Book Review : Jewish Supremacism by Dr. David Duke

JEWISH SUPREMACISM
MY AWAKENING TO THE JEWISH QUESTION

By Dr David Duke
Dr Duke was previously elected to the House of Representatives, State of Louisiana, USA and served from 1996-2000
A book review by Boadicea

The powers that be will not be kind to those who tell certain truths; one could face loss of career, reputation-assassination, even face persecution … and maybe prosecution. And yet, some have the courage and compassion to tell those truths.
With honour and bravery, Dr Duke tells the truth in this volume and in so doing makes great personal sacrifice.
He speaks out for the good of mankind.
img255

‘Jewish supremacism you say? What are you some kind of ‘racist’ hater anti-Semite who wants to kill six million Jews with pesticide gas?’ Some readers of this review may wonder if the author Dr Duke is such a person for writing a book with this title. However, last time you heard the newsreaders spitting about the latest so-called ‘racism’#/’white supremacist’ scandal, perhaps some white person had said something deemed to be ‘racist’ or a black person felt offended, did you imagine that the outraged journalist was a hater who wants to kill millions of white people? Did the journalist make sure to inform the audience that not all white people are so-called ‘racists’ and some are very ‘nice’? It is very likely that the reader has heard the venom directed at those labelled as ‘white supremacists’ and not imagined that the relevant enraged journalists are haters. Why are so many people trained to respond in such ways? Has the media and the education system, even society at large, trained certain responses to the word ‘supremacism’ in some contexts, but not in others? How could this be? Why can people spit about ‘white supremacists’ without any blame on the speaker, but to even mention the phrase ‘Jewish supremacists’ invites accusations of being a hater, a ‘racist’ – if not a genocidal maniac? What happened to ‘equality’?#

img256

In contrast to the many pages of newspapers, academic journals, books, etc. written upon ‘white supremacism’, Dr Duke felt the need to make clear at the outset of his book that he does not hate all Jewish people# – in fact, Dr Duke dedicates his book to a Jewish man: the late Dr Israel Shahak#. Dr Duke did not start off with the beliefs he now holds, and his journey of awakening is told as part of this volume, a journey of discovery that took him from the official beliefs and narratives, to truth.

******

In this book Dr Duke discusses the issue of Jewish supremacism. Amongst Jews there are many who are brought up to believe that they are superior and have the right to reign supreme over their ‘inferiors’. These supremacist beliefs are found in the very texts held as holy by the Jews, (e.g. see Talmud, Torah, etc.). Such beliefs are found in the books and speeches made by some Jews. Such beliefs can be seen to be evidenced in much behaviour around the world.

Dr Duke quotes the definition of Jewish supremacism as: ‘The belief, theory or doctrine that the Jewish people are superior to all others and should retain control in all relationships’ and in his book presents evidence that many of the Jews of the world do believe themselves superior to all other peoples, e.g. citing Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stating the ‘moral and intellectual superiority’ of the Jewish people#. One could imagine the reaction were a white leader to say such a thing in relation to white people! He also shows that they seek control in all relationships with other peoples, yet the Jewish-dominated world media shield Jewish supremacism from criticism (or even discussion), e.g. no outrage was expressed when Ben-Gurion was quoted in Look Magazine (1962) predicting Israel to one day be sitting atop a one world government:
‘In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine to the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents: this will be the Supreme Court of Mankind.’#
img257

While the world hunts down suspected Nazis, little outcry was heard when boastful terrorist Menachem Begin was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – Begin who brags in his book about the massacre of over two hundred men, women and children at Deir Yassin. Dr Duke argues that Jewish supremacists seek to control the nations in which they dwell – making particular efforts to dominate the two most critical factors of power in the modern world: mass media and government.

img258

Dr Duke evidences Jewish supremacism with many quotations from Jews, e.g.
‘If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that, Jewish life has infinite value,’ he explained, ‘There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life’

img259

If another group is considered so lowly, then this fact alone might cause them to be exploited by supremacists for the supremacists’ own gain. However, add to this feeling of supremacy a different moral code, one that does not resemble the typical Western code, but in fact views the Westerners as the eternal enemy even, with exploitation mandated, and the exploitation is inevitable. And yet this is hidden, even the acceptance of being a different race is frequently a matter of deceit#, and the holy texts are deliberately mistranslated for the non-Jews’ ears. Jewish supremacists consider themselves supreme, and desire the control and supremacy – this is a danger to people of the world. Dr Duke aims to speak out and protect all peoples of the world.

img260

As Dr Duke starts to write this book he sits in the beautiful nature of the Rocky Mountains. As he enjoys the sunny scenery he thinks of the battle of nature. Beneath the tranquillity of the bubbling stream and the trees casting their dancing shadows in the breeze he thinks of the competition between the parts of nature; a competition of which this idyllic scenery is resultant – a competition that continues as he watches. Two ants spot a tasty piece of peach on the ground – but who will get to eat it? Are they from different ‘tribes’ that will go to ‘war’ for the food? The birds of prey soar in the sky with grace, but on the watch for a small furry animal too slow or careless to escape their sights – which mouse will be caught? Are some breeds of mice faster, smarter, more devious, better camouflaged? And hence better able to survive as a group?

img261

Competition within groups, between groups, between species, all the losses and the selection has led to the beauty before Dr Duke at this moment. Within the ground countless rivalries between bacteria lie, even the stream itself wears away at the mountain over the years. And what of people? Who gets to survive and pass on their genes within a group? Which groups will render which other groups extinct? Will some groups finish off others – directly or indirectly? Will some groups interbreed with others to end the uniqueness of the original groups#? Even if they survive, will some groups be successful in life? Some groups be rich and healthy and powerful? What if group A viewed the other groups with contempt and desired to enslave them – could they do it? What of all the other groups were no competition, but one other group was splendid and their very existence perceived as a threat and a humiliation/insult to group A? What of this splendid group (B) were more beautiful, more creative, more honourable, more physically-capable, braver, nobler, more magical and very intelligent? Would group A not have a better chance of success without this group B? Group A could then just rule supreme over the other groups with no strong competition – be supreme and also hold supremacy. This could from a part of an evolutionary strategy. And with the use of language and power structures of the world, could power be exerted to attain these goals by means other than direct force? Could control be exercised in such manner so as to be largely invisible?

img262

As a group, Jewish people hold great power around the world. The modern media exercises control over what information people have, and also determines their opinions and feelings. By, inter alia, repeated linking and imagery, certain phenomena are associated with the required images, beliefs and responses – perception and conception are both controlled. And yet, the mainstream media is largely controlled by Jews. This fact is acknowledged by some Jews themselves: across Moment Magazine’s front cover was proclaimed ‘Jews Run Hollywood, So What?’

img263
The accompanying article inside was written by Jewish film critic Michael Medved, in which he writes:
‘Jewish writers and directors employ unquestionably flattering depictions of Jews for audiences that react with sympathy and affection.’

Marlon Brando - a beautiful and talented white man brought to his knees

Marlon Brando – a beautiful and talented white man brought to his knees

The control of information and feelings/responses/images must be maintained – Marlon Brando serves as a good example of straying from the acceptable lines of thought. Although in his early career he behaved as desired, later he learnt truths that contradicted his early beliefs. On the Larry King show, Brando stated that: ‘Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews.’ and commentated on the image-management: that while other groups are slandered, Jews ‘are ever so careful to ensure that there is never and negative image of the kike.’ A predictable onslaught against Brando ensued, only abating when Brando arranged an audience with Rabbi Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre – Brando literally got on his knees to the Jew and kissed his hands, begging for forgiveness. Brando was absolved and did not speak such truths again.

In real life it was not like in this movie – in real life Brando was on his knees kissing the Jew’s hand

In real life it was not like in this movie – in real life Brando was on his knees kissing the Jew’s hand

Duke lists the Jewish ownership and control of the world’s largest media concerns, including: Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), Universal (NBC Universal), 20th Century Fox (News Corp), Dreamworks, and Columbia (Sony). For example, NBC News President is Neal Shapiro, Jeff Zucker is NBC Universal Group President, David Zaslov NBC Cable President, Rick Kaplan is MSNBC president – all Jews. The extremely influential MTV is run by Jews (Redstone), and has immense effect on young people in developing their attitudes and desires. And the Oscars themselves form a news item – these run by Jews and a means by which they can give their own, and those supporting their interests, credibility and coverage (and other matters, such as money, influence and power). It is not only news programmes and films that are under Jewish control, but all media, including publishing, e.g. Time Magazine, the most widely-read such publication, being headed by Jewish CEO Gerald Levin.

img266

Controlling the media controls people in a very complete manner. What would one think were we to be at war with a nation, say during a war with Iran, if all major news sources and entertainment media were controlled and owned by Iranians? Would one have any suspicion that perhaps they are not being totally unbiased in all matters? Could they be distorting our perceptions, beliefs, feelings? Perhaps censoring certain information and maybe distorting other parts? Yet one needs to look into who owns and controls the media – if one does so, one will find it is almost entirely Jewish. Did your media tell you that the mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman was Jewish – or was that fact censored?

img267

With control of media many truths can be hidden, and many emotions controlled.

img268

Hidden truths include the Jewish nature of the genocide in Russia of the Russian Revolution.

img269

As Winston Churchill stated:
‘There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews…’
Who knew that of the 384 ‘Russian’ commissars more than 300 were Jews? And only 13 were ethnic Russians? Who knew that Trotsky was Jewish and his real name Lev Bronstein? Did your media or education system tell you about a British government report stating:
‘There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews.’

img270

Millions died and there was untold suffering of whites in Russia – does it make Dr Duke an anti-Semite to accept the historical fact that the ‘Russian Revolution’ was not actually Russian but a takeover of Czarist Russia by an antagonistic, non-Russian nationality?

img271

Other historical events are distorted in their presentation – who knew that the slave trade was not run by whites, but mainly by Jews? And why is the narrative of the ‘Holocaust’ protected by law in many countries – historians imprisoned for questioning certain aspects of this official narrative – is any other historical narrative not allowed to be investigated or discussed by academics? Why just this narrative? Who benefits form this narrative? Who loses?

img272

More recent events are also presented in a dishonest manner and with an agenda that suits Jewish supremacism – all this aided and abetted by Jews in the media, education system and government. Did you know that Israel attacked the American Navy intelligence ship Liberty on June the 8th 1967#?
‘Israel purposely and deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty’ (Dean Rusk the US Secretary of State at the time).

img273

Liberty was an intelligence ship sailing off the Egyptian town of El Arish, a town recently captured by Israeli forces. Israel knew that the Liberty was monitoring its transmissions and might learn of preparations for a planned invasion of Syria. Also, Liberty has intercepted Israeli radio communications showing that they had murdered hundreds of unarmed Egyptian prisoners of war in the Sinai. After Israeli jets attacked the Liberty with rockets, cannon fire and napalm bombs, in violation of international law Israeli torpedo boats even machine-gunned the Liberty’s deployed life rafts.

img274

31 Americans were killed and 171 wounded in the attack – but, although designed to sink the ship and kill the whole crew, there were survivors who reported the whole incident – including how the crew waved a the pilots – pilots so close that the American crew could see their faces. Israeli torpedo boats came close enough to machine gun Americans tending the wounded on deck. There was no mistake that this was an American ship – evidence includes that of the then U.S. ambassador to Lebanon who heard US-intercepted Israeli communications with the attacking Israeli fighters acknowledging that the ship was American. The Liberty’s commanding officer, Captain William McGonagle, was wounded but survived. Awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, unusually the relevant citations did not even identify Israel as the attacker. The US Navy conducted a perfunctory court of enquiry (lasting only 4 days) and failed to call even one Israeli to testify.

img275

If the levels of control over the media and the government are not already clear – please note that President Lyndon Johnson ordered fighter support to be called back during the incident – caring more about his relations with Israel than saving American lives.

img276
People can protest – but to whom does one go when the government is involved?

img277

In Dr Duke’s book the evidence is presented in relation to the supreme power being exercised over others by Jews, e.g.: the wars in the Middle East, (e.g. Iraq); the false portrayal of events both recent and historic; the distortion of societies by degrading the people and spreading degeneracy, (e.g. Jews control pornography#, ‘progressivism’, feminism, etc.); and flooding the nations with foreigners to disrupt, demean, harm – and ultimately to facilitate the exercise of power (including by genocide). Who is largely behind the desire to flood other countries with foreigners?

img278

Who promotes race-mixing? Who controls the puppet black civil rights leaders – did you know a Jew (Stanley Levinson) wrote many of the Martin Luther King’s speeches – and also that MLK was not a saint, but a woman-beater and a communist? If Jews were the only immigrant group in the West they would stand out more and also have less leverage – but being one in a mosaic acts to their advantage in a number of ways. In fact, with so much difference, many Jews can pass as whites to many (camouflaged and differences obscured and confused). However, in private and amongst themselves the separateness and supremacy over whites is strongly held – non-Jews deceived as to Jews’ true beliefs. In their own words they make clear their Jewish supremacism, and also their lack of fraternity to non-Jews, and their lack of loyalty to Western countries, e.g.
‘Like thousands of other typical Jewish kids …I was reared as Jewish nationalist, even quasi-supremacist… I attended Jewish summer camp…I saluted a foreign flag…and was taught that Israel was the true homeland…I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles’#
Divide and conquer protects the Jews as parasites in other countries, and also facilitates their supremacist agenda by other means. Dr Duke does not merely make such claims, but cites the evidence, e.g. Jewish writer Dr Stephen Steinlight bluntly states:
‘For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agenda’

Supremacism in government, in the media and control over hearts and minds through other means such as the education system facilitates this supremacist agenda – all detailed by Dr Duke in this book. And why? Well, the desire for supremacy and the belief in supremacy is detailed as rooted in the very texts – again, all largely hidden from the non-Jews. Who knew that the Jewish term for a Gentile (non-Jew) woman is ‘Shiska’ which means ‘whore’? Who knew that the Talmud states that ‘only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals.’?

img280

And yet, the information in Dr Duke’s book is largely unknown. By control of the information and also by silencing dissenters, the Jews have kept all this secret from most non-Jews. If anyone dares to tell the truth, then they are demonised as ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘racist’ (or worse!).

img281

In some countries, dissenters are imprisoned for questioning the official narrative of the six million# – upon which much sympathy, psychological pressure, power and money rests (not to mention the land of Palestine). And yet, if one were to take an honest view of history, one can see that the Jews have not been welcomed throughout history – this is not some new and unfounded irrational hatred, ‘anti-Semitism’ or ‘racism’.

img282

The exploitation of others by Jews has caused Jews to be expelled from country after country across the world and across time – including King Edward expelling them from England in 1290 (which was revoked by Cromwell in 1657, over 360 years later, in exchange for money):

