The ‘Lancaster Plan’ — is it real?

At Morgoth’s Review, a commenter links to a piece describing the idea of something called the Lancaster Plan, ostensibly something put together by the British government in conjunction with Islamic leaders. The source of this information is this piece at The New English Review.

The writer describes a weekend party at a friend’s house, at which an acquaintance, apparently someone ‘in the know’, described how the government has a plan in place to avoid the kind of terrorism that has happened in France and other European locales.

“He stated quite plainly that the situation in Britain would not be allowed to get out of hand as had happened, in his humble opinion, on the continent. What was more, he asserted, the British government had a Plan to keep the Muslim situation in the U.K. under control, and had had such a Plan in place since it was drawn up under the Blair Labour government back in 2005, after the bombings in London, when it had been known as the Lancaster Plan, named, he explained, after John of Gaunt who, although never king himself, sired the line of English Kings that came after him, kings who kept England together and at the forefront of world developments.

[…]It was simple, he informed us. The Lancaster Plan contained several different provisions that could be brought into play to defuse the threat of Islamic violence in the U.K.

[…]He informed us, with no special tone in his voice, just in a matter-of-fact way, that the first two provisions of the Lancaster Plan had already been activated and were proving to be successful. Further provisions could be activated when necessary and in that way Muslim violence in Britain could be contained or minimised, or maybe even staved off indefinitely if the plan came to be implemented in its entirety.

[…]He carefully explained to us the two stages that he’d just mentioned. The first stage was, so he said, the careful use of legislation to make any criticism of Islam, or Muslims, almost impossible. Many in government, he stated, were a little upset that in order to do that they had also made it legally very difficult to criticise other faiths such as Christianity or Hinduism, but their concerns about this had dissipated over recent years as it had become obvious that the police and the judiciary simply treated any criticism of a faith other than Islam, or criticism of a believer other than a Muslim, as being far less serious than criticism of Islam itself or of Muslims. The careful positioning by many NGOs, and left-wing thinkers, of criticism of Islam and Muslims as racist had not been entirely co-incidental either, so he averred, but had been initiated and encouraged by government officials in furtherance of the first stage of the Lancaster Plan.”

The rest can be read at the link.

Morgoth himself expresses disbelief of the story. It’s true that some anonymous person at a party is the source of the information, and that is hardly enough for us to accept it uncritically. And it’s sensible to have some healthy skepticism in this age of disinformation. I am not familiar with the writer of the piece who relays this information to us, and the anonymous source could be a disinfo agent. It does happen that ‘our’ governments deliberately sow disinformation both to demoralize us and to keep us confused. Disinformation has many possible uses.

However, in this age of unprecedented levels of madness on the part of those supposedly ‘in charge’, it seems almost nothing is too bizarre to be true. Many of us still don’t accept that the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan is true, though we see enough evidence to make it believable. And this alleged Lancaster Plan sounds like the kind of collaboration and capitulation which we can see taking place in all Western countries.

So can we say categorically that it isn’t true?

We’ve all read the saying, “To learn who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.” There are a number of protected groups who are held to be immune to criticism, among them blacks, gays, and especially Jews. In fact, though, these groups are not equal in their immunity from criticism; for example people can and do criticize the first two groups without fearing arrest or prosecution, in most cases, but to question the Holocaust can bring arrest and/or prison time, if convicted, and has resulted in imprisonment in some European countries and Canada. But as of now, it is only the criticism of Islam that has led to people being arrested or questioned in some European countries, in the wake of the refugee onslaught and recent terror attacks. Social media like Twitter, to their great discredit, have become an arm of governments in going after people who mildly criticized Islam or the sainted ‘refugees.’

So why is it that Islam is suddenly more of a sacred cow than the other protected groups, even more protected by Western governments than blacks or Jews or gays?

Recently some of us have wondered aloud, in the real world, if in fact ‘our’ governments have in fact capitulated to Islam and agreed to some kind of dhimmi-like status and/or ‘jizya’ in exchange for being allowed to keep their outward power as some kind of puppet rulers or collaborationist regimes? Why else would ‘our’ leaders be so deferential and servile towards people who clearly see themselves as our enemies and who boast of one day conquering us and our lands?

I realize that some people on the right abhor neocons and counter-jihadists, both of whom they regard (maybe rightly) as serving Jewish interests. I personally got fed up with the neocon warmongering many years ago, and soon saw that the counterjihad is a dead-end, ultimately bound by its own version of PC.

However that does not mean we should blind ourselves to the reality of Islam, nor should we understimate the perfidy and machinations of the Western leadership.

Advertisements

What did (or didn’t) happen

In Nice France: see the video at the link here.

I’ve seen several videos of the attack, in which Mohammed Bouhlel runs down dozens of people, and of those I’ve seen, this one seems as clear as any. However in all the discussions I’ve read on the Internet, there are a number of people who show extreme skepticism about the event, who are not satisfied with any of the videos, still photos, or any other evidence that is available. I have to say that, with all due respect to those who in good faith think this was another ‘false flag’ or even a staged event by actors, this level of skepticism and distrust of evidence is getting a little excessive.

It reminds me of the skepticism of those who deny, say, UFO sightings. The common expression was ‘why don’t they land on the White House Lawn? Why do they only appear to ignorant rednecks who live in trailer parks?’ I just know, and I would bet substantial sums of money, that these skeptics would deny the evidence of their own senses should a UFO land on their own lawn. Though that event is unlikely, the many videos and films and still photos of UFOs or other ‘paranormal’ anomalies are always dismissed out of hand by the arch-skeptics, the know-alls who ‘just know’ that there is no life on other planets, or that interplanetary or interstellar travel is impossible. No evidence on earth would ever be acceptable to them. None. For one thing, even if undeniable evidence, or even definitive proof, was presented, they would never own up to having been wrong. They would rather die that say they had been wrong or mistaken, because their self-image is that of people who know that certain things just can’t be. So they deny and close their eyes and ears to anything that challenges their smug certitude. That sort just dismisses anything that does not fit their closed-minded beliefs as ‘an obvious hoax’, ‘fakery’, ‘lies’, or the imaginings of the mentally ill, or as confabulations by attention-seekers. Or, in the case of the terror attacks, such events are peremptorily called ‘false flags’ or ‘staged events by actors’, even before all the evidence is in.

The events on the video do not look like play-acting to me. Some have scoffed that ‘people run over by a big truck would look like roadkill, just unrecognizable’. I would answer that not all of them need have been flattened by the truck; many could have just been struck and knocked into the air, as often happens when pedestrians are hit by a moving vehicle. Some of the people no doubt were on the edges of the roadway, trying to avoid being hit. Not everyone would have been mangled beyond recognition.

Skeptics say that ‘why could they not hear the truck coming and move away in time?’ Well, the videos show that loud rock music was being blared by sound systems and what with other noise, including the noise of many people on the street, the sound of the approaching truck might have been masked to some extent — until it was too late. The truck was moving as fast as 70 mph at times and would have approached quickly, before people realized their immediate danger.

Those who, for whatever reason, choose or need to disbelieve that these things are just what they seem (Occam’s Razor, after all, usually applies) will not reconsider their conviction that it is all staged, unreal, meant to fool us — into what? Into distrusting Moslems more? While all the time our overlords are browbeating us into ‘tolerating’, or even ‘celebrating’ their presence in our countries — as part of our vaunted ‘diversity’? It wouldn’t make sense to stage events meant to make us think that Moslems are killing our folk — while telling us that Mohammedanism is a religion of  peace.

Looking back to 9/11, I know that there are people who say that no planes hit the WTC towers, or the Pentagon, or crashed in Pennsylvania. There was thus nobody killed in plane hijackings; the supposed dead were paid off to go into hiding under new identities and let the world think they had died. This is some fancy conspiracy-theorizing. There might be a few, a very few, money-hungry people who would agree to participate in this kind of colossal trickery but hundreds?

There are people who would have us disbelieve our very eyes. And they believe that people who give eyewitness testimony are ‘reading a script’; they in fact witnessed nothing because there was nothing to see. The event was faked.

Now, don’t misunderstand; I’ve argued against those who disbelieve in conspiracies generally, the types who deride anyone who believes any conspiracies exist. Clearly people do conspire. Clearly “our” government and all Western governments have been caught in lies and deceptions time and again. Examples are numerous and thus unnecessary. But is everything a big deception?

It’s more than obvious that the media, also, are complicit in the lies, large and small, that the powers-that-be perpetrate. It’s evident that we should not trust a great deal of what the media tell us, or even show us. As Christians we are to be as ‘wise as serpents’, and to take much of what we are told with a large quantity of salt.

On the other hand, why would it be necessary for the powers-that-be to create false Moslem terror acts, to ‘stage’ them? Who honestly believes that Moslems are not fully capable and willing to carry out these murders in reality? Are there really no real-life terrorists? Actually there is a Christian webmaster who writes almost exclusively about conspiracies who says that Moslems are ‘scapegoats’, just as he says blacks are. So there are some that don’t or can’t or won’t believe these events to be real. I can’t pretend to understand why they believe this way.

Now, it may well be that the powers-that-be know these attacks are planned and simply let them happen: the Fort Hood shootings, for example, or the San Bernardino killings, or the Boston Marathon bombings. That, I could believe. It does seem as if 9/11, for example, served political purposes; it served as a pretext for curtailing citizens’ freedoms in the name of ‘security and safety’ and it was also the launching point for the campaign to stifle any opposition to Moslem immigration: we got lectures about not discriminating against the Religion Of Peace and its exemplary followers. More Moslem immigration, lots more, ensued. Yes, it served a purpose, that event. It should have led to tightening of our borders and less promiscuous ‘openness’, but it did just the opposite.

In a way it is understandable that some people have become skeptical and distrustful to the extreme — but if we continue along that path, we will eventually become agnostics about everything. Life requires that we trust and put faith in something and someone; we can’t become so suspicious that we doubt absolutely everything.

We have, no doubt, been subjected to massive amounts of disinformation by the media and their government puppetmasters. Some of it is pure falsehood, some half-truths. We can’t always be sure what is true, and this is part of the purpose of disinformation. We are being ‘gaslighted,’ as I’ve said, so that we begin to doubt even our own senses and our own minds. Suspicion and doubt cloud our ability to recognize truth when it does come along.