This site is a back-up for the main site at frombehindenemylines.org.uk
In the previous article in this series, “Thanet Rigged – Part One: Tory and Labour’s Great Love”, it was realised that if the numbers voting UKIP held up from the Thanet District Council election across to the Thanet South Westminster constituency election, then the Tories could not have won by such a large margin as they did (see Result P in Part One). In fact, it looks like the Tories could only have won the constituency election at all if hundreds of the people who had voted Labour in the council election abandoned that position to bolster Craig Mackinlay, the Tory Westminster candidate.
In the first instance, then, we need to consider how likely it would be that UKIP voters, who had elected their party’s first ever District Council, would pass up the opportunity to elect their party’s leader to a seat at Westminster. The author certainly doesn’t think it very likely at all. Then we must consider how likely it would be that up to 2000 Labour voters would turn Tory at a General Election. The author feels that this is something that is likely – some voters on either side of the fake political spectrum understand implicitly the nature of British politics and are happy to play along because it benefits them to do so; they would quite happily act to prevent anything happening that would disrupt the established system. Moreover, the Tory and Labour election campaigns in Thanet South more or less instructed their followers to vote tactically to deny Nigel Farage – most brazenly when Mackinlay appeared with the Labour man holding a “don’t let UKIP break our great love” heart. This dynamic means that the Tory win could very well have been organic (that is, as organic as rigging with a conspiracy to promote tactical voting can be) – but the author’s feeling is that perhaps the Establishment just couldn’t rely on an outbreak of naturally occurring “great love” and knew that it would have to help things along to ensure that the union would take place. This would especially be the case if, as mentioned above, any kind of convincing Tory win depended on UKIP-council-voter defections – we’ve already dismissed as not likely, and seen evidence to suggest that it didn’t happen.
Indeed, that someone physically meddled with ballot papers to engineer a Tory win by more than 2000 votes is a possible explanation for the extraordinary failure Thanet Council managed to achieve when it did not process the election in anything remotely like a reasonable timely fashion, nor in line with expectations set by performances in previous elections. In fact, fixing might be the best explanation we have – the people who ran the Thanet South election, even though they have produced an official statement as required by regulation, have failed entirely to provide a feasible reason for why certain postal ballot papers did not arrive at the count until 7 and a half hours after the polling stations had closed.
Not only was there a motive, then, there also existed on Thursday 7th May, in Thanet, the opportunity for someone to meddle with ballot papers. Furthermore, by examining the official statement made by the Thanet Returning Officer, Madeline Homer, we find that if anyone wanted to interfere with the election, then they had the means to do it. The Thanet South election was badly-staged – at least according to the information available to us. Because it is safe to say that it is so limited that it seems that we are actually being prevented from scrutinising what happened at Thanet South in the appallingly deficient statement made by Madeline Homer; it is obfuscation that effectively amounts to a cover-up. As the saying goes, proof of a cover-up is proof of a conspiracy, and we must consider the possibility that the extraordinary circumstances around the handling of postal votes, and the fact of what amounts to a smokescreen has been thrown up around those circumstances, combines to create grounds for suspicion of vote rigging.
But that’s only for starters. We must also throw into the mix the notion that there was pre-knowledge of the result as evidenced in particular by one corporate-media journalist whose “duping delight” seemingly got the better of her. Then there is the fact that in Thanet South there were 92 ballot papers rejected because of the lack of an official mark on them; in Thanet North this number was 105. The reader should type “’want of official mark” in a search engine and notice how many times it appears in conjunction with the number “0” – meaning most elections never see a ballot paper rejected for this reason. In fact, to illustrate how extraordinary this is, consider that in Thanet combined, this time, there were 197 ballots rejected for want of an official mark – that’s 31% of the total for the entire 2010 General Election when there were 640 overall. It’s another highly suspicious piece of circumstantial evidence.
It’s also been pointed out to the author that at the 2015 election there was a general trend in East Kent for turnout to fall from 2010 figures. Turnout fell in Ashford, Canterbury, Chatham & Aylesford, Dover, Faversham & Mid Kent, Folkestone & Hythe, Gillingham & Rainham, and Maidstone & The Weald – that’s 8 constituencies – by an average of 1.2%. In Thanet South, there was a 4% increase. (There were also increases in Rochester, 1.46%; Sittingbourne, 0.96% and Thanet North, 2.62%). 4% of Thanet South’s 2010 electorate (where boundary changes had already been applied thus having no effect) is about 3000 people. Could the evidence of disproportionate numbers of illicit ballot papers and trend-bucking turnout increases be telling a story of postal ballot fraud (the postal ballots seem to be the source of the problem) wherein enough bogus Tory voters are materialised after someone worked out how many were needed? Or did the fraudsters in fact spend those many hours when the postal votes were effectively missing swapping out Labour and UKIP votes for Tory ones?
Well, of course, this seems very fanciful, and the reader might be astonished at what might seem like a sudden outburst of nonsense, but the reader should appreciate that the author is writing from a perspective whereby he has spent some time looking into how postal ballots should be handled according to regulations, and how there were many exemplar councils who managed to handle them without seriously stuffing up their election counts. When the reader understands these things too, he or she should also arrive at the conclusion that there really was no good legitimate reason for things to play out in the Thanet South election the way they did. And if there are no legitimate reasons, then by default there must only be illegitimate ones – reasons that obviously can’t be admitted to openly.
Postal voting normality
The following information is gleaned from government-produced guidance documents for election staff entitled “UK Parliamentary general election and local government elections in England on 7 May 2015: guidance for (Acting) Returning Officers”, and specifically from “Part D – Absent voting” and “Part E – Verifying and counting the votes”.
It appears that postal ballot papers can be processed during the run up to an election day. The regulations seem to allow for sessions before the close of polling when councils can execute initial procedure on votes that have been submitted and accumulated since the issuance of ballot papers, or a previous session. Any number of postal vote opening sessions can be held according to requirements, and they can be held long before polling day. In fact, the guidance from the electoral commission (Part D) says this:
3.32 Your first opening session should be held within a couple of days of your first issue. Even if you have not received a high number of returned postal votes by then, you should still conduct a session at that time and take the 13 opportunity to test your equipment and assess your workflows under real conditions. After this first session you should gauge whether your estimate of the number of postal vote opening sessions required is sufficient or whether it will need to be revised. Nothing prevents the opening of postal votes being carried out on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, and indeed you may wish to consider doing so, particularly if additional postal vote opening sessions are found to be required.
(Please note, a council is legally obliged to give election agents 48 hours notice of these sessions so that they can attend if so desire).
We have actually jumped the gun a little bit and need to back track. In this initial process of postal ballot opening, there are two sorts of receptacles that we need to concern ourselves with. The first is the “postal voters’ ballot boxes”. These are used to store returned postal vote packets – i.e. all the material returned by the voter in a covering envelope. The second sort of receptacle is the “postal ballot boxes” which are used to store the actual ballot papers after they have been extracted from the aforementioned covering envelopes. The moving of material from one set of receptacles to another is the process that is executed in postal vote opening sessions, and it is achieved in four steps (the titles of which are presented here the same way that they are in the guidance):
Stage 1: opening of the postal voters’ ballot box
All the postal vote packets that have been returned and collected in the postal voter’s ballot box are accessed at the same time. Each packet is opened, and each packet should contain something called a voting statement, as well as another envelope containing the actual completed ballot paper.
Stage 2: checking the personal identifiers
The voting statements will have the voters signature on it, and this is checked with a personal identifier record – or a copy of the signature that the council will already have in its possession. If all is well, then the envelope with the ballot slip in it goes forward to the next stage of the process.
Stage 3: opening of postal ballot paper envelopes
On opening the envelope containing the ballot paper, an official mark on that paper is compared with one on the envelope – the two should coincide. If the vote does not pass this piece of scrutiny it is rejected. If it is deemed safe, it is then placed in one of the postal ballot boxes. Note well, ballot papers are meant to be handled face down at this stage so that no indication can be got of how the vote was actually cast.
Stage 4: sealing the postal ballot boxes
The number of postal ballot papers to be sealed in each postal ballot box is recorded.
At this stage, the postal ballot papers are all ready to go forward to the verification and the count – referred to together as the count – which are the two features of the final electoral process that happens on election night after the polling stations have closed. Potentially, then, come the eve of the election, it should be the case that most postal votes will have been processed ready for the count. Of course, there is scope for packets to arrive late – but there are contingencies for this: the guidance stipulates that there should be collections of postal ballot envelopes when they arrive at the council in the mail, or are handed in at polling stations during polling day; it advises that such measures should be taken to “reduce the risk of delays to the start time of the count” – it makes sense, then, for as many postal votes as possible be processed ahead of the close of the polls.
The count takes place at a venue that has been appointed with a mind to realising guiding principles of speediness, accuracy and total transparency. The count venue is where ballot boxes are brought from polling stations and postal ballot boxes are brought from the place where they have been processed in the manner explained above – there are even guidelines about how the boxes need to be delivered so as to ensure integrity. Both sorts of box will have a record with them that tells of the number of votes they contain – we have seen how that comes to be the case with postal votes, and of course at polling stations, election operatives record the number of ballots issued to voters as they visit to cast their vote.
And so, armed with this information, during the verification, election staff work to establish that the number of ballot papers in any ballot box(es) is the same as the one recorded for it. Verification produces a figure with which the final count outcome must reconcile.
The postal ballot papers are potentially the very first to be processed in verification. They can potentially be on site at the Count Venue at 10pm when the polling stations close. In fact, the guidance makes a point of stressing the importance of the early verification of postal ballots:
4.9 All packets and ballot boxes containing postal ballot papers must be subject to verification in the same way as any ballot box from a polling station. As these will often be some of the first boxes being verified, they present an opportunity to create confidence in the process and in the count as a whole.
The count itself is self-explanatory to a certain degree – except to point out that during it, and indeed the verification, ballot papers are handled face-up to show the way the vote has been cast. Additionally, and it is of particular interest for our purposes, at this stage the ballot boxes are mixed together – the following is what the Part E guidance says about it word for word:
6.5 You must mix the ballot papers so that ballot papers from each ballot box are mixed with ballot papers from at least one other ballot box, and mix the postal ballot papers with ballot papers from at least one other ballot box before sorting and counting the votes.
This is a practice that is surprising to discover – the guidance offers no reasons for it (not that the author could find in any case) – and the reader is asked to take especial note. Another few things to notice before we move on are as follows.
Another important rule that must be brought to the reader’s attention is that a Parliamentary election has priority over local elections:
6.2 You do not have to wait until you have completed the verification for all polls for which you are the RO [Returning Officer] taking on the combined functions, before you can start counting the votes for the UK Parliamentary election.
And given that there is a desirability to begin the counting of the Parliamentary election within 4 hours of the polls closing (see Part E, 6.1) a Returning Officer should understand that there is a necessity to verify the Parliamentary vote before all other polls are verified.
What happened at Thanet South
With some of the official guidance now digested, we turn to the strange occurrences at Thanet on election night. In fact, people really understanding that a very odd thing had happened in the day after the General Election when the Thanet Council election results came in to confirm UKIP’s first ever district-level administration. People expressing themselves on Twitter under the motto #thanetrigged who thought it incredibly difficult to believe that Farage couldn’t win where his party was so triumphant also thought it odd that “journalist” Isabel Hardman seemed to know about the result at 12:38am on the Friday morning. “Very good source tells me”, tweeted Hardman, “Farage *has* lost South Thanet. I’d be surprised if they were wrong. But we’ll see.”
Before we try to comprehend this message any better, it is extremely important to understand just how very late the counting was at Thanet. The Returning Officer, a Madeline Homer, via her later-released statement, entered an official time of 6am on Friday 8th May as the moment when her staff began to count the votes for the Thanet South parliamentary election – although even on this supposedly simple fact, Homer is at risk of being incorrect. At the time, Ben Rossington, presumably of the Daily Mirror, tweeted the following at 7:17am:
THEY’VE STARTED COUNTING!!!! Whoo hoo. Thanet Sth result ONLY four hours away. Turn out 70%
On its own this doesn’t necessarily contradict Madeline Homer’s official statement – but the following, which was posted at 7:05 on a Telegraph live updates page, certainly does. It confirms that the count had indeed still not started at 6am
More delays in Thanet South, which Nigel Farage hopes to win, with officials disclosing that counting had still not started by 6am, pushing the declaration back to at least 10am.
In actual fact, the declaration finally came around 10:30am, meaning the count took 3 hours and (about) 13 minutes (going by Rossington’s tweet). Many have pointed to previous declaration times for South Thanet (1997: 3:12am; 2001: 3:33am; 2005: 4:44am; 2010: 3:17am) to illustrate the disastrously late declaration of 2015. However, the thing to focus on is the predicted declaration time of 6am which was published by the Press Association ahead of the election on a webpage dedicated to predicted times for all constituencies. Each time in this list was an estimation based either on council projections, or on previous declaration times; perhaps we should suppose that the prediction for South Thanet’s was got by the former method.
This 6am time is an important piece of information. From it we can perhaps discover how late the declaration time was as opposed to the Council’s own expectation. If the count took between 3 and 4 hours, which we know that it did, and if this was according to expectations, then the verification would have been anticipated to be complete between 2 and 3 o-clock. Theory is one thing, practice is another; we know from the council itself that verification did not start until after 5:30 am – that would be about 3 hours, perhaps, after it was supposed to have finished. These are the figures that really convict. 5.30 am, at the earliest – and especially given that there was no exit poll at Thanet South – would be the first time that anyone would begin to have any inclination about what the results looked like.
So, returning to the psychic Hardman, before the now infamous tweet, she actually posted the following on the Spectator’s live blog at 12:19am
I have intelligence from within Ukip that Nigel Farage has not won South Thanet.
At 5 hours before anyone at Thanet had even looked at a vote etched on a ballot pape there is apparently awareness of the result in certain quarters. Now, Hardman’s source could have been a UKIP one as she claimed, and then again, Hardman could have been lying – she is a “journalist” after all. The point is the certainty of the language pointing to the certainty of someone having foreknowledge of the outcome – pointing to someone being privy to face-up ballot papers long before anyone should have been able. Could this be true, and who would be accessing ballot papers who would tell corporate-media “journalists” [arguably intelligence agents] about it? (Another question is why would anyone cause the conjecture in an operation that wasn’t supposed to be noticed – to which the short answer would be “duping delight” – please look it up).
In regards to this mystery, the most interesting forecast came at 11:47pm – so earlier than Hardman’s – in the Telegraph’s live update website:
Christopher Hope is our man on the scene. He reports that UKIP and the Conservatives are saying it’s “tight” with less than 1,000 votes in it. There was a good Ukip turnout this morning, but Conservatives showed strongly later on. Ballots are still being validated, and no counting starts until 2am. The result is due at 6am.
Christopher writes: A Tory source said: “It is too close to call. We think it is definitely tight. They had a good start to day and we had a good finish.”
Most of the information in this report about what is happening at the count is very likely the parroting of a council announcement – so it’s a holding statement that doesn’t necessarily reflect any truth – but the very interesting thing is the report from the Tory source who knows that his party had finished well. We are supposed to think he is talking about a late surge at the polling stations. In fact, could he be talking about the actions taken to engineer the Tory candidate into a position of victory?
What we really need to do is to look at what Thanet Council did during the course of the night to explain why the declaration could have been so abnormally late (if there is a rational explanation, then there doesn’t need to be a conspiracy). Theoretically, at least, there is one place to look to ascertain facts that is not dependant on hearsay through tweeting or piece-to-camera-reporting “journalists”. This is the statement by a Returning Officer must explain him or herself should it have come to pass that the counting at his or her constituency did not start before 2am on the morning after election day.
As well as the one for Thanet North and South (which can be found here and here), completed by the same woman already mentioned above, there are lots of these on the internet – after all, there is a requirement by Act of Parliament to submit one of these things to the Electoral Commission and to post a copy on the local authorities web space. In these statements the Returning Officer has to explain two things: 1) what measures were taken to ensure that the count took place on time, and then 2) what actually went wrong in that process. We are going to deal with these in order with regards Thanet South, but before we do so, we are going to examine other examples of Returning Officer Statements from other constituencies chosen randomly, and we are going to concentrate on the handling of postal votes because this seemed to be the main issue for Thanet.
Reports by other Returning Officers versus that produced by Madeline Homer
The Returning Officer for Nottingham South (downloads) reported that she had a postal vote opening team that relocated (from council offices presumably) to the count location on the day. It seems that no ballot opening session had happened prior to the election day, but at 1pm, on the day and after the morning mail, the staff started processing all the envelopes they had by then received. We are informed that this involved scanning them with software networked from council offices as part of the identification process. Another session then occurred at 7pm, which meant that postal votes that had since accumulated at polling stations could be added to the process. This 7pm session continued after the polls closed and polling station staff had handed any late postal votes into the process.
The Nottingham Returning Officer notes that there was an unprecedented amount of postal votes handed in during the last few hours of polling. He also confirmed that the council’s most experienced staff were involved in dealing with the postal vote opening so that it did not impinge on the timeliness of the verification. Indeed, the Returning Officer reports that all postal ballot papers were handed over in plenty of time before the end of the verification process. The count started at 3.30am.
In Hemel Hempstead (statement here), where counting started at 3:55am, the Returning Officer reported that an adjacent room to the count location was used to process postal votes received on the day of the election – this suggests that the council had been processing them in the run up. In fact, there is confirmation in the other section of the statement (the “what went wrong bit”) where it was reported that the team had been “able to keep pace with the arrival of envelopes in the lead up to polling day, despite some early difficulties with software releases”. Secure internet had been established to “enable the remote use of election computer software” – so, like Nottingham South, they could use council-linked computers to process the postal votes. The Returning Officer reports that she expected 900 postal packages to be submitted to Presiding Officers at the polling stations – two sweeps would be made during the day to collect them. The prediction was close in the end – 1000 postal votes were processed on the day of the election and were ready to be included in the verification process.
At Stevenage (statement here), where the count began at 2:10am (because it was decided that staff should have a break at 1:45am when verification had finished), the Returning Officer reported an anticipation of a large proportion of postal votes. He reported that provisions had been in place to collect postal votes from polling stations and deal with them securely.
The Welwyn Borough Council’s Returning Officer (for the Welwyn Hatfield constituency – statement here) reported that postal votes were processed during the election ahead of polling day. “Throughout the election and on the day of the election, arrangements were out in place to process the volume of returned postal votes. On the eve of the election those received had all been opened, scanned, gone through the verification process and transported to the verification/count venue to be added to the ballot papers for counting after the final verification had been completed”. [It’s not clear here, actually, if the postal ballots went into the main verification process]. What we can take from this again is that the council in question had put in place measures to ensure that postal vote processing did not delay the count.
Now, what do we think that Thanet Council did? In the relevant section of the Returning Officer’s statement, Madeline Homer entered this:
Please refer to the chapter on “Factors influencing the timing of the count” within the count toolkit (starting at paragraph 3.12) as a guide for the types of steps which, as a minimum, should be covered.
Needless to say, this is an utter disgrace. Not providing information by which we can adjudicate as to the reasonableness of the lateness of the Thanet South count suggests that we would find that the information wouldn’t lead to any such conclusion. In other words, if it was clear that all things were in place to ensure a timely count, it would be very odd indeed if the count wasn’t timely after all. Because the statement by the Returning Officer doesn’t offer that opportunity, it can be said to constitute a cover-up.
In more trouble for Thanet’s hapless Returning Officer, it is declared in her statement that the official start of the count was at 6am. This is not what observers were reporting on the ground at the time, as we have seen. Nevertheless, she did manage to fill out the second section of the statement, which is the part about how her processes (which we weren’t allowed to know about) went wrong so that the count started after 2am. Homer made 8 points, which can be summarised as follows:
1. The fact that there were two parliamentary constituency, district and parish elections all on the same day impacted the time it took to complete the Verification.
2. “Virtually all the polling stations had three ballot boxes” – possibly meaning that there was one box for each election – “and each had very large ballot papers that took longer to unfold and therefore to verify”.
3. The turnout was up by 5% – or rather, this is what Homer claimed.
4. There was a delay in receiving ballot boxes from the Dover wards of the constituency. Additionally, Homer claimed that her team had to verify the district and parish election ballot boxes from the two Dover wards (plus in relation to the Thanet North election, the same from wards in Canterbury). However, the author wonders why these boxes did not go to the councils who have generally jurisdiction over those local elections.
5. This one is copied word for word, because it is so important:
“Postal vote delays – we did not get the verified postal votes back after verification by the postal voting team into the count centre until after 3:30am”.
6. Due to a limitation in space at the count centre, “all the late received” postal votes were not “verified” at the count venue. Along with 5, this is very important, and we’ll analyse it shortly.
7. Verification was not completed until after 5:30am.
8. The venue of the count was too small for the staff that the Returning Officer really would have liked. In other words, there weren’t enough people (120) because of the size of the count venue.
Most of these excuses are just not good enough. As we have seen, there is guidance for Returning Officers whereby warnings are given to prepare adequately for exactly the sort of problems being complained of. Once again, because we don’t know exactly how Homer implemented this guidance, we don’t know if the failings were due to a lack of foresight and preparation, or something else beyond the Returning Officer’s control.
Inferences from Homer’s statement – how the cheat might have been accomplished
The really important points to look at are 5, 6 and 7. Homer seems to be saying that the postal votes were not verified at the count venue; i.e. they were verified at another place before they were brought to the count. But which votes are Homer actually referring to? She reported that “all the late received” postal votes could not be verified at the count centre. Does she mean postal votes that came in during the day on polling day, or does she mean all postal votes that happened to come late to the count – so “all” or “some”. If it’s the former, then is she indicating that the postal voting sessions were held on polling day, and implying that this onerous task be the cause of the lateness? If the latter, would she actually be referring to the same lot of ballot papers in points 5 and 6 and thus be implying that this portion of the ballot papers in fact comprised a good many that took a long time to process?
As the reader must see – Homer’s statement is stunningly insufficient, although there are some things we can take away, with varying degrees of certainty. The first is that, possibly, lots of postal votes were introduced into the process on the last day. However, there should have been enough time in the day (and before the election day itself, for that matter) to process postal ballots.
Secondly – and this is for definite – an unspecified number of postal votes were out of the loop for a long time. There is really no normal situation not covered by the guidance by which any number of them should arrive at the count more than 7 and a half hours after the polls close. If they really were verified at a remote location, do we know that election agents and candidates were able to supervise this process as they would have been able to do at the main count? If not, this means that there would have been an opportunity to access the ballot papers outside of sealed boxes.
Summarising then, either a very large number of postal ballot packages were introduced at the last moment, or the postal ballot boxes were delayed by something extraordinary; the most likely case is the latter one. On top of this, we have the fact that all too conveniently the Returning Officer failed to account properly for the delay – meaning the extraordinary happening is not explained.
Nevertheless, we have, thanks to what Homer does impart, a better idea about how it would have been possible to cheat in the Thanet South election. If postal votes were handled without supervision, and they turned up at a count centre to be counted on trust that they were legitimate and the number of them conformed with a list of voters, it might have been possible to introduce ones that never came from a voter. Admittedly, that would be a risky avenue to choose given that all votes are meant to be accounted for (although, as we know and as has been demonstrated, in reality there would be no risk of an investigation that would discover any anomalies). It surely would be even easier to have a small team of people substitute votes from Labour and UKIP to the Tories by replacing ballot papers (from UKIP to a much lesser extent because Farage would have been expected to do very well, and it wouldn’t do to cause suspicion with a much-deflated UKIP result), or changing how the vote was cast on them. There would have been plenty of time to be painstaking in such an exercise. Likewise, surely there would have been plenty of time to attempt the following fix: wait until the end of polling and, noticing which postal voters hadn’t responded, produce votes on their behalf and introduce them into the process. Again, this would probably rely on an unsupervised postal opening session. If all else fails, then there are ways of electoral fraud that are already tried and trusted – ways that mean that the vote verification process doesn’t have to be commandeered or infiltrated.
Unfortunately, we will never know for sure if Thanet South was rigged or not, because we will never be able to look at evidence that isn’t circumstantial – we will never get to examine the ballot papers and supporting documentation that we think would be so damaging to the British Establishment. Ballot papers only have to be kept for a year before they are destroyed, and the seal that supposedly makes them inaccessible can only be ordered broken by the High Court or Parliament. Critics have in the past voiced concerns about how, in reality, security around the storing of ballot papers is inexcusably – deliberately – lax so that the authorities (intelligence agencies, police etc) could get amongst the old votes and see which voters voted for fringe parties. Apparently, it hasn’t also occurred that if intelligence agencies and police could do this at that point in the process, they could do it at any point. Apparently, it hasn’t occurred that intelligence agencies could use this above-the-law access to change the outcome of elections. Indeed, if intelligence agencies could change the votes, it would be more efficient to do so than searching through millions of ballot papers to discover “dangerous” individuals by how they are voting – especially when people are nowadays voting for a “fringe party” in their millions.
There was perhaps no more greater demonstration of the determination of the British Establishment to keep Nigel Farage out of a Westminster seat than when the Labour and Tory candidates in the Thanet South constituency appeared together, during their campaigning, one on either side of a “don’t let UKIP break our great love” heart.
Unfortunately, for some unknown reason Britons will not take such statements of LibLabCon unity at face value – although at the same time some are willing to forget and abandon their left/right opposition to the other camp on the fake political spectrum (otherwise known as the “great love”) in the face of a UKIP insurgency. The subject of united Tory and Labour disapprobation, Farage, was voted into second place come the night of the General Election – or so we are told. In actual fact, the Thanet South result was surrounded by circumstances so suspicious that it looked like a rather particularly brazen extension of the wider campaign to deny Farage at all costs. A fortnight prior to election day, a Survation opinion poll had UKIP on 39% – 9 points ahead of the Tories. On the 9th May it became apparent that UKIP had won control of Thanet District Council by quite an overwhelming margin in terms of seats, and by 36% to the Tories’ 32. The anomaly was Farage’s performance on May 7th, and the fact of all the unusual happenings in the handling of the ballot papers has produced scope for critics to say that that performance can only be explained by Establishment fixing.
Officially, the potentially criminal aspects of Operation Stop-Farage have been covered over with the biggest lie of the election, which is that voters were scared of a possible SNP-Labour coalition – in the aftermath Farage himself supposed it to be the case (and the author has it on good authority that this rationale was helpful to the Kent Police in excusing their own failure regarding the incident after they had wrapped up their ludicrously inadequate investigation into possible electoral fraud). As has been mentioned previously at this site, the threat of a SNP bogeyman – writ much larger in the corporate-media than it could ever really present – is not the reason for the Cameron Regime (and this becomes clear the more time one spends looking at election results), but in the context of a far reaching fix, this story appears to be precondtitioning given out by the Establishment so that people could rationalise the result of the election. So, what is being proposed here is that the very existence of a nationally-broad cover story that bears little relation to reality is evidence of a big act of nefariousness – illegal interference – that affected the outcome of the 2015 General Election.
Unfortunately, there can be no definitive proof because crucial data is not available to us. Any evidence that suggests a fix will not be widely appreciated or believed; nevertheless, there is evidence. As far as Thanet South is concerned, there are two elements to look at: the vote numbers of the various polls held on 7th May, and the goings-on at the Thanet count. We are going, in this article, to look at the first part of this, and then there will be a follow up looking at the second element. There will also be other subsequent articles at this site looking at other General Election results, and this is how we will build up a universal picture by which patriots may be able to create wide spread doubt about the very legitimacy of the current EU vassal at Westminster as it contrives to destroy British nationhood and the sovereignty of the British people.
We can compare the results of the Thanet District Council with the Thanet South Westminster constituency election that was held on the same day – although this is not straightforward. First of all, there are no official ward-by-ward breakdowns for a Westminster constituency – we have to tally all the District Council ward results together and contrast that against the one constituency one. Secondly, in the council elections, parties are competing for up to 3 seats per ward, so each big party will most likely have more than one candidate in each council election. Secondly, the Thanet South constituency contains two wards that are constituent parts of Dover District Council – these are Little Stour and Ashstone, and Sandwich. As it happened, in the Thanet council wards, the Tories, Labour and UKIP had exactly the same number of people standing – as such we can directly compare votes cast. However, in the Dover wards, UKIP and Labour had less candidates than the Tories. This means that there were more votes cast for the Tories without necessarily reflecting true levels of support. We can’t assume that fewer candidates for each party shows a complete absence of backing in the area – which the results necessarily will suggest. To better understand the voting in the Dover wards, we need to extrapolate how many votes Labour and UKIP would have got if they had each stood 3 candidates. This requires some readjustment of the data – which will be explained more later.
First of all, let’s look at the total number of votes cast (i.e. for all candidates) and the percentages for each party in the Thanet wards (where the Lib Dems did not feature):
Result A (out of 93709 total votes):
UKIP 33770 votes, 36%; Tories 29680 votes, 31.7%; Labour 25551 votes, 27.3%.
We can find how many votes each voter cast on average in each ward (total votes divided by ballot papers issued). If we tally all the votes cast for each party (add up all votes for candidates of the same political colour), we can divide each total by vote-per-voter average to surmise how votes would stack up if only one had been available for every elector. Here are findings after the mangling:
Result B (out of 41235 total votes):
UKIP 14803 votes; 35.9%; Tories 13285 votes; 32.2%; Labour 11216; 28.2%
The bottom line is that support for UKIP in the Thanet council wards was huge – (for reasons about to be explained) it suggests that in the Westminster election, with a seat for Farage at stake, the party must have come first in that stage of the race.
If we now just add the raw votes of the Dover wards to the Thanet ones (see Result A), without any mangling, this is what we get:
Result C (out of 114009 total votes):
UKIP 35566 votes; 31.2%; Tories 42367 votes; 37.2%; Labour 27469 votes; 24.1%.
And if we extrapolate the vote-per-voter result from Result C:
Result D (out of a total of 49709 votes):
UKIP 15565 votes; 31.3%; Tories 18570 votes; 37.6%; Labour 12017; 24.2%
Now, compare Result D to the actual votes at the general election:
Result E (out of 49401 total votes):
UKIP: 16026 votes; 32.4%; Tories: 18838 votes; 38.1%; Labour: 11740 votes; 23.8%
While the reader is taking this in, notice that the number of total voters in the council elections was very close to the number of voters in the Thanet South constituency election – there is a small difference that might be to do with eligibility issues where a voter can vote in the council elections, but can’t vote in the Westminster one (we aren’t going to worry about it here too much). The obvious assumption to make is that we seem to be dealing with the same people casting votes in the two elections. So, Results E and D confirm what we know about most UKIP voters – they aren’t going to vote tactically for the LibLabCon in a General Election. On the face of things, the UKIP vote held in the Westminster constituency election. It did not switch to the Tories, as we are told that it did. Also on the surface we can see from the statistics presented thus far that the Tories were seemingly brought, by the two Dover ward results, very close to their general election total. So, what this seems to be telling us is that Thanet South was lost by UKIP to the Tories because of an irresistible showing in the Dover wards. Casually, we could say that this makes sense – the Dover constituencies are rural, and a golf course takes up a great deal of space in the Sandwich one.
However, there is a problem with all that because not everyone who wanted to vote UKIP as much as they could in the council elections – or for Labour for that matter – could do so. The Dover wards in the council elections cannot give an accurate representation – the full data about these wards is just not available to us.
But there is a tool on the internet that is quite useful in going some way to building a picture – the Electoral Calculus website. For the wards of Little Stour and Ashstone, and Sandwich in the Thanet South constituency election, Electoral Calculus estimated UKIP scored 870 and 963 respectively [this had to be extracted from an umbrella “others” score based on the actual percentages won in the constituency election].
