text:
Category Archives: Fifth Columns
The BBC recently broadcast Enoch Powell's 1968 speech about immigration which is known popularly as the Rivers of Blood speech. The speech is forthright in its treatment of mass non-white immigration and couched in terms which prompted the onetime Labour minister Lord Adonis to attempt to have it banned by Ofcom on the grounds that "If a contemporary politician made such a speech they would almost certainly be arrested and charged with serious offences." Ofcom refused to intervene but only because they did not act until material had been broadcast.
On the face of it this might seem a strange programme for the assiduously politically correct BBC to air because the . However, it served two purposes for them. First, the BBC likes to maintain the pretence that "all views are represented". Programmes such as this allow them to say, see, we allow views across the political spectrum. Second, the shape of the programme allowed the BBC to have the last word on what Powell foretold.
The breaking up the speech into sections which were commented upon by commentators who were in the main unreserved critics of Powell – Simon Heffer, Powell's biographer, was the token Powell supporter and even he attempted to put his support within a politically correct envelope.
The interruptions to the speech inevitably diminished the force of the speech but the great lack was a failure to address much of Powell's predictions. .For example, Powell's forecasts for the growth of black and Asian minorities in the UK were pretty accurate as the 2011 census shows, viz:
"Amongst the 56 million residents in England and Wales, 86% were White, 8% were Asian/Asian British and 3% were Black/African/Caribbean/Black British."
In his speech Powell made these predictions:
"In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.
There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population."
Powell was also correct in predicting a lack of integration and the creation of de facto ghettos by immigrants and their descendants.
In addition Powell foresaw the effects of state enforcement of censorship on anyone who spoke out against immigration and its effects is only too visible today when thousands of people every year find themselves in criminal courts because they have said or written something deemed to be racially or religiously "hate speech". ( It is worth adding in passing that the constraints on what may be said about race and immigration have acted as a springboard for political correctness in general to flourish.)
When Powell spoke of the black man having the whip hand over the white man he was thinking of how the 1968 Race Relations Act would affect the existing relationship between the population of the UK. He saw that those who were from racial and ethnic minorities would have a new form of privilege deriving from the fact that such people would be able to insist that they be served or employed in a way the native white population would not be able to insist. For example, a native white Briton would not normally be able to cry racism if he was denied a job because the vast majority of employers were (and are) white. Anyone who was black or Asian would have huge opportunity to make a claim of racism because most employers were (and are) white.
Here is Powell on the disadvantaging of the native British:
"But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions."
In his speech Powell quoted the Labour minister John Stonehouse on the subject of communal privileges which minority groups were already demanding when Powell made the speech. Stonehouse had written this
"'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'"
None of these issues were addressed meaningfully or at all in the discussion breaks which interrupted the reading of the speech.
On Powell's prediction of violent racial clashes with "the Tiber foaming with much blood", it is true that has not yet occurred in the sense of large scale fighting between the native population and the minority immigrants. However, there has been a series of serious riots by non-whites since he Powell gave the speech, the most recent in 2011. Moreover, it is worth pointing out Powell put no time limit as to when such violence might occur. Common sense suggests that the larger the racial and ethnic minorities become the greater will be the racial tension because the minorities will demand more and more privilege for their own group. It is also worth noting that non-white immigrants have brought a disproportionate amount of crime to the streets of Britain, much of it violent. That propensity for violence could easily be harnessed to fight racial/ethnic disputes.
As for the general effect of non-white immigration, it has undeniably resulted in a fractured and vastly less cohesive society.
By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Conquest by other means | Tagged immigration, nationhood, political correctness | Comments (0)
2016 and the future
December 17, 2016 – 11:09 pm
What has changed over the past year?
The grip of the Western globalists is slipping. They do not realise it yet but their day is almost done. Their ramshackle ideology, a toxic blend of open borders politically correct internationalism and what is crony capitalism but called by those with a vested interest in it neo-liberal or laissez faire economics , has wrought as it was certain to do, rage and increasingly despair amongst the majority of electors in Western states who are increasingly turning to politicians that at least have some grasp of what is necessary to preserve the viability of Western nation states.
The most optimistic possibility for the West is that parties which do have some real attachment to what the great mass of people seek will be both elected and when in office carry through their pre-election promises. But this is far from certain. It does not follow that what will replace globalism will be a politics which reflects the wants and needs of Western voters because the existing elites may drop all pretence of being anything other than an authoritarian clique and go in for wholehearted suppression of any dissent. There are already signs that this might happen with the growing willingness amongst Western elites to censor political ideas, potent examples of which have been the recent conviction of Gert Wilders in Holland for inciting racial hatred by saying there should be fewer Moroccans in Holland , while in the UK the Prime Minister Theresa May has just sanctioned the putting into law of a definition of anti-Semitism so broad that any criticism Jews or Israel could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Much will depend on how Donald Trump's presidency develops.
In Britain the EU referendum has dominated everything both before and after the vote to leave in the political year .The anti-democratic mind-set of those who wanted to remain in the EU has been nakedly shown by colossal attempts to sabotage the result of the referendum through legal and political action and an incessant bleat about how they want a soft Brexit not a hard Brexit when only Brexit exists.
Something which the government calls Brexit will eventually emerge, but it could easily be a beast which is directly at odds with what the British people voted on when they went to the polls on 23rd June, namely, for a clean break with the EU. If this government, or conceivably its successor, concludes a deal which stitches the UK back into the EU with such things as free movement of EU citizens into the UK, the UK paying for the "privilege" of remaining in the Single Market and the UK being subject to the European Court of Justice, there is surely a serious risk of political violence. But even if that is avoided British politics would be seriously curdled by such a betrayal.
The other pressing political need is for an English parliament and government to balance the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A procedure to have only MPs sitting for English seats voting on English only legislation (English votes for English laws or EVEL for short) began a trial in 2015, but it has few teeth because it is difficult to disentangle what is English only legislation, not least because MPs for seats outside of England argue that any Bill dealing solely with English matters has financial implications for the rest of the UK and , consequently, is not an England only Bill. Nor does EVEL allow English MPs to initiate English only legislation. Most importantly England , unlike Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is left without any national political representatives to concentrate on purely English domestic matters.
The House of Lords review of its first year in operation makes EVEL's limitations clear:
The EVEL procedures introduced by the Government address, to some extent, the West Lothian Question. They provide a double-veto, meaning that legislationor provisions in bills affecting only England (or in some cases, England and Wales, or England and Wales and Northern Ireland), can only be passed by the House of Commons with the support of both a majority of MPs overall, and of MPs from the nations directly affected by the legislation.
Yet English MPs' ability to enact and amend legislation does not mirror their capacity, under EVEL, to resist legislative changes. The capacity of English MPs to pursue a distinct legislative agenda for England in respect of matters that are devolved elsewhere does not equate to the broader capacity of devolved legislatures to pursue a distinct agenda on matters that are devolved to them
The most dangerous general global threats are plausibly these in this order
Mass immigration, the permitting of which by elites is the most fundamental treason because unlike an invasion by force, there is no identifiable concrete foreign enemy for the native population to resist. Yet the land is effectively colonised just the same.
2 Uncontrolled technology, which leaves the developed world in particular but increasingly the world generally, very vulnerable to suddenly being left without vital services if computer systems fail naturally or through cyber attacks. Judged by the number of reports in the mainstream media the frequency of personal data being hacked and major computer systems going down, most notably banks, is increasing. This is unsurprising because both state organisations and private business are remorselessly forcing customers and clients to use web-based contact points rather than deal with a human being. This in itself makes life unpleasant and for older people in particular most difficult.
In the medium term – probably within ten years – there is the existential threat to humans of general purpose robots being able to cause a catastrophic drop in demand by taking over so many jobs that demand collapses because huge numbers are rapidly made unemployed. To that can be added the development of military robots which have the capacity to make autonomous judgements about killing humans.
