14 Defining Characteristics of Zionist-Materialism

Like Pavlov's dogs, there is a tendency for people to shriek hysterically at the mention of the word 'Fascist'.  For most people, no attempt is made to understand what is meant by Fascism, and thus they fall into the trap of attacking an ideology just because the Establishment media tell them to.  Such people probably believe in the 6 million kosher corpses yarn, and wet the bed upon hearing tales of the latest Zionist Islamic  al CIAda Al Qaeda plot, scurrying to their Zionist democratic owners representatives for protection.  For grown up, culturally, spiritually and politically awake individuals, this acceptance of Establishment-induced hysteria is really not a good thing.

Gregory Patin, writing for the informative and read-worthy Activist Post, has fallen into the 'boo hiss' anti-Fascist trap.  His article, '14 defining characteristics of fascism' takes at face value the work of secular humanist, Laurence Britt, which defines Fascism as the ultimate evil.  Patin then runs with this assumption and paints the 'New World Order' as Fascistic and presumably as a plot to exterminate the Jews

Patin's acceptance of Britt's analysis is interesting in itself, and indicates his ideological prejudice.  To seriously align oneself to the 'left', or the 'right' to the exclusion of opposing ideologies and ways of thought, is to acquiesce in one's own enslavement.  Left and Right are Establishment-created divisions, such as the manufactured Class Warfare which pits owner against worker; white collar against blue.  We need to steer clear of these divisions and see the value of unity.  Those who seek to polarise us into rival camps are the one's who control every manufactured division.  The only division we should tolerate is the splitting off of those who support the internationalist enslavers, from those who oppose them; no one should aid the despots who feel themselves to be superior to the rest of humanity, even to the point of believing some non-existent deity Chose them to be that way.

Patin deals with the USA in his work, but his research could equally be applied to the EU or many other countries.  The 14 Characteristics of Fascism he cites, can be summarised as follows:

1. Nationalism
2. Human Rights abuses
3. Scapegoating of enemies (e.g. Jews, Muslims)
4. Militarism
5. Sexism/Homophobia and opposition to the murder of unborn children
6. Controlled media
7. National Security paranoia
8. Unification of State and Faith
9. Protection of Corporate power
10. Undermining Workers' Rights
11. Opposition to degenerate art
12. Police State
13. Corruption and Cronyism
14. Election Fraud

This list highlights the thinking of Britt, and its adoption betrays the motives of Patin.  The list is dishonest, and links together aspects of the internationalist agenda with measures to oppose it.

Starting with the points highlighted in red, which could be called fascistic, let us examine how these apply to the USA:

(1) Recently, school pupils were admonished for chanting USA! USA!  Nationalism may be a characteristic of fascism, but it most certainly is not a characteristic of the government of the USA.  Just as in the UK, expression of patriotism is encouraged, but nationalism is forbidden.  Why?  Because Patriotism is loyalty to the State, whereas Nationalism is loyalty to the people.  Internationalism seeks the destruction of all which differentiates individuals and nations, thus Nationalism is defence against Internationalism, and so is forbidden by the architects of the Single Global State. 

(5) Protection of the family and the unborn as living humans, not as things to throw away like rubbish, is in fact on the decline in the USA.  Defence of womanhood and the preservation of the natural society are under serious attack.  Is the defence of the unborn, and the preservation of healthy and natural family structures Fascistic?  Certainly.  But part of the politically correct drive in the Obamanation of North America?  Hardly.  If anything, the US Establishment is hetero-phobic and controlled by militant homosexuals.  President Obama himself is a homosexual who enjoys receiving fellatio from white men.  He has staffed the White House with all manner of perverts.  Under his administration, the unborn are under attack like never before.  The destruction of marriage, the reduction of women from sacred mothers to wage slaves, and the rampant abortion on demand culture all stand in opposition to what is good for society.  Sorry Patin, but on this one you are very, very, wrong.

