Viagra in Libya? Kuwaiti Incubators and Belgian Babies on Bayonets!

Oh yes - Libya and especially Hitler, sorry I mean Gaddafi, is using rape as a tactic.

Of course they are. Mind you that didn't stop us being allies with the Red Army as they raped their way across Europe. When Socialists uphold WW2 as a fight for democracy and freedom, they mean for rape, murder, slavery and the Almighty Dollar.

But I digress.

This story has all the hallmarks of black propaganda and war propaganda. remember the Belgian babies thrown in the air onto German bayonets in WW1? Or the babies turfed out of Kuwaiti incubators by Saddam's stormtroopers?

All fiction. 30 years from now they will look back and laugh at the idea of Gaddafi giving his troops Viagra!

Mind you, many people still haven't seen through the war propaganda of the Holocau$t.

And guess who has been sending Amnesty International reports over the Internet about Libya, rape, Gaddafi and Viagra?

Lefty Zionist and Neo Con apologist David Aaronovitch! The man who acted as cheerleader to the left for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the man who stays strangely quiet when Israel massacres innocents; and the man who asked FC for "the source" of Israel being behind the Stuxnet Virus that put the Fukushima into meltdown - and when presented with it stayed incredibly quiet.

And let's not forget it was Aaronovitch the arch-Zionist whom Nick Griffin boasted to, that he was going to turn the BNP around, just before he made the BNP all pro-Israeli and purely 'bash the Muslims' becoming the right-wing Neo Con voice.

And so the enemies of civilisation had all bases covered. They had their normal allies the right-wing Tories banging the war drum. They had New Labour (creation of ex-Commie Mandleson) banging the war drum. They had Lefty Aaronovitch beating the war drum to the lefties; and then they had Griffin's BNP painting all the world's ills on 'the muzzies' so working class whites would tend to be more pro-war (the BNP favoured the Afghan war at first).

We have all been stitched up by the usual oligarchs, media moguls, banksters and vested interests.

So don't believe the hype about Libyan Viagra. The headline makers need this crap to justify another pointless war to the sheeple. And while your schools, hospitals,libraries, parks and other amenities are cut back, closed or crumble, remember that guided missiles cost circa £1 Million a time.

Cui Bono. (Translated: Ask Bono why he tax-dodges)

David Aaronovitch, Stuxnet, Twitter, Israel, Fukushima and German Nuclear Power Stations

AARONOVITCH CAGEY OVER STUXNET

Right: Japan is in the "less infected" shade of green in late 2010. Yet Stuxnet knocked out the coolant system which resulted in the Fukushima meltdown. Will Israel pay reparations?

FC Tweeted David Aaronovitch the Left-Wing Neo Con war apologist (can it get any more convoluted?), after he posted a tweet about Germany deciding to shut down its nuclear reactors:

FC to Aaronovitch:
Tell your Tweeters that Germany's nuclear shutdown is because of Israel's stuxnet virus attack on Siemens coolant systems.

Aaronovitch to FC:
You'll have to source that one, final.

FC to Aaronovitch:
Your handler should know. The #Stuxnet virus is well documented as is its source and what it attacks. Ask the japanese

FC to Aaronovitch:
Stuxnet made by nation-state to target Iran, infects Siemens (Iran, Japan, germany) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

FC to Aaronovitch:
Richard A. Falkenrath, former Senior Director for Policy and Plans with the Office of Homeland Security: Israel = #Stuxnet

FC to FC's followers:
Now the #Stuxnet source has been sent to @DAaronovitch let's see if Mr Lefty Neo Con tells his followers who caused Japanese meltdown...

FC reply to Aaronovitch tweet about German Nuclear power not harming anyone:
But ask the Japanese how many have been harmed by Nuke meltdown caused by Israel's #Stuxnet attacking coolant systems.

FC to FC's followers:
Haaretz reported that a video celebrating operational successes of Gabi Ashkenazi, retiring IDF boss ... included ref to #Stuxnet



Mr. Aaronovitch has yet to inform his readers of the Stuxnet link in the decision of Germany to shut down their power stations, to avoid Fukushima-style disaster -- or of the State behind the Stuxnet virus.

What a suprise! (NOT).


Follow, re-post and join in with FC's tweets:
@finalconflict1

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).

Iraq War's Illegality is Irrelevant to Neo Con David Aaronovitch

See last night's Newsnight (Tues 26th Jan) to see the arch Neo Con and (Former?) leftist David Aaronovitch state that the opinion of government lawyers that the invasion of Iraq was illegal was all but irrelevant.

Where has Aaronovitch the liberal gone? You know - the man who tells us how great multi-culti mass invasion is for us all!

Ever since the advent of the Neo Cons (almost, but not quite all, ex-leftist Jewish Zionists) at the time of the illegal Invasion of Iraq, these people have been busting a gut to justify the war crimes of their ilk - just as they always justify the war crimes of Israel.

It seems that everything that is racist is anathema to these people... except when it is in service of Israel and the Zionist States of America, of course!

The fact that the war against Iraq was quite clearly illegal and opposed by most people (not just in the UK!) as well as quite a few governments in Europe and beyond (remember French fries becoming "freedom fries?"), should matter!

Let's face it, if Germany's top lawyers said that their invasion of Poland was legal, would that make Mr. Aaronovitch accept that the Nuremberg trials will null and void? A victor's justice imposed in part by the Soviet Union which also invaded Poland in 1939 and 1944!

No, Mr Aaronovitch and all the Neo Cons and their fellow travellers think laws only apply if they do not impede their fight to make the world free of more governments which may be hostile to their interests.

Just as on Holocaust Memorial Day we are not supposed to remember the 100 Million victims of Communism in the 20th Century.

As Elizabeth Dilling made clear in her page-turner The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today:

The next time when some Christian dupe tells you: “Socialism is not Jewish!,” for one thing, pull out the pamphlet “Jew and Non-Jew,” put out by the Reform Jewish “Union of American Hebrew Congregations” and their “Central Conference of American Rabbis” and read:

Socialism was originated by Jews; and today Jews play a leading role in its spread and interpretation.” (page 30).

There seems to be a pattern in the world of our would-be masters: ignore war crimes that benefit them, ignore genocide(s) that involve their ideological forebears.

From Katyn Forest to the Gulags, from Lebanon to the Gaza Strip. No Hollywood films, no British/American intervention, no lessons in schools, no memorials, no ceremonies.

Conspiracy anyone?

Afghan War: Zionists Sent Our Troops to Die

Afghanistan is a needless, pointless war: as far as we in the UK are concerned.

For the powerful elites in Washington DC and Tel Aviv it's a different mater of course.

So we have to ask ourselves, why should our troops - including teenage boys - be put out as cannon fodder?

It is a Zionist war! We have no interests in it. End of.

When "9/11" happened and America started attacking Afghanistan, with the backing of a supine Westminster regime, some "patriots" immediately supported them.

On the back of the "911" lies they whipped up support for a 'war on Islam' because this was the path they were starting down, a road that would see them marching in step with Neo Cons, Zionists and other enemies of Britain and our interests.

At that time we went against the (perceived!) grain by putting out a colour leaflet (with the popular "US Govt. Under Zionist Control" sticker design on the bottom of it).

I don't have a copy to hand (but I do have one in a file somewhere in the depths...) but the leaflet made circa ten or a dozen key points against the Afghan War, points that could not be denied by any serious thinking nationalist.

It was as a result of this leaflet that the Kosher Patriots back-peddled and changed their story.

"Islamofascism" was still the number one threat (a lie not borne out by subsequent events, especially the global economic crash, caused by Zionist banksters in America -- clearly part of the main threat to our stability and well-being) but they were forced to admit that foreign wars were wrong and that no British lives should be put on the line.

Of course this new line made no sense, because if you really do believe that "Militant Islam" is the threat to world peace, then you would (still) support the war in Afghanistan because our troops are out there fighting Muslims, and Muslims that oppose the New World Order, Israel and the whole package.

I have condemned and exposed (yuch!) David Aaronovitch for his gung-ho approach to the War on Terror [sic], and even he is now trying to water-down his history in these matters (see recent post) but at least he still supports the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (though with tacked-on hypocritical caveats).

Those who back the Neo-Con verbage re. Clash of Civilisations and the War on Terror yet who found it "unpopular" to support the Zionist Wars and so back-tracked are even worse, because they do not even have the courage of their own convictions!

Those of us who saw through 911, who have always condemned militant Zionism as the threat to world peace, who have always pointed to he Zionist role in usury-banking as the threat to lives, homes, jobs etc., those of us who have condemned the ghost-outfit Al Qaeda as a CIA set-up etc. etc. have no such qualms.

Not one British, not one European (yes... not even one American!) life should be put on the line for illegal, Zionist wars.

It is as simple as that.

But in opposing British involvement in foreign wars, we must join-the-dots.

If we oppose Zionist Wars we must oppose the entire War on Terror.

To do otherwise is to excel in hypocrisy.

The family of each and every dead and maimed soldier deserve better than that.




I believe this video deals with the time when our own 'Mid East Envoy' was one Lord Levy! The man of the peerages for cash scandal: Lord Cashpoint himself.

Now ask yourself this: who runs the "free world" [sic]; who runs the banking system; who runs Hollywood; who runs the media.

Muslims?

Er.... no.

Journalists Who Argued for Illegal Wars Should Face Trial

There is hypocrisy and there is bare-faced cheek... then there is something more.

Right: Like all court historians and journalists Aaronovitch earns his shilling by attacking the enemies of his masters. As well as defending illegal Zionist wars across the Middle East -- yet not wishing to put himself on the front line! -- he also produced this tome, which wraps up real history with crank history, so any idea of "Zionist power" is as 'crazy,' in his works, as Dan Brown's gnostic theories.

The Jews have a word for it: chutzpah [drop the c and you've pretty much got the phonetic pronouncement].

Chutzpah is when someone kills your mum, makes you pay them for the coffin and then comes round every day to help you spend your inheritance on items which they then walk off with... only to sell back to you at a later date at an inflated price on HP which you can by then ill afford, only to repossess your house for your failure to keep up the HP payments. he'd probably then offer to rent your ex-home to you at twice the going rate.

Our politicians are quite good at chutzpah. So were the banks (sub-prime mortgages etc.). So are quite a few media talking-heads.

Imagine Tony Blair, invader of Iraq and co-author of the "War on Terror" stitch-up being made the Mid East's "peace envoy."

That's chutzpah.

OK, you can put your note books away now. Lesson's over.

Last night on the BBC's Politics Show I witnessed possibly one of the worst cases of chutzpah in recent months.

A journalist said that we do not want to be in Afghanistan, but now there we must see it through.

Nothing strange there as a few politicos (e.g. a Lib Dem -- who have been critical of recent wars -- on the BBC's Question Time said much the same last night).

However when you think of how said this particular statement (i.e. we should send in more troops though we may not like it) you realise how we are being spun yet another line by a bunch of apologists for mass murder who care not a jot how many body bags come back to be saluted by the population of Wootten Bassett as they pass through in yet another flag-draped funeral cortage.

You see the reporter in question was one David Aaronovitch.

"Who he?" you might ask.

Well, the reporter tends to work for The Independent, and when the whole "9/11" and "War on terror" mess was being rolled out to a credulous population, Mr. Aaronovitch was the key 'left-wing' cheerleader for the Zionist policy of war against Afghanistan, Iraq and anyone else that America-UK-Israel deemed a "threat."

When we were all smelling a rat with the Zionists' lies, half-truths and war propaganda, Mr. Aaronovitch was out there in media land banging the drum for Bush and Blair.

Many journalists, talking heads and "experts" (all of which labels could have been applied to Aaronovitch at the time) take the shilling off the spooks (MI6, CIA or Mossad) and are used in that respect. They are put about the TV studios to give the spin their paymasters want on any given situation.

if you have ever read any serious book on the spooks you will know journalists, professors and similar are often kept on the payroll for such situations.

After all - why risk any free-thinker or someone hostile to their agenda getting the limelight (though this happens of course) when you can at least try and balance up the odds more than a little by employing X number of "experts?"

Now I do not know Mr. Aaronovitch (I'll take that as a badge of honour!) but his gung-ho approach to the "War on Terror" and his backing of a seemingly "right-wing" Neo-Con series of adventures had all the hallmarks of being a service to his paymasters.

After all, he can't have won many fans in the left-wing, Independent-reading luvvie circles he would normally associate with.

As an aside we should always remember that it was to Mr. Aaronovitch that Mr. Griffin announced that his mission to "turn around" the BNP was going to be a stage-by-stage affair (he likened it to turning around a sea-going super-tanker, i.e. it would need a very wide arc and be a slow process).

Why would a left-wing ultra-Zionist give such an open forum to one of the supposed "fascist" opposition, with all its cosy talk of waiting at stations, popping in the butchers, genteel car rides et al? After all, there is no such thing as a free lunch (also enjoyed if I recall correctly).

But back to business.

Does the warmongering Zionist apologist for Cheney, Rummy and Bush really think we have such short-term memories? I may forget where I put my keys on an almost daily basis... but I tend to remember the low-lives who made all the excuses for a needless Zionist war in the UK media: and it would be hard to forget the central role undertaken by Mr. Aaronovitch.

There is bare-faced cheek and then there is chutzpah.

Mr. Aaronovitch knows what chutzpah is, and not just because he is a well-educated (I don't know where he went to school, but I'll bet it wasn't a local run-of-the-mill affair!) astute journalist.

I also do not know if Mr. Aaronovitch has ever lived in the illegal bandit-state that is the cause of so much of the Neo Con's (oxy-)moronic philosophy and warmongering, though the truth of the matter is of course that he has the "right" to "return" there (unlike all the Palestinians forced out via ethnic cleansing, state-sponsored terrorism and all the rest of it).

In stating that we may not want to be in Afghanistan, but must now get on with the job Mr. Aaronovitch is rubbing our nose in the Neo-Con fecal aftermath.

He did want us out there. He did make excuses for the warmongers. He did want our troops used as canon-fodder for a Zionist policy that would result in yet more terror (CIA-inspired or copycat).

If and when war crimes trials are held for Afghanistan and Iraq -- as they surely must if we live in a free and fair world (I know, stop laughing) -- just as they were for the Germans and Serbians amongst others, then I hope the role of bought-and-paid-for politicians and journalists will be at centre stage.

After all if the "I was only following orders" defence was of no use in the quasi-Soviet show trials of 1946, then they cannot be used to dodge the death penalty (aw... go on!) when Blair, Bush, Rummy, Aaronovitch and their ilk are in the dock.

Now... where did I put my keys.


Link:
Ex-Communist Aaronovitch Attacked AntiWar.Com
Aaronovitch Supported Iraq War and Israel's Gaza War Crimes

BNP Euro Election Broadcast: Churchill and 60s Immigrants?

No doubt most of us have, by now, seen the BNP's election broadcast for the Euros.

What to make of it?

No doubt the BNP will make hay from the MPs trousering large sums, their nepotism, cronyism and attempts to cover-up on party political grounds.

This will sound familiar to some nationalists... but regardless, to the broadcast itself.

No doubt right-wing Tory types will have viewed it with great pleasure.

The defence of "Britishness." The Churchillian overtones (much to the distress of Nicholas "Fatty" Soames, the bloated defence-specialist and grandson of Winston). The cry for the rights of the natives of these isles.

Certainly on the latter point there is little to quibble with.

But, as ever, with politicians, the devil is in the detail.

And before the Daytime TV brigade of Griffinite net-watchers chime up, is it wrong to look at the details of a political party that seeks our money, support and vote?

If it is, then you're not the democrats you so loudly and long profess to be!

After all how can any nationalist condemn Tories extending their homes with other peoples money whilst ignoring it in the BNP? Or employing family members? Or sexual shenanigans of the most sordid kind?

After all - as the BNP now seeks to defend Christendom from just one of its hand-picked enemies (no, not Freemasonry) - they should recall Christ's words on getting the log out of your own eye before seeking out the motes in others' eyes.

Now, I am not so blind (even in this land of the one-eyed kings in Westminster) as to think that we are talking of logs versus motes here as the stench emanating from Thameside is suffocating, but to replace a corrupt and degenerate gang of parties shouldn't we - as nationalists if not mere voters - be presented with something squeeky clean? Or at least trying to be clean (human foibles being what they are) and prepared to deal with corruption, degeneracy etc in an open and honest way?

Whatever its failings (human and political) at least we could respect and support that.

For example the latest scandal of the £30,000 raised to buy the Truth Truck. Some are now saying that the Truck is in fact used and others say the Truck wasn't even bought by the BNP. This is being hushed up because the BNP claim a legal case they are fighting, for use of a copyrighted image of UKIP leader Farrage, means they cannot debate the Truth Truck, but a legal expert has scoffed at this, stating it is simply not true.

£30K is small beer to Westminster crooks and degenerate thieves, but to a working man with a family struggling in the bankster/usury-caused recession this is not loose change! It's the principle not the amount.

But let's overlook all that.

Because we can be dismissed as "irrelevant" not to mention as "evil nazis" or "political dinosaurs" or even "ideological necrophiliacs" not to mention "14 words masturbators" (that last one being especially touching for sincere racial nationalists!) surely such rumination on the innards of the BNP can be forgiven by the successful band of BNPers?

Mere jealousy and bile they will say. Good luck to them! Why shoud they care of a voice crying in the wilderness however sincere, charitable, well-meaning and (dare I say it) genuinely nationalist?

So the broadcast itself.

No doubt the Blood and Honour supporters who buy BNP papers, cover BNP activities in their mag and make up some of the BNP activist base will be thrilled to hear the BNP use the epithet "evil nazis" as it too out-do a Spielberg film.

This of course in the shadow of the open acceptance of the "six million holocaust" (notwithstanding the character assassination of David Irving for doing far less some years back!).

But we can see where things are heading with the denunciation of Muslims and the defence of Britons [sic] and I quote, of "the Jewish faith" being attacked by these evil Muslims. Islam is picked apart, whilst (for example!) Judaism is defended... are not both equally anti-Christian? In fact when it comes to Jesus Christ Himself, Judaism is far more vociferous, twisted and hate-filled.

Who wrote this? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Aaronovitch? Philips?

If Mr. Griffin is out to defend the Christianity of Britain he would do well to think of who has attacked Christianity over, for example, the last two centuries. Let's not even mention the banking system and the people behind the usury which has ruined so many peoples' lives and kept others in a form of permanent slavery.

But dear reader some will say this is the mere fixation of an "anti-Semite." Let's skip all the anomalies (who are Semites, Zionism and Judaism versus Jewish people per se) in that statement for now and move on from the hang-over of this being the "most Zionist party" according to the extremist Zionist 'Board of Deputies of British Jews.'

Imagine all the talk over the last few years of 'Islamofascists' and the open appeal for Jewish votes for the BNP in the mayoral election on those very grounds were null and void. As were the justifications of Israeli war crimes against the Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Ignore them!

Let us treat the BNP as if it were still an anti-Zionist party.

Let's be fair and give it the benefit of the doubt.

OK?

Right.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the broadcast is the part where the BNP leader deals with immigration.

Now I am pretty sure that what was said was that the problem is not the offspring of immigrants from the 50s and 60s? From that presumably we can extrapolate into the 70s and the millions of descendants and dependants of the "Ugandan Asians" and others.

Now some will argue that this is Realpolitik, doing the achievable rather than pipe dreams.

My problem is this. When you tell a lie about a policy or ideal that is central to your core belief, you betray the very basis for your existence.

Let's put it this way.

When NuLabour had their Clause 4 (?) moment they overturned their call for the nationalisation of industry et al.

It got them voted in. It won them the praise of the Masonic newspaper barons, bankers and captains of industry.

But from that moment on they were no longer socialists and from that moment on the betrayal of their grass roots grew ever greater, culminating in an illegal war for right-wing Zionist Neo Cons, something that the old, Socialist, principled Labour Party would never have done (does that remind you of the BNP's latter support for Israel - unthinkable even a few years back).

So when the BNP lie that there is no problem with the sons of immigrants, they should look at the drugs gangs in South London, the gun-totting gangs in Manchester and the muggers in other towns -- most (but not all, of course) of them the rootless descendants of original immigrants who came here decades ago, some of them with the best of intentions and even "loyal" in some misguided sense, to the Crown and the embers of the Empire (one thinks here, as an analogy, of the Ulster Loyalists who called for "Loyal" Hong Kong Chinese to move to Northern Ireland in the 90s).

So the idea that "settled" communities cause no problem, that the descendants and dependents of those original immigrants cause no problems or - as I've outlined on this blog before - that a false claim of "it's space not race" simply will not stand.

Seeing the war criminal and pawn of the Zionists, Winston Churchill, wheeled out sticks in my craw. We should expect it from the Tories and UKIP who know no better... but racial nationalists? Please! Whatever next - Bomber Harris as the "liberator of occupied Europe?"

So there's my thoughts for a penny.

The BNP can ignore them, and good luck to them in doing so.

I just hope racial nationalists will look back at the 'formation' of NuLabour amidst the Socialist organisation known officially as the Labour and Co-Operative Party and bear those lessons in mind.

Success at any price isn't all it's cracked up to be. Fini did that in Italy and is now just another right-wing Tory Masonic politician, chumming up to the class clown Berlusconi.

The future of the BNP will be interesting to watch. I suppose we should hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

We sure do live in interesting times.

The BNP, MI5 & Zionism: A Long Term Objective?

THE REAL ENEMY

Right: The next leader of the "free world" is already guaranteed to be a Zionist. Who runs the banking system? Who controls our political parties? Who runs the media? Who rules Hollywood? Who controls Big Business? Hint for BNP members: it ain't "the muzzies."

An interesting link (see first link below) here for two reasons.

1. The fact that John Tyndall, albeit self-induced to some degree, seems to realise that his party was taken over as the result of a conspiracy either controlled or used by the State in the light of government/MI5 statements in the 90s re. attacking and bringing down nationalism.
2. The feedback to the piece suggests that the BNP has been turned, at least because sections of it are now draping themselves in Stars of David (remember too that Mark Cotterill's false EFP was condemned by the local Green Party for using the Israeli Flag in its electoral campaigning).

I was talking recently to European Comrades who used to be confreres with Mr. Griffin, and there is little doubt to them that has been a "turning point" (the whys and wherefores of it can be debated) because it CANNOT be debated that the nationalist movement (represented by the NF in the 70s & 80s and the BNP in the 90s) was avowedly anti-Zionist; whereas today the nationalist movement (represented by the BNP in the 00s) is, at best, now no longer anti-Zionist and, at worst, positively pro-Israel and Neo-Con in language if not in policy per se.

This not hearsay or opinion. This can be evidenced from the material out there and the increasingly Neo-Con nature of the material coming from the BNP, not to mention the Zionist language that comes from certain BNP people who are kept in their positions by the BNP leadership.

Where are the complete and convincing condemnations of Israel?

Where are the complete and convincing condemnations of Zionist power in banking, Hollywood, Big Business, Freemasonry etc.?

Of course these do not have to be in election leaflets, of course these do not have to be in headlines, of course these do not have to underpin community actions and activities, etc.

But an awareness and an education of militants as to the history of geo-politics and that the real enemy runs our parliament, banks, the City of London, Big Businesses etc. will at least ensure that nationalism isn't used and abused as a Boot Boy of Zionism.

By all means keep the "populist" language in East London, Lancashire, the Black Country etc.

But this kow-towing to Israeli policy and Neo-Con language stinks. Furthermore the grassroots of the nationalist movement know it stinks.

Left: Neo Con voices on the "right" like Richard Littlejohn (pictured) and Melanie Phillips, as well as the Neo Con voices on the "left" like Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch, ensure that the people, Labour and Tory voters, see the non-existent "Al Qaeda" as the big threat and not Zionism, Capitalism, American Imperialism, etc.

The BNP can condemn us for being "purists." The BNP can set its freelance attack dogs on us to spread smears. The BNP can close its collective eyes and convince itself that its insistence that Islam is the only enemy or the only evil that we face.

None of this will change the facts.

In the early 90s the State announced that it would destroy a nationalism that was anti-Zionist and already had its agents at work.

In the 00s we have a "nationalism" that is either ambivalent or even pro-Zionist (NB: even to accept Israel's "right" to exist is to be Zionist) and we can assume that the State agents have played their part.

As the Oriental curse goes: "May you live in interesting times."

We certainly are!




P.S. Those with long memories will remember that the leader of the BNP started his about-turn in BNP policy viz a viz Israel, Zionism etc. with a very interesting, long, fair and courteous feature/interview with David Aaronovitch (in which NG said the BNP was like a super tanker which would take a long time to turn around!). It has also been helped along with various puff pieces - dressed up as "warnings" from Nick Cohen.
Both Aaronovitch and Cohen are avowed Neo Cons whose main bugbear is "Islamofascism" or "Islamification." In other words the men who have promoted an "Islamophobic" (read Neo Con) BNP are two of the main Zionist Neo Con columnists in Britain whom, it may be assumed by some, could be in the pay of Mossad.


Links:
BNP, MI5 and Neo Cons
Aaronovitch slams anti-Zionism, even on the left!
Aaronovitch Watch
Aaronovitch Introduces a Nick Griffin Video on TV!
Nick Cohen Defends Fellow Neo Con Palin
Nick Cohen is a Right-Wing Neo Con
Aaronvitch is a Neo Con
Anti war on ex-Commie Neo Con