How Will America Create War with Iran? A Scenario

Food for thought.

Nationalists must not be conned by Zionist warmongers.

Milibands Show That Politics Remains a Con

There's a few stories floating around today about the Miliband brothers.

One is that David, who wanted to be Labour Party leader but failed, is now working for a City firm, making big money.

Brothers in arms?

The other is that Ed, who won the Labour Party leadership, is pictured getting into a flash sports care carrying a "green" shopping bag.

This all shows a number of things:

• The political 'leaders' all come from the same mould. 
• They think they are doing us "a favour" by not taking mega-bucks jobs and 'slumming it' in Westminster for a few hundred grand a year.
• Their friends and associates belong to the mega-bucks world, so they have no knowledge of normal life, of struggling to pay bills, of living in low-cost housing in the multi-culti hell they have created.
• That they can walk out of politics to plush jobs and placements. The more bankers etc. they help while in power, the more rewards they stand to get afterwards.
• These people - as politicos or financiers - jet around the world, yet lecture us on turning off light bulbs to 'save the planet.'
• They will carry "green" shopping bags whilst using "gas guzzling" super cars.

That is the world of the political elite. Just as when they start their foreign wars, sending in troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria (resulting in countless tens of thousands of innocent deaths), they sit safely back in Westminster plotting their non-executive placements. They talk of 'feeling the pain' of ordinary people, yet give knighthoods to usurers that cause debt.

It is all a con.

Of course the Milibands are the offspring of extremist Jewish Marxists, but they have embraced Capitalist greed, Zionist wars and the same old cycle of betrayal and reward.

It is a world of hypocrisy and hyperbole, of do as I say, not as I do, of practicing never ending war whilst preaching 'climate change' and one world humanism. And the Milibands fit in just fine and dandy.

Australian Police Obey the Bankers - Against the People

And it's not just in New York.




The police in what were once civilised lands are protecting the usury-bankers and NWO elite.



"The people" come at the bottom of a long list.

Gaddafi Executed as New World Order Warning - Talmudic Revenge?

The execution designed to silence Gaddafi.

This looks like what Michael Hoffman calls the "revelation of the method" - in other words, the Neo Cons, the NWO, the Zionists are warning others, and showing their "power" by the public murder of a patriot.

Mussolini? Streicher? Saddam? All murdered in the most painful and heinous ways - as a means to get ultimate revenge on the enemies of the bankers and their puppets; and give a warning to those who "dare" to stand against them.

With Gaddafi we also have to ask if people like Blair wanted him silenced for fear he would show all the dirty deals and subterfuge "our" leaders undertake when dealing with African and Arab countries.

This is a very interesting and informative news broadcast (would that the BBC with MI6's John Simpson would do such a thing!). How long before Ofcom do to Russia Today what they have done to Iran's Press TV and ban it from our airwaves?

Welcome to the New World Order - where "our boys" can bomb a city to "protect civilians." It all seems so.... well, Israeli!

With thanks to: Thought and Action

Blue Labour or Red Tories: Washing Powder Politics for the NWO

Blue Labour or New Labour: No Real Difference

Maurice (Lord) Glasman has created Blue Labour. Just like Peter Mandelson (now also a Lord) created New Labour. Just as their kindred across the pond were perfecting the metamorphosis from Socialist Left to Neo Con Right, in order to win power for the Israeli Lobby. It's all very Khazarite isn't it?

We are being told this is something "new" but like the 'Red Tories' this is just political party operators trying to co-opt the "centre ground."

All we are getting is Capitalism with "Gay Rights" whether it's under the Tories with their Liberal hangers-on, or under New/Blue Labour.

THERE IS NO CHOICE.

The same multi-nationals, bankers and Masons rule the roost, and the parties of choice push the same lines, just tweaked differently. We will get more 'gay rights'. We will get liberalisation of drugs laws. We will get assisted suicide.

The 60s liberal/Marxist agenda marches on.

And once these liberal laws are passed (as with the capital punishment repeal, mass abortion and homosexual legalisation) they will not be repealed by this bunch of no-marks for hire.

Welcome to the "free world." Where we vote (or 35% of us vote) to keep out some other party, so we end up with a ruling party that has way less than 10% actual support. Those politicians are in the pockets of party machinery controlled by big money.

This is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy.

Lord Glasman knows that. Oy Vey! But he wants his brand at the top instead of Brand X (Red Tories? Big Society Tories? blah blah).

Red Tories: Gay-Friendly Capitalism

It's like a battle between competing Unilever brands of washing-machine powder. Oh this one is in a red box with blue patterns, and this one is a blue box with red patterns. And look! The adverts tell us that Brand X is "better than ever before, it gets out all the stains" (as they show us a before and after with mud-caked football kit replaced by a brand new one with a heavenly ethereal shine courtesy of back-lighting).

