There Is No Anti Semitism in Britain



By Gilad Atzmon 

In the end of October (2016) we learned from the British Jewish media that Police were called to University College London (UCL)  amid claims of common assault and verbal intimidation by “pro-Palestinian protestors” at an event with an Israeli speaker.

We had to wait another three months for a single honest Jew (Jerry Lewis of Hampstead Synagogue) to admit in front of the notorious ultra Zionist BOD, that the event at UCL was actually provoked by Jewish groups  that have nothing to do with the Jewish students community. At least one of those Jewish groups is funded by Israel according to Lewis. These groups invoke ‘hatred’ against Jews because this is how they justify their existence and sustain their funding.

Following the recent Al Jazeera expose,  the foreign office must expel the Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev. The police and the MI5 better look into Lewis’ claims.

For the full video:

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

British Fingerprints in Dirty Tricks Against Trump

Image result for MI6 LOGO

Britain’s divisive Brexit politics are playing out through the new US presidency of Donald Trump. It seems that a faction within the British political establishment which is opposed to Britain leaving the European Union has joined forces with American intelligence counterparts to hamper Trump’s new administration.

By hampering Trump, the pro-EU British faction would in turn achieve a blow against a possible bilateral trade deal emerging between the US and Britain. Such a bilateral trade deal is vital for post-Brexit Britain to survive outside of the EU. If emerging US-British trade relations were sabotaged by disenfranchising President Trump, then Britain would necessarily have to turn back to rejoining the European Union, which is precisely what a powerful British faction desires.

What unites the anti-Trump forces on both sides of the Atlantic is that they share an atlanticist, pro-NATO worldview, which underpins American hegemony over Europe and Anglo-American-dominated global finance. This atlanticist perspective is vehemently anti-Russian because an independent Russia under President Vladimir Putin is seen as an impediment to the US-led global order of Anglo-American dominance.

The atlanticists in the US and Britain are represented in part by the upper echelons of the intelligence-military apparatus, embodied by the American Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s Military Intelligence (Section) 6 (MI6).

Notably, incoming US President Donald Trump has expressed indifference towards NATO. This week he repeated comments in which he called the US-led military alliance «obsolete». Trump’s views are no doubt a cause of grave consternation among US-British atlanticists.

It is now emerging that British state intelligence services are involved much more deeply in the dirty tricks operation to smear Trump than might have been appreciated heretofore. The British involvement tends to validate the above atlanticist analysis.

The dirty tricks operation overseen by US intelligence agencies and willing news media outlets appears to be aimed at undermining Trump and, perhaps, even leading to his impeachment.

The former British MI6 agent, named as Christopher Steele, who authored the latest sexual allegations against Trump, was initially reported as working independently for US political parties. However, it now seems that Steele was not acting as an independent consultant to Trump’s political opponents during the US election, as media reports tended to indicate.

Britain’s Independent newspaper has lately reported that Steele’s so-called «Russian dossier» – which claimed that Trump was being blackmailed by the Kremlin over sex orgy tapes – was tacitly given official British endorsement.

That endorsement came in two ways. First, according to the Independent, former British ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Woods, reportedly gave assurances to US Senator John McCain that the dossier’s allegations of Russian blackmail against Trump were credible. Woods met with McCain at a security conference in Canada back in November. McCain then passed the allegations on to the American FBI – so «alarmed» was he by the British diplomat’s briefing.

The second way that Britain has endorsed the Russian dossier is the newly appointed head of MI6, Sir Alex Younger, is reported to have used the material produced by his former colleague, Christopher Steele, in preparing his first speech as head of the British intelligence service given in December at the agency’s headquarters in London. That amounts to an imprimatur from MI6 on the Russian dossier.

Thus, in two important signals from senior official British sources, the Russian dossier on Trump was elevated to a serious intelligence document, rather than being seen as cheap gossip.

Excerpts from the document published by US media last week make sensational claims about Trump engaging in orgies with prostitutes in the presidential suite of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel while attending a Miss World contest in 2014. It is claimed that Russian secret services captured the alleged lewd activity on tape and will now be able to leverage this «kompromat» in order to blackmail Trump who becomes inaugurated this week as the 45th president of the United States.

Several informed analysts have dismissed the Russian dossier as an amateurish fake, pointing out its vague hearsay, factual errors and questionable format not typical of standard intelligence work. Also, both Donald Trump and the Kremlin have categorically rejected the claims as far-fetched nonsense.

While most US media did not publish the salacious details of Trump’s alleged trysts, and while they offered riders that the information was «not confirmed» and «unverifiable», nevertheless the gamut of news outlets gave wide coverage to the story which in turn directed public attention to internet versions of the «sensational» claims. So the US mainstream media certainly lent critical amplification, which gave the story a stamp of credibility.

US intelligence agencies, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA chief John Brennan, appended the two-page Russian dossier in their separate briefings to outgoing President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump last week. Those briefings were said to mainly focus on US intelligence claims that Russian state-sponsored hackers had carried out cyber attacks to influence the US election last November.

Therefore, US intelligence, their British counterparts and the mass media all played a concerted role to elevate low-grade gossip against Trump into a seemingly credible scandal.

Trump has been waging a war of words with the US intelligence agencies, snubbing them by cutting back on presidential briefings and rubbishing their claims of Russian hacking as «ridiculous». Recently, Trump appeared to shift towards accepting the US intel assessment that Russia had carried out cyber attacks. But he balked at any suggestion that the alleged hacking was a factor in why he won the election against Hillary Clinton.

At a news conference before the weekend, Trump turned up the heat on the US intelligence agencies by blaming them for leaking to the media their briefing to him on the notorious Russian dossier. Trump compared their tactics to that of «Nazi Germany». CIA chief John Brennan couldn’t contain his anger and told media that such a comparison was «outrageous».

Trump may have savaged the Russian blackmail allegations as «fake news». But there are indications that US and British intelligence – and their reliable media mouthpieces – are not giving up on their dirty tricks operation, which has all the hallmarks of a vendetta.

Pointedly, James Clapper, the outgoing US Director of National Intelligence, has said that the secret services have not arrived at a judgment as to whether the Russian blackmail claims are substantive or not. British state-owned BBC has also reported that CIA sources believe that Russian agents have multiple copies of «tapes of a sexual nature» allegedly involving Trump in separate orgies with prostitutes in Moscow and St Petersburg.

In other words this scandal, regardless of veracity, could run and run and run, with the intended effect of undermining Trump and crimping his policies, especially those aimed at normalizing US-Russia relations, as he has vowed to do. If enough scandal is generated, the allegations against Trump being a sexually depraved president compromised by Russian agents – a declared foreign enemy of the US – might even result in his impeachment from the White House on the grounds of treason.

Both the American and British intelligence services appear to be working together, facilitated by aligned news media, to bolster flimsy claims against Trump into allegations of apparent substance. The shadowy «deep state» organs in the US and Britain are doing this because they share a common atlanticist ideology which views Anglo-American dominance over the European Union as the basis for world order. Crucial to this architecture is NATO holding sway over Europe, which in turn relies on demonizing Russia as a «threat to European security».

Clamping down on Trump, either through impeachment or at least corrosive media smears, would serve to further the atlanticist agenda.

For a section of British power – UK-based global corporations and London finance – the prospect of a Brexit from the EU is deeply opposed. The Financial Times list of top UK-based companies were predominantly against leaving the EU ahead of last year’s referendum. Combined with the strategic atlanticist ideology of the military-intelligence apparatus there is a potent British desire to scupper the Trump presidency.

But, as it happens, the American and British picture is complicated by the fact that the British government of Prime Minister Theresa May is very much dependent on cooperation and goodwill from the Trump administration in order for post-Brexit Britain to survive in the world economy outside the EU.

The British government is committed to leaving the EU as determined by the popular referendum last June. To be fair to May’s government, it is deferring to the popular will on this issue. Premier May is even talking about a «hard Brexit» whereby, Britain does not have future access to the European single market. Fervent communications between Downing Street and the Trump transition team show that the British government views new bilateral trade deals with the US as vital for the future of Britain’s economy. And Trump has reciprocated this week by saying that Britain will be given top priority in the signing of new trade deals.

In this way, the British establishment’s divisions over Brexit – some for, some against – are a fortunate break for Trump. Because that will limit how much the British intelligence services can engage in dirty tricks against the president in league with their American counterparts. In short, the atlanticist desire to thwart Trump has lost its power to act malevolently in the aftermath of Britain’s Brexit.

That might also be another reason why Donald Trump has given such a welcoming view on the Brexit – as «a great thing». Perhaps, he knows that it strengthens his political position against deep state opponents who otherwise in a different era might have been strong enough to oust him.

Trump and Brexit potentially mean that the atlanticist sway over Europe is fading. And that’s good news for Russia.

Posted in USA, UK0 Comments

StWC: Why not Protest durind Obama’s Farewell Address ?


Image result for Stop the War Coalition LOGO


Protest during Trump’s inauguration

Trump has said he will continue with the US military interventionism in the Middle East, engage in mass-scale bombing and steal the oil of Middle Eastern countries, massively increase military spending, (SAME AS UK MILITARY SPENDING)  carry out a military build-up in the Asia Pacific, escalate the tensions with China and Iran,discriminate against Muslims, and expand the use of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, where people have been held for a decade and a half in appalling conditions and without due process of law.

He has also said that he is prepared to engage in a nuclear arms race with Russia  (HE SAID HE WILL WORK WITH RUSSIA IN REGARD TO THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE) ??? * and that the US should “greatly strengthen and expand” its nuclear weapons capability. Many of his senior appointees, including his Defence Secretary General “Mad Dog” Mattis, are rabid neocon warmongers.  (OBAMA WAS RABID WARMONGERS DID YOU KNOW THAT ???)* Furthermore, the bulk of the US political and military establishment are unlikely to want any change to relations with Russia, and will probably maintain a high level of tensions.

Britain is keen to remain the US’ closest ally in its never-ending wars. It is spending billions on disastrous wars while the NHS is experiencing what the Red Cross has recently called a “humanitarian crisis”, with cancer operations being cancelled and the majority of urgent ambulance services failing to meet their response targets. We must campaign for an end to these skewed priorities and an end to the murderous “special relationship”.


Posted in USA, UK0 Comments

Trump Slams NATO And EU, Threatens BMW With Tax; Prepared To “Cut Ties” With Merkel

In Stunning Pair Of Interviews

In two separate, and quite striking, interviews with Germany’s Bild (paywall) and London’s Sunday Times (paywall), Donald Trump did what he failed to do in his first US press conference, and covered an extensive amount of policy and strategy, much of which however will likely please neither the pundits, nor the markets.

Among the numerous topics covered in the Bild interview, he called NATO obsolete, predicted that other European Union members would join the U.K. in leaving the bloc and threatened BMW with import duties over a planned plant in Mexico, according to a Sunday interview granted to Germany’s Bild newspaper that will raise concerns in Berlin over trans-Atlantic relations.

Furthermore, in his first “exclusive” interview in the UK granted to the Sunday Times, Trump said he will offer Britain a quick and “fair” trade deal with America within weeks of taking office to help make Brexit a “great thing”. Trump revealed that he was inviting Theresa May to visit him “right after” he gets into the White House and wants a trade agreement between the two countries secured “very quickly”.

Trump told the Times that other countries would follow Britain’s lead in leaving the European Union, claiming it had been deeply ­damaged by the migration crisis. “I think it’s very tough,” he said. “People, countries want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity.”

Elsewhere, quoted in German from a conversation held in English, Trump predicted Britain’s exit from the EU will be a success and portrayed the EU as an instrument of German domination with the purpose of beating the U.S. in international trade. For that reason, Trump said, he’s fairly indifferent whether the EU breaks up or stays together, according to Bild. According to Bloomberg, Trump’s comments “leave little doubt that he will stick to campaign positions and may in some cases upend decades of U.S. foreign policy, putting him fundamentally at odds with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on issues from free trade and refugees to security and the EU’s role in the world.”

Trump then attacked another carmarker, previosuly unnoticed by the president-elect, when he warned the United States will impose a border tax of 35 percent on cars that German carmaker BMW plans to build at a new plant in Mexico and export to the U.S. market.

A BMW spokeswoman said a BMW Group plant in San Luis Potosi would build the BMW 3 Series starting from 2019, with the output intended for the world market. The plant in Mexico would be an addition to existing 3 Series production facilities in Germany and China. Trump said BMW should build its new car factory in the United States because this would be “much better” for the company.

He went on to say Germany was a great car producer, borne out by Mercedes Benz cars being a frequent sight in New York, but there was no reciprocity. Germans were not buying Chevrolets at the same rate, he said, making the business relationship an unfair one-way street. He said he was an advocate of free trade, but not at any cost. The BMW spokeswoman said the company was “very much at home in the U.S.,” employing directly and indirectly nearly 70,000 people in the country.

Going back to foreign policy, Trump discussed his stance on Russia and suggested he might use economic sanctions imposed for Vladimir Putin’s encroachment on Ukraine as leverage in nuclear-arms reduction talks, while NATO, he said, “has problems.”

“[NATO] is obsolete, first because it was designed many, many years ago,” Bild quoted Trump as saying about the trans-Atlantic military alliance. “Secondly, countries aren’t paying what they should” and NATO “didn’t deal with terrorism.” 

While those comments expanded on doubts Trump raised about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during his campaign, he reserved some of his most dismissive remarks for the EU and Merkel, whose open-border refugee policy he called a “catastrophic mistake.” He further elaborated on this stance in the Times interview, where he said he was willing to lift Russian sanctions in return for a reduction in nuclear weapons.

When asked about the prospect of a nuclear arms reduction deal with Russia, Trump told the newspaper in an interview: “For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it.”

Additionally, Trump said Brexit will turn out to be a “great thing.”  Trump said he would work very hard to get a trade deal with the United Kingdom “done quickly and done properly”.

Trump praised Britons for voting last year to leave the EU. People and countries want their own identity and don’t want outsiders to come in and “destroy it.” The U.K. is smart to leave the bloc because the EU “is basically a means to an end for Germany,” Bild cited Trump as saying. “If you ask me, more countries will leave,” he was quoted as saying.

While Trump blamed Brexit on an influx of refugees he said that Britain was forced to accept, the U.K.’s number of asylum applications in 2015 was a fraction of the 890,000 refugees who arrived in Germany that year at the peak of Europe’s migrant crisis.

With Merkel facing an unprecedented challenge from the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany as she seeks a fourth term this fall, Trump was asked whether he’d like to see her re-elected. He said he couldn’t say, adding that while he respects Merkel, who’s been in office for 11 years, he doesn’t know her and she has hurt Germany by letting “all these illegals” into the country.

