Majorityrights News > Category: Revisionism

The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching Of A Guilty Man reviewed by Alexander Baron

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 12:42.

*Important editorial note: Though in this review Alexander Baron refers to Leo Frank as “white” in a few places, Majorityrights does not categorize Jews as “white.”

The Lynching Of A Guilty Man reviewed by Alexander Baron

The Leo Frank Case subtitled The Lynching Of A Guilty Man is the third volume in a massive study The Secret Relationship Between Blacks And Jews. The first volume was published in 1991, so this is no rush job. It is also clearly a book written with an agenda, but even vested interest can speak the truth. And the obvious vested interest of the Nation Of Islam comes as a welcome counterpoint to the concealed vested interest of the rest of the American media which unthinkingly points the finger at a black suspect in spite of the conviction of a white* one.

 

For those not au fait with this notorious case, it began when the body of Mary Phagan was found in the basement of the Atlanta Pencil Factory on April 26, 1913. The young worker had been murdered quite brutally for no apparent reason. The Negro security man who found the body quickly became a suspect - something that is more or less taken for granted nowadays unless the person who finds a body clearly has no connection with the victim, eg a hiker happening upon a skeleton.

Newt Lee aside, there was no shortage of more promising suspects, and two soon emerged: the factory manager/part owner Leo Frank, and his gofer Jim Conley. Although Conley was linked to the killing by forensic evidence, in particular two ludicrous notes written from the perspective of the victim, the authorities went with the prosecution of the white* man while Conley testified as an accessory after the fact. Frank was convicted and sentenced to death, but after extensive failed appeals his sentence was commuted. This led to outraged prominent citizens kidnapping him from the State Penitentiary, driving him back to Atlanta, and stringing him from a tree by his neck.

A century and more on there remain two competing narratives; the official and accepted narrative is that Leo Frank was innocent and Jim Conley the villain of the piece. Some might find that surprising as Conley was never indicted for the crime and Frank was never cleared officially in spite of enormous posthumous lobbying by especially the misnamed Anti-Defamation League. This book adheres to the second narrative, that ridiculous as Conley’s tale may have been, he was in fact totally innocent, an accessory only after the fact, having found himself in a truly invidious position, a man of humble estate - in effect a third class citizen - who was told he must follow the orders of his boss or else.

In the past quarter to half century, quite a few authors have come out in support of this narrative, but none more impressively than the dedicated Leo Frank website and now this minutely documented book.

If anyone believes the fact that the forensic evidence pointing to Conley should have indicted him and him alone, here are two cases from the 1980s that show how wrong this kind of reasoning can be. In March 1984, the black American Sylvester Smith was accused of violating two young girls, cousins. As all the parties involved in this case were black, there was no racial angle. The girls had clearly been interfered with sexually, and unsurprisingly, Smith was convicted. Twenty years later he was cleared on appeal, the shocking truth was that the real perpetrator was a 9 year old boy (who went on as an adult to commit a murder). The girls had been coached by their grandmother to point the finger at Smith to protect him. After her death, they recanted.

An equally shocking case that made international headlines was that of Lindy Chamberlain. In 1980 while camping at Ayers Rock, Australia, her baby daughter Azaria was snatched by a dingo. She was convicted of the murder based largely on forensic evidence, but nearly six years later, more reliable forensic evidence was found - the girl’s matinee jacket near a dingo lair.

In the Mary Phagan case, the forensic evidence against Jim Conley (the notes) was outweighed by the forensic and other evidence against his boss, in particular there was evidence that the girl has been murdered upstairs. Almost all the other evidence pointed to Frank, everything from his demeanour to his willingness to point the finger at everyone else including at first Newt Lee. Conley on the other hand remained cool as a cucumber, so either he was a psychopath and a potential future Oscar winner, or he really was telling the truth, however outrageous or crazy his story may have sounded. But when the facts are all in, it wasn’t that outrageous, it wasn’t that crazy, and justice was done in the Deep South, both for Mary Phagan and for a black man whose word many of Frank’s supporters believed should carry no weight at all.

A few criticisms are in order:

In the Preface, the claim is made that an “unknown posse” lynched Frank, and that he was and remains the only Jew ever lynched in America. The posse was hardly unknown, its members did not bother to hide their faces, and indeed appeared proud of their work. Later in the book it is made clear that their identities were in no way secret. The doubtful honour of being the first Jew lynched in America appears to belong to Samuel Bierfield in 1868, but neither he nor Frank were lynched because they were Jews.

