The BBC and the Great and the Good bemoan the rise of the Far-Right, the Right itself, of ‘Populism’, that voice of the People so long suppressed and silenced by the BBC and the Great and the Good, now exercising their democratic rights.
They tell us the great Liberal project is under attack, from the Right, and that we are in great danger, the Thirties loom over us again….why? Take your pick….due either to Tory austerity, Brexit or Neo-Nazis on the march…they’re all the same to the BBC.
What they don’t dare say is where the real threat comes from and why the People are refusing to accept the Liberal world view as professed by the BBC et al.
Why are the liberal orthodoxies under threat? Is it because of some nihilistic, irrational, emotional, white supremacist, nationalistic driven rage and prejudice that we are told is the reason? Did this anger and determination to stop the liberal dictatorship come out of nowhere? Of course not but you’d be hard pressed to find the BBC provide you with a true analysis of why revolution is in the air. And is ‘liberalism’ really under threat as the BBC insists or is it the elements of Liberalism that are illiberal, the silencing of debate, the crushing of anyone who dissents from the über-liberal narrative, the labelling of anyone who talks about immigration as a Nazi, the undemocratic imposition of EU tyranny, the bizarre promotion by liberals of that other tyranny, Islam?
Ultimately it is that last subject that is the deal breaker, the one that ends the consent of the people to the liberal project as the BBC et al work towards to a virtual ethnic and religious cleansing of Europe of its Christian, and hideously white peoples by importing millions of people whose culture, identity and ideologies are so implacably opposed to European values and beliefs that a clash is inevitable. They wish to make Christians and Whites a minority in Europe.
The Liberals have caused the rise of the Right by their own illiberalism, their own tyranny of the virtuous. But they don’t see that. The answer they think is to do what the addicted gambler does as he loses his shirt at the tables, double up….all on Black presumably.
The answer to complaints about immigration is not less but more immigration…the happy clappy reason is that once we realise how wonderful immigrants are we’ll come round to accepting them en masse. The real intention is of course to get so many immigrants into Europe as to make it seemingly impossible to remove them or to stop their influence. Hmmm…for people who keep mentioning the Thirties that seems a dangerously foolish and naive notion…and if the Liberals’ policies are leading to the Thirties then they have knowingly created that situation but have buried their heads in the sand about it. Six million Jews are a testament to the stupidity and evilness of the Liberal plan…almost deliberately provoking the very ‘final solution’ scenario that they not so very subtly imply is the endgame if the Far Right were to take power…of course the Far Left would be just as likely to be similarly inclined though the BBC does not raise that possibility. If war breaks out and civilisation is cast aside then there are no rules, no Geneva Convention, no human rights. The BBC et al are creating the situation where that conflict is ever more likely. German and French politicans already state we are at war with ‘radical’ Islam. If anyone has ‘enabled’ Fascism or Socialism it is the Liberal elite.
The other concern is related to that immigration, Islam, radical or otherwise. Again the answer is to double up…the answer to Muslims becoming radicalised is…more Islam. Create a society where Islam is the norm, where Muslims practise their religion as they like to its full extent and of course non-Muslims will have to comply and adopt practices that don’t ‘offend’ Muslims, in effect becoming virtual Muslims and Muslims won’t then feel ‘alienated’. So to stop radical Muslims ‘Islamising’ society we Islamise it first. Good plan.
The BBC et al can bury their heads in the sand all they like. All they will get is one big kick up the backside…Trump and Brexit may just be the start.
Britain is now under a threat, the likes of which it has never been under. If Napoleon or even Hitler had conquered Britain, most of our British/Western culture – music, literature, art etc would be unscathed. Islam on the other hand will wipe out everything.
In the fullness of time, the very presence of Christianity- cathedrals, minsters, abbeys, will be demolished and razed to the ground (re: Bhumiyan Buddhas). So grave is the threat to the existence, nay, the very soul of Britain that it is not possible to rule out any policy to remove the Islam threat, just because it may harm some innocent person or minority group – racial, religious or secular, or ethnic. Besides, all of them can be compensated in some form at a later date, once the Islam threat is removed.
This is an existential war, and innocents will, and are being injured or killed. If removal of this threat means that we need to suspend parliamentary democracy for the duration – so be it. If it means suspending constitutional monarchy – so be it. If it means banning groups from the realm – so be it.
All can be reversed once the danger is eliminated. Each of the above is relatively benign compared to what will happen if a full scale civil starts up in Europe. Common humanity requires that peaceful methods be employed while they still can, rather then the final arbiter in such matters.
Bear in mind, that a European civil war has the unfortunate tendency to end up as a World war. But this time, it will not just be about physical territory, but spiritual and cultural territory. I posit that such a war will make WWII look benign and civilised. Beheadings will be the norm.
“If Napoleon or even Hitler had conquered Britain, most of our British/Western culture – music, literature, art etc would be unscathed. ”
What a staggeringly ignorant thing to say. The German treatment of occupied Poland is evidence enough to debunk this insane comment.
Hitler’s attitude and behaviour in Poland and several other areas of Eastern Europe, as opposed to that Western Europe whose culture he left reasonably intact, was because he considered Eastern Europeans as inferior and therefore unworthy of existing.
In the same manner strict Islamists consider all other religions, especially Christian based societies and cultures, to be inferior and therefore unworthy of existing. Hitler’s behaviour in Poland and the behaviour of strict Islamists in non-Muslim areas under their control is not all that dissimilar, except in that of scale.
Hitler would indeed have probably left British culture and way of life fairly intact, much as happened in the rest of Western Europe. Strict Islamists certainly would not and would be just as destructive here as Hitler in Eastern Europe and for much the same warped, twisted and totally evil attitudes.
MoreHamHead
Look at the consequence of Islamic takeover of countries, and compare with the Nazi takeover. In every case, the preceeding culture is wiped out. In Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Christianity, once a majority, is just a remnant, and well on the way to extinction. Churches are destroyed or converted to mosques. Finally, even the remnants are destroyed. In the more recently occupied countries, Pakistan, Hindus started out at 30% at partition. I think they are now around 2%, and facing immense pressure. Periodic massacres, and relentless persecution, is what causes extinction. Then there are the genocides.
In all Nazi occupied countries, the country as a historic entity, still exists.
In East Timor, Muslim Indonesians were well on their way to expunge the majority Christians from East Timor. This is in living memory, in the age of TV.
http://www.opendoorsuk.org/persecution/worldwatch/afghanistan.php?gclid=CMbX_K2yiNECFeUy0wodTkoNag
There is a video.
How long did the Nazis last?
How long has Islam existed?
Nazi occupation lasted just over a decade, maximum. Islamic occupation has occurred for centuries, or over a millennium. I cannot comprehend how you think you’re making a valid point here.
NCBBC is also ignoring the human dimension to culture, a Nazi culture would have euthanasia, eugenics, human experimentation, race based policies, race based ideology. As I mentioned in my earlier comment NCBBC would not be the ideal spokesman to warn the wider public of spreading Islamisation, because he will be ridiculed in the mainstream if he continues with the “Hitler and Nazism would have been better and is preferable to Islam” argument.
I suspect the Islamists will win in terms of the continued and state supported Islamisation of Britain and Europe, because the forces opposing it will be split and tarnished by these types of associations.
The question that should be of concern is, why is Islam so fatally toxic to civilisations, which Nazism or totalitarian communism were not. What set of parameters exist in Islam, that are fatally toxic to decent civilisations. And why is the recovery rate virtually nil.
Unless these keys are found, we will continue on a meandering path, once this way, once that, and eventually end up, another Islamic country. Its like Frodo knows he has to do something to save the shires, but does not know what, where and how.
The point is simply the result.
One can say that the Nazis lasted only a decade or so. All it shows is that Islam operates on a different time scale.
But what matters is the result. The fact is, that apart from a couple of countries, ones occupied by the Islamic invasion, were and are lost. There is no hope of recovery. Ones that were once occupied by the Nazis, still retain their culture and identity.
And as another example, one can look at the communist totalitarian regimes and massacres of the 20th century. They were worse in numbers of killed, invaded the public, and private space to an extent, and lasted almost 70 years. And yet, these countries have come out of the communist era, with their identity and culture virtually intact.
Not so for countries invaded by Islam. So what makes Islam so fatally toxic to civilisations, particularly decent ones.
Thanks BBC for your comments.
Your argument is only partially true in as much as it relates to the Slav peoples. The Germans had an exaggerated respect for France and Italy in the cultural sense.
There is no reason to think that Renaissance Italy and the art of 17th century France was at risk whereas it is certain that Isis and their like would see the destruction of our culture as mandatory and if that means Salisbury cathedral being destroyed then that is as existential as it gets and a declaration of war on me personally.
True Islam will not tolerate any other culture. Thats it. Whether it be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist,
All has to be destroyed for two main reasons
1. Any culture prior to Islam is Jahaliya, that is ignorance, and must be destroyed.
2. Any survival of a past culture in any form, is a threat to the Islam. Hence the destruction of the Bhumiyan Buddhas.
Virtually all the countries in the Middle East were once Christian. Where are the Christians now – killed or forcibly converted to Islam.
Note that Afghanistan was once a Buddhist country.
Note that Persia, was once a Zoroastrian country. Where are the Zoroastrians – a few tens of thousands in America, India and Britain.
The question that should be of concern is, why is Islam so fatally toxic to civilisations, which Nazism is/was not. What set of parameters exist in Islam, that are fatally toxic to decent civilisations.
The trouble is, we are looking at Global Islamisation from a parochial point of view. If the West is lost, Islam wins globally.
As far we, and the general Western public is concerned, Hitler is the embodiment of evil. TV has programs all year round on the evil of Hitler, and the Nazis, because he was the more proximate evil. But Stalin was worse. Communism took more lives, oppressed more finely, and more cruelly then the Nazis, and lasted longer. But Stalin and Mao get a pass. And we havn’t even considered Temurlane, Gengis Khan, Hulegu Khan etc.
Lets ask Frodo or Gandalf, what they would choose, if they were made to make a choice, to save the shires.
1. Hitler and the Nazis for ten years, tens of millions dead, but we recover our freedoms. One generation affected. The knowledge of the past still recoverable
2. Stalin and communists for 70 years. Tens of millions dead, but we recover our freedom in 70 years. Two generations affected. The knowledge of the past still recoverable.
3. Islam wins – No massive genocides, just a few massacres every few years, beheadings and crucifixions, sprinkled with constant dhimmi subjugation, and the slow extinction of civilisation as we know it. Recovery in a 1000 years, or never.
Even if we did recover our freedom in a 1000 years, we wont know what to do with it, as we would not have the books, the knowledge and living memory, where to start, to get where we should be.
Think Eloi. Think of the Islamic world’s continuous decay, until the West came along and took them by the scruff of the neck.
If we win, then all the world wins, and Muslims too, as they too would be freed.
So the problem is – why is Islam so fatally toxic to civilisations, which Nazism or totalitarian communism were not. What set of parameters exist in Islam, that are fatally toxic to decent civilisations. If one can answer this, we might be able to push back in an intelligent manner.
—————-*********************———————-
The other view is that we eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
And so
Merry Christmas all. And thank you for participating on such a difficult topic with good manners.
And pray for all of us. The last thing I want to see is a reaction in Europe, that will start another war. As European civil wars go, it will become a World war.
“Staggeringly ignorant”, “insane comment”: it is your own comment that shows lack of understanding or reason. Hitler would have treated us as fellow-Aryans. It would have been dreadful, but possibly less dreadful than it was for the French. NCBBC’s point still stands.
Banania,
How do you define ” Aryan ” ?
This is for Banania and NCBBC.
Banania “treated us as fellow-Aryans … possibly less dreadful than it was for the French”
What about French Jews they were sent to the gas chambers (assuming you are not a Holocaust denier). What about the mentally disabled – they two were “euthanized”. With Islam you have the option of converting to save your life. Under Nazism you can’t convert to “Aryan”, if you are not Aryan, to save your life. If you were a disabled Aryan you would be euthanized. If you were a dissenting Aryan you would be euthanized. Hitlers Nazism was based on a vision of a master race improved through breeding and genetics, with other races being slaves, denied rights and citizenship, while certain other races would be exterminated, along with various disabled.
The fact you can contemplate this and can support this would subject you to the claim that you were a white supremacist / racist if you took this line of argument out of this forum and into the mainstream.
So to NCBBC it would be extremely naive to compare Islam to Hitler, or Stalin or any other mass murderer in terms of saying Hitler or Stalin or whatever would be better. So I strongly advise not to make this type of comparison because it will make it more difficult for others to challenge growing Islamism – which I think we all agree on – that Islamism needs to be challenged and pushed back.
Hi NCBBC your statement: “If Napoleon or even Hitler had conquered Britain, most of our British/Western culture – music, literature, art etc would be unscathed. Islam on the other hand will wipe out everything.”
Will destroy your credibility and by association the message you are trying to make if you took it outside of this very narrow group that frequents this website. Although you would be right with respect to Napoleon you would be wrong with respect to Hitler and Nazism and the thousand year reich he was aiming to firmly establish. You will be accused of being a white supremacist or a loon or just plain ignorant and that accusation would stick. The Nazi’s would only tolerate a very narrow range of art – much of it was branded Jewish, or degenerate etc. Books were banned and burnt. Experiments on humans were allowed and so forth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
If you delve deeper you will see Islamists in North Africa and the Middle East were inspired by Adolf Hitler and made deals with him.
BBC,
You are quite right that many muslim leaders supported Hitler. However, Hitler and the Nazis were destroyed at great cost, whereas Islam is still on the rise. Who will destroy Islam ?
Are you suggesting only neo-Nazis and the neo-Nazi mentality have the passion and interest and tactics to thwart Islamisation? Hmmmm not sure, but islamisation is growing at pace which suggests there is nothing much opposing it. Militant atheists seem to be quiet, Jews – not enough of them and they are tarnished in the mainstream by the Palestinian card. The “English” – the concept of Englishness has been emasculated, tarnished as racist and replaced with Britishness. It is not clear where a coherent opposition is going to appear.
BBC,
No , that is not what I meant at all. What I meant was that the enemies of the Nazis had the willpower and resources to destroy them and did it. I do not see any equivalent will to destroy Islam.
Okay. Scrub my first line. But I got your message that there is nothing of any substance opposing Islamisation of Europe. But NCBBC doesn’t help by linking the argument against Islamisation with the “even Hitler and a Nazi state would be better line” … and this was the main point of my comments here.
BBC,
Yes, just a misunderstanding. The Nazis, Communists, the Left and Islamists are all on the same side of the same coin.
Yes, and let’s put a name to that – or at least a philosophical distinction. They are all collectivists, subscribing to beliefs which do not permit individualism in thought or action.
GC,
In a word, ” Yes ” .
BBC posted: Will destroy your credibility and by association the message you are trying to make if you took it outside of this very narrow group that frequents this website. Although you would be right with respect to Napoleon you would be wrong with respect to Hitler and Nazism
I take your point. What about using the totalitarian communist regimes of the 20th century, as the comparative evil? Or one can drop the comparison aspect.
What I’m trying to illustrate is the irrevocable nature of an Islamic takeover. Its there for all to see.
The current threat is not from Bony, Stalin , Hitler, Pol Pot etc. The threat is from Islam. It seems to me that the only person standing up to it , in the West is Putin.
In the East, China and Japan seem to be very aware of the “realpolitic”.
Grant
China and Japan, and for that matter, all East Asian countries, see no reason whatever to enrich their society with Islam.
But they must watch in total inexplicable horror, as the West suffocates itself, trying to appease the constrictor.
East Asian societies have admiration for the West. So this phenomenon of willful cultural suicide, must be a confusing.
Indian dancing, Polish sausages and child abuse – I feel so very enriched.
I just wish that for once in their miserable collectivist lives they would define what they mean by the terms ‘right wing’, ‘ the far right’ and ‘populist’. I doubt they ever will because in doing so, they would give the game away; ie. they are purposely left ill-defined so they can mean whatever these hate-mongers want them to mean.
John
Yes these terms need to be more accurately defined, but I wouldn’t trust the BBC to do so as they serve the Beeb Agenda perfectly.
Personally I struggle to identify a ‘far right’ anywhere in Europe & Britain apart from some nasty thugs in Germany who have always been lurking there for decades.
What the BBC & lefties identify as ‘far right’ is nothing much more than ordinary folk voicing a very valid concern about the culture shift & infrastructural problems vast numbers of muslim immigration is likely to cause, they also point out very wisely that amongst such immigrants there are bound to be those who wish to murder us. If there is any ‘hate’ out there it is limited to those who wish us harm & wish our culture to be destroyed.
These concerns are extremely pertinent, to voice them is not ‘far right’, neither is it a sign of any hatred. Those who suggest that they are ‘far right’ are either tremendously naive or else want to brainwash those who have little political knowledge,
Fascism is a very misunderstood & sloppily used word now. It does not equate to what is labelled ‘far right’ now – whatever or wherever that is, fascism is a totalitarian system of repressive governance where any dissent is not only stiffled but treated with the severest forms of punishment. It is manifested by racial hatred & the desire to wipe out races not tolerated. This is completely different from any ‘far right’ movement as I describe as to be laughable if it weren’t so serious. To suggest the similarity is insulting & totally disrespectful to the poor folk who suffered & died by the fascists in Germany, Italy, Spain, & even France.
If one detects intolerance, hatred, shutting down of debate or different opinions, thuggish behaviour & assaults, the desire to rewrite history to suit an agenda, then all these & more unpleasantness can only be laid at the door of the far left.
CranbrookPhil, I agree with you but I want to hear or see the definitions for these words from those who use them. I want them to tell the rest of us what they mean when they use those terms, otherwise we’re just inferring what they mean from our own experiences. By not giving a clear definition of what they mean, they are manipulating us into assuming a strong adverse meaning whereas if we knew what they mean, we are likely to conclude they are lying to us. I want to hear the lies from their own mouths, or to be surprisingly enlightened that they are really trying to tell the truth.
It would be interesting to try to press lefties or BBC clones as to what they really mean by such words, but have they have even tried to form a definition for themselves? The left use these handy words as a sort of left-spiel along with lies that are used like ammunition to mindlessly mow down opposition. The left do not really think or analyse, they just copy parrot-like a way of arguing, they are so predictable.
The word, ‘POPULIST’ is applied to speakers who say things that are considered by the majority to be, ‘POPULAR’ – that is a bad thing because?
Nazi, Fascist, Racist and Right Wing are just words directed at anyone not agreeing with the Liberal/Left/Elite agenda and translates as, “Fuck off and die – you don’t deserve to live in OUR country”.
R4 8pm.Liberalism’s Horrible Year
The Briefing Room
Liberalism died in 2016.
– Edmund Fawcett, author of Liberalism: The Life of an Idea, charts the rise and rise of liberalism, from Gladstone’s social reformers to the economic liberalism of Margaret Thatcher.
– Sir Oliver Letwin MP played a key role in the Conservative Party’s adoption of more socially liberal policies after 2005. He tells David Aaronovitch about embracing gay marriage, advocating green energy, and emphasising social justice.
But is liberalism a luxury of the middle class? – Lynsey Hanley discusses the link between social status and social conservatism. She explains why the working class may reject liberal values in defiance of the metropolitan elite.
– And Professor Nick Pearce, , suggests the changes liberalism needs to make if it is to prosper beyond next year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b085b73s
Stew,
Poor old befuddled BBC. They don’t really know what they mean by “liberalism” !
If I were to do a programme about the evisceration of the country i regard of its best brains-I too would choose Oliver Leftwing as an exemplar.
This is a very cultured, intelligent and civilised man.
Yet is on the wrong side of every major issue, and his limp grip on politics and the contemporary culture is so easily temoved. Up to know everybody`s been SO nice and polite-comedy of manners.
But Islam won`t be playing THAT set of rules any longer-and poor Oliver and similar head in the clouds liberal romantics will be wiped out.
If he was intelligent and cultured he would have defended our way of life and this he has not done so he deserves no further consideration or respect. We must stop even listening to these people.
I expect President Trump to set the tone. Ignore them for they are the past and must not play any role in the future.
it sounds like a parody . Was this show for real? They are truly finished and now it is important that they are shown no mercy . After what their cultural marxism has done to Europe they deserve only contempt ,removal from power and any say in our future.
[IMG]http://i63.tinypic.com/2cxvwx3.jpg[/IMG]
A good article:
http://www.weneedtotalkaboutislam.com/single-post/2016/12/22/German-authorities-more-concerned-about-Islamic-sensitivities-than-murdered-Germans
Alex
From your link
When the slain bodies laid in the market, all Angela Merkel could do was go on the offensive, thinking about nobody but herself, defending her own career and her most precious pet refugees.M
All she hoped was that the killer was not a refugee. Essentially, thinking of herself, and her pet future voters.
NCBBC,
And not thinking of the German people. Angela Merkel, a bitch from hell. And she has to go in 2017 along with many others.
Grant
I wonder what makes a woman like Merkel, who to all intents and purposes, looks like an “avuncular” aunt, become so insensitive and uncaring to the suffering of her own people – even girls and women.
Is she suffering from some undiagnosed mental condition – lack of empathy to those who are near. Donald Trump, though not a psychiatrist, seems to think so. In his straightforward clinical diagnosis,” She is insane”.
NCBBC,
Well, I am not a psychologist, but it seems to me that she is mentally ill. She was brought up in the Soviet Union and the Soviets’ idea was to crush any natural human feeling. Maybe that is why Merkel is so pro-Islam. Islam is so similar to what she was used to. Either way, the good Germans have to ditch the bitch.
PS. Maybe that she has no children is also a factor.
“Ditch the bitch”.
It has a ring to it. Like
“Drain the swamp”
She’s a nutter [Merkel] I mean.
No sorry Grant I can’t join the dots there, I also have no children ( medical not by choice) but I’m nothing like that evil demented bitch . I agree that her upbringing in the former East Germany could well be a major factor in her mental state leading to her compulsive attempts to keep hold of power using any means open to her.
Mrs Kitty,
I just said that it it is a factor, in my opinion. It does not mean that all childless people are evil, like Merkel. But, in her selfish, demented mind, it suggests that she has no investment in Germany’s future. By the way, I have no biological children, to my knowledge, but I do have 4 adopted kids.
Autism apparently has the effect, that sufferers are unable to empathize with those who are near to them. However, they can connect with the idea of empathy- say sympathy for aliens, that do not impinge on her emotional space.
One sees this in her uncomfortable selfies with illegal immigrants.
NCBBC,
To say the least , Merkel is not “normal “. There is something wrong in her mind .
Grant – I dont think we should make excuses for her and I consider in her case mental illness is just an excuse.
What she suffers from is what all of these “compassionate elite” suffer from and that is on overarching arrogance and a sense of their own superiority over the masses.
If you think about it the only difference between Merkel and all these other arseholes such as Cox, Lille Allen, Geldorf, Cumberpratt, Wee Jimmy etc etc. Is that she has the power to make it happen. We must not fall into the trap of dignifying her and her ilk with “mental illness”
You left out Gary Lineker.
Oaknash, I too don’t believe these people have a mental illness. If so, then Cain’s murder of his brother was due to a mental illness. I believe there are those who try to be good and there are those who are determined to be bad. I’d like to hear what people such as Mrs Merkel think they are and what they want to be. I have a feeling that a lot of those in power would tell us they think they are bad and they want to be bad.
Thanks Oaknash for bringing us back to reality.
The problem that liberals, true liberals, have is liberalism itself. Liberalism is built on a belief that all people are fundamentally good at heart and differences can always be negotiated away, with goodwill and the willingness to compromise.
Hence the appeasement of Fascism and Nazism in the 30s and then the alliance with Soviet totalitarianism between 1941-1945 until the iron curtain was recognised for what it was.
We are seeing the same appeasement of Chinese Communism and fundamentalist Islam in our times, the settlement with Irish terrorism has the same flavour.
Liberals can’t help it, what looks like cowardice is the delusional belief that everyone can be negotiated with, and if enough is conceded, everyone can get on without further conflict.
The modern day left on the other hand, pursue their goals by infiltration and entryism and the destabilisation of any resisting institution….such as monarchy, nation state, religion, university, schools, police and armed forces.
Angela Merkel, amongst others has been empowered by an alliance of liberalism and leftism, that endured so long as it provided decent living standards, prosperity and stability…… these three are now in question, they got complacent.
They invited in an enemy that doesn’t recognise liberal leftisms legitimacy.
The liberals and leftists forgot that hubris precedes nemesis.
The liberal left range from clueless feel good thickies through to dedicated nasty communists.
They think power end influence are the ends, and any way of getting there is justified. Utopia, perfectability and “Imagine”. These are joyless control freaks and deeply unhappy, unhinged and privileges in education.And need the State mechanisms with a salary.
The rest of do NOT want to be run by these weirdos-they despised us anyway,and we know what they`re like. We want truth, not power or influnece as they do. We want to be free and left alone to raise kids and pay as little as needed for the core functions that any state ought to concern itself with. We are NOT perfectable, we are not utopians-we are fallen,dopey and capable only of being as good as we can be.We don`t want to bully others, but won`t fall for the liberal lies.
They want a State to rule us-we want to rule ourselves, with the states underwriting on “the big stuff” like prisons and roads.
They`re now in freefall.
The fundamental fault lying at the heart of leftist politics is the ‘everyone is equal’ fallacy. It’s a nice utopian idea but trying to apply it in real life leads to the ruin of the economy and culture. It is anarcho-tyranny in practice.
Not everyone is equal when it comes to contributing to the ‘common weal’, and their rights should reflect that. So, if you have entered a country illegally, been imprisoned – and foolishly released, and then gone on to commit an atrocity that person has zero rights save the expectation to be shot on sight.
Shocking open advocacy of brainwashing of children into so called ‘liberalism’ and ‘diversity’ by Francine Stock, on The film program, radio 4.
She also acknowledges (joyfully) that this is what Disney films do!
Listen from 21 minutes in, theyre discussing animated films.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08590kg
If it’s ok, I’m posting this link to a little satire on liberal media jihad-denial syndrome.
http://www.faisalalmutar.com/2015/11/16/i-am-a-jihadist-and-i-am-tired-of-not-being-given-credit/
Something for our media and Islamophilic Government to consider
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265196/lies-and-hypocrisy-over-aleppo-daniel-greenfield#.WFvrCipGCL0.facebook
Wonder how many of those sites were far-right and why Al Beeb mentions far-right first?
“More far-right extremist and terrorist content is being removed from the internet after a growing number of tip-offs, the Metropolitan Police says.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38419969
Peter Crimes
“More far-right extremist and terrorist content is being removed from the internet after a growing number of tip-offs, the Metropolitan Police says.”
To me that is beginning to translate as “anything that disagrees with the government, European Union, BBC, Al-Guardian, islam, labour party etc point of view or sites that point out the truth about islam, european union, BBC, the government, the labour party, Al-Guardian, hope not hate, USF etc. does one consider given the BBC’s previous on this sort of thing to tell the truth on this sort of thing I dont but the BBC will readily spin the facts on this sort of thing to suit the BBC’s agenda
So the BBC and the great and good of the left are bemoaning the rise of the “alt right” hmmm. Have the BBC, Al-Guardian, the Leftards, the rest of the MSM and the “So-called great and good” are worried about the rise of the “alt-right” tried looking in the mirror as they think about the rise of the alt-right when looking in the mirror they would see the reasons for the rise of the “alt-right” though being the BBC, Al-Guardian, Leftards, The rest of the MSM, The great and good etc would be so full of themselves that they couldnt see or would be unable to acept that they the BBC, Al-Guardian, Leftards, the rest of the MSM etc are a major reason as to the rise of the “alt-right” while those of us who no longer rely on the BBC, Al-Guardian, the rest of the MSM, Leftards etc can think things through and see the reasons as to the “alt-right” rise