The Standards of a Multi-Culture

Affirmative Beauty

Miss England 2009 Rachel Christie

By Sarah: Maid of Albion

Given the lamentable lack of competitions where acres of pinched, pumped and painted male flesh is on public display, I seldom take much interest in beauty contests. As a result I had not particularly noticed that the 2009 “Miss England” contest was taking place, and was blissfully unaware of who the various contestants were.

Therefore, on first hearing that Rachel Christie (pictures above), the niece of the sometime disgraced, other time redeemed and always moody "black British" Olympic athlete Lindford Christie, had been voted the first ever black Miss England, I, like I am sure many others, took this to be further evidence of how brainwashed the British public have become by multiculturalism and political correctness.

Not only it seemed had the public chosen a black woman to represent the historically white nation of England, but the strictures of political correctness and inclusiveness, had meant that it was no longer a necessity for those selected as beauty queens to be in possession of any particular claim to personal beauty.

However, on further examination, it turns out that things are not quite as they first seemed. Apparently Ms. Christie was not selected as the result of a popular vote as was initially claimed. A popular vote did take place, however, that had very little impact on the eventual outcome. This became quite obvious when it transpired that, of the 10,000 odd votes cast by the public, Rachel Christie won a grand total of nine votes, placing her in 49th place in a field of 54.

It turns out that the public vote only guaranteed a single candidate a place in the final line up, it had no influence on the choice of winner or runners up. That decision was made by a panel of “professional” judges, who clearly applied different criteria to their decision as to what constitutes beauty.

It is by no means unusual that the final decision in such a contest is made by a professional panel, however, it is seldom that there is such a marked difference between the public and professional view. To move from 49th place to first place so swiftly would be a spectacular sprint, even in her uncle's heyday.

One competition organiser explained this, by pointing out that there are various factors which have to be taken into account when judging beauty, which was why this could not be left to a public vote. In effect, it appears that Ms. Christie would have been unfairly disadvantaged had she been judged on the basis of conventionally accepted standards of beauty, as a result different criterion were applied, from which she benefited significantly.

As in so many things, it appears that even when judging female beauty, those with the power have different standards (and agendas?) than the rest of us.

___________________________________

A Bequest to the Nation

Mustaf Jama

Speaking of dusky beauties, let me introduce you to this charming little chap. Mustaf Jama was convicted yesterday for his part in the murder of Police woman Sharon Beshenivsky and the wounding of a second female officer, who had both attended an incident were Jama and some other immigrant gangsters were in the process of committing a robbery.

Whilst on the run Jama had escaped to his native Somalia, but was returned following the alleged payment of “bribes” to various warlords in that lawless state.

At an earlier trial Jama's brother Yusuf and Asian gang boss Muzzaker Shah were convicted of the shootings, but the same Jury were unable reach a decision on Mustaf, thus putting the state to the expense of a further trial.

Of course the cost will not end there, all three convicted foreigners have been sentenced to a minimum of 35 years in prison. As it is estimated that each prisoner in British prisons costs us as tax payers a minimum of £40,000 a year, we will be footing a bill for well in excess of four million, even before inflation kicks in. We can add a further £1million + if or when the fourth Asian gang member, who is still currently on the run, is apprehended.

A gang consisting of Asians and Somalis seems a strange combination, as Africans and Asians tend to hate each other with a passion. However, they seem to be the two groups who we are currently welcoming into Britain at a greater rate than almost anyone else, which is somewhat troubling, given that a recent claim by a government minister that Pakistan and Somalia present a greater threat to UK security even than Afghanistan, where we are currently sacrificing brave young soldiers at a horrifying rate.

If this is true, it seems very odd that our leaders seem so intent on encouraging so many of those two countries' nationals to come in to our homeland. Whatever the truth, their priorities are clearly not the same as ours.

So odd indeed that one can not help but question the motives behind their actions. Whatever the truth, their priorities are clearly not the same as ours.

Sarah: Maid of Albion

Eurabian Night falls Across Europe

By Mister Fox

This is an attempt to show how secret EU laws will oppress us as well as comments on this from Vladimir Bukovsky and then showing new developments to bring North Africa into the EU.

It touches on Brown and Mandelson offering influence over our banking to the Saudis. It is long but there is so much to be exposed. I want a debate about who is controlling or taking over banking because it seems to me behind the Sovietisation of Europe is a surrender to Islam. There are many citations in the text as I hopes others will read the original documents and get this thing properly exposed.

In an interview given to French magazine Café Babel,in November 2008, European Commissioner Jaques Barrot lifted the veil on the secret machinations of the EU rulers and their real views on Islam and mass Immigration and how they are trying to destroy Europe.(1)

The first three documents held in the national Archive expose the hidden agenda of bringing us under control in the EU totalitarian state. The law of treason was repealed but in fact we have been betrayed.

When Minister of State for Europe, Edward Heath, visited Professor Hallstein, President of the European Commission in November 1960, his report noted that Hallstein emphasised that joining the EEC was not just a matter of adopting a common tariff but an introduction to a new statehood. It would be necessary, insisted Hallstein, for any new entrant to accept the principle that the EU was to evolve into something much deeper “some form of federal state”.
See PRO/FO/371/150369

In 1969 the Council of Ministers commissioned the Prime Minister of Luxumbourg, Pierre Werner develop a plan to bring full economic and monetary union to the Common Market. At this time a secret briefing note to Heath from Con O’Neill, our senior civil servant responsible for Europe, described “a process of fundamental importance, implying development towards the political union... going well beyond the full establishment of a common market.”

The Werner plan was for “the ultimate creation of a European Federal State, with a single currency.” Basic instruments of national economic management - fiscal, monetary, income and regional policies - were to be transferred to the central federal authority within a decade.
See PRO/FCO/30?789

Heath lied to the British people. In the White Paper distributed to every house in June 1971, he stated:” There is no question of Britain losing essential Sovereignty”. In a Television broadcast to mark our entry into the EEC: “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. Those fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

The move to the Lisbon Treaty began in May 2000 when Joscha Fischer, then German Foreign Minister, and former Marxist extremist, called for a European constitution which was endorsed by EU leaders in December 2001 at Laeken, near Brussels as a “constitution for European citizens.”

Then in 2003 the constitution written by Giscard d’Estaing was passed to members governments.. The Constitution was signed in Rome in 2004. This was resisted but Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, demanded an inter-governmental conference to propose a new text.

This came out in October 2007 and was an old style “amending treaty” rather than a replacement of previous documents. This was an exercise in obscurantism and the chaos of cross-references, amendments, sub texts, deletions and protocols are impassable. It was “The Lisbon Treaty” and described as “The Treaty amending the Treaty establishing the European Community.” It was ratified in Britain on 18 July 2008 but the public were not told till the day before. As usual the Queen signed the instrument of ratification.

We had been promised a referendum on the original constitution at the last election by Blair, endorsed by Brown, but denied on the false grounds that this not the original treaty.

The Irish referendum result should have ended the Treaty because it should be ratified by all 27 countries. Sarkozy, told the European Parliament in July 2008:”Irish voters have plunged the EU into a crisis with the rejection of the Treaty. It is Europe’s duty to act now.” He suggested the Irish have another referendum - and another and another until they win!

The House of Lords didn't amend the Treaty Bill to provide for a referendum and refused to slow ratification to debate the implications of the Irish vote on 11 and 18 June respectively.

Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times on July 21st that the rejection had not finished he treaty as it should have done in law ”We’re evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity we’ll do nothing.” The substantive content of the Lisbon treaty is the biggest transfer of our power to the EU and the politicians and media know it.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxumbourg, revealed the import:” Of course there will be significant transfers of sovereignty.” Daily Telegraph 3 July 2007. He said he did not want to draw the attention of the British people to too much specific detail but gave an overall perspective: “There is a single legal personality for he EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy; there is an enormous extension in the EU’s power; there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”

Then European Court of Justice was modeled on the French Conseil D’etat and this set the precedence for the EEC’s legal procedures from 1964. In Costa V Enel (Case6/64) the judgement is that “the transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act at variance with community principles can not prevail.”

This showed the E.C.J. to be an administrative law court with competence to rule on any legal issue linked to, or arising out of, administrative actions. It is now an arm of the government of the new state, the European Union.

In 2008 the real nature of the contents of the Lisbon treaty was revealed by Michael Connarty, MP, Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee: ”Every provision of the Constitution apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Lisbon Treaty. We think they are fundamentally the same and the government have not produced a table to contradict our position.”

