Saturday 28 February 2009

The silent genocide

It has been reported that two more white South African farmers have been murdered, bring the total of those horribly killed in South Africa's ongoing racially motivated genocide to 3,037 , since the ANC came to power in 1994. The figure may indeed be higher given the efforts by the South African government and police force, together with the wold's press have made to keep the story covered up.

It is truly sickening that, despite the quite horrific brutality and sadism, involved in these killings (few if any of the victims were allowed to die quickly) and the fact that in very many of the murders, no property was stolen, the thugs running South Africa, and the lying international media continue to try and pass these atrocities off as "crime related" rather than calling them what they truly are.

Those wishing to know more about the cruel and continuing ethnic cleansing taking place in the so called rainbow nation, and next years' World Cup destination, can read more here.

I would ask all of you, including the politically correct liberals and ANC apologists, whom I know visit this blog from time to time, to ask yourselves whether you truly believe that had over 3,000 members of any ethnic minority, other than whites, have been savagely tortured to death by the majority ethnic population of any other country, the world would remain silent, as they have done over this?

One of the main reasons for the silence is the most people know nothing about it, because they are not being told. The media will not tell them, so we must tell them.

You must tell them.

Hat tip: Ne Ultra - Nothing Beyond

Praising the melting pot

Anyone who takes an interest in the comments posted by readers at this blog, will notice that we have recently received a few praising the alleged evolutionary benefits of interracial sex, including the one from a lady who ended her contribution by calling me a “bigoted, bored Nazi housewife, racist, bimbo” . (Gosh, it's over a week since I was called any of those, and even longer since they were all in one sentence)

These posters, ignore the fact that Europeans have done pretty damn well mating with other Europeans for thousands of years, as indeed have, Africans, Asians, Arabs and Orientals. Instead they tell us that, at this point in mankind's development, the best means for the species to survive is by the enthusiastic mixing of ethnic genes, which they suggest will create a more healthy, efficient, and, presumably to their mind, “ideal” specimen.

Lets disregard for a moment the fact that they are seeking to use my blog and my belief in free speech in order to further spread the sort of propaganda which can be found across the internet, in a way which they would never allow ideas such as mine to be spread on their ideologically pure little blogs and websites, and, for the sake of argument, actually give some consideration to their argument and take it to its natural conclusion.

A candidate for interbreeding?

Let us, for instance, apply this argument to other species, and, where better to start than with cats. Why on Earth do we need all these different breeds?, especially when they all seem to have their own unique weaknesses. Persian cats, as an example, tend to suffer from kidney problems, whilst their flat faces mean they are often martyrs to catarrh, and, of course, their hair is a nightmare to vacuum, the solution, according to our correspondents would apparently be to get rid of the thoroughbred breed of cat and create a longer nosed, shorter haired creature, called a “prabby” perhaps.

Many other breeds of cat could also benefit from the same treatment, Siamese tend to have that awful irritating high pitched Meow, Burmese can be grumpy, and as for Sphinx cats and the Cornish Rex, well they are just plain ugly. (Tabbies, of course, are so much prettier and healthier, albeit a little boring after a while.)

All these problems, it seems, would be solved by interbreeding, think about it, cats breed more rapidly than we do, given the same degree of dedication which has been applied to the colonisation of Europe, within a few decades we could rid ourselves of all the diverse breeds, with all their inconvenient breed related foibles, and create a single mono-breed, multi-purpose, cat. Perhaps we could call it a mogg.

Why stop at cats? Dog breeds are equally problematic, corgis snap, labradors go to fat, spaniels shed, and Afghans are totally useless when it comes to guarding your house. Surely the way ahead for the survival of the species is through the creation of the mono-breed mutt.

According to the logic of proposing interracial mixing as an evolutionary solution, amalgamating all the different cat and dog breeds into single homogenised moggs and mutts, with all the irritating weaknesses and hair loss problems bred out, would be for the betterment of both species. It would certainly make the process of choosing pets less complicated, albeit perhaps a little less interesting.

Beyond domestic pets, mass interbreeding within the animal kingdom would solve any number of problems, and think of the time it would save conservationists. Those currently fretting over that rare and endangered species of Saharan cheetahs, are clearly missing the obvious solution of importing a few thousand of the sub-Saharan breed and “Viola!” (its not as if there isn't a template).

Indeed for the sake of diversity (albeit, it would not be diverse for long) they could try bringing in some leopards, certainly a more hardy type of big cat. Who knows maybe leopards and cheetahs would mate successfully and they could produce, healthier and more efficient “Cheetards”, which would not only be better at climbing trees, but they would do it a damn sight quicker. (Not terribly useful in the Sahara, but, hey you can't have everything)

Sumatran tigers under threat? Just send down an Empire Windrush full of Bengal or Siberian tigers, problem sorted!

I accept that leopards and cheetahs are different species of big cat, and there is quite a a difference between Siberian tiger and a Sumatran one, but then again, unlike mules, which, as one pro mixing blogger by the name of Liliput kindly reminded me, can not breed, ligers and tigons can do so, albeit, as yet, without great success, so the scenario might not be so absurd.

However, more prosaically, when it comes to two breeds of cheetah , the differences are much less marked and they should mate with little difficulty. Surely those seeking to preserve genetic differences dating back thousands, or even millions, of years are being over sentimental, or even “racist” aren't they? - scarily such allegations are already being made.

“Woah!” I can hear the race mixing enthusiasts shout “We were not talking about animals, it is only different coloured people we want chucked in the melting pot!”

Ah yes maybe that's true, maybe it is only human beings who they want to intermix, indeed, in reality, their target is even narrower than that, they only want their meting pots in Europe or North America, but certainly no-where else.

It is only in the lands where there is still an indigenous or majority white populations where they want to set up their meting pots. As we all know, a desire for ethnic preservation is only a sin when white people do it, amongst any other group it is viewed as both admirable and indeed a basic human right.

I will, therefore, restrict the comments to human beings. However, for the sake of fairness, let us, for once ignore Europe and North America where the unquestioned dogma espousing the “benefits” of sex with other races have been preached to the point of indoctrination, and turn the spotlight on those races and nationalities who are never told they are racist if they wish to stick to their own, and who are not endlessly encouraged to jump between the sheets with the first foreigner they encounter.

I can not see why anyone would object, surely if there are such great evolutionary advantages to race mixing for white people, other races would doubtless also benefit from mixing their genes with those from other ethnic groups.

Most races have cultural issues, some might call them flaws (certainly the likes of Jack Straw do when referring to the English) maybe, like with white people. some of these “issues” are genetic, and can be improved by mixing in a few exotic genes. It is worth considering, after all, we are constantly told how good it is for us.

Lets look at Africa, where there certainly do appear to be some cultural problems, which are hindering development and which arguably put their long term futures at risk. It has been suggested, in the same way as the English are alleged to have a propensity for binge drinking and anti-social behaviour, the African character lacks drive and industry, and is prone to acts of irrational violence (recent events in Kenya and South Africa would seem to bear this out). If this is true, then the solution is obvious, they should import as many Chinese as possible (its already happening) and, in a few generations of Afro/Oriental amour we might see a new industrious and driven Africa, with a very rational approach to violence.

A long term solution to the Middle East might be to encourage the hot blooded young men there to become romantically involved with Melanesians and Australian Aborigines. Who can tell, if the benefits of race mixing are what we are told they are, the desire for jihad may fade as they discover the pleasures of making love and getting pi............

Hold on, what's that high pitched shrieking sound I hear?!! ... Oh. Its the fans of interracial sex, objecting to what I am saying. What's that they say?, (its so hard to hear them over John Cruddas's flatulence, and Lily Allen being sick) ..... “racism?” they shout .... “racial stereotypes?” they cry.... “sounds like eugenics?” ...... they gasp .

Of course they are right, it does sound racist, what I am saying in the paragraphs above does rely on racial stereotypes to argue its case and, if I was being serious, it would sound far too much like eugenics for comfort. Then again it sounded exactly like that when they said exactly the same thing to us. The only difference being that we were called Nazis when we objected.

Thursday 26 February 2009

"Disgusted" that her black boyfriend killed the wrong man

The aged trollop above goes by the deceptively refined sounding name Antionette Richardson, albeit she would probably answer to anything you like if you pay her enough for her next fix.

Richardson is in the news today having been convicted of the manslaughter of 57 year old Kevin Tripp in a Merton branch of Saisbury's supermarket. It was actually her bit of black rough who landed the fatal blow, as they do, but Richardson was found guilty of incitement, in that she encouraged him in the act.

Following a day of light shoplifting with her boyfriend Tony Virasami, the delicate Antionette went to buy some cigarettes, but became involved in an altercation with a young male shopper in the queue at the tobacco counter. Accounts differ as to whether she had barged in front of him, or he in front of her, but Richardson decided that he had offended her (which must have been challenging) so she phoned Virasami and told him to come and "deal with him".

When the bull like Virasami (pictured above) arrived, Richardson pointed out the man who had offended her, however, Virasami misunderstood who she was pointing at, and, instead of "dealing with" the man Richardson wanted him to, he haunched a violent attack on the innocent and slightly built Mr Tripp, who was knocked to the ground, hitting his head on the ground causing fatal injuries.

Virasami had little option other than to plead guilty to manslaughter given that the attack was captured on close circuit TV. However, his slatternly partner initially pleaded not guilty, and claimed that she was "disgusted when Virasami attacked the wrong man", with the implication that she would have been quite happy if he had killed the right one. (A fact confirmed to the jury by the close circuit TV recording which showed her standing next to the fatally injured Mr Tripp, and urging Virasami to "find the right guy")

The full extent of the couple's criminal life was revealed following the conviction.

Virasami - who has a string of convictions for petty theft and handling stolen goods dating back 20 years - was under a curfew and on bail for shoplifting. He was wearing an electronic tag when he launched the unprovoked attack. Meanwhile Richardson, a heroine adict, has a 16-year criminal record. She has previously received community orders, conditional discharges and fines, for charges including deception, handling stolen goods and theft.

That all sounds very familiar doesn't it?

So, why am I bothering to write about sordid and tragic little event just like so many others repeated day after grim day in South London.

Because Virasami and Richardson are the hidden story of interracial relationships in Britain today. They are nothing like the airbrushed, politically correct or glamorous fantasy images we are presented with daily on TV and in glossy magazines, but they are the ugly truth, just not what the media wants us to believe.

Both now await sentencing, let us hope that the judge puts them away where they can no longer do damage for a long time.

Monday 23 February 2009

Untold dangers

If it wasn't so unlikley, it would be interesting to speculate as to whether charges of whatever the relevant equivalent is of negligent homicide, or even culpable homicide will end up being brought against FIFA and much of the Western media who are currently promoting the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, without the slightest hint of warning.

Whenever the subject comes up, film of beaming, friendly looking South African youth appears on TV, and South Africa is mentioned as a vibrant young democracy, and the country itself portrayed as some sort of Disney style theme park.

No mention yet of the fact that South Africa has become one of the most dangerous crime ridden places on earth which is not yet a failed state. Muggings and robbery exceed anything we know in the West many times over, murder is running at seven times the current rate in America, , whilst the numbers of rapes are ten times as high, and much higher than that that in terms of both child rape and male on male rape.

Given the rapid deterioration of the situation, the rates are likely to be even higher by 2010.

Do you think these things will be mentioned? I doubt it, our media has too much invested in promoting their own fantasy vision of the rainbow nation without allowing the risk to a few dozen (or more) lives to make them break a habit of a life time and tell the truth.

We are lead to believe that the most important issue is whether enough poor people will be able to afford tickets to the games, whereas the really important issue is how many visitors will get home with life, limb and property still intact. Where are the warnings about avoiding urban areas, staying in groups, only carrying the money you need to and not letting anyone see that you own a camera or mobile phone?.

The lack of caution is particularly reckless considering the normal behaviour of football fans when the visit foreign cities. They instinctively want to go down town, explore, find a bar and then get drunk and vulnerable. In much of South Africa such behaviour by Westerners is the equivalent of an antelope walking up to a pride of lions drenched in a honey and mustard dressing with a garlic bulb up its a##.

However, it is exactly what fans will do if they are not warned not to, and I am not hearing any warnings so far.

Let us hope that the fans have guardian angels looking out for them, as, on present showing, it seem unlikely that the media, FIFA or the Government have any intention of doing so.

The Redeeming of Miss Goody

On Sunday, as anyone resident in the United Kingdom will know, the reality TV star and terminal cancer victim, Jade Goody married her handsome, if troubled, younger lover Jack Tweed in a no-expenses spared ceremony and reception, with the setting provided by rock superstar Elton John and the gown donated free by Harrods owner Mohamed al Fayed.

With the national media crowding around, straining for the chance to catch a glimpse of the nation's latest favourite celebrity couple, the proceedings took place behind closed doors, this being due to the fact that the publication rights have been sold to OK Magazine and the "Living" TV channel, as the dying star seeks to earn enough money in her final months to support her two young sons, by a previous younger lover, after her death

In the course of what it seems will be a tragically short life, Jade Goody has, within her homeland, joined that tiny group of celebrities instantly known by a single Christian name. If you mention "Kate" a any number of possibilities spring to mind, Kate Winslet's Oscar triumph notwithstanding. However, mention "Jade" in Britain and everyone knows who you mean.

The degree to which this young woman's plight has touched the nation's heart is demonstrated not only the fact that her photograph no adorns on the front pages of even our more serious newspapers, but the Justice minister has seen fit to waive the 7:00 PM curfew requirements of her grooms parole conditions, enabling him to spend his wedding night with his new bride.

There is speculation that Jade may agree to allow her final moments to be filmed, in order to further secure her children's future, and if she does, the purchaser can be assured of a large and tearful audience for the end of what must be, by any standards, a truly bizarre life.

It is even more bizarre when one considers that it is only two short years since these same newspapers now gushing with praise for Jade's courage and paying a fortune for a single photograph of her, were indulging in a hate campaign targeted at the destruction of this same young woman, who, to a hack, they referred to as "Britain's most hated woman".

For it was then, in 2007, what that same media declared Jade guilty of one of the greatest crimes of our age.

Appearing on that year's Celebrity Big Brother, Jade, the then nineteen year old Jack Tweed, who, together with her mother, had accompanied Jade into the house, and two other young female contestants of a similar socio-economic background decided to take exception to a fourth female contestant, from a different socio-economic background, whom they apparently considered to be, false, "stuck-up" and altogether too pleased with herself.

As any fan of reality TV will know, this is not an uncommon occurrance in such an artificial and claustrophobic situation, where personal likes and dislikes become exaggerated in an environment which is uniquely conducive to conflict and the taking of sides. It was certainly not the first time that such a antagonism has arisen on Big Brother.

However, what made this conflict different in the eyes of the media, and the ever vigilant guardians of social cohesion, was that whilst Jade, Tweed and their two companions were white, the contestant whom they had taken against was the strikingly beautiful, but clearly rather pleased with herself, Bollywood star Shilpha Shetty.

To the media and assorted zealots this automatically meant that, rather than a conflict of characters or classes, the bickering took on an entirely different and more sinister element. To them, this was unquestionably racially motivated bullying, and as Jade was the most outspoken (and famous) of the four, she was viewed as racist in chief, as such she was singled out for special criticism.

Unaware of the controversy swirling outside "the house" which had now taken on international proportions, the bickering and bitcing continued, at one point descending into a shouting march, which was repeatedly re-broadcast over the following days, carefully edited to highlight Jade's role as victimiser and Shilpha as victim.

To the obvious irritation to the forces of multicultural purity there was a marked lack of racist language involved in the conflict, except from fellow contestant Jermaine Jackson, who referred to Jade and her friends as white trash, although he was immediately excused on account of being black. Muttered allegations were made that Jack Tweed had used a "word" in a conversation which had not been broadcast, but, despite 24 hour filming, footage never appeared, and it was eventually admitted that the word, although offensive, was not racist, in any event Jack Tweed was not a celebrity in his own right, he had no careeer to destroy and was, therefore, not the target the press were aiming at.

Yet, for all her famed lack of education or sophistication, for days Jade failed to utter a syllable which event the most committed UAF zealot could construe as racist. Then, at last, those crowding round the scaffold got what they had been waiting for, when, in an angry outburst, well out of Shilpha Shetty's hearing, Jade blurted out the "P" word. …uh? … no not THAT "P" word. In a moment of anger, Jade referred to Ms Shetty as "Shilpha Poppadom" and the forces of racial outrage exploded.

Across the nation, television screens were alive with people explaining how offensive this reference to a quick fried, flatbread, wafer was. Indeed, I recall seeing one particular Asian lady puffing out her ample bosom and asking in a decidedly Lady Bracknell like tone, "Would they call her Jade Fish and Chips?"

To which the obvious answer would be "probably not, but who'd give a toss if they did?", but in Britain in 2007, such an answer would be unthinkable.

As a result Jade became a pariah, her later tearful attempts to make amends were scorned, and she became the first Celebrity big Brother contestant who's departure from the house was filmed in silence, without the usual cheering or catcalling crowd, so fearful were the programme makers that the public reaction to her might actually be violent.

Now officially the most hated woman in Britain, a title previously only bestowed on child murderers and Margaret Thatcher, Jade's career was in ruins, and was hurting into that dark void where fallen stars, broken on the wheel of political correctness are consigned.

Having uttered the word "Poppadom", Jade was cast as a villain, guilty of an unforgivable sin. All but unemployable, her celebrity endorsement income drying up and the once thriving sales of her personal brand of perfume non-existent, Jade had to look overseas to earn a living for herself an her children, her every appearance dogged by recriminations and the ghost of Big Brother.

She was still walking the march of shame when, whilst appearing on the Mumbai version of Big Brother again with Shilpa Shetty in an attempt to show how non-racist she was, she received news of the positive cancer diagnosis which will eventually kill her. Again, as with so much in her life the news was relayed on live TV.

With the news of that diagnosis, Jade's career underwent its second major reversal, from scorned pariah one moment, she went to much loved national icon the next, with a far larger fan base even than she had before. As I said in an earlier article realities can change and Jade's reality again changed overnight, It seems certain that when, in the next few months she loses her battle against the ravaging disease which is rapidly overwhelming her, she will die as a larger
than life and well loved star.

Does the short life of Jade Goody tell us anything valuable about the world we now live in? A creature of the celebrity age, without any perceptible talent, she became rich and famous, merely by being herself, then it was being herself which all but destroyed her, before, by being physically destroyed herself, she has found some form of salvation.

And what of those who shrilly screamed for her ruin, who wanted her broken to make an example of her because she had dared to dislike someone whom society requires her to embrace. How do they feel now, watching her as she plays out her final scenes in the public spotlight, do they feel any qualms for what they tried to do to her? I doubt it.

Sadly, perhaps all it does teach us is that in the distorted and unnatural world we currently inhabit, when you are accused of racism, whether those claims have merit or not, it will take a death sentence to redeem you.


Sunday 22 February 2009

Zimbabwe and Gaza

By guest contributor: A Son of Zimbabwe

It is worth comparing the events in Zimbabwe with those recently seen in Gaza.

For every person killed in Gaza by shellfire, more than two were killed in Zimbabwe by cholera.

Cholera does not come out of nowhere: It is not a natural disaster: it is not an act of God. Cholera is caused. The cause is well known. Not only that, but the cure is known – and the cure is the easiest and cheapest of any dangerous infective disease. It is cured by administering water, sugar and salt. Even if an antibiotic is used (and that is not essential) the appropriate antibiotic is the oldest, cheapest and most available of all mankind’s current weapons of medical defence.

Not one person should die of cholera. Further, not one person in Zimbabwe, given the protective infrastructure created by the colonists, should ever have become infected with cholera. Cholera was virtually non-existent during colonial rule.

Therefore those people who are dying of cholera are being killed by a policy designed to keep a minority in power and in wealth. Equally they were killed by the failure of the West to intervene. Where was Condoleezza Rice? Where was Gordon Brown? Where was Sarkosy? Where was Mubarak? Still worse, where were those who spewed the outraged public opinion which prompted the politicians to respond in Gaza? Western intervention could have been non-military. It could have been rapid and would have cost little.

The people of Zimbabwe are being killed at this moment by the inertia of those who so self-righteously bleat criticisms at Israel for trying to solve the problem of protecting their people from a small, fanatical minority. They are being killed by those politicians from the West who chose to prance on those stages which give them the best political kudos.

Gaza has been temporarily solved.

Zimbabweans continue to die horrible, lingering deaths: Deaths caused by a ruthlessly indifferent regime. Compare that with the regret and compassionate assistance offered by Israel to those in Gaza. But also it is caused by those who are in a position to act, but turn away. When will you notice your stains of shame, you pompous western politician?

And the coldly planned executions by the torture or political and commercial assassination of Zimbabweans are not even addressed in these numbers.

The Mandela Myth


By guest Contributor: August Pointneuf

Mandela is widely held to be “one of the greatest statesmen in the world”. This seems to be based on these six pillars:

  1. Martyrdom. A closer look at this “self sacrifice” is not convincing. Mandela was jailed following an open trial, under one of the best judicial systems. It has never been suggested that this trial was perverted or corrupt. He was found guilty of contravening the laws universal to the land, and more than that, he had promoted a policy of terrorism. He had plans to disrupt law and order and impose a terrorism which would result in the maiming and death of many good and law abiding persons, children and elderly. When subsequently imprisoned he was offered release provided only that he would renounce his support of violence. He would not. Accordingly he remained in prison. Later, by the most extraordinary inversion of innate justice he was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace. It may well be that the Nobel Prize committee will, in retrospect, attempt to distance themselves from it.

  1. He saved South Africa from a blood bath. When persons spoke, prior to independence, of an impending “blood bath” they were imaging the events as they had previously occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. These past “blood baths” were not as much exercises in retribution (the veiled threat to South Africans) but simply sprees of looting and rapine. There was probably no possibility whatever of South Africa as a whole rising in this way, because of a well formulated social infrastructure, with an effective police force (operating entirely within an open judicial system) and the other components of a stable society.

Such was the relationship between the communities under apartheid rule in South Africa that an intrinsic stability, and for that matter mutual respect, existed.[1] There were, of course, the well recorded “insurrections”, but a critical look at the numbers will demonstrate that these were by a minute percentage of the population. “The Blood Bath will come…” was an emotively convenient threat, much along the line “if you don’t give me your ball, I will ask my daddy to beat you up”. This phrase and its implied emotive threats, was something conjured by those who were intent on destroying an existing system by inducing fear.

Far from demonstrating that Nelson Mandela was responsible for “preventing a blood bath”, the evidence points in the opposite direction. He founded and was the head of an organization which promoted bloody massacres of civilian populations.[2] Not only that, he was leading the ANC which effected a bloody suppression on their own “recruits” in the ANC army-in-exile. The truth and Reconciliation Commission ruled that these ANC activities were a “gross violation of human rights”[3]

A blood bath did occur, but after “independence” and after universal suffrage, when Mandela was in command. Part of this was black on black violence during the build up to the first election, reported to have claimed more than 20,000 black lives. Did Mandela stop that blood bath? Short answer; no.

The slaughter still continues with the selective execution of isolated (white) farmers by the thousand and the phenomenal homicide, mostly associated with robbery.

Under a “liberated” black government the “blood bath” happened more slowly than the other African atrocities. The difference was that “world opinion” did not want to believe that this was happening after an “independence” which they had promoted. Slowly accumulating statistics of killings do not make headlines.

The looting of South Africa did occur but in a different way from the rest of Africa. What distinguished the looting of South Africa from other historic rampages in Africa was that it was slower and politically engineered, under the leadership of Mandela. The initial looting was by “cold theft” engineered by the ANC by the subtle stripping of the assets under various legislated ploys such as “black empowerment” and “affirmative action”. This was followed by massive corruption, embezzlement and fraud perpetrated by individual members of the ANC, on their own account.

Later the avalanche of confrontational crime, murder, hijackings and wide spread theft cascaded throughout the country as criminals began to appreciate that under a black government there were now no longer the same restraints against lawlessness as there had been under white government.

  1. Mandela exemplified pacifism, as claimed in his well publicized comment: “Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC , MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe) was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement would be created soon, so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.

Mandela founded the MK, and became its leader immediately after he had been acquitted from his first trial. This gives credibility to his initial arrest since. Mandela had been actively promoting terrorism. This earlier acquittal underscores the judicial objectivity of Mandela’s first trial, such that he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted (although it subsequently became clear that he was intent on promoting violence).

The reason for what Mandela called “the initial passive resistance” was not that he did not want violence but simply because there were no funds to run a military campaign. Mandela was hardly the organiser it is claimed that he was. Further he had little support from the black population, despite the consistent emotive rhetoric about a “suppressed people”. At that date the “armed struggle” was an empty fantasy. It was later conceded by the ANC that this was no more than a propaganda strategy primarily geared towards mobilizing mass political support. Mandela was simply garnishing inability with virtue

  1. Mandela was dispassionately objective. This attribution later allowed him to act as an international mediator over a wide range of political and legal issues. How objective was he? A demonstration of his lack of impartiality was his speech in Havana on 26 July 1991. Nelson Mandela supported the Cuban version of the battle of Cuito Cuanavale by saying: “The defeat of the apartheid army (at Cuito Cuanavale) was an inspiration to the struggling people in South Africa! Without the defeat of (sic) Cuito Cuanavale our organizations would not have been unbanned! The defeat of the racist army at Cuito Cuanavale has made it possible for me to be here today! Cuito Cuanavale was a milestone in the history of the struggle for southern African liberation!"[4]

Chester Crocker, with his backing of CIA knowledge, and with arguably a more arms-length objectivity, saw it quite differently[5]. If one accepts Chester Crocker’s countering opinion, Mandela’s views can be regarded as grossly distortive “Black Consciousness Propaganda”.

  1. Nelson Mandela personified opposition to black oppression. Undoubtedly Mandela was symbolic to the large and unsuccessful peasant populations, implying that they, also, via their vicarious surrogate, Nelson Mandela, could triumph over the white civilization. This re-ignited the symbolism of Mahatma Gandhi, who also had a reputation for passifism. Ironically he was also a lawyer, who obtained, from the British Government, the benefit of training in law. But his “passifism” must also be doubted.[6]

Far from “rescuing” the masses from impoverishment the income of most peasant South Africans has decreased since “independence”. Small numbers of selected elite blacks, on the other hand, have become exceptionally wealthy

  1. He exhibited supreme statesmanship as President of South Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. Prior to the release of Nelson Mandela and the truce offered to the ANC, Mandela and the ANC were approached by South Africa’s very successful financial and industrial cohort. This was as an “economic truce within a political truce”. It must be remembered that the entire population of South Africa, in distinction from the rest of Africa and most of the rest of the world, were the beneficiaries of the extraordinary successful system evolved by Colonialism. In pre-independence meetings with ANC, notably in Lusaka, the high probabilities are that the cohort wanted to explain to the ANC that they would be inheriting a jewel. It would have been pointed out to them that damaging this financial axis would damage the entire country, probably in an irreparable fashion. Those affected by damaging the South African economy would be the most vulnerable, the poorest.

There could have been no other reasons for the Lusaka meeting other than that portrayed here. Paternal, as it might have been, for Mandela to heed this cautioning from the people then in power was vital to the future welfare of the entire population of South Africa and beyond.

The preservation of South Africa’s economy depended upon Mandela’s leadership.With huge international and internal support no politician could have had a stronger mandate than Nelson Mandela.

Despite such support, and despite august warnings, Mandela failed totally to protect the existing structures, and within a short period after “independence” it became clear to the financial and industrial core of South Africa that the ANC would proceed on its own agenda, which would destroy the industrial/financial infrastructure of South Africa[7].

This resulted in the financial axis, exemplified by Anglo American, Liberty Life and Old Mutual, rapidly exiting. While powerful companies in South Africa had sufficient resources to relocate into the First World many lesser businesses did not and remained trapped. Therefore individuals, seeing themselves threatened, emigrated en masse[8], thus further reducing the professional and other skilled resources of the country, and so by a cascade damaging the financial benefit which had made black South Africans the best cared for, best educated, healthiest and most affluent in (at least) sub-Saharan Africa.

Once in office Mandela took control of only one portfolio, Race Relations, which was unlikely to be controversial, and could hardly fail. However, in the circumstances, this instantly invested him with more virtue. He took some interest in the military where he tried to ensure the language of operation was not English. He was rapidly over-ruled, having displayed an astounding lack of common-sense, let alone a lack of statesmanship. For the rest he delegated to his ministers showing little interest in their management, and so effectively abdicating any leadership.

Therefore Mandela’ failed as a politician by not recognizing the extraordinary infrastructure which he, and the ANC, had inherited. He failed protect it and failed to support the existing structures in a way which could multiply South Africa’s past success. The jewel which was South Africa – in stark contrast to the rest of Africa - should have been obvious to the blindest. But Mandela permitted the progressive erosion of the South African infrastructure by nepotism and crime at an administrative level and by gain-seeking individuals - primarily those with political connections to him – and who were (nominally) under his “statesmanship”. Most of the “statesmanship” purported to originate from Mandela’s office was in reality orchestrated by the now defunct Thabo Mbeki. An illusion of his political capacity was thrust upon him by a surge of world wide emotion which obscured his limited intrinsic abilities,

Mandela abandoned his role as leader of the country after the least possible period, and while it still needed stable leadership. However he was in office long enough to accumulate a substantial wealth, which further distanced him from the increasing poverty of the population under his control.[9]

No saintly asceticism here.

Conclusion. The greatest condemnation that must be leveled at Mandela was his failure to accept that with universal franchise all playing fields had been leveled. He failed to demand that the future success of individuals and groups would depend upon their intrinsic capabilities. Instead, he over-saw an astonishing exercise which effectively said that the groups coming into power should have their past inferiority recognized by being given advantageous benefits, in the form of black empowerment, affirmative action and similar. This shows the hollowness to his oft quoted statements

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve”.

Further, those persons who had previously created the successful socio-financial axis were intentionally and unfairly discriminated against.[10] This inflicted a substantial deprivation of human rights and an injury to those individuals who had historically created for their communities from the parched earth of what had been a derelict country when they arrived.

This paper aims to be factually correct. To ensure veracity Mandela and others are invited to respond correcting any inadvertent errors.

August Pontneuf


[1] In a separate essay it will be posed that the black population, if extremists are excluded, fully recognised that the basis of apartheid was no more than the natural, and expected, protection by the white population of their complex culture, and material social creation. The indigenous population recognised that apartheid was not a system of malice, and far from exploiting the indigenous culture, it offered the opportunity for the indigenous population to enter the realm of capitalist Christian Democracy.



4 ^ Castro Ruz, Fidel Alejandro and Mandela, Nelson (1991). How Far We Slaves Have Come. N.Y.: Pathfinder Press. pp. 18–20. ISBN 0873484975.

5 ^ Crocker, Chester A. (1992). High Noon in Southern Africa: Making Peace in a Rough Neighborhood. W.W. Norton. ISBN 0393034321. "In early October the Soviet-Fapla offensive was smashed at the Lomba River near Mavinga. It turned into a headlong retreat over the 120 miles back to the primary launching point at Cuito Cuanavale. In some of the bloodiest battles of the entire civil war, a combined force of some 8,000 UNITA fighters and 4,000 SADF troops destroyed one Fapla brigade and mauled several others out of a total Fapla force of some 18,000 engaged in the three-pronged offensive. Estimates of Fapla losses ranged upward of 4,000 killed and wounded. This offensive had been a Soviet conception from start to finish. Senior Soviet officers played a central role in its execution. ... Huge quantities of Soviet equipment were destroyed or fell into UNITA and SADF hands when Fapla broke into a disorganized retreat... The 1987 military campaign represented a stunning humiliation for the Soviet Union, its arms and its strategy. ... As of mid-November, the UNITA/SADF force had destroyed the Cuito Cuanavale airfield and pinned down thousands of FAPLA's best remaining units clinging onto the town's defensive perimeters." Crocker was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Reagan Administration

6 Gandhi, also famed for pacifism actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians in Natal into the army, during the Zulu war. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship.

7 Anglo-American Corporation has moved almost all its gold interests out of South Africa.

8 Semi-official figures state that one quarter of the white population has emigrated. The true figure will be considerably higher.

9 The number of “Mandela Trusts is obscure, but there are at least three. Best known is the Mandela Children’s Fund. Totally separate and less known is the Nelson Mandela Trust holding funds available to Mandela personally. One of the scams relating to “Nelson Mandela Signed Artwork” was expected to make for the Nelson Mandela Trust (i.e. Mandela personally) 200,000,000 rand in two years. Clearly there are immense funds in Mandela’s purse.

10 See “The comparison of Nazism with the ANC”

Transitory realities

A subject which I had planned to write about last week, resulted from a discussion on BBC2's Newsnight, hosted by Kirsty Walk, between a columnist from the Spectator and someone who had previously held a high ranking position in the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The discussion focused on the recent news story regarding Prince Harry who, as I mentioned in a couple of recent posts, has been required to undergo re-education, due to a perceived failure to pay sufficient homage to the modern day dogmas of multiculturalism and the unquestioned benefits of ethnic diversity.

The guy from the CRE was naturally firmly in favour Harry's punishment, whereas the Spectator columnist was less enthusiastic, and indeed expressed a healthy scepticism for the diversity worship which is now an essential qualification for holding down a position within the mainstream media. As such, I doubt we will see or hear much more from him.

However, the debate itself, and indeed those debating, are of less relevance than was the parting shot by the bigwig from the Campaign for Racial Engulfment, who, just as Kirsty was terminating the discussion, turned to his adversary and smugly announced that a multi-cultural society was “the reality of modern Britain”.

This, of course is a statement we are hearing more and more, as the party faithful, who have worked so feverishly to undermine our national soul, flaunt what they consider to be their victory, and seek to trump our hand with the apparent fait accompli that what they sought so hard to achieve, has come to pass.

Of course, they are correct that multiculturalism is a reality of of today's Britain, in the same way that communism was the reality of Czechoslovakia in the 1960's, warfare is the reality of the Congo and Afghanistan, whist bankruptcy is the increasing reality of Zimbabwe, and it is no more wholesome or welcome.

The multiracial “reality” of our country has been achieved by deception, by intimidation and bullying, by bribery, corruption, propaganda and lies, it was however not achieved by either consent or democracy.

At no stage during the last fifty years, whilst they were laying the foundations of the monster they have created, did any mainstream party stand for election with a manifesto which even admitted that they would encourage increased immigration, let alone facilitate the creation of a multiracial society, especially not when another mainstream party stood on a manifesto promising that they wouldn't do so. When it came to elections, none of the main parties acknowledged the “reality” of unchecked immigration, therefore “NO” was never an option on offer, and when one party, the BNP, did stand up and say “NO” it was vilified and lied about in a manner which continues to this very day.

When those who hate us brag of the reality they forced upon us, they are no better than the rapist who taunts his victim with the reality of her rape, for that too was taken without consent.

On first reading that may seem an extreme analogy, but before you dismiss it consider the parallels.

The multicultural “reality” was achieved first through lies and deception “Your safe, ... it wont happen” and by seduction “its cool, its exotic .... love that Burundi beat.. feel the rhythm .... you know you want it” but, when that only worked with a few airhead bimbos, then came the fear, the intimidation, the bullying and, of course, the allegations .. “if you don't let me you are a racist! ... racist! ....racist!!”.

That one word became the WMD, which they used against us relentlessly.

To speak out against the creation of a multicultural society, or to mention any potential downside was to be a racist. Name one person who has dared speak out against the shrieking gods of diversity, or pointed out that nothing is enriched by being changed beyond recognition, who has not been labeled with that multi purpose word, which we have been brainwashed, beyond reason, to dread being called.

However, to submit through fear or because of fraud is not to consent, and no matter how many times our abusers tell us we were asking for it, the truth is we were not. As a nation we never consented to what has been done to us, we were merely never permitted to say NO.

The reality of a violation does not make the act any less wrong or mean that what was done can not be put right, and victims, no natter how wounded, can move in to a new reality, where they are no longer victims.

Realities live within a time frame, they are not inevitably eternal and many one time realities have gone on to become historical anachronisms. The brave Czechs fought hard and finally shook off the yoke of Communism, they are now a free nation and their president is one of the few great statesmen and defenders of freedom left in Europe. The Czech reality has changed, and surely we all hope that the Congo, Afghanistan and Zimbabwe will also, in time, find new realities.

Britain has lived through prior realities which have passed into the history books, we were, after all one of the early European republics, and no doubt those living under drab Cromwellian rule believed their reality had changed forever.

The belief that the present is forever and can never be changed is the friend of demagogues and abusers, it is a lie designed to enslave us. Don't get me wrong, I know how convincing that lie can be, given that so much of what we see and read is designed to promote that lie. However, we must not be deceived by, for instance. the diversity worship we see daily on our TV screens, that is nothing but the Western equivalent of the little flower girl singing to the Dear Leader, it is state sponsored propaganda and no more proof of permanence than she is.

Today's “reality” exists only for so long as it is permitted to. History shows us that one time realities fade and new ones take their place. Today's reality may seem ugly and depressing, but it is mostly smoke and mirrors. Our enemies can flaunt today's victories, as Hitler might have flaunted Dunkirk, but that should not stop us fighting for a better tomorrow.

The truth is that, for all their bragging, our enemies were never so weak as they are today, and it is at times like this that realities can change.


Saturday 21 February 2009

The "benefits" of mass immigration

Governments, such as the USA, the UK together with most in Europe and those media organisations who favour an open door immigration policy keep telling us how much our economy benefits from immigration on account of all the wealth immigrants allegedly create and "bring into the country".

As an answer to this claim, I would like to suggest a little exercise, which you can try whilst sitting at you computer. First go to or any other search engine, and type in the words Sending money home then click search, and count the number of result options you are given.

I suspect that the figure you see will come as a surprise, and may give you an inkling as to exactly which economies are benefiting from mass immigration into countries like Britain and America.

Friday 20 February 2009

Give enough chimps typewriters ........

The New York post was certainly unwise in their decision to publish the now infamous dead chimp cartoon with its reference to the stimulus bill, which the US Congress recently approved (presumably with their eyes closed and every available limb and digit crossed). It was inevitable that allegations or racism would be used to deflect any legitimate criticism of the first Kenyan born, and part African POTUS, so the outcry could hardly have come as a surprise, and the Post have only themselves to blame.

Commentators are well advised to check how firmly their car is attached to the big dipper, as this is only the beginning of the circus to come. The current squabble will likley seem minor when compared to what will happen when criticism of "the one" becomes widespread. Give it time and expressions such as "dark clouds" and "Black Monday" will result in Al Sharpton leading crowds of baying protesters down Wall Street,

The degree of ignorance on both sides is of course quite embarrassing, at least for those of us who retain an affection for America. It is an old, and often quoted, saying, based on the infinite monkeys theorem that were enough typewriters given to a sufficient number of monkeys, one would write the Works of Shakespeare, and it must surely be that some similar device was employed when drafting what is either a frighteningly naive ir deeply cynical piece of legislation.

It is a sad indictment of those now attacking the Post that none paused to wonder whether this might be the point being made, and indeed of the New York Post that they have not, to my knowledge sought to use it in their defence.

Wednesday 18 February 2009

Racism Cuts both ways - a response to Searchlight

After the British National Party released its hard hitting booklet Racism Cuts Both Ways that can be read in PDF format by following this link, Seachlight, the state funded organisation that is currently the subject of a Police Investigation, responded with an attack in the "establishment" controlled media, calling into doubt the validity of some of the information contained within the booklet.

As a result of their claims, Nemesis, a writer on the Green Arrow site and one of our most thorough and diligent researchers took Searchlights document apart with a fine toothcombe and as released the truth in the following article.


Sunday 15 February 2009

Stories from a diverse world

After the long article in a week in England (which you can read by clicking here or scrolling down) I have decided to be lazy and post some links to interesting and thought provoking posts from across the internet:

British Women Pay High Price for Multiculturalism


For decades, the British people have undergone an onslaught of aggressive government propaganda schemes intent upon preparing them to first accept the multicultural totalitarian assault and to become a veritable doormat for millions of colonizers -- the vast majority being from Islamic countries. There was no public debate nor any citizen vote - multiculturalism, along with militant political correctness - were thrust upon and infected the populous of Great Britain like the Black Plague. Multiculturalism - rather than being based on mutual respect - is a parasitic ideology that encourages immigrants, to not assimilate and to aggressively insist the invaded Western countries be subservient to them and their cultures. In my opinion, multiculturalism demands 'reverse assimilation' or the inevitable loss of the indigenous culture as native populations are brainwashed, goaded, shamed and threatened to place all other cultures above their own. The following is primarily about Britain (and later more specifically England) but the same could be said about much of Europe - and likely soon to be in the USA.

Read more at the Opinionator blog by clicking here


Stimulus for whom?

Democratic Leadership Requires Stimulus Job Access for Illegal Aliens -- Secret Negotiations

House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid and the Obama White House were absolutely certain about one thing for the House/Senate negotiating committee on the Stimulus Bill: There was to be no special restriction to keep illegal aliens from getting new jobs created by the bill at a cost of $250,000 to $500,000 each.

US readers who want to know what their taxes are being spent on (and the rest of as a warning of what will happen here next) can read more at NumbersUSA by clicking here


Labour's cover-up on UK's foreign workforce

KEITH Vaz is livid. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has dared to release figures showing that the number of foreign workers in Britain has increased by 175,000 to 2.4 million in the past 12 months, while the number of British workers in employment fell by 234,000 - and that’s the last news that the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee wanted published on the very day that unemployment in Britain reached a 12 year high.

Read more on the BNP website by clicking here


US Slams crime in South Africa

The magnitude of crime in South Africa “should be considered a human rights violation”, according to the latest United States Department of State Human Rights Report.

Among the crimes it notes as human rights violations are a staggering 23 453 children raped, 1 075 murdered and 20 879 assaulted last year alone.

Read more at SA Sucks, by clicking here

Views of Detroit - December 2007

Click on the picture to see the video at YouTube
How long before Peckham, or even Croydon looks like this?

NB: Some may wish to turn down the volume

A Week in England

A series of events occurred this week which reveal with chilling clarity quite how far down the green brick road to Khalifah we have skipped, encouraged on by a motley assortment of straw-headed morons, moral cowards and a fair few wicked witches.

The first of these events was the decision by the Church of England synod to join the UK Stasi - that is to say the British Police - in banning its employees from membership of a legal and legitimate political party, the BNP. The fact that this received, scant, fourth to sixth news item, coverage in the media, and probably passed unnoticed by the majority of the population, demonstrates how irrelevant the once mighty Church of England has become, and how little most people now care about the waffling, bleating and bickering at what progressively resembles a gathering of dodgy piano teachers in frocks.

However, I care, I was brought up in the Church of England, christened and later confirmed into the church during my early teens, after having first gone into retreat in a beautiful old Abbey to prepare myself for what was, even then, as recently as the 1980's, considered a big deal.

My parents, whilst being an amusing and sophisticated couple, were quite religious people, who were committed members of the C of E. My father in particular was very active in the church, for at least a decade acting as Sidesman, every Sunday handing out prayer books to the congregation or taking the collection. A man who could talk at length on any subject, from politics to art culture and sport would spend hours speaking of scripture, philosophy and of the church, subjects which he dearly loved. Meanwhile, my mother would take her turn every six weeks or so, in preparing the flowers in the Church or delivering the parish news letter, and it was she who taught us the prayers of her own childhood in our infancy, which I then taught to my son in his.

Both, having left us recently, now lie buried in the shadow of their church, and are remembered with affection among the congregation to which they belonged, in a corner of old England which is still clinging on.

I may not be as involved in the church as my parents were, but I was married there, my son was christened in church, and throughout my life I have never gone more than a month without taking holy communion. The Church means a lot to me, it has been part of my life, and I have been more a part of it than the vast majority if my fellow Britons can now claim to be.

However, the church in which I was raised has rejected me, and when they did so they threw lies about me in my face. One of the befrocked old liars stated that the BNP, a party I have voted for, supported the "forcible eviction of people of different faiths and races". He lied, forcible repatriation is not BNP policy, and has not been for many years, if it ever was. Voluntary repatriation, funded by the taxpayer, certainly is, it is much cheaper in the long run than having them stay, but certainly no law abiding citizen, who is here legally would be thrown out by the BNP. What the BNP would do is halt the relentless tide of new immigrants, and it is that which the deceitful old cleric could not stomach.

However, as proof that they are united in their campaign of distortion, not one of his peers stood up and shouted "That is untrue you dishonest old git!" although they must surely all have known it was.

The Church may not (yet) have banned BNP supporters from its pews, but how can I, with honour, remain with a Church which has told me that what I believe in and what I am fighting for is a sin? My church has forced me to make a choice, I have done so, and I have not chosen them.

