Tuesday, September 18, 2007

The fate of British Muslims who convert to Christianity

Channel 4 are to be praised and applauded – and quickly, before they are investigated by the CPS and charges laid at them for ‘inciting racial hatred’. Dispatches has dared to investigate the violence and intimidation faced by Muslims who convert to Christianity, and interesting viewing it was too for a religio-political system which professes to believe that ‘there is no compulsion in religion’.

Many of the 3000 Muslim converts to Christianity in Britain live in fear for their lives. Despite a network of churches supporting the converts, there is little police interest, and they are forced to worship under a veil of secrecy. The reason, of course, is that one may support from the Qur’an that apostates should be punished severely (ridda) for denying their prophet, Mohammed, and this severity extends to the death penalty. What Dispatches exposed is the reality that where the state does not have Shari’a, a form of Islamic mob justice is more than prepared to take matters into its own hands.

C4 notes that with ‘radical British Islamic groups calling for apostates to be executed if they achieved their goal of a worldwide Islamic state, it's a potentially dangerous cocktail that has been exacerbated by the silence of both Muslim and Christian leaders on the subject’.

Quite so. From the British Government to the Church, from the EU to the UN, there is a wall of silence. Consider the international stage. At the moment there are Christian twin boys in Egypt – a ‘moderate’ Islamic state – who are being forced to take Islamic education. This case highlights inequalities faced by kaffir (non-Muslims) in Egypt, where one’s religion, printed on all official documents, regulates family laws. Custody of children is automatically given to whichever parent is Muslim, and this Shari’a code is enshrined in the nation’s constitution. Conversion from Islam may be deemed to affect Egypt’s national unity or to incite sectarian strife, both of which are punishable by death. The UK, the EU, and the UN are silent on the matter.

And in Indonesia, Roman Catholic girls are being forced to wear a hijab, and they ‘have no other choice’ but to dress according to Shari’a law which is supposed to be applicable only to the nation’s Muslim citizens. Once again, the UK, the EU, and the UN are silent on the matter.

There may be 'no compulsion in religion', but everything about Islam - its taxation system, its social provision, its hierarchy, its system of worship - is designed to make the non-Muslim feel utterly inferior. Yet none of this matters to the man who is destined to be the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Prince’s Trust is sponsoring the production of ‘religious swimwear’ - by which they mean swimwear for Muslim women – in order to ‘to protect Britain's modesty’. Nothing was ever done for turban-clad Sikh men and boys, for whom swimming can be a highly problematic pursuit, but Muslim women are placed in a position of privilege by the Prince of Wales, because Islam is deserving of it.

No matter at all that he failed last year to extract an assurance from Muslim leaders in Britain that the death penalty for apostasy should be publicly renounced.

And Cranmer would like to know since when compliance with Shari’a law was deemed necessary ‘to protect Britain’s modesty’, whatever that means.


Anonymous Lega Nord said...

Your Eminence,
I would like to repeat what I previously wrote on the post "EU policing: a portent of things to come". Above all the final solution I proposed below is worth of Your attention.

You see what happen when you set free the Muhammedan obscurantist forces. Now everything's clear! There's an unholy alliance between the Muhammedans blasphemers and the communists! Both hate our Christian civilisation and want to destroy it. I wouldn't be amazed that if the bastard Che Guevara lived nowadays he'd recite the shahada or whatever they call this bullshit. Spot who're the real reactionaries? Us, the so-called racist rightists? Or rather the ComuMuslims? We, the Lega Nord, the Vlaams Belang and our brothers all around Europe, we are the real left, because we only serve the people by saying things everyone thinks but no one dares to utter.

The final solution:

1) Imposing dhimmi-status on European Muslims and consequently denying (or withdrawing) them citizenship and vote rights, and establishing their inferiority in relation to the Christians (in tribunals, schools, hospitals etc...).
2) Forbbiding conversions to Islam and punishing those who commit it by death penalty (additional cruelties are customary).
3) Beheading those who offend Christianity.
4) Organising random pogroms of the bearded beasts to control their number because they breed too quickly.
5) Encouraging those who wish to leave Islam by protecting them and granting them the rights they were previously denied.
6) Compelling Muslim pupils to receive Christian teachings (catechism) and encouraging their conversion since the tender age.

If these measures seem to you unjust, cruel "medieval" and sadic, well I'm proud to inform you that we didn't invent them: this is exactly the fate of our fellow Christians in the Muhammedan countries.
Long live Padania and Europe, down with Islam and Ummah.

18 September 2007 at 08:19  
Anonymous Lega Nord said...

The measures I proposed yesterday are exactly the ones today Your Eminence described, the only difference being that the roles are reversed. The Muhammedan beasts attack burn rape slaughter slay kill behead mutilate and whatever else, while the Christian suffer like defenceless meek lambs.
It's time to retaliate! It's time to start a new Holy Crusade to liberate our lands from the infidel invaders!
May God protect the Respublica Christiana from the cursed Ummah.

18 September 2007 at 08:27  
Anonymous B. Taylor said...

Although I do not have a problem whatsoever with Muslim women wearing swim wear that complies with Islamic modesty laws, I think that this level of official backing gives an unpleasant legitimacy to any British Sharia Law movements.

Incidentally, I for one would be intrigued to see what fate would befall an openly atheist Muslim....

18 September 2007 at 08:45  
Anonymous Lega Nord said...

Dear Ms/Mr B. Taylor,
I suppose you're British because of your very (too) tolerant opinions. But tolerance is ineffective whith Muhammedan blasphemers, because they, look at the world in an Islamic, not in a Christian or secular (laique) one. So whoever doesn't accept their vision is bound to be subdued, or worse, crushed: their mentality is a zero-sum one: I'm the master, you're the slave. Very barbarian, indeed. Do you grasp it? Therefore, even if I must bow to your British open-mindness I must also remind you that the bearded beasts that invaded your country don't give a ???? about it. Against barbarian mindsets we must use barbarian laws. Let's deprive the European Muslims of the Bill of Right, they don't deserve it. Remember: with our laws they'll conquer us (oh pardon, they're already doing it) and with theirs (i.e. sharia) they'll dominate us. I repeat it: let's deprive the European Muslims of the Bill of Right, they don't deserve it.

18 September 2007 at 09:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing the program failed to mention is that we have had freedom of religion here since 1688 and in 25+ years we have lost it.
How sad.

18 September 2007 at 09:22  
Blogger Straight Mike - tells it as it is said...

Your grace, Might I be so bold as to suggest that maybe Prince Charles is thinking of getting Camilla one of the Muslim swimsuits - mabe he should get her a burkah too, as that would be a big improvement!!
Isn't it refreshing that one can express disdain for the royals without fear of being burned at the stake?

18 September 2007 at 09:47  
Anonymous Lega Nord said...

To anonymous,
Damn right, the influence of the blasphemer barbarian infedels is destroying our beloved European civilisation, our great Roman Law, our Bill of Rights, our advanced customs, equality, liberty, our True Religion, everything... we must stop these perverted blasphemer beasts.
The European Parliament should pass a bill creating a degrading dhimmi status for all Muslims. They don't deserve any right.

Long live Padania and Europe! Down with Islam and Ummah!

18 September 2007 at 10:10  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The programme was interesting but where was Bishop David James, Bishop of Bradford, formerly Suffragan Bishop of Pontefract who had spent his time in Pakistan

The Bishop of Bradford is to take part in a major ecumenical venture later in the month when he visits Pakistan as part of an effort to bring about a closer working together between the Christian and Muslim communities.
by Maria Mackay
Posted: Saturday, August 19, 2006, 17:37 (BST)

“And as we witness how Christians and Muslims relate to one another we hope to bring back positive examples of co-operation.”

The Rev Canon Arun John, founder of an Asian Christian Ministry service at St Paul’s, Manningham in Bradford, will join Bishop James' team.

Canon John expressed his desire to deepen his understanding of Christian-Muslim relations.

“My first priority is to connect with the Pakistani Christians,” he shared. “Secondly it is very important for me as an Asian Christian to understand the dynamics of the relationship between the two communities; those in Pakistan and those over here.”

Also in the group are Dr Philip Lewis, Lecturer at the Peace Studies Department of Bradford University and the Bishop of Bradford’s Interfaith Advisor; the Rev Canon Frances Ward, Residentiary Canon at Bradford Cathedral; Sandra Herbert of the National Christian Muslim Forum and Canon Guy Wilkinson, Interfaith Adviser to the Archbishop of Canterbury.


18 September 2007 at 10:20  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Why are Muslims here? If you answer that question, you will see that they are not the fons et origo of our problems. Similarly why are blacks here? Many of them are attracted to Islamism as a means of harming whitey and are training many Muslims in gangsta kulcha. The problem is religious AND racial, not simply religious.

18 September 2007 at 11:43  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Nedsherry,

What rot you are talking. The 'blacks', as you call them, are not 'attracted to Islam', indeed, in many nations of the world they constitute the promising foundation of a continuing Christian orthodoxy. To muddle race with religion, as you are intent to do, is to reduce the whole argument to the superficialities of a BNP level of inquiry. This offers no solution to anyone.

18 September 2007 at 12:22  
Anonymous Giles said...

Prince Charles needs to be taken to one side and told that he can't adopt a "pick and mix" approach to being King. If he is unable to meet his role as Defender of the (Christian) Faith then he should feel free to renounce his claim to the throne.

Unfortunately, it would seem that some of New Labour's indifference towards the state's obligations to its citizens has rubbed off on Prince Charles. He can't just amend his duties to suit his own whims.

18 September 2007 at 13:24  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Your Grace
Although the subject matter of this august blog has remained at its usual high and thought provoking level I am of the opinion that unfortunately the quality of respondents have recently taken a turn for the worse and consequently this blog is in danger of bring hijacked by certain blinkered elements.

Whilst rightly refusing to sensor the comments of your communicants, I am pleased to see Your Graces intervention in upbraiding these obnoxious attitudes. Perhaps a little more ’guidance’ when appropriate will keep the level of debate from deteriorating into a xenophobic rant.

18 September 2007 at 13:39  
Anonymous Legion of Normal said...

Indeed, it seems some contributors debate has declined to that of a loudly braying cow.

18 September 2007 at 15:14  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

His Grace is monitoring his august blog just as the Lord acquaints himself with every bird that falls and counts the hairs on one's head (rather easy in His Grace's case).

He shall not compromise on his exacting standards. Erudite and intelligent comment will prevail.

His Grace would like to refer all communicants to his 'Bottom Line'. Racism and ranting belong elsewhere.

18 September 2007 at 16:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone with an interest in the state of modern-day Anglican/Arab relations might be intrigued to read an account by one of my ancestors of his visit to Jerusalem in the 1870s - http://anglicanhistory.org/me/keer_jerusalem1874.html

Some amusing anecdotes, especially the borrowing of a sheikh's horse which '..delighted in a gallop.'

18 September 2007 at 16:21  
Anonymous 4micah said...

Mr. Cranmer,

You've got it all wrong. Haven't you heard about the glories of Al Andalus? Well, that's what happens when you have Muslims in charge of a State: life becomes a multicultural bliss with Jews, Christians, and Muslims working side by side and getting along perfectly. When Christians are in charge, the situation descends into oppression and persecution a la Isabella and Ferdinand's Spain. These indisputable historical paradigms belie all the claims you made in your article.

18 September 2007 at 17:21  
Anonymous B. Taylor said...


Can I just say that the way a historical state was run 1300 years ago has no bearing on what happens today.

Can I refer you to http://www.christianpersecution.info/middleeast-archive.php and ask if an Islamic state is really a place of true peace and justice for all?

18 September 2007 at 17:37  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

What rot you are talking. The 'blacks', as you call them, are not 'attracted to Islam',

I am sorry to disturb His Grace's complacency with facts, but I must remind him that a Jamaican black convert blew himself up on 7/7; that more blacks attempted to follow this lead shortly thereafter; and that Richard Reid, the so-called Shoe Bomber, is half-Jamaican and converted in prison. Reid is far from exceptional, as Theodore Dalrymple has pointed out:

TD: In prison I saw black people converting to Islam. These were not immigrants of course, but native British-born people. Conversion to religion can lead to an improvement in day to day behaviour, if people do not become extremists, because religion can give a transcendent purpose. The question, however, is whether Islam is inherently unstable and will always tend to extremism. That is the question that has to be answered.

PB: What is your view? Is Islam inherently unstable?

TD: I personally think it probably is, because it does not have anybody to define the doctrine. There is no hierarchy in Islam.


Being of low average intelligence, blacks will be less dangerous recruits to Islamism than Asians, but His Grace should not pretend that they are not being recruited at all.

...indeed, in many nations of the world they constitute the promising foundation of a continuing Christian orthodoxy.

I fail to see how this means blacks are not also converting to Islam. Christianity is, I believe, flourishing in Zimbabwe and South Africa. So is barbarism. Blacks are quite capable of nurturing both.

To muddle race with religion, as you are intent to do, is to reduce the whole argument to the superficialities of a BNP level of inquiry. This offers no solution to anyone.

I am not muddling race with religion, I am pointing out what is true: that they are intimately related in this particular context. Religious antagonisms will feed on racial antagonisms, and vice versâ. His Grace's politically correct squeamishness about 'racism' is further proof that he are closer to the liberals than he might like to think. Peter Simple, who viewed the BNP with some sympathy, was continually accused of 'racism'. Matthew D'Acona, of whom His Grace sadly seems far more reminiscent, has never received that honour, to the best of my knowledge. I doubt he is worthy of it.

18 September 2007 at 18:02  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Nedsherry,

It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without that contrary opinion rendering one either 'politically correct' or 'squeamish'. Though if it be of comfort for you to believe so, His Grace shall not seek to dispel your delusion.

18 September 2007 at 18:25  
Anonymous najistani said...

Your Grace and erudite communicants. Please allow me to draw your attention to a letter in this morning's Telegraph from Mr Winston S Churchill, which apart from the obligatory mention of the mythical unicorn-riding moderate Muslims, gives a dire warning of the inevitable conflict to come... "this mortal threat which – if not swiftly dealt with – threatens to bring strife and bloodshed to the streets of Britain on a scale far exceeding anything seen in the bombings of recent years"

Full text:

"Islamist danger

"Sir – Britain sends some of the finest and most courageous of their generation to risk their lives and spill their blood chasing the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But who, meanwhile, is guarding our homeland?

A recent police report makes clear that, back here in Britain the Deobandi – the very same Islamist sect responsible for spawning the Taliban in Afghanistan – has succeeded in taking over more than 600 of Britain's 1,350 mosques. In addition, it controls 17 of Britain's 26 Islamic seminaries and produces 80 per cent of Britain's home-trained Islamic clerics.

It's a funny old world, as Margaret Thatcher once famously remarked. Except that this is no laughing matter. Not for 70 years has there been a more clear or present danger to our internal security, to our free society and to our democracy, than that posed by this vipers' nest in our midst. The Deobandi, an ultra- conservative sect, outlaws music, art, television and football, and also demands the entire concealment of women.

According to the Lancashire Council of Mosques, the Deobandi has now taken control of 59 out of 75 mosques in the old Lancashire mill towns of Oldham, Preston, Bury, Blackburn and Burnley. While not all Deobandis are extremist, leading preachers of this sect aim to radicalise the Islamic youth of Britain, and to mobilise them against our society and the freedoms we hold so dear.

When will the Government wake up to this mortal threat which – if not swiftly dealt with – threatens to bring strife and bloodshed to the streets of Britain on a scale far exceeding anything seen in the bombings of recent years?

Why are Gordon Brown and David Cameron, indeed our entire political class, so deafeningly silent on this, the most pressing matter confronting Britain today? Who will help the moderate majority of Muslims maintain control of their mosques? Who will safeguard the homeland?

Winston S. Churchill, London SW1"

Ref http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=A1&targetRule=0#head6

18 September 2007 at 20:53  
Blogger Ron said...

Charles has already converted secretly to Islam. What else explains his unnatural preoccupation with that dangerous perversion?

18 September 2007 at 21:06  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

His Grace, PC? How funny and utterly ridiculous. What he was trying to point out to you is that many blacks are Christian. Simply naming a few who blew, or tried to blow themselves up, having converted to Islam, does not demonstrate that blackness somehow draws one to Islam.

Consider poverty, alienation, prison, lack of belonging, lack of family, lack of order, anger etc as reasons for why some (black or not) pursue extreme Islam.

Your Grace - Very interesting post. But you are too harsh with darling Charles. Islam is 'more deserving of it'? Surely you do not believe this is what Charles thinks? Of course not. You know, as well as I do, that given the nature of racial and religious politics nowadays, that the PC accusation rather fits the shoes of our future King.

18 September 2007 at 22:23  
Anonymous 4micah said...

Gentle Readers,

My previous post was intended to be facetious. I don't really believe that Andalusian Spain was a paradise. My apologies to those who were convinced otherwise.

Yours truly,

19 September 2007 at 00:21  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

May I offer some assistance here to quell mutual misunderstandings. One has to applaud the grace with which our dearest Cranmer has handled some heated comments lately.

the recusant ... you have a sensitive nature and paradoxically come across as a somewhat intolerant person yourself ... i.e., intolerant of others' legitimate viewpoints. This is strange as you seem to be spending so much time here complaining of others' (alleged) intolerances! I see you, not as a practical realist, but simply a well-mannered dreamer, lacking perspective, who's ardent wishes for a sweet and perfect world are being disturbed by those terrible people who happen to revel in hard-bitten reality because they care for the welfare of others. I don't wish to be rude, but I think it is time you tried to grow up a little more.

nedsherry ... I believe there is validity in the basic point you were making earlier (coupling race & religion) but sometimes you over-egg your point of view. If you can supply more evidence to support your arguments, and in a more measured tone, you may be better received (except by the diehards of course). The Nationalist argument can be won by elevating our own awareness of our unique history and cultural merits, and lost by scapegoating blacks and Asians for our own foolishness. A community of blacks exists in Britain who are as English as you and I, because they are descendents of those brought to this country in the 17th century. Illegal immigrants from Sierra Leone or Nigeria who arrived in December 2006 are of course an entirely different matter.


What I can say, and this may offend some of you, is that there does exist a racial, anti-white dynamic within the Islamic faith; but it is a cultural expression rather than an authentic religious one! I have spent many years in the Middle East and North Africa, and have also visited India. What Nedsherry has posited does have SOME truth to it, because it tallies with my own experiences and observations.

Furthermore, if you care to study the history of Islam in the U.S.A. you will definitely find a blending of anti-white motives for converting to Islam. Indeed, Islam's beginnings in America was all about the Black Man and Civil Rights ... that is, it was used as a vehicle to provide an alternative identity for Black Americans, which has been traditionally and aggressively, anti-White. Louis Farrakan is their latest incarnation! You must surely all be familiar with that name.

Black Americans have indeed been part of a recruitment drive to Islam for this very purpose. It is very common for Christianity to be described as "the White Man's religion" and I am surprised so few of you were able to acknowledge this in your comments above.

The paradox, which His Grace was alluding to earlier, was that we can also find in Africa, one of the strongest and most vibrant Christian communities in the world, and it is indeed only thanks to them that our Anglican Church has not lurched any further into the Liberal morass!

When I worked and lived in Jamaica during the early 1980s, Sunday worship was strictly observed and Sunday Schools were very well attended by well-dressed, and well-behaved children, even in areas you and I would consider home to the poor.

What Cranmer's congregation needs to understand is that there are no more 'black & whites,' no more 'left & rights,' no more 'yes and nos' to be found in our perversely complex world. One has to untangle many cross-threads before one can identify and then be fairly certain of a truth. I have recently commented on malign Jewish influences on our culture: mainly to shock you into a new and more productive mode of thinking. But, to claim that all Jews represent a malignant influence is palpable nonsense. Many Jews do not even understand what is being done in their name by the Zionists and Talmudists. So, we must be very careful to identify who our enemies really are. One might say, our worst enemy is the spineless fools amongst us who gain positions of power and influence for self-aggrandisement instead of public service.

The fact of the matter is this: had there been NO irresponsible immigration into Britain (and into Europe) from cultures with antithetical histories to our own, there would now be NO Islamic problem. Therefore, immediately we can see that immigration (and by implication, race) and religion are indeed connected, but perhaps not linked in ways that are immediately obvious.

Our over-tolerance of Islam encourages further immigration by Muslims. Many Muslims now view Britain and other parts of Europe as standing on the precipice of the Ummah. Therefore, this observation will simply encourage more to immigrate so they may take full advantage if/when the change finally comes. This is just the same kind of behaviour as a flock of Vultures circling a wounded animal.

The question remains ... what are we going to do about it? Because, at some point, we shall wake up one day (in the not too distant future) to find we are facing an immediate, existential threat. At which point, all discussion about Christian ethics and Islamic scatology will be rather meaningless and irrelevant.

19 September 2007 at 07:25  
Anonymous Voyager said...

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

19 September 2007 at 08:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The words in prison convey some contextual information lost in the generalisations produced as conclusions.

It was this Government that permitted "imams" access to the Prison system and in so doing allowed unqualified, uncertified, individuals unsupervised access to people of weak minds, unstructured lives, and ever-ready for another fix of self-delusion.

19 September 2007 at 08:23  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Mr Mission..

I try to be tolerant of most viewpoints but have a hard time with bigotry. By bigotry I mean espousing a philosophy that because someone is Black, Jewish, Middle Eastern etc they have by nature of their race, ethnicity or place of birth a pre disposition out side their cultural norms to any number of anti social behaviours. I find this irrational and tends to ignore the more obvious causes of crime like poor upbringing, lack of guidance, education, poverty (and to be sensitive once again, an absence of love, care, discipline and example in the family home) etc

This does not preclude the notion that anyone irrespective of their origin/background can commit or be a criminal. If you say a nation makes every effort to manages its affairs to its own advantage then I would agree if however you say that a nation, and lets be candid, Israel, is pursuing some kind of agenda to bring about the second coming via a Zionistic secret plot then I disagree. If you say Jews are inherently defective or somehow evil then rule 1 above applies.

This is not to be confused with Islamic terrorism which is systematic, has a pedigree of violence and an intrinsic guiding principle of conquest and is a clear danger to the UK and the west, but I will not subscribe to a policy that because someone is Islamic they will strap 10lbs of TNT to their waist and look for the nearest tube.

They say travel broadens ones horizons. I have had my share and hope the experiences have taught me that people mostly want to get on with their neighbours and there lives, They laugh and cry at the same things and welcome the stranger. Disharmony is caused by real or perceived injustices and generally the foe is an abstraction i.e. the Serbs, the Croats the Tutsi, the Hutu. The most feared have guns and uniforms, education optional (and I’ve met a few of those) and the most respected build schools, hospitals and wells.

If this characterises me as either not a practical realist, having a sensitive nature, a well-mannered dreamer, lacking perspective or disturbed by those terrible people (your words) who happen to revel in hard-bitten reality then so be it (you’re not doing bad on the 'complaining of others' score yourself). As for 'grow up a little more', I'm afraid that’s a lost cause, I have less years in front of me than behind and will not be storming any more barricades. Christianity has provided for me the most complete, rational and the hardest philosophy of life, without it I would be a total nihilist.

19 September 2007 at 12:34  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

the recusant ... then you must belong to that generation who have zealously held onto the Communist contrived view that Western Culture must forever be held accountable for every human failing.

I have noticed the speed with which you rush to condemn your fellow British citizens for pointing out the bad behaviours and malign intent of other groups (ethnic or religious) and also your indifference to the injustices suffered by our own people, in their own country, for which their ancestors spilled blood, yet you are silent on the crimes committed by those 'others' you rush to give the benefit of the doubt to.

You spit blue murder about the crimes of the Nazis (many of which have been taken completely out of context by our Jewish owned media) yet you fall silent when the much greater tragedy of a far greater scale of murders and ethnic cleansing performed by Ashkenazi Jewish insurgents on Christians and ethic Russians in Russia and the Ukraine between 1917 and 1925. Is this not double standards?

You write: This is not to be confused with Islamic terrorism which is systematic

I agree. But, the uncomfortable truth is that Jewish history is also full of a systematic violence. If you can't bring yourself to accept that, then you cannot be a truth seeker.

In your world view, one must assume that when it comes to forging a brotherhood of man, the ends justify the means so long as it isn't we White People acting badly. In your cute eyes, White Christian man = evil; everybody else has a thousand excuses or many justifications.

You typify the self-loathing idiots that have been allowed to dominate our Gentile culture for far too long.

What kind of world view is it that tolerates cultural self-destruction and immolation because you believe we were responsible for the Holocaust? What if the 6-million Holocaust is actually a complete myth concocted to beat us down with guilt? Because that is what the pre-war Jewish diaspora population statistics suggest.

What would happen to all your assumptions then? And would you have the guts to apologize for all the havoc and destruction you and your kind have helped heap upon the white race since 1950?

Over a span of 25 years, I have spent more time living with foreigners than my own kith & kin, so I have no illusions about what goes on in the minds of non-British or non-European people. That is why I can say with confidence; any suggestion they are to be bestowed with innocence is balderdash!

Your interpretation of Christianity is the mental equivalent of a sack-wool shirt and cold plates of lumpy porridge. My version is one of strong and independent men full of pride, self-respect, and a determination to protect the lands of their ancestors from parasites and moral delinquents, of whatever colour or religious disposition.

If we and our civilization go down, the world will slide into a dark age it may never recover from. An elite consisting of 10% of the world's population will treat the remainder as slaves: another Babylon.

19 September 2007 at 14:24  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

It is perfectly possible to disagree with someone without that contrary opinion rendering one either 'politically correct' or 'squeamish'. Though if it be of comfort for you to believe so, His Grace shall not seek to dispel your delusion.

His Grace uses 'racism' as though it were a serious term. It is not and only those infected with PC squeamishness believe otherwise. When His Grace criticizes Islam and is accused of 'Islamophobia', are his opponents seeking to address what he says or dismiss it by fiat? When His Grace opposes 'female priests' (as I assume he does) and is accused of 'sexism', are his opponents seeking to address what he says or dismiss it by fiat? All three terms are all politically correct and all three are used as part of the propaganda campaign against whites, men and Christians.

His Grace, PC? How funny and utterly ridiculous. What he was trying to point out to you is that many blacks are Christian. Simply naming a few who blew, or tried to blow themselves up, having converted to Islam, does not demonstrate that blackness somehow draws one to Islam.

I made no such claim, but Islam, being hostile to whites and Christianity, is thereby inherently attractive to some blacks. Only a 'few' Muslims of any race have attempted suicide bombing in the UK. Does a wider danger therefore not exist?

19 September 2007 at 17:24  
Anonymous Voyager said...

What if the 6-million Holocaust is actually a complete myth concocted to beat us down with guilt?

You feel guilt ? Why ?

I bear no guilt. Neither I, nor my family, nor my country had any role in any Holocaust; and in fact my country was in a state of war with those who perpetrated that Holocaust.....I really do not understand the concept of "guilt" as you use it

19 September 2007 at 18:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Swimming is not a highly problematic event for Sikh men with uncut hair. Clearly, no Sikh wears a turban when swimming, because it would just come off in the water.

They just use extra large swimming caps or wear a patka (a tightly tied cloth covering for the head).

19 September 2007 at 19:23  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

A community of blacks exists in Britain who are as English as you and I, because they are descendents of those brought to this country in the 17th century.

Then they aren't 'as English as you or I'. They're black. Racially distinct from you and me, whose roots here go back thousands of years, not hundreds. If they establish a majority in any part of the country, it will cease to be England.

Illegal immigrants from Sierra Leone or Nigeria who arrived in December 2006 are of course an entirely different matter.

Yes, but on your reasoning, residence will turn them English. It won't.

19 September 2007 at 22:09  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

His Grace is not PC. He disagreed with you on a logical point. How can you possibly say His Grace is squeamish when he writes as he does? Come on! I am offended on his behalf, your accusations are so ridiculous.

Islam, it could be argued, is hostile to anything that is not Islamic. As for whites, there are white Muslims. There are also many brown and black Christians.

It just isn't as simple as you say. And that, I think, is the point that His Grace tried to make to you. It wasn't his desire to be PC that prompted his comment. It was his desire to be accurate in his reasoning.

Sorry Your Grace, I shouldn't be so presumptuous.

Nedsherry - You are however correct in noticing a danger and in picking up on the black attraction to Islam because it is considered to be the enemy of the establishment. But that wasn't what you said initially.

19 September 2007 at 22:19  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

I really do not understand the concept of "guilt" as you use it.

That's OK voyager; not to worry. Others WOULD understand the concept. The implication is that it has since become very difficult to criticise a Jew for his human failings, and the machinations of his many ethnic organizations, because of his "unique" persecutions at the hands of the Nazis, and because of our collective guilt over not stopping 'it' sooner.

It is this guilt that has rendered us dumbstruck whilst a parasitic "religious" minority have conspired together to occupy (or consolidate their hold of) seats of power, influence, or ownership in our media, newspapers, universities, finance houses, banking, Federal Reserve, Hollywood, thinktanks, et al. Those who object to this takeover have been victimized, sacked, threatened, sued, and jailed.

"The Holocaust in American Life" talks about how the Jewish nature of victims of Naziism was downplayed in propaganda to gain support for the war -- there was a fear that American anti-Semitism would prevent some Americans from supporting the war effort as much as they might otherwise have done.

At the same time, non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, especially Poles, for all sorts of reasons, are usually discounted as victims.

Meanwhile, the 50,000 or so ethnic Germans--residents of the Danzig Corridor--slaughtered horribly (eyes gouged out, women disemboweled, others hacked to pieces, mass rapes, etc.) during the first 7 to 10 days of WWII by Poles (including by Polish Jews) goes completely unmentioned as if ethnic German lives should not matter to us. This early genocide probably incited the Nazi machinery to instigate their slaughter policy, which we mistakenly attribute to ideology, instead of an expression of pure outrage at, and revenge against the bestial behaviour of those Poles.

To read more and view photographic evidence, visit this remarkable website. WARNING >>> Many photos on display are explicit and very upsetting <<< WARNING

After the page opens, scroll down and view photos in Sections VI (b) and (c). These are the most graphic.

Here is the testimony of one German survivor: "I was in the World War from 1917 to 1919. I saw many things there and underwent very much suffering. Never before have I seen faces so distorted with fury or bestial expression, as in this sudden attack on my defenceless family. They had certainly ceased to be human beings." (Testimony of Paul Zembol, p. 123).

The NPR (USA) produced a programme showing how people came to use the term "Holocaust." How, right after the war, people were so traumatized and overwhelmed they could hardly talk at all, many of them, and when they did talk, they didn't have a word to call or describe their collective experiences. Therefore the "Holocaust" is as much a product of post-war propaganda and huckstering as it is fact.

Like you, and for the very same reasons, I feel no guilt also. Rather it is the guilt that resides in the minds of our intelligensia (and the policies that therefore ensue) that concerns and occasionally occupies me.

20 September 2007 at 07:25  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

nedsherry ... regarding your 19 September 2007 22:09 post.

Philosophically and practically, you are correct.

The only homeland for the English (Anglo-Saxons) is England. We have no other place to go to be our selves. Blacks circling Stonehenge at the Equinox is completely unthinkable. Indians cooking a curry in the middle of Sherwood Forest is an insult, and offensive to all Robin Hood stands for in our collective cosmology. The mother of all the world's Parliaments stands in Westminster, London, England.


The problem lies with the unsatisfactory response by our ancestors to the encroachment of false ideologies, false gods, and political fashions that arose during the mid to late 19th century.

Alternatively, you can simply say the rot began with the French Revolution.

You will of course be aware that in a fit of Liberté, égalité, and fraternité, the French set free and gave full rights to their slaves on Haiti. Within a short time, the Blacks massacred all the Whites on the Island. Haiti remains a total wreck of a culture despite three American invasions since.

Voodoo is now also practised in New York, Los Angeles (Hollywood), and in London. Some would call this adding 'colour' and 'soul' to our culture.

20 September 2007 at 07:45  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Alternatively, you can simply say the rot began with the French Revolution.

That was the fruiting body bursting into the open air: the rot was at work long before then. Charles I could well have been executed at Jewish behest and Adam Weishaupt's race may be highly significant.

20 September 2007 at 15:35  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

nedsherry ... you have just provided me with [re. Adam Weishaupt] an absolutely crucial key, or essential piece of the jigsaw puzzle, which was hitherto missing from my reference materials. Thank you.

21 September 2007 at 07:49  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Mission--Glad to be of some small service. Your own posts have been highly illuminating to me.

21 September 2007 at 17:52  
Anonymous Lega Nord said...

To the recusant,
Dear Sir,
I thought you were referring to me when you criticised "blinkered elements". But how would you stop the bearded beasts taking power in Europe? How can we find an agreement with people who want to dominate us? Do you realise it? I'm not slanted towards "final solutions" or extremism, but the seriousness of the threat forces us to undertake drastic measures. The infidel beasts, if left unchecked will completely destroy our civilisation, and you won't stop the invasion just by keeping the forum quality "high".
To nedsherry
Man, you're damn right: the Muhammedan blasphemy wields a huge influence on blacks: this is because this blasphemy is a modern Anti-Imperialistic creed, like Comunism was in the past. Indeed, Islam has largely superseded Comunism in fighting agains the West: some Comunists even converted to Islam. So, the problem is not the black race, but the malign charm that this blasphemy exerts on the weakest sectors of our societies, the so-called "alienated".
And please let's not forget that milions of our black brothers are good and proud Christian: their pure faith is surely appreciated by our Lord. And, last but not least I remind you that sometimes Christian blacks fought for the sake of our True Faith agains the Muhammedan hordes (as in South Sudan).
If this didn't suffice, please remember that racism is forbidden by Our Lord and that our Faith is for every race, and every people, including Pakistanis and Arabs.
Black Christian have enriched very much Christianism, suffice it to mention Gospel Music.
So please let's concentrate on fighting the infidel beasts and let's not smirch our noble cause with raw racism.

23 September 2007 at 09:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older