The 'War on Terror': A Neo Con Zionist Conspiracy of Lies

When will idiots, liberals and Neo-Cons ever learn?

Afghanistan: unwinnable and stupid war against people previously backed by CIA, with no link to 911. Corrupt pro-Western govt. put in place with links to heroin trade.
Iraq: unjustifiable and stupid war against a people with no link to 911 who kept "Islamicists" in check. Chaos created in which 'terrorists' multiply.
Libya: unjustifiable and stupid war against a people who fought "Islamicists" and kept them in check. Chaos ensues in which "Islamicists" (our erstwhile allies in the war, armed and trained by CIA etc) turn on Europeans, and spread war southwards.
Syria: unjustifiable and stupid war in which rebels are armed and trained by CIA etc. to bring chaos to an anti-Zionist country which had kept "Islamicists" in check.
Mali: Civil War amplified by "Islamicists" trained and armed by CIA in Libya, drawing in the French (and UK/USA as in Libya).
Saudi Arabia: Extremist Muslim dictatorship from which most of the "911 suspects" came from which supresses its people. No war.
Israel: Extremist, racist, genocidal state which breaks international law with impunity and has broken untold UN resolutions. Its agents were stopped in NYC on 911 with traces of explosives on them. No war.

One is tempted to think that the reason the CIA et al went into Libya, as well as to bring down an anti-Zionist and anti-usury nation, was to help 'Muslim extremists' there spread their agenda across North Africa and so create another, new chapter for their 'War on Terror' and so ensure money keeps flowing into the military big businesses, Zionist pressure groups and similar.

If all this confuses you, ask yourself this one question:

IF THE MAIN JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 'WAR ON TERROR' IS TO FIGHT 'MILITANT ISLAM' why oh why then have "the West" armed, trained and helped those very same Islamicists in Libya since the 1980s, and in Syria since the Civil War began?

IF THE MAIN JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 'WAR ON TERROR' IS FOR REVENGE ON 911 why oh why then have the states with the strongest links, Saudi Arabia and Israel still retained the status as America's greatest allies.

It all has the stench of Orwell's Big Brother lying to us.

Even a cursory look at the geo-political alliances, adventures and objectives should make you realise that we are being lied to on a grand scale!

The Irish Minister Who Wished Ireland had Fought Germany (Preparing for Iran?)

Alan Shatter TD, Minister for Justice & Equality

As I mentioned the other day, it was recently Holocaust Memorial Day, and there was the usual smattering of WW2 propaganda dressed up as sob-stories to pull at one's heart strings in the media (though thankfully less than previous years). I believe one newspaper even gave out a free onion which readers could peel in a pocket if they were insufficiently moved; not incidentally by stories of the gulags, of firestorms, of Cossacks or Caucasus communities wiped out en masse... no the suffering seems limited to just a few - really, just one - group of people.

And the stoopidest story? Well we've all heard of the real fairy tales of different coloured smoke for different nationalities being incinerated and other miracles (read Michael Hoffman's revisionist cartoon book for some of the best - I think it was called Tales of the Holocaust). But for this year the worst statement has to come from Alan Shatter (how apt!), the Irish Justice Minister, who said:

"in the context of the holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy."

I wonder how well that went down in Ireland! He's trying to link the Irish with the Swiss (and Spaniards and Portuguese, and Swedish) in that by our modern misconceptions and after 60 plus years of WW2 war propaganda no nation should have stayed out of WW2! It was everyones' duty, according to him and the "wisdom" of this (Zionist) media age in the shadow of umpteen Hollywood films, to join the war and fight Nazi Germany!

And here we have the dichotomy of nationalism, especially for those who haven't moved on from the last century. Many British nationalists think WW2 was wonderful, historically speaking. The 'patriots' of groups like UKIP (and to a lesser extent the BNP, English Democrats, EDL and suchlike) still talk in terms of Germany taking-over Europe. Then we have the National Socialists in groups like the British Movement to whom Hitler could do no wrong (even when he backed anti-British Indians and the IRA), and it was the duty of all racial patriots to fight for Germany, especially against Soviet Russia. I suppose you might say the difference is like that between former blackshirts AK Chesterton who joined the British Army, and William Joyce who went to Berlin and broadcast for Hitler's Germany.

And in the middle are the nationalists who aren't NS, but aren't worshippers of the Westminster State either, who to one degree or another think that "No More Brothers Wars" is the ideal, and that the war was ultimately fought for bankers. Some may think that Hitler played into their hands. Others may think he was their victim.

Wherever you fall in this sliding scale of State/Racial Nationalism (and I know it's oversimplified, but how else may one express it rather than going into a 10,000 word essay?) you would have to be some kind of uber-moron to call on all neutral nations to enter a war which was primarily between France/Britain and Germany; America and Russia not joining the Allies until 1941 - the former from official neutrality (albeit the US State was backing Britain, though charging interest), the latter from a hitherto pro-German standpoint (ordering its acolytes in Britain to all but sabotage the war effort in factories and suchlike).

Given that Ireland had fairly recent memories of not only a war against Britain, but also a fratricidal Civil War in which many Irish families even fought against each other, it is highly dubious and a gross rewriting of history to suggest Ireland should have fought Germany in WW2. Like most neutral nations there is evidence of Ireland leaning one way or another. Many UKIPers and the like point to their telegram to Germany in 1945 to commiserate on the death of their Fuhrer. Yet historians have shown how Ireland helped the Allies by marking points on the Atlantic coast as navigation aids for the Allies. Just as neutral Argentina tended to lean towards Germany (at least in the first half of the war), so neutral Ireland leaned towards the British, e.g. handing over downed German pilots.

Yet according to Mr Shatter (no, I really haven't made that up) Ireland should have sent hundreds of thousands of its men to die in a war started to protect Poland from a power that invaded it in September 1939, which ended by handing over the entirety of Poland (and other European nations) to a power that... er... invaded it in September 1939.


What a waste.

Of course the difference is "the holocaust." As Mr, Shatter dribbled (no doubt busy peeling his free onion) it was "in the context of the holocaust." That is why, 60 odd years on we still have holocaust propaganda; because without it, WW2 would be just like WW1 for most people -- a colossal waste of lives, of money, of time. It is only "the holocaust" that differentiates WW2, and makes it some sort of "holy war" to free Europe's Jews, and deliver them to freedom (by letting them occupy Palestine).

It is all one long trick, a con trick to justify a war that did not give Poland her freedom, that levelled European cities only to deliver Poland to 50 odd years of Communist slavery and tyranny. e.g. we never hear of the amount of Poles who died in WW2, or the number of Poles incarcerated in German concentration camps, or in Soviet gulags - never mind atrocities such as Katyn. When Poles went to Auschwitz in 1998 to erect crosses in memory of all the Poles who were kept in the work camps (and those who died in them) it was Zionist Jews who poured urine over the Poles, said the crosses must be removed, and engaged in a huge campaign to evict nuns who had set-up at Auschwitz (which the Church shamefully capitulated to).

Even if they accept the fictitious "six million" you see, there is no way the Polish people can be allowed to distract people from the holocaust story. The Poles aren't allowed to show that Polish Christians suffered, that the Polish nation was ripped apart, that Poles were displaced and killed, and that (most tellingly of all!) 6 years of war, launched on the pretext of freeing Poland, delivered Poland into 5 decades of gulags, murder, torture, suffering and totalitarian repression.

As Brits looking back we are told that we must remember the liberation of Auschwitz and Dachau. We cannot be allowed to remember the liberation of Poland, because despite being the central war aim -- and especially as it never happened despite being the pretext of war in 1939!

If I were an Irishman, I would slap Mr Shatter in the face with an old kipper. No, Ireland should not have entered WW2. It had no duty to do so. Not one Irishman was threatened, Ireland's sovereignty was not threatened. Tens of thousands of Irish lives were saved by Ireland's decision not to enter WW2 and there is no evidence that one single Jewish death (e.g. from typhus due to Allied mass bombing of German infrastructure in 1945) could have been averted. If the holohoax is to be used (or according to those like Prof Norman Finkelstein, abused), then Ireland's decision was justified, and if Poland's freedom is to be used, then Ireland's decision was justified too.

Some UKIPers and Freemasons may mislabel the Irish as traitors (to whom?). Some Zionists may like to think all neutral nations should not have been neutral ("in the context of the holocaust").

But what does this matter today? Well, those nations who say no to Zionist controlled America (Israel's mouthpiece) when it comes to highly questionable wars, whether old ones (like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya) or new ones (like Syria and Iran) are often called cowards, traitors etc. The misquoted, out of context words of Iran's Ahmadinajad (about "wiping Israel off the map") are used as if to apply the same holocaustianity-lined pressure on neutral countries who question the legality of wars against sovereign nations on highly questionable, flimsy or put-up ("sexed up" if you will) evidence.

Historically neutral or non-Zionist countries (like Ireland) should be free to question the geo-political events as they unfurl, not least events such as the Israeli commando assault on the charity flotilla heading for Palestine, which had a lot of support in Ireland.

Sadly the words of Mr Shatter increase the myth of the holocaust, increase it's "Holy" nature, its position as the centre of a new religion (a kind of gentile Phariseeism whose aim is the total protection of Israel) and that is why Mr Shatter's words are not about a war in the middle of the last century; rather they reflect on the geo-political events of today.

How long before politicians, in Ireland and elsewhere, are telling us all that another war is necessary lest "another holocaust" happens? A line already used, incidentally, by the likes of Melanie Philips, David Aaronovitch and the other paid mouthpieces of Israel in our controlled media; and so undoubtedly the line of attack in Western countries by Israel itself.

Mr Shatter's "in the context of the holocaust, Irish neutrality was a principle of moral bankruptcy" is already being translated into the British politicians' "in the context of the holocaust, British neutrality on the matters of Syria and Iran is a principle of moral bankruptcy."

===



P.S. I do not expect trolls, Zionists and Reds to believe me; but on searching for an image of Mr Alan Shatter, Irish Minister for Justice & Equality, I found out from Wikipedia: "Shatter was born in Dublin to a Jewish family... He supports Tottenham Hotspur Football Club,^[2] and is the only Jewish member of Dáil Éireann."

