Friday, September 07, 2007

The Reform Treaty - none dare call it treason

While demands for a referendum gather apace, which Gordon Brown’s government intends to resist at all costs, the analysis of the implications of the Reform Treaty have focused on three main areas. Firstly, the Treaty gives the EU legal personality and distinct corporate existence; secondly, the EU acquires its own political President and Foreign Minister, to be complemented by its own diplomatic corps and Public Prosecutor; and thirdly, it abolishes the ‘two pillars’ distinction between the supranational ‘Community’ bodies and the intergovernmental ‘National’ bodies. That these are the attributes of statehood are undeniable and undenied. In fact, all that remains is for the EU to acquire the power to impose taxes and declare war.

But perhaps the most significant aspect the Reform Treaty is that it renders all British subjects real citizens of the new EU state. Certainly, the notion of citizenship was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, but it was notional and attached to membership of one of the nation states that constitute the Union. It has had no supranational dimension because the EU did not exist as a corporate legal entity.

The Reform Treaty, however, is a constitution which is separate from and superior to the constitutions of each member state. It codifies a body of law to which each EU citizen shall be subject, and this citizenship shall be imposed and may not be renounced. Yet the treasonable nature of this Treaty has received no scrutiny at all, for it undermines the constitutional position of the Monarch, and renders her impotent to the new suzerain power.

Treason is defined as ‘violation by a subject of allegiance to the sovereign or to the state’. Section Three of the Treason Felony Act of 1848 asserts that condemnation is incurred ‘If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise or intend to deprive or depose our most gracious Lady the Queen...from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom.’

By endowing the EU with legal personality, the Reform Treaty renders Her Majesty subject to a foreign political entity, arraignable in foreign courts, and obliged to obey all past and future judgements. Her role as a constitutional monarch has thereby been annulled: her new status as a citizen of the EU has rendered her, like the rest of the British people, ‘subject to the duties imposed thereby’.

Queen Elizabeth I stated: ‘To no power whatsoever is my crown subject save to that of Christ the King of Kings.’ Queen Elizabeth II may not boast the same, for the EU supplants even Christ in its laws and declarations.

Yet Gordon Brown is a Privy Counsellor, and swore an oath ‘To bear faith and allegiance to the Crown and to defend its jurisdiction and powers against all foreign...persons...or states.’

Is not the Prime MInister guilty of treason?

33 Comments:

Blogger Man in a Shed said...

He also swore an oath to put Scotland's interests first in all circumstances (Claim of Right, signed by Gordon Brown in 1988). So he's either lying to the English with his new descovery of Britishness or to his fellow Scots.

He is responsible for the Labour party's promise to hold a referendum. Which he now back tracks on.

What does this make him ?

By the way is who would be prosecuted for Treason under the law - the prime minister, the house of commons, the speaker ?

(Maybe this is why there is no official English translation of the 'treaty' so there is no official evidence of the crime.)

7 September 2007 at 10:19  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

Your Grace,

Is there a scholar amongst your readers who could inform us whether the Statute of Praemunire is relevant is these circumstances?

7 September 2007 at 11:03  
Blogger Roger said...

I heard Tony Blair repealed the treason laws?

Did I hear right?

7 September 2007 at 12:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I remember the first thing New Labour did when coming to government was to abolish the death penalty for treason. I thought at the time it was a strange thing to start off with.
It is quite clear now they they knew they would be committing treason and did not like the idea of dangling.
We can still organize a lynch mob though.

7 September 2007 at 13:47  
Anonymous oiznop said...

The death penalty for treason and piracy were effectively abolished by virtue of the UK's membership of the EU. It is a condition of membership. If Labour abolished it, it was probably just a tidying up exercise, but the abolishion of the penalty did not abolish the crime. Treason still exists. In fact, I think I recall talk of prosecuting some British Muslims for treason who were calling for the death of British soldiers.

7 September 2007 at 14:51  
Anonymous Tanfield said...

Your Grace,
Yes the PM is guilty of treason as have all those politicians and other members of the political/media class and others who have used every trick in the book to remove our sovreignty and get ut into the EU mire deeper and deeper as time goes on. The crime of Treason still exists and was last prosecuted at the end of WWII (see Lord Haw Haw etc). Really the only way those responsible can be punished is for UK to leave the EU (who will do that amongst today's political leaders ?), thereby making the Human Rights Convention optional, departing from the convention and then arranging for the appropriate punishment.
And in the meantime I believe that those moslems who fought against UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan could and should be prosecuted for treason.

