Martin Webster email on Zionism

The tide is finally turning against the Zionists

by Martin Webster
Thursday 13th December 2012.

"Shameful cowardice at heart of Tory Govt's relations with Israel" - Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

Once again, the Daily Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne sticks his head above the parapet and declares that the Conservative government’s relationship with Israel is driven by “cowardice” and that its refusal to criticise the Zionist state is “shameful”.

How Oborne was allowed to get such an article published in the usually slavishly pro-Zionist ‘Torygraph’ is beyond my ken. But it was certainly a good deed in a naughty world and has quite cheered me up. I run the item out below.

(The last time I looked, at 9.35pm, there were 1,160 comments on the article which only appeared this morning in hard copy. I looked through the first 20 or so. The Zionist organised lynch-mob are well represented, but some quite brave anti-Zionist readers defied them, making some telling points.)

The situation which Oborne describes as obtaining in Tory circles also applies to the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, although those parties have a greater number of anti-Zionist “mavericks” than the Tories.

The same cannot be said of the United Kingdom Independence Party (Ukip) which, in order to protect itself from accusations of “anti-semitism” expresses at every opportunity the most grovelling and demeaning of pro-Jewish, pro-Israel sentiments.

In 2005 Ukip members of the European Parliament voted in support of a Jewish-contrived resolution which, if enacted into law, would have resulted in British citizens being arrested in Britain by the British Police acting on European Union Arrest Warrants and deported without any recourse to British courts to face trial in whichever EU member state issued the warrant for the ‘crime’ of “Holocaust Denial” which is not a criminal offence in this country! So much of “national independence” under Ukip.

Those who heard the recent BBC Radio 4 profile of Ukip leader Nigel Farage will have noted that Farage’s closest buddy is somebody called Bloom or something of that sort, whose only fault is that he cannot keep pace with Farage in the boozing stakes.

I hope nobody who considers him/her self to be an authentic British Nationalist would dream of casting of vote for the City slicker Farage’s Ukip.

Peter Oborne made a trenchant documentary for Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’ series about Zionist corruption of ‘our’ parliamentarians and other ‘public’ servants three years ago. I reviewed that documentary for Prof Kevin MacDonald’s ‘The Occidental Observer’ web site http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Webster-Oborne.html . 

Perhaps our greatest ally in the battle against Zionist-Jewry will be the spiteful nastiness of these people whenever their slightest wish is denied them. Take this latest example: 

Successive post-Communist Polish governments have been noteworthy in their willingness to identify with the USA-Israel world Behemoth. Poland is poor and is in dire need of economic development. 

It is also desperate to achieve an abatement of endless Zionist slander which holds that Poland is co-responsible for “the Holocaust”. After all, Auschwitz was on Polish land, the specious argument goes. The huge losses suffered by Poland in WW2 are only raised by “anti-semites” when Zion’s professional liars drone on about “Polish guilt”. 

But the Polish people, though still poor for the most part, are kind and when they see folk in greater suffering, they try to help. 

Not long ago a Polish group repaired water cisterns in Palestine which were urgently needed by nearly destitute Palestinian villagers because the occupying Israelis had either stolen or poisoned their usual water sources. The Israelis sell back to the Palestinians the water stolen from them at five times the going rate in Jewish areas of ‘Israel’, where many homes have their own swimming pools as well as all the latest water-dependent household gadgets. 

Water denial is one of the tools deployed by the Israelis to drive the Palestinians off their ancestral lands, whereupon at each land-grab the Israeli and the mainly Jewish-owned world media trumpet: “A land without people for a people without land!”. 

Yesterday (Wednesday 12th December) the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/polish-minister-refuses-to-meet-israeli-envoy-over-west-bank-controversy.premium-1.484372 on growing tensions in relations between Israel and Poland. 

Poland’s deputy foreign minister refused to meet the Israeli ambassador in Warsaw after Israel’s Civil Administration in the occupied West Bank of Palestine destroyed the water cisterns which had been repaired by a Polish group for use by the Palestinians. 

When summoned to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw, the Israeli ambassador promised the cisterns will not be destroyed in future “on condition that an official permit is requested from the Israeli government before any work is carried out on them”. 

This condition was rejected by the Poles, who said that they “will not ask Israel’s permission to repair Palestinian infrastructure on Palestinian land”. On top of that expression of intestinal fortitude — which puts Establishment politicians in Britain to shame — the Poles added that they will raise the issue of Israel’s destruction of the cisterns at the next available session of the European Union. 

The destruction of the cisterns was not done to protect the Israeli ‘Water Sales to the Palestinians’ swindle I have mentioned, but as an act of revenge against Poland who, along with most other European nations voted for voted for the recent Palestinian application at the United Nations for recognition as a “non-members observer state”. (The crucial word in that description of status is “state”.) 

Britain, shamefully, was one of the few exceptions to this European consensus by abstaining. 

By destroying the cisterns which the Poles had repaired, the Israelis — with the full backing of the Jewish diaspora — sought not only to punish the Palestinians for having the temerity to seek and obtain international recognition of themselves as a state, but also to demonstrate to those who feel sympathy for the Palestinians that: “The more you try to help them, the more we will add to their suffering. Thus you will be tortured by guilt as they are tortured by thirst, insanitary conditions and disease!” 

What lovely people! It makes me sick with shame to think that representatives of my nation Britain, of which I wish to be proud, are fawning to people who think and act like that. 

I hold the view that the Palestinians have taken every blow that has been meted out to them and have survived to fight back, again and again. They have earned at first the grudging and then the open admiration of an increasing world-wide circle of people who recognise that they too are victims of the Jewish-American Behemoth and that a victory for the Palestinians will be an inspiration for us all. 

For all their spite, for all their vindictive cruelty, for all their corruption and intimidation of ‘our’ political leaders and public servants, Zionist-Jewry is on a slippery slope. The more they thrash around, kick out and scream, the faster they slide. 

I wish all genuine nationalists who look forward to celebrating Christmas, the Winter Solstice, the New Year, a very happy time during the festive season. 

Martin Webster. ======================================================================================== 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9740044/The-cowardice-at-the-heart-of-our-relationship-with-Israel.html
Daily Telegraph – Friday 13th December 2012 

The cowardice at the heart of our relationship with Israel 

The Tories’ shameful reluctance to criticise Tel Aviv is putting any hope of peace at risk 
by Peter Oborne 

 It is impossible to understand the modern Conservative Party without a grasp of the scale and profundity of its links to the state of Israel. The connection dates back at least as far the historic meeting between the great Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann and the Conservative prime minister A J Balfour in 1905, during which Weizmann convinced Balfour of the case for a Jewish national state. 

The warmth forged 107 years ago is today sustained by the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). Some 80 per cent of all Tory MPs are members, including most Cabinet ministers. No other lobbying organisation – and certainly not one that acts in the interests of a foreign country – carries as much weight at Westminster. Every year, it takes a significant number of parliamentarians to Israel. Meanwhile, its sponsors play an important role in financing both the Tories nationally, and MPs at the local level. 

There is no doubt that the CFI has exercised a powerful influence over policy. The Conservative politician and historian Robert Rhodes James, writing in the Jerusalem Post in 1995, called it "the largest organisation in Western Europe dedicated to the cause of the people of Israel". Its power has not waned since. On Tuesday, it hosted approximately 100 Tory MPs, including six Cabinet ministers, and a further 40 peers, at a lunch in central London. The speaker was David Cameron, who pronounced himself a "passionate friend" of Israel, making clear (as he has done in the past) that nothing could break that friendship. 

This speech can be seen as part of a pattern. The CFI can call almost at will upon the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Foreign Secretary. The Palestinians enjoy no such access. They would be lucky to get a single Conservative MP in the audience for their events, and perhaps some moribund peer to make an address. There is no such organisation as the Conservative Friends of Palestinians. 

This lack of even-handedness reflects itself in policy. When William Hague denounced Israel's 2006 invasion of Lebanon as "disproportionate", the CFI (as I revealed in a film on the pro-Israeli lobby for Channel 4's Dispatches) complained in person to David Cameron. It obtained a promise that the word would never be used again – one that was kept when Israel bombarded Gaza last month, even though the number of Palestinian deaths vastly exceeded those on the Israeli side. 

As Foreign Secretary, Hague repeated without demur controversial Israeli claims that Hamas started the conflict (there was provocation on both sides, but the critical moment of escalation strikes me as Israel's extra-judicial killing of the Hamas commander Ahmed Jabari). Britain has since bowed to Israeli pressure and refused to back the Palestinian bid for enhanced recognition at the United Nations. Recently, we summoned the Israeli ambassador for a richly deserved rollicking about the settlement programme, but this was part of a joint effort with a large number of other European countries, and has not been followed up. 