Angela Merkel admitted to the European Parliament on 27 June 2007 that:” The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”

Author of the Constitution, Giscard d’Estaing, chairman of the Convention, admitted on 17 July 2007:” In terms of its content the proposals remain largely unchanged; they are simply presented in a different way ...the reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty.”

Bernie Aherne, Irish PM, told the Irish Independent on 24 June 2007:” They haven’t changed the substance- 90 per cent of it is still there.” Gordon Brown is also in on the deception as he told us through the Labour Party election manifesto :” We will put the European constitution to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a “Yes” vote". The EU elites are deceiving European people.

The articles show how we are being subsumed into a totalitarian EU state by the Lisbon Treaty. Article 4(2) was added to the Treaty protocol and gives the EU the legal powers to influence the UK into participating in EU plans to control our legal system and to comply in areas of justice and home affairs.

• Article61(4) allows the EU to put pressure on us to recognise judicial decisions of other member states. This called the reciprocity principle and is to lead to harmonisation of civil law and constrain our common law and statute.
• Article 69D(a) gives the EU Euro-just arm the power to bring criminal investigations and to instruct national authorities the power to bring proceedings.
• Article69E(4) makes provision for a European public prosecutor with the power to override decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service and for mandatory co-operation between the police forces of member states. This includes the exchange of information, training, research methods and investigation techniques.
• Article69G will expand the powers of Europol making it the EU police force.
• Article 68(3) gives Brussels power to impose identity cards on us and the Treaty allows the EU to assume control of our asylum and immigration policies.
• We lose control of immigration to the EU as Article 63(b) states we must help pay for asylum seekers on other4 EU states if their economies are not as sound\as ours.
• Article 62(1)(a) removes controls on persons crossing internal borders - uncontrolled immigration from EU countries goes on.
• Article63(1) gives the EU the power to decide on who and for how long residents of non EU states can stay in the UK.

That the EU is really a state in its own right is proved by article Article46(A) as it confirms that the EU can sign international agreements that will be binding on the UK.

The foregoing show the methods of EU internal control of the European peoples which is based on the Soviet union which was exposed by Valdimir Bukovsky who spent 12 years in Soviet labour camps and psychiatric units.

He told the Brussels Journal: “In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home. (2)

“In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Giscard d’Estaing, American banker David Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.”

The theme of the feral state again: “In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other East European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

On 20 February 2009 Czech President Vaclav Klaus likened supporters of greater European integration to the Soviets. Addressing th European parliament, Klaus said: “Not so long ago in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that allowed no alternative and therefore no parliamentary opposition... Here (in the European Parliament) there is only one single alternative, and those who dare think about a different option are labelled as enemies of European integration.”

The articles concerning immigration cited earlier show that this is now out of our hands when Muslims marched through our streets chanting support for Hamas, Hizb ut Tahrir recruit on campuses for the Jihad against Europe, a Muslim peer threatens mass intimidation of Parliament with impunity, but Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament is refused entry to address the British Parliament on the threat to the west.

The Home Secretary who banned Wilders told the News of the World on 13/04/2008 that security forces are investigating thirty terror plots which threaten Britain: "We now face a threat level that is severe. It's actually growing. "There are 2,000 individuals who are being monitored. There are 200 networks involved and 30 active plots... Since the beginning of 2007, there have been 57 people convicted on terrorist plots. Nearly half of those pleaded guilty—so this is not some figment of the imagination. It is a real risk and a real issue we need to respond to"- but banned Wilders! (3)

The Muslim bias was seen in the Gaza demos - the police on pro-Hamas marches confiscated Israeli flags because it would provoke violence, while Muslim demonstrators were allowed to chant about gassing Jews. http://www.vimeo.com/2832052

Bukovsky predicted oppressive EU laws against people they label negatively: “If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union... It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example.

That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. .. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.”

On 20 April 2007 The Council of EU Justice Ministers in Luxembourg reached political agreement on a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. This concluded the negotiations at the European level, held since 2001... “In the future, there will be binding minimum harmonisation throughout Europe of the provisions on criminal liability for disseminating racist and xenophobic statements. Public incitement to violence and hatred, as well as the denial or gross trivialisation of genocide out of racist or xenophobic motives, will be sanctioned across Europe. With this, we are sending a clear signal against racism and intolerance” But Muslims are exempt.

