The Debate Begins HERE

As many people will know over the last couple of years there have been many malcontents, scum, idiots and lunatics who have been attacking me on every forum and website run by assorted reds, state security services and uniform fetishists.

The amount of lies and bullshit these people have peddled on these sites has staggered me - along with the utter stupidity of the people who believe it.

I was like the Scarlet Pimpernel - anyone who said anything that didnt blame the Jews/zionists for everything from the rainfall in Wales increasing to the plight of the corncrake were called ' Lee Barnes ' on sites such as Stormfront.

I was everywhere, I was Legion, I was the geezer in 'V for Vendetta' who could be anywhere at anytime spreading my hateful message of love and tolerance on the internet.

With all the symptoms of a mass hysteria the muppets saw me everywhere, behind every posting on Stormfront, behind their fridge doors nibbling their cheeses and eyeing up their girlfriends from the smoke alarm in the front room.

For a while it was funny - I used to get people to post up utter nonsense on sites such as Stormfront and then see how many idiotic maggots on the internet would regurgitate it on their websites.

My two favourites were - I dressed up as a QC with a wig and gown and used a false name in order to represent a BNP member in the High Court of London. That one went all round the internet - MUGS !

The other was that I was gay, Jewish and had been molested by at university by a gang of lecherous ethnic immigrant university students and this was my motivation for becoming a nationalist - MUGS !

There were many other smaller examples of disseminating nonsense to the idiots but they were my favourites.

Oh the gullibility and stupidity of these people.

The point of the lesson was that those who believe the crap peddled on the internet are morons. The internet is primarily the worlds biggest toilet, and is literally full of shit.

Examples such as Wikipedia editing posts on its site, or allowing people to edit posts on the site, should have triggered the few brain cells in many of these people - but it didnt.

Instead of the internet being the best tool we nationalists ever had to help the growth of the nationalist movement, it has become a factory for churning out idiots, bullshit conspiracy theories and utter bollocks.

Out from under the rock of the internet came many people like Sharon Ebanks, Britains premiere Half Black Nazi and people like Peter Rushton and Martin Webster.

Until the internet people like Webster were just regarded as deviant freaks known only for their perversions and not their politics. The 'Ernst Rhom' of British Nazism, Webster was one of those gay cult uniform fetishists that liked to see naked young men in nazi erotica. Then the internet gave these people a voice, and then a mechanism to spread their bullshit.

The internet has not been used in any way to constructively critique the crap that many nationalists punt out for profit though.

Take David Duke for example - this a man who admitted he was a thief and liar who used nationalists money donated to him to pay for lapdancers and gambling in casinos.

Yet the dimmest nationalist scum on the planet still queue up to lick the mans boots, even whilst he is removing their wallets from their pockets and ringing Spearmint Rhinos for the times that Mandy wiz ze big boobies is on stage. Theres always a seat for Dave in casinos run by the mafia.

The fact that Daves books are full of utter crap is irrelevant as long as he is attacking ze jews.

Instead or reading Duke, who knows about as much what goes on in the real realms of power as Mickey Mouse knew about the real world, try reading Caroll Quigley.

http://radiobergen.org/powergame/tragedy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley

Quigley became well known among those who believe that there is an international conspiracy to bring about a one-world government. In his 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope, he based his analysis on his extensive research in the closely-held papers of an Anglo-American elite organization,[citation needed] to which he was given access. According to Quigley, the U.S. and UK governments were secretly controlled through a series of Round Table Groups, the group in the U.S. being the Council on Foreign Relations. He contended that both the Republican and Democratic parties were controlled by an "international Anglophile network" that shaped elections.

The Anglo-American Establishment was not published until 1982, five years after Quigley's death, because of its controversial material. several publishers would not publish it when it was written in 1949, but the manuscript was found after his death on the Island of Rhodes.

The Anglo-American Establishment was not published until 1982, five years after Quigley's death, because of its controversial material: several publishers would not publish it when it was written in 1949, but the manuSCRIPT was found after his death on the Island of Rhodes. The book alleged that the Munich Pact of 1938 had secretly been prepared as early as 1937 by politicians in Great Britain to give Germany and the Soviet Union a common border, in order to eventually destroy the latter in a war between the two nations. He further alleged that the crisis before the pact had been staged by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain. He also claimed that Alfred Milner had secretly written the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

The book argues that the real motive of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler was to instigate a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; by deliberately encouraging and assisting in Germany's efforts to expand in the east so that Germany could have a common frontier with the Soviet Union.

This event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, was the most crucial event in the whole history of appeasement. So long as the territory west of the Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He would not have dared because, with western Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would be impossible to go eastward. And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.

