No mosque at Ground Zero

Geert Wilders in Berlin Germany

Geert Wilders in Berlin

Below is the full transcript of the speech given by Geert Wilders at Die Freiheit conference in Berlin on 3 September 2011.

Thank you for inviting me to Berlin. It is an honour to be here in this beautiful city of Berlin. When I was here last year I emphasized how important Germany is for all of us. We all benefit from a healthy, democratic, self-confident Germany.

Much has happened since my last visit. In the Netherlands we were able to achieve many amazing things. We have successfully started to roll back the process of Islamization in the Netherlands.

We have done so in a peaceful way and through the democratic process. Recently, a deranged narcissistic psychopath from Norway committed a horrible crime. In cold blood he murdered nearly eighty innocent fellow citizens. The assassin pretended to be a concerned European. He said that he had committed his atrocity because “It is meaningless to participate in the democratic process.” But he is wrong. The mass murderer from Oslo murdered and maimed, and he justified his heinous crime by denying – I quote – “that it is remotely possible to change the system democratically.” – end of quote.

But he is wrong! The Oslo murderer falsely claims to be one of us. But he is not one of us. We abhor violence. We are democrats. We believe in peaceful solutions.

The reason why we reject Islam is exactly Islam’s violent nature. We believe in democracy. We fight with the force of our conviction, but we never use violence. Our commitment to truth, human dignity and a just and honourable defence of the West does not allow us to use violence nor to give in to cynicism and despair. We cherish the tradition of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Jelena Bonner, Lech Walesa and Ronald Reagan. These heroes defeated a totalitarian ideology by the power of their conviction and without firing a single shot. As the ex-Muslim and Islam-critic Ali Sina said in a reaction to the Oslo atrocity: “We don’t raise a sword against darkness; we lit a light.”

So it is. We lit the light of the truth. And the truth will set us free.

The truth is that Islam can be successfully fought with democratic means. We do so in the Netherlands. You can do so, too, in Germany! Let me tell you what we have achieved in the Netherlands since my last visit to Berlin, less than one year ago. It will encourage you. What can be done in the Netherlands can also be done in Germany.

My party, the Party for Freedom, which has 24 seats of the 150 seats in parliament, supports a minority government of Liberals and Christian-Democrats. We do this in return for measures to restrict immigration, roll back crime, counter cultural relativism, and restore our traditional Western freedoms, such as freedom of speech.

The Party for Freedom has been in this position for less than a year, but we are achieving great things. We have achieved that the Netherlands will soon ban the face-covering Islamic burkas and the niqabs!

We will restrict immigration from non-Western countries by up to 50% in the next four years. We are going to strip criminals who have a double nationality and who repeatedly commit serious crimes, of their Dutch nationality.

The Party for Freedom is bringing a message of hope to the Netherlands. The new policies will place more demands on immigrants. Integration will not be tailored to different groups anymore. There will be a tougher approach to immigrants who disobey the law. Those who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress, will see their access to welfare payments diminished.

We have also achieved that anti-Israeli activities will no longer be funded with Dutch taxes. So-called humanitarian aid organizations that directly or indirectly support anti-Israel boycotts, divestments and sanctions and that deny Israel’s right to exist will no longer get government funding.

The Dutch government will boycott the United Nation’s Durban III meeting against racial discrimination because it has been transformed into a tribunal for accusations against Israel. The government will strengthen our political and economic relations with Israel. Investment rather than divestment will be our policies towards Israel.

We stand with Israel. We love Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is part of our civilization.

My friends, what the Party for Freedom has achieved, shows that it can be done. To borrow a phrase from President Obama: Yes, we can! We can stop the islamization of our societies. The Dutch example shows that we can win. David can defeat Goliath!

Last July, the Dutch government even did something which not a single nation has dared to do before. It spoke out firmly against the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. The OIC is an international organization of 57 Islamic countries, most of them barbaric tyrannies. This OIC constitutes the largest voting bloc in the United Nations. It had criticised the fact that Dutch judges had acquitted me of all charges of group insult and incitement to hatred and discrimination. But the Dutch government made it clear to the OIC that freedom of speech will not be muzzled in the Netherlands. It told the OIC very bluntly: “The Dutch government dissociates itself fully from the request to silence a politician.” – end of quote. We will never submit to the Islamic OIC bullies!

As you probably know, for almost two years I went through the ordeal of being a suspect in a criminal case. I was dragged to court in Amsterdam on the accusation of hate speech crimes. Last June, this legal charade ended with a full acquittal.

The Dutch people learned through my acquittal that political debate has not been stifled in their country.

My acquittal was a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch people also learned that they are allowed to speak critically about Islam. They learned that resistance against Islamization is not a crime. They learned that there is hope and that liberation is near.

My acquittal marks the turning of the tide. Not only in the Netherlands, but in the whole of Europe. It is the first breach of the dyke. We have started the roll-back operation. We have sent a message to the ideologues of Islam: Don’t tread on us!

My acquittal has a significance which far surpasses the Netherlands. It has a meaning for the whole of Europe and the free world. My acquittal marks the end of an evolution whereby our civil liberties in Europe are constantly being restricted in order not to offend Islam and anger Islamic fanatics.

My acquittal legitimizes criticism of Islam. It does so also in Germany and everywhere else.

Indeed, why should you Germans not enjoy the same rights as the Dutch? If peaceful and democratic resistance to Islamization is not a crime in the Netherlands, it should not be a crime in Germany either.

So, here is my message to you: Continue your fight for freedom and freedom of speech! Do not let your politicians and judges grant you fewer rights than the Dutch!

Do not let yourselves be intimidated by Islamic or leftist opponents who shriek and yell. Do not let yourselves be intimidated by media who claim that a murderer who has lost his belief in the democratic process has anyhow been influenced by us.

My friends, when I visited you last year, even in my wildest dreams I could not have imagined that we would have been able to influence government policies in the way we have done. That is why I tell you: Never give in to the bullies. Never give up hope. Never despair. You can still turn the tide. One can always turn the tide!

It is true: Germany has been less fortunate than the Netherlands.

When I was here last year, Thilo Sarrazin had just published his book Deutschland schafft sich ab. Sarrazin’s book was a bestseller. It hit a nerve. It sold over one-and-a-half million copies. This shows that German society is ripe for change. But politically Sarrazin’s book has changed nothing yet. On the contrary, the German political elite raised the speed of Islamization in Germany. Bundespresident Wulff said, “Islam is a part of Germany.” Chancellor Merkel said that multiculturalism is an absolute failure, but she continues to defend Turkey’s entry into the EU. The spread of Islam continues unabated in the German classrooms, on Germany’s streets, through the construction of new mosques, etcetera, etcetera.

Your situation has worsened because you do not have a party – yet – with enough electoral support to influence German politics for the better. Germany needs a rightwing party that is not tainted by ties to neo-Nazis and by anti-Semitism, that is decent and respectable, but also firm. René Stadtkewitz is working very hard to make Die Freiheit as successful as the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. René, we are here to help you. Because Germany deserves better than what it gets today.

My friends, your country is the political backbone of Europe.

Germany is the most populous country in Europe. Germany is the economic motor of Europe. If Germany is sick, we are all sick.

Last year, I urged you: Stop being ashamed of Germany. It is unfair to reduce German patriotism to national-socialism, just as it is unfair to reduce Russia to Stalinism. Be proud of your country. Only if the Germans have pride in Germany, they will be prepared to stand for Germany and to defend Germany. And you must stand for Germany, just as the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands stands for the Netherlands. We must all stand for the survival of our nation-states because our nation-states embody the democratic liberties which we enjoy.

Without the nation-state there can be no real national political freedom. That is why we must be good patriots. Patriotism is often branded as fascism. But patriotism is no fascism. On the contrary. Every democrat and defender of freedom must by definition be a patriot. A soul needs a body. The spirit of political liberty cannot flourish outside the body of the nation-state. The nation-state is the political body in which we live. That is why we must preserve and cherish the nation-state. So that we can pass on the liberty and the democracy which we enjoy to our children.

Without a nation-state, without self-governance, without self-determination there can be no security for a people nor preservation of its identity. This was the insight which led the Zionists to re-establish the state of Israel. Theodore Herzl said that there had to be a Jewish state because – I quote – “what we want is a new blossoming of the Jewish spirit.”

