Tuesday, 1 September 2015

ramzpaul's take on the Roanoke killings

The innocent young victims of a 'disgruntled' black homosexual are pictured below:

Here is a video of the incident:


Here is a YouTube submission by an Afro-American contributor who claims the shootings were staged:


This isn't the only it-was-a-HOAX video out there. 

Check YouTube.

During ramzpaul's commenary, he criticises Jesse Benn, whose ghastly article, 'Towards a Concept of White Wounding,' appeared in The Huffington Post 12 days before the white folks pictured above were terminally wounded.

Here are some of the things Mr Benn said in his essay:
"Whiteness was designed to exclude, and to simultaneously offer those of us classified as white certain comforts, privileges, as well as political, economic, and cultural supremacy. Because of this, whiteness harms those it excludes and classifies as others... 
When confronted with the depth of sins whiteness has and continues to commit to the benefit of all white people, many of us, even those who claim they share in the desire to work toward racial justice, are scared away. 
And so, often, white people working toward racial justice do so with an eye toward creating a new version of whiteness, rather than dealing with whiteness as it exists. Now let's be clear, working toward a healthier version of whiteness is an important normative ideal. But not when it comes at the expense of dealing with the unjust, and immoral system of white supremacy as it exists, in favor of focusing on idealistic versions of whiteness designed to make us individually feel better... 
As such, tearing down the system of white supremacy much of the world operates on is a prerequisite to forming any meaningful healthy version of whiteness... 
The primary question for white anti-racists then, should ask how we can accelerate the break up of white supremacy... At its core, our proposal is simple. White people need to open ourselves up to a particular type of WOUNDING to genuinely understand and then work toward racial justice. Our comfort and privilege generally keeps us from incurring these wounds naturally, and thus they must be sought out, disseminated, and used to motivate action... 
How can whiteness be better? we ask. How can we create a healthier feeling whiteness, one that doesn't produce or perpetuate harm? One that is welcoming and encourages other 'good' white people to join in the struggle for racial, social, and economic justice that we've committed ourselves to. A whiteness that can offer an alternative to the painful reality of what whiteness really is: oppression, exclusion, undue harm, undue benefit, privilege, and supremacy... 
Pain can be quite motivating. Hence, THE NEED FOR WHITE WOUNDING.
It's time for white people to share in the hurt. To sit with the reality of what's been done in our name and to our benefit. And to allow this to inspire our work toward dismantling this system of racial hierarchy, oppression, and supremacy, that's existed and benefitted us for centuries... 
The only way to fix this unbroken system is to break it. To do that, those of us it protects and benefits must no longer sit immune from the pain caused by it. Comfort breeds inaction. When we are all uncomfortable, we can all work toward rebuilding. Toward healing. Until then, white anti-racists should sit with, and share our discomfort over the wounds exacted on our behalf with other white people, helping them to better understand and share these wounds of whiteness. And we must speak to other white people around us about this bluntly, forcefully, and without regard for white comfort or fragility... 
White wounding means dedicating yourself to bearing witness to and learning about racial inequality and oppression... White wounding is a call to action. It's time to put our friends, family, co-workers, bosses, partners, social media connections, and our own comfort aside. The problem is real, and it is killing people. At this moment one of the most important and rudimentary things white anti-racists can do is spread awareness among other whites about racial inequality and oppression. It's time for white wounding."
Only a Jew could get away with such dreadful stuff in a mainstream newspaper. 

I addressed the following Tweet to Mr Benn.
As you might expect, there was no response.

If anyone wishes to take issue with this anti-white racist, he can be contacted on Twitter here. @JesseBenn

In this instance, I really don't think you need to be over-courteous.

R.I.P. Alison. R.I.P. Adam


This young woman was attacked by a black man and girl outside a supermarket in Milwaukee, USA, for no other reason than that she is white.

My Twitter contribution:

Tuesday, 18 August 2015

The true nature of Israeli criminality

Israeli historian, Ilan Pappé is Professor of Social Sciences and International Studies and Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at Exeter University. 

