Wednesday, 29 November 2017

How the Mighty are Falling

All of a sudden, it seems to have become almost trendy for high-profile people (mostly men) to be 'outed' regarding claimed histories of inappropriate behaviour, largely toward women but there have been examples of young (at the time) boys being the victims in one or two instances.

Now, at this stage, most if not all of these are allegations without any proof necessarily having been presented, and certainly not made public – but it would hardly be surprising if at least some of these claims turned out to be well-founded, though I doubt that all of them are. No doubt there's some of 'mud sticks' idea behind ending certain individuals' careers.

The most recent instance of this phenomenon as I write this is the case of Matt Lauer, who apparently is (or rather was) a presenter on America's NBC news programmes. This one is interesting, though, as there are those asserting (after some research and his known history, I gather) that he is being purged by NBC because, as it is claimed, he hadn't been delivering on the globalist agenda – which, as regular readers here will already know, most of the USA's big media outlets support.

This is something to watch out for with other seemingly on-side media and political figures in  particular, at least on that side of the Atlantic and possibly here too, who befall a similar fate. We know that the globalists are losing out now; and their leaders are no doubt feeling the pressure, so I'd guess they need to send a message to all their friendly media's front-line staff that it's their job to fully push their agenda or face a similar fate. Not a great surprise, of course.

Whether there is any truth to the allegations or not, it is still enough to harm or perhaps even end careers. Of course, they can't keep making spurious and unfounded allegations, so there are likely to be at least some genuine instances among those who have already been targeted, and those who are being lined-up to be next, if deemed necessary.

It seems to be becoming a little more widely known that the globalists and their high-profile minions are part of an evil (actually satanic) plan to subjugate humanity, kill off most of us in the process, turn the rest into slaves or serfs, and then the world's 'saviour' will be publicly revealed in his throne room in the Vatican – actually the now-mature Antichrist.

Here are some images of that room, with the place at the centre ready for the throne when it and its occupant are to be revealed.

Of course, as with all the major changes to society that are designed to harm our culture in this supposedly 'enlightened' age, it is all satanic in nature, and shares one feature and one only – it is all specifically targeted against God's rules, institutions (e.g. his definition of marriage) and peoples (originally just the Jews; now Christians are the world's most persecuted faith group) – which rather gives the game away. I could list dozens of specific examples, but I suspect that most of my readers are well up to sussing them out for themselves, armed with that insight.

Remember the Biblical prophesies about the End Times,such as 'good will become bad, and bad will become good', and the reference to the 'seven hills' of Rome (i.e. the Vatican) for further examples. Only God's chosen US president has been able to defer the bad times yet to come so soon, but come they will! It will not be fun…

Sunday, 24 September 2017

Uber going Unter?

The current controversy in London regarding the new ban of the Uber taxi service stems from a complex scenario that isn't as black-and-white as might be convenient to some.

It has become evident over the years that there are some taxi drivers who commit serious criminal acts against their passengers, particularly (it seems) if they are lone females, especially younger ones. The exact distribution and intensity of these across the various service providers is multi-dimensional, so it is very easy for someone with a specific agenda to select the statistics that suit that person't argument.

Overall, though, the app-based Uber service has been shown to be more reliable, trackable and documented in a way that reduces the risks in a way that other such service providers do not and (currently) cannot equal. Does this make it infallible? No: but it is reportedly a lot better than the alternatives. It has a solid user-base of several million customers.

The seemingly sudden ban by London (Labour) Mayor Sadiq Khan on continuing Uber's licence to operate in London turns out to be a poor response to what has (I am informed by those in the know) become a significantly improved reputation by Uber. In other words: "You're getter better, better than the others in fact, so now we are going to ban you!"

Is this because Sadiq Khan wishes to pander to lower quality and hates the raising of standards? Well, that's possible – but it now seems almost certain that this was a mainly (if not entirely) political and self-serving move by the London mayor, as he is significantly dependent upon the Black Cab fraternity and their votes, as well as those of their supporting Trades Union. A number of reputable commentators have already looked into this and come to that very same conclusion.

Now, as a non-user of Uber myself, even when I am in London (e.g. at my late father's house), and without having the necessary smart 'phone to be able to access Uber, I have no personal axe to grind on this issue. Therefore I present just some aspects of this that are troubling. There are others as well, that I have not covered here, but the above is the crux, I believe.

Monday, 14 August 2017

Muddle in the Middle

Following on from my previous post, after a few interesting days…

One of the inevitable effects of so-called 'centrist' parties is that they are, in effect, opposing everyone else, both Left and Right. I suspect that a realisation of this is what might have deterred Arron Banks from launching his own rumoured centrist party. He must have sussed out, surely, that he'd not only be in actuality but also publicly perceived as 'against everyone' and his efforts would thus be dismissed as negative and as being irrelevant to tackling any actual issues. One cannot (in general) fight a war on two fronts – especially when one's opponents have only a singly 'enemy' (the Left or the Right) each.

This is always going to be the problem with such parties or movements – not that the idea is without merit, but in the real world it cannot work. This is why even mainstream parties that wish (or even need) to do well in the 'middle ground' still pitch themselves as centre-left or centre-right. There is a good reason for it, y'see.

James Chapman's proposed new party – provisionally to be called either the Democrats, the UK Democrats, or the New Democrats – has been tweeting for the past three days; and if one were to look through their several hundred tweets already (including many re-tweets of others' contributions) as I have done to some extent, one would find a very strange mix, with some home-brew threads that really seem off-the-wall.

I encountered one such thread about the devil and the law, which is frankly impenetrable and gives the impression (probably incorrectly) of a drug-fuelled mini-rant. It certainly doesn't make any sense that I can deduce. Meanwhile, their 'anti everyone' stance in other tweets and commentary elsewhere produces a very muddled and unclear policy outlook.

As I mentioned before, even their proposed form of name is in complete contrast to their actual policy placement, as their primary goal is to overturn a democratic decision in favour of their own preference. This is the referendum result that was a vote to leave the European Union.

Okay, so it is currently the annual 'silly season' where just about anything can happen – and this seems to be this year's biggest contribution toward maintaining that perennial reputation. For all I know, this might be just be a parody, and will be declared as such any day now. If not, though…

I suspect this will end up like Veritas, Respect and the other non Union-driven fringe parties such as the English Democrats – and where UKIP currently seems to be heading as well (just as I predicted several years ago and ever since) as a dead end that will no doubt have a flurry of publicity, and will then vegetate and slowly die.

It might not; but I can't see it going anywhere, as there is no sense or positive purpose in it.

UPDATE: soon after I wrote this, it transpired that the aforementioned James Chapman was having 'mental issues' and commentators were asked not to add anything for the time being. I have waited four weeks since reading anything about this, and merely mention it now, for information.

Saturday, 12 August 2017

All Roads Lead to the Centre

Something that I have been discussing in semi-private for several years now (some of it is publicly visible on Twitter) is the prospect of yet another political party here in Britain, in reaction to all the (both perceived and actual) polarisation of the existing parties that many are seeing as 'extremism', or at least a tendency in such a direction.

Remembering my predictions about where Labour in particular were heading ever since Ed[ward] Miliband then became their leader, and the consequent (promoted by some) rise of UKIP as the only remaining way for the broader Left to undermine the potentially huge Conservative success that they could see lasting for decades, it was clear that the public perception of the then (and current) political scene as becoming ever more divided and divisive was near-enough certain to expand greatly within a very few years.

That has now happened, exactly as a small number of us in the commentariat expected, and an even smaller number (I'd guess) publicly stated as their opinion.

Thus it is no surprise that the idea of what is claimed would be a new 'centre-left' party has been mooted for a while, and now there are actual moves being made to bring it into reality. It is an easy concept to sell to the public and, to a cautious extent, the big media.

There have been several of such proposals in recent years, including (inevitably) a specifically Labour break-away party for all those moderates (if such a beast exists) who have been and are being ousted from re-standing at the next election by Momentum, and those ousted folk's supporters. Now, just this past week, we have had James Chapman (a.k.a. Chappers) proposing in effect a coalition of those from all parties and political persuasions (or none) who are opposed to the UK leaving the European Union – which is to be a big policy feature of this new party.

In the ultimately irony, going against a democratic decision that the British people have already made – and which has strengthened in terms of leaving the EU via what some are mischievously calling a 'hard Brexit' – they are thinking of calling themselves 'The Democrats'. I suppose that is at least consistent with what already exists on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean: a party called 'Democrats' that is anything but.

Thus we know from the outset that it is a deception, and no doubt will become as malign a political force as those other 'Democrats' once the brand has been established, initially seemingly benign and well-intentioned but soon shifting gears to where it is probably even now planned to ultimately sit in the political panorama.

It has been noted that the two main founders of this new party have shifted their own positions to further their own careers. Now, I don't have any fine details on their personal histories, but anyone who feels so inclined (I don't, this time) can easily check – especially on Brexit.

Meanwhile, we do of course still have the Liberal Democrats, who fit into this exact slot: centre-left, anti-Brexit. Why create a new party when one such already exists? Not that it is exactly doing well – but that tells me that any party with that approach will now lose out, so it is hardly worth creating a near-copycat new one. It isn't as if the Lib Dems are as toxic a brand as they once were because of their coalition with the Conservatives in government earlier this decade: that is now essentially history. Indeed, their pluses (such as they are) significantly outweigh their negatives.

A new party comes into the arena as an unknown, and it takes many years to establish themselves, especially if they do not even have established elected members as its founders. The public simply will not trust them, although I'd expect an initial 'honeymoon' period that will give a misleading indication of popularity.

If this new party goes ahead, especially with its proposed somewhat pretentious title, I'd expect it to face a real test once it has to put out a real election manifesto and then defend that to the public, including via the media. We have already witnessed how unforgiving that process can be, and I cannot see the new venture becoming any more than, say, another Respect or Veritas, though not in quite the same form as those always were 'cult of personality' pseudo-parties.

So was UKIP under Farage, of course – but that party was being bigged-up by those who saw it as the only way to stop the Conservatives after the obviously useless Ed Miliband became Labour leader. There will be no such incentive for those manipulators to support or promote the new venture.

It will probably die or be absorbed into one of the fringe parties after a few years, much as Veritas merged with the English Democrats some months ago. Near-enough no-one will miss it…

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…