Broken Britain

Not much to report from “Broken Britain” this evening. On my brief outing I saw slappers and tarts out getting drunk, an illegal pavement cyclist told me to “f*cking move!” and I saw someone urinating in a doorway. No sign of police. So, pretty much business as usual.

Sisters of Mercy: Dominion

Oops! The latest free Adobe Flash Player™ is required to view this content.

North Korea

I woke up today to the news that North Korea has performed yet more nuclear tests. Let’s just say Kim Jong-il is not interested in generating electricity. I wondered what the lefties make of all this. What should be done about it? Have some “dialogue”, perhaps? Surely they wouldn’t give their usual refrain “Ah well, it’s because of the way we’ve treated them”? Mind you, nothing would surprise me.

How would the population of the UK react, I wondered, if one of his nukes came flying our way? Us, a largely apathetic, pampered, decadent, welfare-dependent nation. We’d have difficulty finding grounds to self-flagellate over North Korea, so perhaps some people – people who identified with the UK, at least (which excludes a large amount) – would stand up and fight. Thankfully, more people are now joining the army – probably because it’s a job in a economic slowdown. Perhaps the others would fight to ensure their benefits payments continued?

We can hope. But we can also wonder, what would the lefties do if North Korea decided to attack somebody else? Blame them, probably – especially if it was America. And thereby we would lose our greatest ally. We would be bereaved, as a spouse is bereaved, the kind of spouse who thought they could afford to abuse their partner because they would always be there. But then, suddenly, they are not. They’re gone – and it’s too late.

Petition for Brown to resign – don’t sign it

I just found this petition for Gordon Brown to resign as PM. It was linked to by the English Democrats, who seem to speak a lot of sense.

I was about to sign it when I realised it was essential not to do so: we must do everything we can to keep Brown in power to make it a certainty that Labour get voted out at the next general election. It is only in the interests of Labour supporters to get Brown out now, and I’m certainly not one of them.

So don’t sign this petition – the presence of Gordon Brown is our greatest asset. The longer he stays with Labour the greater will the majority hopefully be for UKIP, the party for whom I and many others will probably vote.

Another reason not to sign the petition, of course, is that the government simply ignores such expressions of public opinion, as is reflected for example by their limp sentencing policy, open-door immigration policy, religious appeasement policy,  overly-generous welfare policy and by their very weak replies to all other petitions.

Classic Hitchens one-liner

Here’s one of the funniest lines Christopher Hitchens has come out with, delivered while debating the arm-waving Rabbi Schmuley Boteach…  Actually there are two here, one being “I think you’re in a minority on that point” and the second of course being “He to the best of his ability”!

BPC Radio 4 no longer recommended

Just a quick mention: I no longer recommend BBC Radio 4 in the links here because of its high degree of political correctness and religious output. I don’t listen to it much.

But I can instead recommend the BBC World Service, which offers a much wider view and, even as I type, is broadcasting a programme about the failure of multiculturalism in Britain. People are starting to speak openly about that now.

Two kinds of Humanist

I’ve written of two kinds of atheist and two kinds of Christian. Belief systems are a somewhat tangled web, but I have noticed that nonetheless a rough distinction may also be made between two kinds of Humanist currently out there:

Soft

These are left-wing liberal idealists. You will often see them smoking, with piercings etc., protesting about something or other (it hardly seems to matter what). It’s hard to tell what they think because they generally refrain from making any value judgements, except that one must not make value judgements, and they rarely articulate themselves clearly. But they seem to be motivated by ideas such as:

• Religion is first and foremost bad because it is a control system
• Everyone is good really if only given the chance
• Capitalism is bad
• Everybody should be free to behave however they like (possible addition: as long as they are not affecting others)
• We shouldn’t dismiss foreign cultures just because they are foreign – they have a lot to teach us
• Cultural objectivists are racist (well, anyone is racist who doesn’t agree with us)
• The police are largely racist and oppressive
• We should feel guilty about all the bad things people from our country have done in the past
• Islam is not really harmful – moderate Muslims especially are fine

A lot of people go through this phase: it’s called teenage idealism and rebellion. But sadly these people seem to remain perpetual teenagers. They are naïve and not very helpful in the Humanist movement. Actually they’re not really Humanists at all.

Hard

These are social conservatives and realists, concerned about the disintegration of society and the decline of values. They are not afraid to make judgements and defend them. They are motivated by ideas such as:

• Religion is first and foremost bad because it encourages automatic belief of claims which are more than likely false
• There are dangerous people who want to kill us all (or at the least fail to integrate) because this is clearly written into books which they believe to be the word of God
• Religion is a mental virus
• Checked capitalism is the only viable way for an economy to operate
• Cultural relativism is bad, naïve and dangerous. Some cultural values can be shown to be more likely to lead to a happy life than others
• Faith schools are divisive, lie to pupils, and should be banned
• We can perfectly capably create our own value systems with reason, compassion, and a realistic awareness of dangerous threats
• Some liberties need sacrificing for the sake of security
• The police do an extremely difficult, unenviable job, and are vital to civilised society: without them society would descend into anarchy
• We are not the slightest bit accountable for bad things our ancestors have done, any more than we can take credit for them. And in any case, they weren’t all bad.
• Islam is an imperialist ideology, the Qur’an a book of hate, and “moderate” Muslims (who are essentially not Muslims at all), with their two masters, only serve to lend credibility to fundamentalists

Integration

During a recent short visit I made to Balham town centre all of the most notable incidents happened to come from the black community.

First of all I witnessed a boy revving his moped menacingly and then zooming off down the busy road doing a wheelie. The moped was of course extremely loud. Needless to say, nothing could be done about this irresponsible behaviour. What police officer would dare to arrest? Who could spare the time for the copious paperwork and who would risk the virtually guaranteed accusations of racism?

The next notable incident involved a woman yelling so loudly at her small son, who was in the passenger seat of her car, apparently doing nothing, that I literally had to break off my phone call and wait until her savage tirade had finished. I felt extremely sorry for that boy.

The final one involved a debate at a bar between a black man and a white man. Apparently another white man had said the black man resembled a leading actor. Quite a compliment, one might have thought. But in politically correct, “multicultural”, fragile Britain, one would have to think again. Due to the fact that many black people seem to carry very large chips on their shoulders, no such comments can be risked, however innocent they might be.

The black man asserted “You’re saying we all look the same” – and he wasn’t joking. A debate ensued involving the hapless whites trying to placate the man, and explaining they meant nothing by the comment. This continued for perhaps 10 minutes. It disturbed me from my reading and I would not have been surprised it had turned to sudden violence (though not from the whites).

Personally it makes no difference to me if people are black, white, or any shade in between. While I am culturalist (as I believe every moral person should be), I’m not racist. This notwithstanding, I wondered to myself, having witnessed this: how can there be “integration” when such innocuous remarks as this can cause such profound offence?

Here is an article by the great writer Theodore Dalrymple on this subject.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism: understood as the political ideology that it is both desirable and practicable for considerably different cultures to co-exist in the same society.

There’s a lot to say about this topic. Instead, for now, I’m just going to say if you think I’m hard on the ideology of multiculturalism, be aware than many people in the UK are feeling the same way, and take a look at what Leo McKinstry has to say on the matter. In his view:

“Britain is now governed by a suicide cult bent on wiping out any last vestige of nationhood.”

Nope, he’s not speaking for the BNP, just for himself.

What about Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, abused ex-Muslim? What does she think about the liberal left and their naive theory of multiculturalism?

“My dream is that those lucky enough to be born into a culture of “ladies first” will let go of the myth that all cultures are equal. Human beings are equal; cultures are not.”

That’s what.

What does Bishop Nazir-Ali think? Surely he likes the idea? Nope.

David Davis, senior figure in the Conservative Party?

Well then, what about black man Trevor Phillips, head of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights? He must surely agree with it automatically? Um.. no. He did once, not now.

It’s not looking so good for the lefties. Even the Labour Party has been trying of late to backtrack on its insane and destructive policy of pandering to incoming cultures and allowing them to self-segregate.

Yes, it would be great if everyone could “just get along”. But no, that isn’t possible while many of these cultures are backward and religious, and while the government panders to them. Multiculturalism can work within limits (i.e. when the cultures wish to assimmilate and are not at odds with the host nation). It can’t work while the tenets of those cultures oppose those of the host nation, while the immigrants identify first and foremost with their ethnic group and not with the host nation, and, quite frankly, wherever Islam is involved. If you want to understand why, just read the Qur’an. If you think they’re going to mellow, you don’t understand Islam.

