The Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag was originally flown by various indigenous and peace groups Worldwide, before being used by NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) who were a founding member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association.
NAMBLA and ANTIFA often unite to intimidate people who oppose gay and paedophile “rights”
Sunderland ANTIFA in England openly threaten violence to anyone who opposes their agendas on gay rights and islamification
The Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag was then spread to the rest of the LGBTP community.
The Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag was popularised as a symbol of the homosexual and paedophile community by notorious pederast Gilbert Baker in 1978.
Weird freak and notorious pederast Gilbert Baker was a member of NAMBLA
The jewish-controlled mainstream media still cover up its original use by paedophile rights group NAMBLA.
In modern Britain we see the Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag everywhere. It is flown over MPs homes, Police Stations, 10 Downing Street and they have even lit up the Houses of Parliament in the colours of the Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag.
The Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag is used predominantly at gay pride and paedophile power events. It is also used in LGBTP ghettoes worldwide in various forms including banners, clothing and jewellery. Since the 1980s, its symbolism has been transferred to represent the extended “LGBTP” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and paedophile) community. The LGBTP community often falsely claim the “P” stands for “pan-sexual”.
Peter Tatchell was Britain’s top paedophile rights activist between 1972 and 2010 – he is often pictured with the Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag. Is Peter Tatchell A Paedophile Or Simply Misunderstood? goo.gl/1nYZNo
Whether you personally call it the “Rainbow Flag” or “Paedo Rag” surely organisations like the BBC, Police, Courts etc. which are meant to be politically neutral should use a term like “Rainbow Flag/ Paedo Rag” rather than just use “Rainbow Flag”.
In the United Kingdom every household (with a few exceptions) is forced to pay a license fee of £147 (2017) whether they ever watch the BBC or not.
The BBC is notorious for its pro gay and pro paedophile reporting, and its support for multiculturalism (AKA the Kalergi Plan). The BBC also spent decades covering up muslim “grooming gangs” raping, drugging and pimping out up to one million White girls in Britain.
The BBC is only granted its Charter to extort £147 every year from most households in the United Kingdom on the basis of it being politically impartial. This Charter then gives the BBC the right to extort £147 from virtually every household in the UK, and to have houses searched for TV equipment by Capita agents.
Any protest about the BBC’s involvement in paedophile rings and political corruption is usually met with extreme force and violence.
On 10th October 2103 a Freedom Of Information Act request was sent to the BBC asking “Does the BBC have a policy of promoting multiculturalism?” The BBC reply is here:
7 November 2013 Dear Mr Moran Freedom of Information Request – RFI20131470 Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) received on 10 October, seeking the following information: Does the BBC have a policy of promoting multiculturalism?
The BBC does not have a policy on promoting multiculturalism. Impartiality is one of the BBC’s core editorial values which are set out in the Royal Charter which establishes its constitution and sets out its main obligations. The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines state that: “We wil apply due impartiality to all our subject
matter and wil reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period,
so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented” and that “our output is
forbidden from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy.” This would apply to any public discourse on multiculturalism as a public policy debate. http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/ However, the Charter does require the BBC to promote six public purposes through its main activities such as its programming. One of the public purposes is Representing the Nations, Regions and Communities. The BBC Trust Purpose Remit document states that this means that “The BBC should ‘promote awareness of
different cultures and alternative viewpoints, through content that reflects the lives of different people and different
communities within the UK”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/tools_we_use/public_purposes.html To assist the BBC to meet this purpose, the BBC’s Diversity Strategy includes a strategic equality and diversity objective to “Deliver high quality programming which reflects modern Britain accurately and
authentically” and this objective would be inclusive of reflecting ethnic and religious diversity on air. The strategy also details other aspects of the BBC’s approach to diversity across the corporation’s activity to ensure not just its programming but that its people, its approach to its audience and its strategy for the future are all consciously addressing further diversity. You can find out more about the BBC and diversity at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/strategy/documents.html
The link for this Freedom Of Information Act request is here:
We were sold mass immigration as a fabulous celebration: a ‘celebration of diversity’; a ‘rainbow utopia’; etc. It was all about peace, happiness, enrichment, harmony and love. They never mentioned destruction and harm. However, it will be shown that, contrary to the images, this political policy has in fact caused much destruction – and mass immigration is, in many ways, inherently destructive(2). They deceived and manipulated, sometimes they plain lied.
So in what ways can mass immigration be viewed as causing destruction?
In the most significant and fundamental manner, immigration is destruction in the sense that if there is no form of separation between groups, then over time the immigrants will mix with the indigenous people and form one racial group. The mixing actually acts, in the long term, against diversity – this, in fact, leads to homogenisation. In this sense, to sell mass immigration as diversity is not true (in the longer term), and actually it is the opposite (the ‘multiculturalism’ propaganda is inversionist). Some figures in the media, politics, academia, etc. boast of the destruction of indigenous Brits, heralding the day when there will be no more such people and ‘everyone will be coffee-coloured’ or ‘we will all be one race’, etc. Cessation of existence is the destruction of the racial or ethnic group in question(3). In this sense immigration is destruction(4).
Mass immigration also causes destruction of culture. It is a logical fact that when more than one culture is present in one place at one time, then it is not possible for all cultures to exist totally intact: there inevitably has to be a level(5) of destruction of one or more, if not all(6) of the cultures in question.
The inevitable destruction of culture as a consequence of immigration is enunciated by Dr Turner’s ‘one set of rules dilemma’(7) which states that at one place at one time only one set of ‘rules’ can describe the culture of the population in that area (country, city, etc.). All cultures can be described by what could be conceptualised as sets of descriptive ‘rules’, for example the descriptive ‘rules’ describing the architecture, mode of dress, language, behaviour, etc. An example of one such descriptive ‘rule’ could be that ‘women all wear purple hats’. In cases in which there is a difference (s) between such sets, then not all sets can describe one area simultaneously. And no two different cultures share the same set of such ‘rules’ (or they would not be different cultures). Hence, if one group moves into the area in which another group is practising its culture, then the ‘rules’ of both groups cannot remain unchanged across the area/population in question.
As a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the ‘one set of rules dilemma’, perhaps cultural group P paints all their buildings pink, and cultural group B paints them blue.
If group P moves to the city of group B, then the city-scape cannot remain all blue unless group P gives up their cultural practice of using pink paint. If group P continues to use pink paint, then the city-scape is altered: now there is a mixture of pink and blue buildings instead of the blue view that represented group B’s culture.
Alternatively, amongst other options, group B could change their practice – which would present cultural destruction for group B. Either: group P changes; or group B changes; or both change; or neither change; or parts of groups P and/or B change and other parts do not change (and the relevant changes in all cases could be to any colour or mixture of colours, not necessarily just pink or blue). The only option that does not involve either group changing their paint colour still does not preserve culture: even if neither group change their paint, the indigenous culture has been changed(8) (see above). In any possible scenario there is alteration of one, if not both(9), of the cultures in question. Culture has not been preserved. This destruction is inevitable in such circumstances.
This alteration of culture as a result of immigration can be seen in real life examples, e.g. views of cities have changed as the indigenous culture of Britain has been destroyed to make way for minarets and temples, etc.
The descriptive ‘rules’ can be applied to any aspect of culture, including to the rules of governance, for example: may women drive on the roads? They cannot drive and also not be allowed to drive. All cultures cannot remain intact: destruction is inevitable if space is shared(10). This is a logical fact. In real life some recommend that indigenous people alter their behaviour to accommodate immigrants, e.g. in Scandinavia one professor recommends that women alter their behaviour to avoid being raped by immigrants(11). “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”
Of course, when indigenous British culture is actively inhibited so as ‘not to offend’ or otherwise, (e.g. no pork, Christmas celebrations reduced or banned, etc.(12)), then this represents another example of the ‘one set of rules dilemma’ in practice. In fact, the very presence of different people is an alteration to indigenous culture. People form a part of the culture, and also culture is the product of people. In shared space, not all cultures can remain fully intact. Hence, mass immigration presents destruction of culture(13).
There are many other ways in which there is destruction. Mass immigration causes destruction of feelings of fraternity/solidarity, trust(14), peace, familiarity, etc. It goes against natural instincts to have one’s territory invaded, and this provokes feelings of stress(15) and discomfort. Many indigenous people are upset and their quality of life suffers varying levels of destruction in this manner(16) – but the deterioration in the quality of indigenous people’s lives appears less important than the desires of some immigrants who ‘want to improve their lives’(17). Some lives are ‘more equal’ than others. Of course, it is not just feelings of destruction of peace and suchlike that are brought by diversity, but there frequently are actual outbreaks of disorder etc., these on small and sometimes large scales, (e.g. racial animosity/enviousness/resentment in face-to-face encounters, race riots, etc.). Diversity of race/ethnicity etc. brings strife in many forms. Quality of life suffers destruction as a result of immigration.
In Britain, and other countries too, there have been many reductions in freedom as a result of mass immigration(18). Some hold that the diversity of immigration requires reductions in freedoms – and even requires a totalitarian government(19). The former German chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, is quoted as saying that ‘multicultural’ countries can only work under an authoritarian government: “The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society”(20).
Of course, with the competition for cultural (and other) dominance between groups, clashes of cultures and races, etc. such a situation is intrinsically unstable and conflict-prone(21). Reductions in freedom frequently are held as necessary to inhibit unrest and open conflict(22), for example curfews are sometimes implemented and surveillance is widespread, etc.(23) Numerous other problems are caused by the diversity of immigration, many of which the governments of such countries attempt to quell/prevent by reducing freedoms. For example, often we are told that because certain immigrant groups present a security threat, our freedoms and privacies are to be reduced to keep us safe. Freedoms also are reduced in the UK as the government attempts to inhibit any opposition to mass immigration, and, inter alia, tries to suppress the indigenous people from expressing (or even thinking) anything that might upset the illusion that immigration is great. Freedom of speech has been severely curtailed in this country as a result of immigration (and the related actions by the government)(24). In many cases one is not allowed to state certain truths in case it might pose a threat to the political policy of mass immigration and to the related happy rainbow images (and/or upset immigrants, etc.) – truth and knowledge have hence suffered destruction. Of course, the ideology of ‘multiculturalism’ is based on utopian fantasies, irrationalities and lies (see Dr Turner qv). For such ideologies: truth, reason and open debate pose a significant threat. The whole house of cards easily could collapse were people to be well-informed with true facts – and were allowed to think and debate facts and policies in a fearless, honest and rational manner. Such ideologies require the suppression of truth, reason and morality to survive. “Dissent has been relabelled as either hatred or insanity. Those who disagree with current orthodoxies are therefore deemed to be either bad or mad […] utopian fantasies wrenched facts and evidence to fit their governing idea. Independent thought thus became impossible — which inevitably resulted in an attack upon freedom, because reason and liberty are inseparable bed- fellows. […] Reason was thus replaced by bullying, intimidation and the suppression of debate.”(25)
Even the use of some words, of certain kinds, can result in one being arrested and sent to prison(26). It never used to be like this. Chief Constable Fahy warns of Britain becoming a police state: “There is a danger of us being turned into a thought police”(27) . Many freedoms have been reduced as a result of immigration; this presents the reality of destruction of our liberties.
Justice and fairness have suffered significant destruction as a result of immigration. Because of immigration, albeit perhaps indirectly, the principle of double jeopardy was removed in Britain. In a general sense it is more difficult for certain types of fairness to exist in a mixed country. This is illustrated by examples such as observing the opinions of different races (on average) on cases that pertain to race – such as in relation to the O.J. Simpson trial in which blacks and whites differed (in general) in opinion as to whether O.J. was guilty or not. Such divergences of opinion make jury trials and other matters of justice problematic in mixed countries. The same issue can be seen in relation to the demands that different groups want their own group to police them, judge them, etc. – these demands often made on the basis that other groups will not, amongst other things, treat them fairly(28). The police frequently have been accused of not policing properly because the criminals in question were immigrants – this accusation made for various reasons including that the police do not want to be labelled ‘racist’(29). If the police are not performing their job properly in relation to immigrants, then this is not just nor fair and also this tends to decrease the quality of life for the people of the country. It is also held that often immigrants receive more favourable treatment when they are victims of crime (relative to indigenous victims)(30). Such accusations of differential treatment pertain to the various other arms of the legal system, not only to the police (e.g. CPS, judges, lawyers, etc.). In these contexts, and others, immigration destroys fairness and justice(31). Reduction of trust in the legal system has various destructive consequences, as does the destruction of the belief that the country is reasonably fair: these destructions of justice and fairness cause further destructions.
These problems of inequality before the law touch upon the idea that in many senses of the term ‘equality’, immigration’s diversity is incompatible with ‘equality’(32). Of course, in a social and political sense ‘equality’ is a nebulous-power-word (see Dr Turner, qv). However, one can distinguish certain forms of ‘equality’ that are not problematic from a rational perspective. For example, above various issues in relation to equality before the law were noted. Immigration also presents inequalities in relation to equality of opportunity and result: for equal results one would have to have unequal processing if the groups differ on the relevant criterion (or criteria). Hence, ‘equality’ in both of these senses is not possible in such circumstances(33). The very act of immigration into the country of an indigenous people presents the fact of treating the indigenous people as not equal to the immigrants(34). It is a reality that different groups tend (in general/overall) to feel more fraternity and loyalty towards members of their own group, presenting various intrinsic inequalities in a mixed country (including in relation to the law – see above). Thus, in many senses of the term ‘equality’, ‘equality’ is reduced, if not impossible, when there is immigration. In an ironic manner, immigration is frequently sold as ‘equality’.
Many children’s lives have suffered destruction as a result of immigration into Britain – this harm would not necessarily always be a result of immigration (as opposed to some of the destruction noted above which is intrinsic to immigration in general), but has been resultant in this context. This particular harm and destruction has been caused in many ways(35), including the many thousands raped by immigrants(36). It is held by many that the little girls in places such as Rotherham (and Sheffield, Manchester, etc.) were sacrificed to appease the immigrants and/or to enable the authorities to indulge themselves in their feel-good ‘anti-racism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ dogmas – letting them feel superior and compassionate(37) – and, not unrelatedly, avoid accusations of ‘racism’(38). It is likely that some people were too scared to act properly. Some hold that the abuse needed to be ignored to maintain the lie that immigration was not destruction, but was good(39):
“What is particularly sickening is their desperation to cover up the abuse in their attempt to maintain the illusion that cultural diversity was working in Rotherham.” (40)
As the local Labour MP for Rotherham during the time documented in Professor Jay’s Report (MP between 1994-2012), Denis MacShane (former BBC employee and convicted fraudster) stated:
“there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that. Perhaps, yes, as a true Guardian reader and liberal Leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.” (41)
As author Allison Pearson notes in response, qv: “Much better to hang on to your impeccable liberal credentials than save a few girls from being raped, eh, Denis?”(42)
The destruction that results from sexual abuse is particularly life-destroying and the consequences rarely are confined to the victim him or herself; frequently the destruction to the spirit is passed down the generations and also family and others in proximity are affected. For example, the consequences of victims’ mental illnesses (and pain/suffering in general) affect others, as do the many cases when such victims turn to drink and drugs to dull the pain, cope with life, etc. Of course, a lot of the drug trade is conducted by immigrants, only too happy to profit from the destruction of lives.
Crimes inflicted upon indigenous Brits by immigrants are not confined to rape and drugs, and this level of crime has caused pain, destruction of a sense of safety and security – and the resultant decreases in quality of life. For example, many elderly people are scared to go out to the extent that they would like, and largely this is due to the fear of crime (and the destruction of their way of life and comfort in general, etc.). The increase in crime as result of immigration(43) (both by direct and indirect means(44)) causes fear and discomfort, plus other problems such as increased security precautions being necessary, increased insurance premiums being paid, etc. Immigration has destroyed quality of life to a significant extent.
The validity and integrity of the electoral system in Britain has suffered a level of destruction as a result of immigration. This has occurred by various means. For example, the problem of postal voting fraud is found to be occurring disproportionately amongst certain immigrant groups (not to mention the deals for the genuine postal votes and orders to vote from elders and family leaders, etc.)(45). There are attitudes to the voting system amongst some immigrant groups that differ from those of the Brits, and there is a higher level of corruption amongst some immigrant groups than amongst the indigenous people(46). As Attorney General MP Dominic Grieve says: “we have minority communities in this country which come from backgrounds where corruption is endemic”(47)
Of course, such corruption and attitudes are specific to certain immigrant groups, and this form of destruction is not a necessary consequence of immigration in the general sense. However, the diversity that immigration always brings does present some inherent potential problems in relation to elections, including matters such as split loyalties and groups favouring their own(48). All these general and specific issues present ways in which immigration has presented some destruction of political democracy.
Immigration has brought a lot of destruction to the working and lower-middle classes. In many ways, immigration is a class issue. The propagation of ‘moral relativism’(49) caused a belief to be widely held that one ‘should not judge’ – hence, amongst other things, facilitating immigration. This relativism has resulted in an inhibition of the teaching of moral and correct behaviour, which has wrought havoc on poorer communities. In more direct ways, immigration has destroyed the quality of life for working class people as wages and working conditions have reduced, and the shortage of lower-skilled and no-skilled jobs has rendered many unemployed(50). The main influx of immigrants has tended to be in the poorer areas of the country, and these areas are also less able to cope with extra problems and destruction. It is hence the less advantaged that have suffered the most – this pertains to all the destructions noted above, e.g. it is disproportionately white working class children who have been raped and abused by immigrants and it is largely these communities that have been destroyed by the other crimes and by the shattering of any sense of solidarity, comfort and community. As Leo McKinstry notes: “Mass immigration has amounted to a gross betrayal of the British people, particularly the working class who have borne the brunt of this catastrophically misguided policy.”(51)
One BBC presenter claims that the BBC ignored the problem of immigration so as not to be branded ‘racist’, and also because:
“BBC employees are unable to understand the concerns of ordinary people because they typically have ‘sheltered’ middle-class lives…”
In some ways, immigration has been foisted upon the white working class by the more privileged of society, and objections to immigration are sneered at in a snobbish manner by the more privileged – while the poorer are destroyed. Many of the educated/privileged seem to feel it is intellectually, socially and morally superior to support this destruction. This is admitted by some who previously supported mass immigration, e.g. Peter Hitchens writes that he is sorry: “…we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots. Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London). We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years […] we sneered at [the urban poor] as ‘racists’. … I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).”(52)
There are other ways in which immigration presents destruction, both in the general sense and in the specific example of Great Britain recently, including, in this country: destruction of the education system(53); the advancement of the country being reduced; etc.(54). However the destruction of culture and existence are perhaps the most serious (and are two of the inherent forms of destruction caused by immigration(55)). So, in exchange for this what do we get? And is it worth it? Could anything be worth genocide?
Well, we are told that mass immigration brings diversity, but in the long term it does not; as noted above it brings quite the opposite. And diversity in shared space is not always a good thing either, (e.g. race riots, fracturing of peace and solidarity, etc.). Some people say they enjoy seeing different faces around – putting aside the patronising ‘zoo-like’ tone of this – the very diversity they enjoy is threatened by mass immigration, and is their small pleasure worth the destruction? How could they think it is acceptable to self-indulge at the expense of others – and, ironically, all the time posing with their ‘moral values’? Why do ‘anti-racists’ throw one race under the bus to posture? And do they not see any possible inconsistency in their position? Another ‘argument’ for mass immigration is the variety of restaurants available, but is this choice of restaurants worth the destruction? And, of course, indigenous people can be taught to cook any dishes(56).
Some argue that it is ‘nice’ and compassionate to bring in millions of people: compassionate to whom? To those suffering the destruction? And in the long run it is not clear that the immigrants will gain – this true in a number of ways. For example, even the new immigrants will, and frequently do(57), resist further immigration after a point(58) – perhaps as, in relation to the area in question, a sense of territorialism and ownership develop to a certain extent(59). The short term gains enjoyed by immigrants might not be worthwhile even for them in the long run. And then there is the alleged economic argument. If all the figures (immigration has caused many costs to Britain(60)) and the long-term economic projections are taken into account, it is not clear that immigration is an economic benefit to Britain, in fact, the reverse is true(61). One can view this from the example of one hypothetical immigrant: he either works and thus takes a job(62) a Brit could have done(63), and pays taxes that a Brit could have paid. Alternatively, he takes benefits. Where is the economic gain coming from(64)? Are these immigrants all arriving and dropping off large amounts of cash that they brought with them? Well the truth is that millions of pounds leave the country every month as immigrants send money back home (plus benefits are sent abroad by the government too, etc.). We are not gaining money here, and even if we were, is it worth the destruction? As Hitchens writes in relation to immigration: “..it is impossible not to be angry with the politicians who either couldn’t imagine what their policies would bring in practice, or did not care. The destruction of familiarity and security cannot be measured in money.”(65)
How much would you sell your country, peace, freedom, quality of life, culture, heritage, children and race for? Even were there to be a financial gain (which there is not here(66)), is this moral? Are we for sale? What possibly could be worth selling your race for? Of course, all this destruction is predictable, and is documented around the world and across history – which begs the question: who would implement such a policy, and why?
Immigration presents destruction, and it just isn’t worth it.
Peter Tatchell was born in Melbourne Australia on 25th January 1952, he moved to London in 1971 to avoid conscription. In 1978 Tatchell joined the Labour Party and moved to Bermondsey, South East London. Tatchell ran as the Bermondsey Labour Party candidate in the 1983 General Election. Despite Bermondsey being a Labour stronghold he lost to Liberal candidate Simon Hughes. In February 2000 he left the Labour Party for unknown reasons. In 2004 he joined the Green Party and was chosen to be their candidate for Oxford East in the 2010 General Election, however for some reason he withdrew his candidacy in 2009.
Peter Tatchell (the UK’s most prominent homosexual activist and a favourite of the BBC) has done more than demand the abolition of the age of consent, he has broken the law on the age of consent in Britain at least once.
Peter Tatchell is a regular on the BBC. The BBC have refused to state whether he appears as a human rights activist, homosexual campaigner or paedophile apologist. They have also refused to state how much they have paid him for appearances.
As a gay 18-year-old Australian anti-Vietnam war draft-dodger, he came to the UK in 1971 and lived with a 16-year-old boy in London. The homosexual age of consent in England at the time was 21. Later he campaigned for lowering it to 16, and now he wants it lowered again to 14. What will he want after that?
When the age of consent for homosexuals was lowered to 16 an Outrage (Tatchell’s organization) banner said “16 is just a start” – it didn’t state what the end goal was.
Mr Tatchell criticises the age of consent laws. Here is a quotation from his own website:
“Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at 12; others not until they’re 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn’t take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances“.
Peter Tatchell wrote the chapter “Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent” for a book openly advocating paedophilia and finding ways “to make paedophilia acceptable“.
This book, published in 1986 and called The Betrayal of Youth (B.O.Y.), was edited by Warren Middleton, then vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Britain’s number one paedophile advocacy group.
Stephen Green, anti-paedophile campaigner wrote: “The book was part of a campaign to abolish all ages of consent, destroy the responsibilities of parents for their children, deny any ill-effects on children of interference by paedophiles, and withal to make it easier for paedophiles to gain sexual access to children.“
In The Betrayal of Youth Tatchell wrote that the age of sexual consent is “Reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era“.
Tatchell often ambushes public figures who don’t support the homosexual/paedophile agenda. The MSM and especially the BBC usually give him great publicity for these stunts.
He was not on his own in this belief.Many of his fellow socio-communists and homosexual activists thought the same:
Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity. The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would supersede the family household. … Gay people and children should have the right to live together. … It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’
Feminists like Beatrice Faust contributed to The Betrayal of Youth, as well as other homosexual activists besides Tatchell, including Jeffrey Weeks and Eric Presland, who “related his first paedophile experience with an Asian boy of thirteen, and boasted of interfering with a little boy of six“.
The book is considered so toxic that Amazon doesn’t sell it and you cannot search its content in Google Books.
Tatchell is well aware of how much all this is bad publicity for him and keeps rationalizing and adjusting his positions, but only the ideologically blind or pathologically naive cannot see through his self-excuses.
He has prepared a standard self-defence which can be found on his own website and has been repeated verbatim on many outlets. It used to also be on the site of his friend militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, but it’s not there any more. Maybe even Dawkins draws a line at what is morally allowed, even though his motto is “There’s probably no God – now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.
In this article that supposedly should serve to exculpate him, Tatchell has nothing better than this: “The critics also cite Warren Middleton’s 1980s book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in child sex abuse matters when I was asked to write.”
Considering that Warren Middleton was co-founder and vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a prominent group promoting paedophilia, it was impossible for Tatchell not to have known his propensities. In addition, both Tatchell and Middleton were part of the Gay Liberation Front/Angry Brigade, a neo-Marxist revolutionary group of radical students at the London School of Economics, thus making Tatchell’s protestations of ignorance verge on the ridiculous.
Peter Righton of the Paedophile Information Exchange – a Child welfare expert who wanted the age of consent lowering to four.
Were you aware that Tatchell contributed a chapter to this book?
THE BETRAYAL OF YOUTH
The contents and contributors of The Betrayal of Youth:
Chapter 1: ‘Incest’ by Clive Coliman: Described as “An ardent supporter of the children’s rights movement.”
Chapter 2: ‘Child Pornography and Erotica’ by Richard Green: Illustrator for the Paedophile Information Exchange magazine under the pseudonym “Dominik”
Chapter 3: ‘Child Prostitution’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.
Chapter 4: ‘Gender Differences’ by Liz Holtom and Kathy Challis: both from the anti-Christian Peace News.
Chapter 5: ‘Power and Consent’ by Eric Presland: Homosexual activist. Contributed also to the American paedophile book “The Age Taboo.”
Chapter 6: ‘Love and Let Love’ by Tuppy Owens, Editor of the Sex Maniac’s Diary, and Tom O’Carroll: ex-Chairman of P.I.E. who was convicted in 1981 of conspiracy to corrupt public morals by sending out a paedophile contact list.
Chapter 7: ‘Children and Sex’ by Fr Michael Ingram: Catholic priest, defender of paedophilia.
Chapter 9: ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent’ by Peter Tatchell.
Chapter 10: ‘Ends and Means: How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable?’ by Roger Moody of Peace News: “One of the most outspoken advocates of children’s rights in Britain .” Well-documented as a ubiquitous paedophile intellectual.
Chapter 11: ‘Socialism, Class, and Children’s Rights’ by John Lindsay: “ardent supporter of children’s rights.” Member of the Socialist Workers’ Party. Homosexual activist, hates the institution of the family.
Chapter 12: ‘Childhood Sexuality and Paedophilia: Some Questions Answered’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.
Chapter 13: ‘The Oppression of the Young: An Inside Perspective’ by Jeff Vernon: Involved in Gay Youth Movement and Campaign for Homosexual Equality.
Appendix 1: “P.I.E., from 1980 Until its Demise in 1985” by Steven A. Smith: ex-chairman of P.I.E. Fled to Holland in 1984, became “active in the Dutch crusade for children’s rights,” was deported back to the UK in 1991 and sentenced to 18 months for sending indecent articles through the post.
Appendix 2: “The Uranians” by Timothy d’Arch Smith: Bookseller. Author of “Love in Earnest.”
Peter Tatchell’s self-defence begins with:
“Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes.”
These are blatant falsities. It wasn’t many Catholic clergy, it was an extremely small minority. And, as shown in Lies About The Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal, there is no reason, except bigotry and prejudice, to single out Catholic clergy who in fact have committed fewer of these crimes than any other pedagogic institution, religious or secular.
Peter Tatchell and his homosexual/paedophile allies often attacked the Christian Church for having Christian values. There is no record of him bursting in to a synagogue or mosque to protest against their religious values.
Saying what he does about the Pope is a criminal act, it is slander. The Pope has never covered up for anyone.Tatchell and his friends in the mainstream media (especially the BBC) think that if you repeat a lie enough times your audience will start to believe that it’s true.
But blaming the Church whenever you’re in trouble is a good way to distract the public from your own deviations from the norm. It’s worked so far so why shouldn’t it work now? Maybe because people have started calling your bluff, Pete.
Peter Tatchell has a seething hatred of Christian morals and values.
The above should tell you how trustworthy and credible Tatchell is, but there’s more.
Look at his defence of the book Dares To Speak:
“Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by professors, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, a Dutch senator and a former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It discussed the age of sexual consent and whether all sex between young people and adults is necessarily unwanted and harmful, based on what it said was objective research with young people.
The book does not endorse or excuse sexual relationships with young people that involve coercion, manipulation or damage. The authors queried, among other things, the balance between giving young people sexual rights and protecting them against abuse. These are entirely legitimate issues to discuss.”
Leaving aside the irony (probably lost on humorless Tatchell) about his using a “former editor of a Catholic newspaper” as a guarantor of the morality of a book while he constantly treats the Catholic Church like a den of abusers. The book Dares to Speak, that Tatchell praises so much as an academic achievement, was edited by Joseph Geraci, who was also the editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The book is a collection of articles from the journal.
Before it was quietly removed, this was Wikipedia’s entry for the publication:
Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-pedophile activists.
After the normalization of homosexuality, we’ll have the normalization of paedophilia.
Here is Tatchell’s letter to the Guardian dated 26th June 1997 (a few weeks after Labour’s General Election win) which he denied writing when I asked him about it. However I can find no record of a complaint to the Guardian, the Press Complaints Commission or any lawsuit for libel:
Ros Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.
Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted,abusive and harmful.
Peter Tatchell.
Peter Tatchell has repeatedly denied writing the letter above. However below is his reply in the Guardian (1st July 1997) to criticism of his original letter. In his second letter (below) he never denies writing the first letter (above) or claims he was edited in any way.
Peter Tachell’s second letter to the Guardian on 1st July 1997.
Peter Tatchell has often claimed he lives a monk-like existence living on a mere £9,000 income per annum. When I challenged him on this he changed his claim to £29,000 plus expenses. However he has refused to disclose his payments for his numerous main stream media appearances or disclose how much his yearly expenses are.
Peter Tatchell in his Bermondsey Council flat.
Peter Tatchell has declined to be interviewed for this article, however I will leave him the option of the right of reply in the comments section.
Tachell was also a major player in legalising homopaedo marriage and adoption.
It’s an article describing a young boy in State Care being sexually abused by a VIP paedophile ring including a female MP. At the end of the article we’ll narrow down the possible offending female MP.
If you thought for one minute that Britain is really as it appears to be, you’re very sadly mistaken.
Beneath the pomp and pageantrylies a network of paedophilic depravity, so vile and despicable, it literally beggars belief.
From the Elm Guest House scandal to North Wales care home abuse via Dolphin Square; to sickening Warwick Spinks and the Amsterdam connection; from Jersey’s Haut de la Garenne to Kincora in Northern Ireland; from the vile BBC to complicit police and government authorities; from MP’s through to the Royal Family themselves; the whole filthy lot of them are in on it.
The VIP paedophile ring has been able to operate by ensuring all sections of society are controlled by abusers and then children are snatched from Britain’s streets or stolen from loving families (via secret family courts) and thrown into care homes to be trafficked by filth.
This shocking article from the Sunday Express sheds more light on the role of politicians in this sordid and sickening web:
” Andrew Ash (pictured at 14) claims he was abused by two MPs in London in the 1980s [HULL NEWS & PICTURES]
She is alleged to have forced a boy in care to perform a “vile” sex act at one of a series of drug-fuelled parties in Westminster in the Eighties where boys and girls as young as 13 were allegedly abused.Last night her alleged victim told the Sunday Express: “I want justice.”
Andrew Ash, now 45, said he has given Scotland Yard the name of the former MP. We cannot name her for legal reasons.
Mr Ash claims he was frequently ferried down to London from the North of England, where he was in care, to take part in sex parties.
He says they were organised by a paedophile ring involving David Smith, Jimmy Savile’s former chauffeur who killed himself last year before he was due to stand trial for sex offences.
He said: “It wasn’t just politicians, there were also a number of celebrities, including Jimmy Savile, who seemed to have a lot of good links to MPs and powerful businessmen.
“There was usually drugs like cocaine and speed available as well as bottles of champagne.”
Of his encounter with the female MP, he said: “She was extremely drunk and was laughing as she did it.
“I didn’t really know what was going on but the others around her were goading her on.
“I must have been about 13 years old at the time and felt humiliated.” We can also reveal that security services have been working closely with Yard detectives because of the highly sensitive nature of the allegations.
The Sunday Express understands police seized video footage and photographs of an alleged sex party from a well-known paedophile last year.
Mr Ash claims officers have footage which shows a senior male MP in the same frame as him, although no abuse takes place on camera. He said he is speaking out now because he is frustrated by the lack of action after being interviewed for 70 hours by the Met Police’s Paedophile Unit.
He says he was abused by the male MP on another occasion too. He said: “I remember being filmed with this MP, who was abusing me in a garage of a very prominent building behind a Rolls-Royce.
“Another politician turned up with a video camera but the man abusing me just smirked and joked, ‘OK, OK, I’ll vote any way you want’ as if he was being blackmailed. What I want to know is why they haven’t arrested him yet if they have this evidence.“All I want is justice and for the truth to come out because these people have been protected for far too long.”
Mr Ash said two Met officers called at his home in Yorkshire last May.
Interviews were conducted mainly at a safe house in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, but also in London. “The interviews were usually carried out in blocks of three, normally every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
“On at least two occasions there were two other officers present that I didn’t recognise. They didn’t ask me a thing, they just scribbled notes.
“I asked who they were but all I was told was that they were from ‘upstairs’. It was clear from the tone that they were intelligence officers.
“They had obviously been made aware of the high-profile names and the sensitive information I had given police.”
Dutch intelligence officers attended at least one interview because Andrew told of being trafficked to Amsterdam on a number of occasions to be abused by a group of paedophiles including convicted child killer Sidney Cooke.
He claims Cooke, now 84, made him film the paedophile abusing another young boy on video. It is feared Cooke may have abused and killed young boys in the Netherlands.
Mr Ash also told police he was abused by a big-name celebrity.
He said: “This particular person was able to get youngsters into glitzy nightclubs in the West End. After one evening he invited me and a young girl back to his house where he made us have sex before joining in.”
Mr Ash is being helped by anti-abuse campaigners Bill Maloney and Chris Fay.
Mr Fay said: “The police have spent a good deal of time with him, listening to his evidence, and now potentially have compelling information that Andrew was at one of these parties with at least one prominent former MP.
“He hopes by speaking out, other victims may come forward.”
This appalling account of VIP abuse is just the tip of the iceberg.
When we finally discover the full extent of just how wide the filthy paedo ring operating in this country really is, it may well mean the end of Britain as we know it.
Josephine Richardson (Labour) 1923-1994 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1994
Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) 1925–2013 (deceased) MP from 1959 to 1992
Sheila Faith (Conservative) born 1928 (retired) MP from 1979 to 1983
Jill Knight (Conservative) born 1924 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Knight of Collingtree) MP from 1966 to 1987
Sheila Wright (Labour) 1925-2013 (deceased) MP from 1979 to 1983
Ann Taylor (Labour) born 1947 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Taylor of Bolton) MP from 1974 to 1983 and 1987 to 2005
Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour) 1930-2008 (deceased) MP from 1966 to 1970 and 1974 to 2008
Joan Lester (Labour) 1931-1998 (deceased after serving in House Of Lords as Baroness Lester of Eccles) MP frpm 1966 to 1983 and 1987 to 1997
Sally Oppenheim (Conservative) born 1930 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes of Gloucester) MP from 1970 to 1987
Shirley Summerskill (Labour) born 1931 (retired) MP from 1964 to 1983
Judith Hart (Labour) 1924-1991 (deceased after serving in House Of Lords as Baroness Hart of South Lanark) MP from 1959 to 1987
Elaine Kellet-Bowman (Conservative) born 1924 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1997
Janet Fookes (Conservative) born 1936 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Fookes of Plymouth) MP from 1970 to 1997
Peggy Fenner (Conservative) born 1922 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1974 and 1979 to 1997
Joan Maynard (Labour) 1921-1998 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1987
Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Labour) born 1938 (retired) MP from 1976 to 1987
Lynda Chalker (Conservative) born 1942 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) MP from 1974 to 1992
Betty Boothroyd (Labour) born 1929 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell) MP from 1973 to 2000
Renee Short (Labour) 1919-2003 (deceased) MP from 1964 to 1987
A List Of The 23 Female MPs Elected in 1983:
Josephine Richardson (Labour) 1923-1994 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1994
Elizabeth Peacock (Conservative) born 1937 (retired) MP from 1983 to 1997
Jill Knight (Conservative) born 1924 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Knight of Collingtree) MP from 1966 to 1987
Clare Short (Labour) born 1946 (retired 2010) MP from 1983 to 2005
Marion Roe (Conservative) born 1936 (retired 2005) MP from 1983 to 2005
Judith Hart (Labour) 1924-1991 (deceased after serving in House Of Lords as Baroness Hart of South Lanark) MP from 1959 to 1987
Lady Ann Winterton (Conservative) born 1941 (retired 2010) MP from 1983 to 2010
Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour) 1930- 2008 (deceased) MP from 1966 to 1970 and 1974 to 2008
Margaret Beckett (Labour) born 1943 (currently MP) MP from 1974 to 1979 and 1983 to present
Edwina Currie (Conservative) born 1946 (retired 1997) MP from 1983 to 1997
Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) 1925–2013 (deceased) MP from 1959 to 1992
Sally Oppenheim (Conservative) born 1930 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes of Gloucester) MP from 1970 to 1987
Elaine Kellet-Bowman (Conservative) born 1924 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1997
Peggy Fenner (Conservative) born 1922 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1974 and 1979 to 1997
Angela Rumbold (Conservative) 1932-2010 (deceased) First elected in 1982 by-election then MP from 1983 to 1997
Harriet Harman (Labour) born 1950 (currently MP for Peckham) first elected MP in by-election 1982 to present
Janet Fookes (Conservative) born 1936 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Fookes of Plymouth) MP from 1970 to 1997
Anna McCurley (Conservative) born 1943 (retired 1987) MP from 1983 to 1987
Joan Maynard (Labour) 1921-1998 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1987
Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Labour) born 1938 (retired) MP from 1976 to 1987
Lynda Chalker (Conservative) born 1942 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) MP from 1974 to 1992
Betty Boothroyd (Labour) born 1929 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell) MP from 1973 to 2000
Renee Short (Labour) 1919-2003 (deceased) MP from 1964 to 1987
Jewess Harriet Harman QC MP in butterfly brooch.
The most obvious suspect is Harriet Harman QC MP of the Paedophile Information Exchange but we need more clues than we have already. However Harriet Harman is still an MP. Here’s an article on the evil Harriet Harman:
However if the accused is really an ex-MP and is still alive the 17 suspects are:
Sheila Faith (Conservative) born 1928 (retired) MP from 1979 to 1983
Jill Knight (Conservative) born 1924 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Knight of Collingtree) MP from 1966 to 1987
Ann Taylor (Labour) born 1947 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Taylor of Bolton) MP from 1974 to 1983 and 1987 to 2005
Sally Oppenheim (Conservative) born 1930 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes of Gloucester) MP from 1970 to 1987
Shirley Summerskill (Labour) born 1931 (retired) MP from 1964 to 1983
Elaine Kellet-Bowman (Conservative) born 1924 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1997
Janet Fookes (Conservative) born 1936 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Fookes of Plymouth) MP from 1970 to 1997
Peggy Fenner (Conservative) born 1922 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1974 and 1979 to 1997
Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Labour) born 1938 (retired) MP from 1976 to 1987
Lynda Chalker (Conservative) born 1942 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) MP from 1974 to 1992
Betty Boothroyd (Labour) born 1929 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell) MP from 1973 to 2000
Elizabeth Peacock (Conservative) born 1937 (retired) MP from 1983 to 1997
Clare Short (Labour) born 1946 (retired 2010) MP from 1983 to 2005
Marion Roe (Conservative) born 1936 (retired 2005) MP from 1983 to 2005
Lady Ann Winterton (Conservative) born 1941 (retired 2010) MP from 1983 to 2010
Edwina Currie (Conservative) born 1946 (retired 1997) MP from 1983 to 1997
Anna McCurley (Conservative) born 1943 (retired 1987) MP from 1983 to 1987
Justice Denied Blog Names Their Five Top Suspects:
The Justice Denied blog has named their five top suspects as:
1. Edwina Currie – an MP at the time, now retired and not deceased.Edwina Currie appointed Savile to run a taskforce in charge of Broadmoor mental hospital in the 1980s, where he is accused of sexually assaulting patients
2. Margaret Thatcher – an MP at the time (actually Prime Minister), now retired and deceased.
3. Virginia Bottomley – not an MP until 1984, now retired and not deceased. Her husband Peter Bottomley is named on the Elm Guest House paedophile VIP party list.
4. Harriet Harman – an MP at the time, not retired and not deceased.Major player in the Paedophile Information Exchange.
5. Ann Winterton – an MP at the time, now retired and not deceased.
If the abuse happened in 1982 or 1983, as it seems, then the only two out of the five fitting the description ( MP at the time, now retired and not deceased) would be Edwina Currie and Ann Winterton. Read more from Justice Denied here:
SMOKESCREENS AND MIRRORS LIES, CONFUSION, TRICKERY AND PRETENSIONS.
A Study of Language
A short summary/review of Dr Thomas E. Turner’s book
By Boadicea
Millions pour in from the third world as if a Camp of the Saints(1) were occurring in slow motion. This brings many problems and much strife and grief, e.g.: thousands of British girls are raped; working Brits lose a fortune in lower wages (2) and by paying extra taxes to support the immigrants (and to fund the related industries, etc.(3)); large areas of the land are ‘ethnically-cleansed’ by immigrants; there is destruction of British culture and of the social fabric; and, most significantly, there is the facilitation and threat of genocide of the British people. The people are anxious, angry, unhappy, hurt – the people are being harmed and yet they dare not speak out. How did those who engineered this get away with it?
One significant factor in pulling this off was the use of various words as tools to suppress dissent. These terms suppress dissent by direct means, and also by indirect means – they are used as tools of power to exert social and political power over the people.
In Dr Turner’s book these terms are analysed and it is shown that these words are not even ‘proper’ words – that’s how they work their power.
‘Wayycist!!!’
These terms are a specific type of term: ‘nebulous-power-words’. These terms can act as tools of power because of the very nature of the words. The characteristics of these terms enable them to obscure truth, inhibit rationality – confusing people and distorting perception – and hence the emotions and social forces associated with such terms can act to manipulate people. The power of these terms is contingent upon their features, e.g. their lack of rationality (4) and the fact that most people do not recognise this lack – but instead misperceive the terms as properly rational terms. It is because of these features that the social and emotional power associated with the terms can operate to control people.
You might have heard the non-white Cohesion Officer on television dismissing a poor white person who might have had the audacity to say that he thinks that the policy of favouring non-whites in employment might be unfair and not an act of ‘equality’ – ‘At our Unit’ the Officer snarls, then raising the voice to a terribly superior pitch, ‘we celebrate the diversity and do you not realise that ‘equality’ is the root of ‘multiculturalism’? And quite honestly I think your statement is dangerously close to sounding like ‘racism’!’ The white person will now deny being a ‘racist’ and say how many black friends he has, how much he supports ‘equality’, he thinks it should not matter what a person’s skin colour is, blablabla….on the defence. But defence to what? The statement from the state-paid official is mumbo jumbo.
‘Multiculturalism’ is rooted in ‘equality’ and opposed to ‘racism’
The three terms ‘racism’, ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘equality’ are nebulous-power-words and should not be used in rational discourse. These terms do not possess high referentiality and also hold strong emotional associations and social force. People celebrate ‘multiculturalism’, even constructing monuments to it (5), and opposing ‘equality’ is heresy. Being a ‘racist’ often is considered the most terrible thing.
These terms have been used to discuss, justify and explain changes in the lives of millions of people. But what so these words actually mean?
Let us examine the definitions of these 3 terms. Definitions are available in dictionaries, glossaries, in the literature, from interviews, etc.
I support ‘equality’ as a moral good!
First, examining ‘equality’ (6) one finds many definitions available. In the sense of being the same (in quantity and/or quality, i.e. equivalence), this term possesses high referentiality – it would be perfectly rational to use this term in such senses (7). However, in the social and political sense one finds that this term is problematic. There are many ways in which this term is used in the social and political context(8), including(9): equality of outcome, (e.g. wealth, income, representation, distribution of goods, etc.); equality of process, (e.g. equality of opportunity, etc.); ontological equality; the idea of being the same; equality of recognition; equality of condition; equality of fraternity; equality before the law; equality of rights; etc.
The very fact of multiple meanings is a factor denoting low referentiality – since one could never be sure which definition was being used. However, there are other problems with this set of definitions. For example, some of these uses of the term ‘equality’ are inconsistent with one another. A well-known form of ‘equality’ is that of equality of opportunity. One could use this in reference to places at university, or jobs, etc. However, if the relevant groups differ on the relevant criterion (or criteria), then equal processing will produce unequal outcomes. Hence, in these circumstances, one could not have ‘equality’: one could have equality of outcome at the expense of inequality of process, or vice versa(10). So, if the cry is for ‘equality’ – then to which form of ‘equality’ is one referring? ‘Equality’ is not a sufficient term in itself. One would need to specify the exact form of ‘equality’, and then, if there were such transparency, certain issues might become apparent. For example, if one merely wants equal numbers in relation to outcome, then one might wonder why this is? Is this some sort of numerical OCD? Is it moral to deprive the best qualified candidates merely because of their group membership? And if so, is this ‘equality’? Will this rule apply (dare I say ‘equally’) in all contexts? And how does one determine membership in the group categories – is this not inherently unequal? What harms are associated with this (hence raising moral issues)? Why would this necessarily be a moral good? Or an aim?
A single clear high referentiality definition of the term would illuminate many issues concerning the public good, logic, truth, morality, etc. – issues that are obscured by use of the confused and unclear term ‘equality’. Nebulous-power-words tend to confuse and obscure, yet how very dare anyone object to the holy and righteous term of ‘equality’.
We need action against ‘racism’!
‘Racism’ is a very powerful nebulous-power-word. People go to great lengths to avoid being called ‘racist’ (11) – sometimes even making ‘friends’ with people from other races. Many people do not do what is correct because they want to avoid being labelled as ‘racist’ – this allegation also made against the police(12). International conferences are held to combat ‘racism’(13) and governments speak against it. We need to stop ‘racism’ in football too(14). Some believe ‘racism’ is a criminal offence(15) – many are reported in the media as being arrested for ‘racism’(16). ‘Racism’(17) warrants censorship and many other punishments(18). This term controls speech, perceptions, conception and behaviour.
However, what does this word actually mean?
Many people cannot define the term at all, and some definitions available present low referentiality, e.g. that a racist incident is one so perceived(19) . If one examines the definitions that are available, one finds many definitions – again denoting low referentiality. Popular definitions include (in relation to a race or races): hatred; superiority; stereotyping; prejudice; discrimination; mistreatment; ‘inequality’; genocide(20); preference; intolerance; power; and yet others, including the idea that ‘racism’ is the state of being uninformed/uneducated/unintelligent, evil/wicked, etc.
Again, if a single definition were chosen, then the power of this term would diminish. This term, as a nebulous-power-word, has the immense power it does because it lacks high referentiality. For example if one were to pick the popular definition of ‘hatred’. If this had always been(21) the one and only definition of the term, then what would be so terrible about this? People hate all sorts of groups, why is this case so demonised and not others? Surely people are entitled to their own emotions? And if this were the only definition, then the numerous times this term is attributed in an unwarranted manner (used to silence and control) would become apparent. For example, if someone were to state that ‘group X has on average a lower ability in Y’, then why should this necessarily be attributed to hatred? Could it not just be true or false? This replacement exercise(22) can be performed with all the commonly-found definitions of the term and the intellectual dishonesty becomes clear, as do other matters – such as questions of morality. If one wants action against ‘racism’ what exactly is one wanting to prevent, and why?
All the definitions of ‘racism’ present problems – such as the inconsistent manner in which ‘stereotyping’ is used. It is not ‘racist’ to stereotype groups unless it is unfavourable to non-white groups(23). ‘Anti-racists’ can sneer at whites, including Brits, no problem – ‘Brits are too lazy to work and need immigrants’, etc.(24) Even putting to one side the unequal application, if ‘racism’ were merely defend as stereotyping/generalising about a race(s), then ‘racism’ would merely be such generalising. What is so very terrible about that? Do we really need to hold an International Conference because someone might have made a generalisation in their mind? Or even said it out loud? What if the thought is actually true(25)? And surely if ‘racism’ is defined as mistreatment of a racial group – then is not mass immigration a racist act against us? Which would mean that ‘multiculturalism’ were ‘racism’ and also ‘anti-racism’ (internally inconsistent)? So if ‘racism’ is defined only to disempower one racial group – then is this ‘racist’?
Dr Turner deconstructs this term to the extent that after reading his analysis you will never view the term ‘racist’ the same again.
It’s a celebration of ‘multiculturalism’
Investigating the definitions available of the term ‘multiculturalism’ one finds that there are 7 commonly found parts of the definitions that are available(26), plus the descriptive definition:
1. All groups practising their own culture
2. All the same
3. Celebration of diversity
4. Everyone living happily together
5. Equality
6. ‘Anti-racism’
7. Cultural relativism
These elements present problems from a rational perspective – whether examined alone and/or in combination, as will be shown briefly here.
I want to preserve all the world’s cultures and the diversity!!
Element one presents an idea that is not achievable in practice: all groups cannot practise their own cultures(27) in one place at one time. This simply is not possible. The one set of rules dilemma illuminates the logical fact that since a culture is described by a set of descriptive ‘rules’(28), only one such set can define the culture in question. Thus, if two (or more) cultures differ on any of these rules(29), then both sets cannot describe the resultant area at any one time. For example, if a culture has the custom of all houses being painted pink, then if a blue-house-painting culture moves in to the city, then the city-scape cannot remain all blue and all pink. Not possible. One or both cultures will be changed(30). The idea of ‘everyone doing their own thing’ is not preserving the original cultures, and neither does it represent ‘everyone doing their own thing’ in this context. This dilemma is played out across immigrised areas in Britain today(31). Is the Muslim call to prayer to be played across public space(32)? Are gays to be allowed to be gay? What are women to wear? May they drive on the roads? Is alcohol allowed? Is Piglet allowed(33)?
If one really did believe in preservation of culture and all cultures being allowed to practise their own cultures, then the political policy of mass immigration would not be a good idea.
All the different groups are the same!!
As to element two, we are not all the same, and if we were on wonders how on earth one would be able to categorise people into the relevant groups anyway. This is simply an untrue statement as are all the related lies such as ‘we are no different to other people’, ‘there is no such thing as race’, ‘we are all the same inside’, etc. If this element is used to define the term ‘multiculturalism’, then ‘multiculturalism’ is defined with an untruth.
It’s just a non-stop celebration here!!
Element Three (celebration of diversity) does not describe general reality. Diversity (as brought by immigration – which is the only type of diversity relevant here) in fact tends to make people less happy and, despite frequent claims to the contrary, tends to harm the people/society experiencing it (other things being equal). Studies show diversity causes people to be less trusting, less willing to sacrifice for others, less secure, less mentally healthy, more anxious, and is also associated with lower levels of social capital(34).
Such diversity tends to bring discomfort, strife, conflict and increases the chances of civil disorder, (e.g. race riots in 2001 across Britain, Birmingham’s inter-racial riots in 2005(35), etc.) and even civil war(36). Caldwell notes that every country that has experienced mass immigration has some form of ‘simmering’ ethnic conflict (Caldwell, 2009(37)). John Derbyshire predicts our grandchildren asking why we couldn’t see that such diversity obviously causes trouble – and they will be asking ‘what could be more obvious?’(38). Some hold that inter-group conflict is merely the way of nature – and that hostility and separation between groups may be instinctive and natural.
It would be inconsistent to celebrate all diversity (this could involve celebrating uniformity if practised by a group), and amoral by definition. This would also entail celebrating any practice – including child sacrifice, slavery, rape, etc. (e.g. see Press, 2007, page 17(39)). These practices, and others, are still found around the world – even human sacrifice.
Such diversity in one space also tends to uniformity, and this is hence inconsistent (in the context of immigration). This contradiction has prompted some to say that ‘multiculturalism’ is ‘the anti-thesis’ of what is presented as meaning, thereby making it a form of Orwellian ‘doublethink’(40). If one were a big fan of diversity, then mass immigration should not be a policy one should support.
Hence, such ‘celebration’ is inconsistent, immoral, is rarely found in real life (other than amongst journalists, politicians, etc.), and irrational in light of the problems it brings – plus the diversity brought by immigration ironically tends to become uniformity.
Everyone’s so happy together!!
Element Four (everyone living happily together) also does not describe reality accurately. As documented by Taylor (2011(41)) with numerous real-life examples, people generally prefer to separate and will do so when feasible (and in the absence of other incentives, etc.). Segregation in Britain is increasing, and is significant – as noted by many. For example, the head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, has stated that Britain is ‘sleepwalking’ into segregation(42) and Ted Cantle referred to communities living ‘parallel lives’ in his Report following the 2001 riots(43), etc.
When people are mixed together, this tends to decrease happiness and many other measures of well-being (as noted above). Different groups living together increases the chances of civil disorder or even war (as noted earlier).
Most people do not believe that ‘everyone lives happily together’; quite the contrary. During the author’s research it was found that most people not only desire to be ‘amongst their own kind’, but also believe that this makes people happier. Taylor cites a study conducted by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley, which found that the majority of the four major racial groups in California surveyed (blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians) agreed with the statement that ‘people are happier when segregated’ (Taylor, 2011, page 41, ibid).
The desire to live amongst one’s ‘own kind’ is reported around the world – sometimes to and/or by governments (which hence would make it difficult for those governments to claim not to know this). For example, the British Government Home Office Report commissioned after the 2001 riots noted that the main cause for the segregation found in Oldham was the preferences of groups ‘to live with their own kind’ (Oldham Independent Review, 2001, page 9, ibid). German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quoted as stating that:
‘Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other’. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly,’
(E.g. as quoted in the Guardian, 17th October 2010)
The fact that groups do not live together happily is sometimes noted even by some proponents of ‘multiculturalism’. In fact, the ‘multiculturalism’ industry is based largely on the assumption that diversity is problematic. Many other phenomena implicitly acknowledge that in fact groups do not simply live happily together. For example, the very existence of numerous lavishly-funded government bodies to ‘create cohesion’(44) and suchlike admit, if only by implication, that there is at least a strong possibility of problems between groups. One could also cite the systematic media censorship and distortion conducted for the purpose of ‘maintaining’ ‘cohesion’.
As a description this element is therefore false and irrational, and as an aim it is irrational to attempt since it seems unlikely to occur and is harmful (because of the problems it causes – increasing unhappiness, increasing the chances of civil disorder, etc.).
Some believe that the problems that arise from ethnic diversity are best resolved by the achievement of homogeneity through inter-marriage (hence refuting Element Four). There are a number of influential people in politics, academia and the media who explicitly call for miscegenation as a solution, (e.g. Podhoretz(45)). But if the problems of mixing ethnic/racial groups within one country are so severe and intractable that the best solution involves the ending of the relevant groups (or at least the indigenous group(46)), this calls into question both the attainability and the descriptive accuracy of this idea of ‘everyone living happily together’.
Hence, this element is neither a rational description nor an easily achievable policy. The moral justification for attempting to achieve this situation is not clear – especially if this involves destruction of groups (culture and/or people).
Equality! Even if it’s unequal it’s good!
As noted above, the term ‘equality’ (in the social and political sense) is a nebulous-power-word and hence should not be used in rational discourse. However, in the context of mass immigration (descriptive ‘multiculturalism’) this nebulous-power-word presents further specific problems – including the fact that equality of fraternity is not generally found (which can present various problems as well as inconsistencies). Also, in relation to indigenous rights(47), the indigenous group inherently have many of these rights infringed by the very fact of immigration, presenting an intrinsic inequality when descriptive ‘multiculturalism'(48) exists. Equality of representation is not achievable if numbers differ and/or distributions in relation to the relevant criterion (a) – unless some inequalities are enforced to make it equal. This renders descriptive ‘multiculturalism’ incompatible with ‘equality’ in these senses – and in many others.
‘Racism’ is very very bad ‘Anti-racism’ is good ‘Racist’ ‘anti-racism’ – still good!!
‘Racism’ is a nebulous-power-word – and as such should not be used in rational discourse. This is true in general, but there are specific additional issues if this nebulous-power-word is used in the context of descriptive ‘multiculturalism’. For example, if ‘racism’ is hatred (of a racial group or groups), could not mass immigration be viewed as an act of hatred(49) against indigenous people(50)? Some supporters of mass immigration claim that animosity, or even loathing(51), towards Britain is a motivation, e.g. Hitchens states that: ‘we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain’(52). As many have stated, integration/assimilation and having children outside one’s race could be viewed as killing one’s own race and as hateful(53). Which would mean that ‘multiculturalism’ in its descriptive sense is defined both as anti-racism, and also is ‘racist’. The associations of the term ‘racism’ with genocide(54) might become illuminated were the term merely defined as ‘hatred’ (or any other definition). The power to control people and inhibit objections to mass immigration would diminish were this term clearly defined(55).
It’s all relative – don’t bother thinking about it…
Under what is thought to be the original usage of the term ‘cultural relativism’ it was suggested that cultures should (or could) only be judged on their own terms. If this is true, then is problematic for descriptive ‘multiculturalism’, e.g. how is public space to be governed, (e.g. how are laws to be formulated?)?
The more recent interpretations of this phrase include that of ‘you shouldn’t/can’t judge’ – but this is a judgement and hence internally inconsistent, as well as being immoral. The spreading of such ideas has harmed society as some people are inhibited from making moral judgements(56).
Other popular interpretations include that of ‘all cultures are equal’. As ‘equality’ is a nebulous-power-word it is not clear what this actually means. The ways one might interpret this do not necessarily make sense alone or as a definition of the term ‘multiculturalism’ either – this would be a true or a false statement and so what does this have to do with mass immigration? And does anyone actually believe this in the sense of being ‘equally good’?
It’s just a description…
Of course, the term ‘multiculturalism’ is sometimes used in its descriptive sense – to refer to an area that has experienced as influx of incomers and is hence racially and/or ethnically mixed. In Britain this thus denotes the results of the political policy of immigration. This definition has high referentiality and possesses no rational problems per se – although being inconsistent with some of the other definitions (see above – all of which it underpins). However, there are some problems with this definition – including those of: this definition not always making sense if a replacement exercise is performed; and the issue of why this would be represented in a positive manner (and, not unrelatedly, why would a government implement this as a policy?).
In relation to the replacing of the term with its definition: how can ‘multiculturalism’ merely mean the diversity of immigration in sentences such as: ‘’multiculturalism’ is the solution to diversity’, ‘’multiculturalism’ is the justification of a ‘multicultural’ society’, etc.? How can it ‘be taught’ (as is recommended)? How can it ‘be’ a value/moral?
In relation to the idea of the positive emotions associated with the term (including its celebration) why would the results of this political policy be considered as positive(57)? Most Brits view immigration in a negative light, as shown in surveys and also by comments made in daily life (when people feel safe to speak that is). In Britain immigration has been harmful – especially to the poor who have been made poorer(58). Immigration (and its associated management) has cost the country a lot of money(59). Immigrants have committed a disproportionate amount of crime(60). The victims of these immigrants include thousands of raped women and children(61). The social fabric is destroyed by immigration, causing much misery – this in both dramatic ways and also the less dramatic daily miseries(62). Many freedoms have been inhibited or lost as a consequence of immigration(63). There have been many other means by which the country has been harmed as a result of immigration(64), (e.g. in education, housing issues, strains on resources such as water, importation of disease, etc.). Hence, immigration into Britain in recent years has caused great harm. In fact, many immigrants and supporters of mass immigration view immigration as an act of revenge against the Brits(65) – not very positive.
Not looking at the specifics harms that immigration has brought to Britain in recent years, one could examine the process of immigration from a theoretical perspective. When there is immigration there is what is known as the dilemma of cultural contact. This dilemma points out that immigration can bring only one of 2 outcomes(66): there is either diversity; or there is homogeneity. This is true irrespective of any specific consequences of immigration, (e.g. financial losses to the country, etc.(67)). Diversity is associated with much harm qv, and homogeneity can only be achieved by cultural destruction, and full homogeneity by racial destruction(68). Even if one supports ‘only’ cultural homogeneity: were this achieved, then racial homogeneity would follow in time. Thus, the dilemma of culture contact illuminates the logical truth that the only 2 options are both associated with harm: harm of diversity or the harm associated with achieving homogeneity. This truth holds no matter which terms are used to describe the relevant processes/outcomes, (e.g. ‘assimilation’, ‘integration’, ‘creolisation’, ‘métissage’, etc.). Of course, there are those who do not view the loss of racial existence as a problem(69), e.g. Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Walkington is quoted as allegedly stating that: Britain is ‘a country with the most mixed race relationships in the world. In 200 years’ time, we’ll all be coffee coloured and I’ve got no problem with that.’(70)
According to the United Nations(71), genocide is an international crime and punishable as such(72). One action that can qualify as genocide is: deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (see Article 2). Under this definition not only does the political policy of mass immigration possibly qualify as a genocidal act (intent dependent), but many of the academics, media, politicians and other experts appear to possibly be guilty of ‘complicity in genocide’ (an international crime under Article 3).
Hence, it is difficult to see why this term (policy) would be represented with a positive term. In recent years in Britain much harm has been caused, and even from a theoretical perspective the dilemma of cultural contact illuminates the logical truth that such immigration can only result in either homogenisation or diversity(73) – both outcomes/processes associated with harm/loss.
In recent years there have been some critics of ‘multiculturalism’ – but these voices queried ‘multiculturalism’ and not immigration or diversity. By this means, nebulous-power-words can be used to further obscure issues. If these critics are objecting to diversity brought by immigration, then what are they suggesting? Assimilation? Homogenisation? Is this not genocidal? And what happened to the celebration of diversity?
Nebulous-power-words can be used to confuse, distract, stall or otherwise obscure clear perception and conception. Also, when they are no longer useful, they will be either discarded (and possibly replaced(74)) or their meaning switched. What was good might be said to be bad – or vice versa. Nebulous-power-words might no longer be useful for a number of reasons, including: their purpose has been achieved, they have been exposed, etc. It is predicted that in the future even the very powerful nebulous-power-word ‘racism’ will either switch(75) or fall into disuse.
Hence, ‘multiculturalism’ is not adequate from a rational perspective. This term possesses low referentiality – the elements are all problematic from a rational perspective (ether per se and/or in the context of descriptive ‘multiculturalism’) and the one high referentiality meaning(76) found does not always make sense in the contexts in which the term is used – in these contexts the term must mean something else – but what? All the other meanings are shown to be problematic.
Social Representation Perspective on Meaning
So, if ‘multiculturalism’ is a nebulous-power-word, then what does it actually mean to those who know/use/hear/read, etc. it? Dr Turner concludes his book by taking another perspective on meaning. Whereas from a rational perspective this term is inadequate, a social representation perspective on meaning can explain, inter alia, what this term actually means to those who know it – and how social and emotional forces are contained within the very meaning (from a social representation perspective) of this term(77).
Dr Turner identifies various narrative voices (‘identities’) that contribute to constructing the social representation meaning that is found. One voice is that of the abstract – representing the abstract nature of the term and imbuing it with authority. All these experts, judges, highly-decorated academics, etc. use the term – surely it is not bogus? If the politicians have it as a policy it must at least be a real word? The Emperor isn’t naked is he?(78) A second such voice is the ‘nice’ narrative – it is just not nice(79) to challenge this – that would be nasty and ‘racist’(80). Thirdly, there is the danger of being attacked by the voice of the angry if one challenges/dissents(81) – these attacks can be in the form of the sneering/demeaning, the name-calling, or financial and legalistic attacks. There are also many cases of physical attacks to people and to property, and threats of such. Rage-filled people attempt to resolve their emotional problems by drawing upon the construct of ‘villain and victim’ – the immigrants being the ‘pet victims’ of their fantasy community, and the ‘racists’ the villains(82). Snobbery and viciousness are acted out upon dissenters. This frightens many people into submission/silence/compliance. Such utopian thinking is inherently destructive – the abstract and unachievable absurd visions ‘justifying’ destruction, violence, hate and control(83). Many immigrants themselves constitute a fourth voice – one that makes a claim of victimhood and offers motivations such as self-indulgence, pity, fear, shame and guilt. Immigrants can draw upon the utopian rainbow loving images and social representations without necessarily believing the vision/tenets(84) – this can be used, in a manipulative manner, as a tool to further one’s own goals. A fifth significant voice is that of the crowd – following the majority view (as is perceived(85)) and being swayed by social forces, many of this group follow the path of least resistance. All these forces combine and interact to construct the social representation meaning that is found – the social forces hence contained within the very meaning of this term (from a social representation perspective).
Fully assimilated visual images render the social representation impermeable to reason and truth. Images can replace concepts(86). Such images are ubiquitous in Western culture(87), and can ‘make sense’ of the elements in a manner that rational discourse cannot – and hence the term (and its elements) is ‘understood’ in this manner (by all being fitted into an organised structure of thought). The elements match and describe the image, but the image remains decontextualised and abstract.
Repeated linking between such images and the relevant phenomena, terms, mantras, etc. forms and reinforces the associations. This happy rainbow is contrasted constructively against ‘racism’ and this dichotomy constitutes the figurative nucleus of bipolar oppositional form of this hegemonic social representation (parallel to the ‘boy-girl’ construction of gender(88)).
THE JABBERWOCKY GYMBLES AND GYRES TALISMAN AND TABOO
As can be seen from the foregoing, ‘multiculturalism’ meets all the criteria to be categorised as a nebulous-power-word – words which can exert control because of their very nature. The power of these words is contingent upon low referentiality and on the fact that people do not recognise their true nature – without these factors the emotional and social forces could not hold such power over people. The low referentiality inhibits rational processing, causing confusion and obfuscation. Their emotional and social power governs perceptions, thoughts and feelings – and hence behaviour too. Representation by visual imagery exacerbates these effects. Only because of the nature of these terms can their powerful content operate. Nebulous-power-words are inadequate from a rational perspective, and should not form a part of rational discourse. They are inadequate to be used as social or political policies.
These terms can act as smokescreens and mirrors. The mirrors can reverse the perception of reality, and the smoke obscures truth. In the smoke people are confused and emotional, and hence easily manipulated. Amidst the smoke there is fear and panic and many will be misled – some following the crowd for safety, others are tricked into falsehoods, some push others towards the fire to save themselves, etc.
When one reads that toves are gyring and gymbling one might sort of understand, but it does not really make sense. Some do not want to admit they cannot understand – and others will feel that they do.
As Orwell might have said, ‘People bellyfeel ‘multiculturalism’, it is double plus good and goodthink; ‘racism’ is a thoughtcrime and double plus non good, ‘racists’ are thought criminals and non-persons’. Using the terms ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘racism’ (or any other nebulous-power-words) is, in Orwell’s terminology, a form of ‘duckspeak’. Duckspeak was the form of speech that involved movements of the voice centres, with sound being produced, but this movement and noise occurred without the higher brain parts needing to be engaged (Orwell, 1984 ibid). Hence, people could be speaking to each other, but not in a rational sense; the noises made acted to control people, and this control was made possible because of the very nature of the noises.
The duckspeak noises acted as tools of power – and yet the people never realised that duckspeak was not rational, nor that the power controlling them derived partly from themselves(89), contained within the very meaning of the terms they knew and used. This is how nebulous-power-words function. People can be controlled from within by such surreptitious means – a more total and perfect form of control than many others.
Boot (2006(90)) discusses such powerful terms being used by ‘glossocrats’ and how such terms can be used ‘as instruments of power’ this ‘long after the seemingly more violent weapons have dulled’. Nebulous-power-words contribute to a sociopolitical environment that is seen by some as ‘soft totalitarianism’. Author Hal Colebatch(91) believes Britain to be becoming the first soft totalitarian state of the modern world – ‘soft’ because it lacks the gulags of previous such regimes, but ‘totalitarian’ nonetheless because of the immense state power over people – including control over people’s thoughts and the punishments for dissent (The Australian, 21st April 2009(92)).
The simple but politically embarrassing truth is that ‘multiculturalism’ simply fails to meets the intellectual, practical or moral standards required for such a world-changing concept. And yet for now, the mass ‘multicultural’ mania continues almost unabated, and challenging its cosy consensus remains a hazardous undertaking. The ethnic emperor is appallingly naked – but although some in the West have started to notice, still too few dare to mention it. It is the very nature of some of the terms used that has facilitated much of this harm. The use of clear rational language could be a significant step in freeing people. If the Lion takes genuine courage, the Tin Man sees where the real compassion is, and the Scarecrow is intellectually honest and rigorous, then perhaps the curtain can be pulled and the pretensions, inaccuracies and dishonesties will be exposed. While the smoke and mirrors confuse, obscure, deceive, intimidate and shame, the good people of Emerald City are being manipulated and controlled.
Dr Turner’s book is recommended reading.
It is available to borrow or to buy from Amazon:
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/February/Europes-Multiculturalism-Leading-to-Civil-War-/ http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/allen-west-america-on-verge-of-race-war/
37. Caldwell, C. (2009) Reflections on the Revolution Europe. Can Europe be the Same with Different People in it? Allen Lane/Penguin, London: England
38. John Derbyshire, Taki’s Magazine, 29th March 2012: http://takimag.com/article/multiculturalism_when_will_the_sleeper_wake_john_derbyshire/print#axzz2jiRyi2m3
39. Press, J. K. (2007) Culturalism. Social Books: New York
40. E.g. see: ‘The Rivkin Project: How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations’, Dr. K R Bolton Foreign Policy Journal, 12 March 2011
41. Taylor, J. (2011) White Identity. Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. New Century Foundation: USA
42. E.g. see BBC News website 22nd September 2005
43. The ‘Cantle Report’ – Community Cohesion: a Report of the Independent Review Team. Chaired by Ted Cantle and published January 2001. Home Office.
44. ‘Cohesion’ is a problematic term. Frequently this term is used as a code-word for the absence of civil war and/or race riots.
45. Podhoretz, N. (1963) My Negro Problem and Ours. New York: American Jewish Committee
46. Immigrant groups might have populations remaining in their home countries
47. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 61st session at UN Headquarters in New York City on 13 September 2007
The Manchester Guardian was founded by John Edward Taylor in 1821, and was first published on May 5 of that year.The Guardian soon built a solid reputation for fighting against social injustice following the Peterloo Massacre and the Corn Laws. The Guardian was published weekly until 1836, when it was published on Wednesday and Saturday, becoming a daily in 1855.The Guardian achieved national and international recognition under the editorship of CP Scott, who held the post for 57 years from 1872.
Scott bought the paper in 1907 following the death of Taylor’s son.CP Scott died in 1932 and was followed only four months later by one son Edward, so sole ownership fell to his other son JR Scott.In June 1936, JR Scott gave ownership of the paper to the trustees of the Scott Trust. The Guardian moved to London in 1964.The Guardian relied heavily on the Manchester Evening News for financial support which it owned. In the late 70s and early 80s the Guardian’s position as the voice of the left was unchallenged. However in recent times the Guardian has become the by-word for trendy, faux Working-class values peddled by over privileged cultural-marxists. The Guardian is now run at a huge loss with it’s future uncertain as its assets are run down.
Current Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger since 1995. His currect salary is £395,000 plus bonuses of around £170,000 per year. In 2009 it was reported that one of his daughters, Isabella, had been working at The Guardian, but had been using her jewish mother’s surname (Mackie) as a nom de plume to avoid suspicion of having obtained the job through nepotism. It’s not known if The Guardian wasted People’s time by going through a charade of advertising the job.
The senior staff at the Guardian and the exclusive, private schools they attended:
The yearly fees stated do not usually include lunches, music, drama, travel or uniforms.
Editor: Alan Rusbridger (Cranleigh) £10,230
Political Editor: Patrick Wintour (Westminster) £10,830
Northern Editor: Martin Wainwright (Shreswbury)£11,652
Industrial Editor: David Gow (St. Peter’s, York)£19,440
Columnist and Associate Editor: Seumas Milne (Winchester College)Approx.£30,000
The Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley (Rugby School)£31,245
Columnist: George Monbiot (Stowe)£27,390
Columnist: Zoe Williams (Godolphin and Latymer)£17,280
The Guardian also offer to pay for all senior staff to send their Children to the private school of their choice – a perk most take up willingly.
Seumas Milne incidentally is the son of former BBC Director General Alisdair Milne.
Guardian News & Media has lost nearly £200m in the past six years as it pursues its ambition of being the “world’s leading liberal voice”.
GMG already enjoys advantages over some of its commercial media rivals. Ownership by the Scott Trust means it does not have to answer to shareholders. The group has a cash and investment fund of £254m. Those other assets such as its 50 per cent stake in Trader Media Group and a 33 per cent share in Top Right are security for the loss-making news business.Two years ago, as he committed GMG to a “digital-first strategy”, Mr Miller warned staff the newspaper’s losses were so great it could run out of money in “three to five years”. The latest losses of £31m for the year to the end of March were an improvement on the £44m of the previous 12 months and he took succour from a 28.9 per cent rise in digital revenues.
Converting pounds to dollars (£1 = $1.64), you find £200 million equals about $325 million. Divide that by six and you find that they’re losing money at a rate in excess of $54 million a year. The £31 million the Guardian group lost in the most recent year is more than $50 million. The £44 million they lost in the previous year was $72 million.
Please note Alan Rusbridger:
The Scott Trust has the duty to maintain a secure financial footing for the business: “…to devote the whole of the surplus profits of the Company which would otherwise have been available for dividends…towards building up the reserves of the Company and increasing the circulation of and expanding and improving the newspapers.” These principles remain the only instructions given to an incoming editor of the Guardian.
Nothing else like the filth, squalor and corruption of the Blair regime has ever happened in British politics before.
The events surrounding Operation Ore ( Child pornography investigation) and the subsequent cover up, summed up what Tony Blair and his New Jew Labour Government were really like.
Tony Blair – Britain’s most dishonest politician ever.
The best article we found in the MSM is copied below with a photo of the original article.
The Sunday Herald : Child Porn Arrests Too Slow Herald And Sunday Herald : Sunday January 19th 2003
Operation Ore : The Police enquiry which plans to arrest a further 7000 men across the UK , in addition to Who guitarist Peter Townshend, for buying Child pornography online is set to end in disaster with many suspects walking free.
Detective Chief Inspector Bob MacLachlan, former head of Scotland Yard’s paedophile unit, told the Sunday Herald that the lack of urgency in making arrests will lead to suspects destroying evidence of downloading child pornography before they are arrested.
The Sunday Herald has also had confirmed by a very senior source in British intelligence that at least one high profile former Labour Cabinet Minister is among Operation Ore suspects. The Sunday Herald has been given the politicians name but, for legal reasons, can not identify the person.
There are still unconfirmed rumours that another senior Labour politician is among the suspects. The intelligence officer said that a “rolling” cabinet committee had been set up to work out how to deal with the potentially ruinous fall-out for both Tony Blair and the Government if arrests occur.
Since the September 2002 Operation Ore arrest of Detective Constable Brian Stevens, a key officer in the inquiry into the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, the public have been aware that wanted suspects had downloaded Child pornography from a US website called Landslide.
MacLachlan, who was one of the main officers on Operation Ore before his retirement last year, said “Sufficient warnings have been given that if people haven’t got rid of their computers then they are either stupid, don’t believe they’ll be arrested or are so obsessive about their collections that they can’t destroy it. As time goes on, the chances of successful prosecutions will diminish with speed and the information out there must impact on the offenders.”
With only 1200 men arrested so far, MacLachlan says that claims by Police Chiefs and the Government that they were prioritising paedophile crime were “smoke and mirrors”. Paedophilia is still not a priority on the Home Office’s National Policing Plan for 2003-06. MacLachlan claimed that before he left Scotland Yard his team were under-staffed, over-worked, under-funded and reduced to using free software from computer magazines.
There are around one million images of an estimated 20,000 individual Children being abused online. Some Police seizures involve hauls of more than 180,000 images. Last year, images of 13,000 new Children were uncovered. Only 17 Child victims have been identified worldwide.
Police have also revealed that images of Fred West abusing one of his Children are among Child pornography available for downloading from the internet. It is unclear whether the Child was West’s murdered daughter Heather.
Peter Robbins, the Chief Executive of the Internet Watch Foundation, which works with the Police, Government and internet service providers, in tackling paedophilia online, says software is in development which could remove child pornography from the net forever. The software should be ready in two years.
Police say that the list of rich and famous Operation Ore suspects would fill newspaper front pages for an entire year.
Provided by: Financial Times Information Limited.
Index terms: Police Protection, Crimes : General News.
Location(s): United Kingdom Europe Western Europe
Record Number: A20030120-10A4-EIW,O,XML,EIW
Mass immigration is a phenomenon, the causes of which are still cleverly concealed by the system, and the multicultural propaganda is trying to falsely portray it as inevitable. With this article we intend to prove once and for all, that this is not a spontaneous phenomenon. What they want to present as an inevitable outcome of modern life, is actually a plan conceived around a table and prepared for decades, to completely destroy the face of the continent.
The Pan-Europe:
Few people know that one of the main initiators of the process of European integration, was also the man who designed the genocide plan of the Peoples of Europe. It is a dark person, whose existence is unknown to the masses, but the elite considers him as the founder of the European Union. His name is Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. His father was an Austrian diplomat named Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi (with connections to the Byzantine family of the Kallergis) and his mother the Japanese Mitsu Aoyama. Kalergi, thanks to his close contacts with all European aristocrats and politicians, due to the relationships of his nobleman-diplomat father, and by moving behind the scenes, away from the glare of publicity, he managed to attract the most important heads of state to his plan , making them supporters and collaborators for the “project of European integration”.
The man behind White European genocide Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.
In 1922 he founded the “Pan-European” movement in Vienna, which aimed to create a New World Order, based on a federation of nations led by the United States. European integration would be the first step in creating a world government. Among the first supporters, including Czech politicians Tomáš Masaryk and Edvard Beneš and the banker Max Warburg, who invested the first 60,000 marks. The Austrian Chancellor Ignaz Seipel and the next president of Austria, Karl Renner, took the responsibility for leading the “Pan-European” movement. Later, French politicians, such as Léon Bloum, Aristide Briand, Alcide De Gasperi, etc will offer their help.
With the rise of Fascism in Europe, the project was abandoned and the “Pan-European” movement was forced to dissolve, but after the Second World War, Kalergi, thanks to frantic and tireless activity and the support of Winston Churchill, the Jewish Masonic Lodge B’nai B’rith and major newspapers like the New York Times, the plan manages to be accepted by the United States Government. The CIA later undertakes the completion of the project.
The Essence Of The Kalergi Plan:
In his book Practical Idealism, Kalergi indicates that the residents of the future “United States of Europe” will not be the People of the Old Continent, but a kind of sub-humans, products of miscegenation. He clearly states that the peoples of Europe should interbreed with Asians and colored races, thus creating a multinational flock with no quality and easily controlled by the ruling elite.
Kalergi proclaims the abolition of the right of self-determination and then the elimination of nations with the use of ethnic separatist movements and mass migration. In order for Europe to be controlled by an elite, he wants to turn people into one homogeneous mixed breed of Blacks, Whites and Asians. Who is this elite however? Kalergi is particularly illuminating on this:
The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]
Although no textbook mentions Kalergi, his ideas are the guiding principles of the European Union. The belief that the peoples of Europe should be mixed with Africans and Asians, to destroy our identity and create a single mestizo race, is the basis of all community policies that aim to protect minorities. Not for humanitarian reasons, but because of the directives issued by the ruthless Regime that machinates the greatest genocide in history. The Coudenhove-Kalergi European Prize is awarded every two years to Europeans who have excelled in promoting this criminal plan. Among those awarded with such a prize are Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy.
The incitement to genocide, is also the basis of the constant appeals of the United Nations, that demands we accept millions of immigrants to help with the low birth rates of the EU. According to a report published on January 2000 in «Population division» Review of the United Nations in New York, under the title “Immigration replacement: A solution to declining and aging population,” Europe will need by 2025 159,000,000 migrants.
One could wonder how there can be such accuracy on the estimates of immigration, although it was not a premeditated plan. It is certain that the low birth rate could easily be reversed with appropriate measures to support families. It is just as clear that it is the contribution of foreign genes do not protect our genetic heritage, but that it enables their disappearance. The sole purpose of these measures is to completely distort our people, to turn them into a group of people without national, historical and cultural cohesion. In short, the policies of the Kalergi plan was and still is, the basis of official government policies aimed at genocide of the Peoples of Europe, through mass immigration. G. Brock Chisholm, former director of the World Health Organization (OMS), proves that he has learned the lesson of Kalergi well when he says: “What people in all places have to do is to limit of birthrates and promote mixed marriages (between different races), this aims to create a single race in a world which will be directed by a central authority. ”
Conclusions:
If we look around us, the Kalergi plan seems to be fully realized. We face Europe’s fusion with the Third World. The plague of interracial marriage produces each year thousands of young people of mixed race: “The children of Kalergi”. Under the dual pressures of misinformation and humanitarian stupefaction, promoted by the MSM, the Europeans are being taught to renounce their origin, to renounce their national identity.
The servants of globalization are trying to convince us that to deny our identity, is a progressive and humanitarian act, that “racism” is wrong, because they want us all to be blind consumers. It is necessary, now more than ever, to counter the lies of the System, to awaken the revolutionary spirit Europeans. Every one must see this truth, that European Integration amounts to genocide. We have no other option, the alternative is national suicide.
Translator’s note: Although the reasons due to which Kalergi made the choices he made are of no particular interest to us, we will try to answer a question that will surely our readers have already asked: Why a European aristocrat with Flemish, Polish, Greek-Byzantine roots and even with some samurai blood in his veins (from his mother) was such body plans and organ in the hands of dark forces? The reasons, in our opinion, are multiple, idiosyncratic, psychological and … women.
We therefore observe a personality with strong snobbish attitudes, arrogance, and, allow me the term, “degenerate elitism.” Also, the fact that his mother was Asian, perhaps created internal conflicts and frustrations, something that can happen to people with such temperament. But the most decisive factor must have been the “proper teenager”, which incidentally of course, was beside him, and became his first woman (at age 13): The Jewess Ida Roland, who would later become a famous actress.
EUROPEAN COUNCIL:
Van Rompuy won the Coudenhove-Kalergi prize for the biggest contribution to White European genocide and enslavement..
The Award Of The Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize To President Van Rompuy
On November 16th 2012, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, was awarded the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize, during a special conference in Vienna, to celebrate 90 years of pan-European movement. The prize is awarded every two years to leading personalities for their outstanding contribution to the process of European integration.
A decisive factor that helped him win the prize was the balanced way in which President Van Rompuy executed his duties in the new position of President of the European Council, which was established by the Treaty of Lisbon. He handled this particularly sensitive leading and coordinating role with a spirit of determination and reconciliation, while emphasis was also given to his skilful arbitration on European affairs and unfailing commitment to European moral values.
During his speech, Mr Van Rompuy described the unification of Europe as a peace project. This idea, which was also the objective of the work of Coudenhove-Kalergi, after 90 years is still important. The award bears the name of Count Richard Nicolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972), philosopher, diplomat, publisher and founder of the Pan-European Movement (1923). Coudenhove-Kalergi was the pioneer of European integration and popularized the idea of a federal Europe with his work.
Among the winners of the award, the Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel (2010) and the President of Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga (2006), are included.
This article is a translation of an Italian article, originally posted on Identità.
The Crimestoppers organisation, seems, at first glance, to have very noble intentions.
It offers the opportunity to report crimes anonymously via a freephone telephone number and apparently helps the police with their work.
Could it be though, that as with so many other things in filthy Britain, Crimestoppers is not really as it appears to be?
Could it be that Crimestoppers is actually being used as a way of “gatekeeping” to filter out callers who may be reporting VIP criminality in the UK.
Take the example of a whistleblower or victim who wants to report child abuse but is too scared to contact the police directly.
Isn’t it probable they might call Crimestoppers, naively believing them to be impartial, and tell them all about the abuse they’ve suffered or witnessed?
They may even name important names and give detailed information in the hope that the perpetrators will be investigated and punished.
But as the phone goes down, who exactly gains access to all of that information?
We’re beginning to understand just how far the authorities are willing to go to cover-up their filthy activities as recent reports on VIP abuse scandals have revealed.
Could Crimestoppers be yet another layer of the cover-up?
If we look at who exactly runs Crimestoppers, it becomes even more mysterious.
Here are the names of some of the organisation’s Trustees:
1) Nick Ross–
The former colleague of murdered presenter Jill Dando. He recently said he’d watch child-porn given half the chance. His wife Sarah Caplin, is a cousin of Esther Rantzen and a founding director of Childline. Suspicions have been raised that Childline is also a “gatekeeping” front organisation which is used to gather data on any child abuse reports that may involve VIPs. The Crimestoppers helpline conveniently stopped working at the time of the Jill Dando murder appeal.
2) Michael Ashcroft–
The controversial Tory donor who pays no tax and has non-dom status. He has been described as ruthless and “not a man to cross”. Made a Baron by the Queen.
3) Peter Imbert–
A former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police who was in charge from 1987-1993 and may have a lot of information about why child- abuse claims made between these dates were ignored. Made a Baron by the Queen.
4) Lord Waheed Ali–
The first openly gay peer in Parliament and a wealthy entrepreneur. Owns a business, Shine Entertainment, with Rupert Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth. Is a close friend of Tony Blair. Made a Baron by the Queen.
5) Peter Clarke–
A former Metropolitan Royal protection officer in charge of guarding Princess Diana at the time of her death. Made a CBE by the Queen.
6) Sir Ronnie Flanagan–
A former Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Was previously in charge of policing in Northern Ireland and Iraq. May have a lot of information about why child-abuse rings have been covered up.
Is Crimestoppers really a force for good?
Is Crimestoppers board of trustees really as it appears to be?
Is Crimestoppers really a force for good?
Is Crimestoppers in fact a “front” organisation with sinister ulterior motives?
Is Crimestoppers actually the very last number you should call if you want to report a crime?
Exploring the little known, but true history of National Socialism, Hitler and WWII, what was really behind it, and seeking truth, justice and honour for the German people
The Blog of Ian Pace, pianist, musicologist, political animal. A place for thoughts, reflections, links, both trivial and not so trivial. Main website is at http://www.ianpace.com . Contact e-mail ian@ianpace.com.
![27092011583[1]](https://cigpapers.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/2709201158312.jpg)
![15092011573[1]](https://cigpapers.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/1509201157319.jpg)
![27092011583[1]](https://cigpapers.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/2709201158314.jpg)
cigpapers 