The respected Beaman is "speechless" after reading the Times report that 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques are reportedly under the control of the Deobandi sect in Britain:
The Times investigation casts serious doubts on government statements that foreign preachers are to blame for spreading the creed of radical Islam in Britain’s mosques and its policy of encouraging the recruitment of more “home-grown” preachers.
I don't see what's to be surprised about - it just takes a bit of homework and research.
There has always been a constant and relentless move on the part of hardline nutters to run the show in each country. This is a given and will never change. The character of a country is simply a reflection on how far the nutters get to the reins of power and that depends largely on societal forces.
Where the bad seed falls on uneven ground, such as in Iran, Afghanistan and Hitler's Germany, it sprouts and the result is there for all, in retrospect, to see. Maniacal leaderships [e.g. Saddam] choke the life out of the people and even create a bizarre sort of patriotism, predicated on hate for one or more sections of society, for the purpose of deflecting attention away from what is really going down with the leadership.
In the west, there has been a sort of tacit resistance to the nutters until the last two decades - a perfect case being when Joe McCarthy came a cropper in the 50s. What protected the west for so long were so-called Christian values, the Judaeo-Christian tradition and a fierce belief in democracy and that elected leaders were just that - elected leaders.
In turn, the people who actually do control society [follow the money, as Deep Throat said] - well, it suited their book at that stage to allow Korea and Vietnam to occur - the profits rolled in and all was well.
However, with the advent of genuine peace after 1972, this worried the hell out of the ghouls and they've done all they could to exacerbate conflict - Munich '72 was an example. Ireland was a pretty good breeding ground for some time but the moves to conciliation there were deeply worrying.
So there had to be a catalyst to move society one step closer to the "melting pot", out of which the new order would arise and this came in the form of fomenting the Muslim issue. There is no evidence of this degree of Islamicization [now occurring] happening pre-72.
Communism was the bugbear then and has it not struck you as uncanny how, when the communist threat lost its teeth in the late 80s, the Islamic threat neatly stepped in to take its place?
Thus to Iraq, 911, Beslan and 7/7.
Has it not occurred to you to wonder how freedom has become licentiousness, justice has become law and order, the three rs have become moral relativism and precious little else, how high class bimbos [e.g. reality TV] are the new folk heroes, how society has been turned on its head, at the same time the Islamic threat has become an onslaught?
Has it not occurred to you to wonder how feminism changed from the redressing of injustice for women to giant vaginas parading around college campuses or how to speak one word against the gay mafia lands you in prison or worse?
Has it not occurred to you how the severing of the connection of most people with their Maker has been closely followed by the scramble for the dollar and how material things have become the summum bonum for virtually everybody?
Is it no wonder that Islam is seen by many in the west as an attractive alternative? That it appears to be a return to the rule of order? Does it not puzzle you that church leaders are either silent or mumble in the corner or worse - that their voice is never reported? They could give you the ethic which would correct society overnight, if they only would.
Which is why their voice is suppressed.
Has it not occurred to you that you've never heard of the CFR, the TLC or the SPPNA through the media nor any of the other dastardly manifestations of the real power? That it takes bloggers or the peripheral media to bring it to people's notice?
Do you really see that all this just "happened" for broad sociological reasons? And even if you do concede that there is a distinct driving force behind it, why do you put it down to incompetence? The incompetence of the Fed, for example?
Do you really see the Greenspans and Sutherlands of the world as klutzes? Do you really see the ignoring of the Israeli warning to MI5 as incompetence and the major players in 7/7 just happening to be out of town at the time as sheer coincidence?
Analogously, the uncovering of Philby in the 60s was followed by such head shaking and mutterings of "but he was one of us" and yet it was quite an easy genesis and development to follow with hindsight.
The ones who are doing the major damage to society are not the Deobandi and the like but the "one-of-us"es, cocktails in hand, who are failing to act at critical times, who are turning a blind eye to the Deobandi, who are allowing draconian laws to be stealthily put into place and to whom no blame can ever be sheeted home.
Have you forgotten the fifth column, very popular during the last world war and into the 50s? On February 23, 1954, U.S. Senator William Jenner of Indiana, took to the Senate Floor, to speak in support of the Bricker Amendment, addressing the nature of these people:
"The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is under way... It conducts tactical retreats but only the more surely to advance its own goal."
Ron Paul estimated [August 2003] that there were about 25 000 of them in key positions in the U.S. alone. Note also that Jenner was an arch conservative and Ron Paul's bio is well known. They were GOP through and through.
So don't look for the real enemy in dark, smoke filled corners of Trotskyite cafes. Raise your eyes upwards and there they are in all their inglorious, Armani invisibility.
