Save Craig Murray @CraigMurrayOrg

Save Craig Murray

NOVANEWS
By Craig Murray | September 6, 2017

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding £40,000 in damages and the High Court has approved over £100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons’ lawyer. I may become liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with bankruptcy.

Mr Wallis Simons boasts on his website:

In 2015, I published a series of articles exposing Jeremy Corbyn’s links with anti-Semitic figures, and this led to what is now known as the “Labour anti-Semitism scandal.”

It was my Sky TV appearance on this subject which led to this libel action against me.

It is my view that English libel law remains an international disgrace, a device by which the wealthy and those with wealthy backers, and only they, can stifle freedom of speech. Contempt of Court laws – with a penalty of two years imprisonment – even prevent poor defendants like me from putting their case openly before the public in order to appeal for a public defence fund. I am extremely limited in what I can tell you.

How can it cost just one party six times the average annual national wage to litigate a five minute TV broadcast? The libel system, with its in-built advantage to the wealthy and those backed by the wealthy, is a complete disgrace. Andy Wightman, the brilliant Scottish land reform campaigner, has been going through the same Hell.

ISRAEL TERRORISM

I find I am obliged to beg you for funds to help me defend the case. I need to ask every single person who reads this blog to find it in their heart to make at least some contribution, as much as you can afford. The scale of this thing is such that I need to ask those of you who are comfortably off to make a far larger donation than you might normally consider. In practice we are going to need to include some four figure donations to make the ludicrous amounts required. But every single penny mounts up and please do give something.

If you have ever enjoyed this blog – join the fight. If you dislike this blog but support freedom of speech – join the fight. If you support the right to defend Palestine without being labelled ant-Semitic – join the fight. If you despised the anti-Corbyn media campaign – join the fight. If the Daily Mail sickens you – join the fight.

Israelis on Facebook celebrating the death of Palestinian children

Every donation, no matter how small, will be gratefully received. The case will be heard in the High Court on 7 November. In the event of victory, after costs are met (even a costs award does not cover all actual costs) excess donations will be returned pro-rata unless you specify they should be applied to the future of maintaining the blog.

JEWS JUDAISM

This is a question not only of the continued existence of this blog, but of the future well-being of my young family. It is unfair on you for me to place all of that in your hands, but that is the situation into which I am forced.

Contact/Donate

Advertisements

#Brexit Corbyn vows to block ‘sweetheart’ trade deal between May, Trump which would almost certainly signal the end of the NHS

Corbyn vows to block UK-US trade deal

British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn (Photo by AFP)
British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn (Photo by AFP)

UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn says he will make sure that a “sweetheart” trade deal between British Prime Minister Theresa May and US President Donald Trump will never go through after the UK’s exit from the European Union (EU).

Speaking to Huffington Post on Wednesday, Corbyn said any trade deal like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was not good for the UK because it was going to flood the markets with “cheap food.”

“Now I don’t want to get involved in every aspect of what is happening in US politics internally but what I do say is that we want a trade relationship with the rest of the world that is fair and just,” he said.

“We don’t want a sweetheart deal with Donald Trump that is going to look a lot like TTIP,” he added.

The Labour leader has long been pushing for maintaining the UK’s access to the EU Single Market, a special tariff-free zone that would be closed on the UK after Brexit.

May has made it clear that she would take the country out of the EU, even if she cannot reach a deal with the EU to address the issue.

Corbyn said at a rally in Stornoway later in the day that the UK could not turn its back on the European market.

“We are determined to secure tariff-free access to the European market and to carry on trading at the same level as we do now. We can’t do anything other than that,” he argued.

He accused British International Trade Secretary Liam Fox and the ruling Conservative Party of trying to get a trade deal with the US that would harm British values.

“What they are trying to do is a ‘sweetheart deal’ with the US, the equivalent to TTIP which will be damaging to labor standards in this country, will be damaging to environmental regulations and which will be damaging to the kind of society that we have,” he added.

In late July, Trump said in a tweet that he was working on a “major trade deal” with the UK.

Earlier that month, he met May on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Hamburg, assuring her that “trade will be a very big factor” in their “special relationship.”

Jew Loving is the Way Forward

Being in Time – a Revolutionary Leftist review by Roy Ratcliffe

Introduction by GA: the following is an extended review of my latest book, Being in Time, by Roy Ratcliffe, one of the last free creative thinkers within the Left milieu.

Far from being surprising, Ratcliffe, a revolutionary Marxist, found a lot of truth in the book. The same can be said about conservative and Right Wing intellectuals who also praised the book. How is it possible that both Right and Left ideologists/intellectuals agree upon the validity of a critical text?  Being in Time offers an answer to the above question. In Being in Time, Traditional Left and Right thinking modes are complimentary substances. They are like day and night, the ‘dream’ and the ‘real,’ together they from a mirror image of the human psychic, that mental transition between the ‘ought to be’ and ‘Being.’

Being in Time – a post political manifesto is critical of all forms of Identity (ID) politics: Jewish, gender, White, Black etc. The book argues that the breaking of society into biologically oriented ID sectors has obliterated our ability to fight together as one people. It was set to serve the interests of big money: the Soroses, the JP Morgans, the Goldmans, the Sachses. Being in Time attempts to explain why the USA is being pushed into a civil war. It explains why Trump became the president. It predicts Corbyn’s growing popularity.  It seeks a to offer a new synthesis of our human faculties. Instead of looking into that which spreads us apart, time is ripe to look into that that which unites us all.  

Read More

Attempt to prosecute Tony Blair over Iraq War blocked by High Court

Attempt to prosecute Tony Blair over Iraq War blocked by High Court

RT | July 31, 2017

Image result for blair killer

© i-Images / Global Look Press
RT | July 31, 2017

Britain’s High Court has blocked a bid by an Iraqi general to bring a private prosecution against Tony Blair over the war he launched in Iraq while prime minister.

General Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat accused the former Labour leader of committing a ‘crime of aggression’ by invading Iraq in 2003 to overthrow former President Saddam Hussein. The general wanted to see the prosecution Blair and two other key ministers of the time – Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general.

The men currently have immunity from criminal charges over the war after a 2016 ruling said attempting to bring any prosecution would involve revealing details kept under the Official Secrets Act.

Al Rabbat’s lawyers asked London’s High Court for permission to seek judicial review in an attempt to get the Supreme Court, now the highest court in the land, to overturn a ruling by the House of Lords in 2006 that there is no such crime as the ‘crime of aggression’ under the law of England and Wales.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Ouseley, dismissed the general’s application on Monday, saying there was “no prospect” of the case succeeding.

Michael Mansfield QC, appearing for Al Rabbat, argued that the Chilcot Inquiry published last year showed the prosecution of Blair would be justified. An order declaring Blair’s immunity against any charges should therefore be overturned, Mansfield said.

The 2.6 million-word Chilcot report, which examined the first eight years of the war, said Britain chose to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003 before peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted, alongside former US president George W. Bush, whom Blair had already pledged to support.

It added that the UK’s involvement in Iraq was based on what soon became obvious was a false pretext that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The report found that Blair misled the British public over the threat posed by WMD, which turned out to be non-existent.

Blair’s arguments for going to war were “based on flawed intelligence and assessments” that “were not challenged [and] should have been,” the report said.

The report also detailed the private deals Blair made with Bush ahead of the invasion. Blair promised Bush “I will be with you, whatever” long before the British public was told that he had set out on a path that led inevitably led to British involvement in the conflict eight months later.

Mansfield argued that the international crime of a war of aggression had been accepted by then-UK Attorney-General Sir Hartley Shawcross QC in the 1940s, at the time of the Nuremberg trials over Nazi war crimes.

Mansfield said that, as the international community had held those responsible for the Second World War to account by prosecuting those thought responsible for aggression at Nuremberg, it was the duty of UK courts to follow that example in relation to the Iraq War.

