The “Christian Council of Britain” is a pseudo-religious organisation run by the racist “Reverand” Robert West the BNP’s vicar.
The BNP quote from the bible to justify their politics:
“It is the will of God that the one race of mankind be divided into nations or descent groups with each having its own homeland where its interests, identity and values can be protected, upheld and promoted (Genesis 10: 5, 32; Acts 17: 26-27) . This right is claimed by all nations of the world who have used this right to promote their own independence in their own countries. In the British people now claiming this right for themselves they would appear not to be out of step with both the Word of God (the Holy Bible) and all the other ethnic groups that, by the Will of God, make up the world.”
Rev. West then goes on to claim that calling the BNP racist
“… is misconceived in that the British National Party has no racist foundation, or ambition to displace or replace any nation, or ethnic group, from their own historic and national homeland; indeed the British National Party is striving for the integrity of the British people in their own homeland.”
The Christian Council of Britain – Christian Council’s answer – By Rev Robert West BNP.
Tags: BNP, Christian Council of Britain, Church of England, racism, Robert West
[...] anti-fascism, bigotry — seismicshock @ 10:29 am Read about this on the excellent website Nothing British about the BNP. Leave a [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is as good a reply as any to the idea that ‘One World’ as envisaged by liberals, is a good thing.
Human beings cannot exist in a One World of homogeneity, and Jesus doesn’t ask us to .
(From the Green Arrow website)
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Peter Mandelson and the Marxist Tories
Mandelson
The “Face of Evil”
By: Tim Heydon
‘The Osborne argument’ (that the Tories are the true Progressive Party) ‘is an audacious attempt at political cross dressing that will convince few genuine progressives’. – Lord Mandelson
When George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, proclaimed that the conservatives were now the real ‘Progressive Party,’ the odious de facto New Labour deputy leader, the slippery, scheming, lying (Lord) Peter Mandelson’s repost might be viewed as another comically amusing revelation of the mans hypocritical and repulsive character, given that he must surely know, the Cameroon Tories really are every bit as Progressive as are New Labour. Why so? And why is it such a big deal for parties of the left, the Tories included, to claim the mantle of being ‘Progressive?’
Progressives see their ‘One world ‘ Utopia as ultimately a synchronised blend of races, cultures and religions boiled down and brought into being by ‘reason’ through science , technology and education. It will be (they assume – the details are necessarily vague) a sort of coffee -coloured ‘people – smoothie’. Since complete integration economically, racially, culturally, religiously and in every other respect will have been achieved, there will be no differences to promote resentment or hostility, so all will live amicably in complete concord and justice.
For most sensible people, however, this Progressive ‘Utopia’ or anything approaching it is a vision of a kind of hell. One not so brutal as the Second World War and its horrors, to be sure, but in a slow way just as deadly. It is a vision of a vast, rootless and atomised crowd of strangers in which the deep human need for roots, identity and belonging would be suppressed in a sea of never –ending sameness.. The restless human need, best expressed in nations, to be different as w ell as the same, would be considered a crime or an illness. This ‘Utopia’ would be a choice-less prison stripped of alternatives, numbing to the spirit and to hope and without escape. It would subject to norms of crushing mediocrity where living for today and guzzling consumerism would be the highest good and the only inspiration. Most likely, it would be at the mercy of a remote and incontestable government ruling through Stasi –like control.
The reality of the progressives’ dream is so juvenile in its lack of any grasp of reality or of what truly makes people tick, and likely to be so awful as a result , that it is no surprise to learn that it is founded on a long-defunct cult founded by men who went quite literally mad. And this cult was based on a fundamental misconception of history and of human nature. Progressivism originated in the 18th Century with the Marquis de Condorcet (1743-94), who wrote a famous essay in which he asserted the perfectibility of human nature . He asked, will not the growth of knowledge demonstrate that ‘the moral goodness of man is susceptible of indefinite improvements and nature links together truth , happiness and virtue by an indissoluble chain?’ Richly ironically, de Condorcet perished in prison, put there during the French Revolution which celebrated ‘Reason.’
De Condorcet’s follower, Count Henri de St Simon (1760 -1825), argued that the chaotic state of society was due to the fact that it had not absorbed the lessons of Science. Progress was a by-product of Science as it advanced. Every society must move from a religious to a metaphysical view of the world and then to a Positive, scientific view. In each of these stages, knowledge becomes more definite and more systematically organised ( this is important for state control).
But St Simon was wrong. There is no fundamental opposition between religion and science. And the scientific determinism which is used to attack, say, the miracles of the New Testament, is outdated. Quantum Mechanics say they are perfectly possible. Further, rather than modern science rising inevitably on the grave of religion, in fact modern science is a creation of Christianity, an argument first put forward by Alfred North Whitehead, co-author with Bertrand Russell of Principia Mathematica and accepted by most scholars today. So there is nothing inevitable about the rise of Science. And while it is true that organised religion has declined partly as result of popular misconceived views about Science, the religious impulses remain as strong as ever. .
And although the Progressives were unaware of it, not only is Modern Science a function of Christian ideas, but their idea about progress to the coming Utopia also derive from Christianity – from Jesus’ teaching about the coming Kingdom of God of justice, brotherhood and peace.
The Kingdom of God is first a spiritual realm which one can enter only if one acknowledges that though one is capable of good, one’s nature naturally inclines to evil, repents and turns to God. Through faith the individual will then make the world a better place.
Progressives though perverted this teaching of ‘Progress’ to mean pretty much its reverse.
Rather than sinful but repentant people making the World better, a better World, they said, can make people good. Humanity, they claimed, naturally inclines only to the good. Our minds are fundamentally Progressive. If we are bad it is because we have been made so by human institutions. We can and will be made good, simply by the changes which will be brought about by the inevitable advance of scientific knowledge. Naturally the idea that people can be made to be ‘good’ has proved irresistible to individuals whose primary impulse is the urge to boss others about.
This Progress is said to operate in history through technology. For the first Progressives it was the then-new railways. For Lenin it was Electricity. For the globalising, free-trading Cameroons it is the Internet.
These technologies produce new modes of existence which force a convergence of values and increasing organisation. This process, they believe, must end in a truly scientific world which will be united in a single economic system bringing maximum benefits A universal civilisation will dawn, governed by a secular, all- embracing morality which has become science, as objective in its results as physics or mathematics. The moral and political conflicts of the past will disappear and, since there is no conflict there is no need for power and the state will wither away. These ideas became the core of Marx’s conception of communism.
The historical sociologist Liah Greenfield has observed that ‘Curiously Marxism, abandoned in the lands traditionally dedicated to it is remarkably similar to the Anglo-American view of the world,’ (Quoted by John Gray; ‘Al Quaeda and what it means to be Modern’). ‘Progressive’ liberals, leftists, globalising free-marketeers like Cameroon or whatever, share a Marxist belief in the fundamental importance of economics and the inevitable advance of ‘scientific’ knowledge which will lead to a One World of peace and plenty and maximum human happiness.
Cultural differences, everything particular and human to a society, are mere surface manifestations which will either shrink into insignificance or disappear. It is because they share these false Marxoid beliefs that the major Parties treat ancient communities and way of life with total contempt and seem so very similar..
St Simon, who spent years in a hospital for the insane and his disciple Auguste Comte (1798-1857) who was eventually pronounced incurably insane by a psychiatrist, founded a Progressive ‘church’ which would preach the tenets of the new religion of Scientific ‘Positivism’.
This cult had its own priests, vestments, altars, hymns and calendar. There were sacraments, including an equivalent of Baptism, requirements as to prayer, and so on.
So there we have it. The people who rule us, and who will rule us, Progressives all, are the slaves of a dead cult based on a perversion of Christianity, ignorance of history and a false view of the malleability and perfectibility of human nature.
That the ludicrous ideology that the human mind is naturally progressive and that the advance of science brings goodness should have survived the scientific slaughter of the World Wars, the Nazi death camps and the mass murders of the Gulags at the behest of scientific Marxism shows the depths of delusion that ‘educated and ‘knowledgeable’ leftist are capable of. These ideas have only ever had a fringe appeal to the European right.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And here’s another article about Christianity and Nationalism which appeared in the BNP publication ‘Identity’:-
Christianity and Nationalism: The Bible supports Patriotism and Ethnic Identity.
By Tim Heydon
‘‘The BNP … challenges the leftist dogma that nationalism is acceptable only when it is based on non-ethnic factors. ‘Nationalist patriotism may be expressed at the same time with regards to nation as an ethnic community of its citizens. The Nationalist is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world.’ In addition, ‘the patriotism of the Nationalist shall be active. It is manifested when he defends his fatherland against an enemy, works for the good of the motherland, cares for the good order of (a) people’s life through, among other things, participation in the affairs of government. The Nationalist is called to preserve and defend the national culture and people’s self awareness.’’
These remarks are what one might expect the BNP to make on the subject of patriotism and the nation as an ethnic community, aren’t they? Only, they weren’t made by the BNP at all. Change the words ‘BNP’ to ‘the Bishops’ and ‘Nationalist to ‘Christian or Orthodox Christian’ as the case may be, and we find a statement which was issued by the Eastern Orthodox Church. (‘Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church’, Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 13-16 August 2000, pp 4-7) The Russian Orthodox statement goes on to be somewhat more inclusive of other ethnicities in ‘patriotism in certain circumstancews,’ but that aside, this statement could have been written bythe BNP.
How is it that churches in Britain can sing a tune so different from that of the Russian Orthodox Church on this subject? Why do so many church leaders in Britain go out of their way to condemn the BNP, a party which can now be described in a generally favourable article in the Jewish Web Magazine ‘Think-Israel’ as, ‘by world standards, a fairly conventional right-wing populist ethno-nationalist party’ reflecting the national characteristics of the British.’
The Old Testament
The fact is that it is the Eastern Orthodox Church which has the weight of Scriptural authority on its side. In Genesis 10:31, three groups of nations are created from the descendents of the sons of Noah after the great flood: Ham, (whence ‘Hamitic’ races) Shem (from whence ‘Semitic’) and Japheth, ( the ancestors of the Europeans). These descendents are the ‘sons’ of their respective progenitors, ‘according to their families, according to their languages, by their lands, according to their nations.’ Thus the Old Testament makes it clear that the basis of a nation is blood kinship, and that these nations have their own territories in which to live, have their own languages and flourish.. This is not an accident, something that just happened, but God’s will: ‘When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated mankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples.’ (Deut 32:8) . Throughout the Old Testament, reference is made to nations rather than to individuals. One of these nations was of course Israel, and it is made very clear in this context that ethnic homogeneity is something to be prized as a source of harmony and human flourishing. In Genesis 24:3,4 Abraham makes his servant swear ‘by the Lord, the God of Heaven and Earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the (Hamitic) Canaanites, among whom I live, but will go to my country and to my (Semitic) kindred and get a wife for my son Isaac.’ Moses forbade the Israelites, once they had entered the Promised Land, to take wives from among the Canaanites, since if they did, they would fall prey to their religious and cultural practices, and thus destroy their communities.(Exodus 34:12-16). God himself forbids intermarriage for these reasons in Deutronomy 7:3 ‘Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for their sons for that would turn away your children from following Me.’ Such intermarriage would undermine the ‘holy seed’ when it is ‘mixed with the people of other lands.’ (Ezra 9:1,2)
There are accounts of interracial and interethnic marriages which are blessed in the Old Testament. But these are invariably alliances between racially and ethnically related groups, for example Moses’s marriage to a Medianite (Semitic) woman. But there is an ongoing principle in Biblical law and example that inter-racial, inter-ethnic and inter-cultural marriages, as with unequal couplings of other types, though not condemned as such, are not to be encouraged as they undermine the community which they are designed to establish and support.
There is nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that the existence of nations is a transitional arrangement, on the way to an eventual Oneness. On the contrary, the move is in the other direction; from Oneness to the separate nations. And everywhere, the continuing existence of nations, based on blood kinship, is celebrated as God’s will, just as separate families are. Thus, the Psalmist says, ‘All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before Him.’ (Psalm 22;27)
The New Testament
What, though of the New Testament? In Christian theology, the coming of Jesus instituted a new order in the world. Does this not mean that the Christian response must be a new morality in which the guiding principle is one of love, a principle which must, as is argued by British Churches, do away with all divisions of people in a world of love, so that Christians must welcome the extinction of our separate identity as a people, the suppression of our culture in favour of others and the disappearance of our way of life in a new multicultural, multiracial society? In fact it is not the case that the New Testament advocates an assault on individual nations or ethnic identities. It reaffirms, rather than denies, the Old Testament position on their existence and their function in promoting human flourishing as the will of God , who ‘from one ancestor .. made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and.. allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they should live.’ (Acts 16; 26) The nations are not barriers to the institution of God’s Kingdom, which must be done away with, but will continue to exist in it: Jesus was sent by God so that ‘all other peoples may seek the Lord, even all the nations who are called by my name’ (Acts 15:7) ; The Book of Revelation tells us, about the Light of God in Heaven, that ‘the nations will walk by its Light’ and ‘people will bring in to it the glory and honour of the nations.’ (Rev. 21 24, 26)
St Paul is often called upon by those who deny the need for nations, for example Romans 10:12 where he states, ‘For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him.’ The same idea is expressed in Galatians 3:28, ‘ There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.’ But here, Paul is not saying that ethnic or racial identities no longer existed for Christians, or that they should not be considered important, or that they can or should be set aside and done away with. That is an unscholarly construction put on his words by those who are reading them through the spectacles of a pre-existing left-liberal, politically correct or globalist bias. Paul was saying that these differences did not exist in a spiritual sense only; that God’s offer of salvation is made to all regardless of the differences that do exist.
St Paul makes this interpretation of his words abundantly clear when he is writing about himself. He had several identities to choose from: he was a citizen of Tarsus, and was proud of it – it was ‘no mean city.’ He was also a Roman citizen, a fact he made use of on occasions when he was in trouble with the authorities, since Roman citizens had legal privileges. He was at least partially Greek by education and language. Before his conversion, by religion he had been a pharisaical Jew. But he was by birth one of God’s chosen people, a Jew, and he remained proud of the fact : ‘I ask then, has God rejected his people (my italics)? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of the tribe of Benjamin.’ (Romans 11;1). He could wish that ‘I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh’ (my italics) (Romans 9:3). It is clear that Paul made a distinction between his ethnic nation and his other identities. His ethnic identity as a Jew is not superceded by his identity as a brother in Christ, rather he affirms both.
But in discussing the Christian attitude to ethnicity or race, we have not so far mentioned Jesus’s approach directly. Is there any thing that Jesus said or did specifically which can guide Christians in this matter? The Sermon on the Mount was preached in the context of a nation in mortal danger of destruction by its oppressors following insurrection by its revolutionary elements. It is the way of survival of that people in their ancestral homeland through peace and love, rather than through hate and the use of force against overwhelming might. Thus when Jesus commands Christians to love others as themselves, this does not mean that Christians should humble themselves before others in an attitude of self flagellating submission, or destroy their own ethnic identity, culture and so on in an effort to create an undifferentiated oneness. When he commanded that those struck on the right cheek should turn the left, this was not a demand for supine acquiescence in oppression, but for non-violent resistance. To strike someone on the left cheek was an insult. Turning the left was an assertion of equality with the striker.
Though he reached out to members of other ethnic groups, and his message is for the whole world, Jesus himself lived and ministered in Jewish areas of the Jewish promised land, very much within the context of the Judaism of his time. His parable of the good Samaritan demonstrates his teaching. In the parable, a man, a Jew, who is on a journey is set upon, robbed and left injured. Today, we should say he had been mugged. Several important members of his own race and religion passed by on the other side of the road, ignoring him. But a Samaritan, a member of an ethnic group which was historically antagonistic to the Jews who regarded by them as inferior, and had their own land of Samaria, saw him, dressed his wounds and helped him as much as he could. Jesus does not say or imply that Samaritans should lose his identity as an ethnic Samaritan or that the robbed and wounded Jew that the Samaritan helped, should stop being a Jew. Rather, he says that being a good neighbour, to love others as one’s self, means that one should care for others as well as you would wish them to care for you. Being a good neighbour should then transcend differences of race and ethnicity when the need arises, not necessarily do away with them. In this way, one loves another as one self, whilst remaining one’s self and part of one’s own community.
Conclusion
Both Old and New Testaments recommend the existence of separate ethnic identities and nations as the best arena for human flourishing. This teaching is reflected in the views of such as the Philosopher Roger Scruton in his book ‘the Need for Nations.’ Jeus himself as the Bishop pf Durham, Tom Wright has argued in his bookss, saw his mission as restoring the Nation of Israel as a priestly nation among others , in much the way that the Levites were priests among the Jews. So at the very least, Jesus did not condemn the existence of ethnic nations as such.
Why then do so many Christian leaders advocate the mututuralism and multiracialisation of Britain? Why, for example, do they seem to embrace a religion, Islam, founded by a man , Mohammed, whom Christ would undoubtedly have condemned as plain evil? The message in the Koran and the Hadith is laden with hatred and cruelty towards those who disagreed with Mohammed, some of whom he robbed, raped, waged war against or had murdered. Islam has been an instrument of oppression, not least towards Islamic women, wherever it holds sway. The attitudes and teachings of Mohammed must surely influence those of his followers, just as those of Jesus influence those of his.
The short answer is that, unlike the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has been inoculated against the insinuations of Marxism through living under Soviet Communism for the best part of a century, the Western Churches have been since the 1960’s cultural revolution, thoroughly imbued with the neo-Marxist spirit of Political Correctness. They are influenced by the current theological thought, itself influenced by neo-Marxists currents, which stresses the oneness and equal value of the search for God in various religions and cultures, rather than the uniqueness of Christianity as being the truest or only path to the Transcendent. These developments are very recent in the history of Western Christianity.
Part of the problem is that Western Christians are guilt ridden about the wealth, power and success of the West, compared with the Third World. But Western wealth and social and scientific progress have been created through the efforts and abilities of Western people, and the Christian spirit and Christian attitudes have played a necessary role in these developments. Western science and technology, industrial and finance methods have raised hundreds of millions out of poverty, ignorance and disease. It is ludicrous and contradictory to be ashamed of and to destroy through mass immigration the very society whose success has been such a magnet for others, and which has, on balance, done so much good in the world. But Western science and methods have now spread elsewhere so that some Asian countries are now world leaders in science and technology. In some cases, such as Japan, Singapore and Korea, the citizens of these countries are wealthier than those of Britain. China and India are rapidly becoming economic, scientific and military superpowers in their own right, likely to overshadow the West in the not too distant future. These Asian Countries do not themselves welcome multiculturalisation. On the contrary, although in some cases they pay lip service to the idea, they make it quite plain by their actions that they intend to stay the way they are, or are actually becoming less ‘diverse.’ As a Japanese cabinet minister recently stated, ‘Japan is a one–race nation.’ Western guilt is misplaced. It is a sort of patronising, self indulgent conceit, self destructive beyond reason.
Another problem is that it is assumed by those Christians who look forwards to the utopia of ‘One World,’ that loving one own people must mean that one oppresses others. This assumption is a function of the leftist ideological hatred of the White race (described as not unlike the attitude of the Nazis to Judaism by the Jewish author Goldberg in his recent book ‘Liberal Fascism’) which is not born out by the facts. A society does not oppress any one simply by existing and through its own merits being successful, any more than a family or an individual does. On the contrary, it is the success of Western Christian civilisation which is dragging the rest of the world out of poverty, ignorance and disease. To think otherwise is not to love others, but is unjustified self hatred, a psychological aberration, rather like an individual having a guilt or inferiority complex. And as Margaret Thatcher remarked: the Good Samaritan was able to give assistance because he had the wherewithal to do it.
Again, the idea that if one loves ones own people one must hate or denigrate others is a misconception which is not born out either by personal experience or by the studies. For example, J. C. Turner in his study of 1978 states: ‘Not only is in-group favoritism in the laboratory situation not related to outgroup dislike, it also does not seem causally dependent on denigration of the outgroup.’ (‘ Social categorisation and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm’ European Monographs on Social Psychology no 14 London Academic). As J. J. Ray puts it, ‘Thinking well of your own group, in other words, has virtually nothing to do with thinking ill of other groups. Ray goes on, ‘ Attitudes to outgroups can be shown from many sources and research modalities not to be a mirror of attitude to the ingroup. There is, furthermore, a substantial body of thought which sees pro-ingroup sentiment as something like self esteem – ie, a positive influence and a basis for a healthy , adaptive and positive view of the world, It is hard to think well of outgroups if you do not think well of your own group. This is all a far cry from the simplistic conceptions of Sumner (1906) and Adorno et al (1950).’ (J.J. Ray, University of NSW; Australia 1987).
Up to a few decades ago, the statement of Christian principles as regards patriotism and the national identity noted above would have been thought unexceptional. Anyone in their 50’s knows that although sometimes coloured by unpleasant racism, simple patriotism and love and respect for one’s own people was the common coin of popular sentiment in our country. It lay behind this country’s glittering success in many areas of endeavour. Without it, no community can survive or be a success. The forced multiculturalisation of Britain, which is likely on present trends to result in a majority Islamic population in this country in the lifetimes of our children, is not a victory or opportunity for Christianity, but a defeat for our Christian civilisation and all we hold dear, brought about by Marxists who hate it. It is not then surprising that, given the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church, such a contrast to Churches in the West, the Russian patriot Alexander Solzhenitsen can state that Russia is all that stands between the forces of barbarism and ‘the downfall of Christian Civilisation.’ Hopefully, the BNP will prove that that is not the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Further to Nothing British’s blog this morning on the BNP’s The Christian Council of Britain. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Atheistic morality has no foundation whatsoever. No atheist can presume to judge a relgious viewpoint, or indeed, any other.
As Dostoevsky remarked, about a Godles world, ‘If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, evrything then would then be permisable, even cannibalism’ (Brothers Karamazov).
Given that for an atheist there can be absolute standard by which to judge morality, and that on this basis political correcteness and so-called ‘human rights’ are baseless but convenient fictions, on what do atheist multiculturalists base their moral judgements?
On their own preferences, that is all. And why are their preferences supposed to be superior to others, ? There can be no answer to that because there isn’t one.
An atheist cannot if true to the implications of his or her beliefs suggest or impose or suggest any morality whatosever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://forum.37signals.com/basecamp/users/17324 pornhub luodian
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
island ieiase bangkok tabulate drummond blockage ramblers
Berberados Lemesarios
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
aman regulatory gametes sigma sabarkantha titled miles
Selesvertos murtosabor
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
stan anything ozone differs masks returns tendency inaccuracy garbage prolleniums neurology resounding sainic dermal
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
godown springer good forrest torontos helm churlish constable trillions barometer attaching
Like or Dislike:
0 
0