He is the author, most notably, of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. In April 2015, he said these things during a Mondoweiss interview:
“The true nature of Israeli criminality was revealed as we entered the age of internet... 
There is a direct link between the century of Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians and the eruption of violence in the Middle East… The Shite-Sunni divisions, or the attacks of Christian and minorities are associated with the edifice built by the West, based on divide and rule, and incorporating the minorities in the colonialist, and post-colonialist, political structure. The epitome of this attitude was the unconditional support to Zionism at the expense of the Palestinians. So Palestinian suffering is the outcome of the original sin of the West after the first world war as are the other horrific scenes elsewhere in the Middle East… 
When the journalist spins a narrative of why (an) atrocity happened, they describe it as an Israeli retaliation against Palestinian violence. You would have liked journalists to understand by now that Israel does not retaliate against Palestinians and create unbearable situations for them in anticipation of some reaction to the oppression, be it a house demolition, arrest without trial, confiscation of land and more often than not, assassination. Violence for Israel is not a retaliatory means of responding to Palestinian resistance, no, it is the principal means by which the Zionist vision of having as much of Palestine as possible, with as few Palestinians in it as possible, has been implemented over the years… 
Palestine is a place where Jewish settlers rule over native Palestinians instead of living alongside them… 
The present Israeli regime declares clearly… that it represents the Jews wherever they are. So when this regime commits atrocities against the Palestinians, and Jews around the world do not challenge its claim to represent them, they are seen as supporting these atrocities. This line of thinking is totally absent from the Western media... 
Jews will have to say something… It will not be easy for the(m) to challenge this fabricated war mongering, it is produced by an ideological state, which is a nuclear power, a high tech empire and one that possess the strongest army in the Middle East. This is a dangerous situation when such a powerful state makes such accusations. If this hysteria is produced by a nutty professor in an Ivy league university this is one thing, but if it’s spread by people with access to a red button that can launch another bombardment of Gaza or even against Teheran, then we should be terrified by this scenario… 
Liberal Zionist(s)… are a very important part of the elite edifice. They are the ones who have provided the moral justification for the victimization of the Palestinians and their suffering. They are the ones who branded the Israeli atrocities as acts of self defense… (as Golda Meir said, we will never forgive the Palestinians for what they forced us to do to them). They are the ‘civilized’ ‘enlightened’ shield for the barbarism on the ground… 
Something interesting that happened in the last attack on Gaza was that liberal Zionists were willing to say, whatever Hamas is doing, what Israel is doing is not justified… They lost the verbal elasticity and juggling that enabled them to be both humanly concerned and Zionist patriots… They could not produce, as in the past, a text that explain how Israel is still a democracy given what it’s doing not only in Gaza, but given the way it treats the asylum seekers, given the racist legislation since 2000 and the brutality not only against the Palestinians, but against them themselves, the liberals… 
The structure that was suggested by the colonial power…  allowed Zionism to colonise and dispossess Palestine... We need to save the Palestinian from further destruction and for that we do not have the luxury to wait until we transform the Israeli Jewish mindset.”
Not just me and the 'anti-Semite' saying it any more, is it?

Monday, 17 August 2015

A turning point in US - Israeli relations!

On 5 August 2015, President Barack Obama explained the reasoning behind the recent nuclear deal with Iran at American University's School of International Service in Washington, D.C.
"You’re going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal."
Many of the same people?

I wonder who they could be?

“Now, when I ran for President eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war, we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place."
Ah, that bloodthirsty mindset.

Project for a New American Century
"It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported."
Tony Blair exaggerated his way to a vast fortune via 'mindset' gratitude with his '45 minute' thing and much else.
Stanley Heller
"Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. And, of course, those calling for war labelled themselves strong and decisive, while dismissing those who disagreed as weak, even appeasers of a malevolent adversary.”
Behold a behind-the-scenes leader - chickenhawk, Richard Perle:

Joe Klein
“More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given. But thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands wounded. That doesn’t count the lives lost among Iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent."
I think that should be trillions, Barack.

Carl Bernstein
"Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL."
ISIS didn't just arrive on the scene by magic.

BIG black mark against you here, Barack. You were the guy in charge at the time.

"And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein."
Poor, old Saddam. 

Bad man though he was, he was America's bad man in the region for much of his time in power. Put not your faith in Princes, said Machiavelli, many centuries ago.

Things don't change much, do they?

"The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war – maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”
War is coming, to us as well. 

Though Barack might have postponed it for a bit with this surprisingly off-message  intervention.

"There are opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless."

Painless for the usual suspects, not for countless non-combatant civilians. 
"But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple. The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences."
Events, dear boy, events!

This was just such an 'event.' Such a bold, anti-Israeli stance from the US President could not have been expected.
"We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less than 1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war."
The warmongers of the modern age never put their own lives on the line. In fact, most of them managed to wangle a free pass when they were of an age to do so. (See Chickenhawks above)

“On the other hand, I do think it’s important to acknowledge another, more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal... and that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally, Israel …”
Israel.. Zion... the Jews. Tell me the old, old story.

Henry Makow
“I recognize that Prime Minister Netanyahu disagrees – disagrees strongly..."
Oh, yes. Benny loves a good war. 

Especially the war is fought for Israel and others are doing the fighting and dying.

"I do not doubt his sincerity. But I believe he is wrong."
Psychopaths often are, Barack.

"I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America’s interest and Israel’s interest."
The 'facts' have always supported the fettering of a bloodthirsty elite. 

And such a policy would certainly be in the interest of the rest of humanity, that's for sure.

What do I think? I think Barack Obama is the first US President in a long, long time, to put two fingers up at Israel. For which uniquely courageous behaviour he should be loudly applauded by all who want the bad guys marginalised.

What else do I think?

I think the President should watch his back.

And if you think I'm reading the runes wrongly, check out what Barak Ravid had to say in the 6 August 2015 edition of the Israeli daily, Haaretz. 

Titling his article, 'Obama isolates Netanyahu as Head of Warmongers,' he opined:
"In a speech liable to be seen as a turning point in U.S.-Israeli relations, the President clarified that the two countries' security interests are not always the same... 
For nearly an hour he laid out his doctrine on behalf of the agreement and tried to negate and undermine the arguments of those who oppose it, one by one. He was addressing two main groups: The Democratic members of Congress and their voters in the center and liberal left. 
He used some scare tactics, warning against Republican lobbyists and organizations funnelling tens of millions of dollars into a campaign against the agreement... Another demon conjured up by Obama was former President George W. Bush. He portrayed him as having created the Iranian problem when he launched the war against Iraq. When Bush took office, Obama said, Iran didn’t have a single centrifuge; when he left the White House they had thousands. 
The most worrisome part of Obama’s address was his reference to the Israeli government’s opposition to the nuclear agreement. What he said is liable to be seen in the not-so-distant future as A REAL TURNING POINT IN THE STRATEGIC RELATIONS BETWEEN JERUSALEM AND WASHINGTON. 
Obama marked Netanyahu not as a major ally, but as HIS GREATEST POLITICAL RIVAL... At times you could hear Obama’s disdain for Netanyahu... Obama isolated Netanyahu, portrayed him and his government as THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD WHO OPPOSES THE AGREEMENT and positioned him as the HEAD OF THE WARMONGERING CAMP that rejects any diplomatic compromise of any kind, under any circumstances. 
The attempt by Netanyahu to scuttle the nuclear agreement, Obama wanted to say, is a cousin to the campaign conducted by those who supported the war in Iraq in 2003. It’s doubtful there is any group of people more disliked by the American public...
What should disturb the sleep of every Israeli is the fact that Netanyahu’s battle against the nuclear agreement has pushed Obama into a situation in which he must distinguish between the security interests of the United States and those of Israel, and clarify that they are not necessarily the same... 
Netanyahu crossed red lines in his battle against the Iran deal, when he grossly intervened in domestic American politics and tried to present himself as someone who knows America’s interests better that the President of the United States...
'Disastrous,' ladies and gentlemen. 

Straight from the horse's mouth. Is this 'a real turning point,' we wonder? Is an American President about to 'distinguish between the security interests of the United States and those of Israel' for the first time in half a century? In my opinion, anything 'disastrous' for Netanyahu and the Neocons is liable to be very good indeed for the rest of us. And even if it doesn't work out that way, we get to have a sneaky, behind-the-hand titter at the expense of a lot of very nasty people indeed.

Lost of momentary schadenfreude for the warmongered multitudes while it lasts.

Watch your back, Mr President.

This exposition was prompted by 'The Liberation of US Foreign Policy,' subtitled, 'The Iran deal is the Israel lobby’s Armageddon,' a superbly detailed and forensic essay by Justin Raimondo, first seen at the Antiwar.com web site. 

You should read it.

To conclude, I'll pinch a bit from Justin:
"It’s the very same people, the Kristols, the Kagans, the Krauthammers and the rest of that Jacobin 'conservative' crowd, who lied us into war and who are now clamouring for yet another bloodbath in the Middle East. One could only stand and cheer as the President called out the Neocons." 
The Kristols, the Kagans and Charles Krauthammer are Jewish. The Jacobin conservatives I'll leave to your imagination. As for the Neocons, see Ari Shavit and Carl Bernstein.

The critics cited above, Shavit, Bernstein, Stanley Heller, Joe Klein, James Rosen, Michael Kinsley and Henry Makow, are all, themselves, Jewish.

A Norwegian MP speaks out

In May 2011, Norwegian MP, Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of Progress, said this at a party convention in Oslo:
"The Labour Party has turned Oslo into an ethnically divided city... the indigenous population is moving out and non-Western immigrants are moving in.

Norwegians feel ostracised in their own neighbourhoods, children don’t feel at ease in kindergartens, schools... Blonde girls are harassed into dying their hair dark...

On evenings and weekends cars are set on fire, windows smashed in at schools... it is part of everyday life in the multi-cultural Grorud Valley in Oslo.

One of the people who decided to move away is Patrick Åserud. Patrick works in a kindergarten like his wife... But they can no longer stand the Labour Party’s demographic experiments. As Patrick told me: An ethnic and cultural self-annihilation is taking place and, worst of all, we are allowing it to happen...

The modern Western civilisation based on science, secularity, democracy, equal worth, equality, pluralism and freedom is gradually giving way to forces representing the opposite.

The changes are applauded by the cultural relativists of the political elite, academia and journalists, recruited from a one-sided radical environment.

We in the FRP have been accused of being extremist. Dear Congress defending our values of liberty without compromise is not extremist. It is extremist to cave in every time, to special demands which undermine our own culture and the values our country is built on.

And it is both radical and extremist to carry out immigration policies which in a matter of decades will make the indigenous population a minority in its own capital.

One of George Orwell’s many quotations says...

'In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act'...

I will continue to be a revolutionary."
After making this speech, Christian was charged with inciting racial hatred. A complaint to this effect had been filed by the youth wing of the Social Democrats and acted upon by the police.

The charges were eventually dropped.

Saturday, 15 August 2015

David Irving, forgotten heroes and ridicule before research

In an article titled, ‘The return of the Neo-Nazis: Notorious Holocaust Denier David Irving tells secret rally 'the RAF are war criminals,' Paul Cahalan and Sanchez Manning said this in the 26 July 2015 edition of The Mail on Sunday
"Convicted Holocaust denier David Irving addressed fascist sympathisers and neo Nazis at a secret meeting in London yesterday." 
David was convicted and jailed for three years in Austria, where, no matter how accurate they may happen to be, it is illegal to publish the results of one’s Holocaust investigations or to make public statements that contradict the official version. He was released, aged 69, after 13 months of that sentence.

The article continues:
“Irving, a historian who famously lost a libel case after denying the existence of Nazi gas chambers, was the star speaker at an event that attracted an audience of 120 Right-wing sympathisers… Behind closed doors at a four-star hotel in South Kensington, the discredited author gave a speech condemning the Second World War Allied bombing campaign over Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe as ‘a war crime’.”
One supposes, therefore, that Calahan, Manning, and The Mail on Sunday think the saturation bombing of non-combatants in Dresden, Hamburg and elsewhere in Germany was a necessary evil. The establishment historian, Martin Gilbert, tells us this:
“Hamburg: 27 July 1943: 'By morning more than forty-two thousand German civilians were dead. This was more than the total British civilian deaths for the whole of the Blitz.”
As many as three times this number may have perished in Dresden. We will probably never know the exact number as the authorities have done their best over the years to sanitise the actuality.

Were you aware that the official record admits that in just one raid more Germans died than were killed in the whole of the Blitz? If you rely on the mainstream media and the schoolbook for your history, it's extremely unlikely that you would know this.

Those who compose our past and present just never thought it necessary to have you made aware of the WHOLE truth.

Cahalan and Manning continue:
“Irving’s contentious speech was titled: ‘Saturation Bombing in World War II – who is to blame?' An invitation to the event, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, states: ‘David Irving is the world’s MOST respected historian, he’s the world’s TOP expert on World War II.’ But he was widely discredited after his high-profile libel trial…”
With factual accuracy in mind, one might rephrase the above statement thus: ‘The powers-that-be have done their damnedest to discredit him since his high-profile libel trial…’

Cahalan and Manning add:
"Attendees filed into the St James function room, which the group had booked out in a different name, from 11.30am – some wearing tweed and blazers, others in khaki trousers and black T-shirts with the logo of fascists groups including the far-Right Greek group Golden Dawn… 
The respected historian and broadcaster Andrew Roberts said: ‘It is depressing that such a meeting should take place in the 21st Century. The idea of treating David Irving as a historian at all is absurd. He doesn’t have the right to call himself that. Historians think of him as a Nazi propagandist and they have the backing of the High Court’.”

And yet, in the book, ‘Lying about Hitler,’ Richard J. Evans quotes Roberts thus:
"Several distinguished historians, all of whom asked not to be named, told me how much they admired Irving's tenacity in uncovering new material from Nazi sources."
Ever used any of Mr Irving’s ‘new material’ in your own histories, Andy? Within the same paragraph, Jenny Booth, writing in The Scotsman, is quoted as saying that Irving ‘was still seen as a substantial scholar in England and the US.’

The pre-eminent historian, Hugh Trevor-Roper, eulogised Irving thus in his 1977 review of ‘Hitler's War’:
"No praise can be too high for his indefatigable scholarly industry."
Likewise, A.J.P. Taylor describes ‘The Rise and Fail of the Luftwaffe’ as ‘scholarly, fair and highly informative.’

In the 28 May 1989 edition of The New York Times, Peter Hoffman said Irving’s biography of Hermann Goering was ‘detailed and richly documented’ praising him as ‘one of the most successful researchers on Nazi Germany.’

Gordon A. Craig, reviewing Irving's ‘Goebbels’ in the New York Review of Books in 1996, said this:
“Irving… knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher.... Hitler's War ... remains the best study we have of the German side of the Second World War, and, as such, indispensable for all students of that conflict.... 
It is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing absolute about historical truth. What we consider as such is only an estimation, based upon what the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be tested against new information and new interpretations that appear… 
Such people as David Irving, then, have a indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.”
The aforementioned Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, who is Jewish, praised ‘Hitler's War’ as 'a scholarly work, the fruit of a decade of wide researches.'

The military historian, Sir Michael Howard, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, thought Irving’s ‘The War Path’ had 'very considerable merits' and said he was ‘at his best as a professional historian demanding documentary proof for popularly-held beliefs.’

Even many of his critics are are happy to compliment his meticulous investigatory powers. Paul Addison, an expert on WW2 history, castigates him as ‘often a schoolboy in judgment’ but, within the same sentence describes him as ‘a Colossus of research.’

The Board of Deputies of British Jews is not known for their positive opinion of David Irving. And yet, in 1991, they were moved to say this of ‘Hitler’s War:’
"The book however was far more than a simple denial of Hitler's role. It was thoroughly researched and employed a variety of themes… It also confirmed Irving's reputation as one of the world's most thorough researchers and an exciting and readable 'historian'."
Check out a few more reviews of Hitler’s War here. 

And reviews, positive AND negative, of his other work here.

'Treating David Irving as a historian at all is absurd,' Mr Roberts? 'He doesn’t have the right to call himself that?'

It appears that many who have much more right than you to call themselves historians would disagree.

You’ll find plenty of sneerers of the Roberts, Cahalan and Manning type ever ready to add to the growing pile of ad hominem nastiness directed at David Irving. However, as you can see, others have praised his efforts highly. You would not know this from the Mail on Sunday article.

The article also quotes ‘Gerry Gable of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight’ thus:
“This conference is another piece of evidence of a growing series of closed international far-right extremist Conferences. The core movers range from elderly Holocaust deniers to well-educated men and women who are being trained in ideologies of hate and being made ready for potential acts of terrorism.”
News to me. I’ve attended quite a few London Forum events and ‘potential acts of terrorism’ have yet to be discussed by the speakers or by the hoi polloi in the bar afterwards. At least, not in my presence. But then when did absolute b***ocks ever deter a Gerry Gable? For that matter, when it comes to a historian who dares to question the 6,000,000 mantra, when did the facts ever interfere with MSM propaganda?

In November 1963, David Irving called the police. His flat had been burgled by three men claiming to be GPO engineers. Subsequently, Gerry Gable was arrested and, on 14 January 1964, he, along with Manny Carpel and one other, admitted breaking and entering in with intent to steal.

No mention of this by Calahan and Manning.

Gerry Gable is Jewish.

No mention of that either.

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s abundantly clear that the cited essay isn’t the least bit interested in being even-handed. It's a scurrilous piece intended to both demean and ‘discredit’ a great historian and those who would hear him speak. I know no one who attends the London Forum who would describe themselves as a Nazi or a Fascist. On the other hand, I know lots of men and women who would proudly attest to being a British ‘patriot.’

And thereby hangs the truth of it. The establishment elites of the West and their lesser operatives are four square behind the push for globalisation, such that we end up with a world government ruled by an untouchable few. These see patriotism as their mortal enemy and will do anything to crush those who identify passionately with their country of origin and it’s history, culture and heritage.

David Irving’s speech to the London Forum was videotaped and you can compare at first hand what was said about him in The Mail on Sunday with the actuality. However, before doing so, I’d like you to take a look at the the 15 minute documentary below. If anything is ever going to encourage you to research the facts, figures and myths of the so-called ‘Holocaust’ for yourself, this might just do it.

Here then are the July 2015 observations of a ‘notorious Holocaust denier’ that Cahalan and Manning based their article on:

What do you think, ladies and gentlemen. Is this a bad guy? Is this English gentleman worthy of such strident vilification in the mainstream media? Or has his reputation and character been sorely traduced by unscrupulous and deceitful censors determined to see the truth he tells dismissed?

You know, it's not just David Irving and the 'Neo-Nazis' who try to awaken the majority to the alternative realities. Over the years a good many truth-telling Jews have blown the whistle on establishment spin and deceit. I wonder how happy the Mail on Sunday's finest would be to demonise these?

Rabbi Friedman

Shulamit Aloni

So, Paul, are you up for sneering at these? Are you ready to call them nasty names? How about you Sanchez, if you insulted these you'd be an anti-Semite, a Fascist, a neo-Nazi, wouldn't you?

Let’s take a closer look at some of those Manning and Cahalan take such issue with here.

On 1 August 2015, the Forgotten British Heroes Campaign convened at ‘the site of the British Colonies Club, which was bombed by members of the Irgun terrorist group on 7th March 1947 when numerous people were injured and maimed.’

Francis Carr Begbie takes up the story:
“Normally, a gathering of British nationalists in central London, proudly bearing English banners and Union Flags, would be met with a horde of screaming demonstrators bussed in from far and wide. But no disturbance took place last weekend when such a group of patriots assembled near Trafalgar Square and the reason is not hard to discern.

For such interference would have meant drawing attention to a historic episode the British government and the Jewish community leaders would most likely wish forgotten, the killing of 784 British police officers, servicemen, Crown servants and civilian staff by Jewish terrorists in the Palestine Mandate crisis between 1944–48.

The British government’s attempt to 'forget' the sacrifice of these servicemen and dump them down the memory hole is very reminiscent of another similarly embarrassing episode, the murderous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967... 
It was a time of great tension. The Arabs were beginning to realize that the promises and assurances they had been given at Balfour counted for nothing and their homeland was being given away. The Jewish settlers were being reinforced by the illegal immigration of thousands of Jews from war-devastated Europe and reinforced by armaments from the Soviet Union and financial support from the USA. 
Holding the line between them were young British servicemen and police, many of whom had come straight from the war in Europe and had taken part in the liberation of such camps as Bergen-Belsen, only to find themselves shot at and blown up by Jewish terrorists. Their deaths left a lasting bitterness among the veterans and their families.

The deaths included the hanging by piano wire of two 20-year-old British Army sergeants, Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin, who in 1947 were kidnapped by Irgun and held hostage for three weeks. Their bodies were left hanging in a eucalyptus grove and were booby trapped with land mines.

Also the 100 British Army personnel, Crown servants and civilians who were murdered by means of a huge bomb planted by the Irgun in the basement of the King David Hotel, Jerusalem in July 1946. Another 28 British soldiers died in the bombing of the Haifa Cairo train…

In Britain, another victim was Rex Farran, brother of the intended target, Captain Roy Farran DSO, MC, an SAS anti-terrorism specialist. Rex opened a parcel bomb addressed to 'R. Farran' at the Farran family home in Staffordshire. A total of 20 letter bombs were sent in mainland Britain.

Many attacks took place while the war was still ongoing. These include the murder of Lord Moyne, Secretary of State for the Colonies, and his British Army driver, Corporal Fuller, on 6th November 1944 while British forces were still fighting in France…

The same terrorists, from the Irgun and Stern Gang, collaborated on a massacre of at least 100 Arab civilian villagers at the village of Deir Yassin on 10th April 1948. As with the murder of the two young sergeants, the Deir Yassin operation was organised by Menachem Begin, later a prime minister of Israel. He also received a Nobel Peace Prize... 
The deaths of British servicemen and the murderous ingratitude of the Jewish community caused a huge shock in post-war Britain. It is not widely known that the two young sergeants affair led to the last widespread anti-Jewish riots in Britain… 
Despite the anger among the British, up until 2001 there was no memorial and it was only after 60 years that the Ministry of Defence agreed that the conflict merited its own campaign medal…

Veteran nationalist Martin Webster was one of the organisers of the Forgotten British Heroes campaign. He was scathing about how they are not even allowed to take their place among all the other units of the British armed services to lay their wreaths at The Cenotaph in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday:

‘No explanation for this exceptional ban on brave men and women at the national ceremony of remembrance has ever been given by official sources — but all know the ban has been imposed at the behest of the Jewish community’s sundry lobby organisations and their billionaire backers who donated millions of pounds every year to the main political parties.

The Establishment and the Jews can’t wait until the remnant of these brave men who served in Palestine (and their Old Comrades Associations) have died-off and no longer represent an embarrassment’

After the commemoration, the Israeli Ambassador in London, Daniel Taub, received a letter from the Campaign recollecting the details of the above Zionist atrocities. It makes several rather pointed demands given the highly successful history of Jewish post-WWII activism: that Israel pay compensation to the victims of Zionist terrorism and their families, build a ‘Museum of Zionist Terrorism’ in Jerusalem and institute courses about Zionist terrorism in Israel’s schools as a warning to future generations.
The letter is signed by Martin Webster, Richard Edmonds, Jeremy Turner, Lady Michèle Renouf and Peter Rushton.”
Presumably, these last named would embody the ‘Holocaust deniers,’ ‘far-Right figures,’ ‘international far-Right extremists,’ ‘British National Party members,’ ‘Nazi propagandists’ and ‘men and women who are being trained in ideologies of hate’ that Cahalan, Manning, Roberts and Gable would like us to beware of.

And yet, here they are calling for our ‘Forgotten Heroes’ to be treated fairly. To be commemorated as everyone else is who lost their lives in armed conflicts serving the nation. Have the four just Nazi hunters ever stood up for a similarly noble cause? They never bothered to ask for 700+ British servicemen, policemen and civil servants murdered by Jewish terrorists in Palestine to be commemorated on Remembrance Day, that's for sure.

Who are the good guys here? Those who would have this decades long iniquity maintained and the provenance of it remain hidden forever? Or those who would not?

Let’s vote on it.

Should the Forgotten Heroes of 1944-1948 be commemorated?

Type your answers here
Not sure
Quiz Maker

Here's another question:

Is the Mail on Sunday right to smear David Irving and London Forum attendees as ‘Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers?’

Type your answers here
Not sure
Poll Maker

After you have listened to the presentations of Martin Webster, Richard Edmonds, Jeremy Turner, Lady Michèle Renouf and Peter Rushton, you will be better placed to respond to the following:

Who are the better Britons?

Cahalan, Manning, Roberts and Gable
Renouf, Irving, Webster, Edmonds, Turner, Rushton
Poll Maker

Here then is what was said outside the former British Colonies Club and at the meeting afterwards on 1 August 2015:


'Forgotten British Heroes' (Chapter 1)


'Forgotten British Heroes' (Chapter 2 - Peter Rushton)

In this last video, Eric Lowe, a veteran of the 1944-48 Palestine campaign, tells us this:


'Forgotten British Heroes' (Chapter 3 - Michele Renouf meets Eric Lowe)

Whom would you rather believe, ladies and gents? Those who would have the establishment propaganda remain forever unchallenged?

Or a gentleman like Eric Lowe?

The name callers and the insult-merchants of the on-message media?

Or 'one of the world's most thorough researchers?'

Gerry Gable or the honest patriot.

Research is the key. Finding out for oneself. It doesn't take much to uncover a whole lot of stuff they never bothered to tell you and it doesn't take much more to discover an Aladdin's Cave of awfulness the real bad guys will do their damnedest to keep from you forever and ever, Amen.

Cahalan, Manning and their bosses would rather have you side with the 'horde of screaming demonstrators bussed in from far and wide,' and join in uncritically with those who prefer to shout down the opposition than debate with it.

Ridicule before research every time with hacks such as these.

Check out the information in this essay. Check out the things David Irving and cited patriots have to say. Do that and, trust me, you'll be a whole lot closer to the facts of the matter than you ever were before.

P.S. If you wish to take issue with messrs. Cahalan and Manning, they may be contacted at Twitter here: @Cahalan @SanchezManning

If you want my head on a platter, I may be contacted in the same arena here: @ironwand

Thursday, 13 August 2015

The small-minded British are callous and stupid!

On 3 August 2015, Roger Cohen said this in The New York Times:
“Migrants are forcing their way into the Channel Tunnel… Europe has mostly shrugged. Piecemeal small-mindedness… has been the name of the game… 
European countries have a history of turning back desperate refugees — and regretting it subsequently… 
Unemployment is high… freeloading on European welfare by those who have not paid for it stirs anger. But these are not reasons for closing doors. The migrant numbers, while large, are absorbable by a community of more than half a billion people… 
The would-be destroyer has clear objectives: a weakened Europe beset by rising leftist and rightist anti-immigrant parties, splintering at its Greek periphery, irresolute about its eastern neighbors, morally debased, navel-gazing as Moscow and Beijing plot the future of Eurasia. 
His name is Vladimir Putin.”
Putin is behind the Calais invasion?

If that's what you want your readership to think, Rog, you truth-twisters must be getting desperate. Desperate to the point of outright lunacy. Sadly, the Yanks are even more dumbed-down than we are and many will believe the screwball conclusions of even the most cynical establishment psychopath.

‘Evil triumphs when good men do nothing,’ they say. When soft, weak, lazy, disinterested and decadent men ‘do nothing,’ the real ‘would-be destroyer’ can puff up the b***ocks to the brink of war.

A billion sheep may look away on cue but there will be blood, nonetheless.

The Cohens will see to that.

Anyway, sensing an opportunity to squeeze the 'small minded' British even more, the usual suspects have been sharpening their open border rhetoric on this side of the ocean as well.

Here are a few examples:

Nick Cohen

Edie Friedman

Emma Barnett

David Aaronovitch

Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner

The link above takes you to a 12 August 2015 article in The Evening Standard which says this:
"Leading British Jews today branded David Cameron’s handling of the Calais migrant crisis 'appalling.' In a strongly worded letter they compared the plight of the migrants to that of Jewish refugees who fled Hitler. 
Two hundred people, including 20 rabbis, signed the letter calling on the Prime Minister to be more sympathetic. The signatories criticised Mr Cameron for using the term 'swarms' to describe those trying to cross the Channel. 
'Many of us in the Jewish community are appalled by the UK’s response to the ongoing situation in Calais,' said the letter, sent from the Jewish Council for Racial Equality (JCORE). 'Our experience as refugees is not so distant that we’ve forgotten what it’s like to be demonised for seeking safety'.”

Rabbi Sylvia Rothschild

Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah

The Calais migrants want in, we want them kept out. The media and religious Jew wants what they want and we, who are 'callous' and 'stupid,' 'brought this bad dream on ourselves' and 'betray our history' should stop 'hating,' put aside our 'hysteria' and 'racism'...


Despite the fact that those of recent immigrant origin now outnumber us in London and quite a few other English towns and cities as well.

Israel and the recent Jewish arrivals whose presence in that land symbolises the Zionist project believe in open borders for fellow Jews only. Everyone else is discouraged from settling there. However, you won't find any of the above journalists and holy folk castigating them as they do us.

The Jews cited below seem to think that it's just us who need to be 'swamped' as well. I don't believe any of them have ever advised Israel similarly.

P.S. The aforementioned Rabbi, Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah, let the cat out of the bag in spectacular fashion when she blithely admitted to this at her own blog:

Trouble-Making Judaism

Sort of explains the Jewish mindset cited in the rest of the essay, doesn't it?

And much of what appears at this blog.

And the last 3,400 trouble-making years.