LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH – very embarrassing!

LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH – very embarrassing!

The American people can now more readily “understand” why
the Obama’s were omitted from the guest list to the Royal wedding in April!
This is a very sobering article.  Our handling of relationships with the Britons
over the oil spill didn’t help

From The London
Daily Telegraph Editor On Foreign


“Let me be
clear: I’m not normally in favor of boycotts, and I love the American people.  I
holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against
the United States.  But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems
hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama’s
reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every

One of the most poorly kept secrets in
Washington is President Obama’s animosity toward Great Britain, presumably
because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya

One of Barack Hussein Obama’s first acts as
president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced
the Oval Office since 9/11.  He followed this up by denying Prime Minister
Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with

The president was “too tired” to grant the
leader of America’s closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British

Mr. Obama followed this up with
cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his
behavior as “rudeness personified.” There was more rudeness in store for Mr.
Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September.  “The prime
minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure
five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit
down  meeting were rejected by the White House”, said London Telegraph columnist
David Hughes.  Mr. Obama’s “churlishness is unforgivable”, Mr. Hughes

The administration went beyond
snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the
demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for
mediation of Argentina’s specious claim to the Falkland Islands, a British
dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English,
want nothing to do with Argentina.  When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine
dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British — with strong
support from President Ronald Reagan — expelled them.

“It is truly shocking that Barack
Obama has decided to disregard our shared history,” wrote Telegraph columnist
Toby Young. “Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him?”  One could
ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to

recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a
foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship
during his first year in office,” wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page
editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. “A lot of hemming and hawing ensued.”
One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr.
Obama is an open secret.  Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But,
said Mr. Diehl, “Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward

Obama certainly doesn’t care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on
missile defense.   Honduras  and Israel also can attest that he’s been an
unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend.  Ironically, our relations with both
Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse.   Russia has offered
nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama’s abandonment of missile defense.   Russia and
China won’t support serious sanctions on Iran.   Syria’s support for terrorism
has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations.  The
reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at
“engagement” by deepening its ties to North Korea .

And the Chinese make little effort
to disguise their contempt for him.

For the first time in a long time,
the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not
in the least feared by its adversaries.  Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the
majority of Americans.  Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr.
Obama’s relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care,  Americans
apparently have yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the
world community. They soon will.

— London Daily Telegraph editor —
Alex  Singleton

Administration Not Interested In Old Friends

Administration Not Interested In Old Friends

April 2nd, 2010


Obama is abandoning our allies

What is it like to be a foreign ally of Barack Obama’s America?

If you’re a Brit, your head is spinning. It’s not just the personal slights to Prime Minister Gordon Brown — the ridiculous 25-DVD gift, the five refusals before Brown was granted a one-on-one with The One.

Nor is it just the symbolism of Obama returning the Churchill bust that was in the Oval Office. Query: If it absolutely had to be out of Obama’s sight, could it not have been housed somewhere else on U.S. soil rather than ostentatiously repatriated?

Perhaps it was the State Department official who last year denied there even was a special relationship between the U.S. and Britain, a relationship cultivated by every U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt.

And then there was Hillary Clinton’s astonishing, nearly unreported (in the U.S.) performance in Argentina last month. She called for Britain to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.

For those who know no history — or who believe it began on Jan. 20, 2009 — and therefore don’t know why this was an out-of-the-blue slap at Britain, here’s the back story:

Read More:

It’s over: MPs say the special relationship with US is dead Obama strikes again

It’s over: MPs say the special relationship with US is dead

Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt and Josef Stalin

<!– Remove following

to not show photographer information –><!– Remove following

to not show image description –>

Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt and Josef Stalin

<!– Remove following

to not show enlarge option –>

Michael Smith

BRITAIN’S special relationship with the US — forged by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in the second world war — no longer exists, says a committee of influential MPs.

Instead, America’s relationship with Britain is no more special than with its other main allies, according to a report by the Commons foreign affairs committee published today.

The report also warns that the perception of the UK after the Iraq war as America’s “subservient poodle” has been highly damaging to Britain’s reputation and interests around the world. The MPs conclude that British prime ministers have to learn to be less deferential to US presidents and be “willing to say no” to America.

The report, entitled Global Security: UK-US Relations, says Britain’s relationship with America is “extremely close and valuable” in a number of areas, particularly intelligence co-operation. However, it adds that the use of the phrase special relationship, in its historical sense, “is potentially misleading and we recommend that its use should be avoided”.

It does not reflect the “ever-evolving” relationship between the two countries and raises unrealistic expectations, the MPs say.

“Over the longer term, the UK is unlikely to be able to influence the US to the extent it has in the past,” the committee adds.

In an apparent rebuke to Tony Blair and his relationship with President George W Bush, the report says there are “many lessons” to be learnt from Britain’s political approach towards the US over Iraq.

“The perception that the British government was a subservient poodle to the US administration is widespread both among the British public and overseas,” the MPs say. “This perception, whatever its relation to reality, is deeply damaging to the reputation and interests of the UK.”

While the relationship between the American president and the British prime minister was an important part of dealings between the two countries, the cabinet and parliament also had a role to play. “The UK needs to be less deferential and more willing to say no to the US on those issues where the two countries’ interests and values diverge,” the MPs say.

