Monday, November 30, 2015

PC Madness: Girls Demanding to Join Boy Scouts

By Noah FeldmanFriday, 27 Nov 2015 09:20 AM

What are the legal prospects for the California girls who want to join the Boy Scouts of America? 

Five girls, ages 10 to 13, have asked the local council to be admitted as full-fledged Boy Scouts. Should they eventually take their case to court, they won’t be able to rely on Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions, because Congress wrote in an exemption for the Boy Scouts. 

Structurally, the exemption resembles the one that Congress gave Major League Baseball from antitrust laws: It doesn't really have a principled basis, but reflects some combination of tradition and lobbying power.

The girls could instead try to use state anti- discrimination laws to demand membership. The Boy Scouts would, however, have a response. They could claim that they’re committed to the exclusion of girls as a matter of their core definition, and therefore invoke their constitutional right to associate in a discriminatory fashion.

The Scouts would be relying on the 2000 case of Boy Scouts v. Dale, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the organization could ban a gay scoutmaster. Since then, the national organization has retracted this exclusionary policy. Now, the Scouts would have to say that their capacity to express their viewpoint would be thwarted by having girls in the organization.

In the spirit of “Be Prepared,” let’s start by considering the logic of the Title IX exemption. That 1972 law, famously used to enable girls’ and women’s sports to be funded alongside boys’ and men’s, says that no one shall be excluded or discriminated against on the basis of sex in “any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

The law then lists a number of exemptions, only some of which are still in use. Religious educational institutions are exempt, for good reasons of religious liberty. The service academies, also exempted, now admit women anyway. There's an exemption for public institutions that traditionally were single-sex, but precious few still exist. There’s also an exemption for scholarships awarded in connection with beauty pageants; surely such scholarships today rarely if ever come directly from the educational institution.

Then comes Section 1681(a)(6). It exempts social fraternities and sororities, and adds the YMCA and YWCA, the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and the Camp Fire Girls.

The law doesn’t give any explanation for the exemption, but it’s easy to see how it came about. Congress didn’t want to alter the existing parallel structure for boys and girls in a nationally prominent, traditional organization.

Notice that Title IX only applies to the Scouts to the extent they get federal funding. Historically, the main source of such funding was the government subsidy to hold the Boy Scout Jamboree every four years at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia, a practice that lasted from 1981 until 2010.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the government subsidy, saying it violated the establishment clause because of scouting's religious content. It won in federal district court, but the decision was overturned on appeal because the taxpayers who brought the suit were held not to have standing to challenge the expenditure. Beginning in 2013, however, the Jamboree was moved to the Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve in West Virginia, a private, nongovernmental facility.

It could therefore be argued that Title IX doesn't apply to scouting at all anymore, because the Scouts don't receive federal money. The Scouts are allowed to use school buildings all over the country, which themselves receive federal funding. But this use is probably too indirect to come under Title IX.

If Title IX exemption is no longer relevant, that’s a good thing. But it leaves girls who want to join the Boy Scouts with the more limited option of relying on each state’s anti- discrimination laws to demand membership. Such state laws typically prohibit any organization deemed to be a public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sex. The Boy Scouts have open membership, and would ordinarily count as a public accommodation.

Here's where the Constitution comes in. Under the Dale precedent, the Boy Scouts could exclude girls if they asserted that allowing them would significantly affect their ability “to advocate public or private viewpoints.” In that case, the court found that the presence of a gay scoutmaster would “force the organization to send a message … that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.”

To rely on the precedent, the Boy Scouts can't just argue that they don't want girls. They would have to say that the presence of girls forces them to send a message that the organization doesn't want to send.

What message would that be? To win, the Scouts would essentially have to say that they don't think boys and girls belong to the same scouting organization -- and that single-sex scouting is the very core of their expressive message. In other words, they’d have to say that they deeply believe in separate- but-equal scouting.

The argument would be made more difficult by the Boy Scouts’ own coed activities like Venturing. The court would have to find the Scouts were genuine with regard to their expressive message.

Because courts like to defer to associations’ own self- description, the Boy Scouts might well win in court if they could agree to make exclusion of girls their message.

But it's far from clear that the organization would choose to do that. After all, it’s 2015. Coeducation is common in most youth groups, from church organizations to sports leagues. As a political matter, the Scouts might not be prepared to say that they condemn such coeducational youth activities.

The upshot is that, while the process would have to be state-by-state, girls could conceivably integrate the Boy Scouts despite the organization’s potential constitutional defense. Maybe some boys want to join the Girl Scouts, too. Would that really be so bad?


Will the craziness ever end?

The thing is there is no good reason for these girls to want to join the Scouts.  Nowadays, the Girl Scouts do the same things as the Boy Scouts.  These girls are probably doing this just to make some trouble, and get their 15 minutes of fame.

