Sunday, 15 February 2009

A Week in England

By Sarah Maid of Albion

A series of events occurred this week which reveal with chilling clarity quite how far down the green brick road to Khalifah we have skipped, encouraged on by a motley assortment of straw-headed morons, moral cowards and a fair few wicked witches.

The first of these events was the decision by the Church of England synod to join the UK Stasi - that is to say the British Police - in banning its employees from membership of a legal and legitimate political party, the BNP. The fact that this received, scant, fourth to sixth news item, coverage in the media, and probably passed unnoticed by the majority of the population, demonstrates how irrelevant the once mighty Church of England has become, and how little most people now care about the waffling, bleating and bickering at what progressively resembles a gathering of dodgy piano teachers in frocks.

However, I care, I was brought up in the Church of England, christened and later confirmed into the church during my early teens, after having first gone into retreat in a beautiful old Abbey to prepare myself for what was, even then, as recently as the 1980's, considered a big deal.

My parents, whilst being an amusing and sophisticated couple, were quite religious people, who were committed members of the C of E. My father in particular was very active in the church, for at least a decade acting as Sidesman, every Sunday handing out prayer books to the congregation or taking the collection. A man who could talk at length on any subject, from politics to art culture and sport would spend hours speaking of scripture, philosophy and of the church, subjects which he dearly loved. Meanwhile, my mother would take her turn every six weeks or so, in preparing the flowers in the Church or delivering the parish news letter, and it was she who taught us the prayers of her own childhood in our infancy, which I then taught to my son in his.

Both, having left us recently, now lie buried in the shadow of their church, and are remembered with affection among the congregation to which they belonged, in a corner of old England which is still clinging on.

I may not be as involved in the church as my parents were, but I was married there, my son was christened in church, and throughout my life I have never gone more than a month without taking holy communion. The Church means a lot to me, it has been part of my life, and I have been more a part of it than the vast majority if my fellow Britons can now claim to be.

However, the church in which I was raised has rejected me, and when they did so they threw lies about me in my face. One of the befrocked old liars stated that the BNP, a party I have voted for, supported the "forcible eviction of people of different faiths and races". He lied, forcible repatriation is not BNP policy, and has not been for many years, if it ever was. Voluntary repatriation, funded by the taxpayer, certainly is, it is much cheaper in the long run than having them stay, but certainly no law abiding citizen, who is here legally would be thrown out by the BNP. What the BNP would do is halt the relentless tide of new immigrants, and it is that which the deceitful old cleric could not stomach.

However, as proof that they are united in their campaign of distortion, not one of his peers stood up and shouted "That is untrue you dishonest old git!" although they must surely all have known it was.

The Church may not (yet) have banned BNP supporters from its pews, but how can I, with honour, remain with a Church which has told me that what I believe in and what I am fighting for is a sin? My church has forced me to make a choice, I have done so, and I have not chosen them.

My faith will have to sustain me for a while. The Church of Rome has embarked upon its own campaign against thought and, as such, offers no alternative. However, something will emerge, as through history other churches have sprung up to offer a home to previous victims of other bigotry. We will find a place to worship, and as more eyes are opened, more people will move away from the shameful, cringing, irrelevance the established church has become.

We who have been rejected will move on, we will become stronger and we will still worship a Christian God, meanwhile the Church of England which has long only paid limited lip service to such an act, will continue its inevitable decline to something only suited, or relevant, to the mad black bigots of sub Saharan Africa.


A second thing which occurred this week was the announcement that Prince Harry would be sent for re-education, disingenuously referred to as "diversity awareness training", but which might be more accurately described as Multicultural brainwashing.

To our media, leaders and thought controllers, it matters not that, unlike many of his critics such as the deeply unattractive Keith Vaz or the unfunny comedian Stephen K Amos, Harry has spent time working tirelessly in Africa, to make life better for Africans, and can be seem affectionately cuddling black children in scores of photographs taken during his time in Africa. In a land where a man's actions are meaningless when compared to his utterance of an ideologically impure word, our controllers have judged young Harry guilty of the unspeakable heinous and unforgivably evil act of failing to be sufficiently politically correct when making a private video, or engaging in a private conversation.