The general lack of political concern and a seemingly universal inability of those with power and influence to see how robotics and AI systems generally are rapidly developing is astonishing. Time and again when the subject of robots and AI systems is raised with such people they will bleat that new jobs will arise due to the new technology, as new technology has always created jobs, and these developments will provide the jobs for humans.
This is sheer "it'll never replace the horse" ism . Intelligent robots and AI systems will not only take existing jobs, they will take most or even all of the new jobs that arise. This is the potential catastrophe that humans face from robots and AI, the rapid loss of such huge amounts of employment that the economic systems of both the developed and the developing world cannot function because of the loss of demand, not the SF style scare stories about intelligent robots making war on humans. The other thing that politicians do not seem to understand is that when there are robots and AI systems sophisticated enough to do most of the jobs humans do, the loss of human jobs will occur at great speed. We can be certain of this for two reasons; our experience with digital technology is of rapid advances and robots and AI systems will be able to design and build even more advanced robots and AI systems, probably very quickly.
Aside from digital technology, advances in genetic engineering and ever more radical transplant surgery raise the question of what it is to be a human being if full face transplants are now available and the possibility of things such as a head being transplanted in the not too distant future. We need to ask ourselves what it is to be human.
Islam – serious unrest is found throughout the world wherever there are large numbers of Muslims.
Ever increasing general instability. Contrary to Steven Pinker's view that the world is becoming more peaceful, if civil conflict is included things are getting worse. Formal war may be less easy to identify , but ethnic (and often religious ) based strife plus repression by rulers is so widespread outside the West that it is best described as endemic. Globalisation = destabilisation because by making the world's economic system more complex , there is simply more to go wrong both economically and socially. Sweeping aside traditional relationships and practices is a recipe for social discord. All of economic history tells you one thing above all else: a strong domestic economy is essential for the stability of any country. The ideology of laissez faire, is like all ideologies, at odds with human nature and reality generally and its application inevitably creates huge numbers of losers when applied to places such as China and India.
The most dangerous specific threats to global peace and stability are:
– The heightened tension between China and the rest of the Far East (especially Japan) as a consequence of China's growing territorial ambitions.
– China's extraordinary expanding shadow world empire which consists of both huge investment in the first world and de facto colonial control in the developing world.
– The growing power of India which threatens Pakistan. An India/Pakistan nuclear exchange is probably the most likely use of nuclear weapons I the next ten years.
– The increasing authoritarianism of the EU due to both the natural impetus towards central control and the gross mistake of the Euro. This will end either in a successful centralisation of EU power after the UK has left the EU or the attempt at centralisation will lead to a collapse of the EU.
The Eurofanatics continue to play with fire in their attempts to lure border states of Russia into the EU whilst applying seriously damaging sanctions to Russia. It is not in the West's interest to have a Russia which feels threatened or denied its natural sphere of influence.
– The ever more successful (at least in the short run) attempt of post-Soviet Russia to re-establish their suzerainty over the old Soviet Empire and Putin's increasingly martial noises including substantial re-armament. However, these ambitions will be likely to be mitigated by the plight of the Russian provinces of the Far East where there is unofficial Chinese infiltration of the sparsely populated and natural resource rich land there. Eventually China will wish to capture those territories.
Robert Henderson 17 12 2016
By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Conquest by other means, Elite Mischief, Technology out of control, The willing censor | Tagged authoritarianism, censorship, free markets, free speech, internationalism, laissez faire, nationhood, NWO, political correctness | Comments (1)
The Archers: an everyday story of feminist folk
The Archers is the world's longest running radio soap opera, having run continuously from 1951 to the present day. It is set in Ambridge, a fictional farming village in the English midlands . In the real world such a place would even these days be very white, very English and decidedly traditional in its ways. For most of the Archers' existence the fiction generally corresponded with the reality, but two decades or so ago things changed when the producer and scriptwriters of the series decided that the programme should pay homage to the three gods of political correctness: race, gay rights and feminism. Consequently, Ambridge has had visited upon it sundry black and Asian characters, a raft of gays, a female engineer, a female vicar, a white English vicar married to a Hindu and a steady flow of politically correct storylines .
This new politically correct regime introduced rules which the characters have to meet. Non-white characters must invariably be middleclass with professional jobs such as schoolteachers or lawyers. They must never be shown behaving badly and any criticism of them or ethnic minorities generally by white characters, a very rare event, must be done in a way to portray the white character as being utterly beyond the politically correct Pale. The men must be generally stupid, feckless, weak or cruel, while the women and girls must be shown as either oppressed by their men or superior to them , for example, when school public examination results hit the Ambridge doormats this year all the boys in the cast were depicted as being none too bright academically while the girls all came through with honours and headed for university.
All that is in a day's politically correct agitprop work for the writers and producer of the programme. The politically correct issue which has been dominating the series lately is the coercing and control of women by their menfolk. This is a storyline of a different order to anything which has gone before in terms of sustained – it has lasted for a year or more – and remarkably crude politically correct propaganda.
The central character in this propaganda is Helen Titchener (Louiza Patikas). She is a member of the Archer clan and has been much put upon by the scriptwriters over the years who have used her as a vehicle for various feminist issues. She has been an anorexic who was hospitalised. More generally her life has been a continual round of failed relationships with men, including that of her live-in lover Greg the gamekeeper (I kid you not) leaving their relationship in the most emphatic manner by blowing his brains out with a 12-bore. In despair at not finding a man who hangs around for long Helen has had a child (as you do in feminharpy world) by artificial insemination with sperm provided by an anonymous donor. The result is a son Henry who is now aged five.
In her mid-thirties the scriptwriters gave her a married man Rob Titchener (Timothy Watson) as a lover and eventually he becomes her husband. Rob is generally depicted as what feminists fondly but mistakenly imagine constitutes the behaviour of an alpha male, namely, being a selfish one-dimensional brute who simply wants to control and use women. He is depicted as perpetually controlling Helen but this control includes (in politically correct eyes) such heinous things as not wanting her to work too hard while she is pregnant and being concerned about her driving whilst pregnant after she has an accident. There are also episodes where rape is hinted at. More of that later.
The plot also attempts to show the controlling behaviour is a matter of conditioning with Rob's father being a blustering bully and his mother highly manipulative. This of course fits neatly with the politically correct view of humanity, whether male or female ,being nothing more than the product of their social environment.
Eventually, whilst still pregnant with Rob's child, Helen tells him she is going to leave him and in a piece of ludicrously clumsy plotting by the scriptwriters they make Rob place a knife in her hands before telling her that the only way she can leave him is by turning the knife on herself. As Helen is well advanced in pregnancy the idea of her stabbing herself to death is particularly far fetched and it is clearly just a device to get a knife into her hands without her picking one up herself and thus potentially incriminating herself.
Soon after Helen has had the knife thrust into her hands her son Henry comes into the room and Rob orders him back to bed. He has never hit Henry and does not hit him now. At this point Helen stabs Rob three times and leaves him close to death. She makes no attempt to call for an ambulance. Subsequently Helen is charged with attempted murder with an alternative charge of wounding with intent and is held on remand. Whilst in custody she gives birth to her second son whom she calls Jack and Rob calls Gideon.
After being charged Helen ends up with Anna Tregorran, the daughter of a regular Archers' characte, Carol Tregorran , as her barrister. Not content to simply present Anna in her role as a lawyer the scriptwriters decide to both make her full of angst about her failure to win past domestic abuse cases and be in the midst of the emotional upset of the recent breaking up of her marriage to her husband Max. But Max turns out to be Maxine, thus breaking new ground for the Archers with its first overt depiction of a lesbian relationship. (Despite being very eager to have homosexual relationships in the programme, the Archers has always been strangely coy when it comes to girl on girl action. )
When Helen is appears in court at her trial the scriptwriters are seen at their most heavy handed. They begin the trial scenes by pushing evidence which makes a conviction likely. Telling facts are put before the courts such as Helen's failure to ring for an ambulance after stabbing Rob, Helen's threat to kill Rob in front of witnesses shortly before the stabbing were and the evidence of her 5-year-old son – the only witness to the stabbing – who does not say anything which suggests Rob had threatened him.
This scenario rapidly changes as the trial progresses not least because the judge always comes up with a judgement favourable to the defence whenever something happens which might well have caused evidence favourable to Helen to be excluded or the trial to be abandoned. A juror tweets "Man hating lezzie. Gonna make sure she goes down." The judge allows the case to continue with eleven jurors, without making any attempt to discover if the errant juror had made his views known to the rest of the jury. (If he had done so that would most probably have stopped the trial dead in its tracks.) When Helen makes claims of repeated rape during her evidence , not having mentioned rape at all before she entered the witness box, the prosecution unsurprisingly objects. The judge allows the evidence to stand. Rob's ex-wife Jess comes forward at the last moment to give evidence of Rob's controlling behaviour towards her which includes rape. Again the judge comes down on Helen's side by allowing Jess to give similar fact evidence. When the jury send out a note to the judge after a few hours deliberation saying they cannot come to a unanimous verdict, the judge makes no attempt to get the jury to press on for a while longer but at the first time of asking says he will accept a majority verdict of 10-1.
Obvious lines of questioning were ignored by the prosecution. For example, questions about what relationship Helen had with Jess leading to the question "When did you last meet or speak with Helen?" As the pair of them had met at Helen's request not long before the stabbing of Rob the prosecution could easily have left the jury with the firm belief that the pair of them had plotted against Rob.
Helen's sudden claim from the witness box that she had been repeatedly raped by Rob because he wanted to have a child soon after they were married and Helen did not – hardly unreasonable on Rob's part because Helen is in her mid thirties –went virtually unexamined. An obvious line of question for the prosecution would have been to ask her about her sexual relations with Rob before they were married. Presumably Helen would have said they were normal because it is wildly improbable that a dominant male like Rob would have gone ahead with a marriage if his intended was denying him regular sex. At that point the prosecution would have been able to ask a simple but devastating question, viz: If you had regular sexual relations before marriage why weren't you worried about getting pregnant then? Helen would either have had to say she had not worried about getting pregnant then or more plausibly that she used contraception. Either way her claim of rape would have looked decidedly odd because if it was simply a case of getting pregnant all she would have needed to do was use some form of reliable contraception.
The height of this many stranded absurdity was reached in the hour-long jury room episode . By the end of the trial on the evidence given it would have been reasonable to have looked for a guilty verdict on at least the lesser charge of wounding with intent, for there was no certain evidence that the stabbing had taken place in response to a reasonable fear that either Helen or her son were under threat of assault by Rob.
The jury was a distinctly starry one with some well known names in British acting including Dame Eileen Atkins, Nigel Havers and Catherine Tate . Just to make sure the jury passed the diversity test one of the jurors was a Muslim woman Parveen and to make sure the listeners did not miss this fact the scriptwriters had one of the jurors compliment Parveen on her "beautiful headscarf".
The jurors made the jury in 12 Angry Men look like a model of conscientious and restrained citizens seeking the truth. Dennis (Graham Seed) , who was dead set on finding Helen guilty, Catherine Tate's Lisa was the working-class white woman who had little patience with the idea that Helen had acted reasonably, while Nigel Havers's Carl, who was the jury foreman, railed against the injustice of excuses only being made for women in the course of recounting how the courts had given his children to his wife after they split and added insult to injury by banning him from the family home whilst requiring him to pay the mortgage. Jury vetting is nowhere near as through or as comprehensive as it is in the USA but I really do wonder whether all of those on this fictional jury , especially Carl, would have made it through the vetting system as it now exists which includes a criminal records check.
Set against them was the terminally irritating Jackie (Eileen Atkins) who in the hectoring tones of what used to be called a "county" voice kept on repeating with excruciating condescension that the point which mattered was whether Helen had thought she or her son were in danger. In fact that is not all the jurors have to satisfy themselves when it comes to self-defence under English law. They also need to address the question of whether " a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive". Stabbing someone three times and nearly killing them when no certain evidence had been produced to show that Helen had reasonable grounds to fear that she or her son was in serious and imminent danger from Rob is clearly not what a reasonable person would regard as reasonable force. All the jury had to go on was Helen's word that Rob had given her the knife and told her she should kill herself, a story which in itself sounded far fetched to some of the jury – Rob of course denied giving Helen the knife and telling her that she should kill herself.
The end of the trial comes with ridiculous abruptness. One moment the jurors are still arguing sixteen to the dozen (with six of the eleven for conviction on one or other of the charges), the next we are back in the courtroom with the foreman of the jury giving not guilty verdicts. No explanation is given for the sudden change of heart of the majority. Simply as a piece of drama this plotting was ridiculous. It was as if the scriptwriters had either been told the trial had to be over by a certain date and simply wrote implausible tosh to meet the deadline or they could not think of a plausible way of extricating Helen from the weight of evidence against her and the attitudes they had given the jurors, both of which pointed to a guilty verdict on one or other of the charges, and got to the verdicts of not guilty as soon as they could in the hope the vast majority of the audience would not notice the implausibility of what was going on because they wanted Helen to be found not guilty.
Not content with the criminal trial the scriptwriters then had a custody hearing for Henry and Jack held a week or so after the end of the criminal trial. The scriptwriters have the judge who acting in the criminal trial presiding over the custody adjudication. At the beginning of the hearing the judge warns counsel for Rob that having heard the criminal case he is going to take a great deal of persuading if custody is of either boy is to be given to Rob. Could this really have happened in the real world? The judge then proceeds to give custody of both boys to Helen, denies Rob any access to Henry and only a few hours a week of heavily supervised access to Jack/Gideon. This is done on the grounds that Rob – who has never harmed Henry and has been an exemplary stepfather to the boy – represents a danger to the boy, while Helen, an unbalanced neurotic who has shown herself to be very violent indeed, is deemed to present no threat at all.
Since the trial Rob has been s portrayed as being given the cold shoulder by the residents of Ambridge. No one argues his case by, for example, pointing out the seriousness of his injuries or the fact that Henry is missing him. Instead the script writers are making him more and more angry and uncontrolled in his behaviour to provide one suspects further justification for Helen's acquittal and grounds for ostracism and vilification by the other characters and there are already hints that the police may investigate the alleged rapes
This type of black and white characterisation and plotting is pure agitprop. The ideological points are made in the most blatant way so even the dimmest listener cannot miss them and the villain of the piece is deliberately left with nothing more than a handful of traits which delineate the particular "incorrect "behaviour which must be both condemned without qualification and punished. This despite the fact that the scriptwriters have with the characters of Rob's parents tried to demonstrate that Rob's behaviour is all down to his upbringing. The scriptwriters want to have their cake and eat it by both punishing Rob and saying he not responsible . It is what Orwell called doublethink.
Doublethink also applies to the discord between the portrayal of Helen and what she allows to happen to her. Helen is presented as passive being completely lacking agency within a relationship, despite the fact that the scriptwriters throughout kept on emphasising that the character started as a confident woman very much in charge of her own life. Well, a confident and capable woman should have the capacity to say no or to simply walk away from a bullying man. Moreover, Helen was not dependent on Rob for money as they both worked for the family business and Helen could have left Rob at any time knowing that she had a ready made refuge the family farm for both herself and her child.
Part of the purpose of the year-long storyline was to undoubtedly attract more listeners (which it reportedly did in large numbers ), but even more it was intended as a cautionary feminist tale. It was designed to indoctrinate the audience with the idea that men are often if not invariably ruthless exploiters and groomers of women, who are reduced to being sexual, emotional and psychological slaves, and that women may physically attack their men viciously and get away with it provided they say they are being controlled by their men and believed they were in danger.
