The Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag was originally flown by various indigenous and peace groups Worldwide, before being used by NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) who were a founding member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association.
NAMBLA and ANTIFA often unite to intimidate people who oppose gay and paedophile “rights”
Sunderland ANTIFA in England openly threaten violence to anyone who opposes their agendas on gay rights and islamification
The Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag was then spread to the rest of the LGBTP community.
The Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag was popularised as a symbol of the homosexual and paedophile community by notorious pederast Gilbert Baker in 1978.
Weird freak and notorious pederast Gilbert Baker was a member of NAMBLA
The jewish-controlled mainstream media still cover up its original use by paedophile rights group NAMBLA.
In modern Britain we see the Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag everywhere. It is flown over MPs homes, Police Stations, 10 Downing Street and they have even lit up the Houses of Parliament in the colours of the Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag.
The Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag is used predominantly at gay pride and paedophile power events. It is also used in LGBTP ghettoes worldwide in various forms including banners, clothing and jewellery. Since the 1980s, its symbolism has been transferred to represent the extended “LGBTP” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and paedophile) community. The LGBTP community often falsely claim the “P” stands for “pan-sexual”.
Peter Tatchell was Britain’s top paedophile rights activist between 1972 and 2010 – he is often pictured with the Rainbow Flag/Paedo Rag. Is Peter Tatchell A Paedophile Or Simply Misunderstood? goo.gl/1nYZNo
Whether you personally call it the “Rainbow Flag” or “Paedo Rag” surely organisations like the BBC, Police, Courts etc. which are meant to be politically neutral should use a term like “Rainbow Flag/ Paedo Rag” rather than just use “Rainbow Flag”.
In the United Kingdom every household (with a few exceptions) is forced to pay a license fee of £147 (2017) whether they ever watch the BBC or not.
The BBC is notorious for its pro gay and pro paedophile reporting, and its support for multiculturalism (AKA the Kalergi Plan). The BBC also spent decades covering up muslim “grooming gangs” raping, drugging and pimping out up to one million White girls in Britain.
The BBC is only granted its Charter to extort £147 every year from most households in the United Kingdom on the basis of it being politically impartial. This Charter then gives the BBC the right to extort £147 from virtually every household in the UK, and to have houses searched for TV equipment by Capita agents.
Any protest about the BBC’s involvement in paedophile rings and political corruption is usually met with extreme force and violence.
On 10th October 2103 a Freedom Of Information Act request was sent to the BBC asking “Does the BBC have a policy of promoting multiculturalism?” The BBC reply is here:
7 November 2013 Dear Mr Moran Freedom of Information Request – RFI20131470 Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) received on 10 October, seeking the following information: Does the BBC have a policy of promoting multiculturalism?
The BBC does not have a policy on promoting multiculturalism. Impartiality is one of the BBC’s core editorial values which are set out in the Royal Charter which establishes its constitution and sets out its main obligations. The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines state that: “We wil apply due impartiality to all our subject
matter and wil reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period,
so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented” and that “our output is
forbidden from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy.” This would apply to any public discourse on multiculturalism as a public policy debate. http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/ However, the Charter does require the BBC to promote six public purposes through its main activities such as its programming. One of the public purposes is Representing the Nations, Regions and Communities. The BBC Trust Purpose Remit document states that this means that “The BBC should ‘promote awareness of
different cultures and alternative viewpoints, through content that reflects the lives of different people and different
communities within the UK”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/tools_we_use/public_purposes.html To assist the BBC to meet this purpose, the BBC’s Diversity Strategy includes a strategic equality and diversity objective to “Deliver high quality programming which reflects modern Britain accurately and
authentically” and this objective would be inclusive of reflecting ethnic and religious diversity on air. The strategy also details other aspects of the BBC’s approach to diversity across the corporation’s activity to ensure not just its programming but that its people, its approach to its audience and its strategy for the future are all consciously addressing further diversity. You can find out more about the BBC and diversity at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/strategy/documents.html
The link for this Freedom Of Information Act request is here:
NASA Apollo Moon Landing – did they make it or did they fake it?
On the 20th July 1969 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) claimed to have landed the first men on the Moon (Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin) with their Apollo 11 mission. NASA claimed to have made another five manned Moon landings ( Apollo Missions 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17) with Apollo 17 being the final mission landing on 7th December 1972. NASA still claims a total of 12 American astronauts walked on the Moon. All the alleged Moon landings used the Saturn V rocket system. The total cost of the Apollo missions is estimated at £203 billion in 2013 US dollars.
NASA was established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and became operational on 1st October 1958.
NASA gives the distance from the centre of Earth to the centre of the Moon as 239,000 miles. Since the Earth has a radius of about 4,000 miles and the Moon’s radius is roughly 1,000 miles, that leaves a surface-to-surface distance of 234,000 miles. The total distance traveled during the alleged missions, including Earth and Moon orbits, ranged from 622,268 miles for Apollo 13 to 1,484,934 miles for Apollo 17. It is accepted by the majority of People that the Apollo Moon landings were genuine, however the Cuban School National Curriculum and a growing number of sceptics claim the Apollo missions were faked. Even though this blog in no way alleges that Nazi war criminals faked the Moon landings we did find these 20 amazing facts:
1. Wernher von Braun:
Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977) was a German rocket engineer and space architect. He was one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Germany during World War II and, subsequently, in the United States. He is credited as being the “Father of Rocket Science”. In his 20s and early 30s, von Braun was the central figure in the Nazis’ rocket development program, responsible for the design and realization of the V-1 and V-2 combat rockets during World War II.
One of von Braun’s V-2 Nazi rockets from World War Two. Firing these on a civilian population was a war crime.
Werner von Braun’s SS number was 185,068 and his Nazi Party membership number was 5,738,692, he ended the war as a SS Major. After the war, he and some select members of his rocket team were taken to the United States as part of the then-secret Operation Paperclip.
Wernher von Braun in 1941. If it hadn’t been for Operation Paperclip von Braun and his team would almost certainly have faced war crime charges at Nuremberg for their role in the V-1 and V-2 rocket attacks on England during World War Two.
Operation Paperclip involved the USA taking a large number of German scientists, technicians and other staff to the USA after the war. The USA also appropriated about 300,000 German scientific patents.
Werner von Braun with American President John F Kennedy.
Former Nazi “Peenemunde” V-1 assistant Kurt H. Debus – who went on to become the first director of the Kennedy Space Center – helped develop the Saturn V rockets (designed in part after their V-1 Nazi rockets)
Kurt H Debus became the first Director Of John F Kennedy Space Centre.
Werner von Braun in Florida with the Saturn V rocket carrying the Apollo 11 Lunar Mission in 1969.
2. Die Frau im Mond (The Woman in the Moon) Film:
In 1929 a German filmmaker called Fritz Lang released a silent film called Die Frau im Mond (The Woman in the Moon). The film’s technical adviser on the film was Herman Oberth, considered to be one of the three founding fathers of rocketry. Assisting Oberth on the film project was one of his brightest students, teenager Wernher von Braun.
The totally unnecessary vertical construction of the spaceship in a specially built hangar is the same in the film Die Frau im Mond and the Apollo Missions.
A decade-and-a-half later, both Oberth and von Braun would be scooped up through Operation Paperclip and brought to America to work on the Apollo Missions, whose choreography just happened to very closely match that of the fake Moon launch Oberth and von Braun had crafted forty years earlier.
Another still from the 1929 film.
Maybe it’s just a coincidence that a 1929 silent German film had the same rocket technology as 1960s/70s American Moon landings.
The grand opening of the massive hangar doors and the excruciatingly slow roll-out of the upright rocket ship from the hangar to the launch pad are the same in the 1929 film and the Apollo Missions.
Both the film (Die Frau im Mond) and the Apollo Missions also both had the famous countdowns and the cheering, patriotic crowds.
Cheering crowds during the countdown in the 1929 film.
Screenclip from the silent film “Die Frau im Mond”.
The 1929 silent film Die Frau im Mond had a storyline that was a cross between Apollo Mission 11 (first alleged man on the Moon) and Apollo Mission 13 (aborted Moon landing after an oxygen tank allegedly exploded).
Not Jim Lovell on Apollo Mission 13 but actually the 1929 film “Die Frau im Mond”.
The 1929 silent film Die Frau im Mond and the 1960s/1970s Apollo Missions both had the same team of technical advisers.
3. America Versus Russia In The Space Race:
After World War Two America and Russia entered in to an arms race and a space race. Until the Apollo Moon landings Russia had beaten the Americans in every “first” in the space race:
May 15, 1957 – The Soviet Union tests the R-7 Semyorka, the world’s first intercontinental ballistic missile.
October 4, 1957 – The Soviets launch Sputnik 1, Earth’s first manmade satellite.
November 3, 1957 – A dog named Laika becomes the first animal to enter Earth orbit aboard the Soviet Sputnik 2.
January 2, 1959 – The Soviet Luna 1 becomes the first manmade object to leave Earth’s orbit.
September 13, 1959 – After an intentional crash landing, the Soviet Luna 2 becomes the first manmade object on the Moon.
October 6, 1959 – The Soviet Luna 3 provides mankind with its first look at the far side of the Moon.
August 20, 1960 – Belka and Strelka, aboard the Soviet Sputnik 5, are the first animals to safely return from Earth orbit.
October 14, 1960 – The Soviet Marsnik 1, the first probe sent from Earth to Mars, blasts off.
February 12, 1961 – The Soviet Venera 1, the first probe sent from Earth to Venus, blasts off.
April 12, 1961 – Yuri Gagarin, riding aboard the Soviet Vostok 1, becomes the first man in Earth orbit.
May 19, 1961 – The Soviet Venera 1 performs the first ever fly by of another planet (Venus).
August 6, 1961 – Gherman Titov, aboard the Soviet Vostok 2, becomes the first man to spend over a day in space and the first to sleep in Earth orbit.
August 11 & 12, 1962 – The Soviet Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 are launched, the first simultaneous manned space flights (though they do not rendezvous).
October 12, 1964 – The Soviet Voskhod 1, carrying the world’s first multi-man crew, is launched.
March 18, 1965 – Aleksei Leonov, riding aboard the Soviet Voskhod 2, performs the first space-walk.
February 3, 1966 – The Soviet Luna 9 becomes the first probe to make a controlled, ‘soft’ landing on the Moon.
March 1, 1966 – The Soviet Venera 3, launched November 16, 1965, becomes the first probe to impact another planet (Venus).
April 3, 1966 – The Soviet Luna 10 becomes the first manmade lunar satellite.