And the dumbos go out to buy the "better than ever" Brand X that replaces the "better than ever" Brand Z that they were promised would wash clean last year, but never really did.

This is politics courtesy of the New World Order.

Meanwhile we all pay our taxes which mostly go into the pockets of the international financiers and multi-national big businesses.

As a Mr. Donaldson once intoned: Freedom, What Freedom?

Police State Run by Bankers and Masons

This bloke - as my children would say - totally 'owns' a policeman who seems to think that any protest needs to be lodged with the Big brother state, and bluffs his way by threatening to arrest someone who has done NOTHING wrong.

If only orgenised parties like the BNP stood up and denounced the banking and taxation system - based on usury slavery which should be totally illegal - they might win support from right acoss the political spectrum.

Who wants questionable and unjust wars before schools and hospitals?

Who wants taxes going to billionaire financiers when it should be given back to those paying it or small amounts taken to help the needy?

After yours of quasi-Zionist b.s. blaming the Muslims for everything [rather than coloured immigration simply being a part of the NWO assault on our freedoms and rights] and selling out to a political system run by the Masonic elites for baubles and scraps from their table; it is time that NATIONALISTS made it clear that we are the people against usury, against the financiers, against Zionism and its wars.

We have been betrayed for years.



In part one of this series the activist DOES make some mistakes - primarily confusing the "corporations" of Fascist Italy with todays Big Businesses, multi-nationals and international finance.

The Corporations of Fascist Italy were in fact akin to the medieval Guilds, and so were like the Trade Unions representatives having seats in government, so the workers from all trades had direct representation in government.

That is fascism. Fascism was a socio-economic ideal based on Christian social teaching. It was not giving the goverment to alien financiers, Freemasons and Mafioso.

This government is! It is uber-Capitalism. CAPITAL and its power, its tax, its usury, RUINS our lives, empties our pockets.

Fascism was popular. It was national. It gave freedom. It may not have been perfect, what system run by men ever could be (we live in societies not false utopias)? But compared to the debt slavery today it is a world apart.

We aren't even safe on our streets! Whilst the government gives billions to financiers and billions to needless Zionist wars, WE ARE NOT EVEN SAFE ON OUR OWN STREETS.

Why not have a war on mugging? A war on anti-social behaviour? A war on street gangs?

That would make peoples' lives much better than dropping million pound (financially speaking!) bombs on varies countries, or giving billions to mega-rich bankers.

Nationalists must start speaking these truths. Otherwise, by omission or commision, we are taking part in the biggest scandal in history - the enslavement of our people and many others too.

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!

All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace: A Must See for anyone Interested in "Jewish Revolutionaries"

Last night's BBC documentary All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, made by Adam Curtis who produced The Power of Nightmares, was very interesting.

Right: Alan Greenspan, boss of the private bank the Federal Reserve, which keeps Americans as tax-debt-slaves. The main follower of "Rand"/Rosenbaum is now one of the most powerful men in the world.

It showed that the ideology behind consumerism, banking free markets, individualism, etc. that the internet, dot.com bubble and banking boom of the 90s was run by the usual suspects.

Ayn Rand, the basis of the first episode was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum. Curtis neglects to tell us this, perhaps for fear of being labelled an Anti-Semite.

Her ideology "Objectivism" - is pure individualism, one might say Thatcherism taking to an extreme, and devoid of morality. One of her top followers was Alan Greenspan. Her grouplet fell apart when she had an affair with one of her married followers.

Degenerates, Talmudic bankers, et al. These are the Modern Degenerates and Jewish Revolutionaries written about by E Michael Jones. They dress themselves up in new clothes, tweak their ideologies (just as Neo Cons went from being Marxists to Free Marketeers), anything to create a One World, Talmudic, Banking-led, godless world.

Just as Bolshevism in 1917 and the creation of the Federal reserve in 1913 - these people are only interested in having a Masonic elite ruling over us plebs.

Times change. Names change. But the ideologies and aims remain much the same.

I am reminded of the time the "dissidents" in Iran staged their demonstrations. Thousands of people took to the streets (kind of like the anti-war or pro-hunting demos here), and the Western media spun it into 'the people' rising against a corrupt oligarchy. This was fueled by the 'democratising' Twitter phenomenon. Only it transpired that so many Twits, Twuts or Twats, were coming out of areas like New York and Jerusalem.

This is what the "democratic internet" people do not understand. Just as the elites realised that they could control the mass media, through advertising revenues, direct control by oligarchies etc., so they can control the internet, by orchestrated campaigns dumping sheer volumes of Tweets, emails, reports etc., the setting up of "alternative" or news sources - and so much more.

If Twitter were the answer, the BBC wouldn't refer to it every time there is some sort of crisis or regime change in the world.

As Curtis's documentary made clear - just as with the Bolshevik Revolution (which was also Talmudic and godless) this revolution of computing mass-democratising individualism, led to yet more centralised control by a Talmudic few (in this case Greenspan and the Federal Reserve and the big Wall Street banks).

Plus ca change.

911: The Lesson for All Patriots

I like reading Peter Hitchens column in the Mail on Sunday. He isn't always right, but he's about as close as it gets in the mainstream media. He loathes the Marxist and PC left, but he is equally as angry about the hand-wringing or Big Business right.

In today's column he all but says Osama Bin Laden wasn't behind the Twin Towers. There is only one way we can follow that. That Osama was a patsy - a willing put-up baddie by the CIA/Mossad etc. Or he was willing to take on that mantle to build his org into the No. 1 Muslim terror group (a useful idiot).

Either way he did what the Neo Cons, the NWO, the Zionists wanted.

Remember who the only people in New York celebrating were: the group of Israeli special forces with their rental van, later stopped and arrested after sniffer dogs detecting explosives - and later released quietly by George Dubya.

It all stinks to high heaven.

What else could the Zionists want but a perfect bogeyman to yell "it was us?"

Hitchens gets it wrong when he blames the Palestinians for cheering. After all, the Americans had blocked umpteen UN Resolutions against Israel which resulting in many tens of thousands of Palestinians dying - not to mention those tortured, maimed etc.

The Americans think their 3000 odd victims of 911 is a watershed. Not for the Palestinians it wasn't. They had lost that many people many times over to State sponsored terror, only for the American government to block any UN Resolutions. They also are not blind to the fact that much of the weaponry was bought with US tax-payers funds, poured into Israel.

Reverse those facts and don't you think the Americans would cheer a strike on Palestine? They sure cheered when the CIA bogeyman was (allegedly!) taken-out...

Our problem in the West is thinking that "our" victims of terror (even if we accept the terror is Islamic and not Zionist) are worth more to us, than the dead Arabs slaughtered by Zionist terror mean to the Arabs.

If our people were murdered, tortured, expelled, imprisoned in concentration camps, denied water etc. as much as the Palestinians do you not think we would rise up against our oppressors?

When we hear of Churchill's "stay behind" Resistance Fighters in secret hide-outs, armed to take out German invaders; even after a surrender -making such Resistance illegal under the Geneva Convention: would most people consider such people terrorists? Or freedom fighters?

So how do you think most Arabs look on those who struggle against a Zionist machine that has murdered hundreds of thousands, with the financial, material and political backing of America, the last Super-power?

Hitchens thinks 911 can be traced back to Palestine in that the Muslim perpetrators urged the end of injustice to the Palestinians. I think it can indeed be traced back to Palestine -- because prior to 911 Bush had said he wanted to be less involved in foreign wars (can you imagine?) and the Middle East. He was all but saying he was going to cut Israel loose.

Join the dots folks:

• Bush wants to 'pull out' of the Mid East.
• 911 Happens.
• Zionist Special Forces in NY witnessed celebrating.
• Osama (CIA) Says "It was us Muslims"
• Neo Cons step up pressure.
• Zionist Wars ensue.
• Various anti-Israeli opponents are taken out.
• "War on Terror" follows Zionist agenda.

So in short, America went from being a State that would no longer prop up Israel to the extent it had, would try to sort out its internal policies, problems etc. and not act as the world's policeman, to being at the head of Zionist policy in the Middle East and the Arab world.

Always ask: who benefits. Cui Bono?

By any stretch of the imagination the Twin Towers outrage benefits Israel, Israeli policy, the Zionist Lobby in the USA and the Neo Cons agenda overseas.

Right: Another dead Palestinian. Killed by US-backed Israel.

With the facts coming out about 911, the facts coming out about Osama, and the way world policy shifted afterwards, it is an idiot who says "911 was the Muslims."

Think about it. After 911 even the BNP grew in popularity (and media exposure!) after becoming the Anti-Muslim party. Now their usefulness is past, they are being disrupted (who is to blame you can work out for yourself). Some people made money, played the "it's all the Muslims" card and now nationalism has been wrecked (again).

Every part of the 'War on Terror' campaign was planned down to the minutest detail. It may not have all gone to plan, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

People like Hitchens are off kilter, primarily because they are too afraid to add 2 + 2. It would upset too many people. He would lose his job. He would be labeled an anti-Semite (the killer blow).

That is how the media works. And who runs the media? A handful of oligarchs who follow the Zionist line.

Democracy? Chose your poison.

US Govt Insider: 911 Was False Flag and Obama Died in 2001

Global Research (via Prison Planet)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24622

Top Government Insider: Bin Laden Died in 2001, 9/11 False Flag Attack

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations Steve R. Pieczenik says he is prepared to tell a federal grand jury the name of a top general who told him directly 9/11 was a false flag attack

Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous different influential positions under three different Presidents and still works with the Defense Department, shockingly told The Alex Jones Show yesterday that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001 and that he was prepared to testify in front of a grand jury how a top general told him directly that 9/11 was a false flag inside job.

Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. He served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations, Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior, and still works as a consultant for the Department of Defense. A former US Navy Captain, Pieczenik achieved two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards at the Harvard Medical School as he simultaneously completed a PhD at MIT.

Recruited by Lawrence Eagleburger as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Management, Pieczenik went on to develop, “the basic tenets for psychological warfare, counter terrorism, strategy and tactics for transcultural negotiations for the US State Department, military and intelligence communities and other agencies of the US Government,” while also developing foundational strategies for hostage rescue that were later employed around the world.

Pieczenik also served as a senior policy planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker and worked on George W. Bush’s election campaign against Al Gore. His record underscores the fact that he is one of the most deeply connected men in intelligence circles over the past three decades plus.

The character of Jack Ryan, who appears in many Tom Clancy novels and was also played by Harrison Ford in the popular 1992 movie Patriot Games, is also based on Steve Pieczenik.

Back in April 2002, over nine years ago, Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months,” and that the government was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse. Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the early 80′s.

Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.

Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.

“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it,” said Pieczenik, noting how CIA physicians had visited Bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.

“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.

“Did the intelligence community or the CIA doctor up this situation, the answer is yes, categorically yes,” said Pieczenik, referring to Sunday’s claim that Bin Laden was killed at his compound in Pakistan, adding, “This whole scenario where you see a bunch of people sitting there looking at a screen and they look as if they’re intense, that’s nonsense,” referring to the images released by the White House which claim to show Biden, Obama and Hillary Clinton watching the operation to kill Bin Laden live on a television screen.

“It’s a total make-up, make believe, we’re in an American theater of the absurd….why are we doing this again….nine years ago this man was already dead….why does the government repeatedly have to lie to the American people,” asked Pieczenik.

“Osama Bin Laden was totally dead, so there’s no way they could have attacked or confronted or killed Osama Bin laden,” said Pieczenik, joking that the only way it could have happened was if special forces had attacked a mortuary.

Pieczenik said that the decision to launch the hoax now was made because Obama had reached a low with plummeting approval ratings and the fact that the birther issue was blowing up in his face.

“He had to prove that he was more than American….he had to be aggressive,” said Pieczenik, adding that the farce was also a way of isolating Pakistan as a retaliation for intense opposition to the Predator drone program, which has killed hundreds of Pakistanis.

“This is orchestrated, I mean when you have people sitting around and watching a sitcom, basically the operations center of the White House, and you have a president coming out almost zombie-like telling you they just killed Osama Bin Laden who was already dead nine years ago,” said Pieczenik, calling the episode, “the greatest falsehood I’ve ever heard, I mean it was absurd.”

Dismissing the government’s account of the assassination of Bin Laden as a “sick joke” on the American people, Pieczenik said, “They are so desperate to make Obama viable, to negate the fact that he may not have been born here, any questions about his background, any irregularities about his background, to make him look assertive….to re-elect this president so the American public can be duped once again.”

Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden died almost ten years ago is echoed by numerous intelligence professionals as well as heads of state across the world.

Bin Laden, “Was used in the same way that 9/11 was used to mobilize the emotions and feelings of the American people in order to go to a war that had to be justified through a narrative that Bush junior created and Cheney created about the world of terrorism,” stated Pieczenik.

During his interview with the Alex Jones Show yesterday, Pieczenik also asserted he was directly told by a prominent general that 9/11 was a stand down and a false flag operation, and that he is prepared to go to a grand jury to reveal the general’s name.

“They ran the attacks,” said Pieczenik, naming Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Elliott Abrams, and Condoleezza Rice amongst others as having been directly involved.

“It was called a stand down, a false flag operation in order to mobilize the American public under false pretenses….it was told to me even by the general on the staff of Wolfowitz – I will go in front of a federal committee and swear on perjury who the name was of the individual so that we can break it open,” said Pieczenik, adding that he was “furious” and “knew it had happened”.

“I taught stand down and false flag operations at the national war college, I’ve taught it with all my operatives so I knew exactly what was done to the American public,” he added.

Pieczenik re-iterated that he was perfectly willing to reveal the name of the general who told him 9/11 was an inside job in a federal court, “so that we can unravel this thing legally, not with the stupid 9/11 Commission that was absurd.”

Pieczenik explained that he was not a liberal, a conservative or a tea party member, merely an American who is deeply concerned about the direction in which his country is heading.

Watch the full interview with Dr. Pieczenik below.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Osama - The Story Unravels in Days

Osama used "his wife" as a human shield.

No. It wasn't his wife.

Er... she wasn't shielding him.

Obama watched the whole thing on video.

Er no... there was a 25 minute 'black out' for the time of the assault.

This thing is unravelling faster than the JFK "lone sniper" official story.

The evidence was "dumped at sea" faster than JFK's autopsy was stopped and the brain removed.

Yes. Democracy marches on!

Next bogeyman please.

If Osama was murdered (and it wasn't a stand-in for an already dead bogeyman) was this the murder of an asset a la Lee Harvey Oswald?

Osama Bin Laden - George Orwell Anyone?

We are being used like extras in a George Orwell novel.

Just as the holohoax had its roots in the murder of Christ 2000 years ago, so the current media output has its roots in the '911' false flag operation in 2001. ("It wasn't us guv - it was the Romans," becomes "it wasn't us guv - it was the Muslims").

Right: How fitting. A net image shows Osama beheaded and held high by the Masonic symbol, the statue of liberty.

The "Western" public (you and me!) are being played like marionettes.

Oh yes, sure Bin Laden was the no. 1 enemy of the USA, yes his operation brought down the Twin Towers, yes he has dodged the USA for 10 years, yes they killed him and buried him at sea!

Where does the truth lie? I'm sure the story is already unravelling - but do not believe the hype in the meantime.

State sponsored terrorism continues to be the mainstay of the USA and UK. God alone knows who are their real enemies, who are smokescreens and where all this will end.

Not much is as it seems.

Israel and USA Behind Japan's 'Chernobyl'

The failing coolant systems in Fukushima, Japan were brought down by the Stuxnet virus, which effects some older coolant systems (the reason why Germany shut down its older reactors in the wake of the disaster).

The earthquake and tsunami didn't cause the release of radioactive materials - the USA/Israel Stuxnet virus did that!

Why is the world media ignoring the facts?

Why aren't we told of the criminal activities of these people (in yet another sovereign state) that will effect countless thousands of innocents?

Why are Neo-Cons, Zionists, the NWO (call them what you will) allowed to get away with this disaster against the Japanese people?

If Iran or similar were behind the virus it would be headlines day after day after day.

Time for the USA-Israel criminals to be brought to book.

Who Are 'We' Bankrolling in Libya?

Who are "we" supporting? Who are "we" acting as path-finders for?

Has America learnt no lessons?

Ron Paul, Fox TV, Twitter, Iran and the New World Order

The other evening I was pottering. That's an ancient right of the Britons to shuffle around in a seemingly aimless way.

I used to do it by choice of a quiet evening, but as I get older I find it is more of an involuntary (in)activity. Mayhaps it is genetically built into our DNA.

Certainly Belloc saluted the way the country lanes of England meandered their way around, as opposed to some brisk Teutonic efficient motorway.

Certainly the Anglo-Celtic peoples of the Black Country and its environs were a model for Tolkien's hobbits, and what could a hobbit best be described as other than a professional potterer.

Had the ancient Celts got into their 40s, 50s etc. (and I know debate rages as much as debate can "rage" about such matters) maybe they pottered too... amongst the skulls of their vanquished enemies or around the tribal cauldron.

I don't have a tribal cauldron, but I was doing the next best thing. Sad to say the fridge was bereft of pork pies (always handy to fend off alien invaders into the homestead), but nestled in the oven was a plate of nutrition left by one of the sprogs from an earlier meal.

Knowing that this would be recycled the next day; to the compost, through an animal or via the council's waste food collection (waste cooked meats, bones etc. - I think the Celtic tribesman would feel at home) I decided, as is so often my want, to be the human recycler busy saving the planet, and I took the plate of foodstuffs to a suitably comfy chair and settled down for a munch.

Please note that I do this without media attention, without Green Party plaudits and without the recognition I so richly deserve for saving the planet just as (in the metaphysical footsteps of my father) I switch off all the lights after the sprogs have been through every room in the house.

Having finished my work for the day and having the rare treat of a sit-down (half-eaten) meal at a relatively late hour, I decided to switch on the goggle box and catch up with some news.

BBC News 24 had a documentary about drug mules in South America. Switch. Sky TV (ptuh, ptuh - that's me spitting on the ground) was running adverts. Switch.

Now usually I flick straight through to Al Jazeera or perhaps the Hitler... sorry! - History Channel. But for some reason I saw the name "Fox TV" in the wee blue box on the screen and I thought "why not?"

Some moons ago I used to get up at 4am for commuting and used to put on Fox TV at that early hour to catch the American evening news and have a good laugh at a world filtered through (six-pointed, star shaped) Zion-Goggles.

Just seeing the name Fox TV on the screen sent a shudder down my spine, with a small tingle of anticipation added for good measure.

What rant would I see against the "enemies of democracy?" What talking head would be preaching against liberalism but in such a way that it would defend the rights of banksters and war-mongers to make their 'fair share' (don't they call that "free market" - when it is really stacked against everyone but the Judeo-WASP-bankster clans)?

I clicked the button and Fox TV lunged into view in all its air-brushed, neon splendour (kind of reminds you of an entrance to a Soho strip joint - all sickly shining glamour out front, but inside you know there's a lot of sludge, sickness and suffering all backed up a rich man - probably of a certain breed - profiteering from offending and undermining public morality).

I forget - forgive me in my dotage oh faithful and forbearing reader - the name of the show, but four talking heads were sat discussing a Republican Party gathering of some sort. Unlike the highly orchestrated presidential ones (or the party conferences over here) this was more of a grass-roots affair. If memory serves me right I think it was a Republican Student or Youth conference/rally.

Amidst my quick shoveling action with carbohydrates flying in every direction... sorry I mean I took another carefully measured Kate Moss-esque fork of lettuce... I discerned a veiled panic amongst the trained monkeys of plastic, polyfilled, highly coiffured Fox TV panelists.

They were perturbed and it was a joy to behold. Then all became clear. My fork hovered betwixt plate and mouth (and that is a rare event!).

Ron Paul.

The name immediately had me paying attention to every syllable and on-screen graphic.

It seems the young Republican meeting had been voting for their favourite to run for the White House. The Fox TV pundits were clearly shocked that Ron Paul - famous for being a traditional American libertarian and anti-banker, anti-Zionist and, in short, against everything the Bush Whitehouse was for when it came to foreign and economic policies - had been their number one choice.

How dare they! Do they not pay attention to the media?

Sarah Palin (who I assumed was the love of the small-c conservatives in the Republican Party) garnered a mere 7% against Ron Paul's 31% haul. The ex-centrefold. Mitt Romney, who recently stole Ted Kennedy's ex-stomping ground (and whom the media are playing up as the great white hope, if you'll pardon the pun, against Obama) came second with 22%.

What was funny and had me giggling into my cold stodge (sorry, I mean crisp healthy option 99% fat-free diet special) was that the anchor of the Fox show went out of his way to ignore the poll.

He kept saying things such as 'out of the mainstream candidates, who do you think poses a serious risk to the Obama Whitehouse.'

It was a real media whitewash, going on right in front of my eyes! The Zionist media was rushing to pour cold water on the fact that an anti-Zionist, anti-bankster candidate had come out on top of all the other party flunkies and media-luvvies (of a sort).

In America of late there has been a phenomenon, borne of the credit crunch, lost jobs, failed banks, billions poured into Wall Street, millions thrown on the dole, the idea of socialised healthcare and so on. That phenomenon is known as tea party politics; in the sense of the Boston Tea Party (not polite late afternoon cakes with the vicar).

Tea party politics is all about bottom-up politics. Local people going to town halls and shouting down system politicians.

As a Third Positionist, it is something I and my ilk have been promoting since the 80s: the idea of local communities taking back control of their areas - indeed of their streets! - from the party political machinery.

Left: Ron Paul was seen as an "outsider" in the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections and OK, he may not be the man to completely sort out Aegean Stables that is Washington DC, but he is certainly independent and against many vested interests.

Why does the person in charge of clearing dog crap from the pavements or taking local council taxes away from the people have to belong to Lib, Lab or Con?

Why are the powerless people, defecated upon from a great height by politicians in the pay of the banks, powerless?

They are only so because the media tells them that an X in a box every 4 or 5 years is the only say they get.

A non-choice in Tweedledum Tweedledee politics, choosing from a range of multi-culti, pro-Israel, pro-homosexual candidates that the media tell us are "safe" to choose from, and their appointed safety-valves, is not democracy!

Sadly there is no tradition of tea party politics in this country. Every now and then we march, if a socialist or right-wing backer can get the money in to bus people to London, such as the millions who marched against the Iraq War or against the ban of fox hunting.

Yet even when millions are mobilised, the politicians ignore them and return to their hallowed (sic) halls of Westminster to strike their deals and shape public policy for their vested interests.

So the powerful (Goldman Sachs, Rothschild et al) know that pouring money into lobbying groups, paying for campaigns, chucking wads at constituency offices, gets them more input than a million voters marching.

Those who saw Peter Oborne's documentary on the Israeli Lobby in Britain (NuLab and ModCon) are left in no doubt of the sheer power of that lobby. Of course it is even more powerful in America, so that (like them or loathe them) when opposite voices like Ron Paul or David Duke are voted in or become internet hits they are all but ignored.

Meanwhile when anti-government voices are raised on Twitter against the sovereign government of Iran, the media in Britain and America are very excited and report it as a victory for "the people " and "democracy" -- even when it has been proven that much of the Twats, er Twits, or Twitterers actually sat at their keyboards in America and Israel; not Iran.

Compare that to the huge internet upheaval and response to to the Ron Paul presidential campaign a couple of years back. Only those clued up would be aware. Certainly the BBC didn't mention Ron Paul in any serious way. It may seem to the suspiciously minded (sorry Elvis!) that the sole criteria for new-media mentions on the news bulletins is whether it supports the New World Order's agenda. But hush! That's foolish conspiracy talk.

Having finished my nutritional intake for the day I returned the plate to the kitchen (I am, if nothing else, house trained) and climbed the wooden bridge to Bedfordshire with thoughts of grass roots politics, media cover-ups and a New World Order agenda in full flow.

Yes, another end to a perfect day in Codreanu Towers.

Links:
The Guardian on Ron Paul's Poll Win
Quote:

Anybody who was even near the room Friday night during Paul's address could hear the audience roaring at a pitch not really matched by any other speaker at CPAC.There were loud chants of "End the Fed!" and people managed to cheer a remarkable downer of a speech. Paul predicted financial ruin because of America's failed fiscal and military policies.

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.

Black British Patriots? The Day Approacheth

The North West Nationalist blog has dug out an interesting article by John Tyndall in which he dealt with the BNP leader's attempts to bring in coloured members (some years ago!)

The article has some other interesting sections, here are the most pertinent bits:

Then when the ink was hardly dry on the June election ballot papers Mr. Griffin put forward a proposal that was certain, had it been carried through, to split the BNP in two. This was his crazy scheme to alter the party constitution to let in non-white members. He only backtracked after massive grass-roots opposition to the scheme had made itself manifest. In a declaration on the BNP website on the 23rd July he announced a complete about-turn, saying that the plan had been abandoned and that the membership rules would stay as they were, employing arguments in support of this that were an almost exact replica of those that I and several others had put forward against the change only a few days previously! This was not leadership; it amounted to a pathetic blowing with the wind.

Notwithstanding this volte face by Mr. Griffin, I am not convinced that we have seen the end of his ambition to bring non-Whites into our party. In statements to journalists he has been confessing his support for the idea for at least two years. I fear that we will witness a replay of the project before very long, albeit perhaps by means of different tactics.

So it was clear to JT that there was an agenda to allow in coloured members, when the BNP had been founded and most of its members believed that it should be run as, an organisation for the 'aboriginals' of these islands.

On working with non-Whites JT states the following (which is exactly the position of the NF of the 1980s and of Third Positionists ever since):

Associated groups
The BNP should be willing to consider schemes of co-operation with non-white ethnic groups towards the achievement of our repatriation programme, but this should not involve granting them any special status with regard to the BNP, whether as party members or in any kind of formal association. I therefore would immediately dissociate the BNP from any groups that have been formed over the past five years which grant such association. This would include the so-called 'Ethnic Liaison Committee' and any others of its kind. If those comprising such groups wish to maintain them in operation, that is their affair. However, they would no longer be permitted any association with our party.

A sensible approach which proves there is no meaningless "racism" at work, simply a respect for all peoples and a desire to have a European Europe. We simply want what the Indians achieved in the 1940s: our own land free of any colonialists.

Then there is another very interesting part of the article in which JT tackles the thorny issue of Islam. This is of great interest to every nationalist (within and outwith the BNP) as the current BNP leadership has seen fit to make Islam its "Great Satan" and in the shadow of this seen an ally in Israel:

The BNP and Islam
I have always been opposed to the current policy of Mr. Griffin of singling out Islam as a special enemy of Britain and concentrating most of the party's fire on that religious creed, rather than dealing with the overall threat of multi-racialism to our country, of which immigrant groups happening to adhere to the Islamic faith are only a part.

If the Middle Eastern and Asian ethnic communities which have brought organised Islam to Britain are repatriated to their ethnic homelands, the problems posed to the country by Islam will disappear. Putting it another way, these problems are not primarily religious but racial.

As long as the Islamic communities are confined to their native continents and countries and do not attempt to impose their religious customs on the people of the United Kingdom, we have no quarrel with them.

There is much for nationalists to take in. But the idea that the EHRC (1984-style Equality & Human Rights Government Agency) had a cut-and-dried case for outlawing any "all White" political party is laughable.

The homosexual ex-NF leader Martin Webster (who has little time for us at FC because of our open policy against homosexuality, its promotion et al) has outlined how the BNP has tried in essence to bamboozle its membership whilst apparently not even attempting to get the advice of a competent legal expert in the field (known as a Counsel's Opinion) without which no reasonable organisation would settle out of court, or cave in to the demands of a Socialist government with a multi-racial agenda (remember that advisers to this government has already admitted that they knowingly let in huge volumes of non-Whites in order to help create an even more multi-culti society, playing politics with our lives, our security, our heritage and our very future).

In short we have the situation where nationalists have to stand back and question those who have tried to make nationalism an anti-Muslim pressure group and are now seeking to implement their long term strategy of creating a multi-culti right-wing "patriotic" party.

The homogenisation of the party political process is almost complete.

All the little pressure valves from the right-wing anti-Muslim party to the left wing global-warming party are in place.

Meanwhile the strides to World Government continue apace with the appointment of a European President.

Welcome to the New World Order! Masons to the fore!

Bonfire Night: 1606's Al Qaeda and Masonic Bogeymen

Remember, remember the 5th of November...

In 1605 our very own "7/7" happened long before the advent of the United States, but Freemasonry and its antecedents were very much alive and kicking.

The printing presses of the Zionists (ever keen to spot an opportunity) were pumping out anti-Christian propaganda to be used by one side in an orchestrated civil war of Christendom (in part helping to create the Inquisition myth, the forerunner of the Holohoax).

At home Guy Fawkes and his colleagues, the conspirators of "11/5" (as it would be called today in our sycophantic Americanised way), were as much a creation of the burgeoning 'New World Order' as the much talked-about Al Qaeda today.

Both religious in outlook, both created via justified grievances with the New World Order, both helped in their arming, planning and both used to justify draconian police state measures and to entrench the regimes and bring about a 'fear factor' to make anyone who questioned the regimes, busy overturning centuries of traditions and freedoms, as 'unpatriotic.'

Two key events (organised or started by other forces - accidental and orchestrated) were blamed on these bogeymen of their day: the Great Fire of London (1666) and the Twin Towers (2001) such was/is the hysteria of the day - whipped up by much the same Masonic powers.

In 1605 the regime was no spring chicken, despite having only a few decades of its new Weltanschauung, and realised that the patriotic fervour of 1605 needed corralling.

For the next 250 years Bonfire Night/Guy Fawkes Night celebrations at which various "anti-British" effigies were burnt was an event that was organised by the state. Indeed for those 250 years it was legal prerequisite, by military law, to hold/attend such celebrations in Britain and its territories.

Kind of makes our state-organised 'Welcome Home' events to support the Zionist War in Afghanistan look muted by comparison (and please don't parrot that these are to "support the troops not the war" -- why did the politicians organise them otherwise?).

So 400 years later what have we learnt?

Precious little it would seem. Guy Fawkes and his companions are viewed somewhat romantically by many, but for many more they don't know or care, Bonfire Night being just another event on the calendar to have a beer and a night watching fireworks.

Years from now will Holocaust Day be seen in the same light? Clouded in history, but just another excuse for a special assembly in school and a day-out for local councilors? Another NWO-organised "holiday" to replace the true Holy Days of Christendom that allowed the working man of England (and his kith and kin across Europe) to freely celebrate in what was Merrie England before the New Unhappy Lords held sway?

Michaelmas, Candlemas... will soon be joined by Christmas if the Masonic Overlords and their supermarkets get their way.

In our Brave New World (Order), all will be homogenised to be equal celebrations of diversity, not allowed to impede trade (lest the Financial Times report that a day off 'costs' the country x millions).

Bonfire Night and its Elizabethan Terror, orchestration, dungeon, rack, fire and sword will be forgotten so none of us will be allowed to see the similarities (were we ever?) with today's NWO orchestrated "bogeymen" who we are told threaten democracy (the rule of elected oligarchs, place-men of Masonry).

Bonfire Night will nestle betwixt Duvali, Yom Kippur, Ramadam, Christmas, Holocaust Day, Chinese New Year, Martin Luther King Day and the 57 Variety of multi-culti (trading) days to be respected by a compliant media.

Remember, remember the 5th of November
Government orchestrated plot
For the sake of freedom from the New World Order
This should never be forgot.

Nick Griffin: British Generals Like Nazi War Criminals

The BBC has reported Nick Griffin's comments that British Generals are like Nazi War criminals at Nuremberg because they "just obey orders" when it comes to illegal wars.

Was he right to do so?

The BNP supported the war against Afghanistan in the shadow of "9/11" (it backtracked/u-turned later) and has expelled councillor Simon Smith (Black Country) for saying "9/11" was a 'inside job' at a BNP meeting in more recent years.

So where does the BNP stand?

He later backtracked a little by saying that his jibe about "Nazi War Criminals" being hanged alongside the politicians was merely "black humour."

Backtracking? Or just silly to be so unstatesmanlike?

And what of the emotive "Nazi" tag? After all Japanese war criminals walked free (as do Israeli ones today) and Communist mass murderers who enslaved half of Europe were treated like liberators (by the Western powers!) in 1945. Even as they were killing Polish Nationalists (who we went to war for in 1939!).

Ahead of his Question Time appearance tomorrow, might we expect more tempered language?

Who can we expect? The pro-Israeli who blames Islam for every evil? Or the radical politician who rages against the New World Order? Or a politician who doesn't want to offend anybody?

What do you think about his "Nazi War Criminals" comment? Insightful or inciting? Radical or Populist? Measured or Knee-Jerk? Funny or ill-judged?

Perhaps if someone gets under his skin tomorrow we can expect more off-the-cuff remarks that will delight/annoy in equal measure (though to whom is anyone's guess!). And I haven't even covered his "black member" quandary and whether the BNP was 'forced' to do it or cleverly did it to side-step the accursed EHRC (Mr Griffin has claimed both in separate announcements!).

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