Battle Of Britain: Unnecessary Death and Destruction?

So this year has marked the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, and as per usual when it regards things of a historical nature, the general public suffers from a grotesque form of collective amnesia. When we consider the second world war though, you can expect that the hive-mind delusion will be multiplied by at least a factor of ten. 

The Battle of Britain is a strange one. As a country we romanticise the idea of a few Spitfires holding back an entire invasion. We perpetuate the tale of us good-guy underdog British beating the evil Germans on our own turf, and whilst it was the British that won it, the true reasons for why we won are not always revealed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means belittling the role of the airmen and ground-crew responsible for defending Britain during WWII. Nor am I however prepared to call the Germans evil for their role in the war either, it is what it is at the end of the day, but the Allied war-time propaganda needs to be dispelled, and the mentality of our leadership (Churchill included) at the time of war needs to be exposed. I have no doubt in my mind that if modern day international law is applied, we could quite easily have put the RAF Bomber Command and many of the War Cabinet on charge for crimes against humanity for reasons which will be explained. 

This is a difficult one for me to write about. I love aviation, and like for most English people, the image of a Spitfire or Hurricane has a huge emotive response for me. They're much less a flying machine, and more like Nationalistic art-pieces. It's Britain's version of what the Longboat must have been like to a Norse peoples, it's almost in our blood. When you start reading into WWII though, and the intricate details of why certain things happened, the sound of Rolls Royce Merlin engines becomes more of a swan song for the hundreds of thousands that needlessly lost their lives, rather than a National Anthem I once knew it as.

So what is 'the truth' regarding this air war? Well here is where it becomes fairly difficult to pin point exactly where to start writing from. Do I write from the fall of France? Or do I write about the circumstances that led to the invasion of Poland? Or perhaps international finance's outrage at Germany's economic miracle as Hitler led the country out of crippling debt? You could in theory even go back a hundred years ago previous to give a truer detailing of why certain events were happening. In order to keep this post short enough to read in one sitting though, I think we must take the Battle of Britain at face value.

It's fairly prudent to point out though that before the Battle of Britain Hitler had twice offered peace to Churchill which obviously wasn't taken up on. So the entire war by 1940 was totally needless.

So why was the Battle of Britain won by the British? What was the cost of that victory? If you know any of your history you'll understand that the first stage of the battle was Germany's plan to attack the merchant fleet supplying food, fuel and munitions from America and Canada.

The second stage involved the Luftwaffe bombing airfields and factories relevant to the on-going British war effort. It's often stated that had Germany not stopped its tactical bombing of genuine military targets, then the RAF would have been neutralized and Britain would have had to have launched fresh peace-talks with Germany. Arguably it would have been the best outcome that would have saved the lives of millions on both sides of the conflict.

The third stage of the Battle of Britain though is now so ingrained in the psyche of the English, that it makes impartiality rather difficult. Especially for those English who's family lived in London like mine. People tell the tale about the Luftwaffe suddenly stopping its bombing of airfields and aircraft factories, and instead begun the now infamous Blitz of London. The suffering of the British civilians therefore became a turning point for the war because it did two things. First, it took the strain off of the battle-weary Fighter Command and secondly, it silenced the anti-war lobby in Britain and gave Churchill and the War Cabinet justification for perpetuating a war which the politicians were so keen to wage.

So why did the Germans start bombing English cities then?
At the start of the campaign against Britain, Hitler had at first wanted to prevent as much destruction to civilian property as was feasibly possible. His original orders were:

The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces ... The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population. 

~Adolf Hitler

Officially, the British had also had the same rules of engagement initially, but the the disastrous day-time bombing results early in the war with out of date aircraft like the Bristol Blenheim had meant that indiscriminate night bombing raids were the only option left to Bomber command. It is clear that British propaganda at the time tried its utmost to justify all future operations against Germany's civilian population by manufacturing outrage in the British public.

The 'gloves came off'  in regards to Britain's bomber targets when Germany had sought control of the strategic city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, shortly after the fall of much of France. The British war cabinet used the German bombing of Rotterdam and the death of Dutch civilians to justify the deliberate bombing of German cities later on, but the facts about the German assault on the city were totally twisted by the World media.

In reality, Germany had wanted to take Rotterdam without the need of any unnecessary violence, but the Dutch leadership at the time refused to hand the city over or accept surrender, despite having no anti-aircraft capabilities, fighter aircraft or armoured fighting vehicles to defend the city from the German forces. The Dutch were asked a second time on the 14th of May 1940, and given an ultimatum, but due to a communication break-down, a squadron of He.111's bombed the city earlier than what they should have (some of the bombers had received a stand-down message and returned, whilst others didn't.) All in all, 900 dutch civilians and armed forces were killed in the bombing. The World media however deliberately gave false reports on the bombing, claiming that 30,000 civilians had died when in fact most of the civilians had already fled days before any bombs fell anywhere near the city. Whilst 900 deaths is a tragedy, it is a far-cry from the carnage that had been reported in the news.

The Rotterdam raid had given the British War Cabinet the justification needed to launch an offensive bombing campaign against the German mainland. Since daylight bombing operations had proved unsuccessful during initial attacks 1939 and early 1940, Bomber command instead concentrated on night attacks. On the 15th of May 1940, a day after the bombing of Rotterdam, 99 bomber aircraft, most likely a large component of Hampden bombers, started the first of many night-time raids on Germany. This initial raid saw the RAF striking industrial regions in the Ruhr area, but due to the difficulties acquiring targets in the dark, many of the bombs that would have been dropped would have failed to have hit anything of military value. The lack of aiming capabilities would have seen a great deal of civilian collateral damage. The RAF that night were given orders to return home by flying over Rotterdam, presumably to drive home the"30,000 deaths" propaganda to the bomber crews and to avoid the RAF aircrews from feeling guilty about their own hand in killing German civilians. Fires were still visible in many areas of Rotterdam for a few days after the raid, and would have left and impression on those young men.

‘The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war.’

~The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds, p. 122. Dennis Richards, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

As you look at the raiding timeline for both countries throughout the battle of Britain, a pattern emerges.

The RAF dropped bombs in a totally haphazard way in pitch black, often inflicting civilian deaths in Kiel, Wilshelmhaven, Dortmund, Bremen, Gelsenkirchen, Kassel, Dusseldorf, Wismar, Hamm, Soest and Essen. These raids all occurred before the 1st of August 1940, happening before the blitz on civilian targets like those on London and Coventry. The Germans did not start deliberate attacks on civilian targets arguably until 24th of August, and not in earnest until the 7th of September when the Luftwaffe swapped over completely to night-time city raids like it's RAF opponent.

The problem is, whilst it would be easy to say that the British establishment regretted the deaths of German civilians, the truth is actually rather more insidious. Rather than the German civilian deaths being regrettable, it was actually mostly the War Cabinets ultimate goal.

Whilst the Luftwaffe for the most part used day-time raids for accurate attacks on legitimate targets like airfields, shipping and radar towers, the RAF were bombing in the dead of night on highly populated areas, albeit in the pursuit of hitting legitimate targets. As the weeks went on however, the losses the Luftwaffe was suffering with did mean some bombing operations were now taking place at night. In the early hours of the 24th of August, a small number of German bombers dropped their bombs over a London suburb killing a number of civilians. There are still debates about whether or not this attack was accidental or not, but judging by the small number of bombs dropped, it seems unlikely that Londoners were the deliberate target. This situation seems to have been the catalyst that enabled the British war cabinet to unleash attacks on Berlin without any real consideration for, or premise of finding legitimate targets once over Germany. On the 25th of August, the RAF sent around a 100 aircraft to bomb Berlin in retaliation for the handful of He111s which had dropped bombs on London the day before. 

Despite the Luftwaffe's attempts to minimise civilian casualties, the RAF bomber command had a totally different strategy up until that point in late August 1940. Granted, civilian deaths had taken place on both sides of the conflict, but you have to consider the fact that it was the German forces that were launching day-light raids throughout most of the Battle of Britain whilst the RAF had launched attacks inefficiently at night-time. You cannot really compare the daylight carpet bombing of an airfield, or a precision strike from a Stuka on a radar base with that of random night-time raid over a populated area.

Although the plan adopted by the Luftwaffe early September had mentioned attacks on the population of large cities, detailed records of the raids made during the autumn and the winter of 1940–41 does not suggest that indiscriminate bombing of the civilians was intended. The points of aim selected were largely factories and docks. Other objectives specifically allotted to bomber-crews included the City of London and the governmental quarter round Whitehall.

~Basil Collier

Churchill and his advisers like Frederick Lindemann became blood thirsty in their vendetta against not the National Socialist state, but the German people themselves. The tactic for Allied bombing was not to directly bomb the enemy factories, but instead to bomb the residential area where the factory worker lived, thus creating not only disruption to the factory but also a psychological element against the local communities, and the disruption caused by the need to dig out and relocate the survivors from such attacks.

‘I am in full agreement [with terror bombing]. I am all for the bombing of working class areas in German cities. I am a Cromwellian – I believe in slaying in the name of the Lord!’


~Sir Archibald Sinclair, Secretary for Air.

Beliefs like Sinclair's were not uncommon in the War Cabinet and bomber command, and the process of wiping out entire residential areas by Allied bombers only got more prolific and efficient throughout the war.Throughout the Battle of Britain, the British Government went out of their way to create a situation where civilians on both sides of the war paid the price for the ineptitude of their statesmanship. Over the course of three months, they eventually goaded Germany into retaliating with indiscriminate attacks on London and other English cities for two reasons. Firstly, to create a war-frenzy in the British people and in sympathetic countries such as America and secondly, to use British civilians as a form of shield for the RAF and war factories. It it often quipped that had the Luftwaffe continued its campaign against key military targets instead of swapping to 'the blitz', that the Royal Air Force would have been defeated and Operation Sealion a legitimate concern the UK.

‘Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones... Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany... there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany... We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland... Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves.’ 


~J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated.

The real cynical realisation is that the good vs evil mantra portrayed by mainstream history, media and even the education system is still totally falsified. We believe we won the Battle of Britain through grit and determination, the underdog succeeding on its own merit where little hope remained, but if the truth about the mentality of our leaders at the time ever became known by the majority, 75 years of propaganda would could come crashing down under the weight of the truth.

Whilst the war was totally avoidable, the civilian losses incurred by both sides in the war (and it has to be said, the German's losses far exceed our own) were even easier to negate had both sides been capable of restraint and diplomacy. The reasons why our own Bomber campaign during the Battle of Britain is seldom mentioned, and the role Fighter Command romanticised beyond all comprehension is merely to keep up the victim mentality. This victim complex to this day still brainwashes the World into believing'reprisal' attacks like those committed against Dresden and Berlin were justified, when in reality such actions could never in any way be considered morally defensible.

Once again, in writing this it is not my intention to belittle the efforts of those RAF servicemen who gave or risked their lives in defence of their country. Or even those bomber crews who no doubt were tricked into believing that what they were doing was justified. My intention is to put the record straight, to point out that Governments lie and also to point out just how powerful propaganda can be even several decades later.

Zio-Feudalism

It seems the UK has been utterly and undeniably flanked on all sides by globalist interests, wealthy banking families and corrupt politicians. We are well and truly hemmed in, and if I'm allowed to be completely pessimistic, it seems like there is going to be no escape from the increasing rot that has gripped an entire global civilisation.
Now, you may be thinking I'm being paranoid, thinking negatively or spouting a load of old shit, but you only have to look at the world around us to see that this is no longer a case of 'if' we become a dystopian society, but to what degree that we do. 
Increasing food prices, reduction of state pensions (whilst increasing how long we work for.) Reduction in wages, (when you take into account relative loss to inflation) attack on liberties, attack on judicial process, the attack on the right to protest, constant attacks against firearm and weapon ownership. The list goes on and on.

Put simply, I would say that the UK and all of the other Western nations are at the end of their lifespan as a free society. Even the notion of true sovereign Governments is clearly at risk now, you only need look at what happens when a nation goes against globalists interests (like Gaddafi's Libya) to see that this is the case. Put simply, we are approaching Neo-feudalism. A technocratic form of global Government that seeks to micro-manage every aspect of our lives. Cleverly disguising itself as a free society, when in actual fact the rampant consumer society is the very product of our domination. If you break down society with a Marxist doctrine whilst the public are distracted by mindless entertainment, you can slip in messages that counter traditional values whilst making it appear 'fun' and common until it does indeed become the 'pop-culture', the modern day hive-mind.
It would be easy to call this new system fascist, but fascism generally supports its own citizens. It's certainly elitist, and when you can no longer ignore the fact that this domination is overwhelmingly coming via usury debt, there is only one answer. This domination is the result of Zionism. A truly racist and elitist philosophy which has swayed British and American politics for at least the good part of one and half centuries. 

Suppression of the Proletariat

McDonalds' is now in the top ten companies
 to workfor in the UK.Desperate times!

If you are lucky enough to have a half decent job, chances are high that over
the past few years you have received a relative pay-cut when you take into consideration rising inflation. Seems very few people have received a substantial pay rise since the 2008 financial crises because of the uncertain markets. Of course if you are on minimum wage, it does occasionally go up, but this only has a knock on effect that increases the inflation rate - and thus the pay rise is worth less within a year or so. As the inflation rate increases, and less people are getting pay rises, what is happening is a strange concertina effect where more and more people end up on the minimum wage. 
In the UK the Government has recently announced that they are cutting tax, cutting social support and increasing minimum wage up to £9 per hour. The current minimum wage is £6.50. Whilst this may seem brilliant for those already working on minimum wage, the draw back is that if you're currently on £9 an hour for doing something semi-skilled, you run the risk of being on the same wage as someone who works in McDonalds. Then there is the feedback loop, if you like, whereby the inflation pushes those wages down anyway, and without the income support which the Government wants to get rid of, it means a larger portion of the population end up in poverty. The cut backs to social care is often to referred to as 'austerity', which is basically Newspeak (look it up if you don't understand) which means to create more poverty, and maximise revenue for bankers and corporations.
 
If you're middle class, you're already being hammered from both sides, with 50% tax rate on the one side, and minimum wages increasing on the other, that decent job you aspired too and went to college for ends up paying less and less. Its the irony that in many cases there is literally no incentive (financial at least) for trying to better yourself. The only positive behind the current Government plans is that it prompts those who are quite happy to sit and contribute nothing to society to go and find work. The draw back being that the corporations which guide Government policy do not want everybody employed. Keeping a surplus in the labour market helps create work market competition, and like any market, saturation reduces its net worth. This is why our Governments have pushed immigration (or are seemingly reluctant to act on.)
Of course, in the UK and indeed most of the Western Civilisation, the soft touch towards immigration control has been supported by both the hardline socialists, and centre-right conservatives and has had a knock on effect with regards to the jobs and labour markets.
The liberals are useful idiots in regards to immigration. They are used through proxy organisations (like Common Purpose for instance) to fuel a wider push towards globalisation, which the capitalist center-right then use to make huge amounts of money off of. Easy peasy, order from chaos. The far-left motive is about breaking down the national indigenous culture or any form of traditional value, it is some form of utopian agenda which seeks to wipe out all notions of race or culture. Ironically they do it under the pseudonym of 'diversity', despite actively fighting for the amalgamation of all cultures into one indefinable mess.

Again what is ironic about the whole Marxist attitude is that they generally say that they're against corporate globalists, but they seem totally blind to the fact that they are themselves being used by them. Immigration is what globalisation looks like in the West. Its a part of the same global agenda that oversees the mineral pillage in Africa, or the industrialisation of China. A society with no identifiable culture (or race) is easier to control, and easier to isolate individuals away from traditional support networks. This is another reason why the idea of the nuclear family is under constant attack. In this new world, they want the state as your family, and your community.
The whole idea that immigration was 'good for our economy' was of course complete bullshit.  Flooding a country with thousands of workers who will do a days wage the rest of us wouldn't entertain forced us into the situation where today people will fight for a job flipping burgers. Neither does it address the long-term strategic view of housing or the costs of infrastructure with an ever increasing population. In the UK we now stand at a precipice where all public infrastructure looks to be collapsing under our feet. I think it's fair to ask at this point whether we can say stability can ever be reached again.
There is yet another reason for wage suppression though, which again, the liberals would have a field day at me for even daring to mention. That is Feminism. Now I'm not saying it's wrong for women to have the same legal

Feminism was originally
meant to expand materialism
out to the women, and promote
women employment.

rights as men, this isn't what I mean, but there is a negative argument in the belief that all women should be working. It was back in the 1920's that the idea of feminism was promoted by corporate powers, especially in America. They saw that most of the spending was only coming from men, and they realised they could extract more money out of the public if the women also had their own disposable income. After WWI, and later on after WWII, the labour potential in women working in factories became obvious. So whilst Rockefeller and others promoted and funded organisations working for women's rights, they also began targeting women with advertising, one of the most obvious being tobacco ads. Fast forward to today and its safe to say that the vast majority of advertising is aimed at women, and is interesting to note that through general attitude changes since the 1950s, it is generally the women now who are in control of the household finances.

Today in most households, women no longer work for some pocket money, but out of necessity. Like the effect of immigration, a society where both partners go out to work has created a relative wage decline to the point where the couple both work for what would previously have been equal to one person's wage. To make things worse, the modern third wave feminists who push the idea that to be a mother and homemaker is somehow derogatory, have ironically destroyed femininity itself and made society more hostile to womanhood and therefore are themselves unwittingly supporting corporate or financial institutions interests, not to mention the Fabianesque cultural Marxist directives.

Finally on this point of suppression of workers, we have to question the very act of financial lending. Why is it that credit cards became such an integral part of our lives? Why are loans so easy to get? Why is store credit even easier to get? Lending is so attractive to this modern system because it takes away the power of your money from you and gives it to financial institutions. For many people, because of low wages, it becomes nigh impossible to save for anything, therefore instead of always being in the black, you are constantly in the red - and therefore you continually pursue the hamster wheel mentality of working for a better life that you unfortunately are unlikely to ever have. This ties in totally with the consumer based, entertainment society. The old maxim of 'bread and circuses' certainly becomes apparent. You want new stuff? That's fine, you can have it, but your penance is that you have to work two jobs just to survive and own that new set of furniture. Or that new iPad. If we just realised that actually, most of the time the stuff we want is not actually needed we could pay off all our debts and live relatively stress-free, albeit without the newest iPhone.

Unfortunately marketing has gotten so good now at programming our brains, that it convinces us that we need utter shite to be happy in life.  General theme then is:

Inflation rates makes us poorer whilst it influences firms to pay unfair wages. This ultimately leads to a worker class which is happy just to have found work, no matter how degrading the place is to their staff or how chronically awful their wage packets are at the end of the month. This is exacerbated by immigrant work forces who will work for less, and thus drag down wages for everyone.
 
If you're a 'high' earner, earning over forty-odd thousand, you are hammered by a 50% tax rate, yet if you're a multi-millionaire who knows how to, and can afford to play the system, you essentially pay less tax percentage wise than anyone else in society. If you're born into a working or middle class family, unless you get lucky it seems there is little chance of ever really bettering yourself, or at least ever getting rich. What is worse is that with the long-term upward creep of minimum wage and a saturated work market, it is meaning that the middle class is getting hammered more than anyone, and the whole system is aimed at keeping the general public down whilst protecting the wealth of the elite. It is a scheme which amounts to a form of modern day slavery, but one which has the illusion of freedom because we can still choose who we work for, where we live and what car we want to drive.

Legal Rights

Obviously, if you know anything about the EU, you will know what its European system of law is currently doing to our British Common Law based legal system. Well, it's essentially destroyed it.

Our legal system in the UK was arguably the jewel of our society, our Bill of Rights influenced the American Constitution and was the major base for all other Anglo-Saxon freedoms. Or at least perceived freedoms. It was the basic promise that a subject would not be subjected to threats of intimidation or charged without fair trial. England even banned the use of torture in 1640 because it understood that it brings about false confessions for instance, which for the time was pretty outstanding. 
With the European system marching in over the years we now have fixed penalty notes, on-the-spot fines, trials without jury, kangaroo family courts, and daily threats coming from all forms of authority both in person and in state propaganda. The outrage here is that there is apparently no presumption of innocence anymore with any criminal case. Add into the mix that in the UK they've recently cut back on legal aid and citizens advice for the public, and you really do get a sense of the broader picture. The worker class is the new serfdom.

If you're a serf, you can't have opinions that counter the zeitgeist of the political landscape either. People are being arrested and tried for saying things or posting their opinions online everyday. Fortunately it's something that I've somehow avoided so far. Generally though, society seems to think these arrests are justified. Probably because the media has gotten so good at twisting things and providing top class propaganda that the mentally weak don't presume some form of agenda on the Governments behalf.

Do I agree with posting up sick videos on facebook? No. Do I think someone should have to do a five year stretch because it may offend someone? Erm, no definitely not. It takes all sorts in life, and just because someone seems to have an unhealthy obsession with gore, I should hope a judge would not see fit to ruin someones life for it. So called "Racist, sexist or homophobic" people now seem to be the new witches to throw on the pyre in the name of modern society - the irony that these people are now being discriminated against is conveniently ignored.

Another big one in the UK especially, is that it is practically illegal to defend yourself, your loved ones or your property, and even more 'wrong' to use a firearm to those ends. It is interesting to note that in Anglo-Saxon times, any freeman or woman were allowed to carry with them a Seax (short-sword) at all times. Only those people who were considered slaves could not own a weapon and the punishment for a non-freeman owning or possessing a weapon was usually a public beating. These days we are slightly more 'cultured', so we no longer have to endure the public beating, but we do still suffer the abuse of a society which places the rights of criminals above the right of citizens to defend themselves and their homes. What is worse is the criminal conviction merely for possessing a knife or weapon. 

I tend to hold the view that the Government does actually see us all as Serfs these days, and therefore being common peasants we are not given the rights to defend ourselves and property because, well because quite frankly in the broad scheme of things we don't own anything. We merely borrow it from the Government for a while, and the Government's wealth is intrinsically linked now to the Zionist banking interests. (Look up who actually owns your car and who gets an estate if no one leaves a will after death, etc.) 

I'm not going to argue gun crime statistics and whether they should or should not be in the hands of civilians, that is far from the remit of this article - but ask yourself, in a free society would you have to justify why you needed a pen knife in your pocket if you were stopped and searched by your local Bobby? One of the biggest ones that we should all be concerned with though, is the banning of protests. What kind of free society dictates that in order to protest against the state, you must organise it... with the state. Its bizarre that people think this is totally normal.

Corporo-Marxism

You maybe wondering how on Earth rampant capitalism-turned-corporatocracy and social Marxism are combined. And what it has to do with Zionism? When you think of capitalism and communism, you would naturally consider the two systems diametrically opposed, however these two systems have inter-woven to create the current situation, and are walking side by side to form what is essentially a technocratic World Government.

If we boil it all down, Zionism is a a form of Supremacy. It uses something which they've always been good at (finance) to buy their way up Western civilization to the point now where they own the vast majority of world markets. Rockefeller, Rothschild etc, these international bankers use their financial power to pull strings and fund organisations across the World to use for their own ends.

Just to make the point, not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews, but, generally as a rule it is the Talmudic philosophy of control and domination of 'Goyim' (a derogatory word for non-Jews) which pushes this agenda forward. 
The Social Marxism comes in when we consider the other things we've just discussed, like wage suppression and so-on. The break down of traditional values, of family, of race, makes it easier and easier to dominate the population and control through media and financial means. The "utopian" world view of the lefties "post-racial, post-gender, anti-natural-order" is not about making mankind stronger, it's about making an even weaker coffee coloured serf race, with no definable culture or tradition - which makes it easy to control. The only nation which it seems does not get called out for for not taking in immigrants, or for not having an active 'progressive' policy is Israel. Because it is the Zionist state. If you question how much power Zionism has as an ideology, you need only look at how the very financial elites which Western leaders sucked up to, and made British and American politicians agree to the partition of Palestine, and the creation of the Zionist nation in the first place.
To be fair, in the case of Britain this Zionist, financial power has existed since the time of William the Conqueror, and the various attempts to rid England and later Britain of this has been undone a few times such as with the Parliamentarian Cromwell. As of Napoleonic times, the international banker has held huge amounts of power in Britain and subsequently across the commonwealth.

The future is not utopian under this regime. It is dystopian. This power, this entity, has managed to get its tentacles all the way into the UN, and it is now making international policies, like the global gay rights agenda and disarmament of civilians etc, all under the directive of Agenda 21 (that is, the UN's set agenda for the 21st century.) Right now it seems through the TTIP, they are merging North America with Europe, and assigning Corporations more political control. And this is just the start, this will spread across the globe and get worse and worse.

Whilst this has been written largely from the British perspective, the same mechanisms, albeit sometimes under different names, is at work in every developed nation right now. As corporations gain more power, the people will lose theirs - but under the newspeak lies of the media it will be packaged as something brilliant. There is in progress the creation of a hivemind, and with it comes the danger that all of this really is an endgame from which no-one can escape from. But we must at least try. Until enough people understand the communistic and capitalist systems are equally to blame for this situation, there is little hope of change.

Similarities Between White Plight And Wildcat Extinction

It is undoubtedly "racist" to note and differentiate between races on a genetic basis when it comes to Homo-sapiens, but it seems when the same definitions apply to wildlife it is quite acceptable to speak of preserving the purity a particular phenotype. 
Recently it has been reported that the Scottish Wildcat has as little as two years before they are effectively wiped out of existence, mainly through interbreeding with domestic cats, and there is an effort among conservationists to save the Wildcat from extinction. A noble cause indeed.

The original article about the Wildcat can be found here.

The general background is that Scottish Wildcats are mating with domestic cats, and where domestic animals are in far greater number than their wild companions, there is a problem with increasing hybridization until finally there will be no more 'true'wildcats left, save for some retention of the genes in the hybrids.
So I presume there will be those reading this and wondering how European people fit into a story about Wildcat extinction. Well the strange thing is that there are many aspects of this which echo the plight of the indigenous peoples of Europe, except most liberals will fail to see this or will straight up contradict proven science in order to uphold political correctness.

It is a widely accepted documented fact, that White Europeans will become a minority in much of Europe before the end of this century, and will probably cease to exist at all in the next two or three centuries. The same of course probably applies to many other groups of people who are either emigrating out of an area, or who are also receiving large numbers of migrants themselves. This is just one of the many negative effects of globalisation. Needless to say however that it is predominately white nations to which most of the Third World and Middle East currently flock to, and are being outnumbered in ever exponential terms.

The liberals 'perfect family'.

There is a very fine line between race and species, one which is presumed to be broad by most of society because it makes general classifications easy. To say that a white man and a black man are completely equal is an insult to the nature of evolution and it's ability to adapt to an environment. It should not be racist to say that generally speaking, Africans can run faster than Europeans, or that Europeans can swim faster than Africans, or that generally speaking those from the Far East have greater IQ's than those from the rest of the world. Yes, they are stereotypes, but stereotypes can only exist after a realisation of trends. We need only look at the Olympics' track and field events to see that there is an obvious advantage that African's have over their European rivals. So clearly, there are some intrinsically different physical and biological differences between the races as documented by simple analysis of the world around us and the application of common sense. Different human races can obviously breed and produce fertile offspring, but so can a plethora of other flora and fauna that is traditionally seen as being a different species. Wildcat is one, interestingly most of the species of wild and domestic dogs can all inter-breed and produce fertile offspring. If you want to get very technical, you could argue the Eurasian population differs greatly from the African in that we still have neaderthal ancestors whilst that gene does not exist in the Sub-Saharan.


So, taking this on board there is no difference biologically speaking with the plight of the Scottish Wildcat which is being bred out of existence by invading domestic cats, and white Europeans being out-bred by immigrants from the Middle East who have three times as many children. The situation is also acerbated by the mainstream media which puts out the message that mixed race families are somehow superior or are desirable as some sort of fashion statement. The argument that the left come up with as a defence is an emotional one. The left does not draw on facts, they do not draw on what is actually beneficial for humanity - their only concern is about perpetuating left-wing politics and silencing any attempts to question their plans of a naive utopia.

Why is it therefore acceptable to say to 'racists' that race is simply a social construct, that it doesn't exist, that the 'melting pot' is a good thing, when there is clearly a desire and noble cause to save sub-species such as the Wildcat from extinction. Despite what this BBC article has said, the Wildcat population will live on in the genes passed on to its young when interbreeding with domestic cats, so why this concern for these wild animals, and not the concern for the European man and woman which like the Wildcat is facing utter destruction at the hands of foreign encroachment into its home environment?
I'm not saying that races of humans are different species, far from it, I'm simply making the point that some animals that are traditionally seen as being of a different species actually aren't - and this draws home the point. If domestic dogs were breeding with and diluting the coyote population we would no doubt see efforts to protect them. In Scotland they currently are with the Wild cats, so why are human races not being given the same right to exist? This isn't about saying one race is better than the other, it's simply a case of ensuring that nature's variation which took tens of thousands of years to achieve is preserved. The coffee-coloured utopia that's presented by the new liberal elite is dangerous because it is essentially like putting all of our genetic eggs in one basket - it's never been done before and makes us at risk for various reasons. I would like all cultures preserved ideally, and as much true diversity kept as possible.

But of course, I'm just a racist Wildcat supremacist...

Das Intro

Hello and welcome to Bogglecast, a joint blog and podcast based in Essex in England. We may well be the podcast which uses the most vulgar language, but don't let that put you off, we're going to be discussing stuff which we think is important. Or funny. Or stuff that we might just take the piss out of. In any case, give us a listen and you will not be disappointed. (Well, you might be. You may also be offended too. Not our problem.)

We started looking into podcasting back last year in 2014, had a few initial experiments which we've subsequently hidden from public view due to our own embarrassment, but due to work commitments and distance apart we decided to put the project on the back-burner. Now that we're all a little more sorted time wise, and all living within a parsec of one another, we're giving it a second chance.

Hard to say exactly what we're going to be discussing over the next months or (hopefully) years. It depends on what is going on in the world I suppose, but generally we'll be giving a social commentary. The world seems to have lost an opposing voice, and we are that voice of opposition! Or something.

The Bogglecast team are all a bit... different. We're all in our mid to late twenties and we're a bit out of kilter with the modern zeitgeist. We kind of hate this new liberal world that is being built around us, and the changing character of England, our country. We especially dislike political correctness, and the idea there are certain things which we aren't supposed to say. So, if you're looking for a refreshing discussion where nothing is held back, give us a try.

The blog side of things will be mostly moderated by myself, Binx. I enjoy writing, have had blogs in the past and will basically post anything on here which I feel maybe of interest to others. Past posts on other blogs have included history, politics or paranormal stuff, so there's always something random being researched here.

We're also keen to do some bits for charity, and get about in the local Southend-on-Sea community. We love computer gaming, although that is in no way going to be our focus on this blog/podcast, and love getting out there and doing stuff too.

Soon we'll do a team introduction, and begin our first proper recordings. Until then, thanks for the interest, and see you around! All of posts etc will have comments made public - if you want to get in contact with us don't hesitate, leave your abusive or messages of love for us to find and you will receive a like-for-like reply.