adventures of PC 49 and Journey into space Blackamoors were starkly noticeable by their absence as the race to build a single European nation had yet to have taken any effect. The presenters had no regional accents but spoke with what was referred to as an Oxbridge or boarding school accent. Apart from the daily programming for the workers the impression was given that the BBC was still an elitist organization and apart from the daily fare for the masses, much of the programming was for the well educated. During the war its propaganda department was the Ministry Of Information. Its presentation changed rapidly after the emergence of a number of Pirate Radio stations which saw the wholesale disaffection of their younger listeners. They attempted to close these stations down by threat of legal action, bullying and outright intimidation. This was the defining moment when this monopolistic entity saw its stranglehold on Broadcasting about to be taken away. No-one saw it coming. It had always been the arm of government as is the purpose of all National radio and TV stations worldwide. At that time Great Britain as a nation could have been viewed as fiercely Nationalistic and its Empire was its crown and sceptre. Britons were totally ignorant that its eventual incorporation into European federation by the Neo Marxists was the prize. And the BBC was just another tool to achieve this. Sixty years on and its programme output is unrecognizable to those born before the war. Gratuitous sex and violence for adults and children, token dusky presenters from all parts of the third world employed wholly and solely to visually celebrate this nation destroying Marxist ideology. What happened? Frankly it was because blatant political appointments were being made within critical BBC senior management positions rather than employing people with experience of theatre and stage, political appointees chosen to slavishly follow the government all encompassing blind obsession with the ‘Cultural Mix’ boasting equality for all but in reality equality for none. By now the Jewish entertainment entrepreneurs like Bernard Delfont, Lew and Leslie Grade disappeared from the scene. Much of the BBC’s output today appears to cater to the lowest common denominator and most importantly is even more mindful of the ‘Racial Mix’, its purpose is to continually remind you as a Briton you cannot lay claim to this country anymore its open to all and is why we have a preponderance of Negro or mixed race presenters, reporters and actors even if the dusky actors presence has no relevance to the story whatsoever. Typical was Brian True-May’s run in with the BBC’s political watchdogs placed in various departments similar to the Soviets within Sports, universities, Broadcasting etc. Not an isolated incident but did benefit from the glare of publicity. Times have changed, we have broadcasters that are predominantly based around an easily defined racial community such as Asian Star FM in Slough celebrating our Multi-Culti hell-hole while the riot ridden streets burn as if to celebrate our close connection with the Third World Sub Saharans and second generation young resentful Caribbean’s mixed with ‘Half Castes’ or Cross breeds and Wiggers. Not quite untouchables but youths with no identity no hope and in many cases no father; they are the Multi Cultural collateral damage that has been done to this country for the sake of a Marxist political ideology and the whole of Europe is paying the same price while a silk suited grinning Barrossa pontificates in the Presidium with edicts that will affect all our futures. Subterfuge by disempowerment of self rule by the nation states of Europe and Great Britain’s by Socialist leaders signing illegal ‘Treaties’ one after another, in our case adding more misery to woe being co-signed by our ‘Ruling Monarch’. Each “Treaty” removing all vestiges of Nationality that make a county a nation state, currency, constitutions, borders, etc. The Marxist plan for a Grand Design for Europe will be styled on the old Soviet regime and in time will be known as the European Union of Socialist States and Regions or EUSSR. Why ‘ello, ‘ello who is this new member about to decide on England’s future? Why dear me if it’s not Croatia or is it Georgia? Will you be sitting next to Malta, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Greece, Poland or Romania? How many of your people would like to reside in the UK? We have a wonderful system of monetary benefits, health care, housing, employment and a fine infrastructure that discriminates positively in favour of new arrivals like yourselves and will hopefully guarantee you permanent residence in our little overcrowded island. What we cannot guarantee though is a fair day’s pay for a fair days work but on the upside we do discriminate in favour of new arrivals like yourself by displacing an English worker to accommodate you. Your little country is going broke? Worry not; our tax payers can bail you out for the sake of the continuing cohesiveness of the European Socialist State. I have tried to make sense of this nonsense and have had to search my nightmares for inspiration. Proof of breaching its charter to entertain inform with a balanced, unbiased journalism can be seen daily in the farcical storyline situations in its programming using non English actors, again out of all proportion to the population numbers, you will note I do not use the word ‘British’ although that collective name could be used to describe the black population residing in Great Britain, as that word cannot be used to describe an ethnic grouping, it has no meaning. Some might even say the BBC’s subterfuge is on par with the now defunct News of the World. I am convinced the BBC is an enemy of Great Britain and laws made in Brussels also prevent all the other Radio stations from speaking the truth of the damage being done to our people, our country and thus our children’s future. For example here is a letter by a reader to the BBC A ‘British’ reader named Reza V believes the BBC has breached its charter by broadcasting such biased propaganda, and wrote this letter to the organization to complain: I was shocked by the dishonesty, one-sidedness and far-left political bias of your programme: Geert Wilders: Europe’s Most Dangerous Man? BBC Two, 7:00PM Mon, 14 Feb 2011 The bile dripping BBC Banshees declared Geert Wilders, though unqualified third-party accusations, conspiracy theory and without any evidence whatsoever insinuated at various points throughout the programme that Mr Wilders was: A Fascist, a Nazi, a Zionist extremist, an Israeli spy, a conspiracy theorist, a convicted criminal, guilty of a hate speech, mentally unbalanced, a control freak, dubiously dishonest with something to hide, Europe’s most dangerous man and Far Right, Your program made regular use of sinister background music to drive home your intended message. I would like to add this case was an exception, but it is not. Nick Griffins ruthless inquisition on BBC Question Time was a “Witch hunt” pure and simple. The cry from the ‘correct cultural mix’ rabble was baying for blood!

UK and the EU: Civitas Think Tank Admits That Nationalists Were Right

Britain and the EU: Civitas Think Tank Admits That Nationalists Were Right All Along

Posted at BNP Ideas

In a confession that nationalists were right all along, the influential Civitas think tank has called for Britain to leave the European Union.

In a statement issued to mark the release of a new study paper, Time to Say No, Civitas said that Britain’s continued membership of the EU “holds back [the UK’s] economic recovery.”

The statement said that “Britain must plan exit strategy from failing EU, but should keep trade links” — exactly as nationalists have argued all along.

“As Europe’s leaders gamble their nations’ finances on saving the Euro, a new Civitas report reveals that the European Union is damaging Britain’s economic recovery and sapping job growth. Time to Say No, by Ian Milne, shows that a break with the EU need not represent a drastic break with Europe itself,” the statement continued.

“Instead, it will permit a pragmatic reform of trade and immigration relations. Existing international institutions can achieve this without the current burdens of bureaucracy in the EU. It will also revive democracy at home.”

The report argues that the British must rejoin the 95% of the global population that remain in countries outside the EU, such as the British Commonwealth nations. These countries have far better prospects for growth in the 21st century than many of the tired economies of mainland Europe.

“The EU is in long-term structural demographic and economic decline. It also costs a fortune to belong to. UK withdrawal would result in the British people rejoining the 95 per cent of the world’s population who live in self-governing states and successfully trade with each other-and with the EU-multilaterally,” the new report said.

The report sets out a timetable for an orderly withdrawal from the European Union which begins in June 2014, following a national referendum on membership of the EU.

“After receiving the mandate to return to full sovereignty, the British Government would gradually reduce its contributions to the EU budget over a 24-month period. Milne proposes the temporary creation of a Ministry of EU Transitional Arrangements (META) to manage the process from beginning to end, ensuring that government departments are equipped to take over EU functions,” the report continues.

“From June 2014, disputes between the European Court of Justice and British law would be mediated using an international dispute settlement procedure. At the end of the withdrawal process in 2016, British laws based on EU regulations would remain in place but could be repealed at the will of Parliament.”

According to the Civitas plan, by June 2016, the UK would:

* cease all involvement in the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies

* regain control of immigration policy and be able to secure its borders on its own terms

* cease to be regulated by EU trading regulations but continue trading with the EU-26 using rules already set down in WTO, UN, NATO, OECD agreements and other relevant treaties [pp. 20-21]

Milne sets out a number of alternative arrangements that would allow Britain to continue to co-operate in trade with the EU but on a more equal footing. They include:

* The ‘Norwegian option’. Under this proposal, Britain remains a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which provides for an internal European market but does require adherence to some labour laws, consumer protection and health and safety legislation. Crucially, EEA members make a substantially smaller contribution to European organisations than full EU members:

In 2009 this was seven times smaller, per capita, than the UK gross contribution to “Brussels,” the report says.

Norway is the 7th most prosperous country per head in the world.

* The ‘Swiss option’. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but remains outside both the EEA and the EU. By making only bi-lateral trade agreements, it retains full control over all regulations covered by Swiss-EU FTAs, which can be cancelled at any time. Britain could do the same. This is not an inferior trading relationship but merely one that avoids giving excessive powers to Brussels:

Switzerland [exports to the EU] about three times more goods per capita than the UK.

Switzerland is the 17th most prosperous country per head (the UK ranks 37th).

* Unilateral Free Trade and renewed focus on the Commonwealth. Milne explains there is nothing holding Britain back from establishing an ordinary and productive trading relationship with the EU without an explicit treaty:

“On withdrawal, the EU would continue to trade with the UK. EU-26′s biggest single customer worldwide is the UK, and EU-26 sells far more to the UK than it imports from the UK. Under Articles 3, 8 and 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is constitutionally obliged to negotiate ‘free and fair trade’ with non-EU countries,” the report adds.

A looser framework would allow Britain to take the forward-looking approach of establishing closer trade relationships with the Commonwealth:

“In 2050, viewed from the UK, the rest of the Commonwealth will constitute a market nine times greater than that of Continental EU.”

As a result, there is nothing to fear, but a lot to gain, from re-establishing British sovereignty over the United Kingdom, the Civitas statement said.

Who and what is behind the Occupy Wall Street Campaign?

Who is behind the Occupy Wall Street Campaign?

Written by Green Arrow

By now, even the most dopiest of our fellow British Citizens will have been awoken to the fact that the Occupy Wall Street campaign has spread to over 100 countries and now arrived in London - which many knowledgeable people consider to be the heart of the NWO/Banksters evil empire. Now it is true, that the original campaign in Wall Street was kicked off by marxists but it also seemed that those original organisers had been supplanted by individuals and organisations that were genuinely patriotic and sickened by the excess of the Banksters but now I am not so sure. Now it seems that the reds have recognised the anger of the worlds people against these creatures who are intent on enslaving the world and moulding it into something that most people cannot even conceive of. Lenin knew that he did not need to have the political support of the masses to win control, all he needed was the dissatisfaction of those masses and they certainly are dissatisfied and angry. Now whist it is good to see that there are some people in the UK that are aware of the evil of the Banksters, I believe that those people are in the minority at these demonstrations and that the majority of the protesters seem to be made up of a mishmash of Anarchists, Marxists, Trotskyists, Stalinsts and every other ist under the sun, who have managed to harness the concern and fears of decent people. Now by all accounts, the patriotic American Tea Party seem to be gaining control over the protests in America and that is encouraging news and patriotic parties and organisations in the UK should try to do the same with what is happening outside the London Stock Exchange - we must not let the reds gain the upper hand because at the end of the day, communism is just as evil as what the world bankers have planned for us. Well take it away in the comment section and make Corsham really work. Thank you for the video Bertie. For constant updates on what is happening around the world and live data feeds and comments please go here.

