Tuesday 30 June 2009

Housing, Gordon Brown, the BNP and The Guardian

Another (yawn !) shit article in The Guardian attacking the BNP - and yet again the most informative part of the article are the comments ;

FOI request. Below is a list of new tenancies for the year ended 31 March 09 for social housing by Birmingham City Council, broken down by ethnicity. Thanks to Birmingham City Council for their open and prompt response. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to share it. Make of it what you will.

Afghani 25
Albanian / Kosovan 8
Any Other Asian Background 27
Any Other Black Background 46
Any Other Ethnic Background 67
Any Other Mixed Background 19
Any Other White Background 110
Arab 2
Asian Kashmiri 24
Bangladeshi 62
Black African 316
Black Caribbean 426
Black Somalian 184
Bosnian 1
Chinese 17
Gypsy / Roma 1
Indian 58
Information Not Yet Obtained 367
Iranian 30
Iraqi 26
Irish 84
Kurdish 55
Mixed Asian and Black 9
Mixed White and Asian 22
Mixed White and Black African 20
Mixed White and Black Caribbean 163
Other Eastern European 4
Other Western European 1
Pakistani 370
Refused 22
Traveller of Irish Heritage 1
Vietnamese 5
White British 2637
Yemeni 6

Total 5215

So 0ver 50 % of all council housing allocated so far in 2009 in Birmingham has gone to immigrants.

The author tells us. He kicks off by saying `most`, so under normal English usage that leaves a lot of scope for the rest. But there was an interesting CIF post today from a person called Chorus, for which thanks.

I worked in London Council Housing Department. We were inundated with calls from angry housing applicants complaining about "asylum seekers" jumping the queue. We generally viewed these people as racist and felt within our rights to end these conversations abruptly with a simple "Asylum Seekers aren't entitled to Council Housing." This was true, but it was disingenuous.....The reality was that statutorily vulnerable asylum seekers who had gained leave to remain in the UK often did automatically become entitled homeless applicants once their asylum application had been determined and the temporary housing support they were being provided by social services was withdrawn.

If you accept Chorus`s story, Mr. Fletcher looks exteremely close to being a liar.

Only last year Tower Hamlets council was considering a sons and daughters policy because Bangladeshi's wanted to live closer to their extended families. This policy was abandoned as racist years ago when Tower Hamlets was overwhemingly white.

This just about sums our politicians up, they have no qualms about breaking up white communities but go out their way not to do the same to other communities.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Questions and Answers

Social and legal impact of a BNP government

Q. Exactly how much of Britain’s current GDP, in terms of gross, net, and overall percentage figures, is a result of the non-white British population?

A - Who knows. Anyone who believes any of the bullshit pumped out by the present Labour government concerning any statistics related to immigration or immigration linked issues is an idiot. Neither the government nor the politically compromised public institutions who generate such statistics related to the effects of immigration on our economy can be trusted. Those that accept any such figures as either correct or partially correct from the government or the various QUANGO’s and civil service institutions it has politicised are the sort of people who respond to e mails from the ‘relatives’ of deposed ex-African presidents who have ten million dollars in the bank and they will send it you if you merely provide them with a ten thousand pound bridging loan.

Q. What would be the estimated financial loss to Britain’s GDP upon the withdrawal of all domestic assets by non-white British citizens submitting to “voluntary repatriation” or involved in pre-emptive emigration upon the election of a BNP government?

A - How can anyone assess the impact of such an issue when the government itself acknowledges that it does not have a clue how many immigrants, illegal immigrants, illegal entrants, asylum seekers or bogus asylum seekers are in the country. One of the first jobs of the BNP upon entering government will be to undertake an immediate National Population Audit. As part of this process once we have ascertained the actual figures of the above mentioned groups within our country then we will develop a programme to resolve such issues. Note that the BNP policy on voluntary repatriation, contrary to the facile and erroneous propaganda pumped out by the ignorant, the uninformed and the media, applies to everyone in the country regardless of race, religion, colour, creed or nationality. Everyone from Australians to those from Zaire will be given the opportunity to utilise the Voluntary Repatriation policy, the same way it is being used right now by the Labour government and as it was formerly used by previous Conservative governments.

Q. Exactly what kind of organised nationwide “re-education programme” would a BNP government initiate in order to bring the views of the British civilian population into line with the BNP’s policies and ideology?

A - The British people have been subjected to continuous political brainwashing by the Labour government as regards Multi-Culturalism, immigration and political correctness from the moment it came to power. At the same time the various anti-free speech laws that have been enacted by previous governments have created a climate of fear in our society as regards any debate on immigration and issues related to immigration. The BNP want to create a democratic society based on the principles of an Open Society, whereby people can speak freely and openly without fear about issues that concern them. The BNP seek to re-educate people about their basic British Constitutional rights and to create a society where free debate is no longer criminalised and our basic democratic rights usurped by the Marxist-Leninist ’Terrorism of the Word’ whereby anyone that dares say anything a Liberal Fascist disagrees with is, is no longer instantly called ’racist’.

Q. What will be the standard BNP procedure in order to deal with non-white British citizens who refuse voluntary repatriation and do not submit to compulsory repatriation?

A - As stated above the BNP policy on Voluntary Repatriation does not apply to just Non-Whites, it applies to all Naturalised British Citizens of all colours and races who have a Right Of Return ( leges sanguinis ) to their home nations.


Those Naturalised British Citizens that do not wish to take up the offer of Voluntary Repatriation are free to do so. The BNP policy is Voluntary Repatriation not Compulsory Repatriation. It is a pity that the people who compiled this list are not intelligent enough to understand the difference between the two policies. The BNP does not, and will not, ever support any policies of Compulsory Repatriation for Naturalised British Citizens.

Q. Specifically what procedures will a BNP government implement in order to “encourage” non-white British citizens to accept voluntary repatriation? Please provide the maximum level of detail possible.

A - None. This whole issue ‘ of encouraging non-white British citizens to accept voluntary repatriation’ is symptomatic of the ignorance and the psychosis of the person who compiled the questions. The policy will be VOLUNTARY. It will apply to all races, colours, religions etc not just non-whites. The only incentives offered will be financial assistance in relation to relocation grants and resettlement grants.

Q. Exactly what percentage of Britain’s foreign aid budget will be used in order to provide the “generous financial incentive” to encourage the voluntary repatriation of approximately 6 million non-white British citizens?

A - The entire foreign budget will be diverted from subsidising tyrants, corrupt oligarchs and aid dependent terror states in the Developing World into assisting the creation of civil societies in those nations through the talents and skills of voluntarily repatriated members of the diasporas of those nations. The theft of the most skilled, most talented and most essential people of Developing Nations such as doctors, nurses, economists and entrepreneurs over decades by the West, and especially nations such as Britain, has been a crime against humanity. As a result of this theft of the brightest and most talented people from the Developing World the African continent has been devastated. In the midst of the worst human crisis in history, the AID’s crisis, the NHS has robbed the African continent of its most essential people. This theft has been ’moralised’ by successive governments as sign of our counties ‘Strength through Diversity‘ ( a fascistic slogan if there ever was one), when in reality it is has been one of the greatest crimes against humanity of the post-colonial era.

We intend to assist the Developing World in building functional economies and civil societies where through trade and mutual co-operation we can work together to create nations that can take care of their own people, rather than nations that are dependent upon the charity of the West at the same time as we steal away the brightest and best people of those countries.

Q. What will be the total financial amount required in order to provide this “generous financial incentive” for up to 6 million people?

A - As stated above the figures cannot be ascertained until the true figures of actual numbers in our country are ascertained.

Q. Will Britain’s white/Caucasian population be subject to taxation by a BNP government in order to finance this incentive?

A - We intend to impose punitive taxation on those companies, individuals and corporations in Britain who have profited from the theft of the most skilled and essential people from the Developing World. Our tax policy will be essentially based on removing the profit from exploiting the Developing World and as a result this will ensure that civil societies in the Developing World are able to develop their own economies. Once we have assisted those nations in the development of their own civil societies and functional economies then those nations, in particular the Commonwealth nations, will be given trade deals whereby we both profit from the process. The cost to the tax payer will be less than it is today as at present. This is because the collapse of nations in the Developing World is borne financially by British citizens in relation to spending on mass immigration into the UK, asylum seeking into the UK and foreign aid to failed nation states. Once we end the exploitation of the Developing World all these pernicious dynamics will cease to exist and the British taxpayer will no longer have to subsidise the effects of post-colonial human resource theft from the Developing World nor the corporations that profit from stealing the people and resources of the Developing World.

Q. What will be the status of British citizens (both minors and legal adults) who are the children of one white/Caucasian parent and one non-white parent, specifically taking into consideration Nick Griffin’s recent response “I don’t care, drop them all over Africa”?

A - This is quite simply a lie. Nick Griffin never said that statement. Their status will be exactly as it is now.

Q. What will be the status of white/Caucasian British citizens married to non-white British citizens at the time of the election of a BNP government?

A - The exact same as it is now.

Q. What will be the legal status of the marriages detailed in point 47? Will they be declared void/illegal?

A - No. They will be the exact same as they are now.

Q. Exactly how will a BNP government “discourage” relationships between white/Caucasian British citizens and non-white British citizens?

