Wednesday, 17 December 2008

Pensioner beheaded. More Labour Multicultural madness.

A pensioner was beheaded on his own doorstep apparently after a disagreement over noise. Patrick McGee, 63, was ambushed in his front garden as he returned home from a meeting.

The attacker cut off his head, then picked it up and dumped it in a nearby wheelie bin.The alarm was raised at around 9.20pm on Monday night after police were called and officers found the victim's decapitated head in a wheelie bin. A man was arrested at the scene.


The Daily Mail website initially reported that a 31-year old man “thought to be of Filipino origin” had been arrested in connection with the murder, but the Daily Mail’s report was later censored to remove any reference to the ethnic origin of the alleged assailant. The truth will no doubt emerge in due course.

To read article click on Orange headline above.


  1. "The concept of envy -- the hatred of the superior -- has dropped out of our moral vocabulary ... The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn't occur to us, because it's not a nice idea. ... Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities." --Joseph Sobran (Sobran's -- April 1997)

    It is the function of the Attorney General to advise governments and government departments (see Whitaker's Almanac). Succeeding Attorneys General have failed to advise governments of the implications of the contents of Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. This is a dereliction of duty. Another attempt to establish an Imperium in Imperio by aliens, a felony of Praemunire, was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 15th July 1990. It was stated that the Muslim leader Kalim Siddiqui called for a special relationship between Muslims here and the government of Iran. He launched a manifesto to politicize Britain's Muslim community which aimed to establish an Islamic parliament, to persuade Muslims to discriminate in favour of other Muslims, to place the names of all Muslims in Britain on a computer database and to raise five million pounds to establish a Muslim parliament in Britain. To do this is to commit the felony of Praemunire punishable with death by hanging. The culprits are those subjects of the Crown who have allowed this situation to arise. It is up to the government to give all Muslims their marching orders out of this country or incur the penalties laid down for Praemunire, allowing aliens to establish an Imperium in Imperio.

    The so-called Race Relations Acts are conspiracies to use acts of parliament to enforce the racial integration of subjects of the Crown with Negroes and Asiatics especially brought here for the purpose. They are acts of racial hatred against us by prohibited immigrants. The Race Relations Act of 1965 was introduced to parliament by the Russian Jew Frank Soskice, purported Labour Attorney General. Further Race Relations Acts were devised by the Board of Jewish Deputies. The Jewish Chronicle stated that amendments must be made to the Race Relations Act since the 1965 Race Relations Act was not working the way they wanted it to. The 1976 Race Relations Act was passed in the Commons by default, with only 132 of the 635 members present; 124 Labour and Liberal traitors voted for the bill with eight Tories against.

    To terrorize the masses it was required to establish a network of so-called human rights agencies, the 'Race Relations Industry.' Ivor Benson writes that:

    ‘the task was to penalize the instinctive responses of the local resident population in the presence of unassimilable neighbours who have been forced upon them... Hereto there are rich pickings for decadent, deracinated elements who help to impose the tyranny, like human dregs who rule the roost and spend millions of the tax-payers' money in Britain's innumerable inner-city ghettoes. Nor should we omit to mention the zealous active connivance of politicians and bureaucrats whose greed for personal advancement is rationalized with a spurious humanistic ideology.‘
    There are three phases in this Jewish imposition of race mixing:

    Phase One: Unassimilable population elements are introduced into all-White communities of the West as legitimate immigrants, supposedly because their labour was needed.

    Phase Two: Public opposition is circumvented by introducing them as refugees.

    Phase Three: Which came into effect right from the start, is a massive and sustained campaign of mental terrorism aimed at suppressing every form of popular dissent and opposition. The campaign of terrorism has taken two forms, one aimed at the leadership and the other at the masses. Any political leader who dares to give voice to what his own people think and feel is at once made the target by the Jews by an orchestrated campaign of vilification with Jewish-devised swear words "Nazi," "Fascist," "racialist," "racist" while support in money and publicity is diverted to political rivals and opponents. The masses are terrorized by Jewish-led Socialist Workers Party mobs who are quite prepared to use violence when necessary.

  4. The massive immigration of Islamics and other coloured peoples is illegal and the British people, subjects of the Crown, were never consulted about whether they wanted their country to become a multi-racial, multi-cultural society. Mrs Margaret Thatcher deceived the nation in 1979 when she declared that Britain was becoming swamped with immigrants, using the fears of the subjects of the Crown to gain votes and giving the impression that she would stem the flow. Having got her party into government she did nothing about it, only allowed vast numbers more into the country. Multi-racialism and multi-culturalism has been illegally and unconstitutionally imposed on this nation and the Jewish power controlling the government will ensure that the nation will never be consulted. THIS IS HIGH TREASON.

    The so-called Public Order Act of 1986 is a conspiracy to use an act of parliament to enable investigators to enter the homes of subjects of the Crown to gain evidence to initiate action in the law courts against those offending against the purported Race Relations Act. This Act was placed before parliament by the purported Conservative Home Secretary, the prohibited Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, Leon Brittanisky, also known as Leon Brittan, assisted by his cousin, another Lithuanian Jew, Malcolm Rivkind, also know as Malcolm Rifkind. This bill was primarily to prevent subjects of the Crown from discussing and revealing the Jewish take-over of our nation

  6. Jewish take-over of our nation.

    The so-called Nationality Act is a conspiracy to use an act of parliament to take away our rights as subjects of the Crown. This act makes the place of birth rather than the genetic and racial identity of the individual the criteria for nationality. Britons from Australia and Canada visiting the continent from Britain were surprised on their return to be presented with documents to sign marked "Alien" while Pakistanis and other Asians passed through with British passports as British nationals.

    This Act purports to replace ancestry, that for generations has been the practical definition of the British subject, by the definition of an accidental place of birth. Thus it seeks to encourage the development of a nation of half-breeds and to swamp and destroy the British people and their customs.

    In The Common Law of England, 198. N2, Sir Edward Coke states:

    ‘Persons born beyond the seas, if their fathers or paternal grandfathers were natural born subjects, are likewise made so, though with an exception of some unfavourable persons.... Liegeus is ever taken for a natural born subject... Liegeance, a liegando, being the highest and greatest obligation of duty and obedience that can be. Liegance is the true and faithful obedience of a liegman or subject to his liege lord or sovereign. Alliegeance is born of faith: alliegeance is the essential law.’
    Until William Whitelaw's Nationality Act we have been subjects of the Crown and under the protection of the Crown. This Act purports to deprive us of this and make us merely British citizens. This Act together with the European Communities Act and the Treaty of Rome aims at destroying the British Monarchy as soon as possible. It is High Treason.

    By signing the United Nations Charter in 1946 and passing an act before parliament so-called British politicians were obliged to carry out the terms of the Charter. This entails the mixing of the races of the world to form a degraded population and the eradication of the British and other White races. These the planners regard, together with Christianity, as the main obstacles to the establishment of a totalitarian one-world government.

    The United Nations Charter was drafted by Alger Hiss, a convicted communist and Soviet agent together with Andrei Gromyko, a senior Soviet official. Alger Hiss occupied the directional chair at the organizational conference of the United Nations. These people are aiming at genocide of the White race.

    According to this Nationality Act the Queen is no longer our Queen and we are no longer her subjects. If we are no longer the subjects of the Crown this Act deprives us of the protection of the Crown, for according to the patent rolls of the Statute of Northampton 1328 it is the duty of the Queen to protect her subjects despite parliament; thus we are protected from a possible anti-White anti-British parliament. This Act purports to deprive the Queen of her titles, lands and prerogatives. We no longer go to war for the Crown but for parliament. This is High Treason.

    A letter from the Home Secretary dated 31st May 1988, which appeared in the Independent newspaper on Monday 17th June 1988, made it plain that Her Majesty the Queen is prepared to place at the disposal of parliament all her remaining prerogatives: the power to make war or peace, to ratify treaties, to grant honours; the list is formidable embracing just about all those powers which remained to the monarch after the glorious revolution of 1688. The signature at the bottom of the letter is that of Douglas Hurd. The person who drew the Home Secretary into weighty correspondence is the cryptic left-winger, Tony Benn. Benn laid before parliament his Crown Prerogatives Bill to deprive the Crown of all the remainder of her prerogatives.

    The European Communities Act of 1972 and the Treaty of Rome aims at destroying the British monarchy as soon as possible.

    This is High Treason the penalty for which is death by hanging and this is still on the statute books. Likewise any subject of the Crown who knows that High Treason is being carried on and fails to report it is guilty of Misprision of High Treason, the penalty may be death: to deprive the Queen of her Crown or any of her dominions.

    Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome is irreconcilable with the Oath of Allegiance. There is an absolute constitutional case that there is no statute authority for the executive acts that have bound the UK to the EEC, nor for the British Nationality Act. Both are contrary to the interests of the Crown and people.

    The High Court of Great Britain disallowed an Act which was passed by our House of Commons and House of Lords and received the Royal Assent. This Act was the Shipping Act of 1988. The High Court referred the case to the European Court. This was the first case in the history of parliament that an Act passed by both houses of parliament with the Royal Assent and the regulations under it have been set aside. A British Court has interfered with an act of parliament in the interests of a foreign court. This is High Treason.

    We can claim that the Queen carry out her coronation oath and protect us from alien and foreign-made laws.

    We are legally not in the Common Market nor are we constitutionally a multi-racial multi-cultural society. Traitor Edward Heath carried out the plans of international Jewish financiers and multinational companies, the Imperial Institute for International Affairs and the Rothschilds to deceive the Queen in her grants. Many of us have taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown, her heirs and successors and demand protection from foreign-made laws made by aliens in Europe.

    The Oath of Allegiance has been taken by members of parliament, Queen's Councillors, members of the Judiciary, clergy of the Church of England and members of the executive yet many of them are working for our enemies, for a slave-state full of debt which our children will inherit. A charge of perjury of the Oath of Allegiance and High Treason must be laid against all those culprits who have allowed our government to be over-ruled by directives coming from beyond the seas – from foreigners in Brussels and Strasbourg.

    Any attempt to take Scotland and England into the EEC is High Treason: "Depriving the Queen of her lands and titles." All purported MEP's are qualified for hanging. The basic statutes of the United Kingdom are still in force and are in conflict with growing foreign supremacy.

    The full sovereignty of the United Kingdom is not now in the hands of the Queen; her powers have been handed over by a despicable traitor Edward Heath on the instructions of his Jewish mentors. Edicts and laws can be sent out from Brussels and Strasbourg which are enforced by traitors in the United Kingdom. European Law and Community Law is now destroying the respective laws and customs of the British realm and the very birthright of the British people.

  8. Applied Propaganda Techniques

    The Language of Politics

    It is an axiom of economic warfare that the surest way of destroying a country is to debase its currency; for example, by flooding it with counterfeit money. It is no less true that the surest way of destroying a nation's culture and identity is to debase its language. Not surprisingly, therefore, subversive agencies are giving the highest priority to the corruption of the English language. These 'semantic forgers', all in the course of promoting their odious political correctness, are at work in our schools and colleges, in central and local government, in publishing houses and throughout the mass media. In the process they are seeking to make certain words as unacceptable as counterfeit money, to alter the traditional meaning and value of other words, and to introduce new terms serving their own perverse ideology. (George Orwell prophesied as much in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which the official language was 'Newspeak.')

    The process is insidious and potentially deadly; accordingly we must exercise the utmost vigilance and ruthlessness in arresting its progress, just as we would have to remove all counterfeit money from circulation in order to safeguard the value of our material assets. And let no one dismiss the matter as 'just words'; words are the vehicles of thought, and thought governs most of our lives in one way or another.

    As with counterfeit money or goods, we must be alert enough to detect the attempted fraud at – and preferably before – the point of sale, or else we soon find ourselves a good deal poorer. Accordingly, the aim of these notes is to sharpen this vigilance and help drive the counterfeiters and all their worthless productions out of our national life. But first we need to review the ways in which people's thoughts, speech and behaviour can be influenced by propaganda.

    Elements of Propaganda
    Propaganda is intended to alter the way people think and feel about the society they live in and its governing values and priorities. In order to do this it resorts to the following tactics:

    Word approval – Whereby certain words or phrases are given special prominence and 'respectability' by their frequent usage in influential circles and the mass media. People are thus apt to adopt such usages themselves on the grounds that 'what's good enough for the likes of them must be alright.' One need only observe the influence of popular media figures in promoting everyday use of certain words or catch-phrases. Note also how certain profanities once wholly unacceptable in polite company have now become commonplace in the mass media and, as a result, in everyday social intercourse.

    Word disapproval – Whereby certain words or phrases expose the user to disagreeable social reactions like personal abuse, loss of preferment and even of employment, and other forms of victimisation. The offender is put under more or less punishing pressure to 'mind your language' and conform; as witness the rampant 'political correctness' lobbies in education, publishing, the mass media and politics. Such pressures now begin at kindergarten level.

    Repetition – Given enough repetition the 'in' word or phrase will soon replace its predecessors, if only because people don't like to sound 'odd' or behind the times.

    Euphemism – Disguising whatever is intrinsically ugly, repulsive, immoral or otherwise unacceptable behind more attractive, less offensive, or neutral labels. At the everyday level this is just a matter of simple politeness and civilised conduct; but in the hands of unscrupulous politicians and 'social engineers' the euphemism becomes a sinister device to deceive and indoctrinate the public into accepting things which are intrinsically repugnant or contrary to the national interest.
    Typical examples are 'gay' for sex pervert; 'love-making' for casual copulation; 'multi-cultural' for mongrelised; 'under-privileged' for parasite; 'entrepreneur' for swindler; 'negotiated settlement' for surrender; 'subsidiarity' for subordination; 'freedom' for anarchy; 'non-judgmental' for indiscriminate; 'value-free' for unprincipled.

    Censorship – May of course go well beyond mere word or phrase disapproval to suppression of certain kinds of publication and of certain writers or speakers by officialdom, academics and the media. Some forms of censorship are of course benign; for example when applied to pornography, national security and libellous material. The credentials and motivation of the censors determine whether or not censorship is benign or malignant.

    Popular appeal – Whereby the propagandist's message is 'packaged' or presented in a way likely to disarm criticism. This is designed to exploit the 'feel-good factor' among the all-too-gullible general public, using popular entertainers and radio/TV soap-operas as vehicles for multi-racialism, feminism, homosexuality, promiscuity, federalism, etc.
    For example, Negroes and Asians are featured in numerous programmes as if they were a normal part of society. They are often depicted as highly intelligent, responsible, exemplary and 'caring' people, whose presence enriches our society in every way. In popular radio and TV series they are almost invariably cast as model citizens, heroes, or victims of white 'racism,' by programme-makers aptly described as 'inverted missionaries.' And if the plot will not sustain too many obvious racial anomalies, they are gratuitously inserted into background scenes (a process known among British TV cameramen as 'blonking', i.e. getting Blacks 'on camera').

    The popular appeal element of such propaganda is therefore an artful compound of bogus philanthropy, cloying sentimentality, euphemism and superficiality; all designed to 'help the medicine go down' all those gullible throats. But, in particular, the 'multi-cultural' campaign amounts to the same thing as telling us that adding dirty water to vintage wine produces an exciting new cocktail.

    ‘Newspapers have to sell in order to live; so does commercial TV. That leaves the BBC as the only truly public service medium in this country disseminating information, entertainment and, in the case of race relations, propaganda. We are unashamed to admit it is what we are doing.’

    Gerry Hines, BBC Programme Organizer quoted in Race Today

    ‘Television lies. All television lies. It lies persistently, instinctively and by habit. Everyone involved lies. A culture of mendacity surrounds the medium, and those who work there live it, breath it and prosper by it. I know of no area of public life – no, not even politics – more saturated by a professional cynicism. If you want a word that takes you to the core of it, I would offer rigged.
    ‘ it dishonest for the presenter to imply that the pundit in the chair is free to offer any opinion, when the truth is that fifty pundits were telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?’

    Matthew Parris, London Daily Mail, 21 April 1996

    The FBI lies

    The FBI says Whites were 58 % of
    murderers in Los Angeles in 2002.

    You don't believe it ? It's in the FBI's
    Supplemental Homicide Report: File
    listing 2002, pages 13 to 31. This is the
    latest FBI data available, it was released
    in March 2004.

    In the column of race of the offender the
    FBI counts of murderers are as follows:

    Whites 314
    Blacks 218
    Asians 7

    Because this is California, there is a special
    column, "column E." California uses E to
    list whether a person is "Hispanic" or not.
    If Hispanic, it's marked with an "H," and if
    it's not it is mark with an "N".

    Guess what ? 288 of the 314 "Whites"
    are actually "Hispanics" (really basically
    Mongoloid, Asiatic-derived "Indians").
    Leaving only 26 non-Hispanic "Whites",
    (remember this government classification
    includes European Whites, Arabs, North
    Africans, Jews, Turks, Iranians, etc.).

    Only Texas and California forward "E" to
    the FBI. All other states just automatically
    count Hispanic as White. When the FBI
    compiles summary statistics comparing
    Black and White killers they ignore E.

    For example: The FBI's Uniform Crime
    Report for 2002 says there were 5,579
    Black killers, 5,356 White killers, and
    274 other killers. In other words 50 %
    of killers are Black, 48 % are White and
    2 % are other race.

    That is a lie.

    When the FBI says "White," they mean
    Whites and Hispanics combined.

    Substitute the words "White and Hispanics
    combined" for "White". Thus, 50 % of the
    killers were Black, and 48 % were White
    and Hispanic combined.

    Lets review Los Angeles, after adjusting
    the false "White" column for Hispanics:

    LA Killers in 2002: Source FBI
    Race Number %
    White 26 4.8 %
    Hispanic 228 53.4 %
    Black 218 40.5 %
    Asian 7 1.3 %
    Total 539 100.0 %


  11. Hospital staff could gain power to fine offenders
    POLICE powers to issue on-the-spot fines to patients and visitors for anti-social behaviour are set to be given to Addenbrooke's Hospital staff.

    The badge-wearing employees could wield the same powers as police community support officers (PCSOs) in a move to tackle trouble in the wards.

    Hospital bosses called for the powers to be given to 10 of their security staff as part of a year-long pilot scheme, which is set to start in March next year.

    Critics have slammed the move as creating a "private police force".

    Security staff could, under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS), be allowed to hand out fines for disorder, dog fouling, graffiti, fly-posting and littering.

    They could also have powers to tackle begging and demand the name and address of "suspects".

    Currently, the only accredited persons in the county are two Vehicle Operators and Services Agency employees who check on roadworthiness standards of vehicles.

    Members of Cambridgeshire Police Authority expressed concerns about the scheme "on the grounds that no local democratic or public debate has occurred".

    Cambridgeshire county councillor Geoffrey Heathcock said: "This could be like a runaway train. What we really need is proper police officers rather than security staff with a badge.

    "People may not realise who they are and that they have these powers. It could spark more trouble if they object to being given an on-the-spot fine.

    "There needs to be checks and balances in place and accountability, which police officers already have. I would be worried about what training these staff would have. We do not want to see these powers abused."

    Peter Lester, the NHS Trust security adviser at Addenbrooke's, said: "A team of 28 staff is responsible for security at Addenbrooke's.

    "We have put forward eight of our security supervisors to take part in this pilot accreditation scheme. After completing training with the police, they may be given extra powers to deal with some anti-social behaviour.

    "Those powers will be restricted to the hospital site only, and will be decided by the chief constable - but they could include the right to issue on-the-spot fines for disorder or drunkenness."

    Staff given the powers would wear a badge in red, white and black positioned on the chest area of all outer clothing.

    Cambridgeshire Chief Constable Julie Spence will have the final say on which police powers will be given to staff. But the hospital will be liable for any unlawful conduct of the security staff.