They are also critical of the US use of extraordinary rendition and torture. The report calls for a comprehensive review of the use by the CIA of British bases, such as that on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, to carry out extraordinary rendition.

“The issues relating to rendition through Diego Garcia to which we have previously drawn attention raise disturbing questions about the uses to which US bases on British territory are put”, the MPs say.

They express regret at “considerable restraints” on the ability of both the government and parliament to scrutinise US activities carried out on British territory.

“We recommend that the government should establish a comprehensive review of the current arrangements governing US military use of facilities within the UK and in British overseas territories.” The review should “identify shortcomings in the current system of scrutiny and oversight … and report to parliament on proposals to remedy these”.

The report also demands a statement from the government on the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment regarding the alleged collusion of MI5 in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident.

Last month the court ordered the government to release evidence from American intelligence reports which showed that MI5 was aware of the torture.

Senior US officials subsequently suggested that releasing such evidence might prevent the US from sharing some intelligence with Britain.

No longer Londonistan but Hamastan

No longer Londonistan but Hamastan

Wednesday, 24th February 2010

An immensely important and chilling analysis by the authoritative Intelligence and Analysis Information Centre in Tel Aviv highlights the shocking extent to which Britain has become the European epicentre of Hamas activity. Hamas, let us remind ourselves, is the genocidal terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organisation, now in cahoots with Shi’ite Iran, which is pledged to exterminate Israel and kill Jewish people everywhere, along with extinguishing human rights within the Islamic world. Its cause should be absolute anathema to the west, which should be doing everything in its power to stamp it out as the unconscionable threat that it is to life and liberty. Yet for the past decade, Britain has turned itself into the principal focus within Europe for the political, propaganda and legal activities of Hamas. The report states:

…in recent years, Hamas, with Muslim Brotherhood support, has managed to take over a considerable portion of the Palestinian discourse in Britain, at the expense of the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, and has contributed to turning Britain into a center for extensive anti-Israeli activity.

A broad network of activists and supporters: Initially composed of a core of Hamas operatives who found refuge in Britain in the 1990s, it is aided by radical Islamic elements (most conspicuously by the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ parent organization), along with radical leftist organizations hostile to Israel and the West. They make it possible for Hamas and its ideology to infiltrate British politics, media and universities. Hamas has supporters in the British political system affiliated with the radical left such as George Galloway, Ken Livingstone,1 Jenny Tonge and Jeremy Corbin.2

C. As far as the media are concerned, Britain is one of the most important centers in the world, especially for the Arabic-language press, television and Internet. By exploiting the Arab media operating in London and by issuing its own publications, Hamas gained the capabilities to spread its message to the Muslim communities in the West and its target audiences in the Middle East.

D. As far as legal aspects are concerned, Hamas exploits the British legal system, which enables it to use British courts to bring suits against senior Israeli political and military figures on accusations of so-called “war crimes.” Thus for Hamas (through its network of local supporters), Britain is a convenient arena in which the Goldstone Report can be employed to make political and propaganda capital against Israel, using it as a basis for trying Israeli public figures and delegitimizing the State of Israel.

3. In the extensive anti-Israeli activity undertaken by Hamas in Britain, the movement is careful to hide its identity to keep from running afoul of the British legal system and authorities. For that reason its activists and supporters (including those who were formerly Hamas operatives) are careful not to identify themselves formally as Hamas activists, preferring to appear as supporters of the Palestinian cause, identifying it with Hamas’ ideology and policies.

Examples of this activity include:

An online bi-weekly Hamas magazine is published in London. Called Al-Fateh, it is aimed at children, who a very important Hamas target audience. The magazine does not specifically say it is affiliated with Hamas, but its contents are clearly Hamas-oriented.

… The monthly Filastin al-Muslima, Hamas’ main publication, has been issued in London since 1981. It spreads hate propaganda against Israel and encourages terrorism and terrorists.

the satellite channel Al-Hiwar. It is an Arabic channel operating from London affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood… It spreads radical Islamic messages and hatred for Israel.

…[Hamas]involvement in (and possibly initiating) legal actions to try senior Israelis in British courts: Dia’a al-Din Madhoun, head of the Hamas’ “documentation committee” (Al-Tawthiq) said that the committee had initiated suits in British courts against former Minister Tsipi Livni when it became known that she planned to visit Britain on December 13, 2009. He said that the committee was working in coordination with a lawyer in Britain named Tayib Ali and a group of other lawyers.7 Hamas’ “documentation committee” seems to provide such lawyers with “evidence” (concocted by the de facto Hamas administration) as “legal” foundations for trying Israelis. Tayib Ali is active in forums in Britain working to try so-called Israeli “war criminals,” and to that end, on December 7, 2009 lectured at a seminar to promote trials of “Israeli war criminals” under the sponsorship of a group called The Middle East Monitor.

… in our assessment, Hamas’ involvement in university activity is carried out through radical leftist organizations and radical Islamic elements (such as activists affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood). Their activities include anti-Israeli incitement (through Hamas-supporting speakers who appear at university functions or student activities), initiatives for academic boycotts of Israel and for supporting the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip. Hints of Hamas involvement can be seen in the London School of Economics’ Student Union decision on November 26, 2009, to twin with the Islamic University in Gaza, Hamas’ political and military stronghold in the Gaza Strip. The Student Union of Queen Mary College followed in their footsteps (December 8, 2008). Both institutions are part of London University.

