Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil, Thomas Mann

By, Mark Bernadiner, PH.D.

Muhammad, founder of Islam and author of Koran, was mentally sick psychopath, could not read and write. While in seizure, he uttered disjointed phrases, which his followers represented as Allah divine afflatus. This is the history of Islam that muslims and “honest and free” western media would not like you to know. These facts show that islam is not a religion, but a cult.
Read: “History of Middle Ages” Professor Nikolay A. Osokin, Textbook (in Russian), Publishing house: Imperial University Printing Office, Kazan, 1888, 771 pp.; Publisher: АСТ, Харвест, 2008, 672 pp.
Below is a speech which was delivered by Winston Churchill in 1899.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!
Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.  The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.  A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity.  The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.  Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.  No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.  It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Sir Winston Churchill; (The River War, first edition, Vol.  II, pages 248-50 London)
In his Cairo speech, Obama accredited to arabs all fundamental inventions human race made over centuries. None of the Obama mentioned is true, as every person graduated from credible high school knows. However, it does not mean that arabs, great nation with centuries of history, has no inventions critical for human life. They have and here they are:

1.   Ethnic Cleansing - invented centuries ago, implemented over 2000 years ago in Israel when they occupied Israel and disseminated Jews around the world; from 1948 through 1953 arab countries expelled a million Jews and stole their properties; in 1974, Turkish armed forces invaded Cyprus, captured 36 percent of its territory, partitioning the island, implemented a policy of “ethnic cleansing” that sent close to 200,000 Greek Cypriots southward as refugees who lost their property; churches and cemeteries were desecrated by Muslim and declared the northern Turkish Republic of Cyprus in 1983; in 1999, Kosovo Liberation Army stormed homes of the last 15 Jews in Kosovo’s capital, who had to clear out, with just the clothes on their backs; currently, Jews in Yemen under attack, including the murder of Jewish community leader Moshe Yaish al-Nahari. “They throw stones at us. They curse us. They want to kill us,” said Salem Suleiman of his former Muslim neighbors.

2. Genocide – invented by Turks and implemented in 1915–1917 in Armenia: over 1.5 mln. Armenians, including children, died.
3. Holocaust – invented by Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, in 1920s in Palestine (occupied territory of the State of Israel); implemented in Palestine in 1920s-30s; in 1941, Haj Amin al Husseini brought the Holocaust idea to Hitler and helped him to implement Holocaust in Europe from 1941; he organized in Europe two islamofascist brigades that operated under SS. Had their own concentration camp and killed thousand of Europeans, including Jews. 

Islam is based on three fundamental principles:

1. Stealing
2. Killing, and
3. Lying 

Koran says:
"Slay them wherever you find them. Fight against them till idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme" (Sura 2:190),
"Seek out your enemies relentlessly" (Sura 4:103),
"Make war on them till idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme" (Sura 8:36),
"When the sacred months are over slay the unbelievers wherever you find them. Arrest them, beseige them and lie in ambush everywhere for them" (Sura 9:5),
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you" (Sura 9:121),
"When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield strike off their heads" (Sura 47:3),
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate" (Sura 66:7).

Koran is Islamic Mein Kamf. Islam is fascist cult and must be eliminated from the earth.
Mark Bernadiner, PH.D.

For information or comments, write to Feedback@IslamReview.com

recommended reading 
  

Great Britain Insulted — UK Conservative Government Cowers

Great Britain Insulted — Conservative Government Cowers

Jun 18th, 2011 

By AJM. at http://bnpideas.com/

In what must rank as one of the most deliberately belligerent attacks on Britain in the EU Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Parliament’s Liberal Group, has revealed his and his fellow MEPs’ contempt for the UK.

In the video clip which can be seen beneath, Verhofstadt was referring to the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which has demanded a significant increase in the EU’s annual budget, at a time of unprecedented austerity at home.

Viewers will note Verhofstadt’s contempt and derision for the nation that created his own state (at the Treaty of London, 1831). Great Britain protected his state twice in the two great conflicts of the 20th Century, from which it was liberated in the closing stages of WW2.

Viewers will also note the applause and support Verhofstadt receives from h is fellow Europhiles. Verhofstadt was the Prime Minister of Belgium between 1999-2008.

In 2011, the UK will make gross contributions of some £16 billion to the EU budget. Between the years 2000-2006 and 2007-2013, the UK’s net contribution will rise by nearly 100 percent.

Since 1973, the UK’s gross contributions to the EU have exceeded £260 billion at nominal values (i.e. without index linking).

In 1973, the Conservative Government signed the Treaty of Rome, after a series of manoeuvres before the British electorate which employed unprecedented subterfuge and deceit. The Public Records Office details the relevant Cabinet records of the time and the extent of the deception.

The Conservative Party supported the UK’s membership of what was described, at the time, as merely a free trading zone during the 1975 Referendum. The Conservatives were ably assisted by the funds of international business interests.

The British electorate, many of whom did not vote in 1975, have never been consulted on the matter of a political and economic European Union and the destruction of our ancient liberties and Constitution.

Under that Constitution, it is forbidden for any overseas power, prelate or jurisdiction or potentate to interfere in the affairs of Great Britain.

On 15 September 2010 Verhofstadt supported the new initiative Spinelli Group, which was founded to reinvigorate the strive for federalisation of the European Union (EU). Other prominent supporters are: Jacques Delors, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Joschka Fischer, Andrew Duff, Elmar Brok. Verhofstadt is also an enthusiastic multiculturalist.

Verhofstadt, along with his numerous allies in the Parliament, Council and Commission, should appreciate that without the UK’s budget contribution, the EU would fail to function.  This is a point our Ministers will not make.

Were the UK to withdraw from the EU – as one day it shall — the EU will only continue to operate by raising the contributions of the remaining member states.

At that point, the EU will rupture and dissolve; Great Britain will once again take the lead and will save the nations of Europe by its example, to employ the words of the late William Pitt.

Readers may care to make their views known to Mr Verhofstadt.  He may be contacted by emailing him at this link

We may be quite certain that the spineless sycophants within the Vichy Conservative-Lib/Dem Alliance will, yet again, fail to stand up for Britain’s interests. The hand-wringers in both parties will meekly fawn before their EU governors. British subjects will, once again, be humiliated and belittled.

Meanwhile, Government Ministers will congratulate themselves on their recent increase to the Overseas Aid budget, shortly set to exceed £11 billion per annum and overseen by the EU, whilst old age pensioners die of hypothermia in winter.