As punishment for his breach of party rules, a grovelling apology not withstanding, Harry must suffer public humiliation, and submit to political retraining.

Is it just me, or do images from life within the Soviet sector of East Berlin circa 1961 spring to your minds as well?. Are we to assume that if Harry were to "re-offend" he will then be banished to some goulag north of Strathclyde?.

I guess it should not surprise us that so much in Britain today has overtones echoing, at the very least, the psychology of life within the GDR between 1950 and 1990. It is after all the beliefs and teachings of those same people who applauded the Soviet Empire, the drawing of the iron curtain, and the thought control imposed on half of Europe, for the better part of a century, which have brought us to where we are. For it is their prize winning students who are now running our lives and dictating our language.


Finally, in my account of this week I shall turn to the shameful decision to ban film maker and elected Dutch politician Geert Wilders from Britain, where he was planning to attend the screening of his documentary FITNA. By a single, and deeply contemptible act of capitulation Britain was exposed not only as a country no longer possessed of the spirit needed to face down intimidation, but a land where freedom of conscience is no longer safe.

That a country which once ruled half the surface of the earth has been reduced to a cringing submissive before the advance of a crusading Islam, came as no surprise to those of us who have watched and railed at our nations rapid surrender, but it must have come as a shock to those who had been looking the other way and imagined brave Albion retained some vestige of the courage it once had.

Much as been said about how, by banning Wilders, the United Kingdom has renounced any remaining pretence to a belief in free speech, and indeed, how can we deny that we have now abandoned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which clearly states: "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people".

I have already made my views clear on that, and frankly any honourable person will realise that what was done was an act of cowardice and a betrayal of free speech, even if their political agendas prevent them from admitting to it. Therefore, I shall let others comment on these aspects, and shall instead focus not on the cowardice and betrayal which was involved, but on the lies and deceit which was used in support of it.

First there is the official justification given for banning Mr Wilders, namely that his presence would be a threat to social harmony and likely to incite racial hatred. This implication being that Wilders and his supporters would act in a disharmonious manner, and commit acts of racial hatred, this certainly was what Lord Ahmed and his government sought to suggest. However, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It was rioting Muslim protesters, such as those Ahmed threatened us with, and the racial hatred which they would perpetrate against Wilders and his supporters which the government feared.

However, on account of the warped doctrine which now rules us, it was he, the potential victim, and not they , the potential aggressors, our government chose to ban! How exactly does such a policy differ from one which seeks to prevent rape by banning women from going out?!

Turning from the act to its supporters brings us to a second vaudevillian performance from the thankfully, inimitable Keith Vaz. Vaz is a man famous for his inability to appreciate his own ludicrousness, but he must have exceeded even himself in lack of personal awareness on Thursday night. Anyone watching BBC2's Newsnight must have surely sensed the smell of old lavender and the flutter of purple chiffon, while the ghost of Mary Whitehouse rode once more, as Vaz announced, without apparent irony that he "did not have to see FITNA to know it was racist".

The evening before and on a different channel , a toad like creature mascaraing as a reporter for More4 news accused Wilders of "selectively quoting" from the Qur'an. This was from a member of a profession which bases its entire output upon selective quotations in order to tell a story or to report on an issue. In effect the toad-like reporter was criticising Wilders for doing exactly the same thing as his employers pay him to do, except that there is probably more truth in FITNA than in the average week's Channel 4 news output.

Given that Geert Wilders does not belong to that select circle with "journalist" on their CV, who are apparently permitted by some by-law to quote selectively, did the More4 toad expect him to sit in front of the camera and read out the entire Qur'an for the sake of balance? That smacks of the agenda behind those attempting to impose that oppressive (some might say fascist) and most certainly misnamed "Fairness doctrine" on US talk radio, which is designed to achieve censorship through boredom, and hide facts under a mountain of irrelevance.