Among Trump’s other comments to Bild::

  • the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq may have been the worst in U.S. history; 
  • that Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, is a natural talent who will bring about an accord with Israel
  • Trump plans to keep using social media including Twitter once he’s in the White House to sidestep the press and communicate directly with his followers
  • People entering the U.S. will face “extreme” security checks, possibly including some European nationals 

But perhaps the most troubling, if only to legacy US diplomatic relations, was that, as the Times noted, “despite all of Mr Trump’s expressions of admiration for Mr Putin and Mrs Merkel, he revealed that he was prepared to cut ties with both: “Well, I start off trusting both –  but let’s see how long that lasts. It may not last long at all.”

It is unclear if this litany of strategic and tactical announcements, many of which quite shocking in their audacity and scope, is merely meant to serve as a launching pad for further negotiations, something Trump has proven quite adept at doing by stunning his counterparties into a state of abrupt silence, or if these are actually meant to serve as a basis for future US policy; if it is the latter, when US markets reopen they may have a distinct case of indigestion because while the market had desperately hoped for more clarity out of Trump on his policies, what emerged in these two interview is hardly it.

Posted in USA, UK0 Comments

Nazi Forces Execute Palestinian Civilian at Point-Blank Range in al-Far’ah Refugee Camp


 Image result for Israeli Forces Execute Palestinian PHOTO

In an extra-judicial execution crime, on Tuesday dawn, 10 January 2017, Nazi forces shot dead in cold blood a Palestinian civilian in al-Far’ah refugee camp, south of Tubas, in front of his mother.  The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) stresses that this crime was committed after the Nazi political and military leaders gave the Nazi soldiers the green light to shed the Palestinian blood and tolerated the soldiers for their crimes against Palestinian civilians.

According to PCHR’s investigations and the mother’s testimony, Fawziyah Mahmoud Khamis Salhi (67) said to PCHR’s fieldworker that at approximately 02:00 on the above mentioned day, Nazi forces moved into al-Far’ah refugee camp, south of Tubas.  They surrounded the family house of Mohammed Subhi Ahmed Khamis Salhi (33) near an UNRWA School for Girls and the camp sports club, seemingly in order to arrest him.

A number of Nazi soldiers jumped from the outer wall of the 1-storey house. Mohammed and his mother then heard noise in the corridor and went out of their bedroom.  When his mother saw the soldiers, she stood between them and her son.  An Nazi soldier then ordered her to sit on a plastic chair there, but when she refused, the soldier forcefully seated her. She then twice stood between the soldiers and her son.

However in the third time she stood, the Nazi soldier forcefully pushed her and seated her on the chair.  The Nazi soldier then pulled out a gun with a silencer and directly fired 5 bullets at Mohammed at point-blank range.  As a result, the bullets penetrated his neck, chest, hand, armpit, pelvis and thigh from the left side of his body and killed him in front of his elderly mother.

The mother said that she did not hear any sound of shooting, but saw sparkles coming from the gun.  After that, her son swayed and fell on the ground.  His body was put on a litter and then taken by an ambulance belonging to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) to Tubas Turkish Governmental Hospital in Tubas, where medical sources announced him dead.  It should be mentioned that the Mohammed previously served a 3-year sentence in the Nazi camp.

PCHR strongly condemns this new crime, coinciding with the trial of Nazi soldier Elor Azaria, who killed a Palestinian young man namely ‘Abdel Fattah al-Sharif (20) in Hebron on 24 March 2016 when the latter was wounded and immobilised and with calls from Nazi leaders, including Naziyahu, to pardon the soldier if being convicted.  As these calls encourage the Nazi soldiers to shed the Palestinian blood, PCHR hereby:

  1. Demands the United Nations to provide international protection for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) and ensure guarantees to protect civilians in the oPt;
  2. Calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to oblige the Nazi regime to apply the Geneva Conventions in the oPt in its capacity as a Member State to these conventions;
  3. Demands the states signing the Geneva Conventions to fulfill their obligations by exercising their Universal Jurisdiction to hold the Nazi regime war criminals to account regardless of the criminals’ nationalities and the place where the crimes were committed and put an end to their impunity and
  4. Appeals the abovementioned states to extend their Jurisdiction to account war criminals regardless of their origins, not to be obedient to the Nazi regime pressure that aims to limit the states’ jurisdiction in order to keep the Nazi regime war criminals’ impunity.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human Rights, UK, West Bank0 Comments

Nazi manipulation of UK politics: time for zero-tolerance

Israel’s manipulation of UK politics: time for zero-tolerance

Overlapping Israeli and UK flags

But don’t rely on the foreign secretary… or the prime minister… or the speaker to take action. And especially not the Standards Committee.

By Stuart Littlewood

Both the Foreign Office and Boris Johnson, the UK’s foreign secretary, have declared the Shai Masot affair “closed” after Masot, an employee of the Israeli embassy and probably a Mossad asset, plotted with gullible British MPs and political hangers-on to “take down” senior government figures, including Johnson’s deputy, Alan Duncan. “The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed,” they announced. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, who is Jewish, has also declined to investigate.

Sorry, Boris. It isn’t closed – hell no. It’s just opening and it’ll run and run. You and your fellow stooges can be sure of it.

According to some reports, Masot served in the Israeli navy in Palestinian waters off Gaza. Given the many atrocities committed by Israel’s gunboats against Gaza’s fishermen, and children playing on Gaza’s beach, and even peaceful unarmed humanitarian vessels bringing relief to the sick and starving there, he may well be on a wanted list for questioning about war crimes. Masot’s damning comments were captured and revealed in an undercover investigation by Aljazeera and not, as one might have hoped, by Britain’s own beloved press barons.

Masot’s hostile conniving was going on under the eye of a recently arrived ambassador, the loathsome Mark Regev, ace propagandist, mastermind of the Israeli lie machine and personal spokesman for the Zionist regime’s chief thug, Binyamiin Netanyahu.

Emily Thornberry, the Labour Party’s shadow foreign secretary, called Masot’s activities “extremely disturbing” and has demanded a probe into the potential extent of political “interference” in the United Kingdom. There are calls for Regev to be packed off back to Tel Aviv.

A petition demanding a public inquiry can be found here.

Are British parliamentarians at last waking up? Are those who wave the flag of a nasty, murderous foreign military power about to feel the heat from an increasingly furious public? They should be very afraid.

Watch George Galloway’s devastating summing-up.

Nothing new

The realisation that we are in the grip of great evil has been slow in coming. Nine years ago 20 senior professionals wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life about the undue influence of the Israel lobby at the heart of British government and their deep concern about the appalling conditions forced on the civilian population in the occupied territories, particularly Gaza, by the Israeli blockade and called-for sanctions to be imposed by Britain and the European Union.

A letter had earlier been delivered to the Foreign Office minister then responsible for the Middle East, Kim Howells, suggesting that Britain consider suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The rules provide for this sanction if Israel’s conduct towards its neighbours falls short of what is required under the UN Charter and other obligations.

Howells replied:

We consider that the Association Agreement is a key tool for the EU to both enhance cooperation with Israel but also to raise any concerns. We do not support suspension of that agreement, which would limit how we could put our viewpoint across to the Israeli government.

When the EU demanded an end to the emergency in Gaza and the military occupation of the West Bank, Israel responded with an even tighter lockdown, so another letter was sent to Howells. He replied:

The UK… has strong relationships with Israel on a number of fronts… We do not consider it would be in the best interests of the UK, or the European Union, to end this relationship.

Howells was a former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). His opposition shadow at the time was a member of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI).

The minister was then asked to explain what “viewpoint” Her Majesty’s Government had put to the Israeli government regarding the medieval-style siege of Gaza and the collective punishment inflicted on its already impoverished civilians in flagrant breach of the UN Charter and every conceivable code of conduct. What action had he and his department taken to alleviate the suffering in this former British mandate? What was the status of the coastal waters off Gaza? How could Israel maintain a sea blockade lawfully and deny Gazan fishermen their livelihood?

And how did continuing the association agreement in these cruel circumstances “enhance cooperation” with Israel?

No answers to these questions were ever received.

So the 20 signatories reminded the Standards Committee how the lobby group, Friends of Israel, had embedded itself in the British political establishment with the stated purpose of promoting Israel’s interests in our Parliament and bend British policy.

British MPs eating out of the Israeli government’s hand

It was put to the committee that MPs are surely not at liberty to act for a foreign military power at the expense of our own national interests, or to let foreign influence cloud their judgement. Such conduct breached the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

The various Friends of Israel organisations had gone to great lengths to influence those in power. A good many of them, it seemed, reached their high positions with Friends of Israel help. The network acted as a sort of parliamentary freemasonry. The political director of Conservative Friends of Israel claimed that with over 2,000 members and registered supporters alongside 80 per cent of the Conservative MPs, CFI was the largest affiliated group in the party.

Its website stated that the CFI

strives to support the Conservative Party at all available opportunities. In the run up to the 2005 General Election… CFI supported candidates up and down the country. As candidates are now being continuously selected for target seats, CFI has developed a special programme of weekly briefings, events with speakers and a chance to participate in delegations to Israel. CFI encourages all members to help campaign for parliamentary candidates and also for local council, London and European elections.

It also had a “Fast Track” group for Conservative parliamentary candidates fighting target marginal seats at the next election. The political director himself was seeking election to Parliament. If successful where would his loyalty lie?

Senior Conservatives tried to justify these activities by insisting that Israel was “a force for good in the world” and “in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together”.

The danger of inappropriate “friendships” with foreign regimes had become blazingly obvious a few days earlier when Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, was reported to have twice asked David Miliband, our foreign secretary, to scrap the law that authorised magistrates to issue arrest warrants for suspected war criminals who set foot in the UK, she being a particularly blood-soaked example. Avi Dichter, a former director of the Shin Bet spy service and involved in the Shehadeh assassination in which 14 Palestianian civilians, including children, were killed by an Israeli air strike, had to cancel a trip to London for fear of being arrested.

Doron Almog, a former Israeli general, also involved in the Shehadeh affair, narrowly avoided arrest when he landed at Heathrow in 2005. Israel wished the UK to change its laws to protect alleged war criminals. So, we did so just to oblige them, in the name of “enhanced cooperation”, as Howells might have put it.

The Standards Committee was also told bluntly:

It is especially disconcerting to discover that at least two members of your committee, which is pledged to uphold the Principles of Public Life, are Friends of Israel [one the president of Conservative Friends of Israel and the other a member of Labour Friends of Israel]… Given that Israel’s deep penetration of our political system apparently prevents Britain from taking a principled stand on Middle East matters, including the violations of Palestinian human rights, we invite your committee – minus those with an interest – to uphold the Principles of Public Life and consider the activities of the Friends of Israel as a matter for urgent investigation.

But the Standards Committee refused to look into it. The chairman’s reply, sent in a note from a member of his office staff, said: “I regret that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has no remit to help you in this matter.”

So, the public’s watchdog – the Standards Committee – which was formed specifically to uphold those Seven Principles, wasn’t playing ball. Its published remit called on it

to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.

Wasn’t this the kind of plain English even dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats like the committee’s chairman could understand?

Apparently not. He added:

This Committee commented on lobbying in their first report in 1995 and re-addressed the issue, including the changes instigated by their first report, in a review in 2001. The committee has no plans to review this area again in the near future.

The angry 20 pointed out there was nothing in the 1995 report relating to MPs and legislators representing the interests of foreign countries within Parliament or placing themselves under the influence of a foreign country’s political lobby. Nor could they find any mention of it in the 2001 report. They asked for chapter and verse. No reply.

And there the matter has rested for nine years.

Tarnished watchdog

Fast-forward to the present day and we find it’s now the Anglo-Israel Association (AIA) casting a shadow over the Standards Committee. “The Association’s primary purpose is to promote wider and better understanding of Israel in the UK; to encourage exchanges between both countries at every level and generally to support activities which foster good will between British and Israeli citizens,” says the website. But its programme is skewed mainly towards “educating” Britons, including our clergy, about Israel.

The honorary president of the AIA is the ambassador of Israel himself. The chairman of the AIA’s Executive Committee is none other than Lord Bew, also chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. And its council includes the Earl of Balfour – the fifth earl, that is – related of course to the first earl, that nincompoop Arthur Balfour whose infamous Declaration in 1917 paved the way for the shameful handover of the Palestinians’ homeland – and Christianity’s homeland – to Zionist Jews. “What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section,” warned Lord Sydenham at the time, “is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

The centenary of Balfour’s Declaration will be joyously celebrated this year by Israel’s many Westminster stooges including Theresa May if her sucking-up speech to the Israel lobby last month is anything to go by.

So there’s a lot of weeding-out to do.

Those disgruntled 20 could easily become 2 million if the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, the PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign), the unions and other activist groups got together.

The sinister machinations of Masot and Regev have presented them an open goal. And we have Aljazeera to thank for the brilliant exposé where our own security services failed.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

Of England – without prejudice and without affection


What is “post-industrial society”?

Champions of “civil society” in Russia keep talking that they would love to build a “post-industrial” society in their country. They ordinarily omit to decode just what kind of society they are talking about, but as an example, they often point to countries of “the golden billion.” Curiously enough, in those very countries the expression in question is used extremely rarely, and then usually in some kind of critical context. For example, Stanley Hoffmann, an American scholar of international relations, wrote once: whenever you don’t know what to call some phenomenon, you use the word “post”, for example post-Cold-War World, post-liberalism or “post-industrial society.”

To Russian ideologues, this expression is a find, since it allows them to avoid using the word “capitalism” with all the negative connotations that are tied to it. In actual fact, all countries of “the golden billion” are capitalist states in essence, while in form they are indeed “post-industrial.” The latter means that the structure of the economy is changed: the share of manufacturing and agriculture has declined dramatically in favor of the so-called “tertiary” sector, i.e. the service industry which includes education, science, commerce, office work, banking. 70% to 80% of the working population in Western Europe and North America is employed in this sphere. This proportion is reflected also in the structure of the GDP, where the service sector’s weight is the same 70-80%. The calculation is pretty crude, since it is rather hard to determine the boundary between the production and the service spheres. The essence is clear nonetheless: the indicated states produce more in the way of services than in the way of physical goods. It is these societies that are called “post-industrial.”

Here are the figures for Russia, for the year 2003 (data from the Russian State Committee for Statistics): the sphere of physical goods production employed 48,7% of all labor resources, with the other 52,3% being employed in the services sphere; in the GDP, the goods sector accounted for 35,1%, and services – for 64,9%. The former figure in the first set may be evidence simply of Russia’s lower labor productivity in manufacturing and agriculture compared to Western countries. In the second set, the figures are not cardinally different from those in the West. In other words, the “post-industrial society,” that golden dream of Mr. Yavlinsky and his ilk, already exists in Russia. So what does it change? Suppose the country’s current leadership will succeed some time from now in reducing the share of manufacturing and agriculture even further, while the share of the services sphere grows to its current Western proportions. Will that mean that everything in Russia will be just like in the West? Well, no, of course not. All these “what-if-ists” must understand one simple thing: Russia will never be just like the West, no matter what version the society’s development follows, if only because the West never experiences 40-degree cold or 40-degree heat. Whenever these temperature extremes do occur (extremely rarely) anywhere in the West, the land is paralyzed.

Suppose, however, that through some miracle Russia does manage to build a civilized capitalism in accordance with the principles of civil society and the laws of market economics – like in the United Kingdom, for instance. That country is considered an etalon of sorts among all the states of Western Europe and North America, as its economy functions better than all others, and the democracy is as advanced as it gets. Let us see then what will Russia acquire if it ever manages to create a “post-industrial society” of the British type.

*   *   *

I never researched England in particular. My attitude toward that country was formed by German literature, in particular the articles by Heinrich Heine who described the land and its inhabitants in a sarcastic manner. I never liked the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. Still, only a fool can fail to appreciate the works of Shakespeare – or rather the team who wrote under that name – as well as those of many other poets and writers of the foggy Albion. Neither could I help feeling respect for the constellation of English scientists whose discoveries helped accelerate the pace of mankind’s development. Nonetheless, England remained foreign to me in spirit and in temperament, and I had no desire to visit it.

Yet it so happened that I found myself in England and lived there for exactly four years. This proved to be more than enough for me, and I left the land with no sadness and no regrets.

Here is my home village… or, making acquaintances

Upon arriving in England I settled in one of the affluent “hamlets” of Oxford-shire, a ten-minute drive away from Oxford. To my surprise, I found myself among very pleasant neighbors who volunteered right away to help me become integrated into “the society.” My wife and I were surprised by this, for we had read and heard a lot about the coldness, aloofness, standoffishness of the English people. Subsequently I did meet a lot of Englishmen possessed of these qualities (especially among college instructors), but the people of our village were different from the book stereotypes. At the various local festivals held at the village Club (the Millennium Hall) they comported themselves quite emotionally. The attitude toward us “newcomers” was special: they introduced us personally to every resident of the neighborhood, invited us to house parties, looked after the house in our absence, expressed their willingness to help in every way. Still, friendship (in the Russian sense of the word) did not work out with any of them. The initial mutual visiting petered out eventually, the main reason being that we had no topics in common for conversation. My knowledge of gardening was only good for five minutes of talk at most. Whenever I touched on a topic outside the sphere of everyday life, the reply was the standard «really?» – which means, in the purely English interpretation, “this is of no interest to us.” It is “of no interest” because they practically don’t read anything and don’t know anything about other countries and even about their own country. One neighbor of ours did borrow one of the books I wrote, but later admitted that he couldn’t finish reading it. I want to stress that those locals’ incomes place them in the upper stratum of the “middle class,” which class is nothing other than ordinary average consumers. It is they who constitute the greater part of the “tertiary sector.” For the most part this consumer possesses extremely limited knowledge and devotes his entire life to “home and garden.” However, unlike the Russian counterpart who is ordinarily mean and envious, the English philistine is good-natured due to his rather high standard of living.

I did not become closely acquainted with any workers. However, I do know from newspapers that they live in horrid conditions, especially in the north of England; that they fall ill and die at a dramatically higher rate than the middle and upper classes of the land.

Non-scientific science, ideology and propaganda

In Oxford I got to socialize often with scholars, primarily with Russia specialists. Reading their works and communicating with them enabled me to realize as if physically the expressions “bourgeois scientists” and “bourgeois science” – phrases that were in use during the Soviet times. Within the framework of social disciplines (political science, sociology, international relations, etc.) there is indeed no science to be found there – if one understands this word to mean the search for truth. The matter is, they don’t even give any thought to the question of what is scientific truth. All their research is wound around ideological clichés, primarily two magical words: democracy and markets. Thus, one Oxford professor, an authority in Russia studies, wrote a thick volume on Gorbachev – giving the man high marks, naturally, for introducing democracy to the USSR. However, it did not occur to him to analyze what democracy did to the country. In general, all these professors are usually specialists in some narrow topic: one specializes in the work of the current parliament, another – in Chechnya, a third – in mass media. This applies not only to Russia scholars, but to all country scholars in general. They have practically no works of summarizing nature, which is easy to explain. Firstly, they have no scientists capable of grasping and analyzing the USSR/Russia as an integrity. They don’t operate with criteria for evaluating various events. Neither do they have any scientific method – unless, that is, one counts the occasional use of systemic or structural approaches, which are only good for solving a certain class of problems. Secondly, they are ideologically engaged to an extreme degree, which prevents them from evaluating events and facts objectively. Thirdly, most of them don’t know Russian, therefore for sources they use digests for the most part – that is, extracts from English-language newspapers; they also interview some scholars or others during their trips to Moscow. Those who do know the Russian language only make use of contemporary Russian bourgeois literature by authors who cast in their lots with the current regime. They deliberately avoid the critical left-wing literature. This approach is applied not only to Russia, but to China as well: their writings on China are equally nonsensical.

Against the backdrop of the social-studies books, the natural science works stand out. In this sphere science manifests itself in full measure, albeit there is a lot of waste paper to be found here as well.

In other words, my practice convinced me yet again that Lenin was correct in saying: bourgeois natural scientists can be trusted for as long as they stay on their science ground, while bourgeois social scientists cannot be trusted at all.

Censorship. The ideological engagement of the social-studies literature is also manifested in censorship. Formally it is not there, yet in fact it exists, and it functions very effectively. The matter is, the fact of a book’s publication has no importance whatsoever until it advertised on television or in nation-wide magazines and newspapers. No work – not even a tiny review – will ever be advertised if it attacks the “sacred” values of democracy and markets. For example, the magazines Foreign Affairs (the USA), The Economist (the UK) and several others were unwilling (exactly so!) to publish a review of one of my works, since it appeared to reveal the detrimental effect of “democracy” on Russia. Apparently, “freedom of speech” has long outlived its usefulness. At least it does not exist in the “post-industrial” society.

In general the British press creates the impression that no one works in the country – that there are no workers or farmers there. There are only the Queen with her family, bankers, footballers and musicians. The vast majority of materials is dedicated to scandals, savage murders, and recently to terrorists as well. Naturally, no one uncovers the social causes that disrupt the peaceful life of the British people. Various problems do get raised, of course, in some way or another in the newspaper pages, but they drown in the sea of advertisements, entertainments and scandalous stories. One has to admit that in the business of brainwashing, the British press did indeed achieve “shining heights.” Their ideological propaganda works flawlessly.

Religion and cheese

There is, however, one quality that I do like about the English people: it is their relaxed attitude toward religion. There is a well-known old French joke: “The French have one God and 300 varieties of cheese; the English have just one kind of cheese and 300 gods.” Jeremy Paxman, the author of a popular book about the English, reminds the reader that even in the middle of the 19th century two thirds of Londoners did not attend church. Indifference to religion was one of the main factors in the lead taken by England in its historical development. Religion was successfully replaced by science which reached its peak during the 19th and early 20th centuries. There is a reason why England produced the greatest number of scientists among those who had a revolutionary influence on the development of science and technology in the world.

In the 20th century the importance of religion declined in all advanced countries, but the pace of this process was apparently most intense in Britain, which fact British priests themselves are forced to admit with bitterness. Thus, The UK Christian Handbook: Religious Trends (2004) indicates that in the last 15 years the number of believers declined by more than a million, and by 2005 there will only be 5.6 million left. In that same period the number of church buildings decreased by 1,400, and the number of priests – by 1,000. The numbers of churchgoers are also falling. Only about 19% of English protestants go to church at least once a month.[1] In Catholic countries this percentage is much higher: in Spain and Austria – 35%, in Slovakia, Portugal and Italy – over 50%, in Ireland – 67%, in Poland – a whopping 78%. However, in Catholic France only about 12% of the French show piety, preferring the cafe to the church. One should keep in mind that to many people the church is less a place of worship than a place for socializing with acquaintances.

Many churchmen realize that the Bible can no longer satisfy modern thinking, which is oriented toward science by time itself. Therefore they seek to concentrate the attention of the “servants of God” on the moral aspects of the Biblical teaching, for example the teaching about family and the upbringing of children. This makes some amount of sense, although the English authors of a text on atheism point out that since many students don’t believe in God, they accordingly mistrust the moral values prescribed in the Bible as God’s commandments. Be that as it may, religious topics don’t get serious attention from the English people. Other kinds of problems cause them serious concern.

Problem-plagued Britannia

Education. This is one of the sore topics constantly discussed in the press. First of all, attention is drawn to the cardinal differences between public and private schools. The former graduate a large percentage of illiterate students. By the way, according to UN data, 21.8% of the United Kingdom’s population is considered “functionally illiterate” (The Guardian, January 11, 2005, p. 21).  Fairly recently it was discovered that suicides among students occur at a very high rate in public schools.

In higher schools, during 2003-2004 a wave of closures hit the natural sciences faculties (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology). Universities are starved for cash. At the same time, tuition is increased annually, and at the same time employment is becoming harder to find for graduates. The press reports this phenomenon: due to lowered admission requirements and the departures of qualified faculty (due to law pay) many graduates emerge totally uneducated.

The example of the current state of education in the United Kingdom (which, by the way, is better in some aspects than that in other European states) convinces one yet again of the superiority of the systemic public mandatory free (!) education in the Soviet Union.

Health care is another sore topic; I experienced the British version of this problem myself. The so-called “general practitioner” (= “family doctor”) accords ten to fifteen minutes at most to each patient, with five minutes of that number spent on filling in forms and other paperwork, and if you did not get the needed treatment in those scant minutes, you have to book another visit for another day. The knowledge level of the public-sector physicians is infamous, as noted with alarm in the British press. There are, of course, different physicians and different hospitals. Moreover, their differ depending on the geographic location: worse in the North, better in the South. For example, Oxford-shire is considered one of the best places as health care is concerned. Nonetheless, I experienced the quality of that health care firsthand.

My osteochondrosis of the shoulder joint flared up. I went to a clinic and told the doctor of my malady. She replied by asking: “What is osteochondrosis?” I was in shock. They told me later, though, that this “physician” had only recently graduated, so she didn’t have experience yet. On the recommendation of a different physician, I went to a professional masseuse to get treatment for my “chondrosis.” A charming lady was indeed receiving patients in a beautifully appointed office, radiating calm with the whole look of her. She traced the causes of all illnesses to the spine, as evidenced by the set-up: spines of all degrees of curvature were on display in the reception room. This pro spent about a half-hour writing down the history of my ailments, starting from the date of birth; after that for about 15 minutes she proceeded to crack her fingers practically without touching me, as if pretending to straighten the spine. After the séance she warned me not to drive for a certain time, on account of possible dizziness (?). Naturally, I was feeling nothing except for the disappearance of ₤80 from my wallet in exchange for some shaking of the air; that fact really did make me somewhat dizzy.

My rounds of physicians continued. Now I needed an X-ray of the knee joint. I had to wait for two months (if my need had been for an ophthalmologist or an otolaryngologist, I would have had to wait three to four months.) Once they made the X-ray, the diagnosis was: bursitis. (By the way, in a elite pay clinic in Moscow the diagnosis was: osteochondrosis of the knee.) In actual fact it was a tear of the meniscus; I learned that later, from different physicians in a different country. That’s British free health care for you.

Private health care is different: the reception takes 20 to 30 minutes and costs about ₤200. I mean the initial reception in a private clinic that involves consultation only – not analyses or operations. Treatment means entirely different kind of money. However, they do offer excellent coffee for free! When you leave, they tell you “come again for sure if anything is unwell” with a sincerest smile from ear to ear. Next time will cost another ₤200.

I also had to deal with their dentistry and actual treatment: a tooth started hurting, and I was in need of fixing it. A dentist in London (a Russian, by the way) told me that in my case the treatment will cost between ₤3,000 and ₤10,000. I did not allow him to touch my tooth and flew to Canada, where I went to my old dentist who did everything much cheaper and faster – in just one visit.

Back to figures. In average life expectancy the United Kingdom ranks 29th in the world. This is not so bad, considering that Russia, for example, ranks 91st. This figure hides a certain twist, however: the average lifespan is very high in the south of the country and much lower in the north (in Scotland, in Ireland). Moreover, within London city limits life expectancy differs between districts – by as much as 10 to15 years.

I am compelled to state yet again: even under “the worst kind of socialism,” health care in the USSR was better than in today’s civilized United Kingdom by an order of magnitude. Suffice it to remind that in the Soviet Union every working person got two free medical checkups per year (the physicians came to people’s workplaces with all their equipment). Just one such checkup in the UK would cost me ₤10,000 at least.

The third sore issue in the UK (judging by the number of publications in four newspapers: The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, and The Daily Mirror) is transportation. Firstly, it is extremely expensive (compared to all other advanced countries); secondly, it is unreliable (arrivals are constantly late, departures are constantly delayed); thirdly, it is torturous (the routes are clogged, and the roads are always under repair – tax monies at work.) The only thing that gives one joy is the culture of driving; they are gentlefolk, after all.

Neither does the British “post-industrial society” manage to control the growth of crime. For example, in 2001-2002 the number of crimes reached 5,525,316; the following year, it was 5,899,450. The gravest crimes are the fastest growing categories – most notably murders. While murder rates are declining in Germany and France, in the UK the rate is going up. Some believe this is due to the fact that in the UK young men and women consume more hard liquor than in any other West European country. At any rate, the newspapers carry many stories of murders committed “for no apparent reason,” simply out of boredom.

Rather less is written on the problem of deformation of the traditional family, though the consequences thereof may prove more perilous than the problems mentioned above. British sources indicate a stable trend toward a lower proportion of marriages (including “cohabiting couples”) with children – from 92% in 1971 to 73% in 2002 – and a growing proportion of single parents – from 8% to 27% respectively. The proportion of single mothers who never married also grew dramatically – from 1% in 1971 to 12% in 2002. The proportion of divorced mothers grew in the same time period from 6% to 12%. (Living in Britain 2002, published 2004).

Another aspect of negative consequences, having to do in this case with the new model of family, i.e. the “co-habiting couple,” is evident in the social-economic sphere. In the United Kingdom, for example, such couples – accounting for almost 21% of all “families” in the land – have very low incomes. (Among traditional families, 7.8% subsist on such low incomes; among single mothers – 76,4%.) (The Sunday Times, April 18, 2005). This results in a phenomenon that is very embarrassing to wealthy Britain: child poverty, which affects over 20% of all children in  the United Kingdom, or 3.2 million children. (This topic is analyzed in detail in my book On Love, Family and the State (Moscow, 2006.)

