Mr. Locke’s suggestions of how that might be achieved included: the destruction of Palestinian food and water supplies (including the aerial spraying of Palestinian farmland); the banning of all economic activity; summary arrest and deportation; the use of the police and army to physically drag Palestinians from their own homes; and the blowing up of those homes (with the families still inside, if necessary).
After learning of Mr. Locke’s article, the editor of The American Conservative magazine, Mr. Scott McConnell, sacked Robert Locke as a contributor to the magazine, saying: “I wrote him a letter telling him that whatever our editorial boundaries were, this piece had transgressed them, and that I was no longer comfortable working with him as a writer”, adding that he found Mr. Locke’s views to have been expressed “with a glee and specificity in its glorification of power and violence that I, frankly, found rather creepy.”
It was at this time that articles by Robert Locke began appearing on the website of a US-based, far-right Zionist pressure group, Think-Israel – the first article being (in effect) the argument by Mr. Locke that the Palestinians should be subjected to decades of war if they continued to oppose the settlement on, and occupation of, their land. It is therefore seen as highly significant that Think-Israel later chose to reproduce an assessment (attributed to the writer Lawrence Auster) of Mr. Locke’s proposal for ethnic cleansing as “a detailed, sensible, civilized strategy”.
The Think-Israel organisation has the potential to influence political decisions in Washington. Two of its principal stalwarts are Daniel Pipes and Barry Rubin. In 2003 President George W Bush nominated Daniel Pipes for the board of The United States Institute of Peace (USIP). Daniel Pipes is also a former director of the US-based Foreign Policy Research Institute – an organisation that, through its founder Robert Strausz- Hupé, was largely instrumental in the creation of the Pax Americana doctrine (later to emerge as the Project For The New American Century, PNAC, under Richard Perle). Dr. Barry Rubin is based in Israel, and is the Director of the organisation Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA). He is also the editor of The Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA). In early 2003 it was revealed that the British Government’s “intelligence-led dossier” on Iraq, presented as a justification for UK participation in the Second Gulf War, was lifted almost verbatim from a MERIA published research paper.
Robert Locke Visits Nick Griffin
In late 2005, Robert Locke visited Britain. The visit included a private meeting with Nick Griffin (Chairman of the British National Party) at Mr. Griffin’s home. The outcome of the meeting was a favourable report on developments within the BNP, and of Mr. Griffin’s stewardship of that organisation. Mr. Locke’s report was subsequently published by Think-Israel, in September of that year.
Six months later Nick Griffin published an article that detailed a future BNP political strategy. Much of the article concerned Mr. Griffin’s rationale as to why criticism of US neo-conservatism had to be taboo. It was transparently obvious that the promotion of that rationale was largely driven by Mr. Griffin’s own political journey. A key part of the strategy was to be strict neutrality on all matters not affecting the interests of Britain – including events occurring in the Middle East. Four months later support for adopting such a strategy was reinforced in an article by senior BNP member Andrew Brons.
In May 2006 another highly supportive report on Nick Griffin was reproduced on the Think-Israel website. That report was the result of a meeting between journalist Srdja Trifkovic and Nick Griffin in February 2006 – organised whilst Mr. Griffin was on a fund-raising visit to the USA.
The following month an article ‘Why Britain Needs Hard Industries’ was published on the BNP website. The article’s author was named as ‘Alan Goodacre’. However analysis shows conclusively that the article was, in fact, the work of Think-Israel columnist Robert Locke.
In March 2007 the State backed hate-group Searchlight published a report on “The Men Who Are Creating a New BNP ideology”. At the top of their list was ‘Alan Goodacre’, who was described as ”the BNP economics guru”. Searchlight went on to describe ‘Alan Goodacre’ as a “key figure in this process [of creating ‘a New BNP Ideology’].” Notably Searchlight provided no ‘intelligence’ for the origins or political history of the mysterious ‘Alan Goodacre’ who, it lamely informed us, “has come from nowhere to command a key role in the formation of BNP policy”.
At the same time that the Searchlight article was appearing, a research paper on economic theory appeared in the on-line journal Post Autistic Economics Review (PAER). The author of the paper was given as “Alan Goodacre, University of Stirling”. However we have confirmation from Prof. Alan Goodacre that the research paper was not his work. The PAER journal have informed us that it was an editorial mistake – soon after publication the PAER editor was contacted by ‘Alan Goodacre’ who emphasised he held no academic position within the UK. The reference to Stirling University has since been removed.
On the 22nd July 2007 the Current Affairs editor of the Observer Newspaper, Mr. Jamie Doward wrote an article on a meeting that had taken place in Hampshire the previous September. The meeting was hosted by the BNP and chaired by Mr. Nick Griffin. Much of Mr. Doward’s description of the proceedings is nonsense, however he did report that “ … at the meeting was the BNP's economics adviser, a man called Alan Goodacre when residing in Britain but who, when in the US on business, apparently uses the name Ian Fletcher, according to party sources. Throughout the meeting Fletcher [Goodacre] carried a large briefcase stuffed with thousands of pounds in cash which he used to pay the hotel and restaurant bills”. In response to our enquiries, the principal (non-BNP) guest at the Hampshire meeting, Mr. Andrew McKillop, has referred to “the so-called ‘Alan Goodacre’ ’” as being the “hinge person” (in the arrangements for that meeting), and has revealed (to us) that the person who paid for him to attend the conference “was not a Brit”.
Two days after the Observer article, Searchlight rushed out a response that included the comment: “Another man named in the story is the BNP's economics expert Alan Goodacre. The writer [Jamie Doward] seemed to think he [Goodacre] uses the name Ian Fletcher when visiting the USA. In fact Ian Fletcher is a well-known US right-winger who lobbies against migrant workers. They are not the same person. For one thing an expert analysis of their articles shows that Goodacre writes in British English whereas Fletcher is very definitely a North American”.
This bizarre response from Searchlight reveals an obvious determination to convince people of Goodacre’s ‘British-ness’ – and also to dismiss any suggestion of the use of an ‘Ian Fletcher’ alias. Obviously this was not “expert analysis” by Searchlight but a crude attempt to create a smokescreen – to close down any speculation as to the identity of ‘Alan Goodacre’. Searchlight therefore wanted us to believe it could ‘prove a negative’ (that ‘Alan Goodacre’ had never used the name ‘Ian Fletcher’) by finding an American ‘Ian Fletcher’ who, it assured us, wasn’t the mysterious ‘Alan Goodacre’.
In fact analysis of communications from ‘Alan Goodacre’ (when using his firstname.lastname@example.org contact address at that time – early 2007) shows not only that ‘Alan Goodacre’ was working in North America – but was also using the name ‘Ian Fletcher’.
A particular concern must be links posted by an ‘Ian Fletcher’ on the Think-Israel website. One such link, posted in 2004, was to an article by Bret Stephens of The Jerusalem Post in which Mr. Stephens expressed his enthusiasm for the use of State assassination by Israel as an economic way of subduing Palestinian resistance. ‘Ian Fletcher’ was later to post additional comment on Think-Israel that showed his personal interest in the activities of the BNP.
Given the considerable investigative resources that The Observer and Searchlight can call upon, and given (by their own admission) their contacts with the UK intelligence services, then there can be little doubt that they must have had knowledge of all of the above (and probably much more besides). Which begs the question – why were they (seemingly) so reluctant for the public to know the identity of the people and organisations “creating a new ideology” for the BNP?
Since 2007 the involvement of ‘Alan Goodacre’ in the affairs of the BNP seems to have stopped – at least under that particular name. The role of ideological instructor was subsequently passed to former South African journalist Mr. Arthur Kemp. Not surprisingly the strategy expounded in 2006 (in regard to the wishes of particular US special interest groups) has, if anything, been pursued with even greater vigour.
Robert Locke's Anti-British Leo Straussian Political Philosophy
The key figure in these matters therefore appears to be Mr. Robert Locke, and his relationship to the mysterious ‘Alan Goodacre’ (and hence, by extension, to ‘Ian Fletcher’). Robert Locke is a scholar and keen advocate of the work of the late Leo Strauss – a 20th Century political philosopher whose ideas on extreme political control have been very influential, over the last thirty years, in the development of US neo-conservative domestic and foreign policy. Many of the protégés of Strauss have held powerful positions in sections of the US Government, Military and Intelligence services.
Robert Locke observes in one of his US articles, published in 2002: “Straussians talk in a kind of code to one another … They [Straussians] network in academia and in Washington and find one another jobs. A lot of their money comes from the John Olin Foundation”. Mr. Locke lists some of the more prominent acolytes of Strauss, including Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol. And, in a rather obvious attempt at mock self-deprecation, he goes on to add: “ … and, not meaning to class myself with this august company but in the interests of full disclosure, myself.”
It is (of course) well beyond the scope of this report to examine Strauss-con political philosophy. However some of the key characteristics of that philosophy need be highlighted, namely: rule by a secret, supremacist elite who place themselves above the Law; concealment of that rule by means of lies and deception; the total subordination of ‘ordinary’ people to that rule; a contemptuous and cynical view of Christian belief; and the manipulation of conflict between nations, so as to incite ‘perpetual war’. It is apparent that although Leo Strauss distanced himself from Nazism during his early years in pre-war Germany, nevertheless his views were firmly rooted within the fascist school of political thinking.
This, therefore, is a political philosophy that directly threatens the English people by attacking their most important cultural traditions. That includes attacks on Common Law (as a safeguard against State tyranny), on the English Christian Church (as the basis for a demystified form of religious observance, clear moral guidance, and natural spirituality), and on the tradition of step-wise social change.
A primary concern of the US Strauss-cons is the growth of Islam in Europe – but only because of the potential threat it poses to the project for an Eretz Israel. So, what are we to make of the activities of members of that US political cabal when involved in European groups resisting Islam? The evidence is that the Strauss-cons will attempt to use their considerable political influence (and financial resources) to turn those European initiatives into pro-Israeli front-groups. The only permitted position, regarding any European (and English) counter-Jihad movement, is therefore that it must also be pro-Zionist and pro- Israel. It may be that observations of UK-based groups involved in such campaigns (such as the EDL, SIOE, etc.) will reveal evidence of this form of manipulative control.
Which brings us back to the Palestinians – and ethnic cleansing. The threat of Islamic fascism, and of Jihad in England, comes not from the Palestinians, but ultimately from Saudi Arabia. The source of funding for the building of mosques in the UK, and the supply of radical preachers, comes predominantly from Saudi Arabia and its Gulf state neighbours. The terrorist bombers come from Saudi Arabia, the Horn of Africa, Pakistan, and from Islamic areas of England. The irony is that this is a situation made possible by a geo-political agenda pursued by a US-Israeli-Saudi alliance (and most particularly within the political/military elite of those countries) – and enthusiastically assisted by the treasonous activities of successive British governments.