Programmes of Treason

This seems to be a suitable time to revisit the topic of the programmes that were devised by the political Left for a corrupt leadership and/or governmental establishment to destroy a nation and its culture from within.

I covered the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism's bullet list of policies before, and shall include it here for convenience, but first here is a not dissimilar set of actions that seem to have been geared toward a nation like the United States. These are often attributed to Saul Alinsky, but that source has never (as far as I know) been sufficiently corroborated for us to be certain – not that it really matters, of course.

You might recognise some if not all of these from what had indeed been happening in the USA during recent years. There are those of the establishment over there who are still pushing this agenda, certainly parts of it, against the current President's policies…

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.
The first is the most important.
1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion — Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools.
8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take from (tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.

Now for the Frankfurt School policy programme, again intended for the destruction and replacement of a nation's structure and culture, this one distinctly recognisable to Brits who remember the Blair & Brown years…

1. The creation of racism offences. 
2. Continual change to create confusion 
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children 
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority 
5. Huge immigration to destroy (national) identity. 
6. The promotion of excessive drinking 
7. Emptying of churches 
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime 
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits 
10. Control and dumbing down of media 
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

There is a secondary bullet list of another dozen policies, though the only source I ever found for that has long since gone. I wish I had taken a copy at the time.

In both these cases, then, we can easily see how this is all in effect treasonous, and extremely dangerous. It is hardly surprising that one of the first-term actions of the Blair government was to remove the death penalty for treason – a seemingly random activity for a government supposedly concentrating on more weighty matters for the nation, but obvious now that we understand the context of that move. It was in case they got caught and indicted.

In practice, we must always be aware of how dangerous the political Left is, no matter how carefully they prepare their oh so plausible 'sales pitch', and regardless of their 'window dressing' to give the impression (to the gullible, who form all too large a part of the population) that they are "on the people's side" and should be allowed to implement one or another of the above policies.

All of it, always, is intended ultimately to enslave and impoverish all of us who aren't the self-appointed élite types behind these programmes: devising them, implementing them, aiding them, hiding & covering-up the reality and whatever might leak out or be discovered about them.

In this crucial time, the current activity is very strongly the (multiple) attempts to start civil unrest and indeed civil war on both sides of the Atlantic, including several of the EU nations with more to follow. That is intended to lead to martial law and a police State – and it is transparent that this is what the shadow government (Deep State/establishment) has been working toward in the USA for some time. See the 'Alinsky' policy No. 4.

Here in Britain, despite the weakness of a minority government and a fair amount of criticism of it, they are at least Conservatives (despite what some like to claim) and the path being taken here is more tortuous.

Across the Pond, much of what has been planned has been scuppered, deferred or similarly knocked off track by the election of President Trump and what he has been doing ever since. He is a very canny operator, and has already achieved much more than what appears on the surface.

I just hope we here can at least do as much as is necessary to protect our own nation!

Syria

The military strike, earlier today, on what were reportedly Syria's chemical weapon stores, is now a matter of history. It has happened.

I was not in favour of any military intervention there because I knew that the West was being manipulated by Deep State forces, and this could have played right into their hands and triggered their wanted World War 3.

In reality, this was always a 'Kobayashi Maru' kind of situation (as per the second original Star Trek movie, "The Wrath of Khan") – namely, a no-win scenario. Do, or not do, there was never going to be an actual solution: it was more a test of character, and about trying to find the least bad option and subsequent fallout.

So, now that the strike has been implemented, what are the positives that we can take from where we are today?

First, on the assumption that the intelligence regarding the target site(s) was good, we in the west (several countries, including Britain) have reduced the capacity for chemical weapon usage in Syria – although they could bring in such materials from elsewhere, I suppose, but at huge risk as of course all movements are being very closely monitored.

It isn't worth the risk of attempting that, not only because of the high risk of loss of those materials as well, but also because the game would be up and the whole world would know what was going on. That could not be undone, and loses a strategic and propaganda advantage that could be vital in the near future.

The action has also 'sent a message' – and expression I see over-used but on this occasion it is justified – so that everyone knows that chemical weapons are 'off limits' and that will be backed up by the most powerful military forces on the planet. In case anyone had forgotten what those forces are capable of doing, this action was also a reminder of that.

Under the circumstances, there is not a lot that the Assad regime or its Russian friends can say or do. There is certainly no justification for any kind of escalation, though the Russians will feel obliged to make at least a token response – one that say "we could easily do much more than this, today is just a taster. Don't push it!"

 

They could try to claim that what was targeted was 'medical supplies' – but both sides are fully aware of just how easy that would be to discredit upon examination; and there really isn't any justifiable reason to oppose an independent investigation of the affected sites, if they don't wish to be ridiculed and dismissed for making empty, unverified claims.

In the end, I still wish we hadn't done this – but now that we are here, we need to realise that it need go no further than a little bit of face-saving for the Russians after what they have already stated.

As One Door Closes

The dominance of the Corbynites on the Labour party's National Executive Committee (NEC), achieved this week, and the already-begun expected (at least by some of us) purge of what are termed 'moderates', are leading to the party's ultimate demise.

What I have read was an 11% vote for Jon Lansman (head of the Corbyn-supporting Momentum organisation) and two other 'Corbynistas' has resulted in their faction now running the NEC – and indeed purging of anyone who is not of their mind has already started from at least one key position, just a day later.

None of this comes as any surprise, as it has been easy to see where the party has been heading for some time. I might hold the record for being the first to predict all of this, which I have been doing ever since Ed{ward} Miliband became the Labour leader almost two-thirds of a decade ago. Back then, I initially predicted that within half a decade or so, the party would reach a point from which it could never return, and it would start to become more obvious to all that it was on its way to extinction within a few years after that.

To the political geeks who would listen, I also disclosed that the psychology and structural make-up of the party meant that this was inevitable, and the point of no return had effectively been reached at that time. I don't think they believed me…






Actually, by last March, even The Guardian had learned of a plot by Momentum and the UNITE union to take over control of Labour.


The present situation has been made comparatively easy by what appears to have been almost complete inaction on the part of the so-called 'moderates' within the party, including and most especially its elected members in the House of Commons – its MPs. It is now being suggested by concerned people that they leave the Labour party and stand as Independents at the next election. They are just about certain to be de-selected as candidates anyway – something that has this week been threatened, and that we really knew would happen if we were honest with ourselves.

This, though, would fragment them into non-entities without a party machine to campaign for them, so they'd be unlikely to win the seats and there'd be no full-on manifesto to give them even an election campaign firm foundation. They could form a new party or similar but less formalised entity with common goals and its own manifesto, but that could be difficult to achieve and it'd need to establish its credentials over a period of years.

I have a better idea. When we had a not dissimilar situation in the country around thirty years ago, when Militant were trying to dominate Labour, a 'gang of four' broke away from the party and set up the centrist Social Democrat Party (SDP) which many disaffected Labour members joined and supported for many years. Some went with it in the subsequent merger with the Liberal Party when the Liberal Democrats were formed, a (much) smaller number stayed with an ongoing SDP.

Interestingly, a similar phenomenon to that divide occurred with the old Tory Party in the 19th century when it officially ceased to exist upon the formation of the Conservative Party – but some of the party faithful kept it going for decades.

Similarly, the SDP is still around, and seems to have been quietly waiting in the wings for a suitable time for its re-emergence. It is strongly pro-Brexit, so would certainly seem to be an ideal new home for Leave-favouring displaced Labour MPs, councillors and ordinary members. Remainers might not be so keen, depending on how their feelings weigh up between Brexit and having a Commons presence.

I suspect that there are enough Labour moderates to make such a move to this new home work – just as it did to a considerable degree last time round. The advantage this time is that there would be fewer seats to contest, rather that the SDP's full slate approach back in the 'eighties. At that time they were winning almost as many votes as Labour, but getting only a small fraction of their number of seats as the SDP vote was too thinly spread – something that afflicts the successor Lib Dems to this day.

For the next General Election, the campaigning would be limited to (probably) around 250 seats, which should be sufficient to tip the balance even the first time (presumably May 2022) and get at least some of the SDP candidates elected. It might not be very many on that occasion, but it would be a much greater success story than (say) UKIP and the Greens have ever had, and perhaps better than the Lib Dems' wins on that day.

I think it could work!

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…

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.