(8)  If Patin believes that the US regime has adopted a religious fervour, he may be correct.  However, his attempt to link the US Establishment with Christianity is an outright lie.  Yes, the regime do go on pilgrimages to the Holy Land, but not to Bethlehem or to Calvary; they go to the Wailing wall to insert bits of paper into a wall to ask the Jewish God for favours.  Patin has a point on this one; the government USA has abandoned the country's Christian heritage and now worships at the Synagogue of Satan.  Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious, but Fascism was against the elevation of the Jews to gods over the Gentiles.  Naughty naughty Patin.  A good try, but this stinks of deception.

(11) Degenerate art is injurious to the soul of the people.  Decadent and sickening 'art' and sex-obsessed 'music', not to mention psychologically damaging filth from Hollywood and the Talmudic porn industry, are a part of the new USA.  Inspiring and invigorating real art are dismissed as old-fashioned and fascist, and have been condemned to the memory hole in Zionised countries such as the USA and UK.  Again Patin attacks something wholesome, which is exactly the strategy of the Establishment.

To turn to the remaining points, those in blue are quite subjective, and some are more misleading than others.

(2, 4, 7 & 12) Human Rights abuses and militarism?  Yes the rights of the people of the USA are being systematically undermined, and yes the country is becoming more militarised, but does this indicate that the country is under Fascist control?    The Fascist regimes 'abused' the Human Rights of the Freemasons by banning them, and also the rights of the enemies of the people, by interring them.  The US government attacks the right of people to worship, to speak their minds, to associate with and employ people of their own kind.  The abuses of the Obama regime are anti-Fascist.  As for militarism, military power obeys whoever orders it, and the ideology of the ruling power is of no relevance to the soldiers under their control.  Likewise for National Security and the Police State; these are administrative issues which can occur even under the most liberal of democracies, especially at times of war.

(3) The scape-goating of enemies in the USA is beyond scape-goating; the enemies highlighted by the media have been manufactured and are in many cases paid and controlled by the Establishment (e.g. Al CIAda).  This is a sneaky one from Mr Patin.  Here he tries to link the removal of Jews from positions of influence in Europe, with the attacks against Muslims by the US Government.  This sleight of hand brings images of the fake holocaust to mind, in which the Jews were moved to transit camps for their eventual relocation to Palestine, and significantly, to the USA.  The subject of the holocaust is too complex to go into here, but there is a wealth of information to indicate that the Jews were neither scape-goated (insofar as their leaders WERE and ARE at war with humanity), or gassed.  There is much information about this on the forum at this link.  For Patin to eagerly accept the 6 million canard and indeed to link it to the Zionist assault on Islam and Christianity is disingenuous to say the least.  Scape-goating is a characteristic of Zionist thinking, and was practised by the Talmudic rulers of the USSR to silence critics.  It is known today as political correctness, and there is nothing Fascistic about that.

(6) The media in the USA is controlled by the Zionist Internationale.  Under Fascism, the media has to serve the people by producing art, music and entertainment which is culturally enriching.  Control of information is an unfortunate reality in the Fascist system, and one of its points which is problematic.  A system of free media would of course be better for the people, but control always rests with the editors, owners and those who oversea the media as a whole.  In the USA there is such a thing as Public Service Broadcasting, which allows for anyone to speak as he or she feels.  This is a wonderful thing which those of us in fully controlled countries such as the UK, look to with admiration.  The advent of political correctness has undermined the freedom of the media, and the take-over of small-scale media by large international concerns has all but eradicated the free press.  What is left is online media such as this, and the Internet itself is under threat.  The power behind the erosion of freedom is associated with the Rothschilds, Murdoch, Reuters et al, all of whom are a part of the Zionist network.  A free media is a requisite of a free country, and Fascism fails this test.  However, to label the Zionisation of the western media as Fascist is a mistake.  I can see Patin's point here, but the correlation is messy, and does not stand up to scrutiny.

