Wee, covering, dangerous under-water beasties

A few years ago a submarine surfaced off the West coast of scotland in the midnight hours. A rubber boat landed an indeterminate number of Israeli agents on the shore. they were met by some person unknown, who drove them down the long, lonely, winding road to Glasgow. The car was stopped by a police patrol, the agenst were arrested and later deported to Israel as "illegal immigrants".
The whole incident was given about one column inch in the controlled media in Scotland. Surely such a story deserved a two or three page spread, with photos of the agensts & their chaffeur, perhaps even his car? Leader writers should have speculated over the reason why they came here, and waxed indignant over the Israelis blantent breach of British law.
Imagine if the situation had been reversed & a British submarine had landed a number of British agensts on the shore of Palestine, to be met by a Briton claiming Israeli citizenship. It would have been news all over the world. Jewish orchrastrated street demos would have been held outside British embassies in a dozen countries, all ailing about the "anti-semitism" & waving placards saying "Never Again".
The masters of Hollywood would have sprung into action with a blockbuster showing Mossad & Shin Beth heroes foiling a plot by the wicked Brits to inflict a "second" holocaust on the peace-loving jews of Israel. The Israeli govt. would have demanded a grovelling apology from the wimps of Westminster and, naturally monitery compensation.
But in reality, it was British, not Israeli soverignty which was breached, there was a deafening silence. What we must ask is this: who decided the story of the submarine & the agents should only be given one inch of coverage on the inside pages of the Scottish press? Was it the same people who squashed any exposure of how Eretz Israel sold Exoccet misslies to Argentina which were launched against British ships to kill our lads during the Falklands campaign?
The left-wing "New Staytesmen" recently published an article by Matthew Kalman & Johyn Murrey entitled "New Age Nazism". This made much of the allegation that a staunch patrioty of long-standing, Mary Stanton, had been questioned by MI5 over her name being listed as a contact for "International Anti-semites". One might think that MI5 would be more usefully employed finding out who has so much power in the media that they can bury a story about Exocets from Israel being used to kill British servicemen, and reduce the submarine scandal to a mere column inch.
And we must also ask why did the Israeli agenst come here? Obviously they were up to no good. You can't land a submarine in the wee sma' hours off the West Coast of Scotland if you intend visiting the Edinburgh Festival. And who was the diver who met them? Was he a jew, born & bred in Scotland, with an impreecable background, even speaking with a pronounced Scottish accent? Where did he live? Did he plan to take his illegal guests to some safe house in part of Glasgow (Hillhead or Newton Mearns maybe) until they had completed their mission? Where was that house? Did it have the paraphernalia of the spy: radio communications equipment, code books, arms, special poisons, explosives & detonaters, lists of potential targets for assassination?
Why were none of these questions asked in our Parlament down in Westminster? Where were the Scottish representitives at the time? Were they too bust bevvying up on the late night train which carries them from their secretaries in London to their wives in Glasgow of a weekend, to bother themselves about such mundane affairs as the defence of the Realm? Or is it perhaps recognised amongst MP's that it is deadly to one's future career prospects to criticise blatent jewish involvement in other nations?
I personally knew three staunch anti-zionists who met untimely ends in Scotland. 1) Said Hammami, the PLO representitive in London, who was active with the British Anti-Zionist Organisation - Palestine Solidarity Group. 2) Robert Coleman, an organiser of BAZO-PS. 3) George Mitchell also a BAZO-PS organiser.
Said Hammami was murdered down the the London Bureau of the PLO. In shis study "To the ends of the earth", well-known author David Yallop tells us the Mossad were responsible. A man named Robert Coleman was murdered in the Parkhead district of Glasgow's East End. The Robert Coleman of BAZO-PS lived in nearby Shettleston & I haven't seen or heard of him since. George Mitchell, who could swim like a seal (he had used Townhead Baths, a hundred yards from his home, regularly since he was a child) drowned off the West Coast. The police announced there was no foul play, but they said the same about Willie MacCrae, the Scottish lawyer with zionist connections. MacCrae was found shot dead in his car, with the gun about 25 yards aay, yet the police said he committed suicide!
Is there an Israeli hit-team wandering about the country? In his book "By way of deception", former Mossad agent Victor Ostrowsky tells us that the agency does not hesitate to use criminal actions in other countries if they think it will help Israel. He explains in detail how literally thoudands of jews in Britain alone are organised to help them. Known as "sayanim", they provide cars, safe houses & the like to Mossad agents.
Somthing like that was clearly afoot that night on our ild coast. We will probably never know what, but the curtain of silence which decended over the incident provides a long-term lesson for British Nationalists. It will not be enough one day to replace a few hundred stuffed shirts in Westminster. Thousands of highly trained & motivated journalists and intelligence operatives will be needed to fill the gaps when we clear out the vermin who have betrayed our birthright.

