Friday, 27 September 2013

Traditional Britain Group - Judges Against the British People

If anything should arouse deep concern and protest it is the politicisation of the British judiciary and its opposition to the interests of the British people. Since the rise of the New left in the 1960s Judges routinely make political decisions not just political statements. This is why the Establishment is called an “Ideological Caste” united by central ideas like anti-White racism, bias for the EU and Globalism. They have not transcended prejudice and discrimination but changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from outsiders to their own people!

The two main issues are the protection of terrorists and disgustingly the protection of child molesters, euphemistically known as paedophiles. This was not always so – it has developed in the last thirty or so years.

Some Comparisons

In 2005, The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge, Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009), for criticising Britain's immigration system. He remarked that "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to jail”. To a judiciary who encourage asylum seeking these remarks opposed their political ideology.

Abu Hamza was allowed to preach hatred on the streets of Finsbury Park even though the Yemen had requested his extradition for terror offences. The judges refused citing his human rights. Britain has become a magnet for Islamic terrorists due to our human rights legislation bias in their favour - that protects them and our benefits keeps them in luxury while they carry our their recruitment of terrorists.

However, The News Chronicle of 7th December 1954, reported on a case where a white woman asked for an injunction to stop her coloured landlord abusing or molesting her. Judge Wilfred Clothier in giving judgement in the case of a 62 year-old white woman living alone in a house full of coloured men, said that she was “hounded by these coloured men. This is another case of black people entering half a house and never resting until they have turned the white people out. I hope there will be a remedy found quickly. One could be to turn back to Jamaica anyone found guilty of this practice. Another would be a prohibition by law to stop any black people buying a house containing white tenants.” Conrad Fairclough wanted Miss Matilda McLaren out of where she had lived for 40 years yet he only came here in 1948.
 I always think of that case when I see naïve or malicious people disputing Enoch's point in his Rivers of Blood speech of the elderly lady driven from her home.

Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, spoke up about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives:

“I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”
 (Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”, Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.)

In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented:
 “It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.”
 (Guardian, 2 August 1969.)

In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds:
 “Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer ... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people daren’t go even with their cars ... All immigration must stop ... The country is full up. We don’t want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life.”
 (India Mail 02.03.95).

Bradford M.P., Max Madden, described Judge Pickles as a "repulsive old buffer" who had "plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities"/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.

Through the 60s and 70s, the New Left and its ideology were taking over and silencing those with the wrong opinions. In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published What Next In the Law. The publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies. Lord Denning wrote:

"The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out."

Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing sound common sense.

The attack on our people and way of life by the judiciary has two main planks: promoting Muslim extremism and undermining our way of life through law.

Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian Cultural Marxist concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and as “intrinsically counter - majoritarian....should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion”.

Many people seem to mistakenly believe that our judges are simply out-of-touch, semi-senile old people, but there are more sinister forces at work here. Judges who make political comments against traditional British values are showing that they have a subversive agenda which is clearly not in the interests of the British people.

Soviet-Style Subversion

In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, now a judge, described nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 until November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.”

Another morally corrupt judge who turned the police into institutionally anti-white racist organisation was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny when he introduced Soviet-style techniques to oppress White people in the Recommendations of The Macpherson report. (2)

Recommendation 12. "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.

Recommendation 13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment. Investigate “non-crimes”! This totalitarian ploy criminalises everything and allows the politicised police to investigate any aspect of our lives they choose. Multi-racialism and totalitarianism are indivisible. As in Yugoslavia under Tito, a multi-racial society can only work with totalitarian methods.

Recommendation 14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.

This makes crime subjective and gives other ethnic groups legal power over “White” people. Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.

Recommendation 38 which requests the” power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented” and the citizen loses legal safeguards and the state can prosecute repeatedly until it gets the right verdict.

Recommendation 39 is similar to the extensions to paragraph 10, Article 58 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code which ordered “face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter” to be investigated for anti-Soviet thoughts.

The Recommendation states: ”That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place.” (2)

Judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers – he discriminates in their favour! The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he hate this country? In February 2003 The Telegraph exposed him in “Damning verdict on judge.”

The judiciary also attack the family. Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference that she supported gay adoption, legally recognised gay partnerships, improved legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit and the idea of fault removed from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows there will be no impartiality towards this aspect of “the Culture Wars,” as she was announcing beforehand that she is against traditional values.

In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family judge.

Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family: “Family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship."

The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the preposterous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that their gender at birth was what they now say it is. What this twisted thinking means that they were not born what they were born but what they say they were born.

The Feminist and Communist hate campaign against the traditional family has been an going on since the 1960's. The family law courts have been enabling this hate campaign since the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and subsequent anti-family legislation, by interpreting the law the way the media led feminist movement wish to and not in the way that Parliament originally intended.

Children and fathers are routinely treated as sub-humans, both inside the divorce courts and after the pre-determined anti-father ruling. Grandparents are also treated like dirt when it comes to accessing their loved ones. It is
 They support outside groups against people with property. The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws they were allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are supposed obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This was later reversed but the bias of the judiciary had been signalled to interested parties.

As part of the elites Islamification programme in December 2008 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council he was willing to see Sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.
 He also suggested Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.

In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England's first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a Sharia divorce.

Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights

In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”
 Sharia law will be allowed as long as it doesn't 'lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments'. Who is going to decide on the principal of 'severe'. It is against the law to smack a naughty child so by that definition there should not be any Muslim law that would not 'come into conflict' with current law. 'Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements'. This would then create two systems of divorce.
 Any 'white' Christian male who was divorcing, would, presumably, be able to choose a sharia court for his divorce. Equally a Muslim woman being divorced can choose a 'Western style' court. Who then would decide which court has superiority? The appeasement of Islam leads to conflict with Western values. The two are diametrically opposed and cannot be run with unity as much as the Cultural Marxists like to think it would.

The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU it was seen as helping political union in Europe and a move to one world government. They acted ideologically and challenged governments in many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab who shared the ideology came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.

In the sixties Liberalism changed from individual rights to group rights which is what is known as Cultural Marxism but  we became the object of discrimination.

Britain – World Centre for Terrorists

One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn Britain into a world centre for terrorists. They use Britain as a base to attack other countries from. Human Rights laws prohibit torture or degrading treatment so they stopped removing illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to countries where judges thought or pretended such treatment was practised. In 2008 at least two terrorists were released early from prison!

They also began to interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (prejudice) than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. Considering the terror attacks and the number of Muslim terrorists the judges have encouraged it is clear that White Britons are threatened by this group!
 International law is neither based in national habits and conventions nor even democratic jurisdictions, but current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials. Through the Human Rights Act they gave asylum to countless people who are a military threat to us as long as they claimed they would be in danger if returned to their destination countries.

The judges use this legislation to grant rights to people refused asylum, who then hide in their ethnic communities here. As they could not be sent back to their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger. To see the moral corruption - a Taliban soldier who had fought against our troops was granted asylum because he feared persecution.

Home Office figures in December 2005 recorded that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since the terror attempt of 21 July were asylum seekers shows that the judiciary have breached national security; two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.

Some terrorists were protected by the judiciary. Algerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992 and was kept here for ten years despite three requests for his extradition!

In 1995, the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen but after the judges thwarted this. He lived in North London and was allowed to constantly post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.

In 2004, judges wrecked the governments’ attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial, which was introduced after 9/11, in “The Belmarsh Judgement.” This is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war. Lord Hoffman, made the ludicrous statement that Muslim extremism does not imperil the nation: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes from laws such as these.”

Lord Phillips' speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in support of the Human Rights Act, is sloppy, illogical thinking. “Control orders” were an attempt by the government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Human Rights Act.

Phillips acknowledged that the act has limited actions in “response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade," but, he said: "It is essential that (immigrants) and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society." There we have it: the law prevents the authorities combating terrorism and so reduces the risk of terrorism!
 Even in County Courts judges make biased judgements. A pensioner wrote to me that a District Judge at Dudley County Court, penalised him with £430 costs for getting a hearing date wrong despite being in the early stages of dementia and having protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, another judge upheld the penalty. The problem, he thinks, is that he tried to represent himself for being discriminated against but the judges, who are usually former solicitors, awarded costs against him because the other side had a solicitor.

Defending Child Molesters

The one issue that does show the British judiciary as corrupt, immoral and at war with the British people is their repeated taking the sides of child molesters against the victims. Just recently there have been several sickening examples. In its report the Daily Mail used the fashionable euphemism “paedophile”.
 On 10 th July, Andrew Townsend, 51, of Hulme, Manchester, who had downloaded child pornography so appalling that the judge could not look, but she still did not imprison him. There is no protection for British children.

The judge said that what he did was not a victimless crime, but:‘You must be aware the subjects of these images are not indifferent to what is happening to you. The public must be made aware of just how infectious this material is.’ Yet she rejected the option of sending Townsend to prison and instead gave him a three-year community order. Because there is treatment available that will be beneficial to him.

The Judge who gave child molester Stuart Hall a mere 15 months was forced to quit after being caught visiting a gay brothel in 1996, he resigned as part-time recorder of Bolton and gave up his position as the top lawyer for the Inland Revenue. He was said to have gone into a ‘dark room’ inside the club with a leading doctor and a hospital porter. But five years later he was reinstated, and is now a senior judge.

Hall had admitted indecently assaulting 13 girls between 1967 and 1986, the youngest just nine years old. Russell said: ‘You have given pleasure to millions of people as a local television presenter in the North West, nationally in the It’s A Knockout series, and as a highly regarded sports commentator.”

After the announcement, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said: “I asked the court to consider the multiple offending by Stuart Hall over a prolonged period of time which involved numerous victims.
 On 2nd August 2012, Judge Francis Gilbert QC was appointed resident judge at Exeter. He is a serial lenient with child molesters, handing out light sentences, bail, and overturning verdicts.

On 13th July 2011, he released six footballers imprisoned for raping 12 year old girls after a ruling that their 2-year sentences were “excessive”. The men had admitted charges of rape against two 12 year old girls in a park late at night. Mr Judge Francis Gilbert QC ruled that being imprisoned was inappropriate as it was a ‘difficult’ case. The men were released, their sentences cut to one year and suspended. Rather than protect children the judiciary protect child rapists.

Only sixteen days later, Anthony Milsom, described by the trial judge as a “manipulative and predatory” sex offender, was jailed indefinitely for public protection. Milsom admitted a series of offences dating back to the early 1990s like sixteen counts of possessing indecent images of children, twenty-one of making indecent images, and five charges of indecent assault on a little girl when she was aged between four and eight. Milsom had newspaper cuttings of child murders like Milly Dowler, Sophie Hook, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

His sentence amounted to life but appeal court Judges including Gilbert cut it to just three and a half years.
 Parliament had to introduce an appeal against lenient sentences – to protect children as the judges will not do so, by imposing severe sentences that that signal to sickos that this sort of crime is not worth attempting. Actually, I think by their acts they forfeit any claim to be treated as human. The morally corrupt British Judiciary is something we must campaign against to restore law and order in this country which the judges are destroying.

Sunday, 22 September 2013

The Real Homosexual Agenda

The Real Homosexual Agenda:

A Self-Styled 'Gay Revolutionary' Offers a Challenge to Straight America:

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, ...wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men. ...We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed..."

Michael Swift - Boston Gay Community News - February 15-21, 1987 (From the Traditional Values Coalition Special Report, Vol. 18., No. 10)

Clearly not everyone in the homosexual movement is an extremist. Many are solid, law-abiding citizens who make important daily contributions to our society and do not believe in confrontation or hard-line rhetoric. However, many militant homosexuals and their supporters have different beliefs. They have adopted the following tactics with the goal of forcing their beliefs on society:

• eliminating free speech by harassing and attempting to silence anyone who disagrees with them;

• preying on children by indoctrinating and recruiting them into their lifestyle;

• imposing their beliefs on others through activist judges and lawmakers requiring that everyone actively promote homosexuality in every institution (schools, workplace, churches, etc.);

• destroying marriage and undermining the traditional family in order to annihilate any moral standard of behavior;

• intolerance toward anyone who does not willingly submit to their agenda;

• fighting for a discriminatory and unconstitutional double standard of justice by demanding that crimes against homosexuals be punished more severely than the same crimes against heterosexuals through 'hate crimes' legislation; and

• deceptively portraying homosexuality as a harmless and victimless behavior.

The homosexual agenda is based on intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them and is a well-coordinated, well-financed, wide-ranging, intensive effort to infiltrate and influence organisations and society at large in order to spread misinformation with the goal of recruiting children.

Children are the prize to the winners of the cultural war. Those who control what young people are taught and what they experience will determine the future course for our nation. The predominant value system of an entire culture can be overhauled by those with unlimited access to children. Homosexual activists understand very clearly how important children are to their cause.

Several very interesting special reports on the homosexual movement, information not disseminated by the mainstream media, are available free of charge. There are also excellent organisations which provide information about the homosexual movement, how it affects you, what what you can do about it, which companies push the homosexual agenda and how those who desire to come out of that lifestyle can be helped.

"Tolerance" is the buzzword and central theme for the homosexual movement. However, few people understand what they really mean by "tolerance" and how they have twisted its meaning to support their agenda. As a result, most do not recognise the threat it poses to us, our children and our freedoms.

"Tolerance" means simply to recognise and respect other's beliefs and practices without necessarily agreeing or sympathising with them. However, when many homosexuals use "tolerance," they mean going far beyond respecting their rights; they also demand approval, praise and endorsement of their beliefs, values and lifestyle. What other group in this country could demand that? Their attitude and demands are neither fair, right nor constitutional.

Our children are being bombarded in school with the homosexual version of "tolerance." In other words, all beliefs are equal, all values are equal, all lifestyles are equal and all truth is equal. This is the basis upon which our children are being indoctrinated by the propaganda that their beliefs and values which they learned in their home are no different from those of a homosexual, or a pornographer, or someone involved in adultery or fornication, etc. Children are being taught that all truth is relative to the individual. Knowing right from wrong doesn't matter. To say something is right or wrong is not being tolerant. This is today's "tolerance" pushed by homosexual activists.

