3 Million Afghans on their way to enrich our lands

Internationalism is a truly remarkable phenomenon.  In order to achieve a single global authority, with a single economy, all who stand in the way have to be neutralised.  Thus, we have the concept of Rogue States.  Does anyone actually bother to question what is meant by a Rogue State, or do most people just go along with what the media and 'their' politicians tell them, and accept that as the term is used derogatorily, then these States must be evil, and their demise must be to everyone's  benefit?  Sadly, all too many people who have been brought up by the one-eyed dæmon in the corner of the living room, do simply accept its wisdom, and do not consider that a Rogue State may just be one which hasn't fallen in step with the internationalist agenda.  Good or Evil do not necessarily enter into the equation; Rogue States are independent of the 'New World Order', and that is the only reason they are vilified.

Rogue States which have been bombed into submission include Russia in 1917, the defeated nations of Europe in 1945, South Africa in 1992, Serbia in 1999, amongst many others.  The economic and military conquest of 'Rogue States' (Free Nations not under the yoke of Internationalism), was gradual until the internationalists' internally manufactured atrocity of 11th September 2001 was used to ratchet the drive to a One World State to a faster pace.  Both World Wars were fought to push the agenda.  The barbarism of the present may seem to be more extreme than in times before, but that is only because we are living through it now.

Immediately after the '9/11' Massacre, the International menace, fronted by the USA, UK and Israel, attacked Afghanistan.  The War OF Terror has now been under way for a decade, with other countries being placed in the firing line by the three-headed beast.  In the first country to be brutalised, Afghanistan, the war still rages, and the death toll of both occupying forces and the Afghan Resistance continues to climb.  A land already impoverished by the previous Soviet occupation, and by the policies of its own government (during its brief phase of self-rule), Afghanistan has been devastated since the 2002 invasion; yet the people fight on with a determination that even their deadliest enemies cannot but admire.

As a result of the Soviet occupation, then the US-led one, many Afghans have fled their homeland.  Over 3 million Afghans are now residing in Pakistan; half of them as illegal immigrants, the other half as refugees.  With over 3 million people putting strains on resources, the Pakistani authorities have declared that at the end of the year they wish all Afghans to leave Pakistan.  The United Nations is pressing Pakistan to reverse its decision, and to allow all the Afghans who have crossed in to Pakistan, to remain there.

In an interview for the UK's Guardian newspaper, Habibullah Khan, secretary of the ministry of states and frontier regions, stated:

"The international community desires us to review this policy but we are clear on this point. The refugees have become a threat to law and order, security, demography, economy and local culture. Enough is enough...If the international community is so concerned, they should open the doors of their countries to these refugees. Afghans will be more than happy to be absorbed by the developed countries, like western Europe, USA, Canada, Australia."

The Guardian is a notorious liberal propaganda outlet; liberal bordering on Bolshevik.  No doubt the readers of the Guardian would regard an influx of 3 million more immigrants as a positive step to culturally enrich the UK.  As Minister Khan has plainly stated, the presence of so many people of a different origin is damaging the culture of Pakistan, and is the cause of economic and criminal problems.  Pakistan is an Islamic nation, thus it is far closer culturally to Afghanistan than any western nation, but it still is experiencing major problems as a result of the vast numbers of refugees, and illegal immigrants.  The problems for a nation further away from Afghanistan would be amplified.

It is absurd that the idea of relocating the Afghan refugees to lands far from their homeland is even being discussed.  Surely the only sensible solution to the Afghan crisis, is for the causes of the mass emigration to be dealt with, and for all the Afghans to be returned to Afghanistan?

Many of the Afghan migrants do not have the literacy skills required for work in the West; although this is probably preferable to having an influx of lawyers and social workers anyway!  But seriously, should the Afghan migrants find their way to the West, then they will inevitably become a drain on the social welfare system, and those who are able to work will (thanks to the ludicrous system of Positive Discrimination) take jobs from those already resident in our lands.  The socio-economic cost of allowing vast numbers of migrants into our lands is staggering.  The cost of providing unemployment benefits, housing, education and access to free healthcare provision should immediately halt any possibility of any immigrants being allowed across our borders - especially in these dark days of austerity when services are being cut to bail out the speculative gambling debts of the International Bankers.  In terms of economics alone, it is insane to even consider allowing as many as one more immigrant to enter our homelands.

