Greece as the first NATO-style zombie-state in Europe and an EU humanitarian invasion

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

I have seen, this week, opinion on the situation in Greece that, while cunningly diverting attention from cluelessness at home, makes a good point about how that situation will be represented away in the chronicles of corporate-media – to wit that there will plenty of column inches written on the subject, but no one will have a real grasp of what is about to come, and when it arrives, why it is occurring.

I aim to be a bit more useful than that; not being correct in analysis as measured by the outcome won’t stop me trying to figure out things for myself (and I rushed this out a wee bit, so we might not even need to wait for an outcome for it to be deemed rubbish). So, first of all, I don’t think I agree with the idea that Greece is certain to exit the euro; as I’ve said all along, Greece will be used up while there is juice to squeeze and to give its flesh definition. This is based on the idea that the euro has been used by one faction in the global corporate-government to instigate designed collapse whereby the banking cabal get rich sucking out the wealth; don’t forget how it was Goldman Sachs who finagled the books so that Greece could join the single currency in the first place. We always thought that the euro was a tool for yet another faction, the European governments, to bring about political union on the continent – but I don’t think we imagined their method correctly. It is now entirely likely that the EU will use collapse to bring about political union, and thus the euro has served the same purpose for the EU as it has for the banking cartel.

As I understand it, none of this is about the dominance of one particular country, and it’s quite possible that any who tell you it is are leading you astray. Western leaders are all Internationalist Elitists – meaning that they think they should compartmentally contribute to the rule of as much of the mass of humanity (a lower order of people than they are) as possible. They don’t have the patriotic feelings that observers attribute to them for whichever territory they are the president or prime minister of – a territory which is actually controlled by the globalised corporate-government. One should think of this body like the Medieval Catholic Church in Europe which controlled certain fountains of wealth across the entire continent through its bishops. Hence Merkel is never really thinking about German dominance out of personal Wagnerian fantasies (or vengeance on behalf of her genetic father, Hitler – as the real way-out-there theories have it), but instead, like some medieval bishop in the unified Catholic Church,  she is interested in making the particular regional corporate body that she heads powerful a)to keep her in office because she still has to deal with a voting German public, and b)to strengthen her hand in dealings with the other criminals.

So I can envision the other euro countries expelling Greece (not that I know how this would be done), but the EU won’t let it happen in a way that will enable Greece to thrive. They can’t afford to let a successful model outside the euro, which failed catastrophically while it was within the single currency, to come into being. Greece will have to be well and truly raped and ruined before it is slung out of the car and left by the side of the highway to die. I wonder if the reader can spot what I have just articulated in this commentary by the BBC’s Robert Peston, Business Editor:

Maybe – and this is what some people believe – if they dropped the euro for a new drachma, and were able to retain some access to credit, perhaps from the IMF, the transition for Greece wouldn’t be quite as painful.

There are quite a lot of serious people who take the view that a managed exit of Greece from the euro might be the way to go. The difficulty is that there’s no obvious sign Germany, France and other countries will help Greece make that transition.

So, Germany and France don’t want Greece to be recover after the euro; it’s not about saving money because letting Greece go might very well be the less expensive thing to do. Instead, consider this as the intent of the EU: Greece is going to be imprisoned and ravaged until its people are considered dangerous, and every corporate-media outlet in the West will be advocating some humanitarian intervention to stop some heavily demonised real Greek independence group from taking power in a war. Then what we could have is EU forces sitting on the natural resources and defending them from an ungoverned population in tumult in the same way as is happening in Afghanistan, and in Libya, and to a degree in Iraq. Greece would be the NATO-style zombie-state in Europe – the first of many to follow.

I wonder if Greek politicians have any inkling of the possibility of this kind of endgame? We do know that leaving the euro is something that not many Greek politicians actually want to happen (it wasn’t that popular in the population according to a recent poll where  78% were against leaving the euro).  The “leftist” Syriza bloc, which the BBC reckons will win the rerun of the elections, definitely do not want to leave the euro – even if they don’t like the EU/IMF bailout package and associated austerity (for which read grinding poverty and starvation).

Let’s analyse the dynamic that this creates, while assuming that the EU doesn’t want Greece to leave the euro until it can control the outcome. The Greek anti-bailout parties have a bargaining chip in that if Greece isn’t ready for throwing away, and the EU isn’t ready to police the country when it is dumped, the EU will have to pay for Greece; what else does a Federal Government do if a member state is failing massively to a point where it might even be necessary to secede, other than invade it? The EU has a bargaining chip in the form of a threat not to pay for Greece after it leaves the euro and becomes bankrupt – would, in that case, the Greek politicians risk a more painful and perhaps terminal form of expulsion from power if Greece goes revolutionary?

I think that there will be some new path found where the Greek Government accepts some other (further) imposition by the EU in return for the end of the impoverishment of the people through bailouts and austerity. After all, what are bailouts really all about – in any country for that matter? They are about the swapping of real wealth and assets for fiat debt – stuff that doesn’t really exist. It’s robbery, basically, and when it involves swapping out whole tracts of land, public utilities and the like, then it’s about the winnowing away of sovereignty and its transplantation into the hands of a foreign power. It’s about invasion.

I envision the Greek Government eventually giving up some other further aspect of sovereignty so that the people of Greece can have material and welfare – for the time being. Just look at what the leader of the right-wing Independent Greeks Party, Panos Kammenos, said: “The pro-bailout parties would prefer a government which will further torment the Greek nation, rather than finding a solution.” It’s either the bailout, then, or some other solution – but it’s not leaving the euro.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the Greek bank runs now being reported aren’t provacateured so that one side or the other gains more leverage. Somehow the Greek president, Karolos Papoulias, was able to cite a “secret government document” detailing the €1 billion withdrawn from the country’s banking facilities. He was warning the Greek party leaders that their continued failure to agree was risking “fatal consequences”, so it certainly sounds like it might be a designed source of pressure. Bank runs could, after all, have been predicted. With talk of the reissuing of the drachma making it look all too inevitable, people would want to be able to trade physical euros rather than run the risk of their money having been made to disappear after the banks reopen. All in all, this kind of positioning for the upper hand, whoever is doing it, is a dangerous game to be playing, and maybe it’s why the Greek president acknowledged that there was a “threat to our national existence”. I can’t help seeing, therefore, that ultimately, because the country, perhaps a bit more than Britain, it has to be said, is full of people who don’t know what it is they are up against and for whom their government really works, Greece is looking at some kind of total loss of identity or sovereignty, and by then, being too weak and enslaved to do anything about it. All Greece is fit for, I fear, is as a cautionary lesson about the need for some urgent shake-up of the political landscape in the UK; i.e. an end to the LibLabCon. I don’t think that even a Greek meltdown will be enough for certain people in the UK, what with their obsession with sucking prestige out of their contact with the Establishment methods and outlets of control, can ever get over themselves enough to be taught; but then luckily, hopefully, we won’t need them.

Posted in Corporate-government, Economy, Elections and Polls, Global Government Gangsterism | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Awaiting data, but there’s a good chance that Underwear Bomber the Second is a complete fabrication

Posted on May 14, 2012 by

Used as a foil to the idea that US and British Government stages false flag attacks against its own people is the argument that it is just too complicated to happen. Last year, when I was finding out more about the subject and coming to understand how these attacks were accomplished through various sleights-of-hand – like compartmentalisation of the command structure so that the corrupt core of the conspiracy is isolated and its intent is hidden; like the concurrent running of drills to fool  those compartmentalised actors in the conspiracy; like the use of a patsy who thinks he is on a training exercise – and when I was discussing these known methods (not assumptions) in public forums (here, for instance), I encountered something called Occum’s Razor; a defence mechanism that seemed to be triggered like some reflexive involuntary response.

I since decided that Occum’s Razor is the blade by which cowards cut their own throats, but at the time (as far as I was paying attention, and I still can’t be bothered to be honest – it’s seems like a phrase or word to signal the end of debate in the same way that “Conspiracy Theorist” is) it was being offered as a construct of argument that could explain that false flags could not exist because their complexity made them unlikely; they were not the simplest explanation for the events that seemed to describe them. When you get past the glib naivety, Occum’s Razor is actually rubbish as a denial of false flag terrorism. It is not an assumption that people in government who have no moral compulsion, and who are used to money, power and privilege and who want to keep it, will want to kill their own people rather than give up all those trappings of power – it’s demonstrable in history. The only thing that stops it from happening is physical restriction, not wishful thinking.

One of the most recent cases where proof for a false flag operation is most damning was that of the Underwear Bomber, and I published it here myself. Now we have another case like it, the Underwear Bomber 2, where it has been leaked into the public domain through official channels that the would-be perpetrator is in fact a CIA agent. Just so the dumbed-down masses (the most detestable of these, however, being the trendy university graduates) don’t get a shock that wakes them from their slumber, it was also put out that the CIA man is in fact a double-agent who was on a mission to get hold of a developmental pair of undercrackers; a new improved underwear bomb, or as the Mail put it “an upgraded version of the so-called ‘underwear bomb’ that failed to down a passenger jet over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009.”

We have been told that this CIA man, who holds a British passport, and was therefore probably recruited by MI5 or MI6 in the years he spent in the UK firstly as a student, inveigled his way into the trust of the Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leadership, and must’ve convinced them to let him use the wunderpants in an attack. Having thus got ahold of the offending articles, he made his way to some still unidentified country and delivered them into the eager hands of the FBI. The pants are currently in a laboratory being examined by agents. If they were as ugly as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s pants, that would be a rum assignment.

My gut feeling is that the whole story is a crock of crap (not unlike Abdulmutallab’s fashionable Y-fronts, then); or a psychological operation, to put it another way. There is no public evidence to suggest that either the double-agent or the underpants exist. In fact, considering how these days there are thousands of Kurt Haskells watching for the preliminaries of staged terror, the US and British intelligence agencies must prefer psychological operations to real bombs. The hoax would include the so-called rowbetween Whitehouse officials who made the information known, and US and British intelligence agencies. This would be for the purpose of extending the illusion out another layer to create a thicker screen on which to project the fantasy; in this way, the feeble fundamentals get lost in the background. I suppose that it is possible that this so-called CIA operative was a handler for some other dupe and he somehow became compromised – one thing is for sure, and the devastating terrorist attacks in Syria at the moment should tell us as much, there is no effective Islamist operation without a Western guiding hand to direct and supply it.†

Whatever the exact circumstances, there are some indicators in the news as to what this escapade has been all about. US Senator Rand Paul has recently launched his “End the TSA” campaign which looks to get Federal Government security theatre and prison-training out of airports. In addition, the EU has just declared full body scanners safe, and we can expect them to be rolled out across the UK – please note, there was a big fuss made about the possibility of the Underwear Bomber 2 flying out of Gatwick, and it was probably done with the body scanners in mind. It is obvious that these events would be affected by a false flag attack involving a concealed bomb on a plane; Rand Paul’s campaign would be stalled, and most of the public in the UK would overlook the cancer dangers of radiation from airport security machines in a haste to be protected from big bad Al-Qaeda.

As for those health risks posed by machines that can penetrate a layer of clothes with radiation, this is what the Daily Mail reportage had to say:

Extensive tests by the UK Health Protection Agency and US health authorities had already confirmed the scanners pose a negligible risk to human health.

But report by Dr David Brenner, director of the Centre for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Centre in New York, claimed that radiation from the scanners may be causing an extra 100 cases of cancer in Americans each year.

A Manchester Airport spokesman said: ‘We’ve been waiting for this report which, in summary, says the scanners are safe.

‘We knew the report would say this because the UK and U.S. government had already carried out studies and concluded the same thing.

‘The EU took a bit longer about it.’

They don’t care whether these things kill anyone – they “know” that the machines are safe because they want them in place for prison-training in the UK, and they will stage false flag attacks and psychological operations to do it. This is why there is now chatter (and here) in the corporate-media about whole platoons of killer underpant assassins.

This sort of thing has precedence with the first underwear bomb. The corporate-media is replete with information that tells of how the 2009 Underwear Bomber caused the full scale introduction of intrusive airport security in the USA. The TSA ordered 300 machines from the maker Rapiscan straight off the bat.This is from the story linked to above: “EU states have been mulling the use of security scanners ever since Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 24-year-old Nigerian, attempted in 2009 to blow up a plane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit with plastic explosives he had hidden in his underwear”. In addition, after the Underwear Bomber event, the former U.S. Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff did the rounds in the TV studios, and wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for full-body scanners. Nobody was told that his company was consulting for Rapiscan, who themselves, one can discover with a minimum of research, had lobbied the US Government from 2007. Upto 2011, total lobbying expenditure has been $2 million. One has to be a bit too optimistic if such information doesn’t point to what is at the bottom of the fake War on Terror: corporate-government.

If one applied some thought to the issue, it should become apparent that before the 9.11 attack on the World Trade Center, there was possibly a situation whereby many corporations had developed security or warfare technology for which there wasn’t a demand. So, in order to create one, they would have to pay long time corrupt government officials and politicians, who are always bought off extremely cheaply it seems, to induce a conducive  environment through policy, politicking and dirty deeds. Similarly, to justify their existence, corrupt intelligence agents in the US and UK become happy to conspire to create false flag attacks and psychological operations. Likewise, the SAS, or a considerable significant proportion of them, now seemingly mad (perhaps with the syphilis), become quite happy to mastermind the slaughter of Libyan children and the genocide of the African ethnic group thereabouts, and US Special Forces in Afghanistan, also seemingly insane, become happy to murder and incinerate Kandahar innocents. It’s all about vested interests, and as I wrote before, it is more likely that these vested interests will murder, lie and steal than just voluntarily go silently.

Unfortunately for anyone in the ruling apparatus who perpetuates and executes the terror hoax, the era of wishful thinking has ended, and a new one of physical restriction is beginning; there are now people who will not buy the hooey, and they will not stand the evil it unleashes. We will create a constitutional system in which justice can work, and you will be winkled out, and you will be punished.

† Update: Check this out: Al-Qaeda Rebel Pictured With UN Observers In Syria

Posted in Global Government Gangsterism, Potential Hoaxes | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Is the Olympics false-flag attack going to be a mocked-up “drone” downing – or sharks in the Thames with frickin’ laser beams?

Posted on May 6, 2012 by

For the purposes of Olympics terror preconditioning, a drone (the scourge of the Pakistani wedding party)

Such is the fevered pitch of Olympics terror attack talk that I am becoming extremely concerned that the US or the British Governments (which amounts to the same thing, both being controlled by the bankster cartel out of the City and Wall Street) will stage one before or during the event. Naturally, one is extremely reluctant to express such concerns, because in its own way it counts as doom-mongering, and the Establishment does enough of that. On the other hand, the Establishment doom-mongers for an entirely evil reason which can be countered if we, the public, talk about the reality of false-flag terror,  and, based on the information available to us, the possibility of it happening at the Olympics. If this topic is addressed out in the open, there is a chance, however remote it may be, that enough pre-awareness will be generated in the general public to act as a deterrent.

I think it is completely safe to say that there has been an upping of the ante with regards to perception shaping in the corporate-media to create foreboding about terror threats. There are almost daily references to the highly visible armed response to match a hulking as yet undefined wreaker of death and destruction that sits, having been nudged there by the corporate-media elbow, on the edges of the collective imagination. The latest, as it was reported in the Mail on Sunday, the British Government’s flagship propaganda outlet, is a warning that terrorists – without mentioning Al-Qaeda, mind (which is very interesting indeed) – will use a drone to deliver biological weapons in an attack on the Olympics.

The idea was picked up from a comment made originally by Lieutenant Colonel Fahy, the officer responsible for community relations – or manipulating the community for national consumption – during the Games. Declining to elaborate on what type of poison might be used in the attack, Fahy maintained that the proposition was “feasible” during a meeting with members of the public at Buxton School in Leytonstone, East London. Being a location near to the “ring of steel” of six sites where surface-to-air missiles are located, the stated purpose of the exercise was to allay fears held by people living thereabouts.

Two things occur to me at this juncture; this meeting wasn’t about calming people who are nervous about having military deployed in their neighbourhood, it was about staging a public platform from which justification of the intrusion could be made. Secondly, it seems to me that we should more accurately describe Londoners as Human Shields these days – after all, it was this term that UK corporate-media would apply to civilians amongst whom the likes of Saddam Hussein was said to house his armaments. Bearing that in mind, it was particularly nauseating to hear that as part of this so-called outreach effort which, in its appearance, resembled an intervention to tackle a phobia where people frightened of limbless reptiles get to cuddle a boa-constrictor, children were allowed to play on an unarmed missile battery.

Now to be completely fair, it must be appreciated that what Fahy said has been completely sensationalised by the Mail on Sunday – which is the job that it is there to do for us, and on us. This gets revealed in the body of the article where we discover that although the word “drone” is used in the headline, having conjured up images of slaughtered Pakistani wedding parties, what Fahy is actually talking about is “remote-controlled aircraft filled with poison and small enough to fit into a backpack [that] could be used as a biological weapon in the capital”.

There is yet more deliberate and intentional fear-mongering. Fahy, as previously mentioned, would not go into details, and so the Mail on Sunday did:

His poison warning came as it was revealed that SAS troops have had anthrax emergency training at the Government’s top-secret military research establishment at Porton Down, Wiltshire.

Sources say the elite soldiers wore biochemical protection suits, gloves and masks during exercises over the past few months to prepare for any attack using the deadly bacteria.

Such an incident could threaten the lives of thousands of people attending the Games this summer.

This is an outrageous psychological operation. The scale and destructiveness of a possible plot, of the sort that the FBI engineer almost every week in the States and come to nothing (see below), was magnified astronomically not only by a misleading headline, but also by the apparently casual, but entirely intentional juxtaposition of reporting on what could very well be a standard training exercise by our Libyan-children murdering Special Forces. What it tells us is that there is collusion between the State’s flag-ship propaganda outlet and an intelligence element of government. Readers of this reportage are being pre-conditioned. Preconditioning is about making people stop understanding certain events as being impossible, and to start thinking of them as entirely likely to happen. Preconditioning is required so that when an impossible event happens, people don’t start from a mental position that might make them question its feasibility, and therefore the authenticity of the associated official narrative. The comments at the foot of the Mail on Sunday article (heavily moderated, as they always are) provide a good example of the sort of reaction that is being invented in the minds of those who observe this theatre (with the spelling mistakes corrected):

I must admit that all of these extra security measures seem far more intense than any other Olympic host I have ever heard of & it makes me very suspicious that British intelligence is reacting to specific & credible information of an imminent attack. Maybe it could be better to postpone or cancel the whole event altogether.

Examine and wonder at the depth of the fantasy. It confirms what I have just been explaining. This fellow sees the terror perception-shaping as a statement about the magnitude of the threat. It’s so large, real and distinct in his mind that he thinks that the authorities should consider postponing the Games. There is no connection being made, or so it seems, between why there is no postponement in the face of credible information about an imminent attack, and the pronouncements of doom that keep coming, and keep stoking the sort of imagination displayed by the commenter.

My thinking tells me that, in such reportage as today’s disgraceful Mail on Sunday article, we are being prepared for an incident which, if it happens, I don’t think will be very large or dangerous, but will have been painted, through this continuing perception-shaping, to seem massive ahead of its happening in order to maximise the effects.

One possibility is this: in the coming weeks there will be some fireworks in the sky, and then the unaccountable paramilitary police of the sort who attended the Tottenham Court Road “bomb scare” will discover wreckage that naturally had been planted there either by themselves or by any of the 100s of US intelligence agents who will be present in London. By the way, and check it out for yourself, in all the latest detailing of military and intelligence deployment for the Olympics, the corporate-media suddenly went very quiet about the very large contingency from the US intelligence agencies who might even be running the show. Obviously, it’s completely understandable that the Government wouldn’t want attention drawn to the fact that the streets of London will be filled with people who, as the New York Times itself admitted the other day, facilitate all the terror plots in the USA (an FBI agent, it was revealed recently, even drove the van that would deploy a bomb).

If there is a false-flag attack, I don’t think there will be biological weapons (or any other mass destruction) because the corporate-government will be making too much money at the Olympics to disrupt it to the point where it becomes detrimental to their requirements. Because people have been warned about catastrophe so frequently in the corporate-media, there will be some initial panic – perhaps even a few accidental deaths as a result. The plan would be, I suppose, to create feelings of dread and mortification in the first instance that will be enough to have the Human Shields clamouring for permanent security by black-clad mask-wearing stormtroopers, and hence there will be an acceleration in the acclimatisation to the control grid that needs to be in place in order for the corporate-government to collapse the economy fully by design.

Whatever happens, the good news is that more people are understanding the dynamic of problem-reaction-solution and false-flag terrorism, and are helped by looking into history to see that it is an age old tool of government to control populations and achieve dubious political ambitions. I mentioned the appalled reaction from a Mail on Sunday commenter before, but there were a lot more who were questioning the necessity of issuing an alarm about weaponised drones, and even mocking the very idea that they existed. My favourite was the one by a contributor named Alan Rowley who asked “what about the sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads?” I expect that of all the comments that the article attracted which undermined the narrative, this sort of comment had the best chance to get through the censorship because it doesn’t offer real contrary facts. Even so, it is perhaps the most damaging sort of comment because it disparages the narrative – which should be seen as being nothing but ridiculous. Remember, all the effort put into preconditioning is about making the impossible seem likely, and so it occurs to me that it is best countered by mockery; what is ridiculous, after all, is not plausible.

Posted in Corporate-government, Global Government Gangsterism, Marxist-takeover Device, Potential Hoaxes | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Does the Warsi-incident UKIP spokesman work for the Tories?

Posted on May 4, 2012 by

This is a holding piece until I get the time to look at the 2012 local election results in more detail – which may be a little while longer as my little busman’s holiday to learn new technology in order to improve this site’s impact needs extending (also got plans for a new section).

UKIP, on first glance, has done well. 13% of the vote in wards contested is throwing some real light on the opinion polls.

I just wanted to comment on the talking point that the so-called Lady Warsi created, with the help of Nick Robinson, on the BBC’s election coverage. If you don’t know, she more or less claimed that UKIP was benefiting from a decline of the BNP because of a direct relationship between the two. Robinson asked her to clarify what she meant, and she asserted it again.

Of course, this is the sort of demonisation of UKIP that we should expect the Establishment to dish out. If you don’t understand that, and you don’t have to be a so-called media spokesman to do so, then something is terribly wrong. It is the sort of thing that criminally-minded Establishment figures do on purpose to poison the UKIP well; whether they do it out of desperation or not it is besides the point. Ducks quack, and Warsi spews nastiness when she opens her mouth. Her face revealed that she knew what she was doing; she looked as sly as a female fox getting the household dog into trouble by fouling on the lawn – indeed she did. However, I dare say the stunt would not have worked nearly as half as well in the following day’s corporate-media coverage if a so-called UKIP spokesman, Gawain Towler, according to the Daily Mail, “vented his anger at Lady Warsi’s comments on Twitter, [by] calling her a ‘bitch’ to his 1,700 followers, some of whom criticised his ‘unparliamentary language’.” There’s another thing that gets me. There are actually idiots who are worried about language that isn’t somehow fit for a nest of thieves. Parliament’s got nothing to do with it, imbeciles. This is the dirty, street-fighting Information War.

Above all, this incident makes my point about Twitter and how the system makes the irrelevant more significant than it ever should be. However, here’s my advice to any who would take to it to vent their spleen. If you feel the need to abuse Tory politicians, then call them criminal – elaborate on their deliberate fraud (as much you can because of the restrictions of the inane media). It shouldn’t cause as much of a furore because such an accusation would demand justification – there is plenty, incidentily – and it would run the risk of real information being conveyed to an audience starved of it. The Establishment can’t have that happening, and I do wonder if Towler doesn’t actually work for the Tories and made the comment for the effect that we are now seeing – for the sustainment of garbage side-politics that distracts and causes disengagement. I don’t believe that there are communications directors and political party media interfaces out there who do not understand about the real nature of the Information War. The Establishment is playing with the odds stacked against the all-comers in a way that is devastating (and requires the keeping of certain wits about one). I thought Towler ran a weblog (he didn’t even get a plug in the Mail), and I would be reluctant to attack him for anything he did in that capacity (what difference would it make?) but if he really does work for UKIP as a spokesman, then UKIP need to do better. And I’m not happy that this is even an issue.

Posted in Fake Political Paradigm, Media Corruption | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Was Tottenham Court Road “siege” suspect a BNP parliamentary candidate? Demonisation of anti-immigration imminent?

Posted on April 28, 2012 by

The police have named a man who they have charged in connection with Friday’s so-called siege in the Tottenham Court Road as Michael Green of Stevenage. The accusations are that he made a bomb hoax, and was in possession of a weapon for the discharge of a noxious liquid/gas or an electrical incapacitating device. Green is also charged with false imprisonment, criminal damage and recklessly endangering life.

While a separate report will shortly appear in these pages regarding the response by the authorities, the purpose of this article is to notice that a man by the name of Michael Green stood for the Westminster Parliament in 2010 as a BNP candidate. He finished 5th behind UKIP in the Stevenage ballot with 1007 votes, and 2.3% of the vote (see here).

At the time, along with the other candidates for the seat, Michael Green set out his policies, or, as was claimed in the literature, the policies of the BNP, in the Hertfordshire Mercury. As the reader may be able to see, the picture alongside Green’s bullet-pointed, concise and almost surly manifesto (in comparison with the verbiage showered on the electorate by the other candidates) shows a man bearing a strong resemblance to the character, in the image from the Sky news coverage of Friday’s events, being shown led away by police.

A clipping from the Hertfordshire Mercury

(click to enlarge) Is this the same Michael Green?

Most of the policies presented by (the candidate called) Green are acceptable to, and can be espoused by reasonable people with a serious mind to fix the malaise that is the British body politic. However, there is one that is completely unacceptable, and it is the belief that Caucasian British should be classified as first class citizenry – with the term “indigenous British people”, the BNP always means British people who are “white”.

Whereas it is technically correct to say that certain northern European people were historically geographically indigenous to the British Isles, it is not correct to believe that their descendents should receive preferential treatment over other British people who have familial origins in other parts of the world (lots of them being British dominions at one time or another), and who therefore are possibly of a different skin colour.  All men are created equally and in correspondence with God, and there cannot be discrimination between them based on superficial differences that make no difference to their calibre as human beings. The things that make people British is their birthright and their subscription to certain values, their inherent belonging to an indigenous tribalism defined by culture, and other concrete measures, not their skin colour.

There are increasingly lots of people in the UK who are coming to sympaphise with (the candidate) Green’s position on certain vital political issues who are not of or in the BNP, and do not subscribe to the same ideas that the BNP hold about priority for a group of people with certain racial characteristics. However, there is a fair chance that if he is indeed the same man who was arrested on Friday in Tottenham Court Road, then the corporate-media will use the opportunity to demonise Green as an extremist, and to tar with the same brush anyone who sees some value in putting a halt to immigration, and even leaving the EU.

I also have to say that the timing of this incident is remarkable, what with the London elections coming up, and UKIP, on the verge of getting a seat in the London Assembly (according to the polls), campaigning on a message that they will control immigration so as to protect jobs for London people.

Posted in Mysteries, Potential Hoaxes | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Twitter this: boycott business that employs Eastern Europeans

Posted on April 27, 2012 by

It was a big deal when Labour MP Barry Sheerman put his thoughts about a badly made bacon sandwich over the social control medium known as Twitter, because he was breaking the LibLabCon consensus†. Sheerman, as he kind of explained later, was venting the frustration that he must have been encountering from the people in his Huddersfield constituency:

Just had worst coffee and bacon bap in London at Victoria Station. Why can’t Camden Food Co employ English staff?

This made the trendy liberal useful idiot contingency of this country, largely concentrated in the hell hole that is London, wet its knickers, and get them in a twist. The Daily Mail, when reporting the story, and because it is absolutely in the arena to make sure that trendies have a meme to shape their opinions by, announced that Sheerman was blaming “foreign workers for serving him a sub-standard bacon sandwich”. No he wasn’t. He was expressing the common sense view that a person who had grown up exposed to British culture would be better qualified to judge how whatever he was producing would be valued by his customers – people who, by and large, would have shared his formative experiences.

Naturally, Sheerman was accosted on Twitter – the place where the irrelevant can bypass the natural mechanism whereby everyone else’s time is not wasted, and ninnies obtain the sort of imposing presence that they could never have in real life (in their millions, they also usefully enable the American and British intelligence agencies’ use of the medium to control perception to exceedingly deadly ends; for instance, how, prior to the proxy invasion of Libya, Twitter was used to whip up the impression that thousands of civilians were being killed when it was not the case).

Someone called Nick Lindford responded to Sheerman, and in doing so achieved the appellation in the Daily Mail’s account as “fellow tweeter”. See how it works? This Lindford character appears to me as if he must be one of either two sorts of person. He is either a trendy liberal useful idiot: someone who is always concerned that other people view him favourably in a light that shows he is conforming to an idea of decency that is defined against what is considered by his peer-pressuring set as being nasty – things like global warming denial, selection in schools, private health care, small government, Christianity, gun ownership, national independence. Or he is someone who knows exactly what he is doing and hates freedom and liberty.

“On reflection was that tweet not xenophobic?” sneered Lindford.

Sheerman made a mistake in his response. He said “We are all allowed a small English rant on St George’s day aren’t we?”

This played into the hands of his opponents. It admitted to the charge, and pleaded to his accuser – a person who nobody knows who he is, let alone a prosecutor in a court – that there were mitigating circumstances.

Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of foreigners. Like the terms “racism” and “global warming denial” it is a word bandied around in order to shut down free speech. The truth is that you can still complain that there must be enough English people around to man a bacon sandwich cart without being a xenophobe. You can still complain about how foreigners, in their masses, are being deliberately allowed by the powers-that-be to come to this country to realise a plan to foul it up, and all the while you do this it doesn’t mean that you fear or hate foreigners. Admitted, when foreigners are used as weapons by government in an attack on their own people, then they might become the object of hate or fear – but the fault lies with the government. When your country is invaded, you aren’t meant to be happy about it; our Government knows this, and that’s why it has an army of yoghurt knitting do-gooders to mop up dissent by reminding all about their new patriotic duty to the Communist social control device of political correctness.

Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an “uncritical exaltation of another culture” – which possibly means that if you hold that Eastern Europeans are, to a man, always hard working in a way that puts the Briton to shame, then you are also a xenophobe. How about that?

Anyway, because Sheerman had played the game in the way that most British people are conditioned to play it, Linford retorted: “Not in my books no, especially not if you are an MP.”

So get this, and forget how Sheerman characterised his own position – there is nothing wrong with what he wrote initially; what is being declared here is that people shouldn’t be upset about a great social and cultural and economic upheaval that is being forced on them, they shouldn’t vocalise it, and MPs shouldn’t defend the interests of constituents who feel hard pressed either by the actual blight of the invasion, or the pressure not to express the gift of free speech and complain about it. That would be about right; like I said, people like Lindford hate freedom, whether it be knowingly, or as directed by camp (30-somethings pretending to be) teenagers with cow-licked hair, or other Marxist culture promulgators, on TV or in magazines, or on Twitter.

Thankfully, the MP dealt with the twerp as he should have from the outset – by asserting the following:

I am not a xenophobe. I am an MP and I represent the good folk of Huddersfield not Gdansk!

There are a lot of unemployed people in Huddersfield and I think they should have first crack at jobs rather than someone who arrived from Eastern Europe yesterday.

I’m getting increasingly worried about the free movement of people across Europe.

It’s a very competitive world out there and my constituents resent that.

Let’s be clear. Open borders with the EU is designed to maintain corporate-government dominance and guarantee the Marxist coup in the UK. It means that there is an endless supply to take slave-wage jobs coming from an off shore population that value them because of their own relative impoverishment. They feel not only able, but willing to work for low pay in bad conditions, which means that wages are kept low and in fact unacceptable for culturally and tribally indigenous (yeah, that’s right) people who have become accustomed to British standards of living. This impoverishment is not just financial, but also in terms of understanding labour rights established in this country over centuries (when I see my town centre full of Eastern Europeans on a Sunday, but not on a Saturday, nor any other day of the week, I figure that their slave masters are giving them at least one day off). Subsequently, British people find themselves on benefits, which will always be worth as much as the slave-wage (by some intrinsic value) so that the dynamic that attracts foreigners is maintained. The aim of our Government is to get as many British people as possible dependent of the welfare state so that they do not have the power of their pocket – the power to choose alternatives to the means by which they are controlled. In addition, the foreign worker is also allowed to claim benefits, as is the foreigner who doesn’t work, and both are able to access the public services, which they didn’t these last 20-60 years have to pay for. The consequences are going to be increasing taxes to adequately keep the welfare pot, which means the impoverishment of the middle classes, and the devastation of small business. An end to competition against corporatism and corporate-government.

At the same time, open border EU-immigration means that the UK is filling with people who are already accustomed to soviet culture and who will consent to measures presented as necessary for the good of the collective as they become phased in by the government. We already know about the UN Agenda 21 and its translation through Localism and Big Society, as well as fake-environmentalism. There is, without a doubt, going to be a phasing in of a greater and more tightly controlled collective around the State.

The same thing is happening in the United States with the Mexicans playing the same part as Eastern Europeans do here. It’s a deliberate global plan to turn the countries with a tradition of English liberty into despotisms governed by transnational organisations where a few corporations serve the elite and exploit everyone else.

Although it is clear to me that the British people might have had a very good understanding that there was going to be free movement across the EEC when they voted to join in 1975, no one knew that the chronically poor ex-Warsaw Bloc countries would accede to the union, meaning that millions of Eastern Europeans would have access to all the slave-wage jobs and associated benefits – which means that they would cost not once, but twice. No one voted for an invasion by Eastern European Privateers who would leave children to be orphaned in their own countries, and who do not have the slightest understanding that they are being used as a weapon to close down basic liberties through collectivisation. The EU is unlawful, and open borders which facilitate invasion are unlawful because British people were never asked explicit consent by a vote. Furthermore, polling is increasingly showing that people would vote against these things if they were given a chance to.

We need to understand that the Government is not going to do anything about the bottomless pit that is the immigration into the UK of particularly Eastern European slave-wage labour. What needs to happen is that borders need to be closed, and benefits drastically cut to create incentive for Britons to take unpopular work. Education needs to be released from the tentacles of Progressive-Marxism so that British people do not leave school as morons who cannot perform in any social encounter or environment. But none of this is going to happen, because it would scupper the design that our elite have for us. What is more, when there are terrible problems caused by invasion by Privateers, our Government will use it as an excuse to bring in more devastating policy rather than act genuinely to reverse the decline.

It means responsibility to act falls upon the individual Briton to save their country from the dreadful future that its Government is planning to deal out. At the moment, we still have the power of the purse – the power to affect an outcome by financial clout. For obvious reasons it mostly applies to shops and the retail area of the service industry – places that I can make judgements about according to evidence accrued by my own experience and NOT by making assumptions – but what I do in defence of my country is I boycott establishments that I know have Eastern Europeans working for them (Eastern European immigration is the real destructive force that needs to be countered). If a boycott from a particular choice of establishments would render me unable to purchase a thing I need, then I choose the place that employs less Eastern Europeans. I urge others to adopt the lifestyle. I am not calling for hatred, and there doesn’t need to be a big hoo-haa about it, nor pickets with signs making the sort of rabble-rousing that creatures of the so-called Left resort to. All there needs to be is a word-of-mouth spreading of the justification and the possibility of the option, and thereafter each individual can make a choice as to whether they will make a calm and rationalised act of defiance that sends a message to business owners and corporations.

You want my money? Employ Britons.

† Part of me also thinks it has something to do with demonising UKIP who are fighting the London elections in a way that highlights the impact of immigration on British unemployment.

Posted in Corporate-government, Global Government Gangsterism, Institutional Progressive Marxism, Invasion, Social Engineering, Solutions | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Learning a lesson from Jeff Smith’s going to Washington – even after 70 years

Posted on April 24, 2012 by

James Stewart as Jefferson Smith in a film largely undiscovered by trendies who only ever heard of Its a Wonderful Life.

I don’t know if other people of my generation took the opportunity that now doesn’t seem to be available to the current one, and spent a lot of time in their youth watching what seemed like a vast output of pre-1960s films on British TV. By the time I was 20, I had seen all kinds of black and white movies. Every week for years on Saturday mornings, I particularly remember, BBC2 showed a double bill. Then there was Laurel and Hardy or Harold Lloyd on a week night at 6pm. I think I must have first seen the 1930s film, Mr Smith Goes to Washington, during this very early spate of old movie watching, and I couldn’t have understood how the themes dealt with in the film were timeless. Even when I saw it again a few years ago, I didn’t understand that what it shows in its 1930s specific sequences was a universal truth about politics and a relationship between those institutions in which it is conducted, and downright gangsterism and villainy.

If you haven’t seen Mr Smith, then I recommend it because it is uplifting, especially if you find yourself in a fight against corrupt government – and by rights, we should all find ourselves in such a scrap. Unfortunately, I need to reveal something of the storyline in order to talk about the issues, but then again, after 70 years, everyone with a brain should have seen this movie already.

The two senators of an unnamed western state are controlled by a media and industry tycoon, Jim Taylor, who uses them to make Federal legislation that benefits his big money interests. Naturally, you will notice that the relationship mirrors the contemporary corporate-government in the US and the UK, and elsewhere.

One of those senators, Joseph Paine, rationalises that although he may partake in one or two big acts of corruption by doing the will of a corporate character who paid for his career, the many other things he does for the little man makes it acceptable. This, of course, is a fantasy because it is far better for the little man to have a level playing field than it is to be helped up with a chance that he may also get destroyed by the vested-interest juggernaught that will, at some point in the future, bear down on him, run over and mangle him if he doesn’t get out of the way.

At the beginning of the film we learn that the other bought and paid for senator has died, and it threatens to spoil a plan that the business magnate has to appropriate funding for construction of a dam.  Jefferson Smith is chosen to replace the dead senator because he is underestimated as a simpleton who can be manipulated into voting the way that puppet master, Taylor, wants.

Jeff Smith is a youth leader; he runs a local detachment of Boy Scouts – called Boy Rangers for the purposes of the film. His involvement in the Scout movement is also meant to convey symbolic meaning; it represents Smith’s pure belief in the principles upon which the American Republic is founded: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He has a childlike faith in a universal respect for these things, and unfortunately, the reality that is revealed to him in Washington is that once admired politicians do not in fact share his reverence for the ideals of freedom; they have sold out and become corrupt. Smith hasn’t ever thought about secret deals and graft, and is naive in the ways of politics; he is an idealist who will not compromise so that his integrity might suffer; and this is what drives him to do eventual lone battle with an array of legal minds who, as one in the Senate, become his enemy in their desire to protect the prestige of that body.

Furthermore, Smith’s involvment with the youth movement tells us that he is very much a Victorian in his outlook in terms of a morally and physically healthy boyhood that makes men who are fit to take their place in a decent society; he believes that some of them, because of the guidance of his and other dutiful adults, will become leaders who have been able to maintain their idealism. This, of course, is a far cry from today’s system that aims to corrupt children so that as adults they cannot function properly in society, nor become the leaders that a nation really needs, nor ever again bring up another generation of people who are vaguely well balanced and capable.

When he will not go along with the gangster’s vision, Jeff Smith finds himself framed by Taylor’s agents. Senator Paine, who is having the Presidency dangled in front of him by Taylor, finds that he is able to put aside any scruples he may be having by testifying against Smith in a Senate standards committee, and swearing witness to a completely fabricated story.

The climax of the film follows as a result; Smith stages a filibuster on the floor of the Senate in order to get the appropriation bill connected with the dam-building postponed, and the truth of his predicament across to the people of his home state before he is expelled from the body. However, and this is where the film spells out an eternal truth for those who will but pay attention, Jim Taylor sets the media – radio and newspapers – under his control on a campaign to destroy Jeff Smith’s reputation and basically orders them to lie to their audience; which they duly do. He sets his goons on any opposition media so that they cannot produce an alternative message; this includes crashing vehicles into, and assaulting Boy Rangers who try to publish and distribute their own 4 page newssheet. Taylor even controls the local police who use water hoses – an early crowd control device  - on a parade held in support of Jeff Smith.

The reader should recognise an equivalence with the state of affairs today where the corporate-government controls the media message that is allowed to be transmitted to the public, and it uses what should be law enforcement agencies as private security to use violence against people who dissent against the criminality in government and perversion of justice. The children who print newspapers are all at once real, and also symbolic. They are the pure at heart who defy the crushing and overwhelmingly powerful system of oppression because they don’t know how to act differently; the people who try to bring you the truth (and I don’t mean the corporate-media subordinate UK blogosphere for one moment) will be first to be silenced, and their victimisation at the hands of the black heartedness will be the most heinous.

The clip that I direct you to is the scene in which Jeff Smith is confronted by the public opinion against him that has been manufactured by the Taylor media-machine by urging people, enraged by the propaganda they have been fed, to send telegrams denouncing Jeff Smith’s conduct and character. It is basketfuls of this sentiment that he is looking at as the clip starts.

link

What he does next is an object lesson in courage and determination drawn from righteousness, and it’s particularly poignant because when Smith addresses Paine, over his shoulder in the balcony on which the clock face hangs, as we are told earlier in the film, watching as a body that represents a free country persecutes an innocent man, are representatives of the fascist European states who are about to start a World War.

Smith has this to say to Paine, the Senate, and indeed, any totalitarian thug who looks to control by might and warped public support (corporate-manipulated democracy – as we have nowadays – the antithesis of a constitutional system):

You think I’m licked. You all think I’m licked. Well I’m not licked, and I’m going to stay right here and fight for this lost cause, even if this room gets filled with lies like these, and the Taylors and all their armies come marching into this place, somebody will listen to me.

Jefferson Smith is an everyman character, and his name should suggest this; like Winston Smith of Orwell’s 1984, the common English surname is coupled with the Christian name of a significant historical figure. We can be pretty sure that Orwell was thinking of Churchill, and maybe the writer of Mr Smith was thinking of Thomas Jefferson, or perhaps even the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis, who led his people for the ultimate lost cause. Because the message of the film boils down to a simple message; when we fight because there really is no other choice, we never stop fighting. There will indeed be at least one who hears what we have to say, the God who enjoins us to love thy neighbour, even when we are overpowered by armies who have been sent to stop us. Because of this and our just cause, we will be victorious in the very end.

So Jeff Smith is an ordinary man, but he is also a leader who will fight to the end; the message is that normal people are exceptional in the cause of a righteous principle, yes, but more importantly, win or lose, the fighting for that principle is where the victory is won. This is what makes Smith dangerous for the gangsters and criminals who he goes up against.

In the context of our times, opposition to tyranny is nowhere near beaten, although it is a cause that there really is no other choice but to fight for. The corporate-government is determined and along a path that will eventually crush opposition. It is also all powerful in certain ways, and even if it might not look like its opponents are making an impact because of the way that it controls perception, in actual fact, outspoken dissent is hurting it. Anyone who stands up and to oppose the tyranny that is being laid down around us like a net to draw us up into captivity is winning by dint of existing and acting in liberty.

Posted in Corporate-government, Dishonest Politicians, Solutions, The Arts | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The LibLabCon ship is holed and will sink taking the criminals aboard with it

Posted on April 19, 2012 by

I have discussed at length in these pages the purpose served by opinion polls for the Establishment (most lately here – also commented on by the Chief Executive of Survation, which adds further interest). Most polling companies use a complete toolkit of methodology whereby what they produce reinforces an idea of invincibility for the LibLabCon, and projects its dominance into the future so that a large portion of the public, with all its insecurity and neediness about belonging to the flock, will have huge reservations about casting a vote elsewhere. All polling takes a sample count and applies weighting to it to make it “representative”, but the polling company’s choices about where the sample is taken, and how the weighting is applied (there is no consistent method) will affect the outcome of the poll – which is a headline figure that gets splashed all over the corporate-media for the previously mentioned effect.

As I wrote in the article linked to above, there is another trick that an opinion polling company can use to determine an outcome. Mainly, it involves only naming the LibLabCon in the initial choices offered to the poll respondent. What this does is to give respondents the impression that there are only three choices that they are allowed to make. There is only one company that I know of, Survation, that names UKIP as an initial choice – which all polling companies should do if they are trying to create an accurate survey – and given the general better showing for UKIP in these polls in relation to their contemporaries, it really does demonstrate that restricting the initial choice is a good tactic for strengthening the basic sample figures for the LibLabCon.

A recent Opinium poll (conducted online, I believe), published on the 17th April, gives a good example of the difference between the sample and the headline figures; the latter were as follows: Conservatives 32%, Labour 37%, Lib Dems 9%, Others 22% (you might notice that I’m hiding the big news that came out of this poll – that will be dealt with later). However, the sample data gave these results: Conservative 23%, Labour 27%, Lib Dems 7%, Others 16%, Would Not Vote 11%, Don’t Know 16%. It should be clear that the transition from sample data to headline numbers makes the Tories and Labour look insurmountably ahead of a non-LibLabCon party, e.g. UKIP, hidden amongst the Others and looking to make inroads. It should be clear that headline figures have the sort of dramatic psychological effect, which cannot be achieved by the sample data, in terms of demoralising those aspirants who would challenge the hegemony – and there’s very good reason for it.

However, this Opinium poll, along with two YouGov polls (published 16th and 17th), also tells us that there comes a time when massaging the sample data and selectively targeting respondents with limited choices just isn’t enough to hide the non-LibLabCon breakthrough, and subsequently the inversely proportional LibLabCon vulnerability. In the three polls mentioned above, UKIP beat the Lib Dems into fourth place – they split the LibLabCon; YouGov scored them at 9% versus 8%, but in the Opinium poll, UKIP scored 10% in the headline figures. This is significant.

In articles I wrote back in August and October 2011, I noticed UKIP approaching and going beyond 10% in certain opinion polls, and I wrote about how UKIP attaining the magic 10% represented a watershed moment in British politics. If 10% of a population, or so the scientists say, become convinced by an idea, then that idea is destined to become the dominant one in society. The idea in our case is of being anti-LibLabCon; of seeing the Westminster Triumvirate as the problem, not the solution. As I wrote back then, UKIP is the receptacle for this revolutionary idea (disliking them for their “Dad’s Army” quality, or because they aren’t slick with PR is irrelevant). So, the new idea that has thus far convinced 10% of the population, or so the scientific theory goes, will only grow because the rest of the population doesn’t have the same conviction in its own opinions, and will choose the new political ideology because it becomes fashionable to do so. These people, if you like, are the 16% of Don’t Knows in the Opinium poll – and perhaps many of the Won’t Votes. It’s a simplification, but it’s a useful example: the numbers tell us that even before the added percentage points that will be skimmed off the LibLabCon by their unconvinced deserters, when the wavering, a la mode voters choose UKIP, the main party of the determinedly anti-LibLabCon will overtake the Tories. That will be the point after which the UK will come out of the EU by the weight of UKIP representation in Westminster – and I can guarantee that it won’t happen before.

Now that we have had three back-to-back polls where UKIP have beaten the Lib Dems, and one of those polls has UKIP sitting on the magic 10%, we can ever so more confidently say that UKIP has consolidated itself at that oh-so important land mark; the idea of anti-LibLabCon has become ensconced in the minds of that crucial number of British people. And it means the inevitable end of the LibLabCon, and the end of various criminal careers for villains who have perpetrated the fraud and robbery by successive Progressive governments upon the British, and caused for political purposes the moral and intellectual degeneration of the people.

As I have written before, although there is a mass desire, mostly voiced in alternative culture and in the underground resistance, for tribunals and punishment for the people who have misruled Britain for so long – as well as those who have conspired in it – these things won’t come straight away after that inevitable breakthrough when a UKIP MP wins a seat at Westminster (Galloway was arguably the first non-LibLabCon politician in Westminster, and so he arguably made that breakthrough – Greens are ultra-Progressive Establishment).

However, as I wrote before, the day of reckoning will come when UKIP has won enough seats to affect the decision-making of Parliament; it’s an objective that the anti-LibLabCon vote must become associated with, and there must be a recognition that an expression of desire for such an outcome is being made through the vote:

UKIP might not automatically begin the processes whereby LibLabCon politicians go to jail for their treachery, and their war crime, but there are thousands of us who will be petitioning for justice. UKIP might not automatically institute the measures that reverse 20 years of deliberate damage by Progressive government, but there are plenty of us who know what the remedies are, and we will petition to see them implemented.

The magic 10% threshold upon which UKIP has consolidated its support means that there will, one day, be a reckoning for key figures in the Establishment – most of the politicians in national or local government, management in the councils and in the universities, corporate-media journalists/spies, banksters and corporate-government cronies, senior police men and staff in the armed forces, judges, NHS management, political lackeys in public relations. All of the criminals in the ranks of this sort of public office and politically influential realms of public life who drove and facilitated the Marxist revolution in the UK will be winkled out, and a reckoning will be had.

My message to people of this ilk who don’t want to be identified as a criminal come the day of judgement is to make your move now, and jump ship. The LibLabCon is split in the hull, and it cannot stay above water. At the moment, there are still lifeboats available to you; after that, you will have to leave the doomed ship of the British LibLabCon State as a rat – which means drowning.

I also have a message to voters, it comes recited in full from one of the abovementioned previous articles:

If you are a mainline superficial LibLabCon who likes to vote for the winning team (as opposed to a Progressive zealot and operative, who by rights should go to jail), you have to realise that your team is heading for the dustbin of history, and eternal stigmatisation and denigration. We’re going to look upon the LibLabCon as a black-hearted tyranny that should not have darkened the shores of these islands; a stain on our reputation. The main protaganists in the foisting upon us of LibLabCon Marxism will have likenesses made that will stand next to the one of Hitler in the dungeon of Tussauds. Your team is going to lose, and ours is going to win, and justice will be raised up, and corruption will be laid low. You should leave your sinking ship while you can; the sooner we can start the new constitutional era, the better.

