Obama Betrays 911 Families

What else did you expect to happen - Obama is a puppet of the Banksters and the Shadow Government - both of whom profited from 911 and were involved in allowing it to happen.

911 was a Managed Attack - they knew it was coming and let it happen as they needed a new 'Pearl Harbour' for their plans for an Oil Empire in the Middle East to secure the last oil supplies as Peak Oil hits.




http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/saud-j26.shtml


Obama administration seeks to quash suit by 9/11 families
By Barry Grey
26 June 2009

The Obama administration has intervened to quash a civil suit filed against Saudi Arabia by survivors and family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The suit seeks to hold the Saudi royal family liable, charging that it provided financial and other support to Al Qaeda and was thereby complicit in the hijack bombings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington DC.

According to an article by Eric Lichtblau in the June 24 New York Times, documents assembled by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” However, the article states, the documents may never find their way into court because of legal challenges by Saudi Arabia, which are being supported by the US Justice Department.

The administration is taking extraordinary measures to kill the suit and suppress the evidence of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Last month, the Justice Department sided in court with the Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action. Moreover, it had copies of American intelligence documents on Saudi finances that had been leaked to lawyers for the families destroyed, and is now seeking to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, rejecting the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot sue in the US against a sovereign nation and its leaders. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether to hear an appeal, but the families’ prospects have been weakened by the intervention of the Obama administration, which has called on the court not to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal.

The Times reports that it obtained the new documents from the families’ lawyers, adding that they are among “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families in their long-running suit against the Saudi royal family.

Lichtblau writes that the documents “provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of September 11, 2001.” However, there is a wealth of evidence in the public record strongly pointing to such a connection. And there is the 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks. Lichtblau writes that “the secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers.”

Then-President George W. Bush ordered that section of the congressional report to be classified, and its contents were blacked out in the findings released to the public by Congress. The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.

Lichtblau reports that the material obtained by the Times from the families’ lawyers includes “thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents” that provide “an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.” He cites as one example “internal Treasury Department documents” that show that the International Islamic Relief Organization, a “Saudi charity,” heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, “provided ‘support for terrorist organizations’ at least through 2006.”

He gives other examples of evidence of Saudi support for Islamist terrorists in Bosnia in the 1990s and witness statements and intelligence reports of money being given by Saudi princes to the Taliban and to “militants’ activities” in Pakistan and Bosnia during the same decade.

What are the motives behind the Obama administration’s efforts to cover up the connections between the Saudi monarchy and Al Qaeda?

The Justice Department, according to the Times, cites “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” should the 9/11 families’ suit be allowed to go to trial. This is undoubtedly a factor. The US has an immense political and economic interest in protecting the Saudi dictatorship, which is a major American ally in the Middle East, a supporter of Washington’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world’s biggest producer of oil.

But there is a more immediate and compelling reason for suppressing any exposure of the Saudi connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies.

Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington.

The ties between the Saudi and US intelligence establishments were strengthened during the US-backed war against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s. The US poured billions of dollars in arms and financing into this war, most of it funneled through the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency.

The Saudi regime also helped fund the anti-Soviet guerrillas, many of whom were brought to Afghanistan by Islamist forces in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden served as the Saudi regime’s personal emissary in this cause, helping to organize, train and equip Arab volunteers for the Afghan war. The movement now known as Al Qaeda was spawned through the interaction of these three intelligence agencies—the CIA, the ISI and the Saudis.

The bipartisan 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, echoed the Bush administration’s whitewash of Saudi ties to the terrorist attacks, declaring that it found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda.

However, in a book published later that year, Intelligence Matters, then-Florida Senator Bob Graham charged the Bush administration with orchestrating a cover-up of Saudi involvement in the September 11 attacks. Graham was at the time the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had carried out, along with its House counterpart, the joint congressional investigation into 9/11.

He wrote that “evidence of official Saudi supportî for at least some of the hijackers was ìincontrovertible.” Graham’s charges focused on the extraordinary cases of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were identified as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

The two men, both Saudi nationals, are undoubtedly the “two hijackers” to whom Times reporter Lichtblau refers in connection with the secret section of the joint congressional report on 9/11.