Another factor involving immigrants from war-ravaged Afghanistan, has to be the fact that it is the countries of the West which have reduced the country to its tragic plight.  It makes absolutely no sense to allow millions of people who belong to a country we are at war with, to enter our countries.  When one considers that the Afghan people have a culture which does not shirk at suicide bombing as a tactic of war, then the risk posed of allowing people so enraged at the destruction of their land by regimes which hide behind us, to slip in amongst the vast numbers of common people who may despise us, but wouldn't necessarily wish to kill us, is too high to contemplate.

There is a very simple solution to the Afghan problem.  That solution is to stop the wars for corporate gain, and to return the Afghans to Afghanistan.  The cost of the ongoing wars is such that it would be acceptable to divert the funding for war into funding for the physical reconstruction of homes and places of work, thus allowing Afghanistan to become self-sufficient.  The cost in Welfare Benefits after allowing immigrants to enter the West would be far higher than paying for the redevelopment of the countries we are at war with.  Welfare expenditure would necessarily be ongoing, and increase as the immigrants multiplied; reconstruction costs would be short term, and the bill could be footed largely by the multi-national corporations for whom the wars have been fought.  A sane and humane policy towards Afghanistan could be applied equally to Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and every other country from which people have migrated into the West.  Just as Pakistan has admitted that mass immigration doesn't work, so should every country take the brave and necessary step of closing its borders to all migrants other than indigenous expatriates who should return as a part of a global return and re-homogenisation of every sovereign land.

Of course, we can expect the mass influx of Afghans to take place, and the resultant demise of our cultures, our economies, our Welfare States, and what remains of our sense of security from crime and terror.  The whole Internationalist agenda thrives on human misery, and the ability to advance as we fight one another.  It is ironic that those who argue for a sensible approach to migration, are labelled as 'haters', whereas those who believe in open borders are seen as kind and moral.  Neither the Afghan people nor those of the countries they are relocated to, will benefit from the 'kindness' of the liberal lunatics who would love to see them here (although not in their neighbourhoods!)  The social cost will be immense and the misery unfathomable.  It is much better to abandon the International Project altogether and build a world of socially-just free nations, in which the people are served by the economy, and not sacrificed to make the super-rich even richer.  But then, the objective of Internationalism IS the obliteration of free humanity, whether Afghan, English, of whomever.  

The Afghans are coming.  It is not their fault that their lands have been destroyed.  It is not their fault that they have to flee from war and deprivation.  The blame lies squarely with International Stock Market Corporations, and the toadying corrupt governments they use to wage their wars of financial and physical conquest.  To solve the Afghan problem requires dealing with its root cause; and that lies not in Islamabad or Kabul; but in Washington DC, the City of London, and Tel Aviv.

Affirmative Action: Newspeak for Apartheid

Mention the word 'Apartheid' and simple-minded liberals will scream about how evil the system of Separate Development was.  They will tell you how it was unacceptable for a minority of the population to have positions of 'privilege' over the majority, solely by virtue of their racial origins.  Sometimes liberals manage to speak the truth, even though they do not realise that they are doing so.

Mention the terms 'Affirmative Action' or 'Positive Discrimination' and the befuddled liberal will gush forth spurious nonsense about how it is only good and right that members of the minority population are given preferential treatment in work, housing, positions of authority etc.  Of course Positive Discrimination does not apply to Europeans in lands dominated by non-Europeans, as can be testified to by Serbians living in their own country (Kosovo), who have become outnumbered by Turkish (so-called Albanian) invaders.  To ensure that the European minority in Kosovo have no rights at all, NATO and UN are on hand to silence the voice of Serbians; killing them if they so desire.

