Book Review: HOW DID THEY GET AWAY WITH IT?

HOW DID THEY GET AWAY WITH IT?

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?

Picture 9

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!!!’

Picture 9

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.

image001(1)

‘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!!

Picture 9

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.

Picture 9

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)

untitled31

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.

27092011583[1]

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.

untitled31

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.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0

1.  Raspail, J. (1994 print) The Camp of the Saints. Social Contract Press

Click to access Camp_of_the_Saints.pdf


2.  Also see:
Express 5th November 2007
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/24232/Immigration-is-causing-depths-of-poverty-last-seen-in-Dickens-time
And relatedly:
Telegraph 17th November 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10455384/Roger-Daltrey-I-will-never-forgive-Labour-for-their-immigration-policies.html
3.  E.g. benefits advice, translation services, ‘cohesion’ teams, ‘community’ officers, etc.
E.g. see: Express 14th November 2013
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442977/Police-forces-forced-to-pay-2m-bill-a-month-for-translators-for-migrant-influx
4.  Lack high referentiality – meaning that they do not possess definitions that clearly signify the relevant phenomenon.
5.  E.g. Perilli’s monuments to ‘multiculturalism’.
See http://spacingtoronto.ca/2009/03/20/monument-to-multiculturalism/
6.  When the term ‘equality’ is in speech marks this refers to the social and political use of the term – because in this sense it is not properly rational to use. Without speech marks this term is used in its rational sense of equivalence, either quantitative or qualitative equivalence, (e.g. 2 plus 2 equals 4, etc.). Also, speech marks can be used to denote reference to the term itself
7.  E.g. ‘the two beakers contain an equal volume of liquid’, ‘the two children are of equal ability in X’, ‘2 plus 2 equals 4’, ‘I like the two cars equally’, etc.
8.  Also see: Turner, B. S. (1986) Equality. Tavistock Publications Limited: London, UK
9.  Some such categories are overlapping in some senses.
10.  Of course, one frequently finds that non-white groups are given unequal preference in such contexts, and this is inversionistly labelled as ‘equality of opportunity’.
11.  Google ‘Simon Mol’ (Poland), e.g. see: http://www.e-teatr.pl/en/artykuly/33711.html
http://www.eutimes.net/2010/02/another-man-knowingly-infects-40-girls-with-aids-in-poland/
12.  Such claims are made in many contexts, e.g. see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-545289/Muslim-leader-accuses-police-cautious-stopping-Asian-gangs-pimping-white-girls.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570506/Police-covered-up-violent-campaign-to-turn-London-area-Islamic.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374443/Police-hid-abuse-60-girls-Asian-takeaway-workers-linked-Charlene-Downes-murder.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/191013/Police-fear-being-called-racist-so-illlegal-immigrants-stroll-free
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8476605/WikiLeaks-fear-of-offending-Muslims-allowed-extremists-into-Britain-ahead-of-77-London-bombings.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1271457/General-Election-2010-Postal-vote-fraud-amid-fears-bogus-voters-swing-election.html
13.  For example, there was a UN ‘anti-racism’ conference held in April 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland (20th-24th April 2009): the ‘Durban II Anti-Racism UN Conference’. These international conferences use the term ‘racism’ in their titles and literature e.g., the term ‘racism’ wass used in the outcome document at Geneva – including the reaffirming of the call on states to formulate national action plans to prevent, combat and eradicate ‘racism’ (e.g. s.28) and the encouraging of parliaments to regularly address the issue of ‘racism’, and to enhance their policies to fight it, (e.g. s.112).
14.  http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2011-12/mar/goverment-pledges-funds-to-show-racism-the-red-card.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/deputy-prime-minister-announces-200000-to-show-racism-the-red-card
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21881626
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-13361478
15.  E.g. see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/advice/factfile_az/racism
16.  Although the legislation used in such arrests uses different vocabulary – for what frequently are termed as ‘racism’ charges, often the relevant sections are Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 or sections 28 and 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. For example, the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 does not use the term ‘racism’ (or ‘racist’).
Also see:
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9477548.Arrest_made_after_racist_abuse_towards_Newcastle_United/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/4877412.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992
17.  And/or an accusation of ‘racism’
18.  E.g. see:
http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/Ukip-chair-hits-suspension-following-racism/story-20223643-detail/story.html
19.  E.g. see: The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Report Of An Inquiry. By Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. Advised by Tom Cook, The Right Reverend Dr John Sentamu, and Dr Richard Stone. Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty. February 1999
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm
Also see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/285537.stm
And http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-47.htm
This was the result of an enquiry into the police investigation into the death of Stephen Lawrence. See:
Dennis, N., Erdos, G., Al-Shahi, A. (2000) Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics: the McPherson Report and the Police. Civitas. The Institute for the Study of Civil Society: London
20.  This term is associated with the idea of genocide, and yet in many ways this connection is inversionist qv.
21.  Of course, were one definition to be chosen now, then it might be a little late to instantly reduce the power. However, the power of this term will reduce in the future – nebulous-power-words are not terms with high referentiality and so their emotional associations can switch as can their definitions in other senses.
22.  The ‘replacement exercise’ is merely replacing the term with its definition.
23.  Including unfavourable by comparison, one cannot praise whites without risking the R-word, nor take pride, e.g. ‘white pride’ is considered as ‘racist’, but not ‘black pride’, etc.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-i-can-say-americans-are-lazy-and-boorish-morons-thats-fine-if-i-say-the-same-about-nigerians-im-jailed-26629424.html
24.  The Express 28th March 2013:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/387469/Why-does-the-Left-hate-the-working-classes-so-much
25.  If the thought/statement were true, then this would be defining ‘multiculturalism’ as against truth. And even if it were mistaken and untrue – really, an International Conference? Arresting people? What if they get their maths wrong? Arrest them too?
26.  The ‘elements’ – these are used alone or in combination in most definitions in the literature and dictionaries.
27.  Cultures in an unlimited sense
28.  These do not necessarily all have to be legal – here ‘rules’ refers to descriptive rules that describe a culture in all its qualities – this including habits, traditions, customs and ‘legal’ rules forming a subset of this qualitative description
29.  Which they must to be distinguished as different cultures
30.  There are endless possibilities on any such variable. In this example it could be the case that both groups maintain their original colours – so the city is now part blue and part pink. This would mean that there are no longer all blue or all pink cities for the residents to preserve their cultural practices. Alternatively, either group (or split combinations of either or both) might change their painting habits to those of the other group, or to any other colour (s), (or maintain their original traditions).
31.  Also see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386558/Tower-Hamlets-Taliban-Death-threats-women-gays-attacked-streets.html
32.  This is sometimes an emotive issue in Britain. See
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575506/Loudspeaker-plan-re-ignites-call-to-prayer-row.html
Also http://www.iengage.org.uk/component/content/article/1-news/856-daily-express-criticises-nick-clegg-for-defending-the-call-to-prayer
Sometimes these issues are discussed in relation to threat to culture (or ‘way of life’). See:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/12/so-much-for-our.html
Divergences in opinion on this have been recorded from other countries too –
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149955#.T946xLVfGHw
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/netanyahu-backs-law-to-ban-loudspeakers-at-mosques-across-israel-6276173.html
33.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3620128/Making-a-pigs-ear-of-defending-democracy.html
34.  For example, Putnam studies the reductions in social capital (Putnam, 2007, ‘Diversity and Community in the Twenty First Century’. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30 (2), 137-174); the reduction in willingness to sacrifice for others is discussed by David Goodhart (e.g. see Prospect Magazine, 2004, and : http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/24/race.eu); general levels of trust reduce with diversity (also see for further reading: Salter, F. K., Ed., 2002, Risky Transactions. Trust, Kinship, and Ethnicity. Oxford and New York, Berghahn); studies show detrimental consequences to mental health in some such circumstances, see below. Also see for related issues, e.g. Stafford, M., Becares, L. and Nazroo, J. ‘Objective and Perceived Ethnic Density and Health: Findings From a United Kingdom General Population Survey’, American Journal of Epidemiology (2009) 170 (4):484-493.doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp160
35.  see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12777437
The concerns of future riots (or other such problems) are sometimes expressed by ‘experts’, e.g. see: Daily Mail 12th November 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2502072/Influx-Roma-migrants-spark-city-riots-warns-Blunkett.html
36.  Many predict civil war as a result of mass immigration – even if this does not occur, the fear/anxiety, etc. is a form of suffering for many people
Also, relatedly, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsjc5CVujrM

