The Madhouse Update

On 7 September 2011, The Telegraph said:

“POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION UNDERMINES THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY – BECAUSE IT MAKES SOME MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. It can be bitterly divisive for colleagues to be passed over because of their gender, not to mention counter-productive…

FULL-TIME WORKING WOMEN IN THEIR TWENTIES NOW EARN MORE THAN MEN, HARDLY A SIGN OF INSTITUTIONAL SEXISM. The main reason that this changes is because many decide to take time off to raise children…

TOO OFTEN, THE DIVERSITY AGENDA IS DISLOCATED FROM THE REALITY OF LIFE FOR MOST PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. It also smacks of double standards that two thirds of those working at the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Government Equalities Office are women, while the pay gap at the latter is 8 per cent (in favour of women)…

Amid the STIFLING POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND CREEPING SOCIAL ENGINEERING PROMOTED UNDER THE EQUALITY ACT, there are too few voices standing up for the ideal of meritocracy. We need a vision of our society where… we judge people as individuals based on the content of their character, NOT THE ARBITRARY SOCIAL DIVIDING LINES OF GENDER, RACE, RELIGION OR SEXUALITY.”

The above very welcome commentary was signed off by Dominic Raab, Conservative MP for Esher and Walton, and Priti Patel, Conservative MP for Witham.

Raab’s father was a Czech Jew. He is married to a Brazilian. The parents of Ms Patel are Ugandan Asians. So, if any of you anti-Nazi, PC Crowd snarlers fancy having a go at the politically incorrect sentiments, take issue with them.

Czech Jew - Brazilian - Ugandan Asians - they might talk the talk but they’re not exactly English, are they?

I wonder how many other unrepresentatively non-indigenous, global types there were on Cameron’s A list? You remember the A-list? That parachute-minority-candidates-into-winnable-seats-diversity-is-fab-we're-just-like-New Labour-and-the-Lib-Dems-really wotsit that he had?

Cameron, despite the oh-so-English accent, is 56% Scottish. Did you know that? You might have guessed? Fair enough, but I bet you didn’t know he was 9.4% Jewish as well. Bits of German, Welsh, Irish and King Willam IV in there as well.

Gordon Brown is, of course, Scottish. Tony Blair, despite the English accent, is half Scots - half Irish.

Point being? Well, it's just that one begins to wonder whether all this non-Anglo blood has anything to do with the open-season-on-Mr-England thing.

Doesn’t one?



On 5 September 2011, Israeli Defence Force General, Eyal Eisenberg, said this during a speech at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

"It looks like the Arab Spring but it can also be A RADICAL ISLAMIC WINTER… THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN ALL-OUT WAR IS INCREASINGLY GROWING.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147568#.TmVUNY5lyd4

Oh, wow, so we shouldn’t be surprised if Israel launches a pre-emptive strike with the USA’s blessing, eh Eyal?

You know, to prevent the “all-out war”?

“IRAN HAS NOT ABANDONED ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. The opposite it true; IT CONTINUES FULL STEAM AHEAD!”

Oh no, we really shouldn’t be surprised if Israel launches a pre-emptive strike with the USA’s blessing.

“In Egypt, the army is collapsing under the burden of regular security operations, and this is reflected in the LOSS OF CONTROL IN THE SINAI AND THE TURNING OF THE BORDER WITH ISRAEL INTO A TERROR BORDER with the possibility that Sinai will fall under the control of an Islamic entity.”

So, with the Egyptian army “collapsing” and losing “control”, I guess the Israelis better move their army into Egypt to make sure “an Islamic entity” doesn’t create yet another “terror border” on Israel’s doorstep?

That’d be what you suggesting here, would it, Eyal?

“IN LEBANON, HEZBOLLAH IS GROWING STRONGER… IT HAS NOT LOST ITS DESIRE TO HARM ISRAEL, and the ties with Turkey aren't at their best.”

I wonder why, everywhere you look, there are people who want to “harm Israel?

“THIS RAISES THE LIKELIHOOD OF AN ALL-OUT, TOTAL WAR, WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BEING USED."

There’s that “all-out war” thing again.

Now look, Eyal, you have to be a bit more laid back about these things. If you keep on repeating the phrase, "all-out war," people might get the impression that you’re up for a bit of a kick about yourself!

Oh, right.



On 5 September 2011, Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, said this in The Telegraph:

"We cannot know what is going through the mind of crazed ex-despot Muammar Gaddafi as he continues to flee Nato bombs and rebel snipers… Wherever he is I wager there is one thing that causes the old dyed ringlets to shake with rage… and that is the treachery of all those he thought of as friends...

No wonder they talk about perfidious Albion, he mutters, and you can see why. It was only a few years ago that TONY BLAIR HIMSELF CAME OUT TO HIS TENT, ALMOST SNOGGED THE MAD DOG, AND PROCLAIMED A NEW ERA OF COOPERATION BETWEEN BRITAIN AND LIBYA. The shooting of Yvonne Fletcher, the murder of hundreds of innocent people at Lockerbie, all appeared forgotten as ever grander emanations of the British state were despatched by London TO SLOBBER OVER THE COLONEL’S JACKBOOTS, AND TO HELP WIN OIL CONTRACTS FOR BRITISH COMPANIES.

In a series of retch-making overtures, BRITISH SPECIAL FORCES OFFERED TO HELP TRAIN THE KHAMIS BRIGADE, ONE OF GADDAFI’S MOST VICIOUS MILITARY UNITS. MI6 was apparently so keen to cooperate that IT WAS PREPARED TO TRACE PHONE NUMBERS FOR HIS HORRIFIC SECRET POLICE. The former Chief Inspector of Her Majesty’s prisons was sent out to devise some collaboration between the British prison service and the dungeons of Tripoli.

LORD KINNOCK WAS ONE OF MANY INVOLVED in a weird programme of ‘educational cooperation’ that reached its emetic climax in A PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION BY TONY BLAIR TO THE PHD THESIS OF ONE OF GADDAFI’S WHACKO SONS. The poor Duke of York was ordered by the Foreign Office to go and set the seal on a new ‘stable partnership’ between Britain and Libya.

Gaddafi thought he was quids in, and then what happens? A spot of bother with some rebels in Benghazi, a faint suggestion that his regime might be in trouble (AND THAT HE MIGHT NO LONGER BE THE GO-TO MAN FOR OIL CONTRACTS) and ka-booom! The very Brits who have been oiling up to him are now flying sorties over Tripoli and trying to kill him and his family…

And, of course, he is not alone in being cynically courted, fawned over and feted by the British establishment, and then ruthlessly vilified and attacked. Compare the fate of Gaddafi with that of, say, Sir Fred Goodwin and all the other bankers and super-rich excrescences of the capitalist system. IT WAS ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO THAT GOVERNMENT MINISTERS, AND INDEED POLITICIANS OF ALL PARTIES, WERE ENGAGED IN A PROTRACTED CRINGE BEFORE THE WEALTH-GENERATING POWER OF THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE…THEY WERE PUT ON IMPORTANT TASK FORCES TO IMPROVE THE GOVERNANCE OF THE COUNTRY. THEY WERE GIVEN KNIGHTHOODS FOR SERVICES TO BANKING. THEY WOULD SIT AT POSH DINNERS WITH POLITICIANS BESIDE THEM BEHAVING IN THE MANNER… OF SOME SEDUCTIVE COURTESAN.

‘You so rich! Your hedge fund so massive! Me love you long time!’ And now look at the bankers, and all the other ‘filthy rich’ characters once shamelessly extolled by Peter Mandelson. Not a day goes by without their foxholes being bombed and re-bombed by the very politicians who once sought their favour.”

But it’s only make-pretends, Boris. The politcians aren’t bombing their foxholes for real. The sound and the fury is just for public consumption. Behind and, for that matter, in front of the scenes, the Masters of the Universe suffer nothing where it matters: in their wallets.

As you well know, Boris, in the real world, the politcians are never going to kill the geese that lay their golden eggs.

“The country is seemingly engaged in an extraordinary repudiation of free-market capitalism… I have read recently two pieces… by some of the conservative journalists I admire the most. One said… the Left had been right all along, and that THE COUNTRY WAS PLAINLY RUN BY A MONEY-GRUBBING CABAL. The other said that the bankers had caused the recent riots. A brace of brilliant new Tory MPs is today arguing that corporate decisions should be invigilated by some ‘public protagonist’ to make sure they are IN THE INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE, and not just shareholders. Whatever the merits of these points, THEY WERE NOT WHAT THESE CHARACTERS WERE SAYING ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO ABOUT BANKERS or wealth creation…

Sooner or later the upswing will return… and a new round of speculation and a new breed of super-rich; and as soon as most people feel richer, and the squeezed middle feels less vengeful, why then the POLITICIANS WILL BE CLUSTERING AROUND THE MONEY-MAKERS AGAIN, LIKE FLIES AROUND A JAM JAR; and as soon as it is safe to do so, they will claim that it is in the national interest to encourage wealth creation, just as it was in the national interest to go for Gaddafi’s oil deals.

It may all sound reprehensible, but I am afraid IT’S CALLED POLITICS.”

So, he of the ongoing 'protracted cringe,' the oh-so banker-friendly Mayor of London, concedes that politics is often 'reprehensible.' And politicans, Boris, those who engage in politics, this would suggest that they are often ‘reprehensible’ too?

This is what we vote for: those who ‘fawn over and fete’ the worst people in the world. When we hand such reprehensible creatures the power to behave reprehensibly, we can't really blame them for doing so, now can we?

Forgive the digression but I’ve just had a thought.

Presumably, if the powers-that-be 'cynically courted, fawned over and feted' a body, and then turned around and ‘ruthlessly vilified and attacked’ it, said powers could, just as easily, operate the other way around? I'm thinking of British Nationalism and the 600,000 immigrants per annum. The British Nationalist (he who would put the British first in Britain) has been ‘ruthlessly vilified and attacked,‘ mostly without just cause, by the ‘slobber over the colonel’s jackboots’ crew since the early 1930s. The unwelcome immigrant, on the other hand, has been encouraged, promoted and eulogised by the same folks since the 1950s.

If good, old ’perfidious Albion’ decided it was in its interest to reverse these processes, well, wouldn’t we get our country back? Of course the reprehensible people would still be in charge but, hey, as long as it was the alien being done over and us they were buttering up, I guess we wouldn't be too fussed.



On 5 September 2011, Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank, said this at a conference in Paris:

“I think that one day the European people will have a confederation. ONE CAN IMAGINE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH a minister of finance with responsibilities including the regulation of the solvency of the eurozone…

If, despite recommendations, a country doesn’t take, or is incapable of taking, THE REQUIRED DECISIONS, it should be possible to take them from the centre of the single currency… It is clear that WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL NEED FOR ALL OF THE DECISIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY as was decided by the different heads of state and government.”



On 5 September 2011, Leo McKinstry said this in The Express:

“After a decade of legal wrangles the High Court finally decreed last week that the council should be allowed to evict the families. It was absolutely the right decision given that the Dale Farm encampment was on green belt land and had been occupied without planning permission.

Any other verdict would have been an affront to justice and the principle of equality under the law. But now a new piece of chicanery has arisen as the United Nations and the European Union have become involved. Showing THEIR USUAL CONTEMPT FOR DEMOCRACY these two sanctimonious organisations have declared that the evictions must be halted out of respect for the travellers’ so-called ‘human rights.’

None of the families can be kicked out ‘until culturally appropriate accommodation is found‘, pontificates the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, shamefully trying to turn the issue into one of ethnic prejudice rather than a matter of upholding the law. Similarly the EU’s Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg has adopted a scolding tone. Evictions ‘would be very immature and unwise,’ he says, adding that the only way forward is ‘to appoint people who have the trust of both sides to find an agreed solution’.

The hectoring Swede could not be more wrong. THE ONLY SOLUTION IS FOR THE TRAVELLERS TO OBEY THE LAW instead of throwing up a smokescreen about racism.

In fact THE ATTITUDE OF THE UN AND EU IS INSUFFERABLE. WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF THEIRS TO LECTURE BRITAIN? Since when was the UN or Brussels allowed to assume any jurisdiction over the planning process in this country?”

Where’ve you been, Leo?

They’ve been lecturing us ever since we joined their “insufferable” organisations.

McKinstry continued:

"And while they bleat about the travellers why have they chosen to disregard the rights of decent, law-abiding people who have to put up with the misery and chaos spread by illegal sites? THE STANCE OF THE UN COULD HARDLY BE MORE HYPOCRITICAL. THE POSE OF THIS UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE OUTFIT AS A CHAMPION OF HUMAN RIGHTS WOULD BE LAUGHABLE WERE IT NOT SO OFFENSIVE. Far from upholding freedom THE UN IS A HAVEN FOR CORRUPT TOTALITARIAN REGIMES, as illustrated by the fact that the COUNTRIES SITTING ON ITS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL INCLUDE SAUDI ARABIA, CHINA AND CUBA.

Just as absurd is the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which has been whipping up hysteria about Dale Farm. ITS CHAIRMAN IS ANWAR KEMAL, A DIPLOMAT FROM PAKISTAN, THAT SHINING BEACON OF TOLERANCE AND STABILITY, WHILE OTHER MEMBERS COME FROM RUSSIA, ALGERIA AND ROMANIA.

Tellingly one of the leading figures on the committee is Anastasia Crickley, a professional grievance monger from Ireland who seems to wallow in the cult of ethnic victimhood and helped create the Migrants Rights Centre and the Pavee Point National Travellers Centre in her native land. The only appropriate response to Ms Crickley is to ignore her. But THE TRAGEDY OF OUR AGE IS THAT WE CONSTANTLY HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS SORT OF INTERVENTION FROM INTERNATIONAL BUREAUCRATS AND CAMPAIGNERS, THANKS TO THE CREEPING SPREAD OF GLOBALISATION. THIS PERNICIOUS DOCTRINE HOLDS THAT THE CONCEPTS OF NATIONAL INTEREST AND PATRIOTISM ARE REDUNDANT. Instead, TO ENSURE OUR ADHERENCE TO THE CREED OF GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCE WE MUST BE GOVERNED BY BODIES SUCH AS THE UN, THE EU, AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.

FILLED WITH LOATHING FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRIES MANY LEFT-WING IDEOLOGUES HAVE LONG DREAMED OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, RULED BY A SUPPOSED ENLIGHTENED ELITE. THIS IDEA IS FAST BECOMING A REALITY. WE NO LONGER CONTROL OUR DESTINY. THE DRIVE TOWARDS A EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE HAS DESTROYED OUR SOVEREIGNTY.

Even the most routine aspects of our daily lives, such as the wattage of lightbulbs or the design of petrol pumps, are dictated by Brussels while the supremacy of European human rights has wrecked the integrity of our justice system.

GLOBALISATION HAS BEEN A BATTERING RAM AGAINST THE VERY IDEA OF BRITISHNESS, DEMOLISHING OUR BORDERS AND OBLITERATING OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY. WE ARE NOW LETTING IN 600,000 IMMIGRANTS EVERY YEAR, WHILE A QUARTER OF ALL BABIES BORN IN BRITAIN ARE TO FOREIGN MOTHERS.

Thomas Hammarberg claims that ‘the political challenge is the promotion of diversity.’ But why? What is so great about a remorseless cultural and demographic revolution in which all national cohesion and solidarity are shattered by the imposition of diversity? GLOBALISATION MEANS THE END OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THAT ONCE BUILT OUR CIVILISATION in which citizens could only expect services and welfare in return for their contribution to society.

NOW WE SEEM TO OWE A LIVING TO EVERYONE WHO COMES HERE, as exemplified by the recent case in which a jobless Somalian family were handed a £2million house in London at a cost to the taxpayer of £8,000 a month.

During one of his guilt-trips to Africa, David Cameron said that ‘THERE IS NO DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN ANY MORE. IN THIS WORLD WE ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER.’ THAT SUMS UP GLOBALISATION.

THE GOVERNMENT NO LONGER PUTS THE BRITISH PEOPLE FIRST. WE HAVE TO ENDURE AUSTERITY WHILE £8BILLION IS LAVISHED ON FOREIGN AID.

We prop up the EU while slashing our armed forces. The blue flag of the UN was flown last weekend at Dale Farm. But THE BULLIES OF THE EU AND UN MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO WIN THIS FIGHT.”

The only way the bullies aren't going to win the fight, Leo, is for people like you to put your money where your mouth is and stop pouring contempt on the BNP, the National Front et al.

Give them, their personalities and policies a fair crack of the whip in the media and the British people might finally get someone into parliament who will speak up for THEM!



On 5 September 2011, the BBC told us this:

“Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch's young children…

Blair was present last March when Mr Murdoch's two daughters by his third wife, Wendi Deng, were baptised… Tony Blair's office declined to comment on the report, WHICH SHEDS NEW LIGHT ON MR BLAIR'S TIES WITH THE MEDIA MOGUL.

Mr Blair, WHO IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN ‘ROBED IN WHITE’ DURING THE CEREMONY, is the godfather to Grace, the second youngest of Mr Murdoch's six children.

The nine-year-old was baptised with her younger sister Chloe, ON THE BANKS OF THE RIVER JORDAN, AT THE SPOT JESUS IS SAID TO HAVE UNDERGONE THE SAME CEREMONY…

Photographs of the event, which took place a few weeks before the UK general election, were featured in Hello magazine, but Mr Blair's involvement was not revealed at the time. Australian actors Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman were named as godparents to the two children but THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE FORMER LABOUR LEADER, WHOSE PRESENCE AT THE CEREMONY HAS ONLY NOW BEEN REVEALED BY MS DENG IN A RARE INTERVIEW.

In the Vogue article, Mr Blair is described as ‘ONE OF MURDOCH'S CLOSEST FRIENDS’.

When he was Labour leader Mr Blair angered many in the party, including former leader Neil Kinnock, who had been vilified by Mr Murdoch's Sun newspaper ahead of the 1992 general election, with his decision to woo Mr Murdoch. The two struck up a friendship after he accepted an invitation to address a News Corporation conference on Hayman Island, Australia, in 1995, when Mr Blair was the leader of the opposition.

In his autobiography A Journey, Mr BLAIR DESCRIBES HOW HE CAME TO LIKE AND ADMIRE THE MEDIA MOGUL, despite his right wing, Eurosceptic views.

‘He was hard no doubt. He was right wing. I did not share or like his attitudes on Europe, social policy or on issues like gay rights, but there were two points of connection: HE WAS AN OUTSIDER and he had balls,’ writes the former prime minister.”

“Robed in white?”

“Baptised… on the banks of the river Jordan, at the spot Jesus is said to have undergone the same ceremony?”

The crassness, pomposity and narcissism of this vulgar nu-elite is breathtaking, don‘t you think?



On 4 September, ahead of the launch of Alistair Darling’s autobiography, ‘Back from the Brink: 1,000 Days at Number 11,’ The Sunday Times quoted the former Chancellor thus:

“Gordon seemed to have no conception of the effects of HIS SOMETIMES APPALLING BEHAVIOUR on those close to him, or of the political damage his way of operating, indirectly, through a cabal – could cause… He surrounded himself with a cadre of people whose preoccupation was the removal of Tony Blair…

He did not trust my advice, and now HE APPEARED INDIFFERENT TO WHAT I THOUGHT.”

Darling described Gordon Brown as “BRUTAL AND VOLCANIC” upon occasion and his followers as a “Brownite cabal” a “BRUTAL REGIME” which “many… fell foul of." Brown's "attack dogs" turned on him after he went public with his belief that the economic crisis was the worst in 60 years. This attack was "HELLISH, VERY PERSONAL” like “THE FORCES OF HELL being unleashed one me. That's what it felt like.”

He added:

“Systematic anonymous briefing from people you have known for years, and who are supposed to be on your side, is deeply unpleasant… It left a scar on me... you just can't get over it… THOSE WERE DARK DAYS…

The management of Gordon's time by Number 10 was, from my perspective, HOPELESS. THERE WAS A PERMANENT AIR OF CHAOS AND CRISIS… OUR DISCUSSIONS RARELY, IF EVER, REACHED A CONCLUSION…

Something had changed after he became Prime Minister and suddenly I was outside the tent…

Ed Balls was his protégé. He probably thought that after giving him experience in a spending department he could install him at the first reshuffle. Part of me wanted to go. I was tired of THE ATMOSPHERE OF FEUDING AND THE PERPETUAL SNIPING. Our friendship had been strained beyond breaking point. In many ways I wanted out, I'd had enough. And yet another part of me did not want to be forced out at this stage."

The Times quoted Tony Blair’s opinion of working with Brown as "having dental treatment with no anaesthetic".

Subsequent to The Sunday Times article‘s publication, Conservative party Deputy Chairman, Michael Fallon, said:

"Labour has always been more interested in party political plotting than the national interest."



On 4 September 2011, a 2004 a note to Musa Kusa, the head of Colonel Gaddafi’s intelligence service, from MI6 agent ‘Mark in London’ was featured in The Daily Mail.

This said:

“I congratulate you on the safe arrival of Abu Abd Allah Sadiq. This is the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate THE REMARKABLE RELATIONSHIP WE HAVE BUILT OVER RECENT YEARS.”

The Mail explains:

“With those chilling words, written in 2004, THE OFFICIAL BLOWS APART, ONCE AND FOR ALL, TONY BLAIR’S LAST THREADBARE CLAIM THAT HE RAN AN ‘ETHICAL FOREIGN POLICY’. In public, the former prime minister may have played the part of a pious champion of universal human rights. But as the explosive documents unearthed in Tripoli show, IN SECRET HE WAS PURSUING POLICIES SO MORALLY TAINTED THAT THEY WILL BRING LASTING SHAME ON BRITAIN’S REPUTATION ABROAD.

Truly shocking… are the revelations about how far Mr Blair was prepared to go to help Libya’s police state crush opposition, while keeping his activities secret from the Americans. Incredibly, it emerges that SAS MEN WERE ORDERED TO TRAIN THE DICTATOR’S SPECIAL FORCES, WHICH HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF TERRIBLE ATROCITIES IN RECENT WEEKS. Meanwhile, MI6 agents passed information to Gaddafi’s intelligence service about Libyan rebels living in Britain, supplying it with email addresses and telephone numbers. Worse, the documents show that British spymasters sought information they must have known was obtained by inhumane methods…

After these revelations – and our abrupt change of sides in Libya – can you blame the leaders of the Arab Spring for wondering if Britain can be trusted?”



On 4 September 2011, The Observer told us that the ‘Dale Farm Travellers get Jewish backing,’ adding:

"Rabbi compares 'vilification' of Travellers to the discrimination Jews faced in the first half of the 20th century."

Rabbi Janet Burden was quoted thus in The Observer:

"People may not be aware that the Travellers, along with the Gypsies and a limited number of other groups with similar lifestyle patterns, are officially recognised as ethnic minorities, just like our own Jewish community. As such, THEY DESERVE PROTECTION UNDER EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW."

You seem to be suggesting that minorities deserve special rights and consideration, Janet.

That their wants and needs should, somehow, be afforded priority of those of the indigenous population. You are not alone. Our MPs have been arguing that all manner of non-majority folk should be put ahead of those who made the country what it is for many years now.

Rabbi Burden continues:

"The language used clearly echoes the rhetoric of anti-Semitism. If you don't believe this, have a look at the website jewify.org for examples of newspaper articles which substitute the word Jew for Gypsy or Traveller. The results are quite chilling. I BELIEVE THAT THE OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THIS ETHNIC MINORITY'S WAY OF LIFE IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE THAT, IN THIS PARTICULAR AND UNUSUAL CASE, MAY NEED TO TRUMP THE PLANNING LAW DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE GREEN BELT."

In other words, the law that applies to the indigenous should be set aside for the alien.

One law for them, another for us. That’s what you mean, isn’t it, Janet? As previously stated an approach that isn’t unusual. The powers-that-be have been socking this philosophy to the British people ever since Harold Wilson’s government instituted the first race law in 1965.

Check this out:

On 12 April 1994, The Criminal Justice And Public Order Bill was debated in parliament.

During this debate, David Sumberg, MP for Bury South, said this:

"Something must be done to combat and reduce the rising tide of racism in our society... The Government... will make the publication of racist literature an arrestable offence… WE MUST TACKLE THE EVIL… IT IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR THERE TO BE A RISE IN MEMBERSHIP OF THE HARD RIGHT IN BRITAIN, which has always been a tolerant, just and humane society, A SOCIETY THAT HAS WELCOMED IMMIGRANTS TO ITS SHORES FOR MANY YEARS."

Gerald Kaufman, MP, said this in the same debate:

"The question is whether the law should have greater rigour... It is about whether the law should say, ‘If you attack someone, that is odious, but if you attack someone because they are black or an Asian or Chinese or a Jew, THAT IS EVEN MORE ODIOUS…

This is why it is such a good new clause... THE RACIAL ELEMENT CARRIES WITH IT AN ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT, to say to people, ‘you have committed a crime, and... because you committed that crime, which had a racial concomitant, YOU SHALL BE PUNISHED EVEN MORE, to teach you and TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE ETHNIC MINORITY COMMUNITIES THAT… THEY SHALL HAVE SPECIAL PROTECTION’…

I MOVED A NEW CLAUSE TO THE PUBLIC ORDER BILL IN STANDING COMMITTEE G ON APRIL 10 1986, WHICH WOULD HAVE CREATED AN OFFENCE OF RACIAL HARASSMENT. However, the talks did not result in our finding a satisfactory way to deal with the matter, which has remained a festering sore during the eight years since… which was why I MOVED THE NEW CLAUSE…

The House of Commons should send a message to the members of ethnic minority communities, of whom I regard myself as one, that PARLIAMENT CONSIDERS CRIMES WITH A RACIAL ELEMENT AS EVEN MORE INTOLERABLE THAN OTHER CRIMES… If you attack someone, that is odious, but if you attack someone because they are black or an Asian or Chinese or a Jew, THAT IS EVEN MORE ODIOUS…

The merit of our new clause is THAT IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF A RACIAL ELEMENT, THE JUDGE COULD EXPAND THE SENTENCE… Parliament needs to send a signal to members of the ethnic minorities in this country that PARLIAMENT HAS A SPECIAL CONCERN FOR THEM."

In other words, folks, as George Orwell might have said, if he'd been a creep like Kaufman:

"People are equal, but some people, especially ethnic minorities, are more equal than others."

Barbara Roche, MP, concurred with Gerald Kaufman.

"I have been following my right hon. Friend's remarks extremely closely, AND AGREE WITH THEM WHOLE-HEARTEDLY. Does he agree that one of the problems is that the aspect in which the law is deficient, and which this new clause would cover, is in relation to those crimes that are petty in nature by themselves... but over a period build up into a picture of intolerable harassment, and that many senior police officers say that ONE NEEDS TO TACKLE THAT PICTURE WITH NEW LEGISLATION so that society can express its repugnance for offences of that type."

Sir Ivan Lawrence who, unlike the previous Labour speakers, was a Conservative MP at the time, had this to say in the same debate:

"The Home Affairs Select Committee believes that RACISM, IN ALL ITS FORMS, IS AN EVIL AND DESTRUCTIVE FORCE IN OUR MULTIRACIAL SOCIETY… Most of us believe that we may be able to deter racist attacks by the threat of greater punishment… We believe that… that an assault motivated by racism is more socially divisive and corrosive of the very fabric of our tolerant society and, FOR THAT REASON, IS ITSELF MORE SERIOUS.

The majority of members of the Home Affairs Committee believe that the matter is so serious, and will become increasingly more so, that the present state of the law is simply not enough. WE THEREFORE SUGGEST THAT NEW CLAUSE 127 SHOULD CREATE FIVE NEW OFFENCES OF RACIALLY MOTIVATED ASSAULT… THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE MEASURE…

Is there a need for a new offence of racial harassment to deal with the drip, drip, drip effect of constant harassment? THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS, THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY, the anti-racist alliance and a number of others all say yes.

There were strong criticisms of the working of the present legislation, PARTICULARLY FROM THE BOARD OF DEPUTIES OF BRITISH JEWS, which said that the existing legislation had not proved effective in countering the tide of antisemitic and other racist literature."

The bill Sir Gerald Kaufman tried to foist on the British people was defeated.

However, many of those who rose to the top of New Labour's parliamentary pole voted for it and, in 1998, they ensured that the legislation the cited MPs spoke in favour of was implemented. These included:

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, John Prescott, Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett, Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Geoff Hoon, Peter Hain, Harriet Harman, John Reid, Tessa Jowell, Robin Cook, Clare Short, Alstair Darling, Chris Smith, Nick Brown, Ian McCartney, Frank Dobson, Margaret Beckett, Ron Davies, Paul Boateng, Estelle Morris, Mo Mowlam, George Robertson, Gavin Strang, Ann Taylor, Paul Murphy, Andrew Smith, Barbara Roche and Keith Vaz.

All of the above would, subsequently, rise to Cabinet rank in Tony Blair's government with the exception of Barbara Roche and Keith Vaz.

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister, he decided to give the job of Europe Minister to Keith Vaz. Which is interesting. You see, Vaz is an African Asian. Not exactly the kind of man most of us would have chosen to represent the will of the vast majority of those whose ancestors are buried in Europe, wouldn't you say?

Tony Blair would make Barbara Roche Immigration Minister when he came to power. In this position, she was the first ever person to tell us that we NEEDED another 150,000 LEGAL immigrants entering the country every year in order to help us out. It's pretty easy to see why Roche would have little sympathy for those who wanted to keep Britain British. Her grandparents were a fascinating mixture of Polish, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese.

And all of them were Jewish.

As are the former MPs, David Sumberg and Ivan Lawrence. As is Gerald Kaufman, who is still the MP for Manchester Gorton.

As is Rabbi Janet Burden.

Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights was quoted thus in The Observer:

"If they go ahead with the eviction that would be very immature and unwise."

“Immature and unwise” for the Gypsy just happens to be ironclad “planning law“ for us. Funny how “human rights” only ever seems to apply to things that most of us don’t want, doesn’t it?



On 4 September 2011, Peter Hitchens said this in his Mail on Sunday column:

“What a pity that nurses are to stop wearing their scarlet DO NOT DISTURB waistcoats as they patrol hospital wards. These fetching items of clothing sum up modern Britain so perfectly that they should be much more widely available.

THE PRIME MINISTER COULD WEAR ONE DURING MEETINGS WITH CONSTITUENTS WORRIED ABOUT CRIME, DISORDER, IMMIGRATION, EU CONTROL OF BRITAIN, WASTEFUL FOREIGN AID OR THE DISMANTLING OF THE ARMED FORCES – all subjects on which he doesn’t want to hear from us, thank you very much.

THE POLICE COULD WEAR THEM as they… ignore all the things they regard as too trivial to trouble them, public swearing, alfresco widdling, cyclists scattering old ladies, littering, cannabis smoking, car theft and burglary…

TEACHERS COULD WEAR THEM AS THEY FAIL TO TEACH YET ANOTHER GENERATION TO READ, stopping their ears to half a ton of research telling them that synthetic phonics works, because they think it is ‘authoritarian’.

BBC COMPLAINTS OFFICERS COULD WEAR them as they explain to licence-payers that THEIR TASTES, CONCERNS AND POLITICAL VIEWS HAVE NO PLACE ON THE AIRWAVES…

ALL THESE PEOPLE… NO LONGER DO THE JOBS THEY ARE PAID TO DO. Isn’t it interesting that THE WORK ONCE DONE BY THE POLICE IS NOW HANDED TO POWERLESS POLICE COMMUNITY SUPPORT OFFICERS, THAT ‘GRADUATE’ NURSES ARE TOO GRAND TO WIELD A BEDPAN AND DELEGATE SUCH STUFF TO SUPPORT WORKERS. TEACHERS, APPARENTLY UNABLE TO TEACH MUCH, HAVE LEGIONS OF ‘ASSISTANTS’. Like the undisturbed nurses, THEY COULD ALL HAND OUT PILLS, ‘ANTIDEPRESSANTS’, RITALIN, OR SEMI-LEGAL CANNABIS TO ZONK US ALL INTO BELIEVING THAT THINGS ARE JUST GREAT.

And our immigration officers, as they wave through the next batch of EU citizens anxious to do the jobs we don’t fancy, could all be emblazoned with the words DO NOT DISTURB: COUNTRY COMMITTING SUICIDE.”

Hitchens also said this:

“The Government did not like the scenes at Wootton Bassett as the dead came home, and wants to make sure that nothing of the kind ever grows up again in any other place. IT WANTS TO BE FREE TO CONDUCT MORE STUPID, UNWANTED WARS, WITHOUT BEING REMINDED OF THE TRUE COST OF THEM.

From now on, the bodies of those soldiers killed in the Afghan conflict will be flown home to RAF Brize Norton, and will no longer pass through Wootton Bassett… They will no longer go through the centre of any town, being routed through suburbs and along fast main roads and bypasses where no crowds are likely to gather… I have heard the various official explanations for this curious routing, including the shameful, pitiful claim that the roads of Carterton, 22ft wide, are ‘too narrow’.

I think THE TIME HAS COME TO SAY THAT THESE EXPLANATIONS ARE SO MUCH TRIPE, THE SORT OF THING DICTATORS AND DESPOTS SAY. IN A FREE COUNTRY, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUFFER FOR ITS LIES.”

And this:

“We are always told that the authorities have given up on cannabis so that they can be ‘freed up’ to pursue other drugs, allegedly worse, AND THE ‘EVIL DEALERS’ WHO SELL THEM. Since CANNABIS CAN UNPREDICTABLY SEND YOU MAD FOR LIFE, I can’t see why it is any less serious than heroin or cocaine. But if the authorities have been ‘freed up’, they haven’t taken much advantage of their freedom… Of 2,530 people convicted and sentenced for supply of ‘Class A’ drugs last year, 1,756 DID NOT EVEN GO TO PRISON AND NONE RECEIVED THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE.

THERE IS NO ‘WAR ON DRUGS’. IT IS A SHAM.”



“American publishers first went to war in 2001 with massive photo-memorial volumes… Seeing this stuff piled on newsstands across America, who could doubt that the US was going to go to war? And long before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, another pile of tomes arrived TO JUSTIFY THE WAR AFTER THE WAR. Most prominent among them was ex-CIA spook Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm…

There were two themes to this work by Pollack, ‘one of the world's leading experts on Iraq’… the first of which was a detailed account of SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NONE OF WHICH… ACTUALLY EXISTED. The second theme was the opportunity to sever the ‘linkage’ between ‘the Iraq issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict.’

The Palestinians, deprived of the support of powerful Iraq, went the narrative, would be further weakened in their struggle against Israeli occupation. Pollack referred to the Palestinians' ‘vicious terrorist campaign’ but WITHOUT ANY CRITICISM OF ISRAEL. He wrote of ‘weekly terrorist attacks followed by Israeli responses,’ the standard Israeli version of events…

In the years since, of course, we've been deluged with a rich literature of post-9/11 trauma… Given THE SECRETIVE, OBTUSE AND SOMETIMES DISHONEST ACCOUNT PRESENTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE – not to mention the initial hoodwinking of the official 9/11 commission staff, I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT MILLIONS OF AMERICANS BELIEVE SOME OF THIS, LET ALONE THE BIGGEST GOVERNMENT LIE: THAT SADDAM WAS BEHIND 9/11. Leon Panetta, the CIA's newly appointed autocrat, repeated this same lie in Baghdad only this year…

And now we're being deluged with TV specials, ALL OF WHICH HAVE ACCEPTED THE LIE THAT 9/11 DID ACTUALLY CHANGE THE WORLD, it was the Bush/Blair repetition of this dangerous notion that allowed their thugs to indulge in murderous invasions and torture, without for a moment asking why the press and television went along with the idea. So far, NOT ONE OF THESE PROGRAMMES HAS MENTIONED THE WORD ‘ISRAEL’ and Brian Lapping's Thursday night ITV offering mentioned ‘Iraq’ once, without explaining the degree to which 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 PROVIDED THE EXCUSE FOR THIS 2003 WAR CRIME. How many died on 9/11? Almost 3,000. How many died in the Iraq war? Who cares?…

I'm drawn to Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan whose The Eleventh Day confronts what the West refused to face in the years that followed 9/11. ‘ALL THE EVIDENCE ... INDICATES THAT PALESTINE WAS THE FACTOR THAT UNITED THE CONSPIRATORS – AT EVERY LEVEL,’ they write. One of the organisers of the attack believed it would make Americans concentrate on ‘THE ATROCITIES THAT AMERICA IS COMMITTING BY SUPPORTING ISRAEL. PALESTINE,’ the authors state, ‘WAS CERTAINLY THE PRINCIPAL POLITICAL GRIEVANCE ... DRIVING THE YOUNG ARABS…’

The motivation for the attacks was ‘ducked’ even by the official 9/11 report, say the authors. The commissioners had disagreed on this ‘issue’ – cliché code word for ‘problem’ – and its two most senior officials, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, were later to explain: ‘THIS WAS SENSITIVE GROUND... COMMISSIONERS… REJECTED MENTIONING THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT... IN THEIR VIEW, LISTING US SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL AS A ROOT CAUSE OF AL-QA'IDA'S OPPOSITION TO THE UNITED STATES INDICATED THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD REASSESS THAT POLICY.’

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT.

So what happened? The commissioners, Summers and Swan ‘SETTLED ON VAGUE LANGUAGE THAT CIRCUMVENTED THE ISSUE OF MOTIVE’… In other words, WE STILL HAVEN'T TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRIME WHICH, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE, ‘CHANGED THE WORLD FOR EVER.’ Mind you, after watching Obama on his knees before Netanyahu last May, I'm really not surprised.

When the Israeli Prime Minister gets even the US Congress to grovel to him, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO BE TOLD THE ANSWER TO THE MOST IMPORTANT AND ‘SENSITIVE’ QUESTION OF 9/11: WHY?”



On 3 September 2011, the Swiss MP, Oskar Freysinger, spoke thus in Berlin:

“FREIHEIT! That is… the name of the party here in Germany that offers AN ALTERNATIVE TO BUREAUCRATISM, CENTRALISM, LOSS OF DEMOCRACY, UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION AND ISLAMIZATION. AN ALTERNATIVE TO SELF-DESTRUCTION…

Why does the EU exert this kind of massive pressure, economically, financially and politically, on my country?… The EUSSR will no longer tolerate the existence of a small country in the heart of the continent, WHOSE PEOPLE STILL WANT TO DECIDE THEIR OWN FATE. A prudent, little bit of A FOLK THAT HAS THUS FAR WITHSTOOD THE OVER-INDEBTEDNESS WHICH IS PLAYING HELL WITH THE STATES REINED IN BY GLOBALIZATION. For THAT IS THE GOAL OF ALL GLOBAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUNDS: THE WEAKENING OF NATION-STATES… The wealth of peoples is destroyed en masse, so that the WEAKENED STATES CAN BE REDUCED TO WILLING AGENTS OF A GLOBAL DOGMA.

We Swiss hate every form of paternalism! We want no patronizing, no foreign judges! Our citizens are independent and imaginative enough to take their fate into their own hands.

Just picture this: On the southern border of Germany is a country in which 53% OF THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR DEPORTATION OF CRIMINAL ALIENS; A LAND IN WHICH EVERY MINOR RISE IN THE VAT MUST BE APPROVED BY REFERENDUM. WHO IS SURPRISED THAT THE VAT IS STILL AT 8% IN SWITZERLAND WHILE IT HAS REACHED 20% IN THE EU?…

We watch our own wallets more carefully than other people’s money. There lies the future of the continent. Not in further expansion of A BUREAUCRATIC AND CENTRALIZED MONSTER THAT WILL ONE DAY SWALLOW ITS OWN CHILDREN.

In Switzerland, THE POWER IS STILL IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE. WE HELVETIANS WERE ABLE TO VOTE ON ENTRY TO THE EU… AND WISELY LOOKED THE OTHER WAY…

How did that work in Germany? ELITES DISTANCED FROM THE PEOPLE DECIDED FOR THE PEOPLE. THE SAME ELITE WHO INTRODUCED THE EURO, WHICH, AT ONE BLOW, CAUSED A 30% LOSS OF PURCHASING POWER FOR THE AVERAGE GERMAN CITIZEN…

Europe is the cradle of the modern constitutional democracy, the treasure-house of human rights, of freedom of opinion and expression… This has increasingly been put into danger AS OUR POLITICAL ELITE BEND THEIR NECKS BEFORE A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS DOGMA WHICH IS COMPLETELY ALIEN to our intellectual history, our values and rule of law.

This dogma is gnawing away at the pillars of our system of laws, wherever it is granted the space to do so… A long process of demoralization and slowmotion occupation of OUR WEAKENED CHILD-POOR SOCIETY is foreseen. THE ISLAMIC DOCTRINE IS INTENDED TO CREEP INTO OUR EVERYDAY LIFE BIT BY BIT AND MAKE FORTRESS EUROPE CRUMBLE FROM WITHIN… ISLAMIC DOGMA IS NOW IMPOSING ITSELF EVERYWHERE...

The Arab Spring is on the point of being taken over by the Islamists. In Iraq, Egypt and Pakistan, the last Christian communities are facing extinction. And what are we doing? We are allowing this violent doctrine in to subvert our rule of law…

HAVE WE GONE MAD?…

We just shrug our shoulders when girls are forced into marriage… We look the other way, as the women are beaten and whole city districts taken over. We think we can soften the power-lusting ‘holy warriors’ with social benefits. We think we can buy our way to peace of mind!… Fanatics cannot be bought…

My dear friends … WE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST A DOGMA THAT DESPISES ALL HUMANITY and wants to push us back into barbarity. We will not easily give up the freedom, for which we have fought so hard over the centuries…

Islam is only as strong as we are weak. Let us oppose it with more than MCDONALD’S, SOAP OPERAS, STUPEFYING TV PROGRAMS AND BRUTAL VIDEO GAMES… Let us no longer subject our spirit to the dictates of the material… Only that way do we have chance to leave our children A PEACEFUL EUROPE, SHAPED BY RESPECT AND DIGNITY.”

Text of Oscar Freysinger's speech



On 2 September 2011, The Telegraph's Martin Beckford informed us that, in 1951, a Colonial Office survey on attitudes towards “coloured people” had found:

"Only 52% of respondents had ever come across someone from a different race, with just one in 10 of these counting them among their friends. 41% would ‘dislike letting a room to a coloured person if they had one to let’ while 27% would not want to invite them home and 16% would not want to work alongside them.”

The report concluded that:

“ANTIPATHY TO COLOURED PEOPLE IS PROBABLY CONSIDERABLE AMONGST AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF THE POPULATION.”

In Trevor Philips' self-congratulatory gloat, The Windrush, he tells that, in the nineteen fifties, 90 percent of the British people wanted all immigration stopped.

And yet, those we voted for consistently ignored how so many of us felt and kept on shipping the “coloured people” over! Not only that, once here, our politicians created laws that would put them first and us last in our own land!

It’s not for nothing they dumbed us down and drugged us up.

It’s not for nothing they created and implemented an entirely new raft of legislation that would frighten the majority into keeping quiet for fear of being labelled racist. It’s not for nothing that these anti-indigenous laws enabled those who knew better and saw so much further to imprison us if we ever spoke out too strongly against the mass invasions of our territory that they were encouraging.

If we hadn’t been dumbed-down, drugged up and fearful of breaking the nu foreigner-first laws, do you think we’d have stood for what the politicians, the media darlings, the money men and the PC Crowd did to us?

I don’t.

I think we’d have had those who gave our world away arrested, charged with treason, found guilty and strung up.

That’s what I think.

What do you think?



Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident - July 2011

Released to the New York Times on 1 September 2011.

Partial findings of the four man panel chaired by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister of New Zealand.

“On 31 May 2010 at 4.26 a.m. a flotilla of six vessels was boarded and taken-over by Israeli Defense Forces 72 nautical miles from land. The vessels were carrying people and humanitarian supplies. The flotilla had been directed to change course by the Israeli forces on the grounds that the coast of Gaza was under a naval blockade. Nine passengers lost their lives and many others were wounded during the take-over operation…

The events of 31 May 2010 should never have taken place as they did and strenuous efforts should be made to prevent the occurrence of such incidents in the future…

Israel’s decision to board the vessels with SUCH SUBSTANTIAL FORCE AT A GREAT DISTANCE FROM THE BLOCKADE ZONE AND WITH NO FINAL WARNING IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE BOARDING WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE… Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type of confrontation that occurred…

The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent...

THE LOSS OF LIFE AND INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE USE OF FORCE BY ISRAELI FORCES DURING THE TAKE-OVER OF THE MAVI MARMARA WAS UNACCEPTABLE. NINE PASSENGERS WERE KILLED AND MANY OTHERS SERIOUSLY WOUNDED BY ISRAELI FORCES. NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PANEL BY ISRAEL FOR ANY OF THE NINE DEATHS. FORENSIC EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT MOST OF THE DECEASED WERE SHOT MULTIPLE TIMES, INCLUDING IN THE BACK, OR AT CLOSE RANGE HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE MATERIAL PRESENTED BY ISRAEL…

THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT MISTREATMENT OF PASSENGERS BY ISRAELI AUTHORITIES AFTER THE TAKE-OVER OF THE VESSELS HAD BEEN COMPLETED THROUGH UNTIL THEIR DEPORTATION. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance...

Israel should continue with its efforts to ease its restrictions on movement of goods and persons to and from Gaza with a view to lifting its closure and to alleviate the unsustainable humanitarian and economic situation of the civilian population…

The blockade has been continuously in force in fact at least since 2007, despite the changing descriptions given to it by Israel…

THE BLOCKADE WAS INTENDED AS A FORM OF ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WARFARE. IT WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO ITEMS THAT COULD BE USED AGAINST ISRAEL, BUT ALSO INCLUDED ORDINARY CONSUMER ITEMS WITH NO SECURITY PURPOSE.As such, IT HAS A DISPROPORTIONATE AND PUNITIVE IMPACT ON THE CIVILIAN POPULATION AND HAS AGGRAVATED THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN GAZA…

The blockade has not been applied with any transparency or consistency. There is no accessible list specifying those items that are prohibited and those that are permitted to enter Gaza. Apparently illogical distinctions have been drawn; for example, canned meat has been permitted, but canned fruit not…

Those on board the vessels were civilians, including politicians, academics, journalists and religious leaders. The vessels were carrying in excess of 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian supplies. THERE WERE NO GUNS OR OTHER WEAPONS ON BOARD. ALL PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE WERE THOROUGHLY SCREENED PRIOR TO BOARDING.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf

“The Turkish Commission’s account of the interception of the vessels… is as follows…

The vessels were in international waters, 72 nautical miles from the coast and 64 nautical miles (approximately 5 hours sailing) from the blockade zone at the time of the attack. The Mavi Marmara and other vessels received the first communication from the Israeli navy at approximately 10.30 p.m. on 30 May 2010 asking the vessels to identify themselves and their destination. The vessels responded by confirming the identity of the vessels and that their destination was Gaza.

The vessels advised the number of passengers on board, and explained that they were unarmed civilians carrying only humanitarian aid not constituting any threat to Israel. Israeli naval forces then cautioned the Captain and other vessels that the coast of Gaza was under a blockade zone, and directed them to change course. The vessels responded that the convoy was in international waters and could not be directed to change course.

At approximately 11.30 p.m., however, THE MAVI MARMARA DID CHANGE COURSE TO A BEARING OF 185º DIRECTED TOWARDS THE COAST OF EGYPT. The Mavi Marmara and other vessels continued to receive warnings from the Israeli navy but no demand was made to 'stop, search and visit' the vessels. From approximately 2.00 a.m. on 31 May 2010, Israeli naval vessels began to shadow the convoy. Communications from Israeli authorities ceased from this point.

From approximately 4.00 a.m. SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM THE CONVOY VESSELS WERE BLOCKED BY ISRAELI AUTHORITIES. The report describes the passengers as subject to an ever-growing anxiety and fear during this period.

At 4.32 a.m., ISRAELI FORCES LAUNCHED THE ATTACK WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING when several speedboats drew alongside the Mavi Marmara and IDF personnel commenced an attempt to board the vessel. The speedboats were shortly followed by combat helicopters. IDF PERSONNEL BEGAN FIRING ON THE MAVI MARMARA FROM BOTH THE SPEEDBOATS AND HELICOPTERS BEFORE BOARDING HAD COMMENCED. This included the use of live fire (including automatic and semi-automatic weapon fire) as well as stun and smoke grenades, paintball guns and rubber bullets. TWO PASSENGERS WERE KILLED BY SHOTS FROM THE HELICOPTERS BEFORE THE FIRST SOLDIERS HAD BOARDED THE VESSEL.

The Captain immediately changed the vessel’s course to the open sea on a bearing of 270º, but ISRAELI NAVAL FRIGATES APPROACHED THE VESSEL FROM THE STARBOARD BOW AND FORCED THE CONVOY TO TURN BACK TOWARDS ISRAELI WATERS. Passengers on board the Mavi Marmara panicked and acted in self-defence to prevent the IDF personnel from boarding the vessel. Passengers threw plastic bottles, waste bins and chairs at IDF personnel attempting to board from the speedboats, and physically overpowered the first three soldiers to rappel onto the vessel from the helicopters but NO GUNS OR OTHER WEAPONS WERE USED.

The Turkish Commission concludes that IDF personnel used excessive force both before and after boarding. THERE WAS INDISCRIMINATE SHOOTING, INCLUDING FROM THE HELICOPTERS. THERE WERE ALSO TARGETED ATTACKS ON INDIVIDUALS WHO DID NOT REPRESENT A THREAT TO IDF PERSONNEL, including injured. THE ATTACKS CONTINUED EVEN AFTER ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO SURRENDER AND A MULTILINGUAL SURRENDER ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE OVER THE SHIP’S PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM. Disproportionate weaponry was used, including… live fire from automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

As a consequence NINE PASSENGERS WERE KILLED. TURKISH AUTOPSY REPORTS CONCLUDED THAT FIVE OF THE DECEASED WERE SHOT IN THE HEAD AT CLOSE RANGE. ..

In addition, there were widespread injuries to other passengers from different nationalities, many serious, including broken bones, and internal injuries requiring surgery. One passenger remains in a coma. IDF PERSONNEL DELIBERATELY PREVENTED PASSENGERS FROM PROVIDING FIRST AID TO THE INJURED DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS, RESULTING IN ADDITIONAL CASUALTIES.'

Nice guys, huh?



On 1 September 2011, Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller, former head of MI5, delivered the Reith Lecture in London.

In this she said that the war in Iraq “PROVIDED AN ARENA FOR JIHAD” and was “a distraction against the pursuit of al Qaeda.”

She added:

“ACTIONS OVERSEAS HAVE AN IMPACT AT HOME AND OUR INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ SPURRED SOME YOUNG MEN TO TERROR… For them an external enemy was a unifying way to address some of their frustrations. They were also united by THE PLIGHT OF PALESTINIANS, A VIEW THAT THE WEST WAS EXPLOITING THEIR OIL AND SUPPORTING DICTATORS. It was wrong to say all terrorists belonged to al-Qaida…Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator but NEITHER HE NOR HIS REGIME HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11...

Governments do not do what the security services tell them. Our job is to understand and advise. It is for government to make judgments…. It is always better to talk to the people who are attacking you then attacking them, if you can… Terrorism is resolved through economics and politics, not through arms and intelligence."

Blair, Brown and co. didn’t pay much attention to the lady it would seem.



On 1 September 2011, a March 2006 State Department diplomatic cable from Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, to Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, was featured in The Daily Mirror.

This followed the release of the cable by WikiLeaks the previous week. Alston said:

“It would appear that when the MNF (multinational forces) approached the house, shots were fired from it and a confrontation ensued… Troops entered the house, handcuffed all residents and EXECUTED ALL OF THEM.”

The Mirror listed the dead as: Faiz Hratt Khalaf, (aged 28, a farmer), his wife, Sumay’ya Abdul Razzaq Khuther, (24), their three children Hawra’a (5) Aisha (3) and Husam (5 months), Faiz’s mother Ms. Turkiya Majeed Ali (74), Faiz’s sister, Faiz’s nieces Asma’a Yousif Ma’arouf (5), and Usama Yousif Ma’arouf (3), and a visiting relative Ms. Iqtisad Hameed Mehdi (23).

The Mirror added:

“Alston’s letter reveals that A US AIRSTRIKE WAS LAUNCHED ON THE HOUSE PRESUMABLY TO DESTROY THE EVIDENCE, but that ‘autopsies carried out at the Tikrit Hospital’s morgue revealed that ALL CORPSES WERE SHOT IN THE HEAD AND HANDCUFFED’…

The raids, often carried out in the middle of the night, have become one of the primary strategies of the US war in Afghanistan, with tens of thousands orchestrated just in the last year.

In one notable and comparable incident in February 2010, US Special Operations Forces surrounded a house in a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan. Two civilian men exited the home to ask why they had been surrounded AND WERE SHOT AND KILLED. US FORCES THEN SHOT AND KILLED THREE FEMALE RELATIVES (A PREGNANT MOTHER OF TEN CHILDREN, A PREGNANT MOTHER OF SIX CHILDREN, AND A TEENAGER).

Instead of calling in an airstrike to hide the evidence, US TROOPS, REALIZING THEIR MISTAKE, LIED AND TAMPERED WITH THE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE. The initial claim, which was CORROBORATED BY THE PENTAGON, was that THE TWO MEN WERE INSURGENTS WHO HAD ‘ENGAGED’ THE TROOPS, AND THE THREE MURDERED WOMEN WERE SIMPLY FOUND BY US SOLDIERS, IN WHAT THEY DESCRIBED AS AN APPARENT HONOR KILLING. Investigations into the incident eventually forced the Pentagon TO RETRACT ITS INITIAL STORY AND ISSUE AN APOLOGY.

Civilian deaths are a common occurrence in these commonly occurring raid operations. In May, NATO KILLED ANOTHER FOUR CIVILIANS IN A NIGHT RAID, AND ANOTHER THREE IN EARLY AUGUST. NO SOLDIERS OR US OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN HELD TO ACCOUNT.”



On 1 September 2011, the Higher Education Statistics Agency released figures stating that 115,000 STUDENTS WHO GRADUATED IN 2007 (27.7 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL) ARE STILL WITHOUT A FULL TIME JOB THREE AND A HALF YEARS LATER.

Liam Burns, President of the National Union of Students, commented thus:

“Times are tough for young people at the moment with rising unemployment no matter how well qualified they are. The postcode lottery of financial support for students risks MANY TURNING TO EXPENSIVE COMMERCIAL DEBT WHILE THEY STUDY. If jobs aren’t available on graduation, things like OVERDRAFTS AND COMMERCIAL LOANS BECOME INCREDIBLY TOXIC.”

When tuition fees increase from £3,290 to £9,000 next year, one wonders how many will forgo the increasingly dubious value of a degree. Especially as 21.5 per cent of those questioned say they do not believe university prepared them for their career. Another study brought out shortly before this one determined that one in five graduates earns less than a person who left school with as little as one A-level.

The number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in employment, education or training is now almost one million.



On 31 August 2011, The Australian Broadcast Cooporation’s Chris Uhlmann interviewed John Cleese for the show, 7.30.

During the interview, Cleese said this:

"I'm not sure what's going on in Britain… I don't know what's going on in London. Because LONDON IS NO LONGER AN ENGLISH CITY and that's how they got the Olympics. I mean, they said, ‘We're the most cosmopolitan city on Earth,’ but IT DOESN'T FEEL ENGLISH.

I had a Californian friend come over two months ago, walk down the Kings Road and said to me, ‘Well WHERE ARE ALL THE ENGLISH PEOPLE?’… WHEN THE PARENT CULTURE KIND OF DISSIPATES, YOU'RE LEFT THINKING, ‘WELL, WHAT'S GOING ON?’”

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3307110.htm

Earlier in 2011, Cleese said this:

“I love being down in Bath because IT FEELS LIKE THE ENGLAND THAT I GREW UP IN.”

UKIP leader Nigel Farage responded to Cleese’s reflections thus.

“For him to make these remarks certainly shows a tremendous strength of feeling on this matter… Mr CLEESE IS RIGHT TO POINT OUT THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE AT THESE EXPENSE OF THE PARENT CULTURE…

John Cleese has said what an increasing number of people in London are thinking… People do seem to be feeling that they are becoming foreigners in their own land. What makes these comments even more surprising is that Mr CLEESE IS A WELL-KNOWN LIBERAL DEMOCRAT SUPPORTER HAVING STARRED IN THEIR PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS.”

I wonder, John, do you really not know what’s been “going on”?

Do you have no clue at all as to your own responsibility for the fact that “London is no longer an English city”? Do you not understand that it was treacherous, officially-sanctioned, foreigner-first Lib Dem and Labour attitudes, actions and policy that led to both the “dissipation” of England’s “parent culture” and to American tourists wondering where “all the English people” had gone?

You are a great, great comedian, John, and, outside of the comedy, you invariably come across as an intelligent and thoughtful man. But, boy-oh-boy, as regards the real world that most the English have been forced to endure for more than forty years now, you appear to be one hell of a short-sighted and philosophically vacant airhead.

Alp Mehmet, vice-chairman of MigrationWatch, said this:

“LONDON HAS OF COURSE CHANGED HUGELY IN RECENT YEARS. HE IS ALSO NOT THE FIRST TO POINT TO THE FAILURES OF MULTI-CULTURALISM, the Prime Minister has said much the same thing.

LONDON IS NOT THE CITY I KNEW AS A CHILD AND IT SADDENS ME THAT MANY OF THE UNWELCOME DEVELOPMENTS HAVE LARGELY BEEN THE RESULT OF MASS AND RAPID MIGRATION.”

Thanks for the stating the obvious and all that, Alp, but, if you, a bloke whose ancestors originated elsewhere on the planet can say this, how do you think we feel?

In the interview, Cleese also said this:

“And then WE HAVE OF COURSE THE WORST PRESS IN THE WORLD, you know, instigated by a countryman of yours. And THEIR STANDARDS JUST GO DOWN AND DOWN AND DOWN. THEY NO LONGER EVEN CARE WHETHER THE STORY'S RIGHT. They just make sure it isn't actionable. And THAT DOESN'T IMPROVE ONE'S QUALITY OF LIFE…

THEY HAD IT COMING TO THEM and I hope it goes on coming to them. Not that it's just THE MURDOCH PEOPLE. I mean, The Daily Mail, papers like that, I think it's coming to them too.”

Well said, John.

A bit late mind. A bit too long after the Australian-American press Baron bolted so to speak. But honest comment bluntly stated from the happy, shiny people who live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain surrounded by fluffy, pink clouds, is always welcome. Seeing as the sheeple actually pay attention to what their shiny icons have to say.

He added.

“English television from the Fifties to the Nineties was the least bad in the world and NOW IT’S JUST AS BAD AS IT IS ANYWHERE… I really don’t want to work for the BBC any more, I feel that strongly about it. But the alimony is one million dollars a year. That’s a lot.”

Cleese, who has been married three times, got turned over by his third wife.

It was his £12.5 million settlement with US psychotherapist, Alyce Faye Eichelberger, which forced him out of retirement. When he met her in 1990 she was living in a third floor council flat in London with two sons by previous husband, the golfer, Dave Eichelberger. After the divorce was finalised, Cleese said:

"I got off lightly. Think what I’d have had to pay Alyce if she had contributed anything to the relationship, such as children, or a conversation."

You’ve got this thing for North American females, John.

And as often as not a bloke ends up paying for playing away from home.

Doesn't he?



On 31 August 2011, Business Secretary, Vince Cable, accused the country's banks of trying to use the crisis in the eurozone to stave off industry reforms in The Times.

He said:

"It is DISINGENUOUS IN THE EXTREME to use the current context to argue against reform. BANKS ARE IN A WAY TRYING TO CREATE A PANIC around something which they know has got to happen. The Governor of the Bank of England and many other people have been arguing that we have to deal with the too-big-to-fail problem. WE CAN'T HAVE BIG GLOBAL BANKS WITH BALANCE SHEETS BIGGER THAN BRITISH GDP UNDERWRITTEN BY THE TAXPAYER: this can't go on and it has got to be dealt with.”



On 30 August 2011, showing solidarity with the largest Romany Gypsy and Irish Traveller site in the UK (Crays Hill in Essex) the left-wing actress and activist, Vanessa Redgrave, gave several interviews to the media.

In these she said:

“Lives will be ruined.”

Funny how the do-gooder never seems top give a damn when the lives of the indigenous folk are being ruined, isn’t it?

“I am certain that the eviction is illegal under INTERNATIONAL, (globalist) mandatory, HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS. I am appalled that such an action can be upheld by our Government… Humanity will triumph."

Humanity of the ‘human rights’ type we can do without, Vanessa.

Not to worry, though. “Our government” invariably caves in on “human rights”.

"It's a day on which I have great hope that THIS STRONG, WISE, WARM AND GENTLE COMMUNITY will have their rights protected."

“Wise, warm and gentle”?

You ARE talking about Gypos here, aren’t you, Vanessa? You know, the folks that have been stealing the washing off the line for hundreds of years now?

"There's no crime that has been committed.”

What about settling in an illegal location and upsetting the natives for more than 10 years, does that not count?

"Evicting these families would be totally unreasonable and irresponsible.”

Not if they’ve been squatting in an illegal location and upsetting the natives for more than 10 years, it wouldn’t.

"I've met nine-year-olds who go to school here and mothers with babies and they are part of the community. They have a right to stay here."

Part of the community?

The natives consider the squatters part of the community now? When did that happen?

“I'm standing up for this community as I would for any community.”

Haven’t seen you standing up for us Brits much just lately.

“If the travellers are thrown onto the road, evicted forcibly on to the road… The children will have nowhere to go to school… We must think of health, eductation... of the young people the children, the old people, pregnant mothers, people who've got emergency nebulisers.”

Hey, Vanessa!

You forgot the starving orphans and the blind cripples with no legs and arms. And the puppies and bushbabies squashed flat by council steamrollers!

“Travellers also pay council taxes whenever they're due.”

Really?

They pay council tax? There’s something not quite right about that statement, Vanessa. Are you sure they're regular Gypsies?

“Were all in the same boat. I will not be able to pay my mortgage if I don't work.”

What?

You’ll be living in a caravan with your best pals if the job centre doesn’t find you paid employment? You who’s always donating pots of cash to every loony left, foreigner-first cause that’s going? Didn't you once put up £50,000 bail to get Chechen 'warlord,' Akhmed Zakayev, released into your company?

Zakayev, a 'key figure' in the rebel Chechen government, was, at the time, wanted for questioning about the Moscow theatre siege which saw 119 hostages and 50 rebels killed.

"I'm Akhmed's host," you said. "I'm his friend, I'm his guarantor."

Jobless losers who can’t pay their mortgage tend not to have spare fifty grands to chuck at misunderstood foreigners, Vanessa. I guess you wouldn’t be aware of that. You being a champagne Trot and all.

“I would say to any resident who gets alarmed... They haven't read the facts. They haven't met the Dale Farm community.”

Oh, I think they have, Vanessa.

I think some of the locals have met the Dale Farm folk up close and personal. You know, those ‘who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals,’ for example.

“Dale Farm and THEIR WONDERFUL COMMUNITY.”

No need to rub it in, Vanessa.

We know whose side you're on, luvvie.

Len Gridley, whose land is bordered by the site, said:

“She is an actress WHO DOESN’T LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD. SHE IS LIKE ALL THE LEFT-WINGERS AND TREE-HUGGERS who come here… SHE’S GOT PLENTY OF PROPERTY – LET HER HAVE THEM. I think she’d have them on her land for a week and then she’d change her mind. SHE SHOULDN’T BE INTERFERING WITH SOMETHING SHE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT. This is green belt land and it should stay green belt land.”

Ah, a message from “the real world.”

Well said, Len.

Another resident, “who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals,” said:

“We have suffered for years while the travellers have acted like a law unto themselves and used the legal system to sit tight. Vanessa Redgrave has no right to stick her oar in.”



On 30 August 2011, the BBC told us this:

“Activists from Sweden, Italy, Belgium and France, arrived at Dale Farm to set up the protest camp over the weekend.”

On 31 August 2011, The Daily Mail told us this:

“Neighbours accused the 74-year-old of ‘interfering with something she knows nothing about’. THEY HAVE COMPLAINED OF THREATS, ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, PETTY CRIME AND FLY-TIPPING… THE TRAVELLERS HAVE THREATENED VIOLENT RESISTANCE.”

Mary Slattery said: "THERE IS BLOOD GOING TO FLOW out of those gates before we are moving."

Mother-of-two, Nora Sherridan, said: "PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO LOSE THEIR LIVES to stay. They will burn their homes instead of letting them be taken. YOU CAN EXPECT VIOLENCE."

Mother-of-two, Mary O’Brien said: “We are not going to go without a fight. IT WILL BE BLOODY AND VIOLENT.”

Mother-of-four, Kathleen Cilligan, said: "WE ARE WILLING TO DIE here today."

So, on the one hand we have Vanessa‘s “children, the old people, pregnant mothers, people who've got emergency nebulisers… nine-year-olds… and mothers with babies” all live in “Dale Farm and their wonderful… strong, wise, warm and gentle community… where no crime that has been committed.”

On the other hand we’ve got the neighbours complaing of threats, anti-social behaviour, petty crime and fly-tipping and Mary, Mary, Norah and Kathleen insisting that we can expect a fight that will be bloody and violent. Blood is going to flow and they are willing to die.

A question to all of of you old-fashioned, “real world” folk who do not happen to be Marxist millionaires with nice, little actress pads in Chiswick:

Which of the preceding statements sounds the most implausible?

Hey, Vanessa!

Hey all you “left-wingers”, “tree-huggers” and “activists from Sweden, Italy, Belgium and France”! If you think so much of the Gypsies, why don’t you all put them up in your back yards, as Len suggests?

That way we’d all be happy, wouldn’t we?

Oh right, most luvvies, left-wingers and tree-huggers also happen to be NIMBYs.

I was forgetting.

PS. Mother-of-four, Jane Flynn, said: "Just yesterday a resident gave birth to a child… (Why are we nor surprised?) IF A COUNCIL WAS TRYING TO DO THIS TO BLACK OR MUSLIM PEOPLE THERE WOULD BE OUTRAGE."

Which comment is, I’m sure, very fair.



On 30 August 2007, The Daily Mail quoted a MigrationWatch report thus:

"The UK suffers from a brain drain less serious only than Mexico whereby a significant proportion of its tertiary level educated go overseas to work… There is something of a brain drain occurring in Britain whereby our most talented and skilled are leaving the UK in search of opportunities abroad…

The UK Border Agency Shortage Occupation list includes civil engineers, mechanical engineers and electrical engineers among others, perhaps suggesting that UK companies are not paying sufficiently well to keep the brightest and the best. Despite the NHS claiming to be reliant on migrant labour, 27 PER CENT OF OUR SKILLED EMIGRANTS HAD A HEALTH OR EDUCATION DEGREE.'

The report said around six out of ten emigrants from Britain have since 1997 been aged between 25 and retirement age, and the most numerous among these are people under 44 looking to promote their careers."

On 30 July 2011, The Daily Mail reported on the case of supply teacher, David Armstrong, who had admitted hoarding more than 4,500 indecent images of children. Sentencing him, Judge Mary Jane Mowat said:

“I DON’T CRITICISE YOU FOR BEING A TEACHER WHO’S ATTRACTED TO CHILDREN. MANY TEACHERS ARE but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children.”

The 63-year-old pervert was given a suspended sentenece only and he was allowed to walk free from the court.

The Mail added:

“A teaching assistant noticed files on his laptop computer had names such as ‘rape wife’, ‘nude model’ and ‘gay alligator’. Armstrong was arrested and police found the appalling catalogue of indecent images and videos… More than 300 were in the two most serious categories AND INVOLVED VICTIMS AS YOUNG AS TWO…

The case is not the first time Judge Mowat has stirred controversy over sentences handed to sexual offenders. In 2008, she allowed a former headmaster to walk free from court after he said drugs he was taking for Parkinson’s disease made him a paedophile. Phillip Carmichael said the medication caused him to become ‘hypersexually active’ after HE WAS CAUGHT WITH 8,000 IMAGES AND VIDEOS ON HIS COMPUTER.

The judge said the case was ‘wholly exceptional’ and gave him an absolute discharge.”

You couldn’t make it up, could you?


Go here for more Chronological Quotations 4


.