So much for the empty tub-thumping approach of prospective Conservative Ministers in the run-up to last year’s General Election.  The late Lord Palmerston stands out as an almighty colossus in comparison with his current counterparts.

recommended reading


Reflections of a Statesman: The Writings and Speeches of Enoch Powell

East Yorkshire British national Party Branch Raises Funds for Brave Local Boy

East Yorkshire Branch Raises Funds for Brave Local Boy

  News Team @ http://www.bnp.org.uk/

Hull and East Yorkshire British National Party are pleased to announce the raising of £500 towards a special trike and wheelchair for local boy Jack Christmas.

Dawn and Jack Christmas

Two-year-old Jack suffers from global developmental delay, motor development disorder and brain atrophy. He cannot walk or speak, but he knows how to melt you with his smile.
Jack’s parents, Dawn and Tony, are organising a series of fundraising events in Hull to try and raise more than £4,000 for a special trike and wheelchair, which will mean they can take Jack on the beach for the first time.
"When we heard of the attempt to raise over £4,000 for Jack, we felt as a group we must help out," said Hull organiser Jason Carr.
Hull fundholder Fess Traynor said, "The local council seem more concerned for the welfare of asylum seekers, immigrants or anyone with drug issues. We feel it's disgusting that this hardworking family get no help whatsoever. We are able to help, so we feel we must."
The Christmas family, of the Greatfield estate in Hull, said, "We are having to raise money ourselves and are organising numerous events in East Hull. We were over the moon when the local British National Party organisers approached us to help. We didn't think politicians cared about people like us. Only the British National Party have offered help, and we were so happy when they raised over £500 at their last meeting for us."
Despite Jack’s conditions, Mrs Christmas, who works as a teacher, said Jack is such a happy little boy.
"Jack is so laidback. He is so happy all the time; he doesn't speak but his way of saying hello is to clap. We need this specialised trike so we can do things as a family. The trike would also benefit his health.
“We are so grateful to Hull British National Party for all their help and support in this. You hear of all the bad press, but it’s wonderful when you find out the British National Party are there for you and are so helpful."
For details of making donations to this wonderful charity, please contact the Hull and East Yorkshire branch on 07944 635466 or 07854 378700.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National party website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again. 

Also their are other ways to help local groups out, by visiting our English Fair Fund Site at http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/content/english-fair-fund

Article : Interview with David Hamilton of the Nationalist Conservatives

Interview with David Hamilton of the Nationalist Conservatives

Jun  2011

by Brett Stevens.

