The REAL fascists
The repulsive spectacle of the rabid mob that assailed the Oxford Union when Nick Griffin and David Irving spoke last night, revealed the true face of fascism in this country, that of the Red Mob.
Even ' King Rat ' George Galloway, fresh from appearing in the Gaza strip licking the arse of Hamas terrorists, appeared to bolster the Red Fascists as they sought to overthrow British freedom of speech.
Have you ever noticed how demented Galloway looks now - he resembles one of those cannibalistic wild men of Scotland that used to live in caves in the Highlands in the 17th century and who would waylay lost travellers before eating them.
The man now resembles a sewer rat on meth amphetamine. The tragic little man has now become a caricature of the caricature of himself.
The mob not content with blocking the gates to the event so that people who had bought tickets could not attend also invaded the debating chamber and stopped the debate going ahead.
Oh how they love to use the word fascist these little fascists. All wrapped up in their ' I love Palestine' trendy headresses, their Che Guevara t-shirts, Nike trainers, dyed blonde hair ( all the products of the evil capitalist class of course) waving their little placards - it was like watching a riot on fraggle rock.
The middle classes when they revolt are a truly pathetic site. The site of one blonde female, giggling on the BBC news at Ten about how her chums had 'inwaded' the debating chamber and were then banging out show tunes on the piano and dancing on the chairs was a truly, truly embarrassing moment. The fact that these simpering chinless wonders will one day be doctors, nurses and business leaders is a frightening prospect. They will be forced in the future to deal with hard headed, tough, determined, patriotic, nationalistic Chinese business people and politicians who will have fought to get into university and get their jobs. They wont have spent their time at university binge drinking, reading Marx, going to Babyshambles gigs and doing the dance of the flaming arseholes at the university ball. The fact we have these whining idiots being churned out of academia is a symptom of our forthcoming national demise.
Then of course amidst the 'useful idiots' as Lenin so insightfully called Liberals, were the real fascists who use violence and death threats to further their agenda.
These were in the demonstration outside and chanting ' Kill Tryl ' which were death threats directed against Luke Tryl who had organised the debate.
I am now preparing a formal legal complaint to the Police on behalf of Nick Griffin about ;
1) The failure of the Police to police the demonstration properly
2) The failure of the Police to arrest those making the death threats and threats to kill against Luke Tryl
And also to the Oxford University in relation to the death threats made against Luke Tryl by students at the university.
All week we had been reading an endless series of pathetic scare stories printed in the papers ; that Nazi mobs would be roaming the streets of Oxford targeting the Mirandas and Quentins in the wine bars and coffee shops, that Nazi perverts would be ravishing the innocent young women of the university and that nasty middle aged, white men with shifty looks would be in the area lowering the tone.
It was like reading the old World War 1 propaganda of the nasty hun, with ever more lurid and farcical propaganda scare stories to stir the country into turmoil and anger. It appears that the people most susceptible to propaganda are always the most intelligent. Spoon fed from birth with their opinions, then patted on the head when they regurgitate those opinions, is it wonder the middle class end up being Idiot Savants, eager to roll over and have their tummies rubbed by the media whenever they ring the bell of a 'public hate'.
Then of course we come to ' Little Lenin ' old Trevor Phillips himself, Britains premier parasite in the Race Relations Industry. Like a blood bloated tick old Trevor rides the race relation gravy train all the way to Cash Town. Old Trevor appeared from his Ivory Tower in London, where his minions wave palms at him like a potentate of old, bestowing his wisdom upon us mere mortals.
Oh Trevor, the rays of enlightenment doth shine from him as a halo. 'Ban them' , said Trevor, and then let them eat cake. I could just see the man with a long blond pompadour wig on his head flouncing around the equality commission building in a ball gown demanding his minions to ' Love Me '.
Unfortunately for Trevor no-one takes him seriously anymore seeing as their now appears to be at least three Trevor Phillips - each of whom have a different view on everything at the same time.
Oh well, now the poor old dustmen will have to clean the mess up in the streets after the demonstrators have gone home to ring mummy and daddy and tell them how much of a jolly night they had fighting the fascists.
Next stop is Iraq to fight the real (Islamic) fascists then is it.
Nah - Thought not.
Typical middle class wankers - leave the real fighting of the fascists to the poor, white working class as usual.
Wankers.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
Secret Leader of UAF Revealed - J-Roc
The secret leader of the UAF revealed.
News just in that after the demonstration outside the BNP conference, amongst the red scum, unwashed rabble and walking lice farms the leader of the UAF was present all the way from Canada - the man himself J-Roc, the hero of every white boy at the UAF demonstration.
J-Roc is the real thing, the star of the hard hitting real life documentary The Trailer Park Boys from Canada.
J-Roc is also one of da slickest and baddest white boy rappers on da planet boy !
WORD UP !
We have long suspected that the white white members of the UAF had been emulating their hero - and now we have the truth.
For more on J-Roc visit here ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4eqrrtpL0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzWr71SpFv0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoWnIhDuW4g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgoUieotWQo&feature=related
J-Roc is also to give a free track to the next Love Music - Hate Racism album here ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AozH-KvbcIQ&feature=related
Peace out bloods !
Zionists Offer To Fight alongside Nazis against Britain
This below is an excerpt from David Dukes book My Awakening, which has an interesting section on Zionism and the Nazis. It is a real pity that the mainstream authors are unwilling to deal with 'difficult' parts of history that concern collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionists and leave it solely to people like Duke to get such information into the public domain.
The next time the Jewish people are told they should do something, or support something, or resist something by their self appointed leaders - then be aware that these were the same people that supported Lenin whilst he was murdering millions in Russia, who worked with the SS in Nazi Germany and who supported mass immigration into the UK that has led to the Islamist threat in our society today.
I think that one of the primary reasons why many of the self appointed Jewish elite do not want to debate the Holocaust, is because they fear the role of those like them in the Holocaust will be discovered.
The Jewish elite use the Holocaust as a way to avoid all criticism and censure, but this has also allowed them to evade any research and investigation into the role of Zionists and other Jews in the Holocaust and also their support for Nazism.
The laws on Holocaust denial have been used to threaten anyone that dared challenge the standard history of the Jewish people as written by the Jewish elite and limit any research into Jewish / Nazi collaboration before and during the war.
This is so the self appointed Jewish elite can carry on profiting from the fiction that they have always acted in the best interest of Jews and the Jewish community.
Many of those who organisations that are supposedly 'representatives 'of the Jewish people and community in Britain today have members in them, or had members in them, who once collaborated with either the Nazis or the Communists. Many of those organisations have direct links with the criminal communist regimes and the nazi regimes and with the murderers of history like Lenin, Stalin and Hitler.
It is time that someone wrote a book about the Zionist / Jewish / Nazi collaboration in Nazism and Communism and revealed the history behind the lies that are printed in the school books that are forced upon our kids.
The phrase Holocaust Denial is being used to deny debate, free speech and to ensure that the true history of the Second World War as regards Zionist / Nazi collaboration is never written or debated.
The phrase Holocaust denier is used to terrify any researcher from writing any historical books that reveal the crminality of the Jewish elite in both Nazism and Communism.
It always in the best interests of the criminals, that their crimes are never discussed and their crimes never discovered.
The best thing the Jewish community can do is either choose some new leaders or take the advice of Bob Dylan " Don't follow leaders, Watch the parkin' meters ", ;
In 1941 the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, popularly called the “Lehi,” or the Stern Gang was led amongst others by Yitzhak Shamir, who became its leader and chief terrorist after Stern’s death and who later became Israel’s prime minister in the 1980s. The Stern gang considered the British to be Zionism’s biggest enemy because Great Britain tried to protect the civil rights of the native Palestinians and attempted to slow the insurgent Jewish immigration.
In one of the most amazing facts of modern history, the Lehi actually made a formal proposal to the Germans of a military alliance between the Jewish revolutionary organization and the Nazis. In effect, they formally proposed to join the war on Germany’s side. Here are portions of the text of their communiqué with the Nazis.
In their speeches and statements, the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany have often emphasized that a New Order in Europe requires as a prerequisite a radical solution of the Jewish question by evacuation. (”Jew-free Europe”)
The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question. However, the only way this can be totally achieved is through settlement of these masses in the homeland of the Jewish people, Palestine, and by the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries.
The goal of the political activity and the years of struggle by the Israel Freedom Movement, the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi), is to solve the Jewish problem in this way and thus completely liberate the Jewish people forever.
The NMO, which is very familiar with the good will of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program, takes that view that:
1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.
2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry.
3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.
On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.
This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well…
The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.
The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.14 15 16
The next time the Jewish people are told they should do something, or support something, or resist something by their self appointed leaders - then be aware that these were the same people that supported Lenin whilst he was murdering millions in Russia, who worked with the SS in Nazi Germany and who supported mass immigration into the UK that has led to the Islamist threat in our society today.
I think that one of the primary reasons why many of the self appointed Jewish elite do not want to debate the Holocaust, is because they fear the role of those like them in the Holocaust will be discovered.
The Jewish elite use the Holocaust as a way to avoid all criticism and censure, but this has also allowed them to evade any research and investigation into the role of Zionists and other Jews in the Holocaust and also their support for Nazism.
The laws on Holocaust denial have been used to threaten anyone that dared challenge the standard history of the Jewish people as written by the Jewish elite and limit any research into Jewish / Nazi collaboration before and during the war.
This is so the self appointed Jewish elite can carry on profiting from the fiction that they have always acted in the best interest of Jews and the Jewish community.
Many of those who organisations that are supposedly 'representatives 'of the Jewish people and community in Britain today have members in them, or had members in them, who once collaborated with either the Nazis or the Communists. Many of those organisations have direct links with the criminal communist regimes and the nazi regimes and with the murderers of history like Lenin, Stalin and Hitler.
It is time that someone wrote a book about the Zionist / Jewish / Nazi collaboration in Nazism and Communism and revealed the history behind the lies that are printed in the school books that are forced upon our kids.
The phrase Holocaust Denial is being used to deny debate, free speech and to ensure that the true history of the Second World War as regards Zionist / Nazi collaboration is never written or debated.
The phrase Holocaust denier is used to terrify any researcher from writing any historical books that reveal the crminality of the Jewish elite in both Nazism and Communism.
It always in the best interests of the criminals, that their crimes are never discussed and their crimes never discovered.
