2 August 2008

Take Back UK

Where do you stand and who do you stand with is the question?

Forget the British Labour government supporting neo-Nazi propaganda of ‘Islam means peace’ and it’s only a ‘small minority’ because the blood thirsty warmongering hatefilled neo-Nazi Jew and Christian hating Moslem enemy is here amongst us now, it is 3+ million strong within our homeland raping, pillaging, desecrating and destroying our communities in the name of Jihad and Islam in the process of destroying our society and its way of life. The British wing of the Moslem Ummah is playing its part in the Islamic World’s global Jihad (Holy War) to destroy our Western Civilisation.

There can only be one winner in the future where the outcome of this present World War resides after we have passed through the darkness or War and all it contains, when the dust has settled - Them or Us no middle ground!

Those Moslems living amongst us have one aim in mind which is the Islamification and future conquest of our homeland so that the United Kingdom becomes an Islamic State ruled by Sharia law, and those who carry the label Moslem who do not want to live under Sharia law are not Moslem they are cultural Moslems who know nothing about the religion. How can they profess to be something when they do not want to take part in something that is integral to them being Moslem? And for the others who do want to live under Sharia but say they do not, are liars. It is easy for them to lie to the infidel under ‘taqiyya’ and tell us they don’t want to live under Sharia law because they know that’s what we want to hear isn’t it? Those who carry the label Moslem are condoning what is at the ‘heart and soul’ of the religion which is to dominate the infidel and take over their country in the name of Islam and Jihad.

You cannot escape the facts at the core of the Islamic religion and its ideology, although the Liberal mind believes the lies it has been told, brainwashed with propaganda so it cannot see the big smelly elephant sitting in the room and wants everyone else to view the world like them.

Islam means peace, it’s a small minority, Moslem and terrorist are two words that do not go together, Islamic terrorism is anti-Islamic activity.

The blind leading the blind.

Bit by bit, piece by piece, the Islamic religion is taking over our Country through Jihad with the present Liberal British Labour government acting as facilitators of that take over, aiding and abetting the Islamic enemy’s agenda in our midst.

You can sit back on your fat behind ignoring what is being said but believe me your children wont be as lucky as you!!!

If those of us who are standing up to take back our streets, our communities and our Country are not successful in the ‘Defence of the Realm’ then your children, the dirty infidel kuffar, then become war booty as Abu Hamza states.

Imagine what that means for your daughter or son?

Children are already being used as war booty across the country and those employed to protect the innocent in society sit back and do nothing through fear of upsetting Moslems.

There are Moslems working throughout the police force who dictate what laws are upheld within our society and what are not, passing sensitive information back into their communities to protect their Moslem brothers and sisters, and the British Labour government are passing new laws in government to positively discriminate against British citizens in favour of Moslems so that more Moslems can infiltrate more of our society – The enemy within and its government facilitation

You cannot escape the facts if you have arrived here at my blog. The dark shadow of Islam is now upon our shores and it is going to cover the whole land in darkness, suppressing us as a people under the authority of Islam by the sword, taking the Nation back to a 7th Century dark age where their Moslem minds are set within the pages of the Koran as they follow the life and times of Mohamed the 7th Century warmongering child molesting false prophet, or we as a people are going to repel the darkness of this foreign invading religious force that has invaded our shores, set up camp, and who is now actively engaged in a War of conquest against the British people, our society and its way of life.

Decide where you stand, who you stand with, then dig in and prepare for what is coming because you cannot escape the inevitable.

Where is the true Christian response throughout the land to stand against this Holy War that has been declared against us, and amongst us?

Where are God’s Knights in positions of Power or does He have none, a modern order cloaked in Christian history without a ‘heart and soul’.

Is Almighty God going to raise up a new Holy Christian Order to fight today’s Jihad against the Moslems that has been declared against the people of Great Britain and their way of life within this part of Christendom or does He have Christian Knights in place within the shadows?

Bishop Nazir Ali and several other Christian leaders have stood up and taken their positions, but where is the rest and where is the support?

Daily Mail: British Moslems fighting for the Taliban

How much worse does it have to get?


Anonymous said...

A hard hitting and deep questioning piece.
"Is Almighty God going to raise up a new Holy Christian Order to fight today’s Jihad against the Moslems that has been declared against the people of Great Britain and their way of life within this part of Christendom or does He have Christian Knights in place within the shadows?"

