Racism and Media Double Standards in Britain

Racism and Media Double Standards in Britain
by Paul Weston

The mainstream media (MSM) have devoted a great deal of space to the Stephen Lawrence case of late. Many journalists have commented that whilst Britain was a racist country in the recent past, the Britain of today is a much more tolerant place. This may well be the case with regard to white-on-non-white racial crime, but what about the violent crime committed by non-whites on whites, and what about the way this is treated by the MSM?

The ruling elites would rather we remained ignorant of such matters, so there is little information out there apart from the British Crime Survey of 2004 which stated:

…people from black or minority ethnic communities suffered 49,000 violent attacks, with 4,000 being wounded. The number of violent attacks against whites reached 77,000, while the number of white people who reported being wounded was five times the number of black and minority ethnic victims at 20,000.

Bearing in mind that whites account for 90% of the population, simple maths suggests that non-whites attack and wound whites at a rate forty-five times higher than whites wound non-whites. This is a truly shocking figure and one that should be of enormous concern to the race relations industry, the government and the media, who purport to be intensely interested in both racial crime and “community cohesion”. However, this appears not to be the case at all.

For those aware of what has been happening in Britain (and all over the West), this media silence should come as no surprise, understanding as they do that the racial and cultural dispossession of the indigenous peoples is the greatest weapon the hard left possesses in its unfinished war against the traditional Western Nation State.

A major weapon has to be defended, just as an aircraft carrier is encircled with a protective fleet of destroyers. This is why the concept of “racism” was invented and turned into the most evil of all evils, surpassing even murder, which now carries a longer term if the killing was racially motivated.

It makes perfect sense, of course. The only defence against becoming an ethnic minority in our homeland before 2060 is to draw attention to our predicament. If the left can make such a defence not just immoral but evil, then they have removed the one and only obstacle that could possibly resist their racially-driven agenda, and if they can capture the means of disseminating information (such as the BBC) then they can continue unopposed — which is exactly what they are doing.

The left divides society into the oppressed and the oppressors. The working-class man of Britain was supposed to represent the historically oppressed masses awaiting the Marxist revolution, but unforgivably — in the eyes of the revolutionaries — the working class became too affluent, preferring to queue for beer in Ibiza, rather than queue for the bare essentials of life in a Sovietised London.

Hence the importation of a new immigrant underclass, which is then deliberately under-educated in order to retain its status as the useful oppressed. Its members are deliberately subjected to propaganda under the guise of Multiculturalism, which constantly reminds them they are eternal victims and the whites eternal oppressors. This is why their varied misdemeanours are overlooked or excused. To allow the truth to be revealed would ruin the leftist plans. How else to explain the climate of fear that surrounds criticism of non-whites?

Take for example the case of black-on-white gang rape. Back in 2004 the Daily Telegraph reported on daily gang rapes taking place in London. The majority of the victims were white, the majority of the gang rapists black. Scotland Yard was treating this topic with great care because of the racial “sensitivity”, and refused to label the crimes as “gang rape”, because to do so would draw attention to clearly-defined youth gangs. The police service is apparently much happier using the term “multiple-perpetrator rape.”

As has been said for many years, if you import the Third World, you become the Third World. In 2009 The Guardian admitted that a staggering 25% of black South African males had committed single or multiple rapes in the previous year alone, which correlates to the ever-rising number of rape cases involving children unfortunate enough to attend schools in the increasingly diverse inner cities of Britain.

In 2011 the MSM finally came clean about the Muslim grooming and rape of young white girls in Northern towns and cities. In a quite shocking admission the police chiefs reiterated what their London colleagues had previously stated, which was the hushing up of such racial crimes in the interest of community cohesion. Really? Do they not think that our knowing about it, and knowing the police are doing little about it will enhance community cohesion?

But then perhaps the police and the MSM are not really interested in community cohesion at all. If they were, they might be slightly more reticent about plastering reports of white-on-black crime across the newspapers and airwaves. Community cohesion only seems to work when old whitey is kept in the dark whilst the non-whites are made fully aware of white transgressions.

In America some 99.9% of racial rapes are committed by blacks on whites, yet all it requires to gain mainstream coverage of a racial rape is for a black stripper to falsely accuse three white Duke University lacrosse players of gang rape. The MSM went wild and found the Duke boys guilty long before the case ever went to court.

The stripper, one Crystal Gail Mangum, eventually admitted she was no longer sure whether anyone had had sex with her, but by then the boys had been kicked out of college and their reputations destroyed. Why does the MSM ignore the thousands of black-on-white rapes and jump aboard a clearly tenuous white-on-black case with such a frenzy? What sort of sickness now infects the liberal West?

And the same standards apply to racial murder, where some murders are more prominent than others, as in the case of Stephen Lawrence. In 2006 the Guardian reported that Home office Freedom of Information figures showed whites as the victims in half of all racially motivated murders over the previous decade. The Guardian went on to say:

Senior police officers have admitted that ‘political correctness’ and the fear of discussing the issue have meant that race crime against white people goes under-reported. One chief constable has claimed that white, working-class men are more alienated than the Muslim community.

Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Cheshire and a spokesman on race issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it was a fact that it was harder to get the media interested where murder victims were young white men. ‘The political correctness and reluctance to discuss these things absolutely does play a factor’, he said. ‘A lot of police officers and other professions feel almost the best thing to do is try and avoid it for fear of being criticised. We probably have all got ourselves into a bit of state about this.’

How wonderful! As our kith and kin are raped and murdered by racially motivated non-whites, the police “service”, whose sole remit is to protect the population from such crime, sweep it under the carpet through fear of criticism, and gets itself into “a bit of a state about it.” Such a reprehensible and disgusting attitude stems no doubt from the chief requirement necessary for becoming a police officer in the first place, which is not an ability to catch criminals, so it seems, but to exhibit a “respect for diversity.”

Everyone in Britain has quite rightly heard of Stephen Lawrence and the white savages who murdered him, but how many have heard about Mary-Ann Leneghan? This poor white girl was only sixteen years old when she and a friend were abducted, tortured, and raped by Joshua and Jamaile Morally, Indrit Krasniqui, Llewellyn Adams, Michael Johnson and Adrian Thomas. Mary-Ann was eventually murdered (her friend survived).


The Guardian tells us the girls were forced to strip naked, raped vaginally and orally, burned, cut with knives, hit with a metal pole and told repeatedly that they would be murdered. At times some of the men would ask Thomas for permission to do things, asking if they could burn or stab the girls. He gave that permission, saying ‘Yes, go on, I don’t care. It’s too late now. Nobody is going to help them now.’“

After hours of abuse, the girls were then taken to Prospect Park with pillows over their heads, where prosecutor Richard Latham QC stated:

“It was Johnson who then stabbed Mary-Ann in the abdomen with a large brown kitchen knife. He had her by the neck and hair; she was begging him to stab her in the neck….Mary-Ann then fell on her side and Johnson was stabbing her everywhere. She fell over in a ball trying to protect herself but he rolled her over trying to find a new place on her body to stab her. They said they wanted her to die slowly. She became unable to move and just lay there crying, when she cried or made any sound she was stabbed again.”

In Africa the rape, torture and murder of white farmers and their entire families is now approaching the 4,000 mark, which equates to a full 10% of the white farming community. This signifies a higher mortality rate than that of active servicemen in WWII, and can only be described as racial genocide. Do an Internet search on “Farmers murdered South Africa” on the BBC news website, however, and you will find nothing, save for smear pieces about Eugene Terreblanche and “white supremacy”.

The BBC’s equally white-hating and racist ideologues-in-arms at the Guardian manage to write an article outlining Congo’s invitation to white South African farmers who wished to up sticks and farm there instead, without mentioning why they might wish to leave South Africa in the first place. The article then finished with a reference to the imminent “invasion” of Congo. How evil and racist must these “liberal” journalists be, that they can wilfully ignore an ongoing racial genocide and label those fleeing as invaders?

In America there have been two cases similar to the Mary Ann Leneghan atrocity. Both involved gangs of blacks raping, torturing and murdering whites. They have been dubbed the Wichita Massacre and the Knoxville Horror. I mention these American cases simply to highlight the warped and perverse attitude of the British MSM.

The BBC was very enthusiastic in its reporting on the particularly gruesome and racist murder of a black American in Texas called James Byrd, but if you go to the BBC website and search for any of the names of the white victims in the Wichita Massacre or the Knoxville Horror, you will find not a single word, not a single acknowledgement of the two greatest racial crimes committed in America in the last century. Why the inexplicable double standards, which seem utterly dependent on skin colour?

This entire scenario appears surreal and insane until one reads the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) guidelines on racial reporting, at which point all becomes clear:

Guidelines ratified by the National Union of Journalists (UK and Ireland) for all its members to follow when dealing with race relations subjects.

Statement on race reporting

• The NUJ believes that the development of racist attitudes and the growth of fascist parties pose a threat to democracy, the rights of trade union organisations, a free press and the development of social harmony and well-being.
• The NUJ believes that its members cannot avoid a measure of responsibility in fighting the evil of racism as expressed through the mass media.
• The NUJ reaffirms its total opposition to censorship but equally reaffirms its belief that press freedom must be conditioned by responsibility and an acknowledgement by all media workers of the need not to allow press freedom to be abused to slander a section of the community or to promote the evil of racism.
• The NUJ believes the methods and lies of the racists should be publicly and vigorously exposed.
• The NUJ believes that newspapers and magazines should not originate material which encourages discrimination on grounds of race or colour, as expressed in the NUJ’s rule book and code of conduct.
• The NUJ recognises the right of members to withhold their labour on grounds of conscience where employers are providing a platform for racist propaganda.
• The NUJ believes that editors should ensure that coverage of race stories should be placed in a balanced context.
• The NUJ will continue to monitor the development of media coverage in this area and give support to members seeking to enforce the above aims.

Race reporting

• Only mention someone’s race if it is strictly relevant. Check to make sure you have it right. Would you mention race if the person was white?
• Do not sensationalise race relations issues; it harms black people and it could harm you.
• Think carefully about the words you use. Words which were once in common usage are now considered offensive, e.g. half-caste and coloured. Use mixed-race and black instead. Black can cover people of Arab, Asian, Chinese and African origin. Ask people how they define themselves.
• Immigrant is often used as a term of abuse. Do not use it unless the person really is an immigrant. Most black people in Britain were born here and most immigrants are white.
• Do not make assumptions about a person’s cultural background — whether it is their name or religious detail. Ask them or where it is not possible check with the local race equality council.
• Investigate the treatment of black people in education, health, employment and housing. Do not forget travellers and gypsies. Cover their lives and concerns. Seek the views of their representatives.
• Remember that black communities are culturally diverse. Get a full and correct view from representative organisations.
• Press for equal opportunities for employment for black staff.
• Be wary of disinformation. Just because a source is traditional does not mean it is accurate.

Reporting racist organisations

• When interviewing representatives of racist organisations or reporting meetings or statements or claims, journalists should carefully check all reports for accuracy and seek rebutting or opposing comments. The anti-social nature of such views should be exposed.
• Do not sensationalise by reports, photographs,. film or presentation the activities of racist organisations.
• Seek to publish or broadcast material exposing the myths and lies of racist organisations and their anti-social behaviour.
• Do not allow the letters column or ‘phone-in’ programmes to be used to spread racial hatred in whatever guise.

So there you have it. To summarise the NUJ guidelines, they seek to withhold details of black-on-white crime whilst promoting coverage of white-on-black crime; to label any person or organisation seeking to expose the truth as fascist/racist; to ignore any party or movement that opposes the Left’s race war against the indigenous people, and if they become too big to ignore, seek to destroy them.

When the Labour Party was in power, the Home Office website had a section devoted to hate crime, in which it stated the typical hate crime offender was white, young and working class. This was a lie, but a necessary lie in accord with Labours’ now admitted policy of transforming the traditional, racial and cultural Britain they so hated.

Imagine an invading army defeating and occupying Britain. Imagine their soldiers raping and murdering the British people. Imagine the foreign-led quisling police force ignoring the rapes and murders. Imagine the Vichy government and media covering up the details and promoting a two-minute hate campaign against the British resistance hiding out in the hills.

But you don’t need to imagine, because it is already happening.

What a truly terrifying country Socialist Britain has become. A race of once proud people marginalised prior to their eventual consignment to ethnic minority status; abused, raped and murdered by racist non-whites and abused again by the MSM who seek to withhold the truth. If you think it is bad now, what on earth will it be like in forty years time? If you have a small child today, then this perhaps is something you should think very seriously about.

Trevor Philips, the leader of the Human Rights and Equalities Commission, has stated that Britain is the most tolerant country in the world for a non-white to live in. I agree with him, but I do wish he would go the extra mile and highlight the genuine, virulent racism directed at the indigenous whites by non-whites, the ruling elites and the MSM.

The British really do have a sense of fair play, but we can now see we are not being treated fairly at all, and to judge by the comments in this Telegraph article about Stephen Lawrence and racism, the sense of injustice and anger is building. In the genuine interests of community cohesion, our MSM must become less overtly hostile toward the indigenous people of Britain, and considerably more honest.

Muslim Misogyny, Feminist Indifference

Muslim Misogyny, Feminist Indifference
by Paul Weston

Feminists are a strange breed of creature indeed. As they teeter precariously around the office water cooler empowerment zone atop their latest Jimmy Choos, their conversation rarely strays toward Islam’s brutal treatment of women. They are much happier when unhappily discussing why grim-booted Bob from accounts is routinely promoted ahead of them, despite his shameful ignorance regarding over-priced cobbling.

They are unconcerned about the truly important areas of concern, such as a religion imported into the 21st century West which treats women as mere chattel of men, denies them equal legal rights, carries a death sentence in the event of a spot of marital infidelity, and allows the husband to add three more wives to his harem should he so wish. Another aspect of Islam which rarely crosses their minds is why do Asian/Muslim females in the 16-24 age group commit suicide at a rate three times higher than any other demographic?

But is it always suicide? The Islamic practice of Honour Killing is but a recent addition to the glorious diversity a previously mono-cultural Britain was hitherto unable to celebrate. Failure to marry the man chosen by your father is to bring shame and dishonour upon the family, doubly so if a girl is foolish enough to consider a relationship with a non-Muslim. This is why murdering your daughter is termed an “honour” killing. It is done to regain the honour of the family, and there exist in Britain many Muslims who really believe this to be true.

When Turkey passed life jail sentences for murdering daughters in 2005, previously immune murderous fathers asked them to commit suicide instead. The “suicide” rate rocketed in the aftermath of the new legislation. Girls told to kill themselves are usually given one of three options — a noose, a gun or rat poison. They are then locked in a room until the job is done.

Their fate is usually decided during a “family council”, when the extended family meets to discuss breaches of honour. In these meetings, it is agreed how the victim must be killed. If the girl rejects a forced suicide, a killer is chosen. The youngest male member of the family is often ordered to kill, in the belief he will be treated more leniently if caught.

And the statistics are terrifying. A Turkish girl states: “When I was at school, a few girls I knew were killed by their families in the name of honour.” Simple mathematics tells us the total number of murders across the entire country (Turkey) must run into thousands. Such horrific figures lend weight to a report in The Independent suggesting there are 17,000 victims of honour-related violence a year in Britain.

The Independent does point out that murder is a very small percentage of these incidents, the majority of cases being rape, kidnap and beating. Yet the point is clear — there is little knowledge of what goes on in the murky world of Muslim honour violence, but what is known suggests it is only the tip of the ice-berg. In light of Turkish “suicides” perhaps we should look at the elevated suicide rate of British Muslim females from a new perspective.

Forced marriage of course, could bring about suicidal tendencies. The Telegraph reports that up to 8,000 forced marriages took place in 2008, and in Bradford alone some 750 girls aged 13-16 were either subjected to a forced marriage at home, or taken abroad, never to return. Sociologist Nazia Khanum spent a year investigating this issue in Luton before publishing her report, which estimates that 4,000 children are forcibly married and taken out of Britain against their will every year.

Worse still, the precedent set by the prophet Mohamed in marrying a six year-old girl enables modern day Muslims to do much the same, leading to horror stories about the government’s Forced Marriage Unit fighting cases concerning girls aged only eleven and in one case a girl of only nine.

While this is happening, hundreds of thousands of women are being imported from Muslim countries, principally Pakistan and Bangladesh. Ex-Labour MP Ann Cryer, who represented Keighley, estimated that 1 million Pakistanis came to Britain over a four year period to work, study or marry. Imported wives made up 80% of all marriages in her area.

Muslim women now outnumber Muslim men by a ratio 2:1, which has itself led to Muslim men taking multiple wives; all illegal of course under British law, but permissible under Sharia law. On Newsnight two years ago, a representative of a British Sharia court claimed it would be discriminatory not to allow multiple wives as it would consign 50% of imported women to lives of unmarried, childless desolation. The British government agreed, and now provides welfare payments to multiple wives, providing the marriage was conducted in an Islamic country.

In addition to the Forced Marriage Unit, Britain now plays host to Project Azure another state-funded specialist crime department of the British police, this one dedicated to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) a form of child abuse usually associated with Islamic African countries like Northern Sudan, but now growing in Europe as a result of immigration and refugee movement.

The procedure is traditionally performed by an older woman with no medical training. Anaesthetics and antiseptic treatment are not generally employed, and the practice is usually carried out using basic tools such as knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass, tin lids and razor blades. Often iodine or a mixture of herbs is placed on the wound to tighten the vagina and stop the bleeding.

This rarely happens within British borders. Young girls are normally taken abroad at the beginning of school summer holidays, thus allowing the wounds to heal before the victim returns to Britain. The Met Police inform us that consequences of this Stone Age Barbarity “include extreme pain, shock, infection, haemorrhage, infertility, incontinence, HIV and death.”

A study by the Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development estimated that 66,000 women living in England and Wales had been circumcised, most before leaving their country of origin. The government-funded research also found that more than 6,500 girls were at a high risk of being subjected to genital mutilation in Britain, with some 3,500 in London alone.

It has been proposed that teachers in certain schools receive specialist training to detect whether Muslim girls have been genitally mutilated, but it is unlikely Muslim fathers will allow their daughters to be subjected to the type of gynaecological inspection necessary to occasion proof positive. No one should be surprised therefore, that despite Female Genital Mutilation constituting a criminal offence, not one person has been prosecuted.

Although not as horrific as FGM, why will the sisterhood not broach the subject of the misery inflicted on Muslim women and children via the practice of first cousin marriage? 50% of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins, and 10% of their children either die at birth or live with serious congenital disorders. People coming from agricultural villages in Pakistan are unlikely to understand why they have such problems, but our failure to educate them lest we upset their cultural sensibilities borders on a crime against humanity.

As does the behaviour of Labour politicians dependent on the Muslim vote in their constituencies. Jack Straw, for example, is fully aware of all that I have described above, yet he is also acutely aware that confronting it would mean being labelled a “racist” and lead to the loss of his seat, his salary, his expenses and his John Lewis perks. So, like all hypocritical socialists, he finds it more convenient to ignore the savagery and misery his male constituents inflict on his female constituents, as do twenty other of his socialist colleagues representing safe Labour seats in Muslim areas.

I suppose politicians at least have an excuse. What I find really inexcusable, however, is the attitude of the feminists. If European men behaved as Muslim men do, there would be a national outcry led by the Germaine Greers of this world. If feminism is to taken seriously, then the definition of the oppression of females cannot apply only to corporate glass ceilings and the lack of sufficient bonuses required to fill a wardrobe with Manolo Blahniks. It must instead be redirected at the genuine suffering of Muslim women and girls in Britain, because the wilful refusal by feminists to recognise crimes against humanity is morally no less obscene than the committing of them.

One Rule for Them, One Rule for Us.

One Rule for Them, One Rule for Us
by Paul Weston

Someone holding governmental authority badly needs to tell the British public why there appears to be one rule for them, and one rule for us, when it comes to racially aggravated crime and murder.

Today’s article about Rhea Page is a case in point. Kicked unconscious by a girl gang of drunken Somali Muslims, screaming ‘kill the white slag’: one would have thought this would be labelled a racist incident. Ms Page stated: ‘I honestly think they attacked me just because I was white. I can’t think of any other reason.’

But no, in the eyes of the perverse British judiciary this is not a racial incident, of course. Even worse: Judge Robert Brown allowed them to walk free because he accepted that as Muslims they were unused to drinking… Judge Brown also thought the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Ms Page’s partner Lewis Moore, 23, who tried to defend her from the attack.

In the wake of the terrible Stephen Lawrence murder, the Macpherson Report defined a racial incident very clearly: “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.” Is it not a little odd that such a straightforward statement, eagerly embraced by the British police, is open to question only when the victim is white? Ms Page clearly believes this was a racial incident, so why don’t the police or the judiciary?

And this is not a solitary case. Only last week 19-year-old Danny O’Shea had his throat slashed by a gang of black youths outside his mother’s front door in Newham, east London. The police are not treating this as racist murder. Why not?

In 2009, Christopher Folkes died from severe head injuries after he was brutally attacked by three “Asian” males in Queen’s Park, Blackburn. This was not treated as a racist murder. Why not?

In 2004 Christopher Yates was beaten to death by a gang of Muslim males in Barking, east London. One of the attackers, Sajid Zulfiqar, boasted: “We have killed the white man. That will teach an Englishman to interfere in Paki business.” The Crown Prosecution Service makes it perfectly clear that this was a racially aggravated murder, but again the racial element was overlooked. Why?

Perhaps the most savage murder was that of Mary-Ann Leneghan in 2005. Tortured, gang raped and stabbed to death by a gang made up of Muslims and blacks, this yet again was not a racist incident. The eagerness with which the British police pounce upon white racial transgressors is matched only by their reluctance to label non-white perpetrators as racists.

This simply has to stop. It is bad enough that we are to become a minority in our own land within the next fifty years, but to become an ethnic minority whilst being subjected to grossly unequal state-sponsored racial prejudice is both shocking and horrifying.

Police chiefs often describe the tensions in multicultural areas as “nerve jangling.” Hardly surprising, really. The anger is steadily growing amongst the native Britons, caused partly by the obviously unfair discrimination from which they suffer simply because they are white. If the government and police continue to stoke this anger by their appalling racist attitude toward the indigenous whites, then they must accept and understand that they will be held accountable for the unavoidable multicultural violence of the future.

The Totalitarian EU Tightens Its Grip

The Totalitarian EU Tightens Its Grip
by Paul Weston

The increasingly dictatorial behaviour of the unelected EU Commissioners rather proves the point made by Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who way back in 2006 stated that the political structure of the European Union was similar to that of the Supreme Soviet and the Politburo, and that the similarity was intentional.

The liberal-left are woefully ignorant of history, yet with their various humanities degrees they should know something of human nature, but even this appears to be beyond their intellectual grasp. The mental make-up of all dictators seeks one thing and one thing only — control over all others. Lenin once remarked that Communism was not actually about equality for the worker, but was rather about control. Total control.

Have we not seen this in the last few weeks? Frau Merkel and Monsieur Sarkozy are both on record stating their intention to wrest further EU control from the European electorate in the wake of the Eurozone economic catastrophe (inflicted by EU economic policy) and they are now doing this in spades.

Greek ex-Prime Minister Papandreou rather foolishly suggested the Greek people might like to influence their economic future in a democratic manner, only to be immediately toppled by the EU powers and replaced by Lucas Papademos, a man of impeccable Socialist economic credentials, who went from Governor of the Bank of Greece to Vice President of the European Central Bank (ECB) to Prime Minister of Greece. In other words an EU placeman in a previously democratic country.

In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi was not brought down by his lurid sexual shenanigans or his alleged lifelong corruption, but because he dared to question the validity of the euro. Enter the incensed EU Politburo, and exit the aged yet curiously wrinkle-free lecherous Lothario, to be replaced by unelected former EU Commissioner Mario Monti and a cabinet of bankers and academics, not one of whom represents a single Italian political party. Is this democracy in action? No, it is totalitarianism, pure and simple.

This should come as no surprise to those who understand the dictatorial machinations of the EU. Countries such as Ireland and Denmark were allowed referendums, but when they refused to accept the EU’s vision of a Utopian Socialist future, they were alternately threatened and bribed until they eventually complied with the wishes of the unelected EU Commissioners.

We saw the same disregard for democracy in Britain in 2004 after the North East firmly rejected setting up a Regional Assembly, much to the fury of the Labour government, whose response was simply to carry on regardless of the will of the people. In 2007 Gordon Brown established nine regional government offices complete with regional ministers, as per the EU geographical division of England.

Britain has been shamefully treated by its own politicians. The Labour manifesto of 2005 stated the electorate would be allowed to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, but they lied. David Cameron, ever clever with words, managed to sound like he intended to offer a referendum, but of course he has not. So here we are, run effectively by unelected Socialists in Brussels, via a puppet government of supposed “Conservatives” in Westminster.

In the last week alone we discovered that the EU wishes to import millions more North African Muslim migrants into Europe and Britain through Mobility Partnerships, the aim of which is to make EU action “more migrant-centred, with the aim of empowering migrants and strengthening their human rights in countries of origin, transit and destination.”

William Hague, Foreign Secretary and EU poodle, heard the call and penned an article for the Daily Telegraph outlining the importance of Turkish accession into the EU, no matter what Amnesty International might have to say about Turkey’s attitude to Human Rights. What a curious situation: even as the Arab Spring descends into Koranic Winter, our impossibly stupid politicians press for their own countries to be overrun by people unable to function in liberal democracies.

Why does the EU wish to import these racially and culturally foreign people? The answer is very simple: divide and rule, break down the community and smash the nation state. The Russians did this after they annexed the Baltic States during WWII, when huge numbers of Russians were exported to the conquered territories in an attempt to dilute and “de-nationalise” the native populations, thereby easing Soviet control.

The other reason for swamping racially and culturally cohesive countries with massed foreign people who have no intention of adopting British values is equally simple. Our rulers tell us they bring “diversity” but that is a lie. Local police chiefs talk of “nerve jangling” friction in multicultural areas which leads to ever-greater government control to keep the lid on the simmering factions. The more divisiveness, or multiculturalism, the more power to the Socialist elites — just as was planned.

Control is what it is all about. Over the last few days we learned that the EU wants the financial City of London to fall further under EU governance, with additional pressure being applied on Britain to join the calamitous Euro. Another EU diktat currently going through legislation proposes all new businesses must provide a surety of twenty-five thousand Euros. Why? Because it is far easier to control a thousand companies of a reasonable size than ten thousand smaller ones, no matter the economic destruction this will cause.

Meanwhile Frau Merkel and the EU Commissioners are making plans to ensure Britain is prevented from allowing a referendum, which under current EU law would be triggered as a direct result of the constitutional changes necessary in the proposal of a new, powerful and unelected EU quango, whose remit is the political annexation of failing Eurozone member-states.

And let us not forget the extraordinary physical power the EU already has over us. Europol, the EU’s sinister state police service, can travel across borders under diplomatic immunity. The EU even has its own paramilitary unit, the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) which is rumoured to be operating alongside Greek riot police. Then there is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) which can be issued anywhere in Europe, requesting the arrest and extradition of a British subject — a matter in which British courts are overruled should they wish to intervene.

The EAW was introduced in 2003 to target serious crime and terrorism, but many of the thousands of European and British people extradited to date were arrested for “crimes” of laughable triviality. The future however may not be so trivial. Under the EU’s laws on racism and xenophobia it is quite possible we could see an EAW issued simply because the accused person publicly expressed his dislike of Islamic immigration, thereby exposing himself as both a “racist” and a “xenophobe”.

All of the above should be taken very seriously. And, if we had a decent mainstream media, I have no doubt it would, but the Socialists in the media are in broad agreement with the Socialists in Brussels, so the dictators get a free pass. Can you imagine the BBC still supporting the European Union if Brussels had been taken over by the political right? Of course not — they would denounce the EU as a totalitarian disgrace — and they would be correct.

The EU has passed 120,000 pieces of legislation, out of which only some 10% have been enacted. The remainder are waiting to be used in the future. The framework has already been built for total and utter control of previously democratic European countries; we now simply await their enforcement. When might this be? No one knows for sure, but it seems a good long-term bet to suggest we will be subjected to an incremental tightening of their control over us. Whether it remains a soft ideology remains to be seen, but there is no reason at all to think the violent Socialist history of the last century is now behind us.

We are watching a genuine dictatorship in the making. These people have no regard for democracy, and their Socialist ideology is simply a softer version of the Communist ideology that murdered over 100 million people over the last century, whilst simultaneously destroying the economies and societies of the nations it infected. The most powerful man in Europe is Commission President Barroso, an ex-Maoist with no apparent regrets, and even now his apparatchiks talk of the new powers appropriated on the back of the economic disaster as a “Great Leap Forward.” During the Chinese “leap”, of course, Chairman Mao murdered some 45 million of his own people.

This madness must be stopped. UKIP provides a platform to vote against the EU, but if you also care about the long-term threat of Islam, then there is only one civilised political party which acts on your behalf, and that party is British Freedom.

The BBC, Sarah Palin & Down's Syndrome Babies

Whilst the liberal-left are monumentally and tragically wrong on so many issues, they are correct that some words certainly incite feelings of violence. In fact, I feel so angry at the moment that were it not for my peaceful and law-abiding nature I would happily march down to BBC headquarters and strike a few unutterably repulsive people flush on their repellent snouts with great physicality.

The reason I am so angry is because I do not think babies born with Down’s syndrome should be referred to as “retards”, nor *****, nor indeed ******* *****. I would also take issue with the description of Sarah Palin’s vagina as a “retard launcher.”

Last Thursday, BBC 5 Live presenter Richard Bacon introduced a guest as follows: “Doug Stanhope is here, just a remarkable stand-up comic. If you’ve never seen him, or want a flavour of what he is like, go on YouTube now and type ‘Doug Stanhope-Sarah Palin’ (sniggers) and get back to me.”

The You Tube link that comes up concerns Sarah Palin and her son Trig, who has Down’s Syndrome. The BBC, driven by a visceral hatred of Sarah Palin, quite astonishingly see nothing wrong in publicly recommending such a video, but if you have a disabled child yourself, or have normal human standards of decency, then you should not watch this. It is pathologically cruel and vile, but if you have the stomach for it, please watch or read before continuing with this article



T














Transcript:

Sarah Palin is the most fucking horrible, horrible [sic] - on so many levels…

The BBC, Breivik, the EDL & Islam

The BBC regards itself as a politically impartial organisation, but their behaviour in the fallout of the Breivik atrocity shows them to be nothing other than the unapologetic propaganda arm of the hard Left and Islam.

There are atrocities and there are lesser atrocities in the peculiar thinking of BBC executives. After 9/11 they went to positively surreal lengths to disassociate Islam from terrorism. They publicly asked what we had done wrong to arouse such animosity and scoured the length and breadth of Britain to produce Muslims who would denounce the airliner attacks as terrible yes, but Islamic? No, no and no again.

Failed State Colonisation - The Greatest Threat of Our Time

The following important article was written by Daniel Greenfield and originally posted at his site Sultan Knish

Let's compare two countries side by side. Country A has a sizable middle class and economy, social welfare benefits and a low birth rate. Country B is a failed state where thugs run amok in the street, a few families control the economy and the birth rate is off the charts.

Country A's citizens are taught that nationalism is evil and that everyone should get along. Country B's citizens are taught that they are the greatest people that ever lived and would be running the world if not for Country A. But despite all this, Country B's citizens all want to move to Country A. And Country A wants to let them. Because Country A needs new workers to subsidize its welfare state and voters who will vote for pro-social welfare parties.

Since Country B's workers want the social welfare benefits, they move to Country A. Country A ends up with a huge failed state population and dramatically increases its social welfare spending for them. Bankruptcy threatens, but change is almost impossible because the pro-social welfare benefits party has become very hard to beat. The pro-reform parties no longer tackle immigration, but try to get the immigrant vote. Their reforms turn into band aids. Country A slides toward the abyss. Country B continues shipping more immigrants every year who remain loyal to its culture and religion.

The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain.

The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain
by Paul Weston

Poor old Britain is in a terrible state. Whilst the recent obscenity of a Labour government is mostly to blame for this, they were not alone in the cultural and racial war which has been waged against the British people over the last half-century. Such has been the all-encompassing assault on who we once were that it is now hard to find any social group which has not been betrayed.

For example:

The Wartime Generation: They sacrificed so much, indeed died in their hundreds of thousands in order that our generation could live in freedom. Today they are sidelined and ignored by the Socialist ruling classes, who consider the culture and politics of these aged warriors to be wildly out of tune with modern liberal group-think.

A book was published last year called The Unknown Warriors which collated the stories and concerns of this greatest, yet disregarded people. And it is a heartbreaking read. Over and over again these brave and stoic people mentioned one word — betrayal.

One Week In The Death Of Britain

The rapid descent of Britain into a racial, cultural, economic, moral, educational and societal ruin continues apace. The following stories are gleaned from newspaper articles printed in just one week:

We learn that despite David Cameron’s lofty ambition of reducing immigration to the “tens of thousands”, a record 586,000 immigrants arrived on the shores of this small island in 2010. As a result, 344,000 disillusioned people immediately voted with their feet and emigrated. Many of those leaving would have been indigenous Brits, although this cannot be verified because there are no real border controls.

Why Is This Not Treason?

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague. — Cicero

On the 3rd of January 1946, William Joyce, better known as Lord Haw-Haw, was the last man in Britain to be hanged for the ancient crime of treason. Unless a future government changes the law it is unlikely that traitors will ever dangle again, after Tony Blair rather conveniently repealed the death penalty for such a crime in 1998.

That is not to say treason no longer exists. Now the full extent of Labour’s thirteen-year rule has become apparent, an increasing number of Britons are volubly accusing the Labour Party of wilfully and cold-bloodedly betraying Britain and deliberately jeopardising our children’s future.

Lord Haw-Haw of course sided with the Nazis during the hot war of 1939-1945. The recent Labour government might not have been operating in a hot-war theatre, but they certainly carried out a warm-war against the British (principally the English) via mass immigration from one of the most hostile and anti-Western countries in the world, Pakistan.

Consider some of the following statistics: