The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge, Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 2009), for an attack on Britain's immigration system. He remarked that "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to jail”. To a judiciary who encourage asylum seeking these remarks opposed their political ideology.
Yet The News Chronicle of 7th December 1954 reported on a case where a white woman asked for an injunction to stop her coloured landlord abusing or molesting her. Judge Wilfred Clothier in giving judgement in the case of a 62 year-old white woman living alone in a house full of coloured men, said that she was “hounded by these coloured men. This is another case of black people entering half a house and never resting until they have turned the white people out. I hope there will be a remedy found quickly. One could be to turn back to Jamaica anyone found guilty of this practice. Another would be a prohibition by law to stop any black people buying a house containing white tenants.” Conrad Fairclough wanted Miss.Matilda McLaren out of where she had lived for 40 years yet he only came here in 1948.
Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, spoke up about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives:
“I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”
(Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”, Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.)
In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented:
“It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.”
(Guardian, 2 August 1969.)
In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds:
“Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer ... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people daren’t go even with their cars ... All immigration must stop ... The country is full up. We don’t want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life.”
(India Mail 02.03.95).
Bradford M.P., Max Madden, described Judge Pickles as a "repulsive old buffer" who had "plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities"/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.
Through the 60s and 70s, the New Left and its ideology were taking over and silencing those with the wrong opinions. In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published — “What Next In the Law.” The publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies. He wrote: "The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out." Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing sound common sense.
Since the rise of the New left in the 1960s Judges routinely make political decisions not just political statements. This is why the Establishment is called an “Ideological Caste.” It is united by central ideas like anti-White racism, Internationalism and abstract beliefs like social justice and progress where prejudice, discrimination are transcended. Their fantasy is flawed because these qualities are ineluctably part of human nature; far from transcending prejudice and discrimination, they have changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from outsiders to their own people!
The attack on our people and way of life by the judiciary has two main planks: promoting Muslim extremism and undermining our way of life through law.
Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and is “intrinsically counter-majoritarian....should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion”.
Many people seem to mistakenly believe that our judges are simply out-of-touch, semi-senile old people. However, there are clearly far more sinister forces at work here. Judges who make political comments counter to our traditional British values are showing that they have a subversive agenda which is clearly not in the interests of the majority. The judiciary are supposed to be independent from Parliament but some of them have shown themselves to be highly politicised with a clear anti- British agenda. This cannot be tolerated any longer. They have forfeited their right to be judges, in my opinion. During the Nuremberg trials the German judiciary who had enacted Nazi laws were prosecuted and in some cases executed for their crimes. Others were given very long prison sentences. In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, but now a judge, described nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 till 3rd November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.”
The judge who turned the police into institutionally anti-white racist was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. This introduced Soviet techniques to oppress White people in the Recommendations -
12. That the definition should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.
14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.
This makes crime subjective and gives other ethnic groups legal power over “White” people. Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.
Recommendation 13 is even more mendacious: investigate “non-crimes”!!! This totalitarian device criminalises everything and allows the politicised police to investigate any aspect of our lives they choose. Multi-racialism and totalitarianism are indivisible. As in Yugoslavia under Tito, a multi-racial society can only work totalitarian methods.
Recommendation 38 which requests the” power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented” and the citizen loses legal safeguards and the state can prosecute repeatedly until it gets the right verdict.
Recommendation 39 is similar to the extensions to paragraph 10, Article 58 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code which ordered “face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter” to be investigated for anti-Soviet thoughts.
The Recommendation states:”That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place.”
All seventy recommendations were presented by BBC News in “Lawrence: Key Recommendations.”
Judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers – he discriminates in their favour! The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he hate this country? In February 2003 The Telegraph exposed him in “Damning verdict on judge.”
The judiciary attack our society by undermining the family. Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference that she supported gay adoption , legally recognised gay partnerships, improved legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit and the idea of fault removed from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows there will be no impartiality towards this aspect of “the Culture Wars,” as she was announcing beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values.
In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family(anti?) judge.
Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family: “family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship."
The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the preposterous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that their gender at birth was what they now say it is. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born.
The feminist/communist hate campaign against the traditional heterosexual nuclear family has been an ongoing thing since the 1960's. The family law courts have been enabling this hate campaign since the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and subsequent anti-family legislation, by interpreting the law the way the media led feminist movement wish to and not in the way that Parliament originally intended.
Children and fathers are routinely treated as sub-humans, both inside the divorce courts and after the pre-determined anti-father ruling. Grandparents are also treated like dirt when it comes to accessing their loved ones.
Ironic that the same feminazis and treacherous anti-British judges fully endorse the very pro-father Sharia courts, given that if Muslims take over this country, the 'British' judiciary will be among the promoters.
They support outside groups against people with property. The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws they were allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are supposed obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This was later reversed but the bias of the judiciary had been signalled to interested parties.
As part of the elites Islamification programme, many Judges are campaigning for the introduction of Shari law. In December 2008 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council he was willing to see Sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.
He also suggested Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.
In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England's first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a Sharia divorce.
Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights
In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”
Sharia law will be allowed as long as it doesn't 'lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments'. Who is going to decide on the principal of 'severe'. It is against the law to smack a naughty child so by that definition there should not be any Muslim law that would not 'come into conflict' with current law. 'Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements'. This would then create two systems of divorce. Any 'white' Christian male who was divorcing, would, presumably, be able to choose a sharia court for his divorce. Equally a muslim woman being divorced can choose a 'Western style' court. Who then would decide which court has superiority? Again we see the appeasement to islam leading to conflict with Western values. The two are diametrically opposed and cannot be run with unity as much as the liberals would like to think it would.
Just as the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by the Prime Minister. I remember Tony Benn at some point enquiring what criteria were used when judges were selected. The whole process was then apparently secret - and I'm sure it's as bad or worse now. As you say, saxonian, it's no surprise we have such useless rubbish in charge of "justice". Maybe there is something to be said for the US system of elected judges (except then there would be financed campaigns by vested interest groups in favour of the 'correct' judges).
The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU it was seen as helping political union in Europe and a move to one world government. They acted ideologically and challenged governments in many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab who shared the ideology came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.
In the sixties Liberalism changed from individual rights to group rights which is what is known as Cultural Marxism but as we became the object of prejudice and discrimination while the groups Hitler disliked became privileged and treated as superior. I think it’s more accurate to call it Cultural Nazism against White heterosexual males.
Our nation was our extended family and the embodiment of our cultural hierarchy that had treated other races as less than us, but this is our country. The nation had protected individuals as part of a bigger community, was replaced by interest groups defined by group identities - race, gender and orientation and religion other than Christianity which was replaced by multi-racialism.
One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn once pleasant Britain into a world centre for terrorists. They use Britain as a base to attack other countries from. Human Rights laws prohibit torture or degrading treatment so they stopped removing illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to countries where judges thought or pretended such treatment was practised. In 2008 at least two terrorists were released early from prison!
They also began to interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (prejudice) than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. Considering the terror attacks and the number of Muslim terrorists the judges have encouraged it is clear that White Britons are threatened by this group!
International law is neither based in national habits and conventions nor even democratic jurisdictions, but current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials. Through the Human Rights Act they gave asylum to countless people who are a military threat to us as long as they claimed they would be in danger if returned to their destination countries.
The judges use this legislation to grant rights to people refused asylum, who then hide in their ethnic communities here. As they could not be sent back too their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger. To see the moral corruption - a Taliban soldier who had fought our troops was granted asylum because he feared persecution.
Home Office figures in December 2005 recorded that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since the terror attempt of 21 July were asylum seekers shows that the judiciary have breached national security; two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.
Some terrorists were protected by the judiciary - Algerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992 and was kept here for ten years despite three requests for his extradition!
In 1995, the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen but after the judges thwarted this. He lived in North London and was allowed to constantly post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.
In 2004, judges wrecked the governments’ attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial, which was introduced after 9/11, in “The Belmarsh Judgement.” This is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war. Lord Hoffman, made the ludicrous statement that Muslim extremism does not imperil the nation: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes from laws such as these.”
Lord Phillips' speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in support of the Human Rights Act, is a classic of sloppy, illogical thinking. “Control orders” were an attempt by the government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Human Rights Act.
Phillips acknowledged that the act has limited actions in “response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade," but, he said: "It is essential that (immigrants) and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society." There we have it: the law prevents the authorities combating terrorism and so reduces the risk of terrorism!
The alliance between Western elites and Islam is so strong that as well as changing our culture by Islamification, the judiciary are now breaking down the Jewish community. They promote Sharia Law while making Judaism illegal under the totalitarian Race Relations Act of 1976.
The Jewish Free School school in Brent, is an Orthodox Jewish school and because it was oversubscribed gave priority to children deemed Jewish by birth. The boy was refused entry because his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith. The admission of a boy “M” was rejected because “M”'s mother became Jewish by conversion, after M was born. According to Orthodox rules, Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.
The Supreme Court decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. Supreme Court president Lord Phillips and Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke found that the school directly discriminated on racial grounds against child M and others like him. Judge Lord Rodger, said the decision "… produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools…"
The judges have undermined our way of life, protected terrorists and are now attacking Jewish people to Islamify Britain. This is the nexus of Western elites and Muslims against White and Jewish communities known as Eurabia.
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Changing People's Perception of reality
Two surprising articles about race and the First World recently appeared in the world’s media: the first in Britain and the other in Russia. Both revealed startling truths which are worth considering in detail.
In Britain, Rod Liddle wrote the wrong thing on his Spectator blog about two black youths who conspired to push a pregnant woman into a canal as part of a failed murder plot: “The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. In return for all this crime, the black community has given Britain ‘rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us’. For which, many thanks.”
The Thought Police immediately stepped in to suppress this way of thinking. The Thought Police have been described as an “ideological caste” because they are an elite who hold power and grant patronage to people who say the right things and destroy those who transgress. (Where is Ron Atkinson the former manager and TV football pundit?) To get into power say the right things; to stay in power, say the right things.
In response to Mr Liddle’s comments, Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney, retreated into history to try to denigrate his accurate comments by comparing him to fascist leader Oswald Mosley.
Yet on her blog, Ms Abbott once admitted: “Sadly 80 percent of gun crime in London is ‘black-on-black,’ often involving boys in their teens. As a black woman and the mother of a teenage son, this is frightening and wholly unacceptable.”
So frightening and unacceptable that Ms Abbot sent her children to a fee-paying school rather than to a local state secondary. In her own words, “too many black boys were unsuccessful within inner-city state schools.”
Ministry of Justice figures for 2007/2008 claim that only 2.2 percent of Britons aged ten or above are black, yet 14 percent of criminal cases tried in a crown court involve black suspects. For some crimes, the figures are even more alarming. One controversial report conducted by Scotland Yard last year found that more than half of teen knife crime offences in the capital involve black suspects.
Two years ago the Commons home affairs committee warned of a “serious crisis” among Britain’s young black community.