As for the Tory performance in the Dover wards, Electoral Calculus estimated it to be strong, with 1997 and 1770 votes. If we just added these scores to the basic Thanet vote-per-voter ward numbers (Result B), this is what we would get:
Result F (out of 48469 total votes – [Electoral Calculus reckons a smaller number of total votes cast for the Dover wards, and the author hasn’t worked out why]):
UKIP 16636 votes; 34.3%; Tories 17052 votes; 35.2%; Labour 12147; 25.1%
This begins to show us, that on the other hand, UKIP were just too strong in Thanet proper to be overcome the way they did by the Tories in Dover. Indeed, a Tory win garnered out of strong Dover support doesn’t necessarily stand up to closer scrutiny, and the first thing we can do to show this is to use the result of the Dover Westminster constituency to extrapolate the full extent of UKIP support in the Thanet South Dover wards. The Dover constituency election outcome looked like this: Tory 43.3%; Labour 30.7%; UKIP 20.3%; Lib Dem 3.1%.
When we use this as a template for the vote-per-voter numbers from Sandwich and Little Stour, we get these results:
Result G (out of 8474 total votes):
Tory 3669 votes; Labour 2601 votes; UKIP 1720 votes; Lib Dems 263 votes
Adding this to the Thanet ward results we get:
Result H (out of 49709 total votes):
UKIP 16523 votes; 33.2%; Tories 16956 votes; 34.1%; Labour 13817 votes; 27.8%; Lib Dems 263 votes; 0.5%.
Again, the story being told is that the Tory strength in Dover just isn’t enough to overpower the UKIP vote in the Thanet-proper part of the Thanet South constituency.
The next thing we can do is extrapolate what might have happened for a full deck of UKIP candidates in the Sandwich and Little Stour elections. At the same time, we need to keep a track of the Labour and Lib Dem performances to make sure that we redistribute votes properly – and that the total percentages still add up to 100! [Please note, the Green Party and Others made up 1.4% of the entire vote, we’re going to say Green support is at the level of 0.7%; this is a figure extrapolated as an average from all the Dover wards. In fact, for simplicity’s sake, we are going to treat this presence as so negligible that we can get away with ignoring it in our calculations]. We need to begin with Sandwich where UKIP lacked a third candidate against the Tories’ full house. Labour only put up one candidate, and the Lib Dems also had 3. What we need to do is look at the other results amongst the Dover and Thanet council elections statistics for wards where UKIP and Labour put up a full set of candidates in 3-seat wards. For UKIP, we can find a number that we could reasonably expect to fill the 3rd column by looking for the worst performance in all the qualifying seats in terms of the proportion of the 3rd vote to the 2nd– this would be to assume less than average support.
In Labour’s case, we need to fill two columns, so we will use the worst proportion between 2nd and 1st votes and then the same again between the 3rd and 2nd; this gives us the following results:
UKIP: 1st Candidate: 936 (real votes); 2nd Candidate: 860 (real votes); New 3rd Candidate: 725 (additional votes); total: 2521 votes
Labour: 1st Candidate: 975 (real votes); New 2nd Candidate: 842 (additional votes); New 3rd Candidate: 722 (additional votes); total: 2539 votes
These are the votes that we think UKIP and Labour would have scored if they had had the full number of candidates standing.
Because Labour and UKIP suddenly have votes where they didn’t before, we have to make space out of the existing Lib Dem and Tory ones. We are awarding UKIP 725 more votes, and Labour 1564 – a grand total of 2289. The Tories portion of this is 74.7%, while the Lib Dems is 25.3% (we get this by working out the ratio of the Tory vote to the Lib Dem vote). So we must subtract 1711 votes from the Tories, and 578 votes from the Lib Dems.
This gives us these figures for all votes cast:
Result I (out of 10114 total votes):
UKIP 2521 votes; 24.9%; Tory 3777 votes; 37.3%; Labour 2539 votes; 25.1%; Lib Dems 1277 votes; 12.6%.
When we work these figures to get a vote-per-voter number we get the following:
Result J (out of 4291 total votes):
UKIP 1070 votes; 24.9%; Tory 1602 votes; 37.3%; Labour 1077 votes; 25.1%; Lib Dems 542 votes; 12.6%.
At this stage, we should examine how Electoral Calculus estimated the scores of the Sandwich ward in the Thanet South constituency:
Result K (out of 3671 total votes - [N.B. Electoral Calculus reckoned a turnout of 3671 in this ward for the general election – the author does not know why; 4291 is the number of ballots issued for the council election]).
UKIP 963 votes; 26.2%; Tories 1770 votes; 48.2%; Labour 560 votes; 14.9%; Lib Dems 266 votes; 7.2%.
The important thing to focus on is the way the UKIP vote stays roughly the same. And our revised figure for the Tory vote-per-voter (see Result J) is much closer to the Electoral Calculus one than it was when unmodified. In that vanilla form, the Tories had 2328 votes, or 63.4%. [It should be pointed out at this stage that Electoral Calculus overstated the Tory support 75% of the time, and in one case by 10 percentage points, and understated the UKIP support 62.5% of the time, and in one case by nearly 18 percentage points].
Now we repeat the entire process for Little Stour and Ashstone:
Once again, the Tories and the Lib Dems had 3 candidates apiece. Labour had one, and UKIP hand none. UKIP’s first candidate’s score was assumed to have the same percentage of the vote that their first candidate had had in the Sandwich election. This was thought to be a fair number. In the Dover wards, the average percentage for UKIP’s 1st candidate (against total votes cast) was 17%. The Stour first candidate had 9%. The rest of the numbers were found in the same way already described so that the new Labour and UKIP scores would look like this:
UKIP: New 1st Candidate: 943 (additional votes); New 2nd Candidate: 872 (additional votes); New 3rd Candidate: 734 (additional votes); total: 2549
Labour: 1st Candidate: 943 (real votes); New 2nd Candidate: 815 (additional votes); New 3rd Candidate: 698 (additional votes); total: 2456
The votes are swapped across as follows:
UKIP +2549; Labour +1513; Tory -3164; Lib Dems -898 – so that the new totals are:
Result L (out of 10186 total votes):
UKIP 2549 votes; 25%; Tory 4035 votes; 39.6%; Labour 2456 votes; 24.1%; Lib Dems 1146 votes; 11.2%.
When we work these figures to get a vote-per-voter number we get the following:
Result M (out of 4183 total votes):
UKIP 1047 votes; 25%; Tory 1657 votes; 39.6%; Labour 1009 votes; 24.1%; Lib Dems 470 votes; 11.3%.
Now compare with the Electoral Calculus estimates:
Result N (out of 3563 votes):
UKIP 870 votes; 24.4%; Tories 1997 votes; 56.1%; Labour 372 votes; 10.4%; Lib Dems 223 votes; 6.3%.
When the one vote-per-voter figures are understood in all the wards that make up the Thanet South constituency, these are the results:
Result O (out of 49709 votes):
UKIP 16920 votes; 34%; Tories 16545 votes; 33.3%; Labour 13301 votes; 26.7%; Lib Dems 1012 votes; 2%. Other 4%.
Finally, let’s have another look at the general election results:
UKIP: 16026 votes; 32.4%; Tories: 18838 votes; 38.1%; Labour: 11740 votes; 23.8%; Lib Dem 831; 1.9%. Other 3.8%.
Off the bat, this suggests that the Tories gained votes mostly from Labour across from the council elections to the constituency election. This is totally contrary to what we have been told about voter behaviour, and this is not surprising. We aren’t supposed to know that the Labour and the Tory vote is interchangeable to keep UKIP out of office. So the Tory win in Thanet South might have been organic… or the figures might help us to know how the Thanet South election was rigged (more on this in the next article), for it is quite possible that our final reckoning of the Labour vote (see Result O) is over stated. Indeed, Electoral Calculus’ estimates were massively underweight for Labour in the Dover wards, and this is where we have somewhat boosted them. If we go back and look at Result D, Labour scored 12017, or 24.2% in all the council wards that comprise the Thanet South constituency – this was without any transfer from the Tory and Lib Dem vote, and is more in line with the constituency election result. Feeding the excess vote back into the Tories’ share, the figures would look like this:
Result P (out of 49709 votes):
UKIP 16920 votes; 34%; Tories 17524 votes; 35.3%; Labour 12017 votes; 24.2%; Lib Dems 1317 votes; 2.6%. Other 3.9%.
The Tories are still shy of 1000 votes compared to the constituency election, and it suggests that the Tory victory could only have been as large as it was with a transfer of support from UKIP – which evidently did not switch very much between the council and the general election. It’s hard to imagine where the Tories’ margin of victory came from.
If everything had gone as normal on election night in Thanet South, we could shrug our shoulders and say that after all, people who had voted UKIP in the council elections decided not to vote to put the leader of UKIP in the House of Commons, but to vote Tory instead. But as there were shenanigans, and as it is simply not believable that UKIP voters would not vote for Farage, and because the figures testify that the Tories should not have won so incredibly big, if at all, if the UKIP vote had held up (which it looked like it did), then we have to start contemplating the reality of the vote having been rigged. How it could have been achieved is for the next article.
When the BBC’s exit poll was announced on the night of 7th May, certain politicians and political commentators expressed incredulity. Previously, the opinion polls had had Labour and the Tories neck and neck – now it looked as if the Tories would win by quite the margin. The exit poll was a surprise to the author, too, who never believes opinion polls and who predicted enough UKIP seats to force some drastic repositioning amongst the LibLabCon to do whatever needed to be done to continue its agenda. The explanation for the result, we were told, was a reaction to the threat of a SNP coalition with Labour. We were led to believe that the corporate-media and the Conservatives, with their negative campaigning, had apparently scared Tory voters back into the fold – and so presumably away from UKIP. However, after some time for consideration has passed, this story begins to look like cover for something else that lies actually partly just beyond the scope of this article (an explanation to follow). Although the size of the promised SNP result did in fact materialise, their performance, regardless of its scale, would never make any difference to what a LibLabCon Westminster Government has planned for Scotland – i.e. for it to be a direct EU province. So, the SNP threat story had always been a decoy – and now we can see what for. Despite what we are told by the Westminster Bubble, General Election Day 2015 was a resounding success for UKIP and the anti-EU forces in the country. However, the unexpected Tory win is not only excused by the SNP decoy, but made to look spectacular because of how the bogey-man of Labour+SNP in office has been slain in the process, and this turns our attention away from the really significant development. Post-election, we were sold a story of how “leftism” – a redundant term of divide and conquer – is temporarily defeated and the “right” has won, but the real divide in politics remains, and the side that UKIP is on has been made stronger. Even though the British electorate has apparently given a pro-EU Tory Government carte-blanche to rubber stamp EU legislation and continue to lead them ever more into national oblivion, Britons who are looking to overthrow the unlawful rule of the vassal government that clings on in Westminster are better placed than ever before to do it. This is what is being disguised under the froth of all the Establishment baloney.
Getting now into the facts and figures, if we compare the votes for each party in the 2010 and 2015 elections against the respective turnouts, we find some very interesting results. In 2010, 10.7 million people voted Tory in a national turnout of 29.7 million. If the same proportion had voted for the Tories in 2015, where the turnout was 30.7 million, then the size of that constituency would have been 11,080,028. This number is only 250 thousand less than the actual 2015 result. In real terms, the Tory vote only grew by 2% of the 2010 result. As for UKIP, in 2010, a mere 919,546 (the author amongst them) expressed their support with a vote. If the same proportion had voted UKIP in 2015, the result would have seen a measly 950,501 votes. In fact, this time UKIP received 2.9 million votes more than that. In real terms, UKIP’s vote grew by 308%. The exact same development can be seen in the vote-share-change figures where the Tories only managed a 0.8% increase from 2010 – UKIP saw a 9.5% increase. The great myth that has already been peddled and sold is not true. There was no great Tory victory in the 2015 election – the party still has roughly the same level of support that could only muster a coalition in 2010. It is UKIP that has made the most tremendous impact, and has changed the political landscape, and that is no doubt why the corporate-media is going after it so furiously: the Establishment is perhaps frightened witless, which is further suggested by the rapidity with which the Tories are moving ahead with some very suspect policies that, after only a little investigation, will reveal themselves to be in accordance with and conducive for EU rule.
As much mileage as the idea of the Labour+SNP bogey-man has had, we need to view it in the context of this massive growth in UKIP. In doing this we can see that in fact, if it did have any effect at all, then it only mitigated UKIP’s growth rather than hand the Tories a stunning victory. Indeed, it could be argued that the actual scale of the SNP-threat effect was negligible – after all, the Labour vote grew slightly more than the Tories’ did, and it looks on the face of it that the collapsed Lib Dem vote propped the Tories up; (the author always predicted a merging of the support of those two parties). In truth, or as it appears to the author at least, the threat of a Labour-SNP coalition did not generate a major Tory burst.
Of course, if we are puzzled about a few things regarding this election just gone, we cannot be mystified about how the Great Tory Victory narrative came to be established. Before the election the ever-so-compliant corporate-media – none less strident than the Tories’ flagship propaganda mouthpiece, the Daily Mail – was crucial in being seen to frighten its readership – usually Middle England Tories. The way it did this was by writing the threat of a Labour-SNP coalition large into the imaginations of people. Labour and the Scottish Nationalist Party would form a partnership, and the SNP would extract all sorts of concessions out of the senior member in the relationship – to the detriment of the English. The author didn’t follow much of this fear mongering, but gathers the preceding sentence an adequate representation of what was the spirit of the threat being made.
However, against the theoretical power to influence that the corporate-media has evidently had, and to some degree still wields, the author sets the increasing awareness in the public of the phenomenon known as a “psychological operation”. The author is coming to think that perhaps the British electorate is growing out of its historical naivety whereby it is increasingly resistant to the sort of manipulation by the “authoritative voice” that has been able to work so well in the past. For surely, pre-election, from hard and expanding experience, people could see that a Tory party that has a majority – just as a Labour one would – could rubber stamp EU legislation with impunity. On the other hand, a coalition government, opposed by a kernel of UKIP MPs with which Labour and Tory rebels might find some common cause, had the potential to be a spanner in the works – in the context of current British politics where the LibLabCon are obviously firmly set upon an agenda separate to that of the people it is supposed to represent, Government is best when it finds it hard to legislate against them.
The more one considers the matter, the more one comes to the conclusion that the reason for the promotion of the SNP threat was more complex than at first appears, and it could have something to do with a grander plan that encompasses the election, of which the current mass frenzy in corporate-media regarding the so-called civil war in UKIP is a tail-end feature. There will be more on this in the very next FBEL article – one investigating the possibility of electoral fraud to deliver key seats to the Tories [have patience, though, this will take a good deal of research]. In short, and for the time-being, the theory would be that the promotion of the SNP threat was to create a rationale so that the eventual out-of-the-blue Tory victory would not be such a surprise, and would be easier for people to comprehend. What we could have very well seen is a great theft – and it would indicate a departure from the usual method of control – illusion – that our ruling class, now driven to desperation, would normally use to trick us into giving our support and consent.
The trouble is, whether or not UKIP were robbed of a number of MPs is difficult to prove; what we can say for sure, however, is that the party was robbed of recognition of its success. As well as the nearly 4 million votes garnered in the General Election, UKIP gained 176 council seats, and won control of its first district council in Thanet. And in actual fact, a big UKIP presence in the councils is arguably going to prove to be more important than seats at Westminster because of the way it is intended for the EU to rule the territories currently known as the United Kingdom. Only days into their incumbency, the Tories have already announced plans to create proto city states of the major English metropolitan areas. The plan is a development of Labour’s design to regionalise England with parliaments – presumably, as per the surreptitious way British politicians have delivered the blueprint for EU control in the UK, a rehash and friendlier face was needed after the original scheme faced overwhelming opposition in the electorate. The EU has just been mentioned, and of course, the real purpose of regionalisation is so that the EU can rule the UK directly at local level – even to a degree where councils become directly answerable to the EU. The National Government will increasingly become a vestigial organ that, as it shrinks by barely noticeable degrees over time, will serve the main purpose of fooling Britons into thinking that theirs is an independent country.
Thus, it is very important that UKIP establish as soon as possible a good number of councils and seats on them so as to become a power through which EU rule is most effectively resisted. The good news is that the election results clearly show that UKIP is on the ascendency, and with a stunningly steep trajectory. This is perhaps most dramatically illustrated in a graphic produced by the Independent newspaper which shows which party made the biggest gains in votes in each Westminster constituency (see above). England and Wales are blanketed in UKIP purple. This is great news ahead of any referendum on EU membership, which the Tory Government, with its helping agents in the wider British Government, will look to win for the “In” side – not perhaps by bamboozling the electorate, because it may have found at this election just gone that it cannot do that as well as it may have been able to in the past – but by knobbling the one force in British politics that will prove most effective at mobilizing the electorate to vote “Out”; and this would explain the current frenzied attack on UKIP by the corporate-media, which is clearly another co-ordinated psychological -operation – like others written about on this site – to create the impression of UKIP disintegration or lack of support and/or unity. Britons who want to be free of the EU vassal at Westminster must be encouraged by all the flak being taken by UKIP at the moment; the party is clearly flying over the target it needs to attack.
Today is the day that UKIP release a manifesto for the 2015 General Election. Reassuringly, it has been audited independently – so it stands up as a set of promises based in reality that potentially can be delivered.
Contrast that to yesterday’s performance by “Cast Iron” David Cameron – so called because of his most infamous failure to keep a promise. There is a plan to publish a critique here in the course of the next few days; but to be going on with, the reader’s attention is drawn to the slickness of the presentation (see featured image on front page), which was published in the MailOnline, and very especially the appeal to nostalgia by the frequent mention by Cameron of the phrase “Good Life”.
At this site, in a bit of a joke, Tory voters have been identified as living in a 1970s sitcom-time-warp-bubble beyond which the UK is fast draining down the toilet bowl – the representation is a condemnation of a delusion that some certain Britons insist on retaining in the face of certain cold hard facts. However, it appears as if the Tory strategists, in all seriousness, have identified their core vote as being these insulated fantasists who rarely see a brown face in the depths of their southern countryside, let alone an Eastern European accent, and are appealing to them via an emotional response associated with the exploits of Tom Good et al to trigger the second coming of Margaret Thatcher. At the end of the day, yesterday, the Daily Mail had even done an interview with a woman that they claimed was the real Margot Leadbetter. If this doesn’t finally suggest unhinged sociopathic minds in government, then one wonders what ever will? As it turned out, the Leadbetter/Good Life meme was a bad move because UKIP were able to reveal that their manifesto had been scrutinised by an external auditor. The Tories, by contrast, had been laughably reduced to only having the “real Margot” vouch for them.
However, if people are wise to LibLabCon indoctrination these days, and can even find a giggle in it, they didn’t always. In 2005, there was a now infamous televised focus group which essentially put David Cameron into pole position for the Tory leadership contest. This would have sealed the UK’s fate if 900,000 (the author proudly amongst them) hadn’t voted for UKIP in 2010. Regarding the leadership election itself, the author made a film about it a few years ago to highlight the fact that people were manipulated so as to choose a card out of a rigged hand – to pick Cast Iron Dave. This video has been released again to YouTube (with a minor tweak). The provocation was very much the high-production value Tory manifesto launch and the extravagant salesmanship of it in the corporate-media. Britons need to be reminded just what sort of a turkey they are being sold.
Please take a look at the video below.
Detective Superintendent Nick May is the individual heading an investigation into the Christmas 2013 murder of Valerie Graves in Bosham, West Sussex. The following is an open letter addressed to him. In this letter he is asked to respond, but the author is under no illusion that he would do such a thing. In fact, the letter is supposed to focus any reader’s attention on the flawed premise by which the inhabitants of Bosham and its environs are being subjected to an influx of police – seemingly on a continuous operation until all targets have received a hit – to exploit the discomfort engendered by a blanket suspicion of guilt cast upon all male individuals over 16 years of age. Perhaps more importantly, the reader is once again directed to how police are conniving to achieve their objective. In a previous article, “The Great Bosham DNA Harvest…”, the author could come to no other conclusion that the police were collecting a consensual DNA database – by deception, of course, which is what was meant by the above use of the word “conniving”, because there would be no other way to do it. Even though we are anticipating no official reply, the reader may well discover his or her own good idea about how each question in the text below could be answered given the contextual information supplied into the lead up to each, and therefore form his or her own idea as to whether support would be lent to or detracted from the author’s previous conclusion. Of course, authoritative answers could allay all suspicions, but one also suspects them never to be forthcoming.
Dear Detective Superintendent Nick May
On 6th April the Surrey and Sussex Major Crime Team is going to recommence an effort to collect DNA samples and thumbprints from men in Bosham and a surrounding area that incorporates the village of Fishbourne. According to numbers issued by yourself, potentially 3000 men will have police arrive on their doorstep to be asked to “volunteer” – despite the fact that they had already passed on the opportunity to do so during a first sweep made by police. That being mentioned, I would actually like to put aside the issue that what police are in fact doing is coercion, because there are some particular questions that I would like you to answer about the Valerie Graves murder investigation without getting sidetracked into a broader discussion.
While I would never personally volunteer my DNA-identification to the state under any circumstances, it occurred to me that other people who are being targeted by police might decide to cooperate if they had higher levels of confidence regarding your investigation, and a good idea that any sacrifice they made would be worth the while. For that reason, I would very much appreciate it if you could answer the questions I put to you in this letter (which by necessity are prefaced with contextual information but highlighted themselves in bold font).
According to a police press release of 1st January 2014 [all releases cited are from http://www.valeriegravesmurder.com/media.asp] a post mortem carried out on Valerie Graves “revealed she died from significant head and facial injuries.” However, in an article published on the online version of the Independent newspaper on 3rd January 2014, which conveyed the news of this examination, if your investigators knew the cause of death (which the press release claimed was the case. incidentally), then it appears as if they were unable to, or would not elaborate on what sort of weapon was used in the attack:
Ms Graves was found in the rear bedroom but police declined to say if a weapon was used in the attack, or if she had been in bed at the time.
Valerie Graves death: Police investigate the murder mystery unsettling Bosham – a real-life Midsomer; Paul Peachey; 03 January 2014; Source.
Much later, according to a press release of 17th January 2014, your investigators revealed that a hammer had been found, and that they were linking it to the killing of Valerie Graves – the actual words used were as follows: “Detectives have released these photos of a hammer which they believe is the weapon used to kill Valerie Graves in Bosham.” It appears, however – and according to a retrospective piece published by the MailOnline at the beginning of 2015 – that the hammer had been found at about the same time police were receiving post mortem results:
The New Year’s Day discovery of the murder weapon — a 16oz claw hammer found just 870 yards from the house [in which the murder happened].
Mystery of the Midsomer Murderer: It was a savage killing that baffled police. A middle-class mother bludgeoned to death in her bed in an idyllic village. One year on, ALL local men are to be DNA tested; Barbara Davies; 02 January 2015; Source.
Additionally, in a press release dated 18th March 2014, you were quoted as saying the following: “we know that a hammer, found nearby in Hoe Lane, was used by the offender”.
My first and second questions are ones that arise from all the preceding information: in their searching of the close vicinity around the house in which the murder took place, were your investigators hoping, or expecting to find a hammer as a murder weapon given the wounding that Valerie Graves was subjected to? Secondly, were the particular wounds to Valerie Graves indicative of an attack with that specific weapon – for instance, were there depressed skull fractures in a pattern resembling the traits of that particular claw hammer?
Later on in 2014, a certain result heralded as a “breakthrough” was announced by your investigative team, and in a press release of 22nd October 2014, it was told of how “forensic scientists have obtained a limited DNA profile for the suspect”. Interestingly, it and subsequent press releases (as far as I can see) did not seem to link the suspect’s DNA with the proposed murder weapon, and in fact looking through the reportage from the media at the time it appears to me that it was very much left for the public to assume that the suspect’s DNA had been extracted from that source [see note *].
To answer my next question, please would you confirm that the claw hammer reportedly found in January 2014 was indeed the source from which was extracted the DNA sample you are now using as a control to contrast against all the DNA profiles you are collecting from Bosham and Fishbourne males?
Secondly, if the suspect’s DNA sample was extracted from the hammer, please would you confirm whether or not Valerie Graves’ DNA was also found on that weapon? If the hammer could not be linked to Valerie Graves either through DNA or through wound patterns, please could you elucidate as to how the hammer was established as being the murder weapon? It stands to reason that there should be a link: as demonstrated above, you yourself stated that you knew the hammer to be the weapon. How did you know?
On 12th March 2015, in another press release, you told of how 2042 men had surrendered their DNA-identification over the initial three-week collection session, and that 1642 “samples have been processed and around 1,235 men have received an email thanking them for volunteering their DNA and eliminating them from the inquiry. [With another 237 men without email to be written to in the following week].”
The process for each sample alluded to in your statement must, by definition if each volunteer has been eliminated as you directly state, involve the following: the translation of the DNA sample into a profile that exists as digital data – which by its nature needs to be stored in virtual space; the contrasting of that profile against the suspect DNA; and the deletion of that digital data on the occurrence of a mismatch. According to an assurance given by Detective Constable Steve Taylor in a press release of 2nd April 2015, “DNA profile[s] will not appear on any database” (although no assurance is given on the consent forms signed by volunteers – as covered in my article “The Great Bosham DNA Harvest…”). Therefore, could you confirm that the 1642 DNA profiles belonging to men who have been eliminated from your investigation have indeed been deleted?
If this is not the case, then it implies that those DNA profiles remain in storage – which in turns means that they exist as records on a database (the form of data receptacle that is traditionally used to organise information in a computer). If these 1642 DNA profiles have in fact been retained on a database (despite your best assurances), and given that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only appears to protect individuals who have had DNA forcibly taken from them by dint of their having been in contact with police by dint of being suspected criminals, please would you point to the legislation that permits a donor of consensually-held DNA to request its deletion from a database, especially one that arguably does not officially exist?
During the first phase of your DNA collection operation, men in Bosham and Fishbourne were asked to sign a consent form which did not mention the retention of DNA profiles – in fact, it did not mention DNA profiles at all as if it was important that the signatory of the form was not aware that such a thing could be manufactured in the process. Interestingly, in the press release mentioned immediately above, the word “profile” to describe a state in which a volunteers’ DNA sample could be held by police appeared for the very first time in any literature (as far as I have been able to find). Does this mean that any new volunteers will be made aware of the difference between a sample and a profile on any consent form they sign prior to surrendering their private information, and will they have it made clear to them the fate of their DNA profile?
If the answer is yes – which means that new volunteers would be asked to provide a more fully and appropriately informed consent than those asked of by volunteers from the first phase of the operation - then will the latter group, who have potentially signed away data beyond their control, be given any means to ensure that they ultimately do have power over the fate of any digital information manufactured from the material that they donated to your investigative team on the basis of misplaced confidence in the integrity of police, and therefore in a state of deliberately encouraged ignorance?
Yours etc, etc…
* A Daily Express article of December 2014 states the following:
“After months of frustration police announced in October that they had obtained a partial DNA sample from the murder weapon. It was described as a ‘significant breakthrough’ and raised hopes that it would quickly unlock the case.”
The official press release certainly didn’t mention the source of the suspect’s DNA as being the murder weapon – and as mentioned above, the author now notices that the contemporary reporting was also silent on the matter.
Various reports collectively suggesting the imminent overall defeat of Islamic State (otherwise known as ISIS) and other “Takfiri” mercenaries by Syrian, Iraqi and Kurdish forces, are appearing out of the Middle East at the same time as President Obama has announced a plan to escalate US military engagement against ISIS in any theatre of war in which they operate – potentially, therefore, to realise a long held geopolitical ambition of the US Government to deploy ground troops to Syria. The apparent contradiction should not be confusing to those understanding the genesis of ISIS out of the NATO invasion-by-proxy of Libya – a conspiracy fact that, despite the monopoly of corporate-media, is being helped into the pages of history books by the likes of US Senator Rand Paul who recently made comments linking ISIS with the Obama/Clinton regime’s “kinetic action” which culminated in the overthrow of Gaddafi. The White House’s new warmongering is completely understandable in the context of a scenario where ISIS is merely a huge, but nevertheless deadly, psychological operation with an objective to deliver a pretext for heavy US intervention in the Iraqi/Syrian war zone, but which is fast running out of lifetime to do it in. If it seems unlikely, then comparisons can be drawn with Ukraine to witness a pattern of pawn-sacrifice to create a situation on the great chess board from which the US and its coalition partners can clean up. In the Ukrainian example, the panicked dash by the German Chancellor and French President to Moscow came as the US was threatening to send heavy armaments to the Ukrainian regime’s failing forces – not only to save them from a crushing defeat, but also to employ in a wicked strategy targeted against civilians to force Vladimir Putin into doing that thing he’s only been accused of doing thus far – invading Ukraine. This would have given the US/UK and NATO a rationale for demanding further economic penalisation and, international isolation of, or even going to war with a Russia that is nevertheless building new economic networks and extending the BRICS alternative to US/UK global hegemony. As in Ukraine, so in Syria and Iraq, where ISIS, against all normal expectations, are still going out of their way to provoke the US into intervening against them – on the face of it, at least – and in reality to bring the US into play against the real enemy – President Assad’s Syria.
The news coming from Syria is that ISIS, or a good element of it, have retreated to their stronghold of Raqqa, and the Syrian Arab Army is in the process of moving up to dislodge the terrorists from their positions. There are other successes for the Syrians: at Aleppo the terrorist mercenaries, predominantly going under the name of al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra (now seemingly happy to be working in concert with ISIS rather than in competition as has always been claimed by corporate-media), have been encircled and cut off from resupply from Turkey. There is news from the Golan Heights that “rebels” are looking to be saved by Israeli air strikes. This is perhaps not so unbelievable as it appears. There is history of wounded combatants of the mercenary forces ranged against the Syrian Government being treated in Israeli hospitals. Israel has also made bombing forays into Syria in what Syrian officials have interpreted as “direct aggression carried out to help the Syrian government’s opponents”.
In contrast to these under-reported developments, the plight of Kobane has been well documented in corporate-media, and is now apparently free of an ISIS threat. The turn of the tide in that fight was the joining of the Turkish PKK to it, although US air power is often mentioned in the same sentence when mainstream commentary talks of the relief of Kobane – for example:
The heavy bombing, not seen since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, helped the Kurds hold and eventually recapture the northern border town last month.
The article this quote comes from is very revealing. It seems to state that B-1B Lancers of the US Air Force 9th Bomb Squadron, in a six-month period (so including in Afghanistan, which had been the place of previous deployment), “flew 18 percent of all strike flights against IS and accounted for 43 percent of the total tonnage of munitions dropped in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan”. Furthermore, of the deployment to Iraq and Syria, the pilot of one crew speaks of having never delivered so much explosive before: the squadron apparently “dropped more than 2,000 bombs and hit more than 1,700 targets”. This same pilot told of how dropping every single bomb on board during a mission was not an uncommon event. All this information is astonishing. The US started bombing Syria at the end of September 2014. The Turkish Kurds crossed the border into Syria a little over a month later in October. It took the Kurds 3 months after that to January 2015 to defeat ISIS at Kobane. It begs the question: why so long when the US Air Force were raining death in blanket bombing down on ISIS positions?
The effectiveness of the US bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq has been discussed before at this site – please see here – but this is an opportunity to add more perspective and definition from both at the beginning and after the bombing campaign at Kobane. Back in October 2014, the Telegraph reported statements from Turkey’s prime ministerial adviser who was pretty dismissive about American-led attacks on jihadists at Kobane:
While we are concerned about the tragedy in Kobane, we believe that fighting this terrorism there has somehow turned into a PR campaign.
Honestly we are tired of all this ‘raising of awareness’ at certain moments – dropping a couple of bombs is not enough.
Air strikes are necessary but if you don’t have a political perspective on the future of Syria, aerial bombardment is not enough and Kobane is not going to be the last town which will be attacked in this way.
Much more recently, in an interview with the British “journalist” Jeremy Bowen, President Assad was also indifferent:
Yes, [the bombing of IS] will have some benefits [to the Syrian Government], but if it was more serious and more effective and more efficient. It’s not that much.
It is certainly quite a wonder that so much potential devastation, as claimed was dropped out of the air by the US, could make so little strategic difference – and that in fact people with an insight into the conflict could predict that it wouldn’t. And so the reality once again begins to assert itself: it’s not the American or its coalition partners that are principally the reason for any demise in ISIS – and in fact the air war is merely a show of opposition, which nevertheless has been useful in the respect that it has scorched Syrian earth. Instead it has been the boots on the ground provided by the Syrians and the Iraqis supported by Iran and Hezbollah, with the Kurds waging war in the north, that have been the undoing of all the anti-governmental forces in the region – none of which are “moderate”, and all essentially fighting as a NATO foreign legion.
Indeed, the feeling one gets examining alternative media reports out of Syria is of an imminent major defeat all round for this NATO-by-proxy force. This is certainly the assessment of General Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian Quds Force commander who is called the “public face of Iran’s support for the Iraqi and Syrian governments against jihadis” in the article from whence he is here quoted (see here also):
Considering the heavy defeats suffered by ISIS and other terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria, we are certain these groups are nearing the end of their lives.
It is from within this context that we find that ISIS have seemingly invested a lot of time and energy consolidating positions in the Iraqi town of al-Baghdadi and even taking new districts (so occupying 90% of the town according to CNN) – and then launching a raid on the nearby Ain al-Asad air base, 8 miles away, which is hosting 300 US Marines on a mission to train Iraqis. Note, the BBC cites Rear Admiral John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, who asked for some perspective: “It was the first time in the last a couple of months that the militant group had taken new ground”.
It seems pretty clear that there is no long term strategic advantage in what ISIS have done at al-Baghdadi in the face of a war that it is losing. The same can be said of the recent supposed execution of the Jordanian pilot that caused such splenetic and hysterical reactions in the British corporate-media and Government. That episode only goes to show that ISIS is rendered more reliant on its Hollywood-style propagandists than it is on effectiveness in the field to project an aura of terror – how prophetic now the Iraqi TV sitcom of last year in which ISIS was mocked as being the “Fairytale State” (or according to another translation, “State of Superstition”, which is a nuance that points to ISIS’s true mystery school nature). So it seems that the latest assault by ISIS has been mustered against the grain of failure, and therefore comprises a very special military effort to try and cause a more immediate alarm in the West by being within a mortar shot’s distance of US military personnel and, once again, appearing to be a likely menace. But whether ISIS do it by extravagant movies or with desperate last throws of the dice is neither here nor there – the root behaviour in any of these actions must be understood to properly comprehend ISIS. The point is this: trying to provoke dismay in the civilian population of one’s enemy so that it gives its government free rein to retaliate – and while all the time one is generally losing militarily anyway – is not the behaviour of a proper army in the field. It is, however, the behaviour of a phantom menace whose mission it is to create a pretext for supposed retaliation – only, that “retaliation” would not be about dealing with the bogus force, it would be for providing an opportunity towards the fulfilment of another agenda – which in the case of US military engagement in Syria, as has been the US/UK’s overtly stated objective for many years now, is the overthrowing the Assad Government.
This last week Obama sent to Congress to seek authority for what is essentially a 3-year long blank cheque for fighting ISIS. The following is from an explanatory letter (to whom, it is not quite clear) penned by Obama (source):
The authorisation I propose would provide the flexibility to conduct ground combat operations in other, more limited circumstances, such as rescue operations involving US or coalition personnel or the use of special operations forces to take military action against Isil leadership.
It would also authorise the use of US forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing, missions to enable kinetic strikes, or the provision of operational planning and other forms of advice and assistance to partner forces.
Perhaps not unsurprisingly, this description of desired capability reminds of the noises coming out of a British Parliamentary Defence Select Committee’s report published Thursday 5 February 2015:
The UK can and should be playing a greater role in the fight against DAESH (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, the Defence Committee argues in its latest report. The Committee emphasised that they are not calling for combat troops to be deployed. However, the UK has the expertise, and resources to play a much larger role in analysing the DAESH threat, contributing the plan to defeat them, supporting the Iraqi forces, and encouraging a political solution.
It should be noted that it always seems to be the case that any Governmental specification of “no ground troops” ahead of involvement in a conflict zone is never referring to special forces, who are always sooner or later reported as being in the thick of things by proud corporate-media – and additionally, the Committee did overtly recommend their utilisation in these potential activities, as well as air support “to help address one of the most extreme threats that we have faced in the last twenty years.”
The last line is a quote from Committee Chairman Rory Stewart (he who in 2010 “disclosed that his father was a British spy – and conceded his own career path might ‘give the appearance’ that he worked for MI6” - source), and reminds of the crucial necessity for a perceived ISIS threat to propel and motivate interference in Iraq and Syria. Both the White House, in its request, and the British MPs in their recommendations, are sowing the sort of seed that could only grow in that sort of soil which had been generously watered by a horror of the prospect of a deadly ISIS enemy. However, the reality on the ground sees a much weakened force. Indeed, the dwindling of the ISIS threat was certainly reflected in the way that the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Ibrahim Jafari, reacted to Obama’s request to Congress by pointing out that Iraq had not made a request for US ground forces, and had no plans for them.
Nevertheless, the shadow government pulling the strings of Washington and London (the one that Rory Stewart’s Pater actually worked directly for) are hungry to devour Syria – actual and potential gas pipelines across the region that do not belong to them are an irksome thorn in the flesh and cannot be tolerated – this is perhaps why the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen was this last week despatched to Damascus to get sound bites from Assad admitting responsibility for “barrel bombs” (we have no barrels, or cooking pots – we have bombs and bullets, was the elected President’s reply). A meme that is just emerging in social and corporate-media indicates that there is a ploy afoot to redirect US, UK and indeed western attention away from ISIS and back towards an atrocity-committing Assad Government in order to inspire enough fear and loathing in the several targeted electorates so that Congress will approve that request to fight ISIS in Syria or anywhere else (and other countries’ parliaments will approve requests from their own branches of executive government) – even though we were no longer at war with ISIS. We will have always been at war with Syria. Having switched sides again, will the British public, in particular, continue to be obtuse to the impossible manoeuvrings of their Government; could they really be as hopeless as Orwell feared they would be?
Sussex Police are currently conducting the largest collection of volunteered DNA in the force’s history. The operation is being executed all in the name of hunting down the killer of Valerie Graves, a 55 year old woman who was battered to death in December 2013 in the coastal village of Bosham, as she house-sat for friends of her family. At the commencement of the operation Detective Superintendent Nick May announced that police were looking for around 5000 private and innocent citizens, living in or visiting an area approximately 5 or 6 square miles around the village, to surrender biometric data into the hands of the State for an undeclared and indefinite period. Unfortunately at the time of writing over 1200 well-meaning but sadly deceived people have been persuaded to submit themselves to a session in which their photo is taken, their thumb print is obtained along with a sample of DNA swabbed from inside their mouth – and most outrageously where they are convinced into signing a form signalling their consent to the harvesting of all this most private of data. The reader might be surprised at the tone of outright disapproval encountered, and think the author unreasonable for it in the context of what seems like a hard job that police have to do. However, it appears very much that the police are being less than honourable, and their operation is less to do with solving crime and more to do with asserting the superiority of the collectivised police state over the ancient and fundamental rights of the individual; it is about exploiting the good will of citizens who have been exposed to a crisis for the purpose of collecting a crop of data which its donors will lose control over.
There are three areas of evidence that will lead to these conclusions if examined. Firstly, given the information regarding the case that has been made available to the public, the police appear to be following an erroneous line of investigation. Of course, the public might not be privy to all the data, but this is a moot point – what we can see of the police investigation should not warrant the sort of public confidence to the extent where police expect such unquestioning public compliance and obedience as they clearly do. The second area is therefore related: the attitude of the police in their execution of this operation speaks of an alarming disregard for the protections that have curtailed the arbitrary powers of previous generations of what is supposed to be a public service that operates only by the consent of the people. Thirdly, the parameters that describe the breadth of the DNA search are highly suspect, and completely illogical; in fact, they are so random that there is a very high chance, if not a 100% probability, that they will fail to identify the murderer.
When considering what the purpose for the DNA harvest by Sussex Police could be for, if it is not for finding a murderer, and the determined way in which it is being carried out, the only conclusion the author can come to is that the objective is the stocking of a consensual DNA database – where the consent has been gained by deception, but nevertheless guarantees that the records are not subject to laws regarding forced DNA capture. This would not be a surprise to many of us who have discovered in the last ten years that the country is essentially ruled by a one-party dictatorship that only offers the illusion of choice; we should expect the constant degeneration of the government and expect increasing authoritarianism as it seeks to protect itself from us. And most of us who have travelled the road of this realisation do it from an observational perspective where the injustices are always happening to other people. The Bosham DNA harvest would have been another remote case that the author would have been distressed to learn about, but there is something very different about it which makes it a more immediate concern. In 2014, the author moved into the afflicted area and finds himself one of the innocent 5000 whom the police are determined to take a DNA sample from. This is not going to be an outcome. The maxim at this site is to act in your liberty to defend your liberty, and so the Sussex Police have a big problem.
The reader might have noticed an incongruity in the above paragraph that may also then have caused some perplexity; so, let us deal first with the issue of the illogical search parameters.
The illogical search parameters
In October 2014 the police announced that they had found a partial sample of male DNA on a hammer which they thought could be the murder weapon. Later they announced that that evidence wasn’t complete enough to compare with the National DNA Database. The NDNAD is where the DNA profiles of all convicted criminals is kept; it also contains, for a certain amount of time before it must be deleted, the information of innocents who are arrested and made suspects but who are then cleared or aren’t charged. However, because this resource had been deemed ineffective for the purposes of Sussex Police, it was apparently decided that a search was required in order to find new DNA to test against the hammer sample. Moreover, the search would focus on “all men over 17 who live, work in or visit Bosham” (source).
This criteria doesn’t take much analysis to see how vague it is. Presumably it was referring to contemporary circumstances, so in that case it must have meant all men over 17 who live, work in or visit Bosham at the time of the announcement. This should have been fairly simple for men who lived and worked in Bosham – they would have known who they were. But the announcement of the criteria was in January 2015. The murder was a year before. What if someone didn’t live or work in Bosham back then? Would they still be liable to submit to a DNA extraction? Then there is the “visiting” part to consider also. Common sense suggests that it is referring to people who visit Bosham regularly – someone who was visiting at the time of the murder. Surely this must be the case because why would police want to see people who only visited after 2013 and not before? However, if that is the case, then why were police only interested in people currently working and living in Bosham and not those who were doing the same before 2014?
Right from the very off, the police were hinting at a wider geographical scope for their investigation than the confines of Bosham itself, but with no clear definition. That came eventually by the 5th February (certainly as far as the author was concerned) and after the police were a week into the harvest. The new parameters for the search were all men of 17 or over who lived in a geographical area specified by an accompanying map (see Figure 1), or who lived, worked or visited the area in December 2013.
Now we have something that is a lot less abstract to work with, we can examine the problems with the targeting for the DNA harvest in respect of a certain nonsense that arises from it. The police call their operation an elimination of as many individuals as possible against the offender’s DNA, but if the murderer is not being sought because he does not fall into the search criteria, then it doesn’t matter if everyone sought after by the police eliminates themselves. We can express this absurdity another way: if the search parameters are flawed, which they most certainly are, there will be a 100% failure rate; this is a logical prediction that one can make ahead of any practical application of the mass screening.
What the police haven’t specifically asked for is people who sneaked into Bosham on the night of 29th December for a few hours irrespective of where ever else they lived, worked or visited. Of course, this narrow set would have yielded no volunteers, and this has much to do with identifying the correct line of investigation – something that we’ll come to momentarily. Regarding the actual criteria as given, the main problem stems from how the police have seemingly forgotten about the invention of the internal combustion engine. It is quicker to travel in a car from Portsmouth, and all the districts in between, than it is to walk to Bosham from the village of Fishbourne. However, the geographical criteria rejects the possibility of anyone travelling from a feasible distance outside the target area to commit the crime. The village of Nutbourne is as far from Bosham as Fishbourne is, but for some arbitrary reason, it is only the latter village that is targeted. Then there is the question of why stop at Fishbourne? It is only the width of the A27 that cuts the target geographical area off from residential areas of Chichester; maybe Fishbourne residents wouldn’t like the fact, but it has essentially become a suburb of the city. And yet, Sussex Police are not expecting volunteers who live only a matter of seconds away (in the time it takes for a car to travel the distance) on the wrong side of the line. A person who never heard of Valerie Graves in Chichester or Nutbourne is just as likely to have killed her as a person who never heard of her in Fishbourne, or in Bosham for that matter. The geographical targeting is in fact preposterous.
There are other glaring problems; consider these scenarios: if you visited Bosham from 100 miles away over Christmas 2013, not knowing Valerie Graves from Adam, then the police are more interested in you than they are in anyone who may have even briefly came across her in other much nearer parts of the country who could have travelled in easily to confront her. If you travelled to Bosham from Outer Mongolia and arrived on New Years Day 2014, to live in the village, then the police would be more interested in you than they would be in absolutely anyone who had lived there but had moved away during the 12 months of 2014.
And before the author is accused of denying the police common sense in the application of their search parameters, let’s review the case of 82 year old Keith Baxter. On the first day of the DNA harvest, he was “persuaded” to take part – even though at the time of the murder he had been in the USA directing a play (source). This man cannot possibly have been screened so as to eliminate him against the murderer’s DNA. The only conclusion one can make from this and all the other information is that the police are more interested in capturing a contemporary snap shot of DNA from an area that is defined according to some other rationale than a realistic concept regarding the likely haunts of a murderer.
The wrong line of investigation
In the very first days after the incident unnamed detectives were quoted in the press as saying that they had “strong suspicions” that the murderer was someone the victim knew, although they stressed that there were other lines of investigation. The following scenarios have been mentioned at one time or another in the media – some featured in statements made by police, and it would be reasonable to suppose that all others were theories that had originated with police rather than as speculative writing by any particular journalist: that Graves was killed by an intruder who was burglarising the property; that Graves was killed as she disturbed boat thieves; that Graves was mistaken for someone else who had been targeted; that Graves was targeted herself; that a mentally ill person (therefore without a motive apart from derangement) killed Graves; that a transitory migrant looking for work killed her.
Discussing the evidence to establish which line of investigation would be the most credible would take another article dedicated to the subject; so we’ll skip to what would be the author’s conclusion. According to the evidence that is publically available, and reading between the lines about the information that the police have put into the public domain, it is more likely that the assailant was known to the victim than he or she was a random intruder whose motive was burglary. The random burglary concept must be the main, if not the sole driving force behind the DNA screening – and yet the police have refused to say that there definitely was a burglary, or even to clarify how an intrusion could have taken place (Nick May: “One of the lines of inquiry is that this act has been committed by somebody unconnected to Valerie, and yes that is a possibility. I’m not going to go into the specifics of how somebody may or may not have entered the house” – source). I suggest that police can’t tell the public it was a burglary because that would be to tell an untruth. It must be stressed that there is no effort here to imply guilt upon any individual who we know to have been known to Graves; the point is to explain that if there is no burglary, then there is no motive for individuals who did not know her. Seeing as Valerie Graves usually lived in Bracklesham Bay – 8 miles south of Chichester, and close by to the town of Selsey with a population of 10,000 – arguably the number of people in the Bosham area that didn’t have a motive to kill her would be extremely high – presumably a figure in the high 90 percents.
The second matter of interest in the same category is the how the supposed murder weapon, the hammer, has never been satisfactorily linked to the murder. Graves was staying at a house in Smuggler’s Lane. The hammer was found in nearby Hoe Lane – 800 yards away from the murder scene, and in the middle of nowhere. Of course, in the immediate period after the discovery of this hammer there could have been no information on how it harboured DNA – this would have taken a while to process, and the news finally came in the Autumn of 2014. However, in January 2014, and without any proof that the hammer had anything to do with Valerie Graves, the police proceeded to arrest a man who lived in the vicinity of where it had been discovered – an incredibly irrational reaction.
The police have made much of this hammer as being the murder weapon, and yet at no time have they explicitly talked about it also yielding up a sample belonging to Valerie Graves – not that the author has been able to find, at least (which is not for want of trying). If the hammer cannot be linked to Valerie Graves, it can’t be considered as the murder weapon. This means that the male DNA on the hammer would be entirely innocent, and the mass screening program to match collected DNA, if it was successful, would incriminate an entirely innocent party. The police must be aware that any weak link between Graves and the hammer would get a murder case thrown out of court, so the author wonders if there is another sample of DNA that the police won’t tell the public about, for whatever reason.
Deception by police to create a consensual database?
The idea of the police omitting or misrepresenting information to the public offers a nice segue to a section about how the public may be being deceived by police. Firstly, there is the issue of how the mass screening of DNA was triggered by what we were told about the limitations of the hammer DNA. The following is an extract from a Telegraph article entitled “Bosham: the Midsomer Murders village where everybody is a suspect”:
The hammer was retrieved at a time when much of the area was submerged in flood water. As a result, the sample is not complete enough for a search on the national DNA database. It can, however, be used to eliminate suspects.
This is a more or less accurate portrayal of the police’s position regarding the partial DNA sample and its relationship with the NDNAD – and it is a very strange position to take. The National DNA Database Strategy Board Annual Report 2012-13 (here) contains a pictorial explanation of how a partial DNA sample is matched to records on the database – these are the images in Figure 2, and they are from page 6 of the report. According to the NDNAS Strategy Board, then, the partial DNA found on the hammer should be able to be matched to the database to a varying degree of success depending on how partial it is. The point is, however, if it can’t be matched to the database, then it appears there is no reason to expect that it could be matched to any other newly collected DNA either. Any full DNA sample has 20 slots for DNA information (plus ones for the chromosome data). All full DNA samples have the same structure. Full DNA samples on the NDNAD will have the same structure as new ones collected in a mass screening. It is very hard to understand how it could be that the collected DNA would render results against the supposed hammer partial sample whereas the existing database would not.
When every individual gets to a screening station he is invited to complete and sign a consent form – a copy of one was photographed and appeared in corporate-media so that we can read what it says. Incidentally, this moment cannot be allowed to pass without mentioning that Councillor Myles Cullen is a Tory politician who lives in Emsworth; he is a cabinet member for commercial services. (I suggest people in Bosham vote him out of office as soon as they are able).
Here is what the consent form appears to say in its most pertinent parts:
* * *
CONSENT SIGNATURE – You are NOT a Suspect
DNA – I consent to a DNA sample (mouth swab) being taken for forensic analysis. I understand that the resulting profile will only be compared to the crime stain profile(s) from this enquiry and that the sample will be destroyed at the end of the case. I have been advised that the person taking this sample may be required to give evidence and/or provide a written statement to police in relation to the sample taken.
THUMB PRINT – I consent to my thumb print being taken for identification and elimination purposes. I understand that the sample will be destroyed at the end of this case.
* * *
To fully understand what a “volunteer” is consenting to when signing these declarations he needs to know the difference between what he is supplying and what can be processed from that material. As we already know, DNA is stored on the NDNAD. Prints, on the other hand, are stored on something called IDENT1, the national fingerprint database. Now, because a database is digital, it cannot actually store the physical material that one supplies – this needs to be processed. The technology to digitise a print is fairly easy to imagine, but even if we think of it existing as an image in a database in fact it appears that a print is reduced to something called minutiae, or the major features of a print, which presumably can be represented purely in data. It’s the same with a DNA sample. Its digital form has a name – a profile – and we have seen this word used a lot in relation to the sampling of DNA perhaps without realising the implications of the relationship.
Look at the words of the consent form again: it says, in both cases, that only the sample will be destroyed at the end of the case. The form never says that the DNA profile will not be destroyed – or deleted, which would be the more appropriate word to use. In addition, it is not clear what the word “sample” refers to in the context of the thumb print section of the form. It has already been defined as being the DNA sample – THE sample. In any case, as previously discussed, it is feasible that the print sample will be a different thing altogether from digital data representing it; therefore the consent form is about the sample and not its digital record.
Also we must pay attention to when the form says any termination in the life of the sample would take place: at the end of the case. This begs the question, when would that be if it can never be solved? And it also allows us to demonstrate how the police have been misrepresenting facts to do with the screening in order to make the public more responsive. In that MailOnline article that retailed the story of Myles Cullen, Detective Superintendent Nick May is cited as saying the following:
[The DNA sample is] then packaged up and couriered to our forensic provider where the samples taken here are compared against the profile of the person that we believe murdered Valerie.
If that’s a negative then the samples taken here are destroyed.
This statement is not true according to the consent form. And again, there is an impression given that any retention of data terminates beyond the destruction of the sample – not necessarily true according to the consent form.
Now it occurs to the author that the volunteered biometric data must have to be stored on a database that, because it is consented to, is beyond the safeguards put in place by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which insists on the deletion of information extracted without consent from people who the police encounter as suspected criminals. Moreover it seems that the people who provided it may not have future cause or capability to have that information deleted because of how it was acquired by consent.
Well, of course, in actual fact the material on any consensual database that may or may not be being created by the Valerie Graves’ murder hunt has been acquired by confidence trickery and coercion; and that brings us to the penultimate section of this rather lengthy article.
The myth of the volunteer
Consider the wording of this extract which was taken from the publicity posters created by police to encourage participation in their mass screening programme (see Figure 4):
You are asked to make every effort to attend one of the above sessions but if due to exceptional circumstances you are unable to do so, please contact [contact information].
Let’s try and square a circle; the mass screening is voluntary, and yet the police have an expectation that everyone who is liable either goes to great lengths to attend – perhaps even to the point of relegating their own personal priorities – or somehow otherwise accounts for himself as to why he cannot. How can this be? The same poster has this to say about non-attendance:
As most people do voluntarily give their DNA when asked then police obviously have to look more closely at those who do not and consider what the reason may be.
The problem with this statement is the assertion that people volunteer – is that true, or is it because they feel coerced by police to co-operate?
Here is another statement given to the Chichester Observer by District commander Chief Inspector Justin Burtenshaw:
Anyone who doesn’t come down [to a screening centre] – it gives us another focus to go and see them and find out why they don’t want to.
So the threat is clear: if someone does not participate in the screening, then they will become the attention of narrower police focus.
If we don’t think that police have actually actively coerced people to take part in their DNA harvest, perhaps we should consider this: when the process began, the corporate-media ran stories about a single drop-in centre at a hotel in Bosham where people could attend if they felt public spirited enough to. Here is presented the nice, smiley public face of the Bosham DNA harvest. In reality, it wasn’t long before police had mobile units at supermarkets with officers at the exit doors to find out if people were candidates for the process. Here was a kind of warrantless checkpoint, then. As disgraceful as that was, the police soon resorted to having their mobile units visit residential areas where they knocked on doors to “encourage” the householder to become a “volunteer”. The author managed to film one of the police’s victims in his neighbourhood being frogmarched to the mobile unit by two policemen (see Figure 5).
Legally the police can say that this is voluntary attendance, but in reality this sort of DNA extraction was done very much in the spirit of coercion. Indeed, it is true to say that everyone who is the target of this police investigation has been made a suspect in the first instance – and because police categorically deny this, not at least by the wording on the screening consent form, the case needs to be stated:
DNA is usually taken when the police believe the donor is a candidate for having committed a crime. So the DNA harvest is not like the traditional sort of door-to-door questioning that may once have taken place in the same circumstances. That sort of exercise would have been for identifying prima facie suspicion. When people have DNA taken in the first instance, or even are expected to, then this is equivalent in the traditional process as having been arrested – but with a big difference: the donor is made a suspect with no prima facie evidence. The presumption is of guilt, and the donor is then tested, or otherwise required to prove his innocence. Arguably police rely on the psychological effects of the apportioning of guilt in the first instance to motivate the public to want to take part in an exercise to refute that suspect status. So when two authority figures appear on their doorstep to personally reinforce the perception of guilt, it is completely understandable that many a householder would feel under extreme pressure to “volunteer” into the process. If Sussex Police claim that they have collected DNA voluntarily, then this should not be taken on face value, and is probably, for the most part, a highly inaccurate portrayal of their investigation.
The assertion of the collectivised police state
To say that Sussex Police have been asserting the supremacy of the collectivised police state to the detriment of individual and ancient civil rights would more accurately describe what Sussex Police has been doing – but what does that mean exactly?
Well, we have a situation where the murder of an individual is taken as a pretext for the police, who have been set up as wardens for collectivised society (think communist, or communitarian), to appeal to the welfare of that collective. That being done, the rights of the individual are perceived as being unimportant. However, in our body politic as it should be, the rights of the individual should never come second to the collective because otherwise there would be tyranny. Claiming to be able to persecute people for the common good is an expression of authoritarianism, and that is what the Sussex Police have been doing in their Valerie Graves murder investigation.
Of course, people will respond to this by saying that the police must do a job and we must make sacrifices to allow them to do it. The answer to that is no. If our body politic was as healthy as it should be, then there would be a much stronger sense of individual responsibility that negates a requirement for the police-agent of government. Individual responsibility means relying on oneself to protect one’s family, neighbours and then offering that protection with others to the wider community. Valerie Graves’ death was arguably a failure of a society that has far too willingly deputised to government and abdicated too much power. This is why a public of individuals, expecting individual rights, do not have to feel it is their duty to effectively reinforce the guardian-warden position of the police.
And we have seen that the Sussex Police are very much adamant that they are going to use Valerie Graves’ murder to assert that position. Look at the arrogant expectation of compliance with the screening – look at the coercion that has gone on to enforce it.
If there is still any doubt, then look at the unscrupulous abandonment of the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence. I will end now by drawing the attention of the reader to a paper written by Eric T. Juengst in the Chicago-Kent Law Review entitled “I-DNA-Fication, Personal Privacy, and Social Justice”. He writes
Our commitment to a presumption of innocence for the targets of criminal investigation… could be endangered by widespread use of iDNAfication unless… [this rule] can be enforced:… identifying DNA profiles should be accessible to criminal investigations only for those individuals already convicted of crimes.
He goes on:
On one hand, it is clear that some dragnet uses of iDNAfication would not be acceptable in the United States. Critics of current forensic iDNAfication programs often point to the 1987 British case, in which every male resident in three Leicestershire villages was asked to voluntarily provide DNA samples to the police in an (ultimately successful) effort to identify a murderer, as an cautionary sign of things to come. However, given the coercive nature of such a request (police made house calls on those failing to appear for sampling), its effect of shifting the presumption of innocence to one of guilt, its lack of adequate probable cause, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of similar uses of manual fingerprinting, it seems implausible that such a sampling practice would be considered constitutionally sanctioned in the United States. Concerns that “courts will allow testing of everyone in the vicinity of crime” on the grounds that “[i]nnocent people will have nothing to fear, ‘ are overblown under today’s legal system.
To make it absolutely clear – Juengst is arguing that speculative DNA screening is unconstitutional; against the common law. It is fundamentally against freedom.
The day after Katy Perry rode into the Super Bowl half time show like the Whore of Babylon, or a corrupted Katniss Everdean in a really cheap and slutty “girl on fire” outfit, the army of mercenaries called ISIS, who are creating a pretext for Britain and the US to escalate hostilities against the Syrian nation (see here and here), released a video in which they appeared to burn a prisoner to death. People knowledgeable in freemasonic religion and symbolism will see the linkage; and undoubtedly, especially if they notice that the video was entitled “Healing the Believers’ Chests”, these folks would understand where the Islamic State is really coming from. That being said, the most significant piece of predictive conditioning imagery in all of Katy Perry’s fantabulous luciferian show case was “Left Shark” – whom you can see making a pig’s ear of its dance routine here.
It’s a bit of fun on one hand – on the other, the reason “Left Shark” is symbolic is because of this: like most everything that the Anglo-American hegemony does in order to rule, this Super Bowl show was meant to inculcate the watching audience with an idea of the infallibility and awesomeness of the god-like untouchable strata of human society. However, like on so many other occasions, the curtain is torn back to reveal the wizard as a little old man; the great and powerful as the failing and frail. There is no pity at these moments; in fact, we find it very amusing to behold. Getting to the point, the shark has also come to symbolise this moment of great failure and the ensuing loss of credibility, and especially in anything theatrical, the end of the suspension of disbelief. The defining moment in the creation of this association came, of course, in the TV show “Happy Days”. Apparently, the ideas had dried up; the writers had Fonzi jump the shark on water skis to try and spark interest. The rest is history.
Likewise, the people behind the hit ISIS show have resorted to an equivalent with the apparent execution by fire of the Jordanian Air Force pilot, Moaz al-Kasasbeh. In the newest of ISIS execution videos, which shows the airman being burnt alive, the distinctions between TV-fantasy and what we can only loosely call reality have been completely obliterated. The film is so slickly produced that there is no way to know if what we are looking at is the use of a stuntman, special effects, and then burning mannequins, or what we are seeing is the death of a real person. In the beheading videos that ISIS made previously, those parts of the execution that were hardest, if not impossible to convincingly fake, were just omitted. After the cut, we would be presented with what most likely were images of CPR dummies with heavily and horrifically made-up heads photoshopped onto their backs. These videos said, if the victims were dead, they hadn’t been beheaded – that mode of death had only been presented to us for shock value.
Death by fire, on the other hand, is not nearly so difficult to simulate. Film production companies do it all the time. In this video, the stuntman is completely engulfed in flame producing black smoke, which is supposedly meant to denote a fire starved of oxygen or about to burn out (perhaps we can call it a cooler type of flame that can be worked with). Notice in this video that the effect is produced by two gas burners which can be extinguished with the flick of a switch. Thereafter, the only flame present is that which is consuming the stuntman, who is put out instantly when required with the proper equipment. In the ISIS video the victim is also, during the mid-part of the consumption, covered in a flame tipped with black smoke. He is also surrounded by a blazing ring which looks like it is being fired by a string of gas burners. Interestingly, we are not supposed to notice that ISIS have gone to the trouble of building a eminently controllable furnace. We are meant to believe that this flame has crept into the cage by the ignition of a trough or line of flammable material that takes a path across intervening ground between the cage and an ISIS actor with a medieval torch, and then around the perimeter of the cage. The inescapability of this flame is what is supposed to cause the inevitable burning of the Jordanian captive. But none of this is what happens. The flame stops at the front of the cage and creates a façade of burning. Somehow, the Jordanian manages to get himself caught by this – instead of backing away, trying to kick sand over it to put it out, knocking the cage over, or hanging on the bars above him to try and avoid it. None of this does al-Kasasbeh attempt – he has either got Stockholm syndrome real bad, or he is an actor. After he flaps about a bit, there is a clear edit. The film then cuts to the full engulfment as previously described.
All that being recorded as noteworthy, the actual fire element of the film is not the most significant thing about it in terms of the blurring of fantasy and reality. There is a long and slow storylined build up to the execution, which is detailed below in a montage of images, that makes one think one is watching a TV show. Astonishingly, it even appears as if Moaz al-Kasasbeh’s captives have persuaded him to act the part of contrite offender – a resigned resident in a normal penal regime – and do it convincingly, so that this main component of the film is about the drama of a man approaching his supposedly justified death. It’s meant to elicit an emotional connection and investment that television routinely does. Even Sky News pundit/journalist, Sam Kiley, remarked upon this (audio here):
There’s going to be inevitably in the media, internationally – and we’re going to be part of it – a lot of deconstruction of the so-called production values. People are going to get very over excited by the very kind of… um; the iconography and so on is very reminiscent of a very slick American show like 24 or any of those sorts of spy and war movies with computer graphics, and so on.
Not only does the film resemble an action adventure of the sort that can be made for the less-than-Hollywood budgets available to TV; it draws on the morality messages from Western movies as the good guys (in this case ISIS, from their perspective) have a version of a show-down with the bad guy. The original concept had been perverted, of course. In the Clint Eastwood films, it is the lone gunslinger who is the bringer of justice. Either way, the film is clearly designed to speak to an audience through the language of Hollywood. Furthermore, if one compares it to the video, produced by ISIS in their Libyan Islamic Fighting Group incarnation, of Gaddafi being murdered, this one might as well be a scripted reconstruction shot in a studio. It’s the complete lack of grounding in reality on display in the video that is why it jumps the shark; it is why the whole ISIS propaganda production unit has jumped the shark. This is really the source from whence all our suspicion should emanate, and this is what Sam Kiley is referring to when he talks about over-excitement around deconstructing the video. It’s an insulting way of sending the message to not look too closely. We might find ourselves laughing rather than being frightened if we do. Ultimately, this is why no one can see the video online unless one searches high and low for it, and it is left for the likes of the toilet-rag that is the MailOnline to interpret the unseen footage to its prey – otherwise known as its readership.
All that remains to be done is to present a summary in annotated pictures of the element of the video that is actually the most significant – the build up to the execution.
The noises being made by certain political commentators belonging to the Islington (and thereabouts) Progressive Consensus are revealing that there may well be a great fear amongst LibLabCon honchos of a tremendous result for UKIP in the May elections. The main evidence to hand is the very early but increasing amount of chatter regarding a Grand Coalition of the Labour and Tory party – a construct that will by necessity have to be formed, or so the thinking goes, to fight off “insurgent parties” in order that the “right decisions” are made at a time of great national crisis. Naturally, such is the strangeness of this arrangement that for it to become physically manifest it would need a good deal of careful insertion into the sphere of public awareness and the political zeitgeist – its potential to cause sudden alarm in the British electorate would that way be mitigated. For the Establishment has been sustained these many past years on the appearance of fundamental Labour and Tory adversarial oppositeness as an expression of irreconcilable points of principle – a checks and balance bonus in terms of the British constitution. So a sudden unveiling of the actual LibLabCon as a reality outside the confines of conspiracy theory, as a mainstream audience gained a crash instruction course in the reality of the British one-party dictatorship, could sound the death knell for the vassal Westminster puppet.
Beyond the public rationalisations for a Grand Coalition, and the fantasy of acting for the national good, the objective is of course the denial of UKIP. UKIP represents the mass rejection by Britons of the failing body politic and its degenerative cultural and social project, it is the one “insurgent” that any grand coalition would be meant to disarm [the SNP is merely in search of its own fiefdom]. For under normal conditions, and with UKIP returned in modest numbers to the House of Commons, those MPs could extract a referendum on EU membership, or other implementation of UKIP policy, in return for cooperation on a confidence and supply legislation-by-legislation basis. Instead, a Grand Coalition would prevent this opportunity, and therefore deny a very large component of the electorate their power, through their UKIP representatives, over the Government. This would be a huge abuse in the first instance, but voters must be prepared to see the Grand Cartel rolled out even in a situation where UKIP is the party that wins most MP; in that case, expect the conditioning from the corporate-media to try to normalise the tremendous injustice to be proportionally immense.
In recent days the Greeks, in their general election, kicked their own LibLabCon from positions of power that were frankly being used to loot and facilitate other robbery. The international corporate types and financiers who puppeteer European government (as spoken of just this week by Farage) were nervous before, but Greece now has people in office who are wise to them – the Independent Greeks are duly called conspiracy theorists. The people who rule the West are worried about the way the wind is blowing. This article, dating from last week, reports on stuff emanating from the Financial Times – that messenger for the ruling class – and to say the language is interesting is an understatement:
The FT reports today that business is most terrified of the instability that could come with a hung Parliament, and the prospect of another election in the autumn. Could a UK Grand Coalition reassure the markets (as they seem to in Germany and elsewhere) or further create momentum for another swift election and more instability?
But the first inkling that the British Establishment thought that something very dramatic would happen at their 2015 elections was very possibly betrayed in certain Spectator articles as early as 2013. In December of that year, James Forsyth, the magazine’s political editor, wrote a piece entitled “Insurgents are remaking British politics”, in which he predicted:
The passionless politics of recent years has created an enthusiasm deficit that Salmond and Farage are busily trying to fill. What our politics so desperately needs is leaders who can offer a positive, optimistic vision for Britain that breaks out of the focus-grouped verbiage that so dominates Westminster politics. The national figure who can provide that will win a string of electoral prizes.
Forsyth does not so much predict UKIP to win the 2015 general election, but identifies UKIP’s appeal as something for the LibLabCon to emulate as part of a strategy for victory. The analysis is dishonest, of course. Establishment stalwarts do not want conviction politics when there is an unpopular Marxist cultural revolution to deliver – just the appearance of it will do to fool the voters. Tub-thumping, and delivering the message a little bit differently from what has become generic will not stop a lie being a lie – people are fed up with government-by-hoax, and it’s a truth that LibLabCon focus groups, more apparatus of political artifice as they are, will never find.
More spin, then, is only to be expected when the froth it floats upon is written from inside the political stitch-up. Indeed, some very little digging reveals Forsyth’s exceptional LibLabCon-Establishment credentials. His wife (although the couple might possibly insist on the word “partner”) is Allegra Stratton – the political editor of the BBC’s Newsnight. He is also on the advisory board of Phillip Blond’s ResPublica think-tank. Blond had been director of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos before that. Perhaps most infamously, Blond was the author of the book “Red Tory”, and a big influence on David Cameron’s Alinsky-esque “Big Society” agenda.
In the end, it is the sub-headline of Forsyth’s piece that actually betrayed all the early nerves, and perhaps some panic too: “The big parties have no answer either to the SNP or to Ukip. The consequences could be dramatic”. Mr Forsyth might not write his headlines – he might do – but whoever does let the cat out of the bag: the age of government-by-hoax is over; the dramatic consequences written of would therefore be the sudden demise of the LibLabCon – which can only operate in the context of a duped electorate. If the author, in all his scumbag-college lowliness, could see the signs back in 2011 – to wit the writing was on the wall for the Westminster puppet (see this article in which the end of the LibLabCon – and jail-time – is predicted), then we can be sure that Oxbridge graduates now fixtures in the Establishment knew it too in 2013. What most UKIP supporters and members might not appreciate is that behind the fog of war – the propaganda – it is highly likely that the LibLabCon has these many years been fighting a battle in retreat in the knowledge that the stitch-up would soon end; the objective, then, had become to set all the dynamite on the bridges before becoming overrun by the enemy close on their heels. But the LibLabCon has run out of time, and it still will not have finished its work by May 2015. It would need the Grand Coalition to survive long enough into the future to complete the project.
Before we look at some of the material that has been installing the idea of a Grand Coalition, the reader must understand what is driving it: the fearsome extent of that possible UKIP result. So, in October 2014 Survation published a poll that tore a hole through the fabric of the illusion of perpetual LibLabCon hegemony. The MailOnline cited televised election night regular John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, who translated the opinion poll into seats at Westminster. The results were as follows:
Labour 253; Conservative 187; UKIP 128; Lib Dems 11; Others (including SNP and Ulster MPs) 71.
(Funnily enough, results extrapolated from yesterday’s Mirror/Survation poll see UKIP awarded with just 16 seats – less seats from the same sort of percentage; it’s obviously cunning perception-shaping to promote the idea of the futility of voting for UKIP).
From the MailOnline analysis, one can already see that the Tories could not form a government without a coalition with UKIP – which we can be quite certain will never happen just for differences of fundamental principle (i.e.no LibLabCon party is ever going to risk being in a position of giving a binding referendum on EU membership that it could lose), and UKIP knows it would suffer badly were it chained to the rotten Tory corpse. Labour would need the assistance of the SNP to govern in a majority – depending on the success of the latter part, which may yet have been overstated recently. Otherwise, the electorate is most likely to see Labour depending on Tory assistance to drive the final nails into the UK’s coffin – this would be the Grand Coalition, albeit informally framed, at work.
The worse news yet for the LibLabCon is that in the EU elections – a real world poll – UKIP scored 27% – and in the MailOnline figures we can see where this would materialise from. For they follow a fashionable prejudice and indicate a one sided collapse in the vote – that is, from the Tories (the Lib Dems take a proportionally larger hit although it doesn’t look as dramatic). Labour currently have 257 seats, so theirs, says the polling, would only be a marginal decline. This isn’t going to reflect the real world, and if one starts to take even a small number of seats from the Labour column, and enter them into UKIP’s, then the gap between UKIP and the Tories begins to get perilously small. In fact, if 59 seats are swapped to UKIP so that it matches the Tories, Labour’s new figure is 194. With numbers like this, the need for a formal coalition between Labour and the Tories becomes an absolute necessity for the purpose of continuing the work of subsuming Britain into the EU, and fully realising the British Marxist police state. Now we look at how the seed is being sown.
September of 2014, the New Statesman. It’s author, Peter Wilby, was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He still writes a weekly column for the latter publication.
Imagine a Tory-Labour tie on 295 seats each [after the general election], with the Lib Dems reduced to 20, Ukip on ten seats and others 20. Try forming a governing majority out of that with wars raging in the Middle East and eastern Europe. A Tory-Labour grand coalition, anybody? Remember, you read it here first.
Wilby suggests that wars will be used as an excuse to form the Grand Coalition. This is a worrying notion. Britain is not at direct war in the arenas mentioned as yet. Could the Establishment be planning to become involved in an overt conflagration to justify its machinations at Westminster? A red flag regarding a major false flag attack should perhaps be hoisted.
The next piece is from Mary Dejevsky, appearing on the Spectator website on 12th October 2014. Dejevsky is also usually connected with the Independent. After discussing various permutations for coalitions, Dejevsky proceeds to endorse an official Progressive-Consensus shut-out:
What no one has mentioned, however, is a German solution – a ‘grand coalition’ of Conservative and Labour that leaves the fringe parties on the fringe and governs from the centre – which is, after all, the territory that a majority of voters inhabit. A Conservative-Labour coalition might seem to go completely against the grain of Britain’s adversarial politics. But it has been observed time and again in recent months that Cameron, Miliband (and Clegg) have a significant amount of political ground in common. Centre-left and centre-right are not so very far apart.
The analysis is, once again, dishonest. If a majority of voters vote for the Tories and for Labour, then as we should understand those parties’ position on the superannuated political spectrum, those voters would not be in the “centre”. The “centre” has shifted to the “left”. As part of this process, Britain has also become a Luciferian/Marxist cultic society where deviant practices are considered normal – the reasonable has been turned into the controversial. Telling people that they are in the centre, when they and their society are verging on lunacy, is another LibLabCon deception. The uniting of Labour and the Tories with no pretence at the adversarial nature of British politics does not unite centrist forces, but unleashes the forces of extremism to do what they will. Of course, it has to be seen for what it really is, and stopped.
The next mention comes in a piece appearing in the Financial Times the day before New Years Eve, 2014, in which various writers made predictions about 2015. FT leader writer, Jonathon Ford, predicts that there will be a “National Government” after the election.
[The new coalition will recreate] the “National” governments of the 1930s by bringing the two main parties, Labour and Conservatives, into power together. As in 1931, this will be a matter of necessity, not choice.
The shrinkage of the vote of all three main parties will make it impossible to construct a workable coalition involving the Liberal Democrats and either the Tories or Labour. The price of doing business with the surging fringe parties, such as the Scottish National party and Ukip, will be too high for either Labour or the Conservatives to stomach. So will the risk of a minority administration, followed by a quick second poll.
The fact that this idea gets a serious treatment in the Financial Times suggests that there is much to it – who is the audience of the FT after all? Notice that the Grand Coalition is being described as a necessity – the Establishment will be forced into the arrangement, and the arrangement will be necessary to save the Establishment; please consider once more: “the price of doing business with the surging fringe parties… will be too high”.
In the new year there has been a flurry of activity. On the 2nd day of January, there were two pieces. The first is the one that caused a bit of a stir on the internet (but not much of one). Ian Birrell – a former deputy editor of the Independent speechwriter for David Cameron during the 2010 election campaign – wrote in the Guardian. The following is a (lengthy) extract with emphasis added:
Party leaders, however, may have to build broader coalitions than our current two-party version. I have heard one Downing Street insider punt the concept of a Tory-Lib Dem-Green coalition, a senior Tory suggest a Conservative-SNP deal based on faster devolution, and a Labour figure float a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Plaid Cymru agreement reliant on big tax rises and slower spending cuts. Any of these fragile groupings could be held hostage by single-minded militants or single-issue obsessives capable of collapsing the government…
A government of national unity between Labour and the Conservatives may sound far-fetched… yet, while there are serious disagreements [between them], the two parties have more in common with each other than with the insurgents on many key issues.
…the two parties could start to hammer out those huge issues confronting the nation that conventional politics seems incapable of solving. These include the creation of a modern political system, the resolution of Britain’s haphazard drift into federalism and a workable funding solution to save the creaking NHS.
This is a very important piece because it demonstrates the unresponsiveness of the ruling elite to the people it has made believe it represents. That number of the represented electorate – and a fairly large one it is too – who are in opposition to the Progressive Consensus are characterised as being militant and obsessive. Again this is all part of the usual sort of upside-downedness and post-normal deception where the uncontroversial is deemed erratic and dangerous. In fact, this is all very disreputable and shows the mania of the political elite of Britain. What Birrell does is argue a case in support of tyranny – the British Government must not truck any dissent or any physical obstacle towards the pursuit of its goals, he says; in other words, the end justifies the means – a Marxist concept.
Furthermore, the Grand Coalition is being presented here as a way to create a new type of politics – that sounds loving, does it not? How perverse, then, that it forms part of an advocacy for overt dictatorship. Consider the problem: the elite have a programme that needs to be implemented, but ‘conventional’ politics cannot get it done; the answer is a closed-shop and no room for a dissenting voice. Government with checks and balances must go, and government that rubber stamps the will of a few must be established. And what will happen to those dissenting voices who will surely not just disappear so very easily? Well, that’s what a police state is for. This individual gives us an absolutely hideous glimpse of the final destination that LibLabCon Grand Coalition ultimately leads to. In fact, what Britain needs to fix politics is diametrically opposed to this twisted vision.
As mentioned, on the same day as the above piece an article appeared in the Telegraph online version which reported the opinion of Rob Wilson the Conservative Charities minister in the Cabinet Office. Wilson had been on Radio Four’s PM programme. He had had this to say:
I think we could end up with a situation where if we do try and form a rainbow coalition it would end up with two elections in one year and we would find that the May election wouldn’t be the only election that year.
I think it would be very difficult to conduct a government with any authority with more than two parties involved. There could be a whole rag-bag of different views and pressures that would make government more difficult to conduct.
Here, then, is a view from inside the Cabinet. A government comprised of more than two parties is not desirable because it would be unworkable. This is the introduction of a talking point that will be repeated in the months to come.
Finally, on 5th January a piece appears in the Telegraph written by Ben Wright – the Senior City Editor at that paper. He was previously the City Correspondent at The Wall Street Journal and before that Editor of Financial News
Were such an (admittedly unlikely) alliance to form [the Grand Coalition], it might – from a business point of view – be a consummation devoutly to be wished. For one thing, it would keep Ukip and Scottish National party hands from the tiller of state.
Here we get down to the crux of the issue, and the anti-democratic arrogance is fantastic. Government in Britain has been about the enrichment of a certain corporate class, and it is obvious that the real cause of concern for the types that Wright represents is that Britain will leave the EU and there should be an end to the opportunities for exploitation and gangsterism that that entails. As such, no party should be allowed near the reins of power who would risk big business interests.
This article is already over-lengthy, so the summary will be extra short. There is an elite in Britain who don’t believe in the sovereignty of the British people because it would stand in the way of their ambitions. But it is right and natural that there be political opposition because of its ability to restrict a tyrant. The British elite objects to this, and is plotting to invent ways to bypass the checks on its power. It thinks that the British will fall for a story about the importance of achieving in government in response to global and national emergencies (which we should be suspicious of being deliberately instigated by government agencies for the purpose). This cannot be allowed to happen. It becomes increasingly clear while writing this that the only way to escape the totalitarianism planned for them, Britons must create a UKIP majority government in 2015.
While Eastern Ukrainians meet EU expansion with armed force, in Britain, at the other end of Empire, the people are pathetically cowed in contrast. As if to flaunt their wretched yellow-bellied hopelessness, the most shameful thing that British people say in response to their defeat and conquest – which is indicated clearly by the obvious rule of a vassal government from Westminster on behalf of Brussels, although in a deeper level of cowardice lots of people manage to happily ignore – is with regards the invasion of millions of people from the Empire’s slave (wage) provinces: they say, “as long as they come here to work, I don’t have a problem”.
Given that 90% of these immigrants are in low skilled labour – equating to hundreds of thousands of jobs that should have been in the possession of Britons – and that they are eligible to, and do claim in-work benefits to the tune of millions of pounds, and that generally, as a recent study showed, their net tax contribution to the welfare pot is negative, the British apology is a complete nonsense. In fact, it is a dreadful and appalling insult to generations of British who lost their lives defending the country from hostile continental powers. The most recent, the fathers of the Baby-Booming generation, and the grandfathers of the Generation-X, would be spinning in their graves after their particularly bloody forfeiture if they knew, as is now generally realised by yet living patriots, that residing in Britain, in their millions, are people from all over what could yet be called Nazi-dom – or if we’re being polite, the United States of Europe (a Nazi concept – one cannot avoid the link after all). Moreover, with Ukraine in the process of being pried away from its historical relations with Russia and into the greedy arms of the EU, the situation as a whole would look to the ghosts of Britain’s sacrificed-in-war as if they had in fact lost their monumental global conflict and died for nothing – and they would be correct.
The word “Nazi” has been used before in relation to the EU, and many a British reader will read “German” instead. There is a belief that Germany controls the EU – it is not entirely correct, and it is rather lazy. At the root of the misunderstanding is the nature of the force that wilfully caused the destruction of Europe in the 1940s. How people are still so terribly deceived about this is typically illustrated in the way the Nazis are routinely portrayed as being of the “left-wing”. This is wrong, not least because of the use of the meaningless political spectrum as a measure.
Nazism was at its heart a freemasonic secret society – at its core was a pagan religious belief system largely flavoured by the 19th century fashion for central European mythology and medieval romanticism. Driving a lot of this was a desire for German-Austrian unification, and generally there was a craze for this stuff out of Victorian times – it encapsulated the promotion of eugenics as a serious science. Indeed, we could interpret Hitler’s attitude to the final defeat of the Germans as the acceptance of a Darwinian outcome that suggested those people not fit to be vehicle for the religion – his sentiments seem strange to comprehend without knowledge of this context. The belief in the Aryan race – in actual fact an invention by Ukrainian-born German mystic Madame Blavatsky (born von Hahn) – was an expression of the crux occultism of Nazism. All mystery religion is about ascendance of god-aspirants – the Aryans were the people most likely due to their racial piety, and therefore they were the superior race (of course, it is twisted). Blavatsky was a central figure in Victorian New Age pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo, and she in turn influenced one Guido von List. He was very popular in central Europe at the turn of the century, and his prophesising of a German Christus to save the world was a favourite of leading-lights in the predecessor of the Nazi Party. The Thule Society – what looks very much like a freemasonic brotherhood with very well-to-do membership – sponsored the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the German Workers’ Party. Von List’s influence on occult Nazism seems to have been denied a great deal in the years since, and is called controversial in Wikipedia. However, the links are apparent. He theorised the Armanen – heirs of the sun god and a German priest-king and aristocratic class who knew the ancient gnosis. These were spiritual ancestors of the SS – a state within a state – a movement above the political Germany. [The author recommends the works of Milton William Cooper (which got him murdered by the US Government) for an introduction into this topic – recordings of his 1990s radio shows can be found on YouTube].
People blame Germany the country for being the initiator of World War II. In fact the culprits were an “illumined” class with a religious belief in a national destiny for a race of people which crossed current international borders. Nazi-dom already lay beyond the confines of Germany before the war started – in the minds of the adherents of a New Order for mankind. Of Germany’s vanquished, it’s the author’s suspicion that the readiness of many elites and would-be-governors to betray the political entity they had hitherto called their country was due to subscription to the same ideology through membership of affiliated secret societies. In any case, lots of countries had their own Nazi parties, and they would accept dominance from Berlin to bring about a shared vision – even the least likely had groups who were ardent collaborators, as this piece about Polish complicity in the Holocaust relates (and let us be of no doubt, there would have been eager helpers in Britain too – this is not a reference to Oswald and his uniform-wearing clowns). In the German language, the Nazis called this the Neuordnung Europas, the reorganisation of Europe – the European New Order.
If we look at a few maps, we can see what was had in mind. The Allied map showing a surmising of German ambitions during World War I is valuable because, although it is propaganda, it must be based on a range of intelligence that we cannot access at this distance more readily than we do in this one picture – it is assumption that exploits the common knowledge of the day. Austria-Hungary and Germany – with the Bulgarian satellite – is to stretch from the English Channel down to the Caucuses – Central and Eastern Europe unified. Next, the map of the conquests of the Nazis at the height of their powers resembles the spread into Eastern Europe of the other map – the main difference is the spread to the west which was militarily necessary to subdue opposition to the eastward expansion.
This was the Generalplan Ost in action – the carving out of the lebensraum. Like all freemasonic secret societies who get into power (see the Fabians) their elitism always translates into collectivism for everyone else (see the current British welfare state). The same elitism inevitably also produces a self-convinced righteousness that allows for a mindset which rationalises the slavery of an undeserving or an undesirable class. So creating lebensraum would of course mean displacement for people who the German Nazis didn’t think were racially suitable. Generalplan Ost visualised the following percentages of people would be subject to removal from lands coming under direct German control: Poles 80-85%; Russians 50-60% to be physically eliminated, 15% to be sent to Western Siberia; Belarusians 75%; Ukranians 65%; Lithuanians 85%; Latvians 50%; Estonians 50%; Czechs 50%; Latgalians (ethnic Latvians) 100%. Countries in the Reichskommissariat Kaukasus would have their own vassal governments and autonomy for various indigenous groups – this is perhaps a clue to the extent of where the German Nazis thought that Nazi-dom stopped. And note, the percentage of people not to be dealt with by removal were considered fit for Germanization or as a racially acceptable Mittelschicht.
Back to the future, and people nowadays are aware of the supposed caliphate that radical Islam wants to recreate across Africa, Europe and Asia, but they are not aware of the desire to resurrect the Nazi-dom. One may even ask, is there such a thing? People talk about a plan they cannot prove involving Germany wanting to dominate Europe through the EU. In response the author would say that the Anglo-American corporate-government uses the EU to its own ends and so presumably lets Germany have some degree of domination. While Germany has financial clout, physical territorial subjugation would be another thing altogether and would rely on EU-wide, if not American, support. On the other hand, if we look at things not from the point of a view a country of people having a plan to control other nations, but instead beginning with a premise that there are adherents of an international ideology – we’re calling it Nazi-dom – working towards what they believe is their freemasonic Great Work, then imagining a Europe dominated from a spiritual centre of Berlin is an easier thing to do. UKIP MEP Gerard Batten, amongst many others, has rightly identified the EU as a Nazi plan from its very inception. This is not the same thing as a German plan. In the video linked to in the previous sentence, Batten is interviewed outside a Bilderberg meeting – this organisation is reckoned also to have Nazi roots – but its founder, Bernhard, was a Dutch Prince.
Moving on to another distinction – a thing isn’t of the Nazis if it doesn’t involve the core mystery religion belief system and therefore the supremacy of a racially-qualified elite. We might recently have had a brief and accidental insight into this world when the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, said some very strange things on German TV. Before this is expounded upon, a run down of Yatsenyuk’s political career thus far is in order. Initially he was in an organisation called “Our Ukraine-People’s Self-Defense Bloc” which had been closely associated with Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. Yatsenyuk then led the “Front for Change” party (2008–2013), which merged into “Batkivshchyna”, or “All-Ukrainian Union ‘Fatherland’” (2013–2014). Yatsenyuk was then involved in the creation of a new party the “People’s Front” (2014-present) which appears to have been a breakaway from “Fatherland”. To an Anglosphere audience, the terms perhaps do not resonate very much if at all (and the author is by no means an expert, so please correct if any of the following is wildly wrong). The term Popular Front, or alternatively People’s Front, to keep this as simple as possible, was coined by communists to describe a coalition between workers and bourgeois political parties. 1930s communists saw Popular Fronts as a means, by exploiting nationalist tendencies and engaging in the capitalist political system, to oppose fascism. In fact, from the description, and understaning fascism as Marxism where government only controls the means to production (instead of outright owning it) it is difficult to comprehend them as being much different from the other – Popular Frontism appears to be a way of trying to gain power by wearing the other guy’s clothes. The word “Fatherland” is more readily identifiable as an expression of a nationalist concept.
Now for some personal detail: Yatsenyuk was born in the region of Chernivtsi which was incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR when the Soviets annexed Romanian territory in 1940. It was recaptured by German and Romanian forces in July 1941. His ancestors (and it is important in the context of this article to know about this) are Romanian. Claims that Yatsenyuk was born to a family of ethnic Jewish-Ukrainians made against him in 2010 during his presidential campaign were disputed by a Ukrainian chief rabbi. When considering all of this, the issue that presents itself the most readily is the question of what makes Yatsenyuk a bona fide Ukrainian running on a ticket of Ukrainian nationalism if his family is Romanian? Consider the just mentioned episode featuring the accusation of being a Jew – for what purpose did this happen? The following is from a write-up in a Jewish newspaper, and it clarifies things:
The election season was not free of anti-Semitic themes, however.
Sergey Ratushnyak, the mayor of one western Ukrainian town who was running for president, engaged in smear tactics against another candidate, Front for Change leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk, over his alleged Jewish roots.
Ratushnyak, the mayor of Uzhgorod, portrayed Yatsenyuk as a “brazen Jew” serving “the interests of thieves who dominate Ukraine” and using money obtained from criminal activities to capture the presidency. Others also attacked Yatsenyuk as a thieving Jew.
So the term “Jew” was bandied about as a slur to discourage western Ukrainians from voting for Yatsenyuk. It becomes clear: being a Romanian by heritage is OK, being a Jew is not OK. What is important here is clearly the race.
Finally we can arrive at the point where we can look at Yatsenyuk’s comments and make something of them. He said:
Russian aggression on Ukraine is an attack on the current world order and the order in Europe. We can remember very well the Soviet march into Ukraine and Germany. This must be avoided.
It has to be pointed out that this is not what is reported in most places where it is mentioned – and it might be because of the explosive content. However, this is what Yatsenyuk’s German interviewer in a follow-up interview quoted to him before asking him to clarify – that exchange can be seen here from about 3 minutes in. We should take this version of the statement as being a true one – especially as Yatsenyuk did not offer any denial. The significant words are the “order in Europe” – these go missing in other reportage or are changed into “security in Europe”.
This is clearly an appeal to war-time alliances. We know that the Germans were allied with Romania when they recaptured Chernivtsi. We know that they can’t have been allied with the Ukranian SSR, but they were allied with a certain type of Ukrainian – the sort who were therefore also seeking the New Order in Europe? One of the unexpected consequences for a western audience of the Ukraine crisis has been the revelation of the existence of people who have stored and nurtured war time beliefs about racial identity with regards to distinctions from other people even in the same country. Yatsenyuk himself seems to be complaining about the Soviet disruption of the first manifestation of Nazi-dom. And one is left wondering if defining modern Ukraine in terms of Russian aggression (as it merely acts to look after its own, or would-be victims of a Kiev junta) is a means to express some unsavoury ideas about Ukraine’s rightful place in the New Order. Should we call current Ukrainian hostility to Russia recognition of an obstacle to the fulfilment of a national mythical destiny? This same fear of Russian aggression is also vocalised by Poland and the Baltic countries from whom this sort of noise is astonishing as all are well established national independencies (save their membership of the EU). If anything, NATO is the aggressive power, and so too these countries by dint of their membership, by insisting on the militarization of the western side of Russia’s border – something that, when one looks back on the history, was started surprisingly early after the break-up of the Soviet Union– the official commencement of planning for NATO’s anti-missile defence system in Eastern Europe appears to have been 2002.
This brings us conveniently to Donald Tusk, who as the Prime Minister of Poland, welcomed US Vice President Joe Biden to Warsaw in a 2009 visit to propose variations on the same theme. Tusk was very enthusiastic. Of course Donald Tusk is now the president of the EU Council, and so takes whatever hostility to Russia he may have to a top job in the Empire. But there is more to be worried about Tusk for, and it resides in the reasons behind the obvious desire to poke the Russian Bear (see here).
His grandfather, also Polish, volunteered to serve with the Wehrmacht, but there are some that say that Jozef Tusk was in the SS. Donald Tusk denied all knowledge when the story came out, and there seems to be quite a lot of obfuscation, as one probably might expect. In any case, for the purpose of a summary of Tusk’s career, here are some pertinent quotes from Guardian reportage at the time of his “promotion”:
Tusk inherited a Poland that was hostile to Russia and intensely suspicious of Germany… The alliance with the UK was reinforced by Britain’s championing of Poland’s membership against deep-seated west European reservations and by the UK’s open-door policy for Polish migrants from 2004 when most others restricted immigration.
Under Tusk and Sikorski [Polish foreign minister], this has all changed. The keen pro-Americanism waned, leaving a sour taste. Tusk and Sikorski concluded that Britain and David Cameron in particular were making a mess of their tactics and strategy in Europe and with other EU governments.
Tusk bonded with Merkel, the EU’s first among equals, cemented a close Polish-German alliance, and concluded that Poland’s destiny rested on its closest possible European integration…
On Ukraine and Russia, Tusk and Poland have led the hawks in Europe on getting tough with Putin.
Indeed, if we investigate in any meaningful way, we discover that Tusk’s Poland has been instrumental in prying Ukraine from Russian influence; Tusk’s Poland has led calls for NATO deployment in Eastern Europe, and lately Tusk’s party in government has formed military alliances with Ukraine and Lithuania in the name of a defensive front against Russia. The stated aim is self-protection, but one wonders if it is not in fact deliberate provocation. Indeed, we could characterise the Polish as the nastiest little dog in a pack of tiny canines threatening a bear with its bigger dog chums. Britons should be worried that their own security is tied to people who think that NATO and the EU are a stick to beat Russia with over past grievances.
And so, a pattern begins to emerge. When the belligerence begins, it does so on the western side of the Russian border – the Russians respond and it is sold to western audiences as Russian aggression. This provides the excuse for militarization. It provides the excuse for Eastern Europe to draw closer to Germany. Crucially, what is happening in Ukraine is vital for providing the reasonable context for the resurgence of Nazi-dom – something that has not gone unnoticed in Russia, by the way. It allows for the universal perception of Russian aggression, and this is the phenomenon by which the plotters are then able to get away with defining the EU, as Yatsenyuk did, with terms of reference from history that are obnoxious but have become saleable, and are yet such an obvious challenge to wide-awake people – especially in conjunction with other phenomena.
Take for instance the “coincidence” of the depopulation of Eastern Europe that is happening at this time – this would be an outcome something like the Nazis desired, would it not? If the British corporate-media was not conspiring with forces against Britions, and its audience were invited to see Eastern European immigrants as people escaping Nazi-dom then perhaps this would be more palatable to them (the authors own Eastern European relatives emigrated in the days when one risked a bullet – this sort of people are worth much more to a country than benefits-seekers). However, the chances are that immigrant Eastern Europeans themselves don’t see things in this way, and access to Britain is merely the Soviet welfare state thrown westwards where it is worth more. Likewise, the influx of people into their country on a scale that can only be called invasion is presented to Britons as the taking up of a right to earn a living – the right to be protected from invasion by one’s own government is relegated to complete obscurity, of course. Above all else, without referring to the concept of Nazi revival, it is certain that the people who come to Britain are pawns of a collaboration between the vassal British government and a foreign power to facilitate the dismantling of representative deomocracy in Europe – this has to be conceded. It might as well be resurgent Nazi-dom – and it is clearly more of a threat to Polish and Baltic security than Russia is – in the year that Lithuania adopts the euro, is it not wiping clean those countries’ identities and hollowing them out? How long for Lithuania before a technocratic banker is appointed as its leader (with the Polish or Ukrainian element of their unified military forces deployed to keep the peace)?
Whatever names we want to give it, there is undoubtedly a New European Order, and it is the real threat to European security. It is backed by a bankster-infiltrated American Government, facilitated by a bankster-infiltrated British Government, and there is only Russia who is standing up to it. Britain might also rise to the challenge if the British would but figure out the dire need to cut the old corrupt British politics clean from the reins of power. As it is, Britain remains a star on the flag of the power that is instituting new Nazi-dom by its own aggression against Russia sold as defensiveness. Dismally, at the same time, Britons also somehow imagine that they won the 2nd World War, and derive much Moral High-ground and complacency from it. The country is perhaps too badly out of touch and deluded to deliver the world-changing blow it needs to at the 2015 election. Russia, for all her perceived faults, stands alone.