|
|
|
Integrationism, the Pendle arrests and clever people “There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn’t work.” Irving Krystol
Now, as many have noted across the blogosphere, this has to be a story worthy of national coverage. The biggest ever find of explosives in the UK … genuine rocket launchers … a nuclear biological suit … an ex-member of the BNP … why wasn’t this blasted across the airwaves and splashed over every front page? As far as I can tell, the story appeared in one national daily: just seven lines in the “News In Brief” section of the Times, here. Conspiracist bloggers of all political persuasions have seized upon the silence of the media as proof of … erm … something. That’s for sure. Those who believe the BNP to be fundamentally a creature of the Security Services have seized upon it as proof that, er, the BNP is fundamentally a creature of the Security Services. Perhaps they are right. I don’t know. But unless we are to believe that the vast gulf in the media’s handling of the Pendle story and anything involving a Pakistani interest in fertiliser is justified, we have to allow for the possibility. So … let’s allow. In Britain there are ten national dailies in all, and then there are the broadcast news operations. Someone will have the right information, I am sure. But I would guess that there must be upwards of 5,000 journalists employed in the sector, depending on just how vast the BBC’s news staff is. There might be 100 senior editors with the power of life and death over a given story. Whereas in a case such as the murder of Charlene Downes we renegades blame the media silence upon the natural liberal bias of MSM journalists – basically a general, “right-minded” desire not to stir up the natives – there is no similar feel-good motive for killing Pendle. Is there, then, some benefit to the liberal cause in concentrating journalistically so completely on Islamic extremism that an anti-nationalist story with genuine shock value is too off-message, and must go down the memory hole? Well, of course not. Silly question. So the blanket killing of Pendle had to be triggered not by a general, conviction-based tendency present in mainstream journalism but by old-fashioned pressure from above. There are probably three or four external authorities that can wield that kind of clout. One of them, of course, is/was the journalist-eating Alistair Campbell. But he’s out of the picture and, anyway, the Pendle “pull” doesn’t bear the fingerprints of a Party animal, or anyone directly connected to the democratic process. Indeed, it is unlikely that the decision to bury it ever went near a politician for reasons of deniability. Now, one means of applying a press gag that is always overseen by Ministers is the D Notice (more properly now the DA-Notice). The involvement of politicians aside, the D Notice is a rather too cumbersome and official vehicle in this case. However, the D Notice Committee bears elegant witness to the working relationship which exists between MI5/MI6 and the top-most rung of editorial staff. Scroll down on that last link to Press & Broadcasting Members and use your imagination: if a bungled security operation ever needed memory-holing the personal connections to see to it certainly exist. No formalities necessary. Now let’s speculate a little about what kind of involvement MI5 might have in the BNP. The security services are not restricted to merely reactive measures, responding like the lumpen plod do to domestic violence, black gun crime et al. Spooks can aim to be pro-active … to farm the soil for the most promising outcome. This doesn’t mean that they decide which elements are at play in and around the game of power. But they would be highly remiss not to use those elements that are available to them. One such element is racial-nationalist politics. Let us suppose that there is a gain to be had from maintaining agents among genuine nationalists. It isn’t hard to do, as the BBC mole Jason Gwynne proved. Let us suppose that this gain is, to be specific, a hand on the lever of public opinion and, thereby, the extent to which nationalists can pick-up support from the public. Or, indeed, Islamic extremists can pick up support from the Umma in Oldham and Bradford. Now here’s the tricky part. Let us suppose that nationalists and Islamic extremists are not to be discouraged always and in everything. Spooks aren’t governed by the political consensus. Yes, formally they are governed by Ministers. But many layers of secrecy protect and surround them. They are close to being free, and certainly free enough to play the game of power without constant reference to a single political - or moral - imperative. That releases them to broaden their objectives and operate in pursuit of those in interesting and inventive ways. For example, under the multicultural system they could preserve the dispensation of power by playing softball with nationalists and hardball with Moslem extremists ... or the other way around, whichever suits the moment. Multiculturalism is a tension-based system, and tension can be profitably exploited. But, and here’s the problem, multiculturalism is out of favour in Britain. The tension-based system is passing into history, to be replaced if at all possible by a cooperation-based system: Integrationism. So now the rules of the Grand Game are changing. The spooks have been dumped in an unfamilar, new racio-political landscape. On 6th October - one day after the appearance of The Pendle Two in court - Jack Straw sparked the opening debate on deculturing Moslems (in public life at least). Who needs “tension” now? The patsy and sting operations are no longer valid, or at least not in the way they were for so many years. They have to be memory-holed, and new methodologies created to keep the elements in the game of power at play. What those methodologies will be and how they will impact nationalist politics is far from clear. But it will be, if you know how to look. Is any of this really true? Who knows? But have you got a better explanation for the done and dusted Pendle affair?
Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 08:58 | # Englander, Here are some odd aspects of the Pendle case. 1) The men are 62 and 49 years old, respectively. How many 62-year old retirees set out upon a “master plan” of terror? Dentists, one must presume, are intelligent, middle-class people, and not the usual terrorist type. 2) The men were charged under the Explosive Substances Act 1883, not under the catch-all but obviously more politically relevant Terrorism legislation. Surely “some kind of master plan” implies terrorism, does it not? 3) If Cottage was a BNP member in only May, and sufficiently exercised about things to stand as a prospective councillor, how is it he cut his links so fast and is described as an ex-member now? It has been suggested on Stormfront, apparently, that memberships run by the calendar year, in which case he would still be a member. Anyhow, the case goes to Burnley Crown Court today. So we will see if the media “decides” it must now report it. Possibly in the light of Trev’s smooth move yesterday - chicks love a real, black “operator”, dontcha know - the case will have some utility. 3
Posted by dangerouslysubversivedad on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:17 | # It is being suggested that Cottage is a farmer and thus has a perfectly legitimate reason for having the chemicals at his home, and that Jackson is a Falklands-era Medic who had souvenirs at his home. However as the BNP have rather stupidly stayed quiet and pretended this isnt happening, this cannot be confirmed. If the ‘bio-suit’ and ‘rocket launcher’ turn out to be 25 year old relics then this would seem to be utter utter BS which would be a) why the MSM hasnt touched it for fear of it blowing up in their faces and b) why the authorities have charged them with lesser offences in the hope they can make something stick. By the way, I cant find any evidence for this ‘record haul’ business except Pendle Today SAYING its a record haul. The Police certainly dont seem to be saying anything remotely like this so I tend to think that they are employing that tried and tested method of, you know, making it up. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:51 | # DSD, Nice to see you around. We will see if these “suggestions” turn out to be true. Personally, I would be a bit surprised if Plod of the Pennines couldn’t suss out that his local farmers do indeed hold certain chemicals at certain times. Even he, we must hope, isn’t stupid enough to raid the offices of the NFU at dawn. Anyway, the point remains that the media has, in the past, striven very hard to connect the BNP to any and every damaging trope. The way this story would have been handled is the reverse of your suggestion. Blast the message out NOW ... bury the bad news when the case goes belly up (remember the Soho bomber who turned out to be an inadequate loner and not the BNP Bomber the media put about - a lie never retracted). On the day the Beeb has been outed as a (self-confessed) culture warrior, it seems a bit inappropriate to build a case in this instance for their judiciousness and caution. 5
Posted by calvin on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:15 | # Supposedly the dynamic duo was going to deliver an IRA style fertilizer bomb with a rocket launcher, protected from any stray shrapnel by a biological suit. This is a bit like saying that they were going to deliver Sarin gas by shotgun, wearing protective chain mail. A convergence of crap evidence used to “prove” an a priori assumption; where have I seen that method applied before? 6
Posted by Amalek on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:11 | # Possibly the spooks incited the old odd couple to mess about in a fashion that could be spun as ‘another dastardly plot prevented by the genius of Vauxhall Bridge’, but didn’t liaise adequately with the local filth—who steamed in prematurely and let the story into the public domain before the D Notice boys clamped down. But there might be no more sinister motive than make-work behind it. (All those Islamic plots brilliantly foiled, better have a white one to even up the score so we won’t be accused of playing favourites.) We must never forget that since the Cold War sputtered out, the MIs have been like Britain in Dean Acheson’s famous gibe. The cloak-and-dagger bureaucrats have lost an Evil Empire and not yet found a role to justify the taxpayer’s largesse: pay, perks, expenses, indexed pensions, CMGs. After the red scare, the yellow peril? Too far away. Neo-Nazis? Played out, Adolf ain’t coming back from the Brazilian jungle. ZOG, the NWO? No, we’re sort of working for them already; it’s called the special relationship. Aha, how about ‘the worldwide caliphate’? Besides, there are a few brown lads in Blighty who genuinely fancy that type of thing, which will make it minimally plausible. It’ll have to be a Long, Long War, of course: against an enemy we can’t define, who moves in an infinitely mysterious way and hardly ever shows his hand, thanks to our devastating ability to forestall his every move. If we ever win this war, we won’t admit it, probably won’t know if there ever was one. Yippee, another 50 years’ work, kudos and gongs. Britain’s spooks strike one as increasingly resembling the absurd German ‘Office for the Protection of the Constitution’, whose agents trot about creating Nazi movements, filling more than half their ranks and spying unawares on each other. 7
Posted by Rnl on Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:36 | # Amalek wrote: Aha, how about the ‘worldwide caliphate’? Besides, there are a few brown lads in Blighty who genuinely fancy that type of thing, which will make it minimally plausible. It’ll have to be a Long, Long War, of course: against an enemy we can’t define, who moves in an infinitely mysterious way and hardly ever shows his hand, thanks to our devastating ability to forestall his every move. If we ever win this war, we won’t admit it, probably won’t know if there ever was one. Yippee, another 50 years’ work, kudos and gongs. Humorous writing can be entertaining, but it can also evade important issues. There are, in fact, a large number of Muslims who yearn for a restored caliphate. Some of them live in your country. A few brown lads did engineer successful terrorist attacks in Madrid and London. A much larger group of brown lads yearn for the imposition of sharia law, and eventually they’ll get it, if the British people retain their present racial passivity. It’s true that terrorism cannot in itself bring down a nation; we learn that on the third day of Thinking About Terrorism 101, an independent study course. But it’s paranoid fantasy to believe that dangerous Muslim fanatics have been manufactured to justify the perks and pensions of security bureaucrats. The threat is real. No one invented it. The official, institutional response to the threat has been the exact opposite of exaggeration. Pawns of Security Bureaucrats? 8
Posted by Amalek on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:41 | # “There are, in fact, a large number of Muslims who yearn for a restored caliphate.” How large is large? I “yearn” to be a Lottery winner. “Some of them live in your country.” ‘Some’ as in ‘few’. Repatriation will deal with the wrong ‘uns. “A few brown lads did engineer successful terrorist attacks in Madrid and London.” The Madrid operation was planned by disgruntled Moors before 9/11. The London one has more marks of a ‘controlled burn’ security-services provocation than a genuine, wholly unforeseen attack. Anyhow, one such incident in five years does not justify the liberty-shredding hysteria generated by self-serving politicians and bureaucrats. “A much larger group of brown lads yearn for the imposition of sharia law, and eventually they’ll get it, if the British people retain their present racial passivity.” Eventually, schmeventually. Alarmist bollocks. “The threat is real.” The threat is small to minuscule. “No one invented it.” I never said they did. Bureaucracies fan puffs of smoke into fires. “The official, institutional response to the threat has been the exact opposite of exaggeration.” How much closer to a police state would you like us to move? Biometric IDs? Chips implanted in the arm? We defeated Hitler and defanged the USSR without sacrificing all that makes being British worth while. A handful of incoherent Muslims should make us give it up? 9
Posted by L Stewart on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:24 | # I can’t imagine that the media would overlook any opportunity to highlight, exaggerate, and mis-report anything which could be used to put the BNP in a bad light ; if they have, it’s a first. I’m sure the security services have indeed put agents in the BNP: some purely to monitor, and others as agents provocateurs. It is also conceivable that organisations like the National Front just might be ‘protected’ to a degree because they pose no threat whatsoever to the government’s plans to destroy the culture and racial identity of the British people, and attract & tolerate many wild extremists whose behaviour is a useful source of propaganda for smearing the whole nationalist movement. The BNP, however, is clearly assessed by the ‘liberal’ establishment itself as becoming a serious, electable alternative for a large & growing number of British voters -which is why the three main parties actually met to plan a joint strategy to contain it, unashamedly extending their co-operation to the thugs & convicted criminals of the openly marxist Searchlight organisation; the CPS continues to persevere with its weak and transparently political persecution of the BNP’s leader through the courts; and a Labour Minister recently quelled the fears of her supporters that any move towards proportional representation would see a bloc of BNP MPs, by openly stating any changes would be specifically designed to prevent this. 10
Posted by Tim Heydon on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:41 | # I don’t know if the BNP is a creature of MI5 It might be, but it doesn’t do to overestimate the abilities of the security forces. If it is, those who have come to despise the major parties should be grateful to them. I’m sure there are plenty of people in MI5 or whatever who vote for the BNP. A voter for most of the other parties would surely be a security risk- if security means protecting the country against those who wish to destroy it, that is. What I do know is that is so difficult to register successfully on ‘Majority Rights’ that I’m beginning to think that the mysterious ‘admins’ don’t want new members. Why would that be? Could Majority Rights be run by MI5? Tim 11
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:07 | # Amalek, I thought the spooks stuff was Matt’s gig. 13