How far advanced plans are within various hierarchies is an unknowable question.
Just as you dare to publicly ask this question, there are many in the shadows who must be asking similar questions.
Like us all, we hope for the best and must plan for the future.
Perhaps one telling fact is this, the highest ranking Officer of Muslim tendency within Met Police, is suing them for "discrimination."
He is of course Mr. Ghaffur, featured previously in comments here.
The fact that he complained about not being included in the planning for the London Olympics must show that the powers that be do not trust Muslims within the hermetic seal that must remain around such anti-terrorist planning.
That a senior officer cannot be 100% trusted is an indication of the worries that ANY Muslim is a "leak-threat" with sensitive information, as AT ANY TIME the Muslim's alliance can switch from National to Religious obligations.
Therefore all Muslim's in places of authority are a walking time-bomb of potential change of alliance.
There can be no possible leaks from a sealed system such as anti-terrorist planning.
There are no other groups with the extreme motivation to exploit the London Olympics. (That we know of.)
That someone is at the present time a "moderate Muslim," does not guarantee their random flip-flop to the radical mind-set.
Remember the Glasgow bombers and their humanitarian training as NHS doctors and how without warning they became literal human bombs willing to kill at random.
These are hard facts for Muslims to stomach.But facts none the less.
Radicalisation can occur in a short time, and the motivation is ever present within the ideology that they follow.
All it requires is the right catalyst of personal or family stress, or the stimulation from a radical source, to set the chain reaction in progress.
With so many Muslkims now in places of important strategic influence, Britain and other Western countries are at the tipping point of losing control of their National Security.
Beware the human rights-peddling Left thinkers who advocate Social Cohesion and other devilish practices as if they were the cornucopia of Democracy.
The removal of the Nu Labour Party is a first essential towards re-establishing a modus operandi to guarantee a sealed National Security Network.
That such necessity provokes cries of "discrimination" is both a forewarning and a spur to stop the decay NOW.
You should be commended for such an X-Ray picture of the reality of the threats we face as a Nation.
The fact that you are chided and abused for your perspective, is a measure of how close to the truth you are.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It is even bad that Left-wing liberal papers like the Scotsman are reporting this article (in their highly literate way of course!!)


Going OT, Paul, I humbly ask you to read this link and consider it:


To quote part of article:

"The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. Or, if they suspect this is happening, do not know how to end the process.

The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. S/He will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not."

It is hard to know when this is being done or not but IIRC there was a situation at one of your phone-ins where an American Lawyer based in London came on and tried to attack you. Was she doing it just as valid criticism or a change agent trying to divide and conquer?

It is wrong to look at people and try to look for suspicion or ulterior motives but unfortunately it is cold hard ugly world we live in at the moment. We need to be careful and be on guard but not to point that it makes our hearts grow hard and our outlook cynical. It is hard, I know, but my belief in God gives me strength and hope to steer through trails like this.

Findalis said...

Until the people of your great nation rise up and say no to Islam and their ways you are lost. One can sleep only so long before you are awakened to the reality of what is happening.

Anonymous said...

Findalis, there is no signs to the present time of anything as dramatic as the nation rising up but there are small signs that we are slowly coming out of the stupor of individualistic liberalism.

Article: Focus: Are 'traditional values' set to make a political comeback?


To quote parts of article:

"There are, though, other issues that deserve to be considered, particularly in light of the challenges posed to Labour by leading Scottish Catholics.

In the last census, a third of the voters in Glasgow East were identified as Roman Catholics, and they can hardly have been unaware of the Church's growing frustration with the party that traditionally was regarded as the home of the Scottish Catholic vote.

The constituency falls within the Motherwell diocese of Bishop Joseph Devine, who has been increasingly public in his criticisms of what he sees as Labour's sustained attack upon moral values.

His concern ahead of last year's elections for the Holyrood parliament was over gay and unmarried adoption and civil partnership, but that followed upon related, if less direct criticism, from others, including Archbishop Mario Conti and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, of easier divorce, sex-education strategies and abortion.


A year or so later, with the recent by-election having been called, Bishop Devine returned to his theme: this time, and again in line with other statements by fellow bishops, criticising Labour over the embryo bill. In a letter to all Labour MPs for Scottish constituencies, he wrote of the government as "violating moral law" and "losing ethical credibility" and as having "broken its pact with Christian voters". Once again, Margaret Curran, now Labour candidate for Glasgow East, responded, saying that, were she elected, she would vote with the government and would also oppose any attempt to lower the time limit for abortion.

