#1 London Olympics 2012 Thread

[andy]

Originally Posted by Bev

er, excuse me, how is it a "Linder line"?

I said after the first post-Euro elections that if the people didn't react to: the expenses scandals, the breaking grooming scandals, the immigration scandals, the NHS tourism scandals, the Olympic jobs going to Europe scandals, the wars for foreign oil and everything else that was going on at that time then they never would react.

Then when the BNP were forced by the Phillips mob to let in anyone who wanted to join, regardless of whether they even agreed with the basic ethos of the party, it was a clear indication that no matter where the goalposts were, they would move them whenever Nationalists looked like scoring.

I have said for years that the strategy of going light will not work and I have said it for different reasons than Alex Linder. My reasoning is that if you go lighter and lighter and then get elected, you either have to carry on according to your principles in which case do we really need another Tory party OR if you get in and then implement the policies we would like to see, the Monarch has one prerogative left and that is to dissolve Govt. in times of crisis. It is not hard at all to see King Defender Of All Faiths And My Son Did The Jewish Plate Smashing Thing At His Wedding Charles dissolving a nationalist government, is it?

That is why I don't believe that voting will solve anything. As for other countries getting nationalist governments - well, look what happens in muslim countries who try to govern themselves - in comes the UN and Israel to "save" them.

Im interested in your use of the term "foreign oil" any oil retailed anywhere in the world is purchased processed and drilled by multi national companies,even the Russian oil company is a junior partner of BP.This leftist derived idea that daddy warbucks is after oil is childish nonesense.Gaddafi or no Gaddafi Libyan oil is marketed in exactly the same way ditto Iran and venuzuala and anyone else for that matter.
Campaigning and marketing within the existing system is a necessity if only to create at least the impression in the eyes of the voters that an alternative does exist.Currently nationalist parties are undermined by the state via UKIP because they (British nationalists) are not regarded as serious politicians.The main reason they are not regarded as serious politicians is because of your post above and other legion of examples here and on other political forums across the internet.It is even worse should any potential voter meet the yobbos and poom poom pant wearers so beloved of this forums moderator.

Even if one examines the most serious power plays by "nationalists" in Europe sinnfien in Ireland and jugoslavia one sees that aside from paramilitaries in one case and actual armies in the second one sees that both acquired serious politicians to advocate for their respective causes.It should be noted particularly by British nationalists that the loyalist terror gangs who were under the direction of the UK state had no serious politicians and consequently have no role now.
No solution is offered by British nationalists except opposition to the Bnp.Yet the Bnp is the only player in the eyes of the electorate.Yet even they (The Bnp) are not regarded as serious by mainstream Britons.To be regarded as serious politicians the Bnp need to confront and question their members on what they see as their role in the attempt to convince the British electorate that they (Bnp) are serious politicians.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Jimmy McQuade

Reactionary tripe. What's the euphemism for a Limey Kwan?

So you prefer the actual opening ceremony as an accurate depiction of British history then, as opposed to this quite funny and relevant in more way than one satirical piece?

[SmokyMtn]

The closing ceremony sounds lovely, will they also serve tea and crumpets to the crowd?

[Bev]

Originally Posted by andy

Im interested in your use of the term "foreign oil" any oil retailed anywhere in the world is purchased processed and drilled by multi national companies,even the Russian oil company is a junior partner of BP.This leftist derived idea that daddy warbucks is after oil is childish nonesense.Gaddafi or no Gaddafi Libyan oil is marketed in exactly the same way ditto Iran and venuzuala and anyone else for that matter.
Campaigning and marketing within the existing system is a necessity if only to create at least the impression in the eyes of the voters that an alternative does exist.Currently nationalist parties are undermined by the state via UKIP because they (British nationalists) are not regarded as serious politicians.The main reason they are not regarded as serious politicians is because of your post above and other legion of examples here and on other political forums across the internet.

So we're alllll wrong and you are right. Please enlighten us, then.

Tell me, why do you think we've started these wars? I mean, we went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, right? Of course, according to you, we knew he wasn't there - he was in Pakistan. You said he was in Pakistan long before they got him and, credit where it's due, you were right. So why were we in Afghanistan when we knew he wasn't there?

Also, now we've "got him", the soldiers should be on their way home. Objective accomplished, and all that. Are they coming home? Why not?

We went into Iraq after the WMDs that we knew they didn't have. Why?

Then it changed to "get Saddam". We got him. Are the soldiers coming home? Why not?

Then we went after Gadaffi. We got him. Are the soldiers coming home? Why not?

Now we seem to be going after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Will the soldiers be on the next plane back after they've got him?

Actually, why are we going after him? It can't be about the supposed nuclear weapons or we'd be going after Israel and every other country that have them, right?