(9 & 10)  Patin refers to Corporatism, but fails to distinguish between the Corporatism of Mussolini, and the modern Corporatism which shares its name, but stands in diametrical opposition.  The Corporatism of Fascism binds together the workers and owners as a cooperative unit who work for the well being of the nation.  Workers' Rights are not undermined, but are enhanced as the workers are a part of the corporation, and not merely servants or employees.  This is the very basis of Fascism and Syndicalism, and Patin errs by linking it with the destructive money-worshipping international corporatism of today.  Under Fascism, there was no 'out-sourcing' to countries overseas, where as in international corporatism, out-sourcing to Communist China has reached the point where hardly anything in the USA (or EU) is made anywhere but China.  The point of the Corporate State was to rein-in the power of industry, in order to make it serve the people.  To this end, foreign ownership of the means of production, and the usurious practices of the stock market were forbidden.  Patin here labels the internationalist take-over of the economy as Fascistic.  It is as far removed from Fascism as is imaginable.

(13 & 14)  Corruption, Cronyism and Election Fraud are certainly rife in the USA.  Patin's attempt to label the government as Fascists due to their selfishness and promotion of kin and fellow parasites is intriguing.  Is he here trying to dirty the name of the Fascist movements by associating them with the decadent materialists of the modern age?  Elections were not fought according to party and the ability to throw money behind candidates who lied to gain office; parties were banned due to their divisive nature.  Comparing the two systems makes no sense, unless the objective is to dirty the name of one with the other.  Ironically Patin seeks to use Fascism to undermine the character of the gangsters in Congress, the Senate and the White house!  If only their level of corruption equalled that of the Fascists of bygone days.  As fallible as they were, they were saints in comparison with the vipers in power today.

All-in-all, Patin's attempt to use the Fascist epithet to attack the government of the USA, rests on the refusal of the people to take the time to study the truth behind the label.  Fascism was far from perfect, but it did provide a workable opposition to internationalism.  This is most likely why it is so often used to describe internationalism, and to thereby make people run from what could be a good defence against our developing enslavement.

Demonstration gegen den Euro-rettungswahnsinn

Tomorrow there will be a demonstration in Karlsruhe against the European Stability Mechanism.  This demonstration will be the first of three in Germany, with the next in Stuttgart on the 5th May, returning to Karlsruhe on the 16th June.

There is much talk of Chancellor Merkel seeking to build a new German Empire.  The common use of the term 'Fourth Reich' has the effect of linking the Chancellor with the Third Reich of the NSDAP.  However, this misses a crucial point, which is that Merkel was raised in the DDR as a Calvinist, and is a fervent internationalist.  Rather than building a new Empire for Germany, she is part of a cabal intent on destroying all the constituent nations of Europe.  Germany, just as every other nation, is scheduled for assimilation into the international materialist machine, in which no identity, culture, or even race will be allowed to continued; except for that of the self-Chosen rulers.

The fact that there are protests in Germany tomorrow and over the next few months, highlights that every country is under attack.  The protests are not organised by any political parties, and are not leftist or rightist.  This is a shew of unity of all Germans against the European Union, and specifically against the destructive Euro currency and the bankers' Euro Stability Mechanism.

If you have the chance to get to any of these demonstrations, please do not take any political banners which could be used to divide the opposition to the internationalist mafia into left or right camps.  This is an issue above and beyond left and right.  With the strikes in Spain, the unrest in Greece, and the growing anger in the UK and indeed every EU State, now is the time for real European Unity.  No doubt the State will send in the usual under-cover police 'Black Bloc Anarchists' to besmirch the name of the protestors.  Steer well clear of any such elements who only serve the Establishment,

Let us join with our brethren across the continent and fight for a real European Union of free nations, working together, but not joined by bureaucratic institutions which have nothing to do with the wishes of the people: a Europe of a hundred flags, with no single currency, citizenship, passport or government.

For more information, visit:

http://eurodemostuttgart.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/virale-attacke/

Deja vu in the UK: No water, no fuel and a Liberal Government

For the first time since the 1970s, the Liberal Party is in power.  In the 70s they formed a coalition with the Labour Party, and now they form one with the Conservatives.  The economic situation is almost a perfect repetition of that of the last Liberal regime, and even the weather has joined in the eerie similarities with the 1970s.