The SNP candidate, by contrast, said he was opposed to embryo experimentation and abortion on demand, spoke of his own Christian faith, and ten days later, having overturned the Labour majority and defeated Mrs Curran, used his victory speech publicly to "thank all those who have prayed for me during this campaign".

Any tendency to treat Bishop Devine's comments as isolated and unrepresentative of the Church more generally has to deal with the fact that the line of Catholic criticism of Labour's turn to moral revisionism began a decade ago in the period of Cardinal Thomas Winning and comes not from crypto-Conservatives, but from those steeped in the tradition of the Church's social teaching.

Moreover, the critics are not confined to the clergy. At the end of May, Conor McGinn resigned as vice-chair of Young Labour over what he described as "the party's one-sided approach to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill" and the emergence of a growing anti-Catholic "sectarian diatribe". And in the week prior to Bishop Devine's letter to MPs, the composer James MacMillan wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph charting his own disillusionment with Labour and predicting the loss of Glasgow East.

The trajectory from social justice, solidarity and Christian family values towards social engineering and lifestyle individualism is all but complete; yet the direction taken by Labour is not carrying it up to a newer Jerusalem, but precipitating it to a crash in metropolitan Babylon.
It will not be so, however, because, like the Trotskyists of an earlier period, New Labour's liberal entryists are convinced of their own righteousness and superior judgment. Opposition to their policies seems confirmation of them, particularly when it comes from quarters they regard as dark corners of religious superstition and prejudice."

I'm not of the Catholic faith myself but I feel we should give all our support and prayers to these courageous people in their stand against these marxist tyrants who has and will use every means at their disposal to ridicule and denigrate them.

Anonymous said...

Article: 'Lost MI5 fax could have stopped 7/7': The crucial missed warning



To quote article:

"A chance to stop the 7/7 bombers may have been missed when a secret services fax to police went missing.

A damning report is expected to reveal that the MI5 document, sent to West Yorkshire police, raised suspicions about ringleader Mohammed Sidique Khan and accomplice Shehzad Tanweer.

But the information was either lost or not followed up and the opportunity to monitor the men was missed. "

Lionheart said...

Matopoftheworld: Thanks for the info. One thing about that lady in the phone in rado interview was that she was a ‘blatant liar’ but I could not get that point across to those who were listening.

So the question is; Why did she blatantly lie?

Any lawyer and any one with an ounce of intelligence knows that the police are not going to divulge the evidence they have on you before arresting you and questioning you, that is very basic logic.

i.e If I murdered someone are the police going to tell me all the evidence they have against me before arresting me? Of course not.

Ok my case is not a murder case but the same rules of law apply.

I even had a top lawyer present with me at the time of that call and he was shaking his head knowing it was complete and utter rubbish what she was saying but I was put on the spot, pushed into a corner having to defend myself with everyone listening believing she knew what she was talking about because she professed to be a ‘lawyer’ and I was a nobody professing to being arrested for my blog.

God knows the truth and God knows exactly who she is and why she did what she did.

I am sure many doubted the validity of my arrest after that but I always knew it was true, that is why I needed the police conversations to prove to people I was not lying.

So on the phone why did she blatantly lie and say she was a lawyer when she clearly was not, and then make out I was lying when she was the one who did not know the most basic principle of law?

What was the reason behind that unless she was someone with a mental disposition or she knew exactly what she was doing like you have pointed out.

If she was someone trying to turn people against me and not someone with a mental disposition I wonder why? What could have been her motivation and reasoning?

On a side note, the LGF debacle was all my own doing because he and his followers attacked my friends who are also my alliances, and even though I lost a lot of support from people and had to put up with the hatred from the poisoned well, its just one of those things.

If you attack my friends then you attack me, that is what alliances are about.

I’m not in this to make friends, I’m in this because we are at war and our civilization hangs in the balance, that’s why I say; decide where you stand and who you stand with?

Findalis: It was good to know prayers were said for me at the Western Wall – God bless you.

Joanne said...

Abram had a son named Ishamel by his wife's handmaid, an Egyptian, named Hagar. God told Hagar the following:

".....I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shall bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.

And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." Genesis 16:10-12 KJV

Another translation of verse 12 is as follows:

"He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

Sound like any people in particular? People of Islam believe they are descended from Abraham.

God's covenant was to Abraham's son, Isaac, that his wife Sarah bore him.

"Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him." Genesis 17:19-22

Check out Genesis 25:13-18 for more on Ishmael's 12 sons/rulers.

Joanne said...

Lionheart, that woman was an ignoramous and wanted to make you out to be a liar. She wanted to discredit you. Anyone with a brain knew what she was up to; she caught you off guard, which was what she set out to do. I wouldn't give that woman another thought; I'm sure a trail of slime follows her wherever she goes.

Anonymous said...

Lionheart @ 02-Aug-2008 21:59:00

I had changed my blogger account password to Matopoftheworld and somehow it changed my screen handle to that as well (I've changed it back and the password also!!)

As to the lawyer, it did seem strange at the time and when I came across the article that incident immediately sprang to mind. She was too focused and coherent to be of a mental disposition so there was a purpose. I have my suspicions but I can't prove it, needless to say her primary purpose is to drive wedges and sow discontent, such is the art of propaganda.

As to LGF, don't be too hard on Charles, he is trying to do the right thing in the circumstances he faces. Do not put be so hard on yourself as well, you showed your true character by defending your friends at the expense of yourself.

Yes, we are at war but it is a war on two fronts, one against radical Islam and one against radical liberalism. Radical Islam is a physical front we can see as it is slowly eroding our right to live our lives the way we want and radical liberalism is an intellectual front to beguile into trying to make conform to a specific position which is not to cause trouble. The two fronts are hard and soft power. I'm not a military expert but I do know it is hard job to fight a battle on two fronts.

From what I read, you remind me of Tommy Sheridan, a conviction socialist politician. I don't agree with his politics but he is a good man. He has ruffled the feathers of the establishment and they are doing everything to silence him including getting at his newly wed wife.


I see your arrest threat as a similar attempt by the establishment to try and silence you. I don't have the answers about how to deal with it but I do know you are not alone and if we can get people to start questioning the 'soft power' front it can be neutralised and finally can concentrate on the 'hard power' of the radical Islam. I think from my post @ 21:19:00 that this may be starting to happen.

Anonymous said...

Tommy Sheridan? No, Paul is more like Tommy Cooper, only much smaller and not nearly so funny.

Anonymous said...

Gervase. You are a very intelligent person and have a big sounding title of lecturing at a famous Scottish University but from the posts on your blog, you use that intellect of yours for one sided attacks on Christianity. Why is that?

Going away from the above troll, I've been trying to find online videos about this TV programme about GAFCOM that was shown about a fortnight ago but have been unsuccessful. Instead I'll post the article:


"Battle of the bishops

The future of the Church of England, and its sister churches in the worldwide Anglican Communion, depends on who wins an unprecedented struggle for power.

Archbishop Peter Akinola
Battle of the Bishops
Monday, 21 July, 2008
1900 BST on BBC Two

This World reveals the story of the man and the movement that seeks to challenge the Archbishop of Canterbury as the focus of the worldwide Anglican Church, in order to restore family values in a church that will have no place for openly homosexual clergy.

Reporter Ben Anderson is given unique access to Archbishop Peter Akinola - leader of the Anglican Church in Nigeria - as he and his followers prepare for an unprecedented summit in Jerusalem that aims to unite disaffected conservatives across the Anglican world.

Many of the headlines regarding the Church of England since 2002 have regarded the rights of homosexual priests. The Church of England allows for the ordination of gay priests as long as they are celibate.

Alongside issues of homosexual clergy, the wider Anglican Communion has been wrestling with whether to sanction same-sex blessings.

These issues have caused divisions within the Anglican Communion, with the provinces of the global south (Nigeria, South East Asia, South America among many others) threatening to split permanently from those sanctioning the blessing of same-sex relationships and the ordination of non-celibate gay clergy.

This World will be broadcast on Monday 21 July at 1900 BST on BBC Two.

Filmed and directed by Nick Read
Executive producers: Lucy Hetherington, Nick Stuart and Tracey Gardiner"

Anonymous said...

Jock: "...you use that intellect of yours for one sided attacks on Christianity. Why is that?"

For the same reason that Paul Ray uses his intellect—if that is the right word—for attacking Muslims: Christianity offends me.

How do you mean, "one-sided attack"? How do you attack from two sides at once?

Lionheart said...

I wouldnt class his put downs as intellect.

What has he said that is intellectual.

Basic meaningless pathetic put downs if you ask me, that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter.

