CBC NEWSWorld 2002
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Evan Solomon
Dissident Voice, April 16, 2002
What Afghanistan Wanted and How the US Responded
Evan Solomon: I want to start off by reading a quotation from your most recent compendium of interviews, 9-11. You wrote: “If the U.S. chooses to respond to the attacks of September 11th by escalating the cycle of violence, which is most likely what Bin Laden and his associates hope for, the consequences could be awesome.” Now, the U.S. did.
Hot Type presents hot talk on this hot button issue. Read transcripts of our interviews with two controversial authors. Examine the history, the intervention and the unrest through these two perspectives.
Hot Type Transcript: Noam Chomsky “9-11”
Part 1: What Afghanistan wanted and how the U.S. responded
Evan Solomon: I want to start off by reading a quotation from your most recent compendium of interviews, “9-11”. You wrote: “If the U.S. chooses to respond to the attacks of September 11th by escalating the cycle of violence, which is most likely what Bin Laden and his associates hope for, the consequences could be awesome.” Now, the U.S. did.
Noam Chomsky: They didn’t.
ES: You don’t think they did?
NC: You have to remember when that was. That was late September. At that point, the Bush administration was talking as though they were going to carry out a massive bombing campaign against the civilian population with no thought about the consequences. They were being told at the time, from every source, European leaders, intelligence agencies, I’m sure their own as well, that if they did that it would be a gift to Bin Laden. That’s exactly what he wanted. The French Foreign minister called it an Afghan trap.
ES: But they did go into Afghanistan.
NC: No, they didn’t. They did it in a way that would keep the attack on the population silent. They focused the bombing on military forces, Taliban military forces primarily, not on a massive attack. They didn’t carry out a massive attack against a civilian population. Actually, they did, but it was indirect. It was through increasing the threat of starvation and death from disease. Their own estimates were that they were putting a couple of million people at risk of starvation, and that’s probably correct. But that’s silent, you don’t see people die of starvation.
ES: But did they pursue? I mean, you said that originally, after the Sept. 11th attacks, that the United States ought to treat this as a crime, not as a war. George Bush then called it a “War on Terrorism”. Now first, what’s the distinction between treating it as a crime and war and how have those approaches affected what’s happening?
NC: Well that’s what I said then, but that has since become a very public position, not by me, but by Conservative mainstream opinion. So for example, let’s take January’s issue, the last issue of “Foreign Affairs,” the main establishment journal. There’s an article by the leading Anglo-American military historian, Michael Howard – very conservative, very respected, very – all the right credentials. He thinks British Imperialism was wonderful and the American version was even better, but he points out the same thing. He says, if there’s a crime, a major crime, crime against humanity, the way to deal with it is by careful police work, to identify the perpetrators and then since this is an international crime, international authorization, which was never received or asked, to bring them to justice. And then trial in an independent court.
ES: And that’s the right way?
NC: An independent trial, an independent court will get a fair trial. Now that’s a position from the right wing in the main establishment journal in the United States.
ES: And you support that?
NC: That’s what I said last September. Yes, I think that’s the right way to deal with crimes.
ES: Now what if I say to you Bush has pursued a somewhat similar policy?
NC: On October 12th I guess, a couple of days after the bombing started, Bush publicly announced to the Afghan people that we will continue to bomb you, unless your leadership turns over to us the people whom we suspect of carrying out crimes, although we refuse to give you any evidence. That’s probably because they don’t have any. And we dismiss without comment the offers of your leadership for negotiations about extradition.
Notice that is a textbook illustration of international terrorism, by the US official definition. That is the use of the threat of force or violence, in this case, extreme violence, to obtain political ends through intimidation, fear and so on. That’s the official definition, a textbook illustration of it. Three weeks later, by the end of October, the war aims had changed. They were first announced as far as I can find out, by the British Defense Minister, Sir Admiral Boyce. Admiral Boyce informed the Afghan population that we will continue to bomb you until you change your leadership. Well, that’s an even more dramatic illustration of international terrorism, if not aggression. And that was the goal that was followed. This had nothing to do with finding the criminals and bringing them to justice.
ES:You say one of the great hypocracies here is that the United States, as you say, is a leading terrorist state…
NC: Well, these two examples illustrate it. And these are minor ones. You know there are much more serious ones than this.
ES: The question that arises is if the United States is a leading terrorist state, if as you say, Britain is another example of a terrorist state, how do you distinguish between what you describe as terrorism and what they are saying – Osama Bin Laden who’s a terrorist? Make the distinction.
NC: It’s very simple. If they do it, it’s terrorism. If we do it, it’s counter-terrorism. That’s a historical universal. Go back to Nazi propaganda. The most extreme mass murderers ever. If you look at Nazi propaganda, that’s exactly what they said. They said they’re defending the populations and the legitimate governments of Europe like Vichy from the terrorist partisans who are directed from London. That’s the basic propaganda line. And like all propaganda, no matter how vulgar, it has an element of truth. The partisans did carry out terror, they were directed from London. The Vichy government is about as legitimate as half the governments the US has installed around the world and supports, so yes, there was a minor element of truth to it, and that’s the way it works. If somebody else carries it out, it’s terror. If we carry it out, it’s counter-terror. I think perhaps one of the most dramatic examples right at this moment is a place where I just was a couple of weeks ago, southeastern Turkey. Southeastern Turkey is the site of some of the worst terrorist atrocities of the 1990s.
ES: This is the attacks on the Kurds.
NC: The attacks on the Kurds left a couple of million refugees. It left much of the countryside devastated. Tens of thousands of people killed. It was every imaginable barbaric form of torture you can dream of. It’s all well documented in Human Rights Watch reports and so on. How did they do it? Well, they did it with a huge flow of U.S. arms, which peaked in 1997. In the single year 1997, in that one year, the arms transfers to Turkey from the United States were higher than the entire Cold War period. You know up until the insurgence, the counter-insurgency started. But look at the way it’s treated. This massive international terrorism run and supported by the United States is considered a great triumph of counter-terrorism.
NC: If you read the State Department reports on terror they praise Turkey for its success in showing how to counter terror. You read a front page article in the New York Times and it praises Turkey for showing how to deal with terror. Turkey was selected as the country to provide the forces for what they call the international force for Afghanistan. Actually it’s for Kabul alone. It’s Turkey that’s being paid by the United States extensively to carry out the repression of terror, thanks to their achievements in countering terror – namely by carrying out some of the worst terror of the 1990s. Massive ethnic cleansing and atrocities with U.S. support. Now you know this is a real achievement of the intellectual culture to be able to do this. But it illustrates very well the answer to your question. Terror and counter-terror. If some enemy state did this, we’d be not just outraged, we’d be bombing them.
ES: Is Bush justified in calling Bin Laden a terrorist when, as you say, he’s running a terrorist state himself?
NC: Yes, I say he should call him a terrorist. Yea, I agree that he should call him a terrorist.
ES: But you say even Jonathan Swift would be baffled at the irony of that?
NC: To say that Bin Laden is a terrorist, a murderous terrorist is certainly correct, but what about Clinton? I just described one of his minor escapades in Turkey. This example is particularly striking, not only because of the massive atrocities, but remember, because of the way it’s treated, and because remember this was at the same time when there was an orgy of self-congratulation among Western intellectuals because o f their magnificence in opposing terrorism by bombing Serbia because of what Milosevic had done in Kosovo.
ES: Let’s talk about the Middle East, where Sharon says we are experiencing terrorist bombings and therefore we have to have a big operation in the West Bank and root out terrorism and people say, hey you’re violating human rights. The Israelis say there’s no equivalency between suicide bombings and protecting our security and Palestinians say there’s no equivalence between suicide bombings and the Occupation.
NC: This is the thirty-fifth year of a harsh, brutal and vicious occupation supported unilaterally by the United States, constant terror and atrocities. Suppose Palestinians say, well we’re under terrorist attack for 35 years, therefore we have a right to carry out suicide bombings.
ES: Which is what they say.
NC: Do you accept this? Does anybody accept this?
ES: Nobody accepts this.
NC: All right, then how come everyone accepts the Israeli claim to be doing it, which is a much weaker claim, because after all there is no symmetry in the situation. They are the military occupiers. Palestine isn’t occupying Israel, and this hasn’t just started now, it’s gone on for years.
ES: So does that in your mind justify…?
NC: No, it does not, of course not, it doesn’t in anybody’s mind…
ES: It invalidates both sides?
NC: Those who defend suicide bombing, and there are very few, don’t have a leg to stand on. Those who defend the Israeli atrocities, including the U.S. government, most intellectual opinion, a good bit of the West generally, they don’t have a leg to stand on either and they have a much weaker position.
Let’s go back to Turkey again. Take the Powell mission. Powell is praised because he’s such a wonderful diplomat. He went to Yasser Arafat, who’s imprisoned in a dungeon where he can’t even flush the toilet and he extracted from him a statement condemning terror. Did anybody request that Powell should have asked Sharon to condemn the Israeli atrocities? Did anyone suggest that Powell ask George Bush to condemn the fact that he’s been sending Israel the Apache attack helicopters which have been devastating Jenin?
Can you find a word in the press anywhere that suggested Powell should have requested a condemnation of Israeli terror from Sharon? And of U.S. backing of that terror from Bush?
I mean that’s a thought that couldn’t enter anyone’s mind. And the reason is because our profound commitment to terror and violence when it’s committed by our clients and by ourselves is so deep that we can’t even think of the question.
