"While dictators rage and statesmen talk, all Europe dances — to The Lambeth Walk."

Monday, 23 February 2009

For Shame (III): The Death Knell for Freedom in Britain

Please read part 2 first.

Neville Chamberlain was not an evil man; his worldview was just very flawed. He thought that because he wanted peace in Europe at any cost, so must Hitler; but Hitler recognised only one standard, his own. However, he took the trouble to understand where Chamberlain was coming from; the Prime Minister wanted to go home and say he was a hero who had saved Europe from a bloody conflict. Thus, Hitler played him like a fiddle.

In war, of course, there can be no compromise; there is either victory or there is defeat. The problem is that we, from a traditional point of view, are ready to lose. War may not have started in the traditional sense between the West and Islam, but then it won't; as 9/11, 7/7 and all the countless other attacks on the West have proved, this war will not be fought in distant Stalingrad, Pearl Harbour or Alexandria, but in our own schools, our own cities, our own government.

The bad news is that the reason for this change is simple; Islam wants to win. Therefore it has successfully shifted the advantage away from the modern armies of the West and onto its bands of Third World zealots, the Mujahedeen. But blowing people up in their own capital breeds ill feeling; if it happens too often, people may turn on Islam before it is strong enough. Thus, we have the classic Hitlerian strategy; pretend you, the aggressor, are the injured party.

In this strategy, facts and logic do not matter. All that matters is that your implicit threat of violence is taken seriously, and your opponents genuinely believe your grievances are legitimate, and if they're addressed you will point your Panzers or your suicide bombers in another direction.

For an excellent example of this, I refer you to Operation Himmler, Nazi Germany's attempts to justify its attack on Poland as pre-emptive using 'false flag' operations. Reading it and thinking about the mindset and motivations of Nazi officials is a bit like stepping into some mind-bending alternative universe, but there are some parallels with an Islamic worldview; violence is fine when they are perpetrating it (Chechnya, Cyprus, Bosnia) but evil and wicked if anyone retaliates (Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia etc).

What to do? Many in the West, particularly the elites and governments, will not call this struggle what it is. Some of them genuinely don't see it, others are perhaps afraid of the consequences. But all of them are ready to lose.

Oddly, most of these elites have a very similar worldview to both Islam and Nazism. It is generally known as progressivism.

After a cursory glance they all seem quite distinct from each other, but they have several things in common; firstly, all three are all encompassing absolutes. There's a little room for manoeuvre, but generally speaking you either believe in them or you don't.

They all have lists of mysterious, powerful enemies who are secretly in control, and who they must oppose at all costs, just on principle. Despite the fact these enemies are allegedly so powerful and diabolical, they generally end up coming off worse in any direct conflict.

None of them are very good at tolerating dissent; even when they're in control of the schools, the media, the government, any resistance, no matter how paltry or token is seen as an unbearable affront.

All are based on notions of goodness; once the good are in control and the bad elements destroyed, the world will be a wonderful, Garden of Eden style place.

All don't just want your passive compliance or consent; they want to control your mind. You can't just comply, you must want to comply.

All are international in scope; tearing down borders and exposing other populations to their tender mercies is the definition of good.

You see, when it comes to Islam, I think many Western elites have taken the old 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' approach. Islam is the ultimate opponent of Western values and civilisation, the things progressives despise the most.

What stood out most about Wilders being banned from Britain was the reaction of the media. Yes, it was widely covered (probably far more widely than if he'd simply been allowed entry), but two things were immediately obvious; firstly, even the columnists usually described as 'Right-wing' had no time for Wilders, and secondly that not one of the writers who felt qualified to comment had taken the trouble to familiarise themselves with his actual views. They simply went on what they'd been told, or assumed.

For example, take the Sun columnist Jon Gaunt. He is a man whose views on most topics would be described as reactionary, populist, Right-wing under normal circumstances; however, these are his views regarding Wilders:

"... far-Right crackpot Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who has the dodgiest haircut since Michael Fabricant, is banned from entering our green and pleasant land because he wants to show a 17-minute film that slags off Islam.

... Now, I haven’t seen the film, just like I haven’t read the Koran. And I haven’t got any intention of doing either in the near future.Why? Because I am simply not interested."

Other than these highly controversial statements he is generally in favour of Wilders being allowed in the UK, but I find the quotes interesting anyway. In what way is Wilders 'far-Right'? What does that even mean in this context? Using our conventional, Western scale to measure these things, how would the average Muslim living in the West fare? The average Muslim outside of the West?

I think it's fair to say Geert Wilders is a controversial figure, and that from some of his statements and actions it’s clear he is determined to raise his profile by courting controversy further. However, isn't that just politics? Every day, in Britain and most Western countries, politicians come forward to say things they don't really believe or mean in order to garner popularity.
I would prefer to deal with someone like Wilders, who at least has some passion and says what he thinks rather than what he believes people wish to hear.

Going back to the quotes from Gaunt's article; what qualifies him to judge Wilders' political opinions if he's never seen Fitna? What qualifies him to dismiss Wilders’ views on the Koran if he’s never read it? I think we've hit on the problem here. Being 'Right-wing' is seen as such poison in the modern world that once that label is used, everyone needs to be careful. Even other 'Right-wingers', who wouldn't want to mix with someone who was too Right-wing, or the wrong sort. Like 'racist' and other words it has simply become a term of general abuse to describe someone who isn't a 'nice person', i.e. doesn't fit in with the officially sanctioned views on a certain issue.

When even self-described 'Right-wingers' are playing this game, we have a problem, particularly pertaining to double standards and an accurate perception of reality. There is a man standing behind the curtain, and he seems to be pulling the strings.

How else can we explain the Geert Wilders situation? Our government has spent decades telling us that border controls and excessive immigration laws are wrong, and that the European Union and mass immigration are good, right, and in any case, inevitable. Even when it is not telling us this, its actions (or lack of them) speak volumes about the real feelings of those in charge.

Although many of us always suspected they had double standards, this one action, turning back this one man just for holding the wrong opinions, proves beyond all doubt that the government is actively working against Western interests. They only care about rules when it suits them, they only care about controversy and violence when it might further their own agenda, or when such things target a group of officially approved victims.

Do these assertions sound outrageous or far-fetched? If so, allow me to present evidence that all is not as it seems. The British government claimed that Geert Wilders needed to be kept out to maintain 'community harmony', and for the 'security and safety' of Britain and its citizens.

Please watch the following video (it contains strong language):

Indeed. You may recognise it; I have it on the sidebar and I'm sure I've mentioned it before. I've watched it about 10 times in total now, and I still can't quite believe what I'm seeing and hearing.
The best part is right at the start, when the crowd are screaming 'fag-boys' at the police, and - it's quite clear to see - several coppers are sorely to tempted to just wade right in. But it seems they've been ordered not to, because they don't even when they're attacked with traffic cones later on.

This is not an aside; it's evidence. Evidence that the man behind the curtain is really there. You see, the very same government that denied access to Mr Wilders allowed most of these people into our country. Not just for this protest - Lord, no. As citizens, to stay. They ordered the police not to 'provoke' them, no matter what their actions.

The recent pro-Hamas riots proved that the British government now takes the line of least resistance when it comes to Muslim thuggery. The story that stuck most in my mind was relayed by Melanie Phillips, and concerned a middle-aged couple concerned about the Palestinian cause.

They attended the demonstration at the Israeli embassy (where later another riot took place), where a large and vocal minority were screaming Islamic slogans and waving Hamas and Hezbollah flags (the latter is a banned terrorist organisation in the UK and the EU). Whilst this was occurring, a young Jewish man wearing a Kippah arrived, and took an Israeli flag out of his bag.

Two policemen were immediately on the scene, the Jewish man was told he could be booked for 'incitement', but if he put the flag away and went on his way that would be fine.

This is the problem; the path of least resistance. If one of the Muslim crowd had been cited, there would have been a riot or bloodshed; easier to harass a law abiding citizen, even if he was doing no one any harm.

This thinking is the road to tyranny.

But then, as I see it, we're already a fair way there; because what is more frightening? The fact that the double standards I've described above are there, or the fact the government feels so comfortable blatantly lying?

How can they say with a straight face that Wilders is a threat after the events of January? How can they say that the government stands up for tolerance, human rights and dignity, when Gordon Brown hosted King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at 10 Downing Street in 2007? He also visited them, in the very top picture on the right, and urged Saudi-British partnership and co-operation.

I'm afraid it gets worse. Recent polls suggest that something like 75% of the British electorate feel there is too much immigration, but the government claims its hands are largely tied; free movement treaties with the EU, international obligations, human rights, the UN, etc etc.

The government have proven, as I said above, that this is simply a series of convenient excuses to enable something they want to happen; when they want to enforce our borders, the will is there.

But sadly it is generally not there; individuals who had previous convictions or should simply not have been here in the first place commit rape, murder, robbery, fraud. Anyone who mentions this is, of course, a racist. The case of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, killed in the line of duty by Somali armed robbers, is perhaps the most poignant of recent times.

The question remains though; why are these people here when Wilders could not come? Why are illegal immigrants able to successfully sue the UK Border Agency for hundreds of thousands of pounds when it does catch and detain them?

We're back where we started; the path of least resistance. To clamp down on immigration from the Third World, illegal or otherwise, would fly in the face of fashionable opinion - in the US, at the UN, with our governors in Brussels. In fact, there seems to be a protracted campaign both here and in the US to abolish the very concept of 'illegal' immigration.

Geert Wilders doesn't matter, because he comes from a small, civilised nation; the Dutch people who are in Britain aren't going to start burning flags or stoning the police. Something they have in common with British Jews, it seems.

He doesn't matter because his views are unfashionable, and no one who does matter will stand up for him.

That is why this incident makes me ashamed; Britain as a nation stood up to the likes of Napoleon and Hitler, because they were bullies. We knew we had right on our side and would not be cowed by tyranny and raw displays of power.

That Britain died at Heathrow on the 12th of February 2009. The government knows as well as I do they didn't ban Wilders for his views or potential actions; they banned him because they were frightened of the actions of the Muslim community, or a fair portion of it, led by a Muslim lord, no less. Not only does this vindicate Wilders and his views (oddly, his interpretation of Islam seems remarkably similar to that of the stone-throwers and bombers), but it makes the British government and establishment the contemptible cowards that Wilders referred to.

Now, it seems those who are prepared to use the most violence will always win the day. If you don't believe me, ask Jacqui Smith and David Miliband; they both admitted they'd never watched Fitna, yet they made their decision for a reason.
The reason? The mob rules, and that's the future of Britain if we don't wake up to reality soon.


Derius said...

And those who would like to know the similarities between Islam and Fascism should first read this excellent article here:


Once this article has been read and assimilated, it will be abundantly clear why we should pay no attention to those, in our Government, in the media and in our Universities, who presume to instruct us on what Islam teaches, without feeling to the need to study the subject at all.

Your pictures of Neville Chamberlain and Gordin Brown say it all.

Derius said...

"Gordon" not "Gordin". Oh the joys of typos!

The Venerable 1st Earl of Cromer said...

Thanks for the link, Derius.

I too would like to see an honest debate on Islam in the media, but I won't hold my breath.

It seems anyone in th establishment who knows what Islam is really about wants to hide it from us at all costs - can't think why!