The Myth of British Imperialism

[Special Care]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MYTH OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Irish people need to recognise that the British probably did us a
great favour by invading Ireland, thus saving Ireland from being
colonised by our own murderous Irish kings.

The British Empire saved us from ourselves.

And the Irish are not the only ones who were saved from themselves by
the British Empire.

Furthermore the British didn’t invade Ireland as such.
Study the history and you will find that the British were INVITED to
take control of Ireland by the five Irish kings, to maintain stability
within the armistice lines (provincial boundaries).

The fact that the Irish kings INVITED Britain to colonise Ireland is
an unfamiliar concept for Irish people, because Irish people have a
simplistic, truncated, linear, compartmentalised view of Irish
history.

But it’s true.

In the twelfth century, before the British came, Ireland was a cruel
and chaotic place. The Irish people had been colonised by five IRISH
COLONISERS who, to say the least, were no better than the British.

The IRISH COLONISERS OF IRELAND (the five Irish kings) who were
oppressing and defrauding the Irish people in the twelfth century were
in a state of permanent inter-tribal war or potential war with one
another. All five kings were terrified of being invaded and colonised
by one of the four other Irish colonisers. Alliances came and went, a
bit like in George Orwell’s “1984” where no one could quite remember
whether this week we are allied to, or at war with, Eurasia or
Eastasia.

It bears repeating, because Irish history is so unfamiliar to Irish
people - the five Irish kings INVITED the British to colonise Ireland
in 1170, to bring stability to the country, so that the king of Meath,
for example, could get on with the business of colonising and
oppressing and swindling the Irish people inside his provincial
boundary without fear of being colonised himself by the king of
Leinster……….and so on.

The so-called British “invasion” of Ireland in 1172 was nothing of the
sort. It was the medieval equivalent of “Don Corleone” calling a
meeting of the “five families” to unite them under a single
leadership, the British crime family, while giving the five local
Irish gangsters/colonisers (kings) “a piece of the action.”

Not only that, but this new alignment of gangsters on the western
fringe of Europe was approved by the Pope, a prominent gangster/
warlord in mainland Europe. So how can any Irish Catholic want the
British to get out of Ireland, when their bossman, the Pope, approved
and blessed the new alignment of European crime families in 1172?

Surely the IRA have been committing a terrible sin by going against
the Papal blessing for that realignment of the authority structure of
European gangsters in 1172.

So there was no British invasion of Ireland as taught in the fake
history lessons in your school. Just an agreement between six gangster
bosses - the five kings of Ireland and the ‘capo di tutti capi’ - the
king of England - who was welcomed into Ireland by the five Irish
gangsters/colonisers as a stabilising force.
In return, the British “Godfather” imposed his own taxation and land
grabs for his British cronies, gladly ceded by the Irish gangsters
(kings).
In other words “a piece of the action” was ceded to the English crime
boss in return for stability in Ireland.

There’s nothing new under the sun.

Al Capone in 1920s Chicago had the same problem as the five Irish
gangsters (kings) had in 1172.
Too many small outfits warring with one another, too many needless
killings (needless=bad for business), and no overall control.
That’s why the British were INVITED into Ireland in 1172 by our five
home-grown hoodlums (kings).

IMAGINE THE ABSOLUTE HELL IRELAND WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH DURING THOSE
SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS, 1172-1922, IF WE HAD CONTINUED TO BE
COLONISED BY IRISH GANGSTERS (KINGS) INSTEAD OF ENGLISH GANGSTERS
(KINGS)!

The verdict of history in the twentieth century - if you can overcome
the PC brainwash - is that British control of your country is a
blessing, in the sense of being the lesser evil.

If you visit the former British colonies, places like India, Kenya,
Zimbabwe etc., you will have no difficulty finding people of mature
age who will tell you that it is much better to be colonised by the
British than to be colonised by your own home-grown thugs.

The Irish should be intensely grateful to the English gangsters
(kings) for saving Ireland from the hell of being colonised by the
five Irish gangsters (kings).

Citizens of other former British colonies can speak their own words on
this as they wish.
However, many of them have already spoken to me in this vein. People
of mature age who remember the days of British rule in Asia and
Africa, already have said as much to me.

And in unguarded moments of frankness they often let slip the same to
investigative journalists who ask them what is the solution to their
countries’ ills, to which those of mature age in Asia and Africa
sometimes reply: “Could we perhaps be readmitted to the British
Empire?”

[Filipinos who have a sense of history say the same about being
colonised by the USA in 1899. The USA crime family is the lesser evil
for Filipinos, more benign gangsters than the Spanish.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS CONNECTS WITH THE CORRECT ANALYSIS OF THE HUMAN CONDITION:

What it comes down to is this.

The human species went insane eleven thousand years ago. (Loss of the
Garden of Eden, end of The Golden Age, etc.).
Our ancestors back then lacked the maturity to deal with that major
survivalist emergency in a sane manner, so we lapsed into a state of
permanent gangsterism (inter-tribal war).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever since then, ORGANISED CRIME has been our universal, worldwide
system of government.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Until we find it in ourselves to heal from our collective mental
illness, human life will consist largely of choosing a lesser evil,
choosing the most benign form of gangsterism that is on offer.

So the five Irish gangsters (kings) made the right choice in 1172.
British control of Ireland was the lesser evil, the most benign form
of gangsterism that was on offer. And remember again - it was NOT an
invasion by Britain. The British were INVITED to take control of
Ireland by the five Irish crime families of 1172 for the sake of
maintaining the stability of the armistice lines (provincial
boundaries) in Ireland.

And the Pope gave his blessing to the new alignment of gangsters.

Then each of the five local Irish hoodlums was able to get on with the
lucrative business of oppressing and exploiting (=COLONISING) the
Irish people inside his own provincial boundary (armistice line),
while gladly giving “a piece of the action” to the British “Godfather”
in return for stability.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So Ireland is not and never was ‘Caitlin ni Hulachain.’
[There is a simple psychological explanation for the Caitlin ni
Hulachain complex. Briefly, Caitlin ni Hulachain is a compensation for
the mother we lost in the later stage of the mother-infant
relationship.]

Ireland was not Caitlin ni Hulachain but was always a collection of
territories fought over by Irish and British gangsters, the Irish
gangsters (kings) having invited the British gangsters in for the sake
of stability, as medieval forerunners of Don Corleone and Al Capone.

Forget Caitlin ni Hulachain.
Forget “Four Green Fields.”

If you listen instead to the lyrics of “O Ro ‘Se do Beatha Abhaile,”
it borders on honesty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFRCWg_kOc
That song “O Ro ‘Se do Bheatha Abhaile” is about INTERNATIONAL
GANGSTERISM.

The writings of the Scotsman James Connolly are helpful too.

We’ll never heal our civilisation until we focus our minds and see
ourselves as we ARE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you don’t solve anything by “getting the British out of your
country.”

Your collective mental illness remains unhealed after the British go,
and your collective mental illness will just throw up another
exploitative/colonial authority structure, usually much worse than the
British one.

WHO’S country?

Ever since the disaster of eleven thousand years ago, a country
belongs to whichever gangster family is colonising it, whether foreign
or home-grown.
In 1172 it suited the Irish gangster bosses to invite the British
“Godfather” in to impose stability.
In 1922 it suited the Irish gangster bosses to take control
themselves, as life was well ordered in the twentieth century by
comparison to the twelfth century and so the Irish colonists could
colonise the Irish people from 1922 onward without the need for the
stabilising hand of the English “Godfather.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The pattern was repeated throughout the dissolution of the British
Empire during the 1950s/60s, culminating in the catastrophe that was
visited on Zimbabwe, delayed until 1980 by Ian Smith.
In my experience Ian Smith is revered by many Zimbabweans of mature
age, or at least considered the lesser evil, the more benign
gangster.
In all such cases “national independence” was not an accurate
description and to apply the word “liberation” to such manoeuvres is
an inversion, a violation of linguistics.
It was just home-grown gangster families taking over from the more
benign British gangsters (such as Ian Smith), which was a terrible
mistake as the home-grown gangsters were usually infinitely more
vicious and more exploitative than the British ones.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some day, far into a needlessly painful future, humanity will finally
take the decision to begin the recovery from the collective mental
illness we lapsed into eleven thousand years ago.

Until that day comes, the only choice human beings have is between
home-grown hoodlums and foreign hoodlums, however well disguised the
home-grown ones are in some cases.

The veneer of “democracy” covers a multitude of sins.
I call it THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE FAKE DEBATES.

That is the future. It has already arrived in large measure, but the
technique is still being perfected by the ruling group. Train the
people to believe they are “free” by giving them permission to engage
in fake debates.
Gangsterism in disguise - carefully orchestrated and limited FAKE
DEBATES giving the sheep an illusion of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice.’
It’s already happening, and the ruling group are striving to impose
the same DICTATORSHIP OF THE FAKE DEBATES on the emerging regimes in
the Middle East, among others…..

They succeeded well enough in Eastern Europe after the so-called
“collapse of communism.”
From being a physically oppressive dictatorship, Eastern Europe is now
a DICTATORSHIP OF THE FAKE DEBATES.
Gangsterism in disguise.
It’s easier for everybody that way, and the ruling group has that
experience in Eastern Europe to build on as they tackle places like
Libya and Egypt.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not make the mistake we made in Ireland, India, Kenya, Zimbabwe
etc. - the mistake of assuming home-grown hoodlums are more benign
than British hoodlums.

The British are the best of a bad lot.

In the short term, choose the most benign gangster to colonise you,
home-grown or foreign, just as the Filipinos gladly welcomed the
Americans in 1899 as more benign gangsters than the Spanish.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the long term I’m waiting for you to say you’ve had enough of the
‘revolving door’ syndrome / the roundabout / the pendulum / the
treadmill / The Vale of Tears.
I’m waiting for you to say that our pain-generating societal
arrangements are wrong and should be abolished and replaced with
happiness-generating societal arrangements.
I’m waiting for you to say you are at last ready to begin healing, to
come off ‘autopilot,’ to stop being automatons, and to begin at last
the process of recovery from our collective mental illness.

How much more pain do you need to make you want to start the healing
process?
I don’t know. But until the human race comes of age, stop pretending
that England invaded Ireland and just accept that ORGANISED CRIME is
our system of government and choose the more benign gangster / crime
family to rule you. Whether they are home-grown hoodlums or foreign
hoodlums doesn’t matter.

There is NO “liberation struggle.”
There is NO “national independence.”
There is only choosing the more benign gangster family to rule you,
home-grown thugs or foreign thugs, until you finally wise up and start
the healing process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“LISTEN, LITTLE MAN!”
http://www.listenlittleman.com/

“Know Yourself, Heal Yourself”
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dddp6bt4_829zpt8ffd

“O Ro ‘Se do Bheatha Abhaile”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFRCWg_kOc

[Akins of that Ilk]

> it borders on honesty.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFRCWg_kOc

The biggest mistake that the Irish (and the English) make is in
thinking of the British people as "English" (i.e. Anglo-Saxons);
whereas the vast majority of the native inhabitants of Britain are in
fact Celtic Britons with only as much Germanic Ancestry as is found in
Ireland introduced there by the Vikings and Normans.

[Special Care]

On Sep 8, 3:47 pm, Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

---------------------------------------

That wasn't mainly what I was getting at.
But since you've brought up the subject of the racial origins of the
white tribes of western Europe, I'll just say that, whereas it is not
an exact science, I agree with the "British Israel" view, best
promulgated by Garner Ted Armstrong:
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/europe.htm

=============
A CELTIC ANTHEM TO INTERNATIONAL GANGSTERISM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9x6fG3QrBE

[Special Care]

As someone has raised the matter, the following is a more brief and
'readable' set of extracts from Garner Ted Armstrong's very long
article on this subject:

----------------------------------------------------------------

EXTRACTS FROM
"Europe and America in Prophecy" by Garner Ted Armstrong:

------------------------------------------------------------------

In the third part of Allen's book, chapter 1, pages 228 and 229, he
sets forth the following facts:

"(1) About 585 B.C. a `notable man,' an `important personage,' a
patriarch, a saint, an essentially important someone, according to
their various ways of putting it, came to Ulster, the most northern
province of Ireland, accompanied by a princess, the daughter of an
eastern king, and that in company with them was one Simon Brach,
Breck, Brack, Barech, Berach, as it is differently spelled; and that
this royal party brought with them many remarkable things. Among
these
was the harp, an ark and the wonderful stone called Lia-fail, or
stone
of destiny, of which we shall have much to say hereafter."

--------------------

"Later Tea (sometimes spelled Teah) Tephi herself was crowned upon
this pillar-stone, and the name of Erin's capital was changed from
Cathair Crofin to Tara, which is also another Hebrew word. But at
this
juncture history comes to our help, and with unquestioned authority
declares that, from that time until the present, every king and queen
who has reigned in Ireland, Scotland or England has been crowned upon
that selfsame pillar or coronation stone. Queen Victoria herself was
twice crowned upon that stone, the first time as Queen of England,
and
the second time as Empress of India."

---------------------

".....it is nevertheless a FACT that the ancient Danites, half of
whom
abode in ships and were a seafaring people (Judges 5:17), are
revealed
in the sacred Word of God to have followed the practice of naming (or
renaming) important areas after the name of their father, Dan.

In one case, there are two significant names attached to one of the
important Scandinavian countries, Denmark.

Again, the spelling "Denmark" is Anglicized; the Danes (notice the
word Dan in the name of these peoples) call their northern peninsula
by the name "Danmark." This name means nothing more than "the mark of
Dan."

Anciently, however, the peninsula now occupied by the Danes was
called
Jutland."

-------------------------------------------

"The Celts

The ancient Celts, the bulk of whom, history says, inhabited the
central and western parts of Europe, were in fact, Israelites whose
origins are traced from that region in Europe through which flows the
River Danube, and from the Near East.

The Anglicized "Celt," or "Kelt," is nothing more than the generic
name of the ancient people who inhabited Northern and Western Europe.
They were regarded, by ancient writers, as "all the fair-haired
peoples dwelling north of the Alps," and the name "Celt" comes from
the Greek language, for the Greeks termed them all Keltoi. The Kelts
were classified as falling into two loosely divided groups, which
shaded off into each other. The first was distinguished by "a long
head, a long face, a narrow aquiline nose, blue eyes, very light hair
and great stature," and these lighter-complexioned "Kelts" were
usually termed "teutonic" by early writers.

The other group was marked by "a round head, a broad face, a nose
often rather broad and heavy, hazel-gray eyes, light chestnut hair,
and were said to be thick-set and medium height."

It is fascinating that the ancient "Teutons," whose name is generic
for "Germans," appear in history along with the Cimbri, universally
held to be Celts, but coming from the same region as the Guttones
(Goths, which was a Roman name for these peoples) by the shores of
the
Baltic and North Sea.

The Belgic tribes in northern France were the Cimbri, and had,
according to history, migrated into the region from east of the
Rhine.

The dominance of the Celts in northwestern Europe and the British
Isles is well known.

Ancient writers spoke of the Gauls, who gave their name to modern-day
France, as the Cimbri, and identified them with the Cimmerians of an
earlier date, who are mentioned by Homer.

They are identified as migrating through the mouth of the Danube, and
early Celts are said to have been "continually moving westward." The
"Belgae" were also Cimbri in origin. They spread across the Rhine and
gave their name "to all northern France and Belgium" (Encyclopaedia
Britanica, 11th edition, Vol. 5, page 612).

Even in language the ancient Celts were identified as having come
from
the Near East."

----------------------------------------------------

"It is now a well-authenticated fact that the word Saxon is derived
from the Hebrew name of I-saac, together with an affix which means
`sons of.' Prof. Totten says: `In most of the Eastern languages `sons
of' is written sunnia. It is equivalent to the Scottish `Mac' and the
English and Irish `Fitz'—MacDonald, son of Donald; Fitz Henry, son of
Henry. So, in the distant home of our ancestors, Saac-Sunnia means
sons of Isaac. Stambul is formed of Istanbul by dropping the prefix
I,
and so the Saxon is a direct descendant of our father Isaac. Dr. W.
Holt Yates accepts this derivation of the Saxon name as positive, and
the Rev. W.H. Poole, D.D., speaks of it as follows: `It is a little
curious to glean from the ancient nations and from the stone
monuments
of the early times the various forms in which this word is to be
found. I will here insert a few from a list of my own gleaned from
ancient history, thus: Sons of Isaac, Sons of Saac, SaacSunnia, Saac-
Suna, Saac-Sena, Saac-pena, Esakska, Sacae-Amyrqui, Beth-Sakal (House
of Isaac), Sunnia Sakai-Suna, Saca-Suna, Sacae-Sunnae, Sackisina,
Sacka-Sacia, Saca-Cine, Saka-Suna, Sacas-Sani, Sakas-Saeni, Saxi-
Suna,
Sach-Suni, Sachi, Sacha, Sa-kah, Saa-chus, Saa-cus, Sa-cho, Saxo,
Saxoi, Saxonia, Sax-ones, Saxae, Sach-sen, Sack-sen, Saxe-sen,
Saxone,
Saxony, Saxon'" (Our Race, Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright,
page 294).

Many ancient historians agree on the origins of the "Saxons" (son of
Isaac): Ptolemy says the Saxans were connected with the Scythians,
and
were called Sakai, and that they came from the land of the Medes!

One of the most important historians of the Saxons was Sharon Turner,
who said, "The Saxons were a Scythian nation, and were called Saca,
Sachi, Sacki and Sach-sen." Pliney says, "The Sakai were among the
most distinguished people of Scythia, who settled in Armenia, and
were
called Sacae-sani." Albinas claims that "the Saxons were descended
from the ancient Sacae of Asia."

Another historian, Prideaux, says that the Cimbrians came from
between
the Black and Euxine (the Caspian) seas, and that with them came the
Angli!

In the book Our Scythian Ancestors, by Gawler (page 6), "The word
Saacae is fairly and without straining our imagination translatable
as
Isaacites."

Even today, the Hebrew name "Isaac" is pronounced Eetsaak. To force
this pronunciation, insuring that the letter i is given the sound of
the English ee, one would use a y, as do those using the English
language in spelling the name "Isaac" from the Hebrew, rendering it
Ytsak.

These "sons of Isaac" became the Saakea, or the Saka, and their names
are found coupled with the same origins as the Danites and the Bit-
Humri, or the sons of Omri, from the area of ancient Media, and along
the river courses, principally that of the Danube, into northwestern
Europe, and the British Isles!

These few clues to the identity of the most ancient inhabitants of
northwestern Europe, the Scandinavian countries and the British Isles
are by no mean all the evidence available!

The fact that ancient Israelitish explorers (not only those who
circumnavigated Africa, sailing to India and to the British Isles in
the time of Solomon, but later Danites, as well) left their names at
principal sources of supply (such as food, fresh water, etc.) along
their routes of trade and discovery is obvious."

---------------------------------------------------------

"Who Were the Original Europeans?

Curiously enough, when one studies the origins of the peoples of
Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany
and
England, one continually comes across the same peoples as having been
among the earliest known inhabitants of all these countries.

For centuries, there was no political distinction, no specific
geographic distribution of the peoples who inhabited the river
valleys
and plains of Europe and the British Isles. They were merely the
"Keltoi" (Celts), or "Teutons," or "Gauls," or "Saxons," or "Gimri,"
or "Cimmerians." As the centuries passed, languages changed
significantly. New dialects arose and faded from use; whole new
tongues gradually developed.

By studying both the history of the peoples and their languages, as
well as their art forms and especially their religions, one can come
to a better understanding of the commonality of the origins of most
northwestern Europeans.

The most ancient records extant speak of the peoples inhabiting
northwestern Europe and the British Isles as the "Celts."

Who were the "Celts"?

The Encyclopedia Britannica replies, "CELT, or KELT, the generic name
of an ancient people, the bulk of whom inhabited the central and
western parts of Europe... the ancient writers regarded as
homogeneous
all the fair-haired peoples dwelling north of the Alps, the Greeks
terming them all Keltoi. Physically they fall into two loosely-
divided
groups, which shade off into each other. The first of these is
restricted to northwestern Europe, having its chief seat in
Scandinavia... Those are the peoples usually termed Teutonic by modem
writers. The other group [of "Celtic" peoples] is marked by a round
head, a broad face, a nose often rather broad and heavy, hazel-grey
eyes, light chestnut hair; they are thick-set and of medium height.
This race is often termed "Celtic" or "Alpine" from the fact of its
occurrence all along the great mountain chain from southwest France,
in Savoy, in Switzerland... [and] is commonly supposed to be
Mongoloid
in origin and to have come from Asia, the home of the round-skulled
races" (Ibid. vol. V. p.611, 612).

Notice carefully that the so-called "Celtic" peoples came from Asia,
and that it is admitted they were not of just one tribal origin.
Remember that the Babylonian empire drove out the Assyrians (whose
main tribal group were the "Halmanni," from whence comes "Aleman,"
which is the Latin root for "German.") along with their former
captives, ten-tribed Israel! These mixed peoples spread out into
Europe from the region of the steppes of Russia; the Crimean
(Gimrian,
or "Khumrian," from "Bit-Khumri") Peninsula, and along the Danube
valley ("River of Dan") into Europe.

The ancient historians regarded the peoples occupying the river
valleys of the Danube; the mountains of Switzerland and Bavaria; the
broad plains of northern Germany and the coastlands of the northwest
as "Ke1toi"; as "homogeneous," meaning—the same peoples!

Remember the ancient Assyrians called the captive peoples of ten-
tribed Israel after their famous king, "Omri," making it "Khumri," in
their own tongue. These peoples are found throughout the region from
the Black and Caspian sea; the Crimean (Khimbrian) peninsula; central
Europe along the Don, Udon and Danube rivers, to northwestern Europe
and the British Isles! The "K" sound became silent, or the harsh "H"
sound, in some cases. Today, we find the "Humber" estuary on the East
coast of England; draining two important rivers. "Northumberland" is
merely the land of the north "Humbers," or "Khumbris." One finds
similar clues in place-names all over Britain, including "Cambria"
and
"Cambridge."

--------------------------------------------------------------

"Study the histories of the northwestern European nations, and you
will find again and again an admission of ignorance on the part of
the
foremost authorities as to the actual origin of the earliest waves of
settlers who were called "Teutonic," or "Brythonic," or the "Belgae,"
the "Gauls" and the "Celts."

Notice! "As to the origins of this stock [the earliest inhabitants of
France] we are again in complete ignorance and it would be idle to
linger upon the many conjectures of migrations of an `Aryan race'"
Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 11, p.718).

However, again and again the admission is made of a commonality of
religion! "The inhabitants of Gaul had in common from the earliest
times a national character and a religion..." (Ibid. p.718)."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Concerning the origin of the word "Britain," this foremost authority
admits the word is an "anglicized form of the classical name of
England, Wales and Scotland, sometimes extended to the British Isles
as a whole (Britannicae Insulae). The Greek and Roman forms are
doubtless attempts to reproduce a Celtic original, the exact form of
which is still in dispute" (Ibid. p.583).

As was mentioned earlier, there are those who have insisted the term
derived from "berith," which is Hebrew for "covenant," and "ish," for
"man." If this is supposedly fanciful, let us re-read the above, and
remember that the earliest Romans who came into contact with the
"Celtic-speaking" peoples of pre-Christian Britain attempted to
write,
in their own tongue, an approximation of the name by which the early
Britons called THEMSELVES!"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"The very large area of ancient eastern England called "Northumbria"
is unmistakably from the Khumbri, Kimri and etc., as the Assyrian
captors corrupted the "House of Omri." An important estuary on this
coast is the "Humber." "Wessex, Sussex and Essex" are merely West,
South, and East "Saxons."

It is futile to scoff at place-names, for historians admit to their
importance.................................................................­­­..............................................."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Akins of that Ilk]

Our understanding of who the Celts were and are is very much based on
speculation that has circulated among scholars and academians over the
past 300 years, and has changed a great deal during that time, as it
is likely to continue to change in years to come as archaelogists and
anthropologists reexamine their notions and conclusions by comparing
their theories with the evidence.

In fact, it was not until 1707 that the Gaelic and Brythonic speaking
inhabitants of the British Isles and their cousins in Brittany and
Galacia on the European continent came to be identified as "Celts" by
the 17th century antiquarian Edward Lhuyd, who first hypothesised that
the Irish, Scots, Manx, Welsh, Cornish and Bretons represented the
descendants of the ancient tribes referred to as the "Keltoi" by the
Greeks and the "Celtae" by the Romans, who learned of these people
through the writings of early Classical explorers.

These ancient accounts offer reason to doubt that the original early
Celts even spoke languages that are related to those that we consider
to be "Celtic" today, as the Gaelic/Gaulish/Galacian languages along
with Cymraeg (Welsh) belong to the Indo-European family of languages
that first evolved in Eastern Europe and the Near East; whereas the
original Celts may have spoken an older, non-Indo-European language,
more closely related to Basque. In fact, the Gaels/Gauls/Galacians as
well as the Cymry are said in ancient records to have come to the
British Isles from a region once known as Scythia, which covered a
vast territory in Eastern Europe located roughly in the area of the
present-day Ukraine, very near the original homeland of the ancient
Aryan or Indo-European root language.

Only one tribe in the ancient era called themselves by a name
resembling "Celts" and these were the Celtici, a tribe located in
southwestern Spain. These are in fact the first "Celts" mentioned in
history by the writer Herodotus in 450 B.C.E., who reported:

"For the Ister (Danube river), beginning in the land of the Celts and
the city of Pyrene, flows through the middle of Europe. The Celts live
beyond the Pillars of Hercules (straits of Gibraltar) and border on
the Cynetes (Conii), who are the westernmost inhabitants of Europe."

Later, as the Gauls (known by tribal names such as the Galli and
Galaeci) spread into Western Europe infiltrating lands originally
occupied by the indigenous Celts, they would have introduced their
Indo-European language and culture to the pre-Indo-European Celts who
were most likely the descendants of the earliest native inhabitants of
Western Europe whose ancestors were responsible for erecting the many
megalithic monuments and barrows found throughout the territories
inhabited by the Celts.

Writing in the first century B.C.E. Diodorus Siculus spoke of how the
Celts and Gauls were originally two distinct people, but had become
merged, saying:

"It is useful now to point out a distinction unknown by most. Those
tribes that live inland from Massalia (Marseilles) as well as those
around the Alps and on the eastern side of the Pyrenees are called
Celts. But those tribes in the northern area near the ocean, those
near the Hercynian mountain (probably in today’s Czech republic) and
those beyond as far as Scythia are called Galatae. The Romans,
however, group all these tribes together as Galatae."

In his Description of Greece, the writer Pausanias explains the how
the adoption of the Gallic culture by the Celts led to confusion
between the identities of the two groups, saying:

“These Gauls inhabit the most remote portion of Europe, near a great
sea that is not navigable to its extremities, and possesses ebb and
flow and creatures quite unlike those of other seas...It was late
before the name “Gauls” came into vogue; for anciently they were
called Celts both amongst themselves and by others.”

One of the most famous references comes from Julius Caesar in his
description of the Gallic Wars, De Bello Gallico, written in the
middle of the first century B.C.E.:

"Gaul is a whole divided into three parts, one of which is inhabited
by the Belgae, another by the Aquitani, and a third by a people called
in their own tongue Celtae, in the Latin Galli. All of these are
different one from another in language, institutions, and laws. The
Galli are separated from the Aquitani by the river Garonne, from the
Belgae by the Marne and the Seine...The mainland of Britain is
inhabited by a people who claim to be indigenous to the island, on the
coast live the immigrant Belgae, who crossed over for war and pillage,
but settled to cultivate the land...Those living inland do not sow
grain but live on milk and meat and wear clothes of animal hides. All
Britons paint their skin with woad which makes them blue and more
terrifying to confront in battle."

The immigrant Belgae, mentioned by Caesar as having settled on the
coast of Britain, were a group of Gallic tribes which included the
Cimbri, who had formerly inhabited the Himmerland in the Jutland
peninsula of Denmark, prior to the occupation of that region by the
Germanic Danes The Greek historian Plutarch mentions the Cimbri in
his Life of Gaius Marius (written in 75 A.D.), describing the Cimbri
as "Galloscythians" who had migrated westward and were known to the
Greeks as "Cimmerians", describing their homeland in the darkest and
remotest location "extending into the interior [of Europe] as far as
the Hercynian forest....and from this region, the people, anciently
called Cimmerii, and afterwards by an easy change, Cimbri." Somewhat
earlier, in about 60 B.C., Diodorus Siculus wrote: "the valour of
these people [the Britons] and their....ways have been famed abroad.
Some men say that it was they who in ancient times overran all of Asia
[Minor] and were called "Cimmerians" - time having corrupted the word
into the name "Cimbrians" [Brythonic: "Cymru"] as they are now
called." The Cimbri, or Cymric tribes as they were known in Britain,
were descendants of the ancient Cimmerians who originally inhabited
what is now the Crimea on the northern shores of the Black Sea
bordering Scythia, until they were scattered after generations of
intramural struggles for rulership with competing Scythian tribes; not
unlike the events described in the Lebor Gabala Erenn (Book of the
Conquest of Ireland), which describes how the Gaels originated in
Scythia and made their way across Europe until they at long last
reached Ireland, their prophesied destination:

“Now Feinius had two sons: Nenual, [one of the two] whom he left in
the princedom of Scythia behind him; Nel, the other son, at the Tower
was he born. Now he was a master of all the languages; wherefore one
came [to summon him] from Pharaoh, in order to learn the multiplicity
of languages from him. But Feinius came out of Asia to Scythia, whence
he had gone for the building of the Tower; so that he died in the
princedom of Scythia, at the end of forty years, and passed on the
chieftainship to his son, Nenual. At the end of forty two years after
the building of the Tower, Ninus son of Belus took the kingship of the
world…..Now that is the time when Gaedel Glas (from whom are the Gaels
descended), was born......Now Sru son of Esru son of Gaedel, he it is
who was chieftain for the Gaels who went out of Egypt after Pharaoh
was drowned with his host in the Red Sea of Israel: Seven hundred and
seventy years from the Flood till then. Four hundred and forty years
from that time in which Pharaoh was drowned, and after Sru son of Esru
came out of Egypt, till the time when the sons of Mil came into
Ireland.….Forty and Four ships' companies strong went Sru out of
Egypt. There were twenty-four wedded couples and three hirelings for
every ship. Sru and his son Eber Scot, they were the chieftains of the
expedition. It is then that Nenual son of Baath, son of Nenual, son
of Feinius Farsaid, prince of Scythia, died; and Sru also died
immediately after reaching Scythia....Eber Scot took by force the
kingship of Scythia from the progeny of Nenual, till he fell at the
hands of Noemius son of Nenual.....For that reason was the seed of
Gael driven forth upon the sea, to wit Agnomain and Lamfhind his son,
so that they were seven years on the sea, skirting the world on the
north side. More than can be reckoned are the hardships which they
suffered....they had three ships with a coupling between them, that
none of them should move away from the rest. They had three chieftains
after the death of Agnomain on the surface of the great Caspian Sea,
Lamfhind and Allot and Caicher the druid....It is Caicher who spoke to
them,….Caicher the druid said: Rise, said he, we shall not rest until
we reach Ireland. What place is that 'Ireland' said Lamfhind son of
Agnomain. Further than Scythia is it, said Caicher. It is not
ourselves who shall reach it, but our children, at the end of three
hundred years from today....Thereafter they settled in the Macotic
Marshes.....It is that Brath who came out of the Marshes along the
Torrian Sea to Crete and to Sicily. They reached Spain thereafter.
They took Spain by force.....Four ships' companies strong came the
Gael to Spain: in every ship fourteen wedded couples and seven unwed
hirelings.....Brath had a good son named Breogan, by whom was built
the Tower and the city - Braganza was the city's name. From Breogan's
Tower it was that Ireland was seen; an evening of a day of winter Ith
son of Breogan saw it.”

This history is later recalled in the words of the Scottish
Declaration of Arbroath, addressed to the Pope in 1320:

“Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books
of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the
Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from
Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of
Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most
savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however
barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of
Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still
live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly
destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the
Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many
victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear
witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since."

The Scythians were known by many names: Scyths, Sacae, Skuthes, Skuda,
Scoloti, etc. (meaning "archers") and from them the Gaelic tribe known
as the Scotti or Scots is descended. It was in that part of Scythia,
located along the current Polish-Ukranian border, that the ancient
province of Galicia is found. Galicia was the original homeland of the
Gallic people, who were the earliest ancestors of the Gauls of Europe,
and the Gaels of Ireland and Scotland.

The Scythian origin of the Scots is also recorded in the text known as
Chronica de Origine Antiquorum Pictorum (The Pictish Chronicle),
which is based on an earlier work, dating to the 7th century,
entitled Etymologiae by Isidore of Seville, who wrote: “The race of
the Picts has a name derived from the appearance of their bodies.
These are played upon by a needle working with small pricks and by the
squeezed-out sap of a native plant, so that they bear the resultant
marks according to the personal rank of the individual, their painted
limbs being tattooed to show their high birth. The Scots, now
incorrectly referred to as Irishmen, are really Scotti, because they
originated from the land of the Scythians…..It is a well known fact
that the Britons arrived in Britain during the third Age of Man (the
time between Abraham and David), while the Scotti, that is the Scots,
migrated into Scotia or Ireland during the fourth Age of Man (the time
between David and Daniel). The Scythian people are born with white
hair due to the everlasting snow; and the colour of their hair gives
name to the people, and thus they are called Albani: From this people
both Scots and Picts descend. Their eyes are so brightly coloured that
they are able to see better by night than by day. The Albani people
were also neighbours with the Amazones. The Scythian territory was
once so large that it reached from India in the east, through the
marshland of Meotidas (the Sea of Azov), till the borders of
Germania.”

The Picts were simply non-Romanised Britons, as the Romans didn't
conquer the entire island of Britain, they ended up building a coast
to coast fortification (Hadrian's Wall) to separate Romanised Britain
from the non-Romanised Britons living in the northern third of the
island of Britain. Because the Britons living north of Hadrian's Wall
were not under Roman control, they retained their own indigenous
native Celtic culture and language, whereas the Britons living south
of Hadrian's wall were more influenced by Roman ways and manners. The
names Briton and Britain themselves come from the Celtic words Prytani
and Prydain, which the Britons used to refer to themselves and their
island. These words are derived from the Celtic root word Pryd,
meaning "to mark" or "draw" and refer to the native Briton practice of
painting or tattooing their skin with designs using a dye or ink
obtained from the woad plant which produces a blue color; a trait
described by Herod of Antioch in the 3rd century A.D., who wrote: "The
Britons incise on their bodies coloured pictures of animals, of which
they are very proud." So the Britons (or Prytani, as they called
themselves in their own language) were the "painted" or "tattooed
people".

Thus the Gaelic/Gaulish/Galacian and Cymric languages are identified
as "Celtic" today because they were adopted by the Celtic inhabitants
of Western Europe when they absorbed the Galatae and Cimbri
(Cimmerian) tribes from eastern Europe who settled amongst them, as
similarly the Anglo-Saxon (English) language was adopted by the Celtic
Britons when they absorbed the Germanic Angles and Saxons who settled
in their country in the 400's A.D. The people themselves did not
become genetically "English", they were still predominately Celtic,
but adopted the language of the Germanic Anglo-Saxon ruling class, who
were a minority compared to the native Britons.

If we look at genetics through DNA research, we find that the majority
of the people living in countries like Ireland, Scotland, Wales and
Cornwall are predominately of the R1b genetic haplogroup. The R1b
haplotype is in fact the predominant haplogroup in Western Europe and
occurs among a majority of the population in the same areas where the
ancient megalithic monuments (dolmens, cromlechs, menhirs, and barrows
like Newgrange, Callanish, Maes Howe, Avebury, Stonehenge, and Carnac)
are found - which suggests that the majority of the people who we
identify as "Celtic" are in fact descended from an aboriginal
population that was native to Western Europe all the way back to the
Stone Age.

Another interesting thing to consider is that Indo-European languages
like Gaelic and Cymraeg would not have evolved among these people, but
would have been introduced from Eastern Europe - the Aryan/Indo-
European homeland, where the predominate haplotype is R1a - a fact
which perfectly fits the old histories that record the Gaels as having
originated in Scythia (present day Ukraine). So the Gaels/Gauls/
Galacians who we think of today as being "Celtic" would not originally
have been, as the real "Celts" - the prehistoric R1b haplotype
megalithic culture would have spoken a non-Indo European language
probably very closely related to Basque. In fact, the Basque people
who have remained a relatively isolated population in the Pyrenees
mountains between Spain and France have one of the highest percentages
of R1b DNA in all of Europe, exceeded only by the inhabitants of
Western Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall and Wales, while among the remaing
populations of both France and Spain R1b is still the predominate
haplotype, though not found in the excessively high levels as it is
among the Basques and the populations of the Western portion of the
British Isles.

This leaves us to draw the conclusion that while the Gaelic and Cymric
languages evolved among an R1a population native to Eastern Europe,
that these languages were at some point brought to Western Europe by
their speakers who settled amongst the R1b Celts (who were the native
population of Western Europe) and were eventually absorbed by the
indigenous Celtic population that they settled among, though their
language survived and was adopted by the Celts.

[killwhang]

On Sep 9, 1:25 am, Special Care <special.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE MYTH OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Irish people need to recognise that the British probably did us a
> great favour by invading Ireland, thus saving Ireland from being
> colonised by our own murderous Irish kings.

You need special care...

[killwhang]

On Sep 9, 2:47 am, Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Sep 8, 8:25 am, Special Care <special.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Most English descend from Pakistan nowadays, or Trinidad. look at
their football team...


Hardy

[SPierce]

"Special Care" <special...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12e6f68b-3583-48ce...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MYTH OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM

(snipped for brevity)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

# The most intelligent piece of writing I've seen in ages.

[B J Foster]

On 8/09/2011 11:25 PM, Special Care wrote:
> Irish people need to recognise that the British probably did us a
> great favour by invading Ireland, thus saving Ireland from being
> colonised by our own murderous Irish kings.

Now that you've sorted that out, would you please take back the Welsh
Witch and send us a new one? An English one will do, thank you.

[Special Care]

On Sep 8, 7:27 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> Special Care <special.car...@gmail.com> wrote innews:b3eb4173-73e5-4329...@b10g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > EXTRACTS FROM
> > "Europe and America in Prophecy" by Garner Ted Armstrong:
>

> A TV Evangelist loony who lined his pockets at the expense of the gullible.
> [Although he does get a mention in the Bonzo's song that became the model
> for Tubular Bells - can't remember it's name, but it also features Dan
> Druff and J Arthur Rank on gong and a multitude of other personalities]
>
> Why should anyone pay any attention to him?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't "throw the baby out with the bath water."

I agree that Herbert W. Armstrong and his son Garner Ted Armstrong
were cynical manipulators and charlatans.
Many naive families in USA on low incomes had their lives ruined by
paying 'tithes' to the Armstrongism scam and then living in poverty as
a result, and teaching their children to make fools of themselves so
that they were ostracised by their peers and subject to bullying at
school for falling for the Armstrongism scam. Armstrongism was and
still is a shameful episode in USA cultural history.

Murphy's Law come to mind.

However, there is a lot of wisdom in the booklet titled "Europe and
America in Prophecy." It is a useful resource if you just ignore the
"second coming of jeeaayyyzizz" nonsense.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVIVING ARMSTRONGISM:
http://silenced.co/2011/07/surviving-armstrongism/

[Harry Merrick]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
<special...@gmail.com> wrote:

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>THE MYTH OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Irish people need to recognise that the British probably did us a
>great favour by invading Ireland, thus saving Ireland from being
>colonised by our own murderous Irish kings.

Actually it was far earlier. The Romans invaded Ireland, but before
that from around AD 800, more than a century of Viking invasions
brought havoc upon the monastic culture and on the island's various
regional dynasties.

>
>The British Empire saved us from ourselves.

HEH??? Britain was not an empire when the first invasions occurred.
Eventually, Britain did indeed become an Empire in the real sense. She
was the largest Empire in the World at that time. Mostly due to the
West and East India companies in fact.
>

............."SNIP" Of Contrived Nonsense and Re-writing History.....

History of Ireland? See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland

The Irish were forever the orchestrators of their own destiny, and
have never stopped whinging, complaining and blaming everyone else
ever since. Thankfully, they have grown up and moved on. Sadly, they
now are afflicted with near bankruptcy due to their greedy bankers and
poor politicians, NOT the fault of the masses at all. The UK is in the
same mess as is the USA.

Harry Merrick.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 9, 11:37 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>

It has more to do with the Jews, they are the ones in control of the
banks and the investment firms.


The Federal Reserve Bank is a consortium of 9 Jewish-owned &
associated banks with the Rothschilds at the head:

$1. Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin.

$2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.

$3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.

$4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.

$5. Lehman Brothers of NY.

$6. Kuhn, Loeb Bank of NY (Now Shearson American Express).

$7. Goldman, Sachs of NY.

$8. National Bank of Commerce NY/Morgan Guaranty Trust (J. P. Morgan
Bank - Equitable Life - Levi P. Morton are principal shareholders).

$9. Hanover Trust of NY (William and David Rockefeller & Chase
National Bank NY are principal shareholders).

TIME LINE OF THE JEW-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

1791-1811: Rothschilds' First Bank of the United States.

1816-1836: Rothschilds' Second Bank of the United States.

1837-1862: Free Banking Era - no formal Central Bank through the
efforts of President Andrew Jackson.

1862-1913: System of National Banks through the efforts of President
Andrew Jackson.

1913-Current: Federal Reserve Act effects a consortium of privately
held Jewish & associated banks called the Federal Reserve Bank. The
largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve Bank are the Rothschilds
of London holding 57% of the stock which is not available for public
trading.

On May 23 1933, Congressman Louis T. McFadden brought impeachment
charges against the members of the Federal Reserve Bank. A smear
campaign against McFadden ensued and he was poisoned 3 years later.

JEWS RUN THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

Here are the Jews that control the government of America:

1) Ben Shalom Bernanke: Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal
Reserve. Term ends 2020.

2) Donald L. Kohn: Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal
Reserve. Term ends 2016.

3) Randall S. Kroszner: Member of Board of Governors of Federal
Reserve.

4) Frederic S. Mishkin: Member of Board of Governors of Federal
Reserve. Term ends 2014.

5) Alan Greenspan: Advisor to Board of Governors of Federal Reserve.
Recent Chairman.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

soupdragon wrote:
> Special Care <special...@gmail.com> wrote in

> news:b3eb4173-73e5-4329...@b10g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:

>
>> As someone has raised the matter, the following is a more brief and
>> 'readable' set of extracts from Garner Ted Armstrong's very long
>> article on this subject:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> EXTRACTS FROM
>> "Europe and America in Prophecy" by Garner Ted Armstrong:
>

> A TV Evangelist loony who lined his pockets at the expense of the
> gullible. [Although he does get a mention in the Bonzo's song that
> became the model for Tubular Bells - can't remember it's name, but it
> also features Dan Druff and J Arthur Rank on gong and a multitude of
> other personalities]

I think you mean this one @ soupdragon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DUEAG5eO6c

> Why should anyone pay any attention to him?

Indeed, why ?

cheers.....Jeff

[Special Care]

On Sep 9, 5:37 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>

> Actually it was far earlier. The Romans invaded Ireland, but before
> that from around AD 800, more than a century of Viking invasions
> brought havoc upon the monastic culture and on the island's various
> regional dynasties.

> Harry Merrick.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No disrespect, but I thought it was generally accepted that the Romans
never got as far as central Scotland, let alone Ireland, because that
English lassie Boudaecia knocked the shite out of them and kept them
out of Hibernia, as they called it.

The way they treated her was the height of stupidity by the Roman
field marshal and went against the basic tenets of Pax Romana, which
entailed forging alliances with local, home-grown gangsters/hoodlums
such as Boudaecia in the territory being taken over by the Roman
gangsters.
They wanted to make the usual arrangement, giving her "a piece of the
action."
But Boudaecia drove a hard bargain with the Roman capo, so he got
annoyed and ordered the centurion to have her stripped and whipped
publicly and her daughters raped in front of her, AND THEN THEY LEFT
HER ALIVE!

I want to make a complaint to Julius Caesar about that field marshal's
military incompetence.
Between the two of them, that fool and Boudaecia kept the Roman
gangsters out of Hibernia.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 10, 6:08 am, Special Care <special.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 5:37 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>
> > Actually it was far earlier. The Romans invaded Ireland, but before
> > that from around AD 800, more than a century of Viking invasions
> > brought havoc upon the monastic culture and on the island's various
> > regional dynasties.
> > Harry Merrick.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No disrespect, but I thought it was generally accepted that the Romans
> never got as far as central Scotland, let alone Ireland, because that
> English lassie Boudaecia knocked the shite out of them and kept them
> out of Hibernia, as they called it.

There was no such country as England in Boudaecia's time, let alone
any such nationality as "English". Boudaecia was a Celtic Briton, as
were all the other native inhabitants of the Island of Britain during
that period of history. The Angles and Saxons didn't come to Britain
until after the Romans left and were still in Germany during the whole
Roman campaign in Britain.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 10, 5:15 am, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:f6535b2d-
> be49-4f7e-8b98-57d1f2725...@a12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 11:37 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>

> >> ............."SNIP" Of Contrived Nonsense and Re-writing History.....
>
> >> History of Ireland? See:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland
>
> >> The Irish were forever the orchestrators of their own destiny, and
> >> have never stopped whinging, complaining and blaming everyone else
> >> ever since. Thankfully, they have grown up and moved on. Sadly, they
> >> now are afflicted with near bankruptcy due to their greedy bankers and
> >> poor politicians, NOT the fault of the masses at all. The UK is in the
> >> same mess as is the USA.
>
> >> Harry Merrick.
>
> > It has more to do with the Jews, they are the ones in control of the
> > banks and the investment firms.
>

> RBS, Barclays and Lloyds are run by Jews? Really?? Why does it matter what
> religion they follow? Would it have been any better if they had all been
> Xians, Hindus, Muslims or Zen Bhuddists or even a mixture of the lot?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jews can be Athiests, Agnostics, Orthodox, Reformed, or even Satanists
(like Anton LeVey). Jews are an ethnic group, not a religion.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 10, 12:56 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> You didn't answer any of my questions. Let me ask you again. Which Jews
> run RBS, Barclays and Lloyds? Why does it matter? Would the outcome have
> been any different had they not been Jews? Or is it just you again
> assuming that if something bad happens in the world it must be the work
> of 'The Joos'?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Hmm.... Levene, Diamond, Agius, yep, they are all Jews (not
surprisingly). Marcus Agius is even married to a Rothschild!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Levene,_Baron_Levene_of_Portsoken

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Agius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Diamond

[Allan]

"Special Care" <special...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12e6f68b-3583-48ce...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MYTH OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM

Study the history and you will find that the British were INVITED to
take control of Ireland by the five Irish kings, to maintain stability
within the armistice lines (provincial boundaries).

...............................................................................

Surely anyone studying the history would know that "the British" as such
didn't exist when the first incursion into Ireland happened? Wasn't it the
12thC? It was the Norman rulers of England who occupied Ireland initially.
Just as the Normans had occupied England itself. The British as such didn't
come into existence until 1707 though some could argue 1603. Anyway it is at
leat about 500 years after Strongbow etc.

All by the by. However it started off it doesn't change centuries of
subsequent history and repression surely?

Allan

[Allan]

"Special Care" <special...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:63c53aee-6e09-4990...@g31g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 4:56 am, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:e0791abf-51f5-4503...@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 12:56 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:2b798154-93

> > dc-4406-98d4-27b025b91...@j1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

> Nope. Not surprisingly.

>
> > Marcus Agius is even married to a Rothschild!
>

> But Agius himself isn't Jewish. Next!
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Levene,_Baron_Levene_of_Portsoken
>
> Lloyds. I'll give you that one.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Agius
>
> Barclays. We've already established he's not Jewish.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Diamond
>
> Barclays. There's no evidence he's Jewish.
>
> You forgot John Varley, the third person running Barclay and Group CEO.
> Guess what? He's not Jewish either.
>
> No mention of the worlds second largest bank, RBS? Maybe
> that's because Stephen Hester isn't Jewish!

It matters because the Jews (who make up such a small percentage of
the overall population, yet hold a highly disproportionate amount of
control over our society) are not looking out for the best interests
of my race; because they are looking out for the best interests of
their own. A fact which seems to compell them to do everything within
their power to encourage the demise of my race, because they hate
Whites. We are the one race Jews feel inferior to, and because of that
fact; they do all that they can to destroy White society by
encouraging racial integration and miscegenation.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 8:39 am, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1af0326e-f9d7-471e...@24g2000yqr.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 4:56 am, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:e0791abf-51

> > f5-4503-8a4e-2569a0386...@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

> Except they don't, as the above clearly shows. Therefore we can only
> conclude that the reason it matters to you is that you are a racist
> bigot first, but need to find some way to rationalise your irrational
> racism. So you make up stories like the one above, and the one where you
> tried to claim Rupert Murdoch was Jewish when the NOTW story broke and
> you wanted to blame 'the Joos' for that one too.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Half of the people on Forbes list of the Richest Americans are Jews;
if that doesn't translate to a disproportionate representation of
control of wealth and power, then I don't know what would;
particularly when you consider that only 2% of the American population
are Jews:

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishFeatures/Article.aspx?id=187386

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 8:39 am, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1af0326e-f9d7-471e...@24g2000yqr.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 4:56 am, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:e0791abf-51

> > f5-4503-8a4e-2569a0386...@a7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

> Except they don't, as the above clearly shows. Therefore we can only
> conclude that the reason it matters to you is that you are a racist
> bigot first, but need to find some way to rationalise your irrational
> racism. So you make up stories like the one above, and the one where you
> tried to claim Rupert Murdoch was Jewish when the NOTW story broke and

> you wanted to blame 'the Joos' for that one too.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of
some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent
Coordination Committee (SNCC). In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B.
DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP. Kivie
Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations
(now the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president
of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip
Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference.


From 1910 to 1940, more than 2,000 primary and secondary schools and
twenty black colleges (including Howard, Dillard and Fisk
universities) were established in whole or in part by contributions
from Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald. At the height of the so-
called "Rosenwald schools," nearly forty percent of southern blacks
were educated at one of these institutions.


http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=21347&pge_prg_id=12630&pge_id=2394

Jews and the Civil Rights Movement

During the Civil Rights Movement, Jewish activists represented a
disproportionate number of whites involved in the struggle. Jews made
up half of the young people who participated in the Mississippi
Freedom Summer in 1964. Leaders of the Reform Movement were arrested
with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in St. Augustine, Florida, in
1964 after a challenge to racial segregation in public accommodations.
Most famously, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched arm-in-arm with
Dr. King in his 1965 March on Selma.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were
drafted in the conference room of Religious Action Center of Reform
Judaism, under the aegis of the Leadership Conference, which for
decades was located in the RAC's building. The Jewish community has
continued its support of civil rights laws addressing persistent
discrimination in voting, housing and employment against not only
women and people of color but also in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender community and the disabled community. Rabbi David
Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism,
is currently the only non-African-American member of the NAACP board.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/fromswastikatojimcrow/relations.html

From the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, Blacks and Jews
marched arm-in-arm. In 1909, W.E.B. Dubois, Julius Rosenthal, Lillian
Wald, Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch, Stephen Wise and Henry Malkewitz formed
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP). One year later other prominent Jewish and Black leaders
created the Urban League. Julius Rosenwald and Booker T. Washington
worked together in 1912 to improve the educational system for Blacks
in the South.

Thus, in the 1930s and '40s when Jewish refugee professors arrived at
Southern Black Colleges, there was a history of overt empathy between
Blacks and Jews, and the possibility of truly effective collaboration.
Professor Ernst Borinski organized dinners at which Blacks and Whites
would have to sit next to each other - a simple yet revolutionary act.
Black students empathized with the cruelty these scholars had endured
in Europe and trusted them more than other Whites. In fact, often
Black students - as well as members of the Southern White community -
saw these refugees as "some kind of colored folk."

The unique relationship that developed between these teachers and
their students was in some ways a microcosm of what was beginning to
happen in other parts of the United States. The American Jewish
Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation
League were central to the campaign against racial prejudice. Jews
made substantial financial contributions to many civil rights
organizations, including the NAACP, the Urban League, the Congress of
Racial Equality, and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee.
About 50 percent of the civil rights attorneys in the South during the
1960s were Jews, as were over 50 percent of the Whites who went to
Mississippi in 1964 to challenge Jim Crow Laws.

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml

As Jewish author and political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg has
pointed out:

“Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in
American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life. Jews
played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they
were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade’s corporate mergers
and reorganizations. Today, though barely two percent of the nation’s
population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The
chief executive officers of the three major television networks and
the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the
nation’s larg­est newspaper chain and the most influential single
newspaper, the New York Times... The role and influence of Jews in
Ameri­can politics is equally marked...

“Jews are only three percent of the nation’s population and com­prise
eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation’s elite.
However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists
and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important
voluntary and public interest organiza­tions, and more than 15 percent
of the top ranking civil ser­vants.”

Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the
American Jewish Committee, similarly notes the “disproportionate
political power” of Jews, which is “pound for pound the greatest of
any ethnic/cultural group in America.” He goes on to explain that
“Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately
concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry.“

Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, point­ed
out in their 1995 book, Jews and the New American Scene:

“During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made
up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectu­als... 20 percent of
professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in
the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the
directors, writ­ers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion
pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and
producers in two or more primetime television series.”

Vanity Fair magazine in October 2007 published a list of what it calls
“the world’s most powerful people” – a lineup of the one hundred most
influential media bosses, bankers, publishers, image makers, and so
forth, who determine how we view ourselves and the world, and who –
directly and indirectly -- shape our lives and our futures. Jews made
up more than half of the powerful men and women on the Vanity Fair
list, reported a leading Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post.

The influence of American Jewry in Washington, The Jerusalem Post has
also noted, is “far disproportionate to the size of the community,
Jewish leaders and US officials acknowledge. But so is the amount of
money they contribute to [election] campaigns.” One member of the
influential Conference of Presidents of Major Amer­ican Jewish
Organizations “estimated Jews alone had contributed 50 percent of the
funds for [President Bill] Clinton’s 1996 re-elec­tion campaign.”

Mother Jones magazine compiled a listing of the 400 leading
contributors to the 2000 US national elections. Seven of the first ten
were Jewish, as were twelve of the top 20, and 125 of the top 250.

The single biggest donor to American politicians is Israeli
billionaire and media mogul Haim Saban. In January 2007 it was
revealed that he had donated approximately $13 million to various US
political candidates. The New York Times has noted Saban’s ardent
devotion to the Jewish state: “He has since emerged as perhaps the
most politically connected mogul in Hollywood, throwing his weight and
money around Washington, and increasingly, the world, trying to
influence all things Israeli. 'I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is
Israel,' he said.”

A Grip on Hollywood

“It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power
and prominence in popular culture,” acknowledges Michael Medved, a
well-known Jewish author and film critic. “Any list of the most
influential production executives at each of the major movie stu­dios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.”

One person who has carefully studied this subject is Jonathan J.
Goldberg, editor of the influential Jewish community weekly Forward.
In his 1996 book, Jewish Power, he wrote:

“In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood stu­dio
executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these
businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a sta­tistical
observation …

“Hollywood at the end of the twentieth century is still an industry
with a pronounced ethnic tinge. Virtually all the senior executives at
the major studios are Jews. Writers, pro­ducers, and to a lesser
degree directors are disproportionately Jewish -- one recent study
showed the figure as high as 59 per­cent among top-grossing films.

“The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America’s most
lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great
deal of political power. They are a major source of money for
Democratic candidates.”

“As a proud Jew,” writes Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles
Times, “I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we
control Hollywood … I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the
news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that
we get to keep running them.”

Reflecting their role in the American media, Jews are routinely
portrayed as high-minded, trustworthy, compassionate, and deserving of
sympathy and support. While millions of Ameri­cans readily accept such
imagery, not everyone is impressed. “I am very angry with some of the
Jews,” complained actor Marlon Brando during a 1996 interview. “They
know perfectly well what their responsibilities are... Hollywood is
run by Jews. It’s owned by Jews, and they should have a greater
sensitivity about the issue of people who are suffering.”

A Well-Entrenched Factor

This intimidating power is not a new phenom­enon, but has long been an
important factor in American life. In 1972, during a private White
House meeting, President Richard Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham spoke
frankly about the Jewish grip on the media. “This stranglehold has got
to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” said Graham, the
nation’s best-known Christian evangelist. “You believe that?,” Nixon
responded. “Yes, sir,” said Graham. “Oh, boy,” replied Nixon. “So do
I. I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.”

In 1978, Jewish American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal wrote in his
detailed study, The Zionist Connection:

“How has the Zionist will been imposed on the American people?... It
is the Jewish connection, the tribal solidarity among themselves and
the amazing pull on non-Jews, that has molded this unprecedented
power ... The Jewish connection covers all areas and reaches every
level. Most Americans may not even sense this gigantic effort, but
there is scarcely a Jew who is not touched by its tentacles…

“The extent and depth to which organized Jewry reached – and reaches –
in the U.S. is indeed awesome … The most effective component of the
Jewish connection is probably that of media control … Jews, toughened
by centuries of persecution, have risen to places of prime importance
in the business and financial world… Jewish wealth and acumen wields
unprecedented power in the area of finance and investment banking,
playing an important role in influencing U.S. policy toward the Middle
East … In the larger metropolitan areas, the Jewish-Zionist connection
thoroughly pervades affluent financial, commercial, social,
entertainment, and art circles.”

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 11:37 am, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:b7c4a9ef-a11a-47c6...@a13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 8:39 am, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:1af0326e-f9

> > d7-471e-ac43-37b10999e...@24g2000yqr.googlegroups.com:

> .. or so you claim. Given your reliability elsewhere in this thread
> I think it would be reasonable to question that claim. After all, you
> claimed all the banks were run by Jews. Now it turns out none of the
> top 10 in the world are.

>
> > if that doesn't translate to a disproportionate representation of
> > control of wealth and power, then I don't know what would;
> > particularly when you consider that only 2% of the American population
> > are Jews:
>

> So we're talking American Jews?
>
> >http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishFeatures/Article.aspx?id=187386
>
> Roman Abramovich is not American. I note that the wealthiest Jew in the
> world only makes number 6 in the Forbes list according to this.
>
> >http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400
>
> Just a list. Proves nothing. And even if it were the case, all it proves
> is that they are rich and successful, unlike a skip-raider like you. Envy
> is such an ugly mistress.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Larry Ellison #1 on Jerusalem Post's list of the World's Richest Jews
and #3 on Forbes List of Richest Americans.

Michael Bloomberg is #2 on Jerusalem Post's list of the World's
Richest Jews and #10 on Forbes List of Richest Americans.

Sergey Brin is #3 on Jerusalem Post's list of the World's Richest Jews
and #11 on Forbes List of Richest Americans.

Larry Page is #4 on Jerusalem Post's list of the World's Richest Jews
and #12 on Forbes List of Richest Americans.

Steven Ballmer is #5 on Jerusalem Post's list of the World's Richest
Jews and #16 on Forbes List of Richest Americans.

George Soros is #6 on Jerusalem Post's list of the World's Richest
Jews and #14 on Forbes List of Richest Americans.

Michael Dell is #7 on Jerusalem Post's list of the World's Richest
Jews and #15 on Forbes List of Richest Americans.

John Paulson is #9 on Jerusalem Post's list of the World's Richest
Jews and #20 on Forbes List of Richest Americans.


















Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg, Sergey Brin, Lawrence (Larry) Page,
Steven Ballmer, George Soros, Michael Dell, Mikhail Fridman, John
Paulson, and Roman Abramovich.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 12:09 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:699ca392-
> ca7b-4f9a-a12f-e5bf12519...@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Agius
>
> >> >> Barclays. We've already established he's not Jewish.
>
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Diamond
>
> >> >> Barclays. There's no evidence he's Jewish.
>
> >> >> You forgot John Varley, the third person running Barclay and Group
> >> >> CEO. Guess what? He's not Jewish either.
>
> >> >> No mention of the worlds second largest bank, RBS? Maybe
> >> >> that's because Stephen Hester isn't Jewish!
>
> >> > It matters because the Jews (who make up such a small percentage of
> >> > the overall population, yet hold a highly disproportionate amount of
> >> > control over our society)
>
> >> Except they don't, as the above clearly shows. Therefore we can only
> >> conclude that the reason it matters to you is that you are a racist
> >> bigot first, but need to find some way to rationalise your irrational
> >> racism. So you make up stories like the one above, and the one where
> you
> >> tried to claim Rupert Murdoch was Jewish when the NOTW story broke and
> >> you wanted to blame 'the Joos' for that one too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of
> > some of the most important civil rights organizations,
>

> So?
>
> [Cut and paste from anti-semitic I"HR" website]- Hide quoted text -

So, it is clear that the Jews have an agenda of promoting race-mixing
between Whites and non-whites in order to further their goal of
destroying the White race.

[Bryn Fraser]

On Sep 11, 5:36 pm, Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Really, I do think they make enough publicity for themselves without
you trumpeting their generosity and social conciousness every possible
opportunity.

Honestly, people would think you like them..

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 12:09 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:699ca392-
> ca7b-4f9a-a12f-e5bf12519...@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Agius
>
> >> >> Barclays. We've already established he's not Jewish.
>
> >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Diamond
>
> >> >> Barclays. There's no evidence he's Jewish.
>
> >> >> You forgot John Varley, the third person running Barclay and Group
> >> >> CEO. Guess what? He's not Jewish either.
>
> >> >> No mention of the worlds second largest bank, RBS? Maybe
> >> >> that's because Stephen Hester isn't Jewish!
>
> >> > It matters because the Jews (who make up such a small percentage of
> >> > the overall population, yet hold a highly disproportionate amount of
> >> > control over our society)
>
> >> Except they don't, as the above clearly shows. Therefore we can only
> >> conclude that the reason it matters to you is that you are a racist
> >> bigot first, but need to find some way to rationalise your irrational
> >> racism. So you make up stories like the one above, and the one where
> you
> >> tried to claim Rupert Murdoch was Jewish when the NOTW story broke and
> >> you wanted to blame 'the Joos' for that one too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of
> > some of the most important civil rights organizations,
>

> So?
>
> [Cut and paste from anti-semitic I"HR" website]- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial
tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that
for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to
the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle
victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we
will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their
exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in
prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world
of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be
able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will
deliver America to our cause."

- Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the 20th Century; entered into
the Congressional Record by Rep. Thomas Abernathy on June 7, 1957
(Vol. 103, p. 8559, top of page.)

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century (occasionally A Radical
> Program for the Twentieth Century) is an antisemitic hoax promoted by
> Eustace Mullins.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Racial_Program_for_the_Twentieth_Century
>
> Try again.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.henrymakow.com/the_book_the_bankers_made_disa.html

Zionist Control of WikiPedia

Wikipedia is an Internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit and add
information.

Wikipedia claims its articles are based on a "neutral point of view"
but as it is human beings writing the articles, of course the contents
quickly have been mixed up with politics. For instance organization
like the CIA have tried to affect the entries (see BBC:s "Wikipedia
'shows CIA page edits' "), and big companies try to control the
information on themselves. And Israel and its army of "cyber-soldier"
Jews from all over the world are now doing the same...

The Wikipedia project has ended into control of student research on
the Internet.

The situation is now that the majority of subjects Googled will show
Wikipedia as the top - or one of the first top results - and thus
Wikipedia will get the majority of the hits.

And as shown in our section on Google, this Internet search-engine is
well in the hands of Zionist Jews and also cooperates openly with
Zionist organizations such as ADL and the Zionist Organization of
America (ZOA) to control the searches and censoring information and
certain sites.

This means that apart from Wikipedia other sites may be censored when
Googling any given subject.

http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=429:zionist-control-of-wikipedia&catid=73:who-controls-the-media&Itemid=118

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century (occasionally A Radical
> Program for the Twentieth Century) is an antisemitic hoax promoted by
> Eustace Mullins.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Racial_Program_for_the_Twentieth_Century
>

> Try again.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

More on Wikipedia from:

http://conservapedia.com/Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a politically left leaning online encyclopedia[1] written
and edited by an ad hoc assemblage of anonymous persons who are
mostly, according to the Register (UK)[2][3], teenagers and unemployed
persons.[4] However, in 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia
Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that
declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the
editors are men.[5] In 2008, the American Journalism Review declared
concerning Wikipedia:

“ "An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten
things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect
you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like
Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of
scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds
users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical
decisions."[6] ”

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at FrontPage
Magazine detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the political
left and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on Anne
Coulter, Michael Moore, Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann which helped
demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/liberal bias plus he discussed
the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.[7]

For example, Swindle wrote:

"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore​. Coulter’s entry (on
August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry,
3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a
series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited
with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the
Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her
look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard
length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to
“Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s.
Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight
times as “controversial” as Moore?"[8]

The project was initiated by atheists and entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and
the agnostic philosophy professor Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001.[9]
An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an
atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".[10]
Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong
liberal bias. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue
journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of
inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander
unlike any other the world has ever known."[11] Mr. Farah has
repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.[12]
In December of 2010, Christian apologist JP Holding called Wikipedia
"the abomination that causes misinformation".[13]

Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an
explanation for "duh"[14] to singles by obscure rock bands[15] to
arcane British nobility.[16] There are editions of Wikipedia in 250
languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.[17] After about four
years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,[18] and after six years it
had about 1.7 million entries.[19] Four years later this number had
more than doubled again: in May 2011, there are more than 3.6 million
content pages.[20]

Liberal bias
See also: Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles
which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own NPOV policy when
it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely
because it comes from a scientist who holds a minority view. It would
only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a
false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that
view, but liberals use "undue weight" like a sledge hammer. They are
either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this Zogby poll:

While 97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-
thirds of political independents feel the same, but fewer than one in
four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias".
Democrats, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than
other groups, were not nearly as sure the media was against them as
were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their
perception of a left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were
certain the media skewed right – and 17% said the bias favored the
left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 1:43 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:89482d78-11f2-4ef1...@hb5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 12:53 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:9c6a3345-06

> > 7d-49f5-a1a7-794a9da00...@f41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

> >http://www.henrymakow.com/the_book_the_bankers_made_disa.html
>
> ROTFL! A bonkers Illuminati plot website! Read on and weep.
>
> This hoax has been exposed decades ago.
>
> Congress man Abernathy brought it into the civil rights debate in 1957.
> It then read not "to our course", but "to the Communist party course".
>
> This is cut out later in most recent "citations", because the Hoax got
> too obvious, since, as most people know, there was no Communist party in
> 1912. Neither in Britain (established 1920) nor elsewhere in the world.
>
> Abernathy, following a letter to the editor he had picked up, said the
> book had been published by British communist party member "Israel Cohen"
> as a source. Just no known member named Israel Cohen was ever found in
> the British Communist Party.
>
> Further, the book "A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century", that
> Eustace Mullins, originator of the "quote" claimed to have found in the
> Library of Congress, doesn't exist in said library (nor does it in the
> British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books) and, nobody has anyone ever
> been able to provide a copy original.
>
> Another origin is given by Myron Fagan who claimed to have met Israel
> Cohen at a banquet (with G.B. Shaw) in 1913 (when he was according to
> Fagan, still writing the book) and called him the founder of the Fabian
> Society, not a communist. Strangely enough, no document in the Society's
> record mention the famous founder Cohen, either and it's rather hard to
> published a book still in writing 1913 in 1912...

And yet it hardly requires even the slightesty stretch of the
imagination to conceive how, in 1957, that a pamphlet which may have
been published under a possible pseudonym by a Communist (the term
"Communist Party" was first used by 109 years earlier when Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels published their tract "Manifesto of the Communist
Party" in 1848) should somehow disappear from the Library of Congress
and that the newspaper that first printed the excerpt should publish a
retraction the following year when its own general manager had been
accused of anti-Semitism, leading to a decline in the paper's
advertising revenue.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy who had gained a reputation for going after
Communists in the early 1950's had already had his career tainted due
to subversive Jews. McCarthy had hired Roy Cohen on the recommendation
of J. Edgar Hoover, choosing him over Robert Kennedy, in order to
avoid accusations of an anti-Semitic motivation for his investigations
(since so many Communists were themselves Jews). Cohen, a homosexual,
invited his friend and a fellow Jew, David Schine, to join McCarthy's
staff as an unpaid "chief consultant". Schine and Cohn conducted a
well-publicized and widely ridiculed tour of Europe in 1953, examining
libraries of the United States Information Agency for books written by
authors they deemed to be Communists or fellow travelers. Die Welt of
Hamburg called them Schnuffler or snoops. Theodore Kaghan, Deputy
Director of the Public Affairs Division in Office of the U.S. High
Commissioner for Germany and a target of the Committee, called them
"junketeering gumshoes."

In November 1953, Schine was conscripted into the United States Army
as a private. Some found it suspicious that he was drafted just before
he reached the age limit for being drafted, perhaps because he was on
McCarthy's staff. Cohn immediately began a campaign to obtain special
privileges for Schine. Cohn met with and made repeated telephone calls
to military officials from the Secretary of the Army down to Schine's
company commander. He asked that Schine be given a commission, which
the Army refused due to Schine's lack of qualifications, and that
Schine be given light duties, extra leave and not be assigned
overseas. At one point, Cohn was reported to have threatened to "wreck
the Army" if his demands were not met. During the Army-McCarthy
Hearings of 1954, the Army charged Cohn and McCarthy with using
improper pressure to influence the Army, while McCarthy and Cohn
counter-charged that the Army was holding Schine "hostage" in an
attempt to squelch McCarthy's investigations into Communists in the
Army. The hearings were broadcast live using the relatively new medium
of television and were viewed by an estimated 20 million people. Just
prior to the hearings, Schine and Cohn appeared on the cover of TIME
on March 22, 1954, under the banner "McCarthy and His Men". Schine and
Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship. Cohn's homosexuality
later became public and he died of AIDS in 1986

If Sen. McCarthy could be brought down by the Jews for going after
Communists (most of whom were Jews), then it is hardly unlikely that
the Jews would shirk at the thought of stealing a Communist tract from
the Library of Congress and use their influence to extort a newspaper
into printing a retraction stating that the referenced source was a
hoax.

[Allan]

"Special Care" <special...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63c53aee-6e09-4990...@g31g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 9, 5:37 pm, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>

> Actually it was far earlier. The Romans invaded Ireland, but before
> that from around AD 800, more than a century of Viking invasions
> brought havoc upon the monastic culture and on the island's various
> regional dynasties.
> Harry Merrick.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No disrespect, but I thought it was generally accepted that the Romans
never got as far as central Scotland, let alone Ireland, because that
English lassie Boudaecia knocked the shite out of them and kept them
out of Hibernia, as they called it.

*****************************

If the Romans never got as far as central Scotland then who the hell built
the Antonine Wall - never mind the Gask Fronteir further north! Agricola
marched into southern Scotland then supposedly veered east witht he
intention of invading Ireland which he claime he could do with one Legion.
However he received orders to move north to confront the tribes of northern
Scotland and won the battle at Mons Graupius somewhere in northern Scotland.
Shortly afterwards there was a revolt on the Danube by the Dacians and one
of the four Legions in Britain was withdrawn so the Romans (at that time)
because of reduced manpower decided to settle on a land fronteir rather than
take the whole island They never again attempted to bring the whole of
Scotland into the empire and the reasons for that are much debated. However
the idea that they never got as far as central Scotland is silly.

Allan

[Charles Ellson]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:18:20 -0700 (PDT), Akins of that Ilk
<the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>So, it is clear that the Jews have an agenda of promoting race-mixing
>between Whites and non-whites in order to further their goal of
>destroying the White race.
>

Homo Albus ?

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 5:03 pm, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:18:20 -0700 (PDT), Akins of that Ilk
>

> <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>>So, it is clear that the Jews have an agenda of promoting race-mixing
> >between Whites and non-whites in order to further their goal of
> >destroying the White race.
>
> Homo Albus ?

If you like, as opposed to Homo Niger, Homo Semitus, Homo Orientalis,
etc.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 6:18 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:

> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:f21b0d0c-181a-4fba...@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 1:43 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:89482d78-11

> > f2-4ef1-bb92-66fc833ed...@hb5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> It's described as a 'book' by Mullins.

>
> > which may have
> > been published under a possible pseudonym by a Communist
>

> But there was no Communist organisation in Britain in 1912, so why would
> he be referring to the Communist Party when it didn't exist? And why was
> that part edited later?

>
> >(the term
> > "Communist Party" was first used by 109 years earlier when Karl Marx
> > and Friedrich Engels published their tract "Manifesto of the Communist
> > Party" in 1848)
>

> No it wasn't. Stop lying. It was called 'The Communist Manifesto',
> published in 1848 and no mention of the word 'Party' in the title..

>
> > should somehow disappear from the Library of Congress
>

> Wriggle wriggle. So if Mullins found it, how come he didn't show it to
> anyone else? And how come no one in Britain has heard of this character,
> despite him being described as a founder member of the Fabian Society?
> And why does this book not appear in the British Library catalogue? And
> why was it still in the process of being written in 1913, when it was
> claimed to have been published in 1912? And why was it edited after
> criticism it was a hoax due to its reference to a non-existant
> organisation as well as a multitude of other inconsistencies.
>
> I know! It's a load of bunk, just like the illuminati website you clearly
> have high regard for.

See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm


Perhaps Mullis had dyslexia or remembered the date wong - easy for a
dyslexic to see 1912 when the real date is 1921, as for why it wasn't
found in the British Library - I seriously doubt they have a copy of
every political tract ever published, and even if they did, back in
1957 their security was probably not upo to todays standards.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 6:10 pm, Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:55:30 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
> >Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>So, it is clear that the Jews have an agenda of promoting race-mixing
> >>between Whites and non-whites in order to further their goal of
> >>destroying the White race.
>

> That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would they want to destroy the
> white, predominately affluent population, those that they "rob" most of
> their money from? It would be suicide. Ridiculous...
>
> >Poor Akins.  His only claim to 'superiority' rests on a specious
> >racial theory and the colour of his skin.  Now look at that boy and
> >tell me he ain't got a 'nigger in the woodpile' or two...
>
> Funny that you mention that, when I saw that picture it immediately
> reminded me of the story I heard in South Africa.
>
> SA has a large Creole population and I don't mean that in a derogatory
> sense. The original Dutch settlers were predominately male. They interbred
> with the locals, mainly Khoi-San and slaves, mainly from the Dutch East
> Indies, Malay etc.
>
> When the Aparthate Government came to power ('48) they divided the country
> in two: white and black. The Creoles presented them with a problem so they
> devised a "Golden Test": the pencil test, you stuck a pencil in their hair,
> if it fell out you were White if it stuck, you were classified as black.
>
> Looking at Ilk's picture, I'd bet that the pencil would stick... NTTIAWWT.
>
> >What a pathetic excuse for 'Pure White Aryan Master Race' those like
> >Akins are....
>
> Scott.

Funny, I always thought that about Andrew Carnegie:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/andrewcarnegie460.jpg

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 11, 9:38 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >See:http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/c...

That was published in 1848, we are talking about the early 1900's in
the case of "A Racial Prtogram for the 20th Century"

[Akins of that Ilk]

> >Funny, I always thought that about Andrew Carnegie:
>
> >http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/andrewcarnegie460.jpg
>

> And poor Akins continues to deflect....

Come now, Fred, surely someone as suspicious of claims of racial
purity as yourself can't deny that Andrew Carnegie had certain facial
features not usually associated with the White European phenotype:

http://www.old-picture.com/american-history-1900-1930s/pictures/Carnegie-Andrew.jpg

http://steamboattimes.com/images/mark_twain_friends/andrew_carnegie1896circa590x810.jpg

[Eunometic]

On Sep 8, 11:25 pm, Special Care <special.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> THE MYTH OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Irish people need to recognise that the British probably did us a
> great favour by invading Ireland, thus saving Ireland from being
> colonised by our own murderous Irish kings.

The behaviour of the british parliament, who remotely controlled
Irelands finances, in not voting to buy in grains when the potato crop
failed over no less than 5 harvests shows that Imperial control from
London was real and inappropriate.

Their policies, which forced many Irish on to subsistance or tennant
farms to small to save profit for a rainy day, wholly dependant on the
potato also shows their Imperial neglect and disregard.

[SPierce]

"Eunometic" <euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42493372-72df-418f...@g32g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

# But this happened to English farmers as well. And being wholly dependent
on potatoes was a failure of imagination and intelligence. Early English
medieval farmers had more sense than to depend on a single food for
subsistence. Turnips for instance has more food value, and they could be
fed to the pigs. It was also one of the first crops grown in Sydney Cove
for that reason.
You also have to assess what could actually be done in those days to
transfer food from England to Ireland and distribute it. Where was the
surplus? Most surplus food was sold to the navy for stores. They had a
drying technique that made what they called 'portable soup'...like oxo but
in bigger packs. Invented by a couple of women. Some was put aboard the
First Fleet.

Apart from local charities run from the churches, there was just no social
organisation to deal with the potato famine. Controlling finances does not
provide surplus food. The rich only had more money, not more food. Only
post-war Europe got the benefit of surplus food production, for the first
time ever, and that came all the way from America and Canada in ships. It
was the precursor to what happens all the time now in African
countries...they can't deal with it completely even now.
These starvation times were normal in all history until the second world
war. People should think more about the times before mass production
occurred, and not about blaming governments.

[Special Care]

======================

The question still remains valid:
is it better to be colonised by your own home-grown gangsters or by
the usually more benign British crime family?

[Akins of that Ilk]

> >purity as yourself can't deny that Andrew Carnegie ...
>
> We're not talking about Andrew Carnegie.  We're talking about YOU.
> Your terror of that discussion and continuing attempts to deflect say
> more than anything else you could do.
>
> --
> You are
> What you do
> When it counts.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What about me? I've certainly not kept my identity hidden (unlike most
of the posters here on usenet):

http://clanakinsassociation.weebly.com/photo-album.html

[Akins of that Ilk]

> >What about me? I've certainly not kept my identity hidden (unlike most
> >of the posters here on usenet):
>
> >http://clanakinsassociation.weebly.com/photo-album.html
>

> Short attention span, Akins?

When it comes to baseless rhetoric like yours......I'm sorry, what was
it you were saying???

[Akins of that Ilk]

> Go back up to the top and read it again, boy.  
>
> But by all means, you keep shucking and jiving.  It's in your blood,
> after all....

Perhaps you can point out from whence you think such attributes
derive:

http://s289.photobucket.com/albums/ll212/my_family_photographs/

[Special Care]

On Sep 12, 1:40 pm, Akins of that Ilk <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>

> What about me? I've certainly not kept my identity hidden (unlike most
> of the posters here on usenet):

------------------------------------------------

I've never tried to hide my identity, partly because there's no hiding
place anyway, with those fuckers up at Menwith Hill sticking their
noses up everyone's arse.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ECHELON/echelon.html

[Peter Jason]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:52:27 -0700, Fred J. McCall
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>What about me? I've certainly not kept my identity hidden (unlike most
>>of the posters here on usenet):
>>
>>http://clanakinsassociation.weebly.com/photo-album.html
>>
>

>Short attention span, Akins?

Yo fred! Let's see *your* clan.

As an outsider, what do you think of the human race?

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 12, 5:01 pm, Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:52:27 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>
>
>
>
>

> As an outsider, what do you think of the human race?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I wonder if Fred even knows the maiden names of his grandmothers?

[Peter Jason]

They may have skipped town in the dead of night pausing only to leave
the basket on some doorstep. Such people are hard to track down.

[Scotty]

Your logic escapes me. Even if Carnegie was in large part Negroid, he was
still 10000 times a better man than you or any Aryan will ever be, in
terms of wealth creation and philanthropy no matter how "pure/inter-bred"
you might be. You're an amoeba by comparison in spite of your suggestion.

Scott

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 12, 7:25 pm, Scotty <spsc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:12:37 -0700 (PDT), Akins of that Ilk
>
>
>
>
>

> >http://www.old-picture.com/american-history-1900-1930s/pictures/Carne...
>
> >http://steamboattimes.com/images/mark_twain_friends/andrew_carnegie18...

>
> Your logic escapes me. Even if Carnegie was in large part Negroid, he was
> still 10000 times a better man than you or any Aryan will ever be,  in
> terms of wealth creation and philanthropy no matter how "pure/inter-bred"
> you might be. You're an amoeba by comparison in spite of your suggestion.

I'm not saying Carnegie was part Negroid; I'm merely pointing out the
fact that he has facial features not typically associated with the
Caucasian phenotype. As far as I know, he was 100% White and 100%
Scottish to boot. Fred is the one suggesting that he has the ability
to detect what he assumes to be some non-Caucasian taint through
facial structure.

[Akins of that Ilk]

> Why, the ones that they don't show and that you don't admit to, of
> course!

Oh, you mean Darwin's "missing link"?

[Mike M]

"Harry Merrick" <Home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jefk67duobu5cgb7g...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
> <special...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>THE MYTH OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Irish people need to recognise that the British probably did us a
>>great favour by invading Ireland, thus saving Ireland from being
>>colonised by our own murderous Irish kings.
>

> Actually it was far earlier. The Romans invaded Ireland, but before
> that from around AD 800, more than a century of Viking invasions
> brought havoc upon the monastic culture and on the island's various
> regional dynasties.
>>
The Romas invaded Ireland? I'm sure you can back up that statement, can't
you?

>>The British Empire saved us from ourselves.
>
> HEH??? Britain was not an empire when the first invasions occurred.
> Eventually, Britain did indeed become an Empire in the real sense. She
> was the largest Empire in the World at that time. Mostly due to the
> West and East India companies in fact.
>>
>
> ............."SNIP" Of Contrived Nonsense and Re-writing History.....
>
> History of Ireland? See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland
>
> The Irish were forever the orchestrators of their own destiny, and
> have never stopped whinging, complaining and blaming everyone else
> ever since. Thankfully, they have grown up and moved on. Sadly, they
> now are afflicted with near bankruptcy due to their greedy bankers and
> poor politicians, NOT the fault of the masses at all. The UK is in the
> same mess as is the USA.
>
> Harry Merrick.

Exactly. Capitalism is cyclical and anybody who tells you they have done
away with boom and bust is either a liar or an ignoramus. Bust is part of
the system! Have a look at the REALLY rich. Have they lost anything?

[Special Care]

On Sep 13, 12:27 pm, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> "Mike M" <celsi...@nospamgmail.com> wrote innews:IKSdnYrintTSvvLT...@bt.com:

> > "Harry Merrick" <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:jefk67duobu5cgb7g...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
> >> <special.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>THE MYTH OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM
>
> >>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>Irish people need to recognise that the British probably did us a
> >>>great favour by invading Ireland, thus saving Ireland from being
> >>>colonised by our own murderous Irish kings.
>
> >> Actually it was far earlier. The Romans invaded Ireland, but before
> >> that from around AD 800, more than a century of Viking invasions
> >> brought havoc upon the monastic culture and on the island's various
> >> regional dynasties.
>
> > The Romas invaded Ireland? I'm sure you can back up that statement,
> > can't you?
>

> There's evidence of a Roman settlement near Dublin where a large amount
> of Roman material was found. Not exactly an invasion, but evidence that
> they were there in some capacity.
>
> See:http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba14/BA14FEAT.HTML

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It hardly matters. My emphasis is always on healing, as opposed to
quibbling over details of ancient history.

[Mike M]

"soupdragon" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9F5F7EB31...@news.datemas.de...
> "Mike M" <cels...@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
> news:IKSdnYrintTSvvLT...@bt.com:

>
>>
>> "Harry Merrick" <Home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jefk67duobu5cgb7g...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 06:25:48 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>>> <special...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>THE MYTH OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Irish people need to recognise that the British probably did us a
>>>>great favour by invading Ireland, thus saving Ireland from being
>>>>colonised by our own murderous Irish kings.
>>>
>>> Actually it was far earlier. The Romans invaded Ireland, but before
>>> that from around AD 800, more than a century of Viking invasions
>>> brought havoc upon the monastic culture and on the island's various
>>> regional dynasties.
>>>>
>> The Romas invaded Ireland? I'm sure you can back up that statement,
>> can't you?
>

> There's evidence of a Roman settlement near Dublin where a large amount
> of Roman material was found. Not exactly an invasion, but evidence that
> they were there in some capacity.
>
> See: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba14/BA14FEAT.HTML

On reading your link, it occurs to me that, far from being an invasion, the
asuthor postulates that Tuathail (if he ever existed) went back to Ireland
with a few exiles, equipped by Rome. Maybe.

The Roman remains found in Ireland could just as easily have been trade
goods.

[The Universal Infant]

"Easter 1966 passed without trouble for one very good reason: the
fertile minds running the IRA were busy constructing a new war
strategy which would command popular support, one which, furthermore,
could be camouflaged as something much more innocent than renewed
terrorism. The IRA Chief of Staff in 1962 was a house painter named
Cathal Goulding. In 1970, he gave a remarkably frank interview about
the means by which a broken guerrilla army had resurrected itself
during the preceding eight years. What he described was a masterpiece
of political deception, an armed Marxist revolution dressed up as an
acceptable demand for basic civil rigths in Northern Ireland. After
the 1962 communique an IRA conference, meeting almost nightly for
nearly two years, studied past failures, starting with 1798 and Wolfe
Tone.
'Why was the movement unable to succeed in spite of the fact that
people engaged in revolutionary activities were willing to make any
sacrifice for it?

............... the way out of this cul de sac, said Goulding, was
populist street politics....................."

===============================================

From "THE IRISH WAR" by Tony Geraghty, reproduced for review purposes
in accordance with copyright law.

===============================================

I rest my case.

People like Cathal Goulding and John Stephenson - if we assume they
were NOT ruling group stooges - failed to understand that what they
were proposing was only choosing between two different crime
families / two different gangster groups - the BRITISH crime family or
the IRISH crime family.

What's the use of sacrificing your life or spending your adult life in
jail just to choose a different gangster family to colonise you, which
may be worse than the previous crime family.

[Lieutenant Scott]

That's the trouble with the law, it's got no common sense. They are clearly breaking the law, by cheating it. If I drive backwards at 100mph I can't see a policeman saying "it's ok, the law only says you can't go forwards faster than 70". He would apply common sense.

(Note the law probably doesn't say "forwards" in it, but it illustrates the point).

[SPierce]

"The Universal Infant" <special...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e25171e1-0c61-4cee...@t9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)

> What's the use of sacrificing your life or spending your adult life in
> jail just to choose a different gangster family to colonise you, which
> may be worse than the previous crime family.

# The universal political question. The same could be said for what
happened in Africa in the 1950s. Primitive people wanted white people out
of Africa because they felt 'oppressed'. They got them out. Now look at
them.

Human societies just want to live among their own kind whatever failings
they may have. That applies to a country or to an urban post-code.
Abstract political theories about what is good for them is not enforceable
for long. This guarantees perpetual conflict.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 13, 3:51 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> "The Universal Infant" <special.car...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e25171e1-0c61-4cee...@t9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

This is the reason most large American innner cities are mostly
inhabited by blacks. The cities were built by Whites for Whites, but
as blacks began moving into the less affluent parts of the cities, the
working-class Whites who lived in those areas began to move out to get
away from the blacks, selling out because of the social stigma of
living in a mixed neighborhood, and trying to avoid the resulting
decreased property values (houses in neighborhoods where blacks live
are worth much less than homes in all-White neighborhoods). Eventually
the entire neighborhood would turn into a black ghetto as the older
White residents either moved or died off and the younger White
residents moved to the White suburbs. Eventually entire cities become
black - Atlanta, Detroit, Birmingham, Chicago. The few Whites who do
live in the outlying metropolitan areas of such cities live in elite
enclaves, far away from the blacks who took over the older, inner city
neighborhoods.

[SPierce]

"Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1de3c90c-8ccf-41f0...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

# Yes, of course, it happened like that in Britain too after 1948 when the
West Indians were allowed into the country. They ghettoed themselves around
the bombed out areas in London. The older residents were shifted to newly
built towns and then the bombed out areas were rebuilt and given to blacks.
So you had enclaves of black people in once traditional Cockney areas that
had been there for centuries. Now those re-built areas are virtually out
of bounds to white people, not that they would want to go back there.
Cultures do not mix. They never have and never will simply because the
human animal needs to feel safe among an own group. There are animal
Tipping Points you must never cross. The post-war ideological political
class has actually created a seething powder keg of resentment not heeding
that fact.

[Akins of that Ilk]

On Sep 13, 7:44 pm, "SPierce" <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1de3c90c-8ccf-41f0...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> that fact.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The same thing happened when the government attempted to force
desegregation of the public schools. Even today, a half a century
later schools are often predominately attended by students of one
race. White parents don't want to send their children to schools with
black students, and in situations where there are students of
different races in the same school, the black students tend to form
their own enclaves as do the White students; although the Liberal
Leftist Jews who have near complete control over the American motion
picture and television industries have steadily promoted
miscegenation for the past 45 years and are making more and more
headway into luring young white girls to race-mix with blacks, as this
is always portrayed as cutting-edge and trendy in television programs,
music videos and motion pictures. It is the wet-dream of the leftist
liberal jews to see the White race destroyed by miscegenation with
blacks, so that the resulting offspring can never claim racial
superiority over the Jews.

[Peter Jason]

Yes, birds of a feather flock together. I remember my school days,
and it was glaringly obvious that students form groups defined by
certain traits. There were the knuckle-dragging sports hoons, the
"artistes", the smart swots, and the snigger loons who did naught but
exchange jokes of a certain type. The boarders were country boys
about which no more need be said.

Yet there is hope. Exiting discoveries in the field of genetics are
revealing genes that define differences in human intelligence and
appearance.
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?title=genetics+and+evolution&mtype=B

Soon it will be possible to vaccinate people against conception from a
member of the same race, necessitating the finding and mating with a
partner of a completely different one.

For example: a tall Nordic blond Brunhilde-female will only conceive
if impregnated by a Congo pygmy or a Hottentot. A Hasidic god's
chosen will reproduce only with the northern-pacific Ainu or
Australian aborigine. A black-as-spades Ethiopian will be a father
only with an Irish woman with red hair. etc and so forth.

Think of the Peace on Earth after all this is put into place!

[conway caine]

"The Universal Infant" wrote in message
news:e25171e1-0c61-4cee...@t9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

What's the use of sacrificing your life or spending your adult life in
jail just to choose a different gangster family to colonise you, which
may be worse than the previous crime family.

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't"
Especially if it is to be between home grown devils and foreign devils.

[conway caine]

"Peter Jason" wrote in message
news:a360775j4eki17ebc...@4ax.com...

A black-as-spades Ethiopian will be a father
only with an Irish woman with red hair. etc and so forth.

Think of the Peace on Earth after all this is put into place!

**Peace on earth married to a red haired Irish woman?????
Where is your head, man?

[Akins of that Ilk]

They would produce some exceedingly ugly offspring....

[Peter Jason]

Au contraire. Interracial marriages produce rather attractive
offspring, imbued with hybrid vigor 'n all. Indeed I know of such a
case here where the coupling of an Ethiopian and an Irish person
produced daughters each larger than the parents and with a wonderful
exotic appearance. There should be more of it! In Oz we have a
restrictive immigration regime that tends to direct towards
intermarriage because there are so few ...er others here. No Quebec
for good 'ol Oz.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

By No Quebec, do you mean no Pure Laine ? Tsk....tsk...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_laine

How racist of you, Peter. :)

cheers....Jeff

[Eunometic]

On Sep 15, 10:16 am, Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:19:42 -0700 (PDT), Akins of that Ilk
>

> <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 14, 9:32 am, "conway caine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> "Peter Jason"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:a360775j4eki17ebc...@4ax.com...
>
> >> A black-as-spades Ethiopian will be a father
> >> only with an Irish woman with red hair.  etc and so forth.
>
> >> Think of the Peace on Earth after all this is put into place!
>
> >> **Peace on earth married to a red haired Irish woman?????
> >> Where is your head, man?
>
> >They would produce some exceedingly ugly offspring....
>
> Au contraire.   Interracial marriages produce rather attractive
> offspring, imbued with hybrid vigor 'n all.

Actually, I find the children of such mixtures queer looking.

As for Hybrid vigour: it rather depends on what two races you are
crossing.

The average IQ of Whites is 100. The average IQ of pure, non
hybridised Blacks when living in
good "Western Standard" conditions is 80. (African Americans have an
IQ of 85 as they are 25% White)

Create a mullato population and one usually ends up with an IQ excatly
halfway between black and white.

In other words your hybrid vigour reduces IQ of White population of
100 to a Mullato of 90.

More more information see Proffesor Richard Lynns "Race and
Intelligence"

To see the long term effect consider that Portugal was the only
country to import blacks as a soruce of agricultural labour, at one
point in the 16th century 20% of Madrid was African.

The national IQ of Portugual is today 93-94, well below the European
average.

Personaly, I'm a medium brown haired person, blonde at birth, and I
rather like red heads.


Most of the Mullatos we see have had extensive hair straightening work
and some skin lightening and plastic surgery. Naomi Campbell, Halle
Berry, Scarry Spice etc.
Their questionable hybrid attractiveness is more the exception than
the rule.

[Peter Jason]

Remember, it's not racist if it's true.

[Bryn Fraser]

On Sep 15, 7:33 am, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 10:16 am, Peter Jason <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:19:42 -0700 (PDT), Akins of that Ilk
>
> > <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Sep 14, 9:32 am, "conway caine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >> "Peter Jason"  wrote in message
>
> > >>news:a360775j4eki17ebc...@4ax.com...
>
> > >> A black-as-spades Ethiopian will be a father
> > >> only with an Irish woman with red hair.  etc and so forth.
>
> > >> Think of the Peace on Earth after all this is put into place!
>
> > >> **Peace on earth married to a red haired Irish woman?????
> > >> Where is your head, man?
>
> > >They would produce some exceedingly ugly offspring....
>
> > Au contraire.   Interracial marriages produce rather attractive
> > offspring, imbued with hybrid vigor 'n all.
>
> Actually, I find the children of such mixtures queer looking.
>
> As for Hybrid vigour: it rather depends on what two races you are
> crossing.

My (mulatto) grandchildren are very attractive, and excel at
everything they do, sporting and academic. Oh and they are around 6
feet tall.

Where as the "White" ones look like suet puddings, have red necks, are
extremely short, and do very little of anything except whining about
what black people are stopping them achieving.

We live in a strange world where white people want to be brown and
brown people want to be white and people with curly hair want it
straight and people with straight hair want it curly.