The Modus Operandi of the Global Cabal is to champion Minority rights, until the group under attack IS the Minority, then it switches to Majority Rule (Mob Rule, or, as they call it, democracy).  So long as the 'minorities' are non-European, they must be protected, but if they are Europeans, then they must tow the line of those who outnumber them.

In southern Africa, the Boers settled the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.  The Voertrekkers populated territory which was previously empty, and could genuinely be referred to as a land without a people.  In South Africa the lie was created that the Europeans were brutalising the Africans.  They were not!  The race issue was used to prohibit any open questioning of the internationalist a lie.  

After the territory of South Africa was settled, large numbers of Africans were invited to SA as guest workers, much as the Poles have been in the UK.  If we ignore race, the demand that the Black immigrants be given Boer land is as logical as demanding that should large enough numbers of Poles come to the UK, then the areas they dwell in should be given to them.  This is the twisted logic of liberalism.  ANC ruled SA is a nightmare land for Whites and Blacks alike.  The Black African population is no better off  than under the previous system of Separate Development (Apartheid);  in fact, life is harder for everyone outside the ruling cabal, Blacks included.

The internationalist media is silent about the actions of the ruling regime in occupied Palestine.  In that land, the false Jews have pushed the indigenous people into ghettos such as the Gaza Strip, and the rapidly shrinking West Bank.  Unlike South Africa, there is no desire to achieve an amicable coexistence between the differing racial and religious groups.  In Ersatz Israel, the goal is for the total obliteration of the indigenous population.  If any European nation attempted to drive resident minorities out of its borders, the media would scream that ethnic genocide was being practised.  Of course, the media are not likely to criticise their co-racialists and so remain silent to the ethnic cleansing on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean.

What is the difference between Apartheid and Affirmative Action?  In a word, NONE.  Under Affirmative Action, people are given preferential treatment solely because of their racial origins.  People are placed in positions for which they have no qualifications other than their ethnic identity; often displacing more suitable people who happen to belong to the 'wrong' racial group.  The liberal lunatics who opposed Apartheid but now support Positive Discrimination, do not even realise that positive Discrimination IS Apartheid, only by a different name.  The Internationalists understand the reality full well, and rely upon the wilful ignorance of the useful idiots to push forward their agenda.

Apartheid was wrong.  So is Positive Discrimination.  The only way that people can truly develop to their full potential is if they are fully immersed in their own culture, surrounded by their own people, in their own land.  Apartheid and the Multi-Culti strategy of Positive Discrimination (or Affirmative Action as it is called in the USA) can only ever be a transitory stage for any country so foolish as to attempt it.  Multiple communities cannot coexist without one rising to dominance, or without all sinking into oblivion.  The displacement of European rule in South Africa by Black Africans was almost guaranteed once the country embraced Apartheid.  The quantitative difference between the two communities ensured that the system would fail and that 'Majority Rule' would be put into effect.  

In the European heartland, and the daughter countries in North America and Australasia, the adoption of Multi-Culturalism with its quota system to ensure the advancement of non-Europeans, will inevitably lead to the destruction of the European people worldwide.  Europeans are the global minority, but there will be no clamouring for Minority Rights for Europeans in the global state; we will be liquidated, just as our kin in Kosovo, or the Palestinians in their own lands.  The woolly-minded liberals will deny this (if they do not actually invite it), but the ability of liberals to lie to themselves is second only to their ability to lie to everyone else.

For the benefit of all humanity, it is time to make a stand against Apartheid Worldwide.  To this end, the absolute protection of every people in his own land must be fought for.  No to Positive Discrimination - there is no positive discrimination, only discrimination.  No to Jewish rule in Palestine.  No to the promotion of people solely on grounds of minority ethnic and religious origin.  No to the causes of Mass Migration, and to the drive to a mongrelised global population of producer-consumers serving the Self-Chosen Elite.  

Will the liberals awaken from their self-induced trances and fight against the evil genocidal creed of multi-culturalism, with its politically correct destruction of culture, ethnicity and identity?  I very much doubt they will, so it is up to us to expose the most dangerous enemy the world has ever faced.  If we wish to have a future for our children, for Arab children, for African children, and indeed for children of every distinct ethnic group and culture, we must fight against the globalists who seek to destroy all that makes us human, in the most fundamental sense.  For real diversity, and for a world of mutual respect, all attempts to merge us into bland uniform materialists must be opposed.

If Pigs could fly, they wouldn't need helicopters

In the UK, the footsoldiers of the State are once again whining that their jobs are in peril.  According to the State Broadcaster, the BBC, three Police forces are likely to have their ability to arrest criminals hampered by the cuts in funding from central government.  The BBC propaganda machine has issued fear-mongering stories to terrify the people into believing that the only way the people can be safe in the face of cuts in the number of police officers, is for the forces of 'law and order' to be given ever more power over the population.  If one believed the lies of the BBC, one would think that the people of the UK were in dire danger of being swamped by crime, and that only the marvellous boys and girls in blue stand in the way of the total demise of our civilisation.  This idea would be amusing, but for the fact that the police themselves have enforced the policies of government which have done so much damage to our culture and our nation.  The police do not exist to protect us from harm, but to protect our enemies from us. 

In the UK, the færytale image of the loveable Bobby on the Beat is still presented as reality to the nostalgic public.  The Bobbies of old were not loveable, and only appear so because the new weaponised police are so undeniably vile.  The original Bobbies were brought in to give a more human face to the forces of law and order after the government used the military to murder the common people of Manchester in the infamous Peterloo Massacre.  The whole point of an unarmed police force was to ensure that the government could not readily murder the ordinary people who disagreed with the policies and actions of the Establishment.  The Bobbies of old were brutal thugs, but at least the chances of being killed by them was less than in the days when the army openly did the government's dirty work.  The new generation of armed police are an insult to those who died in Manchester, and to the many good people - including the Luddites - who lost their lives fighting against the excesses of government and big business.

In Northern Ireland, the people have long understood the real nature of the police.  The former RUC routinely used rubber bullets against the people, and often without provocation.  It is said that Northern Ireland has been a testing ground for modern policing, and this has been proven correct with the revelations that the government has spent over £400,000 on imported Rubber Bullets to shoot the citizens should they become angry at the austerity policies of the State, or should the economic hardships spur them to loot for food and essential commodities.  When I write that the government has spent over £400,000, I should write that we taxpayers have.  The armed police are getting ever more dangerous weapons to use against us, and we are paying for them.

Rubber Bullets are dangerous.  They have been used to kill protestors in the past, and their increased use will only lead to more deaths.  They are a part of a lethal array of material which the police have access to, alongside CS Gas, Tasers, Pepper Spray, Side-handled Batons, and training in the use of extreme violence.  These are nothing in comparison with the latest addition to the police arsenal.  The police are to be given access to assault rifles, complete with grenade launchers, silencers, and changeable sights to allow their use as sniper rifles.  So far, the number of assault rifles ordered stands at 30,000, but this number will almost certainly be followed by more.  Already at airport and seaports, the police patrol with military weaponry.  Before long this will be the norm across the UK.

Assault rifles with sniper capability, and silencers?  The British people have already been disarmed.  We are not even allowed to carry knives for cutting the cores from apples, so an armed police force is even less justifiable than ever before.  The Bobby on the Beat is dead.  The new Police is the military arm of the State, and we are the enemy.

On the 15th November 2012, the British people are to be given the right to elect their local chiefs of police; intriguingly titled Police and Crime Commissioners (surely a Freudian slip?)  

