Tuesday, 21 October 2014


On 19 October 2014, during Sunday Morning Live's debate, 'Is the UK too hostile to immigration?' wildlife presenter and ex-Goodie, Bill Oddie, said restricting immigration was not the answer.

He added:
"There should just as likely be a restriction on the number of children that British people have because over-population is what you are talking about here, the big problem. So you say these perfectly well-qualified people can’t come in, but the woman down the road has just had her tenth baby. Well I’m sorry, but they are the people that really should be contained...

Historically, we seem to have built up this ridiculous idea that: ‘Oh, we are British, this is our island and we don’t want anybody else in it’. I personally loathe that kind of chauvinism and I’m happy to say I’m not proud to be British. In fact, I’m very often ashamed to be British.

When presenter Sian Williams suggested he leave Britain if he felt like that, Oddie replied:
“You’re talking like UKIP or something. For God’s sake, shut up... I’ve seen the whole culture absolutely burgeon because of immigrants. I love the fact that I walk down the road in north London and down here’s an Indian shop and there’s another Indian stationers there and this one is run by someone from Iran and there’s a West Indian guy who runs that bit and we’ve got the Romanian builders next door who don’t play the radio as loud as English builders.”
Alp Mehmet, of MigrationWatch UK, responded thus:
"What he is saying is absurd. He’s right – population levels are increasing – but that is largely driven by immigration, not large British families."
Oh, everybody knows what the score is, Alp, even the PC Crowd. 

It's just that they don't like admitting it. In fact, many, as with Bill Oddie, will outright lie about the state of play in order to maintain their own peculiar inner fiction.

Oddie lives in a London that, according to the 2011 census, is 57 percent immigrant. That statistic does not include the huge numbers of second and third-generation immigrants who were born here and, according to all the statistics, are out-breeding us at furious rate.

Perhaps, if he didn't live in a predominantly white, middle class area he might, despite the lovely, fluffy Indians, Iranians, West Indians and Romanians that animate his Hampstead idyll, he might have noticed our declining presence in England's capital and the rapidly burgeoning presence of his favourite folk.

Funny isn't it, nowadays a Brit-loathing luvvie can get away with dishonestly slandering tens of millions of British people and yet, if a British person had said anything similar of Blacks, Asians or Jews, well, we all know what the result would be. Brit-bashing (in Britain) is fashionable and encouraged. The opposite is vilified and is likely to end up in a custodial sentence.

The Jewish MP, Luciana Berger, has just applauded the imprisonment of a young lad who 'offended' her. 

Garron Helm tweeted an image of Berger with the Star of David on her head, describing her as a 'communist Jewess.' He added:
“You can always trust a Jew to show their true colours eventually.”
Berger said she was 'deeply shocked' by the tweet and 'shouldn’t be spoken to in that manner.'
“I hope this case serves as an encouragement to others to report hate crime whenever it rears its ugly head," she said. 
I'd like to report a hate crime, Luciana.

I'd like to report an ongoing genocide in Gaza. You know, the one where the guys with the F-22 fighters, the helicopter gunships, tanks, warships and A-Bombs routinely slaughters the firework people?

You were the Director of the Labour Friends of Israel group for three years prior to your arrival in parliament, Luciana. I don't remember you expressing any 'shock' and/or 'offense' about Israel's genocidal savagery back then. For that matter, have you ever commented upon the issue since you arrived in parliament? I don't think you have, not in any condemnatory sense anyway.

One can only conclude that you find Garron's unfortunate tweet more 'shocking' and 'offensive' that the mass murder of Palestinians by Israel. Shouldn't I be 'deeply shocked' and 'offended' that his behaviour would have outraged you enough to see him imprisoned whilst that of Israel doesn't appear to move you at all?

Well, I'm not. In a PC age, establishment insanity is the norm.
As yet, Ms Berger has not replied to the above tweet.

Communities Minister, Stephen Williams, said this of Garron Helm's imprisonment:
“We welcome today’s guilty verdict which shows there is no place for purveyors of hate to hide.

This ruling sends out a message to all those who use social media to send out anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic and racist comments that it is unacceptable and that we are serious about ensuring that those involved are arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”
I guess, Mr Williams must think that no 'hate' is ever purveyed in Gaza. Or that Israel might be a nice place for non-purveyors of it not to hide. You see, I don't remember this achingly anti-'racist' Lib Dem condemning Israel either.