ES: You suggested after September 11th, that we ought to look in the mirror, we being America or the West. We ought to look in the mirror at ourselves. Was that a way of saying – “Look, people like Bin Laden are angry at us for good reason?”
NC: That’s not what I was saying. The statement of mine that you just quoted is a very conservative statement, in fact it was articulated by George Bush’s favorite philosopher, Jesus Christ, ah who pointed out, famously, defined the notion, hypocrite. A hypocrite is a person who focuses on the other fellow’s crimes and refuses to look at his own. That’s the definition of hypocrite by George Bush’s favorite philosopher. When I repeat that I’m not taking a radical position. I’m taking a position that is just elementary morality.
ES: But even if he is a hypocrite…
NC: Not he, everybody. Let me ask you another question. Here’s an experiment. Try to find a phrase in the massive commentary on September 11th, that is not hypocritical in the sense of George Bush’s favorite philosopher. Find one phrase. I don’t think you can do it.
ES: OK but before, I don’t want to get gnostic here and religious…
NC: This is not religion, this is elementary morality. If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others we have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil.
ES: But look, if there’s nobody pure, an argument has been made, sure the US has committed atrocities, however they did oust a more brutal regime, the Taliban …
NC: That wasn’t even a war aim. That wasn’t even a war aim. That wasn’t even a war aim.
ES: But is that a moral thing to do? They did get rid of a brutal regime (fine) There was celebration…
NC: Good. Fine. Then let them bomb Israel and get rid of the brutal regime there. Let them bomb Uzbekistan and get rid of the brutal regime there.
ES: Are you saying the Taliban and the Israeli government are the same?
NC: No they’re not the same. They’re brutal regimes, but let’s go back a stage. The goal was not to oust the Taliban. That was not a war aim. That was a war aim that was picked up several weeks after the bombing started. OK? And let’s go back, suppose, and there are dozens, a long list of brutal regimes around the world, which ought to be overthrown, but not by somebody bombing them. However let’s go back to late October, after three weeks of bombing when the US and its’ British client, decided to shift the war aims overthrowing the Taliban regime.
Well, how do you proceed to do that? There are differences of opinion. For example there was an Afghan position on this right at that time, late October. There was a meeting sponsored by the United States in Peshawar, Pakistan of a thousand Afghan leaders, tribal leaders, some of them came in from Afghanistan, others were in Pakistan. These are political leaders, tribal leaders, others supported and backed by the United States. Now they disagreed on all sorts of things, but they did agree on one thing, namely they unanimously condemned the bombing and said it would undermine their efforts, which they thought could succeed to overthrow the Taliban regime from within.
Two weeks before that the US favorite Abdul Haht went into Afghanistan, turned out he was killed because he didn’t get any Western support, but he want in to Pakistan to try to organize, to Afghanistan to try to organize opposition to the Taliban, right before he went in he had a long interview with the Carneige, distributed by the Carneige Endowment for International Peace , in which he bitterly condemned the US bombing. He said the same thing as the 1000 tribal leaders. He said it’s undermining. He said the US is doing it just to show off their muscle, they don’t care what happens to Afghanistan. They’re undermining attempts which will succeed, he thought, and he’s probably right to undermine the Taliban regime from within and overthrow it. The leading women’s group in Pakistan, Rawa, which has been fighting courageously for women, for years fighting for women’s rights, took exactly the same position. So there are ideas about how to overthrow the Taliban, did anybody pay attention? No, because exactly as Abdul Haht said, the US and Britain wanted to show their muscle.
So the question of how to overthrow a regime, yea that arises and I think the Afghans are right. Regimes should be overthrown from within, and in this case it was probably very likely that that would succeed. It was a small brutal group, highly unpopular, plenty of opposition to it, which could have been organized from within, and that’s the way to overthrow a regime. If we want to overthrow the regime of Uzbekistan, now a great favorite, but it happens not to be any different from the Taliban, the way to do it would not be to bomb Uzbekistan, but to support internal democratic forces and let them do it. And that generalizes around the world.
ES: Robert Kaplan writes about foreign policy. I spoke to him recently about his book “Warrior Politics,” and I put some of your points to him and he said, about the distinction between the terrorist states that you call Israel, America, and the terrorist states that America calls the Taliban, “I wish Noam Chomsky had been with me in Romania in the 70s or the 80s, just one of the seven or eight Warsaw States, with just one of the 7 or 8 prison systems with 700,000 political prisoners. Adult choice of foreign policy is made on distinctions. The argument that Chomsky makes has no distinctions because there’s a difference between the quantity and the kind of dictators that America supported and the quantity and the kind of things that went on in the Communist world for 44 years.”
NC: OK, so let’s take his example, Romania, Ceausescu. Hideous regime, which he forgot to tell you the United States supported. Supported right until the end, as did Britain, when Ceausescu came to London he was feted by Margaret Thatcher. When George Bush the First came into office, I think the first person he invited to Washington was Ceausescu. Yes, Romania was a miserable, brutal regime supported by the United States right to the end, as Robert Kaplan knows very well, so the example he gave is a perfect example.
ES: It wasn’t supported by the States in the 70s though?
NC: In the 70s, in the 80s, right to the end of Ceausescu’s rule. It was supported by the United States. The reasons had to do with great power politics. They were sort of breaking Warsaw Pact policies and so on, but the very example he picks illustrates it and we can proceed onward.
So the very example he gives shows the absurdity of his position and it’s a small example because we support much more brutal regimes. It has nothing to do with Cold War issues.
I gave an example in South Eastern Turkey, several million refugees, tens of thousands of people killed, a country devastated, that’s rather serious.
Nobody accused Milosevic of that in Kosovo.
Suharto was one of the worst killers and torturers of the late twentieth century. The United States and Britain supported him throughout. He’s our kind of guy, as the Clinton administration said in 1995. Horrible atrocities, in fact, when he came into office in 1965 with a coup the CIA compared it to Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
It led to total euphoria in the United States, Britain and massive support when he carried out even worse atrocities, comparable atrocities elsewhere – a couple 100,000 people killed then, 100,000s killed later, full support continued right through the end of his rule, in fact, continued past his rule. In late 1999 when they were rampaging and destroying what was left of East Timor, the US and Britain continued to support him and I can continue through the world like this…
ES: Well, what Kaplan says is – there is a distinction …that everyone’s got some blood on their hands, but he says – we have significantly less blood because we are soft imperialists, not state terrorists.
NC: So when we supported his example – Ceausescu in Romania, right to the end, that’s good? How about killing several million people in Vietnam. How about killing hundreds of thousands of people in Central America in the 80s, leaving four countries devastated beyond, maybe beyond recovery?
ES: Does that disqualify the US from intervening in any other way?
NC: No it doesn’t, nor does it disqualify the Taliban, which is a terrorist state, that fact doesn’t disqualify them from bombing Washington. What disqualifies them from doing that is even if they were Mahatma Ghandi, they shouldn’t do it.
Kaplan can’t understand trivialities. The triviality here is that nobody except the ultra right wing jingoists like Kaplan are comparing atrocities by various countries. What honest people are saying seems to be incomprehensible, that we should keep to the elementary moral level of the gospels. We should pay attention to our own crimes and stop committing them. This would be true even if we were killing one person, OK?
And it’s even more true when we’re killing millions of people.
ES: Let’s try to look at the bigger picture because the question, he says, we all agree with the gospels…
NC: Kaplan doesn’t, he doesn’t, he certainly doesn’t.
ES: Kaplan says the world is nasty. If you leave people alone, they’ll kill each other and that’s why what you need is what he calls an organizing hegemon…
NC: Which is always us. Right and why is it us? Because we have the power and we have a massively subservient intellectual class, of which he’s an illustration, which will support U.S. atrocities no matter how awful they are.
ES: So if he says this is real politics, that Chomsky’s off in another land with his gospel, and he says look…
NC: Forget gospel. I’m talking about the most elementary morality. If a person doesn’t understand that, they have no right to talk. OK? If you don’t understand that you pay attention to your own crimes, you have no right to talk.
ES: He talks about Machiavellian virtue. He says that sometimes the end justifies the means, sometimes we do a bad thing to protect our democracy and our good institutions in a just society.
NC: And how are we protecting our democratic institutions by supporting mass slaughter in South Eastern Turkey in the last few years? Was that supporting our democratic institutions?
NC: Our democratic institutions? Anybody’s?
ES:Would Kaplan argue that the nation state has a right to use any means necessary to protect its sovereignty?
NC: Oh then he’s justifying Milosevic. He’s saying Milosevic had the right to do anything he wanted to repress the Kosovars in Albania. Is that what he’s saying?
ES: I think he would not say that.
NC: Why not?
ES: He would say that violates virtue…
NC: Oh so when they do it, it violates virtue, but when we do it it’s virtuous?
ES: Should there be an organizing hegemon, do we need a constabulary, a force, a central force. In this case it’s America because it’s a superpower. Sometimes use unjust means in the service of just causes.
NC: What are the just causes? What was the just cause in, for example, slaughtering Kurds in South Eastern Turkey? What was the just cause in supporting Suharto? When he killed a couple hundred thousand landless peasants in Indonesia, went on to become one of the biggest torturers in the world and destroyed, slaughtered a third of the population in East Timor, what was the just cause?
What was the just cause when we invaded South Vietnam 40 years ago? This is the 40th anniversary of the public announcement of the U.S. attack on South Vietnam, ending up killing millions of people, leaving the country devastated. They’re still dying from chemical warfare. What was the just cause?
What was the just cause when we fought a war to a large extent against the Catholic Church in Central America in the 1980s, killing hundreds of thousands of people, every imaginable kind of torture and devastation, what was the just cause? The just cause for people like Kaplan was yes, we did it, therefore it’s a just cause. You can read that in the Nazi archives too.
ES: It’s no great secret that we function by self-interest. Self-interest is part of foreign policy. We’re here to protect our policy, protect the interests of our policy, in this case of the Americans.
NC: Was the self-interest the American people served by slaughters in Southeastern Turkey, or by destroying Vietnam, or by turning El Salvador and Guatemala into cemeteries?
NC: Was the self-interest of the American people served by that? No.The self-interest served by that is foreign policy elites and the power-centers they represent, which are not protecting the American people, they’re protecting their own power, profit, dominance and hegemony, like others around the world.
NC: And they count on intellectuals of the Robert Kaplan type to applaud any atrocity they carry out.
ES: How do you respond to the following attitude: We don’t want to live with them, we don’t want to negotiate with them, we must destroy them, make war against the Taliban, justify the war against the Al Aqsa brigades, we see the faces of our enemies and we should do anything to root them out…. How do you respond to that?
NC: I respond to that by saying that there are many evil forces in the world. If we want to stop atrocities, I think it’s a great idea to reduce the level of atrocities and violence around the world. The easiest way to do it, simple, is to stop participating in it. If we stop participating in it, we will already reduce the levels of atrocities and violence enormously.
NC: And if we can ever reach the moral level, minimum moral level, of terminating our own massive participation in atrocities, then we can move to another question of what we do about the atrocities of others. And I think there, I think it’s right to deal with them. So, for example, in the case of…I don’t want to go off in hysterical rhetoric about we’ve seen the enemy and this and that, that’s childish games that you see in fairy tales.
NC: If we’re talking about the real world again, we’re back to what Michael Howard was talking about. Yes, there is an enemy. There are people who carry out crimes against humanity. And there are ways to deal with crimes. Not by bombing another country and putting millions of people at the risk of starvation, that’s not the way to deal with crimes.
NC: When the U.S. was condemned for international terrorism in Nicaragua, and then and then vetoed the security and dismissed the condemnation by the will of court, of course, and then escalated the crimes and vetoed a security counsel resolution calling on it to observe national law, the right reaction for Nicaragua was not to say, “we have seen the enemy and have to destroy them, so therefore, let’s set off bombs in Washington.” The right response was not to reproduce this ridiculous, childish rhetoric.
NC: And nobody believes that it was. But if it’s wrong for them, it’s wrong for us. Again, by elementary moral standards. So, we should ask what’s right for them, and what should be right for us. And I think, they couldn’t do what was right for them because we blocked it, we’re too powerful. But we could do what was right for them and we never even considered it. we’re too powerful. But we could do what was right for them and we never even considered it.
NC: Cause we don’t rise to that minimal moral level. And unless we do, we have no right to talk about good policy, bad policy, right or wrong.
ES: We don’t have the right to even talk about it?
NC: Of course not. If you can’t rise to the most elementary moral level, you shouldn’t even talk about it.
ES: So there’s no real policy –
NC: Yes, there is. See, I admire right-wing fanatics who come out straight and say, “Look, I have the power, and nobody’s going to stop me, I’ll do what I want.” That’s admirable. They’re honest. OK. And in fact, we have two choices, really. We really have two simple choices. Either we can say, look I’m going to be willing to enter the moral agreement. I’m going to be willing to rise to the most minimal moral level.
NC: That of the gospels, in fact. I’m going to be willing to do that and in that case, I’m going to apply to myself the same standards I apply to others. That’s one choice. The other choice is simple. I’m a Nazi. I’ve got the force. I’ve got the power. I’ll do whatever I want. If you get in my way, I’ll smash you.
ES: But isn’t it a little more complicated? I mean, look –
NC: That’s the choice.
ES: Can’t it be two rights?
NC: Can be, yeah, there can. And what do we, let’s take a look at the Middle East, let’s take a look at facts. The facts are, for 35 years, there has been a harsh, brutal, military operation. There has not been a political settlement. The reason that there has not been a political settlement is the United States, unilaterally, has blocked it for 25 years. In 1970 – in opposition –
NC: The current situation is one of 35 years of military occupation. Just recently, Saudi Arabia produced a plan, highly praised plan for political settlement. The majority of the American population supports it. The majority of the population also thinks the United States ought to be more active in the Middle East. They don’t know that that’s a contradiction in terms. The reason that’s a contradiction in terms is the following:
NC: In the Saudi Arabia plan is a repetition of a series of proposals which go back to 1976 when the UN security council debated a resolution calling for a settlement in accord with the Saudi plan to state settlement on the internationally recognized borders.
NC: With arrangements to guarantee the rights of every state in the nation to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized borders.
NC: That was January 1976. OK, that was actually in accord with official U.S. policy. Yeah, except for one thing. It called for a Palestinian State in the territories – Israel wouldn’t leave the occupied territories. That was vetoed…it was supported by the Arab states, it was supported by the PLO, supported by Europe.
ES: Before they even recognized Israel as a state, though.
NC: This was to exist as a state within secure and recognized borders. Nobody talked about recognizing the new Palestinian state, nobody talked about recognizing Israel…
NC: Look, is there a possible political settlement today? Has there been one for the last 25 years? Is it supported by the entire world, including the majority of the American people? The answer to that question is yes.
NC: There is a political settlement that has been supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states, the PLO, Europe, Eastern Europe, Canada…
ES:Didn’t Barak put that on the table?
NC: No, he did not.
ES: He did not?
NC: What was also supported by the majority of the American people, it has just been reiterated by Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has unilaterally blocked it for 25 years. What Barak put on the table, the population doesn’t know this, because people like the Western media in Canada in the United States don’t tell them. Like, you can check and see how often, you for example, and others, have reported what I just said. Don’t bother checking. The answer is zero.
NC: The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn’t check the Canadian media, in the United States, you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing, of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here’s what you find when you look at a map.
NC: You find that this generous magnanimous proposal guaranteed, provided Israel with a salient, east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the labor government of Clinton in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there’s a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
NC: So, we’ve got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications, so you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that’s five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.
NC: This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That’s the generous, magnanimous offer. And there’s a good reason why maps weren’t shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.
ES: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn’t even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.
NC: Oh, that’s not true.
ES:They negotiated that afterwards.
NC: That’s not true.
ES: I guess my question is, if they don’t continue to negotiate –
NC: They did. That’s false.
ES: That’s false?
NC: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That’s a media fabrication –
ES: That Arafat didn’t put a counter-proposal –
NC: Yeah, they had a proposal, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus. And is blocked by the United States.
ES: If you don’t talk –
NC: Yeah, they did talk. They talked. They proposed that.
ES: Once they walked out of Camp David,
NC: They didn’t walk out of Camp David –
ES: Both Camps –
NC: No, no, both sides walked out of Camp David.
ES: All right, once Camp David disbands, the radicals take over the process, my question is, how do –
NC: No, no, the radicals didn’t take over the process.
ES: You don’t think that the Sharon, the right-wing Israeli –
NC: No, Barak stayed in power for months. Barak cancelled it. That’s how it ended.
ES: OK. The problem that people look at now in the Middle East is they say it’s spun out of control because the radicals are on both sides now.
NC: No, there’s three sides. You’re forgetting the United States. The radicals in the United States who have blocked this proposal for 25 years, continue to block it.
ES: How do we get back, now, there’s so much distrust?
NC: The first way we get back is by trying the experiment of minimal honesty. If we try that experiment of minimal honesty, we look at our own position and we discover what I just described. That for 25 years, the United States has blocked the political settlement, which is supported by the majority of the American population and by the entire world, except for Israel.
NC: The first thing we do is accept the honesty and look at it. We take a look at Camp David and we see how it’s the same. The United States was still demanding a Bantustans style settlement and rejecting the overwhelming international consensus and the position of the American people.
NC: We then discovered the United States immediately moved to enhance terror in the region. So, let’s continue. On September 29th, Ehud Barak put a massive military presence outside the Al Aqsa Mosque, very provocative, when people came out of the Mosque, young people started throwing stones, the Israeli army started shooting, half a dozen people were killed, and it escalated.
The next couple of days, there was no Palestinian fire at this time, and it’s all on occupied territories. In the next couple of days, Israel used U.S. helicopters, Israel produces no helicopters, used U.S. helicopters to attack civilian complexes, killing about a dozen people and wounding several dozen.
NC: Clinton reacted to that on October 3rd by making the biggest deal in a decade – to send Israel new military helicopters which had just been used for the purpose I described and of course would continue to be.
The U.S. press co-operated with that by refusing to publish the story. To this day, they have not published the fact.
It continued when Bush came in. One of his first acts was to send Israel a new shipment of one of the most advanced military helicopters in the arsenal. That continues right up to a couple of weeks ago with new shipments. You take a look at the reports, from say Jenin, by British correspondents like Peter Beaumont for the London Observer. He says the worst atrocity was the Apache helicopters buzzing around, destroying and demolishing everything.
Now, this is enhancing terror, and we may easily continue. On December 14th, the security council tried to pass a resolution calling for what everyone recognized to be the obvious means for reducing terror, namely sending international monitors. That’s a way of reducing terror.
NC: This happened to be in the middle of a quiet period, which lasted for about three weeks. The U.S. vetoed it. 10 days before that, there was a meeting at Geneva of the high-contracting parties of the 4th-Geneva convention, which has unanimously held for 35 years that it applies to Israel. The meeting condemned the Israeli settlements as illegal, condemned the list of atrocities – willful destruction of property, murder, trials, torture.
NC: What happened in that meeting? I’ll tell you what happened in that meeting. The U.S. boycotted it. Therefore, the media refused to publish it.
Therefore, no one here knows that the United States once again enhanced terror by refusing to recognize the applicability of conventions which make virtually everything the United States and Israel are doing there a grave breech of the Geneva convention, which is a war crime.
NC: These conventions were established in 1949 in order to criminalize the atrocities of the Nazis in occupied territory. They are customary international law. The United States is obligated, as a high-contracting party, to prosecute violations of those conventions. That means to prosecute its’ own leadership for the last 25 years. They won’t do it unless the population forces them to. And the population won’t force them to as long as they don’t know it’s a fact. And they won’t know it’s a fact as long as the media and loyal intellectuals keep it secret.
ES: All right, so if we were functioning around the Geneva convention, who would we then prosecute as the war criminal? Would George Bush be the war criminal? Sharon would be a war criminal?
NC: They’re all acting in –
ES: Would Yassar Arafat be a war criminal?
NC: He’s a criminal, but not a war criminal.
ES: What’s the difference?
NC: The difference is war crime has a technical definition. It’s a crime carried out by state.
ES:Would he be guilty of crimes against humanity?
NC: Probably. Minor crimes, as compared with us.
ES: Obviously. Most leaders in the Arab states?
NC: They’re criminals, but they’re not war criminals. They’re horrible criminals, including the ones we support. Like, all the states, every state we support is a, practically a brutal terrorist state which carries out crimes against their own society, internal to their own society. But, technically, those are not war crimes, they’re just crimes.
NC: We’re the ones who support the military. It’s us alone. I mean, others, marginally. But, primarily, the United States is supporting the military convention and therefore, is in grave breech of the Geneva conventions because of the activities it’s carrying out there. Grave breech of the Geneva convention is a war crime. Now, I’m not suggesting we have a Nuremberg trial in which we hang American leaders. I’m suggesting something much simpler.
NC: That the American, that Western intellectuals rise to the minimal level of honesty in which they tell people this, OK? In which they let the population of the United States know that their leadership is engaged in grave breeches of the Geneva convention which are war crimes, and then, not for the interest of the American people, because the majority of the population opposes it, they just don’t know the government is doing it.
NC: And they don’t know the government is doing it because there are intellectuals like Robert Kaplan who tell them, Oh, well, we’re really nice guys, it doesn’t matter if we don’t. Let’s try to let the population know the facts. I’m convinced, myself, that the decent instincts of the American people will be such that they will terminate these crimes.
ES: Let’s talk about enforcing international law. There is an argument that says, all right, let’s try to enforce international law in which case, all sorts of major power figures – Bush, Blair, Sharon – whoever, might be held accountable. Now, someone says, that’s wonderful. Instead of invading and doing unilateral invasions and using military force, let’s try to function according to law. Someone says, that’s wonderful, dictators love to hear that.
ES: Because, they say, unless you force international law with the barrel of a gun, right, history may decide to convict us, but the slaughters like Rwanda will go on, Milosevic will go on, because no one will back it up, and therefore a guy like Kaplan says, luckily, America’s barrel of the gun is the only thing that can enforce international law.
NC: Except that everything you just said is a total falsehood and certainly Robert Kaplan knows that. So, in the case of, say, Rwanda, and incidentally, this goes back 20 years. I mean, 20 years ago, I was writing about atrocities in Burundi, in Rwanda, which were going on because the West refused to do anything about them, because they basically didn’t care or supported them.
NC: But in that case, there was, under international law, there was a response. Namely, a resolution of the UN security council justifying the use, which already existed, incidentally, to justify the use of force to prevent the atrocities. That was in accord with international law. The U.S. and the West refused to enforce international law. In the case of Kosovo, let’s say, yes, there was international law, but let’s take a look at facts.
NC: The most hawkish member of the coalition was Britain. The British have since released their internal parliamentary records. We now know that even in late January, even after the Racak Massacre, the British government, including Robin Cook, regarded the guerillas as the main source of atrocities. Main source. We have extensive evidence from the state department. NATO gave them monitors OSE about what happened in the next period. The answer is, nothing changed.
NC: What happened is, that Britain and the United States decided, for their own reasons, to bomb Serbia, knowing that that was going to lead to an escalation of atrocities, obviously, and (further I) said so. And yes, they bombed Serbia, starting on March 24th, and that’s when the atrocities escalated and massive ethnic cleansing began, and now, the super hypocrites in the West are indicting Milosevic for crimes which he committed – he’s undoubtedly a war criminal – for crimes that he committed in reaction to the bombing which they knew was going to precipitate.
ES: But if everybody –
NC: Is that humanitarian intervention? No, it’s not. It’s great-power politics, undertaken incidentally for exactly the reason they publicly gave. Clinton and Blair explained very clearly, this is to maintain Arab credibility. That’s gangersterism, not humanitarianism.
ES: All right. There’s a popular phrase now, Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. And writers like Bernard Lewis ask, “What Went Wrong?” He claims there’s a historical clash of civilizations between Islamic culture and Western Judeo-Christian culture. They resent us, there’s enormous amounts of hatred. It goes back in history, because of resentment.
NC: Yes, there’s hatred against us. Why? It’s easy to find out. The U.S. is a very free country. We have enormous internal classified records, so let’s look at them.
In 1958, the U.S. government faced, you know, from internal records, three major crises in the world. North Africa, Middle East and Indonesia, all with oil producing states, all Islamic states.
President Eisenhower, in an internal discussion, observed to his staff, and I’m quoting now, “There’s a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East, not by governments, but by the people.” The national security council discussed that question and said, “yes, and the reason is, there’s a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo governments, which prevent democracy and development and that we do it because of our interests in Middle East oil.
NC: Furthermore, it’s difficult to counter that perception because it’s correct. It ought to be correct. We ought to be supporting brutal and corrupt governments which prevent democracy and development because we want to control Middle East oil, and it’s true that leads to a campaign of hatred against us.”
Now, until Bernard Lewis tells us that, and that’s only one piece of a long story, we know that he’s just a vulgar propagandist and not a scholar.
So yes, as long as we are supporting harsh, brutal governments, blocking democracy and development because of our interests in controlling the oil resources of the region, there will be a campaign of hatred against the United States.
ES: Did he say there’s no democracy there anyway because it’s not their culture?
NC: Fine – but notice, first of all, the total irrelevance of that claim to the campaign of hatred against us, which is exactly what the national security council described. If we did permit democracy and development, which we’re blocking, that might overcome that, OK, but we’re not permitting democracy, and we have a Bernard Lewis telling us, well it’s because of their bad culture, it’s not because of our input, it’s not because of what the U.S. government says. I mean, we are supporting undemocratic regimes because we want their oil, not that. Don’t pay attention to the facts.
NC: Pay attention to a self-serving theology that I’ll present to you. And Bernard Lewis knows the earlier history. If you want to go through that, we can go through that. So, we ask, what happens in the 1820s when the United States and Egypt both began their internal economic development programs in rather similar ways. Both based on textiles, both had cotton, both had cultural producers
NC: The United States had kicked out the British so it was able to continue. The Egyptians had not kicked out the British, therefore the British intervened forcefully, and quite consciously and openly, you can read it in the public document, to block internal economic development in Egypt, because as they said, we’re not going to permit a competitor in this region which we run, and they did, too, by force.
ES: So the clash of civilizations is a created –
NC: No, it’s a fabrication.
ES: Countries in that area have an overwhelming hatred for what they perceive is the West. In fact, you say there’s history justifying these things –
NC: I didn’t say history justifies it, history gives many of the reasons for it. If you want to look at lots of other reasons, there are plenty of them. So, part of what Bernard Lewis said is correct. So, when he talks about things internal to the region, yeah, that’s true. What he’s ignoring, however, and what he knows perfectly well, is that there’s an overwhelming outside force which has exacerbated those problems and has created new problems of its own. And he won’t tell you that because that would be looking back at ourselves, and you’re not allowed to do that.
NC: You’re only allowed to look at the crimes of others. You must be very careful never to look in the mirror. To say, instead, it’s all there for you, bad genes, bad culture and so on. It’s not the fact that we didn’t do anything, it’s just irrelevant that the British crushed Egyptian efforts at economic development. And that this went on for another century, that the U.S. took it over, that’s just kind of an irrelevance. They would have been bad anyway.
ES:What state does function according to what you call the minimal levels of honesty. Is there a state?
NC: States are power centers. The only thing that imposes constraints on them is either outside force or their own populations.
That’s exactly why the intellectuals who we’re talking about are so adamant at preventing people in the United States and Britain from learning the most elementary facts about themselves.
ES: But is it even possible?
NC: It’s not impossible, it happens. The United States, for example, is far more civilized than it was 40 years ago. Let’s just take that. March 9th of this March, happened to be the 40th anniversary of the public announcement by the Kennedy administration that the U.S. air force is bombing South Vietnam. It also initiated chemical warfare to destroy crops, it initiated napalm, started driving millions of people into concentration camps to separate them from the guerillas they knew they were supporting. This was all public.
NC: Did we commemorate the 40th anniversary? No. Why? Because 40 years ago, nobody cared. If the government announced, OK, we’re going to start bombing another country and use chemical warfare to wipe out their crops and drive them to concentration camps, fine. Not a problem. So there was no protest, no discussion.
ES: And now there’s more protest and discussion.
NC: Yes, because the country has gotten more civilized. No U.S. president today or for the last 20 years, could conceivably do what Kennedy could do with total impunity 40 years ago. And the reason is because there was massive popular protest opposed by the intellectual classes, of course, who hated it, but it did, it lead to all sorts of things including opposition to aggression and violence. It also spawned the contemporary civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movement and all sorts of other things.
And it imposed important constraints on straight violence. In fact, that’s how we got rid of slavery. That’s how we got rid of feudalism.
ES: So are we moving towards emancipation from these states? You’re optimistic about it?
NC: Over time, there has been agonizingly slow progress, but very real, always opposed by the States, by the intellectuals who support violence and atrocities and try to justify them and try to prevent the population from knowing about them, but fortunately, their control is limited.
ES: What will the state look like at the end?
NC: At the end, I think states ought to dissolve because I think they’re illegitimate structures, but that’s a long time.
ES:Is it the end of the nation-state that you foresee?
NC: I don’t foresee anything. What I’m saying is that as long as people, ordinary people, are able to free themselves from the doctrinal controls imposed on them by their self-appointed betters and mentors, as long as they’re able to do this, they’ll continue to be able to struggle for peace and justice and freedom and limitations on violence, and constraints on power, as they’ve been doing for hundreds of years. And I don’t see any end to that. Where it’ll end up in the long run, I’d tell you where I’d like it to, but I wouldn’t even dream about that.
NC: The immediate problem is to free ourselves from the shackles imposed, very consciously, by the kind of people you’re talking about. Who don’t want the facts to be known. And for very good reasons. Because if people know the facts they aren’t going to tolerate them. So therefore you have to prevent them from knowing. You have to indoctrinate them, you have to tell them stories about how we’re really good guys, and if we use violence, it must be for the general good because we represent the course of history.
NC: That’s the job of propagandists, for power and violence, and it’s the task of populations to free themselves from those kinds of controls and domination.
ES: Good to see you.
NC: Good to be here.
I am setting out these notes now as I am not sure when I will get the time to place into context, first the Class-based prejudice I perceive in the treatment of Stephen Yaxley Lennon ( Tommy Robinson ) by the Legal Establishment, The Police , The Press and the Progressive Politically correct (SJW, right to be offended) what we used to call ( the One-Eyed, one-armed, Lesbians ), LGBTxyz squads’, maybe?.
Notes on the written Judgement here.
See comments here also for commentary via twitter on the sentencing hearing.
Hi Steven, the two cases are connected, it’s playing the man and not the ball, it really goes to this at its heart. https://t.co/MpyLKahbS3 #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy I am writing an article tying it all together #Chabloz #NaziPug #LabourAntiSemitism #FreeAssange pic.twitter.com/EfTloEOwgG
— RogerGLewis (@PMotels) July 12, 2019
erm, conflating 2 separate cases, the Cambridgeshire case was brought by SYL in an attempt to make money. it was a rubbish case, he was treated like any other AWAY SOCCER FAN. This case was brought by the judge in leeds, as this tosser tried to get 3 trials stopped !
— Steven Baker (@notacunningplan) July 11, 2019
Hi Steven, the two cases are connected, it's playing the man and not the ball, it really goes to this at its heart. https://t.co/MpyLKahbS3 #FreeSpeech #FreeTommy I am writing an article tying it all together #Chabloz #NaziPug #LabourAntiSemitism #FreeAssange pic.twitter.com/EfTloEOwgG
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) July 12, 2019
The strange story of Atlantica
The effort to unite Europe and the U.S. started in 1939, with the publication of a book by an influential journalist, Clarence Streit. This influential book was called “Union Now,” and had a galvanizing effect on the anti-fascist youth of the time, a sort of a cross between Thomas Friedman’s “The World Is Flat” and Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.” Streit served in World War I in an intelligence unit, and saw up close the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles.
This is the website of Vicky Davis. email@example.com
My other website is http://www.channelingreality.com
Vicky was a Computer Systems Analyst/Programmer turned Internet Researcher and writer. She received her training in computer programming in Santa Clara, California in the mid-1970s. She worked primarily – but not entirely on IBM mainframe systems for large corporations and government entities. As an Internet Researcher, she continues to apply her analytical skills focusing her research on the revolution in government from the systems perspective.
About Me and this Website
When I first started this research, the cognitive dissonance was almost overwhelming. On the internet, I was reading and seeing things that indicated something had gone terribly wrong in America but in the small town where I was living, everything seemed perfectly normal. Through my computer screen, I saw nightmares while outside, I could hear lawnmowers, children laughing, dogs barking – all of the normal sounds that indicate all is well. When I would go to the store or other public places, I would search people’s faces looking for some sign that they knew things weren’t right but I didn’t see any signs. I was completely alone with my terror – except for the faceless and nameless few friends I found on the internet who were as concerned as I was.
I tried talking to my family about what I was seeing which was a completely different America than our shared perceived vision that had developed over my lifetime. That was a mistake as most Internet activists can attest. Minds are closed and sleeping up until the time when they personally receive some kind of shock that clues them to the possibility that there is something going on about which they were unaware. Then and only then are they willing to listen and to receive new information that alters their world view.
I had to reconcile the information I was getting on the Internet with my life off the Internet. I had to prove that I was not crazy, not imagining things and not believing fiction produced by unreliable sources on the Internet. Since I had been a Computer Systems Analyst/Programmer and I knew how to use the Internet to search for information, I did what came naturally. I applied my skills and talent as an Analyst in a deliberate mission to figure out the Who, What, Where, Why and When of the differences in my perception of America versus what I was seeing on the Internet. I had to rebuild my mental map of the world and how it works.
One thing led to another and I started building logical connections from one research topic to another –
What’s your medicine Gentleman,
Farage Looks at Bojo and Says it’s your Round,
Trump Looks at Alex Jones and Says Are you gonna get a Warm Limey Beer I don’t drink.
The barman looks at Ron Paul and says,
The Bumper Sticker back in the Day would read.
Cultural Marxism, why not Cultural Liberalism, or Cultural Fascism?
Cultural Political Correctness is the Catch-All for that limited manifest of the Ships Stores for these purposes it is a sufficiency.
be more like Vinnie perhaps.
The tragedy of Kosovo, Twenty years on, NATO’s Kosovo campaign is a testament to the horrors of ‘humanitarian intervention’. https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/22/the-tragedy-of-kosovo/
How the Balkans should be? The distance between rhetoric and reality gapes widest in relation to the claim that, as Kosovo’s EU-approved constitution proclaims repeatedly, it is ‘a multi-ethnic society’. This, after all, is supposedly what the war was all about: Blair claimed at the time that ‘it was fought for [the] fundamental principle… that every human being, regardless of race, religion or birth, has the inalienable right to live free from persecution’.
PROFESSOR BRUCE CHARLTON, PC, PLAYING THE MAN AND NOT THE BALL. #JESUISBOURGOISEBLANCHOMME #CONQUESTOFDOUGH. JE SUIS BOURGEOISE BLANC HOMME. STAY SAFE ONLINE AND ON THE STREETS. #OCCUPYTHEEUROPEANSPRING CATCH UP DEMOCRACY! PC IS INDIFFERENT TO OUTCOMES. ‘OUTCOMES’ ARE REGARDED AS HAVING NO AUTONOMOUS REALITY, BUT ARE MERELY SEEN AS PART OF ABSTRACT THEORY.
Cestui Que Vie
Cestui que vie is French for he who lives. It is a legal term for an individual who is the beneficiary of a trust or insurance policy, with rights to property and the income and profits that the property provides.
BREAKING DOWN Cestui Que Vie Cestui que vie as a legal concept dates to the medieval period, specifically England. During this time, the owners of farms and other properties could be absent for extended periods of time as they travelled, whether for business or religious purposes.
William N. Grigg said…
What you are describing is not a misunderstanding about the principles of civics, but the vast and perhaps unbridgeable gulf that separates genuinely civilized people from those who subscribe to statist superstition.
I understand and have written a great deal about, the principle recognized by Augustine in the 5th Century — namely, that a government is a robber band that has achieved territorial mastery and granted itself impunity. It is, in other words, the most successful aggressor.
I reject the proposition that aggression can be moral, or that we should pretend that successful aggression should be ratified. “Limiting” the supposed right to commit aggression is neither morally correct nor practical– as the failure of the constitutional system demonstrates. (Remember how the Constitution “permanently” limited legislative power, and kept it separate from executive and judicial power? How did that arrangement work out?)
The only way out of our predicament is for people to stop validating aggression in any form.
John Studzinski’s imminent departure from HSBC for the comparatively tranquil waters of US private-equity firm Blackstone will be keenly felt by the bank. “It is often said that a successful advisory business is built upon personalities,” says Iain Dey in The Sunday Telegraph. Well, enigmatic Renaissance man “Studz” is about “the biggest personality in the business”.
Vivienne Westwood, who often bemoans Britain’s lack of “salon culture”, should have a quiet word with Studz. The American’s gatherings – at his riverside 1771 Robert Adam house in Chelsea – are known for an eclecticism that reflects his polymath interests. A trustee of Tate Modern, patron of the arts and devout Roman Catholic, Studz mixes artists, authors and musicians with clergy, politicians, royalty and captains of industry. Here you will find the Duchess of Kent and Sting; Lord Browne of BP and members of the Gucci family. Perhaps they are admiring Studz’s Man Ray and Picasso collection; perhaps scrutinising the candlesticks in his private chapel that used to belong to Ignatius Loyola. Studz might mix with the jet-set, but he was made a Knight of the Order of St Gregory for a record of good works, including 30 years working with the homeless. The Catholic church in Britain is “so beholden to him”, says Cristina Odone in The Observer, “that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor changes his diary to fit in with Studzinski’s”.
“ legend has it that after the bloody battle of Thermopylae, the victor Xerxes prepared to spread a purple cloak over the body of his vanquished enemy Leonidas, out of admiration for his valor. But as he was about to lower the cloak, a strange voice out of nowhere called out: “No. Take that cloak from me. I will accept no favor from the Persians.” And Xerxes knew that it was Leonidas, speaking to him from the other world. And he called out into space: “But thou art dead, Leonidas. Why hate the Persians even in death?” And, according to the legend, back came the stirring reply: “The passion for freedom dieth not.”
Al Smith’s passion for freedom did not die with him. It is ours to nurture today. May we all be true to that great legacy.”
1. Tommy Robinson is on trial again tomorrow for the same contempt of court matter he was already jailed for once. I’ll be covering the trial on Twitter as always, and also on video. We’re also bringing http://RealReporters.uk — because you can’t trust the Media Party.
Read the guidance yourself I think that Tommy was denied a proper Brief familiar with both the Canterbury case and the Extant one was a Big Own Goal by the presiding Judge and the prosecuting officer.
I think the State has got its knickers in a twist with this, The Chabloz case and the Dunkula case. I looked at the court listings for the Leeds Case and to say its extensive is an understatement, That Tommy pleaded guilty is I think an indication of how poorly advised he in fact was.
As for the Secret Barrister, he should remain anonymous should he reveal his identity no one would instruct his chambers.
🎵And the judge and the jury, they all put the blame on me
They wouldn’t go for my story, they wouldn’t hear my plea…
Only you can set me free, coz I’m guilty, guilty as a girl can be
Come on baby, can’t you see, I stand accuuuused of love in the first degree🎵
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
Firstly, Bananarama erroneously assume that the judge AND the jury are judging the merits of the defence. This is simply not true. Judges in Crown Courts, even Courts of Love, are judges of law alone. The verdict is for the jury.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
If Bananarama simply wanted to contest the *factual basis* of their admitted guilt, then they should be having a trial of issue (“Newton hearing”) in front of a judge alone. Their advocate should have advised them as such. This is plainly negligent.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
In any event, there are live criminal proceedings and Bananarama are imploring the key witness (“only you can set me free”) to intervene to prevent the consequences of their admitted criminality. Bananarama are shamelessly attempting to pervert the course of justice.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
In conclusion, nothing about this Bananarama trial sits right with me. While we must be calm and not jump to conclusions without knowing the full facts, I am deeply troubled that something has gone badly wrong. Or that Bananarama’s legal research is not what it should be.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) March 2, 2018
TOMMY Robinson was left humiliated by a judge as he lost his “discrimination” case against police today.
The EDL founder was told by Judge Karen Walden-Smith “you’re not as well known as you think you are,” after taking Cambridgeshire Police to court for harassment.
Mr Lennon isn’t as well-known as he and his supporters may think
Judge Karen Walden-Smith
Judge Karen Walden-Smith said: “In my judgment there’s no evidence that Mr Lennon was being treated differently because of his beliefs about fundamentalist Islam.”
Venality of the Press.
We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org or call 0207 782 4368 . You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.
UN Launches All-Out War On Free Speech https://t.co/TOai9U5YQ7
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 12, 2019
Translations of this item:
Gatestone Institute is a conservative think tank with a focus on Islam and the Middle East. It was founded in 2012 by Nina Rosenwald, who serves as its president. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton, now national security advisor, was its chairman from 2013 to March 2018. Its current chairman is Amir Taheri.
The Gatestone Institute has
been frequently described as “anti-Muslim”,[a] regularly publishes articles to stoke anti-Muslim fears,and has published false stories pertaining to Muslims and Islam. Gatestone frequently warns of a looming “jihadist takeover” and “Islamization” of Europe, leading to a “Great White Death”. Gatestone authors have a particular interest in Germany and Sweden, and frequently criticize leaders such as Macron and Merkel.
In 2012, the Gatestone Institute hosted a talk by Geert Wilders. Gatestone has been criticized for affiliating itself with Wilders, who says that he “hates Islam.” In 2016, Gatestone paid for Wilders’ flights and hotels on trips to the United States, and has published his writings.
Policy analyst J. Dana Stuster of the National Security Network, writing in The Hill, criticized Gatestone as “paranoid” for claiming that immigration to Europe was “civilization jihad” and a “Muslim invasion”.
Gatestone’s founder, Nina Rosenwald, has been accused of anti-Muslim bias by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Muslim writers for the Gatestone Institute have defended the organization and Rosenwald against the claims by CAIR. Zuhdi Jasser said, “It goes without saying, but to those who may not know Nina, and having known her now for many years, it is clear to me that she has the highest respect for Muslims who love their faith, love God, and take seriously our Islamic responsibility to defeat the global jihad and its Islamist inspiration.” Alan Dershowitz, a Gatestone Institute fellow disputed that the organization was anti-Muslim, noting it had “numerous Muslims” and that “many of Gatestone’s articles are, in fact, pro-Muslim”.
The Brookings Institution is an American research group founded in 1916 on Think Tank Row in Washington, D.C. It conducts research and education in the social sciences, primarily in economics, metropolitan policy, governance, foreign policy, and global economy and development. Its stated mission is to “provide innovative and practical recommendations that advance three broad goals: strengthen American democracy; foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans; and secure a more open, safe, prosperous, and cooperative international system.”
Brookings has five research programs at its Washington, D.C. campus (Economic Studies, Foreign Policy, Governance Studies, Global Economy and Development, and Metropolitan Policy) and three international centers based in Doha, Qatar (Brookings Doha Center); Beijing, China (Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy); and New Delhi, India (Brookings India).
An investigation by The New York Times, reported on September 6, 2014, found the Brookings Institution to be among more than a dozen Washington research groups to have received payments from foreign governments while encouraging U.S. officials to encourage support for policies aligned with those foreign governments’ agenda.
The New York Times published documents showing that Brookings Institution accepted grants from Norway with specific policy requests and helped the country gain access to U.S. government officials, as well as other “deliverables”. In June 2014, Norway agreed to make an additional $4 million donation to Brookings. Several legal specialists who examined the documents told the paper that the language of the transactions “appeared to necessitate Brookings filing as a foreign agent” under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.
The Qatari government was named by The New York Times as “the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings”, having reportedly made a $14.8 million, four-year contribution in 2013. A former visiting fellow at a Brookings affiliate in Qatar reportedly said that “he had been told during his job interview that he could not take positions critical of the Qatar government in papers”. Brookings officials denied any connection between the views of their funders and their scholars’ work, citing reports that questioned the Qatari government’s education reform efforts and criticized its support of militants in Syria. However, Brookings officials reportedly acknowledged that they meet with Qatari government officials regularly.
Michael Glenn Mullen, AO, MSC (born October 4, 1946) is a retired United States Navy admiral, who served as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2007, to September 30, 2011.
|Born||October 4, 1946|
Mullen previously served as the Navy’s 28th Chief of Naval Operations from July 22, 2005, to September 29, 2007. He was only the third officer in the Navy’s history to be appointed to four different four-star assignments; the other appointments being the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Commander, Allied Joint Force Command Naples from October 2004 to May 2005, and as the 32nd Vice Chief of Naval Operations from August 2003 to August 2004. As Chairman, Mullen was the highest-ranking officer in the United States Armed Forces. He retired from the Navy after over 42 years of service. Since 2012, Mullen has been a visiting professor at Princeton University‘s Woodrow Wilson School
During Mullen’s Senate confirmation hearings for his first term nomination as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen identified political progress in Iraq as a critical component of Iraq policy. He noted that, “there does not appear to be much political progress” in Iraq. He also said, “If [the Iraqis] aren’t making progress in [the political] realm, the prospects for movement in a positive direction are not very good. Failure to achieve tangible progress toward [political] reconciliation requires a strategic reassessment.” Mullen further told the Senate that the United States needs to “bring as much pressure on [Iraq’s political leaders] as [the U.S.] possibly can.”
Regarding the length and scope of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Mullen told the Senate that while he does not envision permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, “vital interests in the region and in Iraq require a pragmatic, long-term commitment that will be measured in years, not months.”
President Obama, Secretary of Defense Panetta and Admiral Mullen provided the certification required by the Act to Congress on July 22, 2011. Implementation of repeal was completed 60 days later, so that DADT was no longer policy as of September 20, 2011.
In a speech at Kansas State University, Mullen outlined his views about the best application of military force in present times. He characterized most wars, such as World War II, as wars of attrition, where the reduction or elimination of enemy forces signaled victory. He characterized the Cold War as an issue of containment. In characterizing the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he described them as “a fight against a syndicate of Islamic extremists led by al-Qaeda and supported by a host of both state and non-state actors”, citing the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as their “epicenter”.
Mullen outlined three principles about the “proper use of modern military forces”:
The National Security Network (NSN) was a non-profit foreign policy organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States, that focused on international relations, global affairs and national security. Characterizing itself as “progressive,” the NSN’s mission statement asserts the group aimed to “build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin.”
NSN “suspended active operations” as of March 2016, according to their website.
Its founder, Rand Beers, was a Bush Administration counter-terrorism expert and is the former National Security Adviser to the John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004. Beers resigned from NSN in 2009 to serve as Counselor to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. Among other things, the National Security Network acts as a resource for media outlets, releasing frequent opinion papers on a wide variety of foreign policy issues and engaging in rapid responses to current events. It also hosted the liberal global affairs blog Democracy Arsenal.
|Roula Allouch, Chairman
Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director
|70+ [needs update]|
|300+ [needs update]|
The Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Muslim civil rights and advocacy group. It is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., with regional offices nationwide. Through civil rights actions, media relations, civic engagement, and education, CAIR promotes social, legal and political activism among Muslims in America.
Critics of CAIR have accused it of pursuing an Islamist agenda and have claimed that the group is connected to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, claims which CAIR has rejected and described as an Islamophobic smear campaign. Due to alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the government of the United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.
The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) has criticized CAIR’s work, saying its position as the “go to American-Muslim civil rights organization” is “undermined by its anti-Israel agenda [which]… dates back to its founding by leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a Hamas affiliated anti-Semitic propaganda organization”. The ADL also accused the group of hypocrisy in its condemnation of Hezbollah, noting that CAIR “for many years… refused to unequivocally condemn Palestinian terror organizations and Hezbollah by name” and that CAIR began to do so “only when the terrorist organization stopped focusing solely on Israel and began engaging in military operations against Sunni Muslim fighters in Syria and Iraq”. The ADL has also called on CAIR to “denounce anti-Semitism at rallies in the U.S.” CAIR responded with a statement saying that in 2005 they coordinated a fatwa condemning all acts of terrorism as haraam. CAIR also quoted, in the same statement, Rabbi Arthur Waskow‘s speech at a CAIR dinner, where he stated, “Far from showing irreparable conflict between the Jewish community and CAIR, in fact the dinner show[s] that a seriously peace-committed part of the Jewish community can work with a seriously peace-committed part of the Muslim community, despite the existence of some violence-supportive people in both communities. That is the truthful and the important story.”
Some Muslims criticize CAIR for taking a conservative religious approach on many issues. These critics claim that statements by the organization (for example, that all Muslim women are required to veil) often follow conservative Saudi religious doctrine and do not capture diverse religious perspectives.
Steven Emerson has accused CAIR of having a long record of propagating anti-Semitic propaganda. In 2001 journalist Jake Tapper criticized the communication director of CAIR, Ibrahim Hooper, for saying about the September 11 attacks, “If Osama bin Laden was behind it, we condemn him by name,” questioning why there should be any qualification before the statement.
Zuhdi Jasser has argued that CAIR’s agenda is focused on “victimization“. Best-selling author Sam Harris, noted mainly for his contribution to the New Atheism movement, criticized CAIR by saying CAIR is “an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby”.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer‘s 2006 decision to withdraw a “certificate of accomplishment” originally given to former CAIR official Basim Elkarra on grounds of suspicions about the organization’s background “provoked an outcry from organizations that vouch for the group’s advocacy, including the ACLU and the California Council of Churches. “They have been a leading organization that has advocated for civil rights and civil liberties in the face of fear and intolerance, in the face of religious and ethnic profiling,” said Maya Harris, executive director of the ACLU of Northern California.
In 2013, the Governor of Illinois Pat Quinn, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department Garry McCarthy, and a wide range of other public officials in Illinois praised the Chicago branch of CAIR for its advocacy work, civil rights work, and for its involvement in the communities it serves.
The Seattle chapter of the League of Women Voters awarded the Washington branch of CAIR one of its 2015 Champion of Voting and Civil Rights Awards, praising “their work encouraging voting and community involvement by members of the Muslim American community”.
Society of the Muslim Brothers
Muslim brotherhood logo with Arabic word “Prepare”
The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمينJamāʿat al-Ikhwān al-Muslimīn), better known as the Muslim Brotherhood (الإخوان المسلمون al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn), is a transnational Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt by Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna in 1928. Al-Banna’s teachings spread far beyond Egypt, influencing today various Islamist movements from charitable organizations to political parties—not all using the same name.
The first MB-affiliated organisations in the UK were founded in the 1960s, which comprised exiles and overseas students. They promoted the works of Indian theologician Abu A’la Mawdudi and represented the Jama’at-e-Islami. In their initial phase they were politically inactive in the UK as they assumed they would return to their home countries and instead focused on recruiting new members and to support the MB in the Arab World.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the MB and its associated organisations changed to a new strategy of political activity in western countries with the purpose to promote the MB overseas but also preserve the autonomy of Muslim communities in the UK.
In the 1990s, the MB established publicly visible organisations and ostensibly “national” organisations to further its agenda, but membership in the MB was and remains a secret. The MB dominated the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and founded the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). MAB became politically active in foreign policy issues such as Palestine and Iraq, while MCB established a dialogue with the then governments.
In 1996, the first representative of the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, Kamal el-Helbawy, an Egyptian, was able to say that “there are not many members here, but many Muslims in the UK intellectually support the aims of the Muslim Brotherhood”.
In September 1999, the Muslim Brotherhood opened a “global information centre” in London.
Since 2001, the ISB has distanced itself from Muslim Brotherhood ideology along with the MCB.
In April 2014, David Cameron, who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time, launched an investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in the UK and its alleged extremist activities. Egypt welcomed the decision. After Cameron’s decision, the Muslim Brotherhood reportedly moved its headquarters from London to Austria attempting to avoid the investigation.
The Brotherhood was criticised by Ayman al-Zawahiri in 2007 for its refusal to advocate the violent overthrow of the Mubarak government. Issam al-Aryan, a top Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood figure, denounced the al-Qaeda leader: “Zawahiri’s policy and preaching bore dangerous fruit and had a negative impact on Islam and Islamic movements across the world”.
Dubai police chief, Dhahi Khalfan accused Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood of an alleged plot to overthrow the UAE government. He referred to the Muslim Brotherhood as “dictators” who want “Islamist rule in all the Gulf States”.
Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari denounced the Islamist and leftist excuse used by people with hidden motives, who say that Muslim Brotherhood people being tortured is a reason for radical religious extremism.
Numerous officials and reporters question the sincerity of the Muslim Brotherhood’s pronouncements. These critics include, but are not limited to:
According to authors writing in the Council on Foreign Relations magazine Foreign Affairs: “At various times in its history, the group has used or supported violence and has been repeatedly banned in Egypt for attempting to overthrow Cairo’s secular government. Since the 1970s, however, the Egyptian Brotherhood has disavowed violence and sought to participate in Egyptian politics”. Jeremy Bowen, the Middle East editor for the BBC, called it “conservative and non-violent”. The Brotherhood “has condemned” terrorism and the 9/11 attacks.
The Brotherhood itself denounces the “catchy and effective terms and phrases” like “fundamentalist” and “political Islam” which it claims are used by “Western media” to pigeonhole the group, and points to its “15 Principles” for an Egyptian National Charter, including “freedom of personal conviction … opinion … forming political parties … public gatherings … free and fair elections …”
Similarly, some analysts maintain that whatever the source of modern Jihadi terrorism and the actions and words of some rogue members, the Brotherhood now has little in common with radical Islamists and modern jihadists who often condemn the Brotherhood as too moderate. They also deny the existence of any centralized and secretive global Muslim Brotherhood leadership. Some claim that the origins of modern Muslim terrorism are found in Wahhabi ideology, not that of the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to anthropologist Scott Atran, the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood even in Egypt has been overstated by Western commentators. He estimates that it can count on only 100,000 militants (out of some 600,000 dues paying members) in a population of more than 80 million, and that such support as it does have among Egyptians—an often cited figure is 20 percent to 30 percent—is less a matter of true attachment than an accident of circumstance: secular opposition groups that might have countered it were suppressed for many decades, but in driving the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, a more youthful constellation of secular movements has emerged to threaten the Muslim Brotherhood’s dominance of the political opposition. This has not yet been the case, however, as evidenced by the Brotherhood’s strong showing in national elections. Polls also indicate that a majority of Egyptians and other Arab nations endorse laws based on “Sharia”.
Front cover of Muslim Mafia
|Author||Paul David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry|
|Cover artist||Linda Daly|
|Subject||Islamic terrorism, Nonfiction|
|October 15, 2009 (1st edition)|
|Media type||Hardcover; electronic|
|LC Class||BP173.7 .G38 2009|
Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America is a 2009 book by U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and former U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations special agent Paul David Gaubatz, and investigative journalist and Hoover Institute fellow Paul Sperry. According to the Charlotte Observer, it “portrays the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a subversive organization allied with international terrorists.”
The book prompted endorsements from a number of conservative writers and requests by several conservative members of the United States Congress for investigations into CAIR’s possible terrorist links and undue influence. It also prompted denouncements from CAIR, media outlets and other members of Congress. The manner in which its source documents were obtained led CAIR to sue one of the authors.
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (Democrat, California), “appalled” by the situation created by the book and the four Republican endorsements, said “I urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in denouncing this witch hunt, which is clearly intended to create fear and distrust in our Capitol Hill community.” The book and its endorsement from the four Congressmen were denounced on the House floor by Congressman Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota), the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, in a speech that included a statement by the House’s Tri-Caucus (consisting of about 87 House members), officially entered into the Congressional Record and broadcast on C-SPAN on October 26, 2009.
I appreciate this series John it begs so many questions though Blair first up is no more a Left Winger or Socialist Than Mrs May is a Tory or Conservative they are both Neo-Liberal Fascists as are Trudeau, Vardeker, Tusk, Junker, Verhofstad, and Macron.
Next up just as being Anti Israeli State Extreme Right Wing Zionism I call it Netanyahu Zionism is not Anti-Semitic, Similarly being Anti Pakistani Grooming Gang is simply not Islamaphobic or Rascist.
Pandorama is a good FIlm exposing BBC Bias and Hope not Hate,
tommy has explained much of the State action against him which has been confiscatory and vindictive similar tactics were visited on Moar Dib the maker of 7// the ripple effect and on 9/11 Dr David Kelly did not die by his own hand.
Tom Watson’s excesses are completely in line with Establishment Trough Swillers like Watson, Blair and the rest of them. Corbyn is a peculiar species of career politician it is to his credit though that he at least appears to like a bit of the other and Dianne Abbot was pretty dishy back in the day, I once met Oona King at a reception in Whitehall and would have loved to have been in the position of doing a Corbyn with her , she was lovely, I met the Odious Lib Dem Simon Hughes at the same event, and would have loved to Go full intercity Chav on him.
My Point is that Brexit is a Pantomime and Anyone being demonised is more than likely One of the good guys.
There is a lot of Snobbery against Tommy basically he is a very courageous and I would argue sincere man.
My old Chauffeur/Minder from my Lord of the Manor days is a devout Pakistani Muslim, he like me understands and supports Tommy’s positions although I myself think whilst Tommy has Salafist Wahabbism very well understood he is mistaken about the prophet. and Islam in general. Cultural assimilation and Integration are difficult concepts and many people are ill-equipped to judge these things as Tommy demonstrates so ably in this video.
@Caratacus , That made me Smile a broad smile.
Brought to mind this Ted Talk on the subject.
March 5, 2019 at 4:38 pm
Tommy is a zionist shill…
Zionism and an interest in the Jewish people in Israel who do not support Netanyahu Zionism are two very different things. It strikes me that Tommy may be less well informed on Zionism than he is on Islam I doubt somehow that he has read much Sufi philosophy or indeed Maimonides.
Always in divide and rule strategies of the Oligarchy, a fostering of my enemies enemy is my friend thinking is adopted and encouraged.
Two Blogs on The Theology.
“The Vision of Christ that thou dost see
Is my Visions Greatest Enemy
Thine has a great hook nose like thine
Mine has a snub nose like to mine5Thine is the Friend of All Mankind
Mine speaks in parables to the Blind
Thine loves the same world that mine hates
Thy Heaven doors are my Hell Gates
Socrates taught what Melitus10Loathd as a Nations bitterest Curse
And Caiphas was in his own Mind
A benefactor of Mankind
Both read the Bible day & night
But thou readst black where I read white”
Blake. The everlasting Gospel.
brent1023 • 4 years ago
This article makes the assumption that there is only one zionism.
It would be a mistake to assume there is only one Jew and to be anti-Jew because of the actions of one person.
It is also possible that deciding to be anti-zionist because you find Netanyahu-zionism appalling is a similar mistake.
How did Netanyahu-zionism – an extreme form of zionism – get to define zionism?
I personally reject Netanyahu-zioinism because in my view it cannot lead to a solution to existing problems in the middle east. It can only make those problems worse and worse.
That does not mean I reject zionism – the zionism of the early years of the state as practised by the few Israelis I knew. My understanding of their vision and their life seemed to me something that could have led to a stable future.
That was pre-wall, pre-extreme settlement policy days.
I am not convinced that Netanyahu-zionism was an inevitable outcome of those days. I could be wrong. I am not sure how anyone could prove that Netanyahu-zionism is the only possible zionism. I certainly don’t understand why so many people act as if Netanyahu-zionism is the only possible zionism.
Hi Kevin, in the comments the whole polarity and polarisation alienation of the debate plays out . Over and over the same taunts are rehearsed.
Jay, I do not know how much you know about Politics in Israel, and how deeply you have read into the Geo Politics surrounding Zionism in the late 19th Century and going back further into Jewish History and indeed Feudalism. Its a big ask to expect everyone to accord to your own take on things and to assume they operate in accordance to your own assemblage of information and understanding.
Enchiridion 42: How logic proves no fucks should ever be given towards other’s thoughts or actions towards you
Man this really hit hard for me and drilled it in. On one hand, it is easy to say “Stop worrying about what is out of your control.” But this passage hit the nail on the head for me and explained it in a way that metabolizes it for my subconscious.
“42. When any person harms you, or speaks badly of you, remember that he acts or speaks from a supposition of its being his duty. Now, it is not possible that he should follow what appears right to you, but what appears so to himself. Therefore, if he judges from a wrong appearance, he is the person hurt, since he too is the person deceived. For if anyone should suppose a true proposition to be false, the proposition is not hurt, but he who is deceived about it. Setting out, then, from these principles, you will meekly bear a person who reviles you, for you will say upon every occasion, “It seemed so to him.” ”
Following on from yesterday’s post about immigration dishonesty, The Slog digs up the roots of Britain’s population explosion to find the entire political class guilty of dissembling dereliction and reality rejection. Top of the list of miscreants is Tony Blair….but the contemporary Labour/Islam alliance follows the appalling example he set.
The story of how Britain’s immigration spiralled out of control after 1997 is perhaps one of the greatest examples of how blind Leftlib belief in experts can backfire.
In 2003, Home Office officials seized upon a report produced by Christian Dustmann, of University College London, in which it was estimated that – in the light of Poland’s access to EU free movement policy – around 13,000 Poles would arrive in the UK during 2004.
In fact, 430,000 turned up during the following three years…so the “expert” research was wrong by 91%.
All this was happening on Tony Blair’s…
View original post 2,064 more words
First off, a slight correction as to my speculations yesterday regards the Tommy Robinson affair. Apparently, Robinson was aware of reporting restrictions on the case. He simply did not understand why these restrictions were in place, namely to avoid jury contamination. Everyone has the right to fair trial. Similar restrictions are currently in place for several high-profile nationalist trials. We cannot complain about contempt rules only when it suits us. Readers will have decide for themselves whether or not Robinson’s actions were deliberately intended to a) jeopardise potential convictions and/or b) to deflect attention away from my case. The most relevant point is that it is indeed the issue of free speech which is the prime motivator of current support for Robinson. We now need to open his supporters’ eyes to those who are in fact behind the desire to further limit our most precious of freedoms.
Meet the Tommy Robinson supporters – BBC Newsnight
Published on Jul 18, 2018
Tommy Robinson was jailed in May after he admitted contempt of court by filming outside Leeds Crown Court in the UK during a trial.
Subscribe to our channel here: https://goo.gl/31Q53F
Here Gabriel Gatehouse meets the people who are fighting to free Tommy Robinson.
You also hear from the leader of UKIP Gerard Batten who has taken up Robinson’s cause.
Warning: This piece contains strong language and language that some may find very offensive.
Rather Tellingly Comments are Disabled on this Video
BBC News – Tommy Robinson on why he quit English Defence League https://t.co/1yjnQfTKh4
— GrubStreetJournal (@GrubStreetJorno) July 12, 2019
I read an essay about Henry Kissinger’s Doctoral Thesis yesterday, http://www.classicsofstrategy.com/…/henry-kissinger-a…. It is a very good essay and explains well how Governments find it difficult to justify Real Politick at home, it contrasts Metternick the Austrian Diplomats experience of the Phenomenon with that of Castlereagh the British Foreign Secretary and their roles in the Vienna Treaty of 1815 post the Napoleonic wars. This treaty lasted well up to the momentous events of 1848 a period between the French revolutions and the Myriad revolutions of 1848.
´´but criticism should have been directed rather at the hypocrisy and lack of realism in the ideals of the wartime propaganda and at the lack of honesty of the chief negotiators in carrying on the pretense that these ideals were still in effect while they violated them daily, and necessarily violated them. The settlements were clearly made by secret negotiations, by the Great Powers exclusively, and by power politics. They had to be. No settlements could ever have been made on any other bases. The failure of the chief negotiators (at least the Anglo-Americans) to admit this is regrettable, but behind their reluctance to admit it is the even more regrettable fact that the lack of political experience and political education of the American and English electorates made it dangerous for the negotiators to admit the facts of life in international political relationships.”
In Part 1 we look at the sweep of dominant narratives built upon 2000 years of the Judaeo Christian Tradition and contrast it to the Orthodoxy of Abrahamic verbal Torah tradition.
I noticed this exchange in the off guardian discussion about the #DumberandDouma false Flag attempted half baked Casus Belli.
What is the direction of travel and the main narrative embedded in the Narrative of the past 40 years? The Rules-Based International Order or ( New World Order ) Narratives.
1. Globalisation and Urbanisation.
2.PetroDollar Hegemony. Addiction to Oil.
4. Overshoot Overpopulation
5. Elitism, Starfucking worship of ”The Elites**
the idea before it was clothed in words
Parmenides or Heraclitus navigators both
If centuries be epochs with peculiar discretion