Thursday 31 January 2008


Come gather in your gaze, the glory of the gathered galanthus,
That drift and settle beneath naked oaks and pallid willows,
Whose nodding white bonnets first defy the frosted iron earth,
And dare to dream of Summer, intrepid in the widowing snow.

Hope is born from an angels breath they say, for the first solace of Man,
Was the promise of sorrow passing when Winters frozen claws,
Lifted the spirit of the land down from that cruel cross, and in secret sowed,
A white carpet of snowdrops for the soft feet of Spring to step upon.

The trinity of their petals are Summers sacred avatar, if seen in vision,
The adoration of the ascending Sun, is a prayer for the fair maids of February,
They are hope of the resurrection, so tread soft upon your way,
Save them in your heart till nightingales sing once more at midnight.

Ghosts of the season in forest glades, that forever haunt the blackened hearth,
Are the countless bells of candlemas that toll in silent remembrance,
For all those who have walked before us into the shadow and shade,
‘Seek beauty’ the only words they speak, snatched from their lips by the wind.

Control - Film Review

The story of the Joy Division singer, Ian Curtis, is the archetypal rock tragedy.

The great singer and writer who struggles to become known and is then destroyed by fame.

We have seen it so many times in history, the coruscating genius that appears amidst the gloom and darkness of a culture grown ashen and moribund who suddenly illumues the world with his flame and fire for a few precious fleeting moments then flashes swiftly back into the black.

Nick Drake, Richey Edwards, Phil Lynott, Hendrix, Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain - each of them gave the world back a little of its glamour and magic but in so doing they paid the ultimate price.

Perhaps it is true that the more sensitive the soul, the harder their truth is to bear and this is why so many of those precious voices of a generation are lost so young. Through allowing the spirits of their times to speak through them what they articulate in the end destroys them.

By confronting the Levithian, the Levithian devours them.

The bio-pic of the singer Ian Curtis is the reflection of a Britain and a time that almost seems unreal now, a time when grey skies curdled constantly over tired and wilted cities of rain washed rock and brick, a time of strikes and secondary pickets and when the spectre of a nuclear doom always seemed somehow silently present like an unseen demon in our midst.

It was a time when factory horns called the workers to their benches, when a febrile sun the pallour of jaundiced skin, tore tiny holes through the drifting haze of a pollution pall that suffused the sky from factory chimneys that never stopped smoking and when kids still played football in the streets and swopped Top Trumps for Spiderman comics.

It is as though such times almost never existed now, they seem so distant. A world away in the streets where still we walk.

The film catches this time perfectly. From the cotton rainbow striped pillows on his bed, the music of Bowie and Iggy Pop, the mood of fashionable nihilism, the fascist aeasthetic all black clothing, the streets of terraced housing and conformist misery.

Yet it seems like a historical movie, not the story of a tragedy that occured less than a quarter of a century ago. The flat of his manager was like a flashback to the houses I used to sit in and listen to Joy Division, Velvet Underground and Lou Reed as Ford Cortinas pulled up outside filled with lads who been working on the engines of the nuclear submarines at Chatham Dockyards. A period when punk was replacing glam rock and skinhead gangs still fought with mods at Brighton, and when A Clockwork Orange still wasnt able to be bought on Betamax.

A time of transition and change, when poets like Ian Curtis appear in order to reflect back at us that which we try hardest not to see.

The nadir of the Cold War was reached when Game Theory transformed millions of people into abstractions on a computer model that simulated a winnable World War 3, when our Isolation and anomie became such that the confrontation between the super powers literally became M.A.D.

This is why Ians words and music were so bleak, he felt this denudation of the human spirit and the transofrmation of human beings into mere kindling for the pyres, ambitions and nightmares of clashing ideologies and the petty little grey men in suits that pulled the levers of power and pushed the buttons of war.

The individual had never become so meaningless, trapped between the bombs and the beauracrats, mere fodder for the machine to feast on.

Joy Division reflected this in their music, how this world had become a concentration camp for the soul, a place where few birds sang and the trains ran along tracks that started when you left school and finished when you retired and died.

The film charts how Joy Division's rise to fame was accompanied by the collapse in the private life of Ian Curtis. The more the crowd wanted, the more he had to give to everyone around him until finally there was only the void where he once had been.

It shows the how the young singer Ian Curtis finds fame and then realises that in order to enjoy it he has to destroy himself.

Just like Kurt Cobain and Richey Edwards, their joy was in the music, those sacred times when they simply connected with their muse and the music flowed through them.

Moments of truth and clarity amidst the responsibilities, lies, illusions and deceits that come with fame and wealth.

The film is a very moving exploration of the descent of Ian Curtis into his own personal darkness, a place where he no longer had any control.

The performances are superb and the actors who play Ian Curtis, Tony Wilson and Bernard Sumner are all superb in their roles.

The scene where Ian has an epileptic fit on stage is an brilliant peice of acting and cinematography.

It is one of the best bio-pics of a British rock star I have seen so far.

I look forward to bio-pics one day of Phil Lynnot and Nick Drake, the rocker and the poet, both who were musical geniuses with lives that demand telling.

Monday 28 January 2008

Free The Weed For Those In Pain

The War on Drugs, like The War On Terror, has failed. This is because the strategy of both is predicated on fighting the supply of drugs/terrorists and ignores the demand that drives both scourges.

In the War On Drugs and the War on Terror the only way to diminish the supply of drugs and terrorists is to deal with those demand factors that drive the demand for drugs and terrorists.

In the case of the War on Terror the emphasis is now on the 'criminality' of the individual Islamist terrorists, not on the role that Jihadism plays in Islam. Rather than forcing Islam to reject the Jihadist element of the religion and undergo its own internal enlightenment (as Catholicism and Christianity had to do when it rejected Scholasticism and the control the institution of the Church once held over our individual, civil, political and social development) the emphasis is on the 'aberrant' nature of the Islamists and their Jihadist beliefs even though this is contrary to the entire history and teachings of Islam which supports and encourages Jihadism.

Another driver of demand in Islam is the self created 'victimhood status' that Muslims have adopted as regards the 'plight of muslims' even though most of this suffering is self generated by Islamist upon Islamist violence as proven by the fact that the majority of murders of Muslims are due inter-Islamic violence (eg Iraq and Sudan and in Palestine between Hamas and the PLO, the secularists and the Islamists, the nationalists and the Islamists etc). This requires the State tackle hard the lies and propaganda of the Islamists and their Liberal Apologists that seek to minimise and evade Muslim culpability in their own catastrophes.

Before the supply of Islamists stops the demand must first be dealt with.

The same is true in the War On Drugs.

It is demand that drives the supply. Demand must be addresed before supply can be stopped.

Demand for drugs is divided into two camps ;

1) Recreational Users

2) Medicinal Usage

The former is about 90 % of the demand for drugs and is the primary driver for demand. The fix to this problem is stiffer penalties for importation and supply of drugs such as the death penalty, and also stiffer penalties for recreational usage of drugs and testing for the presence of drugs in the bloodstream regarded as a form of 'possession' of the drug. Demand in society for drugs can also be slowed by the arrest and imprisonment of celebrity junkies such as Pete Doherty, Kate Moss and Amy Winehouse who glamorise drugs. The recreational user must be too terrified of being caught to buy and use drugs.

This leaves the Medicinal Usage.

The definition of an immoral drugs policy is one that equates the Multiple Sclerosis sufferer who uses cannabis as a medicine and the recreational user who smokes it for fun.

At the moment the Black Rastafarian cannabis smoker is less likely to go to prison for using cannabis than a MS sufferer, an old lady with a depressive illness and the cancer patient who uses it for pain and nausea relief. This is an intolerable state of affairs and an utterely immoral system.

Prohibition as regards the ill is intolerable. If anyone finds even the slightest relief from pain using any drug then they should be able to access and use that drug safely and lawfully without the fear of arrest and imprisonmnent.

Legalisation of drugs would destroy our society, as we have already seen the damage caused to our society by legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.


Therefore neither prohibition or legalisation are the answer - the answer is the third way which is REGULATION.

Those with a registered chronic medical condition should be able to be licensed by a doctor to use and possess those drugs such as cannabis that help them with their conditions.


Those incapable of growing their own should be able to contact those who do and purchase their own supplies of cannbis from them without fear of arrest. Such sales should be licensed and taxed and monitored for health and safety.

At the moment those ill people who would benefit from using cannabis are denied the right to use it by blanket criminalisation as regards possession and use.

Those who do use the drug for fun have to unrestricted access it via the criminal market and can buy unlimited amounts of the product from criminals who produce the drug illegally.

This means both quality and strength and supply are comprimised and controlled by the criminals. The only people that profit from blanket prohibition are the criminals that produce illegal drugs, who sell illegal drugs and the prison providing companies like Serco and Group 4 who run prisons holding the drug users.

Most MS and cancer sufferers dont want to smoke super strength cannabis, they want low strength varieties that aid their muscle spasms, pain and appetite. Yet the only products on sale in the criminal market are genetically engineered, chermically produced, high strength drugs.

The pharmacutical companies are producing artificial cannabis solutions, yet the history of the pharmacutical industries is littered with supposedly safe drugs that are not eg Thalidomide. The natural low strength cannabis srains are natural and have been used by humans with no ill effect for hundreds of thousands of years. Queen Victoria used cannabis for her painful periods,

The weed in its natural form grown in organic conditions is low strength and totally safe.

It is only the fact that the criminal market has sought to produce super strength strains that has led to the rise in mental illness in users of the drugs due to the increase in the level of the active compounds in the varities grown. These varities are not natural strains of the weed, they are produced in laboratories and engineered to have incredibly high CBD and THC levels.

No drugs in existence, either natural or man made, are 100% safe for 100% of people, but the harm caused by low strength natural grown cannabis makes it probably the safest natural (or man made) drug ever in the history of humanity.

The growth in the supply of such high strength varities that are causing social harm due to mental illness in users is due specifically to the domination of the supply system by criminals due to prohibition who are supplying high strength, chemically contaminated drugs to young people and users for profit.

If those medicinal users were allowed to grow their own low strength varieties of cannabis or access low strength varieties legally, then they would not use the criminal markets or access those varities of high strength weed that are causing the problems in our society.

The War on Drugs has failed, prohibition has failed and legalisation would be disastrous.

Therefore the only solution is regulation.

We must be hard on the criminals, yet compassionate to the ill.

In 1988, US Supreme Court Judge Francis L Young in a ruling on a petition for the rescheduling of marijuana to allow medicinal use, held that such rescheduling should occur, finding that cannabis was "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man". He approved cannabis for the treatment of glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and treatment of the side effects associated with cancer chemotherapy.

In a 1991 report, the World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended that THC and related compounds be rescheduled from schedule 1 to schedule 2 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971. This effectively recognised the therapeutic value of cannabis compounds, would permit wider use in the treatment of organic diseases, and may lead to a dramatic increase in research devoted to therapeutic applications. Discovery of the "cannabis receptor" in the central nervous system and other areas has led to an increase in recent research into the therapeutic applications of cannabinoids.

" Free The Weed For Those In Pain ", should be the motto of a humane and moral society and this is what I will be pushing for as a humanist and a nationalist. It is only the United Nations, the globalised criminals, gangsters, prison masters and the global pharmacutical corporations that profit from the present system and I am an enemy of all of those repressive systems and criminals.,3604,869273,00.html

Saturday 26 January 2008

The New Socialism - Banking Bolshevism

The Northern Rock scandal has revealed that Britain is afflicted by the New Socialism, and this is the Bolshevism of the Banks.

Banks such as Northern Rock are in a unique position, they privatise their profits and socialise their losses.

This is part of the trend that began with the Fabians. Their motto and symbol was a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Socialism through the free market was the creedo of the Fabian movement and they have triumphed.

Today we have worst of all possible worlds - we have Political Correctness in the Public Sphere and Consumerism in the Private Sphere.

The profits of the corporations are taxed and used to subsidise the Servile State and its army of socialist politically correct minions all of whom depend upon the Labour Party for their fake jobs.

Individualism and liberty is under attack from all sides.

Consumerism seeks to replace individualism with Commodity Fetishism and turn us all into the tribes of Reebok, Armani and Gap whilst Political Correctness passes ever more laws that restrict free speech and creates Thought Crimes and Hate Laws to restrict democratic debate and deny us our ancestral liberties.

We have in fact created the ultimate fascist society, where the avdertising agencies pump out the creedo 'BELIEVE, OBEY, BUY' and the Hitler Jugend of Consumerism all wear their uniforms of trainers, tracksuits and baseball caps.

They love who are they told to love, hate who they are told to hate and wear what they are told to wear.

Even those who are rebel are manufactured ciphers. Revolution itself has become an aspect of consumerism.

If you want to be a rebel then you have to become a Goth, a Hippie or a Punk - each of which are cults dominated by an image and corporate commidity supply base that peddles their rebellion/conformity to them.

You want a leather jacket with Anti-Nowhere League written on it then visit a punk shop.

You want a Sid Vicious poster then go to Camden Market.

You want to buy a pair of leather goth boots with spikes and buckles then go to your local town centre.

Conformity and Rebellion are both different sides of the same coin, and the same people profit from both.

I remember when I used to go to the Glastonbury Festival and noticed whilst wading knee deep through the mud that all the stalls all sold the exact same things and that all the hippies were wearing the same uniform.

Consumerism conquered Glastonbury and the Hippies all sold out.

This process began in the Sixties with the Hippies who said that in order for us to be happy we must do as we wish, and that all social bond and conventions must be rejected if we are to be free.

This was the birth of the Selfish Society - not Thatcherism as the left like to claim.

It was the Hippies who destroyed society not the capitalists - the capitalists merely got rich exploiting what the Hippies did.

The New Socialism is where the State and the Corporations each profit mutually from each other.

Lenin in bed with Bill gates spawning a bastard Liberal Fascism.

Only by rejecting Consumerism and fighting Political Correctness and voting into power the BNP who will replace Globalism with Nationalism can we reclaim our liberty and our National Destiny.

Friday 25 January 2008

Britain First !

The time has come for an honest debate on one of the great taboos of our time, the exploitation of the words 'anti-semitism', racism, xenophobia and Islamphobia by political activists to conflate them with criticisms of Israel, Zionists, Muslims, Islam, Pro-Israel lobby groups and Christian Zionists etc etc.

Let me first state that as a Nationalist I support Israels right to exist, its right to govern its own internal affairs and its right to respond as it sees fit to any external and internal threats to its national security.

But I am first and foremost a BRITISH NATIONALIST who puts the interest of Britain and the British people first at all times.

Democracy and the freedom of association should not be allowed to exist as subversion and treason.

The very presence within the British political system and nation of organised groups whose political loyalties and interests are orientated primarily towards Israel (or towards Germany, France, Alaska, Burma, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea or whatever etc etc) is unacceptable.

Neither is it acceptable to be more loyal to the Pope, the Koran or the Communist International than to the British Nation and the British people.

A British citizen should first and foremost place at all times the interests of the British people and British nation before all other interests or loyalties.

Those that seek to attack loyal and patriotic British citizens on the basis of their being Jews, Christians or Muslims etc are criminals not because they are anti-semites, Christianophobes or Islamaphobes, but simply because THEY ARE CRIMINALS !

The very existence of a pro-Israel Lobby, a Christian Zionist Lobby, a pro-US lobby, the Common Purpouse groups, Islamist groups and a Muslim Parliament of Great Britain are all examples of provocative groups that should be banned from existing within Britain.

Those with British citzenship who put the interests of foreign nations, their religions or their ideology before their loyalty to the British nation and people are not true British citizens.

They are abusing their citizenship rights in order to promote the interests of others first.

Communities should be allowed to work to promote solely the social interests of their respective communities (such as to organise health campaigns and school funding campaigns etc) but not to engage in any forms of political campaigning in the UK.

We have tolerated these interlopers with their exclusivist and treasonous agendas for far too long.

Those that persist in such activities should be stripped of their citizenship rights.

They have used their money, power and influence to usurp and control our national independence and independent foreign policies for far too long.

These groups have pushed for us to get involved in foreign wars, to send British troops to die in far flung battles that are meaningless to the interests of the British people and our national security interests, they have pushed for us to surrender our national sovereignity to supra-national institutions such as the EU, WTO, UN, US and other internationalist organisations and they have caused many peoples and nations around the world to come to hate Britain for what they see as our slavish obedience to special interest groups.

If we have a threat in this country as regards our national security then we demand the British Army are returned home to fight it and destroy that threat. We dont want them patrolling the streets of Baghdad or the foothills of Kabul whilst Islamists are blowing up tube trains in the UK and millions of illegal immigrants and aliens flood through our national borders every year.

The British Army should be at Dover, Tilbury, Heathrow and Gatwick with bayonets fixed and operating x-ray machines to scan every lorry, car and plane for illegal immigrants entering the UK instead of hunting down Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We should have the RAF based in the UK and using their Hercules transport planes and air fleet to deport the millions of illegal immigrants in the UK back to their home countries instead of the RAF being busy dropping supplies to beseiged British troops in Afghanistan.

We should have the Royal Navy searching boats and ship bringing goods for guns, drugs and immgrants coming into the UK not patrolling the sea lanes of Iraq.

We should have the SAS on operations executing and assassinating Islamist terrorists, child smugglers, sex slave smugglers, drug smugglers and weapons importers who bring their vile trade into the UK not tracking down Islamists in Tora Bora.

Nationalism is simply about supporting and working for the best interests of Britain and the British people.

The fact that this is defined as racism / anti-semitism / Islamaphobia / xenophobia etc etc is proof that we are ruled by cabals of traitors.

This very lexicon is the lexicon of the traitors, and therefore all those that use words from this lexicon reveal their treasonous nature.

It is simply treason for any individual to support anything before the interests of the British nation and people.

The time has come for Britons to put Britain First.Those that cannot do that should be deported from the country, and the sooner the exodus of traitors from this nations begins, and the repatriation of the British army back to Britain to secure our national borders begins- then the safer we will all be in our own country.



Thursday 24 January 2008

Christian Zionism, Bush and the The Pro-Israel lobby groups-

A super series of articles on Christian Zionism here ;

Excerpts below ;

The term Christian Zionism is of relatively recent vintage and was rarely used prior to the early 1990s. Self-proclaimed Christian Zionist organizations such as the International Christian Embassy-Jerusalem and the US-based Bridges for Peace, both with offices in Jerusalem, have been operating for 20 years, but were under the radar of most Middle East experts and the mainstream media until after Sept. 11, 2001.

Briefly stated, Christian Zionism is a movement within Protestant fundamentalism that sees the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial and religious support. Christian Zionists work closely with the Israeli government, religious and secular Jewish Zionist organizations, and are particularly empowered during periods when the more conservative Likud Party is in control of the Knesset. Both the secular and religious media place Christian Zionism in the Protestant evangelical movement, which claims upward of 100-125 million members in the US. However, one would more accurately categorize it as part of the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity, since the evangelical movement is far larger and more diverse in its theology and historical development.

Christian Zionism grew out of a particular theological system called “premillennial dispensationalism,” which emerged during the early 19th century in England, when there was an outpouring of millennial doctrines. The preaching and writings of a renegade Irish clergyman, John Nelson Darby, and a Scotsman, Edward Irving, emphasized the literal and future fulfillment of such Biblical teachings as “the rapture,” the rise of the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon and the central role that a revived nation-state of Israel would play during the latter days.

Premillennialism is a type of Christian theology as old as Christianity itself. It has its roots in Jewish apocalyptic thought and generally holds that Jesus will return to earth before he establishes, literally, a millennial kingdom under his sovereignty. Darby added the distinctive elements of the rapture (or removal to heaven) of true, born-again Christians prior to Jesus’ return, and interpreted all major prophetic texts as having predictive value. He also marked world history according to certain periods called “dispensations,” that served to guide believers in how they should conduct themselves. The fulfillment of prophetic signs became the central task of Christian interpretation.

Darby’s ideas became a central feature in the teachings of many of the great preachers of the 1880-1900 period, including evangelists Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday, the major Presbyterian preacher James Brooks, Philadelphia radio preacher Harry B. Ironsides, and Cyrus I. Scofield. When Scofield applied Darby’s eschatology to the Bible, the result was a superimposed outline of premillennial dispensationalist notations on the Biblical text, known as the Scofield Bible. Gradually, the Scofield Bible became the only version used by most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians for the next 95 years.

In developing a working definition of Christian Zionism, one can say it is a 19th and 20th century movement within Protestant fundamentalism that (particularly last century and today) supports the maximalist claims of Jewish political Zionism, including Israel’s sovereignty over all of historic Palestine, including Jerusalem. The modern state of Israel, as a fulfillment of prophetic scriptures, is regarded as a necessary stage prior to the second coming of Jesus. Christian Zionism is marked by the following theological convictions:
l God’s covenant with Israel is eternal, exclusive and will not be abrogated, according to Genesis 12:1-7; 15:4-7; 17:1-8; Leviticus 26:44-45; and Deuteronomy 7:7-8.

There are two distinct and parallel covenants in the Bible, one with Israel that is never revoked and the other with the Church that is superseded by the covenant with Israel. The Church is a “mere parenthesis” in God’s plan, and as such it will be removed from history during the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 and 5:1-11). At that point, Israel, as a nation, will be restored as the primary instrument of God on earth.

Christian Zionists claim that Genesis 12:3 (“I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you”) should be interpreted literally and lead to political, economic, moral and spiritual support for the state of Israel and for the Jewish people in general.

The first lobbying effort on behalf of a Jewish state in Palestine was not organized or initiated by Jews. It occurred in 1891, when a popular fundamentalist Christian writer and lay-preacher, William E. Blackstone, organized a national campaign to appeal to the then-president of the United States, Benjamin Harrison, to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

The power of the pro-Israel Republicans became a prominent feature during the Reagan years, with the president leading the way. On at least seven public occasions Reagan expressed belief in a final Battle of Armageddon. During one of his private conversations with AIPAC director Tom Dine, Reagan said: “You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if ­ if we’re the generation that is going to see that come about.” The conversation was leaked to the Jerusalem Post and picked up across the US on the AP wire. This stunning openness displayed by an American president with the chief lobbyist for a foreign government indicated the close cooperation that had developed between the administration and Israel.

A little-known feature of the Reagan White House was the series of seminars organized by the administration and the Christian right with assistance from the pro-Israel lobby. These sessions were designed to firm up support for the Republican Party, and, in turn, encourage AIPAC and Christian Zionist organizations to advance their respective agendas. Participation by the Christian right in gala dinner briefings at the White House reads like a Who’s Who of the movement, including author Hal Lindsay, Jerry Falwell, the head of the Moral Majority, and evangelist Pat Robertson, as well as Tim LeHaye (co-author of the influential Left Behind series) and Moral Majority strategist Ed McAteer. State Department official Robert McFarlane, one of those implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal, led several briefings. Quietly working in the background was another Christian fundamentalist, Marine Colonel Oliver North.

Begin developed a close relationship with leading fundamentalists, such as Falwell, who later received a Learjet from the Israeli government for his personal travel and in 1981 was honored with the Jabotinsky Award in an elaborate ceremony in New York. When Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, Begin made his first telephone call to Falwell, asking him to “explain to the Christian public the reasons for the bombing.” Only later did he call Reagan. Falwell also converted former Senator Jesse Helms from a critic of Israel into one of its staunchest allies in the US Senate, where he chaired the influential Foreign Relations Committee.

Late in the Reagan administration, a number of scandals in the Christian right began to erode its public support. Pat Robertson’s ineffective run for the presidency in 1988 led to a decline in fundamentalist political fortunes. Resilient as ever, the pro-Israel lobby was able to somewhat reassert itself with the election of another Bible-toting Southern Baptist president, Bill Clinton, despite his liberal social agenda. However, Christian Zionist influence did decline after the Reagan presidency, though it would return with renewed vigor after the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001.

When Israel responded to the Netanya suicide bombing in March 2002 by reinvading the West Bank and besieging Jenin, the ensuing international outcry led US President George W. Bush to order Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to withdraw his forces from Palestinian areas. Bush sent a strong message to Sharon at an April 2 news conference: “Withdraw! Withdraw your troops immediately!”

At that point longtime Christian Zionist spokesman and pro-Israel advocate Jerry Falwell and other Christian Zionist leaders, working closely with pro-Israel groups, used their media and internet outlets to mobilize their constituencies to deliver tens of thousands of telephone calls, e-mails and letters to the president, telling him to refrain from pressuring Sharon and to allow Israel to finish its job. In the aftermath of that campaign, Bush did not utter another word of opposition to Israeli military actions. Falwell told the CBS news program 60 Minutes that after the incident, Israel could count on Bush to “do the right thing for Israel every time.” The lesson was that even when the Bush administration criticized Israel, the Israelis, conscious of the extensive support they enjoy in the US Congress, would not take it seriously. As Falwell said: “The Bible Belt is Israel’s safety net in the US.”

Christian Zionist organizations and the pro-Israel lobby are among the significant special interest groups whose interests have converged since Bush’s election to shape the administration’s policy toward the Middle East. In some respects, most of these groups and political tendencies were lined up and waiting to merge their ambitions even before the election. The tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, provided the spark for this.
Among these interest groups, of which we can broadly identify six, is, first of all, the right wing of the Republican Party. During his election campaign, Bush, with the help of former members of the Reagan administration, discarded the Middle East strategy of the first Bush administration, which advocated a more nuanced, multilateral and collaborative approach to the UN and to international law in resolving conflicts. By 2000, a shift had taken place in the Republican Party. It began embracing the doctrines of neoconservative ideologues who advocated US unilateralism and favored military solutions over diplomacy. This more aggressive approach was put into action after Sept. 11, and to no one’s surprise, Israel’s war against the Palestinians and its other enemies was soon linked to the US “war on terrorism.”

A second interest group was comprised of neoconservatives, among them Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who submitted a strategy paper during the first Bush administration in 1991 advocating unilateralist and pre-emptive doctrines. Baker and advisers to the president, who viewed the document as too extreme, buried it. Eventually a larger group of Reagan hawks found various means to express their displeasure with the Republican mainstream and leadership.

That displeasure grew during the Clinton era, particularly with regard to the administration’s Middle East policy. In 1996, the Project for a New American Century was born, based on neoconservative doctrine, and the same year several neocon leading lights issued a strategy paper for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud candidate for prime minister in Israel’s elections, titled A Clean Break. The paper recommended that Israel abandon the Oslo Accords and adopt a strategy of military aggression toward the Palestinians and Arab countries. The strategy helped win Netanyahu victory and became the modus operandi not only of his government but also that of Sharon. Bush’s election and Sept. 11 gave the neocons the opportunity to shift US foreign policy toward more military, imperial and unilateralist approaches.

Two other interest groups are multinational construction firms and the petroleum industry on the one hand, and the arms industry on the other: Access to high quality and inexpensive oil reserves has long been a primary strategic US goal in the Middle East. Multinational companies have also recently become important political players in Iraq’s reconstruction efforts, including Halliburton, an oil company whose former CEO was Vice-President Dick Cheney, and Bechtel. The US arms industry has also benefited from US Middle East policy, particularly after Sept. 11, thanks to the heightened security atmosphere, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the post-war situations in both countries. Israel, meanwhile, has long been a favorite of US arms producers.

A fifth group is made up of the pro-Israel lobby and think tanks. The lobby works closely with a variety of special interest groups, including the Christian right, to exercise considerable influence over the direction of US Middle East policy. By bringing relentless pressure and a steady flow of policy recommendations to elected officials on a daily basis, pro-Israel organizations outpace counterinitiatives, whether from Middle Eastern interest groups, academia, or mainstream churches. It is crucial to understand that the range of pro-Israel groups does not merely include Jews, so that the appellation the “Jewish lobby” is simply inaccurate.

Proof of this is the existence of a sixth interest group whose interests were also served during the Bush administration: fundamentalist Christian Zionists. During the past two or three decades, the conservative Evangelical movement has been the fastest growing sector within the American Christian churches. Estimates of the number of evangelicals range from 100-130 million, out of which 20-25 percent could be classified as fundamentalist ­ some 20-26 million Americans. Of the fundamentalists, most, but not all, are inclined to support the Christian Zionist position. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center noted that 58 percent of evangelicals believe in the Battle of Armageddon, an indicator that they would be predisposed to Christian Zionism.

Today, Christian Zionists form the largest base of support for pro-Israeli interests in the US. Working since the late 1970s, the pro-Israel lobby has mobilized both economic and political support for Israel among fundamentalists. For example, a relatively new organization, Stand for Israel, has emerged in the past two years to work closely with AIPAC, the leading pro-Israel lobby, to support and hold rallies on behalf of Sharon’s policies. Last April 2, Stand for Israel held a convention and lobbying day immediately after the annual AIPAC convention, inviting many of the same speakers and adopting several of the same policies. Former US Presidential candidate Gary Bauer, a co-founder of Stand for Israel, addressed the convention and urged attendees to oppose the Palestinian-Israeli “road map” and an exchange of land for peace.
Bauer declared: “Whoever sits in the confines of Washington, and suggests to the people of Israel that they have to give up more land in exchange for peace, that’s an obscenity.”

Others present at the dinner reflected the intimate relationship the Bush administration has with the Christian right and the pro-Israel lobby. This included US Attorney General John Ashcroft, Israel’s Ambassador to the US Daniel Ayalon, Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land, and House of Representatives Minority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay and Congressman Tom Lantos, perennial advocates of Israel’s interests in the House, received the first annual Friend of Israel Award for their success in leading Congress to pass House Resolution 392, restating the strong solidarity of the US with Israel in their joint stance against international terrorism.

Pro-Israel groups and fundamentalist Christian groups have brought significant political and economic pressures to bear on Congress and the Bush presidency. Their support for Sharon’s militant Likud ideology are unquestioned and usually supported by selected Biblical footnotes. Policies such as increased Israeli settlements, the pre-emptive assassination of Palestinian leaders, Israeli sovereignty over all of historic Palestine (especially Jerusalem), and, if it occurs, the expulsion of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat (and indeed the mass expulsion of large sectors of the Palestinian population), would find ready support within the Christian right.

The Flaw in the theory of Mainstream Anti-Jihadism

The main 'public' argument adduced by the opponents of the BNP in the anti-Jihadist camp for excluding any political parties labelled as 'racists' by the Islamists, Marxists, Zionists, conservatives and Liberals (who all agree on their definition of what a racist party is eg anyone that disagrees with them ! ) is that by tainting themselves with the presence of those not anointed by the Far Left as 'acceptable and non-Racist' that this will accelerate the growth and development of a mass anti-Jihadist movement.

This thoery is evidence of the lack of political understanding of these people, and the Amero-Centricism of the anti-Jihadist movement.

American anti-Jihadists are not political as America is not political. In America you either vote Republican, Democrat or throw your vote away.

There is no political opposition in the US - there is only the Tweedledum of the Republicans and the Tweedledumber of the Democrats. Therefore this lack of politics means a lack of political common sense in the anti-Jihadist movement.

In the UK and Europe we 'do politics'. That is we have a variety of political parties that have to CAMPAIGN in communities to get elected.

Therefore we have a far better understanding of the nature of politics, what our communities and citizens think and how our society is developing.

The idea that a 'mass movement' based solely on purist, anti-racist, anti-Jihadism can be deveoped is the theory of the political dilletente. It is pure fantasy island stuff.

In the UK and Europe the word ISLAMPHOBIC was invented specifically to ensure that anti-Jihadism could never become mainstream. As soon as you mention Islam some leftist, liberal or conservative (the very same people the anti-Jihadists seek approval from) screams Islamphobia at you (because they are terrified of being called Islamaphobic themselves if they dont scream Islamaphobia at you).

Being called racist, neo-nazi, Islamphobic, extremist etc etc are the ultimate insults in the UK and Europe.

Even paedophiles look down on those called racists or islamphobes.

In the UK there exists a pro-paedophilia campaign group who get better press than the BNP from the far left trades unions.

The way the press treat the BNP is the exact same way they will treat any anti-Jihadist movement.

As soon as the anti-jihadist movement appears it will be attacked and its supporters smeared as racists, extremists etc - regardless of their race or politics.

Whoever said the media HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH !!!!

Anti-Jihadism will be equated with racism / Islamphobia / hate / extremism even if it isnt.

In the Royal Navy you can be a practising Satanist on board a Royal Navy ship, but if you are a member of the BNP you will be thrown out of the Royal Navy.

( )

Worshipping Satan is more acceptable in the UK then being in the BNP.

If you were found out to be a member of anti-Islamist group then you would be thrown out of your jobs for doing so. Political Corrctness is the New Fascism.

Therefore the idea that a mainstream anti-Jihadist movement will ever exist is pure nonsense.

It is just an excuse for the leaders of the US anti-Jihadist movement to ensure those organisations that are NATIONALIST as opposed to pro-Zionist are excluded from the movement.

The idea that citizens of the UK would form, join and march simply on the issue of anti-Jihadism is pure solipsism. It is navel gazing purism of the most infantile kind.

Anti-Jihadism has to be part of a political movement whose goal is NATIONALIST, in that it seeks to put the interests of the NATION first before all other factors - and that includes the support of Israel and kowtowing to the Pro-Israel lobby groups.

This is the final sticking point, the fly in the ointment.

The anti-Jihadists really do believe that the issue of the Global Jihad (as opposed to paying the mortgage, food bills, energy costs, house prices, crime, the NHS, mass immigration, schooling etc etc ) are what keep people awake at night.

The issue of Jihad is not mentioned EVER in any of the polls about what people are concerned about and what they are voting about.

It is an issue that obsesses the intellectual anti-Jihadist elite but that is irrelevant to the masses.

The masses dont like Islamism. but they want THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEY ELECT to deal with it for them - they dont want to deal with it themselves as they know they will be called racist/Islamphobic etc and villified for it.

Therefore the whole basis of the theory that anti-Jihadism can become a mass movement is bogus.

Either the leaders of the anti-Jihadist movement are deluded or they are just so out of touch with POLITICAL reality that they really believe their own nonsense.

It is about time the anti-Jihadists woke up and realised this ;


Spitting in the face of the BNP just because we are NATIONALISTS as opposed to pro-Zionist sock puppets is the surest way to social oblivion for the anti-Jihadist (non)Movement itself.

Wednesday 23 January 2008

Genes and Culture and the New Zionists

The recent events with Robert Spencer have awakened me to an issue that has had very little attention, this being The New Zionism.

Unilke the old style of Zionism, which was an aspiration of the Jewish peoples of the world for a national Jewish homeland, the New Zionism is neither Jewish nor nationalist.

It is based on the eschatology of the Christian Fundamentalists and concerns a theological climax where the risen Christ will return and either convert the Jews of Israel to Christianity or slaughter them all.

In America the political system is dominated by two blocs, this being the pro-Israel lobby groups and the Christian Fundamentalist lobby groups. Both wield vast power and it was their influence which allowed George Bush to wage his neo-conservative war for oil with their support (and also to appease the rising Third power and lobby bloc in the US which is Saudi Arabian economic bloc which supplies the US with its oil and which funds both Republican and democratc political campaigns and organisations linked to candidates in those elections).

Whilst the Christian Fundamnentalists whipped up public support for the war, the Jewish pro-Israel lobby used their power and influence in the media to propagandise the war in the US media. Whilst the left like to demonise George Bush, they remain silent about the role the pro-Israel media and Christian Fundamentalists had in acting as the 'drummers' for the War In Iraq.

The funny thing about the New Zionists is that the Jewish community in the US, which has always been mainly leftist in attitude, is now in a large part firmly anti-Zionist, same as in the United Kingdom.

It is only the non-Jewish, Christian Fundamentalists and Neo-Conservatives who are the main supporters of Israel.

This brings us neatly to the issue of race and culture. The Bush adminstration invaded Iraq as the Neo-Conservatives believe that they can export democracy to the world and this idea is the basis of their global project to 'fight the war on terror and democratise the Middle East'.

The flaw in this is quite clear and the example of the Jewish people is an apt lesson. Wherever in the world the Jewish people have lived throughout history they have retained their identity, heritage and culture. They have lived in many, many nations and always remained Jewish both in terms of identity and culture. Once Israel was created it became naturally a jewish state with a Jewish identity and Jewish cultures. The 'democracy' of Israel was built by Ashkenazi jews of mixed European and Jewish blood and culture. Therefore democracy took root in Israel as it was rooted in the genes of the people that built Israel.

The same thing happened when the British Empire was built as the British emigrants re-created their own British culture in foreign lands they settled in. The Irish did it in America as did the Italians, the Koreans etc.

Wherever a racial group with a specific culture settle, the re-create their own culture again.

This brings us to the idea that democracy can be exported to the Middle East.

Democracy is a European creation rooted in the genes of Europeans. The Neo-Conservative idea that it can be exported is based on an assumption that genes and culture are not linked in any way which has been proved throughout history to be a baseless theory.

Therefore the Neo-Conservative project will fail.

Seeing as the ideological guru of the Neo-Conservatives was Leo Strauss, a Jewish emigre to the US, then the neo-cons of the Bush administration must have been aware that the propaganda about 'exporting democracy' was bogus as the very fact that their guru retained his Jewishness when he came to America was direct proof that race, genes and culture are linked.

Strauss was Jewish in Germany both in terms of his self identifcation of himself as Jewish both by blood and culture, and also Jewish in America both in terms of his self identification of himself as Jewish by blood and culture.

Therefore the idea that genes and culture are not linked was bogus from the beginning.

Transplant the individual and you also transplant with them their culture.

Even the Communist experiment in China and Russia could not erase this inbuilt genetic and cultural wiring in individuals. The Communists spent 70 years using the communist jackboot, gulags, Laogai and machine guns to erase all knowledge of genes and culture in the people they conquered (The Lamarkian genetic theory was itself an attempt to disengage genes and culture with an nurture not nature theory of human development) and they failed.

The Communists prohibited all forms of ancestral identity, brainwashed the masses from birth with communist theory and created a monolithic Communist culture to replace ethno-specific cultures and national identities.

A 100 million dissidents were slaughterd in order to ensure that all notions of identity and culture were eradicated.

Yet as soon as the Communist regimes in Europe collapsed, the ancestral identities of those peoples and their ancestral cultures sprang forth once more.

Old national identities were reclaimed, ancestral cultures recreated and the old hatreds between them all were rekindled.

If the Communists with their gulags, mass killings and brainwashing could not destroy the link between genes and culture then what idiot in the Bush adminstration thought they could !!!!

People such as Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch are guilty of the most disgusting disingenousness when they say that genes and culture are not linked and that universal human rights must replace the reality of genes and cultures.

They are either idiots or liars.

Robert Spencer is simply a neo-conservative tool of the New Zionists and the Pro-Israel bloc in the US.

Universalist values such as the concept of universal human rights translate eventually into a repressive universal world government, a universal global culture based on consumerism that will kill the eco-sphere of the planet, a universal economic system that destroys national control over internal social development and turns individual human beings into dehumanised abstract entities. Individuals become defined not by who they are, but simply by the collection of rights they are given, may possess and may claim. Government degenerates from the defence of nation, culture, environment and people into the defender of abstract rights whilst liberty becomes simply a collection of meanigless rights ( most of which are only able to be claimed via the legal system at vast expense which ensures only the rich have any real and meaningful rights ). National cultures become homogenised globalised consumer cultures where the values and culture of all nations converge to a mean that is neither freedom nor cultural in any way. National control over the economic system is denuded as the concept of 'economic justice' is linked with Globalism via the WTO and the UN etc and rampant destruction of the national environments of the planet destroys the planet.

But the fact is that this repressive system based on the theory of universal rights for all will fail, just as the Communists failed.

The Communist plan of 'Universal Brotherhood' of the Communist International was as asinine and insane as the Neo-Conservative plan for the democratisation of the planet. The Neo-Conservatives are truly the heirs of the Trotskyites.

In the real world the only universal truth is that genes and culture are linked and no amount of ideological nonsese, invasions, mass murders and plastic democracies will change that fact.

We are who we are and no ideology can change that.

Tuesday 22 January 2008

Shiite Islam and the Racial Jihad Against Whites

Image - Moqtada Al Sadr of Iraq wearing the Black Turban of Shiite Islam which indicates his being a direct blood descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. Shiite Islam is race based religion.

Islam and the Race Issue.

This is Mr.Spencers latest attack on me on his Jihad Watch site - my response is in the numbered points below ;

" The late, now-banned Barnes wrote, inter alia:

The Global Jihad is also a race war against whites.

This is a prime example of the kind of red herring, or white herring, that diverts energy and attention from what it should be on, and empowers the jihadists and their allies.

There is no shortage of white Islamic jihadists and white Muslims in general. They are not "self-hating" whites. They are adherents of an ideology that is interested in killing, converting, or subjugating not all whites, but all non-Muslims.

If Barnes were correct, there would have been no jihad against the Hindus. The Thais. No jihads in sub-Saharan Africa. (1)

If Barnes were correct, Hajj Amin Al-Husseini would never have been able to recruit white Bosnian Muslims to fight in the SS. And there would be no, or very few, jihadists among native Muslims in the Balkans. Or Chechnya. (2)

The Global Jihad is not a race war. (3)

It is a religious war. (4)

Israel is on the front lines of it. (5)

And this BNP op is calling them Zionazis. (6)

Robert Spencer "

My Response To Robert Spencer
(1) For an expert on Jihadism Mr.Spencer has a very outdated view on how Jihadism has evolved in time and spread in relation to location. Jihadism has two fundamental aspects, the first is racial and is based on the fact that Shiite Islam is at heart a racial religion. "Islam is an invention for the purpose of providing
a religious justification for Arab Imperialism. The Conquest is the reason and explanation for Islam, not the other way around" as stated by Islamic Historian Mohammad ibn al-Rawandi. This statement means that Islam was a religion created in order to expand the power of the Arab peoples, and even today the direct descendants of the Prophet, those who wear the black turban such as in Shiite Islam, are the leaders of the religion itself. This shows us that Islam and Race are entwined. The second aspect of Jihad is in order to expand the religion of Islam so as to increase the power of the Arabic leadership itself. The more lands that the Shiite Islamists conquer the more power the leaders of Islam, the more power the descendants of the Prophet have.

In order to expand the previous Jihads were all specific to that nation and time and place. In the past as Islamism expanded into new areas across the globe it formented new wars and new ethnic conflicts in those areas in which it appeared and grew. The latest expansion of Islamism is into the West. As a result the new Jihadism is against whites. This has been explictly confirmed by the British-educated bomb-maker Azahari Husin who died in the 2002 Bali bomb attack that targeted white tourists and killed 202 people who wrote in his plan for the attacks ""We will consider all white people the enemy." (Daily Telegraph Friday 13 July 2007 "Target any white person: the chilling guidelines for Bali suicide bombers".)

The 34-page document on his computer set out the meticulous planning and execution for the second Bali attack, including a minute-by-minute timetable culminating with the triple suicide bombing on Oct 1. The blasts were set for 7.34pm when the restaurants would be full, and the entry read: "Allahu Akbar" (God is great).

It advocated attacking "foreign tourists from America and its allies" - including all Nato countries, as well as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan, Thailand and the Philippines. But given the difficulty in distinguishing different nationalities, the author concluded: "We will consider all white people the enemy."

We also have to take a look at other Islamist organisations such as The Nation of Islam and the Death Angels in that group who were responsible for the Zebra Killings which targeted whites in the US and which were in fact the first racist Jihad within the United States ( ). Other examples of this racist Jihad against whites in the US are the Beltway Snipers and their attacks against whites in the name of Islam.


Those that wear the Black Turbans in Shiite Islam, such as Moqtada Al Sadr, are the descendants of Mohammed and asu such they are regarded as the leaders. Under often complex rules of Shiite Islam, only clerics who can prove that they are direct descendants of prophet Mohammed may wear black turbans.

The division in Islam between Shiite and Sunni dates back to the time after Muhammad's death in 632, in the area which is now known as Saudi Arabia, when the next leader of the Muslim nation had yet to be decided. One group of people (who would later become known as the "Shiites") believed that the ruler should be a member of the prophet's family, while another group (who would later be called the "Sunnis") believed that Muhammad’s successor should be chosen from amongst those who were most qualified. While Shiites desired the succession of Muhammad’s cousin “Ali” as the next leader, Sunnis opted for “Abu Bakr,” a close friend to the prophet. The Sunnis quickly prevailed and Abu Bakr was installed as Muhammad's successor. Rather than ending with Abu Bakr's succession, however, the conflict between the two groups only escalated further over the following decades. In 656, a full-scale civil war engulfed the Muslim nation over the question of leadership. The war, which lasted for five years, hardened divisions between the two groups and ultimately led to a formal split of the religion into two distinct sects.

Since the split, several religious and ethnic differences have emerged between the two groups. Shiites, for example, have more of a formal religious hierarchy than Sunnis do. For Shiites, those who are descendants of the prophet are particularly important and are often looked to for spiritual and social guidance. To become a member of this elite caste is only through blood, and those outside the caste are seen only as followers of the religion and do not have the divine right to call themselves the descendants of the prophet or become religious leaders within the religion. In so called ‘progressive circles’ of western society we have moved on past the idea of royalty and inherited divinity, to see liberals ignoring such a racist practice in Islam is sickening. Can you imagine who the Catholic Church would be regarded if instead of having its hierarchy open to anyone on the basis of their worth, it was open only to those who were descendants of family members of Jesus. Therefore the schism in Islam is based on racism, and the war within Islam was based on the principle of racism - that only those of the same bloodline and racial group as descended from the prophet should be allowed to become the leaders of the religion, and everyone else merely a follower. This means that only Arab descendants of Mohammed are considered within Shiite Islam as the true elite of Islam, and therefore that all non-descendants of the Arab descendants of Mohammed are somehow less qualified to be leaders in Islam due to them not being genetically Arab and genetic descendants of Mohammed.

This is a classic racist position. The fact that after a thousand years the descendants of the prophet are still genetically Arabs who have never married outside Arabic family circles under the principle of Harim (related to the word Harem )means the Arab elite within Shiite Islam retain a sense of the importance of keeping their Arabic blood pure shows how this internal racism has been to Islam.

2) The Bosnian Muslim SS units were motivated more by Anti-Semitism than anti-White hatred, and as Eastern European converts of Islam they were whites themselves. Like most Islamists they did not understand the internal racial dimension of Shiite Islam.

3) The global Shiite Jihad is a race war as it its aim is to create a global caliphate with the descendants of the Prophet as the leadership - that would be the same as if the Nazis had took over the planet and made the children of Hitler the inherited leadership of the global nazi movement.

4) It is both a religious and racial war.

5) Britain is on the front line ( 7/7, the July 21 st bombers and the Glasgow and London bomb attacks) and British troops are on the frontline in Iraq and Afghanistan Mr.Spencer you Zionist idiot.

6) The Jihadis and the Zionists are both nazis - as both are motivated by haematological and theological considerations as were the Nazis with their obsessions with Aryan blood and Positive Christianity.

Kosher Nazis and the Anti-Jihad Movement

After my recent experience with the arch-Zionist Robert Spencer and his Jihad Watch website I decided to take a look around the internet at some of the other so called 'anti-Jihad sites' such as Little Green Footballs which also attacks the BNP and VB with monotonous regularity and guess what I discovered, yep thats right, even Little Green Footballs is an Zionist controlled site.

Take a look at what it says on Wikkipedia about the site ;

Little Green Footballs (LGF) is a political blog run by California web designer Charles Johnson. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Johnson - who describes himself as "pretty much center-left before 9/11"[1] - transformed his blog's discussion of bicycle racing, programming, web design, and the occasional humorous news item into a very active discussion of the War on Terror, Islam and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Media observers have described the site as "ultraconservative"[2] or "right wing";[3] observes Johnson:

I'm not pretending I'm giving equal time to both sides. But I do think what I'm advocating, and what I believe in, is the right side.[4]

For "promoting Israel, and Zionism" and "presenting Israel's side of the conflict," LGF won the "Best Israel Advocacy Blog" award from the Jerusalem Post in 2005 [5]. According to Gil Ronen, a reporter for Internet news outlet, Israel National News:[6]

If anyone ever compiles a list of Internet sites that contribute to Israel’s public relations effort, Johnson's site will probably come in first, far above the Israeli Foreign Ministry's site. "

Charitable contributions

Little Green Footballs supporters have helped raise thousands of dollars for Spirit of America's "Friends of Iraq Blogger Challenge".[12][13] Supporters also donate pizzas for IDF soldiers.[14]

So what do we see here ;

1) All the major so called 'anti-Jihadist' websites seem to be run by Zionist supporters of Israel

2) All the controllers of those 'anti-Jihadist' sites are anti all political parties that seek to disengage their nations from the constant political, military and financial support for Israel. It appears that in order to gai the support of both Jihad Watch and Little Green Footballs we must all agree to our nations becoming proxy states under the domination of Israel, and that anyone that dares defy the Zionists as well as the Jihadists is a 'Neo-Nazi' and a 'racist'.

3) All those blogs post the same attacks on the same political parties as each other, and if attacked they each rally around to defend the other.

It appears to me that the people who post on those sites are being conned.

These sites are primarily pro-Zionist and are using the issue of anti-Jihadism to incite hatred against Muslims and at the same time increase support for Israel and its policies.

The anti-Jihadist movement it appears has been taken over by Cristian Fundamentalist Pro-Zionist, Pro-Israel groups who regard the takeover of our nations by Islamists as a bad thing - but who at the same time ignore the take over of our national political systems by Israeli funded and controlled lobby groups that seek to use our nations as economic and military support providers for Israel.

The irony is that whilst we are fighting the Islamist Nazis in our nations, the Kosher Nazis are using the issue of anti-Jihadism as a way to ensure our continued subservience to the Zionist / Pro-Israel / Christian Fundamentalist groups that have usurped our democratic systems to support Israel for decades.

Anti-Jihadism it appears is the New Zionism, the issue that allows the Zionists to increase their power in our nations by using the bogeyman of Jihadism as a way to divert attention away from the takeover of our political systems by the Zionist/ Christian fundamentalist blocs.

Monday 21 January 2008

Banned By Jihad Watch

It is one of my proudest achievements to have been banned both by Stormfront and Jihad Watch. Accoding to Stormfront I am a 'Jew lover' and according to Jihad Watch I am a 'Neo-Nazi'.

Whilst both trumpet their right to free speech as the basis of their right to exist, each censors any voice that dares question their facile dogma and cant. This is the cowardice of our contemporary world.

It expects blind obedience, not questioning of its cant.

Jihad Watch is a website run by Robert Spencer and David Horowitz, and is primarily a Zionist run anti-Islam website. As we all know David Horowitz is a foaming at the mouth pro-Zionist, and the site is designed to incite hatred against Islamists and to minimise the scrutiny of the Zionists in all our nations.

By Zionists I mean all those who are both Jews and Non-Jews both in terms of religion and race, such as Christian Fundamentalists, that put the interests of Israel before their own nations and who seek to influence UK and US foreign policy for the benefit of Israel and to the disadvantage of our own nations.

I am both an anti-Islamist and an anti-Zionist. I despise both the Jihadists with their goal for a global caliphate and I despise the Zionists who at present have such influence over Britain and Americas internal political development and its foreign policy.

As a nationalist I do not want my country dominated either by Jihadists or Zionists, as to me both are the primary drivers of the carnage and hatred in the world. They both feed off of each other in a diabolical dialectic that is drowning the world in blood.

I say ' Keep Islamism and Zionism in the Middle East where it belongs - and please fuck off back to the Middle East as soon as possible ". If the Jihadists and Zionists want to kill each other then there is plenty of deserts in the Middle East for them to do so.

Just dont use my country as proxy killing ground for your centuries long racial and religious war.

One such example of Zionism as an political force organised for a political purpose in our contemporary societies was the role of the pro-Israel lobbies both in the US and UK in pushing for the both the first Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq.

Not just content with pumping out the fake ' they threw babies out of incubators ' propaganda in the Gulf War, the Israeli lobby and pro-Israel media also pumped out the fake ' 45 minutes to bomb London - fake WMD ' bullshit before the Iraq War.

This was a crime against humanity - an example of the same kind of propaganda that Julius Streicher once published in the nazi paper Der Sturmer in order to justify the nazi invasions of Poland the Europe. Julius Streicher was hung for his pro-war propaganda, in the UK the media propagandists get knighthoods and in the US they get invited onto CNN and Fox news to pump more bullshit into the enfeebled brains of US citizens.

Such is life in our Moronocracies.

Jihad Watch is a site designed to 'control' the anti-Jihadist movement by ensuring the pro-Zionist lobbies and groups in the US control the development of the anti-Jihadist movement itself.

It is a sort of pro-Zionist anti-Islam propaganda site, where the anti-Islamists of the world can attack Islam whilst the issues of WHY Jihadism is growing does not ever mention the following nasty little secrets ;

1) Israels treatment of the Palestinians

2) The power of the Israeli lobby over US foreign policy

3) The domination of the Israeli lobby groups over Washington politics and US electoral system through funding of both Republican and Democrat candidates in elections

4) The power of the pro-Israel lobby groups in the American media that propagandised the Gulf War and the attack of Iraq and that spread the 'fake WMD' propaganda that was the bogus basis of the Iraq War itself.

Its main role as a website is to ensure that the Israeli-Zionist lobby groups can control the development of the anti-Jihadist movement across Europe and the US and thereby ensure that the tricky questions they do not want addressed never get raised in public.

It is a site all about Paradigm Control, and the site seeks to ensure that growing anti-Jihadist movement does not develop into a united and cohesive movement that not only rejects Jihadist and Islamist infulence in our nations, but that also rejects the power of the Zionist lobby groups and pro-Israel lobbies in our nations.

What Jihad Watch wants is for the West to reject Islamism, but to continue to be coerced and manipulated by the pro-Zionists and pro-Israel lobby groups that have such undue influence in our nations.

We all know that the primary lobby group in the US is the loony Christian Fundamentalist 'Jesus will return to Israel' Rapture types and the Israeli lobby groups, and both these groups have an interest in inciting anti-Islamism but minimising the threat from the US and UK public realising that the danger is from Islamism but that the reason why Islamism is growing is because of the foreign policy dcisions of their governments and their unswerving and uncritical support of Israel.

This is why the pro-Zionists and Christian Fundamentalists seek such a tight grip on the development of the anti-islamist movement, as they know that the moment the public begins to ask that one question " Why do they hate us so much " instead of their usual " Why are we putting up with the Islamist terrorists" then that question opens a whole can of worms that they cannot afford to be opened up.

Here is the e mail that banned me from Robert Spencer and here is the link to the thread.

" To whom it may concern:

I am going to ban this fellow Lee John Barnes forthwith, as we have seen enough of his repugnant views, but I have decided not to remove his posts. Since he has stood for office as a BNP member, the repugnant neo-Nazism and antisemitism he has displayed here should serve as a wakeup call for all those who come here wanting to defend the BNP on anti-jihad grounds.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a game Maoists play. Defenders of Western civlization, and of all that is humane in the world, should not be so willing to become like that which they are fighting in order to defeat it.

Robert Spencer "

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 21, 2008 12:57 PM

It is to my immense satisfaction that I was banned after just four posts.

For all those such as myself that are NATIONALISTS, we must oppose not just the Islamist threat but also the Pro-Israel lobby groups that have such influence and control over our nations and our foreign policies.

Nationalism is not about attacking Islamism whilst allowing the greasy Zionists to slime their way into power over us.

Unless we control our own political and national destiny then we have already lost.

I have no hatred for Arabs and Muslims, I have been to Arab and Muslim nations and have seen they are just people like us and in many ways they have a more admirabe attitude to family and kin than we do in the West. I also have no hatred for Israel and the Jewish people, in fact I have admiration for their toughness and fortitude and their history of standing up for themselves against all odds.

But I am a British nationalist first and foremost - and their wars are not my wars.

The place for Zionists is Israel not Britain.

The Zionists and their political influence must be excised from our nation and from our political nsystem, just as the Islamists and the terrorists must be excised from our countries.

Unless we start to put the interests OF OUR OWN PEOPLE AND COUNTRIES FIRST then what is the point of fighting Islamism if we are falling into the trap of domination by Zionist and pro-Israel lobby groups.

Both Zionism and the Jihadists must be resisted and removed from any positions of power in British and US soceity.

The terrorist threat from Jihadism is as much a danger to our national democracies as the threat posed by the pro-Israel lobby groups. Both are anti-democratic forces with the interests of their respective agendas taking precedence to the interests of our nations.

So Mr.Spencer you and the rest of the brainwashed Zionist sock puppets that despise Jihadism but who are willing to blindfold themselves about the pro-Zionist and Pro-Israel lobby groups that threaten the democracies of our nations can go screw themselves.

We see you for what you are - propagandists and manipulators with an pro-Israel and anti-US and anti-UK agenda.

You want to keep us mired in your petty little dirt and religious wars in the Middle East.

We will end all influence that both Zionism and Islamism have in our society - we stand for a free , fair and impartial Britain not a slave to either Islamism or Israel.

America and the Mass Animals

It is high time that the white American public began to realise just how conned they have been by the so called Melting Pot that is American society. Whilst Barack Obama is fetishised by the white liberal media and promoted ceaselessly as a ‘unity‘ candidate it has become apparent that there is no racial ‘unity’ in America and that race is an issue for all sides in the election. None more so than for blacks.

For decades white American idiots have been sucking up the Oprah Winfrey ‘lets all be one race’ crap like Labour MP’s in Parliament have been snorting up lines of coke in the toilets. Yet as soon as she could manage Oprah dumped all the ‘unity’ crap rhetoric she had been venting for years and voted black, just because she was black and Obama is half black, though with a black skin to make him black enough to vote for. Oprah has made hundreds of millions of dollars suckering gullible white lemmings with her ‘lets all be one’ bullshit and then as soon as a black comes along, she votes black.

So much for unity.

Yet whilst blacks have retained their sense of racial unity, whites have been taught that THEIR race does not matter and that it is racist for them to think it does. But the same rule does not apply to blacks.

Blacks still think, act and vote as a Black Block.

As soon as a black candidate appears in the mainstream media then the Black Block vote for them en masse. For blacks all that matters is that the candidate is also black. The same goes for white liberals. All that matters for the sad, whining white liberal scum is also that the candidate is black. Mexicans and Hispanics always vote for the Hispanic candidate.

It is race and gender that are the central dynamics at play in this election, not politics and policies.

This election is confirmation that not only is multi-culturalism a myth in America, but that it will always be a myth. As long as black and white skins cover hominid skeletons then race and racism between all the races will exist. Blacks will always see whites as whites, and whites will always see blacks as blacks. Even the mixed race children of the mixed race relationships will always be either black or white depending on the tone of the melanin genes they inherit. Their has never been, and their never will be, a melting pot.

The true measure of a society is not what is portrayed in the movies or the media but what goes on in the prisons. Prisons are the true reflection of any society, free from the illusions generated by the press. In American prisons the central dynamic is race. If you are white then you then you hang around with other white prisoners and you join a white prison gang. If you don’t then you become a target for the blacks, Mexicans and other ethnic gangs in the prison system. In prisons your skin is your uniform. Though you may have been raised watching the Cosby show, listening to rap, loving Oprah and high fiving your black hommies in the hood - none of that matters if you are white. As soon as you enter the penal system then you become white or black even if you have spent your entire life being grey.

There are in America White Blocks and Black Blocks.

The existence of the Black Block in American elections is proof that America is not a melting pot. A few degenerate white liberal journalists who are ’tourists’ into the ’black experience’ and who promote their vacuous views as somehow ‘mainstream’ are not representative of America. They exist in an artificial liberal, cultural bubble that is about as real as the ‘reality’ of America portrayed in American sitcoms and movies. Their bullshit is about as real as an episode of Star Trek.

America is no longer a society, it is an illusion pimped out on plasma screens TV’s for useless fat assholes to digest as they choke on their supersize burgers and giant size bottles of coca cola. The average American, like the average Briton, German, Irish etc is a Mass Animal. Raised with the TV on at all times, sent to schools where politically correct crap is pumped into their brains and saturated by media bullshit their entire lives they do not develop into individuals, instead they become ciphers. America no longer produces individuals, it produces consumers. It spawns endless generations of mass animals whose destiny is to spawn ever more mass animals.

The greatness of America was that in that vast land, the great individual could claim a great destiny for themselves. Now America no longer produces individuals. It produces consumers. In order to be someone the average American must become no-one. Their individuality must be replaced with commodity fetishism where they must wear the right brand of trainer, the right make of T-shirt and listen to the right music. Even rebellion is manufactured for them. If you want to rebel you can always be a plastic hippie, some arsehole that says ’man’ a lot and who thinks listening to Jimi Hendrix is somehow radical. Even the anti-war protests are just an embarrassing re-run of the 1960’s. Watching white, bespectacled New York lesbians in tie dyed dresses waving placards with ’Give Peace A Chance’ on them is about as pathetic as one could get.

America has become a caricature of itself. It swaggers around the world with its six guns blazing whilst preaching a creedo of Hollywood political correctness. Love each other man or we will drop a daisy cutter on you. Tolerance enforced by tanks on street corners, love promoted with hate for the South, diversity guaranteed with hate crime laws, banning the Confederate flag whilst legalising mass abortions. So much for freedom.

Like all melting pots it is always those that are at the bottom that feel the heat and get burnt whilst the scum always rise to the top.

If you want a true vision of the Mass Animal that is modern America then it is not the statue of liberty.

It is a fat, drunken, diseased slut with an STD that dresses like a teenager in a too tight t-shirt, dirty denim mini skirt and white plastic high heels and then passes out drunk in front of the TV surrounded by empty TV dinners.

Sunday 20 January 2008

Jacqui Smith has Kebab

JACQUI SMITH, the home secretary (pictured above) and arch enemy of THE MYSTERONS (who are not Muslims), has admitted she would feel unsafe walking the streets of London late at night.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, she said she would not feel comfortable out alone after dark in deprived areas such as Hackney or even affluent ones like Kensington or Chelsea. She claimed streets at night were safer after 10 years of Labour in power but opposition politicians said her comments exposed the failure of the government’s policies on crime.

In the interview, Smith, the first woman home secretary, was asked whether she would feel safe walking on her own around Hackney at midnight. She replied: “Well, no, but I don’t think I’d ever have done. You know, I would never have done that, at any point during my life.” Asked why not, she answered: “Well, I just don’t think that’s a thing that people do, is it, really?”

" In real life all women in Britain go straight to bed after dark or if they are outside after dark then they are either hookers, sorry sex workers, or hoodies. "

It was pointed out that some people, such as shift workers and sex workers (the new name for prostitutes), had no choice.

She replied " That may be true but doesnt everyone go to sleep when it gets dark. My cat does and so does my parrot. The MYSTERONS dont though, they have ten eyes that can see in the dark and five legs that allow them to run as fast as a cheetah and machine guns instead of fingers that fire laser beams. They are not Muslims though. "

She was also asked whether she would feel unsafe walking around an area such as Kensington and Chelsea. “Well, I wouldn’t walk around at midnight and I’m fortunate that I don’t have to do that,” she replied " I live in an Ivory Tower surrounded by fat coppers with machine guns and therefore I am as out of tough with reality as Michael Jackson is in Neverland. Thats why I make such a good politician, because the real world is not something I know a lot about. I know about the MYSTERONS though, and those evil alien terrorist bastards have to be crushed before they take over the world, though they are not Muslims remember. "

Smith, who is protected by police bodyguards, said she had walked around Redditch, her Worcestershire constituency which is very like Peckham but without the drug dealers, gangsters and drive by shootings, though Redditch does have a young man with offensive zits who roams the streets and scares the non-Zitty population a lot.

“I don’t get the opportunity to walk around on my own now but I certainly have done in the recent past, on my own. I even one went to the shops once on my own and went into Poundland, which is a shop that sells everything for fifty pence. This proves I am just like you poor scruffy working class types who vote for me as I visit shops like Poundland too. ”

After the interview, a worried aide called The Sunday Times saying the wording had not come out as the home secretary had intended. She said Smith had recently “bought a kebab in Peckham. Jacqui was waiting outside the kebab shop in a tank whilst an Apache helicopter hovered overhead machine gunning any locals that got near the shop ”.

When pressed for details on the identity of the kebab shop her minion replied " That is a confidential police matter as is whether she had mint suce or mint yoghurt with it. The MYSTERONS may be able to track her down by the identity of the kebab " and refused to answer any more questions on the matter of the kebab.

(for members of the press / government / police reading this I have copyrighted the words THE MYSTERONS to describe the non-Muslim Islamist terrorists who are not motived by Islam/ Islamism. Therefore if any overpaid fifthwit in the Home Office uses my copyrighted phrase to describe Al Qaeda / THE MYSTERONS then I will sue your ass ).

Saturday 19 January 2008

Al Qaeda are THE MYSTERONS says Home Secretary

As per the recent news about the arrest of the blogger Lionheart for anti-Muslim sentiments, I have decided to obey the Home Secretary Jackie Smiths orders and no longer refer to muslims, Islam etc. According to the Home Secretary and the cabal of idiots that advise her, the terrorists are not Muslims motivated by Islam, but they are instead aliens from outer space called the Mysterons.

Therefore the law now says we must refer to them as below ;

Image above - An anti-Islamic terrorist leader of the Mysterons photographed in Bradford. Beware the full moon, when this one walks the earth.

Image above - Osama Bin Laden leader of the Mysterons (and not a Muslim terrorist). You thought that Osama was human - he aint. He is an alien that looks like a human because he has a plastic artificial skin over him. This is him about to have a bath in the noody.

Image below - The new head of MI5 Captain Scarlet. Seeing as the real MI5 cannot discover the terrorists before they blow up our airports and tube trains the government have bought Gerry Anderson puppets out of retirement to fight the alien threat of the Mysterons ( the group that used to be known as Al Qaeda).

Image below - the Home Secretary Jackie Smith as she will be be seen doing press interviews from now on.

I bet George Orwell is pissing himself laughing in literary heaven at the bunch of sad twats that run this country. Joseph Goebbels is nodding his head with approval.

Peak Oil and the Media

An interesting article in the Times concerning the issue of Peak Oil and its looming threat.

The article states ;

Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark, according to leading oil industry experts who gave warning that human factors, not geology, will drive the oil market.

A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day.

The optimistic view of the world's oil resource was also given support by BP's chief economist, Peter Davies, who dismissed theories of “Peak Oil” as fallacious. Instead, he gave warning that world oil production would peak as demand weakened, because of political constraints, including taxation and government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "

Yet again this article reveals how issues as important as Peak Oil should not be left to journalists to discuss. Most journalists are just gullible muppets, they are sent by their editors to a conference, scribble a few notes and then return to write the story. Their editor then tweaks it so that it fits the newspapers political stance (in that it agrees with their sponsored political party that they propagandise) and then the story is printed.

The facts are rarely printed.

Fact 1 ) The Cambridge Energy Research Associates group is funded by the oil companies and also ancillary companies linked to the oil companies such as their accounting firms. Oil reserves for oil comapnies are like cash reserves for banks. The more oil an oil company says it has, then the higher its shares are worth. Therefore any research published by any organisation funded by the oil companies has to be further investigated and its findings confirmed before its reports can be accepted.

Fact 2 ) There are in fact 5 peaks in the Peak Oil scenario, not just one.

These are ;

A) The Peak Oil physical peak when the amount of oil consumed finally passes the half way point.

B) The Environmental Peak when the effect of decades of oil production and usage causes irreversible climate change that causes long term problems for the global eco-sphere.

C) The Economic Peak when the era of cheap oil ends and the debt based global petro-dollar recycling system collapses. Modern consumerism is based on cheap credit and cheap oil and the moment that the production costs of getting the oil, refining it and supplying it rises then that cost has to be passed on to the users of that oil. This price rise impacts at all points in the commodity production process at the same time as the consumer is themselves having to spend more money on energy costs both directly and indirectly. Consumerism is itself a product of the oil and energy exchange process and will be the first victim of Peak Oil.

D) The Political Peak is when nation states will no longer accept their servile status as dependents on imported oil and energy. The political peak is about ensuring national energy security, it is linked to the corporate takeover of nation states via middle eastern banks and Russian oligarchs who are buying up strategic sectors of our national infrastructure (docks, ports, banks, industries, water companies etc), and it concerns the awareness of the issue of future eco-conflicts and the oil wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

E) Peak Food which is the point when oil prices impact on food production costs and when the amount of food production dependent on oil can no longer supply all those that demand food.

Each of these five peaks are all related to the Peak Oil issue.

Though the point when more than half the amount of oil used may be imminent, the other peaks are all imminent as well.

Climate change is increasing, energy bills are rising in the UK, the issue of energy security has become pressing due to the conflicts with Russia just as we are becoming dependent upon imported energy and Russian gas and oil supplies to fill the increasing energy gap and the number of people who are angry at the 'War For Oil' in Iraq is rising.

Oil demand is rising. An article in the Financial Times in June 2007 stated that ;

"The IEA now expects demand for oil to rise by 1.7m barrels a day this year compared to last year – an increase of about 2 per cent – and non-Opec oil supply to rise by just 900,000 b/d. That rise in demand is 167,000 b/d more than the IEA had previously estimated, while the rise in non-Opec supply is 97,000 b/d less.

The report estimated that world oil stocks could drop by 1m-1.5m barrels a day in the third quarter, which it said “would push forward stock cover down towards the low levels seen when prices accelerated higher in 2004. That is, by itself, a concern.”

The world population is rising and their expectations are rising. They all wants cars, air conditioning and DVD players and plasma televisions. They also demand more food. More people means more demands for food, fuel, energy, plastics and food – all highly dependent on oil. In the ten years from 2002 to 2012, the world population is expected to rise from 6.23 billion to 6.96 billion, an extra 12% to be fed, supplied and energised. Along with population, the other factor is the increasing use of oil in developing countries – countries which, up to now, had been contributing little to consumption.

The oil price has just reached an all time peak of $100 dollars a barrel.

The media are political in that they will only publicise problems the political parties they support think they can solve.

At the moment the media are seeking to undermine and trivialise the issue of Peak Oil as they know that the political parties they each support and propagandise ( The Times the Tories, The Guardian the Labour Party, the Independent the Lib Dems etc ) will not, and cannot , offer any long term solution to the problem.

The solution is simply Environmental Nationalism, the creation of a nation state predicated on the basis of sustainable national self sufficiency in energy, food, industry and economics.

The only party that offers that solution is the BNP.