SOME EXPULSIONS OF JEWS FROM PARTS OF EUROPE AND RUSSIA
Mainz, 1012 Upper Bavaria, 1442 Naples, 1533
France, 1182 Netherlands, 1444 Italy, 1540
Upper Bavaria, 1276 Brandenburg, 1446 Naples, 1541
England, 1290 Mainz, 1462 Prague, 1541
France, 1306 Mainz, 1483 Genoa, 15550
France, 1322 Warsaw, 1483 Bavaria, 1551
Saxony, 1349 Spain, 1492 Prague, 1557
Hungary, 1360 Italy, 1492 Papal States, 1569
Belgium, 1370 Lithuania, 1495 Hungary, 1582
Slovakia, 1380 Portugal, 1496 Hamburg, 1649
France, 1394 Naples, 1496 Vienna, 1669
Austria, 1420 Navarre, 1498 Slovakia, 1744
Lyons, 1420 Nuremberg, 1498 Moravia, 1744
Cologne, 1424 Brandenburg, 1510 Bohemia, 1744
Mainz, 1438 Prussia, 1510 Moscow, 1891

img283

The fact that this group believes that they are to rule and control others makes them unpopular. The hunger for power and the fact they have no loyalty to their host nation/indigenous people contributes to behaviours that make them unwanted – behaviours including acts of sabotage, treason, spying, enslavement of others, criminal behaviour, deceit as to their true desires and beliefs (amongst other matters), etc. As a cohesive group there are many advantages to be had, especially in a country that is racially mixed and in which others are taught not to have any group cohesion – these advantages are numerous, including those in finance that result from cohesiveness and the relevant knowledge, (e.g. insider trading). Control of money and banking has always been used as a means to control indigenous people – and is run by guess who.

img284

The history of Jews as ruthless money collectors is largely rooted in their lack of compassion for the indigenous people from whom they extract the money, disdain for non-Jews also being a contributory factor. A group of immigrants taught they are supreme, seeking supremacy with little or no compassion or respect for the host nation/people, a group ruthless in their pursuit of gain for their own group, and hiding the truth from their victims – how could such tendencies make such a group popular with its victims? Are the repeated expulsions of this group really all acts of irrational anti-Semitism as we are led to believe by our government, education system and media?

img285

It can be dangerous to tell the truth – but Dr Duke does in this volume. He not only tells the truth, he documents his statements with evidence, evidence largely from Jewish people themselves. Duke speaks out against the greatest threat to mankind: Jewish supremacism.

img286
In closing this volume, Dr Duke calls for others to speak the truth for the sake of mankind:

‘As long as I have breath and ability, I will not be silent. I will endeavour to fight for European Americans, Palestinians and indeed, for the fundamental human rights of all peoples of the earth. Together, we must bravely face and fight the evil spectre of Jewish supremacism. The time is late, but we have a super-weapon in the struggle for freedom: the sword of truth. I beseech you; don’t let the truth lay silent, use your courage to give it voice. Let the sword of truth light the way to your freedom.’

img287

******

Dr Duke’s book is recommended reading and is published by:

Free Speech Press. Manderville, LA: USA (2007)

Jewish Supremacism is available from booksellers in hardback or in pdf version, e.g. from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Supremacism-My-Awakening-Question/dp/1892796058

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jewish-Supremacism-David-Duke/dp/1892796058/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

pdf free at:

http://www.prometheism.net/library/jewishsupremacism.pdf

Jewish Supremacism is also available from Dr Duke’s own website:

http://davidduke.com/

http://daviddukeonline-eu.com/product-category/duke-books/

 

1. For an academic deconstruction of this term and its analysis as a nebulous-power-word please see:
Dr T.E. Turner Multiculturalism What Does it mean? Smokescreens and Mirrors (2013)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/how-did-they-get-away-with-it-book-review/
2. For analysis of this term please see: Dr T.E. Turner Multiculturalism What Does it mean? Smokescreens and Mirrors (2013)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/MULTICULTURALISM-WHAT-DOES-Smokescreens-Mirrors-ebook/dp/B00HCQN1B0
3. And in reading this review the references to Jews are for those who hold the supremacist views, which is not all Jews.
4. Also see Jewish man David Cole’s videos on YouTube, e.g.


5. Hertzberg, A. and Hirt-Manheimer, A. (1998). Relax. It’s Okay to be the Chosen People. Reform Judaism. May.
6. Look Magazine. (1962). January 16.
7. Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh in Jewish Week, the largest Jewish publication in the United States.
8. http://www.eutimes.net/2009/07/fbi-arrested-rabbi-levy-izhak-rosenbaum-kidney-trafficker-and-major-figure-in-a-global-human-organ-ring/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/07/25/rabbi-caught-in-new-jersey-corruption-sting-called-himself-kidney-matchmaker/
9. DNA tests are conducted to check for Jewishness, e.g. see:
http://www.igenea.com/en/jews
http://www.jewishgen.org/dna/
As to the argument that one can convert to become a Jew – it is possible to convert religion but not race/DNA, and a convert is not a real Jew – some texts saying they should not be considered for acceptance after conversion for many generations, (e.g. 10 generations according to many texts and rabbis). Classifying Jewishness as a religion is another means of deceit and acts to confuse and obscure certain issues.
10. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-people-of-europe/
11. See: Ennes, J. (1979) Assault on the Liberty. New York: Random House.
12. http://www.dailystormer.com/pornography-the-secret-weapon-of-the-jews/
13. Dr Steinlight who served for 5 years as the Director of National Affairs for the largest and most powerful Jewish organisation in the United States, the American Jewish Committee. He wrote these remarks in an article on immigration in a national Jewish magazine in October, 2001.
14. https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/holocaust-or-holohoax-21-amazing-facts/
https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/book-review-the-holocaust-hoax-exposed-by-victor-thorn/

 

 

BBC Climate Panel 26 January 2006

pic005

In 2006 the BBC hosted a climate-change seminar to decide on its reporting of alleged climate-change. The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to keep secret who attended this seminar. The publicly funded broadcaster fought off requests for the list of people who attended under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.

This surreal story is only partly about climate change: the disclosure raises questions about the evidence submitted to the information tribunal by the BBC and Helen Boaden – it’s Director of News who stepped down in 2012.

The case also highlights once again the BBC’s corporate strategy of using an FOI derogation, or legal “opt-out” clause, to withhold a wide range of material from citizens who wish to know whether the BBC is fulfilling its statutory obligations for impartiality under its Royal Charter.

And it raises further questions about the effectiveness of the BBC Trust. The trust, which replaced the Board of Governors, was created with a mission: an “unprecedented obligation to openness and transparency”.

pic005

A ‘brainstorm’ that became historic

The seminar whose attendees the Beeb sought to keep secret was founded by three organisation. In 2004, the International Broadcasting Trust – a lobby group funded by a number of charities, including many involved in campaigning on climate change – devised the first in a series of seminars on development issues, where the lobbyists could address broadcasters.

One event on 26 January 2006 was a “brainstorm”, in the IBT’s own words, “focusing on climate change and its impact on development”. The BBC sent 30 senior staff, and 30 outsiders were invited. The event was also organised by CMEP, its second parent – a now dormant or defunct outfit operated by BBC reporter Roger Harrabin and climate activist Dr Joe Smith, and at one time funded by the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and various pressure groups.

Harrabin later explained that the BBC’s head of news in the 1990s, Tony Hall, had invited him “to devise meetings with politicians, business people, think tanks, academics from many universities and specialists (science, technology, economic and social sciences, and history), and policy experts and field workers from NGOs – particularly from the developing world”.

The third parent of the seminar was the BBC.

 The following year ( 2007) a BBC Trust report  on impartiality cited the 2006 seminar and said it had settled the argument once and for all  (as far as the BBC was concerned) on climate change.

pic005

Filmmaker John Bridcut wrote:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts [our emphasis] and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change].

The BBC is under a statutory obligation to remain impartial, so this gave the “brainstorm” a historic significance.

An independent blogger, Tony Newbery, was struck by the difference between contemporary evidence that the seminar was educational and composed largely of activists (as confirmed by Harrabin) and the BBC Trust’s insistence that it was a sober scientific presentation that could justify a historic policy change.

Fresh light was shed on Harrabin’s CMEP in 2010, in the second batch of Climategate emails. An email from Mike Hulme, the director of the Tyndall Centre for Climatic Change Research at UEA,complained about a BBC Radio 4 item broadcast in February 2002. The broadcast featured global-warming sceptic Professor Philip Stott and Sir John Houghton, who was a Met Office chief and the editor of the first three IPCC reports on climate change. Houghton came off worst, and an infuriated Hulme wrote:

Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of reporting at source.

Newbery filed his FOI request for the seminar’s attendees to the BBC in 2007 and was denied the information, leading to a second round of information tribunal hearings in November 2012. The cross-examination of the BBC’s Helen Boaden in a court room was reported here.

The BBC is regarded as a public authority by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but it can withhold information held “for the purposes of journalism”.

In an earlier and separate FOI case against the BBC, Supreme Court Judge Neuberger argued the opt-out should be interpreted narrowly – otherwise the BBC could withhold information about “cleaning the board room floor” using the journalism get-out clause – an obvious absurdity.

In the Newbery case, the BBC maintained that archival material on the seminar could not be found, but also it should not be found: as a back-up argument it argued that the seminar was held under the Chatham House Rule – an agreement of etiquette, rather than a law, to prevent quotes being attributed to particular speakers at a meeting – information that Newbery had never asked for.

In November 2012 the tribunal ruled against Newbery and for the BBC.

pic005

Case closed? Think again

However science writer Maurizio Morabito has unearthed the list of attendees.

It confirms the accuracy of Harrabin’s description of the composition of the invitees, with most coming from industry, think tanks and NGOs. And as suspected, climate campaigners Greenpeace are present, while actual scientific experts are thin on the ground: not one attendee deals with attribution science, the physics of global warming. These are scarcely “some of the best scientific experts”, whose input could justify a historic abandonment of the BBC’s famous impartiality.

Intriguingly, Tony Newbery had been supplied with a later version of this document, he tells us – but with the attendee list stripped out.

How much of the Public's license fee did the BBC spend on lawyers to cover up this list of attendees at their Climate Panel in 2006?

How much of the Public’s license fee did the BBC spend on lawyers to cover up this list of attendees at their Climate Panel in 2006?

The dramatic appearance of the list raises many questions. Did the BBC know the information was publicly available? If so, why were corporation lawyers spending thousands of pounds to keep a public document “secret”? (FOI requests for public information typically state, quite simply, “this information is public”.)

Questions abound  online about the ability of the BBC Trust to maintain its duty to transparency. The BBC’s legal strategy entails the indiscriminate application of its FOI derogation “for the purposes of journalism” – this effectively rewrites the 2000 Act, and redefines the BBC as a private body. The trust is surely aware of this; it has a small mountain of correspondence on the subject. But it has yet to enquire, let alone pronounce on whether this is healthy – or legal.

All the names on the revealed seminar list

Here’s the list – according to the FOI Act reply.

January 26th 2006, BBC Television Centre, London

Specialists:
Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Tim Jackson, Surrey University
John Ashton, Director E3G
BBC attendees:
Jana Bennett, Director of Television
Sacha Baveystock, Executive Producer, Science
Helen Boaden, Director of News
Andrew Lane, Manager, Weather, TV News
Dominic Vallely, Executive Editor, Entertainment
Emma Swain, Commissioning Editor, Specialist Factual
Fergal Keane, (Chair), Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Fran Unsworth, Head of Newsgathering
George Entwistle, Head of TV Current Affairs
Glenwyn Benson, Controller, Factual TV
John Lynch, Creative Director, Specialist Factual
Jon Plowman, Head of Comedy
Jon Williams, TV Editor Newsgathering
Karen O’Connor, Editor, This World, Current Affairs
Catriona McKenzie, Tightrope Pictures
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes

Fran Unsworth,Head of Newsgathering
Pete Clifton, Head of News Interactive
Liz Cleaver, Controller Learning
Keith Scholey, Head of Specialist Factual
Sarah Brandist, Head of Development, Drama Commissioning
Michael Hastings, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility
Lorna Walsh, BBC TV
Roger Harrabin, Today Programme

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Fraud by New Labour

Co-written by Cigpapers and Watt Tyler

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Fraud

Following the unexpected death of John Smith QC MP Labour Party Leader in 1994 Tony Blair and his New Labour cronies took over the Labour Party and committed the PFI fraud.

The PFI fraud committed by New Labour was probably the greatest financial crime ever. It is believed the real mastermind was Lord Michael Levy who, although he is nominally Blair’s fund-raiser, is probably really his boss.

Lord Levy who funded the hijacking of the Labour Party by Blair's Islington People. Was he the mastermind behind the biggest financial crime in British history?

Lord Michael Levy who funded the hijacking of the Labour Party by Blair’s Islington People. Was he the mastermind behind the biggest financial crime in British history?

During the late 1990s and through the 2000s New Labour and Gordon Brown signed an unknown total of £billions worth of PFI deals with the banks and private sector. The figures released by the Government claim that in 2013 we pay around £9billion per year. The total cost left for us and our descendants to pay is around £301 billion – about  £5,000 for every man, woman and child in the Country. It has been claimed, by Michael Meacher Labour MP,  that about one fifth or Britain’s GDP for the next 50 years will go on paying off the PFI fraud.

Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown – financially incompetent or a fraudster? Maybe both.

What are PFI deals?

PFI deals are where the Government wants a building such as a school or hospital building, and don’t want to finance through normal Government means at low-interest rates . They effectively get a hire purchase deal on the building from banks or private companies and pay over  20 to 50 years, often with maintenance included at much higher interest rates. These deals always cost more than usual Government finance and maintenance, sometimes two or three times as much.

19092011574[1]

Why PFI deals?
New Labour and Gordon Brown first claimed that PFIs were the fastest way to build Government buildings as a socialist/pinko cover story. When this was exposed as obvious rubbish Gordon Brown incredibly claimed that they signed these deals to “hide” Government borrowing from the financial markets, and these expensive PFI deals wouldn’t be counted by City financiers as Public Debt. To anyone connected to the real World this is obvious nonsense as any half decent financier would be well aware of these PFI deals and would calculate them in as Public Debt.

Lord Peter Mandelson

Lord Peter Mandelson

Really why PFI deals?
New Labour had the age-old problem of transferring huge amounts of Public Spending in to the bank accounts of corrupt Politicians. They went with the PFI fraud as it sounded very Labour to build schools and hospitals to the Public. Anyone questioning the PFI deals was attacked for opposing new hospitals, schools etc. The PFI fraud also had the spin-off benefit that the City of London laughably claimed Gordon Brown as financially competent, as he helped them siphon off hundreds of £billions of Public money. As usual our corrupt Politicians get their pay-offs in the form of consultancy fees when they leave Office. Some 24 former New Labour ministers – including Charles Clarke, Patricia Hewitt, Frank Field, Alan Milburn and David Blunkett – are heavily involved in the PFI industry and are now mostly multi-millionaires.

$(KGrHqMOKkEE1vjFW+JIBNcSuOh1D!~~_12

But Surely All These PFI Deals Are Examined By Accountants?

These deals all have to be signed off by one of the “Big Five” accountancy firms as “Value for Public Money”. However the PFI accountancy work is worth hundreds of millions of pounds, and further work only goes to compliant firms. Many senior accountancy partners walked away with tens of millions of pounds of Taxpayer’s money in fees.

The massive Arthur Andersen accountancy firm wrote a report in January 2000 praising PFI and claiming it led to 17 percent savings. It went on to be involved in £10s of billion of PFI deals. As former Labour deputy prime minister Roy Hattersley points out, “Arthur Andersen’s timing was impeccable. The PFI report was published at the moment when the government wanted both to hold down public expenditure and demonstrate its faith in private enterprise.” The Arthur Andersen report is virtually the only one ever to claim PFI is efficient. When Blair came under pressure over his links to Andersen, he referred in Parliament to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, another of the ‘big five’ auditing multinationals.

But PricewaterhouseCoopers has also benefited from the PFI scam. It is part of PFI deals worth £10s of billions. It is also the administrator of the European arm of Enron, and did some valuation work on two of the ‘partnerships’ set up by Enron executives to hide its losses.

Lord Peter Mandelson and his boyfriend Reinaldo

Lord Peter Mandelson and his boyfriend Reinaldo

Was this a victimless crime?
Hardly. Right across the Country the NHS, Councils and other areas of Government have had to make severe cut-backs to pay for the PFI fraud. These cut-backs can include new schools and hospitals, building repairs, meals for the disabled, after Schools Clubs for disadvantaged Children, fewer Police, fewer Teachers and cutting back on NHS Staff.

Miliband and Blair

Miliband and Blair

How about the criminals?
Blair and Mandelson are quite open about being corrupt and flaunt their wealth. Mandelson bought a multi-million pound house for cash as soon as he left Office and Blair is well on his way to becoming a billionaire. Brown has the problem of when to break cover and buy the first big house, and as usual is dithering. The Milibands are just starting to pick up their first few £millions in consultancy fees.

19092011574[1]

Lord Mandelson’s new house.

How about the Victims?
That’s us Joe Public. We’ll all moan about it, but we’ll let our Families and descendants do with less to pay off the PFI fraud rather than do anything about it.

Is the PFI fraud linked to the Bilderberg Group?
All the major New Labour criminals are regular Bilderberg Group attendees where they receive their instructions regarding Globalisation and multiculturalism, so it’s not inconceivable they got their instructions for the PFI fraud there.

Was Labour Party Leader John Smith QC murdered to facilitate the biggest fraud in British history by New Labour?

Was Labour Party Leader John Smith QC murdered to facilitate the biggest fraud in British history by New Labour?

John Smith QC MP was a Scottish politician who served as leader of the Labour Party from 1992 until his sudden and unexpected death from a heart attack in 1994.
As with all unexpected deaths of prominent politicians such as that of Robin Cook Labour MP, there was some speculation at the time that his death was suspicious, but there was no apparent specific motive. Robin Cook Labour MP had been a thorn in Blair’s side with awkward questions about the Iraq War, PFI and Al Qaeda’s existence.

Labour MP Robin Cook died of a heart attack in suspicous circumstances.

Labour MP Robin Cook died of a heart attack in 2005 in suspicious circumstances.


However, events since the coming to power of New Labour in 1997 and their PFI fraud, present a much clearer reason why John Smith might have been murdered.

Tony Blair at John Smith's funeral before taking over the Labour Party with his New Labour cronies.

Tony Blair at John Smith’s funeral before taking over the Labour Party with his New Labour cronies.

John Smith QC MP would never have been part of the PFI fraud and he was in the way of some very ruthless greedy people.
John Smith’s death was certainly convenient for some people. Suspiciously convenient.

Manchester Chief Constable Michael Todd died in unexplained circumstances after starting investigations in to several PFI deals in Manchester.

Manchester Chief Constable Michael Todd died in unexplained circumstances.

Popular, straight talking Manchester Chief Constable Michael Todd died of a heart attack in unexplained circumstances in March 2008 after starting investigations in to several PFI deals in Manchester. He was soon replaced by Peter Fahy, a Common Purpose graduate and New Labour supporter. The Manchester PFI investigations have not been continued.

Dr David Kelly died in suspicous circumstances in 2003. The authorities claimed he had an abnormal heart condition.

Dr David Kelly died in suspicous circumstances in 2003. The authorities claimed he had an abnormal heart condition.

Dr David Kelly died in suspicious circumstances in 2003. The authorities claimed he had an abnormal heart condition. Dr Kelly was nothing to do with the PFI fraud, but had crossed Blair over the Iraq War. Is there a pattern here?

In July 2012 Michael Meacher Labour MP wrote this article on PFIs:

In Ancient Egypt we are told there were 7 fat years, then 7 thin years.   Not much has changed.   For a decade we had the arrogant swagger of the New Labour hegemony seemingly carrying all before it, but actually pitted with lies (the Iraq war), deceit (the ubiquitous culture of spin), prostration before power  (Blair’s cuddling up to Murdoch), adulation of the City (regulation-lite leading to the Great Crash and today’s interest-rate fixing), worship of wealth (Mandelson’s immortal “New Labour intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich”).   And now another colossal Tory-New Labour scam – PFI – is coming home to roost, big time.   The collapse of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust is just the harbinger of a whole cascade of hugely costly failures coming home to roost.

Under pressure from New Labour this Trust signed up to a £2.5bn PFI deal which it now costs £61m a year to service, no less than 14.4% of its annual income.   In the case of one of its hospitals, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Woolwich this PFI levy on its income will last for another 18 years, and in the case of another, the Princess Royal Hospital in Bromley, it will continue for the next 20 years.   The hospital Trust is now losing £1m a week, and obviously the original deal was never sustainable.

PFI was started by the Tories in 1992 and hugely expanded by New Labour after 1997.   In total it has now committed the public sector to pay back £301bn to banks, investors and private companies for more than 800 hospitals, schools and prisons projects by 2050.   That is, New Labour has put the State in hock to the private sector to pay back a sum equal to one-fifth of Britain’s entire GDP within the next 50 years.   What this means is that New Labour crippled the public sector with gargantuan unpayable debts for the next half century and now the Tories are eviscerating what’s left with further spending cuts of another £81bn.

This slow-moving catastrophe has come about for two mean reasons.   One was the ideological prejudice of both New Labour and the Tories to privatise the State down to every last nook and cranny they could find.   Second, New Labour (and over 90% of the expansion of PFI has occurred under their regime) wanted to establish their number with Big Business just as also with the City, media and security services (police and MI5), and a £300bn increase in corporate profits – at taxpayers expense of course – was very persuasive.   Blair and Brown have a lot to answer for, even more than we yet know.

img866

THE MONEY MADE FROM A SMALL SAMPLE OF PFI SCHEMES:

scheme / capital invested by companies / projected cash return

New Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh / £20m / £228m
County Hospital, Hereford / £9m / £92m
Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride / £8m / £145m
Council offices and car park, Perth / £2m / £31m
Eleven schools, Highland / £2m / £12m
James Watt College, Kilwinning / 0.7m / £9m
TOTAL / £42m / £517m

pic004

A recommended book to read on the PFI Fraud is Captive State : The Corporate Takeover Of Britain  by George Monbiot. You can borrow it from your local library free of charge, or if you want to buy a copy they are available from Amazon on Kindle or from about £1.98 including UK delivery for a paperback or hardcover copy:

  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Captive-State-Corporate-Takeover-Britain-ebook/dp/B00DRFRO18/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389025626&sr=1-1&keywords=Captive+State%3A+The+Corporate+Takeover+of+Britain

pic005

 

West Ham United’s New £625million Council House

Report by Cigpapers

Image

£600million Olympic Stadium in East London

In March 2013 London Mayor Boris Johnston signed off the Olympic Stadium to West Ham United Football Club on a 99year lease. The Olympic Stadium had been seen as a political humiliation and “white elephant” with no real practical use.
The terms for the lease of the £600million Olympic Stadium are a down payment by West Ham of £15million plus £2million per year for 99 years. In return the Government/taxpayer will hand over the £600million stadium plus £25million in cash for an upgrade.
However the deal is structured in such a way that the estimated £40million upgrade is paid first with the Government’s £25million and then by West Ham’s £15million. If West Ham spend £25million or less on the upgrade they will pay nothing. It is interesting that there are claims that the £40million upgrade estimate was provided by West Ham themselves. The yearly payments part of the contract are also quite interesting and mean in certain circumstances West Ham may pay no or very little rent.
West Ham will be free to sell or rent out their present ground Upton Park and keep all the proceeds.

Image

Upton Park

West Ham are co-owned by David Gold and David Sullivan who made their fortunes in pornography. Karen Brady the vice-chairman of West Ham stated “ We accept the cost of making this into a world-class stadium has come from the Government, but we hope over 99 years we can pay it back.”
There are obviously all sorts of allegations flying around about this deal, and Leyton Orient Football Club have launched a legal challenge. Ironically Leyton Orient may eventually buy or rent Upton Park from West  Ham and this legal challenge could just be about getting some leverage on that deal.
As usual Joe Public will pick up the tab for this fiasco/fraud.

Image

West Ham’s New Ground