Bukovsky added: “Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol.”

In The Eurabia Code(4) Fjordman reveals a level that is becoming clearer: “What has happened since 2006 is that European leaders are increasingly open about the idea of enlarging the EU to include the Arab world, although they do of course not present this as surrendering the continent to Islam. ... in 2002 Louis Michel, then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe.

Fjordman says:” EU leaders consider their people to be defeated and irrelevant. After the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty/European Constitution, the people no longer have a say and can safely be ignored. Open plans for a "Mediterranean Union"(5) or "Union for the Mediterranean," which will include all EU member states, Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, was launched in mid-2008, under some concern among Arabs that such a Union might normalize their relationship with Israel”

This came with plans for the creation of a "north-south co-presidency" and a permanent secretariat as well as the definition of a ''short-list'' of priority projects for the region. The European Commission proposes the creation of a co-presidency between the EU and a Mediterranean (Muslim) country, chosen with consensus for a two-year term. Brussels is drawing the institutional profile of what will be called "Barcelona Process — A Union for the Mediterranean." Notice how they tie this explicitly to the Eurabian Barcelona Process described by Bat Ye'or. “ (6)

Writing in an Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, former Italian President Francesco Cossiga in 2008, admitted that the government of Italy in the 1970s agreed to allow Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks.

The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a "secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups."

According to the former president, it was Moro himself who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists. "The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were 'handled' by the secret services." As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that he learned PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. "The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country." (7)

This can only be seen as Jizya, and the practice has spread to the entire European Union, which pays the Palestinians tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Euros annually.”

What was thought of as Jewish banking is being taken over by Saudis.

Gordon Brown and Business Secretary Lord Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states in the first week of November 2008 to ask them to fund our faltering economies by putting billions into the International Monetary Fund and offered them some control over Britain and the West. The Saudi regime is behind Islamisation of the West. It is Saudi’s Wahhabi form of Islam which, together with the Shi’ites in Iran, aims to make Islam dominant in the world. Saudi money has financed the spread of Wahhabi mosques, preachers and educational institutions in this country promoting holy war and converting thousands of British Muslims.

Saudi Wahhabism seeks to conquer the West through a pincer movement comprising violence on the one hand and cultural infiltration on the other and our Prime Minister is colluding with them. Mandelson stated the Saudis and other Gulf states would be given more influence in global institutions. Barclays Bank, has had almost £6 billion invested from Abu Dhabi and Qatar.

Islamist ideas are also spread through Islamic study centres attached to our universities. Professor Anthony Glees revealed eight universities — including Oxford and Cambridge — have accepted more than £233.5 million from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995, spreading radicalism and creating two separate identities and sets of allegiance. Now the education system is being used to brainwash our children to excuse and encourage Muslim terrorism. (8)

The elites showed their submission to Saudi, ignored the law and abandoned the bribery investigation into the arms deal between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems when the Saudis threatened that, if the case was not dropped: ‘British lives on British streets’ would be at risk, as explained by former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles. These are the controllers of terror groups in the West that EU officials are colluding with against the European people!


(3088)

(1) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3600

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/78180/50million-invited-to-Europe

www.allbusiness.com/government/international-organizations/9561710-1.html

http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2008/12/mtissage-now-its-obligation.html

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3764
http ://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=144640

michel-on-immigration-and-development-irak-withdrawal-european-commission-2007-work-programme

(2)http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3blackcU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoUJI07a6GI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rejwZ-k4H4&feature=related

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnew....-President.html

(3) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5718039.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....Parliament.html

(4) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1401

(5) http://www.ansamed.info/en/top/ME13.YAM11282.html

http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/s..../article-170976
http://www.france24.com/en/20080711-unio....zy-north-africa

http://www.eldr.eu/en/newsletter/2006/11....-work-programme

http://www.sitra.fi/Julkaisut/raportti20.pdf

http://www.ansamed.info/en/top/ME13.YAM11282.html
http://www.euromedinfo.eu/site.168.news.en.5088.html

(6) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hfK9SqHSaccC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Eurabian+Barcelona+Process&source=bl&ots=bm0Bp_51Rg&sig=wlvM5C-geHqbDCkZJLV387mreFs&hl=en&ei=VbGgSaWgFuTGjAeT3s3JCw&sa=X&oi =book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