This propaganda has probably been put out now because there is a recently passed piece of UK legislation – Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 – which makes the coercion of those in a close relationship, family members or a sexual partner, a criminal offence carrying a maximum sentence of five years. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance on behaviours which are included in coercive control include "Repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless" and "Reputational damage". Talk about dangerously broad and subjective .
There are two complaints to make of the BBC's resources being used to make this type of material. The first is the utterly inept scriptwriting which most importantly made Helen's acquittal unbelievable; the second, the use of the BBC as a propaganda tool in the politically correct interest. The BBC often does this, but the Helen/Rob propaganda tool was extraordinarily one-eyed in intent and astonishingly crudely executed.
When the BBC is challenged about bias in a programme their favourite justification is that they attain balance over the whole range of BBC programmes relating to a topic. The use of the Archers over more than a year to promote the "coercion of women" line unquestioningly is probably the best example one could find of the BBC not only not achieving balance over various programmes dealing with a particular subject but making no effort whatsoever to do so.
The intentions of this new law are made crystal clear in the Crown Prosecution Service guidance that "The Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy provides an overarching framework for crimes identified as being primarily committed, but not exclusively, by men against women within a context of power and control." Do not hold your breath waiting for a woman to be prosecuted under this law.
The Archers originally went out in 1951 with the tagline an everyday story of simple countryfolk. Today it should have the tagline An everyday story of paranoid feminist folk.
By Robert Henderson | Tagged BBC, feminism, political correctness | Comments (1)
By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Conquest by other means | Tagged ethnicity, race, religion | Comments (1)
The West is a sitting duck while Muslims are in our midst
July 18, 2016 – 8:06 am
The latest Muslim terrorist massacre has been particularly savage. A Tunisian with French citizenship Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel deliberately drove a heavy articulated lorry along a crowded road full of people for more than a mile deliberately killing 84 people including ten children and injuring dozens more. The injuries to many of the dead were so severe that they could not be identified because their faces had been crushed as they went under the wheels of the lorry. The terrorist organisation ISIS has claimed that the attack was in response to their urging of Muslims in the West to attack non-Muslims with any means they could find including motor vehicles.
What can be done to stop such outrages? The brutal truth is that while large numbers of Muslims are in the West nothing much can be done to stop this form of subcontracted terrorism which is of a very different nature from what might be called conventional terrorism. In a conventional terrorist war in a society with a substantial minority (or even an oppressed majority ) from which terrorists are drawn support for terrorism is pyramidal. The troubles in Northern Ireland are a first rate example of such a war. At the top are the planners and executive players. Below them are the bomb makers and armourers. Alongside them are the active terrorists carrying out bombings, shootings etc. Below them come those willing to provide safe houses for people and weapons. Below them come those who can be relied on to demonstrate with a degree of violence at the drop of a hat. Below them come the mass of the minority many of whom say "I don't approve of their methods but I agree with their ends". Members of this slyly complicit majority of the minority are also most unlikely to give information to the police about terrorist activity, not least because they will fear violent repercussions. Their passivity and ambivalence provides in Mao's words "The sea in which the terrorists swim".
All this interlinking activity provides plenty of opportunity for the security services dealing with such an insurgency to gather intelligence which thwarts planned terrorist acts. Often the intelligence comes into their hands because of the inability of terrorists to keep their plans to themselves, either because they allow themselves to be infiltrated by agents of the state or simply out of vanity. ( Ask any police detective about identifying criminals and they will tell you a large proportion of criminal convictions come from the inability of criminals to resist the temptation to boast about what they are up to). The need to source weapons and munitions is another weakness because that brings in people from outside the terrorist organisation and the number of arms suppliers will be limited and more likely to be identified by security services.
Muslim terrorism in the West is something different. To begin with its practitioners are only too willing to commit suicide. This is rare behaviour amongst conventional terrorists. Members of the Provisional IRA had no such appetite. It is also a very effective form of terrorism and long recognised as such. George IIII said that anyone who was willing to lose their life in an attempt on his life would probably succeed because it was simply impossible to guard against such a determined assassin who would only have to get close enough to stab or shoot him. The suicide attacker also deprives the attacked of any chance of punishing him or her, a substantial psychological benefit.
It is true that some of the circumstances of the conventional terrorist war exists in the war that is now being waged by Islam against the West (Islam is waging war over the globe but I shall not deal with that here, although the same basic problem exists everywhere ). The providing of the "sea in which the terrorists swim", the at best ambivalent attitude of many Muslims in the West towards Western society and the sense of victimhood which readily excuses any action they take against Western societies are all active, but because of its diffuse and laissez faire nature most of the elements of conventional terrorist war is missing. There may be some outside direction and assistance from the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda but plainly it is possible, as the latest atrocity shows, to cause mayhem if the terrorist is simply an individual who uses as his weapon a motor vehicle. Moreover, even if a would-be terrorist wants to use a bomb or a gun it is not that difficult to find instructions on the Internet to make the first and in many parts of the West getting a gun and plenty of ammunition is not difficult. As to getting training in using weapons, if we believe the media reports and security warnings, there are thousands of radicalised Muslims who have come back to the West after receiving such training and battle experience from places such as Syria, Afghanistan and Libya. Lone wolf terrorists or terrorists working in small groups have a wide range of terrorist acts they can choose from and it is unrealistic to expect Western security forces to make much of a dent in the number of attacks by such people.
But even where a plot is more substantial and/or may include foreign direction and consequently leave more possible openings for the security forces to come across the plotters, things are not simple. Political correctness puts up barriers to rigorous investigations. The ready formation of immigrant ghettos make infiltration difficult not least because wannabe terrorists are often of an ethnicity alien to the country in which they are living. This means that if their group is to be infiltrated it can only be by someone sharing their ethnicity and speaking their language. There is not a huge number of such people willing to spy on their own community and even if such people are recruited there is a strong likelihood that a significant number will have joined to get information about the security services, that is, to act as a mole for terrorists.
The last difficulty is the sheer numbers of potential terrorists. To take the UK as an example, there are an estimated 3 million Muslims here. If one in a thousand was a serious terrorist that would be 3,000 serious terrorists; if one in a hundred there would be 30,000. But whatever the numbers of really serious terrorists to do their work meaningfully the security services would have to investigate many more Muslims, perhaps hundreds of thousands, because polls and research often show, for example, alarming numbers of Muslims in the West supporting suicide bombings. These are numbers which are utterly beyond Britain's security resources (or those of any other country) to identify and monitor.
Why were these very obvious fifth columns allowed to settle in the West? Because of an irrational belief in the potency of human rationality at best and a treasonous hatred of their own societies at worst of the internationalist elites which have dominated in the West during the last 50 years. These elites imagine that human beings are interchangeable and that claims of culture and race count for nothing, that human beings can simply be "educated" into accepting mulgticulturalism. Some actively hated their own societies and wilfully encouraged mass immigration to ensure that their societies were in their words "enriched" by becoming less homogeneous.
The madness is going on with huge numbers of Muslims still being allowed into the West because Western elites cannot break themselves of their addiction to the internationalist fantasy or are terrified of what will happen now such large numbers of Muslims are in the West. In any sane society the permitting of the mass immigration of those who are antagonistic towards the values of the country which is receiving them would be seen for what it is, treason. Sooner or later that is what it will be called.
By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Conquest by other means | Tagged immigration, internationalism, Islam, nationhood | Comments (2)
Article 50 is a poisoned chalice – Don't drink from it
March 3, 2016 – 10:47 am
Those who think that British Europhile politicians will play fair if Britain votes to leave the EU in June will be horribly disappointed. The public may think that if the British people have voted to leave the EU and that is an end of it regardless of the wishes of the Government. Sadly, there is every reason to expect that Brexit will be anything but a clean break from the EU.
To begin with there has been no commitment by Cameron to stand down as PM if the vote goes against him. Quite the opposite for he has publicly stated several times that he will stay on and many Tory MPs, including some of those in favour of leaving like Chris Grayling , have said that he must remain in No 10 whatever the outcome of the referendum .
