Archive | May 25th, 2012

Tom Watson Tells Leveson MPs Live In Fear Of Rupert Murdoch’s News International

Tom Watson

MPs have been “intimidated and frightened” by the actions of tabloid newspapers including those owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International, the Leveson inquiry has heard.

Giving evidence on Tuesday, Labour MP Tom Watson said at least a dozen fellow politicians had lived with a “sense of fear” about what would appear in the papers about their personal lives or past political mistakes.

Watson, whose political career has come to be defined by his pursuit of News International over phone hacking, said that MPs from all parties had experienced “fear of ridicule and humiliation” at the hands of Britain’s tabloid press.

He said that after admitting he had been scared by fear of the tabloids other MPs came forward to him.

“I got the distinct sense this was a very solitary fear that they had felt they could share with colleagues and they weren’t the only ones,” he said.

He told the Leveson inquiry he planned to write to all MPs to encourage them to come forward if they had similar experiences.

Watson said he believed politicians had failed to pursue the News of the World phone hacking scandal at first out of fear.

“I think they closed their minds to the potential scandal at one of the key outlets for their message,” he said. “I think the were frightened.”

Watson, who was a defence minister under Tony Blair, said that it mattered to ministers how they were portrayed in News International tabloids.

“There was a mystique about the News International stable, that they had unique access to Downing Street,” he said.

MPs are due to debate the controversial Commons culture committee report into phone hacking this afternoon. The report accused News International executives of lying to parliament and said Murdoch was “not fit” to run an international company.

On Tuesday the Independent reported that two journalists working for The Sunday Times had arranged for Watson to be investigated be put under surveillance in the mistaken belief he was having an affair with a fellow MP.

According to the paper, while working for the News of the World in 2009 Mazher Mahmood, the “Fake Sheikh”, and news editor James Mellor planned to have Watson tailed after receiving a inaccurate tip-off.

Posted in UKComments Off on Tom Watson Tells Leveson MPs Live In Fear Of Rupert Murdoch’s News International

Britain Cannot Ban Prisoners From Voting, European Judges Rule


The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Britain cannot ban prisoners from voting, piling pressure on the prime minister who last year said the idea made him “physically ill”.

Human rights judges have now given the government six months to honour the coalition pledge to give prisoners the vote, following a case in Italy where an Italian man won his appeal against being disenfranchised after his conviction for killing his wife and wounding one of his sons.

The ECHR accepted the UK government argument that “each State [in Europe] has a wide discretion as to how it regulates the ban, both as regards the types of offences that should result in the loss of the vote and as to whether disenfranchisement should be ordered by a judge in an individual case or should result from a general application of a law”.

However, the judges added that Tuesday’s decision amounted to confirmation of a ruling against the UK in 2005 that a blanket ban on all serving prisoners losing voting rights is a breach of their human rights.

The wrangle with Strasbourg began when UK inmates complained that the loss of voting rights violated a Human Rights Convention Article guaranteeing the “right to free elections”.

The court twice decreed the UK’s total ban on votes for prisoners to be illegal.

But the Labour government left the ban in place, and Tory inaction despite a second ruling in 2010 angered civil liberties groups.

Last year Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform Mark Harper told the Commons that the coalition reluctantly accepted that the UK had a legal obligation to fall in line, but had not yet decided which inmates it would affect.

Mr Cameron was more direct a day later, telling MPs: “It makes me physically ill to contemplate giving the vote to prisoners. They should lose some rights, including the right to vote.”

If the UK complies with the ruling to grant some prisoners voting rights within the new six-month deadline triggered today, the Human Rights Court would strike out all similar pending cases.

That would remove the threat of massive potential government damages payments to prison inmates if all complaints went through the courts and were upheld.

The original UK case on 2005 was a landmark victory for convicted killer John Hirst from Hull.

In the November 2010 case, two prisoners, named as Robert Greens and MT, both serving time at Peterhead prison, were awarded €5,000 in costs and expenses for their loss of voting rights.

About 40% of the 47 countries covered by the Human Rights Convention – including all 27 EU member states – have no restrictions on prisoners voting.

Others ban only some sentenced prisoners from voting. In France and Germany, courts have the power to impose loss of voting rights as an additional punishment.

The UK is among a few European countries, including Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary and Romania, which automatically remove voting rights from sentenced prisoners, although UK remand prisoners still have the vote.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said the government would consider the implications of the ruling for the UK before responding.

The spokeswoman said: “This is a judgment affecting Italy, but clearly we need to consider the implications of that judgment on the issue of prisoner voting for the UK.

“The position for the UK is that the attorney general has argued that the issue of social policy, including prisoner voting, is a matter for parliament and it is for parliament to judge whether and which prisoners should have the vote, and that the court should not interfere with that judgment unless it is manifestly without reasonable foundation.”

Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “People are sent to prison to lose their liberty, not their identity.

“The UK’s outdated ban on sentenced prisoners voting, based on the 19th century concept of civic death, has no place in a modern democracy and is legally and morally unsustainable.”

She went on: “Experienced prison governors and officials, past and present bishops to prisons and chief inspectors, electoral commissioners, legal and constitutional experts and most other European governments believe people in prison should be able to exercise their civic responsibility.

“The European Court has made clear in today’s judgment the UK’s legal obligations to overturn the blanket ban.”

Paul Nuttall, Ukip member for North East England, said: “This is a bad judgment from a Mickey Mouse court. The Ukip position is there should be a blanket ban of votes for prisoners.

Pass David Cameron the sick bag, because this judgment means that British prisoners will get the vote – some of them at least.”

Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said: “Labour has consistently believed that those deprived of their freedom after being given a custodial sentence shouldn’t be entitled to vote.

“While we recognise the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, we feel the original decision back in 2004 was wrong, and that’s why the Labour government didn’t implement it, and we appealed again and again.

“On these kinds of issues, the European court should be giving far more discretion to individual countries and this is an important reform that needs to be implemented.”

Posted in UKComments Off on Britain Cannot Ban Prisoners From Voting, European Judges Rule

Prisoner Voting: Labour Will Support Cameron If He Fights EU Ruling, Says Ed Balls


PA/The Huffington Post UK

Ed Balls

The Shadow Chancellor said Labour would stand behind the Tories should they fight the ruling

Labour’s Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has said the party will back David Cameron if he chooses to fight an ultimatum issued by human rights judges giving Britain six months to change the law on prisoners’ voting rights.

Mr Balls said there was cross-party agreement about not giving the vote to prisoners and the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was the “wrong thing”.

“This is one of those times in politics where there is cross-party consensus,” he told ITV Daybreak.

“The court first said this in 2004, that prisoners should be able to vote, and Labour then said we disagree and we did not implement it.

“I am all in favour of prisoners having the right kind of support and being rehabilitated but voting is one of the things I think you give up if you go to prison.

“So we all agree that this is the wrong thing.”

The Shadow Chancellor added: “If David Cameron is going to go out there and fight this one, we will be supporting him on that.”

Mr Balls was speaking after the ECHR gave Mr Cameron six months to change the law in Britain on prisoners’ voting rights.

The court acknowledged that it was up to national authorities to decide exactly who can vote from jail – but denying the right to all inmates indiscriminately is illegal.

In response to Mr Balls’ statement, Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “It’s unedifying to see politicians scrambling to stop people in prison acting responsibly and doing their civic duty by voting in elections.

“The punishment of imprisonment is loss of liberty not loss of identity and all other rights and responsibilities.”

Posted in UKComments Off on Prisoner Voting: Labour Will Support Cameron If He Fights EU Ruling, Says Ed Balls

Adrian Beecroft: Vince Cable Is A ‘Socialist’ Who Is Unfit For Office


PA/The Huffington Post


A controversial Downing Street adviser has accused business secretary Vince Cable of being a socialist who “appears to do very little to support business” after he saw his plans to make it easier to fire workers torpedoed.

Venture capitalist Adrian Beecroft, who wrote a report for Number 10 on changes to employment law, said the Liberal Democrat’s objections to his plans were “ideological not economic”.

“I think he is a socialist who found a home in the Lib Dems, so he’s one of the left,” he told the Daily Telegraph.

“I think people find it very odd that he’s in charge of business and yet appears to do very little to support business.”

Beecroft also attacked deputy prime minister Nick Clegg for “always threatening to go nuclear” when he does not get his way.

His attack came the day after Clegg was extraordinarily accused of being a “communist” by Tim Hands, master of Magdalen College School in Oxford, after the Lib Dem leader set out plans to increase social mobility.

While Cable is unlikely to be troubled by Beecroft’s accusations, as it is well known he sits on the social democratic wing of the Lib Dems and even began a recent conference speech by jokingly addressing delegates as “comrades”.

Beecroft report to Downing Street on employment laws exposed deep tensions in the Coalition.

The “compensated no-fault dismissal” scheme is the most divisive proposal in a report, which was published ahead of schedule after being leaked.

Cable dismissed the idea as “complete nonsense” but many Conservatives backed the plans.

Beecroft said the Conservatives are being “hugely held back by the Lib Dems”.

He added: “I think you could put together a bunch of suggestions out of the report, as a coherent programme, that would say, you know, we are tackling the issues that business has with employment law but the Lib Dems will have none of it.

“Nick Clegg is always threatening to go nuclear and dissolve the whole thing if he doesn’t get his way with this, that and the other.

“Which you’d think actually must be a hollow threat… Therefore, why can’t the government be more robust? I don’t know what the answer is. But it is disappointing.”

Beecroft claims the British economy will grow by 5% less than expected, around £50bn if the government fails make radical reforms to employment laws.

He said senior Conservatives were initially behind his radical plans.

“I’m talking about Steve Hilton, that group and they assured me that David Cameron wanted to do the whole thing. Whether that’s right or not I’m not sure but that was the strong impression I got.

“I’ve been in meetings with Oliver Letwin and Ed Davey, where Oliver Letwin was all for and Ed Davey was totally against.”

Beecroft’s report calls for compensation to be capped at £12,000 for employees removed under the scheme, which he claims will make it more acceptable to workers and unions and eliminate many employment tribunal cases for constructive dismissal.

Tory MPs have suggested that the move would encourage businesses to hire workers by removing concerns that they may not be able to afford to get rid of under-performing staff.

But Clegg publicly condemned the proposals yesterday telling the Sutton Trust conference on social mobility: “I don’t support them and I never have. I’ve not seen any evidence that creating industrial-scale insecurity amongst millions of workers is a way of securing new jobs.

“So far, there’s just no evidence that in the highly flexible labour market that we have, comparatively speaking, for instilling greater insecurity and let’s be blunt, fear, amongst workers, at a time of great economic anxiety as a way of fostering new employment.”

Downing Street has made clear that David Cameron has not dismissed the proposal out of hand.

A spokeswoman said the prime minister was weighing up options for making it easier for businesses to employ people and achieve growth, but was not “wedded” to any particular solution.

The document was commissioned by the Business Department and submitted in October, but it has been kept under wraps amid reports of friction between Tory and Lib Dem ministers.

Posted in UK1 Comment

Tim Farron: There Are ‘Blueprints For Coalition Disengagement’


The Huffington Post UK


Tim Farron

Tim Farron is red-faced when he arrives in his sweltering office at Westminster on Tuesday afternoon; he’s just back from the gym.

Most people at Westminster are finding the sudden heat-wave uncomfortable but Farron seems chipper, saying he’s “very happy” with the coalition and life in general, seeing positive things even in the local elections defeat voters have just inflicted upon the Lib Dems.

What’s happened – he says – is that while it looks like there are many Lib Dems who lost their seats, there are fewer council seats overall than in the past – because so many have turned into unitary authorities. And the glimmer of hope for him is that Lib Dems tended to lose seats to Labour, but not to the Tories.

Farron thinks the tax cut for high-earners from 50p to 45p explains a lot; Tories have had that “pinned on them,” and although the Lib Dems remain unpopular, they’ve been successful in making it clear the cut wasn’t their idea.

“The Budget itself was actually a good Budget, the presentation was shocking,” he says. “Genuinely redistributive from the rich to the poor, the problem is nobody believes that, because 50p is totemic. We said so to the Tories.

“We said the Tories needed to not claim 50p as their price for us getting the income tax threshold increase. We warned them, it would look stupid and it would damage them.”

But surely the presentation was so awful because the Budget leaked so ridiculously?“Well, that’s because the Lib Dems chose to campaign ahead of the budget for the lifting of the tax threshold. The downside of that was that all the goodies had been made public beforehand.”

Although he never says so in terms, it’s obvious Farron has decided that the role of Lib Dem party President in a coalition is to function as a steam-valve for unhappy party grassroots members. He describes it as being “a critical friend of the coalition”; in reality it makes him quite totemic himself.

“I can tell you that a Liberal Democrat government would not have introduced academies, would not have introduced the NHS Bill in anything like the shape it began with, probably not the way it ended up either. We would not have had police commissioners. But that still doesn’t mean we’re unhappy. A Conservative government would not have wanted to raise the tax threshold for the least well-off, or kick Trident in the long grass.”

But we learned on Tuesday that the MoD is ploughing ahead and poised to award research and development contracts for Trident. “That’s all stuff we knew about anyway,” he insists.

Another part of his role – he clearly thinks – is to try to maintain the integrity of the Lib Dem brand. Part of that strategy seems to be about painting Labour and the Tories as similar. “If you were to take the labels off the manifestos of the three parties and say which two have the most in common, you would now have a Tory/Labour coalition,” he says. “They are both in favour of making the lowest-paid pay more tax, and they’re both against democratic reform.”

He rules out entering the government – “I enjoy being president and I think if I am president I shouldn’t be a minister” – but for quite some time, rightly or wrongly, he’s been seen as a potential alternative to Nick Clegg.

So many people have asked Tim Farron if he wants to be Lib Dem leader one day, and like all would-be leaders the answer from him is always no. Farron says it’s “distracting and discourteous to Nick.”

But does it get wearing, being constantly asked about it?

“I got this at conference – where I’d had quite a week of it, really, ” he says. “Nick came up to me and was absolutely lovely, and told me that he’d had all this when Ming Campbell was leader in 2007. Nick had been handbagged by [Ming’s wife] Elspeth Campbell for saying sometime moderately ambitious.

“Chances are it was probably Chris Huhne who’d said it, but it was attributed to Nick. Anyway, Nick came up to me at conference and said, ‘Don’t worry, I know you’re not up to anything.’”

How often does he talk to Clegg? “Once a week, sometimes by phone, more often by text. He’s a good texter, very responsive. We probably sit down and have a proper meeting once every couple of weeks.”

I ask Farron if Clegg needs to cheer up – it’s become a running joke that he always looks sad when he sits next to Cameron at PMQs. Clegg’s claim that he was “sad” after the local election drubbing only added to that. Does Farron think his boss needs to cheer up a bit?

“Well he got massive amounts of stick for looking happy, so he stopped that. Poor lad can’t do right for doing wrong. He himself said that the whole rose garden thing, it might have been a good way to set up a new politics, but if the backdrop is horrible financial difficulties and people living in serious fear for their future, looking overly cheerful isn’t good.”

Perhaps as a learning experience from the local elections, Farron spends a lot of our interview trying to move the conversation toward attacking Labour, particularly the Blairite period. “If you’re a Tory, we understand. You get into power to do Tory things. I’m cross with Labour. There is a sense that they are like cousins and they’ve dishonoured the family. They not only screwed up their reform package, they left people worse off. I expect it of the Tories, I’m just crushingly disappointed by Labour.”

Is there a dialogue with Labour about a potential coalition post-2015? Farron will only say he “talks to Labour people all the time,” but he is more open about discussing how the current coalition might break up. He says it’s unlikely, but acknowledges that there will be “some kind of process of disengagement, how we will manage that exactly, we don’t know yet.

“We have some blueprints, some models. They are basically Scotland and some of our colleagues over the water in Europe where coalition is more usual. The first time it happens will always be the hardest, all of this is new to everybody.”

Could he see the coalition being pared back to something more like confidence and supply? “No, that would involve us walking away from ministerial positions and I think that would be a bit pathetic, really.”

I ask him whether, if anything, Lords reform could be a deal-breaker. “The coalition agreement is not something that you can pick and choose from,” he says. “If people believe that Lords reform is something that can be dispensed with, for instance, or that it’s tolerable for the Tory whips to not deliver a majority or a diluted Bill, it does bring into a question of trust, and whether other things might be delivered.”

Would there be a quid pro quo, with Lib Dems vetoing a key Tory policy if Lords reform founders? “I wouldn’t want to single out particular items that we wouldn’t then deliver,” he says.

But the items are there? “There’s a whole bunch of things, there’s three years worth of stuff. The delivery of a wholly or mostly elected House of Lords, in this Parliament, is to be done.

“It’s in everybody’s manifesto and there’s nothing that has more legitimacy,” he insists, before turning the conversation back onto Labour-bashing, suggesting they would be adding to their “record of shame on reform” if they attempt to block Lords reform, though he says there is no doubt Labour will try to.

I say how about allowing a referendum on Lords reform – something Labour has now called for? “Labour don’t want a referendum. It’s just something to say. And you don’t have a referendum on something that has universal legitimacy.

“It could be done in a couple of weeks if conservatives stopped whining about it. And when I say conservatives I mean those in the Labour party. The forces of conservatism, to use the Blair phrase.”

Finally I ask him how he’ll feel if – as some suspect – the Lib Dems could find themselves holding the balance of power in UK politics much more often in this century than in the last one. He gives only a roundabout answer. “It is hard work being in government, much harder work than being in opposition. That’s easy-peasy but very unsatisfying.

“If and when we find ourselves out of power, and it will be when – I’m not predicting exactly when – but we will be in opposition one day, we will miss this. We might not think we will, but we will.”

Posted in UKComments Off on Tim Farron: There Are ‘Blueprints For Coalition Disengagement’

Egyptian election results present ‘nightmare scenario’


Fears of weeks of tension as results point to a run-off between the Muslim Brotherhood candidate and a former general.

Mohammed Morsy and Ahmed Shafik

Egyptian election results point to a run-off between Mohammed Morsi and Ahmed Shafik. Photograph: EPA

Egypt looks set for weeks of tension and uncertainty after the first round of its landmark presidential election produced a runoff between the candidate backed by the powerful Muslim Brotherhood and a former general who is seen as a hangover from the regime of the deposedHosni Mubarak.

In what many described as a “nightmare scenario” that will mean a polarised and possibly violent second round, Mohammed Morsi of the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party polled around 26% in the two-day first round. Ahmed Shafiq, Mubarak’s last prime minister, came second with 23% when 90% of the votes had been counted.

Amr Moussa, the former head of the Arab League, who tried to capture the centre ground, was knocked out. Late on Friday there was only a slight chance that the final picture would change when votes for Cairo and Giza were in.

Turnout was said to be around 40% of the 51m-strong electorate. Official results are yet to be published but a combination of exit polls, centrally collected data and reporting by the candidates appeared to confirm a dramatic runoff that many supporters of the revolution consider a catastrophic outcome. “It feels as if the revolution never took place,” lamented a despondent George Ishaq, a founder of the leftwing Kifaya Party.

“The Brotherhood are despotic and fanatical and Shafiq is the choice of Mubarak. It is a very bad result. The revolution is not part of this contest.”

