Search This Blog

Monday 12 September 2011

Social Mobility and Equality of Opportunity

Social Mobility and Equality of Opportunity

By Andrew Brons MEP.

The Political Left believes that children are born with equal potential so if pupils from a poor background fail, their failure can be attributed to disadvantage and a denial of equality of opportunity. That is bad enough but those who would be seen as being from the Political Right seem to share their view.

The Daily Telegraph’s Education Editor, Graeme Paton, (17th June) referred to data from the Organisation for Economic co-operation and Development, in which it was shown that only 25% of ‘poor children’, in Britain, managed to exceed expectation at school, compared with 31% of ‘poor children’ in developed countries generally.

This suggested, according to Mr. Paton, that ‘disadvantaged children’ have less chance of climbing the social ladder than in most developed nations.

Indeed the Education Secretary, one Michael Gove, was reported to have said: “The scandal ‘which’ (I believe he meant ‘that’) haunts my conscience is the plight of those students from the poorest backgrounds in the poorest neighbourhoods, who need us to act if their right to a decent future is to be guaranteed”.

The OECD report revealed that 70% of poor pupils in parts of China exceeded the standard expected of them. Our 25% looked extremely poor in comparison or did it?

There are probably more talented children living in poverty in rural China, because their families have not previously been rescued by an effective education system.

It is small wonder that equality of opportunity should now be revealing their existence. There are still talented children in Britain, especially from poorer families, who fall through the net of educational opportunity. However, there are probably fewer of them.

The problem is that the Political Class generally confuses two related but distinct concepts: social mobility and equality of opportunity.

Indeed they are frequently treated as though they meant the same thing. Many commentators have bemoaned the fact that social mobility has fallen and they have attributed this to a denial of equality of opportunity. In fact the fall in social mobility is attributable to the success of equality of opportunity!

It is difficult to pinpoint a year in which equality of opportunity was attained but 1947 – the year in the Education Act 1944 was implemented- is as good as any. That was the year in which secondary education was provided for all and selective exams decided, more or less on merit, who would receive a Secondary Grammar education.

Since then, there have three or more generations enjoying equality of opportunity. Initially there would have been substantial social mobility resulting from the new equality of opportunity. Pupils, with innate ability, from humble backgrounds went to grammar schools and some from there to universities and other higher education colleges.

The professions and management positions ceased to be the preserve of those with upper and middle class backgrounds and became meritocracies. People within those occupational groups also tended to marry and procreate (now just procreate) with people of similar abilities. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that differences in intelligence are attributable to heredity rather than to environment. This has resulted in those in management and the professions becoming an intellectual caste and not simply a class caste.

Whilst there were many people of innately high intelligence in poorer occupations, before the advent of educational equality of opportunity, that number has fallen steadily in subsequent generations. There are still gifted children to be found in less well-off social classes but there are fewer now than there were and the proportion will continue to fall as they are ‘rescued’ by the education system from a future of economic failure.

Social mobility has indeed slowed down and that should be seen as a tribute to educational equality of opportunity.

Unfortunately, the story does not end there. The expansion of higher education by the Major and Blair governments came at a price. Whilst it was easily affordable to provide maintenance grants and pay tuition fees, when 7% of students went on to full-time higher education, this became impossible when the figure exceeded 40%.

The result is that all students must fund their own maintenance and pay their own tuition fees.

There are now students of mediocre ability from rich backgrounds who take a university place, whilst poorer more able students might shrink from going on to higher education if the experience should carry with it a burden of debt for several years.

We have seen a move away from equality of opportunity. It must be hoped that it will not continue. An answer might be for the most able students, if from poor backgrounds, and pursuing the most useful courses, to be granted a remission of tuition fees and to be given maintenance grants. That would preserve equality of opportunity. It would probably not add to social mobility appreciably.

However, of greater importance, is that there must not be a retreat from reason and reality by those who are seen to be on the Political Right.