Clearly those sections of the Qur'an urging its followers to throw homosexuals off mountains, or not to pay interest on loans, have no direct relevance to why Muslims might decide to blow up trains and disco bars, or fly aeroplanes into tall buildings, and I am sure Wilders does not suggest they do. However, the bits which call upon followers of Islam to carry out acts of violence against non-believers just might have some relevance, and that is what Wilder's film is about.

Finally we get to the main lie about Geert Wilders and about FITNA, which is the allegation that the film distorts or misrepresents the Qur'an's teachings. This claim takes media misinformation to a new level, and needs to be exposed for what it is.

Wilder's film shows us words from the holy text, it then shows us those same words being used by preachers when calling for acts of violence and finally it shows us acts of violence committed by followers of that same holy text. What FITNA shows us is a sequence leading from cause, through application, to effect. If there is an act of dishonesty being perpetrated within the sequence it is by the preachers who use the words to incite the violence, not by Wilder in reporting them doing so.

You can argue, as some try to, that the words in themselves are innocent, but you can not argue that the words are being used to incite acts of terrible brutality, because they self evidently are, whether or not that is the intent of the author. By reporting that fact Wilders is distorting nothing and misrepresenting no-one.

We can choose to decide whether it is the words which are at fault or the people using them. What we should not be doing is pretending that these questions do not exist. But that is exactly what our media or our leaders want, they don't report the facts, because without them, we can't ask the questions, and that is why Wilders was banned.

Thus we passed through another week on this crowded, near bankrupt and Orwellian little island.



Anonymous said...

Excellent comment Sarah. "Jackboots" is plainly not up to the job and is a thief as well , steeling money from the hard working British taxpayer by claiming her sister's terrace house in London is her main residence!
When she next drifts past surrounded by her stasi thugs just shout "thief" at her.

The Green Arrow said...

Thank you Sarah. That was excellent and I can not see how, any "reasonable" person can argue against what you have written.

But then again we are not dealing with "reasonable" people.

And posted with a minute to spare:)

Anonymous said...

Yes, a great article.

We have indeed forgotten about Winston Churchill

The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone

Geert Wilders

Anonymous said...

I can't help but feel that this obsession to be politically correct and not offend any minority is getting to a point where it unhealthy and starting to become a mental health condition similar to that of the Stockholm condition where the victim identifies and forms a relationship to the attacker.

We as a nation we really need to come to our senses before we implode .

Anonymous said...

Whatever it is that is coming our way, the architects of the agenda seemed to have cranked the whole thing up a gear.

The battle is now waging between the virtual reality of the media and the real perceptions of real people, who can see all too clearly where all this leading.

There seems little doubt that the present financial crisis, (soon to be a depression) has been deliberately engineered.

The BBC inform us on a daily basis that the people of Britain are to be replaced, further more, they exhort us to celebrate this new found status.

Over what time-scale and how the final curtain will come down over Britain are the major questions remaining to be answered.

It is naive to think that it is only Britain that has been singled out for this treatment, wrong!

This agenda is being replicated throughout the whole of Western white civilisation from Canada to New Zealand.

So where are we at?

The bulk of our populations haven't a clue what is going on, the media keeps them suspended in the Never Never land of Corrie with their interminable drivel.

It is our job to try and wake them up, but for many it is too late.

With the coming of the new Labour project in the '90's came the adrenalin surge of the political class to impliment their project to destroy all things British. (the forces of conservatism as Blair said)

Looking back, (to me who was not overly interested in politics) the blue print and infrastructure for the assault on Britain must have already been in place, because for many years, for shadow government and subversion had taken its toll.

And it came to pass the new Labour project proceeded with undreamed of success, the people of Britain were reeling in shock at the effrontery of our traitorous politicians, indeed, they have still not recovered from the assault, and are still in a state of disbelief and denial, their senses cannot absorb the enormity of treachery waged against them.

The problem for our politicians is, they knew that the day would come when their plans would inevitably become apparent, after all you cannot go on hiding millions of strangers for evermore.

So our political elite knew that one day they would be rumbled, and when that day came they would have to have adequate measures in place to keep the native British shackled and sedated.

That day has arrived - it is here.

How have the political class managed to bring this situation about? They have achieved this by standing our way of life on its head by cunningly inverting democracy.

In other words, they brazenly promoted the interests of the minorities (in the name of tolerance) over the majority, at the same time denouncing any resistance by the majority as racist intolerance.

Why is it racist to desire a preference for one’s own? The British people must reclaim their language for it has been stolen and prostituted by others.

Do not bow down to these fascist bullies, stand your ground and prove them wrong, the one thing they hate most is the truth.

They claim we are the intolerant ones, what palpable nonsense, who is it that shuts us up with their political correct tape across our mouths?

It is the liberal left who are fascist in all of this, it is they who cloak their sinister intentions with such euphemisms as social justice.

The people of Britain have had their democracy stolen from them by the political establishment. We are all communists now.

The people of Britain have had foisted upon them the tyranny of the minority, they have had thrust upon them the tyranny of supposed white guilt, the people have been marginalised and reduced to a second class people in their own land.

They have been legislated against and sent to prison in the name of (in)tolerance, they have been discriminated against by the left’s affirmative action for minorities.

The nation’s police force has been politicised against them. The list of injustices perpetrated by the political class against the interests of the people is legion.

To sum up, the people of Britain have been betrayed by the very people they voted into office and trusted to represent their interests.

Instead of which, the political class has not only betrayed the people but actively conspired against them.

Is this the first time a ruling political elite has engineered the suicide of its own people?

This is universally known as treason.

Sorry for length of post.

Anonymous said...

I LOVED the line "he did nothave to SEE FITNA to know it was racist"

It reminds me of the quote "I don't have to live in a pigsty .... " which adorns the back cover of a dusty VHS cassette in my office here. The film is of course "Monty Python's Life of Brian".

My grasp of christian scripture is becoming less firm as the years pass since the vitriolic bigots in the establishment up the road made me feel it was no longer a place I wanted to be seen in.

However "Brian", filmed in the same locations, and in many cases using the same locals as extras who had recently formed the crowds for Zeferelli's more biblical epic with Robert Powell, opens with a very "Powellite" looking chap in radiant white robes delivering the Sermon On The Mount, while Brian cleans out the midden at the back of the family hovel.

A more clear statement that "Life Of Brian" has nothing to do with the life of Christ, and everything to do with a spate of Messiannic Madness which siezed the world at that time, and to some extent still does, would be harderto find.

But this did not stop a bunch of tossers in the Gestapo HQ in Hereford from banning the film.

The lone voice that spoke against that decision was a man of the cloth, now departed this nortal coil. He told me a while ago ofhow he sat and listened to one after another of the censorship commitee denounce the film as everything from debauched to heretical, and then when it came to his turn he said "well I can't see what all the fuss is about, because you clearly have not seen the film, as I have, or you would know ...." and he proceded to tell the assembled wunch of bankers of the opening as I have described it.

The reaction was akin to the priceless "all I said was that piece of haddock was good enough for J......" sketch from the film.

I commented in the blog entry on the Rainbow flag that the Seventh Day Adventists have a legal document that allows them to refuse to comply with the more immoral - in the eyes of their god anyway - output from our government.

It is the sort of thing I would have expected the Church of England to be foremost in stating itself.

But no. Today it is left to the former Holy Inquisitor himself, now elevated into white robes and "in the shoes of the fisherman" todenounce the teachings oif the Church of England. Something that once,whe religion meant something to our monarch, would have sent us swiftly to war.

My, how things hjave changed.

The Green Arrow said...

Anon 11:33

Much as I would like to reply to every comment, I usually do not have the time but I must make an exception here.

Do not apologise for the length of your comment. Every word was invaluable.

If ever you wish to put it into an article please join our forum and PM with it there.

I am sure others as well as myself would like to read your take on other matters also.

Thank you.

defender said...

Thank you Sarah, your writing goes to the heart of the problems in a clear and uncomplicated manner.

The ultimate message I took is that this system of abuse of the English (in particular) is well advanced. I agree. Considering the time frame that we have left for this to be reversed ( 2010 impilmentation of the EU state) makes it very unlikely that there will be a political solution.
The liblabcon are proven EU enablers, the HoL, the Crown, the CoE and the judicuary.
For our concious we have to fight to the last for a political solution however the reality is always there that the odds are against that.
To me this fight is not about race or religion, its about liberty, the liberty we are losing, have been losing for decades.
Many people have come to these shores for the liberty they know exist in this country and to which they are greatful. They too are getting very upset with the situation. They know from experiance what it is like to live without liberty and will fight for it, but they are not sure of their position if the indeginous population dont seem to be too willing to defend their own beliefs.
Those who have poured into the country without any other reason than to rape and pillage whatever they can while carving out a ghetto are the ones who enjoy and encourage this liblabcon pact.
What is to become of us, do we walk blindly into a situation from which we can never escape or do we fight for liberty while we still have a chance is the only choice facing us.
Its up to the indiginous to make plain what it is that they want.
In conclusion if whites wont fight for liberty in their own land its ridiculous expecting others to help or sympatise.

defender said...

I should have linked this to my previous,
I am sure Sarah and others would gain some further insight by reading this link

demise of democracy? of the nation state?

Quangoroo said...

Good article by Cranmer on the GTC's (General Teaching Council) attack on Christianity in schools.

Anonymous said...

Anti-BNP nut job.

Singer Lily Allen has caused outrage after telling parents they should encourage their children to try drugs.

mark said...

One depressing aspect of the Wilders affair is how many newspapers have agreed with the ban. Even those that have disagreed with it, have done so reluctantly, describing Wilders as extreme Right wing and implying he is as extreme as the islamic preachers of hate who he condemns.

A rape victim and a rapist have a lot in common and both are at the extreme end of what most of us have experienced. That really doesn't make them morally equivalent though does it?

Anonymous said...

Shaheed Malik the 'Justice Minister' (shades of Orwell!) was the chief mover behind the ban with dhimmi Jacqui Smith doing what she was told:

Anonymous said...

Are UKIP trying to steal the BNP's clothes?

Anonymous said...


"On the anniversary of the interview in which Dr Rowan Williams said it "seems inevitable" that some parts of sharia would be enshrined in this country's legal code, he claimed "a number of fairly senior people" now take the same view...

... But Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: "He has started a process which is deeply dangerous, damaging to Britain and to Muslim women in Britain.

"It was a wicked move because it undermines the progressives and gives succour to the extremists.

"How does the Archbishop of Canterbury know, sitting in Lambeth Palace, that a woman in Bolton has volunteered to give up half her inheritance to her brother?"

Anonymous said...

Apparently if you say to a muslim "I don't agree with your religion" and that person hits you, then you yourself have incited the violence. Bonkers Britain!

Anonymous said...

Apparently if you say to a muslim "I don't agree with your religion" and that person hits you, then you yourself have incited the violence. Bonkers Britain!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...


Silver Arrow, a Nationalist writer once wrote,

There may not be another chance when self defence is this easy or safe…….. BUT BURN YOUR BOATS AND YOU CANNOT GET HOME”


Anonymous said...

Vaz is well known to be homosexual.
I look forward to seeing him being thrown from a mountain.

Old Atlantic Lighthouse said...

Sarah, thank you for this piece and these stories from your life. People might ask, what will it take to save England or the West? It will take the same devotion and effort as your parents made in their devotion to the church.

My father in particular was very active in the church, for at least a decade acting as Sidesman, every Sunday handing out prayer books to the congregation or taking the collection. A man who could talk at length on any subject, from politics to art culture and sport would spend hours speaking of scripture, philosophy and of the church, subjects which he dearly loved. Meanwhile, my mother would take her turn every six weeks or so, in preparing the flowers in the Church or delivering the parish news letter, and it was she who taught us the prayers of her own childhood in our infancy, which I then taught to my son in his."

If you want to save England or the West, this is what it will take. At times it will be fun with comradeship. At other times, it will seem like a thankless waste of time. But this is the answer to what it takes to save our lands and our people.