Wednesday, 27 May 2009
The European Trade Union Confederation is supporting an important and ambitious project Civil Society Dialogue: bringing together workers from Turkey and the European Union through a shared culture of work, and your trade union organisation is one of the project partners.
The aim of the project is to reinforce contacts and mutual exchange of experience between the trade unions of Turkey and trade unions of EU Member States, with a view to ensuring better knowledge and understanding of one another.
One way of assisting this process is to identify and address existing impressions and prejudices that Turkish and EU workers may have of each other.
This is why the ETUC and your organisation are interested in your opinion and would like you to dedicate a few minutes to filling in this questionnaire.
Download questionnaire: http://www.unionlearn.org.uk/extrasUL/Education/questionnaire_EN.doc
If you should be so moved, visit the above site, complete the questionnaire and send the completed item to Sean Bamford at Congress House. However, I daresay that you may well be branded by the researchers as possessing certain prejudices that need to be dispelled and corrected by orthodox thinking (i.e. doublethink). "Prejudice" is a peculiar term to employ with respect to Islam, for the more I have learned of it in terms of its core texts, philosophy and practice over many years, the more I have come to find it utterly repellent. My attitude should therefore be more accurately rendered as post-judice, for I have made up my mind having examined the evidence. The TUC however, is not interested in promoting truth; it is interested in promoting politically correct ideology.
Whatever the nature of the majority of the responses that this questionnaire elicits, you can be sure of the fact that they will have no influence whatsoever upon the intentions of the TUC and the wider ETUC. Their course is set upon Turkish EU accession and the further demographic destabilisation and Islamisation of our European homelands that this would be certain to engender.
As well as the socialist shibboleths about equality, international class solidarity, combating racism and Islamophobia (sic), the trade union leaders will employ the specious argument re the need for a young workforce to compensate for an aging European population. The UK, the Netherlands and many other European states already possess populations in excess of their long-term carrying capacity, and if the shock of Peak Oil finally arrives before a new source of readily usable and cheap renewable energy is harnessed, we will struggle to feed the population that we already possess.
The justification of mass immigration rests upon the logic of the pyramid scheme, for the young immigrants in turn will grow old and require younger carers. Even if they were culturally compatible, such as Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians and Serbs, the question of numbers alone would in the long term cause us all to sink into immiseration. Given that the proposed main source countries and regions of future mass immigration are Islamic (Turkey, North Africa, the Middle East and of course places with so-called traditional links such as Pakistan and Bangladesh) our future will not be one in which we are cared for in our dotage, but one in which we will be treated either as dhimmis (if we are lucky), geographically displaced or murdered.
If you are a trade unionist, please acquaint yourself with the reality of Islam: it is an imperialist creed of violence and implacable intolerance, not a religion of peace as its apologists claim. There are of course many secular Turks who care little for Islam, but they are fighting a losing battle in their homeland. Let us by all means provide such good people with our verbal and moral support, and co-operate in the international sphere with those Turkish representatives who embody positive non-Islamic values, but let us remain as independent nation-states. We must leave the EU and we must regain control over our national borders. The old political categories of Left and Right are redundant. The new primary axis of political moblisation and affiliation is that of nationalism versus globalism. In the UK, only one political party possesses positive nationalist solutions to the problems that the country faces: the BNP.
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Miliband the elder is a strong advocate of Turkish entry to the EU. He wishes to see Middle Eastern and North African Muslim states become associates of the EU, and for them to gain eventual full membership. If he is not removed, our fate will be dhimmitude. Like locusts, these hostile aliens will eat up all that is of value in our nations and transform them into unrecognisable wastelands. Our ways of life, our cultures, our freedoms, our histories shall all be destroyed. Their memories shall be execrated and erased. We as European peoples will become lesser beings in our own lands, lorded over by implacably cruel Islamic overlords who will compel us to convert or murder us in our millions. Geert Wilders knows this, as did Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn. All have been slandered by the British media (particularly the BBC) as "right-wing extremists", "racists" and "fascists".
If you have ever voted for the Labour Party or are still a member, wake up! Miliband and his colleagues wish to lead us into a perpetual bondage the like of which our people have never known. The atrocities of William the Bastard would pale before those that would await us under Islamic domination. Islam divides humans into believers and non-believers, a categorisation akin to the Nazi ubermensch/untermensch or the Communist proletarian/bourgeois dichotomies. In each case, members of the former categories are given dominion over the lives and fates of members of the latter. In each instance, the second of each pairing is singled out for annihilation in a quest for ideological purity.
The difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical Muslim is nothing more than a matter of time: the former is prepared to wait to achieve domination through demographic means, whereas the latter aims to force the pace of the process through acts of political violence. The approaches therefore respectively resemble those of the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. Both paths lead to the same destination: the annihilation of we non-Muslims.
This terrible future is not inevitable. We can stop it peacefully, but we can only do so by first becoming aware of this threat and then taking control of our borders and giving no concessions to Islam in the UK and the other states of Europe: no more Muslim immigration; not one more mosque and no inward investment from Saudia Arabia channeled through so-called religious 'charities'. We must alter the teaching of our younger generation so that the truth about this odious anti-human ideology is known from the outset: Islam is an imperialist death cult. Islam is an enemy of reason. Islam is the scourge of women. Islam is an ideological cancer. Islam is not the answer to anything.
Watch Miliband prattle here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9cufg_david-miliband-calls-for-better-rel_news
See him bleat how we must "understand Islam" and respect that there are many ways of living our lives in accordance with "universal values." It matters not that what he says is nonsense, a mere act of doublethink. Of course, he does not mean "understand" in the real sense of the word; what he implies is that we should "defer to", "submit to" and "surrender to" Islam. This man is a liar. This man is a fool with no understanding of geopolitics and no respect for the indigenous citizens of the country in which he resides. He is a self-interested careerist; a dunderheaded cosmopolitan who does not understand that Islam is like cyanide: the smallest drop added to the most innocuous of drinks transforms its nature for the drinker quite radically.
He calls for a "coalition of consent" between the Islamic and non-Islamic world. This is an excursion into meaningless and dangerous fantasy. There can be only three explanations for his attitude: 1) he does not comprehend what Islam is and the deep intrinsic significance that it possesses for its adherants; 2) he is a closet Muslim convert; 3) he is an unprincipled sociopath. Then again, he could be all three. For further details, take a look at the following Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6329983.ece
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Recent polls show Labour's support dissolving faster than any principles that its leading members may once have held. All that the ruling clique of this former representative party possess in abundance is the will to power (or should that be the will not to be dislodged from power?).
Having feathered comfortable nests for themselves within the state (what remains of it) apparatus of the United Kingdom, these self-serving, self-interested agents of national dissolution, globalisation and Islamisation are rattled by the prospect of losing office. They may possess power in the formal sense of the term, but all authority they have lost, except in the eyes of their globalist admirers in the EU, the US of A and the behemoth corporate players of the transnational financial system. That the electorate of the United Kingdom is currently in a furiously febrile mood fuelled by the recent parliamentary expenses scandal is beyond doubt, but quite how this shall manifest itself at the forthcoming polls for the EU Parliament on 4 June it is difficult to divine.
The question of the abuse of expenses is but the latest in a litany of indignities heaped upon the electorate by the current Labour administration: national bankruptcy; the erosion of civil liberties; the curtailment of free speech; the ceding of sovereignty to Brussels; historically unprecedented levels of immigration; cronyism; the politicisation of the police; pointless wars; ongoing privatisation and Harman's legislation promoting active discrimination against indigenous heterosexual males. This collection of misdeeds is staggering in its scope, scale and application. That this Government has survived so long as it has is testimony to the forbearance of the average UK elector, but also to the unrepresentative nature of an electoral system that delivers a healthy majority to a political party that received only 35.3% of the votes cast at the last General Election, representing a mere 22% of the electorate.
It is well known that the parliamentary Labour Party is unrepresentative of its activist base, and that its leadership is in turn unresponsive to and contemptuous of the opinions of its backbenchers. So, all in all we see that a minority clique within a minority of the Labour Party with a minority public mandate is intent and able to inflict its programme of misgovernment upon us until the bitter end. In so doing it will wreak the maximum social and economic damage that time will allow.
How, given the aforementioned, has the Labour leadership decided to revitalise its disillusioned rank and file? What on Earth could possibly move them to campaign for such a blatantly undemocratic, anti-British, anti-working class party? What otherworldly superhuman powers could possibly move decent people to campaign on behalf of such a craven, corrupt, blood-soaked administration? Like many an organisation based upon faith, it has reason to resort to calling forth demons.
In this case it knows that the faithful will always respond to the call to slay the fascist beast, and the Party does not let the fact that such a creature does not exist obstruct its efforts at political mobilisation. So, the spectre of the BNP is invoked and bedecked with the mandatory accoutrements of leftist demonology: crypto-Nazism, racism, anti-Semitism, etc. From there it is but a short step to evoking the emotional resonance and warmth of memories of comrades long since fallen who fought in the international brigades and who liberated Belsen and Auschwitz. Meaning is restored to the grassroots activists who feel that their support and campaigning has taken on a noble purpose and mission. Of course, this is naught but illusion: comforting fables for the well meaning but wrong-headed, fed to them by a cynical leadership that understands and subscribes to the logic of Robert Michels's iron law of oligarchy. Thus are decent people duped and transformed into the hate-filled, bile-flecked myrmidons of UAF, Antifa and Searchlight.
What the members of the Labour leadership know and what they truly fear is this: that the members of the British National Party are (with a few exceptions, for all parties contain exceptions) not as they are portrayed. They fear the BNP not because it is a fascist party, but because its policies would exert a powerful appeal to Labour voters were they to overcome their prejudices and learn what they are. So far as I am aware, only one of the two aforementioned parties has advocated a succession of aggressive military interventions overseas (Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq), and it is not the party conventionally labelled with the epithet of "fascist" by its many detractors. This is why Labour and their confederates in the political mainstream insist upon the "no platform" policy.
If Labour activists wish to campaign against a powerful party of vested interests which seeks to subvert democratic norms, individual rights and liberties and to wage wars of aggression, they should look a little closer to home and reconsider the lies that they have been peddled for so many years by their leaders. Slay the fascist beast! Its name is New Labour.