Providing money and material support for the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip through Lifeline convoys: The convoys are dispatched to the Gaza Strip by an organization called Viva Palestina, founded by pro-Hamas British MP George Galloway.

Every MP should be sent a copy of this report. We in Britain are no longer living in Londonistan, it seems, but in Hamastan.

The UK: Cool American Politics

The UK: Cool American Politics

Created 2008-07-29 12:53

Regarded as something of an anglophile, Barack Obama has said that it is time to “recalibrate” the relationship between the US and the UK, and to end the “poodle status” of the latter. The relationship will be a more equal one. Obama also favors the EU, which, he believes, is a democratic union of countries, brought together by the will of the people. This month, despite massive opposition, and the British public being denied a vote on the issue, Britain’s unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty, relinquishing more of Britain’s sovereignty to the EU. What will this mean for Britain’s and the US’s relationship?
Contradictions of political beliefs aside, Obama is the man of the moment, and his presence has been very much welcomed by the most visible figures of British politics, who are clambering to improve their public image. Brown is particularly in need. A few days ago his Labour party lost the Glasgow East by-election to the Scottish National Party (SNP). One of the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom, Glasgow East has also been one of Labour’s safest seats, and its loss has triggered much talk of a possible coup to oust Brown from power, or his possible resignation in the coming months. It also makes Scottish independence – or at least greater autonomy for Scotland – more likely after 2010, when the SNP plans to hold a referendum on the issue, though the SNP’s electoral gains in Scotland and the Conservative Party’s in England are a clear signal at the electorate’s increasing dismay at Labour, and not enthusiastic endorsements of the other parties. The voters have, in effect, switched to their second choices.
The Prime Minister has said that worries over the economy have created the backlash, but no sensible person can believe this. Mass immigration, a divisive “multicultural” ideology, failed hospitals and national health service, an inept, politicized police, the emergence of organized criminal gangs from Eastern Europe, an explosion of violent crime, and the belief that Labour will do nothing to reverse this downward spiral, accounts for the voter’s reaction. The Conservatives have been looking to the US, and to Obama, for solutions.
According to the latest Home Office figures 130,000 knife crimes were recorded last year in Britain, averaging one every four minutes. Cameron wants to see a ‘zero tolerance’ policy based on the approach that the NYPD took under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Police chief Bill Bratton, who was instrumental in tackling crime in NY, will now act as advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson. The carrying of knives, the presence of gangs, and antisocial behavior such as drunkenness or drinking on the streets (a common sight in Britain), are the initial targets.
Cameron is also talking of a “responsibility revolution;” but to what exactly? He has repeated Obama’s recent call for Black fathers to take responsibility for the upbringing of their children. Since then Britain’s Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) has issued a report [pdf], noting the positive effect of male role models on specifically poor White boys, who are not only often without a father, but who, academically, fall well below ethnic minority (including Black) children of similar economic backgrounds. The “responsibility revolution” seems to be “multiculturalism” repackaged: half-baked British ingredients, American label. But, this is not new.
Europeans and Americans have long wanted to mold their own countries on their perceptions of the other, though these perceptions have generally been wildly inaccurate. Europeans want to emulate their imagined liberal, modern, ephemeral, multicultural Hollywood America; Americans respect old world tradition. “Our [the US’s] founding institutions were profoundly shaped by the English tradition,” Obama announced on his visit to the UK, doubtlessly unaware of how embarrassing a phrase “English tradition” has become in England. Doubtless, he was also unaware that parliament disposed of Habeas Corpus in June of this year.
Cameron’s enthusiasm for emulating NY and Obama will not yield fruit, because he ignores the fact that the US has become, and remained, a great country because its leaders have continually reverenced legal ‘tradition,’ as well as cultural tradition, and the history of the nation. New York recovered in part because the city had the American tradition still in its social foundation. Americans – even NY liberals – believe their country is a great country, respect its founding fathers and Constitution, and are overwhelming religious and well mannered. Britain, which seeks to adopt the fashions and ideas of the US, has no such basis. Similar criticisms of the EU might also be made. 

Can Britain Survive multiculturalism?

The Execution of Britain

The Execution of Britain

Created 2008-06-05 12:14

I will defend all Western and indeed infidel countries against Islamic Jihad, but I admit I feel especially close to Britain, not just because of the long cultural and historic ties between Scandinavia and the British Isles, but also because I appreciate the good that has come out of British culture. It makes me all the more sad to see how humiliated this great nation is today, and how many natives feel forced to leave what once was their country.

In May 2008, 18 year-old Ben Smith was stopped in a routine check. The police officer noticed an English flag on the parcel shelf and ordered him to remove it because it was “racist towards immigrants.” One of the first things foreign powers usually do when they invade a country is to ban its national symbols. The fact that you can no longer run your flag in parts of Britain – and the Netherlands, Sweden, France, etc. – shows that the country is de facto under occupation, not just by Muslims, but by Multiculturalists and Globalists of all kinds.

In an essay entitled Put away the flags, Howard Zinn, the Leftist author of the best-selling book A People’s History of the United States, writes that “On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed. Is not nationalism – that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder – one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?” He concludes that “We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.”

