Dear Matrix, from Chris Kirckof


Ultimately Chris Kirckof is an optimist. 

Dear Matrix,

I am aware of your efforts to dumb down, sedate and control the world’s populations. I am fully aware of your destructive programs to sicken and alter humanity through the chemical, electromagnetic and genetic modification of our food, plants, animals and ourselves. I am aware of your careless destruction of our earth, skies and oceans through resource exploitation, geoengineering and weather modification. I see all of your many false flag events and devious schemes purposely designed to keep the world in perpetual fear and continual wars against fabricated outside enemies for control and profit. I have caught on to your fascist medical system designed to drain and destroy humanity via the decrepit allopathic medical system based on profit and ill health at every level, including the proliferation of pharmaceuticals, invasive and debilitating treatments and deliberately damaging vaccines.

I see every move you make toward a worldwide police state based on manufactured fear and disinformation to manipulate humanity in order to execute your program of control and subjugation. I see the con job and am aware that your political puppet establishment is all staged and designed to distract from the real issues and keep the populace occupied and feeling like participants while you work your manipulative program. I am aware of your falsely imposed taxation system that is designed to fund further the agenda that controls an overarching agenda of genocidal wars on innocent peoples. I know that a select few major corporations with vested interests in this global agenda now control almost all media and that mass media is nothing more than a mouthpiece of propaganda to further the elistist agenda.

I am aware that your “entertainment” industry is simply socially engineered mind control. I am informed of your AI, electromagnetic grid and mind manipulating designs and technologies that are being imposed to further expand your psychopathic control program. I know that you repress emerging technologies that threaten existing parasitic profitable ones, such as the hazardous petroleum and nuclear industries, when alternative energy sources and other such solutions have arisen for many decades which you have suppressed. I am aware that you sequester knowledge and information in a vast array of fields to keep the general populace in the dark and thereby disempowered as to our true historical context, while you are coveting secret information and carrying out advanced covert research for your own ends.

I know that you have stigmatized, marginalized and seek to outlaw any form of criticism, questioning or dissent using whatever excuse you can manufacture. I am aware of your oppressive, enslaving monetary and legal control scams, private fractionalized banking pillaging, and twisted cravings for money and power in an imposed control system that never needed to exist in the first place. I am aware of your agenda steering institutions, foundations, institutes, charitable organizations and international bodies such as the so-called United Nations and its many agencies and agendas being used to further develop your global control plans and programs. I know all about your secret societies, blood line allegiances and luciferian, freemasonic, Babylonian and otherworldly roots that propel the wickedness of your self appointed leaders. I know all about your ritual sacrifices, paedophelia, bestiality inclinations, and other insane practices.

I am aware that you know we are on to you. I stand fearless, fully committed to humanity’s well being. You are shallow, self-serving and seriously misled guns for hire working for a control system being engineered by powers beyond your knowledge that will devour you, just as you seek to devour us. I know who you are. Your days are numbered. You know it, and I know it. If there is an ounce of humanity left in any of you, defect and help us expose and bring down these dark forces.

A warning…

We are aware. We are awake and activated. We will do everything within and without our personal power to see our race and planet survive and shake this parasitic invasion. Our planet itself will not take this attempted overthrow. Know that, and expect repercussions from Her, as well as us, a gathering storm of sacred truth you cannot possibly fathom. Your opposition, resistance and puny, short-sighted efforts are dwarfed by what awaits you.

Will you find your humanity in time? We think many of you could, and those of you who do will be welcomed amongst the awakened. However, we realize many are beyond redemption. But don’t try to fool us. We’re more on to you than you could ever imagine. Just watch and see. We will surprise you, just as you fear. We’re here. We live. We cannot be stopped nor thwarted by any means despite your flimsy efforts.

Truth cannot be denied. Awaken and rise up.

We are coming….


First They Came for Alison Chabloz

On Friday 25 May musician Alison Chabloz was found guilty of sending, by means of a public electronic communication network, a message or other matter that is ‘grossly offensive’, and awaits sentencing – the judge has indicated that a custodial sentence is possible.

In fact, Alison Chabloz has been found guilty of Holocaust denial.

Alison Chabloz makes her living as a singer-songwriter.  She is also a Holocaust revisionist.  Prior to being banned from twitter in 2016, Chabloz’s frankness on both the Holocaust and the Palestine issue attracted the attention of zionists who not only trolled her on twitter, but were instrumental in a job offer of a singing spot on a cruise ship being withdrawn.

Alison Chabloz lodged a complaint of harassment with the police.  She also, in a spirit of defiance against her attackers, wrote three songs satirising the harassers and the Holocaust.  In November 2016 she was informed that her complaint of harassment was rejected, and a few days later arrested and charged under the act, on evidence supplied by the very people who were the subject of her own complaint, well-known zionist trollers Stephen Applebaum (@NemoNemo50, @Sicaro72 ) and Stephen Silverman (@BedlamJones).  Further background is available from Chabloz’s website, and interviews with e.g. Windows on the World and Richie Allen.

Alison Chabloz’s offence

Alison Chabloz’s conviction relates to the satirical songs in three videos that she uploaded to Youtube: Nemo’s Antisemitic Universe, I Like the Story As It Is, and (((Survivors))).

Nemo is named after one of the trolls who were harassing Alison Chabloz on twitter. Part of the song is dedicated to him, another part to the illegitimacy of the state of Israel – Chabloz sings of a Palestine free from the river to the sea, and ends with, ‘Free Palestine!’.

All three songs refer disparagingly to the Holocaust narrative. Auschwitz, a major grief tourism site, is termed to as a theme park – Chanloz refers to the fact that the gas chamber, initially claimed as genuine, was eventually proved to be a reconstruction. There are mocking references to former traditions, now debunked, that Jewish bodies were used to make soap, and their skins into lampshades.

Chabloz devotes (((Survivors))) to ridiculing three ‘Holocaust survivors’.  The authenticity of the accounts of these survivors is no longer accepted: Irene Zisblatt claimed to have escaped from a gas chamber not once but twice; there are whole websites devoted to the flaws in the Elie Wiesel story;  Anne Frank’s Diary was written mainly in ballpoint, not invented until after the war. There have been other cases of Holocaust survival fraud, , e.g. Binjamin Wilkomirski, and Herman Rosenblat, whose book Angel at the Fence was withdrawn by its publisher after doubt about its veracity was expressed by scholars, relatives and fellow survivors.  Some, like Rosemarie Pence, are not actually Jewish.

Alison Chabloz has made it very clear that she believes that the Holocaust is a hoax and that Israel is an immoral and illegitimate state, that truths about these ‘institutions’ trump the feelings and the self-interest of those who claim to have a special relationship with them, and that fraud, particularly well exposed and agreed fraud, is a legitimate target for satire.

The Trial of Alison Chabloz

Alison Chabloz was charged under the provisions of s.127 (i) of the Communication Act 2003 with sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causing such message or matter to be sent.  The trial transcript is in a recent newsletter of the Adelaide Institute (pdf, last section).

The case was brought by Gideon Falter, Chairman of the Campaign against Antisemitism and heard by Judge John Zani in the Westminster Magistrates Court.  The previous judge associated with the case, Emma Arbuthnot, recused herself after it was revealed that she was a Friend of Israel.

The Judge decreed that : ‘The Court is not obliged to decide whether the Holocaust actually occurred, or whether records maintained in respect thereof are accurate’. What the judge actually meant was that the veracity of the Holocaust was taken as read, and not up for debate.  He based his decision on the following assumptions, taken from previous judgements:

  • Holocaust denial is the utterance of demonstrably untrue statements of fact.
  • The Holocaust is an essential part of Jewish personality and human dignity, i.e. an attack on the Holocaust is an attack on all Jews.

Counsel for the plaintiff was permitted to question Chabloz on her views regarding different aspects of the Holocaust narrative, such as the six million figure and the gas chambers, as they were deemed to be relevant to the case.

In his decision the judge referred to several judgements from countries where Holocaust denial is illegal.  In the case of Garaudy v France, the court held that 6 months imprisonment for the applicant, who had written a book disputing the existence of the crimes against humanity committed against the Jews by the Nazis, did not violate the convention of free speech. In Witzsch v Germany, the applicant was convicted in connection with protests about the introduction of Holocaust denial legislation.

The judgement assumed, therefore, the illegality of Holocaust denial, even though this is not formally part of British law.

According to the judge, ‘the relevant test is the standards to be applied of an open and multicultural society’.  The judge cites Collins, in the House of Lords:

‘it is not the reactions of the actual listeners to the messages which must be considered, rather the reactions of reasonable members of society’ and
‘if a member of a relevant ethnic minority who heard the messages would have found them grossly offensive, it is not easy to escape the conclusion that the messages would be regarded as grossly offensive by reasonable persons in general, judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society’.

What Collins meant by ‘a member’ of a minority is unclear, whether he referred to a single one, most, all. If it can be shown that a proven majority of a particularly group would be offended by ridiculing their sacred cows, must these be sacred cows for the majority? If it can be shown or claimed that the majority of Somali immigrants into Britain favour female genital mutilation, should female genital mutilation be legal, sacrosanct and free from criticism?

The judge ruled that:

‘certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community as well as comments made of certain selected Jewish individuals (the defendant has here focused on Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt) have been deliberately portrayed in a way that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful’.

Alison Chabloz’s offending songs focused on aspects of the Holocaust that are almost universally held to be fraudulent.  Fraud that is exposed and in the public domain is almost always seen as an obvious, legitimate and necessary target for British satirists, no matter who is responsible.  The judge decreed, however, that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find the satirising of gazetted fraudsters Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt ‘particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful’.

Judge Zani, for reasons which remain obscure, chose to refer to a speech by ‘the respected French writer Albert Camus’ called ‘Create Dangerously’, ‘wherein he underscored the important role of the artist to be prepared to express views and opinions’.  The judge then went on to ignore the implications of Camus’ view, and concluded:

‘Put shortly, this Court is entirely satisfied that the material in each of the songs complained of is grossly offensive, as judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society’

The response of the plaintiff, Gideon Falter, to the judgement was: ‘Essentially this is a ruling on the legality of Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories in the UK.’

Gideon Falter’s response has been quoted more fully by The JC, who forgot to clarify exactly who was the ‘anti-fascist’ in their picture (below).  Antifascist.PNG

Thus while there is no British law formally criminalising Holocaust revisionism, such a law is no longer necessary. The judgement of Judge Zani serves as a legal precedent which can be used for suppression of debate about the Holocaust and events of World War II.

