ANTIWHITE RACISM AT THE NUJ (NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS)

Something WE didn't already know. Just a pity it was the FALSE NATIONALIST, ANTI-TRUE NATIONALIST UKIP which made the video. Nevertheless it doesn't make it any less truthful

MATT FORDE (NEW LABOUR COMEDIAN) EXPOSES UKIP FALSE FLAG, 5th COLUMN, FALSE NATIONALIST PARTY WITH LAVISH PRAISE.

UKIP: 5TH, COLUMN, FALSE FLAG, NATIONALIST PARTY ENGULFED WITH PRAISE AND ENTHUSIAM BY NEW LABOUR COMEDIAN MATT FORDE (TRAITOR)EXPOSED LIVE ON SKY NEWS.

Just caught a glimpse of Sky News' "Press Preview" 23:30-00:00.

One of the Headlines and News stories Previewed was the Daily Telegraphs CAMERON: UKIP SUPPORTERS ODD INSULT.

The New Labour Lefty Traitor  matt forde (Who he ? (Comedian?)) Couldn't throw enough praise at how well Farage has done  and the success of UKIP in denying the BNP (British National Party) from having more success then they had, and that's despite all the efforts of the whole TV NEWS PROPAGANDA MACHINES, NEWSPAPER PROPAGANDA, LIES,SMEARS and VIOLENT HATE FROM THE UAF.

Laughing Boy couldn't stop slavering and drooling over the success the 5TH COLUMN civic nationalist UKIP in denying NATIONALIST VICTORY, espousing the fantastic work done by the QUISLING FARAGE in containing our vote.

This should now have the UKIP  5TH COLUMN,

 FALSE NATIONALIST SPOILER PARTY

Created by TRAITORS to take wavering, angry BRITISH and wavering NATIONALIST VOTERS from the BNP.

 "He showed early promise and performed occasionally in the midlands until reaching the later stages of many new act competitions including the So You Think You are Funny? semi finals in Edinburgh in 2002.Matt’s love of politics then interrupted his stage career and he spent the next few years working for MPs, The Labour Part.
This love of politics & comedy and a short stint commentating on Mansfield FM"
The big time calls...................................................................to tell him to fuck off.

A success as we can see.Thanks new labour.

UKIP are a FALSE FLAG PARTY, designed to con PATRIOTS from voting for their BROTHERS and SISTERS who have only the BEST INTERESTS OF THE BRITISH ABORIGINES AT HEART.

But, due to the success of the BNP and the hard work put in by ALL BRITISH NATIONALISTSin  extending a hand out to our people.
despite the effort of the whole british media and state apparatus lined up against us, we snatched VICTORY FROM DEFEAT.

AND WE CAN WIN AGAIN.

WITHOUT THE BAGGAGE OF TRAITORS, LIARS, CONMEN AND THIEVES.

THE PEOPLE WILL COME.

We, as INDIGENOUS NATIONALIST PATRIOTS can help speed up the voter transition period by offering a REAL HELPING HAND.

DONATE FOOD FOR THE ELDERLY, DISABLED AND POOR, collected by ALL NATIONALISTS.

NEW quality, practical items of clothing donated and.

Have "Pensioner  Donations" .
For helping a few INDIGENOUS ELDERLY a few pounds towards their Winter Heating Bills. 
I'm sure that over a quarterly/winter Bill Payment giving a few of OUR ELDERLY and INFIRM £20/£30 towards their bill would be gratefully accepted.

A "RANDOM ACT OF KINDNESS" day. 
Such as, offering a young MARRIED INDIGENOUS COUPLE with Child to decorate the babies bedroom (in traditional colours ?)
Offer to help INDIGENOUS HOMES with their Gardens.

Offer a FREE NIGHT BINGO TAXI once a month.
Give a few indigenous mothers a chance to get out for a night just once.

Just IDEAS.

It's the little things NATIONALISTS CAN DO which will quicken the enlightenment of  the INDIGENOUS POPULATION (through word of mouth) what NATIONALISTS are all about.
We also get a chance to talk to these people.

