FAKE NEWS: BBC Lies About Supporting Multiculturalism

Written by Cigpapers

Additional research and photos by Watt Tyler

In the United Kingdom  every household (with a few exceptions) is forced to pay a license fee of £147 (2017) whether they ever watch the BBC or not.

The BBC is notorious for its pro gay and pro paedophile reporting, and its support for multiculturalism (AKA the Kalergi Plan).  The BBC also spent decades covering up muslim “grooming gangs” raping, drugging and pimping out up to one million White girls in Britain.

 

The BBC is only granted its Charter to extort £147 every year from most households in the United Kingdom on the basis of it being politically impartial. This Charter then gives the BBC the right to extort £147 from virtually every household in the UK, and to have houses searched for TV equipment by Capita agents.


Any protest about the BBC’s involvement in paedophile rings and political corruption is usually met with extreme force and violence.

On 10th October 2103 a Freedom Of Information Act request was sent to the BBC asking “Does the BBC have a policy of promoting multiculturalism?”  The BBC reply is here:

7 November 2013 
 
Dear Mr Moran 
 
Freedom of Information Request – RFI20131470 
 
Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) received on 10 
October, seeking the following information: 
 
Does the BBC have a policy of promoting multiculturalism?
  

The BBC does not have a policy on promoting multiculturalism.  Impartiality is one of the BBC’s core 
editorial values which are set out in the Royal Charter which establishes its constitution and sets out its 
main obligations.  The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines state that: “We wil  apply due impartiality to all our subject
matter and wil  reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period,
so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented” 
and that “our output is
forbidden from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy.”
  This would apply 

to any public discourse on multiculturalism as a public policy debate. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/  
  
However, the Charter does require the BBC to promote six public purposes through its main activities 
such as its programming. One of the public purposes is Representing the Nations, Regions and Communities
The BBC Trust Purpose Remit document states that this means that “The BBC should ‘promote awareness of
different cultures and alternative viewpoints, through content that reflects the lives of different people and different
communities within the UK
”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/tools_we_use/public_purposes.html  

  
To assist the BBC to meet this purpose, the BBC’s Diversity Strategy includes a strategic equality and 
diversity objective to “Deliver high quality programming which reflects modern Britain accurately and
authentically” 
and this objective would be inclusive of reflecting ethnic and religious diversity on air. The 

strategy also details other aspects of the BBC’s approach to diversity across the corporation’s activity to 
ensure not just its programming but that its people, its approach to its audience and its strategy for the 
future are all consciously addressing further diversity. You can find out more about the BBC and diversity 
at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/strategy/documents.html  
 

The link for this Freedom Of Information Act request is here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/180620/response/447569/attach/html/3/RFI20131470%20Final%20Response.pdf.html

General Election 2017: Anti Labour Memes

 

              

Timeline Of The Jewish Genocide Of The British People

JEWS CONTROL BRITAIN AND ARE COMMITTING GENOCIDE ON US.

Here’s how it happened:

1066: In return for financial support William The Conqueror brought the jews to England with him. The jews soon acquired a reputation as extortionate moneylenders which made them extremely unpopular with both the Church and the general public. 

1290: King Edward I finally expelled the jews from England. The jews swore their revenge.

Expusion and relocation of jews during the Middle Ages.

Expulsion and relocation of jews during the Middle Ages.

1649: The jews financed Oliver Cromwell’s otherthrowing and beheading of Stuart King Charles I after he refused them control of England’s finances.

1655: The jews were readmitted to England by their puppet Oliver Cromwell.

1660: With the British People becoming sick of austerity under the jewish puppet Oliver Cromwell, Charles Stuart landed in Dover in May 1660 and was restored as King Charles II of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland to wide popular acclaim. The jews planned their revenge.  

1688: The jews ordered William III Prince of Orange (formerly a Dutch soldier called William Stadholder)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.

King William III of Orange

King William III of Orange

1694: William III of Orange (AKA William Stadholder) who the jews had installed as the King of England, asked the jews for financial help to keep the Stuarts at bay. Jews issued first bank notes on interest to William of Orange and first central bank had its beginnings – The Bank Of England was established.

1697: London Stock Exchange became the world’s largest “purse.” Twelve ruling seats were reserved for jews only.

1701: The Bank of England establish the Bevis Marks Synagogue in the City of London.

1714: The jews install King George I (AKA Georg Ludwig 1660-1727) from the House of Hanover as the British King. There were, and still are, allegations that the House of Hanover are secretly jewish.

1715: James Stuart (AKA The Old Pretender), son of King James II, invaded Scotland and attempted unsuccessfully to take back the British Crown from the jews.

1745: The Stuarts made their final attempt to take back Britain from the jews by invading England with an army made up of Scottish Highland Clans under Bonnie Prince Charlie (1720-1788) grandson of King James II. Finally defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1746. Bonnie Prince Charlie went in to exile and the British Royal House of Stuart came to an end.

Bonnie Prince Charlie made one last attempt to free the British People from enslavement to the jews.

Bonnie Prince Charlie made one last attempt to free the British People from enslavement to the jews in 1745.

1750: The House of the Red Shield (Rothschild) was established and became prime money-lenders to the British Crown.

1753: King George II, a pawn of the Rothschilds and Amsterdam jewish bankers, passed a Naturalization Bill allowing jews to become British subjects.

1757: Following Clive of India’s victory at Plassey The East India Company seized control of Bengal, India’s richest province, and got seriously involved in the opium trade.They also tripled local taxes leading to the starvation of 10 million Indians.

1773: Warren Hastings brought all opium production under the monoply control of The Bank of England. Eventually 17 million Chinese died of drug addiction as 2000 chests of opium were exported every year.

1773: Mayer Rothschild created the World Revolutionary Movement and Red-Flag Socialism as the banksters’ means of overthrowing National ruling elites (e.g. French and Russian Revolutions). Red-Flag socialism and the political groups that adhere to it have always been created and controlled by the Rothschilds. The red flag is the flag of the Rothschilds family – Rothschild means red shield.

1789: Mayer Rothschild organised the French Revolution, and mass murder of the French aristocracy, to seize control of the French economy by privatising the Bank Of France.

img1139

The French revolutionaries often used the red flag of the World Revolutionary Movement.

1803: The Bank Of France was privatised and a National Debt, to be paid off by income tax, was fraudulently established.

1808: Napoleon became master of Europe after seizing control of France back from the jews. He issued a decree which the jews termed the Decret Infame (Infamous Decree). The Decret Infame placed many justifiable restrictions on the jews. The jews planned their revenge.

Napoleon fought to free Europe from enslavement to the jews.