The best thing the Jewish community can do is either choose some new leaders or take the advice of Bob Dylan " Don't follow leaders, Watch the parkin' meters ", ;
In 1941 the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, popularly called the “Lehi,” or the Stern Gang was led amongst others by Yitzhak Shamir, who became its leader and chief terrorist after Stern’s death and who later became Israel’s prime minister in the 1980s. The Stern gang considered the British to be Zionism’s biggest enemy because Great Britain tried to protect the civil rights of the native Palestinians and attempted to slow the insurgent Jewish immigration.
In one of the most amazing facts of modern history, the Lehi actually made a formal proposal to the Germans of a military alliance between the Jewish revolutionary organization and the Nazis. In effect, they formally proposed to join the war on Germany’s side. Here are portions of the text of their communiqué with the Nazis.
In their speeches and statements, the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany have often emphasized that a New Order in Europe requires as a prerequisite a radical solution of the Jewish question by evacuation. (”Jew-free Europe”)
The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question. However, the only way this can be totally achieved is through settlement of these masses in the homeland of the Jewish people, Palestine, and by the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries.
The goal of the political activity and the years of struggle by the Israel Freedom Movement, the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi), is to solve the Jewish problem in this way and thus completely liberate the Jewish people forever.
The NMO, which is very familiar with the good will of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program, takes that view that:
1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.
2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry.
3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.
On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.
This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well…
The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.
The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.14 15 16
Free Speech - my arse
Hands up all those that think Oxford university will allow Nick Griffin to speak at the debate.
Not many I bet.
The NO PLATFORM policy of the NUS is an example of Marxist-Leninist terrorism. The Oxford University have invited O.J. Simpson, a wife killing racist, and Michael Jackson, a paedophile, to speak but ban Nick Griffin.
I guess black murderers and black killers are cool with the NUS, but white politicians are not.
Whilst the white middle class student wanker types are busy listening to their rap heroes like Public Enemy on their I-Pods, they bang on about racism without any sense of irony.
Take a look at this list of racist rap lyrics - yeah boy !!! Whats Da Time Mo-Fo's !
http://home.att.net/~phosphor/introtogrammys.html
Nick may have said a single stupid sentence in the distant past about the Holocaust, but the Islamists and the Far Left are still saying bookloads of bullshit about it today.
What Nick said in the past may have been crass, but the fact is that in this country debating the holocaust is not a crime and nor should it be. It is an issue for free speech, not an issue for the criminal courts.
We live in a democracy, not a politically correct fascist regime where thought crimes can lead to imprisonment.
What sicken me most is the left wing non-Jewish people who use the Holocaust to attack Nick.
These left wing non-Jewish student scum bags are invariably Islamist arse lickers who are agree with the anti-semitic wing of the Far Left scumbags who support Hamas and who regard Jews in Israel as nothing more than Nazis occupying the country.
The Far Left exploit the holocaust for their own political ends , at the same time as they ignore the attacks on Jews in Britain by Muslims and act as apologists for Islamist violence.
Already the Tory-graph is coming out with the usual 'far right' description of the BNP and the usual 'internet nazis threatened my cat' etc etc left wing bullshit.
Personally I dont think Nick should attend. This is because the event has also invited David Irving, and this is being done in an attempt to equate an equivalence between the two.
The BBC tried the same trick a few years ago when they invited Nick and Abu Hamza to give a speech at a BBC producers conference - I dont think he should have gone then either.
Nick should be invited simply as the sole guest or not at all. Nick has enough to say on his own.
Having David Irving on at the same time is a pretty pathetic attempt to link to the two.
The most hysterically funny section of the Times report was this one ;
" Steven Altman-Richer, the co-president of the Oxford University Jewish Society, said he was "extremely concerned" not just for the safety of the Jewish community but for all minorities and students."
What absolute bollocks. How much longer are Jews in Britain going to listen to the total bullshit of the self appointed 'representatives ' of the Jewish community.
The self appointed representatives of the Jewish community that attack the BNP are the same ones that support the Islamisation of Britain and who supported mass immigration into the UK through the last forty years.
The Jews in Britain are more at threat from their own representatives than they are by any fictitious 'nazi menace'.
For the last forty years the ordinary, patriotic Jewish British citizen has been misled, deceived and betrayed by the Jewish elite in their own community. Whilst their self appointed community leaders were growing rich and powerful, the ordinary Jewish family were left to face the threat from a growing Islamist threat in the UK.
These days Jews are attacked, threatened and abused in the street by Muslim fanatics and left wing racists, not the myth of the nasty nazis peddled by the media.
Most of the neo-nazi anti-semites in the UK are either bed bound geriatrics in nursing homes or locked up in prisons or sectioned in mental hospitals.
A few lurk on the fringes of the internet under false names like Jack Black and Dux 90 on Stormfront, and desperately seek the applause of the twenty other idiots in the UK who agree with them, but these people are too busy looking for proof of the influence of 'zee jews' on sunspots and the reproductive cycle of plankton to actually go out into the real world and be a real threat.
The real threat to Jews in the UK comes from Muslim youth and Far Left student wanker types.
The fact that these idiots who call themselves the representatives of the Jewish community can still claim to speak for the Jewish people is either a sign of their arrogance or stupidity. Or both.
I know for a fact that Nick Griffin is not an anti-semite. Nor is he a philo-semite.
Where the Jewish leadership and their duped followers deserve criticism then we will give it.
The Jewish community have been led by their own leaders into many pernicious ideological alliances in their history including Communism, National Socialism and Liberalism.
The Jewish leaders who worked with and supported the murderous Communist regimes betrayed their people.
The Jewish leaders that worked with the Nazis and who offered to fight alongside the Nazis betrayed their people.
The Jewish leaders who supported mass immigration and liberalism in the UK also betrayed their own people.
Whilst the self serving Jewish elite grew rich and wealthy under the Communists, the Nazis and the Liberals - the ordinary Jews suffered.
For example heres a few facts you wont read in the books your shoolkids are taught about the Nazis ;
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html
Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), the founder of modern Zionism, maintained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but a natural and completely understandable response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. The only solution, he argued, is for Jews to recognize reality and live in a separate state of their own. "The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers," he wrote in his most influential work, The Jewish State. "Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews ... I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear." The Jewish question, he maintained, is not social or religious. "It is a national question. To solve it we must, above all, make it an international political issue ..." Regardless of their citizenship, Herzl insisted, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people, a Volk.2 Zionism, wrote Herzl, offered the world a welcome "final solution of the Jewish question."3
Six months after Hitler came to power, the Zionist Federation of Germany (by far the largest Zionist group in the country) submitted a detailed memorandum to the new government that reviewed German-Jewish relations and formally offered Zionist support in "solving" the vexing "Jewish question." The first step, it suggested, had to be a frank recognition of fundamental national differences: 4
Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one's own tradition. Zionism recognized decades ago that as a result of the assimilationist trend, symptoms of deterioration were bound to appear ...
Zionism believes that the rebirth of the national life of a people, which is now occurring in Germany through the emphasis on its Christian and national character, must also come about in the Jewish national group. For the Jewish people, too, national origin, religion, common destiny and a sense of its uniqueness must be of decisive importance in the shaping of its existence. This means that the egotistical individualism of the liberal era must be overcome and replaced with a sense of community and collective responsibility ...
We believe it is precisely the new [National Socialist] Germany that can, through bold resoluteness in the handling of the Jewish question, take a decisive step toward overcoming a problem which, in truth, will have to be dealt with by most European peoples ...
Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group and reject any trespasses in the cultural domain, we -- having been brought up in the German language and German culture -- can show an interest in the works and values of German culture with admiration and internal sympathy ...
For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration of even a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question not sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples and at the present moment especially the German people ...
Boycott propaganda -- such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways -- is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build ...
We are not blind to the fact that a Jewish question exists and will continue to exist. From the abnormal situation of the Jews severe disadvantages result for them, but also scarcely tolerable conditions for other peoples.
The Federation's paper, the Jüdische Rundschau ("Jewish Review"), proclaimed the same message: "Zionism recognizes the existence of a Jewish problem and desires a far-reaching and constructive solution. For this purpose Zionism wishes to obtain the assistance of all peoples, whether pro- or anti-Jewish, because, in its view, we are dealing here with a concrete rather than a sentimental problem, the solution of which all peoples are interested."5 A young Berlin rabbi, Joachim Prinz, who later settled in the United States and became head of the American Jewish Congress, wrote in his 1934 book, Wir Juden ("We Jews"), that the National Socialist revolution in Germany meant "Jewry for the Jews." He explained: "No subterfuge can save us now. In place of assimilation we desire a new concept: recognition of the Jewish nation and Jewish race." 6
Active Collaboration
On this basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interest. As a result, the Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-1941, when the Second World War prevented extensive collaboration.
Even as the Third Reich became more entrenched, many German Jews, probably a majority, continued to regard themselves, often with considerable pride, as Germans first. Few were enthusiastic about pulling up roots to begin a new life in far-away Palestine. Nevertheless, more and more German Jews turned to Zionism during this period. Until late 1938, the Zionist movement flourished in Germany under Hitler. The circulation of the Zionist Federation's bi-weekly Jüdische Rundschau grew enormously. Numerous Zionist books were published. "Zionist work was in full swing" in Germany during those years, the Encyclopaedia Judaica notes. A Zionist convention held in Berlin in 1936 reflected "in its composition the vigorous party life of German Zionists."7
The SS was particularly enthusiastic in its support for Zionism. An internal June 1934 SS position paper urged active and wide-ranging support for Zionism by the government and the Party as the best way to encourage emigration of Germany's Jews to Palestine. This would require increased Jewish self-awareness. Jewish schools, Jewish sports leagues, Jewish cultural organizations -- in short, everything that would encourage this new consciousness and self-awareness - should be promoted, the paper recommended.8
SS officer Leopold von Mildenstein and Zionist Federation official Kurt Tuchler toured Palestine together for six months to assess Zionist development there. Based on his firsthand observations, von Mildenstein wrote a series of twelve illustrated articles for the important Berlin daily Der Angriff that appeared in late 1934 under the heading "A Nazi Travels to Palestine." The series expressed great admiration for the pioneering spirit and achievements of the Jewish settlers. Zionist self-development, von Mildenstein wrote, had produced a new kind of Jew. He praised Zionism as a great benefit for both the Jewish people and the entire world. A Jewish homeland in Palestine, he wrote in his concluding article, "pointed the way to curing a centuries-long wound on the body of the world: the Jewish question." Der Angriff issued a special medal, with a Swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other, to commemorate the joint SS-Zionist visit. A few months after the articles appeared, von Mildenstein was promoted to head the Jewish affairs department of the SS security service in order to support Zionist migration and development more effectively. 9
The official SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, proclaimed its support for Zionism in a May 1935 front-page editorial: "The time may not be too far off when Palestine will again be able to receive its sons who have been lost to it for more than a thousand years. Our good wishes, together with official goodwill, go with them."10 Four months later, a similar article appeared in the SS paper: 11
The recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood and not on religion leads the German government to guarantee without reservation the racial separateness of this community. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry around the world and its rejection of all assimilationist notions. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.