A- It wont. Neither will it use public money to propagandise multi-culturalism and nor will it waste public money on politically correct facile stunts Black History Month. At the moment the only children taught an identity, and taught to be proud of their identity, are non-white children, Under a BNP government all children will be taught to be simply proud to be British and about British culture and history.

Q. Exactly how will a BNP government “discourage” British citizens involved in mixed-race relationships from having children?

A - It wont.

Q. Exactly what level of governmental monitoring and involvement in the private lives of British citizens does the BNP foresee in order to enforce the policies referenced in points 49 and 50?

A- None.

Q. What legal rights and protections will non-white British citizens not have, in comparison with the white/Caucasian British population? And will non-white British citizens be subject to any special taxation?

A - The same as today. Everyone will be taxed the same, except for those corporations, individuals and companies involved in asset stripping the Developing World.

Q. What voting rights in local & national British elections will non-white British citizens have, if any?

A- The exact same rights as everyone else.

Q. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian employees over non-white employees when individuals are being assessed for promotion, team composition, or workload assignment in the private sector?

A - The BNP will scrap all laws that allow Affirmative Action, Positive Discrimination and Racial Quotas, and abolish all laws that are racist against White British Citizens on the grounds of their race or sex. We will create a Meritocratic society where the brightest and the best get their jobs simply on the basis of talent, and where Whites are not penalised on the grounds of their race. It is the politically correct liberals that have, in the name of multi-culturalism and political correctness, created the most racist state in British history.

Q. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian candidates over non-white candidates for job vacancies in the private sector?

A - The BNP are going to scrap all politically correct Liberal Fascist laws that penalise Whites on the grounds of their race and that allow Affirmative Action and Positive Discrimination for less qualified non-whites. That means we will create a society where employers must only employ the best qualified applicant. If they do not do that then the employer will face financial sanctions. It is not in the interests of the nation or our national economy to have jobs taken by under qualified people simply because they are non-white or because of some 'racial quota'. We will ensure that the present anti-white racist system of employment law is scrapped and that employers will have a single legal duty placed upon them - that they must hire only the best qualified applicant regardless of race or any other factor. If they fail to do that then we will ensure they suffer financial liabilities.

Only in the event where it is a genuine occupational requirement for the job eg a Chinese restaurant in order to produce authentic Chinese cuisine must employ a British citizen of Chinese ancestry will the employer be allowed to employ only the best qualified applicant from that specified racial or ethnic group. The same would apply to Indian restaurants, Black owned businesses that cater exclusively to Back British clientele ( eg a hair dressers that offers specialised services for black clientele ). Only in such limited circumstances would a business be able to claim that race or ethnicty is a legitimate factor in the operation of their business and be allowed to employ the best qualified applicant from within that specified racial or ethnic group.

Q. Exactly how would a BNP government enforce first preference being given to white/Caucasian clients/customers over non-white clients/customers when professional services are being provided by individuals and companies in the private sector?

A- It wont. It will allow individuals and companies to hire only the best qualified person for the job, not ‘tokens’ who are being employed to ensure compliance with some politically correct ’race quota’ imposed upon them by the government.

In most cases employers will not be able to claim any race based exemption to their employment policy and as such they will be offering their services to the entire community and onlyh allowed to employ only the best qualified applicant regardless of their race. Only those companies that offer specialised services for specific sections of the British community based on race or ethnicity, and whose occupational requirements require a race based exemption from the principle of hiring solely on the basis of the best qualifications, will be able legally to offer their services solely to that specific community and utilise a race based proviso to their employment policies.

If Black British citizens in the UK wish to set up businesses that serve only black clientele and employ only black staff then they will be free to do so. If the owners of Turkish kebab shops want to serve only British citizens of Turkish ancestry in their shops and employ only British citizens of Turkish descent they will be allowed too. If a White British citizen only wants to sell his products to White British citizens and employ on White British staff then they will be allowed too. If Chinese takeaways want to serve only British citizens of Chinese ancestry and employ only British citizens of Chinese ancestry they will be allowed too. If Indian takeaways only want to serve British citizens of Indian descent and only employ British citizens of Indian descent as cooks and waiters in their shops they will be allowed too.

Q. Exactly how would a BNP government ensure the continued viability and competitiveness of British private companies nationally and (subject to global sanctions and trade embargoes) internationally if the primary criteria in relation to point 61 is race, rather than business & financial benefit?

A - As stated above this scenario will not apply as it is predicated upon a false premise. We do not intend any such ’race based’ rules on businesses, therefore such a scenario will not occur.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday 29 June 2009

Beauty and The Beast

Whilst all the publicity about the child rapist Michael Jackson has dominated the news, we have forgotten the beautiful Farrah Fawcett-Majors who died the same day as Wacko Jacko.

Truly a case of forgetting the Beauty and seeing only the Beast.

My first sexual awakening was watching Farrah Fawcett-Majors in Charlies Angels when she and rest of the girls wore bikinis on the beach one episode.

One never forgets ones first moment of sexual desire, it is a seminal moment (forgive the pun) in a young mans life.

Unlike the Beast the Beauty simply spent her life trying to be beautiful.

The world is now uglier without her beauty.


Her wings have now folded on this world,
And no more will she dance on the wind,
Her beauty a fragile flutter, so delicate,
Graces no more this cell of cold rock,
And so we are all lessened by her loss,
The day is darker, and the night a star less,
For without such beauty to inspire us,
Then the future we seek is already lost.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Michael Jackson - Orbituary

Image - Michael Jackson and the Chimp named Bubbles that he did not blow.

I once worked with a man called Michael so, according to the standards of BBC news journalism as evidenced by their many interviewee’s about Jacko over recent days, I am more than qualified to write an obituary for Michael Jackson.

A friend of mine once actually went to see Michal Jackson in concert and I personally once stood less than a yard from him (though also separated by two inches of bullet proof glass) when he visited London to see his waxwork at Madame Tussaud’s.

Therefore I count myself as friend of Michael Jackson as he waved to me with his white gloved right hand as the limousine he was in sped down Oxford Street.

I felt a connection at that moment, a meeting of kindred souls, and therefore I feel that Michael would have wanted me to write this obituary for him.

In an era when talent became superfluous as regards the accumulation of fame, public acclaim, commercial success and vast wealth - Michael Jackson excelled.

With none of the song writing skills of Otis Redding, lacking the voice of Marvin Gaye, the energy of Little Richard, the passion of Chuck Berry, the musicianship of Jimi Hendrix, the spirituality of Bob Marley, the dancing ability of Sammy Davis Junior and none of the raw talent and sexuality of Prince, the rap skills of Chuck D and the charisma of Phil Lynott - yet Michael Jackson outshone them all, thereby proving that in the era of MTV what mattered was a good video and not decent songs or talent.

Michael Jackson was a plastic personality, both literally and figuratively, in an era of plastic pop music.

He is also the only human who has so far gone from Black to White, had three mixed race children (even though he was a closet homosexual) and then joined the Nation of Islam.

I wonder what Michael though of his half 'white devil' children that he produced via wanking into a cup and then having them impregnate a donated egg ?

He could moonwalk, he could mime and he hired top film directors to make his videos and for the ’yoof’ ( well actually, sad people below the age of 45 who were deprived of a real musical education during their developmental years due to the rise of pop videos and MTV and the replacement of talent and integrity in performers with visuals and publicity ) that was all that was important.

If commercial sales and popularity are more important than talent and integrity then Michael Jackson was rightfully called the King of Pop (though I suspect a misspelling here, as it should have been King of Pap).

His songs were all sub-Disco type shite with trite lyrics obsessed with the loss of girlfriends (which he never really had as he was a closet poof even though he married Elvis's daughter in order to hide this fact, a techniquie which is known in the Music Biz as 'Doing an Elton John' ), Zombies (which he came to resemble after botched plastic surgery operations), the loss of a pet rat (a tragic incident in his youth which in the minds of journalists and pop writers was the soul destroying equivalent of a prolonged stay in Auschwitz) and anti-racism (apparently if we were all pianos instead of people all we ’Ebony and Ivory’s’ would all get along - though we would have to put up with being fingered by Jacko, a not very nice thought).

Jacko’s dad also wasn’t a very nice man to him during his childhood when he was forced to sing and dance onstage for a living and this was the cause of much of his later torment ( though of course his 'plight' was hardly in the same league as being stuffed up a chimney, working in an Indian sweat shop or being a boy soldier in some evil African civil war) and due to this we were supposed to forgive him for his fondness for raping little boys.

After being repeatedly accused of being a serial child rapist, he was acquitted in a criminal trial and, according to people who know fuck all about the law, this made him innocent - the same as O.J. Simpson being acquitted also made him innocent.

What is remarkable is that both Jacko and O.J.Simpson had a fondness for wearing gloves. O.J. liked to kill people whilst wearing them and Jacko liked wearing them on stage. This coincidence may be of interest to psychologists and insane people.

Michael Jackson was fortunately not a West Ham fan as if he had ever sung ’ I am forever blowing bubbles’, at any football matches, this may well have led to serious animal rights abuse questions concerning his friendship and bed sharing with a Chimp named Bubbles who he later abandoned.

After his death the retards in our country, known as Jacko Fans, sent his crap albums back to Number One in the pop charts again - showing that most people really are as fucking stupid as we knew they were.

