Wednesday 30 December 2009

Thatcher and Immigration

Thatcher has to be commended for her staunch resistance to Communism, her defiance over the Falklands and for facing down the Comintern controlled British trades unions during WW3, the Cold War.

Yet all the work she did in the national interest was undone and destroyed by her singing the Single European Act in 1987 that began the process of fully integrating Europe into a European Union and her policy of privatising the British state industries in order to globalise the British economy as part of her Free Market Neo-Liberalist ideology.

British Petroleum was privatised in stages in October 1979, September 1983 and November 1987; British Aerospace in January 1981 and 1985; the government share in British Sugar in July 1981; Cable and Wireless in November 1981; Amersham International and National Freight Corporation in February 1982; Britoil in November 1982 and August 1985; Associated British Ports in February 1983; Jaguar in July 1984; British Telecom in November 1984; the National Bus Company in October 1986; British Gas in December 1986; British Airways in February 1987; the Royal Ordnance in April 1987; Rolls-Royce in May 1987; the British Airports Authority in July 1987; the Rover Group in August 1988; British Steel in December 1988; the Regional Water Authorities in November 1989; Girobank in July 1990; and the National Grid in December 1990.

In 1983 Thatcher also broke up and privatised British Shipbuilders, which had been amalgamated and nationalised by Callaghan in 1977 in the lean times following the 1973 oil crisis, and which still employed 86,000 people building naval and commercial vessels, many in the north-east of England.Few of the privatised shipyards subsequently survived competition against East Asian cheap labour, with the single largest private sector group, BVT, now employing a fraction of the nationalised group's number, just over 7,000 people working on Navy contracts in the Clyde and Portsmouth yards.

The process of privatisation, especially the preparation of nationalised industries for privatisation, was associated with marked improvements in performance, particularly in terms of labour productivity. But it is not clear how far this can be attributed to the merits of privatisation itself. The "productivity miracle" observed in British industry under Thatcher was achieved not so much by increasing the overall productivity of labour as by reducing workforces and increasing unemployment

In other words the Thatcher miracle was built upon ;

1) Cheap and plentiful North Seal oil and the currency flow it created

2) Throwing British workers on the dole in order to lower wages in order for the UK to compete in the global economy

3) The short term financial boost from selling off the nations assets to the private sector.

There was no miracle.

It was simply luck, callousness and cunning.

On immigration she did NOTHING to stop the flood of immigrants into the UK and by signing the SEA in 1987 she commenced the process that led to Eastern European workers being allowed to work in the UK as they part of the EU.

Those who venerate her, venerate a false idol.

She was a nationalist who destroyed her own nation.

She dismantled and sold off the nations silver and turned us into the wage slaves of mammon and the international money markets.

She did nothing to stop immigration or seek to prevent the immigration invasion.


Margaret Thatcher complained bitterly in private about the numbers of immigrants coming to Britain from south Asia, saying they were being given council houses at the expense of "white citizens", it was disclosed today.

Papers released to the National Archives at Kew, west London, under the 30-year rule cast fresh light on the former Prime Minister's attitude towards race and immigration.

She also never

Add to Technorati Favorites

Ron Paul Attacked By Zionist AIPAC Slug

Rent-A-Zionist Jewish AIPAC supporter calls Ron Paul an anti-semite for pointing out that the airplane bomber stated to the police that he attacked the US as payback for the US jets bombing Yemen two weeks ago and that they are at war with us as we are over there.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Zionist Murdoch Media Trying To Start WW4


Giraldi: US Intel Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged
by Gareth Porter, December 29, 2009
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum

U.S. intelligence has concluded that the document published recently by the Times of London, which purportedly describes an Iranian plan to do experiments on what the newspaper described as a "neutron initiator" for an atomic weapon, is a fabrication, according to a former Central Intelligence Agency official.

Philip Giraldi, who was a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, told IPS that intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources do not rule out a British role in the fabrication, however.

The Times of London story published Dec. 14 did not identify the source of the document. But it quoted "an Asian intelligence source" – a term some news media have used for Israeli intelligence officials – as confirming that his government believes Iran was working on a neutron initiator as recently as 2007.

The story of the purported Iranian document prompted a new round of expressions of U.S. and European support for tougher sanctions against Iran and reminders of Israel’s threats to attack Iranian nuclear program targets if diplomacy fails.

U.S. news media reporting has left the impression that U.S. intelligence analysts have not made up their mind about the document’s authenticity, although it has been widely reported that they have now had a full year to assess the issue.

Giraldi’s intelligence sources did not reveal all the reasons that led analysts to conclude that the purported Iran document had been fabricated by a foreign intelligence agency. But their suspicions of fraud were prompted in part by the source of the story, according to Giraldi.

"The Rupert Murdoch chain has been used extensively to publish false intelligence from the Israelis and occasionally from the British government," Giraldi said.

The Times is part of a Murdoch publishing empire that includes the Sunday Times, Fox News, and the New York Post. All Murdoch-owned news media report on Iran with an aggressively pro-Israel slant.

The document itself also had a number of red flags suggesting possible or likely fraud.

The subject of the two-page document which the Times published in English translation would be highly classified under any state’s security system. Yet there is no confidentiality marking on the document, as can be seen from the photograph of the Farsi-language original published by the Times.

The absence of security markings has been cited by the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, as evidence that the "alleged studies" documents, which were supposedly purloined from an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons-related program early in this decade, are forgeries.

The document also lacks any information identifying either the issuing office or the intended recipients. The document refers cryptically to "the Center," "the Institute," "the Committee," and the "neutron group."

The document’s extreme vagueness about the institutions does not appear to match the concreteness of the plans, which call for hiring eight individuals for different tasks for very specific numbers of hours for a four-year time frame.

Including security markings and such identifying information in a document increases the likelihood of errors that would give the fraud away.

The absence of any date on the document also conflicts with the specificity of much of the information. The Times reported that unidentified "foreign intelligence agencies" had dated the document to early 2007, but gave no reason for that judgment.

An obvious motive for suggesting the early 2007 date is that it would discredit the U.S. intelligence community’s November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran had discontinued unidentified work on nuclear weapons and had not resumed it as of the time of the estimate.

Discrediting the NIE has been a major objective of the Israeli government for the past two years, and the British and French governments have supported the Israeli effort.

The biggest reason for suspecting that the document is a fraud is its obvious effort to suggest past Iranian experiments related to a neutron initiator. After proposing experiments on detecting pulsed neutrons, the document refers to "locations where such experiments used to be conducted."

That reference plays to the widespread assumption, which has been embraced by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran had carried out experiments with polonium-210 in the late 1980s, indicating an interest in neutron initiators. The IAEA referred in reports from 2004 through 2007 to its belief that the experiment with polonium-210 had potential relevance to making "a neutron initiator in some designs of nuclear weapons."

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the political arm of the terrorist organization Mujahedin-e-Khalq, claimed in February 2005 that Iran’s research with polonium-210 was continuing and that it was now close to producing a neutron initiator for a nuclear weapon.

Sanger and Broad were so convinced that the polonium-210 experiments proved Iran’s interest in a neutron initiator that they referred in their story on the leaked document to both the IAEA reports on the experiments in the late 1980s and the claim by NCRI of continuing Iranian work on such a nuclear trigger.

What Sanger and Broad failed to report, however, is that the IAEA has acknowledged that it was mistaken in its earlier assessment that the polonium-210 experiments were related to a neutron initiator.

After seeing the complete documentation on the original project, including complete copies of the reactor logbook for the entire period, the IAEA concluded in its Feb. 22, 2008, report that Iran’s explanations that the polonium-210 project was fundamental research with the eventual aim of possible application to radio isotope batteries was "consistent with the Agency’s findings and with other information available to it."

The IAEA report said the issue of polonium-210 – and thus the earlier suspicion of an Iranian interest in using it as a neutron initiator for a nuclear weapon – was now considered "no longer outstanding."

New York Times reporters David Sanger and William J. Broad reported U.S. intelligence officials as saying the intelligence analysts "have yet to authenticate the document." Sanger and Broad explained the failure to do so, however, as a result of excessive caution left over from the CIA’s having failed to brand as a fabrication the document purporting to show an Iraqi effort to buy uranium in Niger.

The Washington Post’s Joby Warrick dismissed the possibility that the document might be found to be fraudulent. "There is no way to establish the authenticity or original source of the document," wrote Warrick.

But the line that the intelligence community had authenticated it evidently reflected the Barack Obama administration’s desire to avoid undercutting a story that supports its efforts to get Russian and Chinese support for tougher sanctions against Iran.

