Category Archives: rolling

Who fixed it for Jim?

Celebrity is used by the Establishment to distract those it rules; it is a tactic of control with no ‘moving parts’ that would make an unsuspecting citizen notice that it is a weapon being deployed against them. But consider, how many successful Hollywood movie stars, pop singers, or footballers are outspoken in the same way John Lennon was? The answer is not many. Most are remarkably unengaged with real issues because, one must suppose, they get what came to Lennon, or they get repaid with obscurity. When they do step out of line, they get slapped back into place.

So, it should come as no surprise that Operation Yewtree, supposedly the Metropolitan Police’s investigation into historical cases of paedophilia and sexual abuse, has taken Jimmy Savile’s celebrity as a cue to arrest some household names of the 1970s and the 1980s – most of which seem to have been taken completely by surprise at their new predicament. There are, of course, other aspects of Jimmy Savile’s life from whence he made connections to members of Britain’s ruling class; there are also connected rumours and allegations of paedophilia in high-up places. These links could be interrogated by police, but instead they have been completely overlooked.

There is, therefore, reasonable suspicion to be had that Yewtree is a cover-up, and indeed a psychological operation to establish in the minds of the observing public that paedophilia is a problem restricted to the arena of over-indulged television and radio personalities. Of course, this is set to be only a first impression, and the apparent scale of institutionalised child abuse will be made to look negligible as it becomes clear that most of those arrested are not paedophiles. Esther Rantzen, the one-time That’s Life presenter, and founder of children’s charity ChildLine, referred to this at the beginning of the year when she complained that arrests of celebrities for acts by one adult upon another (that are more often than not strenuously denied by the accused, or defended against by pleading innocent contact that has been miscontrued as general sexual pestering), threatened to trivialise child abuse: ‘When Yewtree swoops – and celebrity after celebrity has been targeted by them – we assume they’ve uncovered yet more sexual abuse of children.’

Last week, Scotland Yard released a report centring on the allegations against Savile; the image of Savile ‘grooming the nation’, as encouraged by the headline summarisation, unfortunately (and probably deliberately) represented paedophilia as a one-man scourge. The officer in command of the investigation, Peter Spindler, said that Savile had been allowed to get away with his abuse because he had used this celebrity to ‘hide in plain sight’.

The suggestion is that Savile wasn’t prosecuted because of the illusion of innocence created by his charity-working, child and hospital patient friendly public image. In other words, the weight of his persona would be too much for victims to persuade others to suddenly discard; police, the CPS, and even jurors would not be able to alter their fixed conceptions about him.

However, this is probably not the case. A glimpse into the corruption in British police forces came recently with the Andrew Mitchell affair, and if the Metropolitan Police are having 800 officers questioned about a conspiracy then perhaps an eventual cover-up in that case should be expected. In addition, last Friday, the Daily Mail reported the following:

Jimmy Savile could have been brought to justice several years ago had it not been for appalling blunders by police and prosecutors… Britain’s most senior prosecutor… revealed police missed three chances to snare the pervert.

Were these blunders real accidents? Or was it a case of deliberately flunking? In  2009, a review (recently disclosed) of decisions not to prosecute Savile by Alison Levitt QC, legal adviser to the director of public prosecutions, found that cases could have been brought to court ’had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach’. Police and prosecutors treated the claims of victims ’with a degree of caution which was neither justified nor required’, Levitt said.

It is completely credible to assume that no prosecution was brought against Savile because his influential friends made it impossible to do so. The natural progression after arriving at this suspicion is to ask who could exert such influence?

Bill Oddie, whose career at the BBC overlapped with that of Savile’s, went on the record (and here) last year and stated that he was very surprised that the DJ had not been brought to justice in his lifetime. He also seemed to conclude that, given Savile’s infamy, he must have been protected through a friendship with Prince Charles (who went as far as calling Savile ‘a national treasure’), and wondered if someone had even given an order to cover up.

Another contemporary of Savile’s, Paul Gambaccini, dared to hint at the specific source of this protection when, in an interview, he asked ‘who vetted the knighthood? Coco the clown?’

Indeed, to most right thinking people, Savile’s closeness to Margaret Thatcher and Prince Charles (the former who oversaw the knighthood, and the latter who belongs to the awarding intitution), despite what was a wild reputation within the sphere of his work life, is something that should never have happened – all things being well. Observers with suspicions point to the improbability of Savile, a single weirdo with a reputation, as Gambaccini put it, for being interested in ‘under-age subnormals’, being considered qualified to be some kind of marriage counsellor for the Queen’s children. The same people find it extraordinary that letters from the DJ to Margaret Thatcher could be censored, presumably to hide incriminating information, when they were released.

Some people, who have been sounding alarm bells for a long time, believe that the evidence points to Savile being a kind of sergeant who carried out the instructions for ‘officer types’ within a vast Establishment paedophile ring who did not want to risk exposure in the same way that Savile was able to. These accusers believe that Savile was a procurer of children for paedophiles in the Establishment, and point to an occasion when Prince Charles seemed to give him instructions to organise a party as an example of when this role jutted into seemingly harmless public view.

And now, with a report in the Sunday Express this weekend, the implications for Savile’s relationship with the ‘great and good’, and the allegations about who these pillars of the Establishment were, has taken on even more disturbing twist. Descriptions of Savile’s role in a Satanic ritualistic rape of a 12 year old that should not be disregarded also suggest that he was a facilitator, or a ‘master of ceremonies’, for other people who were in overall command.

Such allegations should only confirm to those desiring the punishment of members of any paedophile ring hidden in and by the ruling class, that Operation Yewtree will never branch into Savile’s connections with Britain’s political and institutional elite for fear of what will be revealed. However, other sorts of predation by the Establishment is quite out in the open – determined EU membership, climate change taxes and fearmongering, enforced sustainability, economic implosion, illegal war etc. These are the abuses that will cause people to see the full scale corruption of the ruling elite and be desirous of its replacement; and this process of awakening will lie beyond the Establishment’s grip of the legal system, which is regularly abused to create examples of citizenry to create a chill effect, and which, as the Savile case shows, ensures that some of its members remain uninvestigated and untried for the most heinous of crimes.

Authoritarian thug Cameron repeats “opposition is mental and racist” hoax

One of the nation’s top public enemies, David Cameron, who is guilty of implementing destructive plans, laid by the gangsters in the British monarchy and the Western banking hegemony, to turn the British people into welfare-dependent slaves, and their country into a balkanised, disunited non-entity administered by a proxy-government in Brussels, appeared on a flagship propaganda outlet of the Establishment yesterday to stimulate a corporate-media campaign to combat growing UKIP opposition.

The traitor Cameron principally used the opportunity to make pledges that he has no intention of keeping regarding the never-ending draining away of sovereignty from British people to offshore government so that foreign powers become administrative and tyrannical rulers by proxy for the Queen and other globalists. Cameron was also offered the opportunity by programme host, Andrew Marr, to restate vile assertions regarding UKIP supporters. Naturally, desirous of a smokescreen to hide the fact that he would not be able to renegotiate powers back from the EU, as various European dignitaries have recently confirmed, Cameron repeated an earlier attempt to stigmatise UKIP by agreeing with his previous comment that the party consisted of and was supported by ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’.

Stigmatisation, of course, is the first step in a process towards deadly persecution, and that Cameron freely wields it as a political weapon should be an indicator of his totalitarian tendencies. Indeed, it seems to be standard for dictatorships to label their opposition as mentally ill so that key resistance can be neutralised with the excuse that certain people need to be treated behind lock and key for non-apparent health issues.

As well as providing worrying evidence that suggests Cameron is drawn to the sort of catastrophic misrule and democide that many patriots feel will eventually warrant Nuremburg-style trials, the new attack on what constitutes the only real free political opposition to the LibLabCon also offers an opportunity to see how the Establishment manages to cling to power by continually running hoaxes through compliant and conspiring corporate-media. Using the metaphor of the fairy-tale, the LibLabCon has for a long time relied on the British people seeing clothes on the Emperor, instead of seeing him naked.

