Category Archives: Occupation & Collaboration

Stories about people who or events that aid the occupation

GE2017: a manoeuvre to deliver Fake Brexit; Part Two: the EU still rules

Let’s cut to the chase: the contention put forth by the author is that the General Election to be held on June 8th has been called to shore up Parliament for a continued fudge of the Britain’s exit from the EU, or to deliver a Fake Brexit†. Once again, the Establishment is relying on the seesaw political model that it has installed in the imaginations of the electorate. As such, people “understand” that when one side is elevated, the ascendency of the other side is always a mechanical likelihood, and perhaps even a physical certainty, and so the voter is fixated on raising or grounding one side or the other. In the meantime, behind the theatre that compels voters to choose a side (rather than a new course), there is a shadow government, the British Government in its fullest sense, that is always making sure that events proceed in the direction of its own agenda.

To keep this LibLabCon system alive, the parties have to appear to have political differences to maintain the illusion of a democratic choice, however in office these parties will implement the shadow government’s agenda because they are each but one aspect of the same multi-faced creature. As such, if the Tories maintain a minority government, or rule as part of a coalition, the LibLabCon will cooperate in spite of perceived party lines for the aforementioned common purpose. However, in such circumstances it would be difficult to maintain the impression of party distinction (which ultimately leads to the end of the grand deception). This is why the British Establishment has always preferred an election-winning party to have a very good majority.

As far as all this applies to a Parliament whose main task will be to give the impression of delivering Brexit to the electorate, there is a sub-component assignment to achieve. This is the marginalisation of any Tory MPs who would oppose Fake Brexit. And so Theresa May needs that big and foolproof majority, and what she desperately has to avoid is a Tory rebellion which leaves her Cabinet, and the main body of the Tory Parliamentary Party, working with Labour and the Lib Dems. This would not be good for optics – as previously explained. It also goes without saying that UKIP can’t be allowed to form a kernel of opposition around which dissenting Members of all parties can coalesce. And so, this is why ahead of the election, in order to try to create the desired Tory majority, the public are hearing about how Labour will deliver a “soft brexit”, but not about how the Tories would do exactly the same thing.  With talk of the Tories selecting staunch Remainers in winnable seats, it looks as if the assemblage of fake Brexiteers for Fake Brexit is being realised. When the author gets a better idea of the scale of this, there will be an article.

Moving on, and the focus in this particular series of articles is on how the General Election of 2017 is about manoeuvring to get the electorate to choose a Tory majority by deception. This article is going to look at revelatory material in the Great Repeal Bill White Paper, published without any fanfare at the end of March 2017, that confirms that the Tories aren’t going to deliver what people think they are; the Great Repeal Bill White Paper should be treated as an indicator of Tory intention regardless of what is in the party’s election manifesto.

Much has been made, in the last week or so, of Theresa May’s apparent back-sliding on Britain remaining a signatory – or not (more to the point) – to the ECHR. Incidentally, in case there’s any confusion, the ECHR refers to the European Convention of Human Rights, which established the European Court of Human Rights – and it is probably the court that most people think of when they come across the acronym. The difference matters hardly, because the court is for testing cases measured against the convention. The court is not an EU body, but the European Court of Justice, the EU’s supreme court, “refers to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU’s legal system” (from Wikipedia).

Back in 2016, just before Britons voted to Leave the EU, and before Theresa May had been selected to become Prime Minister, she had the following to say about the ECHR:

The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights…

So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.

However, May’s earlier forthrightness has now been retracted, as the following extract, from a very recent and unsurprisingly devious Telegraph article, demonstrates:

[Theresa May] was expected to write the commitment into the Conservative manifesto meaning that Britain would be committed to withdrawing [from the ECHR] by the end of the next parliament, in 2022.

However, senior Government figures have told The Telegraph they expect Mrs May to drop the commitment because it would be a major distraction for her Government from the Brexit negotiations.

The spin being given, as the reader can see, is that leaving the ECHR might be considered as something less important to worry about for now, and to be dealt with after 2022. It’s all incredibly disingenuous, – and that’s leaving aside the dishonesty in the article to imply that somehow Britain won’t be bound by the ECHR after 2022. The Great Repeal Bill White Paper reveals that the issue of leaving the ECHR is not a major distraction, because it isn’t even being considered:

2.22 The Charter is only one element of the UK’s human rights architecture. Many of the rights protected in the Charter are also found in other international instruments, notably the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but also UN and other international treaties too. The ECHR is an instrument of the Council of Europe, not of the EU. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU will not change the UK’s participation in the ECHR and there are no plans to withdraw from the ECHR.

Why has Theresa May had such a change of heart? Let the author suggest something: the EU Referendum result. The ECHR provides a basis for ECJ law. It would be hard then, would it not, to be subject to the ECJ if the convention that it upholds is not recognised? The point is this: the British Government plans to maintain the supremacy of European law as a protection for EU-derived law on the British statute books against what is arguably legitimate domestic law that contradicts it. It’s quite clear from reading the White Paper:

(From paragraph 2.14)

The Bill will provide that any question as to the meaning of EU-derived law will be determined in the UK courts by reference to the CJEU’s case law as it exists on the day we leave the EU.

EU-derived law will be the EU law that we are led to believe is “going to be converted” into UK law. And so…

2.20 If, after exit, a conflict arises between two pre-exit laws, one of which is an EU-derived law and the other not, then the EU-derived law will continue to take precedence over the other pre-exit law. Any other approach would change the law and create uncertainty as to its meaning. This approach will give coherence to the statute book, while putting Parliament back in control. Once the UK has left the EU, Parliament (and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures) will be able to change these laws wherever it is considered desirable.

It occurs to the author that Brexit doesn’t have to be like this. The British Government is clearly making decisions in line with an agenda to maintain compatibility with a foreign power – to the detriment of real independence (and thus it isn’t Brexit that we are seeing, it is yet more treason).

Additionally, the supremacy of the ECJ will be maintained by the preservation of EU-derived law. The following extract (from an article on an LSE website) explains so that the author doesn’t have to:

The ECJ may retain jurisdiction over Britain well after Brexit day. The degree is a sliding scale: the softer the Brexit, the greater the ECJ jurisdiction. This is because as long as a state reaps the benefits of EU membership, above all freedoms of movement, it must give up a portion of sovereign control over the governance of those benefits. This is why any transitional period, currently floated to last 3-5 years, would need to include ECJ competence.

It occurs to the author that the writer of this extract thinks that free movement into the UK is a benefit. And it further occurs that ECJ competence would be sustained as long as EU-derived law demanded it. That’s why we’re seeing stuff like the following out of Breitbart:

Brussels is expected to demand that EU citizens in the UK should keep all the rights they presently enjoy as part of the Brexit deal, thus keeping them subject to the ECJ.

Now, understandably, the reader is probably asking, how long would EU-derived law require ECJ competence. When the author looks at the following extract from paragraph 1.22 of the White Paper, he has to think that it would last as long as Parliament wanted it to:

 We will introduce an immigration bill so nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether already resident in the UK or moving from the EU, without Parliament’s approval. This is in line with our overall approach to the Great Repeal Bill – not to make major policy changes through or under the Bill, but to allow Parliament an opportunity to debate our future approach and give effect to that through separate bills. New legislation will be required to implement new policies or institutional arrangements that go beyond replicating current EU arrangements in UK law.

And also consider this:

2.7 Our approach of converting EU law into domestic law maximises certainty and stability while ensuring Parliament is sovereign. For the purposes of this paper we are calling this body of law ‘EU-derived law’. The Government considers that, unless and until domestic law is changed by legislators in the UK, legal rights and obligations in the UK should where possible be the same after we have left the EU as they were immediately before we left.

Of course, if the UK Parliament was set on maintaining coherence between Britain and a Global model being instituted in the rest of the world, so that there was no independent development for Britain – which is what it is doing, and which it will be doing if the Establishment manages yet again to deceive the sheeple at the upcoming election – then we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for that Parliament to get around to legislating the end of ECJ supremacy – unless the author is very much mistaken.


† What the author understands Fake Brexit to entail has emerged through own research, and can be traced in the following FBEL articles:

Fake Brexit and the Sleaford by-election; the British continue to be duped (link)
Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism; Part One (link)
Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism; Part Two: the Modern Industrial Strategy (link)
The Lords’ Amendment and pseudo-citizenship (link)
A Fake Brexit fait accompli to be punched home during Great Repeal? (link)
GE2017: a manoeuvre to deliver Fake Brexit; Part One: the resurrected “wasted vote” meme (link)

Just to show that the author is definitely on the right track with his analysis, consider how he has consistently told you that leaving the EU amounts to repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and that the Article 50 negotiations are superfluous (and in reality, about conceding by stealth to the EU). Look at the following paragraphs from the Great Repeal Bill White Paper (emphasis added), with the authors comments inserted after them:

1.11 The Article 50 process gives effect to the UK’s withdrawal as a matter of EU law. However, new primary legislation is needed to ensure that the domestic statute book reflects the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and to ensure an orderly transition from EU membership. We need to be in a position to repeal the ECA on the day we leave the EU.

Article 50 is EU law, but on the repeal of the ECA (to use the above abbreviation), EU law is not supreme – unless the Government insists upon it. Leaving the EU does not have to be subject to Article 50 negotiations – and that fact is reflected in the next paragraph:

1.20 The Government is confident that the UK can reach a positive agreement about our future relationship with the EU in the time available under Article 50. However, we have also been clear that no deal for the UK is better than a bad deal for the UK. The Great Repeal Bill would also support the scenario where the UK left the EU without a deal in place, by facilitating the creation of a complete and functioning statute book no longer reliant on EU membership.

This flat out admits that the Great Repeal Bill will anticipate the complete failure of Article 50 negotiations. It is recognition that no Article 50 deal is required. The UK can leave the EU without a deal, and this is because the UK’s exit from the EU is brought about solely by the repeal of the ECA. The next paragraph alludes to this fact:

2.3 As a first step, it is important to repeal the ECA to ensure there is maximum clarity as to the law that applies in the UK, and to reflect the fact that following the UK’s exit from the EU it will be UK law, not EU law, that is supreme. The Bill will repeal the ECA on the day we leave the EU.

But here, in this last paragraph, does the Government use the trickery that this Brexit process is riddled with. The last line implies that the repealing of the ECA is a consequence of leaving the EU – and this repeats the deception in the last line of Para 1.11. But this is not correct. What this line is telling you, albeit in a heavily and dishonestly disguised manner, is that the day on which the ECA is repealed will be the day the UK leaves the EU. The author has been proven.


Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism; Part One

Note: since the composition of this article began, the UK Government has released a White Paper in relation to negotiations it thinks it must have with the EU about Britain’s departure from that organisation. The author has glanced at it, and finds that in terms of stating what the UK Government hopes to achieve in key areas covered below, it is not much different nor any more definite or helpful than the sources that provide the material for this article.

Apparently, some people still think that the selected (by the pro-EU Establishment) Prime Minister of the UK – and Remain-campaigner – Theresa May, plus her (on the majority) pro-EU Parliamentary Tory Party (which stood down so she could be selected) are going to deliver the wishes of the people of the UK as expressed in the referendum on EU membership. They think that May is going to deliver a truly independent UK free of the EU. The truth of the matter – at least as it appears to the author – is that, if they’re lucky, they might get formal extraction of membership from the EU, but the UK will not be fully independent. What they are going to see, although they might not understand it, is the swapping out of aspects of EU membership with replacements that have more or less the same function toward furthering an integrationist agenda. Independence will be illusory.

So, how is it that we can make such a prediction so confidently? Because the people who rule Britain – and make no mistake, these aren’t the same people who were taking part in a debate in the Commons this past week (which the reader would have been wise not to have wasted any time paying attention to) – are Globalists, and Britain, for their sustenance and benefit, must be secured into a system of Globalism. The EU was supposed to be a shackle for this purpose. Now, even the born-again Brexit Avenger, Theresa May, is very concerned that the EU should survive the forces that the Leave movement in the UK represents – and this is because the EU is supposed to be a shackle. The UK only voted to Leave the EU by a miracle (it wasn’t meant to, and one day someone will get around to writing about that). There is no way that the UK is being divorced from the restricting influence of the EU while the same people rule Britain.

But we don’t need to rely on general prior knowledge. If we look at two speeches given recently and closely together by Theresa May, we can see what is intended. The first speech was the one touted as being a major policy exposition regarding the triggering of Article 50 and beyond, and it was given at Lancaster House on 17th January, the second was delivered to the World Economic Forum at Davos on 19th January.

We’re going to look at excerpts from these speeches over two articles, and discuss what they reveal (all quotations are from Theresa May unless otherwise stated). In this article, it is pointed out that the objective of the UK Government is continuance of Globalist standardisation, and how this perhaps means that what we should expect from Brexit is merely EU membership in everything but name. In the next article, we look at a plan for the future that the British Government has strangely stitched on to the delivery of Brexit, and notice that it confirms the desire for continuity in the Globalist scheme.

Before that, though, a note on the use of the word “globalisation” by Theresa May in the said speeches. According to Theresa May, globalisation is something that is good for lots of people, and that people would appreciate this if only they were taught that it was good for them. So, let’s just look at a definition of the word:

Globalisation: the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale.

The problem is, who is doing the globalising? Is it Mom & Pop who are opening branches in another country? Or is it the expansion of a system of corporate government – or in other words, enlargement by people who are already immensely rich who want to govern on a global scale in order to sustain their dominance – i.e. people who want to rule the world? If it’s the latter case – and it most surely is – then what you have is Globalism. May uses globalisation when she means Globalism.

Let’s begin with the British Government’s concern about the survival of the EU project:

And I know many fear that… [Brexit] might herald the beginning of a greater unravelling of the EU.

But let me be clear: I do not want that to happen. It would not be in the best interests of Britain. It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed. And that is why I hope in the months and years ahead we will all reflect on the lessons of Britain’s decision to leave.

The EU is a dictatorship. Its ruling executive branch is not elected. The great power in the EU is Germany; as such its politicians will have most influence on this rule-making body. Lesser countries cannot hope for rule in their particular best interests. The EU is expansionist; this is observable by comparing maps printed variously in the 20th century. EU expansion in to Ukraine involved a coup and the promotion of real Nazis into power, and a war on the people of the country’s culturally Russian provinces. The EU – having realised that American hard reinforcement can no longer be relied upon, and soft power is just not enough  – wants to arm itself appropriately for its ambitions; Angela Merkel has said as much. The survival of the EU is not at all in the best interests of an independent Britain – and there are many reasons why, but here’s an important one: Britain is going to be attached to the EU in terms of military alliances and all that that entails:

At a time when together we face a serious threat from our enemies, Britain’s unique intelligence capabilities will continue to help to keep people in Europe safe from terrorism. And at a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty.

I am proud of the role Britain has played and will continue to play in promoting Europe’s security. Britain has led Europe on the measures needed to keep our continent secure – whether it is implementing sanctions against Russia following its action in Crimea, working for peace and stability in the Balkans, or securing Europe’s external border. We will continue to work closely with our European allies in foreign and defence policy even as we leave the EU itself.

Well, if the reader lives in the real world then he or she will comprehend that Britain’s intelligence “capabilities” are one of the greatest progenitors of terrorism on the entire planet (and in its entire history), so the very important revelation in this statement is that Britain will continue to see Russia as an enemy on behalf of the EU. Again, we see the disgraceful lie about Crimea – the truth being that Crimeans voted to reconvert their land into Russian territory – to justify action to try and prevent Russia from being an economic threat to the EU. For it seems to the author that the potential of the Russian economy is at the root of all of this. It is deemed a threat. Russia won’t need to invade countries on its borders to create markets or find demographics that will seek closer ties. There are people in the East of Europe (not forgetting Greece) who are already very sympathetic to a Russia, which is trying to become an economically competitive trading nation while the EU is on the verge of full basket-case-hood. Market forces will drive the change of allegiances, and the duty of a British contingent of an EU “defence” force – or Army, if you like – will inevitably be more to do with preventing the disintegration and scattering of the EU into pieces than protecting anyone in it from Russian militarism.

Now let’s move onto the continuing primacy of EU law, and retention of elements of the Single Market and Custom Union membership.

And it is why, as we repeal the European Communities Act, we will convert the “acquis” – the body of existing EU law – into British law.

This will give the country maximum certainty as we leave the EU. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after Brexit as they did before. And it will be for the British Parliament to decide on any changes to that law after full scrutiny and proper Parliamentary debate.

And when it comes to Parliament, there is one other way in which I would like to provide certainty. I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.

The first thing one might notice is that May says that the European Communities Act is going to be repealed. UKIP’s Gerard Batten has this to say about that: “repeal[ing] the 1972 European Communities Act, [would] legally make us no longer members of [the EU] under our own law.” (Source).  If that’s the case, why would we need all the palaver centred around the triggering of Article 50? The truth appears to be coming out. The essential act in leaving the EU is the repealing of the EC Act 1972. May the author suggest, then, that the triggering of Article 50 is to allow an opportunity for the British Government and the EU to conspire to create apparently new circumstances which amount to the same thing – or maintain the old relationship under a new name – to be sold to the British public as being necessary for leaving the EU?  Here is how it would work: the EU will want this thing, the British Government will want that. A compromise will have be made or else, we will be told, Britain can’t leave the EU. Then there will be the second level. The British Government will take the compromise to Parliament, which is pro-EU, and will quietly have this compromise watered down some more – it will be necessary, you see, to get the whole thing passed – after all, leaving the EU is what you want, isn’t it? And all this is not to mention the possibility of an EU court deciding in the very end if Parliament has made a deal that is fudge enough to be acceptable to it.

So now let’s deal with that EU law that is in fact already on the books. As May points out, it would be for a British Parliament to rescind it bit by bit. That would be ok, as long as there was a Parliament willing to do such a thing. As the UK Parliament is essentially captured for the EU against the British Constitution, as revealed here, and is a pro-EU body, then Britain can expect to continue to be ruled by law that has emanated out of Brussels for the good of the EU, and in the interest of Globalist standardisation. And you can expect Parliament to continue to make law that runs parallel with any new legislation that Brussels makes. Globalism is about restricting a nation according to standardised requirements – even if it is a so-called independent legislature imposing the restriction. Real independence means doing what’s best for yourself, and insisting that the world accommodates you.

European leaders have said many times that membership [of the Single Market] means accepting the “four freedoms” of goods, capital, services and people. And being out of the EU but a member of the Single Market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country.

It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all.

And that is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the Single Market.

So we do not seek membership of the Single Market. Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement.

(This is the really important bit…)

That Agreement may take in elements of current Single Market arrangements in certain areas – on the export of cars and lorries for example, or the freedom to provide financial services across national borders – as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when Britain and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years.

The Single Market, then, is about the freedom of movement for goods, capital, services and people. It’s a free trade agreement that also incorporates the free movement of people, and a little bit more; for instance, the “non-tariff” “barriers to trade” which are rules for standardisation or practise, quality and other red-tape stuff. (We can bet the British Government is going to want to keep this, again because the EU has been a starting place for the Globalist regularised paradigm).

Now, it’s important to understand that Britain’s single market access depends on Brussels’ willingness to separate the four freedoms – and the sounds being made are not promising. Furthermore, the British Government has already revealed that the survival of the EU Single Market is a priority.

Because we do not want to undermine the Single Market, and we do not want to undermine the European Union. We want the EU to be a success and we want its remaining member states to prosper. And of course we want the same for Britain.

It makes one wonder how much negotiating space there is. Consider that immigration from the EU into the UK is a multi-billion pound cash-cow in terms of monies being transferred by individuals, and think about the remote chance of EU governments wanting to give that up. Indeed, the British Government might not be expecting it:

Fairness demands that we deal with another issue as soon as possible too. We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

Putting aside that it is disingenuous to compare the case of millions and millions of EU citizens in Britain, and the much smaller number of Britons across an entire continent, what is this all about? Are we expecting, given the cash-cow mentioned above, for EU citizens suddenly to be deprived of public housing, benefits – in-work or not – and whatever else the British welfare state can think of to give out? Because, their technically being foreign nationals, we should expect the teat to dry up instantly. Foreign nationals used to have the following stamped on their passports when they were given leave to remain in the UK: no recourse to public funds. However, the author doubts very much that this is going to happen, and the rights of EU citizens will include one to continue to cost the British tax payer billions of pounds every year (17bn to be precise, according this report).

The EU should ‘do its best to undermine the “homogeneity” of its member states’ said Peter Sutherland, the UN migration chief in 2012. Sutherland, who had been the non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, thinks that the prosperity of a country is subject to its being multicultural. In fact, what he’s talking about is that the prosperity of Globalists like him and his ilk is at risk if nations do not disintegrate into balkanised, poverty stricken, tribal collectives that can be manipulated in order to provide his enrichment. A constitutional nation, with a unifying identity under a set of commonly-held principles, can see and fend off threats to its way of life (this is Patriotism). Globalism demands an end to unified national and cultural identity. A tool to that end is mass immigration.

And so the author senses already that the invasion of Britain is not even going to be reversed, and that a new agreement with the EU will involve the continuation – even if it be covertly done by allowing further immigration along familial lines – of nation-destroying free movement of people.

Moving on to the issue of a Customs Union, which is concerned with uniform tariffs on goods imported into the EU area from external countries:

I know my emphasis on striking trade agreements with countries outside Europe has led to questions about whether Britain seeks to remain a member of the EU’s Customs Union. And it is true that  full  Customs Union membership prevents us from negotiating our own comprehensive trade deals.

Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements.  But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff.  These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries.  But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU.

Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.

Look at the content of a tweet issued by the BBC’s Newsnight (source):

“I don’t think that you can do that” – @GuyVerhofstadt on whether the UK could be outside customs union but have a deal for car industry

The issue being referred to is how “the car industry” (when you look at this particular Guardian story, this talk emanates from the chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) is concerned that the EU will demand a customs tariff that will make UK car manufacture uncompetitive. But this application of tax would be reciprocal, and as such a deterrent. Germany is the country that exports the most to the UK; its car manufacturers don’t want retaliatory hefty tariffs on exports into the UK as a consequence. So we should suspect that what we have here is actually an exercise of deception with three elements: a) there is the establishment of a position taken by the EU whereby there appears to little or no movement, b) there is a creation of a scare that gives the UK Government an impetus or excuse on moral grounds to surrender to the EU (when actually it doesn’t need to), and then c) the UK Government is justified in the eyes of a nation when it signs up to a disadvantageous Customs Union.

Here’s some more from Guy Verhofstadt, the chief EU Brexit negotiator:

“I think this will not happen. We shall never accept a situation in which it is better to be outside the single market than be a member of the European union,” Mr Verhofstadt said.

“If you want the advantages you of a single market and customs union, you have to take the obligations,” he added.

Here we have the chief EU negotiator setting out a position of inflexibility. People are being set up to understand that the British Government will have to do a deal that might not conform to ideal notions of total independence. Let’s look at an actual case (from here):

The EU also has separate customs union agreements with Turkey, Andorra and San Marino.

Turkey’s agreement covers industrial products and processed agricultural products.

That means Turkey has to impose the common external tariff and meet EU regulations on its industrial products, but not its unprocessed agricultural ones.

So when Turkey negotiates trade agreements with other countries, it still has to impose the EU’s external tariff on industrial products and processed agricultural products (unless those countries also have trade deals with the EU).

It’s also a one-sided agreement, with non-EU countries that have free trade agreements with the EU automatically getting access to Turkish markets although Turkey does not get access to theirs.

And it means that on the products covered by the agreement, Turkey must keep to EU regulations.

The stench of EU protectionism is unmistakable. What could the British people need so badly from the dying, stinking corpse of the EU in order that they would see their country retain its vassal status? The UK Government is going to have to be at its most inventive.

Let’s recap on what to expect to happen: a) the setting out of the EU’s position whereby there appears to be little or no flexibility, b) the creation of a scare that seemingly causes the UK Government to surrender to the EU, and then c) the UK Government being justified in the eyes of a nation when it signs up to a deal that is not in its best interests. This is how Theresa May and David Davies, and all the other fakers in the Tory party are going to deliver Fake Brexit.

Thomas Mair: all by himself?

When the corporate-media reported that Thomas Mair had killed Labour MP Jo Cox and had made utterances whereby the event could be framed for propaganda as a Brexit Leaver murdering a Remainer, then FBEL  investigated the veracity of the witness testimony upon which this narrative was founded. What was discovered pointed to an event that had definitely been exploited by the Establishment; indeed it appeared more likely than not that it had been tainted to create a handle for exploitation.

Fig. 1; Mair on the corner of Market Street and Chapel Lane.
Fig. 1; Mair on the corner of Market Street and Chapel Lane.

To what extent the murder of Jo Cox was not an organic event is anyone’s good guess – before we start to analyse it, that is. Some people say that it was a long-term psychological operation, even to the extent of gifting Cox the safe Batley and Spen Westminster seat for the purpose, aimed at making the British vote to stay in the EU. If Jo Cox was in on this, they say, then she’s probably still alive. True, there does seem to be a missing body in this case of most heinous crime – the jury only got to see computer generated graphical representations – and without a body there cannot be a murder. True, the crime scene looked as though it could be spectacularly pristine – but then we weren’t allowed to see all of it. So let’s work with what we can see, because this is the way that a web of lies is best demolished. There will be several articles on this subject because the British Government wants to introduce a mindset into the public consciousness whereby being an anti-globalist equates to being a neo-Nazi. Just as we needed to tackle a travesty in order to save Brexit, so do we need to tackle one going forward so that it can’t be used for the dangerous programme of stigmatisation that the British Government has planned for us.

Fig. 2; Mair in the market at noon.
Fig. 2; Mair in the market at noon.

Since the matter was last written about at this site, Thomas Mair has of course been found guilty of murdering Jo Cox in a trial that was described by Nick Kollerstrom as a monologue by the prosecution. Mair’s was a deliberately targeted attack for political purposes – hence he is a new kind of terrorist against the political consensus (which is what we, who disagree, will all be demonised as in due course). So, naturally from the court reporting available to us we get the impression that when Thomas Mair stationed himself on the corner of Market Street and Chapel Lane in Birstall on the morning of the 16/6/16, it was to install himself in a place from whence he could pounce on Jo Cox as she arrived for her surgery at Birstall Library in Market Street:

[Footage of Mair shows him walk] into the market square, where he takes station on the top corner of Market Street across from the library.


He lay in wait outside Birstall Library for the mother-of-two to arrive.


Louise Keskin [who worked at the neighbouring accountants] said the man in the attack was the same one she had noticed lingering outside the Vape Lounge [on the  corner of Market Street and Chapel Lane] some time before the killing.


The CCTV shows us that Mair was in the vicinity, but he was a bit more random than the purposeful character he is portrayed to be.

Fig. 3; Mair opposite the market again.
Fig. 3; Mair opposite the market again.

At approximately 11.52am, Mair is shown on the corner in front of the Vape Lounge (Fig. 1), but this isn’t directly adjacent to the library. According to Google Maps it is about 100 feet away. Mair is wearing a grey suit jacket, and black trousers, and he is holding a brown jacket over his left arm – we’ll return to the matter of his clothing later in this article and then in a subsequent one. Mair also has some baggage with him, although not all of it is visible at all times in the images. There was a darkish holdall, and there was also a white carrier bag.

At some point between 11.52 and Noon, Mair had crossed over to the market on the other side of Chapel Road, because CCTV footage shows him crossing back at 12:01pm (Fig.2). Then we see Mair back on the corner of Market and Chapel in footage timestamped 12:09 (Fig.3). In a still shot found on the internet, Mair is once again shown in the market on the pavement of Chapel Lane (Fig.4). The time is 12:32pm.

Fig. 4; Mair in the market - again.
Fig. 4; Mair in the market – again.

So Mair’s behaviour during this period, then, was probably more accurately described by West Yorkshire Police on a web page they released giving an official public report on the case (that this report is fundamentally at odds with what was supposedly testified to in court is a matter for another article): “he was seen going to and fro across the market place and entering various bus shelters around the square.”

In fact, a witness in the trial (apparently) as much as said that he thought that Mair must have been waiting for a bus (source):

Witness Stephen Lees tells the jury he knows Thomas Mair and saw him waiting at a bus stop in Birstall shortly before #JoCox was attacked.

Mr Lees says Thomas Mair was wearing smart clothes, which he thought was unusual. “I did a double-take.”

Fig. 5; Cox is supposedly in the silver car ahead of the red one.
Fig. 5; Cox is supposedly in the silver car ahead of the red one.

As for the victim of this determined predator, the car carrying Jo Cox was said to have been seen on CCTV going up Market Street to the library at about 12:51pm (Fig. 5). In fact the CCTV footage shows the car about to park in a gap on the left hand side of the road (relative to the car) in front of the library. The timestamp on the footage shows 12:51.03.

The strange thing is that Mair is still seen in the market, on other CCTV footage, at 12:51.40 (Fig 7). We see him crossing Chapel Lane, to arrive on the library side of Market Street at 12:51.52 (Fig. 6), and he half disappears out of sight a second later. This is apparently the start of Mair’s attack run, and if you zoom in on the imagery, he certainly looks like he is still holding a bag in his right hand so, as we will see, he is all tooled up.

Fig. 6; Mair arriving in Market Street; 12:51.52.
Fig. 6; Mair arriving in Market Street; 12:51.52.

However, what the CCTV is telling us is that by the time Mair got to the top of Market Street, Jo Cox had already arrived outside the library some 48/49 (at the most) seconds ago.

The witness testimony suggests that Cox’s party didn’t hang about in the car after coming to a halt, but there is actually no telling if this is true when we find that testimony changing from one moment to the next, nor when it was very exact in the first place. Additionally, the library looks like it is a third of the way down the road, so given that Google Maps says it takes about a minute to walk along most of Market Street (Fig, 9),that means that we should allow anything up to another 20 seconds for Mair to intercept Cox on her way to the library. This would mean him arriving at the library, at the latest, at 12:52.12.

As far as the official story goes, this is all fine. The attack supposedly started at 12:52pm – which we can allow to mean in the 53rd minute after noon (source):

The attack started at 12.52am [sic], the court heard, and was captured in the distance by local council CCTV cameras.

Fig. 7; Mair in the market - Cox hasalready arrived at the library.
Fig. 7; Mair in the market – Cox hasalready arrived at the library.

However, reconsider the evidence. For Mair to have caught Cox outside the library, she would have had to hang about outside for anything up to 60 to 70 seconds – and do that instead of stepping indoors to set up her surgery that was beginning in a mere 8 minutes. Remember, Mair was supposed to be on Cox like a whippet out of a trap. And yet, when Cox was arriving at the library, Mair was still amongst the bus stops on the market (Fig.7). He didn’t look like a man who was waiting to pounce. But in any case, assume that Mair finally remembers what he’s there to do, and is able to see along Market Street from his position (a quick check of Google Map shows that he does (Fig.8)), and recognises Cox getting out of a car (it’s unlikely he knew what car to expect to see her arriving in). He then takes 10 seconds to cross Chapel Lane – we know because we see him do it (and it shows how perfectly prepared he was). Then there’s that additional 20 seconds to get to the library. The result: striking half a minute later after first seeing one’s prey; not exactly pouncing on it. The author suggests that, all being normal, it was more likely for Cox to have got into the library long before Mair ever reached her.

Fig. 8; Birstall Library is visible from the market.
Fig. 8; Birstall Library is visible from the market.

Now consider the CCTV footage of the aftermath. The image in Fig. 10 shows Mair at the bottom of Market Street. This image is supposedly of Mair escaping the scene of his crime.

If you look beyond him, you can see the gap in the parked cars filled up by the vehicle Cox arrived in – and you can see figures starting to mill about on the scene. Now, all things being organic, this picture would tell us that something did happen and Mair had been on the scene when it happened.

But consider this: Google Maps gives us a rough distance of 295 feet for that which is travelled by Mair between two known points of time (Fig. 9). Google also claims it takes 60 seconds to walk this distance, which translates to a speed of 3.3 mph – which is not an unreasonable figure for walking velocity.

Fig. 9; Google Maps reckoning for time to walk a distance down Market Street.
Fig. 9; Google Maps reckoning for time to walk a distance down Market Street.

The CCTV tells us that Mair, from his starting point on the corner of Market and Chapel, had about 125 seconds to travel about 300 feet down Market Street, and on the way attack Cox, and all that that entailed. If you like, assume that he would have travelled faster after the deed was done, but roughly it means that Mair had about 60, or 70 or perhaps even 80 seconds to attack Cox.

And what did attacking Cox actually entail? Let’s remind ourselves. Basically Cox was stabbed 15 times, and shot thrice. Some witnesses say that there was some hair grabbing by Mair. We do know that Mair had to switch between a firearm and a knife several times – how many exactly depends on how the witnesses are feeling on the day, apparently. One story has it that Mair started with the stabbing, then shot Cox once, then stabbed some more – while seeing off the unwanted attentions of Bernard Kenny, a man pushing 80 years who thought that he was up to intervening against a younger man armed with a gun and a dagger. There was also interaction with at least two other men who didn’t try to intervene, but thought that there was absolutely no risk in approaching and provoking an armed man with fierce admonishments framed in swear words. Finally, Mair finished with two more gun shots. Another story has it that Mair opened up with gun fire, did one lot of stabbing, and then finished off with more gun fire.

Another factor in the fluidity of, or any impediment to, Mair’s assault, and thus how swiftly it was executed, comes in the shape of how he seems to have operated one-handed.  We can extrapolate this idea from the following (source):

A bloody handprint in the Labour politician’s blood was also found on a brown jacket prosecutors claim Thomas Mair, 53, dropped in a nearby street as he left the scene.

The jacket referred to is the one that Mair had had over his left arm. It seems that he kept it with him while he was attacking Cox because how else would she have been close enough to it to deposit her blood on it. Therefore it appears that Mair kept his jacket with him while he was attacking Cox.

As for his holdall, it seems that Mair had dropped it because we have this testimony from the trial (source):

Ms Holmes said: “I realised he was stabbing the lady. All over the top half of her body.”

He briefly left, only to return and carry on stabbing Mrs Cox, she told the court. She continued: “Just behind the car I could see something black, and he went to the bag. He came back with a gun in his hand, but not the knife. At that point I close my eyes and I heard a really loud popping noise. He did something with the top of the gun. And then he pointed it at the lady again.”

Asked what he did next, she said: “He then took a step sort of into the road, and he looked around, and he looked towards where I was stood. And he looked me in the eye, and he lifted the gun – not pointing it towards me, but just in a gesture.”

Mr Little said: “What did you do?”

She replied: “I ran behind the counter. All the time I was looking out of the window. I went to the door and locked it.”

Mr Little said: “At that point could you see the man? What was he doing?”

Ms Holmes answered: “He went back on to the pavement, where the black bag was. He put something in it, two things, and he picked the bag up.”

We’ll have a very close look at more witness testimony in later articles.

Another witness, a Mrs Major is reported as saying “she thought Mair had a shopping bag in his left hand with the gun in his right. He got a knife out of the bag.”

Fig. 10; Mair is marked by the blue triangle. Up the road there is activity.
Fig. 10; Mair is marked by the blue triangle. Up the road there is activity.

Ignoring as best we can what is looking like a contradiction to Ms Holmes, what this statement clearly suggests is that Mair kept his carrier bag with him in order to hold his redundant weapon – whichever it happened to be. Either way, whether Mair switched weapons by picking them out and putting them in his plastic carrier bag or his holdall, there’s a lot of old fashioned faffing about involved. And it suggests that Mair was attacking Cox one handedly, otherwise wouldn’t he just transfer his knife to his gun hand and vice versa when he wanted to use them, instead of putting them and getting them out of bags?

On top of that, the firearm appears to be bolt action with no magazine. That means that Mair has to load it one bullet at a time. That involves bringing back the bolt and releasing the spent cartridge, fetching a new round from wherever they are being stored – police supposedly found his arsenal in one of his pockets in a transparent plastic bag – loading it into the breech of the weapon, and pushing the bolt up again. All this, remember, is being done while Mair is supposedly, probably still holding a jacket and a carrier bag in his left arm.

So, to summarise, after arriving late, Mair appears to carry out a sort of hamstrung-by-jacket-and-bag one-handed attack – which was very casual and not at all frenzied, by all accounts – during which he had to see off have-a-go-pensioners and some mouth-no-trouser types. On top of that, as Ms Holmes reports, he also thought there was enough time for a bit of showboating before he collected up his tools and went casually on his merry way. But was there really enough time to commit the crime?

Fig. 11; The steps seperating the library and the Azzurro. Note the handrail.
Fig. 11; The steps seperating the library and the Azzurro. Note the handrail.

Let’s go back to some corporate-media reportage captured on the day of the incident. A witness, Hichem Ben-Abdallah, is quoted in the Yorkshire Evening Post giving some very significant information that we probably all missed at the time. Ben-Abdallah, of course, is a man already known to us because he was one of the people who created doubt about the claims that Mair had uttered the words “Britain first” during the attack (see here). Here’s what he said on June 16th (source):

After the second shot I turned and ran. He walked away very calmly, down the steps. Nobody stopped him – he had a gun. It’s like I’m dreaming.

Now Ben-Abdallah works at (and is possibly the proprietor if memory serves correctly) of the Azzurro restaurant next to the library. The steps he is referring to is a flight that separates his establishment from the library and appears to lead to the backs of the properties (Fig. 11). Ben-Abdallah tells us that Mair made his getaway not down Market Street – which is the official story – but by another route entirely towards the north.

For a moment, we’re going to take a vacation from the doings of the main protagonist (antagonist) of this story, and learn about another incident that happened in Birstall on the same day (source).

A local teenager has told the Mirror how she witnessed a man “looking very suspicious” from her bedroom window around 30 minutes after she heard about the shooting this afternoon.

The 16-year-old said: “My friend was supposed to come over but then she told me she couldn’t because there’s been a shooting. I could hear the helicopter circling overhead. About 30 minutes later I was looking out of my bedroom window and I saw a man looking very suspicious. He was lying down on the floor between two graves. He was wearing a black hoodie and he had binoculars. He was only about 50metres away and then he saw me and ran off. He fled when he realised I had seen him.”

There appears to be a cemetery in the St Peter’s Parish Church in Birstall, which is north and west of the town centre.

Fig. 12; Mair after the incident, carrying his bags and wotnot all wrong.
Fig. 12; Mair after the incident, carrying his bags and wotnot all wrong.

Returning to Mair, please look at the images in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 7 & 15. All show Thomas Mair holding a bag in his right hand – which will also be holding the carrier, which is sometimes not visible – and a jacket over his left arm (admittedly, very hard to see in the stills of the footage). Look at Figs. 1 and 13; these are images in which Mair seems to have put his holdall down because we can see both of his hands. Take a look at Fig. 15. This is Mair leaving home to walk to Birstall. What the imagery tells us is that when Mair picks his baggage up, he carries it in a certain way – jacket over the left arm, holdall and carrier in the right hand.

So now look at Mair coming down Market Street in Fig. 12. There is nothing in his right hand. The holdall may well be in his left one – in Fig. 14, which is a close up, it looks as though it is there – but tradition states that the holdall and the white carrier must go in the right hand, and the jacket goes over the left arm. It’s not that he’s still holding a weapon because corporate-media would be all over that like a rash. In any case, more than one witness said he put the weapons into his holdall. So does this image just show Mair doing something different because he’s panicking, or does it show someone else?

Now consider this report from Nick Kollerstrom, who had been at the court during the trial:

Sandra Major who had been in the car described how the attacker first raised his arm and shot JC in the head, causing her to fall backwards onto the ground, blood pouring out. He held a shopping bag in his left hand, gun in his right. He then got a black knife out of his bag and started stabbing her, as she rolled over into the road. J.C. cried out, ‘Get away you two’ as the fellow came back and continued the assault. He had a black or blue baseball cap, and was wearing a shirt and tie.

This report about the blue or black baseball cap is bombshell stuff (the shirt and tie stuff is incredible too, but these garments aren’t such high-visibility false-flag slayers like the caps are). Mair is seen before the attack in a white cap, and is seen escaping in a white cap. He wasn’t supposed to have killed Cox wearing a black cap. Who killed Cox while wearing a black cap?

Fig. 13; This is a partner to Fig. 1; Mair definitely does not seem to have the holdall in his right hand.
Fig. 13; This is a partner to Fig. 1; Mair definitely does not seem to have the holdall in his right hand.

Now the reader could well be asking, did Kollerstrom fall asleep in court and have a dream? This stuff about the black cap being worn at the time of the murder did not make it past the state censors (at least, not as far as the author is aware), and so no one who has to rely on the corporate-media knows anything about it. But this is not strictly true. Because Sam Watson, a local resident who was interviewed by the BBC on the day of the incident, categorically stated that the man who he thought committed the crime went northwards, not southwards down Market St,  and went across Chapel Lane and through the Market and up towards Howden Clough. This man, said Watson, wore a black cap. His account can be found here: link.

Fig. 14; Zoomed in; Mair walking down Market Street after the incident.
Fig. 14; Zoomed in; Mair walking down Market Street after the incident.

Of course, Mair was arrested wearing a black cap, and Risedale Avenue, which is in the same vicinity if not a part of Howden Clough (one doesn’t know this sort of stuff unless one is local), was the scene of Mair’s arrest. So based on what was said by this witness on the day, Sam Watson, Mair must have gone along Nelson Street, and then on to the Leeds Road, which took him to his final stand. Contrast that with the official story which has Mair going south first, where he ditches some of his clothes, and emerges wearing a black cap. This latter story seemingly rests on the account of two men, Clarke Rothwell (who has been adjudged as not being a reliable source of data in a previous article) but mostly Darren Playford.

Fig 15; Mair leaving home.
Fig 15; Mair leaving home.

Darren Playford’s 999 call was played to the court – and not surprisingly so, because it explains everything, and it was sensational – sensationally wrong in some places. Playford is all hyperbole, and actually stretches his own plausibility as a credible witness. However, this appears to be the only way that the official story can account for Mair being arrested wearing a black cap. Notice how Mair disappears out of Playford’s sight. Could Playford be sure that thereafter he was following the same man?

In the emergency call, Mr Playford said: “He is shooting everybody. Outside the library in Birstall.”

Asked how many people were injured, he said: “I don’t know. He stabbed someone as well, he stabbed a lady. He is following me at the moment. I am just trying to get away from him. He is walking now towards…get the helicopter, he is walking towards Huddersfield Road [South of Market Street]. He has got a black bag in his hand, he has got a white cap on. You might need the firearms. He is an elderly bloke, he has got a white baseball cap on.”

He described the suspect walking by a pub.

Mr Playford continued: “He has disappeared behind the Vaults pub [on Brookroyd Lane – south of the Leeds Road]. If you hurry up, you will get him. There is chaos, he has stabbed people.”

The operator said: “Do you know how many people are injured?”

He replied: “I think there’s at least two. There’s an elderly man been shot. A lady has been stabbed. I actually followed this guy to try and see where he was going.”

The operator said: “Are you safe and out of danger Darren?”

He said: “I am, yes. He has disappeared out of sight. I don’t know where he is.”

He said: “If you hurry up you’ll get him. It’s chaos, he’s stabbed and shot people. He could have gone in the pub but it doesn’t look open to be honest. It is chaos.”

Mair then reappeared apparently wearing different clothes.

Mr Playford said: “I can see him again. He has got a black baseball cap. He has got a grey shirt on. He is walking up Brownhill Road now. A black baseball cap, he has changed it. If you get a police car at the top you will catch him. I am still at the end of Brownhill Road.”

At that point, Mr Playford said he had to return to his van as the keys were in the ignition, and the call eventually came to an end.


Finally, there is a very intriguing piece of material –it could be evidence along the same vein as this article has been discussing, or it could be nothing – that is best conveyed by getting the reader to do his or her own investigative work. You will need Google Map, and you will need to find what is common to both of the images in Figs. 15 and 16. Happy hunting.

Fig. 16; Mair coming back home.
Fig. 16; Mair coming back home.

Thanet South rigged – Part Two: Considering the “evidence”

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.

Thanet South Rigged – Part One: Tory and Labour’s Great Love

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.

Ruled by a vassal government in the Neuordnung Europas, deluded Britons imagine they won the war

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.

Allied projection of German ambition; 1917

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.

Generalplan Ost in action
Generalplan Ost in action – the greatest extent of Nazi Germany

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”.

“Patriot of Ukraine” – “Ours!” The symbol is a variant on SS insignia.

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.

Charlie Hebdo shooter appears to fire a blank round – echoes of Woolwich detected

Footage showing the moment that the two men said to be the Charlie Hebdo assailants leaving their vehicle to shoot down a policeman in the Paris street of Boulevard Richard-Lenoir is being called out by internet researchers as containing an anomaly that undermines the official narrative. It is being claimed that the fatal shot to the head supposedly suffered by Ahmed Merabet was in fact a blank round which was also fired away from the so-called target to avoid injury or death from the ejected plug material. The video begs this question: if the masked men shown in the video had weapons loaded with blanks, how could they have been the same perpetrators who, with live ammunition, had killed 11 people in the initial assault? The possibility that suggests itself is that this subsequent event was a dioramic emulation to create a visual for public consumption so as to reinforce the danger and reality of an event that otherwise took place essentially behind closed doors and beyond general experience – unlike the Woolwich so-called terror incident which had numerous witnesses to it. In turn this would raise entirely new questions about the spontaneity of the attack, and who exactly was involved in its organisation or at least its facilitation. Internet researchers, and some alternative media, are already suspecting the entire incident to be a false flag attack (here is one of the more measured investigations), but this article will limit itself to examining the content of the police-shooting video and some immediately peripheral issues. The reader will note that Woolwich has been mentioned, and this article will also briefly discuss an issue in common. As the Woolwich event insists on being a fabricated sham after any honest scrutiny is applied to it, this connection could be a valuable indicator as to the nature of the Charlie Hebdo episode.

Figure 1.

The images labelled Figures 1 and 2 are two versions of the same frame-segment from the video in question (click on each to enlarge). Figure 1 is the unadulterated original, while Figure 2 is one to which two enhancements have been added. Firstly a line has been drawn that extends the barrel of the weapon held by the policeman’s so-called executioner down onto a point which is adjudged to be at ground level. The second alteration is the application of different contrast levels within the circled area of the image. This area shows what must be the ejected material from the firing of the weapon – the manipulation is merely to bring about more clarity. It should be made entirely clear that this is the moment that the fatal bullet was supposedly fired. We know this because before this moment, Ahmed Merabet had been writhing around on the floor, and even talking to his assailant (this “fact” and others have been collated on a Wikipedia page). After this moment, Merabet ceased moving, and his assailants withdrew from the area without firing their weapons again.

Figure 2
Figure 2.

As the reader will probably know, a blank round can be plugged with material that decomposes or disintegrates after it has been fired – although at close range it can still be compact enough to cause serious injury and even kill. Any weapon will also expel propellant gasses which are forced through the barrel behind the path of the bullet, or in the case of a round, the plug material. The combined material in the latter of those cases is very likely what the cloud in the image is comprised of (although it could just be gas). The line of the rifle indicates that the shot was fired behind the shoulders of the policeman, and definitely not at his head. Moreover, the cloud seems to be blooming further towards the camera position than the policeman’s shoulders, with a tail leading to the left and the ground. Overall the composition suggests that the emission from the weapon has bounced off the pavement, having been fired from behind and towards the policeman, to then travel in front and away from him.

Further argument against the firing of a live round rests in two pieces of visual evidence. The first is to do with the policeman’s physical reaction to the bullet – supposing it had hit him, of course. For one thing, he does not react violently to the shot – it was if any bullet had entered him like a hot knife cuts butter. There is also no blood to be seen – neither immediately in terms of splatter from the penetration of the bullet, or gradually in a flow onto the pavement from the wound (we shouldn’t have to wait too long to see this happen). Secondly, the round does no discernable damage to the pavement. Certain internet researchers who are au fait with ballistics have remarked that the live round from an AK-47 should have caused a chunk of paving material to have been displaced. The author thinks that this might indeed be the case if the bullet had missed its target, but otherwise he imagines any intervening flesh to be capable of absorbing quite a lot of the bullet’s energy and is not sure about this assertion.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

The issue of the blood – or the lack of it – takes a curious turn when it is pursued further. In a SKY news report in the aftermath of the shooting, reporter Ian Woods does a piece to camera in front of the spot where Ahmed Merabet was supposedly gunned down (see the video here). At one point the camera shot zooms in on a cordoned-off area – which nevertheless contains memorial objects (one of them a shopping trolley, bizarrely enough) demonstrating that people have felt at liberty to trapse in and out in order to deposit their offering – to show the floor covered in blood (see Figs 3 & 4).

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Woods makes a point of telling his viewers that it is the blood of the policeman who had been shot at this location. However, there is a problem. The centre of what is discernibly the main collection of blood is out of position. The shooting footage shows that when shot dead (supposedly), Merabet was centrally placed between what looks like a parking ticket dispenser and an electronic advertising bill board. However, the blood in Woods’ report is concentrated in a place much nearer the latter of those two pieces of street furniture. In fact, if a line perpendicular to the kerb is drawn that intercepts the supporting pole of that sign, it would also intersect the central coagulation of blood. Of course, where this matter is most dense is logically the nearest it could be to the body on bleeding out – it would be less dense the further it drained away. The blood on the crime scene does not support the video if the video is supposed to represent a definitive account of how Merabet died [a good opportunity to state that no claim is being made here that Merabet is not dead - instead it is being noted  that he appears not to have been killed in the way we are being told].

Ian Woods’ account of this blood pool also threw up some completely avoidable controversy – what we might call a red rag to a conspiracy theorist bull. He said the following:

You can see the blood on the ground which has been put there to… because of the blood that was shed on this spot, err, yesterday.

Some may call this mere clumsiness. Others might call it the evidence of some psychological trauma caused by having to tell what the mind knows is not the truth and can never be rationalised as such – a Freudian slip might be too much of a simplification. It’s the author’s view that to describe bleeding out of the body as “putting on the ground” would be quite a feat for someone who was really under no illusion that there could be no other cause for the presence of the material than a corpse that had been killed on the spot.

Back in May 2013, it was also the problem of blood – or the lack of it (or even if it had appeared in the right place at the right time) – that provoked researchers to be immediately suspicious of the supposed Woolwich terror attack, and left them wide open to being debunked. So this is not the issue by which we will link the two incidents  – the focus has after all been on the evidence of the use of a blank bullet that contradicted an official claim that a live round was used.

Not long after the Woolwich incident it emerged that Michael Adebowale had somehow been injured in the hand during his encounter with arresting police. During his trial the state of affairs was stated as absolute fact. The following is the reportage from the MailOnline:

The officer then turned his attention to Adebowale, who was lying on the ground after being shot by one of his colleagues.

‘He raised one of his arms up,’ E48 said. ‘I’ve still got a distinct image in my mind of him holding a black revolver in his hand which I clearly saw, which struck me as unusual because he’d just been shot.

‘The next two shots shot his thumb off [on the] hand holding the weapon.’

Once both the terror suspects posed no further threat, E48 used a first aid kit from the police car to treat Adebowale.

He added: ‘Once the threat is neutralised we have a duty of care to all persons to save life, no matter who they are.’

Figure 5.

However, when we examine the footage of the rendering of that mentioned first aid, there is a moment when the blurring fails and Adebowale’s hand is revealed in its entirety – meaning exactly that. As Figure 5 shows, Adebowale had a thumb when he was arrested – which suggests that the police and the two perpetrators where engaged that day in an elaborate piece of theatre where Adebowale and Adebolajo acted as if they had been hit by gunshots, and the police acted as if they had administered them. It’s another thing altogether to prove to what extent the whole event was a charade, but what Adebowale’s thumb does show us is that his “exchange” with gun-toting police was for creating a psychological effect on a public who would see the event on their TV. If no evidence could ever thereafter be produced by police that could have convicted Adebowale and Adebolajo of murdering Lee Rigby, it wouldn’t have mattered because they were already guilty due to their very public battle with police. Moreover, because the two Michaels must have conspired with the authorities to put on the drama of a shoot-out, we cannot escape the fact that it must have been conceived by people who had power over certain police, who controlled the two perpetrators, and had access to other means and resources so as to be able to execute such a complex psychological operation. When we apply these revalations to Paris, it perhaps makes sense as to why it was that the two gun men effectively returned to the scene of the crime to commit the killing of Merabet (according to Ian Woods at least). Doubling back on themselves while making their getaway, the two perpetrators just happened to come across the policeman and, even though they must have known they had stirred up a hornet’s nest, chose to get out of their vehicle to make a dramatic example of him – all conveniently in front of a ready-placed and waiting camera operative. The situation smacks of an operation of the ilk perpetrated in Woolwich – and the secondary police encounter involving weapons seems less of a coincidence and more of a script requirement.

Evidence suggests Woolwich incident manufactured

No blood where Lee Rigby's blood should beAs the corporate-government occupying this land phases out nationality in its pursuit of global economic dominance, patriotism is reduced to feelings of worship for national sports men, awe for Royal ruritania and the gangsters bedecked in it, and gratefulness for the duty of the armed forces as they somehow defend our freedoms (by blowing Libyan children in half). It all sounds very Nazi Germany, does it not? British people don’t have much to be proud of when it comes to representations of their national identity because that is how they have been conditioned by their ruling class. How else could it be otherwise? If British people were taught as children about their own long history of battle against tyranny, then the hereditary dictatorship that is the Monarchy would be shortening its own odds for survival.

These State authorised points of pride provide the foundation for emotional triggering to cause a knee jerk reaction in the British populace whenever the State thinks it expedient to activate one. We live in days when the State really needs all the power of manipulation it can muster. There is a war in Syria to be had, of course, but closer to home the Establishment is plagued by the rise of UKIP. Infiltrating and corrupting the fourth (or should that be the third) national party from the inside is something that might already be underway. There is another tactic for undermining, which is to scare people away; indeed, there is a deliberate campaign underway at the moment, as the more astute Britons will have noticed, which will aid in that purpose. The UK is in the midst of an effort to enliven feelings of hatred for Muslims (who the Establishment imported for moments exactly like this). This is connected with domestic politics as follows: when UKIP deals with Islam the only way it really can – which is to treat its general practitioners as free men under the protection of English Law – this will not be good enough for natives who have become over-familiar and fed up with how the Establishment accommodates radicalism. On the other hand, UKIP will have no truck with radicalism, and will want to see integration, and this will be presented by the Establishment as racism. UKIP forums seem to be full of provocateurs goading other commenters into producing electorally harmful material.

The current campaign of “race-baiting” (aimed at white British people) started with the apparent murder of Lee Rigby in Artillery Place, Woolwich, May 22nd 2013, but it has been slowly cooking for a long while as the British Government has been encouraging jihadists and separatists to operate in the UK. While filling the ranks of that branch of MI5 which is supposed to present an Islamic terror threat, the British Government has been engendering resentment for Muslims from other Britons. After Lee Rigby it has stepped up a notch. The English Defence League (also felt by many to be MI5), took to marching. There were (apparently) tit for tat incidents, rubbishy bombs, and desultory, denigrating paint-daubing. Graves were defaced. All parties finally agreed on ways to send Abu Qatada to Jordon, which looked like a little victory in the wider war; the Government looked as if it was on the same side as Lee Rigby, and all the Queen’s other Afghan opium-guarding victims.

There is no doubt that the death of a soldier at the hands of a supposed jihadist would rile the British people; especially if they were lied to consistently early on by the State media (by which is meant all of the corporate-media) which claimed that Lee Rigby’s head had been cut off. When this turned out to be false, but there came no retractions concerning statements about how Afghan and Iraqi jihadist warfare had come to the streets of Britain, here, then, were alarm bells to warn that the murder was not just being capitalised upon, but had been carried out by someone on the inside to create an opportunity.

The evidence certainly points to a false flag attack, and actually, even a hoax, and seems fairly conclusive in doing so. This article will make a brief account of some of this evidence, and at a later date, another article will be dedicated to a proposal as to how a hoax might have been accomplished.

The official narrative maintains that Lee Rigby was knocked down by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale when they happened upon him as they were driving the now infamous blue Vauxhall Tigra. The extensive damage to this car, as evidenced in the images of it, is supposed to have been caused by the impact with Rigby; this must be the case because there is no indication anywhere else on the scene that the vehicle hit another object. The assumption has been that the car struck one of the poles of a road sign, or at least pinned Rigby against it, because of the way that it is placed (in its so-called final resting place) in relation with it. Yet this is optimistic because the damage on the car is not even satisfactorily aligned with the supposed point of impact. But still it seems that no one can imagine that Rigby’s body would crumple the front of the vehicle in that way on its own. How could they, after all, when it seems that the car leaked engine fluids after the impact? A splayed track of liquid can clearly be seen in the images emanating from beneath the car; Rigby surely wouldn’t have been able to crumple an engine? Whatever the car impacted with, it wasn’t to be found on the scene of the crime.

This brings us to Rigby’s injuries. The outward signs of any penetrative trauma were restricted to blood stained hands. Although the midriff of the corpse was exposed due to an upper garment being pulled over the head (conveniently), it was clearly devoid of any indication that anyone had hit the area with a blunt or sharp instrument. The two Michael’s were said by witnesses to be hacking at Lee Rigby with blades. However, Rigby’s clothes were not lacerated. There was no leakage of blood onto the road where Rigby was possibly already dead; this is confirmed by “eye-witness” Amanda Donnelly who said as much in an interview with the Daily Mirror. Indeed, she felt able to sit down beside Rigby, which no stranger would have done if the body was laying in a pool of its own fluids.

In fact, there was no sign that blood had earlier seeped through the clothes from injuries underneath them. No blood splashed onto those exposed parts of skin already mentioned. We are assured that there was blood because we are pointed to an image (taken much later after the incident, it has to be said) where there is a distinct pool on the extremities of the sidewalk which the Tigra mounted. This is where Rigby was butchered, is what the official narrative says. A drag mark from the pool is supposed to indicate Rigby’s transportation to his final position. However, none of the blood that this action would have caused to collect on Rigby’s attire is either visible to any viewer of the images of his body, nor to Amanda Donnelly who was on the scene. More remarkably, the blood on the sidewalk is clearly not discernable in certain images even as they are still occupied by the so-called perpetrators of the crime.

It seems that Lee Rigby was as much a mystery to the medical professional who did the postmortem examination. The first report of this event told of how the examiner could not confirm the cause of Rigby’s death. Days later, the story had changed. With no reference to a new examination, it was now entered into the coroner’s enquiry that the postmortem could show that Rigby had died of cut and stab wounds, and had suffered “extensive and serious injuries”. We were also told that dental records had been required to identify the body. It seems strange, therefore, that the postmortem examiner could ever have been remotely clueless about what killed Lee Rigby.

So far, then, there is no other evidence except eye-witness accounts (some of them conflicting and highly suspect), and amongst them Adebolajo’s ranted confession,  to makes anyone believe that Rigby was killed in the incident that took place on 22nd May in Artillery Place, let alone that he was killed by Adebolajo and Adebowale. So far we could say that the treatment of his death has probably been a hoax. It has to be said that on hearing the news of the Woolwich “terror attack” the initial response of the author was to assume that the assault was real enough, but also to presume that the attackers were not who the official narrative claimed them to be. It came out later that Adebolajo had been bothered by an insistent MI5 who were looking to recruit him; of course, he told a friend that he had refused. He would, wouldn’t he? It also came out that Adebolajo had been kicked out of Kenya by an anti-terrorism unit and handed back to British authorities. Officially, he had been there under his own steam to train with al-Qaeda. In reality, the chances are that the Kenyans kick out British infiltrators at every opportunity they get. Libya and Syria have shown that Britain runs al-Qaeda operatives – and they also serve as a warning to other countries looking to avoid becoming destabilised. Incidentally, Abu Nusaybah was arrested seconds after he volunteered information about his friend and MI5 to the BBC’s Newsnight. Already, the incident smacks of being an inside job. If Britain runs al-Qaeda abroad, then it is very likely that the Government runs al-Qaeda at home.


Larger image: the white shoe that initially manifests itself. Smaller images are the same later frame aligned to enable contrast: the lighter object seems to be the right hand of the properly uniformed police woman

Some people say that this does not go far enough in understanding the incident in Woolwich. Some people say that it was a 100% manufactured affair – that it was not in any way organic; that it had actually been planned and played out by actors in a very highly orchestrated and organised way. Incredibly, there seems to be evidence to support this. The strongest piece is an anomaly that has been observed during the shootout (see image above and left, and see a video report here); a white-shoed foot seems to appear from the rear driver’s-side door of a police car as Adebolajo charges it. As the footage continues a properly booted police man suddenly appears from one of the drivers’ side doors and the white-shoed man disappears.

These things are very weird to witness. It suggests that normal rules for time and space have been manipulated, or that the event was filmed in separate takes, as a Hollywood movie would be. Could it be that the film features the moments of some preliminary mock up – a rehearsal where the actors are not yet in their “costumes”? Could it be that somehow Adebolajo did not perform his routine correctly on the day and so an earlier practice take had to be merged into footage to be released to the public? How else do we account for the disappearing white shoes?If these things are true, and perhaps they must be because MI5 and the Metropolitan Police cannot change physics, then one must conclude that this terror incident was entirely manufactured – something that, as it happens, despite the evidence before his eyes, the author is still not completely happy about having to do.

“Cast-Iron” Dave’s big EU speech irrelevant when Establishment relies on consumption of the hype

To some, David Cameron displayed weakness when he failed to deliver a much anticipated speech on the EU on Friday. To others, he didn’t do anything that was unreasonable given that international affairs demanded his attention (though most of these probably don’t understand that al-Qaeda is undeniably a Western asset which, in Algeria, has probably received instructions to create a Casus belli for NATO powers to become militarily involved in that country).

The underlying truth, however, is that Cameron didn’t need to make the speech because the hype created around the promise of its delivery is the preferred medium by which the Establishment communicates to the people it controls. Most people have a child-like understanding of real power-dynamics (and of how criminals inevitably arise through the absence of a society-wide moral observance of law). So, the battering of voters’ senses, through a corporate-media overload of opinions offered by the so-called most significant characters in both British and global politics and business, is to create an emotional response to the issue – a general impression of the Establishment’s disapproval of leaving the EU, and its approval of Cameron.

It would be no surprise in these quarters if Cameron’s speech slipped right off the agenda in the coming weeks; it’s a real possibility, and it depends on whether or not the Establishment feels that it has created a big enough smokescreen to cover the absence of a cogent pro-EU argument for its current purposes. This smokescreen was correctly identified by Nigel Farage on the BBC’s Question Time on Thursday. He is a man who has noticed that the LibLabCon was being found out in lies that had lead the UK into a perilous state whereby its people could not control their own fate; it follows that the current big smokescreen is more outrageous deceit to keep the UK in the EU.

There is another motivation for the British Establishment, of course, and that is to keep itself in power, and ultimately out of jail. In truth, this is the underlying motive for the hype around Cameron’s speech; the Establishment has been rallying itself these past few weeks to try to save the LibLabCon at the 2015 General Election. Left to its own devices, the Conservative Party would risk being replaced by UKIP in the next 2 years. Such a development would lead to the demise of the LibLabCon stranglehold that offers little real choice to voters and leads them, by offering slightly more Marxist-hybrid fascism than provided by the previous party in power, down a dark path where they are robbed progressively more viciously as they proceed.

Observant people will have noticed that the sheer volume of the hype surrounding Cameron’s speech tells of its being a grand project. None less than the Executive-Order-issuing American dictator, Obama, has given warnings about security issues arising from Britain leaving the EU; given the lessons of Libya and Syria, there is no reason to see Obama’s intervention as a threat to destabilise the UK through CIA-organised insurrection (and it wouldn’t be the first time that the CIA has interfered).

Warnings have also been volunteered, by the likes of Richard Branson, where there is a particular emphasis on economic doom for Britain. This sort of intervention is always ironic given the catastrophe in Greece where increasing amounts of people are searching for food amongst waste, and the Euro as a currency is a moot point as many resort to a barter system to trade. Relatively successful Norway, on the opposite end of the spectrum to Greece, is somehow a constant bogey-character used to scare simple British minds. Iceland, of course, is a very good example of anti-globalist resistance and economic survival that never gets mentioned for fear of drawing attention to it. And Branson and his ilk only really have their vested interests at heart – they only want the preservation of a dynamic that drives down wages and protects their monopolies from entrepreneurs who cannot grow in the climate.

This particular economic-angle of the scaremongering is the main thrust of it; naturally, it was joined by Ed Milliband, the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition (the reader should think about what that title, quite out in the open, has to say about Parliament), who accused Cameron of weakening Britain’s economic interests with (non-existent) threats to leave the EU. Within the Tory Party, all the usually infamous Wets or ‘left-wing leaning’ suspects have spoken out about the dangers of an EU-exit; such interventions are supposed to drive conservatives to Cameron. Indeed, there is no mystery about why the Labour Party leadership has ruled out a post-2015 referendum on EU membership after seemingly being in favour of it – circumstances necessitated it. Labour’s position has naturally left the path clear for the Conservatives to be the one political party to be identified with ‘Euroscepticism’ – please note, this is not the same as Withdrawalism, which is the stance held by UKIP.

The Establishment seems to think that enough Britons have an unbending faith that ‘Euroscepticism’ is enough to solve the inherent problems of having open borders and being ruled by an unelected committee sitting in a foreign country (obviously, it isn’t because it doesn’t even try to). Looking to perpetuate this faith and stifle a mass conversion to Withdrawalism, the Daily Mail, the Coalition’s flagship propaganda outlet, made much of a poll that claimed that 50% of British voters would stay in the EU if there was a renegotiation of powers back to Britain (something that all serious observers agree won’t be done). This poll has undoubtedly been manipulated to be produced at this time amongst all the other hype in order to teach the British public a desired behaviour.

For it is the doctrine of the hope of the reformed EU – that it would be a better place to live in, if only some tweaking can be done – that is the trump card of Conservative ‘Euroscepticism’. Cameron’s timetable for a referendum incorporates it; the British voters, or so they are told, will be allowed to vote on EU membership once the Establishment has made it less undesirable; the time for this decision will be 2018. The poll published in the Mail is supposed to show that there is support for Cameron’s approach in the electorate. The pronouncements by ‘leading City figures’ (the real power in the land), that feign concern about how the British should be able to make an informed choice about the EU, are designed to lend weight to Cameron. Leaks ahead of the speech suggest that Cameron would have support from his parliamentary party. Showing that there is no corporate-media to be trusted, the Daily Express – which supposedly campaigns for Britain to leave the EU - presented Cameron as a man capable of announcing a referendum before 2015 and leading the campaign for withdrawal; Cameron, of course, is on the record as a dyed-in-the-wool federalist, but this doesn’t matter for the purposes of subtly promoting the ‘Eurosceptic’ fraud.

The only way for Britons to cast off the tyranny of the EU is to cast off the tyrants in their own political class who committed a grand fraud upon them. The LibLabCon, and their facilitators in the corporate-media, and their banking and corporate masters – not to mention the Monarch who uses the EU to subjugate and feed off the British without getting her hands dirty – know very well that there are charges to answer for if only those who would bring them manage to overthrow the status quo. Hence, Cameron’s EU strategy is really one for keeping the British contained until they are completely powerless and disinherited – although the good news is that the huge and concerted effort to trick, scare, bully and bludgeon Britons, by all the institutions of the repression, that has been observable in recent days suggests that there is much to be feared by the Establishment regarding the prospect of the British becoming unrestrained.

Shock as Britons (albeit fewer of them) still vote for destructive LibLabCon

In three parliamentary and umpteen police elections last week, British voters once again demonstrated staggering obtuseness and a sheer lack of perspicuity regarding a necessary understanding of their political environment, and obtaining an ability to control it in a way that is most conducive for the creation of both individual liberty and common wealth. Labour or Conservative candidates were still being handing high office even though the politics of these people is directly and demonstrably responsible for a plunge, during the 20th century and into the 21st, towards permanent social and economic malaise in the UK.

The good news, however, was that less people voted for the LibLabCon than ever before – which is not just a reference to the clear apathy felt towards the diversionary and gimmicky contests to elect “Crime Commissioners” (amounting to nothing more than rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic). In fact, and especially in the highly significant by-election at Corby, the polls showed that increasing numbers  are seeing through the fraud that is the same corporate-government changing its head every so often to give the impression of an alteration in political direction, but deploying consistently, as implemented policy, Marxist subversions in order to keep the people subjugated.

In other words, the elections showed that support for UKIP – the only viable opposition to the LibLabCon – is still growing in terms of percentage share of real votes beyond the “magic 10%” that this site has discussed before (link to follow), and has reached the mid-teens where the party has become a real threat to the working dynamism of the LibLabCon. Indeed, the inevitability of the end of the LibLabCon, which UKIP (if it does not allow itself to be infiltrated and co-opted) can bring about, is being perceived by worried Establishment henchmen, such as Norman Tebbit who sounded a warning to the people at the helm of the Tory Party about adopting a strategy to deal with the terminal danger to their continued relevance, and existence:

…all is not lost for the Tories, but the time to get a grip on the process of government and to end the sense of muddle which pervades several departments is draining away. Without a new sense of direction, purpose and competence, things will soon look rather bleak for the Coalition.

Generally, through the prism of the corporate-media, the danger that UKIP presents to the Conservative Party is portrayed as all to do with the Britain’s membership of the EU (allowing UKIP to be maligned as anti-foreigner – which Tebbit partakes of himself when he makes false equivalence between the BNP and UKIP). However, the reality is that there is a growing awareness amongst British people of the criminality of the LibLbCon fraud – an awareness most likely provoked by the seamlessness of the transition in 2010 from the Labour to the Tory/Lib Dem administrations in terms of policy making, and the continuation of a clear desire to turn a once independent and wealthy people into welfare-dependent, collectivised subjects of a centralised unrepresentative super-soviet. As more people realise that LibLabCon politicians are social and economic slash-and-burn merchants in the pay of the real unelected leaders of the UK, then more people inevitably enlist on the mission to regain both individual and national self-determination, and in doing so, bring to justice the criminals who have and still are deliberately ruining Britain.

In Corby last week, there were 5000-plus courageous patriots who have probably come to understand very well that it is a sordid business to vote for the LibLabCon; these people also gave UKIP its best ever by-election performance, and thus sent another shot to echo around the walls of Westminster. In relative terms, and with 14.3% of the vote, Corby candidate Margot Parker did better than UKIP’s previous best performer, Jane Collins, who even came second in the 2011 Barnsley Central by-election. Barnsley saw a lower turnout than Corby, 24,219 (36.5%) as opposed to 35,665 (44.79%), but UKIP garnered many more votes at the latter (2953 or 12.2% at Barnsley, compared to 5108 at Corby).

The really big and devastating victory for UKIP at Corby was to demonstrate how opinion-polls by the Establishment’s minion polling companies can be proven to be  incorrect. As the author has laboured to point out time and again, opinion polls are largely instruments for projecting the status quo into the future, and for demoralising voters with the seeming inevitability of LibLabCon dominance.

In an opinion poll with field work carried out in August, what could be called headline figures -  i.e. with “don’t know”  responses reallocated to other parties (in other words, with manipulation for political purposes) - forecast the following results for the Corby by-election:

Conservative 37%, Labour 52%, Lib Dems 7%, Others 4%.

In an opinion poll with field work executed in October, headline figures showed these results:

Conservative 32%, Labour 54%, Lib Dems 5%, Others 8%

The actual outcome of the real vote was as follows:

Conservative 27%, Labour 48%, Lib Dems 5%, UKIP 14%

The closest that any of the mentioned opinion polls got to the real result was in a certain interpretation in the October survey where an unweighted set of figures represented the voting purpose of all respondents who expressed an intention to vote (therefore excluding “don’t knows” etc):

Conservative 29%, Labour 56%, Lib Dems 6%, UKIP 6% (Green 1%, BNP 1%)

A polling company critic might see evidence, even in this peice of data, that responses have been targetted and sought so that the desired results of the poll over-represent Labour voters; further criticism might point out that as the polls are the work of the Tory Party’s former deputy chairman, Lord Ashcroft, the polls are intended to manipulate Tory voters ahead of the election by overstating the Labour threat, and massively under representing the UKIP one.

This sort of possible manipulation unfortunately still finds purchase; there are, of course, still many people who cannot see the reality of the political fraud being perpetrated upon them, and this allows LibLabCon operatives to paint election results in terms that reinforce the dominance of the Westminster Triumvirate (LibLabCon). Speaking in the Corby constituency at an appearance alongside Labour’s victorious candidate, Ed Miliband said:

“This constituency is at the heart of our country and this constituency has sent a very clear message today.

“It sent a message that it is putting its trust in a One Nation Labour Party.

“Middle England is turning away from David Cameron and the Conservatives because Middle England feels let down by David Cameron and the Conservatives.

The claim is that conservative Middle England recognises the Labour Party as being representative. Even in the make-believe fantasy of the Left/Right paradigm this is highly unlikely, and of course, in reality, it is theoretically inconceivable that conservative people would ever turn to what is Marxist-derived fascism – the overarching LibLabCon principle of rule – unless they were deceived to do so. The continued ability to deceive is what the electorate award to LibLabCon politicians whenever they vote a LibLabCon candidate into office, but the good news is – as every new election result is increasingly showing – Britons are able to break out of this incredibly destructive vicious circle.