David Cameron’s curious Love affair with Homosexuals

David Cameron’s curious Love affair with Homosexuals

Written by Tim Heydon

October 2011

Cameron thinks that Homosexuality is ‘Normal’ What is it with David Cameron and homosexuality? He is really pushing it, isn’t he? Cameron has said that being homosexual is ‘normal’. Most people though continue to think that being homosexual is to be ‘queer,’ ie not normal at all. Homosexuality might be normal in the sense that it is normally to be found in a given population. But then you could say the same about any number of sexual aberrations, including paedophilia. (Homosexuals and paedophiles claim they can’t help it. So should paedophiles get the same favourable treatment claimed by homosexuals on that basis? Watch this space…) Cameron Backs the Right of Homosexuals to Adopt Cameron has also backed the right of gays to adopt. If you believe that homosexuality is normal and to be treated on a par with heterosexuality, that is indeed a natural position to take. But homosexuality plainly isn’t normal, at least in the sense that most people understand the word. It clearly involves a fundamentally disordered psychosexual wiring. Feelings of Repulsion are Normal Whether Cameron likes it or not, the feelings of repulsion that most people have towards homosexual behaviour (If not homosexuals) most of the time are always going to exist, whatever people like him might say. That’s because while no doubt socially reinforced at times, it seems axiomatic that they are not ‘learned’ and so merely ‘bigoted’ but fundamentally instinctive and as much a part of what it is to be human as breathing. Heterosexuals can’t help their repulsion any more than homosexuals say they can’t help themselves and claim favourable treatment on that basis. Heteros can’t help their Repulsion. Axiomatic because if most people didn’t have the feelings of repulsion that they normally do feel towards homosexual behaviour most of the time, we would surely all be at it. This would be inefficient in the business of getting and raising of children. So nature has arranged for these feelings of repulsion to arise in the human animal when homosexual activity looms in order to dissuade us from engaging in this time and energy – wasting activity. To allow the bringing up of children in an atmosphere where the ‘parents’ behaviour is viewed with so much distaste and always will be – overtly or covertly, even at some level by most of those who profess otherwise - this is genuine child abuse. So too is the strong possibility that such an upbringing will militate against a human’s primary purpose as an animal: to propagate its genes by having offspring of its own. Cutting Aid to 93 countries which discriminate against Homosexuals? Then we heard that those countries which ‘persecute’ homosexuals will have their foreign aid subventions curtailed. There are 93 countries in which homosexuality is punished, in many of them for islamic reasons. From Wikipedia we learn ‘Eminent scholars of Islam, such as Sheikh ul-Islam Imam Malik, and Imam Shafi amongst others, ruled that Islam disallowed homosexuality and ordained capital punishment for a person guilty of it.[1] Homosexual activity is a crime and forbidden in most Muslim-majority countries’. In seven of them homosexual acts can attract the death penalty: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Nigeria and Mauritania. Is Cameron seriously going to get up the noses of all 93 never mind the 7?? Not that the oil-rich Saudis or the UAE are going to miss our aid money - it is quite possible in view of Cameron’s largess with our cash that we are giving it to them. No, we need the Saudis more than they need us. In any case, we should mind our own business when it comes to the internal affairs of other countries - and keep our aid money to ourselves. Gay Marriage - A Step too Far At the Conservative Party conference, Cameron announced that he backed Homosexual ‘marriages’. It’s ‘because I am a Conservative’, he said. That should interest many in the Tory Party. If backing Gay ‘marriages’ is part of Conservative Party Doctrine, perhaps these people should continue to ‘consider their position’ as the phrase has it. They want to Destroy Marriage. And Cameron is helping them. How ‘Conservative’ is that? One of the superficially strange aspects of present-day Britain is the way in which some of those who seek to destroy marriage, seeing it as an arena of male ‘oppression’, the means by which traditional values incommensurate with cultural Marxism are passed from generation to generation and a barrier between the individual and the power of the state, are nevertheless eager for homosexuals to have the ability to acquire the legal status of marriage for their relationships as if it were something to be prized. This apparently schizophrenic attitude is in fact all of a piece. On the one hand there is the leftist ideology of statism and ‘equality’ of treatment which is hostile to marriage for the reasons noted above. On the other is the use of the law to undermine the institutions of society in line with this ideology to impose equality by attempting to abolish or ignore the facts of life, such as the differences between men and women. Marriage is to be weakened by obliterating its fundamental character: as a contract between a man and woman for the getting and raising of children with all the responsibilities and costs which that involves even when, as with Paul MacCartney’s recent wedding, there is no real chance of children. The Overriding Consideration is Love? No, it’s Sex It is argued by many who advocate homosexual ‘marriage’, including Christian leaders, that the overriding consideration ought to be love. If two people love each other, it is said, it doesn’t then matter if they are same-sex or not. This argument is fallacious. It is not love which is the determining factor for those who advocate homosexual ‘marriage’ in the search for equality: It is sex. If it were love, why should not (say) brothers & sisters, parents and children or two heterosexual but same sex friends who love each other but not in a sexual way and who live together, ‘marry’ and acquire the legal benefits of the married state? If it’s Sex, why just Homosexuality? So it is sex that is the determining factor. But again, if it is, why should it focus in the way that it does on homosexuality? Why should not (for example) an incestuous relationship between a son and his sister or sexual relations between either of them and a parent not then be dignified by ‘marriage’? The philosopher Peter Singer, highly influential on left / liberal thinking, has argued for the equality of human beings and animals (‘All Animals are Equal’. Animal Rights and Obligations, New Jersey 1989 pp 148-162). He has urged the correctness of humans engaging in sexual relations with chimpanzees. So, continuing to pursue this line of thought, why not then ‘marriage’ between a man and his sheep? Or between a woman and her Labrador? And so on. After all, such relationships would arguably be no more and in some cases possibly less unnatural and repulsive to ordinary humans than homosexual relationships. If it is then said that that the determining factor ought to be not sex or love but both sex and love, ie sexual love, the question arises, ‘Why?’ Why should sexual love be thought of as something special and to be favoured over the non–sexual loving relationships already mentioned? There can be no reasonable answer to that. In any case the ready response of those who indulge in perverse sexual relationships other than homosexuality might say that they do indeed love their ‘partners’. And that this is true even in cases of bestiality. If animals seem actually to enjoy these relationships (and some of them give every indication that they do), what possible argument can there be against them? The Slippery Slope to the Pits We see how once the principle of exclusively male / female marriage is broken on the grounds of the pernicious doctrine of equality at all costs, an extremely slippery slope presents itself which is likely to end in the total debasement of relationships where human worth is levelled down to that of animals, thus destroying not just sexual morality but civilised living itself. Homosexual legal arrangements can never be the moral equivalents of heterosexual marriages because they lack the fundamental moral basis of marriage noted above. Heterosexual marriage which exists primarily for the continuance of society brings together difference and makes a whole which is greater than its parts. ‘Marriage’ between two partners of the same sex brings no such benefits and is apt only to weaken society. It is a perverse travesty of the real thing Who is Cameron trying to Impress ? A Headline in the Daily Mail of 23 September 2011 read, ‘Most Britons still oppose gay marriage.’ The story, quoting results from the Office of National Statistics went on, ‘And they oppose the adoption of children by same sex partner’ more than half the population is against gay marriages and more than two third are opposed to gay adoption. People rightly sympathise with Homosexuals and see their condition as an unfortunate affliction but there are limits to their sympathy. So who is Cameron trying to impress? It can’t be the people of the country (what do they matter). No, it can only be the people who really matter; the Guardianistas in the Political Class; those who control the BBC and the other instruments of ‘opinion formation’ ie oppression of the people. Or does Cameron have other considerations also?

It Should Be the Public Interest, Not the Corporate World’s, That Matters

It’s the Public Interest, Not the Corporate World’s, That Matters

Posted at BNP Ideas Oct 2011

By Clive Wakely.

The European Union’s bias in favour purveyors and against the public interest with respect of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is yet another reason why this country needs to quit that globalist steppingstone to world government.

Who can doubt that the EU’s policy with regards to environmental protection, public health, informed consumer choice and transparency, favours the international biotech industry?

This is something which is not surprising, considering the extent of lobbying undertaken at the behest of the producers by politicians (including diplomats) and the sums of money said to change hands.

Money, as they say, makes the world go round. “Brown envelopes” (or the globalist equivalent) makes the world go round that little bit faster, regardless of the consequences for either mankind or the environment.

Over the past few months, there has been increased conflict within the EU between those who seek to promote GMOs (on humanitarian grounds, you understand – we can’t let the Third World starve) and those who are determined that the precautionary principle be rigorous applied.

This site recently reported on both the anti-GMO pronouncements of one senior Polish politician and the European Court’s sensational (but commonsense) ruling requiring that GMO-contaminated honey be labelled as such.

As the GMO issue rises in prominence, it has required legislators to take a stand on the issue. Either they accept the international biotech industry’s line (that GMOs are good for mankind), or they side with commonsense and the anti-GMO lobby.

Generally speaking, up until now, the EU has favoured the corporate (largely American) interest over (European) public interest, justifying their decisions on the basis of advice proffered by “independent” leaned and expert bodies—which are often funded by the international biotech industry corporations whose products are under evaluation.

The EU, apparently, sees no conflict of interest between those they engage to carry out GMO product evaluation and those elements of the international biotech industry that provide the funding. There have been a number of cases where scientists and laboratories who have expressed themselves in favour of GMO implementation, have been subsequently exposed as being in receipt of biotech industry funding.

It is also often claimed that the evaluation process lacks transparency (now that is something rare in the EU!) and as a result, the basis of all deliberations and findings are unverifiable.

Ultimately it is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that is responsible for taking a stance on potential GMO risks insofar as they relate to public health and the environment.

This body has always found in favour of the GMOs it has evaluated. This is perhaps not surprising when investigations and research have raised doubts concerning this body’s impartiality.

The EFSA’s current GMO licensing procedures actually frustrate (some prefer to use the word “prevents”) truly independent scientific community from verifying their conclusions.

Most alarming of all is that the EFSA has itself declared that it is incapable of evaluating the long-term environmental impact of GMOs.