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

Click to access DRIPS_en.pdf


48.  I.e. descriptive ‘multiculturalism’ as a result of immigration
49.  And also of ‘mistreatment’.
50.  And those objecting to mass immigration were not ‘haters’ but acting against hatred?
51.  Also see: Express 14th July 2011
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/258644/No-surprise-that-migrants-head-for-soft-touch-Britain
52.  Daily Mail 28th June 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301743/How-invasion-immigrants-corner-England-mockery-PMs-promise-close-door.html
53.  Also see Muhammad Ali being interviewed by Parkinson on the BBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6fvwxB2Bg
54.  E.g. see http://spacingtoronto.ca/2009/03/20/monument-to-multiculturalism/
55.  With high referentiality
56.  Also see Dalrymple, T. (2001) Life at the Bottom. Ivan R. Dee: Chicago
57.  Is immigration always good?
Express 14th November 2013
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/442943/Mass-immigration-was-a-mistake-Come-off-it-Jack
and, relatedly, Daily Mail, 12th November 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2504398/A-spectacular-mistake-immigration-Straw-finally-admits-Labour-messed-letting-million-East-Europeans.html
Also see: http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/387469/Why-does-the-Left-hate-the-working-classes-so-much
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264963/Migrant-citys-help-Anguished-letter-Brown-Cameron-reveals-devastating-toll-immigration.html
58.  Also see: Daily Mail 13th May 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386537/Mass-immigration-UK-s-poor-poorer.html
As well as by other means, many of the poorest of Britain have been made poorer by being unemployed – immigration often cited as a (or the main) cause, e.g. also see Daily Mail 18th November 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509087/Who-frontman-Roger-Daltrey-blames-Labour-immigration-policy-left-working-class-unemployed.html
Telegraph 17th November 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10455384/Roger-Daltrey-I-will-never-forgive-Labour-for-their-immigration-policies.html
59.  Express 5th November 2007:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/24232/Immigration-is-causing-depths-of-poverty-last-seen-in-Dickens-time
Express 29th April 2013
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/395471/Immigration-The-British-public-is-close-to-despair
Express 14th November 2013
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442977/Police-forces-forced-to-pay-2m-bill-a-month-for-translators-for-migrant-influx
Such costs are found to occur in many Western countries. Also see:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/norway-loses-713000-on-every-muslim-immigrant/
60.  Also see: Mirror 29th May 2013
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/carole-malone-oxford-grooming-ring-1896865
61.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156296/British-gangs-raping-sexually-exploiting-vulnerable-white-young-girls-Asian-problem-Crown-prosecutor-admits.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18050192
62.  Telegraph 29th January 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html
63.  For further reading on threats to freedom of speech in Britain see:
Johnston, P. (2013) Feel Free to Say It. Threats to Freedom of Speech in Britain Today. Civitas, London.
Also see Telegraph 25th November 2004:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/1477496/Turkish-workers-a-mistake-claims-Schmidt.html
64.  E.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264963/Migrant-citys-help-Anguished-letter-Brown-Cameron-reveals-devastating-toll-immigration.html
65.  ‘Payback time’, etc. Also see: Browne, A. (2005) Do We Need Mass Immigration? (second edition) Civitas: London
66.  ‘Outcomes’ and/or processes. Both processes can be occurring at the same time, e.g. diversity as some groups (and/or subsets of groups) homogenise
67.  E.g. this is true whether the immigrants in question are more or less criminal than the indigenous people, more or less intelligent, whether the immigration in question brings financial losses or gains, etc. Whether there are any alterations on any such measures or not – this is still true. The dilemma of cultural contact is applicable to any case of immigration irrespective of the specifics of that immigration, and irrespective of the consequences of that immigration in other ways.
68.  The old ‘melting pot’ metaphor
69.  Also see: http://www.badeagle.com/2009/06/16/the-hated-white-race/
70.  Available at:  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2010/04/candidate-calls-britain-the-most-mongrel-country-in-the-world-yet-the-left-havent-batted-an-eyelid.html ; or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/election/article-1268826/General-Election-2010-Nutters-Nick-Clegg-Theyre-closer-think.html etc.
71.  The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
72.  Also see: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-people-of-europe/
https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/stop-white-british-genocide-campaign-join-now/
73.  Of course in many cases there will be a slow genocide occurring simultaneously with the problems of diversity
74.  It could be that a new replacement word will be used for ‘multiculturalism’, such as that of ‘inter culturalism’, e.g. see:
Cohesion, Integration and Openness: From ‘Multi’ to ‘Inter’ Culturalism. Institute of Community Cohesion (February 2012)
However, any such term should be clearly defined and also examined in light of the issues noted in Dr Turner’s book, e.g. how would such a policy aim to address the dilemma of cultural contact?
75.  E.g. become a badge of pride/rebellion; or settle on one single high referentiality meaning, (e.g. stereotyping or otherwise) and hence lose its power by this means; etc.
76.  A nebulous-power-word can still be a nebulous-power-word even if one or more of its definitions possess high referentiality – not all (or any) the meanings need to be problematic per se
77.  Moscovici, S. (2000) Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Translated by G. Duveen. Polity Press, Cambridge University
Marková, I. (2003) Dialogicality and Social Representations. The Dynamics of Mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
78.  This voice hence provides, amongst other things, a motivation not to appear stupid – many do not want to admit that they do not quite understand. Also, people do not want to question or challenge, etc. that which they do not quite understand (and who could understand a nebulous-power-word?). The authority and faux intellectual validity intimidates and confuses many people. Some are shamed into compliance/acquiescence
79.  Of course, the definition of ‘nice’ is relevant. Does it mean pleasing people? Is so, then whom? Are some chosen groups pleased at the expense (financial and otherwise) of others? If so, then that is not ‘nice’. Neither is it ‘nice’ to destroy people’s culture, suppress truth, support lies, harm some groups in many ways, or facilitate genocide. Saccharin-covered poison-pills. If ‘nice’ is about truth, genuine compassion or honour, then this voice is not very nice.
80.  Also, relatedly, see Horowitz, D. (1997) Radical Son. A Generational Odyssey Simon and Schuster New York: USA; Horowitz, D. (2003) Left Illusions. An Intellectual Odyssey. Spence Publishing Company, Dallas: USA.
Anthony, A. (2008) The Fallout. How a Guilty Liberal Lost His Innocence. Vintage Books: London
And also, relatedly:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-440318/The-night-daughter-stabbed–liberal-instincts-died.html
81.  Also see ‘Passover Syndrome’, e.g.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh6YIaJyFnk
82.  Also see: Rossiter, L. H. (2006) The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. Free World Books, LLC, St. Charles, IL: USA
Glazov, J. (2009) United in Hate – The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Los Angeles, CA: WND Books
83.  For a great analysis of utopians see: Scruton, R. (2010) The Uses of Pessimism and the Dangers of False Hope. Atlantic Books: London, UK
84.  Also, relatedly, see:
http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16143154
Daily Mail, 6th January 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082527/Diane-Abbott-Twitter-race-row-MP-faces-calls-resign-racist-tweet.html
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/154022/Diane-Abbott-reported-to-cops-for-racism-over-black-jobs-appeal
http://pandyablog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/12/the-equality-and-human-rights-commission-should-abolished-not-just-because-it-is-expensive-but-becau.html
Fourest, C. (2008) Brother Tariq. The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan. Encounter Books, USA
85.  In modern life the media largely influence such perceptions
86.  Also see: ‘magic-ritual language’ Herbert Marcuse, (1964) One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press
87.  E.g. see:
http://www.morleyobserver.co.uk/news/local/thorpe-primary-launches-bid-for-stephen-lawrence-award-1-6061990
http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/about-us/coca-cola-corporate-blog/ted-ryan-id-like-to-buy-the-world-a-coke.html
Martin Luther King’s much publicised I Have a Dream speech (1963) evoked images of this kind.
Much of this form of repetition and linking is focussed on children, such as Crayola’s suggestions for celebrating the diversity, e.g. see:
http://www.crayola.com/crafts/detail/freedom-hands-craft/
There are many such activities for children, such as making chains for Black History Month, e.g. see:
http://fun.familyeducation.com/martin-luther-king-jr/black-history-month/35249.html
88.  See Duveen, G. and Lloyd, B. (1990), Social Representations and the Development of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
89.  Although, of course, the ultimate origins are from the social and political context – and the intersubjective. By ‘from within’ it is meant that the terms are internalised.
90.  Boot, A. (2006), How The West Was Lost. I. B. Tauris Publishers: London
91.  Author of the award-winning Blair’s Britain: British Culture Wars and New Labour (1999) Claridge Press, UK – a Spectator book of the year in 1999
92.  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/thought-police-muscle-up-in-britain/story-e6frg6zo-1225700363959

BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006

pic005

In 2006 the BBC hosted a climate-change seminar to decide on its reporting of alleged climate-change. The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to keep secret who attended this seminar. The publicly funded broadcaster fought off requests for the list of people who attended under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.

This surreal story is only partly about climate change: the disclosure raises questions about the evidence submitted to the information tribunal by the BBC and Helen Boaden – it’s Director of News who stepped down in 2012.

The case also highlights once again the BBC’s corporate strategy of using an FOI derogation, or legal “opt-out” clause, to withhold a wide range of material from citizens who wish to know whether the BBC is fulfilling its statutory obligations for impartiality under its Royal Charter.

And it raises further questions about the effectiveness of the BBC Trust. The trust, which replaced the Board of Governors, was created with a mission: an “unprecedented obligation to openness and transparency”.

pic005

A ‘brainstorm’ that became historic

The seminar whose attendees the Beeb sought to keep secret was founded by three organisation. In 2004, the International Broadcasting Trust – a lobby group funded by a number of charities, including many involved in campaigning on climate change – devised the first in a series of seminars on development issues, where the lobbyists could address broadcasters.

One event on 26 January 2006 was a “brainstorm”, in the IBT’s own words, “focusing on climate change and its impact on development”. The BBC sent 30 senior staff, and 30 outsiders were invited. The event was also organised by CMEP, its second parent – a now dormant or defunct outfit operated by BBC reporter Roger Harrabin and climate activist Dr Joe Smith, and at one time funded by the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and various pressure groups.

Harrabin later explained that the BBC’s head of news in the 1990s, Tony Hall, had invited him “to devise meetings with politicians, business people, think tanks, academics from many universities and specialists (science, technology, economic and social sciences, and history), and policy experts and field workers from NGOs – particularly from the developing world”.

The third parent of the seminar was the BBC.

 The following year ( 2007) a BBC Trust report  on impartiality cited the 2006 seminar and said it had settled the argument once and for all  (as far as the BBC was concerned) on climate change.

pic005

Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the “brainstorm” a historic significance.

An independent blogger, Tony Newbery, was struck by the difference between contemporary evidence that the seminar was educational and composed largely of activists (as confirmed by Harrabin) and the BBC Trust’s insistence that it was a sober scientific presentation that could justify a historic policy change.

Fresh light was shed on Harrabin’s CMEP in 2010, in the second batch of Climategate emails. An email from Mike Hulme, the director of the Tyndall Centre for Climatic Change Research at UEA,complained about a BBC Radio 4 item broadcast in February 2002. The broadcast featured global-warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott and Sir John Houghton, who was a Met Office chief and the editor of the first three IPCC reports on climate change. Houghton came off worst, and an infuriated Hulme wrote:

Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.

Newbery filed his FOI request for the seminar’s attendees to the BBC in 2007 and was denied the information, leading to a second round of information tribunal hearings in November 2012. The cross-examination of the BBC’s Helen Boaden in a court room was reported here.

The BBC is regarded as a public authority by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but it can withhold information held “for the purposes of journalism”.

In an earlier and separate FOI case against the BBC, Supreme Court Judge Neuberger argued the opt-out should be interpreted narrowly – otherwise the BBC could withhold information about “cleaning the board room floor” using the journalism get-out clause – an obvious absurdity.

In the Newbery case, the BBC maintained that archival material on the seminar could not be found, but also it should not be found: as a back-up argument it argued that the seminar was held under the Chatham House Rule – an agreement of etiquette, rather than a law, to prevent quotes being attributed to particular speakers at a meeting – information that Newbery had never asked for.

In November 2012 the tribunal ruled against Newbery and for the BBC.

pic005

Case closed? Think again

However science writer Maurizio Morabito has unearthed the list of attendees.

It confirms the accuracy of Harrabin’s description of the composition of the invitees, with most coming from industry, think tanks and NGOs. And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming. These are scarcely “some of the best scientific experts”, whose input could justify a historic abandonment of the BBC’s famous impartiality.

Intriguingly, Tony Newbery had been supplied with a later version of this document, he tells us – but with the attendee list stripped out.

How much of the Public's license fee did the BBC spend on lawyers to cover up this list of attendees at their Climate Panel in 2006?

How much of the Public’s license fee did the BBC spend on lawyers to cover up this list of attendees at their Climate Panel in 2006?

The dramatic appearance of the list raises many questions. Did the BBC know the information was publicly available? If so, why were corporation lawyers spending thousands of pounds to keep a public document “secret”? (FOI requests for public information typically state, quite simply, “this information is public”.)

Questions abound  online about the ability of the BBC Trust to maintain its duty to transparency. The BBC’s legal strategy entails the indiscriminate application of its FOI derogation “for the purposes of journalism” – this effectively rewrites the 2000 Act, and redefines the BBC as a private body. The trust is surely aware of this; it has a small mountain of correspondence on the subject. But it has yet to enquire, let alone pronounce on whether this is healthy – or legal.

All the names on the revealed seminar list

Here’s the list – according to the FOI Act reply.

January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London

Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Tim Jackson, Surrey University
John Ashton, Director E3G
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes

Fran Unsworth,Head of Newsgathering
Pete Clifton, Head of News Interactive
Liz Cleaver, Controller Learning
Keith Scholey, Head of Specialist Factual
Sarah Brandist, Head of Development, Drama Commissioning
Michael Hastings, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility
Lorna Walsh, BBC TV
Roger Harrabin, Today Programme

Holocaust Or Holohoax? 21 Amazing Facts

Written by Cigpapers

Photos and captions by Watt Tyler

In British Schools, and constantly on British television, we are bombarded with the alleged murder of 6 million jews by the Germans during World War Two. This is commonly referred to as “The Holocaust”. This alleged historical event is also thrown at anyone objecting to mass immigration in to White Nations as proof of the absolute evil  of White Nationalism.The alleged holocaust was also the official reason for setting up the Sate of Israel on May 14th 1948 – if the alleged holocaust was proved not to have happened then the State of Israel would have no legal basis.

img729

Holocaust denial in London, England during January 2015.

In most European Countries even disputing any detail of this alleged historical event is a very serious criminal offence, which can result in up to 20 years imprisonment. In France this can be served in solitary confinement if the authorities believe there is any chance of re-offending.

pic012

Even though this blog in no way denies “The Holocaust”, or disputes any of the alleged details of any of the different versions, we did list 21 amazing facts about it here:

1. International Committee of the Red Cross Records:

The International Red Cross was stationed in all German labour, internment, concentration and prison camps throughout World War Two. The Red Cross were never given access to any Russian camps before, during or after World War Two. At his trials in Canada, during the 1980s and 1990s, Professor Ernst Zundel finally got the Red Cross to release their records from the German camps despite strong Israeli objections. The  Red Cross records seem to suggest that there were no gas chambers, and a total of 271,301 died during World War Two in these camps, mostly from typhus.

In a letter to the US State Department dated November 22nd 1944 The Red Cross, who were stationed in all the camps, stated : “We have not been able to discover any trace of installations for exterminating civilian prisoners.”

Offical Red Cross records.

Official Red Cross records.

2.United States Airforce Aerial Photos Of Camps:

From 1942, until the end of World War Two, the United States Airforce performed low flying, low-speed photography of all the alleged “death camps” to obtain evidence of what was going on. This followed jewish claims in the West that a mass murder was occurring. All these photographs were released in 1979 when they were declassified. None of these photographs show any sign of mass murder or disposal of millions of bodies.

No USAF aerial photos show any mass murder in the camps.

No USAF aerial photos show any mass murder in the camps.

3. Western Allies Never Liberated Any Death Camps With Gas Chambers:

None of the Western Allies ( Britain, Canada, USA, Australia, France etc. ) liberated any camps that had gas chambers, or other systems of mass murder in them. All the alleged death camps with gas chambers were liberated by the Russians.

NaziDeathCampsMap01

Consequently any alleged evidence of death camps and/or gas chambers was forthcoming solely from Soviet Russia.  The Western Allies liberated a total of 12 main camps and the Soviet Russians 8 main camps.

Western Allies never liberated or inspected any death camps or gas chambers.

Western Allies never liberated or inspected any death camps or gas chambers.

4.The Leuchter Report:

One of the pieces of evidence Professor Ernst Zundel produced at his trials in Canada was the “Leuchter Report” compiled by Fred Leuchter on his commission. Fred Leuchter is the World’s foremost expert on gas chambers.

img759After inspecting the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Leuchter concluded they were unsuitable for use as gas chambers due to their lack of airtight doors, lack of a gas extraction system and general shoddy build. He also chemically analysed the walls for ferrocyanide ( produced when Zyklon-B reacts with brick walls ) and concluded there was none – the Auschwitz authorities took the same tests with the same results and now admit there was no gas chamber in Auschwitz.

SCAN

5. The British Secret Service Monitored All Concentration Camp Deaths:

Using some of the World’s first computers the British Secret Service had cracked the German top-secret Enigma code and had access to most German Military communications by 1942. Sir Frank H. Hinsley, in his book British Intelligence In The Second World War ; It’s Influence On Strategy And Operations, stated “The returns of Auschwitz mentioned illness as the main cause of death but included references to shootings and hangings. There were no references in the decrypts to gassings.” The numbers of dead in the decoded messages tallied exactly with Red Cross and German Military records of the time. The British Secret Service also monitored various atrocities carried out by the Germans across the rest of Europe – why would the Germans report these to Berlin but not the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz and other camps?

The British Secret Service were monitoring all German Military and Police communications by 1942.

The British Secret Service were monitoring all German Military and Police communications by 1942.

6. The French Resistance Denied The Holocaust:

During World War Two Germany invaded France and occupied Northern France from 1940 to 1944. A secret army of French Patriots known collectively as “The French Resistance” fought the German occupiers in various ways. A large number of French Resistance members were imprisoned, tortured and executed including their leader, and French National hero, Jean Moulin. After World War Two French resistance members were released from various German concentration camps, including Auschwitz and other alleged death camps. On their return to France they all gave horrific accounts of their treatment by the Germans, and were full of hatred for them because of the events of World War Two. However they all denied any knowledge of gas chambers and a mass murder programme in the concentration camps.

French Resistance leader Jean Moulin

French Resistance leader Jean Moulin

7. The Gas Chambers Of World War One:

It was widely reported during World War One ( 1914 to 1918 ) that the Germans, and their allies, were using gas chambers to kill thousands of prisoners. However after the end of the War Stanley Baldwin admitted in Parliament that it had been propaganda and no such gas chambers had existed. He also apologised publicly to the German People for this racist slur on them.

During World War One it was falsely claimed that the Germans were gassing prisoners.

During World War One it was falsely claimed that the Germans were gassing prisoners.

8. Amounts Of Zyklon-B Used At The Camps:

Zyklon-B was the trade name for of a cyanide-based pesticide  invented in the early 1920s. It was used in Germany, before and during the Second World War, for disinfection and pest extermination in ships, buildings and machinery.  Zyklon-B consisted of diatomite, in the form of granules the size of fine peas, saturated with prussic acid. In view of its volatility and the associated risk of accidental poisoning, it was supplied in sealed metal canisters. One of the co-inventors of Zyklon-B, the chemist and businessman Bruno Tesch, was executed by the British in 1946 for his role in the alleged Holocaust.

In the concentration camps it was used for sanitation and pest control. There were disinfectant chambers, in all the camps, where inmates clothes were disinfected to combat typhus and other diseases. When you break down the amount of Zyklon-B used in all the camps, those not alleged to have gas chambers and those alleged to have gas chambers, the amount per inmate is very similar. This means the alleged death camps would have had to have had a secret supply for the “gas chambers”.

Zyklon-B granules came in sealed tins.

Zyklon-B granules came in sealed tins.

9. The Nuremberg Trials 1945 to 1949:

The Nuremberg Trials were held in the German City of Nuremberg from 1945 to 1949. These Trials were held by the victorious Allies ( France, Britain , USA and Soviet Russia ) with the Germans as defendants. They were the worst sort of show trials with the main Judge being Nikitchenko, who had presided over Stalins’ show trials of 1936 to 1938 in the Soviet Union. The Court came up with ridiculous findings like jews being turned in to lampshades and even soap, these claims are now discredited and even the jews admit they were untrue.

The Chief Justice of the United States Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. He said “Chief US prosecutor Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg,” he wrote. “I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a Court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”

The Nuremberg Trials - the ultimate Soviet show trial held under the Allies.

The Nuremberg Trials – the ultimate Soviet show trial held under the Allies.

Associate Supreme Court Justice William O Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for principle” at Nuremberg. “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled,” he wrote. “Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”

According to British General Montgomery, the Germans had only one sin : They lost the war.

President John F Kennedy in his book,  Profiles in Courage, criticised Nuremberg as a show trial.

Out of 139 German witnesses who testified that the Holocaust had occurred, the British Medical Officer recorded that 137 had “damage to their testicles that is beyond repair”. A number of Germans had died under interrogation by the Allies. There was also the threat of sending Peoples’ families to Soviet Gulags.

The Nuremberg prosecutors - Kempner, Rapp, Niederman - all Jews.

The Nuremberg prosecutors – Kempner, Rapp, Niederman – all Jews.

10. The Concentration Camp Crematorium:

One of the main problems with the 6 million jews being murdered claim was disposal of the bodies. It was claimed at Nuremberg that they had been disposed of in the camp crematorium. There were crematorium in each camp, but they simply didn’t have the capacity. Each crematorium oven could burn a body in about one and a half hours, meaning a maximum capacity of 16 bodies every day or just less than 6000 bodies per year per oven. The camps had between four and twelve ovens each giving 24,000 to 72,000 bodies per year maximum at each camp – this still wouldn’t be possible as you can’t run these ovens non-stop without the metal fracturing. Even double or triple loading wouldn’t help as this increased the time to three hours for two bodies or four and a half hours for three bodies. Also bodies aren’t totally reduced by this process and usually leave the pelvis and thigh bones which need crushing with special machinery – no such machinery was found at any of the camps. There is also the problem of fuel as each body would need about 40 kilograms of coke to burn – there is no record of the massive amount of coke required being supplied.

Each oven could only burn less than 600 bodies per year if working non-stop which isn't possible without fracturing the metal.

Each oven could only burn less than 6000 bodies per year if working non-stop which isn’t possible without fracturing the metal.

11. The Liberation Of Belsen Concentration Camp Film:

The whole World has probably seen the film of the liberation of Belsen concentration camp, it is horrific to say the least. Human skeletons are walking round with dead bodies covering the ground. This film was shown Worldwide at the time to show the evil of Nazi Germany.  However Belsen was liberated by the Western Allies, and was never alleged to have had any gas chamber or be part of a systematic mass murder programme. The victims are in fact all dying from typhus which is confirmed by German Military, Red Cross and British Military medical records – this is never pointed out whenever this film is shown. Ironically the deaths were mostly due to a lack of Zyklon-B, at the end of the war with Germany collapsing, leading to a mass typhus outbreak in the camp.

British Military sign warning of typhus outbreak at Belsen concentration camp shortly after liberation.

British Military sign warning of typhus at Belsen concentration camp shortly after liberation.

12. No Film Or Photographs Of Any Gas Chambers:

The Nazis were technology freaks, to say the least, and filmed and photographed virtually everything they did during World War Two. Hitler even had executions of his political enemies filmed so he could watch them with his cronies. However there has never been a single photograph or film found of any of the alleged gas chambers in operation. The Nazis did film, and photograph, themselves committing many atrocities across occupied Europe so it seems unlikely they wouldn’t film the alleged gas chambers. All the films we are shown of gas chambers are Hollywood recreations made after the war.

Hitler and his cronies demanded film of virtually everything happening in Nazi occupied territory but no film of gas chambers was ever found.

Hitler and his cronies demanded film of virtually everything happening in Nazi occupied territory but no film of gas chambers was ever found.

13. Sir Winston Churchill Never Mentioned The Alleged Holocaust:

In his monumental six volume The Second World War Sir Winston Churchill, British wartime Prime Minister, never makes any reference to gas chambers or a planned mass extermination of European jews. This is despite the fact he goes in to great detail about virtually every facet of World War Two including many atrocities committed by the Nazis. The same can be said about Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe. After the Second World War, with the Cold War starting, Churchill stated “I think we slaughtered the wrong pig here” a clear reference to the fact Britain would have been better helping Germany defeat Soviet Russia, or at least staying out completely.

Sir Winston Churchill - realised too late that Soviet Russia was more of a threat than Nazi Germany.

Sir Winston Churchill – realised too late that Soviet Russia was more of a threat than Nazi Germany.

14. Star Witness To The Alleged Holocaust Elie Wiesel:

One of the star witnesses to the Auschwitz allegations is Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel. Wiesel was born in Sighet, Romania on September 30th, 1928. Wiesel has given evidence at various trials around the World on his alleged experiences in German camps during World War Two. Wiesel is a well-known writer of fiction with over 40 published books. However it is his autobiography of Auschwitz, Night ,  which has come under scrutiny. Firstly, Wiesel claims the bodies were disposed of by a secret Nazi method of using bodies to burn bodies – if this was scientifically possible wouldn’t they just use this method to burn the bodies? Secondly Wiesel claims that his concentration camp number  A7713 was tattooed on his left arm like all inmates, however video evidence shows no such tattoo and he has never explained where his tattoo went. Thirdly his camp number, A7713, was assigned to a different prisoner and there is no record of him at Auschwitz despite all camp records being recovered after the War. Fourthly in all his different accounts of Auschwitz Weisel never mentions any gas chambers. Fifthly Wiesel makes bizarre claims about mass graves that would shoot fountains of blood up in to the air, this is also scientifically impossible. Sixthly Wiesel claims he spent three weeks in the Auschwitz Camp hospital with an infected leg – would a death camp bother curing prisoners? There are many other major discrepancies to his claims, and a read of his book Night is recommended.

For a more precise look at Elie Wiesel and why his allegations don’t stand up to any scrutiny please visit:

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/

and

https://archive.org/details/ElieWiesel-AnotherHolocaustFraud

Elie Wiesel without his tattoo.

Elie Wiesel without his tattoo.

15. Fake Photographic And Film Holocaust Evidence And The Ever Changing Numbers:

The first time fake evidence was used was during the Nuremberg Trials. This however became an industry in its own right after 1945, with large rewards paid to investigators for “finding” Holocaust evidence. At the time a lot of this evidence was very cutting-edge, but under modern scrutiny it simply doesn’t stand up.

Modern forensic techniques have exposed a lot of

Modern forensic techniques have exposed a lot of “Holocaust” photographic evidence as faked.

New systems of examining photographs and film have exposed large amounts of it as totally fake, other evidence has been exposed as coming from completely different sources e.g. The Russian Gulags.

pic012

As evidence has emerged discrediting large parts, if not all, of the alleged Holocaust narrative the jews have been forced to constantly change the numbers in their claims. They have, however, constantly stuck to an overall total of 6 million jewish deaths, even though this makes no mathematical sense as the component numbers are revised downwards. This hasn’t led to a partial refund of the damages paid to Israel by Germany based on the 6 million figure.

SCAN

16. The Balfour Declaration, World War One And 6 Million Jews:

During World War One the British Government had agreed with leading jews that they would support a jewish homeland in Palestine in exchange for the powerful jewish lobby in America getting the USA to join the Allies. This led to the Balfour Declaration being made by the British Government promising the jews a homeland in Palestine.

Picture15

After discussions in the British Cabinet, and consultation with Zionist leaders, the decision was made known in the form of a letter by Arthur James Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter represents the first political recognition of Zionist aims by a Great Power.

After World War One the British Government were unable, or unwilling, to make good on this promise. From 1919 onwards the jews claimed 6 million jews in Europe were under threat from extermination unless they got a homeland in Palestine. This was 14 years before the Nazis came to power and 24 years before the alleged Holocaust started.

The jews have been waving the 6 million figure around since at least 1914 and maybe even earlier - the number seems to have a special signicance to them.

The jews have been waving the 6 million figure around since at least 1914 and maybe even earlier – the number seems to have a special significance to them.

17. Holocaust Denial And The Holocaust Deniers:

In most parts of Europe questioning any aspect of the findings of the Nuremberg Trials is a very serious criminal offence on par with rape, murder or armed robbery. In France you can receive up to 20 years in prison, which may have to be served in solitary confinement. Even where it is not illegal questioning the official Holocaust narrative will probably cost you your job, family, house etc.

Despite this a lot of top writers, academics, historians and scientists have questioned the official Holocaust narrative or denied it entirely. Professor Ernst Zundel was put on numerous trials around the World, had his house firebombed, received death threats, his family broke up, was deported from several countries and eventually was imprisoned for five years in Germany. No other historical event can attract this type of punishment for questioning the official narrative.

Despite these threats, the official narrative is constantly exposed as being a lie and the jews have to constantly change their claims when faced with irrefutable evidence of their lies.

SCAN

18. The Main Stream Media And The Alleged Holocaust:

The Main Stream Media never question the official narrative of the holocaust, and go on an all-out attack on anyone who does. They have created the term “Holocaust Denier”  for anyone who doesn’t believe, or dares to question, the official narrative. “Holocaust Denier” is one of the multicultural buzz-words like “Fascist/Nazi/racist/homophobe” designed to denigrate the person described as such,  and lead to “pack-attacks” by the media, politicians and the general lefty PC crowd. However bear in mind that around 96% of the Western World’s media is controlled by jews and/or zionists. You will notice that the jews/zionist are willing to keep running newspapers/TV channels and other media outlets at a financial loss simply to keep control of the MSM.

The jews and zionists control about 96% of the Western World's media.

The jews and zionists control about 96% of the Western World’s media – a large part is now run at a financial loss.

19. There’s No Business Like Shoa Business:

“Shoa” is the term used by jews and zionists to describe the alleged Holocaust. After the Second World War Germany was forced to pay trillions of Dollars in compensation to set up Israel, and is still paying to this day. There are now second and third generation, the children and grandchildren of alleged Holocaust victims, who receive compensation from the German Government and various German Corporations. The American Government also use this as an excuse to give billions of American taxpayers’ money to Israel, although the real reason behind these payments is the strength of the Israeli lobby in America.

As early as 1941, two years before the alleged Holocaust was even meant to have started, the World Jewish Congress had been demanding that the Germans pay for the resettlement of jews in Israel as reparations.

pic006

20. The Census of Jews Worldwide Figures:

Here are some census figures of jews living Worldwide to consider:

World Almanac, 1925, pg. 752 — 15,630,000, “In 1925 a census of Palestine gave a total of 115,151 Jews”
World Almanac, 1929, pg. 727 — 15,630,000
National Council of Churches 1930 — 15,600 ,000
March 24, 1933, jewish newspaper Daily Express — 14,000,000 jews worldwide
World Almanac, 1933, pg. 419 — 15,316,359, [“The estimate for Jews in the above table is for 1933, and is by the American Jewish Committee”
World Almanac, 1936, pg. 748 — world jewish population = 15,753,633
World Almanac, 1938, pg. 510 — world jewish population = 15,748,091, with 240,000 in Germany
American Jewish Committee Bureau of the Synagogue Council, 1939 — 15,600,000
World Almanac, 1940, pg. 129: World Jewish Population — 15,319,359
World Almanac, 1941, pg. 510: World Jewish Population — 15,748,091
World Almanac, 1942, pg. 849 — 15,192,089, “Jews include Jews by race not necessarily by religion”
World Almanac USA, 1947, pg. 748: World Jewish Population — 15,690,000
World Almanac, 1949, pg. 289: World Jewish Population — 15,713,638
Statistical Handbook of Council of Churches USA 1951 — 15,300,000
World Almanac, US News & World Report, 1983 population of jews — 16,820,850
World Almanac, 1996, pg. 646: World Jewish Population — 14,117,000
World Almanac & Book of Facts, 1989: World Jewish Population –18,080,000
World Almanac & Book of Facts, 2001: World Jewish Population — 13,200,000

World Almanac 1933

World Almanac 1933

World Almanac 1948

World Almanac 1948

21. Inmate Facilities At Auschwitz:

With two very different witness versions of what was going on in the camps, let’s have a quick look at the facilities available to inmates to see if that can clarify matters. The jews have now admitted there wasn’t any gas chambers in Auschwitz following the two sets of scientific tests, but there were some facilities that certainly were in Auschwitz and can still be seen today.

A free dental service available to all inmates - specialist dentists were brought in for intricate work.

A free dental service available to all inmates – specialist dentists were brought in for intricate work.

A walk-in clinic and hospital for inmates.

A walk-in clinic and hospital for inmates.

Dr. Carl Clauberg the World famous Berlin surgeon who was called in for difficult inmate cases.

Dr. Carl Clauberg the World famous Berlin surgeon who was called in for difficult inmate cases.

Camp kitchen -one of the largest service buildings in Auschwitz, with state-of-the-art cooking facilities. There were twelve of these throughout the camp. * The caloric content of the diet was carefully monitored by camp and Red Cross delegates.

Camp kitchen – one of the largest service buildings in Auschwitz, with state-of-the-art cooking facilities. There were twelve of these throughout the camp.
 The caloric content of the diet was carefully monitored by camp and Red Cross delegates.

Camp religious facilities made available on a rotating basis to every denomination for religious services.

Camp religious facilities made available on a rotating basis to every denomination for religious services.

A camp theatre where live plays were performed by camp inmate actors.

A camp theatre where live plays were performed by camp inmate actors.

Up to 16 camp orchestras with every conceivable instrument available for inmates - there was also free tutoring by music teachers.

Up to 16 camp orchestras with every conceivable instrument available for inmates – there was also free tutoring by music teachers.

A camp library where inmates could borrow books from forty -five thousand volumes available.

A camp library where inmates could borrow books from forty -five thousand volumes available.

Camp complaints office where inmates could register complaints or make suggestions. Camp Commander Hoess had a standing order that any inmate could approach him personally to register a complaint about other inmates such as “Kapos” and even guards.* A system of strict discipline for guards and also for inmates, with severe punishment being handed out against those found guilty (for even slapping an inmate)

Camp complaints office where inmates could register complaints or make suggestions. Camp Commander Hoess had a standing order that any inmate could approach him personally to register a complaint about other inmates such as “Kapos” and even guards.* A system of strict discipline for guards and also for inmates, with severe punishment being handed out against those found guilty (for even slapping an inmate).

Auschwitz marriages took place because worker inmates fell in love and married their inmate partners.

Auschwitz marriages took place because worker inmates fell in love and married their inmate partners.

The camp sauna for inmates.

The camp sauna for inmates.

The camp brothel, just inside the main gate was a building used during the war as a brothel for the inmates.

The camp brothel, just inside the main gate was a building used during the war as a brothel for the inmates.

A camp swimming pool for use by the inmates, where there were walkways with comfortable benches for inmates to relax in the shade of the trees. Swimming galas were held during the Summer months.

A camp swimming pool for use by the inmates, where there were walkways with comfortable benches for inmates to relax in the shade of the trees. Swimming galas were held during the Summer months.

The Aushcwitz University where inmates could take various courses. Professors from nearby Universities often visited to give lectures.

The Auschwitz University where inmates could take various courses. Professors from nearby Universities often visited to give lectures.

Genuine photograph of inmates leaving for Auschwitz - notice the train is a passenger train not the Hollywood cattle train version.

Genuine photograph of inmates leaving for Auschwitz – notice the train is a passenger train not the Hollywood cattle train version.

These are the facilities that are still standing and can be inspected by any visitor. Other facilities that are now overgrown, or have been knocked down, included a soccer field, fencing area, handball court, camp canteen, cinema and maternity ward that delivered over 3,000 live births without losing a single mother or baby.

This blog in no way denies the alleged Holocaust, or questions any of the different versions of it from the last 68 years. However here is some further reading and videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXbLSK1laAc#t=22

http://holohoax.wordpress.com/

You must watch this 2 min video

http://zundelsite.org/

http://www.barnesreview.org/

http://codoh.com/

http://germarrudolf.com/germars-views/an-introduction-to-historical-revisionism/#13

download

Cigpapers Freedom Of Information Act Requests:

The claim that 6 million jews were murdered by the Germans during World War Two is on the British School’s National Curriculum and is publicised by the BBC on a near daily basis. The following Freedom Of Information Act Requests were recently submitted to find out where they obtained their information:

From: Sean Moran

16 November 2013

Dear Department for Education,
Please provide a copy of all information on the alleged holocaust
of 6 million jews during World War Two by the Germans on the
National Curriculum in the last 20 years.Please also confirm where
you obtained this information from and how much was paid for it.

Yours faithfully,

Sean Moran

Link to this

Department for Education

18 November 2013

Dear Mr Moran

Thank you for your recent enquiry. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible. For information; the departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your correspondence has been allocated reference number 2013/0071785

Thank you

Department for Education
Ministerial and Public Communications Division
Tel: 0370 000 2288

show quoted sections

Link to this

Department for Education

27 November 2013

Dear Mr Moran,
Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 18
November. You requested “a copy of all information on the alleged
holocaust of 6 million jews during World War Two by the Germans on the
National Curriculum in the last 20 years.”  In addition you asked “Please
also confirm where you obtained this information from and how much was
paid for it.”  I am dealing with your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

First of all, and by way of background, I would point out that the
Department for Education (DfE) sets the framework for the national
curriculum, and teaching about the Holocaust is a compulsory part of the
history curriculum at key stage 3.  The DfE does not however specify how
it should be taught, nor what resources teachers should use.

With this in mind, in order to identify and locate the information that
you have asked for, I require some further information from you, as the
scope of your request is unclear.  In particular, it would be useful to
know exactly what recorded information you are seeking, so that I might
establish whether it is held by this Department.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are unhappy with the way your request has been handled, you should
make a complaint to the Department by writing to me within two calendar
months of the date of this letter.  Your complaint will be considered by
an independent review panel, who were not involved in the original
consideration of your request.

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint to the
Department, you may then contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Your correspondence has been allocated reference number 2013/0071785. If
you need to respond to us, please visit:
[1]www.education.gov.uk/contactus, and quote your reference number.

Yours sincerely,

Elaine Schollar
Curriculum Policy Division
[email address]
[2]www.education.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.education.gov.uk/contactus
2. http://www.education.gov.uk/

Link to this

From: Sean Moran

12 December 2013

Dear Department for Education,
You must know where you get your information on the alleged murder
of 6 million jews by the Germans during World War Two. Also how
much you pay for this information. Are you saying Schools simply
teach what they want on this subject?

Yours faithfully,

Sean Moran

Link to this

Department for Education

16 December 2013

Dear Mr Moran

Thank you for your recent enquiry. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible. For information; the departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your correspondence has been allocated reference number 2013/0078740.

Thank you

Department for Education
Ministerial and Public Communications Division
Tel: 0370 000 2288

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Sean Moran

4 November 2013

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

Please provide details of all independent investigations carried
out by the BBC in to the alleged holocaust during World War Two.

Yours faithfully,

Sean Moran

Link to this

From: FOI Enquiries
British Broadcasting Corporation

5 November 2013

Dear Mr Moran,

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as detailed in your email below. Your request was received on 4th November 2013. We will deal with your request as promptly as possible, and at the latest within 20 working days. If you have any queries about your request, please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your request is RFI20131643.

Kind regards

The Information Policy & Compliance Team

BBC Freedom of Information
BC2 B6, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: [BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2882

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: FOI Enquiries
British Broadcasting Corporation

20 December 2013


Attachment RFI20131643 and RFI20131894 final response.pdf
86K Download View as HTML


Dear Mr Moran,

Please find attached the response to your requests for information, reference RFI20131643 and 1894.

Yours sincerely,
The Information Policy and Compliance Team

BBC Information Policy and Compliance
Room BC2 B6 Broadcast Centre
Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: mailto:[BBC request email]
Tel: 020 8008 2882
Fax: 020 8008 2398

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Sean Moran

23 December 2013

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of British Broadcasting
Corporation’s handling of my FOI request ‘BBC and the alleged
holocaust’.

I feel this refusal to a perfectly reasonable request is totally
unjustified. Please reconsider.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b…

Yours faithfully,

Sean Moran

Link to this

The Ruling Stones: The Jewish Ethnic Activism of Richard Stone

Written By Tobias Langdon

Who is England’s patron saint? If you think it’s St George, you’re behind the times. In fact, it’s the martyr St Stephen. But not the Stephen stoned to death in Palestine 2,000 years ago. No, the Stephen stabbed to death by Whites at a bus-stop in London in 1993. He was a young Black male, but that didn’t make his death unusual or worthy of special attention.

Black power: St Stephen Lawrence

Black power: St Stephen Lawrence

It wasn’t until 2012, after huge expense by the London Metropolitan police and the abolition of the centuries-old principle of double jeopardy, that two White men were found guilty of the murder and given long jail sentences. Cries of joy greeted the conviction in all sections of the media, particularly at The Guardian and BBC. But further suspects are still free and Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murder victim, wants to see more millions spent on pursuing and convicting them.

Doreen has become a familiar and highly respected figure in the UK. She has recently been elevated to the House of Lords, where she will sit as Baroness Lawrence and continue to promote the martyr cult. She was prominent at the twentieth-year commemoration of her son’s murder, which was attended by the leaders of all three main political parties. And you may have seen her helping to carry the flag at the 2012 London Olympics. It was a further honour in recognition of her long campaign for justice, equality and tolerance in the UK.

The image of an aspiring young Black architect slaughtered by thuggish White racists continues to be reinforced through every medium of news, art and commentary. Doreen has often appeared in the media to criticize Britain for failing to live up to the high standards she demands of it as a British Jamaican. And the government listens. Here she is in the closing days of 2012 with fellow activist Dr Richard Stone, who will be the main focus of this essay:

Advertisement



Coalition responds to Doreen Lawrence over race equality

David Cameron and Nick Clegg have moved to head off an embarrassing row with race equality campaigners after the Guardian highlighted an uncompromising attack on the coalition [between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats] by the mother of the murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence. It has emerged that 24 hours after Doreen Lawrence castigated ministers, accusing them of backtracking on the government’s commitment to equalities, the prime minister and deputy prime minister penned a joint reply from Downing Street aiming to reassure her and to bolster the government’s credentials.

The timing of the letter is significant, as Lawrence and Richard Stone, an adviser to the Macpherson inquiry into Stephen’s death, had written to Cameron and Clegg – and Ed Miliband [leader of the Labour Party] – a month earlier outlining concerns about government equality policies. Lawrence said her letter had been ignored, adding that improvements in equalities prompted by the Macpherson inquiry were being imperilled and race no longer appeared to be on the agenda. …

In their reply to Lawrence, Cameron and Clegg write: “We recognise how important it is to ensure the legacy of Stephen’s murder and Lord Macpherson’s report will never be lost.” … Lawrence was not available for comment, but Stone, co-signatory to her letter, said he had hoped for a more positive response. “We sent our letter a month ago. It is good to have a reply from the prime minister and deputy prime minister. But it is written very carefully. There is nothing concrete here.” (Coalition responds to Doreen Lawrence over race equality, The Guardian, 23rd December 2012)

So who is Richard Stone, the man playing such a prominent role in calling the government to account? Thanks to the media’s untiring work, Stephen and Doreen Lawrence are now familiar to millions of ordinary Britons, but very few of them would recognize the name or features of Richard Stone. This is a pity, because he is an interesting man. Here is the biography at his personal website:

Dr Richard Stone

Dr Richard Stone

Dr Richard Stone is a medical doctor who also has extensive experience working against social exclusion, homelessness, and in the grant-making charitable sector. He is a leading expert in social cohesion, anti-racism, and Islamophopia, and is a regular speaker around Europe at conferences on these topics. Richard was a panel member of the 1997/99 Home Office inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. He served as a Cabinet Advisor to the Mayor of London, President of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, and spent 5 years on the Runnymede “Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia”, from 2000 to 2004 as chair. He has also been a trustee and vice-Chair of the Runnymede Trust [an “anti-racist” organization founded by Jews] and a Council and Board member of Liberty [the British equivalent of the ACLU]. His work bringing together British Jews and Muslims includes being a founding trustee of the Maimonides Foundation in 1985, and of Alif-Aleph UK in 2003 [alif and aleph are the initial letters of the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets] … In 2010 he was awarded an OBE [Order of the British Empire] for “public and voluntary” service. (See Biography at Dr Stone’s website)

Identity on the Agenda

Despite his presidency of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, Dr Stone claims to self-identify as a member of the White British majority:

Enough of this anger-creating suppression of the hopes and opportunities of people from black backgrounds. My message to white (mainly) men (like me), who have the power to discriminate is this: just stop doing it. (Where are the black police officers?, Dr Richard Stone, The Guardian, 4th January, 2012)

In Britain, the vast majority of power is wielded by middle-aged, middle-class white men – like Dr Stone. (An Independent Commentary to Mark the 10th Anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (2009), Dr Richard Stone, pg. 17)

I don’t know whether Dr Stone also self-identifies as self-righteous, but that is a label some might be inclined to give him. They might even add that he is self-important and arrogant too. Dr Stone seems to enjoy issuing orders and demands on behalf of ethnic and religious minorities. For further examples, let’s examine his behaviour at the Macpherson Inquiry. This was the official inquiry set up by the New Labour government into the police failures surrounding the murder of Stephen Lawrence. What role did he have there? It’s described at the website of the organization ROTA (Race On The Agenda), where Dr Stone is a patron with the British-Nigerian Lord Victor Adebowale, CBE (Commander of the British Empire). Here is part of Dr Stone’s biography:

Dr Stone was a panel member of the “Stephen Lawrence Inquiry” into racism in policing (1997/99) as Adviser to the judge Sir William Macpherson. He was also on the panel of the 2003/04 NHS “David Bennett Inquiry” into the death of a Black [sic] patient during restraint in the white-staffed [sic] medium secure psychiatry unit in Norwich. (See the biography at ROTA’s website)

Despite their advisory capacity and lack of specialized legal training, Stone and the other panel members, like the dedicated self-publicist John Sentamu, a British-Ugandan bishop, would often take the role of prosecuting counsel during the inquiry:

Bishop John Sentamu dives for publicity

Bishop John Sentamu dives for publicity

In a criminal court the accused is not there so that he can be compelled to confess his crimes; still less so that he can confess his sins; much less again so that he can disclose the sins of his subordinates. English law expelled those abhorrent ideas long ago. But confession was the spirit of much of the Macpherson proceedings, partly due to the effect of the “truth and reconciliation” proceedings in post-apartheid South Africa. This was especially clear in the interruption by one of Sir William’s three advisers, Dr Richard Stone, of [the Metropolitan Police Commissioner] Sir Paul Condon’s evidence in Part II of the inquiry. ‘It seems to me, Sir Paul,’ he said, ‘that the door is open. It is like when Winnie Mandela was challenged in the Truth Commission in South Africa by Desmond Tutu to acknowledge that she had done wrong …’ Sir Paul might well have been taken aback by his being put in the same category as a convicted kidnapper, and his relationship to racist attitudes and conduct in the Metropolitan Police in the same category as Winnie Mandela’s relationship to the Mandela United Football Club and the murderers of Stompie Seipei. Dr Stone continued: ‘She just did it and suddenly a whole burden of weight, of sort of challenge and friction melted away … I say to you now, just say, “Yes, I acknowledge institutional racism in the police” … Could you do that today?’ (Please see here, pg. 15)

That quotation is taken from a very interesting study of the Macpherson Inquiry called Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics (2000) by Norman Dennis, George Erdos and Ahmed Al-Shahi, who are English, Hungarian and Kurdish, respectively. They all also appear to be left-wing or liberal in the traditional sense. I can recommend their study highly to anyone who wants an alternative perspective on the Macpherson Inquiry – “alternative,” that is, to the perspective offered by all respectable opinion in the UK. Recall that, in the Guardian extract above, the prime minister and his deputy referred respectfully to the “legacy” of “Lord Macpherson’s report,” as though it were some highly valuable contribution to British public life.

Uproar from the Gallery

In fact, the inquiry overseen by Lord Macpherson seems to have been a cross between a Stalinist show-trial and a hearing by the Spanish Inquisition, with a garnish of kangaroo-court and a sprinkling of lynch-mob. Here is Dr Stone again, sniffing hard for heresy:

‘You have heard me say …’, Sir Paul said in the course of being interrogated. But he was interrupted by Dr Richard Stone. ‘You have told us ten times you are not in denial … I say to you now, just say, “Yes, I acknowledge institutional racism in the police …”’

‘It was an approach that pleased the public gallery’, writes Cathcart [former deputy editor of the Independent on Sunday and author of The Case of Stephen Lawrence (1999)], ‘and the pressure on the Commissioner was intense. Sir William chipped in: “You have been given the challenge, or the question, Sir Paul. What is your answer?”’

His answer was that it would be very easy to please the panel. It would be easy to please the people in the public gallery — ‘this audience’, as he called them. It would be easy, also, to gain the favour of ‘superficial media coverage’. But he would not do what would please any of them, because it would be ‘dishonest’. Over the uproar from the gallery, Sir William called for quiet and moved the discussion into other areas.

Sir Paul’s stand attracted critical headlines. But whose judgement, freed from the enthusiasm of a righteous crowd, would conclude that Sir Paul’s opinion, reasoning, and sense of reality and responsibility were inferior to those expressed in the ‘uproar from the gallery’ or … to the semi-religious appeal of Dr Stone? (Op. cit., ch. 3, “The Crowd in Hannibal House,” pg. 28)

Why was there uproar from the public gallery? Because it was full of anti-racism activists from groups like the Nation of Islam, who applauded witnesses whom they liked, such as Doreen Lawrence, and jeered witnesses whom they did not like, such as the police:

During the police evidence, and particularly when [the radical barrister Michael] Mansfield was in action, laughter and groans would greet answers from police officers. This would not normally be allowed in a court of law. In order to protect Inspector Groves from the gallery crowd (and, though he perhaps did not think of it in this way, from the crowd influences that could be affecting the performances of all the witnesses, all the barristers and the judgement of all the assessors) counsel for the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service], Jeremy Gompertz QC [Queen’s Counsel], rose to complain about ‘constant interruption and background noise’ from the gallery.

Though he said that his warning was ‘crystal clear’, Sir William’s intervention could scarcely be described as full-hearted. If the laughing did not stop, he said, he would clear the gallery. He reminded Mansfield that he was not addressing a jury. Inspector Groves did not need to be ‘pilloried’ — (slight pause) — ‘unnecessarily’. The pillory in its literal sense is essentially an instrument of control by a crowd. What had being figuratively ‘pilloried’, necessarily or not, to do with ascertaining the facts of the case? (Ibid., pg. 25)

Reality Shmeality

But there was no need to ascertain the facts of the case, because they were known well in advance: both the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the failure to jail the murder-gang were the result of “an endemic and universal English racism which has severe consequences generally in the lives of members of ethnic minorities” (ch. 2, “The Methods of Inquiry used by Macpherson,” pg. 12). The role of Doreen Lawrence at the inquiry was to describe the racism of British society; the role of the police was to admit their complicity in it. The role of Judge Macpherson, Dr Richard Stone, Bishop Sentamu et al was to assist the former against the latter. The methods they employed might, in another context, be taken as deliberately satirical or absurdist: “To question whether the murder of Stephen Lawrence was a purely racist crime was, in itself, adduced as evidence of racism” (Summary, pg. xix).

Distance was no obstacle to the inquiry’s hunt for the evil and injustice perpetrated by Whites: inter alia, the inquiry drew on the Rodney King case in Los Angeles, thousands of miles away, though the relevance there might seem “indirect,” at best (ch. 4, “Mr and Mrs Lawrence’s Treatment at the Hospital as Evidence of Police Racism,” pg. 34). Any negative interpretation of police behaviour by a Minority Ethnic had to be accepted; any attempt to deny police racism was further proof of police racism.

But the sceptical authors of Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics conclude that:

The Macpherson report has had a detrimental impact on policing and crime, particularly in London. Police morale has been undermined. Certain procedures which impact disproportionately on ethnic groups, like stop and search, have been scaled down. The crime rate has risen. Nevertheless, the Macpherson report has been received with almost uncritical approval by pundits, politicians and academics. It is still routinely described as having ‘proved’ that the police and British society are racist. (Summary, pg. xx)

Elsewhere, the authors point out that the rise in the crime rate, “the first in six years, was largely due to increases in two police areas, London and the West Midlands, the areas with the highest concentrations of ethnic minorities. In London the increase was nine per cent, in the West Midlands 16 per cent” (ch. 3, “The Crowd in Hannibal House,” pg. 29). In other words, there have been more murders of young Black males as a result of the Macpherson Inquiry, not fewer. There have also been more murders of individuals from other, less important groups. And more rapes and other crimes of violence. Nor has the report helped the cause of equality: the police now devote more resources and attention to cases in which they can prove their devotion to fighting White racism.

Unpunished Murder

Compare the racist murder of Richard Everitt in London in 1994, a year after the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. This was not a highly unusual crime, because it involved violence by a gang of Minority Ethnics against a White. Only one member of the fifteen-strong Bengali-British gang was jailed and he is now free again. In the Stephen Lawrence case, the Metropolitan Police have promised “to go on looking ‘forever’ for evidence that would convict the murderers” (Preface, pg. xv). They have made no such promise about Richard Everitt. Nor have “resources in money and specialist support” been made “available on a scale more often seen in anti-terrorist investigations than a civil murder,” as they were for Stephen Lawrence (Ibid., pg xiv).

Many other non-Whites are still at liberty after the brutal murders of British Whites: Charlene Downes and Gavin Hopley are merely two examples. But those murders have not received the prolonged attention of the media, nor provoked harsh criticism of the police and served as damning indictments of British society. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is quite different in all respects. Of the many people responsible for elevating Stephen Lawrence to his role as England’s new patron saint, no-one has worked harder or more effectively than Doreen Lawrence and her good friend Dr Richard Stone. I don’t question Doreen Lawrence’s motives, though I do question her intelligence, common sense and ability to see the harmful effects of her campaign on the Black community, among others.

Thorny Issues

I do, however, question the motives of Dr Richard Stone. It may be cynical of me, but I have detected little benevolence or philanthropy in Dr Stone when I have seen or heard him appear in the media. He strikes me, in fact, as cold, manipulative and even sinister. He also strikes me as lacking in honesty. In his self-aggrandizing Independent Commentary to Mark the 10th Anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (2009), he lamented the way in which:

[during] the past decade, the issue of ‘institutional racism’ seemed to slip down the agenda. Maybe some of those in leadership positions sighed with relief that this thorny issue did not have to be dealt with. It could perhaps be left for the next Commissioner, the next Chief Constable, or the next government Minister. But every year, with damaging regularity, racism seems to explode back on to the police agenda. This causes damage to police and community relations, but also to the reputation of the very leaders who had hoped the issue had gone away. (Op. cit., pg. 7)

But who has worked harder than Dr Stone to make racism a “thorny” issue? Who has been more eager to help racism “explode” regularly on the police agenda? And who has been more willing to issue self-righteous pronunciations on the topic? Here is another extract from his Independent Commentary:

Racism is not in the heads of BME [Black and Minority Ethnic] people, just as Islamophobia and anti-semitism are not in the heads of Muslims or Jews. There is not much that BME people can do to change the racism exhibited by white people, any more than Muslims can do much to change the Islamophobia of non-Muslims, or Jews the anti-antisemitism [sic] of non-Jews. The people who have to change are those outside who hold prejudices and stereotypes in their heads which lead them “unwittingly” or to be frank, ‘wittingly’ to disadvantage people from these communities. (Op. cit., pg. 17 – all anomalies of punctuation are in the original)

To be frank, such an important topic deserved better proof-reading. It is also ludicrous to claim that all beliefs held by “BME people” about the motives and behaviour of Whites must automatically be correct. In making this claim, Dr Stone is not assisting the cause of objective analysis and impartial justice. He is, however, assisting the cause of BME grievance, paranoia and self-pity.

Saints and Demons

But why is he doing this? What are his motives for encouraging antagonism between BME people and White society? Why does he wish to demonize ordinary Whites and elevate BME people to infallible sainthood? I would suggest that he is, unwittingly or otherwise, following an ethnocentric agenda and seeking to advance the interests of his own ethno/religious group. When Dr Stone self-identifies as a “middle-aged, middle-class White man,” I think he is being dishonest or disingenuous. In reality, he belongs to the Jewish elite, not to the White middle-class. He is the son of the Labour peer Lord Stone and a nephew of the Conservative peer Lord Ashdown.

I don’t believe that Dr Richard Stone truly regrets the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Given the chance to travel back in time, would he try to prevent it? I don’t think he would. The Lawrence murder has been far too useful as an ideological weapon against ordinary Whites. Dr Richard Stone, son of a Labour peer, nephew of a Conservative peer, has been working on behalf not of Minority Ethnics but of the hostile elite – the Ruling Stones of the UK who want to dispossess the historic majority and secure their own power and profit in perpetuity. Lord Glasman broke ranks from that elite and pointed out its treachery and lies on immigration. He was heavily criticized and forced into silence.

By contrast, Dr Stone continues to spout his self-righteous, self-serving gas about “an endemic and universal English racism which has severe consequences generally in the lives of members of ethnic minorities.” He is, in fact, one of Britain’s most dedicated and hard-working hate-mongers:

One of the easiest ways to unite people is to mobilise their hatred for others. It is infinitely more difficult to unite them on the basis of constructive proposals. This unity of having an enemy in common gives rise to various kinds of sociological formation. In the short-term there is the specialised and transitory hatred of ‘the lynch mob’. There is the longer-term unity of hating communists, or hating capitalists, or hating Protestants, or hating Catholics, or hating blacks, or ‘hating whitey’. (Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics, 2000, pg. 21)

“Hating whitey” is what Dr Stone specializes in. He is a card-carrying member of the UK’s hostile elite, bent on completely gutting the people and culture of traditional of the UK. His tireless work on behalf of Stephen Lawrence has not benefited Blacks or other minorities, but then it has never been intended to. Instead, it has been intended to incite hatred, grievance and discord. Why can’t Minority Ethnics get no satisfaction? Because the Ruling Stones don’t want them to. Using mass immigration and multi-racialism as weapons of mass destruction, they want to destroy the historic nation of Britain and enjoy power and profit here in perpetuity.

Britain’s message for the United States and all other Western nations is simple: Nomine mutato, de te fabula narratur – “With a change of name, the tale is told of you.” The same hostile, hate-filled elite are at work everywhere in the West, lying, cheating, betraying and using mass immigration to divide and destroy those who stand in their way.

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan – The Genocide Of The People Of Europe

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 genocide Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.

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 genocide.

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.

Good video here on  “Preventing White Genocide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsjc5CVujrM

img978

img443

Is There More To Crimestoppers Than Meets The Eye?

Is there more to Crimestoppers than meets the eye?

by thecolemanexperience

crimestoppersNick RossEsther Rantzen Jimmy SavileChildlineJill DandoDianaCrashCarSavileBBCDiana and CliffNews InternationalQueenMet PoliceHouseDolphin SquareBlairSavileCharlesSavileSavile Satan

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?

We haven’t got a bloody clue.

Have you?

http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/how-we-help/how-were-run-6512741/trustee-directors

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/the-curious-case-of-nick-ross-vip-child-abuse-filthy-comments-operation-yewtree-crimestoppers-and-the-death-of-jill-dando/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Imbert,_Baron_Imbert

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Shine_Limited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Clarke_(police_officer)

http://opencharities.org/charities/1108687

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/jill-dando-unmanned-phones-and-the-mysterious-crimestoppers-mailbox-message/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/elm-guest-house-vip-child-abuse-perverted-royals-and-the-mysterious-death-of-princess-diana/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/barry-george-jill-dando-jimmy-savile-bbc-paedophiles-cliff-richard-alan-farthing-nick-ross-and-britains-dirty-secrets/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368007/Founder-Childline-loses-job-ITV-amid-claims–BULLYING.html

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/who-is-michael-ashcroft/

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/who-killed-jill-dando/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waheed_Alli,_Baron_Alli

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/why-are-the-police-covering-up-vip-child-abuse/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Flanagan

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/mysterious-sco19/

Why Do Labour And The Left Hate The British Working Class?

Guest Writer Leo McKinstry

Photos and captions Watt Tyler

Mass immigration is transforming the fabric of our society on an epic scale. Only this week it was revealed that Britain takes in one in five of all the migrants in Europe. In 2011 that represented an astonishing total of 566,000 new arrivals, by far the largest influx anywhere in the EU.

The real impact of change could be even greater, for the official statistics ignore the vast amount of illegal immigration that occurs through our porous borders… The Tory-led coalition might be dealing with the problem ineffectually but the real responsibility for the immigration disaster lies with the last Labour government. Labour ministers embarked on a vast programme of social engineering as British passports, student visas, welfare entitlements and work permits were dished out like confetti.

Jack Straw MP - a pompous Marxist  jew who hates the British Working Class and their values. When he was at his boarding school he bullied a boy in to suicide.

Jack Straw Labour MP – a pompous Marxist jew who hates the British Working Class and their values. When he was at his boarding school he bullied a boy in to suicide.

The superficial justification for this gigantic demographic experiment was that it would boost our economy and the public finances. But that has proved nonsense. Soaring levels of immigration have driven Britain into permanent economic crisis, weighed down by unprecedented debts, falling living standards, mass unemployment and an intolerable burden on our public infrastructure.

In practice 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. Yet the fashionable metropolitan elitists have developed the contemptible habit of sneering at the British working class while extolling the virtues of diligent migrants. In their politically correct narrative ordinary Britons are portrayed as lazy, feckless, unskilled and greedy in comparison with the heroic, wonderfully cheap new workers from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. We are constantly told that we should be grateful to the migrants ‘who do the jobs that the British won’t.’ Among smug self-styled liberals, mass immigration has become a vehicle for explicit snobbery. So the newspaper columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who likes to pose as a champion of progressive thought, grandly dismisses the ‘always wretched and complaining classes’ and claims that ‘tax-paying immigrants past and present keep indolent British scroungers on their couches drinking beer and watching TV.’ Ms Alibhai-Brown would not dream of indulging in such stereotyping of any other social group but this kind of abuse is typical of the self-styled sophisticates.

What is extraordinary is that Labour and the political Left used to see the advancement of working-class rights as their primary duty. But now in their blind adherence to the creed of diversity they have become the brutal enemies of the working classes who find their talents derided and their heritage traduced. Where once the working classes were seen as the backbone of Britain, admired for their patriotism, respectability and solidarity, now those values are turned against them.

Similarly in its zeal to create a multicultural society the Left is determined to wipe out all sense of tradition and national identity. British history had to be ‘revised, rethought and jettisoned’ declared the Labour government’s Committee On The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain in 2000, while the following year Labour foreign secretary Robin Cook described Britain as nothing more than ‘a gathering of countless different races and communities, the vast majority of which are not indigenous to these islands.’

Robin Cook Labour MP. One of the smug PC crowd.

Robin Cook Labour MP. One of the smug PC crowd.

Cook’s statement was a travesty of the truth. Far from being ‘a nation of immigrants’ as Cook absurdly claimed, Britain was until recently one of the most homogenous nations on earth, one reason why it was so well-ordered and successful. In 1940, when we experienced our finest hour in defeating Nazi tyranny, there were just 238,000 foreigners in Britain, less than half the number of arrivals here in 2011 alone.

It is just as big a lie to pretend that all immigrants are hard-working. People from migrant communities are far more likely than the indigenous population to be unemployed, living in social housing or claiming benefits. According to the Office of National Statistics, the jobless rate for ethnic minority men is twice that for white men, while 80 per cent of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women do not work.

The derision for the working class is just as profoundly misplaced. If they are as useless as elitists pretend then how on earth did they help build one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen? Long before the modern era of mass immigration we had a flourishing NHS, successful industries and globally admired public services.

Tony Blair, a key architect of the drive towards multiculturalism, once said with characteristic pomposity: ‘Let’s leave the past to those who live in it.’ The Britain of the past was a much stronger, more cohesive country before he inflicted such irreversible damage.”

Tony Blair and most of those who staffed his Cabinets and Ministries, along with the majority of the PC Crowd who dominate the UK’s mass media, must be arrested, charged with treason and found guilty.

The worst of these, the Blairs, the Browns, the Harmans, Straws, Mandelsons, Hains and Alibhai-Browns should be executed.

tnimg533

Welcome To Britain – Child Sex Abuse Capital Of The World

 filthy britainJason SwiftSavileCharlesBishop Peter Ball Prince CharlesSavile Gordon Browncyril smithHague Savile Elm Guest HouseDolphin SquareJerseyDSC_0119Warwick SpinksJillings ReportMI5

If you thought for one minute that Britain is really as it appears to be, you’re very sadly mistaken.

Beneath the pomp and pageantry lies a network of paedophilic depravity, so vile and despicable, it literally beggars belief.

Don’t be fooled into thinking Jimmy Savile was an isolated case either.

He wasn’t.

Why did the NSPCC ( Britain’s biggest Child Charity ) sign off the investigation in to Sir Jimmy Savile, saying no one else was involved and there was no Police corruption?

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 MI5 to the Royal Family themselves; the whole filthy lot of them are in on it.

Consider this:

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by celebrities?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by social workers?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by teachers?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by police officers?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the clergy?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by diplomats?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the armed forces?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the intelligence services?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by politicians?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the judiciary?

How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of royalty?

Allegedly, many.

Now consider this:

How many children have been filmed being abused?

How many children have been filmed being abused and the abusers have been blackmailed by Intelligence Services?

How many children have been filmed being abused and the films have then sold for thousands of pounds?

How many children have been trafficked before being abused?

How many children, wrongly taken from their parents via secret family courts, have ended up being abused?

How many children have been abused in care homes?

How many children have gone missing after being abused?

How many children have died or been murdered after being abused?

How many children are, at this very moment, suffering horrific abuse?

Allegedly, many.

Welcome to filthy Britain.

No child’s safe here.

Didn’t you know?

Stop White British Genocide Campaign – Join Now

The book “Practical Idealism”, written by the jew Richard Coudenhove-Kalegri in 1925, laid out the zionist blueprint for the destruction of European Nations by the creation of a “United States of Europe”and the genocide of the White race. In his book Coudenhove-Kalegri stated how mass third World immigration could be used to create a “Eurasian-Negroid slave race for the future” to serve the needs of a jewish aristocracy. “Practical Idealism” is the bible of multiculturalism AKA White genocide. You have probably witnessed this happening across Europe.

As most intelligent People now realise White British People are facing  genocide. This is a campaign to get our representatives to stop this as they are legally obliged to do. You can write your own letter, or copy and paste the one below and email to your MP, MEP and Member of the House of Lords at this website http://www.writetothem.com/

It’s free of charge and will only take a couple of minutes. All you need to know is your name and address and the site will tell you who your representatives are.

Dear ( Name of Your MP, MEP or Member of House of Lords)

We ask for you to call for an investigation into possible crimes of genocide. If, after an impartial investigation, any individuals are found to be guilty of this crime, we wish for an appropriate prosecution (s) to follow and for genocide to be prevented. 

 

As according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, we believe there to be reasonable grounds for such an investigation.

 

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was Adopted by Resolution 260 of the U.N. General Assembly on the 9th December 1948, and came into force on the 12th January 1951. 

 

According to Article 1, genocide is an international crime and the contracting parties to the Convention undertake to take action to prevent genocide and to punish those guilty of this crime. Genocide is an international crime whether committed in times of peace or war. According to Article 2, genocide is defined as any one of a number of acts. One such act that qualifies as genocide according to Article 2 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.’

 

We believe that mass immigration of other national, ethnical, racial or religious groups into Britain is probably a deliberate act that is calculated to bring about the destruction of the indigenous group in whole or part. We believe this act to be deliberate on the grounds of a number of facts, such as the reports of the previous Government deliberately engineering mass immigration into Britain. This act of mass immigration is believed to bring about physical destruction in whole or part by a number of means, including that of inter-group relationships that result in children. There has been a significant increase in such relationships and the resultant children, this fact widely reported. We believe there are grounds to suspect that this destruction of the indigenous group is calculated. Of course, it is only common sense to predict that this would happen and this phenomenon can be seen to be occurring merely by living in Britain. However, there have also been various statements from some individuals that note, if not celebrate, this reduction in indigenous births. One such example is that of remarks regarding the extinction of white people in Britain in the near future (sometimes held to be in 200 years) when everyone will be ‘coffee-coloured’.

 

Thus, there does appear to be reasonable grounds to believe that the conditions of life were deliberately inflicted, and that these conditions were calculated to destroy in whole or part the indigenous group. Such an act would hence qualify as the crime of genocide, if intent were present. Of course, the intention behind an action is not always easy to discern. However, we call for this to be investigated.

 

Even if intent is not proven in some instances, under Article 3 of the Convention various acts that are punishable are listed. These acts listed in Article 3 are: genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; attempting to commit genocide; and complicity in genocide. It is possible that many politicians, journalists, academics and other public figures are at least complicit in genocide. This is a matter we request is investigated. Article 4 states that those guilty of any of the actions enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

 

According to Article 8, ‘any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.’ We thus call upon you as an elected member to assist in calling for an investigation into genocide and/or any other punishable acts as according to Article 3 (such as complicity in genocide, attempted genocide, etc.) and for all applicable preventative measures to be taken. Knowledge of genocide, or any acts under Article 3, and lack of action could constitute complicity and be punishable in the future.

Yours sincerely ( Enter your name )

PLEASE NOTE : This campaign ( and everything else on this blog ) are copyright free, so feel free to copy and paste on your own blog/website or anywhere else. 

Also bear in mind the Police Oath every Police Officer in The UK must take:

Perhaps now is the time for every serving Police Officer in Britain to reflect again on the true meaning and importance of the oath which each of them has sworn:

“I, … of … do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”

 


 

Multiculturalism Is White Genocide

Multiculturalism Is White Genocide:

The end goal of multiculturalism, globalisation and the New World Order is to create a 1% Jewish master-race and a 99% dumbed down multi-racial or mixed race breed of debt slaves to serve them. You can probably see this happening around you in Britain today.

Diagram of the New World Order.

Diagram of the New World Order.

Ethnic Cleansing:
The multiculturalists who hijacked the Labour Party had a policy called “racial displacement” to create a multicultural society. You have probably noticed “White Flight” from several areas in Britain. The United Nations define this as Ethnic Cleansing and it is a crime under International Law.

Genocide:
The New Labour Policy of creating a coffee-coloured, dumbed down debt slave race is defined as genocide under International Law, and is obviously a very serious crime. Even partial genocide is defined as genocide under International Law.

Inciting Racial And Religious Hatred And Violence:
One aspect of multiculturalism is turning different groups against each other to empower the ruling elite. You have probably noticed this happening in Britain today. This is a crime under British and International Law.

The Islamic Slave Trade In Britain:
You have probably heard of the 10,000+ White British girls who have been raped, tortured, beaten and pimped out by muslims. This was covered up by New Labour partially because of their racial hatred of the British Working Class – who had rejected Marxism. This makes New Labour an accessory to these horrific racist offences.

British Nuremburg Trials:
For the crimes of ethnic cleansing, genocide, slavery and inciting racial and religious hatred/violence there needs to be a British Nuremburg Trials of the multiculturalists who hijacked the Labour Party and their Jewish puppet masters. The multiculturalists need to have all their assets seized, and either be hanged or given full life time sentences.

The British People must have justice against the multiculturalists.

The British People must have justice against the genocidal multiculturalists.

The intellectual level that multiculturalists operate at.

The intellectual level at which multiculturalists operate. George Orwell wrote about Duckspeak.