What follows is commentary on a piece by a fairly-well known British journalist, Peter Hitchens, brother of the late Christopher Hitchens. (Both seem to have discovered some concealed Jewish ancestry). This piece is dated 28 September 2012 and comes from Hitchens' blog; I don't know if it was published in hard copy form, but if so it would have been in the British Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday.
Peter Hitchens claims to research all his pieces (and research people he's due to meet), and his methodology appears to be to look through his newspaper's library of clippings, or perhaps ask its librarian to find him a few folders. This of course allows an immediate review of situations as presented by his paper in the past. Hitchens seems to have no idea of the possibility of both short- and long-term public lies: the problem of 'institutional memory' doesn't trouble him. He states, incidentally, that many such newspaper archives have been deliberately destroyed, even those with pre-Internet material.
My interest of this article is in his presentation of the 'Cold War'. I'm assuming his collection of incidents is typical of a typical journalist. Some are facts, some are factoids (i.e. widely- but wrongly-believed events); and the connective logic, which supposedly explains the narrative, must be journalistically fairly standardised.
From the 'Nukelies' viewpoint, the myth of nuclear weapons is an important meme; in this article, for people who haven't heard of it, 'Trident' is the name of a supposed nuclear deterrent hosted on supposed nuclear submarines and supposedly at least partly British, though probably it's only the money that is 'British'.
Note added 16 Dec 2016: Very interesting piece about Castro and Batista, and the faked 'Cuban Revolution', and Guantanamo Bay, is Miles Mathis on Castro
You Never Know.... Oh, yes, you do by Peter Hitchens (28 Sept 2012)
'The worst possible argument for keeping Trident is the most common one. It can be summed up as 'You Never Know''
We all know people who live their lives on this principle. Their houses are jammed with clutter, their attics and garages and garden shed bulge with books, manuals for obsolete devices, old mowers, sheaves of gas bills and bank statements, unwearable items of clothing. None of this stuff will ever be looked at or used again. One day, the Salvation Army, or some house clearance service, will cart it all away (mostly to the dump, though some will end up in charity shops where it should have been all along) after the owners are dead.
I find this quite forgiveable, even charming, though I would have an almost permanent skip outside my house, so that I could throw large things away more easily, if I could. I think it's Davies, in 'The Riddle of the Sands' who takes an unreasoning, fierce joy in hurling large, unwanted objects overboard from the yacht 'Dulcibella' , particularly stoves. It occurs to me that I can't remember Davies ever having a Christian name in that marvellous book, much as I didn't have a Christian name during my prep-school years.
But while it's charming in an individual, and understandable, it's stupid for a government to cling to things for which there is no rational case.
Britain built its first nuclear bomb  (and it was a big struggle) largely because the 1945-51 Labour government realised that in those days it was essential to maintain any sort of standing with the USA. Ernest Bevin, who I suspect of having been a great man, is supposed to have resolved to go ahead with the project after being treated like an office boy by Harry Truman's Secretary of State, James Byrnes, a not-very-well-informed Southerner. He is supposed to have said : 'I do not want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked at, or to, as I was. We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.'
A similar sentiment was later voiced by Bevin's near-namesake and left-wing rival, Aneurin 'Nye' Bevan, who said he did not want a future Foreign Secretary to go 'naked into the conference chamber', as he rejected his old left-wing friends' calls for unilateral British nuclear disarmament in 1957, during the first early flourishing of anti-bomb sentiment in Britain.
There's a very interesting story attached to this. Labour's conference (then a real, living body which took actual votes on policy) voted to ban the bomb in 1960, and Hugh Gaitskell made one of his two most powerful speeches (the other being when he had correctly warned that British entry into European union would be 'the end of a thousand years of history') . On this occasion he said that there were 'some of us, Mr Chairman, who will fight, and fight, and fight again to save the party we love'.
There was then a powerfully-organised campaign, throughout the Labour Party (then still an organisation with a large and active membership) run by a body called the Campaign for Democratic Socialism. This worked through Labour ward meetings to reverse the Ban the Bomb policy.
By this time Britain had the Bomb, though it was a close-run thing. One of the main reasons' for Bevin's annoyance with Byrnes had been the ingratitude of the USA for Britain's original work on developing the Atomic Bomb, and the shut-down of US co-operation.
C.P. Snow,  (regular readers here will know of my soft spot for thus much-abused author), wrote two novels on this topic. The first, 'The New Men' concerns the struggle to develop the bomb, in many cases by men of the Left, scientists of the pre-1939 sort who were often utopians, in a place which closely resembles the Harwell laboratory. The second, 'Corridors of Power', deals with a Tory Defence minister who tries (with much help from the civil servants and some discreet American backing) to abandon the British bomb on pragmatic grounds. This turned out to be politically impossible at that stage, as it would have been. There was still a good rational argument (in my view unanswerable) that Soviet domination of Western Europe was ultimately only prevented by MAD, and that a British and a French nuclear force made MAD that much more assured, because the Soviets could never be sure, that, even if the USA held back, their cities were safe from nuclear destruction. Both books are still well worth reading now, as historical documents and stories.
One of Snow's attractions to me was his willingness to deal with large issues of this kind, intelligently and with great background knowledge. Snow had been in the centre of civil service decision-making since the beginning of the 1939-45 war, and knew what he was writing about. He was very good at describing intrigue ('The Masters') trials and scandals ('The Sleep of Reason' and 'The Affair'), fascinated by science and scientists, and frank about his own left-wing passions. I've never seen quite why D.H.Lawrence and Henry James (who, as H.G.Wells once sniped, 'chewed more than he bit off') are supposed to be such Olympian geniuses by comparison.
Like another dedicated left-winger, Claud Cockburn, he seems to have had a respect for the type of conservative who is so secure in his position and beliefs that he doesn't give a damn about offending his own side when necessary. But I digress.
The problem here is that at some point the argument about the Bomb got mixed up with the pro-Soviet Left's desire to break up NATO and make the USSR the principal military, diplomatic and economic power in Europe. [Stalin note] Part of this resulted from the left's revulsion (in my view justified) against Harry Truman's use of the bomb in Hiroshima, and even more so by the second bomb on Nagasaki. A sort of case can perhaps be made for Hiroshima, though many historians, with access to the full documents of the time, now dispute the idea that Hiroshima forced Japan to surrender (she was about to do so anyway). But none can be made for Nagasaki.
By the way, the point about the bombs in 'The War Game' being Soviet ones is this. Much of the CND case, and indeed the strongest part of it, was about the immorality and wickedness of even maintaining such cruel weapons, let alone using them. But CND campaigned only against British bombs, not least because anyone who campaigned against the Soviet bomb would have been locked up if they had done so on the territory of the USSR. This fact rather made the point, to most supporters of the Bomb, of what the argument was all about. But it didn't seem to have occurred to most CND supporters, especially in the 'Ban Cruise' era, where much of the anti-cruise propaganda seemed to suggest that cruise missiles wouldn't just be based here, but used to attack Britain.
The argument that the West's nuclear weapons were specifically meant *not* to be used, and that if they ever were used they would have failed in their purpose, didn't always get across.
Having dwelt in that era, and under that supposed threat, I must confess to having been entirely free of fears about dying in a nuclear holocaust, as Mutual Assured Destruction made perfect sense to me, not least because the Cuba crisis 
had shown that it worked.
I was much more worried that Europe would disarm and become Sovietised, or even that a Soviet invasion might succeed. People should remember that the USSR was constantly trying to detach West Germany from NATO with plans for nuclear-free zones and so forth.
The Kremlin had crushed opposition by force or secret police terror in East Germany (1953), Poland (1956), Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968)  , and it had compelled Poland's government to crush Solidarity after 1980 as well, meantime invading Afghanistan. The installation of the Pioneer (SS20) missiles was aimed ( as the novelist James Buchan puts it in his interesting book 'A Heart's Journey in Winter') directly at the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Left-wing Germans might have disavowed Marxism. But they had no special love for the USA, and were still sentimentally attached to socialist internationalism. Their former leader, Willi Brandt, had been much closer to the Soviets than he had ever let on, and not just because of the East German agent at his elbow, Gunther Guillaume. And all Germans dreaded having another war on German soil.
There were millions of Germans held hostage in East Germany. Meanwhile, the then-perpetual German Foreign Secretary Hans-Dieter Genscher, worked hard to smooth relations both with East Berlin and Moscow. It could have happened. German neutrality wasn't impossible. And then, so much for NATO.
And after that, what? Well, people said Finland, a Western country forced into neutrality by Soviet Power, wasn't so bad. In fact, the Kremlin had a right to veto appointments to the Finnish government, but general Western prosperity, and the very existence of NATO, kept Finland freer than it would otherwise have been. Imagine, instead, a Europe in which all the countries were 'Finlandised' and there was no NATO counterbalance. There were powerful Communist Parties in Italy and France, and a big fellow-travelling movement in Britain, concentrated in the trade unions.
Here, readers will also see that the Warsaw Pact planned carefully for what they hoped would be the future.
But all this is one with Nineveh and Tyre. The Soviet Communist party will never come back. Russia, as a European rather than as a global power is no threat to Britain, and is in my view a potential ally if we ever escape from the EU.  The principal threat to British independence and liberty is from that EU. A nuclear weapon (despite one strange comment here) will certainly not help us shake free of that. Switzerland, which has no bomb, has managed to put up a better fight against Brussels and Berlin than we have. Likewise Norway.
I cannot see any reason why any nuclear-armed power in the Middle East or further east should be interested in destroying London. But if such a threat developed, there are much lower-tech ways of delivering nuclear weapons than the wildly elaborate Trident, or its even more wildly elaborate (and costly) planned successor.  What this country needs is a navy sufficient to protect its shores and to project power in regions where we have influence, or where we need to protect our citizens from piracy.
Our air force needs to be able to defend our skies, and our army to be available to defend our shores and to be sent, rapidly and effectively, to protect our people and interests abroad. To achieve this, we need to work constantly to maintain a skilled core [Hitchens may mean corps - RW] of professionals, and to update our equipment to the latest standards.
I might add that the main threat to our strategic independence currently comes from the approaching energy crisis  , when the forced shutdown of old nuclear and coal-fired power stations will make us wholly dependent on foreign gas and electricity (and unreliable wind). A huge, French-style programme of building nuclear power stations is the only serious answer to this, and would be a much better way of spending the money than on the Thunderbirds fantasy, Trident, a weapon bigger than the country which owns it, designed to attack an enemy who ceased to exist 20 years ago and who will never return.
Cold War notes
Of the books on the 'Cold War', we might note Prof D F Fleming's The Cold War and its Origins 1917-1960, published in 1961 in two volumes, 1917-1950 and 1950-1960. The 1950 separation point is possibly due to Maoism, Chinese 'Communism'. Fleming (a professor of international relations from Tennessee with very good paper qualifications) quoted the New York Times as a main source, and unsurprisingly knows little about Jewish influence: Bernard Baruch only gets a slight mention, for example, and Jewish atom spies a 'heresy hunt' comment. The trade-mark 'Holocaust' had not yet been invented; nor was there wide knowledge of east European atrocities. Fleming is naive about 'atomic weapons'. However, he did at least realise 1917 was an important year. He discusses the 'crucifixion of Korea', but does not follow the money trail of governments paying for weaponry. Interestingly, his final chapter is 'Why the West lost the Cold War'. This is history as a chronological list of newspaper cuttings.
Louis J Halle, described as an American, apparently in Geneva, published The Cold War as History in 1967. He dates the start as 1945, and says it ended 'a few years ago'. Like Fleming's book, he has no idea of the influence of Jews in the USSR and eastern Europe; he even calls the USSR 'Russia' throughout his book. Nor does he have a clue about control over paper money (the 'Fed'), or media propaganda—like Fleming he seems to believe the agitations and selective rages of the media are generated by their readers.
Hugh Thomas, a British historian of a sort published Armed Truce: The Beginnings of the Cold War 1945-6 in 1986; this was intended as one of a series. (I have a publisher's proof copy). It is another long-drawn out volume but shows signs of revisionism: there are accounts of the USSR removing entire factories, murdering and raping, 'transferring' populations, though Thomas still accepts the assiduously-promoted propaganda myth of mass killings of Jews. Of course he accepts too the nuclear mythology.
Back to Cold War
Back to top
British A- and H-Bombs
Churchill's policy was to select Jewish technical advisors, for example Lindemann, and the same obtained after 1945; nobody seems to have commented. 'Leo Amery' was a pre-war fanatical friend of Churchill. After the war, continental Jews were added to their numbers. Many Hungarian Jews have been influential: Oppenheimer, Ulam, Edward Teller, Herman Kahn and others (I quote from memory—check!); also Josef Rotblat, who supposedly worked against nuclear weapons with Bertrand Russell, and later with people like Susannah Yorke, was part of the entire scam, as were the many 'British' and 'American' 'atom spies' who pretended the USSR had atom bombs, and thus preserved them from possible invasion and democracy. Ralph Schoenman, who intruded on Bertrand Russell's house and became his right hand man, was also a Hungarian Jew. It really is a truly incredible story
In retrospect, there were remarkable oddities, such as the absence of U235 separators on the supposed US model. The comments by Hitchens are typical journalistic tripe—more-or-less irrelevant hearsay.
Back to British Bombs
Back to top
Rifts between US and UK (and USSR)
From a revisionist view, it's obvious that the USA and USSR were more closely linked by Jews than the UK and Europe. Naturally they couldn't trust the British, some of whom might point out problems with the accounts of atom bombs, and problems with nuclear power. But Britain was heavily in debt to the USA's Jews.
US and UK Rifts
Back to top
C P Snow and Popularisation
Snow did his best to describe serious events. (His grasp of physics in fact was not impressive; his essay on Einstein is purely conventional hagiography). Corridors of Power became a popular phrase. In fact, this novel did not deal with power structures; but only with marginal figures outside them.
Review of Corridors of Power
Back to C P Snow
Back to top
Stalin and leadership
Probably the idea of 'Stalinism' was promoted in the Jewish media as a way to pretend Jews weren't dominant in the USSR. There were large numbers of Jews networking together; most were unknown outside the USSR, however well-known some may have been to the unfortunate Russians. In fact, the whole idea of 'leadership' and 'charisma' may be another Jewish idea to fool the goyim: certainly Churchill and Roosevelt weren't leaders in any full sense, whatever the newspapers and BBC said, and in any case the numbers or supporters needed makes the personal appeal irrelevant. More to the point is the obsessive attention paid by Jews to secret groups, Freemason, Common Purpose, faux 'left wing' groups, 'think tanks' and so on.
Back to Stalin note
Back to top
Cuba Crisis (1962)
Once it's accepted that the Jewish behind-the-scenes money and media control applied in both the USA and USSR, one must look for other Jewish-promoted policies. It's clear now  that their long-term policy was to promote non-white immigration into white countries, an evil which appealed to their race-obsessed mentality. And that Jews should legally own as many useful assets (i.e. not paper money) as possible. Probably the wars in Korea and Vietnam—in effect a 25 year war—were driven by profits from arms, aircraft, bombs, building of bases, building of ships etc, in addition to the vast fraud of nuclear weapons.
Cuba may have had the function of keeping up the apparent pressure of rivalry between the USA and USSR. In both countries Jews could profit from weapons development, keeping the white populations relatively poor in comparison with what might have been. Castro appears to have been a marrano Spanish-origin 'Jew', and the whole series of events simply staged. Later there were various more-or-less fantastic embellishments of the story—Che Guevara, Lemnitzer (after his death), Northwood, failed death attempts stories, and so on.
Back to Cuba Crisis
Back to top
Jewish network in eastern Europe
Hitchens says nothing, and possibly knows nothing, of Jewish domination of countries such as Hungary and Poland. Jews completely dominated the regime in Hungary until 1952-53. ... The top membership of the new Communist regime, including the secret police, during its first years was almost entirely Jewish. The old joke in Budapest was that one gentile was needed in the party to sign the death warrants on Saturdays.
Jobbik in Hungary illustrates what is likely to happen increasingly.
Back to Jews in eastern Europe
Back to top
Russia as an ally
Russia was viewed as hostile to the west at the time e.g. of Kipling. Russia had a land empire; Britain had a sea empire. It's very likely that hostility was Jewish-generated; after all, they could exert enough leverage later to bring the USA into war in Europe; surely they could spread the stories of Russia as a land with a harsh, cruel Tsar? In fact the Russo-Japanese War (1904) was prodded by Jews. From a race point of view, an alliance between Europe and Russia is desirable, and must be expected to be opposed by the Jewish media.
Back to Russia as future ally
Back to top
Nuclear Bomb Response
Hitchens completely ignores the idea that nuclear weapons are so devastating that only world control of them could be a long-term solution. And of course there has been nearly 70 years to make bigger, better, and dirtier ones. Can it be that Hitchens has unconsciously absorbed the idea that nukes were a fraud? Or is he just another clown?
Back to Nuclear Response
Back to top
Hitchens of course knows nothing of nuclear power, though he has managed to notice that wind power is a fraud—though as usual he doesn't follow the money trail. It's amusing to see him recommend what he thinks happened in France, the building of large numbers of nuclear power stations. This site has evidence passim that nuclear power is a fraud; it should be investigated. So should the oil situation.
Nuclear power doubts
Oil shortage stories; doubts
Back to Energy Crisis
Back to top
- Site Admin
Return to Nuclear Scams History Forum Topics
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest