Christian Bouchet

Christian Bouchet was on the National Directorate of Resistance, a French national-revolutionary group. The following interview first appeared in Issue #9 of The English Alternative magazine.

Q: Would you provide our readers with a brief history of Revolutionary Nationalism in France, particularly with regard to your own previous involvement with Troisieme Voie?

CB: Revolutionary Nationalism came from the radical Leftist current of the French Revolution, with men like Hebert, Marat and Baboeuf. After that it was embodied in the Blanquist Movement until after the French Commune of 1870-1. These militants were at the same time both Socialists and Nationalists. At the end of the Second Empire this current was anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and believed in a form of Darwinian eugenics.

During the boulangisme and the Dreyfus Affair, the current became split between a section of the Left and Nationalist organisations. After that, and after the First World War, there were some Revolutionary Nationalist or Fascist movements like the Faisceau of Valois (a former Anarchist leader), the Parti Fasciste Revolutionnaire of Lamour, the Parti Populaire Francais of Doriot (a former Communist leader), and the Rassemblement National Populaire of Deat (a former Socialist leader). This ended in blood with the so-called �liberation� of France by the Allies. Thousands of people were killed by mobs or condemned to death by popular - in fact Communist - juries, because they were Fascists, Monarchists, Rightists and so on. At this time my grandfather was also condemned to death (thanks to the gods that he was not shot) and my whole family put into jail.

After the Second World War some tiny groups were founded like the Phalange of Lucas, which was in contact with Otto Strasser and the French section of its European Popular Movement. In the 1960�s Thiriart�s Jeune Europe came, too, followed in 1970 by Duprat (who was slain by Zionists in a car bombing). He formed the Groupe Nationaliste Revolutionnaire de Base as a faction operating both in and out of the Front National, which was created in 1972. After Duprat's death the same year, the Mouvement Nationaliste Revolutionnaire was formed by merging former members of the Group d�Action Jeunesses (an anti-Communist youth action group), the organisation Lutte du Peuple (a tiny group of Thiriart partisans, in which I served as Administrative Secretary), and the Groupe Nationaliste Revolutionnaire de Base. In 1985, the Mouvement Nationaliste Revolutionnaire changed its name to Troisieme Voie, with a youth wing called Jeune Garde.

Sometime later on, I was duly elected as the group's National Secretary. Within Troisieme Voie there was a struggle between disciples of Jean Thiriart - led by myself in a faction called Les Terceristes Radicaux [Radical Third Positionists] - and Malliarakis, the President of the party who was a reactionary. We expelled him in 1991 and then changed our name to Nouvelle Resistance. We had in Nouvelle Resistance a very National-Bolshevik orientation, and we were very active. We met and worked with former Communist leaders in Russia, officials in Libya, Islamic leaders, independence activists and so on.

At the same time we published a bi-monthly publication which was sold in all the newspaper shops in France and for two years we published a small weekly, too. We also used entryism to infiltrate the Greens (taking control of their youth section), regionalist movements and anti-fascist groups. In fact one of our members was able to infiltrate the International Socialists (French section of the Socialist Workers Party) to such an extent that he even slept with one of their female leaders! This led to great amusement when it was actually revealed in our newspaper that penetration had actually taken place on two fronts!!

Q: When and why did you actually decide to form Resistance?

CB: Our main problem was the growth of the Front National (FN), which became very popular amongst industrial workers, poor people and the youth of the lower social classes. So for us it was very difficult to gain new members and keep those we already had. In the summer of 1997 we decided to dissolve Nouvelle Resistance and to work as a fraction both in and out of the FN using the names Resistance and Jeune Resistance. Since this time, we have also worked alongside a student action group, called the Groupe d�Union et de Defense (GUD).

Q. What is the Movement�s attitude towards Jean Marie Le Pen and the Front National?

CB: For a very long time we were bitterly opposed to JMLP and the FN, but gradually the FN began to change under the influence of New Right thinkers. Its social base also changed, and the FN is now the leading workers� party in France. So it is difficult not to agree with it and impossible for a Nationalist to oppose the FN because its enemies are the same as ours: Zionists, Red activists, liberals, 'sexualdeviants' and so on. We now try to have an influence on its youth group and on its more radical wing. In many ways, we try to work as Militant has done in the Labour Party.