Considering that the elections to Westminster and Bruxelles/Strasburg are about as worthwhile as a vote for the X-Factor, why should the rolling out of the faux democratic system into the area of Law and Order be any different?  Will the candidates include those who promise to demilitarise the police and allow the people to defend themselves?  Will anyone be allowed to stand who speaks openly about the need to arrest the real criminals in the nation; including War Criminals Tony Blair, William Hague and many in Parliament?  Will the Crime Commissioners' role be given the necessary scope to deal with illegal immigration and racially motivated offences carried out by sections of the guest population against the indigenous folk to which the British Isles truly belong?  Will the financial crimes of the Banking elite be called to account, or would mention of the personages behind them be forbidden lest it provoke anti-Semitism?

In a time when every penny is being squeezed from the people to compensate the Bankers for the losses they made whilst gambling on the Stock Exchange, the last thing we need is another set of pointless elections and another tier of bureaucracy which we will have to pay for.  Surely rather than simply declare that we are to have another layer of (s)elected officialdom, the 'democratic' thing to do would have been to ask us if we wanted more parasites to bleed us dry?  Of course we were not asked, because we would have said no!

We are told every day that we need to cut costs, and to save money.  We are never allowed to mention that the austerity plans exist solely to impoverish us, and to proletarianise the entire country.  We are forbidden to discuss the people who are gaining from our misery, or why this financial situation has been engineered to begin with.  It is an affront to our intelligence that we are to be given another expensive layer of unnecessary bureaucracy at a time when vital services and jobs are being axed.

The politicians know that they are squeezing us to the point of death, hence the vast network of CCTV surveillance, and the demands that all ISP addresses are fitted with monitoring devices to ensure we do not ask for more than the scraps from the tables of the bloated Establishment.  The real reason for the militarisation of the police is obvious; the Establishment view us as the enemy, and they are more than happy to use 'every means necessary' to keep us down, including killing us.  The police and crime commissioners are a farce, and provide the circus element of British politics.  The Ruling Class seem to have forgotten that the strategy of Bread and Circuses does not work when the Establishment arms its police thugs to take the Bread from the people.

Does anyone seriously doubt that the Police State is already upon us?  All it needs is an excuse to gain absolute control; we can be assured that the Establishment has already prepared one.

The Good Die Young - Part Two

It is said that the good die young, and this is certainly the case for Nelson Mandela.  At 94 years old today, the man so beloved of the Internationalists, is perhaps the oldest terrorist still befouling the Earth with his presence.

In 1994 Nelson Mandela fulfilled his handlers task by becoming President of South Africa.  In what has become an all too familiar pattern, Nelson Mandela's African National Congress, murdered and bombed its way into government.  In precisely the same manner as their counterparts in the SNC in Syria, or the NTC in Libya, the ANC terrorists were lauded by the mind-controlling media as 'freedom fighters' who were only seeking justice for their people.  Just as with the NTC and the SNC, their methods were murder and destruction.

The brutal atrocities committed by the ANC included the practice of 'necklacing' political opponents. This practice involved placing a petrol-soaked rubber tyre around the neck of the victim, then setting it alight.  The manner of death was especially painful and un-necessarily cruel.

In 2008, Mandela was fêted to lavish public displays of adoration in London; including a music festival and an audience with the Establishment mafia boss, Elizabeth Windsor.  No mention was made of the innocent civilians he murdered in the rush-hour Church Street Massacre, or that the only reason anyone should bemoan his 27-year prison sentence is that a more suitable punishment for his crimes would have been his execution.

The ANC was very much a forerunner of the NTC; spoken of in the media as the saviour of a persecuted people, in order to enact regime change for the benefit of the people, but in reality solely for the benefit of the International financial elite.

In pre-ANC South Africa, the system of Apartheid was far from perfect, but the poverty endured by the Black population was far below that they endure now.  All that the Regime Changers achieved for the people of South Africa was to bring misery and fear to the White population and to increase the tyrannical grip of the Internationalists.  Modern South Africa is a usurers paradise in which the old system of separate development has been replaced with a system of common exploitation.  The ex-wife of Nelson Mandela, Winnie, accurately described Nelson Mandela's period as President as a period of betrayal, in which the Black supporters of the ANC were forgotten, and life became harsher than under the regime they fought to end.