He died an emaciated pathetic junkie who had wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on a life of utter profligacy and consumerism, having become an icon of selfishness and stupidity in an era when others such as ugly birds with massive plastic tits, talentless singers, overpaid arsehole professional sports stars, inane actors, and ’celebrity’ dickheads really set the bar for such iconic status.

You could have coated a turd in gold leaf and Michael Jackson would have bought it for ten million dollars.

Michael Jacksons main legacy are his fans, the Zombie army of the brain-dead that he first prefigured in his famous Thriller video.

These are the insane ghouls that crowd around the spot where he last shot up and died, who put flowers on the gates of the Neverland ranch where he did most of his child raping and sodomising of little boys and who are seen onstage at the MOBO awards doing idiotic copies of his crap dances in order to provide solace for a generation of blacks in America who were raised without any positive role models in the mass media except gangsters, killers and crap rap and pop stars.

Today the weep worlds for Michael Jackson, though tomorrow his memory will be just another soggy crumpled Kleenex in the dustbin of history.

Within a decade his albums will be bargain bucket specials and the thriller video a cultural ‘comfort blanket’ solely for the ‘yoof’ who never grew up and who never knew what real musical talent was.

Add to Technorati Favorites

More Labour Bullshit To Win Votes

Here we go again.

More old bollocks from Gordon Brown.

If you believe this below then please send me a cheque for ten thousand dollars as I have a zillion dollars to exchange as my uncle was the Finance Minister in Papua New Guinea. The idea that the government will actually have the time to pass such laws before they get kicked out and are replaced by the fop Cameron is pure nonsense.

The fact that the Labour government are now making up their housing policies and enacting legislation, including apparently brining in ew laws to tackle BNP leaflets shows us three things ;

1) The BNP is now making the government take notice of the interests of the indigenous British people for a change and out our interests first.

From British jobs to British workers, housing and the chaos of multi-culturalism - it is the BNP that is making the government act. A vote for the BNP makes real changes in British society.

2) The government are totally terrified of the BNP and are floundering around backtracking like crazy over the insane laws they have passed over recent years.

3) The government are now stealing BNP policies, showing the public that we are the only ones with any decent political ideas.

Gordon Brown - a bankrupt politician in a bankrupt country.

The BNP - Leading the way to a New Britain.


British-born families will jump ahead of immigrants and asylum seekers in the queue for council housing under far-reaching plans unveiled today.

Gordon Brown will tear up the rules in a bid to win back Labour's working class heartlands, where support has grown for the far-Right British National Party.

The 'British homes for British workers' plan, if it succeeds, will force councils to end the unfairness which sees immigrants with large families vault to the top of the council house list.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Obama Betrays America's Poorest and Sick

You idiots thought you were voting in a socialist who would assist the poor, instead you elected a Capitalist stooge who gave hundreds of billions to the rich Bankers.

Now you are about to watch as the poorest, the ill and the most vulnerable are dumped.

You reap what you sow, when you sow bad seed.


Obama calls for cuts in Medicare and Medicaid

16 June 2009

Over the weekend, President Barack Obama called for cuts in funding for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health insurance programs for the elderly and the poor, including the elimination of subsidies for hospitals that treat uninsured patients. This proposal, combined with plans to limit medical tests and treatments, underscores the reactionary, anti-working class character of Obama’s proposed “reform” of the health care system.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the essence of the administration’s health care policy, under the guise of universal coverage, is a downgrading of care for the majority of the population so as to cut health care costs for business and the government.

Administration spokesmen have also indicated that Obama is receptive to the idea of taxing workers for the health benefits they receive from their employers—something for which he denounced his opponent, Senator John McCain, during last year’s presidential election campaign.

In a speech before the American Medical Association (AMA) in Chicago on Monday, President Obama made it clear that his health care reform would in no way impinge on the profit interests of insurance companies, hospital chains and drug companies. He added that he was open to limiting the ability of patients to pursue medical malpractice suits.

As he has done before, Obama framed the health care issue entirely from the standpoint of containing rising costs that are fueling federal budget deficits and undermining the competitiveness of US corporations. The fact that nearly 50 million Americans are uninsured and tens of millions more cannot afford adequate health care was chiefly raised to point to the added costs of unpaid emergency room visits.

Rising health care costs, particularly for the government-run Medicare and Medicaid programs for the elderly and the poor, the president said, were a “ticking time-bomb for the federal budget” and “unsustainable.” If the health care system was not fixed, he warned, “America may go the way of GM,” referring to the bankrupt automaker.

The cost of his plan—estimated to be a trillion dollars over the next ten years—would be “budget neutral,” he said, and would be funded through cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, along with “modestly limiting the tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take to the same level it was at the end of the Reagan years.”

The president plans to cut $313 billion over the next decade from the two federal health programs by limiting the growth of Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and health care providers. He also said he was open to expanding the role of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission—a body set up by the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Congress in 1997—to save another $200 billion.

As the Wall Street Journal noted Monday, “New York City offers a window into what could happen when payments to safety-net hospitals are cut. Already running at a deficit, the city’s public hospital system is looking at $150 million in state Medicaid cuts for next year. Next month, it will close some outpatient services, such as community-based primary and preventive-care offices.

“’We are in a position already where we are making painful decisions that require us to reduce access and services,’ said Alan D. Aviles, president and chief executive of the system, known as the Health and Hospitals Corp.”

Under the terms of Obama’s plan, the wealthy would still have access to the best medical care while tens of millions of working people would have a choice of lower standard plans available in a so-called Health Insurance Exchange, where coverage was limited to what one could afford. This would include a government-subsidized “public option,” he said, which “would inject competition into the health care market to force waste out of the system.”

Far from guaranteeing decent health care for the population, the program would create a system, dominated by private companies seeking to maximize their profits, where health care for working and poor people was rationed according to its “cost-effectiveness.” Doctors would be under intense pressure from government “advisory boards” not to order tests, use drugs or carry out medical treatments that were deemed too expensive.

Obama recently told the New York Times that prolonging the lives of terminally ill and very old people presently accounts for 80 percent of the total health care bill. He suggested that such outlays might not be cost-effective.

In his speech before the AMA—a body that opposed the establishment of Medicare in the 1960s—Obama gave assurances that his proposal for a public insurance option as part of his reform did not threaten private markets. He said, “The public option is not your enemy; it is your friend.” He denounced those who claimed it was a “Trojan horse for a single-payer system” like those in Europe, and said it was “important for us to build on our traditions here in the United States,” i.e., to maintain a system based on the profit principle.

Obama brought the AMA delegates to their feet by declaring that he was willing to provide relief to doctors facing the high cost of malpractice lawsuits—long a plank of the Republican Party. “I recognize,” he said, that “some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable,” he said, assuring them that “evidence-based” guidelines established by the government would allow physicians to “scale back the excessive defensive medicine,” which supposedly plagued the health care system.

The socially destructive implications of Obama’s health care plan are spelled out in a recent book by Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and a medical advisor to the administration. In a review of the book, Health Care Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America, the New York Review of Books wrote that under Emanuel’s proposal, “Employee-based insurance would disappear,” and “Medicaid would also end and Medicare would be gradually phased out.”

In opposition to this reactionary plan, the working class must advance its own answer to the health care crisis, based on the nationalization under workers’ control of the insurance and pharmaceutical giants and the hospital chains, and the establishment of a genuine system of socialized medicine to meet human needs, not private profit.

Jerry White

Add to Technorati Favorites

California = Liberal Blowback

Liberalism created a hell and called it multi-culturalism.

Now that hell is about to engulf you.

You deserve all you get you liberal idiots.


California...Here We Come!
By Pat Buchanan

PALM SPRINGS, Ca -- In just a few weeks time, California hits the wall.

And Americans should take a good, long look at the fiscal and social wreck of the Golden Land, because California is at a place to which all of America is heading.

In May, when five fund-raising proposals were put on the ballot, Gov. Schwarzenegger pleaded with the overtaxed Californians not to make their state "the poster child for dysfunction."

As The Economist writes, "On May 18th, they did exactly that."

Arnold went to the White House for U.S. loan guarantees for new state bonds. But with the president's approval rating wilting because of a belief he is spending too much, the Obama-ites slammed the door.
In Sacramento, a Republican blocking force is resisting any new tax revenue. And with the state under a constitutional mandate to balance its budget, yet facing a $24 billion deficit this July, a chainsaw is about to be taken to state government.

Some 38,000 of 168,000 state prisoners may be released. As Barack Obama is pushing universal health insurance, California will cut Medi-Cal for the poor. Education will be slashed, resulting in a shortened school year, thousands of laid-off teachers, school closings and an end to summer programs in a system that has plummeted from the nation's best to one of its worst, as measured by dropout rates and academic achievement.

The 10 campuses of the University of California face cuts that may result in 50,000 fewer students and 5,000 fewer teachers.

What makes her fiscal crisis relevant to us all is not only that California is our most populous state, with one in eight Americans living there, but California has a gross domestic product larger than Canada's.
Moreover, the demography of California today is the demography of America tomorrow, just as the social and fiscal policies of California in the last decade mirror those of the U.S. government today.

One-third of all U.S. wage-earners today have been amnestied from paying U.S. income taxes, as the top 1 percent haul fully 40 percent of that huge load. So, too, in California, the well-to-do and the wealthy are hammered, which is why many have quietly closed their businesses, packed and gone back over the mountains whence their fathers came.