Also, can you tell me where the nuclear weapons of the Falkland Islands are located? 'Cos when they announced they had oil, Obama immediately announced that he backed Argentina on the subject of their ownership and thus started the row off again. It's not about the oil, according to you, so seeing as the official excuse is nuclear weapons, the islanders must have some, correct?

It is even worse should any potential voter meet the yobbos and poom poom pant wearers so beloved of this forums moderator.

Where have I ever advocated poompoom pants wearers or indeed yobbos?

[andy]

Bottom line
Afghanistan = Regime removal (Taliban) at that time taliban had for many years allowed training camps there and in pakistan to be run,supplied and operated from Afghanistan.It will be recalled that Bush did in fact offer them the chance to disarm and hand bin laden & Co over they told him where to go.When the Russians turned them down and allowed azerbajan to allow US forces access should have told them it was allover.To be fair to Bush and the west they did try subterfuge,you could recall but wont the mysterious earthquake that decimated tora bora and halmand which was self evidently seperate man made explosions but of course your conspiracy prone minds would not be able to make that little connection.After that it was go in and get him time.
Iraq = regime change,though an enemy of bin liner & Co the rise of the suicide bomber as demonstrated so clearly on 9/11 was what saddam had craved.Now he had the means he did not need the all important electronic nuclear grade capacitors or its associated trigger mechanisms he had the means to deliver his infernal device unto his enemies(You of course as a serious scholar of this issue are fully aware and recall the various attempts by Iraq and gaddafi to obtain same ).At that time his primary enemy and or desire was kuwait again.The 10,000 decadent scum who own kuwait could be taken out by a suicide bomber with the correct device.Now did he have a device ? Apparently not at least not one that needed automatic guidance and detonation.As to the weapons of mass destruction nonesense/pretext did he have one or not ? He claimed he did,unfortunately for him the west believed him.At least those that do the assessments came to the conclusion that the percentage call said he did.Blair and Bush had a dilemma to resolve.Absoloute truth would require them to say
"Look folks we have an unstable beserk wog who sees 9/11 as confirmation that he can now detonate a nuclear device manually.We don't know whether he has the capacity to acquire or already has uranium 235.We cannot find this out with complete 100% certainty.So we have two options we wait and see what develops or we go in now and take him down bomb or no bomb"
They could not say this not for the public who would support taking him down first or you and your ilk but for the position of truths sake they needed the ruse de guerre of the concealed weapons of mass destruction.All involved were expected to play their role some like your James Bond fantasist Doctor did not have the discipline and paid the price.
Your hero amerjihaddi is best mates of the israelis when it comes to oppressing and killing arabs.Like gaddafi with his israeli merceny led and trained armies still throwing it in in the congo your grasp on what constitutes real politique in the middle east is childish nonesense.To my certain knowledge over the last two years you could have visited your arab brothers for under £200 that you havent demonstrates that your weeping and wailing for them is a sham.An adopted position as bogus as Blairs position of truth.
For your and anyone else's information soldiers wage war that is their raison d'etre it is not sitting on their arse getting fat in catterick or prancing about like a knob at the olympics.

It is not about the oil it is about NAFTA and the markets of latin America,despite the argies hating them brazil et al make common cause with them (argies) as they are all adulterated blood.North America versus south and central America is living proof that race mixing does not work fullstop.Obammy,the argies and the UK have no say in whether that oil comes out of the ground or stays there.It will be down to Getty,Standard,Texaco BP or Shell.I know a man who has worked for BP for thirty years before the fall of communism he was allover Siberia,Mongolia,North Korea he was actually in a remote region of Argentina when the Falklands war started.Your daddy warbucks is pathetic and lazy.

[James Hawthorne]

It would be great if Alex was on twitter. Just imagine a Linderism -a-day I and many would sign up to follow him


@Alindervnn is that available ?

[Bev]

Originally Posted by Horseman

I'm talking about murderous allied bombing of German civilians. Same goes for the US. But the passion the UK shows today for destroying western civilization is beyond contempable.

And Israel and the US aren't playing their part in destroying civilisation?

[Bev]

Originally Posted by andy

Bottom line
Afghanistan = Regime removal (Taliban) at that time taliban had for many years allowed training camps there and in pakistan to be run,supplied and operated from Afghanistan.It will be recalled that Bush did in fact offer them the chance to disarm and hand bin laden & Co over they told him where to go.When the Russians turned them down and allowed azerbajan to allow US forces access should have told them it was allover.To be fair to Bush and the west they did try subterfuge,you could recall but wont the mysterious earthquake that decimated tora bora and halmand which was self evidently seperate man made explosions but of course your conspiracy prone minds would not be able to make that little connection.After that it was go in and get him time.
Iraq = regime change,though an enemy of bin liner & Co the rise of the suicide bomber as demonstrated so clearly on 9/11 was what saddam had craved.Now he had the means he did not need the all important electronic nuclear grade capacitors or its associated trigger mechanisms he had the means to deliver his infernal device unto his enemies(You of course as a serious scholar of this issue are fully aware and recall the various attempts by Iraq and gaddafi to obtain same ).At that time his primary enemy and or desire was kuwait again.The 10,000 decadent scum who own kuwait could be taken out by a suicide bomber with the correct device.Now did he have a device ? Apparently not at least not one that needed automatic guidance and detonation.As to the weapons of mass destruction nonesense/pretext did he have one or not ? He claimed he did,unfortunately for him the west believed him.At least those that do the assessments came to the conclusion that the percentage call said he did.Blair and Bush had a dilemma to resolve.Absoloute truth would require them to say
"Look folks we have an unstable beserk wog who sees 9/11 as confirmation that he can now detonate a nuclear device manually.We don't know whether he has the capacity to acquire or already has uranium 235.We cannot find this out with complete 100% certainty.So we have two options we wait and see what develops or we go in now and take him down bomb or no bomb"
They could not say this not for the public who would support taking him down first or you and your ilk but for the position of truths sake they needed the ruse de guerre of the concealed weapons of mass destruction

So if it is all about regime change and nothing else, why is it down to us to impose regime change? Why is it our business? Why do we have to pay in lives and money? We've already learned that the WMD excuse is bollocks so why are we expected to fall for it all over again? (and why are you doing?)

Never has there been a more clear case of the boy who cried WMD.

All involved were expected to play their role some like your James Bond fantasist Doctor did not have the discipline and paid the price.

Ah yes, the man who I believe was murdered because he refused to support a war for invented reasons.

Your hero amerjihaddi is best mates of the israelis when it comes to oppressing and killing arabs.Like gaddafi with his israeli merceny led and trained armies still throwing it in in the congo your grasp on what constitutes real politique in the middle east is childish nonesense.

First, he is not my hero.

Second, I don't care what he does. I really could not care less. As long as it does not hurt the West, I don't give a monkey's. Israel has a perfectly adequate defence force so if they want to start shit, let them go and start it. Don't involve the rest of the world.

In case you hadn't noticed, we're heading for a triple dip recession and seeing as you have announced that 19k is chump change, I assume you will be putting your money where your mouth is and donating equipment and arms to the cause instead of expecting the rest of us to pay it.

To my certain knowledge over the last two years you could have visited your arab brothers for under £200 that you havent demonstrates that your weeping and wailing for them is a sham.An adopted position as bogus as Blairs position of truth.

Still frantically spinning this line? As anyone can glean from reading my posts, I have no love for arabs and do not weep and wail for them. I would happily see every last one on the plane back to Whereveristan tomorrow. And leave them there to their own devices. If and when they cause a problem TO US, then we react, not keep taunting them and imposing sanctions on them for a feeble tried-and-failed WMD excuse.

For your and anyone else's information soldiers wage war

And if you ask any soldier what their ideology behind joining up was, it will be "to defend Britain". Not Israel.

[andy]

Originally Posted by Bev

So if it is all about regime change and nothing else, why is it down to us to impose regime change? Why is it our business? Why do we have to pay in lives and money? We've already learned that the WMD excuse is bollocks so why are we expected to fall for it all over again? (and why are you doing?)

Never has there been a more clear case of the boy who cried WMD.


Ah yes, the man who I believe was murdered because he refused to support a war for invented reasons.




First, he is not my hero.

Second, I don't care what he does. I really could not care less. As long as it does not hurt the West, I don't give a monkey's. Israel has a perfectly adequate defence force so if they want to start shit, let them go and start it. Don't involve the rest of the world.

In case you hadn't noticed, we're heading for a triple dip recession and seeing as you have announced that 19k is chump change, I assume you will be putting your money where your mouth is and donating equipment and arms to the cause instead of expecting the rest of us to pay it.




Still frantically spinning this line? As anyone can glean from reading my posts, I have no love for arabs and do not weep and wail for them. I would happily see every last one on the plane back to Whereveristan tomorrow. And leave them there to their own devices. If and when they cause a problem TO US, then we react, not keep taunting them and imposing sanctions on them for a feeble tried-and-failed WMD excuse.



And if you ask any soldier what their ideology behind joining up was, it will be "to defend Britain". Not Israel.

The planet is ours sending them away on a plane "somewhere" is no solution.In the real world these blighters have to be removed permanently.Putting them on a plane is no better than moving to another town when they move in.Of course in the turnip wastelands such concerns for the planet are limited to the end of the lane the rest of us have to think in generations and globally.
According to "the movement" the double dip recession is supposed to be the saving grace for them and their dead ideology.In the real world if economic difficulties were the magic bullet Mosley would have got the "call" in 1970.All this negativity gets no one anywhere if you had any sense you would support the war thus removing a whole swathe of ballocks that does not improve the lot of the race one iota.The race cannot be saved by pop music and wishful thinking you need political power you will not get it by negative miserable mung bean eating weeping and wailing over the groomers and their buddies

[Bev]

Originally Posted by andy

The planet is ours sending them away on a plane "somewhere" is no solution.In the real world these blighters have to be removed permanently.Putting them on a plane is no better than moving to another town when they move in.Of course in the turnip wastelands such concerns for the planet are limited to the end of the lane the rest of us have to think in generations and globally.
According to "the movement" the double dip recession is supposed to be the saving grace for them and their dead ideology.In the real world if economic difficulties were the magic bullet Mosley would have got the "call" in 1970.All this negativity gets no one anywhere if you had any sense you would support the war thus removing a whole swathe of ballocks that does not improve the lot of the race one iota.The race cannot be saved by pop music and wishful thinking you need political power you will not get it by negative miserable mung bean eating weeping and wailing over the groomers and their buddies

And you won't win political power by lying about me eating mung beans or supporting paedophiles but it's never stopped you.


OK - answer this. There is a conflict and it's muslim vs jew. The whole world knows this. They admit it. It's a fact. You might not, but the rest of the normal people know this. It is also a fact that neither of them are or can be our true, blood-brother allies. Correct?

There are three choices:

Support Israel.

Support whichever muslim country is getting it.

Take the view that it's none of our damn business and we should let them blow each other up if that's want they want to do WITHOUT our support, encouragement or shit-stirring. (my preferred option)


So why do you pick one side over the other? What makes you decide that you want to support Israel over Whereveristan?

[andy]

Originally Posted by Bev

And you won't win political power by lying about me eating mung beans or supporting paedophiles but it's never stopped you.


OK - answer this. There is a conflict and it's muslim vs jew. The whole world knows this. They admit it. It's a fact. You might not, but the rest of the normal people know this. It is also a fact that neither of them are or can be our true, blood-brother allies. Correct?

There are three choices:

Support Israel.

Support whichever muslim country is getting it.

Take the view that it's none of our damn business and we should let them blow each other up if that's want they want to do WITHOUT our support, encouragement or shit-stirring. (my preferred option)


So why do you pick one side over the other? What makes you decide that you want to support Israel over Whereveristan?

I do not support israel and the jews and never have claimed to nor do i support the coolies.Unlike British nationalists I do not confuse the biological struggle for existence with obtaining political power in the UK.In an ideal world one would identical to the other.However it is not an ideal world so instead of identical it is necessary to have them complement each other.
While one cannot choose ones friends one can certainly choose ones enemies and in political terms choose them very carefully.
Will anyone vote for the eisatzgruppen option ? possibly but not in sufficient numbers in this era of universal sufferage.Therefore its necessary to advocate a different policy.As current for example immigration,British jobs for British workers,offshore tax avoidance,these are all policies that the Bnp could promote that the British public are interested in.As in the case of Le Pen it is necessary to apply practicle policies that can be held against the mainstream policies.Running around the streets dressed for the tumbrill solves nothing advances nothing and plays into the states hands.
Paedophiles ? What about your free speech martyr he has a legally strange view of the age of consent does'nt he ? Or am I to suppose you were still in the thrall of labour party when he issued his 2003 cd.
By all means embrace your babus and bantus but racial patriotism it is not and your constant twisting and turning to template it to the cause of saving the race is pathetic and shameful.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by andy

I do not support israel and the jews and never have claimed to nor do i support the coolies.Unlike British nationalists I do not confuse the biological struggle for existence with obtaining political power in the UK.In an ideal world one would identical to the other.However it is not an ideal world so instead of identical it is necessary to have them complement each other.

A fair comment but the impression you give is very different. You constantly give off the impression that you support the war - Israel's war - on arab nations when the British position from a financial and moral point of view should be to stay out of it.

While one cannot choose ones friends one can certainly choose ones enemies and in political terms choose them very carefully.
Will anyone vote for the eisatzgruppen option ? possibly but not in sufficient numbers in this era of universal sufferage.Therefore its necessary to advocate a different policy.As current for example immigration,British jobs for British workers,offshore tax avoidance,these are all policies that the Bnp could promote that the British public are interested in

.

British jobs for British workers - yes, now that Call me Dave has said it, it appears they're not interested in claiming this is an illegal statement any more so that's a good issue.

Of course, thousands of British workers are employed at British expense on that little job for Israel....

As in the case of Le Pen it is necessary to apply practicle policies that can be held against the mainstream policies.Running around the streets dressed for the tumbrill solves nothing advances nothing and plays into the states hands.

I don't disagree and have never advocated dressing like Wurzel but neither will I have a go at someone who doesn't want the suit and tie route.

Problem is, when we get handed an issue on a plate there are other nationalists arguing against that position and stating we shouldn't mention it. So what the eff do we mention? If you want people to listen, you've got to grab their interest. Until we can agree what we should be on about, we're just moving backwards.

Paedophiles ? What about your free speech martyr he has a legally strange view of the age of consent does'nt he ? Or am I to suppose you were still in the thrall of labour party when he issued his 2003 cd.

Which free speech martyr would that be? I can't comment specifically without knowing who you're on about but in general, I like free speech and would rather defend all free speech than ban free speech on the grounds I don't like what someone said. Far easier and a less dangerous road to refute opposing viewpoints than to ban it, which leads me onto....

By all means embrace your babus and bantus but racial patriotism it is not and your constant twisting and turning to template it to the cause of saving the race is pathetic and shameful.

Still not found any links where I <see above>? That's surprising. You state it with such conviction and regulairty that I felt sure you would have found even a spurious scrap to back it up with.

[andy]

You have openly admitted being in the thrall of the labour party who is to say you have not been "groomed" by the joes ? I cite your posts particularly the one where the druze boots the babu child as clear cut unassailable evidence that you are in league with the babus

[Bev]

Originally Posted by andy

You have openly admitted being in the thrall of the labour party

One (1) vote years ago hardly equates "thrall".

who is to say you have not been "groomed" by the joes ?

Me.

I cite your posts particularly the one where the druze boots the babu child as clear cut unassailable evidence that you are in league with the babus

I'm sorry, I don't even understand this as being English. Could you find a link?

[andy]

Originally Posted by Bev

I'm sorry, I don't even understand this as being English. Could you find a link?

He ye are in all your fawning glory weeping for the babus

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=143320

[Bev]

Originally Posted by andy

He ye are in all your fawning glory weeping for the babus

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=143320

I see, so a video link with absolutely zero contextual input of my own is described as "fawning glory weeping for the babus", is it?

I'm afraid I can't be responsible for whatever goes on inside your head.

[Alex Linder]

London’s Marxist Multicultural Olympics

Following up his earlier post, British Freedom’s Chairman examines the ideology behind the Olympics’ opening ceremony.

by Paul Weston

I really don’t want to sound like a summertime Scrooge, but am I alone in thinking the London Olympics’ opening ceremony was an overtly Marxist, puerile, adolescent, racist and deeply shameful representation of Great Britain? For all the boasts of “inclusivity” and “diversity” I felt deeply excluded as a non-liberal, non-leftist, native Briton.

As it happens, I am not quite alone. Eighty-five percent of the British population thought it was wonderful, whilst only fifteen percent thought it essentially an orgiastic celebration of politically correct, Big State Socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-white, anti-culture, anti-monarchy, dumbed down, mawkish left-wing propaganda.

Only fifteen percent were capable of seeing such obvious political reality! This is a remarkable testament to what decades of subtle liberal/ left propaganda can achieve — indeed has achieved. Whilst the battles continue, the culture war appears over. The left has won, which is hardly surprising when one considers the stranglehold they have over television output and education.

The London Olympics were politicised from the outset, and the overriding ideology was that of multiculturalism — whether you liked it or not. We even have the Muslim Brotherhood sympathiser Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari sitting on the board of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) — which goes some way toward explaining LOCOG’s following statement:

“Diversity was a key reason why London, one of the most multicultural cities in the world, was chosen to host the Games in the bidding process.”

The liberal/ left are obsessed with multiculturalism, which they promote with a hysterical fervour. In post-Christian Britain it is now the new religion and all dissenters are heretics. But multiculturalism has many drawbacks, all of which go unquestioned even when truly terrible events reveal multiculturalism to be an unmitigated disaster.

London won the Olympics on the 6th July 2005, and won it because of its commitment to multiculturalism. Less than twenty-four hours later our multicultural capital city fell victim to monocultural Islam, four followers of which self-detonated on our transport systems, taking with them fifty-two innocent lives and maiming seven-hundred-and-seventy.

If ever there was an argument against multiculturalism, this was it. But instead of questions there came an ever-further commitment to multiculturalism, culminating eventually in a sporting event involving rapier anti-aircraft missiles, HMS Ocean’s attack helicopters, Tornado fighter-bombers and thousands of soldiers. In order to stage an athletics event committed to the wonders of multiculturalism we have to deploy a good chunk of our military to defend it from the inevitable consequences of multiculturalism.

Everything, absolutely everything about the London Olympic Games revolves around multiculturalism. LOCOG put it thus:

“We aim to make diversity and inclusion a key differentiator of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It’s not simply about recruiting a diverse workforce, it’s about the suppliers, competitors, officials and spectators — in fact, everyone connected with the Games, from the security guards to the bus drivers.”

We are all aware of the scandal caused by the security firm G4S who failed to recruit enough people to protect the games. Thankfully the army was called in to do their job for them, but it does raise the question as to why they failed on such a massive scale. Was it because they sought to mainly employ ethnic minorities as per their multi-culti commitment? If this is the case will there be an investigation? I doubt it. No matter the catastrophe, Thou Shalt Not Question The Multi-Cult.

There has also been a scandal about the empty seats. Here is LOCOG again on their ticketing ethos:

“Ticketing: Diversity and inclusion are an integral part of the London2012 ticketing programme, allowing as many people as possible to experience the Games.”

Does this explain the empty seats? Did LOCOG actually act on their words and deliberately hold back tickets from applicants with the wrong ethnic/ religious background? Please, Lord: tell me this is not really happening in Britain!

Even the official Logo was inspired by multiculturalism in the form of black graffiti art with “edginess” and “youth-appeal” being the main requirements. Tony Blair, who can always be relied on to get it wrong, maintained the logo would leave people “inspired to make a positive change in their life”. How so, Tony? At best it is looks like multi-cult graffiti, second from worst the Nazi SS symbol and at its absolute worst, the symbolic rape of London (the rapist is the one on the right…). All yours for a mere design cost of four hundred thousand pounds!

Given the multi-culti background (all Olympic venue public conveniences have been built facing away from Mecca) and warped socialist thinking underpinning the ethos of the games, the opening ceremony could only logically be an overt manifestation of all things politically left. And straight from the off, so it proved to be.

Multicultural propaganda in the Olympic opening ceremony

There were no ethnic minorities in agrarian or Industrial Revolution Britain, yet there were in Danny Boyle’s Marxist rewriting of our history. Why? Why were the girls around the maypole predominately black? Why was there such an over-representation of non-whites? Why did the cameras always zoom in on lone non-whites in the rare moments they were outnumbered by whites?

One of the evolving themes Boyle used — to a backdrop of populist music — was that of a typical family in the eyes of a totalitarian multiculturalist. A white woman is partnered by a black man and produces two mixed-race girls, one of whom embarks on a love affair with a black man. Carried out to its logical conclusion their offspring, should they have them, will then be only twenty-five percent white.

Why was this done? What is the subliminal message we are supposed to absorb here other than Boyle and his Marxist assistant directors thinking it a good thing if all traces of whiteness were to be bred out of Britain?

We have heard of this near-genocidal ideology before. Well known socialist Andrew Marr of the BBC stated the following in a Guardian article about breeding out the indigenous people of Britain:

“What then can be done? (Apart, of course, from widespread and vigorous miscegenation, which is the best answer, but perhaps tricky to arrange as public policy.) …this means more than education in other religions it means a form of political education… the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress… stamp hard on certain ‘natural’ beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off… a new Race Relations Act will impose the will of the state on millions of other lives too.”

I find this terrifying and deeply sinister. One does not need be a xenophobic bigot to have the temerity to notice this sort of anti-white racism. Indeed, I would suggest the true racism here, the genuine racism, is coming from the hard-left as personified by the likes of Danny Boyle and Andrew Marr.

Boyle was fully aware he was historically misrepresenting our racial history, but he did it in such a way that those who recognised his virulent anti-white racism would be too afraid to raise the issue publicly. And it has worked. Not one mainstream media outlet has mentioned this. Stephen Glover (alone) picked up on the Marxist propaganda but skirted around the obvious racial angle. Very wise too, if Mr Glover wishes to continue in his employment. What a dreadful indictment of totalitarian multiculturalism in action.

Boyle also included the rapper Dizzee Rascal as a representative of modern, multicultural Britain. Why? Mr D Rascal is hardly an advert for racial cohesion let alone decency, kindness or morality. The following lyrics come from his “Sirens” video.

We was on the robbing street, I forgot to mention Clayton
Was dis bredder rollin’ wit us, he was scared and it was blatant
He was panned back to the story
Aido spotted a man straight ahead of us in the distance
With his wifey holdin’ hands, so we followed ‘em
Into this little alleyway into the flats
And when we thought the time was perfect
We crept up and we attacked, I took the first swing
Unexpected causin’ panic, we was ruthless
Causin’ agony it was public it was tragic
Me and Aido lost the plot, acting like we were from hell
Put his bredder to the floor, moved his wifey up as well

In the video itself, the young Rascal is hunted down by police represented rather perversely by white fox-hunters (white and bourgeois kills two birds with one socialist stone) who corner and symbolically kill him before blooding a sexually ecstatic looking girl.

Why was such a man with a clear anti-white agenda and a man who glorifies in criminal violence allowed anywhere near the opening ceremony? There is a simple reason. This racist anti-white bile came from the highly politicised assistant director to Boyle, Ms Catherine Ugwu, author of Let’s Get It On: The Politics of Black Performance and Enigmas of Race, Difference and Desire. Her work is quoted on reading lists centred on Marxism and Black Liberation Theology.

The MV Empire Windrush also got a mention but with no apparent historical rewriting this time — all those disembarking were non-white. But this was not actually the case. Fifteen percent of the immigrants were refugee Polish women who had fled Nazi occupied Germany and were subsequently picked up by the Windrush in Mexico. The racists Boyle and Ugwu chose to ignore this reality, based purely on the Poles’ skin colour being the wrong skin colour.

As we know, the Olympic Committee refused to recognise the fortieth anniversary of the murder of Israeli athletes by the Islamic terror group Black September at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation exerted some pressure, but no doubt our home-grown LOCOG non-executive, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, played his part as well.

And why was Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence, one of the Olympic flag bearers? There are many mothers, both black and white who have had their sons murdered by disgusting racists, but the inclusion of Doreen Lawrence was an overt statement of black racial politics which had no place in what should have been an impartial Olympic ceremony.

There have been many comments in online newspaper articles by British ethnic minorities driven to fury by Boyle’s anti-white racism, along with many foreigners abroad who just registered total bemusement. I don’t blame them. The anti-white ideology he promoted really was disgusting to all those who realised the underlying message he was so assiduously promoting. Is it now so politically incorrect to be an indigenous Brit in Britain that we need to be airbrushed out of existence?

Marxist propaganda in the opening ceremony

It opened with Britain’s agrarian peasantry being “violently uprooted” from their happy lives spent amongst their sheep and geese before being forced into the Dante-esque factories of the Industrial Revolution, where they performed oppressed proletarian toil under the eyes of capering, smug, stovepipe-hatted capitalists.

This is the view of industrialisation provided by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, in which they lamented the effects of industrialisation and free trade, and wrote of the destruction of “feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations” that had supposedly existed in the countryside.

It was all rather odd. In fact it was reminiscent of Soviet propaganda films, with one glaring difference — Soviet workers in steel factories were viewed as a sign of workers’ power rather than worker exploitation. Only in the non-Sovietised world are workers portrayed as the oppressed. After all, if you wish to utilise them as revolutionary pawns it would hardly be productive to make them think they were content, would it?

Out of the sparks and faux molten metal came an interesting and ever-moving design of white hot, electronic liquid steel which eventually combined to form the Olympic rings. Meanwhile, dancers with lights formed a star of eerily Soviet design which slowly morphed into the emblem of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, an organisation partially financed in the old days by Soviet Moscow.

And on and on it leftishly went. We progressed with great speed up to the present day, pausing only to note the more obvious examples of Marxist class struggle in the Suffragettes, the Trades Union movement, the Jarrow Marchers and last but not least an absurdly reverential paean to the greatest symbol of socialism possessed by Britain — the National Health Service.

All of the above have made a truly positive contribution to modern day Britain, but why were they the only examples deemed worthy of attention? Why was the formation of modern Britain viewed only through a Marxist prism? Where were the references to Common Law, William Wilberforce, The Pilgrim Fathers, Magna Carta (one of the mainstays of our liberty) Catholicism and Protestantism (as Stephen Glover notes, Marxists don’t like God) great British inventions that formed our modern world, or indeed, for good or bad, the British Empire?

As for Boyle’s take on our culture, it appears to revolve around the anarchist Sex Pistols (played in front of an aged and dignified Queen), Hip-Hop and Rap and our ability to write children’s stories. The token appearance of non-populist culture was represented by Sir Simon Rattle and the London Symphony Orchestra, but they seemed to be utilised more as a medium for Mr Bean to amuse us rather than a genuine appreciation of their beautiful music.

Where were the Welsh Choirs, the Irish dancers or the Scottish Bagpipers? And why were we subjected to an ex-Beatle whose waning singing ability was milked for far too long? We have any number of classically trained singers in Britain, are they just too elitist for Boyle and the BBC?

I wonder what Mr Boyle’s views on our monarch are? They certainly don’t appear to be well-intentioned. There was no mention of her long service to this country, just an admittedly amusing but ultimately disrespectful stunt pretending she was parachuting into the stadium. It is hardly surprising she was so grumpy. No doubt the Sex Pistols’ rendition of “God Save the Queen” offended her. It should have done, because that was always Johnny Rotten’s anarchist intention, as Mr Boyle knows only too well.

All in all, the entire thing was a disgrace. If even the BBC and The New York Times mentioned the political bias, then that just shows how bad it was. Labour party members have already claimed it as a “socialist triumph” which is a terrible thing to say about what should have been a politically impartial ceremony.

But of course it was not politically impartial. Danny Boyle is a man of well known leftist-views. The scriptwriter and two out of his four assistant directors were keen admirers of Communism long after the genocide, Gulags, totalitarianism and terror had been revealed to the Western world.

These people are genuinely evil. Although the ceremony was a truly awe-inspiring event, the subtle (or not so subtle to the politically aware) socialist ideology was ever present. Boyle and his Communist-sympathising assistant directors are deadly serious about their politics, something which seems lost on most people. One of them is a woman who specialises in racial politics, the scriptwriter cut his teeth writing for Living Marxism (previously known as The Journal of the British Revolutionary Communist Party), and the theatrical director learned his politics whilst a member of the Socialist Workers’ Party.

Prime Minister David Cameron thought the whole thing was “brilliant”. The man is either a closet Marxist or criminally ignorant of all things Marxist. No doubt many readers of this article will disagree with its content, but I would ask you to do only one thing before rubbishing it, which is simply to watch the whole ceremony again with a newly aware and critical eye.

This is serious. If we have become so brainwashed we can longer see overt propaganda for what it is, then Britain is finished. The divisive ideologies of multiculturalism and mass immigration have already caused great damage to our community, whilst socialism has already economically bankrupted us. Britain could collapse into genuine poverty and tribal warfare over the coming decades. It can still be saved if we act quickly, but we must first become politically aware of the leftist policies designed to fracture our country, no matter how disingenuously they are presented to us.

http://britishfreedom.org/londons-ma...al-olympics-2/

[andy]

Originally Posted by Bev

I see, so a video link with absolutely zero contextual input of my own is described as "fawning glory weeping for the babus", is it?

I'm afraid I can't be responsible for whatever goes on inside your head.

Your use of the term "Raw footage" gives you away.Any dispassionate evaluation of the film by anyone concerned with the race would be "So what ? coloureds treating coloureds like shit,whats news about that ?".Of course if one is insecure and even ashamed of taking a stand for the race then one might like to dress ones desire to protect the race as moral concern for the aliens.Shameful and disgusting to all true racial patriots taking a stand for the race.Any respectable Aryan would be happy to see the druze mercenaries kill every last one of the arabs in hebron,thus removing aliens that threaten the gene pool.

[Bev]

Originally Posted by andy

Your use of the term "Raw footage" gives you away.Any dispassionate evaluation of the film by anyone concerned with the race would be "So what ? coloureds treating coloureds like shit,whats news about that ?".Of course if one is insecure and even ashamed of taking a stand for the race then one might like to dress ones desire to protect the race as moral concern for the aliens.Shameful and disgusting to all true racial patriots taking a stand for the race.Any respectable Aryan would be happy to see the druze mercenaries kill every last one of the arabs in hebron,thus removing aliens that threaten the gene pool.

I see, so I copy and paste a youtube title exactly as it is given, including the failure to capitalise Palestinian, and you suspect it is somehow an indication of my "fawning glory weeping for the babus", do you?

You did notice the youtube title, didn't you? You don't think I gave it the title "raw footage"?

I posted the video because it's useful propaganda to show to those who claim "the israelis/jews/hebrons/police would never do that".

Once again, I couldn't care less if they kill each other. My view is the British and other Western forces should be kept out of it.

[Bev]

Fair article, shame about the writer/party.

Pity about this bit:

second from worst the Nazi SS symbol

(in reference to the logo)

Funny - to the rest of the world, it looks like the word "zion". Wonder why he hasn't noticed that?


Here's the writer signing a holocaust memorial register.



This is claimed to be the entry he offered:



source: http://tundratabloids.com/2010/12/th...ad-vashem.html



Here's a video of the ex-UKIP writer calling bnp members "racists and nazis". (I think this is the one - it won't load for me at the minute.)

http://barenakedislam.com/2012/04/16...freedom-party/




The party policy on immigration:

It’s About Space Not Race

Britain has been subjected to mass immigration for several decades and our small island can take no more. It’s about space not race and it’s time to shut the door and stop further immigration.

Culture Not Colour

We believe that it is the obligation of all naturalised migrants to fit in with our way of life and to respect our customs. For our society to be cohesive it is essential that all citizens are integrated fully and that they respect the British way of life. We bear no ill will to the settled minorities who have adopted our culture but this integration is a duty not a choice.

Most immigrants who originally came to the United Kingdom, from the former British Commonwealth in particular, came to Britain specifically because of our British culture and because they wanted to live in a country and culture that they loved. They also now have to live in a Britain where the indigenous British folk, and fully integrated British citizens like themselves, are becoming strangers due to unrestricted mass immigration.

Asylum Seekers

British Freedom would refuse asylum in Britain to those who have passed through safe countries to get here. Britain would no longer accept such people as genuine. The UN charter is quite clear about this in that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country passed and not in the one that pays the most generous benefits.

Foreign Criminals

Rather than releasing our own criminals early to re-offend we would deport the foreign born criminals currently taking up space in our jails.

It is not Britain’s job to pay for their upkeep when prison places are in short supply.

Putting British Citizens First

We would end the scandal of cheap labour being imported from overseas depriving British workers of jobs and put our people first.

http://britishfreedom.org/about/manifesto/immigration/

Also worth noting is the fact that this is the party that was trumpeting about forming an alliance with the EDL.