Any bending to multiculturalism in these cases simply serves to weaken the host nation. Any other belief is naive, as it is a refusal to accept the wealth of empirical evidence that is right before our eyes, right here, right now, in the once United Kingdom.

Inciting violence in the name of religion exempt from Citizen’s Arrest

I’ve just been reading about the powers of Citizen’s Arrest in the UK. Citizen’s Arrests can be made by anyone (you don’t actually have to be a citizen of the country), with number of caveats – for example that a police officer was not nearby to make the arrest instead.

In a few situations, however, it is not legal to make a citizen’s arrest, and these are specified by the law. These mainly involve when a person is suspected of impersonation in a polling booth. But also listed is when a person is “stirring up religious hatred”.

This latter scenario is defined as a crime under Section 3a of the Public Order Act 1986, where:

“‘religious hatred’ means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief”.

It can be shown, of course, that the Qur’an itself is guilty of an offence under this act, with its many lines encouraging hatred towards non-believers – such as:

“O ye who believe! spend of that wherewith We have provided you ere a day come when there will be no trafficking, nor friendship, nor intercession. The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers.”

- The Cow 2:254

“Those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers; on them is Allah’s curse and the curse of angels and of all mankind.”

- The Cow 2:161

I have seen videos of Muslims protesting in London carrying placards saying “Massacre those who insult Islam” and “Behead those who insult Islam”. The police, as we know, seem to do nothing about this (probably because of the amount of form filling it would entail, accusations of racism, directives from on high, etc.). But the worrying thing is that due to this mysterious exemption, neither – even theoretically – can we. I would like to know why this exemption is made.

Addition

Thankfully there is this vital proviso in the statute regarding religious hatred:

“29J Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

As can be seen, this explicitly allows the ridicule and even the insult of religion. Protesting Muslims would do well to be reminded of this. So, indeed, would the Home Secretary.

A visit to the Humanist Meetup

This evening I attended the Humanist Meetup for the first time, where the editor of New Humanist magazine spoke about the work he has been doing encouraging a humanist school in Uganda. He spoke well, and it is good work, but one wonders why charity isn’t starting a little closer to home and he isn’t concerning himself first and foremost with getting faith schools banned in the UK.

On the whole this was a nice evening off for me. It was marred only by the shocking number of leftie liberals I met yet again.

The meeting was chaired very well, but I was shocked when the speaker suddenly declared towards the end that he was greatly in favour of multi-culturalism or at least the “ideal” of it (?!) and even began to speak in support of political correctness. I thought everybody knew now that multi-culturalism was a failed experiment in the UK. And political correctness is simply the shameless repression of the truth in order to be “fashionable” and “not hurt people’s feelings”. These views were nothing, though, compared with what I was to encounter later.

I had a feminist talking to me (an organiser of this group) with her man joining in (proudly announcing he was a feminist too), and I found myself – at a Humanist meeting, mind you – arguing against them about the threat of Islam.

“What’s the problem with multi-culturalism?” she asked. I hardly knew where to start. It concerned me that I was having to explain this at all to a humanist. I tried to distill it: “Cultures are essentially value systems. Conflicting value systems among groups causes a problem for society”. When you appease the more backward of the two (as we do) and this is also the growing one (as Islam is), with imperialist designs (as Islam has), that’s going to cause more of a problem.

More than once I questioned whether I was at the right meeting – but I guess I should know better by now. I cited countless facts, such as:

• the rapidly rising birth rate among European Muslims
• the decreasing birth rate among non-Muslims
• the penalty of death for apostacy under Islam
• the recent appeasement by the government
• the mandate for hatred found in the Qur’an

None of this was going to cut it though. They didn’t even seem to know what the word “demographics” meant. They were big on the idea that Christians are a problem. Well, they are, but you don’t see them issuing death sentences in response to cartoons, and if some did – and this is the key difference – the many of the others would more than likely demand a halt to the insanity. I made the point that the Christians might actually turn out to be our best friends, given the state of denial and apathy of many non-believers and our constant capitulation to Islam.

Anyway, these two seemed to have a supreme confidence and complacency that Muslims would be softened by free society and everything would be okay. Fine, let’s hope that happens, I said, but it won’t the way we’re going.