In my rambles through cyberspace, I have encountered other people attempting to address my three favorite political questions: the national question, the class war question and (underlying the other two) the end-of-ecocide question.
For many years, I’ve realized that the three are linked. You cannot stop ecocide in a society based on personal desire. You cannot have a society not based on personal desire without getting away from personal economic competition of an extreme degree. That in turn requires a society with a center, a shared culture and values system, and that ties intrinsically to concepts of ethnicity and identity.
One of the groups I encountered has been the Nationalist Conservative group, whose goal is to merge traditionalism and conservative politics in a modern context.
In my pursuit of the national question, I am forever looking for people who will spill the truth as it occurs plainly to me: that diversity in all forms does not work, and that nationalism is the only type of society that will conserve anything, whether culture, dignity, the environment, or even sanity.
As a result, I asked a few questions of the National Conservatives leader David Hamilton to see if we could find some common ground. I think the results are interesting, and give us a clear vision of what nationalism is like in Britain and where it is headed.
Image: Enoch Powell, a founding force in British nationalism.
What is nationalism, and why is nationalism important?
It’s the largest natural unit of people before artificial creations like the EU. If you expand beyond it it becomes an Empire. Trying to form close links with similar people abroad is temporary because nations of racially similar people form their own national or ethnic identities.
However, at this stage when the kinship nations are imploding we need alliances across Europe and with the Anglosphere because we need each other for different reasons. I think the US needs Europe to re-link to the culture and forge deeper roots after being truncated at the Revolution while we probably will not be able to free ourselves from multi-racialism without American might. India or China would not let us off our knees without strength. To this end it would be wise for our royal family to marry Australians, Canadians or Anglo-Saxon Americans to strengthen links amongst our kindred.
Definitions like an “ideological or Proposition nation” have no meaning. It is the typical Progressives way of removing the meaning from terms and just leaving air. Pat Buchanan defines it in his robust Conservative way as a Blood and Soil nation.
What are the indigenous or native groups in the UK, and how do you foresee them working together under the type of civilization you would desire?
As things stand Britain is breaking apart. The Scottish are now pushing for independence and the Welsh have been encouraged to develop or revive their language. I would not stop a people having their own language and culture but not to use it in opposition to their neighbouring country; Ireland still harbours hostility to England. The problem is that it is largely English taxpayers money that finances these and the English are beginning to react against it. When the Celtic nations realise that we are all facing the biggest invasion since the fall of Rome and being dispossessed, there is hope that we can transcend the historical grudges they have against us to unite for common defence. One in eight of the population of Eire are asylum seekers so it is politic to stop fighting Ulster. We have to overcome internal, inherited grudges for the survival of or respective children.
If you were given power over the UK tomorrow, how would you change society and what changes would the average person notice immediately?
I would halt immigration and stop state benefits for all but those of British ancestry and deport illegals. Some say other countries would not take them back. They would if we were confident and if they could be shown the benefits educated and presumably trained repatriates could bring to them.
I would re-introduce capital punishment for certain types of murder and child molestation (paedophilia is a euphemism to stop it sounding so bad). There are cases where people whose lives have been destroyed by the murder of a close-one, usually one who should be protected by the authorities, are then treated with sickening cruelty by judges who give light sentences to the malefactor. This is particularly disgusting where evil judges let rapists and child molesters off with light sentences. This deprives innocent people of catharsis and signals to asylum seekers that our corrupt judges will be sympathetic if they rape or murder our people.
Does it seem to you that nationalism is gaining strength?
There is a Liberal defence of Liberal values against Muslim ways, especially Sharia Law, across Europe, personified by Geert Wilders with a nationalism involved. I welcome this but am not a Liberal and base my views on inherited tradition and natural prejudice for one’s own people. As things stand the elites and public authorities are prejudiced in favour of ethnics and give them preferential treatment over us.
The great paradox is that the multi-racial ideology was a righteous reaction to the barbarism of Hitler but has itsaelf become persecutory and not only of we Whites. In Europe, especially france and Sweden, Jewish people are being persecuted by Muslims yet the Jewish leaders try to form alliances ith Muslims who hate them against us who are more or less supportive. I urge ordinary European Jewish people to rebel against their leaders for their own safety and join us in the defence of Europe.
There are Conservative values like Piety that we must promote: respect for our ancetors and what they created. The symbol of this is Aeneas carrying his father Anchises from the burning city of Troy in Virgil’s Aeneid.
Another conservative virtue was Noblesse Oblige. That is the obligations of the noble to their lesser brethren. People balk at this because they have fallen for the equality myth. In practice governments come up with schemes like Race Relations Acts then impose them on the population and the implementation percolates down a hierarchy of public officials to the population.
Europe is turning against immigration but the Nationalist-Conservative explosion is yet to come. It will when people realise that liberalism was replaced by what is called Cultural Marxism in the sixties but kept the name. They changed the traditional Liberal notion of individual rights to group rights then designated ethnics as victims and Whites as oppressers.
From then on Whites had oppressive race laws passed against them and ethnics were given preferential treatment under the guise of “special needs.” If a White speaks out they are subjected to loss of employment, a public show trial by the media and general persecution. Dr.James Watson was an example.
For the sake of our readers, can you define and distinguish the following: UK, English, British, Antipodean?
Antipodean surprised me. It refers to an Australian or New Zealander.
The United Kingdom is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Most would say Britain, but rarely Great Britain, which refers only to England, Scotland and Wales. However, Britain has sometimes been used as an abbreviation for Great Britain and in certain contexts will therefore mean only England, Scotland and Wales, as in British Railways which did not include Ulster.
British is the category the elites slot ethnics into but they can not become English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. I regard myself as English and part of the indigenous British family of nations.
Is nationalism separate from racism, or do the two overlap? If so, is nationalism a form of racism, or racism a form of nationalism?
To me nationalism is an expression of the being and interests of a racial group that has developed independently from a close-racial country like Germany in our case into a different ethnicity – culture, manners etc. Conservatism is the temperament that wants to conserve what we have inherited and pass it on to our children. The two complement each other.
I openly admit to being a racialist because I believe in racial differences between people but do not accept the Marxist pejorative term “racist.” When asked if he had caused racism with his speeches Enoch Powell replied:”What’s wrong with racialism? It’s the basis of nationhood.”
I regard prejudice as traditional wisdom received from our ancestors. It saves us learning the hard way and we would have been spared this dispossession by immigrants if our natural prejudices had been used after the last war.
It is silly to pretend that everyone is a new experience and we should open our minds. That is encouraging people to be naïve and gets them into danger in a harsh world. Worldly people who travel learn to judge people on their appearance – looks, body language etc.
If you are walking through city streets and see a group of young Blacks walking towards you unless you are very naïve, you cross the road. That is what we learn from experience.
How does your group hope to influence British politics, and what kind of response are you getting so far?
It is a three-pronged attack: explaining the historical causes of our predicament, exposing the prejudice against the indigenous people of their own elites and trying to suggest ways forward.
Some want to bring certain issues to public attention like the hidden genocide of White South African farmers or the widespread gang rapes of young White girls that were covered up by British police. In Blackpool the police suppressed a report that showed 11 Muslim fast food outlets were being used as “honeytraps” to lure young White girls as young as 11 and 12 into sex and then prostitution. That is an act of war on our people by a rival community.
What I envisage is an “intellectual frontline” taking the establishment head on and creating arguments for our people to justify their natural instincts. We have some excellent writers and these were brought together through the foresight of Paul Morris (aka Green Arrow) on Home of the Green Arrow, and The British Resistance websites who developed a stable of top writers who are better than most establishment writers.
Unfortunately the editor of the BNP website refused to do this, preferring to react to news stories and this held us back. This is also a problem with US blogs. They have no ideas of their own so they discuss the news! I’m pleased that Amerika.org is taking a creative approach. It is ludicrous to let the Establishment make the running, we must take the initiative and lead the debate.
Do you think nationalism must necessarily be paired with conservative politics or values? Are the two cut from the same cloth, or complementary?
To me nationalism qualifies Conservative. I mean a specific type of Conservatism, not monetarism or free market economics, which are forms of liberalism, or reductions in state benefits for the working classes, but a conscious re-linking with our traditions and history – our ancestors.
It could be called traditional Conservatism and the rejecton of universal abstractions for concrete terms is inspired by Edmund Burke’s campaign against the thinking behind The French Revolution which was the beginning of the progressive thinking we have now. The use of concrete terms rather than universal abstractions like English man and woman rather than persons leads to a clearer picture of what we are instead of the vague, umimaginable abstraction, humanity.
There is confusion about what nationalism is and everyone has a different idea. For a time the BNP was seen as our last chance now the leaders are hated and Griffin is thought of as a State op. I am promoting a type born of our traditions and history but ideologues want to start anew with a system of belief written down in a book like Das Kapital, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao or Mein Kampf.
One reason for the failure of “radical nationalism” in Britain is that it has no traditional origins and is an ideology or system of abstract concepts in imitation of Marxism. It appeals only to reason and people have to learn it by rote or be corrected. It is a secular form of religion with heaven on earth in a future utopia. To get there everyone has to be socially ingineered and made to fit into a sterotype. It is a type of thinking derived from The Enlightenment and should be left to Marxists, Liberals and Nazis. Anyone who diverges from doctrine is persecuted or attacked as a red.
A Nationalist Conservative view grows out of our emotions: our sense of belonging and affection for our history and confidence in a future for our civilisation. When were homogenous people trusted each other. Churchill knew this and in 1955 tried to intoduce a Bill to control immigration but had to stand down because of his health. His succesor Anthony Eden shelved it. Churchill also wanted the Conservative Party to campaign for that year’s general election under he slogan:”Keep England White.” There is a role model for us.
Multi-racialism has destroyed trust and is destroying civil society. It takes a police and surveillance state to hold it together. Even schoolchildren are now being fingerprinted for future use and those as young as 3 tested for racist attitudes.
Our views derive from an emotional and instinctive relationship with our people and our territory. It is more profound than rationalising or adopting an artificial blueprint for a Utopian world because it grows from natural, human instinct and emotion.
We must jettison dated Liberal categories like left and right for such as Traditionalist and Globalist, Patriot and Anti-British (or American).
Is nationalism important for reasons of biology, identity, political orientation, values, culture, heritage or all of the above? If all, what does it mean that it applies on so many levels?
Nationalism is the way the values you mention are perpetuated and maintained as opposed to Globalism or The New World Order which is about global money making for an elite group and believes in destroying all that our ancestors created for us in the belief that something else will grow from the ruins. This is why they share our technology with say, China and India. They sell our factories to them and thus give them the means to take over, then they will not want us. It is advanced behind the doctrine of racial equality and if any oppose it they are persecuted as “racists” or “haters”.
Our party has a similar outlook to the direction you have taken, which is to say that diversity itself is destructive, not the ingredients of diversity (specific ethnic groups). What led you to this direction?
Throughout history wars have been fought for territory and by allowing newcomers to stake claims, our corrupt and emasculated ‘elite’ are encouraging them to fight for more. In The Territorial Imperative Robert Ardry explains how much having a country of their own has boosted the confidence of Israelis, but our rulers are handing our ancestral homeland to invaders and protecting their welfare over and above that of our native people.
To give favourable treatment to aliens over our own people, “our kith and kin,” as the great fifth Marquess of Salisbury described them, is morally evil.
Is nationalism a prescriptive worldview, or a method of avoiding negative consequences (e.g. those of intermixing, ethnic crime or IQ differentials, etc)?
The problem is Progrssives have an unrealistic view of immigrants. They deny their human nature like us and pretend they are nice, grateful people coming here to be like us when, in reality, they come here to take advantage and bear us grudges for the Empire and the slave trade.
Ours is the natural worldview and grows from simple but instinctive impulses like the urge to put your own children first. A parent who puts other people’s children first is perverse and this applies on a wider level to the natural prejudice for one’s own nation and “Kith and Kin.”. There is no justification for misappropriating our people’s taxes to pay for foreign schemes like educating Africa or giving to the poor in China or India both of which have stronger economies than ours. This is an example of the moral corruption of Western elites. As Conservative economist P.T. Baur put it: Overseas aid is money taken from the poor in the West and given to the rich in the third world. Another excellent Conservative economist is Ezra Mishan and his The Costs of Economic Growth is essential reading for a Conservative economist.
We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them. We also have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture, and we must honour that.
Our loyalties begin with affection within families and this emanates outward to neighbourhood and nation. Men and women are distinctive sexual beings within their inherited collective identity. We belong to our kin, above strangers, and this affects the type of community we create.
Edmund Burke’s famous definition of society is that it is a continuous community of the living, the dead and those who are yet to be born. Each man and woman is part of a larger body. The individual dies, but descendants live on.
We have positive benefits to offer our people: preferential treatment in their own country, better education, priority in housing and employment for our children and protection from child-rape by older members of a rival community. You only need look at the names of graduates from medical and law schools to see how our young are being dispossessed. We would offer British children more opportunities and a better future without unfair competition from outsiders.
A book that was a great influence on me was Suicide of the West by great American Conservative James Burnham. If I may be bold I should like to suggest that American Conservatives develop a world view to suit contemporary and future needs by developing some of the excellent points made by Pat Buchanan in Death of the West and State of Emergency. He has laid down a superb groundwork. You have Operation Wetback as a precedent.
We have been held back in Britain by the BNP and their leaders who are destroying the party from within and discrediting the movement as a whole. Conservatism has been retarded by Conservative magazine editors like the Salisbury Review and Quarterly Review who are reluctant to face our situation as it is when with their reputations they could do so much good. They must make a more realistic assessment then start fighting for their children’s future. They must take on the elites and PC or they mislead young or unworldly people into thinking things are not too bad when, in fact, our civilisation has nearly been expunged. We are being colonised and wiped out. This no time for polite articles about minor cultural details.
The Traditional Britain Group should get some speakers with more dynamism like Frank Ellis to address them and develop a momentum.
David Hamilton’s Recommended Reading

• Sarah Maid of Albion
• The Green Arrow Forum
• The British Resistance
• National Conservatism
•  Amerika.

Horwich Nationalist recommended reading
 

 

Sacred cow: culpability

  2011

by Brett Stevens.   at  http://www.amerika.org/

Liberalism, the belief system that controls most of the world at this time, has one thing and one only that it holds sacred: the individual.
Liberalism is formed by individuals, wanting to guarantee the collective would not ostracize them, forming a collective to compel the rest of the collective to tolerate them.
One of the sacred cows produced by this non-logic is that of intent. To a liberal, there are two different outcomes if you drive a car over 30 kids while meaning to, or whether you drive the same car over the same 30 kids “by accident.”
This is because at the root of their nature, liberals are immature — they have not fully developed, and they see the world only as it would impact them or someone like them.
Because their ideology is rooted in fear, they always side with the person who is in the weakest position. If the weakest among us is safe, they reason, so we are — as individuals.
When they hear about a car running over 30 kids: if it’s an accident, they imagine themselves as the driver and want that person to escape punishment; if it was deliberate, they imagine themselves as the kids and want the driver punished.
In their view, the only safe intent is to want everyone to get along, because to each individual liberal, that says he or she will be accepted — guaranteed.
Naturally, this clashes with common sense, because 30 dead kids are dead no matter who intended what.

Take the 2000 case of a 40-year-old man we’ll call Alex, whose sexual preferences suddenly began to transform. He developed an interest in child pornography—and not just a little interest, but an overwhelming one. He poured his time into child-pornography Web sites and magazines. He also solicited prostitution at a massage parlor, something he said he had never previously done. He reported later that he’d wanted to stop, but “the pleasure principle overrode” his restraint.
[...]
At the same time, Alex was complaining of worsening headaches. The night before he was to report for prison sentencing, he couldn’t stand the pain anymore, and took himself to the emergency room. He underwent a brain scan, which revealed a massive tumor in his orbitofrontal cortex. Neurosurgeons removed the tumor. Alex’s sexual appetite returned to normal.
[...]
When your biology changes, so can your decision-making and your desires. The drives you take for granted (“I’m a heterosexual/homosexual,” “I’m attracted to children/adults,” “I’m aggressive/not aggressive,” and so on) depend on the intricate details of your neural machinery. Although acting on such drives is popularly thought to be a free choice, the most cursory examination of the evidence demonstrates the limits of that assumption.
[...]
As our understanding of the human brain improves, juries are increasingly challenged with these sorts of questions. When a criminal stands in front of the judge’s bench today, the legal system wants to know whether he is blameworthy. Was it his fault, or his biology’s fault? – The Atlantic

To the liberal mind, it’s unfair to convict anyone who is not culpable for their actions. This means people who are aware of the consequences of their actions, and able to see why those consequences might be bad. People who can control their impulses.
If you want to know why every mass murderer immediately pleads insane, it is because this is a hole in our legal system.
Ironically, this hole was caused by liberal policies. Originally, American justice aimed to eliminate threats to the community. Well-meaning liberals changed this in the 1960s. They wanted to “rehabilitate” criminals, and believed that unless that criminal truly intended to commit his crimes and would have done the same with a cop in the room, well, he was just “mistaken.”
A whole genre of literature came and went, in fiction and non-fiction, about how terrible you would feel if you grew up in poverty, with an alcoholic father who made you rape the sheep, and kids who made fun of you at school.
This culminated in self-parody:

At trial, White’s lawyer argued that he was suffering from “diminished capacity,” a controversial defense then permissible in California courts. White supposedly was suffering from depression and thus incapable of premeditated murder. As evidence of this, psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that the formerly health-conscious White had recently become a junk food junkie. Blinder commented that too much sugar can affect the chemical balance in the brain and worsen depression, but didn’t blame the crime on bad diet. Rather, he offered junk food use as proof of White’s mental state–in other words, Twinkie consumption was an effect rather than the cause of White’s problems. But the media and public immediately–and misleadingly–dubbed the defense’s argument the “Twinkie defense.”
Whatever they called it, it worked. The jury found White guilty of a lesser charge, voluntary manslaughter. – Straight Dope

While bleating about how the media gets it wrong, the Straight Dope also gets it wrong: whether the twinkies or the pre-existing mental condition (twitch), the argument was that Dan White committed the murder because of mental health problems.
When we used to call people murderers — this became taboo in the 1990s with Sapir-Whorf and the idea that using categorical language about people made us treat them badly — it was not to attribute blame. It was to tag certain people with an implied BAD ANIMAL and remove them from society.
Until we got the moralistic notion, which is shared between populist (but not transcendental) Christianity and all forms of liberalism, that intent defined outcome and that we were “judged” only on our intent, legal process was a relatively simple affair designed to remove threats to the community.
In those days, judgment meant deciding where someone belonged, not whether or not they were good, nice or equal people. You might be equal and nice, but if you run over kids, you need to do that elsewhere. “Rights” meant entitlement to things like land, a place in a community, a journeyman’s position in your trade.
Over the centuries, the notion of moralism — deciding whether someone is good or bad based on whether they treat others as equals (which translates to “more important than the self,” because if there are many of Them and only one of You, there will be constant interruptions requiring that You cease activity so They can go ahead) — trumped any notion of practical justice.
In fact, we came to scorn it. Judging whether someone was a threat to society was how we treated dogs with rabies. Humans are more than dogs; we have control over ourselves even when we’re sick. Therefore, we are morally culpable by intent, or everything was a big accident and we should claim insanity.
Even when the cops find us flossing with the intestines of our victims while they heads boil in pots. In fact, career criminals know that the system will be more likely to not kill you if you manage to behave like a total nutcase. Kill 30 people and keep accurate records and you’re a cold-blooded killer; kill 30 people and make sculptures out of their corpses in homage to your dead abusive mother, and you’re a victim too!

There is an equally interesting perspective from Fairfax County, Virginia, chief of police M. Douglas Scott, a man responsible not only for protecting the public’s safety, but also for allocating the increasingly limited budgets which that public grants him.
“Over the course of my law enforcement career, I have seen very, very few examples where somebody could point out an offender to me and say, ‘That person’s clearly been rehabilitated; that even though they committed a serious felony, they’re back out there leading a productive life today.’
“The public in general sees the good in all people and thinks that most people are capable of being good. The public even wants to believe that evil people can be rehabilitated or brought back into society with some level of assistance. But I think our society would go broke trying to rehabilitate the number of evil individuals that are out there on our streets today.” – Obsession, by John Douglass and Mark Olshanker, p. 349

We like to think everyone is good, because we want to think we are good as individuals.
We project this view onto the world and hope that it’s true. Yet it isn’t.
Ever wonder why drugs are illegal? Wonder no more:

Twenty-seven percent of federal inmates and 61 percent of state inmates had a current or past sentence for a violent crime. Federal inmates (43 percent) were twice as likely as state inmates (19 percent) to have never been on probation or incarcerated before their current offense.
[...]
Among sentenced federal prisoners surveyed, 66 percent of the women and 57 percent of the men were serving time on drug charges. In comparison, 33 percent of the women and 21 percent of the men in state prisons had been convicted on drug charges. – US DOJ

We catch very few of the criminals who have committed crimes. In fact, many crimes go unsolved:

The percentage of homicides that go unsolved in the United States has risen alarmingly even as the homicide rate has fallen to levels last seen in the 1960s.
Despite dramatic improvements in DNA analysis and forensic science, police fail to make an arrest in more than one-third of all homicides. National clearance rates for murder and manslaughter have fallen from about 90 percent in the 1960s to below 65 percent in recent years. – Times Record News

The reason we keep drugs illegal is that it’s an easy way to catch repeat offenders — that is, easier than having them murder, rape or commit armed robbery, which is what they are statistically most likely to do.
Further, we find that 53% of arrested males and 39% of arrested females are re-incarcerated ^{[citation needed]}, and that is within a relatively time period after their arrests. If many if not most crimes go unreported, unprosecuted, unconvicted and unsolved, what does this mean about recidivism rates? They’re higher than we think.
But as individuals, we each like to believe that if we committed those crimes, it would be by accident, or even better, someone or something else would be to blame. We would not be aggressors, but victims. And if that were the case, it sure would be convenient if we could be rehabilitated.
However, we didn’t commit those crimes. Whether from good moral nature, fear of law enforcement, innate cowardice or some mixture of the three, we did not commit those crimes or at least most of us did not. Someone else did. Someone who is likely to re-offend.
Our notion of culpability just gets in the way of the oldest principle of law enforcement, which is consequentialism. Did 30 kids get run over? Did a murder occur? Will it happen again?
While our public is stoned to the eyeballs on the notion of rehabilitation and innocence by lack of intent, the bodies pile up and, thanks to our social welfare system, the murderers are let out and given aid subsidies to help them procreate, ensuring that we’ll have future generations of unhinged and/or stupid people.

For over a year, Mr. Chappell, a schizophrenic with a violent criminal record, had seemed relatively stable in a state-financed group home in Charlestown. But after a fight with another resident, Mr. Chappell was shuttled from home to home, and his mother believed that he had fallen off his medication along the way.
Ms. Chappell said she had tried to communicate this concern to his caretakers, but it was not until mid-January that she found somebody who listened.
The woman introduced herself as Stephanie and said she would be Mr. Chappell’s counselor at his new group home in Revere. She confirmed that Mr. Chappell had stopped getting his antipsychotic injections but made his mother a promise: “She said: ‘Don’t worry. I’m going to get Deshawn back on track.’
“I thought everything was going to be O.K. because he had somebody who cared,” Ms. Chappell said, her voice breaking.
Two days after that conversation, Stephanie Moulton, a petite, street-smart 25-year-old, was dead, and Mr. Chappell was accused of murdering her. They had been alone at the Revere home, where, her family said, Ms. Moulton generally worked a solo shift. Mr. Chappell beat her, stabbed her repeatedly and then dumped her partially nude body in a church parking lot, prosecutors said. – NYT

In the liberal mindset, it’s only fair to convict people if they’re culpable, and they’re only culpable if they intended to do what they did. This translates into most criminals being victims, because no one who has a functional brain decides on violent pointless crime when jobs are easy enough to come by.
Our liberal friends thus pretend that it’s wrong to base a justice system on culpability, since these people have no idea what they were doing; it was just their brain chemistry. While a longer-term solution probably lies on looking for medical reasons for insanity, if we measure by consequences the bottom line remains the same: people who have committed crimes, unless we can medically fix them, will do it again.
Stephanie Moulton was just acting out what her society told her. These people were not broken or bad animals, they were victims. We just need to set aside our fear, treat them like humans — for once! the first kindness since whatever abuse made them do what they do! — and they’ll turn out okay.
Except it turns out in the end, this one like (statistically) most of the others, was a bad animal. And while we’ll now pay to lock him up for life, we can’t bring Stephanie back, or any of the others who have been sacrificed to our oblivious liberal notion that intent defines culpability.

Horwich nationalist recommended reading 

Call It Conspiracy

Civil War on the British Island Homeland

War on the British Homeland

 June 2011 

by Carlos Cortiglia.

When you look at what is happening in Britain, you will certaintly understand what will happen when the bombers will not be Muslim Extremists. From June 30 this country will see spreading strikes that at one point will paralize the country and will spread into riots leading to a civil war.
People need to eat and they need a roof over their heads. The empty promises of the so called maintream political parties do not wash. We are not talking about luxury cars or expensive vacations. We are talking about the basic needs of any human being. When the rulers do not represent the Electorate, the Electorate has the right to take up arms and get rid of the rulers.
We are seeing it all across the Middle East and Northern Africa and sooner than later it will happen in Britain. Corruption and Nepotism must be confronted with a bullet because the political system is so corrupt that it cannot provide the answers.
The General Population no longer believes in the so called Democratic System. In Glasgow Northeast, only 33% of those entitled to vote actually voted. In Barnsley, only 36.5 % actually voted. There are Members of Parliament being elected with less than 20% of the vote. This speaks loudly about how inadequate the so called Democratic System is in Britain.
The present government talks about limiting the right to protest and follows the path set up by the previous government when it banned protests. I call this the ‘pressure cooker effect’. Bottling up anger and resentment is the not the pathway to peaceful coexistence.
We in the British National Party know a lot about repression and have chosen the ballot instead of the bullet. Other nationalist groups who don’t care about ballots are getting ready to use bullets. They believe that the political system needs to be purged and that the financial and business systems need to be purged.
The motto of the Conservative Party says ‘we are all in this together’. Are we? A rising number of people don’t believe it. When the Lion awakes, the heads of the Establishment will fall quicker than the head of Charles I.
The ‘chopping heads’ phenomenon, like it happened also in France, could for many be the right answer and the only answer.
read more stories at http://www.londonpatriot.org/
 

Looting the Third World and Africa of its Health and Medical Workers

Looting the Third World of its Health Workers

British national party ideas

Foreign visitors coming to Britain for medical treatment cost the National Health Service tens of millions of pounds every year.

According to the NHS’s anti-fraud unit, most of these health tourists arrive here with their already diagnosed illnesses and conditions and turn up at Accident and Emergency units seeking treatment.

In 2010, some £24 million was stolen from our NHS, because health tourists provided incorrect information for billing, giving false addresses and in some cases even using fake passports.

Many health tourists are coming to Britain to get treatment because they are unable to received it back in their own countries.

This is because successive British Governments have persisted in the practice of ‘looting’ the best doctors and nurses from Third World countries, despite these countries’ needs being much greater that ours.

Last September, Mr Amadou Toumani Toure, President of the Republic of Mali, addressed the European Parliament.

In his speech he referred to the debilitating effect on his country’s health service of Mali-trained doctors and nurses being enticed away for jobs in Britain and Europe.

But here in Britain there has also been a detrimental effect from the huge influx of foreign medical staff over the past ten years.

Newly qualified nurses have been told by college trainers that they “may as well work for a supermarket” because there are no nursing jobs available in the National Health Service.

On completing their three-year training course, at a cost to the NHS of £15,600 each, nursing graduates are often told that local hospitals cannot afford to employ them.

Nursing graduates across the country are struggling to find employment because a growing number of NHS Trusts — in order to cut costs to the bone — are signing up Third World nurses for half of the cost of employing British trained nurses.

So while the sick and infirm in countries like Mali and the Philippines can’t get treatment because their doctors and nurses have come to Britain, British nurses, highly trained at the expense of the taxpayer, are consigned to stacking shelves at their local supermarkets.

How much worse can it get? A lot, we suspect.

British National Party Ideas : "

DISGRACED Crook and Former Bury North Labour MP David Chaytor Loses his p a r l i a m e n t a r y privileges

DISGRACED former Bury North Labour MP David Chaytor is to be stripped of his p a r l i a m e n t a r y privileges.

The House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee yesterday said it was changing its rules so that former MPs who have been sentenced to a year or more in jail will be stripped of their parliamentary passes.
The change in the rules follows the jailing of a series of MPs for abusing the Westminster expenses system, including Chaytor.
Eric Illsley, Jim Devine and Elliot Morley, MPs who were also jailed for fiddling their expenses, are being stripped of passes allowing them to use facilities at the Palace of Westminster too.
The committee also confirmed that the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner has closed inquiries into the four former MPs in the light of their criminal convictions. 
 

The Euro is still teetering on the brink of the Abyss

The Euro is still teetering on the brink

Martin Wingfield  @ Nick Griffin MEP Euro News

Greece's financial stability is now the lowest rated in the world, ranking below Ecuador, Jamaica and Grenada. 

Any hope that the new proposed bailout for Greece would help secure a future for the European Single Currency received a further set-back yesterday when Rating Agency, Standard & Poor, cut the country's credit rating because of "a significantly higher likelihood of one or more defaults".
The long-term rating on Greek sovereign debt is now CCC, just four notches above default.  In its latest appraisal on Greece, Standard & Poor didn't mince words. It said that in its view the country's credit outlook was "negative".


EU bureaucrats are now fearful that the downgraded rating could also impact on the other two EU bailout nations Portugal and Ireland.

The statement came as the Euro fell again amid fears that European leaders would not be able to agree terms for Greece's new bail-out, the country's second in just over a year.

The History of Political Correctness A Churchmans Perspective on The Dangers of PC

Political Correctness.

By

The Revd R.M.B. West, Dip Th.  at the http://christiancouncilofbritain.co.uk/

The theme of this opening address, for this inaugural National Conference of the Christian Council of Britain, has to be about one of the greatest threats facing our country and people today, that of political correctness.  Most people still regard political correctness as something of a joke but Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday, and a member of the Prayer Book Society, has said that it is no joke, at all,  but menacing.
  I agree. It began in early revolutionary Russia soon after the Bolshevik coup d’etat, of November 1917, when a few Red Guards stormed the residence of the Provisional Government of Kerensky, ousted it, and seized the pilots’ cabin of power in the Russian state.  Within a few years they were able to make peace with the Germans, destroy the ‘Whites’, their opponents within Russia, and formally declare the Soviet Union in 1922.  From that point on the real suffering began for the Russian, or rather, Soviet Peoples; and a major part of it was the thought and emotional control effected upon ordinary people by neuro-linguistic programming,  a method of controlling what people could think, or say, by sequencing verbal stimuli to them, to induce states of mind, and moods of feeling, by association,  without the patient, the victim in fact, really being aware of what was happening; which is what made it all the more effective.   The Russian name for it was “Politicheskaya pravil’nost” literally, ‘Political Truth’ or ‘Correctness’ as the authorities want you to see it.  It was “right thought” or “right belief” as the induced you to image it, not real thought, but real programming.  George Orwell referred to it in his 1948 book, 1984, as “double think” and “newspeak.”  It has quite a long and frightening history.

In 1918 Trotsky used it to control the Red Army.  The Communists needed ex-Tsarist officers to form an army of three million, strong enough to defeat their internal enemies, the Whites.  As a precaution, Trotsky attached political Commissars - politically reliable managers - to the army. They became an integral part of the Red army structure.  The Commissars were dedicated Party workers whose function it was to accompany officers, permanently, and report on their political correctness.  No military order carried final authority unless it was countersigned by a Commissar. [See Michael Lynch, Access to History: Reaction and Revolution: Russia 1881-1924, 2^nd ed., p. 119.]  Dr Frank Ellis, late of Leeds University, a lecturer in Russian, studied the Leninist origin of politicheskaya pravil’nost in his work Political Correctness and the Theoretical Struggle: From Lenin and Mao to Marcuse and Foucault, [Auckland: Maxim Institute, 2004].  In it he showed that the technical use of the term, as we know it, was current in 1921 [p.5]; that it was a world where the rational mind was viewed with suspicion, even hatred, [p.6] and that it makes serious intellectual thought and discussion impossible [p.12].  It has re-emerged from the Left on United States campuses since the 1980s, according to Alan Bullock, the author of Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, and is the source of anti-free speech rules to stamp out what it deems heresy, re-designated  “hate speech”, a category broad and vague enough to effectively harass or discredit minority dissenting views, and encourage self-censorship among the timid majority [See: The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, London: Harper Collins, 3^rd ed., 1999, p. 660.]

Political correctness and the neuro-linguistic programming of the human mind, inner personality, and soul, all go back to the Russian and Soviet scientist, Professor I. P. Pavlov(1849-1936).   It is that method of teaching, conditioning, indoctrination, or programming, which has been re-introduced on campus, in the media, and by the publicly-funded leadership charity, Common Purpose.   It often involves the intimidation of people under the guise of something sounding good, such as, “promoting equality of opportunities” except that there is usually something corny in it: how do you promote equality of opportunities for example?  You can practice equality of opportunity or not but promoting it is something, surely, for sales groups and marketing.  Anyway that point is lost on the promoters of politicheskaya pravil’nost,maybe because they see “promoting equality of opportunity” simply as a code-phrase for, “promoting political correctness”; an esoteric code which they are privy too but which we are confounded by, until we break the code.  A more modern tag for it - and the tags do change a little, just to keep us off their tail - seems to be “promoting,” there is that give-away word, not “equality of opportunities” but “equality and diversity”.   That seems to be the new neuro-linguist cue to put you into correct thought, that is, non-thought and robotic automata mode. Whatever cue is used, however, the aim is always to promote and use the stimulus-response method of teaching or training, really mind-control and indoctrination, under the guise of ‘teaching and learning’ and increasingly under the guise of ‘equal opportunities training’ or ‘equality and diversity training,’ or some other such title or tag which is beginning to bear the smell of humbug about it, even to the most intellectually challenged.   Under this method, this process even, to somewhat glorify it, folk are geared, even bullied, under the fear of being reported by their colleagues, into the tramlines of unquestioning and predictable ‘orthodoxy’.

If you do not scrupulously, nay slavishly, bow the knee, the heart, the mind and the soul to these tramlines of circular non-reasoning, you may be denounced or put on a disciplinary hearing affecting your career, contract, or employment; and certainly causing you stress.  At once they will try to induce you into a sense of self-guilt rather like being “an heretick” in the middle ages or “an enemy of the people” in the more recent “brotherhood republics,” such as Red China.  And the only way to exonerate yourself before such a disciplinary - the modern equivalent of the Inquisition, or the Western counterpart to one of the “peoples’ tribunals” - is to see the error of your ways, to confess your error - that is a great one - to accuse yourself, volunteering for corrective re-training [robotisation?], and to implicate or even denounce others.   The Church, the People, the Party, and the Human Resources Department are merciful: you will be spared this once.  You hope they will be merciful. And they usually are for they want to encourage conformity, that is the whole point of politicheskaya pravil’nost; but it comes at a price: you lose your freedom of thought; you lose your freedom and thought.  Themedia often try to do the same thing.