Under George W. Bush and Obama, the U.S. government has undertaken huge new responsibilities: No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drug benefits, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the takeovers of banks and auto companies, bailouts without end and national health insurance.

California, too, spent lavishly in the fat years and issued bonds when state revenues did not cover the costs, bringing its once-sterling credit rating down to the nation's lowest. So, too, U.S. Treasury bonds, T-bills and the American dollar are now increasingly suspect.

Demographically, California is where America will be in 2040.

White folks, who are leaving California as they did in the millions in the 1990s, are below half the population. Hispanics, their numbers surging due to legal and illegal immigration, are well over a third of the population. The African-American share of California's population is also falling, as the Asian share is rising, again from immigration.

Los Angeles, which is what most large American cities will look like, is the most diverse city on earth. Has diversity been a strength?

In the prisons and jails, and among the scores of thousands in street gangs and the underclass, a black-brown civil war is underway.

In October 2006, the Financial Times reported the findings of the famed author of "Bowling Alone" on what diversity has wrought:

"A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University's Robert Putnam, one of the world's most influential political scientists. His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone - from their next-door neighbor to the mayor."

"In the presence of diversity, we hunker down," said Putnam. "We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us."

"Professor Putnam," said the Financial Times, "found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, 'the most diverse human habitation in human history.'"

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan carried California nine times. But the state is now a fiefdom of liberalism. John McCain's share of the vote was smaller than Barry Goldwater's. California today believes in Big Government, open borders, diversity, multiculturalism and the politics of compassion. But what liberalism has wrought in California, its native-born are fleeing.

Still, where California is at, America is headed.

Californians who are running away from the communities and towns in which they were raised have Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Utah and Nevada to head to. But when all of America arrives at where California is at today, where do the Americans run to?

Patrick Buchanan is the author of the new book "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday 28 June 2009

Peter Herbert - Liberal Fascist Hypocrite

Here we go again.

Another liberal fascist idiot has crawled out of his hole and demanded a further restriction on our rights of free speech and a further erosion of our democratic rights because he doesnt like the fact that people are seeing through the lies and propaganda of the failed multi-cultural Two Party Liberal Fascist State and are voting for the BNP.

Liberal Fascists like Peter Herbet are the most loathsome people on the planet, for they are the enemies of free speech and liberty who hide their fascism beneath a thin veneer of politically correct moral cant.

Peter Herbert of the Society of Black Lawyers doesnt like the BNP.

Big deal.

It appears this liberal fascist hypocrite thinks he and members of the black community should have the right to run and join ethno-centric organisations that represent the collective interests of their community, but that whites should not have the same rights as all other groups in our supposedly 'equal' multi-cultural society.

Seeing as the BNP is the only organisation that represents the interests of the White Indigenous British community in the political process, then attacking the BNP is evidence of the racist motivation of such people.

Peter Herbert is a racist, but is too stupid to realise he is.

Theres nothing more sickening than a liberal fascist who is so thick they are unable to see they are nothing more than a sickening hypocrite.

Furher proof if it was needed that multi-culturalism, democracy and free speech are incompatible.

The logical absurdities in his garbled and ridiculous arguments in the article below are so amateurish that one wonders how this insidious little creep ever got to be a judge.

They must be hard up for judges if such people are being elevated to the bench - it apears that a basic requirement for the ability to understand legal logic and arguments is no longer required these days.

The 'insider' at the CPS who said that distributing leaflets in the street is not considered as being 'in public' must have been the teaboy in the office as it appears that the idiot doesnt even have a basic understanding of the law.

The idea that being in a street and distributing leaflets is not a 'public act' is probably the most pathetic thing I have read for a long time.

One wonders if these are the fools employed by the CPS then its no wonder only 1 in 100 cases ends up in court and the convictions rates so pathetic.

These comments by Herbert and The Insider are scandalously stupid.

The idea that the BNP delivers illegal leaflets is simply pure bullshit.

Every leaflet the BNP delivers is legal - and if the Liberal Fascist morons that support Herbert manage to change the law then we will simply change our leaflets again to ensure we are within the law.

The idiots like Herbert wont stop us delivering leaflets - they will only kill democracy and free speech in their insane pursuit to try and stop the rise of the BNP and nationalist politics.

We will evolve and adapt, and at the same time we will point out that yet again the morons in the Labour Party are destroying our right of free speech.

We will turn any assault on us into an assault on free speech and use it as evidence that the real fascists are the Liberals that are removing our rights of free speech.


Senior prosecutors are calling for the laws on race hate crimes to be strengthened to counter the threat posed by the British National party.

The threshold for securing a conviction is so high that far-right activists are able to evade prosecution for material that many people would consider to be threatening and racist, according to sources at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Prosecutors blame the lack of convictions on the strict legal test, which requires showing an intention to "stir up racial hatred" or a likelihood that racial tension would be stirred up.

The offence, which was created under the Public Order Act, only applies to acts that take place or are witnessed in public so it does not cover leaflets that are pushed through people's letter boxes. It also offers no protection against the publication of inaccurate or false information.

Several BNP leaflets have been referred to the CPS over the last five years – some by senior police officers and one by a judge – but no further action has been taken.

Peter Herbert, the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers and a part-time judge, submitted a complaint last year over a leaflet called The Changing Face of London that had two pictures, one depicting an all-white street party from the 1950s, the other showing three Muslim women wearing a niqab, one of whom is making a V-sign towards the camera.

"Under the law, it has been extremely difficult to mount a prosecution against extremism and hate speech," said Herbert. "But with the rise of the BNP, and the subsequent rise in racist attacks and the fear the party's leaflets can provoke, it is essential we are given the tools to deal effectively with this threat."

Herbert said the law should protect people from material that creates a fear of racist attacks as well as those that are deemed to incite racial hatred. "All the evidence suggests that it is people from minority communities and the faith communities that are put in fear of violence when racist leaflets are delivered in town centres or on estates. If someone handed out the same thing in the workplace, most employers would consider that gross misconduct; if someone does the same thing in the street, there is very little we can do."

Another complaint was submitted to the CPS by Lancashire police who expressed concern about a BNP leaflet which blamed Muslims for the heroin trade. Four people were arrested and released on police bail last year but detectives are still waiting to hear from the CPS about whether they have grounds to prosecute for "incitement to stir up racial hatred".

In another incident, Derbyshire police alerted the CPS about a BNP election leaflet claiming three asylum seekers had raped a woman. The police said the rape claims were "unfounded", but the CPS said there were no grounds to prosecute under existing law. "Whilst those details in the leaflet regarding the alleged rape are factually incorrect, this in itself does not constitute a criminal offence," said a CPS spokesman at the time.

A senior prosecutor told the Guardian: "There are numerous problems. The test to show incitement is very high and the material has to be distributed in public rather than put through people's doors. This makes it really difficult to get convictions for material which many people consider racist."

A CPS source confirmed that the organisation would review its policies on prosecuting race hate crimes following the election of two BNP candidates, including the party's leader, Nick Griffin, to the European parliament.

"We will need to look again at the situation with prosecuting incidences of this material," the source said.

Last week, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the official watchdog on race and equality, wrote a formal letter to the BNP giving them one month to remedy three alleged breaches of the Race Relations Act, including the party's whites-only membership policy.

That announcement increased the likelihood of legal action against the BNP in the civil courts, but critics say there have been too few criminal proceedings, despite material distributed by the party which many regard as inflammatory.

Herbert, the former chair of the Metropolitan police race hate crime forum, said a number of anti-racism and human rights bodies would back a change in the law.

"I expect a strong coalition will form around this idea and put pressure on the government to instigate a change in primary legislation as soon as possible," he said.

Anti-racism campaigners welcomed the crackdown on inflammatory or racist leaflets but warned more was needed to effectively counter the threat posed by the BNP.

"Where the BNP has been distributing racially offensive material, it is right that they should be prosecuted with the full force of the law," said a spokesman for the anti-fascist organisation Searchlight. "However, the way we will defeat Nick Griffin and his party is street by street and estate by estate, not lawyer by lawyer and courtroom by courtroom."

Add to Technorati Favorites

Add to Technorati Favorites

Obama Pledge Of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flags of the United States and Israel,
And to the Zionist elite for whom we wage War,
Two nations indivisible, ruled by the Dollar,
Devoid of Liberty, Justice and Honour,
Invading nations for oil, enslaving one and all.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Michael Jackson - An Apology

I wish to make an apology concerning my articles posted on this blog about Michael Jackson.

I am truly sorry.

I am truly sorry that I did not realise how sick, insane, disturbed evil scum you Michael Jackson fans really are.

Now I know I realise that you couldnt give a fuck if your evil pervert pederast hero had raped a million little kids - all that mattered to you was the image you saw of Michael Jackson that you saw in the pop videos and that he portrayed in his interviews which you thought were real.

If you had watched him rape children then you still would have forgiven him or sought to hide the truth and make excuses for him.

You are the sort or morons that believe everything you read in the media that your heroes like to have publicised about them.

Michael Jackson was a homosexual - this is now widely known.

Yet how many of the idiotic Jackson fans will ever admit to themselves and the world that their hero was a homosexual who had a string of homosexual affairs with men he often picked up in bars and restaurants.