David Cameron has no good intentions regarding the individual liberties of British people, and their right to self-rule. Indeed, the ‘proof-of-the-pudding’ rule (where the evidence suggests the truth) shows that he and the rest of the Establishment recognises that the era of discussing, in an arena of informed debate, whether or not the three main parties in British politics are Statist, collectivist, communitarian, authoritarians who are fundamentally opposed to freedom and self-determination, has well and truly passed. The Establishment also realises that Britons are becoming convinced in greater numbers that their best interests are not served by the current political environment and that there must be some fundamental change. Therefore, the LibLabCon will try to claim ownership of any political revolution so as to ensure that it profits by it. Moreover, this struggle to stay in power means that  Establishment politicians will need to demonise UKIP, and do it by appealing to the conditioned reflexes of the consumers of corporate-media.

Up until very recently, corporate-media has been used by the Establishment to create what is actually fantasy and portray it as reality in order to produce mass-compliance to its dominance. The official weight of corporate-media, which comes from its plush presentation and the intellectual investment that its consumers make in it (as a way of creating a self-image of themselves as being part of the mainstream), then lends credence to the fantasy. So, LibLabCon Establishment rule can be quantified as a series of hoaxes that are given plausibility by a conspiring corporate-media.

A great and recent example of such a hoax was the Lord McAlpine saga when ITV and BBC awarded the alleged paedophile thousands in compensation even though his name had not come up in their various presentations on the matter. McAlpine’s reluctance to sue leading accuser, David Icke, indicated that the surrender of the BBC and ITV was theatre to present to corporate-media consumers in order to inculcate a reflexive rejection of any idea related to bringing the supposed vast number of sexual criminals and perverts in the Establishment to justice.

Likewise, the way that corporate-media has presented this last weekend’s speech by Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, indicates that the Establishment has organised a coordinated hoax to shape perception of it. David Cameron and William Hague described al-Assad as having ’the most phenomenal amount of blood on his hands’  and wanting to decieve people into believing he was interested in peace – which is really a projection of their own positions. Al-Assad’s insistence that Western governments, including Britain, are aiding al-Qaeda to overthrow his legitimate government has been demonstrable on the ground over again, and resonates with many of the increasingly aware Britons who are finding out from other sources apart from the corporate-media how their government is actually training, arming and coordinating the brutal terrorism committed by Islamists in Syria who have been inserted there by NATO.

However, in terms of the overall population, the number of people who are aware of such reality is relatively small, and the vast numbers who watch corporate-media news coverage as if it is unquestionably authoritative and objective are unable to critically examine the fantasy that the likes of David Cameron presents to them.

So, when Cameron stigmatises UKIP supporters by calling them “odd”, he is playing a hoax through the corporate-media to an unthinking blob of humanity that will respond by having bad feelings about UKIP, and by wanting to exclude UKIP from their considerations for fear of falling out of the mainstream, and for fear of damaging a self-image that is defined by acceptance of corporate-media authority. Because of his knowledge of the power of the hoax-through-corporate-media that the LibLabCon has relied on for so long, Cameron is sure that he can get away with what are actually completely outrageous comments that, in an environment where liberty truly existed, would create universal censure and get him into personal trouble.

Thankfully, the Establishment’s rule-by-hoax is slowly being undone because of the spread of an alternative media, largely staffed by determined individual citizens (although there are notable mini-media empires that are very effective) , which is able to present versions of events that aren’t sanitised or controlled by the Establishment. This has even created a reflexive anti-response to corporate-media and to Establishment politicians so that any output that they produce is automatically adjudged to be deceptive and dishonest. UKIP, being perceived to be something external of the Establishment, obviously benefits by the alienation. The Establishment’s ability to cling to the status quo – rather than make way for a constitutional era where the people are represented by themselves, for themselves – is very much dependent on keeping a corporate-media audience isolated from alternative sources of news and alternative political solutions. Both the growth in UKIP, and the alternative media, suggests that ultimately the Establishment will not be able to maintain its propaganda systems, and the likes of David Cameron will come to regret very dearly making cheap shots to extend his and his ilk’s self-perpetuating, exploitative power.

Totalitarian British State ends 2012 with flourish of self-sustaining injustice

December 2012 saw the nauseating conclusion to two separate cases where instances of free expression, which were adjudged to have been offensive through the prism of war-death worship  (otherwise known as Remembrance), were punished with little regard to what liberty-conscious Americans would call their 1st Amendment rights.

Both cases saw the undeserved and high profile penalisation of individuals – after they had been subjected to a mob with carte-blanche to threaten physical violence. One punishment was by a modern form of pillory with due process having been skipped, and the other by what looked suspiciously like something resembling a mistrial. Neither so-called ‘criminal’ had committed a crime that would be found as such in a real court of law outside of the Banana Republic that is the United Kingdom. Indeed, both cases were clear demonstrations that Britain is a totalitarian state that abuses its legal system in order to perpetuate its survival – to the unashamed detriment of innocents.  Both cases were manipulated for the maintenance of public deference for the annual social control mechanism that also harvests support for new illegal war by being conflated with feelings of sympathy for serving armed forces personnel.

38 year-old Jose Paulo Da Silveria was the man who turned up at Bristol’s Remembrance Day parade dressed as a devil and initially had to be protected by police from parade-day attendees who were heard threatening Da Silveria with violence. Given that the ceremony can be seen as a ritualistic re-enactment of mass blood sacrifice to honour and resurrect Nike – the winged goddess who tropes murder by war into something triumphant, and who has sinister connections through mother Styx to the underworld which prompts a comparison with the dragon-like Satan within a Christian context – attendees who were in the know perhaps reacted angrily to an apparent invitation for observers to make connections that are supposed to remain unlinked. However, prosecutor May Lee represented and played down the danger to Da Silveria from the crowd, who were one way or another feeling distressed because their death-worship had suffered an indignity, as ‘a strong reaction to his presence’.

Da Silveria was arrested for an offence under the Public Order Act of using threatening words or behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and pled guilty even though he seems to have approached the trial believing that he had no intention of committing a crime. After the trial, reporters were told the following:

‘I ran into the middle of this thing and I didn’t realise what was going on.

‘I was going to College Green and I was just skating along.

‘I just came down from Nelson Street and I don’t remember seeing any restrictions and no one was stopping me from carrying on.

‘It was only when I saw the photographs in the newspaper that I realised what was going on.’

Da Silveria’s lawyer described him as being in a world of his own, and as being without any intent to protest the Remembrance event. Indeed, all the stated evidence suggests that a trial would not necessarily have established that Da Silveria’s was guilty of intending to harass or cause distress to the war-death worshippers at the Bristol Remembrance parade. Moreover, given that at the time of the event Da Silveria was in a window where he had stopped taking medication for psychiatric problems, there are undoubtedly questions to ask as to whether Da Silveria is not in fact an innocent individual who, for whatever reason but his own intent to cause a problem, was at the wrong place at the wrong time and whose vulnerability was then taken advantage of in order to stage a show-trial (that never was!).

In the second example of injustice, after burning a poppy and uploading an image of the act allegedly along with an abusive dedication to serving armed forces personnel, 19 year-old Linford House was subjected to an online ‘hate-campaign’ (seemingly instigated and perpetrated by the English Defence League, who, in their disregard for free speech, are increasingly looking like a group in the pay of the Establishment to generate public support for the hoax that is the ‘War on Terror’) and even had to be moved from his house supposedly for his own safety. If somewhat misdirected in his statement in terms of who he thought he would be attacking by burning a plastic poppy, Linford House was nevertheless not guilty of a crime; instead, his was a valid expression of free speech. Rather than call for British servicemen to ‘burn in hell’ – hence to call for death – which is what Emdadur Choudhury did in 2010 when he got in trouble for burning a poppy (an associate who also faced trial had to be released due to a lack of evidence), Linford House was merely alleged to have captioned his image with the words: ‘How about that you squadey [sic] ****s’. Even if the allegation about the captioning is true (House seemingly took the image down before trustworthy verification could be made), and although ‘squaddies’ in general are labelled with an apparently offensive term, no individual is targeted, and soldiers are likely to have heard worse from a drill sergeant.

Once again, if the case had received a proper hearing in court – this time after a charge under the Malicious Communications Act – it is not entirely certain that Lindford House, if properly advised and arguing his birthright of free speech, would have been successfully prosecuted.

Perhaps this is why the Crown chose to forego a trial, and House was persuaded to submit himself to a process called ‘Restorative Practise’ which seems, at least in House’s case, to involve re-education through a process of humiliation. Indeed, it seems entirely likely that police relied on bad advice (supplied by a conspiring defence lawyer?), House’s youth and resultant naivety, and the threat of a criminal trial to force him to admit his guilt by meeting and apologising to veterans, current military personnel and a war widow.

House’s experience of ‘restoration’ was not a private affair; it was captured by corporate-media and received lots of exposure. Naturally, the conclusion to make is that the experience was not for House’s benefit, but for the benefit of the corporate-media audience who were supposed to form a connection between the feelings of armed forces personnel and their families, and dissent against Remembrance (which is, even if the protester doesn’t realise it, dissent against the Establishment’s ability to exploit the public in order to manufacture support for war). Such a connection is supposed to generate self-censorship.

Keen to exploit the war widow, the Daily Mail quoted Nikki Scott, whose husband Corporal Lee Scott of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment was killed in Afghanistan on 10 July 2009, who said:

My family and I learned the hard way about what a poppy means and stands for and when I saw the picture [of the burning poppy] I was hurt, upset and disgusted.

Happy enough not to expect an apology from the Queen, whose private army it was that facilitated the murder of her husband, Mrs Scott went on to say:

It was good to see Mr House talk to us and apologise and hopefully he will be able to go someway to making up for some of the offence he caused.

Linford House’s re-education seemed to be a public success; he was cited in the same article repeating what looks suspiciously like a talking point fed to him to repeat:

The poppy is a symbol of peace and I shouldn’t have done what I did. I’m sorry to everyone that it’s offended.

In fact, the poppy is a symbol of pagan sacrifice and should be offensive in a Christian country (demonstrating that Marxist Britain is no longer one of those things). Being of the same colour, it represents blood that is spilt into the soil, which then becomes fertilised and sends forth plant life – the process is summarised in the scarlet bloom that actually appeared on the battle fields of World War I after the slaughter, thus fixing the association.

Many ancient and Mesoamerican creation myths tell of how the land first consisted of the dismembered body parts of a slaughtered goddess who thereafter demands blood sacrifice to repay for her own, and as a price for the production of essential crop harvests.

US media attacks 2nd Amendment, but earlier UK counterpart had also exploited death for its own Establishment criminals

Days before the US corporate-media was exploiting the terrible Sandy Hook shootings so as to demonise the right to bear arms (and in the process conveniently and swiftly failing to follow up on police reports about arresting and holding a second protagonist), its counterparts in the UK were doing the same with Jacintha Saldanha’s so-called suicide. The unmistakable message, as the UK corporate-media excoriated the Australian DJs who executed a “prank” call to the hospital in which Kate Middleton was receiving treatment for a minor condition (and, as some critics say, milking public sympathy), was this: an effort to mock the Royal Family will result in a death.

The Australian press was certainly very quick to notice that British newspapers were on a rabid witch-hunt (the sort of thing, by the way, that David Cameron doesn’t want perpetrated upon those in the Establishment who are sexual abusers of little boys). The purpose of certain coverage in the UK, as any right minded observer could see, was to persecute the two radio personalities who pretended, somewhat unconvincingly, to be the Queen and her son Charles. As chucklingly idiotic as the two antipodeans came across in the recorded clip of the incident, they did not deserve complete censure. However, a certain manner of writing and reporting was employed to cement the idea in British corporate-media consumers that the DJs were somehow as good as guilty  of murder. A good example was the reporting of the apparent weight of opposition against the DJs through Facebook and Twitter – realms where the unhinged, irrational, and ignorant are in abundance. Accusations of “global revulsion” surely cannot be substantiated because of the internet usage of the same people who raise the Daily Mail’s ire when they cheer the death of a policeman.

Later information that was said to be sourced from one of three suicide notes (supposedly) written by Jacintha Saldanha revealed that she was critical of other staff at the King Edward VII hospital; rather strangely, several days later, other information said to be from the same source claimed that Jacintha Saldanha blamed the Australians. It should be noted that this sort of development would be very convenient for attempting to continue the “hang the DJ” meme even though the suicide case herself seemingly attributed fault elsewhere.

It seems quite clear that there has been an operation to psychologically manipulate corporate-media consumers in the exploitation of Jacintha Saldanha’s death; in a situation that is alike, the ITV and BBC rolled over and volunteered huge payments to Lord McAlpine, even thought neither organisation had named him as a paedophile. Obviously, it was a high-profile hoax to cause self-censorship in the audiences of corporate-media, and it is one that is still on-going.

Unfortunately, because of the attempt to exploit Jacintha Saldanha’s death, the suspicion must inevitably arise that it might have been engineered. Listening to the extremely brief telephone contact (it cannot be called a conversation) that Jacintha Saldanha had with the two Australians, it is a mystery as to what she thought she might have said that would literally worry her to death; she did not give any details away. It seems, therefore, that it was the act of patching the “prank” callers through to a ward nurse that must have caused so much distress. This distress seemingly carried on even though one of the “offending” Australian radio station called Jacintha Saldanha back to explain that there had been a bit of fun – something that has been denied by the hospital, incidentally.

There is a little-discussed clue in the recording of the prank that, although it may suggest a certain reality, is inconclusive all the same. It is the ready acceptance of both Jacintha Saldanha and the ward nurse that they were speaking to members of the Royal Family – even when what they were hearing became ludicrous. The female broadcaster began the telephone call asking to speak to “Kate, my granddaughter”. Jacintha Saldana replied “oh yes, just hold on ma’am”, and put the call through. It’s a very strange interaction, and it’s odd that Jacintha Saldanha did not feel the need to ask for clarification, but instead reacted automatically. The ward nurse also called the female DJ “ma’am” without any effort to ascertain who she was talking to. It is very hard to believe that security is so lax at the King Edward VII hospital which privately caters for the sort of clientele who would demand it. It is highly suspicious that instead of asking questions about who was talking to them at such a strange hour (it was the middle of the night, apparently), both nurses instead reacted to a prompt, which was a mention of Kate by someone with a vaguely similar accent to that which people imagine the Queen speaks with. These reactions hint at the possibility that the nurses had been preloaded before the incident with a suggestion that the Queen was going to call to speak to them.

The implications of such a possibility are that there was a conspiracy to create the situation whereby two Australian radio DJs could harmlessly discuss Kate Middleton’s stay in hospital with someone on the scene (who has remained unidentified). Perhaps the motive may not have been malicious, but instead to create humorous publicity; indeed, Charles reacted immediately to the initial prank call by ”making light” of it. Perhaps it all went wrong when Jacintha Saldanha, facing unimaginable levels of pressure from all directions (whichever way she looked, as it must have seemed) took it too much to heart.

The real truth of what happened will predictably never be known. The form of suicide, which was seemingly of the sort that reminds of outspoken Americans who are found to have shot themselves multiple times in the head (Jacintha Saldanha had injuries to her wrists as well as being found hanging) was obviously meant to ensure a certain outcome; let it just be recognised that there are doubts about it. However, what is certain is that, as they always do, the UK corporate-media once again did not fail to let a crisis go to waste in order to perform some brainwashing on behalf of the Establishment; and this is why it must be abandoned.