In the 1970s, the Liberal (Lib-Lab) government enacted economic policies which outraged the people to the point where they took part in acts of civil disobedience, which are very untypical of the British character.  The Liberal regime, oozing with liberal tolerance, sent in their uniformed thugs to crack the skulls of the people who dared to democratically object to their insane policies.  The current Liberal (Lib-Con) regime is equally hated, and equally happy to set their psychopathic police on the people.

In the 1970s immigration became an issue, and the government simply lied as they opened the country's borders to vast numbers of newcomers who arrived so quickly and in such large numbers, that they couldn't be assimilated.  This new regime differs from the previous one only insofar as the volume of new immigrants is much higher, and rather than simply lie to the people, they have legislation in place to prevent people voicing dissident opinions lest they be incarcerated for thought crimes.

In the 1970s the Liberal regime took the baton of betrayal from the regime it replaced, and pushed for the abolition of the UK within the super-soviet EU.  The new Liberal regime is even more anti-British than the one of decades ago, and for all the patriotic rhetoric, is even more pro-Soviet and anti-UK than any sane people could have thought.

In the 1970s the Liberal regime presided over a nation wracked with discontent, with strike after strike against the traitors in Westminster.  At one point, the threat of a strike by petrol suppliers led to the issue of petrol ration books.  Looking at the queues for fuel today in anticipation of a fuel strike, one can see the comparisons.

In the 1970s the UK experienced glorious sunshine which led to hose-pipe bans and drought in many parts.  Again, hose-pipes are banned in many areas, and droughts have been declared.  Even the baggy-trousered chavs can be compared to the ridiculously attired hippies of the 1970s.

It is indeed uncanny how the hated Lib-labs have been reincarnated so fully as the Lib-Cons.  Will the British people now learn that putting faith in the three two one party system is futile?  Or should we expect a landslide victory for the alleged opposition at the next election, and for this circus to continue over again?  I would like to place a bet regarding the possible outcome, but I doubt any bookmaker would entertain such a sure bet.  Poor Britain - will she ever learn?

The murder of femininity

In much of the western world, but especially the UK, the natural qualities of women are viewed as the result of male oppression, and in their place are subsituted harmful parodies of femininity, based upon ludicrous ideas of the supremacy of material gain, and an over-emphasis of physical attributes.  The attack on the feminine is rife throughout the Judaised west, as is evident in the media portrayal of women as whores or workaholics.  The natural role of a woman as mother and carer is mocked as a male construct, whereas in fact these traits are the fullest expressions of feminine beauty.

For girls growing up exposed to the western media, manufactured 'pop' music and the Hollywood film industry, the message is ceaselessly repeated: to succeed you must be a whore, and to be faithful to one man is to be old-fashioned (which of course, can never be allowed). 

Typical of the media obsession with sex as the key to success is an article in the Daily Mail, concerning the model Candice Swanepoel, who at 15 years of age (still a child) took a job as a semi-naked personality-less walking clothes horse, to shew her school bullies that she was better than them.  Really?  Regardless of whether she was bullied, the message to school girls is that by exposing one's flesh, one can achieve material gain, and therefore by the acquisition of wealth, be a better person than those who do not go down this route.  With this logic, is it any wonder that girls are getting pregnant at ever earlier ages?  To be a sex object is to be popular.  This is nothing short of the promotion of prostitution, and pædophilia.

On television and in films, sex is promoted as the be-all and end-all of human achievement.  The notion that it is ok for a girl to be promiscuous, because boys are, is childish logic which sits alongside the 'he started it' argument.  It is not ok for anyone to be promiscuous!  Of course the whole anti-feminine movement is Talmudic in origin with the sick and twisted 'eye for an eye' ideology; which fails to address the wisdom of mutual blinding.

Brought up in an atmosphere in which ideals are mocked, and instant gratification is the model, it is only to be expected that a considerable number of girls will adopt the negative lifestyle of the manufactured role models.  Television programmes such as Sex and the City debase women.  Women are naturally sexual beings, but are much more as well.  The gossip media's preoccupation with divorce and adultery effectively normalises the abnormal.  Girls are taught that they must experiment with lesbianism and that it would be evil to not 'date' outside one's own race.  Homosexuality and ethnic identity destruction are added to the litany of horrors with which children, and girls in particular, are assaulted.

The music industry no longer focuses upon talent, but upon debauchery.  The likes of Beyonce and Avril Lavigne who began their careers singing about virtue and even opposing the sexualisation of music, have now joined the flesh-fest which encourages girls to be unpaid whores.  To succeed as a 'celebrity' one must be willing to sleep one's way to the top.  This instruction is repeated in every aspect of the celebrity-worshipping culture, and so honour and faithfulness have suffered.

When vacant individuals who become rich and famous for no other reason than having the dubious talent for having promiscuous sex and exposing  their bodies, become role models, all is not well with society.  The tendency of celebrities to marry, then within weeks divorce, makes a mockery of marriage.  When this attack on marriage is joined by government as in the pro-homosexual London regime, it is time to take notice of what is obviously an orchestrated assault on decency.

In the UK we have the ridiculous EDL.  This group of thugs like to misquote the Qur'an and to focus on the fake Islamic sect created by the Talmudist, Abd al-Wahhab.  The primary reason that the multi-culti EDL hate Islam is the fidelity of Muslim women to their husbands, and their modest dress.  Indeed, if Muslim girls would only dress like whores and have sex with the disgusting vermin of the EDL, they would have no problem with Islam!  The EDL have swallowed the Talmudic lie that the women of Christian Europe are, and have always been, shiksas.  Certainly the type of female who will have sex with an EDL thug does merit the label shiksa, but such damaged goods are not representative of English women in general, which must irk the scum of the EDL.

It is only since the judaisation of the UK became endemic after the slaughter of the UK's finest in two Zionist World Wars, that femininity came under serious attack.  European women have always been honoured by their men folk.  Motherhood is a noble and rewarding vocation which no form of employment can rival.  The labelling of motherhood as a chore which denies a woman her freedom is pure evil.  Only by breaking real families can the Talmudic destruction of the Goyim be achieved.  Getting girls to behave as unpaid prostitutes acclimatises them to a belief that promiscuity is normal and faithfulness is a perversion.  This tragic phenomenon has only become so prevalent through the concerted effort of the Talmudist in government and their kin in the media and entertainment industry.  It is not the norm, nor ever has been.

In traditional Europe, women dressed modestly and wore little or no make-up.  An unjudaised European woman has more in common with a Muslim woman as far as dress and fidelity are concerned, than with the damaged image-obsessed girls and women of our current unfortunate times.  If the EDL were really concerned with defending England, they would be campaigning for the outlawing of pornography, the protection of marriage (real marriage between one man and one woman), the punishment of adultery (by either party), the treatment of homosexuals, and the adoption of modest dress by men and women alike.  Instead they defend perversion and campaign for all women to dress and act as low-class call girls, regardless of faith, marital status, or age ( like the pædophile Simon Sheppard, they like 'em young).

England has the disadvantage of not having a distinct National Dress, unlike most of Europe, including our neighbours in Scotland, and Wales (including Kernow and Brittany).  An English National Dress would help to reconnect us with our ancestors, and it is perhaps indicative of the despotism of the internationalist mafia who comprise the Establishment, that our culture has been assaulted more than the rest of the UK or the territories occupied under the Talmudic 'royal' banner.

Femininity should be cherished.  We need to protect our children from exposure to popular 'culture'. In the 1970s and 1980s there was a woman named Mary Whitehouse, who campaigned against degeneracy.  She was vilified by the media, but if anything her campaigns were soft on our enemies.  In her days there were only three (later four) television channels in the UK (none operating 24 hours per day), there was no Internet, and films could only be seen on television or at a cinema.  The debilitating influence of the media is now much worse than in Whitehouse's day, thus avoiding exposure is much harder.  In Whitehouse's time, political correctness was confined to rabid Marxists and not the norm as it is now.  Our struggle is hard but that is no excuse for surrendering without a fight.  There is an 'off' button on the television - use it!

A concerted attack on femininity is underway.  All of us who cherish family, morality, and all which the internationalists seek to eradicate, are duty-bound to expose the corruption of our children, especially girls, and to do all in our power to push back the influence of the enemy.  We may not be able to stop the filth getting on television etc, but we can stop it getting into our homes.  Vermin like the EDL will always exist, but we can highlight their hypocrisy and distance ourselves from their odious internationalist propaganda.  

By educating our children with decency, and a sense of worth which doesn't require material rewards or the approval of those who have absorbed the toxin of feminism, we can make a difference to our kin.  And in the end, the fight against internationalism is a fight for our nearest and dearest.  We are on the long journey to victory over the global enemy, and to paraphrase the Chinese philosopher Laozi, every journey begins with the first step.

Rural Living versus Urban Existence

Spring has arrived, and with it the natural urge to reconnect with the land. As an Urban-dweller presently trapped in an area which resembles the opening scenes of Monty Python's Meaning of Life, (albeit one with a vast Muslim population, rather than a Catholic one!) I am acutely aware of the contrast between Urban Existence, and Rural Life.

There are those who claim that the entire population of the Earth could live in England; and this is probably correct if everybody was forced to live in a vast expanse of concrete.  The implication in the assertion that England is far from over-crowded, is that the quality of life of urbanites is in no way inferior to the quality of life of those who live close to nature.  I wonder how many of those who parrot this misleading and useless information would be willing to live in such an urban monstrosity?

Urban life is not real.  We have manufactured pleasures which are reliant upon technology and commerce.  Many of us do not even have a small garden in which to enjoy some connection with living matter.  Our children play in the streets, not the fields, and many do not understand that the food they eat comes from somewhere other than the supermarket or fast-food take-away.  It is alarming but true, that some parents do not bother to take their children on trips to the country; favouring instead trips to 'theme parks' where they can be bombarded with the noise, lights and fumes of the mechanised rides.  Fun is associated with money; hedonism is regarded as the highest virtue; decadence and debauchery are considered normal.  Urban life is a lingering death.

Rural living links the people to the land, and for this reason provides a barrier against the machinations of the State.  Such is the antipathy of the Establishment to anything which goes against the internationalist agenda, that even the word Peasant has negative connotations in England.  Peasants are the backbone of the land.  It is the Stockbrokers, Bankers and Bureaucrats who should be reviled, not the honourable peasantry.

Travelling from one urban centre to another, I have the opportunity to get off the main roads and to enjoy a longer travel home through the countryside.  The magnificence of nature has the power to restore the senses after a hard days work.  When I was a Civil Servant, I lived and worked in the same town, and didn't see so much as a single field or farm animal throughout the week.  For a period I had no car, and didn't see anything of nature for months.  The stress of work became a permanent feature of life with no reconnection with nature to cleanse the urban decay.  The need for a link to the land should not be underestimated.

An alarming trend in England is for the towns to be extended along the main roads which link them.  This is creating urban corridors of strips of concreted land, behind which swathes of countryside are becoming enclosed; the cut off rural land is then considered a part of the urban setting and is 'developed'.  On my travels I can see this process in action.  In the Bradford Metropolitan District, the city of Bradford is growing along its main arteries, in a manner not dis-similar to the reaching tentacles of an octopus.  Where these arteries connect with major roads connecting other towns, long stretches of new built houses are springing up.  In time, the unspoilt countryside which provides much needed relief from the bland grey buildings of Bradford and its satellite towns, will be built over.  The rise in crime which will follow is a direct result of the severing of the bond between land and people.

In England literally millions of new houses are being built; turning the 'green and pleasant land' into a grey unpleasant slum.  It is noteworthy that those who designed the 'vertical streets' (tower blocks) of modern towns, do not choose to live in them.  The social engineers who dictate how we should live, defend themselves from the evils of urban life; living either in enclosed communities where the plebs cannot go, or in large houses with enough land for a private garden at the very least.  The social engineers and urban architects would not consider living as those imprisoned in their creations have to.  I do not begrudge these people the right to live in a way which is mentally and spiritually satisfying; although I do find their hypocrisy irksome.