To be fair to the Government, Tony Blair was worse, appearing at times to regard the interests of Britain and Israel as identical, and refusing even to call for a ceasefire for some time after the start of the appalling Lebanon war. William Hague and David Cameron have tried to be more robust. Unfortunately, they have largely failed. It is hard to be certain to what extent this reluctance to criticise Tel Aviv is due to the influence of the Israeli lobby in Britain, or fear of offending Israel's international patron, the United States. 

The formal position of the Government is excellent. Britain supports the two-state solution, which has been the basis of all serious peace discussions since the Oslo Accords 20 years ago. The trouble is that ministers refuse to take any concrete steps to bring it about. For example, they condemn the settlements, but only in a half-hearted way (the Prime Minister devoted 64 words to the issue on Tuesday, and almost 300 to the Iranian threat). 

This is cowardice. There are times in personal as well as political life when friendship involves a great deal more than the kind of genial back-slapping with which the Prime Minister treated the Israel lobby on Tuesday. The brutal truth is that Benjamin Netanyahu is leading his country down the path to self-destruction. If he is allowed to go ahead with the latest plans for settlement construction, all hopes of Middle East peace will vanish and die. 

Mark Simmonds, a junior Foreign Office minister, formally acknowledged this in a revealing but unreported Commons debate just a few hours after Tuesday CFI lunch, saying: "I think that the door is beginning to close on the realistic possibility of a two-state solution." William Hague now believes that settlement construction will render it completely impossible within two years at most. 

We will then be left with a greater Israel stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river. Of course, this is a tidier geographical unit than the complicated mess which an attempt to return Israel to its 1967 boundaries would produce. But the Palestinians would suddenly find themselves in a majority. Israel would then face a choice between retaining its democracy, but ceasing to be a Jewish state, or embracing a form of apartheid in which Palestinians were refused basic rights. Judging from the rhetoric emanating from Mr Netanyahu and his unpleasant coalition allies, this is probably the choice today's Israeli leadership would make. 

On Monday night, one former British ambassador to Israel, the Hebrew-speaking Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, made an eloquent speech from which it is important to quote at some length: "I believe passionately that Israel on its present course is embarked on a pathway to assisted suicide. Suicide assisted by the Congress of the United States. The idea that the problem can be solved by walling up the Palestinians in the Middle Eastern equivalent of the Bantustans, which the South African government embarked on in the 1940s, is not only offensive morally, it is deeply out of keeping with everything we know of human history. It will not work, it cannot work, it should not work. And anyone who has a real affection for the Jewish people will want to help them to avoid this looming disaster." 

All leaders of the Conservative Party stand in the line of succession of A J Balfour, who (as foreign secretary in 1917) signed the declaration which recognised the Jews' right to their own homeland. I believe this inheritance gives Mr Cameron a special link to Israel – and a distinct responsibility. It means he is within his rights to spell out to the present Israeli leadership that it is embarking on a dark, ugly and futile course. Given the cowed inertia of President Obama, it is all the more important that the British Prime Minister steps forward. 

I cannot speak for Britain's Jewish community, but I have a strong impression that many of them would be delighted if Mr Cameron spoke out far more strongly than he has done so far. Indeed, it is essential that he should do so. Mr Cameron does not want to go down in history as the man upon whose watch all hope of a two-state solution died, and with it all hope of a secure and peaceful future for the country a Conservative prime minister helped to bring into existence. 

Related Article: 

Israel foreign minister's appeasement jibe 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9740497/Israel-foreign-minister-risks-wrath-of-the-West-with-appeasement-claim.html 

Electronic Loose Cannon No. 24

Wednesday 30th July 2008
Published in tandem with the Electronic Watch on Zion

EDITOR: MARTIN WEBSTER

Postal address: Mail Box ICR, 44 The Common, IP22 2QP, United Kingdom.*

Mobile: 07932 049019



George Orwell, Oswald Mosley
and Double-Think on Europe


On 2nd July I sent an e-mail headed "Mosley got in wrong - Orwell got it right" to a Mosleyite friend of mine, Bill Baillie. Bill issues an interesting monthly e-bulletin of news-reviews and commentary called 'The Nation Revisited'. His address is . I sent copies of my e-mail to a small number of my 'Electronic Loose Cannon' subscribers.

I argued that in his book '1984', Orwell had postulated that the future world would be administered by three super powers comprising (approximately) America, Asia and Europe; that these three powers would appear to be in a constant state of war with each other; that they would constantly appear to shift their alliances; but that this apparent state of flux was contrived to keep the masses in a permanent state of 'patriotic', dictatorship-accepting stampede and that behind the facade was a global dictatorship.

From this scenario of the future set out in '1984' I asserted that Orwell was against the development of regional power blocks, such as the EEC/EU, because they would lead ultimately to some form of World Government dictatorship. Hence my summation: "Orwell right -- Mosley wrong".

Quick as a flash, Bill forwarded to me an article by Orwell headed "Toward European Unity" published in 1947 in the 'Partisan Review', an obscure and long-since defunct left wing magazine. [See Appendix 1 below.]

If one were to judge this matter simply on a reaction to a headline, the reader might be tempted to say "Game, Set and Match to Bill".

But consideration of Orwell's text in that article and his very much more developed expositions in his books, not least his last work '1984', convinces me that Bill achieved what is known as a "debating point", but not a victory on substantive issues.

In the 'Partisan Review' article Orwell examined the various post WW2 futures seemingly on offer to mankind and opted for a vision of a unified Europe as a counter-poise to the American Empire and the Soviet Empire. Bill deployed this to insinuate that Orwell's vision of Europe and its purpose was similar to that of Sir Oswald Mosley.

Despite that heading of Orwell's 'Partisan Review' article, I feel justified in asserting that:

1) whatever vision Orwell had for Europe in the immediate aftermath of WW2, it was certainly not the same vision that Mosley had in mind;
and,
2) Orwell would have abominated the European Union structure and the increasingly tyrannical way in which it operates, which we now see before our eyes.

MOSLEY HOPED TO REJOIN THE ESTABLISHMENT

In the long years that remained to him after WW2 Mosley devoted himself frantically to trying to re-ingratiate himself with the Establishment, of which he was once a member, by supporting those European politicians (headed by the Belgian politician Paul Henri Spaak) who were setting about the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC), which later evolved into today's European Union (EU).

Mosley correctly assessed where the Establishment's new wave was coming from, but he was too vain to accept that there was no room on the Euro-surfboard for him and that he would be left to flounder in his rapidly dehydrating low-tide puddle.

The question is, would Mosley have supported the works and pomps of the European Union as it has evolved (and as predicted by those who were always opposed to the development of a European Super State)? I think one must answer "Yes" for two reasons:

Firstly, because the deceitful, corrupt, tyrannical, internationalist, multi-racialist and pro-World Government nature of the EEC/EU had become manifest before he died (late 1960s/early 1970s?) yet he continued to give unswerving support to the monster until his dying day from his Temple of Glory near Paris.

Secondly, Mosley's dwindling band of acolytes have followed their master's line, ignoring -- even attempting to justify -- every cynical act of corruption and dictatorship and ignoring the increasingly obvious fact that a wholly integrated European Super State is not the ultimate destination of the "European movement" but simply a regional consolidation preparatory to the imposition of a Global Super State or World Government.

EUROPEAN UNION A REGIONAL CONSOLIDATION PRIOR TO WORLD GOVERNMENT

As to George Orwell, as he died in 1950, he did not live to see even the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community, let alone Stage 2 of the European Project, the European Economic Community. The European Union, stage 3 of the project, was denied as even being even a remote possibility by EEC propagandists throughout the 1960s and 1970s until it emerged fully formed from its chrysalis.

Spaak's dictum "We must deny with our mouths what we are building with our hands" has ever been the leitmotif of those involved in constructing the European Super State. Spaak's international career path led through the chief offices of the United Nations, NATO and EEC administrations.

Because of this background, and because of the values he extolled in his books, especially in 'Animal Farm' and '1984', I am entitled to assert that not only was George Orwell's vision of Europe different from that of Mosley's; but also that he would utterly abominate all the works and pomps of today's European Union.

Let me cite just one example of how Orwell's values conflict with the actual practice of the European Union dictators:

EU DICTATORS ATTEMPT TO CHANGE RULES LIKE THE PIGS IN 'ANIMAL FARM'

In 'Animal Farm', shortly after the animals' successful revolution against the farmer, the pigs, who were cleverer than the other animals and who had learned how to read and write, daubed on the barn door the fundamental principles of the creed of Animalism. Among these were: "All Animals are Equal" and "Four Legs Good -- Two Legs Bad".

After some while that dictum was altered by the pigs at night, while all the other animals were sleeping. The really stupid animals did not notice this, but thy few who had managed to get some grasp of reading discovered that the sign now read: "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others".

Soon after, it was noticed that the pigs -- who had moved into the farm house, ending its use as a museum of the farmer's oppression -- had taught themselves to walk on their hind legs, but did so in the privacy of the farm house, out of sight of the farmyard animals.

When a protest meeting was called by the semi-educated to protest against this subversion of Animalism, the meeting was flooded by sheep, who had been taught a new slogan by the pigs which they bleated endlessly preventing any serious discussion: "Four Legs Good -- Two Legs Better".

Don't those examples of the cynical manipulation of fundamental rules and of mass brainwashing to prevent serious discussion mirror the spirit of the way in which the pigs who run the European Union have tried to foist a "Constitution" on us?

WILL THE IRISH BE BULLIED INTO STAGING ANOTHER REFERENDUM?

When that "move to ever closer union" (to quote the 1956 Treaty of Rome) was defeated by the good sense of voters in Holland and France, who were given a referendum on the matter, the text of the "Constitution" was juggle around, renamed a "Treaty", and then "adopted" by all the top pigs of the individual nations without further reference to their electorates .......with the exception of Ireland which has a national Constitution which requires such Treaties to be ratified by the electorate in a referendum. The Irish electorate said "NO!"

Previous treaties under which the European Union operates specify that new treaties can only be adopted if ALL the constituent nations vote to accept them. Hence, under the EU's own rules, the "Constitution"/"Treaty" fails ......or does it?

President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, who is President of Europe until the end of this year, had the chutzpah to use a state visit to Ireland to tell the Irish people that they must vote again (and if necessary, again......and again) until they vote "Yes", and that in the meanwhile, ratification of the "Treaty" will proceed, ignoring the Irish veto.

Sarkozy may get his way. Similar bullying caused the Danes, who had voted "NO!" in a previous referendum (I think in regard to the Maastricht Treaty) were cajoled to vote again "because the margin was so close...".

When they did vote again, this time "Yes", but by a very narrow margin, the EU did not call for yet another vote to be held "because the margin was so close....". Oh no! On that second occasion, just one vote would have been enough: "The people have spoken!"

We do not have to imagine too hard what Orwell's response would be to that kind of cynical, tyrannical and flagrantly undemocratic swindling.

But that kind of approach to the wishes of the ordinary peoples of the European nations has been characteristic of those who have run the European Project from its very outset.

"PEOPLE SELDOM KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM"

What is my friend Bill's response to this kind of manipulation. His bottom line is this, contained in issue #44 (May 08) of 'Nation Revisited': "......people seldom know what is best for them."

Bill, like most Mosleyites I know, agree that Coloured Immigration and compulsory multi-racialism, and the war in Iraq (two specify but two issues) were forced on the British people without any mandate in the first instance and against their sustained and clearly-expressed majority opposition ever since.

On those issues Mosleyites are at one with mainstream British racial-nationalists in stating that Coloured Immigration and the resultant multi-racial society, and the war in Iraq, have no democratic legitimacy, have been sustained by lies and deceptions, and must be halted as reversed as fast as is humanely possible.

All of us will remember Prime Minister Edward Heath's solemn and categorical assurance that British membership of the EEC "does not involve any surrender of essential national sovereignty?" That was the biggest, but far from the only, huge lie told to the British people in the service of conning them into the Europe.

WHAT IS "UNESSENTIAL" NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY?

Does Bill or any other Mosleyite today claim that British membership of the EEC/EU has not lost us "any essential national sovereignty"?

(Don't let's quibble about the meaning of the weasel-word "essential". Who will say what aspects of national sovereignty are "unessential"? Such a debate is as silly as a convent schoolgirl telling Mother Superior that she is "still a virgin" despite being "a little bit pregnant".)

Yet the Mosleyite mind-set is such that the imposition of the EEC and then the EU on Britain by means of dire bare-faced lies, told by the very same people who lied us into multi-racialism, into Iraq and into so many other places we did not want to go is somehow acceptable, right and "best for us"! This is a classic demonstration of Double-Think.

I say again: George Orwell would not have put up with such Double-Think (an expression he coined in '1984') from even the most senior Euro-Pigs, let alone from Mosleyites, whatever his theoretical, idealistic and tentative views may have been in a short article about Europe for an obscure magazine published in 1947.

Martin Webster.

P.S. Regardless of his views on European integration, I am glad that Bill Baillie located and put into circulation an article about George Orwell's persistent anti-semitism, entitled "Orwell's Dirty Secret". [See Appendix 2 below.]
====================================================


Appendix 1


First published: Partisan Review, London, GB - July/August 1947.
Reprinted: The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell - 1968.


George Orwell

Toward European Unity

A Socialist today is in the position of a doctor treating an all but hopeless case. As a doctor, it is his duty to keep the patient alive, and therefore to assume that the patient has at least a chance of recovery. As a scientist, it is his duty to face the facts, and therefore to admit that the patient will probably die. Our activities as Socialists only have meaning if we assume that Socialism can be established, but if we stop to consider what probably will happen, then we must admit, I think, that the chances are against us. If I were a bookmaker, simply calculating the probabilities and leaving my own wishes out of account, I would give odds against the survival of civilization within the next few hundred years. As far as I can see, there are three possibilities ahead of us:

1. That the Americans will decide to use the atomic bomb while they have it and the Russians haven't. This would solve nothing. It would do away with the particular danger that is now presented by the U.S.S.R., but would lead to the rise of new empires, fresh rivalries, more wars, more atomic bombs, etc. In any case this is, I think, the least likely outcome of the three, because a preventive war is a crime not easily committed by a country that retains any traces of democracy.

2. That the present 'cold wa'’ will continue until the U.S.S.R., and several other countries, have atomic bombs as well. Then there will only be a short breathing-space before whizz! go the rockets, wallop! go the bombs, and the industrial centres of the world are wiped out, probably beyond repair. Even if any one state, or group of states, emerges from such a war as technical victor, it will probably be unable to build up the machine civilization anew. The world, therefore, will once again be inhabited by a few million, or a few hundred million human beings living by subsistence agriculture, and probably, after a couple of generations, retaining no more of the culture of the past than a knowledge of how to smelt metals. Conceivably this is a desirable outcome, but obviously it has nothing to do with Socialism.

3. That the fear inspired by the atomic bomb and other weapons yet to come will be so great that everyone will refrain from using them. This seems to me the worst possibility of all. It would mean the division of the world among two or three vast super-states, unable to conquer one another and unable to be overthrown by any internal rebellion. In all probability their structure would be hierarchic, with a semi-divine caste at the top and outright slavery at the bottom, and the crushing out of liberty would exceed anything that the world has yet seen. Within each state the necessary psychological atmosphere would be kept up by complete severance from the outer world, and by a continuous phony war against rival states. Civilizations of this type might remain static for thousands of years.

Most of the dangers that I have outlined existed and were foreseeable long before the atomic bomb was invented. The only way of avoiding them that I can imagine is to present somewhere or other, on a large scale, the spectacle of a community where people are relatively free and happy and where the main motive in life is not the pursuit of money or power. In other words, democratic Socialism must be made to work throughout some large area. But the only area in which it could conceivably be made to work, in any near future, is Western Europe. Apart from Australia and New Zealand, the tradition of democratic Socialism can only be said to exist -- even there it only exists precariously -- in Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, the Low Countries, France, Britain, Spain, and Italy. Only in those countries are there still large numbers of people to whom the word 'Socialism' has some appeal, and for whom it is bound up with liberty, equality, and internationalism. Elsewhere it either has no foot-hold or it means something different. In North America the masses are contented with capitalism, and one cannot tell what turn they will take when capitalism begins to collapse. In the U.S.S.R. there prevails a sort of oligarchical collectivism which could only develop into democratic Socialism against the will of the ruling minority. Into Asia even the word 'Socialism' has barely penetrated. The Asiatic nationalist movements are either Fascist in character, or look towards Moscow, or manage to combine both attitudes: and at present all movements among the coloured peoples are tinged by racial mysticism. In most of South America the position is essentially similar, so is it in Africa and the Middle East. Socialism does not exist anywhere, but even as an idea it is at present valid only in Europe. Of course, Socialism cannot properly be said to be established until it is world-wide, but the process must begin somewhere, and I cannot imagine it beginning except through the federation of the western European states, transformed into Socialist republics without colonial dependencies. Therefore a Socialist United States of Europe seems to me the only worth-while political objective today. Such a federation would contain about 250 million people, including perhaps half the skilled industrial workers of the world. I do not need to be told that the difficulties of bringing any such thing into being are enormous and terrifying, and I will list some of them in a moment. But we ought not to feel that it is of its nature impossible, or that countries so different from one another would not voluntarily unite. A western European union is in itself a less improbable concatenation than the Soviet Union or the British Empire.

Now as to the difficulties. The greatest difficulty of all is the apathy and conservatism of people everywhere, their unawareness of danger, their inability to imagine anything new -- in general, as Bertrand Russell put it recently, the unwillingness of the human race to acquiesce in its own survival. But there are also active malignant forces working against European unity, and there are existing economic relationships on which the European peoples depend for their standard of life and which are not compatible with true Socialism. I list what seem to me to be the four main obstacles, explaining each of them as shortly as I can mange:

1. Russian hostility. The Russians cannot but be hostile to any European union not under their own control. The reasons, both the pretended and the real ones, are obvious. One has to count, therefore, with the danger of a preventive war, with the systematic terrorizing of the smaller nations, and with the sabotage of the Communist Parties everywhere. Above all there is the danger that the European masses will continue to believe in the Russian myth. As long as they believe it, the idea of a Socialist Europe will not be sufficiently magnetic to call forth the necessary effort.

2. American hostility. If the United States remains capitalist, and especially if it needs markets for exports, it cannot regard a Socialist Europe with a friendly eye. No doubt it is less likely than the U.S.S.R. to intervene with brute force, but American pressure is an important factor because it can be exerted most easily on Britain, the one country in Europe which is outside the Russian orbit. Since 1940 Britain has kept its feet against the European dictators at the expense of becoming almost a dependency of the U.S.A. Indeed, Britain can only get free of America by dropping the attempt to be an extra-European power. The English-speaking Dominions, the colonial dependencies, except perhaps in Africa, and even Britain's supplies of oil, are all hostages in American hands. Therefore there is always the danger that the United States will break up any European coalition by drawing Britain out of it.

3. Imperialism. The European peoples, and especially the British, have long owed their high standard of life to direct or indirect exploitation of the coloured peoples. This relationship has never been made clear by official Socialist propaganda, and the British worker, instead of being told that, by world standards, he is living above his income, has been taught to think of himself as an overworked, down-trodden slave. To the masses everywhere 'Socialism' means, or at least is associated with, higher wages, shorter hours, better houses, all-round social insurance, etc. etc. But it is by no means certain that we can afford these things if we throw away the advantages we derive from colonial exploitation. However evenly the national income is divided up, if the income as a whole falls, the working-class standard of living must fall with it. At best there is liable to be a long and uncomfortable reconstruction period for which public opinion has nowhere been prepared. But at the same time the European nations must stop being exploiters abroad if they are to build true Socialism at home. The first step toward a European Socialist federation is for the British to get out of India. But this entails something else. If the United States of Europe is to be self-sufficient and able to hold its own against Russian and America, it must include Africa and the Middle East. But that means that the position of the indigenous peoples in those countries must be changed out of recognition -- that Morocco or Nigeria or Abyssiania must cease to be colonies or semi-colonies and become autonomous republics on a complete equality with the European peoples. This entails a vast change of outlook and a bitter, complex struggle which is not likely to be settled without bloodshed. When the pinch comes the forces of imperialism will turn out to be extremely strong, and the British worker, if he has been taught to think of Socialism in materialistic terms, may ultimately decide that it is better to remain an imperial power at the expense of playing second fiddle to America. In varying degrees all the European peoples, at any rate those who are to form part of the proposed union, will be faced with the same choice.

4. The Catholic Church. As the struggle between East and West becomes more naked, there is danger that democratic Socialists and mere reactionaries will be driven into combining in a sort of Popular Front. The Church is the likeliest bridge between them. In any case the Church will make every effort to capture and sterilize any movement aiming at European unity. The dangerous thing about the Church is that it is not reactionary in the ordinary sense. It is not tied to laissez-faire capitalism or to the existing class system, and will not necessarily perish with them. It is perfectly capable of coming to terms with Socialism, or appearing to do so, provided that its own position is safeguarded. But if it is allowed to survive as a powerful organization, it will make the establishment of true Socialism impossible, because its influence is and always must be against freedom of thought and speech, against human equality, and against any form of society tending to promote earthly happiness.

When I think of these and other difficulties, when I think of the enormous mental readjustment that would have to be made, the appearance of a Socialist United States of Europe seems to me a very unlikely event. I don't mean that the bulk of the people are not prepared for it, in a passive way. I mean that I see no person or group of persons with the slightest chance of attaining power and at the same time with the imaginative grasp to see what is needed and to demand the necessary sacrifices from their followers. But I also can't at present see any other hopeful objective. At one time I believed that it might be possible to form the British Empire into a federation of Socialist republics, but if that chance ever existed, we lost it by failing to liberate India, and by our attitude toward the coloured peoples generally. It may be that Europe is finished and that in the long run some better form of society will arise in India or China. But I believe that it is only in Europe, if anywhere, that democratic Socialism could be made a reality in short enough time to prevent the dropping of the atom bombs.

Of course, there are reasons, if not for optimism, at least for suspending judgement on certain points. One thing in our favour is that a major war is not likely to happen immediately. We could, I suppose, have the kind of war that consists in shooting rockets, but not a war involving the mobilization of tens of millions of men. At present any large army would simply melt away, and that may remain true for ten or even twenty years. Within that time some unexpected things might happen. For example, a powerful Socialist movement might for the first time arise in the United States as 'capitalistic', with the implication that this is something unalterable, a sort of racial characteristic like the colour of eyes or hair. But in fact it cannot be unalterable, since capitalism itself has manifestly no future, and we cannot be sure in advance that the next change in the United States will not be a change for the better.

Then, again, we do not know what changes will take place in the U.S.S.R. if war can be staved off for the next generation or so. In a society of that type, a radical change of outlook always seems unlikely, not only because there can be no open opposition but because the régime, with its complete hold over education, news, etc. deliberately aims at preventing the pendulum swing between generations which seems to occur naturally in liberal societies. But for all we know the tendency one generation to reject the ideas of the last is an abiding human characteristic which even the N.K.V.D. will be unable to eradicate. In that case there may by 1960 be millions of young Russians who are bored by dictatorship and loyalty parades, eager for more freedom, and friendly in their attitude towards the West.

Or again, it is even possible that if the world falls apart into three unconquerable super-states, the liberal tradition will be strong enough within the Anglo-American section of the world to make life tolerable and even offer some hope of progress. But all this is speculation. The actual outlook, so far as I can calculate the probabilities, is very dark, and any serious thought should start out from that fact.
====================================================


Annex 2


Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:16 PM

Subject: Shocking news about George Orwell-from Jewish Tribal Review


Remembering George Orwell
1903, June 25. - 1950, January 21.

The Guardian - 13 August 2002


What happens when biographers discover something loathsome about their subject?
DJ Taylor on the ugly side of a radical hero.

ORWELL'S DIRTY SECRET
by DJ Taylor

Looking through the current swathe of publishers' catalogues, I was fascinated to note the long-delayed unveiling of a biography that literary London has had raptly in its sights since at least the middle of the last decade. It would be horribly unfair of me to name the biographee (a distinguished British novelist, dead these last 10 years) or the equally distinguished author, for most of this fascination stems not from the book's prospective merits, but from the existence of a kind of guerrilla warfare conducted by X the biographer and his subject Y almost from page to page. Basically, X, having cheerfully accepted the publisher's commission all those years ago, discovered at an early stage in the proceedings that he didn't much like the man he was writing about. When he found, slightly further down the road, that the dislike had turned to loathing, it was all he could do, apparently, to finish the work.

Curiously enough, this phenomenon is a great deal commoner than it sounds. Obviously, there are professional anti-biographers grimly at work - Kitty Kelley, for instance, or the late Albert Goldman, sedulous stitcher-up of Elvis Presley and others - who simply begin by assuming the worst and go on from there. Most biographers, though, start by adducing some mild affinity with their subject, or at the very least extending some faint respect to the career, the achievement or the personality.

But postwar biography is littered with the bones of supposedly absorbing subjects whose personalities turned out to be so rebarbative or uninspiring that teams of potential anatomists tried, laboured, and gave up.

Never mind the long years of work you have to put in, the interviews with the deceased's surviving acquaintances, the search - if the subject has been done before - for that striking new angle, that unknown love-child, that choir-boy fetish: biography requires a long-term emotional commitment. Five years in a study with someone you don't actually like? There are easier ways of making a living.

My own particular biographer's dilemma started with the discovery, in the files of the publisher Victor Gollancz Ltd, of a letter sent to Gollancz himself in the spring of 1933. The writer, Mr GM Lipsey, had read a copy of George Orwell's newly published Down and Out in Paris and London. He was furious, not only with Orwell but also with his publisher. "On its merits or otherwise I have no desire to comment," he commented. "But I am appalled that a book containing insulting and odious remarks about Jews should be published by a firm bearing the name 'Gollancz'." A spirited correspondence followed. There were threats of legal action, and finally the row fizzled out. Its shadow, though, hangs over much of Orwell's early writings, and indeed his whole attitude towards Jews, Jewishness and, later on, the foundation of a Zionist state.

Having read and annotated Down and Out in Paris and London half a dozen times, I was aware of the book's "Jew" references, just as one is aware of them in, to select a random handful of Orwell's 30s contemporaries, the work of Anthony Powell, JB Priestley, TS Eliot and Graham Greene. Reading it again, in the light of the Lipsey remonstrance, I was struck by how oddly gratuitous they are. Barely has the third chapter been reached, for example, before a hard-up Orwell is unloading clothes in a Parisian secondhand shop to "a red-haired Jew, an extraordinarily disagreeable man". Now, one can be disagreeable and a Jew, but the faint hint that the connection has a racial basis is somehow reinforced by the coda. "It would have been a pleasure to have flattened the Jew's nose, if only one could have afforded it."

Back in London, Orwell wanders into a coffee shop near Tower Hill where "in a corner by himself a Jew, muzzle down in the plate, was guiltily wolfing bacon." How does Orwell know the bacon-wolfer is a Jew? And how does he know that the emotion he detects in his face is guilt? There is something loaded, too, about the reference to a "muzzle", as if the man is not quite human, and the explanation for this sub-humanity has something to do with being Jewish.

One could ignore this, just possibly, if it existed in a single book. And yet for 10 years the abstract figure of "the Jew" makes regular appearances in Orwell's diaries. Out tramping in the early 30s, he falls in with "a little Liverpool Jew, a thorough guttersnipe" with a face that recalls "some low-down carrion bird". Watching the crowds thronging the London underground in October 1940, he decides that what is "bad" about the Jews is that they are not only conspicuous but go out of their way to make themselves so. He is particularly annoyed by "a regular comic-paper cartoon of a Jewess" who literally fights her way on to the train at Oxford Circus. Again, it is perfectly possible that the woman in question resembled an extra from Fiddler On The Roof and that the incident took place exactly as Orwell describes it. Even so, it is a safe bet that no early 21st-century liberal will be able to read Orwell's account without clenching their teeth.

It would be idle to classify Orwell as "anti-semitic". He had dozens of Jewish friends and kept a vigilant eye out for evidence of anti-semitism, both on theatre stages and in print. In fact, the complexities of what he thought and wrote about Jews defy easy summary (although it is worth pointing out that in an argument with Aneurin Bevan, he once referred to Zionists as "a gang of Wardour Street Jews" with a controlling interest over the British press.)

But having come across these attitudes, what do you do with them? Context, inevitably, is all. The only sensible answer to anyone who suggests that, say, Thackeray was a racist or that Trollope hated Italians is: so what? There is a particular school of modern literary criticism which believes in what used to be called the Shakespeare and the Second-best Bed syndrome (the reference is to the inferior piece of furniture bequeathed to the bard's wife in his will) - that if a writer holds to political and social views that are morally disgusting or behaves badly as a person, therefore his work will show similar flaws and should be similarly disregarded. Thus Tom Paulin, for example, seems to believe that because Philip Larkin was a racist and a misogynist his work either shouldn't be studied or, if so, taught only to be disparaged.
On the other hand, there are people who will tell you that it is possible - in fact, desirable - to separate a writer's life from his or her art, and to study the one in isolation from the other. Obviously it is theoretically possible to make this separation. But sooner or later anyone who studies the works of a particular poet or novelist is going to want to know about the life running on beneath, however subliminally or obliquely that knowledge will eventually influence what the reader thinks about the work.

Where does this leave Larkin? And to a slightly lesser extent, Orwell? From the biographer's point of view - not, admittedly, the only point worth staring from - it ought to make them more, rather than less, interesting. Pace Paulin, we should not be writing Larkin off as a racist but pondering the contrast between his venomous remarks about "niggers" and the extraordinary delicacy of his lament over the dead hedgehog scythed apart by his lawnmower.

Similarly, Orwell's fixation with doling out the word "Jew" like a kind of party badge raises fundamental questions about the social milieu he inhabited and the upbringing that put stereotypes of this sort into his head. Above all, perhaps - and this is a man regularly marked down by posterity as a secular saint - it makes him seem human in a way that much of the posthumous embalming of his reputation does not. Meanwhile, I look forward to this autumn's outpourings from Biographer X, the humanity of whose subject will, you feel, turn out to be rather more problematic.

Jewish journalists frighten 9/11 "investigator"

From:"Martin Webster"

To:"Ian Henshall"
CC:
"Tony Hancock"

"Mr. Henshall,

Why did you thank me for my interest in your new book ["9/11: The New Evidence"] when you then proceeded to tell me that my interest was surplus to your requirements in that it might bring down on your head the wrath of left wing pro-Zionist Jewish journalists?

It would have been more honest of you to say: "Eff off -- your interest in my book might compromise my standing with the Establishment media, especially powerful Jewish commentators."I note -- and connect with the above -- your assertion that you feel the Mossad had a minor involvement in the 9/11 affair.

This will lead the ignorant to wonder who on earth was the principal beneficiary of the operation, when the answer to that question is all too obvious to anybody with perception and the guts.Isn't it a classic and quite reputable way of analysing historical events by asking the question: "Who benefits?"

No doubt in your new book you have carefully explained away the incident at the time of the 9/11 attack when a large number of Israeli nationals were arrested overlooking New York and who were (according to local police who made the arrests) sight-seeing the attack and jumping up and down with glee, hugging each other with delight.All these Israelis, believed to be Mossad agents (I think posing as removal men or shipping agents) were whisked out of the USA to Israel with great speed by order of the U.S. government.

No serious questioning of them was allowed to take place.

If my memory serves me correctly, this is only one element of a significant "Israel link" to the attack which stampeded America and much of "the West" to accept the Zionist/Neo-Con promoted "Clash of Civilisations" concept.That concept was devised to mobilise "the West" to take up arms against the Muslim/Arab world in a war which would secure Israel's future and expansion.The idea that the Iraq war was launched (as so many Zionist-propaganda intimidated lefty/liberals would have it) "so that America could grab Iraq's oil" is grotesque and pathetic.

The gigantic amount of cash that American has squandered on the invasion, "pacification" and reconstruction of Iraq is so huge that it represents the most expensive oil purchase of all time. The figures indicate that the war CANNOT have been fought "for oil".

The only credible explanation for the invasion of Iraq and other proposed wars in that region (such as the impending war against Iran) is the safeguarding of Israel.

I don't say that the Israelis planned and organised the 9/11 attack -- and I don't say they didn't.

I don't have all the full facts (nor do you) to be able to come to a definite conclusion.However, I advance as a credible working hypothesis the following: Israeli intelligence services (said to be the best in the world) became aware of the Islamist fanatics' plan, realised its potential in mobilising "the West" against Israel's enemies, and did not warn America of the impending attack.

Don't say the Zionists would not behave in such a ghastly and cynical way against their American "friends", "allies" and chief financial sponsors.

Don't you recollect the attack on the U.S.S. 'Liberty' at the outset of the 1967 war?

This signals intelligence ship, was fully decked-out as part of the U.S. Navy. It was in international waters. It was attacked without warning and bombed by Israeli aircraft. After the bombers had done their worst, Israeli fighters arrived to machine-gun the crew as they struggled in the water.

The 'Liberty' was undoubtedly collecting intelligence on Israeli military communications traffic.

This would have established immediately what has only relatively-recently become established: that Israel, not Egypt and its allies, started that war for the purpose of expanding its borders in accordance with long-established and freely-admitted Zionist ambitions.

The then U.S. President, Lyndon B. Johnson, (one of the most corrupt men ever to hold that office) ordered his nation's navy NOT to go to the assistance of the 'Liberty' (in terms of fighting-off its attackers) and ordered senior U.S. Navy commanders to keep the incident secret if they were to keep their jobs and pensions and avoid prosecution.

All the details have been revealed by U.S. Admiral Moorer on his web site (but too late to affect the historical outcome). Google-up U.S.S. Liberty and Admiral Moorer and see what you find.

British governments have been equally craven in the face of Zionist war crimes.

Only during the last few days there have been two instances of this.

Last Tuesday the BBC News web site reported the outcome of an incident which has been hushed-up for the past couple of years: An Israeli Major-General, Doron Almog, against whom an arrest-warrant has been issued in respect of alleged crimes against humanity he perpetrated in Gaza, had landed at London's Heathrow Airport.

Police were sent to effect his arrest, but he had been tipped-off and refused to leave the plane.

Police feared to enter into the plane for fear of being shot by Israeli "Air Marshalls" who were on board, so Almog was allowed to fly out.

Last Thursday, under the headline "How Labour used the law to keep criticism of Israel secret - Concern over nuclear arsenal removed from Iraq dossier", The Guardian reported that it had seen the full text and a witness statement from a senior Foreign Official official who had argued behind closed doors that any public mention in the Iraq Weapons Dossier of a candid reference to Israel's illegal development of nuclear weapons "would seriously damage UK/Israeli relations".

What has your and my doubts about the official account of the 9/11 attack -- and certainly my deprication of Israel's activities in Palestine, which increasingly resemble "racist, Nazi-style genocide in a scramble for lebensraum" -- got to do with the issue of the WW2 "Holocaust"?

Whenever Israel, the Zionists or Jewry in general are caught red-handed in political corruption, financial swindles or other crimes, or perpetrating crimes against humanity (as in Lebonan in July 2006 or in the West Bank and Gaza at this very moment), then all they need to do is shout "Anti-Semitism!!" or "Holocaust Denial!" for people like you to go into knee-jerk mode and scurry to the nearest parapet for cover.

I will not waste my money on buying your book -- nor will I recommend it -- now that I have found out more about it and you.

You can send a copy of this e-mail to all those Jewish journalists who have spooked you so badly. You might ingratiate yourself with them and earn good reviews. That's the way to achieve "success" these days.

Ask Nick Griffin.

Martin Webster.

==========================================
From: Ian Henshall To: Martin Webster , Tony Hancock Date: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:49 PM

Subject: Re: Ian Henshall's new book

Hello Martin Webster,

Thanks for your interest.

Actually the book is available in most bookshops, or should be.

My reading of the 911 attacks is that it was a network from various agencies, probably led by people in the area of the State Department and the CIA, calling on contacts in Pakistan's ISI, Saudi intel and Mossad.

The main attack on the 911 Truth movement is that we are "holocaust deniers" ie anti-semitic and it is amazing to note the key media people who have attacked us are Johan Hari, Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch, George Monbiot, Mathew Rothschild.

Although I am always keen to sell my book I think it would be bad tactics to be linked to your networks, because it would give these people more ammunition.

Also I do not think Mossad played the major part, so it's a hiding to nothing so to speak.

As it happens Tony at the Print Factory is an old acquaintance, although I suspect we may have profound political differences in some areas.

Ian Henshall

At 20:35 20/02/2008, Martin Webster wrote:From: Martin Webster To: Ian Henshall Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:20 PM
Subject: "9/11: The New Evidence"

Dear Ian,

My apologies for not attending your book-launch meeting yesterday evening. Mondays are always very busy for me and I need rather more than six days notice to re-schedule.

I do hope the event was well-supported, that the discussion was lively and that you were able to sell and autograph lots of copies of "9/11: The New Evidence".I would like to buy a copy myself.

Can I do so through you directly?

If so, please let me have a price including postage and an address to which I should send my order and cheque. If you can inscribe it, that would be great. If not, can you recommend a shop in London which has it in stock?

I will also put in a requisition for the book with Wandsworth Borough Public Library. For this purpose, please give me the name and address of the publisher, ISBN number and any other details I might need to put on the form.I will also copy this e-mail to Tony Hancock at The Print Factory in Uckfield, East Sussex. He runs a thriving mail order book sales department supported by a web site and regular mailings to his client base and may be interested.

Do keep in touch with developments.

Regards,Martin.

(Martin Webster)

-----Original Message-----From: Ian Henshall To: Ian Henshall Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:40 AM

Subject: "9/11: The New Evidence" Public meeting with author Ian Henshall
London 9/11 Truth presents:"9/11: The New Evidence"

An evening with Ian Henshall, author of the recently-published book of the same title, and fellow-campaigners.
Monday 18th February, 7.30 pm
Mahatma Gandhi Hall, Indian YMCA, 41 Fitzroy Square, London W1(tube Warren St)Admission Free

Ian will be signing copies of his book and answering questions.Introducing his talk Ian will say"The drip drip of new evidence continues to strengthen the case for scepticism over the official story of the 911 attacks."Several elements of the new picture were highlighted in 911 The New Evidence.

These are:* the admission that there was a anti-hijack exercise running at the same time as the "real" attacks,* the admission that the 911 Commission was, as two of its members later said, "set up to fail",* the failure to provide any explanation for the collapse of WTC7 (which was not hit by a plane),* the release of the official flight recorder data from Flt 77 showing that it could not have hit the PentagonIn 911 The New Evidence Henshall presented many more details which are not widely known, even to 911 sceptics*

At the trial of alleged 20th hijacker Moussaoui the FBI mysteriously withheld the US visa applications of the alleged hijacker leaders (Atta, Shehi, Jarrah, Hanjour). These would have been issued through the US Berlin embassy.

David Edger, the CIA operations chief there, later admitted that they were aware of the hijackers. Edger is an expert on politically targeted intelligence operations and was active in Chile during the US led coup which took place on September 11 1973.* The original 2002 FEMA report timed the aircraft crashes in New York to 20 seconds AFTER the explosions which eyewitnesses say they heard in the basement of the buildings and which were picked on the seismic records.*

The FEMA report noted unexplained traces on sulphur and its experts commented on the signs of vaporisation of the WTC sections. Both these reports, indicating the use of explosives, have been ignored in subsequent inquiries.* a close reading of the various limited transcripts that have been released shows that air traffic controllers thought the apparently hijacked planes were part of the Pentagon's anti-hijack exercise.*

Condoleeza Rice and George Tenet both lied on oath to the 911 Commission.

Since The New Evidence was published last autumn there have been more developments.* The Sunday Times revelations from FBI translator Sibel Edmonds confirm early reports that four Israelis arrested after a tip-off after they were seen celebrating and filming the collapse of the Towers were indeed operatives and were released under pressure from top Washington neocons.* another deadline for the promised report on the collapse of WTC7 has silently slipped by* a new book based on leaks to a New York Times writer has highlighted the improper relations between the 911 Commission's executive director Philip Zelikow and his close associates in the White House.* ex Italian President Cossiga, who exposed the US/UK Gladio operation in Europe has now denounced 911 as a false flag operation in the mainstream Italian media.

In an eerie parallel to 911, Gladio used front organisations to carry out false flag terror attacks as a political weapon.

The most notable example was the Bologna bombing.*

Opposition leaders in Japan have raised questions over the 911 attacks in Parliament there.

Ends

ELC 'Extra'

An ELC 'Extra':

MATTERS ARISING FROM ELC#23 AND BBC RADIO'S 'FILE ON 4'

Immediately below is a summary of Tuesday evening's BBC Radio 4 'File on 4' programme about BNP finances, to be repeated at 5.00pm next Sunday, 17th February.

Below that is the full text of Sonia Gable's (i.e. 'Searchlight's') analysis of the BNP financial methods and situation, which barrister Mr. Davies says conforms very much with his own analysis, i.e. that the BNP is trading insolvently. He adds that whatever else she might be, Gable is a qualified accountant.I think it is unlawful for a commercial firm to trade whilst insolvent. It must be at least the height of irresponsibility and folly for a political party to do so -- at least over a protracted period and as a matter of deliberate policy.

Adrian's opinion is that Nick Griffin is a gambler who is hoping to be able to get himself elected as a Euro-MP at the next round of Euro-elections and that the publicity/income from that would resolve the party's current financial situation.However, he remarks that with the enlargement of the EU and the consequent enlargement of Euro-constituencies, the votes/percentage threshold candidates will need to surpass will be much greater and, unless there is another terrorist attack or some such event a few days before the polling day, Griffin's ambition to get elected to the Euro gravy-train is a gambler's mirage.

My only comment is that Griffin will surely wish to keep the income and expenses he would derive as a Euro-MP to himself.

He must, therefore, be relying on income he hopes would be generated from the publicity he/the BNP would attract in the event of him winning a seat in the EU Parliament -- separate from his EU income -- to solve the party's financial problems. Or perhaps he will simply wave the BNP goodbye and join the Tories.

MATTERS ARISING FROM ELC#23:

There were two errors in my last ELC (#23). One was important and its correction materially advances my case. The other was trivial, but dealing with it may contribute to the discovery of important new knowledge. The important one first:

1) Percentage of BNP Income Spent on Campaigning:I mis-reported Davies as stating that the BNP spent "one-sixth" (or 16.665 per cent) of its total income (nearly £1M) on campaigning. Adrian hastens to assure me that this error constituted a huge OVER-estimate of the amount of BNP members' money that Griffin has spent on promoting the Nationalist cause.As to how the error came about, I can only plead that the person who conveyed (verbally) Adrian's opinion on that point made an error. He should have said "less than 6 PER CENT" -- a vast difference!!

In fact, Adrian says the exact figure is only 5.9 per cent!!!

That is truly shocking. A very much greater portion of BNP members' money is spent on wages for Griffin and his inner circle, entertainment, travel, etc.

Just how much more could have been achieved (even for Griffin's version of "nationalism") if only half the party's total income had been spent on campaigning to advance the nationalist cause.

That, surely, is the purpose on which ordinary members imagine the majority of their money is spent.There would be a scandal if, for example, the Cat's Protection League spent less than 6 per cent of its income on protecting cats.( NWN: Tommy Williams take note)

But with this, as with so many other newsworthy issues bubbling away in the BNP, there has been a strange silence from the mass media.

Please don't tell me that last Tuesday evening's half hour low-key 'File on Four' programme on BBC Radio 4, in which no effort was made to confront Griffin personally concerning his management of the party's finances, constituted intensive media scrutiny.

For more on this aspect of the matter, so the section below headed: "Mark 'Chi-Chi' Cotterill's contribution to 'File on Four'."Those who can hark back to the media feeding-frenzy which was continually directed at the National Front in the 1970s will know what a gentle ride Griffin is getting.

As another example of this gentle ride: what publicity has attended the current chronic in-fighting within the BNP?

Internal party squabbles, talk of splits, litigation, etc., are usually meat-and-drink to the media......


2) Arthur Kemp's Accommodation

In the last ELC I remarked:[Quote]:"I hear Davies has also picked up on is a '£19,000' per year payment to Griffin from party funds for 'rent' for 'accommodation' made available to the BNP at Griffin's pig farm in Wales. (I don't think this 'accommodation' refers to the use which Griffin's ex-South African Police 'Security' spook Arthur Kemp makes of a house on Griffin's farm property, which is in his wife's name.)"[End quote]

This prompted Arthur to leave a message on my mobile phone's voicemail which he bawled so loudly that he needn't have bothered to use a phone at all!

His message was to the effect that the information about himself was untrue. At any rate, Arthur did not deny that he is a member of Griffin's paid security staff. His excessive outrage over so small an error begs the question: why he was so keen for it to be known that he did NOT live in a property on Griffin's pig farm is beyond me.

I asked the opinion of a recently-expelled senior official of the BNP and was told:"Arthur lives rent-free in a property on Dee-side. This is a house which had been bought to accommodate John Walker, BNP Treasurer -- or at least his department -- but Arthur now lives there rent free".My informant went on to assert that:(a) "the house had been purchased with BNP funds"; and(b) "the house is in the name of Griffin's wife".

My informant had no evidence to show that the property had been bought "with BNP funds".The property might well have been paid for from the money (the residue of a £300,000 inheritance from his grandfather in the late 1980s) which Griffin put into his wife's name prior to going bankrupt after a sequence of disastrous property deals.

Griffin has been careful to repose all his assets into his wife's or other family members' names so as to maintain his position as a "man-of-straw". This status deters those who might seek to sue him in the civil courts.

A man without funds or assets cannot pay damages or legal costs.Can any of my readers come up with evidence to support the claim that this Dee-side property was in fact purchased with BNP rather than Griffin family funds?

If this was the way it was purchased, then why is it registered in the name of Griffin's wife?

Is she registered as a trustee of party assets?

Can anybody come up with the exact address of the property, including its Post Code, so that we can lookup its ownership in the Land Registry?

Is it in respect of this Dee-side property that Griffin is making his £19,000 p.a. claim against BNP funds for "accommodation"?

If the property was bought with BNP money (not as yet established), then why would the party pay Griffin rent for it?

Even if the house is "his wife's" property, why would the BNP be screwed for such a high rent on it?

If Arthur is living in that property "rent free", then is that part of the wage he is paid by Griffin for his "security" services?

If so, is this reflected in the BNP's accounts to the Electoral Commission and/or in Arthur's Income Tax returns, as appropriate?

Is the annual charge of £19,000 which Griffin makes on BNP funds inclusive of both the Dee-side house and also the barn on his pig farm which BNP members, using BNP money, renovated and converted into a conference centre?

I reckon this is just one of many loose threads hanging from the Griffin/BNP cardigan which, once playful kittens get a hold of them and start to tug, the garment will unravel to expose what is underneath.


Mark 'Chi-Chi' Cotterill's contribution to 'File on Four'

One of the people who gave interviews to the BBC Radio 'File on Four' programme was Mark 'Chi-Chi' Cotterill.He was the head of the "American Friends of the BNP" organisation which in a three year period from 2000 raised in excess of £100,000 from American patriots keen to see a Nationalist movement in Britain get up a head of steam.Chi-Chi told 'File on Four' that the BNP never included in its accounts the income it derived from the AFBNP. That was true.

But Chi-Chi did not explain:

1) Why he, like Griffin, never produced any accounts concerning the income and expenditure of the AFBNP in the USA.

2) Why he solicited assets (other than cash) from American patriots for his/the AFBNP's use which were to be put in his name, not in the name of the AFBNP.

3) Why he never gave receipts to significant AFBNP donors.

4) Why he never announced and recorded the totals of cash collections taken at AFBNP meetings.

5) Why he gave wads of cash to Griffin when Griffin visited the USA (for example, at meetings of the American Renaissance organisation in New York) but never asked Griffin for any receipt for these payments.

6) Why he was not arrested and deported from the USA in irons as an illegal 'over-stayer' engaged in controversial political activities and fund-raising for a foreign power. That was the treatment accorded to Ernst Zündel at about the same time.

Perhaps more to the point, we should ask the why BBC 'File on Four' team not ask him these crucial questions?

They were aware that these were vital matters to raise with Chi-Chi as they had solicited and received from me all relevant back numbers of ELC in which a dealt with these subjects.Whatever Griffin has been up to so far as fund management is concerned since he became BNP Chairman, Chi-Chi was a part-and-parcel of the operation for several years.

'File on Four' will be getting a copy of this ELC 'Extra'. I will publish their response, if I get one, in the next ELC.

THE NEXT ELC

The next ELC will probably be in the format of a "Questions & Answers" feature arising from correspondence and discussions since the publication of ELC#23. This will allow readers to focus on the crucial issues relating to the BNP and to recall various past incidents which created the current messy situation.

Please onwardly circulate this docuemnt to your lists.

Martin Webster[Mobile phone: +44 (0)7932 049019]=======================================
From:To: Martin webster Date: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:15 PM
Subject: New Concerns Over BNP

Finances<http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/email/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7239316.stm>

Last Updated: Tuesday, 12 February 2008, 06:05 GMT BBC News Hear the full story on BBC Radio 4: File On 4 Tuesday 12 February at 2000 GMT, repeated Sunday 17 February at 1700 GMT or online at File on 4 website.

New concerns over BNP finances by Fran Abrams, File On 4

At first glance the Trafalgar Club - with its annual dinner commemorating the famous sea battle - sounds like a heritage society wanting to honour one of Britain's national heroes. For just £15 a month minimum donation, members receive a newsletter and a free ticket to its annual dinner. Men get a tie with "England Expects" - the first two words of Nelson's rallying signal at the battle - emblazoned on it while women receive a personal organiser. The club could be a gathering of naval historical enthusiasts - the reality is different. Those who attend the annual dinner are addressed by Nick Griffin, chairman and leading light of the British National Party.

'Elite fund-raisers' Billed on the party's website as its "elite fund raising group", the club is a channel for well-heeled BNP supporters to give financial aid to the party without having to be listed as an official donor.

The website tells would-be members: "You do not need to be a member of the British National Party to join the Trafalgar Club. "The government currently bans many civil servants from joining the BNP so the Trafalgar Club is a great way of demonstrating your patriotism and making sure you keep your job." It adds: "After many years of running on shoe-string budgets, the BNP has learned how to stretch a pound as far as it will go!"

However, a BBC File On 4 investigation has heard other claims about the party's finances. Former party treasurer John Brayshaw refused to sign off the party's accounts because he claims he was not given the access to all the records he needed to see. In 2005 he wrote to the Electoral Commission, the body which oversees political party finances, saying that he resigned as BNP treasurer.

He alleged a number of irregularities had come to light including missing invoices and receipts from the Trafalgar Club. In his letter, Mr Brayshaw said current party treasurer John Walker and his deputy David Hannam visited his home for a week to complete the accounts. He said he did not help them but claimed he witnessed some unusual activities, namely the shredding of a large number of documents and invoices.

Mr Brayshaw said he was told to burn the shredded documents, but kept them because he felt something improper had taken place. A black bin bag containing the documents has been handed to File On 4. It contains fragments of cheques, train tickets, receipts and invoices. Some of the fragments carry the names of Nick Griffin, his parents and even the Trafalgar Club.

One unshredded item is a petrol receipt with the name Excalibur - the title of the party's merchandising arm.

Under tax regulations all financial records should be kept for six years. The Electoral Commission said it had no reason to believe a breach of the party funding law had taken place.

Current BNP treasurer John Walker dismissed Mr Brayshaw's allegations as pure fantasy. He said Mr Brayshaw had failed to make the books balance and had left the party's accounts in a mess. Mr Walker said the shredded material included material such as "draft accounts that may have errors in dates and things like that. Because you are trying to reconcile the accounts, of course you shred documents."

Confronted by the BBC with some of the shredded material, Mr Walker said they contained working copies of printouts of the BNP accounts and bounced cheques. He added: "What you've got in front of me here is clearly very weak evidence and the BBC is clutching at straws." Among other questions raised by File On 4 are whether the BNP breached party funding rules by not declaring the name of a donor who gave £20,000 to the party.

The rules say all donors who give more than £5,000 should be identified.

When leader Nick Griffin was cleared of race hate charges in November 2006, he claimed the party had just received its largest ever donation. BNP member Sharon Ebanks told the BBC she was personally thanked by a party official for collecting the £20,000 donation via her internet fund-raising. Ms Ebanks told File On 4 that the party informed her the donor's cheque was genuine and he should be made an honorary life member.

The BNP strenuously denies that it has broken any rules. It claims that the cheque in fact bounced and therefore did not need to be declared. Labour MP for Dagenham Jon Cruddas has already raised the issue of BNP finances in Parliament, and presented the Electoral Commission with a 20-page dossier just before Christmas. He said: "What this investigation for File On 4 is identifying is much more significant than any of the charges I was laying before the parliament - namely a systematic series of financial irregularities. "And this cannot be laid to rest without the most thorough of investigations by the Electoral Commission." ====================================================From: printfactory To: Martin Webster Date: Saturday, February 9, 2008 3:14 PM
Subject: Searchlight Jan 2008Searchlight - January 2008BNP

pot calls the kettle black by Sonia Gable

Financial sabotage and breaches of accountancy procedures were among the charges against Kenny Smith when he was expelled from the British National Party and sacked from his post as the party's national administration officer on 9 December.

But it is the BNP itself that is guilty of financial irregularities and has been for many years.The BNP finally published its 2006 accounts days before the fine for their late submission to the Electoral Commission would have doubled to £2,000.

The BNP is now blaming the delay on a failure by "Kenny Smith, to provide receipts for expenditure under his direct control", consisting of £17,000 paid into his account, and bizarrely claims that the auditors refused to sign the accounts until Smith was sacked.

When asked about this allegation Frank Hogarth, a partner in Silver & Co, refused to comment.

Yet on 13 August 2007 the BNP said the reason for the lateness was that 15 local party groups and branches had failed to get their accounts to the party treasurer in time.

The previous month BNP had claimed that the party's separate regional accounts, which cover local party units, were late because the independent auditors were not familiar with European auditing requirements, a highly unlikely position for any firm of auditors.The accounts themselves refer to £14,000 of funds "transferred to the B N Publications account so as to allow the printing department to funding [sic]" and state: "Receipts have been provided for the cash drawn, but no vouchers or accounts have been produced to show how the money was spent".

Yet the B N Publications account, which Smith runs, is not on the balance sheet.

This indicates that it is a separate business outside the party, so why should it have to explain how it spends the fees the BNP pays it for producing the members' bulletin?

The BNP does not ask Dave Hannam, the party's assistant treasurer, how he spend the money the party pays his company, Great White Records, to "buy CDs at commercial rates" and the fees of £9,618 for "sound assistance at venues".

The BNP appears to have pulled the wool over its auditors' eyes over B N Publications, which inspires little confidence in these accounts, for which the auditors had once again "to rely upon assurances and explanations given us by officers of the party".It would be interesting to know what explanations the BNP gave the auditors concerning the printing equipment.

In 2005 the party claimed to have spent £75,000 on printing equipment, but that year's accounts only showed expenditure of £51,671.

In June 2007 when Chris Jackson challenged Nick Griffin for the party leadership, people starting asking why Mark Collett, the director of publicity until his recent demotion, was always late in producing leaflets for the BNP after all the money spent on printing equipment.

The BNP's reply was that the party had bought four high quality digitalduplicators, three folding machines and power guillotine for £70,000 but that after the 2005 general election they were "given to the regions" and no longer kept for head office jobs.

Yet the 2006 accounts show that whatever equipment the party bought in 2005, it still owns.

So was the printing equipment ever in the accounts or was it bought for Collett's own business as some now suspect?

Was it flogged to death and is now worthless, as others claim?

Was the BNP lying in 2005, in 2007 or both?

Another area of continuing concern is payments to staff.

As in previous years, the wages figure is much too low for the number of staff declared, but there is a large sum for "professional fees".Our conclusion, that some party workers were illegally being paid without accounting for tax and national insurance through the PAYE system, wasborne out when Sadie Graham, the expelled group development officer, stated on 22 December that, "for a year I have been contracted by the Party as self-employed so that they can save on paying my tax bill".

There have also been persistent allegations that individuals have been paid in cash to avoid tax and national insurance, especially some members of the party's "security department".

And in August 2000 Griffin admitted to the BNP's Advisory Council that a payment of £1,500 described as reim-bursement of a party printing bill paid by Tony Lecomber, who was then the party's group development officer, was in reality a means of supplementing his income without affecting his state benefits.

The 2006 accounts show a surplus of nearly £19,000 compared to a deficit of nearly £95,000 in 2005, but it was not enough to take the party out of insolvency. A £35,000 surplus of liabilities over assets at 31 December 2006 was financed partly by running up a debt of nearly £22,000 to the regional accounting unit, although this was paid off in January 2007.The amount owed to HM Revenue and Customs for PAYE and value added tax washalf the sum at the start of the year, suggesting that HMRC became less tolerantof the BNP's excessive borrowing from the taxpayer to finance its deficit.

Perhaps surprisingly the party ended the year with £46,000 in the bank, much of which was used to pay off the debt to the regions. A figure of £67,548 on the balance sheet described as "subscriptions in advance" leads one to the conclusion that the BNP made a big effort to get people to pay their 2007 membership fees early.

In other words, much of 2007's membership income has been spent in 2006.

The accounts state that all donations over £5,000 are reported to the Electoral Commission.

That proved not to be the case in 2007 when the BNP's quarterly return of donations for July to September did not include the £5,315 that Steve Johnson, a recent BNP local election candidate, handed personally to Griffin at a London meeting in September.

It was not until mid-December, after Searchlight had exposed the omission, that the BNP corrected the return.That accusations about financial wrongdoings form part of the present dispute in the BNP is not surprising. The BNP has been here before.

John Tyndall, Griffin's predecessor as leader, was questioned in 1999 at a party meeting about the absence of any audited accounts for the entire party's history. His response was that he had burnt 16 years of accounts to protect the identity of the party's funders.

The absence of accounts was an issue in Griffin's successful leadership challenge to Tyndall.

After Griffin took over, it was not long before the new treasurer, Mike Newland, started challenging him over unaccounted payments, something that rapidly turned into a factional dispute.

Newland's persistent questioning eventually led to him being suspended for reasons that included "spreading deliberately misleading and inaccurate accounting records, designed to spread alarm about the party's financial status".

Griffin and Lecomber went on to make a vitriolic attack on Newland and his supporters, accusing them of "sabotage" and "an attempt to destabilise then take over the party by responding to a popular clamour (which they would have created)".

When John Walker took over as treasurer in 2004, he and Hannam went to the home of the former party treasurer John Brayshaw and had various BNP financial documents shredded. The BNP has denied this but Searchlight still has the evidence.These matters formed part of Searchlight's report into financial irregularities in the BNP, which Jon Cruddas MP presented to the House of Commons and sent to the police and Electoral Commission last month.The report also highlighted the BNP's attempts to raise money in the USA through the front organisation Civil Liberty in contravention of UK electoral law.

Before overseas donations were prohibited, the BNP raised money through the American Friends of the BNP, which raised thousands of pounds while operating in breach of the US Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.It is too early to determine how the present dispute will affect the BNP financially.

The rebels have called for supporters to delay paying their party membership fees, most of which fall due on 1 January, although to delay too long would lose them their Voting Member status and with it the right to attend the party's annual conference.

Martin Wingfield, editor of the party's newspaper Voice of Freedom, made a point of telling readers of his blog how busy the party's membership office (run by his wife) was last month, which smacks of nothing so much as wishful thinking. And supporters of the rebels, given an ultimatum to return to the Griffin fold by 24 December, were surprised to receive a tatty BNP fundraising leaflet instead of the expected expulsion letters.

It followed hot on the heals of a six-page appeal for the party's "Building toGrow Project", which presumably had not been very successful. Immediately after Christmas, when few people have much spare cash, is an odd time to appeal for donations - unless one is desperate.

Perhaps too many of the BNP's donors have transferred to the "Family Defence Appeal" set up by the rebels after Graham and Smith lost their party jobs and therefore their income.

The Building to Grow Project appeal mentioned that the party had already "equipped each BNP region with a laptop". After allegations by the rebels that the BNP used Graham's laptop to monitor her communications, potential donors might be concerned about how their money would be used.