HOW TO SAVE AFRICA – A Real Alternative To Foreign Aid

HOW TO SAVE AFRICA – A Real Alternative To Foreign Aid

By Watt Tyler

Frequently we hear about the problems in Africa, and there seems to be no end to the appeals for help – be it for money, for UN peace-keepers, aid workers, extra troops, etc. The appeals for help have continued all our lives: advertisements run with sad-looking black children’s faces – if only you could help, just give £2 a month… adopt one of those big-eyed children, adopt the village, send a tenner, do a fun-run, wear a ‘funny’ red nose, make a Christmas box package….Western countries accept refugees and asylum-seekers by the thousands, and then their families arrive too, these people claim to flee war, strife, persecution and otherwise…We support them and their families, provide money and services, sacrifice our peace and prosperity to help… Billions of tax-payers’ money is sent to Africa through the government, and untold amounts by other means…yet there are still problems. Civil wars rage, there are the horrific cases of ethnic cleansing and genocide, political persecution continues, mass rapes occur, there is widespread poverty and all the problems that poverty brings. It just never gets sorted.

img741

The foreign aid business is very self-indulgent. It brings great publicity and wealth to the stars involved but never really changes anything.

So how could Africa be helped?

One problem in Africa is the friction between different groups, and this is also the cause of many other problems there, (e.g. this contributes to the poverty in various ways). One example of inter-ethnic problems was the civil war(1) and genocide in Rwanda, in which Tutsis and Hutus clashed; estimates of the number killed in the civil conflict vary, but during a single hundred day period of the strife it is believed that perhaps a million were killed in what is termed by many as the Rwandan Genocide. It is a reality that groups compete and there are tensions between different groups. Of course, each individual case has its own triggers, often these are related to one group being perceived as taking advantage of another group in some way or oppressing another group in some way, etc. Frequently there is the perception that one group is dominating another group in social and/or political terms – for example in 1972 the Asians were expelled from Uganda, and much of the resentment of the Asians was because of their social and economic advantages over the indigenous African people(2). Of course, with groups having different propensities (racially, and not relatedly, culturally) then differential distributions in occupations will usually be found(3). However, whatever the trigger cause and/or reasons for that being the case, the truth is that groups compete and inter-ethnic tension is the way of nature. Having ethnically homogeneous societies is the best solution to this. This reduces the problems that such forced mixing brings, and hence lowers the levels of human misery.

img741

History has proved that multicultural societies can never be free, peaceful and wealthy.

The inter-group tensions and competitions are not only for resources and survival – they also manifest in competition for cultural dominance and in other ways. It is simply not possible for all different cultures to be practised in one place at one time(4). May women roam free and drive on the roads? What does the architecture look like across the cities? Is there to be freedom of speech? Someone’s culture has to give. Diversity causes destruction of culture. Also, in many contexts attempting to achieve this diversity of cultures results in problems. For example, may cartoons that offend some groups be published or not? If not, then this offends those who think they should. Of course if certain groups are offended, then there is bloodshed. It is not a happy situation sharing space with such incompatibilities. The idea of cultural dominance also pertains to the attempts to enforce alien cultures upon African countries, this is unfair and does not work very either – much better to let indigenous people practice their own culture in which they feel comfortable, and to which they feel suited.

img741

Without homogeneity, there are always the tensions, and governments can hold tensions down, but only by oppressive means. These means manifest in various ways, for example restrictions on free speech(5) and imprisoning those who appear to be a threat to the tense peace(6). There are cases in which members of ethnic African groups are prohibited by law from even acknowledging membership of the group to which they belong – such restrictions on identity, cultural expression, free speech and other freedoms are deemed necessary to hold the diversity together without bloodshed. In some cases troops are brought onto the streets. While the tensions are present, they can only be reduced by suppressive means. Only homogeneity can really solve these problems in a humane manner.

img741

Thousands of years ago philosophers like Aristotle realised the folly of multicultural societies.

To achieve homogeneous societies, the alterations that were made to many of the borders need to be reversed. Colonists or others drawing new lines and putting different groups together does not work. Leave it alone. Large influxes of refugees also is a problem for homogeneity, but without the wars and poverty in Africa, there would be less need for such movement of people. Mass immigration for whatever reason (s) causes a problem in this respect.

Once a country is ethnically relatively homogeneous, then they can start to build their future. However, they need to build it without being owned and controlled by foreign bankers – and not held down by massive debts and all the problems that debt brings(7). International bankers needs to leave them in peace, and not drag them into enslavement and poverty with interest on loans that enslaves the Africans (and the terms attached to such loans frequently are problematic).

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws” Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

The control of money, and debt, is control of a country. Money is used as tool of control in many cases. African countries need their own currency, controlled by themselves.

img741

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

img741

By presenting money to an African leader, be it loans, aid or otherwise, such a person can be controlled and corrupted; hence facilitating his abuse of the African people in his country. Foreign bankers can use such leaders as puppets, and hence control the Africans in the relevant country. In some cases, such puppets will even be put into power by the globalist bankers; this can be engineered by wars, revolutions or other means.

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance.” James Madison

img741

Apart from debt-slavery and ownership of African countries by foreigners, there is also the problem of dependency in a more general sense. For example, if Africans are led to believe that they cannot achieve anything and must wait for foreigners, then this tends to harm the Africans in a number of ways. Of course, this tends to reduce the tendency to be independent, but other harms are also caused, including matters such as a sense of inferiority and the problems that that can bring.

With their own currency and own resources, Africans can start to build their own independent futures for themselves on their own terms. Trade can be established with other nations if they so desire. However, the international globalists will have no power and no puppets. The power will reside amongst the nation itself. The people can live together in peace and prosperity, building their own future as free and proud peoples. Africans do not need the wars and the debts(8) and dependencies that, amongst other things, wars bring to a people.

Since a country is, in a fundamental sense, a piece of land, then why could a homogeneous group of Africans in their own country, free and proud, not be able to build their own future on their own terms on their own piece of land? They have resources, they have freedom, they have peace. Let them enjoy and prosper.

So if we really want to help Africa, then the first thing is to leave Africa alone. Of course, there might be exceptional emergencies in an African (or other) country that require short-term emergency assistance. However, colonialism and ownership of African countries is harmful. Africans need to have their own countries in which they can practice their own cultures in peace. And on the subject of peace, foreigners should not be mixing up different groups by redrawing borders or moving people around. Africans should be allowed to live in their African nations in relatively homogeneous groups – hence avoiding the tensions and inter-group conflicts and other destructions that are associated with diversity. No more civil wars, no more using rape as weapon of war, no more destruction of culture and identity, no more genocide, no more poverty caused by wars, etc.

Compassionate nationalism with freedom and independence is the best solution for the African nations.

And maybe these solutions could help improve the lives of people in nations outside Africa too.

(1) 1990-1993 (or 1994 according to some accounts, 1993 being the ‘official’ end)
(2) In many such cases in which an immigrant group enters an African country, the loyalty of the immigrant group is in question: how could they be loyal to their new country and people instantly? And if they were, then what does loyalty mean to them to abandon their own country so suddenly? These questions cause discomfort to the African people, and add to the suspicions, not unfounded, that the immigrants are just there to loot the country, take what money they can, and to take advantage of the indigenous people. The truth is that people do, in general, feel fraternity to their own group, and not to other groups. And most people are fully aware of this fact.
(3) Of course, there are not only the racial and cultural differences that affect these differential distributions, but also other factors such as historic reasons, and, not unrelated to other factors, the fact that some groups differentially favour other members of their own group, etc.
(4) The sharing of space causes destruction of culture: this is inevitable. See: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/immigration-is-destruction/
And also: http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
(5) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/02/rwanda-free-speech-genocide
(6) http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/06/07/rwanda-serious-concerns-regarding-freedom-expression
(7) If one examines the international bankers who enslave and control nations, one finds it is the same people who promote diversity. Diversity is used as a weapon of destruction and to facilitate control.
(8) In many such wars, it is found that the same group of foreigners is equipping and debt-enslaving both sides. Hence, from a financial perspective this presents a ‘win-win’ for the group financing the wars. This also presents a ‘lose-lose’ for the Africans in question.

Immigration Is Destruction

IMMIGRATION IS DESTRUCTION

By Boadicea (1)

Not happening!

Not happening!

We were sold mass immigration as a fabulous celebration: a ‘celebration of diversity’; a ‘rainbow utopia’; etc. It was all about peace, happiness, enrichment, harmony and love. They never mentioned destruction and harm. However, it will be shown that, contrary to the images, this political policy has in fact caused much destruction – and mass immigration is, in many ways, inherently destructive(2). They deceived and manipulated, sometimes they plain lied.

untitled31

So in what ways can mass immigration be viewed as causing destruction?

IMG396

In the most significant and fundamental manner, immigration is destruction in the sense that if there is no form of separation between groups, then over time the immigrants will mix with the indigenous people and form one racial group. The mixing actually acts, in the long term, against diversity – this, in fact, leads to homogenisation. In this sense, to sell mass immigration as diversity is not true (in the longer term), and actually it is the opposite (the ‘multiculturalism’ propaganda is inversionist). Some figures in the media, politics, academia, etc. boast of the destruction of indigenous Brits, heralding the day when there will be no more such people and ‘everyone will be coffee-coloured’ or ‘we will all be one race’, etc. Cessation of existence is the destruction of the racial or ethnic group in question(3). In this sense immigration is destruction(4).

img416

Mass immigration also causes destruction of culture. It is a logical fact that when more than one culture is present in one place at one time, then it is not possible for all cultures to exist totally intact: there inevitably has to be a level(5) of destruction of one or more, if not all(6) of the cultures in question.

img635

The inevitable destruction of culture as a consequence of immigration is enunciated by Dr Turner’s ‘one set of rules dilemma’(7) which states that at one place at one time only one set of ‘rules’ can describe the culture of the population in that area (country, city, etc.). All cultures can be described by what could be conceptualised as sets of descriptive ‘rules’, for example the descriptive ‘rules’ describing the architecture, mode of dress, language, behaviour, etc. An example of one such descriptive ‘rule’ could be that ‘women all wear purple hats’. In cases in which there is a difference (s) between such sets, then not all sets can describe one area simultaneously. And no two different cultures share the same set of such ‘rules’ (or they would not be different cultures). Hence, if one group moves into the area in which another group is practising its culture, then the ‘rules’ of both groups cannot remain unchanged across the area/population in question.
As a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the ‘one set of rules dilemma’, perhaps cultural group P paints all their buildings pink, and cultural group B paints them blue.img636

img637

If group P moves to the city of group B, then the city-scape cannot remain all blue unless group P gives up their cultural practice of using pink paint. If group P continues to use pink paint, then the city-scape is altered: now there is a mixture of pink and blue buildings instead of the blue view that represented group B’s culture.

img639
Alternatively, amongst other options, group B could change their practice – which would present cultural destruction for group B. Either: group P changes; or group B changes; or both change; or neither change; or parts of groups P and/or B change and other parts do not change (and the relevant changes in all cases could be to any colour or mixture of colours, not necessarily just pink or blue). The only option that does not involve either group changing their paint colour still does not preserve culture: even if neither group change their paint, the indigenous culture has been changed(8) (see above). In any possible scenario there is alteration of one, if not both(9), of the cultures in question. Culture has not been preserved. This destruction is inevitable in such circumstances.

This alteration of culture as a result of immigration can be seen in real life examples, e.g. views of cities have changed as the indigenous culture of Britain has been destroyed to make way for minarets and temples, etc.

img638

The descriptive ‘rules’ can be applied to any aspect of culture, including to the rules of governance, for example: may women drive on the roads? They cannot drive and also not be allowed to drive. All cultures cannot remain intact: destruction is inevitable if space is shared(10). This is a logical fact. In real life some recommend that indigenous people alter their behaviour to accommodate immigrants, e.g. in Scandinavia one professor recommends that women alter their behaviour to avoid being raped by immigrants(11).
“Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

img640

Of course, when indigenous British culture is actively inhibited so as ‘not to offend’ or otherwise, (e.g. no pork, Christmas celebrations reduced or banned, etc.(12)), then this represents another example of the ‘one set of rules dilemma’ in practice. In fact, the very presence of different people is an alteration to indigenous culture. People form a part of the culture, and also culture is the product of people. In shared space, not all cultures can remain fully intact. Hence, mass immigration presents destruction of culture(13).

There are many other ways in which there is destruction. Mass immigration causes destruction of feelings of fraternity/solidarity, trust(14), peace, familiarity, etc. It goes against natural instincts to have one’s territory invaded, and this provokes feelings of stress(15) and discomfort. Many indigenous people are upset and their quality of life suffers varying levels of destruction in this manner(16) – but the deterioration in the quality of indigenous people’s lives appears less important than the desires of some immigrants who ‘want to improve their lives’(17). Some lives are ‘more equal’ than others. Of course, it is not just feelings of destruction of peace and suchlike that are brought by diversity, but there frequently are actual outbreaks of disorder etc., these on small and sometimes large scales, (e.g. racial animosity/enviousness/resentment in face-to-face encounters, race riots, etc.). Diversity of race/ethnicity etc. brings strife in many forms. Quality of life suffers destruction as a result of immigration.

img641

In Britain, and other countries too, there have been many reductions in freedom as a result of mass immigration(18). Some hold that the diversity of immigration requires reductions in freedoms – and even requires a totalitarian government(19). The former German chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, is quoted as saying that ‘multicultural’ countries can only work under an authoritarian government:
“The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society”(20).
Of course, with the competition for cultural (and other) dominance between groups, clashes of cultures and races, etc. such a situation is intrinsically unstable and conflict-prone(21). Reductions in freedom frequently are held as necessary to inhibit unrest and open conflict(22), for example curfews are sometimes implemented and surveillance is widespread, etc.(23) Numerous other problems are caused by the diversity of immigration, many of which the governments of such countries attempt to quell/prevent by reducing freedoms. For example, often we are told that because certain immigrant groups present a security threat, our freedoms and privacies are to be reduced to keep us safe. Freedoms also are reduced in the UK as the government attempts to inhibit any opposition to mass immigration, and, inter alia, tries to suppress the indigenous people from expressing (or even thinking) anything that might upset the illusion that immigration is great. Freedom of speech has been severely curtailed in this country as a result of immigration (and the related actions by the government)(24). In many cases one is not allowed to state certain truths in case it might pose a threat to the political policy of mass immigration and to the related happy rainbow images (and/or upset immigrants, etc.) – truth and knowledge have hence suffered destruction. Of course, the ideology of ‘multiculturalism’ is based on utopian fantasies, irrationalities and lies (see Dr Turner qv). For such ideologies: truth, reason and open debate pose a significant threat. The whole house of cards easily could collapse were people to be well-informed with true facts – and were allowed to think and debate facts and policies in a fearless, honest and rational manner. Such ideologies require the suppression of truth, reason and morality to survive.
“Dissent has been relabelled as either hatred or insanity. Those who disagree with current orthodoxies are therefore deemed to be either bad or mad […] utopian fantasies wrenched facts and evidence to fit their governing idea. Independent thought thus became impossible — which inevitably resulted in an attack upon freedom, because reason and liberty are inseparable bed- fellows. […] Reason was thus replaced by bullying, intimidation and the suppression of debate.”(25)

SCAN
Even the use of some words, of certain kinds, can result in one being arrested and sent to prison(26). It never used to be like this. Chief Constable Fahy warns of Britain becoming a police state: “There is a danger of us being turned into a thought police”(27) . Many freedoms have been reduced as a result of immigration; this presents the reality of destruction of our liberties.

img642

Justice and fairness have suffered significant destruction as a result of immigration. Because of immigration, albeit perhaps indirectly, the principle of double jeopardy was removed in Britain. In a general sense it is more difficult for certain types of fairness to exist in a mixed country. This is illustrated by examples such as observing the opinions of different races (on average) on cases that pertain to race – such as in relation to the O.J. Simpson trial in which blacks and whites differed (in general) in opinion as to whether O.J. was guilty or not. Such divergences of opinion make jury trials and other matters of justice problematic in mixed countries. The same issue can be seen in relation to the demands that different groups want their own group to police them, judge them, etc. – these demands often made on the basis that other groups will not, amongst other things, treat them fairly(28). The police frequently have been accused of not policing properly because the criminals in question were immigrants – this accusation made for various reasons including that the police do not want to be labelled ‘racist’(29). If the police are not performing their job properly in relation to immigrants, then this is not just nor fair and also this tends to decrease the quality of life for the people of the country. It is also held that often immigrants receive more favourable treatment when they are victims of crime (relative to indigenous victims)(30). Such accusations of differential treatment pertain to the various other arms of the legal system, not only to the police (e.g. CPS, judges, lawyers, etc.). In these contexts, and others, immigration destroys fairness and justice(31). Reduction of trust in the legal system has various destructive consequences, as does the destruction of the belief that the country is reasonably fair: these destructions of justice and fairness cause further destructions.

These problems of inequality before the law touch upon the idea that in many senses of the term ‘equality’, immigration’s diversity is incompatible with ‘equality’(32). Of course, in a social and political sense ‘equality’ is a nebulous-power-word (see Dr Turner, qv). However, one can distinguish certain forms of ‘equality’ that are not problematic from a rational perspective. For example, above various issues in relation to equality before the law were noted. Immigration also presents inequalities in relation to equality of opportunity and result: for equal results one would have to have unequal processing if the groups differ on the relevant criterion (or criteria). Hence, ‘equality’ in both of these senses is not possible in such circumstances(33). The very act of immigration into the country of an indigenous people presents the fact of treating the indigenous people as not equal to the immigrants(34). It is a reality that different groups tend (in general/overall) to feel more fraternity and loyalty towards members of their own group, presenting various intrinsic inequalities in a mixed country (including in relation to the law – see above). Thus, in many senses of the term ‘equality’, ‘equality’ is reduced, if not impossible, when there is immigration. In an ironic manner, immigration is frequently sold as ‘equality’.

Many children’s lives have suffered destruction as a result of immigration into Britain – this harm would not necessarily always be a result of immigration (as opposed to some of the destruction noted above which is intrinsic to immigration in general), but has been resultant in this context. This particular harm and destruction has been caused in many ways(35), including the many thousands raped by immigrants(36). It is held by many that the little girls in places such as Rotherham (and Sheffield, Manchester, etc.) were sacrificed to appease the immigrants and/or to enable the authorities to indulge themselves in their feel-good ‘anti-racism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ dogmas – letting them feel superior and compassionate(37) – and, not unrelatedly, avoid accusations of ‘racism’(38). It is likely that some people were too scared to act properly. Some hold that the abuse needed to be ignored to maintain the lie that immigration was not destruction, but was good(39):

“What is particularly sickening is their desperation to cover up the abuse in their attempt to maintain the illusion that cultural diversity was working in Rotherham.” (40)

As the local Labour MP for Rotherham during the time documented in Professor Jay’s Report (MP between 1994-2012), Denis MacShane (former BBC employee and convicted fraudster) stated:

“there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that. Perhaps, yes, as a true Guardian reader and liberal Leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.” (41)

As author Allison Pearson notes in response, qv: “Much better to hang on to your impeccable liberal credentials than save a few girls from being raped, eh, Denis?”(42)

img649

The destruction that results from sexual abuse is particularly life-destroying and the consequences rarely are confined to the victim him or herself; frequently the destruction to the spirit is passed down the generations and also family and others in proximity are affected. For example, the consequences of victims’ mental illnesses (and pain/suffering in general) affect others, as do the many cases when such victims turn to drink and drugs to dull the pain, cope with life, etc. Of course, a lot of the drug trade is conducted by immigrants, only too happy to profit from the destruction of lives.

Crimes inflicted upon indigenous Brits by immigrants are not confined to rape and drugs, and this level of crime has caused pain, destruction of a sense of safety and security – and the resultant decreases in quality of life. For example, many elderly people are scared to go out to the extent that they would like, and largely this is due to the fear of crime (and the destruction of their way of life and comfort in general, etc.). The increase in crime as result of immigration(43) (both by direct and indirect means(44)) causes fear and discomfort, plus other problems such as increased security precautions being necessary, increased insurance premiums being paid, etc. Immigration has destroyed quality of life to a significant extent.

Picture 9

The validity and integrity of the electoral system in Britain has suffered a level of destruction as a result of immigration. This has occurred by various means. For example, the problem of postal voting fraud is found to be occurring disproportionately amongst certain immigrant groups (not to mention the deals for the genuine postal votes and orders to vote from elders and family leaders, etc.)(45). There are attitudes to the voting system amongst some immigrant groups that differ from those of the Brits, and there is a higher level of corruption amongst some immigrant groups than amongst the indigenous people(46). As Attorney General MP Dominic Grieve says:
“we have minority communities in this country which come from backgrounds where corruption is endemic”(47)

Of course, such corruption and attitudes are specific to certain immigrant groups, and this form of destruction is not a necessary consequence of immigration in the general sense. However, the diversity that immigration always brings does present some inherent potential problems in relation to elections, including matters such as split loyalties and groups favouring their own(48). All these general and specific issues present ways in which immigration has presented some destruction of political democracy.

Immigration has brought a lot of destruction to the working and lower-middle classes. In many ways, immigration is a class issue. The propagation of ‘moral relativism’(49) caused a belief to be widely held that one ‘should not judge’ – hence, amongst other things, facilitating immigration. This relativism has resulted in an inhibition of the teaching of moral and correct behaviour, which has wrought havoc on poorer communities. In more direct ways, immigration has destroyed the quality of life for working class people as wages and working conditions have reduced, and the shortage of lower-skilled and no-skilled jobs has rendered many unemployed(50). The main influx of immigrants has tended to be in the poorer areas of the country, and these areas are also less able to cope with extra problems and destruction. It is hence the less advantaged that have suffered the most – this pertains to all the destructions noted above, e.g. it is disproportionately white working class children who have been raped and abused by immigrants and it is largely these communities that have been destroyed by the other crimes and by the shattering of any sense of solidarity, comfort and community. As Leo McKinstry notes:
“Mass immigration has amounted to a gross betrayal of the British people, particularly the working class who have borne the brunt of this catastrophically misguided policy.”(51)

One BBC presenter claims that the BBC ignored the problem of immigration so as not to be branded ‘racist’, and also because:
“BBC employees are unable to understand the concerns of ordinary people because they typically have ‘sheltered’ middle-class lives…”

In some ways, immigration has been foisted upon the white working class by the more privileged of society, and objections to immigration are sneered at in a snobbish manner by the more privileged – while the poorer are destroyed. Many of the educated/privileged seem to feel it is intellectually, socially and morally superior to support this destruction. This is admitted by some who previously supported mass immigration, e.g. Peter Hitchens writes that he is sorry:
“…we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.
Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London). We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years […] we sneered at [the urban poor] as ‘racists’. …
I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).”(52)

There are other ways in which immigration presents destruction, both in the general sense and in the specific example of Great Britain recently, including, in this country: destruction of the education system(53); the advancement of the country being reduced; etc.(54). However the destruction of culture and existence are perhaps the most serious (and are two of the inherent forms of destruction caused by immigration(55)). So, in exchange for this what do we get? And is it worth it? Could anything be worth genocide?

