Head Author.
With the tendency of anti-racist or 'equality' campaigns to exert the same racial segregationist tacts as many of the organizations that they deem as 'racist', I looked briefly into recent news regarding Operation Black Vote and their mission. Or lack of one.
They spout almost meaningless objectives such as to combat 'institutional racism', which basically means their objection to true democracy and simple mathematics regarding the ethnic population makeup in Britain. With Black Briton's being a minority in Britain looking at the 2011 census, their vote isn't as numerically substantial as the White vote, in which they ultimately deem offensive and racist. This is a reason why they take the arrogant and racist tact of bracketing Asians (and committing a massive faux pas in the same sentence listing Chinese as non-Asians) and other ethnic minorities in their definition of 'Black', which is again racist and offensive to many who aren't Black and are rightly passionate about their heritage, with British Indians being an example. This bulks their numerical audience; they acknowledge this yet fail to declare their understanding of minorities being mathematical and not necessarily racial.
Thus in categorizing every non-White as Black the OBV organization imply that they understand that it's just a numbers game and not a presence of prejudice as they try to make an 'us Vs them' approach more palatable and 'under the radar'.
What pains me most is that many of the shady figures who are responsible for the media published by OBV are basically pushing for Labour votes. Their divisive attitude of lobbying for more and more policies and laws to focus on minorities will only outcome in less equal measures being taken and more long-term inequality. Prior to every general election, mainstream political leaders go to plead with minority groups and assure them that they are the reason Britain is great and how amazing and unquestionable their contribution has been to society. In the recent past, political leaders of mainstream parties have gone on record to state that White Britons are lazy whilst immigrants are unquestionably hard working; yet then don't join the dots and state that traditional, individualistic values would thus benefit such immigrant/ethnic groups as individual people willing to work for a living as they know that their claptrap is designed to bag votes and not encapsulate the truth.
Rather, the Labour ethos of proclaiming minorities as being constant victims of unproven institutional racism/ inequality and grouping minorities together, which they know will keep divisions high in communities; and win them votes.
The greatest minority is the individual. It should be a destiny of an individual to be able to work hard in life and gain the benefits of doing so with minimal state interference. Social mobility in Britain is generally good and patronizing and lying to minority groups constantly isn't addressing the problem that the Labour welfare state is only harming minorities and creating more divisions and excuses for lack of social cohesion in the long run. Have you ever seen a party leader address a minority voter event and state that they could do more to aide social cohesion?
The main problem with OBV is that their objectives clearly aren't coherent with what needs to be achieved in order to take more Blacks out of the poverty bracket in Britain. True equality would be regardless of race or groups and would be aimed at more localism and individualism for businesses, more responsibility for the individual and less grouping and victimization which results mainly in segregation, mistrust and real racism between different ethnic backgrounds in communities.
OBV boasts support from many in Labour who were responsible for mass immigration during the last Labour Govt., such people and policies which Labour have openly admitted as being planned. This alone should be ample reason for any Black family to never vote Labour again; how are their prospects including jobs, NHS treatment and use of other public services enhanced by a political party willing to flood local communities with immigrants? Or does mass immigration only lower wages and job vacancies for White people?
This is one major reason why Labour have demonized debate over immigration for so long. They understand that they could no longer tell their sob story to working class Whites in order to gain votes as people were starting to live relatively comfortably; working families started to gain ownership of cars and newer technology. Thus Labour couldn't destroy British culture using the still largely-homogeneous British population, ergo they imported three million immigrants to do the job for them. Many of these immigrants felt no allegiance to Britain and would vote Labour in subsequent elections to be able to bring other family members over to visit or settle. This is not a viable model for long term security for Black families in Britain and OBV know this as much as the Labour party do. The real racist agenda was indeed the Labour plot to bring such numbers of immigrants in; knowing full well that any cut in immigration would then allow them to play the card of arguing again for more immigration to support the swelling public sector and to try to repair the economy which they almost destroyed. Over the next two years you will start to see this plan unfold. Labour will smartly, again, change the argument to suit their aim of diluting British culture. They will argue it's all about the economy this time, with the Cons and Libs partially agreeing in fear of being seen upon as racist political parties due to the narrow minded and very contentious nature of the immigration debate (something else Labour must take responsibility for).
Labour, groups such as OBV and others will ignore in the run up to the next general election the culture argument in the immigration debate and will focus upon a short term fix for the economy (also ignoring unemployment figures).
This is a dangerous time in British politics as we have already seen MPs elected upon a non-White agenda via a non-White block vote. If Labour hypnotize ethnic minorities again then this election could be the last where the numbers game still means Britain can retain her culture, heritage and beauty. This is why OBV and others aren't really about helping Blacks; they are destined to destroy White culture and as contentious as this may sound, it's proven by the fact that Labour, Cons and the Lib Dems still aren't willing to have a real discussion about immigration and the pros and cons for all current British citizens.
If they wanted to; the next government could makes lives better for all ethnic groups in Britain, destroy apathy among all sections of society and give genuine power back to all local communities and people. Yet they won't.
Why don't you personally email the long list of Black MP's and other wealthy figures who support OBV and ask them how such 'institutional racism' has allowed them to build a fortune from poverty? Ask them how Black history month is suitable for an anti-racism initiative when a White history month is regarded as being the epitome of a racist event in a White country. Don't expect a reply.
Host & Guest Publications.
The official publication source for CentreRight Writings. A solid, integral and just benchmark for views attesting to the right of the British political scene.
Friday 23 August 2013
Friday 9 August 2013
Reaction to voluntary-repatriation and the Traditional Britain Group/ Jacob Rees-Mogg meeting.
Head Author.
It seems the slightest mention of anything that isn't deemed politically correct by any member of the right is automatically deemed offensive/racist by the left, including the BBC and other mainstream news outlets.
If Jacob Rees-Mogg truly believes that the appointment of Doreen Lawrence to the House of Lords and disgust at the idea of voluntary repatriation reflects a upholding view of core values of a traditional Britain; then ergo he must be stating that the Conservatives are more for traditionalism, certainly in part, now, then they were during the period of the Conservative 1970 manifesto that supported voluntary repatriation, as mentioned by Mr Lauder-Frost on Newsnight yesterday evening.
The underlying issue is the mere fact that Britain is superior to many other nations, thus immigrants come here to settle and not vice-versa. Acquiring this very simple and logical piece of information raises the question of why do most on the left really become (or pretend to become) so offended by the thought of voluntary repatriation?
They will deny Britain any superior status, stating we aren't a power we once were whilst simultaneously stating that immigration has unquestionably made Britain a stronger, better country. They will, more suspiciously, be offended by the thought of repatriation as unfair whilst claiming that countries in question regarding being the recipients of repatriation are all well and fine and are perfectly apt countries to live in. If so; why take offence? They take offence knowing that such immigrants are likely to fail the 'Tebbit test' and will thus weaken the will of the country to retain, or reinstate parts of what may be essential for a traditional Britain.
In the Newsnight debate; Mr Rees-Mogg wrote off the thought of repatriation as 'shocking', in a manner that concludes that the subject shouldn't even be debated or mentioned. This is a key tact of the left, not a supposed traditionalist MP.
He falls into the category of 'we must all think the same to be able to even speak to each other' path of thought, which is a major shame for a Tory who should be standing for individual right to debate and speak with integrity about important issues and ideas that aren't mainstream; thus holding up the pillars of free-speech. In reacting like he did, he has made it more difficult for MP's or politicians to attend any form of meetings which may not reflect the values of the party in which they serve and thus making it more difficult for new, fresh ideas (along with traditionalist ideas) to be proposed to people who serve the populous.
It seems the slightest mention of anything that isn't deemed politically correct by any member of the right is automatically deemed offensive/racist by the left, including the BBC and other mainstream news outlets.
If Jacob Rees-Mogg truly believes that the appointment of Doreen Lawrence to the House of Lords and disgust at the idea of voluntary repatriation reflects a upholding view of core values of a traditional Britain; then ergo he must be stating that the Conservatives are more for traditionalism, certainly in part, now, then they were during the period of the Conservative 1970 manifesto that supported voluntary repatriation, as mentioned by Mr Lauder-Frost on Newsnight yesterday evening.
The underlying issue is the mere fact that Britain is superior to many other nations, thus immigrants come here to settle and not vice-versa. Acquiring this very simple and logical piece of information raises the question of why do most on the left really become (or pretend to become) so offended by the thought of voluntary repatriation?
They will deny Britain any superior status, stating we aren't a power we once were whilst simultaneously stating that immigration has unquestionably made Britain a stronger, better country. They will, more suspiciously, be offended by the thought of repatriation as unfair whilst claiming that countries in question regarding being the recipients of repatriation are all well and fine and are perfectly apt countries to live in. If so; why take offence? They take offence knowing that such immigrants are likely to fail the 'Tebbit test' and will thus weaken the will of the country to retain, or reinstate parts of what may be essential for a traditional Britain.