Posted in Elections and Polls, Fake Political Paradigm, Solutions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Vote the LibLabCon out to put them in jail; vote UKIP

Posted on April 17, 2012 by

Last week in the US, the Alex Jones mini-media empire (which does a great job to inform Americans about their own criminal government) in cooperation with Sean Stone (the son of JFK and W. director, Oliver) have released a short film spelling out the case for an impeachment of Obama.

The idea is to promote awareness of how tentative steps have already been taken along the route of indicting “The One” for treason, and show how the Obama administration is so shockingly in violation of the US Constitution, that it needs to be taken down as a matter of some urgency.

In the UK, the politicians of our most recent governments have inflicted the same kind of misrule upon the people of Britain. The chief act of criminality on the part of our politicians has been the complete and wholesale loss of sovereignty to the EU†, combined with a formation of a syndicate of the elite who pretend to have ideological differences, but in reality work together to make sure that opposition to that loss of sovereignty does not get a voice in a place of power that could make a difference. What has become a long running deception of the British people is also a fraud that needs to be answered for on a day of reckoning.

Although in the UK the houses of parliament have the same kind of mechanism for impeachment as the parliamentarians do in the States, it is highly unlikely, given that they are such a gang of weak-willed, easily bought gangsters, that the Commons will take a case against Cameron and his cabal to the Lords.

This is why it is up to the British people to bring the criminals in Government to justice, and we do that by voting them out of power. In their place we put people who will rescind any legislation that protects the criminals, and who will support citizen-movements bringing criminal cases in common law.

From its inception, this site has been consistent with messages like this (before the site existed, I was writing the same kind of things in comments sections of corporate-media and other places in its subordinate blogosphere). This site is consistent with a vision and a message; I don’t tell you to buy a certain book, or support a certain politician because it was expedient for accruing some rubbed-off prestige or association, and then have to withdraw that advice as quietly as possible when it is revealed to be unsound. I don’t operate by headlessly promoting one new campaign after another from professional political campaigners that are designed to distract you from what you should be focussing on. I don’t unthinkingly promote gimmicks from the corporate-media subordinate blogosphere that are actually devices to boost the popularity of, or maintain the relevance of personalities within that orb. This site doesn’t denigrate the corporate-media in one moment, and in the next present ourselves with badges awarded like pats on the head from that very same corporate-media, or even appear in the dailies ourselves with much self-satisfaction and self-promotion.

This site promotes a basic philosophy of strength in honesty and integrity derived from Christian morals; when the people are noble and incorruptible, then so will the politicians be, and representative democracy will work as it is intended in principle. In other words, if people actually voted for the candidate that best represents them instead of being preoccupied by image, and delusion grown out of false pragmatism and acceptance that politicians must lie to get elected, and other aspects of a candidate that flatters to deceive, then a majority will have earnestly placed their voice in government. This site also promotes a constitution that disallows the making of any legislation that violates some fundamental rules irrespective of majorities; therefore the electoral system would be one more accurately described as constitutional democracy. This site promotes the idea of a commonwealth wherein citizens don’t have equality of outcome enforced by law, but they have equality of opportunity – which requires the destruction of corruption, no matter how petty, and corporate monopoly. We don’t need a Queen, who is merely a villain and the epitome of state grandeur to elicit subordination from the easily impressed. This site promotes the idea of opting out of the areas of everyday life that the corporate-government uses to influence and control people.

We, the freemen, conquer the corporate-government occupiers and overlords by due process, and by quiet calm and helping people understand what crucial action needs to be taken; that’s why a year ago, in the very manner of consistency that I have been discussing, I wrote an article that originally appeared on Orphans of Liberty in which I wrote that voters should make sure that, in order to create a perception in the wider general public of fallibility, the “LibLabCon gets an electoral kicking whenever an opportunity arises”.

At the time when I wrote this article, the local elections were approaching – along with the AV referendum, which I asked people not to participate in. Local elections are approaching again, and this time they are accompanied by the London Assembly and Mayoral elections too. My advice is the same as it was then: don’t vote for the LibLabCon if you want to live in an independent and free country. Don’t vote if there isn’t an alternative, but whatever you do, don’t vote for the LibLabCon.

If you take the trouble to read this site thoroughly, you’ll discover that I think that ultimately there should not be political parties – only candidates, but at the moment we must fight in the arena that we find ourselves born into. If we need to force out LibLabCon party through party politics, then, at the moment, we stand most chance of doing it (and doing it as soon as possible) by supporting UKIP.

So, to expand upon my basic advice: folks should vote for UKIP at every opportunity (over an independent who roughly stands for the same things). I recommend this course for several reasons. Firstly, in order to force the creation of a perception of a new non-LibLabCon party’s inevitable growth despite all the Establishment’s efforts to preserve the integrity of the Westminster Triumvirate. This will be demoralising for the low-level lackeys of the Establishment and inspire them to be less zealous in their work, but it will also attract people who need the image of size in order to commit support; the trendies and the unthinking with no political convictions who find safety in numbers who will be able to see the big bandwagon coming, and want to get on it.

I know that lots of so-called influential voices have gripes about UKIP, but I am yet to see a case that I couldn’t attribute to sour grapes – I am sure that the reader can detect these things similarly. I myself don’t agree with everything that UKIP believes in (it is too conventional in some areas), nor do I like some of what I see in terms of operations, but what I support them for is how they have avowed to take the UK out of the EU. They are Withdrawalists; they aren’t mere Eurosceptics. As I have written many times, we need enough Withdrawalists in Westminster to force the termination of the UK’s membership of the EU – that means voting UKIP at national elections, and voting for them at local and lesser elections.

Our problems are not going to end when we leave the EU, but leaving the EU deals a blow to plans of the global bankster cartel who affect our lives directly through Agenda 21 and Austerity generated by swapping wealth with fiat debt; indeed, the EU was a first step in a plot for wider-spread internationalist rule by a global elite through Marxism. Leaving the EU is also an easily identifiable goal that most British people better understand will have an impact for good on their lives than they would understand about the impact of the total removing from power of the Progressive elite. Leaving the EU is constitutional restitution of British sovereignty that isn’t abstract. It’s do-able, we do what we need to do to make it happen.

It also occurs to me that when the LibLabCon becomes redundant after UKIP makes a break through, it will disintegrate. At this point, especially if you can imagine it (and I don’t just mean Cameron in a prison cell), anything is possible.

† The loss of sovereignty, in my opinion, has been a long process since the 18th century; whenever I get around to write my alternative English History I’ll explain it in full detail.

Posted in Elections and Polls, Fake Political Paradigm | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Why the sonic boom incident looks like terror preconditioning in time for the Olympics

Posted on April 14, 2012 by

There is a case to be made that the sonic boom incident that occurred on Thursday evening, and that proved so disconcerting to so many who had to suffer quake-like effects on the ground underneath the RAF aircraft which precipitated the moving forces, was yet another staged event that was designed to create intensified interest, through the lens of corporate-media, in the capability of security services to respond to so-called terrorist threats during the Olympics.

I’ll make this case momentarily, but first a review is in order that explains just why it is that the British Government might like to create a perception in the general public of the high probability of a terrorist attack.

Looking at what is going on in the United States, with the completely unjustified acts of violation being carried out by the TSA control apparatus in the name of security which signifies an attempt by Federal Government to condition Americans into submitting to the erosion of their rights, and being able to see those measures for what they really are, we can therefore compare similar security in the UK, and attach to it the same kind of motivation behind the TSA as the real intent of the UK Government.

Some of us think that the Olympics is going to be used as a big step along the way to a full security control grid that rides rough shod over individual liberties and is designed exactly to do that, and has nothing to do with providing safety. We can arrive at this viewpoint using logic. We are, as a country, waking up to the fact that our politicians want to govern as they see fit with no consultation with us; we are waking up to the fact that we are not properly represented by people who are in fact a bunch of criminals who should be in jail. They are not going to want us to act on our new knowledge; therefore they have to crack down on us to save their own skins.

The Olympics presents a great opportunity for getting arguably some of the most psychologically flawed people in the UK (who feel that they need to attend an historical event to define their identity) accustomed to the prisoner treatment of long queues for irradiating body scans, intrusive pat downs and confiscation of property. The full roll out depends on the succesful impregnation of the seed of draconian security into our society because the people who surrender to it first thereafter become its apologists and even supporters; they do it to compensate for subconscious feelings of self-loathing about being submissive in the face of injustice.

In order to even plant this seed, government needs people to accept that the threat of terrorism is real (when in fact the huge majority of it is staged or overseen by western intelligence agencies for whom Islamists, in the case of that sort of terrorism that we are told is tantamount to warfare waged against us, largely unwittingly work for). Terrorism is, by and large, not real in that it is not committed for the reasons that you are told it is committed; there is warfare waged against us, but western governments are waging it.

Acts of terrorism do not even have to have been committed for any particular government to encourage a perception of future threat. Displays by Armed Forces and other intelligence and security agencies, who are reported as necessary to prevent terror, act psychologically on a watching public who then believe that because so many professional people are taking the likes of Bin Laden seriously, then so too must the public take him and other bogeymen seriously.

However, government cannot rely on perception shaping alone, and especially when the public becomes sceptical about the reality of Islamist terrorism – which is what is happening especially in the United States where people are daily humiliated by the sham security theatre of the TSA. Accordingly, there is some concern in certain quarters that what we are seeing in the run up to the Olympics is the use of the notion of the threat of terrorism to install a collective psychological state of mind in the public whereby people would not be taken by surprise were they eventually to see an actual terrorist attack (what would, unbeknownst to most of them, actually be a false flag attack carried out by western intelligence). It’s a process of revelation to the public, who become subconsciously ever more expectant after each display, that is called preconditioning. In the run up to the Olympics, we have see several instances of what could be preconditioning. There was the huge display of security muscle on the Thames accompanied by press releases about warships and surface to air missiles being made available to combat something that doesn’t actually exist. There was the story about an attack with poisoned hand cream that was laughably impossible to execute in order to kill lots of people – which is what the corporate-media hyped it as a plan to do. The most worrying piece of information that might be labelled preconditioning was Cameron’s bizarre announcement that Iran wanted to create a capability in order to hit London with a nuclear weapon.

Of course, now there is the sonic boom incident which, if it was staged, could be another piece of preconditioning worthy of much concern because of how it forces public attention on the possibility of a terrorist attack being deployed by airborne means.

As for whether or not the sonic boom incident was staged or not, there are key pieces of information that are crucial in deciding. This information is tied up in the question of how possible it is for a pilot to programme his transponder device accidently with one very significant code (out of a possible range of 0 to 7777 codes) and then how likely it is for a military aircraft to attend, and it is also tied up in the question of what should happen to a pilot if he does this and incurs a response from military aircraft flying at supersonic speeds?

First of all, let’s recap as to what happened on Thursday 12th April, 2012, at about 6pm in the evening – at least as far as the official version goes. A civilian helicopter pilot in the south west programmed his transponder signal with the code 7500, which is a code that signifies to Air Traffic Control (ATC) that an aircraft has been highjacked.

We came to know this first fact by degrees. Initially, there was a basic outline, as told by an MOD spokesman to the Telegraph on Thursday night:

We can confirm that a small civilian aircraft was transmitting inadvertently on an emergency frequency at approximately 1810.

Two typhoons from the Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) responded accordingly and authorisation was given from them to go supersonic which resulted in the sonic boom.

There was no actual threat to the civilian aircraft and they soon rectified their mistake.

The assumption made by people conversing on forums used by military aircraft enthusiasts was that the helicopter “squawked” the 7500 code – which made the response of scrambling two war planes entirely appropriate. Indeed, a commenter with the pseudonym “Wiltshire_Pilot” created a user profile at the Sun expressly to leave a comment stating the same idea as a fact.

By Friday 13th, the story was reinforced and made official by a MOD spokesman named Martin Tinworth who spoke to the BBC, although it has to be noted that even he was still using words like “possibly” and “probably” indicating that people still weren’t clear as to the exact actions of the helicopter pilot.

If you don’t know, and I didn’t, the transponder code 7000 is a general signal that aircraft use to be electronically conspicuous as airborne vehicles. ATC does not assign every such vehicle a unique transponder code to use as an identifying tag; therefore unassigned aircraft will adopt the default code as a matter of fundamental flying law.

Apparently, a pilot programmes the code by pushing a button or turning a dial for each digit in the code. I think that we are supposed to believe that the helicopter pilot had the number 7 in the left-most digit placeholder, and that he had two zeroes in the two right-most digit placeholders, before he punched 5 into the remaining digit placeholder. At this point, he would have signalled the emergency code for being highjacked completely erroneously. The only other scenario is that he “accidently” deliberately punched in the emergency code.

I have a problem with the chances of this data entry being done accidently. Trained pilots should know very well that the code 7500 is never to be used unless it is absolutely necessary. There are even strategies, and I have seen one or two myself, to make sure that emergency codes are never dialled by mistake. Here is the advice from the Canadian civil aviation authorities (code 7700 is also an emergency one):

For example, if it is necessary to change from Code 1700 to Code 7100, first change to Code 1100, then Code 7100, NOT Code 7700 and then Code 7100.

So, it seems to me that dialling the highjacking transponder code is something that rarely happens –  I suspect that code 7500 is used less than train passengers pull the emergency cord to stop a train – and furthermore, I think that scrambling jets in the unlikely event of such an accident is also something that rarely happens. In a report for BBC Points West, the journalist Andrew Plant tells viewers that “scrambling due to a false distress code is almost unheard off”, and he interviews a pilot, although no names are mentioned, who tells Plant that in 35 years of flying, he hadn’t heard of such an incident before. (I have uploaded a version of this report to LuikkerlandTV, our Youtube channel).

From what I am reading, it is hard to tell what the exact decision making process is between a pilot dialling in an emergency code, and military planes being sent to investigate. It seems that the ATC does have an opportunity to clarify a situation if they detect a transponder code signalling an emergency. The BBC’s source Tinworth claims that the information is passed onto national authorities from ATC in order for a decision to be made about scrambling a plane. “If they can’t get in touch with… [a pilot] quick enough – which happened in this case,” says Tinworth, “a Quick Reaction Alert will be launched.”

The point is, whatever the process is, or whether the actual accidental programming of an emergency code is improbable, or it generating a military interception is not very likely, what happened on Thursday – the combination of the two events – was incredibly unusual. Indeed, the BBC’s source, Tinworth, had this to say:

So it’s possible [the pilot] might have entered the hijack code instead – and in the current climate, that well might trigger Typhoons.

And maybe people are getting twitchy with the Olympics around the corner.

I have to admit, I did raise an eyebrow when I saw the news. It is certainly unusual for Typhoons to be scrambled.

I have a hunch that the RAF took advantage of an opportunity (which might have been wholly manufactured considering how pilots are urged and trained to avoid sending emergency signals) to send warplanes across the country at supersonic speeds in order to frighten the sheep in their houses ahead of the Olympics. My suspicions to this effect are only strengthened by the fact that the pilot of the helicopter remains unidentified and does not seem to be receiving any punishment; this is what Tinworth has to say on this issue:

Where he was flying to and what he was doing is none of our business.

But surely this is nonsense. Surely it must constitute some kind of offence to signal the emergency transponder code which signifies a terrorist event and then seemingly ignore ATC in their efforts to rectify the accident long enough for military jets to be scrambled? Maybe the incident shows that ATC weren’t on the ball, but if that is the case, where is the concern being expressed about it in the corporate-media and the halls of power?

In my view, as long as we don’t know who the pilot at the centre of this affair is, it is entirely possible and fair to hold the notion that the incident was an effort to shape perception regarding UK security forces’ ability to counter a terrorist attack. In that case, because of the complexity of the potential hoax, it could be said that as a perception shaping exercise, it crosses a divide from stated possible threat and passive demonstration of force (to counter that threat), into something completely different altogether; an active demonstration where the objective is to psychologically convince observers as to the reality of a phantom menace. One only has to read comments in the corporate-media made by the flocks of psychologically convinced sheep  to know that their world view has been reinforced thanks to the incident – whether it was planned or no; there is plenty of stuff like “good to know that we can still count on the RAF to protect us”. The trouble is, the RAF didn’t protect anyone, they just made a show of it.

I happen to think that it’s very concerning if this incident was a hoax to elicit some mass public psychological response because by the terms explained above, it’s only one degree away from a real false flag attack.

Posted in Potential Hoaxes | Tagged , , | 10 Comments