Friday, 29 April 2016

Labour Party 'Anti-Semitism' Hoo-ha.

 It must be clear to everyone this is an inflated and orchestrated campaign with two purposes: 

1. to paint Labour as deeply divided, racist and disloyal to its leader; 

2. to frighten off anyone in the public sphere criticising or publicising the brutal, inhumane actions by Israel. The intention is to conflate 'anti-semitism' with objective assessment of the western/israeli programme and strategy, and thus neutering it. 

What we see in the world is Israel backed by a hugely influential elite network, implementing tactics indistinguishable from the German Nazi regime's that created the holocaust. If we decry the latter, we must logically decry the former but ludicrously we are told this is 'anti-semitic'. 

Cameron has clearly attached himself to this position, wringing every drop of political capital out of the flimsy evidence he can. But he also denies jewish input into 9/11 despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so perhaps we should not be surprised. 

Make no mistake about it, this is not just an internal Party Political squabble but a battle for the heart and mind of the British population, and baseless 'anti-semitic' smear tactics should be rejected out of hand. 

Indeed on two counts it is untenable, first because many practising Jews themselves (although perhaps not enough) have publicly rejected the the philosophy and repressive practices of 'Zionism', as being contrary to scripture and giving the religion a bad name; and second Israel is itself 'anti-semitic' as the term extends to the Arabic speaking Palestinians themselves, against whom the terrible acts of violence and discrimination are directed.

From elsewhere: The taliban was an american creation. the contras were an american creation. al qaeda (where is it now!) was an american creation. 9/11 was a jewish/american inside job. 7/7 was definitely a con. Ditto paris and brussels. Now who do you think created ISIS and their evil deeds real and imagined? They are no more representative of Muslims than Mao Tse Tung was the vicar of Christ.

 It may be worth reminding ourselves that at the very time Hitler was pursuing a 'final solution', it was American Jewish financiers that supported his regime. Is this fact 'anti-semitic' too Mr Cameron?

What did a government minister say on question time? "Anti-semitism must be CRUSHED"? Ah that gives a clue to the dastardly scheme. First use anti semitism as the evil to be 'crushed' no doubt with more criminal legislation. Then conflate criticism of Israel's evil policy and acts as anti semitism. Result! Stop people speaking up for the oppressed Palestinians, giving Israel carte blanche to do as it pleases at home and abroad, whilst affording a tawdry excuse to prohibit free speech, a central plank of our constitution, in the process. Do Cameron and Co. think that all the people who did not benefit from a private education, are nonetheless unable to see through the rhetoric and faux outrage? Where is his outrage at mother and son shot in cold blood in the street by IDF soldiers? Clearly the zionists have stolen his moral compass as well as Palestinian homes, land and lives.

Any irrational hatred of a group needs to be confronted and resisted whether it be Jew, Muslim or Gentile. By the same token fair and free discussion of them should never be stifled by virtue of the application of an al-embracing term like 'anti-semitism'. Nor should it be used to prevent the analysis of the policy and activity of a foreign country like Israel. Indeed we need more of it in respect to that and other countries. In the absence of military intervention, public education and public opinion are the only tools good people have to influence despots. Needless to say the BBC and other news outlets have totally failed in this most basic objective. 'Dumbed down' is one way of putting it. Betraying the public's trust is another more accurate one.


John B Sheffield And The Daily Mail run a story today on its website showing young Palestinian children being trained to stab Israeli soldiers, and with the Anti-Semitic campaign in the UK readers will believe it, but the True Story of the persecution of Palestinian Children is hardly ever told?

Maggie Harrison It makes me so sad for Palestine...and so angry at Cameron s Zionist Government, media and BBC.....hardly anyone in the UK, knows the truth...not even my own friends and family...Palestine is invisible in the UK!!
LikeReply213 hrs
Tim Veater This is a typical example of the way in which the news is slanted in favour of one group/side, to the detriment of the other. The children were acting out a painful reality of their lives that our children are thankfully spared. It is reported as if it were a terrorist training camp! What child in 50/60's Britain did not play 'cowboys and indians', or 'Second WW' games - by which hangs another tale entirely?

Stand up for Palestine.

1.5.2016. Graham you are right. The more complicated and difficult question is why. I have a feeling that things were more civilized and settled in the region before the 2nd WW or am I wrong? It is impossible to disentangle the mess without factoring in western involvement centred on establishing a new state called 'Israel', the aftermath of WW2, Suez and oil. An unavoidable conclusion is that we (the west) playing to an israeli/jewish tune, has been a major factor, both overtly and covertly to the unmitigated MESS that now exists, and from which no one has a clue how to extricate themselves (from). See how all the political concentration is on the 'problem' of refugees and immigration, never on our part in creating it? Our political leaders are not only clueless, they are all implicated by default in the the criminal fraud of 9/11, by concealing the known truth to this day, no doubt in part because it would be claimed to be 'anti-semitic' to do otherwise. This is indeed the 'elephant in the room' that no politician is prepared to see or denounce and from which many of the other evils flow.

What did a government minister say on question time? "Anti-semitism must be CRUSHED"? Ah that gives a clue to the dastardly scheme. First use anti semitism as the evil to be 'crushed', no doubt with more criminal legislation. Then conflate criticism of Israel's evil policy and acts, as 'anti semitism'. Result! Stop people speaking up for the oppressed Palestinians, giving Israel carte blanche to do as it pleases at home and abroad, whilst affording a tawdry excuse to prohibit free speech, a central plank of our constitution, in the process. Do Cameron and Co. think that all the people who did not benefit from a private education, are nonetheless unable to see through the rhetoric and faux outrage? Where is his outrage at mother and son shot in cold blood in the street by IDF soldiers? Clearly the zionists have stolen his moral compass, as well as Palestinian homes, land and lives.

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Doctors Strike!

Has anyone clearly explained to the public, what it is about the proposed new contract that the junior doctors object to, or is it just the method adopted by the government to impose it unilaterally? 

Clearly Conservatives love imposing their ideas on everybody else, as if they have a god-given right in education and health as in many other spheres. The 75% that DIDN'T vote for them at the last election (and probably many that did!) have grave reservations about their arrogant and bullying methods as well as the real reasons for doing what they do. 

Is it really to improve life and health chances for all, or some ulterior socially divisive purpose to make more money for the rich and worsen the conditions for the poor and disadvantaged? 

The disingenuous record seems to speak for itself: attacking local democracy, and the services it provides as the only bulwark against increased central and commercial control, whilst stating the intention is to do the very opposite. 

Government thereby is not only damaging the 'common-wealth' but lying in the process, most recently exemplified in Cameron's praise of the Hillsborough campaigners who previously he maligned. The government's track record over Iraq and institutional child abuse is similarly deeply compromised. 'Back-tracking' in the face of public opposition has become a trademark of this administration (most recently in the Trade Union Bill to get support for staying in the EU) but it is far from reassuring. 

Britain under its direction continues to slide socially and economically, whilst the rich are the only sector seen to benefit. Junior doctors now appear to be leading the challenge. Will it in turn radicalise and energise a cohort of 18 - 38 year olds, most disadvantaged by recent changes, and up-to-now disenfranchised by apathy and disillusionment? That is the question.
The Effect of Immigration on Crime - In Sweden

Two policemen stand outside a mosque in Uppsala, Sweden, last month. The mosque was firebombed on Jan. 1 in one of three arson attacks targeting the Muslim community in Sweden since Christmas Day.


Tim Veater1 week agoLINKED COMMENT
What does "Christian Country" mean? Their methods and message doesn't appear very Christian to me.

Alarjak +Tim Veater No, it's based on statistical facts, i live in a small nordic country with very little history of immigrants and violence. All changed last summer when we took 32,000 immigrants to our country, rapes and violence went through the roof, media tried to hide it but after new year's eve happenings the genie was out of the bottle.

Tim Veater26 minutes ago +alarjak You probably have a serious point, but to a certain extent it is to be expected merely on the basis of wealth, social status and integration. Was it not always the case in the history of waves of human migration, that the poor immigrants were seen as, and indeed were, a disruptive and often criminal element, until they themselves established themselves and became pillars of the community? 

+alarjak 'JUST AN EXCUSE'???? Now, I am afraid you have descended into writing complete buncom. Do you really think hundreds of thousands would leave their homeland and possessions, use up all their remaining money on a perilous journey on which many have drowned or otherwise succumbed, to be met with batons, teargas and tents if they are lucky, just to be top dogs and rulers of the world? Are you completely MAD? Have you SEEN the destruction and desolation left by years of war, largely western inspired and maintained? It is the biggest and most tragic example of human madness since the Vietnam War and exemplifies all the same traits of disinformation, only now the created bogeyman is not Communism but 'Muslim extremism' . Of course Putin's Russia has now become a target as well, the reasons for which are wholly economic. Only a well informed population can stop a plan that could involve a third world war hatched before 9/11, and I have to say, you don't seem to be helping.

we glean this: "Immigrants are over-represented in Sweden's crime statistics. In a study by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention in 1997–2001, 25% of the almost 1,520,000 offences were found to be committed by people born abroad and almost 20% were committed by Swedish born people of foreign background. In the study, immigrants were found to be four times more likely to be investigated for lethal violence and robbery than ethnic Swedes. In addition, immigrants were three times more likely to be investigated for violent assault, and five times more likely to be investigated for sex crimes. Those from North Africa and Western Asia were overrepresented.[43][44] 

Migrants have been associated with a series of highly publicized crimes, including the 2016 Sweden asylum center stabbing, and the 2015 Ikea stabbing attack.[45]" The disruptive effect of mass immigration from areas of the world suffering from indescribable poverty and/or violence is not to be underestimated nor the fact that it is a direct consequence of policies enacted by predominantly western 'christian' countries. Perhaps it should concentrate the minds of western leaders to examining the part they have played and how stability and prosperity might be brought or returned to those regions, people in their millions are desperate to flee?

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Queen Elizabeth II - Primus inter impares.
The ambivalent nature of monarchy in the 21st Century.

Queen and Duke of Edinburgh wave to crowds from car

Today many people in Britain and around the world will be aware that Queen Elizabeth has reached the grand age of ninety years. On a personal level it is cause for celebration and congratulation, in which as loyal but insignificant subject, I am pleased to join.

All such events provoke mixed emotions of pleasure and pain and we recall them from our own families, redolent as they are of memories and the inevitable shadow of transigence. In the midst of celebrating life, hopefully well lived, we are reminded of suffering and loss. Of our own kith and kin, friends and family, that have passed on.

Joy and sorrow reside cheek by jowl. At the very same time as crowds packed the streets of Windsor patriotically waving flags, men, women and children, desperate to escape situations of tyranny and chaos, were drowning in the unforgiving waters of the Mediterranean, with no one coming to their rescue, or indeed appearing to care a great deal. 

In some ways these mental images starkly epitomise the gulf in circumstances affecting humans on the earth. Perhaps to a lesser extent they also exist in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth of which Elizabeth II is Monarch and Head, a situation that many regard as ambivalent.

'Ambivalence', means 'the state of having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone.' As regards Monarchy and the present Queen's fulfillment of the role, ambivalence can be experienced in a number of ways. It may be contrasted with 'consensus' of approval much in evidence in Windsor this afternoon. However even those that wave flags and cheer patriotically may harbour misgivings and doubts. It is quite possible to support and admire the Queen in person, whilst holding reservations on the place of Monarchy in the 21st Century.

The Queen's approval rating and popularity is a great credit to her personally. It is not merely a product of a public relations effort, although no one would claim it is not a factor, but a genuine reaction of affection by a public, to a good person, dedicated to a particular job, for an inordinately long period of time. Admittedly she has been afforded every convenience and support and provided with the best that life has to offer, but even so the obligation and responsibilities are huge and the pitfalls many. She has managed with great dexterity and aplomb to fulfill the former and dodge the latter. 

Her children have brought her both pleasure and pain, including an 'annus horribilis' in 1992 and five years later, with the suspicious circumstances of Princess Diana's death, perhaps even a threat to the continuation of the institution itself.  With time the unparalleled display of public emotion and recriminations have faded with the apparent success of Prince Charles remarriage and the popularity of his sons, but the issue is still not wholly resolved in the public mind.

There is little doubt that had it not been for the personal popularity of the Queen herself, the 'family firm' might well have crashed at that point. Stories of sexual impropriety in the royal household in connection to the Jimmy Savile scandal remain a current and future threat. 

How all these issues will impinge on the continuation of the institution in the person of Charles, is yet to be revealed. At the great age of ninety years some devolution of responsibility is to be expected, although there is no indication the present Queen's position as Head of State, Church and Commonwealth, is to be abdicated. 

Perhaps Charles will at some point be created 'Prince Regent', although as a student of history, he would probably not wish to be associated with its precedent. In its absence he could well be in his late seventies before obtaining the functions or position of King.

In the well known words of Walter Bagehot, the 19th Century journalist and writer, a 'constitutional monarch' has the threefold right to be 'consulted, to encourage and warn', the practical application of which continues to this day, most notably in the weekly Tuesday evening meeting with the current Prime Minister. 

Her Majesty is also in theory and practice the Head of the Armed Services and an important element of the threefold Parliament of Commons, Lords and Sovereign, all of which must concur before any legislation can become the law of the land. Her many honorary positions places her centrally and influentially at the heart of the nation.

Bagehot also highlighted the twin roles of monarchy: 'dignified' - that of symbolism and ceremonial on the one hand and 'efficient' - practical governance on the other. Despite the passage of 150 years, these remain the guiding criteria of her constitutional role, from which she has never deviated. 

To his we must add the complex position of the 'established' Church of England, of which she is also the 'Supreme Governor', that dates back to her forebear Henry VIII's split with Rome. Despite this she retains the title 'Defender of the Faith' (Fidei Defensor in Latin) bestowed on him by Pope Leo X in 1521. Of course Henry went from Papal favourite to declared heretic in the course of his reign, a rupture that has only been to some extent repaired during the course of Elizabeth II's.

We need not remark on the great changes that have occurred in attitudes particularly as they relate to Christian teaching and reconciling it to scientific discovery, since that time, nor of Prince Charles' desire to become the 'defender of faiths', but on a personal level it is clear Elizabeth II has taken this particular role and her Christian beliefs, very seriously. Who could argue that it has not at every stage influenced her attitude and behaviour in an ethically positive way? How this will play out on her eventual and inevitable passing, remains to be seen.

(to be continued)

Do not be misled: the way the matter of 'historic abuse' has been expertly handled to: 1. keep it focused on the past; 2. to keep attention fixed on expendable entertainment celebrities rather than establishment or politicos; 3. where the evidence against latter becomes irresistible, ensure individuals are either dead or die shortly afterwards; 4. label accusers as unreliable or complicit; 5. wrap records in 70 year secrecy on pretext of protecting the children; 6. close and/or demolish institutional buildings allegedly implicated; 7. alternatively subject same to redecoration or improvement thus incidentally removing any remaining evidence; 8. criticise police investigations and methods; 9. increase pressure or dismiss any police doing their job; 10. engender sympathy for alleged abusers; 11. close down any current cases; 12. persecute/prosecute 'whistle-blowers'; set up police and other 'independent' inquiries, that either discover 'nothing to see' or take so long to report, or are rigged to exclude sensitive areas, so that the issue is effectively shelved for half a decade or longer. 13. change the law to protect vulnerable parties. These are the methods that have been and are being successfully applied to the matter. We should be in do doubt about that whenever leading politicians claim to be intent on getting to the root of the problem. See: for a current casestudy in some of the methods employed by the state.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016


Take a look at just a few photographs and see if you can spot any similarities?

There might not as yet be a 'New World Order', but there is certainly a very obvious common approach to 'New World Order Uniforms' or should I say 'Policing Uniformity'? Sadly 'false flag' events are often used to permit and justify these very ominous developments taking us ever closer to a police state unless the respective populations say "No".

The general public might reasonably ask how this militarisation, weaponising and zombie-like protective gear coming from, who is driving the agenda and what cataclysmic event are they preparing for? What do they know that we don't and what are they afraid of? 

It is notable that the recent (16.4.2016) peaceful mass protest in London demanding we reclaim our civil society, was virtually free of these 'goons' from '1984', which I suppose might be regarded as somewhat reassuring that we haven't reached the ultimate dystopian state quite yet. 

However on the other hand it was virtually ignored by the media. YOU will have to decide how far down 'the slippery slope' we have actually come.

Who finally is 'Magaev' and why is my virus protection so afraid of going there?

American Police-related Civil Unrest

Dangerous dress?

From Wikipedia here:

EGYPT - 19.4.2016

GEORGIA, TIBLISI - 7.11.2007

riot police georgia,29307,1681485_1482189,00.html

MEXICO - 30.10.2006

riot police mexico,29307,1681485_1482023,00.html

CANADA - 2013

laval police riot gear

AMERICA USA 1.5.2015

MIAMI - 18.10.2013

LONDON - 2013

LONDON - 30.6.2015

Met Police are to caryy out a a major incident resonse excerise in London

LONDON - 18.11.2015

LONDON - 6.2015

Near the start of a training exercise for London

MOSCOW - 6.3. 2012

Riot police officers cordon off the area of an opposition rally

UKRAINE - 23.11.2013

File:Berkut Riot Police by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Ukraine.jpg

ROMANIA - 3.12.2013

Anti-FTAA Protesters Clash With Police In Miami


BRAZIL - 27.2.2014

Riot police display gear in Rio de Janeiro




Big business is about to make a killing from our right to protest

Big business is about to make a killing from our right to protest