Messages

A Jewish refugee girl came to stay with Margaret Thatcher - and it shaped her view of Germany I got to know Margaret Thatcher through one of her mistakes. In 1989, as the Berlin Wall fell, and we all looked forward to  a unified Germany, she misguidedly stepped forward (secretly encouraged by President Gorbachev) and said she was opposed. If the country united and became a great Central European state, what was to stop it becoming authoritarian and trying to take over everyone else, just as it had before? It was an old-fashioned view born out of her instinctive distrust of the Germans. Thatcher, remember, was a child of the Second World War.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2308790/A-Jewish-refugee-girl-came-stay-Margaret-Thatcher--shaped-view-Germany.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Thatcher showed her brain-polluted idiocy.  She was a puppet of the Jews.  Having recently died, Britain is divided with strong opposing views within families on whether she is highly admirable or highly deplorable.  Of course the "right wing" view is that she was great, and helped stamp all over "socialism".  Who was it that once said there is no one more enslaved than those who willingly put chains on themselves? 

The masses are following a pied piper to their destruction and they won't follow a kin-leader until he becomes the leader.  It's a catch 22.

[Jewish crime lord behind £35million cocaine haul sues prison chiefs for 'denying him kosher food']

Jewish crime lord behind £35million cocaine haul sues prison chiefs for 'denying him kosher food'

A drugs baron jailed for trying to smuggle £35million worth of cocaine into Britain is suing his prison for not giving him kosher food.

Orthodox Jew Simon Price, 68, is accusing the prison service of 'institutionalised anti-Semitism' and alleges that both Muslim and vegetarian criminals get more favourable treatment behind bars.

The career criminal is serving 28 years after being found guilty of smuggling 700kg of cocaine hidden inside drums of syrup.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309241/Drugs-baron-jailed-smuggling-35million-cocaine-sues-prison-giving-kosher-food.html
I was very surprised to see such a bold headline in the Kosher Daily Mail!  How did that story slip through?!  Normally they want to make readers believe Jews are angels and that Muslims are demons.

As yet I see no comments.  Assuming the story is not "pulled" I wonder if their readers will weigh in and accuse the Daily Mail of antisemism for their tone.

Twelve years after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan is heading for a near-record opium crop as instability pushes up the amount of land planted with illegal but lucrative poppies, according to a bleak UN report.
The rapid growth of poppy farming as western troops head home reflects particularly badly on Britain, which was designated "lead nation" for counter-narcotics work over a decade ago.
"Poppy cultivation is not only expected to expand in areas where it already existed in 2012 ... but also in new areas or areas where poppy cultivation was stopped," the Afghanistan Opium Winter Risk Assessment found.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/15/afghanistan-expectations-record-opium-crop

Basically the intention was to create this big crop of Opium which international Jewry will profit from financially and in terms of the destructive impact heroin has on society.  The Taliban had traditionally destroyed the poppy crops, but that was before the west declared war on them and now our troops help protect and increase these crops.  It would be no surprise though if some of the Taliban would now have been so angered that they would rather like to gain control of the opium and try and use the drug trade to damage the west in retaliation.  So I am not saying the Taliban would go back to destroying the crop should they be left in a position to do so in the future.

Here is an old article that is also relevant to this: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/11/24/cia-heroin-still-rule-day-in-afghanistan.html
"CIA assets again controlled the heroin trade"

First some background for any non-Creators who may be reading this post:

On February 20th, 2013, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois announced that former American National Socialist Workers Party (ANSWP) Commander Bill White was sentenced to an additional 42 months in prison for soliciting violence to the foreman of a federal jury in Chicago that convicted another white racialist, Matthew Hale, in 2004. White stood trial in Chicago in January 2011 and was convicted by a jury of one count of solicitation after prosecutors successfully convinced them that White had used his now-defunct Overthrow.com website to solicit violence against the jury foreman, Mark Hoffman, who White had exposed as a gay Jew in a relationship with a black male. Media stories published by WDBJ Channel 7 in Roanoke and the Roanoke Times.

http://whitereference.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/former-neo-nazi-bill-white-sentenced-to.html

Bill White is able to communicate to his chosen contacts via prison email and he has suggested the following to be published:

From April 2nd




"Hello all:

Please publish the following, if you publish:

I just received news from my mother that the Supreme Court refused to hear my Writ of Certioari.  I am surprised and somewhat shocked by this.  As much as I have criticized America and its institutions, I guess there had still been, somewhere in my heart, some hope that the things I had to say were not true, and that, in the end, truth and justice and all of those things would conquer all.  I was wrong, and I am really still absorbing this.  One of the terrible things about this world is that when you are raised well, among people who are good and who treat each other properly and who respect things like others' rights, the fact that you live in a world that does not do this can be hard to make sink in, even when all of the evidence you encounter is to the contrary.

There are really two things I can say about this.  On the one hand, there is no question that much of my behavior and many of the things I said which gave "context" to this case were immature and foolish and way over the top.  Now, I don't believe I would make statements of that type.  In fact, at the time I made the supposed "solicitation", I would not have made statements of that type, either.  When I made these statements about Mr Hoffmann, I actually considered my words carefully and believed strongly that I was within the constraints of the law.  Clearly, I was wrong.

I can say, in all honesty, that I never intended that Mr Hoffmann be harmed, and it never occurred to me that Mr Hoffmann would be harmed as a result of my words.  In fact, Mr Hoffmann wasn't.  I did believe someone would contact Mr Hoffmann -- as people had told me they contacted Leonard Pitts (and I was not aware of the actualy threats Pitts received at the time) -- and perhaps discuss with him his role in the Hale case.  I thought someone might prank him.  It never occurred to me that anyone would harm him or cause him any sort of injury.

This "intent" was really the only issue in the case, and, as I am the only person who knew my intent, I can say that I was completely innocent of these charges.

My mistake was all of the rhetoric and atmosphere I created around these words that allowed them to be interpreted "violently".  I can't say all of this is my fault.  We live in a society which, as Savitri Devi notes, is not less violent but merely less honest about violence.  People here are trained to believe that so-called "extremists" are "violent" -- when there is very little violence linked to actual "extremists" -- whereas what they and their society do in actually murdering millions around the world is "non-violent."  There were, I believe, some people who understood what I was doing when I was behaving outrageously -- that I was mocking the stereotype of the so-called "extremist" by, essentially, play-acting in a way the media stereotyped and, thus, exposing the essentially fraudulent nature of the entire thing -- but, clearly, in doing so, I left myself open to being portrayed by the government and the Jews as the very thing that I was, in fact, not.

What hurts me so much with this case is that, after the first few efforts by the federal government to frame me and after the first civil action against me -- which I won -- I stopped, at least, I had thought, the kinds of things that were so upsetting, and had taken on a new approach -- one that pushed limits less and was less open to misinterpretation.  When this post happened, I was married, I had just had my daughter eight months before, I has just recovered my business, and I was certainly not, in any way, attempting to do anything which would cause me to be arrested.  Had I thought that I was in any way, shape or form pushing that line, I would not have done what I did.

Clearly, I made a terrible mistake.

It also hurts me that this decision justifies, in a way, all of the violence and abuse I have suffered at the hands of the government.  I understand this fellow Hoffmann was quite frightened -- for a day or to -- and some resources were sent in, quite unnecessarily, to "protect" him.  Was I the real cause of this?  When people who have a history of violence publish my address on the internet and threaten me, no one is deployed to my home to protect me.  I had no history of violence, neither did any organization I worked with -- so, why was Mr Hoffmann so afraid?  In my view, he was made afraid by the FBI and the police, who created an unnecessary and irrational level of fear.

On the other hand, maybe I was wrong.  Maybe I was unaware of who was in my audience.  But, the fact that no violence occurred at all makes me think that I don't think so.

So, what does one make of this?  Well, either America and its governing bodies are correct, in a moral sense, or they are not.  Factually, I know they are not.  Morally?

Well, the Jews sent to analyze me from time to time would call this a "personality disorder" -- an "anti-social" one at that -- but I don't believe that the United States, its government, and its system of law have any moral legitimacy.  The Supreme Court would rather consider whether homosexuals have a "right to marry" -- an utterly ridiculous proposition that can only be understood as a manifestation of mental illness at a societal level -- then whether political dissidents have a right to criticize legal institutions that are unquestionably corrupt an behaving in an utterly bizarre and immoral manner. 