Canadian Airbourne Regiment

The shrill advocates of political correctness have gone crazy in Canada. They have actully been able to get the Canadian Airbourne Regiment disbanded. This was one of the finest regiments in all of Canada too. What great crime did the Airbourne Regt. commit? Did they rebel against the govt. like the French Foreign Legion did in Algeria? No!
Doing duty for the United Nation's Organisation's "peace keeping mission" in Darkest Africa, a sentry caught an African crawling about in the wee sma' hours of the morning.
Suspecting he may have left booby traps lying about (or maybe even poisoned the water supply), some junior Non-Commissioned Officers' (NCO's) beat him up whilst they interrogated him.
One guilt ridden character actully took some photograps of the interrogation - blood, snot and all - all in glorious technicolour. These were handed to politically correct bleeding heart types, and left orientated liberals gave them to the press. This resulted in enormous adverse publicity in the mass-media (owned by you-know-who!), as the NCO's were accused of that unparralled crime of the 20th century "Racism". (Shock! Horror!). When Commissioned Officers protested it was all a storm in a tea-cup, they were all roasted in the self-same media.
So goodbye to the Canadian Airbourne Regiment. Never let it be said that faithful service in the defence of their country should be allowed to out-weigh the burden of political correctness the White Man is increasingly being called to carry out nowdays.
Next time the Canadians (and British) troops are called on to serve the United Nations, or even their own country, they know just what to do. Just keep their heads down in Africa, the Balkans or even in Ulster.
Don't try to stop terrorists or they will be charged with beating them up, racism or even murder if they shoot them in their own self-defence. If any soldier gets blown up by a booby trap, or shot in the back by a Barratt's Sniper Rifle, never mind. At least they will know that they were not "Racists" or murderers when they died in agony.
Am I going crazy in thinking that such conduct is political & military lunacy? Or is there some sinister, bleeding heart conspiratorial group beavering away behind the scenes to undermine the morale of White Soldiers worldwide? Are they using guilt-laden, self-hating Lib-Lab-Con cranks to attain their sinister ends? I wonder!
We are being put into a situation in which we are expected to surrender, rather than defy the liberties won for us by our fathers after hundreds of years of struggle against tyranny. It is now being suggested that we should all trust in the United Nations troops, who willl be from Africa & Asia, sent to bring peace to places like Ulster. But those who have done some reading into the history of the U.N. troops know what they did to the Whites in Africa back in the 1960's, don't we!
To trust the goodwill of people from another Race & Nation than our own is madness!

The Gypsy Plague

In 1998, 1000 Slovak gypsies moved to Britain. They claimed political asylum, saying those "awful" folk in Slovakia were persecuting them. The cost of maintaining therse "refugees" in our National territory is £540,000 a week, paid for by the British tax payer mugs.

Now, thanks to the incredible Mr. David Blunkett (or should that be David Blunder), all of Slovakia's 750,000 Roma gypsies are getting ready to move to Britain. They will be looking for Social Security Benefits, family allowances for the average Roma family of 6-8 children, housing with free rents, plus anything else they can get their mitts on from the Benefits agancy. So multiple 750 by £540,000 and add lots more. This will let you see what British tax-payers will have to pay next year for the masses of Roma about to flood into Britain.

Why does the Labour govt. allow our national territory to be swamped by these alien people, who can't even speak our tongue? It is really sinister! Are they to be the metaphoric "Red Guards" who will bring Britain down?

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of elderly ex-servicemen in Britain live in poverty through unemployment. Lots are homeless & Blive in what can only be described as doss-houses. Some even sleep rough & it is shameful, because in their younger days these old men & women put life & limb at risk protecting Britain's interests at home & overseas. They fought in vicious brush like Palestine, the Canal Zone, Libya, aden & the Gulf States, Kenya, Malaya, Korea, Saralak, Borneo, Brunei, and more conflicts & foreign wars.

Now the Labour govt. shows favour to "asylum-seekers", and ignores old British ex-servicemen and women, giving two fingers to the British tax-payer.

If you want a Roma for a neighbour, VOTE LABOUR!

ANARCHY IN THE U.K.

Have you noticed at that a lot of young women seem to be joining the anarchist movement here in Scotland? Whilst some of them are hardly the kind a young Briton would want to take them home to show them off to their "mammy", many do appear to be physically attractive. Why on earth would they want to get involved with ararchists, then? Have they never read the history of anarchy in power?

Let me quote from the infamous "Saraloff Decree" passed by the Saraloff Soviet in the newly formed Soviet Union in 1919.

"Beginning with March 1, 1919 the right to possess women between the ages of 17 & 32 is abolished... This Decree however, not applicable to women who have had 5 children... By virtue of the present Decree no woman can any longer be considered as private property and all women become the property of the nation... The distribution and maintenance of the nationalised women, in conformity with the decision of responsible organisations, are the prerogative of the Saraloff anarchists... All women thus put must be at the disposition of the nation after publication of the present decree, must within 3 days present themselves in person at the address indicated and provide all the necessary information... Any man who wishes to use a nationalised woman must hold a certificate issued by the administrative council of a professional union, or by a Soviet of workers, soldiers or peasants, attesting that he belongs to the working-class".

There is lots more foul slime like that in the decree but it has three words which should prove of interest to every young woman who wants to get married to one young man & have children: "All those who refuse to recognise the decree & co-operate with the authorities shall be declared enemies of the people, anti-anarchists & shall suffer the consequences".

As if that were not bad enough, "The Cutchit Decree" of 1929 condoned rape of a woman in these words: "There is no such thing as a woman being violated by a man; he who says that a violation is wrong denies the October Revolution. To defend a violated woman is to reveal oneself as a bourgeois & a partisan of private property".

Thus any man who tried to defend his wife, sister, even his mother from being sexually raped by some scummy communist, would be seen as an enemy of communism, to be treated as a counter-revolutionary & killed.

Is this what the anarchist folk really want out of life?

We hite Patriots who respect our women folk ask if they really want to become the sexual playthings for a bunch of anarchists? If anarchists ever get any power in Britain, they would merely have to go to some committee for a ticket to take any woman of their choice like some donkey at the beach.

We Racial Nationalists call upon White Women to join in the ranks of the racial family movement & work towards an Aryan Europe & the 14 Words.

Open letter to the Christian Press

I had hoped someone, perhaps more qualified than myself would have sprung to the defence of John Calvin, after Dr. George Ella's criticism of him in the "British Church Newsletter", and "English Churchman". To put Calvin into a sort of second division amongst the reformers, to suggest he was somehow deficient compared to others, seems very wrong to me.

Calvin was a Christian Pastor-Teacher who served his master faithfully for years, even at the risk of his own life. By nature he was a quite & scholarly man, and would have preffered to sit in a library & write; but God's providence placed him in the position of being one of the leading lights of Protestantism, with an influence throughout Europe. He could read, write & speak his native French, Latin, Greek & Hebrew.

According to Dr. Wylie's "History of Protestantism" (a must read for all who would learn of our history & our faith), Calvin taught in both the School, and the Achedemy in Geneva. All this was on top of his pastoral duties, which were themselves very weighty.

Despite this heavy workload, Calvin still managed to write over 90 works on the Bible. The men of his day praised his industry, and in the 19th Century, profited out of his works. He wrote fine pastoral letters to the leaders of Christiandom, respectful & courtious, but Biblically based.

All the Reformers of his era respected him as a good brother in Christ, and saw in him an instrument raised up by God's providence to teach the Church the doctrines of the faith. Wylie's "History" is full of praise for Calvin & so is J.H. Merle' - D'Aubigne's. Both historians quote many men who expressed their approbation of God's servant. Dr. Wylie even quotes a Pope & other catholic dignitaries who said John Calvin could not be bought with offers of cash. What a fine testimony to leave behind.

It seems the men of the late 20th & early 21st centuries are adopting hyper-critical attitudes toward Calvin & Luther (see Jude 3 & 4 in this connection). Nowdays the Protestant Reformers are being subjected to very severe criticism. In fact, they are being rubbished. The criticisms are based on a sort of attitude of grovel, in which the demand is being made that we protestants must adopt an oh-so-humble demeanor before our anti-Protestant critics. If we don't it will be said we lack "l-o-v-e". This attitude is epitomised in the Archbisop of Canterbury bowing down to kiss the Pope's ring. Catholic bishops grinned with delight at the abysmal spectacle of the leader of a purportedly national Protestant church humbling himself before a blatent idoliter & anti-Christian heretic like the Pope of Rome. Our critics in their ignorance & self-rightiousness are trying to impose upon us a mantle of guilt that they have woven on their looms. This guilt conditioning can be seen in articles published in the Evangelical Press. The organisers of the "Christian Witness to Israel", John Ross & Mike Moore denounced Calvin & Luther as "anti-semites" (a name of infamy in the contempoary world, as a result of incessant jewish guilt & pity propaganda poured out of the mass-media, which is largely under jewish control). (Oh yes, it is, read Nick Griffin's essay, "The Mindbenders" for proof).

