Saturday, January 14, 2012

How To Destroy A Country — Part 2

Below is the second part of a three-part series by Paul Weston about the deliberate destruction of British culture, and of Western Civilization itself.

Part 1 is here.

How To Destroy A Country — Part 2
by Paul Weston

Paul WestonThe Marxist left/liberals have now completed their Long March Through the Institutions. They claim the varied lunatic policies they enacted were for the benefit of society, but can this really be the case? When viewed through the prism of reality, much of socialism’s ideology appears to have one aim and one aim only: the total destruction of society. This is not an overreaction by any means — if societal destruction was your bag, would you not carry out the following?

Destroy Industry. What is the difference between booming Germany and bankrupt Britain? Simple: Germany manufactures and Britain consumes — but this was not always the case. Britain once had a dominant engineering and ship-building industry, and was Europe’s biggest manufacturer of cars and motor-cycles. It was therefore essential to sabotage our industrial base — our means of production — in order to destroy capitalist Britain. Many Trades Union leaders of the 1950s through to the 1980s were Communists or Communist sympathisers who organised strikes and “downed-tools” so successfully that Britain’s industrial base went to the wall. Writing in the Spectator last year, Douglas Eden outlined the infiltration of British Trades Unions, and how their pro-Soviet ideology was tolerated by Labour Prime Ministers up until the election in 1979 of Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher, incidentally, is hated so viscerally by the left/liberals because her defeat of the unions was perceived to have ended the dream of International Communism.

Destroy Education. Having defeated the Unions, Margaret Thatcher, inexplicably, never promoted British industry in the aftermath. She decided instead that Britain’s economy should be based around a Service Industry, which essentially meant paper-shuffling and number-crunching. As paper-shufflers and number-crunchers need to be educated to a reasonable standard, so the left/liberals took their Marxist war against the economy into the classrooms. The British state school curriculum essentially revolves around the Frankfurt School ideology of anti-Western Critical Theory, with traditional education placed second best. An exposé of the overt socialist propaganda in our schools may be read here, but the results of Britain’s progressive educational policies are visible all around us. Semi-literate and semi-numerate university graduates sit atop a pile of the most badly educated young people in Europe, many of whom are completely unemployable, according to the heads of British business — just as was intended by the hard Left, and implemented by their eager armies of liberal Useful Idiots.

Destroy the family. Feminism has often been described as a war against men, but it is more than just that. Feminist ideology is really about war against the family, because families tend to be self-sufficient and therefore less reliant on the state. As Socialism is all about state control, then the family must be smashed.

Betty Friedan Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir and Germaine Greer, Communist supporters all, took their dysfunctional ideology from Friedrich Engel’s statement in The Origin of the family: “The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed slavery of the wife…within the family he is the bourgeois and his wife represents the proletariat.” Germaine Greer is in complete agreement with Engels, and her book The Female Eunuch is essentially a clarion call for destruction, anarchy and Communism, as we can see from the following quote: “Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary structure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it.”

Greer goes on to say: “But man made one grave mistake…he admitted women to politics and the professions. The conservatives who saw this as the undermining of our civilisation and the end of the state and marriage were right after all; it is time for the demolition to begin.” Well, thanks, Germaine! The demolition not only began; it is now all but over. Surveys suggest children raised in conventional families are far less likely to go off the rails, but in the Socialist world the ends justify the means, so feminists ignore the broken lives and thwarted ambitions of fatherless, state supported children, particularly those of West Indian origin and the white working-class members of the abandoned proletariat. In addition, brainwashed British women have put abortion and careers before motherhood and give birth to a new generation 25% smaller than their own, which effectively destroys any hope of an equal or growing future tax-payer base to fund the welfare state.

Eradicate Religion. All great civilisations have been built around great religions. Western Civilisation is built on the foundations of Judeo-Christianity, so if Western Civilisation is to be destroyed then its religious pillars must first be undermined. Again, this destructive ethos is derived from Communist ideology. Christianity and Communism are fundamentally incompatible — one is a spiritual creed, the other materialist. Christianity lays down that a man’s responsibility to his neighbour is personal, a matter for his individual conscience, while communism decrees that all duties are collective, to be enforced by the state. Karl Marx stated:
“The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, humility. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

Communists believed the Ten Commandments to be a form of “class morality” that served only the interests of the Bourgeoisie. Anatole Lunarcharsky, a Russian Commissar of education declared: We hate Christianity and Christians…they preach love of one’s neighbours and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution! What we want is hate, only then can we conquer the world.

In Britain, Christianity is not outlawed, just sidelined, sneered at, and its practice sometimes criminalised. The persecution of British Christians has reached such a level that in 2010 Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and six prominent bishops, penned an open letter to the Labour government stating: “We are deeply concerned at the apparent discrimination shown against Christians and we call on the Government to remedy this serious development. In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country.”

Perhaps Lord Carey actually understands that the Marxist elites in Britain share the same hatred of Christianity, for precisely the same reasons, as did the Communists. The BBC recently appointed a controversial Muslim, Aaqil Ahmed, to head up their religious affairs department.

Multicultural classroom

In 2006 the BBC was shamed into rewriting an anti-Christian pro-Islamic text aimed at schoolchildren, which described Christianity as a religion of racism, sexism, colonialism, enslavement and murder, whilst Islam, with its arranged marriages, honour killings and second class status for women under Sharia law, was deemed a female friendly religion. Britain’s left/liberal elites clearly consider Christianity to be an impediment to the ideology of the New Socialist Man they seem intent on building.

Eradicate Morality. There is little point in eradicating religion without ensuring the concomitant destruction of morality, hence the invention of moral relativism which argues there is no such thing as right or wrong. Lenin invoked the same ideology, but did so in a more honest manner when he said, “Morality is that which furthers the revolution.” The Marxists and liberal/left who now control the education and media establishments in Britain know that massive social change cannot be brought about by outright revolution, so realise that anarchy must first prevail — just as espoused by Georg Lukacs. A sure-fire way to create an anarchic situation is to remove the young from the codes of behaviour that religion and morality demand.

Destroy the Community. Like families, communities tend toward self-sufficiency and are the bed-rock of Nation States. The community is simply part of a chain — family, community, village, town, city, country, nation state. Communities are capable of acting together in defiance of the State — ergo, they too must be smashed. How to do so? Demolish streets of family houses and build impersonal blocks; close down local schools and hospitals and build mega-versions controlled by faceless bureaucrats rather than locally known people; close local Post Offices where the elderly meet and gossip once a week; outlaw smoking and make pubs (the nerve centres of individual resistance) prohibitively expensive. In short, fragment and isolate the population so they feel alone and powerless before the all-powerful state and its ever growing army of interfering bureaucrats.

Destroy the Middle-Class. Shortly after the jailed dissident turned president Vaclav Havel came to power in Czechoslovakia in 1989, he stated that the rebuilding of Socialism’s shattered economic, moral, spiritual and environmental forty-year catastrophe could not take place until a new middle-class had formed. This is exactly right. The middle classes are the backbone of any functioning democracy. They pay taxes; they participate in their children’s education; they form committees and pressure groups; they raise money for local causes; they are self-sufficient and require little or nothing from the State. Such independent actions make them an acute threat to the State and must therefore be smashed. Disguised as the promotion of a “Classless Society” Britain’s middle-classes have been systematically traduced by the educational and media establishments, because they represent the bourgeoisie in ideology, if not in income.

Destroy the Working Class. Britain has been importing a low-skilled “workforce” from less developed countries for decades, whilst simultaneously exporting low-skilled jobs abroad. Whilst it is pleasant for highly paid BBC liberals to employ cheap nannies and cleaners, the working class find themselves in direct competition with immigrants, which is an area where they simply cannot compete. A Polish builder who works for half the rate of a British builder does not have to pay a mortgage or support a family, and is happy living fifteen to a house for a few years before moving back to Poland with a large pot of money. Big business has no problem with this, nor do the Left/liberal elites who are happy to create an unemployed British under-class which can be relied on to keep foolishly voting for them, simply because they offer the highest rewards for enforced unemployment.

EUSSRDestroy The Nation State. This is more about the European Union than internal British politics, but it is very important. The Unelected Commissars who run the EU are fully aware they cannot control fully-functioning Nation States, which is why the United Kingdom has been broken up into twelve regions. The recent Labour government even went so far as to appoint Regional Ministers for each area. This destruction of our ancient counties and governance — with the word “England” actually removed from EU maps — is otherwise known as “Divide and Rule.”

To be continued…

Paul Weston is Chairman of the British Freedom Party.

Previous posts by Paul Weston:

2007 Jan 22 The Week Britain Died
    26 Britain’s Dystopian School Children
  Feb 2 Questioning the Sanity of Liberals
  Mar 1 Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits
    31 Is European Civil War Inevitable by 2025?
  Jun 26 The Big Story That Isn’t
  Aug 10 An Open Letter to Fellow Europeans
    24 A Brussels Perspective
  Sep 12 Democratic Europe R.I.P.
  Nov 2 The Coming Third World War
    21 Cool War — Warm War — Hot War: Part 1
    29 Cool War — Warm War — Hot War: Part 2
2008 Mar 27 The Face of Moderate Islam in Britain
2009 Feb 9 Wilders in Wonderland
    13 Who is Lord Ahmed?
    25 Temporary Peace Trumps Freedom of Speech
  Jul 1 Muslims, Mosques and Mosquitoes
    2 Islam, the BBC, and Young Children
    8 Review of “A Bridge Too Far”
    17 Socialist Propaganda in British Education
  Oct 15 Multiculturalism Has Destroyed the British Police
2010 Mar 16 Ethnically Cleansing the English
  Oct 7 Banana Republic Britain
    30 “We Will Hold You to Account”
  Dec 5 The Metaphorical Front Line of Islam
    5 The West Needs to Wake Up
    7 Land for Peace — Or Land for a Terror State?
2011 May 20 Why Is This Not Treason?
  Jun 1 One Week in the Death of Britain
  Jul 11 The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain
    29 The BBC, Breivik, the EDL and Islam
  Aug 7 Down’s Syndrome Babies, Sarah Palin and the BBC
  Sep 5 Clone These Men!
  Nov 27 The Totalitarian EU Tightens Its Grip
  Dec 6 One Rule for Them, One Rule for Us
    7 Muslim Misogyny, Feminist Indifference
    13 Interview with Paul Weston
2012 Jan 10 Racism and Media Double Standards in Britain
    13 How To Destroy A Country — Part 1


Anonymous said...

EXCELLENT, informative analysis of the cascade of destruction unleashed by the Marxist-liberal ideology. Yet these fools are digging their own graves even as they destroy the peoples of Europe. Because if there is one class of people the Islamists despise even more than Jews, Christians, and polytheists, it is the class of atheists.It will go hard with these deluded liberals when Islam takes power in Europe.

kloutlichter said...

it is all a bit depressing but there are hints in my life that people are beginning to wake up to what is happening around them.From the school playground to the private household's I work in,people are beginning to voice opinions similar to mine .Without any compulsion from me. I am a bit of a lonewolf for my views but I think the pack is beginning to assemble.


And what of the United States role in the creation of multikulti Europe, they have hardly been bystanders and have most to fear from a European economic and military powerhouse.

doxRaven said...

Spot on Paul.

The middle class has been commandeers to support a bloated bureaucratic apparatus. An apparatus that has successfully decoupled itself from the voice of that middle class. The middle class has become enslaved and is milked by ever finely tuned taxes, fees, charges and penalties (in truth more taxes).
The cohesion of the family unit has been under assault which in turn has been a key factor in the reduction in the birth rate. Moving on from that kill the Left then shifts to the spread of the propaganda that "your welfare state is not sustainable by the birth rate, you will need mass immigration" to solve this. To ensure that mass immigration, the key weapon of mass destruction, the Left pushes the propaganda of "the sin to be redeemed" via asylum laws and refugee conventions.
The one-two punch links can also be seen with education and the degradation of apprenticeship systems. Students are being pushed to University education in preference to trade education. The propaganda is that everyone should be able to go the University, capable or not. Universities are now focused on mass education and delivering propaganda programs. The shift has meant that many trade institutions had to become Universities and others have disappeared altogether. The manufacturing industry has suffered under the strained of the resulting scarcity of qualified labour. This has accelerated the decline of manufacturing but not caused it. The cause decline is another piece propaganda: globalisation. So here comes the two punch: give the problem, what is the solution? Guess what: immigration, immigration of 'skilled labour'.
Globalisation, the propaganda fiction of a flat world and level playing field, is clearly just that fiction. The largest manufacturing economy 1), China is not a level playing field and the Yuan is carefully managed by a elites of the Chinese communist party. Kyoto is a prime example of a mechanism to destroy wealth in the hated economies under the propaganda that it would save the planet. But knowing full well that this was a lie since a system excluding China and India would have no impact on absolute emission - in fact just the opposite.
All the issues that Paul sites are actually linked in accelerating the destruction or enforcing mantras by creating self-fulfilling prophecies.


Columnist said...

But Christianity IS a deeply flawed religion.

Christianity commands having a large family, but forbids wars of conquest. This explains the hypocrisy of the West; constantly following a cycle of expansion and guilt. Christianity is inherently unstable.

Christian monogamy means that conquered people are wiped out. Not only men, but also women and children are killed.

So basically all pathologies of the West, both the atrocities AND the guilt about it, are inherited from Christianity.

Columnist said...

@Jolie Rouge

It is very tempting to help the Mexicans against the USA, if it weren't for the fact that Mexicans often sympathize with Hezbollah and Iran.

Durotrigan said...


I agree that Christianity is actually part of the problem. In Europe, we now live in post-Christian societies. The British Freedom Party will be making a fatal mistake if it chooses to push Christianity as part of its policy platform, because by doing so it will render itself irrelevant. It pains me to see this mistake being made. I have already made my thoughts on this known to Paul Weston, but unfortunately he has ceased communicating since I pointed out this salient fact. It is throwing away millions of potential votes for the prospect of a few tens of thousands. Religion is divisive and ought to be kept out of politics in Britain and other European nations. This is one of the reasons why I despise Islam so much.

Christianity inculcates guilt through its concept of 'original sin' from the very outset. Although I'm an atheist, I'd describe myself as rational in outlook but pagan in sentiment. Not all atheists are appeasers of Islam as the religionists would have you believe, for after all, as the first anonymous contributor to this comment string notes, Islam prescribes death for atheists. I am thus implacably opposed to Islamic doctrine.

Christianity may be far superior to Islam, but I don't see it as being superior to Classical Greek and Roman thought or to Buddhism. It could be argued that many of Aesop's Fables are a better guide to life than Christianity.

Anonymous said...

One of the problems with your advancing the view that "Christianity is part of the problem" is that it's not. The problem is exactly what Paul Weston said it is.

Another problem with your position is that you have provided no answer to "the problem".

You are arguing for ... nothing.

Not exactly helpful, given our current predicament.

Anonymous said...

As someone who spent years using atheist websites, message boards & forums I can tell you categorically that the vast majority of so-called atheists are not truly atheists at all. They are anti-Christians, first, foremost and always.

You could say that atheists are part of the problem.

And what's more atheists have nothing that even vaguely resembles a solution to the predicament we find ourselves in.

Anonymous said...

Unless of course you really are suggesting that the many different societies throughout Europe should all abandon their heritage and build new societies on that which you say is better than Christianity.

Do you know of any societies that are build on Aesop's fables?

Maybe the rest of the world could use them as a model.

How exactly would that work then?

Nemesis said...

I agree with this article which is very well presented. I have always wondered why that Socialist Queen, Germaine Greer, left sunny Australia, her birthplace, for the colder climate of the British Isles. Perhaps the Australia of her childhood was too egalitarian for her to give her much traction in pushing her socialist ideals and she recognized that Britain was becoming all that she hoped for.

Well, as a fellow Aussie I can honestly say that I certainly do not miss her frequent hate filled rants and am quite happy to leave her silly comments, and writings, to be listened to and read by those poor Brits who have to put up with her idiotic and soul destroying ravings.

And to Jolie Rouge.....maybe a history lesson regarding America's role in Europe after WW2 is in order for you!

Siobhan said...

@Jolie Rouge

The US Government is allowing millions of illegal Mexicans to enter our country completely against the will of the people they proclaim to be serving. At the same time they are allowing an increasing number of Muslims to enter under the radar, using the Mexicans as their shield. Also, there are many, many illegal Chinese entering on the west coast which no one is talking about. The point is this government is selling out its own people - the ones who pioneered, built and died for this country - the white European. The same element that is attacking you is attacking us. The people of North America and Europe must come together because we need each other. Only in our unity is there hope.


That Christianity has lasted for over 2000 years is a testament to the fact that it is of Divine origin – otherwise it would have died out a long, long time ago. Another fact is that the Catholic Church is the heart and soul of Western Civilization, and she incorporated into it what was best about Greek and Roman civilization. The problem is today’s Church has also been infiltrated by the Left and what passes for Christianity these days is often marxism masquerading as Christianity. I don’t know if you have ever read the biography of Bella Dodd - a high ranking member of the US Communist party who back in the 1930’s personally trained over 1000 men to enter the religious orders and seminaries. In the 1950’s she converted to the Church and gave testimony to Archbishop Fulton Sheen that most of these men were now in the highest positions of the American Church. Soon afterwards came Vatican II and the traitorous clergy already within the Church twisted and perverted it to serve their agenda. This explains the Church we are saddled with today, though there are signs of hope that things are beginning to turn around. We need unity with our Christian brethren all over the world and yes, we need to pray for help and guidance from God because the war being waged against us is demonically inspired

Salome said...

Great piece--both instalments.

Anonymous said...

Christian monogamy means that conquered people are wiped out.

plygamists are pedophiles.

Anonymous said...

Watch the Atheists come on here and tell us how they support the Anti Christian efforts of the Marxists.


That was the good part of their agenda! That is a done deal, already accomplished, good riddance! Lets not roll back that part of the Marxist agenda, just these other parts.

What a hoot!

Standing there as Godless Hedonists amongst growing numbers of Godless Hedonists, wondering why their cultures, societies, and nation states are crumbling around them.

The basis of your socieity has been rejected by yourself, and you stand there pointing at the Marxists who indoctrinated you into Godless Hedonism, unable to escape the indoctrination, but realizing that something isnt quite right with every other agenda those Marxists have pushed. Do you ever stop and think to yourselves, why Marxists bothered to target Christianity and its institutions and transmission via societal institutions? I mean if Christianity was a key to destroying Western Civilization and Cultures, wouldnt they all be gung ho Christians, promoting Christianity? Wouldnt Hollywood be pumping out Pro-Christian content?

Shakes Head.

In the end, Atheists are just another minority group amongst the Multi-culti brigade lined up against European Christian Civilization...cheering its destruction and supporting the efforts.

Columnist said...


Pre-Vatican II Church was indeed far better. It at least openly opposed freedom of religion.
Large families aren't bad in themselves, but we should realize that they require expansion of territory.

Atheists are worse than Christians. The only way to defeat Islam, is to develop a superior religion. God exists, hell is eternal.

kloutlichter said...

I dont think God exists or that hell is eternal.While all religion is an anathema to me ,I can recognize that western civilisation is heavily based on the christian creed,that has, on the whole and eventually led to one of the greatest civilizations the world has ever had.As what I would call an existential agnostic, I would rather see religion go down the tubes,but the reality is that it is not.Therefore I'll stick my flag in the Jesus camp if I have too and hope that the camp of Islam is raised to the ground.

Fifteen Heretics said...

The first one set the bar very high but I'm a bit disappointed by the second instalment.

Generalisations and rehashed propaganda. I'm expecting something big from BF, much better than this any way.

Hope part 3 has some punch.

Anonymous said...

"Destroy the family. Feminism has often been described as a war against men, but it is more than just that. Feminist ideology is really about war against the family, because families tend to be self-sufficient and therefore less reliant on the state."

Have to disagree with the above presumption. Feminism is about equality. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure how the author presumes families to be "self-sufficient", but true feminists merely want that women have opportunities comparable to men and earn $$ equivalent to men. This doesn't "destroy families" nor is that the objective.

Old cherry-picked quotes aren't representative of all feminists' views and should not be cited as tho they are.

It's bizarre how often the right vilifies feminism. Again, feminism is about equality; i.e. women being treated as capable and intelligent as men. Nothing communist/socialist about that!

Anonymous said...

Feminist ideas about equality bring them to be hostile to the nuclear family, motherhood, and even the rights of children (especially the unborn).

The plain fact of the matter is that the Feminism of the 60s New Left radicals is often Marxist in nature, and certainly is encouraged by Marxists as assaults on Christian/bourgeois institutions such as marriage, the nuclear family, and sexual mores.

This is very clear, from the mouths of feminists.

Another example is the issue of Clergy clear contradiction to Christian tradition and the Bible.

Whether some feminists are hostile to Marxists and Marxism is beside the point. They are useful idiots. Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, Cultural Marxism. The key is to stoke demands and greivances amongst these groups for the purpose of them assualting societal norms and institutions...the destruction of the old order, which leaves a power vacuum for the Marxists to step into....and voting blocks for the Marxists....against the old order.


Anonymous said...

You can see two of the MultiCulti brigade have popped up on this thread, Feminists and Atheists. Encouraged and supported by the Left as reliable voters against the old order on their particular issues of concern with regards to the Old Christian Order.

Sagunto said...

Nemesis -

You wrote: "And to Jolie Rouge.....maybe a history lesson regarding America's role in Europe after WW2 is in order for you!"

Just out of curiosity, what would that particular history lesson entail in your view?


Anonymous said...

@those unwilling to accept feminism as a wish for equality:

Looks like dissenting opinions are not wanted here! So who are the intolerant totalitarians??

Just because you can find a few feminist quotes somewhere that fit your agenda doesn't mean the majority of feminists believe them. Btw, Elisabeth S-Wolff refers to herself as a feminist. Feminists helped vote the minarets down in Switzerland.

So you're putting Elisabeth down too. Way to go, heroes.

Keep vilifying feminists and lose supporters for your cause. Unless your cause is to keep women walking 2 feet behind the men.

Anonymous said...


Feminism is about power, not equality before the law.

Feminists arent clamoring to be included in the military draft, or posting editorals about how women are under-represented in the garbage collection profession.

Feminists arent interested in bringing balance to Family Law, or give men rights with regard to their conceived unborn children. The disproportionate custody granted by the state to women, isnt a sore point with Feminists.

It isnt about equality, at least not now, if it ever was. There may be a few Feminists out there who actually are about equality, but the majority of their organizations are dominated by those interested in power, and disempowering men, Christianity.

Storming the exclusionary all mens club but not likewise destroying the all womens club.

I could go on and on.


Anonymous said...

BTW, in the US at least parity in pay has already been achieved. There are not only no barriers to women, but in fact we have discrimination against men, who are not allowed compete equally with women....just like a whole host of other "Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination," special preferences and special protections.

Equality, my foot.

Women in the workforce, means less offspring...if they are working they arent having babies. Collapsed society/civiilization.

Abortion on demand, means less offspring. Collapsed society/civilization.

Women in the workforce means, less quality of child reariing. Degradation of society.


Anonymous said...

History textbooks have been rewritten to suit Feminist interests.

Girls are outperforming boys in schools, who have concentrated teaching methods and cirricula changes to focus on female success. Feminists arent calling for a focus on boys educational, but more changes and funding to promote girls educational success.

Women by a large degree lead in college degree attainment. Ditto, no calls for equality...special preferences for men, affirmative action for men, and cirricula changes and extra funding for men's college level educational attainment.

Equality my foot.


Anonymous said...

Isn't the point kind of that these people will take something that sounds a-ok, even desirable (such as women being treated the same as men) which is something (a vague idea) that a lot of people will say ok to ...

and then use that as a linguistic shield, almost impenetrable, to cover up what they're really doing ...

which practically no morally sane person would ever agree is a good thing. (They know this, hence the deception.. at least until the public can be re-educated and their language stolen from them so they have no means to describe the new reality they find themselves in.)

Anonymous said...

Is this equality?

Watch it for yourself here.

Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is that there are many people who accede to a selective version of "Feminist" ideals, just as there are many others who accede to a "moderate" idea of "Islam".

But if you call yourself either, then complain when people criticize the mainstream definition, you're playing the same game as those who adopt the imagery and rhetoric of Nazism and then complain that people don't try to understand what they really mean.

Words (like Feminist, Islam, and Nazi) have accepted meanings and it is up to you to be aware of what they mean to others before you apply them to yourself.

Now, 'ethnic' Muslims and "moderate" Muslims might have an excuse, in that there really has existed a diverse interpretation of what it meant to be a Muslim across the centuries...and probably since the very beginnings of Islam.

But "Feminism" is far too recent an example for this argument to get very far. First off, let us put aside all this silliness about Feminism being about simple equality. If that were really the case, the first thing you would argue for is the abolition of all laws against rape and especially the presumption that men are predominantly responsible. There are a number of other points that could be raised in the same vein, but if you aren't of the stripe of "Feminist" that wants to get rid of laws against rape, then we need investigate your claims of wanting "simple equality" no further.

However, there is room for attempting to "reform" Feminism, as do those who point out that the first priority of those who claim to be feminists should be speaking out against Islamic laws which subjugate and demean women. If you belong to this category, then you would necessarily agree that "Feminist" attacks against anything else--and especially directed at the social viability of those cultures currently at war with Islam--are rank hypocrisy (there are plenty of 'reform' feminists who are primarily interested in halting sex-selective abortion in China and India and only secondarily concerned about Islam, but as long as they place fighting Islam ahead of undermining the Western family they still get in on this category). Those who fail to support the West against Islam are simply more interested in the destruction of the West than they are with any sins of which Islam is far more guilty.

If you are not in favor of effectively decriminalizing rape, nor willing to make Islam rather than Western Civilization the target of your ire, then you are a "Feminist" of the type that merely wants to aid Marxists in destroying all human freedom. Yes, that will make men and women "equal". It will effectively end all legal protections for women against sexual exploitation. It does meet the criteria for being considered "Feminism" in a twisted manner. But I personally wouldn't pick it.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Nick said...

I just had a thought about something John Leoffler once spoke about: the way people who see themselves as "agents of change" will deliberately use vague terms that can mean different things to different people in order to achieve an "agreement".

(For example, feminism, equality, etc.)

One of the methods Loeffler recommends for torpedoeing the project these people are embarked upon is to ask them repeatedly to define their terms.

I really do recommend Loeffler's talks on this subject; if anyone wants to give them a listen they can get the mp3s from khouse dot org. A few bucks - worth a listen, he knows his stuff.

Anonymous said...

Well, it doesnt seem like too much of an attempt was made to clarify the position.

My guess is that the demand is to kowtow to Feminist policies, or they will continue to give support to the Left, which long run is going to be ruinous for their daughters and grandaughters. The onus is on Western European Christian Civilization to dance to the Feminist tune, or they are going to keep voting for the deconstruction of WECC, to its ultimate demise.

When a Civilizatoin/Tribes women turn against them, its the end of that Civilization/Tribe. Of course you can always subjugate women, and thus keep things sustainable. The problem seems to be with the WECC is that they gave women too much equality and rights, and those women only demanded more and more, surpassing equality into dominion, the total disempowerment of men, by taking their economic output at the point of the government gun for redistribution to themselves.

Good wasnt goog enough, they wanted it all. Now their daughters and grandaughters face full on second class status as Muslimas or dhimmis....and they still wont choose good over perfect(which leads to really really bad).


Anonymous said...

Chiu: "If you are not in favor of effectively decriminalizing rape, nor willing to make Islam rather than Western Civilization the target of your ire, then you are a "Feminist" of the type that merely wants to aid Marxists in destroying all human freedom."

Your point about rape is bizarre and irrational.

Rape happens to boys and men as well as women.

Anonymous said...

"A Polish builder who works for half the rate of a British builder does not have to pay a mortgage or support a family, and is happy living fifteen to a house for a few years before moving back to Poland with a large pot of money."

First of all it's not in a good taste to critisize Polish people on a blog called "Gates of Vienna" - because it was a Polish victory over the Ottoman Empire... :)

But to the topic - I'm Polish and I don't think that my countryman are a problem for British society, yes we work for a half price but our workers are solid and well skilled, they came to Britain to work for a short period of time and most of them pay British taxes and don't consume social payments, we speak english and respect British law.
We are a conservative nation that respects the institution of a
traditional family, and many other values - we don't change your culture.
Polish people are not some sort of lazy parasites - we are a nation of hard workers.
I would also like to remind you that Polish soldiers took an active role in defending Britain during the WW2 - you don't believe lern more about Polish pilots in RAF...

So once again please learn more about us before you say anything.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon Pole,

You have a good sense of humor, but a bad sense of economics. :)

My American college economics class taught me that either an indigenous or 'foreign' worker (Mexican immigrant or illegal) who works in an employing country (United States) but sends pay to a non-employing country (Mexico) siphons that money from the economy of the employing country - and hurts the economy and the workers of the employing country. Instead of that money being spent to employ service workers in the employing country, the money funds jobs in the non-employing country. Such an indigenous or 'foreign' worker deprives citizens invested in the employing country of both the original job AND all follow-on jobs that would have been created by the money sent abroad.

So, while Poles may be better than Muslims, Poles who work in England and then leave are working for the benefit of Poland and the Polish - rather than the benefit of England and English. Poles who work for half price deprive English of the ability to make a living in their own land via fundamentally unfair competition that values the needs of Poles over the needs of English.

But, the English are supposed to 'keep quiet' in order to avoid hurting tender Polish feelings?!

What about the English feelings?!

Anonymous said...

If a man is 'raped' without having been substantially injured otherwise, it is generally impossible to obtain a conviction of the rapist (this used to be especially true if the 'rapist' was a woman). The idea of a man being "forced" to have sex with a woman is still regarded as mostly fit only for comedic portrayal.

This may not be right, but it does happen to be true. Effective criminal prosecution of rape as a crime is generally only possible because of the assumption of inequality between men and women in this regard.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Paul Weston said...

Anonymous Pole

My dear chap, everything you say about the Polish is quite true. In point of fact, I find your countrymen the most admirable, brave, moral and decent people in Europe.

However, as Egghead has so succinctly argued, working for half the pay of an English worker is not good for the English worker; I am sure an intelligent chap such as yourself can understand why this must be so.

I have a signed Battle of Britain print on my wall, enscribed with the names of famous WWII RAF fighter aces, two of whom were Polish.

One of them, Squadron Leader Stanislaw Skalski (of 501 Squadron)went home after the war, and was persecuted dreadfully by the Communist regime, which I imagine you are too young to remember.

In other words don't teach your grandma to suck eggs son, and please don't forget that whilst Poles died in the defence of Poland, the Britsh, who had not been invaded, declared war against Germany on behalf of Poland, and subsequently died for Poland.

Anonymous said...

Chiu: Please read the following legal dictionary definition of rape.

To fail to classify rape as a crime because the majority of perpetrators are men and the majority of victims are women reminds me of two equally wrong but similar situations:

1. Islam claims to have no rape because Islam makes it literally impossible for a person to prove that person has been raped. Islam is an anti-rape religion in its truest form. To wit, Islam simply 'pretends' that rape, molestation, and gang rape are nonexistent - which makes these crimes rampant.

Indeed, Islam even employs rape jihad in order to demoralize and enslave non-Muslims. Yes, that's the whole point of the Islamic instruction for Muslim men to murder non-Muslim men and take their wives and children as sex slaves.

So, at the time in history when Islam is at its most powerful in the West - due to its control of oil - and thus Western politics, media, and education - at this crucial time, YOU would have the West dismantle rape protections which would greatly facilitate both pedophile and gang rape by Muslims against non-Muslims.

What are you, a shill for Sharia Law?!

Repeat after me: Sharia Law is bad; Western rape law is good.

2. Leftists now claim that the American justice system must be made proportional to race. If blacks are incarcerated at a higher percentage than whites, then the system must either free criminal blacks - or incarcerate more whites. And, it's all to start in the public schools....

Oh, and again, I MUST say that 1) leftists have absolutely ZERO problem identifying WHO is white in order to distribute disparate benefits to minorities, and 2) blacks have absolutely ZERO problem identifying WHO is white in order to plan violent criminal attacks, so WHY does everyone else have such a problem figuring out WHO the white people are?!

In any case, your argument that rape should be eliminated as a crime because men are usually perpetrators and women are usually victims makes you sound leftist. "It's just NOT fair that more men are incarcerated for rape, so we MUST free male rapists or imprison more female rapists." Really?!

Oh, by the way, a WHOLE lot of Western rapes are perpetrated against young girls and young women. Rape is often really a crime against children - yes, boys, too.

Anonymous said...

Paul Weston

The reason why I brought up history is to remind people that Poland is not some third world country but a normal, civilized European nation...and that both Poland and Britain share the same history. It's important to remind such things because many people in the world don't even know where Poland is.

I posted my previous coment because personally I don't think that Polish workers should be mentioned in an article called "how to destroy country"
Mayby if it was an article about economic advantages and disadvantages of hiring Polish workers, it would be ok... But not in this. That's only my point of view and you can disagree. I would like to remind you that Polish people were invited to work in UK and many other countrys for a reason - local citizens don't want to take some jobs because they thik that they are "too good" to do cleaning, gardening etc.
Poles are legally in UK and they can competite with your local workers to the benefit of the employers. I don't want to offend anyone but Polish workers are doing twices work for a half price of British workers... If you want to change it you have to lower your expactations and work harder.

Sincerly Anonymous Pole - Jan S.

Paul Weston said...

Jan S.

I am genuinely sorry you are upset about this, and can understand why.

I lived in Prague for seven years, immediately after the Velvet Revolution, and took many a trip to Warsaw and krakow, where I met some wonderful people.

BUT, undercutting the working man is simply not good for the working man. I understand that Czechs are now complaining about the same thing with regard to Ukranians entering Czech Rep and undercutting them.

My point was simply that the free movement of people with disparate incomes and cost of living is always going to affect the working class man in the richer countries - to his detriment.

I had to mention your countrymen, simply because they are the largest group here.

It is not about us working harder or for less money. Our living costs are our living costs, and the working man is already suffering badly.

Once again, though, I do apologise if I have offended you.

Yours in good faith.


Anonymous said...

Paul Weston

Please don't worry you didn't offended me.
My only "problem" was the context of the aritcle... I spend some time living in France and I met there people from many diffrent countries like Brazil, Mexico, Korea and many others more or less exotic and most of theme didn't know anything about Poland and Poles so if somone from, for example south america is reading this articule he might thing that Poland is some kind of a third world country or something like that - it's just that.
I understand your point of view and as I mentioned earlier it would be ok if we were talking STRICTLY about UK economy.
This movement of people also affects my homeland because those young people who decide to live and work in UK are needed here at home.

Serdecznie pozdrawiam

Jan S.

Paul Weston said...

Twoje zdrowie mojego przyjaciela!

Chiu ChunLing said...

I have to say that I'm puzzled by the assertion that, because I understand that genuine legal equality between men and women would make it as difficult to prosecute rape of women by men as it is to prosecute rape of men by women, I must therefore approve of the effects of legal equality between men and women.

To be clear, I approve of special legal protections for women, which make them legally not equal to men, specifically because otherwise it would be impossible to meaningfully protect women from sexual violence.

I am equally puzzled by the assumption on the part of some that because a given form of racial preferences has succeeded in injuring the cause of individual liberty for the English and many other European peoples, it should therefor be enlisted in the defense of liberty. When you have been poisoned by injection, you do not usually think to cure yourself by ingesting more of the same poison. It is not common for a person, having been stabbed, to seek a cure by being stabbed somewhere else. If a particular mechanism has proved itself a useful tool for hampering the freedom of a nation, that does not in any way prove it will be effective to restoring freedom.

Nor does it prove the reverse...but I have argued that collectivism of every type has a distinct tendency to reduce genuine personal freedom. Taking an example of how a particular collectivism has harmed personal freedom and then saying that we therefor need more of the same type of collectivism to undo that harm strikes me as missing the point. There are alternatives to collectivism, and among them might be more effective cures for the effects of collectivism than anything that could be found among highly similar collectivist strategies.

A specific argument of why 'whites' need special considerations rather than being free to compete on totally equal grounds would be more persuasive...though it would naturally tend to undermine my belief that 'whites' deserved such promotion as a race. Unless one were to show that, like women, 'whites' are essential to the survival of non-whites despite being unable to prosper under a program of complete legal equality.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

chiu chun-ling

men are being raped but they don't tell it.

muslim gang rapes man in manchester centre:

Anonymous said...

local citizens don't want to take some jobs because they thik that they are "too good" to do cleaning, gardening etc.

that's the multicultural bs.

Anonymous said...

A specific argument of why 'whites' need special considerations rather than being free to compete on totally equal grounds would be more persuasive...though it would naturally tend to undermine my belief that 'whites' deserved such promotion as a race. Unless one were to show that, like women, 'whites' are essential to the survival of non-whites despite being unable to prosper under a program of complete legal equality.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

'whites' and non-whites... there are non-whites but there aren't whites. there are japanese and chinese if chiu is talking about their achievements (on another topic) but there aren't whites. [rolling eyes]

Anonymous said...

Chiu: Your logic about rape is muddled and nonsensical.

First, you argue that rape should be decriminalized because rape laws somehow benefit women over men - then you argue that men are raped but fail to tell. Note that raped men would have had to 'tell' in order for their rapes to be known. Ahem.

Note that most rapes of women and men are committed by MEN. Your complaint seems to be that MEN commit more rapes than women.

And, your solution to rampant MALE rape is to decriminalize rape?

Wow. This makes YOU a criminal's best friend.

If you read the definition of rape provided above you would see that the rape laws are gender neutral and recognize that men and boys can be victims as well as women and girls.


Chiu ChunLing said...

I never argued that rape should be decriminalized.

I simply stated what is obvious to anyone that has any idea of how difficult it is to prosecute a woman for raping a man, that legal equality between men and women would impose the same difficulties on the prosecution of men for raping women, and that this would amount to decriminalization.

The idea that this means that rape should be decriminalized depends absolutely on the assumption that total legal equality between men and women should be sought. And this assumption is completely unjustified, as I have never suggested that total legal equality between men and women is desirable or even possible.

I have made this clear repeatedly, and yet have been accused of saying the exact opposite repeatedly. Which is beginning to reflect on the intellectual honesty of some of those doing so.

I am in favor of having the law treat persons equally wherever it is at all possible to do so. But it is not at all possible when it comes to how women and children are to be treated. This is a simple fact, rooted in fundamental biological principles.

One cannot say the same about 'race' as described in 18th century science. Which makes it more than a little odd that so many people are here arguing that race should be a legitimate grounds for legal distinction between persons while sex should not.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Chiu: Seriously?! Are you seriously going to impune MY intellectual honesty when I can read as well as anyone that your preceding comments about rape are patently absurd?!

Perhaps you should re-read your own comments, or print them off and show them to someone smart and ask what that smart person thinks that you are trying to say.

I repeat: Your arguments about rape are muddled and nonsensical. Perhaps you should simply re-think your stance or re-word your ideas to reflect either 1) any revised ideas, or 2) what you 'really' meant to say.


Sagunto said...

Hi Eggy -

This comment (not yours, I know):

"I have never suggested that total legal equality between men and women is desirable or even possible."

Do you share my ehm.. "amazement"?

Take care,

Anonymous said...

Hi Sag: Yes, I share your amazement!

The sentiment of Chiu's statement is fully compatible with Sharia Law!

By the way, I meant impugn rather than impune. Oh well!

Hope that you are well!

Anonymous said...

It is true that, in the dirty sort of war that observes no conventions (the kind that Islam seems to resort to by choice), visible racial character does become an unavoidable part of the tactics that are used. But if such a war begins, then there is no need for encouraging the use of visible racial characteristics in selecting will simply happen no matter what you try and do to stop it.

And I should hope that one of the goals of the Counter-Jihad would be to avoid having such a situation develop to endemic proportions in Europe.
- chiu chun-ling

there are whites after all:

«Alien Serial Rapist in France Asks Victims Their Nationality and Religion Before Raping Them

On 23 December this man raped two blonde-haired, blue-eyed women in Paris then another two days later in Étampes (Essonne). The police had numerous photographs and CCTV images of this man but did not release them until the story was picked up in a magazine called Le Nouveau Detective (The New Detective) and then the newspaper Le Parisien, which published an artificial photofit image of him....»


Chiu ChunLing said...

Very well, I remain opposed to the decriminalization of rape, but it appears that not everyone is.

Anonymous said...

4:42 PM

«On 23 December this man raped two blonde-haired, blue-eyed women in Paris then another two days later in Étampes (Essonne).»

Anonymous said...

Chiu: Your last comment is LIBELOUS and INACCURATE because YOU are the ONLY commenter here who has raised the issue of the decriminalization of rape - and now YOU are falsely attributing that idea to others who opposed you.

Here I quote YOU comparing people who want to criminalize rape with Marxists who would destroy all human freedom: "If you are not in favor of effectively decriminalizing rape, nor willing to make Islam rather than Western Civilization the target of your ire, then you are a "Feminist" of the type that merely wants to aid Marxists in destroying all human freedom."

Chiu ChunLing said...

You might put that in its proper context.

"First off, let us put aside all this silliness about Feminism being about simple equality. If that were really the case, the first thing you would argue for is the abolition of all laws against rape and especially the presumption that men are predominantly responsible."

I was not the one who brought up the idea of Feminism just being about legal equality between men and women. And while I was the one that pointed out that legal equality between men and women makes rape an essentially unprovable crime, this is a simple logical consequence of simple legal equality.

If you wish to dispute this, then I am going to need an explanation of how it would be reasonably possible for courts to convict rapists without knowing the sex of the accused and the sex of the victim. If you cannot provide a rational method of allowing rape to remain a criminal offense while making men and women fully equal in the eyes of the law, yet still want to make men and women fully equal in the eyes of the law, then you are, perforce, in favor of effectively decriminalizing rape and there is nothing remotely "LIBELOUS" or "INACCURATE" about my saying so (excluding the Sharia definition of libel and slander).

Saying that you're in favor of total legal equality between men and woman but not in favor of effectively decriminalizing rape would be like saying you're in favor of shooting people in the head but not in favor of killing, except that it is possible to shoot someone in the head without killing them.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Chiu: The libelous comment was by me. Your rebuttal is ridiculous.

Your analogy shows that you failed to read and understand the various ways that 1) 'rape' occurs and 2) 'rape' laws are written.

Here are two examples:

1. Women can rape women - and have - using implements. If you were familiar with rape, you would understand that rapists can - and do - use implements (other than penises) to rape victims. Also, rapists often rape victims in the anus in addition to the vagina - making it possible for men to rape other men.

2. Adult men and women can rape teens and children - via statutory rape - which can be - and has been - prosecuted regardless of the sex of the perpetrator and victim.


Chiu ChunLing said...

Certainly it is possible for women to rape women and men, as well as children. But how frequently are such rapes prosecuted? Letting alone the question of how many go unreported.

Try the following thought experiment. One person, a rapist, has locked another person, a victim, in a room with the intention to compel the victim to have sexual intercourse. The rapist is not threatening any harm to the victim other than the direct physical effects of sexual intercourse itself.

Now, as it happens, there is a knife in the room. The victim grabs the knife and threatens the rapist with it, but the rapist is undeterred, asserts that the victim lacks the will to use the knife, and continues to attempt forced sexual intercourse with the victim. So, the victim stabs the rapist with the knife.

Now, there is no physical evidence that the victim was going to be harmed other than experiencing forced sexual intercourse, but there is sufficient physical evidence to strongly suggest that sexual intercourse was intended by the rapist, and that the rapist and victim did not previously have any sexual relationship. There is no evidence that the victim previously contemplated entering a sexual relationship with the rapist. And the rapist does have a history of sexual aggression.

Given all this...are you really comfortable making a judgment about whether the victim stabbing the rapist was a legitimate act of self-defense without knowing the sex of either the rapist or the victim?

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

Chiu: "But how frequently are such rapes prosecuted?"

Again, Chiu, you are really just complaining about what YOU PERCEIVE to be a 'negative' outcome based on GROUP statistics that describe individual behavior.

In other words, quantitative and qualitative evidence verifies that VASTLY more men rape people than women rape people.

Quantitative evidence is the far greater prosecution and conviction rates of men being convicted for rape than women being convicted for rape.

Qualitatively, I have personal experience talking to multiple dozens of rape victims - all of whom were raped by men - and none of whom were raped by women - and most of whom NEVER brought charges due to a variety of reasons that were legitimate to them in their personal situations.

Individual men and women citizens have equal protection under the law whereas the GROUP of men faces more VALID legal prosecution and conviction for the crime of rape BECAUSE individual men commit the crime of rape more frequently than individual women do.

As we see with the Muslim culture under Sharia Law, decriminalizing rape mere serves to increase the incidence of rape - and victimize more and younger victims twice - first when raped - and then when forcibly 'married' to older men or 'honor' murdered for 'committing' fornication, adultery, or even gay sex as an unwilling recipient.

The bulk of all rape - even in the West - is CHILD abuse.

Look up the rape statistics. It is YOUNG girls and women who are the vast majority of rape victims.

Chiu: If you argue for the decriminalization of rape simply because the incarceration numbers indicate that men commit more rapes than women, you are making the same argument as black people who believe that convicted black drug dealers should be set free because an 'unfair' number of blacks are imprisoned. Never mind that the black drug dealers WERE drug dealers and their individual behavior hurt real victims of every color - instead their membership in the greater black tribe should be a get-out-of-jail free card.

Congratulations, Chiu, you are officially a Democrat!

Chiu ChunLing said...

Nice personal attacks. But they lose their edge pretty quickly when you don't engage the question.

Are you comfortable making a judgment about whether the victim stabbing the rapist was a legitimate act of self-defense without knowing the sex of either the rapist or the victim?

Anonymous said...

Chiu: I remember hearing someone say that a genius knows the right questions to ask.

You are asking the WRONG questions!

Wax on, wax off. Wax on, Wax off.

P.S. Your attack on me was an ad hominem attack. I used logic to defeat your false premise that men deserve special treatment (under the guise of 'equality') BECAUSE men are the main perpetrators of the crime of rape. Your solution to your perceived problem is the SAME solution as the Sharia Law solution - and, if nothing else, that should show you the error of your logic.

Repeat after me ten times: Any time that I agree with Islam, I know that I MUST re-consider my opinion, logic, stance, values, belief, because Islam is THE Satanic religion.

The real solution - the solution that pleases God - is for men to STOP raping women and children. NOW. Ahem.


Chiu ChunLing said...

Well then, since the problem of rape has been so neatly solved, I guess we need no more laws on the subject.

Or you can try answering the question. Or at least pointing out where it is "wrong".