Thursday, 26 November 2015

The day Israel murdered 34 Americans

On 8 June 1967, Israel bombed the USS Liberty knowing that she was an American ship. 

34 crew members were killed and 171 wounded. Jet fighters even strafed life rafts. At the time, the ship was in international waters about 29 miles north west of the Egyptian city of Arish.

With the help of the American media, Lyndon B. Johnson and his administration covered the matter up and it was many years before the truth began to emerge.

No Israeli official was ever brought to book.

That this incident occurred during the Six-Day War is pivotal. 

George Ball, under-Secretary of State to both Johnson and JFK, said this in his 1992 memoir, 'The Passionate Attachment; America’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present:'
“The Liberty’s presence and function were known to Israel’s leaders. (The Liberty was in the area to monitor the communications of the warring parties - she was, in effect, a spy ship) They presumably thought it vital that the Liberty be prevented from informing Washington of their intention to violate any cease-fire before they had completed their occupation of the Golan.

Their solution was brutal and direct...

The administration tried vigorously to downplay the whole matter. Although it silenced the crew, casualties to the sailors and damage to the ship could not possibly be concealed... In the end the Israelis tendered a reluctant and graceless apology...

The ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack had far more effect on policy in Israel than in America. Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If America’s leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that THEIR AMERICAN FRIENDS WOULD LET THEM GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING.”
We live with the consequences of Johnson prostituting himself to an 'almost anything' policy to this day.

P.S. In 1968, just one year after Israel murdered 34 Americans, the arch-Zionist Johnson quadrupled Israel's aid budget.

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Why did Turkey shoot down the Russian plane?

On 24 November 2015, Paul Watson said this at the Infowars site:
"Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 fighter jet it claimed had violated Turkish airspace just days after threatening Moscow with 'serious consequences' if it continued bombing ISIS in Syria... The incident occurred just days after Turkish officials warned Russia to 'immediately end its operation' against ISIS after war planes bombed border regions... 
Shooting down the Russian jet may be a dangerous form of payback for Vladimir Putin’s two month bombardment of ISIS. Although a NATO member country, a deluge of evidence suggests that Turkey is in fact allied with ISIS and has helped the terror organization by providing safe passage and financing via black market oil sales. 
$800,000,000 worth of ISIS oil has been sold in Turkey, a supposed U.S. ally. ISIS trucks are routinely allowed to cross back and forth between the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa and Turkey.  
As Nafeez Ahmed documents, a large cache of intelligence recovered from a raid on an ISIS safe house this summer confirms that 'direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now ‘undeniable'.' 
The senior western official who made this revelation also added that Turkey is allied with Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, two Al-Qaeda offshoots in Turkey who are fighting to topple Assad. A former ISIS communications technician also told Newsweek that part of his job was to, 'connect ISIS field captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions.' 'ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks,' he said."

It's not just Turkey backing ISIS. 

You must remember that Cameron and a variety of parliamentary warmongers were desperate to invade Syria back in 2013. If they had been allowed to do so, they would have been doing their best to topple Assad alongside ISIS and all the other Al-Qaeda-type jihadis.

And then there is a great deal of evidence and even more commentary and conjecture suggesting that the USA and Saudi Arabia funded ISIS into existence, again so that the West could be rid of Assad, just as the West rid itself of Saddam and Gadaffi.

If you're unaware of the real reasons we're almost on the verge of WW3, (Putin is rightly furious), the invasion of Iraq, which precipitated the horror (war, refugees, slaughter on the streets of Europe) was assured in the year 2000, when Saddam dispensed with the dollar and decided to sell Iraq's oil in exchange for Euros instead.

On 30 October 2000, CNN told us this: 
"A U.N. panel on Monday approved Iraq's plan to receive oil-export payments in Europe's single currency after Baghdad decided to move the start date back a week. Members of the Security Council's Iraqi sanctions committee said the panel's chairman, Dutch Ambassador Peter van Walsum, would inform U.N. officials on Tuesday of the decision to allow Iraq to receive payments in euros, rather than dollars... Iraq has called the dollar the currency of an 'enemy state'."
US Congressman, Ron Paul, said this in a 14 February 2006 speech before the House of Representatives:
"There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned."
William Clark, Manager of performance improvement at Johns Hopkins University, said this in a 15 February 2003 article:
"Although completely unreported by the U.S. media and government, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. It is in large part an oil currency war. One of the core reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its second largest proven oil reserves."
Economist F. William Engdahl, author of 'A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order,' said this in a 31 October 2003 article:
"But November was when French and other Euroland members finally convinced Saddam Hussein to defy the United States by selling Iraq’s oil-for-food not in dollars, ‘the enemy currency’ as Iraq named it, but only in euros... This little-noted Iraq move to defy the dollar in favor of the euro, in itself, was insignificant. Yet, if it were to spread, especially at a point the dollar was already weakening, it could create a panic sell-off of dollars by foreign central banks and OPEC oil producers. 
In the months before the latest Iraq war, hints in this direction were heard from Russia, Iran, Indonesia and even Venezuela... All indications are that the Iraq war was seized on as the easiest way to deliver a deadly pre-emptive warning to OPEC and others, not to flirt with abandoning the Petro-dollar system in favor of one based on the euro. 
Iraq was not about ordinary chemical or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The ‘weapon of mass destruction’ was the threat that others would follow Iraq and shift to euros out of dollars, creating mass destruction of the United States’ hegemonic economic role in the world."
The identity of most of the leading Neocons, who had been clamouring for Gulf War 2 ever since the first one ended, illuminates the second reason Iraq was attacked.

