Thursday, 31 March 2011

George Galloway on UK Intervension in Libya

Whilst we obviously do not agree with George Galloway on all matters, this video is of great interest. He touches on a number of valid points:



And here's another great one from the archives. What a shame the man's a Socialist!



And if you thought the Neo Con agenda was braindead and for numpties - you're right. Listen to this barn-stormer:

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

All BNP Candidates and Agents Could be Sued for Debts


Read this article on a recent court case carefully. It means that because of debts, lies and outright illegal behaviour by the centre of the BNP, every local candidate and agent could be had up in court by creditors.

If you are thinking of standing for the BNP, think very carefully. A £5000 fine or imprisonment could be your reward because of the moral and actual bankruptcy of that party's leadership.

Libya: Oil, Gold, Uranium, Weapons Testing and Zionism

More reasons for war.

Monday, 28 March 2011

Russia is right: NATO is the Uprising's Armed Support


The statement from Russia that the NATO forces in Libya are acting in support of the Libyan rebels is obviously correct.

Anyone can see that.

Right: A death toll. Whatever the truth of those figures, we can expect it to rise significantly as our government join rebels in attacking and bombing forces in civilian centres it wishes to take.


The media is playing us for fools. The US. French and British planes are being used to clear the road for the rebels, attacking the Libyan army and trying to get the rebels moving Westwards towards Tripoli.

This is clearly nothing to do with a "no fly zone" (e.g. as in Iraq in the 90s), and will only put more civilians at risk.

Today (Monday) on the BBC's Daily Politics arch-Zionist and War hawk Malcolm Rifkind was calling for the next stage - the arming of the rebels, making it clear which "side" NATO and the Zionists are on.

He also said if there is a cease fire (as Germany, Turkey and Russia are calling for) part of the diplomacy must be for Gaddafi to step down.

The game is afoot.

The 'mission creep' began at day one. despite some smoke screens the Zionists clearly want Gaddafi out.

As an aside, might we wonder that the rush to grab the oil towns as quickly as possible, ahead of a possible cease fire, is an attempt by various Western secret services to secure the supply of oil?

In closing, may I say that further down the road (perhaps a few months, maybe a few years from now) I am sure we will read of various special forces being on the ground in Libya. No doubt this will be explained away by a puppet media as "guiding in" air strikes, and so protecting civilians - whereas in reality they will be training the rebels, guiding them, advising them and helping them achieve strategic targets.

The spooks won't want to leave anything to "chance," whether that be events on the ground, or coverage in the media.

A civil war is going on, and "we" are on one side. Whatever else the media tells you is government, state and Zionist propaganda.

And if you really want a laugh - watch David Aaronovitch, the arch-Zionist, Neo Con left-wing apologist (for several wars!) who daily earns his 30 pieces of silver across the media, on Friday's Daily Politics, arguing that failure to join in this civil war, would have led to more immigration into Europe. How rich coming from a man that constantly tells us how immigration has "enriched" us (if it has, he should welcome the idea of hundreds of thousands more, who don't live near him and his rich friends). The idea that a long civil war stretching across the entirety of Libya won't lead to increased immigration just goes to show how corrupt Aaronovitch is (he is not stupid, he knows the score, but is ideologically and morally bankrupt).

London's Burning: Agent Provocateurs on the Streets

Right: Caption suggestions:

  1. Sarge, sarge? Is this the right way to do it?
  2. Mum - Can I drop my washing off next week?
  3. Argghhh! Keep that magnet away from me!
  4. Ok ya. So back to uni for Pimms?


The riots in London at the "anti-cuts" rally bring forward a number of interesting aspects for nationalists:

  • The state is behind much of the fracas. This is well documented, and the blog GriffinWatch has brought together some of the evidence.
  • This is in response to the previous police state tactic of kettling, leading to perfectly law-abiding people having to urinate in the street and not being allowed to go about their perfectly lawful business (even people not in the demonstrations!). The police are out to prove that if not allowed harsh tactics, trouble ensues.
  • The state-led violence is used to silence and arrest genuine protesters.
  • Meanwhile the media go out of their way to disassociate the socialists etc. from the violence. Nationalists remember how left-wing (state led?) violence against NF marches in the 70s was used by the same media to paint nationalists as 'violent.'
The secret state and the media (the same media that paints US/NATO action against the Libyan army in support of a rebel army as a "no fly zone") have been playing out the game, and we sheep just baa.

Re. the London riots one is reminded of GK Chesterton's book "The Man Who Was Thursday." Seems like nothing has changed in the seedy world of the anarchists!

Last Week's Quote: St Peter Damian on Homosexuality

"Without fail [homosexuality] brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart... This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes away with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence. Shall I say more?"

~ St Peter Damian,
Book of Gomorrah.

Friday, 25 March 2011

Collateral Murder - Coming Soon to Libya


Panorama, Newsnight and the entire BBC machinery has been acting as the mouth of the Libyan rebels. Every (uncensored) report from Tripoli almost invariably has the words "cannot be independently verified" tagged on, whereas reports from rebel areas (even tenuous, speculative ones, have no such tag line).

On last night's Newsnight a spokesman for the Libyan rebels all but called for US/NATO military action, on their side of course, and if civilians died - so be it, if it helped them win their civil war, their armed insurrection.

Thus we see the "humanitarian" cloak used (as Farrakhan said) to disguise their nefarious aims, is quickly tossed aside when it comes to killing civilians loyal to the Libyan government or in their areas!

Of course the elephant in the room is that armed rebels in civilian clothing are "civilians" too - even though they are in armed insurrection, no doubt helped by the CIA/Mossad.

So, as very few British MPs and media voices have the courage to state, we are joining a Civil War on one side. The crimes of that side will be airbrushed and the crimes of the other side (if you'll pardon the pun) will be blown out of all proportion.

'Mission Creep' is already taking place. There's talk of arresting Gaddafi, "taking out" Gaddafi, assaulting towns held by the Libyan government and their supporters (with how many civilian victims?) to help the rebels...

Killing innocents comes easy to the Zionists, and always will to achieve their ends. They are just numbers.

Human lives, civilian deaths, collateral damage -- however you want to label murder of innocents -- only matter when the Zionists want in somewhere. Then civilians murders are a crime against humanity. Oh the tears flow!

Yet when hundreds of thousands die in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Gaza - not to mention the million or so dead in Rwanda - it matters not a jot to the Zionists. Indeed, in some (most!) cases they are the ones doing the indiscriminate murder.

When Israel invaded Lebanon (a sovereign nation) many innocents died and UN checkpoints were attacked. There was no UN Resolution, no no-fly zone, no talk of war crimes.

When Gaza had democracy and voted in Hamas (as was their right), Israel enacted an illegal blockade. Where then was the humanitarian concern of the Americans?

Watch the following video. It shows the Americans in action, committing a war crime. Killing civilians. The man who leaked this video is being abused in an American military stockade.

Where is America's love of freedom, that they wanted this video hushed up?

What happened in Iraq could well happen in Libya if the various War Hawks, Neo Cons and Zionists have their way (including the British government's Defence Secretary). It's what the 'rebels' (who are leading the BBC by the nose, so must be part of a MI6 agenda) want, in order to get their way, and change the government of Libya by hook or by crook.

The talk of humanitarian aims, helping civilians etc. is all hogwash.

Watch the video from Iraq. A man walking down the street with a weapon (lets call him a "rebel") walks into a building. The American gunship then gets the all-clear from their own Command to attack the building, to blow it up (with everyone inside it).

If the rebel were a Libyan rebel and the helicopter were a Libyan government one, this would be shown on Newsnight as proof of war crimes, and as an excuse to get NATO troops on the ground to protect civilians (even the ones carrying weapons).

Why therefore, is it not a criminal act when the Americans do it? Because they are following Zionist war aims? Because they can veto the UN Security Council?

Is this any way to get neutral unbiased justice in the world? Or a neutral unbiased military response backed by the UN?

If NATO/US forces get even more embroiled in Libya, we will see more of this kind of action, more civilian deaths, the Civil War will escalate.

All to a back-drop of billions spent on weaponry at a time when all the Western states are close to bust and poverty in America, for example, is rampant! Kerching.

Yet because that seems to be a Zionist goal, we are all meant to sit back and clap politely when a Libyan rebel leader calls for more "collateral damage" to achieve his aims. Doesn't it kind of remind you of the Iraqi rebel nutters who were calling for war and promising they'd find the sites of the WMDs? Beware war propaganda using useful idiots.

Welcome to the New World Order. Killing is their business, and business is good.


Wednesday, 23 March 2011

Gaddafi is Mad - at the Criminals Bombing His Country


22nd March, 2011

Editor, Today, BBC Radio 4, London

Dear Sir

GADDAFI IS NOT MAD OR A DICTATOR

Gaddafi may be mad at what is happening to his beloved country but he is not mad psychologically. He wrote the Third Universal Theory of politics which outlines the flaws in representative democracy – under-representation (only a quarter to a third of people are usually represented by the Party taking power), manipulation of policy by donors and powerful elites etc. and supervision of the law-makers by themselves. We could add; indulging in wars that are not in any manifesto, palpably illegal and likely to incite retribution rather than ‘destroy’ terrorists.

Generally known as his Green Book, it suggests a solution is for everyone to represent themselves. He set up People’s Congresses, National, Regional and Local, so that individuals could voice their concerns and proposals for policy. I have seen them in operation, it is a breath of fresh air. It is also a delicate experiment, especially in a nation of diverse tribal interests. But it kept the peace for 40-odd years. It also kept people’s minds active where our democracy numbs them by distancing people from government. So they are alert to foreign manipulation where we are blissfully ignorant of it.
So Gaddafi was not mad or a dictator when he gave everyone the right to participate in policy. Would we had it here!

He was not mad when he demanded fair price for Libyan oil in 1969.

He was not mad when he rightly criticized the UN last year for being run by a Security Council which did not represent the developing world.

He was not mad when he criticized the US for manipulating the Security Council by vetoing any motions it did not like, especially those condemning Israeli atrocities against Palestinians.

He was not mad when he pointed out that 80% of global wealth was in the hands of about 400 families.

He was not mad when he criticized Israel for bombing innocent civilians in Gaza without being sanctioned by the Security Council.

And he was not mad or a dictator when he asked the rioters, “Do you want to be occupied by America?” and advised them to seek out traitors and defend themselves.

In all these cases he was mad enough to expose the really mad megalomaniacs who control most of the world using violence, fraud and deception. Indeed, his exposure of them is likely to account for the second disproportionate and inhuman bombardment of his country.

Incidentally, the first bombing raid in 1986, we now know, was predicated on false information about so-called terrorist plots by Libya. These were actually invented by Mossad. Psychological Warfare Department (LAP) of Mossad was behind the defamation of Ghaddafi. Victor Ostrovsky, ex-Mossad officer, details how Mossad tricked the ‘west’ (US, UK et al.) into bombing Libya in 1986 using 'Operation Trojan', in his ‘The Other Side of Deception' (p113-7). Trojan was a re-broadcasting device planted in Tripoli to put out false messages as if Col. Ghaddafi was planning terrorist attacks. An IDF ship offshore, beamed the coded messages into his HQ from which they were re-broadcast, giving the impression they were coming from Tripoli. So when the US and UK surveillance teams picked them up they believed they were genuine Libyan plots. Mossad was able to 'confirm' the reports! The bombing raid got Thatcher and Regan to commit war crimes by killing innocent people including Ghaddafi’s adopted daughter.

I would be grateful if you could salvage the BBC’s credibility for broadcasting the truth rather than parroting the disinformation by enemies of the people, by at least airing this side of the story, preferably mounting a discussion of it. Otherwise, our brave pilots and possibly the Prime Minister himself may be drifting into a bloody conflict in which they could be found guilty of War Crime. For, despite UN Resolutions 1970 & 1973, this war is not under UN control which the Charter stipulates, nor has the UN called on the parties to settle their dispute first (Chapter VI Art.33), required before action under Chapter VII when there is no threat to international peace and there is no authority to depose or murder the Head of State. So this is an unlawful interference in the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign state, prohibited under Chapter I (Art.2(7)). Thus, sending in cruise missiles with their notorious inaccuracy and inevitable death to anyone near them, could be a War Crime.

So it is not Gaddafi who is mad, but our Leader and his entourage, falling for an irrational plot to unseat a falsely demonised ‘dictator’ whose only crime is to threaten and punish those who de-stabilize the country for no discernible benefit except possibly, to themselves. The dissidents over here have a different agenda: they can stay as long as they claim to be persecuted if they go home, so they have to propagate stories about torture and death.

Finally, Gaddafi is not the ‘dictator’ Mossad would like you to believe. He is not even the ‘President’ having retired as ‘Leader’ in 1996 and adopted the title ‘Father of the Revolution’. But he is so popular and revered by most of the population, that he is still given the authority to speak for his nation, just as the Queen might do if she was allowed to.

Is there any chance you might try to balance the demonization with some facts about his brave attempts to give power to the people and hold a disparate nation together? I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely


Dr James B Thring (founder Ministry of Peace & Legal Action Against War)


With thanks to NW Nationalists

Tuesday, 22 March 2011

American Zionist Hypocrites: the Dissatisfied Will Rise in the USA too

Now the usual suspects will screech about this video appearing on this site.

MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP.

Listen to his words.

If only we had a White, Christian leader like this, instead of weasels and hypocrites too afraid to upset the Israeli Lobby and their compliant media.

We may not agree with everything Farrakhan stands for (though we should learn to respect Black Separatists -- I would always prefer them to integrationist coconuts who want to join the BNP and be "proud Brits"), but he speaks a lot of sense.

When Americans rebel against their government, will the slugs in Washington DC back down, declare a cease fire and give the rebels their own land, where they can keep their arms and run their own affairs? Or will they do another Waco, Ruby Ridge etc.?

Farrakhan is right to point out America's hypocrisy over Gaza and Lebanon.

Sadly at the time those conflicts were happening, leading BNPers were supporting Israel!

Shame on them.

I would rather listen to Farrakhan than the Kosher words of a White traitor selling out for Zionist shekels any day of the week.

I believe most White Separatists, Nationalists and Patriots would too. We have our differences, sure. But his racial separatism and his anti-Zionism means he talks a lot of sense. It's a shame he's a Muslim... but you can't have everything handed to you on a plate!

Just as with David Duke, the man himself may have his shortfalls, we may even disagree on certain things, but when a message is powerful and correct, we have a duty to listen and tell others.

They Only Had Paint Ball Guns? Pull the Other One Levi!



Do you remember the BBC's Panorama special on the Israeli assault on the peace flotilla?

On that programme the Israelis were given the freedom (unquestioned!) to spread outright lies.

One of these was that the Israeli commandos who swamped the ship were armed only with paint ball guns.

Yes. Paint ball guns.

Stop laughing.

They murdered civilians with lethal force. The "Allies" did nothing. The same Allies who now lecture us on the sanctity of human life (post Iraq and the tens of thousands who died there!).

More hypocrisy from 'the West.'

Criminal Conspiracy lead to Zionist War Crimes


A Democrat Representative in America has called Obama's role in the attacks on Libya an "impeachable offence"

Link:
Rep Kucinich Calls for Impeachment


Right: How the media works

Meanwhile we have to ask if Israel were bombed after a gung-ho campaign by a pro-Muslim country with a pro-Muslim War Hawk for defence secretary (and a supportive Muslim opposition leader), backed up by a country all but run by Muslims that Vetoes all and any anti-Muslim UN resolutions, with the military attacks led by a country with a Muslim leader who was persuaded to seek military action by a Muslim "philosopher" to support rebels inside the country (who are still an unknown commodity), wouldn't all non-Muslims sit up and ask questions?

Wouldn't we as patriots smell a rat, that our military were risking their lives, that our tax-payers are paying for missiles costing £800,000 each, and for sorties that cost goodness knows what in fuel - all for a "Muslim conspiracy" to attack Israel?

Wouldn't Zionists, the Israeli Lobby and any pro-Zionist newspapers call it what it would be: a Muslim Conspiracy to attack an "anti-Muslim" state?

Now instead of Israel insert the name Libya, and instead of Muslim insert the word Zionist.

  • Britain is run by Zionists (all the main parties are pro-Israel), with key Jewish-Zionist placemen cheering it on (e.g. Rifkind), and War Hawk gentile Neo Cons (e.g. Liam Fox) pushing it through, supported by the Labour leader (Miliband) the son of Marxist Jews who played the Holocaust-card in backing the air strikes (yet not to rescue the peoples of Gaza, Lebanon or Rwanda).
  • America is Zionist through and through (and blocks anti-Israel Resolutions). US policy is Israeli policy, because the Israeli Lobby runs American politics and the American media.
  • France is led by a Zionist-Jew (Sarkozy), who was pushed to war by a typical apologist for Israeli policy (Bernard-Henri Levy).

These same people left the people of Gaza cut-off from the world, invaded and bombarded for daring to practice democracy in a wilful and illegal act of collective responsibilty and collective punishment.

These same people stood aside when Lebanon was illegally invaded, even with UN outposts attacked by a Zionist war-mongering regime totally out of control.

Will anyone dare to call a spade a spade? Or will moral cowardice reign supreme as per usual?

Monday, 21 March 2011

Israeli Air Strikes: What Response From the Hypocrite Cameron?


Israelis have bombed a cement factory.

Rebels in Gaza want democracy - they want the freedom to vote for and support Hamas, not some Israeli puppet.

Apparently the UK, France and the USA are to hit back at Israel with Tomahawk and Cruise Missiles as a new No Fly Zone is being implemented... News in that the Israeli PM's home has been struck by an 'Allied' Missile.

Not really.

That's because our politicians are hypocrites in the pockets of the Zionists.

Link:
Israel launch air strikes

Zionist Warmongers Who Ignored Gaza, Lebanon, Saudis and Rwanda


Today in parliament David Miliband, the son of Jewish Communists, said that it was part of "our" (?) tradition not to pass by on the other side.

Really?

Tell that to the people of Gaza. Or of Lebanon. Or of Rwanda. Or of Zimbabwe. Or of Bahrain. Or of Yemen.

It seems that "we" are very good at walking by on the other side, specifically when involvement would upset the Neo Cons.

But why worry about hypocrisy? Blair and his Neo Con war machine is alive and well in Westminster.

After all, this government like so many others will always find money for the financiers and the arms trade. Not so for schools, libraries, old peoples' homes etc.

They know who butters their bread.

And remember when they say it is all about "democracy" -- tell that to the people of Gaza. They voted for Hamas in a democratic election and got bombed and invaded.

It has never been about "democracy" nor civilian murders (if it was they would have invaded Saudi Arabia and Rwanda).

It is, always has been and always will be what the Neo Cons, Zionists and other warmongers want.

Link:
Neo Cons Want Regime Change

Govt Lies, UN Subterfuge and Media Twisted Words: it's Iraq Mark II


On the Daily Politics (BBC TV Show) on the 18th March, ex-UK Ambassador to the UN Jeremy Greenstock admitted that UN Resolution 1973 (for the No Fly Zone over Libya) "scraped through" with 5 "big hitters" abstaining, to show their "disinterest" (at best!).

Right: Sarkozy the right-wing Neo Con Zionist cheers on another Zionist war. He won't risk his life to defend his interests: he leaves that to us dumb goys.

He said that the only reason they abstained (and the Resolution wasn't vetoed) was that the Arab League was 'on board.'

Yet we have already heard an Arab League leader crying out that they didn't want a military assault on Libya (as has been seen in the last few days) so it already seems like the Arab League were conned.

Of course, others say that the Arab League blackmailed "the West" by giving their support solely on the grounds that no action will be taken against Bahrain and the Saudis.

On that point Tory MP and ex-army officer Bob Stewart, on the same BBC Daily Politics show, was quite the War Hawk, calling for the arming of Libyan rebels, bombing raids on Libyan troops etc. even if it "saved one life."

This 'saving one life' doctrine doesn't seem to apply to Israel or the Saudis.

Strange that...


Link:
Arab League Condemns Bombing

Sunday, 20 March 2011

It is a Civil War - Why are "We" Joining One Side?

As much as McKenzie was a cheerleader for Iraq, perhaps he has seen the light. The long-term Murdoch employee is certainly lining himself up as an opponent of this new war:


Democracy? Or Masonocracy? Or Talmudocracy?


Image plundered from North West Nationalist blog, with thanks.

Saturday, 19 March 2011

Here We Go Again: Another War to get Embroiled in


When is a no fly zone not a no fly zone?

When it is yet another needless Zionist War by another name.

We are told we don't have enough money for old peoples' homes, for local libraries, and so much more.

Yet we have enough money to launch planes and Tomahawk missiles against Libya (which must be costing many millions).

The War Hawks have picked another victim.

  • It's not Israel who used white phosphorous against civilian targets.
  • It's not Bahrain or Saudi Arabia who used the military against unarmed civilians.

What is interesting now is what happens next:

  • Will the war (for bombing a sovereign country is an act of war) escalate?
  • Will the armed rebellion continue - and if so are the Libyan forces not allowed to counter?
  • Will Gaddafy spill the beans on the alleged bankrolling of Sarkozy?
Furthermore, where does this leave 'the world' beyond the example of Libya and the rather eccentric Gaddafys?

If Russia uses military muscle against armed Chechen rebels (as they have) will that mean Britain, France and America have the right to attack strategic Russian targets?

Or let us look at a more extreme example right here.

Social cohesion breaks down and civil unrest happen in Britain over the cut-backs. Scotland is especially riotous given the Tory government and there is open insurrection. Parts of Scotland are armed by Irish Republican splinter groups, and there is tit for tat sectarianism. The socialists and republicans of Scotland start an all out paramilitary campaign against "British" targets and a minor Royal is killed on a Scottish estate by a servant.

In English cities the unrest spreads, pushed on by far-left militants, and many coloureds take part to air their own grievances. Some Muslim-dominated areas join in to fight the government. In some white working class areas even radical patriots declare "home rule" to defend their communities from roving criminals and corrupt left-wing councils. In the chaos bands of students and ex-students take it upon themselves to attack banks, robbing them, burning whatever records they can find.

Even where riots and disturbances don't break out, there is a run on the banks as people panic, the shops empty, armed police patrol and the army is on standby.

With many of these disparate forces (Scots, leftists, Irish republicans, coloureds, Muslims etc.) joining up in a (very) loose confederation, based on the examples of Egypt, Libya etc., they begin taking over more areas,more towns.

A shocking image in the newspapers is that of "state agents/provocateurs" being strung up or burnt alive in the manner of the South African burning tyre "necklaces."

The rebels clamour for the end of Tory/Liberal/Labour government and call for some form of government open to people and free from party corruption and vested interests (the Scots and Irish elements want some form of increased home rule).

With violence, the call for the splintering of the UK, the army is sent in and many civilians (some armed, some not) are killed. Despite the intense violence it is clear in the rebel-held areas most people are not taking part, the TV film shows crowds of a few thousand at most.

If this happened do you think Russia, China, Japan and others have the right to declare a no-fly zone? Do you think they should have the right to launch missiles at "strategic targets?"

Now I know this is an extreme example; but as nationalists we should always worry when the "international community" gives itself the right to attack a sovereign nation when some form of civil war or civil unrest breaks out.

We must be very careful before giving credence to the usual suspects starting a war.

Some will try to paint Gadaffy as a "mad mullah" - as opposed to a latter-day friend of 'the West' - but be careful what you wish for: the opposition is an unknown commodity and as well as the usual CIA and Mossad plants, will undoubtedly contain those who want an Islamic State.

As for Gadaffy himself, he must be kicking himself that he didn't drop white phosphorous on Benghazi, as that's what the Israelis did and the "international community" barely uttered a word!

Here endeth the lesson.

Wednesday, 16 March 2011

Tolerance for Turks - But Decapitation 'Back Home'





Tolerance is a joke: it means we must accept all that is wrong and against the family (like degenerate homosexuality, its drug-culture and its death-culture), all that is alien to our European Christian civilisation, and all that destroys the future of our children, denying them the White, European, Christian nationhood and cultures that our forefathers enjoyed.

We have St Stephen Lawrence, raised on high for us all to feel guilty about, yet Kriss Donald the Scottish lad who was stabbed repeatedly and set on fire for being White by an Asian gang, is barely known outside of Glasgow.

Right: Imran Shahid, the murderer of Kriss Donald expresses his remorse: not.


This is the hypocrisy of the media!

Our people count for nothing! Our heritage counts for nothing. Our cultures count for nothing.

The family is under constant attack. Homosexuals and drug users (George Michael, Elton John, Boy George, Stephen Fry etc. etc.) are lauded by a sick media, appearing time and time again as role models, yet if you dare to question the benefits of multi-culti in even the slightest way you will be ostracised and lose your media job (Carol Thatcher and Brian True-May).

Our Christian heritage is attacked by left-wing councils with their humanist, atheist agenda and by a government and system so intent on passing law after law after law giving ever more "rights" to degenerate sodomites, they have forced the shut-down of Catholic adoption agencies and are even stopping Owen and Eunice Johns (a black couple) from fostering children between the ages of 5 and 8, because the couple oppose homosexuality!

In the age of Elton John and David Furnesh having an (IVF) "gayby" on Christmas Day (oh happy chance!) which the media gushed over as if it were the Second Coming with barely a contrary word spoken, we have to wonder what the hell this country is coming to.

If you are White, heterosexual, Christian and part of a traditional family it seems that you, as far as the media and the government are concerned, have no rights.

I remember when the Tories promoted the idea of giving a tax break to married couples (don't get too excited, it would doubtless include homosexuals) and the Labour politicians were up in arms that "x" pounds a week would not make people get married, not keep a marriage together if it were about to break.

Yet the same politicians see nothing wrong in giving financial inducements to couples to make them live apart, or to have them cohabit and not get married, never mind the whole con that is young single mums getting homes, benefits etc. when they should still be living with their parents, going to school etc. (and don't say the system isn't abused because everyone knows that it is) whilst the married couples obey the rules and pay the taxes that go to the single mums, the immigrants fresh off the planes, and the fat cat bankers who wrecked the economy and are already on the bonus gravy train with barely a gap in the money-grubbing.

It's the same old story isn't it?

Peter Hitchens was on the BBC's 'This Week' recently calling for policemen to be on the beat again, preventing crime, making the streets safe, acting like public servants, instead of rushing around in speeding cars to mop up after-the-fact, being tooled up like paramilitaries, and treating the public as a nuisance.

How right he was.

It's the same mentality again. We live in a society where crime is so endemic much of it just doesn't get reported any more. If you are burgled you get a crime reference number for the insurers and little more. Unless your name is Tony Blair or Elizabeth Regina, don't expect the scenes of crime squad dusting for finger prints. meanwhile mums doing 34mph on a deserted road at 10.30 in the morning get clocked and fined.

Criminals are just so much hard work, busy mums struggling to make ends meet are an easy target.

It's just another aspect of our society that is out of kilter.

If only we had a politician like that Austrian in the you tube clip - prepared to speak out, defend our rights, call a spade a spade.

At the moment even the patriotic movement here is imploding with tales of granny-porn stars, British businesses owed monies (in this economic climate!) whilst degenerates are employed on some gravy train scam.

The people who should be making a difference and exposing the corruption, the rampant usury, the con this is multi-culturalism, the non-European wrecks that are our cities, the out of control pink mafia - and much more, are the ones embroiled in degeneracy, expenses fiddling and all the sleaze we expect from bankers, MPs, and media-stars.

Things don't look good.

"Tolerance" is on the march and wiping out all before it. Will anyone make a stand for decency, for the family, for the tax-payers, for the Christians, for the poor bloody people who make up the bulk of the normal, White workers of these island nations?

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Libya: More Hypocrisy from Cameron (and Rifkind)


On last night's news Cameron our non-chosen PM was said to be calling for military intervention in Libya, no-fly zone as a starter. Others including the Tory Zionist Malcolm Rifkind have called for the Libyan rebels to be armed - in short, that we should be seen to enter a civil war, uprising, call it what you will on one side.

Right: Malcolm Rifkind wants us to arm the rebels. No, not Irish rebels. No, not Palestinian rebels. No, not Bahraini or Saudi rebels. Just the Libyan ones.


Isn't that what the British media point the finger at re. Gaddafy arming the IRA? Whilst we were giving explosives, arms etc. to Muslim groups in Libya (and Afghanistan and probably quite a few others) to murder politicians, soldiers and civilians alike, Gaddafy was sending arms to Ireland.

When is backing terrorism not backing terrorism? When the British State does it?

So now we have high-ranking Tories acting like Neo Con war hawks (just as they would have aped Blair's actions had they been in power when George Dubya Bush was - no matter how much they tried to feign otherwise after the fact).

Funnily enough they are not calling for the Bahraini rebels to be armed, even as the Saudi dictators send in armed forces.

If Gadaffy had called in the organised, armed forces of a neighbour (a corrupt dictatorship at that) can you imagine Cameron's response? He'd pop a fuse.

Yet because the corrupt Saudis and the corrupt Bahraini's are "on our side" a blind eye is turned.

When circa 1 million Rwandans were wiped out (not to mention the rapes and mutilations) just a few years ago, Britain did nothing. And they accuse us of being racists? Bahrain sends in Saudi armed forces to attack civilians. Britain does nothing. Let's not even mention Robert Mugabe.

Not only are the British State hypocrites for arming terrorists when it suits their aims (and crying when others do it against them), but they are hypocrites now for clamouring for action against Libya; because when Israel drops white phosphorous on civilians or when the Saudis sent the military into a neighbour to crush civilian protests, the British State does not seek no fly zones or to arm the insurrectionists there.

Once upon a time people talked of joined-up-government and didn't Robin Cook try to implement an ethical foreign policy (probably for a couple of hours until Blair steam-rollered it)?

If the British State gets involved in Libya, no matter the degree, the Palestinians and the Bahrainis will ask "why not us?" with good reason. Not to mention the haunted souls of the dead Rwandans calling "is it cos we is black?"

Blair killed joined-up-government and executed the idea of an ethical foreign policy. Is Mr. Cameron now about to lay them in a lead-lined coffin at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?

Friday, 11 March 2011

Gadaffi Asks Israel for Help

A few pertinent points:

  • Are the Libyan 'rebels' "democrats" or "Islamists" or a mixture?
  • Are the West/Israel/Neo Cons wary of creating a vacuum in which "Islamists" will move in (as in Iraq)?
  • By visiting Israel is Gadaffi 'sending a message?'
  • Or is this just a desperate gamble that will backfire?
Things sure are interesting!

Link:
Gadaffi's Son Visits Israel

Monday, 7 March 2011

Jeffrey Epstein & the Prince: a Set-Up or Revenge?


I wonder what Prince Andrew has done to upset the establishment figures so much?

Guilt by association is such a broad stroke attack.

Let me make it clear I have no interest in defending the prince.

  • 1. I am no monarchist.
  • 2. I am no defender of unearned privilege.
  • 3. I am no fan of big business.
  • 4. I am no fan of American, Jewish, financier, billionaire, sex offenders (could there be anything
worse!).
Now let's look past the headlines.

Why is the prince being attacked for working with someone any amount of politicians would work with day-in, day-out? Is the financier working with finance? if so why not ostracise the bankers etc. that have worked with him?

When a famous person is attacked like this we should ask "why?"

They are all at it.

This kind of "link," when it is used to attack a politician or similar stinks of vested interests.

Has the prince done something to annoy the spooks, media etc.?

This looks like a concerted campaign.

Has he upset or threatened the bankers? The Zionists? I wonder...

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Prince Andrew is not a person to hold up as a role model. That he associated with an American, Jewish, financier, billionaire, sex offender is awful - and something his minions, flunkies and spook-minders should have warned him off (or did they give him the all clear - built up, knocked down so to speak?).

Idle speculation?

Remember the case of David Mellor?

He offended the Zionist lobby by speaking out forcefully against the treatment of the Palestinians on a visit to the Middle East.

Shortly afterwards he was "exposed" for his 'romps' in a Chelsea football top with a harlot. It all stunk to high heaven, with bugging of the flat, a kiss n tell story sold for tens of thousands etc. etc.

The defender of Palestinian rights in the 'right wing' Tory party (traditionally pro-Israel) was forced out in disgrace, and the Palestinians are still be maltreated...

The lesson is that the enemy of civilisation will keep dirt files on friends and enemies. And you never know what might be said or done behind closed doors which prompts them to take something out of one of their files to be handed to a media puppet.

That's what makes me wonder what Prince Andrew has done to upset the puppet-masters.

Link:
Media say Sex-Offender Paid Fergie

Sunday, 6 March 2011

American Neo-Con Terrorism via Martin Sheen

The film 'Unthinkable' is worth watching.




This is one of the best scenes in it, in which the Muslim terrorist exposes American Neo-Con hypocrisy.

Of course, as we all learnt on our mum's knee, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the Zionists/Neo Cons kill hundreds of thousands of innocents, does not make the murder of one innocent by its opponents justified.

What I find interesting is that we have had Hollywood films about Christian terrorists attacking American targets, we have had Hollywood films about Muslim terrorists attacking American targets. Yet we have yet to have had a mainstream Hollywood film about Jewish terrorists attacking American targets. Despite there being evidence of all three (state-sponsored or otherwise).

I wonder why?

Saturday, 5 March 2011

Why do the Media and Politicians Lie About the Threats we Face?


Successive governments of every hue have told us that the protection of our citizens is number one priority.

That is why, we are informed, that it was so vital that we take part in the newspeak "War on Terror."

Right: "Can we watch multi-culti, pro-homosexual Eastenders after the news Dad?"

Never mind that it could be argued that our taking on the Israeli-American foreign policy puts more of our people (here and especially overseas) in peril, let us look more closely at who our people need protection from.

1. Who is behind the terror attacks?

There is eye-witness evidence that Israeli Mossad agents brought down the twin towers and were "on the ground" in NYC when "911" took place. Eye-witnesses saw Israelis with a hire-van celebrating. The same hire-van was stopped by police whose explosive sniffer-dogs went haywire by the tunnel linking NYC with New Jersey. A story even leaked of a foiled terror attack on the NYC-NJ tunnel on the same day, before being silenced. The arrested Israelis were released without charge.

Or even without this proof, we can ask ourselves Quid Pro Quo. Who has the most to gain from "911" - a CIA established extremist Islamic group whose bases were destroyed? Or the Israeli war machine who achieved a turn-around in US policy (from non-interventionist to Neo Can war hawks) and had two anti-Israeli regimes turned to dust (not least revenge was taken out on the Scud-firing Iraq).

Ask yourself this: Who had the most to gain from the attacks and why has the evidence of Israeli involvement never been fairly discussed?

2. What kills more of our people every year?

If the duty of our government is to protect our people, why are they getting dragged (or running into!) foreign wars of a Neo-Con hawk nature when they cannot keep our own people safe on the streets of Britain?

David Cameron is showing his true Neo Con colours by urging military action against Libya. Another war for foreign interests alien to our own? Cameron is proving to be Blair mark II.

Meanwhile ask yourself this, in the last 10 years:

  • How many British people got mugged or burgled (inc unreported cases)?
  • How many British people got hooked on heroin?
  • How many British people had their homes repossessed?
  • How many British people lost decent jobs and have to scrape to make ends meet in McJobs or part-time employment with few rights?

and compare that to the number of British people murdered, injured etc. by "international terrorism."

I would suggest that more British people have been harmed by the banksters and their greed, or by the police who refuse to practice zero tolerance against muggers, burglars and dealers than have ever been harmed by any 'Axis of Evil,' Islamicist extremists etc.

3. And finally: who do our government obey?

If there is evidence that Israelis were (at the very least) involved in "911" and were active with explosives in NYC on the same day; if the Israelis had most to gain from the 'War on Terror'; if more British people have their lives taken, ruined or greatly disturbed by organised and petty criminals in the UK (especially English inner cities); why do successive governments pretend that their first priority is to protect UK citizens?

Why are we being lied to?

Why is our foreign policy being propped up by a huge lie?

Why is our domestic policy to let hundreds every day fall victim to robbery, violence and worse?

I don't want a police state, and I would argue that the 60s liberal experiment (and the explosion of single-parent families) and mass immigration has ruined communities to such an effect that many people no longer know right from wrong, no longer care for justice, for duty, for respect.

However, having a police force that actually deals with complaints of mugging, or burglary, or drug-taking and drug-pushing instead of worrying about if homosexuals can stay in hotels -- might that not be a good start?

Left: You think it's bad here? The US media is screamingly pro-Zionist and its two-party state is sewn up by the Israeli lobby. They pump billions into foreign wars and Israeli weaponry, whilst many of their own inner cities are war zones and are awash with drugs.


Don't expect the media or politicians to worry about this though. They are mostly pro-Israeli, many of them snort cocaine, most of them don't live in 'multi-culti' hell-holes or single-parent family sink estates and when it comes to 60s liberalism most of them are queer-friendly.

In short, nothing is set to change because the media, politicians and for that matter the banksters too form a circle of dependence. They are in each-others pockets and while they will justify all manner of foreign adventures to "protect British people" the very idea of actually protecting British people is anathema to them.

The other day I read an article about the efforts to get a foreign type of prawn out of a freshwater site because it was ruining the habitat of native species. Specialists, politicians and the media were involved and interested in catching and killing this alien threat to indigenous species.

Yet when have we ever had "specialists, politicians and the media" warn us of the effects of mass immigration? Habitats (eg the white communities of inner London) were decimated and destroyed in decades.

Today the politicians and media gurus will tell us how successful immigration has been.

Do you see it yet?

Whether it's the "War on Terror," crime, drugs, liberalism, homosexuality, abortion - you can virtually pick the topic at will! - this ruling elite does not have our interests at heart.

For them to pretend otherwise is sick in the extreme.

As the Skrewdriver song stated in the wake of the immigrant murder of the elderly patriot Albert Marriner in the early 80s: Now look at a sick society... Do we seriously think it's got better?

Friday, 4 March 2011

If the cap fits... in Barnsley


How sad that a party (once thought to be ideological) that has betrayed its supporters, lied to try and achieve electoral success and been found to be willing to jettison core beliefs at the first opportunity (some say on the back of financial and parliamentary placement), slumped so badly in the Barnsley by-election.

Surely a lesson for us all.

Betray your grass roots for power, cash or whatever: and they won't forgive you.

Wednesday, 2 March 2011

John Galliano - sacked by Dior for being Homosexual?


It seems that Dior has finally seen sense and sacked the homosexual John Galliano.

Dior has a proud Fascist tradition (the French millionairess Fran├žoise Dior supported John Tyndall and Colin Jordan in the 60s- marrying the latter).

Right: Fran├žoise Dior salutes with Colin Jordan

What a shame it has been besmirched by hiring a homosexual.

At least they have seen the error of their ways.

Kerching.

Tuesday, 1 March 2011

Americans and British Don't Call for No Fly Zone Over Israel


America and Britain have called for a no-fly zone in a country where military planes have allegedly been used against innocent civilians.

It would mean shooting down the country's planes.

One American source said the country's anti-aircraft batteries would have to be destroyed.

Oh.

Hang on.

The country that has used its planes to bomb innocent civilians, including using illegal white phosphorous bombs, isn't Libya, it's Israel.

Listen.

Hear that?

It's silence.

The tumbleweed rolls on through.

Silence from America and Britain: the kingpins of humbug.

There's no "no fly zone" over Israel despite the horrors unleashed by the bandit state, from the murder of sunbathing American servicemen on the USS Liberty to the indiscriminate murder of Palestinians for daring to vote in Hamas (that damn democracy!).

No fly zone for Libya? No fly zone for Israel? If the former why not the latter?

To ask the question is to be screeched at.

Oooh you anti-Semite! What are you? Some sort of Christian Dior designer?


MusicPlaylistView Profile
Create a playlist at MixPod.com