In the shadows of yesterday’s attack (3/22/2017) at Westminster in England which left two citizens, one police officer, and the jihadi attacker dead, one wonders if British leaders will continue to apologize for Islam or speak truth about this deadly threat to the United Kingdom.
See UTT’s new video entitled “British Appeasement to Islam” HERE.
Where is Winston Churchill when you need him?
Since 9/11/01, Britain’s leaders have been unable to see the reality of the Islamic threat which is overwhelming them, and, in the face of their own destruction, have been incapable of letting the light of truth in to see the problem they face lies with Islam and it’s destructive and barbaric sharia.
In October 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair held a press conference where he stated: “This is not a war with Islam. It angers me as it angers the vast majority of Muslims to hear bin Laden and his associates described as Islamic terrorists. They are terrorists pure and simple. Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion, and the acts of these people are wholly contrary to the teachings of the Koran.”
After British Army soldier Lee Rigby was run over and beheaded on the streets of Woolwich, England in May 2013 by two Muslims, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated: “This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and on the Muslim communities who give so much to our country. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”
After British aid worker David Haines was beheaded by Muslims in ISIS on video in September 2014, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated: “They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims. They are monsters.”
What will Prime Minister Theresa May say about Islam after the jihadi attack in Westminster?
Is she aware “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them” (Koran 9:5) is a permanent command from Allah for Muslims until the world is under sharia (Islamic Law)? Is she aware this is taught in Islamic schools all over Britain?
What will London’s jihadi mayor say?
Here is what Sir Winston Churchill said:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men…Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
[Winston Churchill, The River War (Volume II, 1st edition), pages 248-250]
UTT UPDATE (3/25/2017)
British Prime Minister Theresa May and members of the British Parliament all profess that Islam has nothing to do with the jihadi who killed people in London on 3/22/2017. See the video HERE.
UTT believes the UK is finished unless the British people revolt and remove the entire leadership class from their positions.
OPINION: (correction of my above entry entered on 23.03.17@1507hrs).
Paragraph 4; line 10: the correct name of the entity in question is the “UNION BANKING CORPORATION”.
If In addition to Winston Churchill’s up-close and harrowing opinion on Islam, anyone wishing to consider yet another authoritative and opposing view on what POTUS-43 hastened to the Washington DC mosque to refer to on the heels of 9/11 as “a religion of peace”, may gain even further insight by reading the two paragraph essay written in 1830 by John Quincy Adams aka POTUS-6 on the self-proclaimed messenger and “prophet”, Mohammad; I.e. see http://www.apoligeticspress.org.
Furthermore, RT News is reporting (on 22.03.17@1752hrs) that Turkish President Recep Erdogan, the only declared global contender to become the next Caliph of Islam, has warned all Europeans not to occupy their respective country’s public streets unless they submit to the demands of (presumably sharia-adherent) Turkish Muslims for permission to engage in political demonstrations in connection with an impending TURKISH election; which – given the IS vehicular & knife terrorist attack yesterday in London, may suggest that Phase-5, within the European Union of countries, at least, is drawing closer.
Throughout history, whenever war has come to England, they’ve been clearly “all in” without hesitation. In the aftermath of Hitler’s 1939 move on the Gleiwitz radio station in Poland, which by virtue of a mutual defense treaty with Warsaw got them involved, for example, their intelligence & propaganda teams soon occupied an entire floor of a Manhattan skyscraper, mandated to ensure that FDR’s so called “arsenal of democracy” and the American people would be ready to go when needed.
I.e., the seeming widespread reluctance to fight Islam, by the United Kingdom et al, was effectively foisted on America’s usual allies by 43’s necessitous “religion of peace” response to 9/11, which due to oil, campaign-funding swapped for Muslim Brotherhood infiltrations up to high federal levels, and the ongoing 70 year cover-up involving the Bush dynasty’s Union Banking Corporation involvement with Kurt Thyssen and the Nazis, he panicked and thus chose to put self-interest and greed over love-of-country. Thus, inasmuch as the United States wasn’t available as it theretofore had been to lead them, said allies became deniers and kept their mouths shut. Call it a deadly form of Catch-22. (See Wikipedia page: “United Banking Corporation” then scroll down to References).
English politicians were not always loath to speak the truth. In 1968 Enoch Powell, Conservative MP from Wolverhampton, delivered what was possibly the last honest assessment of the growing problem of mass immigration from the lost English colonies, as two World Wars had taken a catastrophic toll on manpower. To compensate, the Home office opened the doors to massive immigration.
Before entering politics, John (“Jack”) Enoch Powell was a classics scholar, a full professor at age 25, of ancient Greek at Trinity College, Cambridge, his alma mater. During the Second World War, he served in both staff and intelligence positions, reaching the rank of brigadier general in his early thirties.
The speech was erroneously named, ‘Rivers of Blood,’ alluding to his quote, “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
The speech had 67-80% public approval, giving the Conservatives the momentum to regain the reigns of power with the 1970 election of Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath. However, Powell was forever pillared by the elite media, leftist politicians, and academics. The 1960s radical movement also roiled throughout Europe, and with it, created policies that chipped and hacked away at Powell’s insights.
Enoch Powell, 1968:
“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles, which are deeply rooted in human nature.
“One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
“Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”
“…At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
“We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population.
“Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”
I urge everyone to read Powell’s astute prediction of the future. Forty-nine years later, we are grappling with our stiff-necked stupidity.