|
|
|
The State Persecution of Thought Criminals by David Hamilton Robin Page, former presenter of television’s “One Man and His Dog”, a farmer, columnist for The Daily Telegraph, and the chairman of the Countryside Restoration Trust, has set us an example by fighting the new Totalitarian state and winning £2,000 compensation for being wrongly arrested on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred. He allegedly made a racist remark at a country fair in 2002, which led to him being held in a police cell, and he fought a five-year, one-man campaign to clear his name. He used the Data Protection Act and obtained official documents which showed that there had been no grounds for prosecution. “I believe I have scored a significant victory over the ludicrous and sinister politically-correct ‘hate crime’ culture that is currently doing so much to prevent free speech in this country,” he said. It was his humorous comments at a country fair in September 2002 that led to his persecution by the police. To gain the attention of the audience at Frampton-upon-Severn, Gloucestershire, he began in a “light-hearted fashion”. “If you are a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” A complaint was later received by police, and another person wrote to say he disagreed with Mr.Page’s remarks. He was arrested the following month, and then five months later was contacted at his farm in Cambridgeshire and asked by two officers from Gloucestershire to attend an interview at a police station. At the station he declined to answer questions without a lawyer and was arrested. He was put in a cell and told that he would have to stay overnight if he wished to wait for his solicitor, but after 40 minutes agreed to be interviewed without legal representation. Mr Page said: “I was told I had committed a ‘hate crime’, interviewed under caution and given police bail.” The BBC claimed that he had been arrested for a “race speech” and he felt the incident was potentially damaging to him professionally and as a district councillor for 30 years. He was neither charged nor given an explanation. Under Freedom of Information disclosures he discovered that the Attorney General had given the opinion “no crime committed”. His name was secretly put on a “Homo-phobic Incidents Register”. He was due to go to on a journalistic trip to Kenya and requested a change of bail renewal date, and in an internal email from the arresting officer the sergeant wrote: “Let’s hope he gets eaten by a crocodile.” Mr Page said: “Thank goodness for the Data Protection Act and my advice to anybody who feels that they have been stitched up is to use the Act to get to the real facts. It is absolutely outrageous. In my view it clearly shows that I was arrested for political reasons simply because my views on the countryside were not appreciated. I was not guilty of any crime.”(1) What has reduced a Liberal Democracy to a police state like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China without people objecting? Cultural Marxism - for that is what this is, notwithstanding its popular appellation of Political Correctness - is a totalitarian ideology that intimidates people into thinking the “correct” thing. It extends into every aspect of life, because every part of life is deemed political. It replaced Liberalism by using a similar vocabulary but with different intentions: individual rights were replaced by group rights and the multi-racial belief in equal treatment for racial groups was replaced by preferential treatment for all ethnic groups over whites. Cultural Marxism took over with the New Left in the 1960s to 70s. It was influenced by the Frankfurt School and European thinkers such as Michel Foucault. In Britain it was facilitated by academics such as E P Thompson and Raymond Williams and Home Secretary Roy Jenkins who introduced Race Laws and the Soviet-style agency of Inquisition, the Commission For Racial Equality. A main intention of Trotskyists and The Anti-Nazi League in the 60s and 70s was to force a change in “attitudes”. Cultural Marxists actually need scapegoats, and not simply so as to blame them when things do not work to their plan. Scapegoats are essential to a wider control of the population. They are de-humanised, and a distorted view of what they said or did is presented to make the persecution resemble righteous indignation. The thoughts and meanings of these recalcitrants are slotted into a pre-existing ideology which uses them as examples of wrong-thinking. The victims become modern outlaws, and with them all similar sympathies in the wider public. They have no rights, and can be spoken of just as the guardians of the new morality see fit. This is a racist persecution as well as a political one because it is only “white” people who express certain views that are targeted for public vilification, even while anti-Semitism is re-appearing amongst the Cultural Marxists who are trying to form an axis with Muslims in the West. The Cultural Marxists are an “Ideological Caste”, and membership depends not on blood or birth, nor even class, but holding the right opinions. To succeed in life one has to conform in public to the ideology, and keep your own views completely secret. Any backsliding and one will be expelled from the “Caste”, as the Conservative Party expelled the Monday Club to protect its new ideological purity, despite the fact that said purity is shared with no section of Party support and is no different to the other two parties. The persecution always proceeds in the same way. The personal qualities of the persecuted are ignored and the public is treated to a noisy play on a one-dimensional aspect - the denounced “racist”, “hater”, “xenophobe”, etc. This justifies the political and cultural Establishment saying and doing anything while, of course, feeling morally superior about it. There is constant social engineering to mold everyone for Utopia. Thus, for example, in Autumn 2005 BBC3 television aired a three-part series by Hard Cash Productions named Gypsy Wars. It contrasted a local woman and tinkers who had invaded her land, reversing the roles as we would normally experience them. The Cultural Marxist mentality holds that our traditional view of the world is pathological - until they correct it for us. So Gypsy Wars modelled us according to what they think are our stereotypes. We were cast as the tinkers - to reform our views and change our character. Of the Gypsies, no young men were shown because they would be aggressive and threatening. Village life was not shown because that is appealing, and viewers would sympathise with the woman. The woman herself was selected because she is not typical of rural people but a bit eccentric and could be set up as the aggressor when really, of course, she was the victim. This is television re-structuring our thoughts in accordance with a Cultural Marxist ideology. It is Frankfurt School Television, a monopoly broadcaster constructed through years of advertising industry vacancies only in the Guardian. Applicants with the wrong attitude don’t even see the ads, never mind send in their CVs. (2) Another defining feature of the Ideological Caste is that it avoids debates it cannot win, and simply discredits people instead. Dr James Watson, the 79-year-old geneticist who, with Francis Crick, discovered the structure of DNA, and who is regarded as one of the great scientists of his time, was persecuted for telling the Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”. He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade. The British Establishments’ agency of Inquisition the Equality and Human Rights Commission, let it be known, ominously, that it was studying Dr Watson’s remarks “in full”. Politicians quickly moved to persecute him: ‘It is a shame that a man with a record of scientific distinction should see his work overshadowed by his own irrational prejudices,’ said David Lammy, the black Skills Minister. London mayor Ken Livingstone: ‘Such ignorant comments ... are utterly offensive and give succour to the most backward in our society.’ The Science Museum cancelled a sell-out meeting it had planned to hold to honour 79-year-old Watson on the grounds that his remarks had gone ‘beyond the point of acceptable debate’. Several other centres scheduled to host his talks followed suit. What a scientific argument! However, prominent scientist Richard Dawkins saw the real issue: “What is ethically wrong is the hounding, by what can only be described as an illiberal and intolerant “thought police”, of one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, out of the Science Museum, and maybe out of the laboratory that he has devoted much of his life to, building up a world-class reputation.” His employers, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island duly suspended him as chancellor. (3) At the other end of the intellectual market, Celebrity Jade Goody was possessed of the wrong attitude to Indian film star, Shilpa Shetty in “Celebrity Big Brother.” The Daily Telegraph showed the three “Racists” looking common while Shilpa was shown at prayer, elegant in a Sari and looking sidelong. The programme is based on getting an assortment of characters into a house and titillating the viewers to keep the viewing figures up. Bullying and personality clashes are the attraction. But Jade, Daniella and Jo had the wrong sort of personality clash with Shilpa and had to be excoriated to cow down other people. Forcing Jade to keep apologising and to confess publicly that she is disgusted with herself is our cultural Marxist rulers version of a Soviet show trial. She had to be broken in public, made to repent and show abject contrition. Jade has some Afro-Caribbean ancestory and an honest person would look for a cause other than racism like class envy or bad manners, but there is an ideology at work which imposes the same explanation on different situations - white racism. (4) The law introduced persecution in the case against working-class lads from Notting Hill after the race battles of August 1958. In the Commons debate a local Labour M.P. Frank Tomney made one of the most honourable and heroic speeches ever in the House of Commons in defence of his young constituents which shows how the police and lawyers had framed them. They had no rights. Here is a précis :-
The 1964 election in Smethwick shows where the persecutions can lead. An offensive slogan had been used during the election campaign and posted on walls “If you want a N***** for a neighbour, vote Labour”. Harold Wilson attributed this to Conservative candidate Peter Griffiths, when being interviewed by Robin Day on Panorama of 9th March 1964. After the Election, now Prime Minister, Wilson broke from his address on the Queens speech to insult the victorious Griffiths by calling him a “Parliamentary Leper”, who would be shunned in the House. This breached the convention that new members be protected until after their Maiden speech. On October the 5th just two weeks before polling Griffiths was denounced in the Birmingham Post and in the Times, whose Midland correspondent wrote, ”It is abhorrent to all Conservatives and officials of stature to whom I have talked.” But he did not say to whom he had talked. He headed his column of the 12th, “Vile – its all in Black and White.” As the election result was announced on October the 16th Socialists made Nazi salutes and the Marxist Bishop of Southwark, called the electorate “unchristian”, and the Bishop of Chelmsford attacked local voters. This election was a model of democracy. A local man fighting on a local issue was elected in a fair election by local people but these unelected Bishops who lived far away insulted them on a priori ideological grounds. The state broadcaster the BBC took American Black Power leader Malcolm X to Smethwick in February 1965 for current affairs programme “Tonight”. He told the assembled world’s media,” I have come here because I am disturbed by reports that coloured people in Smethwick are being badly treated. I have heard they are being treated as the Jews under Hitler. I would not wait for the Fascist element in Smethwick to erect gas ovens.” That was what the BBC had told him! They denied having taken him there but Mayor C.V.Williamse investigated: “I was most amazed at the finesse shown by the BBC. I was told the car was not a BBC car but it was owned by one of the directors.” Malcolm X told the Times that the BBC had taken him. This led to a time-bomb being planted outside Mr.Griffiths’ home on 26th October 1965. The police thought it the work of experts. (6) The persecution in 1984 of Ray Honeyford, a head teacher at Manningham middle school in Bradford, shows the depths of intolerance for those who diverge even slightly from orthodoxy. Mr Honeyford actually supported multi-racialism but warned against multiculturalism. The local education authority tried to have him removed from his school, and when he wrote about his efforts in the Salisbury Review he was de-humanised by the media, had a “rent a mob” screaming ‘Racist’ outside the school gates, the local education authority sent a psychiatrist to see him, the Department for Education had Helena Kennedy QC subject him to an Inquisition, and school inspectors persecuted him. He had to retire at 52! The dangers of multiculturalism are now widely accepted even by Trevor Phillips of the Human Rights Commission. (7) In 1991 Cambridge don Dr John Casey was picked out for an erudite article in the Salisbury Review which concluded that voluntary repatriation could encourage people to try to drive immigrants out, so the Government should adopt compulsory repatriation. The argument involved quoting Edmund Burke’s definition of society as “a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” The address appeared in the first issue of the Salisbury Review in 1982, but it was only in 1991, when a student found it by accident, that the persecution was unleashed. His English Literature lectures were boycotted by students, Trotskyists demonstrated, Marxist Lecturer Terry Eagleton held rival lectures, and the Sunday Times of 1/12/1991 printed a picture which made him look like a wizened crow. These actions are always of a mass of people turned onto one person!(8) In May 2002 a Tory councillor was persecuted by a Government minister. Professor Geoffrey Sampson’s website stated, ‘There is overwhelming scientific evidence that races differ to some extent in their average intelligence levels - yellow-skinned Orientals tend to be rather brighter than whites, negroes tend to be rather less bright.” Now disgraced government minister Peter Hain, a founder member of the Anti Nazi League, raved on Breakfast with Frost, “Sampson is proud to be racist”. Prof. Sampson was given right to reply on Radio 4’s Today programme, which is heard less than television. He explained Hain’s statement was untrue and “as far as I am concerned it would be daft to be proud of racism — what is there to be proud of?” But this was ignored in subsequent TV news broadcasts, which kept repeating Hain’s distortion. Prof. Sampson recalls, “many commentators hostile to me seemed to assume that scientists who explain the roots of racial feelings must be sinister Ku Klux Klan types. That is virtually the reverse of the truth.” Special Branch warned him he was a marked man and advised him on safety precautions to reduce the risk of harm to him or his family. He was advised to look under his car before driving to check that nothing was attached - the result of a Labour government minister publicly persecuting him. (9) In August 2005 Prof. Andrew Fraser was retired by Macquarrie University, Sydney, Australia, where he was Associate Professor in the Department of Public Law. He responded by letter to a newspaper headline that quoted a 3 year-old Sudanese girl, “Now my mum and Dad are Aussies just like me.” He wrote, “Experience practically everywhere in the world tells us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide-range of other social problems. He added that Australians are expected to acquiesce in the erosion of Australia’s national identity.” He also warned of the “rising Asian ruling class.” He was invited to submit an article to the Deakin University Law Review. Entitled “Rethinking the White Australia Policy” it was reviewed and accepted for publication until journalists and a lawyer acting for the “Sudanese Community” objected, then the Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University directed them not to publish it. Prof. Fraser makes the point that when he taught at Macquarrie in the 70’s there had been attempts to silence visiting professor Hans Eysenk, but that was by the students not the authorities. Sydney Morning Herald columnist Michael Duffy pointed out “That generation of students are now the authorities.” They suspended Professor Fraser because they thought his views on race would influence his course, American Constitutional History. Usually retired academics who plan to research obtain an Honorary Associate and can use the university library, but Prof Fraser was refused this, for his book: “Anglophobia: Its Causes and Cure”. He did not deserve consideration now he was de-humanised and labeled ”racist.” That final vindictiveness capped a year-long campaign of discrimination by the University against him. (10) In April 2006, Leeds University authorities subjected Dr Frank Ellis to an Inquisition after he had an interview published in “Leeds Student”. Dr Ellis was sought out for the interview with political bias in mind because of his “peculiar and extreme views.” He and his interviewer ranged over many topics but what ignited prejudice against him were his remarks that the average black has a lower IQ than the average white or Asian, and that he believed we need to introduce a policy of humane repatriation. There were the usual demonstrations by Unite Against Fascism, or what legendary Daily Telegraph columnist Michael Wharton aka Peter Simple dubbed “Rent a mob.” The University’s decision was purely to persecute a man for holding the wrong opinion. He was found to treat his students fairly and impartially, as the University inquisitor acknowledged his “excellent rapport with his students and colleagues.” (In any case Leeds have a system to prevent unfair marking - the candidates paper is anonymous and each is marked by 3 different tutors.) Ellis was investigated by the West Yorkshire police for incitement to racial hatred. So what is the problem? Dr.Ellis was not disciplined for his conduct towards his students, which was exemplary, but persecuted for not expressing the right thoughts on ethnicity. In an interview on Talk Sport Ian Collins screamed at Ellis, ”You’re mad!” (11) Robert Henderson was persecuted in July 1995, for an article in Wisden Cricket Monthly. He wrote that a reason for the bad performances of England’s cricket team was the mix of foreign and native players. However talented they lack the commitment to their side on which team success depends. He explains:-
This was not racism as his example had two blacks and five people who are not English, three of whom are certainly white. The argument seems to have been accepted by other cricket writers like David Firth, Editor of Wisden and Matthew Engel, editor of the associated Wisden Cricketers’ Almanac and columnist for The Guardian. The media held an Inquisition. The journalists and public figures who denounced him did not attack what he had actually written but responded out of ideological correctness against what they thought his views were. Two of the black players, Devon Malcolm and Philip De Freitas, sued Wisden for libel but they did not sue him, which is unusual because the author is usually included in the suit. He had made it clear that he would fight any libel action all the way in the courts. Malcolm and De Freitas had sought the advice of the Professional Cricketer’s Association who took counsel’s opinion which was that no libel existed. The magazine’s proprietor Paul Getty almost certainly ordered the settlement to avoid social embarrassment. Telegraph newspapers published clues to his home address and refused to print an unedited reply. He was then turned on by Wisden whose following issue had five pages of vitriolic attack on him even though they printed the original article. Editor Firth would not print a reply. Mr Henderson contacted his M.P. Frank Dobson to complain of the way the media had treated him, and asked for an intervention on his behalf. Mr Dobson gave a vague promise, but did not act even though it was his paid duty as his elected representative to raise this in the House of Commons. Later, in his 1997 General Election leaflets Dobson claimed “over the past 17 years I’ve tried my best to represent our area in Parliament.” On 3rd August 1995, Mr Henderson received a letter from the black Labour politician Diane Abbott, telling him he had “no appreciation of acceptable terminology. As an ex-journalist, and someone who still dabbles, I believe that we have a duty to write on subjects we know about.” Later Ms Abbott objected to “blue-eyed blonde” nurses from Finland tending coloured patients in her East London constituency! Mr Henderson wrote to Tony Blair about Mr.Dobson and for defence against the media corruption, “You have made a great thing of moral behaviour in politics, Mr Blair. If that means anything you will help me to obtain a fair hearing, both in terms of natural justice and common equity. If you fail to do this, we shall know exactly what a Blair government will be, one based on the primitive idea that justice is for one’s political friends and injustice for one’s political enemies.” Mr Henderson wrote to Blair at the Commons and at his home, and Mrs Blair a Human Rights lawyer at Gray’s Inn, but was ignored. Mr Henderson wrote thirteen letters to the Blairs between March 1996 and February 1997. Finally, Blair summoned the Police to his Westminster office. The Police considered charging Mr.Henderson with Common Assault and offences under the Malicious Communications and Race Relations Acts. They took the letters for examination by the Crown Prosecution Service. It was decided that the correspondence “fell short” of any criminal offence. But Blair was advised that the “sheer volume” of continued letters could justify criminal prosecution in the future. The Crime Report concluded: “In summary, the allegation of Malicious Communication is ‘NO CRIME’, however the security of the … (name missing) … has been put in the hands of the right people.” “Sheer volume?” there were only 4 letters to Cherie Blair and nine to Blair over a period of a year. The rest were requests for a meaningful answer to the initial letter - he only got non-replies from their offices. The media demonised him but refused him right of reply. An interview he gave to the BBC was edited by splicing together different parts to produce the opposite of what he had said. The interview was 30 minutes, of which only 93 seconds was broadcast. Study this to see how the BBC tries to destroy those who say the wrong things: this is persecution! Mr.Henderson said in the interview:-
This is what the BBC broadcast after editing:
In 2007 there has been a widening of focus, and now there is religous persecution – essentially, to stop opposition to the creation of Eurabia, as it is known throughout the Anglosphere. One who has written about this is Mark Steyn who, as I write, is being persecuted by the Soviet-styled Canadian Human Rights Commission because of two complaints by the Islamic Congress against Maclean’s magazine and its editor-in-chief, Kenneth Whyte for printing a chapter from “America Alone” on Oct 20, 2006. The complainents claim “the article subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” An Islamic Congress press release decries Steyn’s article as “flagrantly Islamophobic.” He wrote:-
I mentioned earlier the move towards anti-Semitism that our Cultural Marxists have executed to defend the axis they have formed with Muslim terrorists. Well,a Jewish man, Ezra Levant, is being persecuted in Canada for “hate speech” about Islam. Mr. Levant, who has a law background, is fighting back: “Although the United States has a very robust First Amendment, Canada and Britain have a common tradition going back to the Magna Carta that brought about some of the freest presses in the world,” Mr. Levant told The Washington Times,“if Canada and the U.K. can be infected, so can America.” Mr. Levant was publisher of the Western Standard, a Conservative weekly. He came to the attention of Muslim activists on 13th Feb 2006, when he published the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that had caused protests throughout Europe and the Middle East. Canadian law-enforcement officials investigated the publication but did not bring criminal charges. But Syed Soharwardy, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, made a complaint against Mr. Levant with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The commission summoned Mr. Levant for a hearing and Mr. Levant republished the cartoons on his blog, ezralevant.com. He accused the Commission, a government body, of violating due process to impose state censorship. He told The Times that “unlike real courts, the tribunal members are not judges (and often not even lawyers); in Alberta, there are no rules of court or rules of evidence; precedent is not followed; there is no set burden of proof; the taxpayer funds the complaints, but the defendant must pay his own costs (even if he wins); and, most importantly, the commissions and tribunals issue rulings that are clearly not in compliance with our constitutional and common law freedoms of expression.” He video’d the hearing and put excerpts on his blog and YouTube.com. “My lawyer and I insisted that we be permitted to record the interrogation, for use when we appeal the commission’s decision to a real court,” Mr. Levant wrote on his blog. Marie Riddle, the commission’s director, did not return phone calls from The Times and the commission barred journalists, observers and the Western Standard’s former editor from the hearing. The persecutions of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant show how the tyranny in Canada is increasing because, as Levant told The Times, “In the past, they’ve focused on small, powerless bloggers or other loners without any money or legal representation,” But the commissions are now targeting Canada’s mainstream media. Mark Steyn wrote on his website, SteynOnline.com, that Levant’s “magnificent performance ... has raised the bar for the rest of us ensnared by this grotesque system. He’s absolutely right not to waste time attempting to mitigate his ‘offence,’ and he’s also correct in rejecting this pseudo-court’s jurisdiction over him.” (14) A Catholic priest Father Samuel, who fled to Belgium to escape Muslim persecution of Christians in Turkey, is now being persecuted for “incitement to racist hatred” by the Belgian Government’s Inquisition agency, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR). It is for a remark he made in a 2002 television interview: “Every thoroughly Islamized Muslim child that is born in Europe is a time bomb for Western children in the future. The latter will be persecuted when they have become a minority.” The Belgian judiciary decided to try him before the penal court in Charleroi. He repeated his statement and that he would be honoured to go to jail for this. He added that Jesus too had been persecuted! In a sermon he called upon the faithful to accompany him to court. “We will turn this into an excursion, driving there in full buses.” Father Samuel fled to Belgium to escape the persecution of Aramaic Christians in Turkey and is being persecuted by the Belgians! The Aramaics are a Catholic minority in Syria and Turkey, and speak an old Semitic language which Jesus and the Apostles used, and so are a link with Christ. Mel Gibson used the language in “The Passion of the Christ”. At Montignies-sur-Sambre he conducts the Mass according to the traditional rites of the Catholic Church. Hundreds attend his Sunday Mass. The congregation includes African immigrants, a large number of young people and many young families with small children. On his web and in his sermons Father Samuel warns of “the Islamic invasion” of the West, and that Muslims are invading Europe and we face impending civil war. According to Father Samuel “so-called moderate Muslims do not exist.” This affair was in 2006 and has been kept very quiet as we move towards secret trials for dissenters in the western world. They do not want the mass of Catholics to realise that Christians are now being persecuted in Europe on behalf of Muslims because a rebellion of Catholics against the Culturally Marxised politicians of the EU could end their tyrannous rule. (15) An internet ’ blogger’ is going to be arrested when he returns to England for incitement to racial hatred. Paul Ray, aka ‘Lionheart’, left for the Middle East two years ago. He claims he was receiving death threats from Muslims which made it too dangerous to stay in his home town of Luton. He is a born again Christian and reformed drug addict who had reported Muslim drug dealers to the police when, he alleges, the police told the dealers and gave them his address. Paul, a Christian Zionist, went to Israel and met a fellow traveller who was also looking for a hostel. Together they got a bus to the old city in Jerusalem, and went to the hostel that the other traveller had written down. The International Solidarity Movement were recruiting there. The ISM website mentions Paul by his original name of Paul Cinato, and they deny that he was photographed with them. But Paul’s blog has photographs of him and the group brandishing AK47s! The leader told them to delete the pictures but he kept his. The International Solidarity Group recruit at universities and colleges around the world and are trained to attack Israel by Palestinians. Later, walking around the town he met a member of the security services who advised him to get his stuff, and then drove him to another town. On January 3, he received an email from Bedfordshire Police. It was from Soviet-style “Hate Crime officer” Ian Holden: “The offence that I need to arrest you for is ‘Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986. You will be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent. ‘Paul I will see you on the 19/02/08 when I will tell you everything that you need to know. ‘Due to being out of the office for six weeks I will not have access to my emails as of tomorrow 04/01/08.” Bedfordshire Police said, “We are aware of this particular internet site and we are taking action.” Paul fled the intolerance of the British state to America where he was trying to get asylum, but is now planning to return to face the thought police! Lately, however, a West Indian Christian couple in Luton have told the local newspaper of ethnic cleansing of blacks and whites by Pakistanis – by means, they say, of bricks through windows, firebombing synagogues, etc. A very local Christian has had a lot of media coverage about some Asian harassment of West Indian and white households in Luton. It has been reported on the radio and the main news that some Muslim thugs have been throwing large objects through the windows of elderly black and white residents in a predominantly Asian neighbourhood. The police have been brushing it under the carpet, but TV covered a residents meeting, attended by the local Bishop (who’s black), asking the police what they were going to do about it. (16) We shall see. (1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/15/nhate115.xml (2) http://www.hardcashproductions.com/recent24.html (3) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Avoid-Boring-People-Lessons-Science/dp/0192802739/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200949250&sr=1-1 (4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6274881.stm (5) Commons.Hansard The debate was in October 1958. (6) http://conservativedemocraticalliance.blogspot.com/2007/07/setting-up-targets-by-david-hamilton.html (7) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/27/nmulticul27.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/14/nhon14.xml (8) http://www.actioninengland.gb.com/Enoch%20Powell/One%20Nation%20The%20Politics%20of%20Race.htm (9) ) http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,714247,00.html (10) http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1424337.htm (11) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4785574.stm (12) http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/h.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/27/nmulticul27.xml (13) ) http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/878/128/ (14) Washington Times. ” Putting tribunals on trial” January 17, 2008 (15) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/936 (16) See - Bedfordshire on Sunday 13/01/2008 David Hamilton writes the Philosophy Blog for the Conservative Democratic Alliance, the leading voice of British Conservatives who straddle the divide between loyalty to kin and loyalty to the Conservative Party, with a marked leaning towards the former. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 06:35 | #
A few Jews have been frank about apportioning blame where blame is due. Canadian Publisher Ezra Levant, who is mentioned in the log entry, came right out and named the “Canadian Jewish Congress as the special interest lobby group most responsible for criminalizing speech in Canada.” Canadian Alan Borovoy, whom Levant also cited (but in a different context) and who is also Jewish, was one of the leaders helping to form these Stalinist “human rights” commissions in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Then there’s the U.K.‘s Chief Rabbi (I can’t think of his name at the moment) who in his recently-published book laid blame for the advent of British multiculturalism, which he opposes, at the feet of Britain’s Jews. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:47 | # Remember this is Britain you are talking about. The historical foundation of Critical Theory, from which CM proceeds, was laid in 1946 by the launch of the Communist Party Historian’s Group. This comprised a small number of academics from the radical student generation of the 1920s and 30s, including Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Eric Hobsbawm, George Rudé, John Saville, Dorothy Thompson and, to a lesser extent, Edward Thompson. Of these only Hobsbawm was a Jew. However, he has to be understood as one of the original Awkward Squad forever seeking to force the majority to examine itself. For example:-
The second great push for CM came with the Marxisation of the now defunct Birmingham School (the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies). This engine of change was set up by Richard Hoggart in 1964. In 1968 the black sociologist Stuart Hall became director, and he and Raymond Williams steered it in an explicitly Marxist direction. Richard Johnson took over and continued this direction. Jews certainly lectured in the department until its closure in 2002, but it would be altogether wrong to ascribe foundational importance to them. On the persecution of Griffith and Collett, yes David Hamilton might have included them. O’Farrell and Shepherd write hate literature in a country with hate legislation. What did they expect? How the hate legislation came into being is a more promising area of study for the seeker out of Jewish influence. But David’s article is about the corruptive influence of CM in the British political, cultural and legal Establishment, and not about political Jewry per se. 4
Posted by wjg on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:56 | # “O’Farrell and Shepherd write hate literature in a country with hate legislation. What did they expect?” GW, Putting aside for a moment whether that statement is accurate (I believe it is not based on both my exposure to their writings and using an Aryan definition of hate) does it not bother you a bit that the Government Occupying Britain might use that quote to further persecute them? (e.g. a GOB Prosecutor - “See here good fellow even that racist blogger at Majority Rights condemns you of righting Hate Literature. What say you to that”?) Triangulation is a slippery slope; trying ever to find that magical point where you are respectable and the evil haters are not. Isn’t it better to not use the enemy’s own language thereby denying it any moral authority over us? Let’s use the dialectical process of change to our advantage (as CM has for decades) by providing cover to the supposed extremists and implementing moderated syntheses of their theses. Even Robin Page grants GOB authority over him by only denying he uttered “hate” not that the very concept and the source from where it comes is illegitimate. The same was true when Nick Griffin “won” his case. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:48 | # WJG, Naturally, I favour enveloping all our people. There is a price for that, though, and it is that impossibly stupid and self-destructive behaviour must cease. Jewish ethno-centric activism has to be explained as a precondition for opposition to it. But explanation does not imply the exercise of negative emotions. Explain the negative emotions implicit in feeding Hologuilt to our children, for example, but do not pay the other man back in the same emotional currency. We do not need to. For we are Jewry’s victim, and moral superiority attaches to us if only we can carry the mantle. 6
Posted by wjg on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:22 | # “Naturally, I favour enveloping all our people. There is a price for that, though, and it is that impossibly stupid and self-destructive behaviour must cease.” That is a fair statement in the general sense I just wonder how you apply it to O’Farrell and Shepherd? “Jewish ethno-centric activism has to be explained as a precondition for opposition to it. But explanation does not imply the exercise of negative emotions. Explain the negative emotions implicit in feeding Hologuilt to our children, for example, but do not pay the other man back in the same emotional currency.” I suspect you are answering that here by saying they are using Judah’s own tactics in defying them. Isn’t that unavoidable? Without consenting to its authority must we not at least defy it in ways proportional to its malice against us? I have generally found O and S’s writing very temperate and well reasoned in contrast to the hysterical cultic commandments proclaimed by the Matrix. “We do not need to. For we are Jewry’s victim, and moral superiority attaches to us if only we can carry the mantle.” And well we should but these fights are not inter-European but international and our enemy spits on our rules. We must on occasion adapt to new modes foreign to our conscience or nature’s verdict will be “guilty of unfitness”. Even with all that said I don’t think O or S has violated the spirit of Aryan conduct. 7
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:41 | # our enemy spits on our rules. We do not even have to fight our enemy. Our enemy is not really the issue. We are fighting for a salvatory understanding among our kind. Without the licence that understanding will provide, a radical right solution cannot be brought into the centre of political life. We have to be morally unimpeachable in our treatment of Jewry in order to obtain the ear of our own racial constituency. We’ve got no more than two decades to do it. Then the hard solution (that the J-phobes are, by their self-indulgence, guaranteeing - and, of course, prefer anyway) will become unavoidable. 8
Posted by Anon on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:05 | # We’ve got no more than two decades to do it. Then the hard solution (that the J-phobes are, by their self-indulgence, guaranteeing - and, of course, prefer anyway) will become unavoidable. What is the hard solution? I would like to know because it looks we are heading for tough times. 9
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:06 | # I mentioned earlier the move towards anti-Semitism that our Cultural Marxists have executed to defend the axis they have formed with Muslim terrorists. Well, a Jewish man, Ezra Levant, is being persecuted in Canada for “hate speech” about Islam. Mr. Levant, who has a law background, is fighting back: “Although the United States has a very robust First Amendment, Canada and Britain have a common tradition going back to the Magna Carta that brought about some of the freest presses in the world,” Mr. Levant told The Washington Times, “if Canada and the U.K. can be infected, so can America.” Q. Why did David Hamilton not mention the ageing British historian recently jailed in Austria for an opinion expressed in 1989? A. Because David Irving doesn’t fit his Judaeo-sycophantic agenda. Nor do Zündel and many others. Hamilton is either ignorant or dishonest. If he doesn’t know who have been the chief movers of the hate laws, he’s ignorant. If he does know and won’t say, he’s dishonest. If the US is “infected” with hate laws, the Anti-Defamation League will have been the chief plague-carrier. 10
Posted by Bo Sears on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:53 | # The above list of oppressive measures successfully taken by governmental and quasi-governmental agencies against the white English peoples, the white Canadian peoples, and the white American peoples should persuade us that we need to do something differently from what we are doing. And one key is quite simple. Make your conversation Euro-centric, not black-, brown-, or yellow-centric. Rather than measure the failings of the Other, put all your speech into white-centric mode. Watson’s comments were a classic case in that his remarks were Afro-centric whereas his remarks could have been Euro-centric and made the same points. Almost all the above travesties were successfully prosecuted against the diverse white people because the remarks weren’t thought out. 11
Posted by captainchaos on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:05 | # The “hard solution” is obviously booting the jews and the darkies out of our countries by force of arms - very possibly in the context of bloody civil wars. If they continue on their present course of action that is precisely what they will deserve. 12
Posted by rustymason on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:39 | # Bo sez: “And one key is quite simple. Make your conversation Euro-centric, not black-, brown-, or yellow-centric. Rather than measure the failings of the Other, put all your speech into white-centric mode.” I nominate this wonderful advice as Quote of the Week. More, please. 13
Posted by Prozium on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:59 | #
The hard solution is a revolutionary uprising. It’s already too late here in the United States for the easy way. Half the children in America are non-white. We’re not going to vote ourselves out of this mess. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:40 | # Nux Gnomica, DH is writing for a more conventional audience than you give credit for - one in which launching two-fisted journalistic assaults upon Organised Jewry is not possible. It comes back to what I said to WJG at 02:41 PM. The trick is to discuss Jewry with our own people without setting off Pavlov’s very alert dogs. Anon, There is political change and there is extra-political change. One way to look at it is this: Both would be revolutionary, but the comparison between the two is the comparison between a ballot box and Bosnia c.1992. The other way is this: A political system at once different from liberalism but not distant to it may be termed “the Light English Model”. A political system intellectualised on Schmitt’s “exception”, say, and on the morality of dictatorship may be termed “the German Heavy Model”. At some point the Light English or Parliamentary Model will become outpaced by change, and the only agency that will do the job at hand will be an altogether heavier beast, with or without actual conflict. The alternative is that the elites are right and we will simply walk into the night, decrepid, defeated. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:13 | # I wonder if Bo or Rusty could furnish an example of how Prof. Watson could have said what he had to say “in a Eurocentric way” and so avoid the trap he fell into? Forgive me but I don’t quite see what Bo has in mind there. 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:10 | # Prozium, The Romainian Revolution was not a revolution, but an adoption of Western liberal principles by the former communist elite. We have to do a little better than that. 18
Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:41 | # Fred Scrooby asks for an example of staying Euro-centric. Just to make sure we are on the same page, I believe it is the following quotation from Dr. James Watson for which a re-casting was called for. If this is incorrect, please set me straight. ““I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” Here is one way to turn this around: “Europeans and European Americans share a gloomy outlook on the success of the social development global policies we advance, especially on other continents which have failed to advance. We need a rigorous examination of why this is so.” That’s a quick re-working of Watson’s statement, but readers can easily see that it could be a lead sentence for an essay or discourse on ending cultural & military interference in other continental regions, cutting foreign aid, bringing aid workers home, etc. All without costing Watson his job. A rant is as much of a mental meme as any other formularized slogan—we need to find a fresh way to talk. Our sentence is about us & our feelings—Watson’s sentence is primarily about them & their intelligence. This is what we mean by centrism…it always must be about the us, not the them. Maybe later when ADL, ACLU, and so on have been emasculated, but for now, white American & European peoples have to be the centerpiece in our language and in our thinking. ====== To make a better case, let’s consider: “I hate all purple people.” And contrast to: “I love all the diverse and vibrant European-origin peoples.” Any white person is eligible for punishment, but we do have a right & privilege to speak of ourselves, thus advancing our status as a group to those within hearing. 19
Posted by Prozium on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:50 | # I was referring to the collapse of Ceau?escu’s regime on live television. 20
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:52 | # GW—He didn’t have to swing two fists, or set out the full truth. Some mention of the Jewish role should have been possible. Mentioning Irving would have been an excellent opportunity to quote Voltaire. The trick is to discuss Jewry with our own people without setting off Pavlov’s very alert dogs. Yes, tidbits before the feast. But where were the tidbits in Hamilton’s essay? 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:56 | # Prozium, Did you think that the shooting was for real? Come now, where is that razor-sharp scepticism? The whole point about the revolution in Romania was that only two people were required to depart this world, and nothing else was to change at all. Merely to modernise ... Westernise ... maybe democratise up to the point where Romanians picked the members of the political elite who would govern over them. Sort of. It was a coup. Not quite bloodless. It was never a revolution. Nux Gnomica, Even at this level of disclosure DH is operating at the absolute margins of the political mainstream in Britain. I don’t believe he could write the article you are asking for, and maintain the position of his organisation (remember, the article will also appear on the CDA philosophy blog). This sensitivity is simply necessary. In terms of political morals at least, we are living in a totalitarian age. I agree it would be good to have covered Irvine, but such coverage could unbalance the rest of the article, too, since it is such strong meat. Don’t rush to criticise. We all fight on the ground we have chosen, and in the manner that we can. Inevitably, there are differences. 22
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:13 | # Even at this level of disclosure DH is operating at the absolute margins of the political mainstream in Britain. I don’t think he was. The Daily Mail could have used that quite happily. Don’t rush to criticise. We all fight on the ground we have chosen, and in the manner that we can. Inevitably, there are differences. Yes, politics is the art of the possible and I’m no hero myself. But if the boundaries aren’t challenged, when is the “mainstream” going to shift? It’s not as though a bullet in the back of the head is the reward for dissent. Not yet, anyway. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:33 | # Nux Gnomica, It is good to make demands of others. It not good to do it in a demanding fashion. In other words, I agree with the content of what you say (though the Daily Mail would run a mile from David Hamilton), but question the intent. The mainstream is not going to shift. This idea of the Inevitability of Change is flawed. If we wait for the public to “smell the coffee” and all that, we will have the time and opportunity to witness our people’s utter desolation. For that reason I am a revolutionary, not an incrementalist. Naturally, then, I want to move David in the direction of the, as I see it, more holistic and foundational critique I’m piecing together myself. I want us all to become of a revolutionary mind, and to be aware of the deep theoretical and practical difficulties that saving our nation really portends. That is a work of many years. Demand others to join in it, by all means. But clobbering them over their “Judaeo-sycophantic agenda” is lacking somewhat in collegiality, and may have the opposite result to the one desired. I’ve been singing this song of tolerance since the beginning here, mind. And still I am a choir of one! 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:19 | # Excellent outline by Prozium of how we got from the bygone sanity of circa, let’s say, the year 1950 to today’s criminally-insane-worst-nightmare-humanly-imaginable. I’d quibble with one or two things in it (for example where it talks about the Nazi backlash — in fact, talking about it that way is really begging the question, since there was no need for us to oppose the Nazis in the first place: the Nazis were setting up a system in Germany which was to be, in effect, the exact counterpart of the system the Jews have set up in today’s National Socialist Israel: nothing wrong with that and we should have stayed strictly out of it. All the 1930s anti-Nazi propaganda was contrived specifically to get us into a war against the Nazis, so the whole thing is circular). But it’s a very good analysis by Prozium. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:38 | #
And of course once we were actually in the war you had the inevitable wartime propaganda, and since we, the Allies, had committed so many war crimes and crimes against humanity by war’s end, the standard wartime propaganda needed to be intensified a thousandfold just in order to distract attention from our own atrocities not to mention the camouflage needed to partly hide, partly “justify” the implementation of the Kaufman-Morganthau-Ehrenburg Plan (an atrocity in itself), so the whole thing amounted to an immense propaganda edifice which needn’t have existed in the first place if only we’d minded our own business after 1939. In citing “the backlash against Nazism” the way he did, Prozium was being circular: that “backlash against Nazism” was an effort at fidelilty to our own contrived pre-war and wartime propaganda, propaganda which need never have been contrived in the first place. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:03 | # Fred, Would you like to comment on the position of Poles and Czeckoslovaks? Really, it was not possible for the European powers to carry on smiling benignly while Hitler made his land-grab. They - Britain and France - were properly concerned about issues of power. But we should be concerned for the free life of peoples. It needs to be clearly understood that there is something about (most particularly) Prussian Germans, an essential and deeply offensive arrogance when in the position of advantage, that makes them vile occupiers. A life for subject peoples under the Prussian Ubermensch would have been absolutely intolerable - notwithstanding that in the event it was intolerable under Stalin, too. If Hitler had not sought land, the wartime generation might have lived lives of peace and experienced the extraordinary moment of two philosophical systems - the Nationalist and the classical liberal/Marxist - vying for survival. As it was, we must do things right this time round. We only have one chance and a couple of decades in which to do it. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:14 | # I agree with your comment about Prozium’s “round-up”. It is suitably holistic and only what I would expect from him as one of the three or four really high-class nationalist writers on-line (one thinks of wintermute, Daedalus and Jim Kalb). I think Jim Bowery and JW have the edge on them all in certain areas. But for pure clarity of the written word, and for historical analysis Prozium is very hard to beat. 28
Posted by Englander on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:59 | # Prozium is Daedalus. I’m not sure if you knew that so I thought I’d make sure. 29