Dear friends, we urgently need a new blossoming of the German spirit. For decades, the Germans have been ashamed of themselves. They preferred to be Europeans rather than Germans. And they have paid a heavy price for it. We have all paid a heavy price for it.

Europe is not a nation; it is a cluster of nations. The strength of Europe is its diversity. We are one family but we live in different bodies. Our cultures are branches of a common Judeo-Christian and humanist culture, but we have different national cultural identities. That is how it should be.

Uniformity is a characteristic of Islam, but not of Europe. Islam eradicated the national identities of the peoples it conquered. The Coptic identity of Egypt, the Indian identity of Pakistan, the Assyrian identity of Iraq, the Persian identity of Iran, they were all wiped away, cracked down upon, or discriminated against until this very day. Islam wants all nations replaced by the so-called Ummah, the common identity of the Nation of Islam to which all have to be subservient and into which all national identities have to vanish.

Islam tried to conquer Europe, but never succeeded so far. That is why we Europeans were able to develop our different identities as nation-states. If we want to hold on to these we must stand together against the forces which threaten our identities. Today we are confronted by two dangerous forces: Islamization and Europeanization.

When I was here last year, I spoke at length about the threat of Islam. Today, I want to draw your attention to the threat of Europeanization. By Europeanization I mean the ideology which posits that our sovereign nation-states have to submerge in a pan-European superstate.

The European Union’s Founding Fathers held that in order to avoid a future war in Europe, Europe’s nations, and especially Germany, had to be encapsulated in what the Rome Treaty called “an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.” Robert Schuman said that the EU’s aim was – I quote – “to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.” – end of quote.

The Eurocrats think that nation states in general – and especially Germany, Europe’s largest nation-state – are the problem. They are wrong. The real cause of the Second World War had not been the German nation state – it had been Nazi totalitarianism.

There is nothing wrong with Germany. The cause of the war was the Nazi ideology. The remedy against totalitarianism is not building a superstate. The remedy is introducing more direct forms of democracy at the lowest possible levels. Instead of depriving Germany and other nation-states of their sovereignty, the post-war leaders should have introduced a Swiss-like system in our countries. Small units should have a large degree of local sovereignty. The individual citizen should be given a direct democratic say over his own fate and that of his community.

Instead, the peoples of Europe were robbed of their sovereignty, which was transferred to far-away Brussels. Decisions are now being taken behind closed doors by unelected bureaucrats. This is not the kind of government we want.

We want less bureaucracy. We want more democracy.

We want less Europe. We want to hold on to our sovereignty. We want home rule. We want to remain independent and free. We want to be the masters in our own house.

In December 1991, the Maastricht Treaty called for a single European currency. The Dutch guilder and the D-mark were sacrificed on the altar of European unification. Helmut Kohl sold this project to the German people as – I quote – “a matter of war or peace.” – end of quote. The euro was presented as “an angel of peace” which the Germans had to sponsor by giving up the mark. During the past six decades German politicians have told the Germans that the nation state, and especially Germany, was so dangerous that it had to be emasculated. The Germans had to become Europeans instead of Germans. To achieve this political project, national and monetary sovereignty was relinquished. Economic and national interests were sacrificed on the political altar of so-called Europeanization.

All the countries which joined the euro lost the power to adjust their currency to their own economic needs. They have all suffered as a consequence. The currency of some countries is undervalued, the currency of others is overvalued; they all have to share in carrying the burden of other countries, even if the latter are suffering from self-inflicted policies, corruption or fraud. The European monetary system has allowed some countries to get a free ride at the expense of others, while those who cheat are in a position to blackmail those who have to foot the bill. This charade has to stop!

The European monetary system is deeply flawed. It is also immoral. As Theodore Herzl said, “The character of a people may be ruined by charity.” This applies for those at the receiving end of charity, but also for those who donate it. The so-called pan-European solidarity is literally ruining us. Germany has paid enough for Europe already.

The same applies for the Netherlands. Our citizens do not have to pay the debts of others.

My friends, your party Die Freiheit embodies the best hope for Germany. Because your party is the only party in Germany which has the courage to state loud and clear that countries which cannot pay their debts should leave the euro. I fully agree.

My friends, time is running out. We have to act for the sake of democracy and the future prosperity of our children. The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky warns that rather than preventing war, the European project makes conflicts more likely. He draws a parallel between the EU and the former Soviet Union which also suppressed feelings of national unity. When economic reality defeated the Soviets’ political project, the suppressed feelings of national identity bounced back with a vengeance and destroyed the Union. Bukovksy fears that if we do not stop the European moloch from expanding the same thing might happen in Europe.

The European leaders state that the only way to solve the current crisis is more European governance. They advocate more powers for Brussels. They are wrong. More Europe only makes matters worse. We have to oppose their attempt of further centralization.

We do not want more Europe. The EU lacks democracy, accountability and transparency. That is why we reject it. We want less Europe! Let us hope that next Wednesday the German Constitutional Court protects national sovereignty.

As a national legislator in the Netherlands I experience day by day how little we still have to say about our own fate. We are expected to rubberstamp laws which have been made by the EU Council of Ministers. The 27 EU commissioners convene behind closed doors with their colleagues. They negotiate in secret and then emerge to announce their agreement and present it. That is how the system works.

Recently, your Chancellor, Frau Merkel, went to Paris. Together with President Sarkozy she announced plans for an economic government of the eurozone.

We oppose this. We want the national parliaments to decide about our economic policies. We do not want to spend our taxpayers’ money on eurozone countries, such as Greece. Let those who have cheated us, who have mismanaged their economy or who have foolishly lived beyond their means, take care of themselves.

Moreover, the EU treaties forbid bailouts.

The Party for Freedom opposes every bailout. The Dutch minority government will never be able to count on our support in this regard. Today its wrongheaded euro policies are supported by the europhile leftist parties. I repeat: We will never support the Dutch government’s approval of the bailouts, not even if the government would lose the support of the left.

We have voted, and we will vote, against every plan to bail out other countries. Sovereign countries have to take care of their own needs. That is what sovereignty is about: freedom and the ability to take care of oneself.

Our peoples resent the fact that they have to pay for others. Our peoples resent the permanent alienation of power from their nation-states. They care about their nation because they care about democracy and freedom and the wellbeing of their children. They see their democratic rights and their age-old liberties symbolized in their national flag.

But there is more. National identity also ties an individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture. National identity is also an inclusive identity: It considers everyone to be equal, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people.

My friends, we need to give political power back to the nation-state, in the name of democracy, in the name of freedom, in the name of human dignity. By defending the nation-states we defend our own identity. By defending our identity we defend our liberties. By defending our liberty we defend our dignity.

I urge you: Stand up for the nation-state. Be proud of your country!

In his Farewell Address as American President, Ronald Reagan said that the thing he was most proud of in his presidency was – I quote – “the resurgence of national pride that I called, ‘The New Patriotism.’” – end of quote.

Europe needs new patriotisms. Europe needs dozens of new patriotisms. We need True Finns, and True Danes, True Frenchmen, and True Irishmen, True Dutchmen, and, my friends, we need True Germans!

Reagan said that we had to teach our children what our country is, what it stands for and what it represents in the long history of the world. He said that Americans need – I quote – “a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions.”

Reagan’s words apply to us, Europeans, too. We need a resurgence of national pride, a love of country and institutions. Our national parliaments are our democratic institutions. We must defend them.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, I have said enough. It is time to act. We must make haste. Time is running out for Germany, for the Netherlands, for all the other great nations of Europe. As Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”.

Here is a short summary of five things which we need to do in order to preserve our freedoms.

First, we must defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. Second, we must end cultural relativism. Our Western culture is far superior to other cultures. Third, we must stop Islamization. More Islam means less freedom. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values. Fourth, we must restore the right to decide about our own money. We should not pay the debts of others. The survival of the euro should not be used as an excuse to reward countries which have shown that they were not worthy to belong to the eurozone. Fifth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Our nations are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are the free men and women of the West. We are the true men and women of the West. We do not stand for a superstate. We stand for our own country.

You stand for Germany. I stand for the Netherlands. Others stand for Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, France, Spain, and all these other beautiful freedom-loving nations of Europe. Together we represent the nations of Europe. Together we stand.

We will stand firm. We will survive. We will defend our freedoms. We will remain free.

Thank you very much.

Immigration hits construction UK jobs

Immigration hits construction jobs

Immigration hits construction jobs

• Newly released figures showing that the number of British builders fell by nearly 60,000 last year as foreigners flooded the industry make depressing reading, said UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall today.

“These figures from the Office for National Statistics are another snapshot of what we already knew, there are too many immigrants taking jobs that British workmen should be doing.

“It seems almost every day more statistics are released which demonstrate how badly the UK is being affected by immigration.

“Unless we withdraw from the European Union, the immigration spiral will continue and more and more jobs, and not just in construction, will be taken by immigrants.

“In spite of Cameron’s meaningless promises to the British people that immigration will be finally controlled, figures released last week showed that immigration into this country last year increased by 21%,” said Mr Nuttall, UKIP Deputy Leader.

Going Going Gone! Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Association

Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Association

A few months ago, in their attempts to force the British National Party to change its Constitution, the so called ‘Equality Commission’ used the courts to try and destroy Freedom of Association. Just hours ago, Freedom of Assembly was destroyed by a hysterical bunch of anti-Semites also known as UAF. A few days ago, as a consequence of the riots, the government was talking about imposing martial law in certain areas of London. There always seems to be a justification to curtail public freedoms.

The riots that we witnessed a few days ago were merely the acts of rebels without a cause. A Mexican friend of mine remarked that “poverty is no justification for criminal activity”. Having said that, we wait to see what will be the reaction of rebels with a cause. By now, many people are starting to see where the economy is heading and the middle classes are being squeezed. There are going to be dramatic consequences when those who have allowed the creation of the present state of affairs are themselves negatively affected.

There are some interesting sets of statistics regarding home ownership and car ownership. In a country built for cars, it is troubling to learn that car ownership is going down. When people lose their homes and their cars they are not be very happy and tensions rise and all the regulations limiting Freedom of Association and Freedom of Assembly have one aim only: crowd control.

Never mind the concerns regarding EDL and UAF. The Establishment is deeply concerned about seeing scenes like the Greek riots or a Libyan style rebellion in the United Kingdom. Attacks against smaller political parties are also part of a global strategy. As long as the smaller parties exist, they are valid options that could become major contenders if the support for the so called mainstream political parties collapses. This is why limitations of Freedom of Association and of Freedom of Assembly have become so relevant.

feminist in their hatred of Men and the family and Christianity become lonely

feminist in their hatred of Men and the family and Christianity become lonely

By Ive Cooper

Many feminist in their hatred of Men and the family and Christianity often quote > "vs22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife,".

As from the bible in order to distort the view of Christianity on the relationship between the roles of men and women within marriage and society . But what they fail to do is to use the following scripture to show the true relationship between men and women within marriage.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

As for my own example the day my wife declared me her lord that day she made me a King and automatically she made herself a Queen, to be treated with all due honour respect and due dignity to a lady of that rank. She in effect made me her servant who's duty was to take all responsibility for her, to protect and to provide all things that would make her life happy and complete.

And that it marks a vast contrast from the distorted view they like to give about about the roles within marriage and Christianity , It is always amusing how these so called sisters in feminism never seem to raise objections to the way women are treated within the islamic doctrine also. perhaps it is because they have become so bitter that their self pride cannot bear hear them say to some one they could love " I love you with all my heart , and I respect and honour you above all men, and I will obey you in all decisions on our future you make. And in effect make themselves servants of a bitter loneliness

By Making me King you Make yourself a Queen!

Why Islam Will Never Have A Reformation

By Taylor Rose

A mantra that is often chanted by many Islamo-skeptics is that Islam could be compatible with the Western world, if it could somehow go through a Reformation such as what happened with Christianity in the 16^th century. However well intentioned this statement may be, it is nonetheless not applicable, because the Reformation of Martin Luther and John Calvin, is in no way comparable to the reformation Islam needs and secondly, it is inherently impossible for Islam to suffer a reformation and still be Islam.

Man consider this topic to be a moot issue, considering the strength of the so-called “radicals” but it ultimately is a necessary topic to explore if we are to understand true Islam.

In understanding this fallacy, there are two main points in recognizing the impossibility of Islam to reform itself. Firstly is understanding the contrastings between the Christian Reformation of the 16^th century and the “needed” Islamic reformation and secondly, noting the impossibility of an actual reformation of any kind happening inside Islam.

If we are to assert that Islam can and needs to be reformed, just as Christianity was once reformed, that presupposes then that the radical Islam of today is comparable to the Catholic Church of the 1500s and the reformers would be more akin to the Protestants. But what the average person fails to realize is that the Protestant Reformation was based upon challenging a bureaucratic network that had captivated the Christian Church and led it doctrinally astray. It was an attempt on the part of the reformers to bring Christianity back to orthodoxy, not to “modernize” the Gospel message.

In contrasting radical Islam with Catholicism, the problem with the Islam of today is that it is not Islam that has gone astray as the Roman Church did in the 1500s. But rather the brand of Islam the so-called “radicals” follow, is the Islam of Muhammad, it is the original Islam. If the roles of the Protestant Reformation were brought into a modern day context, the roles of Martin Luther and John Calvin would be played by men such as Osama bin laden, Al Zawahiri and Kalid Sheik Muhammad.

But even more foundationally than this, is the sheer impossibility for a free-thinking reformation to happen inside Islam as did happen in Christian Europe. Foundationally, the Catholic Church of the 1500s, despite its authoritarian overstretch, was far more liberal and open than Islam is today. For example, Luther was allowed to operate inside the system of the Roman Church for a long time before being excommunicated. Luther and the other reformers also found a political, aristocratic and clerical establishment that found sympathies with the message of the Reformation.

And as already said, despite Catholic Church’s authoritarianism, it was not totalitarian as Islam is. Roman Catholicism had put previous attempts at a reformation down via violence, but regardless of this, this practice was not universally endorsed throughout Christendom. The Reformers almost always found a home for security in the lands of an aristocrat or nation that had sympathies with the Reformers, because even under the iron fist of Rome, free thought and expression was allowed on a basic level.

If a reformation was to be created in the Islamic world today, there would be no land where a contingent of Islamic reformers could stand against the “fundamentalists” and any Islamic leader who attempted to endorse free thought would be murdered (i.e. Anwar Sadat) This desired reformation will never happen with endorsements from the top down, because the power centers want Islam to remain orthodox, for two reasons. Firstly because they are devout believers of Muhammad’s original message and secondly, because orthodox Islam aids the sustaining of power for dictators and oligarchs. In the time of the Reformation, many leaders not only found sympathies theologically with the Reformation, but politically as well.

The reformation that spawned in Europe, was in the wake of a spiritual and intellectual vacuum that the Catholic Church had created in Europe. No such vacuum exists in the Islamic world, the overriding trend in the Islamic world (and Islam in Europe for that matter) is towards a more pure, ancient form of Islam—the Islam of Muhammad. The only time would have perhaps been during the so-called “Golden Age of Islam” during the late Middle Ages in which the Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian scholars residing in the Islamic courts were copying and proliferating the works of Classical Greece and creating the scientific inventions that helped empower the Islamic culture. But if it could not happen at this time, when Islam was actually exposed to higher Western intellectual though, then there is far less of a chance now.

Foundationally, if Islam was to be reformed, it would no longer be Islam. The Five Pillars along with Jihad form the basis of the Islamic religion. Once the concept of slave like submission to Allah and the Caliphate is removed and the jihad struggle against the infidels is also removed, Islam as Muhammad received it ceases to exist and all that Islam is left with is a set of moral principles that Moses and Jesus Christ reiterated. Islam would them effectively become nothing more than a cultic version of Judaism or Christianity. Islam would cease to stand as a relevant religious force in the world that is distinguished from the other major world religions.

The Protestant Reformation was more of an issue of “housekeeping” inside the Christian world rather than a total transformation of the Christian faith. If Islam was to go through the same reforms, it would be more than housekeeping, it would be a revolutionary transformation of Islam to fit inside the modern world (that the Protestant Reformation spawned) by repudiating many of the core beliefs of Islam that Muhammad laid down inside the Quran and Hadith.

