Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Monday, February 26, 2007

*** A superbly written essay by Mark Green ***
Sept 14, 2006 'My Virulent Anti-Semitism' (And Theirs)By Mark GreenSeptember 6, 2006
After years of denial, I've concluded that I'm hopelessly anti-Semitic. Why?
It's my terrible attitude.
Not only do I disdain U.S. militarism in the Middle East, but I've identified its key enabling causes: intellectual dishonesty, democratic corruption and media deception.
But it gets worse: I place the primary blame for America's Mideast disasters squarely on organized Jewry.
For those in the know, this makes me not only an anti-Semite, but a "virulent" anti-Semite, which is surely worse.
Had I blamed everything on G.W. Bush, "Big Oil", or unnamed hawks in the Pentagon, then everything would be fine.
Some might even! call me a political leader.
But what I've discovered doesn't take me there.
Indeed, America's relentless Mideast military engagements consistently support the agenda of one nation only.
That nation is Israel.
It's undeniable that many savvy political observers agree that Israel tendsto make its own rules, which is bad enough. What's worse, is that America tends to follow them. Take the war our ruling establishment is threatening to wage against Israel's enemy du jour, Iran.
Who would have guessed that the prospect of nuclear energy development 5,000 miles from the nearest American city would bring out the Sixth fleet?
Funny thing. As it is, however, Iran's proximity is a mere 450 miles from Israel's which, sadly, is the real reason America's on another war footing.
Iran, you see, just happens to support several local resistance movements (called "terrorists" , here) that contest Israel's confiscation of land formerly belonging to one neighboring country ! or another. This might not be such a big deal if not for an unexpected development which has crept up on America in recent years: when Israel gets irritated, Washington gets agitated.
Let's agree that the cheapest and easiest option for U.S. is simple neutrality.
It's an old-fashioned idea, sure, and one that's largely forgotten, but it's got a nice ring to it. After all, given the relative strength of Iran's army vs. ours, few experts see this less affluent nation launching a successful attack on the U.S. for about two centuries. So we've got time.
Unfortunately, there are lobby pressures here in the U.S. to consider. That's where Israel comes in. Neutrality makes sense for a country with our strengths,power and accomplishments, sure. Only it's not an option. Why?
"Strategic necessity". And in addtion to that, don't forget the pro-Israel fundraisers, assorted intellectuals, DC lawyers, policy wonks, movie moguls, Jewish federations, Zionist donors, esteemed academi! cs, news editors, advisors, Holocaust survivors, AIPAC's minions, TV executives, roving bloggers, and more ADL operatives than you can shake a stick at.
In fact, with today's politics being what they are, the option of neutrality-- of doing absolutely nothing, of not sending troops--is so totally out of step, so terribly reminiscent of Nazi appeasement (we're told) that it will certainly not even be considered-- at least when Israel's foes are concerned.
This is what passes for contemporary political wisdom. "Great Powers" must always intervene.
And in no instance is this more true than when the Great Power in question is the United States of America and the intervention in question concerns our plucky, defiant, besieged "democratic" (but only for Jews) ally, the State of Israel!There are a few drawbacks however. Serial warfare does, unfortunately, get expensive.
Plus there's the problem of all those dead and wounded G.I.s....Then again, nobody said managing an Empire would be easy, right?
Anyway, as for the latest nuclear "crisis" with Iran, first, a little background:Way back when, decades ago, long before Israel enjoyed the territorial breathing space it now occupies, Jewish operatives secretly decided to acquire enriched uranium.
I don't recall them asking anyone's permission.
From there, Israel upped the ante and cranked out a stadium full of atomic bombs.
When the headline finally broke, Washington didn't fuss much. Nor in fact did N.Y., Hollywood or any of those other heady places where scorn and disapproval rain down upon those miscreants who break vital rules involving The American People and Revered Democratic Values. Later, regional rivals in the MiddleEast tried to follow Israel's bold example. Leading American voices responded: "How dare they?"
Soon thereafter, high government decided that "measures" had to be taken: "These dangerous steps will not be tolerated."U.S. ! political morality is less about the rule of law, than about alliances, "interests" and deals. The objective is power. How do we get it? Through the abuse of power. This is how the game is now played. And no government alliance with our great republic is more "special" than the one involving Israel. To merely call this "cronyism" does not even come close to acknowledging the absolute brilliance behind the accomplishments of a small, determined collection of Zionist visionaries. Their extraordinary feat took decades to achieve. And it all happened while the average American snoozed.
Here we go:Billions in foreign aid? No problem.Zero accountability?
Naturally.Special privileges, special rules? Of course.Ethnic cleansing? What's the big deal?Weapons of Mass Destruction? For YOU, anything anytime.To me, this smells like the deal of the century.
But then, I'm a "virulent" anti-Semite.But for you remaining moralists out there, consider this:Like Iraq before it, Iran is a signatory to the international Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Israel however refuses to sign.
Israel, and only Israel, gets the perennial green light from above to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons in all the Middle East. This unspecified privilege is rarely discussed, yet it's surely central to Iran's current quest to achieve its own deterrent capabilities. Despite all this, it is Iraq and Iran--not Israel--who face America's wrath for the mere possibility that they could follow the Jewish State's provocative lead.
Israel's nuclear arsenal not only makes the possibility of atomic annihilation more likely, but it gives life to an arms race in the world's most volatile region.Washington, London, New York and Hollywood's collective wisdom on this matter may be summarized as followed: "So?"U.S. foreign policies have become so uniquely inconsistent, so politicized, that they make a mockery of international law. Can moral decay be far behind?
No wonder the U.N. is such a basket case.
Like the corpse of a fish, it's rotting from the head down. In supreme deference to Israel, America has discarded its opportunity to lead the world by example, namely, upholding the impartial rule of law. Consequently, America's entire Mideast mission carries the stain of Jewish "exceptionalism" . Why so little outcry? The problem is demographic and ideological: America's media and political classes are overstocked with 'Israel-first' loyalists. Their target: U.S. public opinion and the institutions which shape it.To push this agenda, pro-Israel spin-meisters have convinced Americans into believing that our government's ongoing war dance towards all of Israel's adversaries signal nothing more than the mere convergence of U.S.-Zionist interests. But that's a kosher fairy tale.
Israeli fingerprints are all over America's disastrous war in Iraq as well as our continuing confrontation with Iran. And our President's self-righteous claims about spreading "freedom" and "democracy" are just as contrived.
Not only have all the original rationalizations for the U.S. invasion of Iraq been discredited, but comparable Israeli misdeeds are consistently met with American aid, diplomatic cover, and state-of-the- art weapons systems. This pattern has endured for decades. And woe to those would-be leaders who dare challenge this glaring double standard, as they tend to disappear.
It can be argued that America is a nation under 'soft occupation' by a shadow government serving a foreign power.
Despite that provocative claim, my anti-Semitism has its accommodating limits. I strive to live harmoniously with those Jews (and others) who refuse to push our nation into needless wars. I even believe that our nation can make peace with most of the "Muslim terrorists" we Americans are programmed to despise. But Western interventionists must give them autonomy and leave them be, since we demand nothing less for ourselves.
My anti-Semitism is real, yes, but nuanced.
What about yours?
Is it incorrect (like mine) or conventional (like Washington's) ? After all, the U.S. and Israel bomb, demonize and depopulate areas of high Semitic density way over there (near Israel) with some regularity, yet the ADL, both major political parties in Washington, the American Jewish Committee, FOX News, AIPAC, the majority of Christian evangelicals, and even most mainstream institutions of governance don't seem to mind much. Even the American voter (depending on the headlines) is pretty much on board. What gives?
Are some forms of anti-Semitism a good thing? Are some Semites more equal than others?Indeed, it's clear that the very meaning of the word "Anti-Semitism" is kept deliberately fuzzy, and it is this ambiguity of definition which makes the term so politically useful. After all, we are reminded that the Nazis began their genocidal campaign by! making accusations against the Jews, right?--And where did that lead? Thus, the suppression of "hateful" (or even "hurtful") speech is now one of the key unwritten rules of protocol when it comes to criticizing Semitic behavior that is Jewish. Yes, you may respectfully chastise Israel as it sends guided missiles into Arab neighborhoods, but there must be love in your heart! Better yet, just say nothing at all. Leave policy arguments to the Left wing ("pro-peace" ) Jews who, after 50 years, remain highly visible but dutifully ineffective.
As for those other Semites--those "Islomo-fascists, " those "homicide bombers"--here is where the rules of discourse and engagement reverse course.Witness the modern, conventional and politically- correct form of anti-Semitism: identify the Jihadist enemies, vilify them, and crush them. The political movement might be Hamas or Al Queda or Hezbollah. Whatever. Who knows, and who cares? Their respective origins and purposes are as much of a blur in the American Mind as our reasons for hating them.
What matters is that they, like Saddam Hussein before them, oppose American (and Israeli) "interests". Thus, we paint Hamas and Hezbollah with the same brush as Al Queda.Now go out there and vote you American knuckleheads.
But watch out for what you say.
Racism and bigotry will NOT be tolerated, especially anti-Semitism.
What we've got to do is spread freedom, stop terrorism, and fight for... whatever.But when rhetoric fails to match reality, problems arise. U.S. policies are in an moribund state. Despite the loud chatter about democracy, no nation on earth comes close to matching our quantity of unwelcome soldiers patrolling foreign lands.
Yes, the Empire has no clothes, as we're running out of money and friends.
Whether or not the average, clueless voter ever figures this out is another matter.Contributing to this problem, Big Media is in bed with Big Government, as they both need one another to effectively rule the world.
America's hand-picked pundit class is not only pro-empire, but overwhelmingly pro-Israel.
So the political forecast is grim.
Expect continued war, escalating world-wide disgust with U.S.-Israeli hegemony, and a further rise in political cronyism here at home. This, regrettably, is our political future no matter which candidate gets the nod in 2008, since all viable U.S. office-seekers invariably run on the anything-for- Israel platform.Indeed, when we look closely at the contemporary phenomena of privilege and power in America, we see something quite different than what's commonly advertised. Those scary anti-Semites of the world are actually quite powerless, unfairly mocked, continuously threatened, and often destroyed. And their poor, beleaguered adversaries?
American Jews are the most affluent, influential and accomplished minority in U.S. history, criticism of their political actions by 'outsiders' is taboo, and our government is hog wild IN LOVE with the Jewish State.
Champagne, anyone?
In fact, it can be argued that we are in the midst of a unparalleled epidemic of PHILO-Semitism. Pound for pound, no nation on earth gets the amount of economic, military and diplomatic cover that we Americans lavish on Israel year after year. Despite the money and bloodshed, America's commitment to the Jewish State remains, to quote former Presidential candidate Al Gore, "unshakable" . And President G.W. Bush's infatuation with Israel may be even more off the charts. Indeed, no change of Administration, no U.N. resolution, no war crime charge, or U.S. national emergency, ever diminishes our federal government's unsettling adoration for the Jewish State.
More unsettling still: virtually no public figure dares to ask, "Why"?
When we review our political relationship for the past generation or more, we find that there is simply nothing our nation is unwilling to do for our colonizing, nuclear-ready, ethnic-cleansing, "democratic" ally.
Isn't this just a wee bit outrageous?
It's certainly unprecedented.
The costs of this alliance to the American taxpayer are absolutely astronomical and climbing rapidly. What it's done to our national reputation however, moves us in the opposite direction. Recent polling data indicates that a nearly a third of Western Europe considers the U.S. a primary threat to world peace.
Our nation's international reputation is probably at an all-time low.
Indeed, it's America's unconditional love for one group of Semites over another that has lead us into a series of needless (and morally-bankrupt) wars. Even America's "War on Terrorism" may eventually be understood as little more than a manufactured pretext to advance bankrupt policies. After all, "terrorism" too is a fuzzy and politicized term. It describes merely a tactic, not an ideology. But the political grievances behind many acts of terror are real. Mideast terrorists hate us for what we do, not for who we are. And what we do is sustain Israeli militarism and expansionism virtually without condition. If this wasn't true, these terrorists could easily turn their sights on other "Western" targets. But don't hold your breath. You will never see Al Qaeda attacking the likes of Japan, Switzerland or Austria, since these Western nations don't advance meddlesome and hegemonic foreign policies.
In fact, it's American taxpayers and Americans in uniform who are the unwitting fools in this whole scenario. America is a captive bride, the victim of an arranged marriage which, at its core, is actually loveless. The Israeli affection for the United States is born of political necessity. And their distrust of the American people is unmistakable. This is why we Americans, the "great friends of Israel", are subjected to continuous Holocaust propaganda as well as other kosher narratives day in and day out. America's once modest pride and sense of fairnes! s has given way to collective hubris, guilt and arrogance. Gentleness, fair play and humility do not mesh well with war.How else do you explain the manufactured alarm over one small country's ambition to develop nuclear energy (Iran), while its famously besieged neighbor confiscates land and water by force, systematically destroys non-Jewish property, launches a full-scale international invasion over the kidnapping of two armed soldiers, and moves defiantly towards enlarging its already terrifying arsenal of nuclear weapons?
Do you see a happy ending on the horizon?
More perverse still, our very own news media is determined to circulate the false news that it's the U.S., not Israel, which is most threatened by Iran's tiny step into the atomic age. U.S. production of pro-Zionist spin simply never stops, since 'attitude management' on a national scale is a colossal job.Our Israeli-centric cultural values have created a swelling distortion in our nation's intellectual and political climate, which brings us back to the obsessive use of that overwrought and overused term, "anti-Semitism" .
Why the fancy lingo?
After all, those other Semites aren't at all what that unique term is designed to cover. So why the misleading label?
The sacred taboo shields Jews exclusively, so why the avoidance of plain language?
Because plain language tends to undermine vital myths and taboos. When one removes the anti-Semite boogeyman from the political arena, the non-Jewish critic is free to choose sides in a complex struggle involving Jews, Arabs, Persians and Americans. One then can one be legitimately anti-Jewish, pro-Jewish, whatever, just as one can be pro- or anti-Syrian, or pro- or anti-war, or pro- or anti-Republican. Seek peace. Cultivate your alliances. The presumed 'Original Sin' of anti-Semitism (concerning Jews) must be lifted from the American Mind. Only then can freedom-of-choice return to the intellectual marketplace. !
Thereafter, political discourse goes guilt-free. The playing field becomes level again. And finally, the option--the necessity--of exploring pro-Israel excess in American politics is legitimately on the table, where it belongs.Let's agree and state openly that hostility against Jews because of their genetic profile, economic status, or religious beliefs is utterly wrong. Unprovoked violence against any and all is unacceptable. But special protections and special privileges are a dangerous step in the direction of racial supremacism.The "anti-Semitism" taboo has become an abused privilege.
The taboo assures that certain conduct and behavior (guided by Jewish self-interest) is beyond criticism. The charge, or veiled threat, of anti-Semitism succeeds by insinuation. The accusation, the suspected "whiff" is designed is to render critics guilty of 'bad character' automatically.
As a political tactic it is brilliant, since it manages to keep millions whispering among themselves rather than speaking out publicly.
These chains must be broken.When that day comes, will America regain enough independence of mind to re-evaluate its national prerogatives? It's possible.
But the Israel conundrum is surely our greatest challenge. Certainly, all military alliances must be earned. And the double-standards must end, as well.Indeed, the preferential treatment we accord the Jewish State would be illegal if practiced openly within the U.S., since it violates Constitutional provisions mandating equal treatment under the law, as well as the separation of Church (and Synagogue) from State. Isn't it about time our nation started respecting the world's Semitic peoples outside our borders equally, as we're required to do towards the many different ethnic and religious groups living within our borders?
This is the core problem: America's "special relationship" with the Jewish State is all about giving Israel an advantage over its adversaries. And to maintain this preference, we Americans are subjected to a continuous drumbeat of noise involving anti-Semitism, The Holocaust, Islamo-fascism, Nazism and so on. This unending, repetitive chatter subliminally softens us towards bending in the direction of Tel Aviv.
Without saying so, Israel requires (and gets) special consideration from Americans each and every day.
The latest "crisis" concerning Iran's quest for nuclear energy/weapons is a valuable example of how this political reflex works.
Here the message is clear but mixed: Iranians, Iraqis and non-Jews in the Middle East can't be trusted with nuclear deterrence. But Israel?
Your nukes are absolutely fabulous, babe.No doubt about it: Israel is not only America's most coddled ally, but Israeli-Americans enjoy government-sanctioned, special treatment.
Their Semitic cousins on the other hand are the political equivalent of a leper colony.
Which brand of Anti-Semitism will YOU be buying? President Bush's brand calls for an American-style Jihad against "Islamic fascism", even though Christians and Muslims have successfully coexisted in the Middle East for centuries.
But this was before the Jewish State was invented.
Polling data confirms that Arab Christians throughout the Middle East resent Zionized America every bit as much as their Muslim counterparts. Clearly then, the escalating tension between America and the Arab world does not involve theological differences or America's much-ballyhooed "freedoms". The core issue for millions of Arabs and Persians alike concerns longstanding U.S. policies which favors Israeli interests over those of its neighbors. Foremost, this includes the festering, unresolved issue of Palestine.Therefore, what's desperately needed now is more responsible criticism of America's Israeli-centric policies, not less.
Due to political pressures, anti-Zionist commentators and journalists have been sidelined.
No wonder there's so little public discussion on this vital topic: would-be critics have been purged or unfairly smeared.
Under normal circumstances, those waging war, dissembling propaganda, and confiscating lands are required to justify their actions, not the victims.
Yet pro-Israeli American culture has turned this tradition on its head.This undermines our nation's sovereignty, democratic institutions, and the rule of law.
=====Mark Green is a former TV talk show host. Send comments to: MarkGreen@flashpoin http://www.zundelsi persecuted/ sept14-06. html
A very interesting article...........

Nation revisited No.25.Doc

Playing the Patriot Game UKRAP party of chinless wonders.

UKIP the anti-Euro party has been ordered by the Electoral Commission to repay donations of over a third of a million pounds from non-UK sources. It appears that they have been illegally funded from abroad. It would be interesting to know where their supporters are based; it would be bitterly ironic if it turned out to be anywhere in Europe.

Nigel Farage their perpetual parliamentary poll-losing leader says that repaying the money could bankrupt the party. But UKIP is well supported and they enjoy the backing of most of the newspapers. That’s apart from the salaries of their Euro MPs that are supposed to be put into the coffers.

A national party with wealthy backers and well salaried members ought not to be pleading poverty. Almost certainly their latest appeal for funds will succeed and they will survive to vote against the genuine patriots of the ITS bloc who are fighting to stop Third World immigration into Europe.

If they do fold they will join their distinguished predecessors in a political graveyard that already contains the Anti-Common Market League and the Referendum Party. The anti-Euro movements have been campaigning for over thirty years, through seven general elections and six prime minister without success.

And while they have been agonizing over British independence we have been invaded by millions of immigrants from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. While they have wasted millions of pounds on pointless propaganda we have bought a defence system from America that costs billions and will never be used.

While those playing the patriot game have gone into paranoid raptures over what to call the metal tokens in our pockets we have sent our soldiers to die in American wars and lent our support to the rape of Palestine and Lebanon.

If people want to support a political party that is their choice. But no tears should be shed for the demise of so-called patriots who care nothing for their country’s reputation. Our part in the bombing of Serbia and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are shameful; and our complicity in Israeli aggression is indefensible.

We heard little from UKIP about immigration, except for the suggestion that we balance exported Brits with imported blacks. We heard nothing from them about Trident or the “special relationship” that keeps dragging us into war. All we have heard from this party of bankrupt jingoists is a tirade of negative propaganda.
Their passing would go unnoticed.

Conrad Black’s Alternative

In 1985 media mogul and biographer Conrad Black added “The Daily Telegraph” to his international portfolio. In 2001 he renounced his Canadian citizenship in order to accept Tony Blair’s generous offer of a peerage. He was nominated by his old friend and fellow conservative Margaret Thatcher and duly created Lord Black of Crossharbour.

Black was the world’s second biggest newspaper owner after Rupert Murdoch. He was an associate of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and closely connected to the “New American Century” group surrounding President George Bush.

But at the height of his power in 2003 he was ousted from the board of his company Hollinger International under allegations of financial irregularities and faces fraud charges in the United States involving $2 billion. A tentative trial date has been set for March 5, 2007.

Black used his hundreds of newspapers in Canada, the United States, Britain and Israel to push the neo-conservative, pro Zionist views that he shares with his journalist wife Barbara Amiel. She is beginning to have doubts about America:
“American justice? It’s only a TV show. At best, unlike television, look for justice in the jury box, not in the prosecutor’s office.” (Macleans).

His newspaper “The Jerusalem Post” called for the assassination of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. An incitement to murder that clearly violated Israeli criminal law but no charge was ever brought.

He wrote an article in “The Daily Telegraph” urging Britain to quit the EU and join NAFTA. It was entitled “Britain’s final choice: Europe or America?” He wrote: “If the United States received a signal from a British government that it wished to avail itself of a North American option, they would respond immediately … If America were jubilant, Canada would be ecstatic.”

Lord Black has long since relinquished control of his British newspapers to the Barclay brothers but “The Daily Telegraph” is still haunted by his presence and remains a strong supporter of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a fierce critic of the EU.

Those of us who read the paper before Conrad Black’s era remember it as a conservative but independent voice. It supported the Tory Party but covered the full spectrum of views within the party from Ted Heath to Enoch Powell. What remains is a pale shadow of the old newspaper; it’s now just a posh version of “The Sun” but without the page three girls.

Views on The News

All political parties are founded with particular objectives, but in order to be electable they have to appeal to the masses and they inevitably trim their policies to suit a wider audience. The Labour Party dropped nationalization, their core principle, in order to win the 1997 general election. The Tories have ditched immigration control and the privatization of health and education. The Liberal Democrats have sacked their popular leader in response to a malicious press campaign; and the formerly fascist BNP has rebranded itself as an anti-Muslim populist party. Now UKIP are working on their new image. Dave Cameron described them as: “a bunch of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists,” and another Tory described John Redwood’s Euro-sceptic supporters as: “a swivel-eyed barmy army from ward eight of Broadmoor.”

Only days after Tony Blair announced that 1,600 British troops would be withdrawn from Iraq it was announced that we are sending 1,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. The cynical way that Blair broke the news shows that he has abandoned any pretence of pandering to the masses. He is seeing out his last days like an Oriental potentate issuing decrees from the royal palace and surrounded by a bodyguard of sycophantic eunuchs. If he suddenly ordered the firstborn of every generation to be slaughtered Gordon Brown would nod in prudent agreement and the Tories would support it in the national interest.

Tony Blair has volunteered Britain for America’s latest anti-missile system, the second generation Patriot or Star Wars system. During the first Gulf War in 1991 America sold the Patriot system to Israel and Saudi Arabia to defend them against Iraq’s ageing Scud missiles. They failed to stop an Iraqi Scud attack on the American base at Dhahram, Saudi Arabia that killed 28 soldiers. President George Bush Snr defended the system and claimed that it was 97% accurate.
But a year later Professor Reuben Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University testified to a US Senate Committee that the Patriot system was less than 10% effective.
Tony Blair is about to spend several billion pounds on another military mistake that probably doesn’t work and will never be used.

The Six Nations rugby match between Ireland and England at Croke Park marked a new chapter in Anglo Irish relations. The stadium is the home of the Gaelic Athletic Association and the scene of the 1920 atrocity in which fourteen were gunned down by British forces during Ireland’s war of independence. All armies both national and revolutionary have committed war crimes. They can never be excused and they should not have happened. We must accept the past and look to the future. It’s time for us to forget ancient quarrels and stand together as our continent is overwhelmed by the teeming masses of the Third World. There’s more at stake than flags and anthems.

The Political Roots of Drug Crime

The recent spate of drug-related killings in the UK can be traced to the political violence in Jamaica. In the Seventies the left wing People’s National Party government of Michael Manley imposed a levy on bauxite that angered the Americans. When he vowed to realign Jamaica with neighbouring Cuba they reacted by backing the rival Jamaica Labour Party of Edward Seaga.

The CIA armed Seaga’s supporters and pumped millions of dollars into his 1980 election campaign. This resulted in political violence that still simmers and occasionally breaks out, as it did in the riots of 2001. Michael Seaga won the 1980 election amidst a hail of bullets and accusations of vote rigging.

The Americans completed their anti-communist sweep of the West Indies with Operation Urgent Fury in 1983 when they invaded Grenada and assassinated Maurice Bishop the leader of the People’s Revolutionary Government that had been installed by the coup d’etat of 1979.

When young men are armed to the teeth and beyond the law they inevitably turn to drug running. This happened in Northern Ireland, in Colombia, in Afghanistan, in the West Indies and now in London, Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester.

Trinidad and Tobago is currently torn by political violence between the ruling African dominated People’s National Movement and the East Indian supported United National Congress. Just as in Jamaica the armed gangs of both parties are heavily into drugs – in this case the trans-shipment of Cocaine from South America.

It is the sons and grandsons of the politically motivated drug gangs of the West Indies who are shooting each other in the UK. Once again American foreign policy has solved one problem and created another. By flooding Jamaica with guns in the Seventies they have created the armed gangs that now rule our streets.

Of course not all the drug dealers are black; there are plenty of Asian and white kids who prefer to make hundreds of pounds a day rather than stacking shelves for a minimum wage. But the gun culture of our cities can be directly traced to the CIA.

This problem will not be solved by well-meaning social workers or by well-armed cops. Its time to face reality and start talking to the Jamaican government about retraining and resettling disaffected youngsters.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Where is 'Northern Nazi' off VNN?

VNN guestbook are asking where this idiot is now. Now, I don't normally bother about the usual idiots, but this one you see, made some very personal accusations against me .

He made them on a public forum........VNN UK.

I now understand he is called Mark Hammill (sp).

But the main point is, he was the Rochdale BNP treasurer , and the Rochdale Organiser of the BNP knew it !

I thought Kev Bryan was a friend. Bryan knew this info for ages.

Unfortunately, RochdaleBNP is run by Kev Bryan, one who should know better. Bryan has crossed me many times, in his support for Nick Griffin, in the past.

He even had BNP legend Ken Henderson, take a picture together with traitor Nick Griffin, to try and piss me off.

I still have the whom does it piss off most ?

Who now supports Griffin ?

The Oldham nationalist bods are now coughing up their poisonous pro- Griffin supporters, including some who have been there since 'we' started (Hello Alan). You do remember me , you have 'slagged me off' on the web and elsewhere.

The usual ones including 'Alan', we know about, they must be thrown out of any positions . Due to their low intelligence and complete lack of political ideology.

And, at last, they have coughed up some git called 'Simmo', who is a spotty kid who lives with his Mum, to behave himself, for slagging me off incessantly !

The age of the Griffinite idiot Treacy is gone.

Revenge is best served cold !

Griffin gets punched - why the cover-up ?

There seems to be odd goings on about this escapades reportings.

Also, what do readers think about this comment from Joe Owens on VNN ;

"Why no mention of Griffin being attacked on BNP website? Is it becouse it was Nationlists over a large amount of money Griffin borrowed, that he ain't paid back? Thread closed on Stormfront?"

To quote peadophile writer ,Lewis Carroll ; "curioser and curioser".

Saturday, February 24, 2007

BNP leadership challenge ?

These rumours and talk will just not go away. There is still the odd comment on boards like Stormfront UK, about possible challenges to that despot, and 'sell-out', Nick Griffin.

I, for one, rue the day I helped him get elected !

This site will support any challenge in the BNP that supports the BNP policies BEFORE Griffin.

We have heard that the names Jonathan Bowden and Eddy Butler are 'popping-up'.

'Heaven bloody forbid' these two clowns get the leadership of the BNP.

It will be compulsory wearing of cumerbunds and dickie bows, at BNP meetings, and cocktail gowns for the Ladies, if they get in.

I cannot see that happening in the real heartlands of racial nationalism such as Halifax, Bradford, Burnley or Oldham..

* For info about Eddy Butler, it was my fault this 'record breaking' boring speaker came from my area (Stockport) when I was the NF North West Regional Organiser.

Butler supports blacks in the UK. That's enough for me to know Butler.

The radical right might have the best speakers, but we also have the most boring too. I name Eddy Butler and Andrew Brons. Brons is honest though !

Urgent, please sign this

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Repeal the 1972 European Communities ACT and withdraw the UK from the EU.

I propose that the 1972 European Communities Act should be repealed on the basis that Britain is a net financial contributer to the European Union to the tune of many £billions each year to no advantage to the British people.

This is money which would be far better spent for the benefit of British citizens.

Over 70%% of our laws are now made in the EU by people the UK electorate have little or no control over. Our imigration policy is being increasingly decided by the EU and due to the EU's 'open borders' we cannot decide for ourselves who lives or works in the UK.

This is additional to the masses of red tape, rules, directives and regulations being imposed upon us by the EU which is doing our UK businesses much harm. We believe Britain would be much better off out of the EU.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Oh dear oh dear !

Seems that BNP 'lightweight' and all round poisonous bloke, Richard Chadfield, has been sacked from his BNP position down Tameside way.

What goes around comes around, right Richard ?

Chadfield is speaking at a Rochdale NF march in 1983 in the above picture. Though since then, he has even called for having non-whites in the BNP !

How long will Roy Goodwin last ?

NorthWest BNP Organiser Roy Goodwin, now has FIVE charges being laid against him by fellow BNP members.
Can he ride out the storm ?
Certainly this site has seen better members holding the position of Regional Organiser in the North West.
Some very sad news folks...........

it has come to our attention that Oldham BNP stalwart BILL LOCKETT has died .

Bill was the very first BNP candidate to stand when we formed Oldham BNP in the late 1990's, he got over 10% in a first time out foray into the local elections.

More detail to follow................

Halifax bye election result

Calderdale a Labour hold

Lab 1104

BNP 1034

Con 525

LibDem 150

Ind 68

NWN: What has happened to the 'Griffin effect' ?

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Good luck to our friends in Halifax tonight - Halifax bye-election !

This could be a very good result for the BNP, and there are still some very good people involved in Halifax.
Helping Israel die !

I draw your urgent and careful attention to the below forwarding from Rev. Stephen Sizer.

You may remember reports a couple of years ago of Ariel Sharon's boast that "WE control the policy of the United States..."This article, "Helping Israel Die) by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, gives the psychological/religious background for this boast.

We all know about the financial relationship between American political parties/presidential candidate and Zionist organisations in the USA, but there is a psychological/religious background to the set-up as well which cannot be under-estimated.The "Christian-Zionist" nexus is amazingly powerful. We under-estimate its influence on account of the increasingly secular approach to politics (apart from the Jews!) which obtains here in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

But in religion-crazed -- or should one says crazy-religion obsessed -- USA, "religion" is a very potent force.

President George W. Bush is deeply embedded in that lunacy. It has replaced the alcoholism of his earlier years.ALL of this article is well worth reading (essential, if you want to catch the context) but the passages which follow the "Compassion Deficit Disorder" sub-heading are especially powerful and shocking.

I hope you can circulate this to all and sundry.I have broken up the author's paragraphs to facilitate on-screen comprehension. Otherwise, the text is unnaltered.Regards,Martin Webster.================================================

From: Stephen Sizer Reply-To: To: Stephen Sizer Date: Sunday, February 18, 2007 5:50 PM

Subject: Helping Israel Die

Helping Israel Dieby Ray McGovern [a CIA analyst for 27 years] President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are unwittingly playing Dr. Jack Kevorkian in helping the state of Israel commit suicide. For this is the inevitable consequence of the planned air and missile attack on Iran.The pockmarked, littered landscape in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan and the endless applicant queues at al-Qaeda and other terrorist recruiting stations testify eloquently to the unintended consequences of myopic policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv. Mesmerized. Sadly, this is the best word to describe those of us awake to the inexorable march of folly to war with Iran and the growing danger to Israel's security, especially over the medium and long term. An American and/or Israeli attack on Iran will let slip the dogs of war. Those dogs never went to obedience school. They will not be denied their chance to bite, and Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons will be powerless to muzzle them. In my view, not since 1948 has the very existence of Israel hung so much in the balance. Can Bush/Cheney and the Israeli leaders not see it? Pity that no one seems to have read our first president's warning on the noxious effects of entangling alliances. The supreme irony is that in their fervor to help, as well as use, Israel, Bush and Cheney seem blissfully unaware that they are leading it down a garden path and off a cliff. Provoke and Pre-empt Whether it is putting the kibosh on direct talks with Iran or between Israel and Syria, the influence and motives of the Vice President are more transparent than those of Bush.Sure, Cheney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer recently that the administration's Iraq policy would be "an enormous success story", but do not believe those who dismiss Cheney as "delusional". He and his neoconservative friends are crazy like a fox. They have been pushing for confrontation with Iran for many years, and saw the invasion of Iraq in that context.Alluding to recent U.S. military moves, Robert Dreyfuss rightly describes the neocons as "crossing their fingers in the hope that Iran will respond provocatively, making what is now a low-grade cold war inexorably heat up".

But what about the President?

How to explain his fixation with fixing Iran's wagon?

Cheney's influence over Bush has been shown to be considerable ever since the one-man search committee for the 2000 Vice Presidential candidate picked Cheney. The Vice President can play Bush like a violin. But what strings is he using here?

Where is the resonance?

Experience has shown the President to be an impressionable sort with a roulette penchant for putting great premium on initial impressions and latching onto people believed to be kindred souls -- be it Russian President Vladimir Putin (trust at first sight), hail-fellow-well-met CIA director George Tenet or oozing-testosterone-from-every-pore former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Of particular concern was his relationship with Sharon. Retired General Brent Scowcroft, a master of discretion with the media, saw fit to tell London's 'Financial Times' two and a half years ago that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized" and "wrapped around his little finger".As chair of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush and national security adviser to his father, Scowcroft was uniquely positioned to know -- and to draw comparisons. He was summarily fired after making the comments about Sharon and is now persona non grata at the White House.

Compassion Deficit Disorder George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister and took Bush on a helicopter tour over the Israeli occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006 McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks: "If there's a starting point for George W. Bush's attachment to Israel, it’s the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, 'Amazing Grace'.

He was very emotional.

It was a tear-filled experience.

He brought Israel back home with him in his heart.

I think he came away profoundly moved."

Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council (NSC) on January 30, 2001.

After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit.At that point he brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of the Palestinians. In A Pretext for War James Bamford quotes Bush:"Looked real bad down there", he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end America's efforts in the region. "I don't see much we can do over there at this point," he said. So much for the Sermon on the Mount. The version I read puts a premium on actively working for justice. There is no suggestion that tears suffice. Then-Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, who was at the NSC meeting, reported that Colin Powell, the newly-minted but nominal Secretary of State, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of longstanding policy.Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and "the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians". But according to O'Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things".

O'Neill says that Powell seemed "startled". It is a safe bet that the Vice President was in no way startled.

A similar account reflecting Bush's compassion deficit disorder leaps from the pages of Ron Susskind's 'The One Percent Doctrine'.Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia'ss de facto leader was in high dudgeon in April 2002 when he arrived in Crawford to take issue with Bush's decision to tilt toward Israel and scrap the American role of honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.With Bush's freshly bestowed "man-of-peace" epithet for Sharon still ringing in his ear, Abdullah began by insisting that the president and his aides watch a 15-minute video. It showed the mayhem on the West Bank, American-made tanks, bloodied and dead children, screaming mothers.Then, still wordless, they all filed into another room where the Saudis proceeded to make specific demands, but Bush appeared distracted and was non-responsive. After a few minutes, the president turned to Abdullah and said, "Let's go for a drive. Just you and me. I'll show you the ranch".

Bush was so obviously unprepared to discuss substance with his Saudi guests that some of the President's aides checked into what had happened. The briefing packet for the president had been diverted to Cheney's office. Bush never got it, so he was totally unaware of what the Saudis hoped to accomplish in making the trip to Crawford.(There is little doubt that this has been a common experience over the past six years and that there are, in effect, two "deciders" in the White House, one of them controlling the paper flow.)

Not that Bush was starved for background briefings. Indeed, he showed a preference to get them from Prime Minister Sharon who, with his senior military aide, General Yoav Galant, briefed the President both in Crawford (in 2005) and the Oval Office (in 2003) on Iran's "nuclear weapons program".Sorry if I find that odd. That used to be our job at the CIA. I'll bet Sharon and Galant packed a bigger punch. There is, no doubt, more at play in Bush's attitude and behavior regarding Israel and Palestine. One need not be a psychologist to see ample evidence of oedipal tendencies.

It is no secret that the President has been privately critical of what he perceives to be his father's mistakes.

Susskind notes, for example, that Bush defended his tilt toward Israel by telling an old foreign policy hand, "I'm not going to be supportive of my father and all his Arab buddies!"And it seems certain that Ariel Sharon gave the young Bush an earful about the efforts of James Baker, his father's Secretary of State, to do the unthinkable; i.e., crank Arab grievances into deals he tried to broker between Israel and the Palestinians. It seems clear that this is one reason the Baker-Hamilton report was dead on arrival. With Friends Like This... George W. Bush may have the best of intentions in his zeal to defend Israel, but he and Cheney have the most myopic of policies.

Israeli leaders risk much if they take reassurance from the President's rhetoric, particularly vis-à-vis Iran.I am constantly amazed to find, as I speak around the country, that the vast majority of educated Americans believe we have a defense treaty with Israel. We don't, but one can readily see how it is they are misled. Listen to the president exactly two years ago: "Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And, in that Israel is our ally [sic] -- and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel -- we will support Israel if her security is threatened."

We do no favors for Israeli leaders in giving them the impression they have carte blanche in their neighborhood -- especially as regards Iran -- and that we will bail them out, no matter what.

Have they learned nothing from the recent past?

Far from enhancing Israel's security, the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Washington's encouragement of Israel's feckless attack on Lebanon last summer resulted in more breeding ground for terrorist activity against Israel.

This will seem child's play compared to what would be in store, should the US and/or Israel bomb Iran.

Bottom line: there is a growing threat to Israel from suicide bombers. The most dangerous two work in the White House.

------------------------------------------------------- *Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Y uno mas !
Our Spanish friends are very busy. The above is the latest meeting in Barcelona this coming weekend. This group is linked with Pedro Varela.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Limey cousins,

fellow Anglophiles Martin and Greg:

Here is a long piece I sent to "John Bull" whose column appeared in "Right Now" squabbling over some things he said about the US and its policies toward Britain.

Sam Dickson.........

Dear John Bull,

Only tonight did I get around to reading your farewell peace in the last issue of "Right Now."

I am an American. A real one. One whose ancestors were here - with only one exception - long before the War for Independence.

One who served in the Army and whose ancestors fought in every single war this country has fought.

While like most Americans whose ancestors have been here for a longtime I am a mutt - with more French Huguenot blood than real English - I and my family have always been Anglophile Americans.

I was born a couple of years after WW II. My father sent his sister my baby picture. Under it he had scrawled, "This is my answer to Hitler.> Another Anglo-Saxon is born!"

Well, maybe not entirely or even predominantly Anglo-Saxon with a father whose Christian name was "Bonneau" for a French Huguent martyr from whom he claimed descent but you get the picture of where the heart lay...and still lies.

Anyway, that's the background.

Given all that, I read your comments under "A Result To Celebrate" in complete unanimity with the sentiments but with considerable dissent from some of the historical details.

You are absolutely right - alas! - about the fact that the American government is Britain's enemy and has been for generations.

One of the first things that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor was to issue an executive order changing the terms of Lend Lease. Since he didn't have to worry any more about Britain making a separate peace with Germany, he ordered that effective immediately Britain was to receive no industrial equipment, no tools, no petroleum drilling equipment. No.The ONLY thing Britain would receive henceforth was guns and bullets with which to enable British soldiers and sailors to do the dying.

(This is related, surprisingly enough, in a book published by Penguin entitled "Post War Britain.")

The intent of this - as with FDR's conditions for Lend Lease imposed on his lap poodle from the get-go that Imperial Preferences had to be abolished so as to enable American industry to steal your markets - was to insure that after the war Britain would be an economic basket case.

So much for the "special relationship" and the "Franklin-Winston> friendship" the history books and media gush on and on about.

However, you might be surprised that this kind of sentimental gushing is just as prevalent on this side of the Atlantic as on Mother England's side.

Not one American in a hundred knows any of this. If you tried to tell this to the average American, he would be indignant and think you were a liar. He believes as sincerely and naively in "the special relationship"as his silly, besotted cousins in the Old World.

Furthermore, unfortunately you are wrong - quite wrong - in some of the fact statements you make about American entrance into World Wars One and Two.

For instance, you said:

"The US only entered these wars when she was herself attacked, and she did not enter to help us but to serve her own interests."

The first half of this statement is simply wrong. The second half -if it were only true! - would scarcely be surprising. Nations do generally act in their own interests.

Let's take a look first at whether the US only entered these wars when she was attacked.

World War I:

You cite the sinking of the Lusitania as the attack which led the US to enter the war. However, as you correctly note, the Lusitania was sunk in 1915. This was 2 years BEFORE the US declaration of war on Imperial Germany.

While the lies of the "Hun barbarity" in the sinking of the Lusitania were certainly used by the anti-German media in America to stir up hatred for Germany, it can scarcely be seriously contended that a German submarine attack on a British munitions ship in 1915 constitued a German "attack on the US."

Wilson lied about the sinking of the Lusitania, of course, to make cynical use of the dead American passengers in order to move America closer to entering the war, a goal he had set from almost the beginning. But it scarcely qualifies as a German attack on America when the Lusitania was not even an American ship but a BRITISH ship.

You are correct when you say that Wilson ran for re-election on the slogan "He kept us out of war" but even the official histories admit (or rather gloat) that this was just a smokescreen to deceive the gullible two-legged sheep to re-elect him. He didn't believe a word of it. And it means less than nothing in telling us why America entered the First World War.

Why then did the US enter World War One?

What event finally brought America into the war on the Allied side?

It was not any interest of the native born American farmers in South Carolina like my ancestors alive at that time. Nor of American workers nor really of "American" businessmen.

The answer to the question of what brought us into the war is the Balfour Declaration.

The Allies promised Palestine to the Zionists. The Zionists promised America to the Allies.

Who says this? Some wild, rabid anti-semite? The newsletter of the American Nazi Party?

Hardly. For one thing, they don't have sense enough to tell this story.

Chaim Weitzman, the first President of Israel says it in his autobiography. And he should know. He was there at the time and, as he tells us, he was involved in the Balfour Declaration up to his eyeballs.

The America of the naive, simple, trusting WASP farmer, worker and professional classes was simply bought, sold and delivered by the Jewish minority we so generously and kindly admitted into countrty...with full rights of citizenship the minute they stepped off the bagel boat from Poland.

This was their repayment to us for our generosity and kindness.

Louis Brandeis and the handlers of President Wilson - of the same cloth as the current neo-conservative handlers of poor dumb Bush - guided their stooge into the war. And it paid off handsomely for them.

But in terms of any real American interest, there was none.

There was simply no reason at all why America should have entered World War One.

Contrary to what you wrote, America DID enter World War One without ever being attacked. We simply declared war on a Germany which had never done one thing to us...except to enter into negotiations with Mexico about a possible defensive alliance after years of American hostility towardGermany had made it evident that the US was going to declare war on Germany eventually regardless of how blameless Germany was.

Real Americans got zilch from that war. Nothing. Nada. No national interest in it for us at all.


Well, then! What about World War Two?

Pretty much the same.

The only difference being that with Hitler personifying Germany, it's so much harder to discuss such matters objectively. The Kaiser just never rose to the same level of bogeyman as Hitler so after World War One there was a much greater cooling off period in which for a few years at least Americans caught on to how Wilson had cynically and corruptly worked with his non-American handlers to involve us in something which was none of our business and of no benefit to us.

In saying that the US only entered World War Two after it was attacked, you are fortunate in having a superficially clearer case, at least to the average American's or Briton's mind, in Pearl Harbor as opposed to the clearly untenable Lusitania sinking in World War One.

But this clearer case dissolves upon examination.

First off, the US had already entered the war on Britain's side long before Pearl Harbor.

Granted, this was not done by open, honest, public declaration of war on Germany but by covert, dishonest, secret maneuverings.

Long before Pearl Harbor FDR entered the Second World War on Britain's side by, among other things, the following:

1. Landing US troops in Greenland and Iceland to take over those countries, deny access to them to Germany, free Britain from the necessity of tying her own troops up there and to insure Britain the use of Iceland in her sea blockade of Germany.

2. Stationing US troops in Ulster so as to free up British troops there. Yes. This did happen. The average American didn't know then that it was happening and doesn't know it today. Nowadays, he is so brain-dead he wouldn't understand what this means anyway and would be happy about it. Sending troops to Ireland to replace British garrisons so they could be freed for combat against Germans is an act of war.

If Iran had sent troops to the Kurdish areas of Iraq to free up Iraqi units to fight Americans in Bush's war in 2002, this would have been rightly regarded by the US and Britain as an act of war. You can't station troops on the soil of one belligerent to free up garrisons for combat without being justly deemed to be yourself a participant in the war.

3. Even clearer: FDR issued orders to the American Navy to monitor any German ship encountered on the high seas, to track such ships and to do so ostentaciously (obviously trying to concoct an incident) and to radio information to the British Navy so they could come in and sink them.There is, I believe, even some evidence that FDR actually had American ships sink German subs if the British couldn't get to them. But that isn't as clear.

Nevertheless, a country which acts in concert with a combatant to sink the ships of another beligerent is no longer a neutral.

Such a country has gone to war. Such actions are rightly deemed to be acts of war justifying a declaration of war by the country whose ships are the targets.

So FDR did enter World War Two before any act of hostilities on the part of the Axis. Pearl Harbor came much later and was an answer to his prayers when Hitler would not oblige FDR with the declaration of war he tried so hard to provoke.

What about America's interests in World War Two?

Did we have any?

Even asking such a question is politically incorrect today because of the Holocaust. It is now simply admitted that America owed it to the Jews to stop the alleged genocide and to go to war for that reason.

But let's leave political correctness to others. We are free born Anglo-Saxon adults talking to each other about grown-up business.

Real Americans had as little interest in going to war against Germany and Italy in World War Two as they had in going to war against Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War One.

Why was FDR so hot to fight?

One can't help but observe that he also was surrounded by his own version of Wilson's Brandeis and House and Bush's neo-cons. Morgenthau of the infamous Morganthau Plan. Harry Dexter "White." And legions of others around him and his odious blood-thirsty wife.

You are right about FDR. He was no sentimental anglophile.

FDR hated Britain and probably felt the same way about Churchill.

But he was no cynical, ruthless American nationalist. He could get down right teary-eyed and sentimental about some matters.

People and things like Uncle Joe Stalin and - to use one of his favorite phrases - "the Soviet form of democracy."

FDR was only too happy to further the interests of the Soviet Union even at the expense of his own country's.

What did the average WASP American whose sons did the fighting inWorld War One get out of Yalta?

Nothing but decades of crushing taxation, a huge bloated standing army maintained by the drafting of 2 generations of young Americans. Endless tensions and confrontations.

That's all Yalta brought us.

But Uncle Joe sure hit pay dirt with it!

And I'm sure FDR would have had a warm glow about it had he not had his cerebral hemorhage and dropped dead in April, 1945.

Before we leave off hair-splitting about factual details, it must be said that you are absolutely right on the Suez affair. But once again America was acting in unison with the Soviet Union and against not merely Britain's interests but also the genuine interests of the founding stock of our own nation. Isn't it interesting that Ike and the Soviets were cooperating together at Suez at about the same time that (a) Soviet troops were crushing the Hungarians and (b) Ike was dispatching American troops to confront the children of his own citizens at bayonet point in Little Rock, Arkansas? This sure doesn't seem to fit the image of America as the Cold WarCrusader Against Communism, does it? Poor average American dumb-dumbs. They just don't seem to get the picture.

Enough, enough.

Let's end on a happier note, something you and I who should be comrades and friends and not disputants will both approve.

The outbreak of the Falklands War found the US government of Ronald Reagan pursuing the usual anti-European, anti-British policies which have been the standard operating procedures for America for the last 5 generations.

The initial move of the US government was not in favor of Britain. No. The US was going to back Argentina - a fellow American country - against the> Old World colonialists.

This policy was precipitously abandoned, however, in the face of an explosion of public sympathy with our cousins in Britain. Public opinion was so vehemently hostile to the Latin greasers that even a Britain hating US State Department had to back down and to do so as quickly as possible.

This event shows the potential for a genuine "special relationship",one based on unbreakable links of blood, history, culture and language.

But such a genuine special relationship between our America and its Mother Country can only come into being after real Americans and real Britons topple governments which are in truth antithetical to and adversarial toward the core population of each country.

In the unlikely event that you have actually waded through this letter - which has become many times longer than I ever anticipated it would be - I hope I have neither bored nor offended you.

Our little squabbles over these historical details are just an intellectual game between people who must be friends.

I will miss "Right Now." Its demise and that of "Spearhead" remove any political journalistic link to your country.

Sam Dickson Atlanta, Ga. Occupied USA/Occupied Dixie

New footage of JFK in Dallas released

DALLAS (Reuters) - Previously unreleased footage of John F. Kennedy's fateful motorcade in Dallas moments before he was gunned down was released on Monday, a surprising new detail in a saga that has gripped the United States for four decades.

The silent 8mm film shows a beaming Jacqueline Kennedy close up in vivid color waving to the crowd.
A group of excited bystanders -- women sporting big 1960s hairstyles -- waves to the cameraman shortly before the motorcade sweeps past.

The president's coat is clearly if briefly seen bunched up on his back -- a detail that will be scrutinized by conspiracy theorists who see evidence of a plot in, among other things, the fact the bullet wounds on his jacket and body did not appear to match.
For more plus the video see link..........
NWN : For the real killers of Kennedy, see the real rulers of the USA, not the puppets that we are told hold the strings of power.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Subject: Blacks & Toffs


I couldn't agree more.

What turns my guts is when I hear journalists and politicians whine on that these killings are "a sign that our society has broken...."OUR society????!!Our society (that is, the society of the indigenous white Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people of the British Isles) started to get systematically broken when Big Business and the parties in Westminster decided that the time had come to flood our island with the flotsam and jetsam of Afro-Asia, and when leftist/liberal "idealists" tried to feed us the notion that "tolerance" and "love" would overcome all the "short term" difficulties of racial integration.

Their mad multi-racial experiment has FAILED.

It is the murderous society of the multi-racialists that has broken. THEIR society -- not "our" society.

And it was not the murders of these savage young n*glets that has woken up the multi-racialists to a realisation of this failure. Oh no. They're no more compassionate about the fate of the negroes than they were about the fate of OUR folk 30 and 40 years ago when they were plunged into the multi-racial madhouse.

What woke them up were the murders last year of millionaire bankers in their own homes in posh Chelsea; of the activities of the "Rolex Gang" of n*gger robbers who followed wealthy people (identified by their £50,000 Rolex watches) from their nightclubs in the West End to their multi-million pound homes in the select suburbs. When the Rolex-wearers turned the key in their front doors, they suddenly found their homes invaded by savage apes who commenced a violence-loot-and-rape spree!

All this wasn't supposed to happen to THEM. No No!

This was the kind of awful thing one read about happening to the Working Classes in Inner City slums, my dear!

It was the lower orders who were to endure the agony of the alien invasion, not the wealthy elite who were able to derive short-term financial benefit from it!

If there has been a slight turn against immigration from elements of the "upper class" section of British society and from certain elements of the media, then it is because the toffs have come to realise that they are now not safe from the savagery of n*gger hoodlum robbers.

To paraphrase the Jew propagandist Ben Hecht: "Every time I hear one of the toffs has been raided, robbed, beaten-up (or worse) by a gang of n*ggers, I have a little holiday in my heart!"It couldn't happen to nicer, more deserving people!
Martin Webster

=======================Date: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:44 PMSubject: (no subject)

Hi Martin,Watching Sky news this morning on the Black on black killings, all I hear is the usual bunch of apologists (police, community leaders MP's etc) for the multi-racial sess pit that they have created, wine on about pathetic drivel such as it's the parent's (as if they have more then one) fault etc etc etc. Yesterday's Ape crime was all about Illegal immigrants killing other illegal ape's etc.john

February 16, 2007

The High-Fivers

More proof the Israelis were shadowing the 9/11 hijackers

by Justin Raimondo

It was the tail-end of a bleak November, 2001: a pall of shocked numbness hung over the country, and a rising war hysteria had nearly everyone cowed. Americans were just beginning to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and focus on what had happened, and how to react. It was very early on the morning of the 23rd when, scanning the headlines, I came across a Washington Post story by John Mintz: "60 Israelis Detained on Tourist Visas Since Sept. 11." Odd, I thought, why go after the Israelis, probably the least likely suspects?
The subhead was even more intriguing: "Government Calls Several Cases 'of Special Interest,’ Meaning Related to Post-Attacks Investigation."
Apparently organized groups of Israelis had been arrested, and "dozens" held without bond.
Inquiries to the Justice Department had yielded this response:"In several cases, such as those in Cleveland and St. Louis, INS officials testified in court hearings that they were 'of special interest to the government,’ a term that federal agents have used in many of the hundreds of cases involving mostly Muslim Arab men who have been detained around the country since the terrorist attacks.
"An INS official who requested anonymity said the agency will not comment on the Israelis. But he said the use of the term 'special interest’ means the case in question is 'related to the investigation of September 11th.’"
It wasn’t some anti-Semitic conspiracy crank sitting in his parents’ basement, or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who first linked Israeli nationals to the events of 9/11: it was the U.S. government, specifically its law enforcement arm.This I found utterly astonishing, because it was clear to me, at that point, that there was a link, albeit one largely unknown in its specifics. Why else were the feds casting their nets around for Israelis rather than Arabs, Persians, and, yes, Muslims?
There was more. The original Post piece was updated: the number of detained Israelis had risen to 120. I had been following the story in this space, and noting its significance, in the weeks before Carl Cameron broadcast his famous four-part report on Fox News, which exposed the extensive Israeli spy network in this country and opened with this electric charge:"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are – quote – 'tie-ins.' But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, – quote – 'evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.'"
The story, as it developed in the months – and years – to come, sent me down an investigative path that has yet to reach its endpoint. What we know is this: in the months prior to 9/11, bands of Israelis posing as "art students" had carried out what seemed like a coordinated probing of U.S. government facilities, including locations not known to the public. A secret government report detailing the activities of the "art students" – and their background as highly trained in explosives and the art of telecommunications interception – was leaked to the media, and the story was again in the headlines. But not for long.This is potentially one of the most important 9/11-related stories ever reported, and yet the number of serious investigative pieces done on it can hardly be counted on the fingers of one hand. has been following this from the outset, and you can go here for a complete archive of my columns on the subject, plus mainstream media pieces. Of particular interest is the coverage by The Forward, the oldest newspaper of the Jewish community in North America. They reported on one key aspect of the Israeli-9/11 connection: the story of the five employees of a moving van company apprehended hours after the twin towers were struck. They had been observed in Liberty State Park, New Jersey, overlooking the Hudson, with a clear view of the burning towers. A woman had seen them from the window of her apartment building overlooking the parking lot: they came out of a white van, and they were jumping up and down, high-fiving each other with obvious glee. Their mood, it could be said, was celebratory.
They were also filming the towers as they burned, and taking still photos.
The woman called the cops, who put out a "be on the lookout" alert. I’ll let Christopher Ketcham, author of a blockbuster new report appearing in Counterpunch, tell the rest of the story:
"At 3:56 p.m., twenty-five minutes after the issuance of the FBI BOLO, officers with the East Rutherford Police Department stopped the commercial moving van through a trace on the plates. According to the police report, Officer Scott DeCarlo and Sgt. Dennis Rivelli approached the stopped van, demanding that the driver exit the vehicle. The driver, 23-year-old Sivan Kurzberg, refused and 'was asked several more times [but] appeared to be fumbling with a black leather fanny pouch type of bag’. With guns drawn, the police then 'physically removed’ Kurzberg, while four other men – two more men had apparently joined the group since the morning – were also removed from the van, handcuffed, placed on the grass median and read their Miranda rights. They had not been told the reasons for their arrest. Yet, according to DeCarlo’s report, 'this officer was told without question by the driver [Sivan Kurzberg], 'We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.’ Another of the five Israelis, again without prompting, told Officer DeCarlo – falsely – that 'we were on the West Side Highway in New York City during the incident.'"This is, I believe, the most detailed account yet published of what actually happened that fateful day, and Ketcham clearly shows that the Israelis were certainly aware of why they had been stopped. The cops practically had to drag them out of the van at gunpoint, and it is surely suspicious that they immediately starting denying any role in "the incident." How did they know they weren’t being stopped for a traffic violation? No wonder they were held for 71 days, mostly in solitary confinement, and interrogated. Some repeatedly failed polygraph tests when questioned about possible surveillance activities.
The FBI agents who interrogated them reportedly called them "the high-fivers," because of their odd behavior at Liberty State Park. The Forward confirmed that the company they ostensibly worked for, Urban Moving Systems, of Weehawken, New Jersey, was in all likelihood a Mossad front. Dominik Suter, the owner, fled to Israel the day after a police raid on his office. The five detained Israelis were sent back to Israel, where they claimed to be innocent victims of harassment. Here they are on an Israeli talk show.
Of course they don’t mention any of the above, or that they were found to have multiple passports in their possession, along with $4,700 stuffed in a sock and maps of New York City highlighted in certain spots. Ketcham quotes one local law enforcement official as saying "It looked like they’re hooked in with this, it looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." Ketcham, utilizing the public record, news reports, and his own sources, has painted the clearest portrait yet of the "urban mover" Mossad cell, and how they shadowed the five hijackers who took over American Airlines flight 77, which struck the Pentagon to such devastating effect. Living, working, and socializing within a six-mile radius of Bergen County, these two groups circled each other until, on 9/11, as a dark pall fell over Manhattan and much of the rest of the world, one applauded the others’ handiwork. Ketcham’s story of how the FBI investigation was scotched by high-ups ought to outrage every patriotic American citizen. He cites a source at ABC News – which covered this story on 20/20 in a treatment I consider a whitewash – as saying "They feel the higher echelons torpedoed the investigation into the Israeli New Jersey cell. Leads were not fully investigated." The same source agrees with the general assessment of CIA officers, and intelligence experts such as James Bamford and Vincent Cannistraro, that Urban Moving Systems was a covert Israeli intelligence-gathering operation, most likely engaged in electronic interception and other means of spying on radical elements within Northern New Jersey’s Muslim milieu. In the course of this, and given their geographical proximity, it is not beyond reason to posit that the Urban Movers were watching the future hijackers, listening to their phone conversations, reading their emails, and otherwise keeping fully apprised of their activities. What made the Israelis jump for joy, as one counterintelligence officer is said to have put it, is that "The Israelis felt that in some way their intelligence had worked out – i.e., they were celebrating their own acumen and ability as intelligence agents."
The story of how this line of investigation was suppressed, both in the law enforcement community and in the media, is a saga in itself. I know that Ketcham worked on this story long and hard, and had supposedly firm commitments from both and The Nation to publish his work. Both projects were killed at the last minute, in one case an hour before it was scheduled to run. What’s particularly stupid, in the case of Salon, is that they ran his previous piece, on the "Israeli Art Student Mystery," years ago – and now refuse to follow up their own story. As for why the government investigation into the Israeli connection was scotched, Ketcham cites a former CIA counter-terrorism officer: "There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House."I have to tell you that it hasn’t been easy following this story over the years. I was told in the beginning, and in no uncertain terms, that this line of investigation is forbidden, that it’s "too hot to handle," and, implicitly, that the truth and the facts have to take second place to political correctness.
To even mention this story, in certain quarters, is considered prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism.
Case closed.
In spite of a determined effort on the part of some to redefine anti-Semitism to constrain critics of Israeli government actions, there is an equally determined pushback – a real movement to treat Israel as a nation like any other. That is, as a nation with its own interests, which, if truth be told, it pursues aggressively, and not only in the occupied territories and Lebanon, but also right here in the U.S. The story of Israel’s underground army in America – and its foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks – is based on facts, not fantasies, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism – and everything to do with establishing the full context of the worst terrorist attack in our history. 9/11 was the opening shot of a battle we are still fighting to this day, as our soldiers fall in Iraq, and the hints of a new front in our endless "war on terrorism" – Iran – are hardly subtle.
That signal event launched the war hysteria that has only lately begun to peter out.
One of the major reasons why the public has turned against the Iraq war has been the revelation that the "intelligence" we acquired about Iraq’s alleged "weapons of mass destruction" was manipulated, cherry-picked, and outright falsified in order to make the case for the invasion.
If it turns out that the Israelis really did know – that they picked up "chatter" from the groups they were watching, and gained fairly detailed knowledge of the hijackers’ plans – it will alter how we think about 9/11, and change our perception of the perpetual war that ensued.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Britain's Prince Harry

will be serving in southern

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said the Daily Mirror report was "entirely speculative" because no final decisions have been made on which units will relieve the 19th Light Brigade currently in Iraq.

She added that the next handover is not even due until around May.

But a senior military source told the Mirror that the decision has been made to send Harry, a second lieutenant in the Blues and Royals Regiment.

"The final details are being sorted, but he is definitely going. Naturally, his royal status has to be taken into account -- but he will see action," the source was quoted as saying.

Harry, 22, has made it clear he wants to be treated no differently from other officers he trained with at the elite Sandhurst Military Academy, from which he graduated last year.

Prince Harry is the second son of Prince Charles.

'The newspaper said Harry is likely to be in charge of a troop of 12 soldiers in light armoured vehicles who will likely spend days or even weeks out in the desert conducting reconnaissance missions.

It added that Defence Secretary Des Browne is expected to announce the news on February 26.
"He has insisted on being able to perform his duties as any other officer would. He won't be just flying a desk," said a senior military source quoted by the newspaper.

"As a young officer Harry will want to go to war as a point of pride. There would have been no point in him training for this if that was never going to happen," the source said.

A total of 132 Britons have died serving in Iraq since the US-led invasion in March 2003.
Some 7,100 British soldiers are currently deployed in Iraq, mainly in and around its second city of Basra, although the government in London says it hopes to withdraw "thousands" by the end of this year.
British forces are deployed in Iraq as part of the US-led coalition and have overall security responsibility for Basra and the surrounding region, where rival Shiite militias and criminal gangs are vying for supremacy.

NWN: There is no way that any member of royalty will be put in 'harms way'. Can we just imagine if Prince Harry was killed in action in Iraq ? Blair and his masters would crap themselves.The country would fall.

It is our distinct pleasure to post this picture of 'Jose Antonio' speaking in Southern Spain. Apparently, it is quite rare.

Spanish nationalists at the Valle de Los Caidos (Valley of the fallen, in the Spanish civil war 1936-1939 ). This is always held on the 20th November, to commemorate the murder by communists of Jose Antonio Primo De Rivera, at Alicante jail in 1936.

Jose Antonio was the leader of the Falange in Spain.

Ironically, 'Jose Antonio' was involved in serious discussions with Spanish anarchists at that time and many wanted him dead from 'both sides'. Both communists and reactionary conservatives were glad he was put up against a wall and shot.

I spoke with John Tyndall many times and discussed this issue about Jose Antonio many times, this guy (JA) could have been the 'bees knees'. He was from an aristocratic family, but was in favour of workers rights and power.

They march from central Madrid close to the Plaza Colon to the Valle de los Caidos about 30 miles outside Madrid in the Valderrama mountains.

A moving experience.

Friday, February 16, 2007

NWN note: En Castellano

para companeros Espanol ...............

A forthcoming meeting in Barcelona.

Click in the image to enlarge.

Arriba Espana !

NWN Presente !

Heroes of London Bridge including banker who lost his life confronting jihadis with a skateboard and nurse who died running towards dange...