This is not the first time that Giraldi has been tipped off by his intelligence sources on forged documents. Giraldi identified the individual or office responsible for creating the two most notorious forged documents in recent U.S. intelligence history.

In 2005, Giraldi identified Michael Ledeen, the extreme right-wing former consultant to the National Security Council and the Pentagon, as an author of the fabricated letter purporting to show Iraqi interest in purchasing uranium from Niger. That letter was used by the George W. Bush administration to bolster its false case that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons program.

Giraldi also identified officials in the "Office of Special Plans" who worked under Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith as having forged a letter purportedly written by Hussein’s intelligence director, Tahir Jalail Habbush al-Tikriti, to Hussein himself referring to an Iraqi intelligence operation to arrange for an unidentified shipment from Niger.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday 29 December 2009


Add to Technorati Favorites

Gordon Brown is a Heroin Smuggling Muslim Loving Idiot

Gordon is a moron, as the old song goes.

We all know that, but today he has excelled himself.

Whilst the fat useless bastard doesnt ever go and visit the families of dead British troops he sent to die in New Labours illegal wars, the arsehole will send a letter of condolence to the family of a heroin smuggling muslim scumbag.

I wouldnt send the family a condolence letter.

I would send them the bill for burying him.

I think Gordon Brown is the one who needs a mental health assessment and that useless slimy Zionist Jewish little creep Milliband who is busy at the moment stoking up WW4 with Iran for the Israelis.

In a statement shortly after Mr Shaikh's death, the Prime Minister said he condemned the execution 'in the strongest terms'.

He said he was 'appalled and disappointed' that persistent requests for clemency have not been granted.

'I am particularly concerned that no mental health assessment was undertaken,' he said.

'At this time our thoughts are with Mr Shaikh's family and friends and I send them our sincere condolences.'

Read more:

Add to Technorati Favorites

Executed Heroin smugglers and the X Factor

According to the idiot white liberals weeping and wailing all over the media for a dead Muslim heroin smuggler caught with 4 pounds of Heroin the following video he made where he sings a shit song was proof he was bonkers ;

Well if this guy was bonkers because he thought he could sing and would be a star, then most of the dozy muppets on the X Factor are also all bonkers as they also cannot sing and also really think they will be stars.

In fact most of the teenagers who think they can rap / sing / dance etc etc are all delusional idiots and therefore should never be held accountable for their own actions according to the liberals definition of 'bonkers'.

What a load of liberal bollocks.

Today the world has one less heroin smuggler.


Now lets start hanging all the ones in British prisons.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Airplane Attack Allowed To Go Ahead

This is another example of 'Passive Terrorism' where the terrorist attack is known to be about to occur and then they allow it to happen.

911 being the ultimate example.

These terrorists are simply allowed to strike when 'hate and fear' amongst the public is required in order to allow the US to target a new nation - in this case Yemen.

Detroit jet terrorist attack was staged - journalist

permalinke-mail story to a friendprint version

Published 29 December, 2009, 03:28

Edited 29 December, 2009, 10:14

The recent failed attack on a US passenger jet traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit was a set-up provocation controlled by US intelligence, author and journalist
Webster Tarpley stated to RT.

Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Live Technorati Digg Reddit Mixx Propeller

“[The terrorist’s] father, a rich Nigerian banker, went to the US embassy in Nigeria on November 19 and said ‘my son is in Yemen in a terrorist camp, do something about this.’ Nevertheless, the son is allowed to buy a ticket in Ghana, paying cash, $2,800, for a one-way ticket,” Tarpley said.

After that, a mentally deficient young man who doubtfully could make it from one gate to another managed to illegally enter Nigeria and get on a plane to Amsterdam.

“There was a well-dressed Indian man who brought him to the gate and said, ‘my friend does not have a passport, get him on, he is Sudanese, we do this all the time – that is impossible!” said Tarpley.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The New Labour Genocide

Our people die of cold whilst billions go abroad for foreigners.

This is the slow New Labour genocide, using poverty as a means of genocide.

Poll reveals more than 7m households are in fuel poverty

Failure of companies to pass on wholesale price falls hits Britain's poor this winter

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Monday, 28 December 2009

More than seven million households struggle to pay their fuel bills, almost double the official estimate, according to new research published today.

In an opinion poll for the National Housing Federation, two-thirds of people in "fuel poverty" said they heated their homes less than would like because they could not afford the high prices of gas and electricity. The research adds to pressure on ministers to take action against energy suppliers to bring down bills and increase social support for vulnerable households to ensure they can stay healthy in the cold.

Fuel bills average £1,239 a year, having fallen by only 4 per cent in 2009 despite the costs of wholesale gas and electricity more than halving.

According to the Government's official fuel poverty statistics released in October, 4 million homes in the UK in 2007 were in fuel poverty, spending at least 10 per cent of their income on heat and power. But in the latest research, a YouGov poll of 2,050 adults, 29 per cent of those surveyed said they spent more than a 10th of their income on fuel, equating to 7.25 million households.

Sixty-one per cent of people claimed to be "worried" or "very worried" about how they would pay their energy bills.

An overwhelming majority, 72 per cent, also said energy suppliers should stop charging prepayment meter customers for the installation and maintenance of meters, which can cost families an extra £108 a year. As part of this newspaper's campaign against the Great Energy Rip-off, The Independent is calling for a 10 per cent reduction in bills and for powers for the regulator Ofgem to act against suppliers which fail to pass on falls in wholesale costs.

In a separate analysis published today, the Conservative Party claims that 2.4m pensioner households – one in three – are in fuel poverty following the sharp rise in energy prices. Although official figures will not be released for two years, the Tories have calculated the impact on pensioners of energy price rises. The party says that the number of pensioner households spending at least 10 per cent of their income on fuel has risen fourfold since 2004, when it was 604,000 – one in 12.

The Tories say Labour will miss its target to abolish fuel poverty in vulnerable households, including those with a pensioner, by 2010. Greg Clark, the shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said: "Ministers' warm words will have a hollow ring this Christmas as many pensioners are forced to choose between heating and eating."

In the National Housing Federation's poll, 5 per cent thought Ofgem was doing a good job of protecting vulnerable customers, with 46 per cent saying it had performed poorly.

David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, an umbrella group for housing charities, said: "The findings of our poll are truly shocking. As the recession continues to bite, up to 7 million households are in fuel poverty. Huge numbers of vulnerable people will go cold this winter because they can't afford to heat their homes. The spiralling cost of energy and the impact of the downturn mean heating our homes has become a luxury rather than a basic necessity – particularly for the elderly, low paid and unemployed."

Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday 28 December 2009

The airplane bomber and the Yemen Connection

Oh what a surprise the airport bomber has now been claimed by Al Qaeda of Yemen as working for them.

Just as the US needed an excuse for its bombing campaign in Yemen assisting the Saudi Arabians, along comes another Al CIA-Aeda 'bomber' who tries to blow up a plane.

The CIA must think we are stupid.

The bombers family and father did everything they could to warn the US authorities about his sons extremism.

He rang the US security services, contacted the British security authorities and the bomber was on a British banning list - yet the US and Dutch still let him through and get on the plane with a bomb.

How opportune for the US this attack, just in time to raise the 'hate and fear level' as the US are bombing Yemen.

And lo and behold who goes and claims responsibility, yep, Al CIA-aeda in Yemen.

Yet again Al CIA-Aeda has undertook another bombing campaign which can be used as a pretext for the US to bomb the crap out of another country.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Iran and the Loyalists

When British loyalists riot in Northern Ireland they are criminals according to the scum Labour government, but when they riot in Iran they are courageous.

Looks like WW4 with Iran and Israel is about to begin.

Britain hails anti-government Iran protesters

Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:47:58 GMT

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Monday hailed the "great courage" of pro-opposition supporters who took part in illegal protests in Tehran one day earlier, during which several people were killed and public property was damaged.

In a statement in London, Miliband condemned the crackdown on the protesters, saying it was "particularly disturbing" as it happened during the holiest event for Shia Muslims, Ashura — which commemorates the 7th century martyrdom of Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) grandson, Imam Hussein (PBUH).

At least eight people, according to Tehran's police headquarters, were killed in the protests which resulted in clashes between security forces and the demonstrators. Police say the force neither used violence nor shot a single bullet during the crackdown.

Miliband, however, attributed the deaths to the Islamic Republic, saying they were "yet another reminder of how the Iranian regime deals with protest."

Continued -

Add to Technorati Favorites


A report released by the Organic Center found that the amount of herbicides used on genetically engineered crops has increased in the past 10 years, not decreased as might be expected. Since many genetically engineered crops were modified so that farmers could spray Roundup, or Glyphosate, to kill the weeds in their fields but not the crops themselves, the expectation was that less herbicide would be required. But the new report found that this is not what happened.
Skip to next paragraph


Wisconsin farmer Jim Lange loads a hopper of genetically modified corn. The blue color is insecticide covering kernels.


The authors of the report, entitled “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use,” used US Department of Agriculture data to look at America’s three largest genetically engineered crops – soybeans, corn, and cotton. They found that the amount of herbicides used on them has increased from 1996 to 2008 by approximately 7 or 8 percent, with a particularly sharp increase from 2005 on.

In particular, the amount of Roundup that is used on genetically engineered crops has multiplied several times during the time period, says the report’s main author, Charles Benbrook, who's the chief scientist at the Organic Center.

“This big increase in herbicide is driven largely by the emergence of Roundup-resistant weeds,” Dr. Benbrook says. But “industry is still saying to the public that genetic engineering [has] reduced herbicide use.”

Benbrook found that Roundup-resistant weeds have become a particularly big problem in soybeans. Roundup originally killed all weeds, leaving only soybeans in the fields, but after a few years, farmers had to use more Roundup as well as the older, more toxic chemicals to kill the weeds, according to the authors of the report.

Troy Roush, a farmer in Indiana, says resistant weeds became such a big problem that this year he decided to switch back to conventional soybeans.

“The only advantage a genetically modified soybean has over the value of (conventional soy) is diminished,” Mr. Roush says. “We might as well not pay for the technology and use conventional seeds.”

His fields of genetically engineered soybean became infested with “mare’s tail”, a bushy weed that looks like the tail of a horse, and with genetically-engineered corn, he says. Because Roush rotates corn and soybeans on the same field, the Roundup-resistant corn actually became a weed when it went to seed the following year.

Because of these problems, Roush is now back at growing soybeans the old way and using a more toxic 2,4-D herbicide. He is saving money on seeds (genetically engineered seeds cost five times more than the seeds a farmer saves himself), and he can make more from selling his crop to customers in the European Union and Japan, who prefer non-genetically modified soy.

The authors of the report also found that the amount of insecticide used on genetically modified crops decreased during the same time period (although by a smaller amount). According to the report, herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, while insecticide use decreased by 64 million pounds due to the adoption of crops that are engineered to resist insects.

Farmer John Reifsteck from Illinois, says he used to have a problem with root worms that chewed the roots off his corn plants, causing them to fall over. Now that he’s growing genetically modified corn, the worms no longer come. That’s because genetically engineered corn plants contain a toxin that is safe for humans, but repels the worms.

“It irritates their stomach, they don’t like it, they quit feeding, and they move away,” Mr. Reifsteck explains.
Skip to next paragraph


Wisconsin farmer Jim Lange loads a hopper of genetically modified corn. The blue color is insecticide covering kernels.


Before bioengineering, Reifsteck used a toxic insecticide on his corn, which he described as “the most dangerous product that I handle.” He had to wear a respirator and rubber gloves, and have blood tests, he says. Now he doesn’t need to treat the corn as much because it’s engineered to repel worms on its own.

“I’m happy or I wouldn’t be using them,” he says about genetically engineered crops.

Karen Batra, the spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and Bob Callanan, of the American Soybean Association, also say that farmers are happy with bioengineered crops. That the majority of farmers adopted the technology speaks for itself, they say. They also point out that the Organic Center’s report considered all herbicides as one group, without making a distinction between the more toxic herbicides, which are now being used less, and weed-killers such as Roundup, which are generally considered more benign.

On the issue of weed resistance, Mr. Callanan of the Soybean Association has a different solution. Although he admits that resistance to Roundup became a problem about three years ago, he says the best way to tackle weed resistance is with new technology. A soybean called Liberty Link, that is engineered to be resistant to a different type of herbicide, is currently being introduced. Rotating Liberty Link and Roundup Ready crops will reduce resistance, he says.

“Every farmer I know is using less herbicides than they ever had in the past. It’s a cleaner, better crop than it was,” Callanan says about genetically engineered soybeans.

But organic food advocates say that the bioengineering industry is on a slippery slope, and as scientists engineer plants to be resistant to new types of herbicides, more chemical residues are going to end up in food and in the environment.

Efforts are currently underway to engineer a corn variety that is resistant to 2,4-D, which is considered a carcinogen, says Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety who worked on the report.

If the project is successful, farmers will be able to spray the herbicide directly on the corn, rather than use hooded sprayers or spray before seedlings sprouted as they have done in the past, he says.

“That’s bad news because that will mean more residues on the corn,” Mr. Freese says. “We see that as very much the wrong approach because it’s going to mean even more use of these nasty herbicides, more pollution of the environment, and more impact on farmers as well as consumers.”

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Dublin Regulation 2 and Asylum

Thanks SH for the tip off.

The EU are preparing to revise the Dublin Regulations that cover the power of EU states in relation to asylum seekers.

It appears that UK control over asylum seekers is about to be taken over by the EU, which in effect means the EU will control who is British, who can enter our country and who we may allow to settle here.

Take a look at the proposals here ;

Here we see the EU plan to take over asylum policies from nation states is the plan of the revised Dublin Regulations ;

(6) The first phase in the creation of a Common European Asylum System that should
lead, in the longer term, to a common procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for those granted asylum, has now been achieved. The European Council of 4 November 2004 adopted The Hague Programme which sets the objectives to be implemented in the area of freedom, security and justice in the period 2005-2010. In this respect The Hague Programme invited the European Commission to conclude the
evaluation of the first phase legal instruments and to submit the second-phase
instruments and measures to the Council and the European Parliament with a view to
their adoption before 2010.

Note that detaining asylum seekers in secure facilities will also be made unlawful under the revised regulations ;

A new provision recalling the underlying principle that a person should not be held in detention for the sole reason that he/she is seeking international protection is included. This principle confirms the EU acquis on detention, in particular the Asylum Procedures Directive and also ensures compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and with international human rights instruments such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Moreover, in order to ensure that detention of asylum-seekers under the Dublin procedure is not arbitrary, limited specific grounds for such detention are proposed.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Akmal Shaikh and China

I just watched the BBC news and felt sick.

The idiot BBC new reporter said to the family of the heroin smuggler Akmal Shaikh that 'it must be a difficult time for you'.


The guy smuggled heroin into china and got caught.

He is guilty of drugs smuggling into a nation that kills drug smugglers.

The BBC make me sick.

Whenever some ethnic with a 'british passport' is arrested somewhere in the world for drug smuggling then it is non-stop sympathetic reporting.

Compare that to their treatment of people in Britain who are arrested for the crime of 'racism' eg expressing an opinion that some liberal idiot has criminalised, then there is never any sympathy - just abuse and vilification.

It appears that in the warped mind and moral darkness of the BBC, the plight of drug smuggling criminals - especially if they are ethnics - is far more deserving of sympathy and understanding than any person, regardless of their circumstances, arrested for racism.

Racism is now regarded as more criminal than paedophilia and heroin drug smuggling.

China knows how to deal with criminals who smuggle hard drugs into their country.

Shoot them in the head then harvest their organs to transplant into people with illnesses.

Thats a policy that works.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday 27 December 2009

Climate Change = destroying British jobs

It was not just in Britain last week that we all shivered through pre-Christmas snow, ice and cold. Blizzards sweeping across Europe, from the Channel Tunnel to Moscow, killed more than 100 people. Even the beaches of Nice and the gondolas of Venice lay under a blanket of white.

Across the Atlantic, as the northern hemisphere was plunged into its third freezing winter in succession, violent snowstorms left more than two thirds of the US and almost the whole of Canada under December snow for the first time in decades. In the wake of that acrimonious shambles in Copenhagen, ever more questions are now being asked not only over the validity of the science behind the belief that man-made CO2 is causing runaway global warming but about the methods being used to meet that supposed threat.

In last week's Sunday Telegraph Richard North and I wrote an article revealing the worldwide business interests of Dr Rajendra Pachauri who, as chairman since 2002 of the UN's Inter­governmental Panel on Climate Change, is the world's "top climate official". Our report was picked up by newspapers and blogs across the world, and was even the basis for a question put to Ban Ki-moon, the UN's Secretary General, at a New York press conference. But nowhere did it provoke a greater storm than in India, where Dr Pachauri is director-general of The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), based in New Delhi, the country's most influential private body involved in climate-change issues and renewable energy. In addition, as we reported, Dr Pachauri also holds more than a score of positions with banks, universities and other institutions that benefit from the vast worldwide industry now based on measures to halt climate change.

In a series of press and television interviews, Dr Pachauri described our report as "a pack of lies". He accused us of being part of that same "powerful vested interest" responsible for "Climategate", the emails and other documents leaked from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, which revealed the methods used by the small group of scientists at the heart of the IPCC to manipulate temperature data to show that the earth has been warming further than is justified by the evidence.

When asked whether he intended to take legal action over our article, Dr Pachauri replied that he hadn't yet made up his mind. But Teri issued a press release listing its main complaints against the article.

A first point to emerge from these responses is how much of what we wrote they do not contradict. Dr Pachauri does not deny that he holds all the positions referred to in our article, such as giving advice on climate change to bodies ranging from major banks such as Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank to the Chicago Climate Change, the worlds's largest dealer in buying and selling the right to emit CO2.

He and Teri insist, however, that all the money he receives for his services, such as 100,000 euros from Deutsche Bank and $80,000 from Toyota Motors are paid not to him personally but to his institute (and that he receives
no fee from the Chicago Climate Exchange). Teri denies that it
does not publish its accounts simply by stating that its accounts are supplied to the relevant tax authorities.

Dr Pachauri repeatedly denied that Teri still has any links with the Tata Group, India's largest privately-owned business empire, with interests ranging from coal and steel to renewable energy, and which set up Teri as the Tata Energy Research Institute in 1974. He now claims that Teri has had no "direct links" with Tata since 1999 (or, in another interview, 2001). But it was not until 2003 that the name changed to The Energy and Resources Institute, and then a Teri spokesman explained that "we have not severed our links with the Tatas" and that the change of name was "only for convenience".

Indeed one of the Tata group of companies is still listed among Teri's corporate sponsors, several directors of Tata serve on Teri's Business Council for Sustainable Development, and one senior director serves on Teri's Advisory Board. Other links include the fact that Dr Pachauri and Ratan Tata, the head of the group, both serve on the Indian Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, advising on all aspects of national climate policy.

In short, these initial responses to our article leave many questions unanswered. At the least it seems that Dr Pachauri's position as the world's "top climate official" has been earning a very substantial income for the institute of which he is director-general; and the only way to avoid further questioning must now be for both Dr Pachauri and Teri to come out into the open over all those issues that remain obscure.

For a start, we should be allowed to know what Dr Pachauri is paid by us all as chairman of the IPCC, a figure that remains confidential. Teri should make public its accounts, including details of all payments it has received from Dr Pachauri's work for other organisations – particularly those that stand to benefit from policies arising directly or indirectly from the recommendations of the IPCC.

Nor is it clear why, on various occasions, the IPCC has listed trips made by Dr Pachauri as part of his "Outreach" as chairman, stating that the UN has paid for the "offsetting" of their carbon footprint, when the purpose of these meetings was to further the interests of Teri itself.

There is no question that Teri, an organisation employing 700 people, based in lavish offices near the exclusive residential enclave where Dr Pachauri lives, in one of the most expensive homes in Delhi, has become a very successful enterprise, with connections in the profitable field of "sustainable energy" all over the world.

It has, for instance, carried out two research contracts for Bill Clinton's Global Initiative, which is helping to build the world's largest "solar park" near the Indo-Pakistani border. Promoted under the Indian government's drive for renewable energy, and partly-financed by "carbon credits" under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), this project is due to return an estimated $2 billion a year on an initial $10 billion investment.

Just how surreal the business of "carbon trading" has become is illustrated by another project, which has no direct connection with Dr Pachauri but which involves the plan by a Tata subsidiary to build one of the world's largest coal-fired power stations in the state of Gujarat. Nearly $1 billion needed to build the 4 gigawatt Mundra plant is being supplied in cheap "green loans" by the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank (to both of which Dr Pachauri acts as an adviser), because the plant will emit CO2 at a "lower intensity" than older power stations in India. For the same reason, the plant will also qualify for a potential $560 million in "carbon credits" under the UN's CDM scheme, which can then be sold on the world market.

If our own Government allows E.on to build a similar but much smaller coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, however, we shall have to pay out millions of pounds through our electricity bills to buy those same "credits" which in India the UN hands out free – to help Tata build a plant which will be responsible for emitting 26 million tonnes a year of CO2, well over twice as much as Kingsnorth.

Similarly it is Tata which next month is to close down its Corus steel works at Redcar, to make a potential £600 million in "credits" from the carbon emissions this will save, while in India it will earn a similar amount in UN CDM "credits" by building a plant of similar capacity in Orissa. It will thus make a potential gain of £1.2 billion, at the expense of 1,700 jobs on Teesside, for no overall reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere.

Truly, as the snow falls, does the business of saving the planet from global warming become more convoluted and more lucrative by the day.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The French Rise Up

When governments do not listen to the people, then the people will rise up against the government.

This is not a crime, this is an act of National Liberation.

Arsonists attack 'new Sangatte' centre in Calais

Arsonists in France have attacked a new Sangatte-style welcome centre which was due to open for UK-bound migrants in Calais this week.

By Peter Allen in Paris
Published: 3:47PM GMT 27 Dec 2009

They set fire to prefabricated units which were due to house showers at the controversial structure close to the town's ferry port.

"A great deal of damage was done,' said a Calais police spokesman. "One of two structures earmarked for use as a shower block was badly damaged by fire. It was due to be part of a unit containing lavatories and bathrooms.

"We have launched an inquiry into this act of vandalism and arson. Our fear is that local people opposed to the setting up of the new centre may be responsible."

Earlier this month French administrative judges approved the opening of the new centre next to an industrial estate.

It was immediately described as "Sangatte II" after the former Red Cross centre which attracted thousands of illegal migrants before it was razed to the ground in 2002.

The new centre is just a few hunded yards from the site of the notorious "Jungle", a shanty town in woodland which was populated mainly by Afghan migrants before it was dismantled by the authorities in September.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Zionist Jew Michael Howard / Hecht Attacks BNP

Image - " Hypocrisy is my stock in trade. As a Jewish Zionist I support the right of Israel to national self determination 100 %, but in Britain then the British people must serve the interests of the Zionist Network and anyone who dares say that the British people should have the same rights as the Israeli people, then I will define them as racists. Israel Uber Alles ! "

Michael 'Howard', whose real name is Michael Hecht whose grandfather was an Jewish illegal immigrant in this country has attacked the BNP.

He has played the race card as a Jew throughout his career, so therefore he gets it played back at him when required.

As a Zionist Jew, who supports Israel and its right as a nation to exclude and expel illegal immigrants, he attacks the BNP for wanting the same rights as Israel for Britain.

Whilst Israel must remain a 'jewish nation' according to Zionists like Hecht, those who say Britain must remain a British nation for the British people are called 'racists' by Zionists.

Whilst Jews are applauded for organising as an ethnic community in Britain, the indigenous British people are called racists when they do so.

Howard was the most corrupt Home Secretary in history, outdoing even David Blunkett, who signed a pardon for his drug dealing cousin after being bribed with £400,000.

A typical Tory Zionist scumbag.

Mr Howard insisted it was necessary to confront the ''appalling evil'' of the far right head on.

The Folkestone and Hythe MP told BBC Radio 4's World This Weekend: ''I think I am still the only party leader who went to Burnley and devoted an entire speech to confronting the BNP and saying we have really got to take them on and we have got to take their arguments on.

''I do not think we can afford to be complacent. There are one or two constituencies where they are said to be a potent threat.''

Asked whether the current party leaders were trying hard enough to tackle the danger, Mr Howard replied: ''I'm not sure that they have to the real extent that needs to be done.

''I think you have got to take them on, you have got to confront them and you have got to expose the appalling evil of their arguments.''


A convicted drug dealer claimed that he bribed former Home Secretary Michael Howard £400,000 to get an early release from prison, a court has heard.

By Caroline Gammell
Published: 8:12PM GMT 31 Oct 2008

Convicted drug dealer, John Haase, claims he bribed former Home Secretary Michael Howard £400,000 to get an early release from prison, Southwark Crown Court was told.

Convicted drug dealer, John Haase, claims he bribed former Home Secretary Michael Howard, pictured, £400,000 to get an early release from prison, Southwark Crown Court was told.

John Haase told Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle that he arranged the alleged payment through a relation of Conservative cabinet Minister, Southwark Crown Court heard.

Haase, 59, and his cousin Paul Bennett, 44, received a Royal Pardon in 1996 and were released 11 months into a 17 year sentence for smuggling heroin, jurors were told.

Related Articles

Career criminals given Royal Pardon after bogus police tip-offs, court hears

It was always thought they were allowed out of jail because the pair had turned supergrass and passed on important information to the police.

But Haase allegedly told Mr Kilfoyle that he had paid large sums of money to the former Tory party leader and a customs official to secure their freedom, the court heard.