7 September 2007 at 18:14  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

An excellent piece and the answer is 'yes', but I'm afraid HM has been complicit in the abolition of Britain. We've been under assault for decades through mass immigration and she has done nothing to protest. The first Elizabeth must be spinning in her grave:

Queen Elizabeth I's proclamation for the exportation of "negroes" from England (1601)

... whereas the Queen's majesty, tendering the good and welfare of her own natural subjects greatly distressed in these hard times of dearth, is highly discontented to understand the great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which as she is informed are crept into this realm since the troubles between Her Highness and the King of Spain, who are fostered and relieved here to the great annoyance of her own liege people that want the relief which those people consume; as also for that the most of them are infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel, hath given especial commandment that the said kind of people should be with all speed avoided and discharged out of her majesty's dominions. ... And if there shall be any person or persons which are possessed of any such Blackamoors that refuse to deliver them in sort as aforesaid, then we require you to call them before you and to advise and persuade them by all good means to satisfy Her Majesty's pleasure therein; which if they shall eftsoons willfully and obstinately refuse, we pray you then to certify their names unto us, to the end Her Majesty may take such further course therein as it shall seem best in her princely wisdom.

http://www.csulb.edu/~lkermode/engl363/othelloreactions.htm

7 September 2007 at 22:53  
Blogger Jomo said...

Your Grace

The revenge of Charles V I think

8 September 2007 at 00:41  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Many of you might find this petition document of great interest:

NOTICE OF TREASON

Section 1, Treason Act, 1795

Section 3, Treason Felony Act, 1848

View here.

8 September 2007 at 07:19  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

In response to Roger (12:17 PM)

Yes, I heard that too. I decided to consult my archives. The best 'confirmation' I can come up with, is a commenter writing to the Telegraph in early April 2007 who wrote, and I quote:

"I notice that the 'treason' act was one of the first inconvenient laws this government chose to abolish as soon as it got into power. How convenient for them. It should ahve been an obvious omen to us -- some of us noticed at the time."

Indeed. One is always wise in retrospect.

To confirm same, you could do one or more of the following:

1) Consult your local library.
2) Consult Hansard (I believe this is now accessible via the Internet)
3) Consult your local MP.
4) Write to Conservative Head Office (second thoughts, they probably won't have a clue)
5) Contact the BNP by letter or e-mail and ask if they could kindly clarify for you.
OR
6) Just take the change as a given and assume the worst.

IMHO, the endless focus on Tony Blair is a waste of energy. TB was never the architect of the New Labour (Third Way) project. He is not an ideologue; just a media-friendly front man, whose image was used to sell the franchise to the British electorate.

One of the key masterminds behind New Labour is Peter Mandelson. It is he who should be the focus of our ire, not some two-bit kid with a toothy grin, suave media delivery, and an ugly wife.

The other piece of muck behind the New Labour project is Michael Levy (a.k.a. Lord Cashpoint) who, as you may or may not know, made his astounding fortune by becoming an impresario to cheesy pop groups. It is Levy who 'talent-spotted' Tony Blair during the early 1990s before grooming him for the leadership position. Of course, part of that grooming entailed getting him to follow a 'certain strategy' and 'a certain foreign ideology.' This will, in part, explain why New Labour's 1997 Cabinet was an insult to the county's intelligence, stuffed as it was by feminists and homosexuals. That was a deliberate and calculated demonstration of contempt for the vast majority of our country, by representatives of a minority ethno-religious group. The objective was to make us feel humiliated and thus easier to control.

Please stop thinking you are living in a democracy! It's nothing of the kind. Your (and my) country is being used and abused to further a vast, global experiment by forces most of you don't understand because (i) you are too busy trying to earn a living and bring up families, (ii) you find the truth sounds too much like a crazy fiction, or an unbelievable nightmare, so you are apt to reject any testimony of it, out of hand.

Back to Blair & Levy: Such was the need to keep Levy close to Blair (i.e., to keep our Tony in-line and on-page) that Levy --- remember, his background is only supposed to be about fixing gigs for 2nd rate pop musicians --- became installed as a high profile fixture in the British Foreign Office as our Special Envoy to the Middle East!?*! The only man to resist this corrupt and perverse arrangement was New Labour's first Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook. This is why Cook was shifted out of the F.O. at the first Cabinet re-shuffle. He died not long after. Was Robin's demise a coincidence or the result of something more worrisome? -- perhaps like the Expert Witness vis-a-vis Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, who was supposed to have committed suicide by cutting an artery that no-one has ever used to do the same, before.

All along, Blair was little more than a stooge, a dupe, and a marionette. You don't really believe that the people pulling the strings behind the scenes are going to stand up, wave their hands, and shout "aa-ha, we fooled you ... it was us all along" --- do you?

As if to confirm my point, have you not noticed how quickly Michael Levy has evaporated from the scene now that Blair has disappeared and is hardly remembered? Do you really think such a disappearance is normal when you consider he was, until two months or so ago, supposed to be New Labour's principal fund raiser? What, they no longer need funds to raise? Come on, please wake up!

And if there is anyone else who can't, or won't, or refuses to work out the obvious common denominator between Mandelson and Levy [aswell as: Barbara Roche (ex. Immigration Minister), Steve Bassam: Baron Bassam of Brighton (ex. Secretary for Immigration), Jack Straw (ex. Foreign Sec), and Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General; plus a few others hiding behind identity changing names] then all I can suggest is ... keep watching Channel-4's "Big Brother" as anything remotely more sophisticated or grown up is beyond you.

8 September 2007 at 11:56  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Many used to condemn the German populace for accepting the innovations which were introduced into German national life, language, and identity in the years after January 1933.....but if asked the question, in what year, and in response to which actions should the German people have rebelled or resisted, there is no answer forthcoming from the critics.

If it is the Enabling Act, the Nuremberg Laws, the Night of The Long Knives noone says - yet all these took place within the first two years of office....so when was the time that the public should have sought to overthrow the regime ?


and in answering that question what suggestions do those same people have as to where acceptable limits on civil compliance exist in the Britain of today ?

8 September 2007 at 13:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mission impossible -

And just what is it exactly you are trying to say?
Please enlighten us in words of one syllable - or are you aware that your views are pretty despicable and went out with the late Fuhrer?

8 September 2007 at 15:27  
Blogger defender said...

anonymous
want a syllable here is one ....fabians

8 September 2007 at 18:09  
Blogger Steven_L said...

From the wikipedia article on the Act:

In 2003, The Guardian newspaper mounted an unsuccessful legal challenge to the Act in the House of Lords, alleging that the act "...makes it a criminal offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy in print, even by peaceful means...

However in a unanimous judgement Lord Steyn decided that "the part of section 3 of the 1848 Act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that section 3 could survive scrutiny under the Human Rights Act is unreal.

The last prosecution under the Act was in 1883."

If your argument holds up Cranmer, the Human Rights Act is also therefore treason by your definition as it legalises it.

Hanging a big sign over our nation saying 'hijackers will not be punished' is a big price to pay for these human rights in my view. However with more and more authoritarian legislation being passed (the smoking ban and anti-social behaviour act spring immediately to mind) the citizen having immediate access in the lower courts to international standards of idealistic freedom and justice is becoming ever more desirable in my view.

The Human Rights Act is certainly a mixed bag of fish, but treasonous? Surely not.

9 September 2007 at 06:20  
Anonymous CCTV said...

Lord Steyn decided.......a South African tied to Amnesty ?

9 September 2007 at 07:27  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Aa-ha ... so I won my bet. It was expected.

Dear anonymous ... why do idiot commenters always hide behind anonymous identities?

Like one of Pavlov's dogs, you were nicely set up by voyager.

Voyager needs to explain his insane connection between someone pointing out the preponderance of people from a certain ethno-religious minority occupying strategically important UK Government posts in both Immigration and the Foreign Office since 1997 (to which I must add yet another: David Milliband, our latest Foreign Secretary) and his list of totally irrelevant distractions: the 'Enabling Act,' the 'Nuremberg Laws,' and most bizzarely of all, the 'Night of The Long Knives.' It would appear you fell for it hook, line, and sinker dear anony-mouse.

The topic of this thread is about the non-legal transfer of national powers to an unelected, Marxist dominated EU Commission, the forced adoption of an unwanted Treaty, the accelerating loss of our national Sovereignty, and all the implications these have for our Treason Laws which date back four centuries.

My earlier post was to argue the villain(s) [since 1997] is not Tony Blair, for the reasons I have already posted (see above). Anyone with an IQ over 95 knows that our most problematic areas since the election of 1997 have been IMMIGRATION and FOREIGN POLICY.

If you want to debate the topic of treason, or treasonous policies, then the following governmental departments must be EXCLUDED:

# Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
# Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
# Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)
# Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS)
# Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
# Department of Health (DH)
# Department for International Development (DFID)
# Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR)
# Department for Transport (DfT)
# Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

Understood? Clear so far? Those who have breached all acceptable measures of national trust and convention have been members of:

# Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
# Home Office (HO) ... vis-a-vis Immigration.

What I did next is report facts; a.k.a. pointing out the truth. Which is simply this: the UK's Immigration and Foreign Policies (excluding the so-called Ethical Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, who was soon removed) have been dominated by people from a certain ethno-religious minority for over 10 years and the policies they have pursued have been highly destructive to British identity, sovereignty, and independence.

The whole Foreign Policy & Immigration nexus has supported attacks on Whiteness (e.g., both the BBC and parts of England are apparently "hideously white" in the view of many Government representatives), plus endless attacks on Christianity, not to mention the family, and our boys' ability to get a proper education, etc., etc.

The same aggressive counter-culture policies are highly visible in the United States, which everybody in the world, except for stupid Britons, knows full well is currently under the dominance of persons belonging to that same ethno-religious minority.

According to the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzliya, Israel, there are 275,000 Jews living in Britain. Let's round that figure up and say 300,000. Therefore, they constitute just 0.5% of the total British population.

Despite this minimal numeric presence, they still manage to dominate the Immigration and Foreign policies of the world's 5th largest economy for over 10 years.

I know full well that there are many clowns like you anony-mouse, who hear the loud sound of jack-boots everytime someone simply prints the word "Jew." You and your kind are afflicted with a mental disease that has been created by media manipulation and conditioning.

Consider the following, if you can: the Jewish world declared war on Germany in 1933. By early 1942, some Jewish-Americans close to the US President were already proposing the extermination of the German race, which Berlin soon learnt about and which part-explains their determination to fight to the bitter end. By wars end in 1945, there were 25,000 Jews still living in Berlin, the capital of the Third Reich. Hitler had an extermination policy yet they leave a 25,000 strong community untouched in Berlin??? Really?

I trust you will not choke on those three shocking facts, which will doubtless run counter to all you have ever been told to believe. And you unquestioningly swallow what the mass media tells you because at heart you are a child, and not a man.

As for your ... your views are pretty despicable and went out with the late Fuhrer. There isn't much one can say in response to something so grossly ignorant as that, except perhaps to laugh out loud.

Next time, if you want to engage in debate, please give yourself an identity so that we at least have some idea who you are and where you are writing from. Until such time, kindly keep your damned nose out of British business.

9 September 2007 at 09:22  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Voyager -- Hitler's government was popular.

9 September 2007 at 12:09  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Voyager -- Hitler's government was popular.

That remains to be seen....so your argument is there are no inalienable human rights, no limits on what The State can do, and no justifed resistance to a regime.

At what point do you believe Hitler's regime became "unpopular" and resistance would have been justified in de-legitimising its actions ?

9 September 2007 at 13:13  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

voyager ... why are you so obsessed with Hitler and Nazi Germany???

Are you one of those cranks who believes human history begins in 1933? That every human folly can be explained by endless analysis of Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Third Reich?

Even today, 70 years after his passing, we still have newspapers, TV channels, and commenters like you making endless, almost daily references to Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler ... Nazis, Nazis, Nazis, and Nazis! Frankly, you must all be stark raving mad. You are allowing yourselves to be manipulated by a determined, and truly racist minority that is trying to grind you, your culture, and your Caucasian ethnicity right down into the ground whilst pretending to be "one of us."

The (London) Telegraph alone has published no less than five Nazi Germany related stories in just the past 2 months! And this is 2007 ... almost 40 years after man first landed on the Moon! Perhaps if I tell you the Telegraph is Jewish owned (as is most of Britain's print and TV media) this might make more sense to you?

The real reason you are obsessed with Hitler and the Third Reich is because you are too damned scared to talk about the ethno-religious group that actually provoked both the Hitler/Nazi phenomenon and the Second World War. People like you are a barrier to progress and an obstacle to those trying to find and share the truth.

You really need to wake up quickly because our very existence is under threat. Here is another example .... our British Passport might soon have all references to the Queen removed from its pages if we allow the Fascist EU to have its way [Ref: news reports today in Sunday papers - 09 September]

If you want to talk about Human Rights and limits to State Power, why don't you find the wherewithal to discuss and quote examples from Maoist China, or the Bolsheviks? After all, the Bolshevik Revolution was a violent Jewish Invasion of Russia was it not? If you want to find examples of ethnic cleansing and mass murder, then why don't you study the actions of the CHEKA and of Trotsky and his Jewish henchmen?

How many Russian Christians were killed by Jews between 1917 and 1923? You don't know? Well it's an order of magnitude higher than the number of Jews killed between 1940 and 1945 by Germans.

You appear to be completely obsessed with just one facet (i.e., just a 14 year period) of 20th century history, which is the same as saying you are wearing intellectual blinkers. That is not something to be proud of when you are blessed with an intelligent mind as I know YOU have, and whilst the necessary information is out there for you to study at leisure.

9 September 2007 at 19:05  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Voyager -- Hitler's government was popular.

That remains to be seen....so your argument is there are no inalienable human rights, no limits on what The State can do, and no justifed resistance to a regime.


"Rights" are a very slippery concept. "Inalienable" is another coating of oil. Nazism was a nasty reaction to nasty communism, and may reappear as another nasty reaction to our present crypto-communism.

At what point do you believe Hitler's regime became "unpopular" and resistance would have been justified in de-legitimising its actions ?

Resistance is justified by the individual's judgment: there's no objective way of saying when it's right.

9 September 2007 at 23:05  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Mission Impossible said...

voyager ... why are you so obsessed with Hitler and Nazi Germany???

Are you one of those cranks who believes human history begins in 1933? That every human folly can be explained by endless analysis of Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Third Reich?


The only obsessive on the thread is yourself. It even blinds you to a simple issue. It probably reflects a poor grasp of history.

Let us address your thesis of Jewish-Bolshevism....that is your idee fixe. Kerensky staged a coup against the Tsar in February 1917 but continued to prosecute the War against Germany under pressure from Lloyd George.

Lenin was sent to St Petersburg in the sealed-train bu Field Marshall Eric Ludendorff with a commitment to topple Kerensky and make a separate peace (Brest-Litovsk).

Britain brought the Menshevik Leon Trotsky by Royal Navy cruiser back to Europe and he worked with British MI6 Officer Captain George Hill in building the GRU and furthering the war against Germany.

Lenin staged a coup against Kerensky. The elections already planned for November 1918 could not be cancelled - the Bolsheviks were defeated by the Social Revolutionaries.....Lenin ignored the result and the Cheka started a civil war and Red Terror.

