Barbara McKenzie

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 …


How Putin interfered for both sides in the Scottish Independence Referendum

Never was there an issue so hollow, so tedious, and at the same time so sinister as the  fraudulent claims of Russian interference in US (and other) election – the US administration appears to have a strategy of boring the American public into agreeing to war on Russia if only put an end to Russiagate.

However, if the Yessers had been successful in the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, Russiagate might have got into full swing then.  As it is there have been claims from both sides of Kremlin involvement in the Scottish independence referendum.

Cameron appeals to Putin for help in stopping Scottish independence

The referendum was held in September 2014.  On 12 January of that year, Scotland’s Herald reported a plea from Cameron to Putin – “please help me stop Salmond”.

“Itar-Tass, citing a source in the Conservative Prime Minister’s office, said Britain was “extremely interested” in referendum support from Russia, which this year holds the presidency of the influential G8 group of rich industrial nations.”

Whether or not there was any truth in the claim of a direct plea to Moscow, other world leaders certainly had no problem with sticking their oar in, notably Obama.

Indy supporters, however, seem to have rather fancied the idea of Putin campaigning in their streets:

Putin intervenes in Scottish referendum on behalf of the union

Putin responded a week later by declaring that the Scottish independence debate was a domestic matter for the United Kingdom and not one for his country.

In an interview with the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Vladimir Putin’s position was:

‘It is not a matter for Russia, it is a domestic issue for the UK. Any people have a right to self-determination and now in Europe, the process of denuding national sovereignty in the framework of a united Europe is more accepted.’

But then he added:

‘I believe that one should not forget that being part of a single strong state has some advantages and one should not overlook this. But it’s a choice for each and every people according to their own circumstances.’

So Putin firmly on the fence, you would say.  The Spectator, however, in Putin’s strange intervention over Scottish independence, despite indicating that Putin was merely answering questions put to him by Marr, claims that Putin is actively intervening for the union:

‘It is clear that Putin was trying to do two things: he was attempting to stick by accepted practice and not getting involved in the internal disputes of other countries. But, at the same time, he made it clear with his ‘single strong state’ remarks that he favoured the unionist side.’

Putin interferes in the Scottish referendum on behalf of the SNP and independence

Roll on to 2017, and in January, and the Daily Express reveals that Vladimir Putin’s spies worked in the shadows to aid the SNP’s campaign to break up the UK.

According to “security expert” Mark Galeotti, Moscow works through organisations which include anti-fracking environmental movements, nationalist and anti-federal political groups, Russian diaspora movements in the Baltics, and separatists from Spain to Scotland.

Damning proof of Moscow’s activity in support of Scottish independence included;

  • The Kremlin arranged a surge in Russian naval and air force activity just in order to  allow the SNP to present Britain’s military defences as weakened.
  • RIA Novosti publishing that political thinker Noam Chomsky supports a Yes vote
  • A pro-independence website claimed it had been “hacked” from Russia while police revealed a spike in Russian cybercrime against Scots businesses and public bodies –  to what end is not clear.  (The pro-independence website was Wings over Scotland, who made it very clear it was joking.)
  • Crimea rejoins Russia, and a Russian diplomat declares that Scotland will be next, with Catalonia, Alaska and Venice to follow (according to the Express).

The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

In December 2017, with Russiagate in full swing, Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council  suddenly comes up with research that shows that Russian cyber-activists ‘tried to discredit Scottish independence vote‘.

‘The allegations of fraud demonstrably had an impact; pro-Kremlin accounts demonstrably boosted those allegations. The anger and disappointment felt by many yes voters were entirely sincere [and] those sentiments were fanned by pro-Kremlin trolls, in a manner characteristic of Russian influence operations’

There were indeed allegations of irregularities during the vote, and a petition for a recount garnered 87,000 within a few days.

In the unlikely event that the recount was driven by Russia (rather than disappointed and suspicious Yes voters), it was working for the Yes campaign.  Scotland’s The Herald went to get an opinion from the Scottish National Party, or at least SNP MP Stewart McDonald, who had his priorities worked out.  Stewart McDonald is a principled opponent of Russia, in particular its actions to thwart the UK’s war on Syria.

Not even the thought of Russia helping the SNP impresses McDonald:

‘SNP MP Stewart McDonald – a regular critic of Russian propaganda – said: “We know that the government of Russia is engaged in a campaign of undermining confidence in, and the stability of, democratic institutions and instruments around the world”.’

The democratic institutions presumably include Westminster, which, presumably, the SNP are engaged in undermining confidence in, otherwise why independence?  But in the face of the ‘Russia threat’, all other considerations pall into insignificance.

It’s hard not to feel relieved that Putin’s nefarious plans for Scotland failed, and we escaped a few years at least of mind-numbing conspiracy theory.


Please note:  no correspondence will be entered into on the matter of Putin interfering in either the Scottish referendum or the US elections.






In Search of Ares

In 2013 we set out on a little pilgrimage around Roúmeli, or Central Greece, visiting sites related to the Greek Resistance.

1 Arachova B
We set out from Arachova, up on Parnassos, notable for a famous battle during the uprising against the Ottoman Empire. However there was another Battle of Arachova, which took place against the Germans in 1943. Italy had just capitulated to the Allies, leaving Italians who were jointly occupying Greece in an awkward position. The young captain of ELAS, Nikephoros (Dimitris Dimitriou), rode into Arachova with his men to negotiate the surrender of the Italian weaponry. The Italians delayed so as to give the Germans time to come up from Amfissa and Livadia, however Nikephoros was ready for them and ended up with not only the Italian arms but the Germans’ as well.

There are a couple of little incidents relating to this episode that I rather like. Nikephoros reports that when he and his men rode into Arachova, bearded and crisscrossed with ammunition belts, the Italian soldiers forgot all else and ran for their cameras. They asked the ELAS fighters to stay on their horses for the photos shoot but Nikephoros decided that this would be infra dig in the circumstances.

After the battle they loaded up the German and Italian lorries with all the booty, but had difficulty driving it through the narrow streets of Arachova. When a local was asked whether they could knock down and then rebuild the corner of his house, he said ‘Knock down the whole house if you need to!’

Nikephoros is famous for breaking out 60 inmates, including his own father, from the prison in the nearby town of Leivadia.

We drove over Parnassus to Agoriani or Eftalofos,

2 Eptalofos

and saw where Nikephoros is buried.

3 Nikiforos grave

We stopped at Lilea where there is a museum dedicated to Diamantis, another famed leader of ELAS Parnassidos, who died in the civil war.  The man with the key was away so we took a rain check, as Lilea is close to Arachova which is where we base ourselves in Greece.

Then on to Lamia, birthplace of the emblematic figure of the Greek Resistance, Ares Velouchiotis.

4 Lamia

Lamia is known for its attractive squares, at least four within a small radius. This statue of Ares is in People’s Square, and we dined there that night.

We spent the afternoon hiking up to the Resistance museum, which was closed indefinitely, like many others at the time. This was not the only disappointment. In the grounds of the building was an orange tree, covered in the most beautiful, brightly coloured fruit. Oh well, if the locals don’t appreciate them, we thought …. Back in the hotel, one mouthful revealed that they were the most sour, bitter, inedible fruit imaginable!

Ares Velouchiotis

The andates have gone to the mountains
The brave young men of Roúmeli
And the bravest of them all
Everyone says is Ares (andartiko song)

5 ares

Ares was the man responsible for creating the resistance army ELAS. Due in part to the discipline he imposed on the andartes (ELAS partisans) and the law and order he created in the countryside, he was loved and trusted by a large section of Greece, above all in his chief stamping ground of Roumeli. A large section of the country became ‘Free Greece’ where the Germans and the Italians could only move with a great number of troops. This improved the lives of the inhabitants immensely, amongst other things reducing the confiscation of food by the occupation authorities.


Forty thousand people from Lamia and the surrounding villages crowded into Freedom Square in Lamia to hear Ares’ historic speech after liberation.

8 Lamia barbara

We retraced our steps somewhat to visit the Gorgopotamos Bridge, blown up in a joint effort by ELAS with British saboteurs and also the smaller Greek organisation EDES created by the British under their chosen man Zervas (Syria watchers should think FSA). Greek and British reports show clearly that Ares was the genius behind the military operation, EDES ineffectual ,and Zervas worse than useless.

Nikephoros writes that when Ares presented his operational plan to the British and Zervas, it was accepted without change. However Nikephoros himself objected, because his only role was to captain the reserve troops. Ares response was ‘Shame on you Nikephoros, as a military man don’t you know that battles are always won by the reserves!’, and then ‘are you so sure of the competence of the men of the good General [i.e. Zervas]?’ Nikephoros was unconvinced, but as Ares suspected, the EDES troops were not up to the task entrusted to them, to take the less heavily guarded end of the bridge, so Nikephoros’s troops had to go in and save the operation.

9 Gorgopotamos

The BBC made no mention of either ELAS or Ares when it reported the operation but described Zervas’ contribution in glowing terms…


We drove up through the Carpenissi valley, west of Lamia. First port of call was to the ‘Hut of Stefanis’ outside Sperchiada. In May 1842 Ares and a handful of men set out from the hut to start the armed struggle against the German/Italian/ Bulgarian occupation. The hut is now a little museum.

11 Stefanis hut

On to Domnista, famous as the place where Ares publicly announced the struggle against the occupation. On 7 June 1942 he and his small band of about 15 made as dramatic an entrance as they could into the village, preceded by the Greek flag and singing, and then Ares addressed the locals about resistance and also law and order. At that time he repeated this many times in the villages around, moving round at a punishing speed so as to give the impression that there were several groups of andartes in the area.

12 domnista

They came down this road. Behind the car on the corner is a kafeneio where we had coffee. The owner was eight when Ares came but still remembers him talking about what ELAS intended to do to rapists, thieves and murderers.

At Korischades is ‘The Old School House’, now a museum, which was the base for the ‘Government in the Mountains’, established in March 1944. The actual name was the more modest Political Committee of National Liberation, but it held near-nationwide elections, in which 1,800 people voted. (In the Greek elections of 1936 only 1 million voted).

13 Korischades

There was a very good argument for seeing this ‘Government’ as the only legitimate one for Greece at the time, but the political leadership chose instead to throw its lot in with the British sponsored ‘Government of National Unity’ at the Lebanon Conference in May 1944. The Prime Minister was to be George Papandreou, whose party had won about 6% of seats in the 1936 elections.

14 Korischades museum

Left: Good luck Duce!; Right: Good luck Fuhrer!

Mikro Chorio’ is the place of a famous battle by ELAS under Ares against the Italians, featuring in the ‘Hymn to Ares’ aka as the ‘Mikro Chorio Hymn’.

The mountains groan, the sun darkens
Wretched Mikro Chorio once again faces grief.

But golden swords flash, rifles take aim.
Ares is waging war, with his brave young andartes

Come o faithless Italian, ridiculous Mussolini
And consider what will happen here

You do not face the old and sick to butcher today
Nor shamefaced girls, Nor villages to burn,

Nor mothers to tyrannise in the market place.
What you have before you today is Capetan Ares

Who is as fast as the eagle, as the wild wind
And kills traitors with his mighty sword.

Word of the ELAS’s victories against the Italians, like that of Mikro Chorio and Gorgopotamos, spread throughout Greece like wildfire.


Ares took his surname from Mount Velouchi, which dominates the Carpenissi Valley. Seen here from near Mikro Chorio

We could have stayed longer in the area, as Megalo Chorio is particularly appealing, however …
Our final destination was to be the Fango Gorge, Mesouda, Ares’ place of death. Mesouda is deep in the Agrapha Mountains north of the Carpenissi valley. Rather than go round on the main road of Western Greece, we decided to take a ‘short cut’ through mountains.

The Agrapha are spectacular, offset by the most beautiful green valleys.


In fact Agrafa means uncharted, and though things have improved since Ottoman times it is still very difficult to navigate, with my 1990s map way out of date. The idea was to get to Mesouda in the evening and whip down to the Fango Gorge before sunset. We didn’t arrive until about 10pm (fortunately as it turns out) and then as there was no accommodation we had to look elsewhere for a bed. It was a shame that we couldn’t stay in Mesouda because there was a very popular tavern filled with friendly people and it would have been great to eat there.

Back at Mesouda the next morning we found a sign to Fango Gorge. An elderly lady told us that we needed to take the car and then walk for a bit. We drove down a terrible road and then when it gave out walked down to the Acheloos River. Very pretty but could see no signs of anything relating to Ares.


Eventually we returned to the car, very disappointed. Then we noticed an arrow in red paint pointing right. This was followed by red splotches on trees and rocks. The ground became rougher and rougher,with some difficult and scary-looking slips. Fortunately we had our walking shoes on, but I didn’t think to go back for my water bottle.

18 Barbara Mesouda

Late middle age is a funny time to take up mountaineering …


After some serious rock climbing we arrived at a very pretty little gorge with rocks and waterfalls.


The only thing we noticed here was more red splotches, so after a drink, onward … and onward.

23 ross river

24 view of Acheloos

We wound up the mountain for about two hours but when faced with yet another stretch of sun-baked scree we gave up, fearing sunstroke. We lost the trail back once or twice but finally found ourselves back at the stream.

25 back to river

After drinking as much water as we could we collapsed in the shade, somewhat disconsolate but telling ourselves that at least we had some idea of the terrain that the andartes travelled over, often with terrible or no (!) footwear .


It was about this point that Ross asked, ‘What’s that behind you?’. I turned round and read out slowly ’16-6-1945 Here fell the First Captain of ELAS, Ares Velouchiotis.’ !!

Barbara Ares.PNG




28 Ares poem

‘Wind in the mountains, black moon in the hearts, come and take for yourself freedom with songs, guns and swords’. From the andartiko song ‘Heroes’.

Recovering at the kafeneio / taverna at Mesouda. Coffee at the unheard of price of 50c, but sadly it was exactly the wrong time for food.

30 river


Historical Note

From the outset of WWII Winston Churchill was determined to restore the ‘Greek’ monarchy, as the best one of ensuring British influence in the Eastern Mediterranean.  Reports from British agents in Greece that perhaps 90% of Greeks were opposed to the monarchy only strengthened his resolve.  In October 1944 Churchill visited Moscow and he and Stalin formulated what is known as the percentage agreement, whereby after the war Britain would have 90% of influence in Greece and the USSR would have 90% influence over e.g. Roumania.  A series of manoeuvres by the British and disastrous errors and capitulations by the Communist Party, who now controlled the progressive movement in Greece, led to the final disaster of the Treaty of Varkiza.

‘The British kicked us into the hole they had been digging for us’ (Manos Ioannidis)

Under the terms of the treaty ELAS disarmed – the other clauses are irrelevant as they were not honoured either by the British or the Greek politicians.    There was certainly no attempt to disarm the right-wing gangs who had collaborated with both the Germans and the British and now roamed the countryside pillaging, bashing and murdering (this period is known as the White Terror).   Members of ELAS were hunted down and murdered or tried as war criminals.  Others were persecuted by the Stalinist leadership of the KKE (Greek Communist Party), who resented Ares for opposing the Varkiza agreement and ELAS members for defending his memory.

Nikephoros was sentenced to death but his father spent years campaigning on his behalf, even approaching the British commander at Gorgopotomos for support, and he was eventually released.   Although he had previously been a regular officer in the army Nikephoros was now reduced to selling coffee round offices to support his family.  Photis Mastrokostas, who was one of the people who set out with Ares from the ‘Hut of Stefanis’, fought at Gorgopotamos and stayed with Ares until his death, spent 16 years in prison, developed TB and died the week after his release.  Diamantis was caught and executed during the civil war which followed (1946-49).  Another hero of Gorgopotamos, Kostoulas, went to fight with the Democratic Army in the civil war but was arrested as an ‘enemy agent’ and either murdered on the orders of the leadership or committed suicide.

On a personal note, the father of my friend Charikleia in Arachova was a member of the resistance and after the war spent 18 months in prison.  Her uncle Charalabos was killed in the civil war and both Charikleia and her brother Babis are named after him.  Her mother was also active in the resistance movement and like many Greek women was beaten by right wing gangs during the White Terror.

Death of Ares

It seems that Ares committed suicide, but there is some debate over whether he had already been shot. Although he was being systematically hunted down by right-wing forces (some say with the help of the Communist Party), many people find it hard to understand why he would commit suicide rather than fight to the end. One suggestion is that he was cut to the quick by the news that he had lost his Communist party membership. However given that he despised the party leadership this doesn’t seem likely.

The noose was closing in; many of his companions were captured within hours. No-one was able to prevent the desecration of his body – his head was cut off and hung from a lamppost in Trikala for some days. Ares always avowed that he would never fall into the hands of the British or their agents. It could be that he was struck by one hostile bullet and decided to finish it himself.

Failing that scenario, there is another, which seems quite probable if you actually go to the Gorge and see where he fell.  Is it purely a coincidence that he died in this beautiful little gorge, with rocks, river, waterfalls, and the mountains looming around him and across the Acheloos River? Knowing that the end was inevitable, did he actually choose to take his last breathe here, and made his way here for that purpose?

It was Ares that suggested the name ELAS, pronounced identically to the older name for Greece, Ellas. He chose for himself the names Ares, from the god of war, and Velouchiotis, after the most magnificent mountain in the Carpenissi Valley. To choose to die in the Fango Gorge could well be another example of his fine judgement.

Mubaraka Awainiya al-Brahimi Gives the Parliamentary Speech of the Year

Mubaraka Awainiya al-Brahimi is a Tunisian member of parliament.

Saudi Arabia called an emergency meeting of the “Arab League” in Cairo, for 19 November, 2017.  The agenda of the meeting, dominated by states who actively support terrorist groups fighting the Syrian government, included accusing Iran of aggression and meddling in the internal affairs of Arab states (i.e. aiding its ally Syria against an externally instigated insurgency), and to accuse Hezbollah, likewise fighting terrorists in Syria, of terrorism. There is no indication that Saudi Arabia’s own, proven, role in funding terrorist groups was on the agenda.

On 27 November, @walid970721  tweeted:


Text of speech (as excerpted)

“Your participation of the scandal known as the most recent meeting of the Arab Foreign Ministers in Cairo is the ultimate farce.  You met to condemn a Yemeni missile which landed in the desert, while you remain silent about the killing and displacement of the whole Yemeni population.  Are you not ashamed of the carnage of the heroes of Yemen?  Instead you are showing solidarity with the aggressor country.

“You and your Arab League rushed into criminalising the Hezbollah resistance, the only one carrying a gun in the face of the Zionist entity.  At the same time, this league does not care anything when it comes to the terrorist organisations that immersed themselves in the blood of Arabs and Muslims – the likes of ISIS, Taliban, Jabhat al Nusra, Jund ah-Sham, FSA and many others.

“Nor are you concerned about your failure in dealing with the crisis in Libya, and your inability to re-establish relations with Syria.  Because the Saudi regime, America and Israel will not allow you to take such a position.

“Your Excellency, what is falsely called the Islamic Coalition is the new Baghdadi coalition, and its General-Secretary is Benjamin Netanyahu.  And its military commander is Eisencott, the commander of what they call the IDF.  And the Tunisian people, who have paid with martyrs in all of the Arabs’ battles will not be part of a reactionary Zionist-American coalition.”

Tunisian Solidarity with Syria

In August Mubaraka Awainiya al-Brahimi led a parliamentary delegation to Syria “to voice our support for the Syrian people in the confrontation of the terrorist takfiri terrorism and to join them their happiness in achieving major victories over the terrorist organizations.”


Above: the delegation visited historical sites in the city of Aleppo, including the citadel, the Ummayyad Mosque, the Arab Anglican Church and the ancient souqs.

Al-Brahimi described Syria as “the only castle of resistance which has been adhering to its national principles and confronted the Zionist enemy which has been trying to divert the world attention away from the Palestinian cause by backing evil and aggression forces and their terrorist takfiri tools.

“Syria is now paying the price for the steadfast national stances it has been adopting under the weakness of the Arab regimes which are supporting terrorism in Syria and exporting terrorists to the entire world.” (From Syria Times, Tunisian Lawmakers: Syria Paying the Price for its Principled Stances)


See also: 

Tunisian MP: Hezbollah not alone in fighting terrorism



Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