How this licensing body can give the green light to a product on the basis that it appears to be safe, while simultaneously admitting that it has no idea as to what the long term impact may be, is as baffling as it is irresponsible.

This has proved good news for the international biotech industry, not least because of its previous declared refusal to accept culpability for any “unintended consequences” arising from the use of its products – a declaration that Washington, apparently, endorses.

Perhaps an even bigger indictment of the EFSA is its refusal, on occasion, to respond to appeals by national authorities to consider specific risks pertaining to GMOs.

However it is not all bad news.

In response to growing public anxiety over GMOs, a recent EU regulation gave member states the right to prohibit or limit their cultivation and dissemination.

Unfortunately this is a right that will undoubtedly be influenced by the strength of the relationship between legislators in individual EU-states and the pro-GMO lobby, as recently demonstrated in Bulgaria, where American diplomats were said to be involved.

As GMO pollution recognizes no national boundaries – GM pollen, after all, goes where the wind carries it – it is clear that there has to be a coherent and uniformly enforced EU-wide policy towards GMOs.

Until such times as the international biotech industry can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their products are at least environmentally neutral and pose no threat to public health, then they should not be licensed to be grown within the EU.

The first duty of all EU legislators is to the people they represent, particularly where public health is concerned.

To place corporate interest before public interest is not only a breach of trust but an act demonstrating the perpetrators’ unfitness for public office.

The covert and overt lobbying of the international biotech industry within the EU should be outlawed. Those out to enrich themselves at a potential cost to both the environment and public health, should be removed from public office.

The Sad Tale of the Gay Witches

By Southwest Nationalist.

Hysteria continues as an early learning consultant, Anne O’Connor, who advises authorities on equality and diversity, decides witches wearing black could lead to racism.

It sends a hidden message, giving children a negative attitude about dark colours, which may well lead to racism apparently.

Instead of black, witches should now wear pink. She didn’t think that one through, may well cause negative perceptions of the gay community perhaps?

Cutesy fairies, traditionally clad in whites and paler colours, should now wear darker clothes.

Get this as well, when a teacher is asked their favourite colour, in the interests of good race relations they should be prepared to be economical with the truth – aka lie – and answer black or brown. Best not tell the truth if their favourite colour is white, the PC Gestapo will be there in a shot.

Also gone should be white paper, children need a range of paper and crayons that reflect the diversity of the human race.

What next? Shall we start adding colouring to their milk so that it is black, or give them brown apples in case they feel unable to identify with green? Come on, this is so crazy it would be laughable if it wasn’t our kids being forced to endure it.

Seemingly it is all part of some “anti-bias” approach to young children, involving staff ‘helping’ them to avoid racial bias which can manifest from the age of 2, and which staff have then have to ‘help’ them unlearn.

Sounds exactly like brainwashing to me.

It’s bad enough there is such hysteria and insane dogma to begin with, but attempting to inflict the madness upon our children is a step too far, made even worse by the fact that authorities seemingly listen to such twaddle.

Our kids should not be pawns in some maniac crusade of political correctness and social engineering, they shouldn’t be brainwashed into being the neurotic, equality obsessed standard bearers of a crazed ideology.

It’s these so called experts, obsessed with seeing race in everything, who need re-educating, not the children.

We’re turning into some sterile and barren mass in the quest to become equal, a smothering insanity which aims to stifle all free thought and all difference.

It’s not equality anyway, it cannot be true racial equality in the way its proponents would have us believe if it insists on promoting one colour over another.

Equality carried to its logical conclusion would leave nothing but shades of grey, but the so called equality being forced upon Britain is simply an inequality where all other colours than white must be shown in a positive light.

Society truly has gone insane.

The Demise of the Good Father

from British Freedom

Latest News from British Freedom

The Demise of the Good Father

Posted by: George Whale

By Rebecca Bynum

Until very recently, the role of father was one of great respect in our culture and the image of the good father was a source of societal integration or at least one of widespread social agreement. Mass entertainment, including movies and television, generally supported the idea that to aspire to being a good father, was something noble as well as commonplace and accessible. The father was loved, trusted and revered. The image of the good father was everywhere.