They seemed to want to argue just for the sake of it, and while I sought common ground, they seemed to like argument, and the girl increasingly began raising her voice, losing control of herself.

Speaking to them it seemed highly likely they had not read any of the books I have on this subject or indeed seen the things I’ve seen: they were not aware of any facts or figures, and its difficult to debate people who are not aware of facts and figures. I was thoroughly shocked by their naivety – and by the smugness that accompanied it. But this is commonplace and is encountered by all who try to speak reason to young people who are pampered by their society and fully infected by political correctness.

After it became obvious I was not going to be able to cover any ground with these two limousine liberals, I let the girl reel off a largely incoherent sentence and did not respond. But I was concerned. I thought: if these are the friends we have on our side against religion, who needs enemies? Have they read Bawer, Hitchens, Harris, Hirsi Ali or Steyn? They can’t have, or they would be up to speed on these matters. It’s one thing to be positive, and that’s great, but it is quite another to be ignorant of relevant facts and figures, naïve, complacent, and out for an argument just for the sake of having one. That’s just plainly irresponsible.

I continued to chat with one, more friendly, guy who berated the Iraq War (as is to be expected) and wouldn’t endorse Geert Wilders despite not being able to cite anything he has said that was wrong (again, par for the course), but he at least seemed to concede there might be a problem with Islam. Luckily there were also a couple of other people (much the senior of the liberals, interestingly) who were more connected and had done some of the apposite reading (one had read Hirsi Ali’s Infidel so was under no illusions about Islam) – so the evening was not a dead loss.

But at many points I felt like I was at a meeting of the Muslim Council of Britain rather than a Humanist group, and it occurred to me again that the movement is in dire need of more straight talkers in the mode of Pat Condell and fewer of these airy liberals.

“America Alone” by Mark Steyn

This is an article I will continually update. For now it consists only of a list of quotations from this book:

“”Racist!” is now no more than the cry of a western liberal who can’t stand his illusions being disturbed.”

- pg xxi

“Whenever I make [my] point, lefties always respond, “Oh well, that’s typical right-wing racism”. In fact, it ought to be the Left’s issue. I’m a “social conservative”. When the mullahs take over I’ll grow my beard a little fuller, get a couple extra wives and keep my head down. It’s the feminists and gays who’ll have a tougher time. If, say, three of the five judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are Muslim, what are the chances of them approving “gay marriage”? That’s the scenario Europe’s looking at a few years down the road.”

- pg xliii

“You can argue about what these trends mean, but surely not that they mean absolutely nothing, which is what the complaceniks assure us.

On the Continent and elsewhere in the West, native populations are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic.

Time for the obligatory “of courses”: of course, not all Muslims are terrorists – though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists – though enough of them share their basic objectives (the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America) to function wittingly or otherwise as the “good cop” end of an Islamic good cop/bad cop routine.

But, at the very minimum, this fast-moving demographic transformation provides a huge comfort zone for the jihad to move around in.”

- pg 33

“[Due to youth and political correctness] it is not necessary for Islam to become a statistical majority in order to function as one.”

[But it will become a statistical majority in Europe anyway on present trends]

- pg 34

“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

- words of Colonel Gaddafi, pg 35

“Appeasement is a vote to live in the present tense, to hold the comforts of the moment. To fight for king and country is to fight for the future. But a barren society has no future, and so what’s to fight for? The terrorists would would have their work cut out killing the Spanish people as fast as they’re killing themselves. How can you “decimate” a population that’s already halving with every generation?”

- pg 37

“We’re the ones who will change you. Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.

Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours.”

- words of Norweigian imam Mullah Krekar, pg 39

“Islam is not just a religion… It’s not merely that there’s global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project – and, in fact, an imperial project – in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are not.

Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever’s your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified. And yes, Christianity has had its blood-drenched moments, but the Spanish Inquisition, which remains a byword for theocratic violence, killed fewer people in a century and a half than the jihad does in a typical year.”

- pg 62

“Contemporary multiculturalism absolves one of knowing anything about other cultures as long as one feels warm and fluffy toward them. After all, if it’s grossly judgemental to say one’s culture is better than another, why bother learning about the differences?”

- pg 71

“Islam is not only a religion, it is a complete way of life. Islam guides Muslims from birth to grave. The Quran and prophet Muhammad’s words and practical application of Quran in life cannot be changed.