Have you got what it takes to convince strangers that what you have to offer is better than the offer they get with the TRAITOROUS LIB/LAB/CON ?
Dumbed down, illiterate INDIGENOUS CHILDREN. Their EDUCATION sacrificed for the GREATER GOOD OF THE IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY.
The theft of OUR WEALTH AN WORK.
Lack of Benefits and punishments for those on benefits who are INDIGENOUS compared to the Benefits lavished on the Immigrants.
Offer them a few facts on where they are losing out and what the future has in store for them if NATIONALISM FAILS TO BECOME SERIOUS.
Only use facts that remind them how much £££ is being stolen from them how TREASONOUS CRIMINAL USE OF LAW AND TAXATION affect them and the FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN.

All this can be done by COMMITTED NATIONALISTS offering up a few hours of their time once a month.
ALWAYS KEEP THE GOAL IN MIND never let an opportunity to have a friendly chat with a complete stranger go to waste it costs nothing to have a friendly chat but could be worth everything.




NATIONALISM IS OUR ONLY SAVIOUR FROM THE TRAITORS .

Just think of the gains we could make if we started to help OUR UNFORTUNATE, OUR PEOPLE have a better day, week, month or year. 

Set Examples.

It will pay dividends in the future when UKIP MEMBERS and VOTERS WAKE UP

 

COMING TO MULTICULT WIGAN SOON

LEFT WING GUARDIAN TOILET PAPER EXPRESSESS SUPPORT FOR PADEOPHILES

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM THE LEFT WING, LABOUR SUPPORTING AND FAMILY HATING GUARDIAN ?

READ ON AND HAVE THE SICK BUCKET READY AS YOU READ HOW THE LEFT IS TRYING TO NORMALISE ALL AND ANY IMMORAL, PERVERTED AND DISGUSTING ACTS. 

 

  

Jon Henley (A PAEDOPHILE ?)  

The Guardian, Thursday 3 January 2013

"In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."

It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.

A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.
So what, then, do we know? A paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile appears to have been primarily an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential attraction to adolescents, though there have been claims one of his victims was aged eight.
But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers. Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that "The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational."
Legal definitions of paedophilia, needless to say, have no truck with such niceties, focusing on the offence, not the offender. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16.

There is much more we don't know, including how many paedophiles there are: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure, but Sarah Goode, a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate – based on possibly flawed science – is that "one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children". Even less is known about female paedophiles, thought to be responsible for maybe 5% of abuse against pre-pubescent children in the UK.

Debate still rages, too, about the clinical definition of paedophilia. Down the years, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – "the psychiatrist's bible" – has variously classified it as a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic medical disorder. And few agree about what causes it. Is paedophilia innate or acquired? Research at the sexual behaviours clinic of Canada's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health suggests paedophiles' IQs are, on average, 10% lower than those of sex offenders who had abused adults, and that paedophiles are significantly less likely to be right-handed than the rest of the population, suggesting a link to brain development.

MRI scans reveal a possible issue with paedophiles' "white matter": the signals connecting different areas of the brain. Paedophiles may be wired differently.
This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".

Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders dislike this. "Broadly speaking, in the world of people who work with sex offenders here, [paedophilia] is learned behaviour," says Donald Findlater, director of research and development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic. "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."

Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."

If the complexity and divergence of professional opinion may have helped create today's panic around paedophilia, a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World's notorious "name and shame" campaign in 2000, which brought mobs on to the streets to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst. As a result, paranoia about the danger from solitary, predatory deviants far outweighs the infinitely more real menace of abuse within the home or extended circle. "The vast majority of sexual violence is committed by people known to the victim," stresses Kieran Mccartan, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of the West of England. Only very rarely is the danger from the "stranger in the white van", Mccartan says.

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."
Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations.
Even now there is no academic consensus on that fundamental question – as Goode found. Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."

This is not, obviously, a widely held view. Mccartan uses O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: the Radical Case in his teaching as "it shows how sex offenders justify themselves". Findlater says the notion that a seven-year-old can make an informed choice for consensual sex with an adult is "just preposterous. It is adults exploiting children." Goode says simply: "Children are not developmentally ready for adult sexuality," adding that it is "intrusive behaviour that violates the child's emerging self-identity" and can be similar in long-term impact to adults experiencing domestic violence or torture.

But not all experts are sure. A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests – as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says – that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".
If that assertion does nothing else, it underlines the need for more research on paedophilia – something on which everyone in the field at least is agreed. There is, too, broad consensus around the idea that the approach to paedophilia must be about management and prevention: on stopping potential offenders making that contact (or downloading that image).

Initiatives such as Stop It Now!, which Findlater runs, exemplify this: a telephone helpline offering advice to people worried they may be having inappropriate sexual impulses. A similar German programme, Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, has as its slogan: "You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behaviour. There is help."

For convicted abusers, Circles UK aims to prevent reoffending by forming volunteer "circles of support and accountability" around recently released offenders, reducing isolation and emotional loneliness and providing practical help. In Canada, where it originated, it has cut reoffending by 70%, and is yielding excellent results here too. The goal of all treatment, Findlater says, is "people achieving a daily motivation not to cause harm again. Our goal is self-management in the future."
For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. "Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate," she says. "If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us."

We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, "by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else", and by "respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint". Only then will men tempted to abuse children "be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed".

DEATH PENALTY FOR PAEDOPHILES AND THEIR SUPPORTERS

LABOUR 25+18 MORE LABOUR PAEDOPHILES

Team Cameron’s big Jewish backers

When the Lib/Lab/con openly admit to being ISRAELI STATE AGENTS then that's the only answer you need when you want to know why the Lib/Lab/con don't give a toss about the INDIGENOUS BRITISH:

"Prominent members of the Jewish community are playing a major role in financing David Cameron’s bid for power, a JC investigation can reveal. The biggest Jewish donor to the party while Mr Cameron has been leader is gaming magnate Lord Steinberg, who has donated £530,000, plus a loan of £250,000.

Hedge-fund owner Stanley Fink has donated £103,000, even though he was a declared supporter of Mr Cameron’s leadership rival, Liam Fox. A further £250,000 has been loaned by philanthropist Dame Vivien Duffield. During Mr Cameron’s campaign to lead his party, Jewish figures gave his team (as opposed to the party) additional donations of more than £60,000.

According to the JC’s inquiries, direct donations to “Team Cameron” in the leadership battle came from philanthropist Trevor Pears (around £20,000), Bicom chair Poju Zabludowicz (£15,000 plus £25,000 to the party), Next chief executive Simon Wolfson (£10,000 plus £50,000 to the party), former Carlton TV boss Michael Green (£10,000) and Tory deputy treasurer and key Cameron fundraiser Andrew Feldman (£10,000 through his family firm, Jayroma).

Beyond the donors, a small but influential group of Jewish Conservative officials and politicians were also key players in Mr Cameron’s campaign for the leadership. Among them was party treasurer and managing director of Cavendish Corporate Finance, Howard Leigh, who stressed that Mr Cameron was preparing a new policy on political financing. “He is preparing to cap donations at £50,000, combined with some state financing,” Mr Leigh told the JC. “The aim is to prevent people from buying influence. We think a £50,000 cap is reasonable.” Mr Leigh worked closely with Mr Feldman in running the so-called “Team Cameron,” and both will now be charged with broadening the party’s donor base. Mr Feldman is a close friend of Mr Cameron, whom he met as an undergraduate at Oxford University. Other senior figures around the leader include Oliver Letwin, head of policy. A former shadow Home Secretary and shadow Chancellor, Mr Letwin is, like Mr Cameron, an Old Etonian. Welwyn Hatfield MP Grant Shapps, who seconded Mr Cameron’s bid to become Tory leader, decided early on that he was the man “of the future.” He backed his campaign, he told the JC, because “I saw that he had great leadership qualities.” As a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party, he said, he would be taking the Cameron message to supporters around the UK.

Although he is popular with Jewish Tories, Mr Cameron’s criticism of Israel’s actions in Lebanon sparked doubts about his stance — voiced particularly by Tory donor and former party treasurer Lord Kalms. However, Conservative Friends of Israel chair Richard Harrington stressed that the leader had given LFI “every possible access” and had met CFI officials several times. The Key Players Andrew Feldman - Destined to be charged with raising money for the new-look Conservative Party, Andrew Feldman (circled, at the left of the picture), 40, met Mr Cameron (circled, right of picture) at Brasenose College, Oxford. He is a close friend and tennis partner of the leader. Said to be a member of the Tories’ so-called Notting Hill set, he lives in West London with his wife and two children. Mr Feldman attended Haberdashers’ Aske’s school, and, after qualifying as a lawyer, entered the family’s ladieswear firm, Jayroma.