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:22 | # Amalek wrote: How large is large? The majority. Most Muslims believe that Islam will eventually become everyone’s religion. Making the world Islamic, by violence if necessary, is a Koranic imperative. If you are a good Muslim, then you want an Islamic world. If you are an exponent of political Islam with a sound understanding of your religion’s history, then you want this coming Islamic world to be governed by a restored caliphate. I “yearn” to be a Lottery winner. I “genuinely fancy” winning a lottery too. But winning a lottery is luck. Passively watching while your nation is occupied by invaders is stupidity, as is any denial that demographics determine culture. If you change the demographics, you change the culture. If London becomes majority Muslim, then it will become a Muslim city. Yelling “bollocks” won’t change that; in fact, it may become illegal (“spreading corruption in the land”). If the majority wants sharia law, then the majority will eventually get sharia law. It may not even require a majority. Muslims aren’t emasculated Westerners. They have confidence in their culture and a determination to see it flourish. That its flourishing will come at your expense is an added incentive. When [Codie Stott] is a little older, she may perhaps reflect on how odd it is that after forty years of angry controversy, after the transformation of entire English towns and city districts into simulacra of Karachi and Dhaka, after race riots and jihadist bombings—after all that, illiterate (in English, at any rate) Muslim South Asian peasants are still pouring into England in numbers apparently uncontrolled, and are being granted courtesies, dignities, and privileges which the native English are denied. If, after reflecting on this for a while, Codie should come to the conclusion that the land of her ancestors has gone drooling, gibbering mad, who will say she is wrong? http://vdare.com/derbyshire/061019_white.htm ‘Some’ as in ‘few’. “Some” as in “far too many”: British Opinion Surveys from an Islamist Hell Repatriation will deal with the wrong ‘uns. I hope this is another joke. All of them are wrong ‘uns. Offspring of assimilated Muslims are quite capable, as recent events have shown, of growing into their Islamic faith and learning its jihadist imperative. A pious Muslim who understands his Koran is a violent Muslim or a supporter of violent Muslims. If Westerners are so culturally docile that we cannot be disturbed even by savage acts of Islamic violence on our own soil, it’s highly unlikely we’ll repatriate anyone. Repatriation presupposes that a host nation, with some sense of itself as a legitimate nation worthy of preservation, has identified people it wants to repatriate as a threat to its survival. You, however, don’t think Muslim violence is a serious problem (“the threat is small to minuscule”; “a handful of incoherent Muslims”). On what grounds would you repatriate bad Muslims? And since there are only a handful of them, why bother? It would be better, following your argument, to deport the security bureaucrats, who are provoking gullible Muslims into blowing up trains. The Madrid operation was planned by disgruntled Moors before 9/11. That is, of course, irrelevant. It’s not true either, though it doesn’t matter. Do disgruntled Muslim terrorists pose a threat to non-Muslims? They do. Whether these disgruntled Moors planned their terrorism before or after 9/11 changes nothing. Their terrorist attack was successful. It killed about two hundred people and wounded over two thousand. Some were blinded by flying glass. Some lost their limbs. Muslim terrorism is the most visible symptom of the bad effects of Muslim immigration in particular and of non-White immigration in general. It’s hard to see why any racialist would want to minimize the real physical threat it poses. Lesson of Madrid Eventually, schmeventually. Alarmist bollocks. If Muslims form majorities in your cities, then they will (borrowing your yiddishism) eventually schmeventually get their sharia law. That’s not alarmist. When Mexicans are, say, eighty percent of California, then they will have won their reconquest in California. The London one has more marks of a ‘controlled burn’ security-services provocation than a genuine, wholly unforeseen attack. Bollocks. But even if your theory is non-bollocks, this controlled burn required willing Muslim terrorists to ensure its success. Your country has a large reservoir of angry Muslims. It has an even larger reservoir of potential angry Muslims. That’s because you have a large number of Muslims, their numbers growing daily, and Islam is a remarkably violent religion. This subject is not complex. Import Muslims and you’ll get Muslim violence. You imported Muslims, and now you have their violence. The threat is small to minuscule. From a link I posted several months ago: But police and intelligence chiefs stressed that this plot was only one of many they were investigating. A senior counter-terrorism source said: “Six weeks ago, this [the alleged aircraft bombing scheme] was one of a dozen plots that were being investigated. It was not our main priority. Things began to change and the inquiry was accelerated so that it became a priority. But it is by no means unique. There are dozens and dozens of plots like this one, in terms of people planning to commit mass murder in the UK. This is just the tip of the iceberg people have got to start realising how serious the current situation has become.” http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1219032.ece Amalek would say that this unnamed counter-terrorism source is fanning puffs of smoke into fires in order to secure the perks and pensions of security bureaucrats. I’m sure he is telling the truth. We defeated Hitler and defanged the USSR without sacrificing all that makes being British worth while. You didn’t defeat Hitler; Stalin and Roosevelt did. You lost the war. Others then won it for you. And you had greater restrictions on personal liberty during World War II than you do now. The best of your countrymen were locked up for the duration, not for any disloyalty but for their peaceful opposition to European fratricide, on the basis of a security regulation specifically rewritten to ensure their internment. 14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:03 | #
I’m pressed for time but can’t let that breathtaking foolishness pass: Rnl seems to have confused the Brits and Frogs there. That the participation of the British armed forces including of course their air arm was indispensable to any Allied victory whether on “terms” or “unconditional,” and that the Brit fighting man (including sailor, fighter pilot, and bomber crewman as well as Tommy grunt on the ground) was, pound-for-pound, as good as or better than his Yank counterpart (as was the German certainly) are so basic to the truth of the matter it borders on the incredible they need pointing out. What won that war was an alliance which included the Russians, the Yanks, and the Brits. Would Brits-plus-Russians have overcome Huns-plus-Japs without Yankee help? Debatable in many ways: unable to impose the “unconditional surrender” the Yanks made possible, might they nevertheless have forced a negotiated settlement on the Axis? For that matter, would the Yanks have been able to defeat the Nips-plus-Huns without the participation of the Russkies and Limes? Don’t forget the crucial political dimension in all wars, especially for countries that hold regularly-scheduled free elections: it’s easy to imagine an America fighting Germany and Japan without the British Empire on its side getting discouraged with the task’s difficulty, ejecting Roosevelt in 1944 in favor of a war skeptic who sues for a negotiated settlement in January 1945 if indeed things even got that far. What about the Yanks-plus-Limes battling the Nips-plus-Deutschers without the participation of the Muscovites? Would they be likely to prevail? Likely to impose “unconditional surrender”? All the above and much more like it can be debated. Finally: the Brits never “lost the war.” The Frogs did. Not the Brits. What would’ve happened if Roosevelt hadn’t entered? Impossible to say for sure, when there are a hundred possible outcomes in that case (all of them probably better than the one the world ended up getting, by the way). 15
Posted by Rnl on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:01 | # Fred Scrooby wrote: Would Brits-plus-Russians have overcome Huns-plus-Japs without Yankee help? Debatable in many ways ... You’re misstating the question. The relevant question: Could Brits minus Russians and minus Americans have won the war against the Axis in Europe? No, we know they couldn’t. Britain had lost the war prior to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union. The war was not won by the Allied powers that initiated it. Others won it for them. You’re treating my factual observation as though it were a slur against the British. It isn’t. But it does none of us any good to repeat all these tired tales of wartime heroics. Britain entered a war that she couldn’t win, and not surprisingly she lost. Only good luck—or bad luck, depending on one’s point of view—turned Churchill’s defeat at the beginning of the war into Stalin’s victory at the end. What would’ve happened if Roosevelt hadn’t entered? Impossible to say for sure, when there are a hundred possible outcomes in that case (all of them probably better than the one the world ended up getting, by the way). We’re in agreement here. 16
Posted by Amalek on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:42 | # “Most Muslims believe that Islam will eventually become everyone’s religion. Making the world Islamic, by violence if necessary, is a Koranic imperative.” They don’t seem to be getting on with it, do they? I would like Christianity to be everyone’s religion, if it comes to that. Some time, never. Can’t be arsed to be a missionary, though. Islamist terrorism is the result of Muslim fundamentalists losing ground in their homelands, not of a global upsurge in support and sympathy. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco locked it down. Secularising republics such as Algeria, Turkey, Egypt, Libya, Syria and (until Bush spoilt it) Iraq have driven fundi clerics and their stooges out of government. The would-be theocrats still have a strong position in Iran, but Persia is feared and disliked by most other Muslim ME countries, and there are countervailing tendencies to secularism (which the Shah would have fostered if we hadn’t betrayed him) there too. Besides, Iran is not a sponsor of anti-western terrorism. Pakistan is probably the only serious player in any danger of going fundi, but the legacy of Jinnah may obviate that. In short: Islamist violence is not the start of something big, but the thrashings of a wounded, possibly dying animal. Incidentally, the Caliphate is about theological and liturgical uniformity, not a political system. Wonder how many Arabs lie awake at night worrying about the Anglican Communion or the Papacy coming in on the heels of Coalition forces. “You imported Muslims, and now you have their violence.” Very little. And selective, voluntary, compensated repatriation of Pakistani lads would reduce it to virtually nothing. “If London becomes majority Muslim…” In which parallel universe? “Their terrorist attack was successful. It killed about two hundred people and wounded over two thousand.” A fleabite compared with the world wars and state-ordered nuclear exchanges we westerners no longer fear—and we don’t know who was really behind Madrid, or 7/7, or 9/11. Lumping every hypothetically terrorist-generated outrage into some Grand Unified Caliphate Theory won’t help you track down the perps. It’s the same fallacy as led Bush to go off at his Iraqi tangent, assuming (big if) he acted in good faith. Neocon system building and scaremongering are not good for us. A proper white patriot would smell it a mile off. Demands for absolute security incite our masters to impose absolute tyranny. It’s part of the warfare/welfare hustle. I desire neither for the UK. “Amalek would say that this unnamed counter-terrorism source is fanning puffs of smoke into fires in order to secure the perks and pensions of security bureaucrats. I’m sure he is telling the truth.” Good, you’re learning. “The