The truth must be faced head on in the Western world, that the only way to defeat so-called “radical Islam” is to encourage a perversion of Islam and accept the truth, that Islam is not peaceful, Muhammad is not like Jesus and Muhammadism is in no way connected with Western Civilization.

Once this realization takes place (as it is in many parts of Europe and beginning in the United States) then the identities, traditions, laws and religions of the West can experience a new birth of freedom from both political correctness and the inevitability of a new dark age. It must be remembered that Islam is ultimately not the root problem inside Islamic culture, the problem is post-modern secular humanism which doggedly advances this creed of multiculturalism down the throats of the West. It is not Islam that binds us with political correctness that inhibits us to critique and scrutinize Islam, it is radical humanism. It is radical humanism that demanded that the West abandon the God of the Bible and embrace a New World Order of pluralism and secularism.

The fight against Islaminization is tied at the hip to the fight against political correctness. If the West could only again assert itself with conviction in contrast to the religion of Muhammad, then in the process, political correctness will begin to unravel as people begin to see the futility of sustaining this suicidal ideology.

The new World order and Britain’s Subjugation

Britain’s Subjugation

By Rex Poulton

The following list is far from exhaustive. But it serves to demonstrate the stealth and trickery employed to impose upon us policies and events that we did not ask for and would not have asked for but which we sheepishly accept under the guise of “reasonable necessity due to circumstance” – and for our own “safety and security”.

Over time, we have endlessly sleepwalked our way into all of these. But do you not see a pattern emerging here? Isn’t it really about subjugation? They were not conceived to make us feel better. The British people might whine and complain for a bit but if you leave them long enough, they’ll come to accept whatever you do to them and then you’re on to the next item to be put into effect. It is a creeping cancer.

The previously circulated letter about the insidious metrication of Britain appears not to have raised any response so far. Many will doubtless say that metrication is purely intended to ensure that everybody in Europe benefits in singing from the same hymn sheet; that there are business and scientific reasons why it should happen.

But that is precisely why it is so imperative that Britain (and the United States) should succumb to it. A great many people see it in that other light – as yet another means of making sure British people (and the U.S.) fall in line with the rest of the world by way of indoctrination and subjugation toward (in our case) European rule and eventually, global governance. That is not possible if we all speak differently and use different terms and values. So we have to be brought into line. Just as the Irish were when they eventually voted the “right” answer to the Lisbon Treaty.

Britain’s metrication is no more than just another tool to reduce everybody in the country to the same level as everybody else. It is all about common unity. One common level. Serfdom. So that all of Europe will have acquiesced and will be ready for the next step. Totalitarianism. We are not that far away. The intended abolition of Sterling currency by Eurostar on its trains is simply another step in that direction. There is an arrogance and dictatorship about their plan to ban Sterling and impose the Euro on trains that are essentially British. These people will keep on slyly attempting to make us European until we finally submit to their demands. Not that they have any right to do so. The metrication lobby will not go away until we give in. Our own government will see to that because they’re all in it up to their necks. How many of them I wonder, are Bilderburgers and Common Purpose graduates ?

So if we have any sense at all, metrication is to be avoided like the plague. At ANY cost. Whether we deem it in any way beneficial or not (for Britain, I firmly believe it a backward step but I recognise that some do not agree). If Britain is to survive in any fashion whatsoever, we absolutely cannot afford to embrace metrication. Just as we have to ensure that Sterling is accepted currency around the world. Once one slips, the others closely follow in being lost for all time. The Irish have already accepted the Euro and the Lisbon Treaty. What next then, for Britain? When will our Armed Forces be whittled down beyond capability even to protect our own shores without calling in EU Forces? Let me tell you. They’re already here. Why did our own police not recognise units taking part against the London rioters? When will our English language be banned? Our driving on the left? Our use of 240 volts mains electricity? Our “special” relationship with the United States? Some already consider anti-EU campaigning illegal.

For Britain to be a self-governing, free, world-trading nation as it has always been, the present political parties have to be removed and replaced with one that actually stands for and truly represents the British people, their rights and aspirations, their values and standards. The current pro-English/ British/ Nationalist organisations simply are not achieving what they were set up to do. In 20, even 40 years’ time, they still will not have achieved it. Why? Because they are separate, small groups working incredibly hard to increase their independent memberships but in my view, losing focus on the real issue – regaining our country.

The only way of taking control of our country is to unite and to make the electorate fully (and repeatedly) aware of our presence, our unwavering purpose, our size, our sincerity, our doggedness, our total conviction in truth and honesty – our mission, which we all meaningfully accept. Until we get positively serious about our country and truly mean what we say, we will not succeed. But we will succeed in losing our country. Because Lib/ Lab/ Con have had years to practice and hone their arrogance, lies and deceit and their money generating abilities. We all know that whomever you vote for, the only difference is the faces. We currently face a “three party” dictatorship. And we have to outwit, out-think and out-policy them to ensure their being outvoted. And we can do that only if we stand together. As one. One voice, one party, one organisation. Else we’ll never be big enough to attract the voting public, let alone get them to join us. They’ll not join a small “going nowhere” party. But they will join a large “going to the top” party. I’m sure you get the message.

Here is the list. These things are not for our benefit, but somebody else’s. One way or another, our money is used to fund all of these things to our detriment. We blindly pay for it and we blindly accept it all. Whether you like it or not, we are being subjugated – using our own money. For what? Well, it’s not for Britain’s survival. How do you suppose your children will see things when we hand them what is left of our country? And what about their children? What sort of life will they have?

You’ll be able I’m sure, to add more items that I have overlooked.

Impending EU total control over Britain (85% of our laws are already of EU origin).

Substantial cross-European/ African/ Asian/ Middle Eastern/ Eastern European immigration to Britain obliged under EU ruling.

The swamping of Britain with immigrants such that it can no longer sustain the numbers of people living here.

Metrication of our former Sterling currency (in 1971). On the face of it “simpler” but opportunity for noticeable price hikes and planned future conversion to the European system.

The pan-European Euro and its likely compulsory use in Britain to bring us into line with the rest of the overbearing EU.

The blind eye to Islam and Sharia even by the Church, toward potential Islamification of our country.

Imposed multiculturalism and its supremacy over British rights and British people.

Political correctness that forbids anything said against other creeds, cultures and foreign values and standards when ours are belittled, betrayed and open to attack.

Obliged “tolerance” and acceptance of everybody and everything worldwide so not to offend anybody.

Involvement in world banking that seriously threatens our own financial security when others fail to manage their own affairs.

Giving £8.4 billion in foreign aid every year (£950 million to Libya alone) and the swingeing cuts in everything in Britain and to our Armed Forces to help pay for it.

The great global warming scam (scientists now predict global cooling) and the creeping taxation and vast expenditure for no other reason than a natural Earth cycle.

EU imposed ban on 100 watt and 60 watt incandescent light bulbs – simply because they decide.

The enforcement of speed camera trickery to raise billions and to criminalise the population when many serious crimes (including those of immigrants) go unattended.

Enforced but unnecessary draconian traffic control measures potentially to raise billions in fines.

Political blindness leading toward making paedophilia and sexual exploitation acceptable.

Failure to uphold the rights and indigenous privileges of British people in their own country.

Proposals for identity cards, DNA (with fingerprint and facial geometrics) databases, payment of vast sums for the European Galileo navigation system destined to double as a tracking/ surveillance system.

Present and future developments in communications surveillance including all telephone/ cell phone, e-mail, internet and such systems so that our thoughts and conversations are known.

Mounting numbers of surveillance cameras in towns and cities ostensibly for our safety on the streets but with the massive potential for the “1984 Syndrome”.

Genocide by Stealth - Part 4 The demise of The European Peoples

Genocide by Stealth - Part 4

I am sorry I have taken so long to return to this subject, this is partly because other things, the stuff of everyday life, have got in the way but to a far greater degree the delay was because this is a much bigger subject than even I had imagined. Hence, I as the writer have struggled to express the magnitude of my subject.

