Registrado: 04 Jun 2009 Mensajes: 2059 Ubicación: Parksville BC Canada
Publicado: Vie Jun 22, 2012 2:55 pmAsunto: Un saludo a lo pueblo Argentino Britanico en Argentina
Un saludo a lo pueblo Argentino Britanico en la grande Republica de Argentina en este mundo nada necesita guerras de OLEO solo amor y paz.
Malvinas son argentinas vos todos pueden viver como hermanos en la grande republica Argentina vosotros son los testigos de la verdad en esa misma nacion cue vos recebio con los brazos abiertos escapados de la pobreza de Gran Britanica, an sido ARGENTINA y los argentinos
en la segunda guerra mundial havia mas de 2400 pilotos argentinos britanicos trainados en Patricia Bay BC y Alberta Canada combatiendo contra los axis.maz de 150000 venidos de el Imperio y otras naciones como Argentina fueron trainados en Canada
una pregunta Cuantos argentinos britanicos pilotavan eses aviones argentinos viejos de maz de 25 años de uso ,.en la Bahia de San Carlos el tal Calejon de la Muerte en 1982 ???
No se olviden que esta musica solo representa lo sufrimento de esclavos lo cual todos nosotros somos de los ricos y Gran Bretania an sido los chefes de ese negocio de CRIMES
las Gaitas viene de la India,un pais esclavo del Imperio por mas de 500 años onde nunca una sola publica escuela ai sido construida por el Imperio para los nativos indus
los Tambores viene de Africa onde el Imperio inventaron los primeros campos de concentracion,onde morieron millares de presioneros Boers mujeres hombres y niños 250000 haci dicen
la maz grande no mundo corporacion inglesa de esclavos existia en Buenos Aires Argentina hace uns 100 años
Escuchen e Disfruten esta maravilla pero no se olviden de la historia
El Concierto ai sido producido en Australia un continente descubierto por los portugueses e una actual colonia inglesa poblada por esclavos blancos y presioneros venidos de miseria e pobreza de Gran Bretania e el resto del Imperio,muchos de ellos capturados e venidos de la Revolucion en Canada 1837 e vendidos como esclavos blancos en Australia e Tasmania y metidos en las prisones de la colonial penal de Australia
como RACISMO noticia que no ves un solo nativo de Australia entre todo ese publico
Australianos eran los unicos pueblo del mundo que no podian emigrar para Brasil por racismo no sei se esa ley continua hoy en Brasil
As a freeborn and patriotic Englishman, I unapologetically expel from the furthermost reaches of my anus the most rancid and hideously foul smatterings of diarrhoea upon every aspect of the anti-English and treasonous "Royal Family".
The Windsors hate not only the British people, they take us for fools bedazzled by their worthless shenanigans; and they laugh contemptuously at our imbecilic credulousness.
The marriage of a Rothschild-Jewish parasite named Billy Windsor ("Prince" William) to the hideously ugly and unfeminine anorexic child of British upper-class privilege whose sluttish name is one of that called "Kate Middleton", should stir outrage not only in the hearts of all true patriotic Englishmen and Englishwomen, but incur, for their licentiously ungodly behaviour, the wrath of supreme Vengeance upon the house of an unwholesomely decadent family that continues to not only exploit the gullibility of indigenous Britons, but the the fawning celebrity worship of a world that has quite simply lost its collective mind.
I speak as a true-born and freeborn Englishman who loves my nation more than any member of the illegal and usurper "Royal Family" could ever hope to enunciate in words that do not betray their utter contempt and disgust for the working and middle-class people who slave, labour and pay illegal taxes to "Her Majesty's" Inland Revenue Service under the illicit and unconstitutional British Crown System that has held sway over the minds of all Britons since the illegal deposition of the Republic.
I also speak for the millions of blue-collar workers the world over, including American citizens, who have absolutely no idea as to the extent to which this loathsomely dysfunctional and psychopathic Windsor-Rothschild mutation remains in complete control of everything they thought of being sovereign unto themselves, yet which was slyly sequestered by means of international British Admiralty Law. Under BAL, every American citizen is still is a subject to the the British Crown. You think you're free? Then think again. America's social security laws have always required "royal" assent. You are owned by the British Crown, lock, stock and barrel.
Prince William is the bastard child of a bastard monarchy set in place by a bastard regime of bastard multi-billionaire bankers who own, directly or indirectly, over two thirds of the world's resources. The Queen, an old hag of a pretentious bitch who seeks pleasure in killing innocent animals while her fellow citizens scramble for crumbs that fall from her banquet's table of financially kosher creations, and who is singularly inured against the rising tide of anger to every aspect of the City of London's banking aristocracy, should be reviled as one the most hated personages in modern times. She is the richest woman in the world and a servant of the murderous, conniving, Zionist, Rothschild dynasty.
This utterly despicable whore of secretive international banking and thief of the sweat and labour of hard-working and patriotic men and women deserves nothing more than a swift razor slash to the throat while she is ensconced on the Royal Shittery, left to bathe languidly in the the faeces she has smeared upon the faces of all true English folk ever since her illegal coronation in 1953.
Under the guise of the illegal British Crown System of government, my people, the English, have been led by the nose from one disastrous war to another and into the Fascist-Bolshevik construct known as the European Union. She, Elisabeth Windsor, wrongfully crowned on a throne that did not sit atop the famed "Stone of Destiny" (purloined by Scottish Nationalists) is not only the most traitorous harlot ever to have besmirched the pages of British history, but a liar, an imposter, a money-grubbing imperialist who, like her husband, deems all humans on the face of this earth to be a curse unto nature.
And of what is she made? The Windsors claim to be of Germanic "royal" ascent, but, in all reality, like all perniciously canny thieves and robber barons, they climbed out of the same sewer that spawned the venomous rats who rule the world: The Rothschilds Power-Jews who actually had it within themselves to outwit the superlatively higher intelligence of a Celtic Race that should have known better, but was betrayed, not by thirty pieces of silver, but by their own blue-eyed credulity.
You're English. You're waving the Union Jack. You're singing "God Save The Queen". Do you know what you look like? You resemble one of those horribly abused children depicted in Israeli snuff movies taking it in the shaft, the mouth and every which way they choose before blowing your brains out. You're a brainwashed fuck-up dripping from head to toe in "royal" semen. Intellectually, you are dead from the knees up. And, worse, you're actually smiling and enjoying the show!
Admit it, Sunny Jim. You're a twat. You know you've been taken for a ride; but, come on, Pal, you can always get off this merry-go-round called the "United Kingdom". It's hard to let go of the Union Jack-Off. It's always turned you on for the wrong reasons. Time to burn that fucking flag of oppression and colonial, divisive, class hatred.
You are an Englishman. Therefore, fly with pride the Republican Flag of St. George from every building in the nation. This is your identity. The flag is a symbol of your freedom from UK oppression and slavery and your utter disgust with the Windsor Parasitic Elites, the City of London, the European Union and its Zionist overlords.
Those whom we falsely worship shall lead us into the pit of despair. Take it from a lone and very brave individual called John Anthony Hill, who was arraigned for telling the truth about MI5's carefully orchestrated attacks on British civilians in one of the most hushed-up campaigns of internal propaganda since the last Zionist-instigated war against our fellow German Anglo-Saxons and Celts:
The 7/7 Ripple Effect
The Truth About The British Monarchy
The Nail In The Coffin Of The New World Order
Although, as a republican patriot, I do not endorse this man's claims in respect to royal lineage and the necessity of a monarchical system of governance, I am firmly behind him in every detail accruing the international criminality of the Windsor Mafia and their equally depraved intelligence services.
This week will see the marriage of one of the world's biggest Welfare Scroungers and Parasites, Billy Windsor ("Prince" William), to a cheap plastic tart who resembles nothing more than a neurotic stick-insect whose only claim to fame is having a mouth wide enough to accommodate yet another Windsor-Rothschild blow-job.
At the age of fourteen I saw through the lies with which British children were bombarded courtesy of the subversive, lying BBC and prayed that, one day, my people would chase these aristocratic fraudsters down the street and lynch them from the nearest lamp-post.
Thirty-seven years later, I have never lost hope. For I shall forever love England. It is a love so fearsome, and shared passionately by many others, that it carries within itself the power to consume all of its enemies. We can begin by hanging the colonial Parasite Windsor Elite under the Flag of Saint George.
Save the last cucumber sandwich for me, my friend. The last cucumber sandwich for me.
Mike James, an English republican patriot, is a blacklisted former freelance journalist resident in Zionist-occupied Germany since 1992 with additional long-haul stays in East Africa, Poland and Switzerland. He advocates a Leaderless Resistance to destroy the Soviet European Union and prays for a free and independent England, shorn of all alliances with the EU, UK, NATO, the UN, WTO, IMF, Israel and any other treacherous international cabal or entity.
Fuck the Queen: I'm Not an Ant and I'm Not a Bee
An ex Slave trader and Naval deserter named John Newton. It is practically beyond argument that the song was strongly inspired by the Life and conversion of St. Paul who was temporarily blinded on the Damascus road. ---- John Newton was born in London on 24 July 1725. His father was commander of a merchant ship, and young John followed in his footsteps. After his father died, Newton joined the crew on the H.M.S. Hartwich, but deserted after he found the living conditions deplorable. He was recaptured, flogged and demoted from midshipman to common seaman.
After this, Newton spent some time on a slave-trader's ship, learning the trade, and eventually commanding his own trade in slavery. His conversion occurred during a violent storm at sea on 10 May 1748. From then on, he was a changed man, ultimately leaving his sea-going days behind him, and studying to become a minister. He was ordained by the Bishop of Lincoln and given the curacy of Olney, Buckinghamshire. "Amazing Grace" was written whilst he was at Olney, most probably between 1760 and 1770. He spent his later life in blindness, hence the verse was blind but now I see was written about his ability to see how wrong he had been in mistreating and transporting people as slaves. Even though blind, he could now understand that God's love is for every man and Jesus had paid the price through his death on the cross for every sin he had ever committed. Incidentally, Newton did not write the music, only the words. The origin of the music is unknown, but it is speculated that it might have been based on a melody sung by the slaves themselves.
Registrado: 04 Jun 2009 Mensajes: 2059 Ubicación: Parksville BC Canada
Publicado: Dom Jun 24, 2012 5:11 amAsunto: EL DEGUELLO Time to break links with Falklands and Gibralta
Time to break links with Falklands and Gibraltar
The further we are from Britain, the better is our perspective on the country's true national interests and role in the world.
I learned this in my first years as a journalist, nearly a decade based in Brussels, observing how successive British governments found it difficult to adjust to a post-imperial, post second world war, role, as a new member of the European Community, as it was then known.
Approaching Earth for the first time creatures from another planet might wonder, among many other things, why the Union flag, the flag of the UK, is flying on islands in the South Atlantic close to Argentina and on a large limestone rock on Spain's southern tip.
I contemplated this as the Spanish government suddenly cancelled Queen Sophia's trip to join other European monarchs to celebrate Queen Elizabeth's diamond jubilee at Windsor castle (in protest against a planned visit to Gibraltar by Elizabeth's youngest son Prince Edward and his wife Sophie, Countess of Wessex).
I contemplated this further, as on holiday in Europe, I read about the spat between David Cameron and Argentina's president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, at the recent G20 summit in Mexico. Cameron told Fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are holding a referendum on their future status.
For her part, Fernandez was reported to have shown Cameron a letter referring to a 1985 UN security council resolution requesting both governments to negotiate a "peaceful" resolution to the Falklands dispute.
There is another island where the Union Jack flies. That is Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Chagos archipelago, seized from Mauritius and turned into the British Indian Ocean Territory, and a large US military base. The inhabitants there were given no choice — they were deported to Mauritius and Seychelles. Recently released archives show that Britain deliberately hoodwinked the UN suggesting that the people living there were merely contract labourers and not indigenous. Unlike the inhabitants of the Falklands or the Rock of Gibraltar, the Chagos islanders are not white.
Britain's claims to the Falklands are not as solid as successive British governments have suggested. "Our rights of possession were not so incontestable as to render a renewal of the old controversy desirable from a British point of view," a Foreign Office official acknowledged back in 1927.
The Falklands were discovered by an Englishman in 1592. The first settlement was French, but in 1770 the Spanish captured a new British settlement and sent all the inhabitants back to Britain. In 1820 Argentina took formal possession of the Falklands. In 1832, the British sent HMS Clio to turn out the Argentine governor.
A year later, Argentina told Lord Palmerston that "settlement, and not discovery was the important factor in determining the rights of sovereignty, and the Spanish settlement had been established before and had lasted longer than the British".
Margaret Thatcher's government secretly offered to hand over sovereignty of the Falklands islands two years before the invasion by Argentine forces in 1982.
The secret meeting was disclosed in the official history of the Falklands by Sir Lawrence Freedman. He revealed that the cabinet's defence committee approved a plan whereby Britain would hand Argentina titular sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years.
The British and Argentinian flags would be flown side by side on public buildings on the islands. British administration would continue with a view to guaranteeing the islanders and their descendants "uninterrupted enjoyment of their way of life".
In strict treaty terms, Britain's claims to Gibraltar are stronger — the Rock was which was ceded in perpetuity to the British Crown in 1713 by the Treaty of Utrecht. Yet, just as successive UK governments have been prepered to negotiate about sovereignty of the Falklands, so they have sought a joint sovereignty agreement with Spain cover Gibraltar. The last attempt to do so was in 2002.
It cannot be beyond the wit of mature governments to abandon anachronistic notions of status or false pride. The territories are of no strategic use to Britain.
The inhabitants of the Falklands and Gibraltar must be allowed, in law, to preserve their basic rights, including language. And then cut the umbilical cords which still connects them to Britain.
"The Guardian" dice que la reivindicación británica por Malvinas "no es tan sólida
23/06/12.-El editor en temas de defensa y seguridad del diario
The Guardian, Richard Norton-Taylor, sostuvo que “las reivindicaciones de Gran Bretaña sobre las Malvinas no son tan sólidas como sucesivos gobiernos británicos han sugerido”.
En el blog que tiene en la edición digital del tradicional diario inglés, el periodista explicó que “es tiempo de romper los vínculos anacrónicos” que unen al Reino Unido con las Malvinas y también con Gibraltar, para negociar la soberanía “preservando los derechos fundamentales” de sus habitantes.
Sobre el archipiélago en el Atlántico Sur comentó que “las reivindicaciones de Gran Bretaña no son tan sólidas como los sucesivos gobiernos británicos han sugerido”.
En ese sentido recordó que ya en 1927 un funcionario de la Cancillería británica sentenció: "Nuestros derechos de posesión no son tan indiscutibles”.
Además citó a Lawrence Freedman, responsable de escribir la historia oficial británica de la Guerra de Malvinas, quien reveló que el gobierno de Margaret Thatcher ofreció entregar la soberanía dos años antes del conflicto, para luego arrendar las islas por 99 años.
“Las banderas británicas y argentinas se iban a izar una al lado de la otra en los edificios públicos en las islas”, comentó Norton-Taylor, quien ganó premios a la libertad de información en 1986 por revelar secretos del MI5, uno de los servicios de seguridad del Reino Unido.
El periodista llamó a “abandonar ideas anacrónicas de status y falso orgullo” y “romper los vínculos” con las Malvinas, aclarando que se deben “preservar los derechos fundamentales” de sus habitantes.
También hizo un llamamiento similar para “cortar el cordón umbilical” con Gibraltar, el peñón ubicado al sur de la península ibérica que España le reclama a Gran Bretaña.
Y aclaró que las reivindicaciones británicas sobre Gibraltar son más fuertes que en el caso de las Malvinas “porque la Roca fue cedida a perpetuidad a la Corona británica en 1713 por el Tratado de Utrecht”.
En su artículo, el periodista también menciona el caso de Diego García, la isla más grande del archipiélago de Chagos, donde el gobierno británico expulsó a la población originaria con el objetivo de alquilarle el lugar por 50 años a Estados Unidos, para que tenga una base militar en el Océano Indico.
“A sus habitantes no se les dio otra opción y fueron deportados a la isla Mauricio y las Seychelles. Archivos desclasificados muestran que Gran Bretaña engañó deliberadamente a Naciones Unidas (ONU) sugiriendo que la gente que vivía allí no eran más que trabajadores contratados y no indígenas”, apuntó Norton-Taylor.
“A diferencia de los habitantes de las Malvinas o el Peñón de Gibraltar, los isleños de Chagos no son blancos”, agregó.
El periodista comenzó su nota sosteniendo que estando a distancia del Reino Unidos se “mejora la perspectiva sobre los verdaderos intereses nacionales del país y su papel en el mundo”.
Por eso, expresó que trabajando en Bruselas observó “cómo los sucesivos gobiernos británicos encontraron difícil ajustarse a un papel post-imperial y post Segunda Guerra Mundial”.
Como ejemplos recientes mencionó el cruce entre el primer ministro David Cameron y la presidenta argentina Cristina Fernández de Kirchner en el G-20, cuando la jefa de Estado le intentó dar un sobre con las resoluciones de la ONU que instan al diálogo por Malvinas.
Registrado: 04 Jun 2009 Mensajes: 2059 Ubicación: Parksville BC Canada
Publicado: Dom Jun 24, 2012 6:57 amAsunto:
LAS SIETE PARTIDAS
Slavery & Discrimination In The Americas & European Empires-
The important point is that there was a slave law, an elaborate code, embodied as part of the Siete Partidas going back to Alfonso the Wise (1252-84), which endowed the slave with a legal personality, with duties, and with rights. The law as a human being knew the slave; he could marry, he could buy his freedom, he could change his master if he found one to purchase him, and he could under certain conditions testify in court even against his master. If a slave became a priest, he had to give his master one slave, but if he became a bishop, he had to give him two slaves.
The Negro brought over from Africa became the beneficiary of this body of law. He was not merely a slave-chattel, as he was under West Indian and American colonial codes-but also a human being with rights enforceable in the kings court. The Negro in Iberia was also converted to the Catholic faith, and the master had to see to it that he came to church. While Catholic doctrine did not oppose slavery as such, it asserted that master and slave were equal in the sight of God, that what mattered was the moral and religious character of man, and that the master must treat his slaves as moral beings, as brothers in Christ. It also emphasized the merits of manumission. Negroes in Spanish and Portuguese colonies were the inheritors of this legal and religious tradition. It is not suggested that slavery was not cruel, or that in Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela or Peru abominable and inhuman acts were not committed against Negro slaves. But cruelty was against the law, and a recognized legal protector of the slave could bring unusual punishment to the attention of the court. The killing of a slave was treated as murder. The entire atmosphere was different, and manumission was so frequent that there were often more freed Negroes than there were slaves.
The fact that the slave had both a legal personality and a moral status made manumission natural and the abolition of slavery no great shock. The question of the slaves fitness for freedom never arose, and the freed Negro was a free man, not a freedman. He was legally the equal of all other free men, and when slavery was abolished in Brazil, the crowd in the galleries threw flowers upon the members of the Congress, and the people danced in the streets of Rio de Janeiro throughout the night. The question of segregation, so agonizing and so disturbing in our own South, could never have arisen anywhere in Latin America-neither with the Negro nor with the Indian. It is this tradition in Latin America that makes it most difficult for them to understand our problem or our way of dealing with it.
This does not mean there is no racial prejudice in Latin America. It exists against both the Indian and the Negro, but it is a prejudice, which has no sanction in the law.
Excerpt from Slavery In The New World-A Reader in comparative History
Edited by: Laura Foner & Eugene D. Genovese
Keepers/ Guardianes de Harmonia- (Strong Hearts/ Corazones Fuertes/ Chicahuaqueyolloh)
Podés publicar nuevos temas en este foro No podés responder a temas en este foro No podés editar tus mensajes en este foro No podés borrar tus mensajes en este foro No podés votar en encuestas en este foro