Category Archives: rolling

Tesco gets the bill for EU immigration – tries to pass it to customers

Although it encourages its customers to remember that “every little helps”, it seems that Tesco shoppers are still not helping enough. The multinational has been struggling with continued profit loss and, ironically, the old corporate desire to cast the net of profit-making overlordship far and wide and as cheaply as posible has lots to do with it; there is a correlation with Tesco’s active collaboration with and embracing of the invasion into the UK of Eastern European immigrants. Like other British corporate business, Tesco was keen to seize on global scale profit-making at the expense of local well-being, but somehow did not account for the consequential damage caused by the displacement of Britons out of work or into zero contract jobs. In short, Tesco’s perilous record of profit loss suggests its customer base has shrunk away from it and, with the growth of no-thrill competitors and even the Food Bank phenomena, many of the old shoppers can no longer afford Tesco prices.

Even before the accession into the EU of the ex-Warsaw Bloc A8 countries, Tesco supermarket was a cheerleader for the spread of the European superstate into the east. In a 2011 article at the predecessor to this site, Luikkerland, it was recorded how in 2002 the then-Tesco CEO, Sir Terry Leahy, was already an advocate of such EU expansion (and the article in question can be read here). The sentiment was one broadly shared across British corporate business which looked forward to exploiting a low skilled, low expectation work force. In addition, in 2006 the corporate-media made a record of how Tesco was at the time actively targeting the 600,000 Polish who had already arrived in the UK in the two years since 2004 (these numbers suggesting that the Polish in the UK in the year 2014 should probably be counted in millions).

Since then, the general level of wages has fallen, but far from ever being perceived as a problem for Tesco or any other big business, historical documentation shows that at the start of the 21st century, British corporations and big business welcomed this as an inevitable consequence of unfettered immigration. As the aforementioned archived article reports, in 2004 the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) predicted that “the arrival of migrant workers from the EU accession states will help to relieve upwards pressure on wages, without creating downward pressure”. Put succinctly, wages would stagnate because the newly arrived workforce which would receive them were already used to a pittance.

The CIPD analysis didn’t tell the whole story, however, and maybe reflected wishful thinking in the face of hard-nosed economic reality. If wages stay low against inflation, and in the context of an indebted population, then there is less disposable income. In particular, Tesco and other corporations looking to harvest the “Polish Pound” may not have accounted for what would be discovered later to be a tendency of the new work force – and that was to send billions of £s out of the British economy. On a wider scale, the fact that EU immigration generally costs Britons £3000 a year obviously has an impact on everyone’s disposable income.

The upshot seems to be that there has been considerable consequential economic damage that has hit Tesco particularly badly. Tesco’s shares have dropped some 30% over the last three years  and are now close to a 10-year low. News of the 6% reduction in Tesco’s underlying pre-tax profits in the last financial year is relatively hot off the presses. Relative to two years ago, Tesco’s profits have seen a dent of £500million. Shareholders are up in arms.

The chief cause of Tesco’s woes – although many other causes are proposed – must be the general decline in the standard of living in the UK; this is evidenced by the way shoppers have abandoned Tesco to shop at the bargain-basement rate chains of Aldi and Lidl, and this competition is recognised in a recovery plan devised by new Tesco leadership. However, nothing quite demonstrates the plight of British people in the context of the open borders that Tesco has  advocated more than the growing number of Food Banks – and herein is signified the real source of not just Tesco’s, but all of British corporate-business’ current and future problems.

Britons have been displaced out of work or into zero contract jobs at the same time as the introduction of what some would call a callous welfare administration – not to mention general austerity measures. All the while, real income remains deflated thanks to a combination of factors. Even if an inflation rate is kept to a target, as the Government may be able to boast, it still produces a negative effect on prices if wages are not kept in line. This is certainly the case, and undoubtedly related to EU immigration (the Labour leader thought it was advantageous to admit to the relationship in 2011, but generally the corporate-media, which is full of types that want to see Britain fundamentally altered, doesn’t like to acknowledge this particular reality). Unemployment that is measured in terms of how many job vacancies are filled will always paint a rosy picture if many of those jobs are part time, and there is a glut of labour from other countries to fill the positions. However, the laws of the universe, let alone economics, dictate that when there is a surfeit of one thing, then it is not as valuable as when there is a deficit.

Cynically, Tesco has tried to capitalise on what are the real signatures of the parlous state of the British economy, and since 2012, has been involved in a scheme which appears, in the context of its year-on-year failure, as an attempt to access and make good from what is surely the growing charity-industry of food banks. Not only is there much money in good causes, but grabbing a stake in this one must be for Tesco about recouping lost business. Customers are encouraged, in store, to make donations to food banks, which, in the corporate cold light of day, is a marketing ploy to create sales. But such is the out-in-the-open brazen and bold-faced chutzpah of corporate outfits such as Tesco. The sudden appearance in the UK of a wide spread need for free food is something that Tesco, in its advocacy of the invasion of the UK, has had a hand in creating. Thus Tesco has received the bill for its treachery, but still expects its oblivious and deceived customers to pay for it.

The ongoing psyop to promote the Tories featuring the evisceration of UKIP’s Newark success

ukip_resultsThe image accompanying this article is a representation of the results of last week’s Newark by-election. It shows five bars in a graph; three of them have grown below the line; two have grown above the line. The bar that is most prominent is the one that represents support for UKIP, and relative to all the other bars, it is the measure of that party’s success at last week’s Newark by-election.

When it came to the corporate-media’s interpretation of  this data, however, there was a unanimous reaction across the so-called political spectrum; in one way, at least, this contrived interpretation chimed with the natural one, the data did indeed signify a failure for three parties, and great success for one. However, in an Orwellian shearing away from rational thinking, according to the corporate-media, it was the Tory Party who had been the most successful. Granted, that party had won the Newark by-election, but then they had been  expected to win. But in terms of most (spectacularly) improved, they had not performed the best.

The corporate-media would also have its consumers believe that that there was one party amongst the other three failures who did worst of all. Perusal of the chart shows that their judgment in this matter was surprising; it was not the Lib Dems who were the most miserable failure, as the data seems to tell. No. In fact, that party would be UKIP. Indeed, in the days after Newark, the media, across the entire so-called spectrum, described UKIP as finished – a spent force. This was such a very strange response that even in the most disinterested it really must have caused the raising of an eyebrow or two (or else there is no hope for this country).

This author holds that the Establishment was conspiring amongst its parts to try to create a Tory government in 2015 (and that this has been going on for a while – thus it is continuing). Those readers who think this idea is a wild one should consider that the likes of Peter Hitchens have noticed that there has been, in this election season of May and June, a tendency for all corporate-media, whichever side of the political spectrum, to lionise the Tories: “London media spent the first half of the week claiming that Ed Miliband was the one in trouble”. He blamed the collaboration on a desire to present a unified promotion of Blairism, with Cameron representing its latest incarnation – and its hope into the future. Assumedly, in this scheme of things, the controlling hub of the operation would be Conservative Central Office.

In my opinion, the conspiracy was coordinated from a place in Government well above party dividing lines; a place that has historically been commissioned to use information to manipulate audiences both domestic and foreign for the benefit of the survival of the real British Government – by which is not meant the people in parliament, but the institutions (the corporate body of the monarchy), and financier funders and string-pullers. Getting to the crux, therefore, we are talking about an operation conducted by British intelligence agencies. This is difficult to prove, of course, but there have been revelations in the past that give outsiders an idea as to how this happens (David Shayler, for instance). Also recently very revealing has been the individual activities of some journalists, both American and British, with regards to NATO activity in Libya and Syria, underneath a broad corporate-media unity of propaganda that was exposed as such and countered by alternative media sources. This recent experience has suggested a too close connection between Anglo-American journalism and the realisation of real military tactical objectives. Besides which, the journalist in circumstances of war as a propagandist for his government is something that is not entirely unknown in history. The possibility that certain journalists are connected with intelligence agencies should not seem implausible.

Critics might say “that may be so, but there is no war between UKIP and the Establishment that the latter should bring all its intelligence assets to bear against UKIP”. Unfortunately, this is not correct. There is a war going on in the UK;  there is an information war for the power to influence the population and through it decide our collective destiny. In Civil War terms (which is what we are perhaps in a long phony stage of) the Country wants sovereignty, as is its right, the Court (or Establishment) wants to collaborate with off-shore powers to deny the Country. In this information war, we should expect attempts at psychological manipulation of the like that we see when the government is trying to create consensus for real physical war, or to convince a population at war to accept the associated deprivations.

The ongoing promotion of the Tory Party, and the rubbishing of UKIP, is such a psychological operation being executed by the Establishment in the information war that is currently raging. The Newark component of this psyop was potentially devastating because it could have seen the May/June election season terminate with the impression being given to the electorate that UKIP had failed (even though they had not). I suspect that the Tories knew very well that Newark, being too safe a seat, would not be lost. Meanwhile, the level of UKIP’s insurgency meant that no other party could sneak in to win. The enormous activity in the area by Tory High Command was not so much to ensure the win, but to ensure a respectable gap. This too was psychological, because it made it look as if the Tories were worried about UKIP – like they believed UKIP could win (UKIP’s losing would therefore have all the more significance). All the big Cabinet names that visited made it look as though the Tories were vulnerable. The truth was, UKIP was going to get judo-thrown by its own EU election success. To nail the psyop, all the Tories would need was blanket corporate-media co-operation after the event to sell the idea that UKIP had been counter-attacked and not only lost the encounter, but had lost the war.

The very first in the sequence of events that brought about the opportunity for such a psyop was very suspicious; it was the timing of the resignation as an MP or Patrick Mercer (Wikipedia coverage here). On the 29th April he announced that as he had done something wrong, then honour dictated he should go. However, it should be noted that he had previously decided that it was ok to sit as an independent MP for nearly a year since his questions for cash scandal blew up. This exercised the likes of Zac Goldsmith who were wondering why Cameron’s promised mechanism of recall wasn’t in place to remove Mercer. “If it’s bad enough for you to resign from your party, how can it be ok to continue representing constituents at all?” asked Goldsmith. This point is crucial. My answer to the question would be that the Mercer problem offered an opportunity, and it needed to be put on the shelf until the resultant by-election could be used most effectively by the Tories.

The excuse for Mercer to finally leave his office was news that the Committee on Standards would recommend he be suspended from the House of Commons for six months. The way this news arrived was also suspicious in itself. It was due on 30th April, but it was leaked on the 29th – apparently prompting Mercer to act a day earlier than he might have otherwise. This timing might have had everything to do with the fact that the Moving of Writs (the initial event in the process of calling a by-election) tend to happen on a Thursday. I gather that this is not set in stone, but the process for other recent by-elections has commenced on that particular day of the week also (Eastliegh [Thursday 7th Feb 2013], and Croydon, Middlesbrough and Rotherham [Thursday 8th November 2012]). In this case, the writ was moved on 1st May. If parliament is anything like the courts where certain business seems to get done on certain days, arguably, the early resignation avoided a week’s delay. I suspect that this doesn’t sound like much to be worried about by the man on the street, but to generals conducting a war, timing is everything.

There does not seem to be an official time limit for the moving of the writ after a Westminster seat has become vacant. The Parliament website says that it can take up to 3 months; 6 months has been known, and if a general election is close, the seat can even remain vacant. When the writ is moved, however, there is model timetable under the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, and the Newark by-election seemed to follow this. Essentially, the Moving of the Writ defined the polling day.

Notice, Mercer’s eventual punishment, had he had remained, would have been suspension and not permanent banishment; resignation sometimes pre-empts the heave-ho, but not in this case. Having already announced he was stepping down for the 2015 election, Mercer took a hint that some people didn’t want him even until then. Arguably, therefore, Mercer did not need to step down, but got a nod to do so; even then, his seat may have remained vacant for a longer period; but instead events coincided so that a by-election could be held in the week after the results of the EU elections has been announced. This was very sensitive timing indeed.

The next event of interest was an interview by the BBC of Nigel Farage on the evening of 29th April during a public meeting in Bath. There are lots of these meetings where there is no corporate-media in attendance, but this time the BBC was in town apparently, if a day-time interview now posted on YouTube is anything to go by, to gauge his reaction to something said about Lenny Henry (so presenting Farage with more dodgy evidence of the UKIP’s racism – which had become usual fare). In another later interview, which seems to be from the site of the UKIP meeting, Farage was asked about the news of the upcoming Newark by-election triggered by Mercer’s resignation. Farage revealed that he hadn’t given it proper consideration. In a question, the journalist asked if Farage was “seriously tempted” to stand in the election, Farage replied “oh yes I’m tempted”.

The next day, in the Daily Mail for instance, this became

“Ukip leader Nigel Farage said last night he would ‘seriously’ consider standing himself”.


“David Cameron faces the prospect of a nightmare by-election showdown with Nigel Farage after shamed Tory MP Patrick Mercer quit last night.

“His decision will spark a Tory showdown with Ukip this summer in what is normally a safe Conservative seat in Newark, Nottinghamshire.”

Notice; although the Conservative seat is usually safe, it offers a nightmare by-election showdown for Cameron. The Mail’s reporting is all in doublethink – unless the idea was to present the notion that only Farage himself of any UKIP candidate was capable of winning. Only this circumstance would prove the nightmare for Cameron.

That the seat came to be considered bait for Farage is perhaps suggested more by the reaction of corporate-media and LibLabCon politicians when Farage let it be known that he would not stand. To say that these critics were disappointed is an understatement. The corporate-media was full of name-calling; Farage was a “bottler”. This was obviously a talking point – a centrally scripted meme regarding a topic illustrating how Establishment propaganda outlets must deal with an issue. When Farage took the trouble to deny “bottling” the fight in Newark, in the passive aggressive way of the modern politician, David Cameron made a disparaging reference to him during a flimsy radio interview; he had been holding forth on the subject of being pelted with eggs (this is what passes for politics in popular culture). This was translated in the Telegraph as a taunt. “David Cameron: Nigel Farage is a chicken”.

What this individual reaction probably denotes most of all is frustration from someone who was clear about the potential of certain events culminating in certain ways and not others; Farage was not going to be set up for the fall that had been intended for him. Although the corporate-media, and LibLabCon politicians could still make a certain amount of hay, Farage would not offer the opportunity to be pilloried as a loser.

It must be said, because hindsight is all very well, that this author certainly felt at the time that there had been an effort to entice UKIP to abandon its pre-laid battle plans; Farage had been going to direct the EU elections, not peel off to focus on Newark. Again, this was the Establishment using principles of warfare: the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans. In this case, Sun Tzu was also talking about manoeuvring ones enemy into a position conducive for counter attack. Of course, all this fighting would be done psychologically.

In actual fact, the Tories did achieve the objective of putting UKIP into a position where they could be counter-attacked after the EU elections – UKIP had no control over this. Unfortunately, the psyop ultimately failed because of Farage’s decision not to fight the seat. In addition, lately Roger Helmer has been rewarded by the twenty three other UKIP MEPs with the leadership of their delegation in the EU Parliament; this isn’t what happens to a man who is considered to be a loser. The UKIP conference that came on the heels of the elections was attended by people who didn’t feel as if they had lost anything. The best news of all is that people with vision in UKIP are seeing possibilities as suggested to them by the elections – nothing short of a UKIP strategy for victory in 2015. The Establishment Newark psyop has certainly not dented UKIP resolve or optimism.

At the closure of this lengthy article, it’s very briefly worth remembering that psychological operations are something that the British Government organises in places like Iraq, Libya and Syria to aid in the overthrow of sovereign governments, and to keep the occupied population suppressed. That the British people find themselves subject to the same treatment tells us something very important: the British Government sees the British people as an enemy to be dominated. In terms of applying this dominance in the context of the so-called civilised Home Counties, it is all about making sure that people are deceived into thinking that they are free to choose, and have good options to choose from; if the reader cannot get his or her head around psyops, at least this much must ring true. Having said that, that reader should really take it upon him or herself to understand, sooner rather than later, the real truth is that the LibLabCon British Establishment surely is the worst enemy of the British people that exists today on the planet, or indeed ever did exist.

UKIP’s Newark vote and lessons from recent by-election history

According to the corporate-media, on Friday morning after the Newark by-election UKIP was a spent force. Of course, this triumphalism was only to be expected; the British Establishment wants the British People to believe that there is no solution or alternative to the status quo. The rule of war being applied is the one whereby fighting must be avoided if your army is not fit to do it, and victory should be gained psychologically instead. Likewise, the LibLabCon is not fit to fight because it cannot win most arguments on any point of policy from its alien culturally-Marxist, pro-EU, anti-British stance and attitude. Because it cannot execute a straight fight, it will try to convince its enemy in the field – UKIP -  to surrender through psychology, and the corporate-media is its tool.

So let it be understood that the corporate-media is like a microscopic man with a bull-horn. It’s like one of those microbial Whos of Dr Seuss directing the Elephant Horton. There are divisions of the corporate-media aimed at particular sorts of Briton; the Telegraph, for instance, is aimed at those living in 1970s-surburbia-bubble-fantasia. The Guardian is for people who would react against that, perhaps.

Through the mega-phone of the corporate-media, the Newark victory has been given more resonance because the Tories have not won a by-election while in office since 1989 when William Hague scraped in at Richmond (what a blinding act of oblivious cruelty that was – a gift to the world for which many Syrians, Libyans and Ukranians must be very grateful). The Tories, you see, never win by-elections while in office; thus is Newark such an extraordinary and rare event (UKIP’s ‘loss’ is inversely proportional). However, when you look at those intervening losing by-election results – and in particular the ones that have percentage share swaps of the like we saw in Newark where UKIP gained 22% of the vote – there is an interesting pattern.

From 1990 to 1993, it appears that voters merely swapped across from the Tories to the Lib Dems. Given that it was generally considered that Labour were wild and unelectable, this was surely the discouraged Tory vote trying out a new home with a tiny and safe step to the (perceived) Left. It was the Protest Vote – the same that UKIP’s success is wrongly and optimistically attributed to  these days. Come 1994, and there was a bigger act of inhumanity to Man than that of the election of William Hague; Tony Blair became Labour Party leader. Incredible as it may now seem, Corporate-fascist Labour became a plausible destination for voters fed up with the Tories. In Dudley West that year, the percentage swap went straight from the Tories to Blair’s altered Labour Party-nouveau. But the most interesting result was in 1995 and in Littleborough and Saddleworth. The Lib Dems won the seat, but the switch-across went to Labour; Phil Woolas added 14.9% to the previous tally. When the electoral boundaries were later changed, Woolas would be elected as MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth in the 1997 General Election.

Thereafter the biggest swap around in the by-elections lost by the Tories happened in South East Staffordshire in 1996, with a 22% gain for Labour, and then in Wirral South in 1997, with an 18% gain for Blair’s party.

Clearly, what had happened is that the Labour Party had achieved some credibility as a prospective governing party under Blair (albeit, as it would turn out, through outright deception), that the Lib Dems had not been able to acquire for themselves, and became the party of destination for voters deserting the Tories. The by-election of 1995 was a missing-link moment where despite a big swing to Labour, the base support had not already been present in the constituency to build upon. It perhaps needs to be suggested that this is what happened to UKIP at Newark on Thursday night. Furthermore, as electoral history also shows us, when UKIP repeat that 20+ percentage increase performance in places where it has previously been able to create a foundation, or where there is a much smaller starting LibLabCon majority beyond which the swing will convey them, the party will take the seat. More crucially, that history also suggests that to become a party of power, UKIP has to become perceived in the generally politically-obtuse masses as the party to which people can swap to without perturbing any of the psychological constructions regarding party-affiliation that they may possess (these perhaps being more significant than actual policies in many cases). The good news is that UKIP is already doing this, and in a way that is more dynamic than the way Labour was able to win voters from a post-Thatcher Tory Party. UKIP appeals to people supposedly ensconced across the political spectrum (exposing the divide and conquer left/right paradigm into the bargain).

Therefore, in stark contrast to the triumphant corporate-media which heralded UKIP’s demise on Friday morning, and the cock-a-doodling Grant Shapps who single-handedly angered, and motivated millions with his Orwellian statements about gaining votes signifying a going backwards, the result in Newark was in fact a sign post to a fantastic UKIP future. There is only one proviso, however; any sign post that points to a destination represents a distance to traverse, and that means hard work (in one form or another). In fact, there may have been a sense in any disappointment that UKIP supporters or members may have had on Friday morning that there was still so much hard work to do after all the travail so far expended; but look at it in perspective: UKIP only wants to free the country from a cartel who have had a death-lock stranglehold for over a hundred years. Of course it is going to take a lot of work.

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.

Reminding us that ours is a government of thugs with book-burning tendencies

There is nothing that the corporate-media likes to do more than be able to present a case of a state primary school where none of the children speaks English as a first language, but which still gets top ratings by school inspectors. It’s supposed to train native Britons that they are second rate to immigrants – and it’s all a huge hoax. The Government’s approval of a school’s ability to “educate” children is worthless because the whole point of the state education system is to dumb UK citizenry down.

Getting good Ofsted results reflects the schools ability to deploy Marxist conditioning techniques (see here for example), and generally bewilder a child rather than instil him with a command of his environment. The cultural and economic vandalism that is British state primary and secondary education, followed by attendance at inauspicious and low-grade university, is hidden in plain view, and remains secreted until it is glimpsed from a perspective which has knowledge of corporate-government’s designs for society. Such is the confidence of the ruling elite (and its wannabes) that Britons will remain oblivious of their own intellectual castration, they feel quite at liberty to make public references to it.

Most recently the Tory Party candidate in the Eastleigh by-election, Maria Hutchings, caused a stir by seeming to claim that her 12-year-old son was too talented or ambitious for the local comprehensive schools: “William is very gifted, which gives us another interesting challenge in finding the right sort of education for him – impossible in the state system. He wants to be a cardio-respiratory surgeon”.

The Establishment, which wants low standards for the masses in order to baffle them and make them easier to control, was predictable in its response, but can perhaps be best summarised by the utterances of the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, who in a piece of fake left/right theatre, insisted that Hutchings had insulted every pupil and teacher at state schools “including those in Eastleigh.”

But the scandal in this case was not that Hutchings had hurt the feelings of some inadequate teachers or conditioned children; what was horrific for the likes of Miliband was that she let the truth slip out. There is also no scandal in Hutchings wanting the best for her children to the detriment of anything that government has arranged for her. The scandal here is that society has been engineered, especially by the Tories who abolished grammar schools, so that people who are not already in the upper-middle and upper ruling classes cannot obtain membership through their own efforts, nor without becoming beholden to powerful controlling interests. The truth of the matter, as Hutchings revealed, is that state education is just not intended to catapult council estate children into careers as journalists, surgeons, politicians, judges or any other position in the top and ruling rank of British society.

As for education at UK universities that aren’t in the global top lists – meaning anything else but Oxford and Cambridge, and perhaps a handful of others – Iain Duncan Smith recently made an illustrative remark after his flagship back-to-work scheme was ruled legally flawed. Seemingly annoyed because his will to rule had been challenged, and perhaps letting his power-maniacal tendencies get the better of him, Duncan Smith (as the Daily Mail reports) “issued a direct rebuke to university graduate Cait Reilly, 24, from Birmingham, who has a degree in geology and challenged having to work for free at a local Poundland discount store or face losing jobless benefits”.

The incredible admonishment came as Duncan Smith spoke on BBC television last month, and accompanied a revelatory comment about what the ruling elite actually thinks of university education, and its worth for betterment:

Most young people love this [work] programme and I am sorry but there are a group of people out there who think they are too good for this kind of stuff…

The next time these smart people who say there’s something wrong with this go into their supermarket, ask themselves this simple question: when they can’t find the food on the shelves, who is more important: them, the geologist or the person who’s stacked the shelves.

This comment provoked a response from the Geological Society of London which pointed out that “without geologists, there would be no way to supply supermarkets with produce, no transport for customers or staff – no shelves, in fact.” The society said that it was surprised at what Duncan Smith had had to say, but in fact, no one should be surprised. Britain’s current government is a corporate government, or in other words, a fascist government, and Duncan Smith’s comments illustrates that it is every bit as much a government of book-burning thugs as any Marxist-derived totalitarianism that came to power in the 20th century.

In a free country a university education is supposed to be valued as a means for the betterment of citizens to improve the condition of the common wealth. However, by his comments Duncan Smith shows that he and his ilk do not think very highly of what intelligent people, who otherwise would be destined to stack supermarket shelves or do other menial labour, can achieve with a proper education. This is not to say that Duncan Smith undervalues the universities themselves, he just knows that they are not supposed to produce a challenge to the corrupt hegemony, and as such is entirely dismissive (he was equally dismissive and in the same sneering way ahead of the  Eastleigh by-election result when he indicated to a RT reporter that UKIP was like a harmless toy dog around his ankles). In fact, it became clear to this author soon after the Coalition Government came to office in 2010 that universities were only valued by the ruling class as factories for producing minions for corporations or government; there is no concern for enlightenment in the tradition of Renaissance Humanism or the Reformation.

Without having enough leading members who can understand the Western human condition through its real Judeo-Christian historical experience, or by applying a real scientific approach – rather than through a Marxist (made trendy) construct or through post-normal consensus-based science – our society has become ruled by self-elected mega business technocrats (not meritocrats), and political minions, who are without scruple and only convinced of their right to dictate truth or to rule; this is why Duncan Smith seems to think that Britons should accept their own exploitation and have no right in law to protect themselves from it, and becomes incensed when Britons challenge his and the thuggish corporate-government’s book-burning activities.

Are soaring Coalition parties about to crash on landing at Eastleigh?

According to conventional wisdom the upcoming Eastleigh by-election is a close-run two-horse race between the partners in the Coalition Government – and two opinion polls in the last month seem to confirm this. Much is made, in the slavish corporate-media – and with many a flourish – about the fake fall-out between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. However, in the detail of the opinion poll conducted by Lord Ashcroft, the data indicated a very large percentage of undecided voters who could enable UKIP to reel in the Establishment parties should they decide to lodge a protest vote (or even move their permanent support to the party). The performance of UKIP in last year’s Corby by-election in relation to another Lord Ashcroft poll conducted there – which also showed similar numbers of respondents who didn’t know who they would vote for, or “don’t knows” – was spectacularly well above expectations. The same could very well happen again in Eastleigh, and with dramatic effects.

Earlier this month Lord Ashcroft’s polling company conducted a poll of the voting intentions of the people of Eastleigh, and the headline figures that were published were as follows:

Conservative 34%, Labour 19%, Liberal Democrat 31%, Other parties 16% (UKIP 13%).

These figures were generated after some considerable manipulation. In the unweighted, basic responses, only 51% of respondents named a party; the rest either didn’t know for whom they would vote (29%), refused to answer (8%), or stated a preference for not voting (12%). In this particular data set, the raw poll results actually looked very different to the headline figures, and clearly demonstrated the significance of those undecided votes:

Conservative 15%, Labour 11%, Liberal Democrat 17%, UKIP 6%, Greens 1%.

As the author tirelessly tries to point out, the purpose of opinion polls is to project the status quo into the future by astonishing acts of statistical manipulation that shape the perception of the consumer of the poll and cause a belief that LibLabCon dominance is inevitable. But once again, as can be clearly seen here, the stated level of what is presented as committed support for all the Establishment parties in the headlines is very different indeed from the raw data.

Under the calm exterior of the corporate-media, which has been presenting the Eastleigh by-election as a formality, there is recognition of the raw data reality, and the prospect of the “don’t knows” turning to UKIP. In the Guardian, there was guarded allowance for the possibility of a shock result, with the key revelatory indicator words being “most bets” and “off”:

Let’s be absolutely clear, as ever, that the consensus may be wrong. In the national opinion polls that have reported this week, the Lib Dems are on 12% or less, which means they are at least 12 points down on the 24% they scored across Britain in 2010. In the same national polls, Labour is at least eight points up on 2010 and the Tories at least five points down. And one national poll has Ukip on 14%. If opinion shifts on that scale were reflected at Eastleigh, and especially if there were any sort of a late surge towards one of the challengers, most bets would be off. And a lot can happen in a week.

In the Independent, there was some more clarification. The “challengers” mentioned in the Guardian piece weren’t going to be Labour:

Voters said they saw the contest as a Tory and Lib Dem fight with the protest vote was going not to Labour but to Ukip.

And that is the real wild card in this election. Driving around Eastleigh Ukip looks to have the second largest number of campaign posters up in gardens and windows and growing support from the ’none of the above’ protest vote that used to benefit the Lib Dems in by-elections.

There is something in the idea that UKIP would benefit from people abandoning the Lib Dems. In the last week alone, Lib Dem controlled Eastleigh council bitterly disappointed many people by giving the go ahead for hundreds of new houses in rural parts of the borough (with UKIP being the only party who are opposed to building to accomodate immigration). A former Liberal Democrat mayor even defected to UKIP. Survation’s opinion poll of 10th February showed the switching of allegiance to UKIP being greater from the Lib Dems than from the Tories. Indeed, a fight between the Lib Dems and UKIP might benefit the Tories, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. In what is being called an embarrassment when the corporate-media bothers to cover it, when Boris Johnson came to town looking for that 15% who would definitely vote Tory, he couldn’t find them (see link above).

The only question that remains to be asked is what the extent could be of the move in support to UKIP? It’s hardly scientific, but the results of, and the opinion polling approaching the Corby by-election could be examined to obtain a general idea; Corby was also subject to a Lord Ashcroft poll. As this site discovered at the time, it was in the detail of the Lord Ashcroft poll for Corby where a more representative figure could be found in terms of the actual by-election result. Could the equivalent data for Eastleigh similarly point to something more akin to what could be expected in the by-election there?

The data that needs to be looked at in this context is the percentages after the “don’t knows” and other non-responses have been taken out; for Eastleigh, this gives these figures (which could be weighted with a factor representing certainty to vote):

Conservative 33%, Labour 21%, Liberal Democrat 29%, UKIP 15%.

The “don’t knows” for Eastleigh are of a similar percentage as they were at Corby (27%) where UKIP’s actual result saw an improvement of 133% upon the relevant polled figure. Applying the same to Eastleigh, UKIP could be on course for 20% of the vote, which would be a victory whatever else happened. And if the trend is repeated in Eastleigh as it was in Corby, whereby support for the other three patries falls off in the translation between this raw/semi-processed data and the headline figures, then UKIP could very well beat Labour – and Survation has predicted as much (see link above). Moreover, UKIP could move very close – within single digits – to the Liberal Democrats and the Tories, and if drop off of support for those two parties has accelerated since Corby, things could get very interesting indeed.

In the UK the few are protected in legislation while most not protected by law

In recent weeks I’ve been involved in a dispute over the terms of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement (AST). I won’t get into the details, but the upshot is that these things are not really contracts whereby the reasonable pre-contractual expectations of the tenant translate into implied terms.

Apparently, a tenant must insist on implied terms being enshrined explicitly; all very well, but what sort of landlord is going to allow that to happen? An AST is for the purposes of making sure that the landlord can kick the tenant out when he wants to, and to make sure that the tenant pays rent for at least 6 months. If you take a look at a standard one, there are pages and pages of conditions by which the tenant has to comply, and a few paragraphs that stipulate the landlord’s obligations. One of these is to do repairs, and another is to allow the tenant to live undisturbed at the premises. Both of these are requirements in legislation and law outside of the agreement in any case. Any other rights pertaining to him that the tenant thinks are quite obviously implied in the terms, by property legislation, do not actually exist.

Most private tenants have ASTs these days, which is mighty convenient for the increasingly corporate buy-to-let conglomerates with their real estate agent partners/sub-divisions who seem to be stitching up the private rental market. And the reader will be interested to note that ASTs are a relatively new kind of lease that are about as old as our current corporate-government. I’m not saying that there has ever been a time when civil rights have ever been properly reflected in a lease – I don’t know this; what I am saying is that this amounts to another case of what one sees over again in this country: the rich and powerful are protected in legislation more than the poor and humble are protected in law. The reality underneath the illusion in the UK is that the British are not free; they are called subjects after all (and some idiots feel proud about it). The Establishment, empowered by the money of its corporate members (with their vested interests), writes legislation to overrule law, and then uses its apparatus of state to enforce it. It is a cartel of gangsters.

Kate, who also has a reputation amongst online Royal watchers  for too-readily presenting onlookers with what is known as a "crotch-shot", wearing a bikini on a previous holiday in Ibiza (censored for consumption in the United Kingdom).

Kate, who also has a reputation amongst online Royal watchers for too-readily presenting onlookers with what is known as a “crotch-shot”, wearing a bikini on a previous holiday in Ibiza (censored for consumption in the United Kingdom).

Here is another example. It seems that the woman Middleton has been at it again. Being pictured on a beach at Mustique, this time the “Duchess of See-thru-nightee” at least resisted her evident natural predilection for getting her knorks out.

The relatively harmless (by modern standards) image of her in a bikini was all too much for St James’ Palace, however, who said that the emergence of photos of her and William strolling in the sand was “a clear breach of the couple’s right to privacy.”

Once again it seems that the woman can appear in a public place with her flesh exposed, and the slaves are not supposed to notice. The editor of the Australian magazine Woman’s Day, Fiona Connolly, could not agree. She published the images, and had this to say about it: “This is not a hard decision? Kate’s on a public beach, [and] there are other holiday-makers there”.

In Britain, the supposed free-press has been rather less independent. The corporate-media apparently instantly decided to self-censor, and not publish the images. The grovelling submission to the whim of the dictators who live in royal palaces in London reached a pathetic height in the MailOnline where although they printed the front cover of the infamous Italian Chi magazine, they placed a black-out over the whole frame containing the image (rather than place straps in strategic places inside the image so that Middleton could still be identified). In fact, it was rather reminiscent of how they used to put brown paper bags over the magazines on the top shelves in your local newsagent when you were a kid.

Then there was Eamonn Holmes, who had to issue an apology because ITV made a mistake and showed the un-redacted Chi cover: “This was a regrettable error and the programme apologises unreservedly to the Duke and Duchess”, snivelled Holmes.

Of course, this is all very astonishing. The privacy of the “Duke and Duchess of Gots-to-get-nayked” cannot be breached if they go out into the public domain where people have eyes to see them. On the other hand, when the government spies of the little man when he is using the internet to make private transactions, then right there is a real breach of privacy. Where are the unreserved apologies from the State about the routine privacy violations that they subject upon the little people? Nowhere, of course. It’s never a breach of our privacy because the associated legislation that has empowered the State always overrides our rights. If you keep voting for gangsters, then this is the natural outcome.

What this is really all about is that the Establishment has a problem in that Kate Middleton, the future Queen of a modernised and trendee Monarchy, has achieved a reputation for being a) shiftless (her only ambition having been to marry royalty), and b) naked (this website is very illuminating). These are not good attributes to have if a Queen is supposed to project an image of industriousness and probity so as to inspire awe and worship in stupid people (I should call them suggestable, or something, and pity them for their weakness, but there are limits to one’s patience). Kate Middleton has sort of gone beyond the capability of the Establishment’s power to shape perception though. There is only so much that can be done so as to help the stupid people understand Middleton like the Establishment wants them to understand her. What remains is only good old fashioned censorship.

Secondly, while the lowly people’s prospects are getting bashed by deliberate vandalism of the economy by the same Establishment, we are not supposed to see the high-living at our expense of Kate Middleton and “Prince Not-bright-enough-for-Art-History” (which is not a sleight upon a wonderful discipline in which there is much to gain if you are bright).

So, what you are seeing here in this episode is a small hint of the corruption of the Establishment. They do things that they don’t want us to see in case it makes us upset. When we do see the offence, and they can’t manage to tell us that we aren’t actually seeing what we think we are seeing, then they just block it from our view, and cover-up. They then cite legislation, or some regulation upon the media, and tell us that we don’t have any right to see how we are being abused. Hence, they continue to feed upon us, protected as they are by the statutes that they wrote to protect themselves.

Well, we have the law through possession of God-given rights. It’s superior to their legislation. The only reason that they continue to get away with their fraud is because we don’t get en masse into the arena and insist upon our rights (it would also help not to vote for criminals, and reject the corporate-media to boot). It doesn’t matter if we lose our fight; all that matters is that we have challenged them, and we will continue to challenge them, so that finally, by the weight of our numbers and our efforts, we can overwhelm them. If we do that, we are free in the process, and we will be free at the end.

Daily Mail: Invasion is nice, and immigration is harmful to the invaders

An article that appeared today at the MailOnline indicates that the Establishment is starting to try to manage the Eastern European immigration disaster (of its own making that is set to overtake it). Robert Hardman is the fawning author of many a book about the Queen; he is therefore dedicated in his ‘literary’ career to maintaining the British dictatorship, and, pretending to be a conservative, is a leading figure in the Mail’s Judas Goat stable (along with the likes of Max Hastings). Hardman was packed off to Boston to create an impression that Eastern Europeans are good for the town, and that the invasion of Boston thus far is a little bit disgruntling, but on the whole does not perturb Bostonians too much.

The first time that we should realise that his is a propaganda piece is when Hardman sends a decoy to all his readers in the very first sentences: ‘there is little talk of “multi-culturalism” here in Boston’, he says, ‘instead, everyone…  talks about “immigration”’.

There are two things to deal with here. First of all, in one sense, it seems as if Hardman is saying that multi-culture is not a hot topic of discussion that Bostonians are  not ‘mincing their words’ about; on the other hand, immigration is. Is that true, though? The following statement is an excerpt from the article, and from the leader of the Tory-controlled council, Mr Peter Bedford:

You walk round town and you hear these loud foreign voices everywhere.You go into the local doctor’s surgery and you have a lot of locals sitting quietly as a loud foreign voice tries to deal with the receptionist. So people think: ‘They’re taking over’.

Language is very much culture, and Boston is multi-cultural, and Bostonians are conscious of their own ways being displaced. But the use of words and phrasing in Hardman’s opening is for the purposes of wanting readers to think that the issue is not about multi-culture and all the inherent dangers, but just about some white people complaining that other white people are coming to the town from abroad and taking their jobs. The Establishment relies on the results it gets by the racial prejudice that it stokes – and British acceptance of culturally damaging Eastern Europeans just because they are ‘white’ is one of them.

Secondly, there is the setting up of an apparent contradiction that gets explained below. Bostonians, Hardman implies, are supposed to have little time for multi-culture, and are against immigration. However, this cannot be true because we are also later told that Bostonians are super tolerant of the inundation of immigrants who bring with them their different culture (Hardman is ‘surprised by the lack of animosity’ caused by the invasion).

Hardman provides evidence. The local school (full of Progressive Zealots, of course) is 100% happy about the immigration. There is the native Bostonian father who is also happy with the school, even though two thirds of his daughter’s friends don’t speak English as a first language. There is also an English Democrat Party member who is in several business partnerships with the newcomers; he also owned Boston’s first Polish food shop. This local councillor’s name is Elliott Fountain, and he seems to do the usual thing in overlooking the need to fix the root cause, which is the overall deliberate obliteration of the economy by corporatism and a stinking welfare society. Elliott seems to thinks that there is not enough casual labour in the whole of the UK to pick cabbages from Boston fields. He seems to be worried that no Eastern Europeans in the agricultural sector would mean that specialist services for them would not exist in the town – by which he must be thinking of the many shops owned by Eastern Europeans (and funded by hypocrite English Democrats?) which the Tory council leader is very proud of. If it wasn’t for the Eastern European shops, Boston would look like any other economically depressed Anglian town; but nothing is mentioned about the decisions on a national level that have created the regional slump.

Then there is a contribution from Mike Gilbert, the Tory councillor in charge of communities, who is either dishonest or completely stupid. As if on cue, he rolls out the old ‘Britons are somehow too lazy’ mantra, and tells Hardman that he is particularly worried how Britain’s schools fail to prepare youngsters for the world of work:

We mollycoddle school-leavers like an endangered species and give them fistfuls of certificates and then wonder why they won’t take factory jobs… Why does this country put its own people on the subs’ bench, let others do the work and create an underclass which corrodes the rest of society?

The answer, oh wise Tory councillor, is the deliberate policies of your party when in Government.

Then there is the amazing fact that even though the local paper, the Boston Standard, lists two thirds of 21 criminals convicted at the magistrates’ court as having Eastern European names, because British names still lead the section for assaults (by how many, we do not know), then Eastern Europeans are still somehow saintly. The idea that Britons only commit one third of the town’s crime is conveniently glossed over and put out of focus.

The accommodating local police, we are told, flatly insist that migration has had no impact on the crime rate, but then they are the Guardians of the Marxist revolution, and it serves to remind that there is nothing coming from the Establishment that can be trusted. Local UKIP man, Bob McAuley, told Hardman that nearly all the contributors to the council’s immigration report (which asserted that Boston was coping with immigration from Eastern Europe, and that a lot of local complaints were unfounded) were ‘on the state payroll and thus had a vested interest in not rocking the boat’. To compound the perception of misrule by fear, Hardman mentions how ‘Bob bumps into two friends who work for the council. They share his views, but say that if I were to use their names for this article, they would be fired.’

Now, this sort of stuff is not indicative of a free country. In fact, it is the paraphernalia of a totalitarian state, and it’s useful in a propaganda piece that is on the surface complaining about such abuse because it offers a chilling effect. It says to the reader, this is what will happen to you too.

Of course, the Establishment’s propaganda writers can always also rely on the subtle demonization:

‘[The solution to immigration is] A padlock,’ says Mandy Exley firmly. ‘I’m not kidding. We haven’t got any more jobs.’

Blimey. Mandy is not a finger-wagging emissary from UKIP or a sepia-tinted reactionary. She is the much-respected ‘community cohesion officer’ for the Lincolnshire Community And Voluntary Service.

See how the UKIP is lumped together with something not savoury? Whatever a sepia-tinted reactionary is, it doesn’t sound very nice.

So, to sum up the article – and even though it doesn’t look like it amounts to this on the surface, Hardman is saying on behalf of the Establishment: everybody loves the Eastern Europeans – or else.

But to apply the final proof, we need to return to Hardman’s opening statements as discussed at the top of this. Who is it, exactly, that Hardman means when he says everyone is talking about immigration? Well, the answer, when one has previously noticed the sense of ownership over Britain that Eastern Europeans seem to possess, is not surprising:  ‘everyone…  talks about “immigration” – none more so, it seems, than the immigrants themselves’.

It goes on:

For as Britain prepares to open up the workplace and the welfare state to the people of Bulgaria and Romania at the start of next year, none will feel the impact more than all the recent arrivals from Poland, Latvia and Lithuania who have made Boston the most Eastern European town in Britain.

Ziedonis Barbaks, leader of Boston’s substantial Latvian community, points out: ‘The Romanians and Bulgarians will just repeat what happened before.

‘The [employment] agencies and gang-masters will start hiring them, at a lower cost, instead of the Polish and Latvians and Lithuanians. Then what?’

If that happens, Britain could find itself with a new welfare bombshell — supporting all those migrants displaced from the workplace as well as all the indigenous British who are out of it already.

You will notice that the voice of logic and valid protest is sounded in the article by an immigrant. Compare this with the way that we are told that the Boston Protest Group couldn’t stage a march because of  fears about ‘local tensions… spill[ing] over into violence’. This is a predictable device both in terms of associating certain rights with violence in propaganda, and also in terms of controlling physical demonstrations of opposition with weasel arguments. Protest isn’t violence, and it isn’t even the prospect of violence, and the Boston Protest Group should not let itself be suckered by local government that has nothing but vile intentions for native born Bostonians.

Getting back to Mr Barbaks – now he comes across in the rest of the article as a fellow who has possibly made an effort to engage his hosts; however, the fact is that Hardman has made a writer’s decision to have him give voice to certain eminently reasonable ideas and objections. This gives Mr Barbaks the sage authority in the piece above all the other councillors and social workers mentioned. On top of this, the events that Mr Barbaks fears will be caused to happen when Romanians and Bulgarians come to the UK have already happened to Britons, but that doesn’t count.

The message of this article is subtly delivered, and what Hardman is telling his audience is that it is the Eastern Europeans who need to be protected from immigration, and have a right to vocalise that need, and are cogent in that vocalisation. On the other hand, the British are already on the scrap heap. As such, the article is more of the same perception-shaping that is meant to make Britons feel like they don’t deserve a homeland and a nation state. And Hardman isn’t even expressing an honest sentiment of care for immigrants who are already here. In a few years time, the Establishment will claim that the Romanians and the Bulgarians will need protecting from other immigrants who will be willing to enter into slavery in order to enter the land of milk and honey. The Establishment hates everyone equally the same, and, loves its own privilege.

Poland’s corporate-types point and laugh at the laughing-stock that is Britain

The influx of hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans into Britain in recent years is clearly understood, by those who can apprehend the global-fascist hand behind the phenomenon, as a weapon against Britain. The official number of Poles in the UK in 2010 was reckoned to be in the region of 500,000, but this is bound to be a gross underestimation – the real number of Eastern Europeans in total in the UK cannot be reckoned. Furthermore, with the prospect of hundreds and thousands of heinously impoverished Bulgarians and Romanians due to move to the UK in 2014, it might become realistic to talk about immigration from Eastern Europe in terms of millions. Therefore, Britons are undoubtedly faced with a mass invasion of the Biblical sort whereby whole populations moved into foreign territories based on the premise of offering some benefit (therefore without having to resort to armed struggle), and then took over by force of numbers.

However, the invasion into Britain is not for the purposes of enriching those people who make the incursion, but for the purpose of empowering all corporate-types within the Western sphere of influence, not just those in the society of Polish Business Leaders who awarded Tony Blair this week for ‘helping Poland’ by opening British borders to the Polish. The invasion is also for enriching Britain’s own big business leaders and banking giants; both groups move the hand of Anglo-American global fascism with varying degrees of pressure. Britain is a country with historical wealth, a tradition of political self-awareness, and a unified sense of national identity that is an obstacle to full domination by the crony, corrupt, anti-competition corporate-government that ‘business leaders’ require, and so must be totally undone. Britons have already accepted the disastrous social welfare system, and the physical invasion of space now represents a second phase of this total dismemberment – and in the following, (non-exhaustive), ways:

  1. The creation of a balkanised Britain where varied language-speaking groups remain separate from and fight each other. Eastern Europeans are notoriously prejudiced against different ethnic types in Britain whose families originally hail from oversees territories; it’s a good certainty that the globalists want to see ‘race war’ in the UK as much as they do in the USA.
  2. The forcing down of wages and living conditions, and the abolishment of good working conditions by the employment of peoples from ex-Communist countries who are unaware of and unfamiliar with the expression of common law rights.
  3. The implosion of the economy by:
  • The diversion of resources in public services to deal with non-English speakers and people whose families in previous generations did not pay into the pot.
  • The payment of in-work benefits to non-British who displace Britons into unemployment.
  • The payment of out of work benefits to non-British who never paid into the pot.
  • The repatriation to Eastern Europe of huge swathes of economically valuable wages and benefits.

The British Government desires an impoverished, dissolute and divided British people so that it is easier to subjugate them, and the evidence of the truth of this ambition is in full view to anyone who cares to notice: take for instance the fact that Tony Blair’s golden statuette to reward him for his treason was accepted by Robin Barnett, Britain’s serving ambassador in Poland. The message was clear: the invasion is not Blairite; instead it is a conspiracy between British Establishment and politicians past and present to create that which is desirable and beneficial for power-brokers whether they be from home or abroad.

Tony Blair’s award was savaged by Tory MP Philip Hollobone as ‘entirely appropriate’, and made inevitable references to the last time Britain was invaded and conquered:

Tony Blair presided over the biggest wave of immigration this country has seen since the Norman conquest, 2.5million net migrants came in to the UK while he was in charge and Britain will never be the same again.

However, any Tory MP would merely be attempting to score Westminster political points (a worthless currency in the world of real politics) by registering dissatisfaction about Tony Blair’s award, as the Coalition Government is about to become responsible for the grafting of Romania and Bulgaria onto the British economy (with effects that it dare not talk about) – in the same way that Tony Blair first grafted Poland onto it.

The truth of the matter is that all British Governments since the 1970s have been guilty of failing in their prime duty to protect their supposed sovereign masters – the people – from the imposition of bad government, and from foreign invasion to do the same; as such, the British Establishment is riddled with traitors and their facilitators.

Unaware of the plot from above, British people tend to be sympathetic to the invasion force that is displacing them, and ironically even view them as good replacements for their own country-men who, as the corporate-media tells them, are worthless types who don’t want to live in a socially-conducive fashion. These complaining Britons, victims of a vast propaganda campaign as they are, fail to see that everything has been engineered exactly by their criminal politicians: Eastern Europeans and British benefits scroungers are both taking advantage of how the British Government manipulates and steals from the British tax-payer.

Blair’s award should be a good indication to exploited Britons that Poland’s real ruling class – its corporate-types and Anglo-American-corporate-establishment-wannabees – see Britain as easy prey. However, this would be too much of a generalisation to apply to all Eastern Europeans in Britain – except that there is verifiable evidence (link available later) that many Eastern Europeans abandon children to come to the UK, signifying that Britain’s open borders do not attract the most desirable people. Then there is the phenomenon that can be witnessed in any British high street which is Eastern Europeans speaking with their young children, who are assumedly British by birth, in a language that is not English. Even this tell-tale sign suggests that those Eastern Europeans only see Britain as a place to exploit, rather than a place to contribute to.

There is great despair in the UK by those who realise the deep problems being caused by Eastern European immigration, with respect to how those problems can be solved; the answer, however, is simple, and it sails upon the ocean: to wit, a flotilla of ships. When Britain regains control of its borders, Eastern Europeans who aren’t married to Britons, and any foreign national, for that matter, who lives in the country with no real right to, should be given an opportunity to demonstrate a desire to be British, and an opportunity to take British citizenship (while renouncing all others – perhaps), or else be placed on board the convoy sailing from one of England’s major ports. The details are all open for debate, but unless there are some tough decisions made, the trouble stored up for Britain in these days of open treason by the Government will never be smoothed away.

“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.