The following commentators are Jewish:

The following whistle-blowers, who confirm the role played in the creation of ISIS by the USA et al, are also Jewish:
One high-ranking non-Jewish politician informed us of the role our own politicians had played in Syria's destabilisation:
In March 2007, the aforementioned General Wesley Clark had advised us of America's long-standing intent to 'take out seven countries in five years.'

I don't like bully boys, never have and I hate them when they do terrible things in my name.

If world war does come, America and Israel in particular and the West in general will have done much more to bring it about than the ISIS butcher, Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin.

Just in case you're in any doubt, I was all for Putin sorting out the ISIS problem, particularly when the West was reluctant to do much more than pretend. If Cameron and co. were genuine about helping to remove ISIS from the picture, alongside Russia, the Syrian army and the Kurds, this time round I'd be up for our involvement.

I think the downing of the Russian plane has shown us where Turkey's loyalty really lies.

Turkey is a member of NATO. An undeniable ally of ISIS in Syria is a member of NATO. Not only that, Cameron, Merkel and Juncker want Turkey in the EU. Turkey, despite the ISIS connection, is best pals with the West. (As is Saudi Arabia - despite being the main monetary sponsor of ISIS)

If push comes to shove, our leaders will be on the side of the country that backs ISIS, as opposed to the country trying to defeat it. We are the bad guys, ladies and gentlemen. When we vote the moral leper into power, we should not be surprised when he does leprous things.

As you try to work out what our military and political leaders are up to in Syria after Cameron wins the forthcoming vote, check out Social Media for the real news, you won't get much of it from the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media, that's for sure.

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Gearóid Ó Colmáin exposes the NWO's "War on Terror!"

On 15 November 2015, journalist and author, Gearóid Ó Colmáin, informed us thus at Russia Today:

"We need to be clear about the origin of the war on terror... The attacks that have been continuing to destroy Syria, to massacre its population... were orchestrated by NATO. They have been carrying these attacks out against the civilian population of Syria for four years now...

People in Europe need to understand that There is a war that is becoming global, that is being waged against civilian populations, in particular, it is a a form of new imperialism, neo-colonialism which aims to divide and conquer the European, Middle Eastern and African and the world's population for that matter. To make them submit to a global order that does not serve the interests of most of the people on this planet but that does serve the interests of a very few ruling elites, a very small, tiny and particularly tyrannical ruling elite...

There is a war that is being waged using proxy groups, terrorist proxy groups and THEY ARE BEING USED AGAINST NATION STATES WHO ARE RESISTING US AND ISRAELI HEGEMONY.

They are also being used as a means of disciplining the workforces in Europe. In a period of mass unemployment and austerity you now have terrorist attacks being committed by terrorists FUNDED AND TRAINED BY WESTERN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES...

ISIS IS A CREATION OF THE UNITED STATES, we know that from official sources of the US military themselves, declassified documents from the defence intelligence agency have confirmed that...

And The French government is now attempting to drum up support for more military intervention in Syria... They want to get in on the game. The game is almost lost. The Russians have routed much of Islamic State.

You now have Islamic State militants coming into Europe disguised as refugees. That will destabilise central Europe. And the French government wants to get in on the game in Syria and prop up those so called moderate rebels, there are no moderate rebels, of course, in Syria. There are Al Qaeda and ISIS militants, terrorists who have been beheading people, eviscerating people, absolutely creating chaos and genocide right across the region...

This does not serve the Syrian people, or anyone other than THE WESTERN CORPORATE ELITES AND THEIR GEO-POLITICAL INTERESTS!"
The truth will out, they say.

Too bad that the powers-that-be seem to have forgotten this. Well, thanks to honourable and very brave journalists like Gearóid Ó Colmáin, the facts of the matter are out there now and the rest of us barely have to scratch the surface to find them.

