Thursday, 2 July 2015

Most popular tweets of June 2015





The savage threat from the religion of peace!

On 29 June 2015, Leo McKinstry said this in The Daily Express:
"In the face of the savage threat from militant Islam, European civilisation has embarked on a programme of assisted suicide. The lethal medicine comes in the form of uncontrolled immigration and the dogma of multiculturalism. This deadly cocktail is administered by treacherous politicians who refuse to defend our society and instead dress up their cowardice as tolerance. 
The scale of the peril that now confronts us was brutally illustrated by a string of atrocities carried out last week by Muslim extremists. At the tourist resort of Sousse on the coast of Tunisia, 39 holidaymakers were cold-bloodedly gunned down by a smiling assassin. Up to 23 of the victims were British, (30 are now known to have been British) making this the worst terrorist outrage perpetrated against our citizens since the London bombings of July 2005. 
This massacre was accompanied by the decapitation of a businessman at a gas factory in southern France, the bombing of a Shia mosque in Kuwait and the slaughter of 200 people in an Islamic State attack on the Syrian town of Kobane. 
The relentless cycle of violence is likely to reach soon into the heart of Britain... It is almost inevitable that the terrorists will succeed at some stage particularly because there are estimated to be at least 350 jihadists in our midst who have recently returned from Syria. 
In response to the grim and relentless catalogue of butchery David Cameron at the weekend appeared to adopt a tone of Churchillian defiance. The deaths, he declared, 'will only unite us more strongly in our determination to defeat these Islamist extremists and all they stand for.'

Fine words but in practice they amount to empty rhetoric. For European governments have shown no such resolution or courage against Islamism. Their pusillanimous attitude was encapsulated in Cameron’s claim last week that Islam is 'a religion of peace,' (GRAPHIC IMAGES) a fatuous remark that is contradicted by the deluge of evidence about Muslim brutality.
The ideology of groups like Islamic State, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram is driven by religion, using the Koran as a textbook for a remorseless war on non-believers. Tragically the theocratic goals of these organisations are supported by all too many Muslims in Europe who yearn for the triumph of their creed. Contrary to all the fashionable talk about 'the vast majority' of moderates, 40 per cent of Muslims in Britain want to see Sharia law formally established here, while 30 per cent of Muslim students on British university campuses desire a caliphate and think that killing in the name of Islam is justified. 
Far from taking the fight to extremism our political class has allowed it to flourish. The vital work of our security forces has been undermined by human rights legislation and by anxiety about accusations of so-called Islamophobia. Soon after the Tunisia massacre the Government of Prime Minister Habib Essid announced that 80 mosques in the country would be closed for 'spreading venom.'  Can you imagine any British politicians or authorities ordering the closure of mosques for promoting radicalism?

Indeed in 2007 when Channel 4 made a documentary about hate preachers operating in Birmingham’s mosques, the West Midlands Police urged that the producers should be prosecuted for stirring up racial hatred. The same cowardly spirit can be seen in the growth of immigration which has now reached the incredible annual total of 641,000 new arrivals, the majority of them from Asia and Africa. 
That total can only increase dramatically thanks to the chaos in Europe fuelled by free movement and the vast exodus of migrants across the Mediterranean. Uncontrolled immigration, allied to a soaring birth rate, has seen the Muslim population of Britain rise to almost three million. 
The tragedy is that far too few of this burgeoning Muslim population have integrated into British society and accepted the traditional values of our civilisations, including pluralism, democracy and freedom of speech. Instead they have been encouraged to cling to the superstitious, misogynistic practices of their homeland. That is why in 21st-century Britain our public authorities have allowed the import of alien obscenities, like the prevalence of the burka, the growth of sharia courts, the tribal corruption of the ballot box and the systematic abuse of white girls, as occurred in northern towns like Rochdale and Rotherham. 
Supporters of mass immigration like to prattle about the joys of cultural enrichment but what is actually happening is the Islamification of large swathes of urban Britain. Typical is the experience of Savile Town in Dewsbury, where an area that was once used for allotments and the local bowling club’s green is now the site for the giant Markazi mosque, built with Saudi Arabian cash. 
None of us were asked if we wanted so many of our neighbourhoods to resemble Islamabad. It was a transformation imposed by our supine political class without any mandate. Wailing about Islamophobia, Muslim community leaders love to pose as victims. But the real victims are the British people, who see their national identity destroyed and their society threatened by division, sectarianism and violence."
Don't imagine that the chattering classes are all as bought-and-paid-for as our politicians, ladies and gentlemen. 

