The Historical Review Press

We are the world's leading publisher of revisionist and hard-to-find political material -- serving the truth and fearing no-one! Visit our home website here!

Search This Blog

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

BBC Maintains Treblinka Tall Story

I actually listened to programme on Radio 4 23/1/12 a 'witness' came up with this corker--that bodies buried for weeks oozed blood which was then ignited by a pile of bodies being incinerated by some nearby Ukranians, shades of the Talmudic all story where huge boulders were rolled to the sea by blood of Jews killed by the Romans at the seige of Bethar. I am reprising this video of the 2008 Australian survey of Treblinka using Ground Penetrating Radar in response to the BBC article claiming "Any doubts about the existence of mass graves at the Treblinka death camp in Poland are being laid to rest by the first survey of the site using tools that see below the ground, writes forensic archaeologist Caroline Sturdy Colls." The Australian survey found no evidence of mass graves, and they released the actual data from the ground penetrating radar. In this article (and note that comments are not allowed) none of the raw data is shown. We are just supposed to take the word of the BBC, even though we have caught them in a lie in the very first sentence of the article. The survey reported in the BBC article was not the first, and doubts have not been put to rest by the uncovering of yet another lie. TREBLINKA INVESTIGATION

Monday, 23 January 2012

One Law for Jews in the USA?

Can you imagine if this newspaper were the Atlanta Muslim Times, or the Atlanta Arab News? The FBI would be raiding the office within seconds. The Editor would be held for treason. Every person on the staff would be arrested, the newspaper shut down, the building that housed the office would be demolished, and every American news outlet would have this as their leading story. But since this is a Jewish newspaper, the editor gets off scot-free. There is no FBI raid, there is no arrests, no shut down, no office building demolished, and not one word in the American media. You have to go to the Israeli media to get the story. This is what's called in America as the "Jewish Double Standard." G The Occidental Observer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: 22 Jan 2012 09:29 AM PST Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, wrote an editorial saying Israel should consider assassinating Barack Obama. He wasn’t necessarily saying that they should assassinate Obama. Only that it should be one option on the table. Here’s how Adler laid out “option three” in his list of scenarios facing Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu (the column, which was forwarded to us by a tipster, isn’t online, but you can read a copy here): Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies. Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles? Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike? You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table. Notice how confident he is that our “strategic ally” has already discussed assassinating Obama. And, no, he hasn’t been arrested, in case you’re wondering. But the FBI is investigating. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The article has brought down scathing rebuke from the organized Jewish community, including the ADL’s Abe Foxman, and Adler has apologized. But there is some historical precedent for such a strategy. As reported by JTA, Harry Truman’s daughter, Margaret Truman Daniel, claimed in her 1972 biography of Truman that letter bombs were sent in 1947 by the terrorist Stern Group intended for the president. The same allegation was made in a 1949 book by a White House staffer in charge of reading the mail. The leader of the Stern Group denied it, pointing out that there was no motive, since Truman was more sympathetic to Zionism than FDR. However, Truman was certainly not a staunch Zionist in 1947, although he did ultimately capitulate to Jewish pressure (and money) when he recognized Israel over the strong objections of the military and foreign policy establishment. In any case, it’s clear that the Stern Group did use this tactic: Yalin-Mor [head of the Stern Group] … readily acknowledged that the Sternists resorted to letter bombs but insisted that they were sent only to British leaders during the waning years of the Palestine Mandate and not to any other nationals. He said there was nothing to be gained from driving other sympathetic nations into the arms of the British. It’s quite clear that from the beginning Zionism has been characterized by ruthless pursuit of its goals, particularly by the ultra-nationalists who are now in power and are set to dominate Israeli politics in the future. After all, the current Likud-dominated government of Israel is the direct descendant of the Stern Group and its ilk who were inspired by Jewish racial nationalist Vladimir Jabotinsky. These are the groups that carried out the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre. Their descendants are the force behind current Israeli policies of apartheid, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and the crusade for war with Iran. It’s not surprising that Adler’s letter would be condemned by today’s Jewish establishment, but one suspects a bit of hypocrisy. In the realm of ethnic politics, the only criterion is what works, and I am quite certain that Abe Foxman understands that.

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

When is a terrorist not a terrorist – and war with Iran or not?

When is a terrorist not a terrorist – and war with Iran or not? By Alan Hart 16 January 2012 Alan Hart views the USA’s traditional tolerance of Israeli terrorist activities – and abuse of the alliance with the US – and wonders whether this tolerance will extend to providing cover for an Israeli attack on Iran, even if this is not endorsed by Washington. The longer and complete form of the first question in the headline is – “When is a terrorist not a terrorist in the eyes of the Obama administration (not to mention all of its predecessors) and the governments of the Western world?” Answer: When he or she is an Israeli Mossad agent or asset. Israeli agents recruit terrorists In the case of the assassination of Iranian scientists, the Mossad’s assets are almost certainly members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), also known as the Peoples’ Mujahedin of Iran, which is committed to overthrowing the regime of the ruling mullahs. Many of its activists are based in Iraqi Kurdistan where Mossad has a substantial presence. It does the training there, selects the targets in Iran and provides the bombs and other weapons, and MKO members do the actual killing. It’s reasonable to presume that Mossad is more comfortable operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan with Iranian MKO assets than it was when its own agents were posing as CIA officers to recruit members of Jundallah, a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization, to carry out assassinations and attacks on installations and facilities in Iran. Some of the essence of that Israeli false flag operation has been revealed by Mark Perry in an article for Foreign Policy. His report is based on information he acquired about memos buried deep in the archives of America’s intelligence services which were written in the last years of President George “Dubya” Bush’s administration, plus conversations he had with two currently serving US intelligence officials and four retired intelligence officers who worked for the CIA or monitored Israeli intelligence operations from senior positions inside the US government. “It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with. Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn’t give a damn about what we thought.” US intelligence official According to Perry’s sources, one of whom has seen the memos, the Mossad agents who were posing as CIA agents to recruit Jundallah operatives had American passports and were “flush” with American dollars. The memos tell the story of an investigation which debunked reports from 2007 and 2008 accusing the CIA, at the direction of the White House, of covertly supporting Jundallah. The investigation apparently showed that the US “had barred even the most incidental contact with Jundallah”. The memos also gave details of CIA field reports on Mossad’s recruitment of Jundallah operatives, mainly in London and “under the nose of US intelligence officials”. One rule for Israel, another for the rest of the world Perry’s sources confessed to being “stunned by the brazenness of Mossad’s efforts.” And one of them said: “It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with. Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn’t give a damn about what we thought.” I take issue with the first part of that statement. What is really amazing is not what Mossad and almost of Israel’s political and military leaders think they can get away with, but what they know they can get away with because of the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress on all matters relating to policy for the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. And that in turn is why, generally speaking, Israel’s leaders don’t give a damn about what American administrations think. They come and go but the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress is a permanent fixture. (In private conversation with General Moshe Dayan when he was Israel’s defence minister, I once summed up Israel’s unspeakable but implicit message to the governments of the world in the following way. “We know we shouldn’t have done this but we’ve done it because we also know there’s nothing you can do about it.” Dayan didn’t comment but the look on his face said something like, “You’re right but I’m not going to say so.”) Though Israel doesn’t usually comment on reports about Mossad’s activities, a senior government spokesman described Perry’s account of Mossad agents posing as CIA agents as “absolute nonsense”. As I was reading the denial I used a Jimmy Carter expression – “BS” (Bull Shit). “These are shameful acts by a shameful Israeli government exploiting Iranian terrorists for their own ends. I find it disgusting that Israel can get away with such acts with impunity.” Richard Silverstein, US journalist After the latest assassination of an Iranian scientist, Rick Santorum, the right-wing religious joker in the pack of Republican presidential hopefuls, said this: “On occasions scientists working on the nuclear programme in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing.” A different view was offered by Jewish American journalist Richard Silverstein. For his weblog Tikun Olam he wrote this: “These are shameful acts by a shameful Israeli government exploiting Iranian terrorists for their own ends. I find it disgusting that Israel can get away with such acts with impunity.” Disgusting it certainly is but there’s no mystery about why Israel can commit crimes, including acts of naked state terrorism, without fear of being called and held to account for them by the UN Security Council. When after the 1967 war it refused to label the Zionist state as the aggressor and require it to withdraw from the newly occupied Arab lands without conditions, it effectively created, at the insistence of the US, two sets of rules for the behaviour of nations: one set for all the nations of the world minus Israel and the other exclusively for Israel. That was the birth of the double standard which is the cancer at the heart of Western foreign policy. Now let’s pause for a moment to imagine what the response would have been if Iranian agents or assets had assassinated an Israeli scientist (just one) in the Zionist state. Led by America, Western governments would have bellowed their condemnation of the terrorism and pledged full support for all efforts to hunt the terrorists down and bring them to justice. And they would, of course, have blamed the government of Iran even if there was not one shred of evidence of its authorization. The assassination of an Israeli scientist might even have tipped the Washington decision-making balance in favour of the mad men who want the US either to attack Iran or give Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu the green light to go, with or without nuclear tipped, bunker-busting bombs. And Israel? How would it have responded? With or without a green light from President Barack Obama it almost certainly would have bombed selected targets in Iran, even if doing so was likely to set the region on fire and do vast damage to Western interests in the region and the whole Muslim world. (As I note in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, in the chapter headed “The Liberty Affair – Pure Murder on a Great Day”, the lesson of the cold-blooded Israeli attack on the American spy ship was that there is nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way.) Now, at the risk of inviting a charge from some and perhaps many readers that I am naive in the extreme, I have to say I am inclined to the view that the Obama administration was telling the truth when it strongly denied any American complicity in the latest Israeli/MKO assassination. The New York Times put it this way: The assassination drew an unusually strong condemnation from the White House and the State Department, which disavowed any American complicity... “The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to expand the denial beyond Wednesday’s killing, categorically denying any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran. The New York Times report then quoted Mrs Clinton as saying this: We believe that there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbours and the international community that finds a way forward for it to end its provocative behaviour, end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community, That in my opinion is code for something very like: “This administration is not completely mad. We know that an attack on Iran could have catastrophic consequences for the region and the world. Despite the mounting and awesome pressure we are under from Netanyahu and those who peddle his propaganda here in America, we know that the nuclear problem with Iran must be solved by jaw-jaw and not war-war.” How catastrophic the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran could be for the region and the world has been put into words by Philip Giraldi, currently the executive director of the Council for the National Interest and a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer. The scenario he presents under the headline "What war with Iran might look like" takes us all the way to World War III. So, I believe New York Times reporter Scott Shane was on the right track when he wrote that the statements by US officials appeared to reflect serious concern about the (Israeli/MKO) assassinations of Iranian scientists because they could “backfire” and make Iran’s leaders less willing to talk. And, I add, more willing to give in to those forces in Iran, the Revolutionary Guards in particular, who might well be saying that Iran must possess nuclear weapons for deterrence. “At executive level it [the Obama administration] is, I think, in a state of something close to total panic about what to do to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran if Netanyahu is not bluffing.” My guess is that US officials are also concerned by the possibility that more assassinations could provoke an Iranian response which would give Israel the pretext to attack. (It’s by no means impossible that the main purpose of the assassinations is to provoke an Iranian response to give Israel the pretext for an attack.) That brings me to my own speculation about what is really going on behind closed doors in the Obama administration. At executive level it is, I think, in a state of something close to total panic about what to do to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran if Netanyahu is not bluffing. My reading of Obama’s latest turn of the sanctions screw on Iran is that it’s his way of not only putting more pressure on the ruling mullahs. It’s also his way of saying to Netanyahu something like: “Give me more time to solve the Iranian nuclear problem by all means other than war.” Obama needs more time not only to try to get serious and substantive talks with Iran going but also to establish beyond any doubt whether Israeli threats to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities are a bluff (to put pressure on the US) or not. In an article for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz under the headline "Israel and US at odds over timetables and red lines for Iran", Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel wrote: Do [Israeli Defence Minister Ehud] Barak and Netanyahu really intend to attack on their own, or is Israel only trying to prod the West into more decisive action? That is the million-dollar question. It has been discussed intermittently for the past three years and it seems that Washington does not have a satisfactory answer to it. In a few days time General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is scheduled to arrive in Israel for talks with Ehud Barak, Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz and other senior Israeli defence and intelligence officials. “My guess is that whatever he may say in public after his meetings, [Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin] Dempsey will tell the Israelis in private that if they go to war with Iran they will be on their own.” Dempsey knows that when US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta met with Netanyahu and Barak last November, they refused to give him a commitment that Israel would not attack Iran without informing America of its intention to do so. If I am right about the panic in the Obama administration, my guess is that Dempsey will try to obtain the commitment Panetta failed to get. What if Dempsey does not succeed? My guess is that whatever he may say in public after his meetings, Dempsey will tell the Israelis in private that if they go to war with Iran they will be on their own. The US, I can almost hear him saying, will not become engaged except to defend its own national interests if and as necessary “because the American people, most of them, are tired of war”. He could add “and we don’t have the money to pay for it”. An interesting question for the coming days is something like this: what if Dempsey returns to Washington without being able to give behind-closed-doors assurance that Israel (despite what it might continue to say to the contrary in public for propaganda purposes) will not go it alone with an attack Iran? In theory there is a card President Obama could play. He could put Israel on public notice that if it attacked Iran and if as a consequence America’s own bests interests were harmed, the US would have to rethink its relationship with the “Jewish state”. A statement to that effect would imply that the days of America’s unconditional support for Israel right or wrong could be coming to an end. But that’s not a statement Obama could make this side of November’s presidential election. So, if Netanyahu is not bluffing, and if he was determined to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before November’s election, there’s nothing Obama could do to stop him, even knowing that the end game could be, as Giraldi speculated, World War III. My own view has always been that Netanyahu is bluffing to the extent that even he is not crazy enough to order an Israeli attack on Iran without a green light from the US and American cover and participation. I hope I am right. If I am it could be that General Dempsey will return to Washington with the news Obama wants and needs: that without a green light from the US, Israel will not bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Monday, 16 January 2012

Henry Kissinger: "If You Can't Hear the Drums of War You Must Be Deaf"

Henry Kissinger: "If You Can't Hear the Drums of War You Must Be Deaf" NEW YORK - USA - In a remarkable admission by former Nixon era Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, reveals what is happening at the moment in the world and particularly the Middle East. Speaking from his luxurious Manhattan apartment, the elder statesman, who will be 89 in May, is all too forward with his analysis of the current situation in the world forum of Geo-politics and economics. "The United States is bating China and Russia, and the final nail in the coffin will be Iran, which is, of course, the main target of Israel. We have allowed China to increase their military strength and Russia to recover from Sovietization, to give them a false sense of bravado, this will create an all together faster demise for them. We're like the sharp shooter daring the noob to pick up the gun, and when they try, it's bang bang. The coming war will will be so severe that only one superpower can win, and that's us folks. This is why the EU is in such a hurry to form a complete superstate because they know what is coming, and to survive, Europe will have to be one whole cohesive state. Their urgency tells me that they know full well that the big showdown is upon us. O how I have dreamed of this delightful moment." "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." Mr Kissinger then added: "If you are an ordinary person, then you can prepare yourself for war by moving to the countryside and building a farm, but you must take guns with you, as the hordes of starving will be roaming. Also, even though the elite will have their safe havens and specialist shelters, they must be just as careful during the war as the ordinary civilians, because their shelters can still be compromised." After pausing for a few minutes to collect his thoughts, Mr Kissinger, carried on: "We told the military that we would have to take over seven Middle Eastern countries for their resources and they have nearly completed their job. We all know what I think of the military, but I have to say they have obeyed orders superfluously this time. It is just that last stepping stone, i.e. Iran which will really tip the balance. How long can China and Russia stand by and watch America clean up? The great Russian bear and Chinese sickle will be roused from their slumber and this is when Israel will have to fight with all its might and weapons to kill as many Arabs as it can. Hopefully if all goes well, half the Middle East will be Israeli. Our young have been trained well for the last decade or so on combat console games, it was interesting to see the new Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 game, which mirrors exactly what is to come in the near future with its predictive programming. Our young, in the US and West, are prepared because they have been programmed to be good soldiers, cannon fodder, and when they will be ordered to go out into the streets and fight those crazy Chins and Russkies, they will obey their orders. Out of the ashes we shall build a new society, there will only be one superpower left, and that one will be the global government that wins. Don't forget, the United States, has the best weapons, we have stuff that no other nation has, and we will introduce those weapons to the world when the time is right." End of interview. Our reporter is ushered out of the room by Kissinger's minder. dailysquib.