Westminster Magistrates Court refused to issue summonses in November last year on the grounds that the ex-ministers had immunity from legal action – and in any event, the current attorney-general, Jeremy Wright QC, would have to give permission.

Wright intervened in the case and his legal team urged the Lord Chief Justice to block the challenge. He said the private trial of Blair could “involve details being disclosed under the Official Secrets Act.”

Kate Hudson, CND general secretary, said: “Today’s decision by the High Court to block an attempt to prosecute Tony Blair for his role in the Iraq war is hugely disappointing and means justice has been left undone.

“Last year’s Chilcot report showed that Tony Blair had no respect for cabinet procedure, no respect for Parliament, and no respect for international law.

“Iraq was devastated by the war Blair led Britain into, millions of innocent Iraqis were killed, British soldiers were killed, and terrorism has spread across the Middle East.

“Chilcot revealed the evidence that must now be used to bring Tony Blair to justice.

“Only when justice is served can we prevent disasters like the Iraq war from happening again.”

The Iraq War caused the deaths of 179 British servicemen and women, and cost the UK economy an estimated £9.6 billion (US$12.6 billion). It is widely held to have caused the bloody sectarian conflict that brought about the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

According to Iraq Body Count, at least 160,400 Iraqi civilians died during the war.

New attempt to bring Blair to justice over illegal Iraqi invasion

Ruling Granting Tony Blair Immunity From Prosecution Over Iraq War to Be Reviewed

<!–

–>

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is set to review a ruling last year that gave Tony Blair immunity for prosecution over his role in the Iraq War, it has emerged.

Last year Westminster magistrates court blocked a private criminal prosecution against the former prime minister over the international crime of “aggression” could not be pursued, granting Mr Blair immunity from criminal charges.

That ruling is to be reviewed at the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, one of the most senior judges in the country, the Guardian newspaper reported.

The private prosecution, which was brought by General Abdul-Wahid Shannan ar-Ribat, a former chief of staff of the Iraqi army, sought an international war crimes trial in a British court for Mr Blair, former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, and former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. The general, now living in exile, is represented by self-described “radical lawyer” Michael Manfield QC and Imran Khan, who represented the family of Stephen Lawrence during the public inquiry into the teenager’s murder.

The case is based on the findings of last year’s Chilcot report into the British government’s actions in the run up to the Iraq War. It accuses them of “aggression” in deciding to join the US in its 2003 invasion of Iraq over the false allegations ruler Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The high court decided in May that the prosecution’s attempt was entitled to a hearing seeking permission for a court order to progress with the case, the Guardian said.

Attorney General Jeremy Wright – who moved to block the prosecution in 2016 because it could “involve details being disclosed under the Official Secrets Act” – will have a barrister in court to try and ensure the ruling is upheld.

His team is expected to argue that the crime of aggression, which exists in international law but not in the UK’s books, cannot be brought in a British court – although former Attorney General Goldsmith himself wrote in 2003 that it could “automatically form [a] part of domestic law.”

Following the publication of the long-delayed Chilcot report last July, families of killed service men and women raised £150,000 to prepare other legal cases against Mr Blair and others who may have “acted unlawfully” in deciding to go to war

J-TV Documentary on the ‘Antisemitic’ Goyim (must watch)

July 02, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

When you watch this loathsome J-TV ‘documentary’ ask yourself the following questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te684rBHzOA

1.     Would you choose to buy a secondhand car from David Hirsh or from Jeremy Corbyn?

2.     Is this J-TV video made for general consumption by Brits or was it created to exacerbate delusional PRE TSD* within a single tribe?

3.     In the video, Jewish academics claim to be racially oppressed (as ‘Semites’) by the Labour party. In fact, Semitism is not a racial category but a linguistic one. Still, this claim raises crucial questions:

a.     Are Jews really a race? If so, what makes them believe that they are ‘Semites’?

b.     If Jews aren’t a race, how can they be abused or discriminated against as a race?

c.      Is it possible that Jews only see themselves as a racial collective when they claim to ‘suffer’ or when a Jew wins the Nobel Prize? I ask because I don’t remember Jews fighting to racially own Sir Philip Green, Lord Janner or Bernie Madoff.

d.     If Jews aren’t a race, why do these Jewish academics insist upon referring to ‘racial’ hatred? Do they consciously try to deceive or are they a delusional collective?

e.     If Jews are actually oppressed and dismissed within the Labour party ‘as a race’ why don’t they simply leave? Why, instead,  do they insist upon the right to dominate the party culture and its decision-making? I ask because normal people ordinarily drift away when they feel unwanted or disrespected.

f.    Since Jews consider themselves a distinct race of ‘semites’, does that necessarily imply that they must operate as a separate race within the Labour party?

4.     How is it possible that David Hirsh, together with  a long list of other Jewish academics, fail to read the map: The more they toss the ‘anti-Semitic’ slur in  Corbyn’s face, the more popular Corbyn becomes?  How is it that all these Jewish ‘scholars’ fail to grasp this obvious development?  Why must we deal with the  collective pathological denial within a single group?

5.     Do these Jews really believe that only Jewish ethnic activists may determine what is legitimate criticism of the Jewish State? Would the Jews in this film similarly let Aryan activists determine what would be legitimate criticism of an Aryan state or the history of the Third Reich?

As a peace loving humanitarian with a kind nature, I will help these Jewish academics to navigate their way in the emerging universe that, at least in their eyes, has once again turned against them.  By now it is clear to many Brits, including Labour supporters, that Israel is not the problem. Israel is just a radical symptom of the complexity involved with post emancipation Jewish Identity politics – a collection of cultural templates that adhere to Jewish choseness, the institutional dismissal of the Other, or, in short, obnoxious racial supremacy. From the perspective of choseness and Jewish supremacy, Zionism and anti Zionism are identical. Don’t we too often hear anti Zionist Jews bragging about their special role and privileges within (what is left of) the solidarity movement?

Video: Anti Zionist ZionistNaomi Wimborne-Idrissi gives the goyim a ‘Kosher Stamp’  defining the proper boundaries of criticism of the Jewish State

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLL-CITMu5M

Historically at least, the early Zionists promised to fix the ‘Diaspora Jews.’  They vowed to  emancipate the tribe from choseness. Zionism claimed it would make Jews into people like all other people. In this, Zionism clearly failed: Israel is a country like no other country. And David Hirsh and his klan are still unlike anyone else. They aren’t  concerned with racism in general as humanists ought to be.  Instead, they are obsessed with the imaginary suffering of one tribe only, and, as it happens, this tribe is their own.

Why does Hirsh fails to grasp this at all? Because Hirsh is a Jerusalemite book burner. Instead of following the Athenian path and searching for a universal ethos that would resist hatred in general; Hirsh attempts to impose on us a Jerusalemite set of commandments that serve only one tribe. Hirsh has spent the last fifteen years desperately trying to silence my discourse and burn my books.This is a shame, if Hirsh had instead read The Wandering Who and Being in Time he would have been able to foresee the inevitable rise of Corbyn. If Hirsh & Co read Atzmon they would understand that Corbyn is not the ‘problem,’ he is  a symptom of a vast growing awareness that could  indeed be very dangerous for the Jews. If Hirsh would attempt to understand my books instead of burning them, he might be able to realise  that imposing Jerusalem on Goyim is a recipe for a disaster.

But one thing is clear–an extended polemic of Jewish academics whining is not going to solve Jew hatred, quite the opposite, it will strengthen it.  That raises the question of why? Why do they do it to themselves, why do they repeat the same mistakes time after time? The answer to this question may explain the true meaning of the Jewish tragedy once and for all.

If you want to grasp this crucial dichotomy between Athens and Jerusalem, Being in Time is the book for you: Amazon.co.uk ,  Amazon.com  and   here.

*PRE TSD is a self propelled distress that is caused by an imaginary, often delusional, event in the future, as opposed to post traumatic stress that is initiated by an actual event in the past.

%d bloggers like this: