VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum - Recent Posts

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 28, 2017, 03:44:48 AM

Home Help Search Login Register
+  VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum
|-+  Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
European Union / Re: EU Discussion Forum
« Last post by Flatline on Today at 03:25:55 AM »
I hope this Documentary fits into this thread. If not please post to the appropriate one.

I believe a video about the French group was posted on VM a few years ago.

Europe's Right-Wing Youth Activists are Striking Back Against Multi-Culturalism
Media - General / Re: The Jewish Question
« Last post by maltapride88camilleri on Today at 12:55:40 AM »

Movies and Theatre / Re: ROME - Julius Ceasar
« Last post by IMPERIUM on June 27, 2017, 07:58:02 PM »


 The greatness that was Rome.
The greatness that will be our coming Imperium.
Imperium Europa!

The Golden Dawn
Count the Immigrants / Re: Illegal Immigrants 2013 - Comments
« Last post by IMPERIUM on June 27, 2017, 04:52:23 PM »

 8,500 migrants arriving in Italy, 5,000 saved Monday
Endless exodus from Libya continues
27 JUNE, 12:15

 ROME - Some 8,500 asylum seekers rescued in the southern Mediterranean over the last two days were arriving in Italian ports on Tuesday, sources said. Around 5,000 of those people were rescued off the coast of Libya on Monday alone. The asylum seekers were aboard 14 ships, six of which have already docked, or are about to enter, ports in Sicily and Calabria.


The Treason of Europe - the Death of Europe - the inevitable genocide of Europe and our Great Civilisation.
And the JEWS are behind all this - they are the matrix: the head of the Black Octopus.

The Golden Dawn

World Issues / Re: l ngos and immigrants
« Last post by IMPERIUM on June 27, 2017, 04:47:12 PM »

 Danes Want to Penalize Migrant-Smuggling NGOs

 Denmark's ruling Liberal Party wants to penalize NGOs rescuing migrants and refugees trying to cross the Mediterranean by boat. While the Liberals' stance has been backed by fellow government parties and the EU border agency itself, it also triggered criticism from human rights organizations.

A group of migrants off an incoming train walk down a platform as they are accompanied by the police at the Swedish end of the bridge between Sweden and Denmark near Malmo
'Send Me Instead!' Swedes Volunteer to Replace Rejected Refugees

The Liberal Party wants to strip Danish aid funds from NGOs involuntarily contributing to the smuggling of people into Europe by saving migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean by boat.

Liberal immigration spokesman Marcus Knuth stressed the fact that the government follows the line set by the EU border agency Frontex, which also slammed NGOs for funding or taking part in rescue missions.

"I strongly agree with the criticism. Aid organizations create a greater incentive to undertake the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean Sea, and I look upon that gravely," Marcus Knuth told the Danish newspaper Berlingske. "So we should look at where these organizations get their funds from, and if it comes from Denmark, we should strongly reconsider continued support," he continued.

The criticism was supported by the Danish People's Party, as well as the Conservative Party.

At present, nine NGOs operate ships in the Mediterranean off the coast of Libya, which is the most popular route for migrants from Africa, the Middle East and Asia trying to reach Europe. Last year alone, 181,000 ventured upon the perilous crossing, with a record 5,000 drowning en route. This year, another 72,000 refugees and migrants arrived in Italy by sea, an increase of almost 28 percent compared with the same period last year. The NGOs claim to have saved about a third of them, yet were unable to prevent about 2,000 deaths.

Danish Interior Minister Inger Stojberg holds her phone showing a Danish flags as she attends a Justice and Home Affairs Council at the European Council in Brussels on November 18, 2016
Social Justice Warriors Wince at Danish Integration Minister's Cake Celebrating Migrant Controls
According to Berlingske, just one of the nine NGOs operating in the Mediterranean receives Danish government aid, namely Red Barnet (Save the Children), headed by former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
Needless to say, Red Barnet was not enthusiastic by the Liberals' criticism, maintaining it was misplaced.

"There is no connection between our efforts and human trafficking. A number of studies have proved that," Jonas Keiding Lindholm of Red Barnet told Berlingske.

The Danish criticism was also condemned by the deputy directory of Human Rights Watch, Judith Sunderland.

"The logic of those who criticize rescue operations as a pull factor is that these groups should stop saving people and let them drown to deter others from coming," Judith Sunderland said, as quoted by the Danish newspaper Information.

Migrants in Padborg, Denmark
Denmark Laments Deported Refugees Beaten Up En Route to Home Country
Meanwhile, Swedish national broadcaster SVT's foreign commentator Erika Bjerström suggested that young men from non-warring democracies lacking refugee status travel to Europe, which they see as a cash machine.
"Migrant streams are coming from West Africa. They are almost just men hailing from countries such as Senegal, Nigeria, Côte d'Ivoire and Gambia. These are democracies with good economic growth. They have heard about Europe as a paradise and are seeking happiness and a better life," Erika Bjerström told SVT. "The big problem is that these young men are misinformed, as they are seeing Europe as a single cash machine," she continued, adding that 90 percent are economic migrants in search of a better life.

In related news, Finnish officials have recently intervened to prevent an aide to Labor Minister Jari Lindström from cutting funding to NGOs assisting immigrant children, including two Somali grassroots organizations. While the decision was reversed as "lacking rationale," the aide claimed to have followed orders instead of "flying solo."


 Yes, We will penalize these Traitors posing as Christian do-gooders.
Oozing charity and having their boats blessed by corrupt Christian pastors.
We will Hang Them All.

The Golden Dawn
Ask Lowell / Re: LGBT
« Last post by IMPERIUM on June 27, 2017, 02:27:42 PM »

 Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 13:03

Gender-neutral terms in marriage law 'logical solution' - MGRM

The use of gender neutral terms in the amendments to the marriage law is the simplest and most logical solution to introduce equality for all, the MGRM Malta Gay Rights Movement said today.
Some MPs and former MPs have criticised the fact that the law as amended will make no reference to mothers or fathers.
"If the law is to reflect the fact that married couples can be composed of heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, cisgender, transgender, intersex or gender queer individuals or any combination of these then the use of gender neutral terms is the simplest and most logical solution," the MGRM said.

The MGRM said that if improvements to the proposed bill meant addressing any oversights, they were certainly welcome. "If however it meant compromising on inclusion to maintain heterosexual and cisgender privilege, then no thank you."



Re: Morgane Oger vs Bill Whatcott (case number: 16408)

Dear Mr. Rilkoff,

I have received your letter incorrectly accusing me of unilaterally attempting to determine what the complainant will call himself. On June 9, 2017 you wrote, “The Complainant is entitled to use her name in the complaint process. It is certainly not for Mr. Whatcott to determine what the Complainant will call herself, and his unilateral attempt to do so is disrespectful and will not be tolerated.”

In actual fact I have no power or capacity to determine what either you or Ronan Oger will call himself. If you and Ronan want to indulge his gender confusion and refer to him as “Morgane Oger” have at it. If you want to call Ronan a tomato, a dog, or a cat; I can't stop you from doing that either. The problem I have with this process is you are exhibiting obvious bias that gives me no confidence you are even capable of arriving at an impartial decision regarding this matter and it is you who is unilaterally determining what the Defendant can and cannot say and indeed you are backing your unilateral attempt to control my speech with threats of legal sanctions. You wrote “He (Whatcott) may not refer to the Complainant as “Ronan Oger,” “he” or “him.” You further go on to say, “Further instances of such behaviour may also subject Mr. Whatcott to an order to pay costs pursuant to s. 37(4)(a) of the Human Rights Code.”

Of course the complaint you are appointed to adjudicate stems from my election flyer delivered during BC's recent provincial election arguing Mr. Oger is a biological male and that his so-called transgender activism and proven history of wanting legal protection for his fake identity enshrined into law, is incompatible with God's will for humanity and what I perceive to be good government. Your letter to me on British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal letterhead clearly indicates you believe punitive measures employed by state organs (even before the case goes to trial) are an acceptable measure to employ to prevent me from arguing what I argued in my election flyer (that the NDP candidate for Vancouver False Creek is a gender confused male). Hence, it appears to me that the ruling you will make is already decided in favour of LGBT falsehood and you simply want me to politely go along with this fraudulent process, so that your ruling which will be an affront to democratic freedom and the right to speak what is true can have a veneer of legal respectability.

Please be advised I have no interest in cooperating with such a biased and fraudulent process and I will not use the fake pro-nouns you prescribe “she” or “her,” nor will I use Ronan's transvestite fantasy name “Morgane,” even if the government gave him a birth certificate with that obviously feminine name, nor will I use your gender neutral alternative “the Complainant,” as I believe to do so will mean I am cooperating with LGBT tyranny and falsehood. I am only open to using male pronouns when referring to biological males, or as a possible compromise if the Tribunal and Ronan's counsel finds it acceptable, I can refer to Ronan in this process as the “biological male.” Various media reports even while calling Ronan a woman acknowledge he was born a biological male and I assume the Tribunal and Ronan's lawyer acknowledge the reality that Ronan is a biological male, even as you insist the Defendant and presumably all BC residents refer to him with female or gender neutral pronouns.

If you find the term “biological male” unacceptable when referring to Mr. Oger and you have no acceptable (to me) alternative, then please be advised I will continue to use Mr. Oger's birth name and male pronouns when referring to him, as God has clearly created him male and you should have no authority to coerce me into saying otherwise. In the absence of a mutually acceptable compromise on how to address Ronan Oger, the NDP Vancouver-False Creek candidate, who is now a human rights complainant because I referred to him as a biological male; I will continue to speak what is true regardless of any financial penalties or other measures you decide to impose on me.

In Christ's Service,
Bill Whatcott, Ph: 778-837-3650, e-mail:, website:


Malta has started the slippery slope of enforced Equality.
The JEWS are behind this confusion.
LGBT are unwittingly being used by The Rodents in Human Form.

The Golden Dawn
Geopolitics / What if Hitler had won the war?
« Last post by IMPERIUM on June 27, 2017, 11:52:38 AM »

 If Hitler Had Won World War II We’d Have A Better, More Just World Today

Bradford Hanson BRADFORD HANSON  · JANUARY 29, 2017

LEGENDARY U.S. General George S. Patton realized late in the war that the United States fought the wrong country. Patton felt the U.S. should have sided with Germany to destroy Jewish Bolshevik/Communist USSR. This information comes from Patton’s diary entries, letters he wrote to his wife, and comments he made to military officers and staff.

World War II was incredibly complex. However, in the final analysis, WWII was essentially a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism vs. Jewish internationalism/globalism. Adolf Hitler and his allies fought to preserve the concept of nationalism, not just for Germans but for all peoples the world over. Nationalism really just means the sovereignty of an ethnic people and the right of such ethnic people/nationalists — within their own bordered country — to self-determination.  What is meant by self-determination?  Self-determination just means an ethnic people preserving their unique culture and heritage and pursuing their collective goals as a unique people.  This applies to any ethnic peoples: Nigerians, Germans, Swedes, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Tibetans, etc.

On the other side of WWII was Jewish (Bolshevik) internationalism (today we simply call this ‘globalism’). In the 1920’s, 1930’s, and of course during WWII, powerful Jewish internationalists were fervently advancing the Jewish worldview of eventually eliminating all nations… except for a Jewish homeland… (what was later to be — after WWII — the nation of Israel in 1948). Today we see that nothing has changed; Jewish internationalism/globalism still works toward gradually “merging” all peoples of the world (particularly in the Western World) into one globalist system with a global government, global laws, consistent global culture, global bank, global currency, etc. In short, Jewish globalism (i.e., the weakening and eventual elimination of all nations) is the exact opposite of nationalism (i.e., a world composed of nations … specifically, ethnically homogenous and bordered nations). The Allied powers of WWII (led by Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, et al) were tools of International Jewry and thus de facto fighting for the Jewish globalist worldview. After the (Jewish-run) Allies won WWII in 1945, international Jewish forces were then free to exercise a Jewish ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater Western World (and as we see today, increasingly over the rest of the world).

Alternatively, if Hitler had won World War II and then exercised a Nationalist ‘Sphere of Influence’ over the greater Western World, we’d have a more just, fair, and moral Western World today. The rest of the world would have similarly benefited had the Germans been victorious since German influence would have surely spread elsewhere (ideas such as non-usurious banking and strong family oriented culture would likely have spread globally).

Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post-war world? Here are a few examples:

1 – No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign — to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, “living space”)

2 – No cold war (because there would be no USSR)

3 – No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism — this was part of Stalin’s spoils of war)

4 – No Red China and Mao’s subsequent killing of 40 – 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao’s Communists which ultimately led to Mao’s victory over Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory)

5 – No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh)

6 – No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot’s slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot)

7 – No dividing Korea into North Korea and South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist… another of Stalin’s spoils of war)

8 – No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950’s?)

9 – No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world’s most fervent anti-Communist)

10 – Liberalism and multiculturalism wouldn’t dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism… at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today)

11 – No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering “tools” which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School)

12 – No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn’t be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation’s liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B’nai B’rith)

13 – No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn’t run Hollywood)

14 – No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of “Freedom of Speech”)

15 – There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called “separation of church and state,” something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)

16 – No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism)

17 – No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians

18 – Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland)

Many reading this will ask, “But what about the Holocaust?” The Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated by organized Jewry in order to create sympathy for Jews worldwide and thus help advance the Jewish agenda (i.e., people seen as victims tend to get their way). It is also used as a political weapon to justify Israeli militarism against the Palestinians. Hitler’s Final Solution (rebranded in the early 1970’s as the “Holocaust”) was a plan to remove Jews from Europe, not to kill them. During WWII, just as the U.S. couldn’t trust Japanese Americans, thus causing FDR to round many of them up and place them in concentration camps, Hitler couldn’t trust Jews since many were partisans sympathetic to the USSR and hence they aided the USSR in various subversive, anti-German activities. Therefore the National Socialists rounded up Jews and placed them in concentration camps.

Somewhere around one million Jews died during WWII (not six million) mostly due to disease and starvation in the final months of the war. Heavy Allied bombing of Germany and parts of German occupied Europe destroyed many roads, rail lines, and bridges making it impossible for Germany to adequately supply the camps with food and medicine. The result is that many Jews died of starvation and disease; and of course many non-Jews also died of starvation and disease (again, due to a massive Allied bombing campaign and its destruction of German transportation infrastructure). Lastly, there were no “gas chambers.” Much has been written about this. To study the “gas chamber” subject, read the research papers published by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno (there are many others as well). To get a broad overview of the Holocaust, read my article, What Was The Holocaust… What Actually Happened?

It should also be noted that Hitler never wanted to “conquer the world.” He simply wanted to safeguard Europe and the greater Western World from all manner of nefarious Jewish influence and, more broadly, safeguard the world-at-large specifically from, 1) usurious Jewish banking and, 2) Jewish-driven cultural degradation.

As previously stated, the Allied heads-of-State (Roosevelt, Churchill, et al) were puppets of International Jewry; each sold his soul for power and prestige. Again, as earlier stated, World War II was a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism -vs- Jewish Bolshevik internationalism/globalism — unfortunately International Jewry won.

Was World War II “the good war” as is often claimed? No, it was exactly the opposite. The Allied victory marked the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.


And of course We would have had a better world.
A world without Jews, without Blacks, without Rag-heads in our midst, without disorder.
A world of High Culture enjoyed by Whites in their own Territories.

The Golden Dawn

National Socialism & Fascism / Re: Fascism
« Last post by IMPERIUM on June 27, 2017, 11:42:36 AM »

 Oswald Mosley - Fascism


The greatest orator Britain ever had.
The greatest statesman Britain ever had.
The greatest loss ever suffered by the British.

The Golden Dawn
Biology and Genetics / Re: EQUALITY : The Myth
« Last post by IMPERIUM on June 27, 2017, 10:20:15 AM »

 Marriage equality not limited to same-sex couples
Policy chief Silvan Agius explained that the amendments will not only take into account the rights of homosexuals, but also those of heterosexuals

 Il-Ministru taz-Zejziet Ugwali - Il Purcinella tal-Parlament.
Mal Mostru tal-Ugwaljanza - dejjem imwahhal ma sorma!
Laqqas it-toqba ta-sormu mi ugwali dak! 

Perhaps the two Equality fanatics might now consider Polyandrous marriages - why not?
They will surely get the support of all the cranks, the feminists, the Equality Idiots of the land.
Let Malta be the first to adopt Polyandrous marriages - Halli kullhadd jghir ghalina!


 "Frédérique visits the local Qiang people, an ethnic minority officially recognized by the People's Republic of China and numbering 200,000. The colorfully-dressed Qiang are pantheistic, matrilineal and polyandrous"

At 22.30 the Swastica in the kitchen.


The Golden Dawn

The Lounge / Re: Freedom of Expression
« Last post by IMPERIUM on June 27, 2017, 08:34:01 AM »

uesday, June 27, 2017, 06:44 by Kevin Aquilina

 Coalitions and democracy

...A vote to the smaller parties may serve well as a protest vote against big parties. The voter knows beforehand that his vote will never lead the small party to the House but more probably to oblivion. Past history of independent Malta is replete with such examples and only Alternattiva Demokratika is (at least to date) an exception to this rule since they continue to exist without having savoured parliamentary membership.

The Democratic Party was by far wiser than the smaller parties because they formed a coalition with a bigger party and made it to the House with two MPs at their very first attempt. Now, lest I be misunderstood, I am not stating that smaller parties should be wound up as this would constitute a severe blow to an already frail democracy. What I am stating is that the Constitution and the electoral law do not look favourably at smaller parties.

The same applies to the scheme of election broadcasts approved by the PL-PN duopoly in the Broadcasting Authority where small parties and independent candidates are only allowed token amounts of broadcasting time just simply to put their conscience at rest that the smaller parties and independent candidates are allocated an insignificant amount of airtime.

Smaller parties do not own any broadcasting media of their own. The PL-PN duopoly in the Broadcasting Authority believe in the legal fiction that the radio and television stations owned by the PL-PN balance out each other and that the whole set-up of that authority raises serious constitutional questions of independence and impartiality, more so when the authority exercises a quasi-judicial function.

The balance always tilts in favour of the two big parties and out of those two parties, the one in government reigns supreme.

Kevin Aquilina is the Dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta.


 See post 34

 We of Imperium Europa know very well what Media censorship is.
Two Lesbic Prostitute Parties have kept us out of TVM and their own, Party media.
Yet, We refuse to submit, to throw in the towel.

The Golden Dawn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF 2.0.12 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
TinyPortal © 2005-2012

VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum, Recent Posts - Theme by Mustang Forums