Saturday, 10 June 2017

May be 'Dressed to Kill'?

For good ASSESSMENT of 'ISIS' terrorism:

'Dress sense', that is the innate understanding of how to to choose and wear appropriate clothing may be superficial but it can also reveal something deeper about the personality involved. It has led to such sayings as, "Fine feathers make fine birds." It is a notion that members of the royal family and particularly the monarch, have turned into an art form, whether at home or abroad, whether on the parade ground or in the highlands of Scotland. 

By equal measure, it is not an art Theresa May has mastered to the same degree. Noted for her crocodile shoes and gaudy clothes, it rather compliments what has been revealed as a personality not at ease with itself or others. Some might regard it as a compensatory token to introversion and a lack of what is now termed 'social competence'. (1) Individuals that appear confidence, tend to inspire confidence in others - and vice versa! Of course in any leadership or public role, it takes on particular importance.

Everyone seems to be agreed that Theresa May is a determined and thorough administrator but that is not enough to be a successful Prime Minister. You have to be likable and approachable too. In terms of predecessors, she is more in the mould of Margaret Thatcher and dare I say it Gordon Brown, than either David Cameron or Tony Blair, who Cameron actively modelled himself on. The question is will she emulate Thatcher or Brown in her fortunes?

The recent election was a big test of her acumen and powers of persuasion and she signally failed to impress. Despite the best efforts of a deeply biased newspaper and television coverage, there was no hiding the fact that she did not inspire and remained aloof whilst her opponent played to massive enthusiastic crowds. Worse, she appeared indecisive and unconvincing regarding the rushed, and ruinous for many, Conservative manifesto. Her failure to accept a challenge from Corbyn to a face to face debate made her look weak, even afraid, and certainly disrespectful to the British voter.!!-:strip_icc-!!-/2016/07/14/733/n/1922564/5768b785fbbda95b_GettyImages-465174866_master/i/Textured-Winter-Gear-Matching-Gloves.jpg

All of this combined to make a parody of her slogan claim that she represented "Strong and Stable Leadership". Further with the central issue of BREXIT before her, her failure to debate with others seeded doubts that she would be much good at negotiating the terms of the EU exit deal. She had repeatedly rejected the suggestion of an election and then took everyone by surprise by (unlike famously Mrs Thatcher!) U-turning on it. What changed her mind is not clear but we must assume she was advised by someone to do it based on the polls favourable to the Conservatives and the anti-Corbyn/Labour Party hype. 

Some may see, particularly in the light of no less than THREE highly orchestrated and suspicious 'terror attacks' in the run up to the election, dark forces at work to reinforce her position and the repressive policy objectives she had outlined. If so, it was yet another serious intelligence error and miscalculation that spectacularly misfired.

All the omens were favourable so one must conclude it was an election she lost, even if in fact she won! Her position in Party, Parliament and EU negotiations has undoubtedly been severely weakened by it. In the post-mortem that inevitably follows a sort of defeat the spotlight has been thrown on Mrs May herself and the close advisers she has around her. In the campaign, with the exception of Amber Rudd, who has been tipped as possible replacement, Government Ministers were noticeable by their absence. David Dimbleby had to announce on television all requests for even a comment from them had been declined. This had no precedent in recent times. But worse, it appears that the Prime Minister and her advisers had not even consulted the respective Ministers in evolving the manifesto priorities! They had apparently been side-lined in the whole process, making the election appear to be an exercise in disengagement from the whole idea of democracy.

Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill have resigned. Photograph: Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images
Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill

About a year ago fingers had been pointed at her team. (2) Every Prime Minister has one that runs parallel with the constitutional "Cabinet" but Mrs May appears to have taken her detachment and reliance even further than the notorious Blair/Campbell duo that led us into disastrous illegal wars (Cameron had George Osborne, William Hague and Ed Llewellyn for the Libyan and Syrian escapades) insofar none of her team are elected. It consisted of  
Fiona Hill, (3) Stephen Parkinson (4) and Nick Timothy (5) - the latter in particular - for whom the knives are out. The BBC News reported today that May had been presented with an ultimatum: "Either sack your special advisers or you will face a leadership election!" In the event both Hill and Parkinson resigned and not for the first time. I am not sure about the Cambridge-educated (and recruited?) Parkinson, who has been the Party choice for a safe seat for some time, without success. No doubt MI5 will have ensured lines of communication to the inner sanctum but who provides it is of course subject to the Official Secrets Act!

There is no doubt in the wider perspective, we live in interesting times. The political tectonic plates are definitely on the move although it is not exactly clear what moves them we can be sure of earthquakes and volcanoes.

The British Isles - at least most of them - appear to be slipping away from the mainland and ever closer to its new found land. Cracks appear along national boundaries whilst the continents of the world crackle and groan under the stress of war, mass migration, dogmatism and struggle for control of scarce resources. Whilst all the time threats from pollution, climate change, population and disease vie for supremacy. Within this framework the largely Western created threat of 'fundamental Islamism' dominates the American and European narrative with highly theatrical 'terrorist' events. Despite overwhelming evidence of artifice, these are given huge publicity which appears to convince the majority of their veracity. Nevertheless an increasing proportion are becoming more aware and sceptical of the government/media and its version of events. This appears to be the main reason for the "Fake News" and proposals to control news outlets and Internet. Fortunately May's election miscalculation may make this slightly more difficult.

There is definitely a geographical aspect to this recent 'post-Gladio' operation summarised in the table below and article here (6)

First France is targeted, then Belgium (the head-quarters of both the EU and NATO, then Germany and Sweden then most recently Britain.

None of these terrorist attacks attributed to 'ISIS' have been free of very great doubt as to their authenticity, despite not one (as far as I am aware) of the MSM outlets questioning the official account. How other than complicity and/or conspiracy can this be explained other than total incompetence? 

Why is it, despite the huge investment in surveillance cameras, do they invariably not capture the action when they are needed? And why is it in virtually EVERY case there is clear and unique evidence of predictive awareness by Israeli state organs/individuals. Yet again this significant red flag is never reported by MSM as a highly suspicious element! 

The repetitive nature of the highly choreographed incidents, both before and after, and the way they are used for the same political message and agenda, all outside aegis of a Muslim organisation whether violent or not, clearly point to supra-national, transatlantic, governmental planning and implementation. The 'coincidences' of place and timing are repeated so frequently, only blind, deaf or dumb could ignore them. 

The unavoidable conclusion: this description fits the general state of western public awareness as portrayed by the main media outlets.

I note from yesterday's London Times, that one of the first policy steps by the Macron led French Government is to propose a law to make the State of Emergency powers permanent. 

Significantly following her humiliating miscalculation, one of the few objectives Prime Minister May referred to when she re-entered No. 10 was an intention "to keep Britain safe and secure" (which she had blatantly failed to do!) and "cracking-down on the ideology of Muslim extremism and ALL THOSE THAT SUPPORT IT." Of course much depends on how this interpreted, but clearly not extending to supplying advanced armaments to them! (7)














1 comment:

  1. Does this song encapsulate the mood of a large segment of society or is it designed to foment cynicism and insurrection to give all the newly armed police and army something to do, and as in France, justify dictatorial powers? You decide.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.