|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
Today (23rd) is St George's day
Patron Saint of England, although about 25 per cent of the population have never heard of him and flying his flag is deprecated by Tony Bliar and his cronies who don't want to upset any recently arrived non Christian Fundamentalist potential voters. But in case you did not know, England's Flag, the Cross of St George, is represented by the broad red cross on the white ground in the piccy below. The Union Flag (Jack) in the upper left quadrant turns the flag into the Royal Navy Battle Flag, the same flag that Nelson proudly flew at Copenhagen and Trafalgar. http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/514...lensign8zs.png And if such a significant portion of the population have no knowledge of who the Patron Saint of England is, and an even more staggering portion of the population have no notion of when his Saint's Day is celebrated, it's high time they cancelled the current heritage crap they teach in the schools in favour of more traditional values. And Shakespeare, whose birthday also falls today, would be more than happy to see the "God for Harry, England and St. George" speech from Henry V. performed again in theatres across what remains of England and the British Nation. Never in the 400 plus years since Drake's death has the Nation stood in greater need of some valiant Nationalist like Nick Griffin to make the pilgrimage to Plymouth to Beat the Hell out of Drake's Drum http://www.paranormality.com/drakes_drum.shtml http://www.bartleby.com/103/41.html in the -- Davey on the Road |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
Davey Crockett wrote: Today (23rd) is St George's day Patron Saint of England, although about 25 per cent of the population have never heard of him and flying his flag is deprecated by Tony Bliar and his cronies who don't want to upset any recently arrived non Christian Fundamentalist potential voters. But in case you did not know, England's Flag, the Cross of St George, is represented by the broad red cross on the white ground in the piccy below. The Union Flag (Jack) in the upper left quadrant turns the flag into the Royal Navy Battle Flag, the same flag that Nelson proudly flew at Copenhagen and Trafalgar. http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/514...lensign8zs.png And if such a significant portion of the population have no knowledge of who the Patron Saint of England is, and an even more staggering portion of the population have no notion of when his Saint's Day is celebrated, it's high time they cancelled the current heritage crap they teach in the schools in favour of more traditional values. And Shakespeare, whose birthday also falls today, would be more than happy to see the "God for Harry, England and St. George" speech from Henry V. performed again in theatres across what remains of England and the British Nation. Never in the 400 plus years since Drake's death has the Nation stood in greater need of some valiant Nationalist like Nick Griffin to make the pilgrimage to Plymouth to Beat the Hell out of Drake's Drum http://www.paranormality.com/drakes_drum.shtml http://www.bartleby.com/103/41.html in the -- Davey on the Road Hey Davey I'm really not sure haven't stopped making the men & women here in the west that would be there for the call and the fight after. More likely they'd be busily negotiating and soul searching when they were overrun and the only race would be to see who could surrender first. Todays mottos are better red than dead (insert any replacement for red that occurs), and Better to live a slave than die a free man. Long Live John Bull Bill C |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
Bill C wrote: Davey Crockett wrote: Today (23rd) is St George's day Patron Saint of England, although about 25 per cent of the population have never heard of him and flying his flag is deprecated by Tony Bliar and his cronies who don't want to upset any recently arrived non Christian Fundamentalist potential voters. But in case you did not know, England's Flag, the Cross of St George, is represented by the broad red cross on the white ground in the piccy below. The Union Flag (Jack) in the upper left quadrant turns the flag into the Royal Navy Battle Flag, the same flag that Nelson proudly flew at Copenhagen and Trafalgar. http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/514...lensign8zs.png And if such a significant portion of the population have no knowledge of who the Patron Saint of England is, and an even more staggering portion of the population have no notion of when his Saint's Day is celebrated, it's high time they cancelled the current heritage crap they teach in the schools in favour of more traditional values. And Shakespeare, whose birthday also falls today, would be more than happy to see the "God for Harry, England and St. George" speech from Henry V. performed again in theatres across what remains of England and the British Nation. Never in the 400 plus years since Drake's death has the Nation stood in greater need of some valiant Nationalist like Nick Griffin to make the pilgrimage to Plymouth to Beat the Hell out of Drake's Drum http://www.paranormality.com/drakes_drum.shtml http://www.bartleby.com/103/41.html in the -- Davey on the Road Hey Davey I'm really not sure haven't stopped making the men & women here in the west that would be there for the call and the fight after. More likely they'd be busily negotiating and soul searching when they were overrun and the only race would be to see who could surrender first. Todays mottos are better red than dead (insert any replacement for red that occurs), and Better to live a slave than die a free man. Long Live John Bull Bill C Don't think I'd pick Griffin to lead the way though if we are looking at the same one. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:23:14 +0200, Bill C wrote:
Hey Davey I'm really not sure haven't stopped making the men & women here in the west that would be there for the call and the fight after. More likely they'd be busily negotiating and soul searching when they were overrun and the only race would be to see who could surrender first. Todays mottos are better red than dead (insert any replacement for red that occurs), and Better to live a slave than die a free man. Long Live John Bull Bill C Don't think I'd pick Griffin to lead the way though if we are looking at the same one. The problem is, Bill, that there is terrible disorder in the British Isles currently and the current government, in the interests of retaining votes, is doing absolutely nothing about it. Any dissenters who even obliquely suggest that multiculturalism is an utter failure are branded "Racist" or "Nazi", but nevertheless many of the current problems stem from the failed multicultural experiment. It seems there are two sets of rules and the indigenous peoples get the shaft every time. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=21502 http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=878 http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=874 Nick Griffin may not be the best man in the world to tackle the problem, but he's all there is on the horizon currently, at least in the UK, and if press reports are reliable, he's picking up an awful lot of support from both traditional Labour and Conservative voters. -- Davey on the Road |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
Davey Crockett wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:23:14 +0200, Bill C wrote: Hey Davey I'm really not sure haven't stopped making the men & women here in the west that would be there for the call and the fight after. More likely they'd be busily negotiating and soul searching when they were overrun and the only race would be to see who could surrender first. Todays mottos are better red than dead (insert any replacement for red that occurs), and Better to live a slave than die a free man. Long Live John Bull Bill C Don't think I'd pick Griffin to lead the way though if we are looking at the same one. The problem is, Bill, that there is terrible disorder in the British Isles currently and the current government, in the interests of retaining votes, is doing absolutely nothing about it. Any dissenters who even obliquely suggest that multiculturalism is an utter failure are branded "Racist" or "Nazi", but nevertheless many of the current problems stem from the failed multicultural experiment. It seems there are two sets of rules and the indigenous peoples get the shaft every time. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=21502 http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=878 http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=874 Nick Griffin may not be the best man in the world to tackle the problem, but he's all there is on the horizon currently, at least in the UK, and if press reports are reliable, he's picking up an awful lot of support from both traditional Labour and Conservative voters. -- Davey on the Road We're having a lot of the same here. It really bothers me more for Britain though because of the long, proud history and contributions they have made that are being buried under a collective guilt trip that's been imposed on them. I feel the same way about Germany too. There's an indefensible 20 year period out of 1500 years of culture and contributions yet they have been beaten to death. The younger generation was finally showing signs of being proud to be German again when we left. It was a good thing to see. Bill C |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
"Bill C" wrote ...
contributions yet they have been beaten to death. The younger generation was finally showing signs of being proud to be German again when we left. It was a good thing to see. But then they go to Holland where they act like obnoxious Americans in Canada. And the Dutch love to hate 'em. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
Davey Crockett wrote: Any dissenters who even obliquely suggest that multiculturalism is an utter failure are branded "Racist" or "Nazi", but nevertheless many of the current problems stem from the failed multicultural experiment. I'd have to agree that the multicultural experiment in which a group of franco-scandinavian invaders ruled over a motley crew of germans and celts has certainly left the UK with its lot of problems: a bottom stratum of ignorant louts ruled over by a bunch of inbred effete snobs. Thank goodness the Paki and Africans are renewing the gene pool! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 02:35:40 +0200, Bill C wrote:
We're having a lot of the same here. It really bothers me more for Britain though because of the long, proud history and contributions they have made that are being buried under a collective guilt trip that's been imposed on them. I feel the same way about Germany too. There's an indefensible 20 year period out of 1500 years of culture and contributions yet they have been beaten to death. The younger generation was finally showing signs of being proud to be German again when we left. It was a good thing to see. I have been attending the Ernst Zundel trial at Mannheim, and but for the tragic comedy of someone being tried for thought crime because a spineless government bows to the zionist holoco$t lobby, the trial would be a better farce than Aristophanes' Lysistrata. What you have to understand at the outset is that Germany has no constitution. Instead, the BRD/Bundesrepublik has something called a "Basic Law" which is pretty Draconian. On paper, the BRD was installed in 1945 as an interim government that would expire as soon as the people would be able to elect a government to their needs and liking. Now this "Basic Law" unctuously proclaims on paper that Germany is a "democracy". It includes a lofty provision for Freedom of Speech and Assembly. However, the "Holocaust" is held to be so utterly "self-evident" that there has got to be an exception to prove a worthy rule, and therefore, a statute called Paragraph 130 was spawned. It is swung by obliging judges like a club against those who dare "sin" against anybody who, in parlance, who "defames the memory of the dead" and "incites the people" with questions challenging the Holocaust. "Legally", as Germany exists today, a defense based on facts and evidence that would show up the Holocaust as the concocted monstrosity it is, is utterly impossible - and immediately brutally clubbed down by judges who are willing to please. Attorneys who try to defend those who run afoul of Paragraph 130 by conducting themselves according to globally accepted standards of justice merely endanger themselves of contravening Paragraph 130. To paraphrase Orwell, all German people have free speech, but some have more free speech than others - just as nobody's dead must be defamed, but most can be defamed, as long as some are shielded. The charges are under various statutes, acts and protocols, and some unspecified upon which the judge refuses to elaborate. There are six attorneys making up the defense - three defense appointed, and three assigned by the government, ostensibly as "public defenders", whose duty is, as you and I surmise, to spy on strategy and move the trial to a speedy conclusion and conviction. Now it so happens that one of these three "public defenders" is Dr. Bock, a most distinguished, white-haired gentleman whom the defence consider as being on their wavelength due to his long and vigorous defense of other defendants who transgressed against Paragraph 130. That leaves two dismayed fellows who "don't enjoy the trust of Mr. Zundel," as it was pointed out by one of the Zundel attorneys in one of the hearings. They sit behind the main team, out of earshot, fuming! A young, attractive lady, Sylvia Stolz, is the lead Zundel attorney - a genuine Magnolia beauty hiding a spine of steel. From all I heard, Dr. Meinerzhagen, the judge in this trial, is no match at all against Attorney Stolz. She refuses to address him by title. He looks and acts apoplectic. When he talks, she talks, too - parallel. When he pulls the cord to prevent her from speaking, she turns around and addresses the audience directly. She is superbly unruffled and sweetly in control. She bests him with every move. To the glee of the courtroom spectators, Dr. Meinerzhagen has often ridiculously lost his cool. When an elderly woman laughed loudly at some of the point-counterpoint sparring, he ordered her up front and lectured an old lady as though she were a kindergartner. When one of Zundel's supporters called him a name that wasn't his name - comparing him to a notorious judge in those unmentionable times - he had the man arrested on the spot and thrown in jail for 4 days. When, after the hearing was over, a spontaneous Singing Quartet in the audience launched the first verse of "Deutschland über alles" - certain verses forbidden by Germany's vigilant censors, even though it is a song with a long, distinguished history that was not dreamed up by the Wicked Regime - Meinerzhagen fined the would-be Barbershoppers 200 Euros apiece - a fine that was immediately collected in the audience by disbarred Attorney Mahler passing the hat. The comedy goes on and on, from hearing to hearing, and it's tough to keep all the high points in the precise time sequence. Earlier in the hearings, Meinerzhagen objected to disbarred attorney Horst Mahler sitting behind Sylvia Stolz since he is disbarred currently. Stolz responded that he was merely an assistant and that she had "mistakenly" thought that she could choose anyone she liked as an assistant. The judge, however thought differently and Mahler removed himself back to the spectator area of the court room. [Mahler defended the Bader-Meinhof conspirators before becoming a little too closely involved in protest himself and serving a jail term] All this caused an uproar from the public provoking the judge to threaten to lock the public out. Stolz had requested a closed trial at one stage and this too was denied. The point being that any defense put up by the Zundel team, if made in open court, would render the lawyers themselves in contravention of Article 130, but a closed trial does not suit the purposes of the prosecution and it seems to Davey that attorney Stolz is reconciled to being prosecuted herself under that infamous article. Stolz at one stage accused the judge of not being impartial, a fact self evident to anyone in the court, and appealed to a higher court to remove him since he would not remove himself but that ruse failed too as expected. A couple of weeks ago Stolz was carried out of the courtroom. Attorney Sylvia Stolz had been excluded from the court , but she appeared in court and refused to obey the order of Judge Meinerzhagen. Thereupon, two female guards carried her out. As she was carried out she shouted "Seit 60 Jahren verzichtet das deutsche Volk auf seine Freiheit, sich selbst zu regieren. Diesem schlechten Beispiel folge ich nicht. Richter Meinerzhagen stehe in der Tradition der Nürnberger Prozesse, 'des Lynchens ohne Recht' ". [For 60 years, the German people have resigned themselves to the fact that they did not have the freedom to rule themselves. I am not following that bad example." Judge Meinerzhagen functioned in the tradition of the Nuremberg Trials, "a lynching outside the law."] There is absolutely no truth to the reports in some media that she shouted "Heil Hitler" as she was being removed. There is an appeal from Stolz' exclusion and more should be known this week. Surprisingly, the police and court officials seem very supportive of Zundel and there is a growing interest in the trial especially now that the cowardly Dutch have deported Siegfried Verbeke Stolz defends herself against Meinerzhagen’s personal attacks against her: On Behalf of the German Reich, Without Commission SylviaStolz, Attorney at Law Personal Response In the Criminal Case of Ernst Zündel District Court of Mannheim 6 KLs 503 Js 4/96 Following is my position regarding Dr. Meinerzhagen’s personal attacks on me, which occurred during the session of 16 February 2006 . Dr. Meinerzhagen has seen fit to present the extraordinary course of the main proceedings as the result of “unprofessional conduct” on the part of the defense attorney. He combined that with the explanation that the court intends to ascertain the possibility of removing me from the trial. With this explanation he intends to mislead the uninformed public about events in the Zündel trial. The chain of events described here began with my written Defense Brief dated 18 October 2005 . In this brief I outlined the basic lines of Mr. Ernst Zündel’s defense as I intended to develop them. I also requested a continuance of the trial until the Federal Constitutional Court makes its decision concerning the incompatibility of § 130 III StGB-BRD (Paragraph 130 Section III) “Incitement of the People in Form of Denying Holocaust” with individual rights guaranteed by the Basic Law. The criminal court has the responsibility of deciding the matter on grounds of factuality and legality. In their ruling of 7 November 2005 Dr. Meinerzhagen, Mr. Hamm and Ms. Krebs-Dörr rejected the motions which I had submitted. Misusing their positions of authority, they also disseminated serious slanders against me. Without considering the factual content of the defense brief of 18 Oct 2005 , they quoted portions of the brief out of context , thus perverting its meaning. They disqualified my presentation as “Incitement to Hatred Against Jews (§130 I Nr. StGB) and “Auschwitz Lie Presented in a Particularly Aggressive Fashion.” They went so far as to use the expression “Incitement against the Jewish population” to describe my reference to “die Richterschaft” (Page 3 of the ruling.) Neither presiding judges nor their spokespersons are authorized to censure a defense attorney on account of her motion or other conduct of the trial or to declare her conduct as culpable or unprofessional. It is not the role of the court to supervise the defense or to decide whether the defense is carrying out its duties properly. The attorney for the defense bears sole responsibility for that defense; she is an independent agent in conduct of the law. I could have disregarded all that. I am aware that I have broken the most rigidly enforced taboo in the intellectual landscape of politically correct “Western Values,” and I can endure the aggressions released against me by violating such taboos. What I can not tolerate is the proclamation by the above named persons that “under no circumstances” will they allow “discussion of criminal violations of Paragraph 130 Section I during the main trial.” They threatened to “vigorously reject every attempt by the defense to publicly disseminate incitement” (Page 3 of Ruling). By “publicly disseminate,” Dr. Meinerzhagen, Hamm and Krebs-Dörr are referring to my reading in the main trial, the evidentiary exhibits I had announced in my submission of 18 October 2005 . The law clearly prescribes such a reading, however. In the defense brief I had stated that in defending Mr. Zündel I would attack the “Offenkundigkeit des Holocausts” Manifest Obviousness of the Holocaust) as dogma put forth by Jewish organizations. I said I would prove with objective and scientifically verifiable evidence that this “Manifest Obviousness” has been illusory from its very inception. The above named persons were perfectly aware of the weight of my argument from the exhibits submitted with the Defense Brief, namely the book “Lectures on Holocaust” by Germar Rudolf and the evidentiary motion by attorney Horst Mahler, which he had also submitted in his own behalf during the Berlin Judaism trial. My Defense Brief also included references to the founding speech by the expert on national and international law, Dr. Carlo Schmid, before the Parliamentary Council on 8 September 1948, as well as references to Article 146 of the Basic Law and references to ongoing rulings by the Constitutional Court that reaffirm the continuing existence of the Reich. I also announced that I would submit evidentiary motions designed to prove the following: 1) The Federal Republic of Germany is not a nation or state, but rather, in Prof. Carlo Schmid’s words, an “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Domination” (OMF); that is, foreign domination that has not legitimate, but rather purely factual significance; 2) The main victor of the Second World War, by means of this apparatus of foreign domination and in continuation of its war of annihilation against the German Reich, is continuing to pursue its war aim, which is the annihilation of the German nation as a racially and intellectually comprehensive community. It is pursuing this war aim by means of psychological warfare, specifically and in particular with the “ Auschwitz cudgel.” 3) Consequently, the prosecution of the German freedom fighter Ernst Zündel constitutes a warlike act by our enemies, who are using the courts of the OMF-BRD as an elite troop against the German nation, specifically in the realm of Holocaust legislation. The signers of the court order dated 7 November 2005 are in fact declaring their intentions to keep these proceedings secret. In order to hide their true intentions, they are prepared to abandon legitimate criminal procedure and “muzzle” me by means of a court ordered obligation to present all motions in written form only, without benefit of reading them aloud before the Court. They would not have arrived at such a drastic decision if they had really believed that the arguments of the Defense were “ridiculous” and the attorney for the defense “out of her mind.” There is nothing they would have liked better than to see me make myself ridiculous with absurd arguments for which there is no documentary or forensic evidence. However, they now realize that this is not going to happen. They know that the arguments of the defense are factually irrefutable. In Paragraph 130, Section III of Penal Code, the court ruling of 7 Nov 2005 includes the contention that genocide of the Jews (called Holocaust) “is factually presumed” so that “every defense motion to prove this is disallowed” (Page 2 of ruling.) Let us put this statement to a little test. Given this tatbestandliche Voraussetzung (presumption that a criminal act has been committed), would not a judge still be required to rule in a Holocaust Denial case, even If he himself (possibly after reading a scientific study such as Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures on the Holocaust”) were convinced that the “Holocaust Industry” is a Jewish fabrication? Such a ruling would constitute a verdict against the truth as perceived by the judge. Any judge who issued such a verdict would be breaking his sworn oath, namely: “I swear to the best of my knowledge and conscience, to judge and to pursue no ends except truth and justice.” Would Dr. Meinerzhagen, Mr. Hamm and Ms. Dörr-Krebs (judges in the present Zündel trial) sign statements to the effect that in such a situation, they would judge and act in violation of the oath they took as judges? This would be extremely unlikely. The point to be made is: in reaching his verdict, a judge’s misgivings about “Holocaust” clearly constitute an obstacle to his deciding against conviction. When this happens in a trial, the efforts of the defense to create precisely this obstacle by means of scientifically verifiable evidentiary offerings cannot legitimately be suppressed as “alien to the defense.” A motion to present such evidence would in fact be the Königsweg (high road) to a verdict of “not guilty,” thus making it incumbent upon counsel to follow this very path. In view of this, do the above named jurists still persist in their illegal and unethical refusal to consider evidence? Do they prefer to leave it to chance and co-incidence, whether or not, on basis of his personal knowledge, a judge has doubts concerning “Holocaust?” The picture is rounded out by Dr. Meinerzhagen’s procedural disposition announced on 16 February 2006 concerning Selbstleseverfahren, the introduction of the collected texts of Ernst Zündel into the main proceedings. The court wants a “ghost trial,” a show trial carried out through secret proceedings, in which the public can learn absolutely nothing about what is really going on. From the very beginning, Judge Meinerzhagen has illegally directed the prosecution, repeatedly disrupted the main proceedings with his machinations, and brought the entire trial to the verge of collapse. His rulings to muzzle me were acts of despotic supremacy placing „den Makel der Nichtigkeit auf der Stirn“ (“branding my forehead with the Stigma of Invalidity.”) I hereby give notice that I intend to oppose to the limits of my ability this assault on the most hallowed principles of German criminal justice. When I circumvent the illegal rulings of Dr. Meinerzhagen and explain the efforts of the defense to the public, I am performing my duty and exercising the right to defend Ernst Zündel and the German Reich. Sylvia Stolz -- Davey on the Road |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
Jim Flom wrote: "Bill C" wrote ... contributions yet they have been beaten to death. The younger generation was finally showing signs of being proud to be German again when we left. It was a good thing to see. But then they go to Holland where they act like obnoxious Americans in Canada. And the Dutch love to hate 'em. Yep, and you should hear what the Germans say about the Brits and Americans...Personally, I think it's a youth/teen exuberance and freedom thing not a cultural thing. Though I have never heard anything bad about Canadian travelers, except lot's of bitching about "Blue Haired Snow Birds clogging up the damned roads" in Fla. ;-0 Bill C |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Happy St. George's Day - April 23
Jim Flom wrote: "Bill C" wrote ... contributions yet they have been beaten to death. The younger generation was finally showing signs of being proud to be German again when we left. It was a good thing to see. But then they go to Holland where they act like obnoxious Americans in Canada. And the Dutch love to hate 'em. Yep, and you should hear what the Germans say about the Brits and Americans...Personally, I think it's a youth/teen exuberance and freedom thing not a cultural thing. Though I have never heard anything bad about Canadian travelers, except lot's of bitching about "Blue Haired Snow Birds clogging up the damned roads" in Fla. ;-0 Bill C |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
North Bend, Washington Uni Day April 1, 2006 | SteveDeKoekkoek | Unicycling | 15 | March 28th 06 05:19 AM |
2nd Annual Rolling Trials Competition Rays MTB, Cleveland: April 8, 2006 | HardcoreCokerRider | Unicycling | 0 | February 10th 06 09:25 PM |
Happy Holidays | The Wogster | General | 4 | December 27th 05 03:51 PM |
San Diego Velodrome Swap Meet Sun April 10 | [email protected] | Racing | 4 | April 10th 05 05:07 AM |
Bear Mtn Spring Classic Saturday April 30 in Harriman State Park | John Forrest Tomlinson | Racing | 0 | February 7th 05 03:52 AM |