The public are given a false view of reality so that they cannot make a mature decision on the important topics of the day. Democracy is only possible when adults make mature decisions based on the facts.
Yet the Western media deny the public the facts and thereby have corrupted the political process. How many Europeans have ever heard of the Knoxville murders when a gang of blacks brutally murdered an innocent white couple? The case contained horrific details and if the races of the perpetrators and victims had been reversed, the whole world would know about it.
In that case, Hugh Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, and Channon Gail Christian, 21, were both raped and murdered after being kidnapped early on the morning of January 7, 2007. Five blacks were arrested and a grand jury indicted four on counts of murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape and theft.
Three of those arrested, Letalvis D. Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson and George Thomas, have been convicted on multiple charges including several counts of felony murder. Another has been convicted of federal charges as accessory after the fact to carjacking.
According to the testimony of the Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan at the subsequent trial of Eric Boyd, Newsom was repeatedly raped with an object and then blindfolded, gagged, arms and feet bound and his head covered. Barefoot, he was either led or dragged outside the house to a set of nearby railroad tracks. He was shot in the back of the head, the neck, and the back, and his body then set on fire.
Christian’s death came only after hours of sexual torture, medical examiner Mileusnic-Polchan testified. Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was not only raped but savaged with “an object,” possibly a broken chair leg, the doctor testified. She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed with the same solution – all while Christian was alive, the forensic expert said. She was then “hog-tied,” with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets. Christian died slowly, suffocating, the medical examiner said.
Despite these horrific details, the international press, including CNN, have ignored the story. In Britain, only one paper, The Daily Mail, in Britain dared mention it: “Ironically, the case has now generated more publicity surrounding the furore over whether or not political correctness was behind the US media’s decision to largely ignore the story than it did for the murders themselves.” The same article quoted conservative commentator Michelle Malkin — herself of south east Asian extraction — as saying, “This case – an attractive white couple murdered by five black thugs – doesn’t fit any political agenda. It’s not a useful crime. Reverse the races and just imagine how the national media would cover the story of a young black couple murdered by five white assailants.”
The worst of it is that there have been similar cases in Tottenham, North London which were also hushed up by the media – “The savage path from Knoxville to Tottenham Hale.” Media blackouts such as these undermine democracy and prepare the way for a totalitarian society as they deny all people — black and white – the knowledge necessary to make correct political choices.
The Neo-Marxists are trying to change our perception of reality like the Soviet Union did to its subjects. The Soviets made a distinction between “Pravda,” the truth which is ideologically correct, and “Istina,” the objective truth. The multiracial ideologues view “Istina” as heresy and try to impose ideological truth on people who generally understand reality by common sense, experience and tradition from their parents and community.
The ideologues think they are pursuing a higher truth that leads to the multiracial utopia via the totalitarian doctrine called political correctness. As in Soviet Russia reality has to be described as they would like it to be, not as it is.
Jules Margoline lived through Soviet totalitarianism and is quoted in The Black Book of Communism: “It’s the need to tell an endless series of lies to save your life, to lie every day, to wear a mask for years and never say what you really think. In Soviet Russia, free (?) citizens have to do the same thing. Dissembling and lies become the only means of defence. Public meetings, business meetings, encounters on the street, conversations, even posters on the wall get wrapped up in an official language that does not contain a word of truth. People in the West can’t possibly understand what it is like to lose the right to say what you think for years on end . . .”
For years, people who have been oppressed or pushed out have cowed when expressing their grievance and begin: “I’m not a racist, but …” In other words, they are frightened to openly express their victimisation.
The persecution of Western patriots is prefigured in Vassily Grossman’s Everything Flows. A former party worker relates the media attacks on the Kulaks as “the enemies of the people … these words started to have an effect on me … at meetings and on special courses of instruction, and in radio broadcasts, at the cinema, writers and Stalin himself, all hammered home the same message: the Kulaks are parasites, they are burning brain and killing children … they must be exterminated … it was as if I was bewitched, and it seemed to me that all the world’s woes were the fault of the Kulaks and were they exterminated, the peasants would find happiness.”
Nowadays this process is being used against any patriot who does not want his or her country turned over to the Third World.
This reversal of reality — where the supposedly ‘Free West’ has become totalitarian and the former Soviet Union ‘free’ was aptly demonstrated by the second article under consideration.
In December 2009, Pravda, the former Soviet propaganda sheet, lamented the totalitarian state in which westerners live: “Throughout the totalitarian West, the Marxist internationalist elites, while busily flooding their countries with tens of millions of Third Worlders, have introduced specific measures to keep the native populations down and in check … Hate Crimes Laws. These laws state that a crime is not just a crime if we can find a deeper motive, such as hate of a specific race, sex, religion or sexual orientation … A murder is not just a murder if hate is involved and ‘minorities’ lives are worth more than whites! If the local jury trial is considered too lenient, then the globalist elites of the west can try the person again for ‘hate’ … In America, anti-white violence is exploding. An average of 12 people per day are killed by illegals and three times more whites and Asians are killed by blacks than vice versa. The same can be found in England ….
“When five blacks kidnapped a white couple, raped and murdered the man, than kept the woman for further rapes and poured bleach down her throat to kill her, there was no hate crime, even though those five became the idols of black racist groups in America. Nor when Mexican gangs ethnically cleanse one street after another. When Islamic Pakistanis in England beat an Anglican priest almost to death, in front of his church and screamed how they were going burn down the church … no hate crimes. When Islamic Turks murdered the white, Christian boyfriend of a Turkish girl, in Germany … not a hate crime. When Arabs and Pakistanis in Athens attack and burn Greek Orthodox businesses … not a hate crime. When the director van Gogh is brutally murdered by an Islamic assailant … not a hate crime. However, his Dutch film, showing the plight of the women under Islam, beat and abused, well, most definitely that is a hate crime … We must face the reality that those of us of European ethnic background who reside in the West are no longer living in free societies. We exist inside regimes that believe in our extermination, regimes that do not admit that we exist as a people.”
Like the Kurds in Turkey, we are forced to send our children to schools where the existence of our people as an independent entity is denied. If we do not do so, we run the risk of the government that hates us stealing our children and having them be brought up by strangers.” Family Courts often sit in camera!
In Florida, Teah Wimberly, 16, was recently charged with murdering Amanda Coll, a friend and classmate at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale. They were 15 at the time of the shooting. Ms. Wimberly, apparently wanted a lesbian relationship but was rebuffed. On 12 Nov of last year, police say, Wimberly took a .22-caliber handgun to school and shot Collette.
This case is being kept quiet, unlike when Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming or when James Byrd was dragged to death in Jasper, Texas. The latter two incidents got massive publicity in the states. Why so? Because they belong to privileged identity groups. Shepard was homosexual and two men beat him to death for it; Byrd was black and three white supremacists chained him to a truck, and dragged him through the streets of Jasper and beheaded him.
The ‘hate crimes’ law signed recently by President Obama was called the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Like our oppressive Race Acts, this does not oppose hate, but “Whites.” It is part of the change from the individual rights of traditional liberals to the “group rights” of the “Cultural Marxist” which emerged in the 1960s. The law actually gives preferential treatment to other ethnic groups over whites by creating classes of victims and perpetrators, as if some victims of violent crime are better than others or some perpetrators worse.
Wimberly wasn’t charged with a hate crime because she’s the right sexual orientation — lesbian. Had she been a heterosexual teen who shot a lesbian, it would have publicised incessantly.
Type Kriss Donald into a search engine then, Stephen Lawrence then Damilola Taylor. We are being discriminated against by the law and the media. If people knew what was really going on in our countries there would be public demonstrations and that is why the crime figures have to be doctored: white crime is emphasised while ethnic attacks on whites are played down or not reported.
Trevor Phillips has admitted the facts. “…what we need to do is stop people being shot and ending up dead in gutters at the age of fourteen or fifteen. Who are the people to whom that is happening? Way, way disproportionately black people. I think you will find that amongst the black community in this country there is more keenness for tough and active measures to rein in the gunmen than amongst anybody else, because they are the victims.”
The failure to openly discuss this serious issue to which Mr Phillips alludes to is part of the multiracialists’ mentality. Suppression of truth, totalitarianism and a quest for a multiracial utopia go together. They are indivisible. Because it is so unnatural the truth has to be hidden.
The hiding of reality from the public began with multiracialism in 1948 and is part of the multiracialists’ outlook.
Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 West Indians, J.D. Murray and ten other Labour MPs wrote to Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, asking for legislation to prevent an influx.
Atlee replied that he thought they would “make a genuine contribution to our labour difficulties at the present.” Yet in private Atlee’s cabinet held three discussions about immigration.
The first debate on immigration in the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1954 called by John Hynd, Labour MP for Sheffield (Attercliffe), show that these symptoms of social collapse had been evident for over 50 years.
“One day recently 700 embarked from Jamaica without any prospect of work, housing or anything else,” he noted. He also said the colour-bar in Sheffield dance halls because of knife fights was justified. Both Hynd and another Labour MP James Johnson called for a committee of enquiry to be set up.
Other speakers repeatedly asked the Government to take action. But Henry Hopkinson (C), Minister of State at the Colonial Office, fobbed them off by telling them “the matter is receiving urgent attention.” He did however admit that he had received many letters from worried MPs on both sides.
In around 1979 a Metropolitan police report on mugging was withdrawn to prevent a clamour for control of immigration or even a white backlash.
In 1959 a report from both the London Metropolitan Police and West Midlands Police expressed concern at the growing number of crimes of violence being carried out by some newly-arrived West Indians. The rate per head of population was four times that committed by indigenous people.
An excellent series in The Times during January 1965 titled “The Dark Million” showed what the official attitude was. The author wrote: “Back in June (1964) a senior civil servant talked to me about a particular aspect of the problem that has since taken some people by surprise. I had asked why figures were not available to give a nationwide picture of the problem.
“I was told: ‘We haven’t tried to find out. It may be as things get more critical, and they are getting more critical, it will be decided that we should do so. It will be a political decision. One of the things about statistics is that people asked what they are, then again in three months time what they are, and then you have a problem on your hands. People start to keep the score, and you have a crisis. If, as, a result, they know that such-and-such is happening in Wolverhampton, they say what is the Government doing about Wolverhampton. It is a matter of judgement as to when you start taking that line and say something should be done. It is a matter for central Government’.”
You only have to go three miles from an inner city and people do not know what is really happening. They believe the media and have the understanding of the world of children. Their reality has been changed.
In Britain, Rod Liddle wrote the wrong thing on his Spectator blog about two black youths who conspired to push a pregnant woman into a canal as part of a failed murder plot: “The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. In return for all this crime, the black community has given Britain ‘rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us’. For which, many thanks.”
The Thought Police immediately stepped in to suppress this way of thinking. The Thought Police have been described as an “ideological caste” because they are an elite who hold power and grant patronage to people who say the right things and destroy those who transgress. (Where is Ron Atkinson the former manager and TV football pundit?) To get into power say the right things; to stay in power, say the right things.
In response to Mr Liddle’s comments, Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney, retreated into history to try to denigrate his accurate comments by comparing him to fascist leader Oswald Mosley.
Yet on her blog, Ms Abbott once admitted: “Sadly 80 percent of gun crime in London is ‘black-on-black,’ often involving boys in their teens. As a black woman and the mother of a teenage son, this is frightening and wholly unacceptable.”
So frightening and unacceptable that Ms Abbot sent her children to a fee-paying school rather than to a local state secondary. In her own words, “too many black boys were unsuccessful within inner-city state schools.”
Ministry of Justice figures for 2007/2008 claim that only 2.2 percent of Britons aged ten or above are black, yet 14 percent of criminal cases tried in a crown court involve black suspects. For some crimes, the figures are even more alarming. One controversial report conducted by Scotland Yard last year found that more than half of teen knife crime offences in the capital involve black suspects.
Two years ago the Commons home affairs committee warned of a “serious crisis” among Britain’s young black community.
The public are given a false view of reality so that they cannot make a mature decision on the important topics of the day. Democracy is only possible when adults make mature decisions based on the facts.
Yet the Western media deny the public the facts and thereby have corrupted the political process. How many Europeans have ever heard of the Knoxville murders when a gang of blacks brutally murdered an innocent white couple? The case contained horrific details and if the races of the perpetrators and victims had been reversed, the whole world would know about it.
In that case, Hugh Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, and Channon Gail Christian, 21, were both raped and murdered after being kidnapped early on the morning of January 7, 2007. Five blacks were arrested and a grand jury indicted four on counts of murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape and theft.
Three of those arrested, Letalvis D. Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson and George Thomas, have been convicted on multiple charges including several counts of felony murder. Another has been convicted of federal charges as accessory after the fact to carjacking.
According to the testimony of the Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan at the subsequent trial of Eric Boyd, Newsom was repeatedly raped with an object and then blindfolded, gagged, arms and feet bound and his head covered. Barefoot, he was either led or dragged outside the house to a set of nearby railroad tracks. He was shot in the back of the head, the neck, and the back, and his body then set on fire.
Christian’s death came only after hours of sexual torture, medical examiner Mileusnic-Polchan testified. Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was not only raped but savaged with “an object,” possibly a broken chair leg, the doctor testified. She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed with the same solution – all while Christian was alive, the forensic expert said. She was then “hog-tied,” with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets. Christian died slowly, suffocating, the medical examiner said.
Despite these horrific details, the international press, including CNN, have ignored the story. In Britain, only one paper, The Daily Mail, in Britain dared mention it: “Ironically, the case has now generated more publicity surrounding the furore over whether or not political correctness was behind the US media’s decision to largely ignore the story than it did for the murders themselves.” The same article quoted conservative commentator Michelle Malkin — herself of south east Asian extraction — as saying, “This case – an attractive white couple murdered by five black thugs – doesn’t fit any political agenda. It’s not a useful crime. Reverse the races and just imagine how the national media would cover the story of a young black couple murdered by five white assailants.”
The worst of it is that there have been similar cases in Tottenham, North London which were also hushed up by the media – “The savage path from Knoxville to Tottenham Hale.” Media blackouts such as these undermine democracy and prepare the way for a totalitarian society as they deny all people — black and white – the knowledge necessary to make correct political choices.
The Neo-Marxists are trying to change our perception of reality like the Soviet Union did to its subjects. The Soviets made a distinction between “Pravda,” the truth which is ideologically correct, and “Istina,” the objective truth. The multiracial ideologues view “Istina” as heresy and try to impose ideological truth on people who generally understand reality by common sense, experience and tradition from their parents and community.
The ideologues think they are pursuing a higher truth that leads to the multiracial utopia via the totalitarian doctrine called political correctness. As in Soviet Russia reality has to be described as they would like it to be, not as it is.
Jules Margoline lived through Soviet totalitarianism and is quoted in The Black Book of Communism: “It’s the need to tell an endless series of lies to save your life, to lie every day, to wear a mask for years and never say what you really think. In Soviet Russia, free (?) citizens have to do the same thing. Dissembling and lies become the only means of defence. Public meetings, business meetings, encounters on the street, conversations, even posters on the wall get wrapped up in an official language that does not contain a word of truth. People in the West can’t possibly understand what it is like to lose the right to say what you think for years on end . . .”
For years, people who have been oppressed or pushed out have cowed when expressing their grievance and begin: “I’m not a racist, but …” In other words, they are frightened to openly express their victimisation.
The persecution of Western patriots is prefigured in Vassily Grossman’s Everything Flows. A former party worker relates the media attacks on the Kulaks as “the enemies of the people … these words started to have an effect on me … at meetings and on special courses of instruction, and in radio broadcasts, at the cinema, writers and Stalin himself, all hammered home the same message: the Kulaks are parasites, they are burning brain and killing children … they must be exterminated … it was as if I was bewitched, and it seemed to me that all the world’s woes were the fault of the Kulaks and were they exterminated, the peasants would find happiness.”
Nowadays this process is being used against any patriot who does not want his or her country turned over to the Third World.
This reversal of reality — where the supposedly ‘Free West’ has become totalitarian and the former Soviet Union ‘free’ was aptly demonstrated by the second article under consideration.
In December 2009, Pravda, the former Soviet propaganda sheet, lamented the totalitarian state in which westerners live: “Throughout the totalitarian West, the Marxist internationalist elites, while busily flooding their countries with tens of millions of Third Worlders, have introduced specific measures to keep the native populations down and in check … Hate Crimes Laws. These laws state that a crime is not just a crime if we can find a deeper motive, such as hate of a specific race, sex, religion or sexual orientation … A murder is not just a murder if hate is involved and ‘minorities’ lives are worth more than whites! If the local jury trial is considered too lenient, then the globalist elites of the west can try the person again for ‘hate’ … In America, anti-white violence is exploding. An average of 12 people per day are killed by illegals and three times more whites and Asians are killed by blacks than vice versa. The same can be found in England ….
“When five blacks kidnapped a white couple, raped and murdered the man, than kept the woman for further rapes and poured bleach down her throat to kill her, there was no hate crime, even though those five became the idols of black racist groups in America. Nor when Mexican gangs ethnically cleanse one street after another. When Islamic Pakistanis in England beat an Anglican priest almost to death, in front of his church and screamed how they were going burn down the church … no hate crimes. When Islamic Turks murdered the white, Christian boyfriend of a Turkish girl, in Germany … not a hate crime. When Arabs and Pakistanis in Athens attack and burn Greek Orthodox businesses … not a hate crime. When the director van Gogh is brutally murdered by an Islamic assailant … not a hate crime. However, his Dutch film, showing the plight of the women under Islam, beat and abused, well, most definitely that is a hate crime … We must face the reality that those of us of European ethnic background who reside in the West are no longer living in free societies. We exist inside regimes that believe in our extermination, regimes that do not admit that we exist as a people.”
Like the Kurds in Turkey, we are forced to send our children to schools where the existence of our people as an independent entity is denied. If we do not do so, we run the risk of the government that hates us stealing our children and having them be brought up by strangers.” Family Courts often sit in camera!
In Florida, Teah Wimberly, 16, was recently charged with murdering Amanda Coll, a friend and classmate at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale. They were 15 at the time of the shooting. Ms. Wimberly, apparently wanted a lesbian relationship but was rebuffed. On 12 Nov of last year, police say, Wimberly took a .22-caliber handgun to school and shot Collette.
This case is being kept quiet, unlike when Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming or when James Byrd was dragged to death in Jasper, Texas. The latter two incidents got massive publicity in the states. Why so? Because they belong to privileged identity groups. Shepard was homosexual and two men beat him to death for it; Byrd was black and three white supremacists chained him to a truck, and dragged him through the streets of Jasper and beheaded him.
The ‘hate crimes’ law signed recently by President Obama was called the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Like our oppressive Race Acts, this does not oppose hate, but “Whites.” It is part of the change from the individual rights of traditional liberals to the “group rights” of the “Cultural Marxist” which emerged in the 1960s. The law actually gives preferential treatment to other ethnic groups over whites by creating classes of victims and perpetrators, as if some victims of violent crime are better than others or some perpetrators worse.
Wimberly wasn’t charged with a hate crime because she’s the right sexual orientation — lesbian. Had she been a heterosexual teen who shot a lesbian, it would have publicised incessantly.
Type Kriss Donald into a search engine then, Stephen Lawrence then Damilola Taylor. We are being discriminated against by the law and the media. If people knew what was really going on in our countries there would be public demonstrations and that is why the crime figures have to be doctored: white crime is emphasised while ethnic attacks on whites are played down or not reported.
Trevor Phillips has admitted the facts. “…what we need to do is stop people being shot and ending up dead in gutters at the age of fourteen or fifteen. Who are the people to whom that is happening? Way, way disproportionately black people. I think you will find that amongst the black community in this country there is more keenness for tough and active measures to rein in the gunmen than amongst anybody else, because they are the victims.”
The failure to openly discuss this serious issue to which Mr Phillips alludes to is part of the multiracialists’ mentality. Suppression of truth, totalitarianism and a quest for a multiracial utopia go together. They are indivisible. Because it is so unnatural the truth has to be hidden.
The hiding of reality from the public began with multiracialism in 1948 and is part of the multiracialists’ outlook.
Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 West Indians, J.D. Murray and ten other Labour MPs wrote to Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, asking for legislation to prevent an influx.
Atlee replied that he thought they would “make a genuine contribution to our labour difficulties at the present.” Yet in private Atlee’s cabinet held three discussions about immigration.
The first debate on immigration in the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1954 called by John Hynd, Labour MP for Sheffield (Attercliffe), show that these symptoms of social collapse had been evident for over 50 years.
“One day recently 700 embarked from Jamaica without any prospect of work, housing or anything else,” he noted. He also said the colour-bar in Sheffield dance halls because of knife fights was justified. Both Hynd and another Labour MP James Johnson called for a committee of enquiry to be set up.
Other speakers repeatedly asked the Government to take action. But Henry Hopkinson (C), Minister of State at the Colonial Office, fobbed them off by telling them “the matter is receiving urgent attention.” He did however admit that he had received many letters from worried MPs on both sides.
In around 1979 a Metropolitan police report on mugging was withdrawn to prevent a clamour for control of immigration or even a white backlash.
In 1959 a report from both the London Metropolitan Police and West Midlands Police expressed concern at the growing number of crimes of violence being carried out by some newly-arrived West Indians. The rate per head of population was four times that committed by indigenous people.
An excellent series in The Times during January 1965 titled “The Dark Million” showed what the official attitude was. The author wrote: “Back in June (1964) a senior civil servant talked to me about a particular aspect of the problem that has since taken some people by surprise. I had asked why figures were not available to give a nationwide picture of the problem.
“I was told: ‘We haven’t tried to find out. It may be as things get more critical, and they are getting more critical, it will be decided that we should do so. It will be a political decision. One of the things about statistics is that people asked what they are, then again in three months time what they are, and then you have a problem on your hands. People start to keep the score, and you have a crisis. If, as, a result, they know that such-and-such is happening in Wolverhampton, they say what is the Government doing about Wolverhampton. It is a matter of judgement as to when you start taking that line and say something should be done. It is a matter for central Government’.”
You only have to go three miles from an inner city and people do not know what is really happening. They believe the media and have the understanding of the world of children. Their reality has been changed.
The Invited Conquest
The ruling elite have different approaches towards white Britons and immigrants on a number of issues, but the most disturbing of all is the psychological warfare waged against indigenous British people. Their main tactic consists of trying to generate a sense of guilt and a feeling of “having wronged others” amongst our people — while at the same time ensuring that we are blamed for all ills affecting any other ethnic group.
For example, the recent Channel 4 show, The Event: How Racist Are You? presented only white people as the “racists” and blacks and Asians as victims. It really does seem that the ruling elite will not be happy until all white people have been cleansed from Britain or savagely murdered, as is happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Why do the media and MPs like Barry Gardiner get so hysterical about truthful people (such as South Wales’ Roger Phillips in his excellent video “BNP: The True Face of Immigration”)?
The Mr Gardiners of the world get so hysterical because videos like that expose clearly how they have lied to their own people. Indigenous British people have been pushed out of their communities by force of numbers. Young British people have had to face unfair competition for jobs from imported cheap labour.
Such videos show the ruling elite for what they are — cheats and liars. They have cowed critics with accusations of “racism” and in that way have ensured that whole areas have been taken over by aliens. All the while, the elites continue to live in “good” areas and send their children to the best schools.
As the popular clamour for fair play grows, the establishment has become more oppressive. In Italy, for example, a court recently reduced an African-origin murderer’s prison sentence because he had a genetic strand called MAOA which made him “genetically predisposed to violence.” Critics have pointed out that this could be used to argue that genes determine behaviour. This allegation did not deter the liberal judges — it seems that they believe in race when it is to the advantage of immigrants, but when “our” people mention the topic we are met with vilification.
In Britain, newspapers announced earlier this year that a new security strategy to “tackle extremists is to focus on White racists.” This followed an order to the police to “go easy” on Muslim terrorists. Scotland Yard claimed that “far right” groups could be planning a terrorist “spectacular” to stoke up racial tensions. I wouldn’t put it past security services to do one and blame the “far-right.”
Met Commander Shaun Sawyer signalled the complicity of the security services with Muslim extremists when he told the Muslim Safety Forum at the beginning of July this year that security services would focus on “whites.” He knew that in January 2009, the head of domestic security service MI-5 had revealed that 2,000 people in Britain were involved with to Islamist terrorist plots and many more support terrorism through fundraising and propaganda. From September 11, 2001 to the end of March 2008, British authorities arrested 1,471 Muslims for terrorism-related offences.
In spite of all of this, the police have increased the number of officers in a special unit monitoring “rightwing extremists.” Facts and figures aside, they appear to genuinely regard a lone crank as more important than the thousands and thousands of Islamistis running free in Britain.
In 2007, a newspaper reported on how identified al-Qaeda supporters had been employed by the police. “Eight Al Qaeda fanatics working for the police (but they don’t dare sack them),” read the headline.
Incredibly, it is official police policy to alert “Muslim community leaders” before they raid premises in the search for explosives and terrorists. They even put little booties on explosive-sniffing dogs so as “not to offend” the suspected terrorists. One has to wonder on whose side the security services and the police are?
The New Local Government Network report, titled Reassessing Prevent, adds to the creation of a climate of persecution of patriots. It shifts the terrorist threat to the BNP because of their election success in the European elections as well as their 55 local councillors.
Apparently this “underlines the fact that racial hatred and extremist ideology is not limited to any one faith or community.”
Comparing a defence of your children and communities with terrorism shows the corrupt minds of establishment propagandists like Anna Turley, author of the report. She said: “While Islamist extremism remains a very serious threat to our security, this kind of extremism is not the only threat to the stability and security of our communities.”
Why do the security services and police cover up Muslim extremism? Here is a clue: former Italian President Francesco Cossiga admitted in the Italian paper Corriere della Sera in 2008, that in the 1970s, the Italian government allowed Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks.
The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a “secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups.” It was Moro who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists, Cossiga said.
“The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services.”
As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. “The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country.”
Muslim terrorists were welcomed into Britain and did not need to answer questions or to show papers. This began under Thatcher who herself lived safely in a gated community. They got free education, free health care even when they openly developed terrorist cells and trained bombers for active service in other parts of the world. Few have legal entitlement to enter this country but are allowed to stay and provided extra benefits we do not get like free cars, mobile phones and decorated houses.
This was after the London bombing of 7/7 and without it al-Qeeda could not have got into the West to launch bombing attacks like those in London and Madrid. The authorities know what they are doing.
During the protests in Luton when Muslim extremists shouted abuse at the homecoming parade of the Royal Anglian Regiment, the police arrested a white protester but allowed the Muslims to abuse the soldiers.
Eight young Muslim terrorists on active service from Birmingham, London and Luton, were arrested in Aden in December 1998, planning terror attacks against British targets. The security services then claimed they had no idea that Muslim soldiers were being recruited in British mosques and trained in terror camps. Do we believe them?
As far back as 1999, it was reported that around 2,000 British Muslims were being trained in British terror camps, mainly in London and Birmingham. As well as studying holy war, the trainees were taught hand-to-hand combat, survival skills for guerrilla warfare and advised to get real military training in war zones like the Yemen and Afghanistan. Many do, because Birmingham accents have been picked up there by RAF Nimrod aircraft.
British-based Muslim terrorists operate abroad but still the authorities bring them here. For example, in December 2001, Richard Reid a supporter of al-Qaeda tried to detonate a shoe-bomb on a Paris to Miami aeroplane. In 2002, Ahmed Sheik, organised the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.
Mohammed Hanif and Omar Shariff were involved in a suicide bomb attack in Tel Aiv. Abu Qatada ran the Spanish, Milan and German al-Qaeda cells from London.
British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments such as Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American have protested against our elites allowing the Islamist terrorist infrastructure in this country and refusing to extradite wanted operatives.
The American Heritage Foundation regards Britain as a terrorist danger. How have we allowed our establishment to drag us down to that level?
The Muslim community shelters extremists and illegal immigrants as they did the murderers of Kriss Donald and the media aid and abet them by covering up the facts of such cases.
Palestinian mores glorify suicide bombers as ‘ Shahid ‘ or martyrs and terrorism is part of the Palestinian mentality. Many British Muslims hero worship them. In Britain they are bombers because of ideology, not social conditions, and are usually middle class Muslims born and educated in Britain. This is an “enemy within” that does not have to invade because it was imported by the elites who pour taxpayers’ money into their communities such as Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Keighley.
At Shehzad Tanweer’s memorial funeral in his home village in Pakistan, an estimated 10,000 mourners chanted Jihad, Jihad, Jihad and eulogised the suicide bomber.
On 27 July 2005, BBC reporter Phil Mackie admitted on Radio 5 Brian Hayes 10 pm programme that the BBC censors the truth about Muslims and that the BBC is selective in its broadcasting of Muslim statements. The function of the media is to prepare the public for whatever measures the establishment plan to further the Muslim extremists’ interests.
The elites treat us as enemy and scapegoat us when the multi-racial dream falters. The hysterical reports blaming Ulster people for the disputes with Roma gypsies is a classic example. The media never told us what caused the dispute but just accused local people of “racist attacks.” Well, I don’t believe them. I think these people were defending their communities.
The default position is anti-British and what was normal, healthy patriotism is now demonised as “far-right” and patriots are subject to slander and discrimination. To put things in perspective, there are about 200 investigations into Muslim terror plots being conducted by security services and the courts.
Even though the BNP have proscribed the EDL the media treat them as interchangeable as they try to slot the BNP into their ideology as “thugs” and “knuckle draggers.”
The police violence against the EDL anti-Muslim extremist demo in Leeds is a warning of what the establishment really want to do to the BNP. One of the police tricks seems to be based on the Hillsborough tragedy — that of “funnelling” the protesters into tight groups and chasing them while they fall over and get trampled as you will see in the video from Leeds.
The Government advertise in terrorist countries like Pakistan for immigrants to come here. In November 2006 a Foreign Office pamphlet advertised: “Multicultural Britain — A Land of Immigrants.” It stated that immigrants should immigrate here because of the Human Rights Act would protect them and well-paid jobs were available for them.
The Foreign Office put the document “Ethnic Diversity” in British embassies across the world.
Of convicted terrorists in Britain about 27 of 87 were trained or sought training in Pakistan or Afghanistan, Eighteen had terrorist training in Britain. Despite this, Labour’s “open door” immigration policy knowingly risked allowing dangerous people to settle in Britain unchecked, The Sunday Times reported on 8 November after secret documents were leaked. The evidence had been illegally withheld by the Home Office for four years.
A European Union initiative The Barcelona Agreement, which comes into force on 1 January, give rights of settlement to millions of Muslims from North Africa and grant them legal preference over indigenous as well as increasing attacks on Jewish communities. The Maastricht Treaty took control of our borders off us and John Major lied when he said it didn’t.
The new Chief of the Armed forces, General Sir David Richards, launched a support network for Muslims in the armed forces The Armed Forces Muslim Association. He said it “reflects the growing numbers, importance and relevance of their service and superb contribution they are making to the armed forces in the UK.” It will help “forge closer relationships with Islamic communities across the UK.” How many al-Qaeda supporters are in the British military?
As well as linking with Muslims, the military are preparing to shoot us if we protest against being dispossessed. Military personnel are being selected to form regiments prepared to shoot their own people.
In the “England Expects” blog, under the title “Scared Yet,” Libertarian Party leader Ian Parker-Joseph revealed that the M.O.D. were asking military personnel: “Will you open fire on UK citizens?… In a stunning conversation with a friend, who is a serving member of the Armed Forces, over the weekend, it was revealed that transfers to regiments and other units in the UK on home duties are being undertaken by the MOD based upon whether an individual was prepared to ‘open fire’ on UK citizens during civil disturbances.”
This was also revealed by the mother of a serving soldier on the net but she quickly removed it. This is corroborated by Dr. Richard North who learnt that the M.O.D. was buying up “unusually large quantities of tear gas and other riot equipment.”
The warning signs point towards military action against people who try to resist the displacement of our communities and destroying our children’s and grandchildren’s future by encouraging cheap labour by giving them extra state benefits that are denied to us. I urge readers with friends and relations in the military to keep us informed of this evil plan.
For example, the recent Channel 4 show, The Event: How Racist Are You? presented only white people as the “racists” and blacks and Asians as victims. It really does seem that the ruling elite will not be happy until all white people have been cleansed from Britain or savagely murdered, as is happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa.
Why do the media and MPs like Barry Gardiner get so hysterical about truthful people (such as South Wales’ Roger Phillips in his excellent video “BNP: The True Face of Immigration”)?
The Mr Gardiners of the world get so hysterical because videos like that expose clearly how they have lied to their own people. Indigenous British people have been pushed out of their communities by force of numbers. Young British people have had to face unfair competition for jobs from imported cheap labour.
Such videos show the ruling elite for what they are — cheats and liars. They have cowed critics with accusations of “racism” and in that way have ensured that whole areas have been taken over by aliens. All the while, the elites continue to live in “good” areas and send their children to the best schools.
As the popular clamour for fair play grows, the establishment has become more oppressive. In Italy, for example, a court recently reduced an African-origin murderer’s prison sentence because he had a genetic strand called MAOA which made him “genetically predisposed to violence.” Critics have pointed out that this could be used to argue that genes determine behaviour. This allegation did not deter the liberal judges — it seems that they believe in race when it is to the advantage of immigrants, but when “our” people mention the topic we are met with vilification.
In Britain, newspapers announced earlier this year that a new security strategy to “tackle extremists is to focus on White racists.” This followed an order to the police to “go easy” on Muslim terrorists. Scotland Yard claimed that “far right” groups could be planning a terrorist “spectacular” to stoke up racial tensions. I wouldn’t put it past security services to do one and blame the “far-right.”
Met Commander Shaun Sawyer signalled the complicity of the security services with Muslim extremists when he told the Muslim Safety Forum at the beginning of July this year that security services would focus on “whites.” He knew that in January 2009, the head of domestic security service MI-5 had revealed that 2,000 people in Britain were involved with to Islamist terrorist plots and many more support terrorism through fundraising and propaganda. From September 11, 2001 to the end of March 2008, British authorities arrested 1,471 Muslims for terrorism-related offences.
In spite of all of this, the police have increased the number of officers in a special unit monitoring “rightwing extremists.” Facts and figures aside, they appear to genuinely regard a lone crank as more important than the thousands and thousands of Islamistis running free in Britain.
In 2007, a newspaper reported on how identified al-Qaeda supporters had been employed by the police. “Eight Al Qaeda fanatics working for the police (but they don’t dare sack them),” read the headline.
Incredibly, it is official police policy to alert “Muslim community leaders” before they raid premises in the search for explosives and terrorists. They even put little booties on explosive-sniffing dogs so as “not to offend” the suspected terrorists. One has to wonder on whose side the security services and the police are?
The New Local Government Network report, titled Reassessing Prevent, adds to the creation of a climate of persecution of patriots. It shifts the terrorist threat to the BNP because of their election success in the European elections as well as their 55 local councillors.
Apparently this “underlines the fact that racial hatred and extremist ideology is not limited to any one faith or community.”
Comparing a defence of your children and communities with terrorism shows the corrupt minds of establishment propagandists like Anna Turley, author of the report. She said: “While Islamist extremism remains a very serious threat to our security, this kind of extremism is not the only threat to the stability and security of our communities.”
Why do the security services and police cover up Muslim extremism? Here is a clue: former Italian President Francesco Cossiga admitted in the Italian paper Corriere della Sera in 2008, that in the 1970s, the Italian government allowed Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks.
The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a “secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups.” It was Moro who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists, Cossiga said.
“The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services.”
As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. “The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country.”
Muslim terrorists were welcomed into Britain and did not need to answer questions or to show papers. This began under Thatcher who herself lived safely in a gated community. They got free education, free health care even when they openly developed terrorist cells and trained bombers for active service in other parts of the world. Few have legal entitlement to enter this country but are allowed to stay and provided extra benefits we do not get like free cars, mobile phones and decorated houses.
This was after the London bombing of 7/7 and without it al-Qeeda could not have got into the West to launch bombing attacks like those in London and Madrid. The authorities know what they are doing.
During the protests in Luton when Muslim extremists shouted abuse at the homecoming parade of the Royal Anglian Regiment, the police arrested a white protester but allowed the Muslims to abuse the soldiers.
Eight young Muslim terrorists on active service from Birmingham, London and Luton, were arrested in Aden in December 1998, planning terror attacks against British targets. The security services then claimed they had no idea that Muslim soldiers were being recruited in British mosques and trained in terror camps. Do we believe them?
As far back as 1999, it was reported that around 2,000 British Muslims were being trained in British terror camps, mainly in London and Birmingham. As well as studying holy war, the trainees were taught hand-to-hand combat, survival skills for guerrilla warfare and advised to get real military training in war zones like the Yemen and Afghanistan. Many do, because Birmingham accents have been picked up there by RAF Nimrod aircraft.
British-based Muslim terrorists operate abroad but still the authorities bring them here. For example, in December 2001, Richard Reid a supporter of al-Qaeda tried to detonate a shoe-bomb on a Paris to Miami aeroplane. In 2002, Ahmed Sheik, organised the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.
Mohammed Hanif and Omar Shariff were involved in a suicide bomb attack in Tel Aiv. Abu Qatada ran the Spanish, Milan and German al-Qaeda cells from London.
British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments such as Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American have protested against our elites allowing the Islamist terrorist infrastructure in this country and refusing to extradite wanted operatives.
The American Heritage Foundation regards Britain as a terrorist danger. How have we allowed our establishment to drag us down to that level?
The Muslim community shelters extremists and illegal immigrants as they did the murderers of Kriss Donald and the media aid and abet them by covering up the facts of such cases.
Palestinian mores glorify suicide bombers as ‘ Shahid ‘ or martyrs and terrorism is part of the Palestinian mentality. Many British Muslims hero worship them. In Britain they are bombers because of ideology, not social conditions, and are usually middle class Muslims born and educated in Britain. This is an “enemy within” that does not have to invade because it was imported by the elites who pour taxpayers’ money into their communities such as Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Keighley.
At Shehzad Tanweer’s memorial funeral in his home village in Pakistan, an estimated 10,000 mourners chanted Jihad, Jihad, Jihad and eulogised the suicide bomber.
On 27 July 2005, BBC reporter Phil Mackie admitted on Radio 5 Brian Hayes 10 pm programme that the BBC censors the truth about Muslims and that the BBC is selective in its broadcasting of Muslim statements. The function of the media is to prepare the public for whatever measures the establishment plan to further the Muslim extremists’ interests.
The elites treat us as enemy and scapegoat us when the multi-racial dream falters. The hysterical reports blaming Ulster people for the disputes with Roma gypsies is a classic example. The media never told us what caused the dispute but just accused local people of “racist attacks.” Well, I don’t believe them. I think these people were defending their communities.
The default position is anti-British and what was normal, healthy patriotism is now demonised as “far-right” and patriots are subject to slander and discrimination. To put things in perspective, there are about 200 investigations into Muslim terror plots being conducted by security services and the courts.
Even though the BNP have proscribed the EDL the media treat them as interchangeable as they try to slot the BNP into their ideology as “thugs” and “knuckle draggers.”
The police violence against the EDL anti-Muslim extremist demo in Leeds is a warning of what the establishment really want to do to the BNP. One of the police tricks seems to be based on the Hillsborough tragedy — that of “funnelling” the protesters into tight groups and chasing them while they fall over and get trampled as you will see in the video from Leeds.
The Government advertise in terrorist countries like Pakistan for immigrants to come here. In November 2006 a Foreign Office pamphlet advertised: “Multicultural Britain — A Land of Immigrants.” It stated that immigrants should immigrate here because of the Human Rights Act would protect them and well-paid jobs were available for them.
The Foreign Office put the document “Ethnic Diversity” in British embassies across the world.
Of convicted terrorists in Britain about 27 of 87 were trained or sought training in Pakistan or Afghanistan, Eighteen had terrorist training in Britain. Despite this, Labour’s “open door” immigration policy knowingly risked allowing dangerous people to settle in Britain unchecked, The Sunday Times reported on 8 November after secret documents were leaked. The evidence had been illegally withheld by the Home Office for four years.
A European Union initiative The Barcelona Agreement, which comes into force on 1 January, give rights of settlement to millions of Muslims from North Africa and grant them legal preference over indigenous as well as increasing attacks on Jewish communities. The Maastricht Treaty took control of our borders off us and John Major lied when he said it didn’t.
The new Chief of the Armed forces, General Sir David Richards, launched a support network for Muslims in the armed forces The Armed Forces Muslim Association. He said it “reflects the growing numbers, importance and relevance of their service and superb contribution they are making to the armed forces in the UK.” It will help “forge closer relationships with Islamic communities across the UK.” How many al-Qaeda supporters are in the British military?
As well as linking with Muslims, the military are preparing to shoot us if we protest against being dispossessed. Military personnel are being selected to form regiments prepared to shoot their own people.
In the “England Expects” blog, under the title “Scared Yet,” Libertarian Party leader Ian Parker-Joseph revealed that the M.O.D. were asking military personnel: “Will you open fire on UK citizens?… In a stunning conversation with a friend, who is a serving member of the Armed Forces, over the weekend, it was revealed that transfers to regiments and other units in the UK on home duties are being undertaken by the MOD based upon whether an individual was prepared to ‘open fire’ on UK citizens during civil disturbances.”
This was also revealed by the mother of a serving soldier on the net but she quickly removed it. This is corroborated by Dr. Richard North who learnt that the M.O.D. was buying up “unusually large quantities of tear gas and other riot equipment.”
The warning signs point towards military action against people who try to resist the displacement of our communities and destroying our children’s and grandchildren’s future by encouraging cheap labour by giving them extra state benefits that are denied to us. I urge readers with friends and relations in the military to keep us informed of this evil plan.
Deceiving the British People
We are taught that we live in democracy, but in reality our lives are run by a power hierarchy where policies percolate downwards through a chain of influence. Many of these policies are not even mentioned to the public and have been covertly implemented for years — like mass immigration.
People wonder when the authorities will do something about it, ignorant of the fact that this is the ruling elite’s policy. It is a way of destroying our civilisation in the sub-Marxist belief that from the ruin, a raceless, coffee-coloured harmonious utopia will emerge.
A review of some of the evidence for this mass deceit of the British people proves the point.
David Cameron broke his promise to the British people without taking office, by declining to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. In this move, Cameron is in league with other elites against the interests of the people who are bonded by central beliefs such as “anti-racism” and the movement towards a one-world government.
Every now and then, some of these elitist truths slip out, mainly because of rivalries amongst this clique. In his diaries, The Blair Years, Alaistair Campbell recalls Tony Blair flying to Australia to win the support of Rupert Murdoch. He also recalled Neil Kinnock saying: “It won’t matter if we win as the bankers and stockbrokers have got us already by the f*****g balls. And that is before you take your 30 pieces of silver.”
In 2007, The Independent reported “How Murdoch had a hotline to the PM in the run-up to Iraq war” and that “the Cabinet Office said there were six telephone discussions between Mr Blair and Mr Murdoch in 20 months, all at crucial moments of his premiership. The subject of their calls was not revealed.”
Mr Murdoch’s personal direction and intervention in the run-up to the war in Iraq is evident in a comparison of the dates of many of these phone calls and the headlines which appeared the next day in The Sun:
Phone call: 11 March 2003.
The Sun says on 12 March 2003: “Like a cheap tart who puts price before principle, money before honour, Jacques Chirac struts the streets of shame. The French President’s vow to veto the second resolution [on Iraq] at the United Nations — whatever it says — puts him right in the gutter.”
Phone call: 13 March 2003.
The Sun says on 14 March 2003: “Charlatan Jacques Chirac is basking in cheap applause for his ‘Save Saddam’ campaign — but his treachery will cost his people dear. This grandstanding egomaniac has inflicted irreparable damage on some of the most important yet fragile structures of international order.”
Phone call: 19 March 2003.
The Sun says on 20 March 2003: “Time has run out for Saddam Hussein. His day of reckoning is at hand. The war on Iraq has begun… The courage and resilience of Tony Blair and George Bush will now be put to the ultimate test.”
The Guardian of 24 October 2008 revealed that David Cameron had accepted free flights to hold talks with Rupert Murdoch on his luxury yacht off a Greek island: “. . . the Tory leader was flown by private jet to Santorini on August 16 where he joined the media tycoon for drinks on his 184ft (56m) yacht, Rosehearty.”
His wife, Samantha, and two of their children flew with Matthew Freud’s party on his jet when it left Farnborough for the Mediterranean. Matthew Freud, the public relations guru, is married to Murdoch’s daughter, Elisabeth. A spokeswoman for the Conservative leader said: “Everything in connection to August 16 has been fully and properly declared.”
Although Cameron registered the flights last month, until now nothing had been made public about his visit to Murdoch’s yacht. Murdoch’s News Corporation owns The Sun and The Times, as well as a large stake in Sky News, and other media businesses around the world.
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne visited Oleg Deripaska, the Russian billionaire, on his yacht off Corfu. Though Osborne denied claims by financier, Nathaniel Rothschild, that he tried to solicit a £50,000 donation for Tory party funds, yet he has admitted he was present when a possible donation by Deripaska was discussed.
David Rockefeller and Kissinger are powerful Bilderberg Group members and Murdoch attends most of the meetings each year. In May 2009, Canadian investigative journalist Daniel Estulin reported that the Bilderberg Group would force the Irish to vote on the Lisbon Treaty again to found an EU superstate.
Dennis Healey once said: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.” This requires a tyranny such as the EU and the so-called North American Super Highway.
It is clear that David Cameron has done some deal with Mr Murdoch in the run-up to the next general election. Why else would The Sun have started early with their smears and gutter stories? Already we have seen that paper running a story about Gordon Brown’s spelling mistakes in a letter to the mother of a young soldier killed in Afghanistan.
These Western elites have removed themselves from the tribulations of ordinary life and have associated themselves with the super-rich, who rival royalty as the Continent’s new elite.
They sail in expensive yachts and holiday in fabulous villas, have a playboy lifestyle amongst the super rich and share their bounty with elected and unelected officials.
It seems no one in the government in Britain is interested in running an orderly country. They are in it for themselves. The Tory and Labour parties are run by self-interested elites who know that if they serve the rich, they will be raised into a rarified milieu. They don’t use public transport, public hospitals or state schools.
It was Messrs Blair and Straw who deceitfully engineered secret immigration and pretended it was beneficial to the country. It has been beneficial to the elites. The Mail of 7 October reported that the Blairs had just bought their sixth large house. “Cherie paid £1m cash for mews home.”
Public anger is rising. Millions face economic meltdown and Mr Cameron talks about cutting social services and imposing a draconian system on unemployed people who cannot compete with imported cheap labour.
All this occurs while the “elected representatives” live it up with international financiers. The Telegraph of August 11 gave us an insight into their world. “After a week dining with bankers and Hollywood billionaires in the secluded cliff top mansion, Britain’s stand-in Prime Minister… accompanied by the interior designer Nicky Haslam, a fellow guest of the Rothschilds for the week.”
Yet in November 2008, Gordon Brown and Business Secretary Lord Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to ask them to fund our shaky economies by putting billions into the International Monetary Fund.
Lord Mandelson acknowledged they offered the Saudis some financial influence over Britain and the West. This is the move to Eurabia — allowing Islam to take over Europe.
Lower down the hierarchy, journalists push the elites’ values and demonise those who defend the interests of British people. When they talk about the BNP or any patriots, the elites accuse them of “hating” others. The reality is that the only “hate” going around comes from these elites against the indigenous British people. On at least three occasions on Question Time, David Dimbleby swung his left arm across the front of Nick Griffin in a gesture of contempt.
Journalists with the wrong opinions are replaced by those with the correct ones. Sir Peregrine Worsthorne was apparently sacked as editor of The Sunday Telegraph because of his racial views.
Two days after the riots outside Question Time, Jack Straw was quoted in The Times as defending the Socialist Workers Party as “decent.” Mr Straw said, “What it showed is that there is something basically decent running through Britain and British politics from UKIP to the Socialist Workers Party. But he (Griffin) is beyond the pale on that.” Mr Straw was the man who was so happy to see Robert Mugabe take power in Zimbabwe.
The elites have no morals or conscience. Their only rule is that they must support each other in their ideological goals no matter what. If they do cross the line, they are summarily dispensed with.
In May 2004, the BBC reported that Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan was sacked after the newspaper conceded that photographs of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake. The Mirror said it was taken in by a “calculated and malicious hoax” and that it would be “inappropriate” for Morgan to continue.”
The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment said The Mirror had endangered British troops by printing the pictures. Mr Morgan was not out of the picture for long, though. In December 2008 we learned that he would get £40,000 an hour for his new ITV chat show. This makes his salary a cool £1 million per year.
The same media cover up racist attacks on whites. Fifteen-year-old Kriss Donald was abducted off the streets of Glasgow by a gang of Muslims. They tortured and repeatedly stabbed him throughout a three hour journey. His end came in a park by the River Clyde where they held his arms and stabbed him 13 times. He sustained internal injuries to three arteries, one of his lungs, his liver and a kidney. He was castrated, had his tongue cut out, was doused in petrol, set on fire and left to die. His last words before they cut his tongue out were: ”I am only fifteen.”
He tried to crawl to the river’s edge to put out the flames, but died just short of the river. The Muslim murderers were protected by members of the local Muslim community in Glasgow. They were smuggled to Manchester Airport and flew to Pakistan but eventually were brought back and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Now I ask, if Kriss had been Asian or black and his attackers white, how much more widely reported would this case have been? Who has not heard of Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor? Few members of the public know about this Kriss Donald case or the sickening details.
If Kriss had not been ”guilty” of being white but a “victim,” say, Asian, the story would have been national headlines for months and constantly brought up to incite other ethnic groups against white people and instill a sense of guilt onto us.
But no, Kriss is largely forgotten by the moral reprobates in politics and the media. You only hear about it on the Internet. A full enquiry about why it was ignored must be held. The Kriss Donald case highlights the effect of the sustained de-humanisation process to which white people are subjected. It is a major international incident if a non-white person is attacked and murdered, but white victims are not counted as important enough to even mention.
The great journalists have long since gone, leaving behind them only a gaggle of tame and frightened scribblers.
For example, Michael Wharton, alias Peter Simple, who was possibly the greatest satirist of the twentieth century writes no more. He was a columnist on The Daily Telegraph who mocked trendy bishops, Hampstead thinkers and the “anti-racist lobby” with several spoof characters and a device to alert people to prejudice. His words suffice to explain: “The Macpherson Report’s definition of a racist incident as ‘any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’ is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids. It calculates degrees of racial prejudice — ‘prejudons,’ which is the ‘internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice’ — simply by pointing it at the suspected racist. At 3.6 degrees on the Alibhai-Brown scale, it sets off a shrill scream that will not stop until you’ve pulled yourself together with a well-chosen anti-racist slogan.”
Like robots contemporary journalists repeat meaningless clichés: click . . . racist . . . .whirr. . . click . . . haters . . . clunk . . . Nazis . . . whirr . . . thugs . . . click . . . clunk . . . whirr . . . .
I went in search of the establishment’s ‘rational argument’ for its ideological position. I’m still in search of it.
They know they are not capable of presenting a refutation of our defence of the British people. They know that they have created the current situation through deceit, social engineering, propaganda and lies.
They also know that we have seen through them.
People wonder when the authorities will do something about it, ignorant of the fact that this is the ruling elite’s policy. It is a way of destroying our civilisation in the sub-Marxist belief that from the ruin, a raceless, coffee-coloured harmonious utopia will emerge.
A review of some of the evidence for this mass deceit of the British people proves the point.
David Cameron broke his promise to the British people without taking office, by declining to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. In this move, Cameron is in league with other elites against the interests of the people who are bonded by central beliefs such as “anti-racism” and the movement towards a one-world government.
Every now and then, some of these elitist truths slip out, mainly because of rivalries amongst this clique. In his diaries, The Blair Years, Alaistair Campbell recalls Tony Blair flying to Australia to win the support of Rupert Murdoch. He also recalled Neil Kinnock saying: “It won’t matter if we win as the bankers and stockbrokers have got us already by the f*****g balls. And that is before you take your 30 pieces of silver.”
In 2007, The Independent reported “How Murdoch had a hotline to the PM in the run-up to Iraq war” and that “the Cabinet Office said there were six telephone discussions between Mr Blair and Mr Murdoch in 20 months, all at crucial moments of his premiership. The subject of their calls was not revealed.”
Mr Murdoch’s personal direction and intervention in the run-up to the war in Iraq is evident in a comparison of the dates of many of these phone calls and the headlines which appeared the next day in The Sun:
Phone call: 11 March 2003.
The Sun says on 12 March 2003: “Like a cheap tart who puts price before principle, money before honour, Jacques Chirac struts the streets of shame. The French President’s vow to veto the second resolution [on Iraq] at the United Nations — whatever it says — puts him right in the gutter.”
Phone call: 13 March 2003.
The Sun says on 14 March 2003: “Charlatan Jacques Chirac is basking in cheap applause for his ‘Save Saddam’ campaign — but his treachery will cost his people dear. This grandstanding egomaniac has inflicted irreparable damage on some of the most important yet fragile structures of international order.”
Phone call: 19 March 2003.
The Sun says on 20 March 2003: “Time has run out for Saddam Hussein. His day of reckoning is at hand. The war on Iraq has begun… The courage and resilience of Tony Blair and George Bush will now be put to the ultimate test.”
The Guardian of 24 October 2008 revealed that David Cameron had accepted free flights to hold talks with Rupert Murdoch on his luxury yacht off a Greek island: “. . . the Tory leader was flown by private jet to Santorini on August 16 where he joined the media tycoon for drinks on his 184ft (56m) yacht, Rosehearty.”
His wife, Samantha, and two of their children flew with Matthew Freud’s party on his jet when it left Farnborough for the Mediterranean. Matthew Freud, the public relations guru, is married to Murdoch’s daughter, Elisabeth. A spokeswoman for the Conservative leader said: “Everything in connection to August 16 has been fully and properly declared.”
Although Cameron registered the flights last month, until now nothing had been made public about his visit to Murdoch’s yacht. Murdoch’s News Corporation owns The Sun and The Times, as well as a large stake in Sky News, and other media businesses around the world.
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne visited Oleg Deripaska, the Russian billionaire, on his yacht off Corfu. Though Osborne denied claims by financier, Nathaniel Rothschild, that he tried to solicit a £50,000 donation for Tory party funds, yet he has admitted he was present when a possible donation by Deripaska was discussed.
David Rockefeller and Kissinger are powerful Bilderberg Group members and Murdoch attends most of the meetings each year. In May 2009, Canadian investigative journalist Daniel Estulin reported that the Bilderberg Group would force the Irish to vote on the Lisbon Treaty again to found an EU superstate.
Dennis Healey once said: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.” This requires a tyranny such as the EU and the so-called North American Super Highway.
It is clear that David Cameron has done some deal with Mr Murdoch in the run-up to the next general election. Why else would The Sun have started early with their smears and gutter stories? Already we have seen that paper running a story about Gordon Brown’s spelling mistakes in a letter to the mother of a young soldier killed in Afghanistan.
These Western elites have removed themselves from the tribulations of ordinary life and have associated themselves with the super-rich, who rival royalty as the Continent’s new elite.
They sail in expensive yachts and holiday in fabulous villas, have a playboy lifestyle amongst the super rich and share their bounty with elected and unelected officials.
It seems no one in the government in Britain is interested in running an orderly country. They are in it for themselves. The Tory and Labour parties are run by self-interested elites who know that if they serve the rich, they will be raised into a rarified milieu. They don’t use public transport, public hospitals or state schools.
It was Messrs Blair and Straw who deceitfully engineered secret immigration and pretended it was beneficial to the country. It has been beneficial to the elites. The Mail of 7 October reported that the Blairs had just bought their sixth large house. “Cherie paid £1m cash for mews home.”
Public anger is rising. Millions face economic meltdown and Mr Cameron talks about cutting social services and imposing a draconian system on unemployed people who cannot compete with imported cheap labour.
All this occurs while the “elected representatives” live it up with international financiers. The Telegraph of August 11 gave us an insight into their world. “After a week dining with bankers and Hollywood billionaires in the secluded cliff top mansion, Britain’s stand-in Prime Minister… accompanied by the interior designer Nicky Haslam, a fellow guest of the Rothschilds for the week.”
Yet in November 2008, Gordon Brown and Business Secretary Lord Mandelson went to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to ask them to fund our shaky economies by putting billions into the International Monetary Fund.
Lord Mandelson acknowledged they offered the Saudis some financial influence over Britain and the West. This is the move to Eurabia — allowing Islam to take over Europe.
Lower down the hierarchy, journalists push the elites’ values and demonise those who defend the interests of British people. When they talk about the BNP or any patriots, the elites accuse them of “hating” others. The reality is that the only “hate” going around comes from these elites against the indigenous British people. On at least three occasions on Question Time, David Dimbleby swung his left arm across the front of Nick Griffin in a gesture of contempt.
Journalists with the wrong opinions are replaced by those with the correct ones. Sir Peregrine Worsthorne was apparently sacked as editor of The Sunday Telegraph because of his racial views.
Two days after the riots outside Question Time, Jack Straw was quoted in The Times as defending the Socialist Workers Party as “decent.” Mr Straw said, “What it showed is that there is something basically decent running through Britain and British politics from UKIP to the Socialist Workers Party. But he (Griffin) is beyond the pale on that.” Mr Straw was the man who was so happy to see Robert Mugabe take power in Zimbabwe.
The elites have no morals or conscience. Their only rule is that they must support each other in their ideological goals no matter what. If they do cross the line, they are summarily dispensed with.
In May 2004, the BBC reported that Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan was sacked after the newspaper conceded that photographs of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake. The Mirror said it was taken in by a “calculated and malicious hoax” and that it would be “inappropriate” for Morgan to continue.”
The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment said The Mirror had endangered British troops by printing the pictures. Mr Morgan was not out of the picture for long, though. In December 2008 we learned that he would get £40,000 an hour for his new ITV chat show. This makes his salary a cool £1 million per year.
The same media cover up racist attacks on whites. Fifteen-year-old Kriss Donald was abducted off the streets of Glasgow by a gang of Muslims. They tortured and repeatedly stabbed him throughout a three hour journey. His end came in a park by the River Clyde where they held his arms and stabbed him 13 times. He sustained internal injuries to three arteries, one of his lungs, his liver and a kidney. He was castrated, had his tongue cut out, was doused in petrol, set on fire and left to die. His last words before they cut his tongue out were: ”I am only fifteen.”
He tried to crawl to the river’s edge to put out the flames, but died just short of the river. The Muslim murderers were protected by members of the local Muslim community in Glasgow. They were smuggled to Manchester Airport and flew to Pakistan but eventually were brought back and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Now I ask, if Kriss had been Asian or black and his attackers white, how much more widely reported would this case have been? Who has not heard of Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor? Few members of the public know about this Kriss Donald case or the sickening details.
If Kriss had not been ”guilty” of being white but a “victim,” say, Asian, the story would have been national headlines for months and constantly brought up to incite other ethnic groups against white people and instill a sense of guilt onto us.
But no, Kriss is largely forgotten by the moral reprobates in politics and the media. You only hear about it on the Internet. A full enquiry about why it was ignored must be held. The Kriss Donald case highlights the effect of the sustained de-humanisation process to which white people are subjected. It is a major international incident if a non-white person is attacked and murdered, but white victims are not counted as important enough to even mention.
The great journalists have long since gone, leaving behind them only a gaggle of tame and frightened scribblers.
For example, Michael Wharton, alias Peter Simple, who was possibly the greatest satirist of the twentieth century writes no more. He was a columnist on The Daily Telegraph who mocked trendy bishops, Hampstead thinkers and the “anti-racist lobby” with several spoof characters and a device to alert people to prejudice. His words suffice to explain: “The Macpherson Report’s definition of a racist incident as ‘any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’ is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids. It calculates degrees of racial prejudice — ‘prejudons,’ which is the ‘internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice’ — simply by pointing it at the suspected racist. At 3.6 degrees on the Alibhai-Brown scale, it sets off a shrill scream that will not stop until you’ve pulled yourself together with a well-chosen anti-racist slogan.”
Like robots contemporary journalists repeat meaningless clichés: click . . . racist . . . .whirr. . . click . . . haters . . . clunk . . . Nazis . . . whirr . . . thugs . . . click . . . clunk . . . whirr . . . .
I went in search of the establishment’s ‘rational argument’ for its ideological position. I’m still in search of it.
They know they are not capable of presenting a refutation of our defence of the British people. They know that they have created the current situation through deceit, social engineering, propaganda and lies.
They also know that we have seen through them.
The Hidden Journey to Lisbon
In an interview with the Lidove Noviny newspaper in Prague, former paragon against the EU totalitarian state, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, said, “The train carrying the treaty is going so fast and it’s so far that it can’t be stopped or returned, no matter how much some of us would want that. I cannot and will not wait for British elections, unless they hold them in the next few days or weeks.” However, until recently the metaphorical train had made its journey hidden in a tunnel of deceit and obfuscation.
On 20 February 2009 Klaus had described supporters of greater European integration to the Soviets. He told the European Parliament: “Not so long ago in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that allowed no alternative and therefore no parliamentary opposition… Here (the European Parliament) there is only one single alternative, and those who dare think about a different option are labelled as enemies of European integration.”
The Lisbon Treaty was not actually a secret, but obscure as it has not been openly discussed in its details. Here is some light on the hidden journey through the tunnel. The first three documents are held in the National Archives in Kew.
Minister of State for Europe, Edward Heath, visited Professor Hallstein, President of the European Commission in November 1960. In his report he recorded that Hallstein had emphasised that joining the EEC was a new statehood and entrants should accept that the EU was to evolve into “some form of federal state” (See PRO/FO/371/150369).
In 1969 the Council of Ministers commissioned the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Pierre Werner to develop a plan to bring full economic and monetary union to the Common Market. At this time a secret briefing note to Heath from Con O’Neill, our senior civil servant responsible for Europe, described “a process of fundamental importance, implying development towards the political union… going well beyond the full establishment of a common market.” The Werner plan was for “the ultimate creation of a European Federal State, with a single currency.” Basic instruments of national economic management — fiscal, monetary, income and regional policies — were to be transferred to the central federal authority within a decade (See PRO/FCO/30/789).
Heath lied to the British people in the White Paper distributed to every house in June 1971. He stated: “There is no question of Britain losing essential Sovereignty.” In a television broadcast to mark our entry into the EEC, he said, “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. Those fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
The move to the Lisbon Treaty proper began in May 2000 when Joscha Fischer, then German Foreign Minister, and former Marxist street activist, called for a European constitution. It was endorsed by EU leaders in December 2001 at Laeken, near Brussels as a “constitution for European citizens.”
Then in 2003 the constitution written by Giscard d’Estaing was passed to members’ governments. The constitution was signed in Rome in 2004 but resisted by Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, who demanded an inter-governmental conference to propose a new text. This came out in October 2007 and was an “amending treaty”, not a replacement of previous documents. This was an exercise in obscurantism and the chaos of cross-references, amendments, sub texts, deletions and protocols were impassable. This was “The Lisbon Treaty” and described as “The Treaty amending the Treaty establishing the European Community.” It was ratified in Britain on 18 July 2008 but the public were not told till the day before. As usual the Queen signed the instrument of ratification. We had been promised a referendum on the original constitution at the last election by Blair, endorsed by Brown, but denied on the false grounds that this was not the original treaty.
The Irish referendum result should have ended the Treaty because it is supposed to be ratified by all 27 member countries. Sarkozy told the European Parliament in July 2008: “Irish voters have plunged the EU into a crisis with the rejection of the Treaty. It is Europe’s duty to act now.” He suggested the Irish have further referenda until they win!
The House of Lords didn’t amend the Treaty Bill to provide for a referendum and refused to slow ratification to debate the implications of the Irish vote on 11 and 18 June respectively.
Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times on 21 July that the rejection had not finished the Treaty as it should have done in law. “We’re evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity we’ll do nothing.” The substantive content of the Lisbon Treaty is the biggest transfer of our power to the EU, and the politicians and media know it.
Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, revealed the import in the Daily Telegraph on 3 July 2007: “Of course there will be significant transfers of sovereignty.” He said he did not want to draw the attention of the British people to too much specific detail but gave an overall perspective: “There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy; there is an enormous extension in the EU’s power; there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
The European Court of Justice was modelled on the French Conseil D’etat and this set the precedence for the EEC’s legal procedures from 1964. In Costa V Enel (Case6/64) the judgement is that “the transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act at variance with community principles can not prevail.”
This showed the E.C.J. to be an administrative law court with competence to rule on any legal issue linked to, or arising out of, administrative actions. It is now an arm of the government of the new state, the European Union. In 2008 the real nature of the contents of the Lisbon Treaty was revealed by Michael Connarty MP, Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee: “Every provision of the Constitution apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Lisbon Treaty. We think they are fundamentally the same and the government have not produced a table to contradict our position.”
Angela Merkel admitted to the European Parliament on 27 June 2007 that: “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
Author of the Constitution, Giscard d’Estaing, chairman of the Convention, admitted on 17 July 2007: “In terms of its content the proposals remain largely unchanged; they are simply presented in a different way …the reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty.”
Bernie Aherne, Irish PM, told the Irish Independent on 24 June 2007: “They haven’t changed the substance — 90 percent of it is still there.” Gordon Brown is in on the deception as he told us through the Labour Party election manifesto: “We will put the European constitution to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a “Yes” vote.”
The EU elites are deceiving European people, and the articles show how we are being subsumed into a totalitarian EU state by the Lisbon Treaty.
Article 4(2) was added to the Treaty protocol and gives the EU the legal powers to influence the UK into participating in EU plans to control our legal system and to comply in areas of justice and home affairs.
Article61(4) allows the EU to put pressure on us to recognise judicial decisions of other member states. This called the reciprocity principle and is to lead to harmonisation of civil law and constrain our common law and statute.
Article 69D(a) gives the EU Euro-just arm the power to bring criminal investigations and to instruct national authorities the power to bring proceedings.
Article69E(4) makes provision for a European public prosecutor with the power to override decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service and for mandatory co-operation between the police forces of member states. This includes the exchange of information, training, research methods and investigation techniques.
Article69G will expand the powers of Europol making it the EU police force.
Article 68(3) gives Brussels power to impose identity cards on us and the Treaty allows the EU to assume control of our asylum and immigration policies.
We lose control of immigration to the EU as Article 63(b) states we must help pay for asylum seekers to other EU states if their economies are not as sound as ours.
Article 62(1) (a) removes controls on persons crossing internal borders — uncontrolled immigration from EU countries goes on.
Article 63(1) gives the EU the power to decide on who and for how long residents of non EU states can stay in the UK.
That the EU is really a state in its own right is proved by Article 46(A) as it confirms that the EU can sign international agreements that will be binding on the UK.
We have clear evidence of the deceit and who was behind it from the great Valdimir Bukovsky, a former Soviet dissident who spent twelve years in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. He told The Brussels Journal in February 2006 that in 1992 Boris Yeltsin needed his testimony at the trial to determine if the Soviet Communist Party had been criminal. He was given access to documents in Soviet archives and by using a small scanner and laptop he copied many including KGB reports to the Soviet government. He has published many in his book: EUSSR the Soviet roots of European integration.
These documents show that changing the Common Market into a federal state was agreed between European Socialists and Moscow.
In his speech Bukovsky related: “In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Giscard d’Estaing, American banker David Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.”
The theme of the federal state again: “In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen — probably within 15 years — but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other East European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it; you have to be prepared.”
Bukovsky predicted oppressive EU laws against people they label negatively: “If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union… It has no KGB — not yet — but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes — two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly…”
On 20 April 2007 The Council of EU Justice Ministers in Luxembourg reached political agreement on a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. This concluded the negotiations at the European level, held since 2001… “In the future, there will be binding minimum harmonisation throughout Europe of the provisions on criminal liability for disseminating racist and xenophobic statements. Public incitement to violence and hatred, as well as the denial or gross trivialisation of genocide out of racist or xenophobic motives, will be sanctioned across Europe. With this, we are sending a clear signal against racism and intolerance.”
But Muslims are exempt… What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol.
On 20 February 2009 Klaus had described supporters of greater European integration to the Soviets. He told the European Parliament: “Not so long ago in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that allowed no alternative and therefore no parliamentary opposition… Here (the European Parliament) there is only one single alternative, and those who dare think about a different option are labelled as enemies of European integration.”
The Lisbon Treaty was not actually a secret, but obscure as it has not been openly discussed in its details. Here is some light on the hidden journey through the tunnel. The first three documents are held in the National Archives in Kew.
Minister of State for Europe, Edward Heath, visited Professor Hallstein, President of the European Commission in November 1960. In his report he recorded that Hallstein had emphasised that joining the EEC was a new statehood and entrants should accept that the EU was to evolve into “some form of federal state” (See PRO/FO/371/150369).
In 1969 the Council of Ministers commissioned the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Pierre Werner to develop a plan to bring full economic and monetary union to the Common Market. At this time a secret briefing note to Heath from Con O’Neill, our senior civil servant responsible for Europe, described “a process of fundamental importance, implying development towards the political union… going well beyond the full establishment of a common market.” The Werner plan was for “the ultimate creation of a European Federal State, with a single currency.” Basic instruments of national economic management — fiscal, monetary, income and regional policies — were to be transferred to the central federal authority within a decade (See PRO/FCO/30/789).
Heath lied to the British people in the White Paper distributed to every house in June 1971. He stated: “There is no question of Britain losing essential Sovereignty.” In a television broadcast to mark our entry into the EEC, he said, “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. Those fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
The move to the Lisbon Treaty proper began in May 2000 when Joscha Fischer, then German Foreign Minister, and former Marxist street activist, called for a European constitution. It was endorsed by EU leaders in December 2001 at Laeken, near Brussels as a “constitution for European citizens.”
Then in 2003 the constitution written by Giscard d’Estaing was passed to members’ governments. The constitution was signed in Rome in 2004 but resisted by Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, who demanded an inter-governmental conference to propose a new text. This came out in October 2007 and was an “amending treaty”, not a replacement of previous documents. This was an exercise in obscurantism and the chaos of cross-references, amendments, sub texts, deletions and protocols were impassable. This was “The Lisbon Treaty” and described as “The Treaty amending the Treaty establishing the European Community.” It was ratified in Britain on 18 July 2008 but the public were not told till the day before. As usual the Queen signed the instrument of ratification. We had been promised a referendum on the original constitution at the last election by Blair, endorsed by Brown, but denied on the false grounds that this was not the original treaty.
The Irish referendum result should have ended the Treaty because it is supposed to be ratified by all 27 member countries. Sarkozy told the European Parliament in July 2008: “Irish voters have plunged the EU into a crisis with the rejection of the Treaty. It is Europe’s duty to act now.” He suggested the Irish have further referenda until they win!
The House of Lords didn’t amend the Treaty Bill to provide for a referendum and refused to slow ratification to debate the implications of the Irish vote on 11 and 18 June respectively.
Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times on 21 July that the rejection had not finished the Treaty as it should have done in law. “We’re evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity we’ll do nothing.” The substantive content of the Lisbon Treaty is the biggest transfer of our power to the EU, and the politicians and media know it.
Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, revealed the import in the Daily Telegraph on 3 July 2007: “Of course there will be significant transfers of sovereignty.” He said he did not want to draw the attention of the British people to too much specific detail but gave an overall perspective: “There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy; there is an enormous extension in the EU’s power; there is the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
The European Court of Justice was modelled on the French Conseil D’etat and this set the precedence for the EEC’s legal procedures from 1964. In Costa V Enel (Case6/64) the judgement is that “the transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the rights and obligations under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act at variance with community principles can not prevail.”
This showed the E.C.J. to be an administrative law court with competence to rule on any legal issue linked to, or arising out of, administrative actions. It is now an arm of the government of the new state, the European Union. In 2008 the real nature of the contents of the Lisbon Treaty was revealed by Michael Connarty MP, Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee: “Every provision of the Constitution apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Lisbon Treaty. We think they are fundamentally the same and the government have not produced a table to contradict our position.”
Angela Merkel admitted to the European Parliament on 27 June 2007 that: “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
Author of the Constitution, Giscard d’Estaing, chairman of the Convention, admitted on 17 July 2007: “In terms of its content the proposals remain largely unchanged; they are simply presented in a different way …the reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty.”
Bernie Aherne, Irish PM, told the Irish Independent on 24 June 2007: “They haven’t changed the substance — 90 percent of it is still there.” Gordon Brown is in on the deception as he told us through the Labour Party election manifesto: “We will put the European constitution to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a “Yes” vote.”
The EU elites are deceiving European people, and the articles show how we are being subsumed into a totalitarian EU state by the Lisbon Treaty.
Article 4(2) was added to the Treaty protocol and gives the EU the legal powers to influence the UK into participating in EU plans to control our legal system and to comply in areas of justice and home affairs.
Article61(4) allows the EU to put pressure on us to recognise judicial decisions of other member states. This called the reciprocity principle and is to lead to harmonisation of civil law and constrain our common law and statute.
Article 69D(a) gives the EU Euro-just arm the power to bring criminal investigations and to instruct national authorities the power to bring proceedings.
Article69E(4) makes provision for a European public prosecutor with the power to override decisions by the Crown Prosecution Service and for mandatory co-operation between the police forces of member states. This includes the exchange of information, training, research methods and investigation techniques.
Article69G will expand the powers of Europol making it the EU police force.
Article 68(3) gives Brussels power to impose identity cards on us and the Treaty allows the EU to assume control of our asylum and immigration policies.
We lose control of immigration to the EU as Article 63(b) states we must help pay for asylum seekers to other EU states if their economies are not as sound as ours.
Article 62(1) (a) removes controls on persons crossing internal borders — uncontrolled immigration from EU countries goes on.
Article 63(1) gives the EU the power to decide on who and for how long residents of non EU states can stay in the UK.
That the EU is really a state in its own right is proved by Article 46(A) as it confirms that the EU can sign international agreements that will be binding on the UK.
We have clear evidence of the deceit and who was behind it from the great Valdimir Bukovsky, a former Soviet dissident who spent twelve years in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. He told The Brussels Journal in February 2006 that in 1992 Boris Yeltsin needed his testimony at the trial to determine if the Soviet Communist Party had been criminal. He was given access to documents in Soviet archives and by using a small scanner and laptop he copied many including KGB reports to the Soviet government. He has published many in his book: EUSSR the Soviet roots of European integration.
These documents show that changing the Common Market into a federal state was agreed between European Socialists and Moscow.
In his speech Bukovsky related: “In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Giscard d’Estaing, American banker David Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.”
The theme of the federal state again: “In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen — probably within 15 years — but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other East European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it; you have to be prepared.”
Bukovsky predicted oppressive EU laws against people they label negatively: “If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union… It has no KGB — not yet — but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes — two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly…”
On 20 April 2007 The Council of EU Justice Ministers in Luxembourg reached political agreement on a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia. This concluded the negotiations at the European level, held since 2001… “In the future, there will be binding minimum harmonisation throughout Europe of the provisions on criminal liability for disseminating racist and xenophobic statements. Public incitement to violence and hatred, as well as the denial or gross trivialisation of genocide out of racist or xenophobic motives, will be sanctioned across Europe. With this, we are sending a clear signal against racism and intolerance.”
But Muslims are exempt… What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