It is human nature to live in close proximity to the land.  One need only think of lottery winners who immediately buy a large house with enough land to ensure privacy for the occupants.  Do lottery winners living in the country use their winnings to buy a flat in a typical urban tower block, boxed in by people on every side, with such niceties as the stench of stale urine in the noisy and bumpy lifts?  Methinks not.  

Rural living allows for the development of real communities in which genuine human links exist.  A rural life with space to grow food for one's own consumption, or maybe to trade with neighbours, reduces one's reliance upon supermarkets and all the dangers associated with such evils as genetically modified and otherwise doctored food.  A child who can see animals behaving as nature intends, will have no need of the bizarre neo-Soviet sex-education lessons of the Establishment's schools.  Of course, the Establishment want us to be reliant on the internationalist corporations for our survival, and for our childrens' education.  The countryside is a threat to their plans.

Why is natural living scorned?  Who abhors rural and manually productive life?  There is a people who take pride in being 'cosmopolitans', and who see city life as the only worthy life.  These people have ruined England, and indeed everywhere they have touched.  These people reject the natural labour of the peasantry, favouring instead to manipulate finance whilst studiously avoiding any real work which is to the genuine benefit of the people.  Thankfully the Edict of Expulsion (1290) is still on the statute books so removing these negative beings from our land only requires enforcing the law!

The State argue that more houses must be built across the UK to accommodate the millions of migrants from across the EU and further afield.  This is complete lunacy.  We do not need more immigration.  We have millions of unemployed people in this country already, and bringing more people in to compete for work will only exacerbate the problem.  The solution to housing millions more people coming into the country is to not allow them in.  There is nothing 'racist' about protecting the land and ring-fencing the country's resources for those to whom it belongs.  The policy of the Establishment is the real racism, as can be seen by the anti-Eastern European hysteria of the media which sits side by side with sob stories demanding the admission of more people from the non-European world.  Building new homes is about socially engineering the extermination of the indigenous population, and if it enriches greedy building corporations at the same time, all the better.

A country which cannot feed itself is at the mercy of the corporations who control the transport networks and the production of food.  For the British Isles, the reliance upon shipping is especially pertinent.  During the Second World War the population of the UK was many millions fewer than it is today, and the available farm land was much greater; yet still the country would have reached starvation point if the transatlantic food supply had been cut.  The policy of building over agricultural land, and driving the population up, is a policy which in years to come will result in starvation in the UK.  This can only be averted if the non-indigenous population are helped to return home to lands which are free of the international pariahs who have driven them out, and if the UK cities are broken up to provide direct access to the land for all the people.  It doesn't take the powers of Nostradamus to see that very serious problems will come if current trends are not halted and reversed. 

The obliteration of the land is nothing new.  The Zionist regime in London promoted the destruction of rural Wales for the benefit of the 'English' rulers.  This prompted the creation of the resistance movement, Meibion Glyndŵr, who destroyed the colonial outposts of the London regime.  Certainly many ordinary people were affected, but the message was sent loud and clear that the Welsh country is sacred to the Welsh people.  In the case of new built housing scarring the land, any action which can make building economically un-viable is merit worthy to stop the criminal destruction of our land.  This could include occupation of building sites, obstruction of supply routes or any other methods which are not injurious to human life .  If it could be done in Wales, why cannot the English and Scots stand up for what is theirs?

We are a part of the land.  Urban life is un-natural and is hazardous to both physical and mental health.  Rather than joining in the Talmudic howling against the peasantry, we should be standing by our brethren who live outside the cities.  We can look after our children by taking every opportunity to get them out of the cities to visit farms, woodland, and the real country beyond the concrete jungle.  Our ultimate objective must be to abandon the cities altogether and give our children the chance to live in a sane and cultural and spiritually strong environment; they will not get anything of worth in the urban environment, unless one considers materialism, degeneracy and decadence virtuous.