If Cameron stays on as PM after a vote to leave Britain would be in the absurd position of having a man in charge of Britain's withdrawal who has shown his all too eager commitment to the EU by the feebleness of the demands he made during his "renegotiation" and his regularly repeated statement before the conclusion of the "renegotiation" that he was sure he would get new terms which would allow him to campaign for Britain to remain within the EU.
A post-referendum Cameron government entrusted with negotiating Britain's departure from the EU would mean that not only the PM but the majority of his cabinet and ministers below cabinet level will be drawn from the same pro-EU personnel as he has today. In those circumstances Cameron and his fellow Europhiles would almost certainly try to stitch Britain back into the EU with a deal such as that granted to Norway and Switzerland. If that happened Britain could end up with the most important issue in the British public's mind – free movement of not only labour but free movement of anyone with the right to permanent residence in the EU – untouched .
But if Cameron leaves of his own accord soon after a vote to leave Britain could still end up with a Europhile Prime Minister and Cabinet. Why? By far the most likely person to succeed him is Boris Johnson. If he does become PM there is every reason to believe that he will also do his level best to enmesh Britain back into the EU. Ever since Johnson became the Telegraph's Brussels correspondent in the 1990s he has been deriding the EU, but until coming out as a supporter of voting to leave in the past week he has never advocated Britain's withdrawal. Johnson also gave a very strong hint in the Daily Telegraph article in which he announced his support for leaving the EU that his support for Britain leaving the EU was no more than a ploy to persuade the EU to offer more significant concessions than those offered to Cameron. Johnson has also been a regular advocate of the value of immigration.
The scenario of Cameron or Johnson deliberately subverting the intention of a referendum vote to leave are all too plausible. There has been no public discussion let alone agreement by leading politicians over what the British government may or may not negotiate in the event of a vote to leave. Nor has there been any suggestion by any British politician or party that whatever the terms offered by the EU the British public will have the right to vote on them in a referendum. Britain could be left with an agreement decided by the British Government and the EU which might do nothing of what the British public most wants and has voted for, namely, the return of sovereignty and the control of Britain's borders.
Then there is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Both Cameron and Johnson are committed to doing so within the terms of the Lisbon Treaty of 2009. Far from a vote to leave in the referendum putting Britain in the position of a sovereign nation engaging in a negotiation for a treaty with the EU it traps Britain into an extended period of negotiation whose outcome is dependent on the agreement or non-agreement of the 27 other EU member states and the EU Parliament. Let me quote the Article in full:
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. (
Article 50 means that Britain could spend two years negotiating and get no treaty because the Council of Ministers could veto it through Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) or the European Parliament reject it. Britain would then have the option of either asking for an extension (which could be indefinite because there is no limit mentioned in the Article) or leaving without a treaty. There is also the further complication that if a treaty was agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament it would still have to be agreed by 27 EU member states, either through Parliamentary vote or in the case of a few including France, a referendum. Moreover, even if a treaty is agreed and accepted by all EU member states, this would leave Britain up in the air for what could be a considerable time as each of the 27 members goes through the process of getting the agreement of their Parliament or electorate.
The OUT camp must make it clear that it would be both damaging and unnecessary for the UK to abide by this Treaty requirement. It would allow the EU to inflict considerable damage on the UK both during the period prior to formally leaving and afterwards if the price of leaving with the EU's agreement was for UK to sign up to various obligations, for example, to continue paying a large annual sum to the EU for ten years . It would also give the Europhile UK political elite ample opportunity to keep the UK attached to the EU in the manner that Norway and Switzerland are attached by arguing that it is the best deal Britain can get. If there was no second referendum on the terms negotiated for Britain leaving the government of the day could simply pass the matter into law without the British voters having a say.
The Gordian knot of Article 50 can be cut simply repealing the European Communities Act and asserting the sovereignty of Parliament. No major UK party could object to this on principle because all three have, at one time or another, declared that Parliament remains supreme and can repudiate anything the EU does if it so chooses.
If the stay-in camp argue that would be illegal because of the treaty obligation, the OUT camp should simply emphasise (1) that international law is no law because there is never any means of enforcing it within its jurisdiction is a state rejects it and (2) that treaties which do not allow for contracting parties to simply withdraw are profoundly undemocratic because they bind future governments. There is also the fact that the EU and its predecessor the EEC has constantly breached its own rules, spectacularly so in the case of the Eurozone. Hence, for the EU treaties are anything but sacrosanct.
By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Conquest by other means, England, Europe | Tagged immigration, internationalism, nationhood, NWO, treason | Comments (2)
Civitas meeting 2 10 2014 – Should we seek to remain in the EU for trade only?
Sole speaker Ronald Stewart-Brown (Trade Policy and Research Centre)
I knew what a malformed disaster Stewart –Brown's plan for Britain to have nothing more than a trade relationship the EU was going to be when he started his talk by warning against the Great Satan of Protectionism by citing the example of the protectionist measures taking during the Depression of the 1930s. In fact, it was the protectionist measures taken by Britain, together with Britain moving from the Gold Billion Standard and the Keynsian public spending on things such as council housing which allowed Britain to recover more quickly than other large industrialised nations. (I go into this in more detail in my email to Stewart-Brown which I reproduce at the bottom of this post).
When I challenged him on this, instead of admitting that he had misrepresented the protectionist effects in the Depression, he simply blithely ignored what he had said and feebly added that unemployment had not been cured before WW2. In fact, the level of unemployment in 1939 was around 10 per cent, the type of level it had been at during most of the 1920s when the Free Trade mania was still dominating British politics.
This type of historical ignorance or the wilful denial of historical reality is part of the stock-in-trade of the laissez faire worshippers and makes most of what they say on economics a literal nonsense because the doctrine itself denies reality. Human beings are not the base advantage seeking automata beloved of classical economists; individuals will not normally have anything approaching perfect knowledge of a market. Instead, they will be doing what humans have evolved to do, being social animals who care most about relationships with other humans, raising their children and so on.
Stewart-Brown's plan was to have Britain effectively leave the EU but remain in a customs union with it. This he advocated because he thought this would (appeal to the British electorate; (2) would avoid the major manufacturers such as those making cars in Britain panicking at the prospect of EU trade barriers being raised against them and (3)reassure the rest of the world that world trade would not be disturbed. ( Strange how we are so often told that Britain is hugely insignificant in the world economy these days by the class of people Stewart-Brown comes from, but when it suits their purposes Britain is suddenly a massive influence on that economy. They make it up as they go along).
The idea that the other 27 members of the EU would fall down at Britain's feet and agree to such an arrangement is risible, as several of the audience pointed out. But even if it did take place, Britain would not be simply in a trading block because (1) the other EU members would keep introducing new rules and regulations, for example, health and safety legislation, into the remit of the Customs Union administration even though they would have nothing to do with trade and (2) most British politicians would be only too happy to go along with this re-establishment of ever tighter EU tentacles around Britain because they do not want Britain to be detached from the EU. The head of Civitas, David Green also pointed out the incongruity between Stewart-Brown's plans for a custom's union and his plea for free trade. This disconcerted Stewart-Brown, and all he could find to say was that he was proposing what he thought was possible.
The nadir of the Stewart-Brown's address came when he rather curiously claimed that Britain would get what he was proposing because a custom's union which allowed the EU members' goods and services to come to freely into Britain would give Britain —wait for it … "the moral high ground". What does he expect if the other EU members do not fall into line below this, in internationalist eyes, crushing fact? That such malefactors will be, as Michael Wharton delighted in saying, "brought before the bar of world opinion"? It was sublimely naïve. I managed to have a second go at him and pointed out that the whole movement of global politics was away from the unnatural internationalist ideas which had held sway in varying degrees since 1945 towards the natural state of humanity, which is tribal and catered for by the nation state. In particular I cited China as being a and economic and political Goliath which had shown repeatedly in recent times that it would not play the internationalist game, vide its persistent refusal to let the Renmimbi rise in value, despite being pressed strongly by the USA to do so.