Frank was hardly the most important Jew in the Deep South as claimed; he was certainly far from the wealthiest, and was the New York Times the world’s most important newspaper? The most important in America maybe, but not more important than the London Times. And was World War One raging in 1913?

The reason the crime was committed and how it was committed are both laid out in impressive detail, as are the attempts by Leo Frank to point the finger of suspicion initially at Newt Lee, and then at anyone else without mentioning the fact that Conley was at the pencil factory at the material time. Why would he not do that? The only logical reason is that he didn’t want Conley to open his mouth, and once Conley did, he too had to be accused. The book raises too the interesting speculation that Frank was considering murdering Conley – the only direct witness – as well.

READ MORE...


Map & Figures on The Imposed Syrian Immivasion

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 29 May 2016 05:00.


Courtesy of Stratford


David Duke, no friend of Poland: never argues against Hitler (e.g., lebensraum)

Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 26 May 2016 03:32.

    #DavidDukeNoFriendofPoland

             
              David Duke is no friend of Poland; neither was Hitler or Friedrich

On many occasions David Duke has claimed that Nazi Germany was offering genuine peace - “22 peace offers” - to the West and only wanted back some places taken from Germany by The Versailles Treaty. He says nothing about the truth of the matter, which was that Hitler had obvious tactical reasons to not want to fight on two fronts and have his agenda for lebensraum in the east interfered with.

The peace offers were an obvious ruse to anybody. It is clear that Hitler was a war monger, had in mind lebensraum up to the Urals and intended to kill those Slavic peoples who fought against his plan to subject them as helots.

There is no excuse for ignoring that and for David Duke to present himself and Nazi Germany as sympathetic to Poland.

He completely ignores the fact that Poland had already fought and defeated the Soviets - who were on their way to Germany had they not been stopped by Piłsudski at Warsaw.

He talks about Soviet atrocities as if it is an either/or between the Soviet killing and the Nazi killing. Typical of Nazophiles, he edits the time line of events as it suits him - focusing after the Nazis stabbed Poland in the back with the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact.

Here is what Duke says on May 24, in a conversation with Professor Kevin MacDonald:

David Duke (sympathetic tone): Isn’t it true that hundreds of thousands of Poles were shipped-off to gulags, were stripped of any job, even a way to make a living, because they might have been seen as an enemy of Jews or enemies of the communist regime in Poland and the communist regime was absolutely controlled by Jews.

And in fact when the communists came into Poland it wasn’t the Germans who executed Polish prisoners. In fact the Germans, after they won, they paroled most of the Polish officers. They didn’t even keep them in prison during the whole war.

Sure, they were “liberators” of Poland. Where is Lana to add chorus?

Duke continues: The communists came in and we had the Katyn forest massacre; where they literally murdered 15,000 of the cream, of really intelligentsia of the young men of Poland; massacred them in the Kaytn forest. During the time of ‘46, the communists were putting people in prison, they were torturing Poles; they were sending people to the gulags even in Siberia from their own homeland. They were killing an awful lot of people; and the Jews were right at the head of this and that was the reason why the people in those areas rose up to fight the Jews; because of this horrific horror that was going on that was much worse than any program that was committed.

Kevin MacDonald corrects him: “pogroms”, then adds..

Much worse. The fact is that the Jews [inaudible] on the Soviet Union and when they came in in 1939; the fact is that they supported communism, they hated Polish nationalism and that there were so many Jews in the government, especially in the secret police and so on. It was really something that was made to order for anti-Jewish reaction.  And it was there, I think it was 1967, they finally deposed this very Jewish dominated government; and quite a few of them just left for Israel. They weren’t really Poles they didn’t feel any uh, you know, feeling towards Poland and they just left for their homeland.

