-(1994 - EDP.ORG.UK Official Website - JUNE - PART 2 - 2022 )-

JUNE 2022 - HOME - PART 1  - PART 1-PAGE 2 - - PART 2 - PART 3 - PART 4- PART 5 - PART 6

Policies-Elections- General Election 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links -

IMMIGRATION FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

Multiculturalism As A Tool To Divide And Conquer: The Layman's ...-

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

IMMIGRATION-BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE-  EU FILE   IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS  FOREIGN AID FILE

[WE ARE MAKING CHANGES TO THE CONTENT OF OUR BULLETINS OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS BY DELETING MANY BULLETINS

THE SUBJECT OF THE EU TO CONCENTRATE ON HOME MATTERS AND THE THREAT TO OUR SECURITY WITHIN  AND WITHOUT

OUR

SHARED  ISLAND HOME.]

 
 

ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY.

*

FOR THE RETURN

OF THE

ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

AT

WESTMINSTER

AND

 [A NEW BRITISH PARLIAMENT EQUIDISTANT FROM WALES AND SCOTLAND]

 

*

 
DR MAX PEMBERTON

THE MIND DOCTOR

 
 Daily Mail

Monday January 31, 2022

 

TAKE it from me: seeing the same doctor saves lives.

The doctor-patient relationship is just: a relationship. And inherent to any relationship is vulnerability that trust. That's why it takes time to develop and grow. It certainly isn't formed in a one-off ten-minute consultation.

Yet, over the years, we've seen a shift that has meant we've moved away from doctors actually getting to know their patients and understanding and developing a real relationship with them, to patients never seeing the same doctor more than once.

Increasingly seeing a doctor has been reduced to sitting in front of someone who barely looks up from their keyboard before issuing you a prescription.

What a dreadful, diminished experience that is. It completely denies all the evidence that shows the extraordinary value of a trusted doctor-patient relationship.  Sure, it might be OK for an ear infection, but  what about when things are a little more complicated?

 A study was published last week that looked at patients with dementia who were regularly seen by the same doctor - and it discovered something rather surprising.

Those who were seen by a GP who knew them, and had a relationship wuith them were ten per cent less likely to be hospitalised. This wasn't because the doctors were negligent in some way: quite the opposite.

It was because the doctors who really knew their patients could see that something was wrong and treated them before things escalated and they needed a hospital admission. Those GP's were able to act proactively precisely because they knew their patient so well...

 

...Had I not known my patient so well and I had felt unable to stand my ground with her, I dread to think what would have happened.

For me, this is what being a doctor is really about: it's about a relationship with the patient as much as the medicine.

But you cannot develop this relationship when patients are increasingly being dealt with as though they are on a conveyor belt, seeing whichever doctor happens to be free.

MEDICINE ISN'T ABOUT SIGNS - SYMPTOMS AND DIAGNOSIS

 IT'S ABOUT PEOPLEM

We seem to have forgotten this, and in the process, risk losing something incredibly valuable.

.

Full Article

*  *  *

[WE WOULD ADD!-That doctors should always take their patients into their full confidence - rather than changing their medication and treatment without full consultation and agreement.]

 

[  COMMENTS and CHANGES OF FORM- CAPS.. ARE OURS ;.]

H.F.2157

 
 

 
 

AS a Muslim, I'm Horrified the

BBC

gave a

 Platform to an apologist for the Taliban

by

Dr Taj Hargey

DAILY MAIL

August 24,2021

 EVERY Muslim in Britain is celebrating the return to power of the Taliban in Afghanistan. That's what Khola Hasan of the Islamic Shari  Council suggested on BBC Radio 4 at the weekend.

Even as she was speaking, thousands of Afghans were trying to escape the country. People were being trampled to death in the stampede for places on flights out of Kabal airport.

For Miss Hasan to proclaim that Muslims in the UK are united in welcoming this seizure of power by religious zealots, and the resulting chaos, is both obscene and an affront to the British  Muslim community. It is insulting, a travesty and a sign of just how pitifully ignorant she is.

But for the BBC to give her a platform to air her doctrinal falsehoods, without then demolishing them with real facts is unforgivable.

 

 

Tripe

The broadcaster has failed in its duty to address the news impartially. Instead, the BBC appeared terrified of contradicting Miss Hasan simply because she is a Muslim women and should therefore be allowed to assert any nonsense she likes without the fear of contradiction.

'Every single person that I know as a Muslim,' she said on the Sunday programme, presented by William Crawley, I don't know personally but I know them on social media or as friends, are celebrating and saying, "give them a chance".

I listened to that inarticulate tripe, wishing that the BBC still employed rigorous journalists instead of

'WOKELINGS'

who are afraid to question anything for fear of seeming sexist or racist.

The show did feature a courageous campaigner for Afghan women's rights, the filmmaker Diana Saqeb Jamal, who dismissed Hasan's claims as 'INSANE'

But Miss Hasan ignored her, and was permitted the last word. She was also allowed to assert that oppression of Women in France was worse than in Afghanistan, and that negative accounts of life under the Taliban were all lies:

.Western media loves misrepresenting Muslims. So let me spell this out, I have not met a single person in Britain who welcomes the return of the Taliban, not online, at the mosque or anywhere else.

British Muslims are sickened at the horrific news coming out of Kabul, and deeply distressed at the prospects for ordinary people in Afghanistan, especially women and girls.

The surrender

 of Kabul to the Taliban marks not only the effective end of Anglo-US occupation but also the restoration of theological tyranny.

The retributive campaign launched by Tony Blair and George Bush to avenge 9/11 hasw failed miserably after 20 years of nation-building.

The only beneficiaries are the new fanatical masters of Afghanistan and other militant jihadist groups throughout the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia.

For the delusional Khola Hasan to applaud this is shameful. Virtually everything the Taliban stands for is in clear contravention of the Koran and is a betrayal of authentic Islam

Miss Hasaa and theIslamic Sharia Council (ISC)  operate in a theological bubble. The ISC is self-appointed, founded by her father Sheikh Suhaib Hasan in 1982 to promote Sharia Law in Britain.

 For readers who might not be Islamic scholars, a quick summary. Muslims follow the teaching of the Koran, Islam's Bible, teachings which were revealed by the angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammed between 610-632 CE.

But over the following centuries, hundreds of thousands of snippets and qutations attributed to the Prophet were collected in manufactured volumes known as the Hadith.

Many of these supposed sayings are apocryphal and were invented to support, tribal and sexist societies, strippping away the rights of women and religious minorities. These suspect reports  became a handbook for ideological intolerance and authoritarian governance.

All the abhorent aspects of populist Islam, from its insistence that women must be covered from head to foot, to violent jihad and brutal traditional punishments for gay sex, stems from the HADITH.

The HADITH is not the KORAN

.The two are like night and day: Completely opposite...

In addition, the ISC champions their narrow and bigoted interpretations of Sharia Law and risible fatwas.

Everyone remembers how Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini imposed a sentence of death on novelist Salman Rushdie knows what a fatwas means, but few people understand it represents only the personal opinion of an individual cleric. These are categorically not divine diktats.

AS a Muslim scholar myself, I regard the Hadith, Sharia law and fatwas as a toxic triad. But these are the cornerstones not only of Taliban theology and thinking but also of self-serving Islamic organisations that Miss Hasan is part of.

 

Wicked ...

Understand that, and you realise what an atrocious lie it is to say that 'all British Muslims celebrate the resurgence of the Taliban'. Only religious  militants and Sharia fanatics welcomed the Taliban's assumption of power.

It  is an outrageous libel on the whole British Muslim community, and one that grieves and insults me deeply.

I am aghast that the BBC should air Khola Hasan's words without explaining how erroneous and wicked they are, or have a local expert to balance and counter her tendentious assertions...

[In the EDP.Org.UK we have seen the same untruths and deliberate bias over the past twenty years in the country's fight to leave the EU. AS we stated during those years the BBC were in fact the BRUSSELS BROADCASTING CORPORATION On Channel 4 we were constantly faced by announcers dressed as battle ready with their Hijabs .

and other attire giving an provocative - an unappealing image of true Islam.]

 

 

Matured

'The problem is, we don't give them a chance.' Miss Hasan claimed on Radio 4.

'The kind of language that came out from Western media when the Taliban took over...civil war, monsters. they're going to slaughter people, it's going to be awful, poor  women, oh blah blah blah, we're going to cry our eyes out, poor women are going back into medieval times.

'It's been misrepresented for so long I've got used to it; I don't even blink an eyelid any more.'

Miss Hasan went on to complain that France is the real enemy of Muslims, because women are not allowed to wear Burka on the beach or the Hijab headscarf in public buildings.

:twenty years is a long time,' she added. 'we will see exactly how much the Taliban have grown up and matured.

The only change in two decades that I can see is thew development of sophisticated Jekyll-and-Hyde double personality that will say one thing and do another.

The Taliban tyrants of Afghanistan might have learned to disguise the monster. But behind their flimsy facade, the cruel reality remains as horrifying as ever.

FULL ARTICLE

 

DR TAJ HARGEY is Provost of the Oxford Institute for British Islam.

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

*  *  *

 

 

BRITISH FORCES (OVERSEAS) BULLETINS

B F 1-BLAIR'SCRAPED THE BARREL' TO JUSTIFY INVASION OF IRAQ****B F 2-The Security Services and the Safety of YOUR REALM****B F 3-It's impossible to win a conflict without enough men on the ground.****B F 4-FIVE WARS BLAIR TO REDUCE OUR ILLUSTRIOUS FIGHTING REGIMENTS****B F5-The Lives and Reputation of our Ancient Island's Defenders of Freedom now at further RISK!**** B F 6-IRAQ NOT WORTH THE LIFE OF ANOTHER BRITISH SOLDIER****B F 7-Former Chief of Defence Intelligence supports Whistleblowers****B F 8-TONY BLAIR-THE MAN WHO NEVER DID-YET!****B F 9- The JUSTIFICATION for WAR offered by MR BLAIR may have been the  WRONG ONE, but it was a JUST WAR-says DAILY TELEGRAPH ****.  B F 10-A TROOPER and a TRAVESTY of JUSTICE****B F 11-House of Commons must REGAIN its RESPONSIBILITY****B F 12-Why wont Mr Ingram realise he CANNOT compare FUNDING of ARMY RECRUITMENT TRAINING with PRIVATE CORPORATIONS****B 490-TONY BLAIR WILL NOT ADMIT INVASION OF IRAQ MADE BRITAIN VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACK-ALMOST EVERYONE KNOWS-IT DID!****B484-ABANDONED HEROES FIGHTING AND DYING ON £2 AN HOUR-IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN-AND OTHER CONFLICTS-WHY?****B492-TELL THE TRUTH!-MR BLAIR-OF HOW LONG OUR TROOPS WILL REMAIN IN AFGHANISTAN****B 499-Three more British deaths take Afghan toll to 19 in 6 days.****B 501-SADDAM HAD NO LINK TO AL QAEDA-says THE SENATE of the USA***B 504-BLAIR CONFESSES HIS FAULTS BUT STILL CONTINUES WITH HIS DISASTROUS POLICIES.****

[OVER THE PAST 12 YEARS  WE HAVE SHOWN A GREAT NUMBER OF BULLETINS WITH REGARD TO OUR ARMED SERVICES WHO WERE NOT ALWAYS GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE TOOLS TO DO THE JOB-MR HOON-COMES TO MIND-SHORTAGE OF BODY ARMOUR AND SUITABLE AND SAFE TRANSPORT. THE ABOVE ARTICLES ARE BUT A FEW OF THE MANY BUT WE WILL ADD TO THE LIST OVER THE FOLLOWING WEEKS. A VISIT TO IRAQ FILE & BULLETIN FILE WILL REVEAL MUCH INFORMATION.]

FOR FURTHER INFO GO TO:

PT 2/ PT3/PT4/PT5/PT6

 

 

[We have great respect for the above author as our website will confirm over the past decades we have shown a number of his articles - but we must mention here as it is now known that 9/11 was in fact an inside job to enable the USA to obtain control of oil supplies in Iraq. Only a few nights ago on television it was again confirmed. This illegal and great wrong brought forward Iraq and the latter Afghanistan campaigns - the results of which we now see around us in November 2021. Tony Blair and other co-conspirators escaped impeachment - should have been brought before the International Court of Justice at the Hague to account for their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.]

August 24,2021

H.F.2154/G/2
 

EU Parliament threatens

 to SUE Ursula Von Der Leyen if she doesn't

withhold funding from Poland as bloc's leaders

gather for two days of crunch talks amid rule...

EU Parliament threatens to SUE Ursula Von Der Leyen if she doesn't withhold funding from

Poland as bloc’s leaders gather for two days of crunch talks amid rule of law row

  • David Sassoli, president of the EU Parliament, has threatened to sue the EU Commission if Ursula Von Der Leyen 

  •  refuses to punish Poland over rule of law

  • Mr Sassoli said lawyers are preparing a lawsuit 'to ensure rules are enforced' 

  • Comes as leaders from 27-nation bloc meet in Brussels today for two days of crunch talks, with Poland at the top

  • of the agenda 

    •

  • Ms Von Der Leyen is being pressured to withhold £48billion in Covid recovery funding from Poland unless

  •  it agreed to abide by European laws 

  

BY CHRIS PLEASANCE  and ROSS IBBETSON FOR

 

 

MAILONLINE

 

 

PUBLISHED: | UPDATED: 

 

The EU's Parliament has threatened to sue Ursula Von Der Leyen if she refuses to withhold

 funding from

Poland amid an increasingly bitter row over the rule of law.

David Sassoli, parliament's president, said lawyers have been instructed to 'prepare a lawsuit

against the

[EU] Commission' - which Ms Von Der Leyen heads - 'to ensure rules are properly enforced.'

Mr Sassoli, an Italian politician who was elected parliament's president in 2019, spoke out as

national

leaders from the bloc's 27 member states convene in Brussels today for two days of talks with Poland set

to be top of the agenda.

 

Backing Mr Sassoli are EU heavyweights such as France and the Netherlands, along with

smaller states

such as Sweden, Finland and Luxembourg.

Poland's Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki is relying largely on Hungarian strongman

Viktor Orban for

support, though outgoing German Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned the EU against isolating

Poland

and urged compromise.

The row was sparked when Poland's top constitutional court ruled that laws made within the

country take precedence over laws written in

Brussels - a major challenge to the EU's founding principles.

 

Von der Leyen said she was 'deeply concerned', adding that 'we cannot and will not allow our common values

to

be put at risk  'Which EU laws is Poland disputing? 

Article 1 

What is it? This sets out the founding principle of the EU, which is to create a Union and develop 'an ever

closer

union among the peoples of Europe.'

In dispute: Poland argues the way the law is being applied blocks the country from applying its own

constitution

and could force it to apply unconstitutional laws laid down by EU courts

What Poland's court said: The EU is acting outside of its remit by preventing the country from acting as a

sovereign state, and that Polish law should take precedence 

Article 4

What is it? This establishes the principle of 'sincere cooperation' between states which must 'work together

to

implement' EU laws.

In dispute: Poland again argues that the way the law is being interpreted will stop it from applying its

 own laws

or compel it to apply unconstitutional laws if they are laid down by EU courts 

Court ruling: Judges again found the EU is acting outside of its remit by preventing the country from acting

 as a

sovereign state, and that Polish law must take precedence

Article 19

What is it? This establishes the authority of the European Court of Justice which 'shall ensure that in the

interpretation and application of... the law is observed.'

In dispute: Poland says the article, as applied, grants the EU the power to oversee the appointment of

 judges

made by the Polish President

Court ruling: Judges found that, by interfering in the process of appointing judges, the EU is preventing

Poland

from acting as a sovereign nation and that the President's decision-making must take precedence 

 

Ms Von Der Leyen could also take the issue to the EU's top court, the European Court of Justice, to obtain a ruling that Poland

is in violation of EU laws.

If the court rules in her favour, then it can levy daily fines until Poland returns to compliance. If Poland refuses to pay,

then it can withhold funds.

Ms Von Der Leyen could also try to strip Poland of voting rights within EU institutions, but she would need the support of the

bloc's 26 other leaders - with Hungary likely to block the move.

The row is just the latest crisis to rock the EU since Britain voted to leave in 2016, in large part due to concerns over

sovereignty.

It has sparked concerns over a so-called 'Polexit', which observers have warned may lead to the wholesale collapse

of the European project.

Poland - an ex-Communist nation where support for the EU is high among voters - is unlikely to vote to leave the EU

as Britain did, but many fear it could cause a collapse from within by challenging the bloc's founding principles.

Mr Morawiecki has denied trying to break up the bloc, saying he is not challenging the EU's laws themselves - only

interpretations of them.

Poland and Hungary are bitterly opposed to agreements negotiated last year as the EU's £1.5trillion Covid recovery budget

 was agreed, which linked the funding to enforcing laws such as equality and human rights legislation.

Both countries are led by right-wing populist parties who have been involved in long-running spats with the EU over the

 independence of courts, freedom of the press, and LGBT rights. 

In a fiery speech to the European Parliament earlier this week, Mr Morawiecki accused the EU of 'blackmail' over the recovery

 funds which he said poses a threat to the union.

But Ms Von Der Leyen struck back. Referring to the fall of Communism in Poland in 1989, she said: 'The people of Poland

 wanted

democracy … they wanted the freedom to choose their government, they wanted free speech and free media, they wanted

an end to

corruption and they wanted independent courts to protect their rights.

'This is what Europe is about and that is what Europe stands for,' she added. 'The recent ruling of the Polish Constitutional

Court

puts much of it into question.' 

Last week, the Polish Constitutional Court ruled that EU law was incompatible with aspects of the country's constitution.

Morawiecki insisted that there was no reason why this should drive a wedge between Warsaw and Brussels, but maintained

that he would not budge on the issue.

'The EU will not fall apart simply because our legal systems will be different,' he said, adding: 'If you want to make a

 non-national superstate out of Europe, first get the consent of all the European states and societies.' 

Meanwhile, he praised the 'strong political and economical organism' of the Bloc, showing the complex position his party

is seeking to straddle as it grapples with Brussels, while up to 80 per cent of Poles back being part of the EU. 

He also rejected any suggestion that the country was on a pathway to 'Polexit,' following in Britain's footsteps. 

'We should not be spreading further lies about Poland leaving the EU,' he said.

'For us, European integration is a civilisational and strategic choice,' he said. 'We are here, we belong here and

 we are not going anywhere.' 

He said that Western countries, especially France and Germany, had benefited enormously from the entrance of

eastern states into the Bloc.

However, he said that the West-East divide had resulted in first and second classes within the EU, with member states

like Poland given short shrift.

'Today all Europeans, expect one thing. They want us to face up to the challenges posed by several crises at the same time,

and not against each other, looking for someone to blame - or rather, those who are not really to blame, but whom it is

convenient to blame,' he said. 

rlier this month, Poland's Constitutional Court (pictured) ruled that EU treaties were incompatible with the Polish constitution, putting Warsaw

and Brussels on a full collision course

 

'We cannot remain silent when our country - including in this Chamber - is attacked in an unfair and biased manner.'

The PM said that Poland was a 'proud nation' and would not be cowed by threats of financial penalties which were

tantamount to 'blackmail.' 

'I reject the language of threats, hazing and coercion,' Morawiecki said.

Morawiecki also criticised the 'creeping' expansion of EU powers, with particular regard to the European Court

of Justice (ECJ).

Von der Leyen warned that Poland's constitutional ruling 'is a direct challenge to the unity of the European legal order.' 

She said a first option is so-called infringements, where the Commission legally challenges the Polish court's judgment,

which could lead to fines.

Another option is a conditionality mechanism and other financial tools whereby EU funds would be withheld from Poland.

Until Warsaw's clash with Brussels is resolved, it is unlikely to see any of the 23.9 billion euros in grants and 12.1 billion

 in cheap loans that

it applied for as part of the EU's recovery fund after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The EU could even block Polish access to EU grants for development and structural projects in the 2021-2027 budget worth

around 70 billion

euros.

Von der Leyen said a third option is the application of Article 7 of the EU's treaties. Under this, rights of member states -

 including the right

to vote on EU decisions - can be suspended because they have breached core values of the bloc. 

Morawiecki, speaking after her in the EU assembly, accused the bloc of overstepping its authority.

'EU competencies have clear boundaries, we must not remain silent when those boundaries are breached. So we are saying

 yes to

European universalism, but we say no to European centralism,' he said.

 

A succession of members of the parliament then stood up to castigate the

Polish leader,

while some EU

ministers gathering for a meeting in Luxembourg joined the chorus of criticism. 

 

Morawiecki ended up running over his allotted speaking time, prompting warnings from Parliament Vice President

Pedro Silva Pereira.

'You will take note that I was extremely flexible with the allocated time so that nobody can say that you didn't have time

 enough to give

explanations to the European Parliament,' Pereira told the PM. 

'But respect of the allocated time is also a way of showing respect for this house of the European democracy.' 

 

Why some fear a 'Polexit' from European Union 

Poland will be a focus of European attention this week, with Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki addressing the European Parliament

 and leaders at a

European Union summit expected to grapple with a legal conundrum created by a recent ruling by Poland's constitutional court.

Some opponents of Poland's nationalist government fear that the court's ruling has put the country on a path to a possible 'Polexit,'

or a departure from the 27-

nation EU like Britain did with Brexit. The government denounces those spreading the idea, which it calls 'fake news.' Here is a look at the

differing views on

the matter - and why Poland's departure from the bloc is unlikely.

THE BACKSTORY

Poland's government, which is led by the conservative Law and Justice party, has been in conflict with EU officials in Brussels since

it took power in 2015. The dispute is largely over changes to the Polish judicial system which give the ruling party more power over the courts.

Polish authorities say they seek to reform a corrupt and inefficient justice system. The European Commission believes the changes erode

the country's democratic system of checks and balances.

ANTI-EU RHETORIC EMERGES FROM POLAND

As the standoff over the judiciary has grown more tense, with the Commission threatening to withhold billions of euros in pandemic recovery funds

 to Poland over it, ruling party leaders have sometimes compared the EU to the Soviet Union, Poland's occupying power during the Cold War.

Ryszard Terlecki, the party's deputy leader, said last month that if things don't go the way Poland likes, 'we will have to search for drastic solutions.

' Referring to Brexit, he also said: 'The British showed that the dictatorship of the Brussels bureaucracy did not suit them and turned around

and left.'

Marek Suski, another leading party member, said Poland 'will fight the Brussels occupier' just as it fought the Nazi and Soviet occupiers

in the past.

 'Brussels sends us overlords who are supposed to bring Poland to order, to put us on our knees, so that we might be a German state, and not

 a proud state of free Poles,' he declared.

A KEY RULING OVER LAWS

This month Poland's constitutional court challenged the notion that EU law supersedes the laws of its 27 member nations with a ruling

 saying that some EU laws are incompatible with the nation's own constitution.

That decision - made by a court dominated by ruling party loyalists - gives the Polish government the justification it had sought to ignore directives

from the European Union's Court of Justice which it doesn't like - particularly on matters of judicial independence.

The ruling marks another major test for the EU after years of managing its messy divorce from the U.K.

WHAT DOES THE POLISH GOVERNMENT SAY?

Polish leaders say it's absurd to think they want to leave the EU and they accuse the opposition of playing with the idea of 'Polexit' for

political gain.

Morawiecki, the prime minister, said last week that the opposition 'is trying to insinuate that we want to weaken Poland and the European Union

by leaving the EU. This is obviously not only fake news, it is even worse. It is simply a lie that is made to weaken the EU.'

Morawiecki spoke soon after Poland's leading opposition leader, Donald Tusk, a former EU leader, organized mass nationwide protests voicing

support for Poland remaining in the EU.

COULD EXPULSION HAPPEN FOR POLAND?

The EU has no legal mechanism to expel a member. That means for Polexit to happen, it would have to be triggered by Warsaw. At the moment,

the idea seems farfetched, because EU membership in Poland is extremely popular, with surveys showing more than 80% of Poles favor being

in the bloc.

When Poland entered the EU in 2004, Poles won new freedoms to travel and work across the EU and a dramatic economic transformation

 was set in motion that has benefited millions.

Yet some Poles still fear that could change. They worry that if new EU funds are withheld from Poland over rule of law disputes, Poles might

 eventually come to feel that it's no longer in their benefit to belong to the bloc.

Some simply fear a political accident along the lines of what happened with Britain's departure from the EU. The former British prime minister

who called for a referendum on EU membership, David Cameron, had sought to have the country remain in the bloc. He called for the vote to

 settle the matter, believing Britons would vote to stay. A majority in 2016 did not, and Cameron quickly resigned. 

Reporting by AP 

 

MAILONLINE

 

PUBLISHED: | UPDATED: 

 

 

 

H.F.2154/C

 
 

 

OUR WONDERFUL NHS:NOW IT'S TERMINAL  

 

SATURDAY ESSAY

by BeL Mooney

Saturday,October 16,2021

By BEL MOONEY FOR THE DAILY MAIL

Frustrated by a GP’s receptionist blocking a face-to-face appointment for my 97-year-old mother, in June this year, I wrote a special report for this newspaper, criticising the very situation that has been the subject of the Mail’s recent, successful campaign.

It so happens that the medical attention my mother has received recently has been impeccable, and I do appreciate the pressures doctors face — with rising patient numbers due to an increasingly elderly and growing population.

Writing about the NHS must involve an understanding of complexity. You can express gratitude for good care from a family doctor or hospital consultant, but at the same time recognise that the system cannot be above criticism.

The article in question — just like this paper’s trailblazing campaign — drew a huge response from people who were equally frustrated and disappointed.

 

Appalled by long waiting lists, cancelled operations, relatives’ cancer treatment put on hold until too late, furious (as I was) that a loved one’s cause of death was routinely certified as ‘Covid’ when untrue, and face-to-face appointments with GPs were as rare as hen’s teeth, exasperated and angry citizens wrote to me and to this paper asking: ‘Why?’

Such people — the silent majority — will be relieved that due to our campaign, Health Secretary Sajid Javid has called out GPs, launched initiatives and allocated funding to improve access.

Naturally, this prompted a howl of protest from the usual suspects — most notably the British Medical Association (the doctors’ union in effect). Former health secretary Jeremy Hunt predicted the measures aimed at increasing face-to-face appointments would spark an exodus from the profession.

‘This is a burnt-out workforce running on empty because of a massive mismatch between supply and demand,’ he tweeted. ‘The only thing that will convince them not to continue retiring or opting for part-time hours in droves is a clear plan to end the unsustainable pressure they face.'

 

Royal College of General Practitioners ' chairman Professor Martin Marshall, said the critism

of GPs by politiansand the media over in-person appointments was 'demoralising and indefensible'.

The proposed support package was

 'not the answer'.

And so the battle - and the disconnect between patients and the institutions representing GPs-looks set to rage on, even as our beleaguered health service is about to under go another of its frequent 'reorganising', introducing a blizzard of new acronyms.