The only difference between the ANC, the NTC and the SNC is that the latter are officially Islamic and belong to the CIA's Al Qaeda operation, whereas the ANC was a communist CIA asset, and not officially religiously based.  The plan for the total obliteration of nation-states and the imposition of a 'New World Order' has been in full flow for many years.  The current fake religious phase was rolled out for public consumption at the time of the 9/11 Massacre.  The destruction of non-Muslim parts of the World had to be completed before the 9/11 crime could be committed.  Nelson Mandela's assigned task was to destabilise South Africa in order to cripple a 'rogue state' which was not complying with the multi-cultist agenda of reducing all people to being no more than producing-consuming identity-free robots.

The ANC Regime Change was but a link in a chain of orchestrated actions by the Hidden Elite.  In common with the ongoing atrocities in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia et al, the reality of Regime Change is transfer of wealth and authority from the individual nations into the hands of the International Cabal, and their multi-national corporations.  The suffering of humanity is real; only the lies of the media mask the human cost.  Those who celebrate Nelson Mandela's life have been duped into supporting an agent of globalisation, and a figure who has betrayed those who followed him.  Ultimately, Mandela remains a figure who has much blood on his hands, and who has only served the interests of Big Business and the builders of the Global State.  He does not deserve anyone's adoration, only our contempt.

Part One of this article can be found at:

http://newsfromatlantis.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/good-die-young.html

Supreme Court in London: A Jewish Closed Shop

There is a temptation to see the UK as a country under Jewish occupation.  When one looks at the over-representation of Jews in Finance, Government, the Media etc, it does appear that the Ruling Class of the UK is not only socio-economically dominant over the rest of the population, it is also ethnically distinct.  I am not for a moment trying to say that all Jews are a part of the Establishment, or that there are no poor and downtrodden Jews; I know a fair number of Jews (by ancestry) who are struggling to get by just as everyone else is, and they certainly are not a part of the despotic elite. 

Whilst it is ridiculous to group together all people who happen to have some Jewish ancestry, as exploiters of the common people, there is a certain amount of truth in the idea that the Jewish elite is synonymous with the UK Establishment.  The Monarchy and Aristocracy are so interwoven with the Jewish banking families, that it is nigh on impossible to separate them.  Whilst the Jewish infiltration of the Ruling Class is obvious, we need to be careful to separate the 'little Jew' from those who rule over all of us (and exploit the little Jew as much as they exploit the Goyim), but this should not cow us into silence as to the obvious racial and/or religious character of those in positions of power.

In the UK, the Media is thoroughly Zionist; the ruling families are of Jewish stock; the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are Jewish; the economy is squarely in the hands of Jewish financiers; the servile political attitude to Israel would make the sycophantic philo-Semitic men and women in Washington DC blush.

All who comment on the Jewish domination of the UK are accused of anti-Semitism, and are jeered as fantasists.  One body which cannot be smeared by such infantile name-calling is my favourite Kosher read, the Jewish Chronicle.  The Jewish Chronicle has confirmed quite openly what non-Kosher researchers are vilified for stating; the Judiciary is dominated by Jews!  So, not only the Legislative and Executive branches of government are Jewish-controlled, the Judiciary is also.  As the Jewish Chronicle boasts, the previous, current, and next incumbent of the Office of Chief Justice of England and Wales, was, is and will be, a Jew.  If any other source provided such information, it would instantly be attacked by Searchlight, the UAF and myriad other self-righteous anti-indigenous organisations.  However, it is the Jewish Chronicle which has stated what many dare not.

The following two articles from the Chronicle throw a spotlight on the Jewish domination of the Supreme Court, and by extension the entire legal system of not only England and Wales, but the entire United Kingdom.  They illustrate how the Goyim are not masters in their own house, but are subject to the rule of the self-Chosen people.  These are not anti-Semitic fantasies spread by (boo hiss) evil fascists, but are facts as told by the main newspaper of the Jewish community....

http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/how-jewish-is/how-jewish-lord-chief-justice-phillips

The post of Lord Chief Justice has been in Jewish hands before: the previous incumbent, Lord Woolf, was born into a Newcastle Jewish family. But Lord Phillips, who steps down in October, is from solid Anglo-Saxon stock. Or is he?

Against:

Just take a look at the name. Nicholas Addison Phillips is not a Yiddishe moniker. Neither is his background remotely Jewish. He had a genteel upbringing attending Bryanston School in Dorset before serving in the Royal Navy, where he was a commissioned officer, noch. In fact, when he qualified as a barrister, Lord Phillips specialised in maritime law. We Jews like to wander, but we tend to do it on dry land. There seems nothing remotely kosher about him.

For:

And yet, in a speech this week — admittedly given at the East London Muslim Centre — he spoke of his maternal grandparents, two young immigrants to this country. Said Lord Phillips: “They were Sephardic Jews and had eloped to this country from Alexandria because they understood that England was a country in which they would enjoy freedom.” One Jewish barrister was staggered when he heard the news, saying: “It’s like the Pope announcing he’s Jewish.” And yet the signs are there if you look for them. Lord Phillips is, after all a lawyer; he lives in Hampstead; and he has quite bushy eyebrows. Weird that no one guessed before, then.

Verdict:

Jewish as charged, m’lud.

So we say he is 88% Jewish

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/69907/lord-neuberger-head-supreme-court

The head of the civil judiciary has been named as the next Supreme Court president.

Lord Neuberger's appointment as the most senior judge in the UK was confirmed on Thursday. He will be sworn in on October 1, succeeding Lord Phillips.

Lord Neuberger, 64, is the brother-in-law of Baroness Neuberger, senior rabbi of the Reform's flagship West London congregation.

The former David Neuberger began his career working for N M Rothschild and was called to the bar in 1974. In 1996 he became a Chancery division judge and an Appeal Court judge in 2007. Two years later he was named Master of the Rolls.

Although he was critical of the decision to abolish the role of the House of Lords as the UK's most senior court, he said he was committed to his new place at the helm of the supreme court.

He said: "I will do my best to ensure that it continues to play its proper role in upholding the rule of law, and applying and developing the law in a coherent and principled and practical way, appropriate for today's world."

Thought Police brutalise tax payers

In the UK, we have just witnessed a ridiculous prosecution for thought crimes; a prosecution which may be the most expensive case to date for n offence which starts and ends in name-calling.  The England football player, John Terry, was charged with racially assaulting a fellow footballer, by calling him a 'Black Cunt'.  The 'crime' was picked up by an off-duty policeman who was watching the football match at home on his television, and managed to lip read what John Terry had said.  Like a good little Bolshevist, the Neo-Stalinist copper, immediately called the Crown's Persecution Service, to inform on the footballer for the heinous crime of transgressing the commandments of Political Correctness.

The ridiculous prosecution of John Terry has cost the British taxpayer £500,000, having taken an amazing nine months to pass through the legal system.  The court case has been high profile due to John Terry being a footballer, but the case is only one of many cases brought by the CPS by virtue of punishing people for thought crimes; for dissenting against the orthodoxy of political correctness. 

What is interesting is that the name-calling went unnoticed save for the watchful eyes of an off duty policeman, who, thanks to his obedience to the diktat of his masters, now owes every tax-payer in the UK for the money which the political commissars have stolen from each of us for this case alone.  Should anyone know of the thought policeman's name and address, wouldn't it be justice for him to be issued demands to repay us for what he has caused to be stolen?  When divided amongst the tax-paying population, the money stolen may not appear much, but when considered alongside all the political prosecutions which we have been forced to pay for, the sum stolen from us is considerable.  In the case of Jewish taxpayers, maybe the thought policeman would like to pay reparations far exceeding the sum owed to each Goy?  Of course, the thought police are not subject to the same regulations as the rest of us.  The snivelling excuse for a man, whose political actions have so libelled the indigenous population, is likely to be promoted for his service to the Establishment.  In a sane society his petty-mindedness and complete lack of common sense, would have been cause to dismiss him as unfit to serve in an organisation which officially serves the people.

