15 March 2009

The most important battle for survival in our modern history

What do we expect if we treat our own nation with such contempt?

Peter Hitchens - Daily Mail

The insulting anti-British demonstration in Luton is a sign that we are losing – and may already have lost – the most important battle for survival in our modern history.

Our political leaders like to pretend they are defending us against all kinds of perils – especially bogeymen such as Al Qaeda.

I have always thought this was humbug, partly designed to conceal their failure to protect us from the real perils of the EU and the destruction of our culture.

Now you can see, in those Luton faces, exactly what I mean.

Continue reading: Battle for survival


Anonymous said...

Apparently Anjem Choudary is denying having anything to do with that protest, check out what he's saying now:

Anjem Choudary on the plot to arrest Muslims

Anonymous said...

Well, well, haven't we all been saying this here for many months?

Maybe the People will take notice if someone as well known as Mr. Hitchens was arrested for speaking his mind!

Nonetheless, he has damn well hit the nail on the head!.

Well done for your enlightening words, Mr. hitchens, and dear Lionheart.

We are not lost so long as the lion has it's roar.

I overheard a group of British folks tralking today. I was so pleased to realise that they are only too aware of so much of what was discussed in this article.

The British are not all fools to be taken for donkeys.

One day, those traitors who have stripped Britain bare of Her dignity, will pay for their scurrilous plotting.
Then we will see them scurrying to their filthy little rat-holes.

Long live the Lions of Britain!
Our day will come.

Down with the traitor-scum and their shadow-play pupeteers.

Anonymous said...

The new improved Religion of Peace™ Subject Index - a useful resource for all counter-jihadist bloggers.

Anonymous said...

Peter Hitchens is a pathetic traitor.
Notice he says these filth in Luton are "misguided individuals". Everybody kows what "misguided" means. He means they don't understand Islam, which readers of Hitchens will know he believes is the "Religion of Peace."
Further down:
"Why then do they not feel as we do? It is not because they are Muslims. Muslims served the British Crown with loyalty  and distinction in the days of Empire, and would not then have dreamed of insulting this country’s flag or scorning its soldiers."
Hitchens: "I am rather proud of the immense restraint shown by most of those who went there to cheer – because such restraint is very British."
I'm not proud. It's pathetic. These filth should fear to appear in public.
Hitchens bans my simple polite comments at his site, where I say, "Islam is the problem, not "Islamist Radicals" " or "There must be an end to Muslim immigration."
That's just intolerant, you see.
If you read Hitchens article, it's all the fault of Britons. Muslims are not to blame...
I know Hitchens has been conservative since the 90s, but he was a Marxist until at least age 28, and supported Red Ken Livingstone. Anybody who can be a Marxist in his late 20s, then switch after the fall of the USSR, is a textbook Neoconservative. He attacks his brother for his brother's war-pimping and atheism, but actually P. Hitchens is a typical multi-kulti neocon when it comes to religion, and refuses to ever criticize Islam or denigrate the Koran or the Pedophile Moham.
The bottom line: He opposes ending Muslim immigration. He opposes "Islamophobia"
But he has no problem tearing down the BNP week after week. I don't say he's wrng to attack the BNP if that's his belief. Just pointing out that he has no problem attacking British nationalists, but would not dare attack the plague of Islam that is destroying Britain, iscorrupting British politics, and is the main reason the BNP gets support.
"In my experience, Muslims aren't in the least bit 'offended' by Christianity.
"I've argued with them about it, in places as different as Peshawar, on the North-West Frontier, and Whitechapel, in the East End of London. And I had the impression they were relieved to find someone from the West who didn't fawn all over them.
"What really offends them is what also offends many of us - crudity, drunkenness, pornography and licence.
"In any case, given that Christianity was founded centuries before Islam, Muslims can't really claim to be upset by it, any more than I can be 'offended' by the existence of Stonehenge or a Hindu temple."
"Islam is an impressive religion, which engenders a powerful and often very moving faith in its adherents. Because we have become a secular society, too many of us do not understand its force. ... Many Muslims, with good reason, look on our societies as debauched, immoral and soulless, marvelling at and in some cases pitying us for our empty churches and feeble clergy, our broken families, neglected old people and general social chaos. ... I am an Anglican Christian, who disagrees in detail and profoundly with many of the precepts of Islam. But I have never yet met a Muslim I did not like, could not get on with and debate with, at least partly because of a shared understanding of the importance of faith. If the Christian west wishes to win, or even survive, a battle of ideology with the Islamic world, or (preferably) to reach a civilised accommodation with it and to influence it towards reformation and tolerance, it will only do so if it rediscovers its own moral foundations and begins to respect them again. Islam rightly despises weakness."

"We are used to thinking of Islam as a religion of backward regions, and of backward people. But we should remember that Muslim armies came within inches of taking Vienna in 1683 and were only driven from Spain in 1492. In those days it was the Islamic world that was making the great scientific advances which we now assume are ours by right."

[Can he name one?]