As regards, 'anti-Muslim... comments,' I wonder if we're allowed to criticise the Rotherham paedophile? Or those who wrought their paedophilia upon the little girls of Rochdale, Derby, Oxford, Peterborough and Keighley? Are we allowed to remonstrate with the Muslim pervert who drugs, rapes and prostitutes our little girls, Stephen?

Are we allowed to condemn the British Muslims who had some sympathy for the 7/7/2005 bombers? What about those who subject their daughters to FGM and the 'honour killers?'

'We are a terrible race,' says an ageing Goodie (the embarrassingly unfunny one).

What do you think Williams and Berger would have had to say if he's said such things about the Jews? All hell would have broken loose, wouldn't it?

It's not going to happen, C-grade celebs only sneer when it's safe to do so. And, boy-oh-boy, is it safe to sneer at us.

Stephen Williams and Luciana Berger will never condemn Bill Oddie for saying what he said. You may, however, expect many more British folk to be imprisoned for tweeting the occasional negative comment to and about those whom the powers-that-be deem unoffendable.

Bill Oddie is pictured below with his wife and grandchildren.

P.S. As regards Garron Helm's 'communist Jewess' observation, didn't the Commies jail people whose opinions differed from their own? Come to think of it, they used to shoot them as well, didn't they?

Perhaps Garron should think himself lucky we're not living Russian Revolutionary times.

Speaking of which, here's what Winston Churchill had to say about that 'world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation' back in 1920:

I wonder, if Churchill was alive today, do you think Messrs Berger and Williams would have him done for 'hate crime?'

Sunday, 19 October 2014

Our latest war isn't aimed at ISIS, Syria was always the target

On 3 October 2014, Counterpunch published Dan Glazebrook's 'West's Middle East war is not aimed at ISIS, but at Assad.'

The essay contains the clearest, most accurate exposition of the brute cynicism of British foreign policy in that part of the world (over many decades) that I have yet to see.

Check it out. I promise you, even if you 'hate Mussies,' or just couldn't care less about any but your own, the observations posted below will ring many bells.
"Watching the debate in the British parliament last Thursday, over whether Britain should, yet again, launch aerial attacks against the long-suffering people of Iraq, it was striking just how much admission there was of the failure of Britain's policy in the region hitherto.
That ISIS have been emboldened, or even created, by the West's insistence on supporting the armed insurgency in Syria over the past three years - pouring money, weapons and training into the hands of fighters of all shades - was admitted again and again by MPs from all parties, as was the reality that it was precisely the dysfunctional state bequeathed by the occupation that had allowed ISIS to take root in Iraq. But those very same MPs then… went on to explain that they would be voting ('reluctantly', 'with a heavy heart', etc etc) for the government's motion. The implicit argument was that, yes, we have being doing the wrong thing for the past three years (or past eleven years); but now we have a chance to put it right; indeed it is precisely because we helped create the 'beast' that we must now help to kill it.
Pretty much every British attack on the Middle East has been justified along the same lines. The bombardment of Libya was supposedly a recognition that Britain's treatment of Iraq - occupation with ground forces - was counter-productive and bred resentment; ousting Gaddafi using Libyan (and Qatari) forces backed by air-power, therefore, was presented as somehow 'overcoming' the 'mistakes' of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
But that invasion itself had been presented at the time as the reversal of the previous 'mistaken' British policy of supporting the region's 'dictators' (this was the line used by Tony Blair every time it was pointed out that Britain had fully supported all of the supposed Iraqi crimes which Blair pointed to as vindication for his war)…
Britain's supposed support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980s (if encouraging a self-destructive war can be termed support) was itself, no doubt, presented as an enlightened move forward from the 1950s policy of trying to maintain a puppet king hand-picked by the British Foreign Office.
Each twist and turn of British foreign policy is thus accompanied by an admission that we have been doing exactly the wrong thing up till now; but now we are doing the right thing; that interference was wrong, but this interference will put it right; that violence was a sin, but this violence will atone for it.

Except it won't. And it won't because, despite appearances, there hasn't been any change of heart. In fact, there has never been a genuine self-criticism on the part of the British foreign policy establishment; the self-criticisms come about only in order to justify the next bout of bloodletting; they are never presented as they should be, as the tragic footnotes to a disaster, but only as the preamble to a new bloody chapter. The policy, after all, has never changed. It has always had the same goal, to stifle any potential of independent development.

When the British-backed king could no longer hold back the forces calling for Iraq's modernisation, Britain sought to reduce the influence of the communists by supporting a coup by the right-wing of the Ba'ath party. When the Ba'ath party itself ended up overseeing a successful modernisation of the country in the 1970s, Britain did all it could to encourage a war with Iran, ensuring that the wealth of both countries was squandered, their development pushed back by decades.
Within three years of that war ending, Britain was involved in an aerial attack that devastated the country's infrastructure, followed by a crippling sanctions regime the like of which the world had never before seen, which killed half a million children, and caused 3 successive senior UN officials to resign in protest at what they described as a policy of genocide.

Just as the 'legal' justification for sanctions was about to run out - with the country almost entirely disarmed, came the invasion of 2003, which ended up imposing a constitution which institutionalised sectarianism and created a political system in which 'democracy' was reduced to competing promises to maximise favours to your sect at the expense of everybody else.

The result was that the Sunni minority were rendered the implacable enemies of the government, leading to the disaster now unfolding. In every case, with every intervention, the result has been surprisingly consistent, that Iraq's ability to realise its enormous potential has been stymied and set back.

The supposed Dasmascene conversions by British policy makers turn out, on closer inspection, to be mere tactical shifts. Our MPs would do well to admit these continuities instead of constantly attempting to delude their constituents, and themselves…
 And so to today. This war, presented as a new war against a new enemy, ISIS, is in fact a continuation of the three-year old war against the Syrian state, itself a continuation of the centuries-old war against development and independence amongst the states of North Africa and West Asia, and indeed the entire global South.
The fact that so many of the MPs in the debate who voiced support for airstrikes, did so with an admission that they will almost certainly fail to destroy ISIS, is one clue that this war is not what it purports to be. In fact, the British government is both unable and unwilling to destroy ISIS. Unable, because, as all serious military analysts agree, airstrikes alone cannot destroy an organisation like ISIS...

But it is the reluctance on the part of the British and US governments to coordinate their efforts with the forces which have actually been fighting against ISIS and its allies for years, that is to say Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah, which really demonstrates their insincerity on the issue. Why do they not pursue a more effective strategy? Because the defeat of ISIS is not really their goal. ISIS and its friends have played right into the hands of British foreign policy for the past three years, acting as the vanguard in the Anglo-American proxy war of attrition against the Syrian state…

The use of sectarian militias as tools of foreign policy has a much longer pedigree in Britain. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (Al Qaeda's Libyan affiliate) were hosted in London for decades before finally being unleashed against the Libyan state in March 2011, their services to their imperial masters including a botched MI6-led assassination attempt against Gaddafi in 1996.

The Muslim Brotherhood were cultivated by British intelligence as a means of undermining Nasser's pan-Arab socialism in Egypt in the 1960s, but had already been used against the progressive liberal movement of the interwar years, the Wafd.
Most infamously, the self-proclaimed 'mujahadeen' in Afghanistan, which ultimately spawned both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, were given full support by Britain in their war against the Soviet Union and the progressive forces of Afghanistan…

There is no reason to believe Britain has given up on this strategy of using sectarian death squads as an instrument of foreign policy; indeed in an age of relative economic decline for the world's 'former' colonial powers, it is likely to increase in importance. With economic cutbacks leading inexorably to a corresponding relative decline in military capacity, the strategy of exploiting sectarian gangs for use against independent powers is likely not just to continue but to grow.

So what will this war achieve? Firstly, it will have a number of effects on ISIS itself… It will probably force ISIS to ‘revert to guerrilla warfare, which has been its tactic in Iraq since the US started bombing’… In other words, it will ensure that ISIS continues in its role as a straightforward terror gang, rather than evolving into some kind of semi-governmental body administering territory… 
This suits the British government, which wants to see them fully focused on destabilisation, rather than being diverted into any kind of 'state-building', however half-baked. Airstrikes may, as it were, succeed in turning IS, a proto-state formation, back into ISIS, a sectarian death squad, the role originally mapped out for them by imperial planners.

However, there will be one crucial difference to the ISIS of pre-April 2011 and the ISIS that is now emerging under Western aerial bombardment. This time, they will benefit from a credibility that they have so far been denied, the credibility of being able to pose as an anti-Western, anti-imperialist force…

Over the past three years, it has been so obvious they and the Western countries have been on the same side, singing from the same 'Assad must go' songsheet, they have not really been able to do this - until now. This will undoubtedly bring them more recruits, more support, and more funding…
 And what of the 'war against Assad'? Far from this having been eclipsed by the 'war against ISIS', it is at its foundation. Having been thwarted from bombing Syria in August 2013 by Syrian, Russian, Chinese and Iranian steadfastness - and subsequent parliamentary nervousness in both the US and Britain - the West are now indeed bombing Syria.

David Cameron, for his part, cleverly designed his motion only to refer to airstrikes against Iraq - ensuring that Syria was largely kept out of the debate - but insisted that he could expand the operation into Syria without parliamentary approval once it was underway.
We are now being told that the West is being 'forced' to intervene in Syria because Assad failed to defeat ISIS but the truth is precisely the opposite, the West is now in Syria because ISIS and its friends, the recipients of so much lavish diplomatic, financial and military support from the West and its allies these past three years, have failed to defeat Assad.

The US, alongside Britain shortly, no doubt, are thus going in to Syria in order to take more direct control of a war in which, for much of this year, the momentum has been with the Syrian state forces. Indeed, there has already been talk of a Turkish ground invasion of Syria, along with a new initiative aimed at training yet more insurgents in Saudi Arabia, the breeding ground of the violent sectarianism that underpins ISIS.

The idea is that if anyone is to seize ground from ISIS, it should not be the secular forces of the Syrian government (the only power capable of actually governing the country, even according to US general Martin Dempsey), but rather the forces of NATO and their ISIS lookalike allies.

Why does Cameron claim this war will take years? Because he knows it will escalate. It will escalate because ISIS is only the preliminary target, the pretext. The ultimate target is, as it has ever been, the Syrian state itself.
It is revealing, in this regard, to look at the pattern of US bombing within Syria that has already been revealed. A Reuters report from last week noted that the strikes ‘seemed to be intended to hamper Islamic State's ability to operate across the border with Iraq, where it also controls territory.’ In other words, the aim is not to destroy ISIS in Syria, but, as far as possible, to keep ISIS in Syria…
If Britain's actions do not destroy ISIS, but ensure they remain focused on destabilising Iraq and Syria, we must assume this to be part of their aim.
If they succeed not in degrading and demoralising, but in boosting the prestige and credibility of ISIS, we must assume this is a goal which Britain seeks. And if ISIS provides the pretext for the West to take more direct control of its war against Syria, paving the way for Turkish occupation, airstrikes against Syrian infrastructure, and the direct coordination of insurgent groups whose ideology and methods are a virtual carbon copy of those of ISIS, again, we should not see this as some kind of opportunist spin-off of the war against ISIS but as its very purpose."
If Dan Glazebrook is right you should surely have a bit of a think about what such people might be prepared to do to YOU, when they are prepared to do such things to THEM.

Here's your starter for ten:

Those we vote for do terrible things to the foreigner in his own land in order to keep him perpetually subservient. And yet, should the foreigner reach these shores, political correctness, positive discrimination and the 'diversity' agenda sees the erstwhile subservient alien immediately elevated above the indigenous British lowly by those we vote for.

I'm sure that, nowadays, almost all, outside of the Westminster Village and the world of the pseudo-intellectual left-wing, would not disagree with such an obvious truism.

The Machiavellians who wreak such genocidal havoc in North Africa and the Middle east aren't just at war with them, ladies and gentlemen, they are at war with us as well.

That much should be obvious to all by now.

What the papers say - 2014

Monday, 6 October 2014

95 percent of the British are AGAINST multiculturalism!

In August 2013, The BBC show 'Saturday Morning Live' told us that 95% of the British people are AGAINST multiculturalism and only 5% are FOR it!

After the results were announced, top blogger James Delingpole, a guest on the show, said this:
"I think the thwacking great majority in that poll says it all. The multicultural experiment in Britain has failed totally and people have finally realised how much it has failed. Rotherham was just one example; we’re seeing cases all around the country. It has been a disaster. I think that this is going to be the turning point.”
Gay, left-wing journalist, Owen Jones, who seems to be as much of a fixture on political talk shows as Yasmin Alibhai-Brown these days, dismissed the results thus:
"Fortunately, scientific polling suggests that’s quite a pessimistic answer. Yes there are always tensions which we need to work on. We need to bring our communities together...

Britain has one of the highest levels of interracial relationships in the whole world. We need to break down segregation like faith schools. We concentrate poor people in particular areas because of the lack of social housing, and that disproportionately affects people from black and minority ethnic communities.

Let’s promote communities which are mixed and live together, and let’s take on the obstacles and concerns that people have.”
Thus, Jones's answer to our loathing of the Multicult would appear to be, two fingers up at the vast majority and whack those who don't think like me with even more of it!

That's the PC Crowd for you.

Here are some of the comments seen underneath this YouTube video:
"Will this stop the BBC relentlessly promoting the f*** out of multiculturalism? Will it f***!
"It's scary to imagine how bad this Multikult sh*thole is going to be in 30 years or so when we Brits are a minority. Will the BBC still call it 'enriching' when the whole country is on fire? My guess is yes, and they'll still say that 'diversity is our greatest strength'."
"The machine is creaking, the cat is out the bag and the vibrations are jamming up the cogs."
"Everyone must do their part and not pay the TV licence. Stop funding this white-hating propaganda machine, with its relentless pro multi-culti,pro Islam, pro Labour, pro homosexual agenda. It's also full paedophiles and perverts. The main stream media are our enemies."
"From just a glance at the highly feminime 'man' who spoke first I knew right away he would cry about the numbers being false and whatever. Why do these male multiculturalist nutjobs always look so damn effeminate?"
"Some cultures are not worth tolerating. Some are bloody and cruel, and must never be glorified. The multi-culturists want us to abandon modern civilization and suffer at the subsistence level like the primitive tribes and serfs they glorify as 'good'."
"We need to force that little turd and all other white traitors down the toilet where they belong."
"Not too long ago there was a Jewish Professor of something in Houston,Texas who claimed that Houston is the pinnacle of how well a city can do with multi-culturism. I can only assume he meant his rhetoric to reach the ears of the deaf and/or the unknowing.

Houston has one of the highest crime rates in Texas, is filthy, congested, and all in all a shit place to live. (Understand the last point is merely my opinion.The others are facts.) Perhaps people will begin to wake-up and smell reality."
"The TRUE goal of multiCULTi is "WHITE GENOCIDE". Watch them now say, we need more assimilation and integration to make this work. Remember, "diversity" really means chasing down the last White person until none are left. It's WHITE GENOCIDE!"
"Owen Jones and the rest of his leftist friends should go to camp together, maybe have a shower. That'd help them relax their desire to see aboriginal Brits mixed out."
"For Owen Jones to keep pushing his disgusting, discredited ideology, after the huge amount of victims, of which 1400 is a fraction, is beyond belief. What an awful, awful person he is. No matter what the cost, for disgraces like Owen Jones, the ends justify the means."
"He hates white people. to him 1400 (Rotherham) is too little."
"So... it's time when British people open the eyes. yeah! Goatf***ers in your backyard are worst than Polish ppl. Polish people does not cut your head if you are infidel."
"The White GENOCIDE message is getting bigger and bigger every day, no matter how they censor us. We cannot be stopped. The GENOCIDAL anti-White system will be smashed! Diversity is a codeword for White GENOCIDE."
"It was designed to detroy cohesion, to create conflict, and to drive people insane. Great work. Except the Marxists who designed this hoped for a socialist revolution. Instaed they will trigger a nationalist revolution and then one day they will all be publically hanged for treason, starting with Tony Blair."
"The day of the Left is coming to an end! White brothers and sisters, there is a glorious White revolution on the horizon and it'll be beautiful. We will hang all of the politicians, Communists, Marxists and White left-wing traitors in the streets for their utter betrayal! Long live the White race!"
"Who told you anti-White that supporting the GENOCIDE of White children was a sign of sanity? Why do you support GENOCIDE?"
"Only a total idiot living in a gated community would think it's been a success. It's been an unmitigated disaster, there are no two ways about it. There is a reason there was so much instability in the Balkans, due to ethnic tension with no self determination. Multiculturalism must be scrapped, or bloodshed is going to happen."
"He'd probably get a boner and pray to god they stick they're P**i cocks in his a**e."
"That guy who was speaking after the poll was full of sh*t."
"Multiculturalism is a plot to destroy the nation-state, the foundation stone of modern democracy."
"It's a plot to destroy WHITE PEOPLE, and nobody else and nothing more. Simple as that. The end goal here is to blend and mix us into one population and demographic."
"It is a deliberate plot by Socialists who have still not accepted the failure of their ideology. It is also driven by rich Zionist Jews who hate western Christian societies who compete with them to be the 'Chosen Race.' Whatever happened to freedom? You have no right to force anything on anybody!

True sustainable multiculturalism IS monolithic societies you dimwit! In 300 years time when everybody is coffee coloured with brown eyes and peppercorn hair, there will be NO multiculturalism because you will created a UNI-culture... not much Diversity in that is there???? First virus that comes along will kill us all because we will have NO diversity! Making you a mass murderer."
And one dissenting comment (there were hardly any):
"Multiculturalism or not screw you National Socialist assholes."
Makes you wonder why so many keep on voting for the Owen Joneses, doesn't it?

Makes ME wonder whether THEY have been fixing things all along. You know, over and above the relentless PC propaganda pumped out during the course of the last five decades by the BBC, the rest of the mainstream media and the Jones/Alibhai-Brown type.

Anyway, five percent versus ninety-five percent is pretty bl**dy conclusive, I'd say.

Owen Jones, of course, along with those who forced the Multicult upon us, would say something else.

P.S. 'Five percent versus ninety-five percent?'

Not just me any more, is it?

Sunday, 5 October 2014

The USA is behind the 'Occupy Central protests in Hong Kong

On 1 October 2014, Tony Cartalucci reported thus at the Global Research website:
"Just as the US admitted shortly after the so-called 'Arab Spring' began spreading chaos across the Middle East that it had fully funded, trained, and equipped both mob leaders and heavily armed terrorists years in advance, it is now admitted that the US State Department through a myriad of organizations and NGOs is behind the so-called 'Occupy Central' protests in Hong Kong.

The Washington Post would report in an article titled, 'Hong Kong erupts even as China tightens screws on civil society,' that:

'Chinese leaders unnerved by protests elsewhere this year have been steadily tightening controls over civic organizations on the mainland suspected of carrying out the work of foreign powers.

The campaign aims to insulate China from subversive Western ideas such as democracy and freedom of expression, and from the influence, specifically, of U.S. groups that may be trying to promote those values here, experts say. That campaign is long-standing, but it has been prosecuted with renewed vigor under President Xi Jinping, especially after the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych following months of street demonstrations in Kiev that were viewed here as explicitly backed by the West.'
The Washington Post would also report:
'One foreign policy expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, said Putin had called Xi to share his concern about the West’s role in Ukraine. Those concerns appear to have filtered down into conversations held over cups of tea in China, according to civil society group members.

'They are very concerned about Color Revolutions, they are very concerned about what is going on in Ukraine,' said the international NGO manager, whose organization is partly financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), blamed here for supporting the protests in Kiev’s central Maidan square. 'They say, ‘Your money is coming from the same people. Clearly you want to overthrow China'.'

Congressionally funded with the explicit goal of promoting democracy abroad, NED has long been viewed with suspicion or hostility by the authorities here. But the net of suspicion has widened to encompass such U.S. groups as the Ford Foundation, the International Republican Institute, the Carter Center and the Asia Foundation.
Of course, NED and its many subsidiaries including the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute do no such thing as 'promoting democracy,' and instead are in the business of constructing a global network of neo-imperial administration termed 'civil society' that interlocks with the West’s many so-called 'international institutions' which in turn are completely controlled by interests in Washington, upon Wall Street, and in the cities of London and Brussels. 
While the Washington Post would have readers believe NED is in the business of promoting 'freedom of expression' and 'democracy' the corporate-financier interests represented on NED’s board of directors are anything but champions of such principles, and are instead notorious for principles precisely the opposite.
The very concept of the United States 'promoting democracy' is scandalous when considering it is embroiled in an invasive global surveillance scandal, guilty of persecuting one unpopular war after another around the planet against the will of its own people and based on verified lies, and brutalizing and abusing its own citizens at home with militarized police cracking down on civilians in towns like Ferguson, Missouri – making China’s police actions against 'Occupy Central' protesters pale in comparison. 'Promoting democracy' is clearly cover for simply expanding its hegemonic agenda far beyond its borders and at the expense of national sovereignty for all subjected to it, including Americans themselves.

In 2011, similar revelations were made public of the US’ meddling in the so-called “Arab Spring” when the New York Times would report in an article titled, 'U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,' that:

A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.

The article would also add, regarding NED specifically, that:

The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department.
Image: US Senator John McCain on stage in Kiev, Ukraine cheer-leading US funded sedition in Eastern Europe. In 2011, McCain would famously taunt both Russia and China that US-funded subversion was coming their way. 'Occupy Central' is one of many waves that have hit China’s shores since.
Pro-war and interventionist US Senator John McCain had famously taunted both Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping’s predecessor in 2011 that the US subversion sweeping the Middle East was soon headed toward Moscow and Beijing. The Atlantic in a 2011 article titled, “The Arab Spring: ‘A Virus That Will Attack Moscow and Beijing’, would report that:

'He [McCain] said, 'A year ago, Ben-Ali and Gaddafi were not in power. Assad won’t be in power this time next year. This Arab Spring is a virus that will attack Moscow and Beijing.' McCain then walked off the stage.'

Considering the overt foreign-funded nature of not only the 'Arab Spring,' but now 'Occupy Central,' and considering the chaos, death, destabilization, and collapse suffered by victims of previous US subversion, 'Occupy Central' can be painted in a new light – a mob of dupes being used to destroy their own home – all while abusing the principles of 'democracy' behind which is couched an insidious, diametrically opposed foreign imposed tyranny driven by immense, global spanning corporate-financier interests that fear and actively destroy competition. In particular, this global hegemon seeks to suppress the re-emergence of Russia as a global power, and prevent the rise of China itself upon the world’s stage.

The regressive agenda of Occupy Central’s' US-backed leadership, and their shameless exploitation of the good intentions of the many young people ensnared by their gimmicks, poses a threat in reality every bit as dangerous as the 'threat' they claim Beijing poses to the island of Hong Kong and its people.
Hopefully the people of China, and the many people around the world looking on as 'Occupy Central' unfolds, will realize this foreign-driven gambit and stop it before it exacts the heavy toll it has on nations that have fallen victim to it before – Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, and many others."

Related Articles:

'America's Covert Civil Society Operations:'
"US Interference in Venezuela Keeps Growing Despite President Obama’s promise to President Chavez that his administration wouldn’t interfere in Venezuela’s internal affairs, the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is channeling millions into anti-Chavez groups. Foreign intervention is not only executed through military force."
'The US Engineered 'Arab Spring:' The NGO Raids in Egypt.'
"The LA Times reported , 'Egypt raids foreign organizations' offices in crackdown. Three U.S. groups are among those raided. Activists say the army is using the ruse of foreign intervention to stoke nationalism and deflect criticism of abuses."
'NGO: The Guise of Innocence.'
"In December Egyptian prosecutors and police raided 17 offices of 10 groups identifying themselves as “pro-democracy” NGOs, including four US-based agencies. Forty-three people, including 16 US citizens, have been accused of failing to register with the government and financing."

Thursday, 2 October 2014

The Odessa massacre: a catalyst for the entire Ukraine conflict

On 1 October 2014, Russia Insider reported thus:
"This video seems to very convincingly positively identify a man brutally beating people who were lying prostrate who had just fallen 3 stories out of a burning building during the Odessa massacre...

This massacre was a major flash point and became a catalyst for the entire Ukraine conflict, galvanizing public opinion in East Ukraine and Russia, horrified by what had happened...

On May 2 there was a grisly massacre in Odessa when 42 pro-Russian demonstrators were burned alive in a building after being set upon by pro-Ukrainian activists...

The pro-Russian side says that they were unarmed, were viciously attacked by heavily armed pro-Kiev, neo-nazi activists, from which they fled, seeking refuge in a trade union building. They claim the activists then set fire to the building, where many of the pro-Russians died in the flames, and that even when trying to escape the building, they were shot at and physically attacked.

The pro-Kiev side says that after street fighting with the pro-Russians, they barricaded themselves into the building, and that the fire started accidentally, and denies continuing to attack the victims in the building...

To this day, the western media has not made much of an effort to investigate the story...

There was a major uproar in Russia in the weeks following the tragedy, because the mainstream Western media mentioned it only in passing, and showed little interest in the story, mostly presenting the pro-Kiev version of events. To this day it is probably Exhibit A for most Russians that the western media is biased against Russia.

The information about the video on the Russian YouTube page identifies (the brutal man) as Seva Goncharevskii... An investigation into who he is will likely implicate others involved in the events that day."

'The western media has not made much of an effort to investigate the story.'

Our mainstream media doesn't always collude to manage the news the way the western politician wants it managed.

But too often it does.

Thus are we misled into war. And, if not war, taking sides without enough factual intelligence to make an informed and honourable decision as to whose side, if any, we ought to be on.