Nowadays, truth-telling, establishment-bashing journalists like Leo abound.

War IS coming ,'our supine political class' and their mindless, my-gang-right-or-wrong supporters in the country (23 million voted for LibLabCon in May 2015) have assured it.

When that war finds its way from Tunisia to our city streets, from the London underground to our towns and villages and from 'Rochdale and Rotherham' to the gated communities of Fortress Britain and the stockbroker belt, as a 'pusillanimous' and 'treacherous' elite cuddle up to and encourage the 'religion of peace,' you can at least be sure that journalists like McKinstry will be pointing an accusatory finger, and perhaps even the odd Kalashnikov, in the same direction as the patriot.

Wednesday, 1 July 2015

Cameron: British Ambassador to the Islamic State?

On 30 June 2015, Ross Clark said this in The Daily Express:
"Remember the passion and zeal with which David Cameron launched his air strikes on Colonel Gaddafi in 2011, and the drive which he pursued the case for an attack on President Assad two years later? I want to know to what has happened to his passion and zeal following the murder of British holidaymakers on a Tunisian beach.  
Listening to the Prime Minister on the Today programme yesterday at times you would have been forgiven for thinking he was the British Ambassador to the Islamic State, trying to express his disapproval of its actions but bending over backwards to avoid offending their leaders. Where was the promise to hunt them down and kill them, as he made to Gaddafi four years ago?
In spite of admitting that IS presents an 'existential threat' to the West, the best Cameron could say was that Britain was in the battle against extremism 'for the long haul.'  In other words, we will carry on with the half-hearted air strikes against IS in Iraq but that is about it. He did mention the deployment of British forces, but only to fly the bodies of the British victims home from Tunisia.  
Time and again he kept telling us that IS’s creed is a 'perversion of Islam,' as if some random terror group had picked up a dog-eared copy of the Koran in a second-hand bookshop and decided it would make a good excuse for violence. IS, of course, is just the latest manifestation of Islamic fundamentalism which has swept the Middle East since the Iranian revolution 36 years ago.  
At least yesterday Prime Minister didn’t repeat the remark he made to an audience of British Muslims at Downing Street last year: 'These people in Iraq and Syria doing these appalling things, they have nothing to do with the great religion of Islam'...
We are never going to defeat Islamic extremism unless we first recognise what it is. When IS post videos of themselves reading Koranic verses before beheading their victims as infidel it is pretty clear that their crimes have quite a lot to do with Islam. IS’s murders are the extreme conclusion of a thought process which began with fundamentalists in Iran and elsewhere starting to take passages in the Koran literally... 
David Cameron admits that IS is an existential threat to the West. Why, then, has foreign policy utterly failed to come up with a coherent response to Islamic fundamentalism? Over the past 20 years we have gone to war against one power which has threatened us: al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But we have also expended a lot of military effort, and sacrificed our forces’ lives, overthrowing regimes which were of no threat to us at all. Worse than that, we have overthrown regimes which, however rotten they were, had been keeping the Islamic fundamentalists at bay. 
Saddam Hussein’s 'weapons of mass destruction' turned out to be a cruel hoax. There was nothing imaginary, though, about the religious maniacs who took advantage of the power vacuum in his wake.
It was the same with Colonel Gaddafi. By 2011 he was no longer a threat to the West. Yet the fundamentalists whom he had suppressed but who have risen in place of his regime very much are a danger to us. In both cases, Iraq and Libya, British forces were used in direct contradiction to our national interest. 
If we were going to intervene there had to be a pretty good plan as to how we would deal with fundamentalist factions. But there was, as we quickly learned, no such thing. 
The situation in Libya is even more desperate than in Iraq. The West armed rebels in the belief they were the good guys fighting the bad guy. MI6 has estimated, there are a million tonnes of weaponry in Libya, more than is held by the entire British army and much of it in the hands people we would least like to have it. We don’t yet know where the Tunisian killer obtained his Kalashnikov, but it is a fair guess that it was a weapon kicking around in lawless, post-Gaddafi Libya.  
David Cameron seems reluctant to face up to possibility that the destabilised condition of Libya is partly of his own making. Worse, he came close to repeating the mistake Syria, where topping of Assad would have cleared the way for an even swifter rise of IS.
It is time Mr Cameron stopped telling us what a wonderful peaceful religion Islam is and tackled the problem of its extremist arm. 
It wouldn’t be a bad start if British foreign policy was targeted on direct threats to Britain, rather than regimes which, however horrible they may be, were at least helping to suppress the religious extremists."
The Express is owned by the Jewish pornographer, Richard Desmond. If you want to find anything out as regards the threat posed by the Jewish lobby, the Jewish Oligarch, banker, Zionist, media mogul or out-and-out Goy-loathing supremacist, Desmond's titles are not the place to look.

However, if you want the facts about Islam and the non-Neocon warmongers of the West, The Express hits the spot more often than most.

Ross Clark, another for the patriotic notebook.

Monday, 29 June 2015

Migrants are good for a community in every way!

On 14 June 2015, Peter Sutherland, Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, former Attorney General of Ireland, former EU Commissioner and former head of the World Trade Organisation, said this on RTE radio:
"Migrants are a positive to an economy not a negative!" 
"Migrants are good for a community, economically and every other way. They contribute positively!" 
"Increase the number of legal migrants!"

This is not the first time this A1 New World Order boy has preached the benefits of mass migration.

On 20 June 2012, he opined thus in Committee Room three of the House of Lords:
“We... still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others, which is precisely what the European Union should be doing its best to undermine." 
“The world in which we're going to move and increasingly are moving is a multicultural world.” 
“Immigration is a moral plus... and not something to be rejected.” 
“States have to become more open states in terms of the people who inhabit them.” 
“I don't see that there is an argument in favour of limiting migrants to areas of high-skilled contributions to the economy.” 
“The commission... has the massive advantage of not being swayed by populism... which inevitably becomes an irrelevant factor in the enunciation of migration policy.”
According to Sutherland then, the indigenous Nordic folk of Europe don't count. 'Populist' opinion (that of the majority) is of no consequence. Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, we're there already, he and his ilk are in charge, 'homogeneity and difference' are their enemies so we'd better start getting used to the fact that, a few years down the line we're all going to be coffee-coloured, our ancestral and cultural roots will be a thing of the past, and all of us will be deeply obeisant to the Global few.

Simple question, ladies and gents. Is this what you really want? Do you really want your own great race gone? That IS what it's all about, you know. Sutherland won't be advocating the extinction of the Chinese any time soon. Mother Earth will disappear into a black hole before he ever advises Pakistan, India, Africa, Japan, South America or, God forbid, Israel to dispense with their 'homogeneity.'

The discomfiting 'difference' of the white world appears to be the only problem that grates upon and concerns worries the top table. Oh yes, there'll be plenty of black, brown and yellow people left on planet earth in a hundred years time but, if the Sutherlands get their way, there won't be one blonde, blue-eyed beauty left for the rest to gawp at.

On 22 May 2003, The Asia Times told us that Sutherland was intimately connected to Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush's ultra-hawkish, Iraq-bashing Defence Secretary.
"Rumsfeld is an active Bilderberger. So is General Peter Sutherland from Ireland, a former European Union commissioner and Chairman of Goldman Sachs and BP. Rumsfeld and Sutherland served together in 2000 on the board of Swiss energy company ABB. And ABB happened to have sold two light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea."
Nice company he keeps, eh? Nice businesses the Chairman of the international branch of the most powerful banking house in the world is involved with.

Eleven days after Sutherland insisted that 'the number of legal immigrants' be increased, those below were 'undermined' permanently by Sutherland's 'multicultural world.'
The authorities think that the final death toll in Tunisia will number more than thirty British and Irish citizens.

Sutherland is a bestial New World order psychopath. 

Do you think he gives a damn about the dead Brits cited above? Trust me, this abominable character couldn't care less about the indigenous European majority. He is the willing lapdog of his bosses at Goldman Sachs.