( Article here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196009/Im-better-dead-Im-How-Michael-Jackson-predicted-death-months-ago.html )

None thats how many - even admitting their hero was a homosexual is a psychological step too far for them. Getting them to admit he was a homosexual and repeated child rapist is something they psychologically could never ever do.

He was a sick pederast who deserved to be hanged for his crimes against children.

Just because there are plenty of you moronic lemmings that believe all the bullshit he sought to have pumped out in the media about him being a decent human being doesnt make it true.

Michael Jackson raped little boys. He was scum. Deal with it you morons.

But what I have now realised is that his fans are even sicker then he was.

Take the article here ;


Read the comments about the child who was molested by Jackson that have been posted up by his 'fans'.

They dont care about what suffering this child went through, the pain, the anguish, or the hatred that is directed at this victim of repeated rapes by the sick pederast Jackson - all they care about is defending the name of Jackson and slandering the victims of his crimes.

You are one sick evil bunch of bastards - and you deserve to rot in hell beside your pederast scumbag hero.

Jackson paid the child and his family 22 million dollars to ensure he did not testify against him in court.

22 million dollars - which represents the largest bribe in the history of the planet to stop someone testifying at trial.

If you are innocent you have nothing to hide.

If you are guilty, and it can be proved you are guilty, then 22 million dollars is a pretty cheap pay off when the alternative is the rest of your life in prison labelled as a paedophile.

Yet you sit there like a bunch of brain dead fucking lemmings believing all the bullshit and publicity that Jackson and his team of spin doctors and publicists pumped out to the media.

You are weeping for one of the most evil, cynical, manipulative child rapists in history - you disgust me.

Your money that you spent on his shit records was used by Jackson to hire the best lawyers in America who then defended him in court.

If Jackson had been 'Mr. Joe Average Paedophile Suspect' with just the usual bog standard court appointed public lawyer to defend him in his criminal trial that 99.99 % of paedophiles get to represent them in the American courts for their trials, he would have been convicted, jailed and would still have been in prison today.

Even the jurors thought the evidence showed he was guilty but that psychologically they could not accept what he had done as they had been so conditoned by the media image of Jackson that they could not vote in accord with what their logical brain was saying (which was that he was guilty) as the effects of decades of subliminal media conditioning meant they could not accept reality as opposed to the power of media conditioning to which they had been subjected too.

Jackson had become an archetypal figure in their minds through his endless appearance in the media -and they were forced to confront this archetype in the trial as well as processing the evidence.

Jackson never got a fair trial - at every moment the entire process was rigged in his favour - from the years of media conditioning that had been pumped out into the minds of the jurors from the media, the money he spent on his lawyers, the fact that the victim only got the bog standard state lawyers in the trial to the fact that the names of the jurors would have been released to the media after the trial and they would have been attacked, threatened and villified by the insane Jackson fans if they had convicted him.

At every level of the trial process Jackson was set to win.

( Article here - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8880663/ )

Instead your money as fans funded the best defence that money could buy - and your money dragged an innocent child through court, slandered his name, ruined his life and acquited a repeated child rapist.


You are so stupid it sickens me. You were sold an image by the media who peddled an ideal of what Jackson was and you believed it like the dumb fuckers you really are.

You are as much an accomplice to Jacksons crimes as he was guilty of them.

Your money allowed Jackson to buy the silence of Jordy Chandler and to get off the child abuse case that went to court.

Jodry Chandler and his state appointed lawyer knew that if they went to court they would face the best lawyers that money could buy and in America money always buys justice (or buys it off) - so they took the money and tried to get over the evil done to them by Jackson.

Some of the people in the comments were saying ' Why did they allow their child to continue to stay with Michael Jackson if they were worried about what was happening'.

The answer is simple you dumb fucks - the parents of this child could not believe that Michael Jackson could or would do such a thing to their child.

Michael Jackson - the child lover, Mr.We are the world, we are the children - was the last person in the world that they could have expected to abuse their child.

Just like you fucking lemmings they believed the media image was the real Jackson - and so they hid their suspicions and continued to trust the nonce as he molested their children in secret.

Just like you they believed all the publicity about Jackson and sought to hide away from the reality of the situation.

It was Michael Jackon after all - Michael would never molest children would he, seeing as he was always in the media saying how much he loved children.

Michael Jackson fans are evil and sick people.

They are proof positive of the sick society we live in and how much power the media has to manipulate the minds of the gullible, the stupid and ignorant.

All human beings when told of such serious allegations against an individual would have put the interests of the child first and assumed the precautionary principle and prevented Jackson from going near children in order to put the interests of the child first.

Yet you people put the interests of your idiotic perceptions of Jackson, and the interests of Jackson himself, before those of the children he had abused.

You people who support Michael Jackson are not human beings.

You are empty ciphers, media drones who believed the media bullshit, publicity and lies before you believed the testimony of terrified, violated, abused, hounded and villified childen.

You disgust me.

I am glad Jackson is dead.

I hope he suffered as he died and saw the images of what he did to those kids as he faded away.

I am glad he is dead as he can now no longer abuse any more little kids in the future.

The grooming of the children, from the showing of horror films to scare them into his bed, to the emotional maipulation of them and the silence he imposed upon them with threats - all these prove that he must have been an accomplished serial rapist.

I hope the sick pederast is rotting in some particularly nasty section of hell that is reserved for child molesters.

I also hope that one day all you sick fuck Jackson supporters find yourself in the same hell as Jackson as you, your stupidity and cruelty paid for him to hide his crimes and evade justice.

You deserve to rot in hell with Jackson, for those that give their money to pederasts are facilitators of that abuse.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Liberal Fascism - the liberals are the real fascists

Heil Woodrow!

Coming of age in the 1960s, I heard the word “fascist” all the time. College presidents were fascists, Vietnam War supporters were fascists, policemen who tangled with protesters were fascists, on and on. To some, the word smacked of Hitler and genocide. To others, it meant the oppression of the masses by the privileged few. But one point was crystal clear: the word belonged to those on the political left. It was their verbal weapon, and they used it every chance they got.

Leftists still drop the “f word” to taint their opponents, be they global warming skeptics or members of the Moral Majority. The sad result, Goldberg says, is that Americans have come to equate fascism with right-wing political movements in the United States when, in fact, the reverse is true. To his mind, it is liberalism, not conservatism, that embraces what he claims is the fascist ideal of perfecting society through a powerful state run by omniscient leaders. And it is liberals, not conservatives, who see government coercion as the key to getting things done.

“Liberal Fascism” is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults — no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.

According to Goldberg, fascism in America predated the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. He believes that Woodrow Wilson turned the United States into a “fascist country, albeit temporarily” during World War I. Americans in 1917 were reluctant to join the slaughter in Europe. Their nation hadn’t been attacked; there was no defining event — a Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor — to rally public support. So Wilson formed the country’s first propaganda ministry, the Committee on Public Information, to teach people what they were up against. The devil became German militarism — the merciless Hun — and Americans were encouraged to lash out at those of German ancestry inside the United States. Vigilante groups arose to mete out justice and spy on fellow citizens. Congress passed draconian laws banning “abusive” and “disloyal” language against the government and its officials. The Post Office revoked the mailing privileges of hundreds of antiwar publications, effectively shutting them down. Rarely if ever in American history has dissent been so effectively stifled.

At the same time, Wilson formed numerous boards to regulate everything from the production of artillery pieces to the price of a lamb chop. The result, Goldberg argues, was the birth of a socialist dictatorship that “whipped, cajoled and seduced American industry into the loving embrace of the state.” Though partly dismantled after the war, this model, we are told, became the blueprint for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Goldberg is less convincing here because he can’t get a handle on Roosevelt’s admittedly elusive personality. He treats Wilson as a serious thinker, rigidly focused on his goals, but portrays Roosevelt as a classic dilettante, shallow and detached. For Goldberg, even the president’s greatest skill — his ability to communicate with the masses — was negated by his failure to chart a steady course and stick to it. One is left to ponder how the outlines of America’s modern welfare state emerged from such a lazy, superficial mind.

In attempting to link Roosevelt to the fascism that enveloped Europe in these years, Goldberg highlights examples like the Civilian Conservation Corps, which offered a paycheck and military discipline to unemployed young men from the cities, and the National Recovery Administration, which was intended to spur industrial production through centralized planning. But it’s absurd to view the C.C.C. as the American version of Hitler Youth, and the N.R.A. — heavy on slogans, light on coercion — was so ineffective that Roosevelt heaved a sigh of relief when it was declared unconstitutional in 1935. Oddly, Goldberg has less to say about issues more likely to bolster his case, like the enormous growth of executive power under Roosevelt and his ill-fated attempt to “pack” the United States Supreme Court.

Goldberg acknowledges that Wilson and Roosevelt faced legitimate national emergencies — a world war and an economic collapse. But subsequent presidents have invented false crises to roil the masses, he claims, and John F. Kennedy did it best. “It is not a joyful thing to impugn an American hero and icon with the label fascist,” Goldberg writes, but how else does one explain his popularity? The answer lies not in Kennedy’s record, which Goldberg assures us was slim, but rather in his cold-war brinkmanship, his “adrenaline-soaked” appeals to national service and martial values, and, of course, the Nazi-like cult of personality that he buffed to gleaming perfection.

