Exposing hysterical and wicked
misinformation about the
Coronavirus and vaccinations

Martin Webster

There is a large amount of hysterical and wicked misinformation about the Coronavirus Covid-19 and related topics being circulated via the internet at the moment. Some of this is generated by so-called ‘right wing’ and white-nationalist groups in the USA. Some may emanate from ‘disinformation’ agencies in Russia, China, Israel and elsewhere.

So far as the American groups are concerned, their main motivation seems to be opposition to all vaccination and inoculation programmes — including a future vaccine against Covid-19 — which they see as vehicles for ‘Big Brother’/Globalist power mechanisms to subjugate and regulate the Everyman (and woman).

Whatever common sense these people were born with seems to have departed from them because they deploy crude forgeries and misrepresentations in e-mail bulletins and YouTube videos in order to advance their anti-vaccination obsession.

This mendacious output is easily exposed — I give two examples below — and so their efforts not only fail to advance their anti-vaccination cause, they undermine the credibility of any information on any subject from all nationalist and right-wing sources. (That is a bone for ‘conspiratologists’ to gnaw on!)

There are Globalist conspiracies to dragoon Mankind into a World Government. They operate in open sight.

Methods to regulate and subjugate individuals will be a necessary feature of any such global regime. Indeed, sinister and undemocratic “social control” measures are already being deployed by states world-wide — including the UK — to ‘manage’ their citizenry. There is nothing new about this analysis. It was described in George Orwell’s book ‘1984’, published in 1949.

But I do not believe that any Globalist conspiracy is behind the Covid-19 emergency or the effort to invent and supply a vaccine to inoculate humans against that disease.

Not every bad event is the result of a conspiracy — though conspirators of every kind are always on hand to exploit any and every disaster that comes along, be it natural or man-made.

Compulsory vs voluntary
vaccination

As to the debate about voluntary and compulsory vaccinations, it should be noted that there are no current laws in the UK, Europe, the USA or elsewhere which mandate compulsory vaccinations against any specified disease. ‘Democratic’ states prefer to rely on voluntary schemes, backed up by a heavy measure of ‘persuasion’ exerted via various kinds of media.

This approach is not proving to be wholly successful in the UK currently in respect of the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) ‘jab’. The voluntary vaccination strategy in the case of those and other communicable diseases is based on the hope that if 90%+ of the population can be inoculated then the desired state of “herd immunity” will kick-in.

The first and last time a compulsory vaccination scheme was imposed in England and Wales (though for some reason, not Scotland — or Ireland, then also part of the UK) was in 1853 arising from the discovery by Edward Jenner (1749-1823) of a method of inoculating people against Smallpox by implanting in them traces of Cowpox.

Stefan Riedel MD, PhD, in his Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination states:

“In the 18th century in Europe, 400,000 people died annually of smallpox, and one third of the survivors went blind. The symptoms of smallpox, or the ‘speckled monster’ as it was known in 18th-century England, appeared suddenly and the sequelae were devastating. The case-fatality rate varied from 20% to 60% and left most survivors with disfiguring scars. The case-fatality rate in infants was even higher, approaching 80% in London and 98% in Berlin during the late 1800s.”

The eradication of Smallpox

Though the compulsory nature of this UK scheme was not universally popular, it worked,as this 1901 photo of twin brothers in the Leicester Isolation Hospital demonstrates.

misinformation about the corona virus

One of the boys had been inoculated, the other had not. That picture should make us all grateful that by 1953 Smallpox was eradicated from the UK.

Born in 1943, I was vaccinated against Smallpox as an infant and I think I had a booster shot in my early teens. I had no say in the matter, but am grateful it was done to me and my generation. I do not feel my “freedom” or that of my contemporaries had been abused. My career as an adult does not indicate a submissive relationship with the Establishment. I only wish I could have been inoculated against Rubella (‘German Measles’) which laid me low for a while as an 18 year old in 1961 at the start of my life living “against the grain”.

A global campaign against Smallpox (mainly aimed at the ‘Third World’) was instigated by the World Health Organization in 1967. This led to the eradication of the disease from the face of the Earth in 1977. The World Health Assembly confirmed that outcome in 1980.

I do not know to what extent the countries involved in the WHO-led campaign imposed compulsory vaccination against Smallpox, but who will deny that liberating Mankind from that awful scourge was a boon? Who will insist that we should all have the “freedom” to contract, and to pass on, Smallpox — or any and every other kind of potentially lethal, disfiguring, disgusting, life-wrecking and preventable malady?

Examples of misinformation
about the Coronavirus

But there are individuals and groups out there who demand just such a “freedom” and who produce material in the form of web site postings and YouTube videos which not only advance their point of view (which is their perfect right), but to publish deliberate lies and falsification of ‘evidence’ to advance their case.

misinformation about the coronavirus
U.S. anti-vaccination cranks demand “right” to spread infection

Recently I have challenged two of the more blatant examples of this, as follows:

Example 1:

An e-mail with attachments, I think originating in the USA, which deployed a cut-and-paste partial use of the heading of a UK government/Public Health England web site posting. The text accompanying this heading forgery (which did not include the URL of the government web site!) claimed that the UK government had announced that it no longer categorised Covid-19 as a dangerous disease.

Eventually I persuaded one of those who forwarded the e-mail to me to supply the URL of the UK government web site involved. When I went to the site it soon became clear that those who had issued the e-mail had selectively copied elements of the heading and that the text of the notification underneath had likewise been ‘edited’ to misrepresent its message.

The original and complete web site posting simply re-allocated the status of Covid-19 from the “High Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID)” category (which includes Ebola virus, Lassa fever, Pneumonic plague, along with 13 other deadly and highly infectious diseases) to a lower category of infectious and potentially lethal diseases.

The posting did not suggest that Covid-19 does not constitute a potentially lethal risk to persons who contract it. It merely indicates that it is not in the same league of deadliness and infectiousness as Ebola virus, Lassa fever, Pneumonic plague, etc.

Example 2:

A clearly American video posted on YouTube, showed a man in his late 30s/early 40s dressed (for no obvious reason) in hospital operating-theatre attire: gown, and face mask. This rig-out was designed to suggest he was a medical doctor.

The man’s name was not given either by himself, or in a voiceover, or in a caption. Likewise his medical qualifications were not given. The institution from which he was speaking — by implication a hospital — was not named.

He was speaking to his hand-held mobile phone. He appeared to be in a medical equipment storage room. He gestured to the equipment behind him and suggested that this was proof that there is no shortage of ventilators. Viewed briefly from a distance it was impossible for the layman to tell if the machines were indeed ventilators or commonplace mobile ‘vital signs’ monitors.

The ultimate target of the man’s diatribe was vaccinations — not just compulsory vaccinations, but any kind of vaccination for any kind of illness.

The man’s head was shaven bald. Minus his mask and with a few weeks’ hair growth he would be unrecognisable. He is a phantom who will disappear back into the mist from whence he came.

Conclusion

Let us by all means continue to observe and investigate the possible abuses of vaccination programmes for any signs of ulterior motives at work.

But we must protect our movement from being hijacked by anti-vaccination obsessives who are only interested in promoting their own peculiar agenda, and who are prepared to falsify evidence in support of it.

On all the issues which confront us, let us seek, find and publish authentic evidence without inventing any phony conspiracies — that would only serve to discredit our otherwise valid findings and our mission to save independent nationhood, civilization and the White race.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

Corona Virus…. Biowarfare…. 5G…. What is to be made of it all?

Philip Gegan

News and theories about the outbreak of the Corona virus change so fast that it is very difficult to establish exactly what is truth and what is fiction. Whilst this blog is no authority on viruses or transmitted diseases, we have studied (a) the available scientific opinion, and (b) the more credible of the conspiracy theories, and set out our findings below. We encourage our readers to form their own opinions, independently of the mainstream media, and to post whatever comments you have at the foot of this page.

Introduction

It’s probably impossible to find out the truth about the current Corona virus outbreak (2019-nCoV).

As of early March 2020, the number of cases of Corona virus worldwide is nearly 90,000, and the number of fatalities from it is more than 3,000.

These figures can’t be precise because many countries, notably in South America and Africa, don’t have a reliable method of detection. The mortality rate, as far as it can be established, appears to be around 3.4 per cent so far. By comparison, the Black Death of the fourteenth century had a mortality rate of around 30 per cent. So the Corona virus is not really a pandemic yet.

Where it broke out is supposed to be at the live animal market in Wuhan Province, China, by coincidence close to both the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control (300 yards) and the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory/Institute of Virology (20 miles).

corona virus
The Corona virus – its reputation precedes it.

The Corona virus, the live animal market and the laboratories

The animal market in Wuhan might be inhumane in the extreme, with animals of all kinds cramped into cages on top of each other for long periods. Its hygiene standards may be non-existent. But serious doubt has now been cast on the notion that those conditions, deplorable as they are, can be capable of producing, or even spreading, a virus like 2019-nCoV.

The only research published so far indicates a likelihood that the virus has been deliberately engineered in a laboratory. This is where the Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory/Institute of Virology come in. We don’t know what exactly goes on in such institutions, but it’s been reliably reported that at least one of them is involved in researching the Corona virus 2019-nCoV, among other activities.

It’s a small step to envisaging the release, whether deliberate or accidental, of the virus into the open, and its subsequent spread.

Reasons for the outbreak

What are the possible reasons for the outbreak? Let us consider the following possibilities.

1. It was accidentally leaked by persons unknown, whether or not in the course of illegal activities.

2. It was deliberately leaked by persons unknown (but we can guess who would be paying them) as some kind of macabre experiment.

3. It is a deliberate leak of the virus by the Chinese Government in order to destroy the US as an economic and military rival, and possibly the rest of the West as well.

4. It is a deliberate leak of the virus orchestrated by the US in order to cripple China and eliminate it, at least for a few decades, as an economic and military super-power, and protect the dollar as the world’s main trading currency.

An accidental or malicious leak by persons unknown?

Let us consider the first two possibilities. James Andrewes, writing in The Occidental Observer, favours number 1 above. He is sceptical about whether the virus outbreak really is as deadly as it’s made out to be by the Western media. According to him, the virus is quite possibly a bio weapon developed by the Chinese Government, but that its release into the environment was accidental or, possibly, done deliberately by malicious persons for reasons as yet unknown.

This seems highly improbable. Security systems at virus and disease research centres are generally as vigorous as those at nuclear power plants. Nobody has produced any suspects. An accidental release can almost certainly be ruled out.

As for a deliberate release by persons unknown, who would benefit from doing this, unless they were in the pay of a foreign government? This takes us to the remaining two possibilities.

The Chinese Government and the Corona virus

It’s extremely unlikely that the Chinese have orchestrated the deliberate release of the Corona virus. Releasing a virus is a two-edged sword, especially on your own soil. If China were going to do this it would release the virus elsewhere, probably in North America.

If it takes hold and becomes a genuine pandemic then China is likely to be the hardest hit, with the whole of its manpower-dependent economy, infrastructure and supply chains to and from the West (as well as its “Belt and Road Initiative“) in the firing line. It could ruin all the Chinese Government’s plans for economic and military hegemony for decades to come, and threaten the grip on power that the Chinese Communist Party has enjoyed since 1949.

Moreover, the present system works very well for the Chinese. They are in the ascendant. The Yuan (their currency) is now rivalling the dollar as the world’s main trading currency, and they are set to replace the US as the world’s largest and most productive economy. They are in the forefront of technological and digital development, and leaders in space and medical research. And, as mentioned above, they have the new One Belt One Road project (with its $1 trillion of sub-projects) to look forward to.

But most importantly they are the world’s leading manufacturers of consumer goods. They have an ambitious “Made in China 2025” project to underline this and move into the higher end of the consumer market. They import the raw materials that they don’t already have, manufacture the products, and sell them primarily to the West. Why sabotage all this by starting a virus that has the potential to kill millions of their actual and prospective customers?

The Chinese may be ruthless in dealing with dissidents among their own people, but they’re not stupid.

A specifically targeted virus?

One interesting observation made by several people following the spread of the virus is that it appears to infect only, or mainly, people of Chinese or oriental ethnic origin (and mainly males in the approximate proportion of 70/30). It may even be the case, though yet to be confirmed, that it targets people belonging to a specific blood group. This underlines our point even more. Why release a virus that only, or mainly, infects your own people? Or some specific part of them?

The mainstream media, of course, would only reluctantly inform us if this was the case. If it is, though, then it opens up a whole new possibility as to why the Corona virus has escaped.

That possibility is that the virus was engineered in a laboratory to only target ethnic Chinese or oriental people.

The US Government and the Corona virus

This brings us to the fourth possibility – that it’s a deliberate leak of the virus orchestrated by the US. Given the propensity of the US, through successive administrations, to make war on anything else that moves, and given the power of China to stand up to the US both economically and militarily, this is more feasible.

According to an article in the Duran the US government sponsors biological weapons laboratories but those laboratories aren’t situated in the US – they’re in Central and Western Asia, including the Ukraine and Georgia.

That seems rather strange, even if there are similar laboratories in the US. Could the US, therefore, have engineered the release of the virus, presumably to damage China enough to remove it as a threat to US hegemony worldwide?

The pertinent question here is, “Would it be worth the risk?” The risk is, first, that the Chinese Government would realise what had happened and retaliate in some way. A way that would damage the US and wreck its place as the world’s number one economy, with the most powerful currency and military might.

The second risk is that the virus might rebound and spread out of control across the whole world, killing possibly as many as 30 per cent or more of the world’s population. In that event even the Global Elite themselves would be unsafe. Surely even they wouldn’t risk putting themselves into such a position, no matter what the potential prize?

Hmm. Maybe they wouldn’t, and maybe they would.

Electro Magnetic Radiation

There’s yet another complication that has been thrown into the mix, as if we didn’t have enough already. Recently evidence has been mounting that not all of the alleged Corona virus cases reported are true. Some at least are something else, in most cases radiation sickness.

In recent years China has been in the forefront of developing the next generation of mobile communications networks called 5G. Towards the end of 2019 most of the groundwork was completed, and major centres in China commenced using it. One of those major centres was Wuhan Province. It’s quite possible, though yet to be verified, that the cruise liners stricken with the Corona virus have been fitted with 5G communications networks as well.

For those not conversant with the latest technological developments in the field of mobile communication, let me explain in layman’s terms the significance of this development (because I’m a layman myself, with access to the Internet).

Currently, nearly all mobile communications networks, including mobile phone networks, use 4G. However, not satisfied with the speed of 4G, scientists worldwide have continued their research and experiments in order to deliver an even faster service – up to a hundred times faster than 4G, and the result is 5G.

But it comes at a price. It emits a higher level of electro magnetic radiation than 4G. High levels of electro magnetic radiation are a health hazard that cause severe illnesses and, ultimately, death. People exposed to it for prolonged periods commonly suffer, sooner or later, from the development of tumours and cancers. The radiation attacks cell membranes in the human body and particularly in the brain and bloodstream, causing irreparable and ultimately fatal damage. It is completely indiscriminate, and unborn foetuses are just as vulnerable as any other human body.

corona virus and 5g
5G. The network that radiates its reputation.

Has 5G caused the fatalities?

Does 5G come into this category? Electro magnetic radiation emitted by devices using 4G, and earlier versions, has caused some degree of controversy. But on the whole it has been accepted that such radiation has been limited by all manufactured devices and is of little or no long-term danger to consumers or the public at large. And, as non-ionic radiation, it is in any event considered basically harmless to humans. Even with 4G, though, it is generally deemed inadvisable, for example, to use a mobile phone whilst it is plugged into the mains to charge the battery, or whilst travelling within the confines of a car.

Here’s the vital point. The radio frequency (RF) of 4G is between 1 GHz and 6 GHz. This is a little technical, but the higher the number here the more likely the radiation is to cause harm to living organisms. The corresponding number for 5G is from 24 GHz to no less than 300 GHz.

There are plenty of places online where alarmists sound off about how 5G is going to kill us all on account of this high level of radiation. The technical experts who work with mobile networks and the scientists who have developed 5G are of the view that the radiation associated with 5G, though much higher than 4G, is still not a danger to users or to the public at large. Let us hope this is true.

But applying all this to the situation with the Corona virus outbreak that originated in Wuhan Province, China, what if the 5G technology has only been tested for safety on healthy humans, free from any infections? What if exposing someone to 5G radiation who has a ‘flu-like infection somehow causes that infection to mutate into something much more sinister, and potentially fatal? And that is also contagious?

The connection between the Corona virus and 5G

What if scientists in some research laboratory somewhere in the Middle East have discovered this? What if a small group of organised people have smuggled the Corona virus into China, into Wuhan Province, and released it just when the new 5G technology has been launched?

In other words, what if the Corona virus is normally non-fatal, no worse than most strains of influenza, but it has been treated so as to mutate into something potentially fatal when subjected to high levels of non-ionic radiation? Radiation that would otherwise be harmless?

Is this what has happened in Wuhan Province? It has all the required ingredients – two institutes involved in the study and cultivation of viruses plus 5G having been launched at full throttle in the last two or three months. And it also has a live animal market where sanitation levels are all but non-existent. Any and all of these can be used as a scapegoat for the outbreak.

At the present time (early March 2020) no-one can say for sure what has happened. Or so it seems. The mainstream media have behaved true to form, and treated the whole subject as an excuse for selling more newspapers and increasing audience figures, rather than trying to get to the bottom of the whole thing for the benefit of all of us.

Compulsory Vaccination

Governments, too, have not given the matter the serious consideration that it demands. At least, not until recently, which may be too late to make much difference to anything. One of the predictable recommendations coming out of all this is that, once a vaccine is widely available, it should be made compulsory for the whole population to be injected with it.

compulsory vaccinations
Now this isn’t going to hurt a bit…..

Here in Britain, this would not only be an unacceptable breach of our ancient rights, but also, as in all countries, a clear danger that the vaccine may include other, hidden, chemicals, designed to bring about a subdued population unable to resist the direction in which they are being shepherded by the Global Elite. Such as being able to bring about Brexit.

Bringing China down

In summary, we have the Corona virus originating in Wuhan Province, China, a place central to Chinese transport and movement of people. It broke out at the worst possible time, just as the Chinese New Year was about to be celebrated, with millions of Chinese people on the move to spend the holiday with friends and family – much like our Christmas holiday.

Wuhan is where two major centres of research into transmittable diseases are located.

Wuhan has been in the forefront of China’s massive rollout of 5G technology. 5G technology emits more radiation (non-ionic) than anything ever before, and its effects on people suffering from an otherwise minor virus are unknown.

Wuhan is a place, among many others in China and south-east Asia, that hosts a huge live animal market in which the animals are kept for long periods in cramped, unhygienic and inhumane conditions, ideal for the spread of disease. Even though it’s doubtful this could explain how the virus broke out in the first place, it’s another thing to muddy the waters.

Wuhan was host to the Military Olympics in late 2019, at which militia from across the world, including the United States, competed for ten days.

Is all this is just coincidence, or was Wuhan chosen for a biological warfare attack on China precisely because there is so much going on there and gives the attackers the greatest cover?

If this latter possibility is true, then why have not the Chinese publicly accused the US of carrying out the attack? Why haven’t they retaliated? They must have the ability to establish what has probably happened.

The Inscrutable Chinese

Here in the West it’s difficult for us to fathom the moves and motives of the Chinese, quite aside from the Chinese Communist Party’s well known propensity for secrecy. The Chinese have been adherents of the Tao philosophy for thousands of years. This being so, it’s perhaps not surprising that they have avoided a direct confrontation with the US, even if they are fully satisfied that the US deliberately planted the virus.

They would be inclined not to accuse their attacker of this deliberate assault on their economic and physical well-being, even though, if true, it’s an outrageous act of war on a country not at war with the US. They would simply carry on doing, as best they could, the things that made them strong in the first place, and wait for the time to come when they may deal with the situation on their own terms and to their advantage.

We shall have to see. Let us hope, in the meantime, that out of all this confusion and subterfuge the truth finally emerges, and if there are any war criminals that they are brought to justice.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

“They’re changing guard at Buckingham Palace…”

Dame Malicia Spyte DBE
[Court and Social Correspondent]

On Monday 30th September the Mail on Sunday carried a report about Prince Andrew’s appointment of one Jason Stein as his ‘Communications Director’.

You can read that report by following the link at the foot of this post, where you will also find a photo of Stein with some of his associates. Stein’s previous employer was the delightful former Tory ‘Remainer’ MP Amber Rudd.

No doubt seeking to avoid being embroiled in the ongoing Labour Party “anti-semitism” scandal, the ever-tactful M-o-S did not specify Stein’s nationality.

When I showed a photograph of Stein to guests at the Labour Party election manifesto-launch cocktail party, one of them (a shabby aging man with a short grey beard, wearing a Hamas t-shirt and cycling clips, to whom I promised anonymity) ventured: “From the look of him, I’d say he is an Israeli.”

I do hope my reporting of this off-the-cuff comment does not get Labour into further trouble with the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis! I wonder if my readers have further and better particulars about Stein’s background?

Is it a coincidence that the explosion of adverse publicity focusing on Prince Andrew in relation to the Jeffrey Epstein paedophile mess more-or-less coincides with the appointment of Stein as his Communications Secretary?

Attempts have been made in some quarters to try and blame the decision to persuade Prince Andrew to take part in the disastrous BBC TV interview on one of Prince Andrew’s lowly assistants at Buckingham Palace — or even one of his own daughters!

Even before I saw the M-o-S report about Stein I had a feeling that Prince Andrew had been lured to agree to the BBC TV interview in order to make him the focus of the publicity surrounding the Epstein scandal instead of the late Epstein himself and —  more to the point — the person who facilitated contact between the Prince and Epstein: Ghislaine Maxwell.

She is the daughter of the known Mossad spy and Mirror Group pension-fund plunderer, the late Robert Maxwell. He was the former owner of the Daily/Sunday Mirror and other publications in the UK. After his mysterious death (he “fell off” his yacht the ‘Lady Ghislaine’ into the Atlantic just off the Canary Islands) he was awarded a state funeral on the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem, by the Israeli government in gratitude for his services “which cannot be specified”.

A greedy prince – easy prey for Epstein

Not that Prince Andrew doesn’t deserve bad publicity. His greed prompted him to set up a “British business facilitation agency” based at Buckingham Palace. He demanded a 2% skim from any business deals transacted through his office. This greed made him easy prey for Epstein, who was a source of business deals and who had countless millions, if not billions, of dollars to invest (quite from where, no-one knows).

Prince Andrew’s younger brother, Prince Edward, was little better. In 1999 he married Sophie Rhys-Jones a woman with a TV/media  background. In 1993 they set up a company called Ardent Productions which became mired in accusations that they were offering media companies “inside access” to Buckingham Palace and royal circles generally. Eventually senior members of the royal family slapped down this distasteful operation and Ardent ceased trading in 2009.

That episode signalled to all who take note of such things that the younger brothers of the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, considered themselves to be short of cash and were open to “business propositions” to help them eke out the income they derived from the Civil List (i.e. the taxpayer) — in Prince Andrew’s case, about £250,000 p.a. plus free luxurious ‘grace and favour’ residences, in return for sundry “royal duties”.

Once in Epstein’s circle of friends Prince Andrew had very young and available girls wafted before his eyes at parties held at Maxwell’s flat — or organised by her at other even more exotic locations.

It is obvious that Epstein, with Ghislaine Maxwell acting as his procuress, was running what the intelligence agencies call “a honey trap”. Important people — top politicians, businessmen, civil servants, academics, military personnel, media celebs… and Royalty — were lured, provided with ‘honey’ and photographed and filmed enjoying themselves.

All this was teetering on coming out three months ago after Epstein’s “suicide” in an American jail, so the clever public relations staff at Mossad got to work. The result? Instead of Epstein and Maxwell’s Mossad ‘honey trap’ being exposed, one of the people ensnared in it — I hesitate to describe him as a “victim” — became the story.

What better figure to distract attention from the ‘honey trap’ and those who ran it than one of the sons of the Queen of England, who had once been second-in-line to the throne?

The full background about all of this will emerge in time.

Meanwhile, the disgracing of Prince Andrew and the way that the Queen has had him cut adrift, minus his Civil List allowance, means (let us hope!) that Mossad no longer has a ‘Senior Royal’ “on the inside” at Buckingham Palace, which is a listening-post to every sector of British government, to diplomatic intelligence from every quarter of the globe and British society at every level.

• For further information about Mossad’s involvement in the Epstein/Maxwell ‘honey trap’,  readers should to go to the web sites listed below the link to the Mail-on-Sunday report.

Mail-on-Sunday – Sunday 29th September 2019: Prince Andrew hires Amber Rudd’s former ‘master of the dark arts’ aide to spearhead a PR fightback following the Jeffrey Epstein scandal by Charlotte Wace Royal Correspondent For The Mail On Sunday

jason stein

Mint Press News – Wednesday 7th August 2019: Mega Group, Maxwells and Mossad: The spy story at the heart of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal by Whitney Webb

The Daily Telegraph  – Tuesday 13th August 2019: Ghislaine Maxwell: The British socialite at the centre of Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal by Victoria Ward 

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs – September 2003 Book Review: Robert Maxwell, Israel’s Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon.

Mint Press News – Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Former Israeli intel official claims Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell worked for Israel by Whitney Webb

Strategic Culture Foundation – Thursday 17th October 2019 Jeffrey Epstein again disappears from view, but what about Mossad? by Philip Giraldi

If Americans Knew – Friday 8th November  2019 ABC anchor caught on mic saying network quashed Epstein story by If Americans Knew from reports

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

Brexit – where are we now?

Philip Gegan

We’ve heard so much in the news about

(a) the need for a “deal”; Remainers in Parliament have even passed a law prohibiting a “no-deal” Brexit;

(b) how a second referendum would “let the people decide”; and

(c) if we do insist on leaving, the need to follow the procedure set out in Section 50.

What are we to make of all this? At this time, only two things are clear.

(a) The majority of people in this country want us to leave the EU without any further delay. This includes the “Single Market”, the “Customs Union”, the “European Court of Justice” (sic) and all the other myriad institutions and bodies set up (both before and after the 2016 referendum) in order to make leaving the EU, for any “member-state”, impossible.

(b) The Establishment is determined to prevent us from leaving. If it goes along with Boris Johnson’s “deal” then that will only be because, although considerably better than Theresa May’s deal, it is still not a genuine withdrawal.

Do we need a “deal” at all?

Contrary to what many supporters of Brexit say, we do, strictly speaking, need a deal of some kind in order to continue trading with member-countries of the European Union.

The over-riding problem is this. Over the years the EU has gradually absorbed more and more powers and functions that were formerly exercised by the sovereign nations that were foolish enough to surrender such powers. One of these powers was the ability to conclude trade deals with other countries, both inside and outside the EU (the Customs Union and the Single Market saw to that).

This power is a fundamental component of national sovereignty. Now, no member of the EU can conclude such deals; they’ve lost the power, along with their national sovereignty.

This is an unfortunate fact, but the key difference between it and what the Remainers would have us believe, is that the correct order of events should be not to negotiate a deal and then leave the EU, but to ignore Section 50, leave the EU and only then negotiate a deal.

Let it not be lost on us that individual European countries would invariably be pleased to negotiate a trade deal with us, if they still had the power. But the EU has usurped that power, and will undoubtedly use it against us instead of for the common good of all. They do not want us to thrive outside the EU, and they are not interested in giving us a deal. All they want to do is to try to coerce us into re-applying for membership.

Negotiate from a position of strength

The next problem is this. Any dispute involving two “member states” of the EU, or involving a “member state” (which is what the UK still is) on the one hand and the EU Commission on the other can only be resolved by the EU itself through its Court of Justice (ECJ).

Such a system is contrary to natural justice and to common sense. The ECJ will always rule in favour of the EU. That’s what it’s there for. For that reason alone, the procedure of trying to negotiate a deal whilst still inside the EU is madness.

We should have placed ourselves in the same position as Canada, Mexico, or Japan. That is, outside the EU, and negotiating from a position of strength, free from the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Another tool to try and stop Brexit

There’s another important point about not leaving the EU without a “deal”. I’ve covered this before, but it’s worth mentioning again. If you go into negotiations of whatever kind loudly declaring that you won’t come away without an agreement with the other side then you seriously need certifying. Yet this is what the Remainers have done, time and again.

You have to reserve to yourself the option to “walk away”. For anyone claiming to be compos mentis to vote in favour of a law making a “no deal” Brexit unlawful is simply absurd.

In reality, these people knew exactly what they were doing. They were using all this nonsense as another tool to try and stop Brexit altogether.

Remainer hypocrisy about
a “Second referendum”

Now let’s deal with all the Remainer pressure for a second referendum.

There’s a very important reason why a second referendum should not take place. A referendum in UK politics is a very rare event, and rightly so. Up to 1975, when the first referendum took place over whether we should remain in what was then the EEC, there had been no referendums in our history.

The 2016 referendum was the first nationwide referendum in the UK to have taken place since 1975. The device has been used as infrequently as it has because it has been universally recognised that too many referendums would weaken the government and tend to make the country unstable.

It is completely unacceptable to have another referendum on the same question (whatever the question may be — not just Brexit) so soon after the original (the same applies to the proposed second referendum for Scotland on “independence” from the UK).

The reason is that if there is a second referendum it would completely undermine the whole concept of referendums. Not only that, but,

(a) if the result is the same as the first one, then it would be shown to have been a complete waste of time and money, and

(b) if the result is different then which result should prevail? And who should decide?

If the first result, then why have the second referendum at all? If the second result, that would almost certainly lead to civil unrest, as supporters of the first result will rightly feel they have been gravely wronged and deprived of the result they worked and made sacrifices for.

The end of referendums?

In either outcome, it would fatally weaken the concept of referendums (as well as democracy itself), as the next time a referendum was proposed people would be inclined not to vote at all on the basis that, “if we vote the wrong way they’ll simply make us have another one until we vote the way they want us to vote“.

And they would be right. The concept of referendums would thereby be destroyed.

In any event, calling for a second referendum is intrinsically hypocritical. Had the result in 2016 been the other way round and Leavers had called for a second referendum then you can imagine the avalanche of derision and mockery we would have had to endure at the hands of the Remainers and the mass media. They would have pulled no punches in telling us to grow up and accept the result.

When the 1975 referendum produced a “Stay in the EEC” outcome, we who had campaigned to leave stoically accepted the result without calling for another referendum, even though we still continued our opposition to UK membership of what was then the European Economic Community (EEC).

Do we need to comply with Section 50?

This article was signed up to, on our behalf, by Tony Blair, in December 1997 as part of the Lisbon Treaty, which was ratified by Parliament in 1998. Blair and his government had absolutely no mandate to bind this country in such a way, and it’s especially ironic that this nonentity of a former Prime Minister now struts around pretending to be a “democrat” and telling us that we can’t leave.

The truth of the matter is that such a clause would never be upheld by an impartial court. It would most probably be held to be unnecessarily burdensome, so there was no need to comply. We could have parted company with the EU before the end of 2016.

Boris Johnson’s new deal

Now Boris Johnson has a new deal, essentially the same as Theresa May’s deal, though with a few concessions in our favour. It has got rid of the Irish backstop, but at a price. The EU will have powers to station customs officials (all of them, of course, immune from prosecution) at our ports to ensure that goods shipped to Northern Ireland (and therefore not subject to any excise duties) are charged duties as if they were going to the EU.

Only when they have arrived in Northern Ireland will they be de-bonded and the excise duties made liable to refund. Northern Ireland businesses selling their goods to the mainland will have to complete a customs declaration. What a charade!

And all, of course, subject to the over-riding jurisdiction of the “European Court of Justice”.

Ongoing obligations under the “deal” inhibit our ability to modernise industrial infrastructure and practices by requiring us to prevent them from acquiring any competitive advantage compared to similar industries in the EU.

Using this part of the “deal”, the ECJ can step in at any time and sabotage any trade deal we are about to sign with an outside country, e.g. the US. So much for regaining our national sovereignty.

It must be said, however, that Johnson has been far tougher than May (who basically agreed to everything the EU demanded). For example, at least Northern Ireland is staying within the UK’s customs territory, and not ceded to the EU as it would have been under May’s appalling deal.

The coming general election

Until recently, hopes have been high in the Brexit camp that the Brexit Party would do sufficiently well in the coming General Election to win at least several seats, and possibly hold the “balance of power”. Johnson would be forced to implement a genuine Brexit in order to save his political career.

If only it were this simple. Those of us hardened racial nationalists who were around in the heyday of the National Front, in the 1970s, know just how difficult it is for a new political party to make any impact at a General Election.

In by-elections and European elections voters are more prepared to vote for the party or candidate or party leader that they most prefer. Minority and new parties often do well.

But in a General Election it’s different. The electorate, at a General Election, vote negatively. That is, they tend to vote against the candidate, or the party leader, or the party, that they hate and fear the most. There’s too much at stake to do otherwise.

The likely outcome

It’s never wise to try and predict the outcome of a General Election. Probably most voters currently hate and fear Labour and Jeremy Corbyn most, and want to keep them out of office. Sadly, in most constituencies the only way to do that is to vote Tory. This doesn’t bode well for the Brexit Party, and Nigel Farage knows this.

That, and not wanting to risk splitting the pro-Brexit vote, is probably why he has decided not to contest seats won by the Tories in 2017. It is alleged that some other Brexit Party candidates have been bribed by the Tories to stand down at the last minute.

As a result, it looks increasingly likely that the Tories will be the largest party after December 12th, and possibly have an absolute majority. As a political party, they will be united, on the surface at least.

The pro-Brexit faction will think the UK is free from the EU, while the Remainers will smirk in the knowledge that secret entanglements prevent a genuine withdrawal, and in the meantime they will work secretly to facilitate the UK’s re-entry into the EU in a few years’ time when a suitable pretext arises.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media will be able to convince us that democracy prevailed and that the strings still tying us to the EU and neutralising our sovereignty were authorised by the Tories’ convincing win at the polls. The fact that hardly anyone knew about them until afterwards will be ignored.

Johnson’s real motives

Johnson is a chancer by nature, and he took a chance in early 2016 when, with the referendum taking place in a few months, he threw his hat into the “Leave” camp, resigning from David Cameron’s Cabinet in order to be free to campaign.

Since then he has been careful to take advantage of all the in-fighting in the Conservative Party over Brexit so as to (eventually) manoeuvre himself into the leadership of the party and, as such, the post of Prime Minister.

So for Boris Johnson it’s all about his career in politics, his position as Prime Minister, and the success of the Conservative Party in the forthcoming General Election. He’s happy for most Brexit supporters to carry on believing that his “deal” with the reptilian “European Union” is the real thing, as long as he wins the election and retains his role as Prime Minister. He’s riding a tiger and he’s betting everything he has on staying on top of it.

Hope for the future

Boris Johnson’s deal is far from being a genuine Brexit, but we can console ourselves in the knowledge that it is merely the start of something much larger. Just think – if the Remainers had won the referendum then without a doubt further centralisation of powers in the EU, and further transfers of national sovereignty and power to the EU would have swiftly followed.

Even now we would most likely have the reality of a European Army, the Orwellian “European Arrest Warrant”, and the pending abolition of sterling, to be replaced by the Euro.

Even entrenched pillars of our ancient system of common law would be eroded by now, with the abolition of such guarantors of our liberties as the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, and Habeas Corpus (in the name of “harmonising” our laws to EU law).

So we have much to be thankful for. We have managed to avoid having the doomed Euro foisted upon us, and we also kept out of the Shengen Agreement. And key parts of our ancient liberties remain more or less intact.

Under the deal, we’ll be free of the ECJ at the end of the transition period, in January 2021. That alone is a massive blow to the Euro-federalists.

All these things, together with the Soros/Merkel backed Afro-Asian “refugee” invasion of Europe, the economic downturn the more prosperous European nations are now facing, and increasing Europe-wide opposition to Brussels, will lead to even more EU instability.

This in turn should encourage other Euro-sceptic nations, such as Hungary, Poland and Italy, to follow Britain’s example in regaining their national independence.

The days of the European Union are now surely numbered.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

A Jewess’s rant in The Spectator against the British body politic

by Martin Webster

Hysterical, self-pitying, self-indulgent, arrogant, spiteful, illogical, hateful.

These are the adjectives which came into my mind when reading Tanya Gold’s tirade — “‘Utterly betrayed’: Britain’s Jews are now politically homeless” by Tanya Gold – in The Spectator of Saturday 9th November 2019 — initially against the Corbynite left of the Labour Party, but which developed against much of our country’s body politic.

In the end, I was left with a sense that she was raging against the British people and nation as a whole — even the gentile world at large. This is nothing new in the voluminous canon of Jewish contemplation about the ‘goyim’, the inhabitants of the non-Jewish world.

Tanya Gold

If somebody had published such a screed against Jewry they might find themselves charged with some sort of “hate crime”, under a law devised by Jewish lawyers and pushed on to the Statute Book at the behest of Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish parliamentarians (of all parties) and their gentile philo-semitic colleagues (of all parties), all of whom are at once:

(a) perpetually hungry for Jewish financial and media patronage bestowed by the likes of the Conservative/Labour ‘Friends of Israel’ organisations,
and
(b)
terrified of being marked down as “anti-semitic” if they refused any Jewish demand.

I found that the case which Tanya Gold’s article seeks to assert self-destructed as I read it, so I will not seek to deconstruct it in detail here. I will simply point to one short passage which exposes the school playground level bigotry — and hence the hypocrisy — of this woman who seeks to denounce bigotry:

“…I have not considered voting Conservative before. But I won’t. There is
a respectable strain of Conservatism, but this is not it, not for me – one
glance at Jacob Rees-Mogg’s face is enough…”

Jewry seeks to control all political parties

Judah has become rampant in Britain not only on account of what the founder of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, described as “…the terrible power of our purse…”, and not only because of the ever-increasing Jewish control of the media, but because Jewry has been able to dominate all the parliamentary political parties – and a lot of the minor parties as well.

In that latter regard, let us not forget Jewry’s sustained effort, circa 1998 to 2007, to get British National Party leader Nick Griffin ‘on board’ only to find that he and his party were so ‘flaky’ that they had to turn their effort to dominate the “far Right” to cultivating the man who calls himself ‘Tommy Robinson’ and promoting his ‘English’ [sic] Defence League. I chronicled all this in my Electronic Loose Cannon e-mail bulletins issued during the first decade of this century while the BNP was still significantly extant.

Jewry’s strategy has been simple for the past 100 years or more: It seeks to exert a controlling influence over all political parties, factions and tendencies so as to protect Jewry both here in Britain and abroad — especially (post WW2) Israel, which is the totem pole focus of its essential tribal and hence political loyalty.

It is because Jewry sees its once stranglehold grip on the Labour Party slipping, at least for the moment, and because it fears that if Labour’s bid for independence is allowed to succeed then the revolt might spread to other major parliamentary parties, that it is making war on the Corbyn-led Labour Party with increasing ferocity.

The Conservative Party purports to be fighting the 12th December General Election to “Get Brexit Done”. In my view that slogan is a confidence trick because the ‘Brexit’ which Boris Johnson is offering is not an implementation of the 2016 Referendum result which mandated a clean break from the EU and all its institutions.

Parties which seek to escape
Jewish control to be destroyed

Jewry is engaged in this election, increasingly by giving support to the
Conservatives, not to achieve any sort of Brexit (to which it is opposed as a revolt against the internationalist and cosmopolitan milieu in which it thrives but all others involved degenerate) but to shatter the Corbynite hold on the Labour Party and, thereby, to demonstrate to the entire body politic that parties and politicians who seek to escape Jewish control will be destroyed.

It was this motivation that prompted the Board of Deputies of British Jews, via the Labour Friends of Israel, to set up in 1977 the Anti Nazi League (“Anal” to nationalists) in alliance with the ‘anti-Zionist’ Socialist Workers Party, then led by a group of Israeli passport-holders fronted by a man who called himself ‘Tony Cliff’ but whose real name was Ygael Gluckstein. In the run-up to the 1979 General Election Anal subjected the National Front’s lawful activities to mob violence. Their objective was made clear with their chant: “Smash!–Smash!–Smash the National Front!” It is deliciously ironic that among those active in Anal’s ‘Red Rent-a-Mob’ are people who are now being witch-hunted as Corbynite “anti-semites” within the Labour
Party.

Jewry’s strategy in treating the current Labour Party with the same venom — if not, yet, with the same degree of physical violence — as it deployed against the NF in the 1970s strikes me as very high risk. In making such an effort Jewry puts itself on view to the general public in a way that it traditionally prefers not to do. The nasty, neurotic, self-worshipping aspect of Jewry’s personality becomes exposed, as it is here for all to see in Tanya Gold’s article.

‘Anti-semitic’ or not, the Labour Party is multi-racialist

This is not a plea for anybody to vote Labour on 12th December! Whether or not there are “anti-semites” within the Labour Party, that party — be it ‘Blairite’ or ‘Corbynite’ — adheres to unrestricted immigration not only from Europe but from the whole of Africa, Asia and South America and actively approves of inter-racial mating. It seeks to allow the families of illegal immigrants to “unite” — here, not in their own ancestral homelands. Corbyn himself in his younger days flaunted his relationship with the negress Diane Abbott, now the Labour Shadow Home Secretary.

When Coloured Immigration into the UK commenced in the late 1940s the
Communist Party was comprised for the most part of Scots and Jews. To begin with the Jock element was in the ascendancy and proclaimed (correctly in my view) that Coloured Immigration was a “bosses’ plot to undermine the wages of British workers”. But the Jews, fearful of where such sentiments might lead if British society became less, not more, cosmopolitan, fought back and eventually turned the CP in favour of immigration and multi-racialism. (“Workers of all Lands Unite!”) This policy development soon influenced the Labour Party. Those seeking to know how the CP influenced Labour Party policy in the 1940s have only to read Douglas Hyde’s 1951 memoir: I Believed: The Autobiography of a Former British Communist.

This ‘Communist’ multi-racialist policy is in fact an essentially Jewish policy; a strategy devised to leave non-Jewish nations/societies weaker and, relatively, Jewry stronger. If Jewry sustains its internal discipline, via Judaism and societal pressure, which interdicts marriage with non-Jews (“Vot? You vant to continue ze vork of Hitler?”) whilst promoting all manner of non-Jewish races to inter-breed with each other, then the culturally/ethnically distinct Jewish population will develop its patriotism and objectives whilst all manner of other folks are dissolved into racial/cultural chaos.

Not that the Jews are a particularly ethnically homogeneous nation, but as I have remarked before: In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King.


Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0