A leading German shipping line began direct passenger liner service from Hamburg to Haifa, Palestine, in October 1933 providing "strictly kosher food on its ships, under the supervision of the Hamburg rabbinate." 12
With official backing, Zionists worked tirelessly to "reeducate" Germany's Jews. As American historian Francis Nicosia put it in his 1985 survey, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question: "Zionists were encouraged to take their message to the Jewish community, to collect money, to show films on Palestine and generally to educate German Jews about Palestine. There was considerable pressure to teach Jews in Germany to cease identifying themselves as Germans and to awaken a new Jewish national identity in them." 13
In an interview after the war, the former head of the Zionist Federation of Germany, Dr. Hans Friedenthal, summed up the situation: "The Gestapo did everything in those days to promote emigration, particularly to Palestine. We often received their help when we required anything from other authorities regarding preparations for emigration." 14
At the September 1935 National Socialist Party Congress, the Reichstag adopted the so-called "Nuremberg laws" that prohibited marriages and sexual relations between Jews and Germans and, in effect, proclaimed the Jews an alien minority nationality. A few days later the Zionist Jüdische Rundschau editorially welcomed the new measures: 15
Germany ... is meeting the demands of the World Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority. Once the Jews have been stamped a national minority it is again possible to establish normal relations between the German nation and Jewry. The new laws give the Jewish minority in Germany its own cultural life, its own national life. In future it will be able to shape its own schools, its own theatre, and its own sports associations. In short, it can create its own future in all aspects of national life ...
Germany has given the Jewish minority the opportunity to live for itself, and is offering state protection for this separate life of the Jewish minority: Jewry's process of growth into a nation will thereby be encouraged and a contribution will be made to the establishment of more tolerable relations between the two nations.
Georg Kareski, the head of both the "Revisionist" Zionist State Organization and the Jewish Cultural League, and former head of the Berlin Jewish Community, declared in an interview with the Berlin daily Der Angriff at the end of 1935: 16
For many years I have regarded a complete separation of the cultural affairs of the two peoples [Jews and Germans] as a pre-condition for living together without conflict... I have long supported such a separation, provided it is founded on respect for the alien nationality. The Nuremberg Laws ... seem to me, apart from their legal provisions, to conform entirely with this desire for a separate life based on mutual respect... This interruption of the process of dissolution in many Jewish communities, which had been promoted through mixed marriages, is therefore, from a Jewish point of view, entirely welcome.
Zionist leaders in other countries echoed these views. Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, told a New York rally in June 1938: "I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew... Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race." 17
The Interior Ministry's Jewish affairs specialist, Dr. Bernhard Lösener, expressed support for Zionism in an article that appeared in a November 1935 issue of the official Reichsverwaltungsblatt: 18
If the Jews already had their own state in which the majority of them were settled, then the Jewish question could be regarded as completely resolved today, also for the Jews themselves. The least amount of opposition to the ideas underlying the Nuremberg Laws have been shown by the Zionists, because they realize at once that these laws represent the only correct solution for the Jewish people as well. For each nation must have its own state as the outward expression of its particular nationhood.
In cooperation with the German authorities, Zionist groups organized a network of some forty camps and agricultural centers throughout Germany where prospective settlers were trained for their new lives in Palestine. Although the Nuremberg Laws forbid Jews from displaying the German flag, Jews were specifically guaranteed the right to display the blue and white Jewish national banner. The flag that would one day be adopted by Israel was flown at the Zionist camps and centers in Hitler's Germany. 19
Himmler's security service cooperated with the Haganah, the Zionist underground military organization in Palestine. The SS agency paid Haganah official Feivel Polkes for information about the situation in Palestine and for help in directing Jewish emigration to that country. Meanwhile, the Haganah was kept well informed about German plans by a spy it managed to plant in the Berlin headquarters of the SS.20 Haganah-SS collaboration even included secret deliveries of German weapons to Jewish settlers for use in clashes with Palestinian Arabs. 21
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch07.htm
“Our official good will go with them”
By 1934 the SS had become the most pro-Zionist element in the Nazi Party. Other Nazis were even calling them “soft” on the Jews. Baron von Mildenstein had returned from his six-month visit to Palestine as an ardent Zionist sympathiser. Now as the head of the Jewish Department of the SS’s Security Service, he started studying Hebrew and collecting Hebrew records; when his former companion and guide, Kurt Tuchler, visited his office in 1934, he was greeted by the strains of familiar Jewish folk tunes. [16] There were maps on the walls showing the rapidly increasing strength of Zionism inside Germany. [17] Von Mildenstein was as good as his word: he not only wrote favourably about what he saw in the Zionist colonies in Palestine; he also persuaded Goebbels to run the report as a massive twelve-part series in his own Der Angriff (The Assault), the leading Nazi propaganda organ (26 September to 9 October 1934). His stay among the Zionists had shown the SS man “the way to curing a centuries-long wound on the body of the world: the Jewish question”. It was really amazing how some good Jewish boden under his feet could enliven the Jew: “The soil has reformed him and his kind in a decade. This new Jew will be a new people.” [18] To commemorate the Baron’s expedition, Goebbels had a medal struck: on one side the swastika, on the other the Zionist star. [19]
In May 1935 Reinhardt Heydrich, who was then the chief of the SS Security Service, later the infamous “Protector” of the Czech lands incorporated into the Reich, wrote an article, The Visible Enemy, for Das Schwarze Korps, the official organ of the SS. In it Heydrich assessed the various tendencies among the Jews, comparing the assimilationists quite invidiously with the Zionists. His partiality towards Zionism could not have been expressed in more unmistakable terms:
After the Nazi seizure of power our racial laws did in fact curtail considerably the immediate influence of Jews. But ... the question as he sees it is still: How can we win back our old position ... We must separate Jewry into two categories... the Zionists and those who favor being assimilated. The Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state.
Heydrich wished them a fond farewell: “The time cannot be far distant when Palestine will again be able to accept its sons who have been lost to it for over a thousand years. Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them.” [20]
Not many I bet.
The NO PLATFORM policy of the NUS is an example of Marxist-Leninist terrorism. The Oxford University have invited O.J. Simpson, a wife killing racist, and Michael Jackson, a paedophile, to speak but ban Nick Griffin.
I guess black murderers and black killers are cool with the NUS, but white politicians are not.
Whilst the white middle class student wanker types are busy listening to their rap heroes like Public Enemy on their I-Pods, they bang on about racism without any sense of irony.
Take a look at this list of racist rap lyrics - yeah boy !!! Whats Da Time Mo-Fo's !
http://home.att.net/~phosphor/introtogrammys.html
Nick may have said a single stupid sentence in the distant past about the Holocaust, but the Islamists and the Far Left are still saying bookloads of bullshit about it today.
What Nick said in the past may have been crass, but the fact is that in this country debating the holocaust is not a crime and nor should it be. It is an issue for free speech, not an issue for the criminal courts.
We live in a democracy, not a politically correct fascist regime where thought crimes can lead to imprisonment.
What sicken me most is the left wing non-Jewish people who use the Holocaust to attack Nick.
These left wing non-Jewish student scum bags are invariably Islamist arse lickers who are agree with the anti-semitic wing of the Far Left scumbags who support Hamas and who regard Jews in Israel as nothing more than Nazis occupying the country.
The Far Left exploit the holocaust for their own political ends , at the same time as they ignore the attacks on Jews in Britain by Muslims and act as apologists for Islamist violence.
Already the Tory-graph is coming out with the usual 'far right' description of the BNP and the usual 'internet nazis threatened my cat' etc etc left wing bullshit.
Personally I dont think Nick should attend. This is because the event has also invited David Irving, and this is being done in an attempt to equate an equivalence between the two.
The BBC tried the same trick a few years ago when they invited Nick and Abu Hamza to give a speech at a BBC producers conference - I dont think he should have gone then either.
Nick should be invited simply as the sole guest or not at all. Nick has enough to say on his own.
Having David Irving on at the same time is a pretty pathetic attempt to link to the two.
The most hysterically funny section of the Times report was this one ;
" Steven Altman-Richer, the co-president of the Oxford University Jewish Society, said he was "extremely concerned" not just for the safety of the Jewish community but for all minorities and students."
What absolute bollocks. How much longer are Jews in Britain going to listen to the total bullshit of the self appointed 'representatives ' of the Jewish community.
The self appointed representatives of the Jewish community that attack the BNP are the same ones that support the Islamisation of Britain and who supported mass immigration into the UK through the last forty years.
The Jews in Britain are more at threat from their own representatives than they are by any fictitious 'nazi menace'.
For the last forty years the ordinary, patriotic Jewish British citizen has been misled, deceived and betrayed by the Jewish elite in their own community. Whilst their self appointed community leaders were growing rich and powerful, the ordinary Jewish family were left to face the threat from a growing Islamist threat in the UK.
These days Jews are attacked, threatened and abused in the street by Muslim fanatics and left wing racists, not the myth of the nasty nazis peddled by the media.
Most of the neo-nazi anti-semites in the UK are either bed bound geriatrics in nursing homes or locked up in prisons or sectioned in mental hospitals.
A few lurk on the fringes of the internet under false names like Jack Black and Dux 90 on Stormfront, and desperately seek the applause of the twenty other idiots in the UK who agree with them, but these people are too busy looking for proof of the influence of 'zee jews' on sunspots and the reproductive cycle of plankton to actually go out into the real world and be a real threat.
The real threat to Jews in the UK comes from Muslim youth and Far Left student wanker types.
The fact that these idiots who call themselves the representatives of the Jewish community can still claim to speak for the Jewish people is either a sign of their arrogance or stupidity. Or both.
