The evidence is crystal-clear. Man-made climate change is the deadliest threat facing Western nations today. If we don’t take strong measures in response, the consequences will be catastrophic. Failure to act – to stop human stupidity and greed destroying our future – will be an inexcusable dereliction of duty. But I’m not talking about rising temperatures and CO2, I’m talking about politics. In 1907, for example, the political climate was such that it would have been impossible for Europe and America to be flooded by hostile aliens intent on destroying their hosts. The concepts behind anti-racism and political correctness – that all groups are essentially identical, that discriminating between them is unacceptable – would have been scornfully rejected by all mainstream parties.
But in the hundred years since 1907 the climate has slowly shifted until what was once unthinkable is now enforced by law throughout the West. It’s as though a temperate region has turned to desert and an entire eco-system has disappeared and been replaced. Strange creatures that once had no chance of survival in public life now flourish there and every public institution is swarming with PC apparatchiks dedicated to waging war on racism, sexism and homophobia and to crushing the group responsible for these unspeakable evils: white heterosexual males. The PC gang remind me of people who say they want to take over a badly-run hotel and make it a better place for everyone. In pursuit of this laudable objective, they’re burning down the hotel to drive out the white men who built it.
And so feminists, while shrieking constantly about sexual abuse and sexism, happily support mass immigration from countries where sexual abuse and sexism are far worse. Homosexuals fight “racism” and “prejudice” on behalf of Muslims and other non-whites who will make homosexuality an imprisonable offence, at best, if they ever come to power. Secularists heap opprobrium on mild and decadent Western religions like Anglicanism while doing nothing to prevent, let alone reverse, the invasion of the West by vicious and vigorous religions like Islam. In other words, liberalism is a massive suicide-cult, working with unsleeping energy to destroy everything its adherents claim to believe in. Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant was the accusation flung at the Roman empire by a Celtic chieftain in the first century A.D.: “They create a desert and call it peace.”
Two millennia later, liberals create a madhouse and call it sanity. While claiming to be guided by the pure light of rationality and reason, they actually believe in the most primitive superstition of all: that words control the world. They scoff at Christians for believing that prayers and songs of praise can alter reality, then offer up prayers and praise-songs of their own: “Make all groups equal in Thy sight, O Society! O Black/Gay/Muslim community, how wonderful Thou art!” And just as religion has the concepts of blasphemy and heresy, so liberalism has racism, sexism, homophobia and a host of other offences against its irrational dogmas. With true religious zeal, it then sets out to persecute and imprison those who offend against it. So how appropriate it is that one of Britain’s most prominent liberals, Nick Cohen, should have a surname that literally means “priest” (כהן or kōhēn in the original). It’s doubly appropriate that the surname should be Hebrew, because it’s Jews above all who have been responsible for the insane liberal religion currently destroying the West. Here’s High Priest Cohen musing on the harm done by religions he doesn’t believe in, while ignoring the harm done by his own:
In Northern Ireland the walls that went up to separate Catholics from Protestants in the 1970s have not been torn down. There are more of them now than ever. Catholics travel for miles to avoid a Protestant leisure centre and Protestants go out of their way to avoid a Catholic newsagent. In Belfast: Segregation, Violence and the City, published last year, Peter Shirlow and Brendan Murtagh measured the effects on everyday life of the frontiers marked with graffiti saying “Kill All Taigs” (Catholics) or “Kill All Huns” (Protestants).... Readers in the rest of Britain may not care because mainstream opinion long ago gave up on all sides in Northern Ireland. Yet it is a mistake to ignore them. Phenomena that begin there have an alarming habit of going mainstream. Mass surveillance, armed police officers and the random slaughter of civilians by psychotic fanatics crossed the Irish Sea and segregated schools are on their way. (“Stop this drift into educational apartheid”, The Observer, 13th May 2007)
“Religion bad! Islamic immigration good!”
Liberal High Priest Nick Cohen
Two important questions arise from that piece of liberal piety:
1) Why exactly have “mass surveillance, armed police officers and the random slaughter of civilians by psychotic fanatics” crossed the Irish Sea?
2) What did Nick Cohen do to stop the process?
The answers are simple:
1) Those vibrant new phenomena are now on the British mainland as a direct result of mass immigration by unassimilable non-white Muslims.
2) Far from trying to stop the process, Nick Cohen did his best to encourage it and to smear those who opposed it as bigots, racists and xenophobes.
But have Cohen and other liberals issued a nostra culpa for their part in the growing disaster caused by mass immigration? Of course not. They could clearly see from Northern Ireland the huge harm relatively minor religious differences have caused for centuries among members of the same race, but that didn’t stop them creating much bigger religious differences among members of different races on the mainland. Liberalism means never having to say you’re sorry. Liberals create a disaster – and call it proof of the need for more liberalism.
It’s clear, for example, that British society has been undermined and fractured by mass immigration. But that isn’t a deadly flaw from the liberal point of view. No, it’s a massive advantage! Mass immigration has created more and more opportunity for those two things that give liberal life its rich meaning and purpose: telling other people what to do and interfering in their private affairs. After all, if Britain’s “integration and cohesion” hadn’t been wrecked by mass immigration, there would have been no vibrant job opportunities in bodies like this:
“Black is white! Up is down!
Kelly’s not a dangerous clown!”
Ruth Kelly rules the world with words
The Commission on Integration and Cohesion was announced by Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 28 June 2006. The Commission, a fixed term advisory body, is considering how local areas can make the most of the benefits delivered by increasing diversity – but will also consider how they can respond to the tensions it can sometimes cause. It will develop practical approaches that build communities’ own capacity to prevent problems, including those caused by segregation and the dissemination of extremist ideologies. The Commission is chaired by Darra Singh, Chief Executive of Ealing Council, and is due to report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in June 2007. (www.communities.gov.uk)
The Commission on Integration and Cohesion, or C.I.C. for short, has now reported and its message is loud and clear: “Meet the new dross – same as the old dross.” Yes, professional ethnic Darra Singh has sung for his supper and that familiar off-key liberal screeching is assaulting the ears of British whites once again: “We wise anti-racist liberals, having got you into this fine mess, are going to oversee the hugely expensive measures that will get us out of it. So hand over your cash and trust us, suckers!”
“I want what’s best for us all, white scum!”
Professional ethnic Darra Singh
Analysis: A cohesive Britain?
We have had warnings of communities living parallel lives and that we may be “sleepwalking into segregation.” There are fears over the impact of the great wave of migration that has brought hundreds of thousands of Eastern European workers to the British economy. But Darra Singh, chairman of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, rather deliberately says that the real danger is that we are “sleepwalking into simplicity.” His detailed report, published on Thursday, argues that for too long government and society has been blinded by events – panicked by race riots, worried by the rise of far-right politics in poor white communities and terrified of suicide bombings. If we are going to get a grip on the super-diversity of modern Britain, to use the technical lingo, then we need to think beyond these crises, he says, and understand the very delicate, local nature of building ties that bind.
So it’s time to invest heavily in local action to get neighbours of different backgrounds talking to each other, says the commission. At the heart of its argument is a focus on local action – that central government has at the very least misunderstood some of the dynamics of how change from immigration and diversity affects how society feels about itself. The commission argues for big investments in citizenship through school-twinning and other projects. Tied to this, flying squads of experts could be brought in to tackle rising tensions in “hot spots.” Similar ideas have been floated by Professor Ted Cantle, the author of the seminal “parallel lives” report into the 2001 northern riots. (BBC News, 14th June 2007)
“A nation to shred? Just send for Ted!”
Caring Jewish academic Ted Cantle
Ah yes, Ted Cantle: the Jewish “expert” whose quiet faith in his own windbaggery has survived the collapse of every half-witted scheme he’s promoted. It’s important to reflect on the prominence of people like Cantle and Singh in “community relations.” Can you imagine China or Saudi Arabia or India or any other nation outside the West commissioning a report on the future and appointing as its head a non-native with a proven record of hostility to the majority and its culture? The very idea is laughable, because non-Western nations aren’t insane and don’t intend to hand themselves over for destruction. But in the West, it’s absolutely standard for these liberal gas-factories to be overseen and staffed by non-natives with proven records of hostility to the majority.