 

’From spring 2022, for example, the current CCGs (Clinical Commissioning Groups) and their staff will become ICSs (Integrated Care Systems. As ever, the chances are slim.

Let's cast our minds back to the early days of the NHS. Ironically, doctors were among the most vociferous objectors when it was first proposed.

 

Aneurin Bevan, the Labour politician who led the establishment of the NHS in 1948, was asked how he convinced them to take part, and he allegedly replied: ‘I stuffed their mouths with gold.’

 

Bevan recognised that to win over doctors to the world’s largest socialist experiment in healthcare, he had to appeal not so much to their morals, as to their pockets.

In the following decades, the system he created, with services free at the point of delivery, became not just the best-loved state-run body in the country but a key part of our national identity.

A good example of its totemic status came during the Olympics opening ceremony at London 2012, when nurses danced around hospital beds as a tribute to the NHS.

Against this backdrop, as many have found, if you write anything faintly critical of the NHS on social media the zealots pile in, like fundamentalists permanently on their knees to an out-dated dogma.

A few years ago, waiting with my late father for his eye appointment, I took a picture of a sign detailing the number of missed appointments that month — and what this selfishness had cost the hospital.

On Facebook, I suggested we should question whether people truly value what is free. Was it time to look again at the ‘free at the point of use’ principle? You’d have thought I had uttered the vilest blasphemy. All the nonsense about the ‘secret privatisation’ of ‘our NHS’ planned by wicked Tories was trotted out.

Similarly, when some years ago I wrote about the shocking ‘health tourism’ figures, middle-class bien-pensants with health insurance (for whom ‘waiting list’ is a foreign phrase) told me that of course the NHS should be free at the point of use, for everybody and anybody, for ever and ever, Amen.

A highly respected novelist I knew rebuked me loftily: ‘Criticism of the NHS is both ungrateful and unhelpful.’

And that is part of the problem about the future of healthcare in Britain. If members of  it transformed the intelligentsia can be so blinkered about what is evidently wrong with this system, what hope do we have of improving something on which so many lives depend?

 

Former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson's assertion that 'the NHS is the closet thing the English people have to a religion' goes some way towards explaing the outcry that follows any rational suggestion THAT THE NHS IS BROKEN AND NEEDS FIXING.

Yes, it transformed public health and wellbeing in Britain - but even before Covid it lurched from crisis to cricis, despite repeated reforms and huge investment, IT WAS LETTING US DOWN.

 

Who wouldn’t agree there are too many highly paid managers? That job adverts for ‘equality, diversity and inclusion’ managers in the NHS are obscene, when some of these roles pay more than £75,000 per year — a far healthier salary than junior doctors or nurses take home?

That there’s been a shortage of midwives for over ten years, after 3,000 promised by David Cameron didn’t appear? That our attempts to reduce stillbirths lag behind those of Poland and Estonia?

That levels of waste and profligate spending (e.g. prescribing at great cost over-the-counter painkillers, when a pack of 16 paracetamol caplets is 29p in Aldi) are a disgrace? And so on.

The NHS is not a sacred cow. Like it or not, that bitter pill has to be swallowed if we are to have any chance of making things better.

The National Health Service Act (establishing its structure) received royal assent in 1946, one month after I was born, and the NHS was founded when I was nearly two. So the bloated behemoth is as venerable and creaky as I am — and serious maintenance is essential.

That’s why all politicians should drop the dishonest sentimentality that prohibits discussing the NHS, and think of the welfare of patients instead of scoring points.

We need a new way to deliver healthcare in coming decades — when the demands will be greater even than they are now.

That was the verdict of the Institute of Economic Affairs back in 2003: ‘…the NHS was designed for the 1940s. Since then there have been three major developments which have directly affected the provision of health care. We have become an infinitely more affluent society, which means that people want, and can, afford to spend more on keeping well.

 

Secondly, the proportion of old people in the population has greatly increased and will continue to do so, which means that people need medical services longer.

 

‘Thirdly, there have been huge advances in treatment which have mostly, but not invariably, increased its cost, often requiring expensive equipment and drugs.’

The problems have long been predicted. Yet politicians and campaigners parrot that we have ‘the best healthcare system in the world’. This was asserted by disgraced former health secretary Matt Hancock at the NHS’s 73rd ‘birthday’ in July.

Do these people take us for fools? We are the fourth-highest spenders on healthcare in Europe, yet routinely come near the bottom in terms of outcome.

The World Health Organisation says the French health service is the best in the world. We should learn from it.

A friend has a brother with a French wife. Pregnant and suffering swollen ankles she went to their English GP, who said nothing could be done. Back in France her doctor gave her anti-water retention tablets, an appointment with a physiotherapist and good nutritional advice.

And a young British woman I know living in France, expecting her first baby, said the maternity care was efficient, caring and she was offered every possible choice. I’m afraid she had a shock when she decided to have the baby in England, to please her parents.

Anecdotal evidence is one thing, but facts cannot be denied. Percentages can become tedious, but the French have more doctors for every 100 people and more hospital beds than us. As a percentage of GDP, UK healthcare spending was 10.2 per cent in 2019, but France spent 11.1 per cent.

 

Determined defenders of the NHS seem to think the only solution is to chuck yet more money at the problem, even though our taxpayer-funded model is as burdensome as it is inefficient. The French system is paid for partially by obligatory social security contributions, usually deducted from your salary.

France offers a high level of preventative healthcare (for example, not dismissing swollen ankles). Available services include addiction prevention, regular medical check-ups and the promotion of physical activity and healthy eating. France also has the lowest rate of heart-disease mortality in Europe.

When people go to see a family doctor, or have any other kind of out-patient appointment, they pay the cost of it — a basic consultation is ¤25 Euro — but then about three-quarters of the fee is refunded by their National Health Insurance Fund. (Patients on a low-income or who are sick long-term receive 100 per cent coverage.)

Would the British be so careless about appointments they demand as a right if they had to stump up and then get most (but not all) of the money back? Would it be heinous to require a small deposit on equipment such as crutches? I think not.

 

Before you protest, remember that in France people on very low incomes or who are not insured are covered. We can boast all we like about ‘our’ flawed NHS, but the French have arguably a better way of ensuring the principle of the common good.

Remaining in Europe for a moment, under German law, everyone must pay public health insurance. As of 2019, this amounts to 14.6 per cent of each citizen’s gross income, with the individual paying half (7.3 per cent up to a maximum monthly income of €4,538) and the other half paid by their employer. Deductions from salaries are automatic.

This covers every citizen’s primary care with registered doctors, hospital care (in- and out-patient) and basic dental treatment. It works.

Covid-19 threatened the globe but we should not let the panic it caused blind us to the fact cancer is the world’s second-biggest killer. It was responsible for 9.6 million deaths in 2018 — roughly one out of six everywhere — and the leading or second-largest cause of mortality before the age of 70 in more than half of countries.

An Economist Intelligence Unit report looked at the growing menace of cancer (in all its variations) and asked whether the world is ready to face it.

 

But the graph for care delivery is far more worrying. We are joint 14th with South Korea, behind (in order) Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Spain, France, Sweden, Italy, U.S., Brazil, Colombia, Canada and Chile.

That is far from impressive. We all know it.

Anecdotal evidence of a broken system abounds. I know a mother in her early 40s who, failing to obtain joined-up care (in a very prosperous area) for a terrible flare-up of her chronic medical condition, was driven by neglect to make four 300-mile round-trip journeys to an area where a senior anaesthetist friend ensured she got treatment from a sympathetic consultant.

That should never be necessary in a wealthy nation like ours.

Small, individual moans and cries about NHS shortcomings and failures combine into a shocking crescendo nationally.

Yet that noise, which urgently demands to be heard, is routinely shut down — silenced like a shushing in a church by the pious ones who keep their eyes tightly closed.

This cannot go on. If as a nation we wish to show pride in our healthcare system in order to bequeath it in good nick to our grandchildren, we must now (post-Covid) insist that politicians work together towards radical reform. But that would require trusting them with an enormous task — and frankly, I don’t.

We need an independent Royal Commission — an inquiry at the highest level established by the Queen at the behest of the Prime Minister — to delve deep into the problems that confront us today.

Then it should come up with a set of recommendations that will enable us to confront 21st-century challenges.

This is, after all, a matter of life and death.

H.F.2154/C
 

How I pine for a TORY government, not this Blairite confection: STEPHEN GLOVER asks how a Conservative administration can preside over an uncosted, madcap eco-revolution, soaring taxes and an OAP soldier prosecuted to death.

By STEPHEN GLOVER FOR THE DAILY MAIL

 

PUBLISHED: | UPDATED: 

 

H.F.2154/C
 

WHY ARE THE

 

ENGLISH

 

MADE TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT OUR IDENTITY?

 by

Simon Heffer

 

Daily Mail

Thursday, April 21, 2005

 Over the past decade or so there has been a stark change in the way the majority of people in these islands see themselves.

Whereas most living south of Hadrian’s Wall and east Offa’s Dyke used to consider themselves ‘British’, they now consider themselves, instead ‘English’

 

After all, thanks to the cynical devolution policies of our Scottish- dominated Government, the Kingdom is no longer United. ‘Great Britain’ is a geographical term rather than a political fact.

 

And the English, more than five-sixths of the British people, have been bombarded with ostentatious displays of Scots nationalism and Welsh separation -both phenomena for which the English taxpayer is still having to shell out.

 Little wonder, with the Celtic fringe making it clear to the English that they would rather not be associated with us except financially, that we have reassessed our own identity.

 

And little wonder that this should inspire Englishmen such as Tony Bennett, landlord of the Otter pub in Thorpe Marriott, Norfolk, to seek to celebrate St George’s Day this Saturday in a traditional English fashion: with longer drinking hours.

 

Mr Bennett had already successfully obtained an extension to celebrate the Chinese New Year. And he has been assured that, had he applied for an extension to mark St Patrick’s Day, or The Hindu feast of Diwali, he would have been granted one.

 

However, when he sought permission to allow English men and women to celebrate the feast of St. George, Norwich magistrates turned him down. St George’s Day, Mr Bennett was informed by magistrate Roy Church, simply isn’t ‘special’ enough.

 

As an Englishman, I greatly respect the culture and economic contribution that the Welsh, Scottish, Irish, and other minorities such as Asians have made to this country.

 

But throughout the General Election campaign, several prominent politicians have, in search for votes, made the questionable assertion that a ‘diverse’ society-it is no longer politically-correct to talk of a ‘multi-cultural’ one - is better than a monocultural one.

 

This is the prevailing mood among the small out- of- touch clique who rule our country, those who fawn on them, and those who take orders from them.

 

The English, owning as they do the majority culture, are whipping boys for this obsession with diversity. You cannot, after all imagine a less diverse human being than the white, middle-aged male Mr Bennett, swathed in his St. George’s flag, and fulfilling one of the oldest and important functions known to English society: selling ale in his pub.

 

It is all right to celebrate St Patrick’s Day, because the Irish are a historically oppressed minority. A faintly similar case, far more laughable can be made for the feasts of St. Andrew and St.David.

 

And when it comes to celebrating the Chinese New Year, or Diwali, or Ramadan (unlikely, I know, but I include it for the sake of ‘diversity’), the English Establishment can find no objections at all.

 After all, these people are genuine ethnic minorities, the obvious victims of prejudice.

 English politicians and magistrates can thus demonstrate their post-imperial guilt by sanctioning whatever celebrations of such feast days may be required, and taking the much- needed opportunity for some self flagellation about being English into the bargain.

 

Mr Bennett is fuming about this. He is not alone. I am fuming about it, too. And millions of other English men and women will rage at this latest insult to our people, our nation, our traditions, our culture, our way of life, our history, and above all, to our good sense.

 

For we, being fair-minded, know we have as much right to our national and cultural identity as any Irishman, Scotsman. Welshman or Hindu does to his.

 

After all, the reasons adduced by the liberal fascists for our need to feel guilty, and to keep quiet about our national identity, are thoroughly bogus.

 

Our history is not one of oppression, nor of tyranny. Why uniquely among the Great European powers did England avoid revolution in the past 300 years?

 

Was it not, quite simply, because the benign and honest nature of our Constitution and those who implemented it maintained the happiness of the English people?

 

Did not Wales and Scotland benefit greatly from their association with England? Do they not benefit from it greatly still?

 

And have we not gone far-some argue much to far-to try to put right the historic wrongs done in Ireland, wrongs that pale into insignificance compared with what other great powers used to inflict on their minorities?

 

Why is it that nationalism, or the sense and idea of national identity, are entirely acceptable to the liberal fascists when expressed by an Irishman, a Scotsman, a Welshman or a Hindu, but are so unacceptable when expressed by the English?

 

What have we done that is so evil we should hide our culture away? Our crime, quite simply, is to have been so large and so economically successful. The liberal fascists are embarrassed by our power.

 

A

Clownish

Magistrate

 

Who refuses to allow an English publican to serve his customers for an extra hour on the evening of St.George’s Day is either Stupid or has a political agenda of his own.

 

There is a feeling, handed down from the top of the most anti-English Government in our history, that you cannot celebrate Englishness and cannot institutionalise a celebration of Englishness such as the feast of St. George, without being ‘racist’ or ‘diversive’.

 

It may be, of course, that so poorly educated are the new English official class that they cannot understand that

 

English history,

culture and nationalism are something to be proud of: not merely for what they have given us as English people, but for what they have given the world.

 

Either way, the Government’s purpose of creating a society in which minorities are lauded and the English majority are made to feel as bad about themselves as possible is furthered by their actions.

 

To many publican Tony Bennett’s desire to allow his customers to have an hour’s more drinking on St. George’s Day is but a trivial matter. He, and I, would beg to disagree.

 

Our national identity is something to which we have an absolute right to express.

 

For an official of the state [we would say servant of the people] to say that England’s national day is not ‘special’, unlike other similar feasts celebrated by minorities, must be politically motivated as it is illogical.

 

The Government should be warned. The people of England who are being bled white, ignored, exploited and misused by a state machine that clearly detests them, will not have their tempers improved by being treated like pariahs in this way.

 

Never let it be forgotten that it is [New] Labour that let the genie of separate nationalisms out of the bottle in this country by encouraging devolution. We English now want the same rights to self-expression and independence as our fellow Britons.

 

Our nationalism is utterly benign: however, if it is not shown the same respect accorded to others it may not remain so indefinitely.

 

[Font altered-bolding &underlining used -comment in brackets.]

 

* * *

APRIL/05

 

 

The Tories offer YOU £4 billion - UKIP can offer YOU £40-£100 billion a year-Why wait-Vote UKIP on May 5, 2005.

 

What appears to be lost on many commentators is that the insidious measures taken by the present Government are about one thing, which is also sought by the other political parties in OUR Parliament today and over the past 33 years:

 

It is the ultimate aim to have Britain within a:

 

‘United States of Europe’

 

In order to achieve this objective ALL Governments -Tory - Labour [New Labour] -with the help of LibDems have over the last three decades given away almost all our cherished liberties.

 

The recent Terrorism Bill was passed because George Kennedy and 17 of his party decided not to turn up to vote to defend our Habeas Corpus of our Great Charter -the Magna Carta of 1215.

 

New Labour have flooded the country with as many diverse nationalities in a drive to build up a multicultural society in order to weaken the English national identity in a land which does not appear as England on the EU Regional map of Europe.

 

Many of our cities are suffering from ‘White-Flight’ with many indigenous people leaving the cities in the hands of the large immigration of many -over a million - who have no intention of assimilating into our community but instead are in the process of creating a State within a State.

 

There are now many cities which have from 30 to 45% alien population (could be much higher as many immigrants and asylum seekers have melted into the background -but recently a figure of 500,000 has been mentioned from official sources and there are also the dependents of many of the these

migrants to consider which would put the final figure possibly around - 750,000-could be higher-No one really knows?

 

It has been stated only recently that council taxpayers are paying £3 billion a year for the care of at least 250,000 illegal immigrants [those they know of]

 

Might there be in the future a case for UDI- A Unilateral Demand for Independence by a major conurbation -such as Leicester or Bradford or a number of other cities who will be completely in the hands of those who consider they owe no allegiance to our country.

 

Even today there are ‘No-Go areas’ in all but name where the police keep a very low profile and leave the communities to their own clan leaders.

 

This could all have been avoided if only those peoples from the world who wished to assimilate into our community where accepted with tight control of numbers so that the new peoples are dispersed over the greater part of the country and not creating ghettoes.

 

Unfortunately Tony Blair has in mind only the multiple family votes he will get from his fraudulent postal scheme. His chums in Birmingham and elsewhere have showed him the way.

 

Many immigrants who arrived in our country over forty years ago from the Commonwealth are themselves concerned at the large influxes of the never ending deluge of new immigrants and asylum seekers joining them which is now putting a great strain on their limited resources in THEIR community.

 

We are now warned that a new breed of British Muslim zealot -set on destroying this country who believe that:

‘Freedom is a form of false God or deity and Muslims are obliged to reject anything which is worshipped, obeyed or followed other than Allah’ [Daily Mail-April 23-2005 -THE ENEMY IN OUR MIDST-by Richard Pendlebury.]

 

and there is no doubt there is plenty of material for them to inflame because of the illegal war in Iraq and the actions of politicians over the last three decades in not taking stronger action to control immigration and use more selective measures to ensure that only those who will join us and take a full part in our community were accepted.

 

It has always been Tony Blair’s plan to encourage the break-up of the once United Kingdom into fragments which meant that poor old England being so large had to be divided up into convenient Regions.

 

Well! We know how those plans for Regions are falling a-part thanks to the vigour of the major part of the voting population of the North-East who despite the Pro-Regional stance of the BBC-North-East and pots of money from Government for the ‘Yes’ campaign and the support of a chunk of the business community- with the numerous Blair cronies who had rubbed their hands with delight at the wonderful pickings they would receive -the voters

told Prescott and his cronies to get lost -they preferred their local accountability -Thank you!

 

In order to ensure a trouble free progress into the EU Superstate it was vital for ALL Governments to encourage the politically-correct notions in order to neuter the English people - after all they are a kindly people who will stand anything rather than complain that they have been badly treated. Or is this now to end?

 

So it has not been too difficult for New Labour to have almost completed our enslavement in the New European police state where the many will be at the bid and call of the privileged Elite who have immunity from arrest and so - so many special perks.

 

It is the inaction of the majority of the English people which has made it so easy for politicians of ALL parties to insult us and push us to the brink of Revolution but knowing that many have their eyes on the latest give-away rather than the future of our nation-state of England and it’s Ancient ‘Rights and Liberties’.

 

As much as we loathe Tony Blair and his cronies and want to see the back of them the greater enemy is the large Pro-EU factions in all the parties who when the moment is right will sell us out to a European Super State. It may not be this year or next - but they will not give up.

 

If the English wish to fight back against the repeated insults from the politically-correct brigade which are within All the main parties then why not vote where your vote will hurt them ALL by supporting the only party with a Mandate to leave the EU-

THE UKIP

 

The United Kingdom Independence Party.

www.ukip.org

 

 

And by so doing you will not only send a message to the main parties that you are not happy with the treatment they have meted out to you but there will be a saving of £40-£100 billion a year [Not the measly £4billion from the Tories but the return of our Fishing Fields -No more expensive Common Agricultural Policy which will not only help us but the poor in the world and which will make ALL the other give-aways look poultry by comparison.

 

Whatever bribes you may receive from the other main parties it will mean very little because you will soon have to pay more tax for poorer services and of course the EU dimension will expect to cobble up our £4 billion rebate and there is the increased yearly contribution to the corrupt and unaccountable police state the European Union - after all there are now 10 more open mouths to feed at the trough of plenty at Brussels - funded mainly by the English taxpayer.

 

The time has come for the English people to march into battle to preserve their Country and Identity and there can be no excuse at all because the facts are now clearly visible and the time to make a stand is NOW - to be precise on May 5, 2005 - to give your answer to Tony Blair and all the other Pro-EU factions in the main parties who think you no longer have the bottle to do anything like fight for your Freedom and Identity.

 

LETS PROVE THEM WRONG?

 

On

 

MAY 5 -2005

 

 FINALLY REMEMBER!!!

 

*DID YOU KNOW?

The City of London is governed by the Illuminati-Freemasons and they are governed by their god Lucifer/Satan. The Bank of England owns the Central Banks established around the world, and this is the real power of the modern British Empire.

One example is the United States Federal Reserve Bank , which is wholly owned by the Bank of England and her subsidiaries. Thus the world has been enslaved by the Illuminati-Free-Mason conspiracy which exacts her tribute through interest on their various currencies.

"Historically all British military colonies with white populations such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa were under the authority of the Queen and her Government. Whereas all other brown 'slave' colonies such as India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the African nations were the private property of the Crown, which is the separate board of the City of London. These colonies were exploited for slave labor and trade, to make the cartels richer and more powerful."

"The Crown" has nothing to do with the Queen. It is a private corporation led by the Illuminati. (See: +(1)+(1)+(1)

Government Conspiracies - World of Lies - Award Winning Documentary

ZIONISM VERSUS BOLSHEVISM

-A struggle for the soul of the Jewish People by the Rt.Hon. Winston S. Churchill-written in 1920

 

AUGUST - 2010

 

 

*

Daily Mail

Thursday, April 21, 2005

 

 

H.F.1860

 
 

AS a Muslim, I'm Horrified the

BBC

gave a

 Platform to an apologist for the Taliban

by

Dr Taj Hargey

DAILY MAIL

August 24,2021

 EVERY Muslim in Britain is celebrating the return to power of the Taliban in Afghanistan. That's what Khola Hasan of the Islamic Shari  Council suggested on BBC Radio 4 at the weekend.

Even as she was speaking, thousands of Afghans were trying to escape the country. People were being trampled to death in the stampede for places on flights out of Kabal airport.

For Miss Hasan to proclaim that Muslims in the UK are united in welcoming this seizure of power by religious zealots, and the resulting chaos, is both obscene and an affront to the British  Muslim community. It is insulting, a travesty and a sign of just how pitifully ignorant she is.

But for the BBC to give her a platform to air her doctrinal falsehoods, without then demolishing them with real facts is unforgivable.

 

 

Tripe

The broadcaster has failed in its duty to address the news impartially. Instead, the BBC appeared terrified of contradicting Miss Hasan simply because she is a Muslim women and should therefore be allowed to assert any nonsense she likes without the fear of contradiction.

'Every single person that I know as a Muslim,' she said on the Sunday programme, presented by William Crawley, I don't know personally but I know them on social media or as friends, are celebrating and saying, "give them a chance".

I listenedf to that inarticulate tripe, wishing that the BBC still employed rigorous journalists instead of

'WOKELINGS'

who are afraid to question anything for fear of seeming sexist or racist.

The show did feature a courageous campaigner for Afghan women's rights, the filmmaker Diana Saqeb Jamal, who dismissed Hasan's claims as 'INSANE'

But Miss Hasan ignored her, and was permitted the last word. She was also allowed to assert that oppression of Women in France was worse than in Afghanistan, and that negative accounts of life under the Taliban were all lies:

.Western media loves misrepresenting Muslims. So let me spell this out, I have not met a single person in Britain who welcomes the return of the Taliban, not online, at the mosque or anywhere else.

British Muslims are sickened at the horrific news coming out of Kabul, and deeply distressed at the prospects for ordinary people in Afghanistan, especially women and girls.

The surrender

 of Kabul to the Taliban marks not only the effective end of Anglo-US occupation but also the restoration of theological tyranny.

The retributive campaign launched by Tony Blair and George Bush to avenge 9/11 hasw failed miserably after 20 years of nation-building.

The only beneficiaries are the new fanatical masters of Afghanistan and other militant jihadist groups throughout the Middle East, Africa and South-East Asia.

Wicked ...

 

 

Matured

'The problem is, we don't give them a chance.' Miss Hasan claimed on Radio 4.

'The kind of language that came out from Western media when the Taliban took over...civil war, monsters. they're going to slaughter people, it's going to be awful, poor  women, oh blah blah blah, we're going to cry our eyes out, poor women are going back into medieval times.

'It's been misrepresented for so long I've got used to it; I don't even blink an eyelid any more.'

Miss Hasan went on to complain that France is the real enemy of Muslims, because women are not allowed to wear Burka on the beach or the Hijab headscarf in public buildings.

:twenty years is a long time,' she added. 'we will see exactly how much the Taliban have grown up and matured.

The only change in two decades that I can see is thew development of sophisticated Jekyll-and-Hyde double personality that will say one thing and do another.

The Taliban tyrants of Afghanistan might have learned to disguise the monster. But behind their flimsy facade, the cruel reality remains as horrifying as ever.

FULL ARTICLE

 

DR TAJ HARGEY is Provost of the Oxford Institute for British Islam.

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

 

*  *  *

 

 

BRITISH FORCES (OVERSEAS) BULLETINS

B F 1-BLAIR'SCRAPED THE BARREL' TO JUSTIFY INVASION OF IRAQ****B F 2-The Security Services and the Safety of YOUR REALM****B F 3-It's impossible to win a conflict without enough men on the ground.****B F 4-FIVE WARS BLAIR TO REDUCE OUR ILLUSTRIOUS FIGHTING REGIMENTS****B F5-The Lives and Reputation of our Ancient Island's Defenders of Freedom now at further RISK!**** B F 6-IRAQ NOT WORTH THE LIFE OF ANOTHER BRITISH SOLDIER****B F 7-Former Chief of Defence Intelligence supports Whistleblowers****B F 8-TONY BLAIR-THE MAN WHO NEVER DID-YET!****B F 9- The JUSTIFICATION for WAR offered by MR BLAIR may have been the  WRONG ONE, but it was a JUST WAR-says DAILY TELEGRAPH ****.  B F 10-A TROOPER and a TRAVESTY of JUSTICE****B F 11-House of Commons must REGAIN its RESPONSIBILITY****B F 12-Why wont Mr Ingram realise he CANNOT compare FUNDING of ARMY RECRUITMENT TRAINING with PRIVATE CORPORATIONS****B 490-TONY BLAIR WILL NOT ADMIT INVASION OF IRAQ MADE BRITAIN VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACK-ALMOST EVERYONE KNOWS-IT DID!****B484-ABANDONED HEROES FIGHTING AND DYING ON £2 AN HOUR-IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN-AND OTHER CONFLICTS-WHY?****B492-TELL THE TRUTH!-MR BLAIR-OF HOW LONG OUR TROOPS WILL REMAIN IN AFGHANISTAN****B 499-Three more British deaths take Afghan toll to 19 in 6 days.****B 501-SADDAM HAD NO LINK TO AL QAEDA-says THE SENATE of the USA***B 504-BLAIR CONFESSES HIS FAULTS BUT STILL CONTINUES WITH HIS DISASTROUS POLICIES.****

[OVER THE PAST 12 YEARS  WE HAVE SHOWN A GREAT NUMBER OF BULLETINS WITH REGARD TO OUR ARMED SERVICES WHO WERE NOT ALWAYS GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE TOOLS TO DO THE JOB-MR HOON-COMES TO MIND-SHORTAGE OF BODY ARMOUR AND SUITABLE AND SAFE TRANSPORT. THE ABOVE ARTICLES ARE BUT A FEW OF THE MANY BUT WE WILL ADD TO THE LIST OVER THE FOLLOWING WEEKS. A VISIT TO IRAQ FILE & BULLETIN FILE WILL REVEAL MUCH INFORMATION.]