I know for a fact that Nick Griffin is not an anti-semite. Nor is he a philo-semite.
Where the Jewish leadership and their duped followers deserve criticism then we will give it.
The Jewish community have been led by their own leaders into many pernicious ideological alliances in their history including Communism, National Socialism and Liberalism.
The Jewish leaders who worked with and supported the murderous Communist regimes betrayed their people.
The Jewish leaders that worked with the Nazis and who offered to fight alongside the Nazis betrayed their people.
The Jewish leaders who supported mass immigration and liberalism in the UK also betrayed their own people.
Whilst the self serving Jewish elite grew rich and wealthy under the Communists, the Nazis and the Liberals - the ordinary Jews suffered.
For example heres a few facts you wont read in the books your shoolkids are taught about the Nazis ;
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html
Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), the founder of modern Zionism, maintained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but a natural and completely understandable response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. The only solution, he argued, is for Jews to recognize reality and live in a separate state of their own. "The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers," he wrote in his most influential work, The Jewish State. "Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews ... I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear." The Jewish question, he maintained, is not social or religious. "It is a national question. To solve it we must, above all, make it an international political issue ..." Regardless of their citizenship, Herzl insisted, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people, a Volk.2 Zionism, wrote Herzl, offered the world a welcome "final solution of the Jewish question."3
Six months after Hitler came to power, the Zionist Federation of Germany (by far the largest Zionist group in the country) submitted a detailed memorandum to the new government that reviewed German-Jewish relations and formally offered Zionist support in "solving" the vexing "Jewish question." The first step, it suggested, had to be a frank recognition of fundamental national differences: 4
Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one's own tradition. Zionism recognized decades ago that as a result of the assimilationist trend, symptoms of deterioration were bound to appear ...
Zionism believes that the rebirth of the national life of a people, which is now occurring in Germany through the emphasis on its Christian and national character, must also come about in the Jewish national group. For the Jewish people, too, national origin, religion, common destiny and a sense of its uniqueness must be of decisive importance in the shaping of its existence. This means that the egotistical individualism of the liberal era must be overcome and replaced with a sense of community and collective responsibility ...
We believe it is precisely the new [National Socialist] Germany that can, through bold resoluteness in the handling of the Jewish question, take a decisive step toward overcoming a problem which, in truth, will have to be dealt with by most European peoples ...
Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group and reject any trespasses in the cultural domain, we -- having been brought up in the German language and German culture -- can show an interest in the works and values of German culture with admiration and internal sympathy ...
For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration of even a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question not sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples and at the present moment especially the German people ...
Boycott propaganda -- such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways -- is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build ...
We are not blind to the fact that a Jewish question exists and will continue to exist. From the abnormal situation of the Jews severe disadvantages result for them, but also scarcely tolerable conditions for other peoples.
The Federation's paper, the Jüdische Rundschau ("Jewish Review"), proclaimed the same message: "Zionism recognizes the existence of a Jewish problem and desires a far-reaching and constructive solution. For this purpose Zionism wishes to obtain the assistance of all peoples, whether pro- or anti-Jewish, because, in its view, we are dealing here with a concrete rather than a sentimental problem, the solution of which all peoples are interested."5 A young Berlin rabbi, Joachim Prinz, who later settled in the United States and became head of the American Jewish Congress, wrote in his 1934 book, Wir Juden ("We Jews"), that the National Socialist revolution in Germany meant "Jewry for the Jews." He explained: "No subterfuge can save us now. In place of assimilation we desire a new concept: recognition of the Jewish nation and Jewish race." 6
Active Collaboration
On this basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interest. As a result, the Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-1941, when the Second World War prevented extensive collaboration.
Even as the Third Reich became more entrenched, many German Jews, probably a majority, continued to regard themselves, often with considerable pride, as Germans first. Few were enthusiastic about pulling up roots to begin a new life in far-away Palestine. Nevertheless, more and more German Jews turned to Zionism during this period. Until late 1938, the Zionist movement flourished in Germany under Hitler. The circulation of the Zionist Federation's bi-weekly Jüdische Rundschau grew enormously. Numerous Zionist books were published. "Zionist work was in full swing" in Germany during those years, the Encyclopaedia Judaica notes. A Zionist convention held in Berlin in 1936 reflected "in its composition the vigorous party life of German Zionists."7
The SS was particularly enthusiastic in its support for Zionism. An internal June 1934 SS position paper urged active and wide-ranging support for Zionism by the government and the Party as the best way to encourage emigration of Germany's Jews to Palestine. This would require increased Jewish self-awareness. Jewish schools, Jewish sports leagues, Jewish cultural organizations -- in short, everything that would encourage this new consciousness and self-awareness - should be promoted, the paper recommended.8
SS officer Leopold von Mildenstein and Zionist Federation official Kurt Tuchler toured Palestine together for six months to assess Zionist development there. Based on his firsthand observations, von Mildenstein wrote a series of twelve illustrated articles for the important Berlin daily Der Angriff that appeared in late 1934 under the heading "A Nazi Travels to Palestine." The series expressed great admiration for the pioneering spirit and achievements of the Jewish settlers. Zionist self-development, von Mildenstein wrote, had produced a new kind of Jew. He praised Zionism as a great benefit for both the Jewish people and the entire world. A Jewish homeland in Palestine, he wrote in his concluding article, "pointed the way to curing a centuries-long wound on the body of the world: the Jewish question." Der Angriff issued a special medal, with a Swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other, to commemorate the joint SS-Zionist visit. A few months after the articles appeared, von Mildenstein was promoted to head the Jewish affairs department of the SS security service in order to support Zionist migration and development more effectively. 9
The official SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, proclaimed its support for Zionism in a May 1935 front-page editorial: "The time may not be too far off when Palestine will again be able to receive its sons who have been lost to it for more than a thousand years. Our good wishes, together with official goodwill, go with them."10 Four months later, a similar article appeared in the SS paper: 11
The recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood and not on religion leads the German government to guarantee without reservation the racial separateness of this community. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry around the world and its rejection of all assimilationist notions. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.
A leading German shipping line began direct passenger liner service from Hamburg to Haifa, Palestine, in October 1933 providing "strictly kosher food on its ships, under the supervision of the Hamburg rabbinate." 12
With official backing, Zionists worked tirelessly to "reeducate" Germany's Jews. As American historian Francis Nicosia put it in his 1985 survey, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question: "Zionists were encouraged to take their message to the Jewish community, to collect money, to show films on Palestine and generally to educate German Jews about Palestine. There was considerable pressure to teach Jews in Germany to cease identifying themselves as Germans and to awaken a new Jewish national identity in them." 13
In an interview after the war, the former head of the Zionist Federation of Germany, Dr. Hans Friedenthal, summed up the situation: "The Gestapo did everything in those days to promote emigration, particularly to Palestine. We often received their help when we required anything from other authorities regarding preparations for emigration." 14
At the September 1935 National Socialist Party Congress, the Reichstag adopted the so-called "Nuremberg laws" that prohibited marriages and sexual relations between Jews and Germans and, in effect, proclaimed the Jews an alien minority nationality. A few days later the Zionist Jüdische Rundschau editorially welcomed the new measures: 15
Germany ... is meeting the demands of the World Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority. Once the Jews have been stamped a national minority it is again possible to establish normal relations between the German nation and Jewry. The new laws give the Jewish minority in Germany its own cultural life, its own national life. In future it will be able to shape its own schools, its own theatre, and its own sports associations. In short, it can create its own future in all aspects of national life ...
Germany has given the Jewish minority the opportunity to live for itself, and is offering state protection for this separate life of the Jewish minority: Jewry's process of growth into a nation will thereby be encouraged and a contribution will be made to the establishment of more tolerable relations between the two nations.
Georg Kareski, the head of both the "Revisionist" Zionist State Organization and the Jewish Cultural League, and former head of the Berlin Jewish Community, declared in an interview with the Berlin daily Der Angriff at the end of 1935: 16
For many years I have regarded a complete separation of the cultural affairs of the two peoples [Jews and Germans] as a pre-condition for living together without conflict... I have long supported such a separation, provided it is founded on respect for the alien nationality. The Nuremberg Laws ... seem to me, apart from their legal provisions, to conform entirely with this desire for a separate life based on mutual respect... This interruption of the process of dissolution in many Jewish communities, which had been promoted through mixed marriages, is therefore, from a Jewish point of view, entirely welcome.
Zionist leaders in other countries echoed these views. Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, told a New York rally in June 1938: "I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew... Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race." 17
The Interior Ministry's Jewish affairs specialist, Dr. Bernhard Lösener, expressed support for Zionism in an article that appeared in a November 1935 issue of the official Reichsverwaltungsblatt: 18
If the Jews already had their own state in which the majority of them were settled, then the Jewish question could be regarded as completely resolved today, also for the Jews themselves. The least amount of opposition to the ideas underlying the Nuremberg Laws have been shown by the Zionists, because they realize at once that these laws represent the only correct solution for the Jewish people as well. For each nation must have its own state as the outward expression of its particular nationhood.
