Category Archives: feature

Targeting Assad through the Islamic State: the great hoax of 2014

Targeting Assad through the Islamic State - the great hoax of 2014Half a year has now passed since June 2014, and the announcement by some terrorists in the Middle East of a new caliphate in Syria and Iraq. The declaration coincided with a supposed dramatic and rapid expansion of armed forces into the latter of those countries, with various towns falling into Islamic State (IS) control, and the very capital becoming threatened with a attack and occupation. Western corporate-media was splashed with pictures of gleaming Toyota pickups streaming through a desert landscape; masked men wearing camouflaged fatigues and desert boots (or shiny white trainers) paraded and posed in formation under their version of the skull and bones black flag. Celebrated as being a kind of Super-Al Qaeda, IS had the clobber as befitted an army trying to carve out a nation state where there isn’t room for one nor, according to either the Syrian or Iraqi sovereign governments, any desire for one. To the author, who has been watching what is essentially the next world war slowly revving up to speed (the British electorate need to step on the brakes next May), and who followed closely NATO’s invasion of Libya by proxy, the rise of IS was very strange – and at the same time very familiar. IS was originally a vehicle for the Iraq-based bogey-man Al Zarqawi, and it has since been revealed that any threat posed by that dreadful criminal (and “Gladio-B” “stay-behind” operative? [see here for more info]), and therefore his organisation, was overstated by the US Government in order to maintain a military occupation. Likewise, it appears very much that IS is still fulfilling the same kind of role for the same continuing western martial objectives – to trigger a US military presence in the name of confronting a great terrorist danger. There is much on the internet from very good alternative media sources that can be used to illustrate this, and to show to what extent the role involves an elaborate hoax. This article covers the same ground – not so expertly, of course – and with a certain focus, for there is one image of IS in particular that appeals to the author’s gut feeling and that clinches all for him. It is the picture of a masked IS operative (perhaps he is a westerner) caught in the act of propagandising to local people who have seemingly come under IS control – captured in pixels is the execution of a psychological operation as British military textbooks would prescribe. It is an image that screams of IS being a tiny tail wagging a huge dog, and it should be forever associated with the War on Terror in the same way that other wars have their own iconic images.

Previously known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), IS had already been but one component of a force ranged against the Syrian government even before the name change. But prior to that, AQI was apparently a force particular to Iraq. According to some, it was a reaction to the US invasion of 2004, and drew its numbers from the country’s Sunni muslims disaffected by the regime change.

If AQI had been quelled, as some say it was, recently the Iraqi government lost the support of Anbar Province tribes who obviously can suddenly make life much easier for forces antagonistic to the central Iraqi government wanting to base themselves in or traverse their territory. IS sprung into new and vigorous existence. In fact, when one compares one of the more optimistic maps of territory in Iraq said to be under the control of IS, and one of Anbar, there is plenty of overlap. The cities that IS apparently captured in their June blitzkrieg are all to the north; Mosul and Nineveh Province (except the Kurdish component) went one day, Tikrit and most of Saladin Province the next – which brought IS east and knocking on the doors of Baghdad.

In the above paragraph, the word ‘quelled’ was used in relation to a supposed diminishing of al-Qaeda in Iraq – on reflection, maybe the word should be replaced by a phrase, and that phrase should have been “sojourning in Syria”. The following extracts are from 2012 reports from Syria – a time when although the corporate-media was full of casual references to foreign fighters, it was still selling the conflict as a pure civil war:

“The commanders of the Free Syrian Army are all Iraqi,” he told me with a penetrating gaze and a slight nod of his head, to make sure I got the nuance – Iraqi Sunnis was the unspoken explanation.


Abu Salam al Faluji boasted extraordinary experience. Abu Salam, a rugged Iraqi with a black keffiyeh wrapped around his head, said he had fought the Americans in Falluja when he was a young man. Later he joined al-Qaida in Iraq and spent many years fighting in different cities before moving to Syria to evade arrest.


Unmentioned in these tracts (and understated even when it was mentioned), the main component of the foreign “Free Syrian Army” were fighters most recently employed by NATO in overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya. Indeed, the AQI bloc might not have been airlifted in wholesale through Turkey as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were, but it seems its ranks were full of Libyans nevertheless (recruited by the likes of Abdel Hakim Belhadj, according to Webster Tarpley [this link covers it]). The trouble in pinning these groups down is that they wear different hats for different appearances sake. For instance, when al-Baghdadi, the most recent leader of IS, met with John McCain, the US Senator and one-time Presidential candidate, he was wearing the hat of “FSA” commander. We know this because General Idris, the leader of the “FSA” was also present. We can with all reasonableness say that there is a high degree of inter-changeability between what are essentially extremist-Islamist mercenary groups receiving a lot of attention and support from the US Government. In addition, all roads for these mercenaries into Syria, wherever they come from, tend to lead from Turkey.

This applies for IS just as much. Even now it has a presence in Libya (which is proven as an origin for men and materiel coming into Turkey), and if AQI was ever based in Iraq, now its tracks do firmly lead back, through Syria, to the main nest, gathering point, supply source and staging area in Turkey.

Indeed, some maps of IS occupation are leaner than others, and show their occupation of Iraq (Anbar Province aside) in terms of dislocated points of control joined together by thin rat runs between them. From Anbar to the north-west a sliver running through Syria connects Anbar to Turkey. The undeniable proof of IS operating out of Turkey was the recent attack on Kobani from inside Turkish territory. Turkey is the launching pad for trouble in Syria and Iraq, and if the US and UK governments were serious about doing something about IS, they would do something about Turkey.

With all that history in mind, what perturbed the author so much when IS burst into the world’s consciousness is how it could be that the same people doing much the same as they always had been doing could suddenly be considered to be an organised armed forces representing a new country. For if we look at how IS operates, it is quite evident that not much has changed – and it begs the question, wherefore do the spectacular results come from? The advance through Iraq has been portrayed as a blitzkrieg, but it should be remembered that IS had been in those territories a long time using their “besieging” tactics (not to mention the possibility that Iraqi forces had been ordered to stand down “to increase pressure on Saudi Arabia and bring the threat of IS over-running its borders as well” – source [reporting this: source]).

If we are going to look at IS tactics (and bear in mind, this is based on the author’s reading of the reporting coming out of the area), the reference to “besieging” needs explanation. The mercenaries in both Syria and Iraq move into an area and for cover sit on top of, or amongst, a population – the people of which are inevitably described by western journalists as the support base from which the “rebels” have been spawned organically – whether it be a suburb of a major town, or a village in a rural area. Military operations launched from this base involve attrition by terrorism in the wider vicinity – suicide belt attacks, road-side and car bombs, and ranged mortar attacks. These are to degrade resistance, to have enemy forces occupy themselves in response (to never have an initiative) and to get them to expend resources and manpower. A full frontal assault seems to be a rarity and only when the objective is assured to be achieved – otherwise attacks consist of attrition-causing raids. For instance, just recently two bases in Idlib Province fell to the terrorists using US-supplied anti-tank weapons. This armament seemed to have been the factor by which al-Nusra, the group named in reports – although it all amounts to the same thing: al-Qaeda – felt it was able to tip the balance in an attack to displace Syrian forces. This is a big story in itself, but for our purposes here we must notice how these particular bases were under siege for two years. The NYTimes story actually uses the very words “under rebel siege for two years”. It’s a strange sort of siege that lasts for two years this side of the Medieval period – unless it is of the peculiar type being discussed here. Arguably, long before the IS rampant march through Iraq, towns like Tikrit had been suffering this besiegement and softening up treatment. In 2011 there was an infamous terrorist attack on the Saladin provincial council’s headquarters involving mercenaries disguised as Iraqi soldiers, car bombs and suicide vests.

In terms of IS ever being on the defensive, whenever one reads about the Syrian Arab Army snuffing out mercenary units, they do it by eliminating nests from which the terrorists stage their operations, or by ambushing them as they move through their rat-runs. One also gets a sense that the terrorists abandon an area when faced with an overwhelming oppositional force, and move to a new one. This means that snuffing them out involves a good deal of ping-pong from one place to another, which means that the terrorist can lengthen their useful operational life and presence on the battlefield. The best way to visualise al-Al-Qaeda activity in Syria and Iraq is as a number of submarines in a sea, rather than as massed ranks of men and war machinery. It also appears to the author that the blitzkrieg in Iraq was more of a matter of flooding the country with more, perhaps better equipped, terrorists, rather than an army pushing forward in fronts and being able to militarily govern occupied area. The inundation pushed the terrorist farther, but not in depth. Imagine a flat plain with deeper trenches surrounding higher-lying levels. Water poured onto the surface will drain into the trenches to make islands – but the plain itself will dry out.

As just briefly mentioned, the long process of prior besiegement in points on this landscape will undoubtedly have had something to do with the ability of IS to grow so rapidly on the ground at the same time it was bursting into western awareness. That expansion in summer 2014 brought about one new particular occasion to see in ‘real time’ how terrorist forces are brought to bear on their opposition in Syria: Kobani. This Kurdish town has perhaps become the most famous centre of anti-IS fighting in Syria. Since Turkey allowed Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga fighters to cross its border into Kobani at the end of October, things have been going better against IS. However, the following reports were made before that, and show that there was a problem with engaging IS – based on their tactical nature:

“Clashes were focused in the Southern and Eastern parts of the town. We thwarted several of their (ISIL terrorist) attacks,” a senior Kurdish official, Ismet Sheikh Hasan said.

“We are defending (the town) but … we have only simple weapons and they (terrorists) have heavy weapons,” he added.

“The US-led airstrikes were not effective,” Hasan said, urging the international community and the United Nations to intervene.


“Air strikes alone are really not enough to defeat Isis in Kobani,” said Idris Nassan, a senior spokesman for the Kurdish fighters desperately trying to defend the important strategic redoubt from the advancing militants. “They are besieging the city on three sides, and fighter jets simply cannot hit each and every Isis fighter on the ground.”

He said Isis had adapted its tactics to military strikes from the air. “Each time a jet approaches, they leave their open positions, they scatter and hide. What we really need is ground support. We need heavy weapons and ammunition in order to fend them off and defeat them.”


When one thinks of a conventional besieging force, one imagines it to be a sitting duck for an enemy who dominates the skies. In fact, when writing of this siege, some journalists and columnists describe Kobani being pounded by heavy artillery as if it were World War I trench warfare. What is being described is a static situation. The question that this automatically begs is why hasn’t US air strikes routed the enemy? In actuality it appears that the besiegement of Kobani is being done by a force that can melt away so that it can’t be demolished where it stands by air power. True, IS is said to have heavier weapons than the Kurds, but these can still be highly mobile, or even dispensable. Perhaps the Kurdish spokesman was talking about the same kind of US-supplied anti-tank weapons used to capture the Aleppo bases mentioned above?

The turn of the tide in Kobani has, by the shapers of conventional wisdom, been put down to American air power and better co-ordination with Kurdish forces (for that, perhaps read covert NATO forces embedded within). True, IS would have to form into more traditionally shaped units when it wanted to attack en-masse to dislodge the Kurds from their positions, hence leaving them vulnerable to air power, but why would we believe that they would try to do this? The pattern has been one of long drawn out wars of attrition, and surviving to prolong the sieges.

In fact, according to one up-to-date report, IS are trying a new guerrilla tactic after other ones have failed; noticeably it doesn’t say that IS gave up making full frontal assaults on Kurdish positions after they had failed. Although airstrikes are mentioned, the important factor in frustrating IS has obviously been the presence of troops; where there are boots on the ground, access is denied to territory from which to operate.

Kurdish fighters are reportedly in control of more than 60 percent of the Syrian border town of Kobani as the ISIL terror group has lost ground in the strategic territory.

The so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Saturday that Kurdish forces made the gains with the help of Kurds from Iraq and the US-led coalition airstrikes.

“IS (ISIL) has even left areas that the Kurds did not enter for fear of mines,” the UK-based group added.

Mustefa Ebdi, a Kurdish activist from the town, also said the Kurdish forces had advanced eastward on the frontline during the past week, adding that the terrorists are “now using tunnels after failing in their tactics of car bombs and explosive belts.”

So summing up, Kobani gave us an opportunity to watch IS after it had become infamous – and it told us that, afterall, IS is not a mass-ranked army that can be strafed in columns as it advances – which is the impression that the world is supposed to have. On that supposed fact we have all been deceived. This brings us to the photograph introduced at the top of this. For it seems certain that if everyone else in the world is to believe that IS is a Super Army, the people on the ground and in the IS-occupied areas have to believe it first. This image, when it appeared in the Wall Street Journal in August 2014, was presented with the following caption: “An Islamic State militant uses a loudhailer to announce to residents of Tabqa city that Tabqa air base has fallen to Islamic State militants, in nearby Raqqa city, on Sunday.”

Therefore the image tells us that, apparently, IS has a branded people carrier which is used by its personnel to drive from place to place to inform them of IS successes – to deliver propaganda. What is being shown in the image is the execution of psychological operations to bolster the perception of IS military impressiveness. If the reader is not familiar with psychological operations, then be sure to follow the links here and here to find out more. The first is to a 1960s document (previously restricted) called the “Staff Officer’s Guide to Psychological Operations”. It’s a bit old, but it is relevant – see the preface in which it is explained that “psychological operations” is a term that replaces “psychological warfare” to reflect the use of this military tool in support of a civil power – basically, it is a weapon to be used on a civilian population as much as a military enemy (and incidentally, the British people suffer psyops from their government on a daily basis).

Most pertinently in this document is “Chapter Four – Loud Speaker Operations”. It is a section that points out the capabilities of using loud speaker equipment – and hand held bull horns are specified as being fit for purpose – to include:

Shock value: The shock effect of a loudspeaker broadcast can be very valuable is assisting psychological impact of the message. This is particularly so in the case of surrender appeals.

Other points of advantage are how literacy is not a factor in the delivery of the propaganda, and how the delivery method is mobile so “it can be brought to bear swiftly upon a selected target”.

The other link leads to a recent document entitled “15 (United Kingdom) Psychological Operations Group, Annual Report 2007/08”. Please notice the many pictures of British Army personnel visiting Afghan villages with bundles of glossy newspapers with the Union Flag printed on them.

This brings us to dealing with this question: if IS is in itself a psyop, whose is it? Let’s briefly re-examine the evidence – it has clear supply links back to a NATO country, it uses armaments provided to it by NATO countries, it uses non-lethal equipment for propagandising – again famously supplied by NATO countries. The answer seems to be becoming clear – but there is a problem. Why would the US and the UK bomb its own asset in Syria and Iraq? One solution is this: it isn’t – at least not as much as we are being lead to believe. Consider the following extracts from a December 12th McClatchy Washington Bureau article:

The American war against the Islamic State has become the most opaque conflict the United States has undertaken in more than two decades, a fight that’s so underreported that U.S. officials and their critics can make claims about progress, or lack thereof, with no definitive data available to refute or bolster their positions

The dearth of information by which to judge the conflict is one of the difficulties for those trying to track progress in it. The U.S. military, which started out announcing every air mission almost as soon as it ended, now publishes roundups of airstrikes three times a week. Those releases often don’t specify which strikes happened on what days or even whether a targeted site was successfully hit. McClatchy has discovered that in some cases, the location given for bombings has been inaccurate by nearly 100 miles.

One could believe that the US military isn’t trying very hard to hit IS. When there are reports of targets in the media, we also find a constant background of damage to Syrian infrastructure; consider the following for instance (emphasis added):

Eight of the 10 airstrikes by the U.S.-led campaign against ISIS in Syria were in the contested border town of Kobane near the Turkish border, the U.S. military said.

The Combined Joint Task force said two other strikes hit a crude oil collection point near Dayr az Zawr and an ISIS weapons stockpile near Raqqa, in the province where a Jordanian pilot was taken captive in northeast Syria.

The above report was recent – this is a sample from back in September:

U.S.-led coalition air raids targeted towns and villages in northern and eastern Syria controlled by the Islamic State group, including one strike that hit a grain silo and reportedly killed civilians, activists said Monday.

Washington and its Arab allies opened their air assault against the extremist group last week, going after its military facilities, training camps, heavy weapons and oil installations. The campaign expands upon the airstrikes the United States has been conducting against the militants in Iraq since early August.

Ismet Sheikh Hassan, a senior official in the Kobani region for the Kurdish militia, said the extremists fired rockets and tank shells at the city from the southeast, while some 1,000 militants amassed to the west.

Notice – an apparent ammassing of 1000 “militants” which somehow wasn’t wiped out?  One thing to be sure about is that the “bombing of IS” is definitely making a substantial strip of Syria worthless to the Syrian Government and nation. This is clearly an act of direct war – and apparently one that the Syrians didn’t think worthwhile upping the ante to try and prevent. Be that as it may,  just because it isn’t being opposed militarily, it doesn’t stop it qualifying as direct aggression. Secondly, the reader needs to appreciate that there is very good reason for the especial interest in the fate of the town of Kobani. The bombing of IS approaching Kobani will be used as a poster-child for direct US intervention in Syria to re-ignite the attempt to overthrow the Assad government. This much has been remarked upon by a member of Iran’s military top brass (“a plot to provide an excuse for the US-led coalition to start a military build-up in Syria,” said General Hassan Firouzabadi). The reader will also notice that Khorosan, the completely new terrorist organisation which was invented earlier in 2014 to provide a direct threat to the US – and so was cited as the reason for the bombing of Syria – has disappeared completely. This is exactly the same game that NATO played in Libya where responsibility to protect quickly turned into open support for the terrorists because that had always been the prior intention. The successful defence of Kobani will become the ringing endorsement for more US/UK bombing, and for intervention generally,  in a chicken and egg scenario that no one will much bother to try and unscramble to re-discover the fake impetus and the counterfeit nature of everything that followed it. The target is Assad, not IS, and this is the crux of the great deception of 2014 – the biggest that has been perpetrated since the one of 2001 when the War on Terror was born.

LibLabCon’s 2015 GE strategy: race-bait, stoke tension, blame immigration debate and UKIP?

Friday 28th November: David Cameron delivered yet another defining “big EU speech”. It was much anticipated – again – billed as a UKIP-busting game-changer – again. It was much criticised, as it turned out. But if people had learned the simple lessons by now, they would know that it doesn’t matter if David Cameron promises total impossibilities in return for electoral support. It doesn’t matter that he makes guarantees of controlling immigration – within the borderless EU, and on the back of a broken guarantee to reduce immigration. As much as this sort of thing deserves gob-smacked incredulity, and easy as it is to point to and declare it lies, people should also be well aware that none of this matters to Cameron at this late stage. As this site pointed out to its readership on one of the previous occasions Cameron was going to re-sculpt the political landscape and make the earth disappear from beneath UKIP, it’s not what Cameron declares to be policy that is important – rather it’s all about reaching beyond the rational to appeal to an emotional response. This time, the message was basically reasserting all the garbage that has lodged as a fact in the minds of those desiring a balkanised Progressive-Marxist corporately-governed Police State, which is this: if you were going to sign on to UKIP to fix the problem of immigration (Cameron can’t deny there is one) then you would be unleashing a racist force that would cause a whole world of trouble and usher in some kind of reign of terror.

And suggesting that this meme has been thought up by people higher-up in the echelons of the Establishment than Cameron for dissemination across the wider united LibLabCon front, recently the Labour MP, Diane Abbott, who is firmly on the record as not being above the odd bit of racism herself, has been using similar language in her own race-baiting attack on UKIP. Moreover, having made the 3000-miles-away race-relation trouble in Ferguson, Missouri, her business, Abbott has been referring to it with regards to what she characterises as black victimhood at the hands of the British Establishment. As the first black MP, Abbott is not an insignificant protagonist, but she has also given visibility to an activist movement that is agitating to divide people politically along racial lines – the appalling divide and conquer she accuses white people of. The possible danger, with Ferguson as the model, is all too apparent.

At the tip of the spear, and in his own speech, the greatest proportion of Cameron’s chutzpah lay not in his claims in the face of inevitable EU obstruction to the measures on immigration which he was proposing, but in the way he projected the LibLabCon’s misdeeds of an entire epoch onto the new boys and girls on the block:

 “We must anchor the debate [about immigration] in fact, not prejudice.

“We must have no truck with those who use immigration to foment division or as a surrogate for other agendas. We should distrust those who sell the snake-oil of simple solutions.”

This is clearly an instruction to reject UKIP – and what for? Because UKIP’s preoccupation with immigration is indicative of the closet racism which Cameron had already defined as being an attribute of the party of Fruit Cakes and Loonies. Given a chance, it will come out into the open, and then the British electorate would be sorry. Pure nonsense and fear-mongery of course. Controlling immigration, and making it fairer for people coming from Africa, for instance, is definitely not racist, nor of a racist agenda. The accusation of racism levelled at UKIP is a deliberate and knowing lie – this is why Cameron daren’t even say the word at this stage. He would get into so much new trouble if he did.

But to be absolutely precise, it is rich of Cameron to talk about how to debate immigration because the Establishment strategy up until now has expressly been not to talk about it. There has been no debate about immigration all the while it has been allowed to occur, since 1997, at an historically unprecedented rate. This is purely due to the fact that if there had been a grown up and informed debate with a vote to follow, then, considering all the pros and cons, the immigration would not have been allowed. Mass immigration, therefore, has been implemented as a subversive programme of political revolution undermining the sovereignty of the British people – this much is verifiable in word as much in deed; see Andrew Neather’s 2009 admission that immigration was for “rub[bing] the Right’s nose in diversity”. Let us be clear here – for Right read the unreconstructed occupants of the old cultural landscape; i.e. most Britons. For diversity read Equality and Diversity – the central plank of British Marxism. If we are going to talk about prejudice, we need to recognise the prejudice that is the prime cause of all the resultant problems that have been plaguing the UK since Neather’s Champagne Nu-Labour Party unleashed its vicious assault: the prejudice of the Establishment against indigenous Britons. This is the prejudice of a self-entitled elite that sees the country beneath it, whatever the colour of skin, as prey and stock to be used and abused as it sees fit.

As for using immigration to foment division – the British Establishment’s stock-in-trade is divide and conquest. The most immediately dangerous example of the phenomenon has been the importation and accommodation of Islam in order to demonise Muslims amongst the greater population as terrorists. It is also the case in point for immigration being used by the Establishment as a surrogate for other agendas – namely creating pretexts for the police state and otherwise illegal wars on Middle Eastern sovereign states. Cameron’s statement, in which he tries once again to associate his real political opposition as racist, is therefore as diabolically perverse as it could possibly be. Once again a man who must ne’er or rarely see or saw a black face in his privileged private life, and a man who is currently allied in a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine with, not neo-Nazis, but proper Nazis with inherited SS-derived insignia, and a man who oversaw the ethnic cleansing of black Africans from Tarwergha in Libya, gets away with repeating the slur that UKIP is motivated by racial hatred.

As this stage we must turn to Diane Abbott. There is no other way to describe her recent activity than using immigration to foment political division along racial lines; or race-baiting, as its exact equivalent in the USA is called. The following, which quotes an Abbott speech, is from an article with the headline: “Abbott: Ukip’s racist rhetoric will lead to violence”.

“Politicians and the media must wake up to the fact that some of the rhetoric peddled to improve poll ratings and sell copy actually fosters violence and abuse on the streets,” she said.

Of course, the most strikingly concerning element of Abbott’s language is the mention of the provocation of violence. In truth, this mention is probably to throw critics off the scent, although it should not be underestimated as an expression of a real threat – this will be returned to by and by. The best picture of what is being engineered with such language is better understood with further detail supplied by the article:

The MPs speech on combating racism in times of austerity was supported by the Muslim Student’s Association and Operation Black Vote (OBV).

OBV director Simon Woolley called for politicians to “realise their moral and political responsibility in articulating a political view that is more inclusive than divisive.”

And he revealed ambitious plans to stop racists claiming marginal seats at the general election by ensuring BME (black, minority, ethinic) voters turn out.

In other words, there is a plot afoot to organise the black and ethnic electorate to vote against UKIP in marginal seats at the 2015 election. Key to this plan is demonization of UKIP by the likes of Abbott who baselessly claim that that party is stoking racial tension to get elected. The startling irony should be obvious to anyone with a brain, for the truth is in fact upside down and the other way around. It is clearly here demonstrated that it is Abbott who is appealing to ethnic minorities to divide politically along racial lines. And it cannot be a coincidence that all this comes after Labour announced the creation of a special unit to deal with UKIP. It’s a good bet that its mode of operation has been revealed.

What with Cameron, and Abbott, and the fact that a meme has been started in corporate-media about how UKIP would treat the children of migrants married to Britons as migrants themselves – which is abject nonsense – there has to be a suspicion that the shadowy Establishment is the prime mover. Primarily through its Red Sock-puppet, the concern has to be that the Government is trying to introduce some American-style deep-level racially-based social division to Britain. It cannot be understated how very serious this is. As Ferguson, Missouri is demonstrating, this can only develop into irrevocable balkanisation and alienation of one community from another, notions of victimisation, protest and violence, which all provokes a level of police intervention that would never normally be tolerated or tolerable. In short, it is the way to the police state under permanent martial law.

As it happens, Abbott has evoked Ferguson as she has been going about her mission of divide and conquer, and its detail must be discussed briefly here. The officer thought to have illegally killed Michael Brown has been adjudged not to be indictable by a grand jury. The physical evidence confirms that there is no whitewash. But at the same time, as American alternative media has documented, the situation in terms of public reaction has been exacerbated into riot conditions by outside provocateurs – in one case these people were outed as working for the Department of Homeland Security. The theory is that the US Government would like a state of martial law to exist to pre-empt wider reaction to an imperial President and his treason by executive order, and would like to see the troubles in Ferguson blamed on Black Victimisation by White Establishment as a fuse for the same sort of turmoil in other cities. Conspiracy theories aside, the very least to be said about Ferguson is, as this article does, that at the root the trouble is the way that Americans have been manipulated by a ruling class for political ends.

Back to Diane Abbot again, for she has been co-opting this specific perceived victimisation of blacks by a white establishment for her own ends – an irresponsible thing to do given how close the situation is getting to full-on insurrection. On Wednesday 26th November there was a protest outside the US embassy to show solidarity with people struggling with the consequences of white Establishment racism in Ferguson. We know this because a spokesman, Sabby Dhalu, of the organising group, Stand Up To Racism, went on the record as saying: “The cheapness of black lives in the US is a reflection of racism that black communities face at the hands of the police that must be stopped.”

Ahead of the protest, Diane Abbott chipped in her own inflammatory two-penneth.

Labour MP Diane Abbott has added her voice to the group’s calls for justice.

“My deepest sympathies go out to the family of Mike Brown,” she said. “Not only have they lost a loved one but following the Grand Jury’s decision they no doubt feel the strongest sense of injustice, which can only make their pain worse.

“The anger and disruption that has already followed this decision extends beyond the killing of Mike right to the root of long standing issues with the criminal justice system. Just as in Britain, the black community in the US has a fraught history with the police. It is one of the reasons I have always been against the arming of police.”


Race-baiting by Georgia Democrats.

Clearly, then, Abbott is making an equivalence between British and American race-relations between a white Establishment and a black minority group. It’s an equivalence that cannot be taken seriously given any real consideration of actual history. But it has been useful to express a concern that universally armed British police would necessarily kill black people – and the construction from which this statement is built upon provides further sinister nuance: the police would do it because they are white, and they are racist. As Abbot then goes on to insist that she is politically opposed to this, the motivation is clearly to garner political support based on unjustifiable fear mongering.

Across the pond in other states, Abbott’s political kin are doing exactly the same. It has been roundly condemned as race-baiting. In a particular case during the November mid-term elections, Democrats in Georgia used an image of two black children on their political material. The message read: “If you want to prevent another Ferguson in their future…[vote Democrat]”. The reader should note the two hand palms printed on the placard with the caption “Don’t shoot”. This is a reference to the claim that Brown was surrendering when shot – a fiction according to the police officer and which really doesn’t do justice to how aggressive Brown was in the version of events vindicated by the grand jury. Rather disgustingly, given that their immense remoteness from the incident should have provided an opportunity for calm reflection and fair appraisal, the Stand Up To Racism group used this symbolism in their protest, as a picture of the event attests to. Appallingly, Diane Abbott retweeted this image, and so she proudly owns it in her own twitter stream.


Abbott’s retweet: Hands up! Don’t shoot! London outside of US Embassy right now. Justice for Michael Brown.

The behaviour demonstrates that Abbott and her fellow travellers are intent on insisting on a flawed narrative to sow seeds of discontent where otherwise there would not be any. Abbott depicts black anger against white rule that will even kill rather than act in a conciliatory way to assuage rage stemming from notions of injustice. This is nowhere near a true reflection. In fact the contemporary characteristic of the times is the Country against the Government to reinstate self-rule, not Country against itself. Indeed, the risk of the Country uniting to deal with Government is why the Establishment would always be anxious to introduce a schism in a power that opposes it – indeed, the British Establishment is currently very anxious to introduce one. Cameron’s stinking verbal droppings suggest the scheme involves creating political divides on racial lines over misrepresentations of UKIP’s position on immigration. Diane Abbott works for this agenda, and does so with unseemly relish – talking of violence as a result of UKIP rhetoric as she does.

Abbott’s infamous tweet  – the one that got her into trouble at the time – read “White people love playing ‘divide and rule’. We should not play their game.” But it is the Establishment’s game of divide and conquer that she is playing, and as such she does not work for the interests of black British people against a white British people who she would have everyone believe reject them. She is being utterly deceitful. With the mention of violence in mind, of course, of the utmost concern is the fact that the aspiring zeitgeist manifests itself in the language of the Prime Minister of the country; this is a man who is in all sorts of trouble himself with an electorate who have found him out as a liar. Given the rough treatment of Miliband, the Establishment apparently wants him in post after 2015. One really does wonder what lengths it will go to to keep him there.

In Britain’s House of Cards economy, growth means adding more cards

According to David Cameron, writing for the Guardian after the G20 summit in Australia, “six years on from the financial crash that brought the world to its knees, red warning lights are once again flashing on the dashboard of the global economy”. In contrast, said the Prime Minister, the British economy was growing, but still at risk because it could not be fully insulated from global outcomes. Nevertheless, he had concluded that the best way forward to guard against exposure from a downturn was to apply the same policies that had already seen the growth.

Be that as it may, the truth of the matter is that British economic growth is a phantom for all the good it does; it is a fact that exists in the statistics on paper only. In reality, hidden negating factors are the reason why there is a new phenomenon being reported by politicians of an economic “lag” whereby if the recovery never seems to be felt in the pocketbook of the working man, then it will be sure to arrive soon. This is nonsense, and surely the evidence should tell of an economy that has just not recovered. And far from Britain being safe from a recession because of Cameron’s governance, the exact opposite is in fact true. Britain’s economy is, compared with itself historically, as weak as soggy paper, and only as robust as a structure made of that material precisely because of Government policy. The other great job of work that Cameron finds he has to do is manage expectation in what will be continuing failure – the British economy is going to fail, because the measures to fix the decline are ideologically not an option for the British Government. Naturally, the insurgency of a political party that hasn’t signed up to this project will cause the sort of desperate negative reaction that UKIP is causing in the Establishment at the moment.

RT’s John Wight offers a guide to the policy that is going to create recession out of a supposed position of recovery in his own response to Cameron’s writings, and if readers would like to examine those, there will be no need to recreate the same analysis here. Cameron spoke of red warning lights being an indication of global weakness, and forgot to mention that he had slap-happily engineered his dashboard to disconnect sensors that tell all too clearly of Britain’s problems. And so the focus here is going to be on examining those signals, and looking at some aspects of the overall general ailment of the British economy.

In true Luikkerland/FBEL tradition, there must be a disclaimer that the author is not an expert in economics – not anywhere near. However, the British Government routinely uses the economy – or public perception of it – as a tool of propaganda, and anyone interested in understanding the method has to explore the subject and acquire at least a rudimentary understanding. And so, while there is an inclination to investigate, the findings may as well be published – which, it is hoped, will also increase the visibility of economic issues amongst others who may be, like the author, not in natural territory.

The latest statistics concerning the British economy showed that in the 3rd quarter of 2014 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell by 0.2 percentage points from 0.9% to 0.7% (source). Furthermore, in the last quarter of the year, GDP is expected to shrink to 0.5%; the Guardian article which is the source of this latter piece of data offers an explanation as to the reason why:

The pace of Britain’s recovery is expected to almost halve by the end of the year after a survey showed the service sector expanded at the slowest pace in almost 18 months in October.

What is being referred to is how growth in the service sector of the economy slumped from 1.1% to 0.7% – and, in addition, how much of an influence the service sector, which happens to be the largest constituent part of Britain’s industrial landscape (as it is, admittedly, in most Western countries), has on the entire economy for good or bad. It might be a surprise to some readers to learn that between 1948 and 2013, the service sector’s share of the economy jumped from 46% to 79%. Another unexpected detail, at least from a position of prior relative ignorance, is that this economic sector has a  technical term ‘Tertiary’ – which infers a lower place on a hierarchy of economic components. Investigating more, it will be discovered that the Primary Sector (according to Wikipedia, at least) is the extraction of natural resources; its economic worth is not hard to imagine: clearly when people are engaged in this activity they are bringing forth new material which has inherent value. So whereas before the extraction there was only unrealised wealth potential, value is suddenly added afterwards. Moving on, and the Secondary Sector is manufacturing: turning raw materials into products and thus increasing the value of those materials. Then there is the service sector, which delivers services instead of tangible products – although there is a relationship between the two; services influence costs by affecting the way manufactured products are communicated between buyer and seller, and the costs of products involved in delivering services contribute to the costs of the service.

Just from an intuitive response to this information, one can see a problem arising from the fact that in the service industry, there is no base raw commodity upon which any relative added value can easily be determined – as Wikipedia puts it: “potential customers [may have difficulty] understand[ing] what [product] they will receive and what value it will hold for them”. For as far as the gauging of economic well-being with GDP is concerned, value added is the central concept. [Value added; a definition: “the value of…  [the product] minus the value of goods that are used up in producing it”].


The number of mortgages being taken out with smaller deposits is climbing (ThisIsMoney).

Bringing this to a point, it is perhaps reasonable to suppose that there would exist from time to time a scenario where the cost of a service product is well beyond any real value; indeed, there was a famous scenario in 2008 where financial service products suddenly had no buyers because of a discrepancy between inflated and real value (the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression ensued). This is an appropriate example because critics of Britain’s recovery suggest that it is being driven by the Coalition Government’s tax-payer subsidised sub-prime mortgage bubble. Certainly, house price rises are being attributed to this scheme, and the American experience demonstrated that price rises stimulate a desire to provide more mortgage products on increasingly easier to obtain terms.

But there is a general problem about determining value to do with how the human resource – which is the main input component of a pure service provision – must be rated. The nice answer would be in terms of quality, but in reality, with culture in general decline, value could be more a reflection of confidence and low cunning. As such, value will inevitably be subject to price fixing and arbitrary numbers that bear no relation to the quality of service. Potentially, all goods and service saleable to a consumer will compensate for inflated people costs in a service-dominated economy – and at the thick end of the wedge, shelf stackers, cleaners and coffee servers will be under paid to reduce overheads. Indeed, in the British economy, a situation has been created whereby there is a disconnect between the number of people in employment, which is the subject of much Government crowing, and added economic value. Common sense suggests that such an economy as Britain has is at risk of being wholly scam-comprised – a house of cards that inevitably delivers little return for most of its participants. This latter is certainly true and is evidenced; perhaps here then is the real reason for the “lag” phenomenon of the supposed recovery.

Corroboration of the shakiness of Britain’s service-reliant economy from officialdom is not hard to find, but one suspects it would never raise the subject of charlatanism as economic buoyancy. The following is from an April 2014 Guardian article on the comparisons between Britain’s economy, and that of other G7 nations; an unsustainable economy is explicitly connected with the distinct lack of a manufacturing component:

It is the received wisdom that in the runup to the financial crisis that hit in 2008, the UK economy was too heavily dependent on credit-fuelled consumer spending and on financial services. A shift towards more manufacturing and exports is required if a sustainable economic future is to be built.

On this matter, surely there can be no better demonstration of unsustainability than in how the British Government cannot reduce the extent to which it borrows and the extent to which it allows national debt to accrue. And it should be no surprise that it cannot act against these things when there is no spending empowerment in the service economy of its armies of lower scale operatives, as above mentioned. Zero hour contracts look good for employment statistics, but the resultant shortfall of tax revenue, and the fact that an in-work benefits claim becomes necessary for people to subsist, means that even if an economy looks good on paper, it can’t create conditions for debt-busting growth. Moreover, neither can borrowing be expected to fall when there is a large section of the service sector that depends on Government spending. The State, in partnership with private firms or charities, has invented many wholly new ways in the last few decades to provide services to people who are ill, or are dying, or who don’t speak English, or who want to organise their communities, or who don’t have work, or have learning difficulties, or can’t afford private housing. On top of all this, Britain’s open border, in relation to this service sector industry, is about importing clientele much more than it is about creating growth. (This site has previously covered the fallacy of trying to cut Government spending while borders are wide open).

Manufacturing in 2013 stood at 14% of the British economy – this figure was down from 41% in 1948. There is no political will to do anything about this appalling state of affairs because creating genuine conditions for general affluence is not the objective of the British Government. Instead, it is determined to create a control grid of micromanagement of the population  and a captive consumership for corporate-government financial services (and no alternatives will be countenanced) by which another strand of control – debt slavery – has long been exercised. At the same time, Austerity – a pretence at fixing the economy – has been about stripping the middle class of real wealth through siphoning taxes straight into national loan repayments. Britons have been warned that austerity will last for years – and why not; the British Government can keep borrowing (and skimming off taxes) until Britons are poor enough and controlled enough and until a stage is reached where it will be able to afford to let those elements in the economy that aren’t valuable find their natural levels. The bubble can be allowed to collapse. The ensuing chaos will require a global solution, which will be that long-threatened cashless single currency and transnational political union. Resisting will be viewed as criminally counter-productive, and the control grid will be locked rigidly into place to deal with it. With the people impoverished, homeless, incarcerated, who will be able to do anything about it?

Economic warfare against Britons by the Westminster Puppet – a taboo subject

The Tory Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, came under fire this weekend from the thought-control apparatus of the British Marxist state when he said that British towns ‘felt under siege’ from EU immigrants. It is true to say that this is the sort of utterance that UKIP has learnt to try and steer well clear of in its official expressions and interfaces with corporate-media consumership, fearful that it would be fodder for pretend-liberal-authoritarians to beat them up with. Nevertheless, Downing Street let it be known that Fallon’s was a bad choice of language, and at the same time in several state-controlled places on the internet, it was labelled as being of UKIP (see here and here for example). In other words there was an effort made to stigmatise the phraseology, and to have that stigmatisation stick to the mortal enemy. This could only be expected. For the truth of the matter is that, although UKIP won’t even talk about it, Britons are being subjected to a kind of no-bullets warfare – executed through the economic outcome of EU legal supremacy and EU immigration – that is designed to bring an occupied people – the British – to a point of being completely dominated. It is only natural that the British Government would want to censure any semblance of the expression of the idea, for the British Government never wants the truth of its unlawful activity to become common knowledge, or any language properly describing it to become common currency.

The result of a Mirror poll as of 14:10, 27/10/2014

The result of a Mirror poll as of 14:10, 27/10/2014

All things being considered, it is probably the case that Fallon’s words had had the official go-ahead from the Tory HQ for the purposes of programming his audience and in order that the resultant demonstration of censure, and a complimentary faux-outrage on social media, be triggered. (It is telling that the word ‘swamped’ – one that Fallon also used – seems to be attracting most of the vitriol – it is clearly a tradional trigger word that has been used to feed conditioning about another hitherto neutral word).

The strategic advantage to the British Government of there being a taboo about the appalling conflict of attrition waged against Britons is that no one talks about the facts around the idea – it’s quite obvious. At a time when it is imperative that Britons wake up to how the British Government has become a puppet of powers that the British Constitution expressly forbids, the Government naturally doesn’t want Britons joining the dots. But the undeniable fact of the matter is that the British Government is a vassal government that occupies Westminster, and therefore the entire land, on behalf of offshore interests. The EU is the overt power that rules through the British puppet – although in truth there is a shadowy conglomerate of extra-national corporate and financial powers that uses the EU as cover to regulate a British soviet for the purposes of control for gratuitous self-enrichment. However, it suffices to identify the EU as the power holding the reins, and this is a tangible reality that is clearly evident in the EU treaties, as well as the plethora of both official and off-the-cuff bragging that EU honchos have made about an EU superstate.

Obviously, while there is a threat of the British People becoming aware in sufficient numbers of the situation abovementioned, there is always a danger to the puppet government – who would expect to be punished. Unlike the Normans, this modern invader may have cut the head off the old country, but it didn’t do it through military dominance; it doesn’t have the traditional means to guarantee that any revolt against it will fail. This is why measures have been taken to compensate – namely, the opening of the borders to the European continent, and in particular, the poverty-stricken post Warsaw Bloc countries of Eastern Europe.

The great lie about EU expansion into Eastern Europe told by the puppet government at Westminster was that no one expected such a massive influx of people from Eastern Europe. (While on this point, please note that the official statistics do not do the situation justice. Even in the first few years, Polish immigration on its own was in the hundreds of thousands. There have to be millions of Eastern Europeans in Britain). Part of the big lie was to pretend that when the EU met the old Warsaw Pact countries, it was Western economic culture that was colonising the East. In fact, what really happened was the Warsaw Pact territories, now dislocated from Russia of course, expanded into the West. And leading up to this event, the economic terrain in Britain, without people even realising it, had been terra-formed to accommodate the communist East. It was tantamount to opening up virgin territory into which the people of the East could colonise. It is here that America offers an appropriate comparison (it was UKIP’s Gerard Batten who pointed out that Britain wasn’t the 19th century Wild West). When first the pilgrims and then the pioneers settled America, they were moving into a land that was already occupied by a relatively indigenous people. The difference between the two was that the English settlers had a concept of ownership of land whereas the Indians did not. These days, the Eastern Europeans who come to the UK are facing a similarly disadvantaged native. Britons do not understand the context of the mass movement of people into their nation which is this: Britain has become the most prosperous Soviet welfare state. People who were collectivised and controlled by government for generations in the East have been told that they can now claim entitlement (not property this time) in the new territory, and the entitlement is worth slightly more in the new land. And so they come.

To collect this together, then, in order to deal with the threat of the angry hordes of Briton, and therefore the threat to itself, the vassal British government has had by necessity to import a client population (with voting rights at local level – the pathway to direct governance by the EU) who were not only encouraged to see Britain as an extension of their own country, but who could recognise it as such. Although many Britons recognise this as having all the trappings of an invasion, not many vocalise that recognition out of fear of being slapped down as an extremist. In truth, the invasion itself will not deliver the coup de grace to the British nation; nothing about killing the United Kingdom has been shockingly immediate – the game has always been about slowly catching the monkey. Likewise, the invasion is in fact a platform built stealthily, upon which siege economic warfare can be waged.

Economic warfare is all about limiting the economic activity of an enemy; to weaken it through restricting its ability to operate against one’s own interests. There are certain traditional ways that this is done. Consider first the denial of economic capacity to an enemy, and think about the closure of UK power stations that many commentators say is going to precipitate an energy crisis – and very soon. In a war, one side would bomb the other’s factories. In the EU, the vassal government merely had to cave in to a diktat from Brussels; and in fact, the UK has suffered from this on a catastrophic scale and for a long time – see the Thatcher government era shutdown of British heavy industry.

That being said, the focus is on the economic attack that mass immigration represents. So consider economic warfare as done by blockade – or besiegement (sanctions are the equivalent in an undeclared war). There is also preclusive purchasing, where one side buys from a third party all the stock of something required by the enemy so that the enemy is denied this stock. As surprising as it may be to the reader, these very tactics are being subjected in an applicative way to Britons. To explain: the British Government can be said to have ‘bought’ much of the stock of low-skilled work places in return for supplying that low-wage labour force. Hundreds of thousands of low skilled labour jobs are now denied to British people. The same can be said of a rightful share of the welfare pot – if it is taken up by immigrants who never put in, Britons who did are denied it.

The other tactic of economic warfare follows from this situation; when Britons do not have work to purchase goods and services, then they are effectively being blockaded from normal trade activity – they are not able to operate optimally and they are permanently weakened and contained. Of course, besiegement ends when the besieged gives up, and surrendering in this case means giving up economic independence and capitulating completely to the whim and dictate of government officialdom in return for scraps. Slavery.

Of course, some may say in criticism that ‘it is a dog-eat-dog world and that these economic battles are ones being faced by individuals. As hard as their suffering may be, in general immigration is good for the British economy’. Unfortunately, this is not true at all; there is a very generally damaging effect on the entire economy caused by immigration from the EU. Even a rudimentary understanding of the mechanics of a national economy reveals the methodology – if only more Britons would acquire one. This author was able to glean his from a man who by his qualifications and his Nobel Prize should know what he is talking about:

In a depression… interest rates cannot be cut.

So there is no channel through which lower wages can raise employment! And the likely effect of wage cuts is in fact to reduce employment.

Why? Debt… When individuals have run up debts that are now considered excessive, these debtors end up being forced to slash spending in order to pay that debt. Meanwhile, creditors face no comparable pressure to spend more. So debt… creates a ‘deleveraging’ environment in which overall spending is depressed, possibly depressed enough to cause a depression.

In such an environment, what happens if the level of wages falls? Prices and incomes fall too – but debt does not. So the real burden of debt rises, reinforcing the depressing effect of debt on spending. This means that having ‘flexible’ labor markets, in which wages fall quickly in the face of unemployment, is actually a bad thing under depression conditions.

Paul R Krugman; Economics for the Curious: Inside the Minds of 12 Nobel Laureates (p15/16); January 2014

Britain entered a depression in 2008 – it’s one that experts believe the country never left. Even laymen can see that the much vaunted recovery is merely a corporate buoyancy surrounding the sub-prime mortgage scam being operated by the Coalition. Between 2008 and the present day, millions of Europeans have entered the country. This has had a deflating effect on wages. In addition, the debt burden has grown worse, and interest rates are set to rise, not be lowered. The result will be less employment, less investment in the economy, more failure, and a downward economic spiral. Everyone suffers, not just individuals who are competing with immigrants for low wage jobs.

The reality of the warfare being perpetrated on the Britons by the vassal government at Westminster is precisely why there is a great insistence that the subject not be discussed, and language that describes its reality is rapidly denounced as being prejudiced and almost immoral. However, the outrage being perpetrated by the British Government cannot be hidden from wider appreciation as the general topic of immigration has historically been, and patriots have a duty to make sure it does not. The attack on Britons by their government needs to be talked about so that it can be defended against – ultimately by the removal of the LibLabCon (at the 2015 General Election preferably) from its hitherto permanent office of government. And please note, to recognise EU immigration as a weapon against Britain is not the same as stigmatising EU immigrants. It does mean, however, that in the end, the weapon must be removed in order for the wound to heal, and there are civilised and reasonable ways to do this. This topic must also be talked about in an open way. There needs to be a rational debate so that realistic choices can be made about which people should have leave to remain after the EU treaties which have legalised their sojourn have been revoked, and which cannot. Political pressure that results in any crucial topic having to be discussed in some coded fashion is exerted exactly because of that outcome; any utterances become grist to the mill of people who want the failure that full exploration of the topic would otherwise avoid – and this, above all else, needs to be in the forefront of the minds of those doing battle to restore economic health to Britain, and economic independence from the State to Britons, and, of course, who want human beings from other places than Britain to be treated fairly according to the British tradition.

Pertinent quotations:

“The Bank of England cut interest rates to 0.5% in early 2009, and has kept them at this record low ever since.”

Source: BBC

“UK household debt has more than quadrupled since 1990, despite interest rates being at historic lows, a new report out today has showed.

“The study came with a warning that the high levels of debt being serviced by Britons posed a ‘serious threat’ to the economic recovery, especially as rates are due to start rising next year.

“In 1990, total household debt in the UK stood at £347billion, but it soared by 314 per cent to £1,437billion in 2013, with people in their thirties and forties carrying most of its weight, according to financial research firm Verum.”

Source: 14 August 2014

“On the impact of immigration on average wage levels, the evidence is again inconclusive (5.1), but there is a strong consensus of opinion that immigration has harmed the earnings of the most poorly-paid UK-born members of the labour force (5.2)”

Source: MigrationWatch

“Between 1995 and 2010, the [Migration Advisory Committee]…found an associated displacement of 160,000 British workers. For every additional one hundred immigrants, they estimated that 23 British workers would not be employed.”

Theresa May, 2012

Source: BBC

Scottish independence to ruin UK’s war plans – hence a ‘no’ vote in the offing?

The appearance of certain opinion polls this week has caused much excitement in the lead up to the referendum on Scottish independence. All of a sudden it looks as if the campaign to break up the Union (that being waged by vote ‘yes’ for independence proponents) is within a nose of coming level on the finishing line. Naturally, people are wondering if it has the momentum to get in front for a tiny narrow victory. The prospect of the ‘yes’ result is a fascinating thing to consider in terms of what it would mean for people of the rest of the United Kingdom, especially when appreciated through the prism of real geopolitics – not the fantasy theatre that is portrayed in the corporate-media. For what an observer of these events needs to understand is that Scotland was allowed this referendum in order to feed it to Brussels. Victory for the ‘yes’ camp will lift that UK region of the EU which coincides with the country of Scotland out of the context of the United Kingdom – in other words, Scotland will be a wholly EU region, and an ultimate victim of that famous sense of victimhood engendered by the divide-and-conquer way in which Scotland has been ruled. As for the rest of the UK, the effect on it, in terms of political repercussions, must have been calculated as being minimal – in the context of the LibLabCon revolving party-in-office scheme, this is reasonable to assume. However, there is a new factor, UKIP, which has meant that all the well laid plans must have come undone to one degree or another – at any rate, clues to this certainly lay in the mixed messages that the corporate-media is propagating (see image below). In the current climate, David Cameron will find it very hard to justify himself to his party membership as the man who lost the Union, and it could mean that a 2015 general election that already was hard to predict becomes a completely too-slippery thing for the Establishment to maintain a grasp of.

scotland_mixed_messagesThe first thing to get to grips with is that Scottish independence is a desirable outcome for the British Government (in its broadest sense) because it is a step to delivering the UK fully into direct rule from Brussels. The Cameron government is executing the agenda that was also tasked the first fully Fascio-Marxist British vassal government – Blair’s Labour one of 1997. As soon as that government came to office, it more or less immediately started the wrecking ball swinging to create the conditions from whence Scottish independence would inevitably come. All at the same time, Labour introduced the legislation to create alternative power bases to Westminster in Scotland and Wales. Regional parliaments were also planned in England, at least one of which, London, was realised. In what might be called one of the greatest acts in the resistance of the occupation of the UK to date, the people of the North East rejected their own assembly, and the plan to split up the unitary political body of England suffered a serious setback.

Let us be clear, then: David Cameron didn’t agree to a referendum because he thought he could win it and therefore defeat the pressure coming from a SNP-led Scottish regional parliament – that pressure, remember, was coming from the apparatus installed by Blair. The conclusion one should make instead is that Cameron devised a vote because he wanted to bring the process begun by Blair to its fruition. If we are still not sure, then refer to the natural law regarding how corrupt government only uses referenda to legitimise something that it wants to do anyway. There isn’t a referendum on EU membership – because the government doesn’t want to act to withdraw Britain’s membership. There is a referendum on Scottish membership of the UK – because the government wants to end that union, and bring about a new direct relationship between Scotland and the EU.

If we are still not sure, then consider that, while the rest of the UK is presented with a worthless promise of a chance to vote in a plebiscite to leave the EU in 2017, all those concerned in the Scottish independence debate sell the EU as a positive, and use it as an attribute to their campaign. The ‘no’ camp has been frightening potential ‘yes’ voters with the potential ‘nightmare’ scenario of Scottish exclusion from the EU. The ‘yes’ campaign has been making sure to let people know that EU membership is something that Scotland can retain. Even if Scotland finds itself technically outside of the EU, it won’t be long before any technicality ceases to be an obstacle – and statements in the past from Barroso, the then President of the European Commission, that stimulated ‘fears’ of Scotland’s ejection should be measured by the man who made them; Barroso, of course, recently revealed and misrepresented the content of diplomatic discussions with the Russian President Putin. Barroso is a cut of scum above all the other filth.

Of course, fixing a date for a vote does not guarantee any intended result and Scottish independence always seemed like a remote eventuality, given the historical polls and anecdotal evidence. But a people under the full control of an expertly manipulative government which directs a supportive media in joined-up propaganda campaigns – and also directs the controlled opposition – will do exactly what the government wants it to do*. Surely the vote regarding membership of the Common Market in the 70s, is the case in point. Observers should not be surprised to see the opinion polls narrowing the gaps between the ‘no’ and ‘yes’ vote as a response to the televised debates; it should be of no surprise to find that the ‘leader’ of the controlled opposition to the will of the government (i.e. the LibLabCon comprised Better Together) is the uninspiring Alistair Darling – the man who was Chancellor in a very unpopular British government as it went into overt spasms of flopping and floundering, and the man who oversaw a descent into recession.

Without a doubt, when it decided to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, the Cameron regime was finishing the process of the regional hand over to the EU started by its Labour predecessor. And presumably the Cameron regime was encouraged by the calculations it must have made at the time which would have registered little risk of real damage. There would be no real repercussions for chancing the loss of, or even losing the Union. If it turned out that the Union would be broken up as a result of Cameron’s policies, and if Tory membership, who are generally particularly keen on the Union, wanted to punish Cameron, what could they do? Vote Labour, Lib Dems or not at all? The inevitable outcome would always be the LibLabCon, and the overall continuity of government policy would continue whatever the colour of the party in office. The real financier-corporate government of the UK would not suffer. In terms of personal consequence, an out of office Cameron would undoubtedly retire to the sort of pastures that Tony Blair has been plentifully rewarded with.

In fact, if the Union was lost, the Tories could just shrug it off as the democratic will of the Scottish people, ask not to be blamed for it, and ask to be respected for their political integrity. This is what Cameron appears to want to do – he has already indicated that he will not resign over Scottish independence. Indeed, Cameron could sell the state of affairs as having won a bonus (and this talking point is already being spouted by the state’s flagship propaganda mongers). All those lost Labour seats from Westminster due to Scottish independence – 40 as it currently stands – is, as the myth is being retailed, some kind of guarantee of Tory future victory in England. And it really needs to be understood that this sort of stuff speaks to the tribal Tories in the deep-country and suburban bubbles who don’t experience the devastation of the Tory cultural Marxism, and who are raised with an ‘I’m alright Jack’ mind-set, and who respond to ills in the wider society, provoked by that sort of middle-class guilt that is encouraged as being trendy, by throwing money at the charity industry – these people see politics in terms of winning or losing to Labour, and in terms of having a delusion of being empowered individually because of a visceral dedication to their political team. This is, at least, how the author appreciates the core Tory state of being – a state of stubborn loyalty to all the institutions even as the poison from inside seeps out to stain the whited-sepulchre exteriors. It is going to be interesting to see how these people react to something that upsets their simple appreciation of politics – namely to the consequence of the upstart UKIP benefitting from Cameron’s decision to break up the Union. The author expects a good deal of abandonment by this core support, and suspects that this was not a calculation that got factored in by Cameron et al at the start of the whole process.

Back in March 2013, when the Scottish referendum was announced, nobody could be entirely sure that UKIP would do as well as it did in the major elections of 2014. It is now pretty evident that the Tory planners, even at that time colluding with the state apparatus to conduct smear campaigns against UKIP, always thought that Farage’s party could be contained. These co-conspirators even had a psyop on standby to deal with any UKIP success, and after the re-election of a Tory at Newark, the Establishment was universally pronouncing UKIP as dead in the water. As it turned out, the defection of Douglas Carswell, ironically the architect of Tory Localism (the tool that Cameron’s regime would adopt to link local government directly with Brussels after regional hand-over became too much like an obvious blunt instrument of assault) has completely scuppered the Tories’ containment of UKIP through psychological manipulation. Now the Tories must be panicked about the confluence of two events: the independence of Scotland, and the UKIP star in the ascendency as a credible alternative for government – UKIP as a place for people to meet across the so-called political spectrum. The Tories are not guaranteed in England – the Tory core vote will not necessarily have a winning team, and this will be too disappointing. Scotland will have been sacrificed for nothing.

Given this possibility, trying to predict the outcome of a general election after Scottish independence is pointless. All that can be best-guessed at is that no party would have enough MPs for a majority government (that much would be true even before the loss of the Scottish contingent in Westminster). Even if the Tories did not suffer a collapse, and if Labour ruled with a minority government, one would have to wonder if any business could be got done in Parliament with a much enlarged UKIP holding everyone for ransom in return for a vote on EU-membership†, and a much depleted Lib Dem party. (As far as UKIP are concerned, putting a spanner in the LibLabCon works is, at this stage, as good as winning the election). But what if Cameron broke up the Union, and faced an abandonment of support from core voters – how large UKIP could be in that case is any one’s guess. And the larger UKIP was, the bigger that anti-Fascio-Marxist spanner would be. Also, UKIP would act as a centre of gravity for backbench opposition to any Labour government – especially on the very important issues like war. The anti-war UKIP has the potential to foil military intervention that the British Government has undoubtedly already planned for.

Here, then, is perhaps the reason why the Establishment would be looking to postpone the General Election if the Scots vote for independence (the rationale being given in the linked-to Guardian story is bogus). For it is quite feasible that after the 2015 election, given the circumstances just mentioned, Parliament at Westminster would never again be able to endorse a war such as the one waged on Iraq, or the intervention in Libya – both of which were sold on intelligence that can only be called lies. After 2015 the LibLabCon may never again be able to facilitate the objectives of its global financier corporate masters – and then one could ask the question, what good would it be?

The overall prospect for the UK, then, if Scotland votes to leave it, is one of Scotland tricked into the EU proper, but England slipping from the grip of the wider machine of control in which the EU is a cog, and politically in disarray in terms of its usefulness to the corporate global kleptocracy. For the self-entitled ruling class, the disadvantages will totally outweigh the benefits, and maybe this is why they won’t have the Scots vote ‘yes’ after all.


Update, 7th September 2014,  and additional author’s note:

A new poll has the ‘yes’ campaign in the lead. Alistair Darling had the following to say in response: “These polls can and must now serve as a wake-up call to anyone who thought the referendum was a foregone conclusion.” The British Government has made promises of a rearrangement in the relationship between London and Edinburgh in event of a ‘no’ vote – this change has been characterised as ‘finishing the job’ of devolution. The following is from the Guardian article linked to above:

A senior government minister close to the Better Together campaign said a pledge to set up a new Scottish conference or convention, after a no vote, was imminent… It is understood that there have been intensive cross-party talks in recent days to finalise the plans.

Arguably we are seeing the roll out of measures, sanctioned from the highest places evidently, to make certain that a ‘yes’ result is avoided.

*I failed to mention in the main body of this article that in the light of an historical lack of support for independence in Scotland, I consider the British Government capable of fixing this vote – it being of such great importance – and have made this observation in other places on the internet. If this rigging was to take place to obtain a ‘yes’ outcome, then I reasoned that we should expect to see the opinion polls closer to polling day framing expectations of such a result. Additionally, this cheating could only happen if the ‘noes’ carried by a small majority – turning a large one into a ‘yes’ victory would be problematic in terms of it being noticed.

† It is my belief that a referendum to exit the EU would not be won while the LibLabCon held office.

Cameron threatens IS in UK, British jihadist demonstrates; escalated domestic tyranny and Syrian intervention to follow

With what might be described as impeccable and all too convenient timing, within days of David Cameron publishing an article to warn of unending war against jihadists a provocation has occurred that the British authorities will certainly use to fuel public support for the realisation of a long planned, but somewhat thwarted agenda. The apparent death of James Foley, by beheading, and by a British man of eastern descent, is being whipped up by corporate-media and western politicians as the last straw beyond which inaction against the Islamic State (IS), who the supposed murderer is apparently affiliated with, is no longer morally acceptable. The framework of the discussion is, as has become the norm, in terms of humanitarian intervention in foreign fields, and creating anti-terror security for well being at home; but this is bogus. The real objectives are the securing of assets in Syria and Iraq for Cameron’s globalist masters, and a shoring of the British ruling elite against a growing appreciation of its criminality amongst the public.

That stirring of mass awareness in the British means that there is a wider understanding of the reality of the relationship between their governing class and Islamist terror groups. It is a dynamic that is routinely omitted in the narrative spoon fed to corporate-media audiences – and yet there is enough of a popular grasp of it that the British Government has not been able to have things as easy as it did when it was able to download documents from the internet, and bogusly claim that Britain was only 45 minutes away from a strike from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The days of such rampant naivity are long gone.

Libya – where NATO provided tactical air support to West Point-listed terror groups, and bombed civilians in the name of protecting civilians – proved to be a revelation of the method. Then, the trail of a NATO-proxy army, and their armaments, from Libya to Syria after the fall of Gaddafi was well documented in the Alternative Media (see a very small sample at the foot of the page) – mostly using corporate-media reporting that hid the truth in plain view. Observations of this trail were often made on the Luikkerland predecessor to this site, and an essay on the career of Abdel Hakim Belhadj, republished here, offers a reasonable summary of the connection between Islamist terror groups, Libya and Syria. Indeed, the evidence is such that elements of the Alternative Media have evaluated it so as to conclude that there has never been a moderate Syrian factor amongst the insurgents fighting the Assad government – they have always been mercenaries largely from outside Syria, who invaded from NATO/Saudi organised and funded training camps in neighbouring countries, and whose brutal Wahaabiist tendencies are looked for by their organising US/UK masters in order to stoke a humanitarian crisis pretext to interfere further down the line. However, any claims of a casus belli for intervention in Syria and Iraq on the grounds of protection of civilians from fanatics are, as they were in Libya, completely bogus.

Syria has proven to be a stumbling block in the domino-line of British/US/NATO aggression – the main reason may be that Assad and his generals (and his still unified people) had prior warning from events in Libya, but the vote in the UK Parliament against military intervention was certainly a great factor (it has to be said, UKIP’s anti-war stance provided the political pressure that brought this about). Quite certainly IS has been thrust into Iraq to provide a pretext to get the war on Syria back on the rails. Before its rebranding, al-Qaeda, in the guise of the Free Syrian Army, had been committing ghoulish atrocities up and down the length and breadth of Syria (an example told of here). As these were for the furtherance of British Government interests in that arena, collectively they did not motivate David Cameron to take action as this would have meant aligning with Assad; Cameron’s regime is hell bent on removing him from his elected position of power, as previous statments from Number 10 will attest.

Regime change is the objective in Syria, as it was in Libya – to remove opposition to the US/UK unipolar world order, to shatter the unity of the country, and to give global corporate business vampiric access to resources. It is not a coincidence that the supposed beheading of James Foley comes as the US bombed northern Iraq last weekend in support of Kurdish militia reportedly locked in combat with IS. In his article, Cameron wrote of sending equipment (code for arms) to the Kurdish autonomous government, and thus indicated what must become an inevitable outcome of the current strife – the empowering of that body and the inversely proportional weakening of the central Iraqi government. Indeed, al-Malaki, the out-going Prime Minister of Iraq, is openly reported to have been pressured from the job by the ‘international community’ for which one should perhaps read the Obama regime. With a new puppet in place, it is thought that previous objection to Kurdish oil sales that circumvent central Iraqi oversight (and revenue-collection) to global corporations (a list to be found here) and even neighbouring Turkey will be set aside. Therefore, cheaper and less regulated access to natural resources would be a designed consequence of the emergence of IS. Moreover, any commonality of purpose to be discovered between Iraq and Syria’s governments formed by al-Malaki’s support of Assad would be undermined (better analysis here). And so the fate intended for Syria is also one awaiting Iraq, but Iraq may well have been robbed of leadership that recognises it and can make effective international alliances to prevent it.

Then there are domestic objectives of the deployment of IS. It was only two days before the world got word of the Foley execution that Cameron had his article, entitled ‘Isil [IS] poses a direct and deadly threat to Britain’, published in the Telegraph  in which he called IS an ‘exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement’ and, threatening that the same murderers will soon have the reach to commit atrocities on the streets of the UK, he warned Britons that they would have to accept inevitable decisions by his regime as absolute necessities in the context of the geopolitical climate.

Cameron wrote of a response to Islamists in Britain that involves taking down terrorist material from the internet, and what the police would do in the face of a ‘growing threat of extremism’. This is insidious in the light of the fact that Cameron’s regime was instrumental in the genesis of IS and, for instance, that leading Tory politicians have overtly stated that support for UKIP is a form of extremism. An illustration of why this is of such great concern is that action which has already filtered out from the general vague threats of intent and resolved itself in the form of a statement by the Metropolitan Police threatening the British public regarding the downloading and viewing of the James Foley execution video: that it could be deemed an act of terrorism in itself. Under closer examination, with this development the British police have announced that that which constitutes an act of terrorism largely depends upon their own interpretation of legislation. Presumably, police would also get to decide what defined extremism. It is exactly this sort of response that those who would challenge the misrule of Britain fear will develop from government reaction to ‘terror’: a contrivance to shut down means to investigate and oppose that misrule. For it has not taken long for even the most objective patriots to call the Foley video out as being highly dubious – all the elements in a beheading that would be hard to fake are not shown in the footage.

Of course, the impression of  imminent danger stoking the absolute necessity of British government reaction is generated by the fact that the executioner in the questionable Foley-death video supposedly spoke with a British accent (although it is not an accent that the author hears spoken regularly). This will undoubtedly add fuel to the creeping narrative regarding British jihadists coming back from Syria to commit atrocities on the streets of the UK. Despite the country being surrounded by a body of water, the authorities regularly remind the public that there is little to be done to prevent this from happening. At the same time, incredibly, security services have a very good idea regarding the number of Britons fighting with IS. This implies the tracking of individuals – and yet these individuals very rarely seem to be recognised and dealt with. Furthermore, events developing from the Foley incident reveal that the authorities can identify suspects when there is a need to whip up a demonised hate figure for the child-like, arrested development members of the corporate-media audience (admittedly most of them) to fixate upon (note they will be fed an Establishment victory when Jihadi-John is caught).

A conclusion that one can make is that these individuals are at liberty to go and fight in Syria and Iraq, and then to return to the UK to be used as a terror threat, or to stay in theatre and be used as a cardboard cutout hate figure; in other words, they are working for the British intelligence agencies to provide the problem to which the assailing of British civil liberties will be a solution. Indeed, as in this story, corporate-media has reported on training in Syria run by al-Qaeda to turn Britons into eventual domestic terrorists, but what is never investigated in any meaningful way is how Britain is involved in the general feeding of recruits into the area – and in the actual training itself. The BBC recently exposed what was characterised as a unrealised plan for Britain to train thousands of mercenaries. In fact the production of the story looks like an effort to create plausible deniability for the reality of British, and US trained jihadists. It brings us full circle back to Abdel Hakim Belhadj , who represents the movement of a standing terrorist army into Syria, and who was known to MI5 as a trainer of militia.

With all this firmly in mind, the only real way that Britons can deal with any Islamist threat to their security is to target the real source – the British Establishment and its globalist corporate symbiotic master that creates war to redouble its tentacle hold on power and wealth. IS must be pulled up by the roots. It must be removed – by votes to remove the LibLabCon from Westminster, by the power of the purse to limit the capability of culpable corporations, and where possible by withdrawing consent to be subject to the British Establishment’s  jurisdiction.

CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’

Al-Qaeda terrorists airlifted from Libya to aid Syrian Opposition

Lebanon holds ship ‘carrying weapons for Syria rebels’