Skip to comments.Liberty GB: UK's Best Party for Geert Wilders' European Coalition
Posted on 08/13/2013 6:39:19 PM PDT by Enza Ferreri
When we at Liberty GB first heard that the leader of the PVV Geert Wilders is looking to form an alliance with like-minded parties in Europe to fight next year's European elections, our immediate thought was that we are the right party to represent Britain in that alliance.
The party Liberty GB is very new, as it was formed in March of this year. The Executive Council comprises Chairman Paul Weston, Party Nominating Officer George Whale, Culture Officer Jack Buckby, Policy Officer Stephen Evans, Associate Matthew Roberts, IT Officer and Treasurer, and me as Press Officer.
Liberty GB is a patriotic, counter-jihad party for Christian and Western civilisation, freedoms, animal welfare, capitalism, progress in ideas and society.
It arose from the need to fill a vacuum that existed in British politics between the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and parties like the British National Party (BNP) with a reputation of anti-Semitism and racism.
The country's three main parties - Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats - are clearly creating, rather than solving, the problems facing Britain, but they are not the only ones to appease Islam and compromise about immigration, having recently been joined in those endeavours by UKIP, despite its initial promise of real conservatism.
An example of UKIP's concessions regarding the debate over immigration is an interview that in late July party leader Nigel Farage gave to the most Leftist mainstream paper in Britain, The Guardian. In it Farage castigates the late Conservative Member of Parliament Enoch Powell for his famous "Rivers of Blood" speech of 1968.
Powell was prescient in warning his countrymen about the serious dangers of mass immigration from the Third World, which had then only started and had not yet reached the astronomical levels of later decades. He said:
We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre...His predictions were correct in every respect: the indigeonous population has indeed been overwhelmed by huge numbers of immigrants and subjugated by the politically correct race-relations industry. The last sentence, which gave the speech its name, is a reference to the Latin poet Virgils epic poem Aeneid.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
But, rather than applauding Powell and blaming his opponents, in the interview Farage blamed the parliamentarian for the opposition his speech encountered, siding with the Left who strumentalised the metaphorical, indeed poetic, part of the speech - the one containing the word "blood" - to make the whole thing appear like the utterances of a violent fanatic who wanted, rather than predicted, blood:
He [Farage] said: "The Powell speech was a disaster. Everybody ran scared of discussing this for decades. Now, I think what Ukip has done is to help make immigration a sensible, moderate, realistic, mainstream debate."UKIP's previous policy to put an end to the age of "mass uncontrolled immigration" through a 5-year-freeze on immigration and a cap of 50,000 people per annum on future immigration, which is the party's main selling point, is under review, with a possible increase in the cap.
The disappointment with the UKIP felt by many supporters could explain its sharp decline in opinion polls, already evident in June and now even more pronounced. It was supported by 18% of respondents in May, 12% in June and now just 7%.
Islam, one of the major problems facing Britain and Europe today, indeed in many ways the most important problem, since it is a question of our own survival, receives so little attention from UKIP that a search for the term "Islam" on its website produces only 6 results. In some of them Islam is mentioned in the context of foreign policy, like the possible British intervention in the Syrian war or how to interact with "moderate Muslim states". In 5 cases out of those 6, the word "Islam" is accompanied by the qualifying adjective "extreme", "extremist" or "fundamentalist", and in the 6th is part of the phrase "puritanical and intolerant strain of Wahhabi Islam".
No results for "halal" on the UKIP's site.
On ritual slaughter this was the policcy in the 2010 General Election Party Manifesto:
UKIP believes that the UK should examine the pros and cons of proposals to insist on pre-stunning through a Royal Commission. The Commission should study examples from Denmark, New Zealand and others and evaluate whether the religious exemptions which cause suffering to animals should be repealed or not, or whether a requirement for pre-stunning be introduced.Contrast that with what Liberty GB is saying and doing.
We have an extensive plan of action on how to limit immigration and on how to deal with Islam.
We think that the distinction between Islam and "extreme" Islam is spurious, because Islam, wanting world domination and global imposition of its law with any means, is intrinsically extreme. It is also fundamentalist because it preaches that the Quran was written by Allah and dictated to Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel, so, being directly the word of God and not - like the Bible - written by men, must necessarily be taken literally.
We know that Islam is not a religion but a political ideology worse than fascism and communism, and that it is wrongly and unjustly protected by freedom of religion.
Indeed the Liberty GB website has devoted many articles to exposing Islam, including essays which criticise historical revisionism of the Crusades and the imaginary contributions of Islam to science and mathematics that inhabit Obama's mind.
Unlike UKIP, we are well aware of the no-go areas, of the whole communities that live by Sharia law, of how mosques disrupt neighbourhoods and are a hotbed of militancy, in short of the many forms taken by stealth jihad in our countries.
Of all these, none is more dangerous and insidious than halal meat, which is why Liberty GB has made it the target of a particular campaign. Halal is Islam's Trojan horse to penetrate and conquer our lands. It is the first giant step of our Islamisation.
In a similar way in which magazines, for example, introduce to the reader and explore a wide topic by focusing on particular individuals affected by it, it is easier for people to concentrate their attention and energy on a specific issue like halal, through which all of Islam in the West can be targeted, rather than tackling the whole subject of Islam. Besides, halal is arguably the most detested aspect of our Islamisation.
In addition, Halal in Britain and in the West generally, being a multi-billion-pound industry, empowers Muslims economically and there is ample evidence that it finances jihad and terrorism all over the world.
A ban on ritual slaughter is part of our manifesto.
We think, like Wilders, that Christians are our allies.
We stand for Christianity as an ethical as well as a theological system, therefore accepting that there can be, as the great Oriana Fallaci declared herself, atheist Christians or agnostic Christians.
We exist not just to attract people, but also to change them in order to change the status quo. We wont change anything if we dont change what people think. This is the cultural battle that the Left has fought and won until now, and that we know we must fight in order to win.
We dont want to do what UKIP has recently been doing. We dont blindly follow public opinion, we change it, and this is our unique selling proposition.
Decades of socio-communist propaganda have resulted in many people having very confused ideas about Christianity, about which they only know or believe they know bad things.
Jesus Christ declared all men to be equal. Both the doctrine and the history of Christianity vouch for its solid egalitarian, anti-discriminatory stance. When we say that we are Christian, ethically even if not necessarily theologically, we are implicitly saying that we are anti-racist without even having to say it explicitly. It was Christians who abolished slavery first in the Roman Empire and then in the 19th-century United States. No other religious group has ever done that. It has been Christians, today as in the past, who have gone to all the most inhospitable corners of the globe to help the poor of all races for nothing in return.
I'll conclude with this comment on the current first place of the PVV in the Dutch opinion polls, which I find particularly true and useful for us:
A smart party primes voters for the realization that it was right all along. A stupid party evolves and tosses aside its positions and becomes discredited and indistinguishable from the ruling party.
I saw references to Liberty GB but never paid attention, I thought it was a new Glenn Beck project.
I’m glad I put that straight.
Great speech on loving his race and culture and not being ashamed to say it.
I’m all for hanging terrorist murderers and kicking out foreigners who incite terrorism and violence, but much of that manifesto is contradictory. You want to deny advocacy of Sharia law (which, whether you agree with it or not, falls within the realm of free speech) and yet you say you want to abolish all restrictions on freedom of speech, except for incitement to violence.
Also, what is this idea of ‘recipricol’ arrangements with Middle-Eastern countries upon which depends whether we allow mosques to remain open? It is a given that the Middle Eastern countries are peopled and run by stone-age barbarians, but why must we consider stooping to their level? We should have confidence in our own values not to make them dependent on the policies of another country.
Apart from anything else, if a country wants to ban certain foods and alcohol, that is their prerogative, not ours. It is a purely internal matter which is no business of ours. Foreigners who go their should remember ‘when in Rome’ even if their citizens don’t (again, we are better than them, and should not stoop to their level).
The manifesto point saying that you should ‘declare that Islam is incompatible with the 21st Century’ and then saying you should support modernising Imams is also kind of self-defeating, and would automatically discredit any Muslim scholar/Imam who subscribes to a state-supported modernising agenda. I happen to agree that Islam in its original and pure form is barbaric, but you have to admit that this requires diplomacy, rather than giving a pointless, emotionally-driven ‘declaration’.
Apart from that, I agree with much of the sentiment.
Much of what you say could be sensible if we were not talking about Islam here. The context is of the essence.
Islam divides the world into two parts: Dar al-Islam (which in Arabic means “house/abode of Islam”, also called Dar as-Salam, “house/abode of Peace”); and Dar al-Harb (in Arabic “house of war”), which is applied to all the part of the world where Islam has not yet triumphed and Islamic law is not in force.
The language is clear, the doctrine behind it even clearer: where Islamic rule has been imposed - through whatever means, but bear in mind that every single population and nation in the world that is Muslim now has become so through military conquest and subjugation - there is peace; where Islam has not been imposed there is war.
Islam is at war with us, whether we like it or not.
The rules of war are not the same as the rules of peace.
If someone assaulted you in the street, would you say “why must we consider stooping to their level” or would you defend yourself, necessarily using the same means? Try to have a dialogue with somebody bent on killing you, as Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh did, when he asked “Can’t we talk about this?” just before being killed by a Muslim in an Amsterdam street, and see what the result will be.
Mosques are not, and more importantly are not meant to be, only places of worship. In the same way as Islam is not just a religion but also a political doctrine of supremacy and power, so the mosque is not simply a building of worship but also a political one. This is the Islamic doctrine, every mosque is instructed to be based upon the original mosque in Medina, where Muhammad originally in the 7th century set up his religious-political doctrine of social control, and the mosque is a place of government, where treaties are made, death sentences are passed, armies are blessed and dispatched.
Many mosques are centres of jihadist activity that indoctrinate to commit and support violence against infidels. From ancient times the mosque has had a role in urging jihad.
In America, as many as 4 different studies have independently come to the same conclusion that 80 per cent of US mosques “were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians”.
Islamic doctrine requires the application of Islamic law within a mosques geographical reach.
It is no coincidence that sharia-law areas or self-declared Muslim areas with Muslim patrols acting like vigilantes in cities like London, saying to passers-by that they can’t walk a dog, wear a skirt, drink alcohol, are near mosques.
Mosques are used as the bridgehead, the forefront of the advance of Islam in a territory. British neighbourhoods where a mosque is built change forever for their residents, who eventually have to move out, due to general harassment. Muslims behave in such a way as to establish possession and control over the area, as if to say: “This is a mosque area, we are the owners now and there’s nothing you can do about it.
As for sharia law, there is no contradiction. We believe in freedom of speech but not in incitement to violence, and sharia law contains many incitements to violence, first among them that of killing all unbelievers wherever they are found unless they convert to Islam or submit and pay the jizya tax as a sign of their willing acceptance of dhimmi (second-class citizen) status under Islam.
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers to impose Islamic rule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.