I had no idea when I wrote the above piece that Mr. Shatter is Jewish (or stereotypically a Spurs supporter) - merely that his comments were extraordinarily twisted and working to an agenda. This supports my thesis that Mr Shatter's comments aren't so much/only about rewriting Irish history, but of pushing an agenda for accepting future wars that are in Israel's interests and those of extreme Zionists, Neo Con warmongers and those who seek to profit from needless war (and not the Irish, British or any other disinterested peoples).

Mission Accomplished!

"We've done Iraqistan, Afghanland... onto Irania!

"For democracy, Lehmans and illegal settlements!"

George Dubya.

911: Cannot Justify Zionist Wars

It's "911" and let's suspend our critical faculties for a moment.

Al Qaeda was not a CIA construct. Osama was not a created bogeyman. America was not in the middle of changing its Mid East policy to be isolationist. There was not a Mossad hit squad in NYC with a van stopped by sniffer dogs for having traces of explosive...

No. Let us be unthinking Sun readers and be more interested in Eastenders plot-lines than the kind of events that impact on global socio-political events.

So, after all that, we can say these Islamicists killed circa 3000 people in NYC that fateful day. A terrible event. 3000 innocents. Many,many families effected.

Yet even if we accept the Rothschild-News agencies' line on the events, I am forced to ask why is 911 seen as the most dreadful event of the last 10 years when it is generally agreed that the insidious, questionable, indeed illegal invasion of Iraq is generally agreed to have resulted in the deaths of circa 100,000?

Even if one takes out the "nasty" Iraqis, the "terrorists" such as those who followed the plans laid out by Winston Churchill in 1940 in the event of a German invasion, we are left with dozens of thousands of innocents. Many, many families effected.

It is a sign of Americanism, of a myopic worldview, that today so many people will dampen their hankies in memory of 3000 innocents who sadly lost their lives (at the hands of CIA/Mossad - no, no... I mustn't) and there will not be a single thought of the American criminals who orchestrated a war that was downright illegal and butchered so many more innocents.

I am reminded of the constant barrage of holocaust memorials and history lessons, whilst the 30 million Ukrainians wiped out by the Bolsheviks are a footnote of history, or the millions of Christian Poles who died in the war are also a footnote.

One might be forgiven for erroneously thinking that the fate of innocent Americans and Jews takes precedent over the fate of the many more innocents who just happened to be Iraqis, Ukrainians or Poles.

I could forgive the Americans their 911 day events, if they in turn did not use those events to kill so many others, and still think those events can be used to justify all manner of stupid decisions (even the Patriot Act which impacted upon the freedoms of Americans themselves!).

I suppose my concern is that 911 Day will become like Holocaust Day, a highly politicised event used to justify Neo Con/Zionist atrocities and illegalities across the world, and every time someone points the finger, we'll have 911 dangled in their face, like the holocaust, designed to mollify any criticism.

You don't think anyone would be so underhand as to use the death of innocents to further political ends? What exactly do you think the invasion of Iraq was?

More Than Taboo: Emotional Blackmail Used to Justify Dubious Wars

Those promoting the pro-Israel, quasi-Neo Con line or "it's all the Muslims" lines in Nationalism must be ostracised.

One doesn't haven't to appreciate all this bloke's lines to see there is something wrong. In fact it is a shame he overlooks the fact that even religiously, given the Incarnation of Jesus Christ (after all, we are supposed to be a Christian country), the "right" of Jews to Palestine is negated: The New Covenant is between Christ and His Church, not the Jews who rejected Christ; and especially not those who converted to Judaism hundreds of years after Christ died.

Food for thought...

BTW - why aren't we, in the school system, ever told of the numbers of millions of Christian Russians, Ukrainians, Balts etc, who were killed in the gulags or via forced starvation by the Communists? is it because they were European Christians? Is it because Communists are still involved in politics and education? Is it because the Communist regime was run by a certain Jewish faction (as detailed by Churchill- hardly a "nazi")?

There does seem an inverse racism at play.

Millions were killed in Rwanda in a terrible tribal conflict, yet we still "worry" about one group in a conflict 60 years ago in which so many peoples suffered (not least the Germans and Russians). What do you think Africans make of that?

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)

Obama: American Neo Con Mujahadeen

Oi Neo Cons!

Never mind the "Caliphate" -- we are living under American hegemony: urged on by the AIPAC controlled US Congress (which cheered the Israeli war criminal Netenyahoo/Netanhairdo).

It is the Zionist Neo-Cons running the world, running Wall Street who are taking us into needless wars and crashing our economies.

Enough of the Zionist lies already!

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.

What About Israel's Illegal Nukes Mr Blair?

As Mr Blair makes his appearances before tough interviewers like BBC liberal Andrew Marr (ha ha), he not only fails to see how he is responsible for giving 'American' Neo Con war criminals a fig leaf of "legal" coverage for their illegal war, he is already promoting war against Iran on the subject of... WMDs!

Pinch me - I'm dreaming... albeit a dark nightmare.

Mr. Blair - please tell me why you aren't concerned about illegal Israeli nukes.

After all, whilst Iran (like Iraq before it) lets the weapons inspectors in: Israel doesn't.

Why is Israel a different case? Why does the USA give Israel cover at the UN against resolutions?

Mr Blair, you know that Israel already threatened Russia with nukes. Are you really happy with a belligerent state run by loose cannons that have started wars with neighbours in recent years having nuclear weapons?

If we started a war with Iraq over non-existent WMDs and are now getting wound up against Iran when they say all their development is for nuclear power; why is the elephant in the room -- illegal Israeli nuclear weapons -- being ignored?

Bob Diamond New Barclay's Boss is a CFR Lifer

Multi-Millionaire "Casino Banker" Bob Diamond is, according to his page on Barclays.com, a:

Life Member of The Council on Foreign Relations

The CFR is one of the world government bodies that decides how we plebs should have our lives run.

Right: You can bet that every PM will put the agenda of the globalists first.

According to the same site:

Barclays Capital opened an office in Tel Aviv, Israel's main financial centre, in 2008.

Even the Dark Lord of the Sith, Peter Mandelson, described Mr. Diamond as the "unacceptable face of banking" (a veritable sibling left v. right squabble).

How comforting that as we suffer because of bail-outs to gambling banksters, those who profited like Mr. Diamond get further rewards.

In the shadow of Mr. A. Blair having 8 homes and becoming a multi-millionaire on the back of illegal wars, we have to ask why those who do the most to risk our security (actual and financial) seem to reap the reward... whoops. Answered my own question.

Oh. By the way - Blair met with the head of the CFR and the President of Georgia, just weeks before Georgia instigated a war with Russia in another oil-rich region.

Here's the details from the Yes Ukraine website:

Karl Rove
Former Deputy Chief of Staff to George W. Bush and Chief Strategist for Bush's Presidential Campaigns

Richard Haass
President, Council on Foreign Relations

Tony Blair Prime
Minister of the United Kingdom (1997-2007)

Mikhаil Saakashvili
President of Georgia

Victor Pinchuk
Founder of EastOne, Founder and Member of the Board of YES [and Soros buddy]

Klaus Mangold
Chairman of East–West Committee of German Industry;
Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Rothschild & Cie, Frankfurt

All chums together, 10-13 July, 2008, one month before Georgia staged this war.

Rome 410AD - Lessons For Today

On Wednesday morning the BBC Radio 4 news programme 'Today' did a feature on the sacking of Rome in 410, the event that started the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, an event that would have repercussions down the Centuries.

Right: Alaric the King of the Visigoths.

It has long been accepted that the "barbarians" were in fact Christians and Roman-allies, but it was interesting to hear the view of a German historian based in Rome on the events of 1600 years ago.

Furthermore when he related the events, I couldn't help think of events closer to home, in relation to both Zionist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recent internal events in the BNP.

Some people aren't aware that the Visigoths, led by Alaric I, were Roman allies and Christians, nor that they had fought many battles against the "Western Romans" on behalf of the "Eastern Romans" nor that they ran a virtually autonomous region of the Roman Empire.

The German historian on Today said that the reason the Visigoths sacked Rome was that the Roman Emperor had not paid them. They had earlier besieged Rome, only to leave once paid. But this time they sacked it. The German historian (whose name I forget!) said the sacking could well have been taking treasure, as opposed to burning the city to the ground.

As virtual-Romans we might think the Visigoths wouldn't destroy Rome, but then Medieval armies would often burn down towns in their own country and often even attack churches, when you might think their sensibilities would dictate otherwise.

Anyway, back to the Visigoths.

Did the Roman Emperor at the time think that by not paying an army that was essential to the security of the Empire (it's frontier against other Germanic tribes) he was doing something that would go unnoticed? Clearly his eye was taken off the "bigger picture" -- perhaps he was greedy, perhaps he was a betrayer, or maybe he was just careless and stupid.

Either way, a people that he should have ensured were looked after and kept (to use the quaint analogy) in the tent "piddling" out, were forced out of the tent, "piddling" in.

As Captain Alberto Bertorelli might have said in the 80's TV series 'Allo 'Allo: "What a mistake-a to make-a."

So why the relevance to Zionist Wars and the BNP.

Zionist Wars:

In Iraq it wasn't until the Americans learnt to employ (pay) former insurgent enemies that relative peace happened. Should the pay stop - which some now hint at - the violence could easily start again.

In Afghanistan, many pundits are now admitting that relative peace will not come until the Taliban are brought into talks, ultimately to share power, run swathes of the country and suchlike, which will mean giving them either semi-autonomy (like the Visigoths) or paying their wages.

To those who rant that we cant work with Islamists, others point to Northern Ireland and the example of former IRA people being paid by the British State - i.e. employed by the Stormont devolved government. I suppose if these positions et al were withdrawn the small band.

All this teaches us that one-time enemies (Germans to the Romans) can become allies, and one-time close allies doing an important job in keeping the peace, the machinery, running smoothly (Visigoths to the Romans) can become the very force that brings the whole structure crumbling to the ground.

If the Americans and their puppet regimes try to assert their power against the new allies, the whole power structure of Iraq could unravel very rapidly. At the moment they are still trying to assert their power in Afghanistan, ignoring the elephant in the room, i.e. that the Taliban will either win via long term erosion, or will have to be brought on board a la Iraq.

BNP:

Well, nationalism per se down the decades has been awash with similar examples, yet if we are to believe reports, the Nu-BNP recent fractures and fratricides have had more to do with finances and the changing of stipends, the way wages flow etc. It makes the accusations in the 1989 NF split in which the scourge of political wages were raised (ironically by Nick Griffin) look like child's play.

All this seems to have begun when Nick Griffin and Mark Collett fell out, the latter having once been presented to the world as the person who would be the next BNP leader. Collett accused Griffin of financial skulduggery, and griffin went to the media with a story of Collett plotting murder (the police later dropped its investigation for lack of admissible proof).

Despite many councillors, and power-bases come and gone, and even two MEPs, might the BNP's Rome be sacked by former loyalists initially riled by Collett's accusation of misappropriation of funds?

If Collett were kept loyal and paid his wages, he would have stayed in place and not, like Alaric, let vent to his feelings of injustice, opening the flood gates for all the other "barbarians" and the downfall of the BNP?

Iraqi Bombs, Paedophiles, Tony Blair and Happy Marriage

This morning me and Mrs FC had a "debate."

I won't say argument because after 5 years of wedded bliss we don't argue [we've been married much longer, but 5 were blissful ;-)].

So what would cause us to disagree?

We were watching an interview with Kevin Ivison, a former bomb disposal expert who worked in Iraq with the British Army. In his book 'Red One: A Bomb Disposal Expert on the Front Line' he explains his work and the shortcomings of the British Army.

Here's a synopsis from Waterstones:

This is the gripping true story of a young bomb disposal officer and his terrifying experiences in Iraq facing daily rocket attacks and terrorist bombs. When two of his colleagues are killed by a roadside bomb, Kevin Ivison is called in to defuse a second even deadlier bomb just a hundred yards from the bodies of his friends. To make things worse, the entire area is under fire from snipers, and a crowd of angry Iraqis have begun to hurl petrol bombs...With little chance of living through this impossible task, Kevin leaves final messages for his loved ones and sets out alone towards the bomb that he is sure will be the last thing he sees. In this gut-wrenching tale of heroism and survival, Kevin Ivison explains why he chose to be a bomb disposal expert in the first place, how he found the courage to face his death, and the unendurable stress that has given him nightmares ever since.

Whilst watching this brave man being interviewed Mrs FC revealed her radical side when she said that paedophiles should be taken out of prison, sent to war zones and made to clear the bombs.

I interjected that it should be Tony Blair and the other warmongers who were made to do bomb disposal.

There was a distinct frostiness in the air as I put the jam on my toast and stirred my tea.

Then I rescued the situation by telling Mrs FC about how Neo Cons in America were already demanding Obama should attack Iran and how Hans Blix (former UN Weapons Inspector) was saying how ridiculous this was in the shadow of an illegal war over non-existent WMDs.

She concurred, and wedded bliss reigned once more in Le Maison Degrelle.

A lesson for all you newlywed youngsters methinks.


Link:
Waterstones

Are Extremist Groups Pressure Valves?

There is an interesting article in today's Sunday Telegraph - a paper known for its Secret State connections, and often used to put out stories with a 'spook' spin.

Right: Sadly the word repatriation today has far more to do with the bodies of hundreds of British servicemen coming home from needless Neo Con wars in coffins. By opposing Neo Con wars and looking to resettle non-Europeans we can actively seek friendship with Non-European nationalists and regimes for the betterment of all concerned.

Andrew Gilligan (of Dr David Kelly-leak fame) has reported that "extremist" Islamic groups could be used by Westminster as a safety valve for those 'radicalised' by political events.

Part of the government intelligence he refers to says that activists "do not progress" to terrorism through such groups.

The group Hizb ut Tahrir (HuT) - Gilligan tells us - condemns terrorism and regards integration as "dangerous." Perhaps it is for the latter reason that David Cameron called for a ban on HuT when he was in opposition?

The government paper 'Government strategy towards extremism' said that "individuals do not progress through non-violent extremist groups to violent groups" and that the former "may also provide a legal 'safety valve' for extreme views."

Perhaps if these groups educated people that Al Qaeda, '911' and the 'War on Terror' are all Neo Con-organised myths and smokescreens instead of acting up to their bogeyman image, they wouldn't give as much ammunition to the Neo Cons and their plastic patriot hangers on waving their little Israeli flags.

Certainly opposition to integration is a far more advanced and honest approach than the various Marxist and Zionist groups who want all native Britons to accept Third World immigrants into our communities, schools, work and even our families!

White, Christian nationalists could support Asians who wish to keep Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine for their own peoples, if the Asians in turn would return home and let us keep England for the English, Wales for the Welsh, Scotland for the Scottish and so on.

In a move that would see us break free of needless Zionist wars and the thralldom of banksters, we could agree to trade and more, whilst acknowledging the freedom of any Britons who wish to be Muslims in return for the many Palestinians, Iraqis etc. who are Christians.

Seeking such friendly terms of trade, information exchanges, diplomacy etc. with the entire Asian, Arab and other countries could help bring about an era of peace and prosperity for their continent(s) and for ours.

The financed, phased and humane resettlement of millions of non-Europeans would also help Asia and Africa with a wealth of compatriots returning who are well-educated, industrious, financially well-off, tradesmen etc.

Our countries would in turn be rewarded with social cohesion, indigenous communities, and a return to a collection of nations self-confident in their identities, with additional cultures and cosmopolitanism available via small, controlled settlement of Europeans as has always happened in our history (French, Irish, Italian etc.).

It is often said that to end a war (short of oblivion and one side being wiped out, innocents and all) one must sit and talk with one's enemies. Certainly in this day and age we have been dragged down the road of fighting other peoples' wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and I'm sure they would like Iran next on the list) and it has done nothing to help us. On the contrary it has cost us in huge volumes of money, human lives lost, mutilated bodies, less safety at home and abroad.

Might world peace and the mass resettlement of Third World immigrants, for the betterment of all concerned, begin with men of goodwill from all sides agreeing to oppose integration, and to discuss in a mature manner the logistics and advancements available to all via resettlement, trade and peace?

Otherwise we continue being backed into corners, shouting slogans and achieving precious little as our enemies destroy all European cultures, every last vestige of Christianity, our history, our heritage, our very communities.

Has the time come when serious nationalists throw off the slogans of a dying system and put the future of our peoples first? Or will we take the crumbs and shekels from the top table and stay content in our corner as everything we hold dear slowly dies in a quagmire of multi-culti, big business-sponsored anti-culture?

I'd like to think nationalists could see beyond the sloganeering, beyond the Neo Con war headlines and take a stance that might deliver racial, national and cultural freedom.

Recent history, sadly, makes me doubt that they will.

Tony Blair's Real Iraq Agenda

War criminal and profiteer Tony Blair outlines his strategic policy.

Neo Cons Not Only Lied: They Were Totally Wrong

It's always annoying when anyone says "I told you so..." so I won't.

Dame Manningham-Buller the former head of MI5 said the Iraq war was a big mistake because the ("sexed-up dossier") intelligence was wrong, Iraq had no link to '911,' the war "radicalised" Muslims here, and the war allowed "Al Qaeda" to enter Iraq - something they hadn't done previously.

Now, without appearing like a beaming know-all in a CND shirt in a post-nuclear apocalypse scenario, whilst the "civic nationalists" and plastic "Blame the Muslims" quasi-Neo-Cons in groups like the BNP were itching for war to bash 'the Muzzies', Third Positionists were crystal clear that the war was wrong.

We said this BEFORE the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Let's not forget all the dead on both sides too - all for meaningless Neo Con sabre rattling buffoons to assert their authority, knock Israel's enemies, and make a lot of money.

It's long been the case, but even more so now: The pro-Israeli idiots in the 'nationalist' parties (at whatever level) should be expelled.

Those who back Israel have cost us a lot in tax pounds, and cost the lives of many a dead soldier.

They were and are idiots and traitors and no nationalist should have any truck with them.

Kelvin Mackenzie on Raoul Moat: War Criminals Should Stay Quiet

Nice to see ex-Sun editor on last night's 'This Week' (on BBC1) saying that there are a lot of idiots out there, on the back of internet fan forums for the killer Raoul Moat.

Right: Mackenzie's The Sun said "The Truth". In fact it was all lies. The Sun is a notorious rag that lies to suit its own ends. It is overtly Zionist.

Yes Kelvin. And they have been moulded by the likes of The Sun with its "tits n bums" and braindead Zionist politics.

If there is a generation of the braindead, it has been created by the likes of The Sun and Eastenders, for only the braindead could really treat either of these anti-cultural edifices with their hidden agendas as anything but a sick bloody joke.

Even worse Mackenzie waxed lyrical about a policeman who has lost his sight, peeling an onion in his pocket to get those kind of Yad Vashem tears so beloved of the political, journalist and bankster class.

How many Iraqis and Afghans have been blinded by 'ordinance' dropped on their countries by war-mongering bastards backed up the kind of braindead politics of the 'Page 3 lovely' Sun?

He feigns distress over one blinded copper - which was a terrible event - but put that against all the Palestinian children tortured, shot and kidnapped for their organs by the illegal Zionist entity that The Sun always supports, no matter what!

Cry tears for them Mackenzie you low life piece of human trash!

Peel an onion for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Lebanese - men, women and children who have died, been mutilated, been driven out etc. etc. by Israel, America and Britain: the Zionist triumvirate given all but unconditional support by The Sun.

If the words last night had come from someone who hadn't edited the Zionist rag The Sun from 1981 to 1994 (and who has continued to write for it from 2006) we might be inclined to agree, but for anyone who joined in the Zionist jingoistic BS and the 45 minutes outright lies which led to so much death and destruction (all war crimes) then we have to treat them as highly suspicious window dressing for an apologist for war criminals.

Julius Streicher was hanged at Nuremberg for publishing a paper that supported Adolf Hitler.

Were there war crimes trials today for the many illegal Zionist wars and the war criminals behind them, might not Mackenzie by strung up?

Or is an apologist for Zionist war criminals somehow different (history being written by the victor and all that).

I for one will take no lessons on Raoul Moat from the likes of Kelvin Mackenzie.

Nor will the relatives of the dead of the Hillsborough tragedy after which The Sun told barefaced and outright lies about the event to the absolute outrage of everyone who was there.

Go on Kelvin. Cry for them!

More Bad Laws Cannot Stop Slide to Amoral Britain

There are too many bad laws being passed say ex-Whitehall mandarins in a new report.

As if we didn't know that!

Every press headline brings in a new law.

Right: NuLab's laws on public demonstrations, the anti-Terror laws which give the police powers to stop people wearing political t-shirts, to expel people from government meetings and preventing demonstrations outside parliament are particularly bad laws, pushed through on the back of the questionable "9/11," "7/7." etc. as NuLab rushed to follow Bush's Neo-Con regime. Despite his blusterings Cameron's ModCons would have done the same.

We are living under a nanny state which reacts to media pressure with knee-jerk reaction laws as a means to placate the mass media and thus win headlines in a short term attempt to garner popular support (via the mass media!)

Which in turns leads me to the report* this week in which it was revealed that tolerance of homosexuality has risen in the last 20 odd (very odd!) years from circa 30% to circa 60%.

Lots of pundits and columnists asked the question "why?"

There is no doubt that the mass media played its part in this. For years the BBC in particular has operated as a kind of pink mafia, and one only has to hear of continued story-lines in Eastenders which promote homosexuality as (sick buckets at the ready) a "valid lifestyle choice" to understand that there has been a media campaign to liberalise attitudes.

Coming back to the "bad laws" scenario, another key aspect of the alleged change in 'social attitudes' was the New Labour repeal of Section 28 and all the pro-homosexual laws they passed, including the legalisation of what they hope will in effect become known as homosexual "marriage."

Whilst the government often finds it has no time for badly needed legislation, or more often to give sufficient time for proper and serious debate on matters as diverse as war, id cards, police powers, immigration, drugs, the banking system and similar issues.

Despite all this, the New Labour government miraculously found the time to pass law after law in favour of homosexuality.

With senior NuLab commissars recently admitting that they let hundreds of thousands of non-European immigrants flood in on purpose to socially engineer our society and undermine the national identity of the English in particular, playing fast and loose with the fabric of our communities to force through their own twisted racial dogmas, can we be in any doubt whatsoever that their insistence on pushing through homosexual laws, for the benefit of the circa 0.5% of the population that are practicing homosexuals, was yet another questionable and Bolshevik-style attempt to force through their Socialist Credo and use the weight of the law to back up an insidious mass media portrayal of homosexuality as "normal?"

In time history will judge New Labour as an evil regime. They forced an unwanted war on the people using a dodgy dossier and lies to parliament; they forced millions of immigrants on the country during their tenure, to forcibly change the face of the UK; and in order to socially engineer society and push their bastardised vision of "the family" they have passed unwanted and bad laws to act as the stick against the media's carrot, so that even Christian b&b owners are forced to let out double rooms to sodomites.

There are a lot of bad laws and a lot of bad decisions made by the politicians. But not all of them have been knee-jerk: many have been carefully thought through to promote the Zionist and Liberal ideals of New Labour.

The sad thing is that David Cameron has already made it clear that he supported and supports the war in Iraq. Furthermore all the Tories state the "great benefits" mass immigration has allegedly brought (more au pairs, more fancy restaurants, more cleaners - for MPs!). Cameron has also insisted that his plans for tax-incentives for families will include "civil partners" so in the modern Conservatives' regime a sodomite couple will be on a level par with a family bringing children into this world to pay the taxes that will pay for our future pensions.

In other words when NuLab are replaced by the ModCons, nothing will change. Economic policy may move a few degrees to the "right" (whilst staying in cahoots to the banksters and usury profiteers), but on Zionist wars, immigration and multi-culti, and on homosexuality you could slip a cigarette paper between the two.

We, as a society, are being pushed into cul-de-sac. We are the victims of New World Order (Bilderberger et al) experiments on immigration, liberalising social attitudes, continual war, abortion on demand and, as we saw with the character assassination of Dr Andrew Wakefield this week, growing vaccination campaigns as an excuse for mass medication.

The recent campaign against cervical cancer being a perfect case in point. There is evidence that in America the vaccination killed more children in the short term than the lives it would have saved in the long term!

The powers that be see us as cattle.

They herd us along via their mass media. Four legs good two legs bad has been replaced by similar chants. Immigration good, hatred bad. Homosexuality good, intolerance bad. Israel good, Libya/Syria/Iraq/Iran/and whoever next bad.

To mix metaphors, the emperor has no clothes.

The government is passing laws so that anyone who says the emperor is naked is in court on clothes-hatred charges. The media is showing programmes on how chic is the emperor's range, how it is de rigueur for anyone at the 'cutting edge' and how it is the veritable dernier cri of the fashion world (with occasional Panoramas and Dispatches on the twisted hatred of extremist Clothe-Deniers).

We now live in a state with far more police powers, far more big brother laws promoting immorality and amorality, far more social engineering ripping out the guts of the people, and the more lawlessness caused by the virtual breakdown of family life - the more powers they give the police (a police that cannot cope with the laws it already has, eg. muggings, burglaries, car crime, anti-social crimes are routinely not investigated).

Our politicians cannot break the circle. They cannot see that their 60s-style amoral codes have led to the lawlessness we see around us. They cannot see that mass immigration has fractured communities and led to a loss of identity which used to gel communities and make people look out for the 'common good' however imperfect. They cannot see that their attacks on the family and their financial promotion of single parents has led to an uncontrollable generation (especially in Afro-Caribbean families in cities like London). They cannot see that their "human rights" mania has led to an uncontrollable generation of schoolchildren who know all their "rights" (eg. that they cannot be physically punished) but know nothing of any social and communal responsibility.

Welcome to 2010, New World Order style.

It seems a mess, it seems an insurmountable challenge, and so it is whilst we have a controlled media and a corrupt political class using lawyer-speak to justify the complete betrayal of many generations following the self-sacrifice of our grandfathers in World War 2.

That said, the answers are quite simple and common sense. It just takes people with the gumption, the ideal of self-sacrifice, and men of goodwill who will fight for a just cause and not to fill their pockets (for such men are easily bought off by banksters, Zionist interests and similar).

Otherwise we face more lawlessness, more suffering, more collapse of an entire society.

Blair, Brown and all the others always say (in the shadow of their Neo-Con alliance) that their primary concern is the safety of the British people.

If that were truly the case they would act, and act now, to stop our slide into amorality, they would stop the wholesale murder of the Britons killed in the womb, they would reinvigorate the family to bring more children under the rule of a mum and a dad.

Of course these are all simplistic sound bytes, and would not solve every problem nor banish every crime; but we have to start somewhere. Nationalists have never said they can create a utopia (unlike Socialists), but we can create a society wherein morality is a norm; wherein the Common Good is at the centre of society; wherein Distributism give genuine opportunity for all and a sincere Social Justice (unlike NuLab who push a form of Bolshevism whilst making the gap between rich and poor bigger than ever before!).

Man's nature makes utopia impossible. That doesn't mean we must accept the naked emperor that is Britain today.


Link:
Ex-Whitehall Mandarins Condemn Bad Laws


*I'm sure I caught a reference on Radio 4's Today programme to the pro-homosexual report being (co-)written by the homosexual activist (and ex-That's Life presenter) Simon Hew Dalrymple Fanshawe (to give him his full name!) leading me to ask can its findings be trusted? Any further info gratefully received.

Tony Blair Advocates War With Israel!

How fascinating that in today's Iraq Enquiry the war criminal Tony Blair said that when it came to the proliferation of illegal WMDs by nations with a record of murder, attacking neighbours etc. (he meant Iraq) we should 'not take chances.'

Right: Like a Communist commissar, Mr Blair spouts his version of events, convinced that his twisted logic and political spin constitute the truth, despite what most people can see for themselves via dodgy dossiers, withdrawn weapons inspectors and a failed attempt at a UN resolution justifying invasion.

Funnily enough he then went on to warn about Iran, though of course Iran has not committed mass murder against its citizens, nor has it invaded neighbours, nor does it have illegal WMDs.

There is another Mid East country which does fill all those criteria however.

It has attacked its own citizens, it has committed mass murder, it has invaded its neighbours and it does have illegal WMDs in the shape of hidden nukes which it will not allow UN weapons inspectors to... erm... inspect (unlike Saddam funnily enough).

That terror state, that illegal WMD state, that mass murdering state is of course Israel.

So when, Mr Blair, can we expect the UK and USA to take action against Israel?

Weapons inspectors? Trade sanctions? Blockades? Perhaps an invasion?

After all Mr Blair, we shouldn't take any chances: that's your own criteria!

Funnily enough, the war criminal Blair did mention Israel at least once (please understand I watched the proceedings in between working). It was at a meeting held with Bush before thew war and Blair mentioned that they were on the phone to the Israelis a couple of times.

Fascinating.

So they are planning an illegal war against one state, on the pretext of non-existent WMDs, whilst conferring with (and propping up!) another state with an atrocious record and which does hold illegal WMDs.

Luckily Mr Blair has since moved on to various lucrative speaking engagements which have made him a millionaire many times over.

Oh... and working to bring peace to the Middle East! if you didn't laugh you'd cry!

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?

So many lies - to advance a One World Masonic Agenda

The EU President is to be merely a chairman of the EU Commission.

That's how it is being sold to us.

Yes. And abortion was brought in for medical emergencies only. Now it's used by those who want to go on skiing holidays.

Hmmm. And "civil partnerships" weren't weddings proper. Now we're told poof y is "married" and poof x has a "husband."

Indeed. And we were persuaded to vote yes (to stay in!) the EEC as a trading bloc, not as a single state with a single currency and a single President!

Of course. And war was essential because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

It all starts to make sense. And millions died to free Poland from an invading neighbour, to allow the mass murdering Communists to enslave them for decades.

Conspiracy to defraud?

Guilty as charged!