Having acted as fundraiser for Mr Cameron’s leadership campaign, he is now deputy treasurer of the party and is in Mr Cameron’s economic-policy group. Michael Green - Michael Green, former chairman of Carlton Television, gave financial support to David Cameron’s leadership campaign but would not discuss details. “I am a big supporter of David Cameron but I want to make it clear that I have not supported the Tory Party. I have supported David Cameron’s quest to become leader,” he said.

Lord Steinberg - Lord Steinberg — formerly Leonard Steinberg — became a life peer in 2004 and is a major donor to the Conservatives. Raised in Belfast and educated at Royal Belfast Academical Institution, the 70-year-old Baron Steinberg of Belfast was a founder of Stanley Leisure plc, the gaming company, serving as executive chairman from 1957 to 2002 and non-executive chairman since then. He is a former deputy treasurer of the Tory party and is a founder and chairman of his family charitable trust. His political interests are listed in Dod’s, the parliamentary guide, as Northern Ireland, tax and gambling, and Israel.

Simon Wolfson A donor to David Cameron’s leadership campaign and to the Conservative Party, Simon Wolfson, 38, will be continuing a family tradition when he becomes an adviser to Mr Cameron on improving economic competition and wealth creation. The son of Lord Wolfson, who was chief of staff to Margaret Thatcher, Mr Wolfson, chief executive of the Next clothing chain, is one of the youngest advisors to be appointed by Mr Cameron. Along with MP John Redwood, Mr Wolfson will jointly chair the advisory group that will seek to reduce red tape and improve education and skills in the workplace. It will also examine the country’s transport infrastructure.

Grant Shapps MP As vice-chairman of the Conservative Party and seconder to David Cameron’s campaign, backbencher Grant Shapps will find the next few months extremely busy as he tours the constituencies to persuade Tories of the virtues of the new leadership. Speaking to the JC, he acknowledged that there would be doubts in some quarters but he has no doubt that the party has chosen the right man. “I persuaded my colleagues at the parliamentary level and I shall now have to do the same thing all over the country,” said the MP for Welwyn Hatfield. “The thing that people will like about David is that he is very optimistic.”"

Time we got rid of ALL THE JEWS IN THE UK, AGAIN.

From the ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS 1689 -

"And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.""

It's a Wonderful Anti-White Christmas Story

Bilderberg-picked EU Leader Van Rompuy Calls for Global Governance With Russia

THE EU, RUSSIA GLOBAL NWO PACT

Bilderberg-picked EU Leader Van Rompuy Calls for Global Governance With Russia 

Written by  William F. Jasper

Thursday, 27 December 2012 16:45

EU OFFERS RUSSIA PACT FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE - NWO. 

While much of the Christian and post-Christian worlds were busy rushing about in last-minute preparations for Christmas celebrations, an important event took place in Brussels, Belgium, that went largely unnoticed and unreported. Leaders of the European Union and Russia met in Brussels on December 20 and 21 for the 30th EU-Russia Summit, continuing a process of convergence and interdependence that is leading toward political, economic, and social merger.

In his remarks at the conclusion of the summit, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, made repeated reference to progress toward the goal of “global governance,” which has always been code in globalist circles for world government. Van Rompuy stated:

By working together, the EU and Russia can make a decisive contribution to global governance and regional conflict resolution, to global economic governance in the G 8 and G 20, and to a broad range of international and regional issues. I would like to congratulate President Putin for taking over the presidency of G 20. 

As we have reported in this magazine many times, the term “global governance” is an intentionally deceptive term, used by political ruling elites because it is more vague and mushy and sounds less threatening than “global government” or “world government.” Hence, there will be less political opposition mounted to “global governance” than “world government.”
“Global governance” came into vogue in the late 1990s, following the publication in 1995 of Our Global Neighborhood, a report of the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance. That report attempted emphatically to assure readers that they had nothing to fear; they were not proposing world government. It claimed:

Global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of the terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan practiced the same semantic sleight-of-hand and false assurance at the UN Millennium Summit in New York City in 2000. In his report We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, Annan called for “new forms of global governance,” “a new ethic of global stewardship,” “global norms,” and “global rules” — all of which assume a role for the UN as global legislator.
Then Annan addressed the rational apprehension that many people would harbor concerning these new proposals for restructuring the world. “What do we mean by ‘governance’ when applied to the international realm?” he asked. “In the minds of some,” he said, “the term still conjures up images of world government, of centralized bureaucratic behemoths trampling on the rights of people and states.” These fearful conjurations, he assured us, have no basis in reality. “Nothing is less desirable” than world government, said Annan, insisting that “the very notion of centralizing hierarchies is itself an anachronism in our fluid, highly dynamic and extensively networked world — an outmoded remnant of nineteenth century mindsets.”
However, only months prior to the Millennium Summit and Kofi Annan’s report, on February 26, 1999, Sir Shridath Ramphal, a co-chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, addressed the Commission’s meeting in Barcelona, Spain, and gave a very different take on the matter. Ramphal stated:

The point I am making is that when we talk of "governance" and "democracy," we have to look beyond governance within countries and democracy within states. We have to look to Global Governance and Democracy within the Global State. 