Sadly, many innocents have reaped the ill wind sown by 'US and Israeli hegemony' in recent times. Now it behoves those who would have peace and harmony restored to our world to ensure that the 'very small, tiny and particularly tyrannical ruling elite' who comprise that vicious 'hegemony,' reap an avenging whirlwind.

Aux armes, nos citoyens!

Monday, 16 November 2015

FARAGE: "We want our country back!"

Nigel Farage - Speech in Basingstoke - 16 November 2015.

"I’m sure that you, with me, share the absolute horror and total revulsion at what happened in Paris last Friday. And we should not for one moment pretend that this was an isolated one-off attack, it just happens to be the worst one that we’ve seen on European soil...

It was so utterly and entirely predictable. I think we’ve reached a point where we have to admit to ourselves, in Britain, and France, and much of the rest of Europe, that mass immigration and multicultural division has for now been a failure... And I’m afraid there is, and we have to be honest and frank about this and talk about these things without being fearful, there is a problem with some of the Muslim community in this country...

We have to be honest about it. Our politicians, I’m afraid, haven’t had the guts. We’ve known for years about the hate preachers saying things for which any of the rest of us would have been arrested on the spot. We know about the problems of the Trojan Horses that we’ve seen in our schools and our prisons.

And we also have to look perhaps at the population. There are now three million Muslim people living in Britain. That is an increase of seventy-five percent over the course of the last ten years. And yet, within that now significantly large group of people, there is considerable alienation. Particularly amongst many of their young.

It is deeply worrying that after the Charlie Hebdo attacks earlier this year in Paris, when polled, twenty-seven percent of British Muslims expressed some sympathy with the motives that had carried out that massacre. Eleven percent of that three million said they thought that the people who produced those cartoons of Muhammad actually deserved to be attacked.

And amongst the sixteen to twenty-four year-olds there are about a third of young Muslims in Britain who’ve got very split and divided loyalties. In fact, it seems that a third think their loyalty to their religion... is greater than it is to this country... I have to say that in many ways our perpetual neo-con approach, where we go on trying to get rid of leaders of Arab and North African countries and think bombing is the answer to everything, in many ways we’ve made it easy for some of these people.

But we have to attempt to stop this constant dripping of poison in the ears of young British Muslims. And we have every reason to believe that the main source of this problem is coming from money. Money that is pouring into our universities, money that is pouring into our mosques. And it’s coming from Saudi Arabia. SAUDI ARABIA IS FUNDING THIS EXTREME IDEOLOGY!

Incidentally, this is the same Saudi Arabia who have so far refused to take a single person from war-torn Syria or anywhere else in the region. The same Saudi Arabia who said they don’t want to take large numbers of refugees or migrants because they fear it might upset the balance of their society. And yet it’s the same Saudi Arabia that is now prepared to fund the building of two hundred mosques in Germany.

I was told tonight by a media source, well Mr Farage, what you’re saying would threaten our trade with Saudi Arabia. I think our security and our safety matters more than our trade with Saudi Arabia...

We cannot go on with our so-called friend Saudi Arabia doing these things...

And yes, we need some plain speaking about this word ‘multiculturalism.’ For the great and the good, and the political class, it has been in many ways their test of moral superiority. You know, ‘I support multiculturalism therefore I’m a better, finer person than you'... But... actually what we’ve seen from our political leaders, in this case of radical Islam, is we have seen appeasement. We have seen gutlessness. We have seen a total failure of leadership.

I was in the car, in June, listening to a Radio 4 morning interview with the Prime Minister. And the interviewer said, well Mr Cameron, you know do we not face a real threat from Islamic State? Oh no, no, no, the Prime Minister said. You mustn’t call it ‘Islamic State,’ it’s got nothing to do with Islam! And today Theresa May, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons, in her statement responding to these appalling events in Paris, said that ISIS is nothing to do with Islam. Well I’m sorry, but again we have to be frank. Every single one of those killers believed they were doing what they were doing in the name of Islam.

And our weakness, the weakness of our leaders, has actually allowed in our country the creation of a parallel society. Tens of thousands of cases of Female Genital Mutilation performed in this country every single year. And as yet not a single person has been convicted. A blind eye turned to polygamy, to forced marriage, and now eighty percent of Muslim marriages in Britain are conducted completely outside and unregistered by UK civil law. And yet our leaders effectively aren’t brave enough to do anything.

And when I hear that there are now four hundred jihadi fighters fresh back as battle-scarred veterans from Syria living out in our communities. And yet I listen to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary who say we want to remove the passports of people who want to leave Britain to go and fight in Syria. I’m sorry, I want to remove the passports who’ve been to fight in Syria and not let them back into the country...

We need to start to promote our own values, unashamed of our culture, unashamed of who we are... Occasionally we hear these things from our government but sadly they don’t deliver because they don’t really mean it...

It was only two years ago that the British government, if you remember, wanted to arm the rebels against Assad. And luckily they were stopped from doing so. Now, they want to start bombing some of the rebels. So does that mean they’re on Assad’s side, or do we bomb him as well? I’m not sure. I’m not actually sure what we’re proposing.

We have, over the course of the last fifteen years, pursued a series of policies believing that bombing is the answer to everything. And believing that removing Arab Heads of State will somehow make those countries better, safer and stabler. I would suggest that, before we rush in to start bombing again in another country, that we actually take a long, cool, hard look at whether that policy has been successful.

And I would say that if you look at Libya for example. Where Mr Cameron and President Sarkozy were so gung-ho that they went in and removed Gaddafi. I’m not arguing that Gaddafi was a good guy. But I am arguing that actually we’ve made Syria worse and we’ve increased radicalisation. We will not beat ISIS by just bombing in Iraq and Libya.

Frankly, if we want to beat ISIS militarily, we will have to put together a grand coalition of Arab and African states. They will have to provide the troops. We will provide some of the hardware. We will provide much of the intelligence. And we would need to go in to fight them simultaneously in country after country...

We may well need to rethink who our enemies really are. Because for the last few years the West, whether it’s Obama, or France, or Britain, or our friends in the EU… and more on them in a minute. But they’ve decided that Assad and Putin are evil and that they are our enemies. I’d think we’re going to have to rethink that strategy entirely...

Assad and Putin may not be our bosom buddies, but they are not the biggest threat we face in the World today. The biggest threat we face in the World today does come from ISIS. And on that great battle they are on the same side as us, and it’s time the government recognised that.

So as I say, we already have in this and other European countries a Fifth Column that we’ve welcomed into our country and done little to stop. But what makes me really angry... is that the European Union’s Common Asylum Policy is taking a bad situation and making it even worse. Making it even worse, if it wasn’t bad enough for Mr Juncker to have said that anyone who sets foot on European soil can stay.

If that wasn’t bad enough then we had Mrs Merkel committing, I think, one of the most major policy errors we have seen from a European leader in modern times. Inspired, I can only assume, by some kind of wergild. And leading to a stampede. Indeed, it has led to an exodus of biblical proportions.

And yet the warnings were pretty clear. ISIS themselves have said they will use the migrant tide to flood the European continent with half a million of their jihadists. Now even if that figure’s wrong, I would suggest fifty thousand is too many. Even if only one percent of that figure is right, I would suggest five thousand is too many. I would suggest five hundred is too many. It only took eight to cause that destruction in Paris the other night...

And we were warned by Libyan government ministers. We were even warned by the Jordanians, when Mr Cameron went to visit the camp. And I have to say, at least Mr Cameron is not encouraging people coming across the Mediterranean and through the western Balkans. But when he went to visit that camp in Jordan, the Jordanian minister who showed him round said be careful Mr Cameron, because two percent of this camp are jihadists intent on getting to your country and doing harm...

I’ve tried again, and again, and again over the course of the last few months to argue that we must not let our compassion imperil our civilisation... However difficult, however rough it is for many of these people, it is total madness to open the door and to import yet more jihadi terrorists into Europe and ultimately to Britain. And that is a reality that Mr Juncker, it would appear, has not faced up to. That Monsieur Hollande has not faced up to, because both of them today have said they will continue with exactly the same policy. And I think that is dangerously complacent. In fact, I think that is absolutely mad.

This dream of the free movement of people, this dream for others of the Schengen Area, hasn’t just meant the free movement of people. It’s meant the free movement of Kalashnikov rifles, it’s meant the free movement of terrorists, and it’s meant the free movement of jihadists. And it’s time that democratic movements in Britain and right across Europe stood up, and fought, and gained in strength. And said 'an end to this, we want back border controls, we want back national security'...

Mr Cameron tells us that the reason we’ve got to vote to stay part of this European Union is because we’ll be safer and we’ll be more secure. Well I ask you do you, in the light of what has happened in Paris last week... in the light of the fact they’ve decided to continue the open door to the Mediterranean and the western Balkans, do you feel safer as members of the European Union?

Or do you think, like us, that it’s time to say no? To take back control of our borders? And to make sure that never again do we have unprecedented immigration into Britain without our ability to check whether people have criminal records? Whether they have trades and skills to bring to this country? Whether they’re bringing their own medical insurance? What I’m saying to you is that to be safer, to be more secure, we have to say no in this referendum...

Just a month ago, after a European summit, Mrs Merkel again made a big decision. And she’s decided to fast-track Turkey as members of the European Union. So let’s just be clear what this means. What it means is we will open up to a country of seventy-five million who are on average even poorer than Romania and Bulgaria and Croatia... In terms of security, we will be in a political union with Turkey. Who of course have extensive borders with Iraq and Syria. Will we be safer and more secure in a political union with Turkey? I don’t think so.

And Mr Cameron will argue that we’ll have better economic security as part of this European Union. You see, he argues what they all argue. They argue that Britain isn’t big enough, Britain isn’t strong enough, Britain isn’t capable and able of standing on the world stage and doing things for itself. They argue that we need to be part of a bigger European club.

And this really first hit me, though that it was more than that, when last year I did those two one-hour debates with Nick Clegg... And Clegg was making the argument that we haven’t got clout on the world stage unless we’re part of the European club... And I countered Nick by saying that Iceland, with a population of less than a third of a million, had just signed off its own trade deal with China. I said it seemed to me that, if Iceland was big enough to negotiate its own trade deals on the world stage, that we were big enough to negotiate our own trade deals on the world stage.

But then I turned to Nick and I said to him it isn’t about us being big enough. I said Nick, you just don’t think we’re good enough do you? And do you know what folks, that is the truth of it. Our political class... don’t think we’re good enough to stand on our own two feet, to govern ourselves, to make our own laws, to make our own trade deals and to control our borders...

Through forty years of lies and deceit they’ve actually thrown away, given away, sold the most important valuable thing that we possess as human beings. Our ability as free people to be the masters of our own destiny. To govern our own country. Our rights of democracy and self-government are so fundamental and so important that those that went before us were prepared to risk, and in many cases sacrifice, everything they had. So that we could be born and grow up as free people. What they have done, ladies and gentlemen, is that they have literally given away our country.

And this referendum is our golden opportunity. Perhaps a once in a lifetime chance to undo the wrong that by stealth and deception has been done to us...

I want my country back.

We want our country back!"
The truth is out there, ladies and gentlemen! 

Farage may not dare say it all but he says enough to make most of the long-sufferers realise that they are no longer alone.

And that might just make all the difference.

Sunday, 15 November 2015

Remembering Harold Yates and the politicians complicit in his death

By Francis Carr Begbie.
"Sunday, November 8th, was Remembrance Day, and members of the National Front made their traditional march to the Cenotaph in London as a tribute to Britain’s war dead. As part of the NF’s Forgotten British Heroes Campaign, a special mention was made of a young Sheffield gunner called Harold Yates who was killed in Palestine in 1945, six months after the end of the war in Europe when Jewish terrorists in British uniform attacked a railway junction. 
At first glance it seems as if the story of 25-year-old Gunner Yates would scarce merit a footnote. After all, he was only one among hundreds of thousands of others being remembered in similar ceremonies across Britain. But there is an appalling story behind the death of Gunner Yates. For two senior politicians were complicit in the attack that killed him. Tipped-off about the impending assault, they gave it their tacit approval, agreed to turn a blind eye, said nothing and warned no-one. 
This is a story of treachery, squalid political expediency and a despicable indifference to the lives of British servicemen. It has not been told in full until now. In 1945 the Palestine Mandate was in the grip of a Jewish insurgency aimed at forcing the British to allow a flood of Jewish immigrants from Europe into the territory. 
The British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was determined to resist, as it not only would have been in breach of the undertakings given to the Palestinians by the Balfour Declaration but it would have also meant losing the support of all other Arab countries in the region. To allow this to take place would have meant a war in the Mandate, so Bevin had no option but to maintain a desperate policing action to keep the two sides apart. 
But the problem did not end there. The 1945 general election had not only swept Churchill out of office and the Labour Party into power, but among the Labour’s landslide were no less than 46 Jewish MPs. The overwhelming majority of these were not only fanatical Zionists, but they were supported by a loyal auxiliary of non-Jewish MPs at the highest levels of the party, including two men, John Strachey and Richard Crossman, both to become prominent names in post-war Britain. 
The collusion of these two in an attack that killed a British serviceman is a paradigmatic example of the abasement of non-Jewish politicians who prostitute themselves to Jewish interests. Both were typical of high-flying Labour ministers at the time and far removed from the English working class they claimed to represent. They both came from well-to-do backgrounds.
Strachey was a product of Eton and Oxford. Sophisticated and urbane, he moved in the most politically fashionable circles. In the thirties, this one-time Communist had moved into the Labour Party and had worked hard to ingratiate himself closely with Jewish wealth and political power.  
When the White working class of the East End of London rose up against Jewish predation under the banner of the British Union of Fascists, Strachey had organised counter-demonstrations with Communist and Jewish street agitators. 
Working with wealthy Jewish publisher Victor Gollancz and academic Harold Laski, Strachey helped launch the Left Book Club which became an energetic source of anti-German propaganda. He was elected a Labour MP in 1945 and became Under Secretary for Air. 
Richard Crossman attended the highly prestigious and exclusive Winchester College before obtaining a double-first in Classics at Oxford. He later worked for the television magnate Sidney Bernstein, but it was Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann who most impressed him.
Weizmann was a roving emissary promoting the Jewish cause who was buoyed up by Lord Rothschild’s generous financial contributions. With Rothschild’s patronage, Weizmann was able to buy influence across the globe. Crossman described him as the greatest man he had ever met.
Richard Crossman’s political career was to rise sharply with his support of Zionism. Crossman said that Jewish state should have been forced on the Arabs by the British at the earliest possible time and that Jewish immigration should have been built up as fast as possible. 
It was a view he repeated through the pages of the New Statesman which was published by the Jewish founder of the Fabian Society, Sidney Webb. (Crossman was later appointed editor). Crossman became an MP in the 1945 government at the height of the Palestine emergency. 
The Jews in Palestine were represented by the Jewish Agency for which the British Board of Jewish Deputies acted as representative in Britain. The Jewish Agency maintained that it had no power over the terrorist gangs operating in Palestine, but this was a deception. In fact, the Haganah was its military wing. 
In late 1945 the Jewish Agency decided it had to carry out a terrorist spectacular against British forces in Palestine as a show of strength to its American backers. But worried that this would trigger a brutal clampdown and reprisal from the British, the action had to be carefully measured. The Agency therefore planned one further large-scale operation to paralyse Palestine’s railways. 
There the matter might have rested until a remarkable passage was published in Professor Hugh Thomas’s 1973 biography of John Strachey which gave the game away:
'Only on Palestine did Strachey have any serious dispute with the government. One day, Crossman, now in the House of Commons, came to see Strachey. The former was devoting his efforts to the Zionist cause. 
He had heard from his friends in the Jewish Agency that they were contemplating an act of sabotage, not only for its own purpose but to demonstrate to the world their capacities. Should this be done, or should it not? Few would be killed. But would it help the Jews. Crossman asked Strachey for his advice and Strachey, a member of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, undertook to find out. 
The next day in the smoking room in the House of Commons Strachey gave his approval to Crossman. The Haganah went ahead and blew up all the bridges over the Jordan. No-one was killed but the British Army in Palestine were cut off from their lines of supply with Jordan.' 
Incredibly, at a time when the British Army was taking casualties from Jewish terrorist attacks in Palestine, here were two senior Labour members — one a Minister — conspiring to agree to an attack on British soldiers. But Prof. Thomas was wrong to state that no-one was killed in the attack.  
The huge Haganah attack is known in Israel as 'The Night of the Trains' and took place on the night of October 31, 1945. The railway network was severed in 153 places. Three police launches were sunk and many railway yards and the Haifa oil refinery attacked by Jewish gangs. At one railway junction, 25-year-old Gunner Yates from Sheffield was shot to death. Perhaps he let his guard down by the approaching figures in British officers’ uniforms. 
A few days later, the British finally broke the Jewish Agency code, and Crossman and Strachey spent an agitated next few days fearing their role might be discovered. Certainly in the war that had ended just six months earlier, traitors had ended up on the end of a rope for far less. But in the end it was pressure from the US that forced Britain to allow the Jews into Palestine. In the mid-forties, a bankrupt Britain was dependant on American goodwill for her economic survival through an aid program known as the Marshall Plan. 
President Truman, as he later explained frankly in his memoirs, was equally dependant on Jewish goodwill for his presidential campaign funds. 
This story might never have come to the light but for the authors of a remarkable book published in 2006 which exposed how Britain’s Labour Party had been captured and exploited by Jewish interests from the earliest days of the 20th century. 
As noted in 'Publish It Not — The Story of the Middle East Cover-Up' by Michael Adams and Christopher Mayhew, 'the British government was subjected to ruthless pressure from Washington to get the Arabs to accept the Zionist demands. It was a disgraceful abuse of power.' 
On one occasion the US Ambassador insisted that the British government comply with the President’s request that Britain admit a hundred thousand Jewish refugees to Palestine 'immediately.'  Bevin and Christopher Mayhew, his Under-Secretary, objected to what was an obvious recipe for war with the Arabs.
The (US) Ambassador then replied carefully and deliberately that the President wished it to be known that if we could help him over this, it would enable our friends in Washington to get our Marshall Aid appropriation through Congress. In other words we must do as the Zionists wish, or starve.  
Bevin surrendered, he had to, but he was understandably bitter and angry. He felt it outrageous that the United States, which had no responsibility for law and order in Palestine (and no intention of permitting massive Jewish immigration into the United States), should, from very questionable motives, impose an impossibly burdensome and dangerous task on Britain. (pp. 17–18) 
'Publish It Not' is a remarkable publication not least because both of the authors were men with impeccable socialist and anti-racialist credentials. Mayhew was a Labour minister while Adams was a Middle East correspondent for the Guardian. They were outraged at the way in which the Arabs were treated and that Britain’s assurances to them counted for nothing. But equally they were appalled at how Labour, Britain’s main progressive party, seemed to have been, to a large extent, taken over by Jewish influence and money. 
Despite their naiveté over the ethnic nature of the conflict, their book has penetrating insights and fascinating information about the perversion of the Labour Party in the twentieth century... In a memorable phrase Mayhew writes: 
'But a striking feature … has been the relentless way in which those of us who chose to speak up for the Arabs have been harassed by our opponents. They seem not to be satisfied with trying to prove us wrong; they have to prove us wicked as well. Indeed they sometimes showed themselves much less concerned to answer our arguments than to damage our reputations, and they can be surprisingly unscrupulous in the way they go about it... 
It is a remarkable fact that the Labour Party leaders, though representing a movement which has always vigorously opposed racialism, colonialism, militarism and the acquisition of territory through conquest, never appeared to have made any (recorded) public criticism of Israel at all. All the more amazing when you compared it with South Africa which practised many of the same policies but which was treated as a pariah. Often it was the same Jewish Labour MPs who led the charge against South Africa who were most active in defence of Israel.'  
Mayhew was one of the huge Labour intake of MPs who entered parliament in 1945 and soon he was in government office dealing with the fraught question of Palestine. He freely admits that at the time he was new to the Palestine problem and did not understand all the ramifications. At the time it seemed a sideshow. The British Foreign Office was struggling with a number of issues. India and Pakistan had to be given their freedom. The Marshall Aid plan had to be pushed forward. Institutions had to be created for a divided Germany. NATO was about to be formed. 
Soon, in addition to an intense whispering campaign, he was being subjected to verbal intimidation, mind games and harassment from increasingly shrill 'Zionist' deputations who were demanding more Jewish immigration into Palestine from Europe. 
These deputations were always well-informed, articulate, demanding, passionate and ruthless. The most formidable of their spokesman, unquestionably, was Mr Sidney Silverman; he would attack me personally in the most merciless fashion, placing on my shoulders the responsibility for the deaths and suicides of the immigrants whom we had turned back. 
On 11 July 1948 a young MP called Christopher Mayhew rose in the House of Commons to speak in an Adjournment Debate about recognition of the state of Israel. The debate had been initiated by an ambitious and energetic backbencher called Harold Lever, and Mr Mayhew was to answer for the government as the Under Secretary at the Foreign Office. 
'With an importunity typical of Zionists at that time Mr Lever had started the debate at eight o’clock in the morning after an all-night sitting, and my reply sounds appropriately tired and irritated.' Mr Mayhew pleaded for balance and then said: 'Has my Honourable Friend ever heard that there is an Arab point of view?' 
Thirty years later Mayhew still remembered the scene vividly. While he was accompanied by his sole supporter, his Private Secretary, he faced the massed ranks of the Zionist lobby in parliament on the other side. A group of twenty or thirty pro-Israeli Labour members, most of them Jewish. They included Sydney Silverman, Maurice Edelman and Ian Mikardo. Among them was Israel’s most devoted non-Jewish supporter Richard Crossman. 
Mayhew’s boss, the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, felt the pressure too as he was constantly being harried by groups of Jewish Labour MPs. At the end of one tense Question Time session he exploded.  
'We must also remember the Arab side of the case, there are, after all, no Arabs in the House.' This remark provoked uproar and endless accusations of anti-Semitism. But of course there was no counter pressure from the Arabs whose homes, lands and property these Jewish immigrants were seizing. Bevin was passionately anti-Zionist and held that Zionism was basically racism. 
Years later an attempt was made to place Mayhew on the pro-Israeli payroll. It happened in 1951 after he had lost his Parliamentary seat and was working as a freelance television journalist. The Director of the World Jewish Congress, Mr A I Easterman summoned him to his office in Cavendish Square, and proposed an informal arrangement. Whenever Mayhew was asked for advice by Mr Easterman, he would be paid 'a substantial honorarium' — an obviously corrupt 'consulting' arrangement. This was to be a personal arrangement between the two with nothing in writing.  
'In fairness to Mr Easterman, it should be said that he has denied my version of events.'  Easterman claimed he did not make the offer and in any case the World Jewish Congress was a far from wealthy organisation. 'All I did say to him about finance was that, naturally, we would reimburse him for any expenditure that he might incur on our behalf,' Easterman said. 
In 1953 Mayhew made his first visit to a Palestine refugee camp and learned first-hand what had been going on. For him, this visit destroyed the myth that in 1948 the refugees had fled voluntarily. This was underlined when the refugees from the 1967 war behaved in the same way and suffered the same fate. They left their homes in panic before the advancing Israeli armies and were then prevented by the Israelis from returning. The pattern was the same in both wars with the exception of the massacre of the village of Deir Yassin. 
This was important. Before 1967 the myth that the 1948 refugees had fled voluntarily was almost universally believed in European countries and repeated across the media. During his visit, Mayhew began to feel actively committed to the Palestinian cause. He was shocked by the Israeli leaders’ callous and self-righteous indifference to the suffering of the Palestinian refugees  (which they stated to their faces) and he made his views public. 
This had consequences for his political career. A senior colleague told Mayhew that frankly it had been his attitude to Israel that counted against him. This was confirmed in an article in Israeli newspaper Maa’riv  in 1974. 
He wasn’t the only one. One charge that Jewish leadership in Britain has always been sensitive to is that of 'dual loyalty,' disloyalty by any other name. Despite the passionate embrace of the cause of Israel by many Jewish Labour MPs, the charge of dual loyalty always left them spitting with indignation. 
 Andrew Faulds was one Labour MP who did question the matter of dual loyalties. He was not only taken to task by the Prime Minister but deprived of his post as a Front Bench spokesman. In letter to him PM Harold Wilson wrote: 'It was because of ‘uncomradely behaviour’… you caused great offence by impugning the patriotism of Jewish Members of Parliament by implying that they had dual loyalties.'
Mayhew notes that while Zionist political contributions to politicians in the United States had always been discussed with admirable frankness (an exaggeration at best), the discretion surrounding such arrangements in Britain meant they were kept confidential. 
But one hint as to how things really worked in Britain came in a letter published in a Tel Aviv newspaper in which an Israeli diplomat in the UK defended his embassy against charges that they were not doing enough to sway political opinion. 
Mr Benad Avital said that he and the Ambassador met personally with 100 supportive British MPs before one debate.  'Inevitably, we concentrate on target groups which we consider opinion-making, rather than on every man in the street. This policy has so far paid well'... 
Young Harold Yates was far from the last Briton to be killed by terrorists in Palestine in 1945.  In the months immediately following VE day, the casualty list included the following colonial police officers: George Wilde, Bertie Sharpley, James Barry, Gordon Hill, Denis Flanagan and Richard Symons. 
On December 27, 1945 in an attack on the CID HQ the following officers were killed: Edward Hyde (28), Noel Nicholson (20), George Smith (44) and Privates Likoebe Kurata, Vincent Nthinya, Tapotsa Ntisa all in African Pioneer Corps."
Many more than this dies at the hands of the Jews during and just after WW2.

Bob Stewart, MP, former army Commander in Bosnia, informed us thus in October 2014:

Just 17 years after Jewish violence forced us out of Palestine, a Russian gentleman whose father was Jewish oversaw the introduction of the United Kingdom's first race law.

This and all subsequent legislation was intended to bear down upon the indigenous British population as the country was overrun by all manner of peoples entirely different to themselves.

As Mayor Ken Livingstone's 'policing and equalities' advisor, Lee Jasper, insisted when I questioned him on Twitter, 'black people cannot be racist.'
Interesting that Harold Wilson should choose someone so unrepresentative of the 'horny-handed sons of toil' who ushered Labour into power as his first Home Secretary, don't you think? But perhaps Frank Soskice's promotion to that exalted role is not so surprising after reading the above.

Soskice was no lone wolf howling at the Britain's insipient 'racist' moon, he was ably aided-and-abetted in his desire to demote and disenfranchise those who had given him (and them) sanctuary by the British Board of British Deputies.

In 1998, after yet another raft of this Brit-bashing legislation had been passed into law by, Jack Straw, who is himself, Jewish, the Board issued this triumphal communiqué:

Despite the fact that Home Secretaries Straw and Soskice saw these punitive laws onto the statute books, one man outranks them both in the push to criminalise those who dared to speak out as their country was being stolen from under them.

Straw enlightens us:

Lester, in my humble opinion, is one of the greatest enemies the British people have ever had.

Saturday, 14 November 2015