The CPS has yet again proven that it does not exist to see that criminals are prosecuted, but rather that its purpose is to ensure that the people are forever kept down, in obedience to those who believe they have a right to tell us how to think, feel, act and speak.  In a democracy, the people have the right to freedom of thought, speech and expression.  The actions of the CPS prove that the UK is not a democracy, and that the people are not free.  The CPS act as Communist Propaganda Security, ensuring that no amount of lunacy is ever challenged.  In times of ever harsher austerity measures the CPS is a waste of money which should be abolished immediately.  Of course, the austerity measures are really measures to transfer wealth from the impoverished people to the rich bankers and their ilk, and naturally the idea is to destroy the morale of the people, as well as stealing our money.  The John Terry case is yet another assault on the psyche of the indigenous people, and of course is designed to inflame the guest population so as to keep the Establishment safe to ride roughshod over all of us whilst we fight one another.

For a peaceful solution to the ills afflicting the UK, the CPS must be closed down forever, and all of the politically correct multi-culti legislation must be repealed.  Our guest population must be encouraged to return to their homelands, with incentives such as financial support for their real homes, and an end to the imperialistic wars which have driven them to our shores.  Naturally, preference in employment for the indigenous population, and an end to benefits for non-indigenous folk, would also help to make life at home a better option than life in the UK.  

John Terry is a foul-mouthed oaf who needs to learn that name-calling is infantile; but being stupid and rude is not reason for prosecution, for if it was, Prince Philip would forever be in the dock.  The CPS and the Thought Police are the real enemies of freedom, and the case against John Terry has proven (yet again) that we do not need such organisations on our shores.  Nine months and half a million pounds dedicated to name-calling, is sheer lunacy.  It is time for sanity to be restored and for the lunatics who currently misrule us to be put in safe institutions, where they can harm no one; whether they should be given padded cells, is open to debate.

The Eternal Whingers

The humourless censors of the Jewish Chronicle ceaselessly speak out against those who (they claim) wish shove the self-Chosen into Gas Chambers, cunningly disguised as fully functioning Shower Rooms, and - I kid you not - Telephone boxes!  The defenders of democracy (ha ha) earlier this year conducted a campaign against the Turkish shampoo, Biomen.  In the spring-aired commercial, the Biomen shampoo was advertised as a shampoo for real men; with Hitler stating that unless you wear women's clothes, you shouldn't use women's shampoo.  

Abe Foxman's ADL joined in the furore of Organised Jewish outrage by calling for the advert to be banned and no doubt for the manufacturers of Biomen to pay reparations to Israel.  Can't the JC and ADL see that it is precisely this kind of nonsense which makes people think ill of the people who call themselves Jews?

The Biomen advert which was first aired in March 2012, would probably have been forgotten in Turkey fairly soon, and not even have been known about globally was it not for the likes of the JC and ADL.  Even now, however, the Jewish Chronicle is listing the shampoo advertisement as a cause of offence, second only to a 'Canadian' poster which features a baby with a Hitler moustache -  Even though the play advertised by the poster is of the usual kosher-sycophantic 'anti-Nazi' (i.e. anti-Goy) nature, the JC still deem the poster offensive. 

In case the censors get their way and banish the Biomen advert to Room 101, here is the allegedly offensive advert, for all who have a sense of humour to view (and maybe download and reproduce - purely in the interest of fighting censorship of course.)

Direct Link to video: http://youtu.be/jgShMVcdYj8

Thanks yet again to the neurotic, paranoid, and ego-maniacal Jewish Chronicle, and the inappropriately named Anti-Defamation League, (in truth, the Anti-Gentile Defaming Lunatics) for drawing attention to this video.  They really are buffoons of the first order, and ironically cannot see that it is their own delusion behaviour which gives the Jewish people a bad name, and is the cause of much of the 'anti-Semitism' they claim they seek to halt.