General

“Normal People”: British White Nationalists in Recent Academic Studies

“People are really rather afraid that this country might be swamped by people of a different culture. The British character has done so much for democracy, for law, and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped, then people are going to be rather hostile to those coming in.”
Margaret Thatcher, February 1978.

An acquaintance recently forwarded me an interesting news item from England. It would appear that the background of one Duncan Weldon, the new economics correspondent for the BBC’s flagship current affairs show Newsnight, has been sending shivers down the spine of those who stalk the halls of power. Weldon’s unforgivable error seems to be that he “flirted” with the “far Right” in his college days, and participated in a leafleting campaign in 2000 organized by the British National Party (BNP), Britain’s largest movement that explicitly advocates for the interests of the White majority.

Weldon, to my eyes at least, appears to be a political opportunist. He describes his brief “flirtation” with the BNP as “misguided” and points out that he went on to carve out a career for himself as a dedicated Leftist, attacking conservative policies with all the fabled zeal of the convert. While some have pointed out that Weldon might be unsuitable for the position because of his current role at the Trades Union Congress as well as a marked lack of journalistic experience, the heaviest criticism has been laced with insinuations that links to White Nationalism, and in particular to the BNP, render Weldon permanently unsuitable for any position of public prominence. An article at Breitbart.com accuses “the former fascist,” of having a “flirtation with the works of Oswald Mosley” because Weldon once blogged that he read Robert Skidelsky’s biography of the war-time leader of the British Union of Fascists. (It would appear that the author of that particular piece needs reminding that reading a biography of someone is not the same thing as reading their works and that reading the works of someone is not the same as endorsing them. Else, God forbid, I would be accused of endorsing the ethnocentric ravings of Anthony Julius.)

The heaviest condemnation has come from the Conservative party politician, Andrew Bridgen, who has said: “Given the revelations about his secret BNP past, it is clear Mr Weldon is unsuitable for a position in our national broadcaster.”

Those wishing to ensure that a wolf does not penetrate the fold need not be so alarmist. It is likely that Weldon never held a single conviction during his dabble with White Nationalism, and it should put more than a few minds at rest that Weldon has the approval of the Newsnight editor Ian Katz, a South African Jew, as well as that of the BBC Creative Director, Alan Yentob, a British Jew.

Needless to say, the Beeb is in no danger of any enthusiasm for the interests of the  indigenous population of the UK. The “Guardian trained”  Katz has previously been the subject of criticism for being an unabashed and relentless promoter of “diversity.” The ire-provoking incident in question was Katz’s choice of two women, one Black and one Sri Lankan, to discuss what one Daily Mail columnist described as a “report about (White, male) American scientists who’ve detected the origins of the universe.”

Maggie

Sky at Night presenter Maggie Aderin-Pocock discusses the origins of the universe as revealed by White males on Newsnight.

A former deputy-editor of the Guardian, Katz was once a graduate trainee at the Sunday Correspondent along with fellow Jewish journalist Jonathan Freedland. Freedland is also keen on diversity. Responding to the 2011 British census, Freedland pointed out that “the country is now less white and less Christian. In 2001, white people accounted for 91% of the total population. In the latest census, that figure is down five points to 86%.” Freedland reported gleefully that “White Britons have become a minority in London, accounting for only 45% of the city’s population,” and ended with the astonishing remark that “the main story is surely that this country has undergone a radical transformation in this last decade and the ones before — and it has done so with relative peace and relative calm. No one will hand out any gold medals for that, but it’s a kind of triumph all the same.” A triumph for whom, Mr. Freedland?

Read more

Pak Attack: Human Rights with a Vibrant Twist

“May you live in interesting times” runs the Chinese curse. You could also say: “May you live in an interesting country.” Pakistan, for example. It’s full of corruption, violence, misogyny, sectarian hatred and all manner of other pathologies, from cousin marriage to state torture. Any advanced Western democracy would be lunatic to accept immigrants from Pakistan. But Britain is run by lunatics and traitors, so we’re now enriched by huge numbers of Pakistanis and their vibrant Muslim culture.

This makes Britain an ever more interesting country. Sometimes the extra interest supplied by Pakistanis is horrific: suicide-bombing, rape-gangs and deformed children. But sometimes it’s humorous. This is what happens a rich middle-class Pakistani enters the very liberal field of International Human Rights Law:

 

Hassan Niazi, master of human rights

Hassan Niazi, master of human rights

Student nephew of Imran Khan in row over ‘homophobic’ tweets

The nephew of Pakistani politician Imran Khan has sparked controversy at his university, after he tweeted that a politician was “worse than a faggot”. Hassan Niazi, who is studying for a master’s in international human rights law at City University London, was a candidate for the position of student union president when the tweet about Bilawal Bhutto, of the Pakistan People’s Party, was picked up by student journalists. Read more

The Germans refuse to play Ball

Transl. Michael Colhaze

The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel (Daily Mirror) launched an online survey on March 6th, asking its readers in faulty German of how the West should react with regard to Russia’s incursions into Ukraine. What follows were the different answers from which the readers could choose.

  • Russia’s exclusion from the G8 summit should be considered 
  • The conflict can be only solved diplomatically, and the G8 summit is important in this respect
  • Western censure is hypocritical, since Russia defends legitimate interests
  • If the escalation continues, a military intervention by NATO forces should not be excluded

Freeman

By four o’clock in the afternoon, 9420 readers had answered the survey, and what they had to say filled the presstitutes from the Tagesspiegel with sheer horror.  Because only a puny four percent, and we know who those are, favoured a military intervention by NATO forces. Whereas a staggering seventy eight percent believed that Western  hacks like Kerry or Merkel were mere hypocrites and that Russia defended indeed legitimate interests.

So what happened? At four o’clock and five minutes, the survey was abruptly taken off the net  and never seen again. Which clearly indicates that the propaganda lies of our hostile elite and their once invincible  media outlets are losing ground. And which, as you will agree, is a ray of hope in the murky Western skies, particularly since the once so totally indoctrinated and docile Germans are seemingly waking up.

Freeman of All Noise and Smoke , posted Saturday, 8 March 2014

Breaking up Ukraine along ethnic lines

In an earlier article on competing nationalisms in Ukraine, I suggested that states like Ukraine with large ethnic divisions should be divided into relatively ethnically homogeneous societies. This derives from the idea of what Frank Salter terms “universal nationalism”—that all peoples should be able to live in ethnically homogeneous states free of the conflict that is breaking up Ukraine now.

But now the plan to have a referendum is being described as “illegitimate” and “illegal”:

“No one in the civilized world” will recognize the validity of the referendum initiated by pro-Russian representatives in Crimea’s regional assembly and scheduled March 16, warned Ukraine’s interim Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk. He harshly repudiated those agitating for Crimea to break away from Ukraine and join Russia as “separatists and other traitors.”

The plebiscite has been dismissed by Western nations as illegal, a political charade backed by the guns of Russian troops that have surrounded Ukrainian military bases on the strategically important peninsula for days.

But the proposed change in status for Crimea has been rapturously welcomed in Moscow. As thousands of people flooded Red Square to chant support of President Vladimir Putin and of annexing Crimea, members of the Russian parliament promised to expedite the region’s accession to Russia after the vote. Read more

Arnon Milchan at the Oscars

In my article on Abe Foxman’s retirement, I discussed Foxman’s letter complaining that Jonathan Pollard’s continuing incarceration is “an intimidation that can only be based on an anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jewish community, one that we have seen confirmed in our public opinion polls over the years, the belief that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country, the United States.  … So Pollard stays in prison as a message to American Jews: don’t even think about doing what he did.”

My response was that Foxman should be happy about the long list of Jews who should have been imprisoned for spying on behalf of Israel but were not. And now we have the outrageous example of Arnon Michan not only admitting  that he stole nuclear secrets on behalf of Israel, but continues his high profile life in Hollywood with no fear of prosecution (“Admitted Spy Shows Up for Oscars — and Wins“). Michan was at the Oscar ceremony because his film, 12 Years a Slave, was nominated (and won) the Oscar for Best Picture.

Though Milchan, an Israeli citizen, admitted in November that he engaged in espionage against the U.S for many years, including helping to smuggle American nuclear bomb parts to Israel, his appearance at the Oscars was pretty much proof not all spies are treated equally.

Forbes columnist Dorothy Pomerantz, who writes about Hollywood for the magazine, noted in her morning after rundown of the Oscars, “The Billionaire Winners of the 2014 Academy Awards,” that it is “unlikely the admission will affect his standing in the film industry.”

Since revealing his “James Bond”-like past on Israeli television in November, Milchan has apparently not generated interest among U.S. law enforcement agencies. The FBI won’t even acknowledge that it investigated him previously (it has) and would not say it has plans to interview him about his spying activities now that he’s admitted to them. …

Grant Smith, author of Divert, about the decades-long Israeli operation to funnel U.S. nuclear secrets, uranium and parts to Israel, was not surprised that Milchan was “unconcerned and on stage” at the Oscars. Smith said Milchan has dodged prosecution for more than 30 years, even as a colleague in the smuggling of nuclear triggers, Richard Kelley Smyth, ultimately was arrested and jailed.

What has made Milchan untouchable, according to Smith, is his connections. These include long time associations with Israeli leaders including Shimon Peres and current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who worked at Heli Trading, a Milchan front company used for smuggling, according to Smith, who cites Justice Department documents that he acquired through the Freedom of Information Act.

So cheer up, Abe. It could be a lot worse.

Tony Obama: A Guide to Gas, Greed and Gold

A progressive young leader sweeps into power on a tide of euphoria, consigning a discredited right-wing regime to history. He promises huge changes to his jubilant supporters, vowing to re-shape politics and govern for the benefit of the ordinary and the oppressed, not for the mega-rich who waxed fat under his predecessors. Adoring profiles of the new leader fill the media, portraying him with his wife and children as they settle into their roles at the heart of national life. But alas! In the years ahead, he will deliver crushing disappointment to his supporters while channeling lots more money to the mega-rich.

I’ve just described the election of the gasbag lawyer Tony Blair in 1997. But I could just as well have been describing the election of the gasbag lawyer Barack Obama in 2008. The resemblance between the two men is uncanny, right down to the pathological narcissism, the repulsive, grasping wives and the rumours about secret homosexuality. But the chief resemblance is that both men are lying conmen who promised the moon and delivered hot air.

I saw it coming with Blair: after his victory in 1997, I commented on the euphoria by inventing a new dating system. In a letter to a friend, I said it was now 1 Anno Blairi, the First Year of Tony. It was obvious that Blair would never deliver the miracles he loudly promised. And he didn’t. When Barack Obama first appeared in the British media, I realized that he was a tinted version of Blair, full of fine words and fake promises. So I knew what was ahead once he was elected. Read more

Canard sighting: Jonathan Tobin in Commentary

One has the feeling that the pro-Israel community in the U.S. is increasingly on the defensive. Jonathan Tobin’s “Anti-Zionists Must Not Be Allowed to Hijack the Jewish Community” is Abe Foxmanesque in its tone of embattled righteousness — and for two (two!) uses of the canard strategy (i.e., the strategy  that if a belief related to Jews is common, it must be false and so obviously false that there is no need to come up with rational arguments).

Canard #1:

This week the Jewish world is discussing two incidents in which large community institutions were forced to account for invitations to prominent writers who are virulent foes of Israel. In one case New York’s Jewish Museum was under fire for inviting academic Judith Butler. In another, the Museum of Jewish Heritage, also in New York, canceled an appearance by New Republic editor John Judis. What both these figures had in common was their bitter opposition to Israel. In Butler’s case, she is a prominent supporter of the BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) movement that seeks to wage economic war on the State of Israel. Judis is the author of a book that questions the legitimacy of Israel’s creation in a revisionist history of President Harry Truman’s role in the creation of the Jewish state, as historian Ron Radosh pointed out in the Jerusalem Post.

Taken together, along with other incidents in the last year involving other BDS supporters being invited to Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y, the decision by the two museums to let outraged members and donors derail the events is seen as a sign of a wave of repression in the American Jewish community. Sounding a theme that has become a constant refrain on the left, supporters of Israel are being accused of cracking down on dissent. But the issue here isn’t free speech or even whether Israel’s policies should be debated. It’s whether an extremist anti-Zionist minority will be able to hijack Jewish institutions.

The accusation about free speech is a canard.

Why is it a canard? Because both Butler and Judis can find other venues to spew their venom outside of venues within the Jewish community. The Jewish community itself should be spared having to listen to “the voices seeking Israel’s destruction.” (Judis has since been reinvited, doubtless infuriating Tobin.) Read more