Describing a crime so vast is ugly work, to open this ghastly casket is to expose a massive rank and sulphurous morass of tangled conspiracies, lies and plots, some dating back two centuries or more, mingling with others which are far more recent. There are many half formed, ill conceived which have been long abandoned, but others, chilling in their cold hearted and deliberate brilliance, still gnaw away at the substance and foundations of the common and ancient prey. To look too deeply into what is taking place is to glimpse an evil in the souls of our fellow men which is not easy or comfortable to contemplate, and it for that reason too that I have chosen to put this subject to one side for a while.

I also apologise for the length of this section. When I started writing this essay I had not fully appreciated quite how complex it would be or quite how much there was to say. The more one peels away at the various layers, schemes, lies and agendas, it becomes frighteningly clear quite how all consuming the assault upon the white race has been, quite how many enemies we have and how long they have been at work.

Here I must, again, repeat the warning I have given before. We make a fatal mistake if we only see one enemy amongst the legion closing in around us. Yes there were Zionist Jews amongst them, and there certainly still are some, but they are not alone, and in truth they never have been. We will die by many other swords if chose to only fight against a single foe, especially as there are now far greater dangers than those still posed, or maybe ever posed, by Zion.

We have many other enemies, and amongst them some, the most deadly, hate us mostly for the good that we have done.

We are paying the penalty for having been the most successful, the richest, the most creative, the most powerful and, indeed the most benevolent civilisation to have ever bestrode our Earth. We are unmatched in history, and I suspect that we will never be equalled. We are resented not, as some would have it for the alleged crimes of our race, but for what we are, for what we have achieved, for the good we have brought to the world, and there are many who can never forgive us for it.

Our enemies point to wars and weapons, but ignore our role in spreading education, justice, health care, technology, benevolence and humanity to the darkest corners of our planet. They blame us for crimes, such as slavery, which every other people also committed but which we alone are honest enough to acknowledge, and which we alone fought to bring to an end.

We are also paying for our good nature, we are accused of sins which the rest of the world commit with far more ferocity than we do. If you wish to see prejudice and discrimination go to Asia, the Indian sub-continent in particular and you will find it in every street in every village. For cruelty and bigotry go to the middle east. For homophobia and hate crimes the options start before Iran and end beyond Angola to the south and Malaysia to the east. For racism, in its most blood thirsty of forms try anywhere in black ruled Africa and you will find it there far more ancient and at least as cruel as anything ever seen in Europe.

Yet it is we who, though our good will carry guilt for that of which we are no more guilty than any other and for which, in many cases, we are the least to blame.

We allow this to happen in some measure because a flaw in our racial character whereby we are more modest and generous than is good for us. However, in greater part we carry that guilt because we have been taught to do so through the decades of indoctrination which I described earlier, in part three of this essay.

Initially that indoctrination, together with so much else was aimed at undermining our society, however, over the years the aims have metamorphosed into something far more based on animus and iconoclasm than it is on ideology. The aim is no longer merely the destruction of our society and has become the destruction of us as a people.

As a people we have been worn down and weakened to the point where we have allowed others who hate us to come amongst and some now mingle amongst those who rule us and have been granted positions of power. Black and Asian racists have become journalists, commentators, politicians and lawyers, they sit in parliament, on Quangos, governmental bodies within our courts, our education system, within the plethora of so called human rights organisations or as political agitators. They have their own agendas, and I challenge you to point to any who work for the well being of the indigenous white population.

If anyone reading this truly believes that the likes of Trevor Philips, Diane Abbot, Keith Vaz, Darcus Howe, Bonnie Greer, Tariq Ali, Weyman Bennett, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, or even the sainted Shami Chakrabarti, care for the future of the native British people and have not used their privileged positions within our society to advance the interests of their own races over those of our race, I really suggest you are perhaps to naïve to be abroad unchaperoned at this most deadly of times.

The elevation of such people for the sake of diversity has not improved our country, it has further undermined it, for they are, quite naturally working in the interests of their own races, which is something we, as Europeans, are no longer permitted to do.

However, there are some amongst them and among the legion of of our treacherous white enemies who are working to advance a cause far more malign and infinitely more deadly than anything which has threatened Europe in almost four hundred years.

Islam, the blood thirsty and repressive ideology which has threatened Western Civilisation for fourteen hundred years is back in the ascendant after a period of relative calm, and it is as poisonous now as it ever was.

The latest rise of Islam came quickly, coinciding with the fall of the last great threat to the west, the cold war, a coincidence among many which we ignore at our peril.

Of course, Islam has threatened us before, many times, but this time it is different, this time the enemy is not at the gate it is already living within the castle walls. This time they are amongst us and we will not be fighting them at our borders, but on our streets.

And we have allowed it. We are the first civilisation in history who have meekly opened our gates and permitted those who actively call for our demise to come amongst us, and in many areas moved without resistance when they drove us from our homes.

The race which gave the world so much is now so meek, so broken, so deluded it has ushered its assassins into its own home, whilst all but handing them the weapons with which to dispatch us. So brainwashed are we now that we would first condemn those of us who warn of the danger before we face the threat.

I fear we are not the West we were, no longer those who fought World War II, and that we may not the same people. Unfortunately for us, the east is still the same east which fought our Crusaders nine hundred years ago, but better armed and better placed.

Islam it seems is now in a better position to deliver the final blows of our destruction than even the old soviet union ever was. Our ancient adversary has been imported back by our modern foes to deliver the coup de grâce when we are at our lowest, our numbers diminished, our spirit broken, our history lost and our lands invaded.

Is there any hope for us, what can we do? is there any way back?

Salvation can we save our race and how?

Some look to the future and see a civil war, but that is not the answer, certainly its not the answer now. The time may come when war is inevitable, it will be imposed upon us and by then it may be too late. Before then, with all that is ranged against us we could not win a civil war fought now. Violence is not the answer and all those who have tried it so far have failed and have merely made our situation worse.

It would be nice to think that democracy held our a chance of salvation, and it would if it was possible to get elected, however, the controlled media make that almost impossible. Were any nationalist to stand the remotest chance of winning a national election, the press would turn on him or her in a manner which would make the assault on Sarah Palin in 2008 look positively gentle, and the lies would be even more outrageous.

Media lies continue to hamper the BNP's efforts to get elected, and the corrupt media would bury any individual nationalist who appeared capable of overcoming that barrier in a landslide of lies.

We have not had an honest media in the west for decades, every news reporter lies constantly and with the accustomed ease of an aged harlot relieving a drunken businessman of his wallet. Every presenter or dramatist has become a propagandist and every commentator an advocate. Even those who are secretly sympathetic to our cause must deny us and lie about us for they would never work again if they did not.

This is the barrier we must overcome to succeed. If we could achieve that we might be granted one last grasp at our salvation. for it is in breaching the shark infested moat of lies that we find both our answer and also our greatest dilemma.

The potentially most fatal blow ever struck against the white European race was when our advocates lost control of the main means of mass communication to our enemies, and is only by winning that control back that we can effectively start to fight back.

It is through the mass media and what currently passes for education that our enemies are waging their war against us and it is because of their total control of both that they are winning. When the left gained control of the means of broadcasting news, and, in many ways more crucially, broadcasting entertainment, they gained control of the most powerful weapon known to man, a weapon which enabled them to change attitudes, form views and beliefs and create new truths.

For over 50 years the left have controlled what we know and equally what we don't know. The have told us their truth about history, about Communism, their truth about Viet Nam, about crime, about race and right now we are being told their truth about the uprisings in the Middle East.

Far more deadly even than the ability to distort news coverage has been the overwhelming control which the left have over entertainment, drama, culture and the visual depiction of history, it is through these medium that the last two generations have been taught what to think and what to believe.

The left make TV shows, we don't, the left make movies, we don't, they tell teenagers what music to like and adults what books to read, and whilst we do not do these things, they, our enemies, have a huge, and deadly, advantage over us.

The only mass communication means we have of getting our message out is via the internet, but, valuable tool as it is, we have restricted ourselves to serious political sites, forums and blogs where we debate serious issues amongst ourselves. We don't go where the young folk go, and when we try, we get thrown out because we don't know how to behave.

That is not to say that people are not doing great things via the internet, the latest exposé (1) of NPR (US National Public Radio) by James O'Keefe is a further example of brilliant investigative journalism by a man, who in an honest world be in line for a major journalism award, however, because the left control what people are allowed to know, only a tiny number of people ever get to see his work.