Islam is a guide for humanity, for all times, until the day of judgment. It is forbidden in Islam to convert to any other religion. The penalty is death. There is no disagreement about it.

Islam is being embraced by people of other faiths all the time. They should know they can embrace Islam, but cannot get out. This rule is not made by Muslims; it is the supreme law of God.

Please do not ask us Muslims to pick some rules and disregard other rules. Muslims are supposed to embrace Islam in its totality.”

- words of Nazra Quraishi, Kindergarten teacher, East Lansing, pg 81

“How many Western Muslims have formed “Not In Our Name” groups and marched to protest the bombing of their fellow citizens in New York, Madrid and London? How many have joined “Islam Against Suicide Bombing” or banded together to force jihadist imams out of their mosques? How many are prepared to stand up and say that they didn’t come to America or Europe to raise their children as Saudis?

Hello? Anyone out there?”

- pg 81/82

“We chatter breezily about “assimilating” Western Muslims… What if the problem is not that Muslims in the West are unfamiliar with the customs of their new land but rather that they are all too familiar with them – and explicitly reject them?

Muslims have assimilated brilliantly, at least when it comes to mastering the principal discourse of the advanced democratic state -the legalisms, victimology, and entitlement culture.”

- pg 82

“‘Islamophobia’ is not phony or even psychological but very literal – if you’re a Dutch member of parliament or British novelist or Danish cartoonist in hiding under threat of death or a French schoolgirl in certain suburbs getting jeered at as an infidel whore, your Islamophobia is highly justified.”

- pg 84

“The “moderate Muslim” is not entirely fictional. But it would be more accurate to call them quiescent Muslims. In the 1930s, there were plenty of “moderate Germans,” and a fat lot of good they did us or them. Today, the “moderate Muslim” is a unique contributor to cultural diversity: unlike all the visible minorities, he’s a non-visible one -or, at any rate, non-audible.”

- pg 86

“What will be the next phase of the Islamist advance in the West? If you’re a teenager in most European cities these days, you’ve a choice between two competing identities – a robust confident Islamic identity or a tentative post-nationalist cringingly apologetic European identity. It would be a mistake to assume the former is attractive only to Arabs and North Africans.”

- pg 90

“Everyone’s for a free Tibet, but no one’s for freeing Tibet. So Tibet will stay unfree – as unfree now as it was when the first Free Tibet campaigner slapped the very first “FREE TIBET” sticker onto the back of his Edsel. Idealism as inertia is the hallmark of the movement. Well, not entirely inert: it must be a pain in the neck when you trade in the Volvo for a Subaru and have to bend down and paste on a new “FREE TIBET” sticker.

For a while, my otherwise not terribly political wife got extremely irritated by the Free Tibet shtick, demanding to know at a pancake breakfast at the local church what precisely some harmless hippy-dippy old neighbor of ours meant by the sticker he’d been proudly displaying decade in, decade out: “But what exactly are you ‘doing to free Tibet?” she insisted. “You’re not doing anything, are you?”

“Give the guy a break,” I said when we got back home. “He’s advertising his moral superiority, not calling for action. If Rumsfeld were to say, ‘Free Tibet? Jiminy, what a swell idea! The Third Infantry Division goes in on Thursday,’ the bumper-sticker crowd would be aghast. They’d have to bend down and peel off the ‘FREE TIBET’ stickers and replace them with ‘WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.’”

- pg 93

“The perfect summation of Europe: welfare addiction over demographic reality.”

- pg 113

“In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld made a much quoted rumination. “Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me,” the defense secretary began, “because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns–the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

A lot of people jeered at Rummy. The witless twits at Britain’s Plain English Campaign gave him that year’s award for the worst use of English. But Rumsfeld is perhaps the best speaker of Plain English in English-speaking politics, and it would be a less despised profession if there were more like him. His little riff about known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns is in fact a brilliant distillation of the dangers we face.”

- pg 147

“When people make certain statements and their acts conform to those statements I tend to take them at their word. As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”

The first choice of Islamists is to kill Americans and Jews, or best of all an American Jew like Daniel Pearl, the late Wall Street Journal reporter. Failing that, they’re happy to kill Australians, Britons, Canadians, Swedes, Germans, as they did in Bali. No problem. We are all infidels. You can be a hippy-dippy hey-man-I-love-everybody Dutch stoner hanging out in a bar in Bali, and they’ll blow you up’ with as much enthusiasm as if you were Dick Cheney.”

- pg 151

“Do you remember when that statue of Saddam came down? It proved to be hollow. The Islamists think Western Civilization’s like that: tough exterior, but empty inside; protected by a layer of hard steel–the U.S. military–there’s nothing underneath.

Why would they get that idea? Well, from a million and one little things–itsy-bitsy foot-of-page-thirty-seven news items, none too important in itself but cumulatively an avalanche. Take one trivial example: just before Christmas 2003, Muslim community leaders in California applauded the decision of the Catholic high school in San Juan Capistrano to change the name of its football team from the Crusaders to the less culturally insensitive Lions.

Meanwhile, twenty miles up the road in Irvine, the schedule for the Muslim Football League’s New Year tournament promised to bring together some of the most exciting Muslim football teams in Orange County: the Intifada, the Mujahideen, the Saracens, and the Sword of Allah.

That’s the spirit. I can’t wait for the California sporting calendar circa 2015: the San Diego Jihadi vs. the Oakland Culturally Sensitives, the Malibu Hezbollah vs. the Santa Monica Inoffensives, the Pasadena Sword of the Infidel Slayer vs. the Bakersfield Self-Deprecators, the San Jose Decapitators vs. the Berkeley Mutually Respectfuls.

I suppose the rationale, conscious or not, behind such trivial concessions as school sports team names is that a big powerful wealthy culture can afford to be generous to a weaker culture. Unfortunately, magnanimity is often seen as weakness by those on the receiving end. It’s easy to be sensitive, tolerant, and multicultural–it’s the default mode of the age—yet, when you persist in being sensitive to the insensitive, tolerant of the intolerant, and impeccably multicultural about the avowedly unicultural, don’t be surprised if they take it for weakness.”

- pg 157-158

“Edward Fitzgerald, QC, for the defence, said that Abu Hamza’s interpretation of the Koran was that it imposed an obligation on Muslims to do jihad and fight in the defence of their religion. He said that the Crown case against the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque was ’simplistic in the extreme.’ He added: ‘It is said he was preaching murder, but he was actually preaching from the Koran itself.’

If the Koran permit, you must acquit? Brilliant. To convict would be multiculturally disrespectful: if the holy book of the religion of peace recommends killing infidels, who are we to judge?”

- pg 161

BPC biases news

Interesting to see the politically correct BBC bias its own report here. The headline used is “More Eastern Europeans leaving UK”.

Yet the article also explains:

• There was a 27% rise in asylum seekers during the last year
• There were more than 10,000 asylum applications – the highest number since 2004
• 6% fewer people were ejected from the UK than during last year
• The number of people granted permanent settlement in the UK, excluding most European nationals, rose by 10% to 44,870 between January and March 2009

The Poles are actually not such a problem, since they are not importing such alien cultures. But the fact is that the vast majority of the asylum applications come from third world countries, with third world cultures that cannot be assimilated into the UK. This constant influx is leading to a building resentment among the indigenous population of the UK, who see their society changing (going backwards) before their very eyes. It is weakening the identity of the UK and causing the likes of the BNP to pick up votes.

I dread to think how hard it will be to get my American fiancee into this country, since:

• Her culture is very similar to ours
• She is not religious
• She does not want to change our laws
• She will not claim benefits
• She respects the UK and has an affection for the way it used to be

It’s about time the government came to its senses on the issue of multiculturalism, but there is little hope while even the BBC sanitises its reports like this.

So instead, speak out about it yourself, as I do. It is not “racist” to call it into question. Don’t let the liberal thought-police silence you, when you can see the consequences of their naive policies all around you…

Interesting blog

Here’s a very interesting blog containing numerous facts and figures relating to reason vs. irrationality.

Check out the article on the importance of the west combating its self imposed disease of cultural relativism, which is currently rotting our society from the inside out. It features this fine diagram:

Okay, I added the yellow bubble.

Public announcement

“Head-in-clouds” lefties who helped to elect Labour in 1997:

Well, you can see the mistake you made now. Please help vote them out as soon as possible. It’s a matter of emergency, of national importance. It’s not too late for you to repent.