UFOs sighted in the Headlines

Everyone enjoys a good UFO tale, and today has produced a pretty top-notch one in the form of a news conference given by a number of US airmen including Charles Halt, a former USAF Chief Colonel who was once in charge of RAF Bentwaters and was a witness of the famous Rendlesham Forest UFO incident. Many have since claimed that the airmen were spooked by beams from a local lighthouse, others however, Halt included, think that what they saw was something rather less earthly. Halt claims that the unidentified craft landed in the base’s nuclear storage area.

The Daily Telegraph quotes another participant in today’s Washington press conference, Captain Robert Salas, as saying that

The US Air Force is lying about the national security implications of unidentified aerial objects at nuclear bases and we can prove it.

He claims that on 16 March 1967 a UFO deactivated nuclear missiles at the Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana:

I was on duty when an object came over and hovered directly over the site.

The missiles shut down - 10 Minuteman missiles. And the same thing happened at another site a week later. There's a strong interest in our missiles by these objects, wherever they come from. I personally think they're not from planet Earth.

Was there some significance to holding the press conference today? Are they plugging a book? Is there some other agenda at play here, or are they telling the truth? I am open-minded (but as Dawkins would say, not so open-minded that my brains fall out), but err on the side of scepticism.

Now, let us for the sake of argument assume that their testimonies are suddenly taken seriously by national governments and media irrespective of their facticity: what implications would such a revelation have? Would it be used as another argument to promote globalism and a transnational architecture of governance? I suspect that the answer would be yes. Would it be a useful means of generating fear globally and thus ushering in an era of greater social and economic control by the nascent global oligarchy? It would seem so.

Leaving aside the usefulness of the acceptance of such a fact, or indeed a fiction, to those who favour the construction of a global government, I suggest that it would also tap into eschatological fantasies of both religious and secular varieties (see this link to a piece entitled 'The Coming Strong Delusion' for an example of such beliefs). The three monotheisms originating in the Middle East all subscribe to the notion of a Day of Judgement and the deliverance of humanity by some supernatural saviour. The global promotion of the acceptance of the reality of advanced extraterrestrial intelligences at work in our world could prompt an outpouring of eschatological hysteria as Jews, Christians and Muslims each await or prepare for the coming of their respective Messiahs and the Mahdi. Perhaps Ahmadinejad would look forward to prostrating himself before the Twelfth Imam in the form of a ‘grey’ from the neighbourhood of Aldebaran before enlisting his help in the battle against Dajjal? Beware their efforts in ‘cleansing’ the world of impure ‘elements’ (i.e. you and me) were any of these to get it into their heads that Judgement Day was at hand. It would have the potential to get rather bloody.

Greens would love to embrace the alien myth as this would underscore their belief in the necessity of creating a harmonious united globe, which would once again play into the hands of the emergent globalist oligarchy. So, much as I do enjoy a good UFO story, I hope that today’s report continues to be regarded as such rather than a reality, for if it is accepted as the latter, prepare yourself for the final onslaught of the real enemies of humanity: the globalists, whether they undertake it alone or with extraterrestrial assistance. Welcome to a world of everlasting helotage!

Below is a Fox News report on the story featuring an interview with one of the witnesses:

Review Article: ‘A New Inquisition: religious persecution in Britain today’, Jon Gower Davies, Civitas, London, 2010.

The writing of this slim volume was prompted by the trial of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, two Liverpool hoteliers who although exonerated of the charge brought against them by a malign Muslim convert, had their business ruined and their lives turned upside down. The zeal with which the case was taken up and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is illustrative not only of the British state’s desire to generate and prosecute thought criminals, but also of its abandonment of any pretext of treating its citizens as equal before the law. Some citizens - Muslim ones in particular - have become more equal than others.

Davies, a retired senior academic from the University of Newcastle, uses the misfortunes of the Vogelenzangs to highlight how the official writ of multiculturalism has come to pervert our justice system and to undermine the traditional free and easy public discussion of religion and irreligion. Where once lively debate and scurrilous humour were the rule, now a cold deadening silence and sense of unease has descended thanks to the combined impact of a new category of religious ‘hate’ crimes created by the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act; the ‘Religious Hatred’ section of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, and a vociferous and threatening Muslim lobby. People have become apprehensive about debating or poking fun at one particular religion – Islam – both because of the special legal status that it and its followers have been accorded, and because of the willingness of a significant minority of Muslims to either threaten critics with violence or bring the force of ‘hate’ legislation to bear upon freethinkers and the followers of other religions.

Who would have thought only 30 or 40 years ago that it would have been possible for the Vogelenzangs to have suffered as they did (and still do) simply because they ventured to hold a conversation with a Muslim guest in which the latter claimed to have been ‘offended’ by what they said? Much of the Vogelenzangs’ business was provided by offering accommodation to a local hospital, and once the case had been brought the latter promptly cancelled its block bookings at the Bounty House Hotel. The merest hint of the hoteliers being associated with a ‘hate’ crime was sufficient for them to be punished, and for a primary source of their livelihood to vanish. To compound their hurt, the Vogelenzangs received hate mail and were pilloried by some commentators in the national press as Christian ‘nutters’. This was of course, completely unfair and unwarrented.

Davies himself draws attention to the testimony of another Muslim guest – a doctor – who unlike the zealous and brittle convert Mrs Tazi was able to see the Vogelenzangs for what they are: fundamentally decent people. Davies quotes the nameless doctor (his request for anonymity is in itself a sad indictment of our absence of freedom owing to fear of attack from Islamists and the politically correct establishment) as saying:

I am a Muslim and I know they are devout Christians but . . . I have never found them to be at all judgemental. They were as friendly with me as with any other guest. (Quoted in Davies, 2010: p. 17).

So, why were they brought to trial?

The answer to this last question lies in the corrosive influence of the Macpherson Report which has destroyed the notion of impartial justice, freedom of thought and expression and thereby liberty itself. The Vogelenzangs, concludes Davies, are victims of the UK’s equivalent of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, a politically correct revolution in which transgressors of the diversity code must be prosecuted and made public examples of. Its differential application means that white Britons such are prosecuted for ‘hate’ crimes upon the flimsiest of grounds, whereas a Muslim is able to say the most inflammatory things in public before an audience whilst the police stand idly by, as in the case of one individual addressing a Muslim mob when Geert Wilders visited Parliament for a screening of Fitna:

The punishment in Islam for insulting the prophet is capital punishment. . . He [Wilders] should take a lesson from Theo van Gogh who took the punishment. . . We are here to teach this dog a lesson. (Quoted in Davies, 2010: p. 20).

To me, this sounds like an incitement to murder.

Another reason underpinning the differential application of the law and the manufacture of ‘hate’ crimes is the fact that the CPS sets itself a target of increasing the number of such crimes that it brings to court. Furthermore, the legal establishment is compromised by the existence of specific ethnic and confessional lobby groups which undermine its neutrality. Thus we have the National Black Crown Prosecution Association (NBCPA) and the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) which pursue sectarian agendas specifically aimed at undermining the commonweal and at furthering the ‘interests’ of legally privileged minorities (i.e. those designated as collective ethnic and religious victims).

Davies’s short book is refreshing in its objective and analytical approach to the problems generated by the manufacture of a new category of ‘hate’ crime – religious ‘hate’ crime – which is a symptom of the irrational thought that lies at the heart of policy making and the political and media establishments in the UK today. Sadly, owing to the ascendancy of the Cameroons and their coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats, we are unlikely to see either the repeal of such laws or the removal of the deeply flawed thinking which has underpinned their development and introduction. ‘A New Inquisition: religious persecution in Britain today’ can be purchased from Civitas at http://www.civitas.org.uk/books/whatsnew.php

Campaign Islam Update: Daw'ah in the Park

Logan’s Warning is doing us all a good service in keeping a keen eye on Campaign Islam, so a hat tip to him for posting the next two videos that I link to below. Both feature sinister burqa-clad agents of evil, the first entitled Dawah in the Park, where a female misanthrope baldly states that it is necessary to establish an Islamic state in the UK and elsewhere as “that is the only way that the attacks [on Muslims] will stop.” The threat to impose Shariah in the UK is to me a declaration of war. We need to deal with the people who make this declaration in an appropriate manner. Currently, we can afford to be humane and deport them, but if their numbers continue to grow and our politicians and media continue to defer to them, then mass bloodletting will become a near inevitability, and it will not be the non-Muslims who initiate this.

Witness what happened recently when a Muslim UAF contingent joined up with Muslims Against the Crusades (MAC) in Whitehall. For a time it looked as if the number of police might be insufficient to contain their exuberant presence. In future, this may well be the case. As the Bolsheviks and Nazis have shown, totalitarian governments can be imposed on a large population by a small number of violent ideological fanatics should the incumbent civil power respond to their challenge in an ineffective manner. The people of Campaign Islam and MAC may look like ineffectual idiots, but such idiots can impose their will if they choose to use unrestricted violence and we underestimate their threat.

We non-Muslims would only with great reluctance turn to violence, but once that line had been crossed, such a conflict would assume a total character in which an exterminist logic would reign supreme: kill or be killed. You might think that you would have a choice, but if you are not a Muslim your two primary options would be to fight against Islam or submit to slavery or conversion. I now understand how the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo felt (and indeed feel). Our Government and NATO did a great wrong to the Serbian people.

The second video features another burqa-clad agent of evil criticising UK Muslims who have either joined the armed forces or commemorated the deaths of service personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally, I think that our armed services are being abused by our Government (as they were by its predecessor) for they have been set open-ended missions with no discernible goal. Why should they die and be maimed or suffer from psychological trauma for the sake of saving face? In Afghanistan they prop up a corrupt regime that possesses the death penalty for apostasy from Islam, and there is much talk of negotiating a settlement with the "moderate Taliban". To what end have our men and women had their lives destroyed and blighted? How many orphans and widows have been created for such a pointless objective? We need our servicemen and women back here in the UK. Here, ready to deal with the real emergent threat: the Islamist fifth column.

Campaign Islam and MAC are only two small groups which speak with an Islamist voice in the UK, but there is a significant constituency amongst the Muslim population here (several hundred thousand people at a minimum) that welcomes their message. As I have written many times before, I do not tar all nominal Muslims with the same brush, for as you know, those who are unfortunate enough to be born into a Muslim family are not permitted to openly leave the faith. If they do so, they risk at a minimum social ostracism, but more usually physical violence and threats of death. It is therefore the case that there will be many tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of Muslims in the UK who are really no more Muslim than you or I, but are Muslim in name only. They remain trapped and enslaved by a combination of religious convention and strict social control. I feel truly sorry for such people. Their lives must be miserable.

Still, anyone who actively subscribes to Islamic doctrine; anyone who believes in the content of the Qur’an; anyone who knows Mohammed’s life and thinks that he was a positive human being; anyone who calls for Shariah and anyone who proselytises for Islam, wilfully advances the cause of evil. Islam is a doctrine of implacable hatred. Those who advocate its spread must be stopped. They must be removed, and removed soon for everyone’s sake. What happened on 7 July 2005 was a tragedy that we will never forget, but let us make sure that it is never repeated, and that there is not worse to come.

Campaign Islam Channel: not exactly scintillating Viewing

Another day and another expression of Islamic supremacism. The Loganswarning blog has drawn attention to the emergence of yet another Islamist propagandist vehicle in the UK calling itself Campaign Islam. This Youtube channel makes quite clear its hatred for us, our culture and way of life. It calls upon the Ummah to unite against the kuffar. The first of the following videos is a brief introduction to Campaign Islam, whereas the second features a burqa-clad female droning on about how the Ummah needs to pull together to confront an increasingly united array of kuffar opponents. A further video concerning an upcoming women-only conference debating the role of the burqa can be accessed here. When will they learn that they should just go away and leave us in peace? They’re not happy here, and they’re making us miserable too. Let’s get a divorce.