I consider this.  Everywhere in the world, a murder is a crime.  A theft is a crime.  A rape is a crime.  There is no question that these are breaches of the societal agreements that human beings have with each other.  But, where in the world would my statements be a crime?  My acts were only a crime in that they challenged a specific legal and political system, and could only be seen as a crime by proponents of that legal and political system -- and those proponents are hardly worldwide.  True, most countries do not let political dissidents criticize their system of law -- but, the ability to criticize the legal system and its acts was supposed to be a cornerstone of American "democracy."

Anyways, I am sorry I did something so foolish that I brought all of these problems down on me.  I was certainly immature, years ago, when these acts occurred, and I, and those around me, are paying for my foolishness and inability now.

So, I am very sorry to all of you.  I think this case says more about what America is right now than me, but it also says that, in my late 20s, when I should have been taking a much more serious approach to the world, I made the mistake of enjoying tweaking my nose at the system a bit too much -- and made the foolish mistake of thinking myself much more able to challenge the world than I really was.  I should have realized precisely how powerful and evil the men and women I was facing were, and conducted myself accordingly.  The problem is that I was never brought up to be afraid of evil men and women in power, and that is a lesson I should have learned young.

Thank all of you for your support, and, hopefully, for your continuing support.

Bill"
---
The next email:

"Hello all:

I arrived this morning in Oklahoma City.  My unit team must have done their job, since the flag on me that was causing me to be SHUed here is gone -- as far as I can tell.  Alternately, the BOP made yet another mistake.  What do I know about it?

The journey here was terrible -- the worst I've ever had it, including the time the plane broke down and stranded me in Milan.  I told Dave Gahary on his podcast Sunday about the way that the BOP abuses people, but I really didn't touch on the casual abuse that is part and parcel of housing in the BUreau of Prisons.  For instance, yesterday, I was summonsed to prepare to leave Chicago about 8:30 AM.  In transit, they shackle us in very uncomfortable handcuffs, chains, and ankle-cuffs.  We were left sitting shackled until the bus left, sometime after noon.  We sat on the bus at the airfield until perhaps 1 PM.  We sat on the plane, through a flight into South Dakota, until, perhaps, 6:45 PM, when we arrived in Oklahoma.  Because Oklahoma was understaffed and unprepared for us -- perhaps as a result of the sequester -- we sat until 9:30 PM on the plane before we entered the building.  Once there, we were unshackled, but sat in various bullpens until about 5:30 AM this morning when they finally sent us somewhere we could lay down and go to bed.  About 80 people were affected.

This kind of casual abuse of human beings -- hurting people because you just don't care about their welfare -- is the norm within the Bureau of Prisons.  And, being crowded into a relatively small room with eighty people all night without sleep or the possibility of sleep is abusive.  The fact that some of the people are truly turds and might deserve some abuse notwithstanding -- there is no particular reason for this kind of treatment except a mixture of incompetence and lack of feeling.

This is the same incompetence that causes the Air Marshals to mock inmates on the plane -- I heard plenty of that yesterday.  One fellow was in a wheelchair -- no legs -- that was his fault for inconveniencing them.  Another fellow could barely walk to the toilet and, being very old, had sat so long waiting for a bathroom he had to be cathetered to go.  There is simply no concern and, really, contempt when people like this are handled.  In my own, humble, case, some idiot confiscated half of my glasses.  They are broken and I have them repaired with a staple.  This fine Negro gentleman determined that the staple was a "wire" and thought it might be used for nefarious purposes -- so he confiscated it and the piece of glasses it was securing while I was on the plane.  (I did get it back and did repair it).

This kinds of petty things are what makes custody in the Bureau of Prisons difficult to tolerate.  And, if you complain, you deserve it because you did something to result in being in prison.  These people have no idea what and, when they have an idea, have no idea of the truth of the matter, but they are assured of that.

My thoughts for the morning.  I'm here today.  I expect I shall be here unti Monday, since it does appear they are shipping me, erroneously, to Loretto.

16 emails this morning.  I shall respond as soon as possible.  Other than my complaining, I am doing well.

If anyone wants to post this, they can.

Bill"   That one is from 2nd April also

This amusing observation about the Latino racism against the true indigenous in Mexico is so funny:

At this point was hoping to copy and past the post from Yahoo answers "Why are Mexicans so racist against poor Indians?" but its not possible for me to just copy and paste here so I am confused.   Please google the phrase and read the link.