FOR FURTHER INFO GO TO:

PT 2/ PT3/PT4/PT5/PT6

 

 

[We have great respect for the above author as our website will confirm over the past decades we have shown a number of his articles - but we must mention here as it is now known that 9/11 was in fact an inside job to enable the USA to obtain control of oil supplies in Iraq. Only a few nights ago on television it was again confirmed in a documentary. This illegal and great wrong brought forward Iraq and the latter Afghanistan campaigns - the results of which we now see around us in November 2021. Tony Blair and other co-conspirators escaped impeachment - should have been brought before the International Court of Justice at the Hague to account for their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.]

August 24,2021

H.F.2154/G/2
 
 

 

This is the price of the Church prostrating itself on the alter of trendy obsessions.

 By Stephen Glover

DAILY MAIL

STEPHEN GLOVER: This is price of the Church prostrating ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk › article-10093843 › amp
15 hours ago — Like the Roman Catholic Church he is joining, he is robustly opposed ... Former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali with his wife Valerie ...

 

OCTOBER 15-2021

 

 WHEN a man who once nearly became Archbishop of Canterbury defects to the Roman Catholic Church, it is time to sit up and notice.

Michael Nazir-Ali is in most respects as unlike as is possible to a typical modern Church of England bishop, which is doubtless why he wasn't appointed Anglian Primate in 2002.

He has stood out as an uncompromising social conservative in an Established Church which in recent years has become increasingly liberal, and has tended to swim with the tide of secular belief.

One doesn't have to agree with every aspect of Dr Nazir-Ali's opinions -and some Anglians, let alone people of other denominations and non-believers, wont. Like the Roman Catholic Church he is joining, he is robustly opposed to abortion.

Nor has he been supportive of celibate homosexual priests working in the Church of England, or of same-sex marriages taking place in the church. Though still not permitted, it seems likely they soon will be.

At the same time, he has celebrated the importance of the family and sanctity of marriage in a way that would have been familiar to Anglican worshippers half a century ago, but is now unusual.

Whatever one may think of his particular views, I find it impossible not to admire Dr Nazir-Ali for the rigour of his thought, and for his courage in speaking out in defiance of fashionable opinion.

His background  largely explains why he is so different from the run-of-the-mill Anglian prelates. Born in overwhelming Muslim Pakistan, he became a bishop there while still in his thirties, before leaving the country when his life was in danger.

For him Christianity was not a set of safe and comfortable beliefs which can be bent to accommodate progressive thought. It was a minority sect fighting for survival, and sometimes threatened  by radical Islam.

That explains why, since his retirement as Bishop of Rochester in 2009 after 15 years in the role, he has spent  a lot of time in communion with Anglicans in the Third World, who are sometimes persecuted. He is above all a serious man.

Not a few Anglicans will agree with him when he says he wants  to be in a Church 'where there is clear teaching for the faithful'. It does exist in parts of the Church of England, but many priests seem too frightened of offending worldly values to speak out with much clarity.

Dr Nazir-Ali's criticism of the C o E for jumping on to every faddish  bandwagon about identity politics, cultural  correctness  and mea culpa about Britain's imperial past ' will also strike a cord with many people.

Of course there are historical events of which we should be rightly ashamed . What is so wearisome is the preoccupation with supposed misdeeds in the distant past, and the constant self-flagellation, when there are so many challenges and problems in our own time.

Yet the Church of England's hierarchy  has instructed  cathedrals and churches  to review their monuments  for links to slavery and colonialism , and take action  if any are found . Some  12,500 parishes and 42 cathedrals have been scouring their grounds and buildings for shameful connections.

Meanwhile the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby , has declared in the tones of a trendy Labour MP : 'Some will have to come down, some names will have to change.' Aren't there more pressing things for the Church to be doing?

Equally, although the Church is right to be deeply concerned about despoiling  of God's world, it shouldn't  be involving  itself in the politics of climate change. There are scientists and politicians aplenty to do that.

And yet earlier this year the CoE appointed a Bishop of the Environment to spearhead the crusade against climate change, and tackle the looming 'chaos and destruction' of 'this precious planet'. At a  Christmas service not long ago, I heard preach about global warming.
 

What about spearheading the fight against the seemingly ineluctable decline of religious belief in this country? , Religious attendance continues to fall, and the response of the Church of England, when it is not fretting about secular matters, is to talk about closing churches?

Indeed, a recent C of E document called into question 'the sustainability of many local churches', and warned that most dioceses intend to 'prune' the number of clergy.

ADMITTEDLY , there are still, particularly on the evangelical wing of the Church, vibrant parishes that aren't prepared to roll over and accept the inevitability of decline. But much of the C of E has become defeatist and inward looking.

So one can understand why Dr Nazir-Ali yearns for the clarity and robustness of the Roman Catholic Church, though there is room for doubt whether he will find that. After al, it is itself divided between traditionalists and liberals over issues such as abortion, contraception, the celibacy of the clergy and same-sex marriage

All one can say with confidence is that if there are more devout and committed bishops like Michael Nazir Ali in our national Church, it would be sending out a stronger message tpo a country that is drifting even further from GOD

*  *  *

By Stephen Glover

DAILY MAIL

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS-CAPS ETC. ARE OURS!]

OCTOBER 15,2021

*  *  *

LET the CHRISTMAS MESSAGE ring out WHILE you still CAN-by -MICHAEL NAZIR ALI-BISHOP OF ROCHESTER-DEC-2006****

H.F.2154 /B
 

A FAILURE OF GOVERNMENTS FOR DECADES - WHEN WILL THEY LISTEN?

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

Daily Mail

Saturday, August 27, 2005

 

James Slack-Home Affairs Correspondent

 

 

PUTTING extra police on the beat, cuts violent crime, robbery and burglary, figures showed yesterday.

 

The areas of London flooded with officers after the July terror attacks recorded a drop in such offences.

 

Experts said the data proved that increasing Bobbies on the beat deters criminals.

 

In the wake of the attacks, the Metropolitan Police put up to 4,000 officers on the streets of Central London at one time, including 3,000 who are armed.

 

Dramatic cuts in street crime and burglary were logged for these areas in July, compared to the same month last year.

 

In Camden, robbery was cut by 12.2 % and burglary by 8.2%.

 

Westminster recorded a 30.2% cut in burglary and a 6.9% drop in robbery.

 

This compared with increases in the London area as a whole, where violence was up 4.1 %, robbery up 22.8% and burglary 4.7%.

 

Crime expert David Green director of the Civitas think-tank, said the police response to the terror attacks had provided an ‘accidental experiment.’

 

He added: 

 

‘It reinforces the case for a proper policing policy’

 

Norman Brennan, of the Victims of Crime Trust, said:

 

‘The problem is that the numbers put on the streets following July7 are simply not sustainable. What we need now is a huge increase in police’ [Bobbies on the Beat]

 

Mr Brennan added that slashing police paperwork could also boost numbers on the beat.

 

Government statistics show police are spending 53% of their time on frontline duties.  The rest is spent stuck behind desks or attending court.

 

Mr Green added that the figures showed officers could not be concentrated in one area. Six outlying London boroughs had a 50 % jump in muggings in July compared with last year.

 

In Waltham Forest street robberies were up 92.7%.

 

[The above figures prove what we have been saying for many years that there is a need for the local bobbie to be returned to the beat where he CAN become familiar with his patch and prevent crime, which some Chief Constables say, is NOT possible.  But the events in London since 7/7 show a different picture.]

 

To continue:

 

-       Officers were shifted from those areas to boost police numbers in Central London.  [No Police –Greater Crime]

 

Commander Simon Foy, the Met’s head of performance, said:

 

‘After the 7 July and 21 July attacks we had a responsibility to have a huge police presence in Central London.’

 

[We ask the WHY the Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair said after the bombings that the 3000 officers sent to Edinburgh to protect the most protected man in the world had NOT been a problem for London at the time.]

 

To continue:

 

[Commander Foy said:]

 

‘We never abandoned the suburbs and we have been determined to get the ground back’.

 

[This statement contradicts itself-if the Suburbs were NOT abandoned WHY is there NOW a DETERMINATION to GET THE GROUND BACK]

 

The Independent Police Complaints Commission announced an Independent Inquiry last night into the leaks from the Jean Charles de Menezes investigation.

 

Bill Taylor, formally Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, will look into how documents from the Commission’s inquiry found their way into the media.

 

It follows the publication of letters to the Home Secretary from the Police Federation calling for an inquiry into the leaks.

 

[What we are sure is far more interesting to receive will be the Report on the run-up to and aftermath of July 7 in respect of the actions or otherwise of the Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair and others under his command.]

 

*         *        

 

Crime On My Doorstep

 

A correspondent to the Letters COLUMN Of the

 Daily Mail on September 6, 2005  from a concerned citizen in Essex.

IN HIS first statement on arriving in Office in July, our new Police Chief told criminals visiting Essex to

 

‘Bring their toothbrushes because they won’t be going home’ (Mail).

 

He ordered his officers to arrest at least 600 criminals in his first week in charge.

[JULY]

 

On Thursday, August 4, after 11pm, a young man was stabbed as he walked home.  Fleeing from his attackers, he arrived at our front door, cornered by a gang of youths. 

 

My husband managed to get him inside as his assailants kicked at our front door shattering the glass with a heavy plant top.

 

My husband was threatened through the broken window, but managed to hold the door shut.

 

Meanwhile, I relayed all this to the 999 operator, explaining that we had two young children in the house.

 

The victim was bleeding profusely from a stab wound and my husband had no doubt that had he not opened the door that night, this 17-year old boy would have been seriously injured or killed by the gang, who ran off once they realised the police had been called.

Half an hour after the incident, we had a phone call from police to say there had been a sweep of the area but no one was found.

TWENTY MINUTES later another phone call said there was ‘concern for welfare’ in Benfleet and we would have to wait longer.

A police car eventually arrived two hours after the Attack

 

By which time my husband had taken the young man to Accident & Emergency.  The two officers spoke to me briefly of ABH, GBH, even attempted murder, I pointed out possible evidence on the front door.

 

I wasn’t expecting Helen Mirren and her swarm of forensic experts

 

But I thought at least I’d hear something.

 

Weeks later no one contacted my husband and no one had been to see if there is any evidence on our front door.

*

[Sounds familiar in Blairdom –where talk and spin are the order of the day and the concern for the victim is the last think that concerns them.

 

With the LAW & ORDER in a shambles possibly the only way to improve things is to have an elected Sheriff to toughen-up Law Enforcement]

 

*          *          *

[Font altered-bolding and underlining used –comments in brackets]

SEP/05

*  *  *

 

Brought forward from September,2005

WITH BILLIONS WASTED ON ILLEGAL WARS- AND THROW AWAY FOREIGN AID AND MP'S ENJOYING THEIR  SPLENDID EXPENSES AND SALARIES - COST OF BENEFITS -NHS-HOUSING...FOR MILLIONS OF REFUGEES AND ILLEGAL MIGRANTS .     WITH A POPULATION OF OVER  51 MILLION IN ENGLAND WE NOW HEAR THAT OUR GREEN BELT WILL NOW BE BUILT ON.    LOOKING AT WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST DECADES IT COULD BE BETTER IF ONE JUST CHOSE ANY 600 PEOPLE (AFTER BOUNDARIES CHANGE) OFF THE STREETS TO LOOK AFTER THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS IN OUR HOUSE OF COMMONS. THEY COULD HARDLY DO ANY WORSE THAN THE SHOWER WE HAVE HAD IN PARLIAMENT-WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS. THEY STAYED TOO! LONG! A ONE TERM SERVICE BY MORE CONCERNED CITIZENS, THEY WOULD BE CHOSEN FOR THEIR PATRIOTISM AND COMMON SENSE THEY WOULD GIVE 5 YEARS SERVICE FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND THEN RETURN TO PUBLIC LIFE SO THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE  OF AN INDEPENDENT MIND THAN WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THESE PAST YEARS AND MORE DEMOCRATIC FOR A COUNTRY OF ENGLAND WITH ITS DEMOCRATIC CREDENTIALS GIVEN AWAY IN 1972 BY LIES AND DECEIT LEAVING OUR COUNTRY IN THE WILDERNESS OF A DEMONIC CREATION PLANNED BY HITLER IN 1943 IN ORDER FOR GERMAN DOMINATION OF EUROPE. OUR ENEMY OF TWO WORLD WARS WITH A HISTORY OF CONFLICT AND CARNAGE THROUGHOUT THE AGES!-

GERMANY

OCTOBER 17-2017

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM AUGUST 27,2005

H.F.1345
 
 

Multicultural policies have effectively divided the population  into ethnic and faith 'communities'.

*

DON'T TALK ABOUT DIFFERENCES-TALK ABOUT COMMUNITY.

by

Munira Mirza

(writer and researcher)

Daily Mail- Monday, January 29 ,2007.

 

WHEN my colleagues and I began researching the attitudes of young British Muslims, we already suspected that some had become more religiously and politically committed over the past decade.

BUT our findings surprised us. While most Muslims feel a sense of belonging to Britain and are reasonably well integrated, there is a definite shift away from the mainstream among a growing number of younger Muslims.

[ At this point we would draw a parallel with many English children and others of other ages in our schools who complain that everyone else has a country whether from Poland or India or China or from any number of the 190 plus countries in the world today. Identity is important to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty to one's home whether adopted or not. Britishness an over used term introduced by newspaper proprietors  to replace the word ENGLAND which was in vogue for much of our past but particularly after the Second World War it did not fit in with those who decided British was Best!. This was strange as the term British is a geographical expression and NOT political -of course over 1500 years ago it was political but the English and their neighbours changed THAT!. It has been and still is a travesty that the word ENGLISH has been in decline for decades whereas the individual nation state whether Wales or Scotland in our island home has become the norm.]

They are more likely to prioritise allegiance to their religious community and be assertive about expressing their cultural difference. An increasing number express support for faith schools; say they would prefer to live under Muslim law, known as Sharia, and have become less tolerant about women's rights and homosexuality.

WHY? Are Muslims simply unable to adjust  to life in the West?

The answer to that is a firm No. After all, the first generation of Muslim immigrants largely adapted their religion and culture to suit life in Britain.

It is their children and grandchildren who are more strident about criticising British society and asserting their religious identity.  Many younger girls in Muslim communities will now wear the headscarf -the hijab-although many of their mothers do not. Slowly but surely, sections of the Muslim community are separating from the rest of Britain.

Instead of looking abroad to the influence of the Muslim world or the conflicts in the Middle East for an explanation, our research suggests that it lies closer to home. In particular, the

RISE OF MULTICULTURALISM.

Over the past two decades, with its stress on 'difference' and downgrading of Britishness has led many young Muslims to see themselves as separate from society.

Multicultural policies have effectively divided the population into ethnic and faith 'communities', each demanding its own identity as well as separate funding and resources.

This divisive approach has encouraged a kind of tribal thinking, where each group is encouraged to look after 'their own' In such a climate, younger have grown up believing that they have more in common with other Muslims than the wider population.

The weakening of collective identities through attacks on British traditions and history and the decline in old-style working class politics has led to a vacuum in which many young Muslims have turned to religion to seek a sense of belonging.

This emphasis on difference has also cultivated a powerful sense of victim hood. Instead of demanding equality anti-racist groups since the 1980's have been demanding the right to be different and 'respect' for cultural identities.

Muslim lobby groups have been particularly successful at claiming that Muslims need special protection by exaggerating the problem of Islamophobia and demanding curbs on free speech.

 

But instead of making Muslims safer and more included, these demands have only made younger Muslims feel more alienated.

Paradoxically telling Muslims that they are vulnerable and need to be listened to has only made them feel more like outsiders who cannot be expected to handle criticism like everyone else. Although younger Muslims are far less likely than their parents to be victims of racist abuse, they are more sensitive about the slightest criticism or attack.

 

EVEN WORSE, by trying to engage with Muslims through 'community leaders' (who are considered by most Muslims to be largely unrepresentative), the Government is sending the message:

'You lot are so different, we just do not know how to talk to you ourselves.'

This has meant that many younger Muslims who feel unrepresented by their community leaders feel even more ignored and excluded, because the Government is listening to them in the WRONG WAY.

The Government must stop emphasising difference and engage Muslims as citizens, not through their religious identity. The 'Muslim community' is not homogeneous. People should be entitled to equal treatment as citizens in the public realm, with the freedom to enjoy their religious identities in the private sphere

THE negative effects of MULTICULTURALISM are also experienced by many other groups, including white people who have been encouraged to feel ashamed of

THEIR COUNTRY.

We need to revive a sense of shared purpose and confidence in British society. Islamism is only one expression of a wider cultural problem of self-loathing and confusion in the West. There are signs that people in general feel alienated and are increasingly retreating to their cultural or ethnic backgrounds. This is the driving force behind a rising interest in regional identities among the Scottish, Welsh and English.

We need to bring to an end to the institutional attacks on

NATIONAL IDENTITY

-the cancellation of Christian festivities, the bans on displays of national symbols and the sometimes crude anti-western bias of history lessons -which can create feelings of defensiveness and resentment.

 

We should allow people to express their identity freely in a climate of genuine toleration. Society needs to work together to assert our shared British identity and Western values in a way that will inspire the younger generation -from all backgrounds.

[Shortly before the 1997 General Election a BBC reporter arrived to question us -[THE E D P ' ORG' UK'] and the first question was: what did we think of MULTICULTURALISM?.  Our reply was that we believed in each individual from wherever they came form and that when people arrived in England their first breath of English air was of FREEDOM which was a statement made by the Chief Justice of England to the case of a captured slave in a ship in English waters.  So it is that when anyone arrives in our country they have FULL RIGHTS secured by the Rights and Liberties which have been fought for in England for over 1500 years. The curse of multiculturalism was known as a community wreaking policy years ago but was a useful instrument of many politicians to ingratiate themselves with newcomers to secure their votes- need we say more. ]

Except:

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it.'

John Stuart Mill

(1806-73)

 

*          *          *

[Font altered-Bolding & Underlining Used -Comments in brackets]

JANUARY/07

*

 
 

ENGLAND

‘THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION’****

OUR CONSTITUTION OF OVER A THOUSAND YEARS – WHY DOES BLAIR MEAN TO DESTROY IT?****

OUR DISCREDITED DEMOCRACY OR IRAQ DICTATORSHIP****OUR LOYALTY TO OUR INSTITUTIONS AND COUNTRY?****Liberties of Parliament- Birthright of Subjects of England.****LOSS of TRUST in NEW LABOUR****New England’s Tears for Old England’s fears?****The House of Commons has a need of members dedicated to their Country-not time wasters.****English Constitution, by it they lived, for it they died****CABINET GOVERNMENT IS NOW A DICTATORSHIP****MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THE CROWN****THE FINAL BETRAYAL - Part 1-5****House of Lords legal Whistleblower – Speaks Out in Defence of OUR  Law & Constitution****SAY ‘NO’ TO EUROPE! – SAYS RODNEY ATKINSON****The Rotten Heart of Europe - by Bernard Connolly-Part 1-5****THE CLUB IS MIGHTIER THAN THE HANDBAG****WHY you should Vote at Elections to protect YOUR Democracy****The sole legitimate function of Government- is to Protect The Rights of its Citizens****So You Thought You Were Free****A DREAM TO REMEMBER- NEW LABOUR POLICY -2004?****NO SUPPORT IN HOUSE OF LORDS FOR INQUIRY INTO EU BY TORY WHIP**** Could England Survive Outside The EU?  -YES!****COST OF DEVOLUTION –N’IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES LONDON +BRUSSELS****European Arrest Warrant – What Price Our Freedom Now?****Government Obsession With Spending Itself out of Trouble**** Bill of Rights of 1688 –Outlaws European Constitution****OUR UNREPRESENTATIVE VOTING SYSTEM= BREEDS TREASON -
BETRAYAL OF COUNTRY****Impeachment of Ministers of the Crown – Why Now?****New European Constitution – Concessions Fudge.****The Judiciary – A Defence of English Freedom?****New European Constitution – A ‘Bridge’ Too Far?**** Our way forward to Kinship in Liberty****OUR HISTORIC HOUSE OF LORDS MUST REMAIN – TO PREVENT TYRANNY****  Scottish Independence – Have No need of Union flag and Anthem****Misuse of Prerogative Powers by Tony Blair****A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAMED-  PARTS 1-5****AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****"THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

H F 2154/B-A 61
 

1.2million immigrants let in by New Labour since 1998.

Daily Mail

Thursday, September 1-2005

 by

 James Slack

Home Affairs Correspondent

UK visa rules are the softest in the Western World

Labour’s ‘open door’ policy on Immigration has swollen the population of Britain by more than 1.2million in only seven years, a report showed yesterday. [Does not include hundreds of thousands of illegals]

Critics warned that community relations could be at risk if the influx is not slowed down.

Four. Fifths of the population growth from 1997 to last year was a direct result of immigration.

The rate has not allowed enough time for new arrivals to be properly integrated, said MigrationWatch [The Independent watchdog with Sir Andrew Green a previous diplomat to the Middle East]

According to the pressure group’s report, the number of immigrants in that time equal to the population of Birmingham (977,000) and Nottingham (267,000) put together.

[So those who have thought to play down the seriousness of the problem have themselves to blame whether some parts of the Media or the Press or the thousands of politically correct idiots who have GOT US INTO THIS MESS]

 

To continue:

 The rise does not even include those who sneak in illegally every year, or those who overstay their visas.

If they are taken in, it would push the total to well over 200,000 a year -or 2,000,000 each decade.

MigrationWatch chairman Sir Andrew Green said:

‘The failure to integrate our immigrant communities has brought us to a crisis in community relations. With immigration on the present scale it is impossible to achieve effective integration, especially as some immigrants are highly concentrated in particular areas.

‘In a recent BBC/Mori poll 23 per cent of Muslims said the area where they lived did not feel like Britain any more because of immigration.’

Sir Andrew said immigration, not asylum, was NOW the key factors behind the rise in the UK population-which stands at 60million [50 million in England].

Last week, another report revealed that, for the first time, there are 50million people in England alone.

Asylum seekers add around 40,000 to the population every year, but the rest is down to the record number of work permits and visa issued by the HOME OFFICE

 [WE feel that the above department of government should now be renamed the ‘FOREIGN’ OFFICE as its function appears to be in the main to make it easy for flooding the country with terrorists or illegal immigrants and leave the population to take the consequences.

 As we have already said elsewhere the Foreign Office of OUR MAN OF STRAW is also renowned for not doing its job in protecting our people overseas but has no compunction in supporting an illegal war.]

To continue:

Sir Andrew of MIGRATION WATCH said:

 ‘The Government trumpets the recent fall in asylum numbers but other forms of immigration now run FIVE TIMES the level of asylum claims.

‘It is essential to reduce the scale of immigration if we are to have any hope of a reasonably integrated society. This is now the broad approach in Denmark and Holland.

‘ It is late in the day in Britain but we must follow their example while there is still time.’

The MigrationWatch report is based on Government figures

These show that when [New] Labour came into power in 1997, net migration -the number arriving compared with those leaving was 59,000.

It rose steeply from 1998 to 1999, reaching a peak in 2002 -2001 of 194,000.

After dipping slightly for two years to about 150,000, it rose again in 2004 to 187,000.

This means it has directly added since 1997 -to the population 1,075,000, out of a total increase of

I, 521,000

It represents a 71 per cent of the rise, with the rest down to more births than deaths. If children born to migrants after they arrive are added, it reaches

1,239,000

Out of the total rise - or 81 per cent.

A Home Office spokesman said:

‘These figures reflect the reality of globalisation in the 21st century.’

[Well we say to the HOME or is it the ‘Foreign’ Office TELL IT TO THE DANES AND THE DUTCH and get their X X X X COMMENT.]

He further comments:

 ‘Many choose to study work or live for a time outside their home countries in the same way that UK residents spend periods overseas.’

‘Forecasts put forward by MigrationWatch are highly speculative.

‘It has made no allowance for illegal entrants who leave and makes the misleading assumption that the average levels of migration since 1997 will continue over ten years.’

[Font altered-bolding and underlining used -comments in brackets]

*  *  *

[OUR COMMENTS FOLLOW] 

[We are sure that had the spokesman spared more time to discuss the question in greater depth he would have wallowed in his own confusion. The general public have a choice

(A)     To believe a department of a Government renowned for its Deceit and Lies and Half-Truths.

Or

(B) AN Independent body led by a respected retired diplomat with experience of the procedures of the Home or is it the ‘Foreign’ Office and

who is doing a service to his country in revealing the con-trick being played on the traditionally tolerant people in this country who are now aware of the kind of Government which the new Cabinet Secretary has something to say in our bulletin ‘LOSS of TRUST in NEW LABOUR. (Daily Mail -September 3-2005.)

 There was a statement by the Shadow

Home Secretary -Dictionary meaning of Shadow includes:

Unreal thing; a person or thing wasted away almost to nothing; to hide.
Does this not tell us all we need to know of the CON Party the Can Offer Nothing Party - to the millions of disenchanted voters.

We will not burden you with their statement as it is counter to their attitude during the last General Election when a number of CON MP’s felt Immigration or Europe should not be an Issue and certainly NOT IRAQ.

ONLY P.R. - Proportional Representation will give a voice to millions of voters in the country who had relied on the so-called Conservative Party, which deserted conservative values long ago.

Their CON Party has so many spectrums of opinion within it that is unable to fight the BIG ISSUES because they must NOT be thought to be NASTY.

They deceived many of their loyal followers over the last 32 years and are still doing so.

As the CON PARTY cannot handle the most important issues of the day they deserve to go in decline. Many would say they are the

CAN Offer NOTHING party

They are against P.R. because they know that millions of people who once voted for them would find a Party to fight their corner to victory.

It is a undisputable fact that had the UKIP fought the General Election on P.R. terms they would have had seats in the House of Commons today.

THE CON Party have not learnt the lesson that loyalty to main issues which affect:

OUR CONSTITUTION

OUR FREEDOM

 OUR BORDERS

OUR INTEGRITY

 OUR FREE TRADE WORLD-WIDE

 OUR INDEPENDENT COUNTRY

are the issues of the moment and matter most.

The greater number of Politicians are laughing at the majority of voters in the country because they themselves are pleased with their well-paid jobs and pensions with the best club in town and are protected by the present unfair and undemocratic electoral system to continue to CON the people until the People realise and take action and force the P.R. debate in the country.

 In their cosy Tweedledee and Tweedledum world, which they have no wish to share with others, there will be others who will replace them in OUR House of Commons once P.R.-Proportional Representation brings REAL Democracy in OUR land.]

*

THE CHOICE IS YOURS

but

DON’T TAKE TOO LONG!

*

SEP/05

H.F.1449/1-B298

 
 
 UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

PART 4/2

AUGUST 2005

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY DIFFER

ISLAM honours six main prophets: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (Isha) and Mohammed, of whom Mohammed is considered the final and greatest of them all.  In the doctrine of Fitrah,  Muslims believe human beings are born good and then corrupted by outside influences, rather than born evil and redeemed  by God, as Christianity teaches.  Mohammed appeared to believe that every child is born Muslim and made Jewish or Christian by his parents. Substitutionary sacrifice has no place in Islam, which is a religion of works and outward show. One's good deeds have to outnumber one's bad deeds in order to gain admittance to the Islamic paradise (Sura 9:102) but Allah "punishes whom he pleases and he forgives whom he pleases" (Sura 5:40).

 Muslim folk law is that an angel sits on a man's right shoulder recording his good deeds and one on his left records his bad deeds.  There is no certainty of forgiveness in Islam, all is on the whim of Allah.  Neither is there any recognition that sin separates us from God, and therefore there is no need of reconciliation. there is the concept of sin, because Muslims know the Black Stone absorbs sins, but that sins can be forgiven by the merits of a divine Saviour is anathema to Allah.

Islam denies the Gospel account of the crucifixion, the very foundation of Christianity.  The Quran blames the Jews for killing the prophets (Sura 4:155) but two verses later has the Jews boasting that they killed 'Christ Jesus the son of Mary' and says "They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them... of a surety they killed him not" (Sura 4: 157)

From the principle of tawhid , worshipping another, such as Jesus, is the gravest sin anyone can commit against Allah (Sura 4:48)The Holy Trinity is an abomination in Islam, even though the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Quran as strengthening Jesus (2:87,253;5:110) and revealing the Quran itself (Sura 16:102)  However, it is possible that Mohammed thought Christians worshipped God, Mary as Jesus, as "Say not Trinity" is in a verse conc4erning Mary and Jesus (Sura 4:171). In any event, the Quran denounces as blasphemous any thought that Jesus in particular is equal to Allah (Sura 5:17,71, 75,116).  Islam even teaches that Mohammed, not the Holy Spirit. is the praiseworthy comforter whom  Jesus  would send (Sura 61:6).

The Quran insists Jesus is merely the son of Mary (Sura 2:87;3:45;5:78;33:7) and definitely not the son of Allah (Sura 9:30), although conceived miraculously in Mary's virginity (Sura 19:20), because it is beneath the glory of Allah even to have a son (Sura 4:171;19:34-35;112:3). The Quran has Jesus worshipping (Sura 4:172. and urging the worship )of Allah (Sura 3:525;112;43:63), acknowledging Allah as sole provider (Sura 5:115), puts Allah above Jesus (Sura 3:55), says that Allah taught Jesus the Gospel (Sura 3:48;5:46,110), says Jesus was just a man (Sura 3:59), who did not bring glad tidings' (Sura 5:19 not to be held up as an example (Sura 43:57) and not to be worshipped (Sura 9:31) no more than a messenger (Sura 2:87;5:75) or a prophet (Sura2:136;3:54;33:7;42:13) who prophesised that Mohammed and even urged the disciples, who were Muslims, as it happens, to be helpers of Allah (Sura 3:52;61:14). would come after him (Sura 61:6).

 

Christian Voice, PO Box 739A, Surbiton, KT6 5YA -

AUGUST 2005

Searches related to pew research muslim population

sweden muslim population 2050

islam in germany 2050

islam in europe 2050

muslim population in france 2017

muslim population in europe 2018

belgium muslim population

islam in europe today

muslim population

 

More!

IMMIGRATION FILE

 

 

H.F.1711/9

 

 

NEW AGE

OF

 INTOLERANCE

 

A.N. WILSON on the new dark age of intolerance: You must believe in gay marriage, you can't question abortion and as for transgender rights...

By A.n. Wilson For The Daily Mail

 September 30- 2017

The great French writer Voltaire famously said: 'I disapprove of what you say and would defend to the death your right to say it'. In this way, he encapsulated what it meant to be an enlightened human being — someone prepared to consider all points of view.

But in recent years the principle of freedom of speech, sacred since Voltaire's 18th century, has been lost, and this is surely one of the most sinister features of our times. It is as if we are entering a new Dark Age of Intolerance.

The irony is that this intolerance has come about as a result of what were initially good intentions. One of the things which makes me happy as I grow older is the thought that during my lifetime we have all tried to become a kinder society.

When I was a boy and a young man, for example, racist jokes were the norm on radio and TV. Now they would be unthinkable. Mockery of homosexuals, and the equation of being gay with being limp-wristed and camp, were absolute norms of comedy when I was growing up. Now no longer.

Such jokes have gone the way of boarding-houses which used to put 'NO BLACKS. NO DOGS. NO IRISH in the window'. Obviously, all civilised people feel pleased by this.

But somehow those initial good intentions — to be kinder to and more tolerant of others — have morphed into a political correctness that has had the very opposite effect.

Two notorious recent examples of this concerned the treatment of a Christian baker in Northern Ireland, and some Christian bed and breakfast owners in Berkshire. The baker had not wanted to make a wedding cake for a gay couple who were getting married. The B&B owners had refused to let a gay couple share the same room in their establishment. In each case they were successfully sued for unlawful discrimination.

Now, a gay activist would no doubt say this was a good thing, arguing that the baker and bed and breakfast owners' behaviour was comparable to the racism of the past. Yet this is surely getting things wholly out of proportion.

The baker was not persecuting homosexuals, as Hitler did. He was not saying they should be put in prison, as all Home Secretaries in Britain did until the Sixties. He was merely saying that, as a Christian, he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that two chaps tying the knot were doing something rather different, which is contrary to traditional Christian teaching.

Whatever you think about this matter, the Northern Irish baker and the B&B couple were merely holding on to Christian beliefs.

I don't happen to share their views myself, and think that if two people are rash enough to promise to live together for the rest of their lives, good luck to them, whether they are gay, straight, trans or anything else. But surely you can understand both sides of this dilemma, can't you?

Well, the answer, more and more in our intolerant society, is 'No'. My concern here is not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, transgender rights, our colonial history, or any of the other emotive issues that are subject to endless debate in the modern age.

It is about freedom of thought and speech; freedom to disagree in a liberal society; freedom to have thoughts which are different from the current orthodoxy.

What began as our very decent desire not to be nasty to those of a different ethnicity, or sexual proclivity, from ourselves, has turned into a world as intolerant as monkish Christianity in the days of the Dark Ages, when any freedom of thought is questioned.

Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems during the General Election, was asked repeatedly about his views on gay marriage. As a fairly old-fashioned Christian, he did not believe it was possible — marriage should be between a man and a woman.

As the leader of a modern political party, he knew that it would be political death to admit this. He was finally forced to resign.

This was a signal to the world that if you want to succeed in modern politics, it is simply not allowed to hold views which, until a very short time ago, were the consensus among the great majority of people in the Western world.

I use the words 'not allowed' advisedly. What is sinister about living in the new Dark Ages, however, is that it is by no means clear who is doing the allowing and not allowing. In Mao's China, it was obvious: thought crimes were ideas which contradicted the supreme leader.

In Britain today, however, it seems an army of self-appointed censors — from internet trolls to angry students, lobby groups, town hall officials, craven politicians and lawyers and Establishment figures, as well as a host of other sanctimonious and often bilious busy-bodies — have taken it upon themselves to police what we can and cannot think or say.

Not believing in abortion, like not believing in gay marriage, is now, unquestionably, a thought crime. It was hardly surprising that the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said he did not believe in abortion, because he is a man of conviction as well as a Roman Catholic, and this is the teaching of his Church. Yet his view was treated with incredulity and disdain by everyone from trolls and women's groups to the higher echelons of the political Establishment.

As in the case of abortion, debate is no longer allowed on transgender issues. There was a BBC2 Horizon Programme last Tuesday night called Being Transgender. The close-up shots of transgender surgery in a Californian hospital will not easily leave the mind.

We met a number of nice people who had decided for one reason or another that they were not the gender which they had once supposed. They were all undergoing some form of transformative medical treatment, either taking hormones or having surgery.

What made the programme strange as a piece of journalism was the fact that it did not contain one dissenting voice. Not one psychiatrist or doctor who said they doubted the wisdom of some of these procedures, especially in the very young.

Still less was there anyone like the redoubtable feminist and academic Dr Germaine Greer who once expressed her view that a man did not become a woman just because he had undergone transgender surgery — and was, as a result, decried from the rooftops with everything from petitions launched to stop her from speaking at university campuses to death threats.

Dr Greer had also been bold enough to say 'a great many women' shared her view, which is obviously true — a great many women do not think that transgender people have really changed sex. What has changed is that it is no longer permitted to say so.

A friend of mine who likes bathing in the women's pond on Hampstead Heath in London says that at least one person now uses the female changing rooms who is obviously in a stage of transition from man to woman, and is simply a hairy man wearing lipstick.

However uncomfortable this makes the women feel, they know that they cannot say anything.

There was an ugly incident lately at Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, which used to be the place where anyone could go and stand on a soap-box and hold any opinion they liked.

Speakers' Corner was a symbol of British Freedom of Speech. As a schoolboy, I had a Jewish friend whose grandfather used to take us there to listen to people proclaiming that the earth was flat, preachers praising Hitler, Stalin, and others saying whatever they liked. It was the freedom to do so, said the old man who had escaped Hitler's Germany, which made the very air of Britain so refreshing to him.

What would he have thought had he witnessed the scene earlier this month at Speakers' Corner when a 60-year-old woman called Maria was smacked in the face, allegedly by a transgender fanatic, while listening to a talk on planned reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. Reforms which would allow men to 'self-identify' as female, and enter women's changing rooms or refuges unchallenged.

For Maria, as for the intimidated women of Hampstead swimming pool, and for Germaine Greer, it is by no means clear that transgender people have changed their sex.

Transgender activists have labelled women like Maria TERFS — Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. When news of the assault on her reached the internet — ie instantaneously — the trolls began baying, like the bloodthirsty mob during the guillotine-executions of the French Revolution. 'Burn in a fire, TERF'. 'I want to f*** some TERFS up, they are no better than fascists'.

The use of the word 'fascist' is commonplace in our new Dark Age for anyone with whom you happen to disagree. You hear it all the time in the Brexit arguments which rage all around us and which I dread. As it happens, I voted Remain. But I do not regard Brexiteers as 'fascists', and many of their arguments — wanting to reclaim the power to make our own laws and control our own borders — are evidently sensible.

Yet I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Remainers say that Brexiteers are fascists. As a matter of historical fact, many of the keenest supporters of a united European superstate were actual fascists.

The only British politician who campaigned on the ticket of Europe A Nation during the Fifties was Sir Oswald Mosley who was leader of the British Union of Fascists. But then, today's PC censors don't let facts get in their way of bigotry.

Branding anyone you disagree with a fascist; hitting people in the face; tweeting and blogging abuse behind the cowardly anonymity of the internet — these are the ugly weapons used to stifle any sort of debate. And it is often in the very places where ideas should be exchanged and examined that the bigotry is at its worst: our universities.

This week on the Radio 4's Today programme, we heard James Caspian, a quietly-spoken, kindly psychotherapist, describing what has become a cause celebre at Bath Spa University.

He has been working for some years with people who for one reason or another have begun the process of gender-transition, and then come to regret it.

Caspian is evidently not a judgmental man. He wanted to write a thesis on this subject from a sympathetic and dispassionate point of view.

What makes people feel so uncomfortable with their own apparent gender that they wish to undergo painful and invasive surgery to change it? What makes people then come to reassess their first idea? These are surely legitimate questions about a subject many of us can't quite comprehend.

I have two friends who started out as men, and decided in mid-life that they were really women, or wanted to become women, which is what they have done. I do not really understand what has happened to them, even though they have tried to explain it to me.

Surely a man like James Caspian, who has worked with transgender men and women, should be encouraged by a university to explain this area of medicine or psychology?

But no. The university, having initially approved of his idea for a thesis, then turned down his application. 'The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media, and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university,' he told Radio 4 listeners. 'They also added it's better not to offend people.'

This is all of a piece with students at Oxford wanting to pull down the statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes from his old college, Oriel, on the grounds that he was racist.

Rather than having a reasoned debate weighing the evils of racist colonialism against Rhodes's benevolence, the student at the forefront of the movement — who had actually accepted a £40,000 Rhodes scholarship funded by the fortune the colonialist gave to Oxford — wanted to pull down the statue.

This is the same attitude of mind as that which led monks in the Dark Ages to destroy the statues of pagan gods and goddesses, or the Taliban to do the same to age-old Buddhist artefacts.

Reason, debate, seeing more than one side to an argument, surely these are the foundations of all that has fashioned the great values of the West since the Enlightenment started in the 18th century with an explosion of new ideas in science, philosophy, literature, and modern rational thought that ushered in the Age of Reason.

Realising that human actions and ideas are often mixtures of good and bad — isn't this what it means to have a grown-up mind? Surely we should be allowed to discuss matters without being accused of thought crime?

In universities, as at Speakers' Corner and in the public at large, there used to be the robust sense that sticks and stones may break our bones but words can never hurt us. Now, the 'hurt-feelings' card is regularly played to stifle any debate.

Little by little, we are allowing the Dark Ages of intolerance to come again. We should not be letting this happen.

We should be able to say: 'We disapprove of your views — on Europe, on Transgender Issues, on Islam, on absolutely anything, but we defend to the death your right to express them'.


 

Full article

 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4935418/A-N-WILSON-new-dark-age-intolerance.html#ixzz4uAFieZ6T
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[COMMENTS-HIGHLIGHTING - ARE OURS!]

 

SEPTEMBER 30-2017

H.F.1329

 

A MAN of VISION-A LEARNED PATRIOT for whom LONDON DOCKERS MARCHED on WESTMINSTER in his SUPPORT-HISTORY has VALIDATED his FEARS.

*

 

Words

Enoch would never have uttered

 

by

Andrew Alexander

COLUMN

[Daily Mail- Friday, November 9, 2007]

 

 

THERE is a long standing form of moral evasion popular among politicians - and some journalists too - which has always intrigued me , if only for its

IMPUDENCE

It involves Enoch Powell's so called 'river of blood' speech in 1968, whose recollection has forced the resignation of the Tory candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis. The speech itself, incidentally, was notable for understating the prospective immigrant population.

 

'Ah, yes, you see,' the cry of the political elite has long run (I read it again last week),

'It was that speech , that phrase, which made rational discussion of immigration impossible.'

Note the implication that these people had been indulging in a rational debate on immigration only to be thrown off course by Powell's hand-grenade.

Let me assure you with every fibre of my being that a rational discussion was just what leading politicians were avoiding.

THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

by both front benches

-which drove Powell to fury.

Far from making thoughtful debate impossible, his speech and reaction made it

VERY URGENT

As an admirer and friend of Powell I was myself dismayed by that sanguinary phrase. But the real shock lay in the public reaction.

Dockers from the East End marched on Westminster demanding  to protest at

TED HEATH

sacking Powell from the Shadow Cabinet.

Opinion polls showed massive backing for Powell, to say nothing of the largest politician's postbag on record, in which the overwhelming majority supported him.

THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

sprang from the fact that the problem had become so daunting. Effective action would have to be on a major scale , admit to previous failures and would risk, indeed ensure, denunciation from every pulpit in the land (lay and clerical)

It was easier for politicians and commentators, all secure in their leafy suburbs, to assure the public that the problem would be solved by

INTEGRATION

NOW, however, the genie was out of the bottle. So in the 1970 Tory manifesto Heath promised

'No further large scale permanent immigration'.

BUT

of course, there was.

 

The 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act

 

TOO LITTLE and TOO LATE

had allowed those already here or able to secure work vouchers to bring in their families and 'dependant relatives'.

THEY CAME IN SWARMS

 

PARENTS

GRANDPARENTS

UNCLES

and

SISTERS

and their

COUSINS

and their AUNTS.

They came from the sub-continent where birth certificates were far form common and anyone could claim a blood relationship. Money readily changed hands. So that Tories changed the law to say that only

Spouses

Fiances

and

Fiancees

would be allowed.

 

But by 1976, the level of intercontinental match-making had reached such a level the Foreign Office dispatched a senior official to the sub-continent to assess the

PROBLEM.

He observed that allowing in married and affianced partners would open up a whole new group of applicants -'subsequently entitling

PARENTS

GRANDPARENTS

and allegedly distressed

RELATIVES

to seek entry.

IT WOULD BE LIKE BAILING OUT THE OCEAN.

 

SO AN EFFORT was made to tighten up the rules but it was -how did you guess?

TOO LITTLE-TOO LATE

Since Heath's promise

TO CLOSE THE DOOR

more than

3,000,000

non-British immigrants have arrived

IN THIS COUNTRY

And traffic in spouses between such places such as

BRADFORD and BANGALORE

HAS CONTINUED APACE

 

Two other factors have long overhung any rational debate on

IMMIGRATION

Most obvious, in an echo of the Salem witchcraft trials, has been the tactic of pointing at someone and shrieking

'RACIST'

-the sin against the Holy Ghost - and even calling for

POLICE ACTION

Believe me , this accusation has long scared the wits out of

FLEET STREET EDITORS

-their legal departments

media commentators generally and politicians of every shade.

IT HAS BEEN CENSORSHIP BY ANOTHER NAME

-the public has been duly cowed.

A technical problem has added to this because the word

RACE

is SHORT -and EASY to FIT into a HEADLINE -while IMMIGRATION isn't. So arguments about IMMIGRATION were labelled in innumerable headlines as being about

'RACE'

The other problem which hindered meaningful debate was that immigrants had come to form a grouping of such

SIZE and IDENTITY

that politicians on all sides thought well worth wooing, indeed crawling to.

NOW

David Cameron has woken up, in intervals between sacking Tory front benchers and Tory candidates for 'racism' to the Government's vulnerability on

IMMIGRATION.

Ministers have trebled the number of work vouchers available to foreign workers over ten years to a level running at

150,000 a year

 

Cameron has no serious solution to

IMMIGRATION

but as the saying is, every bit helps.

 

The supreme irony of this week's fuss around Powell's 1968 speech is that recently had our supposedly internationalist Prime Minister promising

'BRITISH JOBS for BRITISH WORKERS.

Enoch would not have touched such a phrase with a bargepole.

*

 

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underling Used-Comments in Brackets]

*

[Under PR- Proportional Representation the Immigration levels would have been curtailed because the Government of the Day would feel obliged to take a stronger line in order to gather up the votes and back to power. But as we all know it has been this single-minded attitude of the tripartite in your

HOUSE OF COMMONS

to keep power within their grasp and to hell to any outsiders.

Most of the problems in our society over the past 40 years have occurred because of the determination of the party in power to take what they consider a more lenient line on policy whether it is

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

ABORTION

IMMIGRATION

and no doubt dozens of other matters which has resulted in absolute chaos in the above areas.

If they are able to claw in another small section of the community which will be ready voters they will change anything what ever the consequences to the people and the country.

We have been calling for the introduction of

PR in our PARLIAMENT

for many years as a number of bulletins on our website can testify but the very organisations that could achieve this necessary alteration -the numerous political organisations in our country appear not to be interested. And that is the PROBLEM

and until we change the system we shall see the constant over-regulation by the Government and the hair-brained schemes adopted by the so-called OPPOSITION which lays a path of problems in the future.

Of course if PR had been in place over the last four decades there would not have been the

WAR in IRAQ

or even

Mission Impossible in Afghanistan.

 

The Abortion Bill would only have passed if much greater safeguards had been put in place.

 

Immigration would have been freely discussed and sensible measures adopted to allow controlled entry ONLY and those who were prepared to INTEGRATE and NOT THREATEN the very existence of the COUNTRY that they were adopting.

 

Abolition of Capital Punishment Bill failed to honour the feelings in the country that if the Death Sentence was abolished that MURDER would mean a LIFE SENTENCE where the circumstances warrant it. Even before the abolition of the penalty over 50 per cent of murderers had their sentence commuted to life imprisonment and that didn't mean twelve or even three years or less today. The liberal establishment have much to answer for ,whether in believing that prisons should be five star hotels or that a fine that is never paid is the answer to the increased

MURDERS- GUN /KNIFE CRIME- BURGLARY- ROBBERY-THEFT-ASSAULT and whatever.

 

 

Our so-called Criminal Justice system would have been unable to treat prisoners as visitors and victims as criminals and there would have been Bobbies of the Beat- more prisons, and punishment to fit the crime.

Over the past 40 years the majority of your politicians in

YOUR HOUSE of COMMONS

 have been feathering their own nests to the point today in November 2007 there are many of them on a comfortable

£250,000 [at least] a year.

They fiddle their expenses-They lie about their expenditure-They lie about the true facts of the EU. In fact many of them lie about almost everything. They only work for a little over half a year .They have gold-plated pensions and they will be comfortable for the rest of their lives. As for what happens to their country as far as many of them are concerned our country had never existed.

Of course in such a bedlam there are a small group of men and women of

Honour and Integrity

who alas are ignored by their colleagues -some say they even detest them. Guilty secrets no doubt.

 

As for Europe the lies could not have been hidden if there had been eurosceptic parties at Westminster.  And the CONSPIRACY that has taken place since 1972 would not have been in place and our NATIONHOOD and COUNTRY threatened with extinction as will be the case in your Parliament in the early months of 2008.

*

THE ENEMY WITHIN IS YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT WHICH INTENDS TO SELL YOUR COUNTRY TO FOREIGN POWERS.

November-2007.

*

H.F.1594

 

 

 
 UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

PART 4/2

AUGUST 2005

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY DIFFER

ISLAM honours six main prophets: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (Isha) and Mohammed, of whom Mohammed is considered the final and greatest of them all.  In the doctrine of Fitrah,  Muslims believe human beings are born good and then corrupted by outside influences, rather than born evil and redeemed  by God, as Christianity teaches.  Mohammed appeared to believe that every child is born Muslim and made Jewish or Christian by his parents. Substitutionary sacrifice has no place in Islam, which is a religion of works and outward show. One's good deeds have to outnumber one's bad deeds in order to gain admittance to the Islamic paradise (Sura 9:102) but Allah "punishes whom he pleases and he forgives whom he pleases" (Sura 5:40).

 Muslim folk law is that an angel sits on a man's right shoulder recording his good deeds and one on his left records his bad deeds.  There is no certainty of forgiveness in Islam, all is on the whim of Allah.  Neither is there any recognition that sin separates us from God, and therefore there is no need of reconciliation. there is the concept of sin, because Muslims know the Black Stone absorbs sins, but that sins can be forgiven by the merits of a divine Saviour is anathema to Allah.

Islam denies the Gospel account of the crucifixion, the very foundation of Christianity.  The Quran blames the Jews for killing the prophets (Sura 4:155) but two verses later has the Jews boasting that they killed 'Christ Jesus the son of Mary' and says "They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them... of a surety they killed him not" (Sura 4: 157)

From the principle of tawhid , worshipping another, such as Jesus, is the gravest sin anyone can commit against Allah (Sura 4:48)The Holy Trinity is an abomination in Islam, even though the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Quran as strengthening Jesus (2:87,253;5:110) and revealing the Quran itself (Sura 16:102)  However, it is possible that Mohammed thought Christians worshipped God, Mary as Jesus, as "Say not Trinity" is in a verse conc4erning Mary and Jesus (Sura 4:171). In any event, the Quran denounces as blasphemous any thought that Jesus in particular is equal to Allah (Sura 5:17,71, 75,116).  Islam even teaches that Mohammed, not the Holy Spirit. is the praiseworthy comforter whom  Jesus  would send (Sura 61:6).

The Quran insists Jesus is merely the son of Mary (Sura 2:87;3:45;5:78;33:7) and definitely not the son of Allah (Sura 9:30), although conceived miraculously in Mary's virginity (Sura 19:20), because it is beneath the glory of Allah even to have a son (Sura 4:171;19:34-35;112:3). The Quran has Jesus worshipping (Sura 4:172. and urging the worship )of Allah (Sura 3:525;112;43:63), acknowledging Allah as sole provider (Sura 5:115), puts Allah above Jesus (Sura 3:55), says that Allah taught Jesus the Gospel (Sura 3:48;5:46,110), says Jesus was just a man (Sura 3:59), who did not bring glad tidings' (Sura 5:19 not to be held up as an example (Sura 43:57) and not to be worshipped (Sura 9:31) no more than a messenger (Sura 2:87;5:75) or a prophet (Sura2:136;3:54;33:7;42:13) who prophesised that Mohammed and even urged the disciples, who were Muslims, as it happens, to be helpers of Allah (Sura 3:52;61:14). would come after him (Sura 61:6).

 

Christian Voice, PO Box 739A, Surbiton, KT6 5YA -

AUGUST 2005

Searches related to pew research muslim population

sweden muslim population 2050

islam in germany 2050

islam in europe 2050

muslim population in france 2017

muslim population in europe 2018

belgium muslim population

islam in europe today

muslim population

 

More!

IMMIGRATION FILE

 

 

H.F.1711/9
 
 
 

 UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

PART 16

AUGUST 2005

ISLAMIC AMBITION

In his 1934 book 'Sex and Culture the anthropologist J.D.Unwin studied 86 different cultures from a period of 5,000 years and concluded that chastity and fidelity in "strict marital monogamy" were central to any strong, healthy society. Indeed, no society flourished for more than three generations without it. Britain is now nearing the end of the second generation. Once the third generation was out, the society died, usually by being taken over by another, monogamous people. "I know of no exceptions to this rule.

Could the fiercely monogamous Islam be the culture that takes over from the secular humanist culture of the Western world? Will we see  the establishment of an Islamic State in Britain and the imposition of Sha'ria. This author believes the British Establishment would not  allow such a thing to happen, jealous  as its leaders are of their grip on power.  However, events have a habit  of taking politicians by surprise, and there is no lack  of ambition amongst Muslims.  It is only necessary to look at tower hamlets  to see what happens when 'ordinary Muslims' take power.

Tower Hamlets [in 2005] is 36% Muslim, and yet Muslims are in a majority in the ruling Labour group and on the Council as a whole, and the Mayor is Muslim.  Presumably the Muslim councillors can be regarded as 'ordinary Muslims.' Once in power, they attempted to have  wards renamed to eliminate references to Christianity (Trinity ward disappeared ), and a proposal to twin the London Borough with Jenin, a Palestinian hot-bed of terrorism, was narrowly averted.

The Borough is able to use the funding it allocates to advance Islamic programmes and cultural societies, force the closure of Christian schools and ensure that Muslims control everything for which the local authority has responsibility.

There are 14 Muslim community organisations in partnership with Tower Hamlets Borough Council. In addition to the 2 mosques, the Ahmadiya Muslim Association has as its purpose:

Practising Islamic knowledge... to upkeep a moral society', the junior Muslim Circle provided' religious education' to 8-14 year olds, a Madrassah has 'mother tongue [Arabic?] and study support classes', and the Shahjalal Centre is there  to 'meet the needs of the Muslim community' with 'prayer space' and 'education for children'

Couple Islamic ambition for a Khilafah with a decadent British society whose leaders dare not speak out against Islam or oppose 'multiculturalism', and Islamic advances can be made.  Mosques can be built and expanded, Islamic schools established, cultural centres set up, and large amounts of public money can fund studies which do not benefit the United Kingdom..

*  *  *

Christian Voice, PO Box 739A, Surbiton, KT6 5YA -

AUGUST 2005

Searches related to pew research muslim population

sweden muslim population 2050

islam in germany 2050

islam in europe 2050

muslim population in france 2017

muslim population in europe 2018

belgium muslim population

islam in europe today

muslim population

 

More!

IMMIGRATION FILE

About 903,000 results
 

    Muslim Population Growth in Europe - Pew Forum on Religion and ...

    www.pewforum.org/2017/11/.../europes-growing-muslim-population/
    ‎
    29 Nov 2017 ... To see how the size of Europe's Muslim population may change in the coming
    decades, Pew Research Center has modeled three scenarios ...
     
    ‎Germany is top destination ... - ‎How Europe's Muslim ...

    Europe's Muslim population will continue to grow - Pew Research ...

    www.pewresearch.org/.../europes-muslim-population-will-continue-to-grow-but-how-much-depends-on-migration/
    ‎
    4 Dec 2017 ... While Muslims are still a relatively small share of Europe's population (roughly 5
    %), they are set to continue rising as a percentage of Europe's ...
     

    5 facts about the Muslim population in Europe - Pew Research Center

    www.pewresearch.org/.../5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/
    ‎
    29 Nov 2017 ... In the coming decades, the Muslim share of Europe's population is expected to
    grow – and could more than double.
     

    Muslims and Islam - Pew Research Center

    www.pewresearch.org/.../muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
    ‎
    9 Aug 2017 ... Indonesia is currently the country with the world's largest Muslim population, but
    Pew Research Center projects that India will have that ...
     

    The size of the European Muslim population in 2050 depends ...

    www.pewresearch.org/...muslim-population.../ft_17-12-04_muslimpopulation_thesize_1/
    ‎
    1 Dec 2017 ... Europe's Muslim population will continue to grow – but how much depends on
    migration. The size of the European Muslim population in 2050 ...
     

    A new estimate of U.S. Muslim population - Pew Research Center

    www.pewresearch.org/.../new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/
    ‎
    3 Jan 2018 ... An estimated 3.45 million Muslims of all ages were living in the United States in
    2017, accounting for about 1.1% of the country's total ...
     

    Why Muslims are the world's fastest-growing religious group

    www.pewresearch.org/.../why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/
    ‎
    6 Apr 2017 ... Pew Research Center ... In 2015, Muslims made up 24.1% of the global
    population. ... of the seven other major religious groups analyzed in the study. ...
    The growth of the Muslim population also is helped by the fact that ...
     

    Muslims and Islam | Pew Research Center

    www.pewresearch.org/topics/muslims-and-islam/
    ‎
    Most Western Europeans favor at least some restrictions on Muslim women's ...
    live in India, there also are substantial populations of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs,
     ...
     

    Muslim population in some EU countries could triple, says report ...

    https://www.theguardian.com/.../muslim-population-in-europe-could-more-than-double
    29 Nov 2017 ... The report, Europe's Growing Muslim Population, shows a stark west-east divide.
    ... 9.3. 16.2. Guardian graphic | Source: Pew Research Center ...
     

    Muslim population growth - Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth
    ‎
    Muslim population growth refers to the topic of population growth of Muslims
    worldwide. .... Pew Research Center projects a slowing down of Muslim
    population growth in China than in previous years, with Muslim women in China
    having a 1.7 ...
     

 

 

 

H.F.1711/16
 
 

 

LITTLEJOHN
 

 

To hell with these traitor's human rites

 

 

To hell with these traitors' yuman rites: RICHARD LITTLEJOHN says it's good to finally have a Defence Secretary who speaks in plain English

By Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail

 December 8,2017

Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, arrives for the weekly Cabinet meeting last month

This column has long maintained that those who travelled abroad to join Izal should be stripped of both their passports and their citizenship and denied re-entry to this country.

Ideally, they should be put up against a wall and shot through the head in whichever disgusting desert hell-hole they have chosen to make their home.

Failing that they should be blown to Kingdom Come by a drone strike or Hellfire missile.

That’s what I wrote back in October, after the Tory MP Rory Stewart said the only way to deal with home-grown terrorists was to kill them.

It was refreshing to hear a mainstream politician, even if he is only a junior minister, agreeing with me. I’ve been advocating the same hardline approach ever since hundreds of young British citizens flocked to the Middle East to wage holy war.

Fortunately, our new Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson feels the same way. ‘A dead terrorist can’t cause any harm to Britain,’ he told the Mail this week.

Williamson has given his full support to the RAF and special forces who are believed to be working their way through a ‘kill list’ of jihadis before they can bring murder and mayhem back to the streets of Britain.

Reassuringly, he promised: ‘Our job in terms of eliminating them will not stop this year, will not stop next year, it is something we have got to continue to pursue. This is about keeping Britain safe.’

Any who escape with their lives will have their passports taken away to stop them crossing international borders and re-entering this country.

Hallelujah!

At last we’ve got a Defence Secretary who speaks in plain English not just for the Armed Forces, but also for the British people.

Oh, how the old sweats mocked when 41-year-old Williamson, then Chief Whip, was appointed to head the MoD just over a month ago. He’s a wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper, who knows nothing about defence, they grizzled. Now, though, they can choke on their disdain.
 

In Gavin Williamson, we’ve got a Defence Secretary who speaks in plain English not just for the Armed Forces, but also for the British people, writes Richard Littlejohn

Williamson has already promised a showdown over funding with the Treasury, which would be happy to see the strength of the British Army cut to the bone until it could fit into the back of an armoured personnel carrier — if we’ve got any left.

Spreadsheet Phil, who was Defence Secretary before he became Chancellor, is willing to hand over at least £40 billion (more than Britain’s entire defence budget) to his beloved EU as part of a blackmail — sorry, divorce — payment, while at the same time slashing a further £2 billion from spending on the Armed Forces.

Williamson retaliated by banning Hammond from using the RAF as his own private jet fleet, because the Treasury hasn’t paid the bills.

It might seem petty, but it’s a significant statement of intent. Nothing, repeat nothing, is more vital than the defence of the realm.

Naturally, the hand-wringing yuman rites brigade begs to differ.

 

Some people will try anything to lose weight. A dinner lady from Ipswich has just been nicked for drink-driving after being caught three times over the limit.

In mitigation she said she had been drinking vodka because she heard the property TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp say it had helped her shed a bit of timber.

Some years ago, I had dinner with the late Jeremy Beadle who was on a crash diet before an upcoming series.

It involved eating a plain baked potato three times a day, washed down with a bottle of vodka.

He lost four days.

Max Hill, a liberal QC from central casting, who was hired to review our anti-terror laws, bleats that home-grown jihadis are guilty of nothing more than ‘naivety’ and should be allowed to come home and be ‘reintegrated’ into society. Hundreds have been able to drift back to Britain already.

It emerged yesterday that MI5 only has the capacity to monitor round the clock 50 or 60 of those considered the greatest threat.

Yet how much safer this country would be if they could all have been killed before they had the chance to ‘reintegrate’ themselves by blowing up a Tube train, mowing down pedestrians in a stolen van or stabbing to death late-night revellers.

The Left are predictably squealing with outrage over Williamson’s remarks. Labour claims that ‘eliminating’ these terrorists is extra-judicial murder and in breach of the Geneva Convention.

But the Geneva Convention was designed for conventional warfare. It should apply only to those who agree to abide by the Geneva Convention. Izal may call itself a ‘state’ and rally behind a fancy flag, but it is little more than a gang of bloodthirsty desperados who get high on torture, rape and mass murder.

Calling them ‘combatants’ is too polite. I don’t even accept they’re ‘British’, even if they were born here and carry British passports.

They could not be further removed from the vast majority of loyal and law-abiding British Muslims living here.

These jihadis are not our ‘fellow citizens’; they’re traitors — our sworn enemies.

Their allegiance is to an international terrorist organisation and their own warped interpretation of a global religion.

As Gavin Williamson says: ‘They hate everything that Britain stands for, hate our values, hate that Britain is a beacon to the world of democracy and tolerance.’

The sooner they are all wiped off the face of the earth, the better.

Orchestral manoeuvres

Having exposed so much ‘inappropriate’ behaviour in politics, entertainment and the media, the torchlit ‘historic’ sex crimes posse have turned their attention to the world of classical music.

James Levine, conductor of the Metropolitan Opera in New York, has been suspended following a complaint that he had sexual contact with a teenager in 1986. 

Given that where America leads, Britain follows, it can only be a matter of time before the Jimmy Savile squad gets in on the act.

 

James Levine, conductor of the Metropolitan Opera in New York, has been suspended following a complaint that he had sexual contact with a teenager in 1986

How long until we see a senior police officer standing outside the Albert Hall, appealing for ‘victims’ of Sir Henry Wood to come forward?

Soon they’ll be rounding up dozens of violinists, oboe and piccolo players, accused of ‘historic’ offences in the orchestra pit. We’ll have to learn a whole new meaning for the expression ‘fiddler’s elbow’.

An African migrant jailed twice for sex attacks in Britain has been awarded £110,000 compensation after his own country refused to take him back.

Eh? Just run that by me again. In what parallel universe are British taxpayers forced to give a small fortune to a foreign criminal we are trying to kick out of the country? How did that happen?

Aliou Bah, 28, came here from Guinea in 2007 to join his father. He was subsequently convicted of two sexual assaults, for which he was sentenced to 18 months and two years respectively.

Since the end of the second sentence he has been held for 21 months in an immigration detention centre while the authorities tried to deport him. But Guinea said they didn’t want him and simply refused to process his travel documents. It turns out we haven’t been able to deport anyone to Guinea since 2006.

And because he had previously been granted asylum, a court has ruled that he was detained unlawfully. Even the judge thought it was insane, but rules is rules.

I’m assuming that Bah has also received tens of thousands of pounds in legal aid, not just for defending him in the two sex cases, but also to bring his claim for compensation.

Meanwhile, neither of his victims has received a penny and yet he has been released back on to the streets, where he could strike again, with a cheque for 110 grand in his back pocket.

Apparently, there are almost 6,000 convicted foreign criminals free in this country, all of whom have been released despite being candidates for deportation.

We don’t even know where some of them have come from. Hundreds have simply vanished.

Soft-touch Britain? You couldn’t make it up.

One of the unalloyed joys of the freedom of movement has been the way our city centres have been transformed by colourful newcomers, who make such a valuable contribution to our society.

Where would we be without the gangs of exotic Eastern European gypsies who have set up camp here?

Only this week, Roma beggars surrounded Prince and Princess Michael of Kent as they left a Mayfair nightclub. The Prince gave them a tenner, but they kept pestering him.

Mayfair is a popular pitch, where beggars believe there are rich pickings. And it’s not just foreigners, either. My wife and a friend were walking through the area last week, not far from Claridge’s hotel, when they were accosted by a vagrant with a broad Glaswegian accent.

‘Hey, missus. Can ya spare twenty-five thousand pound?’

When they stopped laughing, they gave him a quid.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5158115/To-hell-traitors-yuman-rites.html#ixzz50fwiEAxn
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

firmness

'THE GREATEST FIRMNESS IS THE GREATEST MERCY.'

Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth (1807-32) Am.Poet

 

*

'Firmness, both  in suffering and exertion, is a character which I would wish to possess - I have always despised the whining yelp of complaint, and the cowardly feeble resolve.'-

 

BURNS,Robert(1759-96) Scot poet

 

[THERESA May - must NOT Kow-Tow to the present advocates of Hitler's plan for German domination of EUROPE. Our country has not fought two WORLD WARS with that FOE not to understand that FIRMNESS she can UNDERSTAND.  Other once FREE NATION STATES in EUROPE are watching a once WORLD POWER and may in the not to distant future require our HELP and SUPPORT to

LEAVE

the

BEAST of BERLIN

 which we can best offer

 if

BREXIT means BREXIT

 

AS

 

THERESA MAY- SINCERELY  PROMISED.]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

DECEMBER 9-2014

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

DECEMBER 9-2014

H.F.1409

 

 
We British Muslims have got to speak OUT!

by

Dr Taj Hargey-Director of the Muslim Educational Centre in Oxford.

THERE is nothing in ISLAM that CAN JUSTIFY the taking of an INNOCENT LIFE,  NOTHING that CAN CONDONE what MURDEROUS ISLAMIC STATE FANATICS have DONE in its NAME. This GANG of CRIMINALS has brought OUR FAITH into GRAVE DISPUTE and BESMIRCHED its HONOUR.

Muslim leaders must act before it is

TO LATE!

We must demonstrate that this horrendous slaughter in Paris was not sanctioned by us or perpetuated with our blessing.  And we must prove to young impressionable Muslims that

WE DO NOT CONDONE THIS CARNAGE

The French Muslim community should have acked morwe assertively already. They should be marching in the streets, chanting

' NOT IN MY NAME!

,NOT IN THE NAME OF ISLAM

But instead, there is an eerie

SILENCE

They are doing nothing tangible to oppose the

POLITICAL IDEOLOGY

from

SAUDI ARABIA

and which sadly has infected

EUROPEAN ISLAM

In Great britain, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Islamic Society of Britain should be bussing in Muslims from SCotland, Wal;es, all over the United Kingdom to

PROTEST in our CAPITAL

at what happened. They should be organising a mass

NOT in our NAME'

March of all Muslims, irrespective of sect or denomination, condemning IS unreservedly for all it stands for.

A tiny rally in

TRAVALGAR SQUARE

on Saturday night  is not good enough. Prominent Muslim organisations need to

SPEARHEAD the FIGHT

against

IS

and the ugliness and intolerance

THAT IT REPRESENTS.

[TO BE CONTINED]

*

We British Muslims have got to speak out, says DR TAJ HARGEY  

By Dr Taj Hargey For The Daily Mail - November 16th 2015, 1:31:58 am

 

 

 

Daily Mail,Monday, November 16,2015

 
 
 

It's one of Europe's most proudly liberal nations. So why is Denmark

 

banning the burka and

 

threatening to end benefits for migrants whose children

 

 

don't integrate?

  • 'Ghetto' Mjolnerparken is set to be ‘eradicated’ by 2030,
  • following the introduction of
  • controversial laws aimed at protecting ‘Danishness’
  • All families in ghettos will send toddlers to day centres to learn
  • Danish values
  • Non-Western immigrants grown from 50,000 in 1980 to almost
  • 500,000 today 

 

 

By Special Report From Sue Reid In Copenhagen For The Daily Mail

 

 July 17, 2018

 

e-mail

 

View
comment

 

Juicy pomegranates are piled outside the entrance to a supermarket in Norrebro, a district of Copenhagen. There are queues of customers at the till most of the day and into the early hours, buying Middle Eastern pastries, exotic fruit, dates and ice-cream which remind them of home.

Yet beside the pomegranates is a deep hole in the metal door frame. It was made one night by a bullet fired from a 9mm pistol by a member of a drug gang guarding his trading pitch near by.

Ismail Schbaita, a 55-year-old originally from Palestine who helps runs the supermarket, remembers the chilling moment last March only too well. ‘The gunman was high on drugs. Luckily, his bullet missed the staff and the customers. Gangs are always shooting each other around here.’

For Norrebro is a dangerous area of the Danish capital. A stone’s throw from the supermarket is the city’s most notorious housing estate, Mjolnerparken, where mothers told me this week they are afraid to let their children walk to the sweet shop alone because of the knifings and shootings.

Mjolnerparken, with its drab apartment blocks and shabby streets, has been categorised as a ghetto by the Danish Government.

 

Zaynab (centre, pictured with friends Amira and Sabrina) lives in Mjolnerparken, Copenhagen's most notorious housing estate, which has been categorised as a ghetto by the Danish Government

 

These ghettos are due to be ‘eradicated’ by 2030, following the introduction of controversial laws aimed at protecting ‘Danishness’ and ridding the country of so-called ‘parallel’ societies (pictured: Mjolnerparken)

Across the country, 21 other such places with high crime rates, soaring unemployment and more than 50 per cent non-Western residents have been given the same name. They are due to be ‘eradicated’ by 2030, following the introduction of controversial laws aimed at protecting ‘Danishness’ and ridding the country of so-called ‘parallel’ societies.

Later this year, legislation will force all families living in these ghettos to send their toddlers, as young as one year old, to approved day centres to learn the Danish language and Danish values.

The children will have to complete 25 hours of compulsory state education and, while the primary focus will be on language skills and learning, the plan is to educate the mainly Muslim children in the Danish way of life, as well as to give instruction on religious holidays, Christmas and Easter, and their importance in the Christian calendar.

Parents who fail to sign up have been told they could lose their child benefits.

This is the radical policy of a government that, like so many others in Europe, has accepted hundreds of thousands of migrants over recent years and is trying desperately to tackle the problems of integration. Indeed, the challenges Denmark is wrestling with are replicated across the EU as countries including Greece, Italy, Austria and Germany struggle to assimilate large numbers of

 

 

 

 

One disturbing common factor in these countries has been the emergence of strong far-Right political parties, and a return of the kind of ugly nationalism many hoped had died after World War II.

Denmark has long been proud of its reputation as a liberal, tolerant nation. But the fact that it has been forced to introduce tough laws to accelerate integration of migrants shows such tolerance has its limits.

Inevitably, some say the new laws are ‘racist’. They include a burka ban from next month, with fines of up to £1,200 for repeat transgressors. In the inner-city ghettos — where last year two thirds of residents were non-Western immigrants — there will be double the normal penalties for those who commit crimes.

Police will be given the freedom to conduct more intense surveillance of residents in order to curb extremism and violence, while migrant parents who send older children on trips back to their home countries in the Middle East and Africa could face four-year jail sentences if suspected of radicalisation.

The centre-Right Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, says these new laws are necessary because the number of first and second-generation non-Western immigrants has grown from 50,000 in 1980 to almost 500,000 today — a sizeable proportion, in a country of only 5.7 million people.

Rasmussen has said: ‘People with the same problems have clumped together. We have (until now) let it go, perhaps with the naive idea that integration would happen on its own over time ... but it hasn’t.’

 

Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen says these new laws are necessary because the number of first and second-generation non-Western immigrants has grown from 50,000 in 1980 to almost 500,000 today — a sizeable proportion, in a country of only 5.7 million people 

Inger Stojberg, the hardline integration minister, has gone further. The crackdown on ghettos — a word with awful Nazi overtones, to which the Danish policymakers seem oblivious — is a centrepiece of her legislative reforms.

When Stojberg clocked up her 50th amendment to the laws relating to migrants, she baked a celebratory cake and posted a smiling picture of herself with it online.

All this sounds very un-Danish. Yet more and more people here — even some migrants — seem to agree with her. Mr Schbaita, at the bullet-hit supermarket, told me: ‘It is too late to stop the problem of parallel societies in my lifetime. But I hope the new laws will help future generations live together.

‘The problems in the ghettos are caused by ignorance about Western ways and a lack of education.’

He says employers won’t hire anyone who says they live in Mjolnerparken. This means the residents are often poor, at a loose end and ‘turn to crime’.

He says migrants were originally placed in Mjolnerparken because the Government wanted to give the mainly Muslim incomers a sense of community. ‘It was a humanitarian act, a kindness. But now the politicians are asking what went wrong in this part of town.’

Mr Schbaita left Palestine for Moscow to train as a pharmacist before arriving in Denmark, where he married a fellow Muslim and raised a family.

His solution to the problems is to pull down the ghettos. But he is concerned that the new laws are being pushed by a small political elite who unfairly blame Muslims for all the country’s wrongs.

He may be right. Yet indigenous Danes have shown remarkable enthusiasm for the changes.

One of Inger Stojberg’s most popular ideas is for migrants who have lived in Denmark for more than three years to pay for translators’ services when visiting a doctor, rather than relying on the State.

She says: ‘Unless we dare to make demands on foreigners, we will fail to address the serious problems of parallel societies where people neither work nor speak the language and don’t have Danish values.

‘A good place to start is to give back responsibility to those who have come here: learn the language or pay for your interpreter.’

In a poll by the newspaper B.T., 93 per cent of Danes questioned agreed with the minister’s plan.

Miles away from the ghettos, on the outskirts of Copenhagen, there are quiet, well-ordered towns where daily life appears, at first glance, untroubled by the controversies over migration.

 

Inger Stojberg, the hardline integration minister, has gone further. The crackdown on ghettos is a centrepiece of her legislative reforms. When Stojberg clocked up her 50th amendment to the laws relating to migrants, she baked a cake and posted a picture of herself with it online

One of them is Hvidovre, where there is no mosque and the old Protestant church with the Danish flag flying proudly outside on a manicured lawn has a flourishing 7,000-strong membership.

Yet even here immigration is a heated topic.

‘People are afraid of the consequences,’ said Annette Bjerregaard, 54, who works at the church. ‘If they feel people are integrating, they are positive. If not, they are not so positive.’

Annette’s son went to what was known among local Danes as ‘the white school’, where all the pupils were ethnic Danes. In this part of town there are neat privately owned homes, shops and pavement cafes.

Yet a mile away in a poorer part of Hvidovre it is very different. Here 5,000 people, both foreigners and Danes, live together in a sprawling council-run housing estate.

Larry Ellis, a debonair 65-year-old resident with a shock of white hair, works as a gardener at the local university. Having finished his shift, he is relaxing with friends outside the estate’s community centre.

They all agree there are too many migrants coming to Denmark. ‘That is the problem and it has not been addressed for years,’ he says.

‘Even here, we are housed in different parts of the estate to the migrants. The council has put ethnic Danes in blocks on one side of the road and Muslims in blocks on the other. We just don’t mix, and religion is part of it.’

This does not bode well for the Government’s efforts to encourage integration. And indeed, some Danes want to crack down against migrants still harder.

As the mainstream politicians react to a growing sense of disillusion about mass migration, a new party led by a 42-year-old architect called Pernille Vermund has seized the moment.

The divorced mother of three, who lives far from the Copenhagen ghettos, hopes her party — the New Right — will gain seats in elections next year on a hardline anti-migrant manifesto.

It calls for the residence permit of any ‘foreigner convicted in court’ to be withdrawn and for no more welfare benefits, housing subsidies and other state payments to anyone except Danish citizens.

She told me: ‘Politicians for decades have let people into our country who do not share our values. They do not assimilate. Now the politicians make a patchwork of rules to try to correct their own mistakes. Forcing Muslim mothers to deliver their toddlers into state-run daycare is not going to make them Danish, or less Muslim. It simply will not work.’

Her views would have been condemned as xenophobic extremism in liberal Denmark a few years ago. But mass immigration has hardened attitudes.

Politicians fear that if they ignore the problem, they will lose ground to parties such as the New Right.

 

Miles away from the ghettos, there are quiet, well-ordered towns, including Hvidovre (pictured) where daily life appears untroubled by the controversies over migration. There is no mosque and the old Protestant church has a flourishing 7,000-strong membership. Yet even here immigration is a heated topic

Back in Mjolnerparken, where 1,752 people of 38 nationalities live cheek by jowl, I meet one of the community elders.

An Iraqi Kurd by birth, smartly dressed Taher Mustafah, 59, came to Denmark in 1985. He has worked for years as a civil servant and helped run an Islamic charity.

We stand on a busy street corner to chat, as Danish girls in skimpy shorts cycle past women with veiled faces shepherding children along pavements, closely watched over by their husbands. Truly, it is a stark clash of cultures.

Taher looks at one of the veiled women and shakes his head.

‘I know her,’ he says. ‘She is Tunisian and her husband is an Iraqi. My view is that if you live in a country, you should show respect for the society in which you live. She should not wear the burka here in Denmark and soon she will not be allowed to.’

Yet nearby, in an Iraqi-owned cafe, I hear a different opinion from an Iraqi migrant father called Jaber Saleh, 40, who is eating a pitta bread-and-hummus lunch with his wife Farah, 29, and son Hassan, six.

The Salehs are angry with the Danish Government. Despite living and working here as a truck driver for 17 years, Jaber has still not been granted citizenship.

Since the day he arrived, he has clung to his roots. He sent his son to an Arabic school in Copenhagen until it was closed by the Government, which accused some staff of having links to terrorism.

‘The Government was wrong,’ says Jaber. ‘It was a good school where Hassan was taught in the Arabic language, not Danish, and he learnt the Koran. He speaks Arabic at home and has no Danish friends, and I am pleased about that. I don’t want him to learn from them bad things, the swearing, the low moral code of Denmark.

‘This society is too lax. I will do anything to avoid my son learning the values of Denmark.’

As I help Hassan write his name in the English alphabet in my notebook, I wonder what life will bring for this bright, well-behaved child, growing up torn between two cultures.

His family are not preparing him for life as a Dane and, in a rapidly changing country, he may never be accepted as one even if he wishes to be.

And that surely spells trouble for him and his adopted nation. 

 

By Special Report From Sue Reid In Copenhagen For The Daily Mail

 

e-mail

 

View
comment

 

 

 July 17, 2018

 

 

  *  *  *

 

Hijab by country - Wikipedia

 

*

H.F.1621

 
 
 

SHADOW OF A BLOODY PAST

SATURDAY

ESSAY

by

Tom Holland

For centuries, Islam and Christianity were locked in a brutal conflict most have forgotten. The horror, a top historian argues, is that for jihadis it's as real today as it was in the Middle Ages.

 

EXTRACT

...year after year, Turkish forces probed Christian defences, crossing the plains of Hungary or churning the waters off Malta with their warships. In 1529 and again in 1683, an Ottoman army almost took Vienna.

Yet that was to be the last great attempt to extend the Caliphate across Europe. The global balance of power was shifting, and nearly a millennium of Muslim preponderance was drawing to a close.

It was the Christians who colonised America, established trading empires that spanned the globe and started the process of industrialisation.  By the 19th century with India ruled by the British Raj and the Islamic Ottoman Empire scorned in Western capitals as 'the sick man of Europe', Muslims could no longer close their eyes to the sheer scale of their decline.

It was they who were now the imperial subjects, and Islam the civilisation looked down on by its adversaries as backward, as Christendom had once been.

Ever since the first days of their faith, Muslims had tended to take for granted that its truth was manifest in its worldly success.

As a result, subordinated to the infidel British or French there were many in the Muslim world who looked to the golden age of the Caliphate for their  inspiration.

The age of Muhammad and his successors, which had seen Islam emerge from desert obscurity tom global empire, was enshrined as the model to follow. Over recent decades resentment at continued Western interventions in Muslin countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq have only burnished the appeal of the glorious past.

