ARTICLE: Oppression Finally Arrives in the British Police State

untitled

Hat-tip: http://www.westernspring.co.uk/gagging-camerons-counter-extremism-measures/

“Over generations, we in Britain have built something extraordinary: a successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy. Our country today is more vibrant, buoyant and diverse than ever before in our history.” These are the opening words of our Prime Minister David Cameron’s forward to the document presenting his government’s ‘Counter Extremism Strategy’, and all people grounded in reality will recognise at once how delusional they are. While the population of Britain are indeed more ‘diverse’ than ever before, no-one outside of a funny-farm, and certainly no-one with first-hand experience of life in our inner cities, could possibly describe our society as currently more vibrant, or more buoyant than ever before.

David Cameron then goes on to talk about the ‘British values’ of freedom, inclusivity and democracy that we have, according to him, come to cherish.

One might think that with all the ‘vibrancy’ and ‘buoyancy’ that our increased ‘diversity’ has brought us that we British people would be falling over ourselves to welcome even more ‘diversity’, and that there would be no need for duress on the part of the Government to persuade us that we must accept more. All is not as David Cameron pretends however, because the ‘Counter Extremism Strategy’ aims to prevent the polarisation of our society in which disparate communities and disparate individuals reject the government’s insistence that we must all live happily, cheek-by-jowl with people who are alien to our way of life. In short, the Counter Extremism Strategy is intended to intimidate communities into accepting the imposition of multiculturalism and multiracialism that few people actually want.

If we truly had built something ‘extraordinary’, a ‘successful multi-racial, multi-faith democracy’, with greater ‘vibrancy’ and ‘buoyancy’ than ‘ever before in our history’, there would be no need for the government’s Counter Extremism Strategy. This whole issue therefore, and the government’s position is predicated on a lie.

David Cameron goes on, “One of the greatest threats we face is the scourge of extremism from those who want to divide us. We see it in sickening displays of neo-Nazism, Islamophobia, antisemitism and, of course, Islamist extremism”, oh, of course!

David Cameron says, “… of course, Islamist extremism”, in order to emphasise the only form of extremism that the indigenous British are actually concerned about. His focus here on ‘Islamist extremism’ is intended to distract us from the real intention of the legislation being proposed and to provide the Draconian measures planned with an element of ‘sugar coating’, making them easier to swallow.

Cameron states that government has in the past been “too tolerant of intolerance”, and with regard to Islamic extremism he is right, however with three Race Relations Acts, in 1965, 1968 and then 1976, and finally the Equalities Act of 2010, each act ratcheting-up the restrictions on our freedom of action and freedom of speech regarding race, government have already taken very oppressive steps where so-called right-wing extremism is concerned.

At any time over the last sixty or seventy years government could have almost completely defused the race issue in this country, by simply halting mass immigration from the Third World and by allowing people the freedom to discriminate as we see fit. This would have significantly limited the impact of non-White immigration on our society and by not forcing disparate peoples into contact with each other, public resentment would have greatly diminished. This would have been the response of a moderate government, but sadly, successive governments have not been moderate, they have sought to flood our country with non-White immigrants and to force us to interact with them at every step and turn of our lives. We have been governed by a succession of extremist governments, with the extreme aim of forcibly creating a multiracial society and inducing our people miscegenate.

Oppression 1The Race Relations Act 1965 represents the measures that the Labour government of Harold Wilson thought appropriate in 1965. The measures contained were considered the limit of what could be achieved in terms of coercing the British people forcing us to submit to the presence of a significant non-White population in this country. By 1968 however, the Wilson government thought they could get away with more and they introduced more extreme measures, and by 1976 the Labour government of James Callaghan introduced even more extreme measures.

Finally, came the Equalities Act 2010, which creates an onus on every government department and every public body to take active steps to promote ‘diversity’ and suppress any expression of opposition. The race relations regime established by the Equalities act creates a rigid legislative framework making discrimination virtually impossible and making public dissent from the ostensible goals of tolerance and diversity so costly as to be untenable.

The measures incorporated within the Equalities Act however, were thankfully only designed to punish those who break the law, and this is where the governments proposed counter extremism measures go right off the ‘Richter scale’ of law enforcement measures as far as civilised Western nations are concerned. The new measures include measures to ‘disrupt’ the lives of people who have not broken the law, but who are judged by the authorities to hold and disseminate views with which the government disagrees.

“We will disrupt extremists, aggressively …” says David Cameron, “We will disrupt all those who seek to spread hate and we will prosecute all those who break the law”, adds the Home Secretary Theresa May. Let us be clear, when a government imposes measures that disrupt the lives of its citizens simply because those citizens hold beliefs that are contrary to those of the government, and in circumstances where the citizens concerned have neither employed violence nor broken the law, this is not ‘law enforcement’, it is not ‘protecting the people’, it is not ‘good government’, it is out-and-out oppression!

Illustrating the hypocrisy of these new measures, the government document detailing the proposed counter extremism strategy begins Chapter One with the words: “Life in our country is based on fundamental values that have evolved over centuries, values that are supported and shared by the overwhelming majority of the population and are underpinned by our most important local and national institutions. These values include the rule of law, democracy, individual liberty, and the mutual respect, tolerance and understanding of different faiths and beliefs”.

It does not seem to have occurred to David Cameron or Theresa May that ‘the rule of law’, means that government does not act outside of the law by persecuting with disruption orders, those who have been law abiding. It does not occur to them that a central tenet of ‘democracy’ is the right of freedom of expression, a freedom that successive rafts of so-called hate-speech legislation has already substantially curtailed, or that ‘individual liberty’ confers upon people, freedom of belief, and freedom of conscience. That is, the freedom to hold beliefs not shared by the government and in some instances directly opposed to those of the government, providing the people holding those beliefs act within the law.

In Chapter Two of the government document, it states under the heading ‘Disrupting Extremists, “We will create new targeted powers, flexible enough to cover the full range of extremist behaviour, including where extremists sow division in our communities and seek to undermine the rule of law”. Furthermore, in Chapter Five, dealing specifically with ‘Disrupting Extremists’, it continues, “there remain extremists in our society who cause an immense amount of harm, while being careful to stay just the right side of the law. In addition to strengthening our use of existing powers against such extremists, we will introduce new, carefully targeted powers to challenge the most active and persistent individuals and groups”.

Bear in mind here, the government are not talking about terrorist groups being targeted for disruption, nor are they talking about criminal organisations that break the law, they are talking about ‘disrupting’, that is, persecuting people for simply holding and disseminating dissident beliefs. These are the sort of tactics which a generation ago, and perhaps even a decade ago would only be associated with totalitarian regimes, or autocratic governments in Africa or Asia.

Gagged 1The government document continues: “The police have a range of powers to deal with extremists. However these powers are neither comprehensive nor are they always flexible enough to respond to the risk. For example it is not currently possible to ban groups which stir up racial hatred, or to stop the activities of extremists who deliberately set out to sow divisions between communities and encourage young people to reject the fundamental values and institutions on which our society is based.

“We will therefore introduce new powers to: ban extremist organisations that promote hatred and draw people into extremism; restrict the harmful activities of the most dangerous extremist individuals; and restrict access to premises which are repeatedly used to support extremism.”

When we realise how low the threshold is becoming in terms of the authorities deciding what is considered to be racial hatred, the implications of the above two paragraphs become frighteningly clear. The ‘working definition of anti-Semitism’, which is currently being promoted in government circles by Jewish groups, asserts that, “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”, amounts to anti-Semitism, and as we all know, in the minds of Judeophiles, anti-Semitism is the most heinous form of racism. Therefore, we can expect to see certain nationalist organisations banned under the government’s new measures.

The measures that have already been vested in the Home Secretary under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, include:

House arrest;
Travel restrictions and/or denial of passport;
Exclusion from certain geographical areas;
Denial of banking or other financial services;
Banning from buying or selling property;
Banning the use of computers or telephones;
Banning association with certain other individuals;
Proscribing certain kinds of work or study; or
Electronic tagging and/or curfews.

Refusal to comply with such a disruption measure would of course be an arrestable criminal offence.

Most importantly, we must make as many people as possible aware of these new measures and the way in which they deviate into naked oppression in a way that the law in the UK has not done for hundreds of years or more. These measures will undermine democracy in the name of protecting democracy; they will undermine the rule of law while professing to do the opposite and they will similarly undermine freedom of belief and freedom of conscience, and we must make our people beyond the nationalist community aware of this. We must make them understand that if government find they can behave in such a cavalier fashion without any adverse repercussions, this kind of crude and lazy law enforcement will increase, sweeping aside the civil rights of everyone and sooner or later we will all find ourselves living in a police state.

ARTICLE: All in the Family: David Cameron’s Jewish Roots and the Co-religionists Who Brought Him to Power

Hat-tip: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=102815

Ultimately, one must ask where do his loyalties lie: Israel or U.K. One cannot have two master –but one master does pay so very, very well -Ed.

While speaking to a 500-strong group of Jewish lobbyists in London in 2007, UK Prime Minister David Cameron declared,(1)I am a Zionist“. He went on to add, “I’m not just a good friend of Israel but I am, as you put it, good for Jews.
These comments can easily be explained merely as fawning attempts to placate and appease the Jewish lobby – a necessary step for any who wish to assume high office. One has to ask the question though: why does ‘Anglican’ David Cameron conceal his own Jewish identity?
David Cameron is not merely of Jewish descent; he hails from a bloodline that can fairly be described as Jewish royalty, yet he claims never to have known this. As he spoke to the Movement for Reform Judaism in 2010 he described his learning of his Jewish ancestry(2) as the “highlight” of his year.
While studying the Cameron family tree in 2009,(3) Dr Yaakov Wise – a University of Manchester historian who specialises in Jewish history – found that David Cameron is descended from a highly distinguished Jewish family line (emphases added):
And according to Dr Wise, who has been using archival material to examine the Cameron family tree, the Tory leader could also be a direct descendent of the greatest ever Hebrew prophet, Moses.
Cameron is a descendent of banker Emile Levita, who came to Britain as a German immigrant in the 1850s. Emile Levita was himself a descendent of Elijah Levita, who lived from 1469-1549.
During the last years of his life Elijah Levita produced, among other works, two major books: the 1541 Translator’s Book, the first dictionary of the Targums or Aramaic commentaries on the Hebrew Bible.
His lexicon of 1542 explained much of the Mishnaic Hebrew language and was a supplement to two important earlier dictionaries.
Elijah Levita also wrote what is thought to be the first ever Yiddish novel – called the Bove-bukh (The Book of Bove) written in 1507 and printed in 1541.
The book is based on an Italian version of an Anglo-Norman tale about a queen who betrays her husband and causes his death.
Emile Levita, who was granted citizenship in 1871, is Cameron’s great great grandfather.
Cameron’s great-great grandfather, Emile Levita was a German Jewish financier who emigrated to Britain and obtained British citizenship in 1871. Levita was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which in 1969 became Standard Chartered Bank. Levita himself is descended from Elijah Levita, a Jewish scholar of out-and-out luminary status whose writings included not only a dictionary explaining much of the Talmudic Hebrew language (or ‘Mishnaic Hebrew’), but the first ever Yiddish novel (Yiddish, meaning literally “Jewish” is a language of German Ashkenazi Jews written in the Hebrew alphabet).
Considering the sheer historical eminence of his ancestors, it would take real gullibility to believe that David Cameron ‘found out’ about his roots one year before he assumed office. The question is not ‘why did Cameron have no knowledge of his Jewish roots’, but rather, why would he conceal his Jewish identity?
A 2006 report by the Jewish Chronicle(4) cited here by Stuart Littlewood(5) perhaps goes some way in explaining this. The report titled ‘Team Cameron’s big Jewish backers‘ is a laundry list of powerful members of the Jewish community who donated over £1 million to David Cameron, explaining his inexplicable rise to power after a relatively mundane and unremarkable political career.
The biggest Jewish donor to the party while Mr Cameron has been leader is gaming magnate Lord Steinberg, who has donated £530,000, plus a loan of £250,000. Hedge-fund owner Stanley Fink has donated £103,000, even though he was a declared supporter of Mr Cameron’s leadership rival, Liam Fox. A further £250,000 has been loaned by philanthropist Dame Vivien Duffield.
During Mr Cameron’s campaign to lead his party, Jewish figures gave his team (as opposed to the party) additional donations of more than £60,000. According to the JC’s inquiries, direct donations to “Team Cameron” in the leadership battle came from philanthropist Trevor Pears (around £20,000), Bicom chair Poju Zabludowicz (£15,000 plus £25,000 to the party), Next chief executive Simon Wolfson (£10,000 plus £50,000 to the party), former Carlton TV boss Michael Green (£10,000) and Tory deputy treasurer and key Cameron fundraiser Andrew Feldman (£10,000 through his family firm, Jayroma).
Aside from these donations from powerful Jewish figures, a ‘small but influential’ group of Jewish Conservative officials and politicians were also ‘key players’ in Cameron’s campaign for leadership, the Jewish Chronicle report goes on to mention.(4)
In the aforementioned piece,(5) Stuart Littlewood makes an observation about the extent to which Jews are over-represented in the British parliament (emphases added):
While nobody is suggesting, I hope, that Jews have no place in our law-making, it is not unreasonable to wish the number to reflect their presence in the population. Three years ago the Jewish Chronicle published a list of Jewish MPs in Britain’s Parliament, naming 24. The Jewish population in the UK at that time was – and probably still is – around 280,000 or just under 0.5 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, on a proportional basis, Jews could expect three seats. But with 24 they were eight times over-represented. Which meant, of course, that other groups were under-represented.
The UK’s Muslim population is about 2.4 million or nearly 4 per cent. Similarly, their quota would be 25 seats but they had only eight – a serious shortfall. If Muslims were over-represented to the same extent as Jews (i.e. eight times) they’d have 200 seats. Imagine the hullabaloo.
David Cameron appointed the UK’s first Jewish ambassador(6) to the Zionist regime, Matthew Gould.
Succeeded by David Cameron, the previous leader of the Conservative party, Michael Howard, is also Jewish,(7) as is the current leader of the UK Labour party, Ed Miliband.(8) Not bad going for a group that constitutes less than 0.5% of Britain’s population.
If the British public were to consider Cameron’s very real pursuance of Zionist policies in the context of his rise to power on the back of Jewish money, there would be a public awakening (which would no-doubt be labelled as ‘anti-Semitism’). In light of this, the decision to conceal his Jewish identity can easily be understood.
It is not democratic for a holder of high office to be put in place by the money of powerful political pressure groups. Nor is it democratic for one ethno-religious group to be grossly over-represented within the corridors of power.
If the interests of the Zionist regime and the powerful Jewish community were to conflict with those of the United Kingdom, who would David ‘I’m a Zionist‘ Cameron really represent? If the recent wars on Libya and Syria are anything to go by, this question need not be asked.
Notes

(1) ‘Cameron declares himself a Zionist’ – The Jerusalem Post, 13 June 2007.
(2) ‘David Cameron Speaks to the Movement for Reform Judaism’ – Written by Movement for Reform Judaism, 12 April 2010.
(3) ‘Illustrious Jewish roots of Tory leader revealed’ – The University of Manchester, 10 July 2009.
(4) ‘Special report: Team Cameron’s big Jewish backers’ – Bernard Josephs and Leon Symons – The Jewish Chronicle, 12 October 2006.
(5) ‘David Cameron’s “Torah” government: Britain’s unbearable shame’, by Stuart Littlewood.
(6) ‘Interview: The UK’s new Jewish ambassador to Israel’ – The Jewish Chronicle, 10 December 2009.
(7) ‘Britain’s Conservative Party To Elect First Jewish Leader’ – The Jewish Federations of North America, 6 November 2010.
(8) ‘The Jewishness of Ed Miliband: Labour’s first Jewish leader bravely faces up to the Left’s anti-Semitic streak’ – The Telegraph, 25 May 2012

Source

Courtesy Peter Myers

ARTICLE: Tories’ 27 Battleground Seats Funded through ‘Donation Loophole’

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/08/tories-27-battleground-seats-funded-through-donations-loophole/

The secrecy of the Tories’ fundraising operation has been underscored by new research revealing the party’s reliance on a loophole to keep the names of its donors under wraps.  With the party’s 40/40 strategy focusing resources on 80 seats to win or hold, 27 of these get a majority of their campaign cash from ‘unincorporated associations’.

The names of individuals giving a constituency party more than £1,500/year would ordinarily be declared to the Electoral Commission. But rich donors can maintain their anonymity by hiding behind an unincorporated association — allowing them to give up to £7,500 per seat, per year.

The list of 27 seats receiving a majority of donations in this way — published below exclusively by Scrapbook — includes 16 for which 100% of declarable donations have come from organisations such as the United & Cecil Club.

Tory battleground seats with majority of cash from Unincorporated Associations

A donor working with fundraisers in this way could give a whopping £3 million to target seats over the five years of this parliament — without anyone outside the party knowing who they are.

553210_3675287878960_551982437_n

Russia Accuses West Of Arming Mali “Al-Qaeda” Rebels

syrias-bullshit

Western imperialism knows no bounds. The “British” government is a direct threat to your safety. The people that have, are, and will suffer because of the “British” government’s gun running and regime change will naturally seek revenge on the aggressor nation. The guilty politicians will not, of course, suffer the consequences. They never do. Only the British people will suffer as they did on 7/7.  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Revenge will one day be upon us.

Define irony? Here is one, or rather two, tries.

Back in the 1970s, it was none other than the US that armed the Taliban “freedom fighters” fighting against the USSR in the Soviet-Afghanistan war, only to see these same freedom fighters eventually and furiously turn against the same US that provided them with arms and money, with what ended up being very catastrophic consequences, culminating with September 11.

Fast forward some 30 or more years and it is again the US which, under the guise of dreams and hopes of democracy and the end of a “dictatorial reign of terror”, armed local insurgents in the Libyan war of “liberation” to overthrow the existing regime (and in the process liberate just a bit of Libya’s oil) – the same Libya where shortly thereafter these same insurgents rose against their former sponsor, and killed the US ambassador in what has now become an epic foreign policy Snafu.

But it doesn’t end there as according to Russia, it is the same US weapons that were provided to these Libyan “freedom fighters” that are now being used in what is rapidly becoming a war in Mali, involving not only assorted French regiments, but extensive US flip flops and boots on the ground.

Via Al Jazeera,

Russia said on Wednesday the rebels fighting French and African troops in Mali are the same fighters the West armed in the revolt that ousted Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

“Those whom the French and Africans are fighting now in Mali are the [same] people who overthrew the Gaddafi regime, those that our Western partners armed so that they would overthrow the Gaddafi regime,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a news conference.

“It’s important to lift one’s head a bit and look over the horizon, look at all those processes more widely, they are interconnected and carry very many threats,” Lavrov said, speaking of unrest across the Middle East that could play into the hands of militants.

“This will be a time bomb for decades ahead,” he said.

That is our definition of irony.

Hat tip:  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-23/russia-accuses-west-arming-mali-al-qaeda-rebels

ARTICLE: Newport market traders ban Labour councillors in parking protest

market traders parking protest

market traders parking protest

A group of traders in Newport have banned Labour council members from their businesses in protest over free parking being stopped.

Steve Reynolds, owner of Toy Army in Newport Market, launched the campaign after councillors voted against a motion which would have saved the city’s two-hour free parking.

Other businesses in the market have followed.

Newport Labour councillor Debbie Harvey said the move was “outrageous”.

Mr Reynolds said: “I had just had enough. It’s been one thing after another.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Considering they’re crying out for trade, banning 30-odd councillors is ridiculous”

Councillor Debbie Harvey

“We’ve been asking the council for help and relief.”

The motion was brought by opposition leader Matthew Evans urging the council to reverse its decision to axe the scheme, which allows shoppers to park for free for the first two hours in all its city centre car parks.

The motion was defeated with 10 councillors voting for it, 32 against and one abstaining.

Other businesses who have joined the campaign include Sys Barbers, Turner’s Butchers, Mr Fruit, City Fashions, Kriminal records, Negative Zone comic store and Chillis sweet shop.

Mr Reynolds said: “We’re really struggling as it is here. Myself and other traders are round about 60 to 70% down on last Christmas already.

“There’s no draw to this town as it is and this is going to do more damage. People just aren’t going to pay.”‘Absolutely outrageous’

But Labour councillor Debbie Harvey, of Alway ward, said the current administration had been left with millions of pounds of debt by the previous Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration so cutbacks had to be made.

“I think it’s absolutely outrageous. Considering they’re crying out for trade, banning 30-odd councillors is ridiculous. This definitely isn’t the way to tackle it,” she said.

“If you ask people on the street if they would rather pay 33p an hour to park or for people to lose their jobs, I’m sure 99.9% would say they would rather pay.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

I proposed an alternative plan which is a voucher scheme, but it fell on deaf ears”

Councillor Chris Evans

“What they haven’t factored in is the five hours free parking between now and February.

“I feel for them but I feel for every business not just the market traders. There’s the whole of town as well but unfortunately with the debt we have got, it’s got to be tackled.

“In the current climate everyone has to tighten their belts.”

Councillor for Rogerstone Chris Evans said that he was the only Labour councillor not banned because he had abstained on the parking issue.

“The entire Labour group with the exception of myself voted to withdraw free parking. I proposed an alternative plan which is a voucher scheme, but it fell on deaf ears,” he said.

Mr Evans said the market is a council building and he had heard that some Labour councillors were disgruntled by the traders’ decision.

“But this is the consequence. The traders are at the end of their tether. They feel this potentially could be the last straw. This is make or break time for many businesses,” he said.

Ringland councillor Emma Corten told her followers on Twitter: “So I’ve just been told that as a Labour Councillor I’ve been banned from shopping in Newport Market. That’ll help, I’m sure.”

Read on: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20810302

ARTICLE: Was Guy Fawkes the Last Honest Man to Pass through Westminster?

Hat tip: http://www.westernspring.co.uk/was-guy-fawkes-the-last-good-man-to-pass-through-westminster/

Imagine a government that would deliberately take millions away from the budget meant to educate its own nation’s children, while at the time use billions to send foreign aid to other nations who don’t need it?

That would be nothing less than treason. You cannot imagine any sane government doing such a thing. Think of, for example, China, or Japan, deliberately depriving its own people of an education while giving money to Korea? It just wouldn’t happen, because the Chinese and the Japanese would—rightly—regard that as nothing less than treason.

Of course, you guessed it: Britain’s House of Treason down by the banks of the old river, has done precisely that—and no-one seems to know or care.

The Tory-Lib-Dem-Labour party—because they are just all the same party—is busy with much-vaunted “budget cuts” to “save the economy” (after they and their big business bank cronies screwed it over in the first place) and one of the first cuts to be announced was in the education arena.

Any parent with university-age going children is well aware that uni fees have now rocketed from a manageable amount just two or three years ago, to an impossible £9,000 per year—and that is just for the tutoring fees, never mind books, resources, living allowances, residence and so on.

Even those students “lucky” enough to get loans, start off their working lives with tens of thousands of pounds of debt—an impossible burden which—even more importantly—makes starting a family next to impossible.

The nuts and bolts of the process are as follows: England’s university budgets were cut by £449 million in 2010, with similar cuts being added each following year. This means that over £1.3 billion has been cut in the last three years, and there is no end yet in sight. By the end of 2014, the total uni education budget cut will be cut by nearly £4 billion.

In practical terms, this means that the universities have had at least 6,000 fewer places each academic year.

In addition, research funding has been frozen and the uni buildings budget cut by 15 percent.

At the same time, the Government has announced that taxpayers will hand over £50.8 billion in foreign aid to the Third World by 2014. This translates to 61 percent of the total “spending review” cuts announced by the Government.

According to a press release issued by the Department for International Development (DFID), the total foreign aid budget will reach the targeted 0.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2013.

This would mean a yearly spend of £12.6 billion, the DFID said.

This increased spending, the DFID said, is “in line with the UK’s international commitments to help those living in extreme poverty in our world. Over the course of the Spending Review period, the Department for International Development will increase resource spending by 35 percent in real terms, and increase capital spending by 20 percent in real terms.”

This means that the foreign aid budget was £8.4 billion in 2010, £8.7 billion in 2011, £9.1 billion in 2012, and will be £12.0 billion in 2013, and £12.6 billion in 2014—totalling £50.8 billion by the end of 2014.

So there you have it: cut the education budget by £4 billion, but boost the foreign aid budget by £50 billion.

Who would dare call it treason?  I for one, and I am increasingly becoming convinced that the last honest man to pass through the halls of Westminster was indeed Guy Fawkes.

‘Politicians keep British soldiers in Afghanistan as human shields for their reputations’ -SAYS PAUL FLYNN M.P.

 

Question of the day: Why don’t we see essential ground-breaking news like this from Western mainstream media? Why do we have to look to Russia to lift the lid on the crooks in office? 

This interview MUST be viewed.

British MP Paul Flynn, who was suspended from the House of Commons for voicing his opposition to the war in Afghanistan, told RT there is absolutely no reason to keep UK soldiers in the warzone any longer, other than to save ministers’ reputations.

A British Labour Party politician, Flynn was recently suspended from the House of Commons after he accused ministers of lying over military policy in Afghanistan. Below is an extract from his speech:

“The role of our brave soldiers at the moment is to act as human shields for ministers’ reputations. The danger to our soldiers is being prolonged by those on that bench who have the power to stop it. Other countries have removed their soldiers from this dangerous area where they’re not doing what we are doing, which is arming and training our future enemy. Isn’t this very similar to the end of the First World War, when it was said the politicians lied and soldiers died and the reality was as it is now – that our brave soldier lions are being led by ministerial donkeys!”

Speaking with RT, Paul Flynn has said that politicians have been making the wrong decisions concerning the Afghan war for many years. What’s more, the current war has not changed things in Afghanistan. It even made them worse, while Britain has wasted lives and huge sums of money – and continues to do so.

RT: Paul Flynn, after that you were disciplined by the speaker and barred from parliament for five days. Presumably, you knew that would happen, but you thought it was worth it.


Paul Flynn: 
Oh, it’s very well worthwhile. It’s a very rare event and the result is being that my words have been seen almost all over the world. There’s been an extraordinary effect. And I believe this may well be a turning point in public opinion. I believe 80 per cent of public opinion would like to see [the] boys home by Christmas, and the government have their heads in the sands, and they are ignoring it.

RT: You’ve been a long-standing critic of the war in Afghanistan. So what brought on this specific outburst?

PF: This one was about the futility of the deaths in the last few days and the utter imbecile lying ministers who come before us and made idiotic excuses for continuing the war. There is only one reason why the war is continuing and that is to protect the reputations of politicians. Our soldiers are there as human shields for ministers’ reputations. What they are trying to do is to keep the war going on to the best moment that would reflect on the reputations of politicians.

Absolutely no reasons why we shouldn’t bring our troops home now. The only reason is that we are tied in with the politics of the United States. We are an independent state. We have to remind us of that. We can take our own decisions and what we are going to see in the future is deepening the trouble. There will be more slaughter. Because of this whole of these fictitious aims of the war we seem to collapse. And what’s happening now there is no possibility that we can train the Afghan people and army and their police that will fight their own people that will kill brother-Afghans, for what? For a corrupt election-rigging depraved president or to defend the interest of a foreign country? It can’t happen.

RT: You say that ministers are keeping soldiers in Afghanistan to protect their own reputation. But how does the death of more soldiers protect anyone’s reputation?

PF: The official attitude is we must protect our reputations against our previous mistakes and in the war so that history will judge the politicians made the right decisions. In fact, we’ve been making the wrong decisions for many years.

RT:
You maintain that what Britain is doing is arming and training its future enemies. And I suppose there is a historical precedent for that.       

PF: There is a very powerful precedent that the Americans trained and armed the Mujahideen. And the Mujahideen are the worst government that Afghanistan has had in a hundred years. And the Taliban were a great reforming improvement in a Mujahideen. But we’ve done this in the past and we are going to do it again. There is no way that a Taliban army or police are going to risk their lives, kill their brother-Afghans in the service of a foreign country when we’ve gone over the service of a corrupt president. They are going back to their tribal loyalties, the Uzbeks and the Pashtuns will be divided as they always have been divided. And the likelihood is that there will be disorder when we leave.  We went there, civil war was going on, and the country was bitterly divided. After we’ve left, a few years, the situation will be very similar. There’ll be more civil war and the likely future rulers will be the Taliban.

RT:What lessons, then, should have been learnt from both Britain’s own colonial past and the Soviet Union’s experience in Afghanistan?  

PF: In 2001 in Strasbourg a very ebullient member of the Duma tapped me on the back and said: “You British have gone into Afghanistan and you captured it in a few days. I’m saying that we Russians did that. And we were there for 10 years. We killed a million Afghans, we spent billions of rubles. And we lost 16,000 of our own soldiers. And when we came out, we left a puppet government there, but there were 300,000 Mujahideen in the hills who eventually took over.” And he said to me: “It will happen to you.” And he was absolutely precisely right.

We deluded ourselves. We told ourselves fairy stories about what was going to happen. But we could change things and we couldn’t. There was a benign cause that the Russians would have been taken up in Afghanistan of taking people at a bottom life, giving them a chance to improve materially. I mean, nothing really happened in the end. And we went in, we were going to get rid of the drugs trade, we were ending corruption, we were going to give women a better deal. And nothing has changed.

The corruption is exactly the same, possibly worse. Drugs’ trade is… 90 per cent of the drugs in Britain come from Afghanistan, Tony Blair told the House. 90 per cent! Twelve years later 90 per cent of the drugs still come from Afghanistan. There is a difference. There is more of them now and they are cheaper on the streets. And more people corrupted.

In 2001 Afghanistan was the second-worst place in the world for a woman to live. Now it’s the second-worst place in the world of a woman to live. But the objectives of the war were hopeless, were utopian. And we’ve wasted lives and huge sums of money and we’ll end up in two or three years’ time with a situation just as bad as the one that was there before we invaded.

RT: Let’s talk a bit about the logistics and message that pulling out now would send. What about the soldiers who are serving in Afghanistan at the moment, those, who’ve already served and the families of the soldiers who’ve died. Wouldn’t pulling out now send the message that everything they’ve done has been essentially for nothing?

PF: It’s certainly a tragedy that those families must go through this trauma, have realized that this was a war in which nothing has been achieved. But certainly they have to face that eventually. What would be immoral and cruel is to tell other people the same lies and that more lives should be lost. In order to comfort the bereaved or to comfort politicians that they made the right decisions, at the moment now there’s no conceivable reason why we shouldn’t start telling the truth to people and say that there isn’t this mythical threat of terrorism in Britain that we somehow are ending by being in Afghanistan. If we say to the Taliban “Why are you killing our soldiers?” would they say “When we’ve killed all your soldiers, we are coming over to Newport and to Cardiff and London and we’re going to blow up your streets?” They’ve got no interest in that.

The reason the Taliban are killing British soldiers is because we are the foreigners, we are the infidels. And we occupy, by force of arms, their country. It’s their sacred religious duty to kill us. If we are not there, they don’t kill us. It’s a fairly simple argument to understand.

RT:
So what you are saying is that pulling out of Afghanistan right now wouldn’t affect the security situation in the rest of the world?

PF: 
No, not in the slightest. There are security threats. They come from Pakistan. They come from Yemen. They come from Somalia. They come from Bradford. We had an attack by Al-Qaeda that was from English people brought up in England.

RT: Is it not the better to have the US as friends rather than enemies? What kind of message would leaving now send to America which at the moment is supposedly a trusted friend and ally?

PF: We have a claim that we are an independent country and we spend billions on an independent nuclear weapon. We should be independent as far as Afghanistan is concerned. We’ve already seen countries that we greatly respect and admire assembling themselves pulling out of the conflict. Quite rightly, honorably they’ve given huge contributions in blood and treasure. We should take our own decision. We know that at least 80 per cent of the population is saying: “For Goodness sake, bring our boys home by Christmas!”

RT:
Paul Flynn, thank you.

PF:
 My pleasure.

 

Hat tip:  http://rt.com/news/war-afghanistan-flynn-opposition-740/