I hope the BSA doesn't buckle under, but you know in due time they will.  That's the way things are these days.

I know we have more important issues to deal with than whether or not there should be girls in the BSA, but this is just another symptom of what's wrong with this country.  Male and female roles are no longer as clearly defined as they once were.  There's a lot of fuzziness and overlapping these days.  

Taking away our racial identity is no longer enough.  Now they are taking our sexual identity as well.

Dan 88!

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Have A Nice Grey Thursday/Black Friday?

 If you overdo the Christmas shopping this is what you deserve...

Dan 88!

Saturday, November 28, 2015

'White Student Union' sites roil more than 30 US college campuses

By Molly JacksonNovember 24, 2015 1:39 PM
Christian Science Monitor

At New York University (NYU), students have over 300 organizations to choose from: a women's frisbee team called The Violet Femmes, the Parliamentary Debate Union, or, if you happen to be an acrobat or a juggler, the Violet Circus Arts Club.
For many NYU students, cultural heritage and identity-based social issues occupy their extracurricular time. Violets, as NYU-ers are known, can join the South Asian Business Society, the Alliance of Latino and Latin American Students, or the Muslim Students Association, among many others.
But not a "White Student Union." 
On Friday, however, a Facebook page by that name appeared online with NYU insignia (the logos have now been erased), setting off intense furor from both students who felt that the site's premise was racist, and supporters – not all of them students – who believe opposition to a White Union is racist itself, claiming that "double standards" about student expression are unfair.  
According to the Union of White NYU Students Facebook page,

We unapologetically provide a safe space for white students to air their true feelings about the future of our nation, discuss and reflect on the lessons laid down for us by our great European writers, philosophers, and artists, and develop a positive program to restore the pioneering will and greatness of our unique and virtuous people.

Although the group says it does "not wish to denigrate or harm any other group or ethnicity." However, many questioned if that could co-exist with organizers' desire to "condemn the cowardly campaigns of moral subjugation and propaganda that seek to instill self-hatred and surrender within European-American youth and justify the continued invasion and degradation of the lands, institutions, and cultural heritage that is rightly ours."
NYU officials released a statement on the university's own Facebook page, informing the community that the group is not NYU-affiliated, and that the school encourages "all parties to contribute thoughtfully and respectfully to the discourse on race and to reject efforts to derail or distort the conversation."
But NYU, where white students make up the largest ethnic or racial group, at about 39 percent, is just one of more than 30 schools to see such sites emerge in the past few weeks. And one of the questions most often askedis, simply, if they're real – and whether the answer matters.
According to the College Fix, similar pages have sprung up everywhere from Stanford University to the University of Missouri, where protests and accusations of deep-seated bias recently led to the removal of system president Timothy Wolfe. The sites have inspired not just controversy, but fear, particularly at the University of Illinois, where Facebook users encouraged supporters to "send in pictures you take of any black protestors on the quad so we know who anti-whites are," according to Fox Illinois.
But many suspect that the pages' creators are not students. Some skeptics link the sudden flood of Facebook pages to a post on anonymous message-board site 4chan. 
A recent 4chan post called for users to create "European"-focused groups at "the most leftist colleges and universities in the western world," as reported by the New York Daily News. 
While the language of the original message suggests genuine opposition to campus diversity (opposing Jewish students, for instance), sites like 4chan are also notorious for their "trolling" culture: the art of creating anger and havoc online, just for laughs.
The Union of White NYU Students creator spoke online with the Tab, claiming to be an undergrad from New Jersey. As at many other schools, the representative claimed the group was real, not a web-fed fabrication, and said members meet at a coffee shop, since they assume they would be unwelcome on campus; he or she claimed to have received death threats
The group complains that an emphasis on diversity has actually marginalized white students' perspectives, and uses language similar to that employed by Black Lives Matter protesters and other activists to describe the challenges faced by minority students.
"For those that would protest 'It's not like that,' or 'You just don't understand' we say that it is not up to you to define our identity or lived experience and these classes that define whiteness as inherently hateful by its very nature are in fact meant to silence and marginalize our people," the Union of White NYU Students page says.
Many Facebook comments argue that it is a double standard for schools to permit clubs like a Black Student Union, as NYU does, but not a White Student Union.
But the majority of commenters opposed the group, saying that an organization that labels the Middle Eastern migrant crisis "inherently genocidal" against Europeans must be a white-supremacist mouthpiece. 
Many of the critics of the White Student Union say that what worries them most is the lack of understanding about why a Black Student Union, for instance, is different from a "White Student Union," echoing national debates about hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter versus #AllLivesMatter.
"America IS a white social club," Facebook user Jayda Jabberwock wrote, implying that there was no legitimate need to sponsor the group on campus. 

