The home of real patriotic British people.
The independent nationalist voice in the UK.
The Red Rose County - Lancashire.
A cummerbund & Griffinite free zone.Nick Griffin wrecked the National Front in the 1980's and then he wrecked the British National Party when he hijacked the BNP in 1999.A blog that supported John Tyndall.
Richard
Edmonds: - National Front activist - former BNP national organizer
Francesco
Fontana: - veteran Italian nationalist
Stephen
Frost: - National secretary of the British Movement
Max
Musson: - longstanding nationalist - webmaster for Western Spring
Peter
Rushton: - Assistant editor of Heritage
and Destiny magazine
Jez
Turner: – former soldier – now chairman of the London Forum
Other
guest speakers to be announced on the day
This year’s John Tyndall Memorial meeting
is again being organized by Heritage and Destiny magazine and will be
held in Preston, Lancashire on Saturday October 10th at
1pm. If you wish to attend please call our office number(s) - 07833
677484 or 07747 373946 - for full details and directions to the
venue (which will be just outside of Preston City centre).
Doors open at 12 noon and meeting will start
at 1pm prompt. However, can you please aim to get to Preston
for between 11.30am – 12 noon as we will have two re-direction points (one
for those coming by car and the other for those using public transport) in
operation and we want to get everybody to the meeting venue in plenty of time.
There will be literature/merchandise tables from a number of different
nationalist groups at the meeting. If you or your group would like a free
merchandise table to sell your wares at the meeting please contact us ASAP
as space is now very limited.
We also need more raffle prizes, so if you
have anything you can donate to the raffle (or auction) please let us know – or
just bring it along on the day.
There will be a large buffet (including
vegetarian); cash-bar; raffle (with some great prizes), auction
and much more. So make sure you, your family and friends are free Saturday
October 10th and get yourselves over to Preston!
Those of you are coming by train/coach, please book up well in
advance, or else all the cheap seats will be gone. Likewise if you need overnight
accommodation in Preston, book now to get the best deals (call our
office for advice if need be). We understand that a number of meeting attendees
are staying in nearby Blackpool this
year, where there is a far greater choice of B&B and hotel accommodation,
so you may want to bare that in mind. If you are flying in the nearest airports
are Manchester and Liverpool, both have direct trains to Preston.
* For those wanting to make a night of it,
there will be an Evening Social, after the main meeting *
www.heritageanddestiny.com
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
1979 General Election - Rochdale constituency - John Tyndall speaks.
This old picture was almost accidentally destroyed today. So I am putting it on here to save the image for posterity.
This was the build up to the 1979 General Election when the National Front stood in over 300 Parliamentary constituencies. Rochdale was one of the parliamentary seats fought.
The speakers are from the left; Mike Cowley (?) Regional Officer for the North West NF. John Tyndall, standing and speaking,Chairman of the National Front. Peter Barker, Chairman of the meeting, Rochdale Organiser and Agent for the Rochdale candidate. David Riley, North West NF Regional Organiser. Harry Barker, Secretary of Rochdale NF, and acting secretary for the meeting.
The meeting was held in a local hall on Sandy Lane, Rochdale. Which has since been knocked down. It stood opposite the entrance gates of Spotland Stadium. Over 100 people attended the meeting on a wet dreary evening in Winter.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan – The Genocide of the Peoples of Europe
‘Few people know that one of the main initiators of the process of
European integration, was also the man who designed the genocide plan of
the Peoples of Europe. It is a dark person, whose existence is unknown
to the masses, but the elite considers him as the founder of the
European Union. His name is Richard Coudenhove Kalergi. His father was
an Austrian diplomat named Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi (with
connections to the Byzantine family of the Kallergis) and his mother the
Japanese Mitsu Aoyama. Kalergi, thanks to his close contacts with all
European aristocrats and politicians, due to the relationships of his
nobleman-diplomat father, and by moving behind the scenes, away from the
glare of publicity, he managed to attract the most important heads of
state to his plan , making them supporters and collaborators for the
“project of European integration”.’
Greater Manchester UKIP councillor urges David Cameron to make HIS council take fair share of refugees
Little Lever and Darcy Lever councillor Sean Hornby has
demanded Mr Cameron allow migrants fleeing persecution to be put up in
his Witney constituency
Sean Hornby
A UKIP councillor in Bolton - which houses nearly 1,000 asylum seekers - has written to prime minister David Cameron urging him to house a ‘fair share’ of refugees in his Oxfordshire constituency.
Little Lever and Darcy Lever councillor Sean Hornby, leader of the borough’s UKIP group, has demanded Mr Cameron allow migrants fleeing persecution to be put up in Witney.
According to Home Office figures, Witney has no refugees - nor does Chancellor George Osborne’s Tatton constituency or Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s Islington North patch.
Coun Hornby, who represents Little Lever and Darcy Lever, argues all councils should help ease Europe’s refugee crisis, with thousands fleeing worn-torn countries, including Syria, heading for Europe.
As the M.E.N. revealed earlier this month, there are now more asylum
seekers in Rochdale and Bolton than in all of the south east. Leaked
figures show there are around 1,050 in Bolton - and 1,070 in Rochdale.
Greater Manchester leaders have insisted they will continue to do their bit, but insist all authorities must pitch in.
In a letter to Mr Cameron, Coun Hornby said: “Anyone in their right
mind cannot fail to have some compassion for what is going on and
Bolton, over the last few years, has taken the second highest intake of
asylum seekers in the whole of the north west of England.
Today's top stories
“Indeed, for some time, Bolton has had the sixth highest number of
asylum seekers receiving housing of all local authorities in the UK.
“I am writing to urge you to insist that all councils across the
country should take on these poor victims in these terrible situations.”
The policy of national dispersals was introduced under the
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. But many have argued some town halls
are doing more than others.
Coun Hornby added: “Only 93 local authorities agreed with the
Blair/Brown government to participate in the dispersals - that is about
one in five.
“The aim of the policy was to introduce an equitable distribution across the country. Clearly this has not happened.”
A refugee flees Syria - and PM David Cameron
Coun Hornby suggested Mr Cameron could introduce emergency
legislation making all local authorities do their bit, rather than leave
it to a fifth of town halls to ‘take the strain’.
As of mid-August, there were more than 100 people living in hotels
across Greater Manchester while they waited for their refugee
applications to be processed - a situation branded a ‘farce’ by Rochdale
MP Simon Danczuk.
At the end of June, there were 5,216 asylum seekers in Greater Manchester - compared to 4,156 a year before.
Rochdale MP Mr Danczuk said the system was a ‘shambles’ and town
halls such as Rochdale and Bolton were shouldered with a ‘wildly
disproportionate’ number of asylum seekers.
The Home Office insists it ‘works closely’ with council chiefs to ‘ensure the impact of asylum dispersals are considered’.
Tories refuse to take part in 'party political' debate on refugee crisis
An emergency motion on the Syrian refugee crisis sparked a row at
Bury town hall - as opposition Tory councillors refused to debate the
issue.
Council leader Mike Connolly called on the government to take action
to help ‘desperate’ migrants fleeing persecution in the war-torn country
- reaffirming his commitment to Bury playing its part.
Coun Connolly, speaking at the authority’s latest full council
meeting, said, like other Greater Manchester leaders, the region is
prepared take a greater number of refugees if adequate resources are
provided to support town halls.
But opposition Conservative councillors refused to take part in the
debate over the ‘party political’ motion and chose to abstain when a
named vote was taken.
They complained they had not been given notice of the ‘emergency’ motion and had not had time to prepare a response.
Members argued it contravened the council’s constitution as the late motion followed a joint one from all three parties.
Conservative leader Iain Gartside said: “This is a party political
motion and we have been treated in the shabbiest way possible. We will
not be taking part in the debate.”
Mayor Stella Smith allowed the motion to go ahead, insisting the European refugee crisis was a ‘real emergency’.
Coun Connolly said: “It saddens me that the Conservative group have
taken the view that they have. If they are so hung up on procedure and
don’t care about Syrian refugees that is a real shame.” http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-ukip-councillor-urges-10084353
NWN: Neither Cameron, Osborne or Corbyn have, or will have to, take in any 'Syrian refugees'. I thought we were all in this together ?
Friday, September 18, 2015
UKIP's Farage meets with IRA
------------
Assembly Speaker McLaughlin met Farage during visit
Ukip leader Nigel Farage
18:05Thursday 17 September 2015
The Assembly has confirmed that
Ukip leader Nigel Farage met the Assembly Speaker during the Ukip
leader’s visit to Belfast on Monday.
Mr Farage was in Northern Ireland for an anti-EU rally
in Belfast on Monday night, but the MEP also met several senior
political figures during his time in the Province, including the Sinn
Fein MLA.
Mitchel McLaughlin
The Ukip leader was pictured with DUP leader Peter Robinson at Stormont Castle.
Mr Robinson publicised the meeting via Twitter, posting a
photo of himself and Nigel Dodds with Mr Farage and Ukip’s Northern
Ireland leader, David McNarry.
Mr Robinson said: “Between talks meetings, Nigel Dodds and I welcomed Nigel Farage and David McNarry to Stormont Castle.”
An
Assembly spokeswoman said: “The Speaker held a courtesy call to welcome
the leader of Ukip, Nigel Farage, to Parliament Buildings during his
visit to Belfast on Monday as he would routinely do in his
representational role with visitors from other regions and particularly
with representatives from other Parliaments.
“Mr McNarry MLA accompanied Mr Farage to the meeting.”
However,
rumours among some Ukip members that Mr Farage met Sinn Fein deputy
First Minister Martin McGuinness during his visit to Belfast are
incorrect.
A spokesman for Sinn Fein said that the political leaders had not met during Mr Farage’s visit.
NWN: McLaughlin was the IRA's 'mouthpiece' for many a year .Mind you, Farage was involved in the ridding of John Tyndall from the BNP together with Dr.Mark Deavin and Tony 'bomber' Lecomber plus Nick 'Traitor' Griffin. Many in UKIP will not be happy with this.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Yet another Jewish activist, Anetta Kahane, wants to destroy Europe via non-European immigration
German government cracks down on dissent against migrant influx
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
September 16, 2015
The German government and
Facebook are working with an organization led by an ex-Stasi agent to
oversee a new program that will identify “xenophobic” posts made on the
social networking website and punish people who make them with fines and
jail sentences.
The German Minister of Justice Heiko
Maas met with Facebook this week to form a special task force that will
work to remove comments from the website that “call for hatred” against
migrants.
The organization will be overseen by Network Against Nazis (Netz gegen Nazis), a group led by left-wing activist Anetta Kahane.
Although Kahane now describes herself
as an “anti-racist,” she was intimately involved in another dark period
of German history, working as a Stasi informant under the codename
“Victoria” from 1974-1982.
The Stasi, which liaised with the
Soviet KGB, was the official secret police of the former Communist
government of East Germany. Its role was to spy on the population and to
use its vast network of informants to hunt down political dissidents.
Numerous Stasi members were prosecuted for their crimes after the fall
of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
Last week, Chancellor Angela Merkelvowedto tackle “racist” comments made on social media sites, describing them as “sedition” and demanding that Facebook take action.
“25 years after the German
reunification, former DDR citizens, along with their West German
brothers and sisters, are to be monitored by former Stasi cadres,” notes
the German websitePI News.
A report inBildalso
confirms that ‘Network Against Nazis’, led by Kahane, will be involved
in monitoring Facebook for “racist” and “xenophobic” comments, as well
as “refugee-baiting” remarks.
Those found guilty will be hit with fines of around €5000 euros or 120 days in prison.
While European governments roll out
the red carpet to potentially millions of future migrants, authorities
are cracking down on dissent. Last week, an anti-migrant demonstration
set to be held in Warsawwas bannedon the grounds that it was “driven by out-of-place hatred.”
Anti-migrant sentiment is building
across Europe, partly as a result of the mainstream media’s failure to
report on the negative impact that the influx of unassimilated
foreigners will bring, as is documented in the video below.
“There landed yesterday at Southampton from the transport Cheshire
over 600 so-called refugees, their passages having been paid out of the
Lord Mayor’s Fund. . .There was scarce a hundred of them that had, by
right, deserved such help, and these were the Englishmen of the party.
The rest were Jews. . . . When the Relief Committee passed by they hid
their gold and fawned and whined, and, in broken English, asked for
money for their train fare.” Daily Mail, February 3, 1900
All of a sudden, ‘refugee’ is the most ubiquitous word in common
parlance. Every other housewife has become an armchair aid worker. Every
other college student has become an expert on geopolitics, migration
and ethnic conflict. Every other man has demanded his government do something.
And, of course, every dissenter from the binge on empathy has become a
“racist.” Although I have touched on the subject of pathological
altruism before (see here and here), I have to confess to being almost stupefied by the manipulative blitzkrieg
recently unleashed by the mass media and the controllers of culture, as
well as the astonishingly successful response it has provoked among our
people. My two closest friends, who share my worldview entirely,
recently confided that they too were stunned into despondent silence by
the sudden escalation of the demographic assault on European man. One
sent me a message stating simply: “This is it. The invasion has well and
truly started. This is the beginning of the end.”
Panic and pessimism aside, there is room for sober reflection on the
nature and context of what is currently transpiring across the West. We
may be aghast at these developments, but we cannot pretend to be
surprised by them. This latest demographic onslaught is merely the gross
acceleration of a process that has in fact been several decades in the
making. The invasion didn’t start last week, or last year. The invasion
started when we handed over power and influence in politics, the media,
education, and finance to foreign, treasonous and hostile elites. Unlike
previous invasions, the hordes now streaming into White nations aren’t
armed. They don’t have to be. The keys to our territories were handed
over many years ago, when we allowed the gates of our culture and the
minds of our children to be infiltrated by perfidious doctrines. The
territories the dark peoples are presently engaged in seizing are not
robust, cohesive White nation states. If they were, we could rest
assured that the invasion would fail. Unfortunately, the majority of
White nations are now characterized by apathy, cowardice, degeneracy and
wanton self-destruction. Following from that fact, there is little or
no resistance. The West has doused itself in gasoline for decades — now
is simply the moment of its self-immolation.
Advertisement - We Need You
One of the incapacitating factors behind the lack of resistance is
that oft-heard word: ‘refugee’. Shakespeare famously wrote that a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. To the rational and informed
thinker, an invader by any other name would sound the same alarm. But to
the sheep-like masses, the word ‘refugee’ has an almost mystical power:
it is provocative and emotive. It is morally compelling to a greater
extent than ‘immigrant,’ ‘migrant,’ or even ‘asylum seeker.’ It conjures
images of war zones, mass devastation, starvation, destitution, and
genocide. It isn’t so much a noun as a call to action, working
feverishly on the minds of media-incubated pathological narcissists who
live in search of new opportunities for virtue signalling. I lost count
of the number of people I encountered last week who were eager to
engage me in casual conversation on the fashionable topic of “refugees,”
and macabre images of drowned infants. The level of my ensuing disgust
was only matched by the level of their confusion when I attempted to
pull the wool from their eyes. Ask any one of these sleepwalkers some
searching questions about the extent of their knowledge concerning the
relevant politics, geography and sociology of the current crisis and you
will draw a blank every time. They want “fast-food” news and politics — bite-sized chunks that make them feel
intelligent and good about themselves, and of course, that’s exactly
what the media gives them. Don Marquis once observed that when you make
people think they’re thinking, they will love you — but if you really
make them think they will hate you. Ask them to sit down to a
five-course banquet of increasingly complex demographic, economic,
political and sociological themes and you will soon find that the
erstwhile bubbly conversationist has been replaced by a lethargic drone.
What they want are the quick and easy buzzwords and phrases that act as
approving signposts for what they perceive to be virtuous action:
“refugees,” “women and children,” “starving,” and “drowning.” Just don’t
tell them most of the migrants are male, that they have been filmed throwing away food, and that they often drown each other for tribal reasons.
When I wrote “Drowning in Altruism,”
now almost six months ago, I sensed that the manipulators of public
opinion were very keen to make drowning the emblem of the invasion of
Europe. This didn’t require any psychic or prophetic powers on my part.
As the article made clear, the level of exaggeration and
misrepresentation surrounding the drowning of illegal invaders indicated
that a high level of media manipulation was involved. Such emblems are
incredibly important in provoking moral outrage, and they have proven
the best and most enduring form of the Trojan horse. For over a century,
Jews have been highly adept at creating emotive emblems for their
alleged sufferings. Between 1880 and 1905, Jewish journalists and
community activists invented
the emblems of murdered babies and “hacked off breasts” in order to
present themselves as victims during what were essentially a series of
economically-motivated, low-level, inter-ethnic squabbles in the Russian
empire. It was during the mass exodus of Jews from Russia at this time
that the word ‘refugee’ first came to be used on a similar scale to what
we are seeing today. Under this label, more than 1.5 million Jews
gained relatively easy entry to the United States, with all of the
attending consequences. Mass Jewish migration to the West (1880–1910)
proceeded under many of the same lies cloaking the true motivations of
the current crop of “refugees.” These lies, succinctly expressed, amount
to the narrative that the “refugees” are fleeing large-scale violence,
as well as religious, political or cultural oppression. In both cases,
the lies cover the true nature of the migration — the mass movement of peoples for economic and material enrichment.
In modern scholarship, thanks to the work of non-Jews like John
Klier, the refugee narrative of the mass movement of Jews from Russia
has been declared unsustainable. It’s now commonly acknowledged by
scholars, but rarely publicized, that the pogroms were fictitious, the
oppression non-existent, and the mass migration economically motivated.
Yaacov Ro’i writes in Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union
that “a disproportionately large number of Jewish migrants to the
United States came from areas that were typified by economic depression
along with a low level of anti-Semitic violence. This indicates that
economic hardship constituted the main impetus for Jews to migrate
abroad.”[1]
Ro’i is still being disingenuous here. For “low level of anti-Semitic
violence” read “entirely untouched by violence or any form of social
disturbance.” In the MIT-published The New Comparative Economic History,
Leah Platt Boustan contributes a solid but not flawless piece titled:
“Were Jews Political Refugees or Economic Migrants? Assessing the
Persecution Theory of Jewish Emigration, 1881–1914.” Boustan states that
whereas earlier historiography was replete with accounts of babies
being roasted alive and whole villages razed, hard evidence has proven
that the two decades between 1881 and 1901 were actually “relatively
quiet for the Jews of Russia.” Boustan remarks that the main pressures
exerted on Russia’s Jews were those commonly associated with mass
migrations more generally: “rapid population growth and a possible
demographic transition, as well as urbanization, residential crowding
and ongoing industrialization.” After reviewing scores of data, Boustan
concludes that “the timing of Jewish migration, like that of other
migrations to the New World, responded to economic conditions. Jewish
migration was particularly influenced by the health of the United States
economy.”
Nothing, then, about the propaganda emblems that acted as a key to
unlocking the gates of the West. No apologies to the duped millions who
protested, donated, and agitated on behalf of their own future competitors.
Atrocity emblems accompanying mass population movement rarely have
any basis in fact. These movements are motivated much more frequently by
the banalities of human need and competition. In these mass migration
scenarios, areas experiencing population growth will produce a young
“transition cohort.” This large cohort crowds the home labor market,
lowering wages and increasing the net benefit of migration. Because the
home markets cannot manage their own growth, they export the surplus
cohort, presenting the intended destination countries with objective
social problems, prominently, but not exclusively, in the form of
competition for resources now experienced by the indigenous youth
cohort. In the United States c.1900 the impact of the Jewish cohort was
not felt immediately — it was felt most acutely for the
first time when the next generation came of age and indigenous White
youth were forced to compete with Jews for Ivy League places etc. The
competition was severe, leading to the introduction of the numerus clausus
and eventually the 1921 Immigration Act. However, native birth rates in
1900 were still of a sufficient level for the competition to actually
take place. By contrast, with declining birth-rates across the West, and
the world’s lowest in Germany, the importation of African and Middle
Eastern cohorts represent the incomparably worse scenario of wholesale
displacement rather than impending competition.
Political disquiet can be a convenient mask for the demographic and
socio-economic drivers of mass migration outlined by Boustan. While
there has been much talk about Syria as a zone of war and destruction,
little has been made of the fact that, like the Russian Jews in 1880, it
has one of the highest population growth rates in the world
(2.4%). In the seven least-developed of Syria’s 14 governorates, women
have between 3.8 and 6.2 children. Their fertility rates are not
expected to decline much in the next 15 years. In 2010, Nabil Sukkar, a
Syrian economist formerly with the World Bank, said
“We have a population problem, no question. Unless we cope with it, it
could be a burden on our development.” Sukkar said labor supply was growingabout
4.5 percent a year, due to rapid population expansion in earlier
decades, outpacing the capacity of Syria’s economy to create jobs for
the cohort of 250,000 young people arriving on the job market every
year. “Too big a population means a high burden on government services,
such as education, electricity and health care,” he said. “Perhaps in 20
years the growth rate will go down to 1.5 percent as in Egypt, but in
the meantime we do have a problem.” Since Syria is now exporting its
entire surplus cohort, Sukkar’s problem, like the similar one facing
Africa, is now Europe’s problem.
Like the migration of the Jews from nineteenth-century Russia, we now
face the immigration of people who are reproducing more prolifically
than us and who have outgrown the pace of their own economic
development. And like the migration of the Jews from nineteenth-century
Russia, we are being fed the lie that they are refugees. In “Myth and the Russian Pogroms”
I noted the importance of Jewish self-representations as “refugees,”
and the effect their use of emotive emblems via the media had on the
Western public mind:
Other major sources of pogrom atrocity stories were the New York Times, the Times (London), and the Jewish World. The Jewish World
furnished the majority of these tales, having sent a reporter “to visit
areas that had suffered pogroms.” Most of the other papers simply
reprinted what the Jewish World reporter sent them. The
atrocity stories carried by these newspapers provoked global outrage.
There were large-scale public protests against Russia in Paris,
Brussels, London, Vienna, and even in Melbourne, Australia. However, “it
was in the United States that public indignation reached its height.”
Historian Edward Judge states that the American public was spurred on by
reports of “brutal beatings, multiple rapes, dismemberment of corpses,
senseless slaughter, painful suffering and unbearable grief.”
Faced with entirely fictitious emotive emblems, Westerners flocked to
set up ‘Refugee Committees’ and other charitable organizations for
Jewish migrants, and many attended protests agitating for the easing of
immigration restrictions that inhibited the easy entry of the poor
victims. Sound familiar? Looking at the crisis we face today and the
hordes of duped White liberals, can we really see any difference?
More than a century separates the two “refugee” invasions — but so little has changed.
Of course, Jewishness and the concept of the refugee are intimately
bound up together. Like Jewishness, the concept of the refugee rests on
alleged victimhood, temporariness, flux and statelessness, as well as
heavy emphasis on Western guilt and moral obligations. Jewish
intellectuals have been at the forefront of both critiquing native
reactions to so-called refugees, and shaping the way “refugees” should
be seen by contemporary society. One of the best examples is British
refugee “expert” Professor Tony Kushner. In Remembering Refugees: Then and Now,
Kushner attempts to portray historical and contemporary “refugees”
(exclusively non-White), as victims of societies bent on harshly
misrepresenting them. He writes that “Refugees themselves, often, by
necessity and circumstances, marginal figures, rarely can shape the
dominant images others hold of them — especially as their representations are fashioned more by myth than reality.”[2] One could very easily substitute ‘refugees’ for ‘Jews’ to gain an insight into Kushner’s own self-concept.
More pertinently though, his entire argument is bankrupt. As
discussed above, Jewish ‘refugees’ from nineteenth-century Russia
expertly fashioned their own mythological representation as victims of
harsh and violent oppression, and found shaping the dominant images
others held of them rather easy. Similarly, the contemporary
Jewish-dominated media is making light work of shaping majority images
of the current population movement into the West, and the “refugees” are
the chief beneficiaries, rather than victims, of this process.
A Jewish Panegyric to “Refugees”
Kushner’s work is both a panegyric to the wholly-imagined
“contributions” of “refugees” and immigrants, and a bitter condemnation
of a Britain that imposed “draconian measures” against successive waves
of “desperate” victims. Kushner writes of an “open season” on asylum
seekers during the late 1990s, a period when Britain actually ushered in
the fastest rate of foreign immigration in its history, resulting in an
acute housing shortage and an ill-fated inflation of property values.
When not condemning Britain for refusing to open its doors to hundreds
of thousands of Roma Gypsies, Kushner teaches courses for White English
students on “Refugees in the Twentieth Century.” Rather tellingly, he
also teaches a course titled “The Making of Englishness,” which advances
the familiar Jewish argument that White nationalities and identities
are simply harmful, diseased, “racist” constructs which should be slated
for destruction if the world is to enter a better age. Demographic
dilution, if not total annihilation, is the surest way of weakening and
destroying a working sense of national and ethnic identity. Supporting
refugees, whether by political agitation, propagandizing their
fabricated tales to White students, or helping to mould and disseminate
their emotive emblems, thus fits the goals and aspirations of organized
Jewry very well.
In the United States, organized Jewry is working hard to get the
government to take in more “refugees,” and is using its own fabricated
“refugee” history as moral leverage for this activism. But the supposed
altruism of these Jews is as false and misleading as the “refugee”
history they continue to scam the masses with. Often these links are
organic. One of the most prominent Jewish organizations working to bring
Syrians to the United States is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
(HIAS), founded in 1881 to assist the masses of Jewish economic migrants
masquerading as refugees fleeing baby-roasting, breast-hacking
Russians. HIAS has come a long way from its days organizing protests on
behalf of the “persecuted Jews of Russia,” and it has chalked up many
successes in the effort to break up Western ethnic homogeneity. Along
with other Jewish organizations, it played a prominent role in
overturning America’s 1921 Immigration Act, opening the nation up to
vastly increased Third World immigration. In addition to its world
headquarters in New York City, HIAS maintains offices in Buenos Aires,
Djabal and Goz Amir, Chad, Nairobi, Quito, Ecuador, and Tel Aviv. Since
its beginnings, this organization has been party to the immigration of
more than 4.5 million individuals, the vast majority of them Jews and
non-Whites, to the United States and other White nations around the
world. And despite its high-flown rhetoric (“Welcome the Stranger; Protect the Stranger“), Leonard Glickman, former HIAS president and CEO, is quite aware that what his organization is doing is good for the Jews. As he once put it,
when asked why his organization was importing Somali Muslims: “The more
diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.” HIAS has had
remarkably little success in resettling non-Jewish refugees to Israel.
Traditionally, the United States has taken it upon itself to admit
half the refugees worldwide who are identified as being in need of
immediate resettlement. Experts anticipate that by the time the refugee
evaluation process is completed, some 400,000 will be recognized as
needing resettlement. This will present America with a request to absorb
200,000 Syrian refugees. But U.S. resettlement quotas now stand at
70,000 people total, from all over the world, per year. HIAS and Jewish
groups are asking to increase this quota to 100,000 per year.
Melanie Nezer, HIAS Vice-President, has appealed to the lachrymose and
mostly fabricated narrative of Jewish history, stating that: “As a
Jewish community, we understand what it means to be refugees without
getting any help. We would have been in a different place if the world
had stepped up then.” No mention of the millions of Jewish ‘refugees’
who gained easy entry to the West on a series of lies between the years
1880 and 1914.
Surveying these latest events I could only recall the old saying:
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” The patterns
we are seeing today are mere replications of older follies. Emotive
emblems, pathological altruism, a lack of long-term thinking, a complete
absence of rational analysis. We’ve been here before. We’ve seen the
same phrases and the same lies. The nineteenth-century Jewish invasion
of the West ushered in our cultural decline and a loss of control over
our political, economic, and spiritual destiny. The twentieth-century
multi-ethnic invasion of the West, which will continue long after the
resettlement of the Syrians, will usher in our demographic oblivion.
With horror we see the truth: We are refugees in our own lands. [1] Y. Ro’i Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union, (Frank Cass, 1995), p.37. [2] T. Kushner, Remembering Refugees: Then and Now (Palgrave, 2006), (p.1). http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/09/on-jews-history-and-refugees/
Information Updated: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:39:28 UTC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Luxemburg Seminar "State Refugee Policies and Counter Strategies"
Published on Apr 3, 2012
Rosa Luxemburg Seminar on 4 and 6 March 2012, Tel Aviv, Israel
co-organized by Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Israel Office and ASSAF Aid Organization for Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Israel
Lecture
by Bernd Kasparek (bordermonitoring.eu, Athens) on "Living Conditions
of Refugees in Europe & Political Strategies of Migrants' Rights
Activism"
By Jonathan Samuels, Sky News Correspondent, Lesbos, Greece | Sky News – 19 hours ago
Sky Finds 'Handbook' For EU-Bound Migrants
Refugees
heading to Greece on people smugglers' boats are given a 'migrants
handbook' packed with tips, maps, phone numbers and advice about getting
across Europe.
Among discarded life jackets and punctured rubber dinghies, Sky News
discovered a tattered copy of the unique travel guide washed up on a
beach on the Greek island of Lesbos.
The booklet's cover features a photograph of a young man on a beach at
sunset, looking longingly out to sea, with oars at his feet as he
prepares to make the treacherous crossing.
The 'rough guide' is written in Arabic and contains phone numbers of
organisations which might help refugees making the journey, such as the
Red Cross and UNHCR.
Among those behind the booklet is an organisation called w2eu, which means 'Welcome To Europe'.
Sonia, who did not want to give her surname, is a volunteer with w2eu
and told Sky News: "Activists from our network distribute the guides for
free in Turkey".
She explained one of the aims of the booklet is to help those who get into trouble on the water .
They can call a 24-hour hotline number provided in the guide, volunteers then pass their details to the relevant coastguard.
"We take information about how many people are in the boats if they get into trouble" she said.
"It's a life-saving service we give to refugees. They are going to go anyway, so it's better if we give them advice."
Arabic speaker Sonia takes calls from her home in Austria and is one of a number of volunteers.
"We are a big group of about 100 people" she said. "We are based across Europe and North Africa."
The pocket-sized guide has a handy map of Europe detailing the areas boats tend to land in.
Marked in red are what it describes as "detention/reception/screening sites".
On the back page are photographs of sun-drenched Greek islands, the
main port on Lesbos, Mitilini, and a smiling man alongside the caption:
"When I arrived at the shores of Mitilini I came to understand that I am
no child anymore."
W2eu's website says "We welcome all travellers on their difficult trip
and wish you all a good journey - because freedom of movement is
everybody's right!".
It goes on to say they aim to offer contacts and counselling to
refugees and migrants: "At the outer borders of Europe, people are
refused entry, they are imprisoned and deported.
"Nevertheless people are coming. W2eu.info is supporting you who come to Europe in your struggle for a better life".
Winston the spendaholic: He teetered on the brink of bankruptcy and
was saved by secret backhanders. Yet a new book on Churchill's finances
reveals he spent £40,000 a year on casinos and £54,000 on booze
Churchill spent most of his life swimming in a mountain of personal debt
Gambled equivalent of £40,000 a year on holidays to the south of France
Had £54,000 bill from his wine merchant, including £16,000 for Champagne
Secret benefactor gave him £1million in 1940 as he became Prime Minister
The
confession was a startling one, in light of the great man he became.
‘The only thing that worries me in life is — money,’ wrote Winston
Churchill, then aged 23, to his brother, Jack. ‘Extravagant tastes, an
expensive style of living, small and diminished resources — these are
fertile sources of trouble.’
Indeed
they were. For the qualities that were to make Churchill a great war
leader came very close to destroying him time and again during his
career, as manic optimism and risk-taking plunged him repeatedly into
colossal debt.
In
the Thirties, when he was a married man with four dependent children
and already borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s money, he would
gamble so heavily on his annual holiday in the South of France that he
threw away the equivalent of on average £40,000 every year.
+12
Qualities that were to make Churchill a
great war leader came very close to destroying him time and again
during his career, as manic optimism and risk-taking plunged him
repeatedly into colossal debt. But he became one of Britain's greatst
heroes and is here receiving the Honorary Freedom of the City of
Westminster
In
my own career, advising families on tax affairs and investments, I have
never encountered addiction to risk on such a scale as his.
To
a biographer, one of Churchill’s most convenient characteristics is
that he left his own bank statements, bills, investment records and tax
demands in his archive, despite the evidence of debt and profligate
gambling they reveal.
In
contrast to his well-documented periods of anxiety and depression, when
the ‘black dog’ struck him, there were phases when he gambled or traded
shares and currencies with such intensity that he appeared to be on a
‘high’ — devoid of inhibition, brimming with self-confidence and energy.
As a result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers.
And
it was only by a wildly improbable intervention, almost an act of God,
that he wasn’t bankrupt in 1940 instead of Prime Minister: as war
loomed, a secret benefactor wrote two cheques for well over £1 million
to clear Churchill’s debts.
His inventive efforts at tax avoidance would spell scandal if attempted by any politician today.
+12
In the Thirties, when he was a married
man with four dependent children and already borrowing more than £2.5
million in today’s money, he would gamble so heavily on his annual
holiday in the South of France that he threw away the equivalent of on
average £40,000 every year
+12
One of Churchill’s most convenient
characteristics is that he left his own bank statements, bills,
investment records and tax demands in his archive, despite the evidence
of debt and profligate gambling they reveal. He's pictured here riding
in a motor lauch in the harbor at Safi, Morocco
Though
he wrestled to control his spending all his life, the defining disaster
of Winston’s financial career was the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
Churchill
always told his friends his losses in the Stock Market collapse
amounted to $50,000 — or £500,000 today. But that is only part of the
story.
These
were Winston’s years in the wilderness when, having served for a term
as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was suddenly out of power.
This
was not without its benefits, for at last he was able to devote time to
writing books and churning out newspaper columns to keep the bank at
bay.
+12
As a result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers
In
return for his high fees as a journalist, Churchill’s friends among the
press proprietors expected colourful copy that ran against the
conventional political wisdom. He delivered it, but his trenchant
commentaries made rehabilitation within the political establishment very
difficult.
The
problems began when he embarked on a North American tour to promote his
book on World War I, The World Crisis, accompanied by his brother Jack
and son Randolph.
He
travelled through Canada by private railcar, sleeping in a double bed
on board with a private bathroom. ‘There is a fine parlour with an
observation room at the end,’ he wrote to his wife Clemmie, ‘and a large
dining room which I use as the office. The car has splendid wireless
installation, refrigerators, fans, etc.’
Surrounded
by these modern marvels, Churchill began to trade again in shares and
commodities. He was intoxicated by Canada’s money-making opportunities,
especially in exploration for oil and gas.
Gripped
by investment fever as he reached the prairies, he wired his publisher
to demand an advance on his royalties, boasting of the profits he could
grasp if he acted without delay.
To
allay Clemmie’s concerns, he told her of the cash he was making by
selling his book at public appearances — 600 copies in Montreal alone —
and casually announced he had ‘found a little capital’ with which he
‘hoped to make some successful investments’.
He
plunged tens of thousands of dollars into oilfields and rolling stock,
assuring his bankers that, ‘I do not expect to hold these shares for
more than a few weeks’.
In
the States, he stayed with media tycoon William Randolph Hearst and
bought stakes in electrical ventures and gas companies, before heading
to California where he indulged in late-night parties with Hollywood’s
movie elite and toured the studios.
+12
In contrast to his well-documented
periods of anxiety and depression, when the ‘black dog’ struck him,
there were phases when he gambled or traded shares and currencies with
such intensity that he appeared to be on a ‘high’ — devoid of
inhibition, brimming with self-confidence and energy
After
lunch with Charlie Chaplin on the set of his latest film, City Lights,
Churchill boarded Hearst’s yacht and wrote to Clemmie that he had banked
£1,000 (£50,000 today) by cashing in some shares in a furniture
business called Simmons.
‘You
can’t go wrong on a Simmons mattress,’ he crowed — but failed to
mention that he had $35,000 (a third of a million pounds today) still
invested with them.
His
buying had spiralled out of control. Everything he could raise was
plunged into U.S. stocks, in businesses from foundries to department
stores.
His
brokers sounded warnings by telegraph: ‘Market heavy. Liquidating
becoming more urgent. Will await your telephone. Your bank still losing
gold & there are rumours of increase in bank rate.’
Churchill ignored them. In four days he bought and sold $420,000 in shares — or more than £4 million-worth now.
It
was like a drug to him. ‘In every hotel,’ he told Clemmie, ‘there is a
stock exchange. You go and sit and watch the figures being marked up on
slates every few minutes.’
The
crash was inevitable. At the opening bell in the New York Stock
Exchange on Thursday, October 24, 1929, prices fell by an average of 11
per cent.
+12
He wrestled to control his spending
all his life, the defining disaster of Winston’s financial career was
the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Churchill told his friends his losses in
the Stock Market collapse amounted to $50,000 — or £500,000 today. But
that is only part of the story. Pictured in 1958 with hipping magnate
Aristotle Onassis
Churchill
kept buying, confident of recouping his losses, right up to the moment
he boarded an Atlantic liner to return home. By the time he reached
Chartwell, his home in Kent, he was poorer by $75,000 (£750,000).
But instead of pulling in his horns, he tried to recoup — and within six months had lost another $35,000 (£350,000).
His
efforts to cling to some kind of solvency became desperate. He borrowed
money wherever he could — from his brother, his bank, his brokers, his
publishers and newspaper editors. He arranged another speaking tour in
America and took out insurance against its cancellation — then used the
General Election of 1931 as an excuse for postponing and claiming his
£5,000 (£250,000) indemnity.
He traded the insurers one of his oil paintings, in a deal he described as ‘highly confidential’.
Once the election was behind him, he set off to America — but, in his fraught state, stumbled into disaster.
Having
arranged to meet a business associate in New York, he grabbed a taxi.
But in his hurry, he forgot to take the man’s address. After a fruitless
hour trying to find the building, he climbed out of the cab — and was
hit by a car.
+12
These were Winston’s years in the
wilderness when, having served for a term as Chancellor of the
Exchequer, he was suddenly out of power. This was not without its
benefits, for at last he was able to devote time to writing books and
churning out newspaper columns to keep the bank at bay
Even
this was used as a means to scrape money together. He wrote a newspaper
article about the accident, syndicated it worldwide for £600 (£30,000)
and then claimed medical insurance on the spurious grounds he was
‘totally disabled’.
When
the underwriters protested that he was still able to earn money from
journalism, his broker retorted that he could not physically write — the
article had been dictated to a secretary. Mere talking, he insisted,
should not be classed as work. The insurers paid up.
Such
sharp practice was not confined to his insurance claims. He told the
Inland Revenue he had retired as an author, which entitled him to defer a
large income tax bill.
To
avoid paying tax on book royalties, he sold the rights and successfully
argued that the money he received was not income but capital gains,
which at the time was exempt from tax.
He
borrowed money from his children’s trusts, and even cut down his
drinking — not to curb his expenses, but to win a bet with the press
baron Lord Rothermere, who wagered him £600 that Churchill would not
drink any brandy or undiluted spirits for a whole year.
Churchill
took the bet, reasoning to Clemmie that money won gambling was not
subject to tax. But he turned down a bigger bet, £2,000 [£100,000], that
he could not remain teetotal for 12 months.
‘I refused,’ he explained, ‘as I think life would not be worth living.’
In
fact, his accumulated bills for alcohol came to £900 (£54,000). His
gambling was even more costly — 66,000 francs (about £50,000) in a
single holiday at a casino in Cannes in 1936, for example.
Clementine’s
excesses were little better. That year, her bill at Harrods ran to more
than 80 pages, with accounts, too, at Selfridge’s, Harvey Nichols,
Peter Jones, Lillywhite’s and John Lewis.
+12
Faced with a £900 [£54,000 today]
demand from his wine merchants Randolph Payne & Sons in 1936,
Churchill checked the bill and found the total came to even more — £920
Attempts
at economising were feeble. Three servants were dismissed, with a
saving of £240 [£14,400] and the same amount was cut from the laundry
bill. The temperature of the swimming pool at Chartwell was also reduced
in a bid to halve heating costs.
But
by 1938, as the European situation with Hitler and Mussolini became
critical, Churchill had run out of resources. Both Chartwell and his
house in London were up for sale but had attracted no buyers.
CHURCHILL SANK 454 BOTTLES OF BUBBLY IN JUST TWO MONTHS
Faced
with a £900 [£54,000 today] demand from his wine merchants Randolph
Payne & Sons in 1936, Churchill checked the bill and found the total
came to even more — £920 [£55,200], including £268 [£16,080] spent on
champagne: ten magnums, 185 bottles and 251 pints of it.n
At the outbreak of World War I, Churchill was smoking a dozen cigars a
day, at about £13 a month [£1,300] — and he had not paid his suppliers, J
Grunebaum & Sons, for five years.
Swimming
in personal debt (about £1.5m today), Churchill announced some drastic
household cutbacks in 1926, the year of the General Strike. The cost of
food, servants and running a car were to be halved. ‘No champagne is to
be bought,’ he warned his wife. ‘Only white or red wine will be offered
at luncheon or dinner. No more port is to be opened without special
instructions. Cigars must be reduced to four a day.’ The economy drive
lasted less than three months.
On
his way home from a Mediterranean cruise in 1927, Churchill — then
Chancellor of the Exchequer — dropped in on the casino at Dieppe and,
playing baccarat, lost £350 — the equivalent of £17,500 today.
Winston
holidayed in the South of France 12 times during the Thirties and
always gambled at the casinos. He came home a winner only once.
During World War II, his personal spending on wine, spirits and cigars was £1,650 a year [£66,000].
In
a two-month spell in 1949, Churchill and his house guests at Chartwell
drank 454 bottles of champagne, 311 bottles of wine, 69 bottles of port,
58 bottles of brandy, 58 bottles of sherry and 56 bottles of Black
Label whisky.
His
journalism could no longer even cover his back-taxes, and he had
borrowed to the limit against his life insurance policies. Creditors
were clamouring on all sides.
His
overdraft had reached £35,000 (more than £2million) and his brokers
were demanding an immediate payment of £12,000 (£720,000). His attempts
to bargain were ignored.
‘For
a while,’ he admitted, ‘the dark waters of despair overwhelmed me. I
watched the daylight creep slowly in through the windows and saw before
me in mental gaze the vision of Death.’
Salvation
came from an unexpected quarter. Churchill turned to his friend Brendan
Bracken, co-owner of The Economist, to find him a rescuer. Bracken, in
turn, approached his business partner, Sir Henry Strakosch, who was a
fervent admirer of Churchill. He was also immensely wealthy.
Two
months earlier, at Bracken’s request, Churchill had visited Sir Henry
at his house in Cannes. The 68-year-old, who had made his fortune at the
helm of South Africa’s gold-mining Union Corporation, had been unwell
and Bracken described him as a ‘lonely old bird’.
This slightest of introductions paid colossal dividends.
Sir
Henry, a naturalised Briton born in Austria, regarded Churchill as the
one politician in Europe with the vision, energy and courage to resist
the Nazi threat.
He had no hesitation in paying off £12,000 (about £660,000 today) of his share-trading debts.
Neither
man ever spoke publicly about the rescue. Churchill kept knowledge of
it to a very tight circle that did not include his bank or his lawyers.
Sir
Henry’s only reward was to be nominated for The Other Club, the dining
society based at the Savoy in London that Churchill had founded with his
fellow political maverick F. E. Smith.
At
the outbreak of war in 1939, Churchill was appointed First Lord of the
Admirality, with a salary of £5,000 (£250,000 today) — exactly what it
was when he was last given this Cabinet post, 25 years earlier in 1912.
The pay, though substantial, was nowhere near enough to cover his
expenditure, let alone the interest on his outstanding loans, which
totalled £27,000 [£1.6 million].
For
years he had been working on his three-volume History Of The
English-Speaking Peoples, but despite his prodigious output, he had been
unable to deliver the finished manuscript and collect his fee. The book
had got no further than the American Civil War, but undaunted,
Churchill declared it to be finished.
+12
Swimming in personal debt (about £1.5m
today), Churchill announced some drastic household cutbacks in 1926,
the year of the General Strike. The cost of food, servants and running a
car were to be halved. ‘No champagne is to be bought,’ he warned his
wife. ‘Only white or red wine will be offered at luncheon or dinner
His publisher, Cassell’s, was dismayed at such an abrupt ending.
All
protests were dismissed: Churchill was too busy to write any more.
Reluctantly, Cassell’s paid up, which enabled him to pay £2,000
(£100,000 today) of overdue taxes and settle wine merchants’ bills that
topped £3,000 (£150,000).
On
May 10, 1940, as Hitler’s armies surged through Holland and Belgium,
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain resigned, and by evening King George
VI had asked Churchill to form a government. Today, the choice of man
seems inevitable, but at the time there was consternation.
‘Seldom
can a Prime Minister have taken office with the Establishment so
dubious of the choice and so prepared to find its doubts justified,’
wrote one of Downing Street’s private secretaries, Jock Colville.
Churchill’s
salary as PM might have doubled to £10,000 (£500,000), but with the
highest rate of income tax standing at 97.5 per cent, virtually all of
it went to the Inland Revenue.
Just
two weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation, in June 1940, the Prime
Minister was facing an ultimatum from Lloyd’s Bank for interest on his
£5,602 overdraft (£280,100).
Once
again, Sir Henry came to the rescue with a cheque for £5,000
(£250,000). The receipts show a flurry of payments to shirt-makers,
watch-repairers and, naturally, wine merchants.
Despite
rationing, food and drink flowed at Chequers, the Prime Minister’s
official residence. King George sent pheasant and venison from Balmoral,
and the Admiralty agreed to double the wine budget, providing that all
consumption was for diplomatic purposes.
+12
On his way home from a Mediterranean
cruise in 1927, Churchill — then Chancellor of the Exchequer — dropped
in on the casino at Dieppe and, playing baccarat, lost £350 — the
equivalent of £17,500 today
That
condition proved no problem: Churchill was determined to enlist the
military might of the United States and American guests became frequent
visitors to Chequers.
To
pare back the tax demands, Churchill tried every possible ruse, even
assigning some of his earnings as an author to his son Randolph, who was
taxed at a lower rate.
This
subterfuge could save £1,500 (£75,000) but it made Churchill uneasy —
not least because Randolph’s gambling was even more reckless than his
own.
What finally rescued Churchill’s finances, and put him on a stable footing for the rest of his life, was Hollywood.
In
1943, an Italian immigrant film producer paid him £50,000 (£2.5million)
for the movie rights to his biography of his ancestor, the military
genius Lord Marlborough.
The death of Sir Henry Strakosch in October 1943 brought a legacy of £20,000 (£1million) as well as cancelling a loan.
As
D-Day approached, Churchill was solvent for the first time in 20 years.
By the end of the war, he had collected another £50,000 (£2.5million)
for the film rights to his History Of The English-Speaking Peoples.
And
a further colossal bonus came when he was unexpectedly ousted from
Downing Street by the voters in July 1945: on the day of his
resignation, offers began to flood in from publishers around the world
for his war memoirs.
+12
Winston holidayed in the South of
France 12 times during the Thirties and always gambled at the casinos.
He came home a winner only once
Traditionally,
generals and admirals who won great victories were rewarded by
Parliament. Earl Haig, the Army’s commander-in-chief during World War I,
was awarded £100,000 (£500,000) in 1918.
There
could be no such payment for an ex-Prime Minister. But a group of his
admirers came up with a scheme to buy Chartwell for the National Trust,
then rent it back to the Churchills for a nominal sum. Churchill was
delighted.
Despite this unaccustomed security, he was not above seizing a chance to bypass the taxman.
As
bidding for his memoirs topped $1 million (£12.5million) from an
American consortium, Churchill was investigating another scheme: by
gifting his entire personal papers, including future memoirs and
diaries, to a trust in his children’s name, he figured he could avoid
most tax on his writings.
He planned to pen his books for a smaller fee, under the pretext of ‘editing’ them.
This
editing proved to be thirsty work. When Churchill decamped to Marrakech
in Morocco to work on the manuscript in 1947, his entourage’s drinks
bill for five weeks came to more than £2,100 (£73,500).
+12
In a two-month spell in 1949,
Churchill and his house guests at Chartwell drank 454 bottles of
champagne, 311 bottles of wine, 69 bottles of port, 58 bottles of
brandy, 58 bottles of sherry and 56 bottles of whisky
One of his secretaries wrote home: ‘The money here aren’t ’arf going!’
It
continued to ‘go’ for the rest of his life. By the time he became PM
again in 1951, his annual expenses were about £40,000 (£1 million), much
of it on a staff of Swiss nurses and footmen, all of them vetted by
MI5.
But
now the honours flowed in. He won the Nobel Prize for Literature, a
tax-free £12,000 (£300,000). He turned down a dukedom on the grounds
that a dukedom without a great landed estate would be an embarrassment.
When
he died aged 90 on January 24, 1965, the world mourned. But some had a
particular reason to regret his passing: they would never see such a
customer again.
In
France, Madame Odette Pol-Roger instructed that a black band of
mourning should be placed around the label of every bottle of her
family’s champagne.
@bordermonitoring.eu
@bordermonitoring.eu
@bordermonitoring.eu
@bordermonitoring.eu
By Jonathan Samuels, Sky News Correspondent, Lesbos, Greece | Sky News – 19 hours ago
![Faced with a £900 [£54,000 today] demand from his wine merchants Randolph Payne & Sons in 1936, Churchill checked the bill and found the total came to even more — £920](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/11/22/0B5E27F700000514-0-image-a-38_1442006228509.jpg)
Someone has just tried to post the link to this website on here, we have deleted it. WARNING 2008 list online WTF is going on at the BNP ? ...