Judged by their questions to him the audience was widely unsatisfied with Stewart-Brown's ideas , which were strong on wishful thinking and very short on realism. Stewart-Brown was also very keen on saying a consultation most be started on this and an investigation begun on that. He struck me as the type who would never come to the point where the end-game would actually begin.
There was one audience contribution which may have more than ordinary significance. The erstwhile Tory MP David Heathcoat-Amory was scathing in his condemnation of Cameron's negotiating position on the EU, saying it was essential Britain went into the negotiations with the clear intention of asking for a vote to leave if nothing substantial was conceded. He also supported Stewart-Brown's idea of just being in a customs Union, but only if those negotiating made it made clear Britain would simply walk away from the EU if no agreement was reached. Heathcoat-Amory may represent a strong band of thinking amongst current Tory MPs.
It was all too familiarly depressing, Stewart-Brown is yet another person with some public influence who really is not fit to have any hand in deciding what Britain's relationship with the EU should be simply because he has been captured by the laissez faire ideology and is, I suspect, an internationalist at heart.
Email sent to after Civitas meeting – I will post any reply here
Mr Ronald Stewart-Brown
Trade Policy and Research Centre
29 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BL
Email Ronald@tprc.org.uk
Dear Mr Stewart-Brown,
A few thoughts on your Civitas talk today. Your commitment to free trade and doubtless free markets generally is a gigantic stumbling block to producing a realistic plan for Britain to remove herself from the EU.
How far you are entrapped within the free trade ideology was shown by your claim that the great mistake in the Depression was to engage in protectionism. In fact, that was what protected Britain from the worst of the Depression years, along with coming off the Gold Bullion Standard, large scale state action which included building 500,000 council houses in the period and the fact that British banks had already undergone considerable consolidation and thereby avoided the horrors that the USA experienced with their huge number of small banks, thousands of which went to the wall. The fact that Britain also had a national welfare system can also be thrown into the mix for it both gave the unemployed an income and making those who feared being unemployed less uncertain. These things probably kept consumption levels significantly higher than they would otherwise have been.
In 1933 the unemployment rate was around 23% of the workforce; by 1939 it was around 10 per cent, the sort of figure incidentally that it had been throughout the 1920s when the free trade mania was still dominating British politics. It is also true that Britain between 1950 and the early 1970s enjoyed a period of considerable growth and very low unemployment behind protectionist barriers and great state involvement in the economy.
The reality of laissez faire economics is it is an intellectually incoherent doctrine – see my "Free markets and "free trade" = elite propaganda" essay below – which does not do what its proponents claim. In fact it leads countries which practice it into dangerously distorting their economies which greatly undermines their self-sufficiency and leave any country unwise enough to go down this path open to manipulation by foreign powers and potentially to shortages of vital goods and services.
To imagine as you do that countries will abide by treaties is dangerously naive. At the present time we are seeing throughout the world a strong movement towards protectionism, whether that be overtly or by covert means such as hideously complex and time consuming bureaucratic procedures or the use of justice systems to intimidate foreign companies – China is a past master at this, but the USA is no slouch either with its laws against trading with certain countries in certain goods and the absurd fines US regulators and courts hand out to foreign companies. In the case of the EU, to believe that your plan would succeed because quote "We shall have the moral high ground" is wishful thinking on stilts. As several people pointed out it only takes one member state to veto a proposal. To expect 27 EU states to all refrain from doing so is wildly improbable.
But there is an even bigger issue. As I pointed out at the talk, there is strong reasons to believe the EU will not remain intact as a group of supposedly democratic states. To begin most of the EU states do not have any great democratic history. The largest apart from Britain – Germany, France, Spain, Italy – all date their present constitutional arrangements in decades not centuries. They and most of the smaller states are naturally democratically fragile. Also, since the current recession stated, it is debatable whether Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal have been democracies so controlled have they been by ECB diktats. There is also the madness of the EU's attempt to lure the Ukraine into the Brussels net and the ongoing mess with is the Euro – see my separate email on the Euro. Any of these circumstances could lead to anything from individual members casting aside any pretence at democracy to the entire EU blowing apart. Consequently the path you advocate with the UK still tied into the EU economic process in the shape of membership of a customs union is fraught with danger. Much better that Britain leaves the coils of the EU entirely and makes its way in the world as the vast majority of countries do. That way if the EU blows up we will not have any legal ties and obligations to it.
Finally, there is the question of winning an in/out referendum. The British may not like the EU, but neither do they like globalism. It will be impossible to win a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU if the electorate know that all they are being asked to do is to swap the overlordship of Brussels for the ideological despotism of free trade and mass immigration. (The laissez faire approach involved in globalisation is those with power enforcing an ideology by refusing to act to protect what the vast majority of human beings regard and have always regarded as the interests of their country and themselves. It is a tyranny caused by the neglect of the rightful use of state power for the common good.) If a referendum is to be won it will have to be on the basis of Britain being master in its own house to stop further mass immigration and to protect strategically important industries.
By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Europe | Tagged immigration, internationalism, nationhood | Comments (1)
By Robert Henderson | Also posted in England | Tagged ethnicity, free speech, immigration, internationalism, liberal bigotry, nationhood, NWO, patriotism, political correctness, race | Comments (3)
The white liberal fantasy collides head-on with the reality of Islam
September 3, 2014 – 9:20 pm
NB: The territory taken from Iraq and Syria has gone by various titles: ISIS, ISIL and IS. I shall use ISIS standing for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
The present mess in the Middle East and North Africa is largely the creation of the prime political absurdity which lies at the heart of the modern liberal fantasy, namely, that what they call liberal democracy (in truth a politically correct illiberal state) can be manufactured if only the right circumstances are created. This woefully wrongheaded idea reprises the mistake made during the dissolution of the British Empire. The British withdrawal strategy was simple: for each ex-colony create the formal structures of a parliamentary democracy – parliaments, written constitutions, electoral systems and so on – and then, like a climbing plant covering a trellis, democratic behaviour would grow and wrap itself around the formal structures. It was at best laughably naïve and at worst a cynical fig leaf to cover the unseemly haste with which Britain relinquished control of her colonies.
The reason why the British post-colonial strategy failed is beautifully simple: political systems cannot be self-consciously created. They are organic growths. When it comes to representative government elected on a broad franchise ( a more honest description of the reality than democracy) , such growths are remarkably rare. Look around the world and see how many secure representative political systems there are. The Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand qualify because they have such representative systems and have not experienced violent revolution either at all or for centuries. All are Anglo-Saxon in origin. Who else? Switzerland and Iceland. Being generous we can perhaps add the Scandinavians and Holland. For the rest, including all the major European states, there is not one which has not had governments overthrown since 1900 by outright violence committed by the native population or by unconstitutional means.
To the rarity of stable and lasting representative government growing organically, can be added the problem of territories with immense ethnic and racial variety routinely producing disputed elections on the grounds of electoral fraud or falling into violence afterwards because one particular ethnic or racial group believes they are being hard done by. Indeed, such ethnic and racial variety is probably the prime reason why stable representative government is so rare. Such disabling heterogeneity was the situation with the colonies Britain freed after 1945 and is the situation with the ethnic, racial and religious kaleidoscope that is the Middle East and North Africa.
The fruits of recent Western meddling
A complaint is often made that the European colonial powers caused much of the post-colonial difficulty through their drawing of colonial boundaries which produced territories without a natural national unity. This complaint does not hold water. It is not that the European imperial powers did not draw such boundaries, but rather that it would not have made any general difference where the boundaries were drawn because the same problem would have arisen as a consequence of the exceptionally diverse nature of the lands involved. There were no discrete territories with populations which were large enough and homogeneous enough in race, religion and culture to form a natural nation state. That was the case with the Middle East and North Africa.