Note that it was not ze jews who set up Nazi Germany for war but the British government through the Munich Pact.

Critics assailed Quigley for his approval of the goals (though not the tactics) of the Anglo-American elite, while selectively using his information and analysis as evidence for their views. Quigley himself thought that the influence of the Anglo-American elite had slowly waned after World War II, and that, in American society after 1965, the problem was that no elite was in charge and acting responsibly.

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. {p. 1247}

For a full example of the writings of Caroll Quigley read here ; http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/quigley.html

Heres Quigley on the Media and especially The Times newspaper ;

{p. 113} This influence was not exercised by acting directly on public opinion, since the Milner Group never intended to influence events by acting through any instruments of mass propaganda, but rather hoped to work on the opinions of the small group of "important people," who in turn could influence wider and wider circles of persons. This was the basis on which the Milner Group itself was constructed; it was the theory behind the Rhodes Scholarships; it was the theory behind "The Round Table and the Royal Institute of International Affairs; it was the theory behind the efforts to control All Souls, New College, and Balliol and, through these three, to control Oxford University; and it was the theory behind The Times. No effort was made to win a large circulation for The Times, for, in order to obtain such a circulation, it would have been necessary to make changes in the tone of the paper that would have reduced its influence with the elite, to which it had been so long directed. The theory of "the elite" was accepted by the Milner Group and by The Times, as it was by Rhodes.

{p. 114} The Times was to be a paper for the people who are influential, and not for the masses. The Times was influential, but the degree of its influence would never be realized by anyone who examined only the paper itself. The greater part of its influence arose from its position as one of several branches of a single group, the Milner Group. By the interaction of these various branches on one another, under the pretense that each branch was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was increased through a process of mutual reinforcement. The unanimity among the various branches was believed by the outside world to be the result of the influence of a single Truth, while really it was the result of the existence of a single group. Thus, a statesman (a member of the Group) announces a policy. About the same time, the Royal Institute of International Affairs publishes a study on the subject, and an Oxford don, a Fellow of All Souls (and a member of the Group) also publishes a volume on the subject (probably through a publishing house, like G. Bell and Sons or Faber and Faber, allied to the Group). The statesman's policy is subjected to critical analysis and final approval in a "leader" in The Times, while the two books are reviewed (in a single review) in The Times Literary Supplement. Both the "leader" and the review are anonymous but are written by members of the Group. And finally, at about the same time, an anonymous article in The Round Table strongly advocates the same policy. The cumulative effect of such tactics as this, even if each tactical move influences only a small number of important people, is bound to be great. If necessary, the strategy can be carried further, by arranging for the secretary to the Rhodes Trustees to go to America for a series of "informal discussions" with former Rhodes Scholars, while a prominent retired statesman (possibly a former Viceroy of India) is persuaded to say a few words at the unveiling of a plaque in All Souls or New College in honor of some deceased Warden. By a curious coincidence, both the "informal discussions" in America and the unveiling speech at Oxford touch on the same topical subject.

{in a "democracy", such "agenda-setting" by an elite is a process of "seeding" public opinion.}

{p. 115} An analogous procedure in reverse could be used for policies or books which the Group did not approve. A cutting editorial or an unfriendly book review, followed by a suffocating blanket of silence and neglect, was the best that such an offering could expect from the instruments of the Milner Group. This is not easy to demonstrate because of the policy of anonymity followed by writers and reviewers in The Times, The Round Table, and The Times Literary Supplement, but enough cases have been found to justify this statement. When J. A. Farrer's book England under Edward VII was published in 1922 and maintained that the British press, especially The Times, was responsible for bad Anglo-German feeling before 1909, The Times Literary Supplement gave it to J. W. Headlam-Morley to review. And when Baron von Eckardstein, who was in the German Embassy in London at the time of the Boer War, published his memoirs in 1920, the same journal gave the book to Chirol to review, even though Chirol was an interested party and was dealt with in a critical fashion in several passages in the book itself. Both of these reviews were anonymous.

There is no effort here to contend that the Milner Group ever falsified or even concealed evidence (although this charge could be made against The Times). Rather it propagated its point of view by interpretation and selection of evidence. In this fashion it directed policy in ways that were sometimes disastrous. The Group as a whole was made up of intelligent men who believed sincerely, and usually intensely, in what they advocated, and who knew that their writings were intended for a small minority as intelligent as themselves. In such conditions there could be no value in distorting or concealing evidence. To do so would discredit the instruments they controlled. By giving the facts as they stood, and as completely as could be done in consistency with the interpretation desired, a picture could be construed that would remain convincing for a long time.

This is what was done by The Times. Even today, the official historian of The Times is unable to see that the policy of that paper was anti-German from 1895 to 1914 and as such contributed to the worsening of Anglo-German relations and thus to the First World War. This charge has been made by German and American students, some of them of the greatest diligence and integrity, such as Professors Sidney B. Fav, William L. Langer, Oron J. Hale, and others. The recent History of The Times devotes considerable space and obviously spent long hours of research in refuting these charges, and fails to see that it has not succeeded. With the usual honesty and industry of the Milner Group, the historian gives the evidence that will convict him, without seeing that his interpretation will not hold water. He confesses that the various correspondents of The Times in Berlin played up all anti-English actions and statements and played down all pro-English ones;

{p. 116} that they quoted obscure and locally discredited papers in order to do this; that all The Times foreign correspondents in Berlin, Paris, Vienna, and elsewhere were anti-German, and that these were the ones who were kept on the staff and promoted to better positions; that the one member of the staff who was recognized as being fair to Germany (and who was unquestionably the most able man in the whole Times organization), Donald Mackenzie Wallace, was removed as head of the Foreign Department and shunted off to be editor of the supplementary volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica (which was controlled by The Times); and that The Times frequently printed untrue or distorted information on Germany. All of this is admitted and excused as the work of honest, if hasty, journalists, and the crowning proof that The Times was not guilty as charged is implied to be the fact that the Germans did ultimately get into a war with Britain, thus proving at one stroke that they were a bad lot and that the attitude of The Times staff toward them was justified by the event.


David Duke and Bullshit on The Balfour Declaration.

In his book My Awakening ( Which I have read ) he states this about the Balfour Declaration http://www.davidduke.com/general/my-awakening-chapter-22-israel-jewish-supremacy-in-action_142.htmlprint/

" Onto this stage of crisis, stepped the British Lord Arthur Balfour. He met with the Rothschilds, and made an agreement that in return for pledging Britain’s support in the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the Jews would use their great international power and influence to draw the United States into the war. Lord Balfour drew up a document — the Balfour Declaration — that called for the Jewish homeland. Even our popular encyclopedias admit the reason for the Balfour Declaration: "

Errrr no David - Lord Balfour did not draw up the Balfour Declaration - it was Lord Alfred Milner that drew up the Balfour Declaration not Lord Balfour.

“This declaration, which is always known as the Balfour Declaration, should rather be called 'the Milner Declaration,' since Milner was the actual draftsman and was apparently, its chief supporter in the War Cabinet. This fact was not made public until 21 July 1936. At that time Ormsby-Gore, speaking for the government in Commons, said, 'The draft as originally put up by Lord Balfour was not the final draft approved by the War Cabinet. The particular draft assented to by the War Cabinet and afterwards by the Allied Governments and by the United States...and finally embodied in the Mandate, happens to have been drafted by Lord Milner. The actual final draft had to be issued in the name of the Foreign Secretary, but the actual draftsman was Lord Milner.” (Carroll Quigley) – 538:169

"In World War I the British, with Arab aid, gained control of Palestine. In the Balfour Declaration (1917) they promised Zionist leaders to aid the establishment of a Jewish 'national home' in Palestine, with due regard for the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians. The British had also promised Arab leaders to support the creation of independent Arab states. The Arabs believed Palestine was among these, an intention that the British later denied." - 124:2054

When such basic facts as that are wrong in Dukes book , which is supposed to be a 'research book' then it is obvious the book is not about history, but about peddling anti-semitism for profit. The repugnant Jewish extremists of history, such as the Marxists of the Frankfurt School, derive their power in our society from the repugnant anti-semites in our society - for only by allowing and encouraging anti-semitism to be peddled and propagated can the Jewish extremists and their non-Jewish lackeys then demand that non-Jewish politicians pass laws that clamp down on free speech in our society and that then criminalises debate on issues such as immigration. Without the Hollywood Nazis then their would be no Hate Laws that are used to criminalise any forms of dissent. The systems power is perptuated by those that peddle hate. The thing the system fears mosts in rational debate - it desires hate and anti-semitism. Those that encourage anti-semitism and hate speech are merely doing the systems work for them - which is alienating the masses, putting nationalism into a political and social ghetto and allowing the corrupt politicians to use the law to end free speech. That is why the 'proffesional' anti-semites who peddle anti-semitism for profit are usually working for the government and system.

I will be posting up other articles that debunk some of the most widely spread bullshit in Nationalist circles on this site and also detailing some of the lies and bullshit spread about me over the last few years.

I have so far remained silent when I have been attacked - not any more.

Those that have lied about me will be exposed.