The Alliesinvaded Russia and linked up with Kornilov -

Now if a country has Civil War I suggest that reflects the fact that some people did not like the regime and set out to oppose it.



If I return to the point you seem to have difficulty grasping. There was no civil war in Germany after 1933. The maximum was that General Beck wished to stage a coup in 1938 over Munich but his soundings with the British suggest Chamberlain was opposed to a coup and would not provide backing by taking a hard line at Munich to create a crisis

The question remains why people who tell us that Hitler was the epitome of Evil and that Germans should have blocked him - noone can suggest at which point resistance should have taken place.

At what point does the legitimacy of a regime become questionable. This is a point made by the Cardinal in Westminster in a recent speech.

When the Nazis were gassing the disabled under T-4 it was the Bishop of Munster who spoke out in a sermon condeming the Nazis...to the point where they became anxious. So clearly popular opposition would have rocked them before they had the security of wartime powers to crush dissent.

So Mission Impossible do you think today is the time to overhrow the government of the United Kingdom ? Or Yesterday ? Or Tomorrow ?

10 September 2007 at 07:53  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Nazism was a nasty reaction to nasty communism

So that is why the handicapped and disabled were gassed and cremated under the T-4 Programme

That is why Dachau, Belsen, Buchenwald were necessary on German soil

That is why the Nuremberg Laws were necessary and seizure of private firms

All because of a reaction to Communism ?

Seems to have been quite expensive really - 5 million dead and half the country occupied by Communists

10 September 2007 at 07:56  
Blogger defender said...

Queen may be scrapped from UK passports
By Sophie Borland
Last Updated: 1:55am BST 10/09/2007

Have your say Read comments


References to the Queen could be taken out of British passports in a bid to make them more European, it has emerged.

Have your say: What do you want on your passport?
The new documents, which could be in place as early as 2010, would bear reference to the EU constitution in order to remind UK citizens that they are part of Europe.


The royal coat of arms may be removed from the UK passport
The first page of the British passport has historically featured the royal coat of arms with a message from the Queen beginning: "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State".

The words go on to outline that the citizen has a right to travel freely and has the right to protection and assistance.

Under new changes, however, it has been suggested that the coat of arms are scrapped and replaced by the EU emblem of 12 stars with the message underneath reading: "Every citizen of the Union".

The new version has been taken from Article 20 of the EU Constitution, the treaty that was discredited two years ago after it was rejected by member states including France and the Netherlands.

This particular section of the treaty reminded citizens that they were part of Europe and had rights as an EU citizen.

A spokesman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: "The changes relate to Article 20 of the EU Treaty which proposes EU language to be inserted into British passports.

"It's still under consideration and no decision has been taken yet."

The proposals were criticised by the Tories as yet another example of the EU gaining more power over British citizens.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said: "People want to be proud to be British and their passports should have a clear association with that. There is no good reason to change the traditional presentation of our passports.

"These proposals are yet another illustration of how the British people must be given their say in a referendum before any new powers are signed over to the EU under a proposed new treaty."

The British passports have born reference to the monarch since 1915 when the first blue hardback booklets were handed out to citizens.

They remained the same until 20 years ago when they were replaced by smaller burgundy booklets with the words European Union printed across the cover.

Now, the new versions of the passport would state that Britain is obliged to look after the citizens of other EU countries on the same basis as its own nationals.

Article 20 of the treaty, on which the revised wording would be based, states that if an EU citizen does not have his own government to look after him he can expect assistance from any other EU state he chooses.

10 September 2007 at 09:21  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Nazism was a nasty reaction to nasty communism

So that is why the handicapped and disabled were gassed and cremated under the T-4 Programme

That is why Dachau, Belsen, Buchenwald were necessary on German soil

That is why the Nuremberg Laws were necessary and seizure of private firms

All because of a reaction to Communism ?

Seems to have been quite expensive really - 5 million dead and half the country occupied by Communists


I can't follow your reasoning. I claim Nazism was a nasty response to nasty communism. In response, you list nasty things done by Nazis. This refutes my point how, exactly? You conclude that Nazism had expensive consequences. Yes. But again, this refutes my point how, exactly? Would a communist take-over of western Europe have been benign? Did the communists set limits to the power of the state and eschew violence in pursuit of their political objectives?

I await Mission Impossible's response to you with some interest.

10 September 2007 at 11:31  
Anonymous Voyager said...

No...because I am dealing with the detail and you with the abstract.

I am drawing analogy with a regime that had by 1935 enacted policies which were likely to provoke reaction....but seemingly did not....and as time progressed the whole nation procceded through the Stages of a Greek Tragedy

A modern West European State with high levels of industrialisation, legal system, universities, and a strong middle class were not able to resist suspension of Parliament, removal of rival political parties, reorganisation of police and local government, and alterations to the Constitution.

They did not take action prior to 1935 and after that period there was nothing they could do.

So the issue is simply at what point does it become behoven on a population to overthrow their governing elite ?

Since I have difficulty making the issue crystal clear to those of you wearing blinkers. Is the EU Constitution really such a bad thing ?

Or is it so inimical to the future of the country and so irreversible that the public simply asks the government for permission to vote on a question of the government's choosing in a referendum ?

and if the government refuses for that supine cowed electorate to say simply...alright you know best....we obey ?


Or if it is as critical as people state in purple prose throughout the Internet; should not the government be removed by a) popular protest on the streets b) violence ?

For some reason, even highlighting the disastrous consequences of Adolf Hitler's 12 years in power and the failings of those opposed to him to remove him does not overcome the inertia of people who will simply go along with whateer the government decides on the EU Constitution....just as David Cameron will.

In other words the British are all bark and no bite....or in the words of the old saying: the dogs may bark but the caravan moves on

The EU Constitution will be bedded down in short order and after a few snorts the British public will knuckle down and accept the staus quo as they always do. Only the Left can mobilise any support against anything in Europe.

10 September 2007 at 12:17  
Blogger Manfarang said...

"your caucasian ethnicity"
These northern Europeans!!!

10 September 2007 at 14:11  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

A modern West European State with high levels of industrialisation, legal system, universities, and a strong middle class were not able to resist suspension of Parliament, removal of rival political parties, reorganisation of police and local government, and alterations to the Constitution.

Yes, but that's what fear of communism produced. Without communism, no nazism. Or so I'd suggest.

So the issue is simply at what point does it become behoven on a population to overthrow their governing elite ?

There's no objective test. Some people, having experienced both, preferred Nazism to communism. Others thought the opposite.

10 September 2007 at 18:02  
Anonymous 4micah said...

There's never been a convincing argument for the European Union for the simple reason that none exists. It's entirely superfluous, especially for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

10 September 2007 at 19:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BILL OF RIGHTS 1689:

that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance;

Speaker of The House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd, issued a reminder to the courts. Boothroyd said, “There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights..…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.” 21 July 1993

Still in Force, so every day of our membership of the EU is treasonous.

10 September 2007 at 19:54  
Anonymous Voyager said...

There's no objective test. Some people, having experienced both, preferred Nazism to communism. Others thought the opposite.

That is farcical. My family experienced both and lost family members to both....there was no academic discourse...just death and dismemberment and cremation

The objective test is whether people in Britain accept the European Constitution and the European Union willingly or under protest...either way they acquiesce.

That is what I expect them to do, so it is not really worth discussing matters on the EU further, save to show the pusillanimity of the British

10 September 2007 at 21:47  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

There's no objective test. Some people, having experienced both, preferred Nazism to communism. Others thought the opposite.

That is farcical. My family experienced both and lost family members to both....there was no academic discourse...just death and dismemberment and cremation


It's not farcical, but I have my doubts about your mental balance, so won't say anything more. But are you Jewish, by any chance?

11 September 2007 at 15:29  
Anonymous Voyager said...

But are you Jewish, by any chance?

No....and never have been....are you ?

I have my doubts about your mental balance, so won't say anything more. But are you Jewish, by any chance ?

Interesting sentence though, no point in commenting further as you say

11 September 2007 at 17:45  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

voyager … I promised you a reply, although I cannot promise one that is profound in yours or others’ judgement. All is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

Your questions open up too many channels of profound thought and debate for one reply to fully handle, but here is my modest attempt.

Regarding your 7:53 AM post … I shall skip over your opening paragraph, thanks.

Your ... Lenin was sent to ... and ... Britain brought the Menshevik ... paragraphs actually constitute new information for me. Very interesting! Otherwise, I was already cognizant of Lenin’s coup against Kerensky.

Now let us move forward to your paragraph: Now if a country has Civil War I suggest that reflects the fact that some people did not like the regime and set out to oppose it.

Indeed, but the leading question is … who are these “some people?” Revolutions are always started by a minority and sustained by an inner clique (or sanctum) of ultra-committed ideologues who almost by definition have to share some immutable facet in common; such as an ethno-religious identity or a uniquely common background. Only once momentum has gathered, do rest of the population take sides lest they be swept away and consumed by the purges that inevitably follow the victor's justice. Their obligation then becomes simple survival.

The Russian Empire’s initial problems stem from trying to satisfy the needs and demands of very divergent ethno-religious groups: Orthodox Christians whose homeland it actually is (i.e., the people of Rus), Ashkenazi Jews armed with a belief they are God’s Chosen, Talmudists who seek to ferment anarchy so their prophecies may come to pass, and vast numbers of Muslims (e.g., the Cossacks). Now throw into this mix the malign influences of Rasputin (assassinated too late by Russian noblemen who feared his debauchery would weaken the monarchy) and you have, presumably, a powder-keg.

During the second half of the 19th century, the Jewish population in Russia exploded (baby boom). Soon, a surfeit of young people began to demand greater access to society’s benefits, not least paid employment. They also demanded greater quotas. The Czar resisted their demands. Pogroms were initiated, in desperation, to deal with the instability this burgeoning population was causing.

