During the years I spent teaching in Swiss secondary schools, in-training days were often orientated towards how to motivate a class of musically mixed-ability teenagers to sing together tunefully and with conviction. One of these training days I remember in particular, given by a male colleague who, during a football World Cup championship, had filmed all the participating teams singing their respective national anthems. The lesson was clear: more often than not, teams who sang with passion and heartfelt conviction went on to gain satisfactory results.
International sporting events have long been one of the subtle ways by which Globalists have been able to implement their agenda of mass non-white immigration into European countries. Most noticeable in football, cricket and athletics, multiracial “national” teams have in recent decades become increasingly present on track, field and pitch. Can a cricketer, for example of Pakistani origin born in England, truly harbour the same patriotism for his adoptive country than an Englishman born and bred in England whose northern European genetic makeup is an integral part of his origin and identity?
Sporting professionals who happen to be British citizens born of foreign parents have the choice whether they compete for Britain or for the country from which their parents originated. Is this fair? Does this not raise questions of possible conspiracy? Would this be one reason why English national teams in so many disciplines tend to produce disappointing results?
By Gerard Menuhin, reproduced with kind permission.
ABOUT TRUTH and HATE
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
We all know the expression ‘the truth hurts’. The truth can indeed be hurtful, but secure, grounded people can accept it and even grow when they hear the truth.
However, truth doesn’t mean the same to everyone. Whereas to the overwhelming majority of the world’s population ‘truth’ represents what actually happens or has happened and is therefore vital to all relations and transactions, to a minute, rootless but vociferous minority of professional victims, ‘truth’ is a flexible concept, to be used expediently.
As a matter of policy, to gain an approximation of the truth, it’s usually wise to invert everything this minority says. That is to say, when they claim something, particularly when they accuse others of something, that assertion must be assumed to define their own actions and attitudes. They don’t invariably lie in the accepted sense of making something up, they just stand the truth on its head. How to explain this?
Let’s take it step by step.
Ben Weich in this week’s edition of the Jewish Chronicle confirms the gist of my previous post: police have received yet another vexatious complaint from the usual suspects and are therefore obliged to fulfil their duty and investigate my heretical comments regards Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah. On and on it goes…
Today, I would like to comment on the atrocious double standards being applied by the English court system when it comes to so-called ‘hate crime’. I will return to foreign justice systems in a future article, specifically dealing with the current plights of Ursula Haverbeck and the Schaefer siblings in Germany (not forgetting Horst Mahler and Gerhard Ittner), as well as that of Canadian free speech advocate, Arthur Topham.
An article online published last Thursday by despicable Zionist rag, UK Jewish News, claims I am again under police investigation. The flurry of emails to my inbox from all over the world – Canada, Australia, the US, France as well as Britain – leads me to write a general update here rather than keep repeating myself in replies to those devoted to the Revisionist Cause.
Above: ‘Hate singer’ – but nevertheless an ‘artist’