Sunday, 31 July 2011

How the Conservatives have been part of the Liberal Feminist Conspiracy to turn us into Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland since 2002

A Conservative Facebook friend HaleBarns Conservatives described the post, which I found quite amusing on as

"Innaporopiate racist post... Spreading islomophobia & Muslim hatred."

This prompted a Russian Facebook friend - and Russians are the only white people these days with reasonably sensible views that approach traditional Conservatism - to ask:

"Is Hale Barnes joking? I was aware there had been a left-wing coup in the tory party but are things so far gone that a tory would make such a remark without irony?"

which prompted me to say:

"Cameron himself is a Commie Pinko. Did you know that Theresa fucking May, currently Home Secretary who praises the liberal legislation that created THOUGHTCRIME that is the Equality Act, made the Tories be nice to slut single mums as long ago as 2002? That's why we have now become Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland."

I then went on to say words to the effect that the average member of the Conservative Party wouldn't recognise Conservatism even if it came up to them, slapped them in the face, knocked them over and brutally sodomised them.

There will no doubt be many gay card-carrying Conservatives who would rather enjoy this sort of thing these days.    

Most Modern Conservatives wouldn't feel too out of place in New Labour and are in fact ideologically indistinguishable.

Do you notice any inclination in the liberal media to discuss immigration?  Of course not.  They are hoping that the embarrassed silence from the BNP after the Oslo atrocities to last for as long as possible.  No doubt they applaud the attempts of newspapers like The Sun to publish stories that suggest that BNP activists are as potentially murderous as  Breivik in order to silence and vilify them further.

I therefore rest my case that Compassionate Conservatism is Socialism, Big Society remains Big Government, and Cameron is a Commie Pinko Cunt of Convictionless Conservatism.

The Conservatives are part of the Liberal Oligarchy, who have conspired to homogenise their policies and to marginalise and vilify any other party that is not part of their political cartel as Fascist, Nazi, Racist, Extremist, Lunatic and Evil.

Get this, and you will understand how 'liberal' politics in the West works.  That was what drove Anders Breivik to do what he did, because he knew political activism was useless and that the white European peoples would only be presented with a fait accompli in a few decades hence.

Only fools and knaves believe and say otherwise.

Why White Nationalism should demand the reconsecration of the institutions of Marriage and Family

I live in the West amongst white people. I therefore feel that what is good for white people would be good for me, and that civic nationalism is enough to give white nationalists a foot in the door, who should use any means available wisely to have the kind of society that they want that would give them the liberty to influence whom their offspring mate with.

This would be done by reconsecrating the desecrated institutions of Family and Marriage.

Just ask for this and everything else will follow.

This means, I'm afraid, challenging feminism, which some of you may not be quite up to.

Feminism means easy divorce and divorce settlements that usually cripple men. This means men are afraid of women. When men are afraid of their women the moral and educational standards of that society suffer.

Challenging feminism means you have to give up the benefits of feminism ie cheap sex and easy women.

Brothels would be legal again, but prostitutes who are not a burden on the state will be officially declared a degree above never married single mothers who are.

There is no need to for further acts of violence by the likes of Anders Breivik or pray for a race war or widespread civil disorder or anything like that. Just ask for what I suggest above, in reasonable tones, and there will be a gender war of ideas of the patriarchy adn the matriarchy. It is not that hard for men to win the argument, if you make the arguments in your favour widely available.

What you offer women to give up feminism is a better quality of white man who will be a good husband and father instead of the losers and paedophiles created by feminism.

The losers created by feminism are the illegitimate, criminal, under-achieving and singly-parented.  In other words, men who are skint, scared and stupid, some of them even middle class and professional, who have had their homes confiscated by their wives after she has become bored and irritated by them when they have grown old and boring, when she has decided it would be quite nice to live in his house without having the annoyance of him in it.  

I see no harm in saying, in response to the acts and words of the Anders Breivik, things like: 

"We told you so, it was all your fault for suppressing debate on immigration for so long. Why don't we have a referendum on immigration then if you are all so bloody democratic? Then you will find out whether the voters want more immigration or not. Go on, we dare you."

"Fascism" and "Nazism" these days is often really only genuine Conservatism demonised by liberals and feminists.

Friday, 29 July 2011

The liberal conspiracy to delay Anders Breivik's trial in the hope of suppressing debate

Breivik's indictment "will not be ready before the end of the year" - despite the fact that he has confessed to both the bombing and the shooting.

They are trying to sweep Breivik under the carpet so they don't have to discuss immigration, the hypocritical, truth-denying hypocritical liberal cunts.

They are going to prevent a frank and full discussion of immigration for as long as they bloody well can. 

Breivik did it, he admitted it, but they have to faff around, probably until next year so everyone has to walk on eggshells, not daring to discuss immigration. Their plan is as clear as day.

Lots of people are secretly pleased it happened, ESPECIALLY THE MEDIA. They are having multiple orgasms even as we speak and ejaculating into their trousers at the thought of being able to demonise as mass murderers anyone who dares to complain about immigration after the Oslo atrocity.

The liberal governments of Europe wants to delay FOREVER a full and frank discussion about immigration, for to have a debate will put them in the awkward position of acknowledging that most voters don't like it. If they can postpone his trial for 10, or even 100 years they would do it. That is what dishonest SHITS the Liberal Left are.

And then it would be heard in camera, if they can swing it.

Even now, those who are anti-immigration are being forced to condemn the atrocity against innocent children, as if they were themselves responsible for inciting it by their intransigence.  

Frankly, I see no difference between an innocent adult being killed and an innocent child being killed. 

Innocent children often grow into guilty adults, after all.  

The youth who attended the Liberal Left version of Hitler Youth are very likely to grow up into the Liberal Left politicians of the future, with all the force of cowardice and hypocrisy their parents now have if not more.  If Breivik were to do the equivalent of what he did in Norway he would be 'taking out' members of  Labour Party at conference in a seaside town, probably.  

The truth is that both the Left and Right intend to make political capital out of it and we are all, without exception, secretly pleased that Breivik did what he did, even those who say how horrible and disgusting and barbaric and insane and evil it was, for even they are secretly and not so secretly pleased that Breivik did what he did, so we can talk and write about it endlessly to each other.  

The Liberal Left intend to make political capital out of it by pretending that anyone who now dares to complain about immigration is the like the mass murdering Anders Breivik, in the hope of silencing debate.  

The only people who are not happy would be those who knew any of the victims or their loved ones, and there aren't that many of them, and they are all in Norway in any case.  

The Right, if they are clever, will make the point, again and again, that it was the Liberal Left's intransigent attitude (who have for decades now conspired to stifle debate while gerrymandering their vote by giving new immigrants citizenship and voting rights) wot made Breivik do it.  

How the BNP should deal with Breivik-BNP stories by the media - Pt II

My BNP buddies are getting a little nervous about the media door-stepping them about being on the 1000+ circulation list of the mass-murdering Anders Brevik, believing that that unflattering comparisons are being made of them and his party to him.

It would actually be a bit weird if Breivik had not sent people any messages. Presumably one starts off as a cyber-activist and then decides to go on to bigger and better things, such as mass murdering youth members of pro-immigration parties.

It would be very suspicious if he just came out of nowhere and then started killing people.

Mind you, some people have been suggesting that Mossad put Breivik up to it.

It is really a non-story and could be good opportunity for activists to turn the spotlight on the liberal political establishment who have been suppressing debate and marginalising anti-immigration parties for decades.

It was they who drove Breivik to do what he felt he had to do.   

Thursday, 28 July 2011

How the BNP should deal with Breivik-BNP stories by the media - Pt I

"While we share and understand Breivik's concerns, the BNP is not Sinn Fein and we would never ever advocate violence of any kind. We however welcome this opportunity of debating immigration, the causes of immigration and the way our political system operates that makes the liberal political establishment feel that the only way to deal with the issue of immigration is to suppress debate and demonise those who express their concerns. It was this that drove Breivik to feel he had no choice but to do what he did, to attract the attention he felt was necessary to shake the government out of their complacency and denial.  Let us hope they will change their spots this time."​orld/article/0,8599,208489​5,00.html#ixzz1T8KYj9PE

"Around 2000, I realized that the democratic struggle against the Islamization of Europe, and European multiculturalism, was lost. It is simply not possible to compete with democratic regimes that import millions of voters. 40 years of dialogue with the cultural Marxists / multiculturalists had ended up as a disaster. It would now only take 50-70 years before we, Europeans, were the minority. So I decided to explore alternative forms of opposition. But the biggest problem then was that there were no options for me at all."

Blame it on the LibLabCon oligarchy.

Look what Labour did to Gillian Duffy and Maurice Glasman. Look at what the Tories did to Enoch Powell and Nigel Hastilow. They are completely up their own arses and fanatically ruthless in their policy of "head in the sand-ism".

No one may express any concern about immigration without being accused of being accused of being an Evil, Racist, Nazi, Fascist Bigot.  Sadly, British men emasculated by over half a century of  feminism are only too
easily intimidated now. 

Very interestingly, the views Breivik (or should I call him Anders as I have discovered that he was at one time my Facebook friend?) has about feminism are so similar to mine found at that he may have been reading my Facebook walls, even if he did not write on them often enough for me to remember him.

Anders Breivik participating in two separate debates on Islam (1) Thread started by Jeffrey Marshall (2) Thread started by Claire Khaw

Anders Breivik
Jeffrey Marshall
I exchanged a few messages on Facebook with him on Islam in 2009, the context of which I set out below.

Jeffrey Marshall's Thread

 BNP debate with Muslims - “Islamification of Britain: reality or myth?”

Date: Thursday 10th December 2009
Time: 6.15 pm - 9.15 pm
Venue: Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, London, WC1R 4RL
A public forum where members of the Muslim community invite members of the far-right to an open dialogue to discuss their contentions on Islam, the Muslim community in England / Europe, and the impact of immigration, in the hope that prejudice and misconceptions can be tackled through engagement. Additionally, the panel will also be joined by members of the Christian People's Alliance Party and the Liberal Democrats, who both current serve as London councillors, and will be attending to add their perspectives to the discussion.
The invited panel, consisting of representatives from Liberal, Christian Democrat, Muslim and Far Right backgrounds, will be engaginng in discussion and debate over the controversial topic of 'Islamification' which has become the flag bearing issue for the campaigns by the BNP, EDL and SOIE (Stop the Islamification of Europe) groups.
Speakers who have confirmed their attendance include Alan Craig (Councillor for Newham & Leader of Christian People's Alliance Party), Jeffrey Marshall (Central London Organiser for the BNP), Abdullah Al-Andalusi (Public Speaker on Muslim Political Affairs) and Stephen Gash (Stop Islamification of Europe and organiser of the September Harrow Mosque Demonstration).
Stephen Gash writes: "I am happy to be given a platform to express my views, despite the fact that others would not give me such a platform."
Still to be confirmed are Abdurraheem Green and Dr Azzam Tamimi. 
This event is expected to be the first of its kind, where members of the Muslim community directly inviting right-wing anti-Shariah campaigners to the discussion table. Such an intercommunity public discussion event is virtually unprecedented in modern times. Also, the event itself, whatever the result, will help to demonstrate that Muslims are not against censorship, but rather we welcome open discussion and debate, as long as everyone is given a voice to defend their beliefs and way of life in a fair, equal and open platform. Lastly, we feel that only by direct engagement can we defeat the prejudice and hatred that is rising in Europe against Islam. This event is being organised in the hope that Muslims, general non-Muslims and those of the far-right, can all attend, listen and come to an understanding of the real human reality of Britain today, not the false scaremongering and social dissension created by the skewed perspectives of some individuals. Today's situation in Britain is one that Muslims cannot afford to ignore, hoping it will go away if we do no engage it directly.
Security will be present at the event. The ground floor of the main hall can hold over 250 people along with seating for around 100 on the upper galleries. Come early to guarantee a good seat.
For further information please contact:
Tel: 07843 126 715 

06 December 2009
The most essential issue here is demography. Marseilles (the epi-center of Islamisation in Western Europe) now has 38% Muslims and will be a Muslim city with 51% within 20 years.
Difficult but essential questions have to be raised relating to demography and the alleged Islamic demographical warfare waged "indirectly" by the Global Islamic Ummah.
Shall we allow any given European city to become Muslim in the future (51%+)? Should it be prevented and why? If it should, how can it be prevented? Will Europeans be allowed to prevent it?
On a national level
Shall we allow any Western European country to become Muslim in the future (51%+)? 
Is it unacceptable to discuss the possibility that there is an indirect ongoing demographic warfare being wage facilitated by the doctrines of Islam/sharia (limiting womens rights equates to higher Muslim birth rates etc)?
And perhaps most importantly, shall we allow British cities or perhaps even Britain itself to end up as Lebanon?
Lebanon was, as we should all know, a Christian country but is now Muslim. The Christian minority have for several decades lived under hard conditions (dhimmitude).
I understand that discussing these issues are considered politically incorrect. They are however important to many Europeans.
Lebanon demographical development – (Christian/Muslim pop)[1]:
1911 - 21% Islam
1921 - 45% 
1932 - 49%
1943 - 48% 
1970 - 58% (Civil war 1975–1990 started when Islam reached 60%)
1990 - 65% (Christians lost the war)
2008 - 75%
2030 - 90%? 
1. Tomass Mark, Game theory with instrumentally irrational players: A Case Study of Civil War and Sectarian Cleansing, Journal of Economic Issues, Lincoln; June 1997.
06 December 2009
Abdullah Al Andalusi
Hi Anders,
Your post is funny, because Lebanon was only created last century. But the area of Land has been within Islamic authority for 1,300 years - only NOW have Muslims begun to try to Islamify it?! I don't think so. I think you'll find that the state the Israel, and the sykes-Picot treaty are to blame for the resultant immigration and wars that occur in the region
As for Marseilles, it is one of France's Southern cities, of course Immigration is increasing the population of non-French citizens, so what? IT is not the result of birthrate; and France and Europe as a whole are now beginning to limit Immigration, as the beneficial economic results can no longer be realised in this recession. Why not complain about the 'Latinisation' of America. There have a far bigger Immigration problem then europe. I think you are just a scare mongerer, and there is no sociological facts you can present to demonstrate that Islamification is happening in Europe. In fact the French 'Dhimmis' as you call them, seem not to be so compliant with Islam - with their BANNING THE HIJAB IN SCHOOL. Does that sound like the actions of a weak subjugated 'Dhimmi' government. Or a strongly intolerant, culturally french-supremist Secular Government?
I'll leave people with half an ounce of sense to decide.

6 December 2009
Any "Atatürk approach" will not solve anything but only delay the inevitable. Turkey became secular after Mustafa Atatürk, by military force, implemented his harsh reforms 90 years ago. The result? Sharia lay dormant for 70-80 years. As soon as it was practically possible (Turkey had to implement more human rights to appease the EU) the former "dormant" devout Muslims resurfaced and the Islamist alliance won the last election. The secular elites of Turkey backed by the military are now in an undemocratic manner refusing to obey the will of the majority (Islamist alliance). Turkey is therefore a dictatorship. We have to understand. Islam is extremely resilient, in fact more resilient than most people can comprehend. Taking Sharia (and all political aspects) out of Islam is simply not possible.
Sure, we can force temporary secularization on the Muslims but eventually, even though they would have to wait 90 years, the demands for more Sharia will resurface. And by then they will be in majority and can democratically do whatever they want. 
I predict one of the four scenarios for W. Europe:
1. Islam will reform to a secular "Islamic Protestantism", where all political aspects (Sharia included) will be purged. This is unlikely.
2. Britain will be Muslim
3. Several mini-Pakistan's will be created all over Europe, one in each country (due to Lebanon style conflicts)
4. All Muslims (who does not convert to a non-political religion) will be deported.  
History will always repeat itself.

13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
English Democrats - the non-racist English nationalist party - even more Islamophobic than BNP?
I was there and don't remember Abdullah saying he wanted Shariah law. Are you confusing Abdullah with Anjem Choudary (who wasn't there on Thursday either), Bill?
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
Then you should of cleaned your ears out Claire. He stated that Sharia was a better law than English law and would be a benefit in the mosques and society in general. He rambled on about womens clothing instead of asking direct questions and has manipulated the whole debate as a propaganda success for the promotion of Islamic values.
13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
He said Sharia takes into account of human nature. The fact that we commit adultery, divorce, steal, are gay, engage in commerce, wage war with each other and have governments who have an established tendency of borrowing and lending irresponsibly. If you take Sharia to mean law in accordance with Koranic principles, then you may find it not so sinister after all. Love thy neighbour is also a Koranic principle, in case you didn't know that. Or do you think it just means stonings and beheadings?

13 December 2009
Bill Baker
It has several concepts that is set differently in the various sects of Islam. The point being that it is unacceptable in any form.If he likes the Sharia law and what it takes into account so much then go to Saudi Arabia and live there for the benefit of living under such a 'wonderful legal system'
13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
What is "any form"? The death penalty would be in accordance with Koranic principles. Ditto direct democracy.
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
any form as in what ever sect has written its version of Sharia law. We have law here, based on Christian principles. People who cant live within that legislative structure must leave, simple as that.
13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Let's be clear about this, Bill. Will you have everything be the opposite of what it is in the Koran, just to avoid what you think is Sharia law?
What about the Koran stating the love thy neighbour principle, or at any rate not harm him?
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
The Koran has many different interpretations and is not written by god or Allah but by a prophet who had mood swings that are clearly defined in his writing of the scriptures, one moment a man of peace the next a violent antagonist and dominant factor. While people can follow the Koran as they see fit for peaceful religious values as that is the right of everyone, it can never be used in any legal concept in league with Sharia law while in England as we have Christian values that take priority as 72% of the population in this country are Christian.

13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
“Worship God and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet)... Verily, God does not like such as are proud and boastful.” (Quran 4:36)
Yes, there are many interpretations and there are many laws. 
One must just hope that the court who interprets the law in your case will be fair and just, and that there are ways of fixing things when they go wrong. 
There are no guarantees in life and the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. 

72% of the population are Christian - where did you get that statistic?
It seems a lot less to me.
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
The last national census. It was also reffered to by the supposed Anglican Vicar if you had been listening to him. An apologist that should not still be a man of the cloth and should also decide on a political or religious career, but not entwine the two.

13 December 200
You should study the Islamic legal principles of naskh (Quranic abrogation - the aggressive Medina verses take precedent over the peaceful Mecca verses where appropriate). I could try to educate you further here about Islamic jurisprudence hadn't it been for the fact that this is an inappropriate forum.
I doubt this would be fruitful to any of us as you obviously have a very clear agenda;)
"Taqiyya does not mean you are allowed to lie for promoting one's faith.
Dont worry Abdullah. You are allowed to use al-taqiyya against all kafr until Britain (Dar al-Kufr or Dar al-Harb) has become Dar al-Islam. I can provide a 30 page assessment of the correct use of al-taqiyya against any and all kafrs until Dar-al-Islam has been established.
Please let me know if you have any other questions relating to Islam.
Thank you.

13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Anders, I am quite aware that there are aggressive verses. Indeed, there is a verse that justifies a pre-emptive war. It is all a matter of interpretation, and whoever controls the interpretation is in charge. 
As for who will be in charge of the interpretation, well, that is what politics is all about. 
I am saying the Koran can be useful, useful even to the people who now fear and hate it. It is but an ideology like any other but more powerful because it is holistic, for the state and for the individual, social and economic, political and moral. 
There is no need to incorporate a formal body of legislation called Sharia law to have law in accordance with Koranic principles, no need at all.
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
We have social economic and moral principals set out under our own legislative system thanks!
13 December 200
Claire Khaw
What moral principles are these? 
Islamic principles are also Christian principles.

13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Forgive thine enemy, love thy neighbour, etc.

13 December 2009
Bill Baker
Then if the principals are the same there is no need for Sharia law is there. Know your enemy and defeat them to ensure your own survival. You dont fight for love you fight to kill and if you are not going to kill your enemy then dont go into battle as they are surely trying to kill you.
Always ensure your neighbour has social values along the same qualities as your own.

What part of the doctrines of naskh (Quranic abrogation) do you fail to understand?
I assume you mean well and that you think you can create a non-political “secularized Islamic Protestantism”. But that project will fail just like it has failed multiple times in the past. Why do you think you will succeed this time when even Ataturk failed?
And why would any devout Muslim listen to a kafr like you? They laugh at PC Europeans/ Americans every time they to teach true Muslims what "real Islam (the religion of peace)" is all about. You will be a useful idiot to them until they are in a position where they no longer require your services. I suggest you travel to Lebanon and ask the non-Muslim apologists how they were treated after 1990;)

14 December 2009
Abdullah Al Andalusi
Well Anders,
The whole conception of Naskh is debated by scholars (some even deny it exists), others accept it exists, but only limit it to 1-5 small verses, other simply say it existed for verses that were no longer part of the Quran. Suffice to say, the peaceful verses of the Quran have been abrogated. I should like to hear evidence to say that they are (from majority concensus please).
Secondly, ooh, you can provide a '30 page' dissertation on how Taqiyya is applies to what? Even if that is so, I can find a 30 page dissertation from the 'flat earth' society, saying how the Earth is actually flat - so what?! You and them both share your loony interpretation of facts (or even, dare I say it, blatant lies). So unless you put your money where your mouth is, and PRODUCE SOME PROOF, I suggest you keep yor bigoted, paranoid delusions to yourself - your choice :)

14 December 2009
Abdullah Al Andalusi
Actually, I have a better Idea, Anders - Lets Debate it - in PUBLIC. Come on, you have nothing to fear, except the truth. If we allowed the BNP et al the make a public presentation, then you should be no different.
Let's debate the issue of Taqiyya, in PUBLIC. Let's blow this issue Wide open, yes? We have nothing to hide, do you?
(we have no problem coming to your country, or you coming here - take this as a formal invitation to Public Debate).

14 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Excellent idea, Abdullah.
In what way did you think Ataturk failed, Anders? He got his secular state that has now banned the niqab, didn't he? Or would success to you mean only the complete suppression and abolition of Islam?
Let me put it this way. If you want to regard Islam as a virus, then let us extend the analogy. Not every person will have exactly the same response and defences to a virus. Some people have immunity, others will recover, some will not. 
I guess I am optimist. What does not kill us makes us stronger.

Claire Khaw's thread:

14 December 2009
Claire Khaw
The Voice of Reason: Faith and Reason; Faith v Reason
Is it reasonable to have faith? Should we have faith in reason? Whether we believe in God or not, surely we should have faith in the future and faith in our convictions?Our convictions must surely be in accordance with Truth, Reason and Reality or they will not withstand the wear and tear of Truth, Reason and Reality. 
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and unique, then He must surely also incorporate Truth, Reason and Reality. 
On this point perhaps atheists and monotheists can agree: that whether we believe in God or not, we must inevitably submit to Truth, Reason and Reality. Which might conceivably make us all Muslim originally, without realising it ...A disturbing thought for some, no doubt.
14 December 2009
Andrew McKie
Dear Claire, May I give you a reason why you are about to be defriended? Because tedious threads like this & every update to them ping on my iPhone, using up my battery to no good purpose.
I have no objection to those discussions, nor to your encouraging them, but they are below the intellectual level of the average 11-year-old, and use up my storage space and battery life.
Not your fault, I'm sure. But unless you can tell me why I shouldn't cut the cord, I shall, within the next 24 hours. without prejudice, as the lawyers say, best aye A [of] 
14 December 2009
Conor Walsh
The best answer I can give is the Jesuit answer - where faith conflicts with reason, reason must prevail. But don't ask me how they square that with the leap that faith must be.

14 December 2009
Claire Khaw
The difference between what is possible and what is probable is the measure of that leap of faith, which we use our reason to measure. 
That Christ is Son of God is impossible. That God may exist is possible. Indeed, it is virtually certain since we, Man, created Him, as a concept.

14 December 2009
Bill Baker
So the possibility of God /Allah speaking to a deluded idiot such as Mohammed and writing the Koran through this schizophrenic is to be taken seriously then if not through the word of Christ and the Prophets before him? People will believe as they will when it comes to religious values as it is drummed into those without access to education constantly, but those with any form of intelligence realise that it is all fable and the heads of religion are in it for personal gain and the power buzz only. We derive our moral standards to create law through historical faith and good common sense.

14 December 2009
Abdullah Al Andalusi
It is funny Bill, how you attack the Intelligence of a man, who presented a holistic integrated spiritual and socio-political system, that changed a backwater nomadic people into an advanced and intellectually progressive world superpower that lasted 1,300 years, who's mere contact with the West, generated the European Renaissance. If that man is considered by you to be an Idiot, I'd hate to see what we come up with, if we were to apply your exacting standards to yourself - who has achieve far far considerably less (if at all).

14 December 2009
I agree, Abdullah, Muhammad is perhaps the greatest military leader, statesman and political intellectual that has ever lived. I have studied Islam for several years and must say I am extremely impressed by how efficient your ideology is. Well, the Ummah failed twice but you might actually succeed in conquering Europe this time eventually. It is a shame that most Europeans reject non-PC history and thus underestimate Muhammad's brilliance and Islams potency.

My favourite quote from the Hadith is the following btw:
Hadith of the Prophet

"Lataftahanna al-Qustantiniyya wa lani`ma al-amiru amiruha wa lani`ma al-jayshu dhalika al-jaysh." "Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will he be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!"

Needless to say; every single kuffar capital is considered modern day Constantinople’s. The only difference is that the strategic weapon used in the Jihad against Europe is Islamic demographic warfare instead of regular infantry units (which is the preferred method in the Sudan Jihad).
As for the debate. What would be the point, Abdullah? We are all ideologically confident and experienced enough to remain immune to each others argumentation and approaches. Our objective is to influence the people, not to try to influence eachother:)

The ruling establishment, the multiculturalist PC block (politicians, media, NGOs) are all ignoring any non-PC group so you shouldn’t be worried at all. We have absolutely no way of influencing national decision making at this point (with the exception of Denmark, Italy and certain other European local counties). Only time will tell if we ever gain influence in the remaining countries before it is too late:) Abdullah, you don't have to answer my question or counter my argument. We can just agree on the fact that we disagree:) Claire, I already answered your question regarding Ataturk and Turkey. Pls check earlier msg:)

18 December 2009
Bill Baker
Conor, there are certain Christian sects that are as bad as the Islamic sects who promote war and persecution. The three Abrahamic faiths Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have splinter groups that are either advocates of peace or war, but I oppose vehemently any of these sects who fall into the latter category. I will repeat again that we have preachers to soothe the souls of those who seek consolation through religion and we have politicians to guide our laws, but while each should have respect for the other, the two should never be entwined as it leads to the type of Tribalism and depravity you speak of around the world.

18 December 2009
Conor Walsh
OK Bill thanks for that - sounds like fair comment - so you would accept that what people loosely call Islamic terrorism has as little to do with Islam as say, my own Irish Catholicism has to do with the anti-civilian atrocities of the IRA? In other words, religion is used by people in both Western governments and others in Asian countries to obscure or mystify or aggravate the real nature of conflict which has a lot to do with oil and little to do with sacred texts?

You seem extremely naive, Conor. You should browse through the December list of Jihadi violence and terror here: More than 14000 Jihadi terror attacks since 9/11. In comparison during this period, how many Christian terror attacks?
I invite you to find a similar list committed by Christian groups...
You cannot compare Christendom and Islam. Islam has historically killed more than 270 million, Christendom less than 27 million. As such, Islam is historically 10 times more bloody and cruel. 1000 times as bloody and cruel in todays context. Is it perhaps due to the fact that Islam is a political ideology? ;)
Please wake up.

18 December 2009
Conor Walsh
Anders please don't call me naive. I will have to start searching for terms of my own to characterize my feelings regarding your own slightly selective reading of recent history. How many people were killed by Western forces in Iraq?
Bill assuming that your term satanic applies to the western cheerleaders of aggressive war as well as anyone else who advocates military action against civilian populations, in particular, I have no problem with your use of the term though I would be inclined not to see this in theological terms of any kind.

8 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Even I know that Islam is the religion of peace AND WAR. That is what makes it so versatile and fit for the purpose of government and international relations. 
Islam is a political ideology like any other so its effect would be similar to the effect of Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Liberalism etc. 
I am afraid it is the nature of man to kill each other over a philosophical disagreement. It is just the way of the world.

In what year will Britain be 100% learning disabled?

" ... people with a learning disability, whose numbers are growing by up to 5% a year ... " 

If the number of people with a learning disability are growing by 5% a year, how long will it be before the British are 100% retarded?

Breivik not quite a racist, whatever you think of him

He actually hated the Norwegian Labour Party more than he hated Muslims, and knew exactly what he was doing. If he was going to kill people, he felt he should kill those he thought most responsible for his grievance.

So there you go: Breivik wasn't a racist. A racist would have killed people of another race because he hated them. He killed people of his own race he felt were most to blame: the members of the Norwegian Labour Party, who let the Muslim immigrants in.  

Probably, he secretly admired them and despised his own people and their matriarchal self-abnegating culture of Free Love and slut women.   Interesting.

Breivik did, however, note that he doesn’t hate Muslims in any fashion and that “I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some of which I still respect.”

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

The Morality of War, Revolution and Terrorism is Conditional and Contingent

War is violence committed by one state against another. Revolution or terrorism can be violence committed by a group against a state or innocent civilians. As there can be just wars, so can there be 'just terrorism'. Terrorists (or violent revolutionaries) only become freedom fighters and statesmen if they are successful in their terrorism eg Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness. Good government entails the prevention of grievances that cause acts of terrorism to be committed, and bad governments deserve to be overthrown.

Do the ends justify the means?  We can only wait and see.   

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

My answer to the question "Claire, do you admire the Oslo killer?"

It would appear that Breivik felt that there was no other way as all the anti-immigration parties in Europe are marginalised, despised and ignored. It would appear that he felt it was necessary to do what he did in order to get the attention, not just of the Norwegians, but the entire Western world and all the European peoples.

Being a former member of two anti-immigration parties, I am well aware of how hopelessly ineffective they are.

By the time BNP and UKIP get their acts together, there will be even more immigrants, more single mothers, and more useless jobless welfare-dependent bastards with a crap state education that no one wants to hire.

It may well be that Breivic felt that there was a certain urgency in being both dramatic and unignorable that could not wait till the next election.

You see, if something is agreed to be necessary, then it follows that it is moral.

Necessary for what, you ask.

Necessary to stop Europe becoming a part of an Islamic empire after it is finished being part of the EU liberal feminist empire.

I am glad he had the moral discernment not to take it out on the Muslims but instead targeted the people who are members of the party that led them in and won't stop letting them in no matter how much the locals complain. If you are going to kill people, you might as well kill the people who are most to blame for your troubles, and Breivik thought this was the liberal political establishment who have been pooh-poohing the concerns of ordinary people for decades now. Indeed, anyone expressing concern to them is automatically labelled a bigot and a racist, until people are afraid to discuss the subject or unless they don't mind being called evil, extremist, Nazi, Fascist bigots.

This means that while people, especially politicians, are afraid to discuss this subject properly, the problem gets worse and more intractable until the people are presented with a fait accompli.

Breivic only wanted Norway to operate an immigration policy similar to the South Koreans and Japanese, apparently, which sounds pretty moderate to me, unless we are to call the Japanese and South Koreans 'extremist'.

Brievik says he wants to see a Europe modelled on the nations of Japan and South Korea, which he says represent a system “not far from cultural conservatism and nationalism at its best”.

Breivic only wanted Norway to operate an immigration policy similar to the South Koreans and Japanese, apparently. Perhaps these days that is considered 'extremist' by our demented liberal political classes?

'Admire' is perhaps a dangerous word to use in view of the violence used and the numbers killed, but if Breivic has by his actions made the liberal governments of Europe re-examine their policy of tolerating if not actively encouraging uncontrolled immigration while suppressing any criticism of this policy, and if it was the only way to make the governments of Europe re-examine this policy of encouraging social unrest, then perhaps his ruthlessness was necessary.   If this was indeed necessary, then perhaps it could be said that it is admirable.  Perhaps, then, the intransigence and arrogance of the liberal establishment in refusing to discuss topic properly and of vilifying those who dare to complain about immigration as evil and racist should take some of the blame for the violence Breivic felt was necessary to use in order to achieve his aim of having a full and frank debate about immigration.  It may be that the hypocritical and cowardly liberal establishment will even now continue to refuse to debate this matter and continue to demonise and suppress those who complain about immigration, but with even more illiberal ruthlessness than before.,8599,2084895,00.html#ixzz1T8KYj9PE

Around 2000, I realized that the democratic struggle against the Islamization of Europe, and European multiculturalism, was lost. It is simply not possible to compete with democratic regimes that import millions of voters. 40 years of dialogue with the cultural Marxists / multiculturalists had ended up as a disaster. It would now only take 50-70 years before we, Europeans, were the minority. So I decided to explore alternative forms of opposition. But the biggest problem then was that there were no options for me at all.