Napoleon fought to free Europe from austerity through debt-enslavement to jewish central bankers.

1814 to 1815: James & Nathan Rothschild ordered all European rulers to assemble at the Congress of Vienna. The Rothschilds drafted a plan that would make it impossible for another Napoleon to rise to power by creating a European “balance of power.” – this basically meant that if any European Nation revolted against jewish control all the jew controlled Nations would attack it.

1815: The Battle of Waterloo signified the end of Napoleon’s heroic anti-jewish rule and the Christian domination of Europe. Both James Rothschild of France and Nathan Rothschild of England financed Wellington’s victory over Napoleon at Waterloo.Nathan Rothschild used false information, about Napoleon winning Waterloo, to defraud the London Stock Exchange and seize control of Britain’s economy.

1882:The East India Company funded the “Opium Trust”.

1884:The Fabian Society was formed with jewish industrialist financing. A faux elite group, of pseudo-intellectuals and sexual deviants, who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing Red-Flag socialism (AKA jewish racial supremacy and Globalisation) to the World through the infiltration of Workers’ Groups and Political Parties i.e. The Labour Party.

1890: The largest munitions factory in the world, Vickers of England, was established by the Rothschilds. The stage was set for the Rothschild’s engineering of World War I and all future wars.

1906: Guglielmo Marconi’s invention of the radio is marketed and taken over by the Jew, David Sarnoff. Sarnoff established the Marconi Company in England and RCA in America. Thus began the Jewish control of the World’s media.

1910: Jews took over the office of Minister of Finance throughout Europe. Louis Klotz became Minister of Finance of France; Michael Luzzati of Italy; Bernhard Dernburg of Germany; Rufus Isaacs of England; and Djavid Bey of Turkey. All jews.

1914: The Vickers Munitions Company, owned by the Rothschilds, engineered World War I.

1916: Germany was winning World War One. The jews promised to obtain American support in exchange for Britain supporting Zionism. Prime Minister Lloyd George accepted the offer. Samuel Untermeyer blackmailed American President Wilson in to the USA joining World War One.

1917: Lord Balfour made formal Lloyd George’s capitulation to Weizmann in a letter to Lord Rothschild known as The Balfour Declaration. The Zionist theft of Arab lands was made “official.”

1917: The Rothschilds funded Lenin and Trotsky with $20 million  (real names Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and Lev Bronshtein – both jews) via the Schiff banking family to otherthrow the Russian Tsar and murder him and his family by a Red-Flag revolution. The Rothschilds then privatised the Russian Central Bank and enslaved the Russian people to a jewish Red-Flag socialist elite. Russsia was the first Red-Flag jewish dictatorship and between 20 to 100 million White Christians were murdered in an orgy of executions, rape, torture and enslavement.

RussiaFlag

The flag of Communist Russia – there is a Satanic pentagram representing jews (ruling) above the industrial workers (hammer) and agricultural workers (sickle). In the background is the red flag of the Rothschilds.

1919: The jews insured Germany’s humiliation with their Treaty of Versailles. The jew Bernard Baruch advised Wilson at the conference. The jew Phillip Sassoon, the Parliamentary Private Secretary, advised Lloyd George. The jew, Georges Mandel, (aka Louis Rothschild), French Minister of the Interior, advised Georges Clemenceau.

1922: Jew Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the Pan-European Movement in Vienna with the purpose of creating a New World Order based on a federation of Nations led by the USA. Banker Max Warburg donated 60,000 Marks to set it up.

1925: Jew Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote the book Practical Idealism which laid down the blueprint for a new Europe. In his book Kalergi indicated that the residents of a future Europe will not be White, but due to miscegenation, will be a mongrel race of Asian/White/Negroes to serve a jewish aristocracy. He also suggested the destruction of Individual Nation States to create a United States of Europe. There is still a Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize given out every two years to the European Politician who has done most to support this genocide.

1933: International jewry declared all out war on the German People and swear to destroy them after they threw off the shackles of jewish oppression.

sun

1939: The jewish puppet, and British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain declared war on Nationalist Socialist Germany on September 3rd 1939, after Germany struggled to free itself from jewish oppression. The pretext was the war between Poland and Germany that Poland had instigated.

1945: The jewish controlled allies, led by jewish puppet Winston Churchill, defeat Nationalist Socialist Germany. After their surrender over 1 million German soldiers are murdered by the jewish allies including boys as young as 14. About 1 million more Germans are taken by the jew Bolshevik Russians as slaves and worked to death. The mass rape of German Women in East Prussia is effectively a genocide.

1946 to 1949: The jewish controlled Allies put on a show trial called the “The Nuremberg Trials” where the Germans are found guilty and the Holocaust myth is created. The Germans are forced to pay for the creation of Israel.

1948: The jews started their genocide of White Britain with the arrival of Windrush on 22nd June 1948, a boatload of negroes from West India. The Zionist press claimed this was to deal with an alleged labour shortage in Britain.

The Windrush arrives and the genocide of the British People starts.

The Windrush arrives on June 22nd 1948 and the genocide of the British People starts.

1958: The Notting Hill riots happened when the negroes sought to assert themselves through violence following members of the British White Working Class fighting back against anti-White violence.

1965: The jews introduced the notorious Race Relations Act 1965 making it a civil offence (rather than a criminal offence) to refuse to deal with people due to their National or racial origins.

1966: The jews introduced the Race Relations Board to deal with complaints under the Race Relations Act. The intention was to smash any resistance to integration AKA White genocide.

1973: The jewish puppet, moral degenerate, paedophile and British Prime Minister Edward Heath (1916-2005) took the UK in to the European Economic Community. Later Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.

British Prime Minister Edward Heath - internationalist, degenerate, paedophile and traitor.

British Prime Minister Edward Heath – internationalist, degenerate, paedophile and traitor.

1976: The jews introduced the Race Relations Act 1976 to further promote White genocide and smash any resistance.

1981: The Brixton riots happened when the negroes refused to be subjected to British Laws and customs.

1994: The Leader of the Labour Party, John Smith QC MP, dies of a heart attack and is replaced by jewish puppet Tony Blair. The Labour Party is renamed New Labour AKA Jew Labour. Labour MP Tam Dalyell complains publically about the jewish cabal running the Labour movement. Tony Blair vows to clear New Labour of any racists i.e. anyone opposed to White genocide.

1997: Jew Labour, using jewish Lord Levy’s personal puppet Tony Blair to front it, win a landslide election with Zionist media backing.

Tony Blair fronted Jew Labour for the jew Zionists.

Tony Blair fronted Jew Labour for the jew Zionists.

1997: Jew Labour leader Tony Blair and his jewish cronies including Jack Straw, Barbara Roche and Johnathan Portes opened the floodgates to Third World immigration to hasten the genocide of White Britain. Between 1997 and 2010 Jew Labour allowed up to 8 million Third Worlders in to Britain.

1998: The leader of Jew Labour Tony Blair publicly states “It is time to implement Practical Idealism“. Most British People failed to notice this seemingly political oxymoron and its hidden reference to White genocide.

2013:  Muslims in Britain perform their first public beheading on 22nd May 2013 in London.Their victim is British Army soldier, Fusilier Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

Book Review : Jewish Supremacism by Dr. David Duke

JEWISH SUPREMACISM
MY AWAKENING TO THE JEWISH QUESTION

By Dr David Duke
Dr Duke was previously elected to the House of Representatives, State of Louisiana, USA and served from 1996-2000
A book review by Boadicea

The powers that be will not be kind to those who tell certain truths; one could face loss of career, reputation-assassination, even face persecution … and maybe prosecution. And yet, some have the courage and compassion to tell those truths.
With honour and bravery, Dr Duke tells the truth in this volume and in so doing makes great personal sacrifice.
He speaks out for the good of mankind.
img255

‘Jewish supremacism you say? What are you some kind of ‘racist’ hater anti-Semite who wants to kill six million Jews with pesticide gas?’ Some readers of this review may wonder if the author Dr Duke is such a person for writing a book with this title. However, last time you heard the newsreaders spitting about the latest so-called ‘racism’#/’white supremacist’ scandal, perhaps some white person had said something deemed to be ‘racist’ or a black person felt offended, did you imagine that the outraged journalist was a hater who wants to kill millions of white people? Did the journalist make sure to inform the audience that not all white people are so-called ‘racists’ and some are very ‘nice’? It is very likely that the reader has heard the venom directed at those labelled as ‘white supremacists’ and not imagined that the relevant enraged journalists are haters. Why are so many people trained to respond in such ways? Has the media and the education system, even society at large, trained certain responses to the word ‘supremacism’ in some contexts, but not in others? How could this be? Why can people spit about ‘white supremacists’ without any blame on the speaker, but to even mention the phrase ‘Jewish supremacists’ invites accusations of being a hater, a ‘racist’ – if not a genocidal maniac? What happened to ‘equality’?#

img256

In contrast to the many pages of newspapers, academic journals, books, etc. written upon ‘white supremacism’, Dr Duke felt the need to make clear at the outset of his book that he does not hate all Jewish people# – in fact, Dr Duke dedicates his book to a Jewish man: the late Dr Israel Shahak#. Dr Duke did not start off with the beliefs he now holds, and his journey of awakening is told as part of this volume, a journey of discovery that took him from the official beliefs and narratives, to truth.

******

In this book Dr Duke discusses the issue of Jewish supremacism. Amongst Jews there are many who are brought up to believe that they are superior and have the right to reign supreme over their ‘inferiors’. These supremacist beliefs are found in the very texts held as holy by the Jews, (e.g. see Talmud, Torah, etc.). Such beliefs are found in the books and speeches made by some Jews. Such beliefs can be seen to be evidenced in much behaviour around the world.

Dr Duke quotes the definition of Jewish supremacism as: ‘The belief, theory or doctrine that the Jewish people are superior to all others and should retain control in all relationships’ and in his book presents evidence that many of the Jews of the world do believe themselves superior to all other peoples, e.g. citing Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stating the ‘moral and intellectual superiority’ of the Jewish people#. One could imagine the reaction were a white leader to say such a thing in relation to white people! He also shows that they seek control in all relationships with other peoples, yet the Jewish-dominated world media shield Jewish supremacism from criticism (or even discussion), e.g. no outrage was expressed when Ben-Gurion was quoted in Look Magazine (1962) predicting Israel to one day be sitting atop a one world government:
‘In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine to the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents: this will be the Supreme Court of Mankind.’#
img257

While the world hunts down suspected Nazis, little outcry was heard when boastful terrorist Menachem Begin was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – Begin who brags in his book about the massacre of over two hundred men, women and children at Deir Yassin. Dr Duke argues that Jewish supremacists seek to control the nations in which they dwell – making particular efforts to dominate the two most critical factors of power in the modern world: mass media and government.

img258

Dr Duke evidences Jewish supremacism with many quotations from Jews, e.g.
‘If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that, Jewish life has infinite value,’ he explained, ‘There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life’

img259

If another group is considered so lowly, then this fact alone might cause them to be exploited by supremacists for the supremacists’ own gain. However, add to this feeling of supremacy a different moral code, one that does not resemble the typical Western code, but in fact views the Westerners as the eternal enemy even, with exploitation mandated, and the exploitation is inevitable. And yet this is hidden, even the acceptance of being a different race is frequently a matter of deceit#, and the holy texts are deliberately mistranslated for the non-Jews’ ears. Jewish supremacists consider themselves supreme, and desire the control and supremacy – this is a danger to people of the world. Dr Duke aims to speak out and protect all peoples of the world.

img260

As Dr Duke starts to write this book he sits in the beautiful nature of the Rocky Mountains. As he enjoys the sunny scenery he thinks of the battle of nature. Beneath the tranquillity of the bubbling stream and the trees casting their dancing shadows in the breeze he thinks of the competition between the parts of nature; a competition of which this idyllic scenery is resultant – a competition that continues as he watches. Two ants spot a tasty piece of peach on the ground – but who will get to eat it? Are they from different ‘tribes’ that will go to ‘war’ for the food? The birds of prey soar in the sky with grace, but on the watch for a small furry animal too slow or careless to escape their sights – which mouse will be caught? Are some breeds of mice faster, smarter, more devious, better camouflaged? And hence better able to survive as a group?

img261

Competition within groups, between groups, between species, all the losses and the selection has led to the beauty before Dr Duke at this moment. Within the ground countless rivalries between bacteria lie, even the stream itself wears away at the mountain over the years. And what of people? Who gets to survive and pass on their genes within a group? Which groups will render which other groups extinct? Will some groups finish off others – directly or indirectly? Will some groups interbreed with others to end the uniqueness of the original groups#? Even if they survive, will some groups be successful in life? Some groups be rich and healthy and powerful? What if group A viewed the other groups with contempt and desired to enslave them – could they do it? What of all the other groups were no competition, but one other group was splendid and their very existence perceived as a threat and a humiliation/insult to group A? What of this splendid group (B) were more beautiful, more creative, more honourable, more physically-capable, braver, nobler, more magical and very intelligent? Would group A not have a better chance of success without this group B? Group A could then just rule supreme over the other groups with no strong competition – be supreme and also hold supremacy. This could from a part of an evolutionary strategy. And with the use of language and power structures of the world, could power be exerted to attain these goals by means other than direct force? Could control be exercised in such manner so as to be largely invisible?

img262

As a group, Jewish people hold great power around the world. The modern media exercises control over what information people have, and also determines their opinions and feelings. By, inter alia, repeated linking and imagery, certain phenomena are associated with the required images, beliefs and responses – perception and conception are both controlled. And yet, the mainstream media is largely controlled by Jews. This fact is acknowledged by some Jews themselves: across Moment Magazine’s front cover was proclaimed ‘Jews Run Hollywood, So What?’

img263
The accompanying article inside was written by Jewish film critic Michael Medved, in which he writes:
‘Jewish writers and directors employ unquestionably flattering depictions of Jews for audiences that react with sympathy and affection.’

Marlon Brando - a beautiful and talented white man brought to his knees

Marlon Brando – a beautiful and talented white man brought to his knees

The control of information and feelings/responses/images must be maintained – Marlon Brando serves as a good example of straying from the acceptable lines of thought. Although in his early career he behaved as desired, later he learnt truths that contradicted his early beliefs. On the Larry King show, Brando stated that: ‘Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews.’ and commentated on the image-management: that while other groups are slandered, Jews ‘are ever so careful to ensure that there is never and negative image of the kike.’ A predictable onslaught against Brando ensued, only abating when Brando arranged an audience with Rabbi Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre – Brando literally got on his knees to the Jew and kissed his hands, begging for forgiveness. Brando was absolved and did not speak such truths again.

In real life it was not like in this movie – in real life Brando was on his knees kissing the Jew’s hand

In real life it was not like in this movie – in real life Brando was on his knees kissing the Jew’s hand

Duke lists the Jewish ownership and control of the world’s largest media concerns, including: Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), Universal (NBC Universal), 20th Century Fox (News Corp), Dreamworks, and Columbia (Sony). For example, NBC News President is Neal Shapiro, Jeff Zucker is NBC Universal Group President, David Zaslov NBC Cable President, Rick Kaplan is MSNBC president – all Jews. The extremely influential MTV is run by Jews (Redstone), and has immense effect on young people in developing their attitudes and desires. And the Oscars themselves form a news item – these run by Jews and a means by which they can give their own, and those supporting their interests, credibility and coverage (and other matters, such as money, influence and power). It is not only news programmes and films that are under Jewish control, but all media, including publishing, e.g. Time Magazine, the most widely-read such publication, being headed by Jewish CEO Gerald Levin.

img266

Controlling the media controls people in a very complete manner. What would one think were we to be at war with a nation, say during a war with Iran, if all major news sources and entertainment media were controlled and owned by Iranians? Would one have any suspicion that perhaps they are not being totally unbiased in all matters? Could they be distorting our perceptions, beliefs, feelings? Perhaps censoring certain information and maybe distorting other parts? Yet one needs to look into who owns and controls the media – if one does so, one will find it is almost entirely Jewish. Did your media tell you that the mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman was Jewish – or was that fact censored?

img267

With control of media many truths can be hidden, and many emotions controlled.

img268

Hidden truths include the Jewish nature of the genocide in Russia of the Russian Revolution.

img269

As Winston Churchill stated:
‘There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews…’
Who knew that of the 384 ‘Russian’ commissars more than 300 were Jews? And only 13 were ethnic Russians? Who knew that Trotsky was Jewish and his real name Lev Bronstein? Did your media or education system tell you about a British government report stating:
‘There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews.’

img270

Millions died and there was untold suffering of whites in Russia – does it make Dr Duke an anti-Semite to accept the historical fact that the ‘Russian Revolution’ was not actually Russian but a takeover of Czarist Russia by an antagonistic, non-Russian nationality?

img271

Other historical events are distorted in their presentation – who knew that the slave trade was not run by whites, but mainly by Jews? And why is the narrative of the ‘Holocaust’ protected by law in many countries – historians imprisoned for questioning certain aspects of this official narrative – is any other historical narrative not allowed to be investigated or discussed by academics? Why just this narrative? Who benefits form this narrative? Who loses?

img272

More recent events are also presented in a dishonest manner and with an agenda that suits Jewish supremacism – all this aided and abetted by Jews in the media, education system and government. Did you know that Israel attacked the American Navy intelligence ship Liberty on June the 8th 1967#?
‘Israel purposely and deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty’ (Dean Rusk the US Secretary of State at the time).

img273

Liberty was an intelligence ship sailing off the Egyptian town of El Arish, a town recently captured by Israeli forces. Israel knew that the Liberty was monitoring its transmissions and might learn of preparations for a planned invasion of Syria. Also, Liberty has intercepted Israeli radio communications showing that they had murdered hundreds of unarmed Egyptian prisoners of war in the Sinai. After Israeli jets attacked the Liberty with rockets, cannon fire and napalm bombs, in violation of international law Israeli torpedo boats even machine-gunned the Liberty’s deployed life rafts.

img274

31 Americans were killed and 171 wounded in the attack – but, although designed to sink the ship and kill the whole crew, there were survivors who reported the whole incident – including how the crew waved a the pilots – pilots so close that the American crew could see their faces. Israeli torpedo boats came close enough to machine gun Americans tending the wounded on deck. There was no mistake that this was an American ship – evidence includes that of the then U.S. ambassador to Lebanon who heard US-intercepted Israeli communications with the attacking Israeli fighters acknowledging that the ship was American. The Liberty’s commanding officer, Captain William McGonagle, was wounded but survived. Awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, unusually the relevant citations did not even identify Israel as the attacker. The US Navy conducted a perfunctory court of enquiry (lasting only 4 days) and failed to call even one Israeli to testify.

img275

If the levels of control over the media and the government are not already clear – please note that President Lyndon Johnson ordered fighter support to be called back during the incident – caring more about his relations with Israel than saving American lives.

img276
People can protest – but to whom does one go when the government is involved?

img277

In Dr Duke’s book the evidence is presented in relation to the supreme power being exercised over others by Jews, e.g.: the wars in the Middle East, (e.g. Iraq); the false portrayal of events both recent and historic; the distortion of societies by degrading the people and spreading degeneracy, (e.g. Jews control pornography#, ‘progressivism’, feminism, etc.); and flooding the nations with foreigners to disrupt, demean, harm – and ultimately to facilitate the exercise of power (including by genocide). Who is largely behind the desire to flood other countries with foreigners?

img278

Who promotes race-mixing? Who controls the puppet black civil rights leaders – did you know a Jew (Stanley Levinson) wrote many of the Martin Luther King’s speeches – and also that MLK was not a saint, but a woman-beater and a communist? If Jews were the only immigrant group in the West they would stand out more and also have less leverage – but being one in a mosaic acts to their advantage in a number of ways. In fact, with so much difference, many Jews can pass as whites to many (camouflaged and differences obscured and confused). However, in private and amongst themselves the separateness and supremacy over whites is strongly held – non-Jews deceived as to Jews’ true beliefs. In their own words they make clear their Jewish supremacism, and also their lack of fraternity to non-Jews, and their lack of loyalty to Western countries, e.g.
‘Like thousands of other typical Jewish kids …I was reared as Jewish nationalist, even quasi-supremacist… I attended Jewish summer camp…I saluted a foreign flag…and was taught that Israel was the true homeland…I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles’#
Divide and conquer protects the Jews as parasites in other countries, and also facilitates their supremacist agenda by other means. Dr Duke does not merely make such claims, but cites the evidence, e.g. Jewish writer Dr Stephen Steinlight bluntly states:
‘For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agenda’

Supremacism in government, in the media and control over hearts and minds through other means such as the education system facilitates this supremacist agenda – all detailed by Dr Duke in this book. And why? Well, the desire for supremacy and the belief in supremacy is detailed as rooted in the very texts – again, all largely hidden from the non-Jews. Who knew that the Jewish term for a Gentile (non-Jew) woman is ‘Shiska’ which means ‘whore’? Who knew that the Talmud states that ‘only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals.’?

img280

And yet, the information in Dr Duke’s book is largely unknown. By control of the information and also by silencing dissenters, the Jews have kept all this secret from most non-Jews. If anyone dares to tell the truth, then they are demonised as ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘racist’ (or worse!).

img281

In some countries, dissenters are imprisoned for questioning the official narrative of the six million# – upon which much sympathy, psychological pressure, power and money rests (not to mention the land of Palestine). And yet, if one were to take an honest view of history, one can see that the Jews have not been welcomed throughout history – this is not some new and unfounded irrational hatred, ‘anti-Semitism’ or ‘racism’.

img282

The exploitation of others by Jews has caused Jews to be expelled from country after country across the world and across time – including King Edward expelling them from England in 1290 (which was revoked by Cromwell in 1657, over 360 years later, in exchange for money):

SOME EXPULSIONS OF JEWS FROM PARTS OF EUROPE AND RUSSIA
Mainz, 1012 Upper Bavaria, 1442 Naples, 1533
France, 1182 Netherlands, 1444 Italy, 1540
Upper Bavaria, 1276 Brandenburg, 1446 Naples, 1541
England, 1290 Mainz, 1462 Prague, 1541
France, 1306 Mainz, 1483 Genoa, 15550
France, 1322 Warsaw, 1483 Bavaria, 1551
Saxony, 1349 Spain, 1492 Prague, 1557
Hungary, 1360 Italy, 1492 Papal States, 1569
Belgium, 1370 Lithuania, 1495 Hungary, 1582
Slovakia, 1380 Portugal, 1496 Hamburg, 1649
France, 1394 Naples, 1496 Vienna, 1669
Austria, 1420 Navarre, 1498 Slovakia, 1744
Lyons, 1420 Nuremberg, 1498 Moravia, 1744
Cologne, 1424 Brandenburg, 1510 Bohemia, 1744
Mainz, 1438 Prussia, 1510 Moscow, 1891

img283

The fact that this group believes that they are to rule and control others makes them unpopular. The hunger for power and the fact they have no loyalty to their host nation/indigenous people contributes to behaviours that make them unwanted – behaviours including acts of sabotage, treason, spying, enslavement of others, criminal behaviour, deceit as to their true desires and beliefs (amongst other matters), etc. As a cohesive group there are many advantages to be had, especially in a country that is racially mixed and in which others are taught not to have any group cohesion – these advantages are numerous, including those in finance that result from cohesiveness and the relevant knowledge, (e.g. insider trading). Control of money and banking has always been used as a means to control indigenous people – and is run by guess who.

img284

The history of Jews as ruthless money collectors is largely rooted in their lack of compassion for the indigenous people from whom they extract the money, disdain for non-Jews also being a contributory factor. A group of immigrants taught they are supreme, seeking supremacy with little or no compassion or respect for the host nation/people, a group ruthless in their pursuit of gain for their own group, and hiding the truth from their victims – how could such tendencies make such a group popular with its victims? Are the repeated expulsions of this group really all acts of irrational anti-Semitism as we are led to believe by our government, education system and media?

img285

It can be dangerous to tell the truth – but Dr Duke does in this volume. He not only tells the truth, he documents his statements with evidence, evidence largely from Jewish people themselves. Duke speaks out against the greatest threat to mankind: Jewish supremacism.

img286
In closing this volume, Dr Duke calls for others to speak the truth for the sake of mankind:

‘As long as I have breath and ability, I will not be silent. I will endeavour to fight for European Americans, Palestinians and indeed, for the fundamental human rights of all peoples of the earth. Together, we must bravely face and fight the evil spectre of Jewish supremacism. The time is late, but we have a super-weapon in the struggle for freedom: the sword of truth. I beseech you; don’t let the truth lay silent, use your courage to give it voice. Let the sword of truth light the way to your freedom.’

img287

******

Dr Duke’s book is recommended reading and is published by:

Free Speech Press. Manderville, LA: USA (2007)

Jewish Supremacism is available from booksellers in hardback or in pdf version, e.g. from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Supremacism-My-Awakening-Question/dp/1892796058

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jewish-Supremacism-David-Duke/dp/1892796058/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

pdf free at:

http://www.prometheism.net/library/jewishsupremacism.pdf

Jewish Supremacism is also available from Dr Duke’s own website:

http://davidduke.com/

http://daviddukeonline-eu.com/product-category/duke-books/

 

1. For an academic deconstruction of this term and its analysis as a nebulous-power-word please see:
Dr T.E. Turner Multiculturalism What Does it mean? Smokescreens and Mirrors (2013)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/how-did-they-get-away-with-it-book-review/
2. For analysis of this term please see: Dr T.E. Turner Multiculturalism What Does it mean? Smokescreens and Mirrors (2013)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
3. And in reading this review the references to Jews are for those who hold the supremacist views, which is not all Jews.
4. Also see Jewish man David Cole’s videos on YouTube, e.g.


5. Hertzberg, A. and Hirt-Manheimer, A. (1998). Relax. It’s Okay to be the Chosen People. Reform Judaism. May.
6. Look Magazine. (1962). January 16.
7. Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh in Jewish Week, the largest Jewish publication in the United States.
8. http://www.eutimes.net/2009/07/fbi-arrested-rabbi-levy-izhak-rosenbaum-kidney-trafficker-and-major-figure-in-a-global-human-organ-ring/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/07/25/rabbi-caught-in-new-jersey-corruption-sting-called-himself-kidney-matchmaker/
9. DNA tests are conducted to check for Jewishness, e.g. see:
http://www.igenea.com/en/jews
http://www.jewishgen.org/dna/
As to the argument that one can convert to become a Jew – it is possible to convert religion but not race/DNA, and a convert is not a real Jew – some texts saying they should not be considered for acceptance after conversion for many generations, (e.g. 10 generations according to many texts and rabbis). Classifying Jewishness as a religion is another means of deceit and acts to confuse and obscure certain issues.
10. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-people-of-europe/
11. See: Ennes, J. (1979) Assault on the Liberty. New York: Random House.
12. http://www.dailystormer.com/pornography-the-secret-weapon-of-the-jews/
13. Dr Steinlight who served for 5 years as the Director of National Affairs for the largest and most powerful Jewish organisation in the United States, the American Jewish Committee. He wrote these remarks in an article on immigration in a national Jewish magazine in October, 2001.
14. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/holocaust-or-holohoax-21-amazing-facts/
https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/book-review-the-holocaust-hoax-exposed-by-victor-thorn/

 

 

BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006

pic005

In 2006 the BBC hosted a climate-change seminar to decide on its reporting of alleged climate-change. The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to keep secret who attended this seminar. The publicly funded broadcaster fought off requests for the list of people who attended under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.

This surreal story is only partly about climate change: the disclosure raises questions about the evidence submitted to the information tribunal by the BBC and Helen Boaden – it’s Director of News who stepped down in 2012.

The case also highlights once again the BBC’s corporate strategy of using an FOI derogation, or legal “opt-out” clause, to withhold a wide range of material from citizens who wish to know whether the BBC is fulfilling its statutory obligations for impartiality under its Royal Charter.

And it raises further questions about the effectiveness of the BBC Trust. The trust, which replaced the Board of Governors, was created with a mission: an “unprecedented obligation to openness and transparency”.

pic005

A ‘brainstorm’ that became historic

The seminar whose attendees the Beeb sought to keep secret was founded by three organisation. In 2004, the International Broadcasting Trust – a lobby group funded by a number of charities, including many involved in campaigning on climate change – devised the first in a series of seminars on development issues, where the lobbyists could address broadcasters.

One event on 26 January 2006 was a “brainstorm”, in the IBT’s own words, “focusing on climate change and its impact on development”. The BBC sent 30 senior staff, and 30 outsiders were invited. The event was also organised by CMEP, its second parent – a now dormant or defunct outfit operated by BBC reporter Roger Harrabin and climate activist Dr Joe Smith, and at one time funded by the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and various pressure groups.

Harrabin later explained that the BBC’s head of news in the 1990s, Tony Hall, had invited him “to devise meetings with politicians, business people, think tanks, academics from many universities and specialists (science, technology, economic and social sciences, and history), and policy experts and field workers from NGOs – particularly from the developing world”.

The third parent of the seminar was the BBC.

 The following year ( 2007) a BBC Trust report  on impartiality cited the 2006 seminar and said it had settled the argument once and for all  (as far as the BBC was concerned) on climate change.

pic005

Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the “brainstorm” a historic significance.

An independent blogger, Tony Newbery, was struck by the difference between contemporary evidence that the seminar was educational and composed largely of activists (as confirmed by Harrabin) and the BBC Trust’s insistence that it was a sober scientific presentation that could justify a historic policy change.

Fresh light was shed on Harrabin’s CMEP in 2010, in the second batch of Climategate emails. An email from Mike Hulme, the director of the Tyndall Centre for Climatic Change Research at UEA,complained about a BBC Radio 4 item broadcast in February 2002. The broadcast featured global-warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott and Sir John Houghton, who was a Met Office chief and the editor of the first three IPCC reports on climate change. Houghton came off worst, and an infuriated Hulme wrote:

Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.

Newbery filed his FOI request for the seminar’s attendees to the BBC in 2007 and was denied the information, leading to a second round of information tribunal hearings in November 2012. The cross-examination of the BBC’s Helen Boaden in a court room was reported here.

The BBC is regarded as a public authority by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but it can withhold information held “for the purposes of journalism”.

In an earlier and separate FOI case against the BBC, Supreme Court Judge Neuberger argued the opt-out should be interpreted narrowly – otherwise the BBC could withhold information about “cleaning the board room floor” using the journalism get-out clause – an obvious absurdity.

In the Newbery case, the BBC maintained that archival material on the seminar could not be found, but also it should not be found: as a back-up argument it argued that the seminar was held under the Chatham House Rule – an agreement of etiquette, rather than a law, to prevent quotes being attributed to particular speakers at a meeting – information that Newbery had never asked for.

In November 2012 the tribunal ruled against Newbery and for the BBC.

pic005

Case closed? Think again

However science writer Maurizio Morabito has unearthed the list of attendees.

It confirms the accuracy of Harrabin’s description of the composition of the invitees, with most coming from industry, think tanks and NGOs. And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming. These are scarcely “some of the best scientific experts”, whose input could justify a historic abandonment of the BBC’s famous impartiality.

Intriguingly, Tony Newbery had been supplied with a later version of this document, he tells us – but with the attendee list stripped out.

How much of the Public's license fee did the BBC spend on lawyers to cover up this list of attendees at their Climate Panel in 2006?

How much of the Public’s license fee did the BBC spend on lawyers to cover up this list of attendees at their Climate Panel in 2006?

The dramatic appearance of the list raises many questions. Did the BBC know the information was publicly available? If so, why were corporation lawyers spending thousands of pounds to keep a public document “secret”? (FOI requests for public information typically state, quite simply, “this information is public”.)

Questions abound  online about the ability of the BBC Trust to maintain its duty to transparency. The BBC’s legal strategy entails the indiscriminate application of its FOI derogation “for the purposes of journalism” – this effectively rewrites the 2000 Act, and redefines the BBC as a private body. The trust is surely aware of this; it has a small mountain of correspondence on the subject. But it has yet to enquire, let alone pronounce on whether this is healthy – or legal.

All the names on the revealed seminar list

Here’s the list – according to the FOI Act reply.

January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London

Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Tim Jackson, Surrey University
John Ashton, Director E3G
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes

Fran Unsworth,Head of Newsgathering
Pete Clifton, Head of News Interactive
Liz Cleaver, Controller Learning
Keith Scholey, Head of Specialist Factual
Sarah Brandist, Head of Development, Drama Commissioning
Michael Hastings, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility
Lorna Walsh, BBC TV
Roger Harrabin, Today Programme

Globalists Cost British Families £16,998 In 2012

Written by Cigpapers

Photos and captions by Watt Tyler

People are always complaining about the Globalist/multiculturalist Government – but what difference would a truly Nationalist Government make? Well apart from no mass immigration, and other positive effects, let’s look at what a Nationalist Government wouldn’t waste taxpayers money on. I have calculated on a UK population of 60 million – I know it is bigger, but as the rest are illegal they won’t be paying anything anyway. So what did they waste taxpayers money on in 2012?

DONNAY

What Did The Globalist/multiculturalist Government Waste Cost A British Family Of Four In 2012?

1. European Union Membership:

In 2012 our membership of the European Union cost £118billion in fees and other financial costs associated with membership.

That is about £1,970 plus interest per person every year.

Cost for a family of four: About £7,880  plus interest

The Nationalist Alternative : Leave the European Union – the only possible advantage is the trade agreements which are legally protected if we leave anyway.

Time for Britain to break free?

Time for Britain to break free?

2. The Tax Credit Swindle:

Outlined here  https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-tax-credit-swindle-global-greed-inc-as-usual/

The Tax Credit Swindle costs £30 billion which is £500 per person every year plus interest.

Cost for a family of four: £2,000 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : A decent minimum wage – let Tesco and Starbucks pay their own staff.

Big business gets £30billion per year in subsidies via the Tax Credit Swindle - no wonder they're lovin' it.

Big business got £30billion in 2012 in subsidies via the Tax Credit Swindle – no wonder they’re lovin’ it.

3. The PFI Fraud:

Outlined here https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-private-finance-initiative-pfi-fraud/

The PFI fraud costs about £150 per person every year plus further interest.

Cost for a family of four: £600 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Cancel the fraudulent debt, throw the fraudsters in prison and keep the buildings.

Gordon Brown signed the PFI fraud deals.

Gordon Brown signed the PFI fraud deals.

4. The Big Windmill Rip Off:

Outlined here https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/the-big-windmill-rip-off-revealed/

The Big Windmill Rip Off costs about £112 plus interest per family of four every year, but is set to rise steeply.

Cost for a family of four: £112 plus interest.

The Nationalist AlternativeCancel the rip off subsidised deals. Insulate houses to a very high standard and help to replace old boilers with new super efficient ones. There would be costs for a year or two then massive savings in energy use and therefore bills. Also this would be environmentally friendly – not just look “green”.

The Windmill Rip Off has a great green cover story but cost each British family £112 in 2012.

The Windmill Rip Off has a great green cover story but cost each British family £112 in 2012.

5. Foreign Aid:

In 2012 it is estimated the UK wasted about £9billion on foreign aid. Hundreds of millions goes to consultancy firms linked to the Politicians who make the payments. We also fund projects such as Local TV Stations in countries such as Iceland, Barbados ( higher per person income than Portugal ) , Turkey and Brazil.

That’s £150 per person plus interest.

Cost for a family of four: £600 plus interest

The Nationalist Alternative : Cancel foreign aid spending.

21092011576[1]

6. The Olympic Games:

Cost was £9 to 12 billion depending on estimates. This is £150 to £200 per person. We’ll average that at £175.

The Olympic secret tax haven cost another £600million+ . At least £10 per person. Secret tax haven details here https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/the-secret-olympic-corporate-tax-haven-exposed/

Cost for a family of four : £740 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Let Paris hold it – apart from the elite we all watched it on TV.

London or Paris? I watched it on TV anyway.

London or Paris? I watched it on TV anyway.

7. Illegal Foreign Wars And Occupation :

There are a lot of figures flying around, we’ve decided to go for £5billion in 2012 which looks a believable amount.

That’s about £83 per person.

Costs for a family of four : Approx. £330 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Bring the troops home and prosecute the war criminals.

DONNAY

8. Mass Immigration :

The worst part of mass immigration is the child sex slave trafficking, racism , violence, fraud and murder. Also mass immigration holds down wages and pushes up living costs. Immigration costs taxpayers a further estimated £15billion in 2012  – please feel free to debate this figure.

That’s £250 per person.

Costs for a family of four : Approx. £1000 plus interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Stop mass immigration and start deporting illegals. Also consider whether Blair’s mass immigration and ethnic cleansing was legal.

Mass immigration is dangerous and expensive.

Mass immigration is dangerous and expensive.

9. Interest On Fraudulent National Debt :

You probably realise we allegedly have £1,377.4 billion in National Debt. This is nearly entirely fraudulent and falsely created by our corrupt Politicians at the behest of their real paymasters. This cost about £40 billion in interest alone in 2012.

That is about £667 per person plus further interest.

Costs for a family of four : Approx. £2,668 plus further interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Stop paying and cancel the fraudulent National Debt, then throw the corrupt politicians and bankers in prison.

Not under a real Nationalist Government.

Not under a real Nationalist Government.

10. Global Corporations Offshoring Profits To Avoid Tax :

Global Corporations such as Amazon, Starbucks , Ebay etc. offshore their profits to lower tax regimes abroad by using “Royalty” deals. The figures for 2012 for this scheme are £7 to £25 billion, so we’ll average that out at a credible £16 billion.

That is about £267 per person plus further interest.

Costs for a family of four : Approx. £1,068 plus further interest.

The Nationalist Alternative : Make these Corporations pay UK taxes on UK profits.

We all have to pay UK taxes on UK earnings so why shouldn't the Global Corporations?

We all have to pay UK taxes on UK earnings so why shouldn’t the big Global Corporations?

2012 TOTAL FOR FAMILY OF FOUR : £16,998 PLUS INTEREST

You may want to dispute some of the numbers on here or add other spending items – feel free to do so. I can appreciate the costs of foreign wars and mass immigration will be hotly disputed – I had to go for a guesstimate based on a few figures. However this is just a quick list I did of things a Nationalist Government could do differently. Why not do your own list with spending decisions and amounts?

The Real Labour Party Manifesto 1997

In 1997 ‘New’ Labour produced a manifesto that outlined:

We will champion an open-border policy and allow permanent settlement of upwards of five million people from Third World countries. We intend to allow access to our labour markets to all citizens of the new EU accession countries, even though we know that other European countries won’t. We acknowledge that as a result of this unprecedented exercise in diversity, approximately five million indigenous workers will lose their jobs or see their wages depressed so that they would be better off on benefits. Since the new arrivals are in greater need than our own citizens, housing will be allocated on a needs basis, meaning that our own citizens will be discriminated against. The new arrivals from the Third World will dramatically increase the amount of TB, hepatitis and HIV cases. The NHS will be pushed to breaking point and the quality of schooling for your children will be adversely affected because of the multitude of languages spoken in the schools. Entire areas will become Islamised and de-facto sharia law applied in those areas. Rape and the grooming of vulnerable white girls will be a necessary and acceptable consequence of this policy. Anybody who tries to exercise his British rights (built up over a thousand years) and has the courage to speak out will be deemed a racist. If enough people are courageous and speak out, we will pass legislation that outlaws incitement to racial and religious hatred. Incitement in our terms means entirely valid criticism of a seventh-century tribal cult as evidenced in its written texts. We expect society to fragment and disintegrate. We also as a result of diversity will increase inequality by allowing the rich employers to get richer and the poor employees to get a lot poorer (unemployed) and utterly dependent upon government to survive. We expect the middle classes not to notice or speak out because by and large they will not be affected (until much later). We do not expect the British to protest our sweeping reforms. We will wholeheartedly embrace a policy of managed decline and your children will have to pay for our mistakes for the rest of their lives.

‘New’ Labour did not produce the above manifesto for public consumption. They were elected to power where they remained for thirteen years and implemented the above manifesto in full. They could only do it with the largest and most unprecedented credit bubble in the history of the world. The economic and social results are outlined below.

Britain is a nation addicted to a highly toxic and addictive trinity of welfare, immigration and debt that interrelate, intersect and mutually reinforce each other. We are fast approaching a tipping point where the end result is monetary collapse, with welfare implosion and ethnic conflict that would not be out of place in the Balkans.

The last Labour government pursued an immigration policy to make Britain a truly multicultural society with the parallel intention of creating a pool of Labour voters. This policy designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” had the consequence of importing cheap immigrant labour that decimated the bargaining power of indigenous unskilled and semi-skilled workers.

It is not insignificant that the last government had to introduce a minimum wage (April 1999) and working/ child tax credits (April 2003) to supplement the earnings of the low paid, as families could no longer afford a reasonable standard of living on what has been termed a living wage. These two flagship welfare policies were enacted at exactly the same time as the virtual unrestrictive migration to Britain of cheap labour, very often from the Third World.

Simultaneously, the availability of low interest rates and ‘light-touch’ regulation allowed the state and individuals to amass ever-increasing amounts of debt at lower rates, very often secured by mortgages on the seemingly ever-increasing value of residential housing. This apparent economic prosperity fostered an illusion that all was well and sustainable.

If the economy and house prices expanded, cheap finance could be had and payments could always be met. When the bubble burst in 2008, Britain was left with zombie firms and households (only supported by bank forbearance), unaffordable personal consumption, a lack of investment and an interest rate on savings that was negative after inflation.

It quickly became evident that many British workers were better off on welfare and in-work benefits than working full-time. Workers particularly from Eastern Europe did the jobs that British workers were subsidised not to do because the benefits system made it unprofitable. Moreover, this had profoundly damaging effects on the social fabric of working class communities as they became a new underclass impervious to the need to work and the rise of the chav (‘council house and violent’) mentality. The breakdown of the family and in particular the demise of marriage as a bedrock of society left the unenviable consequence that one in four children grow up in a family where neither parent has ever worked.

In modern times it has become the norm to attribute the irresponsible behaviour of individuals to society and not the individual themselves. The responsible in society are therefore subsidising the irresponsible to act irresponsibly. Since this is positively reinforced through welfare and the impossibility of earning a similar or greater amount through work, this will continue unabated. When a nation insulates its citizens from responsibility by providing cradle-to-the-grave welfare and medical treatment it cannot do anything other than produce a permanently irresponsible adolescent citizen.

The unintended consequence of the Left’s welfare policy was to provide incentives to be feckless and reward immoral behaviour. Those on welfare have found that should they start work they would effectively be paying a tax rate of 85% (i.e. working for 15p for every pound earned after the removal of benefits) which removes any incentive to work. In a study cited in Chris Philp’s, “Work for the Dole: A proposal to fix welfare dependency“, 59% of welfare recipients agreed that welfare payments were too high and discouraged work.

At the same time the in-work benefits disproportionately provide advantages for Islamic communities who are for the most part self-employed in cash industries. Cash industries allow the much easier under-reporting of taxable earnings and therefore the over-claiming of in-work benefits. This has a knock-on effect of financing much larger families than the indigenous population which then makes them more eligible for public housing. All of this is financed by British taxpayers to effectively Islamise their own country.

Britain has become a divided ‘community of communities’ under the umbrella of multiculturalism.  Multiculturalism was modelled on everyone sharing broad values of being British within their own cultural framework. It was not expected that tribal forms of behaviour would survive in their historical form when they came face to face with the advantages of modernity and Western Civilization.

The struggle for race equality was perceived to be facilitated by multiculturalism, but it left in place cultural norms such as stoning and ‘honour’ violence abhorrent to a civilized nation. Conversely, the laws put in place to prevent incitement to racial and religious hatred and to promote race equality actually makes the propagation of Islam illegal in Britain. The Quran, Hadith and Sira all outline either organised discrimination against or execution of non-Muslims, women, homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers and apostates. There are very few prohibitions concerning violence in Islam and many promoting violence against non-believers.

The British people had never been consulted on the unprecedented transformation taking place in their country. The coalition government has indicated that they will bring non-EU immigration down to the tens of thousands by 2015. When Enoch Powell made his “Birmingham Speech” in April 1968 immigration was running at 50,000 a year. In his “second” speech in November 1968 Powell outlined:

The English as a nation have their own peculiar faults. One of them is that strange passivity in the face of danger or absurdity or provocation, which has more than once in our history lured observers into false conclusions – conclusions sometimes fatal to the observers themselves – about the underlying intentions and the true determination of our people. What so far no one could accuse us of is a propensity to abandon hope in the face of severe and even seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Dejection is not one of our national traits; but we must be told the truth and shown the danger, if we are to meet it. Rightly or wrongly, I for my part believe that the time for that has come.

It is time for the British people to abandon the mainstream parties who have deceived and manipulated them into second class citizens, a minority in their capital city and a minority by 2064 (on current projections) in the rest of the country.

dilemma of cultural contact cartoon in jpeg(1)