Is something missing here? Goldberg races from Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and on to Bill Clinton with barely a glance at what happened in between. The reason is simple: for Goldberg, fascism is strictly a Democratic disease. This allows him to dispose of the politics of the 1920s in a single sentence. “After the Great War,” he writes, “the country slowly regained its sanity.” What Goldberg may not know — or is afraid to tell us — is that the 1920s were anything but sane. This was the decade, after all, that contained the largest state-sponsored social experiment in the nation’s history — Prohibition — and it lasted through three Republican administrations before Franklin Roosevelt ended it in 1933. The 1920s also saw the explosive spread of the Ku Klux Klan in the Republican Midwest, a virtual halt to legal immigration under the repressive National Origins Act and an angry grass-roots backlash against the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Goldberg briefly enters the Eisenhower 1950s to tease liberals for whining about the supposedly trivial impact of McCarthyism. “A few Hollywood writers who’d supported Stalin and then lied about it lost their jobs,” he says. What’s the big deal? For the Reagan 1980s there is near-silence — hardly a word. I had entertained the slim hope that Goldberg might consider the “fascist” cult of personality surrounding Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” hokum (“Prouder, Stronger, Better”). But, alas, such scrutiny is reserved only for the Clinton presidential campaign of 1992, with its “Riefenstahlesque film of a teenage Bill Clinton shaking hands with President Kennedy.” Indeed, even George W. Bush’s spectacularly staged landing on an aircraft carrier in full battle regalia to declare “mission accomplished” in Iraq escapes notice here. It doesn’t take a village for Goldberg to play the fascist card; a single Democrat will do.

The final chapters of “Liberal Fascism” are a rant, often deliciously amusing, against America’s numerous liberal-fascist elites. In unexciting times, when there are no calamities to be addressed, liberals push a more robust social agenda, Goldberg claims, using the state and the friendly news media to tar opponents of, say, affirmative action or same-sex marriage as bigots, fanatics and fools. The task facing conservatives, he adds, is to hold liberals accountable for these jackboot tactics. “For at some point,” Goldberg writes, “it is necessary to throw down the gauntlet, to draw a line in the sand, to set a boundary, to cry at long last, ‘Enough is enough.’”

These are familiar words, eerily reminiscent of the “adrelaline-soaked” clichés of John F. Kennedy as he railed against Soviet expansion around the globe. But I dare not call them fascist. That would be unfair.

David Oshinsky, who holds the Jack S. Blanton chair in history at the University of Texas, is the author of “A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.”

Add to Technorati Favorites

Immigration - The Truth

Hey folks - want to know why you are unemployed ?

Because the immigrants have taken all the jobs.

You cant call me a racist for saying this - its a fact, its just that the government lied to you about the real figures and you were moronic enough to believe what this lying sack of shit government told you.



In the recession, it's a bigger subject than ever because the layoffs are hitting British- born people hardest.

Strip out the public sector and do you know how many new jobs have gone to British workers since 1997?

Zero. Squat. Nada. In fact, there are fewer UK-born workers in the private sector than 12 years ago.

This staggering information is not published, anywhere. I asked the Office for National Statistics specifically.

In the last year there are 119,000 more migrant workers in UK jobs, but 615,000 fewer UK-born workers. In recent months, both are falling. But UK-born workers are being laid off at five times the rate.

I blame the system that keeps out people trapped on benefts. And the conditions that inspire 1,000 Brits to emigrate EVERY DAY - leaving their job filled by newcomers.

That's not the whole story, but a major part of it. Still you'll struggle to hear ANY minister explain any of it.

You'll hear clichés like "there are as many Brits working in Europe as there are Europeans in Britain".

Worse still, some ministers actually believe this. Take Alan Johnson, now Home Secretary and in charge of it all.

He told me a few months ago that there are 1.5 million Brits working in Europe. SEVEN times the real figure.

And I'm not saying Johnson is especially ignorant. Just that the whole of government has its head in the sand.

One employment minister swore to me that immigrants account for two per cent of jobs. Real figure? Fourteen per cent.


Does it matter if immigrants have taken (or created) all the new jobs in the British private sector? I reveal this in my News of the World column today, as the key fact from a data request I made from the ONS. It’s a divisive topic, and even exploring it make ministers feel uncomfortable. But this ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to immigration has not just given the BNP the political space needed for its electoral breakthrough three weeks ago, but left ministers ignorant about what’s going on in our labour market. Between Q1 of 1997 and Q1 of 2009, immigrants account for 106% of new jobs in the private sector – ie, there are more new workers (1.55m) than new jobs (1.47m).

Add to Technorati Favorites

Reparations For Slavery - WE DEMAND ALL MIDDLE EAST OIL

How often is it we get some Black radical on the news, usually accompanied with a cringing, servile, witless Middle Class White liberal idiot, demanding the West pay reparations for Black slavery.

We also have the constant demands from Jewish groups for reparations due to the Holocaust constantly in the media and on the news.

Yet we never hear anyone White demanding Muslims and the Middle East pay the West and White Europeans reparations for the centuries of their raiding Europe as part of the Islamic White slave trade.

I demand that all the profits from last of the oil in the Middle East be handed over to the people of Europe as reparations for the Muslim slave trade that afflicted Europe for generation after generation, and that we control the remaining oil to build fairer nation states in the Middle East. After a decade we will leave and they can take charge of decent functional nations instead of hell holes run by Islamist nutters.

In fact we should invade, colonise and take the oil from Middle East nations not only for their crimes in the past as regards the white slave trade but also because they are only using the money from oil to subsidise Wahhabist and Shi'ite fanaticism in our own countries, Islamist terrorism, Global Jihad and the slaughter of their fellow Muslims.

The money from oil they obtain from us merely funds their own insanity and genocidal wars and fratricidal wars - they are better off without the oil money. The oil money has sponsored wars between Muslim sects, nations and groups based on a variety of issues that have killed millions of innocent muslims since the oil was discovered.

If Islam had remained a desert sect for feuding camel herders then the millions of Muslims killed in its name would not have died. Once the oil money flowed into the Middle East then the money was spent on buying tanks, jets, bombs and guns that were then used to kill their own fellow Muslims.

Oil has destroyed the Middle East, murdered millions of Muslims in internecine wars and led to the rise of Islamist terrorism and the Global Jihad.

Without the oil money the ammunition would soon run out, the tanks would break down, the jet fighters would be grounded and the bombs would stop falling on the innocent muslims of the Middle East.

Oil and Islam equals war and genocide.

If you support the 'Reparations For The White Slave Trade Movement' then lets start spreading the idea.

In fact we can critique recent history using this idea.

The Iraq War was a war for oil, we all know this.

In the context of reparations for the White Slave trade by Islam, then that invasion of Iraq was justified.

In fact we should not ever leave Iraq - we should take the oil and keep the money simply as a way to ensure we get reparations for the crimes of the Islamists involved in the White Slave Trade.

Instead of acting like peacekeepers in Iraq, the British Army should have gone in as conquerers and just took the oil.

We should also do the same across the entire Middle East.

Every time we pay for our petrol we are in effect subsidising the people that once enslaved our ancestors.

Why should we do this ?

We should take what is rightfully ours and morally ours.

Send the British Army back into Iraq - but not to ponce about acting as policemen and social workers - but as real occupiers who will use an iron fist to smash anyone or any groups that threaten them and our control of their oilor who threaten to destroy the nation building process and social infrastructure building process that is required to ensure the future demographic rise of the Middle East does not lead to poverty and increasing Islamist radicalisation.

Crush the Islamist beast now, build stable and non-corrupt nation states in the middle east run for the benefit of the people of the area and not the mullahs, royalty or westen oil companies and can ensure the Middle East does not explode in the future.

A British Army prepared to quickly pull the trigger on terrorists and insurgents, to execute all muslims that plant bombs in markets and mosques to kill other innocent Muslims in the name of sectarianism and to repress Islamist groups like the Shi'ite Militia's in Iraq would soon stabilise the country.

The problems in Iraq were caused by us not knowing what we were doing there - one one hand we had Western governments talking utter bullshit about WMD's and 45 minute missiles and democracy building when in reality all they wanted was the oil.

If they had gone in with that simpe vision in mind, and applied direct military force proportionate to that aim, then the chaos after the invasion would not have occured.

A generalised slaughter of insurgents, terrorists and Islamist lunatics would have enabled a decent Iraqi society to be built instead of the present corrupt regime afflicted with terrorism and sectarianism.

The Iraq War failed as it wasnt fought as a war, it was dressed up and fought like some pathetic media pantomime where soldiers were forced to act as social workers.

We should have gone in hard, cleaned out the Islamist terrorist filth and enabled a new nation to be built on the rubble.

What was required was Nationalist Western governments acting as occupying powers to ensure that any profits from the oil were and are spent on social programmes to help the poor and to build internal infrastructure developments that would have created a far more stable Iraq, and hence a far more stable Middle East, than the present situtation where the corrupt Iraqi government is allowing its own corrupt leaders and to profit its own corruption and to profit corrupt Western oil companies, mercenary corporations like Blackwater and crooked building companies like Haliburton.

Whilst the corrupt Iraqi government and its corrupt functionaries grow rich and Western oil companies grow rich, the Iraqi people grow poorer. At the same time sectarianism is increasing, Iran is increasing its influence in the country and sooner or later a full scale civil war will break out between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites and this will also involve a war between Iraq and Iran as Iraqi Nationalists fight against the increase in Iranian influence in the country.

The same situation applies across the entire Middle East.

A Saudi Arabia under the control of a Nationalist British government with the British Army in the country prepared to confront and kill any Islamist extremists who are funding terrorism in the West and funding the wars between Muslims based on sectarianism would create a far more stable nation than the present corrupt theocratic junta and its parasitic Western governments run by the oil companies that profit from the chaos.

If we invade a nation then do the job properly - dont put our troops at risk by getting them to act like Haringey social workers in uniform, simply tell them to stock up on ammunition and mow down any terrorist, Islamist or lunatic who gets in their way.

Instead today we are buying their oil and they are using the money gained from us to buy tanks, jet fighters and weapons that are used to repress their own people and attack fellow Muslim nations.

We at the same time profit from the wars between Middle East nations, the ongoing slaughter of Muslims in sectarian wars and allow corrupt Western oil corporations to grow rich and the corrupt regimes they support.

We have created the worst of all possible worlds.

We should have gone in as occupiers and ensured that for a decade we controlled those nations and cleared out all the Islamists, terrorists and lunatics.

Instead we allowed them to take charge of Iraq, and merely sowed the seeds of future wars.

Invading armies must act as invading armies.

That is how you win not just the war, but also the peace.

The articles below reveal the facts about the Islamist slave trade ;


In the 1200 years of Arab slave trading, millions more Africans were enslaved by Arabs and treated with far greater cruelty than were ever by white men. As Thomas Sowell, a descendant of slaves himself, has pointed out more Europeans were enslaved and taken to North Africa by Barbary Coast pirates alone than there were African slaves taken to America.


In 2008, demands were made that France must make reparations for its colonial past in Algeria. I’m not an expert on French colonial history, but if I recall correctly, the French were at least partly motivated for establishing themselves in Algeria due to the Barbary pirates, who continued their evil activities well into the nineteenth century.

Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, has developed new methodical enumeration which indicates that perhaps one and one-quarter million white European Christians were enslaved by Barbary Muslims just from 1530 through 1780 — a far greater number than had been estimated before:

Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland. Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.

Robert C. Davis explains in Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500-1800:

Italy was among the most thoroughly ravaged areas in the Mediterranean basin. Lying as it did on the frontline of the two battling empires, Italy was known as ‘the Eye of Christendom’…Especially in areas close to some of the main corsair bases (western Sicily is just 200 kilometers from Tunis) slave taking rapidly burgeoned into a full-scale industry, with a disastrous impact that was apparent at the time and for centuries to come. Those who worked on coastal farms, even 10 or 20 miles from the sea, were unsafe from the raiders — harvesters, vine tenders, and olive growers were all regularly surprised while at their labors and carried off. Workers in the salt pans were often at risk, as were woodcutters and any others of the unprotected poor who traveled or worked along the coasts: indigents like Rosa Antonia Monte, who called herself ‘the poorest of the poor in the city of Barletta [in Puglia],’ and who was surprised together with 42 others, including her two daughters, while out gleaning after the harvest, 4 miles outside of town. Monasteries close to the shore also made easy targets for the corsairs.

Fishermen were especially at peril. During a period in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Muslim pirates set up semi-permanent bases for themselves at the mouth of the Bay of Naples, attacking small ships. Surrounded by hostile seas on all sides,

the seventeenth century represented a dark period out of which Spanish and Italian societies emerged as mere shadows of what they had been in their earlier, golden ages. For individuals themselves, we can see that the psychological traces of this trauma lasted beyond the time that the larger societies had rebuilt themselves as modern states, long after ‘even the idea ha[d] been lost of these dogs that had brought so much terror.’ It continued just below the surface of the coastal culture of the European Mediterranean even into the first years of the twentieth century, when, as one Sicilian woman put it, ‘The oldest [still] tell of a time in which the Turks arrived in Sicily every day. They came down in the thousands from their galleys and you can imagine what happened! They seized unmarried girls and children, grabbed things and money and in an instant they were [back] aboard their galleys, set sail and disappeared….The next day it was the same thing, and there was always the bitter song, as you could not hear other than the lamentations and invocations of the mothers and the tears that ran like rivers through all the houses.’

Corsairs from cities in North Africa — Tunis, Algiers etc. — would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact was devastating — France, England and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost abandoned by their inhabitants.

At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior. The lives of European slaves were often no better than the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, which later tapped into the preestablished Islamic slave trade in Africa. “As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” Davis says. While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally — in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys.

Young Englishmen risked being surprised by a fleet of Muslim pirates showing up at their village, or being kidnapped while fishing at sea. Thomas Pellow was enslaved in Morocco for twenty-three years after being captured by Barbary pirates as a cabin boy on a small English vessel in 1716. He was tortured until he accepted Islam. For weeks he was beaten and starved, and finally gave in after his torturer resorted to “burning my flesh off my bones by fire, which the tyrant did, by frequent repetitions, after a most cruel manner.”

Throughout most of the seventeenth century, the English alone lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers. One American slave reported that 130 American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793 (which prompted the eventual military response from the Americans mentioned above). In his book White Gold , Giles Milton describes how regular Jihad razzias in Europe extended as far north as distant Iceland in the middle of the North Atlantic, where some local villagers in well-documented attacks in the seventeenth century were kidnapped and dragged off to North Africa as slaves.

As Murray Gordon writes in his book Slavery in the Arab World , the sexual aspects of slavery were disproportionate important in the Islamic world. “Eunuchs commanded the highest prices among slaves, followed by young and pretty white women.” Usually, the high cost of white female slaves made them a luxury which only rich Muslims could afford:

“White women were almost always in greater demand than Africans, and Arabs were prepared to pay much higher prices for Circassian and Georgian women from the Caucasus and from Circassian colonies in Asia Minor. After the Russians seized Georgia and Circassia in the early part of the nineteenth century and, as a result of the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829 under which they obtained the fortresses dominating the road into Turkey from Circassia, the traffic in Circassian women came to a virtual halt. This caused the price of Circassian women to shoot up in the slave markets of Constantinople and Cairo. The situation was almost completely reversed in the early 1840s when the Russians, in exchange for a Turkish pledge to cease their attacks on their forts on the eastern side of the Black Sea, quietly agreed not to interfere in the slave traffic. This unrestricted trade brought on a glut in the Constantinople and Cairo markets, where prices for Circassian women brought them in reach of many ordinary Turks and Egyptians.”

After whites, Abyssinian (Ethiopian) girls were considered the “second best” alternative. Depending on lightness of skin, attractiveness and skills, they cost anywhere from a tenth to a third of the price of a Circassian or Georgian woman. As long as Circassian, Slavic, Greek and other white women were available at affordable prices, Arabs always preferred them to blacks. It is interesting to notice that this pattern was established long before the European colonial period. These days when everything bad in the world is attributed to Europeans, it is common to say that “racism” is a legacy of the European colonial period. In fact, there is a virtually universal preference for light skin, especially for women, in the Middle East, in Asia and in Africa itself, which was present long before European colonial rule in these countries.

According to Murray Gordon, “For a better part of the Middle Ages, Europe served as a valuable source of slaves who were prized in the Muslim world as soldiers, concubines, and eunuchs. It would not long compete with Africa in this trade if only because Christian Europe, with few exceptions, rejected the notion that its people could be enslaved, particularly for the despised Muslim world. In the greatest part of black Africa, by contrast, there were few governments or chiefs that could interpose their authority against the merchants who arrived by caravan and ship in quest of slaves. Lamentably, many African chiefs often became middlemen in the trade by rounding up inhabitants of nearby villages and exchanging them for an assortment of manufactured wares.”

Slavery never faced as powerful opposition in Muslim societies as it sometimes did in Christian ones. Toward end of the nineteenth century, questions about slavery were finally raised, but only due to Western influence and military pressure. Murray Gordon writes:

That slavery persisted as long as it did in the Muslim world — it was only abolished in Saudi Arabia in 1962 and as late as 1981 in Mauritania — owed much to the fact that it was deeply anchored in Islamic law. By legitimizing slavery and, by extension, the sordid traffic in slaves (for which there was no legal sanction), Islam elevated these practices to an unassailable moral plan. As a result, in no part of the Muslim world was an ideological challenge ever mounted against slavery. The political structure and social system in Muslim society would have taken a dim view of such a challenge. The sultan of the Ottoman Empire and the potentates who ruled in other Muslim lands owed their thrones as much as to their being religious as well as secular leaders and were therefore duty bound to uphold the faith. Part of this obligation was to assure the normal functioning of the slave system which was an integral part of Islamic society that is embellished in the Koran.

All the way back to the Old Kingdom in ancient Egypt, slavery was an important component of Africa’s trade to other continents. However, according to Robert O. Collins and James M. Burns in A History of Sub-Saharan Africa , “The advent of the Islamic age coincided with a sharp increase in the African slave trade.” The expansion of the trans-Saharan slave trade associated with the Sahelian empire of Ghana was a response to the demand in the markets of Muslim North Africa:

“The moral justification for the enslavement of Africans south of the Sahara by Muslims was accepted by the fact they were ‘unbelievers’ (kafirin) practicing their traditional religions with many gods, not the one God of Islam. The need for slaves, whether acquired by violence or by commercial exchange, revived the ancient but somnolent trans-Saharan trade, which became a major supplier of slaves for North Africa and Islamic Spain. The earliest Muslim account of slaves crossing the Sahara from the Fezzan in southern Libya to Tripoli on the Mediterranean coast was written in the seventh century, but from the ninth century to the nineteenth there are a multitude of accounts of the pillage by military states of the Sahel, known to North African Muslims as bilad al-sudan, (‘land of the blacks’), of pagan Africans who were sold to Muslim merchants and marched across the desert as a most profitable commodity in their elaborate commercial networks. By the tenth century there was a steady stream of slaves taken from the kingdoms of the Western Sudan and the Chad Basin crossing the Sahara. Many died on the way, but the survivors fetched a great profit in the vibrant markets of Sijilmasa, Tripoli, and Cairo.”

Moreover, what was to become in ensuing centuries a worldwide European expansion and exploration of the seas started in Portugal in the fifteenth century with the initiatives of Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460). Incidentally, the exploration of the African coasts began with the Portuguese in 1415 capturing the North African port of Ceuta, which had been used as a base for Muslim Barbary pirates in their attacks on the coasts of Portugal, capturing the locals as slaves and depopulation several regions because of repeated attacks.

One of the most important reasons for this early European overseas expansion was the desire to get away from the iron grip Muslims had enjoyed over the European continent for so long. Norman Davies in his massive book Europe: A History elaborates:

Islam’s impact on the Christian world cannot be exaggerated. Islam’s conquests turned Europe into Christianity’s main base. At the same time the great swathe of Muslim territory cut the Christians off from virtually all direct contact with other religions and civilizations. The barrier of militant Islam turned the [European] Peninsula in on itself, severing or transforming many of the earlier lines of commercial, intellectual and political intercourse. In the field of religious conflict, it left Christendom with two tasks — to fight Islam and to convert the remaining pagans. It forced the Byzantine Empire to give lasting priority to the defence of its Eastern borders, and hence to neglect its imperial mission in the West. It created the conditions where the other, more distant Christian states had to fend for themselves, and increasingly to adopt measures for local autonomy and economic self-sufficiency. In other words, it gave a major stimulus to feudalism. Above all, by commandeering the Mediterranean Sea, it destroyed the supremacy which the Mediterranean lands had hitherto exercised over the rest of the Peninsula.

No European peoples suffered more from Islamic colonialism than those in the Balkans. Sir Jadunath Sarkar, the pre-eminent historian of Mughal India, wrote this about dhimmitude, the humiliating apartheid system imposed upon non-Muslims under Islamic rule: “The conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent is the ideal of the Muslim State. If any infidel is suffered to exist in the community, it is as a necessary evil, and for a transitional period only.…A non-Muslim therefore cannot be a citizen of the State; he is a member of a depressed class; his status is a modified form of slavery. He lives under a contract (dhimma) with the State.…In short, his continued existence in the State after the conquest of his country by the Muslims is conditional upon his person and property made subservient to the cause of Islam.”

This “modified form of slavery” is now frequently referred to as the pinnacle of “tolerance.” If the semi-slaves rebel against this system and desire equal rights and self-determination, Jihad resumes. This happened with the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire, who were repressed with massacres, culminating in the genocide by Turkish and Kurdish Muslims against Armenians in the 20th century.

The Balkans, with its close connections to Byzantium, was a reasonably sophisticated region in medieval times, until the Ottomans Turks devastated much of the area. One of the most appalling aspects of this was the practice of devshirme, the collecting of boys among the Christians who were forcibly converted to Islam and taught to hate their own kin. Andrew G. Bostom quotes the work of scholar Vasiliki Papoulia, who highlights the continuous desperate struggle of the Christian populations against this forcefully imposed Ottoman levy:

It is obvious that the population strongly resented…this measure [and the levy] could be carried out only by force. Those who refused to surrender their sons— the healthiest, the handsomest and the most intelligent — were on the spot put to death by hanging. Nevertheless we have examples of armed resistance. In 1565 a revolt took place in Epirus and Albania. The inhabitants killed the recruiting officers and the revolt was put down only after the sultan sent five hundred janissaries in support of the local sanjak-bey. We are better informed, thanks to the historic archives of Yerroia, about the uprising in Naousa in 1705 where the inhabitants killed the Silahdar Ahmed Celebi and his assistants and fled to the mountains as rebels. Some of them were later arrested and put to death.

The Christian subjects tried for centuries to combat this evil practice:

Since there was no possibility of escaping [the levy] the population resorted to several subterfuges. Some left their villages and fled to certain cities which enjoyed exemption from the child levy or migrated to Venetian—held territories. The result was a depopulation of the countryside. Others had their children marry at an early age…Nicephorus Angelus…states that at times the children ran away on their own initiative, but when they heard that the authorities had arrested their parents and were torturing them to death, returned and gave themselves up. La Giulletiere cites the case of a young Athenian who returned from hiding in order to save his father’s life and then chose to die himself rather than abjure his faith. According to the evidence in Turkish sources, some parents even succeeded in abducting their children after they had been recruited. The most successful way of escaping recruitment was through bribery. That the latter was very widespread is evident from the large amounts of money confiscated by the sultan from corrupt…officials.

Lee Harris in his book The Suicide of Reason describes how this practice of devshirme, the process of culling the best, brightest and fittest “alpha boys,” targeted the non-Muslim subject populations:

The bodyguard of Janissaries ‘had the task of protecting the sovereign from internal and external enemies,’ writes scholar Vasiliki Papoulia. ‘In order to fulfill this task it was subjected to very rigorous and special training, the janissary education famous in Ottoman society. This training made possible the spiritual transformation of Christian children into ardent fighters for the glory of the sultan and their newly acquired Islamic faith.’ Because the Christian boys had to be transformed into single-minded fanatics, it was not enough that they simply inherit their position. They had to be brainwashed into it, as we would say today, and this could be done most effectively with boys who had been completely cut off from all family ties. By taking the boys from their homes, and transporting them to virtually another world, devçirme assured that there would be no conflict of loyalties between family and duty to the empire. All loyalty would be focused on the group itself and on the sultan.

This practice drained the strength of the Christian populations. Harris again:

The culling of these alpha boys had two effects, both of them good for the Ottoman Empire, both bad for the subject population. By filling the critical posts in the Ottoman Empire with boys who had been selected on the basis of their intrinsic merit, and not on their family connection, the Empire was automatically creating a meritocracy — if a boy was tough, courageous, intelligent, and fanatically loyal, he was able to work his way up the Ottoman hierarchy; indeed, as we have seen, he become a member of the ruling elite, despite having the formal title of being the sultan’s slave. The Ottoman Empire was both strengthening itself through acquiring these alpha boys, and weakening its subject population by taking their best and brightest. Thanks to the institution of devçirme, the more ‘fit’ Christian boys who would be most likely to be the agents of rebellion against the Empire become the fanatical Muslim warriors who were used to suppress whatever troubles the less ‘fit’ Christian boys left behind were able to cause.

The most enduring legacy of the centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule in the Balkans is the presence of large indigenous Muslim communities. Srdja Trifkovic explains in Kosovo: The Score 1999-2009, a book dedicated to the anniversary of the NATO bombing of Serbia, which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Christian Serbs by predominantly Muslim Albanians:

The Balkan Peninsula is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse regions in the world, especially considering its relatively small area (just over 200,000 square miles) and population (around 55 million). Of that number, Eastern Orthodox Christians — mainly Greeks, Bulgars, Serbs and Slavic Macedonians — have the slim majority of around 53 percent; Sunni Muslims (11 million Turks in European Turkey and a similar number of Albanians, Slavic Muslims and ethnic Turks elsewhere) make up 40 percent; and Roman Catholics (mainly Croats) are at around 5 percent. Those communities do not live in multicultural harmony. Their mutual lack of trust that occasionally turns into violence is a lasting fruit of the Turkish rule. Four salient features of the Ottoman state were institutionalized, religiously justified discrimination of non-Muslims; personal insecurity; tenuous coexistence of ethnicities and creeds without intermixing; and the absence of a unifying state ideology or supra-denominational source of loyalty. It was a Hobbesian world, and it bred a befitting mindset; the zero-sum game approach to politics, in which one side’s gain is perceived as another’s loss. That mindset has not changed, almost a century since the disintegration of the Empire.

Trifkovic warns that “The Christian communities all over the Balkans are in a steep, long-term demographic decline. Fertility rate is below replacement level in every majority-Christian country in the region. The Muslims, by contrast, have the highest birth rates in Europe, with the Albanians topping the chart. On current form it is likely that Muslims will reach a simple majority in the Balkans within a generation.”

The wars in the Balkans are a direct result of the legacy of Turkish Muslim colonialism. So why does nobody demand that the Turks should pay reparations to their former subjects, starting with the Armenians, who suffered a Jihad genocide less than a century ago, and continuing with the Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Croatians and others who have suffered hundreds of years of abuse and exploitation at their hands?

There is a persistent myth that the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions happened only because Europeans “plundered” other continents. This is easily disproved since there is little correlation between which countries had extensive colonial empires and which developed sophisticated scientific-industrial economies. Portugal had several colonies and was an active participant in the transatlantic slave trade, yet it is one of the poorest countries in Western Europe, in sharp contrast to Sweden, Switzerland or Finland which have no colonial histories.