Analysts predict a bare-knuckle race over the next three weeks with the Brotherhood mobilising its well-oiled machine to get the vote out for Morsi while the army and police are likely to support Shafiq – despite their official neutrality. On Friday the Brotherhood quickly launched an attack on Shafiq as a “fuloul” (remnant) of the old regime who was “climbing to power over the corpses of the martyrs of the revolution”.

Shafiq told his supporters: “To the generous people of Egypt, justice is the rule of law.”

Hisham Kassem, a publisher who had backed Moussa, said: “It’s a disaster. Shafiq will try to restore the Mubarak regime. And my trust of the Brotherhood is minus zero.”

Other liberals retreated into black humour. “All it takes now is for Mubarak to be released and be made vice president,” one tweeted. “This is not the second republic,” said another, “it’s a stillborn deformity”.

Zeinobia, a prominent blogger, compared the outcome to the humiliating defeat of Egypt and the other Arab states by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. In an already tense atmosphere, there could well be serious unrest if, as some predict, Mubarak is acquitted on charges of corruption and illegal killings next month.

Assessments are divided over the likely final outcome on 16 and 17 June. Egypt’s Coptic Christians will rally round Shafiq because of their visceral dislike of Islamists. Supporters of Moussa will do the same. Morsi can expect to get the votes of some who backed Hamdeen Sabbahi, the independent Nasserist candidate. But not all: “How many showers do you need to wash away a vote for the Brotherhood?” asked one progressive who refuses to back Shafiq at any price.

Hani Shukrallah, the veteran Al-Ahram journalist, called for unity. “Instead of debating the prospect of supporting one repulsive candidate or another,” he wrote, “let’s begin the task of putting revolutionary house in order.” Morsi will also get the support of many of those who voted for Abdel-Moneim Abul Fotouh, a Brotherhood renegade and independent Islamist who, along with Moussa, had been a front-runner in recent polls. But large-scale abstentions are also likely.

“If you put the figures together it looks like Shafiq will win,” said Kassem. But other analysts warned that it is always a mistake to under-estimate the Brotherhood as some did after apparent signs in recent weeks that Morsi’s star was waning.

The Brotherhood already dominates Egypt’s parliament, where its MPs have performed badly. It also stands accused of trying to pack the body writing a new constitution and reneging on a pledge not to compete for the presidency.

Morsi has promised a “renaissance” that will curb Mubarak-era corruption and improve the country’s dilapidated infrastructure but also introduce a greater degree of rule by Islamic law. After suffering decades of repression and playing cat and mouse with the Egyptian government, the world’s oldest Islamist movement senses its hour has come.

“I think we are on the verge of a new era,” said the Brotherhood’s Essam el-Erian. “We trusted God, we trusted in the people, we trusted in our party.” Its success is part of a regional trend that has seen Islamist parties thrive as autocratic regimes, in Tunisia and Libya as well as Egypt, have fallen in the Arab spring.

Israel fears that Islamist rule in Egypt could threaten the 1979 peace treaty, which is the linchpin of US policy in the Middle East. Morsi advocates a “review” but will not scrap it. Shafiq has vowed to uphold it. Shafiq’s strong performance reflected widespread worries about crime and insecurity and a yearning for stability, improvements to the economy and public services.

“Polarisation is the main characteristic of Egyptian society,” said a former Liberal MP. “Shafiq did much better than Moussa because all his discourse centred on security whereas Moussa talked about economic development. But the first concern is law and order.”

Posted in EgyptComments Off on Egyptian election results present ‘nightmare scenario’

Palestinian Journalist Sammi Ibrahem LIVE today at 4 pm eastern

Palestinian Journalist Sammi Ibrahem LIVE today at 4 pm eastern

by crescentandcross

Live from the UK, Palestinian journalist Sammi Ibrahem continuing last week’s discussion on Kushmir and the Zionist intrigue associated with the military activity there.

Those wishing to listen live can do so by clicking here–

those wishing to participate in the discussion can do so by phone by dialing 530.881.1300 and then punching in the access code 179164#
Or by skype by adding freeconferencing.5308811300 as a contact, calling it and then punching in 179164# when prompted.
we also have a chat room as well which can be accessed here–

Posted in InterviewComments Off on Palestinian Journalist Sammi Ibrahem LIVE today at 4 pm eastern



At a demonstration in south Tel Aviv demanding the immediately expulsion of all non-Jewish African asylum-seekers, a lone Israeli woman who does not agree with the rest of the crowd is shouted down with ferocity and told that she deserves to be raped






“Nazis were Against Freemasonry” — Masonic Ruse

Freemasonry provides ideological and financial
support to both sides of the phony Illuminati dialectic.
Our wars are house-league contests designed
to destroy the innocents.

Hitler put on a show of opposing Freemasonry; but, he may have been a member.

by David Richards


In Mein Kampf, Hitler said Freemasonry had “succumbed” to the Jews and was an “excellent instrument” to entice the upper classes into their agenda.

After the Nazis rose to power, Hitler outlawed Freemasonry and shut down many lodges. Many Brethren were arrested and sent to the concentration camps. The stolen items from Lodges were used to create anti-Masonic exhibitions across Germany, designed to create fear and hostility towards the fraternity.

Freemasons were also executed, and their property stolen in countries invaded and occupied by the Nazi’s (Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Greece etc). Historians tell us that at least 80,000 masons were murdered across Europe.

However, in reality Hitler’s anti-Masonic policy was very selective.

(left, Masonic compass on post-war E. German Flag)

The Nazis only persecuted fringe lodges associated with the Communists. Mainstream German Freemasonry, which was allied with American and British masonry, was exempted. This because Hitler himself secretly was aligned with them. Indeed he was their agent.

A 1997 edition of the Freemasonic journal Philalthes featured an article titled ‘German Freemasonry and Its Attitudes Toward The Nazi Regime‘, that reveals the demographics of the Fraternity in 1930s Germany.

‘Several Masonic spiritual families existed side by side in Germany, [and] were treated differently by the Nazis.’

‘About two-thirds of the brethren belonged to the three oldest, always Christian-oriented and at that time strongly nationalistic Grand Lodges founded in the 18th century which were called ‘Old Prussian’ because they were founded and had their seats in Berlin. They never initiated ‘non Christians’, that is, Jews.’

This faction was Pro-Nazi. It contained the captains of industry, commerce and finance, Royalty and leading citizens who backed Hitler. Many of these men were high-ranking members of the Nazi Party.

These lodges were not persecuted, but they did have to make a few minor adjustments consistent with anti-Masonic policy. Their Grand Master’s sent formal written oaths of allegiance to Hitler and they removed Hebraic wording from their rituals.

They united and called themselves ‘The Frederick the Great Association’. The Prussian King Frederick the Great (1712-1786) was  a nationalist symbol in Nazi propaganda. However, he was also the founder and patron of ‘regular’ Freemasonry in Germany!


The Nazis liquidated the fringe lodges that allowed Jews to be initiated.

‘During the 19th century, five more German Grand Lodges were founded and a further one in 1924. They were called ‘humanitarian’ and initiated men of any religious denomination.’

They espoused liberal and internationalist politics. They were allied with the Communists: Hitler shut them down.

The Prussian alliance refused to recognize these lodges.

‘In 1922, the Old Prussian Grand Lodges decided to withdraw from the German Grand Lodges’ Alliance founded in 1872, explaining: ‘There is a border which strongly differentiates humanitarian from Old Prussian national Freemasonry. We, the three Old Prussian Grand Lodges refuse to take part in the general humanitarian fraternization movement between people in the world.’

Essentially, the large and powerful lodges in Germany united to eliminate their much smaller neighbors. So, rather than being an attack on the Fraternity as a whole, Hitler’s anti-Masonic policy was really contrived Masonic in-fighting!

World War Two should also be seen in this light.

(Anti-Semitic Nazi illustration. They could add Nazis to the list.)



The Prussian Lodges were the only German Lodges recognized by British and American Freemasonry.

They share a common history. Prussian King Frederick the Great played an important role in the creation of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Official Masonic history records:


“The Scottish Rite had its beginning in France, when in 1754, the Chevalier de Bonneville established in Paris, a chapter of twenty-five so-called High Degrees which, including the three symbolic Degrees, these High Degrees were called the Rite of Perfection.

 In 1758 these Degrees were taken to Berlin and placed under a body called the Council of Emperors of the East and West, and in 1762 Frederick the Great of Prussia became the head of the Rite and promulgated what is known as the Constitution of 1762. In 1786 a reorganization took place in which eight Degrees were added to the twenty-five, and the name changed to the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.”


The Prussian Lodges were what tied the Western powers to Nazi Germany. This is why Freemasons like Henry Ford aided Hitler.

The lodges had particularly strong ties with the Prussian Royal family in Britain. It is well known that the British Royals were Nazi sympathizers, for instance, all four of Prince Philip’s sisters married high-ranking Nazis.

However, some Royals were privy to the agenda for WW2 and some weren’t. The Illuminati planned for Germany to lose the war, so the genuine Nazi collaborators had to be purged in case they sabotaged the script.

One of the most infamous murders of WW2 was of Prince George, Duke of Kent.

The Duke was a virulent Nazi supporter. In 1939, he was elected Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England.

In 1941, Prince George and the Duke of Hamilton conducted a secret meeting with Rudolf Hess in Scotland in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty between the rival powers. The British government arrested Hess and put him in prison for the rest of his life.

The repercussions for Prince George were even more severe. Six months after this meeting, his plane was shot down.

 Sir Anthony Blunt claims that the Prince was murdered on the orders of Illuminati-Gofer Winston Churchill.




Freemasonry was behind all of the major players in WW2

Freemasonry was behind the ‘right-wing’ Fascist Nazis. The Prussian Lodges in Germany were integral to building up the Nazi party. The Swastika is a symbol used in high Masonic Degrees today; apparently it is the ancient “Furthore” Rune Script for the letter “G”, the most important and universal symbol in Freemasonry.

Freemasonry was also behind the ‘left-wing’ Soviets. Karl Marx, Lenin and Trotsky were all Masons. The flag of Communist East Germany featured the Masonic compass.

Freemasonry was also behind he ‘Capitalists.’ Both Churchill and FDR were Masons.

Politics and history are a charade. Photos are frequently published of our ‘opposing’ leaders exchanging a Masonic handshake!

Freemasonry organizes our wars so nations and heroes are destroyed to advance of the Masonic New World Order. 

Posted in UK2 Comments

Zio-Nazi organ trafficking ring-leader arrested


Israeli organ trafficking ring leader Moshe Harel

Zio-Nazi organ trafficking ring leader Moshe Harel
A European Union (EU) prosecutor says an Israeli man suspected of running an organ trafficking network has been arrested in Israel.

“We have received information that Moshe Harel has been arrested in Israel on organ trafficking and other related offences,” EU special prosecutor Jonathan Ratel said.

Harel is wanted in Kosovo, where he and his colleagues reportedly carried out some 30 illegal kidney transplants and removals. Kosovo authorities have issued an international arrest warrant for him.

Harel’s trafficking ring used to prey on donors from poor Eastern European and Asian countries, who were promised about 15,000 euros (USD 19,000) to become organ donors.

Israel has not yet confirmed Harel’s arrest.

Reports earlier this week by Ha’aretz, indicate that at least 10 Israeli citizens were arrested for being members of an organ trafficking gang.

The Italian New Generation Foundation for Human Rights and the Everyone Group has presented evidence indicating that Sinai locals harvest the organs of the people they transfer to Israel. In this connection, a number of mass graves have been found containing the corpses of Africans missing some of their organs.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zio-Nazi organ trafficking ring-leader arrested

Shoah’s pages