Both Haase and Bennett are currently on trial for perverting the course of justice, accused of duping the authorities by setting up fake gun and drugs caches in order to get an early release.

Giving evidence Mr Kilfoyle said Haase told him about the alleged scam in 2004 when he was in prison for another crime.

The MP said he met Haase twice in prison and obtained a signed statement going into detail about how the alleged plot worked.

According to the MP, Haase claimed he and Bennett bribed the then Home Secretary and Paul Cook, their customs informant handler.

Mr Kilfoyle said Haase told him that Mr Howard's relative collected the money - taken from Haase and Bennett's drugs money - from Haase's former home in Maiden Lane, Clubmoor in Liverpool.

Mr Kilfoyle said he did not want to believe the allegation about Mr Howard and did not ask any further questions because it would give the claim more credence.

Mr Kilfoyle said: "My concern at that stage was the role of Paul Cook.

"If there was a case to be looked at, it would be more credible simply because of his lowly-paid job, compared with Michael Howard, who would have so much to lose.

"I do not find it such an extraordinary proposition if there was a bribe involved in trying to get a gun in prison or trying to corrupt police or a customs officer."

The jury has already heard that Mr Cook was investigated and cleared both internally and by police, who brought no charges.

Trevor Burke QC, defending Haase, claimed his client spoke to Mr Kilfoyle only on a condition of confidentiality, because he thought the MP would be able to help him.

He suggested when Mr Kilfoyle wrote to Haase asking him to lift the confidentiality agreement, the politician said it would be "in your interests and mine".

Mr Kilfoyle replied: "I would always be explicit that while I can bring things to the attention of the authorities, I have no powers whatsoever.

"I was never anything other than honest about my position."

The court heard how Mr Kilfoyle was accompanied in 2004 by Sunday Mirror journalist Graham Johnson who taped Haase’s statement.

Mr Burke suggested that Mr Kilfoyle had known about the rumour involving Mr Howard before he spoke to Haase.

"He thought that was part of the story, whether investigating as a Labour MP with an election not far away, it was a dynamite story for an MP."

Mr Johnson replied: "At the time Peter Kilfoyle had been looking into this since 1996 and one of his motivations for doing it was John Haase and Paul Bennett had sold heroin in his constituency and that heroin had affected the community... the motivation was not purely political."

The barrister persisted: "Part of the motivation was that it was a Tory Home Secretary was accepting a bribe."

"Yes," agreed Mr Johnson. "But he didn’t say he was going to use this to bring down Michael Howard."

Haase and Bennett, of no fixed address, are accused of orchestrating the plot between October 1993 and August 1995.

They deny conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice as does Deborah Haase, 37, of Teynham Avenue, Knowsley village, and Sharon Knowles, 36, of Wadeson Road, Walton.

Deborah Haase also denies possessing illegal firearms and possessing illegal ammunition.


CONSERVATIVE leader Michael Howard revealed today that his grandfather may have entered the UK as an illegal immigrant.

Mr Howard’s father, Bernard Hecht, who came here in the 1930s, falsified details about his parents when he applied for British citizenship in 1947.

The Tory leader’s grandmother died in Auschwitz but at the time his grandfather was living in Lond
on. However his father, who Anglicised the family name after settling in Britain, claimed they both died in his native Romania. Mr Howard said: "I have speculated on the reason and I suppose one possibility is that my grandfather might have entered Britain unlawfully."

The Conservative leader, whose new hardline policies on immigration have attracted criticism, says the reason his father gave incorrect information will remain a mystery.

But he said: "As for my grandfather, there might have been some irregularities about his status."

Mr Howard decided to reveal the mystery after journalists began looking into his family background. The revelation follows his announcement of tough new immigration and asylum proposals that would see MPs set a limit on immigrants who would be selected through an Australian-style points system.

Although Nazism was on the rise in Europe when the Tory leader’s father came to Britain he was an economic migrant.

Mr Howard admitted he did not know if his grandfather would have been allowed in under his party’s immigration plans. "I cannot answer that. We have not yet worked out how the points system will operate," he said.

The Church of Mammon

I wonder if the Archbishop will say that Osama Bin Laden is made in the image of God.

The Archbishop should root out the pederast vipers from inside the Church and deal with the greed of his own advisers who invested hundreds of millions of pounds in the stock markets of Mammon.

A church that gambles its followers money on the stock market is a church of mammon.

The Church is a joke - it is virtually no longer Christian, no longer represents England and the English and is infiltrated by Marxists, politically correct homosexuals and politically correct lesbians.

The church is part of the establishment, and as part of the establishment it is also as corrupt as the rest of it.

Archbishop in war of words with BNP over Christianity

Dec 26 2009 by David Williamson, South Wales Echo

ARCHBISHOP of Wales Barry Morgan has become embroiled in a furious war of words with the BNP over the far-right party’s claim to represent “Christian values”.

Cardiff-based Dr Morgan denounced comments by Nick Griffin linking the party and Christianity and claiming it stood in the tradition of crusader knights who fought Muslim armies.

The Anglican leader, whose comments were echoed by other leaders of Christian faith groups in Wales, said: “I really do object to their claim to represent Christian cultural values. Unless you’re white and Anglo-Saxon you don’t seem to count for very much.

“That runs totally against any Christian understanding of humanity where we believe each person is made in the image of God.”

But his remarks have led to a furious response from party officials.

BNP deputy leader Simon Darby said: “If these church leaders are not prepared to defend Christianity themselves, they should not complain when someone else does just that.

“It’s all very well people like the Archbishop talking about defending Christian values but at the end of the day they are not prepared to do anything about it. He should probably be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act.

“Whole swathes of London, for example, are no longer Christian, and people like the Archbishop have been quite happy to stand by and see churches turned into mosques.

“If someone doesn’t stand up for real Christian values it won’t be a Christian country for very much longer but an Islamic republic.”

Dr Morgan’s comments, which coincide with his traditional Christmas sermon in Llandaff Cathedral yesterday, were made in an interview in which he also spoke out in support of the families of troops serving in Afghanistan.

He described the fear experienced by families who have loved ones in a war-zone and acknowledged the cost in human life of recent conflicts.

Dr Morgan said: “Whatever one thinks of whether we ought to be in [Afghanistan], the fact is these decisions have been made whether they were right or wrong.That’s not the fault of soldiers.

“They go because that’s what they are required to do. The families left behind are at times worried sick.

“If you are in the middle of a conflict you get on with the job and you don’t always think about the dangers [whereas] families at home are just dreading the knock on the door or the ring of the telephone.”

Support for the families of members of the armed forces has become an important pastoral task in churches throughout Wales.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Red Pill

Add to Technorati Favorites

Saturday 26 December 2009

Iran Attack Almost Ready - WW4 BEGINS

Looks like the attack on Iran is about to occur.§ionid=351020202

Israel's ambassadors and consuls generals from all over the world have been summoned to attend a conference to be held over global challenges facing Israel.

The meeting to be attended in Jerusalem Al-Quds on December 27-31 is hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, headed by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the ministry reported on its website.

"The idea is to facilitate direct dialogue with the country's leaders, mutual updates on major diplomatic issues, and a discussion of action plans to deal with the challenges awaiting Israel in the international arena in the coming year, including the Iranian threat," it said.

This is while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called a report by the UN Human Rights Council's Gaza commission a real threat to Israel.

The UN Special Rappoteur for the occupied Palestinian Territories has also urged western powers to push Israel to end its blockade of the Gaza Strip immediately. Richard Falk also called for economic sanctions against Israel.

This is the first time a conference for all of Israel's heads of missions has been held.

Benyamin Netanyahu will also attend the conference along with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor, and other senior officials.

Add to Technorati Favorites

British Zionist Network In Crisis

Note the focus on the people in this article - they say they are British but then call non-Jews 'goyim' which is a perjorative word for non-Jews. The word Goyim is the same word as Kuffar used by Muslims, a word that in effect is like Nigger, but the law does not arrest Jews or Muslims for calling people Kuffar or Goyim.

Note also that the author sees the role of British Jews in British society to defend Muslims, and not defend the interests of the British White majority and assimilated non-white British citizens - how can anyone define themselves as British when they work not for the interest of the majority of British people but solely for minority groups ?

One can be a Jew or Muslim and be a British citizen, but you can only be British if you adopt the interests of the majority of Britons and also assimilate yourself into the British way of life and regard yourself as a part of British society, not as an adjunct to British society working for the interests of your own group and any other minority.

That way everyones interests in society are the same.

The time has come to ban multi-culturalism.

If you enter this country and are given citizenship then that requires total assimilation and loyalty to the interests of the majority.

Instead of this community groups are allowed to form to represent their own ethnic interests at the expense of the rest of society.

At the same time as these minority groups want to work for the benefit of their own community and other minority communities they scream 'racism' at the ethnic majority when they dare organise to protect their community interests in the democratic process.

This hypocrisy is sickening.

The idea that a Jewish minority working for the interests of the Muslims equates to a functional British society is insanity - each group must assimilate into the majority and work for the interests of the majority, not perpetuate the process of social fragmentation as defined by multi-culturalism.

Note also the peddling of the neo-nazi menace and attacks on the BNP in the article - it appears that for some sections of the Jewish intelligensia in Britain, the spokespeople of the British Jewish community at all times must be attacking the British ethnic majority and those all organisations that represent the interests of the indigenous people as 'racist' and defining any group, regardless of the truth, as nazis.

What hypocrisy.

Whistleblowers say top Zionist institutions in unprecedented crisis

By Redress Information & Analysis

26 December 2009

Britain’s leading Jewish institutions are facing their worst crisis in living memory as their loyalty to the United Kingdom and support for basic universal principles of human rights and common decency come under growing scrutiny.

In recent weeks Redress Information & Analysis has has been approached by a number of existing and former employees and volunteers of prominent Jewish bodies, all pointing to an acute internal crisis within their institutions.

Breaking ranks

The first to make contact with us were two whistleblowers from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. They explained to us the nature and scope of the crisis gripping Britain’s top Jewish institutions and offered to put us in contact with people in the Office of the Chief Rabbi and the Jewish Chronicle newspaper. We took up the offer.

Naturally, we were curious as to why our interlocutors chose or were willing to talk to Redress Information & Analysis rather than voice their concerns to a national media outlet such as the Guardian, the Independent or the BBC. All said that they were worried that their names would be leaked back to their institutions or published in the press and that, as a result, they would be sacked or ostracized by their Jewish relatives and friends. Some feared the possibility of “moles” in the national media, or people in these media who have “special relations” with the Jewish institutions, doing the leaking.

We have gone to extraordinary lengths to corroborate the identity of our contacts and can confirm that they are all genuine – that they are who they said they are and that they work, or have worked, for the institutions they said they worked for.

Our contacts agreed for us to publish their concerns and to quote them but strictly on condition of anonymity. Consequently, we have undertaken not to publish their names, gender or the dates on which we made contact with them, although, to emphasize once again, their identity and the Jewish institutions for which they currently work or have recently worked have been verified beyond any doubt.

Our Jewish contacts expressed common concerns, focusing on questions about their identity and loyalty to Britain – the country of their birth – and on the attitude of their institutions towards the State of Israel, especially in the wake of the Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip in 2008-09, in which Israel killed 1,400 Palestinians, injured more than 5,000 and wreaked carnage and destruction on the 1.5 million inhabitants of the Strip.

Board of Deputies of British Jews – under “unbearable pressure”

Our contacts at the Board of Deputies of British Jews described the crisis ripping through Britain’s Jewish institutions in stark terms. One said:

Our support for Israel, especially its attack on Gaza in 2008-09, is creating ruptures in the wider Jewish community in Britain and placing institutions such as ours under unbearable pressure. The fact that the Board of Deputies’ support for Israel is couched in relatively anodyne terms and in a superficially impartial context no longer works. The wider Jewish community, and the general public at large, are beginning to see through this.

For the first time in my memory, we are being pressed by British Jews to answer questions that have always been in the backs of our minds but which we can no longer brush aside. Are we British or are we Israelis? If we are British, then is it not incumbent upon us to question, as the wider British public is questioning, the policies and behaviour of the State of Israel without harbouring any feelings of disloyalty – because our loyalty is to the UK and not to Israel?

Our second contact at the Board of Deputies of British Jews added:

Israel purports to speak on behalf of us as Jews. Many in our community are telling us that we therefore have a special responsibility – more so than Britons of other faiths or those of no faith – to condemn Israel’s violations of human rights and common decency when dealing with the Palestinians. Many others are saying that we should say explicitly and unequivocally – both as individuals and through our community institutions – that our loyalty is to Britain first, second, third and fourth ad infinitum, that we have no special loyalty or allegiance to Israel and that, for us, Israel is just another country, like France, Italy or Spain.

They say that we should distance ourselves from Israel and be the first to condemn its policies and actions towards the Palestinian people. A small but growing minority – a minority that is growing exponentially, I hasten to add – tell us that we should go further and take the lead in calling for the boycott of Israel until it implements all United Nations resolutions, including Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, and until it begins to behave as a civilized and responsible member of the international community.

But I would say that the question of our allegiance is the one that is the most serious and damaging in the long term. It does not help in this regard when some of our Jewish ministers, such as the foreign secretary, David Miliband, and the Foreign Office minister, Ivan Lewis, are either openly pro-Israel or are seen to be supporters of Israel. This casts doubt on the loyalty of all of us to Britain, our country.

Office of the Chief Rabbi – “living in a time warp”

According to our contact at the Office of the Chief Rabbi, the problems facing Jewish institutions in Britain have been compounded by the failure of these institutions to adapt in the light of international developments and a sea-change in British public opinion. The contact said that this failure applied to the Office of the Chief Rabbi as much as to any other Jewish organization in the UK. In the contact’s own words:

The Office of the Chief Rabbi, the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Chronicle and many other Jewish organizations up and down the country – at universities, for instance – are living in a time warp, as if today were 1948 or the eve of the 1967 war.

The world has changed, and the information the community has available to it shows that we Jews are not in peril – on the contrary, Jews in the UK and throughout Europe are prospering like never before. Anti-Semitism – by which I mean racist, anti-Jewish feeling – has all but vanished. In fact, it is the Muslims, not the Jews, who are bearing the brunt of racism in Europe. Islamophobia, spurred on by neo-Nazi parties and neo-conservatives, is what we Jews, as members of a wider multi-cultural community, should be fighting against.

In fact, I would say that thanks to an abundance of reliable information now available on the internet, even those who live in a time warp are living a fiction in a time warp built on myths. Israel was never in danger from its impotent but bombastic neighbours: we saw this in 1956, when it invaded Egypt together with Britain and France, and we saw it again in 1967, which we now know was being planned for by Israeli leaders ever since the 1956 fiasco.

Yet, our community leaders, including – I am sorry to say – the Office of the Chief Rabbi, would never publicly acknowledge this. I have no idea what they think or believe in private, in their own conscience, between themselves and God, but I cannot imagine any intelligent, well-educated and open-minded person not recognizing matters as they are. And if they are conscious of reality but act differently, what does that make them? I think I’ll leave you to answer that question.

It pains me to say this but our self-appointed leaders, including the Chief Rabbi, have built our community institutions on foundations that are more appropriate to 1930s Germany than the Europe of the 21st century. You cannot have healthy institutions based on a make-believe world of fear and distrust of everyone and everything that is not Jewish. If we Jews are to have Jewish institutions per se, then these institutions should have as their primary objectives community cohesion, including full integration into our wider society, British society. We cannot – and should not want to – live in a ghetto. Our focus should be on our own country, the UK, not on promoting, speaking on behalf of, answering or apologizing for Israel.

As far as Israel is concerned, our approach should be no different than that of any other British organization, be it Amnesty International, a trade union or a professional association. In other words, we should condemn it when it is in the wrong and we should praise it when it does the right thing. In other words, our approach should be based entirely on merit. Unfortunately, I see no signs of this happening any time soon.

The Jewish Chronicle – “engaging in subterfuge”

Our whistleblower at the Jewish Chronicle gave a damning assessment of the internal crisis engulfing the UK’s Jewish institutions, as reflected in the Chronicle, Britain’s top Zionist newspaper and Israeli mouthpiece.

According to the whistleblower, the newspaper is “in denial” and “sticking its head in the sand” in response to the changes in UK public opinion, especially following Israel’s onslaught on Gaza. Echoing some of the views expressed by our source at the Office of the Chief Rabbi, our contact at the Jewish Chronicle said that, instead of acknowledging the changing reality around it and adapting accordingly, the paper’s management has “gone in the opposite direction and is “engaging in subterfuge”. However, our contact says, this “isn’t washing and it won’t wash”.

According to our whistleblower, the Jewish Chronicle is making a conscious effort to brand itself as a moderate newspaper that is focused on the affairs of Britain’s 280,000 Jews and in tune with mainstream British public opinion. However, our whistleblower says, in reality it is “embracing the neo-conservative agenda on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, lock, stock and barrel”, and its primary concern is “to be on-message with Israeli foreign policy, whatever Israeli government is in power – Likud, Kadima, Labour or some abominable ultra-far-right party”.

Our whistleblower was especially scathing about the Jewish Chronicle’s editor, Stephen Pollard, describing him as “uncharismatic, myopic and an inarticulate and clumsy spokesman” who has “bought a one-way ticket to a parallel universe”. The whistleblower said that Mr Pollard “is so detached from reality and so out of touch with British public opinion that the notion that anyone with just an average intelligence might see right through what he’s doing could not even cross his mind”.

According to our whistleblower, the idea of breaking with tradition and recruiting Martin Bright in September 2009 as the Jewish Chronicle’s first-ever non-Jewish chief political editor was Mr Pollard’s “master-plan for creating an image of the Jewish Chronicle as a mainstream newspaper and to boost its circulation, which currently stands at just over 30,400 for the UK and the Republic of Ireland – slightly more than your average local newspaper rag”.

Shortly after his appointment Mr Bright told the Independent: "The idea is to broaden the scope of their [the Jewish Chronicle’s] political coverage. It would be fair to say that they want to move the political coverage away from the more parochial approach they have had in the past and rather than saying 'What will interest our Jewish readers?' they are saying that what interests readers will be what interests anyone in politics."

But, our whistleblower says, Mr Pollard “picked the wrong goy” [gentile] because “not only is Martin Bright a media has-been, but he’s also a card carrying neo-conservative with strident views against Muslims and a strong affinity to Israel and, therefore, would carry little credibility with the wider newspaper-reading public”.

Martin Bright’s career has followed a trajectory that has taken him from the national to the fringe media. After a steady rise between 1993 and 2005, which saw him move from a minor BBC magazine to the Guardian (national, circulation: 430,000), the Observer (national, circulation: 500,000) and the New Statesman (national, circulation: 30,000), where he was appointed political editor, in 2009 Mr Bright left the magazine under a cloud, amid speculation that his strong support for Israel, especially after the slaughter in Gaza, was too much for it to stomach. His career prospects then took a dive when, in September 2009, he joined the Jewish Chronicle (fringe, circulation: 30,400) as chief political editor.

A self-proclaimed leftist, Mr Bright subscribes to a broadly neo-conservative agenda on Islam and the "war on terror", and believes that opposition to Israeli policies and actions “on the left was only explicable as anti-Semitism”. He is the author of a pamphlet for the right-wing think-tank Policy Exchange in which he attacked UK government dialogue with Muslims, a pamphlet that was warmly praised by the leading US neo-conservative Richard Perle. His friends include Observer columnist Nick Cohen who infamously declared after meeting Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz for drinks at the Mayfair nightclub Annabel's: "I was in the presence of a politician committed to extending human freedom." Since his appointment at the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Bright has begun writing for the website of the right-wing Spectator.

Our contact at the Jewish Chronicle said:

As a strategy for extending the scope of the Jewish Chronicle’s appeal, the choice of Martin Bright as our chief political editor just underlines how out of touch with the real world Stephen Pollard is. It isn’t just a question of Martin’s neo-conservative and Israel baggage – and the circumstances under which he left the News Statesman – but what about the rest of the Jewish Chronicle’s coverage?

Take a look at some of our commentators and columnists. The average British reader would take one glance and say “What a rogues gallery!” You have Tzipi Livni, that broken record Melanie Phillips and, worse of all, Geoffrey Aldeman. For God’ sake, Geoffrey Alderman is one of our regular columnist, believe it or not! For a newspaper that’s struggling to keep its readers, the choice of Geoffrey Alderman is a damn strange one, but that’s Stephen Pollard for you.

Alderman believes that Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are legal, even though they are universally acknowledged as illegal under international law.

Moreover, in an article published in the Jewish Chronicle, he said that Islam was founded "in part, on an explicit anti-Jewish discourse".

Most controversially, in early 2009 Alderman argued that according to Jewish religious law, it was "entirely legitimate to kill" every Palestinian in Gaza who voted for Hamas.

For our whistleblower at the Jewish Chronicle, the fact that Mr Alderman was still a regular columnist for the newspaper after making these comments was not just “bad, bad public relations”, but was “scandalous and outrageous, morally and politically”. The whistleblower said:

Geoffrey Alderman spits out stuff that not even the British National Party, Combat-18 and the Ku Klux Klan would dare say these days.

Just imagine what would have happened if a British Muslim columnist said that it was fine to kill Israelis who voted for a government that slaughters Palestinian civilians. The whole country, from Westminster to the media, from the tabloids to the so-called “quality papers” to the BBC and ITN, would be up in arms with condemnations day and night, day after day for weeks on end. Politicians and others would be calling for prosecutions, Stephen Pollard would be rushing from one TV studio to another bellowing “anti-Semitism”.

But here we go, Alderman in effect condoning the murder of innocent civilians and he still writes for the Jewish Chronicle. What a way to appeal to the broader public! What morality!

All of our whistleblowers, some of whom are not quoted here but who nevertheless gave us an invaluable insight into the Jewish institutions to which they are affiliated, said that their experience in their institutions had been life-changing, in that it had altered their views of Britain’s Jewish “leaders”, Israel and the Palestinian cause in a most profound way.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday 24 December 2009

New Labour Nazi Block Wardens On The Way

In Nazi Germany, a Blockleiter (block leader) was the lowest official of the NSDAP, responsible for the political supervision of a neighborhood or city block and formed the link between the NSDAP and the general population. Also colloquially known as a Blockwart (block attendant or warden), he was charged with planning, spreading propaganda and developing an acceptance to the policies of the NSDAP among the households (typically 40 to 60) in his area.

It was also the duty of the Blockleiter to spy on the population and report any anti-Nazi activities to the local office. This was helped by keeping files on each household (Haushaltskarten). Due to such activities, Blockwarts were particularly disliked by the general population. Other duties included allocating beds in homes for visiting NSDAP demonstrators, the collection of subscriptions and charitable donations especially for Winterhilfe and organising the clearing of rubble after air-raids. It is thought that there were nearly half a million Blockleiter.

The Blockleiter was appointed to keep an eye upon the activities and political attitudes of the families under his control and to keep a card index system, containing Haushaltskarten, providing detailed information about them. Regular reports were sent from the Blockleiter to the Zellenleiter who in turn reported to his Ortsgruppenleiter and so on up through the chain of political leadership. Any unrest was dealt with swiftly and at source. Small wonder therefore that the Party found it necessary to state on repeated occasions that the Blockleiter was not employed as a Party spy.

Today, Blockwart is a colloquial German insult word for a person who feels the motivation to keep people in line, esp. by reporting them to officials or pressing the enforcing of rules (esp. petty rules) upon people.

Ministers have drawn up plans to encourage people to lodge complaints about hate crimes, which they say are being under-reported.

Police have set up special units to investigate allegations, while the Crown Prosecution Service has established 'scrutiny panels' to look through previous cases to improve on their hit-rate in failed prosecutions.

Since Labour came to power, ministers have increased categories of 'hate' crimes from simply covering racism to include religious aggravation, homophobia and 'transphobic’ offences.

The result has been a seven-fold increase in prosecutions for hate crimes over the past decade, from 1,602 crimes in 1998/9 to 11,624 in 2008/9.

However, campaigners are now accusing ministers of intensifying their pursuit of hate crime offenders and of allowing prosecutors to go "fishing" for offences, opening them up to accusations of sometimes criminalising apparently innocent remarks and comments.

Police officers are also privately complaining that they are now being required to investigate 'trivial' spats between people as hate crimes, when they would prefer to deal with more serious offences.

The new crackdown on hate crimes, which involves co-ordination between Government department, was unveiled quietly by the Home Office.

But it has only now been highlighted by the think tank, Civitas.

David Green, director at Civitas, said: "The Government is running a campaign to increase the number of race hate crimes brought before the courts.

"The police are being encouraged to investigated ordinary disputes and redefine them as crimes. Unlikely cases are being dragged before the courts”."

At the unveiling of the Goverment scheme in the autumn, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said that he was worried that “hate crime is under-reported”.

“While it may seem counter-intuitive to some, we believe that an increase in the number of hate crimes being reported can be a sign that we are starting to have a positive impact,” he said.

The Home Office needed “to see a substantial level of proof before we conclude that hate crime is not a problem in a particular area”, Mr Johnson added.

Among other plans, public bodies, like schools and colleges, were to be forced to report evidence of hate crimes, he said.

However there are now concerns that the attempt to encourage more people to report hate crimes has gone too far.

In October, a study by the Manifesto Club found schools were reporting 40,000 incidents of racism a year involving children as young as five after everyday playground squabbles.

Earlier this month, two devout Christian hoteliers were cleared of insulting a Muslim guest after a judge heard that she had claimed Jesus was a “minor prophet” and the Bible was untrue.

In the summer, a grandmother was investigated by police for a 'hate crime' after writing a letter to her council objecting to a gay pride march.

David Green said these cases were likely to be the "tip of the iceberg".

Mr Green said the CPS's network of 42 “hate crime scrutiny panels” to sift through successful and unsuccessful hate crime prosecutions to see if any lessons can be learned were like a law firm going on an “fishing expedition for more business”.

He said: “The CPS is starting to resemble the law firms that advertise on television their ability to win compensation for people who tripped on the pavement.”

Opposition MPs also called for restraint. David Davies, a Tory member of the powerful Commons home affairs committee, said there was already public order laws to deal with verbal abuse.

He said: “Unpleasant name calling goes on a lot but it should not be necessarily a police matter."

James Clappison, a Conservative MP and another member of the committee, added: "While I deprecate hate crime, we have to be very careful about where the law goes. We don't want to criminalise impolite behavour."

Last night a spokesman for the Home Office said: “The Hate Crime Action Plan launched in September is helping ensure our response to these unacceptable crimes is as effective as possible by creating an environment that gives victims more confidence to report these crimes, knowing they will be taken seriously and acted on.

“Every hate-related incident is devastating to that victim and they have the right to report it. It is, however, for individual police forces to satisfy themselves that a hate crime has taken place.”

“There has been no evidence presented to show that lower-level crime is being reported as hate crime.Hate crime ruins people’s lives and the government is determined to tackle it in all its forms.

"We are absolutely clear that no one is entitled to infringe others' freedom by instilling fear or inciting others to violence because of someone's identity or what they believe."

A CPS spokesman added: "The Crown Prosecution Service encourages anyone who may have been victim of any crime to report it to police, not just hate crimes. It is absolutely wrong to imply that the CPS is looking for crimes that do not exist.

"The under reporting of crime can sometimes be due to lack of confidence in the criminal justice system.

"It is vital that all communities have confidence that their complaints will be taken seriously, including hate crimes, which disproportionately affect minority groups.

“Hate Crime Scrutiny Panels review completed hate crime cases, including domestic violence and rape cases, to see if they were dealt with appropriately and sensitively, from a community perspective.

"This is aimed at improving our handling of these serious crimes and not at increasing the reporting of such offences.”

Add to Technorati Favorites

Merry Xmas


Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday 23 December 2009

The BNP and the Creative Economy

The BNP and the Creative Economy

A recent report by the New Economics Foundation called ‘A Bit Rich’ offers the BNP a valuable template for the social model we wish to create once we get into government.

The report rated the value produced by different jobs based on how much they help or hinder society through the social, economic and environmental effects of the work, rather than simply the amount of money they earned for themselves.

In effect the report states that the existing social model which classifies the value of work is based on false assumptions. The idea of the Social Value of Work has been minimised in favour of the ideological worth of certain jobs. Whilst the Minimum Wage has been imposed to ensure a subsistence level of existence for most workers, there has been no Maximum Wage cap on those jobs who produce little or no value for our society.

For decades the prevailing orthodoxy, and one wholeheartedly embraced by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and New Labour, was Thatcherite Economic Neo-Liberalism predicated upon the supremacy of the free market, the validity of Trickledown Theory (where the rich getting richer benefit’s the poor), the globalisation of national markets and the free movement of capital and workers.

Thatcherism stripped away the British national manufacturing base, which produced goods that could be sold, and replaced it with the banking and services industry which did not produce wealth for the benefit of the mass of the British people.

Since Thatcher and during the Blair / Brown years poverty has increased as has the gap between the rich and the poor, resulting in a society where the bankers get paid billions in government welfare cheques but the poor have their welfare benefits and public services cut.

Over the past decade the ratio between the average rate of pay for chief executives and the average earnings of employees has risen from 47:1 to 128:1. Executive pay has risen by 295 per cent in this period, compared with a rise of 44 per cent for employees.

Whilst British workers, who undertake the productive labour have been denied a fair share of the profits on their labour, the executives who manage the workers have benefited directly from the success of their workers. This is no way to run a company nor a national economy. In order for society to benefit from increases in economic production then the workers must benefit from the products of their labour as well as the bosses.

The wealth that is generated must be shared and Trickledown Theory and the Neo-Liberal Free Market Theory have both failed to do that.

A British Nationalist government will use the power of the State to enact legislation that directly benefits British workers. The Cameron Conservatives on the other hand want to continue the ’withering away of the State’ and transform our society into a ‘Charityocracy’ where tax payers money is used to fund charities who then build new workhouses and charity housing for people to go to and beg from when they are in trouble. We as British Nationalists find this idea repugnant.

The role of the British state in the 21st century is to claim back the powers that have been devolved to supra-national bodies such as the EU and WTO and to start to pass new laws that are targeted and designed to benefit British workers directly.

It has been the surrender of the powers of the British state to globalism, corporations and supra-national bodies that has caused the economic and social crisis we are gripped by today, and the only answer to this crisis is to re-empower the British state to work once again in the interests of Britain, British companies and the British people.

Under Thatcherism and Blairism the economic system has been predicated upon falsehoods in relation to the value of different types of work. For instance banking. In the banking system a massive amount of wealth is earned by a tiny amount of people eg in bonuses but the actual productive value of the work of a banker is actually negative. The research for the New Economic Foundation reveals that for bankers who earn between half a million pounds a year and ten million pounds a year for every £1 in value they produce they actually consume and destroy £7.

Advertising executives who earn between £50,000 and twelve million pounds per year destroy £11.50 worth of value for every pound they create.

Tax accountants who earn between £75,000 per year and £200,000 per year destroy £47 in value for every pound they earn.

Compare this to child care workers who earn between £10,000 and £13,000 per year who produce between £7 and £9.50 for every pound they earn. The value of a child care worker is that they free up other people to go to work and produce value for the national economy.

Hospital cleaners who earn £6.20 per hour produce in value £10 for every pound they earn. The value of a hospital cleaner is that they prevent infections in hospital which add to the expenses of treatment for patients and prevent patients falling ill with infections and thereby allow them to return to work quickly and produce wealth and value for the national economy.

Waste recycling workers who earn £6.10 per hour produce in real value £12 for every pound they earn. The value of a recycling worker is that they reduce waste, assist in protecting resources and create real value out of what would otherwise be waste.

The whole theory of Trickledown Economics was false and as a result of successive British governments embracing this dysfunctional system of free market economics, this has created the economic crisis we see today, increasing levels of poverty, waste, inefficiency and damage to the British national economy.

The report reveals that a recent breakdown of the taxpaying population in the UK established that the top 10 per cent of adults, those on incomes of £36,000 per year or more, take home a disproportionate 40 per cent of UK income. This leaves only 60 per cent of the pot for 90 per cent of the adult working population to share.

Whilst successive governments have indulged in endless social engineering attempts in relation to race and religion in order to assist ethnic minority groups integrate into British society, those same governments have remained utterly silent and impassive on enacting legislation to assist British workers in obtaining economic fairness and justice in their own country.

The report from the New Economic Foundation calls for a high pay commission to recommend a maximum national pay differential and the introduction of a transaction tax to reduce high risk and unsustainable trading. These of course are just a start.

What we must do is create what I define as a ’Creative Economy’ as opposed to the ‘Destructive Economy’ we have now.

The Destructive Economy is predicated on a society which rewards those jobs that create the most societal, environmental, cultural and economic damage and that also rewards those individuals and corporations who generate profits at the expense of society and the environment.

The Creative Economy is one that rewards those jobs that produce the most social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits for the British nation and British people and that assists in creating a sustainable economy and environment.

For instance we would use a High Pay Commission to establish wage level and bonus limits on bankers and at the same time increase wages for workers such as hospital cleaners in the NHS.

We would also include in our calculations the issue of the promotion of British Culture as an aspect for the British National Economy and encourage the formation of groups, jobs and individuals who promote British culture, for instance a travelling actors group who perform the plays of Shakespeare and Chaucer at schools.

We would reward all those productive jobs in the British National Economy that produces actual commodities and goods, such as increasing the wages of agricultural workers, at the same time as taxing imports of agricultural goods, in order to create a national agricultural system that supplies our own national needs rather than the present system of airlifting in runner beans from Kenya.

Jobs that produce value, such as workers in factories, would gain higher wages whilst those that destroy wealth would have their wages cut.

The opportunity this new system of calculating value in relation to society, environment, culture and economics allows us to establish a whole new social model for British society that will ultimately reward the most productive sectors of British society.

It is the foundation for a truly British Nationalist Revolution.

Add to Technorati Favorites