Friday, 24 October 2014

MI5 had Labour's pet Marxist under surveillance for two decades!

In the 24 October 2014 edition of The Daily Mail, James Slack's rather cumbersome headline said, 'How the friend of Red Ed's father hobnobbed with traitors who spied for the Soviets: Newly-released files reveal how for 20 years MI5 kept close tabs on Labour's pet Marxist, historian Eric Hobsbawm.'
"A Marxist historian feted by the modern Labour Party was under surveillance for two decades by MI5 who uncovered his links to at least two Soviet spies, secret papers reveal today. Eric Hobsbawm, whose death in 2012 aged 95 was publicly mourned by Tony Blair and Ed Miliband, has long been known as an ‘unrepentant Communist’.

However, files newly released by the National Archives detail how his activities provoked such concern among the authorities that he was placed under extensive monitoring. Between 1942 and 1963, MI5 kept eight files on Hobsbawm – who was a close friend of Ed Miliband’s father, the Marxist academic Ralph Miliband – running to hundreds of pages. Eric Hobsbawm, whose death in 2012 aged 95 was publicly mourned by Tony Blair and Ed Miliband, has long been known as an ‘unrepentant Communist’

He was subjected to phone taps, had his correspondence intercepted and bugs placed in the rooms he used for meetings. There is nothing in the files to suggest Hobsbawm himself passed secrets to the Soviets – but he was in contact with at least two men who did, including a convicted spy whom he readily gave a bed for the night.

Between them, the pair, James MacGibbon and Alan Nunn May, handed the Russians top secret information on atomic research and intelligence on British and German war plans, including details of the D-Day landings.

Intriguingly, one of the eight files originally intended for publication today and relating to Hobsbawm’s contacts and activities in the 1950s was ‘kept back’ by officials. British physicist Nunn May became notorious for passing secret information to the Soviets about the Manhattan project – the western allies’ development of the atom bomb. He even couriered to the Soviets small samples of uranium 233 and 235, along with detailed information about the first atom bomb tests. The courier of the samples was not informed of the danger of radiation and needed lifelong regular blood transfusions.
British physicist Alan Nunn May passed military secrets to Stalin from 1942 to 1945, including details of British war plans, among them the D-Day landings. His case led to a horrified US ending the sharing of atomic information and to Britain developing its own bomb.
Unrepentant to the end, he argued that he had ‘acted rightly’ and that he only passed on information because he felt it was a ‘contribution I could make to the safety of mankind’. He also insisted he had burned the 200 dollars he received from the Soviets as a reward.

Nunn May, who was based in Montreal at the time of his betrayal, was sentenced to ten years hard labour in 1946 by the British courts, eventually being released in 1952... Transcripts of a secretly recorded telephone conversation reveal details of how the spy arranged to spend the night at Hobsbawm’s London flat in May 1956.
MacGibbon, later a distinguished London publisher, was unmasked as a Soviet spy in 2004, four years after his death. The British intelligence officer, code-named ‘Dolly’ by his Soviet handlers, passed military secrets to Stalin from 1942 to 1945, including details of British war plans, among them the D-Day landings. Working within the War Office department known as MO3, he regularly gathered information that he passed on via a Soviet contact in London, whom he knew as Natasha.

The details he shared with the Soviets include intelligence gleaned by the Enigma code-breaking team at Bletchley Park. But he also had access to one of the biggest secrets of the entire war – the locations of British forces as they prepared for the D-Day landings.

The de-classified files show Hobsbawm, who was made a Companion of Honour by the Blair Government in 1998, first joined the Communist Party in 1936. He came to the attention of MI5 four years later when he wished to invite a German Communist to give a lecture to British troops.

The incident, which took place while Hobsbawm was a sergeant in the Army Education Corps, triggered almost two decades of surveillance. He is described in one file as a ‘tireless (and tiresome) organiser of petitions and champion of lost causes’.

During his time at the Army Education Corps, Hobsbawm was marked out as a ‘bad influence’ after leaving Left-wing literature lying around. One report notes: ‘We know Hobsbawm has been continually in touch with prominent Communists and with party headquarters and there is no doubt he is a keen and very active party member.’

Communist Party records, obtained under a secret MI5 operation named Party Piece, reveal his frustration at not contributing more to the cause. The file records him saying: ‘I don’t feel I’ve done what I might for the Party, or that I’ve been advancing in my capacity to do so.’

When the war was over, while pursuing an academic career at Birkbeck College in London and King’s College Cambridge, Hobsbawm was chairman of the Historians Group of the Communist Party. The files show he was

in contact with senior members of the Party, including MacGibbon, as well as Nunn May...

Hobsbawm, who once described himself as an ‘unrepentant Communist’, was a towering figure on the British Left for decades. Upon his death in 2012, Ed Miliband led the tributes to a man he said had ‘brought history out of the ivory tower and into people’s lives’.

The Labour leader described him as ‘a great friend of my family’ and ‘a lovely man, with whom I had some of the most stimulating and challenging conversations about politics and the world’.

Questions had been asked about whether Hobsbawm might have himself been a Soviet agent. When he was at Cambridge during the 1930s, he knew Anthony Blunt and Guy Burgess – the notorious double agents who later betrayed Britain.

Shortly before his death, he had attempted, under the Data Protection Act, to read the files kept on him by MI5. He said he wanted to find out who had ‘snitched on him’.

Born in Egypt, Hobsbawm fled Nazi Germany in 1933. His books were studied by generations of students, and his history of the 20th century, The Age Of Extremes, has been translated into more than 40 languages. He faced criticism in later years for continuing to promote communism long after it had been discredited in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Speaking in 1994 to the author Michael Ignatieff about the fall of the Berlin Wall five years earlier, Hobsbawm was asked if Communism had achieved its aims – but at the cost of 15 to 20 million people – would he have supported it? His answer was, ‘yes'!"
Here's the question Ignatieff actually put to Hobsbawm on BBC2's 'Late Show' in 1994:
"What (your view) comes down to is that, had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fiteen to twenty million people might have been justified?"

Hobsbawm's unhesitating answer was, as previously stated: 'YES!' Indeed, despite the fact that most of those killed would have been innocent of any crime, he went on to further defend 'what HAD to be done.'

What do you think? Was Ed Miliband right to suggest someone who could unquestioningly support a totalitarian system that slaughtered 15 to 20 million people (a conservative estimate) was 'a lovely man?' Was Tony Blair right to ensure that this 'unrepentant' Egyptian Commie was awarded the Companion of Honour? (No more than 65 such 'Companions' may hold this sward at any one time)

I guess, if you are inclined towards Bolshevism and genocide, you might say 'yes.'

If you are not so inclined, I trust you'd say no.

The fact that a hero of both Blair and Miliband should be a died-in-wool Red who cared not a jot for the sufferings of so many should surprise no one and, I hope, might alert you to the mentality of those who aspire to be the leader of the Labour Party.

It is a mentality that, I'm sure, does not chime with that of the British people.

Eric Hobsbawm was Jewish, as was Ed's father, Ralph ('the man who hated Britain'), and Ed Miliband is, of course, Jewish himself.


Under-prepared, under-resourced and no clear strategy

On 23 October 2014, Larisa Brown said this in The Daily Mail:
“In a scathing critique of the UK’s involvement in Afghanistan, a series of British military commanders admitted a failure to appreciate the size of the task and that mistakes were made in the build-up to the fight. At times, troops were so stretched there was a risk they would be ‘massacred'...

Military chiefs failed to calculate the potential dangers and the size of the forces needed for the war in Afghanistan, General Sir Peter Wall admitted yesterday.
The former Chief of the General Staff made the damning statement in a BBC documentary ahead of the upcoming withdrawal of Western troops from the country after 13 years of war.

Another senior military commander said the UK was ‘under-prepared, under-resourced’ and had no clear strategy to succeed in the conflict.."
Sir Peter added:
“We had put forward a plan… saying that… for the limited objectives that we had set ourselves, this was a reasonable force. And I freely admit now, that calculus was wrong.”
Brigadier Ed Butler, Commander of the British Forces in Helmand in 2006, said:
“We were under-prepared, we were under-resourced, and most importantly, we didn’t have a clear and achievable strategy to deliver success.”
In 2006, however, Butler had said quite the opposite describing British forces as ‘well-prepared and well-equipped.’

General Lord Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff, added:
“We knew that we were heading for two considerable size operations and we really only had the organisation and manpower for one. Therefore perhaps we should have revisited the decision…We didn’t do that… There was a real danger… that we would find a platoon cut off and potentially massacred.”
Thus did 447 British soldiers die in Afghanistan. 

Thus were more than a thousand others horribly injured.

During the course of WW1 a German general described our young men as ‘lions led by donkeys.’
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose?"
Perhaps I’m being a little harsh. At least the Generals have had the good grace to admit they got it wrong, something our politicians never do. And yet… see the article immediately below.

Oh yes, the times they are a-changing all right.

Thursday, 23 October 2014

They stood by Israel through thick and thin

On 13 October 2014, British MPs voted 274 to 12 to recognise the State of Palestine.

Sir Richard Ottaway, Tory MP for Croydon South and a long-time leading light of the Conservative Friends of Israel grouping, said this during the debate that preceded the vote:
“I was a friend of Israel long before I became a Tory. My wife’s family were instrumental in the creation of the Jewish state. Indeed, some of them were with Weizmann at the Paris conference…

I have stood by Israel through thick and thin, through the good years and the bad. I have sat down with Ministers and senior Israeli politicians and urged peaceful negotiations and a proportionate response to prevarication, and I thought that they were listening.

But I realise now, in truth, looking back over the past 20 years, that Israel has been slowly drifting away from world public opinion. The annexation of the 950 acres of the west bank just a few months ago has outraged me more than anything else in my political life, mainly because it makes me look a fool, and that is something that I resent…

Under normal circumstances, I would oppose the motion tonight; but such is my anger over Israel’s behaviour in recent months that I will not oppose the motion. I have to say to the Government of Israel that if they are losing people like me, they will be losing a lot of people.”
Indeed they will, and already have.

People are waking up to the reality of Jewish power the whole world over. They’ve known about it in Palestine since the nineteenth century, as did the informed and concerned few elsewhere. The Jewish problem, the negative effect that Jewish ethnocentrism tended to have upon the countries and peoples that offered the Jew sanctuary, was openly discussed in that century.

However, from the 1920s onwards the intellectual elites in the West began cosying up to Marx, Trotsky and the destructive ideas of the Frankfurt School and now political correctness, of which dread philosophy non-criticism of minorities, particularly the Jewish minority, is a major component, has progressively taken a hold of our world.

This, together with the unlimited funds available to the Jewish lobby through their control of the banking system has ensured the eternal compliance of the ‘Friends of Israel’ in Westminster.

Until now.

Our politicians, of course, have always been aware of the ‘reality of Jewish power.’ We, however, have not. We may have felt it, sensed it, had it damage ua at the sharp end, but we have been taught, via the media brainwash and the race laws, to keep off-message opinion deep inside, for fear of reprisal from the always vigilant guardians of politically correct thought, speech and behaviour.

Such fear has markedly diminished, thanks to the informative power of social media, in recent times.

I may be wrong but I doubt that our politicians would have been so keen to abandon their long-standing partiality to all things Zion without the ever-increasing outrage that found its voice in cyberspace.

When Richard Ottaway speaks of ‘people like me’ he’s not kidding. He has, over the course, of his political lifetime, been as onside as it’s possible to be. Despite Israel’s dreadful treatment of the Palestinians over the course of many years, he and so many others like him, ‘stood by Israel through thick and thin.’

Until now.

It is perhaps, instructive to note that Ottaway, himself, admits arriving at his current assessment of the situation because Israel made him ‘look a fool’ and not because it was the right thing to do. Personal resentment, along with a dash of ‘world public opinion’ (social media), saw him vote for Palestine’s recognition.

Anyway, as I keep saying, it’s not just me now. It’s not just the ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘racists’ (both terms invented by Jews), it’s the ‘Friends of Israel’ as well.

Perhaps those of you whose only motivation is self-preservation and promotion better come aboard with the truth-tellers before you get shipwrecked with only the ‘Government of Israel’ for company.

Let’s take a look at what some of the other parliamentarians said.

Grahame Morris, Labour MP for Easington, who must be applauded for securing the debate, was first to speak.
“It is now more than 20 years since the Oslo accords, and we are further away from peace than ever before. An entire generation of young Palestinians… has grown up to witness a worsening situation on the ground. We have seen a significant expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, heightened security threats to both sides, punitive restrictions on Palestinian movement, economic decline, a humanitarian crisis in Gaza of catastrophic proportions and the construction of an illegal annexation wall through Palestinian land…

Today might be a symbolically important step, but it will not change the facts on the ground. The continuous blockade of the Gaza strip will not relent and the day-to-day reality of life under occupation will not change for the ordinary Palestinians. Opponents of the motion will use the well-worn argument that statehood should come through negotiations and not unilateral action.

Let us make no mistake about this: to make our recognition of Palestine dependent on Israel’s agreement would be to grant Israel a veto over Palestinian self-determination...

Recognition is not an Israeli bargaining chip; it is a Palestinian right… The lack of equity between Israel and the Palestinians is a structural failure that has undermined the possibility of a political settlement for decades… The majority of Israeli Government politicians flat-out reject the notion of a Palestinian state. There are currently no negotiations and, as Secretary of State John Kerry admitted, it was Israeli intransigence that caused the collapse of the latest round of talks.

Israel has been unwilling to offer a viable Palestinian state through negotiations. If the acceleration of the illegal settlement enterprise had not already proved that, in July Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu once again ruled out ever accepting a sovereign Palestinian state in the west bank…

The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said that Palestine did not have international recognition; the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have both said that Palestinian statehood should be recognised.”
Sir Gerald Kaufman was, for the majority of his long tenure as Labour MP for Manchester, Gorton, a fiercely staunch and committed Zionist.

Not so now however.
“There are 6 million Israeli Jews. There are 1,600,000 Palestinians in Israel, 2,700,000 on the west bank and 1,800,000 in Gaza. The Palestinians now outnumber the Israeli Jews, and that is without taking into account the 5 million Palestinians in refugee camps and in the diaspora. The big difference, of course, is that the Israelis have a secure state and the Palestinians live under oppression day after day.
The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) wove a fantasy that the Jews were reunited when the state of Israel was created… His fantasy was that all was harmonious when Israel was created, but the Israelis were divided into three warring factions at that time: the Haganah, representing the official Jewish agency; the terrorist organisation Irgun Zvai Leumi; and the terrorist Stern gang. Israel nearly broke out into civil war immediately after it was founded because Irgun insisted on having its own army in an independent state. So the idea that Israel was somehow born in a moment of paradise and that all that surrounds the Palestinians is stress and damage is a fantasy…

The Israelis are harming the Palestinians day after day. Last week the US State Department denounced a settlement expansion of 2,600 that the Israelis are planning. Last week the new president of the New Israel Fund, Talia Sasson, Jewish and pro-Israel, denounced the expansion of settlements again in the west bank. The Israelis, with the checkpoints, the illegal wall and the settlements, are making a coherent Palestinian state impossible.

That is why it is essential to pass this motion, because it would be a game changer. The recognition of Palestine by the British House of Commons would affect the international situation. This House can create an historic new situation. I call on right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the Palestinians their rights and show the Israelis that they cannot suppress another people all the time… They are harming the image of Judaism, and terrible outbreaks of anti-Semitism are taking place. I want to see an end to anti-Semitism, and I want to see a Palestinian state.”
Former Colonel Bob Stewart, DSO, a former United Nations commander in Bosnia, is now Conservative MP for Beckenham.
“Israel is in breach of the contract set out in the Balfour declaration stating that ‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’

In the light of the Nakba and everything since, that seems like a sick joke. The failure of the international community to recognise the state of Palestine has helped Israel to ignore this commitment…

This Sunday at Eden Camp in north Yorkshire there will be a gathering of the Palestine veterans. They will parade at 1 o’clock, but many of them will not be able to walk very far, if at all, they are all over the age of 80. They went to that land in 1945 as a peacekeeping force, but lost over 700 members of the armed forces and 200 police. I believe that we owe it to them for tonight’s motion to succeed.

