Wednesday, 5 July 2017

Licence to Sin

My previous post here looked at one area where some people are apparently now 'authorised' to commit the kind of violence they had been doing for years already. The main point, though, was the seeming legitimisation of the violence.

Now we have let that sink in during the days since I posted that, it is perhaps a good time to look at the broader picture. Ultimately, it is the Satanic agenda that embraces and encourages sin of various kinds – including deception, polygamy, theft, child abuse and violence in general.

This in itself is absolute proof that there is nothing of God or of righteousness in those political, religious or secretive movements (the three 'legs' of the devil's support tripod that I have mentioned before) that 'authorise' any of those things, let alone practise them. God hates sin, and certainly doesn't seek to encourage or condone it. Thus these, where sin is embedded at their core, cannot be of God and never have been.

Although it is often hidden out of public gaze, and camouflaged by nice-sounding passages that can be quoted to give the organisation (or whatever) an acceptable public face, the reality is always there, lurking beneath the surface – or suddenly exploding into our consciousness.

Often the participants don't realise what they are getting themselves into – such as secret society initiation rituals where the initiate doesn't know what vows he is going to make until he has to repeat what is read out to him. Those of the Freemasons are quite horrific, for example – though their officials try to make out that it isn't 'literal'. Of course it is: otherwise the wording would have been changed, obviously. Interestingly, Jack the Ripper applied Masonic punishments to his victims; though no-one outside the Brotherhood knew their origin back then.

Always one finds harming and other sins allowed, even encouraged and sometimes enforced, with all the Satanic 'tripod legs'. Thus we can fairly easily determine which parts of our society are under the devil's full control. I do realise that there are some grey areas, and much misinformation around besides, but most people with a reasonably functioning brain should be able to sort the wheat from the chaff – apart from those with their own warped agenda, which also usually turns out to be Satanic only they don't often realise that fact. That, though, is another story…

Friday, 30 June 2017

Licensed Violence

The removal of the 'non-violence' rule by the Corbyn/Labour-supporting Momentum political movement is just the (predictable) next stage in what I have long thought was their always-intended move toward totalitarianism.

Students of twentieth-century history will be aware of the route taken in various other countries toward 'socialist revolution' and its eventual destination, and will no doubt spot the parallels. Those readers who have been following my writings here and elsewhere will also be aware that I have been expecting all of this – and worse to come – for quite a few years now, long preceding the advent of Momentum. They are just the vehicle: the plan has been there all along.

Indeed, I am surprised it took them this long to become sufficiently bold and confident that they felt they could now make this change to their rules: they no longer need the veneer of apparent respectability, as their support is large enough and solid enough. Not that the rule would ever stopped them anyway, one might surmise from media reports and other factors, but I can well imagine that they had to at least appear to be a peaceful movement while they were still building up their numbers.

Now the gloves can come off formally: they have effectively licensed violence.

The exact timing of this rule change is significant, though, inasmuch as it almost immediately precedes their next 'street action' which I gather is planned for this coming weekend – so expect an upping of the ante on this occasion. I am anticipating the most severe rioting we have seen in this country for many a year, unless the police have devised (and can implement) a clever enough strategy to be able to nip it all in the bud on the day.

From here on in it all escalates in the now near-desperate effort to foment sufficient civil unrest to achieve the next steps along the road to ultimate totalitarianism here in Britain: civil war and the introduction of martial law in order to subdue and control the population.

Monday, 12 June 2017

Pinch Point

With reports that one of the big reasons – perhaps the biggest – why last week's election was called at all was because the EU's Jean-Claude Juncker told PM Theresa May that her then (small) inherited majority wouldn't serve her well enough when it came to the 'pinch points' in the Brexit negotiations, we are starting to see some of the bigger picture.

In particular, a somewhat squeezed Mrs May, trying to do the best job for Britain, while undoubtedly not trusting Juncker (who would?) nevertheless must have felt that it was better to go for it than to leave things be. At the very least, it wouldn't let the EU negotiators be able to claim that our Prime Minister hadn't had the guts to try.

This and many other behind-the-scenes activities are what I have to try to discover and take into account when making my own predictions and formulating my own approaches to all the reasonably probable outcomes and consequences of what is happening out there in the political world.

As some 'old hands' here already know, my own (admittedly modest) influence is done mostly invisibly, and primarily through extending public knowledge of what the players are really up to, via a complex network of channels and other structures.

In practice, it is like a hysteresis loop, with the effect somewhat lagging behind whatever I (and no doubt others) do, and out of phase with it for a while. Steering a boat, especially at close quarters with another vessel, feels a little like it as well. Nonetheless it is the best anyone can do while respecting the population's right to self-determination – which I always do.

Most people eventually grow up politically, which is why the majority of the older generation end up no longer conned by the Left's false promises and attempted bribes, and tend toward the political Right in their leanings. Over time, the wiser heads die off, though, and the newly-indoctrinated – so mostly Left-leaning – youths reach voting age, so the whole learning cycle begins again.

Thus this is a never-ending scenario, and we all have to use our brains more effectively if we are to become a better and stronger nation in the near future. One vital aspect of that in the current time-frame is to get out of the EU completely, regardless of the outcome of last Thursday's election, and that is something we can still do.

Sunday, 11 June 2017

It's All About The Sales Pitch

Although, in this General Election, I hadn't expected such a large chunk of the UKIP vote to switch to Labour (thus defeating their own professed key policy's safety), especially in the south, the outcome wasn't something I had not foreseen as a – hopefully remote – possibility. The strong mobilisation of the so-called 'youth vote' was another factor that shifted the dynamics significantly.

As ever, Labour were largely reliant on the 'freebies for the many' bribery technique that has long served them so well when dealing with the (sadly) gullible masses – and millions fell for it, as they always do. This is the 'sales pitch' that a Labour government will give you all that you seek in life, gladly handed out free of charge by the State. As long as someone else is described as paying for it (even though that is nearly always a falsehood) they are happy to go along with it.

Of course it's all nonsense; but that doesn't register with those millions of voters, either now or ever in the past. That is why the technique is still prevalent with the Labour party in particular: it works!

It is, nevertheless, salutary to note that despite all of this, and despite a poorly-devised Conservative manifesto and a lacklustre campaign, Labour still lost this election and ended up a long way short of a majority. Indeed, the Conservative vote count went up significantly since two years ago, even though it didn't translate ideally into seats in this starkly two-party election in which every other party fell by the wayside as essentially irrelevant.

As usual, my longer-term prediction is that our new path will converge on where we would have been anyway, some fifteen years hence. It will just be a much more bumpy ride than it needed to be…

Sunday, 14 May 2017

Local Diversity Representation

Phew! That's a bit of a mouthful; but the other title I came up with was probably too jokey: "Diversity isn't where a Welsh poet lives" (Dai Verse city.)

Anyway, the purpose of this post is to look at my local elected Council and see how it measures up in regards to gender mix and ethnic diversity. It's only because Labour have for years attempted to 'weaponise' these topics – as we have all witnessed when they fling labels around such as 'sexist!' and 'racist!' (the exclamation marks have in effect part of the word) – so I wondered how the party groups were doing in these two respects, partly as a break from all the current General Election activity. In particular: have Labour put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

Because we have had so many changes over the years, including several party defections and a few by-elections – even since the last local elections just two years ago – the only sensible way to tackle this is to look at the state of the party groups as they are today (there are no Independents) which means just Conservatives, Labour and UKIP. I found this council web-page useful for reference.

First, the gender mix: here are the numbers of male (M) and female (F) councillors in each party group, followed in each case by the percentage female…

Conservatives (38) – 28 (M); 10 (F); 26% F

Labour (15) – 9 (M); 6 (F); 40% F

UKIP (2) – 2 (M); 0 (F); 0% F

Overall (55) – 39 (M); 16 (F); 29% F

Okay: that's not bad for Labour, actually, and okay for the Conservatives – though those who are avid 'equality' freaks will no doubt be less pleased. Personally, I have never been concerned about these matters – which is probably why it has taken me so many years to post about this! It was actually inspired by something I read about Emmanuel Macron's mostly-white campaign team just minutes before I started writing this; also because of the 'diversity' theme of tonight's Eurovision Song Contest  – which was presented by three white males, by the way…

Right: on to ethnic mix now. It's the same style of tabulation for this, with (W) meaning 'white' and (E) standing for 'ethnic', as these are the preferred terms, as I understand the thinking to be this week. No doubt it will change soon enough(!)

Conservatives (38) – 33 (W); 5 (E); 13% E

Labour (15) – 14 (W); 1 (E); 7% E

UKIP (2) – 2 (W); 0 (E); 0% E

Overall (55) – 49 (W); 6 (E); 11% E

Poor UKIP really don't have enough members to do much about their participation in this diversity exercise – and to be fair to them, when they did have three members (up until several months ago) the third was at least female. Labour, though, are sadly lacking here – and they are the ones who kick up a fuss about these things. Next time they do so, feel free to fling this back at them!

Though there isn't any completely up-to-date census data on this, I think the overall figure is roughly proportional to the mix in our local population of some quarter of a million souls, perhaps a fraction high if anything.

Whether this exercise will prove to have been of any value or not remains to be seen – but at least we have the information on record in a form that might come in handy for reference purposes