Despite the Editors of the Evangelical Press knowing that, to be called an "anti-semite" is to be given a name of infamy, they made no attempt to publish any defence of our brethern. Look at Raul Hilberg's standard work on the "holocaust". He writes "The missionaries of Christianity had said in effect: you have no right to live among us as jews. The secular rulers who followed proclaimed: you have no right to live among us. The German Nazis decreed: you have no right to live."

Instead of Evangelicals like Ross & Moore criticising this opinion of Dr. Hilberg against the Church of Christ, they side with the jewish critic by saying it is Christian attitudes that hold jews back from turning to Christ, and the poor-poor jews are blameless. Paul's inspired critique of the jews in 1 Thessolonians 2:14-16 should be ignored, it would seem. Thats what the Evangelicals now seem to be saying. I find this attitude on the part of the Evangelicals shocking & reprehensible. It is also theologically unsound. (In this connection read John 3). I ask, is this an indication that the Evangelicals are commencing to depart from the true faith of a Protestant? A faith that was proclaimed faithfully by both Luther & Calvin.

I have read some shocking criticisms directed at the Ulster Protestants in the Evangelical Press. The criticisms are from men, who are well known as opinion makers in the ranks of Evangelicism. The positively sneered at Ulster's Protestants & called them to "l-o-v-e" their Catholic neighbours who were murdering them with bombs, bullets & batterings. I live in Belfast for some years, and saw examples of men being battered in the most literal sense, black and blue. One man's face & arms were bruised bone deep. I've never seen such awful bruising.

If the Evangelical critics had gone up the Falls Road district, and called the Catholics to "l-o-v-e" their Protestant neighbours, they would have been battered into the hospital (or even the morgue) with multiple fractures & deep contusions of their face & body. My brother went up to preach Christ & him crucified off the Falls Rd. He was warned by the hate-filled catholic, "if you don't go away, I'll kill you". Our Evangelical critics know how terrible dangerious it could be to proclaim their "l-o-v-e" doctrine in catholic areas of Ulster, so they reserve them for voicing amongst the Protestants.

On the issue of denouncing Luther & Calvin as "anti-semites", it is ridiculous, even dishonerable to slight our brethern for criticising jews. If everyone who offers criticism of jews is to be traduced as an anti-semite, would that include the Lord Himself? No more fierce critic of jews exists than Jehovah-Elohim. His denuniciations of them for their sins in Isaiah, Jeremiah & Ezekiel are aesome. Perhaps because they are our sins as well?

His dear son, Jehovah-Jesus, told at least some jews: "ye are of your father the Devil, and the works of your father ye do". (see John 8:44-45). Yet Evangelicals like John Ross & Mike Moore insist the jews are God's Chosen People. Will they be moved to say Jesus was an anti-semite for saying what John 8 tells us He said? Shall we denounce the Apostles John & Paul for their criticism of jews in their writings? Must we, to please jews & win them to Chist, accuse John & Paul of being "anti-semites"?

Is it anti-semitism to say there were bad jews like Marx, Lenin, Trotski, Beria, etc. in the International communist movement, or equally bad jews like Mayer Lansky, Longy Zwillman and Dutch Schutz, aka Arthur Flegenheimer, etc. in the US Mafia? The organisation called "Murder Inc." was run by jews in America. For a price you could have an enemy bumped off by callous hitmen.

Let us not forget either, the 300 jewish owned slave ships that sailed out of Newport, Rhode Island off the coast of America, to engage in the cruel & murderous African slave trade across the middle passage. So to enrich their jewish owners, skippers & mostly jewish crews. To give you some idea of the of the vile traffic in human flesh, the slaves were chained in rows like sardines in a can. When they needed to excreate or urinate, their captors did not push down to loosen their chains. So the slaves were forced to relieve themselves where they lay. This meant pools of urine & exrement washed about amongst the chained slaves, as the ships pitched & pailed in the waters of the Alantic. Sailors said you could smell a slave ship a mile off. Sharks followed slavers for weeks on end, to feast off the bodies of slaves who died of disease in such appauling conditions.

When jewish producers in jewish controlled Hollywood, USA turned out movies like "Roots", "Amstad", etc., they did not inform the cinema goers of the massive part played by jews in the slave trade. It is manifest to every discerning Christian that these foul productions are a race & religious war against White Christians. When will the editors in the Christian press denounce & expose this jewish hate propaganda against us? To sit quiet in the face of hate, to let the Christians be reviled without any reply, is surely a betrayal of Christ & his church. "Even-jelly-cals" should be deeply ashamed in my opinion.

While jews should be applauded for their accomplishments, they should not be beyond honest criticism for their faults, out of fear of beinf denounced as an anti-semite, or being punished by God for telling the truth about jews. In my opinion, the organisation, Christian witness to Israel, are a bunch of wimps who grovel with guilt before arrogant, Anti-Christian jews. Some of whom went to plush homes they have in North London. . I used to see these homes as I drove past in the cabin of a heavy lorry. What a luxury! The Christian Witness to Israel "Even-jelly-cals" were drenched with water from an upstairs window by a jewish bigot. Can you imagine if any Christian were to cast a bowl of water over a jew? It would be front page headlines & the Christian would be sent to jail under the anti-Christian, anti-White race laws. But when jews do it to us, we must all grin & turn the other cheek. I mean criticise a poor-poor jew after the holocaust? As if they had not suffered enough! Besides the Lord might punish us. This is the mind-set that prevails among the "Even-jelly-cals". Its disgusting! Its superstition!

One prominant jewish writer did not hesitate to denounce Jesus for his words in John 8:44-45. This jewish critic said that Jesus demonised the jews, and his words exerted an influence on Martin Luther, who write his tract "The jews & their lives". This is purported to have influenced Adolf Hitler & great masses of Germans, by creating a culture of anti-semitism. This ultimately sparked of the "holocaust" in which, it is claimed, that some six million jews were slaughtered with barbarous hate. So we are expected to assent that from Jesus to Luther, Hitler, and "the holocaust" is a straight line. Where is the Christian who will assent to such an intrepretion of his story? Well, could they be found in the ranks of the judaising Evangelicals, I wonder?

I don't accept that Luther had such an influence for a start, Hitler was a catholic & catholic leaders placed a ban on Luther's works. If my memory serves me right, Luther's writings were placed on the catholic index of banned books, and if catholics red them they were putting their eternal salvation at risk, and so must confess to their priest to gain absolution for this great sin. On top of that I've read half-a-dozen or so lives of Adolf Hitler, plus numerious essays. None of them said he was an anti-semite because of his reading Luther or Calvin. Hitler's opposition to jews sprang out of their support for communism & their strident denunciation of other peoples 'nationalism' (But not zionism? That is a special variety of nationalism, to criticise, which leaves the critic under the accursation of being an anti-semite!)

In recent years jews have begun to lobby the catholic authorities & their ecumenical fellow-travellers to get "The New Testament" altered. In those places where perfectly legitimate criticism of jews, they want deleted, why? Well they say the words stir up hatred of jews. What they are demanding is, special consideration for jews. They must be beyond criticism. They can revile us Christians in their "Holy Talmud". I quote "extermination of Christians is a necessary sacrifice. the best of the gentiles should be killed. All non-jewish women are whores". "Even-jelly-cals" say we must not protest. We must turn the other cheek & show jews "l-o-v-e". In that way we will win them to Christ.

Even the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has been persuaded to put a Bill before parlament soon. This will make it a criminal offence to spread what Mr. Blunkett calls "hate" via religion. Will "The Talmud" be banned then? Don't hold you breath. You can settle it in your mind right now. Blunkett's Bill worded in a way that it will militate against the doctrines of The Church of Christ. Who are Blunkett's advisors?

Will the reading of John 8:44-45, plus 1 Thessolonians 2:14-16 be called "hate speak", and therefore a breach of the new law? Will it lead to Christian pastors in our land being arrested, and put on some charge into the Dock under socialist "anti-hate" laws? Will they even be gaoled for it? Will it become an offence to carry a copy of the authorised version of the Bible, because it contains words now deemed to be "hate-speak"? (He criticised jews & gays, imagine! Gaol the awful Christian bigot! Live & let live, thats my policy). events in Britain & Europe at large seem to be moving towards such a state of repression. Our Christian liberties are being stolen from us. Is this a commencement of a wave of persecution against the Churches of Christ in Britain & Europe at large? And for all proclaiming the God-given doctrines in the old, much despised Bible? Are our Anti-christian governors readying themselves to put thousands of faithful Christians into gaol, so as to establish their policy of social engineering, and erect their system of socialism, with its hatred of the doctrines of Jesus Christ? It looks to me that they have taken the first few tentative steps along that road.

Never forget that the socialists in the USSR were guilty of slaughtering great numbers of confessing Christians during their reign of terror. In his "Gulag" vol. 2. Solzhenitzsyn quotes a statician called Kuganov. He said some 66,000,000 folk were murdered by the communists, mostly confessing Christians. Why were there no "Nurenberg" trials of their murderers? Why is the media silent in the face of these appauling atrocity figures? Are Christian lives less valuable than jewish lives? The silence about their deaths suggest so.

In such a situation it does not seem a good or a wise action on the part of Protestants to direct withering criticisms at Luther & Calvin in the Protestant media. When the doctrines of faith are under such attack as we see now, surely it is the duty of Confessing Christians to stand up for the faith, and the reputation of those who defend it, either in the historical past, or in the contemporary world. I ask, for example, will certain folk demand Luther & Calvin's works be banned because Mike Moore & John Ross said they are "anti-semites"?

Today it is increasingly asserted that it is somehow shameful to be white & Christian. We are being programmed like Pavlov's dogs or Condon's Manchurian candidate to feel oh-so-terribly guilty over our historical past. Non-whites & non-Christians have even said we owe them for the historical past, and should cough up compensation. The late Bernie Grant MP, who was once a member of the aggressive Trotskyite Socialist Labour League, which later became the Worker's Revolutionary Party (Vanessa's lot) demanded the British should give £40,000 to every decendant of black slaves in the West Indies. If you ask where the billions in compensation would come from, the reply would be to borrow it from the bankers. The British taxpayers would borrow it from the bankers. The British taxpayers would pay it all back, plus the interest, but if suffering is to be compensated, what about the millions of British working class folk who suffered dire poverty in foul, vermin infested slums? What about the sacrifice of life & limb in defence of Britain?

I honestly don't expect the Evengelical press to give such a letter space in their columns, and this is why your respectable middle class evengelicals get few working folk in their churches. They prefer the warmth of a Pentecostal church to "cauld kirks" of the Evengelicals.

I am sir, a believer in Jehovah-Jesus.

Zionism - the real Anti-Semitism?

"The Herald" is a newspaper published in Glasgow. recently it reported that organised jewry in France protested, surprise, surprise! Jews protesting? Eh? They do love organising a wail-in, don't they. They know a good wail-in can create masses of political capital for jews and their asggressive little state centre, "Eretz Israel" in the Middle East. On top of that it helps to milk the placid jewish cow, and creates lots of fat-saleried white-collar jobs as wail-in organisers, I mean look at the holocaust.
The jews in France are protesting at the Vatican, you see moves are afoot to make Pius XII (the wartime pope) into a saint. The jews say his failure to protest about the holocaust is hardly the behaviour expected of a saint. Interestingly I once read of a Vatican Official who lived below the pope's quarters. He said Pius XII roared with fear of death, pleading with doctors to save him, as he lay on his death bed. Catholic officials walked around with trembling limbs & white faces. If the pope was afraid to die, how would they face the reaper when he was swinging his sythe? The official incidently quit the cathoclic church & joined the church of Christ, an American organisation.
Getting books on the holocaust is really difficult, if these books are critical of holocaustmania with its six million dead jews tale. You just can't walk into bookshops & pick works by Robert Farisson, or Ernst Zundel off the shelves. If any such books were given an open display, the left-wing book burners in the Socialist Workers Party (which is stacked out with jews) would hold a demo outside the shop.
They did it with a shop in Suchiehall street, which was selling books by David Irving. I've read a number of Irving's books, they are really well-written & so very informative; but just because he criticises the fallicious nature of the present-day interpretation of the WWII, the left-wing book burners hate his guts. The editor in "The Herald" agreed with the SWP's protest. But it was right out of Orwell's 1984, where all information contrary to the party line is consigned to "the memory hole", with its intensely hot flame. The party line, of cource is the holocaust & the evil Nazi gassers tale.
My reading of the Vatican's attitude toward the jews in WWII suggest that the pope did more for the jews than the zionists ever did. I've read he told catholic monasteries and convents throughout Europe to take jews as refugees. He also took lots of jews into hids Palatial residence in Castel Candolfo, more jews were given Vatican passports which allowed them to go into other lands without any problems.
Note that I'm not a Roman Catholic seeking to white-wash the pope. I'm actully a reformed protestant in my doctrinal belief, and to us Calvinists the pope is a heritic; but historical truth must be given a hearing, regardless of how many holocaust maniacs are offended by it. So here goes with the truth from my historical researches.
In New York a jewish lawyer named Morris Ernst sought to gain political asylum in the USA for his fellow jews, who were inside Nazi occupied Europe. He used his friendship with Presisent Roosevelt (who was of jewish descent) to get them into America. You can read about this in "The Zionist Connection" by Al Lilienthal, who was the editor of the jewish newsletter in the USA.
Roosevelt sent Ernst to Britain as his personal representitive. Britain was at war; but Prime Minister Churchill took time off his boozing sessions to see Ernst. Churchill agred to take in jewish refugees & give them political asylum in Britain & our world-wide Empire. This should not surprise us, Churchill was of jewish orgin. When Ernst went back to NY leading jews told him, "you're a traitor to zionism". It was alright for them, they lived in the comfort and safety of America.
You see the zionists wanted Europe's jews to move en masse into Palestine, where zionism sought to erect its state structure after the war. Thus any moves to give jews political asylum in any other land bar Palestine, was opposed by the zionist zealots sitting in leather armchairs in NY, etc. In lots of cases the opposition of the zionists was based on the belief that a vast influx of zionist jews with their beard, dark garb, round hats would present problems for US jews. They were mostly assimiliated into western society. In fact they were frequently irreligious, even athiests, who despised orthodox jews, and saw them as backward and reactionary. Talk about anti-semitism.
Sweden offered to take in 60,000 jewish refugees. The Chief Rabbi in Sweeden was a zionist & objected. He said so many jews flooding in would raise anti-semitism among the tolerant Swedish people. In Denmark some concerned folk took jews across to Sweden at night, the Swedes gave them political sylum, which more that the hard hearted US zionists were prepared to do.
Britain actully brought a bill before parlament. It called for jews to be to be given asylum in Britain & our former world-wide Empire. You can read a letter in "The Times" of London on the anniversary of D-Day, it was written by a jewish Rabbi appointed Chief Organiser of the rescue committee. He said "Britain was at her best" in offering asylum to jews. It was the zionists who said "why not Palestine?"
The answer is obvious. If millions of jews were being persecuted in Nazi occupied Europe, surely they would be pushed into any land that would offer them asylum. To send them to Palestine to be maintained in camps by UK & US taxpayers, could have stirred up terrorists in the Arab nations to fight them with the Nazis. They could've blown up oil refineries. This would have cut Britain off from Middle East oil refineries, and you can't fight a war with no oil. Thus Britain would have been defeated. How would that help the jews?
The jews should have been taken to any land that would give them succour. After the war the refugee problem could have been sorted out. But the zionists reasoned that the jews would stay in the lands that gave them asylum. They would not move to Israel, the zionist state structure they planned to set up after the war. So these zionist zealots opposed giving jews asylum anywhere other than in Palestine.
This means that jews who ended up in Nazi concentration camps did so largely as a consequence of zionist intrangience. The zionists used their political clout (which was immence) to lock them up inside Nazi occupied Europe. Thus, if six million jews were slaughtered lilke the zionist propaganda incessantly tells us in movies, TV, books, newspaper articles, then the zionists share the guilt of their deaths. The Lord God said to Cain, after he murdered Abel, "The voice of they brother's blood cries unto me from the ground". The voice of dead jews blood in WWII cries out against the zionists. Britain, Sweden & America were ready to give jews asylum. The zionists hindered their rescue attempts.
Lots of jews went into the Soviet Union. We read of train loads of Red Army troops coming into Eastern Europe, and returning crammed full of jewish refugees. I suspect we'll never know how many jews went into the USSR in these rescue trains. In fact any attempt to research their numbers would be reviled as anti-semetic attempts to whitewash Hitler & the Nazis. It is a sneaky form of holocaust denial, and one jewish professor in England thinks that deniers of the holohoax should be gaoled. Is'nt it appauling, the bigotry of the holocaustmaniacs?
It seems to me that the worst anti-semites were the zionists. Not only did they despise religious jews, they also blew up shiploads of jewish refugees in the Mediterranian. Zionists were no friends of the jews. I think jews are suckers to trust any zionist after the way they betrayed jews in WWII.
In my opinion, the zionists want jewish capital, jewish labour & jewish cannon-fodder into Eretz Israel, the gigantic ghetto the zionists are building behind those high walls, their barbed wire fences, their mine fields. The zionists want their very own jewish population to tax to the bone. This will enable the zionist leaders to live La Dolce Vita. Jews should wake up to the cunning ploy of the zionists. But they've been programmed twith guilt to such an extent, they side with their zionist betrayers against non-jews who try to warn them. They'll even call me an "anti-semite" for writing such material. Gerry Gable did in his evil hatesheet "Searchlight".
Right now the zionists peddle guilt to try to make jews living in the West make their personal aliyah to Israel. But the zionists won't be satisfied with guilt politics. Eventully they'll start terroristic activities to stir up fear of anti-semitism. They did it in Arab lands, and blew up synagogues & other places frequented by jews. I heard an Israeli lecture on those days in the Strathclyde Union. His name was Akiva Aur (I think that was the spelling). He was brought to the Union by Dr. george mitchell who was drowned in very suspicious circumstances. Yet Dr. Mitchell could swim like a seal. I'm persuaded that future days will lend support to my analyis. Just wait & see.

Ban the bomb & the Bolshy Bastards

The Ban the Bomb brigade announced their intention to hold a rally in George Square, Glasgow. They are mostly lefties as far as I can gather, with a sprinkling of bleeding heart liberals (scratch a liberal & you'll find a red underneath).
They have said publically that dropping nucular bombs on to enemy targets is evil; but there appears to be another reason for their protest. They object strongly to the billions of pounds the govt. is going to spend o Trident nucular submarines, and say they can think of better ways to spend such vast sums of cash.
You see the govt. have borrowed billions of pounds off the bankers, and now they have to pay it back with the inevitable interest. This means the govt. has to reduce expenditure in certain areas. Thus our troops have been sent out to fight Islamic terrorists waging guerrilla war in Iraq & Afganistan. These British troops lack things like body armour & helecopters, in fact lots of their equipment appeas to be clapped out.
Believe it or not, the British troops had a rifle, the SA80, which had a mechanical problem. This meant the machine which carried the actual bullets would fall out at unexpected moments. Thus when a soldier was sighting on a terrorist coming at him with an AK47 (Kalashnikov) his magazine would fall out. Happily for the British soldiers, this defect seems to have been corrected.
Its just as well, really, because a burst from an AK47 could cut a man in half. But it was'nt about such mundane matters the ban the bomb brigade were protesting, down in George Square, no! They had much more important reasons for their demo.
You see these ban the bomb lefties seem mostly to be employed in fat-saleried, white-collar jobs in the public sector of the British economy. It appears that the govt. are running some of these jobs down. Thus now lots of the lefties look as if they will lose their jobs. In fact it seems that thousands have been paid off from their cushy jobs in various parts of the UK, and tens of thousands more look as if they will follow them. These public sector drones are beginning to tremble over the prospect of unemployment and poverty. The govt. has sought to reduce the impact somewhat by paying out early retirement to older drones. If you look at the job pages in "The Guardian" you'll see the kind of mickey mouse jobs I mean, and you'll understand why I call them useless drones & parasites, living fat off the taxpayers backs.
So its the threat of unemployment in the public sector that is principally motivating the ban the bomb brigade to hold their public rally. But they can't come right out & say it, so they adopt the cunning policy that they are concerned about the awful dangers of nucular war. They can think of better ways to spend such vast sums, like using the cash to protect their fat-salaried, white collar jobs.
They intend by their inflamitory propaganda, to stir up millions of workers, after all, its our cities where we live that will be the targets, if any vast war were to commence. So their propaganda is designed to create fear in the hearts of working class folks, and terrify them with the prospect of a war that would kill off their old mums & dads, their lives & little children. Its a cunning ploy to gain mass support for a demo which in essence is designed to protect the jobs of the trendy lefties.
Its really sickening to hear them mouthing their platitudes of concern for us working class folk. In reality they despise us, even hate us. George Galloway M.P. is a characteristic trendy leftie. He has lived off the backs of British tax payers for most of his useless life. Yet he called white workers "scum" when he handed out leaflets at the senior school in his former constituancy in Hillhead, up in the West End. I saw the comment in the vile hatesheets that are printed down on Clydeside.
One of these hatesheets sent out its photographer to get photos of working class BNP members out protesting at their hard lives. The hatesheet printed these photos in their pages & asked readers to send in names & addresses of the subjects, plus their places of employment. Look what happened.
Journalists went into their employers and got them the sack into unemployment & poverty. One of the working class folk. They want to transfere the cash spent on weapons of defence, and apply it to the protection of their fat salaried, mickey mouse jobs in the public sector of the economy.
From my own personal experience, I know that NALGO-UNISON loathes us British Nationalists. They use their political clout to drive us off the streets "By any means necessary". That was how they worded a motion put before NALGO at their conference in the 1980's. When I wrote letters of protest, the evil cops sided with NALGO against me. I ended up in a cell for 5 days, and even lost my home in a Maryhill tenrment, and ended up sleeping on the streets. The evil cops shunted me round in handcuffs with vicious criminal types. Cops & the left ganging-up on us white workers, then the cops wail that workers won't help them with their enquiries, what do they expect? They're not our police. They side with the left against us.
Building nucular subs means employment for lots of blue-collar workers in the steel industry, shipyards & engineering; but the trendy lefties are not blue collar workers they are the new bourgeoise, what Milovan Djilas called "The New Class" in his book of that name. The ban the bomb brigade could not care less about the workers in industry. They are too busy looking out for their own useless jobs which create no wealth.
Its time white workers wakened up the fact that the left are not our friends, in fact they despise, even hate us. In fact they despise, even hate us. They will get us gaoled to stop our protests which expose their arrogant pride and hyprocritical tyranny.