A Global “State” with a capital “S” signifies a world “State,” a world government. And Ramphal emphasized that in the conclusion of his talk by celebrating the end of the “Nation State.” He declared:

As the Century of the Nation State ends, however, to a far greater degree than their governments, people recognize … they understand that the roads to justice and survival are conjoined; that the task is to bring the mutual interests and the moral impulses of mankind together. 

Many of the political elites who formerly dismissed concerns that “global governance” is a ruse for “global government,” now matter-of-factly admit that they are one and the same. Jacques Attali, an ardent globalist and an adviser to former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, for instance, has said: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.”
Van Rompuy — Tapped by Bilderbergers
Attali is a veteran attendee of the annual meetings of the super-secret, super-elite Bilderberg Group. Which brings us back to Herman Van Rompuy, frequently referred to as "Bilderberg Van Rompuy," a reference to his having received his current job title through the actions and influence of the Bilderbergers. In a November 17, 2009 article for the U.K.’s Guardian, entitled “Who speaks for Europe? Criticism of 'shambolic' process to fill key jobs,” Ian Traynor wrote:

Van Rompuy met Kissinger at a closed session of international policymakers and industrialists chaired by Viscount Etienne Davignon, a discreetly powerful figure in Brussels who was vice-president of the European commission in the 1980s. The viscount currently chairs the Bilderberg Group, the shadowy global freemasonry of politicians and bankers who meet to discuss world affairs in the strictest privacy, spawning innumerable conspiracy theories. Van Rompuy, it seems, attended the Bilderberg session to audition for the European job, calling for a new system of levies to fund the EU and replace the perennial EU budget battles. 

Jon Ronson, another reporter at the Guardian, interviewed Lord Denis Healey, one of the founders of the Bilderberg Group, for a 2001 article entitled, “Who Pulls the Strings?” Although Lord Healey insisted the group was not conspiratorial at all, he confirmed that they are working in the direction of world government. Ronson wrote:

This is how Denis Healey described a Bilderberg person to me: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing."

He said, "Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy." 

David Rockefeller, a longtime leader at Bilderberg conclaves, was even more explicit when addressing the 1991 meeting of the Bilderberg group. Rockefeller stated:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

That statement and other remarks from the Bilderberg meeting were obtained by French intelligence agents, who were tasked with monitoring the gathering, because of the obvious implications for French national interests and security. The information was then leaked to two French publications. Hilaire du Berrier, a contributing editor to The New American, verified the authenticity of the reports through his friend, former head of French intelligence, Count Alexander de Marenches, and other sources, and provided the first account in English in his Monaco-based monthly HduB Reports in September 1991. It was then published shortly thereafter in The New American. What seemed outlandish to many people at the time, and was frequently dismissed as kooky "conspiracy theory," is being confirmed daily in unfolding events — and admissions from those who are causing the events to happen.
Photo of Russia's President Vladimir Putin (left) with European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso during the EU-Russia Summit, Dec. 21, 2012

Time to bring our troops home, start building up our War Machine, which would bring huge amounts of Employment as well, start recruiting.

Civil War is beckoning in the EU and Britain as we are BETRAYED AT EVERY TURN by unelected lickspittles who cannot trust each other but somehow manages to get "Elected" to power and then do the complete opposite of what their promises to the voters were.

Their Multi-Cult indoctrination at school doesn't seem to be having any effect on a growing number of disaffected INDIGENOUS youth.
They are no longer able to deny their own gut instinct that mass immigration is NOT good for Britain or themselves.
We need to tap into and channel this PATRIOTIC energy.
We need to remind them that they must now help us to help them to help themselves, their future saved for them by them.

IT'S THEIR FUTURE AND THE FUTURE GENERATIONS FROM THEM WE ARE FIGHTING FOR.