Svenska English


Intresserad av föreläsningar om integration, multikulturalism och invandring?

Jag sätter pennan – eller tangentbordet – åt sidan och tar istället upp mikrofonen.

Hos dig.

Det vill säga hos statliga verk, statliga/regionala/lokala myndigheter, företag, föreningar, skolor, religiösa samfund.


Klicka här för att veta mer.

tisdag 22 december 2009

End the Illegal British Occupation of Australia, New Zealand and Canada

So the British are continuing their war on Israel.

Not in the same way as in the run-up to the 1948 movement for independence – which should have seen the creation of two independent states as per agreement, one Jewish state of Israel and the other a second Muslim Arab state of Palestine in addition to the Muslim Arab state already created on 80 percent of Mandate Palestine: Jordan. Read a brief history and analysis by Israeli researcher, politician and diplomat Moshe Arens here.

Back in 1948 – and ever since – the Arab and Muslim worlds offered massive resistance to the idea of renewed Jewish nationhood in any part of the Jewish national home. They preferred to embroil themselves in the never-ending ritual of hatred, anti-Semitic indoctrination, and self-conceived, globally-funded victimhood.

Back then, the British played the nefarious game of paying lip service to their agreements on Jewish nationality in the Jewish homeland while providing materiel, training and strategic planning for the Arab takeover of the entire Jewish homeland, not just the 80 percent already granted under the fictitious name of “Transjordan” ruled by a “king” freshly imported from the deserts of Arabia along with his entire tribe. It would appear mass immigration and settlement activity are fine, provided they are Arab Muslim mass immigration and settlement. These activities apparently only become problematic if Jews pursue the same practice.

The British then moved to stage two: support for an additional partition: the remaining 20 percent of the land would be divided once again, with roughly half each going to the Jews and those Muslim Arabs who wanted yet another Arab land in the Jewish homeland. Once again, the Jews agreed. The Arabs did not, and 61 years of bloodshed have ensued.

61 years later the British are still at it, aiding and abetting the stage plan for the delegitimisation and deconstruction of the Jewish state. Now they want goods manufactured by Jews from Judea and Samaria, disputed territory also known as the West Bank, to be segregated from goods produced by non-Jews living in the same area. The reasoning is that Judea and Samaria are occupied. That is the term the Arabs prefer to use following their unsuccessful war on the Jewish state, and the Arab agenda is the internationally adopted agenda.

Segregation, boycott, discrimination, selective divestment – there are many names for a hostile mindset that is equally ugly irrespective of how it is dressed up and irrespective of which name it goes by.

But that is what the British want. Segregation, boycott, discrimination, selective divestment all so that British consumers can make informed choices about the ethnicity of the people producing the goods they buy.

The time has therefore come to take a leaf out of the British book.

All goods from all occupied territories should be specially labeled to aid in clarity, to provide consumers with adequate information on ethnicity-related origin of manufacture. Accordingly, all goods manufactured in occupied British dominions – Australia, Canada, New Zealand make a good start – should be specially labeled so consumers can adequately avoid supporting the British occupation of these faraway nations. You want lamb? Just make sure it isn’t from Occupied New Zealand. Fancy a sparkling Chardonnay to go with your dinner? Better see to it that it does not come from Occupied Australia. The salmon on your plate had better not have been fished by the people of Occupied Canada. The list goes on.

This consumer clarity project – it is of course not a boycott (read Melanie Phillips on the subject of boycotts here, here and here) because such an act would be hostile – should be called off once the British Regent is no longer the nominal head of state of nations at the other end of the world and instead governs only her own nation, one that is being increasingly radicalized by extremist Islamists bent on instituting Sharia law in the heart of Britain.

All in the name of clarity, to help consumers make informed choices based on ethics and ethnicity.

The same rule applied to everyone. How wrong could that be?

Etiketter: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
upplagd av Ilya Meyer