best of your countrymen were locked up for the duration, not for any disloyalty but for their peaceful opposition to European fratricide, on the basis of a security regulation specifically rewritten to ensure their internment.” I don’t defend DORA in its entirety. But the internees, even Mosley, were let out once the immediate (again, imaginary) danger of German invasion could no longer be maintained. They were not ‘the best’: some were traitorous internationalists who put solidarity with the Nazis’ European ‘Neues Ordnung’ above loyalty to their own land; some were pathetic fantasists and would-be quislings, some misguided pacifists, some vainglorious power-seekers such as Sir Oswald. (The most influential and more moderate wartime appeasers suffered a worse fate: Halifax, for example, had to be ambassador to the USA and dance attendance on Roosevelt, after Lloyd George sensibly declined.) We did not abridge our traditional freedoms completely. Parliament debated the conduct of the war more vigorously, and not always in secret session, than it discusses the ‘war on terror’ today. Churchill survived censure motions. Newspaper criticism was only intermittently muted: the Daily Mirror kept flaying the government and got away with it. ID cards became a dead letter by c. 1943. In fact the myth of 1940 was of the same order as the scare stories about Muslims being put about today, albeit a sight more plausible on the evidence: bombs beset Londoners every night, not once every five years. Churchill knew by June at the latest that the Germans almost certainly weren’t coming: but he wanted to keep the island race on its toes and cheer it up, after its dejection at Dunkirk, by making it seem that we had stared down the Narzees. There is no need for such psychological trickery today. The Caliphate scare-story rubbish, thank God, is rejected by most commonsensical Brits as totally as the extremist ideologies of left and right were in the 1930s—rejected both as lures and as bogeys. FWIW I would have stayed out of WW2, and would have sought peace terms in June 1940. Hitler was no danger to the UK, any more than the Soviets were in the Fifties and Sixties. Neither is any Arab state, if we leave them be and seek to become self-sufficient in energy. But none of this counterfactual speculation about decades gone by and battles long ago has much to do with a scattered, spasmodic, leaderless, chronic eruption of low-level violence from a few unassimilable aliens in thrall to an ideology losing its grip on their ancestral lands. We have far more serious problems. 17
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:25 | # The War Nerd (I think) used the phrase that war is just demographics in a hurry. The terrorist acts are just bumps on the highway, the real problem is at root the unassimilable aliens themselves and their numbers. Look at France, they havnt had the bombings, theyve got the low intensity urban conflict instead. Thats what weve got coming as our unassimilable aliens reach close to majority status in some towns. There’s 1.5 million muslims here now, whats to stop that reaching 2 million in a few years? They breed more than us and we let more of them in. What are you proposing then - just deporting a few of the wrong ‘uns. 18
Posted by Voice on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:29 | # “Neocon system building and scaremongering are not good for us. A proper white patriot would smell it a mile off. Demands for absolute security incite our masters to impose absolute tyranny. It’s part of the warfare/welfare hustle. I desire neither for the UK. “ Exactly. All of the bullsh*t about how we get a more secure country, make gains slowly , slowly politically blah blah blah. We all know we are in softly softly genocide mode. “Absolute security” would call for immediate repatriation of aliens in our midst and since that isn’t going to happen without complete meltdown(which ain’t gonna happen until we are outnumbered, bred out and outflanked) Get ready for European Egytianizatoin, North American Brazilianizatoin nd Austro Asianization and New Zealend Maorizanation/Asianization. Although I do hold out hope for Germany-Russian Axis , especially because of Germany’s need for energy, which could allow them to theoretically ride in and save UK/France and Nordics in 50-75 years once they have exhausted themselves caring for little immigrant dears. At this point the US won’t be in a position economically to resist(and we may be able to appease US and European Jews by stressing the Islamic slant) and Russia-Germany will have covered off China due to Energy concerns(and giving blessing to fully rape Africa of its resources)
19
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:38 | # The trial of Cottage and Jackson at Burnley Crown Court, said to have begun on Monday, is thusfar completely unreported in the local Pendle/Burnley media that reported their initial hearing. Not a single word. Now, it’s one thing to argue that the nationals stand back from a story in case it will explode in their face, but it’s another when the little local rag falls silent. This case and the media handling of it is simply very peculiar, and I am still quite unable to envisage any scenario that doesn’t somehow involve “clever people”. Wiser heads please correct me. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:48 | # An accident of timing that may turn out to have a bearing on things is the fact that this trial, supposedly of the two men caught up in the largest explosive find every in this country, began on Monday 25th October. The second trial in the purely political <strike>persecution</strike> prosecution of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett was due to commence on Monday 30th Ocrober (though it has now been set back two days). A big media splash of Trial One would have prepared the ground nicely for Trial Two. Of course, if there is absolutely no connection of this kind, Griffin and Collett will have a perilous few days in Leeds next week. A reversal for the Crown, however, might argue that the connection exists but larger priorities have changed. Who knows? Not me. I just enjoy irresponsible speculation. 21