On television we had Father Knows Best, My Three Sons, Make Room For Daddy, Leave It To Beaver, Bonanza and so on. In movies the quintessential good father was often played by Gregory Peck (The Yearling [photo above], To Kill a Mockingbird), but the good father was also found in Westerns (Van Heflin in Shane, Jimmy Stewart in Shenandoah). This began to change during the sixties when, in situation comedies on television, the father of the family became the butt of jokes (Archie Bunker) and this trend has continued ever since with a brief revival of the good father in the 1980s with The Cosby Show. All the while, the image of the bad father was becoming more commonplace (Married with Children) even if it was quite shocking at first (Christopher Walken in At Close Range).

Ed O’Neill as Al Bundy in Married with Children

Today, fathers, like priests, are automatically suspect. Casey Anthony was able to make an allegation of sexual abuse against her father (with no substantiating evidence) and was believed, at least to some extent, by the jury during her murder trial because suspicion of fathers is at an all time high. From Oprah Winfrey’s repressed memories to Kathryn Harrison’s The Kiss to crime dramas in which the innocent-seeming father is often revealed to be the villain, all these images combine to undermine our trust in fathers. Underneath all this is the loss of faith in the ultimate Father, God, and a loss of trust in God’s fatherly nature which was once taken as self-evident. God-knowing souls throughout the ages have repeatedly confirmed that God is not simply like a father, but acts consistently as a father, a good father, even a perfect father in the lives of the faithful.

Common religious understanding allows that the Heavenly Father bids his children to come to him and provides everything needful for us to do so in complete freedom. I think it is safe to say that coercion has no part in our understanding of the divine plan; and in fact, the existence of forced conformity in any belief system may be seen as evidence of its falsity. In truth, we are free at every stage to accept or reject the Father’s leading, in all or in part, to roam away or to return. Every moral decision we make either advances or retards our progress. Human beings may indulge in acts of coercion or forcing conformity on their brethren, but the divine being never does this. The good father respects the free will of his children for the value of our love for him lies in the very freedom of its bestowal. Love is reduced to nothing if it is not freely given.

It is fashionable today to cite the very fact of our freedom as proof of God’s malevolence. (And if God is malevolent, then it becomes incumbent on us to reject him.) The thinking goes that if God loved us, he would not allow the natural outworking that often results from our own free choosing – cruelty, violence, destruction and death. The fact that God allows evil to temporarily flourish, does not mean he creates evil unless our philosophy rejects the idea of free will. For in order to save us from ourselves, the Father would be forced to remove our free will which is the very purpose of our creation, the very thing which makes us valuable and which makes life valuable to us. The fact that God allows the temporary manifestation of evil as the natural result of human freedom, does not mean God is evil.

The question then becomes, would there be value inherent in the life of a will-less computer-minded robot whose value is found only in its function as a cog in the wheel of divine will? An example of this thinking is found in Islam where a man’s value is measured by his conformity to, and function within, the Islamic system. The individual human being has no intrinsic value in himself = the individual is sacrficed to the system. In Islam, Allah may be described as a king or a judge, but he cannot be described as a father, much less a good father.

Faith is rightly defined as trust in God. Implicit in this is not only the idea that God is good, but that God is knowable. One cannot develop trust in an unknowable being. Faith may also be defined as having the belief in one’s own ability to know God. If a person doesn’t believe he can know God, he can have no relationship with God and can therefore never develop faith in God. In Islam God is defined as thoroughly transcendent and unknowable, therefore Islam itself cannot properly be defined as a “faith” in the Western sense of the word.

Faith is the knowledge that God is a father who is properly trusted by his children to lead them from darkness to light, from unknowing animal fear to the peace and security which comes with accepting divine love and trusting in the Father’s goodness, and trusting that his truth, beauty and goodness may be known through experience. Speaking of faith, reason and the Islamic position that God is unknowable, Pope Benedict XVI said:

“In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul, “worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason.” (cf. Rom 12:1) [1].

By constructing an impenetrable wall between man and God, Islam does not increase the divinity of God, but rather dissevers God from his nature (Truth, Beauty and Goodness) and from the reality of man’s experience of God, thus enabling the substitution of the dead law of Islam for the individual experience of God’s love and the individual discovery of his will as greater than our own.

That image of the good father has been a major source of societal integration in the West and yet that image has all but disappeared in the modern world. With what, then, will it be replaced?

——————————————–

[1] Speech at the University of Regensburg Germany, September 12, 2006.

–§–

Rebecca Bynum is an American writer, political analyst and researcher. She currently serves as publisher and senior managing editor for New English Review, and as secretary of the World Encounter Institute. She was formerly a board member and news editor of Jihad Watch.