Tuesday 26 December 2006

Ironwand and the Zionists

On 24 December 2012, I was banned from the Telegraph web site.

I had been contributing to the Comments section of the article: The cowardice at the heart of our relationship with Israel, by Peter Oborne.

During the course of the 'debate' I was libeled contantly, my real identity was exposed, my Twitter account was hacked and used to change my pseudonym at the Telegraph and the insults and ad hominem attacks were legion.

Not only did the Telegraph's moderators do nothing about this until very late in the day, they also removed a good few of my perfectly reasonable responses to these attacks.

Here are some of the things that were said:
"Legend in your own mind; anti-Semite; (repeatedly) neo-Nazi (repeatedly); Muslim (repeatedly); Moslem; fool; press the bell for the nurse to give you your medication; idiot; gratuitous racism; supremacist; I doubt his ancestors fought Hitler; nastiness and vile bigotry; offensive; racist buffoon; Adolf; your history is not in this land; You are not British; your Mother never knew your Father and left you in a toilet somewhere; David Icke Masonic lizard nuts; collective rantings; ignoramus; Bi-atch (bitch); how far back you can trace YOUR ROOTS in the UK?; goofy; coward; sniveling chickenshit coward; lunatic; knuckle-dragging, racist trash; hate-filled neanderthals; your kind live your hatred; a community of the sick and the damned; Israel haters; traitor; fake; low traitor and fake; supremacist; verbal diarrhoea; really disgusting; no Englishman; vile insane disgrace; mendacious, demonizing; self-loathing; living in paranoia, Ironbottom is pretty revolting; stupid, your revolting kind; racist gutter that you inhabit; racist fantasist; racism; xenophobia; up to your neck in sewage; Nazi boy; bitter and twisted; supremacist; idiot; neo-Fascist; looney; inane bullshit; fanatics; pathetic."
Despite the above, at one point ganef-returns, ('My passport and Identity Card both say I am an Israeli') says this:
"You seem to be particularly well read and articulate."
Which was nice of him. Anyway, the childish bile cited above wasn't the worst of it. I received two threatening messages at my own personal email account purporting to be from the Jewish Defence League. (I now think that the threat originated from a contributor to the discussion posing as the JDL)

The first said this (in part):
“When we are attacked by hate-filled, nazi filth like you, we respond with all the resources at our disposal... You have been waging a campaign of anti-semitic extremism for a long time, but the time has come for the people that you hate with such rabid venom to respond.

There are three things that you should remember: the code that we live by is 'never again'; our hatred of nazi scum like you is stronger than your hatred of us; we didn't choose you as an enemy, you chose us.”
The second said:
"Let's hope that when you're at the next quiz night, (one Telegraph commentator had unearthed details of my social life) they don't ask you what century we're living in. This is the 21st Century, and the "last century" was the 20th Century and your 'ideological soulmates' that we referenced were the Nazis...

We doubt very much that you "know what (we're) made of". In our experience, big, brave internet warriors like you squeal and cry like frightened pigs when we make house-calls. And we intend to call on you very soon, and you will be no different to the rest of the cowardly Nazi filth in this world.

And yes, Mr **********, that's a direct threat. We strongly advise you to report this matter to the police; and when you have done so, just let us know the contact details of the investigating officer and we will be more than happy to contact him/her.

However, we can assure you that the British authorities have no interest in protecting extremist scum like you. In any event, your long-standing attempts to incite racial hatred against against Jews via the internet (using a variety of anonymous pseudonyms) is a very serious criminal offense. The last scumbag who reported us to the police after receiving one of our emails is now serving an eighteen month prison sentence. But then again, prison is your best option in this instance.

You've got nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. You are going to face the retribution that you deserve for your crimes against the Jewish people. You chose us as an enemy, but the battles that you foolishly started all those years ago don't matter; what matters is who wins the war.

We have been trying to find out your real identity for a very long time, and now we know it. You're not 'somewhere near the top' of our list, as one of the UK's most pro-active and virulent Jew haters, you're No.1 on that list. Thankfully, your reign of anti-semitic terror will soon be at an end.

Until we meet...

Jewish Defense League."
I posted these threats in the aforementioned Comments section, along with my responses to them. I also contacted the moderators direct after the first threat was sent and again after the second arrived.

They only removed some (not all) of the posts detailing my ID and biography after I contacted them the second time. Why did the moderators wait so long to do so? And why was I banned and not those who published my details? Isn't that what moderators are for? To prevent such information emerging and, when it does, to remove it?

The last few observations I entered into the site, those that got me banned, can be seen here, along with snapshots of the offending emails.

It may interest some to know that, after my penultimate post was published, none of the usual suspects reappeared.

Here are some of the other interactions that took place along the way of this thread. (ironwand was the pseudonym I used at the site)

ganef_returns:
"The collective rantings of ironwand in the last 24 hours on this blog, comes to 6,601 words, rather more than most professional writers produce over the same period."
ironwand:
"Not ranting. Dilligently answering the various spittal-drenched sneers and snarls from the oppo."
ganef_returns:
"And now he admits he has been collecting his material for 30 years. Only a total Antisemite would do this. Or a lunatic. Or both."
ironwand:
"Hmm. I wasn't an antisemite when I started, just someone who began to notice things that weren't quite right. Someone who always had an enquiring mind. And so, one investigates. In an easy going, haphazard way at first. Then, as time went on, with more and more urgency.

A lunatic? Some might say that. The type who doesn't want what I know known by the majority. Yeah. They'd say I was nuts.

Here's a funny thing, ganef (thief in Hebrew) thinks it 'lunatic' to try to warn one's own kith and kin of the things I entered into this forum 2 hours ago, most of which are not known by the majority.

If the situation was reversed, would ganef warn his own tribe? Would he think it 'lunatic' to do so?

Maybe. But then he's not someone who's ancestors are all buried in England's green and pleasant land. So, I wouldn't expect it.”
ganef_returns:
"The DT isolates your postings and Microsoft Word counts them. It doesn't take long unlike your antisemitic obsession that you admit has covered 30 years."
ironwand:
"Is it possible to be obsessed with the truth, facts and REAL history? Probably, in ganefworld.

If I'm in the business of exposing the antiGentilism focused upon my own kith and kin since time immemorial, I think the fair-minded might conclude that such exposure would be a few rungs up the morality ladder from a ganef (thief: Hebrew) doing his best to con the goyim into thinking concern = obsession."
Using my real name as his pseudonym, larry********** entered the debate with this comment:
"There's a lot of very ugly, unpleasant anti-semitism on this forum."
He added ominously:
"Something needs to be done..."
This comment (and thus my identity) can still be seen in the thread six days after it was first posted.

Beneath larry**********'s submission the words 'Edited by a moderator' appear. Thus we can see that, although the post was censored to some extent after I reported it, incredibly, the moderator did not see the point of removing it!

Elsewhere, larry********** says this:
"ironwand, you're so stupid and lost in your hatred, that you don't understand the difference between 'fact', 'critiscism' and inciting anti-semitic hatred...

What you have posted is just the usual anti-Jewish, conspiracy theorist nonsense that your revolting kind always spout. In fact, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia defines anti-semitism very specifically, and it applies absolutely to your efforts over the last few days:

Making mendacious, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews."
ironwand:
Ah yes, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. I wonder who formulated that particular Judaeophilic, no-truth-critical-of-the-Jew, indigene-bashing organisation? It wouldn't have been folks like you, would it Larry? With a little help from rabid, un-English Brit-loathers like Denis Macshane MP? Check this out...

'The Parliamentary Committee against Anti-Semitism has established a parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism...

Those conducting the inquiry include senior members of Parliament from the three main parties, and IT WILL BE CHAIRED BY DR. DENIS MACSHANE, the former Foreign Office minister responsible for European affairs.'
(The Jewish Chronicle)

Macshane (real name Denis Matyjaszek) is the bloke who's just been booted out of the Labour Party for expenses fraud. He's a half-Polish, half-Irish, Scottish MP. There are lots of not quite English folks occupying English seats in parliament these days.

Yeah. You'd love him sneering and snarling alongside of you, wouldn't you, Larry. He's just the kind of bloke who'd be up for an insult or two. You know stuff like 'stupid, lost in your hatred, anti-semitic hatred, anti-Jewish, conspiracy theorist nonsense, your revolting kind, racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, mendacious, demonizing, stereotypical, neo-nazi, holocaust denial, virulent brand of overt anti-semitism, racist gutter, abuse Jews, racist fantasist.'

Pretty special, Larry, and all in just one short post. I wonder why we Anglo-Celtic Brits don't have an organisation like the one Denis MacShane used to hang out with? One that might stand up against people like you doing your damnedest to demonise those who dare to tell any truth that doesn't suit you?

Yeah, that'd be good. In fact, given the factual stuff I've posted, the organisation you cite really ought to be studying it long and hard and considering the enormous amount of anti-Gentilic hatred some of you have been guilty of promoting over the course of the last couple of millennia.

But they won't. Seeing as those who constructed it aren't the sort to be all that interested in truth, fact and real history...

I particularly like this bit: 'It applies absolutely to your efforts over the last few days.'

Which is code for 'Be afraid! Be VERY afraid!'

As for the EU's 'racism and xenophobia' definition, quoted above, this is code for:

'OUR myth and OUR spin is THE LAW. Your facts are illegal!'

And: 'All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others!'

And The 'more equal' must never be criticised. NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO!

Well, Larry, as you really should have gathered by now, I'm no scaredycat, my facts are going to get told no matter what laws you devise to prevent this...

(As for this:) 'Making mendacious, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews... especially... the myth about... Jews controlling the media...'

This EU construction is saying that Jewish control of the media is a myth. Well, 'Jews' don't TOTALLY control the media but they control enough of it to ensure that what they want said gets said and what they don't want said doesn't get said very often. At least, that is the historical actuality.

AND EVERYONE OUT THERE KNOWS IT. I know it, you know it, the moderators know it, everyone connected with the media knows it, the politicians know it, the Jews know it, increasingly, the average Joe is coming to know it and, most importantly, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia knows it.

And yet this organisation (in the land of 'free speech') insists we pretend that the truth is a 'myth' and the spin is real.

Well, I could easily cite a multitude of Jewish personages in a position to 'control' media output but that would be tedious so I'll just let the words of a couple of Jewish gentlemen speak for me.

On 1 July 2012, the essay, Jews DO control the Media by Manny Friedman (Elad Nehorai) was published by The Times of Israel web site. This said:

'We brag about Jewish authors, Jewish politicians, Jewish directors. Every time someone mentions any movie or book or piece of art, we inevitably say something like, “Did you know that he was Jewish?” That’s just how we roll.

We’re a driven group, and not just in regards to the art world. We have, for example, AIPAC, which was essentially constructed just to drive agenda in Washington DC. And it succeeds admirably. And we brag about it. Again, it’s just what we do...

Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. WE DO CONTROL THE MEDIA. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. Just about every movie or TV show… is rife with actors, directors, and writers who are Jewish.

Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?'

On 19 December 2008, Joel Stein said this in his LA Times essay, Who runs Hollywood? C'mon

"Only 22% of Americans now believe ‘the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,’ down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows HOW DUMB AMERICA HAS GOTTEN. JEWS TOTALLY RUN HOLLYWOOD.

How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have (had) the power to shut down all film production…

The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents)…

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish…

YES, WE CONTROL HOLLYWOOD."
Now, Messrs Stein and Friedman are NEVER going to be subject to the attentions of Larry's 'racism and xenophobia' police. Such truth-squashing dictat was not conjured up to keep them quiet. It was designed to silence the truth-telling Gentile.

Thus, the globalist construct that is the EU is now, officially, in the business of antiGentilism. It tells us that 'some animals are more equal than others' and these must not held up to critical scrutiny in the way that the rest of us are.

So, Larry, I keep asking you folks to set aside the childish insults and deal with the factual info I introduce. Here's your chance. You have just one issue to deal with. An issue that YOU introduced. Jewish 'control' of the media. The 'racism and xenophobia' cops insist it's a myth. So do you.

I say it's not a myth. Joel and Manny say the same thing. Could you, for once, offer some proof of your assertion? Can you, or anyone else, offer us some proof of what you insist is untrue?

Or will you revert to the usual ad hominem attack?
USN69:
"AntiGentilism?? Where in God's Name did you ever come up with that word????"
ironwand:
"What's the matter, USN69, you offended by its use? You want the dim to think there's no such thing as Jew-on-Gentile hatred?

Within the Talmud there are 63 separate books, one of which, Abhodah Zarah, says these things:

'Bloodshed is forbidden to a Gentile who may kill neither another Gentile or a Jew; but it is not forbidden to the Jew in regards to the Gentile.'

'Theft, robbery, and rape of a beautiful woman and similar deeds are forbidden to every Gentile towards another Gentile, and also towards a Jew: but they are allowed to a Jew against a Gentile.'

Is this not antiGentilism, USN69?

In Edward Boraz' 1996 primer, Understanding the Talmud. A Modern Reader's Guide for Study, Jacob Neusner is quoted thus:

'The Talmud is the single most influential document in the history of Judaism.'

How many orthodox Jewish Rabbis have taken the Talmudic pronouncements cited above to heart over the years, do you think? How many of them conveyed these beliefs to the faithful?

Consider this:

'A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.' (Sanhedrin)

'A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated.' (Abhodah Zarah)

'When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl, it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this it is as if one puts the finger in the eye, tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.' (Kethuboth)

Perhaps these Talmudic extracts explain why so many Jews are involved in pornography. Second boss of Channel 4, (fellow Jew, Jeremy Isaacs, was the first) Michael Grade, ('pornographer-in-Chief' according to The Mail) gave us soft core porn on that channel; Channel 5's first boss, David Elstein, introduced hard core.

Boss of Express Newspapers, Richard Desmond, was a notorious top shelf pornographer before he acquired The Express, Daily Star et al. He still is.

And then the world's no. 1 media Zionist, Rupert Murdoch, gave us teenage t*ts on Page 3 of The Sun; Jewish immigrant, Robert Maxwell, (Jan Ludwig Hoch) followed Murdoch's lead soon after in The Mirror.

And most of Hollywood's sleaze output is generated by our Jewish chums as, for that matter, is most of the non-sleaze."
larry**********:
"You are also a member of Stormfront, a well-known neo-nazi forum that promotes holocaust denial..."
I would describe Stormfront differently. I'd say it was a collection of individuals deeply concerned about the way their world has been given away to fat cat and foreigner in recent times. Given away, for the most part, by those they elected to represent THEIR interests.

Regarding the 'holocaust,' elsewhere in the thread I said that a Jewish death total of 'between 300,000 and 600,000 would, I think, be closer to the mark.’

hotmale (who has contributed in similar debates alongside USN69) wondered thus:
"How did you come up with these figures?"
I replied:
"At Nuremberg, the Soviets insisted that 4million had died at Auschwitz. The allies chose not to question this assertion. In 1948, memorial tablets in 19 different languages were laid commemorating the innocents said to have perished there.

Despite the 'official' Auschwitz figure, a French documentary was, from 1955 onwards, insisting that 9MILLION had died! For more than forty years, 'Nuit et Brouillard, (Night and Fog) was repeatedly shown on French TV and in their schools' system.

In 1973, Dr Jacob Bronowski's intellectual gravitas was brought to bear upon the subject in 'The Ascent of Man.'

'Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some 4 million people,' he said.

In 1990, the original memorial stones laid at Auchwitz were removed. Five years later they were replaced. 50 years after Nuremberg first trumpeted the 4m statistic, a new memorial tablet stated that 1.5 million had died there.

Nowadays the Auschwitz website tells us that 1.1m died.

A great many people lost their lives at Auschwitz. But at least 2.9million more survived than was originally thought.

The death totals have been coming down at other camps too. At Nuremberg, the Soviets declared that 1.5 million had been killed at Madjanek. As of December 2005, the site museum was saying 78,000 people had lost their lives there.

On page 288 of Volume 18 (1963) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, no less, this is said:

'At Mathausen... close to two million people, mostly Jews, were exterminated between 1941 and 1945.'

The US Holocaust Museum now says:

'At least 95,000 died there. More than 14,000 were Jewish.'

The Dachau concentration camp used to display a sign saying 240,000 Jews had died there. Nowadays, another sign suggests that 19,000 people perished, mainly of typhus and starvation.

Once upon a time, the powers-that-be demanded we believe that 4m died at Auschwitz and 6m died overall. If you dared to question either figure you would have been vilified as an anti-Semite. And yet, as we have seen, those who once had us pay homage to 4million have now reduced this figure considerably.

However, THE SIX MILLION STAT HAS STAYED THE SAME!

Using the latest figures from the cited camps alone, a total of 462,000 dead emerges, many of whom would not have been Jewish. If that statistic was an accurate record of those who lost their lives in such circumstances, it would still be horrifying.

But it wouldn't be as horrifying as six million."
cartimandua:
“So bloody what? whatever your figures are Jews were killed by Hitler in large numbers and so were many of our (but probably not your) relatives. They were killed in all sorts of ways. How dare you excuse any of it or attempt to with your anti Jew obssession.

You are no Englishman. You are a vile insane disgrace.”
Stoobyroo:
"And here's me thinking that after decades of evidence and education, Holocaust Deniers didn't exist."
ironwand:
"Amazing isn’t it? After decades of brainwashing and threat, those who would have the inconvenient, unfashionable and establishment-exposing truths told still exist."
Cartimandua:
"You think that if your figures are right and the murder of Jews 'only' amounted to between 300,000 and 600,000 that somehow makes it all OK?"
ironwand:
"Oh no. The death of any innocent should be a matter of concern to all. However, your question seems to imply that it is O.K. to multiply tragedy by a factor of 10 to 20 if the Jews are at the heart of it.

Which says a lot more about you and those who's fantastic dishonesty you seek to excuse than it does me."
cartimandua:
"Ironwand you dont get it that your denial of the horrors of WW2 dishonors all the fine British men and women who died fighting the monstrous thing Hitler made of Germany.

It wasnt just Jews now was it? He bombed our cities. He tortured and murdered our soldiers. He sank the ships bringing us food. men died freezing in the water or choking in burning oil.

Your history is not in this land if you have no family history of all this. And it seems it isnt now is it. You are a fake. You are not British or your Mother never knew your Father and left you in a toilet somewhere."
The above post inspired the most aggressive response of any introduced by me. I wouldn't have complained if this had been removed:

Ironwand:
"What a creep you are. 55 million people die and I deny that such a monstrous event is horrific? Point out where I utter such a denial, would you?

Do you see how these disgusting types try to divert the attention of the unwary with b***ocks, ladies and gentlemen? The truth, seek it out. Don't be bamboozled by psychobabble and don't be intimidated by the fashion-following sneerer.

You're pathetic, Cartimandua. I LOVE the British people. I love our history. I love what we once were before the Global Elite drugged us up and dumbed us down. You do not love. You despise. You are for yourself and your own.

A fake? Me? I'm an Englishman, English for the 3.5 generations I've been back. You're Jew-bought. Or a Jew. Plenty of decent Jews in the world but they don't buy up the Goyim. Any Goy that's Jew-bought is a traitor to his tribe.

You're no fake, Cartimandua. You're a one hundred per cent genuine, died-in-the-wool enemy of the British people."
cartimandua:
"Ironwand is a traitor and fake."
ironwand:
"Insults are easy. They are the stock in trade of the spitall-drenched, Brit-loathing Left.

Explain your insults, C. How do you get from a bloke telling truths the establishment doesn't want told to 'traitor and fake.'

Cartimandua was a British Queen. The one that infects this forum is not the kind of Brit most would identify with, I wager.

A queen, however, now that I'd believe."
cartimandua: "
Our families lost loved ones in battle, and in the bombings of London. One of my extended family came back from a POW camp skeletal. Those who want to minimize the Jewish experience are actually minimizing all the British, European and American experience."
ironwand:
"I am happy to note that you feel the same way as I about these things, Cartimandua. I, too, do not wish any sufferer's 'experience' minimised. In this spirit, here is what the Jewish historian, Sir Martin Gilbert, tells us about the 'experience' of some 'European' citizens during the course of WW2.

Hamburg: 27 July 1943: 'By morning more than forty-two thousand German civilians were dead. This was more than the total British civilian deaths for the whole of the Blitz.'
cartimandua:
"If you were a real British person the knowledge of the suffering of the British in WW2 would be in your family history and your DNA. You are a low traitor and fake."
ironwand:
"I know about British suffering. I know about German, Austrian, Hungarian, Russian, Greek, Slavic, Romanian, American, Chinese and Japanese suffering too. All manner of innocent people suffered during the course of WWII. But to hear characters like you tell it, only one lot REALLY suffered.

I guess you won't be putting the stats I've introduced here before the British people any time soon. If you did it might just get them thinking that your favourite folk didn't suffer quite as much as you, the History Channel, Hollywood, the Murdoch media, the PC Crowd, the bought politician and the Jewish Elite says they did.

Never mind. The truth will out, as they say, it always does in the end. When that great day dawns, Cartimandua, I wouldn't want to be you."
After publishing the fact that Lazar Kaganovich was the man 'most responsible' for the Holodomor, during which event around seven million Ukrainians died, Cartimandua responded thus:
"Stalin was in charge of that genocide. That he may have had a Jewish henchman makes as much sense as pointing out Hitlers "Christian” henchmen. Both the Arabs and the Catholic church behaved in a very matey way towards Hitler. Wasnt that sweet?”
Elsewhere he/she added:

"You very dishonestly ascribe the genocides of Stalin to "Jewry". That is what you were trying to do."
ironwand:
"I was doing no such thing. I point out that the man most responsible for the implemenatation of the 1933 Ukrainian Holocaust, Lazar Kaganovich, was Jewish. Stalin was, of course, the bestial overlord of the Bolshevik system at that time so he certainly bears as much responsibility for those dire events as Kaganovich.

Thing is, the Jews are supposed to be blameless at all times, aren't they? Do you think Kaganovich was blameless, Cartimandua? The Ukrainians don't.

Here's something else you wouldn't want the Goyim to know. In 1922 there was another man-made famine throughout the Volga regions. Approximately five million people starved to death at that time when Lenin (whose grandfather was Jewish) ruled the roost.

A gentleman by the name of A.B. Khalatov was the Soviet Minister of Food at the time.

He, too, was Jewish."
Changing tack and attempting, I think, to score a cheap point, Cartimandua sneered:
"I expect you think the "protocols" are real too."
To which I replied:
"The Jewish Peril, in which The Protocols were first introduced to the masses, was first published extensively by Professor Sergei Alexandrovich Nilus in Russia in 1905.

Excerpts from the book had been seen in Russian newspapers as early as 1903 and Nilus had some of it published as early as 1901 in a book entitled, The Great Within The Small. In fact, a variety of tracts and essays containing very similar information were discussed widely in the drawings rooms of the Russian upper classes in the early 1890s.

Justine Glinka, the daughter of a Russian general, acquired the original documents from a Jewish freemason named Joseph Schorst in 1884.

After Justine returned to Russia she passed a copy of The Protocols on to the leading man in her area, Alexis Sukhotin. Sukhotin showed the document to two friends, Philip Stepanov and Sergei Nilus. Stepanov had it printed and circulated privately in 1897. Nilus published it as previously stated and a copy was deposited in the British Museum on 10 August 1906.

In 1850, a Jewish gentleman called Jacob Venedey published a book called Machiavelli: Montesquieu and Rousseau. This contains passages that are very similar to some that can be found in The Protocols.

Then, in 1921, The Times suggested that The Protocols had been extensively plagiarised from a book by a French lawyer named Maurice Joly. Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was published in Brussels in 1864.

A few years later a gentleman by the name of Gougenot de Mousseaux wrote another book saying the world was being taken over by Satan-worshipping Jews and, in 1881, one Abbe Chabauty wrote a voluminous tome that said Satan was using the Jews to prepare the way for the Antichrist.

Another book, published the following year, included several letters supposedly written in 1489 by a Jew who spoke of the chosen tribe rising up to 'dominate the world.'

It can be seen then, that, at the time that Joseph Schorst passed the offending documents to Justine Glinka, a good deal of similar material was already making the rounds of the Parisian bookstores and drawing rooms.

Some historians also suggest that The Protocols were forged by Elie de Cyon (Ilya Tsion), a Russian Jewish journalist living in Paris, as a satire on Sergei Witte, the Russian Minister of Finance.

Whoever put The Protocols together was one (or more) of the following:

i) Someone who wished merely to defame the Jews.

ii) Someone who wished to deflect attention from some other elite grouping bent on world domination.

iii) Someone who, in order to try and alert the non-Jewish world to what they believed were the secret intentions of a powerful body of Jews and their co-conspirators, was prepared to concoct a document predicting their future intentions.

iv) A raving loony who, by an extraordinary coincidence, happened to accurately foretell a hell of a lot of stuff that most at that time would not be remotely aware of.

v) Someone who was intimately acquainted with the predatory aspirations and designs of the Jewish elite.

It seems likely that The Protocols were inspired by and constructed from a variety of earlier works and, whoever the author was, he would, probably, have used the previous writings of the likes of Venedey, Joly, de Mousseaux, Chabauty and de Cyon etc. as a blueprint.

Whether this was done in order to enlighten us, or as a cynical attempt to make money from a credulous non-Jewish world, is a matter for debate.

The Jews, themselves, at pains to rubbish The Protocols ever since they were first published, have been at even greater pains to ensure that they are never read by the common man, rubbish or not.

Anyway, there is plenty of historical evidence out there suggesting that there was a deal of Jewish involvement in the creation and exposure of these documents.

For what its worth, I reckon that The Protocols were, probably, concocted by some very well informed person in an attempt to warn the rest of us of what he believed that the elite of world Jewry was up to, hoping, perhaps, to galvanise the non-Jew into taking action against them.

That the author should choose the vehicle that he did for this exposition should not be regarded as proof of any intrinsic deceitfulness. The playwright may write a play in order to throw some light upon a subject close to his heart. A novelist may write a novel to expose a body of information that the establishment would rather be kept secret. A documentary maker may include a dramatised scene in his documentary in order to illuminate a point he is trying to make. And a Stephen Spielberg may make a film like Schindler's List to ram home a message to those who wouldn't otherwise have known what the message was.

If The Protocols were designed to inform an uninformed majority of an historical conspiracy that was intended to do them harm, then Nilus et al did us all a favour.

Unfortunately, for many, the favour came too late. Within 12 years of their publication, a very real conspiracy had overtaken the people of Eastern Europe. The Russian Revolution ushered in a period of genocide and horror that only really ended with Stalin's death in 1953.

Apart from Lenin, who was one quarter Jewish, and Stalin, who was a Georgian Asiatic, Sverdlov, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kaganovich, Kamenev, Sokolnikov, Yagoda and a sizeable majority of the movers and shakers within the revolutionary hierarchy were Jewish.

Sverdlov countersigned the Tsar's death warrant and the Chairman of the Petrograd Cheka who carried out the executions, Moses Uritsky, was also Jewish.

The Cheka, the original incarnation of the NKVD and the KGB, roamed Russia imposing the Bolshevik's will from the early twenties onwards.

This organisation was comprised, for the most part, of Jews."
A goodly number of Jewish folk are also concerned to get the truth about these matters out.

In The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, the historian, Professor Norman Finkelstein says this:
"The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a 'victim' state, and the most successful ethnic group in the USA has likewise acquired victim status."
"The Holocaust proved to be the perfect weapon for deflecting criticism of Israel."
"The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the greatest robbery in the history of mankind."
deanmason:
"No-one should be surprised by what ironwand is posting. His real name is Michael Graham, (deanmason was the first to publish anything about me not relevant to the topic) he's a well-known British neo-nazi (he's known as Jack Black on Stormfront) who hates Muslims and Black people with the same rabid zeal as he hates Jews. You get such nice people on this forum."
ironwand:
"Thus spake an establishment apparatchik. The establishment has been at pains to vilify the truth-teller as long as the truth-teller has been telling truthful anti-establishment tales.

You will note, ladies and gents, that the deanmasons and the Cartimanduas never provide any proofs of their own. On the other hand EVERYTHING that I have posted within this thread can be checked and verified by those who are prepared to make the effort.

By the way, I'm no neo-Nazi. I'm an honest English man who hates what the traitorous animals at the top of the tree have done to our country and its people over the course of the last century.

Very few politicans and very few of their creatures within forums such as this will ever encourage you to investigate. They do not want you to find out. They do not want you to know what they do, what they have done and what they will continue to do until they are stopped.

I want you to know.

That's the difference.

As regards 'Muslims and black people,' I hate the Muslim paedophile, I hate those who murder, rape, gang-rape, drug-up, rob, mug, pimp, threaten and intimidate. (Check out The Rogues' Gallery and see how many you find unloveable)

I don't, however, hate the law-abiding who for more than sixty years, have come to our country knowing that the indigenous majority did want them to do so. I don't hate them even though they have take our houses, jobs, businesses, security and culture when, really, they should have been creating their own carry-on back where their ancestors are buried.

No, I don't hate them.

But I do hate the Brit-loathing politicians who beckoned them in."
cartimandua replied to deanmason's post thus:
"He is really disgusting. I doubt his ancestors fought Hitler or perhaps he doesnt know any of his family history."
Whereas my 20-year-old father, who joined the army as a boy soldier at 15, took part in the D-Day landings and spent the next two years in France and Germany.

At one point as gentleman calling himself davinciclaude wonderered:
"What on earth has this to do with the price of cheese in Denmark?"
This with reference to a creepy biography of yours truly posted by one frank********* (his pseudonym relates to a character I played on stage more than 30 years ago) which cited my real name and published a good few details of my career and private life. I responded thus:
"The answer, davinciclaude, is simple. There are those abroad on this planet who will stoop to ANYTHING to prevent any fact they do not want told from coming out.

That's it in a nutshell. One wonders why The Telegraph's moderators allow such behaviour. Perhaps it can be summed up by the Orwellian quote in the previous post:

'Some animals are more equal than others'."
frank*********:
"********** now spends his life... projecting his bitterness and self-loathing on to a group of people who represent everything he would love to be, but can never be."
ironwand:
"What? You think I'm envious of you? Wow! I am my father's son, Frankie. And he was about as much like you, deanmason, reetpetite, USN69, cartimandua, Bill Pearlman, larry********** and ganef_returns as Harold Godwinson was like the $50billion dollar fraudster." (Bernie Madoff is Jewish)
frank*********:
"In many ways, he is only to be pitied."
ironwand:
"Oh no. No pity wanted or deserved over here, Frankie. I made my bed long ago. The fact that this particular Judaeophilic fellow would have you think that a man should rate your pity simply for telling the truth, speaks worlds.

P.S. This pitiable wretch isn't going anywhere, Frank.

Now what?"
larry**********:
"You're just a racist fantasist and you're completely out of your depth. And you don't even know it do you Frank********"
So this lovely, fluffy fellow thinks I'm a really horrible person for letting the world know what liars the top folk are. At the same time as he's calling me all the names under the sun, he is revealing my identity, (having previously gone to the effort of discovering it, perhaps illegally) and then, via the Frank********* reference, introducing a biographical detail.

I trust the vast majority of fair-minded people who happen across this exposé will not impressed by the foam-flecked indignation of such a malign sneak.

After taking issue with the my introduction of term 'antiGentilism', USN69 sneered thus:
"Is the rest of the world picking on "De po' white folk"?"
ironwand:
"Well, I don't see Africa, the Indian subcontinent and China being invaded by millions of white folks, do you? The traffic is one way. We made something special in our own back yard, now everyone else wants it. And, with the enouragement of political correctness; the Murdoch, Maxwell, Grade, Elstein and Desmond types in the media and bought politicians, they take it."
USB69:
"Once you get up to your neck in sewage, you don't even recognize it anymore."
ironwand:
"Up to my neck in sewage for making use of a term exactly similar to the one Moritz Steinschneider invented in the 1860s? Yeah right.

Do you think if I use the term antiGentilism too often it might get the non-Jew investigating what the Jew has done to the non-Jewish world over the millennia, USN69?

Or do you wish to claim that the poor, long-suffering Jew has never done any harm to anyone? You know, like the Israelis have never harmed a single Palestinian?

In case you missed them, USN69, here's a few bits of antiGentilism I introduced earlier:

The Jewish Neocons who brought about the war in Iraq; the Jewish financiers who brought about the world-wide recession; the Jewish lobbies that have such a malign effect on governmental policy throughout the Western World; the treatment of tens of millions of innocent Soviet citizens who suffered at the hands of the mainly Jewish Cheka and N.K.V.D. throughout the twenties and thirties; the Jew-owned media that whacks us with so much anti-White propaganda and prevents so much truth coming out; the creation and imposition of political correctness, which the Frankfurt School's mainly Jewish academics foist upon the world; the first usage of the term 'racist' ('racialist', first used in 1907, was a scientic, non-pejorative word), seen in the 1930 essay, 'History of the Russian Revolution', written by the mass-murdering Jewish revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, and the imposition of the term upon the world by Hirschfeld, Gollancz et al; the creation and financing of the shadowy 'Focus' group, which did so much to stoke up the fires of WWII (in the 1930s); the murder of Lord Moyne, Count Folke Bernadotte and a great many British soldiers, policemen and civil servants by Irgun and the Stern Gang during and just after WW2; the imposition of the hateful, Brit-bashing race laws upon the indigenous population at the behest of the Jewish Board of Deputies; the imposition, via the great traitors Tony Blair and Gordon Brown of their twerpish, unrepresentative proteges, Miliband 1 and 2; the constant media promotion of the foreigner and the 'mixed-race ideal' by the media; the plot to kill Foreign Secretary, Ernie Bevin, by the Israeli government; the Jewish oligarchs who, with Boris Yeltsin’s blessings, plundered the wealth of the Russian people during that country’s particularly nasty variation on the privatisation scam and the promotion of the terms 'racism’; 'anti-Semitism' to counteract any criticism of the Jew and the Global project. (See Comment section of The cowardice at the heart of our relationship with Israel etc. etc. etc.

Oh yes, anti-Gentilism exists alright.

As USN 69 well knows."
Anyway, ladies and gents, that's a small of example of what went on.

THEY commit the crimes, THEY issue the threats, THEIR unpleasantness is not removed by the mods and my rather easy-going responses to it are, AND MUGGINS GETS BANNED FOR TELLING THE TRUTH!

Oh, and for more than sixty years their side of the argument has waged a campaign of disinformation intended to airbrush an enormous amount of needful truth from the historical picture.

By the way, The Telegraph is not the worst example of collusion and 'cowardice' in the face of Hebraic threat. In fact it is, probably, the best of a bad bunch. I have certainly had more off-message stuff published there than any other establishment media source.

But their moderators have made several terrible mistakes here. If they thought the whole thing would just disappear if they got me out of there, they were mistaken.

I'll keep you posted.

UPDATE

On 29 December 2012, I contacted the Telegraph editors Benedict Brogan, Christopher Hope; Tony Gallagher; Matthew Bayley and the jounalist Peter Oborne via email, apprising them of the situation.

On 2 January 2013, I received the following reply from Kate Day:
"Dear Mr **********,

Benedict sent your email about comment moderation on to me. Many thanks for taking the time to get in touch and apologises for the delay in responding, I wasn't in the office last week.

First, I hope I can reassure you about your Twitter account. The name Michael Graham is simply the full name associated with your account (see here https://twitter.com/ironwand). Our commenting system displays this name rather than Twitter usernames; in my case I am 'Kate Day' when I log in to comment using my Twitter account and not "@kate_day". So I would expect 'Michael Graham' to appear next to your comments and this is not an indication that your account has been hacked.

Your second concern related to the posting of your name and your identities on other sites in a comment and, specifically, that this comment hadn't been removed. I have been through the comments under Peter Oborne's piece and found what I think is the comment you refer to (posted by 'deanmason'). The information posted is publicly available on your Twitter account (ie the name Michael Graham and your username on other websites) and so this would not normally be grounds for us to remove a comment. However, as a gesture of goodwill I have deleted this comment.

If you have any further concerns, please let me know. It would also be helpful if you could identify the name of the reader who posted the comment as well as the article that the comment was posted on.

Kind regards,

Kate"
This was my response to the above:
"Dear Kate Day,

Thank you for your reply.

I'm not quite sure how you've managed to figure things out the way you have given the information I sent to Mr Brogan but your response to this information is sadly lacking. My real name is not Michael Graham. The release of this freely available info was never the problem. My real name is ***** ********** and this name can be seen within the thread in question even now. It was, somehow, unearthed (sinister behaviour in itself) by someone contending against me in the Peter Oborne thread.

Once discovered it was then published. At first, this name was used as a pseudonym by the oppo. Then another name associated with my biographical history was used as a pseudonym by another contributor to the thread. I reported these matters to the moderators.

Then this/these person/persons began introducing biographical detail etc. etc. etc. Then I was threatened (purportedly) by the Jewish Defence League, who sent two emails to me directly.

I'm afraid, Kate, that you cannot have read the email (and the associated links) sent to Mr Brogan (and others) in its entirety, as these matters, and their consequences, were fully explained.

Perhaps you have not been apprised of the original email. Perhaps Mr Brogan didn't read enough of it. But laws have been broken. You and those to whom these matters may apply at The Telegraph really should be taking the matter more seriously.

For your own edification, here is a copy of the email sent to Benedict Brogan; Christopher Hope; Tony Gallagher; Matthew Bayley and Peter Oborne." (I enclosed a copy of this)
I then added:
"My replies to the JDL and snapshots of their emails may be seen here:

http://traitor666.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/here-is-email-jewish-defence-league.html

Some of the interactions between the 'Neo-Nazi' and those ranged against him may be seen here:

http://traitor666.blogspot.co.uk/2006/12/the-telegraph-debate.html

P.S. As previously suggested, the solicitor I contacted still hasn’t replied. My guess is that he leaves his work in the office at this time of year. However, as I know he‘s a conscientious fellow and know him personally I’m sure he’ll get back to me within the next few days.

I’d appreciate a reply before then."

As you can see Kate, I provided Mr Brogan (and thus you) with a very full acount of what transpired here.

I'd appreciate if you could oblige me with a similarly fulsome investigation of these matters.

Yours,

***** **********"
Kate Day subsequently replied thus:
"Dear Mr **********,

Apologies if I have misunderstood. Please can you send me the details of the comments you would like me to look at ie the username of the commenter and the full text of the comment.

Kind regards,

Kate"
I did so and on 3 January 2013, I got this response from her:
"Dear Mr **********,

"Thanks for your emails. I have been through all the material you sent me.

I checked the "larry**********" account and there is only one comment still live on the thread and it does not identify you. It reads: There's a lot of very ugly, unpleasant anti-semitism on this forum.

Something needs to be done...

This does not breach our terms and conditions of commenting and so I have left it up. Otherwise, all the comments from this account have been deleted.

Regarding the other screen shots you sent, this comment from "frank*********" had previously been deleted by the moderators:

***** ********** (ironwand) had it all to play for in the mid to late 70's. He was an aspiring actor/singer who appeared in stage productions ranging from an Ibsen play to a leading role in the last production of *** ***** ****** at the ****** **** Theatre in London.

In spite of rave reviews for his ***** performances, his stage career petered out and came to a halt in the early 80's. He then tried his hand at becoming a professional singer, and he recorded a couple of albums ('*************?' and ************?'), neither of which sold any copies.

He had another brief brush with fame at the dawn of the Millenium when he appeared on ************** on four occasions as a *********** contestant, but he never actually got to take part in the actual quiz. However, he also appeared as a prosecution witness in the case against ************* who was wrongly convicted of cheating his way to the ********* prize, and who appeared on the programme at the same time as ***********.

He still loves a quiz because it gives him a chance to show off how clever he is...or thinks he is. He's a regular on the the *********** circuit, and in 2012, he was a finalist in the *********** competition. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride. It's the story of Whitehurts's life; he's always been close to achieving something, but he never quite makes it."

You also seem to identify yourself (eg telegraph18) in the comments. I am happy to delete this comment if you would like me to.

I haven't seen any comments where people have mentioned your contact details and we would not give out personal info about our readers. Your email address is publicly available elsewhere online though eg *************

*************

I'm sorry I can't be of further assistance.

Kind regards,

Kate"
I replied as follows:

"Dear Kate Day,

I'm grateful to you for pointing out that my email was available at ******. Although I was responsible for that message I hadn't realised the world would be able to see it. As regards this:

'I checked the '**************' account and there is only one comment still live on the thread and it does not identify you... This does not breach our terms and conditions of commenting and so I have left it up.'

So, using my name as a pseudonym and thus revealing my ID doesn't breach your terms and conditions. Noted.

Quite obviously the introduction of my name at this point within the thread was intended to intimidate me. i.e. 'We know your name.' This seems to bother you as little as it bothered your moderators. Noted.

As regards the ********** post, (********** being linked to my biography, another attempt at intimidation) it was, indeed, EVENTUALLY removed. However, it wasn't removed when I reported it.

Indeed, if you look at the snapshot again you will see that a moderator tinkered with it but left the essential biographical information up. The screenshot that I sent you had been up for fifteen hours. It was available to be viewed for some time after that. To the best of my recollection it, along with almost all the rest of the ID-revealing and biographical stuff, was left up until or just before I mentioned that I had contacted a solicitor.

At the same time as this and the nasty, ad hominem material was NOT being removed, some of my perfectly reasonable responses to he revellation of my identity, the ad hominem nastiness and the threats posed WAS removed. The fact that you do not deal with this moderator partiality in your reply is also noted.

As regards telegraph18, re 'identify' myself: i) the cat was well and truly out of the bag by then. My ID and biography was being mentioned by various of the contributors and the moderators were NOT removing the offending material. ii) I 'identify' the pseudonym '**********', which you, EVEN NOW, are happy to leave up! iii) As regards 'delet(ing) this comment', you're not paying attention, Kate. The comment has already been deleted. It disappeared when I was banned by the moderators. Your attitude here is noted.

You obviously couldn't care less about the threats levelled at me by the IDF or someone posing as the IDF, as you do not mention these. The fact that one or more of the contributors to the Oborne thread directly or indirectly instigated/encouraged these threats also seems to be of no concern to you. This, too, is noted.

You do not deal with the hacking of my Twitter account and the changing of my pseudonym at the Telegraph via this account. You also make no mention of the fact that I, who was extremely civil thoughout, considering the unpleasantness levelled at me, was banned by the moderators. These did not see fit to act similarly towards those spittal-drenched commentators whose venom was, primarily, aimed at me.

It seems to me that given what happened here, a reasonable management would have investigated these matters to see if it was possible to identify who was behind the revellation of my ID; the vicious 'JDL' threats and the hacking of my Twitter account. That this was not done and the Telegraph management's subsequent apparent disinterest in these matters speaks volumes.

I contacted a solicitor by email on the 23rd and apprised him of the situation. He had not replied by the 28th when I sent a considerable update. He still hasn't replied. I guess he must still be on holiday.

I'll ring his office tomorrow to see if he's back and what, if anything, he intends to do about all of this. Given his track record, I'd be amazed if he did not wish to take the matter further.

Yours,

***** **********"

After discovering that, in the previous email Kate had sent to me, she had unearthed my REAL real name, I responded thus shortly afterwards:

"I missed this first time round ***************

You seem, just like the character(s) who outed me in the Oborne thread, to have gone to a great deal of trouble to amass as much information about me as possible. On the other hand, as suggested by my previous email, you seem to have made very little effort to identify those who behaved criminally (the 'JDF' threats, the hacking of my Twitter acount and use of it to change my ID at the Telegraph and the probable personation of an JDF representative) at and via the Oborne thread.

The person identified in the above link is ***************, not **************. ************ was never identified in the Comment section of the article. That you do so here seems ultra-creepy and not a little suspicious in itself.

Your emails will, of course, be passed on to the aforesaid solicitor.

Yours,

********** ********* ************

Today, the 8th of January 2013, I got a phone call (I don't think I'm listed so unearthing this was no mean feat) from the JDL! (1.50 p.m.)

The middle-class 'English' chap at the other end of the line said:
"Just to let you know we will be calling on you very shortly."
"Of course you will," I replied.
Persistent little threateners, aren't they?

UPDATE: Thursday 10 January.

When I went to check on the Oborne thread ALL of the posts up to the point where I joined the debate had been removed. Interesting. It would appear that the powers-that-be at The Telegraph ARE paying attention. Whether they care to admit it or not.

Check it out.

At 12.59 today, Thursday 10 January 2012, I received another email purporting to be from the JDL.

This cited the following quotation from me:
"I've got Nationalism's top solicitor involved. He's busy at the mo but will be able to make some time at the weekend to work through it all, hopefully.

I don't want to get the cops on it without his say so...

But yes, whether the bad guys know it or not, they have bitten off more than they can chew and, as far as I'm concerned, the more tormementing the better!"
The (fake?) JDL then said:
"That really is the best laugh we've had in ages. Do you understand the concept of irony? A racist criminal who is staring down the barrel of at least a year behind bars is pretending to go crying to the 'cops' because the people that he continually abuses and demonizes decide to defend themselves. Now we've heard it all. 
Tell you what fool, once you've got 'the cops on it,' just let us know the details of who the investigating officer is, and we'll make it easy for all concerned by contacting him/her. And when we do, we'll be able to point him/her in the direction of the police officers who are currently investigating YOUR efforts to incite racial hatred online over the last few years. It'll be quite a coup to see such a big fish in the Nazi-boy world finally drown in a cess-pit of his own making.

Are you so stupid that you don't realise that spewing out poisonous hatred in sick blogs and on public forums, twitter and national newspaper websites actually constitutes a very serious criminal offense? You'd get away with it in the USA where Nazis like you flourish under the constitutional right of absolute free speech, but here in the UK, they put scum like you where you belong - in prison. And when the police and the criminal justice system have finished with you, we'll be waiting. We've got very long memories when it comes to hate-filled lowlifes like you...

Jewish Defense League"
To which I replied:
"As I have said before, I have been looking forward to my day in court for some time.

And the thing is, as you will know, I do not rely on sneer, smear, insult and threat. The truth, the facts and the REAL history are my watchwords. Everything informational that I introduce can be proved.

Now we are both aware that you are just one person. An internet savvy chap who, almost certainly, took part in the Oborne/Telegraph debate. I'm 99% sure that an organisation like the JDL wouldn't make so many stupid mistakes. And, if contacted them, I think they'd be pretty p***ed off to find that some jumped-up wannabe had been acting the amateur vigilante in their name.

And then there's the little matter of impersonating a police sergeant. However bought-and-paid-for the boys-in-blue happen to be, I don't think they'll take kindly to such behaviour.

Anyway, the various truths about your antics (and that of the corruptly partial Telegraph censors) are out there now. Whatever threats you level, whatever unpleasantness you seek to inflict, there'll are plenty of decent folks who know about it. These will, of course, point the finger in your direction should you decide to try and make good on your childish threats.

As for the telephone call at 1.50 p.m. this Tuesday, re: 'we'll be calling on you very soon,' I'm still waiting. You see, this is what idiots like you don't get. I'd be happy to go down fighting. Nobody lives forever. In any case, whatever happens it's Zion's reputation that suffers, not mine.

There are plenty of decent Jewish folk in the world. You aren't one of them. You are very much the kind of fellow I contend with and seek to expose. You're it. You're the bad guy.

As for me, I just sit back and let all the oh-so-delicious nastiness wash over me. I don't have to do a damn thing when you are doing such a grand job of exposing the psychopathic malice of the Zionist fanatic all by yourself.

And, all the while, you are out there committing those mindless, little-boy crimes that really ought to be worth a bit more than the year you think truth-telling will pull in a politically correct age.

Regards,

************"

Wednesday 13 December 2006

Purported threats from the Jewish Defence League

The Jewish Defense League is an organisation whose stated goal is to "protect Jews from antisemitism BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY".

Here is an email purporting to be from the Jewish Defence League sent to me today, Saturday, 22 December 2012:
"In the middle of the last century, Jews had no right or means of response when they were demonised, persecuted and attacked by your ideological soulmates. Today, the world is a very different place. 
When we are attacked by hate-filled, nazi filth like you, we respond with all the resources at our disposal, and with corresponding prejudice. You have been waging a campaign of anti-semitic extremism for a long time, but the time has come for the people that you hate with such rabid venom to respond.
There are three things that you should remember: the code that we live by is 'never again'; our hatred of nazi scum like you is stronger than your hatred of us; we didn't choose you as an enemy, you chose us.

Jewish Defense League"
Click on the image below to enlarge it.

This is, in part, the response I emailed to them:
"If you imagine I don't know what you're made of, gentlemen, you're wrong. I know what you do. I know what you've done. I know what you will carry on doing until you're stopped...

Despite the various catastrophes your ancestral behaviours have caused you to suffer, you've always been a good few rungs up the ladder from my own folk, the serfs and carls of England...

As for this:

"We didn't choose you as an enemy, you chose us."

Anyone who tells a truth you don't want told chooses you as an enemy. As the wise man said:

"Once an anti-Semite was someone who didn't like Jews, now an antisemite is anyone the Jews don't like."

Do your worst, lads. I'll carry on trying to do my best.

PS. Your to-do list must be very long. Given the world-wide hatred your historical unpleasantness has engendered. Would I be somewhere near the top of it?"
This was the reply to the above:
"We admire your brave words. Really. But we doubt very much that you "know what (we're) made of". In our experience, big, brave internet warriors like you squeal and cry like frightened pigs when we make house-calls.

And we intend to call on you very soon, and you will be no different to the rest of the cowardly Nazi filth in this world. And yes... that's a direct threat.

We strongly advise you to report this matter to the police; and when you have done so, just let us know the contact details of the investigating officer and we will be more than happy to contact him/her. However, we can assure you that the British authorities have no interest in protecting extremist scum like you.

In any event, your long-standing attempts to incite racial hatred against against Jews via the internet (using a variety of anonymous pseudonyms) is a very serious criminal offense. The last scumbag who reported us to the police after receiving one of our emails is now serving an eighteen month prison sentence. But then again, prison is your best option in this instance. You've got nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. You are going to face the retribution that you deserve for your crimes against the Jewish people.

You chose us as an enemy, but the battles that you foolishly started all those years ago don't matter; what matters is who wins the war. We have been trying to find out your real identity for a very long time, and now we know it. You're not "somewhere near the top" of our list, as one of the UK's most pro-active and virulent Jew haters, you're No.1 on that list.

Thankfully, your reign of anti-semitic terror will soon be at an end.

Until we meet...

Jewish Defense League."
Click on the image below to enlarge it.

And my subsequent reply to them:
"Very interesting... and beautifully illuminating in more ways than one!

Thank you kindly for confirming what so many of us already knew. That "the British authorities have no interest in protecting extremist scum." (Honest men who would warn their kinfolk of what "direct threat... house-call" types like you are capable of)

I think I will report it to the cops, actually. I mean it wouldn't be a fair fight, would it? You lot don't ask people outside or anything. That, this non-squealing type would relish.

Nope, you're the A-bomb, F111 warplane, helicopter gunship and bullet in the back of the head type so I won't be relying on your sense of fair play.

Yes, I've been looking forward to my day in court for some time now. As long as it's not held in camera and 12 good men and true get to hear the truthful tales I have to tell I think the outcome might surprise you.

We'll see.

You'll forgive me if I don't wish you all the best. I never did like bully boys. And you do have a bit of a reputation in that area."
What caused these emails to be sent can be seen in the Comments section beneath the following Telegraph essay:
The cowardice at the heart of our relationship with Israel

STOP PRESS! On 24 December 2012, I was banned by The Telegraph. All of the posts I ever entered, including those I introduced elsewhere at the site, have now gone AWOL!

The Telegraph's moderators behaved with cavalier disregard for my privacy and, as it turns out, my security, from the moment my identity was revealed by the bad guys. They did NOT remove the offending posts when this 'outing' began to occur. Oddly enough, they seemed entirely happy to delete several of my (genteel) responses to them.

Anyway, I tell truths our Hebrew chums would rather the majority were not apprised of. Thus the animosity.

Many of these truths take the form of historical quotation. In other words, it's not me being "antisemitic", it's Martin Luther, St John Crysostom, Tacitus or, believe it or not, Winston Churchill. Jewish worthies like Professor Norman Finkelstein and the Israeli journalist, Ari Shavit also have tales to tell on their fellows.

The opinions of Messrs Finkelstein and Shavit can be seen below and the others can be found in 'The History of Antisemitism' articles in The Jewish Question section of this blog.

Anyway, the JDL and/or the person(s) impersonating them don't like me much. Never mind, those who are at war with you often don't.

Ask the Palestinians.

UPDATE:

On 24 December 2012, I entered the following comments beneath the Peter Oborne article:
"I now think that the threatening messages did not come from the JDL. I think they may have emerged from someone either partaking in this discussion or someone who has been following it closely.

I think whoever hacked my Twitter account and posted the "drunk" message; changed my status from ironwand to Michael Graham on here; published my name and parts of my biography and sent the threatening emails are one and the same person. Or group of people...

Crimes have been committed here. Yesterday morning I emailed a solicitor and put the matter to him. As yet, he hasn't got back to me. Christmas, I suppose.

I'm certain that this particular solicitor will be very interested in all of this, not all of the establishment is bought-and-paid-for. I think he will be mystified as to why the moderators here were so reluctant to remove my name and details from this forum when I reported the posts containing them. They only did so once I sent the contents of the second threatening email directly to them. I still have not received an apology.

I'm confident that an explanation for this wholly inappropriate behaviour will be sought through judicial channels.

I also think that he will tell me that what the person or persons as yet unknown who "hacked my Twitter account and posted the "drunk" message; changed my status from ironwand to Michael Graham on here; published my name and parts of my biography and sent the threatening emails" has, indeed, behaved criminally and that the police need to be informed of this.

Whatever advice he gives me I shall take.

I think he will also wish take issue with the many libelous statements, calumnies and ad hominem attacks aimed at me throughout the course of this process and allowed to stand by the moderators. To whit:
"Legend in your own mind; antisemite; (repeatedly) neo-Nazi (repeatedly); Muslim (repeatedly); Moslem; fool; press the bell for the nurse to give you your medication; idiot; gratuitous racism; supremacist; I doubt his ancestors fought Hitler; nastiness and vile bigotry; offensive; racist buffoon; Adolf; your history is not in this land; You are not British; your Mother never knew your Father and left you in a toilet somewhere; David Icke Masonic lizard nuts; collective rantings; ignoramus; Bi-atch (bitch); how far back you can trace YOUR ROOTS in the UK?; goofy; coward; sniveling chickenshit coward; lunatic; knuckle-dragging, racist trash; hate-filled neanderthals; your kind live your hatred; a community of the sick and the damned; Israel haters; traitor; fake; low traitor and fake; supremacist; verbal diarrhoea; really disgusting; no Englishman; vile insane disgrace; mendacious, demonizing; self-loathing; living in paranoia, Ironbottom is pretty revolting; stupid, your revolting kind; racist gutter that you inhabit; racist fantasist; racism; xenophobia; up to your neck in sewage; Nazi boy; bitter and twisted; supremacist; idiot; neo-Fascist; looney; inane bullshit; fanatics; pathetic; reckless stupidity."
(USN69, reetpetite, ganef-returns, Bill Pearlman, deanmason, larry**********, cartimandua and frank********* were the worst offenders)

Cartimandua actually said this at one point:

"No one cares about the Palestinians."

Which isn't the case. I care, as do many other Nationalists.

The email address of the 'person or persons unknown' who sent the threatening emails was given as follows: JDL.Org@europe.com which, I think you'll agree, sounds pretty official. However, if you put that address into Google, although many pages of JDL stuff come up, no dedicated JDL Europe site does so.

Which tends to confirm the suspicion that someone posing as the JDL sent the emails.

Personation: add that to the list of crimes committed."
My apologies to the JDL for initially taking the threatening emails at face value.

Some of the interreactions between Ironwand and the Zionists as, originally, seen in Comment section of the Oborne article, may be viewed at this link.

Monday 11 December 2006

The Theft of Britain

Hands up if you know who owns Kielder Water, the biggest reservoir in Britain?

Who owns the port of Felixstowe, our biggest container port? How about Thames Water? And ICI? London Electricity, the British Airports Authority and British Steel? Still no idea?

Well, here’s a clue: who owns what used to be the Midland Bank, the Abbey National, the Alliance & Leicester and the Bradford & Bingley building societies and was only a hearbeat away from owning the Royal Bank of Scotland? The Midland is now the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and the Spanish bank, Santander, owns the other now defunct iconic British brands. (On 11 December 2012, HSBC was fined £1.2billion for laundering the monies of the Iranian government and Mexican drug cartels though the USA's financial system)

BAA is also owned by the Spaniards, Thames Water is owned by Australians, London Electricity by the French and ICI by the Dutch. Jaguar and British Steel (now Corus) are owned by Indian investors. As for our biggest reservoir and container port, they’re both owned by the Chinese. In case any of you have forgotten in this bright, shiny new globalist age, that would be the Communist Chinese.

Oh yes, ladies and gents, the treachery is light years deep. It’s not just mass immigration, the EU and expenses scandals, ever since Thatcher came to power in 1979, those we vote for have been selling off what once belonged to all of us at a rate of knots.

Did any of you ever wonder what they may not have felt obliged to sell if they weren’t bunging the African dictator AND India AND, until recently, Red China et al £12BILLION in aid every year?

Our political masters also put around £12BILLION more into the EU budget than they get out. They also spend about £160BILLION every year on benefits! How much of this do you think we wouldn’t have had to spend if we weren’t subsidising huge numbers of first, second and third-generation immigrant jobless? And how much less would we be paying out if our own youth was given priority in the jobs market ahead of Stanislaw-come-lately from the former Communist countries of the East?

How much would we be saving if there weren't so many foreigners within our prison system, 11,127 the last time I looked? (This figure, of course, does not include the second and third generations of ethnically dissimilar types)

Oh yes, the evil done by the global fanatics we vote for is light years deep alright.

Here’s what Alex Brummer had to say on the subject that began this exposé in the 15 April 2012 edition of The Daily Mail:

“ROUGHLY HALF OF ALL OUR ESSENTIAL SERVICES, FROM WATER TO BRIDGES AND PORTS. NOW HAVE OVERSEAS OWNERS… NOT ONLY ARE FOREIGN COMPANIES OUT TO MAKE FAT PROFITS AS SPEEDILY AS POSSIBLE, BUT THEY’RE NOT AS CONCERNED AS A BRITISH COMPANY WOULD BE ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION. THEY OWE NO PARTICULAR ALLEGIANCE TO THIS COUNTRY, AND THEIR FOREIGN FORTRESSES SHIELD THEM FROM OUR BITTER COMPLAINTS.”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is as telling a definition of the true effects of globalism as you’ll ever find. The top table global villager is an advocate of globalism because of the ‘fat profits’ that can be ‘speedily’ made and the lack of redress available to his victims as a consequence of his non-native status.

Brummer continues:

“FOREIGN COMPANIES FLOCK TO BRITAIN AND GENERALLY GIVE THE U.S. A WIDE BERTH. Ironically, the first wave of new owners after British power companies were privatised were chiefly Americans. ATTRACTED BY THE LACK OF REGULATIONS, THEY SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE EASY PROFITS AND SHIP THEM HOME. THEY BROUGHT WITH THEM U.S.-STYLE REMUNERATION PACKAGES FOR DIRECTORS WHICH TURNED MANY INTO ‘FAT CATS’ OVERNIGHT…

IN THE UK, WE’VE ENDED UP WITH THE WORST OF ALL WORLDS: OVERSEAS OWNERSHIP AND NO REAL ACCOUNTABILITY OR CONSTRAINT ON PRICE RISES…

Thames Water, with 8.5 million water customers, 100 water treatment plants, 290 pumping stations and 235 reservoirs… was snapped up (in 2001) by GERMANY’S RWE, one of Europe’s largest power utilities. By 2005, Thames profits had soared by 30 per cent to £346 million — helped by a 21 per cent price rise for customers approved by the notoriously useless regulator, Ofwat. Yet THAT SAME YEAR, THE COMPANY’S PIPES WERE IN SUCH A BAD STATE OF REPAIR THEY WERE LEAKING 196 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. THE GERMAN OWNERS DID LITTLE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM…

The Daily Mail revealed that THE FIVE MEN CONTROLLING BRITAIN’S MOST WASTEFUL WATER COMPANY WERE PAID £20 MILLION A YEAR. And while the average Thames customer’s bill was £265 a year, residents of the chief executive’s hometown — Laren in Germany — paid well under half that amount for a first-class modern network… OVER THEIR FIVE YEARS OF OWNERSHIP, THE COMPANY PAID £1 BILLION IN DIVIDENDS TO ITS MAINLY GERMAN SHAREHOLDERS.

The new, foreign, owner… KEMBLE WATER, CONTROLLED BY AUSTRALIAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND MACQUARIE, IMMEDIATELY, IT STARTED SELLING OFF SOME OF THAMES’S ASSETS — INCLUDING SOUTH EAST WATER… Remember December 2010, when Britain shivered for days under inches of snow? Unlike other big European airports, Heathrow turned into something akin to a Third World refugee camp as it closed for 48 hours. The BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY — OWNED BY THE SPANISH COMPANY FERROVIAL — had under-invested in snow-clearing equipment… SEVERAL OF THE LATEST FOREIGN OWNERS OF BRITISH UTILITIES ARE STATE-CONTROLLED. So nationalised companies privatised only a few years ago are effectively in state hands again — though THE STATE IS NO LONGER BRITAIN.

LONDON ELECTRICITY, BOUGHT BY U.S. FIRM ENTERGY IN 1996 FOR £1.3 BILLION, WAS SOLD TWO YEARS LATER TO FRENCH STATE-OWNED EDF FOR £1.9 BILLION. EDF later snapped up two small nearby power distributors and merged them into a new company, EDF Energy. IN 2009, IT WON CONTROL OF BRITAIN’S NUCLEAR POWER GENERATORS, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY’RE EFFECTIVELY OWNED BY THE STATE OF FRANCE.

Three years before — as other nations started to invest heavily in nuclear energy — WE’D SOLD ANOTHER PRIME NUCLEAR COMPANY, WESTINGHOUSE, TO THE JAPANESE. They got a real bargain, as Westinghouse was one of a handful of designers, manufacturers and builders of new nuclear plants around the world. Had we retained it, Britain could have become a leader in a booming sector. But… the $5.4 billion received was seen as a welcome bonus for the Exchequer.

Now, as old plants are mothballed and oil grows more expensive, we’re faced with having to build new nuclear power plants to avoid major power crises. But the only company we have with the expertise to construct them is French — and likely to give other French companies the lion’s share of the work…

It should… be clear by now that selling off our vital services to overseas interests is a risky strategy that takes no account of what might happen in the future. It’s classic short-termism. AND IT’S NOT A STRATEGY THAT’S BEEN ADOPTED BY OTHER COUNTRIES.

In Germany, the massive power generators E.ON and RWE, which also own energy companies in Britain, are regarded as national champions. WITH THE BACKING OF THEIR GOVERNMENT, THEY’VE EXPANDED ALL OVER THE CONTINENT. Moreover, THEY’RE PROTECTED BY ELABORATE AND COMPLICATED LAWS THAT HAVE MADE IT ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE FOR UK FIRMS TO COMPETE WITH THEM IN EUROPE…

Britain’s energy supplies are also vulnerable to global political rows, particularly since Russia started piping oil and gas across the Ukraine and Europe to UK consumers. Six years ago, it even looked for a while as if the state-owned Russian gas conglomerate Gazprom might be taking over British Gas’s parent company Centrica, gaining access to its 15.7 million UK customers. At the time, the Kremlin was using its huge energy resources as a political weapon by turning off gas taps supplying the Ukraine. If they could do it to the Ukraine, some feared, there was nothing to prevent them doing it to us one day.
TONY BLAIR, WHO PRESIDED OVER THE SALE OF SO MUCH OF BRITAIN’S ENERGY INDUSTRY TO OVERSEAS OWNERS, WAS TYPICALLY UNFAZED BY THE RUSSIAN APPROACH, AND SAW NO REASON TO BLOCK IT…

THE EASE WITH WHICH A FOREIGN POWER COULD DISRUPT THE NATION’S ENERGY SUPPLIES, BRINGING THE ECONOMY TO A SHUDDERING HALT, IS FRIGHTENING. To date, however, there’s no restriction in place to stop Gazprom buying British Gas — or any other public service company. WITHOUT A THOUGHT TO THE FUTURE, WE’VE SOLD FOUR OF OUR BIG SIX ENERGY FIRMS TO FOREIGNERS WHO VIEW US AS LITTLE MORE THAN A USEFUL PROFIT CENTRE.”
Actually, it wasn’t US who did this, Alex. It was the bought-and-paid-for globalist traitor in Westminster who ‘sold’, often for peanuts, what, just a little while ago, belonged to all of us. However, I will concede that the dumbed-down, drugged-up, slack-jawed and brainwashed Big Brother-watching British moron who, even now, still votes for that traitor, played his part.

On 13 April 2012, in a Mail column titled, UK for sale: Uniquely in the world, Britain has sold more than half its companies to foreigners. And we are all paying the price, Brummer also told us this:

“Imagine being a tourist in search of the full British experience. Where would you start? Well, you might take a sight-seeing trip around London on a red double-decker bus. You’d possibly visit a quintessentially British store, such as Boots the chemist, Selfridges or Harrods, before having a proper English tea at the Savoy, Fortnum & Mason or the Dorchester. You’d almost certainly go home, via a British airport, thinking you’d seen a slice of the real Britain.

But, in one sense at least, you’d be totally wrong. THAT BUS YOU BOARDED AT TRAFALGAR SQUARE IS RUN BY A GERMAN COMPANY. BOOTS FELL TO THE ITALIANS IN 2007. SELFRIDGES, FORTNUM & MASON AND THE SAVOY ARE OWNED BY CANADIANS; HARRODS HAS BEEN BOUGHT BY A FIRM BASED IN QATAR; THE DORCHESTER BY ONE BASED IN BRUNEI. AS FOR OUR AIRPORTS, MOST OF THEM ARE NOW RUN BY A SPANISH FIRM...

FOR THE PAST THREE DECADES, THE UK HAS HAD A COMPLETELY RELAXED ATTITUDE ABOUT SELLING OFF ITS ASSETS TO COMPANIES BASED ABROAD.”
OK. Let’s see if you’ve been paying attention.

Q. Why have the UK’s politicians had this relaxed attitude to selling off OUR assets (most of them belonged to all of us before Thatcher came to power) when, generally speaking, the majority didn’t think much of the idea at all?

A. Those politicians allowed to slither to the very top of the greasy pole, where all the relaxed decision-making takes place, are GLOBALISTS first and foremost. They could not care less about the majority of the nation state’s citizens. They wish to see a globalised world where the indigenous populations of the earth own so litle of their own nation’s wealth that they can be shuffled aside when decisions regarding the country’s future are being made.

In a wholly globalised world, the mega-rich few will own everything, the exponentially impoverished many will own next to nothing. The bought wagtails in the EU, the UN and the increasingly powerless national parliaments, will, of course, also profit handsomely (as they do now) from having followed the global dictat so religiously.

Brummer continues:

“Even this week, it became clear that the Government is happy to consider letting a Russian firm, THE ONE BEHIND THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT, run some of Britain’s next generation of nuclear power stations. In fact, TO DATE, WE’VE SOLD OFF MORE THAN HALF OUR ASSETS TO FOREIGN OWNERS…

In the face of political indifference, FOREIGN COMPANIES ACQUIRED £30BILLION WORTH OF BRITISH ENTERPRISES IN 2009. IN 2010, THAT ROSE TO A VALUE OF £54.5 BILLION.

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ALSO CURRENTLY CONTROL 39 PER CENT OF UK PATENTS. This is far more than the percentage of foreign-owned patents in the U.S. (11.8), Japan (3.7) or even the European Union as a whole (13.7). At this rate, it’s been said, it won’t be long before we’re all working for foreign companies…

It happened in stages, starting with the removal of regulations on overseas investment by former Tory Chancellor Geoffrey Howe in 1979. This was followed in 1986 by what’s known as the ‘Big Bang’, when a raft of restrictive old practices in the City of London were swept aside. Soon, foreign banks flooded into the City, gobbling up venerable British minnows such as SG Warburg, Robert Fleming and Schroders.

Then came Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who were so keen to keep in with big business that THEY REFUSED TO BLOCK ANY DEALS — EVEN WHEN THE RUSSIANS EYED UP BRITISH GAS. Indeed, anyone… who dared question the great British sell-off was instantly labelled a xenophobe, out of touch with the reality of the modern globalised economy.

What tipped the balance towards foreign takeovers in the late Nineties and 2000s were three key factors: the cheap cost of borrowing; liberal takeover rules; and the presence of global investment banks in the City, with ready access to the world’s capital.

THROUGHOUT THE BOOM YEARS, THESE BANKS WERE ALLOWED TO WRITE THEIR OWN RULES… Foreign companies took full advantage of all this cheap and easy credit to snap up increasing numbers of great British brands…

THIS HAD A DIRECT EFFECT ON JOBS IN THE UK. Weighed down with often massive debts, NEW OWNERS WERE FAR LESS LIKELY TO INVEST IN THE FUTURE OF THE FIRM AND WERE INSTEAD MORE LIKELY TO CLOSE DOWN FACTORIES AND PLANTS, THROWING THOUSANDS OF BRITONS OUT OF WORK.

Some foreign firms even adopted the practice of making a fast buck by buying a company, stripping its assets and then selling for a quick profit. A classic case was that of the once-great department store, DEBENHAMS, bought in 2003 by two U.S.-based private equity firms. WITHIN THREE YEARS, THEY’D STRIPPED THE FIRM OF INVESTMENT, LOADED IT WITH DEBT AND SOLD IT ON AT A BIG PROFIT. By then, Debenhams was in such an enfeebled condition that it has taken years to recover.

Worse still was what happened to the care homes provider SOUTHERN CROSS, which came crashing down last spring. The company had been pieced together by a hard-headed U.S. EQUITY FIRM CALLED BLACKSTONE, after it started BUYING UP CARE HOMES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. Most of its income was guaranteed, as it came from local authorities. But Blackstone wasn’t prepared to be a long-term owner. Soon, it had hived off many of the freeholds of the buildings to another company, which then sold them off. Then Blackstone made a quick profit by floating Southern Cross on the stock market, collecting £600 million for itself and its wealthy investors…

The aftermath from the sale of Southern Cross was disastrous. When new landlords started putting up rents, local authorities were unable to meet the extra cost. A lack of investment and poor management combined to bring Southern Cross to the brink last year, placing its 750 homes at serious risk. THREE THOUSAND JOBS HAD TO BE CUT FROM THE WORKFORCE, raising questions about the quality of care in the homes… THIS HIGH-STAKES FINANCIAL GAME HAD BEEN PLAYED AT THE EXPENSE OF 31,000 ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE RESIDENTS.

Meanwhile, ELSEWHERE IN BRITAIN, ONE GREAT COMPANY AFTER ANOTHER WAS BEING BLITHELY AUCTIONED OFF — including Jaguar Rover (to India), Asda (to the U.S.), MG Rover (to China), P&O Ports (to Dubai), the British Airports Authority (to Spain), Corus (formerly British Steel, to India), British Energy (to France), and lottery operator Camelot (to Canada)…

As firms fell like ninepins around them, canny chief executives demanded new clauses in their contracts that guaranteed the equivalent of lottery wins if their firms were taken over. They did this by insisting that their share options — usually paid out only after a number of years — could instantly be converted to cash...

Consider what happened after Boots the chemist (Alliance Boots) was sold to the Italian pharmacy king Stefano Pessina and private-equity barons KKR in 2007 for £12 billion. Soon after the takeover, Boots, which had been based in Nottingham for 161 years, moved its headquarters to Zug in Switzerland…

Before the takeover, Boots had paid £89 million in British tax in its final year as a quoted company on the London stock market. Now that it pays its tax in Zug, that figure has shrunk to just £9 million. So the financial rewards from all these foreign takeovers rarely swell government coffers for long.

Hence, as more and more British companies vanish overseas, IT’S THE ORDINARY TAXPAYER WHO HAS TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE — through higher VAT and other taxes... The real tragedy is that NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE WHEN A COMPANY LIKE ICI, THE GREAT CHEMICALS GIANT, DISAPPEARS INTO THE JAWS OF A FOREIGN POWER — taking with it scientific and industrial expertise built up over many decades.”
Brummer keeps on saying things like this. I 'CARE.' He, himself seems to care. I’m sure if the British people really knew what the treacherous botwags at the top of the tree had been doing in their name for the last thirty three years they’d care too. But they don’t. There are too few whistleblowing journalists about telling tales like this one.

Oh no, the British people care alright. It’s just that they’re routinely kept uninformed of the reality by those they vote for.

Brummer continues:

“The 2008 Dutch takeover of ICI was, arguably, far more significant than the sell-off of Cadbury, which caused deep public unease… ICI was vulnerable to foreign interest for two reasons: the lack of Government interest in its possible future and the shareholders’ greed for cashing in… The ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel was far from painless. Within days of the merger, they were jettisoning some of ICI’s assets — such as its adhesives and electronic materials activities, which were sold to a German competitor. Some 29 FACTORIES, INCLUDING SEVERAL IN THE UK, WERE CLOSED, ELIMINATING 3,500 JOBS.

In early 2009, AkzoNobel revealed massive losses of £970 million, largely as a result of buying ICI. More job losses were projected, and a pay freeze was imposed on most of the company’s employees… How ICI itself has fared financially, within AkzoNobel, is now impossible to discern.

But the most significant and worrying loss has been that of a guaranteed skills base. For decades, ICI’s reputation — and its profits — was founded on its ability to develop new products. But once ownership moved abroad, all bets as to the future of such research facilities was off. Indeed, if AkzoNobel sells off further parts of the company, the remaining research laboratories in Slough and Newcastle could well move abroad. After all, NO FOREIGN COMPANY OWES ANY PARTICULAR ALLEGIANCE TO BRITAIN.

This was vividly illustrated when Kraft Foods took over Cadbury in 2009, after promising to keep open the Somerdale factory near Bristol that made Wispa and other chocolate bars. DESPITE THIS PLEDGE JUST ONE MONTH AFTER BUYING THE CONFECTIONER, KRAFT CLOSED THE FACTORY, LEADING TO THE DIRECT LOSS OF 400 JOBS, AND THE INDIRECT LOSS OF OTHERS IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN.

In addition, 160 skilled employees at the company’s Uxbridge headquarters were made redundant, and a further 150 posts are due to go at Cadbury’s historic Bournville factory… The Labour government made little effort to block this unpopular takeover. As for the Tories, David Cameron said at the time: ‘We are an open, global economy. We cannot start creating ownership barriers, trade barriers and protectionist barriers.’

As the economy dipped, Kraft lost no time in squeezing as much income as it could out of its new acquisition in order to pay down debt and please its American shareholders. In March 2010, for instance, CADBURY STAFF WERE TOLD THAT PAY WOULD BE FROZEN FOR THREE YEARS UNLESS THEY AGREED TO OPT OUT OF THE FIRM’S EXPENSIVE FINAL-SALARY PENSION SCHEME.
The arrogant American bosses of Kraft felt immune to criticism — even brushing off politicians’ criticism with disdain. For example, when asked to appear before a Commons select committee to explain the company’s failure to honour its promises, Kraft chairman and CEO Irene Rosenfeld refused. (Rosenfeld is Jewish)

Is this the price that all nations have to pay for an increasingly globalised world? Not at all — in fact, BRITAIN IS UNIQUE IN HAVING SUCH A SUPINE ATTITUDE TO SELLING OFF ITS CROWN JEWELS. Other countries adopt what’s come to be known as ‘economic patriotism,’ which involves putting tremendous obstacles in the path of foreign bids. Take France, for example, which argues that it’s in the national interest to prevent key technologies falling into foreign hands…

There was uproar when the U.S. drinks giant PepsiCo was poised to bid for the French food firm Danone in 2005. In the end, the then President Jacques Chirac declared that the French yoghurt-maker was considered a ‘strategic’ company, so couldn’t be sold to a foreign firm.

Similarly, Spain has worked hard to hold on to its energy companies, for example, thwarting a bid in 2006 by German energy group E.ON for Endesa. Yet a year later, because of less patriotic values in Britain, a Spanish company was easily able to buy our own Scottish Power.”
BE SPECIFIC, BRUMMER! I presume you count yourself as a patriot. So do I. I love my country and its people. I hate the politicians and businessmen who don’t. The 'less patriotic values' are those demonstrated and shared by these, not by me, you and, I suspect, the vast majority of the indigenous British tribe. Stop implying that WE are responsible for all of this when it is THEY your righteous criticism should be focusing on!

As previously stated, those who still vote for the traitor and his many treasons bear some responsibility but they have the excuse of ignorance. They do not know what we, the traitors and their global masters know. The truth has been kept hidden from them. Get the bestial few, Brummer, not the unthinking many! He continues:

“In Japan, selling a company over the heads of management is unthinkable. And while India has bought UK enterprises such as Jaguar Rover, IT WON’T ALLOW BRITISH FIRMS TO TAKE FULL CONTROL OF ITS OWN COMPANIES. As for the U.S., THE COUNTRY WHICH PORTRAYS ITSELF AS A ‘CHAMPION’ OF FREE TRADE WON’T PERMIT FOREIGNERS TO BUY U.S. AIRLINES OR TV COMPANIES.

Oil is also jealously guarded: China’s state-owned oil company, for instance, was prevented from purchasing struggling U.S. oil firm Unocal in 2005... Why do we cheerfully continue to auction off everything from nuclear power generators (to the French — and now possibly the Russians) to our most popular chocolate brand?

The chief reason lies in OUR continuing love affair with banking and financial services, which still provide a large slice of our tax revenues.”
For f***'s sake, Brummer, it isn’t OUR love affair, it’s THEIRS! The politicians are owned by the global elite. So much of which body is comprised by the banks, bankers and the shareholders of the banks! It is THEY who ‘cheerfully… auction off’ our national assets NOT US!

After wagging my finger at Mr B for the umpteenth time, I must admit he has a point. The majority’s abject refusal to make any effort to find out what is really happening is pretty damning. The politicians would never have gotten away with what they’ve done to us over the course of the last century if enough of us had bothered to do our homework. But we didn’t. So now everyone has to suffer.

The children and grandchildren of those who are still casting their votes for treachery will still be picking up the tabs for the laziness and stupidity of their forbears when they, themselves, are long gone.

On 6 February 2012, The Guardian's Julia Fellowes told us this:

"Insurance has become the latest industry to end up in foreign hands. Much of it has been quietly taken over by overseas firms without anyone batting an eyelid, the only exception being the sale of Aviva's RAC breakdown service to US private equity giant Carlyle last year...

THE MAJORITY OF BRITAIN'S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANIES... ARE NOW FOREIGN OWNED. The report, UK Financial Services: Ownership, Value and M&A Developments, produced by IMAS Corporate Finance on behalf of TheCityUK and UK Trade & Investment, found that 55% of the largest insurance groups, valued at over £100m, are owned by overseas firms, many of which are listed in the US.

OVERALL, 153 GENERAL INSURANCE FIRMS IN THE UK ARE CONTROLLED BY OVERSEAS INVESTORS. The US is the top foreign investor accounting for over 40%, followed by Bermuda with 12%, Japan and Germany. The five biggest foreign-owned general insurers in the UK are Axa, Allianz, AIG, Aegis and Munich Re... Aviva sold RAC to Carlyle for £1bn last June... while US-based Hanover snapped up Lloyd's insurer Chaucer for £313m.

For insurance brokers, it was an unusually quiet year, though. The one big deal was US broking giant Gallagher buying Heath Lambert, the 170-year-old Lloyd's broker."
On 18 September 2011, Edward Malnick and Robert Mendick said this in The Telegraph:
“Two thirds of wind turbines in the UK are owned by foreign companies, raking in half a billion pounds in subsidies added to household bills. A Sunday Telegraph audit of Britain’s 3,419 turbines reveals 2,276 are either fully or partly-owned by foreign businesses.

The findings demonstrate how companies from around the world are benefiting from generous incentives offered by the Government to meet carbon reduction targets. One Danish company owns or part-owns three offshore wind farms that receive almost a hundred million pounds a year in subsidies from British consumers.

Critics say foreign firms are profiting from the Government’s indifferent approach to higher bills for households, but the Coalition insisted its incentives are ‘broadly in line’ with other EU countries and that investors are instead attracted by Britain’s windy climate.

Other big winners in the scramble to make money out of Britain’s wind include energy companies and investment funds in Japan, the US, Norway, Sweden, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Germany. Among them are a Tokyo-based investment company, which earlier this month bought a large slice of a 48-turbine offshore wind farm off the coast of Essex, a cruise liner company based in Oslo, and a Luxembourg-based firm which owns eight turbines on the land of Sir Reginald Sheffield, the father of Samantha Cameron.

Some of Europe’s biggest energy suppliers, such as EDF, are also among those cashing in, despite make billions of pounds in annual profit. The subsidised, known as Renewable Obligations Certificate (ROC) payments, come on top of the money wind farm owners make from selling electricity, and are proportionate to the amount of energy produced. Last year the scheme, which also provides incentives to other renewable sources such as hydroelectric power, handed out over £1.1 billion in revenue.

Offshore wind farms, which are more expensive to build and maintain, are paid up to double the onshore rate. Calculations by the Renewable Energy Foundation think tank on behalf of this newspaper show that, from next year, ROC subsidies to wind farms owned or part-owned by foreign firms will total £523 million. That figure is set to rise steeply in the next decade as the Government attempts to meet its carbon reduction targets in 2020.

The disclosures follow recent estimates that the switch to green energy adds an average of £200 a year to household energy bills, which are due to rise even further this winter. On Thursday French-owned EDF Energy announced its electricity tariffs will increase by an average of 4.5 per cent and gas prices will go up by 15.4 per cent from November 10.

The Renewable Energy Foundation said that THE GOVERNMENT’S ‘INDIFFERENT’ APPROACH TO CONSUMER COST MADE THE UK AN ATTRACTIVE TARGET FOR INVESTMENT in wind.

Dr Lee Moroney, Planning Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, said: ‘Target-driven and generously-subsidised growth in the UK renewables sector was always likely to attract INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS SEEKING RAPID RETURNS AND A PROMPT EXIT. The real concern is that HAVING MADE HANDSOME PROFITS FROM THE UK ELECTRICITY BILL PAYERS, THEY WILL MOVE ON LEAVING THE UK WITH SUBPRIME AND DISTRESSED ASSETS’…

A spokesman for RenewableUK, the trade association for the wind industry, said: ‘THE LIBERALISED ELECTRICITY MARKET BROUGHT IN BY MARGARET THATCHER HAS MADE THE UK A GREAT PLACE TO DO BUSINESS… it’s no surprise that companies from overseas would want to invest here…’

The biggest overseas winner is Dong, a Danish company which has a large stake in three offshore wind farms that will make a total of £98m in subsidies and has a 50 per cent share in the development of the 175-turbine London Array offshore site.

Spanish-owned ScottishPower has 21 wind farms in the UK comprising over 500 turbines, which would entitle it to an annual subsidy of £80m. ScottishPower, whose parent company is Iberdrola, also has a share of a 103-turbine wind farm at Llandinam in central Wales together with Eurus Energy UK, a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Eurus Energy Holdings Corporation, which entitles the companies to share a subsidy worth £3m – a relatively low figure because the turbines are outdated.

Another Japanese company, Marubeni Corporation, paid Dong £200m to become co-owner of Gunfleet Sands wind farm on September 1. Vattenfall, the Swedish energy company, owns three wind farms and is entitled to an annual payment of £84m under the ROC scheme. Fred Olsen, the Norwegian company that also runs several cruise liners, owns four wind farms in the UK comprising a total of 130 turbines – meriting a subsidy of £34m.

AN EIGHT-TURBINE WIND FARM ON THE LAND OF SIR REGINALD SHEFFIELD, THE PRIME MINISTER’S FATHER-IN-LAW, EARNS A £2M CONSUMER SUBSIDY. The ownership of the turbines is registered to a UK company, Bagmoor Wind Ltd, whose ‘ultimate controlling company’ is Ridge Wind Holdings Sarl, based in Luxembourg.

The Swedish company Vattenfall and Nowegian Statkraft, whose UK turbines produce a £86m subsidy are both state-owned businesses. A spokesman for Fred Olsen added that all profits earned by the company in the UK over the last 10 years have been reinvested in this country. A Department for Energy and Climate Change spokesman said… ‘We are an island nation with the best natural, secure, sustainable and free wind resource in Europe, so it’s no surprise that major global firms want to invest and build in the UK’.”
Alex Brummer ended his 13 April 2012 Daily Mail article thus:

“From the late Eighties onwards, governments have viewed the banks, which arrange and finance all these overseas deals, as a sort of universal economic panacea. AT ALL COSTS, IT SEEMS, THE BANKS NEED TO BE KEPT HAPPY. And since much of their money comes from buying and selling companies to the rest of the world, the British sell-off seems destined to continue unabated.

The banks know their power, too. American Bob Diamond, who took over Barclays in 2011, let it be known that he’d consider moving the bank’s highly profitable investment banking arm from Britain to New York if it became, as he saw it, over-regulated or over-taxed. And HE’S BY NO MEANS THE ONLY BANKER MAKING VEILED THREATS BEHIND THE SCENES. As matters stand, trying to protect UK companies is like attempting to guard chickens in a coop to which foxes have been invited. IN THE REAL WORLD, AWAY FROM THE GILDED ENVIRONS OF THE CITY, THE TRAGEDY IS THAT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS HAVE GONE. CRUCIAL SKILLS HAVE BEEN LOST — PROBABLY FOR GOOD. AND THE STRATEGIC HEART OF BRITISH MANUFACTURING HAS BEEN RIPPED OUT…

Still, the outlook isn’t all bleak: BANKERS AND FOREIGN SHAREHOLDERS ARE DOING JUST FINE.”
Yep, bankers, foreign shareholders and their enablers in the Westminster village are all ‘doing just fine.’ The ’outlook' isn’t at all ’bleak’ for the thieves who, as we speak, are robbing us of even more of what our ancestors willed to us. Our birthright is now in their wallets. That’s who your enemies are, ladies and gents. That’s who’s at war with us. That’s who wants us destroyed. That’s who wants us gone.

That is who you vote for.

Wikipedia tells us this:

“Qinetiq is a British multinational defence technology company headquartered in Farnborough, United Kingdom…

In 2001, when Defence Minister Lewis Moonie announced the creation of Qinetiq, he said that it would remain a British company based in the UK… In February 2003, the U.S. private equity firm the Carlyle Group acquired a 33.8% share in the company for £42m…

Ennobled in 2005, Lord Moonie who handled the initial sale, said in 2006 that the government's 31 per cent stake in Qinetiq should not have been sold when equity markets were languishing in 2002. He said that he had argued for the sale to be delayed but was overruled by the Treasury who had convinced the Ministry of Defence to go ahead.

Qinetiq was floated on the London Stock Exchange in February 2006... the Carlyle Group's holding £341m – £403m, and staff/management's holding worth £143m – £169m. Controversy was generated by the very large returns for the Carlyle Group and senior managers.”
42million invested in 2001, £299m - £361m profit five years later. With a ton of unearned cash for ‘senior managers’ to boot.

Nice if somewhat treacherous work if you can get it, eh?

In 1998, former Prime Minister, John Major, (you know, that 'nice Mr Major') joined Carlyle Group's European Advisory Board.

He was appointed Chairman of Carlyle Europe in May 2001.

Work it out.