Berlin and the Cold War Remembered - By Dr Frank Ellis

Berlin and the Cold War Remembered

© Frank Ellis 2009

Public announcements and presentations on television, radio, and in the newspapers were so ridiculously meaningless and empty, so obviously twisted and deceitful, so gross and primitive [...] that the country ought to burst out daily in a paroxysm of laughter or disgust. But nothing of the sort happened. One simply got used to the evil and the bad.

Hans Joachim-Maaz, Der Gefühlsstau: Ein Pyschogramm der DDR (1990)

Amid the justified and joyful celebrations that took place to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s coming down on 9^th November 1989 we ought to pause and remind ourselves of the nature of the state known euphemistically as the German Democratic Republic (GDR). To begin with, the GDR was emphatically not a democracy. It was a one-party state ruled by a hard-line Stalinist party, the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands). The sword and shield of the revolution – to use the language of the regime – was the Staatssicherheitsdienst, the state security organs known more widely as the Stasi. The Stasi’s mission was to know as much as possible about everything that happened in the GDR such that any incipient dissent or rebellion could be monitored and then eradicated at the appropriate time, and as discreetly as possible.

The GDR and all the other fraternal socialist states, Big Brother Soviet Union above all, confirm that socialism in all its forms means death: spiritual, economic, social and intellectual. Spiritual death ensues from the state’s policy of denying and attempting to crush any manifestation of individual freedom by imposing collectivism in all social and educational policy. In effect, there is no such thing as individual, private man. For the same reasons, and also because the state is based on the principle that the means of production shall be controlled by the state, the economy is doomed to stagnation so perpetuating squalor and penury because innovators and businessmen are regarded as parasites and speculators. Had Bill Gates been born in Leipzig and started to develop his personal computers in some high-rise workers’ block of flats, the Stasi would have arrested him as an anti-social element, an enemy of the people. Nor can full-blooded socialism exist without pervasive and ubiquitous censorship. Writers were obvious targets for the Stasi and so literature becomes chained to the state. Some writers fall silent; others discover that they rather like being vampire-informers on behalf of the Stasi. And for those citizens who tried to flee the workers’ paradise, the crime of Republikflucht, there was the risk of physical death since the border guards were under orders to kill anyone attempting to leave. Such was the GDR’s version of real-existing socialism.

Stationed in West Berlin during the early 1980s, and right through the emerging Solidarity crisis in Poland (December 1981), where I served as a Russian and German interpreter/analyst working under the auspices of the British Military Government, I had every opportunity to observe East Berlin and the German proletarian state. As the duty military interpreter you could be called out at any time of night and day to deal with all kinds of incidents: shootings of would-be escapees along the Wall; defectors (happened once); border violations; delivering official protests; and social functions. I learned to expect the unexpected. One night I was dragged out of bed and taken to checkpoint Bravo. Bravo was the Soviet checkpoint through which all road traffic leaving West Berlin had to pass en route for West Germany. The better known checkpoint Charlie is in the city. On arrival, the duty Soviet officer tells me that they have captured one of our soldiers. He takes me to the rear of the building where I am confronted with a half-naked soldier under armed guard. It is bitterly cold. The soldier is eighteen years old. Under the influence of strong German beer he has bet some mates that he can smash his way through the Soviet checkpoint in a Land Rover. He has no chance of course and is easily apprehended. In fact, he is lucky the Soviet guards did not open fire. While trying to keep a straight face, I tell this young lad that had it not been for the close professional relationship I enjoyed with the Soviet duty officer he would have been dragged off to the GULAG never to return.

Throughout the year the Soviet garrison would hold a number of parades at the Tiergarten war memorial which commemorates the Soviet troops who lost their lives taking Berlin in May 1945. The most important ceremonies were Den’ sovetskikh vooruzhennykh sil (Soviet Armed Forces Day, 23^rd February), Den’ pobedy (Victory Day, 9^th May), and one to mark the Velikaia Oktiabriaskaia Revoliutsia (Great October Revolution, 7^th November). I enjoyed these parades, especially Victory Day since they gave me the opportunity to mix freely with Soviet officers and converse with them. Some were very reticent, whereas others were more than happy to talk about just about anything. I have no doubt that these parades with the opportunity to mix and even to socialise up to a point built trust and confidence and broke down barriers. One thing I can say is that all the Soviet officers with whom I spoke were mightily impressed by the performance of British Forces in the Falklands campaign. Some spouted the standard Soviet nonsense about colonialism but they recognised the grim determination of the Iron Lady and outstanding military effectiveness when they saw it.

Ever since Stalin tried to blockade West Berlin in 1948-1949, rights of access via air, road and rail remained crucial to West Berlin’s survival. These rights were jealously protected and vigorously asserted and exercised. To this end the British Military train would depart Charlottenburg Station and set off across the territory of the GDR towards West Germany every day of the year with the exception of Christmas day. The train always carried a duty interpreter. On arrival at Marienborn, a small station on the East German side of the inner-German border, the train would stop. Here, a Royal Corps of Transport warrant officer responsible for all the paperwork and carrying all the passports and train passes and accompanied by an interpreter would dismount the train. They would then march the length of the platform halt in front of the Soviet checkpoint officer (normally a lieutenant or captain) and exchange salutes. The duty Soviet officer would then invite them to enter his office where the Soviet clerk would process the paperwork. While the train was stationary East German border guards and dog handlers would search under the train to make sure that no hapless East German was attempting to flee to the West courtesy of the British Army. The train’s first stop the other side of the inner-German border would be Helmstedt and then on to Braunschweig. Some three hours later, having picked up another batch of passengers, crew and train would return to West Berlin via the same route.

Eventually my turn came for this duty and the moment of reckoning: the time to have my Russian tested for real. The Soviet officer and I exchange greetings and as the clerk deals with the travel documents (putevki) we start chatting. I cannot describe the sense of euphoria: Russians actually speak this language I have been studying for so long. The Soviet officer obviously knows something about British Army regiments, since he asks me how long I have been a desantnik (paratrooper): “Since I was sixteen years old”, I reply. “What”, he exclaims, “you joined the vozdushno-desantnye voiska (airborne forces) at sixteen”? “No, you can’t do your jumps and join the battalion until you’re eighteen, but I joined as a boy soldier and the brainwashing starts then”. “Really, how do they brainwash you?” He asks this with deadly seriousness, thinking that I going to give away some military secret: “Just like in the Red Army, love of country, hard training and lots of it”, I reply, touching my maroon beret to make my point. He smiles. The ice is broken.

Despite the regime’s attempts to make it something of a socialist showcase, East Berlin was grey and depressing. Orwell’s description of Oceania in 1984, with the run down buildings, cheap and shoddy goods and a general air of depression is a perfect match for East Berlin. By erotic and material contrast, West Berlin, with what Germans delicately refer to as Nachtleben (night life), had it all. Whenever we went there we wore uniform and the East Berliners would stare at us as if we were aliens. One day some kids chucked a load of stones at us accompanied by cries of “go home Soviet pigs”. I shouted back that we were British not Soviet and they came over and apologised. On another occasion I managed to have a lengthy discussion with some East German who bitterly complained about the regime and the shortages. The trouble with these sorts of conversations is that you have no way of knowing whether your interlocutors are genuine. One day in a large bookshop it turned to farce. I was browsing the Russian-literature section – Dostoevsky I recall – and some woman came up to me and asked me whether I liked Dostoevsky. She addressed me in Russian and eventually she suggested that we return to her flat and discuss Dostoevsky over some tea. She was a looker but it was so obviously an attempt to provoke some kind of incident that it was risible. It occurred to me later that perhaps in the very obvious and brazen nature of this encounter was where the cunning of the approach lay.