October 30, 1967 – The Soviet Cosmos 186 and Cosmos 188 become the first unmanned spacecraft to rendezvous and dock in Earth orbit. The United States will not duplicate this maneuver for nearly four decades.
January 16, 1969 – The Soviet Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 become the first manned spacecraft to dock in Earth orbit and the first to exchange crews.
November 17, 1970 – The Soviet Lunokhod 1, the first robotic rover to land on and explore an extraterrestrial body, lands on the Moon. Twenty-seven years later, the United States lands it’s very first robotic rover on Mars.
December 15, 1970 – The Soviet Venera 7 becomes the first probe to make a soft landing on another planet (Venus).
April 19, 1971 – The Soviet Salyut 1 becomes the world’s first orbiting space station.
August 22, 1972 – The Soviet Mars 2 becomes the first probe to reach the surface of Mars.
On April 14, 1961, two days after Gagarin’s historic flight, a panicked President Kennedy reportedly inquired of NASA what goal in space America might be able to attain before the Soviets. According to legend, President Kennedy was told that America’s best hope to beat the Russians was with a manned Moon landing. At Rice University on September 12th, 1962 President Kennedy made the following speech setting the goal of the Moon landings by the end of the 1960s:
4. NASA Has Lost All Data, Blueprints And Records From The Apollo Missions:
Following Freedom Of Information requests in America NASA admitted it had lost all their original video footage of the Apollo Missions. Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the spacesuits and lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
NASA have lost all records of the Apollo Missions – that’s 700 cartons altogether.
5. The Apollo A7L Space Suits Used In The Apollo Missions:
The Space Suits used in the Apollo Missions were the A7L design.International Latex Corporation, which was best known as the manufacturer of Playtex bras and girdles, was awarded the contract. Hamilton Standard was awarded the contract to design and build the life-support packs known as PLSS units. All designs and blueprints for the A7L space suits have been lost.
NASA’s officially released photograph of the Apollo Missions Space Suit A7L.
Conditions on the Moon are very different to Earth as there is no atmosphere. The temperature in sunlight is estimated by NASA to be 107 degrees Celsius (225 degrees Fahrenheit) and in the shade is minus 153 degrees Celsius (minus 243 degrees Fahrenheit). There is also a constant bombardment of meteoroids.“Meteoroids,” NASA states, “are nearly-microscopic specks of space dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph – ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch … The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.” There is also the problem of massive space radiation on the Moon as there is no atmosphere like on Earth to protect it.
NASA diagram of the shield it believes will be required to protect astronauts in future Moon landings from radiation and meteoroids. NASA didn’t bother with this in the 1960s and 1970s.
NASA has now stated that maintaining 100% clean-room conditions on space exploration vehicles while performing EVAs on planetary bodies is essential as even the smallest amount of dust could cripple any space ship. Their solution for future Moon landings is the “rear-entry spacesuit” which is attached to the outside of a lunar module and is climbed in to before detaching from the lunar module. The procedure is reversed to get back in the lunar module.
NASA diagram of the rear-entry spacesuit it has designed for future Moon landings. In the 1960s and 1970s NASA didn’t worry about details like clean-room conditions.
The A7L must have been a remarkable spacesuit, it was radiation proof, able to withstand 50,000 MPH meteoroids and able to switch between 107 degrees Celsius (225 degrees Fahrenheit) and minus 153 degrees Celsius (minus 243 degrees Fahrenheit) in an instant. The A7L also had a full life-support system, oxygen and human waste management. Unfortunately we can not inspect, or even recreate, these spacesuits as NASA claims it has lost all the designs and blueprints. NASA claims the spacesuits themselves were left on the Moon to save weight on the return journey.
6. The Van Allen Radiation Belts:
The Van Allen radiation belts are two regions of radiation that encircle the Earth. They are named in honor of James Van Allen, the scientist who led the team that launched the first successful satellite that could detect radioactive particles in space. This was Explorer 1, which launched in 1958 and led to the discovery of the radiation belts. There is a large outer belt that follows the magnetic field lines essentially from the north to south poles around the planet. This belt begins around 8,400 to 36,000 miles above the surface of the Earth. The inner belt does not extend as far north and south. It runs, on average, from 60 miles about the Earth’s surface to about 6,000 miles. The two belts expand and shrink. Sometimes the outer belt nearly disappears. Sometimes it swells so much that the two belts appear to merge to form one big radiation belt.In 1969-70 the Van Allen Belt was at it’s 11 year cycle peak radiation
Due to the Van Allen radiation belts no manned space craft has ever travelled more than 400 miles above the Earth’s surface, apart from the Apollo missions. On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.” The Russians have calculated that to protect their cosmonauts from radiation a 4 foot (120cm) thick lead casing would be needed.
7. Shadows On Moon Photographs:
According to NASA the Apollo Moon missions carried no lighting equipment, and the only light source for Apollo photographs and videos was the sun. Despite this there seems to be at least two light sources on a number of Apollo photographs due to there being shadows cast in two directions.Here is an example of these two light source photographs:
In other photographs it appears the light source is much closer than the Sun would be:
8. The Lunar Explorer Modules:
The Lunar Explorer Modules (LEM) were the part of the Apollo missions that detached from the Command Service Modules (CSM)and descended to the Moon’s surface. The LEMs were all designed and built by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation of New York. Even though no designs or blueprints still exist for LEMs or CSMs here is a NASA diagram of a LEM:
The LEMs had an exterior measurement of about 12 foot by 12 foot (360cmX360cm) according to NASA, with a crew compartment of about 6 foot by 6 foot by 6 foot (180cmX180cmX180cm). Due to lower gravity on the Moon it had an effective weight of about 3 tons on the Lunar surface. For the descent stage, there is the reverse-thrust rocket that allegedly allowed the craft to make a soft landing on the Moon. And then for the ascent stage a powerful rocket propels the top half of the LEM into lunar orbit. The LEM would then dock with the CSM that NASA state was orbiting the Moon at about 4,000 MPH.
Photograph of a LEM allegedly on the Lunar surface released by NASA.
NASA claimed there was no room for seats in the LEMs, but never indicated where the astronauts slept during their time on the Moon’s surface.
Close up of photograph serial number AS11-40-5922 released by NASA.
9. The Lunar Roving Vehicle:
The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) or Lunar Rover was a battery-powered four-wheeled rover used on the Moon in the last three missions of the American Apollo Missions ( 15,16 and 17) during 1971 and 1972. It was popularly known as the Moon Buggy.It was a fragile looking, open-space vehicle about 10 feet long with large mesh wheels, antenna appendages, tool caddies and cameras. Powered by two 36-volt batteries, it had four one-fourth hp drive motors, one for each wheel.The LRV was transported to the Moon on the Lunar Explorer Modules (LEMs) and, once unpacked on the surface, could carry one or two astronauts, their equipment, and lunar samples. According to NASA the three LRVs remain on the Moon.
LRV from Apollo 15 mission allegedly photographed on the Moon in 1971. Notice there are boot prints but no tyre tracks – did the LRV float in to this position? NASA photo serial number As15-88-11901
The first cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to Boeing was for $19,000,000 ( about $150,000,000 in 2013 US Dollars) and called for delivery of the first LRV by 1 April 1971. Cost overruns, however, led to a final cost of $38,000,000, ( about $300,000,000 in 2013 US Dollars)which was about the same as NASA’s original estimate. When questioned how the LRVs could fit in the LEMs NASA claimed that they folded in to the size of a suitcase.
The LRV could only be being unpacked in this photograph as NASA didn’t re-pack any LRVs as they were all allegedly left on the Moon. Apart from the mystery tyre tracks NASA must use some big suitcases.
NASA are planning a manned trip to the Moon in the 2020s or 2030s. They have released photographs of their prototype Lunar Rovers which will be radiation and meteoroid proof.
NASA prototype Lunar Rover for future manned Moon trips. Not as cool as the 1960s/1970s version but much safer from radiation and meteoroids.
Here is a video of the Lunar Rover on the alleged Apollo 16 mission:
Here is another good Lunar Rover video:
10.The Lunar Explorer Module Landing Sites:
The Lunar Explorer Modules (LEM) were the part of the Apollo missions that detached from the Command Service Modules (CSM)and descended to the Moon’s surface. Due to lower gravity on the Moon it had an effective weight of about 3 tons on the Lunar surface. For the descent stage, there is the reverse-thrust rocket that allegedly allowed the craft to make a soft landing on the Moon.
NASA photograph of a LEM allegedly on the Moon’s surface. As can be clearly seen no dust has been displaced by the reverse-thrust rockets which were allegedly used.
The reverse-thrust rocket system would have created a crater under the LEM landing site, and would probably have turned the dust in to a glass-like substance. In the photograph below you can’t see so much as a single grain of ‘lunar soil’ settled onto the lunar modules while they were setting down.
Another NASA photograph of a LEM allegedly on the Moon’s surface. It can again be clearly seen no dust has been displaced by the reverse-thrust rockets which were allegedly used.
11. Evidence Of Studio Lighting On Apollo Mission Photographs:
NASA has repeatedly stated that there was no artificial lighting used on the Apollo Moon landings and the only light source for videos and photographs is the Sun. However a careful study of numerous Apollo photographs would seem to indicate the use of studio lighting suggesting the “landings” were filmed and photographed in a film studio.
In one shot (AS14-64-9089) studio-lighting representing the sun is seen reflecting off a black background, a photographic effect that couldn’t happen in the blackness of space, and could only reflect off a background
In this Apollo 12 photograph there appears to be the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light.
This Apollo 12 photograph (AS12-49-7278) shows two lens flares from overhead lighting.
The angles of the shadows in this Apollo 14 photograph (AS14-68-9486) indicate a light source just to the left of the photograph. This can’t be the Sun and can only be an artificial light.
12. The Fake Moon Rocks:
On their return from the alleged Apollo 11 Moon landing Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins toured together giving “Moon rocks” to grateful countries around the World. Altogether NASA gave over 100 countries “Moon rocks”
A “Moon rock” that turned out to be petrified wood when tested by scientists. How radioactive would a real rock from the Moon be?
Whenever they have been tested these alleged “Moon rocks” have turned out to be fakes. Here is an article from the British mainstream media about a fake “Moon rock” :
One other point is that surely a genuine rock brought from the surface of the Moon would have been highly radioactive, and far too dangerous for public display.
13.Laser Reflectors Left On The Moon:
One piece of evidence NASA repeatedly quote is that they left laser reflectors on the Moon which are still there. NASA claim that they can prove the laser reflectors are on the Moon because they can bounce lasers off them to measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
Laser reflector that NASA claims it left on the Moon.
