Tuesday, October 20, 2009

A Small Postette

at Biased-BBC.

29 comments:

Sgt Troy said...

Nick Griffin ate my hamster

General Jackson was head of the army during the illegal Iraq war. Hopefully one day he will be up in the dock indicted as a war criminal.

The regime are terrified; the post election fiscal "tightening" is going to have to amount to £90 billions p.a.(size of the structural deficit) - the consequences will be horrendous.

It may come to the point that the regime can no longer rely upon the armed forces.

I remember the fleet mutinies at Spithead and the Nore as if they were yesterday; and perhaps even more apposite is the 1931 Invergordon mutiny

Bruce said...

Laban

I think you miss the point. Politicians have always used the armed forces to their own political ends - from Labour back through Thatcher, Churchill, Lloyd George and on to Elizabeth I and William the Conqueror. Given that the armed forces are controlled by politicians, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that.

The difference here, and what has clearly got up the nose of people like Sir Michael, is that you have an anti-British, anti-patriotic party such as the BNP deliberately cloaking itself in the insignia of the armed forces. The BNP is about as British as the Gobi desert and views Britain and the British people with barely concealed contempt, so no wonder the armed forces, given their history and role in the national story should bridle at being exploited in this way.

Laban said...

But be fair, Bruce. The Labour party (and a good chunk of the Tory leadership) also view Britain and the British people with barely concealed contempt.

Bruce said...

Laban

I don't disagree that all political parties to an extent view certain parts of the population with contempt. But there is a difference with the BNP - it sees the British nation as a concept with contempt. Like the East German communists in 1953, it would like to choose a new nation to start with. Whatever you think of the three main parties (and I have serious issues with all of them), you can trace their antecedents back through centuries of British thought. In a country like Britain, so rooted in its traditions, this is vital. The BNP, however, is a foreign ideological implant that can trace its antecedents to, at best, the 1930s, when malign continental European ideas seeped ineffectually across the channel. No wonder its successes here are so small compared to those of its sister parties in, say, Belgium or France. It is a continental European aberration trying to muscle its way in on an alien political system.

Antisocialist said...

Bruce, I'd be very interested in reading your evidence, or reasoning, behind your claim that the BNP are "an anti-British, anti-patriotic party ... about as British as the Gobi desert" and that they view "Britain and the British people with barely concealed contempt."

Bruce said...

Antisocialist

My reasoning is quite straightforward and is based in part on what I say in my reply to Laban above, but let me be more explicit.

To me, a patriotic political party thinks along these lines, implicitly or explicitly, 'the British people are a great nation [in my view, the greatest, but I won't push that one!], but they face challenges and problems that we, as a party, will seek to overcome in order to make Britain an even better place'. The BNP does not think in this way - its starting point is that the British nation fails to live up to the BNP's own stipulations of what the British nation should be (like I said above - the comparison with the East German communists in 1953 comes to mind). This seems to me to be the antithesis of patriotism - it is placing the BNP in judgement over the nation and finding the nation wanting. The BNP considers the British nation beneath it.

The BNP's lack of, indeed its repudiation of patriotism, seems to me plain. And as I say above, it is simply an alien strain of thought in the British body politic. It draws exclusively on foreign philosophies of what constitutes a nation, philosophies that have never held any sway in the British tradition. To amend my analogy - the Gobi desert is, I imagine, neutral on the British nation, the BNP is positively antagonistic to it.

Sgt Troy said...

"its starting point is that the British nation fails to live up to the BNP's own stipulations of what the British nation should be (like I said above - the comparison with the East German communists in 1953 comes to mind)."

Grotesque nonsense. The BNP position is that the nation has been betrayed by Westminster/City/liberal "elites" who have bankrupted us economically and financially and are destroying us ethnically by mass immigration.

It is absurd to think that Muslim colonists are British in any sense beyond the gov't handing out passports like confetti. How is a mobile black tent trailing half a dozen progeny British?

Mass immigration had zero legitimacy

As Oppenheimer's work shows the British are an indigenous people. And we are facing destruction

Sgt Troy said...

"It draws exclusively on foreign philosophies of what constitutes a nation, "

Well as we were remarkably homogeneous prior to the post 48 multiple invasion diaspora experience there was obviously no need for philosophising

Multi-culti is a wholly artifical construct.

That charlatan Sir Bernard Crick thought that because the people of these isles had their own seperate identities and nations then you could import anyone from anywhere as long as you gave them a citizenship course taught by a person of dubious provenance in a dubious "educational" setting with a mickey mouse test at the end of it.