It is clear that the distorted definition of "tolerance" has many dangerous implications, and unless society stands up for what is right, we will increasingly find ourselves with fewer and fewer freedoms. First, if our young people are confused about truth and believe the definition of "tolerance" they are being subjected to, they will not be able to determine right from wrong. In fact, in a national study among youth, it was discovered that children who do not accept an objective standard of truth become: 36% more likely to lie to you as a parent, 48% more likely to cheat on an exam, 2 times more likely to physically hurt someone, 2 times more likely to watch a pornographic film, 3 times more likely to use illegal drugs and 6 times more likely to attempt suicide. It is clear that how our youth think about truth has a definite effect on their behavior and the choices they make.

Second, our freedom of speech is being taken away little by little every day. We see that happening throughout society. If anyone exercises their Constitutional right of free speech and disagrees with the homosexual agenda, they are met with intolerant hatred, shouted down and called names. Homosexuals attempt to justify their actions by claiming any view different than theirs is 'intolerant' (using their definition) and should therefore be repressed.

Third, with the twisted version of "tolerance" comes a double standard. A few years ago, an "art" show displayed a crucifix, a Christian symbol, suspended in a jar of urine. While it enraged people of faith, it was supported by the homosexual community and others as "art." However, why is it that displaying a homosexual symbol in a jar of urine would be considered a hate crime? Using the same criteria they use on others, then a crucifix in a jar of urine would also be intolerant and a hate crime.

The danger and hypocrisy of this distorted version of "tolerance" are clear. What they call "tolerance" is really persecution of anyone who disagrees with them. Our society is based on the free exchange of ideas and if any group is successful at taking that away and silencing the opposition, then we are all less free. What they are doing to others is exactly what they claim others are doing to them! (Josh McDowell Ministry)

The homosexual lifestyle is extremely unhealthy. First, the standards of behavior among homosexuals are far different than in the heterosexual community in terms of the depravity that is accepted and even expected. Second, the chance of contracting AIDS is significantly higher as well.

A habit or behavior is deemed unhealthy if it has been proven to have debilitating results. Smoking, drugs, alcohol abuse, overeating and other behaviors all fall into this category. But research has shown that homosexual behavior has the same results: nationally, less than 2% of practicing homosexuals live to age 65. Homosexuality deprives men and women of happiness (ask those who have walked away from that lifestyle) and lends itself to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS, etc.

If the tobacco companies tried to get on a school campus to convince children to smoke, they would never be allowed. If the breweries shoed up and tried to convince under-age children to start drinking, parents would be up in arms. If health classes started teaching kids to overeat, or shop classes started teaching students how to build bombs, society would be outraged.

Yet pro-homosexual groups are encouraged to come to schools and teach young children how nice and normal homosexuality is. Today children are actually being indoctrinated about the benefits of homosexuality, in spite of the fact is has been proven to be an unhealthy lifestyle.

In October 1999 the Associated Press reported that "Something so unspeakable is said to have taken place in Apartment 1207 that half the neighbors have moved out." What happened in Apartment 1207 that was so horrific? According to police, two homosexual men gagged 13 year-old Jesse Dirkhising, strapped him face down on a mattress and, while one watched, the other brutally murdered the boy by repeatedly raping him until he died. So why did the Associated Press wait several weeks before running the story, fail to mention that the two men were homosexuals, and then release the story only in local areas? Why didn't the major news networks make that their lead story and follow it through to see whether the two men are convicted?

The media yawned and looked the other way when Jesse was murdered. Compare that with the murder of homosexual Matthew Shepard that received front-page coverage for months and well over a thousand articles nationwide. Is the rape and brutal murder of a thirteen year old boy by homosexuals any less tragic? Apparently the major print and TV news organizations think so. Once again the pro-homosexual double standard is clear. This is the climate that "hate crime" legislation fosters.

The Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) had their annual conference in Atlanta. Their goal: train the principals, bypass the Bible, and control curriculum. According to the Concerned Women for America, G.L.S.E.N. is targeting Southern schools in particular. And this conference will address that with a host of workshops. Some of those offered include: "How To Train Your School Principals," "Deflecting Bible Bullets," and "Integrating Lesbian and Gay Students Into Literature Curriculum." These are their goals, and their target group starts with kindergarten. (Center for Reclaiming America)

"Hate crimes" legislation is dangerous to us all for two reasons. First, it allows greater punishment for those who think bad thoughts while committing a crime than those who don't. It gives the thought police the power to punish people based on what they're thinking, which is a policy prevalent in communist countries. Criminals should be punished for their actions, not their thoughts. If we start down that road, where do we stop? Who knows, what you're thinking right now might even be a crime! Second, it assigns greater penalties to those who commit crimes against homosexuals than those who commit crimes against heterosexuals. Not only is that un-American, it is blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional as well because homosexuals are given greater protection under the law than anyone else. Crimes against homosexuals are just as serious as crimes against heterosexuals, and in either case perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but the fundamental principal in America is "equal protection under the law" as stated in the Constitution, instituted to protect all citizens equally against injustice.  Also, find out how to intelligently discuss hate crime laws, which are unnecessary and a threat to free speech as well.

One of the demands of homosexuals is protected class status as a 'minority.' Although they want special protection and special rights, being homosexual isn't the same as being an ethnic minority. We choose our sexual behaviors, not our skin color. Find out why homosexuals are not a minority, but a powerful special interest group. In truth, to equate gays with any true ethnic group is a travesty of logic. Homosexuality can only be equated and compared with other sexual behaviors or fantasies, legal and illegal, like heterosexuality, sadomasochism, bestiality, necrophilia, rape and pedophilia. Why homosexual behavior should merit special treatment is a question gay extremists are hard-pressed to answer logically.

In addition, homosexuals make the claim that as an entire class they are seriously "oppressed." However, that conclusion cannot stand when seen in light of marketing studies done by gays themselves that show them to be enormously advantaged relative to the general population.
The homosexual agenda is not an impersonal force. It touches and destroys the lives of real people everyday, like Karen. Her husband announced one day that he was leaving her and their two boys to pursue a new "lifestyle" as a "transgendered" female. Today, her ex-husband is living as a woman with a transgendered male and is suing Karen for the custody of their children. Her life has been ruined financially and emotionally. She lost a husband and their children lost a father. She has been threatened with fines and jail, but she is not giving up the fight to save her children from the poison of the homosexual agenda. (Alliance Defense Fund newsletter)

In 1999, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a report on child sex abuse saying that sexual relations between children and adults are "less harmful than believed" and might actually "be positive for willing children." How could trained psychologists, let alone anyone in their right mind, suggest that sex between adults and children could be positive for the children? Luckily there was a huge uproar throughout society about this absurd conclusion. As a result the APA backed down and acknowledged that there was a serious problem with the study and that they should have been more careful in publishing the report in the first place. See, you can make a difference! (Family Research Council letter)

"It’s Elementary" is a pro-homosexual propaganda documentary aimed at children in grade school. The video conveys the message that homosexuality is good and those that disagree are bad. This is the Joe Camel of the homosexual movement. Only unlike Joe Camel that targets teens, this video targets children as young as five or six years old. And unlike cigarettes, there are no warning labels. The 78-minute lesbian-produced documentary shows teachers introducing pupils to homosexuality and urging its acceptance by manipulation, indoctrination, use of trusted authority figures, and peer pressure.

It’s Elementary is not about simply teaching "tolerance." Indeed, the president of the National Education Association has declared this himself: "I’m not talking about tolerance," says Bob Chase in support of the program. "I’m talking about acceptance." This deceptive program has already made astonishing inroads into America’s educational, political, and media worlds. The film’s producers have bragged about the wide distribution of the film through "an extremely effective grassroots distribution campaign." According to the producers, It’s Elementary has been shown to state legislators, all grade levels of school teachers and counselors, statewide "school safety" conferences, regional school health provider meetings, PTAs, faculty in over 200 school districts, students from high school through graduate study levels, school administrators, nearly 500 college-level teacher training programs, and many more.

It’s Elementary includes scenes from a Cambridge school’s "Gay and Lesbian Day" assembly in which teachers profess their homosexuality in front of the students. At another school, a lesbian and a male homosexual visit a social studies class to talk about homosexuality – and, according to the principal, "to be role models for gay students." Such teaching, says the principal, "should be mandatory."

According to Family Research Council’s website, "teacher after teacher in the film present homosexuality as normal and resistance to the lifestyle as bigotry  to children as young as first grade." Lies about the biblical view of homosexuality appear to be part of the fabric of this film. There is no balance of any other views offered anywhere in the film.

Some quotes from the video: Debra Chasnoff has this to say about her video, "What's clear in the film is that the younger the kids, the more open they were. ...If we could start doing this kind of education in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, we'd have a better generation." The principal of an elementary school says on the video: "I don't think it's appropriate that values only be taught at home. There are social values as well, there are community values." was planning to make available an "e-Card" mocking the Iwo Jima memorial. The "gay" celebratory card pictured men, including one in high heels, planting a homosexual rainbow flag instead of Old Glory on Mount Suribachi. However, due to public outrage the card has been canceled. Unfortunately, there are other "gay" "e-Cards" still available, including some that mock women with bisexual philandering husbands. A card called "The Bathhouse" has a women telling her friend, "I hope everything's OK. Tony's been in the bathhouse for over an hour." (Washington Watch - Family Research Council)

Another new pro-homosexual group called Just the Facts Coalition has issued a slick pro-homosexual "fact sheet" which they mailed to every school superintendent in the 15,000 public school districts across the country with the goal that children will be taught to accept and promote homosexuality. This coalition includes the National Education Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of School Psychologists, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance and others.

The document, entitled "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth - A Primer for Principals, Education & School Personnel" is a 12 page booklet which confuses providing a safe environment for all students with saying that homosexuality is good, normal and healthy. They demand that homosexuality be accepted as the moral and legal equivalent of heterosexuality and present their one-sided view. (Traditional Values Coalition)

Produced at the urging of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the booklet denigrates groups that help and support people who want to leave the homosexual lifestyle. It incorrectly portrays heterosexuality as a "religious" viewpoint and homosexuality as "scientific." It warns of potential harm to young people and includes a threat to schools of legal action if they do no censor views which do not agree with theirs. (Impact - Coral Ridge Ministries)

"This is another attempt by the homosexual lobby to silence any views on homosexuality but its own. The primer does not acknowledge the unhealthy consequences of homosexuality. It presents a one-sided case that promotes homosexuality by advocating censorship for information in schools about the opportunity of individuals to experience a healthy change and leave the homosexual lifestyle." (Janet Parshall - Family Research Council)

The real potential for harm here is that this misinformation leaves kids with no way out. They need to hear the truth that there is an alternative to this propaganda. If the homosexual community has nothing to hide and the truth is really on their side, why are they so afraid of other viewpoints and open dialogue? Guard your children from the unhealthy consequences of homosexuality and protect your right of free speech. Call your local school superintendent or school board member and voice your opinion about this harmful booklet.


Friday, 6 September 2013

Jewish Hypocrisy over Immigration exposes their agenda in implementing mass immigration into white gentile nations exclusively for Jewish group interests.

Israel said on Monday (article from 2012) it had started rounding up African migrants in the first stage of a controversial "emergency plan" to intern and deport thousands deemed a threat to the *Jewish character of the state.*

Israel Radio reported that dozens of Africans, mainly from South Sudan, had already been detained in the Red Sea resort of Eilat, including mothers and children.

"This is only a small group of the infiltrators," Interior Minister Eli Yishai said. "I'm not acting out of hatred of strangers but love of my people and to rescue the homeland."

The goal is to repatriate all the estimated 60,000 African migrants, whose growing numbers are seen by many Israelis as a law and order issue and even a threat to the long-term viability of the Jewish state.

Source Reuters:

Israeli MP Miri Regev has attacked African migrants to the country as "a cancer in our body" at protest against illegal immigrants (2012).

"The infiltrators are a cancer in our society. All the leftists who filed High Court appeals [against deportations] should be ashamed of themselves. "We will not let them thwart our attempt to protect ourselves, our children, our women and our work places. We will continue to protest every day until the last of the Sudanese infiltrators returns to his country."

"African migrants are threatening the fabric of Israeli society, its national security and its national identity."
- Benjamin Netanyahu


My problem with this, is not that Israel is getting rid of African immigrants, but that Jews are the ones behind mass immigration into all white nations, are the ones behind all the 'hate laws' that are used to stop people speaking out against it, are the ones involved heavily in far left so called 'anti-racist' groups and who have websites run by Zionist jews which are dedicated to combating 'racism' 'anti-semitism' and 'hate' in the West. What they force onto us, is not what they want for their own people in Israel.

This is a prime example of Jewish ethnic networking and Jewish group evolutionary strategy employed in our nations to undermine us in order for them to thrive to our detriment. They want our people and countries destroyed by multiculturalism and cultural marxism, so they are not threatened, but in Israel, "an exclusively Jewish state" the "Jewish identity must be preserved."

So many people disbelieve that Jews are behind mass immigration into white countries and stupidly call it a conspiracy theory, it has to be the most unusual conspiracy theory ever concocted considering that the evidence of them being behind mass immigration into Western nations comes from their own mouths and writings. 

"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own MESSIAH [THE Anti-christ will be the whole Jewish Race, 'AS ONE MAN', and it will occupy the new Temple/Synagogue that will be built in Jerusalem, proclaiming ITSELF to be God, the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet]. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this NEW WORLD ORDER the Children [Jews] of [fake] Israel WILL FURNISH ALL THE LEADERS WITHOUT ENCOUNTERING OPPOSITION.

The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers [Rabbis] to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come THE JEWS WILL HAVE ALL THE PROPERTY OF THE WHOLE WORLD IN THEIR HANDS." (Baruch Levy [a Jew], Letter to Karl Marx [a Jew] La Revue de Paris, p. 54, June 1, 1928).

"The only way to a Final Solution to racial prejudice is to create a mélange of races so universal that no one can preen himself on his racial 'purity'. Deliberate encouragement of interracial marriages is the only way to hasten this process. The dominance of our world has begun to shift, like cargo in a listing vessel, from the White races to the colored ~ we will never eliminate racial prejudice until we eliminate separate races." Rabbi A. Feinberg, Maclean's Mag, Sept 5, 1967

Rabbi Martin Siegel: "I am devoting my lecture in this seminar to a discussion of the possibility that we are now entering a Jewish century, a time when the spirit of the community, the non-idealogical blend of the emotional and rational and the resistance to categories and forms will emerge through the forces of anti-nationalism to provide us with a new kind of society. I call this process the Judaization of Christianity because Christianity will be the vehicle through which this society becomes Jewish" (New York Magazine, January 18, 1972, p. 32).

"Jews may adopt the customs and language of the countries where they live; but they will never become part of the native population." (The Jewish Courier, January 17, 1924).

 "If the tide of history does not turn toward Communist Internationalism then the Jewish race is doomed." (George Marlen, Stalin, Trotsky, or Lenin, p. 414, New York, 1937)

 "The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair and will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people."

 - Le Peuple Juif, February 8, 1919.

Rabbi Martin Siegel: "I am devoting my lecture in this seminar to a discussion of the possibility that we are now entering a Jewish century, a time when the spirit of the community, the non-idealogical blend of the emotional and rational and the resistance to categories and forms will emerge through the forces of anti-nationalism to provide us with a new kind of society. I call this process the Judaization of Christianity because Christianity will be the vehicle through which this society becomes Jewish" (New York Magazine, January 18, 1972, p. 32)..

"I think there’s a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonne be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."
- Barbara Lerner Spectre

"Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct knowm as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed."-Noel Ignatiev, Jewish Harvard professor and founder of 'Race Traitor Magazine'

“Jewish survival can only take place within the framework of a progressive and expanding democratic society, which through its institutions and public policies gives expression to the concept of cultural pluralism.” 
- David Petegorsky, former Director of the AJCongress.

"They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood." 
(Congressional Record, April 12, 1924.)[870]

In his 1985 book A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today. Charles Silberman writes that:

"American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse “gay rights” and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called “social issues.” [884]

Earl Raab, executive director emeritus of the Perlmutter Institute of Jewish Advocacy, an associate of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith) and writer for the San Francisco Jewish Bulletin, wrote:

"It was only after World War II that immigration law was drastically changed to eliminate such discrimination. In one of the first pieces of evidence of its political coming-of-age, the Jewish community has a leadership role in effecting those changes." [889]

Raab goes on to celebrate the coming minority status of Whites in America. Once that has happened, he looks forward to “constitutional constraints” (restriction of freedom of speech?):

"The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country."

"We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever." [890].

"The goal for which we have striven so concertedly for three thousand years is at last within our reach, and because its fulfilment is so apparent, it behoves us to increase our efforts and our caution tenfold.  
I can safely promise you that before ten years have passed, our race will take its rightful place in the world, with every Jew a king and every Gentile a slave.   We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa.  I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born.  Our control Commissions will, in the interest of peace and wiping out our interracial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with white.  The white woman must cohabit with members of the dark races, the white men with black women. Thus the white race will disappear, for mixing the dark with white means the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory.  We shall embark upon an era of ten thousand years of peace and plenty, the Pax Judaica, and our race will rule undisputed over the world.  Our superior intelligence will easily enable us to retain mastery over a world of dark people. 

- Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich before a special meeting of the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest, Hungary, January 12, 1952, published in the Nov/Dec 2000 issue of Americas Bulletin: The Canadian Intelligence Service, Excerpt from September 1952 issue, submitted by James Moorhouse, and as reported by Major Williams in his book ‘Ultimate World Order’.

"When Germany and England and America will long have lost their present identity or purpose, we shall still be strong in ours." -Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p. 111

"If anything, the law should encourage, not forbid, the intermingling of bloods. But legislation cannot change the human heart. The only way we can accomplish that, the only we can achieve a Final Solution to racial prejudice, is to create a mélange of races so universal that no one can preen himself on his racial 'purity' or practice the barbarism to safeguard it. The deliberate encouragement of interracial marriages is the only way to hasten this process. And it may be that time is growing short. The dominance of our world has begun to shift, like cargo in a listing vessel, from the white races to the colored. - Rabbi Abraham L. Feinberg, Maclean's Magazine, September 5, 1967

"An Urgent Call to World Jewry. Do you realize we are in dire danger of losing millions of precious Jewish souls through intermarriage? That the children of intermarriage grow up with complexes and confusion? 

If you or your friends are on the verge of intermarriage, we plead with you, do not allow a temporary infatuation to ruin your life, the lives of your dear children and help to destroy our cherished and beloved Jewish people."
-Large advertisement in Jewish Chronicle, December 1989, placed by the ‘Jewish Seminar Movement’ (Chofetz Chayim Torah)

"Jews are the only exception. They were destined to be unique. The concept of racial purity within the Jewish nation is not a myth. The only facts to determine Jewishness should be purely an hereditary one regardless of Jewish observance.  A Jew is some‑one from Jewish stock. No one can make a gentile Jewish. We must retain our own exclusivity in order to survive and not be infiltrated by outsiders. Jeffrey Kwintner, Jew, writing in the Jewish Chronicle of Dec. 29, 1989.

'There are different branches of Judaism today, and they take somewhat different attitudes to assimilation, but even the most liberal interpretation of Judaism must fight the assimilation of the Jews ... Jews have been prominent in the fight to forward the assimilation of ethnic groups  [Yet] there comes a time -- and it is just about upon us -- when American Jews become aware of a contradiction between  the kind of society America wants it to become -- and indeed the kind of society most Jews want it to be -- and the demands of the Jewish religion. This religion after all, prohibits inter-marriage, asserts that Jews are a people apart, and insists that they consider themselves in exile until God restores them to the land of Israel.'
- Glazer, p. 9

Israeli Rabbi Says Jews Should Rejoice That Europe Is Losing Its Identity:

"Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years we were in exile there, We will never forgive Europe's Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly… not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity. And now, Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won't be able to atone for."

He added, however, that Jews must pray that the Islamization of most of Europe will not harm the people of Israel.

Such views are held by most Jews, to one degree or another. However, most Jews will never openly state their hatred for Christianity nor their hatred for White Gentiles.

Jewish Groups Endorse Immigration Amnesty:

Thursday, 5 September 2013

Stop and Search is not 'racism' but necessary when statistical facts of crime by race is taken into consideration

On the BBC 'free speech' programme this week, one of the topics for discussion was stop and search. They were attempting to portray stop and search as discriminating against blacks saying that blacks are 7 times more likely to be stopped than whites.

'Racial discrimination' is the argument of liberals and the non-whites especially blacks. They never stop to consider the statistical facts, it is only ever a result of 'discrimination.' If the majority of people committing certain crimes wore bowler hats, then id say it is only right and proper that people wearing bowler hats were more likely to be stopped and searched.

If whites were involved in certain crimes more so than non-whites, then as a white man I would have no problem in whites being stopped and searched more so than non-whites, and non-whites and leftists wouldn't be complaining then, but, as we have said, they never consider the statistical facts of crime broken down by race. I have been stopped and searched numerous times, and I grew up in what you might call a 'diverse' area. I never complained about discrimination, or being racially profiled. I might not like the political tools in the police force, and I may not enjoy being stopped by them out of the blue for no apparent reason, but im even less likely to cry racial discrimination because of it.

When the statistics are added into the stop and search issue, then I dont see what the problem is. Wouldn't you think they would be happy that the police are trying to beat crime using the statistics provided to aid them in doing so.

Lets take a look at some of these statistics for crime broken down by race in the UK:

Key statistics:

• Proportionally, blacks in England and Wales commit significantly more violent crimes – of all kinds – than whites
• Blacks are 6.6 times more likely than whites to commit murder
• Blacks are 7.3 times more likely than whites to commit firearms offences
• Blacks are 3.7 times more likely than whites to commit rape
• Blacks commit over a quarter of robberies in England and Wales, despite being only 3.3% of the population.

They are over 12 times more likely than whites to commit robbery

• Proportionally, Asians commit marginally more violent crime than whites.

They are more likely to commit murder, rape and robbery, and less likely to possess firearms, blades, or steal from a person.

The data:


Population of England and Wales, source: 2011 ONS Census
White – 48,209,395 (85.97%)
[White British – 45,134, 686 – 80.48%]
Black – 1,864,890 (3.32%)
Asian – 3,820,390 (6.81%)
Chinese – 393,141 (0.7%)
Mixed race – 1,224,400 (2.18%)
Arab – 230,600 (0.41%)
Other – 333,096 (0.59%)
Total – 56,075,912


Offenders found guilty of selected offences by ethnicity in England and Wales, 2011, source: MoJ (Ministry of Justice)


White – 223 (65.01%)
Black – 57 (16.61%)
Asian – 29 (8.45%)
Other – 4 (1.16%)
Not stated – 30 (8.74%)
Total – 343
Blacks are 6.6 times more likely than whites to commit murder

Asians are 1.6 times more likely than whites to commit murder

Rape/attempted rape:

White – 820 (71.11%)
Black – 118 (10.23%)
Asian – 85 (7.37%)
Other – 34 (2.94%)
Not stated – 96 (8.32%)
Total – 1153

Blacks are 3.7 times more likely than whites to commit rape.

Asians are 1.3 times more likely than whites to commit rape

Robbery/assault with intent to rob:

White – 5054 (54.54%)
Black – 2377 (25.65%)
Asian – 730 (7.87%)
Other – 279 (3.01%)
Not stated – 825 (8.90%)
Total – 9265

Blacks are 12.2 times more likely than whites to commit robbery.

Asians are 1.8 times more likely than whites to commit robbery.

Stealing from the person of another:

White – 4514 (67.47%)
Black – 682 (10.19%)
Asian – 301 (4.49%)
Other – 226 (3.37%)
Not stated – 967 (14.45%)
Total – 6690

Blacks are 3.9 times more likely than whites to steal from the person of another.

Possession of an article with a blade or point in a public place or on school premises:

White – 4518 (72.26%)
Black – 1034 (16.53%)
Asian – 224 (3.58%)
Other – 93 (1.48%)
Not stated – 383 (6.12%)
Total – 6252

Blacks are 5.9 times more likely than whites to commit of knife offences.

Possession of firearms, certificate related and miscellaneous firearms offences:

White – 989 (64.05%)
Black – 281 (18.19%)
Asian – 72 (4.66%)
Other – 33 (2.13%)
Not stated – 169 (10.94%)
Total – 1544

Blacks are 7.3 more likely than whites to commit firearms offences.

Notes on the statistics

While the Census data features a wide range of racial categories, the MoJ data includes just five: white, black, Asian, other, and not stated.

This makes it impossible to determine the mixed race crime rate. It is also difficult to determine exactly what is meant by ‘Asian’ in the MoJ data.

The ‘Asian’ population in the above calculations has been arrived at by adding together the Census categories of the following: ‘Asian/Asian British: Indian’, ‘Asian/Asian British: Pakistani’, ‘Asian/Asian British: Bangladeshi’, ‘Asian/Asian British: Asian Other’. It excludes ‘Asian/Asian British: Chinese’ and ‘Arab’.

At the first glance of these statistics, people may think that whites are committing most of the crime. That is because they are still the majority racial group, but the ethnic minorities especially in the black community compared to their percentage of the population, commit more crimes disproportionate to their percentage of the population. Therefore, as the ethnic minorities grow in number, the percentage of crime they commit will start to drastically overtake that of whites if current statistical trends and uncontrolled  immigration continue.

These official statistics are from both the 2011 Census and 2011 crime statistics from the Ministry of Justice, it is possible to calculate which races in England and Wales proportionally commit the most crime.

The statistics and the use of stop and search are not racial discrimination, they are facts. If for example, police are operating in an area of a city like London, where whole areas are majority black, then of course the majority of people being stopped will be black. The same is true in all white areas, more whites will be stopped than black. If blacks are being stopped and searched at a rate that is 7 times more than whites, then there has to be a reason other than so called 'racial discrimination' and these figures as far as I am concerned are the reason. Of course not all blacks commit these crimes, just as all whites dont, but if statistics show that certain racial groups are committing more crime compared to their percentage of the population then why is it so wrong to use those statistics when profiling potential criminals. Every white, every black and every Asian is a potential criminal, but it is sheer stupidity to ignore facts and it is ridiculous for leftists to start screaming about racism and discrimination whilst ignoring the statistics.

It also has to be said, that the majority of blacks who are victims of violent crime, robbery, gun crime, assault etc is down to other blacks.

Programmes like 'free speech' on the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation, are driven by an agenda. The programme was hosted in Hackney a London borough with a large immigrant community (what London borough hasn't) and its host was your typical leftist. The panel was made up of people adhering to the same agenda, which is to portray everything as racist or discriminatory. One panelist whos name I dont remember, actually said what needed to be said, ie that statistics show that certain racial groups are committing more crimes so racial profiling is not only needed but right and proper. This was met with boos and derision from everybody in the studio.

When people who cry racism over such issues, it is simply because the term racism is the defense of people who do not like the truth.

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

Another typical argument of the left and the naive among us is that when whites commit crimes then it is just a crime, but when blacks commit crimes it is spoken of as a black crime. They will also say that there was crime before immigration, so why speak about the racial nature of crime because whites were committing crime long before immigration.

These arguments to many will seem valid, but what has to be remembered is that because of traitors in parliament immigration happened, it is still happening, and the criminals among them should never have been criminals for us to deal with. Of course whites commit crime and of course there was crime before immigration. However, the crime being committed was crime carried out by people who were our problem to deal with. Since mass immigration we now have foreign criminals who now it is our duty to also deal with. Do not the indigenous British people have a right to know about the problems mass non-white immigration has brought to thier country, including the fact that they are committing more crime. So yes it is a racial issue, this was once a white country, our towns and cities are being destroyed by intentional social and demographic engineering due to mass immigration and crime that has come with it, and which is being carried out disproportionately by non-whites compared to thier percentage of the population. People have every right to know the break down of crime statistics by race, what leftists would like to do is to have these statistics banned, so we have no idea who is committing the most crime, much like the ten yearly census has been done away with to cover up what is happening to our country and that whites are heading to minority status.

People only need look at black gangster music and films to see the criminal mentality that is prevalent in their culture and communities. I dont see them calling it racist when some black rapper is going on about gun crime, drugs or violence, no they adopt it as their culture and sadly some whites do to. Same applies to films in which crime, drugs and violence in the black community is central to the story of the film, no cries of racism there or of racial discrimination. It is something they embrace when in 'musical' form or portrayed in film, but in the real world it is racism even though the statistics show otherwise.

The fact of the matter is, liberals and non-whites cannot accept the truth of the matter. Rather than look at themselves, they blame everybody else especially evil old oppressive whitey who has kept them down since the big bang. Some blacks do acknowledge the problems in the black community, and admit that blacks themselves need to deal with it rather than blaming everybody else.

White Flight - A natural reaction to Jewish enforced multiculturalism

If you are told that something is good for you, is enriching you, and is necessary for your country to 'survive' then why do you move as far away from it as possible? If you are told, that we are all the same, and that race does not exist and other cultural and religious norms different to your own are just as equal and normal as your own, then why do you move as far away from them as possible?

If you haven't already guessed, im talking about multiculturalism, 'diversity' and how these agendas are related to the phenomenon of white flight.

When our media and politicians tell us that multiculturalism is great for our countries, deep down we all know that the exact opposite is true. What other ethnic and cultural group other than whites, would fall for such blatant lies and why do whites become so passive to it? No African or Asian nation is crying out for a multiracial multicultural society, these same nations dont have leaders who are forcing it on them either, and how long would they last if they were to attempt it. They would last about as long as it is sunny in Britain and that isn't very long. These African and Asian nations dont have media that tries telling them to embrace mass non-African or mass non-Asian immigration into their homelands either, and as a result accepting their own demographic genocide.

Everybody knows whether they care to admit it or not, that African and Asian nations would not stand idly by as their nations and continents were demographically engineered so that Africans and Asians were displaced and en route to becoming a minority in their own countries. If the roles were reversed, and there was mass white immigration in the tens of millions into these continents, then the very same people who support European countries being flooded, would be screaming about colonisation and imperialist whites. This alone is enough to recognise the agenda being behind mass non-white immigration into white countries as an anti-white agenda.

You could go to any of these non-white countries, and carry out a survey of the indigenous people asking them if they felt that mass European immigration into their countries would be a good thing, the overwhelming majority would say no. Some African and Asian countries welcome tourism from Europe, but there is a big big difference between tourism and colonisation.

In Europe, America, Canada, Australia and other countries that are historically ethnically European, people know that multiculturalism is not something that is benefiting them, they see their nations and communities changing due to governmental policies of importing mass non-white third world immigration, they dont want it, they dont need it, they dont agree with it and they dont embrace it as much as the media would like to have you believe. The majority of white people have no interest in living among foreign strangers, and upon seeing their hometowns and neighbourhoods overwhelmed by immigrants and their descendents, decide to move away into areas that are not affected by the ongoing colonisation and which are inhabited by their own people.

This is a natural reaction and would be the same if roles were reversed. This is were the nonsensical idea that multiracial diversity is natural falls flat on its face when the realities of self separation among all groups is taken into consideration. No matter how much it is forced upon us, and no matter how much the ideological strategy is pushed through schools and media, all groups naturally prefer to live among their own ethnic group.

The same can be said for the non-Europeans who have been allowed to flood into our nations, whereas whites move away from the false utopian ideal of multiculturalism, the non-whites centralise in an area, set up businesses that cater specifically for the immigrant community, religious buildings appear, and newly arriving immigrants head to these areas to be among their own people and other immigrants. They dont head straight for white communities to be among whites, but as the immigrant numbers grow and their descendents start to outnumber the indigenous birth rates further altering the area, they begin to move outwards gradually in a steady colonisation. Once this happens, white communities start seeing the slow trickle of multiculturalism as the immigrants and their descendants start moving outwards and the slow trickle turns into the multicultural tsunami as once white areas start seeing the impact of the unstoppable spread of forced multiculturalism.

Again, when this becomes overbearing, whites start to move out to be away from it. There are always exceptions to the rule however, and some whites do remain in heavily populated immigrant areas, either due to their financial situation and being unable to move, or whites who actually for some reason, do embrace their own demographic displacement. And whilst these whites go about their everyday business believing they are being 'enriched', the immigration population has no interest in whether an area is becoming non-white, but only care that they are surrounded by their own people, they employ ethnic networking to consolidate their group in an area, they will tell you they believe in diversity and multiculturalism, and they will tell you 'racism' is bad and they are victims of it, but in reality they know exactly what they are doing whilst whites dont work together in the same manner, they dont identify as an ethnic group with interests, whites are in disarray as non-whites work in the interests of non-whites.


Ethnic minorities now form a majority in eight of America's biggest metropolitan areas, according to new statistics.Washington D.C. joins New York, San Diego, Las Vegas and Memphis in showing a 'white flight' from some of the countries most populated zones. The results highlighted a much wider national trend as it emerged whites are now a minority in 22 of the country’s 100-biggest urban areas.

Demographers have been shocked by the rapid changes seen in Washington D.C. - particularly in the area's schools. A report by the Northern Virginia Regional Commission noticed that student numbers had grown by almost 119,000 from 1995 to 2010. The number of those students who were white rose by little over 1,000.

Census 2010 data shows "white flight" trend continues for Massachusetts cities:

In Western Massachusetts, Springfield’s white population declined by 18,000, or 24 percent, since 2000, Holyoke’s fell by 3,000, or 13 percent, and Chicopee lost 3,500, or 7.5 percent, census statistics reveal. Greenfield lost about 1,000 whites, down 6 percent, and Northampton shed about 1,400 whites, down about 5 percent.

The populations of whites in three other nearby cities also fell. Worcester dropped 14,000, or 12 percent, Hartford, about 2,000, or 9 percent, and Pittsfield, 3,500, or 8 percent, according to census statistics.

**** These are just some statistics I have come across, more detailed research im sure would show a similar trend in all heavily populated immigrant areas in America.


White flight: "600,000 have quit London in a decade". The true figure is far higher.

"a continuing pattern of “white flight” from areas where indigenous Britons find themselves surrounded by new minority communities."
The Telegraph.

Census Data from the decade 2001-2001...

Greater London:
2001 Census White British 4,287,861 (59.79%)
2011 Census White British 3,669,284 (44.89%)

An article written by Mark Easton of the 'BBC' in February this year, had the headline... 'Why have the white British left London?'

It then goes on to say:

'Something quite remarkable happened in London in the first decade of the new millennium. The number of white British people in the capital fell by 620,000 - equivalent to the entire population of Glasgow moving out.

The consequence, as revealed by the latest census, is that white Brits are now in a minority in London, making up just 45% of its residents.

So where have they gone to - and why did they leave?'

The author then tries to explain the main reason for the drastic drop in the numbers of whites as being due to 'working class aspiration and economic success.' I dont doubt for one minute that some people move away from areas for these reasons, however to suggest that this is the main reason is not only wrong, but typical of the desire of some to try and cloud the reality of white flight for ideological reasons. They will do anything to portray multiculturalism in a positive light even when the statistics and views of the indigenous people prove otherwise.

For those who have managed to escape London or other highly populated immigrant areas because of economic success or due to their aspirations then congratulations because i wouldn't like to live in London as it is now, and even if this was to be the reason given by a percentage of the 600,000 plus whites who left London, it doesn't mean that other factors have not been taken into consideration such as the non-white colonisation. How many of those people who have moved for these 'positive' reasons are not relieved to be away from a place like London and what it has been allowed to become.

The article says that in Barking and Dagenham, a London borough which has seen a phenomenal change in its cultural make-up over the past decade or so. In 2001, the census records that more than 80% of residents were white British. By 2011, it was statistically in the minority - just 49% of people in the area described themselves as white and British.

A drop of 31% of the white population in this borough is not predominantly down to working class aspirations or economic success, anybody who believes that it is are delusional. They can write article after article trying to convince you that it is, but when we stop beating around the bush, the real reasons are because mass non-white immigration has been forced upon these areas, and the whites who did live their do not want to be living in an area that does not represent an English city, a city that their parents and grandparents had lived in, but now represents the third world full of strangers who bring their own cultures and customs and who are changing what the whites had grown up to cherish, this is what they try and tell you multiculturalism and diversity is, they will tell you that this is enrichment.

Again, this is a natural reaction, if in the next decade, it showed that whites en-masse had moved back into this area, then the likelihood is that the non-whites would also move out to be in an area that was made up of their own people.

The article continues to say that many whites they had spoken to had decided to move to Essex, and in particular areas around Southend. Unsurprisingly, they try and portray the reason as wanting to move is for a better quality of life, and whilst this is true to an extent, I have more of a personal explanation for the mass exodus of whites from London to the predominantly white surrounding areas. I lived in Southend a couple of years back for a period of time due to work, and getting to know some of the locals, it became clear that the overwhelming reason for them moving away from London was immigration, and the fact that London no longer was an English city anymore. It was surprising for me to see just how many people had moved from London to this area, and nearly all people I had met had given immigration as one of the reasons. This isn't a new phenomenon either, some people had been brought up in the area because their parents had decided to move, and again the reasons given were that their parents could see where London was heading and had decided to move out. These are working class people, many of whom actually travelled into London daily for work doing working class jobs, the reason they choose not to live there is not because of working class aspiration or economic success, that idea is simply pro multiculturalists trying to portray reality in a different light. Virtually everybody you came across had a story to tell about their families reasons for leaving London, and none of them were because of economic success or simply a desire to better themselves, they left because of what London was becoming.

Take a look at the following videos, would you want to live here:

The True Face of Immigration:

Third World London:

White Flight - The Weaknesses of Diversity and the Demographic Decline of North America:

Self Segregation:

In Britain, outside of London, other towns and cities are facing the same problems that mass immigration bring. Three other towns and cities have  joined London in becoming majority non-white, Leicester, Luton and Slough are majority non-white with Britain's second largest city Birmingham, due to become majority non-white by the end of the decade. This is because of the huge numbers of immigrants that have been dumped in Britain, and the birth rate among these immigrant communities that outnumber the birth rate among whites, so it stands to reason that because of declining white birth rates and white flight, these towns and cities are going to become majority non-white. By 2066, it is predicted by demographic experts, that white British people will be in the minority. So what is true now in four British towns and cities, will become the reality across the whole country, and the same can be said for all once majority white nations.

In Yorkshire and the north west of England, many towns have self segregated into white areas and non-white mainly Muslim Asian areas. Oldham, Burnley, Blackburn, Bradford and Keighley to name just a handful, are towns that are segregated along racial, cultural and religious lines, you have all white estates and all Asian estates. Tensions are high and many areas have seen race riots over the last decade or so. Oldham and Bradford in particular have seen the worst of these riots in which Asians have torched the place, destroyed businesses, property and attacked whites for being white. Muslim grooming gangs have targeted white girls all across the UK and the media and politicians have refused to take into consideration the racial nature of these crimes due to fears of being labeled racist. Resentment has grown among the white communities and tensions remain high. There are now no-go areas for whites, leftists will say otherwise but dont they always, they should listen to the Asians themselves who have no qualms about admitting that they dont want whites in 'their areas.' They should look at the graffiti which proclaims 'nwa' no whites allowed. Or maybe they should go and speak to the elderly whites stuck in areas that are majority Asian and see how they are harassed constantly in the hope they will be forced to move out.

Local community groups along with politicians and media, will tell you about the 'importance' of 'integration' and they will even come up with schemes to try and force both communities to mix. One example is forcing children from both communities to spend time with each other in each others schools. What this really means, is trying to force whites to accept the inevitable colonisation of their hometowns by 'embracing' non-white non-western people and cultures.

This ultimately fails however, because the fact of the matter is, that the communities do not want to live among each other and you will never get them to accept each other, it is unnatural for them to do so, it is natural for both communities to want to be among their own people. It is the same the world over not just in Britain or Europe, ethnic and cultural groups will stay among their own, and whether it be in self segregated towns or in the form of white flight the natural evidence is their for all to see.

We have only spoken about the US and Britain here, to speak about all nations in which whites are abandoning their cities because of the enforced multicultural onslaught would require a book of many hundreds of pages. Take any once majority white nation, and you will no doubt find the same thing happening.

So how is diversity for you? It is an unworkable, unnatural and undesirable myth, it is destructive, damaging and leads to conflict everywhere that people are forced to live together from different ethnic and cultural groups. It has no benefits, except for those who force it upon you. Diversity in its exposed form, is nothing more than an anti-white ideology that aims at displacing whites and weakening once powerful homogenous nations,  the reason being that nations especially in the West, have always been a barrier to communistic globalisation employed by Jewish groups. In order for these Jewish groups to dominate and control banking, media, corporatism, communism, capitalism etc, and they do, requires the weakening of the majority population who as an homogenous group would not allow what is happening to happen. It is classic divide and conquer tactics that have always been employed to weaken their enemies. Many people will no doubt cry anti-semitism, so what. We say nothing that they have not already said themselves, people never take into consideration the vast amount of quotes, historical documents and articles that speak of this anti-white multicultural agenda, anything that exposes it has to be smeared with accusations of anti-semitism and 'racism.'

One quote in particular we refer to often is that of Barbara Spectre:

"I think there’s a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonne be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."

Yet even though this Jewish woman admits that Jews will play "a leading role" we are the bad ones for repeating it and warning people about the agenda. This is one quote among hundreds which exposes exactly who is, and has been behind the mass immigration and genocidal multicultural agenda pushed onto all white countries.

And genocide it is:

Genocide as first defined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944:

By ‘‘genocide’’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. . . .Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group. . . .Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals.

Source: Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Washington, D.C., 1944, p. 79.

Even the International legal  definition shows us that what is happening across all white nations is genocide.

To summarise, white flight is a human and natural reaction to forced multiculturalism and the attempts to force different cultural and ethnic groups to live together in a mythical utopia that those who force it on us know, is a myth. Of course they are going to try and convince you that it is enriching and 'good for us' of course they are going to create laws to stop people opposing it, of course they are going to use all influencing institutions to brainwash us into naively supporting it. The end result one day in the future, will be the same kind of conflict seen in middle Eastern countries as different groups fight it out for control of the country, ending up in the balkanisation of nations, which one day will happen across the West. Divide and Conquer.

Think about it, if it were natural for different races and cultures to live together then why does it have to be forced, why does it take governmental policies of opening up our borders to 'achieve' it, why does it need the systematic brainwashing and propaganda of media and education to make people passive to it, why is it only happening in white countries, why do people self segregate, why is there always conflict, why are there laws to enforce it and to stop people speaking out against it? The simple answer is that  because it is unnatural it has to be forced, the fact it is only happening in white countries means it is an anti-white agenda.

Only when whites finally understand this can they even begin to try and regain control of their nations.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...