EDL 's Tommy Robinson Challenges David Cameron to a Live Debate

Tommy Robinson Challenges David Cameron to a Live Debate

The title says it all: we challenge the Prime Minister, David Cameron, to debate with Tommy Robinson of the English Defence League.

But the reason this debate is important has to do with the political climate in Britain today. It is no longer possible to discuss radical Islam without being unfairly demonised as some kind of extremist. That is wrong. And it can as true for Muslims as it is for non-Muslim critics of Islam.

Not every Muslim is a terrorist, just as not every critic of Islam is an ‘Islamophobe’.

It’s time to abandon these lazy and offensive assumptions, time to give up the stereotypes, and time to have an even-handed public debate.

Quite simply, it’s time to talk.

We look forward to Mr Cameron’s response, but in the meantime we thought it would be worth explaining things from the EDL perspective:

EDL supporters are well-used to facing hostility when asked to explain their views. But when we explain why we demonstrate against radical Islam, we tend to find that any initial reservations people may have had are overcome remarkably quickly.

We do not demonstrate against radical Islam because we are intolerant or ignorant, but because we believe in values that the followers of radical Islam make no secret of rejecting, and will often openly admit to working to undermine. Important values such as:

• freedom of speech
• human rights
• democratic accountability
• respect for our armed forces (past and present)
• and many other fundamental elements of our liberal democracy

No wonder more and more people are coming to realise that the way that large sections of the media portray the EDL is at best naive and at worst purposefully deceitful.

We have no secret political agenda, no desire to join the mindless rioters that have recently shamed our country, and we wholeheartedly reject any of the forms of extremism that some of our critics are so keen to ascribe to us.

In fact, we play a critical role in educating would-be supporters against all forms of extremism, and we are despised by the real far Right as much as by the far Left and Islamic extremists.

We aspire to do “exactly what it says on the tin” – defend England from those who would do endanger the rights and freedoms that our country’s institutions have protected for generations. And we’ll do that in accordance with the best traditions of this country: peaceful protest, a stiff upper lip, and a commitment to keep calm and carry on!

Despite this, members of the far Left, and even a senior policeman, have claimed that what motivates members of the EDL is the desire to “inflame racial tension”.

What an offensive assumption. As if protesting against radical Islam has anything to do with race. What a racist assumption that is!

What actually motivates us is the desire to see the Muslim Community of this country defeat the dangerous extremism that lurks within it; so that there are no more home-grown terrorists, no more hate preachers, no more ghettos, and no more religiously-sanctioned attacks on women, homosexuals, non-Muslims, and other Muslims.

What actually motivates us is the desire to see politicians working to safeguard this country from a threat that they do not, as yet, appear to understand: so that hate preachers are expelled, not given benefits, and so that ordinary Muslims are encouraged to expel the radicals, not fail to take any responsibility for growing calls for Sharia.

What actually motivates us is the desire to see freedom of speech protected; so that vital criticisms may be made about the way in which radical Islam is being allowed to grow, without those criticisms being censored by those who have a vested interest in supporting Islamic extremism, and without those who make the criticisms being demonised as extremists for daring to speak up.

What actually motivates us is the desire to see our government actually doing something about radical Islam; for the sake of everyone: black, white, Muslim and non-Muslim.

Protesting against radical Islam should be common sense. The fact that so many politicians and media types leap to attack the EDL just demonstrates how little they understand about what really motivates our supporters, and how little they understand about the true nature of radical Islam.

It’s simple – radical Islam is deeply engrained in the Muslim Community, and a great deal needs to change. That’s not prejudice, that’s a well-supported, accurate, and honest assessment of the current situation.

On the other hand, if leaping to unfair assumptions and spreading them as if they were fact isn’t prejudice, we don’t know what is. Misrepresenting the EDL to the extent that we are called, sick, racist, fascist or ‘Islamophobic’, is actually a far more dangerous threat to community cohesion than giving a fair appraisal of what we do actually stand for.

For example, if you should suggest that radical Muslims seem to have a stranglehold on many Mosques or Muslim organisations, then you may well be accused of being an ‘Islamophobe’. But is expressing a concern about the current state of Islam in this country really evidence that you afflicted with some kind of mental illness or disorder? Of course not. Demonising critical opinions to this extent just strengthens the radicals’ claims that there can be no criticism of Islam, and that those who are thought to have in some way “blasphemed” against Islam must be dealt with incredibly harshly.

Encouraging the followers of any ideology to reject criticism is not healthy. When the ideology in question is a religion in whose name a seemingly endless number of fanatics are willing to commit terrible acts of terrorism, it is highly irresponsible and dangerous. And when the religion in question is plagued with intolerant, authoritarian Islamist extremists, slowly using the freedoms we afford them to undermine our country’s ability to protect those freedoms, it is nothing less than a betrayal of all those for whom human rights actually mean something.

Criticism is important, and we believe that the government’s woeful record in combating radical Islam is worth criticising and worth protesting about.

But not only are we committed to peaceful protest; we also place a great deal of trust in this country’s democratic institutions.

That is why we call on the Prime Minister, David Cameron, to agree to this debate.

It is vital that our views are heard. Not only because we hope that politicians might then begin to change their attitude to the threat posed by radical Islam, but also so that resentment, born of misunderstanding, does not cause greater divisions in our communities.

British Muslims need to be exposed to fair and honest criticism of their religion and of the extremism that it continues to incubate. They need to be protected from prejudice and hatred, but not from the sort of criticism that is essential to peaceful integration and to efforts to counter extremism.

That is what the EDL represent. And if, after that is clearly established, we are still accused of trying to “inflame racial tension”, then that is a more a reflection of the character of our accusers than it is our supporters.

Extremists have been responsible for countless horrors throughout history. Extremists incite violence, encourage division, and demonise their opponents. They do not call for reform. They do not campaign in favour of freedom of speech. They are nothing like the English Defence League.

It is clear, then, that the reputation of the EDL is central to the discussion about the state of Islam in Britain. The fact that calling for Islam to be reformed is still regarded as ‘Islamophobia’ is a sad reflection on the quality of the debate, and on the government’s ability to grasp the nature of the threat posed by radical Islam.

Radical Islam is not completely disconnected from Islam, and nor should it be treated as such. There are growing numbers of Muslim voices saying exactly this – it would be nice to see David Cameron give them a vote of confidence.

