This is an excellent observation Mr. Bowery. There’s been some concern in the Hebrew power structure whether Obama is a good goy who will obey his Hebrew masters.  This article appears to be telling the Obama people that insolence from Obama regarding Israel might carry an opportunity cost which includes pointing out “news” that may be of interest to white men.  Be on the look-out for Alan Dershowitz suddenly becoming concerned about black on white rape.

I’ve noticed that something is going on in the English-sphere MSM these days.  It started in Britain where mainstream newspapers have become neutral and sometime even almost pro native British in some of their commentary.  US newspapers aren’t nearly is blantly anti-white as they used to be.  And even in multicultural Canada things are changing a little bit. 

I was a local Wendys eating a hamburger, flipping through the local rag called the Ottawa Sun which bills itself to be conservative, but in the past has always sides with a multi-cultural agenda when it came down to it (albeit not as strongly as other newspapers.) I am casually scanning the articles when I start reading an article by Pat MacAdam in one of the main pages of the editorial section.  80% of the article is about Muslims, terrorism, and the problems this creates - but to my surprise it doesn’t try to balance things out it is just plain critical of Muslims in Europe.  But that wasn’t too shocking.  What made me almost choke on my hamburger is the following passage, which comes out of the blue and is totally unrelated to the Muslim discussion before it:

“Forty years ago British Shadow Cabinet member, Enoch Powell, was sacked for his “rivers of blood” speech in Birmingham. Powell warned Britons of the dangers of allowing too many Commonwealth immigrants.

Powell received 43,000 letters and 700 telegrams of support and 800 letters and four telegrams opposed. The battle cry was: “Back Britain—not Black Britain”.

Today, inner city residents say: “Enoch was right” or “Come back, Enoch Powell, we should have listened”.

A Gallup Poll indicated 74% agreed with him and 15% disagreed.

When Janet and I lived in London, 82% of violent crimes on the “Tube”—the subway—were committed by 4% of the population—all immigrants from African countries.

Last week I was in a west-end produce store. When I looked about I saw myself as a visible minority. I didn’t like the feeling one bit. “

Full article:
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/MacAdam_Pat/2008/04/12/5270266-sun.html

Seriously… what is going on?  10 years ago the above passage would have been unthinkable in any MSM outlet.  But today I see more and more of this.  There is no doubt in mind that pro-white anti-race-replacement forces have won the discusison on the Internet.  Is this line of thinking finally propagating to MSM?  Or have the MSM Jewish owners decided to go with a new strategy on race relations? Or have they lost some degree of control over the local pawns in MSM?  Or have we reached a point where whites are going to start taking more and more risks because they sense the end-game? 

Something is changing…

Something is changing…

I’ve felt that for some time and that my own actions and opinions are almost being directed for me by the Zeitgeist. There’s a lot going on in the collective white unconscious and has been for some time: I was struck by the Union Jacks during the World Cup in 2002.

Yes, haramzada.  Your “Day of the Rope” has already come and gone and you’re still “boots on the ground”.  Happy?

Barbara Kay’s article tells us that the Jews who rule Canada are running scared of the Islamic juggernaut they imposed on Canuckistan.

She does not mention Ignatiev’s fame as a warrior against whiteness.

Cheers,

RER

In Canadian law, Warman does not actually need to prove damage to reputation…

...In a defamation action, a plaintiff need only prove the following:

(a) the statement referred to the plaintiff;

(b) the statement was published (i.e., was communicated to third parties); and

(c) the statement is defamatory - which is to say it would tend to discredit or lower the reputation of an individual in the eyes of the community; certain types of statements (e.g., of illegal activities or professional misconduct) are presumptively defamatory.

That’s it. In a libel action (i.e., defamation by means of written word), the plaintiff does not need to demonstrate actual damage to his or her reputation. It is not a defence to a libel action that no damage to reputation was caused.

Broadly speaking, the only defences to a defamation action (where the plaintiff has proved their required elements), are: truth; consent (i.e., the plaintiff authorized the publication); privilege (only applicable in certain limited circumstances and certainly not in the cases we’re thinking of); and “fair comment” - but fair comment, in order to be successful, must be based on an underlying truth.

So.....Union Jacks at the Cup = White Revolution?

Whoops, I meant St George crosses. They were a sign of something important.