In the Newsnight debate; Mr Rees-Mogg wrote off the thought of repatriation as 'shocking', in a manner that concludes that the subject shouldn't even be debated or mentioned. This is a key tact of the left, not a supposed traditionalist MP.
He falls into the category of 'we must all think the same to be able to even speak to each other' path of thought, which is a major shame for a Tory who should be standing for individual right to debate and speak with integrity about important issues and ideas that aren't mainstream; thus holding up the pillars of free-speech. In reacting like he did, he has made it more difficult for MP's or politicians to attend any form of meetings which may not reflect the values of the party in which they serve and thus making it more difficult for new, fresh ideas (along with traditionalist ideas) to be proposed to people who serve the populous.
Thursday 8 August 2013
Judges Against the British People.
David Hamilton.
If anything should arouse deep concern it is the politicisation of the British judiciary and its opposition to the interests of the British people. Since the rise of the New left in the 1960s Judges routinely make political decisions not just political statements. This is why the Establishment is called an “Ideological Caste” united by central ideas like anti-White racism, bias for the EU and Globalism. They have not transcended prejudice and discrimination but changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from outsiders to their own people!
The two main issues are the protection of terrorists and disgustingly the protection of child molesters, euphemistically known as paedophiles. This was not always so – it has developed in the last thirty or so years.
Some Comparisons
In 2005, The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge, Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009), for criticising Britain's immigration system. He remarked that "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to jail”. To a judiciary who encourage asylum seeking these remarks opposed their political ideology.
The News Chronicle of 7th December 1954, reported on a case where a white woman asked for an injunction to stop her coloured landlord abusing or molesting her. Judge Wilfred Clothier in giving judgement in the case of a 62 year-old white woman living alone in a house full of coloured men, said that she was “hounded by these coloured men. This is another case of black people entering half a house and never resting until they have turned the white people out. I hope there will be a remedy found quickly. One could be to turn back to Jamaica anyone found guilty of this practice. Another would be a prohibition by law to stop any black people buying a house containing white tenants.” Conrad Fairclough wanted Miss. Matilda McLaren out of where she had lived for 40 years yet he only came here in 1948.
I always think of that case when I see naïve or malicious people disputing Enoch's point in his Rivers of Blood speech of the elderly lady driven from her home.
Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, spoke up about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives:
“I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”
(Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”, Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.)
In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented:
“It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.”
(Guardian, 2 August 1969.)
In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds:
“Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer ... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people daren’t go even with their cars ... All immigration must stop ... The country is full up. We don’t want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life.”
(India Mail 02.03.95).
Bradford M.P., Max Madden, described Judge Pickles as a "repulsive old buffer" who had "plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities"/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.
Through the 60s and 70s, the New Left and its ideology were taking over and silencing those with the wrong opinions. In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published What Next In the Law. The publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies. Lord Denning wrote:
"The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out."
Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing sound common sense.
The attack on our people and way of life by the judiciary has two main planks: promoting Muslim extremism and undermining our way of life through law.
Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian Cultural Marxist concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and as “intrinsically counter - majoritarian....should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion”.
Many people seem to mistakenly believe that our judges are simply out-of-touch, semi-senile old people, but there are more sinister forces at work here. Judges who make political comments against traditional British values are showing that they have a subversive agenda which is clearly not in the interests of the British people.
Soviet-Style Oppression
In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, now a judge, described nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 until November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.”
Another morally corrupt judge who turned the police into institutionally anti-white racist organisation was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny when he introduced Soviet-style techniques to oppress White people in the Recommendations of The Macpherson report. (2)
Recommendation 12. “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.
Recommendation 13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment. Investigate “non-crimes”! This totalitarian ploy criminalises everything and allows the politicised police to investigate any aspect of our lives they choose. Multi-racialism and totalitarianism are indivisible. As in Yugoslavia under Tito, a multi-racial society can only work with totalitarian methods.
Recommendation 14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.
This makes crime subjective and gives other ethnic groups legal power over “White” people. Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.
Recommendation 38 which requests the” power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented” and the citizen loses legal safeguards and the state can prosecute repeatedly until it gets the right verdict.
Recommendation 39 is similar to the extensions to paragraph 10, Article 58 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code which ordered “face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter” to be investigated for anti-Soviet thoughts.
The Recommendation states: ”That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place.” (2)
Judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers – he discriminates in their favour! The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he hate this country? In February 2003 The Telegraph exposed him in “Damning verdict on judge.”
War on the Family
The judiciary also attack the family. Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference that she supported gay adoption, legally recognised gay partnerships, improved legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit and the idea of fault removed from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows there will be no impartiality towards this aspect of “the Culture Wars,” as she was announcing beforehand that she is against traditional values.
In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family judge.
Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family: “Family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship."
The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the preposterous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that their gender at birth was what they now say it is. What this twisted thinking means that they were not born what they were born but what they say they were born.
The feminist/communist hate campaign against the traditional heterosexual nuclear family has been an ongoing thing since the 1960's. The family law courts have been enabling this hate campaign since the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and subsequent anti-family legislation, by interpreting the law the way the media led feminist movement wish to and not in the way that Parliament originally intended.
Children and fathers are routinely treated as sub-humans, both inside the divorce courts and after the pre-determined anti-father ruling. Grandparents are also treated like dirt when it comes to accessing their loved ones.
Ironically, the same feminazis and treacherous anti-British judges support the pro-father Sharia courts.
They support outside groups against people with property. The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws they were allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are supposed obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This was later reversed but the bias of the judiciary had been signalled to interested parties.
Promoting Sharia law
As part of the elites Islamification programme in December 2008 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council he was willing to see Sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.
He also suggested Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.
In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England's first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a Sharia divorce.
Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights
In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”
Sharia law will be allowed as long as it doesn't 'lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments'. Who is going to decide on the principal of 'severe'. It is against the law to smack a naughty child so by that definition there should not be any Muslim law that would not 'come into conflict' with current law. 'Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements'. This would then create two systems of divorce.
Any 'white' Christian male who was divorcing, would, presumably, be able to choose a sharia court for his divorce. Equally a Muslim woman being divorced can choose a 'Western style' court. Who then would decide which court has superiority? The appeasement of Islam leads to conflict with Western values. The two are diametrically opposed and cannot be run with unity as much as the Cultural Marxists like to think it would.
The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU it was seen as helping political union in Europe and a move to one world government. They acted ideologically and challenged governments in many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab who shared the ideology came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.
In the sixties Liberalism changed from individual rights to group rights which is what is known as Cultural Marxism but as we became the object of prejudice and discrimination while the groups Hitler disliked became privileged and treated as superior. I think it’s more accurate to call it Cultural Nazism against White heterosexual males.
Britain – World Centre for Terrorists
One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn Britain into a world centre for terrorists who use Britain as a base to attack other countries from. Human Rights laws prohibit torture or degrading treatment so they stopped removing illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to countries where judges thought or pretended such treatment was practised. In 2008 at least two terrorists were released early from prison!
They also began to interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (prejudice) than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. Considering the terror attacks and the number of Muslim terrorists the judges have encouraged it is clear that White Britons are threatened by this group!
International law is neither based in national habits and conventions nor even democratic jurisdictions, but current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials. Through the Human Rights Act they gave asylum to countless people who are a military threat to us as long as they claimed they would be in danger if returned to their destination countries.
The judges use this legislation to grant rights to people refused asylum, who then hide in their ethnic communities here. As they could not be sent back too their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger. To see the moral corruption - a Taliban soldier who had fought against our troops was granted asylum because he feared persecution.
Home Office figures in December 2005 recorded that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since the terror attempt of 21 July were asylum seekers shows that the judiciary have breached national security; two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.
Protecting Terrorists
Abu Hamza was allowed to preach hatred on the streets of Finsbury Park even though the Yemen had requested his extradition for terror offences. The judges refused to extradite him because of his human rights. Britain has become a magnet for Islamic terrorists due to Human Rights legislation bias in their favour - that protects them and our benefits keeps them in luxury while they carry our their recruitment of terrorists.
A lgerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992 and was kept here for ten years despite three requests for his extradition!
In 1995, the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen but after the judges thwarted this. He lived in North London and was allowed to constantly post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.
In 2004, judges wrecked the governments’ attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial, which was introduced after 9/11, in “The Belmarsh Judgement.” This is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war. Lord Hoffman, made the ludicrous statement that Muslim extremism does not imperil the nation: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes from laws such as these.”