The consequences of Western interference in the Islamic world since the turn of the century has been uniformly dismal: it has either replaced harsh order with growing chaos or replaced one dictatorship with another. Consider how the present situation in the Middle East and North Africa has come about. First, Bush junior and Blair go gallivanting into Afghanistan and reduce that to a battleground for violent Islam and tribal hatreds and jealousies to play out. From there they decide to meddle in Iraq by invading on the entirely spurious grounds that Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the West because he had weapons of mass destruction. That the UN Weapons inspectors reported they had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and asked for more time counted for nothing. Neither did the fact that at the time of the invasion Saddam was being restrained in his behaviour by sanctions and a Western-enforced no-fly zone over the Kurdish areas. Having deposed Saddam and his regime Iraq was placed under a military occupation which went the way of all military occupations, gradual dissolution through the exhaustion of the occupying power.
Then came the miserably entitled Arab Spring, whose fruits have been bitter indeed. Because there are natural nation states in the area, the "Arab Spring" was doomed to the horrific failure it has been because the states involved were all fissile territories whose diverse populations were only held in check from internecine fighting by harsh dictators, whether republican or monarchical. The facile cheerleading of Western politicians and liberals generally was adolescent in its self-indulgent idealism and encouraged the populations in the Arab world to rebel when they had absolutely no chance of producing anything other than chaos or another dictatorship.
Libya has been reduced to a state of anarchy with rival militias, tribes, gangs – call them what you will- making hay with the weapons made freely available by the overthrow of Gadhafi, with violent Islam joining in. With a grim irony Egypt has swapped a covert military dictatorship for an overt military dictatorship, whilst dispensing with an elected if Islamist president on the way. Iraq has lurched into an increasing state of disorder as the US has gradually withdrawn and is now divided between Iraq, Kurdistan and ISIS.
Most gruesomely for Western politicians, the tyrant of Syria, Bashir Assad, has withstood the attempts, vociferously supported by the West, to destroy him and his regime by the rag-tag and politically indeterminate "Free Syrian Army" and is now through the emergence of ISIS the only plausible obstacle to ISIS ' continued existence and expansion. If realpolitik ruled the West would be acting in concert with Assad , but because they have labelled him a devil they cannot bring themselves to do the sensible thing and make common cause with him so that he can restore some sort of order to Syria. Liberals who shudder at this should bear in mind how often they have been in bed with the most insanitary bedfellows – Stalin, Mao and the Taliban in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation to mention a few. Sometimes it is necessary to take the my enemy's enemy is my friend route to protect the national interest.
What can and should be done now by the West?
The liberal warmongers are ever more eagerly saying that If the West does not intervene militarily to destroy aggressive Islam then parts of the Middle East will be breeding grounds and safe havens for terrorists to carry their terror into the West. That may or may not be true , but if the West does intervene militarily to successfully snuff out ISIS, then the likelihood would be that ISIS members, especially those who come from Western states, would return to their various countries determined to wage terrorist war there. Moreover, the West would be committed to remaining indefinitely in the territory they have taken from ISIS, their very presence being a standing motive for violent Muslims in the West to attack the countries which harbour them.
Nor would the destruction of ISIS in Iraq and Syria be an end of violent Islam creating havens to protect, train and send terrorists into to the West. Afghanistan is ripe to fall to the Taliban once Western military forces are withdrawn. Parts of Pakistan are controlled by violent Islam. Libya is little more than a geographical expression filled with petty warlords and ripe for violent Islam to go to if it is not already there. Deeper into Africa there is Boko Haram spreading throughout the West. In the East Kenya and Uganda suffer from Muslim terrorist attacks, Ethiopia and Somalia have serious Islamist incursions to deal with, while in Sudan violent Islam holds power. Indeed, it is increasingly difficult to point to parts of Africa which remain untouched by violent Islam.
The plain truth is that even if the West were willing and able to suppress ISIS in Syria and Iraq by force, they could never control violent Islam because violent Islam would simply keep on the move from one accommodating territory to another.
How serious a threat to the West is ISIS?
The potential of ISIS to create a lasting aggressive and powerful Islamic state is grossly overblown. It has taken a great deal of territory very rapidly, but that is unsurprising in a place like the Middle East where there is a good deal of desert and the formal states whose land has been captured were all in some governmental disarray , which is not a recipe for inspiring troops to resolutely fight a determined aggressor such as ISIS. In the case of Iraq the discriminatory behaviour of the Maliki government had seriously alienated the Sunni minority through his highly discriminatory behaviour in favour of the Shia majority. This has provided a reason for Iraqi Sunnis to have some fellow feeling with the Sunni ISIS and consequently to tolerate or even welcome ISIS violence directed at the non-Sunni parts of the population. Moreover, even where there are large numbers of people willing to resist ISIS, as appears to be the case in Kurdistan, that is of little avail if they are equipped with much inferior weaponry and training.
But taking territory is one thing, maintaining control of it quite another. That is particularly the case where the territory conquered has a population which is chronically divided by religion and ethnicity and is spread over several formal states. ISIS need to rapidly show they are up to administering the land they have taken. Easier said than done, especially as they are likely to be engaging in warfare for quite some time to come, both with elements within the territory they have taken and from outside. Terror tactics only take a conqueror go so far. They are not a sufficient basis for ruling.
There is also considerable scope for ISIS to fracture because the land they have captured is ethnically and religiously diverse. Moreover, the ISIS personnel is very cosmopolitan and may come to be resented by even the native Sunnis in the ISIS territory. In addition, ISIS will have to fight the remnant of Iraq (with its hostile Shia majority) and Assad's Syrian Army. There is also the possibility that Iran may join in to protect the Shia population of the captured territories.
Much has been made of the modern weaponry and auxiliary military equipment ISIS have taken , but the equipment will require considerable expertise to maintain and operate it. Such skills, especially those needed to maintain the equipment, will probably not be available in the quantities needed. Moreover, ISIS will need to buy more modern weaponry, especially munitions, as time goes on and it is not clear who will sell it to them in sufficient quantity and quality.
A ghastly irony for the West, and most particularly the USA, is the fact that they have supplied much of the military equipment which ISIS are using , either because the equipment has been captured from Iraqi forces or because the equipment was supplied by the West to the Syrian rebels fighting Assad, significant numbers of whom share the mentality of ISIS or may even be part of ISIS. The fact that ISIS have had the success they have had is unsurprising given the circumstances. Keeping hold of what they have will take up all their energies for the foreseeable future.
The real threat to the West comes not from ISIS but the large Muslim populations in the West , which the treacherous and deluded liberal internationalists have allowed to settle as they pursued their fatuous dream of a world without borders or nation states. The last UK Census in 2011 shows 2.7 million people identifying themselves as Muslims (4.8 per cent of the population). This is almost certainly substantially less than the real figure because the Census depends on self-reporting and there is a significant minority of the UK population who never complete the Census form because they are either here illegally or have a mentality which makes them think that giving any information about themselves to any government is dangerous.
How does the West protect itself from homicidal Muslims within its own territory? It would be a next to impossible question to find an adequate answer to even in a country which has meaningful border controls because of the number of Muslims born and bred in the West. In a country such as Britain which effectively has open borders, the question becomes not merely hideously difficult but absurd.
In Britain the Coalition government has floundered around talking about removing passports from people trying to leave Britain if they are suspected Jihadis, , the banning from Britain of those who have been in Iraq and Syria, the reintroduction of control orders and, most pathetically, the idea that Muslim coming back from fighting for ISIS can be turned into good British citizens through re-education. Even if such policies are put in force the idea that this would seriously hinder Muslim terrorists in Britain is laughable because of the numbers of Muslims living here as British citizens. The current official estimate of British Muslims fighting in in Iraq and Syria is 500. That is probably an underestimate, but even if it was only 500 that would be more than enough to create severe problems in this country. As for the British Muslim population in general, there is evidence that a substantial portion of them share the "I don't agree with their methods but…" mentality of Irish Republicans towards the Provisional IRA.