The media, if you like, are very often the new Peoples’ Inquisition; self-appointed, of course. The radical homosexuals indulge in the same thing.  They come at you, bullish, with aggressive questioning which is often question-begging.  To one political candidate, last year, they put the loaded question, “ What are you doing to make LGBT people feel safe?” to which the un-co-operative questionee answered, unexpectedly “What are you doing to make the rest of us feel safe”; whereupon the pressure-group threatened him with making a report to the police.  But if you do not like the answer, why ask the question? Or why not dutifully supply the requisite answer.  But this is typical of our new self-styled liberals; they simply are not liberal and I refuse to call them so.   There is nothing liberal, at all, about any group that seeks to lock you up because you have a view that it cannot tolerate.  We must be clear where the true liberals are; they are not with the politicheskaya pravil’nost brigade. However, the questionee was not locked-up or even reported to the police; it was all just humbug.  But you only found that out, once you had stood up to them.

Political Correctness, which is a permutation of Marxism-Leninism, seeks to condition people to think certain thoughts, and have certain feelings, rather than getting the people to think for themselves.  It is a kind of mind-conditioning akin to what goes on in Third World countries such as North Korea.  They do this by using Pavlov’s methods of stimuli to effect a conditioned reflex response; that is an unthinking response.  Pavlov had done experiments with dogs which were then applied to human beings, that is, to Soviet citizens.  Under this approach you use a word, a bell or a sign, or something else, to stimulate a conditioned reflex response which bypasses the thinking processes and achieves the required, behaviour, thought, association or emotional effect or attitude on its recipient or victim. Professor Pavlov had got his dogs to salivate on the ringing of a bell because he had conditioned them to associate the ringing of that bell with the delivery of food at meal time, even when the food was not delivered.  Political Correctness is, essentially, the One-Party State and Monopoly-Media method of propaganda in the pejorative sense of that word. George Orwell put it well in his all too true-to-life novel,Animal Farm, when the sheep kept baa-baaing:

“FOUR LEGS GOOD: TWO LEGS BAA…AAD”.

I have an account of a teacher-training session, somewhere in England, where the subject was “differentiation in teaching.” The trainers at this seminar wanted a conditioned reflex response to their PC mantra about the word “differentiation”.   That was the training cue that was supposed to inculcate, affirm, and induce all kinds of warm, good and gooey feelings, and things, about some approach to teaching, without anyone actually really knowing, or unpacking, what “differentiation in teaching” really meant.  It is quite typical of the PC approach to carry out a medicine-man like ritual dance around the subject without actually getting to tell us, precisely and concisely, what the subject is.  They often do it with subjects like “racism”.  We get the idea it is a sort of bad thing but never really get to see what it really is.  The mere use of the term, “differentiation” was intended to induce all to clap like circus seals rather than to discuss and debate what it really meant and involved in practice.  Contrariwise the word “discrimination” is supposed to conjure up all kinds of bad feelings which we are to condemn and sideline.  The dutiful trainees were expected to baa-baa back, like sheep,

“DIFFERENTIATION GOOD: DISCRIMINATION BAA…AAD.”

The problem with this PC training exercise, and the reason why it went so badly wrong, was that the trainers had chosen, as opposing cues, two words which have the same denotation. To discriminate [bad] is to differentiate [good]: both mean to recognise a difference or to treat differently.  But the trainers, no longer used to using words to convey meaning, as most of us still do, but rather to stimulate an unthinking response - rather like Pavlov’s bells - had not spotted this.  I suppose it was a case of the victimiser falling victim to his own victimisation: Pavlov, not his dogs, salivating at his own bells!  They had chosen synonyms to induce oppositeconditioned-responses - one good in the case of the word differentiate and the other bad in the case of the word discriminate.  Occasionally a refusal to think, for oneself, does have consequences.  When one trainee defined the one synonym in terms of the other, some trainees did not know which way to think - the dog-handlers lost control of the kennel; the spell was broken.  Hell broke out. That was the best training or conditioning exercise many had been to for a long time. It showed how idiotic, how stupid, and how fallacious neuro-linguistic programming is; and that it should have no part in either teaching or training.  And yet it dominates the soft Far-Left globalist and anti-Christian halls of the media, the main death-stream parties, and the top hierarchies of many of our denominations.   The question has to be asked, why?  The answer has to be found partly in human nature, which is lazy - it is just so easy to follow blindly, untrammelled by thought; and in human paranoia - leaders can be very touchy, and sensitive to any form of questioning of their deeds; which questioning they sometimes, without good grounds, take for disloyalty to them or the cause.

There are many kinds of government, both within and outside of the Church, which just do not like to be questioned; possibly because they are aware that they do not have the answer.  This is surely the source of neuro-linguistic programming and of politicheskaya pravil’nost. It has certainly been perfected to a very high degree within Communism and the Far Left, whether the soft or hard variety;  it certainly has a long lineage in those quarters going back to George Orwell’s lifetime, and experience, long before he wrote his novel, 1984.   But I have picked-up something like it in Church History in the practices and methods of the Holy Inquisition; there, in that very title, we have an earlier example of double think and news speak.  But the fact is that politicheskaya pravil’nost is a great danger to our whole way of life.  It is a cancer and a tyranny spreading to ever increasing areas of our society and conditioning the young, especially, not to think, and to be frightened of thinking: to behave like trained seals but in a human circus!  It is so soul-destroying, illiberal, de-humanising and anti-Christian.   God, who has commanded the light to shine into our hearts by the knowledge of God in the face of Christ Jesus commands us to worship Him, with all of our hearts, souls, strength and mind; and not to serve this idol which makes all of us less than human.

But politicheskaya pravil’nost is not simply about inducing conditioned reflex responses, sending us on training or re-training courses, and programming, and robotising us for our role in some hideous “Brave New World.”  It is also about stopping us being able to think - and that is perhaps one of its most dangerous aspects.  For we must either be a healthy Church and Society where people really do think, because they can think, or we will become some vast and barren thought-free, as well as value-free, wilderness or zone.  For it is as sure as night follows day that without good thought, and clear discriminations in our mind, we become less than human and so worse than human.  This is the new dark age.  Politicheskaya pravil’nost also tries to intimidate us, lest we be tempted to think out our thoughts, openly, and ‘infect’ others, such as our children or grandchildren, with the values and views which prevailed before the thought-curtain, and night, of the double-speak Equality and Human Rights Commissioncame down.

© The Revd RMB West, Dip. Th.

Horwich Nationalist recommended reading