Lord Phillips' speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in support of the Human Rights Act, is sloppy, illogical thinking. “Control orders” were an attempt by the government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Human Rights Act.
Phillips acknowledged that the act has limited actions in “response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade," but, he said: "It is essential that (immigrants) and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society." There we have it: the law prevents the authorities combating terrorism and so reduces the risk of terrorism!
Even in County Courts judges make biased judgements. A pensioner wrote to me that a District Judge at Dudley County Court, penalised him with £430 costs for getting a hearing date wrong despite being in the early stages of dementia and having protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, another judge upheld the penalty. The problem, he thinks, is that he tried to represent himself for being discriminated against but the judges, who are usually former solicitors, awarded costs against him because the other side had a solicitor.
Defending Child Molesters
The one issue that does show the British judiciary as corrupt, immoral and at war with the British people is their repeated taking the sides of child molesters against the victims. Just recently there have been several sickening examples. In its report the Daily Mail used the fashionable euphemism “paedophile”.
On 10 July, Andrew Townsend, 51, of Hulme, Manchester, who had downlloaded child pornography so appalling that the judge could not look, but she still did not imprison him. There is no protection for British children.
The judge said that what he did was not a victimless crime, but:‘You must be aware the subjects of these images are not indifferent to what is happening to you. The public must be made aware of just how infectious this material is.’ Yet she rejected the option of sending Townsend to prison and instead gave him a three-year community order. Because there is treatment available that will be beneficial to him.
The Judge who gave child molester Stuart Hall a mere 15 months was forced to resign after being caught visiting a gay brothel in 1996. He resigned as part-time recorder of Bolton and gave up his position as the top lawyer for the Inland Revenue. He apparently, went into a ‘dark room’ in the club with a leading doctor and a hospital porter. Five years later the pervert was reinstated, and is now a senior judge.
Hall had admitted indecently assaulting 13 girls between 1967 and 1986, the youngest just nine years old. Russell said: ‘You have given pleasure to millions of people as a local television presenter in the North West, nationally in the It’s A Knockout series, and as a highly regarded sports commentator.”
After the announcement, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said: “I asked the court to consider the multiple offending by Stuart Hall over a prolonged period of time which involved numerous victims.
On 2nd August 2012, Judge Francis Gilbert QC was appointed resident judge at Exeter. He is a serial lenient with child molesters, handing out light sentences, bail, and overturning verdicts.
On 13th July 2011, he released six footballers imprisoned for raping 12 year old girls after a ruling that their 2-year sentences were “excessive”. The men had admitted charges of rape against two 12 year old girls in a park late at night. Mr Judge Francis Gilbert QC ruled that being imprisoned was inappropriate as it was a ‘difficult’ case. The men were released, their sentences cut to one year and suspended. Rather than protect children the judiciary protect child rapists.
Only sixteen days later, Anthony Milsom, described by the trial judge as a “manipulative and predatory” sex offender, was jailed indefinitely for public protection. Milsom admitted a series of offences dating back to the early 1990s like sixteen counts of possessing indecent images of children, twenty-one of of making indecent images, and five charges of indecent assault on a little girl when she was aged between four and eight. Milsom had newspaper cuttings murdered children Milly Dowler, Sophie Hook, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
His sentence amounted to life but appeal court Judges including Gilbert cut it to just three and a half years.
Parliament had to introduce an appeal against lenient sentences – to protect children as the judges will not do so,. The way to protect children is by imposing severe sentences that that signal to sickos that this sort of crime is not worth trying. By their acts these evil people forfeit any claim to be treated as human. The morally corrupt British Judiciary is something we must campaign against to restore law and order in this country which the judges are destroying. (4)
1.https://www.facebook.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
2.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/
These are just a few examples of how judges protect paedophiles
3.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
A judge who provoked outrage by jailing Stuart Hall for just 1
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/
4.http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/
https://www.facebook.com/
www.facebook.com
If anything should arouse deep concern it is the politicisation of the British judiciary and its opposition to the interests of the British people. Since the rise of the New left in the 1960s Judges routinely make political decisions not just political statements. This is why the Establishment is called an “Ideological Caste” united by central ideas like anti-White racism, bias for the EU and Globalism. They have not transcended prejudice and discrimination but changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from outsiders to their own people!
The two main issues are the protection of terrorists and disgustingly the protection of child molesters, euphemistically known as paedophiles. This was not always so – it has developed in the last thirty or so years.
Some Comparisons
In 2005, The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge, Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009), for criticising Britain's immigration system. He remarked that "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to jail”. To a judiciary who encourage asylum seeking these remarks opposed their political ideology.
The News Chronicle of 7th December 1954, reported on a case where a white woman asked for an injunction to stop her coloured landlord abusing or molesting her. Judge Wilfred Clothier in giving judgement in the case of a 62 year-old white woman living alone in a house full of coloured men, said that she was “hounded by these coloured men. This is another case of black people entering half a house and never resting until they have turned the white people out. I hope there will be a remedy found quickly. One could be to turn back to Jamaica anyone found guilty of this practice. Another would be a prohibition by law to stop any black people buying a house containing white tenants.” Conrad Fairclough wanted Miss. Matilda McLaren out of where she had lived for 40 years yet he only came here in 1948.
I always think of that case when I see naïve or malicious people disputing Enoch's point in his Rivers of Blood speech of the elderly lady driven from her home.
Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, spoke up about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives:
“I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”
(Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”, Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.)
In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented:
“It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.”
(Guardian, 2 August 1969.)
In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds:
“Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer ... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people daren’t go even with their cars ... All immigration must stop ... The country is full up. We don’t want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life.”
(India Mail 02.03.95).
Bradford M.P., Max Madden, described Judge Pickles as a "repulsive old buffer" who had "plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities"/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.
Through the 60s and 70s, the New Left and its ideology were taking over and silencing those with the wrong opinions. In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published What Next In the Law. The publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies. Lord Denning wrote:
"The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out."
Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing sound common sense.
The attack on our people and way of life by the judiciary has two main planks: promoting Muslim extremism and undermining our way of life through law.
Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian Cultural Marxist concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and as “intrinsically counter - majoritarian....should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion”.
Many people seem to mistakenly believe that our judges are simply out-of-touch, semi-senile old people, but there are more sinister forces at work here. Judges who make political comments against traditional British values are showing that they have a subversive agenda which is clearly not in the interests of the British people.
Soviet-Style Oppression
In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, now a judge, described nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 until November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.”
Another morally corrupt judge who turned the police into institutionally anti-white racist organisation was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny when he introduced Soviet-style techniques to oppress White people in the Recommendations of The Macpherson report. (2)
Recommendation 12. “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.
Recommendation 13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment. Investigate “non-crimes”! This totalitarian ploy criminalises everything and allows the politicised police to investigate any aspect of our lives they choose. Multi-racialism and totalitarianism are indivisible. As in Yugoslavia under Tito, a multi-racial society can only work with totalitarian methods.
Recommendation 14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.
This makes crime subjective and gives other ethnic groups legal power over “White” people. Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.
Recommendation 38 which requests the” power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented” and the citizen loses legal safeguards and the state can prosecute repeatedly until it gets the right verdict.
Recommendation 39 is similar to the extensions to paragraph 10, Article 58 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code which ordered “face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter” to be investigated for anti-Soviet thoughts.
The Recommendation states: ”That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place.” (2)
Judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers – he discriminates in their favour! The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he hate this country? In February 2003 The Telegraph exposed him in “Damning verdict on judge.”
War on the Family
The judiciary also attack the family. Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference that she supported gay adoption, legally recognised gay partnerships, improved legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit and the idea of fault removed from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows there will be no impartiality towards this aspect of “the Culture Wars,” as she was announcing beforehand that she is against traditional values.
In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family judge.
Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family: “Family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship."
The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the preposterous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that their gender at birth was what they now say it is. What this twisted thinking means that they were not born what they were born but what they say they were born.
The feminist/communist hate campaign against the traditional heterosexual nuclear family has been an ongoing thing since the 1960's. The family law courts have been enabling this hate campaign since the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and subsequent anti-family legislation, by interpreting the law the way the media led feminist movement wish to and not in the way that Parliament originally intended.
Children and fathers are routinely treated as sub-humans, both inside the divorce courts and after the pre-determined anti-father ruling. Grandparents are also treated like dirt when it comes to accessing their loved ones.
Ironically, the same feminazis and treacherous anti-British judges support the pro-father Sharia courts.
They support outside groups against people with property. The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws they were allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are supposed obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This was later reversed but the bias of the judiciary had been signalled to interested parties.
Promoting Sharia law
As part of the elites Islamification programme in December 2008 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council he was willing to see Sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.
He also suggested Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.
In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England's first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a Sharia divorce.
Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights
In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”
Sharia law will be allowed as long as it doesn't 'lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments'. Who is going to decide on the principal of 'severe'. It is against the law to smack a naughty child so by that definition there should not be any Muslim law that would not 'come into conflict' with current law. 'Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements'. This would then create two systems of divorce.
Any 'white' Christian male who was divorcing, would, presumably, be able to choose a sharia court for his divorce. Equally a Muslim woman being divorced can choose a 'Western style' court. Who then would decide which court has superiority? The appeasement of Islam leads to conflict with Western values. The two are diametrically opposed and cannot be run with unity as much as the Cultural Marxists like to think it would.
The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU it was seen as helping political union in Europe and a move to one world government. They acted ideologically and challenged governments in many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab who shared the ideology came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.
In the sixties Liberalism changed from individual rights to group rights which is what is known as Cultural Marxism but as we became the object of prejudice and discrimination while the groups Hitler disliked became privileged and treated as superior. I think it’s more accurate to call it Cultural Nazism against White heterosexual males.
Britain – World Centre for Terrorists
One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn Britain into a world centre for terrorists who use Britain as a base to attack other countries from. Human Rights laws prohibit torture or degrading treatment so they stopped removing illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to countries where judges thought or pretended such treatment was practised. In 2008 at least two terrorists were released early from prison!
They also began to interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (prejudice) than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. Considering the terror attacks and the number of Muslim terrorists the judges have encouraged it is clear that White Britons are threatened by this group!
International law is neither based in national habits and conventions nor even democratic jurisdictions, but current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials. Through the Human Rights Act they gave asylum to countless people who are a military threat to us as long as they claimed they would be in danger if returned to their destination countries.
The judges use this legislation to grant rights to people refused asylum, who then hide in their ethnic communities here. As they could not be sent back too their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger. To see the moral corruption - a Taliban soldier who had fought against our troops was granted asylum because he feared persecution.
Home Office figures in December 2005 recorded that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since the terror attempt of 21 July were asylum seekers shows that the judiciary have breached national security; two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.
Protecting Terrorists
Abu Hamza was allowed to preach hatred on the streets of Finsbury Park even though the Yemen had requested his extradition for terror offences. The judges refused to extradite him because of his human rights. Britain has become a magnet for Islamic terrorists due to Human Rights legislation bias in their favour - that protects them and our benefits keeps them in luxury while they carry our their recruitment of terrorists.
A lgerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992 and was kept here for ten years despite three requests for his extradition!
In 1995, the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen but after the judges thwarted this. He lived in North London and was allowed to constantly post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.
In 2004, judges wrecked the governments’ attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial, which was introduced after 9/11, in “The Belmarsh Judgement.” This is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war. Lord Hoffman, made the ludicrous statement that Muslim extremism does not imperil the nation: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes from laws such as these.”
Lord Phillips' speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in support of the Human Rights Act, is sloppy, illogical thinking. “Control orders” were an attempt by the government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Human Rights Act.
Phillips acknowledged that the act has limited actions in “response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade," but, he said: "It is essential that (immigrants) and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society." There we have it: the law prevents the authorities combating terrorism and so reduces the risk of terrorism!
Even in County Courts judges make biased judgements. A pensioner wrote to me that a District Judge at Dudley County Court, penalised him with £430 costs for getting a hearing date wrong despite being in the early stages of dementia and having protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, another judge upheld the penalty. The problem, he thinks, is that he tried to represent himself for being discriminated against but the judges, who are usually former solicitors, awarded costs against him because the other side had a solicitor.
Defending Child Molesters
The one issue that does show the British judiciary as corrupt, immoral and at war with the British people is their repeated taking the sides of child molesters against the victims. Just recently there have been several sickening examples. In its report the Daily Mail used the fashionable euphemism “paedophile”.
On 10 July, Andrew Townsend, 51, of Hulme, Manchester, who had downlloaded child pornography so appalling that the judge could not look, but she still did not imprison him. There is no protection for British children.
The judge said that what he did was not a victimless crime, but:‘You must be aware the subjects of these images are not indifferent to what is happening to you. The public must be made aware of just how infectious this material is.’ Yet she rejected the option of sending Townsend to prison and instead gave him a three-year community order. Because there is treatment available that will be beneficial to him.
The Judge who gave child molester Stuart Hall a mere 15 months was forced to resign after being caught visiting a gay brothel in 1996. He resigned as part-time recorder of Bolton and gave up his position as the top lawyer for the Inland Revenue. He apparently, went into a ‘dark room’ in the club with a leading doctor and a hospital porter. Five years later the pervert was reinstated, and is now a senior judge.
Hall had admitted indecently assaulting 13 girls between 1967 and 1986, the youngest just nine years old. Russell said: ‘You have given pleasure to millions of people as a local television presenter in the North West, nationally in the It’s A Knockout series, and as a highly regarded sports commentator.”
After the announcement, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said: “I asked the court to consider the multiple offending by Stuart Hall over a prolonged period of time which involved numerous victims.
On 2nd August 2012, Judge Francis Gilbert QC was appointed resident judge at Exeter. He is a serial lenient with child molesters, handing out light sentences, bail, and overturning verdicts.
On 13th July 2011, he released six footballers imprisoned for raping 12 year old girls after a ruling that their 2-year sentences were “excessive”. The men had admitted charges of rape against two 12 year old girls in a park late at night. Mr Judge Francis Gilbert QC ruled that being imprisoned was inappropriate as it was a ‘difficult’ case. The men were released, their sentences cut to one year and suspended. Rather than protect children the judiciary protect child rapists.
Only sixteen days later, Anthony Milsom, described by the trial judge as a “manipulative and predatory” sex offender, was jailed indefinitely for public protection. Milsom admitted a series of offences dating back to the early 1990s like sixteen counts of possessing indecent images of children, twenty-one of of making indecent images, and five charges of indecent assault on a little girl when she was aged between four and eight. Milsom had newspaper cuttings murdered children Milly Dowler, Sophie Hook, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
His sentence amounted to life but appeal court Judges including Gilbert cut it to just three and a half years.
Parliament had to introduce an appeal against lenient sentences – to protect children as the judges will not do so,. The way to protect children is by imposing severe sentences that that signal to sickos that this sort of crime is not worth trying. By their acts these evil people forfeit any claim to be treated as human. The morally corrupt British Judiciary is something we must campaign against to restore law and order in this country which the judges are destroying. (4)
1.https://www.facebook.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
2.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/
These are just a few examples of how judges protect paedophiles
3.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
A judge who provoked outrage by jailing Stuart Hall for just 1
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/
4.http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/
https://www.facebook.com/
www.facebook.com
Friday 19 July 2013
'Byron syndrome'.
Henry Hopwood-Phillips.
Many things need to remain unconscious and just 'done' (as opposed to consciously contemplated) to remain alive. Call it 'Byron syndrome'... When, you try and seize on something, as Byron did on Greece, what was once just a way, a feeling, a BEING becomes a shell, something comprehended, its parameters fixed and therefore reduced to the status of an instrument.
Byron, therefore, didn't fall as Constantine XI fell, totally immersed and utterly Byzantine; Byron died with the very conscious knowledge that he could reinstate distance between himself and his subject, his theme. This freedom (granted by knowledge, a sort of original sin), the very fact this distinction could even be made suggests a breaking down of the whole. This is the instinct of the Romantic period, it is the nostalgia of being unconscious. Blake called it innocence but he mistook innocence of being for innocence of mind and therefore fell back on the child as the symbol. Rousseau, l'enfant terrible of his times, then conflated spiritual innocence with natural innocence, calling on a sort of unhistorical and ahistorical Eden to be resuscitated.
All these thoughts were the part and parcel of a West asphyxiating as it tried to remove its Christian skeleton. Rosenzweig famously split the Western soul between the two eternal ideas of
i) Contingent pagan Peoples
and
ii) An eternal Godly People.
and
ii) An eternal Godly People.
Identity has been a very obvious Modern casualty in this struggle. You can see it in the wrinkles that line Pius II's brow as the Pope notices few come to Constantinople's aid. You can see it in Thomas More and Erasmus as they hyperventilate over the Christian Princes turning on each other. Next comes the Thirty Years War, an awkward prologue to the more efficient World Wars (identities on steroids as the Christian fabric ruptures). Technology enabled this identity complex, an integral part of Modernity, to be exported in imperialism.
Nationalism belongs in (i). It is the death-march of a doomed journey. It can only seek death, Boudica style, because it knows deep down that even its best aspects: family, home, glory, honour etc. are in vain. This plays off the First Sin: Hubris - both being ultimately in vain (no matter how superficially justified in Milton). Nationalism is the attempt to reduce a feeling, a being, to a system, a dead fossil; it is a caricature of home.
And so it is with Islamism. Islam is reduced to a pastiche, its civilisational signposts stand but its dignity, its holiness stand as pillars of an otherwise bald and bigoted temple. It's suicide bombers are only the most dramatic way to expire in a civilisation which has birth rates plummeting at rates last recorded by lead balloons. But if Islam dies by death, we die by ossification; letting our bodies mirror our minds... We have stopped being human and become instruments: the worst death of all. The devil in Byron's mind at Missolonghi.
Cultural Marxism and Tradition.
David Hamilton.
The Establishment presents itself as moral and opposed to base things like prejudice, narrow-mindedness and bigotry. This arrogance prevents them questioning whether they have actually created a multi-racial utopia or not. They too are prejudiced but against their own people. Furthermore, their unrealistic and irrational policies have brought about the very situation the ideology of the last 60 years was supposed to prevent.
In the early days of immigration there was opposition to the "Colour Bar" influenced by the harsh policies of the southern USA and South Africa. Socialists were mainly CND types with beards and duffel coats. In the early 1950s university lectures and tutorials began to use work by American academics or popularisations of, say, "The Authoritarian Personality" like "The Nature of Prejudice" by Gordon Allport. These were idealists and overcoming prejudice seemed to lead to a better world.
These people came to power in the 1960's with university riots led by such as now MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit and new Establishment luminary, Tariq Ali. It was then that "racism" became the term of abuse directed against "White" people because of the behaviour of Hitler.
The New Left took over and kept the name Liberal but changed the content. Individual rights became group rights which introduced totalitarian thinking as group rights gave minority groups (victims) preferential treatment over the host population (oppressors). The aims of The New Left were totalitarian and this was summed up by slogans like “Everything is political” and; the call for social engineering: “We must change attitudes”.
This gave rise to the totalitarian state that is being developed now. Politicians, judges, academics, art elites, teachers, lecturers and media leaders inculcated that attitude at university. Liberalism changed from a quest for individual liberty and the Rights of Man to to a form of Marxist totalitarianism and the one-sided bias of Human Rights. French New Right thinker regards the New Left has having democratic goals but how he reached that conclusion is inexplicable.
The New Left were not Labour, working-class Socialists, but bourgeois, Socialists and middle-class students were the apparatchiks. They eschewed economics for identity politics. Classical Liberals genuinely believed in rights; the New Liberals (Left) were authoritarian.( 1) The identity politics are bearing fruit in the battle for homosexual marriage.
1968 was a turning point as the New Left took over universities and nearly brought the French government down with the riots in Paris, the LSE in London and Berkeley in the US. Many leaders of the New Left-Trotskyist groups like Tariq Ali became the new Establishment.
The New Left project was to destroy communities, especially working-class communities that supported the old Socialists while using the term for the new constituency groups like “black” and “gay” communities. They attacked traditional units like the family to replace it with “single mothers”, “lesbians” and “gay men”, and “alternative life-styles” which was presented as personal freedom and sexual emancipation; but ignored the unhappiness, loneliness and deprivation that being de-communalised and decultured causes. The abstract justification mattered; practical consequences did not. Now schools curricula is feminised and young men are denied the invigoration of competition and adequate male role models.
The Indoctrination of schoolchildren
In education Liberals allowed free expression within Liberal parameters and the style of essay writing was to consider the pros and cons of a case and discuss but Cultural Marxists, as the New Left are now known, are removing many subjects from the curriculum especially history because if people don't know their common roots it is easier to socially engineer them into a new people streamlined for utopia. They dumb-down and reduce vocabulary so people can only think what the elites want them to.
In 2010, Munira Mirza, a senior advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said schools were being made to spy on nursery age youngsters by the Cultural Marxist Race Relations Act 2000. Teachers have to report children as young as three to the authorities for using ‘racist’ language. She revealed that more than a quarter of a million children have been accused of racism since it became law, she said, and that was three-years ago. I have added some end links to support these points at (5)
Cultural Marxism inherited much from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book which was fashionable for middle-class students between the 50s and 80s. Mentors like Herbert Marcuse and Eric Hobsbawm were open admirers of Stalin. Both Chinese and Soviet Marxists dealt with dissent with a public show trial where the victims publicly abased themselves and confessed their crime. In contemporary Britain this persecutory role is performed by the media. (2)
The Liberal Capitulation
This movement would have got nowhere without the support of major popular musicians of the time like Bob Dylan and The Beatles. John Lennon donated to the IRA and Black Panthers.
Classical liberals capitulated to the New Left in 1968- colleges and universities gave in to protesting students and Hollywood surrendered to Mario Savio’s free speech campaigns and began a non-realism use of swearing. Despite this the Progressives forbid free speech in opposition to their ideology.
Times editor William Rees-Mogg defended Mick Jagger and Keith Richards in an editorial on 1 July 1967 To Break a Butterfly on the Wheel when they were imprisoned for using drugs. William Rees-Mogg also allowed Steven Abrams to place a full page advertisement in the Times, calling for the legalisation of so-called "soft drugs" on the 24 July 1967; (the same month as his defence of Mick Jagger, and just after the "Legalise Pot Rally" in Hyde Park). This was funded by Paul McCartney and supported by such great intellectuals as David Dimbleby, Graham Greene, Brian Epstein, David Hockney, Allen Ginsberg and Jonathan Aitken. It's clear where William Rees-Mogg and the Times stood in the Culture Wars – they promoted them.
The state surrendered to Oz after their 1971”Indecency”trial for the “Schoolkidz” issue. The three principles were imprisoned by Judge Argyle but the sentences were converted to fines.
Roger Hutchinson wrote in High Sixties that the Oz prisoners were taken from their cells to see Lord Chief Justice Widgery who had their handcuffs removed and gave them sherry. If they agreed to cease working on OZ, he told them, their appeal would be certain to succeed. They agreed and were released on bail the following day. Three-months later their appeal succeeded. People without responsibility like comedian Marty Feldman called Judge Argyle ‘a boring old fart’ in court.
Classical Liberals believed in rights for ethnic people and homosexuals but Cultural Marxists give them preferential treatment. They were undermining our respective Western nations with guilt but from the ascension of the New Left Whites became targets for abject hatred and the move to dispossess and dehumanise them began.
This shift in the 60s was the change from fighting for racial equality to dehumanising traditionalists as haters. The term “racist” replaced “racialist.”
In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003, Sir Alfred Sherman, former speech writer for Mrs Thatcher and lead writer for The Daily Telegraph, recalled the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60s:
I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.
Ideological Use of Language
We express thoughts and feelings through language, which is why the Cultural Marxists are reducing vocabulary so we can not think the wrong things. When the state controls thought and language we are controlled in our ability to think as was demonstrated by the descriptions of Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984. They use linguistic connotations like “racism” which only applies to “Whites” or “British”.
They try to change our thinking by changing vocabulary: the British government guidelines to the media suggesting certain words about non-white crime be replaced. The words to be suppressed included “immigrant,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal asylum seeker,” “bogus asylum seeker,” “non-white,” “non-Christian”. There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality as in the official designation of “Anti-Islamic activity” for Muslim terrorists. The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of, and to perceive, reality in the official way. If you think differently you are a “hater” or a “racist”.
Ideological change of the meaning of words passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: ‘bigot’ and ‘tolerance’ are prominent examples. ‘Bigot’ means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connotative word that only applies to the “far-right”. A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like, but is now misused to make indigenous British people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants.
The Media Restructuring Thinking
An example: the television programme “Gypsy Wars” contrasted a local woman and travellers who had invaded her land. They show her as a representative of us but in the role of the travellers to break the public's views of travellers and change their attitudes. They showed no young Gypsy men, because they are aggressive and would garner support for the woman, though the makers of the programme would not want to show them as a threat. Village life was not shown, because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman; the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor when she was the victim.
When the police had to evict travellers from Dale Farm the media again showed no men. For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Guardian newspaper to filter out applicants with the wrong attitudes.
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding(1689)
Locke wrote this people are born with blank mines which are then impressed by sensory experiences. We are born without rules for processing information; information is added, and rules for processing it, are formed by experience of the senses without any inborn tendencies. That is central to Lockean empiricism. The presumption of a free, self-created mind plus immutable human nature leads to the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights. Because of this belief we are being socially engineering and traditional ways of thinking systematically broken down.
Rousseau's Influence
The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, political theorist of the Enlightenment, who inspired the leaders of the French Revolution and the romantic generation, used Tabula Rasa to support his argument that warfare is an advent of society and agriculture, rather than something that occurs from the human state of nature. Rousseau used it to suggest that humans must learn warfare. We see this type of thinking now: if war were not learnt we would not go to war. This leaves out the important point that war is an organised form of human aggression which is part of human nature.
in 1750 he published his first major work 'A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts' (1750). The central theme was that man had become corrupted by society and civilisation. In 1755, he published 'Discourse on the Origin of Inequality'. Original man, while solitary, was happy, good and free and the formation of societies, which brought comparisons and, with that, pride.