Who are they? Who owns and controls the most powerful bank in the world? On 9 November 2009, The Sunday Times told us this:
"Number 85, Broad Street, in lower Manhattan is where the money is. All of it... the site of the best cash-making machine that global capitalism has ever produced." 
The Sunday Times then described the bank as 'a political force more powerful than governments.'

How does an Irish barrister get to be Chairman of the international wing of such an establishment?

By being 'a willing lapdog.' Those who own and run the western banking system want control of the money supply of the whole world. Once they have that their rule over us is set in stone. That's what globalism is all about. That's what mass migration into White World is all about. This is why Sutherland and those who own him are determined to 'undermine' our 'homogeneity' and promote the melting-pot in its place.

This guy has been Goldman Sachs' New York Chairman for the last nine years.
He defers to Jacob Rothschild, who is, one hears, the bank's principal shareholder.
Rumour has it, this guy is the King of the Jews.

And thus, the King of the World. At least in the eyes of his brethren.

And the Sutherlands.

Sunday, 28 June 2015

Saudi Arabia and Israel are much more dangerous than Iran!



Saudi Arabia wanted to attack Iran in 2013!

US Neocons offered BNP cash to stop criticising international bankers!


Nick Griffin révèle une tentative de corruption... by ERTV

In this video, Nick Griffin exposes a 'serious, systematic, hugely funded effort by a section of the ruling elite' to take over British Nationalism via the promotion of the EDL and others.

Tame 'puppets' would then concentrate on criticising Islam only. Griffin says:
"... a serious, systematic, hugely funded effort by a section of the ruling elite by a Zionist Neocon clique, to dominate, simply take over Nationalism and turn it into their tool. To encourage the the white working class to go and fight their wars so that when the banking collapse comes people are looking in the wrong direction instead of at the real culprits...

We were offered money by the United States... They only wanted two things. They only wanted us to concentrate on criticism of Islam... They wanted us to drop our criticism of the banking system."
Even now, it's nice to hear the BNP's former leader speaking out about this kind of thing. (He was deposed as head of the BNP shortly after this) Just a shame that most Nationalists never heard a whiff of it at the time. (2007)

Thing is, Nick, at the time this was happening, indeed, from 2005 all the way through to 2010, you, yourself, imposed a total block of any criticism of 'Zionist' misbehaviour upon the membership. And, as most of the leading Neocons and almost all of the movers and shakers within the 'banking system' just happened to be Zionists, no BNP member was able to criticise those whom you now castigate without risking ejection from the party!

That edict upset a lot of people and produced the tensions which saw a lot of good, hard-working nationalists leave, be forced to resign or be sacked. So, what is this, Nick? An attempt to rewrite history?

I never knew that the Neocons had approached you personally, but, boy-oh-boy, was I one hundred percent aware that NONE were allowed to point out Jewish misbehaviour of any kind. It was this censorship of the facts by someone who was engaged at the time in, as he saw it, grown-up 'realpolitik' that tore the party apart, Nick, not Neocon-and-pal machination. The Gospel of St. Nicky was paramount and this decreed that none should inform the rest of the stuff we knew by heart.

Tell the truth, my dear chap. That's what most BNP folks wanted back then and that, I'm sure, is what they are standing out for still.

Saturday, 27 June 2015

Islam is a religion of peace!

On 26 June 2015, at least 15 Britons were shot dead in the holiday resort of Sousse, Tunisia. 

The final death toll will almost certainly rise to more than twenty.

Seifeddine Rezgui, a 23-year-old engineering student, is said to have carried out 'the deadliest terror attack against British citizens since 7/7.'

On the same day, delivery driver Yassin Salhi, tried to cause a major conflagration by ramming his vehicle into 'an area containing flammable liquids' in a factory near Lyon, in France.

The head of Salhi's boss was later found hanging from a perimeter fence.

Also on the 26th, 27 people died in an attack on a Shia mosque in Kuwait City. 227 others were wounded. An ISIS-affiliated group claimed responsibility.

On the same day, ISIS killed at least 145 civilians in an attack on the Syrian town of Kobani and a nearby village, in what a monitoring group described on Friday as one of the worst massacres carried out by the hardline group in Syria.

On the same day, the militant Islamic group, al-Shabab killed at least 30 people in an attack upon an African Union military base in southern Somalia.