Twenty years later the Berlin Wall is a dreadful memory. Germany is reunited and powerful. Yet something seems to have gone very badly wrong among Western states, the states that demonstrated the manifest superiority of a political system based on the private ownership of the means of production and which found the will to resist the Soviet threat. The quintessential feature of a free-market system is individual freedom which includes, among other things, free speech, the right to associate with whomsoever one wishes, freedom from state oppression and the expectation that the state will protect our borders. Since 1989 Britain has not moved to consolidate individual freedoms under the rule of the law. On the contrary, we have moved inexorably towards a soft form of totalitarianism which would be instantly recognizable to the former citizens of the GDR. In the erosion of long-established freedoms, the influence of the virulently neo-Marxist Macpherson Report cannot be overstated.

In 2009, Britain is also divided by a wall. It is not a physical structure of bricks, mine fields, barbed wire and watch towers but it exists. This government-built wall is one of lies and censorship designed to prevent us from knowing the truth, not just, for example, about the Third-World savagery that blights so many of our cities but about the dire threat posed by the emerging United States of Europe. State agencies – universities are some of the worst and most despicable oppressors – collude with the BBC, the police and Church of England to mislead us. The worst thing about this wall is that it runs through our hearts, minds and souls. It marks the boundary between the politically correct views we are all expected to hold and what many of us privately know to be hideous lies but were we to voice our misgivings they would be condemned by politicians and equal-opportunity bullies as “inappropriate”, “offensive” or “unacceptable”. Publicly we accept that homosexuality is just another valid life-style choice (yet inwardly we shudder); we mouth the vile and mendacious slogan “diversity is our strength” (and avoid it all costs); we agree that race does not matter (yet we all know about white flight); when some serial liar in a university tells us that allegiance to our nation and past are bigotry we are hypnotised by the audacity of his ignorance (and privately some of us recall that between 1939-1945 fathers and mothers fought to save our land); and when the flat-screen tyrant hurls the freakish and perverted assertions of feminism at us we sit there like frightened rabbits. Today, I understand a little more of the monstrous, psychological torment inflicted on the thinking, rational, decent human beings that during the Cold War lived east of the old Berlin Wall - Leipzig, East Berlin, Moscow, Warsaw and Prague in the Lands of the Lie. Now I know how it feels to live under enemy occupation, to be surrounded and mocked by lying, strutting Quislings, to feel like a stranger in my own land.

Celtic women - the First Noel

Pravda - Western Race Hatred Laws: Keep the Caucasians Down

The following appeared on Pravda at the weekend:

Throughout the totalitarian West, the Marxist internationalist elites, while busily flooding their countries with tens of millions of third worlders, have introduced specific measures to keep the native populations down and in check.

These measures have come in the form of Hate Crimes Laws. The laws state that a crime is not just a crime if we can find a deeper motive, such as hate of a specific race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. Thus the Lords of Humanity have given themselves the power of God to know what is inside the hearts of men.

In practical terms, what this means is 1. A murder is not just a murder if hate is involved. Say again? This means certain lives are worth more than others, a protected class, another insult to Christ and justice. 2. If the local jury trial is considered to lenient, then those globalist elites of the West can try the person again for "hate" or rather in actuality for the same crime, twice. Again, an insult to justice that Western serfs bow, grin and bare.

But this gets worse, since in practice, the elites decide who is a racist and who is not, they use these laws sparingly to keep the native population down, shackled and paranoid of the knock on the door.

In America, anti white violence is exploding, an average of 12 people per day are killed by their illegals and three times more whites and Asians are killed by blacks than vice versa. The same can be found in England. The head of the Justice Department, Hader, even stated that he approved the double standard used on whites. He did this in front of a parliamentary committee, with no real out cry by the totalitarians. As if any should be expected.

When five blacks kidnapped a white couple, raped and murdered the man, than kept the woman for further rapes and poured bleach down her throat to kill her, there was no hate crime, even though those five became the idols of black racist groups in American. When blacks in Los Angeles target Koreans for robbery and murder, also nothing. Nor when Mexican gangs ethnically cleanse one street after another. When Islamic Pakistanis in England beat an Anglican priest almost to death, in front of his church and screamed how they were going burn down the church, or when other Islamics poured acid in the face of a raped school girl, nothing happened. No hate crimes. When Islamic Turks murdered the white, Christian boyfriend of a Turkish girl, in Germany, not a hate crime. When Arabs and Pakistanis in Athens attack and burn Greek Orthodox businesses, not a hate crime. When the director van Gogh is brutally murdered by an Islamic assailant, not a hate crime. However, his Dutch film, showing the plight of the women under Islam, beat and abused, well, most definitely that is a hate crime...the film, not the wife beating, that's just quaint multiculturalism, supported by the Western femiNazis, who have a secret lusting for this type of treatment.

Luckily, in Russia, Ukraine, Serbia and all none EU, none West Christian nations, this idiocy does not exist. Murder is murder, regardless of what is felt by the killer and defense of the local culture is paramount.

Westerners, truly I believe, you deserve this, since the vast majority of you take it and swallow it, like the good little castrated serfs you are. Enjoy your extinction, as you loaf around on your Chinese couches.

Stanislav Mishin

The article originally appears on Mr. Mishin's blog, Mat Rodina

___________________________________

Many readers will remember a time when Pravda was the heavily controlled voice of oppression, how things have changed.

Dear Ms Swiss - By August Pointneuf

Dear Ms,

You were piqued when your fellow Swiss gained a majority vote against the building of further minarets. To show your displeasure you put yourself on display with a notice which said “Swiss passport for sale “

Please would you tell me where you intend to live, once your otherwise highly sought-after passport has been sold?

Would you go to a country where there are no passports, because there is no paper to print them?

Perhaps you wish to be where the wait for new passports might be five years, or where passport are never given?

You might choose a land where you would need an exit visa each time you wish to leave. Not that would make much difference, because you probably would not be earning enough to pay for your passage out.

Would you like to find residence where there is none of the socialist trivia of Switzerland, and instead relish dubious health services, receive no social benefits, and find self-insurance un-affordable?

You could choose to be governed by those so corrupt and incapable that your life savings becomes worth less than a single wooden match – where brave men, reduced to abject penury, shoot their wives before they shoot themselves.

Would your choice be a country where only one eighth of the population provides the entire tax base, and your paid tax would be channelled away to support eight non-productive indigents, half with AIDS?

How about a land where you, as a white female, will be selectively targeted for a rape? Perhaps you might choose an arena where there is selective assassination of those who try and succeed in business?

You also have a wide choice of places where no one dares to walk out alone at night.

Perhaps you would prefer to go to a region where you would not be permitted to drive? Would you like being prohibited from walking outside your home, unless formally chaperoned?

Would you like to go where there are no Christian churches, and any symbolic reference to Christmas is a criminal offence?

Or you could go where you will be forced to wear an abaya and a gishwa whenever in public, throughout the hottest summers.

Would you think to choose somewhere where you could be married into a harem, and dispense with your privacy forever?

Alternatively you could go where your adultery would be rewarded by being stoned to death.

You might choose to be where everyone with any petty authority will capitalise on their trivial rank unmercifully, constantly demanding, at every turn, some form of favour, bribe or a ransom. You might find, if you succeed, that you are damaged as an overriding authority plays out its ruthless, manipulative agenda.

Would you instead prefer to live where crimes are not reported because the criminals will return and kill the complainer?

Perhaps you would choose a nation which has immovable, corrupt and authoritarian politicians who will suffocate any attempt at attaining human rights by immediate incarceration?

Is your choice to be where there is perversion of law at every level, from policeman to prosecutor to judge?

Would you like to be domiciled where you could be summarily dumped in stinking prisons, with no mechanisms of legal defence, appeal or cries for help? Of course you would have no need to bother the Swiss diplomats to extract you, but you would need friends to bring food and bedding, and then fight your savage inmates to retain a fraction of that food, or a space to sleep. You will need good friends if they are to support you for years on end.

Or instead will you search out one of the small residues of white success, such as Australia or Canada? You could then continue your campaign, aiming to destroy those cultures in the way you wish to destroy your patrimony. It should not be too difficult to succeed, since only 7% of the world's population is white.

Ignorance, arrogance, egocentricity, stupidity and zero insight and foresight form a related continuum, often resulting in the type of behaviour found in people like you: People who are unable to value what has been given to them. Have you any inkling of understanding of the striving that was demanded of your predecessors in their aim of creating a safe society, one which has provided you with security, warmth, shelter and an excess of food?

Are you making piffle of a nation which has proffered you a deep, entrenched, and rewarding culture, in the expectation that you would transmit it to the next generation? How unforgivably corrupt that you are working at destroying that heritage. What a shame that you are jeopardising your compatriots.

Perhaps those compatriots might forcibly remove the passport that you so despise.

Vous seriez fort amiables de nous répondre le plus tôt possible.

August Pointneuf

________________________
News story: 300 people protested outside the Parliament building in Berne. In front of a model of a minaret they held up signs saying: “This is not my Switzerland”. A young woman pinned to her jacket a piece of paper saying: “Swiss passport for sale”.

Mixed race couples

The celebrity image

And the reality

Further news story

A fourth Guilty verdict in Knoxville

George Thomas guilty

Another of the five people accused of the rape torture and murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian was found guilty in Knoxville today

Jurors in the George Thomas double-murder trial found Thomas guilty of first degree felony murder Tuesday afternoon, making Thomas eligible for the death penalty.

He was also found guilty of all rape, robbery and theft charges.

The judge decided to send the jury back to their hotel for the rest of the day and begin the sentencing phase of the trial on Wednesday.

Thomas's murder conviction follows that of Letalvis "Rome" Cobbins and Lemaricus "Slim" Davidson and the earlier conviction of Reic DeWayne "E" Boyd who was found guilty of being an accessory. The final defendant Vanessa Coleman will be tried at a later date.

Read the full news item at WBIR,cim Knoxville. You can't read about it on major national news sites, such as CNN, as they have not even mentioned it.

A follow up to Victoria Derbyshire - from Frank Ellis

Further to Frank Ellis's earlier open e-mail to Radio 5 presenter Victoria Derbyshire (pictured above) who is currently presenting her show from Zimbabwe, Frank has now sent a follow up e-mail to her and to the BBC Radio 5 Editor:

From: Frank Ellis
To: Editor of BBC Radio 5 & Victoria Derbyshire
Date: 7th December 2009
Re: BBC Radio 5 in Zimbabwe and South Africa, Further Comments
________________________________________________

I suspect that many listeners to Victoria Derbyshire’s broadcast from Zimbabwe, apart from those who have been persecuted by Mugabe’s regime or know people who have been persecuted, will not fully understand why Zimbabwe has been brought so low by Mugabe. A visit of this kind requires that the broadcaster provides a general summary and outline of the history of Zimbabwe from independence. This would focus on Mugabe’s terror tactics against tribes that resisted his tyranny (the use of the Fifth Brigade to kill very large numbers of tribal/political rivals in Matabeleland) and his attempts to dispossess successful white farmers, the beginnings of Zimbabwe’s descent into penury and misery.

In her blog Derbyshire notes the many portraits of Mugabe at the airport. Here lies an important clue for someone who has some grasp of Marxist regimes. Ubiquitous portraits of Marxist leaders are a sure sign of a Stalinist-style personality cult such as we find in North Korea, and which was the norm throughout the former Soviet Empire. Idi Amin, the murderous buffoon, that turned Uganda into an abattoir, was another African leader that liked to see his picture all over the place. Derbyshire failed to grasp the significance of these portraits so missing an opportunity to set the scene for the listener.

Derbyshire’s observation that there was food or some food in the shops suggests that there was a time when there was not food in the shops. I wonder: what would American viewers make of a documentary about Britain in which the broadcaster pointed out that there was food in the shops? So why was there a time when there was no or little food in the shops in Zimbabwe? Did it have anything to do with Mugabe’s thugs dispossessing competent white farmers and destroying a once thriving agricultural sector? The food-in-the-shops observation invites the suspicion that food was placed there so that Derbyshire could see it and that it was part of a scam to fool naïve visitors that all was in order. This was precisely the method used by Stalin. At the very moment when millions of Ukrainian peasants were being starved to death, Western socialists visited the Soviet Union and were shown model villages full of smiling and well fed children. Duly fooled (or wanting to be fooled), these Western socialists returned home and told the world that rumours of starvation and mass death were untrue. Were Derbyshire and her retinue the victims of Mugabe’s Potemkin villages?

In the Day 2 blog Derbyshire records that they have been advised not to have loud conversations in public. Why is this so? This is surely another indicator that all is not well in Zimbabwe and that the unity government is another charade. How can the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) promote its agenda when people are advised not to have loud conversations in public? The clear implication is that the state is spying on and monitoring the people’s conversations, and that intimidation of political opponents is the norm.

Derbyshire’s conversation with Edith also betrayed a woeful grasp of what Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe. Edith related her story of how she was beaten up by Mugabe’s thugs, almost certainly because she was a member of the MDC. Derbyshire’s response is to ask that if the MDC is in government with ZANU PF, why would anyone in the MDC be beaten up? Once again, this reveals appalling ignorance of the nature of Marxist regimes. Having gained power, Mugabe and his party are not going to surrender it to rivals. Why does Derbyshire not grasp this fact? Moreover, when Edith stated that there was “no rule of law”, I got the distinct impression that Derbyshire was embarrassed and just did not know how to respond. The reason there is no rule of law in Zimbabwe is because Mugabe is a Marxist dictator who has used terror, extortion and starvation to secure and to retain power (see what happened in Matabeleland). The chances that the South African ANC will in any way ameliorate the situation in Zimbabwe are nil for the very obvious reason that the ANC is a communist organisation that approves the dispossession and murder of white farmers as well. Mugabe is free to do as he wishes, and without any constitutional checks and balances, which in any case Marxists dismiss as ploy to fool the masses, there can be no rule of law. The other striking thing about this interview with Edith was the way it was terminated so that the travel news on British roads could be broadcast. I suggest that jumping from Edith’s moving and desperate plight to the banality of road conditions in the UK was utterly incongruous and, above all, thoroughly disrespectful to Edith and her suffering. UK listeners could surely have foregone the weather and traffic conditions so that the thematic and psychological continuity of the broadcast from Zimbabwe was not violated, above all when we were hearing first hand from one of Mugabe’s victims.

The interviews with Viola and Lance who had fled Zimbabwe and were currently resident in the UK came close to giving the British listener some idea of Mugabe’s state terror. Of the three that were interviewed by Derbyshire, Lance, the radio journalist, was not fooled by Mugabe and his alliance with the MDC, dismissing it as a “charade” and “window dressing”. In the exchanges between the UK-based radio journalist Lance and the Zimbabwe-based Raymond we got some idea of the contrast between what people really thought about Mugabe and his regime (and what they said outside of the country), and, on the other hand, what people felt able to say in Zimbabwe about Mugabe. Mindful of the fact that he was in Zimbabwe, and not the safe haven of London, Raymond declared that “Nobody doubts that Mugabe is a great leader”. Here was a wonderful opportunity for Derbyshire to jump in and say something about the dispossession of white farmers, the massacres, the sham elections, Mugabe’s use of terror, (Edith comes to mind) the corruption and economic incompetence. But nothing: just silence. Raymond provided something of a clue to what happens in the heart of African darkness when he said: “We’re in an African country”. Raymond’s observation comes perilously close to conceding that what can be taken for granted in Western Europe – the rule of law and free and fair elections - cannot be taken for granted “in an African country”. Lance quite rightly dismissed the new constitution as meaningless since the real problem was not a model constitution but the refusal on the part of Mugabe’s regime to be bound by any constitution unless it suited ZANU-PF.

I did not listen to Derbyshire’s broadcast from South Africa so I cannot arrive at any firm judgement. However, I will hazard the assumption that she conspicuously failed to tackle head on the ANC’s indifference to, even its tacit approval of, the large-scale murder (genocide) of white farmers, the middle-class white flight from South Africa (why are they fleeing the rainbow paradise?), the lawlessness and general incompetence of blacks once in power. I suspect that Derbyshire preferred to highlight – or was instructed to highlight before leaving the UK – the optimistic, above all to say lots of nice things about Mandela and how the FIFA World Cup would bring everyone together. If pressed then she or her interviewees could lay any shortcomings in South Africa as being due, as in the by now exhausted phrase, to “the legacy of apartheid”. Given that blacks in the USA are still whining about the “legacy of slavery” (abolished in 1865 by whites), then the betting has to be that the “legacy of apartheid” excuse for black failure in South Africa has a very long way to run before its efficacy as a propaganda ploy to blackmail and to intimidate whites finally expires (if ever). If Derbyshire and her editors can demonstrate to me that they did indeed confront head on the ugly, black side of South Africa and what has befallen whites since 1994, I will amend my comments accordingly.

Returning to Derbyshire’s broadcasts from Zimbabwe, I consider that the sort of chat-show hostess, hey-I-care, text-me, Twitter-me approach which Derbyshire employs on BBC Radio 5 in the UK, and which works reasonably well when she tackles lightweight topics, is and was wholly inappropriate when applied to the political, psychological and economic conditions obtaining in Zimbabwe. That this was the BBC’s return after a long absence to a country ravaged by violence, murder, mind-boggling political corruption and economic incompetence surely mandated the dispatch of an acknowledged BBC heavyweight, someone who had the detailed background knowledge of how Marxist states work and someone with the necessary interrogation skills to put evasive and lying interviewees on the spot. One can only assume that the reason the BBC did not send an individual who understood the ways of communism and revolutionary violence was because no such person with the necessary expertise is employed by the BBC. Victoria Derbyshire displayed an appalling ignorance of Mugabe’s despicable regime and was way out her depth. If I had been a white farmer who had been thrown off his land and witnessed a once thriving farm’s being reduced to a wasteland in the name of some gruesome, agricultural equal opportunities experiment, a black activist in the MDC who had been beaten up (people like Edith) or a relative of someone massacred in Matabeleland, I would have felt cheated by Victoria Derbyshire’s broadcast. People who see and hear their suffering ignored, misrepresented and incompetently reported, relive the suffering. The BBC did not want to hear their screams let alone broadcast them.

__________________________

Click here to Read Dr. Ellis's open e-mail to Victoria Derbyshire.

The Invited conquest

By Mister Fox

The ruling elite have different approaches towards white Britons and immigrants on a number of issues, but the most disturbing of all is the psychological warfare waged against indigenous British people. Their main tactic consists of trying to generate a sense of guilt and a feeling of “having wronged others” amongst our people — while at the same time ensuring that we are blamed for all ills affecting any other ethnic group.

For example, the recent Channel 4 show, The Event: How Racist Are You? presented only white people as the “racists” and blacks and Asians as victims. It really does seem that the ruling elite will not be happy until all white people have been cleansed from Britain or savagely murdered, as is happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Why do the media and MPs like Barry Gardiner get so hysterical about truthful people (such as South Wales’ Roger Phillips in his excellent video “BNP: The True Face of Immigration”)?

The Mr Gardiners of the world get so hysterical because videos like that expose clearly how they have lied to their own people. Indigenous British people have been pushed out of their communities by force of numbers. Young British people have had to face unfair competition for jobs from imported cheap labour.

Such videos show the ruling elite for what they are — cheats and liars. They have cowed critics with accusations of “racism” and in that way have ensured that whole areas have been taken over by aliens. All the while, the elites continue to live in “good” areas and send their children to the best schools.

As the popular clamour for fair play grows, the establishment has become more oppressive. In Italy, for example, a court recently reduced an African-origin murderer’s prison sentence because he had a genetic strand called MAOA which made him “genetically predisposed to violence.” Critics have pointed out that this could be used to argue that genes determine behaviour. This allegation did not deter the liberal judges — it seems that they believe in race when it is to the advantage of immigrants, but when “our” people mention the topic we are met with vilification.

In Britain, newspapers announced earlier this year that a new security strategy to “tackle extremists is to focus on White racists.” This followed an order to the police to “go easy” on Muslim terrorists. Scotland Yard claimed that “far right” groups could be planning a terrorist “spectacular” to stoke up racial tensions. I wouldn’t put it past security services to do one and blame the “far-right.”

Met Commander Shaun Sawyer signalled the complicity of the security services with Muslim extremists when he told the Muslim Safety Forum at the beginning of July this year that security services would focus on “whites.” He knew that in January 2009, the head of domestic security service MI-5 had revealed that 2,000 people in Britain were involved with to Islamist terrorist plots and many more support terrorism through fundraising and propaganda. From September 11, 2001 to the end of March 2008, British authorities arrested 1,471 Muslims for terrorism-related offences.

In spite of all of this, the police have increased the number of officers in a special unit monitoring “rightwing extremists.” Facts and figures aside, they appear to genuinely regard a lone crank as more important than the thousands and thousands of Islamistis running free in Britain.

In 2007, a newspaper reported on how identified al-Qaeda supporters had been employed by the police. “Eight Al Qaeda fanatics working for the police (but they don’t dare sack them),” read the headline.


Incredibly, it is official police policy to alert “Muslim community leaders” before they raid premises in the search for explosives and terrorists. They even put little booties on explosive-sniffing dogs so as “not to offend” the suspected terrorists. One has to wonder on whose side the security services and the police are?

The New Local Government Network report, titled Reassessing Prevent, adds to the creation of a climate of persecution of patriots. It shifts the terrorist threat to the BNP because of their election success in the European elections as well as their 55 local councillors.

Apparently this “underlines the fact that racial hatred and extremist ideology is not limited to any one faith or community.”

Comparing a defence of your children and communities with terrorism shows the corrupt minds of establishment propagandists like Anna Turley, author of the report. She said: “While Islamist extremism remains a very serious threat to our security, this kind of extremism is not the only threat to the stability and security of our communities.”

Why do the security services and police cover up Muslim extremism? Here is a clue: former Italian President Francesco Cossiga admitted in the Italian paper Corriere della Sera in 2008, that in the 1970s, the Italian government allowed Arab terrorist groups freedom of movement in the country in exchange for immunity from attacks.

The government of Prime Minister Aldo Moro reached a “secret non-belligerence pact between the Italian state and Palestinian resistance organizations, including terrorist groups.” It was Moro who designed the terms of the agreement with the foreign Arab terrorists, Cossiga said.

“The terms of the agreement were that the Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country, and they had freedom of entry and exit without being subject to normal police controls, because they were ‘handled’ by the secret services.”

As Interior Minister, Cossiga said that PLO members in Italy had diplomatic immunity as representatives of the Arab League. “The Palestinian organizations could even maintain armed bases of operation in the country.”

Muslim terrorists were welcomed into Britain and did not need to answer questions or to show papers. This began under Thatcher who herself lived safely in a gated community. They got free education, free health care even when they openly developed terrorist cells and trained bombers for active service in other parts of the world. Few have legal entitlement to enter this country but are allowed to stay and provided extra benefits we do not get like free cars, mobile phones and decorated houses.

This was after the London bombing of 7/7 and without it al-Qeeda could not have got into the West to launch bombing attacks like those in London and Madrid. The authorities know what they are doing.

During the protests in Luton when Muslim extremists shouted abuse at the homecoming parade of the Royal Anglian Regiment, the police arrested a white protester but allowed the Muslims to abuse the soldiers.

Eight young Muslim terrorists on active service from Birmingham, London and Luton, were arrested in Aden in December 1998, planning terror attacks against British targets. The security services then claimed they had no idea that Muslim soldiers were being recruited in British mosques and trained in terror camps. Do we believe them?

As far back as 1999, it was reported that around 2,000 British Muslims were being trained in British terror camps, mainly in London and Birmingham. As well as studying holy war, the trainees were taught hand-to-hand combat, survival skills for guerrilla warfare and advised to get real military training in war zones like the Yemen and Afghanistan. Many do, because Birmingham accents have been picked up there by RAF Nimrod aircraft.

British-based Muslim terrorists operate abroad but still the authorities bring them here. For example, in December 2001, Richard Reid a supporter of al-Qaeda tried to detonate a shoe-bomb on a Paris to Miami aeroplane. In 2002, Ahmed Sheik, organised the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.

Mohammed Hanif and Omar Shariff were involved in a suicide bomb attack in Tel Aiv. Abu Qatada ran the Spanish, Milan and German al-Qaeda cells from London.

British-based terrorists have carried out operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Spain, and America. Many governments such as Jordanian, Egyptian, Moroccan, Spanish, French, and American have protested against our elites allowing the Islamist terrorist infrastructure in this country and refusing to extradite wanted operatives.

The American Heritage Foundation regards Britain as a terrorist danger. How have we allowed our establishment to drag us down to that level?

The Muslim community shelters extremists and illegal immigrants as they did the murderers of Kriss Donald and the media aid and abet them by covering up the facts of such cases.

Palestinian mores glorify suicide bombers as ‘ Shahid ‘ or martyrs and terrorism is part of the Palestinian mentality. Many British Muslims hero worship them. In Britain they are bombers because of ideology, not social conditions, and are usually middle class Muslims born and educated in Britain. This is an “enemy within” that does not have to invade because it was imported by the elites who pour taxpayers’ money into their communities such as Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Keighley.

At Shehzad Tanweer’s memorial funeral in his home village in Pakistan, an estimated 10,000 mourners chanted Jihad, Jihad, Jihad and eulogised the suicide bomber.

On 27 July 2005, BBC reporter Phil Mackie admitted on Radio 5 Brian Hayes 10 pm programme that the BBC censors the truth about Muslims and that the BBC is selective in its broadcasting of Muslim statements. The function of the media is to prepare the public for whatever measures the establishment plan to further the Muslim extremists’ interests.

The elites treat us as enemy and scapegoat us when the multi-racial dream falters. The hysterical reports blaming Ulster people for the disputes with Roma gypsies is a classic example. The media never told us what caused the dispute but just accused local people of “racist attacks.” Well, I don’t believe them. I think these people were defending their communities.

The default position is anti-British and what was normal, healthy patriotism is now demonised as “far-right” and patriots are subject to slander and discrimination. To put things in perspective, there are about 200 investigations into Muslim terror plots being conducted by security services and the courts.

Even though the BNP have proscribed the EDL the media treat them as interchangeable as they try to slot the BNP into their ideology as “thugs” and “knuckle draggers.”

The police violence against the EDL anti-Muslim extremist demo in Leeds is a warning of what the establishment really want to do to the BNP. One of the police tricks seems to be based on the Hillsborough tragedy — that of “funnelling” the protesters into tight groups and chasing them while they fall over and get trampled as you will see in the video from Leeds.

The Government advertise in terrorist countries like Pakistan for immigrants to come here. In November 2006 a Foreign Office pamphlet advertised: “Multicultural Britain — A Land of Immigrants.” It stated that immigrants should immigrate here because of the Human Rights Act would protect them and well-paid jobs were available for them.

The Foreign Office put the document “Ethnic Diversity” in British embassies across the world.

Of convicted terrorists in Britain about 27 of 87 were trained or sought training in Pakistan or Afghanistan, Eighteen had terrorist training in Britain. Despite this, Labour’s “open door” immigration policy knowingly risked allowing dangerous people to settle in Britain unchecked, The Sunday Times reported on 8 November after secret documents were leaked. The evidence had been illegally withheld by the Home Office for four years.

A European Union initiative The Barcelona Agreement, which comes into force on 1 January, give rights of settlement to millions of Muslims from North Africa and grant them legal preference over indigenous as well as increasing attacks on Jewish communities. The Maastricht Treaty took control of our borders off us and John Major lied when he said it didn’t.

The new Chief of the Armed forces, General Sir David Richards, launched a support network for Muslims in the armed forces The Armed Forces Muslim Association. He said it “reflects the growing numbers, importance and relevance of their service and superb contribution they are making to the armed forces in the UK.” It will help “forge closer relationships with Islamic communities across the UK.” How many al-Qaeda supporters are in the British military?

As well as linking with Muslims, the military are preparing to shoot us if we protest against being dispossessed. Military personnel are being selected to form regiments prepared to shoot their own people.

In the “England Expects” blog, under the title “Scared Yet,” Libertarian Party leader Ian Parker-Joseph revealed that the M.O.D. were asking military personnel: “Will you open fire on UK citizens?… In a stunning conversation with a friend, who is a serving member of the Armed Forces, over the weekend, it was revealed that transfers to regiments and other units in the UK on home duties are being undertaken by the MOD based upon whether an individual was prepared to ‘open fire’ on UK citizens during civil disturbances.”

This was also revealed by the mother of a serving soldier on the net but she quickly removed it. This is corroborated by Dr. Richard North who learnt that the M.O.D. was buying up “unusually large quantities of tear gas and other riot equipment.”

The warning signs point towards military action against people who try to resist the displacement of our communities and destroying our children’s and grandchildren’s future by encouraging cheap labour by giving them extra state benefits that are denied to us. I urge readers with friends and relations in the military to keep us (the BNP) informed of this evil plan.

Beneath the Tattered Rainbow

The following news stories all of which appeared within the last six weeks, merely scratch the surface of what is actually happening in South Africa and the dangers currently facing the beleaguered white population:

Multiple attacks

Johannesburg - A farmer was killed and a number of other people seriously injured in separate farm attacks in Baltimore near Lephalale in Limpopo, the Transvaal Agricultural Union's northern branch (TAU SA north) said on Wednesday.

This was indicative of the escalation of crimes targeted at farmers in the area, according to union chairperson Japie Spanio.

"Mr Izak and Mrs Mariaan Jansen van Vuuren of the farm Clanwilliam were attacked while going home after church on Sunday. Mr Jansen van Vuuren is badly injured and will have to undergo extensive plastic surgery to his face," said Spanio.

He said the attacks follows a similar one on October 24 in which Pieter Botha of Mokolo Safaris was also badly injured.

Botha was attacked just three days after another farmer, 65-year-old Jan Potgieter was killed at his farm.

Attacks may be linked

"It is indeed highly suspicious that [there were] three attacks in the same area in ten days,” Spanio said.

Full news report here

More "robbers" who kill but don't rob

A month later, on Friday December 4, a further farmer was shot dead during a failed robbery on his farm outside Ceres in the Western Cape, the provincial agriculture department said on Sunday. "Mr PM Cilliers from the farm Loraine, outside Ceres, was fatally shot on Friday in what is presumed to have been a fumbled armed robbery," said spokesperson (don't they always. Ed)

Cilliers left his two children and two friends in the house and went outside when he heard a noise at the back door.

"Upon confronting the “robbers”, a scuffle ensued during which four shots were fired. His friends phoned their parents, who then contacted the police."
Cilliers died shortly after the police arrived. Nothing was taken from the house. No arrests had been made.

News source

Executed

In a separate incident the previous day a man from a farm in the Roossenekal district in Mpumalanga has been "executed" with his own firearm in a revenge attack.

Gawie Hough, 42, was attacked two months after a former employee of his brother threatened him with the words: "I'll show you what I can do with a white man."

Full gruesome news story here

Death of a father

Johannesburg - Two children hid in silence under a blanket last Thursday morning, after robbers had shot their father in the stomach.

Danie Labuschagne, 37, of Brakpan on the East Rand, died a few hours later due to internal bleeding.

"He looked at me as if he wanted to say 'help me'," said Labuschagne's 12-year-old daughter, Monique, on Sunday.

Labuschagne would have turned 38 on Christmas day, according to his heartbroken wife, Madelein, 37, about her high school sweetheart, the man who'd been "her everything".

News story

The Police

As we know, South Africa is the rape capital of the world, however, it seems the police are now getting in on the act :

First News Story: Pretoria - A 29-year-old woman says her life is ruined after she was allegedly raped by a policeman while being detained at Rustenburg police station.

'I'm not human anymore. There is just nothing left of me," said the woman, who prefers to remain anonymous.

"I don't have a life anymore. I've lost everything. My life is ruined."

The woman, who has an 18-month-old son, is the second reported case of an alleged rape by members of the police in the last two weeks.

Second news story: Johannesburg - A mother-of-three was allegedly “repeatedly” raped by two uniformed policemen in Kempton Park in the early hours of Sunday morning.

When he heard about it, Martie Olivier’s husband, Sarel, went to the Kempton Park police station and assaulted various police officers on duty before being brought under control.

He said they were unable to lay a charge of rape later that day because the police refused to take their statements.

Although rape victims are not normally identified, the couple gave permission for their names to be published.

And guess who's been arrested!!! - An East Rand man whose wife was allegedly gang-raped by policemen, appeared in court on Monday charged with intentional damage to property, while his wife's attackers are still at large.

Last month, just after Sarel Olivier's 29-year-old wife, Martie, had told him about her ordeal, he allegedly broke a window and a glass partition in the Kempton Park police station.

While he was in that office, his wife was allegedly raped again.

Intimidation

Olivier was arrested at the police station on Friday, when he wanted to lay a charge of intimidation. The couple have apparently been followed and have received threatening phone calls since the alleged rape took place.

In Other News:

Brothers Bloody Dash to hospital

Pietermaritzburg - Two brothers, who narrowly escaped death in a dramatic shooting on Monday, drove through morning rush-hour traffic with blood dripping from gunshot wounds to get to a hospital in Pietermaritzburg.

Pieter, 57, and 59-year-old Rodney Bezuidenhout are recovering from neck and stomach gunshot wounds respectively after they were shot by gunmen at their workplace in the Mkondeni industrial area.

"The bullet went through my neck, from one side to the other. The doctor said if it was one centimetre further I would be dead," said Pieter.

"They were shooting to kill, they were there to kill us."

Full News story

There is some good news though:

Johannesburg - Cannabis farming now forms an official part of the agricultural sector, even if illegal. It will be included in future calculations of the gross domestic product (GDP).

And prostitution falls within the personal services sector. This is a logical consequence of Statistics South Africa's decision to include illegal and underground economies in the country's GDP for the first time.

And, believe it or not, their inclusion is global practice. After all, they do contribute to a country's economy.

The outcome will be that South Africa's economy will be considerably larger than currently reflected in statistics.

Top economists have long considered that South Africa's GDP could be as much as R100bn bigger than that currently reflected - among other things because parts of the hidden economy, which includes illegal and underground operations, have so far been excluded from the GDP.

The base year against which economic growth is measured will also move from 2000 to 2005.

All these adjustments will apply to the GDP and economic growth figures for the first quarter of 2002 to the third quarter of 2009.

The adjustments will change the relative size of the sectors in the economy, and their contributions to growth. One consequence could even be that sectors that contracted in the past will now grow.

Source

So it seems crime does pay, at least in a state run by a bunch of thugs, criminals and murderers

And Finally

Some sites including the Cape independence Movement and My South Africa Sucks are reporting that a number of Western Camera crews, including one from the BBC have already been robbed in Cape Town. Of course not a whisper about this in the main stream media. But then such people would rather be gang raped than admit to the colour of their rapists, even though the safety of thousands of young football fans may be at stake.

________________________________
Hat Tip: Dina, Johann, Jan, Alan

NB: I have updated the figures recording the murders of white farmers to include the killings of Jan Potgieter and Gawie Hough

Unfortunate timing

I am sure it seemed like a great idea in the planning meeting - news story

Joke:
Q: What has Tiger Woods got in common with a baby seal?
A: The both get clubbed by Norwegians

Condemned by CSI Miami

Anyone who has been following the murder trial in Perugia knows that Meredith Kercher was murdered by a lone black assailant called Rudy Guede there was never any evidence approaching "beyond reasonable doubt" that American student Amanda Knox or her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito had any involvement whatsoever in the crime.

The verdict which was declared an hour ago was another triumph for political correctness in a world brainwashed by television cop shows from which this entire narrative could have been a script. The judges and the jury should be ashamed, but they only did what they have been schooled to do.

in the real world a mixed race girl was killed by a black drug dealer, nothing new there. In the politically correct fantasy world the good looking white kids had to be involved. Sadly once again the fantasy won, and two innocent young people face years in prison for the sake of a narrative.

French state website set up to spark national identity debate is hijacked by anti-immigrationists

Sorry to merely link to a story on the Daily Mail website, but this one is too good to miss!! To quote: A French government website set up to spark a 'Great Debate' on national identity has been flooded with comments suggesting immigrants should 'go home'.

Amongst the thousands of comments left by the French public were the following pithy bon mots:

France has become an African colony in a way which cannot be reversed,'

'Before France had colonies, now it's been colonised itself.'

'Nobody in France asked to be invaded by strangers';

'Being French is to be born in France to two French parents';

'Immigrants who want to impose their lifestyles on us should go home.'

I sort of know how they feel!!

Read the full article here

Now come on guys, all together:

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !
Contre nous de la tyrannie,
L'étendard sanglant est levé

Update: I see that the Mail have edited the article and that what they had previously termed "anti-immigrationists" (sic) are now just called "Racists" (of course when things don't go your way, grasp for the safe word) I also note that the craven Mail have not allowed any comments through, Oh gee I wonder why?!!


_______________________________
Hat Tip: Sendthemback

Hate Crimes madness

This cartoon caused outrage in America with pickets outside the Newsday offices calling for a boycott of the magazine.

Newsday issued the following statement: “we expect the cartoons we publish, many of which are nationally syndicated, to amuse, stir and entertain, but never to offend. Hate crime is a serious issue. This nationally syndicated cartoon should never have run and we have expressed our concern to the syndicator.”

Frankly the world has gone totally mad.

Modern Classics in the negative

From the Broadway production of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - not exactly Taylor and Newman

I see that some brainwashed politically correct twit has seen fit to recast the famous Tennessee Williams play, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof about sexual tensions within a rich Southern family with an all black cast - WOW! how innovative huh?

In the London production the roles of Brick and Maggie (the cat) made famous by Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor in the 1958 movie, are played by the seriously over employed Adrian Lester (the little black chap with one facial expression who has appeared in everything from “Primary Colours” to “The Hustle”) and American Actress called Sanaa Latham. Meanwhile, James Earl Jones take on the role of Big Daddy.

One can just imagine the screams of outrage were a production of for instance A Raisin in the Sun or even Porgy and Bess to open with an all white cast (I say “open” as it would be unlikely to make it past the first night without the theatre being burnt down). However, it does give us the opportunity to speculate as to how this treatment might effect certain other plays and movies.

A remake of “Skin” perhaps might feature a little white girl born to a black couple, they had better not locate that in Tanzania had they?, the sangomas would have her for muti within a week!!! (there are things worse than white racism)

That infamous old liberal cringe-fest “Guess who's coming to Dinner” could be interesting with a racial make-over (“Oh she's marrying that nice Welsh Doctor”!)

However, I think my favourite option would be to take revenge on that seminal white guilt sufferer Harper Lee and recast her turgid “To Kill a Mocking Bird” with an innocent white defendant in a town full of black bigots, now that would be racial equality and a slice of modern American realism.

Are there any other Films books or plays which readers would like to see given the "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" treatment?.

An Open e-mail to Victoria Derbyshire from Dr Frank Ellis

Radio 5 Presenter Victoria Derbyshire

The following e-mail was sent by Dr Frank Ellis to Raidio 5's Victoria Derbyshire in advance of her forthcoming visit to Zimbabwe and South Africa. Frank Ellis wrote to Ms. Derbyshire because, as he said: "Her purpose for being in Zimbabwe is to ask people in Harare how life is in that benighted country. I ask myself: is an expensive jolly courtesy of the license-fee payer really necessary in order to get an answer to that question? In SA she is going to examine the forthcoming FIFA World Cup and what it means for SA. I suspect she will be resolutely silent regarding the crime and homicide."

Here is Frank's e-mail

From: Frank Ellis
To: Victoria Derbyshire, BBC Radio 5
Date: 2nd December 2009
Re: Your visit to Zimbabwe and South Africa

I am contacting you in the hope that during your visits to Zimbabwe and South Africa you will confront head on with your black interlocutors (some of whom will be regime stooges) the racist and murderous behaviour of Mugabe’s regime and the tacit encouragement given by Zuma’s regime to black racist murderers in South Africa. There exists the very real danger – you work for the BBC after all – that you will refuse to tackle these questions since the organisation for which you work insists on presenting an anodyne, rainbow-coloured picture of South Africa to the rest of the world rather than the gruesome and savage reality that exists.

Some six years ago I met a farmer’s wife, Betty her name was, who had just been thrown out of Zimbabwe. Her crime consisted in the fact that her husband and she were successful, white farmers. Here is what happened. One day a gang of so-called “war veterans” (“war veterans” is the term used by Mugabe’s regime to describe the roving gangs who plunder white-owned farms and kill the owners) turned up at her farm. She was told that her husband and she would be thrown out of the country in one hour. Her husband died on the spot of a heart attack. Betty was only permitted to gather up enough personal effects sufficient to fill a small, hand-held suitcase. She was then taken to the airport and put on a plane. Betty and her husband had lived all their lives in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Not long after Betty related this harrowing account to me she died, broken-hearted and alone.

There is absolutely no doubt at all that Mugabe’s policy of dispossessing capable, productive white farmers and handing over the land and assets to incompetent blacks in the hope that blacks will simply continue what whites have created, nurtured and improved is the major cause of Zimbabwe’s miserable plight today. Indeed, inspired by Mugabe’s grotesque, Marxist policies of murder and mayhem, South Africa is already repeating the whole experiment and on a much bigger scale (see below). It is important that you and your masters understand these facts since Mugabe is solely responsible for turning a once thriving farming industry, with healthy surpluses for export, into a typical, Third-World basket case. No white person, man or woman, is responsible for this precipitate and dramatic decline. Mugabe and his fellow blacks confirm that when blacks are left to their own de(vices) regardless of any superior legacy bequeathed to them by the white man, the descent into murderousness and squalor is rapid and inevitable. Whites are not responsible for black failure. Nor do whites have any moral obligation whatsoever to make good the damage inflicted on Zimbabwe – disease, starvation, political violence and rampant inflation – by a deranged criminal and his peculiar brand of tribal, Marxist mumbo-jumbo.

If anything the situation is much worse in South Africa. The policies of the Marxist African National Congress (ANC) towards whites are racist, violent and entirely consistent with the way left-wing and communist regimes behave towards talented and competent minorities. Consider the fate of white farmers in South Africa. Since 1994, over 3,000 farmers and owners of small holdings have been murdered by black racist thugs. These murders frequently involve the most dreadful tortures being inflicted on the white victims before they die. Wives and daughters are raped in front of their men, tortured and then shot or hacked to pieces with machetes. The men are then tortured and eventually after the torturers have had enough are shot and left for dead. Babies, young children and the very old are not spared by these degenerates. In fact, the word “torture” cannot convey the unspeakable torments to which the victims - wives, women, girls, boys and fathers - were subjected before death released them. I have personally seen high definition digital images of white victims taken at the scene of crime by a Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO). They are the most terrible images I have ever seen in my life. Nothing in my military service could ever have prepared me for what I saw.

Publicly, the ANC tries to play down these racist atrocities by claiming that violent crime affects everyone in South Africa, black and white. Up to a point this ANC claim is true but this claim hides, as it is intended to hide, the racial dimension of black-on-white crimes: the deliberate targeting of white farmers and others by black racists. Now, imagine the politically-correct, anti-racist fervour which would consume the BBC if some 3,000 black farmers had been robbed, tortured, raped, sodomised and executed by whites since 1994. One thing we can take for granted: FIFA would never have awarded the 2010 World Cup to South Africa.

I recently encountered white South Africans who maintain that whites in South Africa are the targets of genocide. Initially, I was sceptical. I have now changed my mind. There is no doubt that much of what is happening to whites in South Africa meets the criteria necessary to satisfy the definition of genocide: a group of people (whites) are the subject of deliberate violence which the government (ANC) either refuses to acknowledge or tacitly encourages (and does not prevent); whites are routinely denied employment and other opportunities so that low-IQ and poorly qualified blacks can be employed in place of whites; white culture (above all Boer) is denigrated, attacked and cultural artifacts are vandalised; the government media encourage a climate of hatred towards whites which makes it much easier for black racist killers to rob, to rape, to murder and to torture whites since they believe they have ANC approval. Here we can note a disturbing parallel with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Long before the communists started to slaughter the peasants in the Soviet Union and the Nazis implemented the mass murder of Jews in Eastern Europe the state propaganda apparatus in both states targeted their respective “enemies of the people”. In the Soviet Union hard-working peasants were denounced as “parasites” and in Nazi Germany Jews as “agents of Zionism” plotting to stab Germany in the back. And what do we hear in South Africa: “One bullet, one settler”. The languages are not the same but the malevolent, genocidal spirit is identical.

Your visit to Zimbabwe and South Africa provides you with a unique opportunity to highlight what is happening to whites. It is high time that the BBC behaved in a way demanded by its charter. The BBC has an obligation to speak out honestly and openly, without fear or favour, and far as the fate of whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa is concerned it has so far failed to do so.

Switzerland under pressure

If the British public ever paused to take notice of anything other than the X-Factor, this week’s Soap operas or the latest developments in the unappetising saga of Tiger and the three skanks, (UPDATE: Make that eleven skanks) they might notice that some very troubling events are taking place amongst our allies across the channel, and indeed elsewhere.

The first of these relates to the aftermath of the recent referendum in Switzerland, where 57.5% of Swiss voters voted in favour of a proposal banning the building of Islamic minarets. The result confounded pollsters, who had predicted the proposal would be defeated, and who were clearly put out that the Swiss people had seen through their efforts to influence the result.

The result shows why politicians are so reluctant to allow the public to vote on specific issues, instead of the carefully selected handful of innocuous, crowd pleasing but meaningless promises which make up the average election manifesto. No British government has permitted a referendum in the last 34 years, and the Swiss minaret vote will have convinced them of what they will have seen as the “wisdom” of that position.

Predictably the result has caused outraged amongst the ranks of the perpetually offended and the professional surrender monkeys in international politics, the media and at the head of the Christian churches. In the midst of the inevitable cries of “racism”, accusations of intolerance and the usual and, as they always are, unsubstantiated claims about increased attacks on mosques, the occasional notes of calm common sense have provided some relief. One example being the entertaining letter in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. After the usual 'shocked' and outraged letters on religious tolerance the reply in the letters page was a very brief one-liner. The writer simply asked whether some spokesperson from the Saudi and Iranian embassies would be so kind as to explain their nation's policy regarding building regulations for synagogues and churches, and detail how they have been implemented over the past two decades and how many have been built.

However, there have also been some very sinister noises amongst the squeaking, baying and clucking of the usual suspects. Amnesty International for one have declared that the referendum result is illegal and will have to be overturned either by the Swiss Supreme court or by the European Court of Human Rights . Meanwhile voices from within that bastion of ethical democracy the United Nations, have been making similar statements, whilst another paragon of Human rights, Turkey, has been calling on the Swiss government to “correct” the result.

Let us be clear about this, those voices are not talking about some new law passed by a government which infringes some international law, they are talking about an overwhelming democratic vote by a sovereign people. By suggesting that a national plebiscite can be corrected, or overturned by their institutions if it does not produce the desired result, demonstrates the contempt with which such people view democracy.

Of course, we have seen this before with the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, where it appeared the government were prepared to keep forcing the public to vote until they got the answer “right”. Prior to that, the previous votes cast by both the French and the Dutch were effectively disregarded when the EU leaders merely changed the word Constitution to Lisbon Treaty and carried on regardless.

However, even with that travesty, nobody actually went so far as to suggest that there was a court higher than the democratic vote of a sovereign nation which could overturn their will. Ironically this solution was first muted by an organisation allegedly dedicated to the opposition of tyranny, however, like most left wing lobby groups Amnesty International are very selective as to the tyrannies they oppose and those they are happy to snuggle up with.

That the high ranking individuals within the United Nations, not to mention the EU would appear to take a similar view suggests that their self proclaimed passionate dedication to the right of self determination extends only to certain nations in selected continents. One would have to also ask that if Switzerland is in contravention of international law how can Saudi Arabia which entirely bans the building of churches, synagogues and temples possibly not be?

If this result were overturned by a court or international body, rather than by a further referendum, this would be an outrageous and very dangerous precedent, as it would signify the end of democracy and of national self determination in any meaningful way. What next? Regime change by tribunal?

However, we have to ask to what extent this has already come to pass, a devastating analysis by Prof, Anthony Coughlan in Monday’s Brussels Journal describes in chilling detail what the Lisbon Treaty, which Prof. Coughlan describes as “a constitutional revolution by stealth” has actually brought about. I strongly recommend that you read Anthony Coughlan’s powerful article, and I would like to thank Mister Fox for bringing it to my attention.

I recently had an e-mail exchange with regular and highly valued commentator and good friend Dr D, in which I expressed a positive view of Europe. I am certainly less antagonistic to Europe than many of my contemporaries. I am British, I blog from Britain and will vote for the BNP, however, I believe it is equally vital that we seek to preserve and protect the native European race, both in Europe and their descendants in such places as North America, Australia, New Zealand and of course South Africa. To a spectacularly overwhelming degree most things good and worthwhile came from Europe, that is not to say that we are better than anyone else, but we are a great people, and a people who are worth saving.

I believe it is essential for the European peoples to form strong alliances between ourselves and adopt a unified approach to a common and very serious threat. In this respect I am delighted that the BNP have formed alliances with other nationalist groups as we have interests and needs in common, we share a common Christian heritage and culture and we most surely face a common danger.

However, as far as the EU is concerned it is becoming very clear that what has been created is a malevolent leviathan which does not have the true welfare of the European peoples at its heart. Indeed, in the way that it is now formed, and most evidently in its approach to immigration, it is clear that its aim is to minimise and maybe even destroy the very concept of a European nation state.

Do its aims in fact go well beyond even that? It is telling to note the recent comments by our recently appointed president the disarmingly Yoderish Herman Van Rompuy in which he compared decisions taken at the Climate Change talks in Copenhagen as the first evidence of world government in action. I am not clear as to whether he was referring to the fact that various African states have just voted that we should give them lots of money, but if he was, that would not come as a huge surprise to many of those reading here.

I am not going to enter into discussion on climate change, as the comments it would generate would overwhelm the points I am seeking to make. However, right or wrong the issue has the potential to be misused to serve a political agenda as well as an environmental one.

What better way than to use the treat of potential global catastrophe, real or imagined, to achieve global aims in the same way that international migration has been used for the same purpose in recent decades?

Some may feel that I attribute to much importance to this matter. It is true that what has happened this week is a minor detail in an ongoing struggle, however its outcome may be very significant indeed. Switzerland is an independent democratic nation, it is not part of the European megalodon yet its people have acted in a manner which the forces currently governing our planet do not approve of, and it is being made clear that this will not be tolerated, it remains to be seen what will be done about that.

If the Swiss vote stands it is a huge achievement for democracy, independence and national sovereignty. If it does not stand, then it is further evidence that those things which all nations once held dear, democracy, nation, people and indeed our very freedom is at greater risk now than it has ever been in our history. Will our people put their Ipods down long enough to notice though?

_____________________
Hat Tip: Mister Fox