So although cynics would see a debate between Tommy Robinson and the Prime Minister as nothing more than an opportunity for the EDL to build even more support, it should really be seen as an opportunity for David Cameron to show that he understands the challenges that are ahead of us, has a plan for addressing them and, despite the seriousness of these challenges, is committed to safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all.

It would take a great deal of integrity for David Cameron to admit that he was wrong about the EDL.

It would take a great deal of bravery for him to stand up against the enemies of freedom; to condemn the far Left, the far Right, radical Islam, and all who do not believe that the Prime Minster should listen to the views of this country’s largest protest movement, or consider the concerns of our tens of thousands of supporters.

It would take a great deal of conviction. But England would remember him for it. Perhaps the world would remember him for it.

Radical Islam would certainly remember him for it.

So come on Dave, if you want to give the ‘Big Society’ a chance, now’s the chance to talk to it.

Free Movement of Labour and the Destruction of Nations

Free Movement of Labour and the Destruction of Nations

Posted at BNP ideas Site

By Southwest Nationalist.

We’ve all seen the headlines, foreign workers occupying most of Britain’s new jobs.

And, who can have missed the almost religious zeal with which those in charge have tried to create a multicultural society, importing people by the million, watching as birth rates and population spirals out of control.

“White flight” too, as the indigenous seek to leave heavily colonised areas, or in many cases the country – which in turns hastens our walk towards overall minority in our own land.

Is employment and the free movement of labour actually being used as a part of this, to create diverse and disparate societies, and with a bigger purpose in mind?

Think on it for a moment. We see Britons unable to get jobs, and foreigners coming here to take British jobs.

In some instances, most recently Poland, this leads to a decline in that country’s population, and a possible shortage of people to work.

Britons, desperate to leave Britain, where we’re seeing wages held at low levels whereas the cost of living is spiralling out of control, go and seek work – or retirement, or escape – elsewhere.

Those foreigners here for jobs, well, some will leave – but most do not. They establish themselves, marry – perhaps to a Briton, buy homes, have families etc. They put down roots.

The racial demographic of a society is utterly transformed, both short and long term, by those who came to a nation seeking work.

Our own people leave our nations, foreign people come to our nations.

Britain, and a few other EU nations, may be the magnets of choice for foreign workers currently, but when that changes it will do little, our population makeup will already have been changed forever.

We will, by virtue of the free movement of labour, become more diverse – aka White British will have become more of a minority in Britain – and that will not reverse simply because we cease to be a jobs magnet, for example due to a major recession, removal of benefits, or stricter employment laws.

Tomorrow it will be another countries turn to experience this mass influx, perhaps one of those nations who today is busily exporting workers to us at an alarming rate.

That’s fairly inevitable. As their workforce pool diminishes, workers will be in demand, workers from other nations will seek to take advantage of that.

Diversity is created under the cloak of free movement of labour, it’s a tool for the engineering of societies whilst attempting to maintain the illusion that it’s of economic benefit to the nation and that it is happening by the free will of peoples.

If one wanted to utterly transform the racial makeup of a nation, and not just a single nation but, for example, every nation in the EU, then why not create freedom of movement and freedom of work rules between those nations?

Economics and demand for labour would eventually take care of the rest, in some instances far faster than others.

Nations would eventually be ruined as their jobs markets become saturated with, or experience a deficit of, workers, and those nations experiencing mass influxes stagger under the burden of an un-manageable population, but the result would be diversity.

And, each ‘collapse’ in individual nations would trigger a wave of migration from that nation.

One would create artificial migrations of people between nations, and thus create diverse, disparate societies in each of those nations.

Yes, there would be suffering, but for diversity obsessed bureaucrats, would that matter if they could achieve their goal of transforming societies into the multiracial, multicultural ideal?

All societies who were part of this bloc would eventually lose their own identity as a result, and the only commonality people within that society would have is their nation’s membership of this bloc.

Wouldn’t that suit the EU down to the ground? The only tie between peoples would be the EU, and also the cherished goal of diversity would be achieved.

They would, effectively, have succeeded in merging all of our nations into one nation, or states of one nation, removing the national identity and the people who made each individual nation a nation in its own right.

Given a few centuries indigenous races would cease to exist in any significant numbers, there’d be no national or racial identity whatsoever, not a single bond to hold nations together, other than their membership of the bloc.

They’d have their one ‘super’ nation because the individual nations would have nothing left which made them stand apart, they’d have no choice but to be tied to that central authority, diversity and the lack of any internal national cohesion ensures it.

The stuff of conspiracy theories? Or just some careful planning on their part which we see coming to fruition around us now?

We can at least say that, even if the side effects of free movement are unintended, they are certainly beneficial for those running the EU show.

Is it really possible that something so convenient for a few, so in accordance with their aims of creating a superstate peopled by the diverse, and so monumental, can have happened by accident?

Fancy dress costumes and LibLabCon galas – how the EHRC Quango spends your Taxes

Fancy dress costumes and LibLabCon galas – how the EHRC spends your money

Published by Freedom News

The infamous Equalities and Human Rights Commission spent more than £35,000 of taxpayers’ money on items such as fancy dress costumes and printed balloons, and sending staff to LibLabCon party functions, the Taxpayers’ Alliance has revealed.

Released EHRC bank statements exposed details of a shopping spree by 400 of the quango’s staff, who were issued with government credit cards allowing them to spend up to £9,500 a month over a two-year period.

Among the costs run up at the taxpayers’ expense between April 2009 and May 2011 were: £367 on fancy dress costumes, £351 on printed balloons, £120 on artists’ easels and £129 on a ‘light therapy’ lamp, which is used to ‘combat acne’.

In addition, EHRC employees enjoyed thousands of pounds worth of first-class rail travel – as well as foreign conferences, luxury hotels and meals at expensive restaurants, including a five-star Hilton hotel in London and the Pont de La Tour restaurant near Tower Bridge.

However, the bulk of the expense – almost £20,000 – went on sending staff to events held by the LibLabCon political elite. In total, the EHRC gave £9,167.62 to the Labour party, £6,145 to the Tories and £4,650 to the Lib Dems.

London British National Party representative Giuseppe De Santis commented: ‘It’s questionable if a government quango is allowed to give taxpayers’ money to political parties, but this may explain why the EHRC is still there, and why the much-vaunted bonfire of the quangos never took place! In actual fact their numbers are increasing.

‘Only the British National Party will stop this unacceptable waste of money by closing down this useless quango and using the money saved to pay for frontline services.’