“Service” in the services-based economy

To me personally, the main problem in the UK was British service.

You see, whenever one buys a more or less major item the product is delivered not at once, but some time later. This is quite understandable in the conditions of “post” societies: keeping products stored in warehouses is much cheaper than having them occupy floor space in stores. Some tiny store-offices make all their sales through catalogues. One salesperson takes orders and requests, another transmits the information to the warehouse, while the deliveries are made by drivers and loaders – people who have nothing to do with the selling. I simply must describe here my experience of purchasing a desk in Oxford town. Having formalized the purchase, made the payment and signed off on the delivery date (5 days later), we received the table… sans one leg. “Embarrassed” by this development, the delivery man promised to deliver the leg in 5 (!) days – for the whole procedure of ordering was to be repeated again. They delivered the leg right on time – only it belonged to a different table. We were told: “pardon us,” the leg will be delivered next week. Next week, nothing at all was delivered. So once again, the iterations were repeated: phone call –  order placed – apologies… To cut the story short, the table purchase took more than three weeks.

The funniest books can be written on the topic of buying, selling and repairing electronics in the UK. It is a topic ever so vital. My encounter with computer service in England was of rather unusual nature: I needed my English-writing apparatus Russified. We could have performed the installation ourselves on an amateurish level; however, we decided to spare our time and brought the computer over to a workshop that advertised precisely this kind of services. The “experts” promised to accomplish the task in a week (?), assuring us that it was no problem at all. “Just wait, we shall call you.” We decided to wait just so that all software is “adjusted” professionally. However, a week later the work was not done – and it still was not done another week later. When I made a wrathful phone call to inquire as to the reasons for the delay, I heard: “sorry, all is ready – do come over.” The invoice was made out, lying beside my computer that was covered with a thick layer of dust. Before paying, we asked them to switch the computer on so that we may check – and what do you know: it still was unable to read Russian script… I was indignant: what was I supposed to pay for? “Sorry, I won’t pay” is what I told them.

Capitalism – not just the British kind, but the universal kind, including its “post” variety – has one obvious specific trait: for as long as you are a potential buyer, you are desirable, and you receive smiles and top-quality coffee for absolutely free. However, as soon as the merchandise is transferred to the buyer’s hands and money has changed hands in the opposite direction, all smiles disappear, and the salespeople form ranks to make an invincible fortress. No kind of guarantee is capable of resolving the emerging problems effectively (that is, quickly and based on the consumer-protection law.) This isn’t because the people working in these “post”- and simply- capitalisms are so bad – on the contrary, they are nice, charming people; it’s just that the system forces them to follow the rules of business cruelty. Money – goods – people – services – connections – all this is merely products, meaning money – such is the sole idea of capitalism. I am not the first to write of this; I merely confirm what is well known, and I want to stress yet again that this is the road to degeneration of people and eventually of society itself. This process is particularly evident in culture and the arts.

Degeneration of culture as a symptom of the nation’s degeneration

Art and culture certainly do exist in the UK – as rare hearths against the backdrop of the so-called pop-culture for the masses. The “orthodox” who stick to the norms of human morals have become critically few. Thanks to the democratic freedom of choice, primitive instincts are ascending at a fearful pace to domination over education and human upbringing, over knowledge and morals. On television, the saturation with sex is off the scale (horny bimbos entice viewers from the screen, inviting to “get together”); fortune tellers and magicians of all stripes compete in the art of doing EVERYTHING (in this respect, Russia is just where a “post-industrial society” should be); crazed musicians, unacquainted with soap and shampoo, work themselves into copious sweat. Television channels invite viewers to join the grand parties of the swinging youth. Loose drunk babes (impossible to believe that this is happening in England) and blokes are happy in their choice to live like that. The freedom of choice also bore its fruit in the “modern” attitude toward same-sex marriage – a phenomenon that has become legalized and quite accepted in society. There is also support (no condemnation, at least) for the “philosophy” of naked old men and women who want to mow their lawns and play in their gardens in the buff. The President of the British Naturism Society claims that “when you go nude, you get the feeling of freedom.” Obviously, no one feels as free as animals, and these will soon be joined by large numbers of Britons.

The example of the British nation confirms the historical phenomenon: as soon as a nation – or the greater part of it – looses the ability to tell good from bad, ceases to understand what is in conformity with the laws of nature and society, and what is in opposition to them – this nation dooms itself to disintegration. One of the signs that the laws of morals and nature are violated is the bacchanalia of sex accompanied by all sorts of perversions. All this leads to the nation’s degeneration. Degeneration, however, is also underway in the literal sense.

Britons are now dying out physically. The white population is decreasing due to the disintegration of the traditional family and, as a consequence, a sharp drop in the birth rate. The surrogate same-sex families are simply a dead-end option of society. The total population figure is unchanged for many years now at about 61 million people; however, this is entirely due to the inflow of immigrants and their reproduction rates. White-skinned Anglo-Saxons will soon become a minority; the threat is very real. Whenever anyone complains about the immigrant Muslims’ desires to establish their ways of life on British soil, the palefaces protest loudly; yet it is precisely the laws of the democratic post-industrial state that are bringing the state down.

Democracy without borders

In the opinion of proponents of capitalism, one of the noteworthy qualities of the “post-industrial society” is advanced democracy. Democracy is one of the forms of political organization, one that emerged already in the slaver society. Democracy has many forms; bourgeois democracy is one of them. The latter, in turn, comes in many varieties. British democracy is considered to be the most perfect kind among all advanced capitalist countries. This may well be true, though some believe that democracy is even more advanced in the socialist countries of Scandinavia. That is beside the point, however; the point is that today’s version of democracy has become a mechanism that advances the destruction of the state. This is manifested in different spheres of social life.

On first glance, the practice of political correctness in language is its single most harmless manifestation. It is common knowledge that feminists have succeeded long ago in replacing “masculine” words such as “businessman” and “chairman” with the gender-neutral “businessperson” and “chairperson”; “postman” was replaced with “postal worker.” Now feminists are at a loss whether to write “he or she” or “she or he.” Frightened by the linguistic assault, the employees of the English National Opera expelled from their lexicon the word “darling,” since it may be construed by someone as sexual harassment. This for you is rights equality between men and women in an advanced democracy.

Now for the social sphere. In the 1980-ies the word “underprivileged” was introduced to designate the recipients of “benefits,” since the word “unemployed” supposedly affected negatively the mental state of the “underprivileged” persons. Another euphemism for unemployment became popular: “a person between jobs.”

In those same years, verbal changes were introduced to the sphere of international relations: the word “backward” was replaced with “under-developed,” then “under-developed” was replaced with “developing,” and then “developing” was replaced with “Third World.”

At present, the main thrust of attacks is directed against those words and idioms that may suggest negative connotations to ethnic minorities. For example, the use of the expression «good egg» (meaning: good lad) is discouraged, since it supposedly originated from the expression «egg and spoon», which rhymes with a derogatory word used to designate African-Americans (God forbid using the word “Negroes”.)

In actual fact, all these euphemisms are not harmless at all. So-called politically correct language conceals elementary lies intended to change reality. Back in his time, the well-known English commentator Bernard Levin wrote: “We change the names of things we dislike. Thus we attempt to convince ourselves that through this we changed the phenomena themselves. However, no man can change reality just by manipulating words. So why do we do this? It is because reality is often unhealthy.” (The Times, August 10, 2004, p. 16).

Levin underestimates the power of such manipulations. In actual fact this is a form of ideological treatment of mass consciousness in order to soften or iron out the contradictions of capitalism, to neutralize its most negative aspects with words. This is precisely why Russian liberals favor the expression “post-industrial society” in place of “capitalism” or “imperialism” – words that provoke the most negative emotions in many people. These word games are even more significant when used against socialism. For example, it is for a reason what the foes of socialism call the Great October Socialist Revolution a “coup.” They thus attempt to belittle a historical event that changed the course of world history in the 20th century and became the hope not only to the population of the newborn country, but also to many downtrodden in the West and in the East.

In the USA, where “political correctness of language” goes to absurd lengths, the Department of Education had the names of many of America’s great men banished from history texts. The “proscribed” list includes, for example, Samuel Adams, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, the brothers Wright, and many others. The reason offered is that some of these men were slave owners, while others fought against Indians, and still others made unfavorable pronouncements about Negroes. Thus language is capable of distorting history – at least it can do that in the heads of the philistines who comprise the majority of the population in any country.

Now for some more serious matters. It is common knowledge that immigration is growing in advanced countries, including the UK, and most of the immigrants are Muslims. Their numbers are growing inexorably. They practically don’t assimilate at all, retaining their old customs, culture and religion. The problem is, they are not content with just reproducing their way of life; they are now attempting to impose it on the aboriginals, for example the Britons in the UK. Of course, the two cultures are incompatible in principle. However, instead of forcefully putting the immigrants in their place (they are guests, after all, and uninvited ones at that), the Britons started debating the forms of their actions in Parliament, trying not to violate any democratic principles. Since the Muslim immigrants absolutely fail to grasp the meaning of Western democratic values, they see the Britons’ mild response as a weakness, and that only serves to stimulate the newcomers to even more aggressive behavior. In view of the white population’s rapid decrease, one may surmise that soon enough the immigrants will outnumber the locals (today their share of the population is 5-6%, whereas in other countries of Western Europe the figure is 10-12%). Then all forms of democracy will come to an end, and it will be replaced with a Muslim regime based on the will of Allah and on other feudal norms.

Finally, today’s boundless democracy legitimized and accorded equal civil rights to gay and lesbian marriages. This anti-natural phenomenon – an appendix, a dead-end, ruinous branch of development in the history of biological life – serves the afore-mentioned trend, i.e. the decrease of the white population.

Thus, contemporary democracy turned into a political regime that can no longer contain the disintegration of the state. It has outlived its historic usefulness. A different form of political structure of power is needed, one that conforms to the new phenomena of the 21st century. Should the United Kingdom fail to develop a new type of regime, the “post-industrial society” is in danger of turning into a feudal society of the Middle Eastern type.

I did not touch in this article on social and economic problems; for the analysis thereof would have resulted in a substantially increased volume. I want only to make two points here in thesis form.

Today’s Britons owe their economic prosperity to their ancestors who managed to conquer nearly half the world in their time. Although the British colonial empire fell apart, the former colonies stayed in the orbit of the British economy, continuing to feed and clothe their master. The methods of pillaging changed, but the essence did not. The Third World continues to supply everything necessary (agricultural products, raw materials, metals, etc.) for the survival and relative prosperity of the “post-industrial society” in the UK. The flip side of this prosperity, however, is that the Britons themselves are no longer capable of reproducing themselves as a nation. The average Briton has lost the habit of working. When he needs to drive a nail into the wall or plug into the power supply, he calls for tradesmen (who are immigrants for the most part.) The “post-industrial society” resembles a man with a huge head but no arms or legs – and soon he will be without a trunk.

Moreover, potentially explosive hotbeds are now emerging within this society in the form of “Third World” enclaves. The proportion of the population existing below the absolute poverty line ($11 per day in advanced countries) is 15.7%. The wealthiest 10% “earn” 14 times the amount earned by the bottom 10% of the population. And so on, and so forth.

*   *   *

So, we are now facing the “post-industrial society” with all its minuses and pluses. We may consider that the main plus is the rather vast middle class enjoying a rather high average standard of living. This plus is overlaid, however, with a lot of minuses in the spheres of education, health care, transportation, crime, terrible service, etc. The most important minus is the moral degradation and the political impotency in the face of new challenges. This whole set of problems is also characteristic of all other “post-industrial societies” of Western Europe, to greater or lesser degree. Evidently these societies have passed their peak of development and started tumbling downhill. This downfall usually starts with the crisis of morals and ends either with the destruction of the state – or its qualitative renewal through revolution. Since Britons are not fond of revolutions, they appear to be doomed to the former outcome.

Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer – the number two man in the Labour government – said at his party’s convention (in late September 2005): «Reflect for a moment: on the talent wasted…the great music never composed, the great art never created, the great science never invented, the great books never written.» (The Economist, October 1st, 2005, p.11). Reflect for even just a second: everything said above relates to the “post-industrial society” that is the dream of the liberal democrats in Russia. Does Russia need this kind of society? I doubt that; however, it is for Russians to decide.

Alex Battler

Paris, France

Posted in UK0 Comments



General Patton, after whom the Patton tank is named, was the most outstanding, the most daring, the most original and the most honest allied General during World War II. On account of his fiery integrity, brilliance, and exceptional bravery, lesser generals like Eisenhower, even though they were senior to him, feared General Patton. His successes had made him a legend during his lifetime. It is now known that General Patton was murdered on the express orders of the chief of OSS – Office of Strategic Services, the precursor of CIA – General “Wild Bill” Donovan. The British tutored and controlled the OSS through him and Britain was controlled by the “High Cabal”, a term used by Churchill during World War II. The “High Cabal” is also known as the One World cabal or the Elite in literature. The “High Cabal” of Churchill was controlled by the Rothschilds because they controlled Britain’s money line. Donovan was thus an agent of the Elite, the One World cabal of international bankers, and their allies.

The murder of General Patton was made to look like an accident. General Patton’s death, attributed to an “embolism”, was announced on December 21, 1945. He had met the “accident” on December 9, 1945. It is said that he had suffered a broken neck in the accident but was reported to have recovered and was to be flown to the US on December 22, 1945. The murder of General Patton, which touches the hearts of even non Americans 65 years later, also establishes that the Elite and its stooges have absolutely no loyalty to any country and that their ruthlessness, planning, cohesion, penetration, anonymity and cunning makes them the most dangerous and persistent foe of humanity. Betrayal and treachery is not unique to developing societies – US history is replete with the most sordid and supremely concealed betrayals that are never revealed or taught in highly controlled US academic institutions. “Democratic” USA was always an insidiously and increasingly controlled state – it is now, for all practical purposes, a totalitarian state and the fig leaf is gone. It is most likely that other “Wild Bills” adorn the US military and intelligence leadership of today, as future historians will establish. And then there is a battery of court historians who subtly, and not so subtly, try to plant disinformation in books, newspaper articles and articles on the internet.

That General Patton was killed is now fairly well established. There had always been a suspicion that he was murdered, but a book “Target: Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton“, published in 2008, reveals this with hardly a doubt. Interestingly Wilcox’s book was greeted with silence by the US media. The Western Australian newspaper published an article on the book on December 22, 2008 on page 16! On December 25th Bob Patterson wrote for OpEdNews: “Two days after the article appeared, a search of Google-news provided several suggested links to other stories on the same topic, but they were for sources outside (italics added) the United States. Why then isn’t this story being reported by the Huffington Post and /or New York Times so that a Google-news search can prove that it isn’t up to a blogging columnist in Australia to bring this newsworthy book to the attention of an American website’s audience? Could it be that the managing editors of the most influential newspapers have suffered a plague of simultaneous misjudgment or what? Bill O’ Rielly will continue to criticize New York Times and the stories it runs, but it seems very unlikely he will plug this column and this website. ” So much for the integrity of the mainstream US media, a propaganda organ of the Elite.