We need to halt the expansion of towns into our sacred land, and indeed to demand that the current cities be broken up.  Against all that is wholesome and sane, the Government have announced plans to make it easier for the land to be desecrated by the vandals of the building industry, in order to turn our land into a concrete mess with nothing to distinguish the territory or people from that of anywhere else in the world.  We must resist this.  Too much of our land is already under concrete, and we cannot tolerate the further destruction of the land of our ancestors, which we are duty bound to keep safe for our descendants.  If the State has its way, there will be no 'Green Belt', no countryside, and ultimately, no country to pass on to those who come after us.  The Government is at war with the people, and we need to readjust how we deal with them to take this alarming fact into account.  If not for ourselves, then for those who will inherit this nightmare world, we must take action to stop the enemy now before their victory is assured.  If they win, we will not recover.  This is a struggle for life itself.  To sit on the sidelines and watch their victory is to collaborate in our own demise.  The battle is no longer taking place over in far off lands, it is here, it is now.

Stand by Marriage. Say no to the anti-natural mafia.

Marriage is unique

Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.

No need to redefine

Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Profound consequences

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

Speak up

People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness. They should be free to express their views. A public consultation on the proposals to redefine marriage has been launched. Although the Government says it is determined to press ahead regardless, the consultation provides an opportunity for members of the public to say they do not agree with redefining marriage.

Source: Coalition For Marriage

Thanks to Final Conflict for drawing attention to this campaign.  At the above link is an electronic petition in defence of marriage, and against the outlawing of the terms Husband and Wife - I kid you not, the Government seek to erase these words from the English language.  Take a moment to sign the petition and let the Establishment know that they do not have the support of the people, and that we will not allow our most sacred institutions to be spat by perverts 'and' politicians.

Remembering Mussolini; the Benevolent Dictator

I had a very strange encounter yesterday.  In the course of business I met a relative of the man who murdered Mussolini.  He took great pleasure in describing how his relative had been a Partisan working for the British State.  He had been part of a gang of terrorists who captured Mussolini as he tried to leave Italy, and had personally murdered him in a manner comparable with the recent brutal slaying of Moammar Qadaffi of Libya.

I was at a loss of what to say to this elderly Italian who bragged about an act of murder as if it was something to be proud of.  The man related how his family had been in Britain from the early part of the last century, and had volunteered to fight their kin back in Italy.  To hear a man speak in romantic tones of treachery, fratricide, and the Zionisation of Europe was an odd experience.

Benito Mussolini was murdered in cold blood by terrorists fighting for the Zionist Internationale, or as it is frequently called, the New World Order.  Mussolini's crime was to overturn the economic domination of the usurers, and to root-out the Freemasonic agents of the international money power.  At no time did he set up concentration camps for Jews, yet still he has been labelled as a key figure in the fabled holyhoax.  The economic ideals of Mussolini greatly benefited Italy.  He was a European Nationalist, but a fervent Italian patriot, with no thought of global domination - unlike those who fought against him, and are even now building a single Global Slave State.

Mussolini is still beloved of many of the Italian people, and has a mausoleum to his memory in Predappio.  Meeting an Italian in England who is happy to revel in acts which have contributed to the demise of not only Italy, and England, but in fact all of the European world, is sadly appropriate for the country which celebrates the enemies of humanity, and persecutes those who fight for the truth.  I wonder if he would be so outspoken if he was in the company of good, proud Italians?

There are many internationalists who are happy to betray their countries and nations, but the number of anti-internationalists is growing at a rate which should not be underestimated.  Our enemies have no morality and no humanity, and for this reason their cruelty and materialism will not prevail.  Incidentally, the defamer of Italy was invited to attend a commemoration in the Netherlands of the Partisan murderer - due to the Partisan meeting natural justice in the Netherlands not long after murdering one of Europe's loyal sons.  There will be no mausoleum for the murderer, and his name will not be remembered.  The enemies of Europe may be crowing now, but their lies are losing their hypnotic power, and the actions of the likes of NATO will not be tolerated much longer.  The free world is awakening, and forbidden truths are being spoken.

Benito Mussolini - Requiescat in Pace