The problem is, rights can only be protected by sovereign states upholding their territorial integrity. How is “the global community” or “the human race” going to protect Mr. Zinn’s liberties? For a free society to function, the state has to pass laws in the best interest of its citizenry and enforce these within its territory. Otherwise, self-government is impossible. In order to defend this territory from outside aggression, people need to identify with it as something more than just a random space on a map. By removing sovereign states, you remove the very foundations of a free society. Maybe some groups actually desire this?

The British Foreign Minister Milliband stated late in 2007 that the European Union should expand to include Muslim nations in North Africa and the Middle East. The French President Sarkozy and the German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed this early in 2008. Since the EU involves the free movement of people across borders, European leaders are thus opening the floodgates to tens of millions of Muslims at a time when native Europeans already feel like aliens in their own cities. It’s the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization and it has been planned for many years, as those who have read Bat Ye’or‘s writings about Eurabia will know.

I believe native Europeans should seriously consider creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement to protect our interests. Our authorities currently reward those who use violence and punish those who don’t. Native Europeans are ignored if we protest peacefully against mass immigration or the expanding pan-European superstate. Muslims get concessions while we are treated with increasing hostility from those who are supposed to be our leaders.

Muslims in Jordan, a country that takes part in the Barcelona process of “Euro-Mediterranean cooperation” and thus a likely future EU member, recently sued the Danish cartoonists who drew Muhammad for “blasphemy” against Islam, a “crime” that potentially carries the death penalty according to sharia law. Not too many years into the future, we could face a situation where citizens of, say, Denmark could be arrested by their own authorities and handed over to be tried for “crimes against Islam” in one of the Arab “partner countries” of the EU. If this sounds unthinkable to you, look at the case of the Dutch cartoonist who was recently arrested by a dozen police officers for the crime of publishing cartoons insulting immigrants.

PM Tony Blair expressed “profound relief” over the end of a hostage crisis in 2007 where British soldiers had been kidnapped by the Islamic Republic of Iran, telling the mullahs that “we bear you no ill will.” Blair will be remembered as one of the worst leaders in history. Even Chamberlain didn’t flood his country with enemies and present this as something positive. Mass immigration has been going on for decades but showed a spectacular increase under Blair’s and Brown’s Labour regime. The spike was so powerful that it is tempting to speculate whether the authorities had deliberately set out to dismantle their own nation.

According to newspaper columnist Leo McKinstry, the English are being turned into second-class citizens in their own country: “England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.”

Similar things are happening all over the Western world, not just in England or Britain, but Britain is definitely one of the worst countries, yes. I’ve been debating with people which country is most likely to get the first Eurabian civil war triggered by mass immigration. There are several possible candidates, but my money is on Britain, because the anger among ordinary citizens is only rivaled by the brutal political repression tactics.

In a survey published in April 2008, one in three medical doctors in Britain said that elderly patients should not be given free treatment if it were unlikely to do them good for long. At the same time, Muslim men with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits. The “welfare state” now means that the natives should watch grandma die because she’s getting old anyway and we need the money to pay Muslims with multiple wives and numerous children so that they can feel comfortable while colonizing the country.

Also in April 2008, David T, a stunned dad and his little boy, were banned from swimming at a popular public sports center in east London because this was a “Muslim men-only swimming” session. Several Christian priests have been physically attacked by Muslims in east London, leading one bishop to worry about “no-go-zones” for Christian in some parts of the country. In early June, a Muslim police community support officer ordered Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. They were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. In March 2008, two Islamic terrorists were moved to different prisons after complaining that their fellow inmates were “too white.” Dhiren Barot had masterminded a radioactive bomb plot involving limousines packed with nails and explosives and Omar Khyam plotted to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent.

How do native Brits react to this? Well, some get angry, as they should. Bryan Cork, 49, was jailed for six months for “racist slurs” after he had shouted insults at Muslim worshippers outside a Cumbria mosque, including “proud to be British” and “go back to where you came from.” This was after the London Jihadist bombings in 2005. Judge Paul Batty told him that racism in any form would not be tolerated. I hear much talk about “national suicide” these days, but Mr. Cork apparently had no desire to commit national suicide, he was held down by his own authorities for refusing to accept the organized destruction of his nation. What we are dealing with here isn’t suicide; it’s an execution of an entire nation, perhaps an entire civilization, the greatest civilization ever created by man.

Even children face this kind of ideological intimidation. Codie Stott, a teenage British schoolgirl, was forced to spend hours in a police cell after she was reported by her teachers for “racism.” She had objected, in the mildest possible terms, to being placed during class with a group of South Asian immigrants who talked among themselves in a language she didn’t understand. For this, she was dragged to the local police station and had her fingerprints and photograph taken. 18-year-old Jamie who has Down’s syndrome and the mental age of a five-year-old was charged with “racism” after an argument with an immigrant. Meanwhile, the UK is being brought to its knees in an epidemic of violent crime and white native girls get raped by immigrants in spectacular numbers, just like all over Western Europe.

Why do people still take this lying down? I wonder about that sometimes. Maybe they feel that their votes don’t matter and have resigned into a state of quiet apathy. Since many are dependent upon government support and being branded a “bigot” could cause you to lose your livelihood, people still have too much to lose by openly opposing these policies. Such subtle blackmail can be quite effective in suppressing dissent. This could, however, change rapidly in the event of a serious economic downturn. Another crucial element is confusion. People are deliberately kept in the dark by the media and the authorities regarding the full scale of what they are facing. Combined with Muslim violence and intimidation of critics, we have a climate of fear and confusion. People who are scared and confused can be easily controlled.

I’ve recently been re-reading the books of American evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, especially Guns, Germs, and Steel. He has some points, but his most important flaw is his complete failure to explain how the Greater Middle East went from being a global center of civilization, which it was in ancient times, to being a global center of anti-civilization. This was not caused by smallpox or because zebras are more difficult to domesticate than water buffaloes. It was caused by Islam. Diamond, with his emphasis on historical materialism, fails to explain the rise of the West and especially why English, not Arabic, Chinese or Mayan, became the global lingua franca. What’s so special about those rainy and foggy islands?

As Australian author Keith Windschuttle told a New Zealand audience, “The concepts of free enquiry and free expression and the right to criticise entrenched beliefs are things we take so much for granted they are almost part of the air we breathe. We need to recognise them as distinctly Western phenomena.” He warns that the survival of this great achievement now depends entirely “on whether we have the intelligence to understand their true value and the will to face down their enemies.”

No other civilization on earth ever created an equivalent of the European university system. One of the most important reasons why Europe surpassed China during the early modern age is more political freedom and free speech. The reason why English became the dominant language is because Britain and its offspring enjoyed great political liberty even by Western standards, and a corresponding economic dynamism.

Probably no empire in world history has been more benevolent than the British Empire, yet a report from February 2008 recommended that patriotism should be avoided in school lessons because British history is “morally ambiguous.” I suppose Islamic history isn’t, with almost 1400 years of brutal Jihad warfare on several continents?

I’m sure the British are being told that the ongoing mass immigration is a result of their “colonial history.” I live in a country with no colonial history, yet we are still subject to mass immigration. We are also being told that we should allow Pakistani or Nigerian flags to celebrate our Constitution Day because this will be “good for integration.” This has nothing to do with colonialism. So what does it have to do with? Well, I’m starting to wonder whether it has something to do with the Western love affair with free speech and political liberty. Those who desire a world where society is regulated and everybody does what the authorities tell them to do fear this Western preference for political self-determination.

If we look at the West during the past thousand years, we have generally enjoyed an unusually high degree of freedom and power sharing. This has been the case more in some periods and countries than in others, but in the big scheme of things this remains true. However, although this arrangement has been good for our civilization as a whole, some of our elites apparently are jealous of the more authoritarian system in other cultures. They want to turn the West into a “normal,” meaning more corrupt and less free, civilization, aided by the forces of globalization. We are witnessing rising nepotism, and perhaps those at the top desire this.

The political elites no longer believe in stupid things such as borders, cultures and national sovereignty. Islam upsets their world-view, so they ignore it and move on with their project of globalization, anyway. The most hardcore Leftists actively side with Islam because its hatred of the West and its concept of a global umma coincide with their own globalist outlook. Yes, I know that Socrates stated “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world,” but I don’t think he meant it quite as literally as Western elites do now. Socrates didn’t have an entire village of Muslims transplanted to his street during the space of a single generation, and he didn’t have his daughters or female relatives raped by Muslims in his own country.

Our traditional freedoms were the result of a specific culture, developed over centuries of hard struggles. Maybe other cultures have to go through similar struggles of their own to achieve this, and some will perhaps never be able to do so. We should protect our freedoms at home before we try to export them, and we should protect them by preserving the European-derived culture which created them.

Our enemies, internal and external, want to destroy the Western world because we represent liberty, and they want to destroy Britain in particular because it gave birth to the most powerful pro-liberty culture within the Western tradition. I hope the British can regain their strength and throw off their traitor class, but they need to do so soon. We cannot allow the greatest nation in human history to be destroyed by the planet’s most barbaric cultures. The British people, like their Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish and Danish counterparts, have every right to desire self-determination and self-preservation, and limit or even completely halt immigration as they see fit to ensure this. Those who say otherwise are evil, and need to be exposed as such. The Western world is under attack by a global Islamic Jihad. To support continued mass immigration of Muslims in this situation should be regarded as high treason, and punished as such.

See also:

Creating a European Indigenous People’s Movement
, 6 April 2008


Britons Say Enoch Powell Was Right

Britons Say Enoch Powell Was Right

A quote from the BBC, 17 April 2008

Almost two-thirds of people in Britain fear race relations are so poor tensions are likely to spill over into violence, a BBC poll has suggested. Of the 1,000 people asked, 60% said the UK had too many immigrants and half wanted foreigners encouraged to leave. […] Equality and Human Rights Commission head Trevor Phillips said the findings were “alarming”. […]

The survey was commissioned to mark the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech, in which he described the indigenous population’s “sense of alarm and resentment” over immigration. […] BBC home editor Mark Easton says Powell’s words, spoken to a small gathering in Birmingham’s Midland hotel, still echo down the decades. […]

Asked if they thought immigration meant their local area didn’t feel like Britain any more, a quarter of the sample agreed – double the amount who felt this three years ago. Six out of 10 said immigration had made parts of Britain feel like a foreign country. […]

[O]ur correspondent says immigration is now back on the political agenda. He says: “One reason politicians can debate it again, perhaps, is that the latest wave of immigration is different. The million Eastern Europeans who’ve come to the UK in the last three or four years are not looking to settle for good. Their motives are economic. And perhaps most importantly they are white. Forty years after Enoch Powell, the issues of race and immigration have been separated once more.”
More on this topic:

Rivers of Blood and the Mentality of 68, 16 April 2008

It Is Worse than Enoch Powell Predicted, 16 April 2008

Rivers of Blood Forty Years On
, 17 April 2008


Democide: Democrats and the Awful Truth of Genocide

Democide: Democrats and the Awful Truth of


By J.R. Dunn

Since the first of the year, I’ve been working on a project dealing with the connections between liberal policies and mass mortality – the easily demonstrated (though somehow  never mentioned) fact that, since at least the 1950s, liberal policies taken to their logical conclusion tend to create large piles of bodies in a process that might be called mass negligent homicide. (The technical term for this, one that I don’t care for, is “morticide”.)

This project involves a considerable amount of research into several distinct events in recent American history – domestic crime and justice, the Vietnam War and its aftermath, Rachel Carson and DDT. One of the pleasures of any form of deep research is the surprises hiding in the material. For instance, in this case, the discovery that Rachel Carson is not, as a number of observers claim, directly responsible for the DDT ban – the credit for that and all the deaths that followed, goes to a grim cabal of assorted bureaucrats. Or the fact that William Shawcross, a British left-wing journalist whom I had dismissed as a diehard America-hater, has in recent years rethought his position in much the same sense as and far more consistently than Christopher Hitchens.
Occasionally, you come across something more disturbing, some collection of facts that takes shape out of the material and presents itself as something bizarre, inexplicable, and utterly out of context, but at the same time impossible to refute.
I call them “wild cards”. You don’t go looking for wild cards – by definition, there’s no way you can know that they’re there. They have to come to you. You examine a particular data set, a collection of documents, a study, and suddenly something jumps out at you. Something skewed and strange, something nobody had seen before and that you never expected to see. Something that gives rise to the eureka response – but with a twist: I have found it, but what the hell is it I’ve found?
With the exception of physics, wild cards are far from welcome in most fields. Establishments like stability and consistency, and wild cards are the enemy of both. Physics, the single great exception, began the 20th century with two of the most consequential wild cards of all time, Planck’s identification of the quanta in 1900 and Einstein’s Special Relativity in 1905. Physicists soon got used to wild cards leaping out at them almost constantly, proving that you can get used to them if you have no choice.
In any case, the card I was dealt this time went like this:
Almost all the large-scale genocides of the past century have occurred during Democratic administrations.
Below appears a list of major genocides and democides (a word coined by the master scholar of mass killing, Prof. R.J. Rummel, and meaning any mass murder by government)  occurring during the 20th century from the 1930s on. Each of them accounted for something on the order of a million lives, several of them many more. The approximate number is followed by the date and the name and party of the U.S. president at the time.

Ukrainian Famine 1.5 – 7 million 1932 -1933 FDR — Democrat
Rape of Nanking 1 million 1937 FDR — Democrat
Great Purge Up to 10 million 1937 – 1939 FDR — Democrat
The Holocaust 6 million Jews (+ 5 million others) 1942 – 1945 FDR — Democrat
Operation Keelhaul 600,000 to 2 million 1945 – 1946 Truman — Democrat
Postwar Purge 1 million + 1946 – 1948 Truman — Democrat
Great Leap


Up to 45 million 1959 – 1962 Eisenhower — Republican
Great Cultural Revolution 1 – 10 million 1967 – 1969 LBJ — Democrat
Biafran Crisis 1 million + 1966 – 1969 LBJ — Democrat
Cambodian Year Zero 2 million + 1975 – 1978 Carter – Democrat
Boat People 200,000 – 1 million 1977 – Carter – Democrat
Ethiopian Famine 1 million + 1984 – 1985 Reagan – Republican
Rwandan Massacre 800,000 1994 Clinton – Democrat

Out of thirteen of these atrocities, no fewer than eleven occurred during the administrations of Democratic presidents. In fact, partially excepting John F. Kennedy, there’s no Democratic president following Franklin D. Roosevelt whose term was not marred by at least one massive foreign bloodletting. In contrast, Republican administrations feature only two: Mao’s Great Leap Forward, in which a nationwide artificial famine wracked China from one end to the other, and the Ethiopian famine, an almost identical episode that struck the ancient African kingdom in the mid-80s.
Darfur — which straddles both the Clinton and Bush administrations — may well make this list in due time, but has yet to reach the level of enormity of the atrocities listed. This is not to slight the magnitude of the human suffering involved. Darfur is an indictment of the international system as it currently exists. It could, and should, be rectified beginning tomorrow.)
Qualifications must be made in only two cases: while the Ukrainian famine began in 1932, grain seizures started in late Fall, almost simultaneous with Roosevelt’s election. And while the Cambodian Year Zero massacres began during Gerald Ford’s term in 1975, Ford was a caretaker president effectively overseeing a government controlled by a Democratic Congress. Jimmy Carter’s first full year as president coincides with the peak frenzy of the massacres. (While it’s true that the boat people continued arriving into the 1980s, the Reagan Administration defused the crisis by allowing several hundred thousand into the U.S. as refugees.)
Another set of qualifications, having no effect on the premise itself, has to do with numbers. Most of the mortality figures are ranges, many of them no more than estimates, and that they will remain. Few of the killers were as meticulous in their record-keeping as the Nazis were with the Endlosung. That said, some of the estimates, such as that of the Ukrainian Famine from Robert Conquest’s The Harvest of Sorrow, and the Great Leap Forward from Jasper Becker’s Hungry Ghosts. Mao’s Secret Famine, are very solid. The figure for the rape of Nanking also includes the other massacres in the Yangtze valley during 1937, as derived from Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking.
Another troubling point is that in most cases, very little was done in response to the crises. Many of the episodes, as we’ve grown used to seeing, are accompanied by open denial or an almost willful refusal to admit that any such thing is happening. Denial is usually the product of individuals or groups sympathizing with or aiding the killers – the Communist Party during the 1930s, the New Left following the Vietnam War. Unwillingness to believe, though much more common, is not often a product of evil intent, but simply an inability to acknowledge that horror on such a scale is possible. (This is best illustrated by Justice Felix Frankfurter’s response to an eyewitness of the Holocaust in 1943: “I cannot believe you. I’m not saying that you’re lying. But that I cannot believe you.”) While understandable, this remains a human failing and needs to be faced as such.
Because the result is paralysis or hesitation in confronting such events. While only one was carried out with the full cooperation of Western governments (Operation Keelhaul, the forced repatriation of Russian collaborators, prisoners, and expatriates at the close of WW II. Cooperation was compelled by the text of the Yalta Treaty.), a much larger number occurred with no intervention or often even comment by the civilized world. These include the Ukrainian Famine, the Rape of Nanking, the Great Purge, the Holocaust, the Soviet Postwar Purge, the Cultural Revolution, the Year Zero, the first three years of the boat people’s exodus, the Rwandan Massacre, and is now being repeated in Darfur. Only two exceptions exist in which the killings were matched by an extensive rescue effort – the Biafran civil war and the Ethiopian Famine.
The correlation between large-scale atrocities and Democratic administrations appears clear. There is no denying it. It is one of the most disturbing things I have come across in twenty years of writing history.
But what can it possibly mean? 
Some of these events don’t require special explanation. The Holocaust occurred because Hitler had a major war to cover the working out of his ruling obsession, the destruction of the European Jews. Operation Keelhaul and the events following the Vietnam War occurred because the perpetrators had been effectively assured that there would be no reaction – they could do whatever they pleased, and not a hand would be raised to stop them.
But unless we’re willing to accept the most moronic level of conspiracy theorizing, there is no straightforward explanation for the overall pattern. It simply can’t be explained by conventional means. There is no demonstrable connection between the Democratic Party and the squalid crews responsible for these crimes. No easy correlation involving behavior or ideology exists – these atrocities were carried out by groups ranging from the right to the left to primitive tribalists. Certainly not even the sleaziest American politician – much less an entire political party – would make an attempt to benefit from such events.
Which leaves us to fall back on sheer speculation, always keeping in mind that these are stabs in the dark
* To take the most esoteric first: could it be something structural, some process operating well below the current level of our awareness? A Democrat gets elected and for totally unrelated reasons, as a product of social or political forces of which we know little or nothing, dictators are encouraged to deal mortally with their perceived enemies. Global human society is a complex system, in the mathematical sense, ruled by laws and relations as yet unknown to us. Could this be a product of complexity?
* Could it be some sort of unconscious signaling? Some misinterpretation of something completely unrelated by the dictators planning these massacres? Or perhaps, not so unconscious?  Did somebody, God forbid, say something? Some remark that could have been taken as approval by one set or another of these goons? (This can happen. In1969, Henry Kissinger, generally despised as a war hound of the first order, may well have halted WW III by refusing to say anything at all to a Soviet diplomat who sidled up to him to suggest that the U.S. and the USSR cooperate in a nuclear first strike against China. Kissinger hurried away with a word – any answer under the circumstances could have been taken as agreement. And let’s not forget April Glaspie, whose diplomatic choice of words convinced Saddam Hussein that the U.S. would overlook his invasion of Kuwait.)
* Or is it simply a matter of the record? Dictators know their history – nobody better. They’re well aware that responses to such crimes are rare, and rarest of all with a Democratic administration. The record is perfectly clear on this, the point reiterated with each failure to act.  Dems are reluctant to get involved even when they’re fully aware of what’s happening – look at Carter’s behavior in reference to both the boat people and the Cambodian democide. In neither case did Carter make a single move – even as much as an official protest – before the rest of the world, in the form of the UN and various NGOs, was already involved. And tyrants do in fact think in such terms. Consider Hitler’s answer when asked about the worldwide response to targeting the German Jews: “Who now remembers the Armenians?”         
Or could it be coincidence? Correlation, after all, does not demonstrate causality. Overwhelming as the evidence seems, it could be a product of pure chance. Though I have my doubts – it all fits in too well with what we know to be true about the Democrats, their weaknesses and failings, the kind of disasters and blunders that accompany their rule.
The fact is, we don’t know. And we need to know. If a mass murder were to occur every time the optometrists held a convention, somebody would investigate. Here we have entire populations disappearing whenever the donkeys blow through town. It deserves a closer look.
But it won’t get one. It won’t get one because the people most qualified for the task – the academics – are almost uniformly left-wing. Such a study truly requires the skills of specialized historians and social and political scientists. But the chances of such a group carrying out an in-depth historical investigation involving their representative party is precisely nil.
But it won’t get one. It won’t get one because the people most qualified for the task – the academics – are almost uniformly left-wing. Such a study truly requires the skills of specialized historians and social and political scientists. But the chances of such a group carrying out an in-depth historical investigation involving their representative party is precisely nil.
Contrast this with the attempts to associate the GOP with various atrocities from the Holocaust to Darfur, always on dubious grounds. (Recent examples include efforts to implicate the Reagan administration in Saddam Hussein’s 1980s war crimes – a war in which a leading Republican said, “We’d like to see both sides lose”, and The Lancet’s Iraqi “civilian casualty” survey, which produced results ten times as high as estimates by the UN.) These claims have always been justified as expressions of concern for the victims. We look forward to seeing how strongly that sense of concern is maintained in this case.
So for the time being, the ghostly connection between the Democrats and the wagers of genocide must remain a shadow on our knowledge of history. A reminder of how complex things actually are, and how little we truly know.
Though it does throw a new light on 2008, doesn’t it?
J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.

Is the Sky Falling?

Is the Sky Falling?
By Victor Davis Hanson
The Washington Times | May 29, 2007

The suicide-murders and roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan sicken Americans. Soon-to-be nuclear Iran seems loonier than nuclear North Korea. American debt keeps piling up in China and Japan. And we think of angry Venezuela, the Middle East and Russia every time we fill up — if we can afford to fill up.

Then listen to Al Gore on global warming. Or hear Jimmy Carter on the current president. The common denominator is American “decline.”

Books by liberals assure us our “empire” is kaput. Brace for the inevitable fate of Rome. Conservatives are just as glum. For them, we are also Romans — but the more decadent variety, eaten away from the inside. In response, many bored Americans turn instead to the la-la land of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

Yet American Cassandras are old stuff. Grim Charles Lindbergh in the late 1930s lectured a Depression-era America that Adolf Hitler’s New Order in Germany could only be appeased, never opposed.

After World War II, it wasn’t long before the Soviet Union ended our short-lived status as sole nuclear superpower. And when Eastern Europe and China were lost to communism, it was proof, for many, that democratic capitalism was passe. “We will bury you,” Nikita Khruschchev told us.

After the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991, America proclaimed itself at the “end of history” — meaning the spread of our style of democratic capitalism was now inevitable. Now a mere 16 years later, some are just as sure we approach our own end. But our rivals are weaker and America is far stronger than many think.

Take oil. With oil prices at nearly $70 a barrel, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez seem invincible as they rally anti-American feeling.

But if we find alternate energy sources, or reduce slightly our oil hunger, we can defang all three rather quickly. None of their countries have a middle class or a culture of entrepreneurship to discover and disseminate new knowledge.

Russia and Europe are shrinking. China is an aging nation of only children. The only thing the hard-working Chinese fear more than their bankrupt communist dictatorship is getting rid of it.

True, the economies of China and India have made amazing progress. But both have rocky rendezvous ahead with all the social and cultural problems that we long ago addressed in the 20th century.

And European elites can’t blame their problems — a bullying Russia, Islamic terrorists, unassimilated minorities and high unemployment — all on George Bush’s swagger and accent. The recent elections of Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy in France suggest that Europe’s cheap anti-Americanism may be ending, and that our practices of more open markets, lower taxes and less state control are preferable to the European status quo.

In truth, a never-stronger America is being tested as never before. The world is watching to see if we win or lose in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Middle East will either reform or remain an oil-rich tribal mess that endangers the entire world.
A better way to assess our chances at maintaining our pre-eminence is simply to ask the same questions that are the historical barometers of our nation’s success or failure: Does any nation have a constitution comparable to ours? Does merit — or religion, tribe or class — mostly gauge success or failure in America? What nation is as free, stable and transparent as the United States?

Try becoming a fully accepted citizen of China or Japan if you were not born Chinese or Japanese. Try running for national office in India from the lower caste. Try writing a critical op-ed in Russia or hiring a brilliant female to run a mosque, university or hospital in most of the Middle East. Ask where MRI scans, Wal-Mart, iPods, the Internet or F-18s came from.

In the last 60 years, we have been warned in succession that new paradigms in racially pure Germany, the Soviet workers’ paradise, Japan Inc. and now 24/7 China all were about to displace the United States. None did. All have had relative moments of amazing success — but in the end none proved as resilient, flexible and adaptable as America.

That brings us to the United States’ greatest strength: radical self-critique. We Americans are worrywarts, always believing we’re on the verge of extinction. And so, to “renew,” “reinvent” or “save” America, we whip ourselves up about “wars” on poverty, drugs and cancer; space “races;” missile “gaps;” literacy “crusades;” and “campaigns” against litter, waste and smoking.

In other words, we nail-biters have always been paranoid that we must change and improve in order to survive. And thus we usually do, just in time.

Click Here to support