Both were known to US intelligence as Al Qaeda operatives at least since 1999. Malaysian agents, acting in concert with the CIA, photographed and videotaped them and others during a 2000 meeting of Islamist terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Nevertheless, after the meeting, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were allowed to fly to the US using their own passports and visas issued by US consular authorities in Saudi Arabia. While the CIA knew of their presence in the US, it did not inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to the FBI. (The CIA disputes this claim, insisting that it did alert the FBI). Nor did the CIA inform immigration authorities.

After landing in Los Angeles in January of 2000, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were met by Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi civil aviation authority. US investigators have concluded that al-Bayoumi was a Saudi intelligence agent.

Al-Bayoumi invited the pair to move to San Diego, where he found them an apartment, provided them with money and helped enroll them in flight school.

It has been reported that al-Bayoumi served as a conduit for thousands of dollars in funding for the future hijackers sent by Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US and a close confidante of the Bush family.

Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar lived openly in the US, one of them even having his name listed in the telephone directory.

Within months, al-Hazmi moved into the home of Abdussattar Shaikh, a retired professor at San Diego State University. Shaikh was on the FBI payroll, charged with monitoring the activities of Islamist groups in the San Diego region.

In his book, Graham wrote that the FBI concealed from the joint congressional committee the fact that its paid informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, had established a close personal relationship with the two hijackers.

When the committee staff discovered Shaikh’s role and the committee issued a subpoena to question him under oath, the FBI and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to serve the subpoena. Graham said that a senior FBI official wrote to him and the Republican co-chair of the joint committee declaring that the administration would neither allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on Shaikh nor allow the committee staff to interview him.

Graham wrote that this was the only time he had ever heard of the FBI refusing to serve a congressional subpoena. He commented, “We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing a cover-up.”

Bush’s extraordinary intervention to block questioning of FBI informant Shaikh was consistent with his administration’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when it allowed chartered planes to ferry some 140 prominent Saudis—including at least a dozen of Osama bin Laden’s relatives—to Boston for evacuation to Saudi Arabia. The pick-up flights were organized at a time when all non-military and non-emergency aviation had been grounded by government order. Bin Laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country with little or no questioning by the FBI.

In his book, Graham himself posed the question of why the congressional committee was denied access to the San Diego FBI informant. After offering several possible answers, he suggested in deliberately obscure language a “far more damning possibility”—“perhaps the informant did know something about the plot that would be even more damaging were it revealed, and that this is what the FBI is trying to conceal.”

Graham did not spell out what “damning” information about the 9/11 conspiracy the informant might have revealed. But the role of the CIA, the FBI and the Bush administration in the case of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar suggests that it went beyond involvement by the Saudi government. It strongly suggests he was blocked from being questioned out of concern that he would reveal that elements within the US state apparatus knew of plans for an impending hijacking and allowed them to go forward.

Eight years after the attacks, no one has been held accountable for what on its face is the greatest failure of national security in US history. The question is: Was it a failure, or was a decision taken to permit a terrorist attack on US soil in order to provide the pretext for implementing plans for wars abroad and repressive policies at home that had been drawn up well in advance of September 11, 2001?

That a new administration is continuing the policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy and suppressing evidence of its complicity in 9/11 points strongly to the latter explanation.

Michael Jackson - Did You Weep ?

Did you shed a single tear for the children of Beslan,
Or weep when Israeli bombs tore apart Gaza ?

Did you cry at the crimes of coalition forces,
As they turned Iraq into rubble in your name ?

Did you watch as the babies of Waco were burnt,
Then turned your scorched face from the fire ?

Did you see the twin towers fall live on TV,
Yet remained distant and disconnected ?

Did you see the flowers of Dunblane slain,
And yet remained dry eyed and impassive ?

Did you just walk past a shivering stranger,
Who is dying in rags on the street where you live ?

Yet today you weep for Michael Jackson,
The Pop Star,
The Paedophile,
Someone that you never met,
Mourning as though you knew him,
As though he were an old friend,
Or a member of your family.

Can you not see that you are sick,
Deranged,
And disturbed,
Projecting your delusions,
Onto all your false idols,
Whilst all around you is the hell,
That your ignorance is creating.

The Positive Discrimination President

Obama is worse than useless.

You all know it.

You voted for him not because of his skills or the content of his character but simply because he was black and because the media told you that if you didnt vote for him then you were a racist.

And you suckers fell for it.

Obama is a glimpse of the future, a prefiguration of the inevitability of the death of the West from the pernicious infections of Political Correctness and Positive Discrimination.

Americans were faced with a choice - a President who had decades of political experience at all levels of politics but who was white or one who had virtually no political experience but who was black.

America therefore opted for Positive Discrimination - they chose to give the less qualified candidate the job simply because he was black and by so doing signed the death warrant for America's future.

Do you liberal morons really think that in China they give a toss about Positive Discrimination - of course they dont.

In National Socialist China they have only one aim for their society - the most brilliant get given the best jobs.

Whilst in the West what happens is that the less qualified, the less skilled and the less intelligent are given jobs simply because of their race. The better qualified if they are the of the wrong race dont get the job.

At the moment we have Affirmative Action where if two equally qualified people apply for a job then the Non-White gets it simply because they are not White, but the Equality Bill legalises Positive Discrimination where the less qualified non-white will be given the job instead of the better qualified White.

Though this has been happening informally for decades, where the less qualified Non-White are being goven jobs so that the employer can demonstrate their anti-racist and politically correct credentials or apply for lucrative contracts with councils that demand quoatas be filled as regards non-whites - the Equality Bill will allow Positive Discrimination to be legalised and in effect create an Anti-White Racist state.

It is no coincidence that the same Equality Bill enacts legislation that will seek to ban the BNP, the one organisation in our country that represents the interests of the White indigenous community and that seeks to prevent politically correct racism against indigenous whites, at the same time as it legalises Positive Discrimination.

The Equality Bill is a declaration of war against us. It is the creation of a Liberal Fascist State and it must be resisted.

The idea that recruiting less qualified non-whites and leaving better qualified Whites on the dole will increase racial harmony is insane. As soon as people start dying because less qualified non-whites are getting jobs not on merit but simply because of their race then the faster the whole PC state system will collapse.

How do you think this insanity will affect the West in the future when we have idiots running the country simply because their skin tone dictated their ability to get employment ?

It is just so ironic that within one generation we have gone from a situation where skin colour damaged a persons employment ability to one where skin tone is now the primary basis for an individuals employment - and in the process we have abandoned talent, qualifications and individualism for a politically correct system which is even more pernicious than the old 'nudge, nudge wink, wink' type of informal racism.

The old style of informal racism was usually the preserve of pathetic venal people who knew what they were doing was wrong and illegal but they did it anyway, whilst now the New Racism is state sanctioned and legalised and regarded with almost moral fervour.

The New Racism is explictly racist and has legalised every form of racism that it once frowned upon - in the name of 'equality' it has imposed Positive Discrimination and quotas, both of which are the most de-humanising racist dynamics present in our society today.

The New Racism doesnt see individuals it only see's races and thereby legitimises race hatred against whites.

If you are white male in this country you are now in a far worse position than any black male in British history - primarily because whilst previous forms of racism were shunned by most of society and illegal, the New Racism is legal, accepted by the mass of society and because it is based on the terrorism of the word 'racist' being deployed against anyone that dares point out the innate racism of the New Racism, goes unchallenged in the media and society generally.

Positive Discrimination is the most evil and insidious form of racism ever invented.

It is based on lies and deceits, and yet anyone daring to question it is instantly designated a racist.

Positive Discrimination in effect states that our entire society is racist and everyone everywhere who is white is racist and that therefore a racist anti-white state must be built which removes the civil and legal rights of white people to ensure that blacks and other privileged groups are able to take extra rights for themselves.

Positive Discrmination says that white people, who are the majority in Britain and America, have their jobs not because of their individual skills and talents but simply because they are white. It also says that the reason why blacks and other non-white groups are not 'represented' in proportion to their numbers in the overall population in any employment sector is because of racism - regardless of the fact that those jobs may be in areas of the employment sector that have traditionally may not have attracted members of those non-white groups.

At every level the White population are attacked and denigrated and excuses made for those who are not white - and in order to rectify this 'racist' imbalance then better qualified non-whites must be employed instead of better qualified Whites.

China must be laughing its bollocks off.

The more the West indulges in the suicidal death cults of Political Correctness and positive discrimination the faster it is about to fall.

China and those nations such as Russia that have lived through this trite Communist nonsense, as both Political Correctness and Positive Discrimination are both relics of the 20th Century Communist ideology, reject them in their entirety.

In both those countries they have built meritocracies where the issue of race is totally irrelevant - what matters is simply that the best and the brightest are promoted to the best jobs so the whole country benefits.

China and Russia regard political correctness and positive discrimination with the utter loathing and contempt it deserves - for both are nations predicated upon NATIONALIST politics.

Russia is a civic nationalist system predicated upon patriotism and meritocracy, whilst China is a National Socialist State predicated upon patriotism.

Only in the West has the ghost of Communism been allowed to haunt contemporary politics in the guise of political correctness and positive discrimination.

In those nations like Russia and China the entire Communist ideology has been exorcised completely - both may retain the symbols of Communism but both are Nationalist states.

Here in the West we retain the symbols of Nationalism for our states such as the national flags we wave for sports events (if the local councils are able to resist the fear of being called 'racist' when they do fly the national flag) but we are run by variants of liberalism and capitalism that are infected with the poison of Communism itself.

Obama is a glimpe of the future.

A man voted into power not because of the content of his character but simply because of the colour of his skin.

A man voted into power by the most racist vote in history - the black vote that was 96 % for Obama. Just imagine the howls of racism if whites voted as a racial block.

A man who is incapable of doing anything other than reading a teleprompter whose words were written for him ( and for doing this he is celebrated as a great orator by the white morons that run the media - even though a White man writes most of his speeches and all Obama has to do is read them, which he fails to do very often and then when the teleprompter breaks he is utterly lost ).

The West deserves all it gets.

The faster the fools that run the West destroy the West the better.

That way we, the inner barbarians who are despised by the liberals and leftists who are in the grip of their cults of political correctness and positive discrmination, can take power in the ensuing chaos with a mandate for radical change.

The faster the West implodes and collapses the sooner we can start to rebuild the West from within.

The sooner the idiot masses have their illusions ripped away from them and they are forced to confront cold, hard reality the better.

The day the West dies, is the day its rebirth begins.

Michael Jackson Dies - The world weeps

If you lived down the street from a man who used to let little boys sleep in his bed, who was accused and prosecuted for having oral sex with a 13 year old boy, who masturbated in front of children and who paid a 13 year old boy millions of pounds to not testify in a criminal trial against him for molesting him, having oral sex with him and masturbating him - then that man would be reviled, despised and hounded.

Yet when this person is a POP STAR, then the world weeps.

Forget the music - it is irrelevant.

The pleasure that he brought people with his music was destroyed the moment Michael Jackson used little children for his sexual pleasure.

The man was a monster who groomed little kids into becoming his sexual playthings.

He abused them in a way that will damage them and their lives forever.

Yet today the media and the most stupid people on the planet weep for a monster.

Just because he was famous and rich he was seen as above the law - and of course being black helps.

I wonder if the death of Gary Glitter or Pete Townsend will be met with pathetic media generated mass hysteria ?

Of course not - only if they are black and rich like Jackson and OJ Simpson are they above the law and above the moral standards that the rest of the society adheres too.

Everyone weeping for this degenerate scumbag is a total moron and hypocrite.

Those that buy this monsters records are the grossest and most pathetic people on the planet.

Those in the streets, inclusing those idiot blacks in America who are in the grip of some primitive tribal hysteria, are truly pathetic.

Whilst they dance in the streets in homage to their hero - do they spare a thought for the children he molested ?

Of course not - they are simply mindless morons enslaved to the image of the rich and famous as being icons they should abase themselves before.

This is a sick world - a sick place where sick people worship monsters because they are rich and famous.

The black man in America is now above the law if he can hire the best lawyers that money can buy - whilst the victims are despised, abused and hounded Jackon was adored and feted.

America is sick.

The world is sick.

The media is sick.

The sooner this sick society destroys itself, and devours it own monsters in its collapse, then the better.

Neda

She lay on her back, silently surrendering,
This world as her life ebbed away,
Her eyes were wide open, watching us,
As we fought to stem the flow,
Our palms pressed together as if in prayer,
Sought to keep her spirit within,
To stop it escaping from the tortured cell,
But nothing we did could stop the blood,
Nor our revolution, in all its infant joy,
Not bullets or butchery, bombs or plots,
Nor the old men in black robes raised on hate,
Whose sermons sold lies to the masses,
And kept the people in a prison of faith,
For as her blood blushed upon the street,
In timeless motion we watched the world turn,
And as Neda died, the regime died too,
Slain with the same gun, in the same street,
By the same hand and by the same killers.

The Transition Point for Nationalism

The recent election of two BNP MEP's and the frenzied response from the government has revealed that the entire Nationalist movement has to change.

The government claims that the Equality Bill will seek to ban the BNP is no idle boast - the legislation is clear and unequivocal.

It was designed as a fail safe mechanism by the government to be enacted in the event of an upsurge in electoral support for the BNP, and Harriet Harman is determined to destroy the BNP and destroy the rise of nationalism as an electable and electoral force in the country.

The legislation though doesnt just apply to the BNP - it also applies to other nationalist political parties like the National Front that also seek to stand in elections.

Those nationalist political parties whose constitutions infringe the Equality Bill provisions will face being struck off the register of political parties as controlled by the Electoral Commission and they will no longer be allowed to participate in elections.

Therefore Nationalism faces a crisis - and must evolve in line with the change in the law.

The BNP is the only serious political force in modern Nationalism.

The National Front stands in elections but does not win elections, that is a simple fact.

Hard facts have to be faced by both BNP and National Front members.

In order to fight the endless legal cases that will be required to defend nationalist parties from these laws, then parties like the NF will require hundreds of thousands of pounds to do so, and they just do not have the money.

Therefore once the Equality Bill is passed then the NF will be struck off as a political party able to stand in elections and they will not have the finances or access to legal help to enable them to fight such a case.

The BNP though will be able to go to court and apply for injunctions and Judicial Review proceedings as to test the legality of that law as the BNP will have access to the funding ( derived ironically enough from the EU ) to allow them to initiate a prolonged legal struggle against those laws.

The BNP have also been planning a legal response to the new laws for years and already have in place plans and procedures in the event of the law being enacted.

For the Nationalist movement to be in the position of having two parties spending hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting the bans at the same time is absurd - there is only ever so much money in the Nationalist pot to be shared out between nationalist parties.

Therefore the National Front has to re-evaluate what its role is in the Nationalist movement.

Yesterday the National Front staged a demonstration against the open borders fanatics who use asylum seekers to bolster their cause in Tyneside, and this was a superb example of what the NF does best.

The National Front is an organisation for those people who are Street Activists, not political activists.

When it sticks to street activism it does a superb job, but when it stands against the BNP in elections then all it does is split the nationalist vote.

The NF, as I stated above, does not win elections - therefore when it does stand in elections against the BNP then all it does is open the door to non-nationalist parties to take seats from the BNP.

There is no point in this.

The BNP have no interest in seeking to retrun to street activism so the way is clear for the NF to become the primary organiation in the UK that organises and deploys those nationalists who are not interested in political electioneering but in street activism.

The NF will be banned under the law from participating in elections.

Therefore it will have to change from being a political party to a Nationalist organisational hub.

There is huge hole in the nationalist movement.

That is based upon the fact that whilst Nationalist parties compete against each other for votes, there is no mainstream nationalist organisation that recruits, trains and deploys nationalist activists in street activities to counter the activities of organisations such as the UAF.

Every time the UAF demonstrate against Nationalist parties like the BNP then there should be a counter demonstration by nationalist activists against those UAF demonstrations.

The National Front must become the Nationalist counterpart to the Leftist UAF.

The NF should be organising massive Armistice Day celebrations, demonstrations, festivals, rock concerts, marches, cultural events and many other nationalist cultural events, not wasting theit time on electioneering.

Whenever the pro-asylum seeker lobby groups and pro-open borders groups organises one of their pathetic stret demonstrations then a Nationalist organisation must attend to counter demonstrate.

Yet this has not happened.

But this is precisely the role that the NF would do best.

It could take all those Nationalists that have rejected the demands required for electoral politics, for whatever reason, and train them up and deploy them as street activists to counter the reds on the streets.

The BNP is and will remain the primary politial voice and party for political Nationalists.

The NF will never be able to challenge the BNP in any way as regards our electoral capacity and support.

The BNP will not return to street activism, marches and mass demonstrations - simply as to do would damage our electoral development.

We must concentrate on getting elected not on confronting reds in the street.

Our activists are hard at work already at every level of the political process and for the BNP to start street activities would merely divert money, time, skills and people from the huge amount of electoral work required to get us elected into power.

Therefore the NF must change and become a Nationalist organisation predicated upon the creation of a massive street presence capable of blocking the UAF and others who have stated that they wish to use violence against the BNP.

It not just the NF who must change though as so must the BNP.

The BNP must start to nourish and assist young nationalists through the educational system and into universities and training that allow them to develop the skill sets that Nationalism will require in the future - from bankers, journalists, writers, lawyers, small business owners etc etc

The BNP must begin to create an entire Nationalist Counter Culture in Britain that runs alongside the existing system - in effect we must begin the proces of building a Nationalist Community Network that will be the basis of our future social and political development in the future alongside our political campaigning.

We must build a nationalist movement in our communities that sustains our political growth.

We must build a Nationalist Majority on the ground in our communities who will vote us into power at election times and whose loyalty to to us will not be affected by media lies directed against us.

Alongside politics the BNP must begin Community Network Building.

The NF must also now start to reassess what its role in the Nationalist movement is -and it cannot avoid this any longer.

Over recent years the NF has become a home for many people who have left the BNP but who have taken their grudges and anger with them - and in many ways these people are motivated more by anti-BNP bias than any pro-NF sentiment.

These people are in many cases good organisers and intelligent people - but their skills are being wasted and their anti-BNP animosity clouding their judgement.

The issue for all Nationalists must not be what is good for them, but what is good simply for the Nationalist movement.

It has never been beneficial to the Nationalist movement to have two nationalist political parties competing for votes. Every nationalist knows this, though many will not admit this as they are motivated by anti-BNP irrationalism and personal petty grudges to the extent that they refuse to embrace any common sense.

Others are loyal to the principle that the NF must remain a political party that stands in elections - but when the Equality Bill is passed this will no longer be an option.

They will come for the NF as well as the BNP, and the NF unlike the BNP cannot defend itself from this attack.

Those who are motivated simply by anti-BNP bias have been the barriers to the growth of the Nationalist movement for decades.

They will carry on attacking the BNP and insisting the NF stay in electoral politics and stand against the BNP even if it meant the NF became prohibited from standing in elections and simply vanished forever or the BNP kept losing elections because of the split vote.

These people were the ones who worked with parties in the recent elections simply to ensure the BNP vote was undermined - which puts such people alongside the UAF in terms of treachery.

They would rather the NF implode and the BNP lose seats than a cohesive Nationalist movement evolve where each specialised in what each did best.

These are the Stormfront lurkers who hide under a hundred fake names on stormfront and spend all their time attacking nationalists and nationalist parties who are working hard for our people simply because they are poisonous little idiots motivated by hatred and grudges.

Their agenda has nothing positive to add to Nationalism, as they are simply the same old crowd of wreckers, splitters and lunatics that have specialised in negativity and internal feuding for decades.

We can no longer tolerate these people within the Nationalist movement - simply because they are not Nationalists.

Nationalists are dedicated to the empowerment and growth of the nationalist movement - the wreckers are simply motivated by their own petty hatreds, feuds and paranoia.

They can no longer be regarded as Nationalists just because they self designate themselves as nationalists.

They are a liability that must be dumped by the entire Nationalist movement.

Anyone who spends all their time on their fat arses doing nothing at all for the movement in any way but talking shite and slagging off nationalists and nationalist parties on the internet and on sites such as Stormfront is not a nationalist. They are as much an enemy of nationalism as the UAF.

A debate has now to begin in every sector of the Nationalist movement.

This debate can lead to positive change for everyone, or simply destroy the nationalist movement itself and set Nationalist politics and electioneering back twenty years.

We do not have that time to waste any more.

Gang Rape is a Racial Issue

The article below does not mention one very important fact - the race of the victims of these gang rape attacks, who are as previous articles on this blog pointed out are in the main white.

In regard to rapes generally the same sort of statistics reveal that black males are also more likely to be rapists than any other racial group ;

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/r247.pdf

Note the whining excuses given in the document seeking to obscure the fact that black males commit more rapes than other racial groups and that the victims are more likely to be white women.

The police even state that white rape victims may not be reporting attacks - and we know that this will be because of fear of reprisals.

The police try and say that because more blacks are in London this leads to a higher figure of rapes involving black males - but one has to ask what the figures would be nationally if the ethnic concentration of black males in London were replicated across the country - would that lead to a massive rise in numbers of rapes nationally ?

Would the statistics of London be replicated across the country ?

The police even have the disgusting nerve to say that black males may be over represented in the statistics as a group as the victims of the rapes are being targeted by black serial rapists - an example of twisted logic with no foundation at all.

Reagrdless of whether the rapes are committed by individuals or serial attackers the statistics show that most rapes are committed by black males.

Therefore we can also say we have mainly black males raping mainly white women in one report ( The Sexual Offences Index report) and mainly black women being raped by black males in another report ( the British Crime Survey), though the police believe the former SOI report is more accurate as under reporting may occur when white women are raped by black males - by up to 40 % the police estimate in the report for the year 2002/3.

http://www.newstatesman.com/199811200011

Black youths aged 12-17, the programme tried to establish, are responsible for the rape of black girls. A trawl through the courts revealed that, in 80 per cent of the cases of gang rape, the defendants are black.

Yet the Police, CPS and Judges do not prosecute these crimes as having a racist motivation - they are simply regarded as crimes as the victims are just whites.

With the 2005 crime figures in the US revealing that black males raped or sexually attacked over 37,400 white women whilst white males were convicted of just 8 rapes against black women in the same year, and figures from South Africa revealing that a quarter of all black males admitted being rapists - then the issue is certainly a racial issue.

A superb article on this issue is here ;


http://tottenhamlad.blogspot.com/2008/03/savage-path-from-knoxville-to-tottenham.html#ntst_NAAR





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gang-rape-is-it-a-race-issue-1711381.html

Gang rape: Is it a race issue?

A high proportion of such attacks appears to be carried out by young black men, according to Metropolitan Police statistics. Sorious Samura investigates this horrendous crime – and what it says about Britain today


Sunday, 21 June 2009

In 1999 I witnessed a gang rape in Sierra Leone. I was forced to watch a group of rebel soldiers taking it in turns to rape a young girl in front of an audience of jeering men. It was the height of the civil conflict and rape had become a devastating weapon of war. When I moved to Britain I believed I had escaped such horrific sexual violence. As my Dispatches investigation tomorrow night shows, I was mistaken. Gang rape is happening here – and what I have found most disturbing as an African is that a disproportionate number of these attacks are being carried out by black or mixed-race young men.


Towards the end of last year, police and child welfare experts working on Channel 4's Street Weapons Commission told us of their concerns about gang rape. Then two big cases hit the headlines.

In December, nine schoolboys, some as young as 13 at the time of the attack, were convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl. She was dragged between tower blocks in Hackney where she was threatened with a knife, hit and raped during an ordeal that lasted an hour and a half – some of which was filmed on mobile phones. In January, three men were convicted of gang raping a 16-year-old with learning disabilities for two hours before dousing her with caustic soda in an effort to get rid of the evidence.

How prevalent is this crime and why it is happening in Britain? Despite the seriousness of the crime, I was amazed to discover that no national statistics exist: gang rape is simply not recorded as a separate crime category. So over a period of several months we set about collating our own.

We approached the Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers, all 50 police forces, crown courts, barristers and rape referral centres to try to establish the numbers.

One of the few police forces to have begun recording the figures of reported gang rape is the Metropolitan Police. In 2008 alone, they received reports of 85 gang rapes. Using the Met's definition of gang rape – those involving three or more perpetrators – we began to look at the number of convictions. We tracked down 29 cases, from January 2006 to March 2009, in which a total of 92 young people were convicted of involvement in gang rape.

One fact stood out. Of those convicted, 66 were black or mixed race, 13 were white and the remainder were from other countries including Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Clearly this is not a crime exclusive to black communities, but I found it impossible to ignore the fact that such a high proportion were committed by black and mixed-race young men. As a black man as well as a journalist, I wanted to understand what lay behind such attacks. So I spoke to victims, groups of black and mixed-race teenagers, youth and social workers and community leaders.

The groups of young men I met in London expressed some profoundly disturbing attitudes towards girls and sex. The boys explained how they make arrangements for "line-ups" in which one girl has oral sex with up to six or seven of them at one time. These arrangements might be made at school or on mobile phones.

Sometimes these girls initially consent because they want to be popular. But these events can spiral into rape because the boys consider that any girl who is prepared to agree to a line-up can be considered fair game. One boy told me: "If she wants to go and meet a bag of boys then she's probably a jezzie [slut], and if she's going to a house it's over – she's going to get beaten [have sex]."

In other instances, as some of the victims in our film describe, girls can unwittingly walk into a trap, innocently visiting someone's house to listen to music or watch a film only to discover that a group of boys are lying in wait. Or they might be hanging out with friends in a park and suddenly realise they have become surrounded by a group of boys intent on sex.

For both boys and girls, the line between this sort of group sex and rape seems to be blurred. A girl might agree to have oral sex with two or three boys but then be ordered to have sex with six or seven. The teenage girls I met told me that boys simply don't understand what rape is. And yet this is a crime that can ruin lives and is punishable by life imprisonment.

Occasionally gang rape is used to punish a girl for minor transgressions against gang members. In one of my most shocking interviews, I met a girl who admitted she had helped to set up girls for gang rape. As the girlfriend of a gang member, she organised these rapes, partly out of fear and partly to fit in.

She admitted she was terrified of being raped herself and had walked away when witnessing a girl being gang-raped at a party because she feared she might be next: "There was just loads of boys and the girl's tights were ripped up, like, she was bleeding as well, because I think she was a virgin, and they were just taking turns on her basically, and she was crying, and I didn't get involved because I thought if I get involved they're gonna turn on me."

The victims' descriptions of their attacks are horrific. One young victim likened her attack to being "pulled and pushed around like a rag doll", while another 14-year-old girl described her ordeal when she was gang raped by a total of nine boys who told her that she was not the only girl they had attacked. In that case, nine boys were subsequently convicted of raping her. The youngest perpetrator was just 12 years old.

I found there was concern among black communities about this violence. The Rev Joyce Daley, from the Black Parents Forum in Hackney, told me that gang rape is not a rare or one-off phenomenon. It is happening on a regular basis. She said: "It could actually explode on our very streets." Steve Griffith, a youth worker in King's Cross, said: "I see too much abuse of young women on the streets."

Gang rape, while constituting only a tiny percentage of all rapes in the UK, is a horrible reality in this country. The nature of the crime is so appalling that much more research needs to be carried out into its causes. But what seems evident from my investigation is that the key to preventing it will be changing the way young men view women and the kind of group sexual activity they are engaging in at such a young age.

Sheldon Thomas, a youth worker in Brixton, said: "We've got a generation that looks at sex as if it's nothing, and treats disrespecting women as if it's nothing. These guys are like 13, 14 and 15, and their actual attitudes towards young girls – towards sex – is mind-blowing. It's actually leaving you asking: where are their morals, where are their values?"

Sorious Samura presents 'Dispatches: Rape in the City' on Channel 4 tomorrow night at 8pm