Many were not conscripts; many were veterans of Arnhem, Normandy and Bergen-Belsen. Many felt, and still feel, betrayed by Israel and question the sacrifice that so many of their colleagues made. If this vote on recognising the right of Palestinians is won, they will very much welcome it, but it has been so long in coming.”
Almost all of the soldiers and policemen Bob Stewart mentions here were murdered by Jews. That is a historical fact that you won’t find in many modern British histories, certainly not those our schoolchildren get to read.

Sir Alan Duncan, Tory MP for Rutland and Melton, said this:
“I think that all of us in this House, to a man and a woman, recognise the state of Israel and its right to exist. Our belief in that should not in any way be impugned. Let us also be clear that that same right has not been granted to Palestine; in my view, it is high time that it was. It is the other half of the commitment that our predecessors in this House made as part of the British mandate in the region.

I cannot think of any other populous area of the world that is subject to so many resolutions but is not allowed to call itself a state... I do not quite agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) in his assessment of what it takes to justify granting statehood to, and recognise, a country…

Recognition of statehood is not a reward for anything; it is a right. The notion that it would put an end to negotiations, or somehow pre-empt or destroy them, is patently absurd; Palestine would still be occupied, and negotiations would need to continue, both to end that occupation and to agree land swaps and borders. Refusing Palestinian recognition is tantamount to giving Israel the right of veto.

When I was a Minister of State at the Department for International Development, we supported the Palestinian Authority... it was there, a responsible organisation. It is not their fault that they are occupied, and so often have their revenues withheld by the Israelis; if they were not withheld, Palestine would not need a penny of British aid…

It is only through recognition that we can give Palestinians the dignity and hope that they need to engage in further negotiations and to live in a country that they can properly call their own…

Settlements are illegal, and the endorsement of the Israelis’ right to reject recognition is tantamount to the endorsement of illegal settlement activity.

A lot of people feel intimidated when it comes to standing up for this issue. It is time we did stand up for it, because almost the majority of Palestinians are not yet in their 20s. They will grow up stateless. If we do not give them hope, dignity and belief in themselves, it will be a recipe for permanent conflict, none of which is in Israel’s interests. 
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who speaks on every occasion on this subject, only ever catalogues the violence on one side, and this is a tit-for-tat argument. Today, the House should do its historic duty.”
Former Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, Labour MP for Blackburn, said this:
“The ‘Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict’ was promulgated at the end of April 2003 under the auspices of the Quartet—the UN, EU, US and Russia… The Government of Israel were signed up to there being a separate and independent state of Palestine. One part of the road map anticipated that Quartet members, which include the UK, could ‘promote international recognition of a Palestinian state, including possible UN membership’ as a transitional measure…

The Government of Israel disagree. They claim that recognition of Palestine as a state should be at the conclusion of any successful peace negotiations. But such an approach would give the Government of Israel a veto, even over whether such a state should exist…

The only thing that the Israeli Government understand, under the present demeanour of Benjamin Netanyahu, is pressure. What the House will be doing this evening will be to add to the pressure on the Government of Israel. That is why they are so worried about this resolution passing. Were it just a gesture, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) implied, they would not be bothered at all. They are very worried indeed because they know that it will have an effect…

Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for nearly 50 years. It fails to meet its clear international legal obligations as an occupying power. In the last 20 years, as we have heard, it has compounded that failure by a deliberate decision to annex Palestinian land and to build Israeli settlements on that land. There are now 600,000 such Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem and the west bank. The Israelis are seeking to strangle East Jerusalem by expropriating land all around it, and two months ago, they announced the illegal annexation of a further nearly 1,000 acres of land near Bethlehem.

The Israeli Government will go on doing this as long as they pay no price for their obduracy. Their illegal occupation of land is condemned by this Government in strong terms, but no action follows. The Israelis sell produce from these illegal settlements in Palestine as if they were made or grown in Israel, but no action follows.

Israel itself was established and recognised by unilateral act. The Palestinians had no say whatever over the recognition of the state of Israel, still less a veto.”
Sir Nicholas Soames, Conservative MP for Mid Sussex, said this:
“I think that I am right in saying that the last time a debate of this type took place was in 1985, which was a long time ago, and that is not to the House’s credit…

I am convinced that recognising Palestine is… morally right because the Palestinians are entitled to a state, just as Israelis are rightly entitled to their homeland. This House should need no reminding of the terms of the Balfour declaration, which rightly endorsed ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’ but went on to state that ‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’

Ninety-seven years later, the terms of the Balfour declaration are clearly not upheld with respect to the Palestinians, and in Britain that should weigh very heavily upon us indeed. It is in our national interest to recognise Palestine as part of a drive to achieve lasting peace. We face so many dire emergencies in the middle east today; we cannot afford to add to them the continuing failure of the middle east peace process and the inevitable death of the two-state solution. This step by Britain and other nations is needed to galvanise talks that are paralysed and indicate that the status quo is not only untenable, but wholly unacceptable...
The cataclysm in Syria, the emergence of Islamic State and the 3 million Syrian refugees bringing neighbouring countries to their knees have made the situation in the middle east, already a cauldron, even more dangerous.

Moreover, as others have said, 135 of 193 UN member states have already recognised Palestine in recent years… The act of recognition itself clearly does not wreck the prospects for peace.

What does impede peace is a dismal lack of political will to make the necessary concessions and a tendency in Israel to believe that it will always be sheltered by the United States from having to take those difficult steps. Recognition by the United Kingdom would be a strong signal that the patience of the world is not without limit.

Secondly, it is said that recognition would be an empty gesture that would not change the facts on the ground. That is true, but it is not a reason not to recognise Palestine, which would be purely a political decision by the United Kingdom as a sovereign Parliament. It would be a powerful gesture to Palestinians that they will obtain their state in the future after 47 years of cruel and unjust occupation.”
Nicholas Soames is Sir Winston Churchill's grandson, Alan Duncan is gay, Jack Straw and Gerald Kaufman are Jewish and Richard Ottaway is married to a Jewess. 

A pretty diverse bunch hardly likely to be antagonistic towards our Hebrew chums without very good cause I think you'll agree.

Former Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, of whom Graham Morris, Gerald Kaufman, Jack Straw and Alan Duncan were all somewhat critical, is also Jewish.

Consider these statements from those who have invariably not only kept their own counsel on this issue, but have routinely defended the indefensible in Israel.
“Such is my anger over Israel’s behaviour… that I will not oppose the motion.”
“We have seen a significant expansion of illegal Israeli settlements… punitive restrictions on Palestinian movement… a humanitarian crisis in Gaza of catastrophic proportions and the construction of an illegal annexation wall through Palestinian land…
The lack of equity between Israel and the Palestinians is a structural failure that has undermined the possibility of a political settlement for decades.”
“The Palestinians live under oppression day after day… The Israelis are harming the Palestinians day after day… The Israelis, with the checkpoints, the illegal wall and the settlements, are making a coherent Palestinian state impossible… Give the Palestinians their rights and show the Israelis that they cannot suppress another people all the time.”
“This Sunday at Eden Camp in north Yorkshire there will be a gathering of the Palestine veterans… They went to that land in 1945 as a peacekeeping force, but lost over 700 members of the armed forces and 200 police… Many felt, and still feel, betrayed by Israel and question the sacrifice that so many of their colleagues made.”
“Settlements are illegal, and the endorsement of the Israelis’ right to reject recognition is tantamount to the endorsement of illegal settlement activity."
"A lot of people feel intimidated when it comes to standing up for this issue… The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, (the Jewess, Louise Ellman) who speaks on every occasion on this subject, only ever catalogues the violence on one side.”
“The only thing that the Israeli Government understand, under the present demeanour of Benjamin Netanyahu, is pressure… Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for nearly 50 years. It fails to meet its clear international legal obligations as an occupying power… The Israeli Government will go on doing this as long as they pay no price for their obduracy.”

“This House should need no reminding of the terms of the Balfour declaration, which… state(d) that ‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’ Ninety-seven years later, the terms of the Balfour declaration are clearly not upheld with respect to the Palestinians… Recognition… would be a powerful gesture to Palestinians that they will obtain their state in the future after 47 years of cruel and unjust occupation.”
The times they are a-changing, folks.

Or, at least, they appear to be.

My name is Chuka Umunna, clearly I'm of immigrant stock

On 21 October 2014, Labour's Business Secretary, Chukka Umunna, said this in The Daily Mail:
“A stream of UKIP candidates and supporters have come out with the most offensive and racist things... A lot of this stuff is vile, is absolutely vile, and it's not in keeping with our British values of respect, tolerance and fair play…

All the problems that you have, whether it's a getting an appointment at your GP, the fact you aren't earning enough at work, the fact your child can't get a house round the corner from you, is down to Eastern European immigration… Seeking to blame it on ‘that bunch over there’ is a complete con…

My name is Chuka Umunna, clearly I'm of immigrant stock… the kind of things you hear people saying about eastern Europeans these days is exactly the kinds of things they were saying about black and Asian people when they first arrived in this country. We can't have any truck with that. That is not what we are as Brits.”
All immigrants, including those who look more like Chukka than me or the Polish plumber, are to ‘blame’ for the damage they do here intentionally. Politicians are to blame for the damage the immigrant does here intentionally AND unintentionally.

Politicians imported them. Politicians are still doing so, despite six decades of unremitting protest from those amongst whom the immigrants are seeded.

Immigrants and immigrant-descended Britons have done us a lot of damage over the course of the last six decades. People like Chukka have done their best to cover up that damage. Not only that, they demonised those who tried to warn the indigenous of the reality.

We blame the immigrant for the nastiness he inflicts upon us and ours, Chukka.

We blame you for both aiding and abetting that nastiness and gleefully creating the circumstances where it bound to flourish.

Wednesday, 22 October 2014

A Jewish vigilante threatens Ironwand?

After EDL News ‏(an anti-English Defence League 'Calling time on the English Defence League' tweeter) tweeted that Garron Helm (who posted an anti-Semitic tweet to Jewish MP, Luciana Berger) had been jailed, I responded thus:

Mrvigilante responded thus:

Mrvigilante then thought twice about playing the hard nut.

The rest of the conversation follows:

Actually, though EDL News is almost certainly a Zionist, it was not he that posted the implied death threat, it was Mrvigilante, and I subsequently apologised.

At one point I pointed out the following:

EDL News replied:

I responded (he had blocked me by this time):

Anyway, threat and sneers used to work in the olden days. They don't now. And, as often as not, it's the threateners and the sneerers who leave the ring before the threatened and the sneered at.

Though Mrvigilante removed his threatening tweet from Twitter soon after I tweeted the 'little boy... in the kindergarten' reply, I tweeted thus to Luciana Berger:

Luciana Berger hasn't replied to any of my tweets.

P.S. I won't be reporting Mrvigilante's threat to Twitter or the cops. In fact, I won't even block him until and unless he becomes a bore and/or a time waster.

I'm not so easily 'offended.'

Tuesday, 21 October 2014


On 19 October 2014, during Sunday Morning Live's debate, 'Is the UK too hostile to immigration?' wildlife presenter and ex-Goodie, Bill Oddie, said restricting immigration was not the answer.

He added:
"There should just as likely be a restriction on the number of children that British people have because over-population is what you are talking about here, the big problem. So you say these perfectly well-qualified people can’t come in, but the woman down the road has just had her tenth baby. Well I’m sorry, but they are the people that really should be contained...

Historically, we seem to have built up this ridiculous idea that: ‘Oh, we are British, this is our island and we don’t want anybody else in it’. I personally loathe that kind of chauvinism and I’m happy to say I’m not proud to be British. In fact, I’m very often ashamed to be British.

When presenter Sian Williams suggested he leave Britain if he felt like that, Oddie replied:
“You’re talking like UKIP or something. For God’s sake, shut up... I’ve seen the whole culture absolutely burgeon because of immigrants. I love the fact that I walk down the road in north London and down here’s an Indian shop and there’s another Indian stationers there and this one is run by someone from Iran and there’s a West Indian guy who runs that bit and we’ve got the Romanian builders next door who don’t play the radio as loud as English builders.”
Alp Mehmet, of MigrationWatch UK, responded thus:
"What he is saying is absurd. He’s right – population levels are increasing – but that is largely driven by immigration, not large British families."
Oh, everybody knows what the score is, Alp, even the PC Crowd. 

It's just that they don't like admitting it. In fact, many, as with Bill Oddie, will outright lie about the state of play in order to maintain their own peculiar inner fiction.

Oddie lives in a London that, according to the 2011 census, is 57 percent immigrant. That statistic does not include the huge numbers of second and third-generation immigrants who were born here and, according to all the statistics, are out-breeding us at furious rate.

Perhaps, if he didn't live in a predominantly white, middle class area he might, despite the lovely, fluffy Indians, Iranians, West Indians and Romanians that animate his Hampstead idyll, have noticed our declining presence in England's capital and the rapidly burgeoning presence of his favourite folk.

Funny isn't it, nowadays a Brit-loathing luvvie can get away with dishonestly slandering tens of millions of British people and yet, if a British person had said anything similar of Blacks, Asians or Jews, well, we all know what the result would be. Brit-bashing (in Britain) is fashionable and encouraged. The opposite is vilified and is likely to end up in a custodial sentence.

The Jewish MP, Luciana Berger, has just applauded the imprisonment of a young lad who 'offended' her. 

Garron Helm tweeted an image of Berger with the Star of David on her head, describing her as a 'communist Jewess.' He added:
“You can always trust a Jew to show their true colours eventually.”
Berger said she was 'deeply shocked' by the tweet and 'shouldn’t be spoken to in that manner.'
“I hope this case serves as an encouragement to others to report hate crime whenever it rears its ugly head," she said. 
I'd like to report a hate crime, Luciana.

I'd like to report an ongoing genocide in Gaza. You know, the one where the guys with the F-22 fighters, the helicopter gunships, tanks, warships and A-Bombs routinely slaughters the firework people?

You were the Director of the Labour Friends of Israel group for three years prior to your arrival in parliament, Luciana. I don't remember you expressing any 'shock' and/or 'offense' about Israel's genocidal savagery back then. For that matter, have you ever commented upon the issue since you arrived in parliament? I don't think you have, not in any condemnatory sense anyway.

One can only conclude that you find Garron's unfortunate tweet more 'shocking' and 'offensive' than the mass murder of Palestinians by Israel. Shouldn't I be 'deeply shocked' and 'offended' that his behaviour would have outraged you enough to see him imprisoned whilst that of Israel doesn't appear to move you at all?

Well, I'm not. In a PC age, establishment insanity is the norm.
As yet, Ms Berger has not replied to the above tweet.

Communities Minister, Stephen Williams, said this of Garron Helm's imprisonment:
“We welcome today’s guilty verdict which shows there is no place for purveyors of hate to hide.

This ruling sends out a message to all those who use social media to send out anti-semitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic and racist comments that it is unacceptable and that we are serious about ensuring that those involved are arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”
I guess Mr Williams must think that no 'hate' is ever purveyed in Gaza. Or that Israel might be a nice place for non-purveyors of it NOT to hide. You see, I don't remember this achingly anti-'racist' Lib Dem chap ever condemning Israel either.

As regards, 'anti-Muslim... comments,' I wonder if we're allowed to criticise the Rotherham paedophile? Or those who wrought their paedophilia upon the little girls of Rochdale, Derby, Oxford, Peterborough and Keighley? Are we allowed to remonstrate with the Muslim pervert who drugs, rapes and prostitutes our little girls, Stephen?

Are we allowed to condemn the British Muslims who had some sympathy for the 7/7/2005 bombers? What about those who subject their daughters to FGM and the odd 'honour killing?'

'We are a terrible race,' says an ageing Goodie (the embarrassingly unfunny one).

What do you think Williams and Berger would have had to say if he's said such things about the Jews? All hell would have broken loose, wouldn't it?

Don't worry, it's not going to happen, C-grade celebs only sneer when it's safe to do so. And, boy-oh-boy, is it safe to sneer at us.

Stephen Williams and Luciana Berger will never castigate Bill Oddie for saying what he said. You may, however, expect many more British folk to be imprisoned for tweeting the occasional negative comment to and about those whom the powers-that-be have categorised as unoffendable.

Bill Oddie is pictured below with his wife and grandchildren.

P.S. As regards Garron Helm's 'communist Jewess' observation, didn't the Commies jail people whose opinions differed from their own? Come to think of it, they used to shoot them as well, didn't they?

Perhaps Garron should think himself lucky we're not living Russian Revolutionary times.

Speaking of which, here's what Winston Churchill had to say about the 'world-wide revolutionary conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation' back in 1920:

I wonder, if Churchill was alive today, do you think Messrs Berger and Williams would have had him done for 'hate crime?'

Sunday, 19 October 2014

Our latest war isn't aimed at ISIS, Syria was always the target

On 3 October 2014, Counterpunch published Dan Glazebrook's 'West's Middle East war is not aimed at ISIS, but at Assad.'

The essay contains the clearest, most accurate exposition of the brute cynicism of British foreign policy in that part of the world (over many decades) that I have yet to see.

Check it out. I promise you, even if you 'hate Mussies,' or just couldn't care less about any but your own, the observations posted below will ring many bells.
"Watching the debate in the British parliament last Thursday, over whether Britain should, yet again, launch aerial attacks against the long-suffering people of Iraq, it was striking just how much admission there was of the failure of Britain's policy in the region hitherto.
That ISIS have been emboldened, or even created, by the West's insistence on supporting the armed insurgency in Syria over the past three years - pouring money, weapons and training into the hands of fighters of all shades - was admitted again and again by MPs from all parties, as was the reality that it was precisely the dysfunctional state bequeathed by the occupation that had allowed ISIS to take root in Iraq. But those very same MPs then… went on to explain that they would be voting ('reluctantly', 'with a heavy heart', etc etc) for the government's motion. The implicit argument was that, yes, we have being doing the wrong thing for the past three years (or past eleven years); but now we have a chance to put it right; indeed it is precisely because we helped create the 'beast' that we must now help to kill it.
Pretty much every British attack on the Middle East has been justified along the same lines. The bombardment of Libya was supposedly a recognition that Britain's treatment of Iraq - occupation with ground forces - was counter-productive and bred resentment; ousting Gaddafi using Libyan (and Qatari) forces backed by air-power, therefore, was presented as somehow 'overcoming' the 'mistakes' of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
But that invasion itself had been presented at the time as the reversal of the previous 'mistaken' British policy of supporting the region's 'dictators' (this was the line used by Tony Blair every time it was pointed out that Britain had fully supported all of the supposed Iraqi crimes which Blair pointed to as vindication for his war)…
Britain's supposed support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980s (if encouraging a self-destructive war can be termed support) was itself, no doubt, presented as an enlightened move forward from the 1950s policy of trying to maintain a puppet king hand-picked by the British Foreign Office.
Each twist and turn of British foreign policy is thus accompanied by an admission that we have been doing exactly the wrong thing up till now; but now we are doing the right thing; that interference was wrong, but this interference will put it right; that violence was a sin, but this violence will atone for it.

Except it won't. And it won't because, despite appearances, there hasn't been any change of heart. In fact, there has never been a genuine self-criticism on the part of the British foreign policy establishment; the self-criticisms come about only in order to justify the next bout of bloodletting; they are never presented as they should be, as the tragic footnotes to a disaster, but only as the preamble to a new bloody chapter. The policy, after all, has never changed. It has always had the same goal, to stifle any potential of independent development.

When the British-backed king could no longer hold back the forces calling for Iraq's modernisation, Britain sought to reduce the influence of the communists by supporting a coup by the right-wing of the Ba'ath party. When the Ba'ath party itself ended up overseeing a successful modernisation of the country in the 1970s, Britain did all it could to encourage a war with Iran, ensuring that the wealth of both countries was squandered, their development pushed back by decades.
Within three years of that war ending, Britain was involved in an aerial attack that devastated the country's infrastructure, followed by a crippling sanctions regime the like of which the world had never before seen, which killed half a million children, and caused 3 successive senior UN officials to resign in protest at what they described as a policy of genocide.

Just as the 'legal' justification for sanctions was about to run out - with the country almost entirely disarmed, came the invasion of 2003, which ended up imposing a constitution which institutionalised sectarianism and created a political system in which 'democracy' was reduced to competing promises to maximise favours to your sect at the expense of everybody else.

The result was that the Sunni minority were rendered the implacable enemies of the government, leading to the disaster now unfolding. In every case, with every intervention, the result has been surprisingly consistent, that Iraq's ability to realise its enormous potential has been stymied and set back.

The supposed Dasmascene conversions by British policy makers turn out, on closer inspection, to be mere tactical shifts. Our MPs would do well to admit these continuities instead of constantly attempting to delude their constituents, and themselves…
 And so to today. This war, presented as a new war against a new enemy, ISIS, is in fact a continuation of the three-year old war against the Syrian state, itself a continuation of the centuries-old war against development and independence amongst the states of North Africa and West Asia, and indeed the entire global South.
The fact that so many of the MPs in the debate who voiced support for airstrikes, did so with an admission that they will almost certainly fail to destroy ISIS, is one clue that this war is not what it purports to be. In fact, the British government is both unable and unwilling to destroy ISIS. Unable, because, as all serious military analysts agree, airstrikes alone cannot destroy an organisation like ISIS...

But it is the reluctance on the part of the British and US governments to coordinate their efforts with the forces which have actually been fighting against ISIS and its allies for years, that is to say Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah, which really demonstrates their insincerity on the issue. Why do they not pursue a more effective strategy? Because the defeat of ISIS is not really their goal. ISIS and its friends have played right into the hands of British foreign policy for the past three years, acting as the vanguard in the Anglo-American proxy war of attrition against the Syrian state…

The use of sectarian militias as tools of foreign policy has a much longer pedigree in Britain. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (Al Qaeda's Libyan affiliate) were hosted in London for decades before finally being unleashed against the Libyan state in March 2011, their services to their imperial masters including a botched MI6-led assassination attempt against Gaddafi in 1996.

The Muslim Brotherhood were cultivated by British intelligence as a means of undermining Nasser's pan-Arab socialism in Egypt in the 1960s, but had already been used against the progressive liberal movement of the interwar years, the Wafd.
Most infamously, the self-proclaimed 'mujahadeen' in Afghanistan, which ultimately spawned both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, were given full support by Britain in their war against the Soviet Union and the progressive forces of Afghanistan…

There is no reason to believe Britain has given up on this strategy of using sectarian death squads as an instrument of foreign policy; indeed in an age of relative economic decline for the world's 'former' colonial powers, it is likely to increase in importance. With economic cutbacks leading inexorably to a corresponding relative decline in military capacity, the strategy of exploiting sectarian gangs for use against independent powers is likely not just to continue but to grow.

So what will this war achieve? Firstly, it will have a number of effects on ISIS itself… It will probably force ISIS to ‘revert to guerrilla warfare, which has been its tactic in Iraq since the US started bombing’… In other words, it will ensure that ISIS continues in its role as a straightforward terror gang, rather than evolving into some kind of semi-governmental body administering territory… 
This suits the British government, which wants to see them fully focused on destabilisation, rather than being diverted into any kind of 'state-building', however half-baked. Airstrikes may, as it were, succeed in turning IS, a proto-state formation, back into ISIS, a sectarian death squad, the role originally mapped out for them by imperial planners.

However, there will be one crucial difference to the ISIS of pre-April 2011 and the ISIS that is now emerging under Western aerial bombardment. This time, they will benefit from a credibility that they have so far been denied, the credibility of being able to pose as an anti-Western, anti-imperialist force…

Over the past three years, it has been so obvious they and the Western countries have been on the same side, singing from the same 'Assad must go' songsheet, they have not really been able to do this - until now. This will undoubtedly bring them more recruits, more support, and more funding…
 And what of the 'war against Assad'? Far from this having been eclipsed by the 'war against ISIS', it is at its foundation. Having been thwarted from bombing Syria in August 2013 by Syrian, Russian, Chinese and Iranian steadfastness - and subsequent parliamentary nervousness in both the US and Britain - the West are now indeed bombing Syria.

David Cameron, for his part, cleverly designed his motion only to refer to airstrikes against Iraq - ensuring that Syria was largely kept out of the debate - but insisted that he could expand the operation into Syria without parliamentary approval once it was underway.
We are now being told that the West is being 'forced' to intervene in Syria because Assad failed to defeat ISIS but the truth is precisely the opposite, the West is now in Syria because ISIS and its friends, the recipients of so much lavish diplomatic, financial and military support from the West and its allies these past three years, have failed to defeat Assad.

The US, alongside Britain shortly, no doubt, are thus going in to Syria in order to take more direct control of a war in which, for much of this year, the momentum has been with the Syrian state forces. Indeed, there has already been talk of a Turkish ground invasion of Syria, along with a new initiative aimed at training yet more insurgents in Saudi Arabia, the breeding ground of the violent sectarianism that underpins ISIS.

The idea is that if anyone is to seize ground from ISIS, it should not be the secular forces of the Syrian government (the only power capable of actually governing the country, even according to US general Martin Dempsey), but rather the forces of NATO and their ISIS lookalike allies.

Why does Cameron claim this war will take years? Because he knows it will escalate. It will escalate because ISIS is only the preliminary target, the pretext. The ultimate target is, as it has ever been, the Syrian state itself.
It is revealing, in this regard, to look at the pattern of US bombing within Syria that has already been revealed. A Reuters report from last week noted that the strikes ‘seemed to be intended to hamper Islamic State's ability to operate across the border with Iraq, where it also controls territory.’ In other words, the aim is not to destroy ISIS in Syria, but, as far as possible, to keep ISIS in Syria…
If Britain's actions do not destroy ISIS, but ensure they remain focused on destabilising Iraq and Syria, we must assume this to be part of their aim.
If they succeed not in degrading and demoralising, but in boosting the prestige and credibility of ISIS, we must assume this is a goal which Britain seeks. And if ISIS provides the pretext for the West to take more direct control of its war against Syria, paving the way for Turkish occupation, airstrikes against Syrian infrastructure, and the direct coordination of insurgent groups whose ideology and methods are a virtual carbon copy of those of ISIS, again, we should not see this as some kind of opportunist spin-off of the war against ISIS but as its very purpose."
If Dan Glazebrook is right you should surely have a bit of a think about what such people might be prepared to do to YOU, when they are prepared to do such things to THEM.

Here's your starter for ten:

Those we vote for do terrible things to the foreigner in his own land in order to keep him perpetually subservient. And yet, should the foreigner reach these shores, political correctness, positive discrimination and the 'diversity' agenda sees the erstwhile subservient alien immediately elevated above the indigenous British lowly by those we vote for.

I'm sure that, nowadays, almost all, outside of the Westminster Village and the world of the pseudo-intellectual left-wing, would not disagree with such an obvious truism.

The Machiavellians who wreak such genocidal havoc in North Africa and the Middle east aren't just at war with them, ladies and gentlemen, they are at war with us as well.

That much should be obvious to all by now.