A damning report issued last month said the EHRC contributes ‘very little to meaningful equality’ despite costing the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds. The report by the Civitas think-tank said that the ‘super’ quango should be abolished and found ‘serious flaws’ in its work.

It was also scathing of the pay and expenses of the Commission’s most senior staff – including its chairman Trevor Phillips, who is paid an extortionate £112,000-a-year salary for three-and-a-half days’ work a week.

A spokesman for the EHRC defended the payments as ‘legitimate expenses’.

But Matthew Sinclair, director of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, said: ‘We already knew spending was out of control at the EHRC, but now we have further evidence that they are wasting taxpayers’ money with thousands of pounds in credit card bills.

‘Every penny wasted unnecessarily on lavish expenses and political campaigning at party conferences is more pressure on families. If the Government want to give taxpayers a better deal, they need to scrap this spendthrift quango.’

or by ringing 0844 8094581 to help with running costs and improvements of this website. If operators are busy, please try again.

Libya - the real reason for the illegal war becomes known

Libya - the real reason for the illegal war becomes clear

Written by News Reporter

On his Straneuropa blog, La Stampa’s Brussels correspondent Marco Zatterin reports that EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger may next week propose that in future all oil and gas contracts between EU member states and third countries be examined at the EU level before they are concluded. The article notes that Germany has probably been lobbying for this proposal, due to fears of lagging behind France, the UK and Italy in striking deals with the new Libyan government. Meanwhile, following yesterday’s conference in Paris, competition has kicked off among countries that participated in the military operations in Libya to secure energy deals with the new Libyan government. In an interview with RTL, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé said it was “logical and fair” that countries which offered the biggest support to Libya’s National Transition Council received a preferential treatment. On the BBC’s Today programme, David Cameron noted, “I think there’s a big danger today actually of people in the West taking too much credit for themselves.”

Radio RWB Special Report on Tonight’s World at 8

Special Report on Tonight’s World at 8

by James North

– On tonight’s show. High Court Enforcement Officers visit Nick Griffin’s House; Romac Press employees lose jobs after non payment of £44,000 printing bill; Greek finance minister has criticized a report on the economy; and news from Libya. All this and more on Britain’s premier nationalist radio station.

High Court Enforcement Officers have attended Nick Griffin’s house seeking assets in lieu of party debts this morning. According to reports, Mr Griffin refused to come out and has sent his wife out to negotiate with the sheriff. The police are now in attendance to help with the enforcement.

Nine employees of Romac Press in Belfast were today made unemployed when the company officially closed down, brought to its knees by the non-payment of a £44,000 printing bill incurred by Nick Griffin. The company’s owner, David Sloane, bravely refused an offer of payment by Mr Griffin which would have entailed him becoming part of a criminal conspiracy to frame Richard Barnbrook into a bankruptcy case.

In European news, the Greek finance minister has criticized a report on the economy which said Greece was likely to miss its budget targets this year due to months of delays in implementing austerity measures and a deeper than expected recession. The Minister issued a statement on Thursday saying that the newly-created parliamentary panel which issued the document lacked the “knowledge, experience and responsibility” needed to compile reports on macroeconomic and fiscal prospects.

In world news, after NATO forces move out of the North African state, Libya may become a “puppet” state under the sway of international energy companies seeking swift access to the country’s oil, experts believe. While a contact group comprising 60 countries met yesterday in Paris to discuss the future of post-Gaddafi Libya, Almond, an international relations expert from the Oxford University, doubts the NATO will move out of Libya after the new regime is established and Colonel Gaddafi caught.

Radio Red, White and Blue is the only news outlet that covers all aspects of the news, including those stories that organisations like the BBC consider too politically-incorrect to report on.

Tune in every weeknight from 8pm to hear a complete news round-up of all the days’ events only on The World at 8, exclusively on Radio Red, White and Blue.

Presenter John Walker
Reporter James North

Good Luck to the English Defence League on Saturday

Good Luck to the English Defence League on Saturday

Written by Green Arrow

I admit to having strong reservations about both the leadership of the English Defence League and also their ideas on what constitutes being English/British, but that does not mean I do not support the individual members and admire their courage in taking to the streets in their opposition to the Islamification of Our Country. So good luck lads for this Saturday in Tower Hamlets. Shamefully the Home Secretary and promoter of homosexual adoptions, Theresa May has banned what was to have been a peaceful march through the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets, forcing the EDL into holding a static demonstration to make the following ten points. To stand up for freedom of speech Because England should not have any no go zones Because England certainly shouldn’t have any Sharia zones To protest against the tide of violence and discrimination that has erupted in Tower Hamlets To oppose radical Islam To expose how deeply entrenched radical Islam has become in Tower Hamlets To maintain our commitment to peaceful protest. To combat and expose misrepresentation of our goals To expose the failings of the government’s counter-extremism initiatives Because we owe it to everyone who has suffered at the hands of radical Islam, or has had their freedoms curtailed because they have made criticisms that members of the political establishment have not wanted to address. You can read more by visiting their site by clicking on this link. Like I said. Good Luck on Saturday.

UK Today: Beyond a Joke

Beyond a Joke

Posted at BNP Ideas

By Peter Mills.

The Government will be presenting the Language Control Bill in the next session of Parliament as an integral plank in its platform of enforced social control for a fairer Britain.

This Bill is part of the Government’s major new strategy, the Fairer Use Controlled Knowledge In National Ethical Liberal Legislation (which, for convenience, will generally be referred to by the acronym formed from its initials).

The Bill is designed to remove the final vestiges of unacceptable traditional language from English.

The Bill, when passed as an Act of Parliament, will make the following linguistic changes compulsory.

(1) The New Zealand All Blacks rugby team will now be called the New Zealand Integrated rugby team.

(2) The drink made from mixing pale ale and stout, Black and Tan, will now be called Tan and Less Tanned.

(3) On the roads, black ice will now be called dark frosting.

(4) The delicacy black pudding will now be called disadvantaged pudding.

(5) The great plague of the Middle Ages will now be called the Pink Death.

(6) The heartland of the Industrial Revolution the Black Country will now be called the Sooty Country.

(7) The famous American hip-hop group the Black Eyed Peas will now be called the Bruised Eyed Peas.

(8) The children’s rhyme Baa baa black sheep will now be rewritten as Baa baa ethnic sheep.

(9) The popular Channel 4 comedy Black Books will now have its title changed to Non-Segregated Books.

