Month: October 2023

Much Worse than Rotherham: How British Politicians, Police and Feminists Are Guilty of Systemic Rapism

This post was originally published in this blog on 25th November 2020.
British Politicians, Police and Feminists Are Guilty of Systemic Rapism. That is the serious charge laid by the author of this post, originally published by The Occidental Observer and written by Tobias Langdon. The scandal of the Pakistani-Muslim run child sex slave rackets that have grown up in dozens of British towns and cities, not all of them in the north, is something that the establishment still seeks to suppress. Politically motivated mostly Labour-run local councils, Police Commissioners, and the mainstream media all turn a blind eye to the criminal exploitation of young, vulnerable White children, who have no-one to protect them, at the hands of ruthless, inhumane and unimaginably cruel Asian migrants.

November 19, 2020

In the year 2000, the small Yorkshire town of Rotherham was little-known in Britain, let alone overseas. In 2020, Rotherham is infamous around the world as a place where Pakistani rape-gangs have been raping, prostituting and murdering working-class White girls for decades. Meanwhile, the staunchly socialist and fiercely feminist Labour council and Labour MP, Denis MacShane, helped the rapists by either ignoring their crimes or actively suppressing news of what was going on.

Piranha-enrichment programmes

In other words, Rotherham was the scene of systemic rapism, that is, of systemic collusion by politicians, police and feminists in an engrained Pakistani culture of rape and misogyny. But although the Rotherham rape-gangs are now world-infamous, a very important question about their activities has barely been asked by the British media. To see what that question is, let’s look at a simple allegory that even leftists should be able to understand. Suppose that next week a British journalist comes across a small lake in Yorkshire called Rotherpool and discovers that left-wing ecologists began enriching it in the 1950s by introducing piranhas to its boringly bland waters. Anyone who objected to the piranha-enrichment on behalf of native fish was accused of vile speciesism and sternly lectured that all fish are the same under the scales.

Fish are all the same under the scales: some piranha teeth.

The journalist investigates further and discovers that, sure enough, the piranhas have been preying savagely on native fish right since their introduction. Meanwhile, left-wing ecologists and fish-wardens helped the piranhas by either ignoring their predation or actively suppressing news of what was going on. The journalist does his job, informs the British public, and a scandal erupts about the ecological disaster visited on Rotherpool. But that isn’t the end of the scandal. There are much bigger lakes elsewhere in Yorkshire: Sheffmere, Bradwater and Lake Leeds. The journalist and his colleagues naturally investigate whether piranha-enrichment has been going on there too. Indeed it has and the journalists discover that even bigger ecological disasters have taken place in those bigger lakes – and in truly giant lakes elsewhere in Britain.

Pakistani-enrichment programmes

The allegory is ridiculous, of course: leftists would never introduce dangerous alien species like piranhas into British lakes. And they certainly wouldn’t pretend that all fish are the same under the scales and that “speciesism” isn’t a valid scientific concept. Leftists aren’t irrational, stupid and malign people, after all. They don’t want to cause or conceal horrendous unnecessary suffering. At least, they don’t when it comes to important native creatures like fish. But when it comes to unimportant native creatures like the White working-class, leftists are happy to both cause and conceal suffering on an endless and industrial scale.

The point of the allegory should be obvious even to leftists. For “piranhas” read “Pakistanis”. For “lakes” read “towns and cities”. It wasn’t just the small town of Rotherham that experienced a Pakistani-enrichment programme. Big cities in Yorkshire like Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford did too. So an obvious – and almost unaddressed – question arises from the Rotherham scandal. If Pakistanis have been behaving so badly in a small town, what have they been doing in big cities nearby? And what have they been doing in even bigger British cities like London, Manchester and Birmingham?

Only Non-White Lives Matter

The British media haven’t been been trying to answer this question, but in fact the answer is already known. The Rotherham scandal was horrific, but much worse things have been happening elsewhere in Britain. Rape-gangs of Pakistanis and other non-Whites have been operating with the complicity not just of supposed feminists in the Labour party but also of the police. Let’s take the big city of Manchester, where a policewoman called Maggie Oliver worked on an investigation into child sex-abuse called Operation Augusta, which began sixteen years ago in 2004. As Maggie Oliver witnessed at first hand, senior officers weren’t serious about ending child sexual abuse. And unlike many thousands of her tough male colleagues who witnessed the same thing both in Manchester and elsewhere, Oliver wasn’t prepared to be complicit in what she calls “gross criminal neglect and misfeasance in public office” by those senior officers.

One Black Life Matters; Countless White Lives Don’t.

So she resigned from the Greater Manchester Police, campaigned for the victims, and was instrumental in exposing the so-called Rochdale scandal, in which White working-class girls in the small town of Rochdale had been raped and prostituted by Pakistani men. Nine Pakistanis were convicted, but they represented a new leftist adaptation of an old legal strategy. You’ve heard about specimen charges, selected when a criminal has committed too many offences for a court to deal with speedily and efficiently. The nine Pakistanis in Rochdale were specimen defendants, selected because a “community” contained too many criminals for the authorities to charge without embarrassment.

A nationwide problem

In truth, not just dozens, not just hundreds, but thousands of Pakistani men should be prosecuted and imprisoned for the sex-crimes they have committed against White girls and women in Brave New Britain. This is what Maggie Oliver wrote in 2020:

Operation Augusta engaged with other British police forces and we soon realised there was a nationwide problem, where in other cities and areas, including Liverpool, West Yorkshire, Bradford, Keighley, Birmingham and Bristol, young girls were being groomed and then raped by predominantly Pakistani men. Some examples of this were broadcast in the documentary by Dispatches, titled “Edge of the City”, in August 2004. Subsequent revelations about grooming gangs in other towns and cities such as Rotherham, Telford, Rochdale and Oxford all demonstrated a similar pattern.

By the spring of 2004, I had a detailed list of 207 men who we believed had abused at least 26 young girls. I recall that these men were all Asian. I am certain that these numbers are a massive underestimation of the true scale of child abuse. I know this because the numbers were strictly ring-fenced by the Greater Manchester Police as they did not wish for the investigation to escalate further. (Witness Statement of Margaret Oliver to the Independent Enquiry in Child Abuse, February 2020)

That is from Maggie Oliver’s Witness Statement to a massive “Independent Enquiry into Child Abuse” that was set up in response to such scandals as the repeated and prolonged failure of the authorities to prosecute Greville Janner, a senior Jewish politician and community-leader, on credible charges of raping gentile boys. The Enquiry hasn’t got to Janner’s case yet or investigated child-abuse among Orthodox Jews. This may be because it’s less an Enquiry than an Unenquiry, designed not to expose the truth but to obscure it. Maggie Oliver has said this about the Enquiry:

There is a massive imbalance in the witnesses, or the participants that have been called, and it meant that the vast majority of the time was being given to those organisations who have failed and are still failing victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. I provided a 58-page witness statement and I wanted to give give evidence to the inquiry, which was denied. Forty pages of my statement were deleted, all the statements were hidden behind numbers and symbols on the website.

You would imagine with a problem identified in the northern towns and cities like Rotherham and Rochdale and Middlesbrough and Halifax, you would have one of those towns included in a public inquiry looking at grooming gangs. Not one was included. So we had an area like Swansea, St Helens, Warwickshire. I know this isn’t a historical problem; it is going on in every town and city in the north of England. Even now, even today and I have information from this weekend [October 2020]. This is not a historical problem.

The establishment don’t want to hear that truth; they peddle out the same platitudes. They always say these are historical failures. These are not historical failures. These are current failures, that every single day children are being groomed by gangs of predatory men. (Maggie Oliver blasts national child abuse inquiry and says not enough is being done to help young survivors, Manchester Evening News, 19th October 2020)

Maggie Oliver is right: “The establishment don’t want to hear that truth.” And why not? Because the truth contradicts the massive lie at the heart of Britain’s new state religion of minority worship. According to this new religion, the White majority are evil oppressors and non-White minorities are saintly victims.

One victim among thousands: Victoria Agoglia was raped, injected with heroin, and murdered by Pakistanis in Manchester.

That’s why the quick and relatively painless murder of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence by a White gang in 1993 has been endlessly re-visited by the national media, while the prolonged and extremely painful murders of the White teenagers Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan by non-White gangs in 2005 were long ago forgotten. Just as in the United States, non-Whites commit violent crime against Whites in Britain much more often than the reverse.

Labour don’t care about “white trash”

Non-Whites also commit massive amounts of violent crime against each other. Minority worship makes this problem worse. Like the martyr-cult of George Floyd in America, the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence has caused thousands of extra deaths in the so-called Black community, because it has made the police ever-more reluctant to enforce the law against non-Whites. But even as the martyr-cult demands that the British police worship non-Whites, it also demands that they neglect the welfare of Whites. Here is Maggie Oliver again, describing how her police colleagues viewed the White victims of Pakistani child-rapists:

Attitudes towards these kids seemed to be ingrained and widespread. They were widely viewed by fellow officers, senior officers and politicians as “white trash” or the “underclass”. In this new millennium, they were seen as “losers”. As a result, they were left to fend for themselves, which they clearly couldn’t do. (Witness Statement of Margaret Oliver, 2020)

As its name proclaims, the Labour party was founded to serve and defend the White working-class. But in Labour-controlled Manchester, White working-class girls were dismissed as “white trash” and “underclass”. They were abandoned to the violent predation of Pakistani Muslims, whom the Labour party were not founded to serve and whose presence in Britain has always and overwhelmingly been opposed by the White working-class.

Rich Jewish lawyers

This betrayal by Labour is a scandal far greater and far more prolonged than the “anti-Semitism” that supposedly blighted the party under Jeremy Corbyn. As I pointed out in “Labour’s Shame, Jews in Britain are not being raped, prostituted, murdered and ethnically cleansed with the encouragement and complicity of the Labour party. Jews are a rich overclass in Britain, not the victims of decades of violent crime and official neglect. But the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) rides to battle against Labour on behalf of Jews, not of behalf of Whites. The EHRC’s concern for Jews and not for Whites is entirely predictable, given that the EHRC is headed by two rich Jewish lawyers, Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaac.

The EHRC is not interested in genuine crimes and genuine suffering. Instead, it is interested in protecting Jewish power and privilege, and in extending the scope and fanaticism of minority-worship. That’s why the EHRC won’t be calling on Maggie Oliver to describe what she witnessed in Manchester after taking leave to nurse her terminally ill husband:

When I returned in September 2005 I found that the investigations [into child-sex abuse] had been closed down. I found that rather than investigating, arresting and prosecuting the serial sexual offenders for the multiple rapes that had been perpetrated against dozens of young girls in Manchester, elements of the Greater Manchester Police were instead just warning the abusers under the Child Abduction Act and allowing them to evade justice. I believe that a link to this might have been the July 2005  bombings in London, in which 52 people were killed by home-grown terrorists using explosive devices on public transport in the capital. Race relations were very fractious as a result, and there was hesitancy, I felt, from the police to take any steps that might inflame racial tensions, including investigating widespread abuse by predominantly Pakistani men.

My gut feeling at the time was that the young victims of sexual abuse in Manchester were overlooked, partly because of their class background, and dismissed as “slags” or “slappers” and “child prostitutes” (a term I utterly reject – no child can consent to be a “prostitute”). There were also no parents to fight for these children, as they were all already in the care system. They did not have a voice and the government and senior authorities within the Greater Manchester Police were not listening. The term often used was that the child victims were making “a lifestyle choice”.

I feel that the closing down of Operation Augusta in 2005 was a travesty and a missed opportunity for the Greater Manchester Police to prevent so much abuse that would later take place. I believe that had they pressed ahead and prosecuted more people implicated in Augusta we would have caught the abusers at the centre of the Operation Span inquiry. I believe that the senior officers who made the decision to close Operation Augusta are guilty of gross criminal neglect and misfeasance in public office. (Witness Statement of Margaret Oliver, 2020)

In its scale, the abuse in Manchester has plainly been much worse than the abuse in Rotherham. But there has been no scandal about what has gone on in Manchester and is still going on. And there have also been no scandals about abuse in London and Birmingham, Britain’s largest and second-largest cities, which have been enriched by non-White predators just as Manchester has.

Fighting antisemitism, ignoring rape and murder

Why no scandals about abuse in these big cities? Maggie Oliver has answered that: “The establishment don’t want to hear [the] truth.” And recall these other words in her witness statement: the White working-class victims “did not have a voice.” But the Labour party that controls Manchester was founded precisely to give the White working-class a voice – and a sword and shield to defend itself. In Rotherham, Labour snatched that sword and shield away, and left White working-class girls voiceless as they were preyed on by non-Whites. Meanwhile, the Labour MP for Rotherham, life-long feminist Denis MacShane, was working for Jews in far-off London and chairing an “all-party” inquiry into antisemitism which, he proudly boasts, “was hailed as a model of its kind and changed government policy.”

But bad as it was, Labour’s betrayal in Rotherham was only a small part of a much bigger betrayal. Much worse has happened in bigger cities, not just in Yorkshire, but wherever Pakistanis and other predatory non-Whites have been imported against the clearly expressed opposition of the White working-class. And it isn’t just thousands of non-White child-rapists who should be prosecuted, but thousands of treacherous White politicians, officials, academics and journalists, from prime ministers like Tony Blair and David Cameron on down.

Brave New Britain is built on lies

Blair and Cameron were busy working for the tiny Jewish minority when they should have been working for the White majority. And what happens when the majority loses control of its own nation to a predatory and ethnocentric minority like Jews? You get the partly exposed horrors of Rotherham and the worse but still barely exposed horrors of Manchester, Birmingham, London, Sheffield, Leeds and Bradford. Much worse than Rotherham has happened and is still happening in Britain.

Meanwhile, minority-worship and the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence continue to control politics, academia and the media. These false new religions insist that Britain is ravaged by the scourge of “systemic racism”against non-Whites. This is a lie. The real racism is against Whites, and one symptom of that racism is systemic rapism, or the collusion of politicians, police and feminists in decade after decade of rape committed by non-Whites against Whites. Brave New Britain is built on lies, but those lies will sooner or later crumble. Then the prosecution of traitors like Blair and Cameron can begin.

The original post can be viewed at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/11/19/much-worse-than-rotherham-how-british-politicians-police-and-feminists-are-guilty-of-systemic-rapism/ Reproduced by kind permission of Professor Kevin MacDonald and The Occidental Observer.

 

The Great Replacement, Racial Integrity, and Coming Apart

Will Wright

Integrity and Coming Apart

Today, I want to tell you about some thoughts I’ve had, in part prompted by Charles Murray’s book, Coming Apart – The State of White America 1960-2010.

If a proud and brave nation is defeated in a war, that nation can still rise again. Even if it is occupied by foreign troops, or ruled by a racial minority. The German nation was defeated in the First World War. But the Germans again became a world power, and in a surprisingly short time.

But if a nation loses its pride and its courage and descends into decadence and degeneracy, then it is very much harder to create a national revival. A nation must keep its integrity. That means its racial integrity and its moral integrity.

I have written before about Race. I have written about The Great Replacement – how all White European nations are being replaced in their homelands by non-White peoples. I have also written about the harmful effects of having an influential and powerful Jewish minority in Britain and the United States in particular.

I want to write about Race again, but to concentrate on White people. We know about the dangers of us being replaced. We know that inter-breeding between races in the Western World will destroy our people. Inter-racial breeding is being heavily promoted by television advertising agencies working for global monopolist capitalists.

But what makes all of this possible? If our people are proud and brave and intelligent, then should we not be rising up against all of this in our hundreds of thousands? Has something happened to make us submissive to our enemies? Have we become stupid, or cowardly, or both?

Edward Dutton has explained that the British nation was becoming increasingly intelligent up to about 1800. But he also explains why this process has gone into reverse since that time, whereby we are now becoming less intelligent. We might be reaching a critical point. I covered this in an earlier letter. Or you can read At Our Wit’s End. Dutton continues this theme in another book, The Past is a Future Country, where he explains how civilisations end. He points out that when Roman civilisation collapsed, it then took about a thousand years for Europeans to reach the same level of civilisation.

But let’s get back to Coming Apart, by Charles Murray.

We must love ourselves – we must love our own people

Enemies of racial nationalism assert that our ideology is about hating other races. They could not be more wrong. Nationalism is about loving our own people and our own country. We need to know what is wrong with our people in order for us to recover and then defeat the existential threat to our people.

If all British people were both mentally and physically healthy and fit, then we would be much better equipped to defend ourselves. If we were still a very moral people then we would be able to resist our enemies far better. These points are often lost on less intelligent people on the fringes of what was our political movement.

Charles Murray is an American academic, so he writes about US society. But there is still much to be learned by British readers of his books. Murray is not a racial nationalist, he is not ‘one of us’. But his commentaries are useful to racial nationalists.

It is good, for a change, to have a book that concentrates on what is wrong with our race, rather than what is wrong with other races. If we can heal our own people then we are unbeatable.

The book is really about how the US upper middle class has spawned a new super-rich, and politically and culturally remote, Upper Class. It is also about how the old working class has given birth to a new White Lower Class, which is in some ways the equivalent of the Black underclass. The Upper Class is much richer, cleverer, and more remote from the rest of US society than any previous rich people. While the Under Class is becoming dumber and lazier than any White working class people ever were previously. Hence the title, Coming Apart.

As a racial nationalist, I would like to see a classless nationalist movement, and a largely classless society. Even if that aim is too idealistic, I would like to see the people at the top of society caring about their own people and their own country. And providing a proper national leadership.

I do not want to see the White people lower down society becoming poorer, lazier, less educated, less healthy, less moral, and more criminal. We do not want White society to be widely divided by class – we want it to be united in a common effort to raise our nation up.

Everything that Charles Murray identifies in America is also happening in the United Kingdom, and other European countries, if to a less extreme degree.

What particularly caught my attention and interested me, was when Murray tells us what America used to be like in 1960, versus what it is like now. He says that America was built on marriage, industriousness, honesty, and religiosity. He devotes a chapter to each of these topics. It is staggering how US society has changed in fifty years throughout my lifetime. I know who I blame for that bad change. But we need to read Kevin MacDonald to find those answers, rather than Charles Murray, as brave and well-intentioned as he is.

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.

Feminism undermines the White European World

Will Wright

Feminism – a Horrible history?

Terry Deary wrote his series of books, Horrible Histories, likely aimed at children and illustrated with humorous cartoons. But to many modern Westerners history is horrible. The naïve and the politically correct would like people in history to have lived as people do today. They think that historical figures should be judged by today’s politically correct standards.

For almost the entirety of human history, including the last few thousand years that we have been civilised, all peoples lived in hierarchical societies. There was little equality. Slavery was common to all civilisations.

There is something else too that is today controversial. For nearly all of human history, males were very heavily dominant. Whether you are accepting of all of this, or you are appalled by this, makes little difference. These are historical facts.

Did our forebears live naturally, as humans are meant to live? Or are we evolving to be more moral, more god-like beings? Most of the world today acknowledges some form of democracy – even in cases when that is a total or partial sham. But all nations are still ruled by elites, even when their rule is obscured. That has always been so, and always will be so. Slavery lives on in some parts of the world, even though Westerners, and the United Nations, condemn this. In some countries, men are still firmly in charge.

Feminism

There have always been some strong women, just as there have always been some weak men. There have always been matriarchs and warrior queens. But they were the exception. Women bore children, reared children, and looked after the home. That was so since the primitive days of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Many believe that men’s and women’s role in a family and within society are biologically determined.

That has become controversial when it once was not. Modern Feminism began as a political movement in the United States. Most of the pioneers were both Jewish and left-wing. If anyone doubts that then look on Wikipedia for ‘List of Jewish feminists’. Names like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin spring to mind.

List of Jewish feminists – Wikipedia

When I think how many different organised Jewish groups have subverted the Western World in degenerate ‘art’, psychology, anthropology, domination of high finance, the creation of Communism, Hollywood films, pornography, gangsterism etc, then I am immediately distrustful of any cause or group that is heavily dominated by Jewish activists.

There are two things that make me opposed to feminism: that it seems to go against the natural order, and that it is Jewish. In many ways, we in the White European world have become a feminised society. That might well mean that we are both a more left-wing society and at a disadvantage in any competition with the non-White world, which is still more aggressive and masculine.

The Feminised Society

Feminists in Western countries have attempted to introduce the idea that masculinity is somehow “toxic”. The obvious implication of that idea is that we should have much less masculinity. That society should be much more feminised. But if all human societies historically were always male-dominated, then it is far too early to know the long-term effects of female-domination. Feminised society is out-of-step with world history. Doesn’t that sound rather subversive?

When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, she was the only woman in her first Cabinet. There were few women in Parliament at that time. Now there are a great many. The BBC’s Daily Politics has a presenter and four guests. Often there is only one man out of five people present. There is a predominance of female newsreaders and political interviewers on most channels. There are also a great many female political commentators in the Western newspapers.

Women will say that they like men who are considerate and listen to them. Men who will do what their wife wants. But then they often marry men who are not at all like their described ‘ideal man’ – they marry very masculine men.

If there is such a thing as ‘toxic masculinity’, then two of its worst manifestations must be the rape of women and serious violence against other men. Black men are disproportionately involved in both those kinds of violence. But oddly, the feminists always attack White male patriarchy, when they mention ‘toxic masculinity’. Both Black men and Black women have more testosterone than their White counterparts. A Japanese scientist suggested that this was because Black Africans are an older and more primitive race of humans. No White scientist alive today would dare to publicly suggest that.

Just as the feminists do not mention Black males who rape, neither do they demand action on organised Pakistani gangs which systematically and repeatedly rape under-age White girls. Is not that ‘toxic masculinity’?

Subversion or immaturity?

When the White European nations ruled much of the world, they were very collective-minded. People thought in terms of family, neighbourhood, their church, and their nation. Today people are both materialistic and individualistic, and often lack any direction. But some nations and races are much more collective-minded today.

Many White people do not believe in anything higher than themselves. Families are dysfunctional, neighbourhoods and churches are in decline. People do not owe allegiance to either God or their country. That will need to change if there is to be a White European racial revival. White society cannot afford divisions – not class, not generational, not religious, and not between the sexes.

White people need to believe in big ideas. Big collective ideas. They need to care about their nations and not materialistic and selfish concerns.

Is feminism born out of materialism and selfishness? Is it simply an immature demand for rights and equality? Or has it been deliberately created to undermine White European civilisation – like much else that is Jewish in origin? It makes you wonder.

Copyright (c) 2023 Will Wright. For permission to reproduce this post please contact the author through this web site.

‘Ridley Road’, BBC lies and the re-writing of history

Bill Baillie, the editor of Nation Revisited, has had his web site sabotaged by the likes of Google. He has asked that Anglo-Celtic.org re-publish the material that Google has objected to, and in the interests of freedom of expression we are pleased to do so. The following article relates to a BBC Television history-rewriting exercise in the form of a highly ficticious, extreme left-wing slanted drama called "Ridley Road", broadcast in the autumn of 2021.
I posted Martin Webster's article on my blog European Outlook but it was taken down by Google for violating their Community Guidelines. I thank Anglo-Celtic for defending free speech.

Bill Baillie

The information you mention from Mike Whine, a one-time ‘Defence Director’ of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, to the effect that the creation of the Jewish terrorist ’62 Group’ was prompted by the National Socialist Movement’s violent attacks on sundry Jewish and Israeli organisations in the UK is utter tosh.

This invention was surely provided to cover for gratuitous Jewish violence, indeed terrorism, by the 62 Group gang who were inspired by the Zionist terrorist group the Irgun and mobilised, among others, by Soho club owner and gangster Harry Bidney.

I have never heard of the Jewish/Israeli organisation which Whine specified – and I have been taking the Jewish Chronicle for most of my adult life. I certainly never heard those names mentioned in the (very small) membership circles of the NSM – let alone where their HQs were, let alone plans to attack them.

During my time in the NSM (mid-1962 to late-1963) the NSM was too preoccupied staging publicity stunts such as:

The “Free Britain from Jewish Control” rally in Trafalgar Square in July 1962. No more than 15 NSM members were present at this, confronted by about 2,000 Jews! My attendance got me expelled from the League of Empire Loyalists and so I migrated to the NSM.

Later that month smuggling the American Nazi Party leader Lincoln Rockwell into the UK contrary to a government banning order.

Ending that month, the ‘Camp in the Cotswolds’, attended by no more than 20 NSM members, along with two or three Germans, the strange Anglo-Greek , Hinduism convert, “NS philosopher” Savitri Devi – and Lincoln Rockwell.

These stunts infuriated the government – to say nothing of Jewry! – so the NSM was still rewarded with a Police raid on its Notting Hill, West London, HQ. The prosecution of the movement’s leadership (Colin Jordan, John Tyndall, Ian Roland Kerr-Ritchie and Denis Pirie) followed soon after on Public Order Act charges to do with running a private army. They were found not guilty of doing this, but guilty of “giving reasonable apprehension” that they were! They were sentenced, variously, to between three and nine months in jail.

During this period the membership of the NSM, such as it was, melted away. The movement’s HQ, now my habitation, was left in my charge (a 19 year old!) Nocturnal attacks on the building were frequent. Only two or three supporters ever called by – one of whom, decades later – was identified at his funeral by a retired Police officer as a former salaried agent of MI6!

The reason why I give this brief 1962/1963 history of the NSM is to illustrate that the leadership was too swept up by events to contemplate, let alone organise, the kind of terrorism alleged by Mike Whine, and that the membership was so vanishingly small and so quickly scattered to the winds, that there were no ‘soldiers’ available to carry out such attacks – which, to the best of my recollection, were not reported by the media at that time.

John Tyndal, Denis Pirie and I quit the NSM in late 1963 in order to set up the Greater Britain Movement. We left the NSM in the hands of Colin Jordan and his newly-married French wife Francoise Dior. Thereafter, Jordan tended to spend his time in the North Yorkshire moors, while she took charge of the London HQ.

Under her influence (so it was claimed in court) a couple of silly teenage lads attempted in 1964 to burn down two synagogues. They failed and along with Mrs Jordan, they were jailed. That is the nearest the NSM ever came to acts of terrorism. Nothing remotely of the order alleged by Mike Whine and – NB! – more than two years after the 62 Group was deploying its cosh, razor and fire-bomb activities.

Mike Whine’s pretext for the formation and vicious gangster activities of the 62 Group does not bear scrutiny. That, of course, will not have deterred the BBC from basing a TV series on such mendacity. You, Philip Gegan and I have discovered the enormity of the BBC’s appetite for lies when we came to complain about a BBC Radio 4/BBC Sounds series ‘about’ the National Front – in particular, the August 1977 “Battle of Lewisham”.

More of than anon.

Best wishes to all patriots,

Martin

Non-white gangs of youths can be violent racists, too

Martin Webster
This blog post was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on January 6, 2012. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page.

Editorial note: The following letter was published, with some deletions, in The Independent regarding the murder convictions of David Dobson and Gary Norris, both White, for the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence, who was Black, of West Indian origin. (The link that formerly existed to this letter on The Independent‘s web site has since been edited and leads to a different page.) This is Martin Webster's original letter, posted here with his permission:

Sir:

All murders are to be deplored; all murderers should be brought to justice; and the media should give coverage to all such crimes.

This said, I note the different treatment accorded by the Metropolitan Police, the judiciary and the media to the murders by teenage “racist gangs” of 18 year old Stephen Lawrence in Eltham, SE London, in April 1993 and 15 year old Richard Everitt in Somers Town, Camden, North London, in August 1994. Stephen was of West Indian origin; Richard was white.

The circumstances of the murders were similar. Both were attacked by gangs of teenagers who before and after the murders expressed violent racial hatred. Stephen was murdered by a white gang. Richard was murdered by a Bengali gang. Neither victim behaved in any way to provoke even verbal abuse, let alone being stabbed.

Massive media publicity, sustained over nearly two decades, followed Stephen’s case. There was a visit by the Home Secretary to the murder scene where a public monument was erected. A public judicial inquiry was conducted in which the police were denounced as “institutionally racist”. Money was found to fund a private prosecution, which failed.

As we now know, two men, Gary Dobson and David Norris, have been convicted after a second trial at the Old Bailey of Stephen’s murder and sentenced to life imprisonment of which they must serve a minimum 15+ years and 14+ years respectively. The judge called for Stephen’s other attackers to be brought to justice because they were engaged in a “joint exercise”. This has been echoed by the entire media and political establishment.

With all this, “Stephen Lawrence” has become a household name. Richard Everitt’s name was never in the headlines for long enough for the public mind to retain it.

Eleven Bengali youths (one as old as 20) were arrested in connection with Richard’s murder. Only two came to trial, Badrul Miah and Showkat Akbar. There were no calls for all the attackers to be prosecuted on a “joint enterprise” basis. Akbar was found guilty of violent disorder and sentenced to three years, of which he served 18 months. Miah was sentenced to life but let out on licence after 11 years despite the trial judge describing it as an “unprovoked racist attack”. The media tried to pressure Richard’s parents to say the murder was not racially motivated.

There was no visit by the Home Secretary to Somers Town, no public monument; no public judicial inquiry; and virtual silence from the local MP, Frank Dobson.

I will not attempt to second-guess the jury in the Dobson and Norris trial. I simply wish to suggest that the verdict against them should not be taken as proof that the population of this country, at least, the white working class section of it, is getting justice from the police, the judiciary and the media because they all subscribe to the notion that in Britain only white people and never black people commit offences motivated by racial hatred.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Webster.

The Black Crime Wave and The Media Response

In our last post, ‘Goodbye England – The Crime Tsunami’, we wrote about how the multi-racial society has ushered in the era of modern crime. We also covered how the media attempts to suppress news of the black crime wave, and instead gives disproportionate coverage to those rare cases of White-on-black crime.

Even as far back as 2006 it was evident that the number of assaults and murders where White people were the victims and blacks were the perpetrators was greatly disproportionate to their respective numbers. Even the left-wing Guardian admitted that nearly half of the victims of racially motivated murders were White.

April 2018 marked twenty five years after the murder of the young black, Stephen Lawrence, by a gang of young Whites, in Eltham, south-east London in 1993. This anniversary was given extensive coverage by the media, with a church service at St Martin in the Fields and the imposition on our country of an annual “Stephen Lawrence Memorial Day”.

We also noted that in August 1994 a young White boy, Richard Everitt, was murdered in a similar fashion by a gang of Bengalis.

Twenty five years on, we are being subjected to a guilt-fest over Stephen Lawrence’s death, but that of Richard Everitt has been long forgotten. The media want us to believe that White gangs still regularly attack and murder blacks. but this is the opposite of the truth.

With over 60 murders - nearly all of them black-on-black - in London alone in the first four months of 2018, it's obvious that blacks in London, and elsewhere, are far more likely to be murdered by their fellow blacks than by Whites.

Why, then, are the mainstream media so desperate to focus our attention on a solitary murder committed over 25 years ago, by a gang of Whites on one black youth? Why aren't they reporting the tidal wave of murders by young blacks of young blacks? This is a media cover-up, plain and simple.

The police and the media are, of course, controlled at the very top by the same people – people who have a vested interest in imposing the multi-racial society upon all formerly White countries as a means of destroying the White race and dominating whatever is left of humanity by way of a world government.

We need to reverse the tide of race-mixing propaganda – all of it based on lies and deceit. Let’s do more to celebrate the long and proud history of White people everywhere. Let’s remind ourselves, and the world, how much White people have contributed to civilization – to the arts, to technology, to discovery and to knowledge.

And let’s ensure that future generations of White children are born into a world where White civilization and White values prevail, and where the nightmare of the multi-racial society is but a distant memory.

Goodbye, England – The Crime Tsunami

Britain is being hit by a crime wave fuelled largely by highly organised gangs of lawless non-White youths, Eastern Europeans, South Americans and so-called “Travellers”.

Most of the victims are White – native Britons whose ancestors have lived in these islands for thousands of years.

Alarmingly, crimes involving physical violence, assaults, threats, and anti-social behaviour are spiraling out of control.

For example, on 4th April two men, part of a group of “travellers”, burgled a house in Hither Green, South-East London, where 78-year-old Richard Osborn-Brooks lived with his invalid wife. One of the men was Billy Jeeves, 28, and the other one Henry Vincent, 37. Vincent was killed with his own screwdriver following a struggle with the brave pensioner.

Both men were known to the police and had a string of violent offences to their names. What did the police do? They arrested Mr Osborn-Brooks on suspicion of murder! The subsequent public outcry forced them to release him and drop prospective charges, but only after they had kept him locked up in a police cell for two nights.

Now, because of threats received from the “travellers”, Mr Osborn-Brooks and his wife have had to abandon their home. They’ve had to accept being re-housed elsewhere, given a new identity, and living the rest of their lives under a cloud of fear that they may be recognised and suffer further violence or death.

“Hate Crime” Before Real Crime

The police now are more interested in political correctness, tackling so-called “hate crime” (a very nebulous and subjective concept), and placating ethnic minorities (apart from Whites) than in preventing real crime and catching real criminals.

Not so far away from Hither Green is the leafy suburb of Chislehurst, nestling on the border of North West Kent and South East London. This used to be a most desirable place to live, with its famous Chislehurst Caves and Chislehurst Common containing 180 acres of natural, unspoiled woodland.

But as the multi-racial nightmare enveloping London and other towns and cities throughout Britain has spread its tentacles further afield, so places like Chislehurst have been affected. They are now rapidly becoming areas where law-abiding citizens live in fear.

A recent development in crime is known as “spree burglary”, where criminals meticulously plan each burglary, following their intended victims on social media, and striking when the inhabitants, or most of them, are out or at their most vulnerable.

The burglary, often violent, lasts no more than 20 minutes or so because they know exactly what they are looking for. Three or four thugs carry out the raid, while a fifth sits in the getaway car. Their favoured method of breaking in is to smash their way in through the front or back door.

On one occasion the gang actually returned later to provoke the family and their friends, who were still at the front of the house waiting (and waiting) for the police to arrive. These people have no fear of being caught, or if they are caught, of being given any serious punishment.

In nearby Bromley there were 413 domestic break-ins in January and February 2018 alone. With no sign of the authorities doing anything about it these figures can only go up and up.

It’s not just burglaries, of course. All crime statistics now make for depressing reading.

Crime Rates Only Go Up

In 2017 youth homicide in London was up 70% on the previous year.

As at February 2018, knife crime is up 21% year on year, gun crime is up 44% since 2014 in London, and both robbery and reported rape are up 29% year on year in the country as a whole.

But the police have been busy. There have been around 3,400 arrests for “offensive” online comments in the last 12 months. So much for freedom of expression. But then we can’t have people making “offensive” online comments, can we? It might prompt ordinary White folk to get organised into getting rid of the politicians and taking their country back.

Of 40 categories of crime maintained by Scotland Yard, only six were marginally down in 2017. The rest have double digit increases over 2016.

According to ukcrimestats.com the total number of crimes “plus ASB” committed in England and Wales in January and February 2018 was 501,287. Note how anti-social behaviour is treated as if it’s not really a crime. There were 201,969 such cases in this period – over 40 per cent of the total.

But ASB isn’t top of the list of most-committed crimes. That coveted position is occupied by “Violent Crime”, with 243,408 cases – a mere 4,125 a day. “Violent Crime” is a comparatively new category of crime, separate from Robbery and Burglary, which themselves usually involve violence, or the threat of it.

Burglaries (including non-domestic), with 72,211 cases, looks to easily top 430,000 by the end of the year, even if there’s no increase in the monthly rate. Recorded sexual offences and violent crimes have more than doubled in three years. At the same time police numbers have continued to fall.

In the UK as a whole in 2017 there were 261,965 domestic burglaries. That’s over 700 every day. Only one in ten were solved. This is appalling. Burglaries were up 32% on 2016 in some places.

The Capital of Crime

In Greater London a majority of the population is now non-White. Violent crime there is even worse than in the rest of the country. As of 24th April 2018, at least 36 people have been fatally stabbed, and 62 overall unlawfully killed, in London since the beginning of the year. What has now become known as “knife crime” is endemic, with 12,980 such crimes having taken place in the capital last year – up 2,452 on the previous year.

Most of these crimes appear to be black-on-black. Of 35 named victims, only nine have English sounding names, and many of those may be black. London now has a higher murder rate than New York.

So how are the police proposing to deal with this nightmare situation and restore law and order? This is, after all, what they’re supposed to be there for. Well, new guidelines for the Metropolitan Police published in October 2017 say that, for example, burglaries should be probed only if the perpetrators use violence or trick their way into a property, while crimes involving a loss of under £50 should not be investigated at all unless there is an identified suspect.

Usually they don’t even bother to search for fingerprints following a burglary. I know that from when my house was burgled in 2015. They give you an incident number and then lose interest as other crimes are reported hour by hour.

The police tell us in all seriousness that crime levels now are lower then in the mid-1990s. Prime Minister Theresa May insists that “overall, traditional crime is continuing to fall”. Policing Minister Nick Hurd (Nick? Why not Nicholas?) claims crime has fallen but that the government is “very concerned” about the “uptick in the most serious violent crime.”

Welcome to Modern Crime

What, exactly, is “traditional” crime? Would it be where burglars sneak their way into a house while the occupants are out or watching television, creep around pocketing a few things, and finally creep back out again? Or where they run off at the sound of someone coming?

Well, if that’s “traditional” crime, and I suppose it was back in the 1960s or even the 1980s, then Theresa May is right. That kind of crime is now rare. Instead we have gangs of foreigners smashing their way into homes through the front door, sending shards of glass everywhere, and terrorising adults and children into telling them where the valuables are.

Then there’s the gangs of black and mixed-race youths creating “no-go” zones in daytime as well as at night in our towns and cities. Another new benefit of the multi-racial society is a knife-crime spree with blacks knifing each other and anyone else who gets in the way, with a complete disregard for life and limb.

We mustn’t forget the horrendous crimes committed by gangs of Asians against young, vulnerable White girls – rape, assault, murder by arson, sex trafficking (forcing them into prostitution), and more – in Rochdale, Dewsbury and elsewhere, which is too huge a subject to cover here.

To be sure, things were bad in the 1990s, but they are much worse now, and there’s no sign of any improvement. Police Federation of England and Wales General Secretary Andy Fittes (Andy? Why not Andrew?) says, “To say crime has fallen is smoke and mirrors.”

It’s no coincidence that the collapse of law and order and the descent of many parts of the country into complete chaos and anarchy is taking place at this time in our history. It’s some three or four generations after the “Windrush Generation”, which we’ve heard so much about recently in the mainstream media. If you plant millions of disaffected non-Whites in our formerly homogenous country, the result after seventy of so years cannot fail to be very different from what we have now. A society fragmented and disintegrating, drowning in black and mixed race crime.

When liberal bigots tell us blacks descended from immigrants who arrived in our country early on deserve “compensation” for imagined grievances they are adding insult to injury. If the descendants of these people, both black and mixed race, were removed from the population then the crime rate would plummet. We would all be able to live easier, more relaxed lives, able to go out once more at any time of the day or night and not have to worry about being mugged, raped, threatened, or having our homes trashed while we’ve been out. And our children would be much safer from the threat of drugs.

As it is, our larger towns and cities are rapidly become battle zones. Even the countryside is becoming a crime infested area, with farmers being subjected to theft of machinery and livestock, usually by night, and arson attacks on crops and haystacks becoming commonplace. Not many criminals are arrested for these crimes, but when they are they adorn our TV screens with foreign features and eyes full of defiance and hate.

No Escape from Crime

If the perpetrators are “travellers”, which in the countryside they often are, the police are scared to investigate. They don’t want to be accused of “racism”, and they shrink from the prospect of a pitched battle with dozens, or even hundreds, of “travellers”, if they try to recover stolen property from one of their camps.

This is modern organised crime. Cars, farm tractors and other such machinery, and valuable goods of all kinds are stolen to order and in many cases shipped out of the country within hours. The ringleaders are millionaires, feeding off law abiding citizens, and doing nothing to justify their existence.

Our great country and its indigenous Anglo-Celtic folk, whose ancestors have lived here for thousands of years and have defended our shores against those who would take our country from us, need protection.

But first we have to face truths which should be obvious to any thinking person. Such as that the multi-racial society, with its unlimited immigration and ghettos of non-Whites, travellers’ communities and no-go areas, spiraling black and mixed-race birth rates, shrinking White births, violence and astronomical expense, is a complete disaster and should be brought to an immediate end. It was never sanctioned by ordinary White folk in any event.

Who in their right mind can now deny that Enoch Powell, who 50 years ago foresaw what was going to happen, was wrong?

Establishment politicians and the mainstream media refuse to accept what ordinary White folk are realising more and more with each passing day. That wherever there are substantial numbers of non-Whites, especially blacks and “travellers”, there is crime. Predominantly it’s violent crime, hence the recent addition of this category alongside robbery, burglaries, and all the rest of them.

White-on-black crime is rare, but when it does occur it is played up in the mainstream media. We discuss this particular phenomena in this post. It’s all over the BBC and ITV News and in all the headlines of all the newspapers. Black-on-White crime is a daily occurrence, and much of it is horrific, such as at Rochdale and Dewsbury. But this is always played down by the media. They just don’t want us to know about it.

This is exemplified by the different ways in which the deaths of two young people, Stephen Lawrence in April 1993, and Richard Everitt in August 1994. Lawrence was black, murdered, allegedly, by a gang of Whites, and Everitt was White, murdered by a gang of Bengalis. Click here for a brief summary of the different ways in which these two deaths were treated by the mainstream media.

We need a declaration of war on crime. The MacPherson Report, which followed the Enquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s death, effectively disarmed the police in the fight against non-White crime. It should be dumped. Proper measures should be brought in to deal with the crisis. A new citizens’ militia should be formed, fully armed, to protect our elderly and other vulnerable folk.

But nothing will be done as long as establishment politicians are in charge. They aren’t racial nationalists. They don’t identify with the indigenous White British. They haven’t the will to deal with these enormous problems, and they don’t feel the need. As long as people continue to vote for them at election time then, living in their secluded, gated hideaways, and taking plenty of money out of the trough, why should they worry?

Muhammad tops London

The BBC and Other Media versus The Truth

This series of articles was first written in early 2018, so please bear in mind that some of the content may appear somewhat dated.
The following is an Open Letter to the BBC's Points of View on the Media Coverage of Black Crime from Will Wright

Subject: Race and immigration ... and a suggestion for an interview documentary

7th May 2018

Dear BBC

There have been quite a few stories about race or immigration in the news lately: the fiftieth anniversary of Enoch Powell’s speech, the twenty fifth anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence killing, the Windrush controversy, Boris Johnson’s suggestion of an illegal immigrant amnesty and Prince Harry to marry a mixed-race American citizen, among others.

One of the most controversial is the great many black-on-black knife murders in London since stop and search was abolished. On your website page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43491155/police-are-black-knife-deaths-being-ignored you write, “Knife deaths aren’t causing the outrage they should because the majority of victims come from black communities, a top UK officer says”.

It seems to me that this top policeman has got things the wrong way around. The reason the knife murders are not causing more outrage is because the majority of the killers come from black communities. It further appears to me that white liberals become very upset on the rare occasion that white people kill a black victim, as with Stephen Lawrence who is remembered twenty five years later.

What of all the young white men stabbed by blacks? Forgotten. All the black-on-black killings? White liberals would rather ignore this embarrassing phenomenon.

Mark Easton’s piece on 5th April is titled, “London killings: no easy answers to gun and knife crime”. I am inclined to agree with you that this is not easily sorted out. However, I would like to offer some unfashionable solutions.

How about the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment? If someone was convicted of murder then they should hang. This should apply whoever the murderer is, whoever the victim is. There would be controversial cases when the murderers were of a different race to the victims. But a brave government would implement this and brave judges would pass the death sentence on murderers.

Furthermore, I would reintroduce stop and search. If someone was found to be in possession of a knife, then they should be birched.

None of this would be “easy” (I agree with your headline writer), but I believe that over time things would get better on the streets of London.

Moving on to something even more controversial – Enoch Powell’s historic speech. In that speech, Powell advocated repatriation of non-whites. Most commentators today seem to dismiss the speech as “extreme” and suggest that Powell got it wrong.

But did he? We have predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs in many northern towns and cities targeting under-age white girls. Does anyone in the mainstream media dare to suggest that this is racial hatred or pedophilia? They would if white gangs were targeting black or Asian girls.

Surveys have suggested that one in five Muslims in Britain have at least some sympathy with Islamic terrorist groups – that is about 400,000 people. Among the Muslim community are some who hate Britain and the West and would blow us up given the chance. But we don’t know who they are, where they are, or when they will strike.

Then there are the violent Afro-Caribbean elements already mentioned.

I expect that the BBC believes that there are no easy answers and I agree. But there is a difficult but necessary answer: Enoch Powell’s answer, repatriation.

It is my belief that if the United Kingdom does not stop all non-white immigration and start a programme of phased repatriation quite soon, then white people will cease to be a majority in our own country. Eventually we would become extinct. This would happen through immigration of non-whites, emigration of whites, a higher non-white birth rate and interbreeding among whites and non-whites. Worst case scenario – there could even be a massacre of a minority white population.

Repatriation of non-whites should begin with known terrorists and convicted criminals. In any sane country it would go without saying that all illegal immigrants are automatically criminals and should be deported immediately.

Those non-whites who have led law-abiding lives should be treated as humanely as possible. But there will be difficult cases and that should not deflect us, as a country, from doing what is necessary for our survival as a white country.

Liberals and cultural Marxists seem to want non-white countries to belong to their indigenous populations – but all white countries to become multi-racial. I believe that if the white people of the world perish then, in time, this will be followed by the death of modern civilisation.

Many believe that most BBC news and political journalists are left-wing. I believe this too. But I also believe that most are very professional and try to put aside their personal opinions and be objective. I do think, however, that it must be difficult to do this and get outside of the left-wing groupthink.

I recently saw a documentary, on RT, presented by George Galloway, about the “far-right”. I did not think that was objective or fair – but Galloway did interview Martin Webster, the former National Activities Organiser of the Seventies National Front. Webster was shown for a few minutes during a half-hour programme.

So how about the BBC interviewing Martin Webster about his views on repatriation of non-whites? It would be better viewing if the whole half hour documentary concentrated on an interview, rather than showing NF marches from the Seventies. The BBC must be able to do this better than Galloway and RT.

Will Wright

Brexit – Is the UK really free from the EU? Part 5 – What we face from the EU post-Brexit

Editor's Note: This series of posts takes a closer look at the Agreement that was arrived at between the UK and the EU and signed on 24th December 2020. The use of the expression, "TCA" in this series of posts refers to the "Trade and Cooperation Agreement" signed between the UK and the EU on December 24th 2020. This series of articles was first written in early 2021, so please bear in mind that some of the content may appear somewhat dated.

[Click here for Part 1]

[Click here for Part 2]

[Click here for Part 3]

[Click here for Part 4]

What we face from the EU post-Brexit

It’s not difficult to see how problems will develop in the trading relations between the UK and the EU, post-Brexit. We only have to look at the struggle Switzerland has had in recent years in maintaining a satisfactory trading relationship with Brussels. The situation is so bad that the Swiss have actually given the UK a friendly warning about trading with the EU as a non-EU country.

As you’ve guessed by now, responsibility for the deteriorating situation here lies exclusively with the EU. This lesson is especially apt for us in relation to Northern Ireland. There is a similarity in that the province has a land border with an EU country – the Irish Republic. Switzerland has a border with several EU countries. It is a non-EU country that trades extensively with the EU (in 2019 it had a trade surplus of nearly 40 billion euros with the bloc).

As a result, the Swiss have found themselves constantly under pressure to abide by Brussels’ rules if they want to continue trading with the EU. These rules relate not just to trade, but to such things as the process of manufacture of products, and impinge more and more on the ability of the Swiss to make their own regulations for the benefit of themselves. More sinisterly, these rules relate also to matters such as immigration control.

It’s not just that. The EU want Switzerland as a “member-state” and to adopt its own insane “free movement of labour” policies. There have been a series of bilateral treaties in recent years that Switzerland has had to agree to as the price of maintaining access to the European Single Market. As a result of these, there has been free movement of people between Switzerland and the EU since 2002.

Each time the EU expands to include more “member states”, Switzerland, which clearly regrets abandoning control of its borders, is pressured to accept the additional influx that inevitably follows. Further bilateral treaties invariably contain clauses forcing the Swiss to do just that. The latest bilateral treaty is the Institutional Agreement between the EU and Switzerland.

The EU covets the unique country’s profitable industries and it’s stock market. It seeks to destroy the noble Swiss culture and way of life by blending it in into the pseudo-culture of multi-racialism, celebrity-worship and materialism endured by the citizens of EU countries. The pressure (i.e. blackmail) brought to bear on this little country has been enormous.

Now the EU is seeking to undermine Switzerland’s financial market. It has been making the same arrogant demand as they are now making of us (see Part 3 – Trade in services). They are refusing to grant “equivalence” to the Swiss, just as they are to us, even though the Swiss have far more expertise in financial trading than any EU country (now that the UK has left).

Can you see, now, why the Withdrawal Agreement was named “Trade and Cooperation Agreement”? A more honest title would be the “Trade and Coercion Agreement”.

This brings us to one of the most important sections of the TCA.

The “Northern Ireland protocol”

This “protocol” was the cause of many sticking points in the negotiations. The EU have used the peculiar geographical location of the province of Northern Ireland to try and weaken the position of the UK both throughout the negotiations and into the future. Their negotiators wrung more concessions out of the UK by seeing problems in the Northern Irish-Republic border that weren’t there in the first place.

Thanks to the TCA the UK now faces the prospect of having the same problems as the Swiss in the future, i.e. more and more erosion of national sovereignty, and millions of man-hours of sheer frustration in trying to do the impossible – to come to mutually beneficial agreements with the EU.

The EU will doubtless continue to use the Northern Ireland “protocol” as a means of separating Northern Ireland from the UK, fostering the break-up of the UK and keeping open the possibility that a future British government, or its regional replacements, will be forced to crawl, cap-in-hand, to be re-admitted, one by one, to the EU.

Their rationale has been that they are afraid of vast volumes of goods coming across the Irish border into the Republic to illegally flood the EU’s Single Market. This “danger” is extremely remote, given the low volume of trade that regularly crosses that border (it totalled about £4.7 billion worth of goods in 2016). Nevertheless, it warranted additional months of “negotiations” and the creation of the “Northern Ireland Protocol”.

Illegal trade (e.g. in red diesel) between the two countries has been the subject matter of regular talks between the UK and the Republic for many years. Overall these have been very satisfactory and productive. But that’s not what the EU wants. It wants total control. It ordered Irish premier (now former premier), Leo Varadkar, to scrap these talks, which, of course, he did.

That left the problem unresolved and ready for the EU’s own “solution”, which, of course, is to leave Northern Ireland effectively stranded inside the Single Market and subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It would then be ripe to be handed over to the Republic, and therefore back to the EU, probably by a future Labour government.

Day to day trade through the Irish Sea now faces serious and prolonged disruption. EU red tape ensures that many lorries containing goods for import/export to Northern Ireland are being delayed. Many companies on the UK mainland are refusing to send goods to the province on account of the paperwork and expense.

At least there is Article 16 of the Protocol, which says that if it leads “to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the EU or UK may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures”. It looks like this is one part of the TCA that will be of some use.

For now, the province is bound by over 300 EU directives and regulations, which can be amended at any time by the European Commission unilaterally. The good folk of Northern Ireland will have no say in such amendments. The Republic will have more of a say, being still a member of the EU. The only political entity that has any hope of salvaging this situation and preventing the loyal citizens of Northern Ireland from finding themselves under foreign rule is the DUP. Let us hope they do not flinch from the task.

“Classified Information”

Security and intelligence is covered in a separate agreement, the Security of Information Agreement, (“to fulfil the objectives of strengthening the security of each Party in all ways”) running to just eight pages, which seems rather strange. Why not simply have it as part of the main 1,246 page Agreement, which I’m sure could have its title amended to accommodate security and intelligence, or as the EU likes to call it, “classified information”.

Why have an agreement on this topic at all? Twenty one articles commit each party to adopting certain minimum security requirements and to share security related information. Most of this would be done by any two neighbouring powers anyway, as it would be in their joint best interests. But this being the EU, assuming, as it does, that all governments are as mired in corruption as is the EU itself, it all has to be put into writing.

An example of how whole parts of the TCA were not only drafted in Brussels, but in some cases lifted straight from EU documentation, is contained in Annex LAW-1: EXCHANGES OF DNA, FINGERPRINTS AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION DATA, Chapter 1: Exchange of DNA Data > 5.4. Protocols and Standards to be used for encryption mechanism: s/MIME and related packages.

There, on page 921, is an astonishing statement –

“s/MIME functionality is built into the vast majority of modern e-mail software packages including Outlook, Mozilla Mail as well as Netscape Communicator 4.x and inter-operates among all major e-mail software packages.”

Just above that bloomer is the statement that, “the hash algorithm SHA-1 shall be applied” when encrypting messages between the UK and the EU that contain DNA profile information, i.e. highly sensitive information that needs the highest protection against hackers.

SHA-1 as a hash algorithm was deprecated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology as being insecure as far back as 2011 and was disallowed for use in digital signatures in 2013. This part of the agreement was copied word for word from the EU Council decision of June 23, 2008, on “the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime”. No-one in either negotiating team bothered to check if it was still up to date – an elementary measure, given the fast moving world of internet and communications technology.

The same goes for the mention, on the same page, of Mozilla Mail and Netscape Communicator 4.x as being “modern email software”. These software packages date back to around 1997 and have long since been defunct.

One form of communication that is more secure than that adopted by the so-called “European Union”.

At least the Agreement “does not constitute a basis to compel the provision or exchange of classified information by the Parties”. This appears to be one concession wringed out of the EU in the closing days as time was running out. Britain, being a nuclear power, has access to a lot more classified information than does the EU. And that brings us to the next agreement.

The Nuclear Cooperation Agreement

The EU-UK Nuclear Cooperation Agreement attempts “to provide a framework for cooperation between the Parties in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”. Going through this 18-page document, it’s difficult to see what the point of it is. Much of it consists of preambles, objectives, definitions (including of scope), administrative arrangements, etc.

In a way, this Agreement assists the EU in consolidating its power over its member-states, by providing, in Article 18, that any existing “bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreements in force between the United Kingdom and Member States of the Community ……shall, where appropriate, be superseded by the provisions of this Agreement.”

What about bureaucracy? Ah, yes. Here we are – Article 19. Naturally, a “joint committee is hereby established by the Parties”.

There’s a complicated provision for determining when the Agreement, comes into force (which had to be resolved by exchanging letters on 30th December and publishing that as a separate document). But then it is to remain in force for an initial period of 30 years, automatically renewable for periods of ten years at a time, unless either party gives notice to terminate.

But even if that happens, several parts of the Agreement are to continue indefinitely under the terms of paragraph 3 of Article 24. Finally, in common with other parts of this whole series of Agreements, it is to be drawn up (in duplicate, of course) in all 24 languages (including Irish!) spoken in the EU.

So much for securing the UK’s departure from the EU.

Not a restoration of national sovereignty

The EU’s negotiators went into the withdrawal negotiations fully expecting to get exactly what they wanted from the UK government, without having to make any concessions at all. And while Theresa May was still in 10 Downing Street they very nearly succeeded.

Boris Johnson, career politician that he is, at least got us an agreement that means that, technically, we are free from the worst parts of the numerous treaties that previous treacherous prime ministers had signed us up to without our consent.

But we have to live with some uncomfortable truths. This isn’t a “restoration of national sovereignty”. It’s a recipe for either future enforced subjugation to Brussels or future conflict. Of the two, conflict is, of course, preferable.

The cost of not standing up to the demands from Brussels over Brexit is huge. According to Facts4EU.Org, by late 2020 UK taxpayers had paid the EU “an eye-watering £41 billion since voting to quit the bloc in 2016”.

Year by year, that’s been £5.1 billion in the second half of 2016, £9.3 billion in 2017, £9.1 billion in 2018, £9.4 billion in 2019 and £8.2 billion in 2020.

According to Facts4EU.Org, that’s not the end of it. “Britain faces the prospect of forking out billions more to Brussels with payments scheduled for the next 44 years.”

But there’s one more factor to consider when looking into the future, and it’s an encouraging one for us. The way we as a nation have conducted ourselves over the long drawn out negotiations to leave has been noted by people living in other EU member countries. And the appalling way in which the EU negotiators have behaved has also not gone unnoticed.

Others will follow us

It’s true we’ve had our share of traitorous remainers, well funded and with powerful friends in high places. And that includes the remainers who paid the EU £39 billion of our money at the start of the Brexit negotiations in return for nothing. But we’ve overcome everything that they could do to try and prevent our leaving, and we’ve done it surprisingly peacefully.

This has set a good example to countries such as France, Greece, Italy, Hungary and Poland, and even perhaps Germany as well. Millions of people in those countries yearn to be free from the EU, its restrictions, meddling and bureaucracy. It won’t take much to spark the creation of a new anti-EU political party, or a sub-division of an existing one, that is dynamic and determined enough to copy what Britain has done.

Other encouraging developments include an initiative from Switzerland, a non-EU country that, as we have seen, has been treated appallingly by the EU. This initiative is for closer cooperation between Switzerland and the UK in the realm of financial trading.

Given the volumes of financial trade conducted by both countries, there is potential here to form a financial market/stock exchange powerful and attractive enough to threaten to cripple all the EU financial markets. This would be a further impetus towards the EU countries affected seeking their own version of Brexit.

The European Union is a bloated, corruption-ridden, tyrannical, modern day Tower of Babel run by failed politicians whose only talent is in lining their own pockets. Like the old Soviet Union, it had to expand in order to survive, and when no more expansion is possible it will collapse. The inevitability of this now stares it in the face. All we have to do is keep a good distance and enjoy the spectacle.

Brexit – Is the UK really free from the EU? Part 4 – Fisheries

This series of posts takes a closer look at the Agreement that was arrived at between the UK and the EU and signed on 24th December 2020.
Editor's Note: The use of the expression, "TCA" in this series of posts refers to the "Trade and Cooperation Agreement" signed between the UK and the EU on December 24th 2020. This series of articles was first written in early 2021, so please bear in mind that some of the content may appear somewhat dated.

Philip Gegan

[Click here for Part 1]

[Click here for Part 2]

[Click here for Part 3]

Our fishing industry has been among the worst hit of all our industries as a result of membership of the European bloc. It’s endured 48 years of having our fishing waters plundered by foreign vessels. Fishing businesses that have been in the same family for generations have been decimated by Brussels dictats, red tape, and remorseless over-fishing by EU-based trawlers.

The EU’s brilliant answer to over-fishing and depletion of fish stocks is to list every conceivable species of fish, from Alfonsinos to Whiting (Celtic Sea), issue quotas, and require any excess fish caught to be thrown back into the sea, even though such fish are long since dead by the time the catch is weighed.

In Scotland a third of fishing boats are now tied up at their harbours. The Scottish fishing industry is estimated to be losing £1 million per day. This seems set to continue for a long time before the creaky wheels of the British civil service gets around to doing anything about it.

Throughout the withdrawal negotiations, the EU negotiators sought to keep full access to British fishing waters without making any concessions in return. So far, they’ve succeeded in doing just that.

The whole subject of fisheries is dealt with not only in Heading 5, which has nineteen articles. It’s also covered in four Annexes, occupying six pages. Anyone needing to refer to the Agreement’s provisions for our fishing industry has to shuttle to and fro between pages 261 and 899. Let’s take an in-depth look at what these say, to gain an insight of what the rest of the massive Agreement is like.

Loss of sovereignty illustrated

Article 1 confirms that the sovereign rights of coastal states are limited already as they have to conduct their fishing in accordance with the principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. As all parties have (regrettably) signed up to that Convention then it’s puzzling as to why it should be repeated here.

Article 2 contains “objectives and principles” that both sides should follow (so we’re not free to make our own rules and standards). These cover the painfully obvious for the most part, such as not destroying fishing stocks by over-fishing, following the best available scientific advice when making management decisions, and co-operating with each other to ensure the conservation of shared fish stocks. This Article occupies a full page of the Agreement. We should note here that it is European fishing vessels that have become notorious over the last few decades for recklessly plundering the fishing stocks of wherever they happen to be fishing, including UK waters.

Article 3 deals with definitions (another page and a bit) and Article 4 covers Fisheries Management, which contains much of what I always refer to as the “bleedin’ obvious”. An example of this is where it refers to each party enforcing the “objectives and principles” of Article 2 in its own waters, saying

“A Party shall not apply the measures referred to in paragraph 1 to the vessels of the other Party in its waters unless it also applies the same measures to its own vessels.”

So one party can’t ignore the rules in its own waters and yet try to insist that the other party obeys said rules. As I said, the “bleedin’ obvious”. I really do believe the EU will one day set out regulations covering how its citizens may breathe.

Tied to the EU in perpetuity

Article 5 is equally superfluous. Under it, each party has to give the other a list of vessels that it wants permission for to fish in that other’s waters. After that has been done, “the other Party shall issue authorisations or licences to fish”. So there seems to be no power to refuse such a request. As very few British vessels fish in European waters, and yet there are massive numbers of European vessels always fishing in British waters, we know in whose favour this article works.

Article 6 commits the UK to annual “consultations” with the EU on such matters as agreeing the “total allowable catches” (“TACs”) for each party. Naturally, each species of fish, or “stock” is listed in a separate annex to the Agreement. Three annexes, actually, this being the EU we’re talking about. Either side can demand an additional such consultation at any time if it thinks fit.

There’ll soon be more Eurocrats talking about fishing than there will be European fishermen fishing illegally in UK waters. This article is another example of how the UK is tied to the EU in perpetuity. We never had to have these regular “consultations” before we were taken into the EEC in 1973, so why do we need to have them now?

Article 7 provides for the aforementioned “provisional total allowable catches” in any year in the event of the sides failing to come to an agreement in the time allowed. Different provisions, of course, apply to “special stocks”, which then have to be defined.

Each party, in effect, sets its own “provisional TAC” (“which shall not exceed its share as set out in the corresponding Annex”) but then has an obligation to tell the other party what it is in each case. How’s that for regaining our national sovereignty and freeing ourselves from EU bureaucracy?

Annual consultations, the “specialised committee”, and more loss of sovereignty

Article 8 commits both parties to further annual consultations (and additional consultations as and when called for by one or the other) to agree the extent to which each side will grant the other access to its fishing waters. How much will all these “consultations” cost, and who will have to pay the bill? This article alone binds the UK indefinitely to the requirement that we adapt our fishing practices to accord with what has been agreed between two lots of bureaucrats, supposedly each lot representing their side’s fishermen.

Article 9 covers a situation where one party refuses to allow the other party access to its fishing waters. The parties have to consult under the auspices of the “Specialised Committee” and an arbitration tribunal has to be appointed. How are the members of this tribunal selected? The answer, presumably, is in Article INST.14 [Arbitration procedure] of Title I [Dispute settlement] of Part Six, without having recourse to consultations in accordance with Article INST.13 [Consultations]. Got that?

Some of the Whitby Fishing Fleet in harbour. Photo by Michael Jagger, reproduced here under Creative Commons Licence Conditions.

 

Article 10 has special provisions relating to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, none of which islands should be of any further concern to the European Union with regard to fisheries or anything else. In short, if the UK wants certain provisions of the Heading relating to fisheries not to apply to any of these islands then it has to apply to the “Partnership Council” for a ruling. More loss of sovereignty.

Article 11 provides for more red tape for fishing vessels from the Channel Islands landing fish in EU member-states’ ports.

Article 12 commits both parties to seek advice from the “International Council for the Exploration of the Sea” (ICES) within six months of the Agreement concerning the “alignment of the management areas” and other matters. More loss of sovereignty, and not just to the EU.

EU retains control via “joint committees”

Article 13 covers shares of TACs for “certain other stocks”. As these shares may fluctuate from time to time, each side has obligations to notify “the relevant States and international organisations” of its shares each time they change. This Article, though short, is drafted in an extremely shoddy manner, with undefined references to “relevant multilateral fora” and to the “Partnership Council” having powers to amend the Annexes that define the various types of fish that the whole Fisheries Heading refers to in the first place.

Article 14 covers “remedial measures and dispute resolution”, of which this Agreement promises plenty. As with other parts of the Agreement, everything conceivable is covered whilst at the same time leaving the door open to ample cross-interpretation and dispute.

Under Article 15 we are bound to share data with the EU (as it is with us, supposedly) so as to enforce the whole fisheries heading, “subject to each Party’s laws” (our laws being different from those of the EU, what could possibly go wrong?).

The “Specialised Committee on Fisheries”, referred to in Article 9, is given extensive powers under Article 16. It may “adopt measures, including decisions and recommendations” on a wide variety of matters. Who would expect anything else?

It is another example of how the EU has presumed for itself the power to retain control over vital areas of British policy through the establishment of joint committees, consisting of members from the EU and from the UK, and for the retention of such committees indefinitely.

You may think that, because it’s a joint committee, the UK’s sovereign rights will be safeguarded. Let’s hope they will be, indefinitely into the future, and that all our representatives on these various committees will be as fierce and committed to the preservation of our national sovereignty as we ourselves would be. Personally, I’m not going to bet any money on it.

EU wants our Channel Islands

There’s a ray of hope in Article 17. It covers how the Heading itself can be terminated. “Each Party may at any moment terminate this Heading, by written notification through diplomatic channels.” The amount of notice required is eight months plus the remainder of the then current year. This could mean nearly 20 months in practice. Why not adopt a simpler way of expressing the amount of notice required? But remember, again, this is the EU we’ve been dealing with. Again, extensive provisions apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Do I detect a measure of envy on the part of the EU on account of the Channel Islands belonging to the UK when they are unarguably closer to the Continent? Blame William the Conqueror for that!

Article 18 provides for the implementation of the Heading to be reviewed jointly “four years after the end of the adjustment period referred to in the Article 1 of Annex FISH.4”, and then after every subsequent period of four years. And you thought the period from the referendum until we “finally left” on December 31st 2020 was long drawn out! Complete extrication of our country from the clutches of the EU is a long, long way off. The EU negotiators here are clearly signalling that they expect the UK to be back inside the EU before long.

So that’s it, right? Not so fast. There’s a final Article in this Heading. Article 19 is headed “Relationship with other agreements”. Yes, this part of the Agreement has a relationship with other (existing) agreements! Needless to say, it supersedes or replaces any such.

It’s funny how we never needed agreements like this before the EU came along. But then that was in the days when national governments were sovereign, and made laws for the benefit of their subjects, without any hidden agenda remorselessly driving us all in the direction of a one world government.

Just as if Brexit had never happened

In summary, this part of the Agreement keeps us tied to the EU indefinitely. It’s true that in theory we have the power to terminate it unilaterally (as does the EU), but how likely is it that the career politicians in Parliament and Downing Street will defy all the pressures that would inevitably be applied to them at the first sign of such a rebellion?

You have to look at “ANNEX FISH.4” for some of the small print. This is on page 899. It establishes an “adjustment period” lasting from 1st January 2021 until 30th June 2026. During that time it will be, for fishermen of both sides, just as if Brexit had never happened.

Forty eight years of subjugation to the EU have ruined our fishing industry and brought it to the brink of collapse. The Heading and Annexes on fisheries, taken together, is a clear example of how the EU has dominated the drafting of the Agreement, and in doing so has treated the UK as if it were still a “member-state” that has to be regulated so as to be subservient to the EU itself.

It didn’t take long for the EU to display its vindictiveness towards the UK over fishing. In the opening days of 2021, for no reason, it imposed a ban on live shellfish exports from the UK. For some reason all shellfish caught in British waters has for a long time been sent to the EU for processing, and the EU Commission saw its chance. This shellfish remained the exact same product as it was up to December 31st 2020.

Wearing us down

If this is how the EU is going to behave towards us in the post-Brexit world then perhaps it’s time for us to retaliate. For starters, we could ban all EU fishing vessels from operating in UK waters, and do our fishing industry a huge favour at the same time.

Unless this whole “Trade Agreement” is repudiated then it will be used to gradually wear down the people who have to abide by it in one way or another until the prospect of surrendering our national sovereignty to the EU again will seem like a blessed relief.

In Part 5 (the final part) of this series of posts I will be taking a look at what we can expect from the EU now we’ve supposedly left it.

RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Twitter