(7) http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127247

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/129

(8) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educat....t-1627062.ht ml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hq21s

http://thelambethwalk.blogspot.com/

Transitory realities

By Sarah Maid of Albion

A subject which I had planned to write about last week, resulted from a discussion on BBC2's Newsnight, hosted by Kirsty Walk, between a columnist from the Spectator and someone who had previously held a high ranking position in the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The discussion focused on the recent news story regarding Prince Harry who, as I mentioned in a couple of recent posts, has been required to undergo re-education, due to a perceived failure to pay sufficient homage to the modern day dogmas of multiculturalism and the unquestioned benefits of ethnic diversity.

The guy from the CRE was naturally firmly in favour Harry's punishment, whereas the Spectator columnist was less enthusiastic, and indeed expressed a healthy scepticism for the diversity worship which is now an essential qualification for holding down a position within the mainstream media. As such, I doubt we will see or hear much more from him.

However, the debate itself, and indeed those debating, are of less relevance than was the parting shot by the bigwig from the Campaign for Racial Engulfment, who, just as Kirsty was terminating the discussion, turned to his adversary and smugly announced that a multi-cultural society was “the reality of modern Britain”.

This, of course is a statement we are hearing more and more, as the party faithful, who have worked so feverishly to undermine our national soul, flaunt what they consider to be their victory, and seek to trump our hand with the apparent fait accompli that what they sought so hard to achieve, has come to pass.

Of course, they are correct that multiculturalism is a reality of of today's Britain, in the same way that communism was the reality of Czechoslovakia in the 1960's, warfare is the reality of the Congo and Afghanistan, whist bankruptcy is the increasing reality of Zimbabwe, and it is no more wholesome or welcome.

The multiracial “reality” of our country has been achieved by deception, by intimidation and bullying, by bribery, corruption, propaganda and lies, it was however not achieved by either consent or democracy.

At no stage during the last fifty years, whilst they were laying the foundations of the monster they have created, did any mainstream party stand for election with a manifesto which even admitted that they would encourage increased immigration, let alone facilitate the creation of a multiracial society, especially not when another mainstream party stood on a manifesto promising that they wouldn't do so. When it came to elections, none of the main parties acknowledged the “reality” of unchecked immigration, therefore “NO” was never an option on offer, and when one party, the BNP, did stand up and say “NO” it was vilified and lied about in a manner which continues to this very day.

When those who hate us brag of the reality they forced upon us, they are no better than the rapist who taunts his victim with the reality of her rape, for that too was taken without consent.

On first reading that may seem an extreme analogy, but before you dismiss it consider the parallels.

The multicultural “reality” was achieved first through lies and deception “Your safe, ... it wont happen” and by seduction “its cool, its exotic .... love that Burundi beat.. feel the rhythm .... you know you want it” but, when that only worked with a few airhead bimbos, then came the fear, the intimidation, the bullying and, of course, the allegations .. “if you don't let me you are a racist! ... racist! ....racist!!”.

That one word became the WMD, which they used against us relentlessly.

To speak out against the creation of a multicultural society, or to mention any potential downside was to be a racist. Name one person who has dared speak out against the shrieking gods of diversity, or pointed out that nothing is enriched by being changed beyond recognition, who has not been labeled with that multi purpose word, which we have been brainwashed, beyond reason, to dread being called.

However, to submit through fear or because of fraud is not to consent, and no matter how many times our abusers tell us we were asking for it, the truth is we were not. As a nation we never consented to what has been done to us, we were merely never permitted to say NO.

The reality of a violation does not make the act any less wrong or mean that what was done can not be put right, and victims, no natter how wounded, can move in to a new reality, where they are no longer victims.

Realities live within a time frame, they are not inevitably eternal and many one time realities have gone on to become historical anachronisms. The brave Czechs fought hard and finally shook off the yoke of Communism, they are now a free nation and their president is one of the few great statesmen and defenders of freedom left in Europe. The Czech reality has changed, and surely we all hope that the Congo, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe will also, in time, find new realities.

Britain has lived through prior realities which have passed into the history books, we were, after all one of the early European republics, and no doubt those living under drab Cromwellian rule believed their reality had changed forever.

The belief that the present is forever and can never be changed is the friend of demagogues and abusers, it is a lie designed to enslave us. Don't get me wrong, I know how convincing that lie can be, given that so much of what we see and read is designed to promote that lie. However, we must not be deceived by, for instance. the diversity worship we see daily on our TV screens, that is nothing but the Western equivalent of the little flower girl singing to the Dear Leader, it is state sponsored propaganda and no more proof of permanence than she is.

Today's “reality” exists only for so long as it is permitted to. History shows us that one time realities fade and new ones take their place. Today's reality may seem ugly and depressing, but it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Our enemies can flaunt today's victories, as Hitler might have flaunted Dunkirk, but that should not stop us fighting for a better tomorrow.

The truth is that, for all their bragging, our enemies were never so weak as they are today, and it is at times like this that realities can change.

__________________________

Imported Culture

By Sarah Maid of Albion

The young girl begged for her life, “Please don't kill me, let me live!” she cried, but her pleas were in vain, as she was dragged into the centre of the stadium where she was to die a terrible death. To the jeering crowd she was guilty of the great sin of having sex outside marriage, and for that she must die, no matter that she was the victim of gang rape, no matter that she was a a thirteen year old child. (Not 23 as the news media bizarrely first tried to suggest)

The child's age aside, it was a scene unchanged from that described two millennia earlier, where, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ confronted a group of men about to stone a young woman to death, with the words “Let he who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone”. Such words would have fallen on deaf ears, had anyone dared to repeat them in that stadium in Somalia, where no less than fifty adult men picked up stones and set about their evil deed.

This girl was not tortured to death two thousand years ago, but two months ago, and it was no isolated incident, across the Muslim world young women and girls face a similar fate at the cruel hands of their culture. I have decided not to include any pictures from the scene as they are too violent.

At my own blog, Sarah Maid of Albion I have also addressed the issue of the treatment of homosexuals in the Arab world, where, as one commentator recently put it, people such as the President of Iran claim there are no homosexuals, yet young gay men hang from cranes along the roadside merely for expressing their nature in a manner disapproved of by the cult of the dead paedophile.

I am aware that some Green Arrow readers have strong views on homosexuality, I do not share those views but will not impose my views here, other than to say I am sure that despite your views, like all decent people you are all horrified by such savagery, and grateful that our Western society long ago did away with the horror of officially sanctioned public executions, and the casual cruelties which are commonplace elsewhere.

Sharia law prescribes all sorts of imaginative and painful deaths and mutilations, for a variety of crimes, including many which are no longer crimes in our society. Hence it is even more disturbing to note that around 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law in the UK.

Whatever, the crimes of the child in the pictures above, I doubt they were sexual, and even the most persuasive of Islamofascists would have difficulty claiming that he was a rapist. However, clearly certain cultures believe that torturing a child in this manner is acceptable.

However, that is the crux of the issue, culture, and things which are viewed as acceptable within different cultures. The whole point of a multi-cultural society is to import different cultures into our society and pay them equal regard to our own long established cultures.

The question the supporters of multiculturalism fail to address is how do we prevent the sharper sides of foreign cultures from being imported together with the marginally less unattractive ones, because the answer is that you can not.

Many undesirable aspects of foreign cultures are already being seem within our British communities, just a few examples:

* Instances of so called honour related violence, including frequent “honour killings” are now regular occurrences in the UK, as are arranged and forced marriages.
* We have churches where children are accused of witchcraft and subject to violent abuse.
* We have already seen one instance of Muti killing - aka medicine murder (an increasingly common phenomenon in sub Saharan Africa) and a disturbing number of “missing” black and Asian children.
* Female circumsism is being practised in Britain and bush meat is being imported and consumed.
* We have a special police force (Trident) which exclusively deals with gun crime in the black community, and we have seen acts of Islamic terrorism on our streets.
* A new and far more vicious imported gang culture, has devastated communities in ways undreamed of back in the 50's and 60's, the Kray brothers not withstanding

These are not cultural benefits, and what else will follow.

There is no point in claiming that our laws will stop undesirable cultures from flourishing, because they patently are not doing so. Furthermore laws are frequently changed to accommodate newcomers or simply are not applied to them. Free speech was banned in Britain in the 1970's because of immigration, and as we have seen repeatedly, for instance with the Danish cartoon protests, only certain people now get prosecuted for incitement to murder.

As for grooming minors for sexual purposes, as we all know if the victim is white and the “groomer” is not, the police will not dare to touch it.

Year by year the ugly face of many foreign cultures are becoming part of every day life in Britain, and throughout Western Europe. It is only a matter of time before the very worst is here, much of it already is, gang rape was once all but unknown in Europe, it is now occurring with sickening regularity, and as events, such as the hideous (but unreported in Britain) 2006 death of Ilan Halimi show us, it does not take much to turn the streets of Paris into those of Baghdad.

Our leaders claim that we receive great benefits from immigration, but with escalating unemployment, stretched public services, and a health service beset by health tourism together with third world standards of hygiene, that lie is gradually being exposed for what it is.

And what of the so called moral argument for immigration, that we should welcome people here so that they can enjoy a better life than in the third world hell holes they are escaping?. This is self evidently madness, in that, in the long run, it simply enables the despotic or criminal regimes from which those seeking asylum come, to perpetuate.

If you live near a school where the teachers are murdering the children, you do not solve the matter by offering sanctuary to those kiddies who are fortunate enough to escape. At some point, someone has to sort out the school.

Offering asylum to those who escape tyranny, can only ever be a humanitarian act in the short term, beyond that it serves only to aid and abet the tyrants. Unless you believe that the entire population of the third world can move here, whilst, Africa and huge swathes of Asia and the Middle East are handed back to nature, as maybe some on the lunatic fringes of multiculturalism probably do, the international community must aim to improve the lot of the third world, within their homelands.

The so called benefits of immigration extend to some individual immigrants, but certainly not their homelands, to some politicians seeking to add to their voters, and to a small number of ruthless businessmen who believe that an unending flow of low paid immigrants will forever keep wages low. For the rest up us, the benefits are far less easy to identify.

Even those cynical politicians and businessmen may soon find the benefits are not what they imagined. Across Europe new immigrant based parties are popping up, and we now face an economic crisis, fuelled in great part by politically correct politicians forcing banks to lend to immigrants and minority groups, which has caused immeasurable damage in the financial sector.

Is it too much to hope that, at last, even they will wake up to the madness of the multicultural dream?.

_________________________________________

The Armies of the Genie

One of the Genies out of the Bottle

By Albion

Multiculturalism, a new religion? Why not? We bow to the God of Multiculti, our Police Commissioners tip toe with nervous apprehension when faced with the day to day realities on how to accommodate this new religion and are extremely nervous as to how to deal with strange peoples from strange lands bringing with them strange customs.

The Police too have been unwittingly seduced and have been known to kneel in strict observance in reverence to this unholy religion. The ordinary Policeman or Women? Well theirs is not to question why or they will face a disciplinary board faster than their feet can touch the ground.

Our government also seduce its own people to give up their ethnic uniqueness and identity and are encouraged to wallow like swine in this festering mish mash of a violent Multi Culti society.

The island people are speechless and stand in awe, unaware that their day to day perceived freedoms are non existent but they are unknowingly moulded and cunningly crafted to ensure unwanted Multiculturism is thrust upon them without dissent. We are not alone; many western countries are now plagued by the effects of its poisonous tentacles.

“We must embrace diversity and enrichment” shout the New Architects; more expressions from Mr. Orwell’s world of 1984?

But in truth what do these words actually mean? They are just words because in truth these people do not WANT to diversify and third world violence does NOT enrich a civilised nation, the invaders do not even diversify with other imported exotic cultures, thus we see the appearance of Ghetto’s, sorry visible ethnic minority clusters in many of our decaying major cities as experienced in many of Europe’s once peaceful cities. I repeat, it is a cruel illusion.

If approximately 4,000 of our own people who have been murdered by these ‘Enrichers’ who have been invited into OUR country to enrich and share our culture then it IS an illusion.

The establishment and Police will not warn the people of this silent, murder by stealth of its own people because it smacks of institutionalised racism. The lives of our people are easily expendable and any serious dissent can be kept in check by threats of incarceration; a small price to pay to foster uncertainty upon them to meekly accept this new Muti Culti religion.

If our government are forced to bring out strict laws to enforce this Multi Culti religion then it obvious it is unwanted by its own people, just as there are strict laws to protect our people against Murder, Rape and Paedophilia, it is just another evil. What makes it even more obscene is that the government that enforce it are also our own people.

So what is its aim? Like Winston Smith in Orwell's prophesies of 1984 I thought I knew, but it is too complex for me to understand. There are too many variables; it is protean in its concept. I sometimes wonder if the government have unleashed a terrible Genie out of the bottle and they now realise that in the very near future they will not be able to control this evil monster, thus we are seeing our security and intelligence services being beefed up.

They are now employing increasing numbers of these same invaders to help warn and combat the threats, which mark my words, will one day turn our streets into first world killing grounds.

So where are the violent threats coming from, our own people? Most certainly not, but from the very people who are part of this multicultural illusion, the armies of the Genie. Keeping the stopper on the bottle would have saved at least 4,000 of our people’s lives. But it just proves who cares? The perpetrators are STILL in power.

The future Winston Smith might not be surprised to be stopped in the street one day by a officer in a blue uniform, speaking broken English, wearing medals and ribbons for devotion and loyalty to the Federation and on his shoulder a identification patch with the letters EQRG (Eurabia Quick Response Group) surrounded by yellow stars, but by then as Orwell’s Winston Smith found out much to his consternation, it will be too late, he thought he knew who his enemies were too, but the hidden enemy were his own people.

WELCOME TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD.

Tags: Albion, Multiculturalism

Mark Steyn on Multiculturalism

"Multiculturalism and its impact on democratic society" panel from "The Collapse Of Europe?" Conference. Panel Moderator is Evan Sayet. Panelists are Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray, and Sally McNamara. Hosted by the American Freedom Alliance
on Sunday, June 10, 2007 at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA.

Tags: Mark Steyn, multiculturalism

Destroying the myth of Multiculturalism

The mistaken followers of multiculturalism would have you believe it is the practice of accepting and respecting the various cultures, religions, races, ethnicities, attitudes and opinions within the United Kingdom.

Against those of us who love Our Country and want a secure, safe future for our children and grandchildren they say that we should respect diversity. They say that no one culture or religion is superior than another.

Well lets try and follow this through with some questions to and answers from a multiculturalist.

Q. Are Islam and Christianity equal or is one superior to another?
A. They are both equal.

Q. Is a man equal to a woman?
A. Of course - all are equal, irregardless or race, religion or colour.

Q. Does Islam place the same value on a man as a woman?
A. Hmmmm. What you have to understand is................blah, blah, blah

Q. Are Islam and Christianity equal or is one superior to another?
A. Silence. As silent as the government would like you to be over the theft of our Nation.

Do not say to me that you cannot join the B.N.P. because you have children. It is because of them that you must join. If you still feel that you cannot join for other reasons then donate, donate and then donate again.

Breathes there the man with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land.
Walter Scott

Can you afford to be wrong?

The post today is aimed at all those indigenous people of the United Kingdom who genuinely believe that Multiculturalism is a good thing.

You may believe this because of your religion, you may believe it because of your politics or you may just believe it because the Government said it is good.

Ignoring some of the benefits such as gun crime, animal cruelty, burdens on all our services, honour killings, civil disobedience and sickness that Multiculturalism has enriched us with. Some of still see it as either good or the potential for it to come good.

But wait a moment. What if you are wrong about the B.N.P. and its alarm calls about immigration and the creeping colonisation of our Country by an alien culture?

You have seen that 40% of the population of what was once our Capital City no longer speak English as their first language. That is why Red Ken has the congestion charge – he does not want True Brit visitors to Londonistan to see that we have lost the battle there.

You have seen the indigenous white population become a minority in many of our cities and certainly large areas of our towns.

You have seen Christian Churches destroyed and our people intimidated where they have become a minority.

And on and on and on – in your heart you know what I am saying is true and you know I could fill a dozen pages with more of the same.

Yet you still believe Multiculturalism can work but what if you’re wrong?

Can you take that chance – not just with your future but with the future of your children and your grandchildren? If you are wrong then there will be a terrible price to pay and there will be no concilation in saying “I believed we could live together” to a young person denied art, music, liberty and freedom of expression.

You would not pay for an intruder to take over your home – why allow them to take over your Country?

Can you afford to be wrong?