(10) The Black Isle in Scotland will now be called the Enriched Isle.

(11) The Royal Highland Regiment will no longer be called the Black Watch but will, instead, be renamed the Police Watch.

(12) The Black Dyke Brass Band will change its name to the Multicultural Non-Committed Feminist Brass Band.

(13) Black Holes will be renamed HM Treasury Holes.

(14) London Black Cabs will be renamed London Burning Wrecks.

(15) The rare bird the Black-Tailed Godwit will be renamed the Inner-City-Tailed Non-Christian-Wit.

(16) The Little Black Book will be renamed the Little Equality Book.

(17) The Little Black Dress will be renamed the New School Uniform for over-twelves.

(18) The Guardian’s Middle East Editor Mr. Ian Black will be renamed Mr. Ian No-Border-Control.

Liberalism fails

by Brett Stevens.

1991 was a turning point for the West: communism failed, and this forced the West to consolidate its rebels and bourgeois together into a new genre. Made of baby boomers, this “bohemian bourgeois” combined 1968 pseudo-Marxist values with pure New World consumerism.

These raging delusional cases finally got their liberal dream through Bill Clinton, and then Barack Obama, interrupted only by conservatives who attempted to reverse the decline. This culminated an effort that began in 1789 or earlier to make everyone equal.

• Liberals endorse versions of the same idea on a spectrum from anarchy to communism: the individual has the unrestricted right to do whatever he or she wants to. To protect that right, they attack some methods as immoral and demand the right to other methods. Liberals deconstruct.
• Conservatives conserve whole things. Their goal is a stable society, not unrestricted individualism. They attack liberalism by pointing out that it has confused goals and as such, regulates methods (effects) not end results (causes). Conservatives construct.

You can see why liberals and conservatives fight like dogs: they’re heading in opposite directions. Liberals want to focus on the individual and ignore consequences; conservatives want to pay attention to consequences and make the individual fit into that as a means to an end.

Claiming that a radical difference exists between Communism, Socialism, anarchism and your standard liberal democrat is fallacious. The only difference is that of degree. Anarchism is the ideal, but that doesn’t work, so liberals switch to a strong central bureaucracy to enforce that anarchy.

Liberalism has been gaining influence since before 1789 because it is a popular notion. If you think only of the individual and its rights, there is never blame for individual failings and everyone is happy. This outlook is most compatible with commerce, socialization and marketing.

The proles of the world love liberalism because it tells them it’s not their fault that they have failings in life; someone else (presumably the rich, fascists, white people or aliens) did it to them. Cognitive dissonance is what psychologists call this, but not if they want to keep their jobs.

Now that we have had 200+ years of liberalism rising, we are starting to see the consequences of its unrealistic policies. Namely, our social order has collapsed and the result is worse than what came before. And we sacrificed it all for the notion that all people are equal.

Common sense and even more, basic experience, shows us that “all people are equal” is a delusional, dysfunctional and unrealistic feeling and fashion but not a complete logical thought. It is popular among the broadest section of individuals; these also like Katy Perry records and Big Macs.

Fewer than one in ten thousand people is competent enough to be a brain surgeon, military general or brilliant innovator; leadership is even harder than those jobs, and yet we let everyone make the decisions (votes) that constitute our ersatz leadership.

Yet a certain segment of the population keeps babbling on about equality and the individual and human rights as if these things were still relevant. They aren’t. Liberalism is now the old order, and one that has failed, as it has wrecked families, nations, and all things we relied upon.

Take our Prime Minister, who is once again defrauding far too many people. He uses his expensive voice, his expensive clothes, his well-learned tone of public-school command, to give the impression of being an effective and decisive person. But it is all false. He has no real idea of what to do. He thinks the actual solutions to the problem are ‘fascist’. Deep down, he still wants to ‘understand’ the hoodies.

Say to him that naughty children should be smacked at home and caned in school, that the police (and responsible adults) should be free to wallop louts and vandals caught in the act, that the police should return to preventive foot patrols, that prisons should be austere places of hard work, plain food and discipline without TV sets or semi-licit drugs, and that wrongdoers should be sent to them when they first take to crime, not when they are already habitual crooks, and he will throw up his well-tailored arms in horror at your barbarity.

Say to him that divorce should be made very difficult and that the state should be energetically in favour of stable, married families with fathers (and cease forthwith to subsidise families without fathers) and he will smirk patronisingly and regard you as a pitiable lunatic.

Say to him that mass immigration should be stopped and reversed, and that those who refuse any of the huge number of jobs which are then available should be denied benefits of any kind, and he will gibber in shock.

Yet he is ready to authorise the use of water cannon and plastic bullets on our streets (quite useless, as it happens, against this sort of outbreak) as if we were a Third World despotism. – The Daily Mail

Since 1789, leftists have been fighting to bury their misdeeds under the rug. They “intend” well, but the results are never so good. Whether it was the mass slaughter of French people upon hearsay in the French revolution, the vast purges of Soviet Russia, or the ongoing failure of leftist programs in the US and UK, liberals are trying to hide these consequences.

Liberalism and leftism are the same thing, and part of their goal is to deny consequences so that the individual has maximum freedom and equality.

However, doubts spread. We’ve been on on this increasing equality jihad since at least WWII, and the crusade for universal freedom and equality has run into a stopping point — the actual inequality of people. The leftist answer is that we can “educate” (propagandize) them with central authority.

However, nature matters more than our fond notions of what propaganda can do. From a recent update:

A landmark article went online a few days ago in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. The study was prepared by a team of 32 researchers headed by the University of Edinburgh’s Gail Davies and entitled “Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic.” The study’s methods do not lend themselves to easy explanation unless you’re at home with SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) and inverse variance weighted models used to capture “the variance in the trait that is due to linkage disequilibrium between genotyped SNPs and unknown causal variants.” But the bottom line of the article is reasonably simple. Using nothing but genetic information, the team of researchers was able to establish that the narrow heritability of crystallized intelligence (the kind that can be more easily affected by education) is at least 40 percent. The narrow heritability of fluid intelligence (the kind that involves pure problem-solving ability, independently of acquired knowledge) is at least 51 percent. Note the at least. The study’s authors explicitly state that these estimates are lower bounds.

Shelves of books and articles denying or minimizing the heritability of IQ have suddenly become obsolete. – The American

As that writer doubtless knows, this is a problem for leftists, because it disproves equality. If intelligence is mostly heritable, education is irrelevant — people either have the ability to process the information, or not. You cannot educate into someone a series of ideas they lack the biological capacity to understand.

As Stephen Pinker wrote in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, modernism (a form of liberalism) denies that we are inequal. Instead, it believes that we are equal beings who just await the right programming to be made into perfect citizens. However, biology is far more complex, but a general capacity for processing (called g for “general intelligence”) determines not only what we can understand, but what jobs we are capable of doing and how competent we will be at them.

G even correlates highly with health. It’s almost like an evolution index, which since intelligence is most of what separates us from our simian ancestors it most likely is. The changes in our physiology probably occurred after our intelligence rose, and enabled us to evolve further.

In fact, scientists are discovering a lot about the brain, especially what makes people with higher intelligence radically different:

Here’s an interesting fact: Smart people have faster impulses in the brain than less intelligent people. That’s all according to one Cambridge professor by the name of Ed Bullmore. But as far as getting any smarter, tough luck. British scientists made a convincing case for why our brains have reached full capacity: Human brains would consume too much energy.

Simon Laughlin, professor of neurobiology, at Cambridge University told The Sunday Times: ‘We have demonstrated that brains must consume energy to function and that these requirements are sufficiently demanding to limit our performance and determine design.”

{…}

Also, in the The Sunday Times story, the researchers say there’s a link between how connected different brain areas are and IQ. However, there isn’t enough energy to keep up with any increase in brain power. – SmartPlanet

The brain is wired to move faster and with greater complexity in smarter people.

No matter what they preach about equality, we will always want smart leaders and professionals. Who do you want doing your open-heart surgery, or taxes, or defending you in court — the 100 IQ “equal person” or someone with an IQ of 120 or above?

Go ahead, tell us why you want the equal low-IQ type. That’s propaganda too and most people will obediently bleat out the equality doctrine: it doesn’t matter as long as he works hard, if he’s nice it’s OK, the judge will understand, etc. But in real life they’d pick the smarter candidate every time.

Liberalism/leftism is failing for two reasons: (a) its policies are not succeeding despite trillions of dollars and relentless effort because its founding idea of equality is an insane notion and (b) science, experience, history and common sense show that liberalism has negative consequences.

Like a new dawn, people are gaining the emotional strength to bear social disapproval and criticize liberalism.

This reminds me of the early years after the Carter presidency (Carter is an example of how liberalism turns honorable men into popularity-whoring nitwits). People were so brainwashed into the warm-fuzzy, happy-feelings, compassionate-pacifism of those years it took them months or years to shake free.

When they did however, they found that conservatism offered something different — a whole society. Instead of a lot of dogma to explain away failures, there were practical and straight-forward plans for not only fixing problems, but rising above them.

Across the globe, favored populations with higher IQs are starting to snap out of their socially-induced stupor and notice that liberalism has failed, despite for too long holding the competent but few in the thrall of the incompetent but numerous.

