Monday 2 July 2018

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!

Saturday 14 April 2018


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.

Wednesday 17 January 2018

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!