Antisemitism redefined

Alison Chabloz was not accused of smearing Jewry as a whole, or of attacking individual people or their possessions physically, verbally or in writing, simply because they were Jews.

As a definition of antisemitism the court used (on Falter’s recommendation) the International Definition of Antisemitism, which has been adopted both by the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and seemingly the British government:

‘a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or towards Jewish community institutions.’

The full definition makes it clear that the ‘institutions’ of the Jewish community include above all the state of Israel (mentioned in six out of eleven examples), the Holocaust, and the exceptionally evil nature of the Nazi regime.

If the British government has indeed adopted the definition, as promised by May in December 2016, then it has formally declared Holocaust denial and certain criticisms of Israel to be hate crimes.

Although British institutions such as the Royal Family and its members can be ruthlessly satirised, and Norwegian institutions such as seal hunting can be openly pilloried, the same does not apply to institutions perceived to be intrinsically Jewish, even when Jews also question or mock them. Jews who do criticise are also deemed to be antisemitic.

Frankie Boyle has made jokes that many people consider outrageous, often attacking institutions like the Royal Family or the Vatican Church, and is often very personal and hurtful. Alison Chabloz scoffing at frauds who exploit the Holocaust narrative is tame in comparison. But while Frankie Boyle may have lost work as a result of his cruel jokes, he still has many thousands of fans, and certainly no-one is putting him in prison – because he is not ‘antisemitic’.

The redefinition of antisemitism as undermining institutions dear to the Zionist lobby is already well established in the British Labour Party. The mention of uncomfortable but indisputable facts about Hitler’s support for Zionism was enough to force Ken Livingstone from the party. Tony Greenstein, Jewish and dedicated to outing ‘antisemites’ such as Gilad Atzmon, likewise a Jew, was himself declared an antisemite because of his criticism of Israel and so lost his party membership.

The word antisemitic is almost never used in its original sense, in parallel with terms like racism. In the majority of cases usage is purely for the purpose of suppressing debate or mention of actual established facts relating to, e.g. WWII, or about Israel. It is very often used by non-Jews to denigrate Jews they disagree with, see for example Ali Abunimah’s’s Disavowal of Gilad Atzmon.

The definition of antisemitism is now everything to do with the primacy of Jewish suffering, exceptionalism, power and corruption, and nothing to do with truth, natural justice or protecting the vulnerable.  Use of the word antisemitic is now inevitably and intrinsically linked with denial of truth.

The ontological arguments for the Holocaust.

The ontological argument for the existence of God goes something like this: ‘God is perfect, a God that exists is superior to one that does not exist, therefore God must exist’. God is, therefore, defined into existence.

A similar argument is used to argue for the existence of the Holocaust, or similar: ‘this is the most terrible atrocity, a crime that exists is more terrible than one that doesn’t exist, therefore it exists’.

The same specious reasoning drives inexorably to the indictment of those who question any aspect of the Holocaust, or other alleged atrocity. The bigger the atrocity it seems, the bigger the crime in refuting it: ‘a terrible atrocity has taken place, you are questioning that it took place, you are offending people who are affected by this atrocity (relatives, all decent human beings, me)’.  This argument has had very wide application, e.g. to Assad’s alleged atrocities, the Jo Cox murder, or the Florida shootings.

The enormity of the alleged offence is in itself, therefore, sufficient to justify the criminalisation of any doubt.  George Galloway precedes his judgement on Holocaust revisionism with a ponderous and uninformative recapitulation of the main points of the Holocaust narrative, which he then proposes as a reason for locking up Holocaust deniers and throwing away the key.


Zani’s judgement normalises the suppression of free speech and dissent

The strategies for suppressing scrutiny of the Holocaust narrative are increasingly applied to other narratives. These strategies include the extensive use of ad hominem instead of proper argument, derision, vilification, discrediting, deplatforming, job loss, and in the case of speaking out about vaccine damage, child theft. Holocaust revisionists, of course, face imprisonment – some adherents of the climate change story believe that ‘climate change denial’ should also be criminalised.  Where history is deemed to be ‘settled’ in the case of the Holocaust, the expression ‘the science is settled’ is used to stop questioning of vaccinations and climate change.

To return to the case in hand, Gideon Falter sees the judgement as opening the way to criminalisation of ‘antisemitic conspiracy theories in the UK’. One can only conjecture what he is referring to: linking Mossad to 9/11 is often called an antisemitic conspiracy theory, even by people who criticise Israel.  Criticism of George Soros or Jacob Rothschild is often declared to be antisemitic, and assumed to be purely due to their being Jewish rather than being related to their actions. Criticism of bankers as a group is also described as antisemitic, simply because some very prominent bankers are Jews.  Or perhaps Falter is referring to the plain-sight conspiracy of global governance – reference to the New World Order may be the next thing to be criminalised.

 In setting a legal precedent of criminalising debate over the events of World War II, the conviction of Alison Chabloz for ‘Holocaust denial’ further normalises the suppression of thought, speech and dissent.  The future of free speech and dissent in Western democracies could not look more bleak.



The Arrest of Tommy Robinson and Questions of Due Process in Britain

Last Friday, 25 May, there were two events in Britain which raise serious questions relating to free speech, dissent, due process of law, but also of who is actually committed to those concepts. One of these was the conviction of Alison Chabloz for holocaust denial, although holocaust denial is not yet a criminal offence in the UK – the judge has indicated that she is almost certainly facing a custodial sentence.

The other is the arrest of Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Tommy Robinson is an activist heavily involved in exposing the Muslim grooming gangs in Britain.  He also campaigns against extremist Islam, specifically violence, intimidation and support for terrorism by extremist Islamic groups, and the double standards relating to the treatment of Muslims versus non-Muslims.  He is a strong supporter of the state of Israel.  Although he insists that he is only targeting extremists, he conflates, or is seen to conflate, all Muslims, by using the term so freely, while many of those involved in grooming gangs have a different history to those responsible for terrorism.

Robinson’s concerns are seen as valid by a large section of England, even those who do not like his style – he has been termed a working class hero.  He is also described as racist and a thug, and also a fraudster, Israeli agent, globalist.

Tommy Robinson was arrested while live streaming outside Leeds Crown Court.  This is the most common clip of his arrest.

The events on Friday appear to be as follows:

Tommy Robinson was live streaming into his cell phone outside the courthouse in Leeds where a group of men were being tried for raping underage girls – they were allegedly part of a grooming gang.   Robinson was already serving a suspended sentence of three months.

Robinson is left undisturbed by the police while he films and talks into his phone. However at a certain point the judge looks out the window and a few minutes later, police arrest him “on suspicion of breach of the peace”.

Inside the courthouse the charge is changed to contempt of court. Within a few hours, Robinson is convicted and sentenced to 13 months in prison.

The ban makes it difficult to verify the timing, but here is one breakdown:

A reporting ban is imposed, leading to a number of news outlets taking down their articles.

Gag order

There are reports that Robinson’s lawyer was unable to get to the court in time, and Robinson was obliged to make do with a court lawyer, who knew nothing about his case, possibly knew little about contempt of court law, and possibly was not sympathetic.

Robinson’s friends and family are concerned for his life. An alternative scenario, however, is that he will spend 13 months in solitary confinement.

Based on the clip above, widely disseminated, a number of aspects of the case are open to question:

1) The change in charge – did the judge tell police to arrest someone without specifying the charge? Or did he order an arrest on the grounds of disorderly behaviour and then change tack once he realised the disorderly behaviour charge wouldn’t stick?

2) The speed of the trial.

3) The severity of the sentence – the three months was increased to 13

4) The ban on reporting (sometimes referred to as a D-notice).

However, the highlights in the clip above do not give a full picture of the events leading up to the arrest.  According to the fuller version posted on facebook, Robinson was in front of the courthouse for an hour and a quarter, without any suggestion from the police that he move on.

As the accused arrive in court, Robinson calls out to them, “How do you feel about the verdict?, got your prison bags with your?  any guilt?”.

Robinson lists the names of and charges against those going into court, and then at 3:30 states “One of these men is actually working in a chicken shop in Huddersfield [..] would you want your children going into a chicken shop where men are alleged to have gang raped, prostituted and trafficked and drugged young victims”. Most or all of the alleged perpetrators are said to be from Huddersfield, and their names were already in the public domain.

The live stream also show that Robinson checked with police about where he could stand in relation to the courthouse. It was agreed with the police that while he could not stand on the steps of the courthouse, he could stand in front of or near them.

So there are further issues:

5) Whether reporters calling out to accused as they go into court  is acceptable and legal, and whether the disclosure of the information provided by Robinson, already in the public domain, constitutes contempt of court by prejudicing the trial.

6) Why did the police not warn Tommy Robinson that he was guilty of disorderly behaviour or in contempt of court?

There are also concerns over Robinson’s safety, given his high profile (or notoriety): one member of the House of Lords has threatened the Home Secretary with prosecution if Robinson is injured or killed in prison.

The Response

The response from those who involve themselves with alternative media in order, presumably, to find and disseminate the truth has been divided, as was to be expected.   There is much outrage from those who are totally in tune with all that Robinson stands for, or those who share some of his views, for example on the failure of Britain to address the problem of grooming gangs.

Many of those who feel a strong antipathy towards Robinson cannot see beyond the reasons for that antipathy.  The first response is to gratify that antipathy; the legalities and principles often come a poor second.


A good many people are confident that all due process was observed:

Questioning of the event has come from less obvious sources, such as the Spectator and Rob Liddle (both title and stub of the article have since been changed to “At last, a speedy police response”).


Several ex-police officers have posted statements giving their opinion that Tommy Robinson had not transgressed in anyway, such as this one.

Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris posted a video of their discussion about the arrest.  Mercouris make a reasonable fist of explaining Tommy Robinson’s appeal to a “large constituency in England”, though mistakenly assumes (3:05) that Robinson is still leader of the EDL (he left in 2013 citing concerns about right-wing extremism).

Mercouris echoes Liddle when he puts forward the view that

“he was arrested not because of anything he actually did, but because he was Tommy Robinson […].  I cannot see that anything that happened outside that courtroom justified it taking the action that was taken”.

Both Christoforou and Mercouris see the matter of the reporting ban as the most serious aspect:

[The reporting ban] “is even more worrying than the arrest itself, because when somebody is arrested in Britain, when somebody is threatened or placed in imprisonment, reporting of that fact ought to be in itself ought to be an important safeguard to ensure that there is no actual violation of due process, and that proper justice is being followed, because if it is not, then that is when things begin to go badly wrong, and abuses of the system happen […].   If there are things about him which justify what is being done to him, we should know more clearly what they are”. (Mercouris)

Christoforou and Mercouris discuss the influence of the deep state, and draw parallels between what is happening with Tommy Robinson and other events involving the British state, such as Julian Assange’s position and the Skripal affair, where there have been major violations of due process.

Several people have portrayed Robinson as an agent provocateur, a puppet of the government, or an Israeli agent. It is claimed that Robinson is working for dark forces in deliberately trying to create division, that he has exacerbated racial divisions and anger arising out of the grooming scandals in places like Rotherham, Telford and Huddersfield.

Mark Window, of the podcast Windows on the World, responded to the Tommy Robinson arrest by describing him in a series of tweets as a “state sponsored agent provocateur in court pantomime drama”, “This puppet and traitor to Britain”  and “glove puppet agent provocateur”.  Windows is implying that what happened outside the courthouse was actually a charade.

The idea that Robinson may have staged his arrest in collaboration with the UK or Israeli governments is of course far more interesting than the simple fact that he gives support to Israel (given that so many members of the UK and Scottish Parliaments, and of the British public, also strongly support Israel).

Assuming that Robinson, who has a wife and three children, was happy to go back to prison for at least three months, the arrest could in theory have been staged in order to create division, make Robinson a hero, or cause civil strife, possibly leading to draconian counter measures.  One should also bear in mind that the Tommy Robinson arrest has completely overshadowed the conviction of Alison Chabloz for holocaust denial, which also happened on Friday.

However, even presupposing that the arrest were indeed a “charade”, if it can be shown that the process was illegitimate then the British authorities are still complicit in this abuse of process, and this should still be of interest to everyone, not just to Tommy Robinson’s supporters.

At the very least there remains the issue of the reporting ban – not only do people not know what is going on but, as with the Skripal case, they do not know why they are not allowed to know what is going on.  As with the Skripal case, there is huge suspicion and anger at being kept in the dark.  Common sense dictates that a statement showing exactly where Robinson transgressed and whether he pleaded guilty (which would explain the speedy hearing) must reduce tensions.

If the British are not prepared to demand accountability and freedom of information over situations such as the Skripal case or the Tommy Robinson arrest, it will only embolden the authorities and make accountability even harder to achieve in the future.

Climate Change – a Hypothesis

On Saturday 14 April France and the UK joined with the United States to carry out airstrikes on Syria, supposedly as punishment for carrying out a chemical attack.  It seems that at least 118 missiles were used Tomahawks or the equivalent would each explode a 1,000-lb warhead. If all missiles had found their mark, that would be a lot of TNT for a night’s work of disputed value.

Macron is now visiting Washington, where Macron, who has frequently criticized the U.S. president for not making climate change a priority, hopes to discuss the Paris accord.

Nobody is talking about the contradiction in Macron’s two positions

The earth has heated and cooled numerous times over its history. However, recent increases in temperature are attributed to a rise in greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.  It follows that global warming in theory at least can be reduced or eliminated by changes in human activity. The scientific consensus, we are told, is that global warming is real and anthropogenic.

There are dissenters who question whether the world is actually warming up, and/or whether any change is anthropogenic, see e.g John Everett, Climate Realists or Piers Corbyn.

This map from Nasa shows temperature data from four international science institutions, showing rapid warming in the past few decades.

Map 1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px

The striking thing about this chart is the big spike around World War II. Global warming reached its highest point in recent history, dropping away sharply after the war.  It did not reach the WWII level again until 40 years later, despite the massive recovery and development in the industrial sphere in countries like Germany and Japan.  Since then the temperature has continued to rise, but then wars have continued as well.

Based on Nasa’s data, wars cause global warming

The effect of wars on global warming and climate change could be due to  the effect of explosions, fires, the increased activity of munitions factories.

There has been little or no discussion of how man-made explosions affect world temperatures, but it is assumed that explosions caused by meteorites hitting Earth would cause global warming. It has also been argued that nuclear testing causes global warming.

There were immense conflagrations in WWII, e.g. Gdansk and Dresden.  But then fire is a feature of other wars, e.g. the burning of oil-fields in Libya, Iraq and Syria.

A wider issue is the huge use of petroleum by military in general: the US Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world.

Nobody talks about wars causing global warming

There is little or no acknowledgement of the role of warmongering in the global warming debate. While there is condemnation of, for example, the production of greenhouse gases from Indonesia’s palm oil fires, or from controlled burning of wasted natural gas or oil (flaring), there is little concern over the deliberate burning of oilfields.

In 2016  ‘responsible scientists‘, academics from the world’s most distinguished universities, including Stephen Hawking,  wrote in an open letter begging for action on climate change

‘Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.’

 So no reference to war.

In 2017 the New Scientist condemned Trump’s priorities of defence over addressing climate change,  though it did acknowledge, ‘Such nostalgia is not entirely unjustified. Whatever you think of the ethics of the military-industrial approach, it delivered’.  The article goes on to compare Trump’s moves with ‘Barack Obama’s final priorities for R&D, which included climate change, Earth observation and Arctic science’  – there is no suggestion that  Obama’s wars on Afghanistan and Libya could have had a negative affect on the state of the planet.  Nor was there by the Guardian when it reported that Obama had dropped 26171 bombs in 2016.

The 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), described by George Monbiot as ‘perhaps the biggest and most rigorous process of peer review conducted in any scientific field, at any point in human history’ makes no mention of the effects or war or military activity on global warming, and nor do subsequent report’.

The Club of Rome

The Club of Rome describes itself as ‘an organisation of individuals who share a common concern for the future of humanity and strive to make a difference. Our members are notable scientists, economists, businessmen and businesswomen, high level civil servants and former heads of state from around the world’.

The Club of Rome has been described as being at the apex of the New World Order pyramid. While it has a lot in common with groups like Bilderberg, the Council for  Foreign Relations and other organisations dedicated to global governance, the Club of Rome focuses on issues to do with ‘global health’ such as climate change and overpopulation. The members have included people like Al Gore, Maurice Strong (co-author of the Kyoto Protocol), David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Bill Gates and George Soros (see The Green Agenda).  Many of these people are involved in the Bilderberg Group – the Dutch Royal Family and Rockefeller have been prominent Bilderbergers from inception.

In 1991 the Club of Rome released a report called The First Global Revolution (archived here) , which openly admits the contrived nature of the global warming scare.

‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill […]’  p. 75

‘So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity […]’ (The Green Agenda)

The climate change scare fulfills a function of diverting attention from other global issues, from war to banking bailouts, but has also proved to be a source of enrichment.  Among the leading proponents of the climate change narrative are those making money out of the carbon credit scheme – many of these also promote war.

Al Gore, who was given a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in climate change activism has made a great deal of money from carbon trading (see Obama’s Involvement in the Chicago Climate Change).

George Soros, who funds propaganda for wars on countries like Syria, is also heavily involved in carbon trading, while at the same time having  $811 million of his own money invested in a Brazilian oil company – see Paul Joseph Watson, Globalists Race To Enforce Criminal Carbon Tax, (subtitled ‘$100 Billion A Year Levy Is About Bankrolling Global Government And Lining The Pockets Of Con Artist Oil Men’ Soros, Strong and Gore, Has Nothing To Do With Saving The Environment’).

The Rothschild family have also seen the opportunities, here and here.


The alleged concern of politicians and scientists with regard to global warming is fraudulent, and is used as a strategy for enrichment and diversion.

The Hypothesis:

Assuming that global temperatures are in fact affected by human activity, and the graphs commonly used to show global warming are correct:

  • Wars are the only sure cause of anthropogenic global warming.
  • Climate change activists and politicians deliberately conceal the role of wars in global warming, in order to prevent opposition to war on those grounds.
  • Therefore the function of the global warming scare is nothing to do with concern for the planet, but serves different purposes, such as self-enrichment and diversion from other global problems.


Disclaimer: this article is based on  the assumption that the data provided by Nasa etc is correct.  Piers Corbyn argues that much of the data concerned with climate change is falsified: if so the findings here of a relation between war and climate change are invalid.

The British Foreign Office and the Propaganda War on Syria

On his first official visit to Turkey in September 2016, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson announced that the British government was giving about £2.3 billion in aid to Syria. Of course when Johnson said ‘aid to Syria’ he meant anything but – Britain may be contributing to the odd refugee camp outside of Syria, but most of that £2.3 billion goes to support al Qaeda and ISIS-linked groups in order to bring down the legitimate government in Syria.

Since 2011 the British government has had an official policy of regime change in Syria – Assad must go. While the UK has not yet formally invaded Syria, it has played a significant military role, including training insurgents in Jordan from 2012. The British air force has a presence in Syria, ostensibly to fight terrorism, though whether it has ever targeted anyone but the soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army is open to question (the presence in Syrian airspace of the British airforce is in clear breach of international law).

Perhaps the biggest role played by the British government is that of creating propaganda designed to undermine the Syrian government and its supporters in their fight against ‘insurgents’.

The official position of the NATO states is that the Syrian government has ‘lost legitimacy’, and that there is a ‘legitimate opposition’ made up of ‘moderate rebels’. To create support for this view NATO states, including the UK, the US, France and the Netherlands, have invested heavily in a two-pronged propaganda campaign to shape public perception of the war by:

  1. Demonising the Syrian administration, particularly the person of Syria’s popular president, Bashar al Assad, and all the forces that support the administration: the Syrian Arab Army; the National Defence Forces (part-time reservists, rather like a Home Guard); non-Syrian forces from neighbouring countries, such as Hezbollah.
  2. Creating a false perception of a popular uprising spearheaded by ‘moderate’, ‘democratic’ forces that are acceptable to the Syrian people, and thus can eventually form or be part of a viable government.

The target audience is the West – Syrians themselves are not going to swallow the bizarre fiction that groups who look like ISIS, act like ISIS and have the same ideology as ISIS, should somehow be seen on the one hand as heroes in preference to their own sons and daughters in the Syrian Arab Army, and on the other as a legitimate political opposition to their government.

A typical example of the moderate opposition in the eyes of NATO is the al Zinki gang, whose crimes include sawing off the head of a 12 year old child, and who clearly identify with ISIS (they were careful to pose in front of the ISIS flag in this picture).


In the context of Aleppo, the State Department has claimed throughout 2016 that it has been endeavouring to separate out the ‘moderate rebels’ from the extremists. This is clearly nonsense: al Nusra dominates in eastern Aleppo, and when a a ceasefire was agreed in September 2016, 20 ‘moderate’ groups including Ahrar al Sham and al Zinki refused to take part because al Nusra, as an officially designated terrorist group, was not included.

The propaganda campaign also serves to draw attention away from the role NATO have played in creating instability in Syria – it is painfully clear that British anti-war politicians and organisations such as Stop the War UK believe that honour is satisfied as long as Britain is not openly bombing in Syria.

The immediate aim of the propaganda is to gain acceptance for increased NATO intervention in Syria, above all a no-fly zone, as was approved by the UN for Libya in 2011, which would then be interpreted by NATO forces as a  license to bomb with impunity, and destroy Syria as a functioning independent country.

The UK’s propaganda effort for the Syrian armed opposition began after the government failed to persuade parliament to support military action against trhe Assad regime.  In autumn 2013, the UK embarked on behind-the-scenes work to influence the course of the war by shaping perceptions of opposition fighters. (Cobain, Ross, Evans, Mahmoud, 3 May 2016)

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), working with the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Prime Minister’s Office founds or contracts companies for the express purpose of creating ‘targeted information’ in relation to the war on Syrian.

In effect the British government has funded a comprehensive top of the range advertising campaign to promote sectarian extremists in Syria who function as units of al Qaeda and ISIS.

Contractors hired by the Foreign Office but overseen by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) produce videos, photos, military reports, radio broadcasts, print products and social media posts branded with the logos of fighting groups, and effectively run a press office for opposition fighters.’ (Cobain and co., 3 May 2016)

The contractors also develop specific public relations projects such as the White HelmetsBana Tweets From Aleppo and the Civil March on Aleppo.

In parallel with these operations the British Government funds social media trolls to get the desired message across.  In January 2015 the Ministry of Defence announced the formation of its 77th Brigade, which would consist of social media activists engaged in ‘non-lethal warfare’, by attempting to control the narrative in media such as Facebook and Twitter.  (According to the report in the Guardian, the US and Israel were already heavily engaged in such operations)

Two closely aligned companies working with the Foreign Office and other UK departments are Incostrat and Mayday Rescue.

Mayday Rescue and the White Helmets

‘Mayday Rescue supports vulnerable communities in the most dangerous and challenging places in the world by training and equipping local groups to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the impact of war, disasters, and emergencies.’ (Mayday)

At the present time Mayday’s sole responsibility appears to be management of the ‘Syrian Civil Defense’ or White Helmets, a supposed first responder organisation staffed by ordinary Syrians, which are in fact an extension of the terrorist groups in Aleppo and Idlib. Their function is to cooperate with the Aleppo Media Center in the production of material which shows the White Helmets both as heroes and legitimate authorities on the Syrian conflict on the ground, and the Syrian and Russian governments as war criminals, deliberately targeting hospitals, schools, bakeries, animal shelters etc.

To that end, Mayday is generously funded by the UK, US and other governments, with offices in Amsterdam, Turkey, Jordan and Dubai. As at March 2016 its operational headquarters in Istanbul employs 30 staff, located in the operational centres of Istanbul, South-East Turkey, and has an annual operating budget of US$35,000,000.

Founder James le Mesurier, according to Mayday,

‘has spent 20 years working in fragile states as a United Nations staff member, a consultant for private companies and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and as a British Army Officer. […] Since 2012, James has been working on the Syria crisis where he started the Syrian White Helmets programme in March 2013. In 2014, he founded Mayday Rescue.’


‘We are a communications and media consultancy that provides a customised end-to-end service for government and private clients: we specialise in strategic campaign planning, narrative development, message distribution and feedback generation in support of policymaking […]

‘We have proven track records of designing and delivering complex communications and media projects in conflict and post-conflict environments. We have over two and a half years of continuous experience of Syria-specific work, co-operating with the moderate armed opposition, politicians, tribal and civil society’

Incostrat was founded by Paul Tilley, who has a similar background to le Mesurier, with experience of both the army and the Foreign Office. His CV on LinkedIn reveals the following:

“2011-12 Director of Strategic Communication (STRATCOM) in the Ministry of Defence for the Middle East and North Africa.

2012-current. Developed and Project managed several multi-million dollar media and communications projects that are at the leading edge of UK and US foreign and security policy objectives in the Middle East.”

Both Incostrat and Mayday Rescue were formally founded in November 2014, according to the LinkedIn profiles of their respective founders, but le Mesurier and Tilley were doing development work 2013 or earlier. The White Helmets first officially appeared on the scene in April 2014, when the BBC assisted in the launching of the brand by producing a documentary on ‘Civil Defence’ in Aleppo, which coincided with the White Helmets appearance on social media.

Incostrat is described by Thierry Meyssen as ‘a communications company in the service of the jihadist groups. It designed logos, made video clips by portable telephone, and printed brochures for a hundred of these groups, thus giving the impression of a popular uprising against the Republic.’

The difference between the older ISIS flag with the Incostrat designs for groups like Jaish al Islam, Jaish al Fatah is striking.

(left: ISIS; centre Jaish al Fatah; right: Jaish al Islam)

Meyssen continues:

‘together with the SAS, [Incostrat] made a spectacle of the most important group, Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam). Saudi Arabia supplied the tanks which were delivered from Jordan. Uniforms were made in Spain and distributed to the jihadists for an officer promotion ceremony. All this was choreographed and filmed by professionals in order to give the impression that the army was organised like regular forces and was capable of rivaling with the Syrian Arab Army. The idea was planted that this really was a civil war, and yet the images only showed a few hundred extras, most of whom were foreigners.’

Who actually does what in the Syrian theatre is not quite clear.

On the one hand Mayday Rescue appears to have total responsibility for ‘Syrian Civil Defense’. On the other there are similarities in the branding and marketing of the terrorist groups with their logos, letterheads and social media pages, and projects like the White Helmets. One possibility is that Incostrat, as well as having responsiblity for the design aspects of the propaganda campaigns, may also have the task of finding ‘creative solutions’ in broad terms, such as the Bana Project, the Civil March and maybe the White Helmets.

Mayday’s responsibility would then be the management of the White Helmets and the Aleppo Media Center both of which function as part of terrorists groups in Syria. Whether the Bana Project and the Civil March are managed from within Incostrat or whether there are separate groups or companies overseeing these projects too is not clear.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

SOHR, founded in 2011, is a UK-based organisation that provides information on the Syrian conflicts to the world’s media. The Observatory is run from Coventry, England by Rami Abdulrahman,  a three-term convicted criminal in Syria  who left that country more than 10 years before the war started, and is openly opposed to the Syrian government.

The Observatory is almost certainly the brainchild of the Foreign Office:

His funding comes from the European Union and “an unnamed European state,” most likely the UK as he has direct access to former Foreign Minister William Hague, who he has been documented meeting in person on multiple occasions at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. […] it was the British government that first relocated Abdul Rahman to Coventry, England after he fled Syria over a decade ago because of his anti-government activities. Beau Christensen, Propaganda spin cycle: ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ is funded by US and UK governments

Although the Observatory is manifestly biased, only showing the conflict from the perspective of the insurgents, and consistently showing the Syrian government in a bad light, the information provided is considered by the corporate media, the United Nations and trusted non-government organisations to be authoritative, and is widely quoted.

Clearly for real journalists, Abdulrahman is a useless, utterly compromised source of information who has every reason to twist reality to suit his admittedly politically-motivated agenda of overthrowing the Syrian government. However, for a propagandist, he is a goldmine. That is why despite the overt conflict of interests, the lack of credibility, the obvious disadvantage of being nearly 3,000 miles away from the alleged subject of his “observations,” […] the Western media still eagerly laps up his constant torrent of disinformation. (Tony Cartalucci, West’s Syrian Narrative Based on “Guy in British Apartment”)

These organisations by no means represent the total of British spending when it comes to creating or influencing propaganda while dressing it up as humanitarian endeavour or intellectual objectivity.  The government is a major funder of a number of NGOs that are openly committed to ‘humanitarian intervention’ (regime change) in countries like Syria, such as Amnesty International.  In his article Unravelling BanaQoppa has raised the question of the relationship of the much derided ‘research organisation’ Bellingcat with the British government, pointing out that one of the authors of Bellingcat’s own article on Bana is an ex-army officer.

Incostrat, Mayday and SOHR however have direct and undeniable links with the Foreign Office.  Their function is to create, via tools such as Bana Alabed and the White Helmets, or directly in the case of the SOHR, fake news for Western consumption that bears little or no relation to the reality within Syria.

The fake news is distributed via the corporate media and the reports of the industrial human rights complex.  Social media, however, is by no means forgotten.  There is an incestuous relationship between the Foreign Office projects, in that Bana promotes the White Helmets, and the activists of the Civil March promote both Bana and the White Helmets.   At the same time the MOD’s 77th Brigade push incessantly the general themes of Assad and Russian war crimes versus the ‘popular uprising’ on social media, but also reinforce the FCO’s major projects – such trolls are easily detected on Twitter accounts like Bana’s.

So what we have is the , while also creating a false image of a legitimate opposition, all of which the said taxpayer is then supposed to take in good faith. The purpose of all this is to garner support for a no-fly zone over Syria, imposed by the UK, the US and allied countries, as the first step to overthrowing the legitimate government.


Thierry Meyssan, The Techniques of Modern Military Propaganda

Thierry Meyssan, For Britain’s Media and Secret Service (MI6) War Propaganda Is an Art

Ian Cobain, Alice Ross, Rob Evans and Mona Mahmood, Inside Ricu: the Shadowy Propaganda Unit Inspired by the Cold War

Ian Cobain, Alice Ross, Rob Evan s and Mona Mahmood, How Britain Funds the Propaganda War Against ISIS

Tony Cartalucci, West’s Syrian Narrative Based on “Guy in British Apartment”

Beau Christensen, Propaganda spin cycle: ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ is funded by US and UK governments

Gearóid Ó Colmáin, Amnesty International, War Propaganda, and Human Rights Terrorism

Vanessa Beeley, The White Helmets Campaign for War not Peace

Rothschild, Soros, Corbyn and One Europe – the Road to Global Governance

In 2007 Peter Mandelson said in an address to Chatham House, ‘We are living in a period of global change that is deeper, faster and broader than we have ever known’.  Mandelson was talking about the destruction of the nation state and the imposition of global governance, i.e. the New World Order.  The global change referred to by Mandelson is not accidental: as Stephen MacMillan points out, ‘it has been the objective of a cabal of international bankers who have been pushing for the creation of a “world system” for over a century.”

The Plan for One World Government

In February 1891, a group of elitesCecil Rhodes, William Stead and Lords Esher, Rothschild, Salisbury, Rosebery and Milner – drew up a plan for a secret society that aimed to bring all habitable portions of the world under their influence and control. (See Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, New World Order: The Founding Fathers)

This society became the Round Table, and from it developed the US-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and eventually the Bilderberg Group founded in 1954, the Club of Rome (1968) and in 1973 the Trilateral Commission, the brain child of David Rockefeller.

All of these organisations are dedicated to global governance, and there is extensive overlap in terms of the principle players. Daniel Estulin, in his book Bilderberg commented:

When you examine the CFR’s member list, you will find that 90% either sit on the Trilateral Commission or belong to the Bilderberg Group. (p. 126)

David Rockefeller was a common denominator amongst these groups, being heavily active personally and financially with  the Trilateral Commission, the CFR and Bilderberg.  Another figure involved with all three is Henry Kissinger, who had a close relationship with David Rockefeller.

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan

In 1922 Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the ‘Pan-European Movement’, which aimed to create a New World Order, starting with Europe, which he expounds in his book «Praktischer Idealismus».  Kalergi’s book attracted the interest of Baron Louis de Rothschild who put him in touch with one of his friends, banker Max Warburg, who in turn funded Kalergi’s movement.

The destruction of the nation state is an important part of the strategy to achieve global governance.  The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan has been described by some as a plan for the genocide of the people of Europe). 

‘[…] what Kalergi called for was not only the destruction of European nation states but also the deliberate ethnocide of the indigenous, mostly Caucasian race of the European continent. This he proposed should be done through enforced mass migration to create an undifferentiated homogeneous mass of serfs to be dominated by a wealthy self electing elite.’ (cymrusofren)

Kalergi’s legacy lives on in the European Society Coudenhove-Kalergi which gave Angela Merkel its ‘European Award ‘ in 2010.

The Bilderberg Group

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg group is illustrative of a shadowy network of super-elites who often make decisions in secret meetings that come to impact the lives of millions. The annual conference is attended by between 120 and 150 elites who meet to discuss global issues with a focus on North American and European challenges. It encompasses a range of individuals: from the heads of multi-national corporations to the leaders of nations; banking executives to media titans. (Steven MacMillan, BBC Bias, Brexit, the EU, Bilderberg and Global Government)

Bilderberg is believed to have been the creation of Victor Rothschild and Laurance Rockerfeller, older brother of David. According to a popular quote, Agnelli of Fiat revealed that these two handpicked 100 of the world’s elite for the first Bilderberg conference. ‘Their purpose was to regionalize Europe’. Nicholas Hager in the The Secret American Dream also credits responsibility to the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who ‘worked together to unify Europe and were responsible for the 1957 Treaty of Rome that created the Common Market, a forerunner of today’s European Union.’  The Treaty of Rome was drafted by Robert Rothschild, cousin of Victor Rothschild.

Neither Laurance Rockefeller nor Victor Rothschild are known to have attended that first meeting.  David Rockefeller, brother of Laurance, was present, and regularly attended until his death, along with various Rothschilds or Rothschild agents, and Bilderberg is still considered by many to be a Rothschild/Rockefeller enterprise.

Whereas the CFR only has American members, the Bilderberg Group has members from the US, Canada and Western Europe.

‘The Bilderberg meeting is an annual three-day forum for informal discussions designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America […] In the context of a globalised world, it is hard to think of any issue in either Europe or North America that could be tackled unilaterally.’ (Bilderberg Meetings website)

The key word is ‘globalised’.

In his book, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, (reviewed and summarised by Stephen Lendman here), Daniel Estulin described the Group’s grand design as ‘a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.’ This conclusion is essentially confirmed by Bilderbergers themselves: David Rockefeller, for example, wrote on page 405 of his Memoirs,

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Denis Healey, a Bilderberg Group founder and steering committee member for 30 years, told Jon Ronson:

‘To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.’

Bilderberg objectives

The Group’s grand design, according to Estulin, is for ‘a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one “World (Central) Bank” using one global currency.’ Their ‘wish list’ includes:

  •  ‘one international identify [observing] one set of universal values’;
  •  centralized control of world populations by ‘mind control’; in other words, controlling world public opinion;
  • a New World Order with no middle class, only ‘rulers and servants (serfs)’, and, of course, no democracy;
  • ‘a zero-growth society’ without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;
  •  manufactured crises and perpetual wars;
  •  absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;
  •  ‘centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies’; one size fits all globally;
  •  using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on “world citizens;”
  • expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;
  • making NATO a world military;
  •  imposing a universal legal system; and
  •  a global ‘welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination’.

One Europe

The creation of the European Union was an important step toward that end of a single global community.  European unity, and a common currency, were discussed if not in 1954, then certainly at the second Bilderberg meeting in Garmisch-Patenkirchen, 1955, whose minutes are available and read:

The discussion affirmed complete support for the idea of integration and unification from the representatives of all the six nations of the Coal and Steel Community present at the conference. […] A European speaker expressed concern about the need to achieve a common currency.

Incremental steps to a ‘united Europe’ (listed in Lendman) include the establishment of the six-nation European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, the Treaties of Rome establishing the EEC and the European Atomic Energy Commission in 1957, the European Court of Justice, also 1957, the 1968 European Customs Union (1968), the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 creating the EU, the introduction of the euro in January 1999.  (Former Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon publicly acknowledged that Bilderberg played a role in the introduction of the Euro.)

‘Over half a century, the above steps cost EU members their sovereignty “as some 70 to 80 per cent of the laws passed in Europe involve just rubber stamping of regulations already written by nameless bureaucrats in ‘working groups’ in Brussels or Luxembourg.”’ (Lendman)

George Soros, Bilderberg enabler

The public face of the CFR/Bilderberg plan for global governance is George Soros, Bilderberger with close ties to the Rothschild family.  While Soros appears to have a finger in a large number of pies, his activities have a common purpose, the breakdown of the nation state and the creation of one-world government

Soros is heavily involved in three strategies which aim to disrupt, divide, weaken and ultimately destroy societies:

1) regime change effected by coups such as in the Ukraine or the wars on Libya and Syria  (see also Chris Kanthan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine – Same Playbook, Same Puppet Masters)

2) mass migration

3) fake liberalism,  ie promoting extremist causes in order to create alienation and division.

Suppressing dissent

Soros, his NGOs and his adherents gain acceptance, or compliance, for all of these through moral blackmail and name calling: save the Arabs from being raped by Gaddafi’s blacks (and destroy Libya); save ‘Aleppo’ or ‘save East Ghouta’ (and destroy Syria); save the refugees, and at the same time invite anyone of a mind to become a refugee – the Soros/Merkel plan – and dramatically alter the character of Europe.

Anyone who questions any of the Soros agendas is a war-crimes denier, fascist, neo-Nazi, racist, homophobe, transphobe, misogynist.  Name calling is accompanied by intimidation, deplatforming and violence, citing moral outrage as a justification. Using violence and intimidation for political ends is one definition of fascism.

The Remaking of Europe Through Mass Migration

Soros is involved in the migrant crisis at a number of levels: he promotes the wars that produce refugees, his NGOs facilitate the movement of people at a practical level, from providing guidebooks to arranging transport, and above all he works assiduously to gain political support for mass immigration.

Soros was responsible for the Merkel Plan, ie Angela Merkel’s startling invitation to all refugees to come to Europe.  In 2015 he laid down a to-do list for European countries in their response to the migrant crisis:

1) The EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly
2) The EU should provide €15,000 ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs
3) Placing refugees where they want to go – and where they are wanted – is a sine qua non of success.
4) the EU must provide adequate funding to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey to support the four million refugees currently living in those countries.
5) The EU would need to pay to frontline countries at least €8-10 billion.
6) The EU must immediately start building a single EU Asylum and Migration Agency and eventually a single EU Border Guard. The current patchwork of 28 separate asylum systems does not work (because the EU forbids it!!).
7) safe channels must be established for asylum-seekers. The next logical step is to extend safe avenues to the frontline region, thereby reducing the number of migrants who make the dangerous Mediterranean crossing.
8) The EU needs to mobilize the private sector – NGOs, church groups, and businesses – to act as sponsors.

Although George Soros may be the public face of the elites’ plan for the destruction of Europe, the Rothschild involvement is apparent beyond the family’s connection with Soros.  In Austria for example the task of supervising and supporting asylum seekers is given to a private company, the Swiss company ORS, in 2014, this firm being awarded  around EUR 21 million of taxpayers’ money by the Austrian Ministry of the Interior. ORS is in part owned by Barclays Bank, the ‘Rothschild Battleship‘.

Rothschild also has ties with Amnesty International, one of many ‘charities’ funded by Soros to facilitate war and migration (see Alan Buttle’s Amnesty International Exposed).

The UN´s Special Representative for International Migration is Peter Sutherland, European Commissioner, and Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and a former member of the board of Rothschild’s Goldman Sachs . He supports uncontrolled immigration into Europe and the elimination of homogeneity.

Jeremy Corbyn: Soros’s flag bearer in Britain

See also Jeremy Corbyn and George Soros

Corbyn is seen as the working class hope to end austerity and save the NHS, and for that reason anyone seen to be of the left who criticises him is accused of being a traitor.  However Corbyn’s policies on migration and ‘social justice issues’ are of the extreme left, alien to the same working classes who call him a hero, and intended to be alienating.

Corbyn is totally committed to mass migration into the United Kingdom and Europe, employing the Soros strategies of moral blackmail and name-calling in order to intimidate and silence any opposition, declaring limits on immigration to be inherently racist, thus ignoring considerations such as jobs, crime, and social cohesion, and assuming that these are of no value to others.

Corbyn supports not only women-only short lists (of doubtful value to the average woman while granting a privileged status to a few), but also the inclusion of transgender women on those lists. These policies, and employing as an advisor a black transgender woman who sees racism as a white problem and only a white problem, are going to lose rather than win votes from the working class, whether black or white, male or female. The Labour party’s decision to charge white people more to attend a rally addressed by Corbyn in Loughborough in February was probably never going to fly – in any case it was illegal – but that wasn’t the idea. The purpose was to arouse disbelief, anger, disempowerment and racism.

By embodying on the one hand old-fashioned Labour values of social welfare and free healthcare, precious to the British working class, and on the other hand the Soros priorities of mass immigration and extremist liberal policies, unpopular with that same working class, Jeremy Corbyn personifies division.

For all his talk of ‘hope’ and ‘solidarity’, Corbyn’s language is consistently divisive, focused on ‘othering’ any differing views on immigration or social issues. Those who disagree are ‘full of hate’, who ‘create division’ – in a short speech attacking Theresa May’s migrant polices, Corbyn used the terms ‘hate’, ‘hatred’ and ‘full of hate’ at least seven times.

Corbyn links Brexit, and Brexiteers, with racism, attacking the Tories for fanning ‘the flames of fear over immigration, whipping up hatred in the referendum campaign, egged on by their Ukip sidekicks’.  Corbyn’s hate speech is not confined to UKIP supporters but includes other dissidents such as those protesting at Charlottesville: even the New York Times conceded that some of the protesters were nothing more than ordinary conservatives wanting free speech or opposing the removal of part of their history, but Corbyn condemned all as neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

Corbyn’s attacks on UKIP supporters and protesters in the US is just one expression of the Soros strategy to suppress dissent.  Labour’s purges of activists who speak the truth, such as Ken Livingstone , are another.

Jeremy Corbyn is supported by groups such as Hope not Hate, who have more than once been described as fascist, due to their strategies of achieving political ends through intimidation, such as the demise of UKIP and all opposition to immigration, through intimidation, and now Jewdas, a ‘far-left’ group characterised by its use of violent language such as ‘f..k the police‘, and ‘f..k the Queen‘. But by using the strategies of moral blackmail, verbal abuse and exclusion, rather than active violence, Jeremy Corbyn is seen as the acceptable face of fascism.

With regard to the other arm of the Soros strategy, war and regime change, Corbyn’s role is somewhat murky. While British voters, opposed to Blair’s immoral warring but also desperate for an end to Tory austerity, are happy to be lulled into seeing Corbyn as a kind of peacenik, Corbyn acts as a gatekeeper, opposing bombing while at the same time condemning Syria and Russia for their actions to defend Syria, fundraising for an entity that demands a no-fly zone in Syria, and with a defence policy that maintains military spending (and presumably military activity) at the same level.

It will be interesting to see how Labour’s foreign policy will play out in the event of the Party becoming government. In any case, extremist liberal policies and mass immigration are likely to continue, and free speech will continued to be under attack.

In the run-up to the British general election of 2017, Ken Craggs argued in Corbyn and the Rothschilds:

‘Regardless of which political party you vote for in the general election, the Rothschilds are who you’re getting.’



Jeremy Corbyn’s Reply to the Board of Deputies of British Jews: Is This Corbyn’s Balfour Moment?

When anyone questions the BBC over their bias to towards Israel, the BBC smugly points to the criticism they wear from the Israeli Embassy, or supporters of Israel like former BBC chairman Lord Grade, which is apparently proof that the BBC is absolutely impartial.

The current campaign against Jeremy Corbyn has the same purpose as the Embassy’s criticisms of the BBC.  The charge that Corbyn is antisemitic is clearly nonsense, as Corbyn has made it clear he prioritises Jewish sensibilities above all others.

In recent years the Labour Party has been taking active measures to counter claims of antisemitism from lobby groups, in 2017 adopting a rule proposed by the pro-Israel Jewish Labour Movement, opposing a comprehensive list of prejudices and hostile behaviours including ‘racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia.’

The problem with itemising forms of racism is that the terms of reference are constantly being expanded: ‘antisemitism’ is a charge that is levied against anyone who ever criticises a prominent Jew, eg George Soros or Jacob Rothschild, or anyone who criticises  Israel.

The Labour Party has been purging people for criticising Israel or threatening Israel’s interests, with the cardinal sin being anything deemed to undermining the holocaust narrative in any way.  Activist Gill Kaffash for example, active in the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, was suspended in April 2016 for opposing bans on holocaust revisionism  (her opposition tantamount apparently to holocaust denial) and also asking, as others have, why ISIS never attacks Israel.  Another activist Jackie Walker, of both African and Jewish descent, was suspended in May 2016 for comparing the African holocaust with the Jewish holocaust.

In March 2017 Corbyn suspended Ken Livingstone,  former Mayor of London and loyal supporter of Corbyn, because he produced, in context, an unwelcome truth, that Hitler backed moving Jews to Israel.  Livingstone remains suspended for the foreseeable future.

Jews who criticise Israel are also deemed to be antisemitic.  In February this year the Party expelled, after a long period of suspension, Tony Greenstein, whose principal crimes seems to be repeated use of the word ‘Zio’.

Despite the party’s efforts, the charges of antisemitism within the Labour Party have continued, and gained new impetus when it was revealed recently that Jeremy Corbyn had not responded appropriately to a 2012 mural that showed a group of bankers in an unfavourable light, two of the bankers looking Jewish according to some, and with masonic symbols. (The explanation of the artist Mear One here, it seems he was targeting ‘turn of the century robber barons’, Jew and non-Jew alike.)


On 26 March 2018 an open letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council was addressed to Jeremy Corbyn, demanding that he take action on the question of antisemitism within the Labour Party.  The contents of the letter are fairly thin, relying heavily on a Corbyn’s inadequate response to the 2012 mural.

Jewish Leadership Council was founded in 2012; the Board of Deputies dates from founded in 1760, one of its past Presidents being Lord Walter Rothschild (1925-6), to whom the Balfour declaration was addressed in 1917.   Another president, Moses de Montefiore was, like the Rothschild family, closely involved in the founding of Jewish settlements in Palestine.  Both these two organisations operate as defenders of Israel.

Corbyn’s Balfour Moment

In responding to the two organisations, Corbyn could have made a generic statement aimed at all minorities in Britain, but he chose to spell out his special affiliation with the Jewish community in his reply.  Aside from the obligatory mea culpa over the mural incident, the salient features of  his letter are:

Antisemitism is referred to some 15 times and racism and minorities (in general) not at all

Corbyn concedes that antisemitism has surfaced within the Labour Party, in contrast to many who disagree, such as trade union leader Len McCluskey: ‘In 47 years of membership in the Labour Party I’ve never been at a meeting where there was any anti-Semitic language’. Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) declared the allegations against both Corbyn and the Party to be unfounded and unacceptable.

Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is antisemitic  Corbyn is compromising heavily on the question of criticising Israel: no matter how heinous the crimes of Israel, comparing Israel to the Nazis (and presumably Netanyahu to Hitler) is antisemitic.

Jewish bankers.  Corbyn condemns the ‘idea of Jewish bankers and capitalists exploiting the workers of the world.  Corbyn is absolutely right in that it is not only Jewish bankers that exploit the workers of the world; furthermore one should not assume anyone is dishonourable and exploitative simply because s/he is a banker.  However the fact that some rich bankers are Jews is sometimes used as a justification for suppressing all criticism of the banking profession, and indeed criticism of any Jew for any reason is discouraged – no matter how many reasons there might be for querying the activities of George Soros, for example, his defenders are very quick to accuse his detractors of antisemitism.

Holocaust denial is ‘far right’ Corbyn declares that ‘antisemitism is an evil, and furthermore that holocaust denial is ‘a form of antisemitism on the far right of the party’.  Corbyn is perpetuating the myth that the only people who question aspects of the holocaust are neo-Nazis with a propensity to violence, who secretly believe the holocaust happened but think it was a good thing.  Linking holocaust denial with the far-right is a common practice, but Corbyn’s claim only serves to highlight the dishonesty of this association. A typical example of a ‘denier’ is holocaust sceptic and Jew Paul Eisen.  In mid-2015 Eisen wrote several dozen articles and social media posts supporting Jeremy Corbyn as leader, because he saw him as a man of principle, he supported his stance on issues affecting working people, and he supported his stance on the Iraq war, e.g. Jeremy Corbyn the Finest Man in British Politics.  Most people would describe Eisen as being on the left of the political spectrum, rather than the far-right.

A programme of political education to increase awareness  and understanding of all forms of antisemitism (not racism).  The forms of antisemitism will presumably be determined by pro-Zionist lobby groups.

Corbyn has continued to pander to the Zionist lobby, by declaring ‘antisemitism’ (not racism) to be ‘a cancer in our society which has surfaced in our party, Britain and Europe in recent years’.

Depending on one’s level of cynicism, one might argue that the purpose of the anti-Labour charges of antisemitism,

1) To rally the Labour troops, and the British people, around Jeremy Corbyn, given that the charge of antisemitism is clearly false;

2) To make it harder to talk truth about Jeremy Corbyn.  To make it difficult for anyone accused of being ‘on the left’ to criticise Jeremy Corbyn.  Questioning Corbyn’s fundraising for the White Helmets and his support for Muslim Brotherhood drew accusations of being the same as the Tories, or the corporate media.  To suggest Corbyn is actually pro-Zionist would, no doubt, elicit a similar response.

In any case there is no doubt of the intention:

3)  To make antisemitism the paramount issue: To keep the conversation going about ‘antisemitism’, and the importance of fighting ‘antisemitism’ despite the lack of evidence that antisemitism is an issue in the Labour Party, in order to instill the ideas of Jewish victimhood and Jewish exceptionalism;

4) To make it harder to talk truth about Israel or the activities of the Zionist lobby. To put pressure on the Labour Party to prioritise Zionist interests, not to criticise Israel, or question matters deemed to affect Zionist interests;

5) To garner acceptance for widespread suppression of freedom of speech, opening the way for further actual criminalisation of thought and research, both within the Labour Party and through legislation.

Newsbud’s Exposé of Beeley and Bartlett: Comment

People have asked me for a response to the Newsbud expo of Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett, entitled Syria Under Siege: Guarding Against Wolves in Sheep Clothing, for which I was interviewed. The video is of course Newsbud’s, and not the one I would have made. Some of what Newsbud presented I disagree with, and some is a revelation.

1) My non-negotiable position on Beeley and Bartlett is that they are prepared to lie and vilify at the top of a hat for personal or tribal interest. I don’t think that came across in the video strongly enough.

2) It’s my understanding that Tim Anderson was wrongly imprisoned for terrorism, and, assuming I’m right, I regret Newsbud suggesting otherwise, as I indicated to Sibel Edmonds yesterday.  It’s difficult to see either Anderson or the Grand Mufti as condoning murder, frankly.

3) The question of whether the “democratic opposition” in Syria should be termed terrorists is an interesting one. We’ve all seen the scary-looking pictures of the opposition, and their leaders like Saudi Muhaysini, we’ve seen the video (till removed) of al Zinki sawing off Abdullah Issa’s head, we know about the shelling of civilians in Aleppo and Damascus. We want them defeated. On the other hand, the Russians have been negotiating the surrender of thousands of insurgents, with a view to them being reincorporated into Syrian society. How well this will work out remains to be seen, but it’s probably not for us to make it any harder.

4) Eva Bartlett’s “outing” of Zak Alsawi’s alleged draft dodging is simply incredible – this alone justifies Sibel Edmond’s questioning her sense of decency.  As she probably knows, Zac paid his military exemption in 2008.  As a dual US and Syrian citizen not born in Syria,  Zac would lose my US citizenship if he joined the Syrian military, unable to visit his family in the US

In any case, in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East, one meets a large number of young men who are there to escape the war. Most people would not dream of throwing this in their faces, or outing them to others.

5) Sibel had some interesting things to say about doctors working for MSF. However the evidence that at the top level the raison d’etre of MSF, like Amnesty, is propaganda, and much (or all) of what MSF has underwritten in Syria has been propaganda, was glossed over. It will be interesting to see how many doctors have actually been caring for civilians in Idlib, for example.

6) I have always thought Beeley and Bartlett knew their stuff about Syria, with no need to lie to get their point across. However there has been a certain amount of sensationalising of what is known, and improving the story. There is evidence that Ghassan Alabed, Bana’s lawyer father, worked in the eye hospital when ISIS used it as a base. Given the Syrian government’s policy of reconciliation, it’s not for us to declare, as Beeley did, that Ghassan served on a sharia count condemning Syrian soldiers to torture and death. We don’t know that he served on such a court, the courts have a wide range of functions, and in any case, Ghassan, clearly NOT an extremist, may even have been a force for a good.

Likewise, the declaration that the White Helmets carried out a mass murder as a false flag in Khan Sheikhoun. There is no evidence that anyone died at Khan Sheikhoun – it’s not for us to point the finger at everyone involved in the hoax as a war criminal, whatever our own views of them.

7) Beeley and Bartlett have done some good work as Syrian activists – the videos Beeley did in Aleppo on its liberation were particularly fine. However they are also guilty of piggy-backing onto the work of others, without due recognition, and then taking ownership of that cause. A prime example is the White Helmets. It seems that the first person to reveal the important truths about the White Helmets was Rick Sterling in  Seven Steps of Highly Effective Manipulators , April 2015 (though Cory Morningstar had made the connection between the White Helmets and Soros).  Beeley’s article in August,  Syria: The Propaganda Ring, relied heavily on Sterling, but he is given little credit nowadays.

When Beeley had a fit about OffGuardian not giving credit to herself and others in a factsheet published by Off-Guardian, the upshot, after Beeley had accepted Catte’s offer of private discussion, was the following.OffG1



So still no acknowledgement of Rick Sterling, whose contribution to White Helmet debate is destined to disappear without trace.

In July 2017 Eva Bartlett, who had taken no interest in the Bana Alabed saga, and contributed nothing to the research to date and when it mattered, chose to write an article herself.  She contacted me to ask which article I would like referenced, I said Crucifixion, fine she said, I’ve got it open here.  Subsequently I wrote a critical piece about her friend Hayward’s eulogy to Eliot Higgins, and coincidentally Bartlett chose not to credit me then or ever for work I had done on the Alabeds.  I don’t own the Bana case, I’m not complaining. However Bartlett, in her interview with James Corbett,  an egregious and dishonest piece of self-promotion on several counts, chose to credit to her friend Khaled Iskef work that was done by @Navsteva, which was clearly credited in my article, which she would have read at least once

8) Leaving aside the perfectly natural concern about Tim Anderson, the defence of Beeley and Bartlett appears to be driven largely by tribal interests. It’s hard to take seriously the knee-jerk defense and prating about “truth” from people who have actively condoned or failed to question Beeley and Bartlett’s lies and vilification of others, e.g.

  •  Bartlett’s slanderous charge that  @Navsteva (Scott Gaulke) stalked her (thereby throwing Neil Clark’s genuine case of harassment into jeopardy);
  •  Beeley’s slanderous charge that I ‘savaged’ her friend in Beirut, a reversal of the truth;
  • the lie that criticism of Tim Haywards extolling of Bellingcat was a witch-hunt driven by nefarious motives, when in fact the witchhunt was driven by them;
  • the lie that Hayward’s article was a work of “high dialectic”, when the most charitable interpretation is that it was failed satire;
  •  Beeley’s dishonest labelling of myelf as an Orientalist when I (correctly) pointed out that the great majority of women in Yemen wear the niqab.

These same people condoned Marwa Osman’s lie that I’m a white supremacist.

9) Vanessa Beeley’s bullying behaviour in her attempt to change my article on Robert Fisk and pervert the truth over Maaloula was unconscionable.


A1Hezbnot at Maaloulah

Videos, photos, reports were to no avail







To this day Beeley has neither apologise for her behaviour nor conceded she was wrong. On the contrary, a few months later, after I had the temerity to criticise her friend Tim Hayward:


10) I have heard time and time again that it’s ok if Beeley and Bartlett lie their heads off, and all others are expendable, because “they have been to Syria” (subtext: they’re the most famous people who follow me on twitter, or they’re my friends on Facebook, or I’ve been to Syria too so …). As Richie Allen pointed out, this is mythomania: many Syrians, RT journalists and others are reporting on the ground, with fabulous stuff coming out from Ghouta at the moment.  And there is no evidence that these journalists are vindictive liars, as Beeley and Bartlett are, beyond any doubt.

Much of this “on the ground” stuff is hyped up. Beeley claimed to be an expert on Maaloulah, of a status out-dignifying videos, photos and news reports, because she had spent two weeks in Maaloula and with fighters from Maaloula.  This claim is based on a few hours in Maaloula as part of a package tour (itinerary has been well publicised) and maybe a lunch or two in Beirut.

2 weeks

11) Of COURSE it’s good when people promote the issue of the war on Syria, regardless of whether they are promoting themselves at the same time. For that reason people actively following the Syrian war in the issue have tended to keep any misgivings to themselves. If Newsbud choose to take the lid off and reveal the unethical behaviour associated with some of the activists who have been successful at this promotion, well, maybe it was always inevitable.








Not Liberal, Not Left – the Fascism of the Fake Left

Liberal pundits sensitively agonise over, but invariably end up backing, policies designed to benefit the bankers and arms manufacturers, and ones that wreak havoc domestically and abroad. They are the “useful idiots” of modern western societies. Jonathan Cook.

In January George Soros sponsored a wave of demonstrations against the new POTUS, Donald Trump. These included some ‘Women’s Marches’, ostensibly with a feminist orientation.  The Women’s Marches promoted a generic anti-Trump message along with LGBT rights, abortion, immigration, girl power – there was little or no mention of war. To reinforce their message of female empowerment, women were encouraged to wear pink ‘pussy hats’ representing vaginas, with some whole vagina outfits appearing as well.


Incongruously, the Women’s March on Washington was led by Linda Sarsour, who wears hijab and is an active supporter of the Saudi regime, arguably the most oppressive of all governments to women.

What on earth is going on?

The New Liberalism.

There is a new wave of ‘political correctness. Its proponents are commonly referred to as far left, but are not left in any traditional sense, viz a concern for workers rights,  social equality, free speech and tolerance, and an anti-war orientation.  The thrust of the new liberalism is identity politics, minority rights, and an aggressive approach to any opponents.

Gender ‘Equality’ – Female Empowerment

The modern feminism still has political aims, such as women-only short lists – the assumption being that the only reason women are not fully represented in parliament is purely because of a glass ceiling, rather than career and lifestyle choices.

The need for female empowerment, to counter the evil of male power is given wide expression:




Female self-expression has been seen as a priority, with women wearing vagina costumes or vagina hats, or tee-shirts with slogans referring to menstruation. Women’s lib. reached a new level when a woman used vaginal yeast to make bread.

Men, or at least masculinity, are seen as essentially undesirable.  A Pennsylvania State University sociology professor recently argued that eating meat perpetuates “hegemonic masculinity” and “gender hegemony.”  There is a trend for US universities to offer seminars for men on how to deprogram themselves of their so-called “toxic masculinity.” Even the US army, in order to combat ongoing problems of sexual abuse, chooses to use terms like ‘hypermasculinity‘ rather than the gender neutral ‘sexual aggression’.

Cooperation between the sexes is of course out of the question:

Gender Identity

Transgender rights are a major priority, on the assumption that a desire to be born into a different body is common and normal, despite the facts of mammalian biology.

People can demand to be treated as a different gender, purely on the basis of how they feel.  As a consequence people who are physically male but claim to be transgender may  participate in international sports as women and often able to use the same toilets as little girls.

In the UK, anybody who identifies as a woman, even without a cervix, must be invited to have a cervical smear.  Pedophile Toni Fly was only reflecting the spirit of the times when he demanded that the prison he was held in give him tampons and female underwear after he pronounced himself to be transgender, even though the victim of his abuse had given birth to a child.

Language is expected to accommodate transgender rights, with a campaign for truly gender-free language. Hence the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office is pushing for the United Nations to refer to pregnant people rather than pregnant women.

In the UK, the Church of England is encouraging children to explore their gender identity, and  transgender lessons are given to two year olds.  Some US schools are making transgenderisation part of the syllabus, spotlighting children who come out as transgender.

A Swedish library has employed a transgender gay couple to read to children.  According to the couple, ‘the choice of stories will reflect the notion that it is not obligatory for the boys to wear blue and for the girls to dress in pink’ – whether this will encourage boys to rise above traditional (but hitherto waning) stereotypes and wear pink, or have the opposite effect is a matter of debate.


Cultural Sensitivity – Anti-racism – Empowerment of Racial Minorities

In August 2015 the lid came off a long suppressed problem in Rotherham, Yorkshire, when it was revealed that gangs of men, almost all of Asian descent, were grooming girls as young as 10 for sex (Jay Report here).  In dealing with the problem the Rotherham authorities prioritised a perceived need for “sensitivity” in dealing with minorities over any moral requirement to protect the rights of children.

A similar situation is apparent in the handling of female genital mutilation in Britain, theoretically banned but still widespread in some communities.  No-one has ever been convicted of the crime – teachers and health professionals are failing to report cases of fgm, presumably for reasons of cultural sensitivity, thereby ensuring the practice continues.

Opposition to racial stereotyping is an area where, apparently, it is impossible to be too careful.  Thus the Dr Seuss Museum in Springfield, Massachusetts agreed to remove a mural with what many would consider a cute picture of a Chinese running, but which they saw as “jarring racial stereotype of a Chinese man who is depicted with chopsticks, a pointed hat and slanted slit eyes.”  Andy Yee, a local businessman, offered to buy the mural if it is removed.  “That’s my ancestors coming to this country in the 1930s.”

Some American schools have removed the classics To Kill a Mocking Bird and Huckleberry Finn, deeming them racist despite the sympathetic treatment they give to African Americans.  The BBC has banned It Ain’t Half Hot, Mum for the same reasons.

White Imperialism


While Huckleberry Finn may be banned because Mark Twain uses a term for Afro-Americans in common parlance at the time (“nigger”), deliberately using racist terminology about white people is encouraged.  Stereotyping all white people as ‘white imperialists’ is common, with an implication that ‘whiteness’ is a disease that should be wiped out.

Academic Noel Ignatiev was involved in the founding of a magazine Race Traitor whose purpose was to ‘destroy the social construct known as the white race‘.

The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.’ (Noel Ignatiev)

So obnoxious is the fact of whiteness that any habits that can be associated with whiteness (no matter how dishonestly) are intrinsically racist.  Two professors at San Diego State University recently claimed that farmers’ markets in urban areas are weed-like ‘white spaces where the food consumption habits of white people are normalized’ and thus  responsible for oppression – there is apparently a correlation between the ‘whiteness of farmer’s markets’ and gentrification.  So using markets designed to offer fresh food of quality is a choice related to colour, specifically whiteness, rather than class, income or opportunity.

White supremacy is of course closely associated with masculinity.

Jan 2018Masculinity

Open borders – Migrant rights

George Soros, who funded the Women’s Marches, is heavily committed to open borders and the mass displacement of people. Thus anyone who questions the wisdom of encouraging hundreds of thousands of able-bodied males to abandon their own countries for one on a different continent is far right, a fascist, a neo-Nazi. Hence the virulent campaign against the anti-EU, anti-immigration party UKIP, spear-headed by Soros’s Hope not Hate.


European governments have responded to concerns about rising crime rates has been to protect migrants from prosecution from crimes – a spectacular, but not unique, example being the reluctance to convict an Iraqi refugee who raped a 10-year old boy in Austria.


On 7 February 2018 the US airforce launched missile strikes at Syrian positions killing over 100 soldiers, in retaliation for the Syrian army attacking a combined SDF/ISIS force, according to Syrian special force the ISIS Hunters. The war-crime does not feature at all in the the social media accounts of Britain’s Stop the War Coalition, or supposed pacifist Jeremy Corbyn.

George Soros, who backs the anti-Trump movement and many ‘liberal’ causes, has sponsored colour revolutions throughout the world, and is a funder of much of the propaganda designed to justify open war on Syria. The liberal movement, however, has addressed this apparent contradiction by avoiding the issue of war.  The reviled Trump is not criticised for his bellicose speeches about North Korea and Iran, not was he ever praised for saying that he wanted to get along with Russia.  Clinton and Obama are not condemned as warmongers, but revered because they aren’t Trump.

There were no big Dump Obama marches in the US after Nato destroyed Libya, no Dump Cameron marches in the UK.  Barack Obama visited the UK three times (2011, 2014, 2016) after declaring war on Libya, twice after Nato intentions and operations in Syria were clear.  If there were huge anti Obama marches in London, they didn’t make the news.  On at least one occasion he met with ‘anti-war activist’ Jeremy Corbyn, and had an ‘excellent discussion’, according to Corbyn.  Labour under Jeremy Corbyn claims to have a policy of less interventionism, however it is notable that its 2017 manifesto still contains language hostile to Russia, and there are no plans to reduce the military budget.

There wasn’t a peep out of the ‘left’ when Corbyn fundraised for the White Helmets, well exposed as a Foreign Office propaganda construct and staffed by murderous thugs.

Free speech

There will always be people telling lies, but in a society where everyone is able to speak freely we will be better placed to tell truth from fiction. (Alan Buttle)

The idea of free speech has for a long time been tempered by the provision that it should not be offensive (hate speech) or an incitement to crime.  However the concept of “hate speech” is seen to justify the suppression of just about any opposing views if grounds can be found for finding them fascist, neo-nazi, or simply nationalist.

The hostility to free speech on alternative views achieves two things: it shuts down debate on specific issues, and the accumulating precedents undermine the concept of free speech as a principle, so it is becoming normal to oppose the concept of free speech on principle.

It is impossible to talk about free speech in today’s climate without referring to intimidation.

The Normalising of Violence

Smash racism.jpg

Violence in order to suppress opposition is part of the new political landscape, being claimed as justified in order to combat “hate”.  Opposition to mass immigration, for example, is automatically seen as an expression of ‘hate’ or ‘fascism’.  Suppression of alternative views and the closing down of free speech is achieved through name-calling, intimidation and violence.

Antifa describe themselves as ‘militant antifascists’

‘We believe in direct action. […] We believe in being proactive when it comes to fascist violence, which means confronting fascist organizing before they have a chance to put their ideas into action, and taking fascist threats seriously’ (Antifa)

If one defines fascism as seeking to achieve political ends through violence and intimidation, then Antifa is a fascist organisation.

At Berkeley University of California where Milos Yiannopoulos was expected to speak in February 2017, ‘direct action’ translated into $100,000 worth of damage.  In April a speech by Ann Coulter at the university was cancelled to avoid similar violence.

On 27 August 2017 a universally agreed as peaceful, pro-Trump, pro-free speech rally in Berkeley was violently attacked by ‘anarchists’.  It appears that the police protecting the rally decided, when faced with chants of ‘cops and Klan go hand-in-hand!‘ that discretion was the better part of valour and got out of the way.

Hope not Hate is a British Soros foundation which supports Jeremy Corbyn and campaigns vigorously for minority and especially migrant rights.

Despite protestations on their part, Hope not Hate is frequently accused of instigating violence.  Hope Not Hate has connections with the fascist organisation Antifa – HNH founder Nick Lowles is said to have been a member of Anti-fascist Action -and there is evidence that HNH works with Antifa to intimidate political opponents, through moral blackmail, name-calling and intimidation.

The ‘bash for hope and love’ concept was to the fore when left-wing activists closed down events associated with Germany’s anti-immigration party (ADL) at the Frankfurt Book Fair: they shouted “Nazis out’ and held up signs like ‘Still loving books, still not loving hate.’

Language is now inflammatory and threatening as a matter of course: ‘fuck fascists’, ‘make fascists afraid again’, ‘make racists afraid again’, ‘smash racism’, ‘Nazi scum’ ‘fascist scum’.


War is Peace, Hate is Love: Corbyn and the Inclusiveness Fraud

Marine le Pen and Donald Trump […] are racists, authoritarian, small-minded and backward-looking. They embody the energy of hatred. The principles that underpin internationalism – cooperation, solidarity, unity, empathy, openness – these are all just elements of love. (Zoe Williams)

The mantras of Corbyn’s Labour, repeated again and again, are togetherness, inclusiveness, solidarity, hope. The words of Jo Cox, who fought so hard for British support for the war on Syria, gave rise to the slogans ‘more that unites us’ and ‘more in common’.

Corbyn t-shirt

Jeremy Corbyn, like Hope not Hate, uses the word hate a lot.  When in November last years he accused Theresa May of complicity in whipping up hatred against migrants, he used the words hate, hateful, or hatred at least seven times.

Of course what Corbyn is doing is whipping up hatred against people who oppose mass immigration, branding them as ‘far-right’.

The majority of people in Britain oppose mass immigration because of concern for social fabric, concern for the consequences of overloading the already poorly functioning social welfare and health systems, fear of job losses, and fears that the arrival of large numbers of males of a similar age and education who have been travelling in a pack for months could mean a spike in crime. None of these reasons constitute racism.  Corbyn is slandering a large body of people in order to create resentment and division.

The Human Rights Fraud

The ‘human right’s aims of the new liberals are designed to impact negatively on the majority, and on other minorities.

It is clear that many of the human rights positions profess to empower a group, while at the same time disempowering other minorities or the majority; children’s rights in particular are compromised.

The liberal concept of human rights for physically male adults, which is that they should use women’s toilets if they feel like it, transgresses the rights of children, and grown women using those same toilets.  The concept of statutory rape is increasingly undermined in Britain and Europe.

Fundamental principles of feminism, gender equality and acceptance are endangered –  can a little girl play with a truck, or a little boy wear a pink tee-shirt, without risking  suggestions that s/he has gender identity issues?

It can be seen that the question of ‘right’ is selective and perverted.  Leniency towards the rape of a child is not ‘liberalism’. The Rotherham case is not about ‘political correctness gone mad’ – it is designed to create anger and racism. (Rothertham is in South Yorkshire, whose police force has already been shown to be corrupt in the case of Hillsborough, and almost certainly Orgreave).

Questions also need to be asked about the exploitation of children, especially the imposition of male guilt on small boys.

Child exploitatn

The hypocrisy regarding human rights is underscored once again by British Labour’s Manifesto 2017, which states:   ‘In our discussions with different governments, including China, Egypt, the Gulf States, Myanmar, the Philippines, Russia and Turkey, we will urge respect for human rights and the rule of law.’  No promises about putting pressure on Saudi Arabia then.

The contradictions are deliberate and are designed to be anti-intuitive and indigestible. People are intended to be alternately revolted, confused, insecure, defensive, frustrated, helpless, angry, to feel a sense of powerlessness in the face of fraud and injustice.

The ‘Love Migrants’ Fraud – Another Tool to Create Division

Given Nato’s involvement in the wars that cause refugees, and the support of Nato countries for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, we can discount the idea that Western governments or globalist forces are motivated by humanitarian concerns.  That globalists want mass migration because they need the labour, or because they want to drive down wages by creating unemployment, is more feasible.

However, they want more.  The purpose of accepting huge numbers of immigrants from foreign cultures, and the manifest policies of encouraging crime amongst racial minorities, is to create racism and division, in order to shatter the cohesion of society, to weaken the labour movement long-term, to weaken nationalism, and to weaken all opposition.

The claimed sensitivity to other cultures is blatantly fraudulent.  The vulgar slogans and attire, offensive to the majority of indigenous women, serve to alienate immigrants totally from the majority culture.

Eat it

The promotion of the mass movement of people is not a celebration of the much vaunted ‘diversity’ – it is designed ultimately to break down national and cultural identities, in order to facilitate a single European and ultimately a single world government.

The New Fascism

The new ‘liberalism’ is policed by a fascist movement designed to suppress opposition and free speech and achieve its political ends through moral blackmail, intimidation or violence its political ends.  The aim is to

  • shut down all dissent
  • encourage violence
  • create a disempowered and fragmented society.

as part of a wider goal to eliminate national boundaries, in order to progress a globalist agenda. The real purpose of the globalist agenda may only become clear when it has been fulfilled.


To be continued …


Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