UK Marxist Architecture and Community

Architecture and Community

Written by David Hamilton

The basis of human amity and enmity is heritage, and from this comes culture which is like an emotional womb that civilizes people and nurtures them in traditional mores and values. Architecture is part of that culture. Co-operation as well as division is nullified or established in the local and national character that stems from it. The closely knit, organic, custom-oriented form of communal living that corresponds to traditional society is coming apart and being replaced by individualism, impersonality and contractualism which arise from volition and personal interest rather than from the complex of affective states, habits, and traditions that underlie community. These bring benefits for the cosmopolitan elites but a sense of loss and futility to the population as a whole. After the Second World War Socialism became intellectually dominant — a sense of shame at our past and achievements was inculcated in the population, and led to an ineluctable weakening of national identity. The elites began to dismantle England and refashion it. Social engineering was general and started to be used in architecture and planning as much as in education and entertainment. Its aim was to change the physical and mental environment, and thereby change people, who were seen as plastic and malleable. The theory was that planned council estates could change people for the better. The Country Planning Act 1947 was an Act of Parliament passed by Clement Atlee’s Socialist government and came into effect on 1 July 1948 with the Town and Country Planning(Scotland) 1947 Act. It was a Socialist Act to plan and rebuild our world and bring Social Engineering into town planning. To separate us from our history and traditions and refashion us for “The New Jerusalem.” The fundamental requirement of the Act was to establish the requirement for planning permission for land development; ownership alone was no longer enough to develop the land. Power was being transferred to local authorities and therefore local elites. Marxism was intellectually fashionable before the war as the ruling classes were effete and could not counter it. In 1938, Leeds City Council built Quarry Hill Flats to commemorate the Marxist insurrection against the government in Karl Mark Hof, Vienna in 1934. It was the largest housing scheme in the country and used the latest ideas and techniques. The flats had solid fuel ranges, electric lighting, the latest refuse disposal system and communal facilities. But, the steel frame and concrete clad construction was faulty, and the flats had to be demolished in 1978. Park Hill flats in Sheffield was a Marxist utopian development in 1962. They are of the “Streets in the Sky” copied from the eastern Bloc. They broke from developing along natural lines and keeping to essentials for community like houses in rows at ground level and built artificial “streets” outside the front doors of tower block flats. Milk floats would go up in service lifts and on to the ‘streets’, deliver the milk, go back into the service lift and up to the next floor. Reality came home when a child was knocked over and killed by a float in the unsuitable street area. Liverpool communities with Liverpool identities were dispossessed to New Towns — rationalist, Utopian schemes. The theory was from the Corbusian model of “uniformity in the part, variety in the whole,” which was necessary to produce the “house machine” or “A machine for living in.” These schemes often emphasized pedestrian movement, as envisaged in Corbusier’s theoretic “Radiant City”or his “Unite” development in Marseilles. The new town of Skelmersdale was designed to separate vehicles from pedestrians with a system of courtyard layouts and cul-de-sacs emerging off spine streets, which led to disproportionate costs in street cleaning, refuse collection, ground and street furniture maintenance and, particularly, policing. It was built on an old coalfield and around a series of deep clefts in the moor side that go down into the middle of the town, which means that extensive ground remediation and stabilisation was and is required for any construction. It was built using innovative and experimental techniques -– but these were deeply flawed, requiring expensive remedies. Many houses had central heating outlets in the ceiling. The fact that heat rises was ignored, so the bedrooms were heated moderately well but not the downstairs rooms. And it is possible to punch a hand through walls because the houses’ metal frames are corroded and the concrete slabs have collapsed. Imposing change in people’s physical environments creates feelings of futility and self-loathing. It had a similar effect on the Canadian Innu, who were moved by the government into specially built estates. The Innu were forcibly transformed into Canadians, just as Britons are being forcibly transformed into ‘citizens of the world’ and like us, the Innu had their past erased and are being offered nothing for the future – despair has set in, as it is setting in on Britain’s sink estates. The Innu were dispossessed by a different ethnic group Canadians (Globalists) whereas we are being dispossessed by our own elected representatives (Globalists). As with our youngsters the deculturation of the Innu manifests in drug and alcohol abuse and petty crime. Many of our young people are aimless, lacking in self-respect, without tradition or a sense of being part of something. Many of them prey on their own people. There have always been people at the bottom of the pile, but they used to develop within a cultural tradition to which they belonged. Most Young people do not misbehave out of endemic wickedness, but because they have been decultured and are lacking the moral scaffolding provided by a vigorous and thriving culture. Pride and self-worth are replaced by despair and self-loathing. This is one of the reasons people use drugs to escape the pain of living in such places. People’s instincts to bond with their land and people are thwarted by buildings that separate them from one another and are not physically conducive to developing community spirit — the sense of belonging and of knowing with whom you belong. A nation and its communities is an extended family: a nation is a group of people who identify with one another and believe in a common ancestral origin. The bonding process through which all nations pass is not merely cultural, but to also biological through intermarriage, yet the culture moulds community and transmits the appropriate ways of behaving. Our once familiar Urbiscapes are having their sense of balance and harmony destroyed and replaced by muddles – jumbles of skyscrapers that are not in relation to their surrounds but disjointed, not in harmony. Through a combination of social, cultural, political and environmental pressures, many young people in this country are being dissociated from their national identity, severed from civilizing structures that their ancestors could take for granted. Buildings need to develop from traditions and renew those traditions with the sense of familiarity to helping civilise young people and minimise the attacks on their own people we now have. Architecture is presented as an aesthetic matter: which period is more beautiful or pleasing than other periods; does a particular building have aesthetic merit or should it be demolished? But architecture embodies our history and represents where our forebears were born and raised; yet contemporary architecture has a negative affect on our communities as it dissociates local people from their towns and cities. This is the atomisation of communities. People get a sense of belonging and even identity from their architectural surroundings. Our town and city centres are being changed from the warm, welcoming places of historic buildings, into disjointed, jumbles, that dissociate people from their home towns and communities. There is more to architecture and town planning than the aesthetic appearance. We must discuss what cliques of commercial elites are doing to our physical environment and to try to create the right climate for the continuity of traditional towns and cities by buildings that have cultural meaning. The spirit of the contemporary age is expressed in contemporary architecture, while history and identity are expressed in historic architecture. Town and city centres, or Urbiscapes, as I call them, are being turned into jumbles of buildings without harmony or balance; the buildings being erected have no relation to those around them and are unpleasant muddles. Culture aids identity and to be healthy people need to be brought up in it to fit in properly. If you talk to local people they tell how appalled they are at what is being imposed on them. Architecture is part of our culture and in a world that is decultured people have to search for roots – to be anchored in something deep and important that invests our lives with meaning and stability. A young Indian woman told me how a visit to India to see her grandparents had put her in touch with her culture. I explained that that is why I go to historic (traditional) towns. It seems strange doesn’t it? A man in his own country having to search for his culture! This is about our identity, which is a reciprocal relationship between people and the places in which they live. Building on what we have in a similar scale and style maintains continuity and helps to focus culture and identity. National and local governments alike are destroying places that are sanctioned by time and use, where communities have grown up and grown together. The emergence of Modern Man was optimistic with a sense of release from dark prejudices but this has left people bereft with a sense of loss. They form artificial communities like gangs and prey on other people. Modern rationalism and architecture is part of what had liberated people from closed societies. The eradication of old restraints prompted a vision of society in which the parochialisms and animosities of a world founded upon kinship, village, and church would be abolished but led to loss and futility. The coldness of modern cities is depressing, causes unhappiness and a sense of loss and dissociates people who lose touch with their roots and environments, whereas the use of traditional buildings maintains the town’s core identity and gives local people a definite sense of history, identity, belonging, and well-being. An important factor is the break from traditional form. As T.S.Eliot explained tradition is renewed but altered by new additions like steps through time which is how change is normally effected, not by grand schemes that break the tradition and do not fit into their surroundings. This adds to the deculturation of local people who cease to feel they belong. Architecture needs to grow from tradition which helps anchor people in their community. This architectural deculturation of our towns and cities causes a sense of futility, of no future, as it removes a lot of the grounding people need to thrive. But the use of traditional buildings maintains the local identity and gives local people a definite sense of belonging and well-being; a positiveness and a belief in the future which is lacking in decultured young people. Tower blocks, office buildings, places dominated by them repel and dissociate local people. New buildings are standard, international and cold with no relation the traditional buildings that engendered affection in people and rooted them in their cities. You could be anywhere. Standard new buildings are beginning to overwhelm the warmer, more attractive old ones and councils need to rebuild some of the beautiful old ones they demolished to strengthen local identity. Tourists can not understand why we are destroying our culture. But we are not. It is imposed on us by local councils which have no true legitimacy to do this and most of it must be reversed by rebuilding our beautiful buildings in facsimile. _________________ First published at Amerika.org

Discrimination and Prejudice A Modern Satire

Discrimination and Prejudice

by Forest Johnson.

A week or two ago, I had a bright idea: I decided to try being a Leftist.
“Why not?” I thought. “Everybody’s doing it. Maybe there is something to it…”
I climbed up a ladder, dispensing with due care and attention. After all: equality of outcomes is a good thing.

After I fell, to the sound of cracking bones and tearing ligaments, I basked in the glorious sunshine, amid waves of agonizing pain, thinking how wonderful it was, to not be prejudiced against such outcomes. I was glad I had decided not to discriminate against broken bones and enduring discomfort. I felt liberated.

Later that same day, while smearing Arnica cream over my swollen ankle, I marveled at the wonderful vibrancy of color that transformed my formerly mundane white-man’s ankle into a diverse rainbow of multi-hued suffering. This was a definite improvement. A shame, I thought, that my entire body could not be instantly transformed into such a state, but for some things, change must come by degrees. At least I had a broken elbow to add to my diversity. Both were glowing examples of well-rounded puffiness, that made a mockery of outdated ideas about the correct proportions for human body parts.

And now I could not work on my carport. Great! I could play the victim instead. Why bother working, anyway, when my willing wife could coddle me and cater to my every whim? This was fun! I rebuked her when she expressed sympathy. As if to suggest that my condition was deserving of pity. She soon saw her prejudice for what it was, and undertook to no longer discriminate against differing outcomes. And we both were very happy.

A day or two later, we chanced to meet a local Amerind, and engaged him in conversation. Had anyone witnessed us doing this, they could not have failed to be impressed that we white folks were hobnobbing with a representative of a race not our own. Sadly, nobody else was in the vicinity, but there will, I hope, be other opportunities to impress passers-by.
I enquired as to why Indians were no longer called Indians, but now were known as either Natives, or First-Nations. He was a pleasant fellow, and after due consideration, allowed as to how the term “Indian” suggested drunkenness, and so had been retired from current usage.
Which I found somewhat odd.
By changing the name, the drunkenness goes away?
I, for one, had never connected the term “Indian” with drunkenness, but what do I know, anyway? I took him at his word, and enquired as to why the term “Native”, was any better.
After all, we are all natives of somewhere.
But white men do not use that term, he said, to describe themselves, and so it means Indian, now. A little perturbed at his seeing Natives and Whites as in some way different, I kept my counsel, not wishing to mar an otherwise exemplary conversation. While smirking to myself at the irony of the situation: that he probably didn’t even own a Tipi, whereas I did.

But the real test of my new-found Leftism came as I visited my local health-food store, recently taken over by new management. I was shocked to my core, and outraged!
Gone were the Amnesty International signs, along with their graphic illustrations of people undergoing torture and being executed. Gone were the Pro-Palestine slogans, and Eat-The-Rich posters. There was no sign of the Racism-Free-Zone” stickers, and prominently displayed advertising of “Safe Harbor” for victims of racist, homophobic and unfeministic assaults.
For Heaven’s sake! Have you ever tried enjoying a healthy meal without these Leftist condiments?

I pondered all of these things, as I eyed the delicious gluten-free black bean brownies.
I was sorely tempted to forego the delights on offer, but it was the thought of never again being able to knock-back a Vegetable-Everything-Juice, in my righteous conviction to boycott such an establishment, that finally decided me:

I guess I am just not cut out for Leftism.
I simply can not bring myself to loathe anyone who can still think for themselves, make their own decisions, act upon those decisions, and still be able to dish up superbly healthy meals. Any more than I can favor a world of hurt over a reasoned and experienced existence.
Even the Indian got my approval, for being… An Indian. For a rose by any other name…

And so I have returned to my warped little world of neolithic balance.
Neither Left, nor Right, clever, nor stupid, saint nor sinner, good, nor bad.
I may have failed at being a Leftist, but nobody could reasonably accuse me of never having tried.

published at Amerika

The City Of London - Who The real 'Crown' REALLY Is

Here at the Horwich Nationalists we like to offer unedited views on history here is one view , which some will state is anti Semitic, but to label something as racist or homophobic or some some other silly "ism" of some kind, simply ignores the fact that people must be offered all historical evidence and theories no matter how outlandish they seem. And that they must come to a conclusion in their own minds, as to what the facts really are! And not told by others that they should only study only certain evidence and come to a pre determined conclusion at the risk of prosecution, I site he case of the controversial Historian David Irving whom I may disagree with but i wish to study his views and shine the light of inquiry onto them in order to seek the truth, As it is widely known that to seek the truth is to set ones self free. So I give none of my opinions on this subject, I only offer you the chance to view and credit or discredit them.

The City Of London - Who The 'Crown' REALLY Is
By Dick Eastman
8-13-11

In which we learn the unsuspected and very important difference between "The Crown Empire" and "The British Empire" -- but not the name of the current ruling Lord Mayor of The City...which is a well kept secret. By Earthlinggb.blog Jewish Banishment And The 'City' Of London February 26, 2011 Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question: WHY HAVE JEWS BEEN BANISHED FROM SOME MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND CULTURES OVER CENTURIES? BY PEOPLES WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSPIRE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF VAST DISTANCES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE BANISHED THEM. YET ALL OF THESE PEOPLES HAVE, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO JUST THAT. FOR NO REASON? ALL OF THESE CULTURES HAVE JUST HAD SOME RACIAL HATRED OF JEWS? THERE'S NO LOGIC IN IT. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH PERMEATES THROUGHOUT THESE BANISHMENTS IS THAT OF MONEY AND USURY. Henk Ruyssenaars' article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book "Descent into Slavery" by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term "City of London" is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article. "To the majority of people the words "Crown" and "City" in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England. This is not the truth. The "City" is in fact a privately owned Corporation - or Sovereign State - occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile 'Greater London' area. The population of 'The City' is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of 'Greater London' (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million. "The Crown" is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or 'The City.' 'The City' is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. "The City", which is often called "the wealthiest square mile on earth," is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain's great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds. The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in "London", Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: "The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much." It certainly is and certainly does! When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits "the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms." The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city. The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject. The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These 'fronts' go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D'Israeli wrote: "So you seeÝ the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes" (Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233). Rothschild gold bought supplies for the Duke of Wellington before Waterloo, financed Disraeli's purchase of the Suez Canal and bankrolled 19th century Imperialism This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen's book: "The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: "Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister." Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony EdenÝ launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor's banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards." The British government is the bond slave of the "invisible and inaudible" force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The "visible and audible leaders" are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite. It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire. The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign - i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire. All the other parts of the British Empire - nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them. As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown's supremacy in these areas. The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn't British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the "City" machine accumulated vast fortunes . About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that : Ý."financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrustsÝ Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation's welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows richÝ" In "Empire of the City" E. C. Knuth said: " This national and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much and it would not be in the public interest to divulge."Ý The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task. At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. They are names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity. In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word "Jew" or "Conspiracy" and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope? The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth. Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, "The American Hebrew," expressed the following similar sentiments: "It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism. In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891. (The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.) Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people? Well, in England, it's very interesting: IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD. The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews' crime of blood ritual murders. The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child: - "At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands." - Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD: 1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William. 1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion. 1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy's mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III. 1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England. (See Sources #1 Below ) JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell's New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643. A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin's Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters: Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam, 16th June 1647: - "In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape." - To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647: - "Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences." - Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649. Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England. (See Sources #2 Below ) JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William's elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange. The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange. To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers. In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L'Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England. The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers' chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne. Since the state's debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain. ENTER THE ROTHSCHILDS MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons. The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna. In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington. A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington's courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington's victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated. With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices. This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy - now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control. (See Sources #4 Below ) ALL ABOUT THE JEWISH VATICAN (As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy) A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as "The City." It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London. A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as "The Crown." The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State. The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control: * The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City. * All major British banks have their main offices in The City. * 385 foreign banks are located in The City. * 70 banks from the United States are located in The City. * The London Stock Exchange is located in The City. * Lloyd's of London is located in The City. * The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City. * Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City. * The London Metal Exchange is located in The City. * The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City. Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain's financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England. The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds' know for sureÝ (See Sources #5 Below ) Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates. Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery In 1875, the Khedive of Egypt, forced by financial stringency, was anxious to sell his interest in the Suez Canal. Disraeli must have known of this at once through his friend and master Rothschild. A Mr. F. Greenwood, Editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, received private advices that the shares might be acquired for England, and patriotically refusing to make a journalistic "scoop" of the information, hastened to Lord Derby with the news. Lord Derby consulted with his Hebrew Prime Minister, and the latter then bought the shares. Parliament was not sitting at the time, and Disraeli borrowed ¬£4,000,000 from his colleagues the Rothschilds, who made a profit of about ¬£500,000, which no doubt earned for Disraeli a considerable commission. It was, of course, to the Jewish interest that Britain should hold the Suez Canal (until the Jews got Palestine out of the Great War). Disraeli had written to the Queen saying, "We have scarcely time to breathe, we must carry the matter through." He was very, very anxious that Rothschilds should handle the loan! Now, read this extract from a letter from the Hon. G. M. Kinnaird to The Times dated 20th March, 1930. Nathan Mayer Rothschild also funded Cecil Rhodes in the development of the British South Africa Company and the De Beers diamond conglomerate. He succeeded him as General of the Society of the Elect and later administered Rhodes's estate after his death in 1902 and helped to set up the Rhodes Scholarship scheme at Oxford University. He worked as a partner in the London branch of the family bank NM Rothschild and Sons and became head of the bank after his father's death in 1879. During his tenure he also maintained its pre-eminent position in private venture finance and in issuing loans to the governments of the USA, Russia and Austria. Following the Rothschild's funding of the Suez Canal a close relationship was maintained with Benjamin Disraeli and affairs in Egypt and the Middle East. http://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/jewish-banishment-the-city-of-london/ Disclaimer Donate to Rense.com Support Free And Honest Journalism At Rense.com Email Article Subscribe To RenseRadio! Enormous Online Archives, MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, Highest Quality Live Programs MainPage http://www.rense.com

”Kill the Brits” on UK War Memorial Isn’t Racist

”Kill the Brits” on War Memorial Isn’t Racist

By Southwest Nationalist.

“I personally don’t think the graffiti was racially motivated….It is true they were probably Asian in origin but people should not read too much into that. This area has a lot of Asian young people so in a sense you would expect that”.

That’s one Frank Muldoon of the Hermitage Environment Group commenting on graffiti, including such phrases of blatant hate as “kill the Brits”, appearing on a sculpture in memory of British civilians who were killed in the Blitz.

The sculpture, depicting a dove, stands in the Hermitage Memorial Park, Wapping – and is now surrounded by railings after a spate of attack by vandals.

That’s not racist how? If a gang of white kids spray painted “kill the Asians” on a memorial to dead Muslims that wouldn’t be racist either? Would anyone be saying we “shouldn’t read too much” into the fact that the vandals were white?

Pull the other one, the race Gestapo would be out in full force: no stone would be left unturned until the perpetrators of such racist hatred were arrested.

Racism has deliberately been created as a one way street.

Wherever possible it must be proven that the white British are the racists, that any other group are victims.

With an army of excuses, with many incidents of minority racism being ignored or classified as an offence in which no racism was recorded, officialdom ends with a set of figures which – wholly inaccurately – prove whites to be the majority of racists.

Based on these deliberately misleading figures, officialdom take yet more action to tackle the ‘scourge’ of white racism. It is a self fulfilling prophecy, creating the ignorant, but officially endorsed and desired, perception of whites as being the bearers of hatred.

The powers that be bang on about equality – but there is nothing equal about the way in which racism is treated, instead it is a tool of oppression aimed at demonising the indigenous.

Were racism anything but a stick with which to beat the indigenous, were all incidents treated equally whoever the perpetrator, then there is little doubt that we would see figures for racism against one particular group rocket.

That group, who would suddenly top the list of victims, would be you and me, the indigenous white British, our way of life and our culture.

Officialdom would rather we didn’t know that though, they’d like us to remain ignorant of the hate which has been imported and which is directed at us.

Labours Human Rights Act is now A Perverts Charter

A Perverts Charter

By Southwest Nationalist.

As Britain’s human rights insanity continues, today we learn that restrictions on paedophiles using the internet and having contact with children are to be relaxed — because, no surprise, it breaches their human rights.

A ruling in the Court of Appeal has over-ruled powers which allowed convicted paedophiles to be totally banned from accessing the internet.

Not only this, imposing a blanket ban on contact with children breaches the paedophiles right to a family life by preventing them having contact with their own children.

Among those now having restrictions relaxed is one Steven Smith, caught with child pornography, and with a previous conviction for raping a young boy.

Just the sort of person we really want online, possibly talking to our kids, then.

That’s right, forget protecting the children, they get the right to carry the scars for the rest of their lives, the rights of perverts are more important.

Human rights rulings create a perverts charter, handing all the rights to those from whom society, and our children, need protecting.

We live in an insane society where innocence is a positive bar to having rights, only the guilty are seemingly accorded every right that they think should be theirs.

Become a rapist and get rights! Something is truly rotten in our society when that is apparently an accurate statement.

Any society can be judged by how it protects the innocent and punishes the guilty — somewhere along the line we have lost our moral compass on both in a major way, justice has become a topsy turvy Alice in Wonderland world.

For the sake of the children we need to re-establish sanity, take back the rights and ensure that they are afforded to those who truly deserve rights.

Many might argue that perverts gave up their claim to rights the moment that they touched a child, or the instant they started to look at disgusting images of kids, and there are few people who would disagree.

Well, all of us other than the judges, politicians, and the bleeding hearts who have allowed Britain to become a nation where a perverts charter has become enshrined in law, and sadly they are the ones making the decisions.