My thanks go to Geoff for pointing me in the direction of this Guardian article.

Britain secretly supplied Israel with plutonium during the 1960s despite a warning from military intelligence that it could help the Israelis to develop a nuclear bomb, it was disclosed last night. The deal, made during Harold Wilson’s Labour government, is revealed in classified documents released under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by BBC2’s Newsnight programme.

The documents also show how Britain made hundreds of shipments to Israel of material which could have helped in its nuclear weapons programme, including compounds of uranium, lithium, beryllium and tritium, as well as heavy water.

Israel asked Britain in 1966 to supply 10mg of plutonium. Israel would have required almost 5kg of plutonium to build an atomic bomb, but British defence intelligence officials warned that 10mg had “significant military value” and could enable the Jewish state to carry out important experimental work to speed up its nuclear weapons programme.

Documents show that the decision to sell plutonium to Israel in 1966 was blocked by officials in both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, who said: “It is HMG’s policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons.” But the deal was forced through by a Jewish civil servant, Michael Michaels, in Tony Benn’s Ministry of Technology, which was responsible for trade in nuclear material, according to Newsnight.

Peter Kelly, who was British defence intelligence’s expert on the Israeli nuclear weapons programme, knew Mr Michaels. He told Newsnight he believed Mr Michaels knew that Israel was trying to build an atomic bomb, but that he had dual loyalties to Britain and Israel.

Mr Benn told the programme that civil servants in his department kept the deals secret from him and his predecessor, Frank Cousins.

He had always suspected that civil servants were doing deals behind his back, but he never thought they would sell plutonium to Israel. He told Newsnight: “I’m not only surprised, I’m shocked. It never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government.

“Michaels lied to me, I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again.”

READ MORE...

The BNP website has a post on the truly macabre fate of fourteen-years old Charlene Downes.  You can be sure they would not do so if the mainstream media was doing its job.

Charlene was last seen by her family on 3rd November, 2003.  She had walked from her Blackpool home to the North Pier, and never returned.  For more than two years the police pursued their enquiries diligently, categorising the case as a murder investigation as well as a “missing persons”.  Some 3,000 men were DNA-tested during the course of the investigation, and an appeal was launched on the BBC’s “Crimewatch”.

A few days ago the breakthrough came and this brief report appeared - though originally in which paper, regional or national, I have not yet discovered.

READ MORE...

Neil Murphy, a government economic adviser, has described Newcastle as “hideously white” at a city conference.

Less than a year ago, Julia Gillard was interviewed by the Melbourne Sunday Age on the issue of feminism. What Julia has to say on the issue is important, as she is a leading member of the Labor Party and considered to be prime ministerial material.

Her views were clear and very much in line with feminist orthodoxy. Girls, she opined, should have choices, except that the choice to be a traditional stay-at-home mum was no longer an option. In her own words:

If one suggested to a girl in school today that her future life would consist of marriage, raising children and tending the family home, she would no doubt look at you as if you had just arrived from Mars ...

... while she may not know what course she wants to chart out in her life yet, she knows work will play a role in it – and an important one. Whether for the thrill of career, the social integration of work, the pay packet or for a mix of all of them, she’ll work. (The Sunday Age 8th May 2005)

So in May 2004 Gillard’s attitude was that women who wanted to be mothers would do so by mixing their careers with motherhood. To suggest anything else was out of this world.

READ MORE...

Mary Riddell is a spiteful, intellectally lazy Observer journalist, an egalitarian activist and, apparently, a believer in the dead Marxist, Stephen J Gould.  Today she has taken it upon herself to write a hate piece about Leeds University professor, Frank Ellis.

Ellis, you will recall, took it upon himself - not for the first time - to do what Drew Fraser did Down Under and inform the British public about racial differentials.  He is a doughty fighter, and has done the same public service in respect to the social effects of The Lawrence Inquiry.  His specialism is Russian and Slavonic Studies, upon which he has the soundest view imaginable - though one hardly likely to endear itself to Ms Riddell.

In her bitch-piece today she is, no doubt, reacting to Ellis’s success in getting his views across.  He knows perfectly well, of course, that the white population is thirsty for such insights and, too, that his notoriety on the Establishment Left is a threat to him professionally and personally.  He is, like Prof Fraser, a brave man for whom the collective cost of silence is greater than any cost to him of speaking out.  He has my admiration and, I don’t doubt, that of many others with no website on which to express it.  I admire his cheek, too.  Last week, Ms Riddell reports, he sent the Observer an “an email offering a resumé of his views and asking what we would pay him”.  He must have done it deliciously anticipating the mortification that would ensue among all those so fearful-progressive Observer folk.

READ MORE...

Thanks to Michael R for the following genetic research news - news to me anyway.  From it we can extract a quick, concise and killing rejoinder to that illiterate anti-racist trope: “99.9% of our genes are shared with stink bugs.”

Gene expression sets humans apart

Researchers find factors that distinguish us from other primates

LONDON - How can humans and chimpanzees, who share about 99 percent of the same genes be so different?

Scientists in the United States and Australia say changes in the gene expression, not just genes, is a big part of what separates humans from their nearest relatives. Gene expression is the process by which genes are turned on or off. Not all of the estimated 30,000 genes in humans are activated at the same time in every cell.

“We think gene expression is a major part of what separates chimps and humans,” said Kevin White, an associate professor of genetics, ecology and evolution at Yale University.

More here.

The prospects are great for ecologically imposed patriarchy enhancing the fertility of whites via oceanic frontiers.  The majority of the earth’s surface remains not only uncultivated, but not biologically productive despite the presence of adequate sunlight and near-adequate nutrients. If recent experiments in iron fertilization of high nitrogen low chlorophyll oceanic surface regions are any indication, the primary ingredient lacking is the pioneering spirit that led to the cultivation and increased carrying capacity of the Anglosphere’s frontier territories: The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.  It is reasonable to expect that the Anglosphere alone could increase its numbers by a factor of 10, relatively unmolested by multicultural supremacists, during this pioneering renaissance and maintain if not improve the quality of their populations.  Other, less sea-faring European peoples could enjoy smaller but nevertheless profound population and territorial relief.  Moreover this population increase could be very rapid if the fertility rates of the United States frontier is any guide.  This is a prospect that seems plausible in no other way short of world war.

READ MORE...

… to be honest, ‘blood and soil’ is such a dismal, choking thing when taken in too strong a dose compared to the attractions of globalised cosmopolitanism.  The wonderful thing about modern ‘identity’ is that you can make it for yourself and rather than having it forced upon you by the people around you.  No, be[ing] a cosmopolitan is not to be less than whole, it is to be British (or American or French or Chinese) .... but not just British (or American or French or Chinese) if that is what you want.  It allows you to be you and to wrap yourself up in the bits of ‘your’ culture which work for you and to say ‘screw it’ to the rest. That is irresistible.

Freedom is not belonging… you can get that at a football match. Freedom is ... well, freedom.

These auto-intoxicating words of Samizdata illuminati and liberty-tripper, Perry de Havilland, were passed down to me from on “high” during a debate on what is now an ancient and very much pre-MR thread at his blog.  For anyone who still doesn’t know, Samizdata is a famously critical-rationalist (ie, Popperian) blog, and is right-wing Britain’s most-hit (by us!).

As was my practise at the time of that quote, I always acted with caution, giving Poppergun Perry no excuse to ban me.  Later it transpired that no excuse was necessary.  But that’s another story.

Now, following our disgracefully enjoyable examination of all these critical-rationalists’ emotional lives, organised so ably for us by Alex, I want to take a moment to reflect on the strange hatreds and glaring weaknesses of these desperately bitchy, cosmopolitan housewives.

READ MORE...