In cooperation with the German authorities, Zionist groups organized a network of some forty camps and agricultural centers throughout Germany where prospective settlers were trained for their new lives in Palestine. Although the Nuremberg Laws forbid Jews from displaying the German flag, Jews were specifically guaranteed the right to display the blue and white Jewish national banner. The flag that would one day be adopted by Israel was flown at the Zionist camps and centers in Hitler's Germany. 19
Himmler's security service cooperated with the Haganah, the Zionist underground military organization in Palestine. The SS agency paid Haganah official Feivel Polkes for information about the situation in Palestine and for help in directing Jewish emigration to that country. Meanwhile, the Haganah was kept well informed about German plans by a spy it managed to plant in the Berlin headquarters of the SS.20 Haganah-SS collaboration even included secret deliveries of German weapons to Jewish settlers for use in clashes with Palestinian Arabs. 21
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/ch07.htm
“Our official good will go with them”
By 1934 the SS had become the most pro-Zionist element in the Nazi Party. Other Nazis were even calling them “soft” on the Jews. Baron von Mildenstein had returned from his six-month visit to Palestine as an ardent Zionist sympathiser. Now as the head of the Jewish Department of the SS’s Security Service, he started studying Hebrew and collecting Hebrew records; when his former companion and guide, Kurt Tuchler, visited his office in 1934, he was greeted by the strains of familiar Jewish folk tunes. [16] There were maps on the walls showing the rapidly increasing strength of Zionism inside Germany. [17] Von Mildenstein was as good as his word: he not only wrote favourably about what he saw in the Zionist colonies in Palestine; he also persuaded Goebbels to run the report as a massive twelve-part series in his own Der Angriff (The Assault), the leading Nazi propaganda organ (26 September to 9 October 1934). His stay among the Zionists had shown the SS man “the way to curing a centuries-long wound on the body of the world: the Jewish question”. It was really amazing how some good Jewish boden under his feet could enliven the Jew: “The soil has reformed him and his kind in a decade. This new Jew will be a new people.” [18] To commemorate the Baron’s expedition, Goebbels had a medal struck: on one side the swastika, on the other the Zionist star. [19]
In May 1935 Reinhardt Heydrich, who was then the chief of the SS Security Service, later the infamous “Protector” of the Czech lands incorporated into the Reich, wrote an article, The Visible Enemy, for Das Schwarze Korps, the official organ of the SS. In it Heydrich assessed the various tendencies among the Jews, comparing the assimilationists quite invidiously with the Zionists. His partiality towards Zionism could not have been expressed in more unmistakable terms:
After the Nazi seizure of power our racial laws did in fact curtail considerably the immediate influence of Jews. But ... the question as he sees it is still: How can we win back our old position ... We must separate Jewry into two categories... the Zionists and those who favor being assimilated. The Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state.
Heydrich wished them a fond farewell: “The time cannot be far distant when Palestine will again be able to accept its sons who have been lost to it for over a thousand years. Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them.” [20]
more sex on the brain for loony Islamists
We have all read about how the West Midlands Police, who sponsor police and community events with tax payers money at the same mosques where loony Islamist preachers ranted about killing homsosexuals, have had their complaint to OFCOM thrown out.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2902254.ece
Note how the emphasis on violence all relates to sex and young girls reaching puberty showing their flesh ;
The programme showed one preacher saying: “By the age of 10, it becomes an obligation on us to force her [young girls] to wear hijab, and if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her.”
Other statements included: “Take that homosexual and throw him off the mountain”, and: “Whoever changes his religion from Al Islam to anything else – kill him in the Islamic state”.
Abu Usamah, a preacher at the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, was secretly filmed saying: “If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy, dogs who should be murdered, that is my freedom of speech isn’t it?”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article2902254.ece
Note how the emphasis on violence all relates to sex and young girls reaching puberty showing their flesh ;
The programme showed one preacher saying: “By the age of 10, it becomes an obligation on us to force her [young girls] to wear hijab, and if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her.”
Other statements included: “Take that homosexual and throw him off the mountain”, and: “Whoever changes his religion from Al Islam to anything else – kill him in the Islamic state”.
Abu Usamah, a preacher at the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, was secretly filmed saying: “If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy, dogs who should be murdered, that is my freedom of speech isn’t it?”
Islamist violence is Sexual Violence
More evidence here ;
Dr. Tawfik Hamid [jihadi dropout] is not being flip. The physician and author believes the repressed passions of young Muslims, particularly Sunnis, make them susceptible to the promise of a heaven filled with pleasures of the flesh, and eager to blow up themselves and others to get there.
"I was 8 years old when I first entered this powerful brainwashing system," says Hamid, who grew up in affluence as the son of a Cairo doctor. "At first, my head was filled with images of a paradise of chocolates and lollypops. Later, it was of women." ...
"We used to pray and imagine these beautiful women in tents," he says. "At the same time, our sexual repression was overwhelming. We were taught that even masturbation would deny us our reward."
He has advice for the West, how we are approaching this war against terror the wrong way. He suggests changes we should make and believes nothing will happen until an Islamic 'Martin Luther' emerges to lead the Muslims in the right direction.
Hamid scoffs at the Bush administration's strategy of combatting Islamism with democracy.
"The only solution is a reformation of Islam," he says. "We should be encouraging and supporting religious reformers."
Hamid believes a reformation will lead to the more enlightened practice of Islam, as it did with the Christian and Jewish reformations. The essential ingredients of reform, he says, are rejection of the principles that apostates must be killed; women can be subjugated and enslaved; Jews are subhuman, and Islam can be spread through violence.
The challenge, he says, is that no Islamic Martin Luther has emerged. "Show me where Muslims are speaking out against these beliefs," he says.
"Only a small number of Muslims are jihadists, but many, many more sympathize with their goals. They are passive terrorists."
Hamid's book is "The Roots of Jihad." He remains a practicing Muslim, but wants his religion to become more free, more tolerant, more open to secular pleasures -- like baseball -- and more accepting of criticism.
The West, he says, could help with the latter.
"You are so willing to criticize your own religions," he says. "You must do the same for Islam."
In other words, instead of walking on eggshells for fear of roiling the wasps' nest, both East and West would be better served by a vigorous critique of Islam.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/08/sexual_repression_political_repression_and_violence/
Wright draws a fascinating picture of Sayyid Qutb, the font of modern Islamic fundamentalism, a frail, middle-aged writer who found himself, as a visitor to the United States and a student at Colorado State College of Education in Greeley in the 1940’s, overwhelmed by the unbridled splendor and godlessness of modern America. And by the sex: like so many others who followed him, Qutb seemed simultaneously drawn to and repelled by American women, so free and unselfconscious in their sexuality. The result is a kind of delirium:
“A girl looks at you, appearing as if she were an enchanting nymph or an escaped mermaid,” Qutb wrote, “but as she approaches, you sense only the screaming instinct inside her, and you can smell her burning body, not the scent of perfume, but flesh, only flesh. Tasty flesh, truly, but flesh nonetheless.”
It wasn’t much later that Qutb began writing elaborate rationalizations for killing non-Muslims and waging war against the West. Years later, Atta expressed a similar mix of obsession and disgust for women. Indeed, anyone who has spent time in the Middle East will recognize such tortured emotions.
WRIGHT shows, correctly, that at the root of Islamic militancy — its anger, its antimodernity, its justifications for murder — lies a feeling of intense humiliation. Islam plays a role in this, with its straitjacketed and all-encompassing worldview. But whether the militant hails from a middle-class family or an impoverished one, is intensely religious or a “theological amateur,” as Wright calls bin Laden and his cohort, he springs almost invariably from an ossified society with an autocratic government that is unable to provide any reason to believe in the future.
Rather than turning their revulsion on themselves, they lash out at the object of their revulsion. Hence the focus on the “godlessness” of America
http://www.nospank.net/glazov.htm
ALL SERIAL KILLERS, almost without exception, are severely sexually abused as children. The kind of people who hijack a plane with innocent people and drive it into a building with thousands of other innocent people are related to this phenomenon.
When sociopaths rape and kill, they do not see their victims as human beings, but only as objects. This is because the sociopaths were themselves, at one time, used as objects - as their bodily integrity was repeatedly violated. The rage that results from sexual abuse is one thing, but when combined with living in a dysfunctional culture of sexual repression and misogyny, where love is reduced to violent domination, it is quite another.
Throughout the Islamic Middle East, men and women are taught to be vehemently opposed to pleasure, especially of the sexual variety. Men are raised not only forbidden to touch women, but to even look at them. Sex before marriage is not just a sin -- but a criminal offence. It is punishable by a severe beating at best, and an execution at worst.
The sexual privileges that are allowed in Islamic cultures are permitted to men. Women's sexuality and social independence represent major threats to male supremacy and are tightly controlled. Thus, as the Moroccan feminist Fitna Sabbah reveals in her book Woman in the Muslim Unconscious, there is a disturbing conflict in the Middle East between sexual libido and repression. A deep-seated fear of, and hostility to, individuality prevails, and its main expression exists in misogyny.
Socially segregated from women, Arab men succumb to homosexual behavior. But, interestingly enough, there is no word for "homosexual" in their culture in the modern Western sense. That is because having sex with boys, or with effeminate men, is seen as a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The male who does the penetrating, meanwhile, is not emasculated any more than if he had sex with a wife. The male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not, since it is rationalized that he is not yet a man.
In this culture, males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity. It is considered to have nothing to do with homosexuality. An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do. As the scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.
There is silence around this issue. It is the silence that legitimizes sexual violence against women, such as honor crimes and female circumcision. It is also the silence that forces victimized Arab boys into invisibility. Even though the society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humiliation is a given. Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back.
The problem is that trying to recover from sexual abuse, and to recapture one's own shattered masculinity, is quite an ordeal in a culture where women are hated and love is interpreted as hegemonic control.
With women out of touch - and out of sight -- until marriage, males experience pre-marital sex only in the confines of being with other males. Their sexual outlet mostly includes victimizing younger males - just the way they were victimized.
In all of these circumstances, the idea of love is removed from men's understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to hurting others by violence. A gigantic rupture develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. In relationships between men, meanwhile, affection, solidarity and empathy are left out of the picture. They threaten the hyper-masculine order.
It is excruciating to imagine the sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that evolve in the mindsets of males in this culture. But it is no surprise that many of these males find their only avenue for gratification in the act of humiliating the foreign "enemy," whose masculinity must be violated at all costs - as theirs once was.
Violating the masculinity of the enemy necessitates the dishing out of severe violence against him. In the recent terrorist strikes, therefore, violence against Americans served as a much-needed release of the terrorists' bottled-up sexual rage. Moreover, it served as a desperate and pathological testament of the re-masculinization of their emasculated selves
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article556339.ece
IF WE REALLY want to understand the mindset of the Muslim fundamentalists, it’s time that the issue of sexual politics was addressed head on. Just how does the total domination of women in fundamentalist societies affect the men? After all, when it comes to sex, both genders are involved. And when it comes to extreme forms of aggression and violence, sublimated sexual fear and repression are all too often at the root of the problem.
Take the heartbreaking story of a young Muslim woman, Fatima (I have changed her name), who was referred for psychotherapy. When I first saw her in the waiting area, she looked hunched and lifeless in her scruffy jeans and T-shirt. She had become so severely depressed she rarely left her refugee hostel. Her English was excellent. She was from a progressive Middle Eastern country where she had been a university lecturer before fleeing to the West. As a teenager she had been raped by her brother-in-law. Her mother swore her to secrecy — imperative to save the family honour. Years later, despite her successful career, her mother, against Fatima’s wishes, arranged for her to be married to a much older man. To conceal her lost virginity, her mother hired a doctor to sew up Fatima’s vagina. In an act of desperation Fatima took rat poison in a mosque. Her mother publicly denounced her daughter to protect the family from scandal. Should Fatima ever return home her brothers would murder her for bringing dishonour to their family. “Honour” killings, Fatima told me, were common — the authorities either turn a blind eye or issue six-month prison sentences.
It’s too easy to pigeonhole Fatima’s distress as a “woman’s issue”. Men are also victims of a cultural mindset that obliges them to display their masculine dominance by murdering their sisters if they are suspected of losing their virginity before marriage, or killing their wives if suspected of adultery.
Fundamentalists demand that women be veiled and segregated at every level of society, starting at puberty. Public displays of affection between husbands and wives are forbidden. Wife-beating is so prevalent, many see it as a normal part of marriage. In bed any sexual position where the woman is on top is haram or sinful. It’s difficult to imagine how either gender can enjoy intimacy in such a climate.
So what is the effect on young unmarried men who, like youths the world over, are subject to a whole host of fears about their burgeoning sexuality? What do they do with their unacceptable sexual fantasies fuelled by the strict regime and the temptations of the mysterious, hidden feminine world? Too often they project their self-disgust on to their object of desire, whom they blame for causing them to have “impure” thoughts. Twenty-five years ago when Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran, women who let a single lock of hair fall beneath their headscarves were beaten for abusing their sexual power. Women who had worn make-up and Western dress under the Shah were denigrated as “Westoxicated”. And the supposedly sexually licentious West became, and remains, “the Great Satan”, purveyor of all evil that must be destroyed.
The connections between sexual repression, extreme violence and a male obsession with war and death are recognisable in the West. In America Christian Reconstructionists, a fundamentalist sect, also advocate the death penalty for adultery, homosexuality and “unchastity before marriage” (but for women only). Studies of the psychology of Fascism show how the Nazi cult of obeying, adoring and fearing the Führer is rooted in the patriarchal family obeying, adoring and fearing the father. The Nazis, like modern Islamic and Christian fundamentalists, were also obsessed with virgins and women as submissive housewives and perfect mothers. Their extreme masculinity values, above all else, male bonding and sacrificing their lives for the fatherland’s high ideals of racial or religious purity, with the promise of glorious martyrdom.
Fascist mindsets promote the abuse and denigration of “impure” women. In modern Islamist Tehran there is a thriving sex trade — an estimated 84,000 women are in prostitution and thousands of girls are sold as sex slaves across the Arab world.
Arguably such societies are in the grip of mass psychosis. Like a paranoid psychotic they split the world between those they hopelessly idealise as pure and good, and those they denigrate as evil and out to destroy them. It is not unusual for a paranoid psychotic to nurture delusions of grandeur and an imaginary hotline to God.
Western and Islamic feminists have for too long agonised about what right we have to assume that the sexual freedoms enjoyed by Western women should be a global gold standard of how to live in the modern world. The debate always becomes ensnared in multiculturalism — that we must respect the diversity of beliefs and traditions even if these include human rights abuses of women in Muslim countries. But we only have to look around us to see how, in the most sophisticated levels of society where women are seen as equal, men also benefit — they are more tolerant, more able to enjoy intimacy and less aggressive towards women and each other. So attitudes towards gender and sexuality are not just a feminist issue for women to discuss while the men set about combating terrorism.
To understand the violence of the fundamentalist fascist mentality, skewed gender relations and repressed sexuality, far from being peripheral, have to be confronted head on.
The author is a freelance writer and psychotherapist.
Dr. Tawfik Hamid [jihadi dropout] is not being flip. The physician and author believes the repressed passions of young Muslims, particularly Sunnis, make them susceptible to the promise of a heaven filled with pleasures of the flesh, and eager to blow up themselves and others to get there.
"I was 8 years old when I first entered this powerful brainwashing system," says Hamid, who grew up in affluence as the son of a Cairo doctor. "At first, my head was filled with images of a paradise of chocolates and lollypops. Later, it was of women." ...
"We used to pray and imagine these beautiful women in tents," he says. "At the same time, our sexual repression was overwhelming. We were taught that even masturbation would deny us our reward."
He has advice for the West, how we are approaching this war against terror the wrong way. He suggests changes we should make and believes nothing will happen until an Islamic 'Martin Luther' emerges to lead the Muslims in the right direction.
Hamid scoffs at the Bush administration's strategy of combatting Islamism with democracy.
"The only solution is a reformation of Islam," he says. "We should be encouraging and supporting religious reformers."
Hamid believes a reformation will lead to the more enlightened practice of Islam, as it did with the Christian and Jewish reformations. The essential ingredients of reform, he says, are rejection of the principles that apostates must be killed; women can be subjugated and enslaved; Jews are subhuman, and Islam can be spread through violence.
The challenge, he says, is that no Islamic Martin Luther has emerged. "Show me where Muslims are speaking out against these beliefs," he says.
"Only a small number of Muslims are jihadists, but many, many more sympathize with their goals. They are passive terrorists."
Hamid's book is "The Roots of Jihad." He remains a practicing Muslim, but wants his religion to become more free, more tolerant, more open to secular pleasures -- like baseball -- and more accepting of criticism.
The West, he says, could help with the latter.
"You are so willing to criticize your own religions," he says. "You must do the same for Islam."
In other words, instead of walking on eggshells for fear of roiling the wasps' nest, both East and West would be better served by a vigorous critique of Islam.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/08/sexual_repression_political_repression_and_violence/
Wright draws a fascinating picture of Sayyid Qutb, the font of modern Islamic fundamentalism, a frail, middle-aged writer who found himself, as a visitor to the United States and a student at Colorado State College of Education in Greeley in the 1940’s, overwhelmed by the unbridled splendor and godlessness of modern America. And by the sex: like so many others who followed him, Qutb seemed simultaneously drawn to and repelled by American women, so free and unselfconscious in their sexuality. The result is a kind of delirium:
“A girl looks at you, appearing as if she were an enchanting nymph or an escaped mermaid,” Qutb wrote, “but as she approaches, you sense only the screaming instinct inside her, and you can smell her burning body, not the scent of perfume, but flesh, only flesh. Tasty flesh, truly, but flesh nonetheless.”
It wasn’t much later that Qutb began writing elaborate rationalizations for killing non-Muslims and waging war against the West. Years later, Atta expressed a similar mix of obsession and disgust for women. Indeed, anyone who has spent time in the Middle East will recognize such tortured emotions.
WRIGHT shows, correctly, that at the root of Islamic militancy — its anger, its antimodernity, its justifications for murder — lies a feeling of intense humiliation. Islam plays a role in this, with its straitjacketed and all-encompassing worldview. But whether the militant hails from a middle-class family or an impoverished one, is intensely religious or a “theological amateur,” as Wright calls bin Laden and his cohort, he springs almost invariably from an ossified society with an autocratic government that is unable to provide any reason to believe in the future.
Rather than turning their revulsion on themselves, they lash out at the object of their revulsion. Hence the focus on the “godlessness” of America
http://www.nospank.net/glazov.htm
ALL SERIAL KILLERS, almost without exception, are severely sexually abused as children. The kind of people who hijack a plane with innocent people and drive it into a building with thousands of other innocent people are related to this phenomenon.
When sociopaths rape and kill, they do not see their victims as human beings, but only as objects. This is because the sociopaths were themselves, at one time, used as objects - as their bodily integrity was repeatedly violated. The rage that results from sexual abuse is one thing, but when combined with living in a dysfunctional culture of sexual repression and misogyny, where love is reduced to violent domination, it is quite another.
Throughout the Islamic Middle East, men and women are taught to be vehemently opposed to pleasure, especially of the sexual variety. Men are raised not only forbidden to touch women, but to even look at them. Sex before marriage is not just a sin -- but a criminal offence. It is punishable by a severe beating at best, and an execution at worst.
The sexual privileges that are allowed in Islamic cultures are permitted to men. Women's sexuality and social independence represent major threats to male supremacy and are tightly controlled. Thus, as the Moroccan feminist Fitna Sabbah reveals in her book Woman in the Muslim Unconscious, there is a disturbing conflict in the Middle East between sexual libido and repression. A deep-seated fear of, and hostility to, individuality prevails, and its main expression exists in misogyny.
Socially segregated from women, Arab men succumb to homosexual behavior. But, interestingly enough, there is no word for "homosexual" in their culture in the modern Western sense. That is because having sex with boys, or with effeminate men, is seen as a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The male who does the penetrating, meanwhile, is not emasculated any more than if he had sex with a wife. The male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not, since it is rationalized that he is not yet a man.
In this culture, males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity. It is considered to have nothing to do with homosexuality. An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do. As the scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.
There is silence around this issue. It is the silence that legitimizes sexual violence against women, such as honor crimes and female circumcision. It is also the silence that forces victimized Arab boys into invisibility. Even though the society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humiliation is a given. Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back.
The problem is that trying to recover from sexual abuse, and to recapture one's own shattered masculinity, is quite an ordeal in a culture where women are hated and love is interpreted as hegemonic control.
With women out of touch - and out of sight -- until marriage, males experience pre-marital sex only in the confines of being with other males. Their sexual outlet mostly includes victimizing younger males - just the way they were victimized.
In all of these circumstances, the idea of love is removed from men's understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to hurting others by violence. A gigantic rupture develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. In relationships between men, meanwhile, affection, solidarity and empathy are left out of the picture. They threaten the hyper-masculine order.
It is excruciating to imagine the sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that evolve in the mindsets of males in this culture. But it is no surprise that many of these males find their only avenue for gratification in the act of humiliating the foreign "enemy," whose masculinity must be violated at all costs - as theirs once was.
Violating the masculinity of the enemy necessitates the dishing out of severe violence against him. In the recent terrorist strikes, therefore, violence against Americans served as a much-needed release of the terrorists' bottled-up sexual rage. Moreover, it served as a desperate and pathological testament of the re-masculinization of their emasculated selves
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article556339.ece
IF WE REALLY want to understand the mindset of the Muslim fundamentalists, it’s time that the issue of sexual politics was addressed head on. Just how does the total domination of women in fundamentalist societies affect the men? After all, when it comes to sex, both genders are involved. And when it comes to extreme forms of aggression and violence, sublimated sexual fear and repression are all too often at the root of the problem.
Take the heartbreaking story of a young Muslim woman, Fatima (I have changed her name), who was referred for psychotherapy. When I first saw her in the waiting area, she looked hunched and lifeless in her scruffy jeans and T-shirt. She had become so severely depressed she rarely left her refugee hostel. Her English was excellent. She was from a progressive Middle Eastern country where she had been a university lecturer before fleeing to the West. As a teenager she had been raped by her brother-in-law. Her mother swore her to secrecy — imperative to save the family honour. Years later, despite her successful career, her mother, against Fatima’s wishes, arranged for her to be married to a much older man. To conceal her lost virginity, her mother hired a doctor to sew up Fatima’s vagina. In an act of desperation Fatima took rat poison in a mosque. Her mother publicly denounced her daughter to protect the family from scandal. Should Fatima ever return home her brothers would murder her for bringing dishonour to their family. “Honour” killings, Fatima told me, were common — the authorities either turn a blind eye or issue six-month prison sentences.
It’s too easy to pigeonhole Fatima’s distress as a “woman’s issue”. Men are also victims of a cultural mindset that obliges them to display their masculine dominance by murdering their sisters if they are suspected of losing their virginity before marriage, or killing their wives if suspected of adultery.
Fundamentalists demand that women be veiled and segregated at every level of society, starting at puberty. Public displays of affection between husbands and wives are forbidden. Wife-beating is so prevalent, many see it as a normal part of marriage. In bed any sexual position where the woman is on top is haram or sinful. It’s difficult to imagine how either gender can enjoy intimacy in such a climate.
So what is the effect on young unmarried men who, like youths the world over, are subject to a whole host of fears about their burgeoning sexuality? What do they do with their unacceptable sexual fantasies fuelled by the strict regime and the temptations of the mysterious, hidden feminine world? Too often they project their self-disgust on to their object of desire, whom they blame for causing them to have “impure” thoughts. Twenty-five years ago when Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran, women who let a single lock of hair fall beneath their headscarves were beaten for abusing their sexual power. Women who had worn make-up and Western dress under the Shah were denigrated as “Westoxicated”. And the supposedly sexually licentious West became, and remains, “the Great Satan”, purveyor of all evil that must be destroyed.
The connections between sexual repression, extreme violence and a male obsession with war and death are recognisable in the West. In America Christian Reconstructionists, a fundamentalist sect, also advocate the death penalty for adultery, homosexuality and “unchastity before marriage” (but for women only). Studies of the psychology of Fascism show how the Nazi cult of obeying, adoring and fearing the Führer is rooted in the patriarchal family obeying, adoring and fearing the father. The Nazis, like modern Islamic and Christian fundamentalists, were also obsessed with virgins and women as submissive housewives and perfect mothers. Their extreme masculinity values, above all else, male bonding and sacrificing their lives for the fatherland’s high ideals of racial or religious purity, with the promise of glorious martyrdom.
Fascist mindsets promote the abuse and denigration of “impure” women. In modern Islamist Tehran there is a thriving sex trade — an estimated 84,000 women are in prostitution and thousands of girls are sold as sex slaves across the Arab world.
Arguably such societies are in the grip of mass psychosis. Like a paranoid psychotic they split the world between those they hopelessly idealise as pure and good, and those they denigrate as evil and out to destroy them. It is not unusual for a paranoid psychotic to nurture delusions of grandeur and an imaginary hotline to God.
Western and Islamic feminists have for too long agonised about what right we have to assume that the sexual freedoms enjoyed by Western women should be a global gold standard of how to live in the modern world. The debate always becomes ensnared in multiculturalism — that we must respect the diversity of beliefs and traditions even if these include human rights abuses of women in Muslim countries. But we only have to look around us to see how, in the most sophisticated levels of society where women are seen as equal, men also benefit — they are more tolerant, more able to enjoy intimacy and less aggressive towards women and each other. So attitudes towards gender and sexuality are not just a feminist issue for women to discuss while the men set about combating terrorism.
To understand the violence of the fundamentalist fascist mentality, skewed gender relations and repressed sexuality, far from being peripheral, have to be confronted head on.
The author is a freelance writer and psychotherapist.
Monday, 19 November 2007
The Fighter and the Fop
There are two stories that illustrate perfectly how insane, weak, degenerate, cowardly and pathetic our country and society has become.
The first concerns the news that Prison Officers are wearing slippers at work instead of boots so they do not disturb the sleep of the paedophiles and killers they guard for fear of breaching their human rights ;
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/11/19/the-soft-screw-shuffle-89520-20126071/
It appears that Prisons are now like creches, wear the poor little sleeping darlings must not be disturbed by the nasty prison officers.
The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum / Prison / government/ MI5/ MI6 / Police.
The second concerns the report in the Guardian about how Labour ministers are surrendering to Islamist extremists and their liberal apologists ;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...213823,00.html
Counter-terrorism officials are rethinking their approach to tackling the radicalisation of Muslim youth, abandoning what they admit has been offensive and inappropriate language. They say the term "war on terror" will no longer be heard from ministers. Instead, they will use less emotive language, emphasising the criminal nature of the plots and conspiracies. The government in future, they add, will talk of a "struggle" against extremist ideology, rather than a "battle".
"We hadn't got the message right," said one senior official. He added: "We must talk in a language which is not offensive." Another said that the terrorist threat must not be described as a "Muslim problem".
A senior official eh - you mean one of the idiots who lives on the public purse and is paid to talk total bollocks and whose success so far in fighting the Islamist terrorists has been NIL.
Dependiong on the those who have failed in the past for solutions in the future is the epitome of stupidity. Only in government and the civil service is incompetence rewarded and promoted.
Arse licking is all thats required to succeed in New Labours New Britain, the country where Gordon Brown-nosing has become literally the best way to get on.
Here we see the suicide of a civilisation right before our eyes.
The collapse of a country and a culture can only occur when its ruling elites are complicit in the collapse, and here we see how this is happening.
Wearing slippers in prisons so as not to disturb murderers and saying the Islamist terrorist threat we face is not a Muslim problem, are both examples of a nation that is entering the final stage of morbidity. Our country has been left paralysed and defenceless by the gutless, cringing, servile, treasonous, pernicious scum that run it.
The Islamist terrorism problem we face is a Muslim problem, primarily as Muslims are the primary victims of the problem. At the same time as the Islamists seek to slaughter the Kafir, they also seek to murder the apostates.
It is the Muslim community who are the primary victims of Islamism at the same time as the Muslim community is the swamp from which the Islamists draw their terrorist recruits, funding and support.
Islamist terrorism is not criminality, as criminality is not defined by its political or theological motivation. Islamist terrorism is simply Islamists terrorism, which is designed to terrorise Muslim and non-Muslim nations into surrendering to the theological demands of the terrorists.
It is ironic that the same IRA arselickers in the Labour government who used to call the IRA 'soldiers' and that theirs was a 'political struggle' have now reversed their stance completely when it comes to Islamist terrorism. Islamists who use violence are called criminals, whilst the IRA were called soldiers.
Just as the Labour government refused to call the IRA terrorists, they now refuse to call the Islamists terrorists.
Crime may have profit as a motive or passion. Criminals seek their reward financially.
Terrorism has either a political or theological motive.
Islamist terrorism seek its reward in heaven or to impose a theological code on society.
Planting a bomb on the London Tube in the name of Al Qaeda or the palestinian people or any other number of bogus greivances, is terrorism not criminality.
The reason why this change of emphasis is being used by the Labour government is because Gordon Brown now realises just how dependent he is for the Muslim vote.
Just as Cameron is dependent upon Immigration being an issue for him to win the next election, Brown knows that unless he recaptures the Muslim vote then he wont win the next election.
What this change of emphasis suggests is quite alarming for the non-Muslim British people.
It suggests that Brown has realised is that a substantial portion of the British Muslim population are active supporters of the Islamist terrorists. Brown therefore must get them on board as well as the moderate muslims. The change in the approach to Islamist violence suggests that ;
1) A very large proportion of the Muslim population support Islamism
2) That Brown needs their votes to get him back into power
3) That the government has realised that all its previous strategies to deal with Islamist terrorism have failed.
The most frightening thing of all is what this new stance portends. It suggests that instead of the government becoming more tough with the Islamists, they have chosen to choose the soft licking their arse option.
Just as tens of thousands of Islamists are present in our country forming cells to attack us, the government have chosen the soft option on dealing with them.
That places us all at risk of murder and maiming, muslims and non-muslims alike.
I am sure that Muslim youth who idolise Osama Bin Laden will be soooooo impressed by Gordon Browns cabal of butt licking lisping popinjays from the civil service being sent to talk them out of being ' wadicals who are wery wery naughty cwiminals '.
Islamism is a force that is an expression of vigorous male energy as Islam is a singularly paternalistic religion. Islamist terrorism is virtually totally male dominated, it is thrusting and aggressive, and it seeks to penetrate nations by force, as it is based on Jihad which is an aspect of rape. This is why the sword and the bullet, which are the main weapons of Jihad, are the basis of most terrorist attacks as both are penetrative weapons. The terrorist bomb is also an symbolic male orgasm. The suicide bomber through the explosion of the bomb on his back seeks sexual release.
The young males on 7/7 carrying their bombs on their backs in the London Underground had symbolically entered the vagina ( the tunnels in the earth ) and then sought an orgasm when the bomb exploded.
The symbolism of Islamist terrorism is clear to those with eyes to see it.
Islamist terrorism exists as an expression of sublimated male sexuality due to the fetishisation of female purity in Islam and the resulting aggression such sublimated sexuality causes especially in young males.
Sexual repression in males always expresses itself as a mania, and the expression of male sexual repression in Islam is Islamist Terrorism.
This is why the Islamist terrorists talk about white women being 'sluts' for going to nightclubs and meeting blokes, that our society is degenerate (eg pornographic) and why they hate seeing images of scantily clad women and paint over adverts in places like London and Birmngham that show women in bikinis. One group even wanted to bomb nightclubs, whilst the Islamist terrorist who self roasted himself at Glasgow airport actually planted a bomb outside a London nightclub. They cannot stand seeing sexual images as they inflame their sublimated urges and drive them to murderous rage. This is why the Taliban force women to wear the veils - not for the 'protection' of the women but to stop the men themselves being driven to sexual rage and temptations by the sight of female beauty. This is also why rape and gang rapes are so prevalent in Islamic societies and in Islamic immigrant communities such as in France. This is also why they seek to groom young white girls into being prostitutues in araes like Leeds and the North of England.