Well, we are told that mass immigration brings diversity, but in the long term it does not; as noted above it brings quite the opposite. And diversity in shared space is not always a good thing either, (e.g. race riots, fracturing of peace and solidarity, etc.). Some people say they enjoy seeing different faces around – putting aside the patronising ‘zoo-like’ tone of this – the very diversity they enjoy is threatened by mass immigration, and is their small pleasure worth the destruction? How could they think it is acceptable to self-indulge at the expense of others – and, ironically, all the time posing with their ‘moral values’? Why do ‘anti-racists’ throw one race under the bus to posture? And do they not see any possible inconsistency in their position? Another ‘argument’ for mass immigration is the variety of restaurants available, but is this choice of restaurants worth the destruction? And, of course, indigenous people can be taught to cook any dishes(56).

img648

Some argue that it is ‘nice’ and compassionate to bring in millions of people: compassionate to whom? To those suffering the destruction? And in the long run it is not clear that the immigrants will gain – this true in a number of ways. For example, even the new immigrants will, and frequently do(57), resist further immigration after a point(58) – perhaps as, in relation to the area in question, a sense of territorialism and ownership develop to a certain extent(59). The short term gains enjoyed by immigrants might not be worthwhile even for them in the long run. And then there is the alleged economic argument. If all the figures (immigration has caused many costs to Britain(60)) and the long-term economic projections are taken into account, it is not clear that immigration is an economic benefit to Britain, in fact, the reverse is true(61). One can view this from the example of one hypothetical immigrant: he either works and thus takes a job(62) a Brit could have done(63), and pays taxes that a Brit could have paid. Alternatively, he takes benefits. Where is the economic gain coming from(64)? Are these immigrants all arriving and dropping off large amounts of cash that they brought with them? Well the truth is that millions of pounds leave the country every month as immigrants send money back home (plus benefits are sent abroad by the government too, etc.). We are not gaining money here, and even if we were, is it worth the destruction? As Hitchens writes in relation to immigration:
“..it is impossible not to be angry with the politicians who either couldn’t imagine what their policies would bring in practice, or did not care. The destruction of familiarity and security cannot be measured in money.”(65)

How much would you sell your country, peace, freedom, quality of life, culture, heritage, children and race for? Even were there to be a financial gain (which there is not here(66)), is this moral? Are we for sale? What possibly could be worth selling your race for? Of course, all this destruction is predictable, and is documented around the world and across history – which begs the question: who would implement such a policy, and why?

Immigration presents destruction, and it just isn’t worth it.

(1) As background reading to many of the points in this article, please read Dr Thomas Turner’s book:
“MULTICULTURALISM” – WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Smokescreens and Mirrors (2013)
Available on Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
(2)In some senses, immigration is inevitably destructive, and other means of destruction are context-specific. Examples of both forms of destruction will be noted below.
(3)To intentionally cause a race to cease to exist is genocide. Under the UN definition of genocide, physical violence is not necessary, and merely bringing about the physical conditions that reduce the population, with the intent to so do, qualifies as genocide. Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide states that genocide can be defined, amongst other things, as: ‘Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’ with ‘intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.’ The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was Adopted by Resolution 260 of the U.N. General Assembly on the 9th December 1948
https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/stop-white-british-genocide-campaign-join-now/
(4)It is facts such as these that have prompted various survival campaigns, such as the ‘’multiculturalism’ is genocide’, ‘anti-racist is a code word for anti-white’ and ‘diversity is death’ campaigns, e.g. see: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/multiculturalism-is-genocide-campaign-and-stickers/
http://whitegenocideproject.com/
http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2014/06/where_does_that_billboard_phra.html
(5)A variable level depending on the context
(6)I.e. possibly ‘both’ if there are only 2 cultures in question, and possibly ‘all’ in cases in which there are more than 2 cultures relevant
(7)See Dr Turner’s book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
(8)As has the immigrant culture
(9)Or more than two if more than 2 cultures are relevant
(10)Of course, sometimes areas split so that different cultures are practised (to a large extent at least) in different areas, also see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386558/Tower-Hamlets-Taliban-Death-threats-women-gays-attacked-streets.html
If areas of territory are given away to immigrants, then this destroys the intact nature of the indigenous culture. And why would a country do that?
In such cases, intangible space is still shared, at least to some extent, and this, amongst other things, can present various issues (see Dr Turner’s book qv)
(11)http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1754
(12)E.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236989/Tinsel-Taliban-strikes-Court-Service-ban-staff-decorations-avoid-offence.html
In the US, the inhibitions on celebrating Christmas are called ‘war on Christmas’ by some, e.g. see:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/12/25/war-christmas
(13)This dilemma also means that if ‘multiculturalism’ is defined as ‘everyone practising their own culture’ or ‘all cultures being preserved’, then this is not possible in shared space – rendering this definition of ‘multiculturalism’ impossible to achieve in practice in cases of immigration (see Turner’s book qv)
(14)Trust suffers destruction in various ways and by various means, for example: trust between people is diminished by a number of processes; trust in the justice system is reduced by various means; etc. As with destruction of the other factors noted here, reductions in trust can have many deleterious consequences for the country.
(15)This cause of stress, as with many of the other stresses caused by immigration, might be a contributory factor to the increase in psychological problems that has occurred
(16)Also see: Telegraph 29th January 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html
(17)https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/are-white-britains-treated-as-second-class-in-their-own-country/
(18)https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/political-persecution-in-the-free-country-of-great-britain/
(19)Also see: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/thought-police-muscle-up-in-britain/story-e6frg6zo-1225700363959
(20)Telegraph 25th November 2004
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/1477496/Turkish-workers-a-mistake-claims-Schmidt.html
(21)Inter-group conflict characterises such diversity.
(22)Conflict is found between immigrant groups, e.g. see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1519134/Asian-race-riot-killers-jailed-for-25-years.html
and also between immigrant groups and the indigenous people, e.g. see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1331923/Race-riot-town-on-a-knife-edge.html
(23)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508120/Fear-loathing-prejudice-Blunketts-yard-A-deeply-disturbing-dispatch-ex-Labour-Home-Secretary-warns-race-riots-Roma-influx-Sheffield.html
(24)For further reading on threats to freedom of speech in Britain see:
Johnston, P. (2013) Feel Free to Say It. Threats to Freedom of Speech in Britain Today. Civitas, London.
Also, relatedly, see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html
(25)http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6273423/i-think-therefore-im-guilty/
(26)http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/fury-pensioner-locked-up-charged-4797149
(27)See: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/05/peter-fahy-police-state-warning
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2863237/Britain-danger-police-state-threat-home-grown-extremists-warns-chief-constable.html
(28)If this principle of being policed, judged, etc. only by one’s own group is thought through, then this is an argument for separation – if this is followed, then mixed areas are not feasible
(29)E.g. for such accusations see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734694/It-hard-appalling-nature-abuse-child-victims-suffered-1-400-children-sexually-exploited-just-one-town-16-year-period-report-reveals.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rotherham-child-abuse-scandal–4120569
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8570506/Police-covered-up-violent-campaign-to-turn-London-area-Islamic.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374443/Police-hid-abuse-60-girls-Asian-takeaway-workers-linked-Charlene-Downes-murder.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/191013/Police-fear-being-called-racist-so-illlegal-immigrants-stroll-free
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8476605/WikiLeaks-fear-of-offending-Muslims-allowed-extremists-into-Britain-ahead-of-77-London-bombings.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1271457/General-Election-2010-Postal-vote-fraud-amid-fears-bogus-voters-swing-election.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141740/Rochdale-child-sex-trial-Police-fears-branded-racist-left-grooming-gang-free-abuse-teenage-girls-years-says-Labour-MP.html
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/asian-sex-abuse-ignored-by-council-because-they-feared-being-tagged-racist-1-6806359
(30)E.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html
(31)In an ironic, manipulative, dishonest and inversionist manner, immigration is often sold to people as being fair and just.
(32)Also see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
(33)E.g. see the inequalities presented by affirmative action: members of one race (s) are given favourable treatment for jobs, educational places, etc.
(34)Also see: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/are-white-britains-treated-as-second-class-in-their-own-country/
(35)In many areas with high immigrant populations, children no longer have the freedom to go out play like they used to. This is another reduction in freedom and also of quality of life.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/rotherham-locals-speak-out
(36)E.g. over 1,400 in one town (Rotherham) in just 16 years is documented.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11057647/Rotherham-sex-abuse-scandal-1400-children-exploited-by-Asian-gangs-while-authorities-turned-a-blind-eye.html
(37)To whom? To the rape and abuse victims?
(38)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734694/It-hard-appalling-nature-abuse-child-victims-suffered-1-400-children-sexually-exploited-just-one-town-16-year-period-report-reveals.html
(39)This touches on the cover-up of the true results of immigration. The media and government act to conceal the truth from the public by various means, e.g.: the censorship, the lies, the ‘finding positive stories’ about immigration, etc.
(40)http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/504104/Leo-McKinstry-Multiculturalism-to-blame-for-Rotherham-abuse
(41)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059138/Rotherham-In-the-face-of-such-evil-who-is-the-racist-now.html
(42)Of course, other factors may be at play here too, including the fact that if the British public knew of the levels of abuse, then immigration might not be tolerated. There are accusations that the Labour Party dealt for votes, but this is not proven. Many factors are causal here, and different causes are more significant for different people.
(43)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873598/One-seven-people-arrested-Britain-year-FOREIGN-damning-study-reveals.html
(44)Indirect means include factors such as that when the people are divided and oppressed, then feelings of consideration, trust, care, etc. in a general sense diminish and this tends to breed crime. Other indirect factors come into play, such as that the poverty brought to normal indigenous people by immigration tends to increase the likelihood of crime being committed by them. There are many other such indirect factors that result from immigration and its consequences.
(45)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578776/Scrap-postal-votes-elections-fixed-says-judge-warns-ballot-rigging-probability-parts-Britain.html
(46)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10469448/Corruption-rife-in-the-Pakistani-community-says-minister.html
(47)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10469453/Dominic-Grieve-were-a-changing-nation-but-Im-an-optimist.html
(48)There are other related problems, such as one Jewish MP who no longer holds MP surgeries because of inter-ethnic threats, see: http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/11659715.MP_received_death_threats/
(49)Some define ‘multiculturalism’ as such ‘moral relativism’ – see Dr Turner’s book qv
(50)The poor are made poorer by immigration, also see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386537/Mass-immigration-UK-s-poor-poorer.html
(51)http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/387469/Why-does-the-Left-hate-the-working-classes-so-much
(52)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301743/How-invasion-immigrants-corner-England-mockery-PMs-promise-close-door.html
(53)Those implementing and/or propagandising mass immigration very rarely send their children to the schools that are most affected by immigration. Many inner city comprehensives suffer terrible problems with inter-group conflicts, lower standards, non-English speakers taking teaching time and #lowering educational standards, etc. E.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221759/Hammer-attack-victim-seeks-1m-damages-politically-correct-school-closed-eyes-racial-tensions-Henry-Webster-Asian-Invasion-Swindon-Ridgeway-Foundation.html
For example, black Labour MP Dianne Abbott opted for a private education for her son, as do many such ‘leftie’/’liberal’ MPs, or they chose a state school in a good area (to get a nice time and good education, without admitting they are opting out of the mess they have created).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8994263/Diane-Abbott-no-stranger-to-controversy.html
Senior Guardian Newspaper writers have their children sent to private schools, not affected by the destruction that they propagandise for the rest of us, see: https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/the-guardian-newspaper-exposed/
(54)Also see destruction of quality of life as pressure is placed on resources, including the NHS, schools, police and justice system, roads, water, housing, etc. E.g.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11003975/Mass-immigration-could-see-water-shortages-failing-hospitals-and-we-wont-feel-richer-says-Civitas.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2854514/Is-wait-long-GP-Half-million-immigrants-signing-doctors-surgeries-year.html
(55)As opposed to some forms that are context-specific
(56)It is not ‘rocket salad’, merely salad with a different recipe
(57)The resistance usually is found towards those of different races, not to more of their own race. There are reasons why immigrants might not resist, e.g. if this appears a poor tactic for them, etc.
(58)E.g. in Sheffield there are problems between the Roma immigrants just arriving and the Pakistanis who arrived earlier
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644280/The-new-face-racial-tension-As-ex-Home-Secrteary-David-Blunkett-warns-clashes-Roma-locals-Sheffield-bitter-irony-previous-generation-immigrants-angriest.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10452130/Roma-in-Sheffield-When-it-goes-off-it-will-be-like-an-atom-bomb-here.html
(59)If mass immigration never stops, then apart from the small islands being over-crowded, there is the issue that nobody ever has a home as such – it is never-ending destruction and turmoil
(60)Many such calculations only focus on unemployment benefits verses tax revenues, but ignore many benefits such as tax credits, child benefits, etc. Also, even without the benefits, there are many other financial costs that have been caused by immigration into Britain (both directly and indirectly) – factors such as: translation services; financial costs of race riots; extra policing costs in general; government posts in ‘community relations/diversity officers’, etc.; the ‘multiculturalism’ industry in general; etc.
(61)Of course, different groups of immigrants present different financial issues. In the UK, third world immigration is particularly expensive for the country.
(62)Some jobs are only for non-indigenous people, sometimes this is explicit whereas other times it is not stated but is the case. Also see: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/356955
(63)Unemployment rises as a result of immigrants taking jobs.
Also see: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/800000-uk-jobs-advertised-across-europe–and-foreign-jobseekers-even-get-travelling-costs-8734731.html
Many immigrant workers drive down wages and working conditions for indigenous people, this works in a number of ways including the fact that many immigrants live in a temporary manner (even though it might end up permanent) and hence have lower living expenses and can accept lower wages., (e.g. numerous people sharing a home deigned for many fewer). Other means by which this occurs include that fact that many immigrants arrive from countries with much lower wages/conditions/standards of living – hence we engage in a race to the bottom
(64)Some calculations disingenuously talk about the GDP, rather than GDP per capita. Of course, if there are more people, then this tends to push up the overall GDP, but that is not as relevant as is GDP per capita – which is a better measure of quality of life (from an economic perspective).
(65)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037877/Boston-Lincolngrad-The-strange-transformation-sleepy-English-town.html
(66)Other than for some of the very wealthy

Political Persecution In The ‘FREE’ Country Of Great Britain

Written by Boadacea

Is one free to object to the political policy of immigration?

Often we hear about the oppressive regimes around the world, the absence of freedom in various countries and the political persecution of dissenters in those places. Frequently we are expected to give political asylum to those people who claim asylum in our country after them allegedly being persecuted for their beliefs in some horrible oppressive country elsewhere. We hear that the Muslims hate us and attack us because they ‘hate our freedoms’. There is a constant stream of statements that reinforce the belief, albeit sometimes by implication, that we in this country are ‘free’.

However, are we free? Are political dissenters persecuted, suppressed or oppressed? Are we free to discuss and hear political policies/ideas/facts?

Well of course we are not free. We live under a massive level of surveillance, with our communications, movements and data monitored and collected. We are forced to work for many extra hours a week to pay our taxes (being forced to work without reward and under duress is not being free). We can be arrested and imprisoned if we offend a member of a more important group(1) (yet us being offended counts for almost nothing(2)).However, here the focus is on the issue of political oppression. Is this country free in a political sense(3)? There are various ways in which political freedom could be examined. For example, may one express one’s political beliefs, proposed policies, etc. without fear or sanction? Are people free to examine and discuss political ideas and related facts (historical or otherwise)? Are certain political ideas suppressed, and their proponents persecuted? Are people scared to express certain dissenting views? Space does not permit a full examination of the concept of political freedom, and this short essay will focus on the issue of whether a particular political idea is suppressed, and its proponents oppressed and/or persecuted. Actually, it is a particular form of dissent – dissenting from the government’s political policy of mass immigration.

Is opposition to immigration inhibited in this ‘free’ country?
In a ‘free’ country a political view cannot be banned – that would expose lack of freedom; the people need to believe they are living in a ‘free democratic’ state, it helps to keep them from rising up against an oppressive regime. However, can a government suppress a dissenting view and/or oppress its proponents to the extent that the dissent poses no effective threat? Can the government with the arms of the state (and media, etc.) effectively suppress dissent to their political policy of mass immigration to the point that there is no effective opposition?

If people face persecution, and even prosecution, for expressing a certain political view and/or dissent to a certain political policy, then this is political suppression. If the arms of the state, including the state-broadcaster (the BBC), the education system, etc. all agree on a particular political policy and propagandise its greatness, then this can act to inhibit certain political ideas. If political parties (and/or their supporters) that object to a certain political policy face persecution by the state, then this is political oppression. If open debate on a government political policy is effectively impossible, then this is inhibition of dissent. If all major media organisations demonise those who express dissent to a political policy, then this has a psychological/emotional effect on the public, and acts to suppress dissent. If the information given to the public in relation to a political policy (and related matters) is distorted or censored, and even untrue, then this can act to manipulate people and suppress dissent.

In relation to open debate and discussion of the political policy of mass immigration, it is almost impossible to hold a rational and fair debate on this topic. Debate is inhibited by various means. One such means of suppressing open debate is that of straightforward banning of debate. Often this is phrased in a saccharin-coated phrase such as ‘no platform for ‘racists’’ or ‘no platform for fascists’ and suchlike rather than openly stating that this idea is banned from discussion.

21062011515[1]

21062011515[1]

The National Union of Students (NUS) bans any speech that is labelled by them as ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’; this ban under the ‘no platform’ guise(4). People using these sorts of phrases attempt to deceive others as to what is really going on: really these people are stopping certain political ideas, facts, beliefs, etc. from being stated or heard. This ‘no platform’ also achieves many other matters, including: giving the impression, albeit by implication, that dissenters are not worthy of being heard; achieving an ‘immunity from criticism (or truth)’(5); etc. However, by claiming a ‘high moral ground’ this ban on debate purports to be for some sort of moral reasons. Of course, the nebulous-power-word ‘racism’ is not a proper word, so such cries are not rational(6). Also, the term ‘fascist’ is thrown around in a non-rational manner (see Orwell(7)), in fact, often in an ironic manner; could it not be classed as ‘fascist’ under some of its definitions to ban open debate of dissenting views? Could one not label the banning of certain inconvenient truths as fascist?

This silencing of certain political ideas/beliefs, etc. is found in many contexts. As well as the ‘no platform’ in universities, there is a ban on dissent in many other contexts (including businesses, schools, state organisations such as the NHS, etc.) and only certain views can be heard or stated. Even during our elections such silencing is found to occur. For example, Mr Nick Griffin was not allowed to give his election declaration speech on stage during the 2001 elections, this prompting Mr Griffin and Mr Treacy to wear gags while on the stage with the other candidates(8):

img609

img610

In some contexts gagging of dissenters is claimed to be for reasons of ‘maintaining the peace’ or ‘community cohesion’ or suchlike – this usually prompted by threats or actual instances of violence(9) and other crimes by ‘lefties’ and/or immigrants.

$(KGrHqUOKjkE29zTBlvOBN1V4K3e3!~~_12

So violence by those supporting the government’s political views is used as an excuse to gag dissenters(10). Surely the police should act to stop the violence? Enforce the law? Would such threats, were they ever to occur, by anti-immigration proponents be pandered to in this manner? Does this mean that the most criminal and violent win? Is this a safe message for the state to be sending out? Is this moral? Interestingly, those threatening and involved in such crime and violence frequently are linked to the government in various ways(11), which might explain the lack of the law being enforced when they break it(12). Such people could hence be being used by the government as a form of informal/unaccountable/deniable enforcers(13). Such people act as state-sponsored enforcers, but with full deniability by the state(14). This all further acts to intimidate the people from dissenting to this government policy.

11111111

Another means by which dissent from the political policy of immigration is inhibited is, of course, the fear of being labelled ‘racist’. ‘Racism’ is a nebulous-power-word, not a properly-defined term, and should not be used in rational discourse. However, it is this very fact of low referentiality that largely contributes to the power of this term (as analysed and explained by Dr Thomas Turner(15)). The establishment has contributed significantly to the social construction of this term (see Dr Turner’s book qv). People fear the consequences of being labelled as ‘racist’ – these consequences including the social(16), financial, legal and also the physical fear of being attacked by ‘anti-racists’ and/or immigrants. Most people understand that the law is not properly/fully enforced against the immigrants or ‘anti-racists’ in this context(17) – they have an almost free pass to enforce the will of the state against ‘racists’, including by use of violence (as noted above). Hence, people are intimidated into silence and acquiescence. Dissent is inhibited.

In fact, people are too scared even to state certain truths in relation to immigration for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ – by this means open and honest debate is further inhibited as many do not even have the true facts to consider. Many truths cannot be stated, and ‘racism’ is not the only excuse for suppression of truth – other means including those of ‘causing offence’, ‘stirring hatred’ and matters such a ‘maintaining community relations’ (often code for: not letting the people know the truth in case they rise up; having no riots; there being no challenge or disruption to government immigration policy; etc.). If one states certain matters one can be accused of being ‘an extremist’, a ‘right wing extremist’, ‘threat to security’, ‘dangerous agitator’, or other scary-sounding labels – such labels can, amongst other things, render one liable for various acts of state suppression and the government is currently seeking more legislation to further silence such truths and debate. The government deems such people as a danger to the state. More honest people will be imprisoned. When true facts that pertain to government policy are suppressed, then this is not political liberty. Neither is this moral nor honest. However, in an inversionist manner, those stating the truth and acting with honour will be imprisoned under the manipulative lie of them being ‘evil’. This is not open and honest debate, and this is not freedom.
21092011576[1]
Political parties and other organisations that object to the political policy of mass immigration are subject to much suppression and persecution. Of course the general factors, including those noted above, apply also here. The mainstream media, including the BBC, make sure that the coverage of such parties is very unfavourable, and frequently the coverage is dishonest (the BBC is not impartial as its charter states). Hence, the unsuspecting public often believe such parties to be dangerous and monstrous. This distorts the democratic political process. However, the persecution and suppression of such parties and organisations also is conducted by many other means. For example, a police officer was forced to resign after being seen while off duty at a football match wearing a BNP badge(18). Have any public servants been punished in any way for wearing other forms of political badges(19) while off duty, e.g. any pro-immigration badges? So it is permissible to support the policies of the government in relation to mass immigration, but not to dissent from them (even while off duty). Many have faced persecution for belonging to or even merely supporting the BNP. For example, a bus driver was sacked for belonging to the BNP(20). The BBC sent an undercover journalist to film Mr Nick Griffin giving a speech and this resulted in Mr Griffin facing two criminal trials – and he was not convicted of any crime(21). During his speech in 2004  he predicted that Muslims would launch an attack on our country and objected to the sexual ‘grooming’ and rape of our children (before any reports such as in Rotherham were released). His predictions and claims were proven to be accurate and true. It is fair to conclude that those organisations (including political parties) dissenting from the establishment’s support for the political policy of immigration do face suppression and persecution. Such suppressive acts not only directly inhibit dissent (and truth), but also others are frightened from dissenting.

img627

There are various pieces of legislation that act in such a manner as to suppress dissent, this by threat of arrest, (e.g. ‘hate laws’). For example, words that might ‘insult’ and ‘stir up hatred’ can result in imprisonment(22). The application of these laws has disproportionately been such that they act to suppress dissent(23). Of course, as is frequently found in this ‘soft totalitarian’(24) state, this is all wrapped up in a cloak of ‘compassion’ and ‘moral values’. But to whom is the compassion being shown? To those who object to what is fairly described as an invasion of the country? As genocide(25)? Can the indigenous people not object to these hateful acts being perpetrated upon them without being arrested (and, ironically, accused of hatred)? Would hatred not be valid in some such instances? Should one hate those who have facilitated or committed mass rape of children or genocide? Does this situation not alarm and distress normal people? Why should the state think it is acceptable to arrest people for their beliefs and emotions anyway? Does the invasion and mass rape not offend you? Are you not offended, insulted or distressed that, by various means, you dare not object to this? Not even to the genocide? Feel threatened or alarmed? And is it moral to ban the truth? How can proper political decisions be made if based on lies and not on truth? Why should ‘offence’ or ‘insult’ be criminalised – and also only is certain contexts? If a comment were to stir up hatred(26) against a group, then if the statement is true, perhaps that group should not be loved, hey? If there were truths that if stated might offend or insult a group (s), or even stir up hatred, then to ban their statement is still to ban truth and takes away true and useful information from the public.This legislation can act to disempower the true victims in many cases, and to give the false impression that the perpetrators are the victims. Also it can act, inter alia, to protect the perpetrators from truth (in case they don’t like to hear it, and/or possibly face the consequences of it becoming widely known). So if the presence of group X meant a significant increase in rapes of children from group Y by group X, then one could not say this because group X might not like it (never mind what group Y don’t like, including their children getting raped, some groups are more equal than others). Better to pretend we are all the same (and at the same time don’t forget to celebrate the diversity!). If group B get arrested or stopped by the police at twice the rate of group A, then even if this were because group B committed twice the rate of crime, one could not state this fact/truth in case group B were insulted and this fact might cause resentment of group B. Better to let them off the crimes they commit and equalise the arrest figures, never mind if the other people are victimised by the crimes (and not to bother if any of this alarms/distresses/threatens/insults them, or even could be interpreted as inciting hatred against them). This all acts to suppress certain truths and challenges to government policy – and often in an insidious and surreptitious manner.

Hence, by various means there is a lack of freedom in this country in relation to the political freedom of dissenting from the government political policy of mass immigration. People are misinformed and are intimidated by various means. Dissenters are oppressed and are susceptible to prosecution by the state. Organisations and political parties dissenting are liable to much mistreatment from the state – this is political persecution.

You will acquiesce, you will not dissent. It’s called freedom. Orwell warned us about this:
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

1. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/unmasked-merseysider-jailed-anti-semitic-tweet-7966903
2.Even those in government can insult the English and/or the British without sanction – and certainly without going to prison. For example, saying the English are a race too lazy or incapable of working, etc. is fine, but don’t say it about Africans, etc.
3.Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:
‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
4. http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/11/controversial-university-speakers/
5. ‘Immunity from criticism’ refers to the fact that if no criticism, challenge, debate, alternative ideas, etc. are allowed, then those with this immunity can merely state their ideas, beliefs, policies, etc. and do not have to face any criticism or challenge on them. Such people do not need to defend what they say in any way and can merely state what they wish and leave the impression almost as though it is correct and perfect – with no alternatives.
6. See Dr. T. Turner
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
7. George Orwell is quoted as stating that: ‘The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’’
8. http://news.sky.com/story/38512/gagged-bnp-silenced
9. See: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b02_1370111676
10. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/bnp-leader-banned-from-university-28670319.html
11. These links to the establishment, frequently by those purporting to be ‘anti-establishment’, will be examined in a forthcoming essay
12. Ironically and dishonestly, many of these types pose as very ‘anti-establishment’ and rebellious.
13. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/who-are-the-uaf-unite-against-fascism/
14. And of course not all of them are in direct contact with the state in relation to the enforcement, but most of them understand that they will be very unlikely to be held account for threats, violence, etc. against anti-immigration people. Of course, some of them are in direct contact as will be discussed in future essays.
15. http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
16. Many fear social rejection if labelled as such a ‘witch’
17. Also see: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ec_1269378544
18. http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=479
19. Communist badges? Even anarchists badges?
20. But won on appeal as this breached his human rights, e.g. see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229211/Bus-driver-sacked-member-BNP-wins-legal-battle-claiming-dismissal-breach-human-rights.html
http://andrewbrons.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=641:arthur-redfearns-right-to-freedom-of-association
21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm
22. For further reading on threats to freedom of speech in Britain see:
Johnston, P. (2013) Feel Free to Say It. Threats to Freedom of Speech in Britain Today. Civitas, London.
Also, relatedly, see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html
23. One could interpret some of this legislation in such a manner that it would render many politicians guilty of the offences therein. For example the Public Order Act 1986 makes it, amongst other things, a criminal offence to state certain matters that threaten, abuse or insult and are likely to stir up racial hatred. Are not many pro-immigration speeches thus covered? What about those who state that the immigrants ‘do the jobs Brits are too lazy to do’?
24. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/thought-police-muscle-up-in-britain/story-e6frg6zo-1225700363959
25. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/stop-white-british-genocide-campaign-join-now/
26. And how can this be shown to be the case? When would it not be resentment, disapproval or disgust, etc. and actually be hatred? Besides, how could causing hatred even be thought in a sane world #to be illegal?

Are White Britains Treated As Second Class In Their Own Country?

ARE WHITE BRITAINS TREATED AS SECOND CLASS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY?

Written by Brittania

Photos and captions by Watt Tyler

Are white British people, the indigenous people of Britain, treated with the same consideration, respect, care and concern as other people are ………..…as immigrants are?

Imagine a country that was built, developed and defended for thousands of years by a beautiful, fair, strong, smart, brave and creative indigenous people. The country flourished and the people were happy. Then imagine a hostile government takes control of the country and floods in millions of immigrants, this invasion to the detriment of the indigenous people. Thousands of the indigenous women and children are raped by the immigrants, poverty increases for the indigenous people, but they are not allowed to fight back, in fact, they are not even allowed to express dissent. They are to submit to the invasion, the occupation, all the deprivations and harms, and they are to remain silent about it. In fact, in a cruel and controlling manner, the government tries to make them celebrate the invasion (and finance it and its associated costs). There will be no more indigenous people in time; some of the government and their friends openly boast of this fact, of a future when the race of indigenous people with their fair skins will no longer exist and ‘everyone will be coffee-coloured’. Have these indigenous people been treated as inferior in any way?

untitled31

 

Mass immigration has brought much suffering and harm to the indigenous people of Britain(1), including: the increases in many types of crime, such as the many thousands of rapes, many victims merely children; the importation of diseases; the lowering of wages and working conditions for the non-wealthy; reductions in freedoms; inhibition of indigenous culture; the shortages of and strains on resources, including housing; financial burdens in taxes; race riots; the strife and stress that diversity brings, including the reductions in fraternity, security and social capital; etc. Without immigration, the people of this country would not suffer these problems that immigration has brought(2). Indigenous people have suffered for the gain of immigrants…so one group loses for another group to gain… ‘equality’ anyone?

Picture 9

On a fundamental level, immigrants want to come and most indigenous people do not want them to – one group’s preferences are put above those of a less important group (the ‘second class’/’inferior’ indigenous group). If an immigrant wants a better life, then indigenous people are to have a worse life to facilitate this. Some suggest limiting your birth rates to accommodate immigrants (3), but their wanting to move to your country is not to be limited, oh no. Immigration has caused areas of the country to be largely occupied by immigrant groups – the government has effectively given parts of the land away without the consent of the indigenous people. White Brits are now the minority in London(4). Your land was given away, theirs was not. Not very ‘equal’. Perhaps less easily remedied, there is the threat of genocide to the indigenous people(5). Territory and existence are fundamental to a group, and both are threatened by immigration. These threats and realities cause stress and concern amongst indigenous people, but not amongst immigrants (since they are not losing anything in this respect).

image001(1)

The very fact of immigration puts one group (the immigrants) above the other group in relation to many issues. In this sense, there cannot be ‘equality’ as between immigrants and indigenous people, because the very fact of immigration has breached many of the ‘rights’ of indigenous people and has put the immigrants’ desires and wants as more important than those of the indigenous people. In the social and political sense, ‘equality’ is a nebulous-power-word(6), but many of its forms are simply not possible in the context of immigration: these two concepts are incompatible.

Not happening!

Not happening!

Indigenous people are also treated as second class in other ways. Can you object to immigration? Immigrants can object to anything you do, but can you really object to them being here? Not always easy without some potential loss to yourself. This loss in freedom of speech(7) again is not applied equally, and even if it were, it is only the indigenous people who would wish to exercise it. Various means are used to silence dissent, of course the nebulous-power-word ‘racism’(8) is thrown around, but also certain legal, social, financial and professional consequences can ensue if one dares to object – and they are going to make the grip on free speech even tighter yet(9) (if they can get away with it).

Picture 9

And how does the legal system treat you? We frequently hear that blacks are picked on by the police, (e.g. with more stop and searches than whites); but is this proportionate to the amount of crime they commit? Are men ‘picked on’ by the police by being stopped for rapes at a higher rate than women are? If crime rates differ, then police action rates also should reflect this were the police to be acting ‘equally’ in this respect. Where there is a glaring inequality before the law is in relation to the manner in which the legal system bends over backwards not to ‘offend’ immigrants, this at the expense of the indigenous white Brits. For example, the mass child rape and abuse noted in Rotherham was allowed to continue for decades(10). Would the legal system have allowed thousands of little black or Asian girls to be raped and abused by white men for decades(11)? And the police response time?…well, 16 years and still waiting…And the ‘racial equality’ laws, well, again, not really applied in an equal manner. For example, a pack attack on a white woman by immigrants shouting ‘kill the white slag’ is not considered as a racial(12)…imagine the other way round…well, imagine it, but don’t speak of it cause that might cause offence….and nobody wants to be called ‘racist’, or arrested(13).

19092011574[1]

And the media, all heard of Stephen Lawrence? Of course you have, the government (= the working man and woman paying taxes) has spent untold fortunes in relation to this case, and even changed the law so that defendants can be tried again(14) if acquitted (double jeopardy). Another fundamental protection removed to please immigrants (and, inter alia, to suppress and oppress indigenous people). But what about the little girl murdered on the bus by a black man while she was on her way to school? Vaguely remember the case? But can you remember her name(15)? What about a black man raping many elderly people in their own homes? Know his name(16)? Or any black cannibals in recent times(17)? Got any names? Has Kriss Donald’s(18) family been lavished with awards and money by the government? Any award ceremonies being held in his name(19)? Does the media frequently mention his name? Or any white victims’ names? When a little white girl as tortured and repeatedly raped and then taken to be shot dead, the media description on the day of the then wanted suspects omitted their race, but managed to broadcast that the car was ‘maroon’ in colour(20). Do you know her name? Does the media make all victims’ and perpetrators’ names equally salient to the public? Or are indigenous people not shown the same concern as are immigrants? The media go to great lengths to conceal the level of crime committed by immigrants(21), and to mislead the public into believing that ‘whitey’ is the bad one(22). Immigration is to be portrayed as beneficial to the country, and immigrants as victims of bad whites. This misrepresentation of the truth is admitted to by various journalists(23), and such behaviour is actually found in various guidelines to journalists, e.g. that in relation to immigrants, journalists are told to ‘find positive stories’ (National Union of Journalists, NUJ, Guidelines). Mass deception(24), and since this gives preferential and unfairly favourable treatment to immigrants and thus lower concern to white Brits, then this is not treating white Brits with the same respect/concern as other groups are treated(25). Not to mention the media coverage of any political party that dares to object to immigration…

img107

Often it is claimed that more immigrants should have certain jobs or educational places, etc. This might be labelled as affirmative action, ‘equality and diversity’(26) or suchlike(27), but if some groups are to be given the jobs/places, then this can only be at the expense of other people. To call this ‘equality’ is untrue: this is blatantly unequal and treats one group (white Brits) as second class. If you are not given the job because you are a white Brit, then you have been treated as lesser. And for a non-indigenous person to be given the favourable treatment, this can only mean unfavourable treatment to the white Brit. Can’t have one without the other.

img486

Perhaps you are offended that you are being treated as a second class person in your own country, but the very idea of offence is not applied equally to you either. White Brits must be very careful not to offend the immigrants(28). However, if you are offended by their presence and/or by any of their behaviours, or even by the very fact that you are not considered as equal of respect as they are, then you better keep quiet about it. White Brits being offended does not count in the same way, and can cause problems for those who express it. Offence only really counts if it is immigrants offended ..is this not an offensive fact? SShhhhhhhhhh…you mustn’t cause offence to the more important people. Their being offended is more important than your existence.

img487

So, second class might not be strong enough, perhaps third or fourth, but remember not to complain about immigration. While you sit in a choked traffic jam from your cramped over-priced home on your way to work at a job under your immigrant affirmative-action-boss, working to pay high taxes to help support the immigration, remember that the stresses under which you live, the lack of freedoms, the crime, the occupation of your country, the genocide…remember that even if you feel offended by any of this, keep quiet and don’t say anything that might offend the masters. How low are you that you can’t even express dissent? Maybe not even fourth…

img488

 

(1) # http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/529149/Political-class-responsible-for-immigration-mess
(2) # http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/417307/Mass-immigration-is-destroying-the-fabric-of-society
Also see:
(3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11172446/Bill-Oddie-says-large-British-families-need-to-be-contained.html
http://topconservativenews.com/2014/10/bbc-star-bill-oddie-call-for-genocide-of-britains-terrible-race/
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_culture_spokesman_peter_whittle_responds_to_bill_oddie
(4) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281941/600-000-decade-white-flight-London-White-Britons-minority-capital.html
(5) # https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/stop-white-british-genocide-campaign-join-now/
(6) # http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
(7) # http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/there-is-no-free-speech-in-sweden/
(8) Dr Thomas E. Turner (2013) “MULTICULTURALISM” – WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Smokescreens and Mirrors
https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/how-did-they-get-away-with-it-book-review/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
(9) # http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11202290/Sharia-law-or-gay-marriage-critics-would-be-branded-extremists-under-Tory-plans-atheists-and-Christians-warn.html
(10) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734694/It-hard-appalling-nature-abuse-child-victims-suffered-1-400-children-sexually-exploited-just-one-town-16-year-period-report-reveals.html
(11) # http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059138/Rotherham-In-the-face-of-such-evil-who-is-the-racist-now.html
(12) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html
(13) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410150/Schoolgirl-arrested-refusing-study-non-English-pupils.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221759/Hammer-attack-victim-seeks-1m-damages-politically-correct-school-closed-eyes-racial-tensions-Henry-Webster-Asian-Invasion-Swindon-Ridgeway-Foundation.html
(14) # Has one lawyer or media outlet mentioned that the media coverage might have rendered the second trial invalid? Many in the media covered the alleged killers in such a manner that could have prejudiced the trial and prevented a fair trial for the defendants. Never mind the numerous violations of their civil rights over the years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080159/Stephen-Lawrence-case-How-killers-finally-brought-justice.html
(15) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441328/Christina-Edkins-stabbing-Phillip-Simelane-admits-manslaughter-Birmingham-schoolgirl-bus.html
(16) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369491/Night-Stalker-Delroy-Grant-guilty-raping-elderly-women-17-year-reign-terror.html
(17) b# http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210923/Brain-eating-convicted-killer-freed-murder-social-worker-bungles.html
(18) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-415247/Asian-gang-guilty-schoolboys-race-hate-murder.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2006/10/newswatch_6.html
(19) # compare and contrast to Stephen Lawrence, e.g. see:
http://www.architecture.com/StirlingPrize/Awards2014/StephenLawrencePrize/2014/StephenLawrencePrize2014Shortlist.aspx
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/residents/Pages/Stephen-lawrence-education-standard.aspx
(20) # http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1507784/Raped-tortured-then-told-You-are-going-to-die-slowly.html
(21) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220695/Is-political-correctness-blame-lack-coverage-horrific-black-white-killings-Americas-Deep-South-Tennessee-Channon-Christian-Christopher-Newsom-carjack.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299918/censored-race-war-thomas-sowell
(22) # http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race
(23) # http://www.examiner.com/article/star-ledger-admits-to-censoring-race-savage-post-concert-mob-attacks
(24) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2332230/The-BBC-bias-pro-immigration-lobby-Report-accuses-left-wing-Corporation-downplaying-violence-Islamists.html
(25) # Britain First campaigns to get the media to cover all victims to the same extent, e.g. see:
http://www.britainfirst.org/recognition-for-british-victims/
These campaigns include a protest outside Parliament in February 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCD7op0A61c
(26) # An internally inconsistent phrase – there cannot be ‘equality’ in all senses if there is racial or ethnic diversity
(27) # http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/356955
(28) # http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808070/Fury-council-s-decision-not-Woolwich-memorial-site-Lee-Rigby-case-offends-Islamic-extremists.html

Campaign: To Make Lee Rigby’s Mother A Baroness

Written by Cigpapers

Photos and captions by Watt Tyler

National hero Lee Rigby - his family shouldn't get any less than Stephen Lawrence's.

National hero Lee Rigby – his family shouldn’t get any less than Stephen Lawrence’s.

This is a campaign to make Lee Rigby’s mother a Baroness, award her an OBE, compensate her and build a £10 million “Lee Rigby Community Centre” in her home town. After all that is what the mother of the rather worthless street thug Stephen Lawrence received. Lee Rigby on the other hand was a serving soldier in the British Army.

Please send a letter, or email, to all your MEPs and MP as soon as possible. If you’re not much of a letter writer feel free to copy and paste the letter below.

Dear ( name of your MP/MEP) 

Doreen  Delceita Lawrence is the mother of murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence. She was awarded an OBE in 2003 and made a life peer (Baroness Lawrence of  Clarendon) in 2013. £10 million was spent on the “Stephen Lawrence Community Centre” which opened in 2008 in Deptford, London.  There has also been an e-petition to rename Heathrow Airport as “Stephen Lawrence Airport“. Baroness Lawrence is the Honorary President of anti-White race hate group the UAF which promotes racism, violence and intimidation across Britain.

Lee Rigby was not a street thug like Stephen Lawrence, but was in fact a fine young man doing his duty in the British Army. I do not see any valid reason why his family, and in particular his mother, should receive less from the British Nation than Stephen Lawrence’s did. I therefore suggest that his mother is made a Baroness and awarded an OBE. I would also like £10 million to be spent on a “Lee Rigby Community Centre” and an e-petition organised to rename Manchester Airport as “Lee Rigby Airport”.

As my elected representative I expect you to give this campaign your full support and public backing. Could you please clarify whether you will be supporting this campaign, or not, as that will clarify mine and my family’s voting intention.

Yours sincerely ( your name )

You can email this to all your MEPs and MP free of charge via   https://www.writetothem.com   also consider sending to any members of the House of Lords you can think of at the same address.
If you would prefer to write a paper letter then ( no stamp required) address to:

(Name of your MP), House Of Commons, London, SW1A OAA

(Name of member of House of Lords), House Of Lords, London, SW1A OAA

For MEPs you will need to look up their addresses.

Doreen Lawrence was made a Baroness and is now Honorary President of anti-White violent race hate group the UAF.

Doreen Lawrence was made a Baroness and is now Honorary President of violent anti-White race hate group the UAF.

Replies To This Campaign:

27th February 2014:  Brian Simpson (Labour) MEP North West England has refused to support the campaign.

28th February 2014: Nick Griffin (BNP) MEP North West England has given this campaign his full support.

March 2014: Sir Peter Luff MP (Conservative) MP Worcestshire had a Pensioner constituent who emailed him arrested for racism . He also refused to support this campaign. Video below:

Please copy the emails from your MPs / MEPs in reply to this campaign in the comments section so we can put all replies up on here.

Is Peter Tatchell A Paedophile Or Simply Misunderstood?

Written by Cigpapers
Additional material and photos by Watt Tyler
Peter Tatchell was born in Melbourne Australia on 25th January 1952, he moved to London in 1971 to avoid conscription. In 1978 Tatchell joined the Labour Party and moved to Bermondsey, South East London. Tatchell ran as the Bermondsey Labour Party candidate in the 1983 General Election. Despite Bermondsey being a Labour stronghold he lost to Liberal candidate Simon Hughes. In February 2000 he left the Labour Party for unknown reasons. In 2004 he joined the Green Party and was chosen to be their candidate for Oxford East in the 2010 General Election, however for some reason he withdrew his candidacy in 2009.
Comrade Tatchell

Peter Tatchell (the UK’s most prominent homosexual activist and a favourite of the BBC) has done more than demand the abolition of the age of consent, he has broken the law on the age of consent in Britain at least once.

Peter Tatchell is a regular on the BBC. The BBC have refused to state whether he appears as a human rights activist, homosexual campaigner or paedophilie apologist.

Peter Tatchell is a regular on the BBC. The BBC have refused to state whether he appears as a human rights activist, homosexual campaigner or paedophile apologist. They have also refused to state how much they have paid him for appearances.

As a gay 18-year-old Australian anti-Vietnam war draft-dodger, he came to the UK in 1971 and lived with a 16-year-old boy in London. The homosexual age of consent in England at the time was 21. Later he campaigned for lowering it to 16, and now he wants it lowered again to 14. What will he want after that?

When the age of consent for homosexuals was lowered to 16 an Outrage (Tatchell’s organization) banner said “16 is just a start” – it didn’t state what the end goal was.

Mr Tatchell criticises the age of consent laws. Here is a quotation from his own website:

Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at 12; others not until they’re 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn’t take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances“.

Peter Tatchell wrote the chapter “Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent” for a book openly advocating paedophilia and finding ways “to make paedophilia acceptable“.

This book, published in 1986 and called The Betrayal of Youth (B.O.Y.), was edited by Warren Middleton, then vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Britain’s number one paedophile advocacy group.

Stephen Green, anti-paedophile campaigner wrote: “The book was part of a campaign to abolish all ages of consent,  destroy the responsibilities of parents for their children, deny any ill-effects on children of interference by paedophiles, and withal to make it easier for paedophiles to gain sexual access to children.

In The Betrayal of Youth Tatchell wrote that the age of sexual consent is “Reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era“.

Tatchell often ambushes public figures who don't support the homosexual/paedophile agenda. The MSM and especially the BBC usually give him great publicity for these stunts.

Tatchell often ambushes public figures who don’t support the homosexual/paedophile agenda. The MSM and especially the BBC usually give him great publicity for these stunts.

He was not on his own in this belief.Many of his fellow socio-communists and homosexual activists thought the same:

Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity. The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would supersede the family household. … Gay people and children should have the right to live together. … It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’

27092011583[1]

Feminists like Beatrice Faust contributed to The Betrayal of Youth, as well as other homosexual activists besides Tatchell, including Jeffrey Weeks and Eric Presland, who “related his first paedophile experience with an Asian boy of thirteen, and boasted of interfering with a little boy of six“.

The book is considered so toxic that Amazon doesn’t sell it and you cannot search its content in Google Books.

Tatchell is well aware of how much all this is bad publicity for him and keeps rationalizing and adjusting his positions, but only the ideologically blind or pathologically naive cannot see through his self-excuses.

He has prepared a standard self-defence which can be found on his own website and has been repeated verbatim on many outlets. It used to also be on the site of his friend militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, but it’s not there any more. Maybe even Dawkins draws a line at what is morally allowed, even though his motto is “There’s probably no God – now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.

In this article that supposedly should serve to exculpate him, Tatchell has nothing better than this: “The critics also cite Warren Middleton’s 1980s book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in child sex abuse matters when I was asked to write.”

Considering that Warren Middleton was co-founder and vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a prominent group promoting paedophilia, it was impossible for Tatchell not to have known his propensities. In addition, both Tatchell and Middleton were part of the Gay Liberation Front/Angry Brigade, a neo-Marxist revolutionary group of radical students at the London School of Economics, thus making Tatchell’s protestations of ignorance verge on the ridiculous.

Peter Righton of the Paedophile Information Exchange.

Peter Righton of the Paedophile Information Exchange – a Child welfare expert who wanted the age of consent lowering to four.

Were you aware that Tatchell contributed a chapter to this book?

THE BETRAYAL OF YOUTH

The contents and contributors of The Betrayal of Youth:

Chapter 1: ‘Incest’ by Clive Coliman: Described as “An ardent supporter of the children’s rights movement.”

Chapter 2: ‘Child Pornography and Erotica’ by Richard Green: Illustrator for the Paedophile Information Exchange magazine under the pseudonym “Dominik”

Chapter 3: ‘Child Prostitution’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.

Chapter 4: ‘Gender Differences’ by Liz Holtom and Kathy Challis: both from the anti-Christian Peace News.

Chapter 5: ‘Power and Consent’ by Eric Presland: Homosexual activist. Contributed also to the American paedophile book “The Age Taboo.”

Chapter 6: ‘Love and Let Love’ by Tuppy Owens, Editor of the Sex Maniac’s Diary, and Tom O’Carroll: ex-Chairman of P.I.E. who was convicted in 1981 of conspiracy to corrupt public morals by sending out a paedophile contact list.

Chapter 7: ‘Children and Sex’ by Fr Michael Ingram: Catholic priest, defender of paedophilia.

Chapter 8: ‘The Paedophiles’ by Beatrice Faust: militant feminist & civil libertarian.

Chapter 9: ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent’ by Peter Tatchell.

Chapter 10: ‘Ends and Means: How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable?’ by Roger Moody of Peace News: “One of the most outspoken advocates of children’s rights in Britain .” Well-documented as a ubiquitous paedophile intellectual.

Chapter 11: ‘Socialism, Class, and Children’s Rights’ by John Lindsay: “ardent supporter of children’s rights.” Member of the Socialist Workers’ Party. Homosexual activist, hates the institution of the family.

Chapter 12: ‘Childhood Sexuality and Paedophilia: Some Questions Answered’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.

Chapter 13: ‘The Oppression of the Young: An Inside Perspective’ by Jeff Vernon: Involved in Gay Youth Movement and Campaign for Homosexual Equality.

Appendix 1: “P.I.E., from 1980 Until its Demise in 1985” by Steven A. Smith: ex-chairman of P.I.E. Fled to Holland in 1984, became “active in the Dutch crusade for children’s rights,” was deported back to the UK in 1991 and sentenced to 18 months for sending indecent articles through the post.

Appendix 2: “The Uranians” by Timothy d’Arch Smith: Bookseller. Author of “Love in Earnest.”

Peter Tatchell’s self-defence begins with:

Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes.”

These are blatant falsities. It wasn’t many Catholic clergy, it was an extremely small minority. And, as shown in Lies About The Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal, there is no reason, except bigotry and prejudice, to single out Catholic clergy who in fact have committed fewer of these crimes than any other pedagogic institution, religious or secular.

Peter Tatchell and his homosexual/paedophile allies often attacked the Christian Church for having Christian values. There is no record of him bursting in to a synagogue or mosque to protest against their religous values.

Peter Tatchell and his homosexual/paedophile allies often attacked the Christian Church for having Christian values. There is no record of him bursting in to a synagogue or mosque to protest against their religious values.

Saying what he does about the Pope is a criminal act, it is slander. The Pope has never covered up for anyone.Tatchell and his friends in the mainstream media (especially the BBC) think that if you repeat a lie enough times your audience will start to believe that it’s true.

But blaming the Church whenever you’re in trouble is a good way to distract the public from your own deviations from the norm. It’s worked so far so why shouldn’t it work now? Maybe because people have started calling your bluff, Pete.

Peter Tatchell has a seething hatred of Christian morals and values.

Peter Tatchell has a seething hatred of Christian morals and values.

The above should tell you how trustworthy and credible Tatchell is, but there’s more.

Look at his defence of the book Dares To Speak:

“Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by professors, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, a Dutch senator and a former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It discussed the age of sexual consent and whether all sex between young people and adults is necessarily unwanted and harmful, based on what it said was objective research with young people.

The book does not endorse or excuse sexual relationships with young people that involve coercion, manipulation or damage. The authors queried, among other things, the balance between giving young people sexual rights and protecting them against abuse. These are entirely legitimate issues to discuss.”

Leaving aside the irony (probably lost on humorless Tatchell) about his using a “former editor of a Catholic newspaper” as a guarantor of the morality of a book while he constantly treats the Catholic Church like a den of abusers. The book Dares to Speak, that Tatchell praises so much as an academic achievement, was edited by Joseph Geraci, who was also the editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The book is a collection of articles from the journal.

Before it was quietly removed, this was Wikipedia’s entry for the publication:

Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-pedophile activists.

After the normalization of homosexuality, we’ll have the normalization of paedophilia.

15092011573[1]
Here is Tatchell’s letter to the Guardian dated 26th June 1997 (a few weeks after Labour’s General Election win) which he denied writing when I asked him about it. However I can find no record of a complaint to the Guardian, the Press Complaints Commission or any lawsuit for libel:
Ros Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous. The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.
Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers. The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted,abusive and harmful.
Peter Tatchell.
 Picture 9
Peter Tatchell has repeatedly denied writing the letter above. However below is his reply in the Guardian (1st July 1997) to criticism of his original letter. In his second letter (below) he never denies writing the first letter (above) or claims he was edited in any way.
Peter Tachell's second letter to the Guardian on 1st July 1997.

Peter Tachell’s second letter to the Guardian on 1st July 1997.

Peter Tatchell has often claimed he lives a monk-like existence living on a mere £9,000 income per annum. When I challenged him on this he changed his claim to £29,000 plus expenses. However he has refused to disclose his payments for his numerous main stream media appearances or disclose how much his yearly expenses are.
Peter Tatchell in his Council flat.

Peter Tatchell in his Bermondsey Council flat.

Peter Tatchell has declined to be interviewed for this article, however I will leave him the option of the right of reply in the comments section.

img537

img870

Tachell was also a major player in legalising homopaedo marriage and adoption.

Female Paedophile MP Abused Boy In State Care

Written by Cigpapers

Co-Investigation by Watt Tyler

This article appeared on the Coleman Experience blog here:

http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/who-was-the-female-mp-assaulted-child/

It’s an article describing a young boy in State Care being sexually abused by a VIP paedophile ring including a female MP. At the end of the article we’ll narrow down the possible offending female MP.

Female MP Abused Boy in CareVicitm Andrew AshGeoffreyDickensMPHouses Of ParliamentBuckinghamPalaceCharles and palPaedo Ring Number 10MP Vice ChargesHouseMissing BoysMissing Martin AllenVIPHellthatcher and savileSavile SatanTop Tory AbuseThatcher and Cameronfilthy britainElm Guest HouseEGH AdvertElm ListRichmond CouncilWarwickSpinksJason SwiftIslingtonCentrepointPrincess Diana CentrepointGrafton CloseNo to Secret CourtsSecret Family CourtChildSnatcherDerek Laud Big BrotherIan Greerdolphinsquare pimlicoScallywagScared FilthThatcherCabinetBanthePIEBBC PaedosJill DandoRolf Harris Mark Speightesther savileesther savile Savile and RantzenChildlineNaughty Esther RantzenThatcherandSavileBryn Alyn Abuse HomeBryn Alyn HallJillings ReportWestminster CouncilWestminster Councillors- Simon Milton and Robert DavisMaida Vale SignFreemason Brothers in the ShadowsFreemason SymbolFreinds ReunitedJanner and GellerSavile and QueenSavile and Philip

If you thought for one minute that Britain is really as it appears to be, you’re very sadly mistaken.

Beneath the pomp and pageantry lies a network of paedophilic depravity, so vile and despicable, it literally beggars belief.

From the Elm Guest House scandal to North Wales care home abuse via Dolphin Square; to sickening Warwick Spinks and the Amsterdam connection; from Jersey’s Haut de la Garenne to Kincora in Northern Ireland; from the vile BBC to complicit police and government authorities; from MP’s through to the Royal Family themselves; the whole filthy lot of them are in on it.

The VIP paedophile ring has been able to operate by ensuring all sections of society are controlled by abusers and then children are snatched from Britain’s streets or stolen from loving families (via secret family courts) and thrown into care homes to be trafficked by filth.

This shocking article from the Sunday Express sheds more light on the role of politicians in this sordid and sickening web:

” Andrew Ash (pictured at 14) claims he was abused by two MPs in London in the 1980s [HULL NEWS & PICTURES]

She is alleged to have forced a boy in care to perform a “vile”  sex act at one of a series of drug-fuelled parties in Westminster in the Eighties where boys and girls as young as 13 were allegedly abused.Last night her alleged victim told the Sunday Express: “I want justice.”

Andrew Ash, now 45, said he has given Scotland Yard the name of the former MP. We cannot name her for legal reasons.

Mr Ash claims he was frequently ferried down to London from the North of England, where he was in care, to take part in sex parties.

He says they were organised by a paedophile ring involving David Smith, Jimmy Savile’s former chauffeur who killed himself last year before he was due to stand trial for sex offences.

He said: “It wasn’t just politicians, there were also a number of celebrities, including Jimmy Savile, who seemed to have a lot of good links to MPs and powerful businessmen.

“There was usually drugs like cocaine and speed available as well as bottles of champagne.”

Of his encounter with the female MP, he said: “She was extremely drunk and was laughing as she did it.

“I didn’t really know what was going on but the others around her were goading her on.

“I must have been about 13 years old at the time and felt humiliated.” We can also reveal that security services have been working closely with Yard detectives because of the highly sensitive nature of the allegations.

The Sunday Express understands police seized video footage and photographs of an alleged sex party from a well-known paedophile last year.

Mr Ash claims officers have footage which shows a senior male MP in the same frame as him, although no abuse takes place on camera. He said he is speaking out now because he is frustrated by the lack of action after being interviewed for 70 hours by the Met Police’s Paedophile Unit.

He says he was abused by the male MP on another occasion too. He said: “I remember being filmed with this MP, who was abusing me in a garage of a very prominent building behind a Rolls-Royce.

“Another politician turned up with a video camera but the man abusing me just smirked and joked, ‘OK, OK, I’ll vote any way you want’ as if he was being blackmailed. What I want to know is why they haven’t arrested him yet if they have this evidence.“All I want is justice and for the truth to come out because these people have been protected for far too long.”

Mr Ash said two Met officers called at his home in Yorkshire last May.

Interviews were conducted mainly at a safe house in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, but also in London. “The interviews were usually carried out in blocks of three, normally every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

“On at least two occasions there were two other officers present that I didn’t recognise. They didn’t ask me a thing, they just scribbled notes.

“I asked who they were but all I was told was that they were from ‘upstairs’. It was clear from the tone that they were intelligence officers.

“They had obviously been made aware of the high-profile names and the sensitive information I had given police.”

Dutch intelligence officers attended at least one interview because Andrew told of being trafficked to Amsterdam on a number of occasions to be abused by a group of paedophiles including convicted child killer Sidney Cooke.

He claims Cooke, now 84, made him film the paedophile abusing another young boy on video. It is feared Cooke may have abused and killed young boys in the Netherlands.

Mr Ash also told police he was abused by a big-name celebrity.

He said: “This particular person was able to get youngsters into glitzy nightclubs in the West End. After one evening he invited me and a young girl back to his house where he made us have sex before joining in.”

Mr Ash is being helped by anti-abuse campaigners Bill Maloney and Chris Fay.

Mr Fay said: “The police have spent a good deal of time with him, listening to his evidence, and now potentially have compelling information that Andrew was at one of these parties with at least one prominent former MP.

“He hopes by speaking out, other victims may come forward.”

This appalling account of VIP abuse is just the tip of the iceberg.

When we finally discover the full extent of just how wide the filthy paedo ring operating in this country really is, it may well mean the end of Britain as we know it.

The clock is ticking on Britain’s dirty secrets.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453381/Female-MP-abused-boy-in-care

A List Of The 19 Female MPs Elected in 1979:

Josephine Richardson (Labour) 1923-1994 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1994

Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) 1925–2013 (deceased) MP from 1959 to 1992

Sheila Faith (Conservative) born 1928  (retired) MP from 1979 to 1983

Jill Knight (Conservative) born 1924 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Knight of Collingtree) MP from 1966 to 1987

Sheila Wright (Labour) 1925-2013 (deceased) MP from 1979 to 1983

Ann Taylor (Labour) born 1947 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Taylor of Bolton) MP from 1974 to 1983 and 1987 to 2005

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour) 1930-2008 (deceased) MP from 1966 to 1970 and 1974 to 2008

Joan Lester (Labour) 1931-1998 (deceased after serving in House Of Lords as Baroness Lester of Eccles) MP frpm 1966 to 1983 and 1987 to 1997

Sally Oppenheim (Conservative) born 1930 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes of Gloucester) MP from 1970 to 1987

Shirley Summerskill (Labour) born 1931 (retired) MP from 1964 to 1983

Judith Hart (Labour) 1924-1991 (deceased after serving in House Of Lords as Baroness Hart of South Lanark) MP from 1959 to 1987

Elaine Kellet-Bowman (Conservative) born 1924 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1997

Janet Fookes (Conservative) born 1936 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Fookes of Plymouth) MP from 1970 to 1997

Peggy Fenner (Conservative) born 1922 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1974 and 1979 to 1997

Joan Maynard (Labour) 1921-1998 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1987

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Labour) born 1938 (retired) MP from 1976 to 1987

Lynda Chalker (Conservative) born 1942 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) MP from 1974 to 1992

Betty Boothroyd (Labour) born 1929 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell)  MP from 1973 to 2000

Renee Short (Labour) 1919-2003 (deceased) MP from 1964 to 1987

A List Of The 23 Female MPs Elected in 1983:

Josephine Richardson (Labour) 1923-1994 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1994

Elizabeth Peacock (Conservative) born 1937 (retired) MP from 1983 to 1997

Jill Knight (Conservative) born 1924 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Knight of Collingtree) MP from 1966 to 1987

Clare Short (Labour) born 1946 (retired 2010) MP from 1983 to 2005

Marion Roe (Conservative) born 1936 (retired 2005)  MP from 1983 to 2005

Judith Hart (Labour) 1924-1991 (deceased after serving in House Of Lords as Baroness Hart of South Lanark) MP from 1959 to 1987

Lady Ann Winterton (Conservative) born 1941 (retired  2010) MP from 1983 to 2010

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour) 1930- 2008 (deceased) MP from 1966 to 1970 and 1974 to 2008

Margaret Beckett (Labour) born 1943 (currently MP) MP from 1974 to 1979 and 1983 to present

Edwina Currie (Conservative) born 1946 (retired 1997) MP from 1983 to 1997

Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) 1925–2013 (deceased) MP from 1959 to 1992

Sally Oppenheim (Conservative) born 1930 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes of Gloucester) MP from 1970 to 1987

Elaine Kellet-Bowman (Conservative) born 1924 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1997

Peggy Fenner (Conservative) born 1922 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1974 and 1979 to 1997

Angela Rumbold (Conservative) 1932-2010 (deceased) First elected in 1982 by-election then MP from 1983 to 1997

Harriet Harman (Labour) born 1950 (currently MP for Peckham) first elected MP in by-election 1982 to present

Janet Fookes (Conservative) born 1936 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Fookes of Plymouth) MP from 1970 to 1997

Anna McCurley (Conservative) born 1943 (retired 1987) MP from 1983 to 1987

Joan Maynard (Labour) 1921-1998 (deceased) MP from 1974 to 1987

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Labour) born 1938 (retired) MP from 1976 to 1987

Lynda Chalker (Conservative) born 1942 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) MP from 1974 to 1992

Betty Boothroyd (Labour) born 1929 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell) MP from 1973 to 2000

Renee Short (Labour) 1919-2003 (deceased) MP from 1964 to 1987

Jewess Harriet Harman in butterfly brooch.

Jewess Harriet Harman QC MP in butterfly brooch.

The most obvious suspect is Harriet Harman QC MP of the Paedophile Information Exchange but we need more clues than we have already. However Harriet Harman is still an MP. Here’s an article on the evil Harriet Harman:

https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/harriet-harman-in-butterfly-brooch/

However if the accused is really an ex-MP and is still alive the 17 suspects are:

Sheila Faith (Conservative) born 1928  (retired) MP from 1979 to 1983

Jill Knight (Conservative) born 1924 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Knight of Collingtree) MP from 1966 to 1987

Ann Taylor (Labour) born 1947 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Taylor of Bolton) MP from 1974 to 1983 and 1987 to 2005

Sally Oppenheim (Conservative) born 1930 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes of Gloucester) MP from 1970 to 1987

Shirley Summerskill (Labour) born 1931 (retired) MP from 1964 to 1983

Elaine Kellet-Bowman (Conservative) born 1924 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1997

Janet Fookes (Conservative) born 1936 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Fookes of Plymouth) MP from 1970 to 1997

Peggy Fenner (Conservative) born 1922 (retired) MP from 1970 to 1974 and 1979 to 1997

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Labour) born 1938 (retired) MP from 1976 to 1987

Lynda Chalker (Conservative) born 1942 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Chalker of Wallasey) MP from 1974 to 1992

Betty Boothroyd (Labour) born 1929 (now in House Of Lords as Baroness Boothroyd of Sandwell)  MP from 1973 to 2000

Elizabeth Peacock (Conservative) born 1937 (retired) MP from 1983 to 1997

Clare Short (Labour) born 1946 (retired 2010) MP from 1983 to 2005

Marion Roe (Conservative) born 1936 (retired 2005)  MP from 1983 to 2005

Lady Ann Winterton (Conservative) born 1941 (retired  2010) MP from 1983 to 2010

Edwina Currie (Conservative) born 1946 (retired 1997) MP from 1983 to 1997

Anna McCurley (Conservative) born 1943 (retired 1987) MP from 1983 to 1987

Justice Denied Blog Names Their Five Top Suspects:

The Justice Denied blog has named their five top suspects as:

1. Edwina Currie – an MP at the time, now retired and not deceased.Edwina Currie appointed Savile to run a taskforce in charge of Broadmoor mental hospital in the 1980s, where he is accused of sexually assaulting patients

2. Margaret Thatcher – an MP at the time (actually Prime Minister), now retired and deceased.

3. Virginia Bottomley –  not an MP until 1984, now retired and not deceased. Her husband Peter Bottomley is named on the Elm Guest House paedophile VIP party list.

4. Harriet Harman – an MP at the time, not retired and not deceased.Major player in the Paedophile Information Exchange.

5. Ann Winterton – an MP at the time, now retired and not deceased.

If the abuse happened in 1982 or 1983, as it seems, then the only two out of the five fitting the description ( MP at the time, now retired and not deceased) would be Edwina Currie and Ann Winterton. Read more from Justice Denied here:

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/so-who-is-woman-mp-who-abused-mr-ash.html