Liberalism, Homosexuality, Paedophilia and a Zionist Media

Richard Ingrams used to be the editor of Private Eye, prior to the present incumbent Ian Hislop. I recall him being interviewed on TV once, in relation to Private Eye, when the interviewer said that he had been accused of 'anti-Semitism.' Ingrams replied with words to the effect that if you were investigating corruption in business you would run into Jews.

As Zionist blogger Robin Shepherd quotes Ingrams:

“I have developed a habit,” he said, “when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it.”

Such outspokenness is of course beyond the pale for Neo-Cons, Zionists and the like.

For them, Ingrams uncovering shady Jewish businessmen is proof of his 'anti-Semitism' rather than proof of the businessmen in question being wrong 'uns.

They don't, conversely, point out the many European, British and/or White businessmen he uncovered as being corrupt (to borrow their verbiage that could make him a self-hating gentile!).

The controlled media will always fire a broadside against anyone who stands up against certain interests, and refuses to back down. Should that person or group continue on their course they will, sooner or later, face an all out assault employing the greatest lie machine the world has ever know.

Historically, nationalists have seen this for themselves!

Now I sincerely believe that the sudden uproar about paedophile priests in the Catholic Church has more to do with the current Pope moving towards traditionalism, than it has to do with genuine newsworthiness.

After all, this was news some years ago when the liberal pro-Jewish John Paul II was in power, and JPII was in power when much of this was knowingly 'hushed up.'

Needless to say, the news media won't lay the blame on those (like JPII) who opened the doors of the seminaries to homosexuals; ironically you see the media attacks the church whenever it attacks homosexuality - a clear case of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Much of the uproar ensued after the episode of the removal of the questionable "ban" on Bishop Williamson and his confreres. The media suddenly discovered the Bishop had an historical opinion (which he hadn't hid) and the paedophile scandal reached a crescendo.

You really think the Zionists don't have that kind of mentality, to cover-up homosexual abuse to save it for a rainy day? Remember they cheerleaded (!) the invasion of Iraq after "911" on the back of non-existent WMDs. This was sheer revenge for the scudding of Tel Aviv!

These people have long memories, and anyone who moves against their interests will be attacked.

John Paul II was a liberal so they let the faggot priests go unreported, swept it under the carpet. Benedict XVI is, in their eyes, undoing JPII's liberal changes, so they come out via a complicit media, all guns blazing.

I am sure Ingrams, an Anglican btw, knows the score too. His first piece in his column in today's Independent deals with the example of the "terrorist" priest in Northern Ireland:

The distinguishing mark of modern society, G K Chesterton once wrote, is a hatred of religion. If that was the case more than 100 years ago, you could magnify it 100 times over for today. Hatred is the crucial word. Not apathy or indifference, but a violent reaction of the type that can lead to intemperate, illogical language even from clever people...

The forces ranged against faith in today's society, from Zionist Jews to atheist Reds (often from the same lineage) both with their own useful idiots in the shape of Neo Cons and liberals, are out to target every last vestige of Christianity that they cannot transmogrify into a faggot-hugging, Jewish-worshipping bastardised form of kum-bay-ya happy clappiness which goes against the central tenets of Christianity.

A friend gave me a clipping concerning a report about America and the paedophile scandal, which showed that the scandal also infected most other churches (obviously - as homosexuality infects them all), some with far higher percentages, but of course the Jewish authorities do not see these others as a threat, so to Joe Bloggs the 'paedophile scandal' is a Catholic problem.

Of course it is worse for the Catholic Church because it does take a hard-line (sorry, correct line) against homosexuality; but that is exactly why the Catholic Church must practice what it preaches and cast out all the homosexual priests, just as it used to, and bring back its stringent entry codes.

Being happy clappy and putting an "I luv Jesus" sticker on the Popemobile is not the answer.

The example of the Church should be an example to Nationalists.

As I have said for years, we too must practice what we preach. If we try to uphold nationalism as something morally superior to the degenerate Capitalist everyone-for-themselves world and the Communist lowest-common-denominator world, then what does it show when sordid homosexual tales, allegations of sexual misdemeanours and other morally worrying reports occur?

The same is true of drug use and much else besides.

Those of us who lived through the scandals and dirty-laundry-washed-in-public of the 80s will well recall the sex, homosexual and drugs scandals of those days from the NF.

It is obvious that any organisation which claims to be against that kind of mess, must keep its own house in order before it can try to bring the world back from the brink.

The media isn't going to kick up a fuss over a paedophile scandal involving the Orange Order. The media isn't going to kick up a fuss over umpteen Jewish/rabbi paedophile scandals. The media isn't going to kick up a fuss over the many parliamentarian paedophile scandals. the media isn't even going to link together all the many paedophile scandals in the police (I have noticed a plethora of unconnected cases in one fairly small area in the last 2 years).

The media certainly isn't going to point the finger at the fact that the spread of homosexuality in all these bodies, and society at large, is the reason for the growth in the utter cancer and evil that is paedophilia because the media are responsible for making homosexuality "acceptable" despite what common sense and medical evidence tells us.

It is ironic that in liberalising both nationalism and Catholicism (and I'm sure the same is true of other Christian denominations) that the very enemies of both have been able to get inside and, although a tiny minority, have sown the seeds of chaos.

The resulting pain, betrayal and hurt destroys the belief of many, and enables the enemies of both to rub their hands with glee, and use the results -- should Nationalism or the Church want to move back to its traditional stance (against Zionism etc.) -- to come out on full attack mode.

The Catholic Church is at fault for turning a blind eye to homosexuals and ignoring its own traditional teaching on such matters. It will take a lot of cleansing and hard work to build up trust again.

What lessons for nationalism?


Link:
Richard Ingram's column
Robin Shepherd's attack on Ingrams
Cardinal says homosexuality and paedophilia linked

Gordon Brown is Mortgaging the Future

ECONOMIC FOOL IS ECONOMIC WITH THE TRUTH

[picture deleted]

This is a great captioned pic from the satirical magazine Private Eye.

Not only does it summarise the position viz politicians and the public, it also shows perfectly the future of England --- in soooo many ways!

If I'm going to be in debt for years to come and my children's future has been mortgaged to the financiers - may I ask why the billions given to the banks weren't handed out to us, the poor sods who will pay, so that we could save/spend it into the various banks via our accounts?

It would end up in the same place[s] and revive the economy. And at least we would have enough money to buy enough booze* to drown our sorrows when the tax rates rise (*this offer does not apply in Scotland).

Or:

• Would it make people realise how much money has been borrowed at interest and get us worrying?
• Is the money that we will have to pay back, at interest, with real hard-earned taxable income replacing nothing more than meaningless entries in ledgers and on pc screens?

Perhaps an egg-head or bookworm out there will advise (perhaps one who doesn't mind being called an egg-head or bookworm!).

Whilst they're at it, perhaps they might explain why a government has to borrow money, at interest, from a bank to bail-out other banks. So we pay to rescue banks - and another bank profits??? Zoiks! Why can't the government simply create its own money?

Is this the Emperors New Clothes for the 21st Century?

Is this the economic version of the "War on Terror," the "Holocaust Industry," Global Warming etc.? i.e. that the lies are so big that everyone is fearful of raising doubts without being dismissed as cranks, extremists or both.

Gutting Our Heritage: When Trendy Vicars Should be Gutted!

There seems to be a craze these days for ripping out the interiors of the Norman stone rural churches. Today's Countryfile on BBC1 waxed lyrical about the "advantages" of ripping out pews to put in "comfy seating" and inserting coffee shops and similar in ancient churches.

Left: A modern church, which trendy vicars think is "relevant" to people and "in tune with the times." Am I alone in finding it soulless, non-inspirational and having nothing to offer the interiors of our Celtic, Saxon, Norman and later churches.

One only has to read Piloti's column in Private Eye every fortnight to read how our ancient buildings (secular and religious) have their hearts ripped out. Piloti argues that listed buildings should, in many/most occasions, have their interiors listed too.

How many times do trendy vicars, "priestesses," councils and busybodies go into buildings and rip out Victorian, Gothic, Medieval and other internal architecture and fittings simply on a whim?

I may be an old-before-my-time fuddy duddy, but it seems to me we are repeating the mistakes of the 1960s, when fixtures and fittings of churches, public buildings and homes were ripped out to be replaced by formica surfaces, sliding doors, serving hatches and flat roofs - none of which have served the test of time.

20 years from now we will wonder why on earth the beautiful pews, sanctuaries, choir stalls and pulpits were ripped out of our Medieval churches to be replaced by plastic tat which does not last.

We often chide Americans for many things - culture, diet etc. - but when it comes to their heritage, being a young "nation," they have learnt to be appreciative of artifacts and buildings even just 2-300 years old.

If you "discovered" a 1000-year-old stone church with buttresses, beautiful stone pillars and interiors that are often 2-300 years old (or older!) themselves, not least some of the awe-inspiring flooring that is often ripped up in the cause of "modernity" would your first act be to rip out its insides?

Right: This building is modern, yet it isn't an eyesore. Read on to see where it is and who built it, with a minimal amount of materials.

Chesterton said that modernism disenfranchises our ancestors and is a form of arrogance by the living, and one has to wonder what the many millions who passed through our grander city and town churches, but also the many thousands that lived their lives in and around the small, semi-forgotten country churches, would have to say at the sight of some buffoon deciding to tear out everything they knew and one more link to our past, to our forefathers and - very often - to the communities our people were ripped from in order to provide the indentured slave manpower needed to man the factories and mines that made the merchant classes their fortunes.

E Michael Jones wrote a book about modern architecture reflecting the degenerate nature of modern man and I think that is intrinsically true, because they seem to either create awful buildings, or do what they can to gut and ruin existing ones, even those that have stood for generation after generation!

But it needn't be this way!

Left: One of the beautiful group of historic Churches around Lastingham in North Yorks. It includes a former Celtic monastery from the 7th century and a Norman Abbey, but this church is from the 19th Century Gothic revival when the 'Oxford Movement' was at its height. For more info click here.

Why can't we have a government that puts our heritage at the forefront of communities? Let the Church(es) put the local buildings at the forefront of local history, start tours and visitor days. Let the local community and others use them for guest speakers, suitable conferences and suchlike. Then there are the various community groups... but you get the point.

If the will is there, on the part of politicians, clerics and community leaders then there is no need to wreck our heritage for short term "gain."

And that is the nub of the matter: if the will is there.

It is not the fashion, and hasn't been for at least four or five decades, to protect and defend our heritage nor to keep and conserve our historical buildings (outside of castles and manor houses), and it is a stain our national character that this is the case.

60 odd years ago a small group of brave men proved it doesn't have to be this way, and sad to say it took 'foreignors' to prove this point. They weren't rich men, they weren't powerful men, they weren't - believe it or not - even free men!

Yet these brave band of men, ripped away from their homeland, forced to carry out back-breaking manual work in a very unforgiving climate, created - out of the most basic of materials available to them - something of such intrinsic beauty that people flock there from right across the world to visit their creation (despite it having a lot of competition in the guise of natural and man-made wonders throughout the 'region' where it is based.

If you ever have the opportunity to visit this breath-taking place I would strongly urge you to do so. I refer, of course, to the church known as the "Italian Chapel" on Lambholm, one of the Orkney Islands. Located just south of one of the (anti-U Boat) Churchill Barriers which the Italian PoWs were made to construct, the Chapel is made of two corrugated "Nissan Huts" - commonly used for air-raid shelters, yet inside the men created such a beautiful altar, altar rail, sanctuary and even a sanctuary light made from a "bully beef" tin that it is known worldwide.

The craftsmanship and beautiful paintings adorning the Chapel make it feel as if you might be in Renaissance Rome rather than a metal hut on the windswept Orkneys.

Just outside the chapel is a statue of St George slaying the dragon, again created by the Italian PoWs.

Such things of beauty, of workmanship, of faith and of such an inspirational nature are still achievable! After all this was only 20 or so years before the "swinging 60s" when Masonic and Marxian thought and social trends brought about grey Soviet style tower blocks and flat-roofed modernist monstrosities (including churches that look more like doctors surgeries or roller-discos) as those controlling things sought to be "more relevant" but in effect ruined hundreds if not thousands of years of culture and heritage (which just a couple of generations before had undergone the Pugin-era Gothic revival).

Right: The truly breathtaking altar and sanctuary of the Italian Chapel on Lambholm, Orkney. Created just 20 years before the 1960s and the barbarianian reign of the "modernists" who ripped out altars, sanctuaries, pews and statues. For more images visit here.

If those Italian PoWs can create something of such beauty out of nothing, is it really beyond us to merely conserve - internally and externally - the buildings our forefathers have left to us before some trendy vicar called Brian (or, male or female, called Tricia) decides to rip it all out to put in a coffee shop and a disabled toilet.

The sad fact is that if we are not careful, buildings created a thousand years ago and used continuously before and since the Reformation, could be ruined in just a few years in a short-sighted attempt to make them more "relevant."

When Can Councillors Be Censured? A Tale of Two Smiths

Let me show you how democracy works, dear reader.

Let us look at two similar situations and how "the system" deals with them.

The first is the Black Country's Nationalist independent councillor Simon Smith.

He stated that electoral swindling in the UK was a predominantly Asian affair. Er... which it is. The result: he was suspended for 3 months by the authorities.

So what do we see in the latest issue of Private Eye (#1217)?

A Labour Party councillor and official in Barking & Dagenham (Liam Smith, deputy leader, for 'tis he) called the mother of a Tory councillor a "fat f###ing dyke."

So how was this treated by the authorities? The Crown Prosecution Service said "...the word 'dyke' was not used in a homophobic way" and the council's standards committee also made excuses for Smith, presumably then it is not offensive or hateful to call someone "f###ing fat".

By the same standards it would, for the CPS, be OK presumably to call an African a "f###ing paki" or an Asian a "f###ing nigger" on the grounds that neither would belong to the epithet snarled at them. Of course not - but this exposes the double standards we're dealing with.

This is the same council, of course, that saw a Labour member call the BNP's councillor Richard Barnbrook a "poof."

Right: Like so many quangos and public bodies, from the CPS to the National Lottery, the "Council Watchdog" the SB takes a very bi-partisan approach to dealing with those loyal to the system, compared to those who rock the boat.

So it seems that stating the obvious (haven't all the Tory and Labour election cons with postal voting etc. been Asian?) can get you suspended for three months, but hurling abuse at people (who we have to assume aren't homosexual) sees you given the all clear.

Erm... as long as you are a system politician of course!

How reassuring to people like Stephen Green (of Christian Voice) who was arrested for handing out (sober and serious) Christian leaflets at a homosexual rally to hear that those who hurl abuse at others don't get arrested just because... well, just because those offended aren't, um, pooftahs.

So what are we to deduce?

• That stating the truth is no defence in council chambers if it offends the multi-culti commissars whereas being abusive and offensive is fine.
• That handing out Biblical leaflets is an arrestable offence whereas calling someone a "fat f###ing dyke" isn't.

Welcome to Politically Correct Britain: where Labour Party officials can say what they want, but the rest of us face censure and arrest for "offending" queers and immigrants.

Oh... unless they offend a certain people, which Ken Livingstone knows all about!

That's democracy folks!


Link:
Simon Smith on his 3 month ban

Lord Phillips & Sharia Law: A False Flag Operation?

I feel a bit grubby today. I had to scrub my hands and have a jolly good wash before I started work.

Right: Populist "anti-Jihadi" material can be amusing... but is often used to whip up people to defend 'liberal democracy' whilst people opposing (for example) homosexuality and Judaism are at best portrayed as "extremists" and even possibly get a knock on the door from the political police.

Yes, I have a confession to make to you. I.... no, I can't write this. It's just not right!

OK. Steady now. Fight back the tears. Chest out, chin up. Right. Here we go.

I bought a copy of the Daily Express!

Yes!

It's true! Oh the shame! Oh the ignominy!

I can feel my invitations to polite society functions drying up as I type this.

I had to ask the (White!!!) newsagent for a plain brown paper bag to put it in before I left the shop for fear of being spotted down the high street with such nefarious reading material.

So what possessed me to swallow my pride and go to the counter red-faced eager to pass over the 40p, get the paper in a bag and scuttle out of the shop as quickly as possible?

I scanned the headlines for news on the issue that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, had said Shariah Law could be justified in the UK.

No doubt the Daily Mail would cover it best - perhaps with input from the Lilliputians Melanie Phillips or Richard Littlejohn. Yet it was sold out, so I had to plump for Richard 'Dirty' Desmond's offering. Desmond publishes the Express in which he tries to mimic the moral outrage of the middle classes, yet he also owns quite a few TV porno channels (the magazine Private Eye regularly entertains its readers by juxtaposing Express moralising with titles from Desmond's porn offerings).

What did my perusal of the Express teach me? Little more than I expected, various Neo Cons, Tories and similar were screeching. A Tory MP hurrumphed "This is totally unacceptable."

Indeed.

So why is it OK then for Jewish autonomous courts to oversee problems in Jewish families (this is exactly what Lord Phillips was suggesting re. Muslim families) and not for Muslims?

Do we have a double standard when it comes to dealing with Jews and Muslims?

This Talmudic law set-up is already in practice and recognised by the courts. Even the arch-Zionist and whitewasher of Israeli crimes (no, not Lee Barnes!) Melanie Phillips had to recognise this basic fact a few months back on the BBC's Question Time programme.

When she had to admit to the existence of these Jewish courts, and recognition of them by the UK law courts, it took the wind right out of Ms. Phillips's sails. Oh you could see she was longing to launch into a tirade against Islam and "Islamic extremists." But how could she do that without allowing others to launch into tirades against Judaism and "Jewish extremists," such as herself!

But there's more dear reader! (Oh yeah - I'm not finished yet...)

Did you know there's an officially recognised Jewish area in London? Oh yes!

There is an area of London which has a wire going around it on poles. I don't know who paid for this, who maintains it, but I suspect it had government and planning approval. This means that within this area Jews can travel about and do other things (I don't know Jewish Talmudist rules and their anally retentive "laws") on their Sabbath (Saturday).

The idea that we are starting down the road of handing over England to a foreign, invading, offensive and anti-Christian religion is false!

Talmudic Judaism (which is all of the above) is already well and truly encroaching on the judicial and governmental (not to say financial and entertainment) spheres of this land.

But there's more!

There is a state funded school in North London that blocks admissions from people outside a certain racial group. Even more, it even blocks admissions from families that aren't exactly of the racial type they want.

Where is this hotbed of discrimination and racial prejudice?

The JFS, formerly the Jewish Free School, recently refused a place to an 11-year-old boy whose mother had converted to Judaism (though I understand the father is Jewish).

Here's a quote from a linked article below:

Dinah Rose, QC, representing [the child], said that the school would accept a child of Jewish-born “committed atheists” but exclude others who are “Jewish by belief and practice” because of their mother's descent.

That, my friends is racism no matter how the courts whitewash it by comparing it to Muslim or Christian schools.

if I convert to Islam or any Christian denomination I would get into one of their schools (indeed it's well known that Christian and Muslim schools welcome those from outside their religions - though few if any choose to go to Muslim ones. Catholic schools, on the other hand, accept a wide range of children whose parents want to get them in to schools which perform well).

If a Muslim or Jew converted to Anglicanism or Catholicism do you think it would be lawful for a CofE or RC School to block them because they were born otherwise? Even if the rest of the family were CofE or RC?

Yet a Jewish school can block children on racial (not religious!) grounds and the courts find an excuse for them??? It's crazy!

So as you travel through cyberspace in the next few hours or days and witness the Neo Con, Zionist and Tory denunciations of Lord Phillips and Shariah Law, wonder why these same people have stayed quiet over the system's acceptance of Jewish religious law, Jewish racism and an official Jewish zone in our capital city.

Or is "Islamophobia" more acceptable than "anti-Semitism?" Out of interest, I have little brief for either term.

Left: Islamic Nazis from Bosnia. These are the kind of images that Neo-Cons love to use as it brings all the bogeymen together!

There was a time when Christian laws forbade usury. There was even a time, not so long ago (and some say it still is on the statute books), when Christian law forbade blasphemy and promotion of foul language. There was certainly a time when Christian law ensured the correct line was taken on homosexuality and abortion.

Yet in today's humanist, relativist society those times have passed. Rights for everyone in the wrong, including criminals, is all the rage.

We face a battle in which humanism wants to integrate certain aspects of Muslim, Jewish and yes even Christian laws - but all in a very low-level way so as to enshrine some kind of "multi-culti" inclusiveness. At the same time the defendants of the humanist system are seeking to treat the three main religions in distinctly different ways:

1. Christianity. The humanists show little but disdain of the religion of the land. They seek to use human rights legislation, especially but not exclusively on homosexuality, to attack the Church and traditional morals.

2. Judaism. The system gives every encouragement to this religion, allowing it to operate as a law within a law, with its own structures, courts, security groups etc. There is also explicit support from a media which paints any form of criticism as hatred: a position it does not take on either Christianity or Islam. The recent ruling on the JFS (see link below) is an example of "one law for them..."

3. Islam. The system wishes to integrate some minor elements of Islam so that it can be seen to be "inclusive," ironically more for racial than religious reasons. However, the Neo-Con nature of the political and media sections of the establishment means that Islam itself (especially as it takes a more robust line on homosexuality, Judaism etc.) is painted as the main threat to our society - as opposed to the forces who are controlling or undermining the structures of the land.

For nationalists, the choice is clear. We can oppose growing humanism in our lands (including liberalisation of moral laws and partial acceptance of Judaism and Islam) or we can join humanist forces in opposing the Islamist bogeyman.

For nationalists who take a traditional stance, the former choice is obvious. It means defending our traditions and being aware of our enemies from all angles. It won't be easy and we will be painted as "extremists" for opposing the humanist agenda of all the major parties.

For nationalists who want scraps from the top table, who want nice media coverage and who want to fight on the agenda of the Neo Cons, then defending the status quo is the option - and a Pim Fortuyn style of attacking Islam by defending "western liberal democracy" becomes the 'populist' way.

My gut instinct is that the whole Sharia Law episode is what some label a "false flag" operation, designed to whip up hysteria whilst providing a smoke screen for increased liberalism and the Jewish courts already accepted by our justice system.

As some coloured gents in America once said: don't believe the hype.


Link:
Jewish State School Cleared of Race Hate

Chris Jackson to stand as Second Challenger

We understand that last year's BNP leadership election challenger Chris Jackson will be challenging for the leadership again this year.

Those are his plans at the moment - and there have been murmurings on the net of a second challenger (as well as Councillor Colin Auty). Whilst some have said it could be Richard Barnbrook, it's likely that Barnbrook will remain a Griffin Loyalist for the time being.

More news as we get it, but look at the NW Nationalist site re. Eddy Butler's email and you'll understand that the spin machine is already very busy - with ugly talk of restricting the rights of the challengers a la Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

With other recent posts on the NW Nationalist site confirming that the BNP leader spoke at a Burnley meeting, stating that the BNP should work with other "community leaders" etc. etc.

People shouldn't be shocked because the BNP took a brazen multi-cult stance in the London elections (boasting of its Jewish, Sikh and West Indian support).

It seems the BNP is fast approaching its Yad Vashem watermark as it follows in the footsteps of Fini's "post Fascist" AN and the ultra-Zionist post-Vlaams Blok party.

And for those who protest??? They'll either be "vermin" like Jackson and his supporters; "Neo-Nazis and Searchlight" spies like the Enough is Enough crowd; 'nice but useful idiots' like Cllr Auty; "niggers" like Sharon Ebanks... and so on ad nauseum.

In a Stalinist pastiche of Private Eye's missives from 'The Great Leader' Comrade Brown, the BNP is fast becoming a Stalinist farce wherein today's "comrade" is tomorrow's "vermin" and all manner of party photos must get the airbrush treatment.

Still with recent mail-outs garnering over £100,000 do the New Tory Party care? Probably not, for grass roots nationalist support can easily be replaced by grass roots armchair supporters put in place via the BNP's liberalism and Zionism.

We hope the money's worth it!

Annapolis: A Zionist Dinner Party

Life imitates art, so they say.

Certainly when a crowd hounds out a doctor for being a "paediatrician" just after a similar cartoon appeared in Private Eye then you know that just about anything is possible!

Right: President Abbas receives the "Zionist toady of 2007 Award" from his natural constituents.

When Tony Blair appeared as the "Middle East Peace Envoy" many people saw this in a similar light. Those who weren't crying with laughter didn't know whether to weep or scream.

Imagine the Jews accepting Julius Streicher as a Peace Envoy.

Extreme? Over the top? Maybe - but how many Jews did Streicher order killed? How many Arabs now lie dead as a result of Blair's illegal war(s) and cowardice in the face of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon?

Whatever next? Jeremy Clarkson in charge of implementing the Kyoto Treaty?

And so life rolls on. Blessed are the peacemakers? Indeed... but riches in this life belong to the warmongers and those who acquiesce in their slaughter.

Just this week we have had another Comedic Pantomime (though some might prefer to paint it as a Greek Tragedy).

Left: "...and here Mr. Abbas is the design we have for the new flag of the Palestinian Authority" says Oily Olmert.

No, not Christopher Biggins as "Queen of the Jungle" on the insipid ITV show that makes its millions by getting the brain dead and 'city idiots' (like the medieval village idiot - but far more worrying because they are much more ignorant, and cluster in their hundreds - if not thousands - in many cities, and they have the vote!) to phone-in and vote for some Z-List "celebrity".

No. This pantomime was played out in Annapolis by three Zionist leaders, deciding on the future of Palestine.

Right: A picture says a thousand words. And when this magazine (liberal/lefty though it be) was dragged through the gutter because of this image, it merely confirmed that there is a Zionist hegemony which ensures "Anti-Semitic" is the screech to end all rational debate of the facts.

Imagine the talks taking place in America!!! The biggest backer of Israel and the superpower that covers-up Israeli illegality, war crimes, nukes, industrial espionage and so much more.

It makes Blair's appointment look positively neutral and serious!

And the one with the biggest clown's nose (to mix my metaphors) stood to the front and used the usual buzz words, chief among which is always "democracy" closely followed by "freedom" (as in "do you want some Freedom Fries with your Super Size Big Mac Meal before or after your triple by-pass?")

So, these Three Zionist Stooges believe in freedom and democracy do they? For the Israelis and the Palestinians? Hmmm.

Left: A movie-poster of typical Hollywood B.S. where the multi-racial Americans are the clean-cut heroes defending freedom. The B.S.-detector registers fatal levels, just as with the Annapolis Zionist conference.

Of course the Israelis have freedom. They have the freedom to brutalise, expel, torture and mutilate Arabs. They have the freedom to get billions in US Tax Dollars. They have the freedom to start illegal wars and strafe and bomb any Arab state they want with impunity. They have the freedom to spy on, steal from and double deal on America and any other country. Most of all, they have the freedom to own illegal nukes, gained mostly via espionage against their ally America!

So what of the Palestinians?

Aside from the freedom to be expelled, killed, encircled, cut-off, tortured, imprisoned, ethnically cleansed and so on - it's hard to see what "freedom" these people have.

Democracy is the buzz-word of the 21st century. The funny thing is that democracy (as I have stated before) doesn't actually mean what its proponents say it does.

I think it was Leon Degrelle who said that democracy actually means the rule of the Freemasons and the "freedom" to choose between Masonic parties via a system ruled over by a Masonic media.

Little has changed. That is certainly the case in this country.

So it was when the Palestinians voted in Hamas, it didn't fit in with Bush and Blair's version of "democracy" and they refused to recognise the legitimate democratic choice of the Palestinians.

Everyone, at this stage, should have seen through the farce of "democracy."

Right: Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, voted in by the Palestinian people, cold-shouldered by Israel and America.

The Palestinians could choose any government they wanted to, so long as it recognised the illegal, murderous, bandit-state of Israel; a State foisted on the world via State-sponsored terrorism and ethnic cleansing. A State recognised by America in a midnight declaration sneaked through without any kind of Congressional vote (akin to the law passed to implement the Federal Reserve - in 1913 if memory serves me right).

And so the Hamas government, the legitimate choice of the Palestinians, was just simply ignored by the Zionist powers: Israel, Britain and the USA.

The Fatah Party, corrupt and taking Israel's shilling, was pushed back into power behind the President and Zionist puppet Abbas. This all resulted in a Civil War between Hamas and Fatah (with the Zionists gun-running to Fatah and releasing Fatah gunmen from prison to put more of them on the streets against Hamas) as the Israelis rubbed their hands in glee.

Thus we see Abbas join Bush and Olmert in America in what most Palestinians must view as the ultimate in farce.

Three men who rejected the Palestinians' choice of government meeting up in the biggest funder of Israel (militarily as well as financially - dare I mention "State sponsored terrorism?").

Right: Condeeleeeeza gets some flak. But who is the real puppet master?

Anyone who thinks peace can evolve from such a blatantly one-sided affair is a fool.

You may as well get the National Farmers Union, the Confederation of Master Butchers and the Carnivore League meeting up in a branch of McDonalds to discuss the future of Vegetarianism.

In the meantime this fake, obscene parody of an olive branch will be waved in the view of the world media by the Zionists to justify asserting pressure on Hamas and others who oppose Zionism; and be used to justify previous Israeli land-grabs and much else besides.

As Charley Reese says on antiwar.com:

"The Annapolis meeting was just another charade like the one Bill Clinton staged. Eventually the Israelis will make an offer no Palestinian could possibly accept, and then the Israelis and the Americans will say, "We offered them a good deal and they rejected it." Note, too, that the only thing to come out of the Annapolis meeting was an agreement to reach an agreement by the end of 2008. This is the 40th year of Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. They don't need a year if they are serious, which they are not."


Link:
Mid East is (rightly) sceptical
Don't Expect Peace
Abbas's Forces Suppress Anti-Annapolis Demonstration
Hamas-led Government of 2006 that USA/Israel rejected
NWO Crimes & Corruption

Who're the Terrorists?

Great cartoon from the latest Private Eye.

[image deleted]

By this criteria I think I had some "Al Qaeda" school teachers too!

Just don't tell George Bush... they could do without him smart-bombing them!

I can hear flashbacks of old Rummy fighting his was through grammar minefields to tells us "we're reducing the terrorists infrastructure and capability" as yet another school-fulla-kids bites the dust to the sound of Ride of the Valkyries.

In a world where you are either 'with or against' Bush, how many teachers are classed as terrorists anyway?


Link:
Ride of the Valkyries (listen with your eyes closed as Rummy's Neo Cons bomb another wedding party)

Media Frenzy

I can understand the need for the family of the missing 4-year-old Madeleine McCann to fully utilise the media, if only to pressurise whichever sick scumbag took their daughter to give her up or leave her somewhere safe.

What I find a touch distasteful in all this though is the media frenzy going on. Like a pack of feeding sharks, the media has circled the family and the Portuguese Algarve, constantly looking for the new headline, criticising the police and the Portuguese justice system etc. etc.

Now the media has Robert Murat (pictured below) in their sights.

The man may be guilty. He may be innocent. I don't know - I'll leave that to the Portuguese coppers. If only our media would!

Already we've had people judging Murat because he has a false eye. What kind of 'trial by media' is that?

"What? He has a dodgy eye! Take him away! Life in gaol!"

It's clearly nonsense. If he or anyone else has committed a crime, why don't the media leave it to the Portuguese police to work on and solve the crime.

We now have a media that is always hungry for news - and thinks it is more important that any justice system or any investigation (not to mention any family's right to some sort of privacy).

Do I need to see pictures of the McCanns going to Mass on Sunday? Not really... but the cameras are there - even when they go for a walk along the beach.

It's time for the media to back off. Journalists are hardly the most shining examples of humanity (as a quick read of any edition of Private Eye will confirm).

After all if having a "dodgy eye" is a sign of guilt, look at the political world and you'll see someone with a dodgy eye who is guilty as hell of betrayal, sell-out and base treachery... he's guilty because of his past actions, not because he has a gammy eye.

But then I've covered the shortfalls of Gordon Brown elsewhere...