It would seem Imperial Russia was under internal assault from one specific ethno-religious group (a foreign element really) with its own, selfish, and hostile agenda. I suppose one can say the Czar had an historic duty to resist them and face them down. This response led to further conflict, which led to the 1905 Revolution.

Yes indeed, there was no Civil War in Germany after 1933. But, I completely fail to see the relevance of you equating the presence of a Bolshevik Revolution, with the lack of a revolution vis-a-vis the rise of the Nazis. You seem to be suggesting there exists a formula, which applied in Russia but somehow failed to apply to Germany in 1933 and beyond. And now you are challenging me to suggest reasons why this “failure” occurred. Phew!

Like it or not, the most obvious common denominator between the demise of Imperial Russia and the rise of Nazi Germany is … the agitations, behaviour, energy, and uncompromising demands of Ashkenazi Jews. Beginning late in the 19th century, the inherent, revolutionary impulse of European Jews set off a series of political and cultural earthquakes which in turn set off political & cultural after-shocks, tsunamis, and ash-clouds that would soon spur the rapid transformation of the local (European) environment and thus the fate of nations and Empires. As someone has already said, had there been no Jews, there would have been no Communism, and without Communism, there would have been no Fascism. Newton's Third Law of Motion applied in politics too.

As soon as someone had the wherewithal and determination to stand up to their machinations (e.g., Imperial Russia for a short time, followed by the German Third Reich), those most responsible for the mayhem fled to “safe havens” … especially to the gullible United States of America [including the Frankfurt School]. From that sanctuary, and by taking full advantage of the First Amendment, they have since continued their machinations for world domination, through banking, the media, its universities, movie making and by coopting transnational organizations piggy-backing on US corporations. The extent of their success in corrupting or modifying Gentile society can be observed in the degrees to which Jews now enjoy a massively disproportionate influence over the US Democrat Party, over the Republican Party (e.g., the Neo-Cons), almost monopoly ownership of that country's Mass Media, over Hollywood (consider the sickening array of movies produced to rubbish Christianity and White People generally, and to advance homosexuality, multiculturalism, miscegenation -- most usually between white girls and black men -- and also irresponsible hedonistic lifestyles), and not least, over the US State Department. I am not suggesting they have control, but they certainly enjoy dominance or bags of air-time, and that dominance often comes about by default, because generally speaking, Ashkenazi Jews are nervy, edgy, driven people, whilst Gentiles tend to be more laissez-faire, and conservative (with a small ‘c’).

It is my understanding; Hitler hosted diplomatic, cultural, and trade visits by many foreign dignitaries during the 1930s. After meeting him, it appears none condemned him as mad, as they might have condemned Trotsky had they been his host. It seems they found Hitler to be sufficiently charming. A recent programme broadcast by the History Channel, played the circa 10 minute track of a secretly made tape-recording of Adolf Hitler in conversation with the Finnish leader in a railway carriage conference, during circa 1942. I listened to that programme in amazement. Hitler was not the ranting, gesticulating speech-giver in private at all, but a charming, articulate, and measured man; certainly not a ranting idiot. That does not suggest we should applaud his policies for one minute, but this recording showed it was the voice of a man who loved his people, and not one who was trying to export revolution. That impression was actually confirmed by this programme's commentary.

The awful T-4 programme was surely the brainchild of a siege mindset? It was a clumsy and sickening attempt to purify a race (the Germanic race) who had faced (or at least that is what they had perceived they had faced) cultural annihilation themselves through the gross injustices of the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent goings on in the Weimar Republic.

It is so easy to pontificate about the Nazi T-4 programme today, but how well does our contemporary culture stand up to close scrutiny?

How many millions of young Caucasians have been murdered through our tolerance of ‘Abortion on Demand’? Is that not a holocaust? Murder? Genocide? Cultural Suicide? Evil? No wonder Europe has an ageing population; our women have been encouraged to eschew what God put them on the earth primarily to do … give birth!

Then what about Euthanasia, and the availability of Euthanasia Kits? I understand it is legal in the Netherlands. What about human organ “farming” in China, and to a lesser extent, in India?

Then, what about the use of aborted Foetus’ to provide feed-stock for the Genetics industry and experiments in “organ farming”?

In the light of these contemporary realities, is it therefore slightly eccentric to remonstrate against the Nazi T-4 programme today, over 70 years after the event? So obsessed with the Jewish Holocaust we have been, we have completely failed to bring proper justice to those responsible for Cambodia's Killing Fields.

If we can argue the Nazi’s attempts to purify their race so they may re-emerge intact after a “near death experience” was "evil," then is it not equally evil for those who are presently pulling the levers and strings of our culture to deny our very existence and cultural inheritance by inviting millions of African and Asian immigrants into our midst so that we may be colonized in our own cities and towns? It is particularly upsetting therefore, when so many of these lever and string pullers turn out to be Jews (even if the Christanized names of some hide their true background). Surely it is evil that encourages our Jewish owned media to routinely celebrate the issue of mixed-race unions between white women and black males, as if this was a step towards the New Jerusalem? We should not outlaw miscegenation, but I do puzzle over why even our respectable newspapers (Times and Telegraph) are used as tools to actually market or promote miscegenation of our womenfolk. You won't find that kind of monkey business in India's media.

Is it not insidious that the most important annual cultural event in our Capital City should be the Notting Hill Carnival? What do these realities say about the success of those who wish to see the end of the White Race in any viable form? People are free to argue the White Man should get out of Africa, but who would dare to suggest the Black man should get out of Europe? As a culture, we used to abide with the adage ... what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Remember?

It is my belief; nationalism is the default position for all humans the world over … except for Jews. Only Jews have an unshakeable and unbending stake in advancing Internationalism because it is only such a system that offers them an open pathway to world dominance. Some Jews also believe multicultural environments offer their diaspora greater safety. This is why nationalism is greatly and regularly frowned upon, ridiculed, attacked, and jumped heavily upon by the authorities, as we have recently seen in Brussels [see Cranmer thread on “EU Policing”]. This is also why we have to endure continued and contemptuous reference to Adolf Hitler and Naziism in our media, even 62 years following Hitler’s suicide, because that tragic phase of European History still has the power to demonstrate that the dominance (cultural & financial) of world Jewry can indeed be shaken off, even though that effort eventually turned into a Greek Tragedy, as you alluded to. This successful example disturbs Talmudist Jews to the very core of their being – not only because a free study of the period exposes their Machiavellian scheming – but also because Nazi Germany was able to actually exist without them or their money. Their international banks were ignored; dispensed with. Yet despite this, a huge European country was transformed from a sad basket-case into a thriving and happy (for ethnic Germans) entity. Within just 7 years, it had become a dominant force both politically and culturally. You might like to recall that both Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were heroes to most Americans until the Jewish Press succeeded in doing a character assassination upon them. It has also been claimed Henry Ford was once driven off the highway, into a ditch, by someone making an attempt on his life. So, why the need to threaten your critics? This is the same intolerance that puts men in jail for questioning the orthodox version of the Jewish "Holocaust." It is not we Gentiles who have the problem; the problem lies elsewhere, but we still continue to pretend it doesn't exist.

What made Germans tolerate Naziism? Perhaps it had something to do with the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian, Russian, and Polish Jews who had poured into the Weimar Republic to take advantage of a downtrodden, poverty stricken, and humiliated people. Berlin during the Weimar years became a cesspit of depravity, with beautiful German women being abused and humiliated on a regular basis. By circa 1931, Weimar Germany had 30% unemployment: the effects of the Depression on the German people were even greater than those experienced in the United States. Some Germans were forced to eat grass to survive, whilst wealthy Jews lived it up in the bars and nightclubs of Berlin, buying German women for a pittance for their depraved pleasures. Even the Chief of Police in Berlin was a Jew. Over 50% of the professional jobs in Weimar Berlin were occupied by Jews. No German could borrow money without having to deal with a Jew.

Naziism was a reaction to all of that, and a lot more. Philosophically, Caucasian Nationalism and Jewish interests are polar opposites. The white, Caucasian race will NOT survive another 25 years (i.e., as a self-ruling entity) unless we embrace some form of nationalism, and reject (or tightly constrain) the tenets of world Jewry. If that means we must distance ourselves from a Jew dominated United States, then so be it. Why worry, the United States was a failed experiment even by the late 19th century.

Thus, to answer your question: So Mission Impossible do you think today is the time to overhrow the government of the United Kingdom ? Or Yesterday ? Or Tomorrow ?

My answer would be this … All necessary changes and improvements can be brought out peacefully and without persecuting Jews or Jewish interests. No violence or threats are required. No governments need to be overthrown. What we need is simply a new Enlightenment. We all need to openly discuss, acknowledge, and then understand the malignant role of Jews in the 20th century, and be fully cognizant of the destructive role Jewish sciences have played within western culture since the early 1900s (multiculturalism, deconstructionism, mass immigration, Boasism, political correctness, et al). We need to understand why (so many) Jews behave the way they do once they get hold of power in Gentile society, and why they have a habit of promoting policies that are ultimately destructive to Gentile interests. We need to tell senior Jewish representatives that their Old Testament prophecies are all bunkum, and that we are not going to allow them to manipulate our societies in order to try and bring them about by force. We need to ask ourselves whether their is any real meaning in the term: Judeo-Christian tradition. We need to tell all the Rabbis to basically piss off and stop trying to lecture Christians. We need to understand what creates the Peter Mandelson’s of this world. Then we can neutralize their influence by counter-argument, wisdom, cultural awareness, and an unshakeable determination; so much so, they will have to find themselves a proper job, instead of entering radical politics, one generation after the other.

Due to tenure, the only institution that would require an enforced purge is Education: the Universities and School Authorities.

Enlightenment, dear boy; Enlightenment is all that is required. Then the Phoenix shall arise from the ashes.

Only then will our decks be clear to deal properly with Islam.

But, even before all of that, we must first better understand ourselves. This is why we Blog.

14 September 2007 at 15:02  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older