According to NASA the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged reflectors proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically – most likely by the Soviets. It is also possible that there are no laser targets on the Moon. In December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963, possibly as early as 1962 or even 1961.
You might have used one of the laser room measurers that most hardware / DIY shops carry nowadays. They manage to measure the size of rooms by bouncing a laser off opposite walls without any laser reflector.
14.Onboard Computer System:
NASA claim that the onboard computer for the Apollo Missions had a memory capacity of about 72 kilobytes – that is less powerful than most modern digital watches. NASA have never clarified whether this computer was on the Command Service Module (orbiting the Moon at 4,000 miles per hour) or either part of the two-part Lunar Exploration Module. Therefore either the CSM or the LEM had no onboard computer.
1960s computers were total crap. Maybe that’s why NASA only shared one between the CSM and LEM.
The most complicated aspect of the Apollo missions was the landing of the lunar modules, which made the software program controlling that part of the mission the most difficult to design. Amazingly though, that aspect of the software design was not assigned until after most of the other programmes were 2/3 complete – and it was assigned to a twenty-two-year-old gent named Don Isles who had just recently started his very first job. According to Moon Machines, “the programme without which it would be impossible to land on the Moon … had been written almost as an afterthought by a junior engineer.”
15. Mission Control In Houston Texas:
All the Apollo missions were allegedly controlled by Mission Control at the Johnson Space Centre in Houston, Texas.
Mission Control in Houston, Texas looked very impressive. However it was totally fake.
Mission Control looked like the cutting edge of 1960s technology at the time. However it has now been revealed that the staff were simply store clerks hired to pretend to be NASA scientists. A 2005 documentary entitled First on the Moon: The Untold Story, showed that Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas “was not as high-tech as it looked.” In reality, as Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman tells us, “the computer screens that we looked at in Mission Control weren’t computer screens at all. They were televisions. All the letters, or characters, [they] were all hand drawn. I don’t necessarily mean with a brush, but I mean they were painted on a slide.” Jack Garman was allegedly the member of the Apollo 11 ground-crew who cleared the Eagle to land despite the fact that multiple alarms were going off.
16. NASA Claims Photos Proved The Moon Landings Happened:
NASA launched the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) on June 18th 2009 to photograph and map the Moon to find safe landing sites for Moon landings. NASA claims to have taken photographs of the Apollo 11 landing site and the bottom half of the LEM which didn’t return. Here are the photos that allegedly prove the Apollo missions to the Moon took place.
I can’t see anything from 500 metres up – maybe if we got closer.
As you can see from 500 metres above the Moon there is no visible sign of the bottom half of the LEM from the Apollo 11 mission.
NASA claim that these photos from 200 metres up clearly show the Apollo 11 landing site and the bottom half of the LEM.
17. Lack Of Stars:
One argument for the Apollo Moon landings being hoaxed is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the Moon, so stars are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through the filter of Earth’s atmosphere.
Did NASA realise it impossible to map out the exact locations of all the stars for the hoax without being rumbled, and therefore left them out? Intentionally falling back on an excuse that the quality of the photographs washes them out (an excuse they did actually give).
Some photographs are high-quality, however, and yet still no stars are shown. Certainly eerie, considering you can take pictures of stars from Earth in much lower quality and still see them.
Here is a video of Patrick Moore asking the Apollo 11 astronauts whether they could see stars from the Moon:
18. Faked Moon Walks:
Over the years there have been some serious questions raised about the film of Astronauts allegedly walking on the Moon. NASA claims the original Apollo footage has been lost but copies of it recorded by TV stations at the time are still available. One of the main criticisms is that with one sixth gravity the Astronauts don’t seem to be able to jump very high and when speeded up their jumps seem very Earthly. Also if you look how the dust is thrown up it also seems very similar to Earth which it obviously shouldn’t be.
Here is one video out of many showing these flaws in the footage:
19. Stanley Kubrick And Front Screen Projection:
Stanley Kubrick (July 26, 1928 – March 7, 1999) was a jewish American film director, screenwriter, producer, cinematographer and editor who did much of his work in the United Kingdom. Stanley Kubrick is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential directors of all time. His films are noted for their unique cinematography, attention to detail in the service of realism, and the evocative use of music.
Stanley Kubrick in 1971.
What is Front Screen Projection?
Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he perfected it.Front Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the camera, as if the actors are moving around on the set provided by the Front Screen Projection.The process came into fruition when the 3M company invented a material called Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about .4 millimeters wide. These beads were highly reflective. In the Front Screen Projection process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart. A projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen, and he would appear to be inside the projection.
How “Front Screen Projection” works.
In Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey Kubrick uses “Front Screen Projection” in several scenes.
Scene from Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) using the “Front Screen Projection” technique.
The same scene with a line showing the set and the background Scotchlite Front Projection Screen.
In the example above of “Front Screen Projection” the part under the line is a stage set and the part above is a screen. Looking at the Apollo Mission photos below the same technique seems to have been used.
A still photograph from the Apollo 17 Mission.
The same photo from Apollo 17 with a line showing where the back of the set looks to be.
Another photo from Apollo Mission 17.
The same photo from Apollo Mission 17 with a line indicating where the set seems to end and the Scotchlite Front Projection Screen begins.
Here is an extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White BA:
In 2005 NASA started their Constellation Programme (abbreviated CxP) to put men back on the Moon. They originally planned to get a man on the Moon by 2028 ( over three times longer than in the 1960s ) but soon pushed that date back to 2035.
On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.” The Russians have calculated that to protect their cosmonauts from radiation a 4 foot (120cm) thick lead casing would be needed.
In 2010 the Constellation Programme was put on the back-burner, due to insurmountable technical problems, after around $50 billion had been spent on it. NASA could have obviously used the 1960s Apollo designs if they hadn’t all been lost.
If NASA Did Fake The Moon Landings: Why? Where? How? Who?
Why? If NASA did fake the Moon landings the obvious reason is that after John F Kennedy stated that America would put a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s America couldn’t really back down. They would probably not have realised before about 1963 that it was impossible, and by then they had gone through 10s of billions of Dollars of taxpayers money. The loss of prestige, both at home and abroad, could have even brought down the American military/industrial complex and the American elite.
Where? If NASA did fake the Moon landings then the fake footage could have been shot at many locations, and probably more than one. NASA had its own recreations of the Moon surface and such places as Area 51, Lauren Canyon in Hollywood or even the set of Space Odyssey: 2001 could all have easily been used.
How? Faking the Moon landings would have been a lot easier than actually making the Moon landings. Everything the public saw on Earth would have been real apart from the Astronauts would have left the Saturn V rocket secretly before take off. The empty Saturn V rocket would have blasted off empty and fallen back to Earth, while NASA reported that the CSM and LEM were on their way to the Moon. After that all NASA had to do was bounce the fake transmissions off the Moon back to Earth. For the return “splashdown” they could have simply dropped the CSM from a helicopter or transport plane.
Who? The favourite suggestion for who directed the Apollo footage, if it was fake, is obviously Stanley Kubrick who made several references to the Apollo Missions in his other films. Another intriguing possibility is that director Roman Polanski was either involved or knew too much and a lot of his troubles, including the murder of Sharon Tate, are linked to the Apollo Missions.
Peter Tatchell was born in Melbourne Australia on 25th January 1952, he moved to London in 1971 to avoid conscription. In 1978 Tatchell joined the Labour Party and moved to Bermondsey, South East London. Tatchell ran as the Bermondsey Labour Party candidate in the 1983 General Election. Despite Bermondsey being a Labour stronghold he lost to Liberal candidate Simon Hughes. In February 2000 he left the Labour Party for unknown reasons. In 2004 he joined the Green Party and was chosen to be their candidate for Oxford East in the 2010 General Election, however for some reason he withdrew his candidacy in 2009.
Peter Tatchell (the UK’s most prominent homosexual activist and a favourite of the BBC) has done more than demand the abolition of the age of consent, he has broken the law on the age of consent in Britain at least once.
Peter Tatchell is a regular on the BBC. The BBC have refused to state whether he appears as a human rights activist, homosexual campaigner or paedophile apologist. They have also refused to state how much they have paid him for appearances.
As a gay 18-year-old Australian anti-Vietnam war draft-dodger, he came to the UK in 1971 and lived with a 16-year-old boy in London. The homosexual age of consent in England at the time was 21. Later he campaigned for lowering it to 16, and now he wants it lowered again to 14. What will he want after that?
When the age of consent for homosexuals was lowered to 16 an Outrage (Tatchell’s organization) banner said “16 is just a start” – it didn’t state what the end goal was.
Mr Tatchell criticises the age of consent laws. Here is a quotation from his own website:
“Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at 12; others not until they’re 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn’t take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances“.
Peter Tatchell wrote the chapter “Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent” for a book openly advocating paedophilia and finding ways “to make paedophilia acceptable“.
This book, published in 1986 and called The Betrayal of Youth (B.O.Y.), was edited by Warren Middleton, then vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Britain’s number one paedophile advocacy group.
Stephen Green, anti-paedophile campaigner wrote: “The book was part of a campaign to abolish all ages of consent, destroy the responsibilities of parents for their children, deny any ill-effects on children of interference by paedophiles, and withal to make it easier for paedophiles to gain sexual access to children.“
In The Betrayal of Youth Tatchell wrote that the age of sexual consent is “Reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era“.
Tatchell often ambushes public figures who don’t support the homosexual/paedophile agenda. The MSM and especially the BBC usually give him great publicity for these stunts.
He was not on his own in this belief.Many of his fellow socio-communists and homosexual activists thought the same:
Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity. The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would supersede the family household. … Gay people and children should have the right to live together. … It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’
Feminists like Beatrice Faust contributed to The Betrayal of Youth, as well as other homosexual activists besides Tatchell, including Jeffrey Weeks and Eric Presland, who “related his first paedophile experience with an Asian boy of thirteen, and boasted of interfering with a little boy of six“.
The book is considered so toxic that Amazon doesn’t sell it and you cannot search its content in Google Books.
Tatchell is well aware of how much all this is bad publicity for him and keeps rationalizing and adjusting his positions, but only the ideologically blind or pathologically naive cannot see through his self-excuses.
He has prepared a standard self-defence which can be found on his own website and has been repeated verbatim on many outlets. It used to also be on the site of his friend militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, but it’s not there any more. Maybe even Dawkins draws a line at what is morally allowed, even though his motto is “There’s probably no God – now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.
In this article that supposedly should serve to exculpate him, Tatchell has nothing better than this: “The critics also cite Warren Middleton’s 1980s book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in child sex abuse matters when I was asked to write.”
Considering that Warren Middleton was co-founder and vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a prominent group promoting paedophilia, it was impossible for Tatchell not to have known his propensities. In addition, both Tatchell and Middleton were part of the Gay Liberation Front/Angry Brigade, a neo-Marxist revolutionary group of radical students at the London School of Economics, thus making Tatchell’s protestations of ignorance verge on the ridiculous.
Peter Righton of the Paedophile Information Exchange – a Child welfare expert who wanted the age of consent lowering to four.
Were you aware that Tatchell contributed a chapter to this book?
THE BETRAYAL OF YOUTH
The contents and contributors of The Betrayal of Youth:
Chapter 1: ‘Incest’ by Clive Coliman: Described as “An ardent supporter of the children’s rights movement.”
Chapter 2: ‘Child Pornography and Erotica’ by Richard Green: Illustrator for the Paedophile Information Exchange magazine under the pseudonym “Dominik”
Chapter 3: ‘Child Prostitution’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.
Chapter 4: ‘Gender Differences’ by Liz Holtom and Kathy Challis: both from the anti-Christian Peace News.
Chapter 5: ‘Power and Consent’ by Eric Presland: Homosexual activist. Contributed also to the American paedophile book “The Age Taboo.”
Chapter 6: ‘Love and Let Love’ by Tuppy Owens, Editor of the Sex Maniac’s Diary, and Tom O’Carroll: ex-Chairman of P.I.E. who was convicted in 1981 of conspiracy to corrupt public morals by sending out a paedophile contact list.
Chapter 7: ‘Children and Sex’ by Fr Michael Ingram: Catholic priest, defender of paedophilia.
Chapter 9: ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent’ by Peter Tatchell.
Chapter 10: ‘Ends and Means: How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable?’ by Roger Moody of Peace News: “One of the most outspoken advocates of children’s rights in Britain .” Well-documented as a ubiquitous paedophile intellectual.
Chapter 11: ‘Socialism, Class, and Children’s Rights’ by John Lindsay: “ardent supporter of children’s rights.” Member of the Socialist Workers’ Party. Homosexual activist, hates the institution of the family.
Chapter 12: ‘Childhood Sexuality and Paedophilia: Some Questions Answered’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.
Chapter 13: ‘The Oppression of the Young: An Inside Perspective’ by Jeff Vernon: Involved in Gay Youth Movement and Campaign for Homosexual Equality.
Appendix 1: “P.I.E., from 1980 Until its Demise in 1985” by Steven A. Smith: ex-chairman of P.I.E. Fled to Holland in 1984, became “active in the Dutch crusade for children’s rights,” was deported back to the UK in 1991 and sentenced to 18 months for sending indecent articles through the post.
Appendix 2: “The Uranians” by Timothy d’Arch Smith: Bookseller. Author of “Love in Earnest.”
Peter Tatchell’s self-defence begins with:
“Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes.”
These are blatant falsities. It wasn’t many Catholic clergy, it was an extremely small minority. And, as shown in Lies About The Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal, there is no reason, except bigotry and prejudice, to single out Catholic clergy who in fact have committed fewer of these crimes than any other pedagogic institution, religious or secular.
Peter Tatchell and his homosexual/paedophile allies often attacked the Christian Church for having Christian values. There is no record of him bursting in to a synagogue or mosque to protest against their religious values.
Saying what he does about the Pope is a criminal act, it is slander. The Pope has never covered up for anyone.Tatchell and his friends in the mainstream media (especially the BBC) think that if you repeat a lie enough times your audience will start to believe that it’s true.
But blaming the Church whenever you’re in trouble is a good way to distract the public from your own deviations from the norm. It’s worked so far so why shouldn’t it work now? Maybe because people have started calling your bluff, Pete.
Peter Tatchell has a seething hatred of Christian morals and values.
The above should tell you how trustworthy and credible Tatchell is, but there’s more.
Look at his defence of the book Dares To Speak:
“Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by professors, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, a Dutch senator and a former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It discussed the age of sexual consent and whether all sex between young people and adults is necessarily unwanted and harmful, based on what it said was objective research with young people.
The book does not endorse or excuse sexual relationships with young people that involve coercion, manipulation or damage. The authors queried, among other things, the balance between giving young people sexual rights and protecting them against abuse. These are entirely legitimate issues to discuss.”
Leaving aside the irony (probably lost on humorless Tatchell) about his using a “former editor of a Catholic newspaper” as a guarantor of the morality of a book while he constantly treats the Catholic Church like a den of abusers. The book Dares to Speak, that Tatchell praises so much as an academic achievement, was edited by Joseph Geraci, who was also the editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The book is a collection of articles from the journal.
Before it was quietly removed, this was Wikipedia’s entry for the publication:
Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of pedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-pedophile activists.
After the normalization of homosexuality, we’ll have the normalization of paedophilia.
Here is Tatchell’s letter to the Guardian dated 26th June 1997 (a few weeks after Labour’s General Election win) which he denied writing when I asked him about it. However I can find no record of a complaint to the Guardian, the Press Complaints Commission or any lawsuit for libel:
Ros Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.
Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted,abusive and harmful.
Peter Tatchell has repeatedly denied writing the letter above. However below is his reply in the Guardian (1st July 1997) to criticism of his original letter. In his second letter (below) he never denies writing the first letter (above) or claims he was edited in any way.
Peter Tachell’s second letter to the Guardian on 1st July 1997.
Peter Tatchell has often claimed he lives a monk-like existence living on a mere £9,000 income per annum. When I challenged him on this he changed his claim to £29,000 plus expenses. However he has refused to disclose his payments for his numerous main stream media appearances or disclose how much his yearly expenses are.
Peter Tatchell in his Bermondsey Council flat.
Peter Tatchell has declined to be interviewed for this article, however I will leave him the option of the right of reply in the comments section.
Tachell was also a major player in legalising homopaedo marriage and adoption.
SMOKESCREENS AND MIRRORS LIES, CONFUSION, TRICKERY AND PRETENSIONS.
A Study of Language
A short summary/review of Dr Thomas E. Turner’s book
Millions pour in from the third world as if a Camp of the Saints(1) were occurring in slow motion. This brings many problems and much strife and grief, e.g.: thousands of British girls are raped; working Brits lose a fortune in lower wages (2) and by paying extra taxes to support the immigrants (and to fund the related industries, etc.(3)); large areas of the land are ‘ethnically-cleansed’ by immigrants; there is destruction of British culture and of the social fabric; and, most significantly, there is the facilitation and threat of genocide of the British people. The people are anxious, angry, unhappy, hurt – the people are being harmed and yet they dare not speak out. How did those who engineered this get away with it?
One significant factor in pulling this off was the use of various words as tools to suppress dissent. These terms suppress dissent by direct means, and also by indirect means – they are used as tools of power to exert social and political power over the people.
In Dr Turner’s book these terms are analysed and it is shown that these words are not even ‘proper’ words – that’s how they work their power.
These terms are a specific type of term: ‘nebulous-power-words’. These terms can act as tools of power because of the very nature of the words. The characteristics of these terms enable them to obscure truth, inhibit rationality – confusing people and distorting perception – and hence the emotions and social forces associated with such terms can act to manipulate people. The power of these terms is contingent upon their features, e.g. their lack of rationality (4) and the fact that most people do not recognise this lack – but instead misperceive the terms as properly rational terms. It is because of these features that the social and emotional power associated with the terms can operate to control people.
You might have heard the non-white Cohesion Officer on television dismissing a poor white person who might have had the audacity to say that he thinks that the policy of favouring non-whites in employment might be unfair and not an act of ‘equality’ – ‘At our Unit’ the Officer snarls, then raising the voice to a terribly superior pitch, ‘we celebrate the diversity and do you not realise that ‘equality’ is the root of ‘multiculturalism’? And quite honestly I think your statement is dangerously close to sounding like ‘racism’!’ The white person will now deny being a ‘racist’ and say how many black friends he has, how much he supports ‘equality’, he thinks it should not matter what a person’s skin colour is, blablabla….on the defence. But defence to what? The statement from the state-paid official is mumbo jumbo.
‘Multiculturalism’ is rooted in ‘equality’ and opposed to ‘racism’
The three terms ‘racism’, ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘equality’ are nebulous-power-words and should not be used in rational discourse. These terms do not possess high referentiality and also hold strong emotional associations and social force. People celebrate ‘multiculturalism’, even constructing monuments to it (5), and opposing ‘equality’ is heresy. Being a ‘racist’ often is considered the most terrible thing.
These terms have been used to discuss, justify and explain changes in the lives of millions of people. But what so these words actually mean?
Let us examine the definitions of these 3 terms. Definitions are available in dictionaries, glossaries, in the literature, from interviews, etc.
I support ‘equality’ as a moral good!
First, examining ‘equality’ (6) one finds many definitions available. In the sense of being the same (in quantity and/or quality, i.e. equivalence), this term possesses high referentiality – it would be perfectly rational to use this term in such senses (7). However, in the social and political sense one finds that this term is problematic. There are many ways in which this term is used in the social and political context(8), including(9): equality of outcome, (e.g. wealth, income, representation, distribution of goods, etc.); equality of process, (e.g. equality of opportunity, etc.); ontological equality; the idea of being the same; equality of recognition; equality of condition; equality of fraternity; equality before the law; equality of rights; etc.
The very fact of multiple meanings is a factor denoting low referentiality – since one could never be sure which definition was being used. However, there are other problems with this set of definitions. For example, some of these uses of the term ‘equality’ are inconsistent with one another. A well-known form of ‘equality’ is that of equality of opportunity. One could use this in reference to places at university, or jobs, etc. However, if the relevant groups differ on the relevant criterion (or criteria), then equal processing will produce unequal outcomes. Hence, in these circumstances, one could not have ‘equality’: one could have equality of outcome at the expense of inequality of process, or vice versa(10). So, if the cry is for ‘equality’ – then to which form of ‘equality’ is one referring? ‘Equality’ is not a sufficient term in itself. One would need to specify the exact form of ‘equality’, and then, if there were such transparency, certain issues might become apparent. For example, if one merely wants equal numbers in relation to outcome, then one might wonder why this is? Is this some sort of numerical OCD? Is it moral to deprive the best qualified candidates merely because of their group membership? And if so, is this ‘equality’? Will this rule apply (dare I say ‘equally’) in all contexts? And how does one determine membership in the group categories – is this not inherently unequal? What harms are associated with this (hence raising moral issues)? Why would this necessarily be a moral good? Or an aim?
A single clear high referentiality definition of the term would illuminate many issues concerning the public good, logic, truth, morality, etc. – issues that are obscured by use of the confused and unclear term ‘equality’. Nebulous-power-words tend to confuse and obscure, yet how very dare anyone object to the holy and righteous term of ‘equality’.
We need action against ‘racism’!
‘Racism’ is a very powerful nebulous-power-word. People go to great lengths to avoid being called ‘racist’ (11) – sometimes even making ‘friends’ with people from other races. Many people do not do what is correct because they want to avoid being labelled as ‘racist’ – this allegation also made against the police(12). International conferences are held to combat ‘racism’(13) and governments speak against it. We need to stop ‘racism’ in football too(14). Some believe ‘racism’ is a criminal offence(15) – many are reported in the media as being arrested for ‘racism’(16). ‘Racism’(17) warrants censorship and many other punishments(18). This term controls speech, perceptions, conception and behaviour.
However, what does this word actually mean?
Many people cannot define the term at all, and some definitions available present low referentiality, e.g. that a racist incident is one so perceived(19) . If one examines the definitions that are available, one finds many definitions – again denoting low referentiality. Popular definitions include (in relation to a race or races): hatred; superiority; stereotyping; prejudice; discrimination; mistreatment; ‘inequality’; genocide(20); preference; intolerance; power; and yet others, including the idea that ‘racism’ is the state of being uninformed/uneducated/unintelligent, evil/wicked, etc.
Again, if a single definition were chosen, then the power of this term would diminish. This term, as a nebulous-power-word, has the immense power it does because it lacks high referentiality. For example if one were to pick the popular definition of ‘hatred’. If this had always been(21) the one and only definition of the term, then what would be so terrible about this? People hate all sorts of groups, why is this case so demonised and not others? Surely people are entitled to their own emotions? And if this were the only definition, then the numerous times this term is attributed in an unwarranted manner (used to silence and control) would become apparent. For example, if someone were to state that ‘group X has on average a lower ability in Y’, then why should this necessarily be attributed to hatred? Could it not just be true or false? This replacement exercise(22) can be performed with all the commonly-found definitions of the term and the intellectual dishonesty becomes clear, as do other matters – such as questions of morality. If one wants action against ‘racism’ what exactly is one wanting to prevent, and why?
All the definitions of ‘racism’ present problems – such as the inconsistent manner in which ‘stereotyping’ is used. It is not ‘racist’ to stereotype groups unless it is unfavourable to non-white groups(23). ‘Anti-racists’ can sneer at whites, including Brits, no problem – ‘Brits are too lazy to work and need immigrants’, etc.(24) Even putting to one side the unequal application, if ‘racism’ were merely defend as stereotyping/generalising about a race(s), then ‘racism’ would merely be such generalising. What is so very terrible about that? Do we really need to hold an International Conference because someone might have made a generalisation in their mind? Or even said it out loud? What if the thought is actually true(25)? And surely if ‘racism’ is defined as mistreatment of a racial group – then is not mass immigration a racist act against us? Which would mean that ‘multiculturalism’ were ‘racism’ and also ‘anti-racism’ (internally inconsistent)? So if ‘racism’ is defined only to disempower one racial group – then is this ‘racist’?
Dr Turner deconstructs this term to the extent that after reading his analysis you will never view the term ‘racist’ the same again.
It’s a celebration of ‘multiculturalism’
Investigating the definitions available of the term ‘multiculturalism’ one finds that there are 7 commonly found parts of the definitions that are available(26), plus the descriptive definition:
1. All groups practising their own culture
2. All the same
3. Celebration of diversity
4. Everyone living happily together
7. Cultural relativism
These elements present problems from a rational perspective – whether examined alone and/or in combination, as will be shown briefly here.
I want to preserve all the world’s cultures and the diversity!!
Element one presents an idea that is not achievable in practice: all groups cannot practise their own cultures(27) in one place at one time. This simply is not possible. The one set of rules dilemma illuminates the logical fact that since a culture is described by a set of descriptive ‘rules’(28), only one such set can define the culture in question. Thus, if two (or more) cultures differ on any of these rules(29), then both sets cannot describe the resultant area at any one time. For example, if a culture has the custom of all houses being painted pink, then if a blue-house-painting culture moves in to the city, then the city-scape cannot remain all blue and all pink. Not possible. One or both cultures will be changed(30). The idea of ‘everyone doing their own thing’ is not preserving the original cultures, and neither does it represent ‘everyone doing their own thing’ in this context. This dilemma is played out across immigrised areas in Britain today(31). Is the Muslim call to prayer to be played across public space(32)? Are gays to be allowed to be gay? What are women to wear? May they drive on the roads? Is alcohol allowed? Is Piglet allowed(33)?
If one really did believe in preservation of culture and all cultures being allowed to practise their own cultures, then the political policy of mass immigration would not be a good idea.
All the different groups are the same!!
As to element two, we are not all the same, and if we were on wonders how on earth one would be able to categorise people into the relevant groups anyway. This is simply an untrue statement as are all the related lies such as ‘we are no different to other people’, ‘there is no such thing as race’, ‘we are all the same inside’, etc. If this element is used to define the term ‘multiculturalism’, then ‘multiculturalism’ is defined with an untruth.
It’s just a non-stop celebration here!!
Element Three (celebration of diversity) does not describe general reality. Diversity (as brought by immigration – which is the only type of diversity relevant here) in fact tends to make people less happy and, despite frequent claims to the contrary, tends to harm the people/society experiencing it (other things being equal). Studies show diversity causes people to be less trusting, less willing to sacrifice for others, less secure, less mentally healthy, more anxious, and is also associated with lower levels of social capital(34).
Such diversity tends to bring discomfort, strife, conflict and increases the chances of civil disorder, (e.g. race riots in 2001 across Britain, Birmingham’s inter-racial riots in 2005(35), etc.) and even civil war(36). Caldwell notes that every country that has experienced mass immigration has some form of ‘simmering’ ethnic conflict (Caldwell, 2009(37)). John Derbyshire predicts our grandchildren asking why we couldn’t see that such diversity obviously causes trouble – and they will be asking ‘what could be more obvious?’(38). Some hold that inter-group conflict is merely the way of nature – and that hostility and separation between groups may be instinctive and natural.
It would be inconsistent to celebrate all diversity (this could involve celebrating uniformity if practised by a group), and amoral by definition. This would also entail celebrating any practice – including child sacrifice, slavery, rape, etc. (e.g. see Press, 2007, page 17(39)). These practices, and others, are still found around the world – even human sacrifice.
Such diversity in one space also tends to uniformity, and this is hence inconsistent (in the context of immigration). This contradiction has prompted some to say that ‘multiculturalism’ is ‘the anti-thesis’ of what is presented as meaning, thereby making it a form of Orwellian ‘doublethink’(40). If one were a big fan of diversity, then mass immigration should not be a policy one should support.
Hence, such ‘celebration’ is inconsistent, immoral, is rarely found in real life (other than amongst journalists, politicians, etc.), and irrational in light of the problems it brings – plus the diversity brought by immigration ironically tends to become uniformity.
Everyone’s so happy together!!
Element Four (everyone living happily together) also does not describe reality accurately. As documented by Taylor (2011(41)) with numerous real-life examples, people generally prefer to separate and will do so when feasible (and in the absence of other incentives, etc.). Segregation in Britain is increasing, and is significant – as noted by many. For example, the head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, has stated that Britain is ‘sleepwalking’ into segregation(42) and Ted Cantle referred to communities living ‘parallel lives’ in his Report following the 2001 riots(43), etc.
When people are mixed together, this tends to decrease happiness and many other measures of well-being (as noted above). Different groups living together increases the chances of civil disorder or even war (as noted earlier).
Most people do not believe that ‘everyone lives happily together’; quite the contrary. During the author’s research it was found that most people not only desire to be ‘amongst their own kind’, but also believe that this makes people happier. Taylor cites a study conducted by the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley, which found that the majority of the four major racial groups in California surveyed (blacks, whites, Hispanics and Asians) agreed with the statement that ‘people are happier when segregated’ (Taylor, 2011, page 41, ibid).
The desire to live amongst one’s ‘own kind’ is reported around the world – sometimes to and/or by governments (which hence would make it difficult for those governments to claim not to know this). For example, the British Government Home Office Report commissioned after the 2001 riots noted that the main cause for the segregation found in Oldham was the preferences of groups ‘to live with their own kind’ (Oldham Independent Review, 2001, page 9, ibid). German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quoted as stating that:
‘Of course the tendency had been to say, ‘let’s adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other’. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly,’
(E.g. as quoted in the Guardian, 17th October 2010)
The fact that groups do not live together happily is sometimes noted even by some proponents of ‘multiculturalism’. In fact, the ‘multiculturalism’ industry is based largely on the assumption that diversity is problematic. Many other phenomena implicitly acknowledge that in fact groups do not simply live happily together. For example, the very existence of numerous lavishly-funded government bodies to ‘create cohesion’(44) and suchlike admit, if only by implication, that there is at least a strong possibility of problems between groups. One could also cite the systematic media censorship and distortion conducted for the purpose of ‘maintaining’ ‘cohesion’.
As a description this element is therefore false and irrational, and as an aim it is irrational to attempt since it seems unlikely to occur and is harmful (because of the problems it causes – increasing unhappiness, increasing the chances of civil disorder, etc.).
Some believe that the problems that arise from ethnic diversity are best resolved by the achievement of homogeneity through inter-marriage (hence refuting Element Four). There are a number of influential people in politics, academia and the media who explicitly call for miscegenation as a solution, (e.g. Podhoretz(45)). But if the problems of mixing ethnic/racial groups within one country are so severe and intractable that the best solution involves the ending of the relevant groups (or at least the indigenous group(46)), this calls into question both the attainability and the descriptive accuracy of this idea of ‘everyone living happily together’.
Hence, this element is neither a rational description nor an easily achievable policy. The moral justification for attempting to achieve this situation is not clear – especially if this involves destruction of groups (culture and/or people).
Equality! Even if it’s unequal it’s good!
As noted above, the term ‘equality’ (in the social and political sense) is a nebulous-power-word and hence should not be used in rational discourse. However, in the context of mass immigration (descriptive ‘multiculturalism’) this nebulous-power-word presents further specific problems – including the fact that equality of fraternity is not generally found (which can present various problems as well as inconsistencies). Also, in relation to indigenous rights(47), the indigenous group inherently have many of these rights infringed by the very fact of immigration, presenting an intrinsic inequality when descriptive ‘multiculturalism'(48) exists. Equality of representation is not achievable if numbers differ and/or distributions in relation to the relevant criterion (a) – unless some inequalities are enforced to make it equal. This renders descriptive ‘multiculturalism’ incompatible with ‘equality’ in these senses – and in many others.
‘Racism’ is very very bad ‘Anti-racism’ is good ‘Racist’ ‘anti-racism’ – still good!!
‘Racism’ is a nebulous-power-word – and as such should not be used in rational discourse. This is true in general, but there are specific additional issues if this nebulous-power-word is used in the context of descriptive ‘multiculturalism’. For example, if ‘racism’ is hatred (of a racial group or groups), could not mass immigration be viewed as an act of hatred(49) against indigenous people(50)? Some supporters of mass immigration claim that animosity, or even loathing(51), towards Britain is a motivation, e.g. Hitchens states that: ‘we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain’(52). As many have stated, integration/assimilation and having children outside one’s race could be viewed as killing one’s own race and as hateful(53). Which would mean that ‘multiculturalism’ in its descriptive sense is defined both as anti-racism, and also is ‘racist’. The associations of the term ‘racism’ with genocide(54) might become illuminated were the term merely defined as ‘hatred’ (or any other definition). The power to control people and inhibit objections to mass immigration would diminish were this term clearly defined(55).
It’s all relative – don’t bother thinking about it…
Under what is thought to be the original usage of the term ‘cultural relativism’ it was suggested that cultures should (or could) only be judged on their own terms. If this is true, then is problematic for descriptive ‘multiculturalism’, e.g. how is public space to be governed, (e.g. how are laws to be formulated?)?
The more recent interpretations of this phrase include that of ‘you shouldn’t/can’t judge’ – but this is a judgement and hence internally inconsistent, as well as being immoral. The spreading of such ideas has harmed society as some people are inhibited from making moral judgements(56).
Other popular interpretations include that of ‘all cultures are equal’. As ‘equality’ is a nebulous-power-word it is not clear what this actually means. The ways one might interpret this do not necessarily make sense alone or as a definition of the term ‘multiculturalism’ either – this would be a true or a false statement and so what does this have to do with mass immigration? And does anyone actually believe this in the sense of being ‘equally good’?
It’s just a description…
Of course, the term ‘multiculturalism’ is sometimes used in its descriptive sense – to refer to an area that has experienced as influx of incomers and is hence racially and/or ethnically mixed. In Britain this thus denotes the results of the political policy of immigration. This definition has high referentiality and possesses no rational problems per se – although being inconsistent with some of the other definitions (see above – all of which it underpins). However, there are some problems with this definition – including those of: this definition not always making sense if a replacement exercise is performed; and the issue of why this would be represented in a positive manner (and, not unrelatedly, why would a government implement this as a policy?).
In relation to the replacing of the term with its definition: how can ‘multiculturalism’ merely mean the diversity of immigration in sentences such as: ‘’multiculturalism’ is the solution to diversity’, ‘’multiculturalism’ is the justification of a ‘multicultural’ society’, etc.? How can it ‘be taught’ (as is recommended)? How can it ‘be’ a value/moral?
In relation to the idea of the positive emotions associated with the term (including its celebration) why would the results of this political policy be considered as positive(57)? Most Brits view immigration in a negative light, as shown in surveys and also by comments made in daily life (when people feel safe to speak that is). In Britain immigration has been harmful – especially to the poor who have been made poorer(58). Immigration (and its associated management) has cost the country a lot of money(59). Immigrants have committed a disproportionate amount of crime(60). The victims of these immigrants include thousands of raped women and children(61). The social fabric is destroyed by immigration, causing much misery – this in both dramatic ways and also the less dramatic daily miseries(62). Many freedoms have been inhibited or lost as a consequence of immigration(63). There have been many other means by which the country has been harmed as a result of immigration(64), (e.g. in education, housing issues, strains on resources such as water, importation of disease, etc.). Hence, immigration into Britain in recent years has caused great harm. In fact, many immigrants and supporters of mass immigration view immigration as an act of revenge against the Brits(65) – not very positive.
Not looking at the specifics harms that immigration has brought to Britain in recent years, one could examine the process of immigration from a theoretical perspective. When there is immigration there is what is known as the dilemma of cultural contact. This dilemma points out that immigration can bring only one of 2 outcomes(66): there is either diversity; or there is homogeneity. This is true irrespective of any specific consequences of immigration, (e.g. financial losses to the country, etc.(67)). Diversity is associated with much harm qv, and homogeneity can only be achieved by cultural destruction, and full homogeneity by racial destruction(68). Even if one supports ‘only’ cultural homogeneity: were this achieved, then racial homogeneity would follow in time. Thus, the dilemma of culture contact illuminates the logical truth that the only 2 options are both associated with harm: harm of diversity or the harm associated with achieving homogeneity. This truth holds no matter which terms are used to describe the relevant processes/outcomes, (e.g. ‘assimilation’, ‘integration’, ‘creolisation’, ‘métissage’, etc.). Of course, there are those who do not view the loss of racial existence as a problem(69), e.g. Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Walkington is quoted as allegedly stating that: Britain is ‘a country with the most mixed race relationships in the world. In 200 years’ time, we’ll all be coffee coloured and I’ve got no problem with that.’(70)
According to the United Nations(71), genocide is an international crime and punishable as such(72). One action that can qualify as genocide is: deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (see Article 2). Under this definition not only does the political policy of mass immigration possibly qualify as a genocidal act (intent dependent), but many of the academics, media, politicians and other experts appear to possibly be guilty of ‘complicity in genocide’ (an international crime under Article 3).
Hence, it is difficult to see why this term (policy) would be represented with a positive term. In recent years in Britain much harm has been caused, and even from a theoretical perspective the dilemma of cultural contact illuminates the logical truth that such immigration can only result in either homogenisation or diversity(73) – both outcomes/processes associated with harm/loss.
In recent years there have been some critics of ‘multiculturalism’ – but these voices queried ‘multiculturalism’ and not immigration or diversity. By this means, nebulous-power-words can be used to further obscure issues. If these critics are objecting to diversity brought by immigration, then what are they suggesting? Assimilation? Homogenisation? Is this not genocidal? And what happened to the celebration of diversity?
Nebulous-power-words can be used to confuse, distract, stall or otherwise obscure clear perception and conception. Also, when they are no longer useful, they will be either discarded (and possibly replaced(74)) or their meaning switched. What was good might be said to be bad – or vice versa. Nebulous-power-words might no longer be useful for a number of reasons, including: their purpose has been achieved, they have been exposed, etc. It is predicted that in the future even the very powerful nebulous-power-word ‘racism’ will either switch(75) or fall into disuse.
Hence, ‘multiculturalism’ is not adequate from a rational perspective. This term possesses low referentiality – the elements are all problematic from a rational perspective (ether per se and/or in the context of descriptive ‘multiculturalism’) and the one high referentiality meaning(76) found does not always make sense in the contexts in which the term is used – in these contexts the term must mean something else – but what? All the other meanings are shown to be problematic.
Social Representation Perspective on Meaning
So, if ‘multiculturalism’ is a nebulous-power-word, then what does it actually mean to those who know/use/hear/read, etc. it? Dr Turner concludes his book by taking another perspective on meaning. Whereas from a rational perspective this term is inadequate, a social representation perspective on meaning can explain, inter alia, what this term actually means to those who know it – and how social and emotional forces are contained within the very meaning (from a social representation perspective) of this term(77).
Dr Turner identifies various narrative voices (‘identities’) that contribute to constructing the social representation meaning that is found. One voice is that of the abstract – representing the abstract nature of the term and imbuing it with authority. All these experts, judges, highly-decorated academics, etc. use the term – surely it is not bogus? If the politicians have it as a policy it must at least be a real word? The Emperor isn’t naked is he?(78) A second such voice is the ‘nice’ narrative – it is just not nice(79) to challenge this – that would be nasty and ‘racist’(80). Thirdly, there is the danger of being attacked by the voice of the angry if one challenges/dissents(81) – these attacks can be in the form of the sneering/demeaning, the name-calling, or financial and legalistic attacks. There are also many cases of physical attacks to people and to property, and threats of such. Rage-filled people attempt to resolve their emotional problems by drawing upon the construct of ‘villain and victim’ – the immigrants being the ‘pet victims’ of their fantasy community, and the ‘racists’ the villains(82). Snobbery and viciousness are acted out upon dissenters. This frightens many people into submission/silence/compliance. Such utopian thinking is inherently destructive – the abstract and unachievable absurd visions ‘justifying’ destruction, violence, hate and control(83). Many immigrants themselves constitute a fourth voice – one that makes a claim of victimhood and offers motivations such as self-indulgence, pity, fear, shame and guilt. Immigrants can draw upon the utopian rainbow loving images and social representations without necessarily believing the vision/tenets(84) – this can be used, in a manipulative manner, as a tool to further one’s own goals. A fifth significant voice is that of the crowd – following the majority view (as is perceived(85)) and being swayed by social forces, many of this group follow the path of least resistance. All these forces combine and interact to construct the social representation meaning that is found – the social forces hence contained within the very meaning of this term (from a social representation perspective).
Fully assimilated visual images render the social representation impermeable to reason and truth. Images can replace concepts(86). Such images are ubiquitous in Western culture(87), and can ‘make sense’ of the elements in a manner that rational discourse cannot – and hence the term (and its elements) is ‘understood’ in this manner (by all being fitted into an organised structure of thought). The elements match and describe the image, but the image remains decontextualised and abstract.
Repeated linking between such images and the relevant phenomena, terms, mantras, etc. forms and reinforces the associations. This happy rainbow is contrasted constructively against ‘racism’ and this dichotomy constitutes the figurative nucleus of bipolar oppositional form of this hegemonic social representation (parallel to the ‘boy-girl’ construction of gender(88)).
THE JABBERWOCKY GYMBLES AND GYRES TALISMAN AND TABOO
As can be seen from the foregoing, ‘multiculturalism’ meets all the criteria to be categorised as a nebulous-power-word – words which can exert control because of their very nature. The power of these words is contingent upon low referentiality and on the fact that people do not recognise their true nature – without these factors the emotional and social forces could not hold such power over people. The low referentiality inhibits rational processing, causing confusion and obfuscation. Their emotional and social power governs perceptions, thoughts and feelings – and hence behaviour too. Representation by visual imagery exacerbates these effects. Only because of the nature of these terms can their powerful content operate. Nebulous-power-words are inadequate from a rational perspective, and should not form a part of rational discourse. They are inadequate to be used as social or political policies.