Duke: Let’s talk about the beginnings of the war and what happened here; in terms of the second world war. We can actually just start off by the fact that during the 1920s and 30s that tens of millions of people were liquidated; murdered in Russia; murdered in Ukraine; Jews dominated the secret service and the NKVD; and the other communist apparatus that tortured countless numbers of Russians; murdered millions of people; in Ukraine alone there was something like 7 or 11 million people that died, starved to death, women, children, elderly ...and this was all done, of course, in peace time.  This was not done under the aegis of war; but for some reason, the anger of the media, the international media over which the Jews have control, like the New York Times, and the movie industry of this country, the entertainment industry of America and Europe, which were also heavily influenced; weren’t saying the big evil of the world was communism, they were saying the big evil was the Germans. And when the war began of course, it wasn’t just the Germans attacking the Poles over the city of Danzig and a few other issues, the Bolsheviks came in, the communists came in from the east, took about half of Poland, and where the Germans treated the Polish prisoners of war decently, we find out later that the Russian, not really Russian, but the Jewish led Bolsheviks of the time; and the Jewish led murderers, commissars literally caused the mass murder of the entire Polish army officer corps; of the country - 15,000 at Katyn. And yet, we had a media and we had governments of the west by the west who had so much influence by the Jews, they weren’t saying that we should declare war on Russia; Britain and France, they didn’t declare war on Russia, no - they declared war on Germany. A war that ultimately took the lives of 55,000 million of Europeans and really caused the communist take-over of half of Europe; and countless millions more who were victims.  What are your thoughts on that sir?

[Note: WN typically do not manage to consider that maybe Hitler should not have invaded Eastward; after having already been granted the valuable Sudetenland and having been told that there would be war if he invaded further; while the Sudetenland was precious to Czech and perhaps contestable on historical grounds].

Unfortunately, KM endorses Duke’s totally one sided and highly selective account of history:

KM: Absolutely. I think um, in general, what these Jewish organizations will respond to all that is that “these people were not really Jews”, they didn’t identify as Jews so a big part of my work, when I wrote a chapter on Jews and the Left in The Culture of Critique… but these people did identify as Jews, it takes some close reading of the issues..  you have to go in there and show that it does make a difference.

The next day, May 25, David Duke has a program titled, “Dr. Duke interviews the leader of TradCatKnight who destroys Christian Zionist Lies.” Duke, the “friend of Poland”, talks with a Polish Catholic guy, who uses all these bizarre interpretations of the Abrahamic religion, talking about how the true Christianity will emerge and the Jewish head of the NWO will emerge in Israel, etc. - some anti-Christ figure from The Book of Revelation, no doubt, causing us all to get into a highly rational war on behalf of the true Jews.

David Duke is taking advantage of this Abrahamic fool, who has his eyes on scripture and his interpretations, not on this world, the world Jews care about; and this world, where they once led a Soviet Revolution that was even more murderous than Nazi Germany, but this world, where Nazi Germany mirrored Judaism, their unanimity for one people - Germanics - and not only a demonstrated willingness, but the protracted realization of killing that led to the killing of 55,000 million Europeans because Hitler could not cooperate with nationalists to the east, but started a war that might even out-do his idol, Friedrich the Great, in his eastward territorial conquests - and in which he aspired not only to rid his realm of Jews, but to take-over and subjugate the lands and the people of the lands eastward, up to the Urals; quite willing to destroy anyone who would oppose those objectives.

Roman Dmowski, wise to the need to exclude Jews but his nationalism was too right-wing.

Were there Jewish elements which had infiltrated Germany’s neighboring countries? Yes. Were there native nationalist elements in those countries which were aware that this alien and nefarious element needed to be purged - yes. Were they aware of the danger and willing to fight the Soviets? Also yes. It was incumbent upon a statesman to work with those elements. Lebensraum and a plan for subjugation of Slavic peoples does not accord with the principle of ethnonationalism; nor did Nazi Germany represent White nationalism - it represented Prussio-German imperialism.

In terms of truth, trust and relations, it is not going to do any good proceeding with the denial of Nazi Germany’s imperfection.

One of the difficulties with the philo-Nazism of WN is that they partake of one of its cottage industries - blaming Poland, itemizing Germany’s “superiority in every way” and cataloging Poland’s “perfidy”.

You don’t build good relations that way, you start wars through reciprocally escalating diatribe - when you have to be on constant vigil against a people who believe in their infallible right to destroy you, that makes it extremely difficult to say, hey, you know, my side had this, that or the other thing wrong, could have done better here and here is/was the way to correct that: which I would like to do - but it’s hard when the other side is making itself into another side rather than a partner, by constantly dishonestly insisting that it was perfect, a victim and that your side was pure evil or perfidy without circumstance.

Józef Piłsudski - wise and capable against the Soviets, but his nationalism was too civic, allowing for Jewish inclusion

 

If I were dealing with a more reasonable audience than Nazophilic WN, the place where I would go next in criticism of the Poland of the era would be this - of Piłsudski’s pragmatic brand of nationalism, which was (much) more propositional than it should have been.

Although Piłsudski respected Germans and German nationalism - good; and although he despised the Soviet Union and fought them successfully - also very good; he did not yet appreciate the need to eject the YKW from Polish nationalism. He believed that it was a practical necessity to include them in order to have sufficient fighting strength. And so long as Hitler had imperialistic designs of lebensraum, that, the necessity to include the YKW, could have been true in some unfortunate, short term sense. Roman Dmowksi (the father of Polish nationalism) however, recognized the perfidy of enfranchising Jews into the Polish nation. While he was more anti-German than Józef Piłsudski, his disputes with Germany were not imperialistic, but local - regarding Poznan, Leszno, Pila, Bydgoszcz, Torun, Gdansk and a bit beyond Gdansk, into Pomerania. But not even this was anywhere near as far west as the Polish/German border is today. Even by Dmowski’s designs, Germany still included Breslau (Wroclaw), Stettin (Szczecin), Konigsberg (Kaliningrad); in fact everything not far west of the towns he sought to reclaim.

 

 


It does no good to say that Hitler’s only dispute and designs were to win these particular areas for Germany, that Hitler was only taking defensive measures against the Soviets (as Duke constantly claims) and that it was all the fault of Poland. Hitler wanted lebensraum and not only did he design to take all of Poland, all of Czechoslovakia, all of Belarus, all of Ukraine and Russia up to the Urals; not only did he ignore the fact that there were staunch anti-Jewish and anti-Soviet forces in all of these places, he was perfectly willing to turn their people into slaves where he temporarily succeeded; into helots or material for Germanicization at best, were his designs to hold sway; and perfectly willing kill them if they fought for their ethno-states.


Russian Victory Day Hypocrisy

Posted by DanielS on Monday, 09 May 2016 08:02.

TNO, “Russian Victory Day Hypocrisy” 9 May 2016:

Today’s “Victory Day” parade in Moscow is an exercise in hypocrisy—because it ignores the fact that the Soviet Union was allied to the Nazis for nearly two years of World War II—and invaded five neighboring states itself before the war with Germany broke out.

The Russian “celebrations” ignore the fact that the Soviet Union helped Nazi Germany with the invasion of Poland in 1939, invaded Finland in November 1939, and invaded Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in June 1940.

The Soviet invasion of Poland started without a formal declaration of war on September 17, 1939. The invasion took place in line with a treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, signed by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop on August 23, 1939.

The agreement—known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, contained a public and a secret clause.

The public clause was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union—but the secret clause, never made public until 1946, contained an agreement to divide the territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland into German and Soviet “spheres of influence,” anticipating potential “territorial and political rearrangements” of these countries.


Stalin and Ribbentrop after the signing of the Soviet–Nazi German pact. August 23, 1939.


The last page of the Additional Secret Protocol, bearing Ribbentrop’s and Molotov’s signature, dealing with the division of Poland and other Eastern European nations between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

It was on this basis that the Soviet Union invaded Poland on September 17, 1939—sixteen days after the Nazi invasion—and ended up occupying the eastern part of the Polish state.

The Western Allies—so quick to declare war on Nazi Germany for invading Poland—simply ignored the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland.

Soviet and German soldiers in Lublin, Poland, 1939.


German and Soviet soldiers meet in jointly occupied Brest.

German and Soviet officers shaking hands following the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union.


Soviet parade in Lviv, 1939.

At the joint victory parade held by the Wehrmacht and Red Army in Brest, September 22, 1939, at the end of the invasion of Poland.At the center Major General Heinz Guderian and Soviet Brigadier Semyon Krivoshein.

Video below: Wehrmacht and Red army parade, Brest, Poland, September 22, 1939:

The only memorable public comment on the double invasion of Poland was a cartoon by David Low which appeared in a British newspaper, showing Hitler and Stalin greeting each other over the corpse of Poland


The German copy of the secret clause was discovered after the war, and first published in the United States by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 22, 1946, and in Britain by the Manchester Guardian.

It was also part of an official US State Department publication, Nazi–Soviet Relations 1939–1941, published in January 1948.

Despite this, it remained the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of the secret clause. It was only acknowledged as a fact in 1989, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and was finally published in its Russian format in 1992.

As late as 2014, Russian president Putin defended the Soviet-Nazi pact, saying that there was “nothing wrong with it.”

Putin even went on to question the existence of the secret clause, saying that “people still argue about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.”

The invasion of Poland was only the first Soviet military aggression of World War II.

In September and October 1939, the Soviet Union compelled the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to agree to “mutual assistance pacts” which allowed for the establishment of Soviet military bases in those countries.

On June 15, 1940, while the Western Allies were distracted by the German offensive against France, the Soviet Union militarily occupied Lithuania.

The next day, Latvia and Estonia also received Soviet ultimatums, which were quickly followed by military occupation.

Lithuania was formally incorporated into the Soviet Union on August 3, Latvia on August 5, and Estonia on August 6. The deposed presidents of Estonia (Konstantin Päts) and Latvia (Karlis Ulmanis) were imprisoned and deported to the USSR and died later in Soviet gulags.

While all this was going on, the Soviet Union also invaded the neutral nation of Finland on November 30, 1939.

This time, there was at least some half-hearted international reaction: the League of Nations passed a resolution condemning the invasion as illegal, and the Soviet Union was expelled from the League on December 14, 1939.


Red Army soldiers display a captured Finnish state flag, 1940.

Initially, the invasion went poorly, and the Finnish army held the Soviet offensive at the border. However, a renewed attack forced the Finns to capitulate in March 1940.

In terms of that treaty, Finland ceded 11 percent of its surface area—and 30 percent of its economy—to the Soviet Union.


Soviet Tupolev SB bombers above Helsinki November 30, 1939.

It was during the Soviet invasion of Finland that the term “Molotov cocktail” was coined. The improvised gasoline “bomb,” usually just a glass bottle, was given its name as an insulting reference to Soviet foreign minister Molotov, who was responsible for the setting of “spheres of interest” in Eastern Europe under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Molotov had earlier declared on Soviet state radio that Soviet air force’s bombing missions over Finland were actually “airborne humanitarian food deliveries for their starving neighbors.”

As a result, the Finns dubbed the Soviet bombs as “Molotov bread baskets”—and when the hand-held bottle firebomb was developed to attack Soviet tanks, the Finns called it the “Molotov cocktail” as “a drink to go with the food.”

The Nazi-Soviet pact lasted until June 22, 1941, when Hitler launched the invasion of the Soviet Union. That invasion, as is well known, ended in catastrophe for Germany.

Nonetheless, the fact that the Soviet Union was an official ally—and an aggressive invader of five neutral neighbors during the first stage of the Second World War, makes the Russian “Victory Day” parades hollow and hypocritical.

If Russia—or the West, for that matter—were sincere in celebrating the end of the tragic conflict known as the Second World War, they would give equal prominence to the Soviet Union’s role in fermenting that conflict.

But, because the controlled media and the establishment have made an art out of double standards and hypocrisy, the focus remains solely on Germany—and ignores the crimes of communism.


Venus

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:46. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:28. (View)

Terror Suspect Arrested commented in entry 'Terror in Westminster and the official lies which follow' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:05. (View)

Student unions boycotting Israel warned commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:55. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:29. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:22. (View)

life immitates story commented in entry 'Hermeneutics Circles Back to The Passions of Captain Chaos' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:16. (View)

Anonimous commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 03:21. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24. (View)

Patrick Le Brun's Bomb (((Shoah))) commented in entry 'In search of a nationalist majority' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:15. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:12. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:48. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:11. (View)

Sea Hawk commented in entry 'A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:34. (View)

Miss Turismo Carabobo commented in entry 'See Caracas Then Die' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:30. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'The coming battle over the meaning of Brexit.' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:26. (View)

SERG commented in entry 'The coming battle over the meaning of Brexit.' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:00. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Minister: Russia hacked Danish defence for two years' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:02. (View)

Russian"Pawn Storm" phises Macron campaign commented in entry 'Minister: Russia hacked Danish defence for two years' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:29. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:55. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:32. (View)

Dugin: Bannon an "ideologicl ally" commented in entry 'The Paleocon agenda behind the Alt-Right & Trump becomes explicit with Trump's attack on Syria' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 03:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:54. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:53. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:23. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:31. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:13. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:48. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:35. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:03. (View)

Dr_Eigenvector commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 13:39. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 12:07. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:58. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:02. (View)

Majorityrights shield

Sovereignty badge