Someone who just does not like me so wants to let me know that by passing comments.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jock

I agree with you that we face two challenges today, Islam and liberal political correctness. Might I suggest that one is impending judgement on the other? Political correctness is from the secular humanist stable that has wrecked social stability in England with its tax-and-welfare policies that penalise the traditional family and reward immorality. We are becoming a rabble and we shall soon deserve the terrible judgement of Islam. That is why Jehovah is allowing Islam to rise in our land - just as He sent the Babylonians to trash unrepentant Israel 2600 years ago.

I wouldn't bother replying to Gervase's insults unless he makes comments that people in good faith can engage with and reply to (and as an amateur Christian apologist I would gladly do that). Flame wars merely drag both sides through the mud.


Anonymous said...


You are most likely right. What do you suggest that we do about it?

As to Gervase, it's bad of me but I couldn't help myself trying to get a rise out of his pompous arrogance. He needs to stop lecturing at a famous university and start learning at a real university, the university of life.

Anonymous said...


Came across this post about how liberal Christianity Intensifies Radical Islam. Link:


To quote from it:

"The Western church’s growing tendency to blur theological differences and not uphold the absolute truth is contributing to the threat of radical Islam to the Western world, said a highly respected expert on Islam.

Patrick Sookhdeo, the director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, said churches are moving away from central doctrines that teach about separation and instead conforming to secular society’s ideology of inclusion.

“When faced with the uniqueness of Christ we become inclusive. He loves everybody so we talk about love, and hell and damnation goes out the window,” said Sookhdeo. “It becomes too embarrassing. So our church has conformed itself according to society.”

Christians are afraid to admit that only believers in Jesus Christ will be saved and others – Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists – are lost, because that would be arrogance in a society dominated by secular humanist ideology, Sookhdeo argued.

“If the U.S. church goes the way of Europe and embraces liberalism in its theology then it will embrace liberalism in its life,” said the British Anglican canon. “And if it embraces liberalism in its life then the church will die and not only will the church die, but society around it will also die.”"

Any thoughts?

Joanne said...

"Christians are afraid to admit that only believers in Jesus Christ will be saved and others – Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists – are lost..." by jock

Satan believes in Christ too, so there is a great more to being 'saved' so to speak, than just believing. Jesus will judge all mankind and his Christian followers will not. I'm not going to tell a Hindu that he/she are lost because what the future holds for that person depends on them and only them. God gave us the free will to choose to follow him and obey his laws and commandments or not. If you have knowledge of this and make the choice to follow Gods of another religions, then on judgment day, you can only blame yourself. Christians are to get the message out to the world, so the world can make an informed choice to be saved. Many people will not be saved, but as a Christian, to me it is sad that people do not choose life when they exercise their right to free will.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jock and Joanne

Joanne - we agree, but let's get the words straight; Satan does not "believe in" (ie, trust) Jesus Christ, he simply believes that His scriptures are true - and it makes Satan tremble (James 2:19), for he reads that his time is short.

Jock - Patrick Sookhdeo is a hero of mine, and his book "Global Jihad" should be read by all Western Christians. I agree with all you say except that where you write "Western Christians" in your statments about the sleeping church I plead with you to write "many Western Christians". Not all of us are asleep. In particular, I would not take the position of people high up in Western church hierarchies as defining the Western church. There is no obvious correlation between the qualities needed to climb a hierarchy and the qualities that Jesus Christ commended. (Who will outrank whom in God's kingdom after Judgement Day?)

As to what should we do... If you love your country, have sex only within marriage. Keep your wedding vows. Set an example. Two unmarried people who conceive a child should get married (Exodus 22:16). Teach your children that sexual pleasure is for marital bonding – a biblical view, and one which survives in the contraceptive era. Christians must also offer the gospel – non-coercively – to secular people, and also to Muslims. (Both hate the church, and the best way to deal with an enemy is to make him your friend. Don't act like the Crusaders did toward Muslims, which is in disobedience to how Jesus lived and told those who would follow him to behave in the Sermon on the Mount.) We also live in a democracy, so we can mount political campaigns to undo the subversion of the education and tax-and-welfare systems by which our children are taught that sexual sin is harmless fun and its consequences are subsidised, and marriage is financially penalised.

