Great story in from Fox News here ;
Scientists Turn Cockroaches Into Zombie Slaves
Friday, November 30, 2007
E-Mail Print Digg This! del.icio.us
Israeli scientists have figured out how turn cockroaches into zombie slaves.
They're replicated the mysterious power of the jewel wasp, also known as the emerald cockroach wasp, which incorporates the cockroach into its reproductive cycle in a most gruesome way.
Most parasitic wasps paralyze their victims, but the jewel wasp's sting mysteriously leaves a cockroach able to walk, yet robbed of all free will.
The wasp leads the zombie roach back to its lair, lays an egg in the poor creature and then lets the wasp larva eat the roach alive from the inside out.
The Israeli team, led by Frederic Libersat of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, discovered that a synthetic form of the neurotransmitter octopamine freed stung cockroaches from their zombie-like state.
They then injected other roaches with compounds that blocked octopamine -- and turned them into docile zombies.
WE ALREADY HAVE THIS HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY - THE ZOMBIE COCKROACHES ARE CALLED THE UAF AND THE PARASITE IS THE SWP.
Friday, 30 November 2007
Finally the Law catches up with Reality.
One of the primary reasons I joined the BNP was after suffering racist abuse at university by a bunch of racist black Nigerians who did not like me talking to a blond female that one of them fancied.
It was at this point I realised that racism cuts both ways, and contrary to the liberal propaganda whites also suffer racist attacks.
I was put in the position where if I gave them a slap then all they needed to do was say I was the racist, and the politically correct staff would have taken their side.
This is why I welcome the news today that someone in Wales has been convicted of racism after calling an woman an 'English bitch'.
The English are registered as both an ethnic group and a racial group under the Race Relations case dicta.
Therefore we as English people can suffer racism on the following grounds ;
1) The English are a racial group in law
2) the English racial group is a racial nation.
3) The english racial nation may also be an ethnic group
4) the english should be an ethnic group for ethnic monitoring purposes
5) the english should be on all ethnic monitoring forms as an ethnic group not as an national identity group
6) only the english racial group have english nationality
7) english national identity is a political concept and not a legal concept and therefore has no validity in law
8) people who only racial group identity is white have the least rights under the Race Relations Act.
The fact is that whites suffer the most amount of racist attacks, are the least protected in law and also are the most under-educated group about their rights in law about the race relations acts.
The comments by the idiots on the Daily Mail comment section here ;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=497496&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
demonstrate that even those who despise Political Correctness are woefully ignorant about their rights in law.
It is this failure to educate us about our rights under the race relations acts that ensures we remain ignorant of our rights and responsibilities.
The Equality Commission has a duty in law under the Race Relations Acts 2000, 2001 and 2003 to educate the public about their responsibilities under the law and the race relations act.
The failure to educate the public and spend money on campaigns to highlight the issues of inter-racial racism between ethnic groups is a massive failure of the commission and the CRE in the past.
It is hardly fair that people who are ignorant of the law are convicted of crimes under the public order act.
The European Convention on Human Rights requires that individuals be aware of the law and their responsibilities under the law, and the failure of the CRE to previously do this can be used in any criminal appeal of the conviction.
The case of The Sunday Times V United Kingdom 26th April 1979, Application No.6538/74para 49 states ;
" A norm cannot be regarded as a 'law' unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct; he must be able - if need be with appropriate advice- to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given situation may entail ".
As the law on the position of the English under the Race Relations Acts has not been codified properly and also because the CRE has never undertaken any public campaigns ( in direct breach of their duty under the race relations act to promote good race relations ) to educate the British people about inter-racial racism, then this man should not have been convicted.
It is the failure of the CRE to educate the public that is leading to inter-racial racism amongst whites - and this has to be stopped by the Commission for Eqaulity beginiing a campaign to educate whites about their responsibilties under the act as regards each other - and not just banging on all the time about racism directed at ethnic minorities.
It was at this point I realised that racism cuts both ways, and contrary to the liberal propaganda whites also suffer racist attacks.
I was put in the position where if I gave them a slap then all they needed to do was say I was the racist, and the politically correct staff would have taken their side.
This is why I welcome the news today that someone in Wales has been convicted of racism after calling an woman an 'English bitch'.
The English are registered as both an ethnic group and a racial group under the Race Relations case dicta.
Therefore we as English people can suffer racism on the following grounds ;
1) The English are a racial group in law
2) the English racial group is a racial nation.
3) The english racial nation may also be an ethnic group
4) the english should be an ethnic group for ethnic monitoring purposes
5) the english should be on all ethnic monitoring forms as an ethnic group not as an national identity group
6) only the english racial group have english nationality
7) english national identity is a political concept and not a legal concept and therefore has no validity in law
8) people who only racial group identity is white have the least rights under the Race Relations Act.
The fact is that whites suffer the most amount of racist attacks, are the least protected in law and also are the most under-educated group about their rights in law about the race relations acts.
The comments by the idiots on the Daily Mail comment section here ;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=497496&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
demonstrate that even those who despise Political Correctness are woefully ignorant about their rights in law.
It is this failure to educate us about our rights under the race relations acts that ensures we remain ignorant of our rights and responsibilities.
The Equality Commission has a duty in law under the Race Relations Acts 2000, 2001 and 2003 to educate the public about their responsibilities under the law and the race relations act.
The failure to educate the public and spend money on campaigns to highlight the issues of inter-racial racism between ethnic groups is a massive failure of the commission and the CRE in the past.
It is hardly fair that people who are ignorant of the law are convicted of crimes under the public order act.
The European Convention on Human Rights requires that individuals be aware of the law and their responsibilities under the law, and the failure of the CRE to previously do this can be used in any criminal appeal of the conviction.
The case of The Sunday Times V United Kingdom 26th April 1979, Application No.6538/74para 49 states ;
" A norm cannot be regarded as a 'law' unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct; he must be able - if need be with appropriate advice- to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given situation may entail ".
As the law on the position of the English under the Race Relations Acts has not been codified properly and also because the CRE has never undertaken any public campaigns ( in direct breach of their duty under the race relations act to promote good race relations ) to educate the British people about inter-racial racism, then this man should not have been convicted.
It is the failure of the CRE to educate the public that is leading to inter-racial racism amongst whites - and this has to be stopped by the Commission for Eqaulity beginiing a campaign to educate whites about their responsibilties under the act as regards each other - and not just banging on all the time about racism directed at ethnic minorities.
The UAF adopt Fascist Ideology
As many of my readers will know I have been the victim of many attacks by the 'intellectuals' that run the UAF, which was rather like being mauled by an angry leech.
The latest UAF blog attack is this time on the principle of free speech itself.
The main writer on the site is one Denise Garside, a intellectualy vacuous beast with a coterie of fawning retarded far left followers.
These are some of her comments on the demonstration by the UAF against Nick Griffin at Oxford University ;
'Though I may disagree with another person’s point of view, I will do all in my power to preserve the other’s right to say it - unless that other’s point of view is founded upon hate and bigotry, in which case I will do all in my power to suppress it.'
'No Platform is based on the principle that some views are so extreme, so abhorrent, so divisive, so much based on hate and bigotry, that no platform should be provided for the espousal of them '.
As this woman and her cretinous acolytes obviously are unable to analyse their rubbish I will do so here ;
Free speech has nothing to do with morality, it is a PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY not a function of morality.
The attempt to construct an argument for the restriction of the right of free speech based on the premise that free speech must have some sort of ‘moral utility’ in order for it to be able to justify its very existence in our democracy, is nothing more than the logic of fascism.
This attempt by liberal fascists to 'moralise' free speech is nothing more than another liberal fascist attempt to undermine the principal of free speech itself.
Free speech has nothing to do with morality, as the principle of free speech is the foundation of a democratic society ( as stated in the case of Handyside v UK 1986 in the European Court ) and its role is simply to act as the defining indicator that an Open Society still exists.
An Open Society, does not close its eyes and ears to those things it doesnt like. A Closed Society is one that seeks to suffocate all those viewpoints and ideas that a self appointed elite decide the majority should not be exposed too.
Morality and free speech are often in direct conflict - as we see so often in the conflict between ART AND BLASPHEMY.
The idea that there exists a single morality that can define good/evil/ hate/ intolerance is the very foundation of a fascist and totalitarian worldview. The ability to dehumanise an other individual on the basis of their beliefs, values, morality or ideals is the mechanism that always leads to murder.
When an individual is defined as a hater /racist/ extremist/ infidel/kafir / apostate then they are regarded as no longer human , and therefore they may be killed or denied their fundamental freedoms in the name of some bogus 'higher moral ideal'.
Those so called Moralists that seek to conflate morality with free speech end up first by burning books and then by burning people.
We as a civilisation have lived through the era of the book burners - and those that want free speech undermined to support THEIR version of morality always end up demanding that those whose morality they disagree with end up joining the books in the bonfires.
So then you evil, asinine, liberal fascists can go to hell - we see you for what you are and that is simply the bland face of the new fascism.
The fact that the UAF are themselves and organisation whose hands are stained with the blood of the crimes of Communism, makes their moral cant even more sickening.
The very fact that no logical justification for the removal of free speech can me made using pure logic, means the Liberal Fascists have to move their attack on free speech onto the swamp of morality.
All that the enemies of free speech can do is pretend they have some facile moral ‘right’ to remove free speech in the name of combatting hate, intolerance, racism etc etc, as they cannot argue on the grounds of pure logic itself.
Morality though is always the willing whore of the tyrant and the killer, as it can be warped, manipulated and subverted and painted with the pretty colours of morality until murder itself becomes justified and acceptable.
Every war in history has been depicted as a moral war by both sides in evry conflict.
Every attack on liberty in history has been disguised in the rhetoric of morality.
From the ovens of Auschwitz, the killing fields of Cambodia, the laogai of China to the abortion clinics of the West - a moral argument has always been able to be created to justify every crime and undermine every attack on free speech in history.
The Nazis saw themselves as moral, the chinese communists saw themselves as moral and the killers in the killing fields saw themselves as moral.
Those that hide beneath the mask of morality are usually those that are planning the latest round of murders.
This is why the prime importance of free speech is that it allows those who see through the rhetoric and the moral cant of the latest lunatics to threaten our society and freedoms to speak out and warn those who may be the victims of the latest moral crusade.
This use of 'supporting morality' to undermine free speech is the exact same logic the Nazis used to remove free speech ( to stop the jewish newspapers telling hateful lies about aryans ) and why the communists shut down the free press ( to stop the evil capitalists spreading hate about the working classes ).
Those that use the rhetoric of morality to remove our right to free speech, are simply the enemies of all those that cherish free speech.
The very definition of fascism is that we are only allowed to say the things permitted by our masters, that we are only allowed to hear the things permitted by our masters, that we are only allowed to communicate ideas that our masters approve of and that the media only print things our political masters want them to say. Fascism depends on the death of free speech.
Usurping free speech in the name of the public good is the last refuge of the tyrant, criminal and dictator.
Using the rhetoric of morality to undermine free speech is what every fascist in history has done, including the liberal fascists that infest the UAF.
Free speech has nothing to do with morality, it is a PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY not a function of morality.
Isnt it funny how liberals all support moral and cultural relativism re Islamists and demand that we 'engage' with the Islamists in free debate but then say ‘ oh no’ we cant give the BNP free speech’.
Liberalism = free speech for terrorists, but no speech for those the liberals disagree with.
This is because the CLASSIC LIBERALS that once cherished free speech have been replaced by todays nasty and grubby little LIBERAL FASCISTS - and the classic liberals would regard todays liberals as just another variant of communism and the enemies of liberalism.
As usual the liberals are hypocrites and fools.
No wonder Lenin called the liberals who assisted him in the murderous rampage of the russian revolution ‘ the useful idiots’.
Once an idiot, always an idiot.
And there are no greater idiots than those in the UAF.
The latest UAF blog attack is this time on the principle of free speech itself.
The main writer on the site is one Denise Garside, a intellectualy vacuous beast with a coterie of fawning retarded far left followers.
These are some of her comments on the demonstration by the UAF against Nick Griffin at Oxford University ;
'Though I may disagree with another person’s point of view, I will do all in my power to preserve the other’s right to say it - unless that other’s point of view is founded upon hate and bigotry, in which case I will do all in my power to suppress it.'
'No Platform is based on the principle that some views are so extreme, so abhorrent, so divisive, so much based on hate and bigotry, that no platform should be provided for the espousal of them '.
As this woman and her cretinous acolytes obviously are unable to analyse their rubbish I will do so here ;
Free speech has nothing to do with morality, it is a PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY not a function of morality.
The attempt to construct an argument for the restriction of the right of free speech based on the premise that free speech must have some sort of ‘moral utility’ in order for it to be able to justify its very existence in our democracy, is nothing more than the logic of fascism.
This attempt by liberal fascists to 'moralise' free speech is nothing more than another liberal fascist attempt to undermine the principal of free speech itself.
Free speech has nothing to do with morality, as the principle of free speech is the foundation of a democratic society ( as stated in the case of Handyside v UK 1986 in the European Court ) and its role is simply to act as the defining indicator that an Open Society still exists.
An Open Society, does not close its eyes and ears to those things it doesnt like. A Closed Society is one that seeks to suffocate all those viewpoints and ideas that a self appointed elite decide the majority should not be exposed too.
Morality and free speech are often in direct conflict - as we see so often in the conflict between ART AND BLASPHEMY.
The idea that there exists a single morality that can define good/evil/ hate/ intolerance is the very foundation of a fascist and totalitarian worldview. The ability to dehumanise an other individual on the basis of their beliefs, values, morality or ideals is the mechanism that always leads to murder.
When an individual is defined as a hater /racist/ extremist/ infidel/kafir / apostate then they are regarded as no longer human , and therefore they may be killed or denied their fundamental freedoms in the name of some bogus 'higher moral ideal'.
Those so called Moralists that seek to conflate morality with free speech end up first by burning books and then by burning people.
We as a civilisation have lived through the era of the book burners - and those that want free speech undermined to support THEIR version of morality always end up demanding that those whose morality they disagree with end up joining the books in the bonfires.
So then you evil, asinine, liberal fascists can go to hell - we see you for what you are and that is simply the bland face of the new fascism.
The fact that the UAF are themselves and organisation whose hands are stained with the blood of the crimes of Communism, makes their moral cant even more sickening.
The very fact that no logical justification for the removal of free speech can me made using pure logic, means the Liberal Fascists have to move their attack on free speech onto the swamp of morality.
All that the enemies of free speech can do is pretend they have some facile moral ‘right’ to remove free speech in the name of combatting hate, intolerance, racism etc etc, as they cannot argue on the grounds of pure logic itself.
Morality though is always the willing whore of the tyrant and the killer, as it can be warped, manipulated and subverted and painted with the pretty colours of morality until murder itself becomes justified and acceptable.
Every war in history has been depicted as a moral war by both sides in evry conflict.
Every attack on liberty in history has been disguised in the rhetoric of morality.
From the ovens of Auschwitz, the killing fields of Cambodia, the laogai of China to the abortion clinics of the West - a moral argument has always been able to be created to justify every crime and undermine every attack on free speech in history.
The Nazis saw themselves as moral, the chinese communists saw themselves as moral and the killers in the killing fields saw themselves as moral.
Those that hide beneath the mask of morality are usually those that are planning the latest round of murders.
This is why the prime importance of free speech is that it allows those who see through the rhetoric and the moral cant of the latest lunatics to threaten our society and freedoms to speak out and warn those who may be the victims of the latest moral crusade.
This use of 'supporting morality' to undermine free speech is the exact same logic the Nazis used to remove free speech ( to stop the jewish newspapers telling hateful lies about aryans ) and why the communists shut down the free press ( to stop the evil capitalists spreading hate about the working classes ).
Those that use the rhetoric of morality to remove our right to free speech, are simply the enemies of all those that cherish free speech.
The very definition of fascism is that we are only allowed to say the things permitted by our masters, that we are only allowed to hear the things permitted by our masters, that we are only allowed to communicate ideas that our masters approve of and that the media only print things our political masters want them to say. Fascism depends on the death of free speech.
Usurping free speech in the name of the public good is the last refuge of the tyrant, criminal and dictator.
Using the rhetoric of morality to undermine free speech is what every fascist in history has done, including the liberal fascists that infest the UAF.
Free speech has nothing to do with morality, it is a PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY not a function of morality.
Isnt it funny how liberals all support moral and cultural relativism re Islamists and demand that we 'engage' with the Islamists in free debate but then say ‘ oh no’ we cant give the BNP free speech’.
Liberalism = free speech for terrorists, but no speech for those the liberals disagree with.
This is because the CLASSIC LIBERALS that once cherished free speech have been replaced by todays nasty and grubby little LIBERAL FASCISTS - and the classic liberals would regard todays liberals as just another variant of communism and the enemies of liberalism.
As usual the liberals are hypocrites and fools.
No wonder Lenin called the liberals who assisted him in the murderous rampage of the russian revolution ‘ the useful idiots’.
Once an idiot, always an idiot.
And there are no greater idiots than those in the UAF.
The secret history of the UAF / IRA
" In a photograph of Hayes's flat released by the police after his arrest, an AK47 assault rifle lies on the floor, while a copy of Socialist Worker lies on a chair "
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950129/ai_n9630764/pg_2
The UAF were the main organisers of the demonstration against Nick Griffin at the Oxford Union, but how many of the media maggots that allow the UAF to make statements in their newspapers about free speech understand that the UAF are a front group for the Socialist Workers Party ( SWP) Red Action, the IRA and other violent , terrorist and communist groups.
Weyman Bennet who leads the UAF is a member of the SWP central commitee who set up the UAF. The SWP member is still controlled by the SWP, as are the SWP officials who sit on the board of the UAF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_Against_Fascism
Having the UAF organise a demonstration in support of free speech is like having rapists organising a demonstration in support of womens rights.
The line from the UAF to the IRA is clear and explicit and in this article I will detail the links between the UAF/ SWP/ AFA/ RED ACTION / IRA.
They are one organisation with many different faces - whilst the UAF is the rapist with the smily face mask that suits them best when dealing with the media, the truth is that the UAF is nothing more than an anti-semitic, far left, IRA supporting terrorist group whose existence and links go from the SWP direct to the IRA and the INLA.
Whilst the UAF talk about free speech, its more militant wing is busy planning terrorism, violent attacks and in the past has attempted to kill hundreds of innocent London citizens.
The UAF is itself a terrorist group and should be regarded as such, the fact that the Police are so cowed by political correctness that they treat the UAF as a legitimate organisation is an example of how the Red Terror has become able to threaten the thin blue line that prevents order from descending into chaos.
The UAF even has serving police officers endorsing it, such as Superintendent Leroy Logan of the Black Metropolitan Police Officers Association ;
http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4
Whilst today we face the threat of terrorism from Al Qaeda and Islamists, just a few years ago those people that run the UAF were involved in planting bombs on London streets to maim and kill hundreds of innocent Londoners.
Heres the link to the UAF from the website of the Socialist Workers Party here ;
http://www.swp.org.uk/links.php?type=anti-racist
Those who run the SWP are also founding members of the UAF and stil run it today. SWP also uses its activists to operate undercover in the UAF and other militant groups linked with violence such as Anti-Fascist Action and Red Action who were involved with the IRA Harrods bombings.
According to the book, 'No Retreat', co-authored by two former members of Anti-Fascist Action/Red Action, Steve Tilzey and Dave Hann, Gary O'Shea was the leader of Red Action (page 120).
Red Action has links with the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) and one of their London-based members, Patrick Hayes, was jailed for 30 years for his part in the bombing of the Harrods store.
Gary O'Shea now leads the Independent Working Class Association, a small political party with one elected councillor who is also a major supporter of the UAF.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950129/ai_n9630764
Full story here - this is an essential read for all those who want to understand the links between the UAF/ SWP/AFA/ RED ACTION / IRA.
The A-E of far left terrorism begins with the UAF and ends with the IRA. The first step begins at A with the UAF and ends at E with the IRA ;
The UAF is also linked with members of the Labour Party and Ken Livingstone, and the UAF is funded by the Labour Party at the same time as it is linked with terrorist groups. The Labour Party in Newcastle, led by Sir Jeremy Beecham, also has links with Anti-Fascist Action as the Labour Party in Newcastle funds the local Anti-Fascist Action organisation.
Heres the link to the Newcastle Anti-Fascist Action group which is funded by the Newcastle Labour Party via the Tyne and Wear Against Racism organisation which funnels money from the Labour Party in Newcastle to Anti-Fascist Action. The Tyne and Wear Against Racism organisation pays for the Anti-Fascist Action website. Note the glorification of terrorism and violence on the AFA website ;
http://antifa.org.uk/rpm.html
This means both the Labour Party and Ken Livingstone are active supporter of Far Left violence in the UK, as well as an active supporter of Islamist extremists.
http://www.naar.org.uk/newspages/070921.asp
The UAF is also filled with anti-semitic, far left Jew haters who regard Israel as a racist state and Jews in Israel as war criminals. This is the reason why the UAF and Searchlight split, due to the UAF demanding a non-Jewish representative from Searchlight be their link man to the Searchlight organisation, and because they despised Searchlight for having many Jewish officials in the searchlight organisation.
The full story here ;
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2005/07/316360.html
Even the odd idiot Bishop, such as the Bishop of Sheffield, the Rt Rev Jack Nicholls is involved with the UAF, without knowing its links with terrorism and violence ;
http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/art.php?id=947
The UAF is the direct descendant of the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) which was an organisation set up on the initiative of the Socialist Workers' Party with some sponsorship (and a few small financial donations) from some trade unions and the endorsement of a list of prominent people in 1977 to oppose the rise of what they deemed to be far-right groups in Britain. It was at its height between 1977 and 1981 The initial sponsors included Peter Hain MP, a wanted terrorist supporter who fled South Africa due to his involvement in the bombing campaign of the ARM terrorist organisation.
The Minister for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain was born to South African parents who were anti-apartheid activists in the South African Liberal Party, for which they were made "banned persons", briefly jailed, and prevented from working. Friends of the Hain family formed a small resistance group, the Armed Resistance Movement.
The Armed Resistance Movement (ARM) was an terrorist group whose members were mainly white, and friends of Peter Hain's family were involved.
ARM came into being at the time of the arrest of the major ANC leadership. It succeeded in several bombing operations. However, a bombing in Johannesburg station in July 1964 led to the death of an elderly woman.
One of the ARM's operatives (John Harris, a school teacher) was subsequently arrested, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed.
Harris was a friend of Peter Hain's family, and Harris' wife, Ann, and their young son, David, went to live with the Hains in the run-up to the trial. The 15-year-old Peter Hain delivered the eulogy at the service for Harris after his execution by the South African government for planting the bombs that killed and wounded people in the blast.
Conviction for Hain
In 1966 the Hain family fled South Africa and settled in London. Peter became chairman of the Stop the Seventy Tour Campaign which disrupted tours by the South African rugby union teams in 1969 and 1970. A 1972 private prosecution brought by Francis Bennion in regard to his leadership of the illegal direct-action interference with the tours resulted in a ten-day Old Bailey Trial with the jury failing to agree on three charges and hence he was acquitted on those charges, but Peter Hain was found guilty of criminal conspiracy and fined £200. He appealed against the conviction in 1973. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal with costs.
As reported in the Daily Telegraph of 23 October 1973, the court said his conviction was "fully justified". Lord Justice Roskill said Hain had not elected to give evidence, adding that "He gave no explanation of his part over the incidents with which he was charged." In 1976 Hain was tried for, and acquitted of, a 1974 bank robbery, after allegedly having been framed by South African intelligence agents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_League#Relationship_with_the_SWP
So we can see that the UAF was spawned in an atmosphere and from a lineage of terrorist violence. Its founding members such as Peter Hain MP were terrorist activists and supporters and the organisation it recruits is leader from, and most of its senior cadres, is an organisation linked with IRA terrorism.
The UAF is nothing more than a front group for terrorists and still acts today as a conduit for Anti-fascist Action and a recruting ground for terrorist thugs.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/656/swp.htm
http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/177/177_res.html
http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/184/184_ge2.html
http://www.redaction.org/forum/printthread.php?s=64101ecdb601c875180eb0f15dc2cff2&threadid=1110
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950129/ai_n9630764/pg_2
The UAF were the main organisers of the demonstration against Nick Griffin at the Oxford Union, but how many of the media maggots that allow the UAF to make statements in their newspapers about free speech understand that the UAF are a front group for the Socialist Workers Party ( SWP) Red Action, the IRA and other violent , terrorist and communist groups.
Weyman Bennet who leads the UAF is a member of the SWP central commitee who set up the UAF. The SWP member is still controlled by the SWP, as are the SWP officials who sit on the board of the UAF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_Against_Fascism
Having the UAF organise a demonstration in support of free speech is like having rapists organising a demonstration in support of womens rights.
The line from the UAF to the IRA is clear and explicit and in this article I will detail the links between the UAF/ SWP/ AFA/ RED ACTION / IRA.
They are one organisation with many different faces - whilst the UAF is the rapist with the smily face mask that suits them best when dealing with the media, the truth is that the UAF is nothing more than an anti-semitic, far left, IRA supporting terrorist group whose existence and links go from the SWP direct to the IRA and the INLA.
Whilst the UAF talk about free speech, its more militant wing is busy planning terrorism, violent attacks and in the past has attempted to kill hundreds of innocent London citizens.
The UAF is itself a terrorist group and should be regarded as such, the fact that the Police are so cowed by political correctness that they treat the UAF as a legitimate organisation is an example of how the Red Terror has become able to threaten the thin blue line that prevents order from descending into chaos.
The UAF even has serving police officers endorsing it, such as Superintendent Leroy Logan of the Black Metropolitan Police Officers Association ;
http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4
Whilst today we face the threat of terrorism from Al Qaeda and Islamists, just a few years ago those people that run the UAF were involved in planting bombs on London streets to maim and kill hundreds of innocent Londoners.
Heres the link to the UAF from the website of the Socialist Workers Party here ;
http://www.swp.org.uk/links.php?type=anti-racist
Those who run the SWP are also founding members of the UAF and stil run it today. SWP also uses its activists to operate undercover in the UAF and other militant groups linked with violence such as Anti-Fascist Action and Red Action who were involved with the IRA Harrods bombings.
According to the book, 'No Retreat', co-authored by two former members of Anti-Fascist Action/Red Action, Steve Tilzey and Dave Hann, Gary O'Shea was the leader of Red Action (page 120).
Red Action has links with the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) and one of their London-based members, Patrick Hayes, was jailed for 30 years for his part in the bombing of the Harrods store.
Gary O'Shea now leads the Independent Working Class Association, a small political party with one elected councillor who is also a major supporter of the UAF.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19950129/ai_n9630764
Full story here - this is an essential read for all those who want to understand the links between the UAF/ SWP/AFA/ RED ACTION / IRA.
The A-E of far left terrorism begins with the UAF and ends with the IRA. The first step begins at A with the UAF and ends at E with the IRA ;
The UAF is also linked with members of the Labour Party and Ken Livingstone, and the UAF is funded by the Labour Party at the same time as it is linked with terrorist groups. The Labour Party in Newcastle, led by Sir Jeremy Beecham, also has links with Anti-Fascist Action as the Labour Party in Newcastle funds the local Anti-Fascist Action organisation.
Heres the link to the Newcastle Anti-Fascist Action group which is funded by the Newcastle Labour Party via the Tyne and Wear Against Racism organisation which funnels money from the Labour Party in Newcastle to Anti-Fascist Action. The Tyne and Wear Against Racism organisation pays for the Anti-Fascist Action website. Note the glorification of terrorism and violence on the AFA website ;
http://antifa.org.uk/rpm.html
This means both the Labour Party and Ken Livingstone are active supporter of Far Left violence in the UK, as well as an active supporter of Islamist extremists.
http://www.naar.org.uk/newspages/070921.asp
The UAF is also filled with anti-semitic, far left Jew haters who regard Israel as a racist state and Jews in Israel as war criminals. This is the reason why the UAF and Searchlight split, due to the UAF demanding a non-Jewish representative from Searchlight be their link man to the Searchlight organisation, and because they despised Searchlight for having many Jewish officials in the searchlight organisation.
The full story here ;
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/london/2005/07/316360.html
Even the odd idiot Bishop, such as the Bishop of Sheffield, the Rt Rev Jack Nicholls is involved with the UAF, without knowing its links with terrorism and violence ;
http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/art.php?id=947
The UAF is the direct descendant of the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) which was an organisation set up on the initiative of the Socialist Workers' Party with some sponsorship (and a few small financial donations) from some trade unions and the endorsement of a list of prominent people in 1977 to oppose the rise of what they deemed to be far-right groups in Britain. It was at its height between 1977 and 1981 The initial sponsors included Peter Hain MP, a wanted terrorist supporter who fled South Africa due to his involvement in the bombing campaign of the ARM terrorist organisation.
The Minister for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain was born to South African parents who were anti-apartheid activists in the South African Liberal Party, for which they were made "banned persons", briefly jailed, and prevented from working. Friends of the Hain family formed a small resistance group, the Armed Resistance Movement.
The Armed Resistance Movement (ARM) was an terrorist group whose members were mainly white, and friends of Peter Hain's family were involved.
ARM came into being at the time of the arrest of the major ANC leadership. It succeeded in several bombing operations. However, a bombing in Johannesburg station in July 1964 led to the death of an elderly woman.
One of the ARM's operatives (John Harris, a school teacher) was subsequently arrested, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed.
Harris was a friend of Peter Hain's family, and Harris' wife, Ann, and their young son, David, went to live with the Hains in the run-up to the trial. The 15-year-old Peter Hain delivered the eulogy at the service for Harris after his execution by the South African government for planting the bombs that killed and wounded people in the blast.
Conviction for Hain
In 1966 the Hain family fled South Africa and settled in London. Peter became chairman of the Stop the Seventy Tour Campaign which disrupted tours by the South African rugby union teams in 1969 and 1970. A 1972 private prosecution brought by Francis Bennion in regard to his leadership of the illegal direct-action interference with the tours resulted in a ten-day Old Bailey Trial with the jury failing to agree on three charges and hence he was acquitted on those charges, but Peter Hain was found guilty of criminal conspiracy and fined £200. He appealed against the conviction in 1973. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal with costs.
As reported in the Daily Telegraph of 23 October 1973, the court said his conviction was "fully justified". Lord Justice Roskill said Hain had not elected to give evidence, adding that "He gave no explanation of his part over the incidents with which he was charged." In 1976 Hain was tried for, and acquitted of, a 1974 bank robbery, after allegedly having been framed by South African intelligence agents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Nazi_League#Relationship_with_the_SWP
So we can see that the UAF was spawned in an atmosphere and from a lineage of terrorist violence. Its founding members such as Peter Hain MP were terrorist activists and supporters and the organisation it recruits is leader from, and most of its senior cadres, is an organisation linked with IRA terrorism.
The UAF is nothing more than a front group for terrorists and still acts today as a conduit for Anti-fascist Action and a recruting ground for terrorist thugs.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/656/swp.htm
http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/177/177_res.html
http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/184/184_ge2.html
http://www.redaction.org/forum/printthread.php?s=64101ecdb601c875180eb0f15dc2cff2&threadid=1110
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Legal Argument for Blair to face War Crimes Trial
This is my legal argument for Blair to face a war crimes trial over the attack on Serbia ;
Formal Criminal Complaint.
I wish to make a formal criminal complaint against ;
A) Tony Blair MP
The former British Prime Minister at the time of the attack on Serbia who authorised British involvement in the illegal attack on the Serbian TV station, Radio Televisija Srbije - ( RTS) on April 23 rd 1999.
This complaint relates to the attack on the civilian Serbian TV station, Radio Televisija Srbije - ( RTS) on April 23rd 1999 by .
The attack on the TV station is defined under Article 147 of the Geneva Convention as ;
"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
This attack is classified as a war crime under Article 147 of the Geneva Convention as the Serbian TV channel headquarters was ;
1) undefended by the Serbian military and not a military threat of any kind to British troops,
2) was not a military installation run by the Serbian Military
3) was staffed solely with civilians and not any military personnel
4) was not a legitimate military target as it was not indulging in aggressive military or hostile actions that could have threatened British troops
5) the illegal attack on the station resulted in the deaths of Serbian civilians who were non-combatants.
6)the attack on the TV station was an example of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
7) The attack, or bombardment, was against an undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or building
8) The attack involved the destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science, in that the TV station was an essential part of the TV media in Serbia to educate the Serbian public about NATO attacks, the dangers of the bombardment and also provided them with information to enable them to escape areas where NATO bombing was threatening the lives of civilians.
9) was a crime against peace as the attack included the planning, commencement, and waging of aggressive war against Serbia in violation of international agreements.
10) the attack was an example of waging an ' Aggressive War ' against Serbia defined as a hostile military act that disregards the territorial boundaries of another country, disrespects the political independence of another regime, or otherwise interferes with the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state.
Most war crimes fall into one of three categories: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and traditional war crimes. Crimes against peace include the planning, commencement, and waging of aggressive war or war in violation of international agreements. Aggressive war is broadly defined to include any hostile military act that disregards the territorial boundaries of another country, disrespects the political independence of another regime, or otherwise interferes with the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state.
UK Legal Status of the Convention.
The British police have a duty under the Geneva Convention Article 146 to investigate and prosecute Tony Blair as the UK is a High Contacting Party to the convention ;
Article 146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another
High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949.
UK Legal Position as per duty to investigate, arrest and prosecute.
The UK's obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention have been given effect in domestic law via the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which applies to: "Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of any of the scheduled conventions or the first protocol…"" [Article 1.-(1)].
Facts of the Complaint ;
The ostensible justification for NATO attacking the TV station was to prevent attacks by the Serbian state against the Kosovans and threats against NATO forces that were supposedly being directed by the Serbian TV station.
In relation to the specific event that can be classified as a war crime is the attack by NATO forces on the Serbian TV channel headquarters on April 23rd 1999 that was staffed solely with civilians. The attack on the TV station is defined under Article 147 of the Geneva Convention as " "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, e xtensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
" Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property and directing attacks upon civilians as part of an international conflict ".
In the early morning of 23 April 1999 NATO aircraft bombed the headquarters and studios of Serbian state television and radio (Radio Televisija Srbije - RTS) in central Belgrade. There was no doubt that NATO had hit its intended target as it had blamed the TV station for directing ' Serbian state forces ' involved in the attacks on the Kosovans. There were estimated to be at least 120 civilians working in the building at the time of the attack. At least 16 civilians were killed and a further 16 were wounded.
The UK government justification for the attack on the TV station was that the Serbian TV station was part of a " key regime command-and-control asset " under the control of the Serbian state that was involved in directing the attacks by Serbian state forces on the Kosovans.
At a heated press briefing at the Ministry of Defence, Clare Short, the international development secretary, said: 'This is a war, this is a serious conflict, untold horrors are being done. The propaganda machine is prolonging the war and it's a legitimate target.'
Admiral Sir Ian Garnett, chief of joint operations at the ministry of defence, said Mr Milosevic's 'propaganda machine consists of transmitters but also the studios from which the information is transmitted. That makes it part of the overall military structure. Both elements have to be attacked.'
Nato's military spokesman, Air Commodore David Wilby, described RTS, the Serbian state broadcasting station, as a 'legitimate target which filled the airways with hate and with lies over the years'. The admissions by Clare Short, Admiral Sir Ian Garnett and Air Commodore David Wilby all confirm that part of the UK governments motive for the attack on the TV station included an attack upon Serbian propaganda.
This means that if the motive for the attack, if even in a small way, related to the function of the Serbian TV station as a vehicle for propaganda, then this means that the attack was a war crime.
The ONLY justification for the attack in international law in order to ensure legality was ;
1) that the attack was based SOLELY on the TV station being used or having a primary role as being part of the military command and control structure of the Serbian forces that directly threatened NATO forces at the time of the attack.
2) At the same time as this active and direct threat to NATO forces existed it must also be proved that attacking the TV station at that time also offered NATO a military advantage required by the urgent on the ground military threat linked to those NATO forces.
3) It must also be proved that those NATO forces were also under threat from an attack by Serbian forces that were being directly commanded via military transmissions direct from the TV station.
No such situation ever existed to justify the attack on the TV station under international law and the Geneva Convention.
In fact no such threat to NATO forces ever existed to justify the attack on the TV station and no such connection to the TV station as a transmission facility was ever proved.
No evidence has ever been provided that this was in fact true that the TV station was part of the Serbian control structure of the Serbian military and no such evidence was before either Tony Blair or Geoff Hoon when they ordered the attack on the TV station. Therefore this means the attack was an illegal attack.
Jamie Shea, NATO spokesman claimed repeatedly during the bombing campaign: 'I only, as NATO spokesman, give out information when it is totally accurate and confirmed'. This was the same Jamie Shea who wrote to Aiden White, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, on 12 April 1999, in response to concern about targeting of media outlets, that NATO had no policy to 'strike television and radio transmitters' and that 'Allied air missions are planned to avoid civilian casualties, including of course journalists, and have been frequently abandoned when it has proven impossible to distinguish between military and civilian targets'. Less than a fortnight later Jamie Shea was defending NATO's bombing of the television station, killing 15 media workers, in Belgrade on 23 April as an operation against a 'legitimate' target.
This is proof that the targeting of the Serbian TV station was ;
1) A deliberate attack and not an accident
2) planned and authorised prior to the attack happening by Geoff Hoon MP and Tony Blair PM
3) undertaken as part of the war against Serbia
4) and that the MOD, Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair were aware that the attack was in breach of the Geneva Convention prior to authorising that attack.
Doubts about the lawfulness of attacking an object on propaganda grounds have been expressed, with specific reference to the RTS headquarters, by George Aldrich, who has said, "If the television studios ... were targeted merely because they were spreading propaganda to the civilian population, even including blatant lies about the armed conflict, it would be open to question whether such use could legitimately be considered an effective contribution to military action." See "Yugoslavia Television Studios as Military Objectives", in International Law FORUM du droit international, Volume I, No.3, September 1999, p.150.
The attack on the TV station violated the rule of proportionality, which is a grave breach of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention and therefore a war crime. This is the
Protocol relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
Two fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law are those of "civilian immunity" and the principle of "distinction." (Articles 48, 51.2 52.2 Additional Protocol 1)
They impose a duty, at all times during the conflict, to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to target only the former. This duty means that it is forbidden in any circumstance to carry out direct attacks against civilians; to do so intentionally is a war crime. The parties to a conflict must also refrain from threats or acts of violence the primary purpose of which is to terrorize the civilian population. ( Article 51.2 Additional Protocol 1 ).
This includes the bombing of a TV station done with the intention of ending propaganda.
Also prohibited are "attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals." (Article 51.6 Additional Protocol 1). This includes attacking the TV station for broadcasting propaganda that supported the Serbian state.
Apart from the prohibition on direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects, international humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate attacks on such targets as the TV station as a matter of both treaty and customary law ( Article 51.4 Additional Protocol 1).
Indiscriminate attacks are those that are not directed against a military objective, those that employ a method or means of combat that cannot be directed at a specific military objective, or those that employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. In each such case, these attacks are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. (Article 51.4.a Additional Protocol 1 ). The inability of NATO to make a distinction between civilian TV workers and the alleged military technological infrastructure by using bombs dropped onto the TV station from jets means the attack was illegal from its inception. NATO had the possibility of targeting other technological facilities with the possibility of no civilian casualties but did not so, for example targeting TV pylons and transmission facilities.
A corollary of the principle of distinction is the prohibition of area bombardment. Any attack, whether by aerial bombardment or other means, that treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a single building, city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians and civilian objects, is regarded as an indiscriminate attack and prohibited (Article 51.5.a Additional Protocol 1).
Similarly, if a combatant launches an attack without attempting to aim properly at a specific military target such as a transmitter facility in the vicinity of the TV station, or in such a way as to hit civilians without regard to the likely extent of death or injury, it would also amount to an indiscriminate attack.
A deliberately indiscriminate attack that causes incidental death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects that is clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated from the attack is a war crime (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 8 (2) (b) (iv) War crime of excessive incidental death, injury, or damage ).
International humanitarian law requires that the parties to a conflict take constant care during military operations to spare the civilian population and to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize the incidental loss of civilian life, as well as injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects (Article 57 Additional Protocol 1). This was not done as regards the attack on the TV station, as the knowledge that any attack on the station would result in large numbers of innocent civilian casualties should have meant the attack was not allowed to commence.
The fact not one of the Serbian casualties in the attack on the TV station were in any way or form active members of the military means the attack was an attack solely upon innocent civilians.
In its authoritative Commentary on Protocol I, the ICRC explains that the requirement to take all "feasible" precautions means, among other things, that the person launching an attack is required to take the steps needed to identify the target as a legitimate military objective "in good time to spare the population as far as possible." (ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols, pp. 681-82). This requirement was also breached.
The parties to a conflict must always take precautions in identifying targets and planning or carrying out an attack. As part of the identification process, they must do everything feasible to verify that the chosen targets are military objectives; that is, that they are legitimately subject to attack (Article 52 Additional Protocol 1).
The fact that on April 9th just a fortnight before the attack the NATO spokesman Jamie Shea was stating in public that no attacks were planned on the TV station or other media facilities means that as the NATO forces had not suffered any major military setbacks after that date that could have warranted the targeting of the TV station, that the strategic threat had not changed enough to legitimise the attack on April 23 rd.
If there are doubts about whether a potential target is of a civilian or military character, the assessment must be particularly scrupulous so as to dispel, to the maximum extent possible, any doubts about the civilian character of the person or object. Military objects are those which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose partial or total destruction, capture or neutralization offers a "definite military advantage." The fact that NATO at all time had an overwhelming military tactical and strategic advantage over the Serbian forces meant that the attack on the TV station was never able to be justified on military grounds. At no time were either NATO forces or NATO troops at risk from Serbian military forces that could have justified an attack on the TV station.
The warring parties must do everything feasible to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the target is not a military objective. This was obvious to NATO on April the 9th but this situation must have changed in relation to a threat to NATO forces to change the status of the TV station on the 23 rd April. No such threat occurred or could have been said to be in action that could have changed the status of the TV station.
The same applies if the attack may be expected to cause excessive collateral damage (Article 57.2 Additonal Protocol 1).
Humanitarian law also determines that if the attacker has a choice between more than one military objective, each of which could yield similar military advantage, the objective selected must be the one that is expected to cause the least danger to civilians and civilian objects ( Article 57.3 Additional Protocol 1).
This could have been done by targeting transmission facilities and other targets associated with broadcasting networks on the ground. Such an attempt to disable the TV transmission facilities must have been ordered and attempted prior to the attack on the TV station, in order to assert a right to target the TV station. No such attempts to disable facilities relating to the transmission of Broadcasts were undertaken by NATO prior to the attack on the station on April 23 rd. Therefore the attack on the station was not justified either militarily or in relation to legality as regards previous attempts to disable the transmission facilities that did not involve targeting civilians.
In general it is prohibited to direct attacks against what are by their nature civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals, schools or cultural monuments, unless they are being used for military purposes. This has not been proved in any way in regards to the TV station. No such threat existed prior to April the 9 th and therefore could not be said to exist on April 23 rd.
The mere fact that an object has civilian uses does not necessarily render it immune from attack. It can be targeted if it makes an "effective" contribution to the enemy's military activities, and if its destruction, capture or neutralization offers a "definite military advantage" to the attacking side in the circumstances prevailing at the time. The failure to attack on the ground facilities relating to the TV station broadcasts prior to the attack on April 23 rd means no such military advantage existed.
However, with regard to such "dual use" objects, combatants must choose a means of attack that will avoid or minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects. In particular, the attacker should take all feasible measures to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the expected civilian casualties would outweigh the importance of the military objective. This principle of customary law is codified in article 57 of Protocol 1 (Article 57.2.b ("Precautions in attack") Additional Protocol 1 ). This was not done.
The ICRC Commentary on article 57 sets out a series of factors that must be taken into account in applying the principle of proportionality to the incidental effects of an attack on civilian persons and objects:
The danger incurred by the civilian population and civilian objects depends on various factors: their location (possibly within or in the vicinity of a military objective), the terrain (landslides, floods etc.), accuracy of the weapons used (greater or lesser dispersion, depending on the trajectory, the range, the ammunition used etc.), technical skill of the combatants (random dropping of bombs when unable to hit the intended target) ( ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols, p. 684 ).
Casualties that are a consequence of accidents, as in situations in which civilians are within military installations, may be considered incidental to an attack on a military objective—so called "collateral damage"—but care must still have been shown to identify the presence of civilians and to avoid or minimize the risk to them. As expressed in the ICRC Commentary, "the golden rule to be followed" when making determinations about the proportionality of an attack is "the duty to spare civilians and civilian objects in the conduct of military operations." Even when a target is serving a military purpose, precautions must always be taken to protect civilians. Warring parties must also take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects and to refrain from attacks that would disproportionately harm the civilian population or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians.
Violations of the norms established above, when serious, constitute war crimes.
Conduct considered to be a war crime under customary law has been enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That codification includes the so-called "grave breaches" to the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law as well as serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions.
Of particular concern in the present situation are the following acts that constitute war crimes:
Making the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities the object of attack.
Making civilian objects, that is, objects that are not military objectives, the object of attack.
Causing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Nato must have clearly anticipated that civilians in the RTS building would have been killed. In addition, it appears that Nato realised that attacking the RTS building would only interrupt broadcasting for a brief period therefore this knowledge undermines the requirement that the attack constituted
an "effective" contribution to undermining the enemy's military activities, and its destruction, capture or neutralization offered a "definite military advantage" to the attacking side in the circumstances prevailing at the time .
General Wesley Clark has stated: "We knew when we struck that there would be alternate means of getting the Serb Television. There's no single switch to turn off everything but we thought it was a good move to strike it and the political leadership agreed with us" (Nato press conference, 8 April 1999. See also press conference of the (French) Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, 8 April 1999: "We have decided to target radio transmitters, television relays, television transmitters, as these are propaganda tools for the regime of Mr Milosevic, helping in continuing the war." )
So Nato deliberately attacked a civilian object, killing 16 civilians, to disrupt Serbian television broadcasts in the middle of the night for approximately three hours. It is hard to see how this can be consistent with the rule of proportionality.
Nato also violated Protocol's I obligation to provide "effective advance warning ... unless circumstances do not permit". Although there was much public discussion about the possibility of an attack on the RTS headquarters, statements were contradictory. On 8 April Air Commodore Wilby and General Kelche suggested that RTS, or specifically transmitters or relay stations, were legitimate target because of their use as "an instrument of propaganda and repression" . But at a press conference the following day, Nato spokesman Jamie Shea said: "Whatever our feelings about Serb television, we are not going to target TV transmitters directly...in Yugoslavia military radio relay stations are often combined with TV transmitters but we attack the military target. If there is damage to the TV transmitters, it is a secondary effect but it is not the primary intention to do that."
This was the same Jamie Shea who wrote to Aiden White, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, on 12 April 1999, in response to concern about targeting of media outlets, that NATO had no policy to 'strike television and radio transmitters' and that 'Allied air missions are planned to avoid civilian casualties, including of course journalists, and have been frequently abandoned when it has proven impossible to distinguish between military and civilian targets'.
This proves that no such warning to the civilians in the station were ever given.
This means NATO were in direct breach of the requirements stated in the
Commentary on Protocol I, where the ICRC explains that the requirement to take all "feasible" precautions means, among other things, that the person launching an attack is required to take the steps needed to identify the target as a legitimate military objective "in good time to spare the population as far as possible." ( ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols, pp. 681-82) .
The fact that the day before the attack the NATO spokesman stated explicitly that no such attack on the TV station was forthcoming means the attack was in breach of the requirement to give warnings to civilians in the building. This means the attack was a war crime in breach of the Geneva Convention.
It is also on public record that in early April Eason Jordan, President of CNN International, received a telephone call from a Nato official who told him that an attack on RTS in Belgrade was under way and that he should tell CNN's people to get out of there. Jordan told the official that loss of life at RTS would be significant and, given the short notice, unavoidable. The official persuaded Nato to abort the mission. This shows that NATO were aware that loss of civilian life would be a result of any attack but went ahead anyway.
The statements against official Serbian media made in the days preceding the attack cannot be considered an effective warning to civilians. Western journalists have reported that they were warned by their employers to stay away from the television station before the attack, and it would also appear that some Yugoslav officials may have expected that the building was about to be attacked However, there was no warning from Nato that a specific attack on the RTS headquarters was imminent. Nato officials in Brussels told Amnesty International that they did not give a specific warning as it would have put the pilots at risk, but such a failure to give a warning to the civilians relating to the protection of attacking troops was not related in any way to the duty under the Geneva Convention to give a warning to civilians.
Formal Criminal Complaint.
I wish to make a formal criminal complaint against ;
A) Tony Blair MP
The former British Prime Minister at the time of the attack on Serbia who authorised British involvement in the illegal attack on the Serbian TV station, Radio Televisija Srbije - ( RTS) on April 23 rd 1999.
This complaint relates to the attack on the civilian Serbian TV station, Radio Televisija Srbije - ( RTS) on April 23rd 1999 by .
The attack on the TV station is defined under Article 147 of the Geneva Convention as ;
"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
This attack is classified as a war crime under Article 147 of the Geneva Convention as the Serbian TV channel headquarters was ;
1) undefended by the Serbian military and not a military threat of any kind to British troops,
2) was not a military installation run by the Serbian Military
3) was staffed solely with civilians and not any military personnel
4) was not a legitimate military target as it was not indulging in aggressive military or hostile actions that could have threatened British troops
5) the illegal attack on the station resulted in the deaths of Serbian civilians who were non-combatants.
6)the attack on the TV station was an example of wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
7) The attack, or bombardment, was against an undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or building
8) The attack involved the destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science, in that the TV station was an essential part of the TV media in Serbia to educate the Serbian public about NATO attacks, the dangers of the bombardment and also provided them with information to enable them to escape areas where NATO bombing was threatening the lives of civilians.
9) was a crime against peace as the attack included the planning, commencement, and waging of aggressive war against Serbia in violation of international agreements.
10) the attack was an example of waging an ' Aggressive War ' against Serbia defined as a hostile military act that disregards the territorial boundaries of another country, disrespects the political independence of another regime, or otherwise interferes with the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state.
Most war crimes fall into one of three categories: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and traditional war crimes. Crimes against peace include the planning, commencement, and waging of aggressive war or war in violation of international agreements. Aggressive war is broadly defined to include any hostile military act that disregards the territorial boundaries of another country, disrespects the political independence of another regime, or otherwise interferes with the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state.
UK Legal Status of the Convention.
The British police have a duty under the Geneva Convention Article 146 to investigate and prosecute Tony Blair as the UK is a High Contacting Party to the convention ;
Article 146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another
High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.
Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.
In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949.
UK Legal Position as per duty to investigate, arrest and prosecute.
The UK's obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention have been given effect in domestic law via the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which applies to: "Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of any of the scheduled conventions or the first protocol…"" [Article 1.-(1)].
Facts of the Complaint ;
The ostensible justification for NATO attacking the TV station was to prevent attacks by the Serbian state against the Kosovans and threats against NATO forces that were supposedly being directed by the Serbian TV station.
In relation to the specific event that can be classified as a war crime is the attack by NATO forces on the Serbian TV channel headquarters on April 23rd 1999 that was staffed solely with civilians. The attack on the TV station is defined under Article 147 of the Geneva Convention as " "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, e xtensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
" Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property and directing attacks upon civilians as part of an international conflict ".
In the early morning of 23 April 1999 NATO aircraft bombed the headquarters and studios of Serbian state television and radio (Radio Televisija Srbije - RTS) in central Belgrade. There was no doubt that NATO had hit its intended target as it had blamed the TV station for directing ' Serbian state forces ' involved in the attacks on the Kosovans. There were estimated to be at least 120 civilians working in the building at the time of the attack. At least 16 civilians were killed and a further 16 were wounded.
The UK government justification for the attack on the TV station was that the Serbian TV station was part of a " key regime command-and-control asset " under the control of the Serbian state that was involved in directing the attacks by Serbian state forces on the Kosovans.
At a heated press briefing at the Ministry of Defence, Clare Short, the international development secretary, said: 'This is a war, this is a serious conflict, untold horrors are being done. The propaganda machine is prolonging the war and it's a legitimate target.'
Admiral Sir Ian Garnett, chief of joint operations at the ministry of defence, said Mr Milosevic's 'propaganda machine consists of transmitters but also the studios from which the information is transmitted. That makes it part of the overall military structure. Both elements have to be attacked.'
Nato's military spokesman, Air Commodore David Wilby, described RTS, the Serbian state broadcasting station, as a 'legitimate target which filled the airways with hate and with lies over the years'. The admissions by Clare Short, Admiral Sir Ian Garnett and Air Commodore David Wilby all confirm that part of the UK governments motive for the attack on the TV station included an attack upon Serbian propaganda.
This means that if the motive for the attack, if even in a small way, related to the function of the Serbian TV station as a vehicle for propaganda, then this means that the attack was a war crime.
The ONLY justification for the attack in international law in order to ensure legality was ;
1) that the attack was based SOLELY on the TV station being used or having a primary role as being part of the military command and control structure of the Serbian forces that directly threatened NATO forces at the time of the attack.
2) At the same time as this active and direct threat to NATO forces existed it must also be proved that attacking the TV station at that time also offered NATO a military advantage required by the urgent on the ground military threat linked to those NATO forces.
3) It must also be proved that those NATO forces were also under threat from an attack by Serbian forces that were being directly commanded via military transmissions direct from the TV station.
No such situation ever existed to justify the attack on the TV station under international law and the Geneva Convention.
In fact no such threat to NATO forces ever existed to justify the attack on the TV station and no such connection to the TV station as a transmission facility was ever proved.
No evidence has ever been provided that this was in fact true that the TV station was part of the Serbian control structure of the Serbian military and no such evidence was before either Tony Blair or Geoff Hoon when they ordered the attack on the TV station. Therefore this means the attack was an illegal attack.
Jamie Shea, NATO spokesman claimed repeatedly during the bombing campaign: 'I only, as NATO spokesman, give out information when it is totally accurate and confirmed'. This was the same Jamie Shea who wrote to Aiden White, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, on 12 April 1999, in response to concern about targeting of media outlets, that NATO had no policy to 'strike television and radio transmitters' and that 'Allied air missions are planned to avoid civilian casualties, including of course journalists, and have been frequently abandoned when it has proven impossible to distinguish between military and civilian targets'. Less than a fortnight later Jamie Shea was defending NATO's bombing of the television station, killing 15 media workers, in Belgrade on 23 April as an operation against a 'legitimate' target.
This is proof that the targeting of the Serbian TV station was ;
1) A deliberate attack and not an accident
2) planned and authorised prior to the attack happening by Geoff Hoon MP and Tony Blair PM
3) undertaken as part of the war against Serbia
4) and that the MOD, Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair were aware that the attack was in breach of the Geneva Convention prior to authorising that attack.
Doubts about the lawfulness of attacking an object on propaganda grounds have been expressed, with specific reference to the RTS headquarters, by George Aldrich, who has said, "If the television studios ... were targeted merely because they were spreading propaganda to the civilian population, even including blatant lies about the armed conflict, it would be open to question whether such use could legitimately be considered an effective contribution to military action." See "Yugoslavia Television Studios as Military Objectives", in International Law FORUM du droit international, Volume I, No.3, September 1999, p.150.
The attack on the TV station violated the rule of proportionality, which is a grave breach of Protocol I of the Geneva Convention and therefore a war crime. This is the
Protocol relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).
Two fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law are those of "civilian immunity" and the principle of "distinction." (Articles 48, 51.2 52.2 Additional Protocol 1)
They impose a duty, at all times during the conflict, to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to target only the former. This duty means that it is forbidden in any circumstance to carry out direct attacks against civilians; to do so intentionally is a war crime. The parties to a conflict must also refrain from threats or acts of violence the primary purpose of which is to terrorize the civilian population. ( Article 51.2 Additional Protocol 1 ).
This includes the bombing of a TV station done with the intention of ending propaganda.
Also prohibited are "attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals." (Article 51.6 Additional Protocol 1). This includes attacking the TV station for broadcasting propaganda that supported the Serbian state.
Apart from the prohibition on direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects, international humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate attacks on such targets as the TV station as a matter of both treaty and customary law ( Article 51.4 Additional Protocol 1).
Indiscriminate attacks are those that are not directed against a military objective, those that employ a method or means of combat that cannot be directed at a specific military objective, or those that employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. In each such case, these attacks are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. (Article 51.4.a Additional Protocol 1 ). The inability of NATO to make a distinction between civilian TV workers and the alleged military technological infrastructure by using bombs dropped onto the TV station from jets means the attack was illegal from its inception. NATO had the possibility of targeting other technological facilities with the possibility of no civilian casualties but did not so, for example targeting TV pylons and transmission facilities.
A corollary of the principle of distinction is the prohibition of area bombardment. Any attack, whether by aerial bombardment or other means, that treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a single building, city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians and civilian objects, is regarded as an indiscriminate attack and prohibited (Article 51.5.a Additional Protocol 1).
Similarly, if a combatant launches an attack without attempting to aim properly at a specific military target such as a transmitter facility in the vicinity of the TV station, or in such a way as to hit civilians without regard to the likely extent of death or injury, it would also amount to an indiscriminate attack.
A deliberately indiscriminate attack that causes incidental death or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects that is clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated from the attack is a war crime (Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 8 (2) (b) (iv) War crime of excessive incidental death, injury, or damage ).
International humanitarian law requires that the parties to a conflict take constant care during military operations to spare the civilian population and to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize the incidental loss of civilian life, as well as injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects (Article 57 Additional Protocol 1). This was not done as regards the attack on the TV station, as the knowledge that any attack on the station would result in large numbers of innocent civilian casualties should have meant the attack was not allowed to commence.
The fact not one of the Serbian casualties in the attack on the TV station were in any way or form active members of the military means the attack was an attack solely upon innocent civilians.
In its authoritative Commentary on Protocol I, the ICRC explains that the requirement to take all "feasible" precautions means, among other things, that the person launching an attack is required to take the steps needed to identify the target as a legitimate military objective "in good time to spare the population as far as possible." (ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols, pp. 681-82). This requirement was also breached.
The parties to a conflict must always take precautions in identifying targets and planning or carrying out an attack. As part of the identification process, they must do everything feasible to verify that the chosen targets are military objectives; that is, that they are legitimately subject to attack (Article 52 Additional Protocol 1).
The fact that on April 9th just a fortnight before the attack the NATO spokesman Jamie Shea was stating in public that no attacks were planned on the TV station or other media facilities means that as the NATO forces had not suffered any major military setbacks after that date that could have warranted the targeting of the TV station, that the strategic threat had not changed enough to legitimise the attack on April 23 rd.
If there are doubts about whether a potential target is of a civilian or military character, the assessment must be particularly scrupulous so as to dispel, to the maximum extent possible, any doubts about the civilian character of the person or object. Military objects are those which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose partial or total destruction, capture or neutralization offers a "definite military advantage." The fact that NATO at all time had an overwhelming military tactical and strategic advantage over the Serbian forces meant that the attack on the TV station was never able to be justified on military grounds. At no time were either NATO forces or NATO troops at risk from Serbian military forces that could have justified an attack on the TV station.
The warring parties must do everything feasible to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the target is not a military objective. This was obvious to NATO on April the 9th but this situation must have changed in relation to a threat to NATO forces to change the status of the TV station on the 23 rd April. No such threat occurred or could have been said to be in action that could have changed the status of the TV station.
The same applies if the attack may be expected to cause excessive collateral damage (Article 57.2 Additonal Protocol 1).
Humanitarian law also determines that if the attacker has a choice between more than one military objective, each of which could yield similar military advantage, the objective selected must be the one that is expected to cause the least danger to civilians and civilian objects ( Article 57.3 Additional Protocol 1).
This could have been done by targeting transmission facilities and other targets associated with broadcasting networks on the ground. Such an attempt to disable the TV transmission facilities must have been ordered and attempted prior to the attack on the TV station, in order to assert a right to target the TV station. No such attempts to disable facilities relating to the transmission of Broadcasts were undertaken by NATO prior to the attack on the station on April 23 rd. Therefore the attack on the station was not justified either militarily or in relation to legality as regards previous attempts to disable the transmission facilities that did not involve targeting civilians.
In general it is prohibited to direct attacks against what are by their nature civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals, schools or cultural monuments, unless they are being used for military purposes. This has not been proved in any way in regards to the TV station. No such threat existed prior to April the 9 th and therefore could not be said to exist on April 23 rd.
The mere fact that an object has civilian uses does not necessarily render it immune from attack. It can be targeted if it makes an "effective" contribution to the enemy's military activities, and if its destruction, capture or neutralization offers a "definite military advantage" to the attacking side in the circumstances prevailing at the time. The failure to attack on the ground facilities relating to the TV station broadcasts prior to the attack on April 23 rd means no such military advantage existed.
However, with regard to such "dual use" objects, combatants must choose a means of attack that will avoid or minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects. In particular, the attacker should take all feasible measures to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the expected civilian casualties would outweigh the importance of the military objective. This principle of customary law is codified in article 57 of Protocol 1 (Article 57.2.b ("Precautions in attack") Additional Protocol 1 ). This was not done.
The ICRC Commentary on article 57 sets out a series of factors that must be taken into account in applying the principle of proportionality to the incidental effects of an attack on civilian persons and objects:
The danger incurred by the civilian population and civilian objects depends on various factors: their location (possibly within or in the vicinity of a military objective), the terrain (landslides, floods etc.), accuracy of the weapons used (greater or lesser dispersion, depending on the trajectory, the range, the ammunition used etc.), technical skill of the combatants (random dropping of bombs when unable to hit the intended target) ( ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols, p. 684 ).
Casualties that are a consequence of accidents, as in situations in which civilians are within military installations, may be considered incidental to an attack on a military objective—so called "collateral damage"—but care must still have been shown to identify the presence of civilians and to avoid or minimize the risk to them. As expressed in the ICRC Commentary, "the golden rule to be followed" when making determinations about the proportionality of an attack is "the duty to spare civilians and civilian objects in the conduct of military operations." Even when a target is serving a military purpose, precautions must always be taken to protect civilians. Warring parties must also take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects and to refrain from attacks that would disproportionately harm the civilian population or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians.
Violations of the norms established above, when serious, constitute war crimes.
Conduct considered to be a war crime under customary law has been enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That codification includes the so-called "grave breaches" to the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law as well as serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions.
Of particular concern in the present situation are the following acts that constitute war crimes:
Making the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities the object of attack.
Making civilian objects, that is, objects that are not military objectives, the object of attack.
Causing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Nato must have clearly anticipated that civilians in the RTS building would have been killed. In addition, it appears that Nato realised that attacking the RTS building would only interrupt broadcasting for a brief period therefore this knowledge undermines the requirement that the attack constituted
an "effective" contribution to undermining the enemy's military activities, and its destruction, capture or neutralization offered a "definite military advantage" to the attacking side in the circumstances prevailing at the time .
General Wesley Clark has stated: "We knew when we struck that there would be alternate means of getting the Serb Television. There's no single switch to turn off everything but we thought it was a good move to strike it and the political leadership agreed with us" (Nato press conference, 8 April 1999. See also press conference of the (French) Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, 8 April 1999: "We have decided to target radio transmitters, television relays, television transmitters, as these are propaganda tools for the regime of Mr Milosevic, helping in continuing the war." )
So Nato deliberately attacked a civilian object, killing 16 civilians, to disrupt Serbian television broadcasts in the middle of the night for approximately three hours. It is hard to see how this can be consistent with the rule of proportionality.
Nato also violated Protocol's I obligation to provide "effective advance warning ... unless circumstances do not permit". Although there was much public discussion about the possibility of an attack on the RTS headquarters, statements were contradictory. On 8 April Air Commodore Wilby and General Kelche suggested that RTS, or specifically transmitters or relay stations, were legitimate target because of their use as "an instrument of propaganda and repression" . But at a press conference the following day, Nato spokesman Jamie Shea said: "Whatever our feelings about Serb television, we are not going to target TV transmitters directly...in Yugoslavia military radio relay stations are often combined with TV transmitters but we attack the military target. If there is damage to the TV transmitters, it is a secondary effect but it is not the primary intention to do that."
This was the same Jamie Shea who wrote to Aiden White, general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, on 12 April 1999, in response to concern about targeting of media outlets, that NATO had no policy to 'strike television and radio transmitters' and that 'Allied air missions are planned to avoid civilian casualties, including of course journalists, and have been frequently abandoned when it has proven impossible to distinguish between military and civilian targets'.
This proves that no such warning to the civilians in the station were ever given.
This means NATO were in direct breach of the requirements stated in the
Commentary on Protocol I, where the ICRC explains that the requirement to take all "feasible" precautions means, among other things, that the person launching an attack is required to take the steps needed to identify the target as a legitimate military objective "in good time to spare the population as far as possible." ( ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols, pp. 681-82) .
The fact that the day before the attack the NATO spokesman stated explicitly that no such attack on the TV station was forthcoming means the attack was in breach of the requirement to give warnings to civilians in the building. This means the attack was a war crime in breach of the Geneva Convention.
It is also on public record that in early April Eason Jordan, President of CNN International, received a telephone call from a Nato official who told him that an attack on RTS in Belgrade was under way and that he should tell CNN's people to get out of there. Jordan told the official that loss of life at RTS would be significant and, given the short notice, unavoidable. The official persuaded Nato to abort the mission. This shows that NATO were aware that loss of civilian life would be a result of any attack but went ahead anyway.
The statements against official Serbian media made in the days preceding the attack cannot be considered an effective warning to civilians. Western journalists have reported that they were warned by their employers to stay away from the television station before the attack, and it would also appear that some Yugoslav officials may have expected that the building was about to be attacked However, there was no warning from Nato that a specific attack on the RTS headquarters was imminent. Nato officials in Brussels told Amnesty International that they did not give a specific warning as it would have put the pilots at risk, but such a failure to give a warning to the civilians relating to the protection of attacking troops was not related in any way to the duty under the Geneva Convention to give a warning to civilians.
Kosovo and the US / CIA / Al Qaeda Axis
The attack on Serbia by Britain and our support of the Islamist gangsters and terrorists, the KLA, over Kosovo was one of the most shameful episodes in British history.
I will post a legal analysis that I have done on this blog for a case of criminal charges against Tony Blair relating to the attacks on Serbia on this blog tomorrow.
Now it appears that David Cameron wants to do another Blair, and bomb Serbia again so that the KLA can set up its own independent narco-terrorist state in Kosovo funded by the US and armed by the CIA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=B1VZY2XHSHIMDQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/29/ncameron129.xml
The ethnic Albanian government of Kosovo is threatening to declare independence from Serbia on Dec 10. Moscow is backing Serbian attempts to block the declaration, while the United States and the European Union are in favour.
"Let me make it clear: there could be a new crisis in the Balkans by Christmas," Mr Cameron will say in a speech to the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank.
"That is a direct threat to our national security, and we must therefore take decisive action now to prevent it. We need to reinforce the military presence in the region now, by drawing on some of Nato's dedicated operational reserve, to prevent trouble later."
In other words Cameron now wants Britain to fight another war on a third front ( Iraq Afghanistan, Kosovo) with forces already overstretched in the Middle East.
For fucks dave you demented fop - BRITAIN IS NOT THE WORLDS SOCIAL WORKER AND THE BRITISH ARMY IS NOT THE WORLDS POLICE FORCE.
If terrorists want to start a war, then let the people they are attacking wipe them off the map - dont send bloody British troops to interfere in that war.
The idea that once again we assist the KLA, a bunch of Christian Serb slaughtering scum, who are nothing more than islamist terrorists is a vile idea.
It is to our shame that we assisted the kOSOV kla IN THE PAST.
As for this statment by Cameron " But he will insist that intervention is vital to British national interest because instability in the Balkans could bring a wave of immigrants to Bitain, and make the region a breeding ground for al-Qaeda. "
For fucks sake where has that idiot cameron and the Telegraph journalists been living for the last ten years - oh yeah, thats right, in their nice middle class Ivory Towers.
Come to Chatham and see just how many Kosovans and Albanians live in Chatham - we call the place Little Albania as so many of them live in the city.
As for making Kosovo a breeding ground for Al Qaeda terrorists - what the hell is the KLA but the first national army of Al Qaeda.\
It was Al Qaeda terrorists that fought with the KLA and who trained the KLA.
The fact that as usual the CIA is allied with Al Qaeda that is the reason why the US and UK bombed Serbia ;
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2842us_alqaeda_kla.html
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/KLA-binladen.htm
http://prisonplanet.com/us_supported_al_qaeda_cells_during_balkan_wars.html
The fact is that Al Qaeda are an organisation set up and run by the CIA and that are used to start wars in any nation that the US wants to invade and get the oil or that the US has a geo-strategic interests in controlling or having a presence in. As for Osama Bin Laden he is nothing more than an CIA puppet who has been a CIA asset since the war in Afghanistan against the Russians when the US and the CIA SET UP AND FUNDED AND EQUIPPED AL QAEDA. The war against serbia was simply to ensure the CIA/Al Qaeda/ KLA group controlled Kosovo in order to build the caspian oil pipeline ;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4136440,00.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/rus-j01.shtml
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/bosnianpipelinereport.htm
http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/balkan/pipelines.htm
YET AGAIN CAMERON IS DOING THE BIDDING OF THE US/CIA/AL QAEDA AXIS AS IT WAGES ITS WARS OF ENERGY IMPERIALISM ACROSS THE PLANET.
HEY DAVID , HERES A RADICAL IDEA.
Look up the phrase NON-INTERFERENCE and you might get an idea how best to proceed.
I will post a legal analysis that I have done on this blog for a case of criminal charges against Tony Blair relating to the attacks on Serbia on this blog tomorrow.
Now it appears that David Cameron wants to do another Blair, and bomb Serbia again so that the KLA can set up its own independent narco-terrorist state in Kosovo funded by the US and armed by the CIA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=B1VZY2XHSHIMDQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/29/ncameron129.xml
The ethnic Albanian government of Kosovo is threatening to declare independence from Serbia on Dec 10. Moscow is backing Serbian attempts to block the declaration, while the United States and the European Union are in favour.
"Let me make it clear: there could be a new crisis in the Balkans by Christmas," Mr Cameron will say in a speech to the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank.
"That is a direct threat to our national security, and we must therefore take decisive action now to prevent it. We need to reinforce the military presence in the region now, by drawing on some of Nato's dedicated operational reserve, to prevent trouble later."
In other words Cameron now wants Britain to fight another war on a third front ( Iraq Afghanistan, Kosovo) with forces already overstretched in the Middle East.
For fucks dave you demented fop - BRITAIN IS NOT THE WORLDS SOCIAL WORKER AND THE BRITISH ARMY IS NOT THE WORLDS POLICE FORCE.
If terrorists want to start a war, then let the people they are attacking wipe them off the map - dont send bloody British troops to interfere in that war.
The idea that once again we assist the KLA, a bunch of Christian Serb slaughtering scum, who are nothing more than islamist terrorists is a vile idea.
It is to our shame that we assisted the kOSOV kla IN THE PAST.
As for this statment by Cameron " But he will insist that intervention is vital to British national interest because instability in the Balkans could bring a wave of immigrants to Bitain, and make the region a breeding ground for al-Qaeda. "
For fucks sake where has that idiot cameron and the Telegraph journalists been living for the last ten years - oh yeah, thats right, in their nice middle class Ivory Towers.
Come to Chatham and see just how many Kosovans and Albanians live in Chatham - we call the place Little Albania as so many of them live in the city.
As for making Kosovo a breeding ground for Al Qaeda terrorists - what the hell is the KLA but the first national army of Al Qaeda.\
It was Al Qaeda terrorists that fought with the KLA and who trained the KLA.
The fact that as usual the CIA is allied with Al Qaeda that is the reason why the US and UK bombed Serbia ;
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2842us_alqaeda_kla.html
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/KLA-binladen.htm
http://prisonplanet.com/us_supported_al_qaeda_cells_during_balkan_wars.html
The fact is that Al Qaeda are an organisation set up and run by the CIA and that are used to start wars in any nation that the US wants to invade and get the oil or that the US has a geo-strategic interests in controlling or having a presence in. As for Osama Bin Laden he is nothing more than an CIA puppet who has been a CIA asset since the war in Afghanistan against the Russians when the US and the CIA SET UP AND FUNDED AND EQUIPPED AL QAEDA. The war against serbia was simply to ensure the CIA/Al Qaeda/ KLA group controlled Kosovo in order to build the caspian oil pipeline ;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4136440,00.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/rus-j01.shtml
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/bosnianpipelinereport.htm
http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/balkan/pipelines.htm
YET AGAIN CAMERON IS DOING THE BIDDING OF THE US/CIA/AL QAEDA AXIS AS IT WAGES ITS WARS OF ENERGY IMPERIALISM ACROSS THE PLANET.
HEY DAVID , HERES A RADICAL IDEA.
Look up the phrase NON-INTERFERENCE and you might get an idea how best to proceed.
France and the Prophecy Coming True
A few years ago one of the great European thinkers, Guillame Faye, wrote the article below about the situation in France and the coming Third World War.
Note in the article how he says that Islamist criminals in France are stockpiling hunting rifles to use in sniper attacks against the French police in then suburbs as a way of removing the power of the French state to police an area as a prelude to the removal of whites and non-Muslims and those Muslims that are not Islamists (apostates).
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=7584
This is exactly what has been happening in France this week - criminals and Islamists using hunting rifles to shoot frnech police whilst rioters engage the police cars and foot officers in the street.
Classic guerilla techniques - but seeing as the British media is gutless liberal scum run for the benefit of the political parties they pimp out for their corporate masters, then dont expect to read this article in your newspaper.
The Third World War has already started in the Middle East and now is underway in Europe.
The Third World War is About to Begin
An interview with Guillaume Faye (translated by Michael O’Meara)
TRANSLATOR’S NOTE: The following interview appeared in the December issue of the popular Flemish monthly Menzo. It was then translated into French and appeared on January 7 at AMI Belgique (the best, in my opinion, of the nineteen national editions of the Altermedia News Web sites). As the geostrategist Robert Steuckers (himself a gallant son of Brave Flanders) notes, this interview is a real coup for Faye, testament to the growing recognition of his prophetic warnings, as well as to the rapidly evolving contours of the European discourse on Islam.
In Faye’s Paris, by contrast, he has become something of an outlaw. After the publication of his La colonisation de l’Europe in 2000, the government fined him 300,000 francs and imposed a year’s suspended sentence on him for telling the truth about Islam—or for what it called “inciting racial hatred.” The left-multiculturalist Establishment has been no less unrelenting in denouncing him as a “racist” and “fascist” and in keeping him out of the public sphere. His unorthodox opinions have also aroused the hostility (or jealousy) of those “right-wing” intellectuals (among them Alain de Benoist) who prefer the elegant cafés of the Boulevard Saint-Germain-des-Prés to the ugly realities facing France’s petits blancs.
As Machiavelli writes, “there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” It is, however, becoming increasingly difficult to stigmatize or marginalize this irrepressible prophet who has done so much to awaken Europe to the dangers threatening it. This is evident not only in the fact that a mass-circulation magazine like Menzo (with a readership estimated at a half million) should interview him, but also that the Russian Duma recently honored him for his work and that later this year an international conference on the future of the White race will be held in Moscow under his auspices. Though the following interview reflects the constraints in language and concept that the mainstream media impose, enough of Faye’s ideas come through in it to interest National Vanguard’s racially conscious readership. Slight cuts in the text are indicated by ellipses Menzo: Do you really believe this scenario [sketched in your Avant-Guerre predicting a race war of world-historical proportions in the White West]?
Guillaume Faye: I do—just as much as I believe that if you drive down the wrong side of the freeway you will eventually have a head-on collision. The precise moment such a collision will occur is difficult to predict, but it is certainly bound to happen. Within ten years or so we are going to be confronted with something never before seen. But more than race war, we are going to experience economic breakdowns, ecological crises, and catastrophic shortages of oil. . . . All the world’s governments operate with short-term agendas and nothing at this point is more disastrous. It is often said that the Earth is sick. But it is man that is sick.
Menzo: Following the assault on the Twin Towers, we became increasingly conscious of how vulnerable the global economy is. What possible alternative is there to it?
Guillaume Faye: Globalization was born not in the last decade, but in the 16th century. This fact, however, is not going to avert the impending catastrophe [it is fostering]. An alternative to it is what I call l’autarchie économique des grands espaces [that is, Grossraum or continental economic autarkies]. In such large areas, Europe, for example, there would be free circulation of goods, capital, and labor [but barriers raised against other geo-economic blocs]. If all the great continental spaces, such as Europe, Asia, Africa, etc., practiced such autarkic policies, it would be possible to maintain a certain level of well-being across the globe. It isn’t necessary to sacrifice everything to free trade. The fact that textiles are massively produced in China today has had a terrible effect on the French textile sector. Clothing, however, hasn’t gotten cheaper in France nor have Chinese textile workers experienced much of an improvement in their living standards. Only commerce has profited.
Menzo: What importance do you attribute to the global economy?
Guillaume Faye: As much as I attribute to the impossibility of integrating large numbers of immigrants. General De Gaulle use to say: “In order to make kir [a mixed drink], you need white wine and cassis syrup. If you add too much cassis, it’s no longer kir.” This is another way of saying that it’s only possible to integrate a limited number of foreigners. At present, in Seine-Saint-Denis and in certain other departments of the Paris Region (and also in Roubaix and many other large French cities), a majority of the population is no longer of French origin. It’s impossible to integrate such populations.
Economically, the situation is even worse. Out of every one hundred [Third World] immigrants who enter Europe, only five enter the workforce. By contrast, one out of every two French graduates (and the same is true in Belgium) wants to immigrate. This is eventually going to bring down the existing welfare state, which, in turn, will only increase the potential for conflict. The riots we recently experienced [the twenty-one nights of riotous anarchy that occurred in November 2005] are only the prelude to the catastrophe which I expect to happen sometime around the year 2010. Canada’s Wright Foundation is also predicting that in the period 2007-2010, there is going to be an outbreak of ethnic violence in France that will take the form of civil war. It makes this prediction on the basis of a diverse range of statistics, such as increased levels of violence, as well as growing evidence of hidden arms arsenals. Islam’s massive concentration in our cities and suburbs is a problem that will soon make itself felt
Menzo: Is there anything to suggest that organized crime had a role in instigating the riots? Eighty percent of the rioters [arrested] had some sort of criminal record.
Guillaume Faye: This is not the way I see it. The riots weren’t provoked by Sarkozy [who called them “scum"]. And actually it was only eight percent of the arrested rioters who had criminal records. . . . In my view, it was more an [ethnic] revolt than a criminal attack on the police. It’s thus necessary to know why they revolted.
Menzo: Another indication that the riots were the work of criminal gangs was that the Fatwa [Islamic religious injunction] issued by the Union des organizations islamiques de France [the largest French Muslim association] had no effect on the rioters. This suggests that the rioters’ inspiration wasn’t religious.
Guillaume Faye: It is often forgotten that Islam is hypocritical on principle. The Koran says that it is perfectly permissible to lie in certain circumstances; whenever, for example, one is in a weakened state or whenever it serves Islam’s interests to do so. It is perfectly reasonable, then, to think that Muslims wanted to appear to non-Muslims as opposed to the riots, while amongst themselves they supported it. Dominique de Villepin [the Prime Minister] has said as much. Of course, this isn’t the case with all imams [Muslim leaders or clerics], but it is likely the case with those who see themselves as part of Islam’s campaign of conquest—its Dar-al-Harb.
Islam sees its mission as unfolding in three stages: the Dar-al-Suhl in territories which Islam has yet to conquer; the Dar-al-Harb in territories in the process of being conquered; and the Dar-al-Islam, in which Islam has succeeded in subjugating the non-believers. Every year there is published in Egypt an Islamic year book. This year’s edition designates France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom as territories at the Dar-al-Harb stage. This, then, is the situation in which we are at present. One should not forget that during the riots two Catholic churches were destroyed. Dalil Boubakeur (the imam of Paris’ Great Mosque) condemned these church burnings, but he didn’t excommunicate those responsible for it. This was also the first time that public buildings were attacked and burned: police stations, public schools, etc. This has been made light of [in the public sphere], but it’s heavy with significance. It is also the first time that people were killed—four to be exact. . .
Menzo: What do you see as the cause for this?
Guillaume Faye: One cause is the mass, unbridled immigration we have allowed. In Canada, for instance, immigrants are selected according to their profession, their wealth, and their economic potential. We, on the other hand, have grouped massive numbers of immigrants from rural [Third World] economies whose customs and cultures are totally different from our own, who are entirely unprepared for what they will encounter here, and who lack any of the proper educational or professional requisites [for integration]. Who could possibly think that this would work?—even with the gigantic investments the state has made in housing, education, and special programs for them.
Japan is about as wealthy as we are, but it has hardly any immigrants; and those it has cannot count on the slightest state support. In France, by contrast, the number of young people of foreign origin will virtually double in the next ten years. Integration is not working. The politicians refuse to acknowledge the catastrophic implications of their policies. Most are concerned only with their careers. Some are too old to even care. Why should Chirac [the president] worry about what will happen in ten years—he’ll probably be dead by then. Besides, politicians look at the population as an electorate [made up of voters who can be periodically replaced]. But people are not replaceable. They belong to well-defined cultures and are attached to the mentalities in which they were formed. A Brazilian is simply not exchangeable with a Russian. But only the politicians seem not to realize this.
Another cause for the riots is the increased number of sub-Saharan Africans. These groups will cause even greater problems in the future.
Menzo: Why?
Guillaume Faye: Because unlike Maghrebian immigrants [Arabs from Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia], they are completely desocialized. The Maghrebian population possesses a definite family structure, with a father and a mother. In sub-Saharan countries [whose population is Negro], such structures are non-existent. Mothers can have children with different fathers and children are raised [not by the family, but] by the village. When such familial structures are exported to a city like Paris, it inevitably produces problems. Paris is not a village and the rearing of children is not its responsibility. The [offspring of these Africans] frequently turn to crime and end up in the justice system. They don’t know who their father is and no one takes responsibility for them. Their presence here is like a time bomb.
Menzo: You’ve pointed out that from 1989 to 1999, the rate of juvenile crime [in France] increased 176 percent and that the number of those convicted have tripled. You don’t attribute this growth to unemployment. What is its cause?
Guillaume Faye: There are two reasons why crime is increasing. The first is social heterogeneity. Every diverse population has problems with criminality. The two countries with the lowest levels of crime are those with the most homogeneous population: Japan and Costa Rica. Aristotle was the first to note that a society cannot be democratic and harmonious if its population is not homogeneous. Without such homogeneity, it becomes tyrannical.
The second cause of criminality stems from the permissiveness of those responsible for maintaining order: the police and the courts. In Tunisia, there’s massive unemployment, but crime is relatively minor because the police and the courts react to it with severity. In Saudi Arabia, you can leave your keys or your wallet in the car and no one would think of stealing them—because otherwise they might have their hands cut off. With us, on the contrary, foreigners experience a situation where, since 1968, all forms of repression have been rejected.
Menzo: You have also written that crime will finance the impending race wars? Do you really think there is a plan for this?
Guillaume Faye: It’s not only been planned, it’s already happening. Police reports show that criminal gangs are now helping finance the insurgency in Iraq. Of course, not all criminals are participating in this, but it exists. And they [the authorities] think it is possible to buy social peace! It is estimated that three tons of cannabis are distributed every month in the Paris suburbs. Another source of funding is stolen cars and a third the trafficking of electronic goods. Prostitution is also a source of revenue, as well as arms dealing. Whenever the authorities discover a [criminal] arsenal, it includes not only military arms, but also hunting rifles, which are ideal for urban warfare.
Menzo: In your book [ Avant-Guerre ], you put Islam on the same level as other ideologies that seek to rule the world: Communism, American liberalism, globalism. But isn’t history a long succession of systems and ideologies that seek world domination?
Guillaume Faye: Not at all. Look at Judaism, which is an ethnic religion and has no intention of converting the rest of the world to its belief system. Neither Buddhism or Shintoism seeks world conquest. But Islam does, as did Catholicism, Communism, and neo-liberalism. Islam, though, is the most aggressive of all these. For it is not simply a religion, but a political doctrine. And this doctrine is imperialist. Twice before in history it has sought to conquer Europe. The first time it was stopped by Charles Martel at Portiers [in 732]; the second time, in the 17th century, it was beaten back at the walls of Vienna. Islam’s present conquering ambition was revived in Egypt in the 1920s. I’m convinced that certain Islamic leaders believe the moment is now right for a third offensive against the West. As the former Algerian president Houari Boumediène once boasted, the Islamic world today carries in the wombs of its women the weapons that will conquer Europe.
Menzo: The first generation of immigrants displayed absolutely no hostility to us. The third generation seems more segregated than ever. Is this the result of the Palestinian conflict, which has generalized anti-Western behaviors? Is this the source of the current problem and is there a solution to it?
Guillaume Faye: It is certainly one of the sources, but it’s hardly the only one. Even before the Palestinian conflict, anti-Western hatred was ripe. It stemmed in part from the hatred colonization fostered. But opposition to the West also arose from jealousy [of Western achievement]. . . The Palestian conflict has certainly acted as catalyst for hatred, but even if it were resolved tomorrow, there would still be a problem. Europe is also despised because it has become weak and emasculated. Its permissiveness invites indulgence, which makes us an easy target. Muslims find themselves in a society that is morally degenerate. One philosopher recently referred to the Hindu notion of the Kaliyuga—the Age of Iron. According to this ancient prophecy, there will come a time when men will marry men and women women, the kings will become thieves and the thieves kings, and mothers will kill their babies in their wombs. Eh bien, we are not far from this.
Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, January 22, 2006 at 11:39 AM | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Menzo: In your book, you put the Belgian situation on a par with the French one. Belgium, however, lacks France’s massive, alienating housing projects. Our immigrants usually reside in 19th-century urban quarters, which have maintained [their human character] and are largely free of the “no-go zones” that [make the French situation so dangerous]. In your view, how is Belgium threatened?
Guillaume Faye: You’re right. The French banlieues [with their modernist housing estates] are unique. They were constructed to house French refugees from Algeria. In the course of a single week [in 1962], a million Frenchmen were evacuated from [newly-independent] Algeria. It should be emphasized, though, that these projects built to accommodate this influx were not at all disagreeable, for there was then a good deal of money available to finance their construction. At the same time, new residential towns (such as Paris Deux, near Versailles) were built to house not foreigners but the well-heeled middle class. This is quite different from the situation in Brussels, today the symbolic capital of Europe and the seat of NATO. But what counts [is not the housing situation per se] but the fact that a massive part of the population is non-European. . .
Menzo: Do you think, then, that riots will eventually break out in Brussels?
Guillaume Faye: As I see it, it is only a matter of time. . . Though Brussels is perhaps better situated than Paris, it is not likely to be spared.
Menzo: In the United States and Britain, there are periodic outbreaks of rioting, but these are usually between rival ethnic gangs. In France, the riots were directed against the state itself. Police and firemen were shot at and attacked. How did it come to this?
Guillaume Faye: In the United States, there are, for example, increased conflicts between Blacks and Mexicans. In France, on the other hand, non-French gangs turn [not on one another, but] on France itself. Rap music has had a role to play in this. Rap’s subversive effect should not be dismissed. But more, these immigrant gangs find themselves in France because France has helped them; [the resentment this causes] is something distinct to the Maghrebinian/Islamic mentality. It’s a very peculiar sentiment, but is nevertheless something that has to be accounted for. You hate those who help you, because you feel humiliated when helped. The more they are coddled, the more, then, they are likely to react aggressively. Besides, empathy isn’t fostered by weakness. In promising immigrants more aid and money after the riots, the Villepin government acted unwisely. . .
Menzo: Besides more riots and urban warfare, you predict an escalation in the nature of terrorist attacks: micro-, macro-, and giga-terrorism, including the possible use of nuclear weapons against the United States. Do you really think this is possible?
Guillaume Faye: Naturally. The scenario I’ve depicted is not far from being realized. In time, all these things will be possible. We can expect something a hundred times worse that 9-11. It’s only a matter of time.
Menzo: You’ve criticized the intelligence services for a lack of imagination and vigor. You’ve said that they are not reflective enough and have not fully understood the different modes of fundamentalist belief. However, nearly every month the intelligence services manage to foil various planned terrorist assaults. Is the peril really as great as you claim?
Guillaume Faye: You need to distinguish between the maintenance of order and the collection of intelligence. Western intelligence agencies have done much good work. They have managed to break up numerous clandestine cells and terrorist groups. But more is needed. It is necessary to have a large, well-informed group devoted to this. You also need to have in place the means and personnel to quickly sound the alarm. This is how the terrorist assault on the Strasbourg Cathedral was foiled. You also need to capitalize on terrorist mistakes. Prior to 9-11, a female employee in a private pilot school noted that certain students were devoting all their time to learning how to fly and not to take off and land. Only months after the fact did anyone pick up on this. . . Believe me: The unthinkable is going to become thinkable. What Baghdad experiences every day, we will soon know.
Note in the article how he says that Islamist criminals in France are stockpiling hunting rifles to use in sniper attacks against the French police in then suburbs as a way of removing the power of the French state to police an area as a prelude to the removal of whites and non-Muslims and those Muslims that are not Islamists (apostates).
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=7584
This is exactly what has been happening in France this week - criminals and Islamists using hunting rifles to shoot frnech police whilst rioters engage the police cars and foot officers in the street.
Classic guerilla techniques - but seeing as the British media is gutless liberal scum run for the benefit of the political parties they pimp out for their corporate masters, then dont expect to read this article in your newspaper.
The Third World War has already started in the Middle East and now is underway in Europe.
The Third World War is About to Begin
An interview with Guillaume Faye (translated by Michael O’Meara)
TRANSLATOR’S NOTE: The following interview appeared in the December issue of the popular Flemish monthly Menzo. It was then translated into French and appeared on January 7 at AMI Belgique (the best, in my opinion, of the nineteen national editions of the Altermedia News Web sites). As the geostrategist Robert Steuckers (himself a gallant son of Brave Flanders) notes, this interview is a real coup for Faye, testament to the growing recognition of his prophetic warnings, as well as to the rapidly evolving contours of the European discourse on Islam.
In Faye’s Paris, by contrast, he has become something of an outlaw. After the publication of his La colonisation de l’Europe in 2000, the government fined him 300,000 francs and imposed a year’s suspended sentence on him for telling the truth about Islam—or for what it called “inciting racial hatred.” The left-multiculturalist Establishment has been no less unrelenting in denouncing him as a “racist” and “fascist” and in keeping him out of the public sphere. His unorthodox opinions have also aroused the hostility (or jealousy) of those “right-wing” intellectuals (among them Alain de Benoist) who prefer the elegant cafés of the Boulevard Saint-Germain-des-Prés to the ugly realities facing France’s petits blancs.
As Machiavelli writes, “there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” It is, however, becoming increasingly difficult to stigmatize or marginalize this irrepressible prophet who has done so much to awaken Europe to the dangers threatening it. This is evident not only in the fact that a mass-circulation magazine like Menzo (with a readership estimated at a half million) should interview him, but also that the Russian Duma recently honored him for his work and that later this year an international conference on the future of the White race will be held in Moscow under his auspices. Though the following interview reflects the constraints in language and concept that the mainstream media impose, enough of Faye’s ideas come through in it to interest National Vanguard’s racially conscious readership. Slight cuts in the text are indicated by ellipses Menzo: Do you really believe this scenario [sketched in your Avant-Guerre predicting a race war of world-historical proportions in the White West]?
Guillaume Faye: I do—just as much as I believe that if you drive down the wrong side of the freeway you will eventually have a head-on collision. The precise moment such a collision will occur is difficult to predict, but it is certainly bound to happen. Within ten years or so we are going to be confronted with something never before seen. But more than race war, we are going to experience economic breakdowns, ecological crises, and catastrophic shortages of oil. . . . All the world’s governments operate with short-term agendas and nothing at this point is more disastrous. It is often said that the Earth is sick. But it is man that is sick.
Menzo: Following the assault on the Twin Towers, we became increasingly conscious of how vulnerable the global economy is. What possible alternative is there to it?
Guillaume Faye: Globalization was born not in the last decade, but in the 16th century. This fact, however, is not going to avert the impending catastrophe [it is fostering]. An alternative to it is what I call l’autarchie économique des grands espaces [that is, Grossraum or continental economic autarkies]. In such large areas, Europe, for example, there would be free circulation of goods, capital, and labor [but barriers raised against other geo-economic blocs]. If all the great continental spaces, such as Europe, Asia, Africa, etc., practiced such autarkic policies, it would be possible to maintain a certain level of well-being across the globe. It isn’t necessary to sacrifice everything to free trade. The fact that textiles are massively produced in China today has had a terrible effect on the French textile sector. Clothing, however, hasn’t gotten cheaper in France nor have Chinese textile workers experienced much of an improvement in their living standards. Only commerce has profited.
Menzo: What importance do you attribute to the global economy?
Guillaume Faye: As much as I attribute to the impossibility of integrating large numbers of immigrants. General De Gaulle use to say: “In order to make kir [a mixed drink], you need white wine and cassis syrup. If you add too much cassis, it’s no longer kir.” This is another way of saying that it’s only possible to integrate a limited number of foreigners. At present, in Seine-Saint-Denis and in certain other departments of the Paris Region (and also in Roubaix and many other large French cities), a majority of the population is no longer of French origin. It’s impossible to integrate such populations.
Economically, the situation is even worse. Out of every one hundred [Third World] immigrants who enter Europe, only five enter the workforce. By contrast, one out of every two French graduates (and the same is true in Belgium) wants to immigrate. This is eventually going to bring down the existing welfare state, which, in turn, will only increase the potential for conflict. The riots we recently experienced [the twenty-one nights of riotous anarchy that occurred in November 2005] are only the prelude to the catastrophe which I expect to happen sometime around the year 2010. Canada’s Wright Foundation is also predicting that in the period 2007-2010, there is going to be an outbreak of ethnic violence in France that will take the form of civil war. It makes this prediction on the basis of a diverse range of statistics, such as increased levels of violence, as well as growing evidence of hidden arms arsenals. Islam’s massive concentration in our cities and suburbs is a problem that will soon make itself felt
Menzo: Is there anything to suggest that organized crime had a role in instigating the riots? Eighty percent of the rioters [arrested] had some sort of criminal record.
Guillaume Faye: This is not the way I see it. The riots weren’t provoked by Sarkozy [who called them “scum"]. And actually it was only eight percent of the arrested rioters who had criminal records. . . . In my view, it was more an [ethnic] revolt than a criminal attack on the police. It’s thus necessary to know why they revolted.
Menzo: Another indication that the riots were the work of criminal gangs was that the Fatwa [Islamic religious injunction] issued by the Union des organizations islamiques de France [the largest French Muslim association] had no effect on the rioters. This suggests that the rioters’ inspiration wasn’t religious.
Guillaume Faye: It is often forgotten that Islam is hypocritical on principle. The Koran says that it is perfectly permissible to lie in certain circumstances; whenever, for example, one is in a weakened state or whenever it serves Islam’s interests to do so. It is perfectly reasonable, then, to think that Muslims wanted to appear to non-Muslims as opposed to the riots, while amongst themselves they supported it. Dominique de Villepin [the Prime Minister] has said as much. Of course, this isn’t the case with all imams [Muslim leaders or clerics], but it is likely the case with those who see themselves as part of Islam’s campaign of conquest—its Dar-al-Harb.
Islam sees its mission as unfolding in three stages: the Dar-al-Suhl in territories which Islam has yet to conquer; the Dar-al-Harb in territories in the process of being conquered; and the Dar-al-Islam, in which Islam has succeeded in subjugating the non-believers. Every year there is published in Egypt an Islamic year book. This year’s edition designates France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom as territories at the Dar-al-Harb stage. This, then, is the situation in which we are at present. One should not forget that during the riots two Catholic churches were destroyed. Dalil Boubakeur (the imam of Paris’ Great Mosque) condemned these church burnings, but he didn’t excommunicate those responsible for it. This was also the first time that public buildings were attacked and burned: police stations, public schools, etc. This has been made light of [in the public sphere], but it’s heavy with significance. It is also the first time that people were killed—four to be exact. . .
Menzo: What do you see as the cause for this?
Guillaume Faye: One cause is the mass, unbridled immigration we have allowed. In Canada, for instance, immigrants are selected according to their profession, their wealth, and their economic potential. We, on the other hand, have grouped massive numbers of immigrants from rural [Third World] economies whose customs and cultures are totally different from our own, who are entirely unprepared for what they will encounter here, and who lack any of the proper educational or professional requisites [for integration]. Who could possibly think that this would work?—even with the gigantic investments the state has made in housing, education, and special programs for them.
Japan is about as wealthy as we are, but it has hardly any immigrants; and those it has cannot count on the slightest state support. In France, by contrast, the number of young people of foreign origin will virtually double in the next ten years. Integration is not working. The politicians refuse to acknowledge the catastrophic implications of their policies. Most are concerned only with their careers. Some are too old to even care. Why should Chirac [the president] worry about what will happen in ten years—he’ll probably be dead by then. Besides, politicians look at the population as an electorate [made up of voters who can be periodically replaced]. But people are not replaceable. They belong to well-defined cultures and are attached to the mentalities in which they were formed. A Brazilian is simply not exchangeable with a Russian. But only the politicians seem not to realize this.
Another cause for the riots is the increased number of sub-Saharan Africans. These groups will cause even greater problems in the future.
Menzo: Why?
Guillaume Faye: Because unlike Maghrebian immigrants [Arabs from Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia], they are completely desocialized. The Maghrebian population possesses a definite family structure, with a father and a mother. In sub-Saharan countries [whose population is Negro], such structures are non-existent. Mothers can have children with different fathers and children are raised [not by the family, but] by the village. When such familial structures are exported to a city like Paris, it inevitably produces problems. Paris is not a village and the rearing of children is not its responsibility. The [offspring of these Africans] frequently turn to crime and end up in the justice system. They don’t know who their father is and no one takes responsibility for them. Their presence here is like a time bomb.
Menzo: You’ve pointed out that from 1989 to 1999, the rate of juvenile crime [in France] increased 176 percent and that the number of those convicted have tripled. You don’t attribute this growth to unemployment. What is its cause?
Guillaume Faye: There are two reasons why crime is increasing. The first is social heterogeneity. Every diverse population has problems with criminality. The two countries with the lowest levels of crime are those with the most homogeneous population: Japan and Costa Rica. Aristotle was the first to note that a society cannot be democratic and harmonious if its population is not homogeneous. Without such homogeneity, it becomes tyrannical.
The second cause of criminality stems from the permissiveness of those responsible for maintaining order: the police and the courts. In Tunisia, there’s massive unemployment, but crime is relatively minor because the police and the courts react to it with severity. In Saudi Arabia, you can leave your keys or your wallet in the car and no one would think of stealing them—because otherwise they might have their hands cut off. With us, on the contrary, foreigners experience a situation where, since 1968, all forms of repression have been rejected.
Menzo: You have also written that crime will finance the impending race wars? Do you really think there is a plan for this?
Guillaume Faye: It’s not only been planned, it’s already happening. Police reports show that criminal gangs are now helping finance the insurgency in Iraq. Of course, not all criminals are participating in this, but it exists. And they [the authorities] think it is possible to buy social peace! It is estimated that three tons of cannabis are distributed every month in the Paris suburbs. Another source of funding is stolen cars and a third the trafficking of electronic goods. Prostitution is also a source of revenue, as well as arms dealing. Whenever the authorities discover a [criminal] arsenal, it includes not only military arms, but also hunting rifles, which are ideal for urban warfare.
Menzo: In your book [ Avant-Guerre ], you put Islam on the same level as other ideologies that seek to rule the world: Communism, American liberalism, globalism. But isn’t history a long succession of systems and ideologies that seek world domination?
Guillaume Faye: Not at all. Look at Judaism, which is an ethnic religion and has no intention of converting the rest of the world to its belief system. Neither Buddhism or Shintoism seeks world conquest. But Islam does, as did Catholicism, Communism, and neo-liberalism. Islam, though, is the most aggressive of all these. For it is not simply a religion, but a political doctrine. And this doctrine is imperialist. Twice before in history it has sought to conquer Europe. The first time it was stopped by Charles Martel at Portiers [in 732]; the second time, in the 17th century, it was beaten back at the walls of Vienna. Islam’s present conquering ambition was revived in Egypt in the 1920s. I’m convinced that certain Islamic leaders believe the moment is now right for a third offensive against the West. As the former Algerian president Houari Boumediène once boasted, the Islamic world today carries in the wombs of its women the weapons that will conquer Europe.
Menzo: The first generation of immigrants displayed absolutely no hostility to us. The third generation seems more segregated than ever. Is this the result of the Palestinian conflict, which has generalized anti-Western behaviors? Is this the source of the current problem and is there a solution to it?
Guillaume Faye: It is certainly one of the sources, but it’s hardly the only one. Even before the Palestinian conflict, anti-Western hatred was ripe. It stemmed in part from the hatred colonization fostered. But opposition to the West also arose from jealousy [of Western achievement]. . . The Palestian conflict has certainly acted as catalyst for hatred, but even if it were resolved tomorrow, there would still be a problem. Europe is also despised because it has become weak and emasculated. Its permissiveness invites indulgence, which makes us an easy target. Muslims find themselves in a society that is morally degenerate. One philosopher recently referred to the Hindu notion of the Kaliyuga—the Age of Iron. According to this ancient prophecy, there will come a time when men will marry men and women women, the kings will become thieves and the thieves kings, and mothers will kill their babies in their wombs. Eh bien, we are not far from this.
Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, January 22, 2006 at 11:39 AM | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Menzo: In your book, you put the Belgian situation on a par with the French one. Belgium, however, lacks France’s massive, alienating housing projects. Our immigrants usually reside in 19th-century urban quarters, which have maintained [their human character] and are largely free of the “no-go zones” that [make the French situation so dangerous]. In your view, how is Belgium threatened?
Guillaume Faye: You’re right. The French banlieues [with their modernist housing estates] are unique. They were constructed to house French refugees from Algeria. In the course of a single week [in 1962], a million Frenchmen were evacuated from [newly-independent] Algeria. It should be emphasized, though, that these projects built to accommodate this influx were not at all disagreeable, for there was then a good deal of money available to finance their construction. At the same time, new residential towns (such as Paris Deux, near Versailles) were built to house not foreigners but the well-heeled middle class. This is quite different from the situation in Brussels, today the symbolic capital of Europe and the seat of NATO. But what counts [is not the housing situation per se] but the fact that a massive part of the population is non-European. . .
Menzo: Do you think, then, that riots will eventually break out in Brussels?
Guillaume Faye: As I see it, it is only a matter of time. . . Though Brussels is perhaps better situated than Paris, it is not likely to be spared.
Menzo: In the United States and Britain, there are periodic outbreaks of rioting, but these are usually between rival ethnic gangs. In France, the riots were directed against the state itself. Police and firemen were shot at and attacked. How did it come to this?
Guillaume Faye: In the United States, there are, for example, increased conflicts between Blacks and Mexicans. In France, on the other hand, non-French gangs turn [not on one another, but] on France itself. Rap music has had a role to play in this. Rap’s subversive effect should not be dismissed. But more, these immigrant gangs find themselves in France because France has helped them; [the resentment this causes] is something distinct to the Maghrebinian/Islamic mentality. It’s a very peculiar sentiment, but is nevertheless something that has to be accounted for. You hate those who help you, because you feel humiliated when helped. The more they are coddled, the more, then, they are likely to react aggressively. Besides, empathy isn’t fostered by weakness. In promising immigrants more aid and money after the riots, the Villepin government acted unwisely. . .
Menzo: Besides more riots and urban warfare, you predict an escalation in the nature of terrorist attacks: micro-, macro-, and giga-terrorism, including the possible use of nuclear weapons against the United States. Do you really think this is possible?
Guillaume Faye: Naturally. The scenario I’ve depicted is not far from being realized. In time, all these things will be possible. We can expect something a hundred times worse that 9-11. It’s only a matter of time.
Menzo: You’ve criticized the intelligence services for a lack of imagination and vigor. You’ve said that they are not reflective enough and have not fully understood the different modes of fundamentalist belief. However, nearly every month the intelligence services manage to foil various planned terrorist assaults. Is the peril really as great as you claim?
Guillaume Faye: You need to distinguish between the maintenance of order and the collection of intelligence. Western intelligence agencies have done much good work. They have managed to break up numerous clandestine cells and terrorist groups. But more is needed. It is necessary to have a large, well-informed group devoted to this. You also need to have in place the means and personnel to quickly sound the alarm. This is how the terrorist assault on the Strasbourg Cathedral was foiled. You also need to capitalize on terrorist mistakes. Prior to 9-11, a female employee in a private pilot school noted that certain students were devoting all their time to learning how to fly and not to take off and land. Only months after the fact did anyone pick up on this. . . Believe me: The unthinkable is going to become thinkable. What Baghdad experiences every day, we will soon know.
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
William Blake and the Slaves of Urizen
I have never read such total bollocks about the poet William Blake as in this Guardian article here ;
http://books.guardian.co.uk/poetry/features/0,,2218251,00.html
The writer is supposed to teach students about Blake, but the man knows nothing about Blake or his philosophy.
Here are a few obvious mistakes in this pathetic article ;
1) Blake's politics were not just a matter of wishful thinking, as so many radical schemes are today. Across the Atlantic one great anti-colonial revolution had held out the promise of liberty, and to the poet's delight another had broken out in the streets of Paris. Together they promised to bring an end to the rule of state and church - "the Beast and the Whore", as Blake knew them. Most of our own writers, however, seem to know little of politics beyond the value of individual liberties.
Blake was well aware that the French Revolution and American Revolution would descend into another Urizenic trap - as they did so. Blake celebrated revolution personified as Orc, not the politics of the revolution.It was the spirit of rebellion that attracted Blake, not the sad littlre grey men of the revolution like Danton, Robespierre and the rest of the rats of the French Revolution.
2) Desire for him was an infinite delight, and his whole project was to rescue it from the repressive regime of priests and kings.
No - it was energy that was eternal delight for Blake, not desire. Desire is the dam, energy the flood. The idea that Kings could control desire is absurd, as for the preists Blake despised them for their obedience to the Bible and its laws that he saw as inhibiting the free flows of the energies that formed the human being - in the case of religion he saw it as the enemy of spirituality. Spirituality liberates, religions incarcerate.
3) Political states keep power by convincing us of our limitations.
Surely that should be thoecracies - but hey, that would include Islam and we cant have a lefty teacher ever seeming to attack the inhibitive influence of Islam can we.
4) The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom, and those who restrain their desires do so because their desires are feeble enough to be restrained.
Actually this phrase about the road of excess comes from the Proverbs of Hell," from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1793) and its meaning is the EXACT opposite as promulgated by Eagleton. The phrase about the road of excess is a warning about the dangers of experience polluting the spirit - it was a warning not an exhortation. To state it was an exhortation is to completely subvert its meaning. Blake was interested in innocence and spirit, not experience and excess.
5) "To generalise is to be an Idiot," Blake writes. And again: "The whole business of Man is the arts, and all things in common." The middle-class Anglicans who sing his great hymn Jerusalem are unwittingly celebrating a communist future.
Hoist by his own petard here when he quotes Blake saying those who generalise are idiots - to say Blake was a Communist is about as idiotic as one can get, seeing as Communism did not even exist in Blakes time. As for the ideology of communism then Blake would have seen it as nothing more than another Urizenic trap - another web of lies to trap man , that replaced religion with materialism. For Blake despised materialism - to say he would have been a communist is pure bullshit. The future Blake wanted was a spiritualised Albion - a land where extremes existed side by side, not a monlolithic communist dictatorship that excluded everyone who dared disagree with communism.
6) Brothels, Blake wrote, are built with bricks of religion. Today, hardly a single Christian politician believes with Blake that any form of Christian faith that is not an affront to the state is worthless.
Really - George Bush is a Christian Fundamentalist that regards the State as a tool of a divine international plan, and this deeply affronts the non-fundamentalist Americans who are nationalists and christians but not Messianists and who regard the State as a mechanism for the regulation internally of the nation - not as a tool for visionary imperialism. More nonsense Eagleton.
7) London had lapsed into Babylon; but it remained true that "everything that lives is holy", and it might still prove possible to transform the city into the New Jerusalem.
HA HA HA HA - The idea that Babylon can be Jerusalem is so pathetic one doesnt know if he is taking the piss or not.
The idea that the carbuncle on the planet that is London can ever be Jerusalem, the spiritual light of the planet, is hilarious. The New Jerusalem can only be built by transforming London from the filth encrusted, third world rat hole it is now into a place where where the Islamists are no longer present, where the Yardie, Triad, Albanian, drug and gun gangs are gone , where the sex slavers are removed, where the drug importers are removed , where the aliens are removed.
If Blake saw London and Britain now he would despise it as the epitome of URIZENIC darkness and depravity - the complete anti-thesis of Albion.
Eagleton , you are simply another slave of Urizen using the name of Blake to promote your own poisonous vision.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/poetry/features/0,,2218251,00.html
The writer is supposed to teach students about Blake, but the man knows nothing about Blake or his philosophy.
Here are a few obvious mistakes in this pathetic article ;
1) Blake's politics were not just a matter of wishful thinking, as so many radical schemes are today. Across the Atlantic one great anti-colonial revolution had held out the promise of liberty, and to the poet's delight another had broken out in the streets of Paris. Together they promised to bring an end to the rule of state and church - "the Beast and the Whore", as Blake knew them. Most of our own writers, however, seem to know little of politics beyond the value of individual liberties.
Blake was well aware that the French Revolution and American Revolution would descend into another Urizenic trap - as they did so. Blake celebrated revolution personified as Orc, not the politics of the revolution.It was the spirit of rebellion that attracted Blake, not the sad littlre grey men of the revolution like Danton, Robespierre and the rest of the rats of the French Revolution.
2) Desire for him was an infinite delight, and his whole project was to rescue it from the repressive regime of priests and kings.
No - it was energy that was eternal delight for Blake, not desire. Desire is the dam, energy the flood. The idea that Kings could control desire is absurd, as for the preists Blake despised them for their obedience to the Bible and its laws that he saw as inhibiting the free flows of the energies that formed the human being - in the case of religion he saw it as the enemy of spirituality. Spirituality liberates, religions incarcerate.
3) Political states keep power by convincing us of our limitations.
Surely that should be thoecracies - but hey, that would include Islam and we cant have a lefty teacher ever seeming to attack the inhibitive influence of Islam can we.
4) The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom, and those who restrain their desires do so because their desires are feeble enough to be restrained.
Actually this phrase about the road of excess comes from the Proverbs of Hell," from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1793) and its meaning is the EXACT opposite as promulgated by Eagleton. The phrase about the road of excess is a warning about the dangers of experience polluting the spirit - it was a warning not an exhortation. To state it was an exhortation is to completely subvert its meaning. Blake was interested in innocence and spirit, not experience and excess.
5) "To generalise is to be an Idiot," Blake writes. And again: "The whole business of Man is the arts, and all things in common." The middle-class Anglicans who sing his great hymn Jerusalem are unwittingly celebrating a communist future.
Hoist by his own petard here when he quotes Blake saying those who generalise are idiots - to say Blake was a Communist is about as idiotic as one can get, seeing as Communism did not even exist in Blakes time. As for the ideology of communism then Blake would have seen it as nothing more than another Urizenic trap - another web of lies to trap man , that replaced religion with materialism. For Blake despised materialism - to say he would have been a communist is pure bullshit. The future Blake wanted was a spiritualised Albion - a land where extremes existed side by side, not a monlolithic communist dictatorship that excluded everyone who dared disagree with communism.
6) Brothels, Blake wrote, are built with bricks of religion. Today, hardly a single Christian politician believes with Blake that any form of Christian faith that is not an affront to the state is worthless.
Really - George Bush is a Christian Fundamentalist that regards the State as a tool of a divine international plan, and this deeply affronts the non-fundamentalist Americans who are nationalists and christians but not Messianists and who regard the State as a mechanism for the regulation internally of the nation - not as a tool for visionary imperialism. More nonsense Eagleton.
7) London had lapsed into Babylon; but it remained true that "everything that lives is holy", and it might still prove possible to transform the city into the New Jerusalem.
HA HA HA HA - The idea that Babylon can be Jerusalem is so pathetic one doesnt know if he is taking the piss or not.
The idea that the carbuncle on the planet that is London can ever be Jerusalem, the spiritual light of the planet, is hilarious. The New Jerusalem can only be built by transforming London from the filth encrusted, third world rat hole it is now into a place where where the Islamists are no longer present, where the Yardie, Triad, Albanian, drug and gun gangs are gone , where the sex slavers are removed, where the drug importers are removed , where the aliens are removed.
If Blake saw London and Britain now he would despise it as the epitome of URIZENIC darkness and depravity - the complete anti-thesis of Albion.
Eagleton , you are simply another slave of Urizen using the name of Blake to promote your own poisonous vision.
Excerpts from the News
The NME are having another go at Morrisey here - http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/11/mozgate.html
apparently he said something one of the wankers at the NME ( Who are the only people allowed to work for the NME ) didnt like ;
"The gates of England are flooded. The country's been thrown away."
A music-based interview suddenly veers from chat about the industry and Johnny Marr to ask Mozzer (who lives in Rome, an immigrant there as his Irish parents once were into the North West) if he'd consider moving back to Britain.
Morrissey:" ... [W]ith the issue of immigration, it's very difficult because although I don't have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears. If you travel to Germany, it's still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity. But travel to England and you have no idea where you are... If you walk through Knightsbridge you'll hear every accent apart from an English accent."
Blimey Morrissey you need to go to the Isle of Dogs mate - you wont hardly see any whites on the Isle of Bangladesh (apart from middle class tourists - read my earlier review on the white middle class tourists as mentioned in The New East End who just love diversity for the few months they live amongst it and then move away. Try living with it permanentely then comment ).
Morrissey as as I have said many times is a genius.
The order of true greateness goes :
1) Elvis
2) Sinatra
3) Morrissey
4) Johnny Cash
Morrissey is clever enough to say what he wants about immigration in a way that does not give enough ammunition to the press so they destroy him ( eg Crispin Mills of Kula Shaker and Eric Clapton).
I bet he would say a lot more if he could, but he knows his career would be dead if he did.
As usual if you are junkie , thieving, heroin addict, peice of shit who cannot write a single good song - then the NME will insert its tongue up your arse until you are found dead in a squat with a needle in your arm.
Talk sense about immigration and the junkie scumbag journalist wankers in the NME will always have a pop.
Remember this Morrissey - FUCK THE NME.
No-one buys the shit rag unless they are an idiot, and no-one cares what they say or write.
apparently he said something one of the wankers at the NME ( Who are the only people allowed to work for the NME ) didnt like ;
"The gates of England are flooded. The country's been thrown away."
A music-based interview suddenly veers from chat about the industry and Johnny Marr to ask Mozzer (who lives in Rome, an immigrant there as his Irish parents once were into the North West) if he'd consider moving back to Britain.
Morrissey:" ... [W]ith the issue of immigration, it's very difficult because although I don't have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears. If you travel to Germany, it's still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity. But travel to England and you have no idea where you are... If you walk through Knightsbridge you'll hear every accent apart from an English accent."
Blimey Morrissey you need to go to the Isle of Dogs mate - you wont hardly see any whites on the Isle of Bangladesh (apart from middle class tourists - read my earlier review on the white middle class tourists as mentioned in The New East End who just love diversity for the few months they live amongst it and then move away. Try living with it permanentely then comment ).
Morrissey as as I have said many times is a genius.
The order of true greateness goes :
1) Elvis
2) Sinatra
3) Morrissey
4) Johnny Cash
Morrissey is clever enough to say what he wants about immigration in a way that does not give enough ammunition to the press so they destroy him ( eg Crispin Mills of Kula Shaker and Eric Clapton).
I bet he would say a lot more if he could, but he knows his career would be dead if he did.
As usual if you are junkie , thieving, heroin addict, peice of shit who cannot write a single good song - then the NME will insert its tongue up your arse until you are found dead in a squat with a needle in your arm.
Talk sense about immigration and the junkie scumbag journalist wankers in the NME will always have a pop.
Remember this Morrissey - FUCK THE NME.
No-one buys the shit rag unless they are an idiot, and no-one cares what they say or write.
Cultural review of the Year
Cultural Review of the Year ;
Best Film - 300
Best Actor - Christian Bale for 3.10 To Yuma
Best Actress - Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth The Golden Age
Best Album - Raising Sand
Best Song - Blue Jeans and Rosary - from 'Rock and Roll Jesus' by Kid Rock
Best Band - Foo Fighters
Best Documentary - Zeitgeist
Review of Zeitgeist.
Zeitgeist is a superb documentary for all conspiracy theorists, though with the usual fatal flaws that devalue a rare gem. Beginning with the Astro-Theology interpretation for the Life of christ contained within the Bible, then a section on 911 and followed by a section on the North American Union and the Amero, this is a documentary for every level of the conspiracists spectrum - from religion, economics to the New World Order.
Each section demands it own assessment. The first section concerns an astrological interpretation for the life of christ. The Bible says the film, encodes an theological / astrological model of the story of the birth and death christ which is in fact the story of the ecliptic set around the yearly cycle of the constellations that ends on December 25 th at the Winter Equinox. It suggests that sections of the Bible are true and that other parts are simply allegories and not reality. This simple statement of fact should be obvious to anyone but the Christian fanatic and the Liberal atheist.
The film is made in America by obvious Democrat supporting liberals and therefore is designed as an polemic against the Bush Republican wing of Christian Fundamentalism. This obvious political bias is why the film becomes an attack on the existence of Christos instead of an expose of the way sections of the Orthodox Christian faith say the Bible, and the story it tells of christ, is the sole truth of God. Instead of just attacking the Samael like blindness of faith and the orthodoxy of the Orthodox Christian churches, it becomes an attack on the very existence of Christos. The fact is even if orthodox christian chroniclers had inserted pagan and early christian texts with an obvious allegorical astro-theological narrative into the Bible, then this does not mean that the presence of such texts invalidates the existence and life of Christos.
The documentary attacks the story of christ as told by the Church, but does not understand the difference between the christ and Christos.
The real Jesus was Christos, not the christ of the Church.
Jesus did not teach the Bible.
The biblical story of christ is not the true story of the life of Jesus.
The teachings of the Biblical jesus and the Biblical christ are a mixture of truth and deliberate falsehoods brought together in order to create and empower the church.
The Biblical christ is not the living Jesus who became Christos.
Christos taught about the divinity of the Soul, not the Church.
The Bible is a political book constructed by Christians in the Roman Church from the time of Constantine to when Theodosius made it the state religion of Rome, and the allegories it contains were put in the Bible to support its own power and influence in the Holy Roman Empire. It is not the story of Christos.
The Church uses an allegorical astro-theological story for the life of christ because the christ the Church worships is not the true Christos of history or the Gnostic gospels. The christ of the Church is a creation of the church designed to serve the interests of the church and the demiurge Jehovah that the church worships, and therefore the christ of the church is a false christ who worships a false god according to the Gnostic texts.
There are fundamental differences between the manufactured christ of the Bible who is a creation of the Church, and the life and teachings of the Christos who actually lived. The former serves the Church and the demiurge Jehovah, whilst the latter serves the Spirit and the God of Amor who was Abba.
So the fact that the Bible contains both lies and truth should only be a surprise to those who never read it at all or those who read it all the time.
Don't get me started on the lies in all the other so called 'Holy Books' that are peddled as truth.
911.
The second section of the documentary concerns the 911 attacks that were organised and controlled by people within the US government, military and security services who were appointed by George Bush and his father and linked to the Carlyle Group and the Corporaticracy. This is the weakest part of the documentary as it completely misses the point about 911.
The answer to the enigma of 911 is not based on the who, the why or the how but on WHO PROFITED.
The solution to this is revealed when one analyses the stock movements that occurred in the days and weeks BEFORE the 911 attacks. These reveal that investors and corporations linked to the Carlyle Group were aware that the attacks were coming, and sought to profit from the economic fall out from the attacks. The assertion in the documentary that the Muslim Jihadis were not flying the planes simply shows us that even liberals can be as irrational as the Islamists they appease and admire.
The Amero
The final part of the documentary concerns the proposed American Union, the history of the US Federal Bank and the forthcoming Amero that will replace the dollar.
The plan for the American Union is that Canada will supply raw materials and fuel from its tar shale fields to power the industries, the United States will supply the industries and factories to manufacture the products whilst Mexico will supply the workers and other raw materials.
The world will then be divided into four trading zones - The European Union, the African Union, The Asian Union and the American Union each of which will have their own central banks to manage the economies of those trading blocks. The Amero will replace the US, Canadian and Mexican currencies. This will be the final stage in the corporate takeover of the planet by the Corporatocracy.
What is interesting is the way the present Sub-Prime economic crisis fits into the model of manufactured economic crashes asserted in the documentary. The Margin Line crisis of 1907 that triggered a US recession seems eerily similar to the present Sub-Prime crisis in the US. In the case of the 1907 recession this resulted in 1911 in the creation of the United States Federal Bank. The present Sub-Prime crisis may be leading to an manufactured global economic collapse that will allow the US government to abandon the dollar and create a American Union Bank that will oversee the creation of the American Union.
For those that do not understand this essential fact yet - Peak Oil is also an economic reality as well as an energy issue. Oil is the basis of all advanced economic, social and political systems. When the oil stops, economics reverts back to the level of barter and trade.
For all its flaws the documentary is very entertaining and is worth a couple of hours sitting in front of the computer.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Ghostbusting and the Red Mob
I have created a new law that I intend to call ' Barnes Law'.
This ' The Law of Inverse Rhetoric '.
The More They Talk, The Less They Do.
Have you ever noticed how the Far Left always talk about 'fighting fascism' but in fact never actually fight anything.
Barnes Law states that those leftys that say they are fighting fascism, are in fact the people least likely to EVER fight fascism.
Lets take the simpering middle class, mainly white, saps at the Oxford Union the other day.
There they were in their hundreds 'fighting fascism' but in fact what they were doing was GHOSTBUSTING !
If anyone in the Far Left really wanted to FIGHT fascism today, they would join the British Army and go to Iraq to fight the Islam-Nazis of Al Qaeda and the Shiite Militias. You know the real Nazis and fascists who plant bombs in streets to kill their fellow Muslims and Iraqis, who murder scores of people everyday and who wound, maim and murder in their thousands.
Instead they go GHOSTBUSTING in Oxford and call that 'fighting fascism'.
Ghostbusting is when idiot lefties stand on a street corner for a few hours shouting ' STOP THE BNP' and then retreat to a nice wine bar. They are in fact not fighting fascism, but undertaking a pathetic attempt at fighting phantoms of fascism that do not exist. Its easy to fight phantoms in Oxford from inside a wine bar as fascist phantoms dont plant real IED's in the street, fire bullets at you or cut your head off on video if they capture you.
It is easy to pose and be heroic when fighting ghosts. Ghosts dont fire guns.
All the entire list of 'facts' they use to base their ideas on fighting fascism are all bogus, the whole lot of them. Lies from start to finish. But they are too stupid to check the facts out for themselves, so they just swallow the whole lot and say thanks afterwards.
Not one of those hundreds of pathetic, whining, coddled middle class brats at the demonstration against Nick will ever fight fascism - as those that fight fascism have always been white, working class and in the uniform of the British army. The middle class saps at Oxford shun the army like vampires shun sunlight. Oh No, they say the fascists are also in the British Army.
But the fact is that British soldiers are dieing every day fighting fascism - real fascism. They die fighting fascism whilst whining middle class wanker students merely think they are fighting fascism. That is because these over priveliged arseholes at Oxford neither understand what fascism or where the real war against fascism is, instead they simply want to act the part of the pathetic student wadical, the milli-tants and 'Right on Ricks' of the middle class university elite.
Oxford will supply virtually no fighters against fascism as soldiers to the British army, but it will spit out thousands of over priveliged saps who think they are 'progressive' because they spout the same old tired rhetoric and cliches of the sixties radicals.
Heres the news guys and gals - the Hippies became the capitalists - they all sold out.
Will Denise Garside of Lancaster UAF blog ever fight fascism - will she ever join the British army , carry a gun into battle and fight the fascist Shiite Militias in Iraq or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Of course she wont, the useless fat cow will just continue to TALK ( BLAH , BLAH , BLAH ) about fighting fascism but do FUCK ALL.
Will Wayman Bennett of the UAF ever fight fascism - of course he wont. For a start the fat cunt is too fat to fit into a helicopter so they wouldnt be able to get him to Iraq unles they hired a supertanker to get his fat ass in. Secondly that useless twat would probably shoot himself in the foot, then shoot the man next to him.
No - wayman wont ever fight fascism by joining the British army and actually doing some FIGHTING.
Instead he wil continue to lead his collection of red saps into battle against ghosts as Don Quixote once rode into battle against windmills.
The charge of the Lite-Brigade indeed.
The next time that you attend a demo and the UAF are there shout out to them ' Join the army or fuck off'.
The UAF and the Oxford arseholes have never and will never fight fascism.
All they will do is talk the talk, but never walk the walk.
This ' The Law of Inverse Rhetoric '.
The More They Talk, The Less They Do.
Have you ever noticed how the Far Left always talk about 'fighting fascism' but in fact never actually fight anything.
Barnes Law states that those leftys that say they are fighting fascism, are in fact the people least likely to EVER fight fascism.
Lets take the simpering middle class, mainly white, saps at the Oxford Union the other day.
There they were in their hundreds 'fighting fascism' but in fact what they were doing was GHOSTBUSTING !
If anyone in the Far Left really wanted to FIGHT fascism today, they would join the British Army and go to Iraq to fight the Islam-Nazis of Al Qaeda and the Shiite Militias. You know the real Nazis and fascists who plant bombs in streets to kill their fellow Muslims and Iraqis, who murder scores of people everyday and who wound, maim and murder in their thousands.
Instead they go GHOSTBUSTING in Oxford and call that 'fighting fascism'.
Ghostbusting is when idiot lefties stand on a street corner for a few hours shouting ' STOP THE BNP' and then retreat to a nice wine bar. They are in fact not fighting fascism, but undertaking a pathetic attempt at fighting phantoms of fascism that do not exist. Its easy to fight phantoms in Oxford from inside a wine bar as fascist phantoms dont plant real IED's in the street, fire bullets at you or cut your head off on video if they capture you.
It is easy to pose and be heroic when fighting ghosts. Ghosts dont fire guns.
All the entire list of 'facts' they use to base their ideas on fighting fascism are all bogus, the whole lot of them. Lies from start to finish. But they are too stupid to check the facts out for themselves, so they just swallow the whole lot and say thanks afterwards.
Not one of those hundreds of pathetic, whining, coddled middle class brats at the demonstration against Nick will ever fight fascism - as those that fight fascism have always been white, working class and in the uniform of the British army. The middle class saps at Oxford shun the army like vampires shun sunlight. Oh No, they say the fascists are also in the British Army.
But the fact is that British soldiers are dieing every day fighting fascism - real fascism. They die fighting fascism whilst whining middle class wanker students merely think they are fighting fascism. That is because these over priveliged arseholes at Oxford neither understand what fascism or where the real war against fascism is, instead they simply want to act the part of the pathetic student wadical, the milli-tants and 'Right on Ricks' of the middle class university elite.
Oxford will supply virtually no fighters against fascism as soldiers to the British army, but it will spit out thousands of over priveliged saps who think they are 'progressive' because they spout the same old tired rhetoric and cliches of the sixties radicals.
Heres the news guys and gals - the Hippies became the capitalists - they all sold out.
Will Denise Garside of Lancaster UAF blog ever fight fascism - will she ever join the British army , carry a gun into battle and fight the fascist Shiite Militias in Iraq or Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Of course she wont, the useless fat cow will just continue to TALK ( BLAH , BLAH , BLAH ) about fighting fascism but do FUCK ALL.
Will Wayman Bennett of the UAF ever fight fascism - of course he wont. For a start the fat cunt is too fat to fit into a helicopter so they wouldnt be able to get him to Iraq unles they hired a supertanker to get his fat ass in. Secondly that useless twat would probably shoot himself in the foot, then shoot the man next to him.
No - wayman wont ever fight fascism by joining the British army and actually doing some FIGHTING.
Instead he wil continue to lead his collection of red saps into battle against ghosts as Don Quixote once rode into battle against windmills.
The charge of the Lite-Brigade indeed.
The next time that you attend a demo and the UAF are there shout out to them ' Join the army or fuck off'.
The UAF and the Oxford arseholes have never and will never fight fascism.
All they will do is talk the talk, but never walk the walk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
