A concerted plan

At Anonymous Conservative, there is a post about the deliberate plan by British politicians, notably under Tony Blair, to change the ethnic/demographic makeup of Britain.

“Tom Bower’s Broken Vows: Tony Blair – the Tragedy of Power, which is presently being serialised in the Daily Mail states Mr. Blair presided over a “silent conspiracy” to flood the United Kingdom with migrants, ordering his ministers to not discuss the subject in public. The biography claims that far from attempting to exercise any form of control whatsoever over migration, the British government worked to force the country to “see the benefit of a multicultural society”, and that to do so the country received “two million more immigrants” than it would otherwise have expected.”

The excerpt quoted above also  mentions the infamous phrase apparently used by the perpetrators, citing the intent to ”rub the right’s noses in diversity”. Sounds very petty, doesn’t it? The idea that these venal politicians would sell out their countries and their constituents for spite, for pure spite and malice.

Here we can see how Australia’s political classes were planning, decades ago, to make Australia more Asian, and in fact to encourage, Coudenhove-Kalergi style, the formation of a ‘new race’ in Australia:

“Australia is changing. We’re an anomaly as a European country in this part of the world. There’s already a large and growing Asian population in Australia and it is inevitable in my view that Australia will become a Eurasian country … I happen to think that’s desirable. That means we are becoming part of the mainstream of this region”.

[…]“[we] should welcome the process of gradually becoming a Eurasian-type society … we will not just become a multicultural society – which seems to me to be a soft sort of terminology anyway – we will become a Eurasian society and we will be the better for it”.

The above quotes were from Bill Hayden, ALP leader in the 1980s.

Then we have Peter Sutherland, UN spokesman on migration, saying openly:

We … ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others … . And that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.”

And now of course every story about the ‘refugee’ train-wreck in Germany draws comments, at least on ethnopatriot blogs, about Merkel and her perfidy. The implication is usually that Merkel is acting on her own, that she is mad or malevolent (both, probably) and that the remedy is to remove her from office, along with her henchmen and their whole political machine.

But is that true? Are these individual leaders, the Blairs, the Sarzozys, the Merkels, the Camerons, the Sutherlands, the Bushes in our country, acting on their own? Are they carrying out some personal agenda? Is it just one massive coincidence that the West is plagued with ‘mad’ leaders out to destroy their countries and the people they supposedly represent? No. If only it were that simple: just a few traitorous leaders, perhaps ethnic outsiders with grudges against the countries that nurtured them, carrying out malevolent policies. But obviously there is an overarching agenda, and these people are just small-time players and apparatchiks, not the authors of it all by themselves.

But it’s not good to see it as an unstoppable force, this plan; they would like us to think it is, and they do their best to demoralize us, marginalize us, and prevent us from making ourselves heard. We should not help them by becoming passively resigned to this madness of theirs.



Second thoughts about ‘refugees’

Ann Corcoran at Refugee Resettlement Watch reports that German Christian leaders are having second thoughts about their unequivocal ”welcome the stranger” stance in regard to the ‘Refugees’ now flooding Europe:

“PARIS (RNS) Germany’s Christian churches, long the most positive voices greeting waves of Middle Eastern refugees pouring into the country in recent months, have begun to admit the need to limit the flow now that public opinion towards the newcomers has turned from welcoming to wary.

Catholic and Protestant church leaders fully backed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s original open-door policy announced on Sept. 4, framing it as wealthy Germany’s Christian duty to offer refuge to all Syrians and others fleeing civil war in their home countries. […]
Then came the New Years Eve sex attacks. After a few weeks’ delay, the heads of both the Catholic and Protestant churches have shifted their focus and begun to speak about controlling the number of arrivals.”

While I certainly hope that these Christians are seeing reality for what it is, I think just ‘controlling’ the number of refugees is insufficient. It’s tantamount to saying ”we can handle a certain number of potential rapists and assorted criminals and terrorists, but just not too many.” But letting any potential criminals or otherwise dangerous people in is taking an unacceptable risk. Why is the risk unacceptable? To the do-gooder Churchian, or to the liberal (they ‘reason’ similarly, after all) we owe it to the poor refugee to take them in and give all we can to help them, rescue them. Risking the safety and the lives and the health of the existing citizenry, even their own neighbors and kinsmen, is an acceptable risk if you think that your religion or your political ideology  decrees that ‘helping the downtrodden’ takes precedence over protecting the lives and the well-being of your kith and kin, and your future descendants. These kinds of utopian-minded people, both naive Christians and deluded leftists, live dangerously because they see themselves as being more virtuous by doing so. So a few women or even children are molested or raped; so a few people get hurt or even killed — the poor refugees are dying as we speak! We have to help them, even at our own expense. ‘Progressives’  and Churchian altruists alike are willing, apparently, to compel others to take those risks that they blindly take themselves. They would not allow us any say about whether we want to assume those risks by bringing millions of unknonwn people from hostile peoples and cultures into our midst.

The Churchians who are the most gung-ho for importing millions of the ‘Wretched of the Earth’ to live next door are not of the same faith as our forefathers, the ones who practiced the ‘old-time Christianity’, the faith that taught realism not pollyannaism.
The old Christianity taught that man is a sinful creature by nature, and that we should be both ‘harmless as doves’ — and ‘wise as serpents.’ A big part of the requisite wisdom for a Christian is awareness of human depravity; we are not to trust foolishly but to exercise the utmost discernment, especially when the safety of the weak and helpless is involved. Those who are responsible for bringing in dangerous outsiders, and giving them free rein to roam the country and attack one’s own people, will have to answer one day, if not in this life, on Judgment Day. The do-gooders should be busy doing good for those close to them geographically and genetically; we are called to have concentric loyalties, with our kin and neighbors in the inmost circle, while people from faraway lands are least entitled to our concern; presumably they have others among their own people to help them out. The Bible does not say that a Christian is meant to rescue all of humanity, but to care for those of our own household (kin group and neighbors, mainly) first and foremost.

But thanks to our modern-day multicult one-world mindset, some ‘Christians’ have come to believe that God gives us special brownie points for being kind to those farthest from us and super-duper points for ”loving the unlovable”, for example criminals (the more violent and heinous their deeds, the more credit we get for fawning on them) and those from hostile countries, even those whose religion commands them to kill us or practice deception and stealth to harm us.

Christianity of today, with few exceptions, is more a product of the ‘therapeutic society’, the pop-psychology, self-help, self-esteem, “think positive and create-your-success” belief system.

One of the most popular phrases from Scripture that is quoted on Christian greeting cards or in conversations from one Christian to another is this one from Jeremiah 29:11:

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

I believe everything in the Bible to be true. But this phrase in context was God talking to Jeremiah, the latter being in very dire straits, to put it mildly. God certainly had plans for Jeremiah’s life, despite the ordeals he was going through. But contrary to popular Christian ‘folk-belief’ of the 21st century, not every phrase in the Bible is promised to every individual Christian, nor are we taught that Christians as a body, or our countries, are guaranteed prosperity and ‘a future.’

Most Christians today have bought the idea that all will be well if we but have faith and exercise positive thinking. In this they agree most with New Age followers; the latter has had enormous influence on Christians if Christians but knew it. Pop psychology/feel-good thinking is common to all areas of Western society, and this is in a large part responsible, in my opinion, for the weak and passive attitude of many people in the West towards our displacement and ethnic cleansing. The cardinal sin these days is in ”being negative”, even when there is just cause for concern. Sometimes the ‘negative’ side has to be recognized and confronted; it is dangerous to deny unpleasant realities in the name of ‘holding positive thoughts’ or ‘visualizing good things.’ Yet that’s what a lot of our folk are busy doing, while Rome (and the rest of the West) burns.

It isn’t necessarily ‘pathological altruism’ that fuels this craziness; it’s a kind of passivity and a reluctance to ‘think negative thoughts’ that keeps people’s heads in the sand, while the world collapses around them.

Christians, or a sizable number of them, believe that the Moslem refugees, or all Third World immigrants, provide an opportunity to ‘convert millions’ and ‘win the world for Christ.’ Yet does our Bible lead us to expect that the world will be won for Christ, or does it teach the opposite, a great ‘falling away’, an apostasy?  Does it teach a one-world, kumbaya future, or a world in which it is ‘ethnic group against ethnic group’ and Christians persecuted under a syncretistic one-world religion?

The Churchian naifs think they are going to get extra crowns in heaven for converting the Third World, and the refugee invasion is seen by some as a way of getting to ‘win souls’ of the noble savages without even having to go overseas to do it.

I am sorry to say this about fellow Christians. But I do hope the European remnant of Christianity recognize reality before it’s too late for them. If they really believe in the faith of their fathers, they will recognize the truth. If they don’t then they won’t.