Femicide , The Failure of Femminism

Femicide

If you had to get a cancer, which type would you prefer? Here are your choices:

Behind door #1, a fast-growing cancer that quickly presents symptoms when it’s a type 1, so it can be cleanly removed.
Behind door #2, a slow-growing cancer that does not present symptoms until it is a full-blown type 4, leaving you no surgery options except digging a six-foot hole.
Although in real life there’s some middle group between the two, most things fall into these two categories. The fast and obvious versus the slow and clandestine.
One is direct and the other is not. The direct exists on a single level: it acts toward its goal and looks it. The indirect has two levels; first, its appearance and second, its actual goal.
Femicide, or the killing of women, occurs indirectly. Like most real “traps” in life, it has a pleasing outward appearance. If you’re thinking of dogs lapping up antifreeze, which tastes sweet, and then dying horrible deaths here, you’re probably correct.
Our Western civilization has enacted femicide by removing the powerful role that women had, and instead assigning them another role as interchangeable cog. For a relatively small amount of money, they gave up the security of having family as the center of their universe, and are now fodder for The System.

Woman: But you would want your wife to stay at home and do nothing with her life?
Me: How long does it take to cook three healthy meals and keep the home clean? Not more than four hours. If she is awake for 16 hours a day, and spends four hours of quality time with me, that means she has eight hours to do whatever she wants, at least until the kids start rolling in. She can pursue her hobbies and passions, go to the gym, read books, and enjoy her leisure time. As long as it doesn’t come at the expense of maintaining the home, and she does her best to please me, she is free to do what she wants.
Woman: But I want to accomplish something. I don’t want to be just a housewife.
Me: Pushing papers in an office is accomplishing something? Let’s be real, no woman is going to win a Nobel Prize with her work as a human resource associate, middle manager, or government bureaucrat. If you owned your own business or ran a charity that fed starving kids, I’d agree that you were accomplishing something, but spending all your days in meetings, dealing with dumb office politics, and being a standard-issue wage slave sounds a lot less fulfilling than being able to pursue your interests while satisfying a man who takes good care of you.
Woman: But if I don’t have a job and my husband has an affair, I’ll be helpless. I want to have a backup plan in case he neglects me.
Me: So you’re going to marry someone with the expectation of failure? If you already have divorce in the back of your head before you walk down the aisle then I guarantee it won’t work. It’s having the need for options and a way out that ensures the marriage will fail. It’s only when both parties are unconditionally committed to the marriage that it has a chance of success. – Roosh V.

He makes an excellent point. Very few jobs are “accomplishing something.” In fact, most of them are just earning a wage. Even most professions are following in the steps of others. And now that we’ve doubled the workforce by sending women out to work as well as men, the salaries are lower, even if the dollar amounts are higher.
Under a traditional society, men worked and women were in charge of basically everything else. In exchange for this seemingly lopsided bargain, women got greater free time and at least in the South, the ability to engineer just about anything through a backdoor system of influence. Women talked to other women who talked their husbands into doing things. It gave men a forward role, and women a way of building a civilization around that.

As for bulimia, anorexia nervosa, or any other eating disorder associated with women, the Left invariably manages to link these to our inherently sexist society, with women – the poor dears – driven to diet, puke, and starve themselves in a desperate attempt to fit the apparent preferences of misogynist males for women who look like they’ve just emerged from a concentration camp. Strange, then, that these illnesses only came into fashion following women’s lib in the 1960s.
Modern western society’s emphasis on pushing women away from the family into the wider society, where image becomes an issue, and the endless pornographization of our culture (“bitches gotta look good nekkid”), both leftist initiatives, seem to be at the heart of these phenomena. – Alternative Right

Further, women were not cast out into the world like meat for sale. They were able to stay home with their families until it was time to get married, or in uncommon but frequent cases, to launch on a career path instead. When they got married, as most people still seem to want to do, they were taken care of and the same social rules that MRAs bemoan kept the husband honest regarding his wife.
There were bad husbands, but that is a function of the people involved. If you are unable to pick a good husband, exchanging the first bad husband for the second, third, fourth etc. won’t do you any favors. You would have been better off with the first one unless he was a true-blue sociopath, which is a situation not to be handled by divorce, but by criminal law… but I digress.
Women had it better when they had a sacred role. Now, they’re pieces of meat. Meat to fondle and fornicate with, like a prostitute but they don’t get paid (except in dubious “pleasure”). Meat to throw into the wheels of the machine as some desk-bound functionary. Meat to watch hundreds of hours of television that saps its self-esteem, compelling it to buy more products.

This is why a growing number of young professional women who seem to “have it all” are burning out at work before they reach 30.
These early career flameouts are reflected through the corporate ladder. Today, 53% of corporate entry-level jobs are held by women, a percentage that drops to 37% for mid-management roles and 26% for vice presidents and senior managers, according to McKinsey research. Men are twice as likely as women to advance at each career transition stage.
…One reason that women are burning out early in their careers is that they have simply reached their breaking point after spending their childhoods developing well-rounded resumes. “These women worked like crazy in school, and in college, and then they get into the workforce and they are exhausted,” says Melanie Shreffler of the youth marketing blog Ypulse. – Forbes

One brutal truth: worker or mother, pick one. You can’t do both. As a Generation Xer, I got to witness firsthand the experiments in being both workers and mothers, and the results were uniform failure across the board. Social class, job type, etc. didn’t matter. Jobs always require you to be there more than you think you will, always wear you down, and always force you to confront the ugliest in humanity. Exhausted mothers return home with 25% of their energy left, and throw TV dinners at the kids, or embark on an ill-advised campaign to show the world they’re the best mothers ever, which sets up unrealistic expectations and results in quiet resentment of the children, and vice-versa.

The tipping point for Christianity in the US likely occurred when supplication became the church’s most profitable enterprise (as opposed to a backwoods hustler’s game), or at least when aspiring young preachers realized what success it could bring them. From there on out, a more female-oriented faith was inevitable.
If preachers had merely stopped there, it would be bad enough, but in their eagerness to please female congregants they’ve taken things a step farther, and many have progressed to the kind of outright man-bashing and shaming one would normally expect from a lesbian apostate such as Mary Daly.
They’ve gone from forgiving women’s sins, faith healing and praying for money to playing the part of a drill sergeant for husbands, who, as we all know, will never be quite good enough for wives, guaranteeing plenty of work for the energetic preacher. – The Spearhead

What’s happening here, in parallel?
Business panders to women by offering them a pleasant illusion, and it ends up enslaving them.
(Some) Churches pander to women by offering them a pleasant illusion, and it ends up creating a religion in which no one participates.
Beware the indirect. Very little in life is what it says it is. Many rocks have snakes underneath them. Not all sweet-tasting things are free of poison. Fool’s gold exists. How many other ways must it be said?
The result of feminism is femicide: the destruction of female lives. Not quickly, like murder, but slowly over the course of decades. We turn them into pieces of meat and cogs in the machine, then tell them that “empowerment” means casual sex followed by years alone in their lifeless apartments, sipping Chardonnay and surfing Amazon.com, wondering about the could-have-beens: could have been a mother, could have been really loved, could have been something more than a desk-bound functionary with a high wine bill and low self-esteem.
What we think of feminism, female empowerment and pro-grrl ideals are in fact a subtle trap that lures women from a place of importance, and instead turns them into chattel. The ideal alternative is a traditional society, but trillions of dollars of movies, government propaganda, books, magazines and TV shows tell you otherwise.
I guess you’ll have to actually use your brain to figure this one out.

The Woman’s Place in Islam

“Islam has always classified women as inferior creatures in every way: physically, mentally and morally. This negative view is sanctioned in the Koran, supported by the Hadiths and immortalized through the commentaries of the theologians, the guardians of Muslim dogma and Muslim ignorance.” This clear and central statement that came from the author having the pseudonym Ibn Warraq who was born in 1946 as a Moslem in Indian Rajkot and later departed from Islam, and is to be read on page 399 of his book titled “Why I Am Not a Muslim,” stands in crass contradiction with the oft presented statements of the Muslims, according to whom the woman enjoys an especially high value in Islam and Mohammed liberated the women from the pre-islamic yoke of oppression.
(By Helmut Zott)
Khomeini, for example, wrote it this way: “The woman experienced two phases of oppression, once during the pre-islamic, heathenistic time when she was a beast and oppressed more than a beast and enslaved; out of this mire, she then later found salvation through Islam. The other time in our age in which, under the description of wanting to “liberate” her, she is treated with injustice, violence and oppression, and the status of dignity, greatness and intellectual significance that she possesses is torn away from her.”
What then agrees with the truth?
“While some passages can be found in the Koran from which come favorable to loving and caring treatment of the woman as action called for by the preacher, her legal position and actual role in society developed into a comprehensive form of multiple underprivileging.” That is what Oriental Studies graduate Hans-Peter Raddatz writes in his book “From God to Allah?” on page 276. Vividly portrayed is this negative transition to “underprivileging,” which the woman’s place back in Mohammed’s time and through Mohammed himself experienced, in the depiction of Arzu Toker, a woman born in Turkey in 1952 and an author and journalist living in Cologne. She wrote the following in an article, with reference to the writings of Prof. Dr. Ilhan Arsel and Truan Dursun:
“In Yemen’s east there was once a place named Hadramut. There, a tribe lived whose women waited impatiently for a message. When the message arrived, they painted their hands with henna, decorated themselves, made music and danced. Around 20 women joined with them. This longed for message stated: Mohammed is dead. They didn’t celebrate the death of Mohammed who had called himself the prophet. They celebrated because they hoped that the time of that system was past that degraded the woman to a sexual object. For before Islam, the Arab woman possessed more rights and freedoms than the orientalists and devout ones would have us to know. They ran business; they went wherever they wanted. They wore what they liked. The chose their own life partners. Even Mohammed himself was chosen to be a husband by his first, 14-year-old wife. However, or perhaps for this very reason, he was content with putting the freedoms of the women and of equality to an end. He raised the enslavement of the woman to a divine order. The women of Hadramut had their hands and feet chopped of in criss-cross fashion and their teeth pulled out by Abu Bekr, the follower of Mohammed. Anyone who defended them found death.”
This moral neglect shown here is an expression of change that has been going on since Mohammed’s exodus (hidjra) from Mecca to Medina in the year 622. His relationship with women also underwent a serious change. “When he entered history in 610, he was around 40 years old and married to the business woman Khadidja. Until her death in 619, she was his only wife. She embodied monogamy as the result of the religious, Meccan phase, that often stood under the influence of Judeo-Christian elements.” … With a veritable flood of other women – the reports vary between 13 and 18 – Muhammad brought about the sociological change over to polygamy.” … Out of the Muhammad monogamy in Mecca emerges the Muhammad harem in Medina” (Hans-Peter Raddatz, “Allah’s Wives” – p.30/34).
In fact, the fable of the betterment of the woman through Mohammed, as well as the equality of value and quality of treatment between the sexes in Islam is just as trite as the slogan “Islam is peace,” for example, and just as wrong, too. Ultimately, the almighty and omniscient Allah decreed the legal difference of treatment between man and woman in the Koran and revealed the existential inequality. To this end, we are enlightened with the following words: “For the sake of your children, Allah has ordained the following: male heirs shall have as much as two females” (4:12 according to Ludwid Ullmann). And in other passages of the Koran we find the supposedly absolute, binding truth for all people and for all time in the following statement: “However, if two men are not in place, then decide upon one man and two women who are suitable for witnesses …” (2:283 according to Ludwig Ullman). In one hadith it is descriptively expanded by Mohammed that the lacking understanding of women is the reason for the difference of treatment, which in his opinion, is totally justified and fair.
This fact is vividly demonstrated and asserted in a hadith (Sahih al-Buhari): “Reports of Deeds and Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad”, Reclam, p.82), in which Abu Sa’id al-Hudri reports of a conversation that Mohammed held with women and in which he said:
” … ‘You women, I counsel you to give alms! For I have seen that the majority of Hell’s inhabitants are women.’ The women questioned him: ‘How does that come about, o Emissary of Allah?’ – ‘Women curse often and are often unthankful to their husbands. Also, I never saw anyone with less understanding and more inferior religiousness than some of you! And you yourselves could beguile an understanding man!’ The women questioned: ‘But why is our religiousness and our understanding lacking, o Emissary of Allah?’ He replied: ‘Is it not that a woman’s testimony comes to only half the weight of a man’s?’ – ‘Yes, of course!’ – ‘The lacking understanding of women is the reason for this! And is it not this way because a woman doesn’t pray or fast during her menstruation?’ – ‘Indeed.’ – ‘That is the lacking religiousness of women.’”
The thing clearly expressed in this dialog and which causes concern is not just Mohammed’s view that the woman is not placed in equality with the man in the legal sense, but that she is assessed in her existence as inferior, and that is with reason why women more often go to Hell.
In Islam, the narrative of Adam and Eva from the Old Testament was taken on with a few changes in the Koran, and with this came the idea of the origen of humanity from a single person. In the seventh Sura, verse 190, the following can be read according to the translation by Ludwig Ullman: “He, Allah, is the one who created you from one man and from him his wife so that he attends to her (finds refreshment).” From this and similarly worded verses in the Koran the islamic view follows and results in the fact that the woman is the secondary creature and subject to the man, created for enjoyment and for the refreshment of the man.
Under the prerequisite of this idea, the following Koran verse in the fourth Sura becomes plausible and is better understood:
“The men are over the women because Allah honored them (in nature above these) and because of the expenses they have made from their wealth (as dowry for the women?!). And the virtuous women are humbly yielded (to Allah) and pay attention to that which is hidden (to the outsiders). And if you fear that (certain) women rebel, then admonish them, avoid them in the bed and beat them! If they obey you (again as a result), then do nothing (further) against them! Allah is noble and great” (according to Rudi Paret Sura 4:34).
This Koran verse contains the much discussed and controversial statement that the woman may and shall be beaten by the husband with Allah’s approval. Muslims will customarily object that the translation is incorrect, taken out of context and can be adequately understood only from the original Arabic text. It is correct that the various translators for German use expressions that vary from each other with this important word that Paret translates with “and beat them.” Thus, in the translation by Max Henning is “and beat them,” and with Lazarus Goldschmidt “and beat them,” but Ludwig Ullmann translates it with “and chastise them,” and in the Ahmadiyya edition it reads “and punish them.”
How then does the distinguished Hanbalite school legal scholar, Koran exegete and interpreter of the tradition Ab? l-Fara? Ibn al-?auz? (1116 – 1200 n. Chr.) interpret this Koran verse? In chapter 67 of his writing “from this, the fact that the man is allowed to beat his wife,” he quotes the Koran passage and makes a striking assertion:
“If the woman rebels against the man or stands against him in something where he has a right, she shall with Allah’s permission, the strong and mighty, be disciplined by his admonition. But if she continues to resist, he shall keep her from the bed. If she still persists, he shall beat her, but not strongly, one or two snaps of the whip or a little more.”
What then, if the wife will not obey after “one or two snaps of the whip or a little more” Is a little more allowed, and where then is the limit? When unconsciousness occurs, or death? In fact, Jaya Gopal writes in “Gabriel’s Whispers” on page 274: “Since the beating of the wife is explicitly permitted, moody husbands grab for psychological as well as physical violence, where the latter can escalate to burning or the fatal beating of the wife.”
Mohammed consistently followed Allah’s will in exemplary fashion and demonstrates authoritatively in this point for all Muslims by beating his own wifes. Of course, this is vehemently denied on the side of Muslims. However, it can be read from Sahih Muslim: “He (Mohammed) beat me (Aisha) on the back, which caused me pain, and said: ‘Do you believe that Allah and his apostle (Mohammed) would treat you unjustly?’” (Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Hadith 2127). “Omar beat his wife, Zubair beat his wife, and the same went for Ali who after all married Mohammed’s daughter…. The women of Medina value their freedom greatly and ‘male chauvinism’ not at all. But due to a godly revelation, they ultimately had to accept the beatings of their husbands” (Jaya Gopal, “Gabriel’s Whispers” – p. 263).
Just as Allah has power and arbitrary freedom to punish or physically eliminate the Muslim man that dares to oppose him, the Muslim man in Allah’s hierarchical structure of “Allah-Mohammed-Man” stands above the woman and as representative of Allah has the commission and duty to watch over and rule over the woman. The difference of rank between man and woman can hardly be more clearly expressed than what Mohammed himself said in a Hadith in the following words: “If it were ordered of me to command somebody to bow before someone other than Allah, then I would certainly have commanded the women to bow to their men. (…) A woman cannot carry out her duties before Allah before she first fulfills the duty she owes to her husband” (Ibn Warraq, “Why I am not a Muslim” – p. 425).<
The wife, whom the man is allowed to look upon as his property by means of the dowry, is not only required to satisfy his sexual needs and be available unconditionally to him in any respect but also obliged to serve the godly commission that arises in the perpetuation and increase of the umma.
Thus it is completely understandable why marriage is declared by the legal scholars as duty and, according to Mohammed’s statement, and constitutes half of the faith: “If one marries, he accomplishes half of the faith; he may be able to keep the other half well,” and furthermore: “Marriage belongs to my way of life; those who don’t act according to my way of life do not belong to my fellowship. Marry! For I will boast in the Last Day through your great number” (quoted according to Moussa Afschar).
What follows from the things said is that the woman is seen as a means to an end and as an object that is to serve the man and to bear children, one whom the man can purchase according to his desire and mood and on whom he is allowed to discharge himself. “In practice, the woman under the yoke of Islam is a ‘thing,’ a being that cannot and is not allowed to live according to her own will and discretion, rather she must submit to the commands of the father, brother, husband, son or any other such custodian. In the eyes of the religious and legal scholars, she is a ‘non-person’ for life” (Jaya Gopal, “Gabriel’s Whispers” – p. 275). Moreover, the eternal salvation of the woman’s soul is dependent upon her obedience to her husband, as the prophet Allah gives us to understand: “If a wife prays five times a day, fasts in the month of fasting, protects her private parts and obeys her husband, she will enter into Paradise.” Therefore, the adherence to the guidelines and commands of the husband is not only a duty to be enforced, but a sacred act through which her way to Paradise is opened, but through which staying in Hell is also certain.
Mohammed, in the eyes of Muslims as the highest ranking of all people and the shining moral example for all Muslims, has an influence on the believers that must not be underestimated. From the beginning until the present, he is absolutely perceived and praised as the spawn of human goodness and essence.
“The oppression of the woman contradicts the teachings of Islam and is in no wise based on the teachings of the holy prophet. The humiliation and degradation of women arises through the ignoring of Allah’s laws,” the Muslims instruct us.
But how is it that we happen upon so many statements in the Koran and Hadith that express and prove the opposite? There is no reason to assume that the deeds and words of Mohammed as handed down in the Hadith are all invented. Why should Muslims who attempt to portray their prophet as exemplary invent so many stories that show him to be an unscrupulous person? “There is (as to be expected) no Hadith that stands in contradiction to the spirit of the Koran; each one only advances its leaning” (Jaya Gopal, “Gabriel’s Whispers” – p. 254).
There are way too many sayings and dealings of Mohammed handed down in the Hadiths where the contempt of women is expressed than can be ignored or explained away. “A devout woman among women is like a white raven among ravens. Hell was made for idiots; the women are the dumbest among the dumb” (Hindi; Hadith number 65) – that is in no way a flattering statement by Mohammed. According to another saying handed down by him, there are three things that invalidate prayer: “The woman, the donkey and the dog” (Hindi). A listing of unclean character is just as remarkable: “This corrupts the prayer of the Muslim: the dog, the pig, the Jew and the woman.” The prayer of the Muslim, however, remains acceptable as long as these pass by “a stone’s throw away” (Abu Dawud, salat 109; Muslim, salat 265).
The evil sayings of Alis (600-661 AD), the cousin and son-in-law of the prophet and Fourth Caliph, are known far and wide, which certainly do not stand in contradiction to the revelations of Allah and the thoughts of his emissary: “The woman is altogether an evil, and the worst of it is that she is needed! Never should a man ask advice of a woman; her counsel is worthless. Hide her so that she doesn’t have any other men before her face.” Also, Umar, the Second Caliph (581-644 AD), revealed the same demon and said regarding the call for the stultification of women: “Keep the women from learning to write! Fight their capricious way” (quoted according to Ibn Warraq, “Why I am not a Muslim” – pp.405/406). And in a similar sense, Persian philosopher al Ghazzali (1058-1111 AD) who is highly appraised in Islam stated four hundred years later when he writes in his “Revival of the Sciences of Religion” (quoted according to Ibn Warraq: “Why I am not a Muslim” – p. 406): “She (the woman) shall not go out often; she is not allowed to be too well informed. (…) Her malice is without limit; her damages pernicious; they (the women) are immoral and of petty disposition.”
The structure of Islam arises out of a hierarchy of power and a temporal line of development. Allah the almighty stands majestic over everything, under him in the human realm is his emissary Mohammed, followed by the islamic man who rules over and leads the low-ranking woman. The non-Muslims who are collectively called infidels are divided into the higher-valued possessors of books with counterfeited truth, that is, Jews and Christians, and into the rest of the infidels who have no justification for existence on earth. In this hierarchical structure and the interface of man and woman is where islamic matrimony is to be arranged. In the structural order of development with a view to the goal of the future of culminating and ending in the umma of humanity with a caliph as representative of Allah on earth, the woman has the unconditional duty of service to the higher and of the requisite multiplication of the Muslims.
Hardly an area in the private life of the woman is regulated so extensively by Islam as marriage. The Arab word for marriage means ‘intercourse’ as well. It isn’t a sacrament like one in the Catholic church, rather a means for reproduction and coitus. Moussa Afschar depicts it thus in any case in his book “The Woman’s Place in Islam – License for Oppression in the Name of Allah,” and Ibn Warraq writes the following regarding these important issues: In the words of a Muslim jurist, marriage for a male Muslim is ‘a commission in which he procures a woman’s reproductive organ, for the express purpose of common use.’ The opposite, of course, does not apply. The reproductive organ of the man is not reserved for the woman (Ibn Warraq, “Why I am not a Muslim,” – p. 409)
Even if Jaya Gopal uses other words, he falls into surprising agreement with the content, regarding the basically same statement, when he writes the following:
For a Muslima, “matrimony” is “concretely the contractual expression of her sexuality. During the course of the contract, she is to satisfy the needs of her husband and comply with his whims. In the slightest disobedience, she runs the danger of inciting the wrath of her husband who has the right to beat, whip or violate her.” With this portrayal on page 250 of his book “Gabriel’s Whispers,” Jaya Gopal likewise touches upon the central and neuralgic point in islamic understanding of matrimony. And in the same sense, however with a more drastic way of expression, Ram Swarup writes: “When we look at the commentaries of the Hidaya (islamic legal commentary) with respect to the so-called dowry, we find here concepts from a merchant: fee or salary, purchase or sale. It means presenting the woman’s body or – in the blunt language of jurists – their sexual organs (bo’oz) as ‘return service for the bridal money’ or as a ‘component of the marriage contract.’ With the matrimony, the woman has the right to her ‘dowry.’ With the consummation of the marriage (that is the sex act), the action of the woman, that is, the availability of her body, namely her sexual organs as rendered, is considered as purchased, and for this she has the right for the payment of compensation, of the bridal money” (quoted according to Jaya Gopal: “Gabriel’s Whispers” – p. 272).
What is irritating and offensive for a generally human feeling is the fact that islamic marriage, according to these statements, is portrayed in principle as an institutionalized contractual prostitution. Whether or not one still prays to Allah or invokes his blessing is insignificant. The purchase agreement made by the custodian and the legal incapacitation of the woman are the true scandal since the right of the Muslim put a legal signature on the contract is as much refused as the freedom to choose her future husband on her own. And in the worst case and likely against her will, she must also share the partner forced upon her with three other wives.
A self-determined marriage is, in perverse fashion, evaluated and condemned as “fornication” in Islam: “A fornicator is that woman who herself marries” (according to Gopal: Mishkat-ul-Masabih 27:42). Aisha reported that the prophet said: ‘A woman who herself marries without the permission of her custodian, her marriage is null and void, null and void, null and void’ (according to Gopal: Mishkat-ul-Masabih 27:40).
These last sayings from Mohammed are also pieces in the mosaic that, on observation, render for us the woman’s place in Islam. However, this image is the direct opposite of that which the Muslims present to us with apparently solid conviction. When the above cited verbal statements from the Muslim side are turned around, they agree with that which reveals itself to us as findings and truth: “The oppression of the woman complies with the teaching of Islam and is based in visible fashion on the teachings of the holy prophet. The humiliation and disenfranchising of women arise from the adherence to Allah’s laws.”
Guest Article on PI / Translation: Anders Denken

British Gangs? Asian? Let's Be Honest and say the M(uslim) Word About Child Sex Grooming Gangs

British Gangs? Asian? Let's Be Honest and say the M(uslim) Word About Child Sex Grooming Gangs

Written by Southwest Nationalist

Some days (okay, all days) you really have to loathe the Daily Mail.  The effort on Nazir Afzal speaking about grooming gangs - and it can be partly attributed to his lamentable comments - is laughable.

You've just got to take a look at the URL and rss feed info to start with.

The URL is : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156296/British-gangs-raping-sexually-exploiting-vulnerable-white-young-girls-Asian-problem-Crown-prosecutor-admits.html

British gangs?  They are not British, a piece of paper slapped in their hands saying that they are does not make them so, and I think the vast majority of Britain would agree there.
They're Pakistani, Afghan, other nationalities, and almost all Muslim.

Nazir Afzal notes in that Mail article "that the perpetrators were Asian and the victims were not".

Not a mention is made - leaving a general race aside - of how many perpetrators were Muslim, and how many victims were not.

It's not Sikhs and Hindus out there in their thousands raping and abusing white girls, one can bloody well understand why they are annoyed that the "Asian" label is applied time after time.

Whether those Sikhs and Hindus should be here or not is another matter, we nationalists are at least honest and don't seek to tar them with a brush which they don't deserve.

Though, most of us writers, like myself, without huge salaries, expenses, and the resources of a national paper, end up stuck with having to say "Asian" because we aren't given the information from police and mass media to say otherwise.

We'd be jumped on if we said Muslim when someone wasn't, and that would be used to discredit us in the 99% of other cases where saying Muslim would be spot on.

We can reduce child sex grooming gangs to a simple sentence though : It's predominantly Muslim, and of those Muslims a very large amount are Pakistani.

As we saw looking towards Luton recently, Sikh's find their children a victim to Muslim grooming and sexual exploitation as well.

The media and officialdom just won't tell the truth though - it is about race, and it is about culture, but the primary common factor between offenders is religion.

The common factor with victims, most of whom are white, is that they do not belong to that religion.

That religion is Islam.

The press and officialdom now fasten on to the issues of race and culture - because they had no choice, the cat is out of the bag.  They aren't speaking now for our benefit, it's just because their backs were against the wall and they had to say something because the lie was unravelling.

However, it is partially a diversionary tactic.  Look at how many Muslims, Asians, and so on, are now trotted out to point out there is an "Asian" or a "cultural" or occasionally a "Pakistani" problem.

Many as there may be, none of them dare say the Islam word.

Some victims say it - one Toni-Marie Redfern, who gave evidence against Abid Mohammed Siddique and Mohammed Liaqat, who groomed white girls in Derby, commented that :

"I was a white girl who he wanted to control and prove that he could convert to Islam.  I saw him and the gang tell non-Muslim girls they were 'slags'.  I believe it was the religion and culture of these men that made them act like that."

It is about race.  It is about culture.  And it is about religion.

Victims are singled out because they don't belong to any of the same groups as the perpetrators, and then they are raped, and abused, and subjected to every indignity under the sun.

There is very much a 'superiority' aspect - those not of the race and religion are inferior, there to be used and abused.

Whilst the media and officialdom focuses on culture and race (or clamour to deny either plays a part as Keith Vaz has argued, or just attempt to avoid it altogether with idiotic statements like "most paedophiles are white" as many are wont to do), religion - Islam - and the role it plays, is utterly sidelined and ignored.

Perhaps instead of solely referring to offenders as "Asian", police and media should tell the truth and tell us all whether they are Muslim/non-Muslim.

That would surely open a few eyes.

But no, they'll ignore it, even now things are at boiling point they still seek sideshows of blaming a broader group such as "Asians", instead of daring to say the I(slam) or M(uslim) words.

Liberal democracy And its Failings

Liberal democracy

Jun  2012

by Brett Stevens.

Francis Fukuyama’s famous The End of History and the Last Man hypothesized that history had ended, meaning that human society was in the final stage of its evolution. That stage was something called liberal democracy.
Liberal democratic is democracy plus the application of the democratic principle to social questions. In all democracies, decisions are made by a vote by the population either as a whole or as selected groups. In liberal democracies, the principle of the equality of vote is extended to the population for all of its choices, something that James Kalb calls “equal validity.”
In a liberal democracy, all decisions are the same because all outcomes are guaranteed success by the social unit and the socialistic aspects of the society behind it. If you want to eat only bran and worship the gods of the pit, society will make it illegal to discriminate you — and if you’re dysfunctional, you’ll get a subsidy since you can’t work.
The furthest extremes of this notion are places like Canada and Sweden. They bend over backward to accomodate people’s odd lifestyle choices. Their overriding principle is total equality, between social classes, genders, races, ethnic groups, religions, even ability levels. They often give rewards not to the best person in any category, but to the person who achieved the result closest to the average.
Democracies are religious — no, fanatical, fundamentalist, extremist, delusional — about these ideas, because the one idea that holds liberal democracies together is that everyone is equal. Each person gets one vote equal to that of any other person, no matter if one person is retarded and the other a genius. Each person has the “right” (a concept not existing in nature) to pursue any lifestyle they choose, and have no natural or social consequences come crashing down on their heads.
Why this mania for equality? It is a form of entropy, where any decision is as good as any other. The presumption is that elimination of competition, hierarchy, stress, supremacy and even right answers makes everyone accepted and thus eliminates the strife that tears societies apart. This ignores the fact that most people when creating strife don’t care if it’s rational. They’re acting out a personal vendetta against life itself, or simply being manipulative opportunists, parasites or sociopaths.
Democracy is even more ancient than the Greeks. It probably occurred on the first day humans had to decide in a group what path to take through the forest. I have a feeling it also died that first day when the groups that survived figured out that leadership by committee resulted consistently in stupid decisions, while leadership by exceptional people, despite having greater potential for catastrophic error, usually turned out to be more insightful.
The democratic idea has been infesting the west for millennia but only during the last 220 years or so has it really flowered. Since the French Revolution, our fortunes in the West have taken a decidedly negative turn. Except for technology, everything is going badly. People aren’t reproducing, a sign that they hate their origins and don’t have faith in their lifestyles. Our art and culture are novelty garbage or brain-dead mass culture. Our leaders are liars. No one trusts anyone else, or any institution, and so almost all are treating society like a host that must be parasitized. There’s no future in this way.
Luckily, some are waking up and using their cynicism as a weapon. People are starting to make fun of the failure of multiculturalism, the tick-like consistency of the welfare state, the blatant hunger for illusion of the voters, and so on. It’s clear that the roles have shifted, and now “new” liberalism and the “progressive” invention of liberal democracy are old, failed, calcified and passing into history. Like other superstitions, liberal democracy has failed the reality test, by not achieving its goals and leaving a trail of wreckage in its place, no matter how we tweak it to try to make it work.
As this movement gains momentum, it’s important we don’t do what the forces of destruction among us — laziness, stupidity, cowardice, sociopathy, parasitism — want us to do. They want us to rebel against the current order by demanding a better version of it. In their view, our only problem is that we don’t have enough freedom, enough socialistic welfare, or enough equality. But any step down that path leads to the same debacle that has ensnared us so far.
Liberal democracy was a huge misstep. Even if we choose democracy for our future, we should avoid its social system counterpart. But as we’re seeing 200+ years of disaster fully ripen, we should reconsider every assumption we’ve ever made, and carefully cut out the ones that fail our reality test.

What the West Should Know

A TRUE ENGLISHMAN, TO GO ON HUNGER STRIKE OVER THE BETRAYAL OF OUR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE

Hunger strike

by tinypatriot

MIKE JAMES, A TRUE ENGLISHMAN, TO GO ON HUNGER STRIKE OVER THE BETRAYAL OF OUR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE


Unless the British government concedes to the popular demands of the British and, in particular, the English people, to hold a referendum on the immediate withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the illegal and unlawful European Union, this writer, a Freeborn Englishman subject not to the laws of unelected parasitic elites in Brussels, will be dead by means of starvation in the name of a Free-Sate England within 60 days, probably less, for, being naturally skinny and having endured an uncompensated vaccine injury in 1993, I have always weighed less than 45 kilos (seven stone).
I am largely untrained in the use of firearms, and, in common with all of my fellow Englishmen, have been denied the right to use force in determining the future of a nation oppressed and crippled by social engineering, multiculturalism and draconian laws that defy all humanity and common sense. There is only one option left open to me as a man who loves his own people and who cares for their welfare and civil liberties.
I, Michael James, born just before midnight on 20 December 1959 in the Danesfield Maternity Home, Jarrow, as a Free Englishman endowed with the Natural God-given Rights of a subject of Her Majesty the Queen, hereby give notice that, as from this very day, Sunday, 27 May 2012, I shall desist from the consumption of all food other than glucose and water until my people are granted their popular demand for a referendum on whether or not to remain within the Soviet European Union.
Mr Cameron, ostensibly the First Minister of the British Crown, an entity established to protect the rights of speculators and war profiteers based in the City of London, and who yet was also purportedly elected by the people of my nation to protect their interests against all enemies, both domestic and foreign, will have to answer to God Almighty and the English People should my death yield no concessions to the outrage against the undemocratic and monstrous intrusions on the British way of life by a universally despised Soviet-style bureaucracy that has robbed my people of their freedoms, their prosperity, their unique culture and their civil liberties.
Under Federal German Law, I cannot be detained or force-fed against my will should my decision to go on a hunger strike for freedom is informed by reasonable political conscientious objection. From the illegal Maastricht Treaty to the abhorrent and undemocratic Lisbon Treaty, both of which transformed, against the will of all the people of Europe, a free trade area formerly known as the EEC into what has become a hideously oppressive and unnatural political “project” known as the “European Union”, the Free People of the British Isles have become as slaves.
For the last twenty years I have been working and living in Germany. Yet I am proud to call myself a patriotic, true-bred Englishman, a member of one of the greatest races of men and women to grace this planet. All of my rights, freedoms, liberties and responsibilities were, in common with all born in the loving image of our Father, granted to me as a gift from God through his Son, Jesus Christ, not to be transgressed or abridged by the demonic machinations of men in suits, are sacred and inviolable.
Nobody has the right to rob natural-born indigenous Englishmen or Englishwomen of their God-given liberties, for every Englishman is a King, every Englishwoman a Queen. To this cause I am willing to lay down my life.
I am therefore appealing to you, dear reader, whatever your nationality or culture, to disseminate and publicise my stated aims as widely as possible, for I am hated, ignored and pilloried by the mainstream media as a dangerous “alternative thinker.” I shall soon be too weak to muster the strength sufficient to the task of writing to just one newspaper editor or government official. I thus implore you to make my case known to the world. Without your support, the pains yet to afflict me will be for nought. Please e-mail, fax or copy this article to as many news outlets and government officials as possible.
This I do for you, no matter who you are, whether you are rich or poor, black or white, Muslim or Christian, Jewish or Hindu. This I do in the name of all Mankind, for the destruction of the illegal and Satanic European Union and everything for which it stands is imperative to all of us in bringing to an end the sheer evils of the globalist New World Order, its fascist military wing, NATO, and its long-term Malthusian designs that seek to both dehumanise and then depopulate the world of all but half a billion human beings.
Yesterday, mindful of the Wall Street and Deutsche Bank seduction, pillage and rape of the people of Greece, I ate my last meal, constituting a small amount of rice and Gyros. In my heart, I know it shall be my last, for I see no circumstances under which the British Crown will allow my people the right to self-determination.
But if my death, no matter how demeaned, ridiculed and slandered I am by the mainstrean media, lights just one spark of hope in those yearning for Freedom from the tyranny of the Soviet European Union and the Military-Corporatist control of all my fellow human beings, then my passing shall not be in vain.
Let that spark light a bonfire of Liberty that can be seen in the hearts of all men and women sickening under the strictures of a corporate-fascist world order that seeks to make of the Children of God mere slaves to Mammon.
Then, like me, you shall be free, my friend. You shall be free.

Nationalism, The White Knight

Written by Albion

There is a dark cloud covering Europe.  A land mass that was once home to a proud, innovative people who once ruled mini Empires; Holland, France, Austria, Spain, Belgium, Germany and of course Great Britain who ruled the greatest empire since the Romans, now this land mass festers with social discontent, bankruptcy, unemployment and fear of fragmentation by greedy bankers, traitorous politicians and an unrelenting tsunami of migrants from primitive lands and cultures, the very lands they once ruled.
The cement that held these advanced European countries together was national pride, pride in their achievements and strength of purpose, but when national pride is removed by the deliberate diluting of its people as is happening throughout Europe, so signals the death of national unity and identity, any complaint is dealt with harshly by laws enacted solely for this purpose.  This is a dark, Satanic, rabid Socialism masquerading as a democratic system doing what it does best.
The world thought its head was cut off after WW2 but it morphed into another shape, a multi headed Hydra, a poisonous combination of Communist, fascist, Socialist and Fabianist, the socialist society that laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party, and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, especially India.  Its evil lair now resides in Brussels.
We are discussing the destruction of National pride by the combined forces of the socialist left.  The same forces that were directly responsible for the deaths of millions of ordinary Russian people, the same forces that triggered WW1 and WW2.  It was NATIONALISM that defeated Hitler’s National ‘Socialism’ and again it will be Nationalism that will be again required to sacrifice many lives to defeat far left Socialism and Islamic Fascism and lift the dark cloud again threatening Europe.
It is not difficult to destroy a county, you remove their currency, their borders, the people’s divine right to say this in MY homeland, their right of free speech, dilute their ethnic identity by encouraging miscegenation by the use of televised subliminal images and messages, knowingly corrupt a system of democratic election by the widespread abuse of postal voting, and removing the voice of political parties they deem a threat.  The final insult to injury is when the aim of the unwanted cultures attacking your shores intend one day to replace your system of government and law with their own and at the same time shame the host nation into offering their own people political appointments in European parliaments by accusations of racial discrimination, and laws still continue to be enacted to stop the people complaining about losing their lands they intend to conquer by the womb.
The problems confronting Europe are serious and the far left are horrified at the rise of European Nationalist parties, the true voice of the people whose strangled voices for decades that have been stifled by the use of National Broadcasters who broadcast negative comments and images, governments using draconian laws to neutralise any resentment of what is in truth ‘ Genocide without the use of bullets’ of a European people aided by the Orwellian behaviour of the Ideological Police forces throughout Europe.  The people are finally waking up to the fact they have been duped.  They sold their birth-right and legacy without as much as a whimper.
Be very proud to be a Nationalist, it was your kin who fought and died for a free Europe and won, not the cowardly, limp wristed, mealy mouthed Liberalist whose moral consciousness is on a far lower level than his supposed enemy.  Those hundreds and thousands of defenders that died would be aghast why Nationalism is now a dirty word.  Nationalism was the identity, the uniform, Nationalists fought the Nazi’s.  Nationalism was the carrot used by governments to encourage the people to fight and die for freedom, and when freedom had been won the socialist politicians now crawl from their corners, smear, and slander and defame the Nationalist and Patriots in an attempt to reshape the world again.  As Orwell wrote it is a continuing war.

The forces of evil are on the march again and Nationalist's will be called on again to fight the multi-headed Hydra.  Europe is waking first, will Great ‘Briton’ follow?

Share this post

The war is over

The war is over

Jun 5th, 2012

by Brett Stevens.

Wars are the foamy crests of waves, curling across the surface on top of a vast muscle of colliding water below.
The lowest part of the wave, sucking the cold water from the sea bottom and thrusting it upward in a roiling tempest, is culture. Cultural change drives political and social change. Above that a milder current rises to just below the surface and getting swept up in the momentum, is economics, which follows the will of the people as expressed in culture. Finally in the water warmed by the sun at the top is politics, which translates those forces into vectors of manipulation that keep the population motivated.
War is properly viewed as a continuation of politics, not its cessation. Life is constructed so that struggle is a constant, and the threat of war is the real weapon; when diplomacy is no longer possible, war is used to manipulate the opposition into a position where the original political aims are achievable. This is why it is possible to win battles, but lose the war, or lose the war and yet win the peace or the political war.
Most people now acknowledge that the Cold War wars (Korea, Viet Nam) were extensions of the power balance left over when the fighting stopped in WWII. They even recognize that WWII is probably best viewed as a continuation of WWI, itself a continuation of the Nation-State wars of the previous 75 years. What sparked these wars? Two generations before that, the French and American revolutions overthrew the old world order and instituted a new one, comprised of egalitarianism and internationalism.
Egalitarianism is the idea that each person is politically equal and must be considered a contender for any task, based on nothing more than their success in our economic and social systems. With equality, if a student gets good grades, he’s the man for the job, even if his character is lacking or he wants underlying wisdom. There would no longer be hereditary roles in which social elites, formed from a preservation and nurturing of the wisest and boldest, maintained society. Instead, it was a vast flat hierarchy that offered all a chance to rise by obediently jumping through its hoops and/or becoming popular.
This shakeup overthrew the order of Europe, but it took centuries to shake out. In the meantime, nations based on heritage were re-arranged into nation-states, or political groupings based on geography and ideology. This was a settling of affairs designed to preserve some power structures intact so that social chaos did not take over. Since that time, our societies have undergone gradual change in which conflicts arise and are answered with the liberal principle. Whatever enables more individualistic action, and breaks down more barriers, is good; anything else is bad.
We really got into hot water in the 1930s, when the post-WWI economic collapse coupled with shakeout from the social changes of the nihilistic 20s saw a leftward shift in Europe and the USA. For many it finally became clear that if we dip our toes in the water of moderate or even mild leftism, eventually the whole body will be drawn in. This is because leftism is an absolutist ideology; it sees only one way — progress, more individualism, fewer borders — against everything else. It opposes culture, because it rewards some for complex understandings of nuanced organic rules, and thus is hierarchical. It opposes national boundaries, race, class, gender and any other distinctions. It will only be happy when all people are equal in ability and thus no possible tension can exist between them.
WWII became a battle waged by the “free world” against the nationalist powers of Italy, Germany and Japan. The free world was all nation-states, based on a geographical idea and not heritage and culture. The nationalist states used that older but more natural measurement. As a result, this was not so much a war of states as a war of systems of government. It ended in defeat for the Axis powers, who fought bravely but recklessly, and with revelations of the Holocaust which rapidly became a rallying cry against racism. It thus mirrored the Anglo-American struggle of the previous century which eventually caused vast class instability in Great Britain and a disastrous Civil War in the United States.
For this reason, the dogma of the French Revolution can be seen as a snowball. Its original concept of equality caused the revolutionaries to distrust national boundaries and racial or class distinctions; mixed in with the pro-”freedom” dogma of the American revolution and then American Civil War, the snowball expanded the reach of liberal policies to oppose any distinctions made by heritage. When this political juggernaut ran into the nationalists, it quickly became a rallying cry that the idea of identity, of race, of heritage and of the nation as anything but a mixed-race, mixed-class, genderless political entity was oppression like that of Hitler.
This new view merged liberal democracy with the socialist state, because both capitalism/consumerism and welfare benefits supported the right of individuals to be equal and free of consequences. It was such a final, perfected total state that Francis Fukuyama called it “the end of history” and claimed no further development would exist, although somewhat wistfully. Others saw its dark side: Vaclav Havel noted how the best systems of control were invisible and based on group allegiance, Aldous Huxley saw how a distracted population became the weapon of control itself, and William S. Burroughs saw how economics and social isolation were bigger threats that a police state could muster.
Intellectuals in the West adopted this idea because it seemed like a good thing to do. I was one, once. We thought that if we extended the liberal concepts of equality and fraternity to mean internationalism and multiculturalism, and added a strong welfare state and consumerist component to make society a facilitator of the dreams of individuals, everyone would be fairly treated. Thus no conflict would exist. Thus we would move to pacifism, progress and new levels of equality and equal respect.
The one problem with this vision is that it was the opposite of what it said it was. Anti-fashion is after all a fashion, and anti-hierarchy naturally creates a hierarchy. Anti-oppression and anti-intolerance require strong forces to administer those absolute rules forcibly. In fact, liberalism was an identical version of what the worst tyrant king might administer, except that its goals were universal and political and not localized to one community.
Starting in the early 2000s, cynicism about this vision began to rise. People pointed out that for 200 years, we had been proceeding in a single direction with only a question of degree changing over the years. They pointed out that we too were heading in the direction of the Soviets, where ideology became more important than results in reality. It was also noted that for those past 200 years since the French Revolution, no one had considered any really different path from a liberal system. When things went wrong, we assumed that our methods were wrong. With the global economic and social implosion of the 2000s, it became clear that our goals were wrong. Liberalism was indeed in for a penny, in for a pound, and the moment it was adopted the path toward a Soviet-style system was undertaken.
Even more importantly, in 2008 the United States elected its first black president. In fact, that’s about all anyone knew about the campaign. The aging and incoherent John McCain seemed like a symbol for an old white male order that was dying. Barack Obama brought a violation of everything that order had ever stood for: Muslim name, African heritage, Socialist leanings and identification with popular culture. He was The People’s Candidate, and since the 1965 immigration act that opened the immigration roster to the third world, he resembled a lot of these new voters more than the old white guys who build the West.
But as the happy feelings faded away, people began to see the grim reality: all leftist systems operate by sacrificing everything else at the altar of equality, which can only be achieved by hobbling the above-equal with regulations while simultaneously empowering the below-equal with welfare, subsidies, quotas and other “well-intentioned” social justice programs. LBJ’s “great society” ideas were re-created time and again in American and European social programs. The defining moment of the Barack Obama presidency was his decision to slash funding for space exploration so that social benefits, including healthcare, could be promoted in the name of our poorest, non-whitest, and least vested citizens.
At this moment, the wisdom of the old order began to shine through. People started to see how diversity itself was the problem. One group will be richer than others, and under a leftist regime, wealth will be transferred and enmity both ways will result. Without culture, all that holds a nation together is a government and its nanny state police force. But most of all, when we have no values in common, we’re going to cut out everything but programs to help the poorest or least-majority, because it’s considered impolite and hateful to not support those.
In contrast, under an organic order the nation is composed of people with more in common than not, genetically. They share a heritage in addition to a culture and the values, customs, rituals, events and sayings that go with it. It’s not a political choice, but a way of life, and this cultural mandate does what no amount of police officers can do: it keeps people mostly in line by making them want the estimation of their neighbors. Of course, it’s less “free” than a semi-anarchic welfare-nanny state. You can’t just do anything and still get a welfare check or be unable to be fired from your make-work job. But you do have a social role, a place and clarity about what to do to be rewarded.
The one obstacle to adopting this program was the opposition to anything reeking of nationalism by not only our elites, but our average citizens. They had grown up on a steady diet of the Civil War, the Holocaust and the fight against vicious Klan racists in the American South. In their minds, nationalism meant racism. This was convenient because most of these people already opposed anything but a liberal system of equality, because they feared being found less-equal and being penalized.
Luckily two events have changed that. First, as the world recession deepens, we see that following government programs, hiring diversity directors, measuring success by how many women you hire, and building a system on what the masses want to do to entertain themselves instead of building solid products is a clear path to economic, political and social irrelevance. When the USA killed its space program, the true cost of liberalism was revealed. You can be equal, but in doing so, you have removed the desire for supremacy of results that made your nation great and replaced it with complacency and narcissism.
Second, the poster children for the horrors of inequality and racism, the Jewish people, have found themselves in the role they thought was reserved for the Germans. Much like pre-war Germany, Israel is comprised of a whiter and wealthier population and a darker and poorer one. The state founded for the preservation of the Jewish people, as a religion, culture and race, finds itself having to exclude these darker people so they don’t outbreed the whiter population and replace it, effectively committing genocide through outbreeding. As a result, Israel has adopted a form of natonalism called Zionism which essentially insists on “one race, one nation.” The former enemies of nationalism are now advocating it as a solution to racial intolerance, genocide and bigotry.
As a result, Israel has become a leading voice for renewing nationalism — in effect, going back to the order that the losing side wanted in WWI and WWII. Without nationalism, Jews get replaced by those who want to share the wealth of Israel. Without nationalism, Europeans get replaced by those who want to share the wealth of Europe. Without nationalism, Americans and Canadians become an unruly mob of indeterminate heritage and no shared values, resulting in a third-world society.
World Wars I and II are finally over thanks to this change. History has decided what the wars did not: Israel for Jews, Germany for Germans. The end of equality and internationalism. White power equals black power equals Zionism equals the only world order that will make a society we want to live in. The conflict that divided us for two world wars is now over. We can let go of those wars, bury the dead, shed the last tears, purge the guilt and move on to new challenges.
The new is the old now and the old is the new. It’s hard to see because it’s still on the horizon but coming fast. The era just changed while we were barely watching. History isn’t over; it’s just begun.

A Tribute to Emma West - My Tram Experience

Downgrade of the West

 

Downgrade

Jun 3rd, 2012

by Brett Stevens.

Recent news from the West (US, UK and Western Europe) has not been encouraging. The level of weirdness is up, and a strange silence has fallen over the biggest issues.
Part of this is the election year, some of it is Euro-zone collapse jitters, but underneath all of these surface manifestations there’s a darker fear. That fear is that our nations have undergone
Across the industrialized West, there’s a sensation that this recession is not a momentary blip but a permanent adjustment by which our economies shrink in size and value. We fear that our futures will never be as bright as they were before 2009.
2009 showed us the culmination of the policies of the past two centuries and possibly longer, since what happened in the last two centuries took millennia to distill to a focal point as happened in 1789. But with the egalitarian revolution in Europe, based on the idea that all people and their choices have equal validity in rejection of natural selection and consequences of our actions being important, we embarked upon a new course in the West.
This course went through many permutations. At first, it was regulated with strong leadership and capitalism, but starting in the 1930s, it hybridized right and left to make a new people’s party that embraced both consumerism and a welfare state. This was its perfected form, like the final stage of a deep and fatal infection.
However, as of this decade, we have run out of ways to modify our new beast. We can go communist, try the Swedish social welfare model, or try to go right, but these options are known and not inspiring. We’re out of maneuvering room. This is why 2009 is the year when we recognized that the structure of liberalism, and not just the methods we were using to achieve it, was unstable.
In the meantime however the damage is done. Our economies are not worth what they once were, and our national standings are no longer what they could have been. In addition, we’ve depleted our standing with the following policies:

• Entitlement spending: conservative economics emphasizes putting money into motion in the economy at levels where it can be spread quickly, such as in the hands of the middle classes who disproportionately own small businesses and can jump-start local economies. The new logic is instead to give this money to end-use consumers, like the poor or retired, who spend it on a narrow range of services in which there is not much competition, thus an economic dead end.
• The sexual revolution: thanks to the wonders of The Pill, women are having more sexual partners, getting more burnt out, and “settling” for marriage later in life and having fewer kids. This is a subset of the “Me generation” outlook on life as a whole, where people no longer act in a way that is sensible according to social norms, but take their equally-valid perspective on it as fundamentalist gospel and do whatever seems to them to be personally most desirable. As a result the West is in demographic free-fall.
• Population replacement: as a result, our nations have started importing a random mix of people from the third world. The ethnic groups and races are not the problem, but (a) diversity itself and (b) third-world status are. Diversity divides a society against itself by preventing any cultural consensus from forming, which leaves only mass commerce and a strong government in control. Also, third world countries tend to be burned-out remnants of once-great civilizations. The people there are by definition, with a few exceptions, not the ones who can help make a great society. In addition, this mixing destroys our sense of self and clarity about shared purpose, and to others makes us look like a random shopping mall instead of powerful nations with proud histories and culture.
• No goals: where we were once empires, we are now facilitative states that hope to be places where individuals can make their dreams come true. The problem is that individual dreams are often selfish, and lead to a society constantly fighting itself over how permissive it should be. To outsiders, it looks like brats fighting over who got the imperceptibly bigger or smaller slice of cake.
• We don’t make stuff: our new economy is a circular one, in which we develop products to sell to ourselves and hope this will magically make value. This reshuffling of the deck, and re-making of our economy into a market for the re-sale and re-configuration of existing properties instead of invention and creation of new ones, doesn’t look like a good investment to others. Are Facebook and Google really products, or just services that are temporarily so overvalued that they are created an apocalyptic hole in our economy? Did anyone feel this way about all those great ARM loans we forced our banks to make available to minorities to boost our statistics on home ownership?
• Instability: from looking at our public debates, outsiders see a society of relatively rich people who are squabbling over how they look in public. People try to outdo each other with the outlandish, vying for attention. Others try to compete on the basis of how much they give away, especially of other peoples’ money. The voters sit in the middle, generally inert but easily manipulated with promies of free things.

When we talk about a permanent downgrade, this is the nature of the beast: a society that was once worth real money because it had its act together and was going somewhere, thanks to two centuries of liberalism, now is worth less because it has no goal other than infighting, internal plunder and eventual collapse.
The People(tm) were for centuries happy to be bought off with bread and circuses. Now the bill is due, and it has converted liberalism from “the fresh new way” into the old, calcified, unresponsive and cancerous order that drags us into the past.
For this reason, although the downgrade is painful, it serves a positive purpose. We know what did not work, and we know that we need to cut ourselves free from it if we are to ever gain altitude again.

The UK Labour Party Paedophile Lord Mayors Club

The Labour Party Paedophile Lord Mayors Club

Posted  2012 at Labour 25

The dangers of having a Labour Lord Mayor in the establishment of your local area is deadly to children. The Last Four North West Labour Party Lord Mayors were CONVICTED Paedophile’s which ranged from the child sex crimes of Child rape, Child Abuse, Child blackmail sex attacks and Images of sexual abuse of children in Shackles being abused and distributed over the internet.
Labour Lord Mayor No.1
Sam Chaudry, was the first Muslim Lord Mayor. When he won his local Lord Mayor Election for the Labour Party in Lancashire, just before he was about to put on the Mayoral robes, Police raided his home and arrested him. He was convicted and jailed for 12 years for Raping a child under 6 years old, Abuse of another child under 10 and the Rape of another child aged 8years old.
Labour Lord Mayor No.2
Nicholas Green (Zionist) woke up one morning to have police drag him from his bed in Westhoughton Lancashire. He was dragged off to the police station and charged with raping numerous children under the age of 10 years old. One victim had been abused by Labour Lord Mayor Nicholas Green since she was a child, and was blackmailed by him, ‘silence for more sex.’ On the day of her wedding, he pulled her into a room and threatened to tell all the guests unless she had sex with him… He raped her in her wedding dress on her wedding day. He was sentenced to 8 years.
Labour Party Lord Mayor No.3
 was supposed to be a ‘Pillar of the community’ in his Labour constituency of Halton Cheshire. One day, A man went to see the Labour Lord
Mayor unkowing he was a paedophile, he took his daughter with him. While Liam Temple was talking to the little girl’s father, he said to her ‘Go in my office and play the computer games on the computer.’ The child went in and played on the games, the father wanted to leave but the child wanted to finnish the game so the Labour Party Lord Mayor Liam Temple said ‘She’ll be ok, call back later for her.’’ BIG MISTAKE… Labour Lord Mayor Liam Temple sat next to her and said.. ‘ Name your price, you can have anything’ ‘£5 if you let me see your breasts, £10 if you let me see down there.’’ He was found guilty in front of his family who were disgusted, at the Cheshire Crown Court. He also had to sign the sex offender’s register.
Labour Lord Mayor N0.4
Stewart Brown, The Labour Party’s well dressed Lord Mayor from Hebden Royd near Hebbden Bridge was sitting in the bath when the police knocked at the door. In a posh towelled robe he was immediately put under arrest. The police and special child protection units gathered Paedophile Labour Party Lord Mayor Stewart Brown’s computer, Cd’s and other hardware to be examined by the special forensics team. Neighbours were wondering where Stewart Brown had dissapeared too, they had seen the arrest but not been able to put Two and Two together… until the local newspaper dropped onto the doormat. Labour Party lord Mayor stewart Brown had been downloading child pornography material from the internet of a severe nature including a child in Bondage and Shackles. He had been sharing the images with other predatory child sex beast paedophiles all over the internet and possibly the world. The images were horriffic said the judge, but he escaped with a suspended sentence and has been made to sign the sex offender’s register for the rest of his life.
NO MORE LABOUR PARTY LORD MAYOR’S ! 

Follow us on twitter – Labour25 twitter

A MUSICAL JUBILEE MESSAGE 2012

BY IVE COOPER
THE TRAITOR ELIZABETH THE 2ND SO CALLED QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND , IS THE ONLY MONARCH TO HAVE BROKEN ALL HER CORONATION OATHS!
SHE HAS ALLOWED HER CHURCH, HER PEOPLE, HER COUNTRY TO BETRAYED BY TRAITORS IN PARLIAMENT , ONE PUBLIC WORD FROM HER COULD HAVE STOPPED THE BETRAYAL OF THIS NATION AND IT,S PEOPLE. BUT NO SHE HAS ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN.
CONCLUSION: SHE MUST BE A PART OF THE BETRAYAL!
 SO YOUR MAJESTY ONCE WE THE WHITE WORKING CLASS , ONCE YOUR GREATEST SUPPORTERS ARE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED , WHO? IS GOING TO PROTECT YOU FROM THE INVADERS! 
SO AS IT SAYS IN THE SONG . NO FUTURE FOR YOU!
MAY I ALSO AT THE SAME RENOUNCE ALL LOYALTY TO YOU AND YOUR HEIRS FOREVER !
 

Thought) Crime and Punishment

South West Nationalist

(Thought) Crime and Punishment

Written by Southwest Nationalist

As Jacqueline Woodhouse is handed 21 weeks in prison for committing the ultimate sin of speaking a few drunken words that the state considers to be racist, it may be an opportune time to look at sentencing in some other recent cases.

A lot about a societies priorities, who and what it values, and what it deems to be most important, can be read into the gravity with which it considers, and punishes, various crimes.

With Emma West in court soon, Jacqueline Woodhouse already handed 21 weeks inside, and Liam Stacey jailed for 56 days for his Twitter comments, let's just have a look and see some recent offences seemingly deemed less worthy of punishment.
Killing a puppy?  20 year old Serdar Bosnak threw a Staffordshire Bull Terrier puppy against a wall, killing it.  He received 14 weeks jail.

Sexually abuse a girl repeatedly when she's aged between 5 and 8?  After being convicted of four indecent assaults, four gross indecencies, four sexual assaults, and four charges of inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, David Reed received a 12 months suspended sentence.

Breaking a toddlers arms and legs?  Emma Cartwright and Neil Gleaves did just that.  They'll not do a day in prison.  36 weeks suspended sentence, and a bit of community service.

Stealing £50,000 of lead from a church roof?  Florin Stan, Vergil Stan, and Nicolae Birsan, all Romanian, were given 12 month community orders and 55 hours of unpaid work for stealing the lead from a church roof in Hinckley.

Brutally attack a woman, beat her, and rub pizza in her face?  Kalee Powell, 18, and Precious Gordon, 19, carried out just such an assault on legal secretary Daniela Holischeck.  They received community orders, and were told to pay £300 compensation.

Possess nearly 5,000 vile images of child pornography?  Despite having previously been jailed for child porn offences, Nigel Hannibal was given a 3 year community order and told to take part in a sex offenders program.

Stalk schoolgirls, quiz them about sex, show a 13 year old a picture of your genitals, and then sexually assault a disabled woman?  That's a 2 year community order for Andrew Jackson after a judge took pity on his lack of sex life.

Swindle £14,000 of benefits and get convicted of fraud after pleading not guilty?  Mohammed Hossein Gholamy, failed asylum seeker, discovered to his joy that ripping off the British taxpayer to the tune of £14,212.87 only results in a 60 days suspended prison sentence and 200 hours community work.

We could go on and on, but the message is clear.

So called racism will be punished severely.  Animal cruelty, child abuse, child neglect, child pornography, sexual assault, violent attacks, theft, benefits fraud, and many other offences can attract lesser penalties than uttering (or typing) a few words deemed as racist.

Racism has been elevated to criminal offence number one, with Draconian laws and heavy punishments being used to silence a society increasingly angry at the multicultural nightmare.  Dissent will be stifled, society will be shaped by force.

In a so called free and democratic society we now have a system of thought and speech crime, severely punished, that many dictatorships of old would have been proud of.

Perverts, child abusers, fraudsters, thieves, violent attackers, all can walk free.  Any words not in praise of the enriching minorities who are colonising our nation will be met with severe retribution and incarceration.

That should really tell us something about the priorities of those running this nation, and those administering 'justice'.  We are in an era of thought crimes, a time when the frenzied gestapo of speech and conscience have free rein.  The cardinal crime in our nation today is to be named as racist.

Share this post

ARE WE MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN SYRIA?

ARE WE MORE DEMOCRATIC THAN SYRIA?

The carnage in Syria carries on.
Last week Cameron said he would possibly send British troops to that country and now Hollande of France says his country could take military action.

Let's step back a bit away from all the politicing and take an impartial look at the situation.

The Assad regime is and has been notorious for suppressing dissent but in that multicultural society a firm hand could have been necessary to stop civil war.
Free speech is suppressed and the people yearn to be free.

In that aspect Syria is similar to our supposedly democratic country.
We have been invaded  by aliens with the collusion of our governments of both the main parties. We do not wish to see our town's streets infested with these people, let alone paying taxes to support them.

Ah yes you could say, we have the freedom of the vote and free speech.
Do we? What choice have we? The major parties have similar policies on immigration and free speech so we have no choice there.
But we have a free press you may say.

NO. The press is controlled by the same Common Purpose dictatorship which rules the political parties.
New or smaller parties who oppose their anti democratic cabal are routinely vilified in the media, their policies distorted and supporters forced to hold their tongues in order to keep their jobs.
Only today a woman was sentenced to 21 week's jail for saying WHAT MILLIONS THINK.

AND THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY A FREE COUNTRY with freedom of speach.

SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRITAIN AND SYRIA?

NONE.

There is a rebellion in Syria against a tyranny. Could it happen here?
Well no, or not yet.
An interesting aspect of the Syrian rebellion is the relative impotence of that government to silence the rebels. Our police and army would have gone through a rebellion like a dose of salt.
This means the rebels are armed, so the question must be, by whom?
Foreign influence is obvious here as is a supply of arms to the rebels. It suits the globalists to ferment trouble in Syria to overcome the present regime.

Russia and China have until now acted as a brake on precipitate action by that poodle of the globalists, the UN. These two countries realise that if they grant legitimacy to foreign intervention into internal affairs this could legitimise interference in their own country's affairs and so will not play ball.
Another interesting aspect of this crisis is the relitive absence of concern of countries supposedly liberated in the "Arab Spring", in fact the only Arab countries helping the rebels are such "democracies" as Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states.Turkey is standing by, waiting to pick up some spoils after the fall of the Assad regime.

Now I accept atrocities have been committed by that regime but am sure as the Russians say both sides have done the same.
It is obvious that an international cabal under the UN is determined to destabilise and overthrow Assad. Who is behind that we can only have a GOOD guess at.

The point is that the rebellion is an internal one for Syria and none of our business. We should keep our noses out and certainly not risk the lives of any more of our troops.

BUT AT LEAST THE SYRIAN REBELS HAVE A CHANCE OF OVERTHROWING THEIR UNDEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP, with the help of foreign powers with ulterior motives.

BUT WHAT CHANCE HAVE WE of ridding ourselves of the equally undemocratic system we now have?

NONE.
On the pretext of avoiding gun crime (that's a laugh) British citizens have been disarmed and we are now powerless and in the clutches of international globalist capitalists.
We are mere units of production to be used to further the agenda,softened up by television trash shows to keep us temporarily subdued. Our pubs and clubs have been systematically destroyed by big business interests and with them our sense of community so that our virility and power to resist, replaced by propaganda stuffed in our face by the television.

Bread and circuses they called it in the past.

Revolutions start in tap rooms, and that is why the government is destroying pubs.

If you put all the things happening, at home and internationally and think about it I believe it is impossible to miss a sinister plan by those in power.
For further details read 1984.

And in our "free" country you can desecrate our cenotaph and get a slap on the wrist but tell aliens you don't like them here when drunk you get 21 weeks.

Justice and freedom?