"It is true that all lives matter, but it is equally true that not all lives are understood to matter, which is precisely why it is most important to name the lives that have not mattered," philosopher Judith Butler said in an interview with George Yancy of The New York Times. 


Is anyone surprised at the reaction?  All they had to do was simply say "White Student Union" to get those cries of racism going.  The non-Whites and liberals didn't even need to hear any information about these organizations at all.  The title was enough for them to immediately oppose them.

You see, they have to.  They fear the Aryan people.  They fear that if we are allowed to express racial pride and unity in any way, we could reverse some of the progress they have made since the 1965 Civil Rights Act was signed.

They have to keep Whitey in his place.  And that place means us walking on eggshells afraid of offending anyone or being called that dreaded name:  Racist.

Until the majority - no, not necessarily the majority, but a dedicated core of Aryan civil rights workers is ready to stand up against these bullies, things will never improve for our Folk.

The ANP is such a group, but we need more dedicated people before we can make a real difference.  And I mean dedicated.  We need people who are willing to go out in the trenches and hand out literature, talk to people, run blogs, and run for office (remember November 2016 is just less than a year away).  People who are willing to pay their pledges but little else do have their value, but we need people who will, not necessarily out themselves, but are willing to take a small risk of being outed.  And once we have enough people, being outed won't be such a bad thing anymore.

If you are willing to do what it takes, and are willing to take a very small chance of being outed, WE NEED YOU!

Remember, I was outed in 2010.  I'm still here.  My family has NOT disowned me.  I have the same non-NS friends as before, and I didn't lose my job.  One, and only one person called me a nasty name to my face.  Other than that, absolutely nothing happened.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I'm not a fan of FDR, I just didn't want to take credit for his saying.
Dan 88!

Friday, November 27, 2015

5 More Syrians Detained at Laredo Port of Entry

by BOB PRICE - 21 Nov 2015
Laredo Port of Entry

Five more Syrians have been detained at an international port of entry in Laredo, Texas. The Syrian group consisted of one family unit and two additional males. This is the second group of Syrians this week who have arrived at the international bridge in Laredo.
DHS has confirmed to KGNS-TV8’s Valerie Gonzalez in Laredo that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has taken five Syrians into custody after they presented themselves at an official port of entry in Laredo. The family consisted of a man, a woman and a child. Two other men also presented themselves.
The statement from CBP says they took the group into custody and ran background checks against numerous law enforcement and national security databases. No derogatory information was found on any of the individuals.
The Syrians were transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials and are being taken to ICE detention facilities.
Earlier this week, Breitbart Texas’ Brandon Darby and Ildefonso Ortiz broke the news that eight Syrians had been caught at a port of entry in Laredo. The Syrians in that group were composed of two family units. They were also turned over to ICE and placed in detention facilities in Texas.
Darby said earlier this week on Breitbart News Daily, Sirius XM 125, that the presence of these Syrians arriving at the Laredo port of entry, combined with the Pakistanis and Afghans who were arrested in southern Arizona, shows there is a pipeline whereby people can travel from the Middle East to Mexico. They are then able to move quickly up to the American border and then cross, either at a port of entry like these two groups of Syrians have done, or by crossing the wide-open unsecured border like happened in Arizona.
The five Pakistani men and one man from Afghanistan were captured in southern Arizona after illegally crossing the porous border in the Tucson Sector. They were approximately 16 miles inside the U.S. border when they were captured. The six men were turned over to the FBI and transferred to Tucson.


Five.  It doesn't sound like much, and it isn't really.  But if these people are allowed to stay and the news gets back to the rest of the refugees, then we'll be hip deep in them before we know it.  That's why it's crucial that we nip this in the bud and send them back before the rest of them get the idea that if they cross our border illegally we'll let them stay.

Also, when you are a refugee fleeing a war, you're supposed to apply for refugee status in the first country you land in - which in this case is Mexico.  It may not be the United States where the streets are paved with gold, but it is a safe country for the refugees.  

This isn't my opinion.  It's international law.  Refugees are supposed to apply for refugee status at the first safe country they come to.  They are not supposed to go shopping for the country with the most freebies.

As I've said before, perhaps we owe refugees some help and safety in the form of refugee camps, but we don't owe them a better financial life in our homeland.

Dan 88!

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Happy Thanksgiving!

Dan 88!

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

The Modern Thanksgiving

I realize that Thanksgiving is still a day away, but as many people will be out-of-town, or busy making sure they finish their work before the long weekend, some may not get a chance to see this article, so I thought I'd post it today.

Thanksgiving is a tradition based on White culture and our European heritage. Although it is a time for all to give thanks for what they have, if it weren't for us, the holiday most probably would not exist.

In the middle of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, prompted by a series of editorials written by Sarah Josepha Hale, proclaimed a national Thanksgiving Day, to be celebrated on the final Thursday in November 1863.

Since 1863, Thanksgiving has been observed annually in the United States.

Abraham Lincoln's successors as president followed his example of annually declaring the final Thursday in November to be Thanksgiving. But in 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt broke with this tradition. November had five Thursdays that year (instead of the usual four), and Roosevelt declared the fourth Thursday as Thanksgiving rather than the fifth one. Although many popular histories state otherwise, he made clear that his plan was to establish the holiday on the next-to-last Thursday in the month instead of the last one.

With the country still in the midst of The Great Depression, Roosevelt thought an earlier Thanksgiving would give merchants a longer period to sell goods before Christmas. Increasing profits and spending during this period, Roosevelt hoped, would help bring the country out of the Depression. At the time, advertising goods for Christmas before Thanksgiving was considered inappropriate. Fred Lazarus, Jr., founder of the Federated Department Stores (later Macy's), is credited with convincing Roosevelt to push Thanksgiving back a week to expand the shopping season.

On October 6, 1941, both houses of the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution fixing the traditional last-Thursday date for the holiday beginning in 1942. However, in December of that year the Senate passed an amendment to the resolution that split the difference by requiring that Thanksgiving be observed annually on the fourth Thursday of November, which was sometimes the last Thursday and sometimes (less frequently) the next to last. On December 26, 1941 President Roosevelt signed this bill, for the first time making the date of Thanksgiving a matter of federal law.

Since 1947 the National Turkey Federation has presented the President of the United States with one live turkey and two dressed turkeys, in a ceremony known as the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation. The live turkey is pardoned and lives out the rest of its days on a nearby peaceful farm. While it is commonly held that this pardoning tradition began with Harry Truman in 1947, the Truman Library has shown no evidence for this. The earliest on record is with George H. W. Bush in 1989. Still others claim that the tradition dates back to Abraham Lincoln pardoning his son's pet turkey. Both stories have been quoted in more recent presidential speeches. In more recent years, two turkeys have been pardoned, in case the original turkey becomes unavailable for presidential pardoning.

Unavailable? I wonder what that could mean?! MMMMM!!!!!

Dan 88!

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Refugee Resettlement Is Immoral

by MARK KRIKORIAN November 16, 2015 3:30 PM

In his Monday press conference on the latest Islamist atrocities, President Obama said that the United States must “welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety” and that “slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values.” The Democrats vying to succeed him said the same thing in their televised debate Saturday.

One problem: Relocating refugees from the Middle East to the U.S. is morally wrong. This isn’t due to the security threats posed by any resettlement program from the Islamic world. 

While it is impossible — literally impossible — to adequately screen refugees from Syria (or Iraq or Yemen or Afghanistan or Somalia), it would be wrong to admit them even if we could keep out the terrorists and their supporters that constitute such a significant share of those countries’ populations. 

Sure, welcoming refugees here makes us feel good. Newspapers run heart-warming stories of overcoming adversity; churches embrace the objects of their charity; politicians can wax nostalgic about their grandparents. But the goal of refugee assistance is not to make us feel good. It is to assist as many people as possible with the resources available. And resettling a relative handful of them here to help us bask in our own righteousness means we are sacrificing the much larger number who could have been helped with the same resources. 

The difference in cost is enormous. The Center for Immigration Studies, which I head, recently calculated that it costs twelve times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in a neighboring country in the Middle East. 

The five-year cost to American taxpayers of resettling a single Middle Eastern refugee in the United States is conservatively estimated to be more than $64,000, compared with U.N. figures that indicate it costs about $5,300 to provide for that same refugee for five years in his native region.

In other words, each refugee we bring to the United States means that eleven others are not being helped with that money. Faced with twelve drowning people, only a monster would send them a luxurious one-man boat rather than twelve life jackets. And yet, with the best of intentions, that is exactly what we are doing when we choose one lucky winner to resettle here.

Some will object that we can do both — relocate some refugees here and care for others in their native region. But money is not infinite. Every dollar the government spends is borrowed and will have to be paid back by our grandchildren. What’s more, the U.N. estimates that there are 60 million refugees and internally displaced people around the world. Clearly, whatever amount we allocate to refugee protection will provide for only a fraction of the people in need.

Given these limitations on resources, it is wrong — morally wrong — to use those resources to resettle one refugee here when we could help twelve closer to their home.

There is little we can do to minimize the costs of resettling refugees. True, the private contractors the State Department pays to oversee the process are making a good living off of refugee resettlement, but reining them in won’t make much difference. Most of the costs come from social services; according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, more than 90 percent of refugees from the Middle East receive food stamps and nearly three-quarters are on Medicaid or some other taxpayer-funded health care.

This should come as no surprise. Refugees arrive destitute and often traumatized. They have little education (those from the Middle East have an average of only 10.5 years of schooling), which means that even if they find work, it will pay little. And because they’re poor — almost all have incomes only slightly above the poverty line — they pay little in taxes.

Of course, we don’t resettle refugees for economic reasons but for humanitarian ones. And since the goal is humanitarian, a wise steward must use his resources so that they generate the greatest humanitarian return. It’s also true that refugees brought here will live better than those even in well-run in refugee camps in the region. But the goal of refugee protection is to provide people adequate succor until they can return home, not maximize opportunity for a select few.

Even the administration seems aware of the trade-off between resettlement and overseas assistance. Last month, White House spokesman Josh Earnest answered a question about administration plans to relocate 10,000 Syrians to the U.S. this year (and about the pressure to admit many more than that) by noting that “the most effective response to this urgent humanitarian situation is for the international community to ramp up our humanitarian efforts in the region and even in Syria.” 

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports a $2.5 billion funding shortfall in caring for Syrian refugees in the Middle East. The five-year cost of resettling just 39,000 Syrians in the U.S. would erase the entire current UNHCR shortfall. Security concerns aside, it is morally unjustifiable to help the few at the expense of the many. 

Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.


Here's a guy who is talking some common sense.  If we are going to spend our hard earned money helping foreigners, it's better to help them in their own lands (or nearby lands) than moving them halfway around the world. 

I particularly like his life jacket analogy.  That is so true.

And for any liberal who may read this ask yourself this:  Do you want to bring refugees to this country for their benefit, or to make yourself feel better for being so generous.  A small gift given anonymously with no publicity or photo ops is more meaningful than a large one with all the fanfare.
Do you want to help as many people as possible, or do you want to be known as "the great benefactor"?  If it's the former, then you are a humanitarian.  If it's the latter, then you're vain and selfish.

Dan 88!

Monday, November 23, 2015

America IS Awakening!


November 8, 2015

Knoxville, Iowa
The voters have spoken loudly and removed the counsel members who sided with the whiny atheist and his support group the Americans United for Separation of Church and StateThree counsel members caved into this group who said that the fallen soldier memorial, a silhouette of a kneeling soldier and a cross, at Young Park in Knoxville, Iowa, was violation of separation of church and state.
The counsel voted 3-2 to take down the memorial and the the town citizens revolted by putting up 2,000 small white crosses in their front yards to demonstrate support for the memorial.
Later, the citizens warned the counsel members that if they voted to get rid of the display their jobs would be in jeopardy.  The very next day, after the vote to remove the display occurred, the town voted to remove them from office.
Town mayor Brian Hatch had defended the council vote, saying that no one really wanted to remove the display but that the city needed to avoid a costly court fight over the situation, especially since it was put in the city park without express permission of the city in the first place.
Not only did the voters keep their word and removed the officials who caved in fear, but they essentially shut down the noisy atheist group who demanded the removal of the silhouette of a kneeling soldier and a cross.


The sleepers have awakened at last!  Hopefully, this will inspire others to fight back against our politically correct politicians.  All it takes is for one incident to go viral and soon more and more will also fight back, just like rolling a snowball down a hill.

Liberals beware!  The American people have finally had enough.  History always moves in cycles.  The wheel has turned again.  Our time is coming, so let's not be discouraged.  Let's keep fighting!

National Socialism will return.

Dan 88!

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Terrorist Attacks Today?

Everyone seems to be wondering why Muslim terrorists are so quick to commit suicide.

Let's see now:

No beer, No bars, No radio, No television, No Playboy or Penthouse, No Teasers, No cricket, No rugby, No football, No basketball, No baseball, No golf, No dancing, No music, No bikinis on the beach, No nude beaches No summer mini skirts and braless beauties, No BBQ pork, No Ham, No bacon No hot dogs, No burgers, No lobster, shellfish, or even frozen seafood sticks, No Christmas.

Rags for clothes and towels for hats, Constant wailing from the guy next door because he's sick and there are no doctors, Constant wailing from the guy in the tower, You can't shave, Your wife can't shave, You can't shave your wife, Sand is everywhere, Sand gets into everything, You wipe your backside with your left hand without toilet paper, You can't shower to wash off the smell of donkey cooked over burning camel dung.

The women have to wear baggy dresses and veils at all times, Your bride is picked by someone else, She smells just like your donkey, and your donkey has a better disposition.

Then your leaders tell you that when you die, you get the 27 virgins and it all gets better! mystery here!!!

Dan 88!

Saturday, November 21, 2015

How Britain tortured Nazi PoWs

The German SS officer was fighting to save himself from the gallows for a terrible war crime and might say anything to escape the noose. But Fritz Knöchlein was not lying in 1946 when he claimed that, in captivity in London, he had been tortured by British soldiers to force a confession out of him.

Tortured by British soldiers? In captivity? In London? The idea seems incredible.

Britain has a reputation as a nation that prides itself on its love of fair play and respect for the rule of law. We claim the moral high ground when it comes to human rights. We were among the first to sign the 1929 Geneva Convention on the humane treatment of prisoners of war.

Tainted: Bindfolded German soldiers may have been forced into untrue admissions, it has been revealed
Blindfolded German PoWs were tortured into confessing to war crimes.

Surely, you would think, the British avoid torture? But you would be wrong, as my research into what has gone on behind closed doors for decades shows.

It was in 2005 during my work as an investigative reporter that I came across a veiled mention of a World War II detention centre known as the London Cage. It took a number of Freedom Of Information requests to the Foreign Office before government files were reluctantly handed over.

From these, a sinister world unfolded — of a torture centre that the British military operated throughout the Forties, in complete secrecy, in the heart of one of the most exclusive neighbourhoods in the capital.

Thousands of Germans passed through the unit that became known as the London Cage, where they were beaten, deprived of sleep and forced to assume stress positions for days at a time. 

Some were told they were to be murdered and their bodies quietly buried. Others were threatened with unnecessary surgery carried out by people with no medical qualifications. Guards boasted that they were ‘the English Gestapo’.

The London Cage was part of a network of nine ‘cages’ around Britain run by the Prisoner of War Interrogation Section (PWIS), which came under the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Military Intelligence.
Out in the open: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Scotland revealed some secrets in his controversial book about interrogating German officers, 'The London Cage'
Out in the open: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Scotland revealed some secrets in his controversial book about interrogating German officers, 'The London Cage'
Three, at Doncaster, Kempton Park and Lingfield, were at hastily converted racecourses. Another was at the ground of Preston North End Football Club. Most were benignly run.

But prisoners thought to possess valuable information were whisked off to a top-secret unit in a row of grandiose Victorian villas in Kensington Palace Gardens, then (as now) one of the smartest locations in London.

Today, the tree-lined street a stone’s throw from Kensington Palace is home to ambassadors and billionaires, sultans and princes. Houses change hands for £50 million and more.

Yet it was here, seven decades ago, in five interrogation rooms, in cells and in the guardroom in numbers six, seven and eight Kensington Palace Gardens, that nine officers, assisted by a dozen NCOs, used whatever methods they thought necessary to squeeze information from suspects. 

Of course, it is crucial to put these events into context. When the gloves first came off at Britain’s interrogation centres — the summer of 1940 — German forces were racing across France and the Low Countries, and Britain was fighting for its very survival. The stakes could not have been higher.

In the following years, large parts of Britain’s cities were left in ruins, hundreds of thousands of service personnel and civilians died, and barely a day passed without evidence emerging of a new Nazi atrocity. Little wonder, perhaps, that it was felt acceptable for German prisoners to suffer in British interrogation centres.

And it should also be said that whatever went on within their walls, it paled into insignificance compared with the horrors the Nazis visited on millions of prisoners. 

So, how can we be sure about the methods used at the London Cage? Because the man who ran it admitted as much — and was hushed up for half-a-century by an establishment fearful of the shame his story would bring on a Britain that had been fighting for honesty, decency and the rule of law.

That man was Colonel Alexander Scotland, an accepted master in techniques of interrogation. After the war, he wrote a candid account of his activities in his memoirs, in which he recalled how he would muse, on arriving at the Cage each morning: ‘Abandon all hope ye who enter here.’ 

Because, he said, before going into detail: ‘If any German had any information we wanted, it was invariably extracted from him in the long run.’

As was customary, before publication Scotland submitted his manuscript to the War Office for clearance in 1954. Pandemonium erupted. All four copies were seized. All those who knew of its contents were silenced with threats of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.
What caused the greatest consternation was his admission that the horrors had continued after the war, when interrogators switched from extracting military intelligence to securing convictions for war crimes.

Feared: Col Robin 'Tin Eye' Stephens was prepared to seek his own rough justice
Feared: Col Robin 'Tin Eye' Stephens was prepared to seek his own rough justice
Of 3,573 prisoners who passed through Kensington Palace Gardens, more than 1,000 were persuaded to sign a confession or give a witness statement  for use in war crimes prosecutions.

Fritz Knöchlein, a former lieutenant colonel in the Waffen SS, was one such case. He was suspected of ordering the machine-gunning of 124 British soldiers who surrendered at Le Paradis in northern France during the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940. His defence was that he was not even there. 

At his trial, he claimed he had been tortured in the London Cage after the war. He was deprived of sleep for four days and nights after arriving in October 1946 and forced to walk in a tight circle for four hours while being kicked by a guard at each turn.

He was made to clean stairs and lavatories with a tiny rag, for days at a time, while buckets of water were poured over him. If he dared to rest, he was cudgelled. He was also forced to run in circles in the grounds of the house while carrying heavy logs and barrels. When he complained, the treatment simply got worse.

Nor was he the only one. He said men were repeatedly beaten about the face and had hair ripped from their heads. A fellow inmate begged to be killed because he couldn’t take any more brutality. 

All Knöchlein’s accusations were ignored, however. He was found guilty and hanged.

Suspects in another high-profile war crime — the shooting of 50 RAF officers who broke out from a prison camp, Stalag Luft III, in what became known as the Great Escape — also passed through the Cage. 

Of the 21 accused, 14 were hanged after a war-crimes trial in Hamburg. Many confessed only after being interrogated by Scotland and his men. In court, they protested that they had been starved, whipped and systematically beaten. Some said they had been  menaced with red-hot pokers and ‘threatened with electrical devices’.

Scotland, of course, denied allegations of torture, going into the witness box at one trial after another to say his accusers were lying.

It was all the more surprising, then, that a few years later he was willing to come clean about the techniques he employed at the London Cage. 

In his memoirs, he disclosed that a number of men were forced to incriminate themselves. A general was sentenced to death in 1946 after signing a confession at the Cage while, in Scotland’s words, ‘acutely depressed after the various examinations’.

A naval officer was convicted on the basis of a confession that Scotland said he had signed only after being ‘subject to certain degrading duties’. 

Scotland also acknowledged that one of the men accused of the ‘Great Escape’ murders went to the gallows even though he had confessed after he had — in Scotland’s own words — been ‘worked on psychologically’. At his trial, the man insisted he had been ‘worked on’ physically as well.

Others did not share Scotland’s eagerness to boast about what had gone on in Kensington Park Gardens. An MI5 legal adviser who read his manuscript concluded that Scotland and fellow interrogators had been guilty of a ‘clear breach’ of the Geneva Convention.

They could have faced war-crimes charges themselves for forcing prisoners to stand to attention for more than 24 hours at a time; forcing them to kneel while they were beaten about the head; threatening to have them shot; threatening one prisoner with an unnecessary appendix operation to be performed on him by another inmate with no medical qualifications.

Appalled by the embarrassment his manuscript would cause if it ever came out, the War Office and the Foreign Office both declared that it would never see the light of day.

Two years later, however, they were forced to strike a deal with him after he threatened to publish his book abroad. He was told he would never be allowed to recover his original manuscript, but agreement was given to a rewritten version in which every line of incriminating material had been expunged.

A heavily censored version of The London Cage duly appeared in the bookshops in 1957. 

But officials at the War Office, and their successors at the Ministry of Defence, remained troubled.  

Years later, in September 1979, Scotland’s publishers wrote to the Ministry of Defence out of the blue asking for a copy of the original manuscript  by the now dead colonel for their archives.

The request triggered fresh panic as civil servants sought reasons to deny the request. But in the end they quietly deposited a copy in what is now the National Archives at Kew, where it went unnoticed — until I found it a quarter of a century later.

Is there more to tell about the London Cage? Almost certainly. Even now, some of the MoD’s files on it remain beyond reach. 

Scotland, his interrogators, technicians and typists, and the towering guardsmen left the building in January 1949. The villas were unoccupied for several years. 

Eventually, numbers six and seven were leased to the Soviet Union, which was looking for a new embassy building. Today, they house the chancery of the Russian embassy.

Number eight — where it is thought the worst excesses were carried out — remained empty. It was too large to be a family home in the post-war years and in too poor a state of repair to be converted to offices. By 1955, the building had fallen into such disrepair it was sold to a developer, who knocked it down and built a block of three luxury flats. One that went on the market in 2006 was valued at £13.5 million.

The Cage was not, however, Britain’s only secret interrogation centre during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation centre, code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms were turned into cells with hidden microphones.

The first of the German spies who arrived in Britain in September 1940 were taken there. Vital information about a coming German invasion was extracted at great speed. This indicates the use of extreme methods, but these were desperate days demanding desperate measures. In charge was Colonel Robin Stephens, known as ‘Tin Eye’, because of the monocle fixed to his right eye. 

It was not a term of affection. The object of interrogation, Stephens told his officers, was simple: ‘Truth in the shortest possible time.’ A top secret memo spoke of ‘special methods’, but did not elaborate. 

He arranged for an additional 92-cell block to be added to Latchmere House, plus a punishment room — known chillingly as Cell 13 — which was completely bare, with smooth walls and a linoleum floor.

Close to 500 people passed through the gates of Camp 020. Principal among them were German spies, many of whom were ‘turned’ and persuaded — or maybe forced — to work for MI5.

Its first inmates were members of the British Union of Fascists.  Some were held in cells brightly lit 24 hours a day, others in cells kept in total darkness. 

Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a time.

Camp 020 had a resident medical officer, Harold Dearden, a psychiatrist who dreamed up regimes of starvation and of sleep and sensory deprivation intended to break the will of its inmates. He experimented in techniques of torment that left few marks — methods that could be denied by the torturers and that civil servants and government ministers could disown. 

These techniques surfaced again after the war in a British interrogation facility at Bad Nenndorf, a German spa town, in one of the internment camps for those considered a threat to the Allied occupation.

In the four years after the war, 95,000 people were interned in the British zone of Allied-occupied Germany. Some were interrogated by what was now termed the Intelligence Division. 

In charge of Bad Nenndorf was ‘Tin Eye’ Stephens, on attachment from MI5, and drawing on his Camp 020 experiences. An inmate recalled him yelling questions at prisoners and then punching them.


Over the next two years, 372 men and 44 women would pass through his hands. One German inmate recalled being told by a British intelligence officer: ‘We are not bound by any rules or regulations. We do not care a damn whether you leave this place on a stretcher or in a hearse.’ 

He was made to sleep on a wet floor in a temperature of minus 20 degrees for three days. Four of his toes had to be amputated due to frostbite.

A doctor in a nearby hospital complained about the number of detainees brought to him filthy, confused and suffering from multiple injuries and frostbite. Many were painfully emaciated after months of starvation. A number died.

The regime was intended to weaken, humiliate and intimidate prisoners. 

With complaints soaring, a British court of inquiry was convened to investigate what had been going at Bad Nenndorf. It concluded that former inmates’ allegations of physical assault were substantially correct. Stephens and four other officers were arrested while Bad Nenndorf was abruptly closed.

But there was a quandary for the Labour government. The political fallout could be deeply damaging. There were other similar interrogation centres in Germany. 

From the very top, there were urgent moves to hush things up. 

Stephens’ court martial for ill-treatment of prisoners was heard behind closed doors. He did not deny any of the horrors. His defence was that he had no idea the prisoners for whom he was responsible were being beaten, whipped, frozen, deprived of sleep and starved to death.

This was the very defence that had been offered — unsuccessfully — by Nazi concentration camp commandants at war-crimes trials. But he was acquitted.

The suspicion remains that he got off because, if cruelties did occur at Bad Nenndorf, they had been authorised by government ministers.

Extracted from Cruel Britannia by Ian Cobain, published by Portobello Books at £18.99. © Ian Cobain 2012. To order a copy for £15.99 (p&p free), call 0843 382 0000.


The thing I hate most about war - or any kind of conflict - is the hypocrisy it breeds.  After WW II, it seems the British (and the United States as well) suffered from a severe bout of "Good Guy/Bad Guy Syndrome".

I've talked about this before, but I'll mention it again for those unfamiliar with it.

With the "Good Guy/Bad Guy Syndrome", the so-called Good Guys can do whatever they feel is necessary to stop the so-called Bad Guys - even if it means torture, because they are the Good Guys.  However if the Bad Guys use the same methods it's an atrocity because they are the Bad Guys.

I point out that no so-called Bad Guy in history ever thought of himself as such.  When the Americans kept German PoWs in an open compound at Andernach without sanitation facilities for nearly a year, they still considered themselves justified because they were the Good Guys - even though the prisoners had no shelter, no sanitation, and were given one cup of water and one cup of beans (no ketchup) a day.   Two thirds of them died from malnutrition and exposure  - all on the personal orders of General Eisenhower.  BTW, when Eisenhower ordered General Patton to oversee the operation, Patton refused on moral grounds.  Hypocrisy wise, it seemed Patton was an exception.  Doesn't it figure?  Patton was a fighting General, Eisenhower was a desk general.  It's much easier to give orders for atrocities from behind a desk where you never have to see the results personally, unlike those in the field who have to carry out such crimes and see the results first hand.

We now know that it has been proven there were no mass exterminations at Dachau.  Yet the way the Germans treated the Jews there was still called an atrocity.  The British treated German PoWs even worse, but they are not guilty of any war crimes.

Hypocritical?  You betcha.  But that seems to be human nature.  One standard for us, another for the enemy.

Dan 88!