The Israeli revolution on Immigrants

 

The Israeli revolution

Jun 2012

by Brett Stevens.

As mentioned in a previous blog post, the last 60 years of politics against nationalism are being undone by the people in whose name nationalism was demonized.
Jews in Israel are realizing that like other first-world populations, they have produced a comfortable nation, and now just about everyone else on earth wants to sneak in and set up shop to partake of the wealth. (These people haven’t yet learned that wealth is created, not found. This is in part why they have none in the first place.)
When that happens, these foreigners move into your land and quickly set up shop. They prosper from your wealth and soon outnumber you. At that point, they either gain power through democratic means, or outright seize it. In the process, they interbreed with your people. This means you are no longer what you were. In fact, you’re now a hybrid. The original is gone forever, much like it would be in a genocide.
Under a nationalist order, which was the popular way of doing things until 1945 or so, one nation meant one group by culture, language, heritage and values. Heritage included race, and ethnic group. Thus Germany was for Germans, Israel for Jews, Ethiopia for Ethiopians and Thailand for the Thai. This both protected each unique ethnic group, and also maintained an order that government could not hope to achieve.
With agreement in culture, parity in abilities which are heritable and constitute heritage, and thus shared values and direction, civilizations simply did not need as much government. Everyone did what they needed to in roughly similar ways. The sense of group identity, and the pairing of that identity with values and heritage, meant that a sense of cooperation prevailed over the individualism. People were still individuals, but expressed it through achievement and moral decision-making and not in the surface adornments of possessions, outlandish behavior and bangles like trophy wives and families and adopted political viewpoints.
Theodor Herzl, a famous Jewish writer, pointed out why nationalism was important. In his view, the cause of anti-Semitism was the presence of Jews among majority cultures. The cause was not Jews; it was the presence of Jews, or to genericize it, the presence of a minority among a majority culture. He saw that a minority culture could either attempt to assimilate, and thus adulterate the majority culture, or remain true to their own traditions, and thus always be the exception that forced others to accommodate them. In Herzl’s view, this was a path to constant ethnic conflict, and the solution was a national homeland in Israel.
After almost seventy years of denying nationalism, the government of Israel — an ethnostate created to preserve the Jewish heritage, religion and culture — has affirmed nationalism by ejecting its immigrants and refusing to cater to the Palestinian majority, who with their higher rate of breeding will displace the Jewish people in their own homeland within another five decades.

In the last few weeks, Israeli authorities have shown similar resolve in deporting Africans, who have been sneaking into the country in ever-increasing numbers. With a boldness that every Western country should imitate, the Israelis have mandated expulsion for the explicit purpose of keeping their country Jewish—even for keeping it white. Once the government made up its mind that the Africans had to go, it went into action very quickly.
…There is, to be sure, a cruel double standard. Any American or European who wants an ethnostate of his own is a frothing bigot, whereas Israelis who want the same thing are heroes in their own country and respectable statesmen here. It is entirely understandable that American patriots should be angry about the double standard, but it is more useful to laud the Israeli example than to complain about it. The Israeli government is doing exactly what we would like our government to do. We should point to Israel as a model and encourage our rulers to copy it rather than grouse about others getting away with things we can’t do. We should celebrate this Israeli policy just as we would a similar outbreak of sanity in Canada or Australia. – American Renaissance

Israel has realized that this is a question of genocide.
Immigration is genocide. There are more immigrants than there are people in the first world, and if some come, others will rise up to replace them in their native lands as people reproduce more to ensure a steady supply of workers. The first world will be overrun by people “seeking a better life,” at which point its economies will collapse, then it will politically collapse, and finally it will dissolve into anarchy and criminality as its people starve.
If your nation exists, it should have a purpose. That includes the protection of your people, who are unique and easily destroyed. Viewing the task as one of economics or politics misses the point: this is not an optional issue that can be fiddled with to buy votes or jack up the taxpayer population. It’s a question of exterminating yourselves.
Europe is finally waking up and beginning to follow the European model. The United States will not be far behind. The reason is that these nations are recognizing that multiculturalism produces a do-nothing society where no one has anything in common, and resent their society for that, thus tend to riot, rape, loot, vandalize, assault and steal. The result is a path to a postmodern dystopia: unruly grey cultureless people ruled by a strong police state which also functions as permanent in loco parentis for people too disassociative to figure out the means of their own survival.
Even European leftist parties are snorting themselves to consciousness and declaring that the great multiculturalism experiment is over:

For too long we assumed those who worried about immigration were stuck in the past — unrealistic about how things could be different, even prejudiced.
Britain was experiencing the largest peacetime migration in recent history partly because of global factors like the lower cost of travel but also because the last Labour government severely underestimated the numbers who would come here when the EU expanded.
We were too dazzled by globalisation’s impact on growth and too sanguine about its price. We lost sight of who was benefiting and the people being squeezed in the middle who were losing out. And, to them, Labour was too quick to say: “Like it or lump it.” – VDARE

Multiculturalism, also known by its 1780s-1920s name of internationalism, is part of the leftist drive for absolute equality. The individual alone should be important, and no border should restrain him. Like Communism, a nice plan in the idealized space of “logic” that inhabits idle minds.
Back in the land of thinking about all of the consequences of an event, and not just how pleasing it is as a social meme or talking point, people are realizing that multiculturalism does not work. It’s not just this recession; it’s that societies are falling apart wherever it is tried, and the promise of making life better for (a) European-descended peoples and (b) immigrants has for the most part not materialized.
Instead, what we’re seeing is a destruction of indigenous populations and their replacement with a known quantity. This known quantity is not some adventurous, interesting and genius new race of humankind, but the same old mishmash of people without culture or heritage that we find in most third-world states.
This is why Israel is leading the way in the charge back to nationalism. We can have only one: nationalism or internationalism. Internationalism as it turns out is genocide that destroys societies and makes victims of everyone.
Now that the ice has been broken by the very people our rabid anti-internationalism was designed to protect, expect a domino effect of other countries demanding the same privilege. They’re not doing it from ideology, but from practicality. Their only other option is self-destruction.

the Third World in Europe Makes Europe the Third World

Bring the Third World to Europe Makes Europe the Third World

Posted  June 2012 

When you bring people to Europe from the Third World, do you change the people or do you change Europe?

This was the question asked by Andrew Brons MEP during a debate on the “Roma” or Gypsies of Europe, held in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) last week.

“The Roma seem to move in and out of fashion in the European Parliament. We have not heard of them for some time. I was beginning to get quite worried,” Mr Brons said.

“I feel that the Roma are depersonalised in many documents and speeches. They are spoken about as a people who can have things done to them: discrimination; deprivation; impoverishment.

“They are also people who must have people done for them – provided with EU money.

“They are never credited with having done things for themselves or to themselves. Indeed they are not credited with having the capability of doing either.

“I don’t know how many MEPs ever meet any Roma. Perhaps they occasionally see a picture of one on a chocolate box. I know two in Britain who have done very well for themselves.

“They do sometimes act very well for themselves, as I have mentioned. However, sometimes, they do things to themselves and to each other that are far from beneficial.

“Two years ago, we had a hearing in this Committee LIBE) about the human trafficking of women and girls and we had a representative from Europol.

“I asked him, rather cautiously, whether any population group was disproportionately represented among the traffickers and among the trafficked.

“His answer was clear and unambiguous. He said that the answer to both questions was the Roma. Roma men were trafficking Roma women and girls for prostitution.

“If you doubt that, when you are next in Strasbourg look at the Roma encampments outside the City to the East and you will see only a little down the road Roma girls standing by the side of the road. The authorities have done absolutely nothing about it.

“It was said earlier that the lives of the Roma were more similar to the lives of people in the Third World than to those of people in Europe.

“Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that they come originally from the Third World.

“There is a more general question. When you bring people to Europe from the Third World, do you change the people or do you change Europe?”

The hunted

The hunted

Jun 2012

by Brett Stevens.

Most modern citizens of the West take their society at face value and assume that its intention is what it says its intention is.
In contrast to that, some have found out that society is more of a pleasant covering — a perfume, a drop cloth, a euphemism — for the underlying natural order of predation, parasitism and production.
This order was chosen by life because it requires no context. It works in any situation, provided there is time, space and energy. Evolution is of this nature, as is thought itself.
When we think, some thoughts consume others and some thoughts delay others, prolonging their own lives with the momentum of others. This has the effect of producing a hierarchy: weakness is dragged down by the parasites, and the strong conquer others to rise.
The translation of this order into the physical reality we inhabit is terrifying to us because not only are we potential prey, made of tasty meat, but we are also locked in our large brains which see only the world made of our memories, our judgments, our knowledge and our feelings.
As a result, we tend to deny the underlying order of reality and its predators, parasites and producers. One reason for that is that we, and by that I generalize the Western population in the middle socioeconomic and intellectual bracket, are actually what is hunted by both the predators and parasites in this world.
Predators are those who would take what we have through conquest. These are on the international scale other contenders for superpower status, and at home, competition in business and social pursuits. Some groups want to rise above their social status, others want to immigrate and take control, and still others want to seize us for their religious, economic, political or social agendas. We are their targets.
Even more predatory are those who want to use us as food for their businesses. They want us to be fodder for our products. They wish to infect our heads with illusions, inducing us to buy from them, and to make profit from us.
While this is part of the natural order, it is natural for us to wish to avoid when not advantageous for us. How many times must we hear this tale: product is invented, becomes an underground hit because it’s a better option, then gets sold and the MBAs come out of the woodwork, thus product gets made more cheaply and becomes less effective at the same time it becomes the most popular. We are the target. They hunt us for their nourishment and want to dominate us.
On the other side, the parasites wish to drag down those of us that they can catch being unwary. Unlike a predator, a parasite does not seek to consume. It seeks to cut itself a share of the pie and eat at the table, every day. A successful predator wins by conducting a transaction, but a parasite wins by keeping the transaction open for as long as possible.
The biggest parasites are well-intentioned government programs and special interest groups that demand we subsidize them in exchange for feelings of moral superiority. They actually give us nothing. They program us to think that quibbling over money is lower-class, and that we look like jerks if we don’t support any cause that makes someone somewhere happier or “more empowered.”
The goal of these parasites cannot be taken at face value. They do not intend to fix the problems they describe. Instead they intent to milk them, applying gentle pressure in such a way that induces more of the problem to come to light, so they can achieve their real agenda, which is bleeding away your cash.
Middle class people in the West, who comprise its most productive sector and those who will determine its future with their political power, like to remain in oblivion that they are the hunted. But they are: they are the prize, the real breadwinners of this society and the ones everyone else wants to replace, or else live off of.
Almost all the voices in media deny this because each voice is hoping to cut itself a share of that wholesome middle class pie. But as animals struggling for our own survival, we forget the natural order — no matter how much cloaked in pleasantries — at our peril.

Screw yourself , You Elect Them

Screw yourself

Jun  2012

by Brett Stevens.

The Dunning-Kruger effect tells us that those who are least competent will see themselves as more competent, while those who are more competent will bemoan their failings.
This shows us the radical individualist mindset at work. It is not as simple as ego; ego is in and of itself a decision-maker and a consideration of self as more than raw impulse, thus is a very useful thing. But when the individual devotes himself or herself to radical individualism, the ego becomes a defensive creature.
It is defensive because it has no goal. In fact, its goal is the absence of a goal, so that whims and impulses can rule the mind. This is a blameless state of mind, an eternal present, which at first seems comforting to the individual who has lost his way.
The ego views any part of external reality that competes with these whims as an enemy. The ego wants complete control, so that its whims are more important than its obligations to pay attention to the world around it, and stave off bad consequences. Left purely to its own devices, the ego would create a world of no consequences and no past, so that all that matters would be the present moment and the process of making decisions or expressing whims, feelings, emotions and desires.
Aristocratic societies deny radical individualism and instead operate on the leadership principle. The idea is that a leader must be morally, mentally, spiritually and intellectually disciplined so that he can prevent the impulses of the population from taking over. When impulses rule, commonality of focus on the goal is lost, and all decisions are made as if by committee. The neurotic mind likes this because it conceals its own failings by forcing all activity into a narrow range where very little is truly wrong.
When the Crowd overthrew their leaders, they replaced leadership with the notion of popularity. It didn’t matter if a leader was good; what mattered was that his people found his words compelling. The result has been a series of manipulators who make large promises, deliver very little, blame the opposition and end up millionaires.
Many in the United States and Europe are currently so enraged with their elected leaders that they want to throw them out, or jail them, or worse. What they forget is that these are elected leaders. They managed to get into office by convincing people with their words. But we trust these people to make the right decision. Either these words are witchcraft, and should be banned, or the people made a bad decision. Since it’s unpopular to think the latter, we think the former despite its superstitious and illogical basis.
Conservatism was a historical opposition to this tendency. Instead of focusing on the individual, conservatism focuses on the object to be conserved — nature, the family, heritage, values and wisdom — and thus bypasses and transcends the individual. This annoys the left, who have manufactured surrogate or oppositional issues for all things the right likes to conserve. Instead of conserving nature, we fight for carbon caps; instead of the family, we struggle for birth control; instead of heritage, there’s internationalism; values and wisdom are replaced by political dogma and “science” in the narrowest sense. Conservatism was a backlash against the defensive ego by shifting politics from whim to a derivation of physical reality.
The defensive ego hated that, because the radical individualist impulse is to deny any limitations on the individual, its ego and its whims. It does not see a world of cause and effect, but a static world in which things exist that it may want. As a result, it makes political choices based not on what is likely to occur, but what it wishes will occur; it is blind to any real future, because it only sees the now as it knows it, and the changes it would like to see made to that now.
That type of thinking leads to disasters like the following:

In 1980, a year at a public college cost about 12 percent of median family income; the maximum Pell grant covered 70 percent of that. Today, public colleges cost a staggering 26 percent of family income each year, and Pell grants cover at most a third. Republicans ignore this entirely. Democrats say that without their modest Pell grant boosts, things would be even worse. – “Young Americans Get the Shaft,” The Washington Post

Much as with Congress, there is no one to blame here except the voter. In particular, the young voters are to blame, because it was their demands that made this situation. They saw that college degrees led to good jobs, and declaring reality to be not a zero-sum game, they figured that then everyone could get a college degree and everyone would have a high paying job. A simple study of cause-effect relationships reveals that were that to happen, the value of a college degree would fall in proportion to its commonality. And that is exactly what happened.
The voters have not noticed and are busy trying to find someone to blame. They will probably blame George W. Bush because he seems to be a convenient scapegoat. When the orgy of blame is over, they’re going to look for the next convenient promise that flatters them and makes them think government will do something to allow them to live in the world of whim yet again. They will screw themselves then, as they’ve screwed themselves with education, by engaging in the eternal cycle: see something good, demand it for everyone, and then be shocked and surprised to find that its value — its rarity — has been destroyed.
Products, ideas, trends, memes, communities and even civilizations follow the same cycle. Some good idea breaks free from the pack, and then the pack realizes it wants that idea, so they en masse demand it and in the process, bent it to their ideals. That makes it into the same mundane ideas that were failing before it came along. Now the new idea is equally worthless to the old. This is how humanity destroys itself and the source of its misery.

Union Political Contribution Opt Out Forms - For Non-Labour voters of Unison, Unite, GMB and USDAW

 Please use the links below to opt out of funding the NWO Marxist trade unions

Union Political Contribution Opt Out Forms - For Non-Labour voters of Unison, Unite, GMB and USDAW

Are you a member of a Union, but don't vote Labour?  Do you want to stop your Union, giving your money, to the Labour Party?  Here's a little help:

UNISON Opt out form

UNITE Opt out form

GMB:  A form of exemption notice can be obtained by or on behalf of any member either by application at, or by post from, the Head Office or any Branch Office of the Union or from the:

Certification Office for Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations,
22nd Floor, Euston Tower,

286 Euston Road,

London NW1 3JJ.

This form, when filled in, or a written request in a form to the like effect, should be handed or sent to the Secretary of the Branch to which the member belongs.

USDAW: You must Email them to request opt out. Contact form HERE 

Note: For all other Unions click HERE

IMPORTANT NOTE: Make sure that when you have opted out that you don't have to request a refund - some of these Unions continue to take your money and won't stop until you request a refund.  You may also notice that your opt out may not start until the New Year.  Good Luck!

Leftism Politics and original sin

 

An eternal religion: original sin

Jun , 2012

by Forest Johnson.

Politics goes back a long, long way, as does Leftism.
Indeed, without Leftism, aka Sinisterism, politics could not exist.
The Garden of Eden was the setting for Original Sin, which saw the devil beguiling Adam and Eve into the temptation of equality with God.
For what is temptation, but the promise of an easy route to what is not yours, or that you do not deserve? It is easy to see that temptation equals Leftism.
And so we have the devil, sinister by default, appealing through temptation, to Adam and Eve, to disobey God and eat the apple that would give them equality with God. Which is an easy thing to fall for, if you are human. To want whatever you consider you do not have, in preference for what you do have.
Humans always have a choice. They may decide which route to take. The one that is right and good, natural and life-giving, or the one that breaks all the rules of living, because it looks like the fast route to personal gain. This is the nature of temptation, and the nature of Leftism. Except, as is widely known among those who refuse temptation: the easy route is generally not what it appears to be, at all, and leads, inevitably, to the exact opposite of what it promises to deliver. Along with chaos, preceding final, permanent death.
The first Leftist was the devil himself. God granted life to the first humans, along with every goodness necessary to sustain that life. The devil set about taking that goodness, and life itself, away. Not by honest and direct means, because the sinister is incapable of such action, but by deception and deceit.
If the Left came right out and told it like it was, nobody would buy it.
“Vote for us, and we will progressively destroy everything that sustains you, until finally you, yourself are destroyed. Forever.”
No. That would not be something a Leftist would say. It would be more like:
“Vote for us, and get everything you don’t have, be anything you want to be, behave in any way you want, do no work, and worship nothing except yourself, and do it all at the expense of those who are responsible for your situation.”
And people, being people, are sorely tempted by this.
The devil offers much.
And delivers only death.
There is a right way and a wrong way. One works, but generally involves sacrifice. The other appears to work, but ultimately doesn’t; appears to involve no sacrifice, but sacrifices everything for nothing. The responsible way, and the irresponsible way. The way of life, and the way of death.
Adam and Eve were the eternal innocents. They may as well have been sentient rabbits, nibbling on boundless acres of verdant green. Innocence. This is acceptable in the newly-born, the very young, and in small, furry animals. It is a vulnerable, transitory state, that for survival’s sake, must be soon grown out of.
Men trade innocence for self-discipline. Selfishness for responsibility. Dogma for wisdom. Those who do not, are not men, at all, but babies.
The Religion is not some airy-fairy fireside story.
It tells the way to life. It warns of the way to death.
It promotes a reverence for life, advising against the worship of death.
It recognizes and respects both, but makes no bones about which it prefers.
The next time you encounter a serpent, shun it, but treat it well.
It knows not what it does, nor cares, for it is what it is.
It can not help itself.
If it exists, at all, then it has a purpose.
That purpose is not to become an object of worship.

Albion

• 
• 

Written by Albion

We are preaching to the converted, how many times have you heard that?  Writers post articles like this not necessarily to preach to the converted but rather hoping that people who are drawn to internet sites like the British Resistance and other Patriotic movements that are continually being vilified by the media and National Broadcaster and suspect the government and the establishment are not telling the truth will by reading these articles will have their suspicions confirmed.
We are all horrified at the rape of our country but what is continually being asked is can the people do anything about it?  Can it be reversed?  After finding myself in the wilds of London recently, West Norwood actually, patiently waiting in a bus shelter with about 8 assorted Africans or Caribbeans I was half expecting a voice to enquire of me ‘’Dr Livingstone I presume?’’
Large blocks of Council apartments stood behind me with African children playing around the perimeter of the tower blocks, the passers-by were all from the third world, there were no white people except my wife and me.  I had not deliberately headed to this part of colonised London, the immediate thought was, it is too late this damage is irreversible.  I travelled on 4 buses and 4 trains as BR were working on parts of the rail system.  That day the sights I saw from the window of the bus and train frightened the hell out of me.
I was visiting my sister who has been in a palliative care home for over 25 years with MS and when she was first admitted to this institution West Norwood was predominately White.  I thought to myself this change is irreversible.  I went into the shop next to the bus stop to buy a paper; again it was a Negro shop, so were all the other shops.
Later on in the week I went to a little Kent village close to where I was brought up, Wateringbury.  I went into a shop to buy bread and found it was owned by a Pakistani, or Indian or Sri Lankan or Bangladeshi, God knows who!  But the questions still remain; can anything be done about the dreadful uncharacteristic changes taking place in Our Country?
It will be proved within this century, once the blood has been cleaned away that what European governments and successive British governments have achieved in experimenting with so called ‘Multiculturism’ and ‘Diversity’ amount to blatant human rights violations inflicted on the indigenous European populations and at the same by enacting savage, stifling undemocratic laws curtailing the peoples freedom of speech and expression, freedom to voice genuine concern at the dilution and in our case the destruction of the unique English character, not dissimilar to the atrocities being perpetrated on the indigenous peoples of Tibet by the Chinese, whose culture and traditions are not Tibetan and who are deliberately scattering them to other lands and reshaping the Tibet population.
In this country these experiments have caused terrible social fragmentation and upheaval; ‘No Go’ areas only for the indigenous people in their own land and fear for the safety of their children once out on the streets, especially young females.  It is changing the quintessential English character and appearance of many English cities, towns and even villages with eyesores like Mosques and Minarets and the banshee desert wailings of the call to prayer, schools where none of the pupils have English as their first language.  Strange black apparitions on the street, humans resembling Crows or is that Penguins?  This has not happened by accident but by wilful, criminal design.
The people can rise up but the authorities use the Ideological Police forces that resort to Kettling; shepherding the peasants like the sheep.  Incidentally In March 2012 Kettling was ruled lawful by the European Court of Human Rights following a legal challenge, note not made legal by OUR government but by an illegally formed pseudo government in a foreign country.
We witnessed baton charges against our own people when we saw during the protest march of the Countryside Alliance, or the British Policeman who murdered an innocent man walking past a street protest on his way home.  This is decaying England in the 21st century.  Enlightened people know what has caused this terrible situation but how do we stop it without a democratic election system in this country.
So far what I have written is stating the bleeding obvious; the question still remains how do white people halt their demise and how do we regain self government?
For a start it we must understand this festering edifice that is controlling the borders of Europe, refinancing its debts, arranging austerity packages and threating fines severe if counties do not adhere to the austerity conditions placed upon them by yet another treaty and in the meanwhile looking to expand into North Africa and beyond.
This socialist monster was constructed one agreement at a time, one treaty at a time it cannot be disassembled overnight only by pulling out of one treaty at a time.  Don’t look to the English people for salvation; they have lost heart, their courage over 60 years has been shattered, look to Europe.
We must encourage revolt in Europe, we must encourage countries to take control of their own destinies, and we must encourage them as they have the backing of many people here even though many are too terrified publicly to voice any opinion.
Like Nazi Germany the European Union must be destroyed first by withdrawing from the Schengen treaty which eliminated all border controls within the occupied European states.  I believe the Greek opposition want OUT of this agreement to have more control of their borders to stem the tide of Turks, Tunisians, Libyans, and Moroccans and economic tourists from darkest Africa.
With the epidemic of rape in Norway and Sweden withdrawing from this treaty would go a long way in reducing the numbers of violent rapes in Scandinavia by stemming the tide of illegals.  It is not the E.U that channels blacks into Europe but the United Nations, a truly globalist entity.  The EU just facilitates movement through Europe that much easier.
What terrifies politicians most is the possibility of losing an election and having to work for a living, if enough people complain they have to listen.
If Marine Le Pen were to join a governing coalition in France I would hope she too would look at withdrawing from this mad Schengen Treaty.  Although I believe she wants OUT of the EU totally.  This monster cannot be destroyed overnight its destruction will come by ONE TREATY AT A TIME.
After its destruction perhaps we can see a little clearer and not be bound by another foreign country telling us who we can or cannot deport and most importantly we can immediately seal our borders …IT IS A START.……………………… THERE IS STILL HOPE.

Father’s protest against a left wing pedophile supporter yards from where toddler James Bulger was abducted,

Father’s protest against a left wing pedophile supporter at her place of work just yards from where toddler James Bulger was abducted, abused and murdered.

Posted on June , 2012

Members of the Parents against paedophiles (P.A.P) stormed into the shop where Nikki McDonough was working to challenge the owners of the ‘Cash Shop’ which employed a paedophile supporter. In the early 1990’s toddler James Bulger was abducted and abused, then murdered just across the street in the Strand shopping center in Strand Road Bootle. The angry parents were reacting to the setting up of a counter demonstration by miss McDonough and her union member boyfriend Phil Dickens who works just yards away in the Triad center also in Strand Road Bootle. The pair of hard line left wing anarchists organised a violent demonstration against the people of Liverpool who objected to the abuse of countless young children in Rochdale by 9 convicted paedophiles. The ‘sick’ pair turned up with suspected members of a far left group known as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) who thought paedophilia was ‘normal.’ Phil Dickens has strong links with the Labour Party, and many people wondered why he had not been tracked down earlier. He was spotted by a woman in McDonalds on Strand Road, Bootle Liverpool, after a woman recognised him when she and her husband were confronted by him for protesting against the paedophile gang outside Liverpool Crown Court. They then contacted Parents Against Paedophiles and this website. Two undercover investigators from the Labour25 investigation Wirral base team, went out to observe and found the ‘VILE’ pair working in Strand Road.
A spokesperson for ‘Parents Against Paedophiles commented.. ‘’we can’t thank these people enough for finding this pair of paedophile supporters.’’ ‘’As good members of the public, they have gone well above their call of duty.’’ ‘’The public will now be made aware of these Two.’’ She added, ‘’There is also a case coming forward that Phil Dickens had touched a young lad at his place of work, bruising him and making him nervous.’’ ‘’We are waiting for information and other witnesses to come forward on this issue.’’ The Two have also got Labour links with Labours Harriet Harman once involved in PIE and also Ex Labour MP candidate Peter Tatchell, who said ‘Not all sex involving children is unwanted.’’ During the demonstration, onlookers went crazy at the shop who employed such a person as Nikki McDonough. One woman commented, ‘’What sort of woman would support paedophiles?’’ Another said, ‘’Her boyfriend is hiding up in the Triad center looking out of the window.’’ It was true, Phil Dickens was hiding several stories up but refused to come out even to protect his girlfriend from the angry Bootle crowd that now gathered in mass below. Police arrived and the protesters were given a loud cheer and clap by the paeople of Strand Road Bootle. ‘’There is no place for paedophile supporters in Bootle,’’ a group of young girls added.’’

Follow us on twitter – Labour25 twitter

 

Guilt compulsion tyranny

Jun 2012

by Steve Harris.

There’s nothing in common between our citizens anymore, and the internet shows it. Almost all references to the internet begin with “So I was arguing with this idiot…” The points of view are literally incompatible.
No case in point is more illustrative than a recent exchange on noted internet dropout huddle zone Reddit. One poster told a story about an elementary-school student who was not very popular, and this kid had a birthday party, and no one came.
The poster was hurt and outraged that kids were so “cruel” and used epithets to describe their behavior. But is it really so? As I pointed out, it’s not necessarily that they were cruel. They may have simply not wanted to socialize with the kid. Saying that they then must socialize with him, or be thought cruel, is a type of mental control through guilt. In fact, it’s a bit psycho to judge their behavior in any way. There should be no obligation to go to birthday parties, or the exercise becomes full Soviet and there’s no fun left in it.
In the same way, our citizens should not be forced to socialize with one another. But in the hands of nanny state government however, the same choice will be made as this poster wants to do to birthday parties. It’s not fair if someone has a birthday party that is unattended, he thinks, so we should use guilt and fear of being ostracized to force people to attend. Never mind that then the kid is not merely unpopular, but hated, because he’s an obligation as odious as paying taxes or waiting in line at the DMV.
Our society tosses around words like “cruel” and “oppressive” without even bothering to care what the meaning is. You succeed in this society by being inoffensive and having a spiel that most people find pleasant and complimentary. They like having their heads filled with images of themselves as kind and wise, not cruel and prone to exercise judgment. In their distracted egomaniac stroll through life, they want to be told that no one is more important than anyone else, and that no one can tell anyone else what to do. This lets their distracted suburban-housewife mentality think that everything is peaceful, maan. We’re all cool because we’re all the same. We are one, now have a dreamcatcher and an Ansel Adams print to make you feel profound.
The grim reality of the situation is that it is better for everyone if we are all totally honest instead. Take the unpopular kid for example. If no one in his class wants to go to his birthday party, he should face that truth and then consider his options. The first is one that most people find upsetting, because it requires you to really escape the brainwashing of this era. Who cares if you’re popular? Don’t bother trying to be popular unless it’s important to you. The second option is for people to whom it is important to be popular. If no one wants to come to your birthday party, you have to figure out why and change yourself so that they like you. If they’re all jerks or idiots, you have to be a jerk or idiot like them, but your party will be well attended.
In either case, the unpopular kid has made a choice and adapted. Either he rejects popularity itself or finds a way to win at the game. He would not have these realizations if he were not told by others by their non attendance that he was not popular. When we shield this kid from reality by forcing other kids to go to his party, he never goes through the learning experience and for the rest of his life, goes through life depending on a false notion of how it works.
Our society as a whole is run like a committee. It likes to make everyone play well together. Its leaders like to see peace, order, conformity and most of all a constant need for external validation. People who go through life begging for attention are easy to control. The nanny state comes from this mentality, and thrives by controlling us through its approval, like a manipulative parent. It wants us all to be forced to go to the unpopular kids’ birthday because that keeps the peace, and also breaks our independent will and makes us dependent on how others perceive us.
The scary thing about this state of mind is that it arises from good intentions. No one wants to think about being the kids whose party was a bust. But in the name of that fear, we create a far worse devil. By forcing us to interact with each other, we make our society insincere and manipulative. That effectively destroys all honest emotions, all friendships, all love. But at least the committee is happy.

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