Posted by Amalek on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:11 | # Almost certainly the Pendle trial has been D-Noticed, and it took a little longer to get the word down to the Clogs & Tripe Intelligencer. Quaint historical link with witch-crazes there. 22
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:42 | # At the risk of bursting Fred’s bubble,
23
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:21 | # Im not aware that there was any serious belief that we were ‘let down’, not by anyone who has ever paid more than a passing interest in the events of 1940. Clearly all three allies were overwhelmed early on. Any attempt to encourage the French & Belgians to fight on were to allow our lads to escape (not to mention 1000s of French & Belgians), so a bit of deception yes. The key in 1940 was always the ability of the French to fight, the BEF were never going to defeat the Germans single handed. The Belgians had been invaded, perhaps they should have tried to fight on for a bit longer than five extra days. And the French, well they were fighting in their own country perhaps they could have managed a tiny bit better as well. The idea that given the relative sizes of the BEF and French army that their defeat could have been averted if we had just sent a few extra troops or held out a bit longer doesnt stand up at all. This new work sounds like the latest in a long line of slurs to imply that we, the British, let down the French. Thats been trotted out as long as I can remember. 24
Posted by Amalek on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:50 | # There was a lot of pharisaical twittering about how King Leopold, C-in-C of Belgium’s army, had stabbed his would-be British and French defenders in the back by unilaterally surrendering in 1940. (Contrasted with ‘gallant little Belgium’ in 1914- the most idiotic casus belli till the Polish guarantee came along IMHO.) Later on it was quietly admitted that the King was within his rights, but that was after he had been forced off the throne in favour of his Buddy Holly lookalike son. Leopold could never be forgiven by the post-war NWO because he had complained publicly about illegal ‘Israelite’ immigration from Germany during the Phoney War. A human sacrifice to semitical correctness. 25
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:58 | # Any attempt to encourage the French & Belgians to fight on were to allow our lads to escape (not to mention 1000s of French & Belgians), so a bit of deception yes. According to Harmon, French trrops did escape but not in equal numbers to their British ally.
Clearly mythology has its place, however, the saga of the ‘cheese-eating froggy surrender monkeys’, resurrected most recently in the US vis-a-vis Iraq, is well past its prime. The fact that the British acted in their own self-interest is not surprising. However, it shouldn’t be surprising the French would act any differently. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:22 | # A pity we couldn’t trade De Gaulle for the 40,000. 27
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:59 | # The Yanks would have been better off with De Gaulle. It would have saved them about 100 billion in aid to Israel.
Oh dear. 28
Posted by Rnl on Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:37 | # Amalek wrote: They don’t seem to be getting on with it, do they? They’re doing remarkably well. Their own countries are failures, because people like them live there, but they have now been given the opportunity to live in Western countries. Many people (like you) don’t mind being colonized. Others who do mind get taken to court for complaining about it. That’s growing success from their perspective and civilizational decline from ours. I would like Christianity to be everyone’s religion, if it comes to that. You don’t really want Christianity to be everyone’s religion. Few nominal Christians do. Most Muslims, on the other hand, take their religion seriously. They are aggressive in promoting their religion, while Christians are aggressive only in the speed with which they eagerly accommodate the claims of their rival. Christianity vs. Islam is no contest, more like a gang-rape than a fair fight, especially in post-Christian Europe. That Christianity also has (or once had) global pretensions is immaterial. These Muslims live in the West. The Muslim ambition to make the world Islamic would be an interesting curiosity if all Muslims lived in their own countries. It becomes quite different when they live in ours. Islamist terrorism is the result of Muslim fundamentalists losing ground in their homelands, not of a global upsurge in support and sympathy. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco locked it down. Perhaps this analysis is correct: Muslim violence abroad expresses defeat for Muslim fundamentalism at home. But it doesn’t matter. We’re talking about Islam in the West, and Islam in the West is hardly losing ground. Jihad in France Rape of Europe As a trivial aside, I’ll point out that Saudi Arabia is non-fundamentalist only from a jihadist’s perspective. selective, voluntary, compensated repatriation of Pakistani lads would reduce [Muslim violence] to virtually nothing. Again, if Muslims and their jihadist violence don’t present a serious problem, why would you trouble yourself with repatriation? In your conspiratorial version of current events, the BNP, which complains about Muslim violence, is controlled by scheming cloak-and-dagger bureaucrats, and the violence they’re complaining about is orchestrated by the same cloak-and-dagger bureaucrats, hoping to retain their perks and pensions. Britain is just brimming with healthful diversity, and cloak-and-dagger schemers, always behind the scenes, keep stirring up trouble with their “controlled burns” and alarmist warnings and nasty statistics. You’re a conspiracy-minded JJRist. In which parallel universe? The parallel universe that jumbles different continents together and deposits the diverse, multicolored results in your country, along with many others. You get bits of Britain and bits of Africa and chunks of Pakistan in the same geographically British cities, and the bits of Britain keep getting smaller and visibly browner and the chunks of Pakistan keep getting bigger and more violent. You’d notice this phenomenon if you took time off from your conspiracy research and looked around the place you call home. A fleabite compared with the world wars and state-ordered nuclear exchanges we westerners no longer fear Two hundred Spanish dead and two thousand injured are a very visible bad result of a bad immigration policy. There are many other bad results, but this bad result is the most obvious. We’re right to point that out domestic Muslim terrorism is enabled by the existence of a large Muslim diaspora. Muslim violence could only occur in Spain because successive Spanish governments allowed North African Muslims back into their country. It’s irrelevant that the destruction was minimal in comparison with a world war or a nuclear exchange. If I blow up your house, your injury will be a mere fleabite in comparison with Hiroshima, but I’d be disappointed if you didn’t get upset. Unless you are a defender of the multiracialism that imported violent Muslims into Europe, you shouldn’t be dismissing Muslim atrocities as mere fleabites. we don’t know who was really behind Madrid, or 7/7, or 9/11. You don’t, perhaps. Lumping every hypothetically terrorist-generated outrage into some Grand Unified Caliphate Theory won’t help you track down the perps. Mainstream analysis of post-9/11 Muslim violence no longer assumes a command hierarchy behind every Islamic atrocity. Acts of Islamic terror can arise from within Muslim populations in the West. Terrorists and aspiring terrorists don’t need to receive direct orders from abroad; in many cases they join a world-wide jihadist movement only insofar as they perpetrate or attempt to perpetrate terrorist violence. They are, at most, loosely organized. Muslim rioting in France and Muslim bombing in Spain are parts of the same phenomenon: Muslim anger against their passive Western hosts. But none of this counterfactual speculation about decades gone by and battles long ago has much to do with a scattered, spasmodic, leaderless, chronic eruption of low-level violence from a few unassimilable aliens The number of unassimilable aliens is large. in thrall to an ideology losing its grip on their ancestral lands. We have far more serious problems. Our greatest problem, throughout most of the West, is race-replacement driven by Third World immigration. Your sturdy Englishmen who don’t fret about subway explosions are the same deracinated Englishmen who acquiesce in their dispossession. *** A Mark Steyn quote from an amazon.com review of his _America Alone_: “So we have a global terrorist movement, insulated within a global political project, insulated within a severely self-segregating religion whose adherents are the fastest-growing demographic in the developed world. The jihad thus has a very potent brand inside a highly dispersed and very decentralized network much more efficient than anything the CIA can muster. And these fellows can hide in plain sight. Not long after 9/11, I said, just as an aside, that these days whenever something goofy turns up on the news chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammad. A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammad Atta. A sniper starts killing gas station customers around Washington, D.C.? John Allen Muhammad. A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri. A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet. A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed. A British subject self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammad Hanif. A terrorist cell bombs the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed. A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney, Australia? Mohammad Skaf.” Steyn missed one important Mohammed: the jihadist who recuited Mohammed Atta was a “German” Muslim of Syrian descent, Mohammed Haydar Zammar. 29
Posted by Rnl on Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:22 | # A mainstream account of some obvious truths: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2437544_1,00.html Post a comment:
Next entry: Entering the mainstream: Hyperinflation within a year?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Englander on Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:36 | #
Perhaps the chemicals turned out to be nothing but regular household products. (Although the above news report does appear to point towards a more significant find) The ‘rocket launchers’ could be old military surplus, harmless tubes. Perhaps a deactivated RPG. Biological suits can be picked up in surplus stores. I remember my brother bought one years ago for no particular reason.
This could all have been just an embarrassing mistake, as I recall at least one recent raid on a muslim household turned out to be. To give the story more column inches would possibly be undesirable as it could be taken as harassment of members of a group who only bear mention in a negative context.