Suppose also that disenchanted MPs from each of our present parties set up a new party, together with leaders of immigrant communities who came here for our social stability or to escape Islam. Ideally these leaders would be symbiotic with a groundswell movement. Suppose also that this party had a foreign policy of leaving the European Union (although it is tactically better to be expelled for non-compliance), and domestic policies determined explicitly by what is good for family life together with realism about Islamic intent. I believe they could win an election. The country could then begin to be turned round. The tax-and-welfare system, Whitehall, the BBC, the National Curriculum and University Arts faculties are places to start. Marriage reasonably soon after you are sexually mature should be promoted, for it is asking a lot of teenagers to be celibate. Such a government should also be prepared to deal with civil disturbance on the scale of the Ulster troubles. Many of the leaders of this political party would probably be Christians, but they should not restrict its electoral appeal by running it (or naming it) as a Christian party, and membership should be open to all who support its aims.

Anglistan is not yet inevitable. It is good to love your country but Christians must love God first. Whatever comes, trust in God and his Son and you will be OK.


Anonymous said...

PS Would I volunteer for the government against Islamists? Yes, if the country had got its act together morally as I have described; otherwise No, for I would simply be getting in the way of judgement sent by the God whom I serve.


Anonymous said...

gervase, you little liar, you promised you would not come back here and pester with your snidy comments.
You just can't trust a letcherous little lecturer. (5'7'') if I recall.
Inferiority complex, see.
Now you are here you can try to refute the allegations made about you and those little boys.

Anonymous said...

gospeller, very good comment and it is possible that a new Party could emerge to represent all the interests you describe.
Whether there is time enough is another matter.

Anonymous said...

anon 11.36.
these internet gremlins just have to crap around the house, don't they.
Not house trained at all.
Gervaise, read and learn from jockmacdocs comment on the "Take back UK" post above, about how people with influence over groups, like you no doubt, use their psychological training to obtain conformity and agreement with the like of lecturers and others.
Thids explains why the majority of students conform with the ideology prevalent in their peers in the 1960's it was the "free love anti American" ideas and now it is the Socialist/watered down Marxist-Liberals and their "we must suck up to everything non-Christian, especially Islam," ideology.
You are a craven corrupter of youthful ideals, and I can only hope that you achieve your wished for subservience to an alien global-religio-political fascism.
You really are puke provoking.
Get down on your knees and worship your future masters as they sharpen the knife.

Anonymous said...


I'm afraid to pour cold water on your idea about a new political party.

Establishing a political party and getting it into a position that the public thinks is electable is going to take a lot of time, effort, money and a lot of toughness for it to survive in the dog eat dog world of politics.

Any political party to do with Chrisitanity is going to be a red rag to the marxists bull and there are some big bulls out there. You can see this with the ferocious beatings the BNP gets from the UAF and Searchlight. Both of these organisations, funded amongst others indirectly by Labour through the trade unions, are highly organised and well oiled machine who crushes anything they goes against their vision of a 'fair and compassionate Britain'.

There is also organisations like Common Purpose who may or not be trying to infiltrate and spreading marxism throughout our society. There is a lot of outlandish claims made about this organisation but I do know there is something fishy about them. There is a lecture from a guy from Brian Gerrish, some interesting stuff but he goes a bit OTT at the end.


Looking at their vision:


"For a democracy to be strong, it needs an active civil society, in which citizens are both informed and connected. Common Purpose's vision is that we can improve the way society works by increasing the number of informed and engaged individuals who are actively involved in the future of the areas in which they live and work.

The leaders of this civil society are likely to be leaders already within their own areas: companies, hospitals, communities. But they need to see themselves as leaders of society too - and use their talents accordingly. "

Do you think they consider a Christian revival is going to improve the society they 'envision' especially as one of Common Purpose trustees is a Julia Middleton who used to be a trusteee of the Marxist think thank Demos:


Common purpose is heavily involved in the public, private and voluntary sectors and as a social network it is not too hard for them to have contacts and organise.

This is verging on a conspiracy theory but some of the claims made tie in with what is happening in this country and it is worth keeping an eye on.

Going back to setting up a political party, I also think a frank post by the loony Councillor Terry Kerry on his website shows why small parties fail:


"Thank you for writing. I’m a member of the Labour Party because two years ago I was chatting to Tony Benn (name dropper) and he made the point to me that at that time there were 23 left of centre parties in Britain and outwith Labour a saved deposit for any of them is a rarity, Labour is the only party with a remote chance of delivering socialism, the rest are playing at it.

If all of the members and supporters of these other parties were to join Labour we would be unstoppable, there is no alternative."

Anonymous said...

Dear Jock

I agree that small parties fail, which is why I want a new party starting as splinters from our current parties and bringing significant numbers of disenchanted people with them. I never said it would be easy, but I am responding to your question of what to do in the light of my analysis of the situation. I welcome better suggestions.

Of course Christians should carry on offering Christ to people. That is top priority for believers, but I am not counting on it making a huge difference to our nation because genuine Christianity involves the freedom to say No. So I also advocate the political action that I set out.

One more thing - I am singling out promiscuity as the sin for which God is sending the judgment of Islam (rather than sins such as violence, drunkenness, thieving, which have also risen since the 1960s), on the basis of a secular study by the anthropologist JD Unwin in the 1930s ("Sex and Culture"). He found almost exact correlation between the rise of a people and their adherence to the same sexual morality expounded in the Bible,and their fall within a generation or two of going promiscuous. I take that to be God at work even among people who have never known their creator, for moral law is universal. We Anglo-Saxons and Celts must get our act together or have our cultural identity erased.


Anonymous said...


Principled politicians like David Davis are few and far between. Most people are disenfranchised with politicians after the realisation they were conned by the argument that higher salaries would attract a better calibre of politician. Once politicians can reconnect with votes and not view politicians as a career then maybe your suggestion would work.

As to promiscuity, you are going to have to take on the feminists. Promiscuity in the modern context is about the right of woman to control her body, the right to have sex when she wants to and be able to control the consequences. The feminists with the backing on the liberal left while fight anybody who opposes this.

I understand your need to offer solutions but unfortunately this is the way I see it.

I don't know enough to debate on theological matters and back away when matter are dealt in this context but this is the kind of thing what I call soft power in earlier post. While Islam uses hard power ie physical imtimidation and violence, the liberal use soft power like manipulation and coercion until you agree to their point of view. I've explained using the example of the Delphi technique how this is done and there are other more simpler and cruder ones like bribery.

Anybody who challenges the current status quo faces this on both sides.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jock

I agree - it isn't easy! But plenty of men have singlehandedly changed the course of a nation's history against the odds. I also welcome other suggestions of what action to take - my aim is simply to see our country in a better state, and I would gladly drop my own suggestion if a better one comes along.


Anonymous said...

I understand Gospeller.

I think on a political level, to start, would be to organise into a 'pressure group' to try and convince politicians of the arguments and get them to be servants of the people who elect them rather than be servants of their own personal furtherance. As you said this has to be done non-coercively, to act as shepherds to guide the politicians rather than to try to lead them.

Once politicians start to be look made to be accountable then trust can be seen and political parties like you say can be launched with the hope of success.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jock

Those politicians who are in it for themselves are not going to change as a result of rational argument. I think it is better to encourage a splinter of the ones who are in it because they wish to help their nation rather than themselves.

Did you notice Lionheart's earlier posting that the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI), a very high-powered military and security think-tank, publicly urged the government to make defence of the realm its top priority and said the problem was growing because of multiculturalism. RUSI weren't specific but we all know which of the cultures now entrenched here they meant. The government's reply was contemptuous. It is not wise to be too contemptuous for too long of the armed forces, as Harold Wilson reportedly nearly learned in the 1970s. Is it coincidence that the Blair/Brown government has made sure most of the Army is out of the country at any one time?


Anonymous said...

i posted sumin earlier on today y has it not been displayed up on here as yet? thought as much! truth does bite doesnt it?

Lionheart said...

Truth does bit thats why you commented stupid.

And i did not post it because of your filthy language which is what is to be expected from the likes of you.

Anonymous said...

what a load of crap dude! ure fake! there was nothing offensive or bad language in that. the reason ure not displaying that comment is purely for reason that what i have stated is pure fact. put the message up it would be very sincear of you

Lionheart said...

Write it again without the foul language and then i will post it, i allow freedom of speech here i just dont allow flithy language.

Over the course of this blog some has got through but now i can moderate it.

There is nothing you can say to disprove what i am saying so why would i not post your comment?

You say i am fake?

A fake what?

And by the way you could never be 'Luton Pride' your people have stolen Luton from those who put their lives on the line defending it in the past great wars.

You and your people are nothing but lying cheating stealing thieves who follow a child molesting paedophile.

The real 'Luton Pride' are the people who are willing to stand against you and your religion.

Deus Vult