It’s also absolutely standard in the West for every group but one to be encouraged to put its own interests first and seek its own advantage in every possible way. The only group not permitted to behave like that is the group that actually built the West: white heterosexual males. They have to put their own interests last and seek the advantage of their enemies in every possible way. If celebrating “diversity” is like celebrating cancer, then “super-diversity” is super-cancer. But liberals go on believing that saying black is white will turn black into white. Still, let’s be fair: that isn’t an entirely accurate description of liberal ideology. Liberals don’t believe that saying black is white will always be enough to make it so. No, to be absolutely certain you’ve got to pass a law too:
Seven new laws for every day of Blair as PM
More than seven new laws have come into force every day since Tony Blair came to power a decade ago, new research has shown. The legislatively hyperactive Blair premiership has seen an average of 2,685 new laws introduced each year – a 22% increase on the previous decade under the Tories. A new law has come into being every three-and-a-quarter hours, and that’s without adding on the new laws from Brussels, which had reached 2,100 by 2006. Last night the Conservative party seized on the figures, claiming they were proof of Labour’s tendency to interfere rather than devolve and deregulate.
A massive 98% of the new laws were pushed through by statutory instrument, which allows less time for debate in Parliament than the tabling of a Bill. The increase has been marked in areas such as employment law and criminal law, with 40 criminal justice Acts introduced since 1997. The sheer complexity of the new laws has also increased. Five acts passed in 2006 totalled more than 100 pages, three more than 200, one more than 300, one more than 500 and one more than 700. Oliver Heald, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “Tony Blair and Gordon Brown think the answer to everything is to make a new law. But, after creating thousands of new laws, violent crime has doubled, the National Health Service is suffering a funding crisis and too many of our young people leave school unable to read or write. Making a new law is usually enough to grab a cheap headline, but churning out thousands of new laws is not necessarily the most effective way to run the country.” (The Daily Telegraph, 4th June 2007)
Effective? The word isn’t in the liberal vocabulary, or rather, it’s there with a new definition. “Effective” liberals aren’t those who end an evil, but those who show they’re passionately committed to ending it. But if they actually did end it, how could they show how passionately committed they are? In fact, from the liberal point of view, creating new evils and making existing evils worse is far better than avoiding and lessening them. How else could liberals demonstrate their care and compassion? How else could they reassure each other of their pious orthodoxy? That does seem the subconscious motivation of liberal policies on crime and racial tension: not to prevent them but to posture about them. Tony Blair has epitomized this liberal policy of posture since 1997 and when his current “farewell tour” is over he will go down in the annals of history as the worst enemy of the white British who ever inhabited Number Ten.
Then again, he’ll be deeply missed by one very small but very self-important group:
Tony Bliar lights a candle for his masters
We will rue the day when Tony Blair is gone
Expect to hear that phrase uttered at an increasingly irregularity now the Prime Minister has confirmed the worst kept secret in politics: he will be leaving office on June 27. And mark my word, after a decade in power, how the community will miss him. Without equivocation or fear of challenge, Jews and Israel have never had a better friend in Downing Street. Devout Blair has echoed a trail of predecessors by boring Jewish audiences with platitudes about shared values, but his genuine appreciation of Judaism has been endearing. He has been strong and consistent condemning antisemitism, praising the Community Security Trust and worrying about the threat to Jewish students on campuses. It used to be said that Harold Wilson was a close friend, James Callaghan understood Israel, Margaret Thatcher really empathised with the community and that John Major was always available to help Israel. The only premier who could be relied upon to be awkward was Edward Heath. But it is Tony Blair, who has been the most consistent, thorough, warm and effective. He will go down in the annals of history as the best friend of Israel who ever inhabited Number Ten. The community and Israel will rue the day when Tony Blair is gone. (The Jewish Telegraph, May 2007)
Maybe things aren’t so bad as all that. The man lined up to replace Blair has also been grappled to “the community” ’s soul with hoops of steel. Or rather, with hoops of gold and silver:
Worrying questions over Brown’s private banker
The decade has seen the emergence of a crucial post at the heart of government: private banker to the Prime Minister. It has not yet been formally acknowledged in any of the text books, but it is no longer possible to understand how Britain works without grasping that Downing Street’s Mr Money Bags now occupies what amounts to a massively important new constitutional role. The first occupant of the unofficial post, Michael Levy, was introduced by Tony Blair after making a very modest fortune in the pop music business. As the Prime Minister’s chief fundraiser, he has been arrested twice in cash for peerages investigation, on the second occasion under suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice..
Sir Ronald and his toy-goy Gordon
It is a commentary on the fundamental triviality of the Blair Government that a low-grade figure such as Levy has been allowed to occupy such a prominent position for so many years. But in contrast, it is a reflection on the essential seriousness of Gordon Brown that he has chosen a genuinely substantial individual as Levy’s replacement. The financier Sir Ronald Cohen, who has been one of the Chancellor’s most trusted informal advisers for the past decade, recently made the surprising decision to retire from active business life. This was an extremely significant move: he will shortly emerge from the shadows of the City to become one of the most senior members of the inner circle of the next Prime Minister.
I have no proof [our libel lawyers have instructed me to say] that there is the slightest connection between the large donations to the Labour Party (mainly from people who, like Sir Ronald, showed no interest in Labour until it was on the verge of power) and the generous tax treatments offered to the private equity industry. For all I know, everything is completely above board. But let’s engage in a mind game. Let’s imagine that it was a Tory chancellor who finds himself in the same position as Gordon Brown. Let’s imagine that his closest adviser was a super-rich grandee from a sector which the Tories had loaded with tax breaks over the past decade. Let’s imagine that the unions were furiously claiming that the industry’s riches were fundamentally stolen from the workers. Gordon Brown, were he shadow chancellor, would be thundering at the rancid corruption of it all. I’m not saying he would be right. But the truth is – and he must realise this more than anyone – that he will only have one chance to clean up the mess and culture of sleaze that he will soon inherit from Tony Blair. (Read full article from The Daily Mail, 3rd March 2007)
Is it a coincidence that a country whose politicians are owned by Jewish conmen like Levy and Cohen is also a country showered with blessings of diversity like murder, rape, disease, assault, fraud and theft? I don’t think so. Here are just the latest in a long and continuing line of stories about alien invaders attacking the white nation that was foolish enough to grant them entry:
In handcuffs, the man accused of murdering PC
The man accused of murdering Police Constable Jon Henry was remanded in custody yesterday. Ikechukwu Tennyson Obih appeared in court charged with stabbing to death the 36-year-old father of one. The Nigerian, who arrived in the UK in 2000 and was later granted indefinite leave to remain, was handcuffed to a prison guard and flanked by three policemen. The 27-year-old was also charged with the attempted murders of window cleaners Steven Chamberlain and David Knight. He faces a fourth charge of armed burglary. (The Daily Mail, 13th June 2007)
“Diversity is Our Dead Policemen”
Left: A non-vibrant white policeman and his non-vibrant daughter
Right: His vibrant black murderer, Ikechukwu “Tennyson” Obih
UK al-Qaeda cell members jailed
Seven men have been jailed for up to 26 years over an al-Qaeda-linked plot to kill thousands in the UK and US. Woolwich Crown Court heard they were in a “sleeper cell” led by Dhiren Barot, who is already serving a life sentence. Barot planned attacks including blowing apart a London Underground tunnel and bombings using an explosives-packed limousine and a dirty radiation device. Six of the men admitted conspiracy to cause explosions and a seventh was found guilty of conspiracy to murder.
Mohammed Naveed Bhatti of Harrow in north London, was jailed for 20 years; Junade Feroze of Blackburn, received 22 years and Zia Ul Haq of Wembley in north London, got 18 years. Abdul Aziz Jalil of Luton, was jailed for 26 years; Omar Abdur Rehman, of Bushey in Hertfordshire, was jailed for 15 years and Nadeem Tarmohamed, also of Wembley, received 20 years. Qaisar Shaffi, of Willesden, north-west London, was sentenced to 15 years. Home Secretary John Reid said: “The outcome of this trial once again shows the extent of the very real and serious threat the UK faces from terrorism.” (BBC News, 15th June 2007)
“Thanks to Jews, belovèd goyim,
Your future will be filled with joyim!”
L-R: Conmen Cohen, Cohen & Cantle
John Reid is an “ex-communist.” That is, he no longer calls himself a communist, but his authoritarianism and lust for power remain unaltered in his new liberal incarnation. It’s ludicrous to say, as Reid and others like him do, that non-whites really come from British cities like London and Blackburn and Luton. They don’t and they should never have been allowed to take up residence there. The consequences of allowing that were predicted decades ago by men like Enoch Powell. Liberals like Blair, Brown and Reid have been denouncing and demonizing Powell and his supporters ever since. Liberals think that, by passing more and more laws and subjecting Britain’s population to more and more surveillance and intrusion, we can have our multi-racial cake and not only eat it but find it deliciously nourishing. We can’t. We’re choking on the multi-racial cake right now, while the Jewish chef watches from the door of his kitchen and laughs his head off.
“Do Wrong Ron” Revisited
– more on the sleazy Jew who controls wannabe PM Gordon Brown