We must take back the media or find a new means of mass communication, and we must learn how to communicate in a way that people beyond the narrow sphere of nationalism understand respond to and enjoy. These are our enemy's weapons and we must learn to use them against them.

We must rediscover the power of ridicule, the lampoon brought down the Bourbon kings and the Romanov tzars. In our own time, mockery became Sarah Palin's greatest liability, but it, could have done the same to Obama had the Right known how to deploy it, sadly we didn't.

To the more high minded reader it may seem bizarre to suggest fighting genocide with humour or through entertainment, yet these are the tools which our adversaries have used so effectively. We need to get the truth out, and sadly a joke or a wacky video will get to far more people, and will be responded to by far more people, than any number of serious articles like this one. That's how the left do it.

Being able to communicate with the wider public directly is vital, after all what is the point to anything we do if either nobody knows about it, or if those who report it lie?.

Before they can save themselves the European people need to realise what is being done to them, and they will not awake until they hear our voice.

We must find a means of communication which enables us to break though the iron curtain of lies which the corrupt media and our equally corrupt leaders have spent the last fifty years constructing and expose the truth to the wider world. How we can break our enemy's grasp on the communications media I do not know, but I know we must find a way, for it may be our last chance of salvation.

I believe it will happen, who would have thought even ten years ago that, sitting in my own home, I could write something, press a button and reach thousands of people in an instant. Now we need to take it a step further.

It must happen soon. The destruction of our race is well advanced, we are not yet at the eleventh hour, but we are close to ten and the time grows short.

In the meantime there is something we can all do and that is to enlighten someone, even if you only awaken one person to the truth, then there are two of you, and that way leads to thousands. We do not need a majority to change the world, only enough to be heard, and then we'll have a majority.

If you do not have the words yourself use other people's words, there are great writers who's words we must spread to those who remain blind to what is happening. On this blog we have Mister Fox, August Pointneuf, Robin Hind, Reconquista (how I wish I could convince him to start writing again) Tim Hayden, Dr. D, Alan O'Reilly and others, please spread their words.

We also have the great Frank Ellis, not only a brilliant academic and a superb writer but a man with the authority to command attention he is a man able to change minds. For instance, Frank's outstanding letter to David Cameron, published here last month, briefly went viral on the internet, it can do so again and it can get to a wider audience. Copy it, link to it, send it on, people need to read his words. This is something we can all do. Here is the link from this blog
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/02/response-to-cameron-by-dr-frank-ellis.html
and from the British Resistance
http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/guest-writers/675-a-response-to-cameron-by-dr-frank-ellis

We must also stop bickerting and fighting among ourselves, it is unity, never diversity, which is our strength, and together there is nothing we can not do.

We are the descendants of the greatest achievers, the greatest thinkers, the greatest scientists and the greatest pioneers this world has ever seen. We share the genes of the greatest writers, the greatest artists, musicians and inventors. Our forefathers spread knowledge, technology and enlightenment to the most benighted corners of this planet.

We alone ended slavery, we alone reached the moon, we discovered the cures for many of the great plagues and diseases which have blighted mankind for millennia and are working with others now to eradicate more.

At the root of 99% of all the great inventions from which the world now benefits you will find a person of European blood. We conquered the sea, the sky, outer space and the very airways.

For every bomb we built we made ten million pills to cure twenty thousand diseases. We are the most benevolent race on earth, the main givers to charity, the majority of all fund raisers, aid workers and philanthropists.

Our race has done more good in this word than any other yet born, and we must not die, we shall not die.

Against the most vicious enemies and the most terrifying odds we can find a way to save our race, we have the ingenuity, we have the ability, if only we can make our people see the truth.
___________________________
(1) http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/what-they-really-think-about-us/

____________________

All four parts of Genocide by Stealth can be read at Sarah: Maid of Albion II by clicking here

The Euro , The End is Nigh?

The End is Nigh?

By Richard North

The bigger the fudge, the bigger the eventual crash. But there is no clarity, no clear direction and no obvious end game. But, when the Bundesbank is growling, we must be close to the finish. Zerohedge seems to believe that the failure of the euro is imminent.
.The EMU, it says, started on the idea that it would bind the EU closer. In essence it was a political decision rather than an economic decision. They passed a stern rule that said no state could run of deficits of more than 3 percent of their GDP. Except for Estonia, Finland, and Luxembourg, all countries, including Germany, now exceed the limit. Thus their politicians sacrificed fiscal probity for political gains.

They have hit the wall: Greece will soon default on their sovereign debt. On Tuesday, yields on one year Greek bills reached 60 percent. It is a sign that investors have no faith in the Greek government’s ability to repay their debt.

And that is only a taster – but you will struggle to find any good economic news elsewhere. So what do we do now? Well, Raedwald has some ideas – and yes, it is that bad. The fools whom we call our leaders will be the death of us all.

++++++++

Richard North blogs at EU Referendum, where this article was first published.

The Camp of the Saints: Desperate for Enrichment

Camp of the Saints: Desperate for Enrichment

In the past eight months, since the North African refugee crisis began, the European countries bordering the Mediterranean have done their best to avoid accepting all those boatloads of cultural enrichment that try to land on their shores. Italy and Malta argue about who has to accept the illegal immigrants, with each trying to foist the burden off onto the other.

Italy gave temporary residence visas to thousands of migrants, allowing them to travel to other countries in the Schengen region, in hopes that they might abscond to a more northerly clime. However, when large numbers of Tunisians tried to cross the border into France, the French checked the fine print of the Schengen Agreement, and found a way to justify sending the enrichers back to Italy.

So, despite the high ideals professed by the European Union, it seems nobody really wants the migrants.

Except for one tiny village in northern Italy, whose mayor is desperate to get his hands on some of those culture enrichers on Lampedusa. We’ll have more in a minute on the village of Acceglio, but first let’s look at the latest arrivals in Italy.

Since my last post on the topic, another 179 illegal immigrants have landed in southern Italy. This sends the year-to-date total over 54,000, which is not enough of a blip to raise the displayed temperature on the Cultural Enrichment Thermometer.

The first boatload contained 105 Tunisians, and was rescued off Lampedusa:

Coast Guard Rescue 105 Migrants Off Lampedusa Coast

(AGI) Lampedusa — The island of Lampedusa witnesses the landing of 105 refugees. The party included four women and the boat, according to the Italian coast guard, departed from Tunisia.

The boat had run out of fuel and was spotted by a coast guard patrol boat ten miles off the coast of Lampedusa. The party of 105 was taken onboard and ferried to Lampedusa.

The other 74 immigrants were rescued from a drifting boat off the southern coast of Sicily:

74 Immigrants Rescued in Ragusa Waters: “We’re Libyan”

(AGI) Palermo — 74 immigrants claiming to be Libyan have been rescued by a Guardia di Finanza patrol boat off the coast of Ragusa. They were subsequently taken in the port of Pozzallo and sheltered in the existing tension structure. They were on board of a stricken boat going adrift in Italian territorial waters. The boat was abandoned after the passengers were transshipped onto the Guardia di Finanza patrol boat.

Now we come to Mayor Riccardo Benvegnu of Acceglio, which is an alpine village of 170 people in northern Italy. Mr. Benvegnu is desperate to import some of that cultural enrichment from Lampedusa. He wants immigrants for his village — 830 of them, to be precise, which would almost sextuple the town’s current population.

When you take a close look at the crisis in Acceglio, you’ll discover that the issue — as it so often is when immigration is involved — concerns socialism. As a part of Italy’s austerity plan for coping with its debt crisis, towns with under 1,000 residents would no longer be considered separate municipal entities. The mayor doesn’t want to lose his municipal status and merge with adjacent areas. He wants Acceglio to keep on receiving its own specific benefits from the center.

Here’s the story from last week’s Telegraph:

Italian Village Pleads for 830 Refugees Before it is Wiped Off the Map

An alpine village in northern Italy has asked the island of Lampedusa, at the other end of the country, to urgently send 830 refugees in order to boost its population to 1,000 and avoid administrative obliteration under swingeing government cuts.

The appeal by the mayor of Acceglio is one of the more dramatic expressions of resistance to a €45.5bn (£40bn) austerity package announced by Silvio Berlusconi’s conservative coalition this month to try to tackle its debt crisis and assuage market jitters.

As part of the cuts, villages and towns with a population of less than 1,000 will be stripped of their municipal status and forced to merge with neighbouring communities, to the dismay of the mayors and councils of nearly 2,000 tiny settlements.

Acceglio, which lies close to the French border, is one of the towns that faces being wiped off the map – it has a population of just 178 and even that is in danger of dwindling further because many of the inhabitants are pensioners.

The mayor, Riccardo Benvegnu, 64, has written to his counterpart on Lampedusa, where more than 40,000 North African and sub-Saharan refugees have arrived this year, to request that 830 immigrants be despatched north as quickly as possible.

The influx of fresh blood would put the population over the threshold of viability.

The mayor, a former postman, admits his request is “a provocation” but says he can see no alternative if the village is to keep its council, which looks after rubbish collection, school buses, clearing the streets of snow and other key local services.

He said the migrants could be accommodated in dozens of apartments and second homes that had been empty “for years”.

“It’s controversial, I admit, not everyone is in agreement with me,” he said. “But to save the town, this is the lesser of two evils.”

[…]

Bernardino De Rubeis, the mayor of Lampedusa, said the idea of settling some of the migrants in the Alps was “commendable” and that he would refer it to Roberto Maroni, the interior minister.

The unusual population swap is just one of the strange consequences of the government’s plan to save billions of pounds by slashing two tiers of local government – municipal and provincial – as part of the austerity drive.

Finally, here’s a follow-up on the accusations that NATO vessels allowed a migrant boat in distress to drift without assistance until most of its passengers died of hunger and thirst. The incident occurred in May, and if I recall correctly, French and American vessels were among those accused of ignoring the refugees’ distress call.

The Council of Europe will be investigating the incident, beginning next week:

European Council Investigation of Deaths at Sea

(ANSAmed) — Strasbourg, September 2 — Tineke Strik, the Dutch Senator appointed by the parliamentary assembly of the European Council to conduct an investigation to determine who was responsible for the deaths of the immigrants fleeing from Libya while they were crossing the Mediterranean, will be in Rome on September 6 and 7 to begin gathering elements that could contribute to clarifying the situation. The senator will meet with the survivors of the shipwrecks as well as Italian Coast Guard personnel, UNHCR officials and representatives from NGOs active in the field of immigration. The purpose of the meetings is to evaluate in particular how the ships carrying these people are stopped or let go. There was a great desire within the parliamentary assembly for the investigation conducted by Strik to take place after British daily The Guardian published an article in May stating that 61 immigrants who fled from Libya died in the Mediterranean after their calls for assistance went unanswered.

Hat tips: C. Cantoni, Gaia, and Insubria.

For previous posts about the Mediterranean refugee crisis, see The Camp of the Saints Archive.

EDL 's Tommy Robinson Challenges David Cameron to a Live Debate

Tommy Robinson Challenges David Cameron to a Live Debate

The title says it all: we challenge the Prime Minister, David Cameron, to debate with Tommy Robinson of the English Defence League.

But the reason this debate is important has to do with the political climate in Britain today. It is no longer possible to discuss radical Islam without being unfairly demonised as some kind of extremist. That is wrong. And it can as true for Muslims as it is for non-Muslim critics of Islam.

Not every Muslim is a terrorist, just as not every critic of Islam is an ‘Islamophobe’.

It’s time to abandon these lazy and offensive assumptions, time to give up the stereotypes, and time to have an even-handed public debate.

Quite simply, it’s time to talk.

We look forward to Mr Cameron’s response, but in the meantime we thought it would be worth explaining things from the EDL perspective:

EDL supporters are well-used to facing hostility when asked to explain their views. But when we explain why we demonstrate against radical Islam, we tend to find that any initial reservations people may have had are overcome remarkably quickly.

We do not demonstrate against radical Islam because we are intolerant or ignorant, but because we believe in values that the followers of radical Islam make no secret of rejecting, and will often openly admit to working to undermine. Important values such as:

• freedom of speech
• human rights
• democratic accountability
• respect for our armed forces (past and present)
• and many other fundamental elements of our liberal democracy

No wonder more and more people are coming to realise that the way that large sections of the media portray the EDL is at best naive and at worst purposefully deceitful.

We have no secret political agenda, no desire to join the mindless rioters that have recently shamed our country, and we wholeheartedly reject any of the forms of extremism that some of our critics are so keen to ascribe to us.

In fact, we play a critical role in educating would-be supporters against all forms of extremism, and we are despised by the real far Right as much as by the far Left and Islamic extremists.

We aspire to do “exactly what it says on the tin” – defend England from those who would do endanger the rights and freedoms that our country’s institutions have protected for generations. And we’ll do that in accordance with the best traditions of this country: peaceful protest, a stiff upper lip, and a commitment to keep calm and carry on!

Despite this, members of the far Left, and even a senior policeman, have claimed that what motivates members of the EDL is the desire to “inflame racial tension”.

What an offensive assumption. As if protesting against radical Islam has anything to do with race. What a racist assumption that is!

What actually motivates us is the desire to see the Muslim Community of this country defeat the dangerous extremism that lurks within it; so that there are no more home-grown terrorists, no more hate preachers, no more ghettos, and no more religiously-sanctioned attacks on women, homosexuals, non-Muslims, and other Muslims.

What actually motivates us is the desire to see politicians working to safeguard this country from a threat that they do not, as yet, appear to understand: so that hate preachers are expelled, not given benefits, and so that ordinary Muslims are encouraged to expel the radicals, not fail to take any responsibility for growing calls for Sharia.

What actually motivates us is the desire to see freedom of speech protected; so that vital criticisms may be made about the way in which radical Islam is being allowed to grow, without those criticisms being censored by those who have a vested interest in supporting Islamic extremism, and without those who make the criticisms being demonised as extremists for daring to speak up.

What actually motivates us is the desire to see our government actually doing something about radical Islam; for the sake of everyone: black, white, Muslim and non-Muslim.

Protesting against radical Islam should be common sense. The fact that so many politicians and media types leap to attack the EDL just demonstrates how little they understand about what really motivates our supporters, and how little they understand about the true nature of radical Islam.

It’s simple – radical Islam is deeply engrained in the Muslim Community, and a great deal needs to change. That’s not prejudice, that’s a well-supported, accurate, and honest assessment of the current situation.

On the other hand, if leaping to unfair assumptions and spreading them as if they were fact isn’t prejudice, we don’t know what is. Misrepresenting the EDL to the extent that we are called, sick, racist, fascist or ‘Islamophobic’, is actually a far more dangerous threat to community cohesion than giving a fair appraisal of what we do actually stand for.

For example, if you should suggest that radical Muslims seem to have a stranglehold on many Mosques or Muslim organisations, then you may well be accused of being an ‘Islamophobe’. But is expressing a concern about the current state of Islam in this country really evidence that you afflicted with some kind of mental illness or disorder? Of course not. Demonising critical opinions to this extent just strengthens the radicals’ claims that there can be no criticism of Islam, and that those who are thought to have in some way “blasphemed” against Islam must be dealt with incredibly harshly.

Encouraging the followers of any ideology to reject criticism is not healthy. When the ideology in question is a religion in whose name a seemingly endless number of fanatics are willing to commit terrible acts of terrorism, it is highly irresponsible and dangerous. And when the religion in question is plagued with intolerant, authoritarian Islamist extremists, slowly using the freedoms we afford them to undermine our country’s ability to protect those freedoms, it is nothing less than a betrayal of all those for whom human rights actually mean something.

Criticism is important, and we believe that the government’s woeful record in combating radical Islam is worth criticising and worth protesting about.

But not only are we committed to peaceful protest; we also place a great deal of trust in this country’s democratic institutions.

That is why we call on the Prime Minister, David Cameron, to agree to this debate.

It is vital that our views are heard. Not only because we hope that politicians might then begin to change their attitude to the threat posed by radical Islam, but also so that resentment, born of misunderstanding, does not cause greater divisions in our communities.

British Muslims need to be exposed to fair and honest criticism of their religion and of the extremism that it continues to incubate. They need to be protected from prejudice and hatred, but not from the sort of criticism that is essential to peaceful integration and to efforts to counter extremism.

That is what the EDL represent. And if, after that is clearly established, we are still accused of trying to “inflame racial tension”, then that is a more a reflection of the character of our accusers than it is our supporters.

Extremists have been responsible for countless horrors throughout history. Extremists incite violence, encourage division, and demonise their opponents. They do not call for reform. They do not campaign in favour of freedom of speech. They are nothing like the English Defence League.

It is clear, then, that the reputation of the EDL is central to the discussion about the state of Islam in Britain. The fact that calling for Islam to be reformed is still regarded as ‘Islamophobia’ is a sad reflection on the quality of the debate, and on the government’s ability to grasp the nature of the threat posed by radical Islam.

Radical Islam is not completely disconnected from Islam, and nor should it be treated as such. There are growing numbers of Muslim voices saying exactly this – it would be nice to see David Cameron give them a vote of confidence.

So although cynics would see a debate between Tommy Robinson and the Prime Minister as nothing more than an opportunity for the EDL to build even more support, it should really be seen as an opportunity for David Cameron to show that he understands the challenges that are ahead of us, has a plan for addressing them and, despite the seriousness of these challenges, is committed to safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all.

It would take a great deal of integrity for David Cameron to admit that he was wrong about the EDL.

It would take a great deal of bravery for him to stand up against the enemies of freedom; to condemn the far Left, the far Right, radical Islam, and all who do not believe that the Prime Minster should listen to the views of this country’s largest protest movement, or consider the concerns of our tens of thousands of supporters.

It would take a great deal of conviction. But England would remember him for it. Perhaps the world would remember him for it.

Radical Islam would certainly remember him for it.

So come on Dave, if you want to give the ‘Big Society’ a chance, now’s the chance to talk to it.

Free Movement of Labour and the Destruction of Nations

Free Movement of Labour and the Destruction of Nations

Posted at BNP ideas Site

By Southwest Nationalist.

We’ve all seen the headlines, foreign workers occupying most of Britain’s new jobs.

And, who can have missed the almost religious zeal with which those in charge have tried to create a multicultural society, importing people by the million, watching as birth rates and population spirals out of control.

“White flight” too, as the indigenous seek to leave heavily colonised areas, or in many cases the country – which in turns hastens our walk towards overall minority in our own land.

Is employment and the free movement of labour actually being used as a part of this, to create diverse and disparate societies, and with a bigger purpose in mind?

Think on it for a moment. We see Britons unable to get jobs, and foreigners coming here to take British jobs.

In some instances, most recently Poland, this leads to a decline in that country’s population, and a possible shortage of people to work.

Britons, desperate to leave Britain, where we’re seeing wages held at low levels whereas the cost of living is spiralling out of control, go and seek work – or retirement, or escape – elsewhere.

Those foreigners here for jobs, well, some will leave – but most do not. They establish themselves, marry – perhaps to a Briton, buy homes, have families etc. They put down roots.

The racial demographic of a society is utterly transformed, both short and long term, by those who came to a nation seeking work.

Our own people leave our nations, foreign people come to our nations.

Britain, and a few other EU nations, may be the magnets of choice for foreign workers currently, but when that changes it will do little, our population makeup will already have been changed forever.

We will, by virtue of the free movement of labour, become more diverse – aka White British will have become more of a minority in Britain – and that will not reverse simply because we cease to be a jobs magnet, for example due to a major recession, removal of benefits, or stricter employment laws.

Tomorrow it will be another countries turn to experience this mass influx, perhaps one of those nations who today is busily exporting workers to us at an alarming rate.

That’s fairly inevitable. As their workforce pool diminishes, workers will be in demand, workers from other nations will seek to take advantage of that.

Diversity is created under the cloak of free movement of labour, it’s a tool for the engineering of societies whilst attempting to maintain the illusion that it’s of economic benefit to the nation and that it is happening by the free will of peoples.

If one wanted to utterly transform the racial makeup of a nation, and not just a single nation but, for example, every nation in the EU, then why not create freedom of movement and freedom of work rules between those nations?

Economics and demand for labour would eventually take care of the rest, in some instances far faster than others.

Nations would eventually be ruined as their jobs markets become saturated with, or experience a deficit of, workers, and those nations experiencing mass influxes stagger under the burden of an un-manageable population, but the result would be diversity.

And, each ‘collapse’ in individual nations would trigger a wave of migration from that nation.

One would create artificial migrations of people between nations, and thus create diverse, disparate societies in each of those nations.

Yes, there would be suffering, but for diversity obsessed bureaucrats, would that matter if they could achieve their goal of transforming societies into the multiracial, multicultural ideal?

All societies who were part of this bloc would eventually lose their own identity as a result, and the only commonality people within that society would have is their nation’s membership of this bloc.

Wouldn’t that suit the EU down to the ground? The only tie between peoples would be the EU, and also the cherished goal of diversity would be achieved.

They would, effectively, have succeeded in merging all of our nations into one nation, or states of one nation, removing the national identity and the people who made each individual nation a nation in its own right.

Given a few centuries indigenous races would cease to exist in any significant numbers, there’d be no national or racial identity whatsoever, not a single bond to hold nations together, other than their membership of the bloc.

They’d have their one ‘super’ nation because the individual nations would have nothing left which made them stand apart, they’d have no choice but to be tied to that central authority, diversity and the lack of any internal national cohesion ensures it.

The stuff of conspiracy theories? Or just some careful planning on their part which we see coming to fruition around us now?

We can at least say that, even if the side effects of free movement are unintended, they are certainly beneficial for those running the EU show.

Is it really possible that something so convenient for a few, so in accordance with their aims of creating a superstate peopled by the diverse, and so monumental, can have happened by accident?

Fancy dress costumes and LibLabCon galas – how the EHRC Quango spends your Taxes

Fancy dress costumes and LibLabCon galas – how the EHRC spends your money

Published by Freedom News

The infamous Equalities and Human Rights Commission spent more than £35,000 of taxpayers’ money on items such as fancy dress costumes and printed balloons, and sending staff to LibLabCon party functions, the Taxpayers’ Alliance has revealed.

Released EHRC bank statements exposed details of a shopping spree by 400 of the quango’s staff, who were issued with government credit cards allowing them to spend up to £9,500 a month over a two-year period.

Among the costs run up at the taxpayers’ expense between April 2009 and May 2011 were: £367 on fancy dress costumes, £351 on printed balloons, £120 on artists’ easels and £129 on a ‘light therapy’ lamp, which is used to ‘combat acne’.

In addition, EHRC employees enjoyed thousands of pounds worth of first-class rail travel – as well as foreign conferences, luxury hotels and meals at expensive restaurants, including a five-star Hilton hotel in London and the Pont de La Tour restaurant near Tower Bridge.

However, the bulk of the expense – almost £20,000 – went on sending staff to events held by the LibLabCon political elite. In total, the EHRC gave £9,167.62 to the Labour party, £6,145 to the Tories and £4,650 to the Lib Dems.

London British National Party representative Giuseppe De Santis commented: ‘It’s questionable if a government quango is allowed to give taxpayers’ money to political parties, but this may explain why the EHRC is still there, and why the much-vaunted bonfire of the quangos never took place! In actual fact their numbers are increasing.

‘Only the British National Party will stop this unacceptable waste of money by closing down this useless quango and using the money saved to pay for frontline services.’

A damning report issued last month said the EHRC contributes ‘very little to meaningful equality’ despite costing the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds. The report by the Civitas think-tank said that the ‘super’ quango should be abolished and found ‘serious flaws’ in its work.

It was also scathing of the pay and expenses of the Commission’s most senior staff – including its chairman Trevor Phillips, who is paid an extortionate £112,000-a-year salary for three-and-a-half days’ work a week.

A spokesman for the EHRC defended the payments as ‘legitimate expenses’.

But Matthew Sinclair, director of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: ‘We already knew spending was out of control at the EHRC, but now we have further evidence that they are wasting taxpayers’ money with thousands of pounds in credit card bills.

‘Every penny wasted unnecessarily on lavish expenses and political campaigning at party conferences is more pressure on families. If the Government want to give taxpayers a better deal, they need to scrap this spendthrift quango.’

or by ringing 0844 8094581 to help with running costs and improvements of this website. If operators are busy, please try again.