My faith will have to sustain me for a while. The Church of Rome has embarked upon its own campaign against thought and, as such, offers no alternative. However, something will emerge, as through history other churches have sprung up to offer a home to previous victims of other bigotry. As more eyes are opened, more people will move away from the shameful, cringing, irrelevance the established church has become.

We who have been rejected will move on, we will become stronger and we will still worship a Christian God, meanwhile the Church of England which has long only paid limited lip service to such an act, will continue its inevitable decline to something only suited, or relevant, to the mad black bigots of sub Saharan Africa.


A second thing which occurred this week was the announcement that Prince Harry would be sent for re-education, disingenuously referred to as "diversity awareness training", but which might be more accurately described as Multicultural brainwashing.

To our media, leaders and thought controllers, it matters not that, unlike many of his critics such as the deeply unattractive Keith Vaz or the unfunny comedian Stephen K Amos, Harry has spent time working tirelessly in Africa, to make life better for Africans, and can be seem affectionately cuddling black children in scores of photographs taken during his time in Africa. In a land where a man's actions are meaningless when compared to his utterance of an ideologically impure word, our controllers have judged young Harry guilty of the unspeakable heinous and unforgivably evil act of failing to be sufficiently politically correct when making a private video, or engaging in a private conversation.

As punishment for his breach of party rules, a grovelling apology not withstanding, Harry must suffer public humiliation, and submit to political retraining.

Is it just me, or do images from life within the Soviet sector of East Berlin circa 1961 spring to your minds as well?. Are we to assume that if Harry were to "re-offend" he will then be banished to some goulag north of Strathclyde?.

I guess it should not surprise us that so much in Britain today has overtones echoing, at the very least, the psychology of life within the GDR between 1950 and 1990. It is after all the beliefs and teachings of those same people who applauded the Soviet Empire, the drawing of the iron curtain, and the thought control imposed on half of Europe, for the better part of a century, which have brought us to where we are. For it is their prize winning students who are now running our lives and dictating our language.


Finally, in my account of this week I shall turn to the shameful decision to ban film maker and elected Dutch politician Geert Wilders from Britain, where he was planning to attend the screening of his documentary FITNA. By a single, and deeply contemptible act of capitulation Britain was exposed not only as a country no longer possessed of the spirit needed to face down intimidation, but a land where freedom of conscience is no longer safe.

That a country which once ruled half the surface of the earth has been reduced to a cringing submissive before the advance of a crusading Islam, came as no surprise to those of us who have watched and railed at our nations rapid surrender, but it must have come as a shock to those who had been looking the other way and imagined brave Albion retained some vestige of the courage it once had.

Much as been said about how, by banning Wilders, the United Kingdom has renounced any remaining pretence to a belief in free speech, and indeed, how can we deny that we have now abandoned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which clearly states: "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people".

I have already made my views clear on that, and frankly any honourable person will realise that what was done was an act of cowardice and a betrayal of free speech, even if their political agendas prevent them from admitting to it. Therefore, I shall let others comment on these aspects, and shall instead focus not on the cowardice and betrayal which was involved, but on the lies and deceit which was used in support of it.

First there is the official justification given for banning Mr Wilders, namely that his presence would be a threat to social harmony and likely to incite racial hatred. This implication being that Wilders and his supporters would act in a disharmonious manner, and commit acts of racial hatred, this certainly was what Lord Ahmed and his government sought to suggest. However, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It was rioting Muslim protesters, such as those Ahmed threatened us with, and the racial hatred which they would perpetrate against Wilders and his supporters which the government feared.

However, on account of the warped doctrine which now rules us, it was he, the potential victim, and not they , the potential aggressors, our government chose to ban! How exactly does such a policy differ from one which seeks to prevent rape by banning women from going out?!

Turning from the act to its supporters brings us to a second vaudevillian performance from the thankfully, inimitable Keith Vaz. Vaz is a man famous for his inability to appreciate his own ludicrousness, but he must have exceeded even himself in lack of personal awareness on Thursday night. Anyone watching BBC2's Newsnight must have surely sensed the smell of old lavender and the flutter of purple chiffon, while the ghost of Mary Whitehouse rode once more, as Vaz announced, without apparent irony that he "did not have to see FITNA to know it was racist".

The evening before and on a different channel , a toad like creature mascaraing as a reporter for More4 news accused Wilders of "selectively quoting" from the Qur'an. This was from a member of a profession which bases its entire output upon selective quotations in order to tell a story or to report on an issue. In effect the toad-like reporter was criticising Wilders for doing exactly the same thing as his employers pay him to do, except that there is probably more truth in FITNA than in the average week's Channel 4 news output.

Given that Geert Wilders does not belong to that select circle with "journalist" on their CV, who are apparently permitted by some by-law to quote selectively, did the More4 toad expect him to sit in front of the camera and read out the entire Qur'an for the sake of balance? That smacks of the agenda behind those attempting to impose that oppressive (some might say fascist) and most certainly misnamed "Fairness doctrine" on US talk radio, which is designed to achieve censorship through boredom, and hide facts under a mountain of irrelevance.

Clearly those sections of the Qur'an urging its followers to throw homosexuals off mountains, or not to pay interest on loans, have no direct relevance to why Muslims might decide to blow up trains and disco bars, or fly aeroplanes into tall buildings, and I am sure Wilders does not suggest they do. However, the bits which call upon followers of Islam to carry out acts of violence against non-believers just might have some relevance, and that is what Wilder's film is about.

Finally we get to the main lie about Geert Wilders and about FITNA, which is the allegation that the film distorts or misrepresents the Qur'an's teachings. This claim takes media misinformation to a new level, and needs to be exposed for what it is.

Wilder's film shows us words from the holy text, it then shows us those same words being used by preachers when calling for acts of violence and finally it shows us acts of violence committed by followers of that same holy text. What FITNA shows us is a sequence leading from cause, through application, to effect. If there is an act of dishonesty being perpetrated within the sequence it is by the preachers who use the words to incite the violence, not by Wilder in reporting them doing so.

You can argue, as some try to, that the words in themselves are innocent, but you can not argue that the words are being used to incite acts of terrible brutality, because they self evidently are, whether or not that is the intent of the author. By reporting that fact Wilders is distorting nothing and misrepresenting no-one.

We can choose to decide whether it is the words which are at fault or the people using them. What we should not be doing is pretending that these questions do not exist. But that is exactly what our media or our leaders want, they don't report the facts, because without them, we can't ask the questions, and that is why Wilders was banned.

Thus we passed through another week on this crowded, near bankrupt and Orwellian little island.