“Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once.” a line from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar to his wife on his way to the Senate on the Ides of March.

Philip Jones

Name: Philip Jones
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Astrological Sign: Aries
Zodiac Year: Dog
Industry: Law Enforcement or Security
Occupation: Retired Police Officer
Location: Neath : Wales : United Kingdom

About Me
Arnold Swarzenneger said, “My relationship to power and authority is that I’m all for it. People need somebody to watch over them. Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.” This statement is typical of the Totalitarian mentality of the Luciferians and the antithesis of who I am and what I believe in. For people to have any chance at life, liberty and happiness, government interference in the lives of private citizens must be kept at an absolute minimum. The Hidden Power which controls world events has been busy building fences around our lives, whilst our wives went shopping and we watched the football. Now, the choice is stark and singular; we either take back responsibility from those who would deny us the right to self determination, or submit to slavery. There is no `third way.`

Should The State be Your Servant, Or You Its Slave?

Interests
I am a guest Columnist with www.rense.com and very proud to be so. My main interests are all embroiled in what is known as the Global Conspiracy to create a tyrannical world state. This is what I read about and what I write about. Other interests include Historical research Full Contact Sports Weight Training and spending time with Max my young Labrador DOG. I have a passion for Pakistani cuisine and American Food cooked `country style ` neither of which as readilly available here in DK.

Favorite Movies
Troy Kingdom Of Heaven Braveheart Gladiator Sword Of Lancelot Open Range and Tombstone
Favorite Music
Verdi Puccini Wagner Evanescence Classical Arabic Music and dramatic film scores

Favorite Books
Terrorism And The Illuminati by David Livingstone The Death Of The West by Pat Buchanan Fallen Angels by Elizabeth Claire Prophet Genesis Of The Grail Kings by Lawrence Gardner The Prince Of This World by William Carr Illuminati `The Cult That Hijacked The World ` by Henry Makow (also Cruel Hoax by same).My Blogs

Team Members
The Righteous Alliance
http://righteousalliance.blogspot.com/

Some of Philips writings
http://www.scribd.com/Philip%20John%20Jones
http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/14712275-philip-john-jones
http://www.nylonmanden.dk/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=7&Itemid=43

Anti-NWO activist and writer Philip Jones died Nov.24 in Denmark after contracting “stomach cancer.” I was aware of the relationship Vincent describes but not Philip’s suspicions.

(Letter from “L.C. Vincent”)

Dear Henry,
Your many correspondents regarding the untimely death of Philip John Jones must be forgiven their suspicions that his passing was somehow hastened by an unseen hand. Having had the privilege to have been in correspondence with Philip for several months before his sudden illness and death, Philip had, for whatever reason, decided to share his thoughts and suspicions about a peculiar incident that seemed to be growing in importance the more he pondered it.

Apparently, around 18 months ago, a woman began to correspond with Philip. According to her, she seemed very conversant with all things NWO, as well as apparently knowing a great deal about other esoteric and arcane subjects. She seemed to be in agreement with Philip’s areas of research. They corresponded, and they decided to meet.

This woman, who was married with 2 daughters, introduced herself and her husband to Philip and his wife. Over time, this woman gained Philip’s trust, and began to create concoctions of her own “vitamins” which she administered to Philip on a daily basis for several months. Moreover, Philip described her as almost “….living in my bathroom…” that is to say, apart from her “vitamin” preparation for Philip, she seemed to spend an inordinate time in Philip’s personal space, something he had noted out of curiosity and mentioned in writing to me. Then, almost as quickly as this woman and her husband had appeared in his life, she withdrew from his life, “…taking all of her vitamins and every single ingredient with her….” according to Philip.

Approximately 3 months ago, Philip and his wife went to a restaurant and upon coming home, he became violently ill. From that day forward, his health rapidly declined. However, according to Philip, his suspicion was not that he had been poisoned at the restaurant, but that the vitamins he had been the causal agent of his illness.

Philip SPECIFICALLY wrote to me that he had come to the conclusion that this “pair” were Illuminati agents, that her husband was her “handler” and that she, whose father had been in the military, was raised in a mind controlled environment. Many of the details of her behavior patterns, upon analysis and reflection, were classic mind-control responses, according to Philip’s hindsight analysis.

To summarize, Philip John Jones, before his hospitalization and death, specifically stated that he had felt he had been a victim of an Illuminati “hit.” Knowing all the intricate details of this relationship Philip chose to share with me, for reasons known only to him, would leave little doubt in any researcher’s mind about what has transpired to end the life of one of the true giants of esoteric research on the subject of planetary control.

I share this for only one reason. I want everyone who ever read, enjoyed and benefited from the gifts of Philip John Jones’ research and analysis to know that his life was terminated with extreme prejudice.

Despite this, Philip John Jones’ writing and research will stand as a beacon, shining a light upon the darkness where the serpents — and the Illuminati — still dwell, from this day until their final extermination.

–
Philips funeral will be the 8th of December at 14:00 at the chapel of Odense University hospital.

Source:
http://www.henrymakow.com/philip_jones_believed_he_was_p.html
http://www.henrymakow.com/our_friend_philip_jones_died_o.html

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

A senior diplomat in the British Foreign Office has been arrested for inciting religious hatred after he launched into an anti-Semitic tirade at a London gym, the Daily Mail reported on Monday.

Witnesses told the British newspaper they heard diplomat Rowan Laxton shouting “f**king Israelis, f**king Jews” while watching a TV report of Israel Defense Forces operations in Gaza from the seat of an exercise bike.

He also reportedly shouted that IDF soldiers should be “wiped off the face of the Earth.”

The Daily Mail said Laxton continued the tirade even after he was approached by other gym users.

A complaint was later filed to police and Laxton was arrested and charged with inciting religious hatred, which carries a maximum seven-year prison term. He has since been released on bail.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said in response to a query by Haaretz that, “We are aware that a complaint has been made to the Police about an alleged incident involving a member of our staff.

“The alleged incident was not in the course of his official duties. It is not appropriate to comment further until the Police have finished their enquiries.”

Laxton is in charge of the South Asia Group at the Foreign office, where he is in charge of United Kingdom diplomacy for the region, according to the Daily Mail. His boss, Foreign Secretary David Miliband, is Jewish.

Laxton, who married a Muslim woman in 2000 and has lived in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, is considered an expert on the Middle East.

The British newspaper quotes Mark Gardner, deputy director of the Community Security Trust, a group that monitors anti-Semitism, as saying: “This alleged case is particularly shocking, given the position held by the civil servant in question.”

The Daily Mail said that in response to a query on Monday, Laxton denied that his comments were anti-Semitic, but dodged answering whether they were anti-Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062752.html

The 69-year-old British-born bishop made the comments during an interview with Swedish television last year at a seminary for the ultra-orthodox Society of Saint Pius X in the Bavarian village of Zaitzkoven, near Munich.

Under German law denial of the Holocaust is illegal and an investigation was launched by prosecutors after the interview was broadcast last month.

Germany’s Justice Minister, Brigitte Zypries, confirmed yesterday that officials were considering issuing a European Union-wide arrest warrant for Dr Williamson, who flew into Britain earlier this week after being expelled from the Argentine seminary where he had been living for much of the past five years.

Mrs Zypries said that if an arrest warrant is issued, Britain would be obligated to arrest the renegade cleric and extradite him to Germany under a European set of guidelines introduced last year to toughen up anti-racism and hate crime laws. Although Britain has no specific laws against denying genocides, in Germany Holocaust denial is punishable with up to three years in prison and because the comments were made in Germany, Dr Williamson may be liable for prosecution.

The news of the arrest warrant came as the controversial bishop’s attempted rehabilitation into the Catholic Church took a tumble when the Vatican rejected an apology he made earlier this week. After weeks of refusing an order from Rome to repent his Holocaust denial views “in an absolutely unequivocal and public way”, he made a carefully worded apology on Thursday evening on the SSPX website.

In the statement, the bishop said his views on the Holocaust were that of a “non-historian … formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available, and rarely expressed in public since”.

He added: “To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologise.”

The Vatican’s chief spokesperson, Father Frederico Lombardi, said Dr Williamson’s apology “does not seem to respect the conditions” for his re-admission to the church.

Jewish and Holocaust-remembrance groups also rejected the apology saying Dr Williamson had failed to fully renounce his belief that the Holocaust has been exaggerated by historians. Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said: “The one thing he doesn’t say, and the main thing, is that the Holocaust occurred … You want to make an apology, you have to affirm the Holocaust.”

Karen Pollack, the chief executive of The Holocaust Educational Trust, also criticised the apology: “You don’t need to be a historian to recognise one of the most defining episodes of the 20th century, where millions of Jews and others were brutally murdered by the Nazis. Williamson may have acknowledged the offence he has caused but the fact remains that he denied the Holocaust – even questioning the existence of gas chambers only a month ago. Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism under whatever guise.”

Although the bishop belongs to a breakway Catholic sect that is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, the Vatican has been deeply embarrassed by Williamson’s views because it lifted an excommunication order on the SSPX just days after his Holocaust denial interview was broadcast.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-may-arrest-holocaust-row-bishop-1634379.html

As many of you will know, Muad’Dib is the producer of the film “7/7 Ripple Effect“, and He was arrested in Ireland for the ‘crime’ of sending DVD’s of the film to the judge and jury of the first trial of three men: Waheed Ali, 25, Sadeer Saleem, 28, and Mohammed Shakil, 32, who were being tried at Kingston Crown Court, England, wrongfully accused of helping the four designated patsies of the London 7/7/2005 bombings who were; in reality; victims, as much as all the others who died and/or were injured and traumatized that day.

Muad’Dib has been falsely and hypocritically accused of ‘attempting to pervert the course of justice’, when the film; and the act of sending copies of it to those in charge of delivering a verdict; are all about STRAIGHTENING the course of justice, which the U.K. authorities are perverting.

Sending proof of someone’s innocence should NEVER be a crime.

LLTF (Long Live The Fighters [For God/Good]),
The Fremen (Freemen).

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=830 16.03.2009
By Gabriel O’Hara

Recently, a man named Anthony John Hill was arrested and is now being corruptly and forcefully extradited to nazi-London where He will stand trial for the heinous crime of:  sending a DVD to a courthouse.  Yes… Really.

We met with John Anthony Hill who got arrested for mailing a DVD (with no letter attached) to a UK court from Ireland (reported by the Irish Times). John is also the producer and narrator of this DVD.

Mr Hill, 60 years old, showed us his arrest warrant and gave us permission to pass on information contained in it. The maximum sentence on the warrant is Life Imprisonment in England. John had his computer and other property seized which is why he requested other people to help him as he is not able to defend him self properly as a result. The phony charge is possibly fabricating evidence that might cause injustice and this is from the same country that helped put people in Guantanamo and other torture facilities world-wide. The DVD only contains main stream media news (BBC, ITV, New York Times etc) and the small remainder is his political opinion which as of yet no one is legally supposed to be extradited for, within the EU. The DVDs were also never given to the Judge or Foreman of the trail which is to do with 3 men never mentioned in the DVD. Regardless if you agree or disagree with the contents of this documentary anyone who values freedom would see there is an injustice being carried out here.

John’s court case is on this Thursday at the four courts in Dublin. Having a gathering outside would not change anything inside the court but it might get the media to shine more light on this injustice. John is asking anyone who is not working that day (this Thursday the 19th) to come along at 1:30pm, and any who can take a half day. I’m not sure if handing out his DVD or flyers with information contained in the DVD on the street would be WELCOMED by the court, but it is not yet illegal to hand out free materials on the public streets of Dublin that does not promote a commercial event. Anyone who has the technical abilities to make copies or photocopy information and is able to come along might want to think of doing so. The documentary is available free on the Google videos and Youtube, 7/7 Ripple Effect. Perhaps spread this on forums and contact the media if you think it is a good idea or better yet come up with your own peaceful ideas.

I’m sure you would want support too if injustice was being carried out against you, but you should only help because you want to.

Related:

Irish Times: Irish Man, Aged 60, Arrested for Posting a London 7/7 DVD to a Judge

02.03.2009
By Gabriel O’Hara

Would the world be a safer place if people who mail public information are behind bars?

Today at the four courts in Dublin, 11am – court 11, the Judge ruled on whether or not to extradite John Anthony Hill to the UK. John mailed a publicly available DVD, with no letter attached, to a court in the UK during a trial of three men. The DVD had nothing to do with those three men, it containes information from the BBC, ITV, the New York Times and other such established main stream news entities about four different men. During John’s trial in Ireland, March 19th, the judge said in his closing statement that he would watch the DVD before making a decision. Today we found out that the judge failed to uphold that promise/commitment made in court when he told the court he had not looked at that evidence. The Judge ruled against John, 60 years old, who was then put in to handcuffs and lead away by the police to a prison. The Judge said a number of people from all over the world mailed him envelopes with DVDs, he also said he did not open the envelopes.

http://mtrial.org/
His book:
http://thewayhomeorfacethefire.net/
His site:
http://jahtruth.net/kofkad.htm
http://i.am/jah/syst.htm
————–

Norwegian:

Den Nye DVD-Jon

Anthony John Hill – aka Muad’Dib – er en 60 år gammel mann født i Sheffield, som i 2007 produserte en dokumentarfilm ved navn «7/7 Ripple Effect». Filmen omhandler terrorangrepet på kollektivnettet i London 7. juli 2005. Natt til tirsdag 10. februar 2009 ble 60-åringen pågrepet og arrestert av Gardai-styrker i sitt hjem i småbyen Kells i Irland.

Onsdag 11. februar kan vi lese i Irish Times at mannen ble fremstilt for irsk Høyesterett etter arrestasjonen, og der anklaget for å ha sendt en DVD – sin egen DVD – i et brev til en adresse i nabolandet Storbritannia.

Nabolandet ville ved hjelp av en europeisk arrestordre (EAW) ha DVD-John utlevert. En EAW er ifølge svensk Wikipedia:

en arresteringsorder som förpliktar stat som är medlem i Europeiska unionen att till annan sådan stat utlämna person som är misstänkt för brott vilket den eftersökte är häktad på sannolika skäl misstänkt för brottet och för vilket är föreskrivet fängelse i ett år eller mer.

Forbrytelsen han er mistenkt for har strafferammen fengsel på livstid. DVD-John skal altså etter den irske rettens mening utleveres til nabolandet Storbritannia, der han risikerer en livstidsdom, fordi han har sendt sin egen dokumentar på en egenprodusert DVD i en konvolutt med irske frimerker.

Rent juridisk dreier arrestordren seg om at DVD-John etter britisk retts mening skal ha forsøkt å forstyrre rettens gang gjennom å sende DVDen til en dommer og juryformann under en rettssak relatert til terrorangrepet i 2005 – 7/7.

Påstanden er videre at han i mai og juni 2008 skal ha sendt flere eksemplarer av denne DVDen i konvolutter med irske frimerker, samt mellom september 2007 og desember 2007, henholdsvis til dommer/juryformann og til fem slektninger av de drepte fra London-terroren.

DVD-John skal under pågripelsen 10. februar ha innrømmet å ha sendt DVDen. Datautstyret hans ble beslaglagt, og han sitter nå fengslet frem til 17. april, i påvente av utlevering til England.

Stridens eple: Her er dokumentaren DVD-John sendte pr brev til nabolandet:

Etter fengslingsmøtet 2. april har DVD-John 15 dager på seg til å levere en anke til Høyesterett. Her bør han typisk vise til punkt 37 i EAW-loven, som i relativt klare ordelag fastslår at DVD-John ikke kan utleveres dersom arrestordren er utstedt med bakgrunn i den begjærtes politiske eller religiøse meninger.

Irsk rett har pålagt DVD-John å levere inn passet sitt og forbudt ham å diskutere 7/7 med mennesker i England og Wales. Du kan laste ned dokumentaren hans her (.avi), her (BT) eller her (BT).

Andre dokumentarfilmer om 7/7 er «Ludicrous Diversion» og «Mind the Gap».

http://viddal.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/dvd-john-livstid-for-brev-dvd/

Background and contribution:
Doug Collins was a British soldier in World War II. He was captured and escaped several times. He worked in an intelligence capacity with the British Control Commission in occupied Germany after the war. He emigrated to Canada in the 1950s and worked for several Canadian newspapers. He drew the ire of the Holocaust Enforcers after he testified for Ernst Zündel in the 1985 Great Holocaust Trial. He declared that as a journalist, he saw nothing wrong with the booklet “Did Six Million Really Die?” and that he found no “hate” in that 30,000 word essay. An award-winning journalist and TV commentator and the author of several books, Collins was hauled before a quasi-court by Holocaust Enforcers when he wrote a column about “Swindler’s List” and commented on the preponderance of Jews in Hollywood. He and his paper had to defend themselves before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, which, in the end, ruled in his favor, after his paper spent more than $200,000 and Collins spent $50,000 of his own money. Barely had he won the case when he was re-charged – for the same column, along with three others!

————-

The guy, who looked like the mashed version of the British bulldog,
was pursued by the Politically Correct government of British Columbia
for his supposedly Nazi-like thoughts about Jews.

FREEDOM FIGHTER DIES

He felt Schindler’s List should be called Swindler’s List.

Truth seekers and freedom fighters of the world lost someone from their ranks just recently. Doug Collins may not have been well-known other than in some parts of Canada, but to thousands of people he was a giant of a man. The best comment I heard said about him, after his death on Sunday, September 30th, 2001 was:

“He was a man of real courage in a nation of wimps.”

Since he died last month I’ve been looking to read a decent obituary but the mainstream press (to whom he was well known) glossed over his death and if they said anything at all it was derisive.

But finally today I read a moving and emotional obituary in Canada’s version of TIME magazine and attach it here for others to read.

The world becomes a lonelier place when great and courageous people leave us. In my opinion Mr Doug Collins was such a person. ~ Jackie Jura

DEATH OF A TRUE RADICAL
by Alan Fotheringham, MacLean’s, Oct 15, 2001:

What’s the old rule — never speak ill of the dead? Surprising it is how people think that an outmoded treatise, something they are proud to defy, and the quicker the better. Doug Collins, the toughest man I ever met, died last week in Vancouver at 81. Before his body could even be moved to the grave, the Vancouver Sun — his old paper he once adorned with fiery passion — had a smug, sanctimonious editorial dumping on the corpse that was still warm: “Even when Mr. Collins was right, he was wrong, because all he did with his bellicose approach was stoke the unconstructive anger of his supporters.” That is a most admirable logical leap, even for an editorial writer. Black is white. Right is actually wrong. Orwell would love it. It was a constant theme — even Conrad Black admitted it didn’t make sense in regard to Collins — among the Politically Correct who decorated the final days of a complex guy whose whole life was about fighting for the freedom to say something that other people thought was wrong.

That Collins was a complex character would be an underestimate. I once, having hired him while he was in a bad patch, did not speak to him for 10 years. Until I figured the bullies, the new Politically Correct who now ruled the roost, were the most intolerant of all, those who could not abide a true radical who listened only to his own inner drum and didn’t give a damn for those who disagreed. He had been through a mill that his opponents could never imagine. The guy, who looked like the mashed version of the British bulldog, is remembered in all the obits for being pursued by the Politically Correctness NDP (late) government of British Columbia for his supposedly Nazi-like thoughts about Jews. At his death, he was still hoping to overturn a $2,000 penalty handed him by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

The background? First, in May of 1940, the “miracle of Dunkirk,” somehow, with the help of English tiny boats, getting more than 300,000 troops off that beach in France and saving the base of the British army that would invade Normandy four years later. Among those left behind on the beach was the teenage Doug Collins of the Second Gloucesters. As a prisoner of war, he was shipped off to a concentration camp in Poland, where he was instructed he would remain until the end of the war. Four months later, he escaped, headed for Russia. Caught, he was stripped naked to stand for 24 hours facing a wall, beaten by enraged guards. It was his 20th birthday. He was sent to work in a Silesian coal mine. He escaped, was sent to two different stalags, escaped and passed by a camp later known as Auschwitz. In all, he escaped from 10 Nazi PoW camps, well recorded in his memoir published in 1968. At the end of the war, he was in prison in Romania, as American B-24s rained bombs on him, actually aiming at the Ploesti oilfields.

After the war, being awarded a military medal, he spent time with the De-Nazification branch of the British Control Commission. This is a guy who sides with Nazis against Jews? Arriving at the Vancouver Sun, he was a ferocious left-wing British Labourite, standing up to editors with a panache that indicated they had never seen anyone with his guts. In a fight over principle, as usual, he left to become a ferocious host-interviewer with the CBC in Ottawa. The usual dispute arose there, he asked my help in rescuing “a broken-down hack” and I convinced the publisher of the Sun to rehire him. Alas, the experience with CBC bureaucracy had turned the passionate lefty into an even more passionate perceived “right-winger” who defended anyone who wanted to say anything. Having been there, he thought the Holocaust figure of “six million dead” an exaggeration. Thus, he felt Schindler’s List should be called Swindler’s List — the same defiant tone of one who once stood on a German prison train screaming insults at passing Nazi troops, a crazy guy perhaps, but always defiant. The Western Jewish Bulletin backed his right to say what he thought — even though they felt it “rubbish.” The North Shore News, a thrice-weekly Vancouver suburban paper, ran Collins’s increasingly controversial column for 14 years after he left the Sun — and before firing him. Canadian Association for Free Expression director Paul Fromm asked Conrad Black, who once owned the paper, why his company was not supporting Collins’s court appeal. Replied Black: “We considered the [human rights tribunal] ruling a suppression of speech. However, Collins is a rather disreputable person. It’s a moral puzzle.” It is indeed. Right is wrong. Black is white. That’s why he was sacked. ~ Alan Fotheringham

http://www.orwelltoday.com/dougcollins.shtml

Background and contribution:
Considered a male “Mother Theresa” for his altruistic dedication to the poor of France, this famous pro-Marxist French cleric endorsed Roger Garaudy’s Revisionist book – and was almost crucified by a vitriolic media reaction. The Holocaust Enforcers made a huge mistake picking on this man. He fired back salvo after salvo – much to everyone’s surprise. He fought bravely for a man well into his eighties, but in the end fled into a monastery in Italy – from where he apologized under pressure from his church.

Letter of Abbe Pierre to Roger Garaudy. April 15, 1996

Very Dear Roger,

You know the limits of my strength. I weaken every day, even though many think that my strength is great because my voice is still resounding and because, as soon as I have the conviction that an action or an issue creates injustice or falsehood, I recover my energies, however briefly.

Forgive me for talking so much about myself, but this is to explain to you and to all who would deem it useful to make my letter known, why, despite phone calls, I am late in expressing my convictions concerning you as a person, whom I have known for over 50 years, and concerning your actions, from the most intimate to those having great public consequences.

As a communist deputy, you were the first person with whom I had a debate, the memory of which has remained unforgettable because it was fruitful for both of us.

Your most recent book reached me while I was at the limits of my strength, attending to other pressing tasks. At 83, with all that is happening to me, I can read very little. I have only 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon when I can really work.

About this crushing, thousand year old unending drama surrounding Israel, you have known, for many years, my careful considerations and you know that my thoughts extend beyond the contemporary dramas

We have had serious discussions about this subject.

It is impossible for me to speak about your new book with all the care that is required, not only because of its fundamental subject, but also because of the amazing, brilliant and scrupulous scholarship on which each argument is based, as I noticed while going through it.

I will do my best so that soon, true historians with your same passion for truth will set out to debate it with you.

The insults against you that I have seen (even in a Daily that I like most because of its customary objectivity) and that have bombarded you from all sides show the dishonesty of those who have rashly condemned you.

In this letter, I want to make public two convictions: one, in a few words, concerning your person; the other (still imperfectly expressed) concerns how my life has led me to conceptualize the succession of historical events, which I view with sadness. Such is the admirable faith (but for many centuries withdrawn to itself) of this people, my brothers, that limits itself by not hearing the call to a mission of another, nobler greatness.

Providence had allowed me, in other times (that seem so near), at the risk, voluntarily accepted, of my life, to come to the help of those I could help. Because of this, I am particularly sensitive to their pain.

About you and your life, a few words suffice. You are one of those men who will never cease to be tormented by a devouring thirst for the Absolute, until faced with Infinite Love.

I blame those who are too superficial, or too busy with many other things, that they do not know how to respect and love your research, and do not understand the manner in which (all during your life) you have tried to approximate the Absolute, approaching it from its many, perceived, fragmented dimensions, from all over the world and through the centuries, that people share (and over which they are led astray, and sometimes fight).

It is not without some painful trembling and great humility that I invoke another of my convictions concerning the Jewish portion of the human universe.

After I finished my theological studies, I pursued my own biblical studies. It came as a horrible shock when I discovered the Book of Joshua. I had already been gripped by more serious trouble when I learned of the Golden Calf’s order to massacre 3000 people a short time before Moses brought the “Table of Laws,” which said, “Thou shall not kill!” But with Joshua, I discovered (surely told centuries after the event) how a true Shoah took place on all existing life in the “Promised Land.”

I say: “If I promise you my car, and if you come at night, kill the guard, force the door open and take the promised car, then what is left of the ‘promise’?”

Doesn’t violence destroy the foundation of the promise? Indeed, afterwards, the Covenant will continue to be repeated constantly with a people who (not unique, it seems, but unique as a highly constituted people) have in their conscience the notion of a Unique Eternal (indeed, not yet clearly knowing that this Essence is Love). I live this revelation with Jesus, Jesus who founded the Trinity of faith: Deus caritas est. But does not this Covenant also concern this part of the world (that can and must be called not “Promised Land,” but “Holy Land,” filled with crimes but also with Prophets)?

I can no longer justify promises by God (even if orders to massacre are attributed to Him — and isn’t this an offense to God?) for only this corner of the earth, for or against which so many are still dying today.

Is not the Covenant to send all of Israel to spread the faith it has received, for all of the earth?

The promised land is for every Believer (hence, for every Jew, too). I cannot swerve from this idea, of carrying to the whole earth the JOY of experiencing the true GOD.

Oh, how I would like to still be young, to work with fraternal groups for the realization of the mission received first in Israel, then in Jesus.

I do not ignore that the retreat of Israel upon itself is partly due to the strange reversal of history caused by Constantin after the Edict of Milan, and the harmful consequences that accompanied its beneficial effects.

We have heard that in the year 2000, the Pope (will it be the same Pope?) will express the intention to confess the historic mistakes that accompanied the zeal of Christian missions.

Could he underestimate the role that the words, “deicidal people,” played in anti-semitism? This would be insane, for it is to all peoples, to all humans, that Jesus offered himself in ransom.

At that time, forbidden martyrs were replaced (to compensate for the decadence of the empire) by the disastrous structures of privilege: Prince-Bishops, Pope-Kings, including the most abusive confusion between the spiritual and temporal.

Roger, we are both old men, and we have to talk more about this and question people more scholarly than myself. Please, from these illegible lines that we will read together over the telephone, keep the force and loyalty of my affectionate esteem and my respect for the enormous work of your new book. To confuse it with what has been called “revisionism” is a deception and a veritable slander by unthinking people.

I embrace you and assure you that you and your family will remain present in my daily offering.

Your brother,

Abbe Pierre

———–

Testimony of a Protestant Pastor

May 11, 1996

Dear Abbe Pierre, Dear Roger Garaudy,

I am saddened by the flood of hatred and contempt heaped upon you. This reveals the feeling that many carry in their hearts. Remember, Abbe Pierre, a devoted man, dragged in mud, will enhance your value (in the eyes) of the one who judges and condemns.

And you, Roger Garaudy, you have a twofold luxury: in the eyes of the French, you incarnate two phobias — communism and Islam. One would think you do it on purpose.

You have proved that you love the Jews infinitely more than those who give lessons. But here you are, you also love the Palestinians and Arabs in general, the majority of whom are Muslims, but sometimes Christians. All Palestinian or Arab brothers who, for generations, have been humiliated, colonized, dispossessed, bashed, imprisoned, starved. And you have reason to love them and to want justice and peace for them. Nobody understood (and nobody explained, either) that it is because of them that you embarked on the mad enterprise that consists in trying to explain (to the ignorant and to people who do not want to know) the consequences of the horrible extermination of Jews, or the fate of the Arabs, who had nothing to do with Polish or Russian pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, the concentration camps, or the Nazi extermination. And yet, it is they who are dispossessed. What is contested is not the abjectness and horror of antisemitic massacres, it is their use to justify the creation and permanent expansion of the State of Israel and to cover up mad injustices. To make of “Auschwitz” a political argument to support Israel is to run the risk that this argument be contested. And when the historical reexamination of the Nazi period is refused, when the files are closed, is not that really to prevent the questioning of the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its behavior? Yet history will prevail. One day, everything will be known.

Thank goodness that it was a Jewish historian (for whom I have great respect) who wrote 30 years ago in “Les Temps Modernes” a marvelous article, “Israel, Colonial Fact?” Is he right or wrong? And if it is true that the colonization of Palestine was devised by the Zionist movement a hundred years ago, during the height of the colonialization period, is there no reason to doubt that this colonial domination will end like the others? It is better to think about it than to curse. Has not Arafat agreed to pay a heavy price for peace? And, to a certain extent, the Israeli pacifists, too? Rabin included? Are “negationists” the Nazis of today who want to revise history in order to give good reason for the Nazis of yesterday? I will never believe (after reading Abbe Pierre’s declarations and R. Garaudy’s book) that these brothers have converted to Nazism.

It is said that the theology of Abbe Pierre is “obsolete.” I know others who are even more so, and who could do better to be more modest.

As for you, my two brothers, the struggles you are waging, at your age, to raise the consciousness of all those who need it, compel respect and contribute to hope.

Pastor Roger Parmentier

http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionabbepierre.html

Background and contribution:
Famous for his recent court case over pictures and words published in the magazine “The Rune”, Griffin, a well-known British political activist, was charged, tried and convicted as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of Tony Blair’s election promises – to be “tougher on Revisionists and racists.” Two US black separatist leaders spoke out as witnesses for Griffin, but he was convicted nonetheless to a steep fine of L3,000. (The expert witness for the defense was none other than Dr. Robert Faurisson who helped out once again when help was needed.) Griffin is reported to be unbowed.

Background and contribution:
A prolific British author of approximately 36 books and recognized authority on Hitler and World War II, Irving pretty much believed and accepted the standard Holocaust version – until he read the Leuchter Report. He agreed to testify as the last witness for the defense in the 1988 Zündel Trial. His appearance was a sensation! In the following years, he went on widely publicized and acclaimed Canada- and America-wide lecture tours. He traveled as a speaker through several European countries, with headlines and controversy dogging his every step.

He drew packed houses and infuriated the Holocaust Lobby, which reacted with vicious smear campaigns and managed to have Irving arrested and convicted in Munich, Germany, for “defaming the dead.” This conviction caused Irving to be ultimately banned from Canada, Australia, Italy, New Zealand and South Africa. He was deported in handcuffs from Niagara Falls, Ontario, after a farcical Immigration hearing, during which he was held and treated in jail like some common criminal – for weeks!

He has been hounded by the Holocaust Enforcers ever since. A combative man, Irving has lately gone on counter-attacks and is suing the British Board of Jewish Deputies and American Jewish Holocaust Promoter, Deborah Lipstadt and her publishers. Zündel witness in the 1988 Great Holocaust Trial.

A councillor unseated
In May 2002 my life was turned upside down.

I had been living quietly as a computer science professor in a provincial British university. For decades I had had a strong side interest in politics and current affairs. In the years when socialism was still a live movement, I had published journalism and books advocating the virtues of the market economy; and I opposed surrender of British independence to the European Union. In the last few years, since the arrival in power of New Labour, I had grown increasingly worried about the Orwellian way in which government seems no longer satisfied to control our actions by law, but seeks to look into our minds and insist on approved thinking.

In November 2001 I was asked by the local Conservatives to stand in a by-election for a seat on our District Council, which I won thanks to crass public behaviour by my Liberal Democrat predecessor, a recent Mayor of our town. I was appointed to the planning committee, and enjoyed learning how to help make sensible decisions about what could be built where.

The Lib Dems were hopping mad. They are the minority party on the Council as a whole, but, before me, they had had a monopoly on our town’s seats for half a generation. They wanted me out. Searching round my website, they found a way. On 12 May 2002, they planted a story in the left-wing Observer newspaper expressing shock at my unfashionable views on racial matters.

Next morning, I hit the big time. Our New Labour government sees race as an issue on which it can put the Conservative opposition on the defensive. Peter Hain gave an interview about me on the Breakfast With Frost TV programme. (Because key elements of this story are things said on television and radio rather than written and printed, I cannot guarantee that I have every detail word-for-word exact, but if there are any inaccuracies I believe they are trivial rather than significant.) People my age remember Peter Hain as a young twerp who organized demos outside the South African embassy. In May 2002, almost unbelievably, he was the Minister for Europe in Tony Blair’s government. [Shortly afterwards he was made Minister for Wales, which in the arcane world of Westminster apparently counts as a promotion.] ‘Sampson is proud to be racist’, Hain thundered on television. I was given a chance to reply on Radio 4’s Today programme, and since this is live they could not stop me pointing out that Hain’s statement was untrue: as far as I am concerned it would be daft to be proud of racism — what is there to be proud of? But this was ignored in subsequent TV news broadcasts, which continued to repeat Hain’s denunciation of my ‘outrageous’ web page: ‘Sampson is proud to be racist … Sampson is proud to be racist …’

Journalists besieged my phone and my doorstep, until I took the phone off the hook, drew the curtains, and ignored the doorbell.

The Lib Dems on the District Council made it clear that they would be happy to bring the useful work of the Council to a halt in order to make political capital out of their opposition to me personally. I reckoned the residents of our District deserve better than that, and it would have meant huge psychological stress for little advantage that I could see; so I resigned my Council seat.

And then, a couple of days later, a policeman from Special Branch asked to visit me. He explained politely that I am now a marked man. He unfolded a series of everyday practices which I should adopt in order to reduce the risk of harm coming to me or my family, now or in the future. I shall not go into detail, but at best these are a thorough time-wasting nuisance. The implications of some of them, if I allowed myself to dwell on them, are terrifying. Looking back, life before May 2002 was a carefree lost Eden.

Unspeakable truths
What led to all this?

My website at that time contained a set of pages on controversial current-affairs issues, including one which made the point that preference for members of one’s own race over other races is a biologically natural, universal aspect of human psychology. The racial tensions associated with the large-scale immigration into Britain that has occurred over the last half century are not a temporary product of ignorant and wicked attitudes on the part of the indigenous population. They are permanent, unavoidable, and consequently can be nothing to be ashamed of.

This is in fact the case. We know that feelings of racial preference are universal, and we understand the biological mechanisms that cause this to be so. Reacting to such a statement as if it were shocking and unsayable does not reveal a superior moral sensibility; it simply reveals ignorance.

There is nothing original to me in making this point. In fact hardly anything in the web page that Peter Hain and the media attacked was about my personal likes or dislikes. (The only real exception, I think, was my condemnation of ‘multiculturalism’, which is rather separate — culture is to some extent freely chosen, race is biologically fixed. This point was hardly mentioned, at least in those attacks I heard or read, perhaps because on multiculturalism New Labour policy seems to be swinging round to a point of view similar to mine.) The best-known academic analyst of the innateness of racial feelings is Pierre van den Berghe, in writings such as The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981). Like any other scientific theory, van den Berghe’s has been criticized; but the criticisms have been answered, for instance by Frank Salter (in Patrick and Goetze, eds., Evolutionary Theory and Ethnic Conflict, 2001).

Incidentally, many commentators hostile to me seemed to assume that scientists who explain the roots of racial feelings must be sinister Ku Klux Klan types. That is virtually the reverse of the truth. I have no personal acquaintance with the scholars just quoted, but (as I read him) van den Berghe feels that we need to understand the causes of the racial feelings which are in all of us in order to prevent them leading to undesirable overt behaviour. Surely that is a very sensible and respectable point of view. Frank Salter’s political position seems more unusual; if I have grasped it correctly, he believes that the inevitable future submergence of the white race by more rapidly-breeding non-whites will be a fair retribution for centuries of white imperialism. I find it hard to see the logic of Salter’s politics, but it does not prevent him recognizing the scientific truth about innate racial preferences.

The point in my web page which seemed to arouse most hostility of all was in fact a relatively brief allusion to scientific findings that were established decades ago, and which I supposed that most educated people were well aware of, about differences in average intelligence level between the races. We have known for a long time that the yellow-skinned races have on average slightly higher IQs than whites, who in turn have on average higher IQs than blacks. (For an up-to-date statement of the findings, see J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, ‘Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability’, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 11, 2005.) Again, when these findings were first put forward people raised intellectual objections, but the objections were answered long ago. A number of people suggested that the IQ measurements might be culturally biased, for instance, but that makes it hard to explain why Canadian Eskimos score higher than white Canadians — it is implausible that the tests are biased to favour Eskimo culture, but genetically Eskimos are relatively close to East Asians on the other side of the Bering Strait. Peter Urbach examined in detail the attempts to refute the IQ/race correlations (in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 25, 1974). Urbach found that the situation was like the attempts by the 17th-century Catholic Church to deny that the Earth goes round the Sun. If, for ideological reasons, one is desperate enough to deny reality, it is always possible to invent a more and more elaborate structure of special assumptions to reconcile one’s ideology with contrary observations; but that is not how to go about finding the truth.

Personally, I don’t doubt that the race/IQ correlations are correct, though I can’t see why they are important. Should I feel humiliated when I meet a Chinese or a Japanese, because I know that on average members of his race are brighter than members of mine? I don’t know why I should; whether I should or not, I certainly don’t. When I found myself being publicly condemned in May 2002 for believing in statistical differences of intelligence among the races, it really did feel as though civilization had slipped back a few centuries and I was being threatened for publicly admitting that the Sun is the centre of the solar system.

Of course, ironically, the vehemence with which I was denounced by a Government minister only served to make it pretty clear that he knew that what I wrote was broadly correct. If you are genuinely convinced that what someone is saying is factually mistaken, it is not sensible to drop on him from a great height. It is more effective in practice to point out the flaws in the reasoning politely, and to let reality and common-sense do the rest. Even if my statements about racial differences and racial feelings were in fact mistaken, they were manifestly a sincere contribution to political discourse, and, in a civilized society, entitled to respect as such; and respectful counter-argument is the most effective way to oppose false beliefs. The louder that the Minister for Europe thundered that my statements were ‘outrageous’, the more obvious it was that in his heart he knows they are true. He knows the truth, but he is determined that no-one shall dare to voice it openly. That is how Britain is governed now.

(The reason why Hain decided to go for me at that particular juncture became clearer when I read a discussion of the episode in Shelagh Shepherd’s Westminster Watch column. I hadn’t noticed, but a few days earlier Hain had been discussing the need for Muslim immigrants to do more to integrate culturally with the indigenous British population. That raised the danger of a Labour minister being denounced as racist, so Hain needed to lay publicly into some Conservative making racially sensitive comments in order to create an appearance of contrast with ‘Labour’s intelligent, compassionate realism regarding immigration’. I happened to be a convenient tool to serve the Minister’s momentary purpose. Hain is a man of no significance in his own right, he was simply serving as the Government’s voice. In August 2005 a Spectator leader summed up Hain’s career by describing him as ‘one of Mr Blair’s principal toadies, a man who has evinced little sign of ability in any post he has held, but whose climb up the greasy pole has been marked by frequent somersaults and disdain for anything approaching a principle’.)

A silenced majority
Racial feelings are as biologically inevitable as sexual feelings. Obviously, that does not make it all right to act oppressively to members of other races. Most men find themselves physically attracted to numerous women: a quite crucial part of learning to be a member of a particular culture is learning to control such feelings, and learning what it is and is not permissible to do about them within that culture. It would be difficult or impossible for young men to achieve that, if they were required to pretend that only a few utterly wicked individuals had such feelings anyway.

The current situation in Britain is about as unnatural as that — which became obvious from the flood of letters and e-mails that reached me from strangers, saying things like ‘Thank you for saying publicly what we all believe but no longer dare to say’. A few messages that came in were from extreme political groups that I would not want to be associated with, but most of them seemed to be, and I am sure were, from ordinary, decent English men and women who are baffled at the way that true beliefs and normal, natural human attitudes are currently being demonized.

There was even a letter from someone in a distant part of the country saying that he too was a university teacher and he thought what I had written was perfectly correct; but he did not dare include his name and address. OK, since I don’t know who wrote the letter, it could have been a spoof, but what would have been the point of that? I imagine it was genuine. But if so, think what it implied. Four hundred years after the Tudors, a British academic does not dare put his name to a statement that he agrees on factual matters with another British academic.

Some people asked me whether I was not worried that I might be encouraging undesirable, thuggish political movements. That seems to me exactly the wrong way round. Because these are things that many people are concerned about, they need to be thoroughly ventilated within mainstream British politics. This country has resolved its political tensions peacefully for hundreds of years because people have been willing to accept the compromises that emerged from the process of political argy-bargy, in which everything was up for discussion. If, now, there is going to be a new convention that forbids open discussion of things to do with race and immigration within the political mainstream, and requires everyone to pretend to believe in officially-approved opinions, then voters will be driven towards the nasty fringe groups because they find no possibility of getting a hearing for their views within the decent mainstream parties. I shan’t join one of the thuggish groups myself, but others will; and the people pushing voters that way will not be people like me — they will be people like the Minister for Europe, who seeks to outlaw honest discussion of issues that matter.

The truth is that a healthy Britain needs a lot more political debate in this area, not less. And who more suitable to participate in such debate than a local councillor from a District with scarcely any non-white residents and no racial tensions? (Not that that last fact exempted us from the requirement to waste large amounts of council-taxpayers’ money on developing Race Equality Action Plans, which seemed quite difficult when it was so hard to find any plausible areas for action.)

I do not feel bad about resigning my seat. If it is really so in 2002 that no-one can sit on a local council unless they are willing to give lip service to beliefs which I know perfectly well are false, then I am better off out of it: that is no way for a professional academic to behave. (Some people seemed to think that I ought to have purged my website of controversial matters when I stood for the Council. Do they want their politicians to deceive them?)

But I do mind very much what the case shows about the decline of political freedom. What happened to me was not normal, traditional British political cut-and-thrust. It was suppression of dissidence, more reminiscent of Soviet-style politics.

Because let’s be clear: the fact that, for instance, I have to flounder about on the ground under my car before driving it, rain or shine, to check that no intruder has attached anything to its underside, is a direct consequence of a New Labour government minister publicly denouncing me as outside the pale. True, the intruder would not be working as a State employee, but it was a government minister who sicked him on. (I can mention that particular security routine because, as luck would have it, I have now been able to give it up. A couple of months after the height of the furore, I developed a medical symptom that means I am no longer allowed to drive at all, and I have got rid of my car.)

Why this taboo?
The fact that a British government is prepared to destroy political freedom in this way makes me angry. The fact of their fastening on this particular area of life as one where alternative views are forbidden made me puzzled, for a while. Why should race in particular be a taboo subject? I do not recall anything in the classic philosophies of morality that implies a duty of special regard for other races or for recent immigrants. The injunctions of ‘political correctness’ seem to be arbitrary expressions of passing social fashion, rather than principles recognized as valid throughout the ages.

The answer to the puzzle, I believe, is that what governments want above all — certainly what this New Labour government wants above all — is power. If the population can be made to feel guilty about having feelings which are innate and unchangeable, it will be a docile population. British governments used to be, and ought to be, organizations that are grudgingly allowed a strictly limited and necessary range of powers by voters who decide their morality and way of life for themselves. New Labour is turning instead into a kind of Church which preaches that we are all damned, but which offers chances of partial absolution provided we acknowledge our sinful state and obey the fathers of the Church implicitly. If the ethnic minorities were not so useful as a tool to help the government pull off this trick, I imagine New Labour would lose interest in them. At present it cherishes them, because they enable it to work this strategy against the rest of us with such success.

We have had bad governments in the past. Arguably, it is in the nature of politics that any government is to a greater or lesser extent a bad government — the most one can hope for is ‘less bad’. But this New Labour government is more than just a bad government. Unprecedently in my experience, New Labour is an evil government.

What can we do?
New Labour is trying to change Britain from a relatively free society into a society of serfs. At a time when the Conservative Party seems to have lost the ability or taste for real opposition, it may seem that all the cards are in the government’s hand, and there is little an individual can do to resist.

But there have been cases of much more monolithic State oppression that have been overthrown by ‘little people’. In her inspiring 2002 Reith Lectures under the title A Question of Trust, Onora O’Neill (Lady O’Neill, Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge) suggests how this can happen by describing how humble individuals began to resist tyranny in the former communist Czechoslovakia:

The Communist Party of the People’s Republic of Czechoslovakia used to send bulletins with Party slogans and messages to be displayed in all shops. These mind-numbingly boring Party slogans were so familiar that they became invisible: yet displaying them represented support for the regime and its oppressions, a small connivance, a small lie. Refusal to display those slogans, to endorse that view of the world, was a small act of truth and courage, and ultimately of power, that was open to the powerless. From small refusals larger and bolder action followed.
In 21st-century Britain, no-one is required to display slogans about the dictatorship of the proletariat. But anyone who participates in public life is being frequently required to sign up to the idea that preference for members of one’s own race and nation over others is wicked — implying that there could be a human society in which such feelings were not widespread.

I refuse to endorse that lie.

http://www.grsampson.net/CDissident.html

Shocking new details about the death of Dr David Kelly emerged exclusively today on the Alex Jones radio show. Michael Shrimpton, a UK national security lawyer who was a guest on the show, revealed that sources within MI5 and MI6 are `furious’ that Kelly was murdered.

‘Kelly was Murdered’ Says UK Intelligence Insider

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022304kellywasmurdered.html