Q: You were heavily involved in the establishment of the European Liberation Front (ELF), so perhaps you would care to outline the aims and objectives of this committee?

CB: I think that we must unify the National Revolutionary forces in Europe and prepare them for a more effective war against the System. It is not easy. Usually, radical Nationalist groups are happy when they are exchanging letters and newspapers, and as far as they are concerned this is called �international relations�. The ELF believes that we must create a European Party, with one national directorate at a European level and regional directorates in each nation. In many ways, we must work like the Komintern.

Q: Who does Resistance consider to be its chief ideologues?

CB: The founders of Revolutionary Nationalism in France like Blanqui and Valois, but also Russians like Oustrialov, Germans like Paetel, Lass, Niekisch, Strasser and Junger, Italians like Bombacci, Evola and the Futurists, and Spaniards like Ledesma Ramos. We are also very influenced by Juan Peron, Jean Thiriart and Alain de Benoist.

Q: Given your support for political decentralisation, is a centralised Nationalist administration really a viable option or should we be looking to emulate certain strains of Anarchism?

CB: We need organic, grass-roots democracy and subsidiaries. Each level must decide to the best of its abilities.

Q: What do you consider to be the greatest single hurdle facing National Revolutionaries today?

CB: Non-European immigration and globalisation.

Q: What is your current position on armed struggle, and can you ever see this changing in the future?

CB: Before speaking of armed struggle you must determine who is the enemy. You must also have a wide social base like the PIRA, the Spanish ETA or Corsican FLNC. But even then armed struggle is very difficult. Jean Thiriart wrote that it needs an exterior lung (a non-European country which can assist) or a Piedmont (a European country which has begun the war abroad). We have neither of these. In France, the last armed struggle was that of the OAS during the early 1960's and it suffered a bloody defeat. I think that it is not yet the time to speak of armed struggle. It is romantic but not very serious, although the time will come.

Q: How do you view the current situation with regard to Revolutionary Nationalism in England?

CB: I have been interested in Mosley for a long time, and particularly with the post-war ideas of the BUF. I find it very strange that they are not more popular in English Nationalist circles, as their ideas of European union were good, better than petty bourgeois Nationalism. Since the demise of the National Front I had close links with Patrick Harrington and Third Way, but I do not understand the group�s evolution. It is too soft and liberal. I do not understand what he wants to do and where he wants to go. Ulster Nation is a courageous newspaper, but so tiny. Once I met Derek Holland and various other ITP leaders, but they were strange bigots with strange ideas who, when you oppose them, do not answer politically but label you either a faggot or a Satanist!! For me the ITP is not Revolutionary Nationalist but petty bourgeois and bigoted. In fact England is crying out for the creation of a real Revolutionary Nationalist organisation, one which will be proud of the past but look to the future. I think that the cultural fight must be as important as the political fight. A grass-roots cultural fight and not one of the university variety.

Q: And finally, Christian, is there anything you wish to add?

CB: Read Gramsci, learn of the good and bad experiences of groups in other countries. Be the best and you will attract the best.

We would like to thank Mr. Bouchet for taking the time to send us his thoughts.

Canada's harmless poppy quarter led to U.S. spy warnings

I found this article linked on the London Free Press website today, and I think it deserves to be here in it's full form.

Americans, for some weird reson, assume we have secrete spy technology in our money. Not only that, but they "filed confidential espionage accounts" of their story and what they thought had happened to them.

Talk about a conspiracy nut!

Mystery Revealed:
Canada's harmless poppy quarter led to U.S. spy warnings

By TED BRIDIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The surprise explanation behind the U.S. government's sensational but false warnings about mysterious Canadian spy coins is the harmless poppy quarter, the world's first colourized coin.

The were so unfamiliar to suspicious U.S. army contractors travelling in Canada that they filed confidential espionage accounts about them.

The worried contractors described the coins as "anomalous" and "filled with something man-made that looked like nano-technology," said once-classified U.S. government reports and e-mails.

The 25-cent piece features the red image of a poppy inlaid over a maple leaf. The quarter is identical to the coins pictured and described as suspicious in the contractors' accounts.

The supposed nano-technology actually was a conventional protective coating the Royal Canadian Mint applied to prevent the poppy's red colour from rubbing off. The mint produced nearly 30 million such quarters in 2004 commemorating Canada's 117,000 war dead.

"It did not appear to be electronic (analog) in nature or have a power source," wrote one U.S. contractor, who discovered the coin in the cup holder of a rental car.

"Under high-power microscope, it appeared to be complex consisting of several layers of clear but different material, with a wire like mesh suspended on top."

The confidential accounts led to a sensational warning from the U.S. Defence Security Service, an agency of the Defence Department, that mysterious coins with radio frequency transmitters were found planted on U.S. contractors with classified security clearances on at least three separate occasions between October 2005 and January 2006 as the contractors travelled through Canada.

One contractor believed someone had placed two of the quarters in an outer coat pocket after the contractor had emptied the pocket hours earlier.

"Coat pockets were empty that morning and I was keeping all of my coins in a plastic bag in my inner coat pocket," the contractor wrote.

Meanwhile, in Canada, senior intelligence officials expressed annoyance with the U.S. spy-coin warnings as they tried to learn more about the oddball claims.

"That story about Canadians planting coins in the pockets of defence contractors will not go away," Luc Portelance, now deputy director for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, wrote in a January e-mail to a subordinate.

"Could someone tell me more? Where do we stand and what's the story on this?"

Others in Canada's spy service also were searching for answers. "We would be very interested in any more detail you may have on the validity of the comment related to the use of Canadian coins in this manner," another intelligence official wrote in an e-mail.

"If it is accurate, are they talking industrial or state espionage? If the latter, who?" The identity of the e-mail's recipient was censored.

Intelligence and technology experts were flabbergasted by the warning when it was first publicized earlier this year. The warning suggested such transmitters could be used surreptitiously to track the movements of people carrying the coins.

"I thought the whole thing was preposterous, to think you could tag an individual with a coin and think they wouldn't give it away or spend it," said H. Keith Melton, a leading intelligence historian.

But Melton said the army contractors properly reported their suspicions.

"You want contractors or any government personnel to report anything suspicious," he said.

"You can't have the potential target evaluating whether this was an organized attack or a fluke."

The Defence Security Service disavowed its warning about spy coins after an international furore but until now it has never disclosed the details behind the embarrassing episode. The United States said it never substantiated the contractors' claims and performed an internal review to determine how the false information was included in a 29-page published report about espionage concerns.

The Defence Security Service never examined the suspicious coins, spokeswoman Cindy McGovern said.

"We know where we made the mistake," she said.

"The information wasn't properly vetted. While these coins aroused suspicion, there ultimately was nothing there."

Numismatist Dennis Pike, of Canadian Coin & Currency near Toronto, quickly matched a grainy image and physical descriptions of the suspect coins in the contractors' confidential accounts to the 25-cent poppy piece.

"It's not uncommon at all," Pike said.

He added the coin's protective coating glows peculiarly under ultraviolet light.

"That may have been a little bit suspicious," he said.

Some of the U.S. documents the AP obtained were classified "Secret/Noforn," meaning they were never supposed to be viewed by foreigners, even the closest U.S. allies. The government censored parts of the files, citing national security reasons, before turning over copies under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

Nothing in the documents - except the reference to nanotechnology - explained how the contractors' accounts evolved into a full-blown warning about spy coins with radio frequency transmitters. Many passages were censored, including the names of contractors and details about where they worked and their projects.

But there were indications the accounts should have been taken lightly.

Next to one blacked-out sentence was this warning: "This has not been confirmed as of yet."

The Canadian intelligence documents, which also were censored, were turned over for $5 under the Access to Information Act. Canada cited rules for protecting against subversive or hostile activities to explain why it censored the papers.

Neo-Con's "Green" Plan Is A Fraud Say's Gore

Sun, April 29, 2007
By CP


TORONTO -- The Conservatives' new environmental platform is a "complete and total fraud" that is "designed to mislead the Canadian people," former U.S. vice-president Al Gore says.

The noted environmentalist was presenting his Oscar- winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth in Toronto at a consumer environmental show, with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and environmentalist David Suzuki in attendance.

Gore praised Suzuki for confronting Environment Minister John Baird on Friday, saying he saw the two exchange words on TV.

Source: http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/2007/04/29/4138824-sun.html

HATE CRIME

Religion Of Peace?

Eye gouging, de-nosing and tongue removal
was this woman's punishment for seeing.....

.....a gynecologist.

FUCK ISLAM

Anglo-Saxons are NOT Israelites

Here is a breakdown of my understanding of British Israelism/Christian Identity as I have learned it through self study. It took 2 days to write this out, but over 20 years to research it(Christinsanity in general, not just THIS subject).

The whole concept of CI rests on the notion that the Ten Tribes were lost. If this is proved to be not true, then everything else the advocates of Christian Identity may say is of no avail to prove their cases.

The fact of the matter is that the ten tribes were never lost and the term "ten tribes" as applied to the ten tribes of Israel is a misnomer. It may sound wonderfully mysterious to talk about lost tribes, and the idea that they are members of Gods chosen race is very exciting to many, hence the popularity in the WN/Racialist movement.

To prove that the ten tribes were never lost you must look at history, not the Bible. I won't use mythological stories and legends as a source of infomation as the CI adhearents do, other than the bible.

Most who have an understanding of the bible know that under Saul, David and Solomon Israel existed as twelve tribes, with Levy being the 13th but having no spereate inheritance, and two of the tribes came from Jospheph through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh.

The kindoms split under the rule of Solomons son Rehoboam. The ten northern tribes followed his leadership as he set himself up as the king of Tirzah(as we can read in "1 Kings 14:17) Under Omri, the sixth king of the Northern tribes, the kingdom was re-located in Samaria. This kingdom lasted about 250 years under 19 wicked kings and 9 families.

These northern tribes endulged in idol worship throught this entire period of time and not one of their kings was a godly man. The two southern tribes retained the descendants of David as their king and after the other tribes were enslaved they had 3 revivals of their religion and had 150 years of freedom after the other 10 tribes were stolen. Any real study of these kingdoms clearly shows that Judah and NOT Israel was the channel that Jewhova chose to preserve his "truth"(wow, it was painful calling this 'truth').

THe CI theory rest upon the idea that these 2 kingdoms were seperate and existed as completely seperate nations and have very seperate destinies. It doesn't account for any mixture of the peoples, nor the possibility that all the 12 tribes finally emerged into one ethnic and religious group. The 'facts' as recorded in the bible clearly state that there was constant interacion between the people from these 2 kingdoms and that after captivity they eventually lost their tribal identity and finally were known as Jews.

Not all of the people in the ten tribes followed Jeroboam when he built his seperate kingdom. Some of these people united with Benjamin and Judah and it is clearly indicated in 1 Kings 12:21-24.

The "remnant of the people" could be none others than the 10 tribes who chose to say with Rehoboam and teh kingdom of Judah. It is clear that the southern kingdom actually represented the people from all the tribes.

Eventually, the entire tribe of Levy joined the south along with a large number of people from the 10 tribes who decided to come back. If you read 2 Chron 11:14-17 you see that once again there is a gathering of the people from all the tribes in the southern kingdom.

Not long after that, under the rule of King Asa, there was a religious revival of sorts with blessings from God in Judah when a great number of the northern people joined in the south with their racial kinsmen. Then in 2 Chron 15:9 we read that a great number of of the ten tribes joined with Asa and his people. It is more than obvious that the kingdom of Judah did not only represent the people form the two tribes but also from the rest of Israel as well.

Then gain under Hezekia we can see that the people who 'rejoiced' together in the worship of God included the remnants of teh ten tribes(2 Chron 30:25-26). According to this, it is clear that God favored Judah and it was form this kingdom that the majority of the godly people from the ten tribes identified theselves with. It was blessed by David, the temple of Solomon and some 'godly' kings that ruled and led durring these reliious revivals. This means that the norht was qwiouth a king of Gods choice and without a temple that god has designed.

Its clear that Jewhova recognized the kings of judah as the kings of his ENTIRE chosen race/nation. he never intended that the ten tribes should even continue to exist as seperate kingdoms and he spoke of the day when the two kingdoms would unite into one with Jewrusalem as the center of worship. In Chron 2 21:1-2 you can see that Jehoshaphat who is the 4th king of the southern tribes is called the KING OF ISRAEL. In 2 Chron 28:19 Ahaz, who is the 11th ruler of Judah is called the KING OF ISRAEL. According to the bible, god considered these descendants of David as the rulers of his ENTIRE 12 tribes. I guess god didn't recognize the distinction between Israel and Judah that the Anglo-Isralite theorists insist is an absolute necessity.

That is not where the merging of the tribes ends though. In 721 BC, after the kingdoms were taken into captivity, they were defeated by teh Assyrians and a number of them were taken captive. The OT doesnt tell us how many were deported from the land, but an inscription by Sargon, the ruler who succeeded Shalmaneser says...and I quote:

"I besieged the City of Samaria and took it. I carried off 27, 280 of the citizens; I chose 50 chariots for myself from the whole number taken; all the other property of the people of the town I left for my servents to take. I appointed resident officers over them, and imposed on them the same tribute as had formerly been paid. In the place fo those taken into capitivity I sent thither inhabitants of lands conquered by me, and imposed the tribute on them which I required from Assyrians."

It's possible that some of other deportions took place but this text indicates that the large majority of these people were left in their own lands with Assyrian aapointed leaders to rule over them. These citizens of the ten tribes were the majority of the population and placed themselves under the rule of Judah. This is clearly pointed out by the fact about 100 years after Assyria handed them an ass kickin' and deported some fo the people a large number of the people joined in the religiou festivals durring the revival under Josia, the KING OF JUDAH, as seen in 2 Chron 34:9 and 2 Chron 35:17-18.

This means that most of the people were NOT displaced by Assyria and in fact stayed in their own lands and many joined with the king of Judah. Even afetr the ten tribes were taken into captivity, in a very real sense, the process of amalgamation(sp?) between the two people of Judah and Israel continued.

Another mistake the CI's make in their effort to 'lose' the ten tribes is the fact that Assyria and Babylon became one empire. Less than 50 years later the two kingsdoms were under the same rule. Therfore when Babylon started to transport captives out of Judah they were moving them to a place where people rom the 10 tribes were living. Its easy to prove this. 2 Kings 17:6 tells us where they were the Israelites were taken, in about 721 BC. When Ezekial was carried away to Babylon in about 590 BC, just befoer Judah was completely defeated 4 years later, he and the other exiiles from Judah lived in this area. Its here that the Assyrian and Babylonian captives gradually merged into one people.

Years later when the remnant returned from captivity to the lands of Palestine, Ezra DEFINITLY recognized the Jews as representing all of the tribes of Israel. This is clearly shown in Ezra 6:17, which I'll quote:

"And he offered at the dedication...twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel".

When Alexander the Great was leading, many of the Jews settled in Palestine and had great freedoms. Other jews were establishing colonies through the world by this time. Everywhere - Asia Minor and the coastal regions of the Agean, souther europe, egypt, northern africa india and china all knew the presence of the jewish menace. There was jew synagogs everywhere but at the great feast celebrations(you know, holidays) Jewrusalem was their center of worshop and millions would come to the city to pay respect to their tribal god of insanity, murder, mayhem and evil(AKA Jewhova) and anyone who was connected with Moses and still looked to Jewrusalem as the Holiest City were considered Jews.

The ten tribes were never lost and James recognized this in teh NT when he write his epistle to the Jewish believers of his day. He recognized them as athe twelve tribes and used the term "twelve tribes" when addressing them(James 1:1). In this day when anti-semitism was common, remember that EVERY one of Jesus apostles who Jesus himself allegedly chose was loyal to the religion of Jewrusalem. Jewsus himself practiced the rituals of this Jewish faith. When he sent his desciple to the lost 'sheep' of the house of Israel, he obviously ment the jews. According to the British Israelites and CI's, the TRUE Israelites should have been in Britain for several hundreds of years by this time. I guess Jesus did not know this when he sent his spostles throught Judaea to reach the "lost sheep of israel". ( ) It was in sysnagogs that they carried their message. Remeber too, that on the day of Penticost a large number of of the people from ALL parts of the Great Aryan Empire of Rome who were jews gathered for their religious holidays. The people who Peter preached to on the day of Penticost were the same people who cried "Crucify Him. His blood be on us and our children". Just read Peters declaration to them in Acts 2:22-24.

These same people that rejected Jewsus were the ones who Peter gave the message of repentance. Peter told these jews - who crucified Jewsus - that this'Christ" would return as their King if they wold "recieve him"(Acts 3:19-26)

If the Israelites were indeed in Britian at this time, then Jesus and Peter made the horrid mistakes in the message to these jews that rejected Jewsus as the "Christ".

It's all based on legends. One shoudl assume that a theory of this nature would be backed by historical prof. This is not the case though. Not at all. Some of these people - even some who post here on FNF! - think that some of the lost tribes made their way to Denmark and then to England. Then they say that another group from Dan followed Jeremiah to Ireland who brought with them the daughter of Zedekiah, the last king of judah. Her name was Tea Tephi. She supposedly fell in love with the king of Ireland and they got married. Then they claim that Queen Victoria is a direct descendant of these people and therefore the kingdom of Israel was transfered to England. There is NO evidence that Zedekiah's daughter went to Ireland. Hell, we have NO REASON AT ALL to even believe there was even a Tea Tephi. Ther are a few old poems and songs that mention somone named Tea,a nd also some of somone named Tephi, but this is only in Mythology and there is no real evidence to support this. If we are to believe these fables then we must agree that there were: a) flying fire breathing green scaled dragons, b) werewolfs, c) magic trolls, and last but not least - d) flying pigs. The CIs like to play games with words and tie these two seperate mythologies together to create their mythology of an anglo-israelite queen named Tea Tephi.

Its a well known fact that there is no reliable history intil a few centuries after Jewsus lived. No respectable scholar will for a monment take these ludicrous claims on the Anglo-Israelite theorizers. I wonder why the CI never make reference to the fact that Zedekiah was not even a rightful king of Judah. He was made the king by Nebuchadnezzer but he didnt have legal rights to the throne. He was the uncle of the last legal king Jehoiachin and his sons were the heir to the throne( 2 kings 24:17-18 and 1 Chron 3:17 and also Matt 1:11-12) Even if Zedekiah had surviving sons they would NOT have been legal heirs to the throne. Ezekiel even refers to Zedekiah as the "prince in Jerusalem" not the king.

Another retarded claim of teh CIs is that God cursed Jehoiachin (Jewr 22:24-30) and therefore the throne right is passed along to his uncle Zedekiah. This is not true though. Although the curse would make it so his literal seedline could not take the throne, Jewsus was not a physical descendant of Jehoiachin. In teh openeing chapter of Matthew, he was establishing the legal right to the throne of David. As the adopted son of Josphef the curse does not apply to him and also Zedekiah is not mentioned as the ancestor of Jewsus in the NT geneologies. It should insult anyone who actually believes in Abrahamic faith as their own that these people latch onto a mythical female descendant of a man who had no rights to the throse in the first place.

Another ethod used by CIs and BI's is childish plays on word sounds. Because the Hebrew word "berith" means 'covenant" and the Hewbrew word "ish" means "man", they conclude that British" means "men of covenant". The dont seemed too impressed by the fact that philologists are UNAMIMOUS in declairing that there is NO connection between the kyke hebrew and the noble Anglo-Saxon tongue. (NONE, regardless of any threads on FNF! that you may have read stating otherwise.)

I just researched Dr. Lawrence Duff-Forbes about this(http://www.amazon.com/baleful-bubble-British-Israelism-Lawrence-Duff-Forbes/dp/B0007FVONA) and I suggest that all CI's read his work with an open mind. Here is what he has to say about it all(NOTE: I could not find it online, so you better thank me for typing this out of a book!):

Quote

"But Hold! There us a fly in the ointment! Since the word 'covenant" posesses no adjectival force in Hewbrew, the two nouns are in what is known as the construct state. So placed, the meaning would be "a man of the covenant," but even for this concept it shoudl rather be "Ish HaBrith". Thus, to get even remotely near this philological monstrosity we should require to reserve the order of the words.

The B/I (British Israel) balderdash based on "Brit-ish," if it proves anything it proves too much. For what of the word "BRITAIN"? Permitting me a similar use of assonance, may I remark that "Ain" in Hebrew is a particle of negotion, meaning "NOT" or "WITHOUT> It is so tranlasted in Hosea 3:4, "AIN MELECK," "without a king," etc. Thus, if "BRIT-ISH" is 'covenant-man," then "BRIT-AIN" is "without a covenant!".....

....British Israelites do considerable violence to philology generally. They weave a fanciful tale that "Isaac's sons" is really the basis of the word "SAXONS." The full humor of this can only be appreciated by a Hebrew scholar!" If it is really legitiment to thus ride from one nationality to another by saddling an assonance, could we not equally prove that the inhabitants of Hamburg were mountaineers of negro origin violating the Jewish dietary laws? Again warning against the vagaries of B/I, Professor (H.U) Parker (of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario :) ) declares: "as a matter fo fact there are hardly more than two dozen words, exclusive of Bible names, in the English vocabulary which can be traced to Hebrew roots...Nearly every one of the "Hebrew" words we do have come to us via Greeks, and might more reasonably be credited to Pheonician than to Hebrew."

I could give many examples of this pseudo-scholarship among British-Israeli followers but just one more should do the trick. To follow the movements of the Tribe Of Dan and to prove that it was one of those among the settlers of ireland, they point to the many instances that a 'din', 'dun' or 'don' is part of the name or territory, city or river they supposedly passed through or settled. A few mentioned names I've seen were Macedonia, Dardanelles, Danube, Denmark, Dunbar, London etc. Likewise, when using this is non-logical approach one could asl make claims that the tribe of Dan went to Africa where there are names like the Danakil and Dinka, where there are the Donalists(a christian cult) also it is where one can find Dondo and Denkera. Any person with a good imagination can present a convincing case based on this non-logic, as the Anglo-Iiraelites do with "Dan".

Great Britian and the USA/Canada can NOT be Ephraim like many CI/BI's claim. We can read that Jacob and his sons were in te line of Shem. The mates they chose were of the line of Ham(maning they were negros). Joseph, by marrying a Hamitic girl produced offspring that was semitic-hamitic, even. if the Tarshish of Ezekeil 38 is Britain as the CI's claim, then it's people must be Johpetic. Genosis 10:4 makes it very clear that Tarshish is a descendant of Japheth, making it impossible for Britains to be Ephraimites. Also, it's a joke and an insult on our intelligence to assume that the USA is Manasseh because that wold mean he people who left England walked onto a ship Ephramites and came off of it as Menassehites. I wonder if the sea and open air had a strange potency to make this transformation ( :) ).

The jews living upon this earth are the mythical Israelites, and there is nothing you can say to change that.

Thank you for reading,
The Ontaryan

VNN Pulled Down After Warman Complaints, Again

Canadian Jew Hatemonger On The Warpath

Ottawa, Canada -- Vanguard News Network forum was taken down earlier this week after Canadian Jewish hatemonger Richard Warman filed another round of complaints against a variety of white activist websites with their respective ISPs and web hosts.

Overthrow.com was the subject of a similar complaint, but as we are already in the process of moving to our own data center, where we will host our own site on our own Internet lines, our service was not disrupted, though we did agree not to use this site to call for the assassination or execution of Warman again until we have completed the move.

Warman is a big weenie who makes his living suing white nationalist websites in Canada and bringing their operators before the Jewish run "Canadian Human Rights Commission" -- a show trial farce in the Stalinist mode that is tasked with imprisoning Canadian political dissidents.

Hyper sensitive to all criticism, Warman took the Canadian airwaves last year to demand that the publishe... Click here for more

Source: http://solargeneral.com/