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:50 | # That is a work of many years. Demand others to join in it, by all means. But clobbering them over their “Judaeo-sycophantic agenda” is lacking somewhat in collegiality, and may have the opposite result to the one desired. I think I was assuming DH was in the same camp as Richard Littlejohn or some other anti-PC-but-Judaeo-sycophantic conservative (so-called). A mistake I’ll be wary of in future. 30
Posted by Prozium on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:46 | #
Ah, but there was. Review my post. I clearly stated that the root cause was liberal capitalist democracy and that the system itself is what had generated the more immediate causes. Why did the U.S. and U.K. oppose the Third Reich? Because Hitler’s Germany was a revisionist power and a threat to the reigning liberal international system which they dominated. 31
Posted by Robert ap Richard on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:21 | # GW and Bo duet-ed: “We are fighting for a salvatory understanding among our kind. Without the licence that understanding will provide, a radical right solution cannot be brought into the centre of political life. We have to be morally unimpeachable in our treatment of Jewry in order to obtain the ear of our own racial constituency.” “A rant is as much of a mental meme as any other formularized slogan—we need to find a fresh way to talk.” Lovely. In “waking people up,” facts are not the problem—it’s the marketing. When one writes or speaks, one should target one’s market, determine what level of intellect and awareness one is trying to reach, and which “memes” and vectors to exploit to carry new information. For “Level 2” public consumption, copy the approaches of such as Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailor, Marcus Epstein, Taylor, Jim Kalb, and Sam Francis. Racial discussion, with pointers toward further investigations about the Other, but no real accusations. For “Level 3”, emulate the approach and style of writers such as KMac and Auster (with a big warning label). Discussions at this level are very frank and comprehensive about the Other’s power and proclivities, rich in facts and documentation, and logically delivered. They are more detached or less emotional as compared to those of the Level 4 writers. “Level 4” writers such as Revilo Oliver, Ygg, DD, O’Farrell, usw., and alternative theory sites such as Rense and Alex Jones, are for your own edification and enjoyment. Don’t feed the contents of these writers undigested to your “young” who are at the lower levels (and try not to ever give the impression that you in any way endorse the alternate media news sites. For one thing, they also contain a lot of misinformation.). The ugly truth is simply too rich for these soft minds, and the emotional and strategic tone will make their Pavlov meters go off the scale. Besides, if readers make it into Level 3, they will soon find the Level 4 writers by themselves, and will be able to independently put them into proper perspective when they do. Especially at the lower levels, a writer should let the reader draw his own conclusions about sensitive topics. Lead him all the way down the path to a premature “conclusion,” but let him make the *real* final conclusion for himself. Do not make the final step for him, merely point him in the right direction. He may see the real conclusion—which is only implied—but not be ready for it to be spelled out just yet. Allow the reader to withhold judgement; allow him to hold the logical conclusion in obeyance until he himself is ready to take the final step. Then once he does, he will be hooked—and he will think he was the one who figured it out. His “independent” discovery will become part of him; he will remember it longer and will spend much more energy spreading it to his friends and family. 32
Posted by Robert ap Richard on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:27 | # Notice, too, that each writer mentioned above has staked out his market niche, and does not deviate (relatively) from it, either up or down. Any writer who wants to attract serious consideration must do the same. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:58 | # Jeez, I had understood that Prozium was Scimitar! Oh well. Where is he, then? Why are these two highly talented individuals so difficult to pin down for more than five minutes at a time? 35
Posted by Englander on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:06 | # Scimitar is Daedalus is Prozium. (AKA Fade) All one guy. 36
Posted by onlooker on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:06 | # I believe you’re right, GW. Prozium is Scimitar. 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:18 | # Scimitar is Daedalus is Prozium. (AKA Fade) He’s as bad as WJ Phillips. Cue Tony Curtis, “I am Scimitar.” Or maybe Joanne Woodward. 38
Posted by Prozium on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:33 | #
These changes were imposed from the top down. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:06 | #
And W.J. Phillips would qualify as one of the best along with Prozium and all the others cited, if he’d get off his high horse and stop being such a typical European “blame-those-horrid-Americans-for-everything” irrational snob. And he needs to break away from the insipid, anemic “Harry’s Place” and start frequenting sites that can boast red blood coursing through their veins. For all his wrong-headedness Amalek is still salvageable. 41
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:25 | # WJP can be found ... everywhere. He is a private army of eloquent, traditional Conservative English gentleman of a certain age - the sort who drives a 1952 Humber Super Snipe and wears a three-piece suit and lace-up leather shoes at home, which he only varies with the addition of a white apron while cleaning his Purdy or feeding pheasant offal to the spaniels. Amazingly, he is computer literate, and has taken upon his Christian soul the burden of waging war against the usual - and the jusual - suspects. Occasionally he materialises here as Amalek. Before that he was Effra. But he could be anybody or anywhere, even right behind you. Who knows? 42
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:39 | # insipid, anemic “Harry’s Place” It’s not that good! 43
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:44 | # Good comments, Robert ap Richard. For “Level 2” public consumption, copy the approaches of such as Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailor, Marcus Epstein, Taylor, Jim Kalb, and Sam Francis. Most of whom recognize the “jusual suspects”, I believe. It’s getting very hard not to. 44
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:49 | # What we fought World War II for: we fought World War II in order to make the world safe for plenty of this. Try to stop it and you’ll see you’re resisted by the same people who pushed to get us into that war, and you’ll see yourself and the ones on your side called fascists, in their minds meaning in part “people who don’t like this stuff.” Then put two-and-two together. (Hat tip) 45
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:03 | # It looks as if the light at the end of the tunnel is showing for Ezra Levant. Richard Warman’s troubles, on the other hand, and those of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, may only be just beginning. Post a comment:
Next entry: The black ones they sent back
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Robert Reis on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 05:39 | #
Unfortunately, the writer omits the persecutions of Mr. Griffin and Luke O.Farrell and Simon Shepherd. Sems to me to be another apologist for ZOG(UK).
He “forgets” that the hate crime laws of the UK were orchestrated by the leadership of the Jewsih community of the UK.