These terms can act as smokescreens and mirrors. The mirrors can reverse the perception of reality, and the smoke obscures truth. In the smoke people are confused and emotional, and hence easily manipulated. Amidst the smoke there is fear and panic and many will be misled – some following the crowd for safety, others are tricked into falsehoods, some push others towards the fire to save themselves, etc.
When one reads that toves are gyring and gymbling one might sort of understand, but it does not really make sense. Some do not want to admit they cannot understand – and others will feel that they do.
As Orwell might have said, ‘People bellyfeel ‘multiculturalism’, it is double plus good and goodthink; ‘racism’ is a thoughtcrime and double plus non good, ‘racists’ are thought criminals and non-persons’. Using the terms ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘racism’ (or any other nebulous-power-words) is, in Orwell’s terminology, a form of ‘duckspeak’. Duckspeak was the form of speech that involved movements of the voice centres, with sound being produced, but this movement and noise occurred without the higher brain parts needing to be engaged (Orwell, 1984 ibid). Hence, people could be speaking to each other, but not in a rational sense; the noises made acted to control people, and this control was made possible because of the very nature of the noises.
The duckspeak noises acted as tools of power – and yet the people never realised that duckspeak was not rational, nor that the power controlling them derived partly from themselves(89), contained within the very meaning of the terms they knew and used. This is how nebulous-power-words function. People can be controlled from within by such surreptitious means – a more total and perfect form of control than many others.
Boot (2006(90)) discusses such powerful terms being used by ‘glossocrats’ and how such terms can be used ‘as instruments of power’ this ‘long after the seemingly more violent weapons have dulled’. Nebulous-power-words contribute to a sociopolitical environment that is seen by some as ‘soft totalitarianism’. Author Hal Colebatch(91) believes Britain to be becoming the first soft totalitarian state of the modern world – ‘soft’ because it lacks the gulags of previous such regimes, but ‘totalitarian’ nonetheless because of the immense state power over people – including control over people’s thoughts and the punishments for dissent (The Australian, 21st April 2009(92)).
The simple but politically embarrassing truth is that ‘multiculturalism’ simply fails to meets the intellectual, practical or moral standards required for such a world-changing concept. And yet for now, the mass ‘multicultural’ mania continues almost unabated, and challenging its cosy consensus remains a hazardous undertaking. The ethnic emperor is appallingly naked – but although some in the West have started to notice, still too few dare to mention it. It is the very nature of some of the terms used that has facilitated much of this harm. The use of clear rational language could be a significant step in freeing people. If the Lion takes genuine courage, the Tin Man sees where the real compassion is, and the Scarecrow is intellectually honest and rigorous, then perhaps the curtain can be pulled and the pretensions, inaccuracies and dishonesties will be exposed. While the smoke and mirrors confuse, obscure, deceive, intimidate and shame, the good people of Emerald City are being manipulated and controlled.
Dr Turner’s book is recommended reading.
It is available to borrow or to buy from Amazon:
37. Caldwell, C. (2009) Reflections on the Revolution Europe. Can Europe be the Same with Different People in it? Allen Lane/Penguin, London: England
38. John Derbyshire, Taki’s Magazine, 29th March 2012: http://takimag.com/article/multiculturalism_when_will_the_sleeper_wake_john_derbyshire/print#axzz2jiRyi2m3
39. Press, J. K. (2007) Culturalism. Social Books: New York
40. E.g. see: ‘The Rivkin Project: How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations’, Dr. K R Bolton Foreign Policy Journal, 12 March 2011
41. Taylor, J. (2011) White Identity. Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. New Century Foundation: USA
42. E.g. see BBC News website 22nd September 2005
43. The ‘Cantle Report’ – Community Cohesion: a Report of the Independent Review Team. Chaired by Ted Cantle and published January 2001. Home Office.
44. ‘Cohesion’ is a problematic term. Frequently this term is used as a code-word for the absence of civil war and/or race riots.
45. Podhoretz, N. (1963) My Negro Problem and Ours. New York: American Jewish Committee
46. Immigrant groups might have populations remaining in their home countries
47. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 61st session at UN Headquarters in New York City on 13 September 2007
The Manchester Guardian was founded by John Edward Taylor in 1821, and was first published on May 5 of that year.The Guardian soon built a solid reputation for fighting against social injustice following the Peterloo Massacre and the Corn Laws. The Guardian was published weekly until 1836, when it was published on Wednesday and Saturday, becoming a daily in 1855.The Guardian achieved national and international recognition under the editorship of CP Scott, who held the post for 57 years from 1872.
Scott bought the paper in 1907 following the death of Taylor’s son.CP Scott died in 1932 and was followed only four months later by one son Edward, so sole ownership fell to his other son JR Scott.In June 1936, JR Scott gave ownership of the paper to the trustees of the Scott Trust. The Guardian moved to London in 1964.The Guardian relied heavily on the Manchester Evening News for financial support which it owned. In the late 70s and early 80s the Guardian’s position as the voice of the left was unchallenged. However in recent times the Guardian has become the by-word for trendy, faux Working-class values peddled by over privileged cultural-marxists. The Guardian is now run at a huge loss with it’s future uncertain as its assets are run down.
Current Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger since 1995. His currect salary is £395,000 plus bonuses of around £170,000 per year. In 2009 it was reported that one of his daughters, Isabella, had been working at The Guardian, but had been using her jewish mother’s surname (Mackie) as a nom de plume to avoid suspicion of having obtained the job through nepotism. It’s not known if The Guardian wasted People’s time by going through a charade of advertising the job.
The senior staff at the Guardian and the exclusive, private schools they attended:
The yearly fees stated do not usually include lunches, music, drama, travel or uniforms.
Editor: Alan Rusbridger (Cranleigh) £10,230
Political Editor: Patrick Wintour (Westminster) £10,830
Northern Editor: Martin Wainwright (Shreswbury)£11,652
Industrial Editor: David Gow (St. Peter’s, York)£19,440
Columnist and Associate Editor: Seumas Milne (Winchester College)Approx.£30,000
The Observer’s Andrew Rawnsley (Rugby School)£31,245
Columnist: George Monbiot (Stowe)£27,390
Columnist: Zoe Williams (Godolphin and Latymer)£17,280
The Guardian also offer to pay for all senior staff to send their Children to the private school of their choice – a perk most take up willingly.
Seumas Milne incidentally is the son of former BBC Director General Alisdair Milne.
Guardian News & Media has lost nearly £200m in the past six years as it pursues its ambition of being the “world’s leading liberal voice”.
GMG already enjoys advantages over some of its commercial media rivals. Ownership by the Scott Trust means it does not have to answer to shareholders. The group has a cash and investment fund of £254m. Those other assets such as its 50 per cent stake in Trader Media Group and a 33 per cent share in Top Right are security for the loss-making news business.Two years ago, as he committed GMG to a “digital-first strategy”, Mr Miller warned staff the newspaper’s losses were so great it could run out of money in “three to five years”. The latest losses of £31m for the year to the end of March were an improvement on the £44m of the previous 12 months and he took succour from a 28.9 per cent rise in digital revenues.
Converting pounds to dollars (£1 = $1.64), you find £200 million equals about $325 million. Divide that by six and you find that they’re losing money at a rate in excess of $54 million a year. The £31 million the Guardian group lost in the most recent year is more than $50 million. The £44 million they lost in the previous year was $72 million.
Please note Alan Rusbridger:
The Scott Trust has the duty to maintain a secure financial footing for the business: “…to devote the whole of the surplus profits of the Company which would otherwise have been available for dividends…towards building up the reserves of the Company and increasing the circulation of and expanding and improving the newspapers.” These principles remain the only instructions given to an incoming editor of the Guardian.
Mass immigration is a phenomenon, the causes of which are still cleverly concealed by the system, and the multicultural propaganda is trying to falsely portray it as inevitable. With this article we intend to prove once and for all, that this is not a spontaneous phenomenon. What they want to present as an inevitable outcome of modern life, is actually a plan conceived around a table and prepared for decades, to completely destroy the face of the continent.
Few people know that one of the main initiators of the process of European integration, was also the man who designed the genocide plan of the Peoples of Europe. It is a dark person, whose existence is unknown to the masses, but the elite considers him as the founder of the European Union. His name is Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. His father was an Austrian diplomat named Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi (with connections to the Byzantine family of the Kallergis) and his mother the Japanese Mitsu Aoyama. Kalergi, thanks to his close contacts with all European aristocrats and politicians, due to the relationships of his nobleman-diplomat father, and by moving behind the scenes, away from the glare of publicity, he managed to attract the most important heads of state to his plan , making them supporters and collaborators for the “project of European integration”.
The man behind White European genocide Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.
In 1922 he founded the “Pan-European” movement in Vienna, which aimed to create a New World Order, based on a federation of nations led by the United States. European integration would be the first step in creating a world government. Among the first supporters, including Czech politicians Tomáš Masaryk and Edvard Beneš and the banker Max Warburg, who invested the first 60,000 marks. The Austrian Chancellor Ignaz Seipel and the next president of Austria, Karl Renner, took the responsibility for leading the “Pan-European” movement. Later, French politicians, such as Léon Bloum, Aristide Briand, Alcide De Gasperi, etc will offer their help.
With the rise of Fascism in Europe, the project was abandoned and the “Pan-European” movement was forced to dissolve, but after the Second World War, Kalergi, thanks to frantic and tireless activity and the support of Winston Churchill, the Jewish Masonic Lodge B’nai B’rith and major newspapers like the New York Times, the plan manages to be accepted by the United States Government. The CIA later undertakes the completion of the project.
The Essence Of The Kalergi Plan:
In his book Practical Idealism, Kalergi indicates that the residents of the future “United States of Europe” will not be the People of the Old Continent, but a kind of sub-humans, products of miscegenation. He clearly states that the peoples of Europe should interbreed with Asians and colored races, thus creating a multinational flock with no quality and easily controlled by the ruling elite.