Sunday, 15 January 2012

lan Dershowitz: The Zionist Caricature

Alan Dershowitz: The Zionist Caricature By Gilad Atzmon Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, January 9, 2012 Could it be that Zionist-caricature Alan Dershowitz has resorted to comedy as he desperately tries to win his battle against me and my book? What else could explain this intellectually retarded Zionist mouthpiece’s repetition of the same old lies? A few years ago Norman Finkelstein established that Dershowitz is a plagiarist, but now Dershowitz extends this infamous title - Now, he’s actually plagiarising his own phantasmic fibs! Just a week before Hanukah, fancying himself as a bit of a music critic, Dershowitz described me as an ‘obscure saxophonist’. This was amusing enough, but yesterday Dershowitz elaborated on his notion of ‘obscurity’. In an embarrassingly unimaginative and vindictive article he called Chicago University Professor of Philosophy Brian Leiter a “relatively obscure professor of jurisprudence”. For a native English speaker (and a Harvard Professor) Dershowitz sure has a limited English vocabulary. Professor Leiter’s crime was obvious enough: he stood up for freedom of expression and open debate. He defended Professor John Mearsheimer who has endorsed ‘The Wandering Who’ and refused to bow to vile and relentless Zionist pressure to withdraw his praise for the book. To read Professor Leiter’s article click here. Ethnic cleanser advocate Dershowitz writes. “Without bothering even to read Atzmon's book, Leiter pronounced that Atzmon's ‘positions [do not mark him] as an anti-Semite [but rather as] cosmopolitan.’ Leiter also certified that Atzmon ‘does not deny the Holocaust or the gas chambers.’ Had Leiter read the book, he could not have made either statement.” Dershowitz sure has some chutzpah, since it’s actually he who didn’t read ‘The Wandering Who’. If he had, he would have seen that in the book and in all my writing I neither deny nor do I affirm any historical aspect of the Holocaust, gas chambers or the Judeocide in general. Instead, I insist that history cannot be sealed by laws. I also insist that intellectual curiosity and our knowledge of the past cannot be vetted or confined by anyone, let alone such morbid minds as that of Dershowitz himself. Open society is about the openness to think freely and to express those thoughts. Dershowitz’ continues “Atzmon himself credits ‘a man who…was an anti-Semite’ for ‘many of [his] insights’ and calls himself a ‘self-hating Jew’ who has contempt for ‘the Jew in me (him).’ If that's not an admission of anti-Semitism, rather than ‘cosmopolitanism.’” But is this really an ‘admission of antisemitism’? Let’s examine Dershowitz’ intentionally lame, convoluted and misleading argument. To start with, the ‘Antisemite’ whom I indeed follow, is Otto Weininger, one of the most influential intellects of pre- WWII Europe. But, it is not Weininger’s alleged ‘antisemitism’ that I follow as I clearly note in my book, but actually Weininger the genius philosopher. It is also true that I am a ‘self hater’ and even a ‘proud self hater’ - an intellectual position still legal in the West. It is also true that I oppose the ‘Jew’ in me, but how does that make me into an antisemite? By opposing the Jew in me, I oppose only an ideology. Basically, I reject all the symptoms Dershowitz and other Zionists manifest in every and each of their relentless Judeo-centric hasbara campaigns i.e. supremacy, duplicity, brutality, vindictivess, ignorance and arrogance. Furthermore, I do not and cannot oppose or hate the ‘Semite’ in me. This is simply because there is no such a quality in me. Unlike Dershowitz and his Zionists ilk, I do not think in racial terms. I am honest enough to admit that I am no ‘Semite’ and that my ancestry lies not in Palestine. I am probably some kind of Khazarian mongrel – as is Dershowitz and most European Jews. Dershowitz continues, “Leiter went so far as to condemn those who dared to criticize Mearsheimer for endorsing Atzmon's book, calling their criticism ‘hysterical’ and not ‘advance[ing] honest intellectual discourse.” Professor Leiter is actually spot- on in here. Prophetically he manages to describe Dershowitz’ tantrum - the Zionist advocate is clearly hysterical as he tries desperately to block intellectual debate and exchange. On numerous occasions I have invited Dershowitz for a debate, but it seems the Zionist caricature would not or could not take the risk. Dershowitz is evidently as much a coward as he is a loudmouth. Towards the end of his rant as Dershowitz reaches his climax, Professor Leiter becomes just a category namely ‘the Leiters’. “The Leiters of the world”, says Dershowitz, “are an important part of the reason why anti-Semitic tropes are creeping back to legitimacy in academia.” This has left me puzzled. What about the ‘remote’ possibility that it is actually the Dershowitzes of the world who, by their misbehaviour and by their support of the criminal Jewish State, are bringing shame and even disaster, God forbid, on the Jews? I cannot understand how one of America’s alleged ‘leading lawyers’ can fail to see that his shameless behaviour may well be the root cause of the rapidly emerging anti-Jewish feelings in America and beyond. But it seems as if Professor Leiter, Professor Richard Falk, Professor Mearsheimer and myself are not alone. According to Zionist-parody Dershowitz, we are in a good company. Leading Republican Candidate Ron Paul has also found his way into becoming a target for Dershowitz’ impotent rage. Paul is accused of being affiliated with, guess what, ‘anti semitism’ and ‘holocaust denial’. For some reason, Dershowitz, one of the most despised Zionists ever, seems to believe that he holds the moral high ground. “Shame on them!” he proclaims referring to Professor Leiter and Ron Paul. Well, Dershowitz must know quite a bit about shame - He sure brings a lot of it on himself and on every Jew and Zionist foolish enough to associate with him and his message. To read a complete deconstruction of Dershowitz' lies click here. To read the Dershowitz attack on Rep Ron Paul Professor Leiter and myself click here. Gilad Atzmon's New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Zionist tricks ..

Thursday, 5 January 2012

Did Police massage Forensics to get a result?

London - Yesterday, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on both defendants in a murder case that has caused controversy from its very beginning, nearly 19 years ago on a South London street. But has justice been done? The headline on page 10 of London Metro on December 16 last was Norris's mother 'faked Stephen stabbing alibi', the quote's signify this was simply an allegation rather than a fact. An enormous number of allegations have been made in this case over the years, but the elephant in the courtroom was the allegation that neither of the QCs defending these two men appears to have had the courage to make, that is that the new forensic evidence may have been and indeed probably was faked by a police officer assigned to this case, or perhaps more than one working in collusion. Before tackling that issue though, for those who are not au fait with the case, some background can be found here, while more detail and some analysis made some 6 years ago can be found here. In all humility, this analysis has, and will, stand the test of time. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the one of the first news reports broadcast in the wake of the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris, in particular this one by ITN. As well as announcing the verdict, this report simply parrots the nonsense spouted by ill-informed people at the time and later, including Doreen Lawrence. While it may seem distateful to criticise a grieving mother, it is necessary to view even the most heinous of murders dispassionately. The mindless parroting of the mantra racist, racist, racist is not helpful; the protesters shown in this video are carrying placards produced by the Socialist Workers Party, an organisation that is so blinded by its own political agenda that it finds racism everywhere. Among other things it supported uncritically convicted murderer Satpal Ram, and its take on the mindless criminality of the August riots is a marvel to behold. The Stephen Lawrence case was not about racism, it was about justice; no one should be murdered while simply standing on the public highway waiting for a bus, and when someone is, the killer(s) should be brought to justice. Clearly that was not the case here, but first let us deal with the criticisms made of the police at the time. Were they fair? The claim by Doreen Lawrence that they were afraid to get black blood on them was certainly not fair. When the police are called to a violent incident it is often unclear who is the protagonist and who is the innocent party - if anyone is innocent - or who is hurt and how badly. Although Stephen Lawrence had clearly been stabbed, no one apart from his friend Duwayne Brooks seemed to realise how badly he was injured. When it became clear that he had been stabbed severely, they did their best to help him, but if a busload of doctors rather than the police had turned up that night, they would not have been able to do anything for him, his injuries were fatal. The claim they should not have treated the murder as gang related is also wrong. Clearly it was gang related in a sense because Stephen Lawrence was attacked by a gang. Was it inappropriate or even racist for them to investigate the possibility that he himself had been a member of a gang? Clearly not, this would have been one of many lines of inquiry. While the police will generally do their best to keep the next of kin informed, it is not police procedure for them to keep up a running commentary, nor to make even grieving parents privy to evidence or operational matters. For one thing, however ludicrous it may appear to her, Doreen Lawrence herself would have been a suspect in a very general sense, as are all family, relatives and friends in any murder investigation, although she would have been ruled out very quickly. The claim that the police should have swooped on and arrested the prime suspects at the drop of a hat on the strength of two anonymous letters is also ill-considered. The criterion for arrest is reasonable suspicion (probable cause, as our American friends say). Can two anonymous letters - that were possibly written by the same person with mischievous intent - be called reasonable suspicion? In the early hours of December 27, 1999, Neville Lawrence, Stephen's father, was stopped by the police while driving his car in North London. A woman had reported being mugged by two black men in the area; Mr Lawrence and his passenger, his cousin, were black, and they were detained for about 20 minutes. He was apparently not too happy with this, indeed the aforementioned Socialist Workers Party is forever harping on about young black men being stopped and searched arbitrarily, but it is clear that in this case the stop was reasonable. Would an arrest or arrests have been reasonable in the Stephen Lawrence case at such an early stage, or did the police do the right thing by continuing to investigate and gather evidence? In its April 21, 2002 edition, the late and unlamented News Of The World claimed that the original suspects - the Acourt gang - of which Dobson and Norris were members - may actually have been innocent. No source is named, but it is claimed the Acourt gang had been on their way to fight another, the Coronet gang. Immediately after the verdict, the BBC screened a Panorama documentary - currently found here. This simply rehashes for the Nth time the nonsense about police incompetence and institutional racism. It also makes out Doreen Lawrence to be some kind of heroine, battling against the police and the judiciary, instead of a woman who was and remains ignorant of police methodology. This is the story of how an ordinary family exposed the mighty Metropolitan Police as “institutionally racist”. No, it did not! This programme had clearly been in preparation for some considerable time because it accompanied Doreen Lawrence to her native Jamaica where she and her now ex-husband sent their son's body to be buried. The best thing we did, she said, was to bring him here, because the UK didn't deserve him. Now who's being racist? The police weren't interested in catching Stephen's killers, she said; they assumed it must have been gang related. Again, this was a reasonable line of inquiry. The covert police surveillance video of the gang is paraded as almost beyond belief, almost beyond bearing, according to one commentator. And the lesson of this is? To begin with, this is evidence of contemptible youths - as many of us are when we are young, contemptible of authority and sometimes the world. Haven't they heard of angry young men? Or bravado? They were simply trash talking to their peers. Having said that, most kids grow out of this sort of thing. The other thing this video shows is that people who eavesdrop on the conversations of others seldom hear anything good about themselves. As well as disparaging blacks, the Acourt gang had some strong words to say about the police, not unreasonably if they were indeed innocent. The real issue though is by what legal authority does Big Brother break into private premises and set up covert surveillance equipment to spy on not only possibly bona fide suspects but anyone else who uses those premises? The Panorama documentary has no criticisms to make of the Macpherson Inquiry, and its ludicrous conclusions and recommendations. Certainly neither Macpherson's ludicrous report nor the implementation of its recommendations changed the face of race relations in Britain for the better. The documentary does not mention either the payments Doreen and Neville received from the Metropolitan Police. In February 2000 it was reported that having already rejected a settlement of £175,000 - settlement for what? - they were set to receive £320,000 which included, £98,898 for loss of earnings caused by psychiatric illness, and £7,000 for trips abroad to relieve stress. As the saying goes, you couldn't make it up. Finally, the documentary does not mention the shady antecedents of their lawyer, Imran Khan, the man who stood next to Doreen Lawrence outside the Central Criminal Court as she spoke after the conviction of Dobson and Norris. Khan is - or rather was - an uncritical supporter of not murder victim but rightly convicted murderer Satpal Ram. On November 17, 1999, he along with Neville Lawrence no less, attended a meeting at the House of Commons in support of Ram. One of the things this meeting called for was “The right of a person to defend themself against a racist attack has to be recognised.” Including presumably the right to carry an illegal weapon - a flick knife. Amazing, isn't it? The innocent Stephen Lawrence was stabbed twice in the chest by an armed thug who disappeared into the night. And Satpal Ram was an armed thug who stabbed an innocent man in the back twice then disappeared into the night. Shame on you, Imran, and shame on you Neville, for allowing your son's name to be mentioned in the same breath as a murderer who treated another innocent victim the same way your son was treated. Having disposed of the Panorama programme, let us return to the trial. Dobson had two alibi witnesses: his parents. The mother of David Norris gave her son an alibi. Neither of these were believed. The jacket on which the blood of Stephen Lawrence was allegedly found belonged to Dobson; he denied wearing it. Certainly no one reported any of the attackers wearing such a jacket on the night of the murder, and it is nothing if distinctive, even under street lights. The person who wielded the knife was also distinctive, and was not one of the Acourt gang. One other thing should be added to the above, this is the fact that since 1993 not one of the principal suspects has said or had attributed to him the slightest incriminating statement. Bearing in mind that none of them is exactly doctorate material, this desideratum also points towards innocence. Thus the jury was faced with, on the one hand, inconclusive and indeed negative evidence of guilt - eyewitness testimony - and forensics which were at best dubious. Could there be another explanation besides accidental contamination? Of course, fabrication. This was no ordinary cold case review; if the supposedly new forensics had pointed to an entirely new suspect, they would have been far more credible, but the fact remains that the public is reliant on the integrity of the police to handle forensics and other exhibits in good faith, and at the end of the day, we have only their word that they acted in good faith. Yet we know the police are capable of acting in not simply bad faith but no faith at all. The most reasonable explanation for the incriminating forensic evidence in this case, is that it was planted. If anyone doubts the police are capable of such perfidy, they should check out the case of Winston Silcott, whose conviction for the murder of PC Keith Blakelock (which was overturned on appeal) involved a massive conspiracy of bent coppers who fabricated his unsigned confession out of the whole cloth. It should also be noted that the Acourt gang were and are not the only suspects. There are still 9 potential suspects, which means that corruption aside, the police are keeping an open mind. At the end of the day, this case was not about racism or such nonsense, rather it was and remains about a culture of violence, guns and knives that permeates youths - of all races - in many of Britain's cities, and indeed in cities throughout the West if not throughout the world. The most disturibing things about this case though are the way it has been used not only to brainwash especially the young with the mantra of the “anti-racist” lobby, but to undermine the rule of law. This is the second time double jeopardy has been thrown out of the window. We can be sure it will not be the last, and that at some time in the not too distant future attempts will be made to weaken the criteria for prosecution after acquittal. Which will open the door to prosecuting the same person for the same alleged offence over and over again until the jury returns the right verdict. There is of course scant sympathy for either Gary Dobson or David Norris, but the next person to be hauled over the coals in this fashion probably won't be a nasty racist, he may even be black, and then we will see the usual suspects chanting the same mantra, but by then it will be too late. Read more:

Sunday, 1 January 2012

Robert Fisk-Bankers are the Dictators of the West

Writing from the very region that produces more clich├ęs per square foot than any other "story" – the Middle East – I should perhaps pause before I say I have never read so much garbage, so much utter drivel, as I have about the world financial crisis. But I will not hold my fire. It seems to me that the reporting of the collapse of capitalism has reached a new low which even the Middle East cannot surpass for sheer unadulterated obedience to the very institutions and Harvard "experts" who have helped to bring about the whole criminal disaster. Let's kick off with the "Arab Spring" – in itself a grotesque verbal distortion of the great Arab/Muslim awakening which is shaking the Middle East – and the trashy parallels with the social protests in Western capitals. We've been deluged with reports of how the poor or the disadvantaged in the West have "taken a leaf" out of the "Arab spring" book, how demonstrators in America, Canada, Britain, Spain and Greece have been "inspired" by the huge demonstrations that brought down the regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and – up to a point – Libya. But this is nonsense. The real comparison, needless to say, has been dodged by Western reporters, so keen to extol the anti-dictator rebellions of the Arabs, so anxious to ignore protests against "democratic" Western governments, so desperate to disparage these demonstrations, to suggest that they are merely picking up on the latest fad in the Arab world. The truth is somewhat different. What drove the Arabs in their tens of thousands and then their millions on to the streets of Middle East capitals was a demand for dignity and a refusal to accept that the local family-ruled dictators actually owned their countries. The Mubaraks and the Ben Alis and the Gaddafis and the kings and emirs of the Gulf (and Jordan) and the Assads all believed that they had property rights to their entire nations. Egypt belonged to Mubarak Inc, Tunisia to Ben Ali Inc (and the Traboulsi family), Libya to Gaddafi Inc. And so on. The Arab martyrs against dictatorship died to prove that their countries belonged to their own people. And that is the true parallel in the West. The protest movements are indeed against Big Business – a perfectly justified cause – and against "governments". What they have really divined, however, albeit a bit late in the day, is that they have for decades bought into a fraudulent democracy: they dutifully vote for political parties – which then hand their democratic mandate and people's power to the banks and the derivative traders and the rating agencies, all three backed up by the slovenly and dishonest coterie of "experts" from America's top universities and "think tanks", who maintain the fiction that this is a crisis of globalisation rather than a massive financial con trick foisted on the voters. The banks and the rating agencies have become the dictators of the West. Like the Mubaraks and Ben Alis, the banks believed – and still believe – they are owners of their countries. The elections which give them power have – through the gutlessness and collusion of governments – become as false as the polls to which the Arabs were forced to troop decade after decade to anoint their own national property owners. Goldman Sachs and the Royal Bank of Scotland became the Mubaraks and Ben Alis of the US and the UK, each gobbling up the people's wealth in bogus rewards and bonuses for their vicious bosses on a scale infinitely more rapacious than their greedy Arab dictator-brothers could imagine. I didn't need Charles Ferguson's Inside Job on BBC2 this week – though it helped – to teach me that the ratings agencies and the US banks are interchangeable, that their personnel move seamlessly between agency, bank and US government. The ratings lads (almost always lads, of course) who AAA-rated sub-prime loans and derivatives in America are now – via their poisonous influence on the markets – clawing down the people of Europe by threatening to lower or withdraw the very same ratings from European nations which they lavished upon criminals before the financial crash in the US. I believe that understatement tends to win arguments. But, forgive me, who are these creatures whose ratings agencies now put more fear into the French than Rommel did in 1940? Why don't my journalist mates in Wall Street tell me? How come the BBC and CNN and – oh, dear, even al-Jazeera – treat these criminal communities as unquestionable institutions of power? Why no investigations – Inside Job started along the path – into these scandalous double-dealers? It reminds me so much of the equally craven way that so many American reporters cover the Middle East, eerily avoiding any direct criticism of Israel, abetted by an army of pro-Likud lobbyists to explain to viewers why American "peacemaking" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be trusted, why the good guys are "moderates", the bad guys "terrorists". The Arabs have at least begun to shrug off this nonsense. But when the Wall Street protesters do the same, they become "anarchists", the social "terrorists" of American streets who dare to demand that the Bernankes and Geithners should face the same kind of trial as Hosni Mubarak. We in the West – our governments – have created our dictators. But, unlike the Arabs, we can't touch them. The Irish Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, solemnly informed his people this week that they were not responsible for the crisis in which they found themselves. They already knew that, of course. What he did not tell them was who was to blame. Isn't it time he and his fellow EU prime ministers did tell us? And our reporters, too?