The Fruition of Tabula Rasa
Tabula Rasa became fashionable in social sciences in the 20th century. Early ideas in eugenics held human intelligence correlated strongly with social class, but these ideas were rejected, and the idea that genes or "blood" determined a person's character became regarded as racist. By the 1970s, social scientists saw gender identity as socially constructed rather than from genetics.
We learn a great deal through experience and our senses, but are born with pre-dispositions to certain inclinations: a carpenter, poet or pugilist, say, are predispositions to those activities and will be inclined in those ways; if they try to operate in different fields they would likely find things difficult and un-inspirational.
The Fruition of Identity Politics
The term gender was a meaningless abstraction and gave an unrealistic idea of what is actually a difference of sex. This became the interchangeability of persons but has now nearly lost all meaning as all traces of distinction are being removed and leading to a chaos without accurate definitions. What stops homosexual parents calling their girl a boy or vica versa? I understand that men in a same sex marriage are ''husbands'' and both women ''wives''. That is gender specific but muddles perception of reality. The Same Sex Couples Bill is the fruition of Identity Politics as was the Equality Act 2010.
From the bottom of page 29 to 30 The Bill tells us:
The terms “husband” and “wife” here refer to a person who is married for
the purposes of paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 3. This means that “husband” here will
include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a
woman. In a similar way, “wife” will include a woman married to another woman or
a man married to a man. The result is that this section is to be construed as including
both male and female same sex marriage.
On page 30 it says:
The term “husband” will in future legislation include a man who is married to another
man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman); and “wife” will include a
woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man)
unless specific alternative provision is made.
A principle justification example in the debate,is that not all married couples produce offspring. This has been one of the strongest arguments for "same-sex marriage".
In an intelligent debate one may respond with these words: "Your opinions are irrational because..." The term to stop debate is "homophobic" and is used when the accuser is unable to articulate a rational reason against the most sensible and rational words of the accused. "Homophobic" seems to be an admission that one is unable to tolerate the truth and therefore the only escape from the truth is to pretend that the truth is irrational. (3)
The equality argument is that a male and female couple sometimes also have to resort to a Surrogate Mother, but this not an equal situation because the male and female couples' used as exemplers have a dysfunction but a male and male couple have no capacity for having a baby and always need outside help.
Traditionalism
Abstract thinking is a necessary part of human thinking but governance of the state like the family is a practical business that requires practical reason and concrete words to describe it. Abstract thinking in this sense has no clear meaning and leads to the interchangeability of persons.
To think practically about this would be to reflect on what is really happening from examples and, not propagandise people into thinking that wish would happen is happening. It is to consider the consequences of policies not socially engineer people for a future utopia; it is not to pretend human nature is a social construct, but by accurate assessment of how people really behave to make wise judgements of others. It is a belief in wisdom which comes from living life, rather than learning ideology by rote and mindlessly repeating the right things.
A concrete, definite vocabulary links people to reality instead of a dream of utopia as vague language like person and humanity does; terms like “Englishman or Englishwoman, Welshman or Welshwoman, Scotsman or Scotswoman or Irishman or Irishwoman”, “boy” and “girl”; land rather than country. They are more specific, convey a solid idea of substance; and get away from the woolly vocabulary that is a cause of our collective loss of touch with reality. This would clarify what we are referring to and make our common intercourse more realistic.
The Roman value of “piety” is also expressed in the Fifth Commandment: to honour thy mother and father. Unless they are very cruel parents, of course.
Learning history is a significant part of understanding how people behave from previous examples and of understanding ourselves by knowing our origins. The interpretations vary but the basic facts are consistent. We need to apply the lessons of history to our present circumstances. When aliens are invited in they start to take territory: it is human nature. There are historical precedents to guide us such as when the Anglo Saxons were invited in and then the Normans.
The way to develop a new world view is to study the effects of the elites policies and gather examples of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration; collate it and our version of reality begins to form. The first thing is to understand human nature and what people are capable of doing to each other. We also need to consider what gives life meaning and this leads to the idea that nationalism is about our nation and a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I distinguish this from the ideological notion on nation that grew from the Enlightenment: England, for example, has been an organic nation Alfred the Great.
Universal abstractions because they lead to unrealistic thinking- they have no substance. Human Nature is a substantial universal because everyone has it: it is not insubstantial and meaningless but a substantial universal because its shared by all peoples.
The ideology of multi-racialism was a reaction to Hitler's attempted extermination of European Jews and their aim - "it must never happen again." But it is happening again and caused by Western elites. Jewish people are being persecuted in France, Sweden and elsewhere by the Muslim extremists the elites have imported. What an indictment on Western neo-Marxist elites. But still they claim to occupy the moral high ground.
What is interesting is that Cultural Marxists smear Traditionalists as “far right” and even “Nazis” but one of our principle role models, Sir Winston Churchill, tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955. (4)
In the early days of immigration there was opposition to the "Colour Bar" influenced by the harsh policies of the southern USA and South Africa. Socialists were mainly CND types with beards and duffel coats. In the early 1950s university lectures and tutorials began to use work by American academics or popularisations of, say, "The Authoritarian Personality" like "The Nature of Prejudice" by Gordon Allport. These were idealists and overcoming prejudice seemed to lead to a better world.
These people came to power in the 1960's with university riots led by such as now MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit and new Establishment luminary, Tariq Ali. It was then that "racism" became the term of abuse directed against "White" people because of the behaviour of Hitler.
The New Left took over and kept the name Liberal but changed the content. Individual rights became group rights which introduced totalitarian thinking as group rights gave minority groups (victims) preferential treatment over the host population (oppressors). The aims of The New Left were totalitarian and this was summed up by slogans like “Everything is political” and; the call for social engineering: “We must change attitudes”.
This gave rise to the totalitarian state that is being developed now. Politicians, judges, academics, art elites, teachers, lecturers and media leaders inculcated that attitude at university. Liberalism changed from a quest for individual liberty and the Rights of Man to to a form of Marxist totalitarianism and the one-sided bias of Human Rights. French New Right thinker regards the New Left has having democratic goals but how he reached that conclusion is inexplicable.
The New Left were not Labour, working-class Socialists, but bourgeois, Socialists and middle-class students were the apparatchiks. They eschewed economics for identity politics. Classical Liberals genuinely believed in rights; the New Liberals (Left) were authoritarian.( 1) The identity politics are bearing fruit in the battle for homosexual marriage.
1968 was a turning point as the New Left took over universities and nearly brought the French government down with the riots in Paris, the LSE in London and Berkeley in the US. Many leaders of the New Left-Trotskyist groups like Tariq Ali became the new Establishment.
The New Left project was to destroy communities, especially working-class communities that supported the old Socialists while using the term for the new constituency groups like “black” and “gay” communities. They attacked traditional units like the family to replace it with “single mothers”, “lesbians” and “gay men”, and “alternative life-styles” which was presented as personal freedom and sexual emancipation; but ignored the unhappiness, loneliness and deprivation that being de-communalised and decultured causes. The abstract justification mattered; practical consequences did not. Now schools curricula is feminised and young men are denied the invigoration of competition and adequate male role models.
The Indoctrination of schoolchildren
In education Liberals allowed free expression within Liberal parameters and the style of essay writing was to consider the pros and cons of a case and discuss but Cultural Marxists, as the New Left are now known, are removing many subjects from the curriculum especially history because if people don't know their common roots it is easier to socially engineer them into a new people streamlined for utopia. They dumb-down and reduce vocabulary so people can only think what the elites want them to.
In 2010, Munira Mirza, a senior advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said schools were being made to spy on nursery age youngsters by the Cultural Marxist Race Relations Act 2000. Teachers have to report children as young as three to the authorities for using ‘racist’ language. She revealed that more than a quarter of a million children have been accused of racism since it became law, she said, and that was three-years ago. I have added some end links to support these points at (5)
Cultural Marxism inherited much from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book which was fashionable for middle-class students between the 50s and 80s. Mentors like Herbert Marcuse and Eric Hobsbawm were open admirers of Stalin. Both Chinese and Soviet Marxists dealt with dissent with a public show trial where the victims publicly abased themselves and confessed their crime. In contemporary Britain this persecutory role is performed by the media. (2)
The Liberal Capitulation
This movement would have got nowhere without the support of major popular musicians of the time like Bob Dylan and The Beatles. John Lennon donated to the IRA and Black Panthers.
Classical liberals capitulated to the New Left in 1968- colleges and universities gave in to protesting students and Hollywood surrendered to Mario Savio’s free speech campaigns and began a non-realism use of swearing. Despite this the Progressives forbid free speech in opposition to their ideology.
Times editor William Rees-Mogg defended Mick Jagger and Keith Richards in an editorial on 1 July 1967 To Break a Butterfly on the Wheel when they were imprisoned for using drugs. William Rees-Mogg also allowed Steven Abrams to place a full page advertisement in the Times, calling for the legalisation of so-called "soft drugs" on the 24 July 1967; (the same month as his defence of Mick Jagger, and just after the "Legalise Pot Rally" in Hyde Park). This was funded by Paul McCartney and supported by such great intellectuals as David Dimbleby, Graham Greene, Brian Epstein, David Hockney, Allen Ginsberg and Jonathan Aitken. It's clear where William Rees-Mogg and the Times stood in the Culture Wars – they promoted them.
The state surrendered to Oz after their 1971”Indecency”trial for the “Schoolkidz” issue. The three principles were imprisoned by Judge Argyle but the sentences were converted to fines.
Roger Hutchinson wrote in High Sixties that the Oz prisoners were taken from their cells to see Lord Chief Justice Widgery who had their handcuffs removed and gave them sherry. If they agreed to cease working on OZ, he told them, their appeal would be certain to succeed. They agreed and were released on bail the following day. Three-months later their appeal succeeded. People without responsibility like comedian Marty Feldman called Judge Argyle ‘a boring old fart’ in court.
Classical Liberals believed in rights for ethnic people and homosexuals but Cultural Marxists give them preferential treatment. They were undermining our respective Western nations with guilt but from the ascension of the New Left Whites became targets for abject hatred and the move to dispossess and dehumanise them began.
This shift in the 60s was the change from fighting for racial equality to dehumanising traditionalists as haters. The term “racist” replaced “racialist.”
In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003, Sir Alfred Sherman, former speech writer for Mrs Thatcher and lead writer for The Daily Telegraph, recalled the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60s:
I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.
Ideological Use of Language
We express thoughts and feelings through language, which is why the Cultural Marxists are reducing vocabulary so we can not think the wrong things. When the state controls thought and language we are controlled in our ability to think as was demonstrated by the descriptions of Newspeak in Orwell’s 1984. They use linguistic connotations like “racism” which only applies to “Whites” or “British”.
They try to change our thinking by changing vocabulary: the British government guidelines to the media suggesting certain words about non-white crime be replaced. The words to be suppressed included “immigrant,” “illegal immigrant,” “illegal asylum seeker,” “bogus asylum seeker,” “non-white,” “non-Christian”. There is the substitution of euphemistic terms for those that reflect reality as in the official designation of “Anti-Islamic activity” for Muslim terrorists. The use of Political Correctness is a way of training people to think of, and to perceive, reality in the official way. If you think differently you are a “hater” or a “racist”.
Ideological change of the meaning of words passes for common usage as people innocently adopt them: ‘bigot’ and ‘tolerance’ are prominent examples. ‘Bigot’ means one who refuses to listen to the opinions of others but is misused as a connotative word that only applies to the “far-right”. A classic example of this Doublespeak was during the general election campaign when Gordon Brown described a woman who asked him about imported labour as a bigot; but he was the one being bigoted because he refused to listen to her opinions! Tolerance meant to tolerate an action or to put up with something one did not like, but is now misused to make indigenous British people passive and accept being replaced by immigrants.
The Media Restructuring Thinking
An example: the television programme “Gypsy Wars” contrasted a local woman and travellers who had invaded her land. They show her as a representative of us but in the role of the travellers to break the public's views of travellers and change their attitudes. They showed no young Gypsy men, because they are aggressive and would garner support for the woman, though the makers of the programme would not want to show them as a threat. Village life was not shown, because that is appealing and viewers would sympathise with the woman; the woman was selected because she is not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor when she was the victim.
When the police had to evict travellers from Dale Farm the media again showed no men. For years vacancies in television were only advertised in the Guardian newspaper to filter out applicants with the wrong attitudes.
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding(1689)
Locke wrote this people are born with blank mines which are then impressed by sensory experiences. We are born without rules for processing information; information is added, and rules for processing it, are formed by experience of the senses without any inborn tendencies. That is central to Lockean empiricism. The presumption of a free, self-created mind plus immutable human nature leads to the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights. Because of this belief we are being socially engineering and traditional ways of thinking systematically broken down.
Rousseau's Influence
The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, political theorist of the Enlightenment, who inspired the leaders of the French Revolution and the romantic generation, used Tabula Rasa to support his argument that warfare is an advent of society and agriculture, rather than something that occurs from the human state of nature. Rousseau used it to suggest that humans must learn warfare. We see this type of thinking now: if war were not learnt we would not go to war. This leaves out the important point that war is an organised form of human aggression which is part of human nature.
in 1750 he published his first major work 'A Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts' (1750). The central theme was that man had become corrupted by society and civilisation. In 1755, he published 'Discourse on the Origin of Inequality'. Original man, while solitary, was happy, good and free and the formation of societies, which brought comparisons and, with that, pride.
The Fruition of Tabula Rasa
Tabula Rasa became fashionable in social sciences in the 20th century. Early ideas in eugenics held human intelligence correlated strongly with social class, but these ideas were rejected, and the idea that genes or "blood" determined a person's character became regarded as racist. By the 1970s, social scientists saw gender identity as socially constructed rather than from genetics.
We learn a great deal through experience and our senses, but are born with pre-dispositions to certain inclinations: a carpenter, poet or pugilist, say, are predispositions to those activities and will be inclined in those ways; if they try to operate in different fields they would likely find things difficult and un-inspirational.
The Fruition of Identity Politics
The term gender was a meaningless abstraction and gave an unrealistic idea of what is actually a difference of sex. This became the interchangeability of persons but has now nearly lost all meaning as all traces of distinction are being removed and leading to a chaos without accurate definitions. What stops homosexual parents calling their girl a boy or vica versa? I understand that men in a same sex marriage are ''husbands'' and both women ''wives''. That is gender specific but muddles perception of reality. The Same Sex Couples Bill is the fruition of Identity Politics as was the Equality Act 2010.
From the bottom of page 29 to 30 The Bill tells us:
The terms “husband” and “wife” here refer to a person who is married for
the purposes of paragraph 1(2)(c) of Schedule 3. This means that “husband” here will
include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a
woman. In a similar way, “wife” will include a woman married to another woman or
a man married to a man. The result is that this section is to be construed as including
both male and female same sex marriage.
On page 30 it says:
The term “husband” will in future legislation include a man who is married to another
man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman); and “wife” will include a
woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man)
unless specific alternative provision is made.
A principle justification example in the debate,is that not all married couples produce offspring. This has been one of the strongest arguments for "same-sex marriage".
In an intelligent debate one may respond with these words: "Your opinions are irrational because..." The term to stop debate is "homophobic" and is used when the accuser is unable to articulate a rational reason against the most sensible and rational words of the accused. "Homophobic" seems to be an admission that one is unable to tolerate the truth and therefore the only escape from the truth is to pretend that the truth is irrational. (3)
The equality argument is that a male and female couple sometimes also have to resort to a Surrogate Mother, but this not an equal situation because the male and female couples' used as exemplers have a dysfunction but a male and male couple have no capacity for having a baby and always need outside help.
Traditionalism
Abstract thinking is a necessary part of human thinking but governance of the state like the family is a practical business that requires practical reason and concrete words to describe it. Abstract thinking in this sense has no clear meaning and leads to the interchangeability of persons.
To think practically about this would be to reflect on what is really happening from examples and, not propagandise people into thinking that wish would happen is happening. It is to consider the consequences of policies not socially engineer people for a future utopia; it is not to pretend human nature is a social construct, but by accurate assessment of how people really behave to make wise judgements of others. It is a belief in wisdom which comes from living life, rather than learning ideology by rote and mindlessly repeating the right things.
A concrete, definite vocabulary links people to reality instead of a dream of utopia as vague language like person and humanity does; terms like “Englishman or Englishwoman, Welshman or Welshwoman, Scotsman or Scotswoman or Irishman or Irishwoman”, “boy” and “girl”; land rather than country. They are more specific, convey a solid idea of substance; and get away from the woolly vocabulary that is a cause of our collective loss of touch with reality. This would clarify what we are referring to and make our common intercourse more realistic.
The Roman value of “piety” is also expressed in the Fifth Commandment: to honour thy mother and father. Unless they are very cruel parents, of course.
Learning history is a significant part of understanding how people behave from previous examples and of understanding ourselves by knowing our origins. The interpretations vary but the basic facts are consistent. We need to apply the lessons of history to our present circumstances. When aliens are invited in they start to take territory: it is human nature. There are historical precedents to guide us such as when the Anglo Saxons were invited in and then the Normans.
The way to develop a new world view is to study the effects of the elites policies and gather examples of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration; collate it and our version of reality begins to form. The first thing is to understand human nature and what people are capable of doing to each other. We also need to consider what gives life meaning and this leads to the idea that nationalism is about our nation and a nation means a group of racially linked people with whom we belong by emotional attachments. I distinguish this from the ideological notion on nation that grew from the Enlightenment: England, for example, has been an organic nation Alfred the Great.
Universal abstractions because they lead to unrealistic thinking- they have no substance. Human Nature is a substantial universal because everyone has it: it is not insubstantial and meaningless but a substantial universal because its shared by all peoples.
The ideology of multi-racialism was a reaction to Hitler's attempted extermination of European Jews and their aim - "it must never happen again." But it is happening again and caused by Western elites. Jewish people are being persecuted in France, Sweden and elsewhere by the Muslim extremists the elites have imported. What an indictment on Western neo-Marxist elites. But still they claim to occupy the moral high ground.
What is interesting is that Cultural Marxists smear Traditionalists as “far right” and even “Nazis” but one of our principle role models, Sir Winston Churchill, tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955. (4)
1. Aidan Rankin, 2001 Politics of the Forked Tongue:
Authoritarian Liberalism
2. Rape of Reason is an interesting analysis of New Left
tactics at the Polytechnic of North London by Keith Jacka, Caroline Cox and
John Marks. It shows how Liberals gave in to them.
Roger Scruton.1985. Education and indoctrination: An
attempt at defining and a review of its social and political implications
4. Churchill tried to introduce a Bill to control
immigration but it was not ready until after he had to give up the Premiership
because of failing health. His successor Anthony Eden shelved it.
Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet
Years, 1950-1957 Macmillan. 2003 p 382
The Public Records Office hold a
document that records this: PRO DO
35/5217
Some supportive links
The attempt to destroy
us
Indoctrinating
schoolchildren
The anti- British
mentality
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297776/SATURDAY-ESSAY-Why-Left-epic-mistake-immigration.htmlTuesday 16 July 2013
Clegg; again with the soft populism; following up with no resolution.
Head Author.
Apathy and a general slump in manners, thought and communication in-person has arisen from a few generations of attack on the family unit, traditionalism and as a almost pathogenic-feeling factor of the mind regarding technological advance.
One may now enjoy quick, precise and effortless communication via electronic gadgets. Yet a price being paid is these gadgets in the arena of traditionalism and manners; with many children and even adults revoking the notion of conversation to embrace something that cannot be more important on their mobile phone or tablet. This may seem like a minor bitching however the consequences will last as children brought up like this will have less understanding of their families and thus less interest in protecting the family unit when parents themselves. They will grow up with less ability to think critically and receive information, they will gain an adulthood with a inadequate attention span and ability to speak to their own children.
All of this builds an apathetic atmosphere and is as damaging to young children as taking away their education.
I saw a middle-aged couple dining with presumably one of their parents; a frail appeared, old lady who was sat around the table with them. They were both glued to their mobile devices for an extended period of time, leaving the aged lady sat rejected and without converse. This, I thought, will only get worse when said couple are old themselves and sat with a younger generation; all of whom may be using their devices.
This will act as another cog in the anti-family machine that will, in part, inhibit children from the joys of understanding who their family really is; their heritage and history and thus the importance of standing up for family rights and rights of the individual. Further apathy created from this dinner-silence will only go to help the cause of big government and stripping of civil liberties without such people not even know its happening. This is why the response Nick Clegg gave regarding the check-out worker and her amazing and brave refusal to serve a customer on a mobile phone was sickening; he backed the worker yet benefits from such 'enviro-apathy'.
Nick Clegg attacked this 'modern curse' yet as usual didn't come up with any responsible resolution to a problem that will only get worse. He stated that he has 'banned' devices around his dinner table and in stating so he's only subjected that he has made his children do so rather than them wanting to interact. Devices at dinner tables shouldn't even be discussed or thought of whatsoever. This is enabling, in part, people to have no understanding of conversation in real life to an extent and is partially responsible for knee jerk reactions when people face an opposing point of view on a matter and
A sensible resolution could come in the form of letting businesses or all sizes make policy on such an issue. No mobile devices at restaurant dinner tables is very plausible as a house-rule and would encourage a better atmosphere within such a restaurant. It would give diners the opportunity to not dine there if such customers are so hooked on wired communication and it would allow such a business to exert a measure of integrity and tradition to its premise. I'd even go as far to state that it would help weak parents get their children off devices when they are supposed to be eating and conversing with their families.
Or perhaps we are to sit back and do nothing and allow such people to do nothing themselves. That would make Nick Clegg happy.
Apathy and a general slump in manners, thought and communication in-person has arisen from a few generations of attack on the family unit, traditionalism and as a almost pathogenic-feeling factor of the mind regarding technological advance.
One may now enjoy quick, precise and effortless communication via electronic gadgets. Yet a price being paid is these gadgets in the arena of traditionalism and manners; with many children and even adults revoking the notion of conversation to embrace something that cannot be more important on their mobile phone or tablet. This may seem like a minor bitching however the consequences will last as children brought up like this will have less understanding of their families and thus less interest in protecting the family unit when parents themselves. They will grow up with less ability to think critically and receive information, they will gain an adulthood with a inadequate attention span and ability to speak to their own children.
All of this builds an apathetic atmosphere and is as damaging to young children as taking away their education.
I saw a middle-aged couple dining with presumably one of their parents; a frail appeared, old lady who was sat around the table with them. They were both glued to their mobile devices for an extended period of time, leaving the aged lady sat rejected and without converse. This, I thought, will only get worse when said couple are old themselves and sat with a younger generation; all of whom may be using their devices.
This will act as another cog in the anti-family machine that will, in part, inhibit children from the joys of understanding who their family really is; their heritage and history and thus the importance of standing up for family rights and rights of the individual. Further apathy created from this dinner-silence will only go to help the cause of big government and stripping of civil liberties without such people not even know its happening. This is why the response Nick Clegg gave regarding the check-out worker and her amazing and brave refusal to serve a customer on a mobile phone was sickening; he backed the worker yet benefits from such 'enviro-apathy'.
Nick Clegg attacked this 'modern curse' yet as usual didn't come up with any responsible resolution to a problem that will only get worse. He stated that he has 'banned' devices around his dinner table and in stating so he's only subjected that he has made his children do so rather than them wanting to interact. Devices at dinner tables shouldn't even be discussed or thought of whatsoever. This is enabling, in part, people to have no understanding of conversation in real life to an extent and is partially responsible for knee jerk reactions when people face an opposing point of view on a matter and
A sensible resolution could come in the form of letting businesses or all sizes make policy on such an issue. No mobile devices at restaurant dinner tables is very plausible as a house-rule and would encourage a better atmosphere within such a restaurant. It would give diners the opportunity to not dine there if such customers are so hooked on wired communication and it would allow such a business to exert a measure of integrity and tradition to its premise. I'd even go as far to state that it would help weak parents get their children off devices when they are supposed to be eating and conversing with their families.
Or perhaps we are to sit back and do nothing and allow such people to do nothing themselves. That would make Nick Clegg happy.
Thursday 11 July 2013
'Right' to reply, interviews.
Head Author.
We have broadened our approach to include both interviews and a segment of 'Right' to reply in our mission to portray a message to the public regarding anything they'd like to read. Interviews will be of guests, varying from politicians to journalists that reside on the right spectrum and will be asked questions sent in to us by the public to ask such interviewees.
Also, we will in time approach a 'Right' to reply segment in which our host authors will respond to any news regarding an event or particular person (mainly British politicians) in which we will critique their actions or statements from a centre-right viewpoint. This may be in a positive or negative light depending upon the event or person and their actions.
We hope to include the public and our readership with such fresh-thought ideas and look forward to our launch next week in which we will attempt to interact with our readership to an extent rarely seen between a dedicated set of writers and the public domain.
We have broadened our approach to include both interviews and a segment of 'Right' to reply in our mission to portray a message to the public regarding anything they'd like to read. Interviews will be of guests, varying from politicians to journalists that reside on the right spectrum and will be asked questions sent in to us by the public to ask such interviewees.
Also, we will in time approach a 'Right' to reply segment in which our host authors will respond to any news regarding an event or particular person (mainly British politicians) in which we will critique their actions or statements from a centre-right viewpoint. This may be in a positive or negative light depending upon the event or person and their actions.
We hope to include the public and our readership with such fresh-thought ideas and look forward to our launch next week in which we will attempt to interact with our readership to an extent rarely seen between a dedicated set of writers and the public domain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)