The disgraceful scenes of violence in Manchester by Rangers fans the other day are a demonstration of what is wrong with this country. Similar scenes of disorder can be seen on most Saturday nights in King Street in Wigan "the most dangerous place in Europe" I'm told. The police are fully extended in dealing with this and thus you never see them in other areas.
Last night the traffic lights at a road works in Billinge were vandalised and the previous Saturday the generator was set on fire at the same road works. This is easy to do undetected as the police were busy in the town centre with the usual drunken yobs and the associated bureauocracy in dealing with it.
Poverty and lack of facilities is often blamed by the Liberal elite although how this causes vandalism escapes me.
Alcohol is blamed, presumably in order to increase taxes. This explanation will not do. Many, including myself have drunk to excess in the past but have never been involved in fighting or vandalism.
The real reason for this disorder is the lack of a deterrent. If people have so little respect for their community in the first place then punishment not education is the only option.
Until punishments such as chain gangs and, or the birch are brought in the situation will continue to blight our villages and towns and cost us money in taxes. Even making the jails less like holiday camps would act as a deterrent and reduce prisoner numbers.
Unfortunately the EU and the Human Rights act prevent all these measures so we must continue to suffer for now until the obvious measures are put in place and that means leaving the EU for a start. At present it seems the powers that be seem intent on destroying our society, or should that be"Common Purpose", they're all the same.
Only the BNP is committed to sorting these problems out. Eventually people will see sense. I hope it is not too late.
Sunday, 18 May 2008
Friday, 16 May 2008
Thursday, 15 May 2008
MAY MEETING.
The May meeting of the Wigan group will be on Thursday 22/5/08 at 8 pm at the usual venue where we will discuss the local elections and our future plans. All like minded people are welcome to have their say in a friendly atmosphere. If anybody wants to give a short talk on any subject please let me know on 01744 892430. New members can ring me for directions to the venue on this number.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
ILL MANNERED AND ANTI DEMOCRATIC
The spectacle of the ill mannered walk off by the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem candidates in the London elections when Richard Barnbrook was about to speak speaks volumes for the contempt for democracy of those candidates. This was compounded a few days later by the segregating of Richard Barnbrook from the other councillors in the chamber with plants and furniture.
Is Richard not allowed to have an opinion? Are the 120,000 people who voted for him to be denied a voice? If these actions had been perpetrated on a person from an ethnic minority there would have been outrage from these same members of the anti British Leftist Mafia.
What was Richard's crime to justify this shunning? He represented the view that our country is being taken over by foreigners, our industry sold off, wages slashed in the interests of big business and native people being treated like second class citizens in an increasingly crime ridden society. These facts should be obvious to even the most stupid voter.
Even if others do not agree, Richard and we who think like him have just as much right to articulate our opinions as anybody else.
Boris Johnson (he of an "amnesty for illegal immigrants" and "don't try to out ethnic me"fame) brags that his family is "more diverse than a United Nations peace keeping force" should understand that others think differently and understand our point of view and our fears. We don't want to be part of a multicultural experiment and we have a right to say so and not have it imposed on us. Just because his family has benefitted by our society, tolerant of immigrants does not mean we all have.
Of course the major parties seek to benefit from the "ethnic vote"in their power hungry struggle, even when this is to the detriment of the country. Their support of measures such as "operation black vote" (surely this is racist?) shows this.
The above shows that the major parties only see their own point of view and react to other opinions which are held by millions of law abiding people in OUR country.
Keep going Richard! The hopes and futures of the majority of British people rest on you.
Is Richard not allowed to have an opinion? Are the 120,000 people who voted for him to be denied a voice? If these actions had been perpetrated on a person from an ethnic minority there would have been outrage from these same members of the anti British Leftist Mafia.
What was Richard's crime to justify this shunning? He represented the view that our country is being taken over by foreigners, our industry sold off, wages slashed in the interests of big business and native people being treated like second class citizens in an increasingly crime ridden society. These facts should be obvious to even the most stupid voter.
Even if others do not agree, Richard and we who think like him have just as much right to articulate our opinions as anybody else.
Boris Johnson (he of an "amnesty for illegal immigrants" and "don't try to out ethnic me"fame) brags that his family is "more diverse than a United Nations peace keeping force" should understand that others think differently and understand our point of view and our fears. We don't want to be part of a multicultural experiment and we have a right to say so and not have it imposed on us. Just because his family has benefitted by our society, tolerant of immigrants does not mean we all have.
Of course the major parties seek to benefit from the "ethnic vote"in their power hungry struggle, even when this is to the detriment of the country. Their support of measures such as "operation black vote" (surely this is racist?) shows this.
The above shows that the major parties only see their own point of view and react to other opinions which are held by millions of law abiding people in OUR country.
Keep going Richard! The hopes and futures of the majority of British people rest on you.
Monday, 12 May 2008
Islamophobia
A speech from Serge Trifkovic in Vienna on May 10th.
AN EMINENTLY POSTMODERN LITTLE PHOBIA
In the way of an introduction, let us therefore look at the formal, legally tested definition of that word, the latest addition to the arsenal of postmodern “phobias.” It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based here in Vienna. (“Orwellian” is a worn-out adjective, but it simply has to be used in connection with this particular institution.) The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and “Other.”
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Discriminatory practices and Muslims’ exclusion from mainstream society are advocated.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. As it happens,
1. That Islam is static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an internal, orthodox critique of jihad, sharia, jizya, etc. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, “Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action.” A century later his diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are “distorting” Islam; the would-be reformers are.
2. That Islam is separate from our Western, Christian, European culture and civilization, and “other” than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if Europe eventually succumbs to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.
3. Whether Islam is “inferior to the West” is a matter of opinion, of course. That Islam cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative, and attractive human society is not. Whether Islam is “barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist” is at least debatable; but that many of its tangible fruits are so, is all too painfully visible.
4. Islam is seen by so many as “violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism” not because of some irrational “phobia” in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because (a) of the clear mandate of its scripture; (b) of the record of its 14 centuries of historical practice; and above all (c) of the timeless example of its founder.
5. “Islam is seen as a political ideology,” and it should be seen as one, because its key trait is a political program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready and eager to spill blood. This makes Islam closer to Bolshevism and to National Socialism than to any other religion. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by “the Other,” i.e. non-Muslim societies and cultures, is implacable hostility and violence, or violent intent.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand; they should be understood. Its chief “criticism” of the West-and of every other non-Islamic culture or tradition-is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.
7. A priori hostility towards Islam should not be “used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims.” Quite the contrary, an education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting - not because it is an intolerant “religion,” but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the values of the West.
8. And finally, while anti-Muslim hostility is not a priori “natural or normal,” the desire of non-Muslims to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is “natural and normal”; but the elite class is actively trying to neutralize it.
As the demand for Sharia-based communal self-rule is made with increasing frequency in the banlieus of Paris and the grim West Midlands council estates, Europe’s elite class is ready to throw in the towel.
Go read it all. DO read it all. It's long, but we should ALL know about it. BNP members and non-members.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/05/counterjihad-vienna-2008.html
Want to argue about it Elliot?
AN EMINENTLY POSTMODERN LITTLE PHOBIA
In the way of an introduction, let us therefore look at the formal, legally tested definition of that word, the latest addition to the arsenal of postmodern “phobias.” It is provided by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) based here in Vienna. (“Orwellian” is a worn-out adjective, but it simply has to be used in connection with this particular institution.) The EUMC diligently tracks the instances of “Islamophobia” all over the Old Continent, which it defines by eight red flags:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and “Other.”
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7. Discriminatory practices and Muslims’ exclusion from mainstream society are advocated.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.
This definition is obviously intended to preclude any possibility of meaningful discussion of Islam. As it happens,
1. That Islam is static and unresponsive to change is evident from the absence of an internal, orthodox critique of jihad, sharia, jizya, etc. As Clement Huart pointed out back in 1907, “Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action.” A century later his diagnosis still stands: it is not the jihadists who are “distorting” Islam; the would-be reformers are.
2. That Islam is separate from our Western, Christian, European culture and civilization, and “other” than our culture and civilization, is a fact that will not change even if Europe eventually succumbs to the ongoing jihadist demographic onslaught.
3. Whether Islam is “inferior to the West” is a matter of opinion, of course. That Islam cannot create a prosperous, harmonious, stable, creative, and attractive human society is not. Whether Islam is “barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist” is at least debatable; but that many of its tangible fruits are so, is all too painfully visible.
4. Islam is seen by so many as “violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism” not because of some irrational “phobia” in the feverish mind of the beholder, but because (a) of the clear mandate of its scripture; (b) of the record of its 14 centuries of historical practice; and above all (c) of the timeless example of its founder.
5. “Islam is seen as a political ideology,” and it should be seen as one, because its key trait is a political program to improve man and create a new society; to impose complete control over that society; and to train cadres ready and eager to spill blood. This makes Islam closer to Bolshevism and to National Socialism than to any other religion. It breeds a gnostic paradigm within which the standard response to the challenge presented by “the Other,” i.e. non-Muslim societies and cultures, is implacable hostility and violence, or violent intent.
6. Criticisms made of the West by Islam should not be rejected out of hand; they should be understood. Its chief “criticism” of the West-and of every other non-Islamic culture or tradition-is that it is infidel, and therefore undeserving of existence.
7. A priori hostility towards Islam should not be “used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims.” Quite the contrary, an education campaign about the teaching and practice of Islam should result in legislative action that would exclude Islam from the societies it is targeting - not because it is an intolerant “religion,” but because it is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the values of the West.
8. And finally, while anti-Muslim hostility is not a priori “natural or normal,” the desire of non-Muslims to defend their lands, families, cultures and faith against Islamic aggression is “natural and normal”; but the elite class is actively trying to neutralize it.
As the demand for Sharia-based communal self-rule is made with increasing frequency in the banlieus of Paris and the grim West Midlands council estates, Europe’s elite class is ready to throw in the towel.
Go read it all. DO read it all. It's long, but we should ALL know about it. BNP members and non-members.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/05/counterjihad-vienna-2008.html
Want to argue about it Elliot?
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Multiculturalism's war on education.
"Back to school nowadays means back to classrooms, lessons and textbooks permeated by multiculturalism and its championing of "diversity." Many parents and teachers regard multiculturalism as an indispensable educational supplement, a salutary influence that "enriches" the curriculum. But is it?
[ ... ]
What these textbooks reveal is a concerted effort to portray the most backward, impoverished and murderous cultures as advanced, prosperous and life-enhancing. Multiculturalism's goal is not to teach about other cultures, but to promote--by means of distortions and half-truths--the notion that non-Western cultures are as good as, if not better than, Western culture. Far from "broadening" the curriculum, what multiculturalism seeks is to diminish the value of Western culture in the minds of students. But, given all the facts, the objective superiority of Western culture is apparent, so multiculturalists must artificially elevate other cultures and depreciate the West. ... "
Go read it all
http://southafricanhell.blogspot.com/2008/05/multiculturalisms-war-on-education.html
Arguments from Elliot Brown are welcome ... and will be debated in a civil manner.
[ ... ]
What these textbooks reveal is a concerted effort to portray the most backward, impoverished and murderous cultures as advanced, prosperous and life-enhancing. Multiculturalism's goal is not to teach about other cultures, but to promote--by means of distortions and half-truths--the notion that non-Western cultures are as good as, if not better than, Western culture. Far from "broadening" the curriculum, what multiculturalism seeks is to diminish the value of Western culture in the minds of students. But, given all the facts, the objective superiority of Western culture is apparent, so multiculturalists must artificially elevate other cultures and depreciate the West. ... "
Go read it all
http://southafricanhell.blogspot.com/2008/05/multiculturalisms-war-on-education.html
Arguments from Elliot Brown are welcome ... and will be debated in a civil manner.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Ethics
Common knowledge?
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following employee statistics:
* 29 have been accused of spouse abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 9 have been accused of writing bad cheques
* 17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shop-lifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year
Which organisation is this?
It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following employee statistics:
* 29 have been accused of spouse abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 9 have been accused of writing bad cheques
* 17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shop-lifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year
Which organisation is this?
It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)