The Western political response
Any action by Western politicians is problematic because as a class they have lost the ability to instinctively act in the national interests of the people they are supposed to represent. They ignore the first duty of a politician in a democracy which is to ask what is best for their own people. Instead their calamitous mentality is that described in Jean Raspail's "Camp of the Saints" where the response of politicians and the liberal elite generally to the passive-aggressive misery of huge numbers of migrants from the Third World arriving in the West overwhelms the needs of their own people.
But Western political elites are becoming seriously afraid of both the danger represented by violent Muslims in their countries and the anger of their native populations . As a consequence there are things being said now by public figures which would have been unthinkable only a few short weeks ago. The one-time Shadow Home Secretary David Davis pushes for British Muslims who go to fight with the likes of Isis to be stripped of their British citizenship regardless of whether this leaves them stateless so that their "trip to Syria is no longer a short violent holiday but a life sentence to the lifestyle they claim to espouse, complete with Sharia law and a desert climate". The Leader of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage advocates the same thing while the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey says that " Multiculturalism has resulted in honour killings, female genital mutilation and rule by Sharia law" and supports the call to remove British citizenship from those who go to join violent Islam. The Mayor London Boris Johnson wants Muslims returning from Syria and Iraq to be considered guilty until proven innocent of terrorist activity, a bald reversal of the ancient right under English law to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
The journalist Leo McKinstry places the responsibility for the present danger firmly on successive British governments :
"The fact is that extremism has flourished in a climate formed by the twin strategies of mass immigration and multiculturalism. Open borders have led to a phenomenal expansion in Britain's Muslim population to almost three million, many of the new arrivals hailing from parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia where Islamic sectarianism is rife.
At the same time the dogma of cultural diversity has become one of the central obsessions of the state. We are constantly told that we must celebrate the vibrant enrichment of our society. But, by its emphasis on cultural differences and its loathing for traditional British values the doctrine of diversity has been a catastrophe for Britain.
In place of integration it has promoted division and separatism. We are a land increasingly without a mutual sense of belonging or shared national identity. It is little wonder that, according to one recent survey, 26 per cent of Muslims here said they feel no loyalty to Britain."
The problem is that while the public rhetoric is changing nothing significant alters on the ground. The words change but the circumstances remain much the same. The Western liberal elites are still paralysed by both political correctness and the ghastly fact that dangerous fifth columns now exist because of their mass immigration policies and the consequent need to suppress native British dissent about its effects. In addition through their policy of multiculturalism the liberal elite has encouraged ethnic and racial minorities to both live culturally apart from and behave in a flagrantly provocative manner towards the native population. The upshot of all this is that those with power in the West dare not admit there is a general problem amongst immigrant communities ( which live largely separate lives in their own communities) because to do so would be to admit that the fault lay with them.
In an attempt to circumvent the danger of being held to account, Western politicians and the mainstream media try to peddle the "violent Muslims are only a tiny percentage of Muslims living amongst us; the vast majority are well educated, peace loving, hardworking law abiding citizens". This is a dubious proposition in itself when the crime, educational attainment, benefit take up and unemployment statistics throughout the West show Muslims to be more prone to crime, to have below average educational attainment and are more likely to be unemployed or on in-work benefits than the population as a whole. But even if none of those things were true the problem of violent Islam in Britain would still be there because many of the Muslims who have been outed as sharing violent Islam's ideas are not from the lower reaches of society.
The important thing to understand is that it is never the peaceful minority which counts in these circumstances. What matters is the terrorist minority. They drive the terror and enlist the non-violent to aid them in various ways. The Provisional IRA (PIRA) in Ireland probably never had no more than a thousand people actively engaged in terrorism: sanctioning and planning terrorist attacks, making bombs, planting bombs, killing or maiming those thought to untrustworthy or simply disobedient to PIRA's will. But there were very large numbers who were willing to provide PIRA with safe houses, to store of weapons, to tell PIRA about informers and come out on the streets at the drop of a hat to protest in the PIRA interest. In addition, the existence of a large population with a very well nourished sense of victimhood (the Irish Catholics) allowed in Mao's words the PIRA "guerrilla to move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea. "
But there are terrorist and terrorists. There are two radical differences between PIRA and violent Islam. PIRA were not driven by religious fanaticism (it was a Marxist organisation) and its members were drawn from communities which shared similar moral values to those of the British. This meant that when the time came to make a peace of sorts between Britain and Irish Republicans there was a great deal of cultural similarity between the two parties. The representatives of violent Islam, even those born and bred here, will have little fellow feeling with or understanding of the native British population.
The second and most important difference is that the nature of the PIRA and ISIS end games. For PIRA it was a united Ireland. That was a genuinely possibility because the British government accepted that if Northern Ireland voted for union with the Irish Republic they could have it provided the Republic agreed. Although hardline members of PIRA did not want to make peace, many PIRA members did , together with a majority of ordinary republicans . Crucially, the republicans in favour of peace could see it simply as a stepping stone to the unification of Ireland, not as a defeat for their cause. In addition, the demographics of Northern Ireland were heading towards a Catholic and therefore largely republican majority by the time peace was formally made. That also gave republicans hope.
Violent Islam does not have an end game which any Western government could concede either in whole or in part. Its practitioners want the overthrow of Western society and the imposition of Islam. There is no conception of compromise. If Britain existed under the control of such people it would be an unforgiving theocracy. Because violent Islam is implacable, no concession short of outright victory for violent Islam will end the violence. If Western governments make concessions such as granting Sharia courts parity with civil courts violent Islam will simply pocket the bribe and march on towards the final end of total dominance.
Where does this leave the West? It leaves the countries with large Muslim populations at perpetual risk from both terrorism and the likelihood of Western elites diluting their own cultural integrity by attempting to appease Muslims by granting them more and more privileges. These risks will increase because Western Muslims have higher birth rates than native Western populations. In addition, further substantial Muslim immigration will probably occur because Western governments will try to placate Muslims by relaxing entry requirements and border controls are always likely to be ineffective. Black Western converts to Islam could also swell the numbers significantly.
Is there a silver lining or two amongst the Islamic clouds? Well, at least the realities of the situation the liberal elite have created are becoming impossible to ignore. Most encouragingly, the concept of treason is suddenly back on the political agenda. This is fundamentally important because patriotism is not an optional extra but the glue which sticks a society together. Yet t the storm cloud which cannot be dispersed is the immoveable fact of millions of Muslims living within Western societies who harbour substantial numbers of people who are unquestioningly hostile to the countries in which they reside. That is what rule by the politically correct devotees to internationalism have brought us, a huge and potentially very dangerous fifth column in our midst. It has been an act of the most fundamental treason.
By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Conquest by other means | Tagged immigration, Islam, nationhood | Comments (4)
By Robert Henderson | Also posted in Book Reviews, Conquest by other means | Tagged censorship, internationalism, liberal bigotry, nationhood, NWO, Propaganda, treason | Comments (4)


text:
Tesco boss Dave Lewis in shock departure
Tesco has announced that its chief executive Dave Lewis is stepping down after five years in the role. Mr Lewis said the decision was "Personal one" and Tesco chairman John Allan said he had accepted the resignation with "Regret". He will be replaced by Ken Murphy, who has held senior positions at Walgreens Boots Alliance. His departure was announced as Tesco reported a 6.7% rise in first-half profits to £494m. Mr Lewis said his decision was a "Personal one". Shortly after he took the helm in 2014, the chain reported the biggest loss suffered by a UK retailer of £6.4bn and after he had uncovered issues with the retailer's accounts.
Make a complaint about Tesco by viewing their customer service contacts.
Retail Companies
© 2020 Complaints Department

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
The 183rd Aviation Regiment is an aviation regiment of the U.S. Army.

Structure
 1st Battalion (Assault Helicopter) (ID ARNG)

References

183

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia