Sunday, 5 February 2012

Are You For or Against a Corrupt Zionist Regime?

Have a look at this great montage. Again it shows the hypocrisy of "the West" - i.e. the political and media class.

The last time I made a comparison between the (Real) IRA and the Syrian insurrectionists, and the treatment of them by the BBC (chalk and cheese) when they shoot soldiers, I had one or two dullards and/or nonces stirring up quite the hornet's nest on here.

So, just to let you know, I am not an anarchist any more than I am an Islamist (or "democrat") Arab insurrectionist. I know, I know... but you'd be amazed at what trolls, idiots and numpties will read into a post!

Of course - the rioters in Cairo were fighting against a Zionist puppet regime that had acted against the interests of the indigenous people for decades... whereas in England we have... a 'democracy.' Mwah ha ha!

The BBC treated Irish and Syrian armed gangs who shoot soldiers, policemen etc, quite differently; they also treat those who riot against governments controlled by vested interests quite differently.

As always (e.g. when dealing with Libya or Saudi Arabia ruling families, Iran or Israel's nuclear realities, Serbian or American 'war crimes') the BBC twists the news to fit a specifically British State agenda, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. As our state is Zionist (i.e. in the pockets of Masonic bankers/financiers and hardline pro-Israel) the litmus test seems to be whether a regime is pro-Israeli or Israel-tolerant. Of course in international diplomacy nothing is so straightforward. France, for example has gone from "bad" to "good" under Sarkozy (I wonder why) from a regime which tended to oppose Zionist wars to one which is far more in favour of them (it is highly questionable that the French people changed that much!)

That some British nationalists (still!) worship the Westminster State and are still following certain paths and herded in certain pens, thanks to years of brainwashing and State propaganda speaks volumes. The blinkers still aren't off. And so we see a "hurrah" for 'plucky' David Cameron who stands up to the Euro Beast... to defend the rights of financiers in the City of London, who in turn show little or no loyalty to the UK (always threatening to leave these shores if taxes are raised, for example)

The plastic patriots who cheered on 'Call me Dave' Cameron used to be the Imperialists, who cheered as Britain planted flags in India, Africa, and even in Calais and Gibraltar (but who would go to war if Spain or France claimed the Isle of Wight). Of course, they were too dumb to realise that eventually the Indians and Africans would return the favour and colonise us - now they want to claim as a right what their political forebears denied the Indians and Africans -- independence, nationalism and their own country run by their own kind.

The jingoism of Empire was in reality a form of multi-culturalism which celebrated money, profits and greed above all else. There was little or no altruism, no seeking what was best for "us" or "them." The British (unlike for example the Spaniards) did not even have the good grace to convert the heathens. Speaking to an Indian (Hindu) on a train recently he told me that most Christians in India are Catholic, with one small area also Methodist (after a Methodist missionary went there). The impact of Anglicanism, given that England ran India for so many years, was minimal indeed. Just imagine (and this is pure conjecture of course and not seen as the be-all and end-all) an India and Pakistan that was converted to a form of Christianity, instead of just bled dry and turned against each other as Britain sought to 'divide and rule' with Muslims and Hindus.

We might even have no nuclear powers playing tit for tat wars with each other, and no Muslim stronghold (used by the CIA and its enemies) to "export terror" as and when needed. Or look at Japan, which was on the verge of becoming Christian thanks to missionaries from Mediterranean lands. It was Dutch and English traders who persuaded the Japanese rulers who weren't Christian (about half) that this was some kind of threat from Portugal or Spain which would then "take over" and so Christians were massacred, crucified en masse, and often mutilated by having their feet cut off. It was the money-men of Amsterdam and London who stopped Japan becoming Christian... imagine the impact in WW2? History may have been so different. It may even have impacted on China, preventing the rise of Communism... who knows?

It was money and profits that drove the British Empire, and it was (as usual!) GK Chesterton who saw the future problems this early globalism would bring. I found this interesting text/review online, about an essay on Patriotism by GKC. It is so good I would urge everyone to read it two or three times and to keep a copy for future reference:

There is, however, another enemy of Patriotism and Nationalism. It is equipped with power and wealth and a good chance of success in practical politics and it is but the disguise of cosmopolitanism. It is Imperialism, or as we would say, 'Globalism'. In Chesterton's opinion the Empire was neither for the benefit nor the glory of the English, it was for their exploitation. We had been put to work, to suffer, to bleed and to die, for the benefit of international banking and trade, that is, 'Globalism', and when we had served our purpose the assets would be stripped and lodged elsewhere. The price of such glory as we might enjoy from seeing the map painted red, was our impoverishment, our deculturation, our mongrelization, our destruction as a Nation. Chesterton presented this succinctly in 'The Flying Inn'(1904) "Did you ever hear the great destiny of Empire? It is in four acts: Victory over barbarians. Employment of barbarians. Alliance with barbarians. Conquest by barbarians. That is the great destiny of Empire."



GK Chesterton saw mass immigration into Britain decades before it happened, whilst the ideological forebears of today's plastic patriots, Westminster State worshippers to  a man, were singing God Save the King, down with the Frenchies/Krauts (delete as applicable) in short, much as most of them still do today!

They sung/sing a hymn to a Queen who has rubber stamped laws on homosexuality, abortion and divorce (and mass immigration/anti-racislism!) that have ripped this country apart. She swore to be a Christian Monarch on her accession to the throne, an oath she swore to God; but just as the wedding oaths sworn by so many, it was meaningless - as their weddings were dissolved by man, might we wonder if her monarchy should be dissolved by man? How can a Christian Monarch pass laws as she has? She even made the architect of the 1967 Abortion Law (which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent Britons) a Lord!!! How preposterous is that? ...and we have Charles "defender of (multi-)faiths" waiting in the side-lines.

If Elizabeth II had an ounce of decency she would have stepped down as monarch, or stood firm to uphold her oath. This, I believe, is the basic argument of much of the Lawful Rebellion crowd. If the crown is void (a kind of British 'sede vacante' - vacant seat - position if you will) then when we enter the courts controlled by the crown, they have lost the authority to judge us. If we do not recognise the crown as legitimate, having broken the Coronation Oath (as usury, abortion and homosexuality to name but three, are anti-Christian), then it has no right to levy taxes on us -- for its illegal wars, its pro-queer bodies, its abortion-performing structures and for its repayments on usury debts.

But let us return to nationhood. GKC once said that the patriot loves his country, whereas an imperialist wants to invade his neighbours. I said in a recent post that WW2's very basis was flawed given that we were conned into taking part in a war that was for the freedom of Poland, but resulted in handing over the entirety of Poland to one of the very powers that had invaded it in September 1939 (but which bizarrely we did not declare war on!): the USSR.

For me, one of the faults with National Socialist Germany was that it was, at its very core imperialist. The Reich was to expand. Austria was a fascist country with a superb economic basis on which it was building structures for the Common God that were building a socially strong and confident Austria. Even Poland was nationalist and had stood up to Soviet Communism. Today it would be painted by liberals as "fascist." The sad fact is that both these countries were taken over by a Germany whose very basis was imperial growth. It was its imperialism rather than any perceived "fascism" or "socialism" that proved its downfall.

"Chesterton’s distaste for state socialism, his suspicion of monopoly capitalism, and his support for the independence from imperial domination of small nations like Poland..."
from the GK Chesterton Society's conference 2011 blurb
As nationalists, we must be nationalists! This is the basis of this rather meandering post. We must stand up for our own nation. We must not be imperialists, we do not want or need empires. We must realise that we love our nation(s), but that does not mean we must worship the state. We must disassociate worship of the Westminster State from love of nation.

This is a debate that nationalists need to have, especially in light of devolution, a monarch and state that are promoting homosexuality and abortion, the collapse of the Euro and the ongoing take-over of our lands by non-Europeans, which the state is defending to the detriment of our people!

Regardless of the permutations in the arguments that fly back and forth, the one thing that we have to realise above all else is that as nationalists today, the state that rules over us, which has promoted multi-racism, destroyed Christianity, pulled apart the family, promoted illegal Zionist wars, and pushes its twisted propaganda as news on the BBC, is not "ours" - it is not British, English or whatever - it is in the pockets of financiers with no national loyalty, it is bought and paid for by the men who rule the Lodges who wreck our lives, yet it expects our loyalty too??? We'd have to be mad!

That is the British State as it stands, that is why we owe it no loyalty. It, the Queen, her governments and the Lodges behind them all, have betrayed the peoples of these isles on every single imaginable level. The law is not only an ass, but a law that breaks almost every single moral law (from deadening usury, to sterile homosexuality, to the multi-racism that destroys, to the mass death of abortion), has to make us realise that we are living under a regime that has sold us and our children into perpetual slavery, taxation-debt and degeneracy.

That's why, when I see an anarchist bashing a police van in London, whether it is a demo over student loans, big brother or against another war -- despite the fact that he may need a "damn good wash" (copyright 1970s NF) and support more than a few dubious causes -- I see very little difference between those demonstrating against a corrupt, pro-Israeli regime in the pockets of the money-men, who treat the indigenous people like crap; and the demonstrators in Cairo.

12 comments:

Ed said...

Great post. They show us no genuine leadership, no protection from evil. We owe this state NOTHING.

Anonymous said...

i agree.

it's like when they kick up a big fuss about 'keeping the falklands british'.

THEY CANT EVEN KEEP BRITAIN BRITISH. never mind some islands thousands of miles away.

they are traitors to a man.

Anonymous said...

UKIP and the BNP types still live in the 19th Century

Anonymous said...

the bloke on the van is probably SB anyway. Mark Kennedy? was that his name?

Anonymous said...

Possibly, but you're missing the main point of the article (and in so doing nit picking for the sake of it).

The fact is that this is a traitor state, treacherous to the British people.

Who is the criminal, the unwashed deadbeat dancing on a van or the politician who taxes the poor to pay usury debt to multi-billionaires?

Anyone who nit picks over this piece is a drone.

Good article FC.

Anonymous said...

Well, well, FC. Another quality post. You are the true voice of English patriotism today. Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

What's with all this comparison with you and your co-horts FC?

Okay, so one of the unwashed deadbeat dancing on a van and a politician who taxes the poor to pay usury debt to multi-billionaires? Answer, both criminal acts. Whereas one is just a total waste of time, energy and plays in to the hands of the State, the other does it much subtler and knows how to take advantage of the power he wields, I'm sure you're not too dense to work out which is which.....then again you probably are.

As to "Good article FC" sycophancy is a none too desirable characteristic in any shape or form.

Anonymous said...

Ooooh. Someone's got his bitter and twisted knickers in a knot. He's not the poof with the mankini's is he?

GOOD ARTICLE FC.

Shove that where the sun dont shine you troll whinging twot.

Anonymous said...

seems you run a great piece questioning our loyalty to the Westminster state and someone wants to argue over whose worse an anarchist or a banker.

1. In scale the latter.
2. In fact they are both enemies of nationalism.
3. This entirely misses the main point, as i read it, of the article.

Why do some people wish to nit pick when there are bigger issues at stake? or is he a State asset trying to divert our attention?

Anonymous said...

An anarchist is a tick on the body of society.

A banker is a mad axe-man lopping off parts of it.

Previous anon needs to get a grip on reality, one is a minor irritant, the other threatens our freedom and security.

Third Positionist said...

Bankers are far worse then anarchists who are just prancing middle class nobodies who will probably grow up to be - bankers!

Anonymous said...

whilst we are discussing anarchos, anyone who cares to do a little research in to the situation in Europe of late 19th/early 20th century will notice the activity of the anarchists, the widespread white sex trade and the jew involvement in both.

That is why today's so-called 'terror threat' is a nonsense but which begs the question of whether this is because the European security services have become more adept or else the threat is perceived to be at such a level as to allow the State to pass draconian laws without any hinderance at all in the name of protecting us from the baddies.

So from this point of view, the anarchos (as are the so-called al qaeda) are very, very dangerous in that they are the proxy for the State/ZOG.


MusicPlaylistView Profile
Create a playlist at MixPod.com