He is an ideal multi-culturalist now though, he's dead

Bruce said...

Sgt Troy

You find my description 'grotesque nonsense' - fair enough. It seems to me just a basic fact - the BNP has decided that it somehow knows what 'Britishness' is and, in a display of outrageous hubris, feels that the British nation isn't up to its standards.

As for the British being betrayed by the elites - goodness, what a lovely fashionable excuse. The going gets tough so we have to become victims of nefarious elites out to get us. How much more comforting than taking responsibility for our own lives. Personally, I have more pride in myself and in my nation than to see myself as the hapless dupe of nebulous evil-doers onto which I can conveniently shift the blame for any problems I or the country might face.

Revolution Harry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Antisocialist said...

Bruce, your 'reasoning' is so bizarre (and wrong) I really can't be bothered to respond. All I'll say is that if you think the assorted Stalinists, Marxists and Leninists that make up the, Fabian controlled, Labour party is rooted in 'centuries of British thought' good luck to you.

Antisocialist said...

One of the key organisations behind the drive for World Government is the Fabian Society. Perhaps the most telling thing about that Fabians is their logo. It is that of a wolf in sheep's clothing. What they are saying is that we pretend to be sheep but are, in fact, wolves. All of the major figures in the Labour Government are Fabians including Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson. In fact it's fair to say the Fabians control the Labour party. This intimate connection between the Fabians and Labour explains why the Labour Party Election Manifesto of 1964 [was] so…blatant.

"…Labour always…remained faithful to its long-term belief in the establishment of east-west co-operation [Note: this refers to Russia and the West] as the basis for a strengthened United Nations developing towards world government…

"For us world government is the final objective – and the United Nations the chosen instrument by which the world can move away from the anarchy of power politics towards the creation of a genuine world community and the rule of law."[35]

Other Labour Party Election Manifestos speak of forming a world community, empowering the United Nations, and upholding a system of binding international laws: This is global governance – the centre piece of world management.

The author H. G. Wells was a Fabian and much of his writing was on the subject of World Government. In 1928 he wrote 'The Open Conspiracy: Blueprints for a World Revolution' which was an elaboration of ideas from his 1926 book The World of William Clissold. The character, William Clissold, had called his project for world revolution, the 'open conspiracy', which meant: "...the establishment of the economic world-state by the deliberate invitation, explicit discussion, and cooperation of the men most interested in economic organization, men chosen by their work, called to it by a natural disposition and aptitude for it, fully aware of its importance and working with the support of an increasing general understanding ... It is not a project to overthrow existing governments by insurrectionary attacks, but to supersede them by disregard. It does not want to destroy them or alter their forms but to make them negligible by replacing their functions. It will respect them as far as it must. What is useful of them it will use; what is useless it will efface by its stronger reality; it will join issue only with what is plainly antagonistic and actively troublesome." This perfectly describes the slow but steady transfer of power away from national governments to the European Union.

In his book, 'The New World Order', written in 1939, he wrote: "When the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people - will hate the new world order - and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."  In recent speeches at Mansion House Gordon Brown welcomed the development of a 'New World Order'.

Antisocialist said...

The author G. Edward Griffin, in reference to the Fabians, wrote: “[They] were an elite group of intellectuals who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing socialism to the world. Whereas Communists wanted to establish socialism quickly through violence and revolution, the Fabians preferred to do it slowly through propaganda and legislation."

Arnold Toynbee was a well-known British historian, Fabian, and member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (an organisation we'll come to later). He's also the father of Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee. In a June 1931 speech before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen he said: "We are at present working ... with all our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local states of the world. And all the time, we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands." 

Taken from the Modern History Project: "The Fabians were working towards a new world by indoctrinating young scholars who would eventually rise to power in various policy-making positions throughout the world by infiltrating educational institutions, government agencies, and political parties. Their strategy was called the "doctrine of inevitability of gradualism," which meant that their goals would be gradually achieved. So gradual, that nobody would notice, or "without breach of continuity or abrupt change of the entire social issue." The secret was evolution, not revolution, or what [Sydney] Webb called "permeation." [George Bernard] Shaw ... revealed that their goal was to be achieved by "stealth, intrigue, subversion, and the deception of never calling Socialism by its right name." In fact, that's how they got their name. The name originated from the Roman Consul, General Quintus Fabius Maximus, the Cunctator ('Delayer'), who through patient, cautious, delaying and elusive tactics during the early phases of the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) enabled the Roman army to regroup and defeat Hannibal's stronger Carthaginian army.

The Fabians were far from the only organisation working towards a World Government. In his book 'With No Apologies', written in 1979, Senator Barry Goldwater wrote: "The CFR [Council On Foreign Relations, New York City] is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national directives should be obliterated and one-world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examine its papers and secret records." The society originating from England that he was referring to was the Royal Institute for International Affairs (now more commonly referred to as Chatham House). 

Revolution Harry said...

The RIIA developed out of the Round Table network set up by Cecil Rhodes and funded by his vast wealth. The RIIA is much more secretive than its American counterpart the CFR. From studying their documents as well as writings of people belonging to both organisations it's clear that they are indeed dedicated to 'one-world' rule. Here are a few quotes:

"We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent." 
[Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, 1950] 

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." 
[Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992] 

"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." 
[CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April 1974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs] 

I could have added countless more but here's one more by American Congressman Larry P. McDonald in 1976:

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." 

McDonald was killed in a Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets in very controversial and mysterious circumstances. The 'Rockefellers' he refers to are the American banking and corporate multi-billionaires. David Rockefeller is a former chairman of the CFR and he also set up an off-shoot called the Trilateral Commission. There are two important points to be gleaned from this quote. Firstly there is the crucial role that international bankers such as the Rockefellers and their European counterparts the Rothschilds play in the development of the agenda to create a World Government. Secondly, there is a clear example of something called the Hegelian dialectic at work. This is one of the many 'tools' the elites use against us. The thesis is Communism (Fabian Socialism, International Marxism, Leninism etc) and the anti-thesis is 'supercapitalism' (globalisation, free trade, the growth of the big multi-national corporations etc). Both sides are working towards 'globalisation' or 'internationalism' and both are controlled and funded by the same elites who control the banking system. The suggestion by some is that the synthesis that will be the World Government political model is that which is developing in China. Monopoly (super) capitalism for the elites and socialism (communism) for the masses, presumably with the addition of a thin veneer of democracy. 

Here's another quote made by David Rockefeller, in an interview with the New York Times in 1973, that seems to add weight to that theory: "Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Maos leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. The 'price' is estimated to be somewhere around 40 to 70 million Chinese people murdered and the 'efficient and dedicated administration' is a totalitarian communist dictatorship.

Revolution Harry said...

Here's a quote that shows how important control of banking and finance is to the agenda. It's from "Tragedy & Hope", written by Dr. Carroll Quigley, Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. and personal mentor of President William Clinton (who acknowledged Professor Quigley during his 1992 presidential inauguration speech): 

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups." 

What I am attempting to portray is that there is a drive towards a World Government. There are a variety of separate organisations working towards the same aims. In order to achieve their aims those behind it need to destroy both national identity and the nation state.  It's seems self evident to me and others who have looked at this that the levels of immigration we have witnessed in recent years is nothing other than a calculated and cynical use of ethnic minorities to 'change' Britain. This 'change' is against the wishes of the majority of the population. In order to bring about this 'change' there are several techniques the 'elites' use.

Control of the media is extremely important. Immigration and multiculturism is invariably portrayed as a 'good thing' and anyone who says otherwise is almost always shown in a negative light. The use of the media to 'shape public perceptions' is a vast subject that I haven't time to go into. The main organisation involved with 'shaping public perceptions' is the Tavistock Institute. Other techniques were developed at the Frankfurt School. These include 'cultural Marxism' and political correctness. These techniques were designed to subvert society in order to bring about a Marxist replacement.

Revolution Harry said...

As Mike at the UK Column states, one of the most important books ever written, as far as understanding the evil (we face) is concerned, is "The Impact of Science On Society" by possibly the most covertly evil man that ever lived, Bertrand Russell, and written in 1952. He quotes:

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology…. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part…. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.”

“The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship…. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.” … “Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” Russell, unsurprisingly, was a Fabian.

Revolution Harry said...

It's bad enough that those that think they are covertly working towards a Socialist/Marxist/Communist state are happily using ethnic minorities to further those aims. However, in reality, Marxism and Communism was created and funded by the elites behind the banking system. The end result will be a 'New World Order', Fascist World Government run by those wealthy elites. Nationalists are not the 'hate-filled' monsters as claimed by those on the (Marxist) left. The overwhelming majority are not motivated by a hatred of ethnic minorities but by a deep love of their own country, its people and culture. We are both, indigenous Briton and ethnic minority, victims of powerful forces that have only their own narrow interests at heart.

In his infamous speech Enoch Powell spoke of how he could not ignore the fears of his constituents. The fears he spoke about were that their communities would be overwhelmed and destroyed. Well that's exactly what happened and is continuing to happen. All the areas of this country that are now predominantly ethnic minorities were once British (mainly English) working class communities. This has happened not for any altruistic reasons but for the furtherance of the agenda for a World Government that will be in neither the interests of the indigenous Britons or ethnic minorities. As I said earlier this is a vast subject that I've I've barely touched upon. Once investigated it opens your eyes to how the world really works.

Revolution Harry said...

Apologies for clogging up your comments Laban. The above was an excerpt from an email I wrote to someone who wanted help with an essay. I thought Bruce might like to read it.

Laban said...

Hmm. I think I'll stick to Occam's Razor, if it's all right with you lot !

Revolution Harry said...

Fine, if that makes life easier for you Laban then you do just that. The evidence for an agenda to create a world government is literally overwhelming should anyone take the time to investigate. Luckily for them very few do.

Anonymous said...

NWO: http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2009/10/super-turnip.html

Revolution Harry said...

Please take a look at this video Laban. When Gordon Brown (Freemason, Fabian and Bilderberger) repeatedly speaks of a 'New World Order' what do you think it is he's referring to? He even uses the Masonic phrase 'order out of chaos' several times. No wonder they can, quite literally, get away with murder.

Revolution Harry said...

Good link anon. Yet another part of the agenda for 'World Government', the 'climate change' con. The speech by Lord Monkton referred to in the article can be viewed here. You should really watch this as well Laban.

For anyone doubting that our Prime Minister is a Freemason (as was the last one) then watch him make the Master Mason's claw handshake in this video.

Occam's razor? Afraid not Laban.

Anonymous said...

an anti-British, anti-patriotic party such as the BNP deliberately cloaking itself in the insignia of the armed forces. The BNP is about as British as the Gobi desert and views Britain and the British people with barely concealed contempt,

Bruce, are you doing a Moby here? Either that or you are deluded.

Anonymous said...

If there is a more anti-British party than NuLab I'll eat my metaphorical hat. And when I say Britsh Im talking as much about the people as the abstract concept of 'Britain'.

The LibDems arent any better but without direct power. Thank God.

As for the Tories, well they got us into the EU, I demand a public apology and repudiation of traitor Heath. His rotting head on a spike near the location of Traitor's Gate, for the edification of others, would be a pretty good start.

togo said...

We all know, of course, that Churchill was far more racist than
the current version of the BNP. So then apparently Churchill must be condemned as "ant-British" and "anti-patriotic" and a man whose thinking was the product of "foreign philosophies."

Ref:http://conservativedemocraticalliance.blogspot.com/2007/08/churchills-last-stand-by-david-hamilton.html

Bruce said...

Togo

Who mentioned racism? I certainly didn't. And, yes, I'm fully aware that Churchill, while a hero, was not a saint.

But for you to even attempt to link the name of our wartime leader, one of the greatest patriots this country has ever produced and a man whose love of country was clear in every statement - for you to attempt to link him to the odious BNP, a party whose leader is a self-confessed Hitler apologist in a way that would make Lord Haw-Haw blush, is just stomach-churning.

Zunc said...

For any newbies here, Laban regularly dismisses talk about the global elites by invoking “Occam’s Razor”. His view is that Britain’s problems are all down to the decline of Christianity.
Well, sorry, but the decline of Christianity does not, in itself, explain why the EU is secretly plotting to allow up to 50 million Africans into Europe. (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/65628 ). And it does not explain why the British Foreign Office is putting leaflets in foreign embassies telling lies about how Britain is “a nation of immigrants”. Nor does it explain why “diversity consultant” has become a valid job title throughout the West. Nor does it explain why a Nobel prize winning scientist can have his career ruined by talking about racial differences. Invoking Occam's Razor is not a winning formula when Occam's Razor does not apply.
As an agnostic, I’d like to join with Christians in taking our country back. But I’d rather not pin my hopes on the pews starting to fill up again, thank you.

Anonymous said...

Best also not too delve too closely into the make up of those global elites.

One group just happen to be, how shall we say, overepresented.

In the fallout from QT I was reading up on Jack Straw, he has a son. Straw jnr works for a think tank, whose goals are enough to make any transnationalist globalist swoon.

It appears to be funded by Herbert & Marion Sandler and George Soros.

The Straws, Sandlers and Soros just happen to have something in common.

So many people involved in our various current finacial, economic and political travails just happen have something in common that judicious wielding of Occam's Razor might well indicate that these people and events are not just happening to be connected - but actually to be connected.