Kalergi proclaims the abolition of the right of self-determination and then the elimination of nations with the use of ethnic separatist movements and mass migration. In order for Europe to be controlled by an elite, he wants to turn people into one homogeneous mixed breed of Blacks, Whites and Asians. Who is this elite however? Kalergi is particularly illuminating on this:
The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]
Although no textbook mentions Kalergi, his ideas are the guiding principles of the European Union. The belief that the peoples of Europe should be mixed with Africans and Asians, to destroy our identity and create a single mestizo race, is the basis of all community policies that aim to protect minorities. Not for humanitarian reasons, but because of the directives issued by the ruthless Regime that machinates the greatest genocide in history. The Coudenhove-Kalergi European Prize is awarded every two years to Europeans who have excelled in promoting this criminal plan. Among those awarded with such a prize are Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy.
The incitement to genocide, is also the basis of the constant appeals of the United Nations, that demands we accept millions of immigrants to help with the low birth rates of the EU. According to a report published on January 2000 in «Population division» Review of the United Nations in New York, under the title “Immigration replacement: A solution to declining and aging population,” Europe will need by 2025 159,000,000 migrants.
One could wonder how there can be such accuracy on the estimates of immigration, although it was not a premeditated plan. It is certain that the low birth rate could easily be reversed with appropriate measures to support families. It is just as clear that it is the contribution of foreign genes do not protect our genetic heritage, but that it enables their disappearance. The sole purpose of these measures is to completely distort our people, to turn them into a group of people without national, historical and cultural cohesion. In short, the policies of the Kalergi plan was and still is, the basis of official government policies aimed at genocide of the Peoples of Europe, through mass immigration. G. Brock Chisholm, former director of the World Health Organization (OMS), proves that he has learned the lesson of Kalergi well when he says: “What people in all places have to do is to limit of birthrates and promote mixed marriages (between different races), this aims to create a single race in a world which will be directed by a central authority. ”
If we look around us, the Kalergi plan seems to be fully realized. We face Europe’s fusion with the Third World. The plague of interracial marriage produces each year thousands of young people of mixed race: “The children of Kalergi”. Under the dual pressures of misinformation and humanitarian stupefaction, promoted by the MSM, the Europeans are being taught to renounce their origin, to renounce their national identity.
The servants of globalization are trying to convince us that to deny our identity, is a progressive and humanitarian act, that “racism” is wrong, because they want us all to be blind consumers. It is necessary, now more than ever, to counter the lies of the System, to awaken the revolutionary spirit Europeans. Every one must see this truth, that European Integration amounts to genocide. We have no other option, the alternative is national suicide.
Translator’s note: Although the reasons due to which Kalergi made the choices he made are of no particular interest to us, we will try to answer a question that will surely our readers have already asked: Why a European aristocrat with Flemish, Polish, Greek-Byzantine roots and even with some samurai blood in his veins (from his mother) was such body plans and organ in the hands of dark forces? The reasons, in our opinion, are multiple, idiosyncratic, psychological and … women.
We therefore observe a personality with strong snobbish attitudes, arrogance, and, allow me the term, “degenerate elitism.” Also, the fact that his mother was Asian, perhaps created internal conflicts and frustrations, something that can happen to people with such temperament. But the most decisive factor must have been the “proper teenager”, which incidentally of course, was beside him, and became his first woman (at age 13): The Jewess Ida Roland, who would later become a famous actress.
Van Rompuy won the Coudenhove-Kalergi prize for the biggest contribution to White European genocide and enslavement..
The Award Of The Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize To President Van Rompuy
On November 16th 2012, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, was awarded the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize, during a special conference in Vienna, to celebrate 90 years of pan-European movement. The prize is awarded every two years to leading personalities for their outstanding contribution to the process of European integration.
A decisive factor that helped him win the prize was the balanced way in which President Van Rompuy executed his duties in the new position of President of the European Council, which was established by the Treaty of Lisbon. He handled this particularly sensitive leading and coordinating role with a spirit of determination and reconciliation, while emphasis was also given to his skilful arbitration on European affairs and unfailing commitment to European moral values.
During his speech, Mr Van Rompuy described the unification of Europe as a peace project. This idea, which was also the objective of the work of Coudenhove-Kalergi, after 90 years is still important. The award bears the name of Count Richard Nicolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972), philosopher, diplomat, publisher and founder of the Pan-European Movement (1923). Coudenhove-Kalergi was the pioneer of European integration and popularized the idea of a federal Europe with his work.
Among the winners of the award, the Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel (2010) and the President of Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga (2006), are included.
This article is a translation of an Italian article, originally posted on Identità.
The Crimestoppers organisation, seems, at first glance, to have very noble intentions.
It offers the opportunity to report crimes anonymously via a freephone telephone number and apparently helps the police with their work.
Could it be though, that as with so many other things in filthy Britain, Crimestoppers is not really as it appears to be?
Could it be that Crimestoppers is actually being used as a way of “gatekeeping” to filter out callers who may be reporting VIP criminality in the UK.
Take the example of a whistleblower or victim who wants to report child abuse but is too scared to contact the police directly.
Isn’t it probable they might call Crimestoppers, naively believing them to be impartial, and tell them all about the abuse they’ve suffered or witnessed?
They may even name important names and give detailed information in the hope that the perpetrators will be investigated and punished.
But as the phone goes down, who exactly gains access to all of that information?
We’re beginning to understand just how far the authorities are willing to go to cover-up their filthy activities as recent reports on VIP abuse scandals have revealed.
Could Crimestoppers be yet another layer of the cover-up?
If we look at who exactly runs Crimestoppers, it becomes even more mysterious.
Here are the names of some of the organisation’s Trustees:
1) Nick Ross–
The former colleague of murdered presenter Jill Dando. He recently said he’d watch child-porn given half the chance. His wife Sarah Caplin, is a cousin of Esther Rantzen and a founding director of Childline. Suspicions have been raised that Childline is also a “gatekeeping” front organisation which is used to gather data on any child abuse reports that may involve VIPs. The Crimestoppers helpline conveniently stopped working at the time of the Jill Dando murder appeal.
2) Michael Ashcroft–
The controversial Tory donor who pays no tax and has non-dom status. He has been described as ruthless and “not a man to cross”. Made a Baron by the Queen.
3) Peter Imbert–
A former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police who was in charge from 1987-1993 and may have a lot of information about why child- abuse claims made between these dates were ignored. Made a Baron by the Queen.
4) Lord Waheed Ali–
The first openly gay peer in Parliament and a wealthy entrepreneur. Owns a business, Shine Entertainment, with Rupert Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth. Is a close friend of Tony Blair. Made a Baron by the Queen.
5) Peter Clarke–
A former Metropolitan Royal protection officer in charge of guarding Princess Diana at the time of her death. Made a CBE by the Queen.
6) Sir Ronnie Flanagan–
A former Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Was previously in charge of policing in Northern Ireland and Iraq. May have a lot of information about why child-abuse rings have been covered up.
Is Crimestoppers really a force for good?
Is Crimestoppers board of trustees really as it appears to be?
Is Crimestoppers really a force for good?
Is Crimestoppers in fact a “front” organisation with sinister ulterior motives?
Is Crimestoppers actually the very last number you should call if you want to report a crime?
Ray Teret, who was once Jimmy Savile’s driver, is charged with a number of historic sex offences including 16 child rapes.
Jimmy Savile’s former chauffeur, who once shared a flat with the disgraced broadcaster, has been charged with a string of historic sex offences.
Ray Teret, 72, has been charged with 32 offences relating to 15 alleged victims who claimed they were sexually abused between 1962 and 1996.
Most of the alleged offences are said to have taken place in the Greater Manchester area.
Teret, from Altrincham, is charged with 15 counts of rape of a female under 16, one count of rape, one count of attempted rape of a female under 16, six counts of indecent assault of a female under 16, three counts of indecent assault of a female under 14, one count of gross indecency with a child under 13 and two counts of conspiracy to rape a girl under 16.
The former DJ is also charged with one count of possession of extreme pornography, one count of possession of prohibited images and one count of possession of an indecent image of a child.
Teret, who was initially arrested and bailed last November with another man on suspicion of historic rape allegations, is due to appear before magistrates in Manchester on Saturday.
Police previously said the accusations against him were not linked to the national inquiry into Savile.
DCI Graham Brock, of Greater Manchester Police, said: “This has been a complex investigation that was originally launched in October 2012 when an initial complaint was made to Greater Manchester Police.
“Since that time, we have carried out extensive and wide-ranging inquiries and interviewed a number of people as part of that investigation.
“It is now very important that we make no further comment and allow the correct legal process to take its course unimpeded and without prejudice.
“We will continue to support all those women who have come forward and offer them whatever welfare they need through the use of specially-trained officers.”
Two other men have also been charged following the investigation into Teret.
William Harper, 65, from Stretford, is charged with charged with conspiracy to rape a girl under 16 and attempt rape of a girl under 16.
Alan Ledger, 62, from Altrincham, is accused of indecently assaulting a girl under 16 and aiding and abetting the rape of a girl under 16.
Both men will appear at Manchester City Magistrates’ Court on October 30 2013.
If you thought for one minute that Britain is really as it appears to be, you’re very sadly mistaken.
Beneath the pomp and pageantrylies a network of paedophilic depravity, so vile and despicable, it literally beggars belief.
Don’t be fooled into thinking Jimmy Savile was an isolated case either.
Why did the NSPCC ( Britain’s biggest Child Charity ) sign off the investigation in to Sir Jimmy Savile, saying no one else was involved and there was no Police corruption?
From the Elm Guest House scandal to North Wales care home abuse via Dolphin Square; to sickening Warwick Spinks and the Amsterdam connection; from Jersey’s Haut de la Garenne to Kincora in Northern Ireland; from the vile BBC to complicit police and government authorities; from MP’s through MI5 to the Royal Family themselves; the whole filthy lot of them are in on it.
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by celebrities?
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by social workers?
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by teachers?
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by police officers?
How many childrenhave been raped, buggered or abused by members of the clergy?
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by diplomats?
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the armed forces?
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the intelligence services?
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by politicians?
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of the judiciary?
How many children have been raped, buggered or abused by members of royalty?
Now consider this:
How many children have been filmed being abused?
How many children have been filmedbeing abused and the abusers have been blackmailed by Intelligence Services?
How many children have been filmedbeing abused and the films have then sold for thousands of pounds?
How many children have been trafficked before being abused?
How many children, wrongly takenfrom their parents via secret family courts, have ended up being abused?
How many children have been abused in care homes?
How many children have gone missingafter being abused?
How many children have died or been murdered after being abused?
How many children are, at this very moment, suffering horrific abuse?
The Blog of Ian Pace, pianist, musicologist, political animal. A place for thoughts, reflections, links, both trivial and not so trivial. Main website is at http://www.ianpace.com . Contact e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.