Multi-Culti Child Snatching

Multicultural Britain is becoming an ever more sinister country in which to live. I am pretty much immune to the totalitarian ideology of multiculturalism, but having said that, even I must confess to being shocked that the British state can now kidnap babies and children simply because their parents question the dictatorial and wholly unnatural orthodoxy of the ruling elites.

According to a recent article in the Daily Express, social workers want to seize a baby as soon as it is born because they are concerned about the mother’s links to the English Defence League.

Durham County Council has told Toni McLeod she poses a “risk of significant harm” to her baby because social workers fear the child would become radicalised with EDL views.

To be fair, Ms McLeod is clearly not a graduate of the Cheltenham Ladies College. She has a bit of previous, as it is known in the argot of the criminal fraternity. Assaulting a police officer, setting her dog on an ex-boyfriend and alleged problems with drink and drugs are variously quoted in the article.

All in all, not the best qualifications for motherhood but these are not the reasons behind the state sanctioned child-snatching. Ms McLeod has been presumed guilty of a far more serious crime than simply living her life as a result of liberalism’s catastrophic progressive policies.

Ms McLeod you see, is deemed a racist – and quite possibly a fascist to boot – both of which are ranked nowadays as the ultimate evil by the promoters of multiculturalism – who are trying desperately to hold together Britain’s rapidly fragmenting and fantastical multicultural Utopia.

The social worker’s report states: “Toni (Ms McLeod) clearly needs to break away from the inappropriate friendships she has through either the EDL or break-off groups in order that she can model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she grows and develops.”

Snatching children from parents who hold “inappropriate” political views is nothing new, although it normally required a fully totalitarian state such as Nazi Germany or Communist Russia in order to do so. I hope I am not alone in recognising how deeply sinister and frightening multicultural Britain has become when it seeks to emulate the ideology of such dictatorships.

Polls conducted in the 1960s and 70s suggest the overwhelming majority of British citizens were opposed to mass immigration. Recent polls in Britain and Europe suggest the indigenous citizens have a very rational fear of Islam despite the ruling elite’s dictatorial attempts to portray this violent and supremacist political ideology as a fuzzy and moderate religion of peace.

Multicultural Britain is now at a very dangerous crossroads. The liberal/left have implemented the wholly unnatural act of diluting the cohesive native population with an imported population which comes from a society completely at odds with the religion, tradition and culture of Great Britain. This alien society is then actively encouraged to retain its barbaric culture rather than assimilate.

Not content with simply causing social division and religious terrorism, the liberal/left then engage in persecuting and criminalising any member of the native population who dares question their perverse and treacherous ideology. The problem here is that there are tens-of-millions of people who DO question their ideology, so multiculturally Apartheid Britain is set to become increasingly dictatorial as our liberal elites move to quash the dissidents.

The sheer insanity of multiculturalism throws up any number of contradictions and ironies. Ms McLeod’s partner and father of the soon-to-be-snatched-baby is a serving soldier in Afghanistan. The state will reward him with a campaign medal for doing his bit in fighting Islamism abroad, whilst the self-same state will steal his child because the mother is fighting Islamism at home. If this is not insane then I don’t know what is.

Contradiction number two is that the child-snatchers are representative of the very people who allowed Baby P to be slowly tortured to death in their full and open view, and contradiction number three is that the majority of the victims in the recently revealed Muslim (sorry, Asian…) rape epidemic were children in the purported “care” of the Social Services.

Contradiction number four is the refusal by the Social Services to remove children from favoured religious/racial groups. One can only assume that many of the recently convicted Muslim gang-rape paedophiles are fathers themselves, yet not one of their children is being considered for state sanctioned snatching.

It would thus appear that a gang-raping and racist Muslim paedophile is acceptable as a father in the eyes of the multicultural liberal/left, but drawing attention to gang-raping racist Muslim paedophiles is in itself “racist” and therefore not acceptable when protested by a white indigenous mother.

Multicultural Britain is a truly horrible place. It is almost impossible for those over a certain age to understand how people can lose their jobs and their livelihoods for vocalising politically unacceptable views, but snatching babies from politically unacceptable mothers marks a new low for the depraved and morally obscene liberal/left that must surely be impossible to understand by everyone?

Little children are terribly vulnerable and terribly easy to psychologically damage for life. Their main requirement is to be granted love and the only reason for removing them from a loving environment into the arms of the unloving state is if their physical well-being is in question. It should not need to be stated really, but their removal should most certainly not be because their parents are political dissidents.

What a dreadful state of affairs. I have said it before but in needs saying again: Multiculturalism is a wicked, treacherous, totalitarian ideology and the liberal/left its wicked, treacherous and totalitarian practitioners.

Durham Social Services provide an email address for compliments and complaints. Assuming you wish to complain about their Gestapoesque child-snatchers rather than compliment them, they can be contacted at scd@durham.gov.uk. I fully encourage readers to drop them a polite line.

I have a plan to destroy America by Richard D. Lamm

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.

4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.

5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.

Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions …)” If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits–make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra –”because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” –this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please–if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed–please, please–don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” –Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.

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.