Today, according to a poll some two-thirds of Muslims worldwide want to see the

RESTORATION of a CALIPHATE

It is not empires per se they are apposed to -just

NON-ISLAMIC EMPIRES

Hardly surprising then that al-Qaeda and ISIS should be so obsessed by periods of history that to most Westerners are thoroughly obscure.

That Constantinople

has been a Muslim city for almost 600 years, that the Crusades are done and dusted and that Europe no longer defines itself as Christendom, barely intrudes on the consciousness of many jihadis.

They inhabit a mental landscape in which the Middle Ages never went away. The menace of this way of thinking is brutally evident-a world in which young people murdered a rock concert, can be cursed as 'Crusaders' is a world on the verge of going mad.

It is not just non-Muslims who are threatened by this imperialist nostalgia.

 'Either you are with the Crusade, 'ISIS has warned European Muslims,' or you are with ISLAM

...

More!

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

[WHAT WE HAVE IS A NIGHTMARE SITUATION OF A GUERRILLA WAR UNFOLDING SUPPORTED BY THOSE HARD-LINE FUNDAMENTALISTS  AND THEIR SUPPORTERS WITHIN THE 3,000,000 MUSLIM COMMUNITY AND WITH THEIR ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGE OF FULL COVER FROM THE ACCEPTED DRESS  OF THE VEIL AND BURKA-SYMBOLS OF EXTREME ISLAM. IT IS MOST UNLIKELY THAT A MUSLIM WILL BETRAY A FELLOW MUSLIM AS MUCH AS THEY MIGHT DISAGREE WITH THEIR MESSAGE AND INTENDED ACTION.  AS MANY OF OUR TOWNS AND CITIES HAVE ALMOST A PREPONDERANCE OF THOSE OF THE MUSLIM FAITH IT WILL BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROTECT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. THE ONE VITAL ADVANTAGE WE HAD MANY YEARS AGO -THE BOBBIE-ON-THE -BEAT IS NO LONGER THERE-THE VITAL LINK OF TRUST WITH THE LOCAL COMMUNITY SO VERY IMPORTANT IN THE EVENT OF A CRISIS WE SEE BEFORE US TODAY.  WE MENTIONED THIS VERY MATTER MANY YEARS AGO KNOWING HOW IMPORTANT THE LINK WOULD BE IN A NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  AS WE NOW HEAR ISIS HAS ASKED ITS SUPPORTERS IN OUR COMMUNITIES TO STAY PUT-NOT TO JOIN THEM AS THEY THEMSELVES WILL BE ON THEIR WAY TO JOIN THE FIGHT!.]

 

THE GREAT ERROR FROM THE BEGINNING WAS TO ALLOW THE THE LARGE SCALE IMMIGRATION OF THOSE FROM A HISTORICALLY OPPOSING CULTURE  TO SETTLE IN ENGLAND.  THE JEWS NUMBER 300,000 WHEREAS THE MUSLIMS ARE NO DOUBT OVER 3,000,000 WITH A AN ADVANTAGEOUS

 BIRTH-RATE OF 4-1.  MAKE NO MISTAKE THERE ARE MANY OF THE ISLAMIC FAITH WHO LONG TO BELONG TO AN ISLAMIC STATE  .WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THEM SHARIA LAW OF PARTS!

 

 IT WAS AND STILL IS OUR STUPID POLITICIANS WHO HAVE PUT AT RISK THE LIVES OF THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. IN WARTIME ONE HAS INTERNMENT CAMPS BUT IN THE PRESENT SITUATION THIS WOULD BE MOST DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSIDER BUT IF THE CARNAGE BECOMES UNCHECKED THEN WHO KNOWS WHAT MEASURES WILL BE NEEDED IN ORDER TO STILL THE VIOLENCE. OVER THE PAST DECADE THERE HAVE BEEN MANY WARNINGS FROM EMINENT AUTHORITY OF THE DANGERS WHICH WOULD ARISE BUT THEY WERE ALL IGNORED BECAUSE OF THE PREVAILING ATTITUDE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS-THE DETAILS ARE SHOWN IN OUR

 

 IMMIGRATION FILE

 

 

 

  Daily Mail-

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

NOVEMBER 21,2015

H F 621/1
 
 
By Barry Dalgleish, Environmental Activist and Global Citizen. In March 2009, I started a blog called Greener Planet. I have since transitioned to this platform

Anti-Semitism And The Pro Israel Lobby — 1

In this 3 part report I’ll investigate the powerful pro Israel lobby, which has had an impressive global presence almost since the inception of Israel as a state.

In the first part I’ll look at the history of anti-Semitism and how it became deeply ingrained within Christianity, leading to widespread persecution of Jews.

After citing an overview of Paulo Freire’s work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I discuss how this could be relevant to the emergence of the Zionist movement and also how it could equally offer a foundation for a non violent reconstruction of Palestinian society.

I then look at how a modern more sophisticated globalised Israel lobby emerged in the wake of the second Intifada.

The second part will look at what makes the Israel lobby tick, the various techniques and tactics used by Public Relations actors and how anti-Semitism is being used as a tool to distract attention away from Israeli atrocities.

Part 3 analyses the media approach to the conflict and how a complicit corporate media disseminates ‘fake news’ and propaganda.

According to the Israel lobby, criticism of the State of Israel constitutes anti Semitism. It is a charge that is completely irrational and has no context whatsoever. It effectively means that taking a political viewpoint on Israeli policies constitutes a form of racism. It is a charge that is both arrogant and dangerous.

A definition

According to the UK Government there is an ‘absence of an agreed international definition of antisemitism.’ On the website, the Government reproduces a ‘working definition of antisemitism’ from the UK’s College of Policing. It makes references to criticism of the State of Israel. However it does make this clear statement that:

‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).’

It goes on to say that

‘Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.’

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is another body that has adopted a working definition of anti-Semitism. The role of the IHRA is to ‘place political and social leaders’ support behind the need for Holocaust education, remembrance and research both nationally and internationally.’

The definition is as follows:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Not surprisingly, Israel is a member of the IHRA. As such, the country would have agreed to the adoption of the above definition. However just like the police definition above, criticism of the State of Israel is linked into the guidance:

‘Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.’

Its pretty clear from the above definitions that criticism of Israel can only be regarded as anti-Semitic if there is an element of racism that targets Jews specifically. More often than not, criticism of Israel falls into the ‘similar to that levelled against any other country’ category, but is then intentionally or otherwise conflated with anti-Semitism.

The Holocaust

The Nazi Holocaust and persecution of Jews before and during world war 2 is a vital essence of Israeli culture. And of course it has a great deal of significance to Jews, regardless of their association with Israel. The word ‘shoah’ has become the Hebrew term for the holocaust and is used to specifically refer to the Nazi holocaust.

However from a historical perspective, limiting the definition of the holocaust to encompass Jews only, could be regarded as a narrow definition. A broader definition encompasses other ethnic groups such as Romani, Poles, other Slavic ethnic groups, mentally and physically disabled people, Soviets, prisoners of war, homosexuals, black people, political opponents of the Nazis, and members of other groups that didn’t measure up to the Nazis racial profiling. In other words a more accurate definition of the holocaust would account for the full spectrum of persecution of all peoples targeted by the Nazis.

The book The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust considers many aspects of the holocaust.

This does not of course detract from the deliberate, systematic and specific treatment of Jews within the context of the ‘final solution’, a Nazi term used in the phrase ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question’. This was actually a Nazi code name for the plan to murder all Jews within reach, and was not limited to the European continent. This form of ‘industrialised murder’ where Jews were rounded up en masse and sent to extermination camps was unprecedented in history.

There’s no doubt that an extreme form of anti-Semitism had developed in Germany. Understanding the roots of this issue is an important prerequisite in understanding the status of Israel as a ‘Jewish state’.

Historic Persecution

The roots of anti-Semitism stem from the Christian belief that the Jews were responsible for rejecting and killing Jesus Christ.

In A viewers Guide to contemporary Passion Plays, an explanation is offered on the background to productions such as The Passion of Christ. The paper goes on to define anti-Semitism and the reasons behind Jewish persecution. In essence, Jewish persecution had become a component of the Christian faith. It is defined thus:

‘In the Gospel of Matthew, when Pilate declares himself innocent of Jesus’ death, it is said, “And all the people answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!“ (Mtth 27:25). Over the course of time, Christians began to accept this interpretation of the crucifixion to mean that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for killing Jesus. According to this interpretation, both the Jews present at Jesus’ death and the Jewish people collectively and for all time, have committed the sin of deicide, or God- killing. For 1900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred, violence against and murder of Jews in Europe and America.

The charge that the Jews killed Christ/God gave rise to a belief that Jews were inhuman. They were often portrayed in Christian art and commentary as demons, complete with fangs and hooves, committing hideous crimes against Christians. The Jew, historically the object of derision and animosity, became the living incarnation of Satan. Holy Week, the week beginning with Palm Sunday and culminating with Easter, became a particularly dangerous time for Jews, as Christians perpetrated violence against Jews living in their communities.’

As a result, anti-Semitism became deeply rooted in Christian culture and its influences. The fall out from this was widespread persecution of Jews through the middle ages and beyond up until the present day, where Jews were used as scapegoats whenever some calamity occurred.

The paper points out though that from a historical perspective, Jesus was tried and convicted under Roman law. Jews played no part in that process.

In 1962, the Vatican ‘officially repudiated the charge of deicide against the Jews, as well as all forms of anti-Semitism.’ Other Christian Groups followed suit following this high level decision within the Catholic Church.

But despite recognition of historical misinterpretations, including references within the Gospels, anti-Semitism still prevails within certain Groups.

Taking account of the widespread historical persecution of Jewish communities, the actions of Nazi Germany are not unique.

Another key component that played a role in Jewish persecution was the accusation of blood libel.

In essence, blood libel (or accusation) is an accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered the children of Christians in order to use their blood as part of their religious rituals during Jewish holidays. This revolved around the baking of matzos (an unleavened flatbread that is used during Passover) using the blood as an ingredient in the bread.

This accusation has no basis in fact and is based on heresy, surrounded by stereotypical notions of Jews. Origins of the phenomenon are discussed in the article Blood Accussation from the Jewish Encyclopedia. The article notes:

‘The origin of the blood accusation has not yet been discovered. The annals of Erfurt state that the Jews used waxed sacks (“in saccis cera linitis”) for collecting the blood of the children killed at Fulda in Dec., 1235. According to the Marbach annals (also contemporaneous with the event) the Jews confessed that they wished to utilize the blood for remedial purposes. The annals also state that the emperor Frederick II. (as mentioned above) consulted a number of distinguished converted Jews in order to ascertain whether the Jews required Christian blood on Parasceve — a term frequently used to designate Good Friday. As early as the twelfth century it was several times reported that the Jews had crucified Christian children during Easter (e.g., William of Norwich, 1144, see above; Gloucester, 1171; Blois, 1179; Richard of Paris, in Pontoise). Whether all or part of these reports agree with the facts, or are alike unworthy of credence, the theory of a ritual murder is in no case justified; and, if the accounts are historical, it can only be assumed that the Jews in one instance or on several occasions put Christians to death. A ritualistic feature was imparted to these real or supposed crucifixions or other murders of Christians, and especially of Christian children, by the suggestions: (1) that the murders involved the acquisition of blood; and (2) that the crimes were related to the Passover festival.’

Another slant at Jewish persecution and its origins comes from this article from National Geographic. It describes the discovery of The Judas Gospel, which along with other Gospels not published in the Bible offers a different portrayal of early Christianity.

The article sums up the contrasting role of Judas as Christ’s closest Apostle compared to the accepted narrative and how he became a scapegoat for the Jews:

‘There is a sinister backdrop to traditional depictions of Judas. As Christianity distanced itself from its origins as a Jewish sect, Christian thinkers found it increasingly convenient to blame the Jews as a people for the arrest and execution of Christ, and to cast Judas as the archetypal Jew. The four Gospels, for example, treat Roman governor Pontius Pilate gently while condemning Judas and the Jewish high priests.

The “secret account” gives us a very different Judas. In this version, he is a hero. Unlike the other disciples, he truly understands Christ’s message. In handing Jesus over to the authorities, he is doing his leader’s bidding, knowing full well the fate he will bring on himself. Jesus warns him: “You will be cursed.”’

In essence, Christianity was a breakaway sect of Judaism, which in turn formed other factions with different views of Jesus and His relationship with the Apostles, especially Judas. That was ultimately reflected in the dominant hierarchical Group, which painted Judas into a corner as a despicable Jew in order to vilify the religion they rejected. As such, anything that contradicted that narrative was rejected. The rest — as they say — is history.

A translation of the Gospel was published by National Geographic.

The Oppressed Become The Oppressor

One of the most important works in the realm of oppression, is Paulo Freire’s, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

In his book, Freire analyses the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed.

He argues that through the process of liberation ‘the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors, or “sub-oppressors.’ He goes on to say:

‘Their ideal is to be men; but for them, to be men is to be oppressors. This is their model of humanity. This phenomenon derives from the fact that the oppressed, at a certain moment of their existential experience, adopt an attitude of “adhesion” to the oppressor. Under these circumstances they cannot “consider” him sufficiently clearly to objectivize him — to discover him “outside” themselves. This does not necessarily mean that the oppressed are unaware that they are downtrodden. But their perception of themselves as oppressed is impaired by their submersion in the reality of oppression. At this level, their perception of themselves as opposites of the oppressor does not yet signify engagement in a struggle to overcome the contradiction; the one pole aspires not to liberation, but to identification with its opposite pole.’

Essentially, because people have been exposed persistently to oppression, they know nothing else. As such they have adopted the mindset of the oppressor. They then model their own existence on that of the oppressor.

Freire discusses the paradox of freedom. Freedom being the ultimate goal, it nevertheless becomes something to be feared. Having developed a dependency on the oppressor, how does freedom transform into independence? Ultimately this boils down to education — something that Freire goes into considerable detail in his book — and the perception of a critical reality that Freire calls the oppressor-oppressed contradiction.

The oppressor also needs to change his outlook. That means breaking the chains of power and altering what is essentially a false reality, a condition that affects oppressed and oppressor alike:

‘A different type of false perception occurs when a change in objective reality would threaten the individual or class interests of the perceiver. In the first instance, there is no critical intervention in reality because that reality is fictitious; there is none in the second instance because intervention would contradict the class interests of the perceiver In the latter case the tendency of the perceiver is to behave “neurotically.” The fact exists; but both the fact and
what may result from it may be prejudicial to the person. Thus it becomes necessary not precisely to deny the fact, but to “see it differently.” This rationalization as a defense mechanism coincides in the end with subjectivism. A fact which is not denied but whose truths are rationalized loses its objective base. It ceases to be concrete and becomes a myth created in defense of the class of the perceiver.

Herein lies one of the reasons for the prohibitions and the difficulties designed to dissuade the people from critical intervention in reality. The oppressor knows full well that this intervention would not be to his interest. What is to his interest is for the people to continue in a state of submersion, impotent in the face of oppressive reality.’

Freire discusses the root source of oppression as coming from the ruling classes, who impose their power through the use of violence. ‘Once a situation of violence and oppression has been established, it engenders an entire way of life and behavior for those caught up in it — oppressors and oppressed alike. Both are submerged in this situation, and both bear the marks of oppression.’

Freire then sums the mindset of the oppressor perfectly:

‘The oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surrounding it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the creations of people, people themselves, time — everything is reduced to the status of objects at its disposal.’

He notes their ‘strictly materialistic concept of existence’ and the fact that ‘Money is the measure of all things, and profit the primary goal’.

‘As beneficiaries of a situation of oppression, the oppressors cannot perceive that if having is a condition of being, it is a necessary condition for all women and men. This is why their generosity is false. Humanity is a “thing” and they possess it as an exclusive right, as inherited property. To the oppressor consciousness, the humanization of the “others,” of the people, appears not as the pursuit of full humanity; but as subversion.’

Freire then analyses the student/teacher relationship. The terms student/teacher can have a universal context. His key analysis is the sterility of education, in which a narrative is dispensed to the student. As such:

‘Narration (with the teacher as narrator) leads the students to memorize mechanically the narrated content. Worse yet, it turns them into “containers,” into “receptacles” to be “filled” by the teacher. The more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she is. The more meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are.

Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits.’

This Freire argues is a process of

‘Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence.’

In short, the dissemination of information is controlled by the ruling classes through a narrative that is designed to further their own interests (see below).

Having been systematically ‘programmed’, those who have been ‘educated’ will then disseminate the ‘program’ to others as they have no other base from which to refer to.

The solution to this problem is to alter the relationship between Teacher/Student where ‘no one teaches another, nor is anyone self-taught. People teach each other’. This means

‘They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. In this process, arguments based on “authority”are no longer valid.’

Freire sums up his analysis:

‘Once again, the two educational concepts and practices under analysis come into conflict. Banking education (for obvious reasons) attempts, by mythicizing reality, to conceal certain facts which explain the way human beings exist in the world; problem-posing education sets itself the task of demythologizing. Banking education resists dialogue; problem-posing education regards dialogue as indispensable to the act of cognition which unveils reality. Banking education treats students as objects of assistance; problem-posing education makes them critical thinkers. Banking education inhibits creativity and domesticates (although it cannot completely destroy) the intentionality of consciousness by isolating consciousness from the world, thereby denying people their ontological and historical vocation of becoming more fully human. Problem-posing education bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection and action upon reality, thereby responding to the vocation of persons as beings who are authentic only when engaged in inquiry and creative transformation.’

There is a parallel in Freire’s analysis to the emergence of the Zionist movement. Then there is the development of the state of Israel itself, where ordinary Israeli’s may not be repressed but are kept in ignorance from the roots of Israel’s formation.

Freire also speaks in terms of what he calls ‘reversing the poles’ in which the oppressed become what they have tried to escape. The subjugation of the Palestinians is such an example, which ultimately led to the ‘Jewish State,’ a phrase that implies a form of racial superiority.

Freire’s narrative can also be relevant to the Palestinians in seeking to break the yolk of the occupation, in building a transformative grassroots movement that is non violent and may lead to genuine freedom for the Palestinians. Indeed such a process is already underway, as will be discussed later below.

Much of what Freire focuses on would be regarded as propaganda. That’s the subject of the next section.

The Pro Israel Lobby

Public Relations and propaganda is almost as old as history itself. The term propaganda comes from Pope Gregory XV, when he created the Congregatio de Propaganda (“congregation for propagating the faith”).

Modern PR emerged early in the last century. An article from the New York Times looks at some of the pioneers of PR in the 20th Century.

Ivy Lee was one of the earlier developers of PR. Lee was hired by John D. Rockefeller, who established the Standard Oil Company, which ultimately became one of the most successful corporate entities in the world.

‘Mr. Lee tried to repackage the industrialist as a humane philanthropist, and in so doing became an important counsel to John D. Rockefeller Jr. as well. Mr. Lee, whose career later foundered when it was revealed that he did promotional work for the Nazis, advised the Rockefellers to be frank and direct when discussing their business practices with the press — a relief to a family averse to the practice, then common, of bribing reporters for coverage.’

Another key figure was Edward Bernays, who was a nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays was strongly influenced by his uncles work in psychology and began to apply psychology within the context of PR, seeing PR as an applied social science that uses insights from psychology, sociology, and other disciplines to scientifically manage and manipulate the thinking and behaviour of an irrational and “herdlike” public.

He was the author of several books on the subject, including The Engineering of Consent (1947) (Noam Chomsky later picked up the notion with Manufactured Consent). In addition, the New York Times notes that ‘He professionalized the business while introducing other new forms of manipulation, like establishing bogus front groups to promote the benefits of smoking.’

The article The History of Public Relations gives a good overview of the history of PR. The article points out how Ivy Lee placed emphasis on openness and transparency, with the belief that being honest with the public was a sure winner and that way trust could be built. Not-for-Profit Organizations and Social Movements tended towards Lees version of PR.

Edward Bernays by comparison applied the art of persuasion within PR, what to today might be referred to as ‘spin’. As the article notes:

‘Bernays understood that publics could be persuaded if the message supported their values and interests. In many ways, the thrust of his philosophy is made clear in his first book, Crystallizing Public Opinion. At the time, he saw public relations as being more or less synonymous with propaganda, which he defined as “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.”’

The post-war period saw the rapid expansion of modern PR. Many proponents learnt their trade during the war from wartime propaganda campaigns. Many of the now well established PR companies cut their teeth during this period. The article outlines how all this came together:

‘…the hallmark of postwar public relations growth took place in the private
sector, in corporations and agencies. A consumer economy made use of both public relations and advertising to market products. Agencies came into full being, providing media relations and media contact capabilities not always available on the corporate side. The need for these skills was driven in part by the explosive growth of media outlets not available before the war — including FM radio, general magazines, suburban community newspapers, and trade and professional association publications. Their services expanded from a base of counselling and media relations to include public affairs or government relations, financial and investor relations, crisis communication, and media relations training for executives.’

But PR was not the sole province of Corporations and individuals. Countries would use the expertise of PR companies to sanitise their image. Israel is amongst those countries. Indeed the Israel lobby has become a potent force over the years.

This was highlighted in a report published in 2006 by John J. Mearsheimer, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, called The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The report investigates the unique relationship between the US and Israel that is unparalleled in global affairs.

There are some eye opening revelations within the report. Perhaps the most remarkable is the basic assertion that the US is sacrificing its own national security by supporting Israel. And it isn’t cheap:

‘Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one‐fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year.’

And Israel doesn’t have to account its spending to Washington, it can ironically invest in projects that run counter to US policy ‘like building settlements in the West Bank.’

But perhaps one of the most sinister aspects of US support is Israel’s access to advanced US intelligence facilities:

‘The United States gives Israel access to intelligence that it denies its NATO allies and has turned a blind eye towards Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.’

‘According to the American‐Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) website, 
“the United States and Israel have formed a unique partnership to meet the 
growing strategic threats in the Middle East . . . . This cooperative effort provides significant benefits for both the United States and Israel.” This claim is an article of faith among Israel’s supporters and is routinely invoked by Israeli politicians and pro‐Israel Americans.’

This — on the surface — gives the impression of a sound stable relationship between the US and Israel. But there’s a catch. The US wants to maintain its influence in the Middle East, with the support of Arab allies. But US support of Israel during the 1973 war ‘triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies.’

During the 1991 Gulf war, the US could not deploy forces in Israel, otherwise it would have lost the coalition support against Saddam Hussain’s Iraq. Similarly, the so called ‘war against terror’ that followed the twin tower attacks on 9/11, was in a manner of speaking, the closing of a circle generated by US support of Israel:

‘According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to highlight this issue.’

Israel likes to paint itself as the underdog, surrounded by hostile Arabs and exaggerating the threat posed by Palestinians. But Israel’s military prowess out-guns just about every country in the Middle East put together. This has been the case right from the beginning when Israel deflected the Arab offensive after Israel was created. And the Palestinians have no military capability whatsoever. Indeed:

‘According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s prestigious 
Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, “the strategic balance decidedly favors Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbors.” If backing the underdog were a compelling rationale, the United States would be supporting Israel’s opponents.’

Then of course there’s the argument that Israel is a democracy. But that’s knocked on the head:

‘Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this conception of citizenship, it is not surprising that Israel’s 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second‐class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them.’

As noted above, the holocaust played a critical role in Israel’s existence. The report suggests that this and historic persecution of Jews serves as a moral justification for Israel’s existence. That may be debatable. But does the ends justify the means?

Israel attempts to cover up its past misdemeanour’s and will deny displacing the Palestinians and committing ethnic cleansing. Yet the early leadership in Israel admitted as much:

‘The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi‐
national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine. The Zionist 
leadership was sometimes willing to accept partition as a first step, but this was a tactical maneuver and not their real objective. As David Ben‐Gurion put it in the late 1930s, “After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” 
 
To achieve this goal, the Zionists had to expel large numbers of Arabs from the territory that would eventually become Israel. There was simply no other way to accomplish their objective. Ben‐Gurion saw the problem clearly, writing in 1941 that “it is impossible to imagine general evacuation [of the Arab population] without compulsion, and brutal compulsion.” Or as Israeli historian Benny Morris puts it, “the idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century.” ’

Ben-Gurion went on to say:

“If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti‐Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”

The report is frank about the atrocities that Israel has committed. To document everything in detail would fill a separate article. But suffice to say those atrocities were both confirmed and affirmed by the Israeli leadership:

‘These facts about Israel’s conduct have been amply documented by numerous 
human rights organizations — including prominent Israeli groups — and are not disputed by fair‐minded observers. And that is why four former officials of Shin Bet (the Israeli domestic security organization) condemned Israel’s conduct during the Second Intifada in November 2003. One of them declared “we are behaving disgracefully,” and another termed Israel’s conduct “patently immoral.” ’

And:

‘As former Prime Minister Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he “would have joined a terrorist organization.” ’
Israel Past & Present — A post Colonial Apartheid State
Last year’s bombardment of Gaza (2014) was flashed around the world and through the social media landscape via the…medium.com

Israel’s influence is not restricted to the US. It very much operates on a global scale, thanks on large part to the ‘Israel Lobby’, which the Report goes into in some detail (see below).

The UK is a productive hunting ground for the Israel lobby. In 2013, a report was published in collaboration by Spinwatch and Middle East Monitor, The Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre: Giving peace a chance? The Report scrutinises the activities of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM).

In short:

‘BICOM is an important pro-Israel grouping that focuses on managing the British media. It is important because it is at the more sophisticated end of the pro-Israel lobby and because it works behind the scenes to cultivate elite opinion on Israel. BICOM is primarily about taking standard pro-Israel arguments, but repackaging them in ways that resonate with opinion-forming elites, and teaching other activists to do the same. So, although it focuses on the media and communications its main audience is not public opinion but a political elite that is insulated from the public.’

BICOM emerged during the second intifada, with Finnish financier Poju Zabludowicz at the helm. Its roots stem from his father’s role in the arms trade, during which Shlomo Zabludowicz forged links with key contacts within Israel.

Shlomo Zabludowicz was a Polish holocaust survivor from Aucshwitz. After repatriation he moved to Israel. But subsequently moved to Finland, where he got involved with arms company Tampella. This eventually led to deals being forged with Israel.

Over the years he developed close relationships with Israeli politicians, including Shimon Peres. This ultimately became very lucrative and as a result Shlomo Zabludowicz amassed a fortune and a well established business base that was succeeded by his son following his death in 1994.

However, following the end of the cold war and the breakup of the Soviet Union, the global arms industry had gone into decline. This also impacted Israel. The result was a diversification of the business into other areas such as property.

The 1990’s also saw other changes taking place. There was the steady expansion of the global neoliberal economic system that began to consolidate itself following the cold war. Indeed Israel itself became host to over 600,000 Russian immigrants. This provided the impetus for change within Israel.

Israel had an image problem. From a Global economic perspective, Israel was regarded as a war zone. Israel wanted to join the neoliberal ‘club’. When the Oslo peace process began during this period this presented an opportunity for Israel to ‘normalise’ itself. In addition there was the Arab league boycott of Israeli companies that has been in effect practically since Israel’s inception:

‘A key objective for the business sector was the lifting of the Arab League’s boycott of Israeli companies and especially the so-called ‘secondary boycott’, under which companies doing business with Israel or Israeli companies were barred from business with Arab countries and companies. Shafir and Peled note that: Many Israeli business leaders realized that the Arab boycott was an obstacle on the road to integrating the Israeli economy into the world market; that while it was in effect all efforts in this direction would yield only limited results. Similarly, only the stability ensured by peace could bring foreign investment and foreign corporations into Israel in significant numbers.’

This was the image of Israel of a country seeking peace that was fostered during the Oslo peace process. But the underlying objective was economic expansion and Israel’s integration into the global economy.

With agreements secured between the PLO and Israel, with both factions recognising each other, it wouldn’t be long before Israeli’s could order Big Macs in their local McDonald’s or buying western cars and investing their money in global financial institutions. Not everyone in Israel agreed with the peace accords. But the economy took off.

During this period, relations between Israel and the UK strengthened. In 1995, Prime Minister John Major ‘visited Israel with a group of British business people and jointly with the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin
established the Israel-Britain Business Council, which was backed by public funds and tasked with promoting business relations between the two countries.’

Poju Zabludowicz became involved in the process. He became chair of the Britain-Israel Parliamentary Group’s (BIPG) newly formed business advisory group, ‘a ‘lobbying forum’ established to promote commercial and technological links between Israel and the UK.’ He also joined the advisory board of the Israel-Britain Business Council. This allowed him to link up with well placed people in the business community as well as political.

The original business set up by his father had became absorbed into the Tamares Group, now run by Poju Zabludowicz, that consists of various holding’s around the world that includes real estate and media interests. The main centre of operations though appear to be based in Israel.

From 2002 to 2007, Tamares Capital was managed by Pinchas Buchris, a retired Israeli Brigadier General who headed the IDF’s Unit 8200 (also called the Central Unit of Technology Intelligence). He left when he was appointed Director-General of the Israeli Defense Ministry.

‘This revolving door, whereby individuals traverse multiple public and private roles, is familiar in the UK and the US and is an indication of closely intermeshed networks operating between business and the state.’

Zabludowicz also moved into the venture capital and Hedge fund sector. Some of his contacts there would go on to become involved with BICOM. Zabludowicz had now positioned himself as a key business operator between the UK and Israel. Indeed:

‘In March 2011, he hosted secret talks between Shimon Peres and the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas at his North London home. The meeting was one of several reportedly arranged by the venture capitalist Sir Ronald Cohen, the UK’s leading exponent of Peres-style neoliberalisation through peace.’

Although it would appear that Zabludowicz’s relationship with the political elites in London and Tel Aviv are primarily business oriented, he nevertheless has integrated himself well. Even though current Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu is a hard liner and no great fan of the peace process, Zabludowicz ‘compares him favourably to Thatcher and Reagan.’

Although the peace process had the intended effect of improving Israel’s image on the global stage, the Palestinian’s did not benefit. On the ground it was business as usual as far as the occupation went. Indeed the economic position of the Palestinians stagnated during this period.

The closer relationship with the UK:

‘ended the arms embargo on Israel imposed by the Thatcher Government in 1982, and worked to end the Arab boycott (encouraged in both initiatives
by business orientated pro-Israel groups in the UK). Economic relations with Israel were stepped up, with imports and exports more than doubling during the decade, and a relationship ‘blossomed’ between the UK and Israeli arms
industries.’

Ironically during the peace process, the Israel lobby had declined somewhat:

‘Organisations working to secure support for the country in the UK were increasingly considered redundant. In 1999, the forerunner to BICOM, the British-Israel Public Affairs Committee (BIPAC), was closed.’

However, trouble was brewing. Discontent was simmering amongst Palestinians:

‘The Oslo process did not bring an end to Israel’s occupation or to the construction of illegal settlements on occupied land. The Netanyahu government had demolished Palestinian houses in East Jerusalem and approved plans for new settlements in the area around the city.’

‘Under the Oslo Accords Israel had pledged to withdraw from 90 per cent of the occupied territories by the beginning of 2000, but by that time they had in fact withdrawn from only 18 per cent. The ‘final status’ talks held at Camp David in July 2000 ended with no agreement between Barak and Arafat, each side blaming the other for the failure.’

The Second intifada was about to erupt. A provocative visit to the Al Aqsa mosque by Ariel Sharon triggered widespread protest that was initially non violent. But these were ‘met with excessive and lethal force by Israel, whose reaction to the uprising has been characterised as one of ‘brutal repression’.’

The force implemented by the IDF against the Palestinians triggered terrorist reprisals from Palestinian extremists. It wasn’t until 2005 that the violence began to recede.

‘Taking stock, human rights groups concluded that the vast majority of Palestinians killed had been unarmed civilians. Most saliently for our purposes, the intifada had also been a ‘public relations disaster’ for Israel.’

The Israel lobby was about to crawl back out of the woodwork. The establishment of BICOM would be an important vehicle for a UK based PR network that would develop ‘a war room to ensure correct information and solidarity with Israel is maintained.’

The report sums up BICOM’s creation:

‘As a permanent organisation, it emerged out of the Emergency Co-ordinating
Group’s ‘British Israel Communications Office’, which had used the acronym ‘BICOM’ for several months before the organisation was formally created. Mick Davis, chair of the United Jewish Israel Appeal, later recalled: ‘Poju had a vision of a new era in Israel advocacy for the UK. He took the fledgling crisis room created in response to the outbreak of the second intifada and turned
it into the renowned and respected organisation that BICOM is today.’ ’

The key figures involved in its founding were:

‘Poju Zabludowicz, Philip Rubenstein (a marketing consultant who at that
time worked at the accountancy firm BDO), David Green (a businessman who became the organisation’s treasurer) and the joint chairs of the Emergency Co-ordinating Group, Jo Wagerman and Brian Kerner.’

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was also closely associated with BICOM. It was also supported by the Israeli Embassy in London and the ‘ ‘highest level’ of the Israeli foreign ministry.’

The Israeli PR machine would begin its global march, lobbying the UK, the US and Europe, with the EU as an important target.

In an article published by Spinwatch in 2014, David Cronin investigates the European Friends of Israel: Founded by Tories, funded by big business. Its perhaps not surprising that a key PR group in the EU has its roots in the UK.

In 2006, the European Friends of Israel (EFI) was founded. It was modeled on the UK Conservatives Friends of Israel (CFI). Driving its formation was Stuart Polak, a former director of CFI.

Other key figures involved with EFI are Hannu Takkula, a Finnish Liberal MEP. Three Tory MEP’s; Charles Tannock, Geoffrey Van Orden and Timothy Kirkhope.

Tannock was a foreign affairs specialist who ‘sat on the EFI’s political board between 2006 and 2011.’

Van Orden was ‘a retired brigadier-general in the British Army who served in NATO’s headquarters during the 1990s.’ He was ‘a strong advocate for UK industry, including the arms industry’.

Timothy Kirkhope is the Chair of CFI.

To sum up:

‘Papers filed with the Belgian authorities state that EFI was officially established as a not-for-profit association by Stuart Polak, along with Marc Cogen, a Belgian academic, and Jean-Pierre Haber, a veteran Brussels official. Its stated objective was to ‘unify’ the various pro-Israel groups within the national parliaments of EU countries by coordinating their activities. Such groups would be linked to one in the European Parliament, according to these papers.’

Cogen, a professor of international law, has a rather chequered history. He supports the ‘war on terror’ and he ‘signed a letter to Flemish newspapers defending Israel’s attack on Gaza’ in 2008. Although he left the EFI (along with Polak). However:

‘Cogen remains in contact with the Zionist lobby. The 2013 annual report of NGO Monitor lists him as a member of its legal advisory board. Run by Israeli academic Gerard Steinberg, NGO Monitor is dedicated to preserving Israel as an apartheid state, in which Palestinians face systematic discrimination. It campaigns against the public financing of human rights and peace activists who promote a ‘one-state solution’ based on full equality for Jews, Muslims, Christians and non-believers, accusing such activists of striving to ‘eliminate’ Israel.’

After the end of the second intifada, the Israeli arms industry picked up again. The EFI received support from the (re)emerging industry:

‘During the first nine months of 2006, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) reported a profit of $115 million, a 247 per cent increase over the same period in 2005. As one of the largest suppliers of weapons to the Israeli military, IAI evidently did well from the attack on Lebanon in the summer of that year. The offensive enabled Israel to ‘battle-test’ its armed drones for the first time. Since then IAI has become one of the world’s top drone manufacturers.

IAI (then called Israel Aircraft Industries) was among the sponsors for the EFI’s launch; the company’s information stall can be seen in a video taken at the event. Stuart Polak, meanwhile, doubles up as an arms industry lobbyist. The Westminster Connection, a consulting firm that he set up, puts ‘defence’ at the top of the list of the sectors to which it has provided advice. Elbit, another Israeli warplane-maker, has been named by The Sunday Times as one of his clients.’

One of the most influential lobbying Groups in the US is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC has had some influence on EFI. Ranaan Eliaz a former staff member of AIPAC in 2004 was involved in the creation of EFI. Dimitri Dombret, EFI’s first director confirmed ‘that he had met AIPAC representatives in Washington a number of times. More recently, EFI has sent as many as 70 delegates to the annual AIPAC conference.’ Elinadav Heymann, the group’s current director, had spoke ‘at a side event held during the conference in March 2014.’

As EFI gained a secure foothold within EU affairs it started attracting some big business backers. Yaron (Ronny) Bruckner, one of EFI’s founders had become administrator of the Group before his death. He had founded a company called Eastbridge. At the same time ‘Marc Grosman became EFI’s vice-president and treasurer.’ He had served on Eastbridge’s supervisory board.

Another prominent member of EFI is Vladimir Sloutsker, the EFI’s president. He is also a co-founder and President of the Israeli Jewish congress and was vice president of the European Jewish congress:

‘A Russian senator from 2002 to 2006, he has a background in banking and private equity. He also has a reputation for giving generous assistance to causes and individuals. He reportedly donated $250,000 per year to the Russian Jewish Congress in 2005 and 2006.’

Another key supporter of EFI was Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford, who defied party policy by aligning herself with the far right in the EU. She is also involved in a pro Zionist faction within the Lib Dems.

EFI began to focus on achieving closer trade ties between the EU and Israel. This was achieved with the Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA), which was the culmination of a sequence of agreements designed to pivot Israel into the EU single market. It has also established close relations with openly racist politicians from Israel:

‘In April 2014, EFI hosted a lunch for Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economy minister. The leader of the Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home) party, Bennett had been a vociferous opponent of EU moves during 2013 to bar firms and institutions based in Israel’s West Bank settlements from receiving scientific research grants. Settlers should respond to such efforts with ‘more kids, more trees, more vineyards, more homes’ on occupied Palestinian land, he argued. Bennett’s advocacy of perpetual colonisation did not deter Sarah Ludford from dining with him in a gesture of solidarity despite how she had previously acknowledged that the settlements are illegal.’

David Rotem was another close ally of EFI. He represents the far-right Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) party and is a Knesset member:

‘Described as a ‘one-man legislative machine’ in Max Blumenthal’s book Goliath, Rotem has authored a series of measures aimed at making Palestinians face new types of discrimination. Among them were a bill requiring Palestinian citizens of Israel to sign an oath of allegiance to a ‘Jewish and democratic state’ and a ban on funding organisations deemed to clash with Israeli values. The latter initiative was originally known as the ‘Nakba law’ after the Arabic word for catastrophe; it targeted Palestinian groups who held events which recognised that some 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in the Nakba, the wave of ethnic cleansing at the time of Israel’s establishment in 1948.’

Rotems’ association with EFI was arranged by Dutch MEP Bastiaan Belder, a Christian Zionist, who ‘has supported almost every Israeli act of aggression. Israel, he has claimed, displayed a ‘real concern for Palestinian lives’ when it bombed Gaza for three consecutive weeks in late 2008 and early 2009. ‘Look at all the precautions they [Israel] took during the operation,’ he added.’

He was also serving chair of the European Parliament’s committee, tasked with handling its relations with the Knesset, along with other members of EFI, who sit on the Parliament’s official delegation to Israel.

EFI is closely linked to the Israeli Embassy in Brussels:

‘At least three of the staff in Israel’s Brussels embassy have been assigned the task of cultivating a good relationship with MEPs. One of the three, David Saranga, has trained EFI staff on how to make optimal use of ‘social media’ websites like Twitter and Facebook. And when Israel began a new round of airstrikes against Gaza in October 2012, Saranga travelled to Strasbourg, where the Parliament was meeting, so that he could brief EFI stalwarts. His key messages were that Israel was seeking to avoid harming civilians and that it was providing Gaza with humanitarian assistance. Both messages were dishonest: Israel soon launched an all-out attack, while Israel’s siege of Gaza has created a situation where 80 per cent of its inhabitants have become dependent on aid for survival.’

Saranga has also been ‘portrayed as a ‘rebranding’ specialist by The Jewish Chronicle. During a previous stint as a media officer in Israel’s New York consulate, he placed a feature in ‘lad’s magazine’ Maxim in which women who had served in the Israeli military were photographed in skimpy swimwear.’

By 2013, EFI had adopted the ‘tricks of the trade’. It went out of its way to push ‘brand Israel’. In so doing it hosted ‘a conference within the European Parliament titled ‘Humanitarian aid — Israel as a world leader’.’

As part of its PR campaign it claimed that ‘whenever disasters occur around the world, Israel has teams ready to assist rescue efforts. One of these teams was first on the ground after an earthquake devastated Haiti in 2010, invitees were informed’. The PR blurb is also played out on social media.

The EFI has now become a powerful voice and vehicle for the pro Israel lobby within the EU. As Cronin sums up in his article:

‘Its ability to convince elected representatives to bolster an apartheid state indicates it is a very dangerous organisation.’

Part 2

 

H.F.1700

 
 

SO WILL BRITAIN ONE DAY BE  MUSLIM?

by

Ruth Dudley Edwards

SATURDAY ESSAY

 

[Daily Mail-May 5-2007]

 

*

Our failure to have children.

Welfarism.

Political Correctness.

And a

LACK of WILL

 to fight Islamic extremism

 

 

 

THIS WEEK has been another terrible one for those of us who want a society in which all races, religions and cultures mix to their mutual advantage and

ENRICHMENT.

On Tuesday, five men were sentenced to life in prison for plotting to use a huge fertiliser bomb in what would have been the UK's largest mass murder.

Omar Khyam, Salahuddin Amin, Anthony Garciaand Jawa Akbar -first and second generation immigrants - responded to the tolerance of the British people

BY TRYING TO KILL AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE.

It is absurd to hope that the exposure of their evil after a 13-month trial which cost an estimated

£50,000,000

-has finally provided the wake-up call that this slumbering country so badly needs?

I'm one of those old-fashioned immigrants to this country who feels passionately grateful, is proudly British (as well as Irish -having been born in Dublin) and believes that immigrants have more duties than rights. And further, that one of those is to adjust to British society rather than expecting it to adjust to them. [ has been the practice for some decades but more so during the Blair years.]

However, one aspect of contemporary British society which I refuse to adjust to is its weakness in the face of the

ENEMY WITHIN

In my many conversations with like-minded people about the threat that radical Islam poses to the

 BRITISH WAY OF LIFE

-And indeed, to European civilisation -we frequently end by despairingly agreeing that the

WEST

-seems intention committing

POLITICAL and CULTURAL

SUICIDE.

When we look starkly at the demographic statistics, the wimpishness of our

ESTABLISHMENT

-in the face of the

THREAT

-the perversions perpetuated by

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

-and our passivity, it's hard to avoid the

CONCLUSION

-that within a couple of generations

ISLAM

-will be in

CONTROL of EUROPE

And before anyone says that there nothing wrong if this happened, since the vast majority of

MUSLIMS

are tolerant people who would not dream of interfering with

OUR WAY OF LIFE

-it's necessary  to point out that in

MUSLIM COUNTRIES

, it's usually the radicals and extremists

MULLAHS

-who regard

TOLERANCE

AS A VICE

-WHO MAKE THE RUNNING.

This occurs too in microcosm in

MUSLIM GHETTOS

around

EUROPE

We saw the frightening fundamentalist fringe of

ISLAM

-marching, threatening and perpetuating violence over the cartoons depicting

MOHAMMAD

IN

DENMARK

while the majority of Muslims - who, yes, of course are tolerant and decent - kept their mouths shut and stayed at

HOME

YES, Islam may be a great religion. BUT

-in its fundamentalist version, some of its values are antipathetic to ours, and if they triumph in

EUROPE 

-they will

THREATEN OUR VALUES

such as

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

and

SPEECH

and the spirit of intellectual inquiry that made

EUROPEAN CIVILISATION

Great and Prosperous

 

The danger of ending up like these poor, despotic and medieval

Islamic States

-in which millions live miserably is the prospect that

CHRISTIANS

HINDUS

MODERATE MUSLIMS and NON-BELIEVERS -should be uniting

TO PREVENT

 

BUT THE TRUTH IS WE ARE DOING LITTLE TO STOP IT.

Consider first a few chilling statistics.

EUROPEANS ARE FAILING TO REPRODUCE

[Yet in our own island millions of potential citizens have been 

SLAUGHTERED AT BIRTH

thanks to David Steels -Abortion Bill of 1965?

It is still taking place in 2007 though there is NOW an  growing awareness of the tragedy to the potential mother and to society in general that many more doctors today are refusing to condone the

MURDER.

Recently the sight of full grown foetuses being deprived of their lives has now brought the horror and injustice of the action to destroy life.

In an age of contraception of many devices and anti-life pills it is unbelievable that any potential mother was unable to take the necessary steps to prevent conception.

David Steels Bill was to prevent back-street abortions and he himself a few ears ago voiced his concern as to what has happened over the years since.]

*

Consider  first a few chilling statistics.

Europeans are failing to reproduce. Just to keep the population steady, you need 2.1 births per women

[This is a case for Government action by offering cash and other vital services to enable the reluctant mother to do her best for her community and country.]

However in 2005, the European average was 1.38.

In Ireland it was 1.9

France it was 1.89

Germany 1.35

Italy 1.23

Britain scored in the middle of this range with 1.6

BUT

That was because - like France - we have a large

MUSLIM POPULATION

with a high birth rate. Indeed,

MUSLIMS

are out breeding

 non-Muslims

through out

 EUROPE

 

 

[Many of whom have absolutely no intention of integrating -

Thank you very much Mr Blair -we don't think so.]

'Just look at the development within Europe.'

said a triumphant Norwegian Imam a few months ago

'where the number of

MUSLIMS

is expanding like mosquitoes.

Every Western women in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim women in the same countries is producing an average of 3.5 children.

'OUR WAY OF THINKING WILL PROVE MORE POWERFUL THAN YOURS' he said.

The big question this poses is:

WHY ARE WE NOT REPRODUCING?

There are many reasons, but probably the most important are the decline of religion and the liberation of women.

[The populations which have the stronger religious stance will be the eventual rulers of Europe. It can be a Christian Europe or a Muslim Europe. The Governments of Europe and the shrinking United Kingdom have to decide.]

In Ireland, when the Roman Catholic Church effectively ran society, sex for procreation, contraceptives were banned, the normal size for a family was around five or six children, bur 12 or 13 were not uncommon.

As the country embraced secularism in the 1980s, birth rates plummeted, exacerbated by the new -found confidence of women that made them choose careers rather than domesticity.

WHEREAS in the 1970s, I was regarded in both the UK and Ireland as odd for being married but voluntarily childless, these days, childlessness |

IS A COMMON CHOICE

It is a world where one-child families abound and to have more than two children is to be regarded as eccentric and probably environmentally irresponsible.

Moreover, the erosion of family life and the long - hours culture place a heavy burden on those prepared to rear the next generation.

Despite these social forces, even in the UK, devote Muslims and Orthodox Jews obey instructions to have large families.

Confronted with this demographic revolution and official statistics which showed there were too few young people to support an ageing population, European governments decided to embrace

IMMIGRATION

-as an inherent good without any thought for the consequences.

As a result, politicians and businessmen assured us that we had to have economic growth in n order to prop up ever greater public spending and that it could be provided only by importing large numbers of workers from abroad

BUT WHY WASN'T THERE A NATIONAL DEBATE

ABOUT

Whether it was wise to mortgage our cultural future for the sake of a mess of financial pottage?

[A recent report on the cost  and benefit of large scale

IMMIGRATION

estimated that the country benefited by

ONLY - 50p

 for each migrant]

Where were the politicians arguing against the doctrine of

MULTICULTURALISM

-which holds that upholding majority values is somehow

ILLEGITIMATE

Who among the liberal elite's commentariat were challenging the moral relativism that flew in the face of

SENSE and SENSIBILITY

-by insisting that the culture of

Shakespeare

The King James Bible

Keats's poetry

Turner's paintings

and

Elgar's music

-was no more important than - the cultures of other

IMPORTED MINORITIES?

 

We know the answer all too well.

Cries of racism drowned out rational argument - not just here but throughout

OLD EUROPE

As one gloomster put it:

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

which is thought what

SENTIMENTALITY is to COMPASSION

-means that the intelligentsia of the

WEST

-has disarmed itself in advance of any possible struggle.

The result of all this, as recent events have made tragically clear, was that

BRITISH CULTURE

-was

UNDERMINED and SOCIAL COHESION

DAMAGED.

Separated from mainstream society by geographical and cultural apartheid, which has been fostered by

MULTICULTURALISM

-many immigrants were denied the chance to

INTEGRATE.

 

AND, INSTEAD OF BEING TOLD BY THE HOST COMMUNITY

THAT IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO ADHERE

-to the values of a liberal, pluralist democracy, they should

RETURN HOME

They were asked how they would like

BRITAIN

-to conform to

THEIR VALUES.

THE STORY WAS VERY MUCH THE SAME THROUGHOUT EUROPE

The robust American political commentator Mark Steyn, a disillusioned Anglophile has already written us off. The thesis of his Blackly comic book,

*

America Alone:

The End Of The World As We Know It

*

-is that the U.S. will survive because the

RELIGIOUS RIGHT ARE CONFIDENT

 AND

 REPRODUCE

BUT

 THAT EUROPE IS FINISHED

Its not just demographic decline, he says, it's also the unsustainability of the

MODERN WELFARE STATE

-in which we depend so much on our own individual resources.

We are also, he believes, suffering from 'civilisational exhaustion':

CULTURAL DISINTEGRATION

-brought about by

BIG GOVERNMENT

[Or if you prefer BIG BROTHER]

-which has fatally

DESTROYED OUR SENSE OF SELF-RELIANCE.

 

MEANWHILE, we are importing large numbers of unemployed youths from abroad in order to maintain

OUR

STANDARD OF LIVING

Yet many of these newcomers have nothing

BUT

CONTEMPT

 FOR OUR

WAY OF LIFE

-and some even wish

TO DESTROY IT

Steyn sees this as a

CIVIL WAR

which

EUROPE

-is too timid even to acknowledge - let alone

LET ALONE WIN

[This is something the Tory Mr Oliver Letwin or as we have said on a number of occasions Mr Let-them-win -and they will, who appears to be out of touch with the real issues that matter to our country in the early years of the 21st century.]

Mr Steyn says:

'Islam has youth and WILL

Europe has age and WELFARE.'

It's hard not to agree with Mark Steyn, especially as every day seems to bring more evidence

THAT AS A SOCIETY

WE ARE TERMINALLY

MAD

For example, this week's fertiliser bomb trial had heard that the key plotters had been radicalised by the hate preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed whom the judge condemned as

'a master of cowardice -who works in the shadows.'

This was the same firebrand who as an asylum -seeker here, had pocketed

£275,000

-in Welfare benefits.

[It is the same mentality shown by

Lord Chief Justice Phillips and Lord Falconer and many others

-who instead of spending the £32 million allocated for building prisons a few years ago are now doing almost anything in order to keep thousands of criminals many repeat offenders and dangerous, out of prison and giving many early release so they can go back to torment their victims and as has happened in a number of occasions returned to have another go at their robbery or other offence knowing that the worst that might happen is either a holiday or community service or whatever  and as many prisons these days are very much like 5star hotels there will be no hardship encountered if they are so lucky to win the prison admission lottery -then it will be a nice break to see old friends and anyway they will be out before they have completed their degree in political science or whatever.

The victims of crime, many of them elderly - poor and lonely won't as a rule be free of fear of their tormentor returning for a second or even third try to rob them of the little they have  and as has happened even assault and kill the defenceless pensioner - but some victims even lose heart and end their own lives by depriving themselves of food because they have lost hope that they can be safe again and we have their so-called protectors such as The Lord Chief Justice Phillips and Lord Falconer the new 'Justice' Minister ? who says 'Jail's the wrong place for burglars' and others who are doing whatever they can to keep the criminals out of jail. If the Army can put up a temporary  barracks in double quick time then there would be spaces for all the thousands of criminals who should be

OUT OF THE COMMUNITY.

Of course there would be complaints that the conditions are not up to the standards of the 5star prisons that they have 'visited' over the years and anyway there is

Tony Blair's

1998 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

to keep them out of such uncomfortable surroundings which would not provide the 'key' service which has been introduced with their friendly solicitor providing a drugs service as an extra comfort.

THERE IS NO LONGER JUSTICE AS THE SENTENCE DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME

ANYMORE]

*

To continue:

Despite all this, I still believe there are grounds for hope - largely because Muslim hotheads have overplayed their hand by blowing people up, rioting in their neighbourhoods or broadcasting hate -filled speeches which alienate them from the host community.

*

 

[Well we are of the opinion that until the Government shows to the Muslim population that they will not give way on insisting that ALL newcomers and those already with us conform to

OUR RULE OF LAW

 

-and punish without hesitation any breaches of the Law and make it plain that anyone who is a threat to our country WILL BE extradited. BUT of course we have Tony Blair's 1998 Human Rights Act and articles within the 1951 British led Convention of Human Rights which will need amending.

It should be made quite clear that those who have no intention to

INTEGRATE

-should be reminded of their commitment which they gave when they where granted immigration or asylum status (which should be a legal requirement in the future)

Unless drastic action is taken by the next Prime Minister as a priority , future generations of the indigenous population will find themselves foreigners in their own country with their religion and culture under growing  threat. The evidence is before our eyes it is a warning of what the future will bring if action is not taken

QUICKLY AND DECISIVELY

Those moderate Muslims will at last feel secure in the knowledge that they are safe from the extremist influence which up to now they have had it all their own way. By our commitment

IT WILL BE SECURITY THROUGH STRENGTH OF PURPOSE AND THE MUSLIMS WILL BE WITH US

Continue as NOW and they will have nothing but contempt for our indecision and inadequate moral integrity.]

*

To continue:

The sharp-suited, soft spoken undercover agents of the

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

-the banned Egyptian group whose former members include Osma Bin Laden -understand that power is best secured by

STEALTH

by infiltrating institutions and seducing the

MEDIA

Libya's Colonel Gaddafi once exemplified this policy

He said:

'There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe -without swords, without guns-without conquests. The 50 million Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.'

 

[AND THEY SURE MEAN IT]

 

 

[Our survival as a Christian nation can only be achieved by the Government reversing it's abhorrent legislation as to Religious freedom of speech and action because not to do so further emphasises to the extremist elements in our country that we are WEAK and AMORAL nation and therefore ready for conversion by stealth as their numbers obtain the victory while we ignore our Christian past at our peril.

Our close relations to America must be strengthened particularly in the moral arena so that our nations will gain the grudging respect of those who have a desire to replace our Christian heritage with their own.

There will be many who will say that we live in a secular environment and that the Government of the day should not concern itself but we have no choice we either support our Institutions and that includes our Christian inheritance which is ingrained into the very fabric of our nation or  lose that priceless heirloom the foundation of our IDENTITY and accept another more fanatical regime who do not believe in toleration but only in the observance of their one and only deliverer who will have no other faiths before it.

WE HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE

-because a vacuum must be filled and it is better that we know what contain.

The Choice Is Yours!

-but better it will be to retain our own heritage than be converted to another.]

*

But the violent extremists have provoked some signs of a backlash, not just among indigenous populations of Europe but among those tolerant immigrants who value the countries

THAT TOOK THEM IN

The Swedes, of all people, whom liberals claimed had produced a perfect society, are trying to row back on the

WELFARE STATE

-to encourage the

WORK ETHIC

and are demanding

THAT IMMIGRANTS INTEGRATE

 

Nyamko Sabuni a female, Muslim, African immigrant who is now the country's

INTEGRATION and EQUALITY

MINISTER

-insists that

ALL IMMIGRANTS

-should learn Swedish and find a job.

 

She is also intent on criminalising

FORCED MARRIAGES

CHECKING GIRLS FOR EVIDENCE OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION

and

BANNING THE VEIL

as well as

STATE FUNDING

for RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.

[This is an area that needs the new Premier Gordon Brown to put his attention as to make it plain that their is one

RULE OF LAW

in

ENGLAND

[NO EXCEPTIONS FOR MUSLIMS OR ANYONE ELSE IN OUR COUNTRY]

 

 

*          *          *

 

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comments in Brackets]

'The Spirit of England'

by

Winston Churchill

In London on St.George's Day -1953

*

 

 

 

SCOTLAND -ITS PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?

 

*

 

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

 

*

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin

H.F.1300
 

Conservative Friends of Israel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Conservative Friends of Israel, abbreviated to CFI, is a British parliamentary group affiliated to the Conservative Party, which is dedicated to strengthening business, cultural and political ties between the United Kingdom and Israel. CFI is an unincorporated association. It also seeks to strengthen ties between the British Conservative Party and the Israeli Likud party.

It was founded in 1974 by Conservative MP for Bury and Radcliffe, Michael Fidler. It is currently chaired by Stuart Polak. The Parliamentary Chairman is James Arbuthnot, the Parliamentary President is Baroness Shephard of Northwold. The Vice Chairmen are John Butterfill and James Clappison, the Secretary is David Amess, the Officers are Alistair Burt, Lee Scott, and Theresa Villiers, and the Chairman of CFI Europe is Timothy Kirkhope.

In 1995 Conservative politician Robert Rhodes James called it "the largest organisation in Western Europe dedicated to the cause of the people of Israel".[1]

By 2009, according to the Channel 4 documentary Dispatches – Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, around 80% of Conservative MPs were members of the CFI.[2] In 2013, Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator called CFI “by far Britain’s most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group”. The same is true of AIPAC in the US.”[3]

 

 

Activities[edit]

The group's 2005 strategy identified the following areas of activity: supporting Israel, promoting the British Conservative Party, fighting terrorism, combating anti-semitism, and promoting peace in the Middle East.[4] According to their website, "over two thirds" of Conservative MPs were members of Conservative Friends of Israel in 2006.[5] In 2007 the Political Director stated it had over 2000 members and registered supporters.[6] In 2009, at least half of the shadow cabinet were members of the group according to a Dispatches documentary.[7]

Their website states the opinion that it is one of the fastest growing political lobby groups in the UK.[8] According to the Dispatches documentary, between 2006 and 2009 the CFI funded more than 30 Conservative parliamentary candidates to visit Israel.[7]

In 2012 CFI reconstituted itself as a private company limited by guarantee.[9]

CFI annual business lunch[edit]

David Cameron, then newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, addressed the CFI annual business lunch on 30 January 2006, whose audience included half of the Conservative Parliamentary Party. As part of his speech, he stated "I am proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative friend of Israel; and I am proud of the key role CFI plays within our Party. Israel is a democracy, a strong and proud democracy, in a region that is, we hope, making its first steps in that direction."[10]

Former Conservative party leaders Iain Duncan Smith[11] and Michael Howard[12] have addressed the CFI lunch.

The British Pakistani MP Sajid Javid has also made business lunch speeches which have been positively received by the CFI, the Jewish Chronicle even reporting Javid as a future Prime Minister.[13]

Donations[edit]

The Dispatches documentary claimed members of the group and their companies have donated over £10 million to the Conservative party between 2001 and 2009. The group called this figure "deeply flawed" saying that they have only donated £30,000 between 2004 and 2009 but that members of the group have undoubtedly made their own donations to the party. Dispatches described the CFI as "beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups".[2][7]

Members of CFI[edit]

According to the CFI website 80% of Tory MPs are members of Conservative Friends of Israel.[14]

In alphabetical order, members of Conservative Friends of Israel include:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Peter Oborne (12 December 2012). "The cowardice at the heart of our relationship with Israel". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 8 January 2013. 
  2. ^ a b Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, Channel 4, Monday 16 November 2009
  3. ^ Peter Oborne, Iran nuclear deal: ill-informed friends of Israel are refusing to face facts, Daily Telegraph, 27 November 2013, accessed 10 August 2015
  4. ^ CFI INFORMED Magazine, Second Edition (PDF), Conservative Friends of Israel, February 2007, p. 3, retrieved 29 May 2008 [dead link]
  5. ^ Conservative Friends of Israel – About Us
  6. ^ Robert Halfon (27 September 2007). "Introducing the CFI". ConservativeHome. Retrieved 20 August 2012. 
  7. ^ a b c Black, Ian (16 November 2009). "Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 16 November 2009. 
  8. ^ Conservative Friends of Israel web site
  9. ^ "Companies House WebCHeck - CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS OF ISRAEL LIMITED". Companies House. Company No. 08114952. Archived from the original on 29 December 2008. Retrieved 8 January 2013. 
  10. ^ CFI INFORMED Weekly Briefing (PDF), Conservative Friends of Israel, 3 February 2006, retrieved 25 May 2006 [dead link]
  11. ^ Duncan Smith: Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorists, Conservatives.com, 10 December 2001
  12. ^ "Howard Speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel, at the Savoy Hotel, London". Conservatives.com. 6 December 2004. Archived from the original on 12 December 2004. 
  13. ^ http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/94117/muslim-tory-mp-after-britain-israel-best
  14. ^ a b "About CFI". Conservative Friends of Israel. Retrieved 5 August 2014. 
  15. ^ "Ministers "will change" war crimes arrest law". Jewish Chronicle. 8 July 2010. 
  16. ^ "Altrincham and Sale West: Election 2010". Jewish Chronicle. 29 April 2010. 
  17. ^ "UK: Evangelical Christian appointed new UK Middle East Minister". The Muslim News. 15 May 2010. Archived from the original on 22 March 2012. Retrieved 5 August 2014. 
  18. ^ "British MPs furious after Israel President Shimon Peres accuses the English of being anti-semitic". Daily Mail. UK. 1 August 2010. 
  19. ^ a b "Cameron's Cabinet: Who are they?". Retrieved 15 May 2011. 
  20. ^ "Mike's Biography". Retrieved 15 May 2011. 
  21. ^ "William Hague's Schmooze With The Jewish News". Totally Jewish. 25 March 2010. 
  22. ^ a b "Ministers lose seats in the East". East Anglia Daily Times. 7 May 2010. 
  23. ^ Black, Ian (16 November 2009). "Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims". The Guardian. London. 
  24. ^ "About Conservative Friends of Israel". cfoi.co.uk. Retrieved 22 September 2011. 
  25. ^ "Eric Pickles to lead MPs’ delegation to Israel". Jewish Chronicle. July 24, 2015. 
  26. ^ "Rifkind elected as Kensington MP". Jewish Chronicle. 7 May 2010. 
  27. ^ Sloan, Alaistair. "Ed Miliband will back Israel". Middle East Monitor. Retrieved 13 April 2015. 

External links[edit]

 

[GOVERNMENTS SHOULD ENDEAVOUR BE ON FRIENDLY TERMS WITH ALL FOREIGN POWERS BUT IT  IS NOT HEALTHY IN A DEMOCRACY THAT  THERE IS UNDUE INFLUENCE IN  RESPECT OF LOBBYING OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO'S PRIME OCCUPATION IS TO REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND NOT FOREIGN DOMAINS OF WHICH WE MAY HAVE REASON  TO CENSOR OR EVEN TO ENTER INTO CONFLICT.  IN A DIVISION IN THE HOUSE WHERE DOES THEIR LOYALTY LAY -TO ENGLAND OR ISRAEL- OR  TO WHOSOEVER?  IN VIEW OF THE CENTURIES ZIONIST HOLD ON THE AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION AND NO DOUBT OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS AROUND THE WORLD IT MAY USE POWER TO FURTHER ITS OWN AGENDA AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF FREE NATION STATES. AS FAR AS WE ARE AWARE THERE IS NO

 'FRIENDS OF ENGLAND'

 

LOBBY GROUP IN PARLIAMENT

 LOOKING AFTER THE INTERESTS OF THE  ENGLISH PEOPLE.  IF THERE HAD BEEN IN THE 1970'S OUR COUNTRY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AWAY TO A FOREIGN POWER -OUR ENEMY IN TWO WORLD WARS-

GERMANY.

ADDED JULY 28,2018

AND WE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE EU WITHIN 6 MONTHS. NOT STILL IN AFTER 2 YEARS WITH AN EXIT DATE OF MARCH 29,2009.]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

OCTOBER 21,2017

H.F.1355
 
 UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

PART 17/1

/Of 28 sections.

AUGUST 2005

ISLAMIC JIHAD

The Islamic Jihad of the 7th to 10th centuries over-ran half of the then Christian World by the sword. Today, many western Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding, and those who are faithful to the Quran and to the Hadith may well stand beside Christians in campaigns against Materialism and immorality.

Equally, they can take the view that the decadent 'Christian' west is regarded as Dar-al-Harb (house of war). pagan and irredeemable. Only jihad, in the latter view, will bring 'peace' by the establishment of a new Khilafah (a Muslim state) worldwide and by the abolition of national boundaries to result in Izhaar ud-Deen (world domination by Islam).

Islamic states are at the forefront of persecution of Christians, a fact well documented by Operation Mobilisation, Barnabas Fund, Christian Solidarity and Frontline Fellowship amongst other Christian groups.  This topic alone would warrant a book about it and there is truly no space here to begin to do the subject the justice it deserves.

Even in non-Muslim countries, Islam shows its aggressive side, and this is putting the bombings in places like New York, Bali, Madrid, London and Israel on one side.  In Nigeria, Muslims are advancing Sha'ria and persecuting Christians, driving them out of Muslim areas by force of arms. In Australia, Muslims used the State of Victoria's Anti-Vilification Law to persecute Paster Daniel Scot when he described the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and described Islamic beliefs.  At the University of Pretoria, in South Africa, Frontline Fellowship Field Director, Timothy Keller, was threatened by a mob of Muslim students demanding that a missions display be taken down.  In the United Kingdom, author Salman Rushdie became the subject of a death sentence for writing his book "The Satanic Verses" and the arts and media worlds are terrified of offending Muslims.  And with good reason - Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh was murdered because he released a film criticising Islam and the oppression of women in arranged marriages.  His murderer, Mohammed Bouyeri, is unrepentant.

Believers are held in Islam by fear, making the Quranic promise that there is no compulsion empty. Mohammed said 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' (Bukhari: Volume 4, book 52, Number 260, Narrated Ikrima.)

Apostasy is punishable by death today in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan and Mauritania.  Of point to us in evangelism is that the penalty for a Muslim converting to Christianity in Britain is still theoretically death.  Even if a convert's Muslims neighbours stop short of killing him, Muslim converts in Britain suffer severe persecution.  The Barnabas Fund estimate that some 3,000 Christian converts from Islam are in danger in the UK.  They include Nissar Hussain and his family from Bradford; his car was burnt out, he has endured bricks thrown through his windows, threats to burn his house down and much else.

 

*  *  *

Christian Voice, PO Box 739A, Surbiton, KT6 5YA -

AUGUST 2005

Searches related to pew research muslim population

sweden muslim population 2050

islam in germany 2050

islam in europe 2050

muslim population in france 2017

muslim population in europe 2018

belgium muslim population

islam in europe today

muslim population

 

More!

IMMIGRATION FILE

 

 

H.F.1711/14/1
 
 
 UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

PART 17/1

AUGUST 2005

THE 'COVENANT OF SECURITY'

The Islamic concept of a 'Covenant of Security' means two things. Firstly, unbelievers who pay the Jizyah are entitled to the provision of security from the Khilafah, and secondly, a non-Islamic nation which provides shelter to Muslims is not regarded as Dar-al-Harb. It is the second meaning which is relevant to Britain today.

In practice, as long as Britain sheltered Islamic terrorists planning strikes against their own governments, and did not make war against islamic lands, Britain was safe from attack.  The turning of London into Londonistan, a haven for foreign jihadists, made Britain, in a perverse kind of way, a safer place.

Chief among advocates of the 'Covenant of Security' was Skeikh Omar Bakri, leader of al-Muhajiroun. The head of its Luton branch, Sayful Islam, said in April 2004 that he supported Osama Bin Laden "100 per cent" in the quest to achieve

"the worldwide domination of Islam"

but he would not engage in terror attacks in Britain

"as long as they allow us Muslims to live here in peace."

All that changed as events unfolded in 2004 as a result of 9/11.

The British Government arrested certain foreign nationals on suspicion of inciting terrorism, and, unable for human rights reasons to deport them, kept them interned without trial.

The second factor was Britain's active support in the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

In January 2005 Bakri determined that the covenant of security had ended and "the whole of Britain had become Dar-al-Harb."

British Muslims were obliged "to join the global Islamic camp against the global crusader camp" the latter of which included Britain. Six months later, the bombing campaign in London began.

Other British jihadists took a different line. Hassan Butt left al Muhajiroun because he disagreed that British-born Muslims were bound by the same covenant of security felt by foreigners, such as Bakri himself.  In an interview, Butt said British-born Muslim youth have no allegiance to this country: "Islamically, I agree that someone who runs from the Middle East-where people like me are persecuted-and says, 'Britain, I want you to protect me' has entered a covenant of security. They  say, 'look protect my life and as a result I won't do any harm to you.' That  I agree with 100 per cent, but most of our people, especially the youth are British citizens... They did not ask to be born here; neither did they ask to be protected by Britain....They  have no covenant. As far as I'm concerned, the Islamic hukum (order) that I follow, says that a person has no covenant whatsoever with the country in which they are born." (Prospect Magazine August 2005)

*  *  *

Christian Voice, PO Box 739A, Surbiton, KT6 5YA -

AUGUST 2005

Searches related to pew research muslim population

sweden muslim population 2050

islam in germany 2050

islam in europe 2050

muslim population in france 2017

muslim population in europe 2018

belgium muslim population

islam in europe today

muslim population

 

More!

IMMIGRATION FILE

 

 

H.F.1711/14/1
 
 
 
 
 UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

PART 14/1

AUGUST 2005

ORIGINS OF MODERN MUSLIM TERRIORISM

Islamic terrorism in its present form can trace its roots to the foundation of Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 in Egypt.  Previous historical events were Britain's promise of a Arab homeland to T.E Lawrence's Arab army in 1916-17, the way Britain and France were meanwhile dividing up the middle east in the Sykes Picot Agreement of 1916., which meant the promise given to and by Lawrence was worthless, the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by Allenby in 1917, the end of the Ottoman Califate when the modern state of Turkey was established in 1924, the setting up of the Turkish Grand National Assemble or Parliament and British occupation of Egypt.  These all contributed to the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood.  In the 1940's one of its leaders, the Egyptian literary critic Sayd Qutb, spent two years in America, an experience which turned him solidly against the West in general. Before his execution in Egypt in 1966, he wrote a book entitled 'Milestone' which is available on the internet at YoungMuslims Canada.

It was Qutb who developed the modern ideas of Jihad, and writing about Sura 9:111 and Allah's bargain fo the Shahid, he chids those who will not accept it: "The deal fills us with awe. Yet those who are claiming to be Muslims everywhere...are sitting idle, unwilling to strive hard in order to establish the fundamental truth of Allah's Lordship on earth, or to remove the tyranny which usurps the qualities of Lordship over human life on earth [ie non-islamic governments].  They are unwilling to fight, kill and be killed in Allah's cause."Outb reminds jihadists that they should rejoice in the bargain, just as the Quran says the followers of Mohammed did: "Ye did indeed wish for death before ye met him" (Sura 3:143). He asserts that they should hope for death in battle, and encourages modern mujihadeen to seek death in nthe worldwide jihad- or 'struggle' - to impose Islam and eliminate its enemies.

According to the NubaSurvival website, Qurb, the Indo-Pakistani radical Abu al-Ala Al Mawdudi and the Ayatollah Imam Khomeini were the three prime sources of modern militant Islamic theocratic ideology. Mawdudi saw Western morality as barbarian, and argued for the imposition of an Islamic state. Khomeini told a conference of Islamic clerics in 1981: "Quran says kill, imprison. Why are you only clinging to the part that talks of mercy?" He said: Those who know nothing bof Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those {who] say [this] are witless. Islam says: Kill al the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!... Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword."

Quarb saw unrestrained capitalism, individualism, promiscuity, decadence and globalisation as threats to Islam, rather as we might see them as threats to Christianity.  His answer was to revive the old ideas of expansion, and to propose, contrary to Arab nationalists, that the homeland Muslims should fight for not a piece of land but the whole Dar-al-islam. It followed that any part of the world which hampered the spread of Islam or failed to operate Sha'ria was Dar-al-Harb.  Another member of the Muslim Brotherhood was Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian university professor who became the mentor of Osama Bin Laden.  Bin Laden himself is said to be or have been a members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but with so many other connections to the Brotherhood, it hardly matters.

So islamic terrorism is relatively new, but the intellectuals who have developed it have built it on foundations which are solidly in the Quran and Hadith.

 

*  *  *

Christian Voice, PO Box 739A, Surbiton, KT6 5YA -

AUGUST 2005

Searches related to pew research muslim population

sweden muslim population 2050

islam in germany 2050

islam in europe 2050

muslim population in france 2017

muslim population in europe 2018

belgium muslim population

islam in europe today

muslim population

 

More!

IMMIGRATION FILE

 

 

H.F.1711/14/1
 
 
   
 
   
 

The identified threat is that of globalise fanaticism - presented in duplicitous ideological terms as "progressivism". It is a threat directed by an elitist and globalise oligarchy who use a worldwide conflict-fomenting stratagem for the purpose of achieving total control. To that end, they have engineered: a 'no borders, no limits' coalition of anti-natives genocidalism; a supremacist religion of terror; and global corporatist industrialism.

This is a psychopath that endorses numerous, grotesque anti-native practices, including: a power/servility fetishism; perpetual and radical societal re-engineering; targeted genocide (and, especially, of population replacement in Europe); child abuse; perverse sexual behaviour; contempt for the 'other' (non co-religionists); and a highly manipulative and malevolent use of psycho-sociological control techniques.

An effective response to an escalating global threat can be achieved by positive means - by a renewal of indigenous cultural and spiritual traditions in which are to be found qualities such as: an experientially acquired native wisdom; a true appreciation of the value of kinship; an understanding of the debt owed to one's ancestors and the duty toward future generations; a willingness to directly resist and confront that threat; altruistic courage; and an undaunted resolve.

Increasingly, we (native Europeans) will have to physically defend ourselves and our homelands from the consequences of the actions of the supremacist global psychopath. A successful defence can only be achieved outside of the globalises' controlling narrative. A restoration of our own, authentic cultural and spiritual traditions can provide us with a good moral basis for that defence - and the likelihood of a successful outcome.

Notably, the approach outlined in the full report (see below) also provides the means for the creation of natural alliances between the native people of Europe and other native groups throughout the world.

#1 'A Native European Defence Against A Supremacist, Globalise, Psychopath' (pdf)

 

This work is a consequence of extensive research into the contemporary situation in Europe - reports on that research include the following:

#2 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

#3 'State Complicity in The Sexual Exploitation of Young English Females by Violent Muslim Gangs' (pdf)

#4 'Who Goes Home?' - from 'The flying Inn' by G K Chesterton (pdf)

#5 'The UK Deep State: an investigation into its anti-nativist malevolence' (pdf)

 

Middan-Geard (a page of supplementary articles, pictures, poems ...)

 

This research is on-going and further reports are to be published on this website in the near future. For any comments, suggestions, contributions, et cetera - the first point of contact is: info@thisisourland.info

 

   
  Disclaimer: [1] Every reasonable effort have been made to ensure that the information given in this report is accurate in content and fairly reported. However considerable difficulties have been encountered in gaining access to full information concerning activities and intentions of the State and its ancilliary organisations – even from official sources. This is an ongoing endeavour, therefore we would therefore welcome any additional information from authoritative, verifiable sources regarding the above issues – for the purpose of confirmation, amendment, correction or supplementary reporting; [2] we have been unable to locate the sources/copyright holders for some of the images used in this website, but if notified we should be pleased to append the appropriate acknowledgements or remove those images (if required nto do so); and [3] references from, or links to other sources (printed or electronic/website material) should not be construed as our support for or endorsement of the opinions or assertions contained within those sources.
  Copyright: Tony Shell, 19th January 2017, http://www.thisisourland.info - Status: last updated on the 26th August 2017 - Contact: info@thisisourland.info
 

H.F.609
 
 
 
 

 

MAY-16 victory

JUN-16

REFERENDUM

 JUL-16 AUG-16 SEP-16 OCT-16 NOV-16 DEC-16 JAN - 17 FEB-17
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18
NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19
SEP 19 OCT-19 NOV-19 DEC-19 JAN-20

FEB-20

MAR-20

APRIL-20

 MAY-20 JUNE-20
JULY-20 AUG-20 SEPT-20 OCT-20 NOV-20  FREE OF THE EU

DEC-20

 AFTER  48 YEARS

JAN-21

A FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE

 THE

WORLD OUR OYSTER

JAN-21

FEB-21

MAR-21

APR - 21

MAY- 21

JUNE - 21

JULY - 21

AUG - 21

SEPT- 21

OCT-21

NOV- 21

DEC - 21

JAN - 22

 

 
 
A MEETING PLACE  - THERE ARE HUNDREDS  OF ALTERNATIVE WEBSITES ON OUR wEBSITE- SINCE 2003
realzionistnews. TruetorahJews CONSPIRACYPLANET

.COM/
Fagan-Sounded-Alarm-of -the ILLUMINATI-in-1967 DAVID ICKE BRITISH CONSTITUTION GROUP

 

 YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH
BENJAMIN FULFORD.NET

 

 THE WORLD OF TRUTH NEWWORLDORDER

INFO.COM

 

  
LANDDESTROYER.

BLOGSPOT

.COM

 HENRY MAKOW  CORBETTREPORT) LIFE IN THE MIX 2

 
UK COLUMN.ORG. JEW WATCH

ACTIVISTPOST.

COM

TARPLEY.NET

 
 

Jacques Atalli Predicted Scamdemic & Genocide in 1981

Bigger Text | Default Text | Smaller Text | ShareThis icon Facebook icon Twitter icon Email icon

 

 


 
jacques-attali-home.jpeg
Globalist Planner Jacques Atalli Predicted Scamdemic & Genocide in 1981
 

 

 

 
"Euthanasia will have to be an essential instrument of our future societies, in all cases. We cannot of course execute people or set up camps. We will get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We will have taken care to have planned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will thus be done on its own: they will go to the slaughterhouse on their  own." 


 
By RM
(henrymakow.com)

 
For those who still doubt that the fraudulent, genocidal, Communist-style tyranny of Covid 1984 was planned long ago, prepare to have your illusions shattered. 

 
The following statements made in 1981 by Jewish globalist Jacques Attali are taken from Interviews with Michel Salomon - The  Faces of the Future, Seghers edition when Attali was  a senior adviser to French President, Francoise Mitterand: 

 
"In the future it will be a question of finding a way to reduce the population. We will start with  the old, because as soon as it exceeds 60-65 years man lives longer than he produces and costs  society dearly, then the weak and then the useless who do nothing for society because there  will be more and more of them, and especially the stupid ones. 

 
"Euthanasia targeting these groups; euthanasia will have to be an essential instrument of our  future societies, in all cases. We cannot of course execute people or set up camps. We will get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good...

 
"We will find something or cause it, a pandemic that targets certain people, a real economic  crisis or not, a virus that will affect the old or the fat, it doesn't matter, the weak will succumb to it, the fearful and the stupid will believe it and ask to be treated. 

 
"We will have taken care to have planned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will thus be done on its own: they will go to the slaughterhouse on their own." 

 
Finally (and perhaps especially), since no war can be won unless the peoples waging it believe it just and necessary, and unless the loyalty of citizens and their belief in its values are maintained, the chief weapons of the future will be the instruments of propaganda,  communication, and intimidation." 
____________ 
Jacques Attali (born 1 November 1943) is a French economic and social theorist, writer, political  adviser and senior civil servant, who served as a counselor to President François Mitterrand from  1981 to 1991 and was the first head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in  1991-1993.   In 2009, Foreign Policy recognized him as one of the top 100 "global thinkers" in the world.

  
 
 
 -(1994 - EDP.ORG.UK Official Website - JANUARY - PART 2 - 2022 )-

 

BULLETIN FILE - SEPTEMBER-2021    HOME - PART 1  - PART 1 PAGE 1  - PART 2  - PART 3  - PART   - PART 5  - PART 6

 

 

BULLETIN FILES FOR AUGUST 2021: - HOME- PART 1 - PART 1-PAGE 2 - PART 2 - PART 3 -  PART 4 - PART 5 - PART 6
 

 

 

NOVEMBER- HOME-

-  PART 2   -  PART 3   -PART  4  - PART 5 -   PART 6  - 

- (1994 -Official Website - MARCH-PT 5- 2019 )-

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2019          MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019         MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2019

MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2019        MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2019

       MARCH-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME PAGE 2--2019

 

*

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012

 

 

 

 
 

 

OCT-21

NOV- 21

DEC - 21

JAN - 22