Cameron is proposing to devolve authority from Government and giving it to local communities. All well and good I hear you say, and about time too.
But one needs to examine the concept of ‘Big Society’ and where this concept came from, is this Cameron’s own idea or did he get it from someone else?
(Saul Alinsky was born in Chicago in 1909 and died in California in 1972. His preferred self description was “rebel” and his entire life was devoted to organizing a revolution in America to destroy a system he regarded as oppressive and unjust. By profession he was a “community organizer,” the same term employed by his most famous disciple, Barack Obama, to describe himself. A supposed Democrat)
“These People’s Organizations were to be composed largely of discontented individuals who believed that society was replete with injustices that prevented them from being able to live satisfying lives. Such organizations, Alinsky advised, ought not be imported from the outside into a community, but rather should be staffed by locals who, with some guidance from trained radical organizers, could set their own agendas.
The instalment of local leaders as the top-level officers of People’s Organizations helped give the organizations credibility and authenticity in the eyes of the community. This tactic closely paralleled the long-time Communist Party strategy of creating front organizations that ostensibly were led by non-communist fellow-travelers, but which were in fact controlled by Party members behind the scenes. As J. Edgar Hoover explained in his 1958 book Masters of Deceit: “To make a known Party member president of a front would immediately label it as ‘communist.’ But if a sympathizer can be installed, especially a man of prominence, such as an educator, minister, scientist or politician, the group can operate as an ‘independent’ organization.”
Cameron wants to give power to local organisations, which will be run by respected members of local society, with the authority to allocate funds wherever they feel it is needed. Cameron is allegedly an admirer of Saul Alinsky as are Hillary Clinton and Barry Sotero (Barack Hussein Obama). These supposed democrats, or in Cameron’s case supposed Tory are following the Alinsky philosophy, and the Trojan Horse is, along with the wolf in sheep’s clothing of The Fabian Society, carrying on the subversive revolution of perpetual conflict.
I apologise for the lateness of this piece, but the video has just come to my attention.
I give you an example of the depth to which our supposed ‘justice’ system has fallen. It behoves me to present for your disgust, a travesty of so called ‘justice’ for a BNP activist, Peter Tierney.
Liverpool BNP
British National Party Liverpool super activist Peter Tierney has been found guilty of “attacking” a Communist Party front organisation member by a Liverpool Court despite clear CCTV footage showing the leftist thug starting the physical confrontation.
Mr Tierney was part of a group of BNP supporters who were handing out leaflets on St George’s Day in the Liverpool city centre this year.
The BNP group had had decided to leave the St John’s Gardens area after the arrival of the far leftists precisely because they wished to avoid a confrontation.
The CCTV footage, which was submitted in court, clearly showed that the protagonist, one Nicholas Barnett, was the one to first start the physical attack.
Mr Tierney stepped in to defend the BNP activists so attacked, one of whom was carrying a board and unable to properly defend himself.
It was this act of self defence for which the Liverpool Court has now found Mr Tierney guilty.
The CCTV video has been released for the public to decide for themselves and can be viewed below.
The far leftist assault starts at 0.49 into the video clip, where the thug Barnett (in the white shirt) can be seen storming the BNP group from the left hand side.
The next few seconds shows Mr Tierney defending the group from the assault.
Astonishingly, the thug Barnett, a member of the openly violent “Merseyside Coalition against Racism and Fascism” admitted in court that he had stormed the group but claimed he was “just running past them.”
The thug Barnett claimed in court that the reason why he had “run past” the BNP group was to “get ahead of them to hand out leaflets,” but the CCTV footage clearly shows that he was carrying no leaflets when he made his charge.
It is still unknown why the court failed to take this obvious lie into account.
Last night Mr Tierney said he was still considering his options and that an appeal was the most likely course of action, given the CCTV evidence which the court had ignored.