Islamist violence is an aspect of sexual terrorism.
Islamist terrorism is an emanation of a male dominated religion, culture and psyche.
The way to defeat this male force is to meet with a similarly vigorous male response - terror with terror.
Instead Gordon Brown and his limp dicked cabal of advisers, many of whom are ex-public school boys sodomised throughout their schooling, or are liberals dominated by their female sides, are unable to understand the nature of the religion itself nor why so many young men fall prey to it. They are not men in the government or civil service, they are the pathetic remnants of men - the Liberal New Men or Eunuchs as they were once called, the feminine men of a feminised society.
As the Native Americans realised you cannot win a war when you are led by Berdaches -to win wars you need to be led by warriors, not half women.
Whilst White British youth (who are not Christian fanatics like Gordon Brown) are busy getting laid most days and drunk most nights - Muslim young men either have to get married to get sex or go without. This causes massive aggression problems.
This is why those young men in society who are busy getting laid are usually the ones least likely to cause trouble.
The government and its cabal of feminised advisers want to make Britain Islamism's bitch.
They want us to stick our arses in the air, pull our cheeks apart and then say to the terrorists ' We`surrender ', just as many of them once did, and still do.
This is why we need to have a strong nationalistic party to deal with Islam, and to force the 99.99999 % of young men who are muslim terrorists, who are impressed by Islamism.
Perhaps Gordon Brown and his advisers should be asking themselves why it is that nearly all of the terrorists in Islamism are males and why so few are females.
When he understands that Islam and Male Muslims, who are raised in the mindset of the strong male archetype, are impressed only by STRENGTH and not weakness, then we will be a lot safer as a society - and he might start winning a few Muslim MALE minds , as the males are the ones that are doing the killings and bombings.
It is not Muslim women we need to win over but Muslim males - and for that we need to display strength and certainty.
when you put Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist fighter , next to Gordon Brown, the labour happy clappy 'love the world ' Christian, then who will young muslim males be impressed by.
The Fighter or the Fop.
I think the answer is pretty clear dont you, except for the fops in government and the civil service.
The first concerns the news that Prison Officers are wearing slippers at work instead of boots so they do not disturb the sleep of the paedophiles and killers they guard for fear of breaching their human rights ;
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/11/19/the-soft-screw-shuffle-89520-20126071/
It appears that Prisons are now like creches, wear the poor little sleeping darlings must not be disturbed by the nasty prison officers.
The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum / Prison / government/ MI5/ MI6 / Police.
The second concerns the report in the Guardian about how Labour ministers are surrendering to Islamist extremists and their liberal apologists ;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...213823,00.html
Counter-terrorism officials are rethinking their approach to tackling the radicalisation of Muslim youth, abandoning what they admit has been offensive and inappropriate language. They say the term "war on terror" will no longer be heard from ministers. Instead, they will use less emotive language, emphasising the criminal nature of the plots and conspiracies. The government in future, they add, will talk of a "struggle" against extremist ideology, rather than a "battle".
"We hadn't got the message right," said one senior official. He added: "We must talk in a language which is not offensive." Another said that the terrorist threat must not be described as a "Muslim problem".
A senior official eh - you mean one of the idiots who lives on the public purse and is paid to talk total bollocks and whose success so far in fighting the Islamist terrorists has been NIL.
Dependiong on the those who have failed in the past for solutions in the future is the epitome of stupidity. Only in government and the civil service is incompetence rewarded and promoted.
Arse licking is all thats required to succeed in New Labours New Britain, the country where Gordon Brown-nosing has become literally the best way to get on.
Here we see the suicide of a civilisation right before our eyes.
The collapse of a country and a culture can only occur when its ruling elites are complicit in the collapse, and here we see how this is happening.
Wearing slippers in prisons so as not to disturb murderers and saying the Islamist terrorist threat we face is not a Muslim problem, are both examples of a nation that is entering the final stage of morbidity. Our country has been left paralysed and defenceless by the gutless, cringing, servile, treasonous, pernicious scum that run it.
The Islamist terrorism problem we face is a Muslim problem, primarily as Muslims are the primary victims of the problem. At the same time as the Islamists seek to slaughter the Kafir, they also seek to murder the apostates.
It is the Muslim community who are the primary victims of Islamism at the same time as the Muslim community is the swamp from which the Islamists draw their terrorist recruits, funding and support.
Islamist terrorism is not criminality, as criminality is not defined by its political or theological motivation. Islamist terrorism is simply Islamists terrorism, which is designed to terrorise Muslim and non-Muslim nations into surrendering to the theological demands of the terrorists.
It is ironic that the same IRA arselickers in the Labour government who used to call the IRA 'soldiers' and that theirs was a 'political struggle' have now reversed their stance completely when it comes to Islamist terrorism. Islamists who use violence are called criminals, whilst the IRA were called soldiers.
Just as the Labour government refused to call the IRA terrorists, they now refuse to call the Islamists terrorists.
Crime may have profit as a motive or passion. Criminals seek their reward financially.
Terrorism has either a political or theological motive.
Islamist terrorism seek its reward in heaven or to impose a theological code on society.
Planting a bomb on the London Tube in the name of Al Qaeda or the palestinian people or any other number of bogus greivances, is terrorism not criminality.
The reason why this change of emphasis is being used by the Labour government is because Gordon Brown now realises just how dependent he is for the Muslim vote.
Just as Cameron is dependent upon Immigration being an issue for him to win the next election, Brown knows that unless he recaptures the Muslim vote then he wont win the next election.
What this change of emphasis suggests is quite alarming for the non-Muslim British people.
It suggests that Brown has realised is that a substantial portion of the British Muslim population are active supporters of the Islamist terrorists. Brown therefore must get them on board as well as the moderate muslims. The change in the approach to Islamist violence suggests that ;
1) A very large proportion of the Muslim population support Islamism
2) That Brown needs their votes to get him back into power
3) That the government has realised that all its previous strategies to deal with Islamist terrorism have failed.
The most frightening thing of all is what this new stance portends. It suggests that instead of the government becoming more tough with the Islamists, they have chosen to choose the soft licking their arse option.
Just as tens of thousands of Islamists are present in our country forming cells to attack us, the government have chosen the soft option on dealing with them.
That places us all at risk of murder and maiming, muslims and non-muslims alike.
I am sure that Muslim youth who idolise Osama Bin Laden will be soooooo impressed by Gordon Browns cabal of butt licking lisping popinjays from the civil service being sent to talk them out of being ' wadicals who are wery wery naughty cwiminals '.
Islamism is a force that is an expression of vigorous male energy as Islam is a singularly paternalistic religion. Islamist terrorism is virtually totally male dominated, it is thrusting and aggressive, and it seeks to penetrate nations by force, as it is based on Jihad which is an aspect of rape. This is why the sword and the bullet, which are the main weapons of Jihad, are the basis of most terrorist attacks as both are penetrative weapons. The terrorist bomb is also an symbolic male orgasm. The suicide bomber through the explosion of the bomb on his back seeks sexual release.
The young males on 7/7 carrying their bombs on their backs in the London Underground had symbolically entered the vagina ( the tunnels in the earth ) and then sought an orgasm when the bomb exploded.
The symbolism of Islamist terrorism is clear to those with eyes to see it.
Islamist terrorism exists as an expression of sublimated male sexuality due to the fetishisation of female purity in Islam and the resulting aggression such sublimated sexuality causes especially in young males.
Sexual repression in males always expresses itself as a mania, and the expression of male sexual repression in Islam is Islamist Terrorism.
This is why the Islamist terrorists talk about white women being 'sluts' for going to nightclubs and meeting blokes, that our society is degenerate (eg pornographic) and why they hate seeing images of scantily clad women and paint over adverts in places like London and Birmngham that show women in bikinis. One group even wanted to bomb nightclubs, whilst the Islamist terrorist who self roasted himself at Glasgow airport actually planted a bomb outside a London nightclub. They cannot stand seeing sexual images as they inflame their sublimated urges and drive them to murderous rage. This is why the Taliban force women to wear the veils - not for the 'protection' of the women but to stop the men themselves being driven to sexual rage and temptations by the sight of female beauty. This is also why rape and gang rapes are so prevalent in Islamic societies and in Islamic immigrant communities such as in France. This is also why they seek to groom young white girls into being prostitutues in araes like Leeds and the North of England.
Islamist violence is an aspect of sexual terrorism.
Islamist terrorism is an emanation of a male dominated religion, culture and psyche.
The way to defeat this male force is to meet with a similarly vigorous male response - terror with terror.
Instead Gordon Brown and his limp dicked cabal of advisers, many of whom are ex-public school boys sodomised throughout their schooling, or are liberals dominated by their female sides, are unable to understand the nature of the religion itself nor why so many young men fall prey to it. They are not men in the government or civil service, they are the pathetic remnants of men - the Liberal New Men or Eunuchs as they were once called, the feminine men of a feminised society.
As the Native Americans realised you cannot win a war when you are led by Berdaches -to win wars you need to be led by warriors, not half women.
Whilst White British youth (who are not Christian fanatics like Gordon Brown) are busy getting laid most days and drunk most nights - Muslim young men either have to get married to get sex or go without. This causes massive aggression problems.
This is why those young men in society who are busy getting laid are usually the ones least likely to cause trouble.
The government and its cabal of feminised advisers want to make Britain Islamism's bitch.
They want us to stick our arses in the air, pull our cheeks apart and then say to the terrorists ' We`surrender ', just as many of them once did, and still do.
This is why we need to have a strong nationalistic party to deal with Islam, and to force the 99.99999 % of young men who are muslim terrorists, who are impressed by Islamism.
Perhaps Gordon Brown and his advisers should be asking themselves why it is that nearly all of the terrorists in Islamism are males and why so few are females.
When he understands that Islam and Male Muslims, who are raised in the mindset of the strong male archetype, are impressed only by STRENGTH and not weakness, then we will be a lot safer as a society - and he might start winning a few Muslim MALE minds , as the males are the ones that are doing the killings and bombings.
It is not Muslim women we need to win over but Muslim males - and for that we need to display strength and certainty.
when you put Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist fighter , next to Gordon Brown, the labour happy clappy 'love the world ' Christian, then who will young muslim males be impressed by.
The Fighter or the Fop.
I think the answer is pretty clear dont you, except for the fops in government and the civil service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