Share

Sunday 11 September 2011

EDL MEMBERS ATTACKED BY MUSLIMS POLICE STANDING BY AND DOING NOTHING

NEWS FLASH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11/9/2011. 19.48pm

A alert is being issued by EDL MEMBERS trapped at the weatherspoons pub at the Hyde Park Corner, by a mob of Muslims
Two have been stabbed and the police are standing by doing nothing .
it has finally happened the government agencies have declared open hostility to the indigenous people by allowing them to be treated less than animals .

An appeal is being made for all patriots in the area to go to the scene to aid their fellow country men from the attack from the islamist and government forces.

Tommy Robinson Leader of EDL Video Hunger Strike Update

Below is a video of the latest update of The sad state of affairs were a patriotic young man is in prison and hunger strike, just for exercising his so called rights of freedom of speech and peaceful protest. It makes it quite clear that we no longer live in a free country if you happen to be a indigenous human being of these islands.

The Labour Westhoughton Lord Mayor’s Cresch

The Lord Mayor’s Cresch

Labour Lord Mayor & Councillor molests Three kids after a 6yr old tells him of her sex education taught in her school and gets aroused.

Labour25 listed paedophile Nicholas Green.

Labour25 listed paedophile Councillor and Lord Mayor of Westhoughton Lancashire nicholas Green was sentenced to 10 years in prison for rape and molesting children and also a woman on her wedding day. Bolton Magistrates was a scene not yet seen by the public before as this Labour Party Paedophile multiple child sex attacker and rapist went on trial.

Once again a Labour Party paedophile Councillor makes his way towards a job with children

First of all were Labour25 listed paedophile Nicholas green’s indecent assault charges against Three children aged 6, 7, and 10 years old. Mothers had placed their trust ONCE AGAIN in a Labour Party Councillors reach. The parents placed trust in paedophile Labour Partys Nicholas Green’s wifes day time care service. She and Nicholas Green were unregistered as child minders.

Unknowing to Labour25 Nicholas Green’s wife, while she was not present, the Labour Party paedophile carried out a sickening sexual attack on the Six year old child. He then had indecent evil and sickening attacks on a Ten year old, before moving on to the Seven year old.

Other victims came forward, a young woman said that the Labour Party mayor had been abusing her when she was young and on her wedding day. Labour25 paedophile Nicholas Green blackmailed her into having sex with him by saying he would tell everyone that she had been having sex with him. The woman gave in and the woman was subject to rape by blackmail.

Another young girl came forward with four more indecent assault charges against Labour25 Nicholas Green, but the Judge ordered the crimes to be put on file. Police interviewed paedophile Labour Lord Mayor Nicholas Green after this girl had complained to them of the Labour25 paedophile abusing her.

After the police interviewed paedophile Labour Councillor and known marxist Mayor Nicholas Green he pleaded not guilty to the sex charges, but within 1 week of that interview, he molested another child.

The woman who was raped by Labour25 paedophile Nicholas Green on her wedding day had been thinking about suicide because Nicholas Green had been telling her that if she didn’t have sex with him, he would tell everyone what they were doing. This is surely the Marxist mind, to REVERSE the situation around to make the victim, the guilty one.

Labour Party Paedophile Nicholas Green said to police that he had been ‘egged-on’ by one of the children because of her talking to him about SEX EDUCATION BEING TAUGHT TO HER IN SCHOOL which had aroused him.

The Education minister for the Labour Party brought sex education for 6yr olds into the classroom and THIS IS WHY ! So peadophiles will have a clear understanding on the level that kids know what to expect when alone with them. Is this why Labour brought in sex education for 6yr olds? YES IT IS !

Defending the Labour25 paedophile party Councillor and Lord Mayor Nicholas Green was Robert Elias. ”He is a Labour Party stalwart ! A pillar of his Community!”

Nicholas Green ( another Lizard ) stood before Judge Timothy Mort … ” Your behavior was an appaling abuse of trust with children.” ”You will go to prison for 10 years and register with the police as a sex offender when you come out”

Follow us on twitter – Labour25 twitter

No mosque at Ground Zero

Saturday 10 September 2011

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.

Thursday 8 September 2011

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!

Wednesday 7 September 2011

Why Islam Will Never Have A Reformation

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 16th 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 16th 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.