On the same day, David Cameron said 'Islam is a religion of peace.'

He is wont to come out with such crassly insensitive sentiments when Muslims commit atrocities. Here are a few more:
"There is nothing in Islam that justifies acts of terror.." (After Lee Rigby was murdered by black Muslims) 
"They don’t represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world." (Reaction to the massacre by Al-Shabab in Nairobis’s Westgate shopping centre)
“It is nothing to do with one of the world’s great religions, Islam, which is a religion of peace." (Following the slaughter of 132 children and 9 adults at a school in Pakistan in December 2014)
“These people in Iraq and Syria doing these appalling things, they have nothing to do with the great religion of Islam, a religion of peace. A religion that inspires daily acts of kindness and generosity." (At the Eid festival in 2014, following the beheading of British and American hostages by ISIS)

Adolf Hitler once said: 'if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.'

Cameron does and will continue to do likewise to keep the ambitions of his globalist masters on track, no matter how at odds his statements are with the facts. Kill the foreigner in his own back yard, praise him to high heaven in ours. That's the strategy. Perpetual war on them, perpetual war on us via the hatred thus engendered.

How many Muslims has the British establishment imported in the last ten years, do you think? You know, since 7/7/2005? How many British born Muslims have been radicalised by the slaughter launched by those we vote for in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria? How many more have come to hate us because of our rulers' unwavering support for an Israel that can do whatever it wants, with routine and uncaring savagery, to the Palestinians?

THEY are at war with all of us, ladies and gentlemen, they really are. How many times have I said this over the course of the last twelve on-line years? Hundreds probably. It's as true now as it was when Tony Blair lied us into war with Iraq in 2003. And it will never stop. Not until world government by the unscrupulous few has been hammered into irremovable place once and for all.

Not until then.

Unless, of course, we, the teeming billions who live and die at their whim, remove them.


War IS coming, ladies and gentlemen. 

Not just over there and not just over here now and again. It is coming to us as it came to the Middle East, the countries of the Arab Spring, Africa and the Ukraine. War is coming. War where such random-seeming atrocity as that cited above is commonplace. Those who own the Camerons, the Browns, the Blairs, the Bushes, the Clintons and the Obamas will not rest until the whole world is ablaze.


Monday, 22 June 2015

The BBC has a problem with the white population!

On 22 June 2015, The Times published extracts from 'Getting out Alive,' the memoir of Roger Mosey, one of the leading figures at the BBC for more than two decades. (Liberal BBC out of touch on migration, says its ex-director - Daily Mail)

The Times introduced the article thus:
“The BBC suffers from liberal 'group think' and 'dysfunctional governance' one of its most senior figures of the past two decades has said."
Roger, who is now Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge, was then quoted thus:
“One night on the Ten O’Clock News we broadcast a package from a racially diverse part of Britain, where ethnic minorities had become a majority... Only one white man was featured, and he said he was perfectly happy with the way his neighbourhood had developed."
Roger 'emailed the reporter next morning' and asked him if 'all the people' he 'spoke to' thought similarly to the lone 'white man.' The reporter replied that there had been a 'PROBLEM' with 'THE WHITE POPULATION,' many of whom were, in his view, 'FAIRLY RABIDLY RACIST.'

Roger continued:
"It was a nightmare in terms of what could be used in the piece,' he said; if he had used the 'hard' white voices, it might have been illegal... Hence the decision to use the one man who had expressed a positive view... It ended up with AN UNACCEPTABLY SANITISED PIECE OF REPORTING."
The Times article also said that BBC local radio had produced a leaflet around that time identifying 'typical target listeners... a middle-aged couple called Dave and Sue.' The leaflet stated:
"Now it’s an established every day reality that Dave and Sue work alongside and socialise with people of different ethnic backgrounds... THEY ARE INTERESTED IN AND OPEN MINDED ABOUT ADAPTING ASPECTS OF OTHER CULTURES INTO THEIR OWN LIVES - IN ENTERTAINMENT, medicine, BELIEF, food, clothes and LANGUAGE.

Their COMMUNITY-MINDED ATTITUDES mean they are interested in projects which ADVANCE SOCIAL COHESION IN THIS COUNTRY and in INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES."
Roger continued:
"I went into battle in the summer of 2003 with the BBC’s editorial policy team, who circulated minutes from an advisory meeting about the coverage of asylum seekers...

The editorial policy people disliked our use of ‘iconic' pictures of the Sangatte Refugee camp... and concluded that we should take care to use reliable information and not stoke up prejudice... but asserted that this area was 'being led by an angry tabloid agenda and extreme right wing groups.'

I sent a truculent email back... The asylum debate is one on which we’ve done rather badly in reflecting the concerns of our audiences... these minutes read like a pure LIBERAL-DEFENSIVE RESPONSE rather than a quest for range and diversity in our journalism...

I shared the correspondence with one or two like-minded souls, including Jeff Randall... business editor. He wrote to me 'does anyone in the BBC’s policy unit 'Thought Police' read Richard Littlejohn? They should. He reflects popular opinion far more accurately than the views of those whose ideas of a good night out is reading the Indy over a vegetarian mean in a Somali restaurant'.”
In 2007, Jeff went on record to say this:
“It’s a bit like walking into a Sunday meeting of the Flat Earth Society. As they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat. If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the earth is round!’, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.”
Complaining to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance, Jeff was given the reply:
"THE BBC IS NOT NEUTRAL IN MULTICULTURALISM: IT BELIEVES IN IT AND PROMOTES IT!"
He once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work and was told:
"You can't do that, that's like the National Front!"
I call it social engineering.

I say the BBC has been editing the facts to suit a sinister, anti-indigenous, multicultural agenda. There are, and have been for some time, people within that organisation who are our enemies. These have betrayed those their remit obliged them to serve.

They and their friends in politics are the traitor within. They should be tried for treason, found guilty and dealt with.

That's what I say.

What about you?

P.S. As regards the 'very senior news editor' who said 'the BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and promotes it,' he'd be 'dealt with' along with the rest.

For him, however, the dealing wouldn't be that quick.

The BBC is dominated by homosexuals and foreigners!

Ram Z Paul's take on Dylann Roof's Manifesto

On 17 June 2015, Dylann Roof, shot dead nine black people in a church in Charleston, South Carolina.


I think many angry white patriots would secretly (or not so secretly) rejoice if a white man declaring himself to be a fellow patriot, assassinated Tony Blair, George Bush, the Clintons, Obama, Dick Cheney or Binyamin Netanyahu.

I don't think they'd disapprove of a guy who executed a non-white who murdered a white person, or one who took part in the serial gang rape and prostitution of the nation's children either.

But the people Dylann Roof murdered were churchgoers. They may well have been entirely innocent of any of the inter-ethnic crimes that infuriated him to point where he felt he must seek revenge. Indeed, Roof has admitted that the people he killed were nice to him before he gunned them down.

The twentieth and twenty first centuries saw and still see great powers making genocidal war upon the innocent. Saturation bombing, the A-Bomb and all manner of state of the art weaponry has killed tens of millions of non-combatants and will continue to do so. Politicians, the worst of us, arrange this slaughter.

When we go to war we should not target the innocent. Apart from the obvious immorality, it makes no sense at all when there are so very many bad guys out there for vengeful Whitey to punish. Ram Z Paul says, 'violence works.' It's a fair point. However, to take the most notable examples from recent history, violence could be said to have worked for Lloyd-George, Poincare, Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson, Zionism, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Churchill, Roosevelt, America, Israel, Zionism and the international financier, it most certainly did not work for the Tsar, Kaiser Bill, Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo and a hundred million innocents who perished at the hands of all the above.

If you can frighten the slaughterman into backing away from his slaughterous endeavours by making HIM pay the ultimate price, you may, in the end, save a life or two. But, if you make the innocent suffer, yet again, for the crimes of their political masters, who profits? Well done, son, not only did you save the bad guys a job, hand them a propaganda victory and kill a lot of people who never did you any harm, your morally indefensible actions will, almost certainly, fuel unjust reprisal in their turn.

War is coming. Violence, similar to that suffered by so many others at this present time, cannot now be avoided by us, I reckon. The politicians, the media, and the international financiers who own both, will bear the responsibility for any such war.

If you must seek revenge, be revenged upon the guilty, not the innocent.