The author Robert Wilcox was able to repeatedly interview an OSS agent, a decorated marksman named Douglass Bazata, who admitted to having arranged the “accident”. In this accident no one except General Patton was hurt, and once the accident had taken place, Bazata claimed to have shot General Patton with a neck breaking low velocity projectile. [1] Bazata passed away in 1999. According to Bazata the job was finished by the Soviet NKVD (the precursor of KGB) while Patton was in hospital. Whether it was the OSS, or the OSS-NKVD acting jointly that completed the murder of Gen. Patton as Wilcox indicates, the fact is, as we point out, both, the US and the Soviet Union, were controlled by the same Elite. It was the Elite that wanted to kill Patton.

Bazata told Wilcox that Donovan had told him that he had clearance from his superiors about the mission. Bazata also told an interviewer for the magazine The Spotlight that Donovan used to get his orders directly from the President and therefore he understood that Patton’s murder had the approval of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). “Since Donovan was directly responsible to the President I assumed [FDR] knew and had authorized the action. ” He told the interviewer “They thought Patton disobedient, disruptive, and uncontrollable and were going to stop him with or without my help. ” That FDR worked for the Elite is something that is known among writers who deal with such matters. Eustace Mullins and Anthony Sutton in particular have revealed devastating facts about FDR’s corrupt collusion with the bankers.

In a story of December 20, 2009, a Sunday Telegraph reporter quotes Wilcox as having said that he believed that Bazata was a “sterling guy” and that Bazata “was struggling with himself, all these killings he had done. He confessed to me that he had caused the accident, that he was ordered to do so by Wild Bill Donovan. ” That Bazata had inner conflicts is also indicated by his diaries. He writes: “Why am I so bad? None know my inner struggles, the restless nites – not even my wife I am plagued by doubts between the so-called right and so-called wrong I have no confidant save my God. ” No wonder in 1979 Bazata stood before an audience of 450 or so ex intelligence agents in a gathering at Hilton Hotel Washington D.C. , to announce that he had been entrusted with the job to kill Patton by OSS Chief Donovan. He was, according to his dairies, and according to Wilcox, angry with Donovan, who, in his view, had betrayed him with false promises. He was angry that he was not even allowed to work for the CIA. On the surface of it, this is very surprising but in view of the fact that he was involved in and aware of a great crime committed at Donovan’s behest, he had to be kept at a distance, lest the knowledge be passed on to more workers of the agencies bringing Donovan and his masters in the Elite in criminal limelight. It might have led to patriotic agents initiating a complete unmasking of the intrigue that led to Patton’s death. The Elite always strives to conceal because it is guilty of horrific crimes.

In fact it was in 1972 that Bazata had revealed to a British born writer Joy Billington, on condition that she would not publish it, his involvement in the Patton murder. Billington was doing a story on his art – Bazata paradoxically was an excellent artist who had had solo exhibitions with personalities like Princess Grace of Monaco and the Duchess of Windsor. Joy Billington’s story on Bazata’s artistic work appeared in the Star-News of 17th September 1972. She was later to tell Wilcox that she could hardly believe her ears when Bazata mentioned his involvement in Patton’s murder. When, in 1979, Bazata went public on the issue, he actually did so by managing to get Billington at the Hilton Hotel gathering in Washington D.C. He then made her ask him a question about the Patton murder. Bazata’s word for word statement made at the Hilton Hotel goes as follows:

“For diverse political reasons, many extremely high-ranking persons hated Patton. I know who killed him for I was the one who was hired to do it. Ten thousand dollars. General William J. ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan himself, Director of OSS, entrusted me with the mission. I set up the ‘accident’. Since he didn’t die in the accident, he was kept in isolation in the hospital, where he was killed with a cyanide injection. “

This story was a bombshell that was completely ignored by the mainstream media. Why? The complete silence with which the mainstream media dealt with this bombshell of a story is very intriguing, to say the least. [2] In an obituary published a month or so after his death in 1999, the New York Times mentioned that Bazata was the son of a Catholic clergyman. This is confirmed by Wilcox who also mentions that Bazata’s grandfather had emigrated from Czechoslovakia. However at numerous places on the internet it has been stated that Bazata was a Lebanese Jew. Why? The New York Times story failed to mention Bazata’s highly newsworthy claim that he was involved in the murder of General Patton. This omission is highly significant since Bazata’s claim to fame rests on his penitent confession about Patton’s murder. Did New YorkTimes publish obituaries of all OSS agents and if not why did Bazata deserve that ‘honor’? Or, was the Elite carrying on its media tradition of honoring only those who unscrupulously serve its interests?

Wilcox had a series of interviews with Bazata. Further, Bazata, who at one time wanted to write his biography, handed over to him his private and highly confidential diaries that he had maintained – these were about forty notebooks – “ledgers” as Wilcox calls them. When Wilcox cross-checked what Bazata had told him about his own past and what was mentioned in the diaries, with the available archival records he found that Bazata was indeed being truthful. In fact, for his interview with The Spotlight in 1979, Bazata passed the lie detector test. Bazata was indeed an OSS assassin and was a highly decorated officer who had carried out numerous assassinations.

Not relying merely on Bazata’s confession and diaries, the author has collected other circumstantial evidence supporting the contention that Patton was indeed assassinated. He also interviewed a counter intelligence agent Stephen J. Skubik who stated that he repeatedly informed Donovan of a threat to Patton’s life. In fact Skubik’s family has set up a website where a privately published book authored by Skubik can be found. The book is titled: Death : The Murder of General Patton. Skubik’s daughter states that her father had told her that “the OSS under Bill Donovan, actively ignored credible threats against Patton’s life. My dad used to refer to Bill Donovan as ‘that son of a bitch’, for his role in Patton’s death. ” Wilcox has pointed out that instead of being grateful to him for providing valuable information about a threat to Patton’s life, Donovan had Skubik jailed. When Patton was murdered Skubik had to flee for his life and stayed underground for five years in USA. Interestingly an article on Wilcox’s book in the Daily Telegraph, perhaps the only article on the book in a major newspaper (but still outside the US), merely states that Skubik was sent back to US by Donovan when he informed him of the threat to Patton’s life. Donovan did not control Skubik who worked, not for OSS, but for CIC (counter-intelligence corps). But Donovan was extremely angry each time Skubik brought up the threat to Patton’s life. This anger is inexplicable unless Donovan felt threatened in some way.

Skubik has given an interesting detail. He writes: “I have spoken to Bert Goldstein, one of Patton’s bodyguards during that time. Bert told me that Patton’s life was threatened, that he was vulnerable to the ever present danger. Bert states, that had the bodyguards not been removed Patton would not have been murdered. He is convinced that his favorite general was murdered. ” So why the body guards were removed when it was known that his life was in danger? When Kennedy was murdered his body guards, the “human shields” were withdrawn at the very moment his car started rolling. [3]
All files pertaining to on the scene investigations have disappeared. Wilcox has pointed out that at least five crucial documents have been removed from the files pertaining to Patton’s accident. He remarks that if it were one or two files one could accept that they had been misplaced. He writes: “All such primary, close-to-the-crash documents have vanished. One or two being lost or misplaced is understandable. But five? That’s a cover up. They ‘ve been removed – except for quoted bits and pieces that have survived as parts of other documents. ”

As if the removal of documents was not enough, the car at display in the Patton museum at Fort Knox, in which Patton was supposed to have met the accident, is not the actual car. This was established by the author Wilcox through the help of a Detroit Cadillac expert. Wilcox states: “After his examination he told me the Cadillac at Fort Knox was not a 1938, but a doctored 1939. Among other incriminating details, he showed me where the car’s hard to find vehicle identification number (VIN) had been crudely filed off the metal chassis. Every vehicle has a VIN so it can be traced or verified for potential buyers. The museum wasn’t aware of the fraud until we informed them of our findings. So if the museum’s car wasn’t the Cadillac in which Patton was injured, where then was that car? I believe it disposed of in an effort to destroy evidence. ” Why were the documents removed and why has not the actual car been put on display? What is it that the establishment wishes to conceal? It is also interesting to note that according to Wilcox “Patton’s driver, who couldn’t avoid the crash would later privately tell his son that the truck had been waiting for them on the side of the road as they ‘d started up from a railroad track stop. ”

It is odd that although the accident took place at a rather isolated place away from populated areas, a large number of apparently military personnel appeared out of nowhere. Wilcox writes in an article dated December 21, 2010: “Although the crash occurred on a quiet no-work Sunday morning, a large crowd of mostly military personnel quickly descended on the scene. These included: a brigadier general accompanied by a major; two sets of military police who, it is written, made official reports; a mysterious “Lt. Valandingham” who appears to have been a clandestine; a lone provost marshal, and various groups of helpers, all military, including a set of medical officers with an ambulance whose officer in charge opted for the lengthier trip to Heidelberg than to nearby Mannheim.”

The truck driver Thompson was whisked away to England for four days before being brought back to Germany. Why? The excuse provided is lame – they took him away to prevent him from being attacked by those who loved Patton. But Patton died 12 days after the accident. So the driver was taken away and then brought back well before Patton died! Was he briefed or debriefed in England? Why England? Why not in some safe place in Germany or in some part of Europe? Thompson’s wife told Wilcox that he “always felt like a murderer. ” Remarkably, Wilcox was able to get his hands on a scrapbook maintained by Thompson. The scrapbook contained clippings and included a clipping of Bazata’s 1979 claim that Patton was murdered. Why did Thompson not deny this when he was himself driving the truck that hit Patton’s car? A family member, wife of Thompson’s stepson, was present when Thompson died in 1994. She said: “It was a short illness. For some reason the doctors could not determine what was wrong with him. He had a lot of pain in his stomach. They were running tests and such. The day he died he suffered terribly. ” So Thompson died a painful death after a brief illness the cause of which remained undetermined!

Then there is the mystery of Joe Scruce (written incorrectly, as Wilcox points out, as Spruce). Scruce was driving behind Patton carrying guns for hunting and knew the destination where they were headed – Patton’s driver was not familiar with the destination. Just before the accident Scruce moved ahead of Patton’s car. He never returned to the scene of the accident and simply disappeared. Why? Scruce’s daughter, who was very young when he died, talked to Wilcox. He writes: ” because of certain other things that she knew about him, she said she became worried that her father may indeed have been involved in a plot to kill Patton, if only peripherally. ” She was so scared that she asked Wilcox not to use her name in the book! Scruce’s wife wanted to have a party for his 51st birthday on March 11, 1952. When she told him so, he became deeply perturbed and told her firmly: “No party. I won’t live to see it. ” So there was no party. Scruce was a very fit person and in his entire service record there was only one day off. He could “run miles without even panting. ” He told his wife suddenly that he could not feel anything in his left body and then began hemorrhaging profusely. He bled so much that blood was gushing forth. The ambulance took 45 minutes to come! Wilcox writes (italics added): “Army doctors later told her he had suffered a brain aneurism – a burst blood vessel. Symptoms include a sudden, severe headache, which he did not have, but sometimes paralysis on one side of the body, which he did. Such gushing of blood however, I could not find in any description of the illness. As in Patton’s death there was no autopsy. ” So Scruce died a very mysterious death in 1952. Mystery compounds mystery!

Mullins has stated that a few months before he was killed, General Patton’s driver of five years, Master Sergeant John L Mims, was transferred. A day before Patton was to return to USA he was “asked by Major General Gay to accompany him on an excursion of a few hours. ” What or who prompted General Gay to ask General Patton for a surprising excursion, a hunting trip, just a day before Patton’s departure for the US is unknown. Whether these questions were asked of General Gay is also unknown. What was the background and career trajectory of Major General Gay is also something not dealt with by historians. Mullins writes:

“At 11.45 a.m. , in clear weather and a straight stretch of road, the driver of a GMC military truck turned his vehicle directly into the side of the 1938 Cadillac 75 special limousine in which Patton was being driven. Patton was the only person injured.”

Mullins also emphasizes:

“Patton was a vigorous sixty years old with enormous reserves of energy, who seldom needed more than a couple of hours sleep at night. Not only did the US Army make no investigation into the ‘accident’ which had put him into the hospital, but no questions were raised about his ’embolism’. On previous occasions when attempts were made to kill him, no investigations were made, despite the fact that he was one of the most popular and most powerful figures in American history.”

In his diary Patton had noted that on one occasion an RAF Spitfire attacked his private plane in an attempt to shoot it down but fortunately crashed after missing. He also mentioned that while his plane was being attacked he saw another four planes hovering overhead. Mullins writes: “The story was later put out that a Polish flyer had been piloting the Spitfire. ” Why was no investigation conducted by the US Army into this very serious incident? This is in itself indicative that the powers that be wanted to get rid of Patton. This is a very serious omission that cannot be put down to negligence. And if an inquiry was conducted where is the report? On another occasion a tractor with a huge scythe like object suddenly charged at his vehicle – Patton was saved from being decapitated by “inches”. No investigation again!

Patton paid a visit to his family in US during July 1945 after a gap of about three years. Before returning to Europe he told his two daughters that they will never see him again! When they protested he replied: “My luck has run out. I ‘ve used it all up like money in the bank I ‘ve had increasingly narrow escapes. It’s too damn bad I wasn’t killed before the fighting stopped, but I wasn’t. So be it. ” Was this a premonition? Was it that he had sensed that the powers that be were after his blood? Was it, as Bazata had told Wilcox, that he had warned Patton? It is difficult to say because Bazata did not reveal the exact or approximate date on which Donovan directed him to get rid of Patton. Because if this was before Patton went to US it meant that it took another four to five months for ‘them’ to get him. He died in December and he was in US in July. Skubik’s sources revealing that Patton was a marked man were all Ukrainian. However Skubik’s files on Patton were stolen at some point and he only found out later. Apparently he had not looked at them for a while and when he looked they were gone.

Why was the “fightingest” of all allied Generals, who stayed on the battle ground very close to his troops during combat, instead of staying at a far away and safe distance from them, assassinated? In fact even in his death he chose to stay close to his martyred soldiers. He had willed that he be buried in Europe – he was buried alongside other fallen US soldiers in the Luxembourg American Cemetery and Memorial. In order to understand why Patton was murdered one has to understand the highly suppressed reality that not only is the US and Europe controlled by a supremely rich cabal that has learned the value of secrecy and anonymity, but more astonishingly, the Bolshevik revolution was funded by Wall Street and bankers from within Europe. Trotsky was paid by Rockefellers and issued an American passport on the orders of that great stooge of bankers Woodrow Wilson. Lenin was funded by the bankers, and earlier, Karl Marx was funded by the US bankers as well as the Prussian elite.

Books of historians who were able to dig out this reality are not only suppressed in US, the authors themselves were made to suffer. Men like Anthony Sutton and Eustace Mullins were thrown out of jobs repeatedly on the express instructions of agents of the Elite. Ezra Pound was confined for 13 years in a mental institution when in fact, according to those who visited him regularly, he was in perfect mental condition and, acting as their mentor, suggested to many of them avenues of highly important research. Four people he mentored went on to win the Nobel Prize in literature. His “crime” was that he wanted to expose the big bankers for having manipulated to bring about the two world wars. He also wanted to dig out the truth about the Federal Reserve, a task he then assigned to Eustace Mullins. No wonder Professor Peter Dale Scott talks of “deep” or suppressed history.

The Elite divides mankind and brings about major wars so that it can bring all sides under debt, earn profits, and enhance its control over increasingly large chunks of humanity. The ultimate aim is One World Government, under its control, through wars, economic crises and panics, as enunciated by Mayer Amschel Rothschild in a meeting of the twelve richest men in Prussia as far back as 1773. The Bolsheviks were funded by the bankers and at one point, when the Bolsheviks had spent the money given to them, President Wilson gave them 20 million US dollars from a special fund at his disposal, as established from Congressional records. The Elite wanted to build the Soviet Union, whose leadership it controlled, as a great power, incredible as it might seem. It earned profits by doing business with the Soviet Union. At the same time it wanted to deceive mankind by creating a managed “threat” of Communism against Democracy – today the managed conflict is the “Terrorism” versus “Civilization” ploy. General Patton knew that the allied forces could take Berlin and Prague if their leadership wanted to. But the allied leadership did not so desire and in doing so allowed Communist Soviet Union to emerge as one of the two superpowers.

It was this reluctance on the part of the leadership to really fight communism at a time when the communist state could be fought, and his deep knowledge of the ground realities that first led him to suspect that the leadership was permitting communist Russia to become a great power as revealed in his diaries and letters to his wife. In fact, when, during a Press Conference on May 18, 1945 he was asked as to why Prague was not taken by US forces, General Patton replied: “We were ordered not to. ” Eustace Mullins has put it in the following words: “Eisenhower’s refusal to allow Patton to take Prague and Berlin, holding him back while the Russians occupied these critical capitals, remains one of the greatest performances of treason since Benedict Arnold, like Eisenhower, sold out to the British. ” Patton foresaw the communist enslavement of Eastern Europe. To quote Wilcox:” Patton saw this coming and wanted to head it off by going to Berlin, as he had been briefed was the Allied plan, and capturing it before the Russians did. But he was stopped by Eisenhower for reasons that are still controversial today. ” Eisenhower could not be acting on his own but at the dictates of superior authorities. No wonder the docile Eisenhower, who was junior to Patton, who was by far a better general than him, had been elevated earlier above Patton and went on to become the President of the United States. His road to Presidency was paved by the Elite by murdering the exceptionally popular, loved and forthright Patton.

In his diaries Bazata has mentioned that the Allied authorities made special efforts to retard the advance of Patton’s armies. Bazata told The Spotlight that the top brass tried to stop Patton “militarily”. In his diaries he notes that Patton’s truckers were encouraged to sell off “gasoline, clothing and food” on the black market, to deliberately send trucks with black marketers as drivers, etc. He notes in his diaries that the British wanted to prolong the war – he did not know that it was not just the British. He writes that he first noticed this when Donovan asked him to “stop” Patton and when, to quote Wilcox, the “British refused to take the surrender of large number of Germans he captured during the war. ” Historians have noted, as Wilcox points out, that Patton was militarily stopped when Eisenhower allocated scarce gas to Montgomery instead of Patton. However Mullins has stated this more emphatically. He writes:

As a result of Patton’s bold advances in France, Field Marshal Montgomery persuaded Eisenhower to issue one of the most amazing military orders in history. All Allied Armies must advance exactly abreast so that no one (meaning Patton) would receive “undue credit”.

The effort to retard Patton was made because, as the “deep” historians have already uncovered in a different manner, the powers that be i.e. the Elite, wanted to prolong the war, not merely to earn more profits from defense sales and to add more to the debts of fighting nations, but also to allow for the emergence of the Soviet Union, as a major global power. That would lay the basis of future conflict and a repetition of the same cycle of war through communism versus democracy conflict.One of the most important aspects of Wilcox’s work is the deep link between Donovan, the Soviet NKVD, and his British promoters. In fact many reputable writers even go as far as saying that Donovan was a British agent. Bazata also believed so. In fact it was the British envoy to US Sir William Stephenson, himself an intelligence operative carrying the codename Intrepid, who worked towards convincing the US President, in an intricate and involved manner, of the need of setting up an intelligence organization, which was then named OSS. He maneuvered to get Donovan appointed as Chief of OSS and triumphantly reported to Stewart Menzies, the British intelligence chief: “You can imagine how relieved I am after three months of battle and jockeying for position that our man [Donovan] is in a position of such importance to our efforts. ” Anyone, and there are not too many, who is aware that the Elite controls UK and US agencies, that it brought about the two World Wars, that it brought about the Bolshevik Revolution and controlled the Bolshevik leadership, that it funded Hitler, will easily understand that all these agencies and Heads of State work for the Elite. The collaboration between OSS and NKVD during WWII, over and above the heads of important US military leaders therefore becomes unsurprising. Through its agents on all sides, the Elite pulls the strings as part of a larger design.

Finnish freedom fighters had captured Soviet codebooks and these were available for sale. Donovan was advised by FDR not to buy the Soviet codebooks, and decryption documents – about 1500 documents in all (why?). Yet Donovan did so (why?) and then handed those codebooks to the NKVD (why?). He did not consult with the US military leaders (why?) who were very angry. According to archival records dug out by Wilcox, the Joint Chiefs wrote to Donovan on August 18, 1945 (italics added): “The action of the Office of Strategic Service which led to the Russians being informed of Hoettl network was not coordinated with the War and Navy Departments and has not been confirmed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as required. ” Why did Donovan breach established policy or rules or SOPs involving the highest level of US military leadership?

It was against this background that General Patton came into contact with Germans and displaced Jews, and realized, as he put it in a letter to his wife: “The Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. ” It gradually became clear to him that the politicians (actually the Elite, but he was not fully aware of this) had used the US army for the wrong end – they had destroyed Europe and allowed communism to emerge. He did not know that this was by design, but he did conclude that that was the end result of the official policies and he was very vocal in his opposition. His opinions about the Jews he dealt with were not very flattering as his diaries reveal. At the same time, his diaries, and his letters to his wife also reveal, that he was disgusted with the highly preferential treatment that was being accorded, under orders of Washington, to displaced Jews. On August 29, 1945 he noted in his diary: “Today we received a letter to give the Jews special accommodations. If for Jews why not Catholics, Mormons, etc.”
Patton had apparently written to Secretary of War Stimson “on the question of pro-Jewish influence in the Military Government of Germany” as noted in his diary of August 31, 1945. He probably did not know that Stimson was a member of the secret society named Skull and Bones and was therefore an agent of the Elite, an Elite with a Jewish component which is richer than the Gentile component, an Elite which has secret societies and organizations working for it, an Elite that stays faceless and anonymous. Thus the Elite had direct and almost complete knowledge of his views. In fact Kissinger, a German born Jew, who was only in his twenties at that time, fought to wrest control of Germany from Patton. And the war criminal Kissinger, as everyone aware of such matters now knows, is a great stooge of the Elite, the deeply concealed cabal of international bankers like Rothschilds, Warburgs, Schiffs, Morgans, Rockefellers, etc. The so called Eastern US establishment meshes with all these through the Yale secret society Skull and Bones, as well as the British Group established at Oxford during the times of Sir Cecil Rhodes – all part of the One World cabal or the Elite. The other secret groups in US and Europe, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, etc. are also interlaced in this web to form this well knit, deeply embedded, anonymous and ominous cabal. The Elite-dictated Washington policy was to divide Germany geographically, destroy it economically, to expel German population from their homes and to starve them. This was the so called Morgenthau Plan. Simultaneously the Elite wanted to create Soviet Union as a power equal to that of the US.

Patton, though he never disobeyed orders, had an independent opinion about how to deal with Germans. While the Washington policy towards the Germans was dictated by the secret societies cum super-rich-Jew dominated Elite, Patton was an honest and forthright American and therefore had an approach based on fair play, justice and humane principles. He was reluctant to evict German families in order to accommodate displaced Jews in their homes. Only after repeated promptings from Eisenhower did he agree to evict German families from their homes to accommodate the Jewish displaced persons. He was also critical of the orders to blow up German factories. In his diary he notes:

“I doubted the expediency of blowing up factories, because the ends for which the factories are being blown up – that is preventing Germany from preparing for war – can be equally well attained through the destruction of their machinery, while the buildings can be used to house thousands of homeless persons.”

Patton also wrote in his diaries: “Actually the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. It’s a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans. ” Two days later (September 2, 1945) he noted: “What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole. ” He probably did not know that the Elite had planned to make Russia a superpower opposed to the US and control both, through the antagonism they planned to maintain between the two powers. He was probably not aware that, as writers like Mullins and Sutton were to dig out later, that the vast majority of concentration camps were controlled by Jewish administrators who were responsible for the deaths of around sixty to seventy million Christians in these camps between 1917-1967, that the Bolshevik revolutionaries were funded and controlled by the Elite, and that their sole aim was to usurp power, keep the aristocracy intact while destroying the middle class as a political factor. The concentration camps were full of working people. The destruction of the middle class is currently being pursued by the banking cabal in the US, as pointed out forcefully by Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont on December 2, 1910 in a speech before a stunned house, a house full of stooges and agents of the Elite masquerading as “representatives” of the people of the US.

Patton however was on the opposite track as far as his mindset was concerned. He criticized the use of POWs as slave labor – slave labor is a hallmark of the Elite approach to human kind and such camps are likely to be set up in the coming decades in the US, no matter how far-fetched it might seem at present. So many things have happened in the US in the past 15 years or so, that were unthinkable at one time, from unbridled domestic spying to the awesome powers of FEMA, etc. In fact one of Eustace Mullins pamphlets addressed to fellow Americans carried the title There is a Gulag in your Future. Patton wrote:

We are turning over several hundred thousand prisoners of war to be used as slave labor in France. It is amusing to recall that we fought the Revolution in defense of the rights of man and the Civil War to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles.

He was right. He also wrote:

If what we are doing [to the Germans] is ‘Liberty’ then give me death. I can’t see how Americans can sink so low. It is Semitic and I am sure of it.

He was on the right track and the Elite always fears those who stand for the truth in the best American traditions. The Elite has, at least in the last two hundred years or so, used assassination repeatedly to eliminate those who stand in its way. Patton was to become one such martyr.

As the above quotes show, Patton was deeply critical of the Morgenthau plan to destroy Germany. Henry Morgenthau was a ruthless Jew and was the US Secretary of Treasury and a close “friend” of Roosevelts since 1913. Both, Roosevelt and Morgenthau were agents of the Elite. In fact Morgenthau was so loyal to the banking families that he had foreknowledge of the 1929 crash of Black Friday. As Mullins describes it, Morgenthau came to Guaranty Trust and ordered the close down of 60 million dollars worth of securities in Guaranty Trust within three days! When the officers at the Guaranty Trust tried to remonstrate he became furious and shouted at them: “I didn’t come here to argue with you. Do as I say!” A few days later the crash occurred. The Morgenthau Plan envisaged partitioning of Germany, internationalization of the rich Ruhr region and the destruction of Germany’s factories. His “plan” was the command of the Elite for which he and Roosevelt worked. That Morgenthau was Jewish meant that there was absolute congruence between the desire of the Elite and his own tribal instincts. Patton saw clearly that the Washington policies were aimed at damaging the working relationship of the US army and the Germans. The Americans were ordered not to fraternize with the Germans. Patton wrote to his brother in law:

I think this non-fraternization is very stupid. If we are going to keep American soldiers in a country they have to have some civilians to talk to. Furthermore I think we could do a lot for German civilians by letting our soldiers talk to their young people.

But this was not what the Elite and its stooges in Washington desired.

Joaquin Bochaca wrote in his book Los Crimenes De Los Buenos (published 2001) :

“The abuses committed by the forces of occupation in Germany reached bestial extremes that various people in the Allied command structure opposed it – or tried to Lindbergh mentioned how the American soldiers burned the leftovers of their meals to keep them from being scavenged by the [starving] Germans who hung around the garbage barrels.”

Bochaca quotes Colonel Lindbergh, the famous American hero:

“In our homeland the public press publishes articles on how we ‘liberated’ the oppressed peoples. Here, our soldiers use the word ‘liberate’ to describe how they get their hands on the loot. Everything they grab from a German house, everything they take off a German is ‘liberated’ in the lingo of our troops. Leica cameras are ‘liberated’, food, works of art, clothes are liberated. A soldier who rapes a German girl is ‘liberating’ her. “

Bochaca further quotes Lindbergh:

“There are German children who gaze at us as we eat our cursed regulations forbid us to give them anything to eat I remember the soldier Barnes, who was arrested for having given a chocolate bar to a tattered little girl. It’s hard to look these children in the face. I feel ashamed. Ashamed of myself, my people, as I eat and look at those children. How can we have gotten so inhumane?”

The Elite policy was designed to destroy the innate humanity of the US soldiers and to create a wedge between the US army and the German people. An army devoid of humane sentiment is a mercenary machine. The Washington policies, dictated by the Jew-dominated One World cabal, were demoralizing and degrading the US army. Patton was very sensitive to this. Bochaca writes:

“General Patton, perhaps the most popular of the American generals, immediately opposed the total or partial application of the Morgenthau Plan in his sector of occupation. Soon he had a run-in with another general of higher rank: General Eisenhower. It’s well known what extremely violent debates they had about how the civilian population of Germany was to be treated. Patton was sentenced to death by the directors of the scenario. “

Patton’s dissent was unacceptable and in view of his great popularity and integrity and his absolute fearlessness, he posed a threat to the plans of the Elite. As the Elite and its agents in Washington became more aware of Patton’s clear views, he became a marked man. The Elite controlled media began a campaign against Patton by planting false or highly distorted stories about him. At a press conference on May 8, 1945 Patton was asked whether he intended to treat captured SS troops differently he replied: “No. SS means no more in Germany than being a Democrat in America – that is not to be quoted (italics added). I mean by that that initially the SS people were special sons of bitches, but as the war progressed they ran out of sons of bitches and then they put anybody in there. Some of the top SS men will be treated as criminals, but there is no reason for trying someone who was drafted into this outfit. ” However his off the record remarks were picked up by the Elite controlled press and his statement was distorted so as to damage his prestige.

On September 22, 1945, the forthright and direct Patton response to questions by the Elite owned media reporters about his attitude towards Germans, was twisted by the Jewish controlled media. A reporter asked the following, presumably inspired or prompted question: “After all General, didn’t most Nazis join their party in about the same way that Americans became Republicans and Democrats?” Patton responded “Yes, that’s about it. ” The Jewish New York Times headlined Patton as having said: “The Nazi thing is just like a Democratic-Republican fight. ” The content of the headline was then taken up by the national press. The Jewish leaders like Morgenthau, Chief Justice Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch who financed the great Elite stooges Wilson and FDR, all of them, and others wanted Patton’s head. The whole furor appears managed to the trained eye. General Patton had noted in his diary:

“There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all business of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs. They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law. “

So Patton had realized that the “Semitic” influence was in the direction of building communism and destroying Germany economically, the only European nation with the qualities required to fight off communism. If one substitutes the word “Elite” for “Semitic” one may notice that he was as close to the truth as was possible in the world of those days and that was dangerous.

Earlier, on September 14, 1945, he had noted:

“I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be starved to death. “

To quote Mullins: “As a result of Patton’s opposition to the Kissingers, who believed they had won the war and should rule Europe, a furious press campaign was launched against him. ” This campaign was orchestrated and coordinated at the highest level. According to a Patton biographer Farago the reporters were pawns in the hands of Eisenhower et al. He included General Walter Bedell Smith, whom Patton hated, as among the planners who destroyed Patton. Walter Bedell Smith was appointed Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff when Eisenhower became Commander of the European Theater of Operation. Eisenhower requested his appointment on grounds of proven ability to work with the British. Smith was a very close friend of Donovan and, after the war, became US ambassador to Russia. In 1954 Walter Bedell Smith became one of the founders of the Bilderberg Group – a position reserved for the deepest agents of the Elite.

Earlier in the war, when he was posted in Africa, Patton had slapped two soldiers, whom he considered cowards, on different occasions. The incidents took place in Sicilian hospitals. Wilcox writes: “Because one of the soldiers was rumored to be Jewish there were also whispers of anti-Semitism. ” Now a couple of years later there was again a campaign against him. In response to the manipulated press campaign the compromised and docile General Eisenhower relieved General Patton of his command of the Third Army. Eisenhower was sleeping with Kay Summersby, seemingly his secretary. However, in reality, she was a British intelligence agent. She had been planted to ensure that instead of British troops, Eisenhower would employ more Americans so that further British loss of life could be avoided. Mullins states that this tactic cost about a 100,000 American lives in battle. Patton was Governor of Germany by virtue of being commander of the Third Army, an army that he had commanded so successfully and brilliantly. He was appointed Commander of the Fifteenth Army. On September 29, 1945 Patton wrote to his wife that he preferred being moved from his position instead of acting as “executioner of the best race in Europe. ”

It must be emphasized that Patton was not anti-Semitic or a racist. Wilcox has quoted historian Victor David Hanson:

Patton’s bombast supposedly proves that he was anti-Semitic, but a prominent trusted military aide, the intelligence officer Col. Oscar Koch was Jewish and beloved by Patton – as was his official biographer Martin Blumenson. Patton was reportedly racist, but most than other commanders he admired black units (“I don’t give a damn who the man is. He can be a nigger or a Jew, but if he has the stuff and does his duty he can have anything I ‘ve got. By God I love him!”), insisted on the presence of some black officers as judges of military tribunals involving black defendants, and spent more time with his African-American aide Sergeant Meeks, than with almost anyone else while in Europe, developing a relation of mutual respect that transcended that of a general and his valet.Many Jews served with him and won his loyalty – as he did theirs.

These things were surely known to his superiors as well as the intelligence community, and therefore the Elite. He was killed because he could have stood in the way of allowing Russia to become a major power and thus could have foiled the design of the Elite to plunge mankind into a new era of confrontation. He would have exposed them too.

Patton represented the true spirit of America, a spirit that the Elite wanted to strangle and degrade, strangulation and degradation that is going on till today, strangulation that has brought the US public to its knees. He was upright and honorable, hated intrigue, stood for justice, was fearless, and wanted to be on the attack against wrongdoing no matter how powerful the wrongdoers were. In so doing he was inviting death. The Elite wants to rule a world comprising of individuals who are afraid of them, will obey their orders, will not think, will not question, will be selfish and will work against fellow humans for the ruling Elite. Integrity and clarity of thought are the greatest foes of the Elite and must be destroyed. Fear and mental confusion are two very important weapons of the Elite. Patton was clear headed because he had integrity and because he never feared death. A speech delivered to American troops before the invasion of Europe Patton revealed his inspiring thought. He said:

“You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today will die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he is not he is a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even when he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best and removes all that is base. Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they are He Men. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen. “

The Elite was frightened. What if a man of such integrity and honor were to become President of the United States? He had to be pre-empted, like many others before and after him.

In October 1945 Patton wrote to Maj. Gen. James G Harbord (1866 – 1947) back home in US condemning the Morgenthau Plan and announcing his intention of fighting back. Just like his letter to the Skull and Bones member, Secretary for War Stimson, this letter was also sent to the wrong person. A search on Gen. Harbord reveals that he was a Freemason. They are all part of the networks of the New World Order or the One World cabal – Skull and Bones, Freemasons, Illuminati, Jewish and other agents of the banking cabal, etc. In his book Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Freemasonry, Albert Pike (1809 – 1891),[4] a Freemason of the 33rd order, has pointed out that a Freemasonic Lodge is always regarded as “representing some part of the Temple of Solomon“. Is the Temple of Solomon not a sacred temple of the Jews? The penetration and control of US and European institutions by the secret society brotherhoods is astonishing. [5]

Patton wrote to Harbord:

I shall resign, not retire, because if I retire I will still have a gag in my mouth I should not start a limited counter attack, which would be contrary to my military theories, but should wait until I can start an all-out offensive.

Of all the people in the world he had, unknowingly, addressed the letter to a Freemason! This was most unfortunate. Patton was very happily married to Beatrice Ayer one of the richest women in US and was therefore secure financially – he did not need a pension. The Elite does not allow anyone to stand in the way of its evil designs. In an article Wilcox states that a number of people in positions of importance where one may get to know things have come to believe that Patton was murdered. Skubik has mentioned that Robert Patton, the General’s cousin who served with General Patton, told him that the family of General Patton believes that he was murdered. In fact Patton’s wife Beatrice Ayer hired a private detective to look into the death of her husband. Wilcox mentions that a Patton contemporary Lt. General George E. Stratemeyer was convinced that Patton was murdered. He chose to inform the FBI that in case he was himself found dead it would be because he espoused the viewpoint that Patton was murdered.

In a postscript to his book, written October 2010, Wilcox mentions a letter written to him by a former OSS agent Ralph de Toledano. The letter was written in January 2005 but Wilcox did not use the information provided by de ToledanobecauseToledano had not allowed him to use his name. Toledano passed away in 2007. Ralph de Toledano, a very important investigative journalist, a “walking encyclopedia” on 20th century politics, had written of numerous important individuals who had told him that Patton was assassinated by OSS. Among them one may mention the following:

  1. Raymond Murphy, head of State Department security during and after WWII;
  2. John A. Clements who was part of a very secret Marine Corps intelligence operation, told de Toledano that Patton had been murdered by an OSS-Rote Kapelle (Red Orchestra, the chief Soviet operation in Germany) team;
  3. Lt. Igor Guezenko the Soviet code clerk who broke up Soviet atomic espionage, told de Toledano that he had also picked up the Patton case
  4. Richard Nixon, two of whose books were written by Toledano, also told him that OSS was involved in Patton’s murder
  5. Louis Nichols, de-facto second in command of FBI Director J Edgar Hoover
  6. The much maligned Senator Joe McCarthy also told de Toledano that his investigators were working on Patton’s murder and that he planned hearings on Patton’s death. That may well be the main reason he was demolished so thoroughly by the Elite that even today his name is associated with “witch hunts” against communists. The Elite will go to any extent to destroy those who seek to expose it.

There are a few more names but the above list gives us a fair indication of many insiders who were aware that Patton was murdered and that the OSS was involved. Someone from the Mannheim region, where Patton met his accident, wrote to Wilcox after reading his book, that it was widely rumored in the Mannheim region immediately after his death, that Patton had been assassinated. Wilcox mentions that there are others who believe that Patton was murdered and are in a “position to know”. He has summed it up very well in a December 2010 article:

Rumors that Patton was assassinated have grown since his death. Although I ‘ve mentioned a few, motives to kill him abound. It seems clear what actually happened to him has been covered up. The disappearance of all reports and investigations from that fateful day, as well as the car in which he was injured, are strong indications of foul play. Add two credible witnesses testifying to a plot to kill Patton, the inconsistencies surrounding the accident itself and his questionable death in hospital, and there are compelling reasons to initiate an official investigation even sixty-five years later.

At least the book should have prompted an official investigation. But the US is in complete control of the One World cabal, stupefied through consent engineering techniques and media manipulation. When the Elite kills, the sources are removed or suppressed and the media also kills the stories that reveal the truth. Wilcox’s very well researched book has been met with complete silence in the mainstream US media – no reviews in the major newspapers – nothing whatsoever. That silence in itself speaks volumes of foul play and of the deep and bloody involvement of the Elite.

[1] A secret Assassination Manual of the CIA, reproduced in the book, 63 Documents the Government Doesn’t want You to Read (Skyhorse Publishing 2011) by Jesse Ventura and Dick Russell, states: “Absolute reliability is obtained by severing the spinal cord in the cervical region. This can be done with the point of a knife or light blow of an axe or hatchet. “

[2] In his book The Secrets of the Federal Reserve (Bridger House Publishers 1991) Eustace Mullins states: “The media monopoly deals with its opponents in one of two ways; either frontal assault of libel which the average person cannot afford to litigate, or an iron curtain of silence, the standard treatment of any work which exposes its clandestine activities. ”

[4] Albert Pike had written on January 22, 1870 to the Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini: “We must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree of whom we shall select. With regard to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledged to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown. “ It has been commented by an anonymous writer in the journal “Michael” Oct-Nov-Dec issue of 2002: “This is why 95% of the men involved in Masonry don’t have a clue as to what the objectives of the organization actually are. They are under the delusion that its just a fine community organization doing good works. ”

[5] FDR was a Freemason of the 32nd degree and so was his Vice President (1940-1944) Henry Wallace, credited with placing the pyramid and the “all-seeing eye” on the dollar bill. Harry S Truman, FDR’s successor was also a Freemason. Henry Wallace is now said to have links with NKVD according to researchers. This is not surprising in view of the fact that Elite was building the Soviet Union and that the White House was under its control. The Elite had, in accordance with their dialectic Hegelian philosophy, brought about controlled conflict between Hitler and the Allied powers and was at the same time laying the foundations of the next controlled conflict viz. Communism versus Democracy. It then used the opportunity of Afghan war to dismantle Soviet Union and end Communism and begin the new controlled conflict of Terrorism versus Civilization!

Posted in UK0 Comments

UK: Nazi diplomat who plotted against MPs also set up political groups



Israeli diplomat who plotted against MPs also set up political groups

Shai Masot is filmed covertly as he boasts about establishing several groups, at least one intended to influence Labour policy

An Israeli embassy official who plotted to “take down” MPs regarded as hostile has also set up a number of political organisations in the UK that operated as though entirely independent.

Shai Masot was filmed covertly as he boasted about establishing several groups, at least one of which was intended to influence Labour party policy, while appearing to obscure their links to Israel.

The disclosure comes as Labour demanded the government launch an immediate inquiry into “improper interference in our democratic politics”. A former Tory government minister also called for an inquiry into the Israeli embassy’s links with two organisations, Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI).

Meanwhile, Masot is being sent back to Israel in disgrace, and a civil servant and Conservative official who was also filmed discussing ways to discredit MPs has resigned from her post.

Masot and Maria Strizzolo, a manager with the Skills Funding Agency and aide to Robert Halfon, an education minister, were filmed by a man they knew as Robin, who they believed to be an LFI activist but who was actually an undercover reporter with al-Jazeera’s investigative unit.

Among the MPs that Masot and Strizzolo discussed “taking down” was Sir Alan Duncan, a foreign minister and a vocal supporter of a Palestinian state.

In the latest recordings, Masot boasts of establishing organisations “in Israel and here [in the UK]”. When asked what he means, the Israeli official replies: “Nothing I can share, but yeah,” adding: “Yeah, because there are things that, you know, happen, but it’s good to leave those organisations independent. But we help them, actually.”

LFI and CFI are established organisations, founded in the 1950s and 1970s respectively to support Israel and combat antisemitism. The footage taken by al-Jazeera shows Masot wanted Robin to head up a new organisation, Young Labour Friends of Israel.

At a meeting last July, Masot explains that he had the idea for a group called Young Conservative Friends of Israel in 2015, and wanted to set up a Young Labour Friends of Israel at that time. “When I tried to do the same in Labour they had a crisis back then with Corbyn. So instead of that I took a delegation to Israel … I took a Fabians group to Israel,” he says.

Masot also says in the footage of that meeting that he does not wish to see Jeremy Corbyn win the leadership contest with Owen Smith. During another meeting, he describes Corbyn as “a crazy leader”.

“I would prefer that the party will not stay with Corbyn,” he says. Referring to a number of Labour MPs who had recently visited the West Bank, he adds: “Some of them are against Corbyn, so who knows?”

Masot advised Robin that he should launch the Young Labour Friends of Israel by first organising a reception, and then setting up an email list. LFI needs to be rejuvenated by a new youth group, he adds.

“Not a lot of young people want to be affiliated. For years, every MP that joined the parliament joined the LFI. They’re not doing it any more in the Labour party. CFI, they’re doing it automatically. All the 14 new MPs who got elected in the last elections did it automatically. In the LFI it didn’t happen. We need to get more people on board. It’s a lot of work, actually.”

At a meeting the following month, Masot suggests Robin might want to be chairman of the group he is establishing. He also says Robin should not tell other people that the embassy has established the group. “LFI is an independent organisation. No one likes that someone is managing his organisation. That really is the first rule in politics.”

In September, while on a train to Liverpool for the Labour conference, Masot tells Robin he is also establishing a group called City Friends of Israel. Once in Liverpool, the footage shows Masot introducing Robin at conference social events as the “Young LFI chairman”.

The disclosure that Masot was also attempting to influence Labour affairs by establishing new political groups is likely to enrage the party’s leaders, who have already characterised the threat to “take down” MPs as a serious national security issue.

The shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, said: “The exposure of an Israeli embassy official discussing how to bring down or discredit a government minister and other MPs because of their views on the Middle East is extremely disturbing.

“This is a national security issue. The embassy official involved should be withdrawn and the government should launch an immediate inquiry into the extent of this improper interference and demand from the Israeli government that it be brought to an end.”

One former minister in David Cameron’s government said the embassy’s efforts to exert improper influence on British public life went far further than any plot to “take down” unhelpful members of parliament.

Writing anonymously in the Mail on Sunday, the former minister said: “British foreign policy is in hock to Israeli influence at the heart of our politics, and those in authority have ignored what is going on.

“For years the CFI and LFI have worked with – even for – the Israeli embassy to promote Israeli policy and thwart UK government policy and the actions of ministers who try to defend Palestinian rights.”

The former minister said there needed to be a full inquiry into the Israeli embassy’s links with CFI and LFI, and that while political parties should welcome funding from the UK’s Jewish community, they should not accept any engagement linked to Israel until it ceases new developments on Palestinian land.

“This opaque funding and underhand conduct is a national disgrace and humiliation and must be stamped out,” he wrote.

After an apology from the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Mark Regev, the British government said it considered the matter closed. However, Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party’s foreign affairs spokesman, said this position was not acceptable.

“I would expect the UK government to fully investigate this matter so that we can be confident our elected officials are free to carry out their jobs to the best of their ability and without fear of having their reputation smeared by embassy officials who do not agree with their views.”

Masot’s precise role at the embassy is unclear. He is known to be a former officer in the Israeli navy and is thought to remain an employee of the Israeli defence ministry. His embassy business card describes him as a senior political officer, but the embassy says he is not a diplomat.

In his LinkedIn profile, Masot says his work includes “founding several political support groups in the UK to maximise the Israeli ‘firewall’”. He also says he helped to secure “adjustments to legislation” in the UK.

Former diplomats said Masot was highly unlikely to be operating without authority. Sir William Patey, a former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, said: “The idea that he would be operating on his own I find fanciful. We know there is a lobby in this country that seeks to portray in the best possible light and seeks to isolate and denigrate critics of Israeli policy.”

A senior Conservative said: “No MP who has taken an active interest in the affairs of the Middle East, not least the central issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, will be unaware of the strength of the Israeli lobby. Like Israel itself they are powerful and effective and sail pretty close to the line of what is normally acceptable.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

Stop the War big lie


Image result for Stop the War Coalition cartoon

A first-hand testimony: the anti-war movement matters

In his farewell press conference, Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry stated that it was Cameron’s defeat in the parliamentary vote in 2013 on whether to militarily intervene in Syria which compelled Obama to seek congressional approval for US military action in Syria, which he failed to obtain. Had the US and the UK been able to pursue their regime change agenda, a direct military confrontation with Russia would have been much more likely. The margin of Cameron’s defeat was small: it was the success of anti-war campaigning which managed to sway enough MPs not to support that military intervention. Our movement changed history, as it surely has in various other incalculable and unidentified ways.

Unfortunately, they still continued their bombing campaigns across the region. According to new figures, the US dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016: nearly three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.


Stopping the war machine: anti-war work in Britain

More than a decade of calling on workers to demonstrate and lobby their MPs has signally failed to stop or even slow down a single war. So what is the alternative? How should workers be furthering the anti-imperialist goal of preventing the British ruling class from massacring workers abroad in the pursuit of superprofits? [analysis contributed by Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist Leninist)]

Although the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition (StW) was stitched up on day one between the revisionist (CPB) and Trotskyite (SWP) friends of Labour, that should not blind us to the fact that many of the activists who have campaigned and taken part in local StW branch activities over the last decade were and are sincere in their desire to stop imperialist war. The problem is that there is complete confusion in their ranks about what might be the best way to achieve this aim – confusion that is exacerbated by the ineffectual activity organised by the self-appointed leaders of the anti-war movement, and the imperialist prejudices that those leaders are constantly reinforcing.

Anti-imperialism and Stop the War

When the newly-formed CPGB-ML affiliated to the Stop the War Coalition (StW) it immediately made its presence felt by putting forward the slogan ‘Victory to the Iraqi resistance’, and doing what it could to persuade activists of the importance of this stance if we want to build a really effective anti-war movement. The party printed up placards displaying that slogan for the big anti-war demo in March 2005 and put forward resolutions at several StW conferences where it argued for this to be adopted as coalition policy.

Although those resolutions were defeated, what was noticeable was that the margin of defeat got smaller each year, and the arguments used against that call to unite with those fighting against imperialist guns got progressively weaker. In the end, they boiled down to ‘Of course, we agree with you, but we’re a broad movement and can’t go upsetting people. What would the quakers say?’ Interestingly, not a single quaker has ever stood up in the presence of a party member and made this point in person! Meanwhile, the CPGB-ML was busy making itself a pole of attraction for all those who were persuaded of the correctness of its slogan.

The party had always pointed out that there are two vital planks to serious anti-war work, so in April 2009 it put forward a resolution that asked StW’s national conference to adopt a line of active non-cooperation with war crimes as coalition policy. Given the timing (this was soon after the Labour government had been so blatantly complicit in the Gaza massacre), the leadership felt compelled to support that resolution – in words at least. It was adopted with a huge majority … and then quietly shelved.

This was not particularly surprising, but it did give anti-imperialists in StW two very important advantages. First, it was clear that they were winning the argument politically, even if they did not have the organisational muscle to force implementation in practice. Second, they now had a very good weapon for exposing the leadership’s reluctance to engage in really effective anti-war work. StW’s leaders could not claim ignorance that another way was possible; nor could they pretend they were simply ‘carrying out the will of the membership’ in failing to mobilise workers to take direct anti-war action.

At the next StW national conference, the CPGB-ML pushed the point home by proposing another resolution on non-cooperation. This was in October 2010, just five months after the Gaza flotilla massacre, so again, the mood was overwhelmingly in the party’s favour. Real life had been busy proving all its arguments, and the various groups of activists who had been engaged in direct action against illegal wars were greeted as heroes by the assembled delegates.

The new resolution pointed out that non-cooperation was already coalition policy and put forward a list of concrete proposals for putting this policy into practice. The CPGB-ML suggested putting on a fundraising concert to draw attention to the plight of the Gaza protestors (imprisoned for protesting against Israel’s massacre in Gaza in 2008/9); a national speaking tour to promote awareness of conscientious objector Joe Glenton; and full support to all the direct-action activists like the Smash EDO and anti-Raytheon campaigners who were disrupting the war machine.

It also asked StW to step up its campaigning outside army recruitment centres and to oppose army stalls in schools, colleges etc; to draw attention to the media’s role in apologising for, covering up and normalising British, US and Israeli war crimes; to hound the war criminals in order to draw attention to their crimes; and, most importantly, to work inside all the trade unions and the TUC to get non-cooperation motions debated and passed at their conferences.

Only one person voted against the resolution, so clearly this approach was very popular amongst ordinary delegates.

Anti-imperialists in Britain will know from bitter experience that StW’s leaders have no interest in putting these proposals into action, but, having had the principle so soundly confirmed, the next aim of the CPGB-ML was to try to put pressure from local StW branches for implementation, and to expose the leadership’s antipathy to such action in front of those members who genuinely do want to put a stop to Britain’s imperialist wars.

This was all overshadowed in February 2011, however, when US and British imperialism selected Libya as their next victim, and Stop the War called a protest – not in support of the country under attack but in support of the CIA and MI6-backed terrorists in Benghazi!

As the moves toward war accelerated, the CPGB-ML was the only organisation in Britain that came out unequivocally in favour of Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan masses he represented. Its members did all in their power to expose the lies of the imperialist media, and to show how various Trotskyite, revisionist and left-Labour luminaries in the leadership of StW were contributing to the propaganda offensive that was softening the British people up for a new war.

Most anti-war activists will be familiar with the political attacks the CPGB-ML made on the blatantly pro-imperialist line that StW’s leaders took at this time, and for which the party was ultimately expelled from the coalition. In fact, however, the whole episode can be seen as a victory for the party and its politics. The leaders of StW had no answer to the criticisms levelled at them, so they did everything in their power to avoid discussion of the subject. Their conduct in expelling those who criticised them only further exposed them in the eyes of honest activists, since there was a blatant lack of any kind of fair or democratic process and the party was given no opportunity to speak in its own defence.

Overall, we must view the CPGB-ML’s anti-war work so far as having been extremely successful. Despite the party’s small size, it has put forward the only correct line – and been the only party doing so. It has popularised two slogans that were previously never heard in the movement, so that others have been forced to take on aspects of its position in order to maintain any shred of credibility. (So, for example, John Rees was forced to claim that he supported the resistance at the national conference in 2010, and Andrew Murray gave a speech that was basically in support of the Syrian government at a recent picket in London.)

Building a united front

When anti-imperialists engage in anti-war work, we have only one aim, which is to create a united front between the workers of Britain and those being attacked by British imperialism abroad. We approach this from two directions:

1. By working to create sympathy for those fighting against British imperialist forces and an awareness of their moral right and duty to do so. Hence the slogan ‘Victory to the resistance’.

2. By working to offer real, material support to those fighting on the front line against our common enemy. This means building a movement of active non-cooperation amongst British workers. If we don’t make the munitions, transport the supplies, broadcast the propaganda or fight in the army, the imperialists can’t prosecute their wars. Hence the slogan ‘No cooperation with war crimes’.

British workers need to understand that these two slogans are indelibly linked with each other – and with their own struggle for emancipation from capitalist exploitation. Imperialist war is not something that happens far away and with no bearing on our lives; it is not merely ‘foreign affairs’.

British imperialism gains the strength it needs to oppress British workers by looting abroad, and it gains more strength both by dividing us from our brothers and sisters overseas (eg, dehumanising the victims of its aggression) and by scapegoating communities at home that have associations with those attacked (eg, by inciting islamophobia in order to justify wars in the Arab world and weaken workers’ opposition to such wars – as well as to encourage white workers to imagine that their enemy is Islam rather than capitalism).

In an ideal world, the CPGB-ML would simply announce the formation of an anti-imperialist anti-war front in Britain, and workers and anti-war activists would flock to its banner. Since the party’s present size and influence means that it is unable to do this in any meaningful way, however, our task is to identify the steps that will take the party in the direction of being able to launch such a front in future – that means building the party and doing everything possible to spread awareness of its analysis.

Impediments to the work of building towards an anti-imperialist front

1. Size.

There is no denying that the CPGB-ML is still a tiny force in British politics and has as yet no influence on the masses. The only solution to this is for comrades in the party to keep doing the work they are doing and training the new cadres that join them. The party’s growth is already accelerating and is bound to become exponential if they get this right.

2. The question of unity.

One of the biggest areas of confusion when carrying out anti-war work is on the subject of unity. But ‘unity’ is not an abstract concept, it can only be understood in context. The question always needs to be asked: ‘Unity with whom and for what purpose?’

While it is true that communists desire to create maximum unity, the purpose of unifying is that we should have maximum strength in the fight to overthrow imperialism. So it goes without saying that those with whom we unify must also be opposed to imperialism.

When we expose the influence of the Labour party and all its apologists in our movement, we are not scuppering the unity of the movement but striving to create the conditions for achieving it. Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Benn, Lindsay German and co want the anti-war movement to ‘unify’ with forces that represent our enemy. Communists, on the other hand, want to build unity with all those forces that oppose British imperialism, both at home and abroad.

The way forward

1. To continue to use CPGB-ML publications and literature to put forward a correct analysis of the cause of imperialist wars as well as their solution.

This analysis is not available elsewhere, and nor is any other organisation putting forward a coherent programme for effective anti-war work. Therefore, it is vitally important that we should do our utmost to spread the party’s influence by selling its papers, giving out its leaflets and forwarding links to its articles online. These articles should be thoroughly studied and discussed, so that as many activists as possible have a thorough understanding of the issues and are able to spread the ideas further into the movement.

2. To continue to work within Stop the War to influence as many decent activists as possible and expose the bankrupt leadership in their eyes.

Whether in or out of the CPGB-ML, anti-war activists should continue to attend StW branch meetings and national conferences, and to participate in local and national demonstrations. We should always have our own leaflets and papers to put forward at these events, and be prepared to raise the questions that the leadership are trying to avoid (eg, Syria).

By continuing to put pressure on the leadership we will also help to expose and exacerbate the differences between those leaders. It is clear that some of them are feeling quite uncomfortable about their organisation’s complicity in the wars on Libya and Syria – and in all probability some are facing difficult questions from members within their various organisations.

3. To counterpose the false calls for ‘unity’ with the imperialists’ agents in our movement with a call for unity with those fighting British imperialism abroad.

We must never be afraid to defend the right of those attacked to fight back, or to defend the chosen leaders of a people under attack, no matter how demonised and vilified those leaders are in the mainstream capitalist media.

4. To continue to build up contact between all those anti-war activists who are disillusioned with Stop the War’s increasing bankruptcy and irrelevance and to hold independent public meetings against war.

For example, public meetings have already been held in Bristol and Birmingham, where increasing numbers of independent activists are being attracted towards the CPGB-ML’s line.

5. To build on such meetings by organising joint anti-war activities with independent activists and friendly organisations.

For example, Bristol and Birmingham comrades have mobilised sympathetic forces in their areas and organised counter-demonstrations exposing the pro-imperialist complicity of those who claim to ‘support the Syrian people’ by calling for the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his government.

6. To identify opportunities for speaking to workers who are involved in the war machine in order to explain to them the necessity of working in their unions for a policy of collective non-cooperation.

This could mean leafleting at a nearby arms factory, or an army recruitment centre, or it could take the form of setting up a stall at the RMT, Unison, Bectu, NUJ etc union conferences. Comrades who are members of relevant unions should propose non-cooperation motions to conference.

Much of the work listed above is already being carried out in some areas. Our task is to systematise it and make it central to the activity of all anti-imperialist activists. Even where no party branch exists, every worker has it within his/her power to carry out one or more of the suggested activities on a regular basis – selling papers and attending local StW branch meetings, for example, is a good way to create the foundations for other work. Where two or more members are active together, they might try and supplement this work with finding some part of the war machine to target in their local area. Its tentacles are everywhere!

What activists can do depends on their availability and their concrete situation – whether they are alone or with others, whether they have contacts with union members or proximity to a recruiting centre or transport depot, for example – but we can all do something to increase the influence of anti-imperialist politics in the anti-war movement. We need to spread awareness of the correct analysis of the CPGB-ML, and we need to promote its concrete programme in order to persuade British workers not only of the need but of their real power to put a stop to imperialist war.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Shoah’s pages


January 2017
« Dec