- (1994 -Official Website - SEPTEMBER PT 2-2018 )-- 

SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2018          SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2018

 SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2018        SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 5-2018

SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-PART 6-2018        SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME--2018

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

*

MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links-

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

IMMIGRATION-BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE-  EU FILE   IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS  FOREIGNAIDFILE

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

Est.1994-POLICY-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links- IMMIGRATION-ARCHIVE- EU FILE

 

*  *  *

DAILY MAIL

COMMENT

Tuesday, September 11,2018

THERE was a time when MPs of all parties embraced periodic changes to constituency boundaries as a fundamental part of the

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

Set by the independent Boundary Commission , they ensure that constituencies remain roughly equal in size in the face of our ever-growing and shifting population.

Most importantly, they guarantee that everyone's vote carries the

SAME WEIGHT.

But in recent years, the process has become so deeply politicised and the source of such bitterness that there has been no boundary reform since 2000. Since then the population has risen by

8 MILLION.

The last time a review came before Parliament, in 2011, Nick Clegg's Lib Dems conspired with Labour to defeat it, cynically reneging on a

COALITION PROMISE.

Now an updated review is coming back to

PARLIAMENT

And it's favourable to the Tories-giving them up to 29 more seats in a House of Commons reduced in size from 650 to 600 members.

OPPOSITION PARTIES

are in an uproar. Rather than accepting these changes as

FAIR and DEMOCRATIC

they are concerned only with narrow

PARTY INTERESTS.

Labour accuses the Government of gerrymandering-even though the Boundary Commission is totally

 NEUTRAL

And some Tory MPs who stand to lose their seats are threatening to vote with the

OPPOSITION

TO

SABOTAGE THE CHANGES

 

Theresa May is said to be ready to

 BUY OFF REBELS

WITH

PEERAGES

or the promise of a future seat.

BUT

How sad that they should need to be

BRIBED

to do what is so clearly the

RIGHT and HONOURABLE THING

-both for their

PARTY

and the

HEALTH OF OUR DEMOCRACY

Is it any wonder the public has become so profoundly disenchanted with politicians, when they are so shamelessly

SELF SERVING.

*  *  *

[Not a bit of it! after 46 years in

Hitler's EU

we are not at all surprised. Their sheer arrogance is true to form.  We advocated some years ago a ONE TERM parliamentary TERM to ensure that they remembered that the job is not for life. It will allow those who wish to truly SERVE THEIR COUNTRY an opportunity to do so . The the arrogance we are witnessing now will become a strident reminder how a once DEMOCRACY can turn into a DESPOTISM.

*

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CHANGES OF FORM ARE OURS!]

Tuesday, September 11,2018

 

 

H.F.1695

*  *  *

 

 

It's the hubris of Europe's liberal politicians that has fuelled this chilling rise of the far-Right.

 

 

News for daily mail dominic sandbrook

 

DOMINIC SANDBROOK: Chilling rise of the Far Right in Sweden

...It's their naivety, their hubris, their indifference tio voter'concerns, that has fuelled the rise of such parties as the Sweden Democrats...

Read More!

 

H.F.1695/1

*  *  *

 

[A MATTER OF FACT!]

 

We

 DIDN’T

win the war!

Peter Hitchens — Daily Mail Sept 8, 2018

In a chilly, high-ceilinged room in a Sussex preparatory school in the winter of 1959, I work intently on my model of the destroyer HMS Cossack. Such models come in lurid cardboard boxes illustrated with pictures of aircraft, tanks and warships, amid scenes of fiery melodrama, guns emitting orange streaks of flame, and the smoke of battle. With these and our imaginations, we seek to recreate the thrill of the war we have just missed, in which our fathers fought and our mothers endured privations.

This is a war just over the horizon of time in which we wish we had taken part, and which dominates our boyish minds above all things. Courage in pursuit of goodness, in the face of a terrible enemy, was what we most believed in. Even the Crucifixion grew pale and faint in the lurid light of air raids and great columns of burning oil at Dunkirk.

But the Second World War, like all events that have become myths, has become a dangerous subject. As a nation, we are enthralled by the belief that it was an unequivocally ‘Good War’, a belief that has grown with extraordinary speed. Yet I did not have to look far to see a rather different picture. My parents were brought together by the tempest of that war and were marked by it for the rest of their lives.

British troops cheer the news on May 8, 1945, that the war in Europe is over. Click to enlarge

British troops cheer the news on May 8, 1945, that the war in Europe is over. Click to enlarge

My father, Commander Eric Hitchens, who served in the Royal Navy for 30 years, was never wholly sure who had won. He neither felt he was living in a victorious country nor felt it had rewarded him justly. I remember well how, sometimes, late in the evening, he would look thoughtfully into the middle distance and say: ‘Ah, well, we won the war… or did we?’

My mother, too, who had served in the Women’s Royal Naval Service and endured the Blitz, experienced the peacetime of victory as a disappointment, into which the ghosts of a more inspiring past sometimes intruded quite a lot.

Enough time has surely passed for us to admit that the military and political conduct of the war by our leaders was not always as good as it should have been, that the ‘Good War’ was often incompetently fought, with outdated equipment, by a country in decline. Events of the war, often minimised or avoided in popular or school histories, reveal a country seeking to be more important, rich and powerful than it was, and failing in all cases.

The myth that it was all glorious, and that it saved the world, is a comforting old muffler keeping out the clammy draughts of economic failure and political weakness.

Even today, the self-flattering fantasy that we won it, and the nonsensical but common belief that we did so more or less alone, still leads to foolish economic and diplomatic policies based on a huge overestimate of our real significance as a country. One day, this dangerous fable of the glorious anti-fascist war against evil may destroy us simply because we have a government too vain and inexperienced to restrain itself. That is why it is so important to dispel it.

The myths go right back to the start of the war. The uncomfortable truth is that from the very beginning, it was Britain which sought a conflict with Germany, not Germany with Britain. Hitler’s real targets lay elsewhere, in Ukraine and Russia, and he was much less interested in us than we like to think.

Nor did we go to war, as many like to believe, to save or even help the endangered Jews of Europe. The veteran Labour MP Frank Field’s claim in his recent resignation letter that ‘Britain fought the Second World War to banish these [anti-Semitic] views from our politics’ is the most recent example of this common but mistaken belief.

Britain simply did not declare war in 1939 to save Europe’s Jews – indeed, our government was indifferent to their plight and blocked one of their main escape routes, to what was then British-ruled Palestine. We also did nothing to help Poland, for whose sake we supposedly declared war.

Forget, too, the ‘special relationship’ with the US: America was a jealous and resentful rival to whom we ceded our global status and naval supremacy. And Washington’s grudging backing came at a huge price – we were made to hand over the life savings of the Empire to stave off bankruptcy and surrender.

Even the threat of a German invasion was never a reality, more a convenient idea which suited the propaganda purposes of Hitler and Churchill. What began as a phoney war led in the end to a phoney victory, in which the real winners were Washington and Moscow, not us – and an unsatisfactory, uncomfortable and unhappy peace.

It led to a permanent decline in our status and a much accelerated, violent and badly managed collapse of our Empire.

I recently obtained, long after his death, the medal my father should have received for his service on the Russian convoys while he was still alive. It came in a cheap plastic case, like a tourist trinket, emphasising our decline in the long years since. Beyond doubt, there were many acts of noble courage by our people, civilians and servicemen and women during that war. It is absolutely not my purpose to diminish these acts or to show disrespect to those who fought and endured.

Eric Hitchens features in the front row, second left, as a naval officer in Malta in about 1950. Click to enlarge

Eric Hitchens features in the front row, second left, as a naval officer in Malta in about 1950. Click to enlarge

But the sad truth is that this country deliberately sought a war in the vain hope of preserving a Great Power status our rulers knew in their hearts it had already lost. The resulting war turned us into a second-rate power.

MYTH 1: WE WERE FORCED INTO WAR BY THE GERMANS

Britain actively sought a war with Germany from the moment Hitler invaded Prague in March 1939. Even before then, there were powerful voices in the Foreign Office urging the need to assert ourselves as a Great Power.

Poland was a pretext for that war, not a reason – as was demonstrated by the fact that we did nothing to help Poland when Hitler invaded. It was an excuse for an essentially irrational, idealistic, nostalgic impulse, built largely on a need to assert Britain’s standing as a Great Power.

This goes against everything we’ve been taught to believe. But the behaviour of the Foreign Office between March 1939 – when Britain pledged to guarantee Polish independence in the Anglo-Polish alliance – and the declaration of war in September 1939 strongly backs this up. Lord Halifax’s Foreign Office, contrary to the myth that it was a nest of appeasement, had for some time been keen on a showdown with Germany, despite our grave military weakness. During this period, British officialdom descended into childish frenzies over baseless frights about non-existent German invasions of several countries in Europe.

One such scare may have actually given Hitler the idea for threatening Czechoslovakia, until then not one of his major objectives. He then began, for the first time, to consider such a policy seriously.

As for Poland, Warsaw’s military government had, since 1934, had surprisingly good relations with Hitler. And many in Britain feared there was a real possibility Poland might make a deal with Germany, leaving Britain with no immediate reason to go to war in Europe.

At the end of March 1939, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was reported to be ‘uneasy’ that our Ambassador in Warsaw could obtain no information as to the progress of negotiations during this time between Germany and Poland. Simon Newman, in his book March 1939: The British Guarantee To Poland, records Chamberlain telling the Cabinet on March 30, 1939, of his fears Polish negotiators were giving way to Germany. The British government, so often portrayed as anxious for a way out of war, was worried it would be cheated out of a confrontation it wanted to have.

The British people, who had mostly supported the Munich climbdown in September 1938, and turned out in their thousands to cheer it, were now persuaded war was at least a tolerable policy. This was achieved by the dubious claim we must stand firm over Poland or lose all honour.

How strange, in retrospect, that the USA managed to remain aloof from all this and came out of the war stronger and richer rather than (as we did) weaker and poorer, and seldom if ever, has it had its honour impugned for waiting till it was ready to fight. Might we, too, have done better to wait?

The Polish guarantee transformed Britain from a nervous spectator of central European diplomatic manoeuvres into an active participant, reluctantly but resolutely accepting the need for war.

MYTH 2: POLAND WAS A BASTION OF DEMOCRACY

From the outbreak of war to the surrender of Warsaw in 1939 and the disappearance soon afterwards of the entire Polish nation, we did nothing to help the Poles. Cabinet minutes ahead of the declaration of war reveal a refusal to discuss the fact that British forces were quite incapable of coming to Poland’s aid if it were attacked. Why? Because, although we wanted war, we never intended to fight.

Poland mattered hardly at all to the government. Britain had no major interests in Poland, which was not a particularly democratic or free country. Since a violent military putsch in May 1926, Poland had been an authoritarian state without true free elections.

In 1939, it was not the martyred hero nation, champion of freedom, justice and democracy, of propaganda myth. It was deeply anti-Semitic in practice. Far from being ‘Plucky Little Poland’, Warsaw’s military junta selfishly joined in with the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia after Munich.

The truth is our over-confident and poorly informed government believed blockade and the economic and numerical superiority of France and Britain would teach Germany a lesson about the limits of power and force Hitler to negotiate. Yet our supposedly moral position involved knowingly giving a false promise to a country we did not much like or trust.

MYTH 3: WE FOUGHT TO PROTECT THE JEWS

The industrial mass murder of European Jews did not begin until after the war had started. It may even have been made easier by the night and fog of secrecy which war makes possible.

For years before the war, the persecution of Jews in German territory was obvious to the world and nobody doubted that the Nazi state was directly responsible. Yet we did not go to war or even break off diplomatic relations.

Even the complete unmasking of the Nazis’ murderous intentions towards Europe’s Jews during the Kristallnacht pogroms of November 9-10, 1938, does not feature anywhere in explanations of British, French or American changes of foreign policy towards Germany.

Britain and other free countries took in very few fleeing Jews, even in the much celebrated Kindertransport programme. It had, in fact, severely restricted Jewish migration to Palestine following Arab and Muslim pressure, just when they most needed such a refuge.

Nobody could have known this would end in the extermination camps. Yet, when confronted with undoubted evidence of the Holocaust, later in the war, Britain and the US took no direct action to prevent it. The official view remained throughout that the best response to this horror would be to win the war, which was what the various governments involved were already seeking to do anyway.

MYTH 4: CHAMBERLAIN WAS NOTHING BUT AN APPEASER

The Left still like to think that it was their outrage at Hitler which finally drove the appeasers, including Chamberlain, into action.

But it was Chamberlain’s Tories who rearmed the country and manoeuvred Britain into its first People’s War. Despite the Munich Agreement of 1938, when Chamberlain returned to London to rapturous crowds following a negotiated peace with Hitler, he had already begun an ambitious programme of rearmament, including the development of radar capabilities.

By the summer of 1939, he was quietly certain of war because, heavily influenced by the other supposed pacific appeaser, Lord Halifax, he had decided to bring it about. To reassert Britain’s status as a Great Power, there must be war or at least a declaration. No doubt he hoped and expected that it would be either brief or static, confined to the high seas. Crucially, the rearming was not intended for a continental land war but for imperial and national defence. But without it, we would have been sunk.

Expenditure on the Navy increased from £56,626,000 in 1934-5 to £149,339,000 in 1939-40. The naval building programme from 1936 to 1939 included six capital ships, six aircraft carriers, 25 cruisers, 49 destroyers and 22 submarines.

Army spending rose from £39,604,000 in 1934-5 to £227,261,000 in 1939-40. RAF spending went up from £17,617,000 to £248,561,000 in the same period. All these figures are equivalent to many billions now. Labour opposed almost all this rearmament at the time, only later claiming the moral high ground.

MYTH 5: WE STOOD ALONE AGAINST THE NAZI MENACE

The whole edifice of modern British patriotism and pride is based upon the belief that Britain stood alone against the Nazi menace after the fall of France. But it is a romantic myth. Not only did French and Belgian troops (often wholly selflessly) help British troops to escape through Dunkirk, but Britain also had a large and loyal Empire behind it throughout the war. And the part we played after 1940 is far less than we would have liked. Just nine months after it had begun, Britain had lost the war it declared. It had been driven from continental Europe, penniless and stripped of most of its military hardware.

British troops would not be in contact with the main body of the principal enemy again for four whole years – in a six-year war. Our role on land, between 1940 and 1944 in colonial or sideshow wars on the fringes of the conflict and even after D-Day, was as an increasingly junior partner to the USA and the USSR.

The prospect of peace with Germany on humiliating terms would linger like a nasty smell until the Battle of Stalingrad and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor made eventual German defeat certain. In the end, we were rescued by others, and remain rescued – perhaps more rescued than many of us would like.

MYTH 6: THE LOOMING SHADOW OF INVASION

The threat of German invasion was never a reality but served as propaganda which suited both Hitler and Churchill at the time.

For Hitler it was a way of persuading a battered, unhappy British populace to press their leaders to give in. For Churchill, more successfully, it was a way to raise morale, production and military effectiveness by creating an atmosphere of tension and danger.

Despite their might on land, the Germans in 1940 did not possess a single landing craft, as we understand the term. Their small navy had been devastated by the Norwegian campaign, losing ten destroyers in two battles at Narvik. There had never been sufficient concentrations of German troops in France for such a huge operation. Hitler’s famous directive of July 16, 1940, sounds menacing because of its use of the deeply shocking phrase ‘to occupy [England] completely’. But it is subtly cautious, plainly intended to persuade Britain to ‘come to terms’.

Hitler was cool towards an invasion, and serious plans for a cross-Channel attack were sketchy. Major forces were never assembled or trained for such an enormous and risky operation.

But appearances had to be maintained. In the post-Dunkirk months, Germany attacked coastal convoys, military industries and eventually centres of population.

British pilots, and allies of many nations fought with extreme bravery in the air in 1940. But the belief it was an all-or-nothing struggle in which every sinew was strained is undermined by the fact that in September 1940, 30 Hurricanes, with their pilots, were ordered to Khartoum in the Sudan.

Tellingly, too, Churchill’s private secretary, Jock Colville, heard the premier refer to ‘the great invasion scare’ in conversation with Generals Paget and Auchinleck in July 1940, and imply that it was serving a useful purpose.

Later actions we took, especially the bombing of German civilians from 1942 to 1945, are often justified by the plea that our very existence was in peril when by then it was not. Hitler’s real aim, especially after 1941, was the conquest of Ukraine and Russia.

MYTH 7: WE CAN THANK THE ‘SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP’

Hitler had well-founded suspicions that the USA, far from being a friend to this country, was hostile to and jealous of the British Empire. Indeed, the Anglo-American alliance refused to solidify as long as Britain still appeared to Americans as a selfish, mean and bullying Great Power quite capable of looking after itself. Attitudes began to change only when Britain, admitting it was running out of money, came to America’s doorstep as a penniless supplicant, offering America the chance to save the world.

The extraordinary (and all but unknown) transfer of Britain’s gold to the USA throughout 1939 and 1940 was the lasting proof that a deliberate, harsh British humiliation had to precede any real alliance. The stripping of Britain’s life savings was an enormous event.

Secret convoys of warships were hurrying across the Atlantic loaded down with Britain’s gold reserves and packed with stacks of negotiable paper securities, first to Canada and then to Fort Knox in Kentucky, where much of it still remains. It was not for safekeeping, but to pay for the war. Before Britain could become the USA’s pensioner, we had to prove we had nothing left to sell.

The ‘Lend-Lease’ system, which provided limited American material aid to Britain, was far from the act of selfless generosity Churchill proclaimed it to be. Even the Americans’ Bill had a gloating, anti-British tinge, given the number H.R. 1776 in reference to the year of the US Declaration of Independence.

The Destroyers for Bases Agreement, too, was quite grudging. It led to 50 decrepit American First World War destroyers being handed over in return for the USA obtaining bases in several British territories on the Western side of the Atlantic.

This shocking surrender of sovereignty indicates Britain was, piece by piece, handing naval and imperial supremacy to its former colony. It symbolises the true relationship between the USA and Britain in the post-Dunkirk months, as opposed to the sentimental fable still believed.

MYTH 8: BRITISH BOMBING OF GERMANY WAS JUSTIFIED

MANY believe British bombing in the Second World War killed German civilians only by accident, in what would now be called ‘collateral damage’. But documents and recorded remarks reveal this was not so.

The policy of bombing German civilians, mostly working-class opponents of Hitler in dense, poor housing, was adopted after a confidential report showed the RAF simply could not bomb accurately by night. Bombing was not confined to such moments as the Hamburg and Dresden firestorms but sustained and directed at almost every major German city.

None of the justifications for this policy stands up. It did surprisingly little damage to German war production. It was incredibly wasteful of the brave young aircrews, who had no choice in the matter, who died in appalling numbers night after night.

It did not save us from invasion. Systematic large-scale bombing did not really begin until March 1943, by which time Hitler was in retreat in the East and in no position to invade Britain.

While it did draw guns and planes from the Eastern Front, the same effect would have been achieved by attacks on military and industrial sites, which were highly effective when tried, and would have ended the war much more quickly.

It also removed vital aircraft from the Battle of the Atlantic, in which the Royal Navy grappled with German U-boats and came dangerously close to defeat. This is not hindsight. Powerful voices were raised against it at the time, some on moral grounds, some pointing out that it was militarily unjustified. But they were over-ruled and mocked.

MYTH 9: HEROIC BRITAIN WON THE WAR

Britain played a surprisingly small part in the overthrow of Hitler. It was not British troops who stormed Hitler’s bunker or planted their flag on the ruins of the Reichstag.

Chamberlain and Daladier, the French Prime Minister, started a war which Stalin and Roosevelt would later take over and finish. It destroyed the Third Reich and created a new order in Europe in which Britain and France would be second-rate powers.

It may be the only case in history of a second-hand war being taken over by other belligerents and used for their own purposes. Certainly, Britain and France did not achieve their aim in declaring war. Both sought to stay in the club of Great Powers and found themselves being asked to leave.

The devastating cultural revolution of the past 50 years would not have happened in a country where the victorious governing classes were confident and assured. And our absorption into the EU – which is the continuation of Germany by other means – is not the fate of a dominant victor nation.

MYTH 10: WE WERE GLORIOUS IN VICTORY

The general impression is that the end of hostilities brought a new sunlit era of optimism in a ravaged continent. Yet victory led swiftly to an appeasement of Stalin at least as bad as our appeasement of Hitler in 1938, with nations handed over bound and gagged to the Kremlin’s secret police regime. And the following months and years brought death on a colossal scale, of which we nowadays know almost nothing.

Under the Potsdam Agreement, between 12 and 14 million ethnic Germans were driven from Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. We shall never know how many died – estimates vary from 500,000 to 1.5 million. Most were women and children, defenceless civilians. In one incident, 265 Germans, including 120 women and 74 children, were killed by Czech troops. They were removed from a train, shot in the back of the neck and buried in a mass grave they had been forced to dig.

These disgusting slaughters were not the result of enraged citizens taking their revenge on former oppressors, but state-sponsored and centrally controlled. There are many more examples, but most of them, recorded in Professor R. M. Douglas’s harrowing and distressing book Orderly And Humane (the phrase comes from the Potsdam Agreement itself) are known, in this country at least, only to professional historians.

A whole page of horror in European history, from which we have much to learn, has been erased. And, as so often in these matters, those who raise these matters can expect to be falsely accused of minimising the crimes of the Nazis, as some in Germany have sought to do. But this is a stupid lie.

As Prof Douglas says: ‘Whatever occurred after the war cannot possibly be equated to the atrocities perpetrated by the Germans during it, and suggestions to the contrary are deeply offensive and historically illiterate.’ But the fact that a respectable academic has to make this point illustrates how very difficult it still is, nearly 80 years later, to look objectively at the Second World War.

Later still, as our diminished power and influence became clear in so many ways, the ghost of our 1940 defeat – and the necessary but reluctant compromises we had to make in order to survive it – still haunts our lives.

The most popular film in British cinemas of summer 2017 was Dunkirk. But it made no attempt to explain to a new generation why the entire British Army was standing up to its armpits in salt water, being strafed by the German air force, having wrecked, burned or dumped arms and equipment worth billions in today’s money.

Nobody wants to know. Perhaps it is time they did.

Source

GET THE BOOK AND FIND OUT MORE

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

AND MUCH MUCH MORE!

Patriot Historian Scrutinizes Eustace Mullins & Ezra Pound

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=12491

H.F.1689

*  *  *

 

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

BREXIT:

NIGEL FARAGE

 

Nigel Farage to go 'on the road' with

 

LEAVE GROUP

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media caption Nigel Farage: "Brexit plan a complete betrayal"

Nigel Farage has said he is going "back on the road" to campaign against the prime minister's Brexit plan.

In the Daily Telegraph, the UKIP MEP said Theresa May's Chequers agreement was a "sell-out" as it included regulatory alignment with the EU.

He wrote he would join pro-Brexit group

Leave Means Leave

at UK public events.

Meanwhile, ex-civil service head Lord Kerslake has said consequences of a no-deal Brexit would be so serious, MPs would have to reconsider it.

The announcement by former UKIP leader Mr Farage comes after a string of resignations last month over the prime minister's Brexit strategy - including those of David Davis and Boris Johnson.

Mr Davis quit as Brexit secretary saying he did not agree with Mrs May's proposals, while former foreign secretary Mr Johnson accused the prime minister of pursuing a "semi-Brexit".

Mr Farage said "scores of people" had stopped him in the street to ask when he was "coming back".

He added: "Well now you have your answer: I'm back."

The 54-year-old said a "battlebus" had already been hired.

He later told the BBC that Mrs May's proposal was "a complete betrayal of what people voted for".

His comments also come amid calls for a second referendum on the final Brexit deal.

Campaign group People's Vote has also criticised the government's handling of negotiations with the European Union.

People's Vote argues the public should be allowed a say on the final deal agreed with the EU.

Lord Kerslake told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that, if the government was unable to strike a deal with Brussels, there would have to be a "pause" in the Article 50 process. under which the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019.

The crossbench peer said in those circumstances, the European Commission would likely insist on some "re-examination" of the 2016 referendum decision to leave.

"The consequences of a no deal would be so serious as I think Parliament would have to seriously consider whether it could contemplate this," he said.

"The question people need ask themselves is: is this a risk that they think we should be taking?

"If the government can negotiate a good deal, then so be it.

"But if they can't and we end up in this position, then we have to reopen the question of whether we go forward with Brexit at all. It is not too late to do that."

The government is due to publish a series of technical notes on preparations for a no-deal Brexit on areas including farming and financial services. But Lord Kerslake said this was "too little, too late".

On Friday, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt insisted Britain would "survive and prosper" if it left the EU without a trade deal - but added it would be a "big mistake for Europe".

Related Topics

*

[ABOUT TIME TOO!-IN THE NICK OF TIME!-BECAUSE WHILE THE LION OF OUR FREEDOM WAS AWAY, THE TRAITORS HAD THEIR TIME TO TRY AND GIVE OUR HISTORIC JUNE 23 2016 REFERENDUM VICTORY AWAY.]

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

 

 

comment image

See: 80 Comments

[WE were surprised a matter of some months ago when we saw the close warm greeting between Mrs May and Angela Merkel when they met to discuss BREXIT. WE expected that they would have kept at arms length ,at the time, that  a distance between them would have given more confidence to Brexiteers that the negotiations would not be a 'SELL OUT' which in some areas such as our Fishing Fields and the sovereignty of our sea lanes... we now have our suspicions. ]

APRIL 9,2018

As the picture above clearly shows it has been decades of association between Theresa May and  Frau Merkel who was a civil servant under the  Communist East German Government.  May's treasonous Cabinet plan appears to have all the hallmarks of the mindset of the German Chancellor.  May has admitted that she is in close contact with her once teen- age friend so we should'nt be surprised if more bad news follows?

AUGUST 7,2018

 

H.F.1525/1

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 23 -2018

H F 1670

*  *  *

 

 

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

 

Khazarian mafia seeks Chinese protection as military tribunals loom

The satan-worshipping Khazarian mafia is in a frenzy of fear as military tribunals loom.  As a result, they are offering the world (as if it were theirs to give) to China in exchange for protection, according to Gnostic Illuminati and Asian secret society sources.  In addition to this, they are threatening to unleash pandemics, blow up the Yellowstone Caldera, set off a massive EMP attack, and cause other mayhem in a futile effort (as these attempts will be neutralized) to blackmail themselves out of the reach of long-delayed justice.  Also, they are carrying out a foolish and widely derided smear campaign to derail the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Pentagon sources say they used “the threat of 9/11 declassification, which may soon happen, to force George Bush Jr. to publicly back Kavanaugh, whose confirmation would unleash military tribunals.”  Remember, Kavanaugh said during his confirmation hearings that the U.S. has been under martial law since shortly after 9/11 and as a result, military tribunals could try, and even sentence to death, civilians guilty of treason.

In addition to this, the sources say that “because of the interference in the 2016 U.S. election by the Jewish mafia, which supported Hillary Clinton, Trump may use FISA declassification leverage to force the UK and Australia to purge Zionists and Israeli dual-citizens from positions of influence.”

The rogue state of Israel, for its part, has been trying to seek Russian and Chinese protection as it loses control of the United States.  However, this is backfiring, big time.  Here is the U.S. military’s analysis of where these efforts are leading.

First, in reaction to the recent Israeli stunt to fool Syria into shooting down a Russian plane in yet another desperate attempt to start World War 3, “An angry [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church may have declared holy war on the anti-goy Jewish faction, and may impose a no-fly zone on Israel until it returns the Golan to Syria, lifts the siege of Gaza, denuclearizes, and returns the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and all stolen lands to Palestine and Lebanon.”

Second, “With China in control of the Haifa Port and infrastructure projects in Israel, the BRICS nations may ban this rogue state from the quantum financial system, and [U.S. President Donald] Trump may just agree to a UN arms embargo and air-sea blockade.”

With all this and more going on, it is no surprise that the Swiss branch of the Rothschild family, the BIS, and the Elders of Zion sent a representative last week to Japan to negotiate surrender with the White Dragon Society (WDS).  The negotiator (whom we will call the BIS man) said the banking families were worried about …

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

A Deep Dive into the Petro

General Milan writes about financial technology and cryptocurrency for the Earth Alliance, a loose-knit global alliance working for the benefit of humanity.  The battle over the future of Planet Earth has in many ways always been a financial battle.  As time passes and technology advances, that financial battle is increasingly being fought out in the cryptocurrency arena.
Follow General Milan on Twitter: 
@generalmilan

In early December of 2017, just before cryptocurrency markets started to crater, President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela announced the creation of the Petro cryptocurrency backed by Venezuela’s oil and gas reserves.  This was both an attempt to both circumvent the financial sanctions placed on the Maduro regime and a desperate effort to patch up the Venezuelan economy, the complete collapse of which was an entirely predictable outcome of Venezuela’s decades-long experiment with authoritarian socialism.

In this article we trace the development of the Petro from Maduro, to his Russian cryptocurrency consultants, to the Japanese/Malaysian blockchain technology upon which the Petro is based, all the way back to the Esalen Institute of California—the heart and center of socialist ideology.

Venezuela has quickly gone from being one of the richest countries in South America with the largest proven oil reserves in the world, to having a humanitarian refugee crisis on par with the war in Syria.  As in almost all cases of mass human suffering, very dark forces are behind it, and indeed the oil industry itself is obviously at the heart and center of many wars and global environmental problems.

The story of the Petro is far from over, however, and the real battle over the financial future of Planet Earth is probably still just beginning.  In this, the happenings in Venezuela have major geopolitical implications.

On August 5th, 2018 President Maduro was the target of of an apparent assassination attempt by drone, a bizarre false flag-ish event that was seemingly produced on a very modest budget.

Then, on September 8th, 2018 The New York Times ran an exposé describing how officials from the Trump administration had met with opposition forces in Venezuela to plan a potential coup against Maduro.  The article can be seen as both a critique of the Trump administration’s tactics and as a form of support for Maduro’s claim that he a “good guy” battling against imperial American forces.

We expect the geopolitical battle to continue in the weeks and months ahead, but for now our focus is on the Petro cryptocurrency.  In fact it remains to be seen whether or not the Petro is successful in any way.  On August 30th, 2018, Reuters ran a special investigative report entitled “In Venezuela, new cryptocurrency is nowhere to be found.”  The report describes the fact that the Petro is based on oil reserves located underneath a barren patch of land that would require an investment of at least $20 billion to retrieve, money that the bankrupt Venezuelan government does not have.

Thus, in many ways the Petro is nothing but a pipe dream.  The article quotes the exiled former Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez as saying, “The Petro is being set at an arbitrary value which exists only in the government’s imagination.”

The Petro is based on the NEM blockchain.  The idea for NEM originally came from a Bitcointalk user named UtopianFuture, but NEM was developed by an Osaka company called Tech Bureau, led by a character named Takao Asayama.  The NEM Foundation is domiciled in Singapore and physically located in the oil-rich nation of Malaysia.

Takao Asayama is said to be closely connected to Takafumi Horie, a notorious character in Japan who is deeply connected into the Asian underworld.  Horie is a kind of a Japanese Elon Musk—an aggressive technology businessman who was criticized for his M&A practices and actually went to jail for market manipulation tactics.  It’s said that when Horie went into jail he may have been “grey,” but when he came out he was fully “black” and 60 pounds lighter.  Horie is the founder of a rocket company called Interstellar Technologies which has unfortunately experienced two failed launches.

The logo for NEM is a combination of counterclockwise-rotating Japanese mitsudomoe symbol and a shield representing the Reuleaux triangle shape used inside of the internal combustion engine.  NEM stands for New Economy Movement, not to be confused with the New Economic Model (NEM), an affirmative action plan developed by the former Malaysian prime minister and the Malaysian Chinese Association.

The NEM cryptocurrency is based on a consensus algorithm called Proof-of-Importance, which is an attempt to improve upon the rich-get-richer characteristics of Proof-of-Stake algorithms.  In Proof-of-Importance, accounts are assigned a “reputation” or “importance” score, such that accounts that are deemed to be more important to the NEM ecosystem are awarded with more new currency units.  We fear that over time NEM’s consensus algorithm may need to be renamed Proof-of-Maduro’s-Importance.

NEM was at the center of the Coincheck hack of January 2018.  In that event, hackers broke into a Japanese cryptocurrency exchange called Coincheck and stole over $500 million dollars worth of NEM, making it one of the largest thefts in the history of the world.  The hack cast a pall over the cryptocurrency market in Japan and contributed to the global sell-off that became the cryptocurrency bear market of 2018.  The hack also reduced the number of exchanges trading NEM in Japan to only one—the Zaif exchange owned by Tech Bureau itself.

In March 2018, the Japanese FSA issued a business improvement order to Zaif and several other exchanges over their security and anti-money-laundering practices.  This put Zaif and NEM in the awkward position of being close to complete shutdown in Japan.

Then on September 20th 2018, Zaif announced that it had been hacked to the tune of $60 million, but also announced that a bailout loan was being arranged through a Horie-connected Japanese investment advisory firm called FISCO.  As part of the deal, FISCO would take a majority share ownership in Zaif.  Since FISCO already operates its own cryptocurrency exchange in Japan and is already partnered with Zaif, the bailout could be seen as a way for FISCO to subsume Zaif and start fresh with a clean regulatory record.

Just one day after the Zaif hack was announced, cryptocurrency investors were left scratching their heads as the price of the Ripple cryptocurrency surged by more than 60%.  But as one Twitter user keenly noted, “Anyone attempting to explain this Ripple move should also explain why Monacoin is up roughly the same amount.”  In fact, Monacoin, billed as “the first Japanese cryptocurrency,” was among the cryptocurrencies stolen in the Zaif hack.  If the hackers of the Zaif exchange wanted to unload their stolen Monacoin, it would make a lot of sense to pump up the price first.

But back to the topic of the Petro, how and why did Maduro decide to base the Petro on the NEM blockchain?  After all, Venezuela is a world away from Japan.  To answer that question, we need to look at some of Maduro’s cryptocurrency advisors.

The first character of interest is the 27-year-old Venezuelan Gabriel Jimenez.  After Jimenez’s father was charged for defrauding investors in the collapse of a Dominican bank, Jimenez went to work in Washington, D.C. as a congressional intern for one of Maduro’s strongest critics.  In that role he was a “spirited anti-government crusader who helped organize a caravan … in which thousands of Venezuelan exiles traveled by bus to Washington to pressure the Obama administration to slap sanctions on Maduro’s government.”  But soon after, he returned to Venezuela and quickly rose to become one of the top strategists behind the Petro.  We can only assume that he is either a spy or a complete sell-out.  In any case, to find the real masterminds behind the Petro we need to look farther afield, to Maduro’s Russian consultants.

In March 2018 after President Trump issued an Executive Order banning Americans from transacting in the Petro, Time Magazine published an exclusive article entitled “Russia Secretly Helped Venezuela Launch a Cryptocurrency to Evade U.S. Sanctions.”  Of course, as with all mainstream media articles about Russia, it is mostly an attempt to demonize Russia and link everything back to Putin, which is a little bit like saying that Trump controls everything that happens in the United States.  The author’s other Time articles include “To Understand Russia, Read A Terrible Country” and “How I Learned to Love the German Nanny State After Leaving Putin’s Russia.”

In any case, the Time article does a good job of detailing the Russian consultants behind the Petro.  It’s worth noting here that the symbol for the Petro, ₽, is exactly the same as the symbol for the Russian Ruble that was newly chosen in 2013 via a process organized by the Central Bank of Russia.

The main two Russian consultants behind the Petro are Fyodor Bogorodsky and Denis Druzhkov.  According to the Time article, “Bogorodsky moved to Uruguay around 2009 and became an informal ambassador of Russian culture across Latin America.”  Bogorodsky’s personal website details his family’s long history in Russia from its beginnings among “eminent Tatars,” to “military service in the Crimea campaign,” to the development of banking in Kazan province.  Bogorodsky’s contributions to Maduro were apparently run out of a shell company called Aerotrading, which is only really notable for using the Illuminati left-facing OK sign as its logo.

Denis Druzhkov is the co-founder of a Russian cryptocurrency exchange called the Zeus Exchange.  We note here that Zeus was not known to be a kind god.  The Zeus Exchange is based on the NEM blockchain and is partnered with the NEM Foundation.

Druzhkov’s Twitter account is enlightening.  He is a follower of the Latvia-based anti-Kremlin news agency Meduza, named after the snake-headed monster from Greek mythology.  He is also a follower of “the Kremlin’s leading critic-in-exile” Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the oligarch who looted Russia’s oil industry after the fall of the Soviet Union and a close colleague of Henry Kissinger and Jacob Rothschild.  Druzhkov also follows Shaltai Boltai, an anonymous hacking group that targets the Kremlin.  Needless to say, Time appears to have been completely wrong in portraying Druzhkov and Bogorodsky as puppets of the Kremlin.

Druzhkov is also a Twitter follower of the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California.  It is worth digging into this relationship a little bit, because readers may not be aware of the Esalen Institute’s prominent position in the global Satanic hierarchy.  But remember that while the 60’s produced a lot of love, freedom, and liberation, it also produced horrible events such as the Manson family’s murder of Luciferian movie stars, all of whom hung out around Esalen.

According to The Magic of Esalen:  “At its essence, Esalen culture is organized almost like a Masonic Lodge or Secret Society, with concentric orders of initiation and status.”  In fact, Esalen was influential enough during the Cold War to have arranged United States visits via its Soviet-American exchange program for several prominent Russians just before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  This included a visit for one of Mikhail Gorbachev’s chief economic advisors, and also included Boris Yeltsin’s first trip to the United States to meet with George H.W. Bush and other political leaders.  We wonder if the Esalen Institute would be as welcoming to Vladamir Putin today;  somehow we doubt it.  Those interested in reading more about the history of Esalen are encouraged to take a look at “How Darwin, Huxley, and the Esalen Institute Launched the Psychedelic Revolutions” or the associated map.

Following President Trump’s executive order banning the Petro, the Zeus Exchange appears to have cut ties with Druzkov, at least nominally.  But having structured at least two major projects around NEM (the Zeus Exchange and the Petro), it is a safe bet that Druzkov and colleagues still are heavily invested in NEM and perhaps even actively promoting it.

Indeed, NEM has been making headway among some interesting groups.  In August, at the 100th Annual Crow Fair for the Crow Nation of Montana, NEM systems were demonstrated to tribal leaders: “Good Guy NEM? – Helping Native Americans Get into Crypto! – Great Idea!”  The Crow Nation—or the Black Lodges, as one of its subgroups is called—is located in a major oil-producing region, but NEM’s interest in collaborating with the Crow likely also extends to the tribal casino business.

Historically, the Crow tribe worked together with the U.S. Army against their enemies the Lakota Sioux.  This is notable in the sense that the Lakota Standing Rock reservation was major news in recent years due to protests over the Dakota Access oil pipeline.  We have a feeling that the Lakota would not be as eager as the Crow to embrace using a cryptocurrency with deep ties to the oil industry.

Further south in Las Vegas, NEM recently signed an informal agreement with Kind Heaven, a new multimedia theatrical experience created by Peretz Bernstein, a.k.a. Perry Farrell, the frontman of the rock bands Porno for Pyros and Jane’s Addiction.  Taking a page from The Hangover film series or even the Vietnam War, the event will be Southeast Asia-themed, complete with betting on virtual monkey wrestling:  Inside Perry Farrell’s Wild Vegas EDM Musical: Sex, Drugs and War.  It will also run exclusively on cryptocurrency.

Another project building on NEM is Eterly, the “artificial intelligence platform for life extension.”  The logo for Eterly looks like the symbol for a biohazard.  We could go on, but you get the idea….

To summarize, while the Venezuelan Petro may collapse into a failed experiment, the cryptocurrency upon which it is based, NEM, is slowly seething its way into the oil and gambling industries and beyond.  The two most important commodities in the world are gold and oil.

Money has historically been backed by gold, but that ended in 1971 when Kissinger and Nixon detached the U.S. dollar from gold, and attached it instead to an oil and military agreement involving Saudi Arabia and Israel–the origin of the petrodollar.  The result has been the greatest debt bubble in human history, a global environmental catastrophe, and non-stop war in the Middle East.  Clearly, the days of the petrodollar are numbered, but nefarious forces are already experimenting with creating new forms of petro-currency.

Gold is created through the super-energetic collapse and collision of stars.  Oil, known as black gold, comes from deep within the Earth.  While gold has been very useful as the basis of money throughout human history, and while a return to the gold standard would go a long way toward preventing bankers and politicians from printing too much money and giving it to themselves to wage endless warfare, the real problem with the financial system is the centralization of control over the creation and distribution of money.  To put it another way, even under the gold standard, the central banks are still in control of the creation and distribution of money and generally have the power to debase their currencies when it suits them to do so.

What is really needed is a new economic system where the power to create and distribute money is truly decentralized, or in other words, put back into the hands of the people.  Bitcoin was a major innovation, but it replaces control by banks with a strange new system where all new money is rewarded to those with access to cheap computers and electricity, which happens to be a few people in China.

To understand the real potential for cryptocurrency as a new method of currency creation and distribution, we recommend the excellent article “Why Everyone Missed the Most Mind-Blowing Feature of Cryptocurrency.”  NEM was an attempt to create this kind of next-generation cryptocurrency, but it is flawed and is completely controlled by nefarious forces in any case.

Rest assured, alternatives are being created.  For now, we can only advise the citizens of Venezuela as well as the rest of the world to avoid both the Petro and NEM like the Black Plague.

MI6 says cabal rule could collapse within three months

There is a very real chance that Khazarian cabal rule will collapse over the next three months, and alternative power structures need to be made ready in time for that, according to British MI6 intelligence sources.  The trigger is expected to be arrests of senior cabalists in the U.S. starting in October, the sources say.

Pentagon sources, for their part, said, “The Cabal has been deaf and blind for over two weeks, so big things should happen after Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation.”

“Kavanaugh is poised to be confirmed after Yom Kippur on September 20 and on the same day, U.S. President Donald Trump may send texts to all cellphones to reach even more people than Twitter.”  Furthermore, the sources say FEMA will also test the emergency broadcast system on all televisions, so this, when combined with wireless text alerts, “will allow Trump to spread real news in real time and drop truth bombs.”

The exact nature of what will be told to the American people through the emergency broadcast system is not yet clear.  However, last week representatives of the Swiss banking gnomes in Zurich, the Russian FSB, MI6, the Japanese royal family, and an Asian secret society all contacted the White Dragon Society (WDS) last week.  The fact that these sources, many of whom had ceased contact since the March 11, 2011 Fukushima nuclear and tsunami terrorist attack, suddenly popped out of the woodwork is a clear indication something huge is about to happen.

CIA sources connected to the secret bases in Antarctica say the sudden surge of activity in the intelligence community was related the sudden closure last week of seven solar observatories.  In particular, the sources say:

“The Solar Observatory in Sunspot, New Mexico has been ‘observing’ the sun since the Roswell incident.  They belong to a special …
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

 

 

Author: Benjamin Fulford

“Good side” of Rothschild family says Trump will stage financial reset

The deadlock has ended in the undeclared U.S. civil war that lasted all summer, and the good guys have already begun a series of stunning moves against the cabal, including shooting down their secret satellites, multiple sources confirm.  Also, a complete reset of the global financial system has already begun, assert CIA sources connected to the self-described “good side” of the Rothschild family.  And this is just a prelude to what promises to be a very eventful month of September, the sources agree.

The satellite shoot-down was first reported by the mysterious blogger “Q” and has been independently confirmed by three separate sources.  “On August 30, CIA satellites and supercomputers were taken down and likely seized by [U.S. President Donald] Trump’s new space force, and GCHQ [British Intelligence] was removed from the NSA database to also render cabal elements in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, France, Germany, and Israel deaf and blind,” Pentagon sources explained.

A CIA source in Asia who was involved in setting up the secret satellite network that was taken down last week issued the following warning to colleagues:  “We are in potential danger.  I hope your vehicles have fuel and you have emergency food and water on hand.  There’s no telling who did this or why… and now that some of our satellites are down, God only knows what may be coming at us.”

Meanwhile, a third source says Nathaniel Rothschild’s faction was involved in the shoot-down, saying, “Nat is back in play.  He is with us.  We are dismantling the Nazi/Antarctica global grid of communications.  This includes several orbiting satellites, one of which has already been eliminated.”

The communications takedown is a prelude to both a military and financial offensive against the cabal, Pentagon and CIA sources agree.  For reasons of operational security, the Pentagon sources cannot say much about the military action other than “a U.S. military offensive is under way to terminate the defenseless and disoriented cabal.”

However, the financial dimension of the cabal takedown involves “a…
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

Stance on alternative lifestyles

Hi Ben,

I’m a follower of your work with the Dragon families and even administer a group on Facebook dedicated to your weekly updates along with the fight against the cabal.  I have a concern, however.  You appear to be sounding increasingly prejudiced toward the LGBT community (and you have many people who support you from within that community, many of whom are GOOD people.)

So my question is:  are you homophobic?  I have noticed you often speak about people of this community as if we’re a product used to depopulate the world rather than actual Human Beings!  As a note about the mention of “promoting homosexuality,” there is a difference between promoting and actually educating people to lower stigma ALONG with giving people of such equal rights to everyone else.

Also, please stop placing the subject of paedophilia directly after speaking about homosexuality.  It appears a calculated move which anyone with half an education knows paedophilia is in no way related or similar to homosexuality.

I would like to hear your response in these regards/concerns.

Yours sincerely,
DU


Hi D,

First of all, let me say up front, I am not homophobic and furthermore, I have personally had, and enjoyed, same-sex experiences.

My problem is not with the LGTB community and people wanting to live alternative lifestyles.  They deserve to be treated as a normal part of the social spectrum and given the same rights as others.

My problem, in the case of Canada and many other countries, is that alternative lifestyles like polygamy that produce lots of children are criminally punished, while all forms of sex that do not produce children (masturbation, prostitution, homosexuality, etc.) are actively promoted.  Yes, this same Canada whose Prime Minister is actively promoting homosexuality is criminally punishing people who practice polygamy.  This is true in other countries as well.

The other problem is the historical practice of simultaneously promoting and prohibiting homosexuality in organizations like the U.S. military and the Catholic Church.  In the U.S. military, Nazi groups affiliated with the Bush clan, for example, forced people to have homosexual experiences in order to be promoted and then used the threat of exposure of these experiences to blackmail the same people into obedience or else face court-martial.  The U.S. military put an end to this by ending the ban of same-sex love, which was what I recommended they do.

The Catholic Church needs to do the same thing, but so far, they refuse.
In Canada, during the Cold War, there was an interior decorator working in the Department of External Affairs who was suspected of being homosexual by the Security Department.  They worried that he would be blackmailed by the Soviets because of this.  For this reason, they confronted him and asked him if he was homosexual.  He said, “Of course I am.”  Since he was open about it, they decided he could not be blackmailed and so was not a security risk and let him be.

In the UK, former Prime Minister Edward Heath was filmed by the Soviets having sex in a London hotel room with a 14-year-old boy.  He was blackmailed by this and as a result, signed over British sovereignty to the Communist EU.  That was a security risk.

A big issue that still needs to be addressed is the whole issue of older men having sex with teenage boys, a widespread but highly taboo practice.  In many cases, older men use a position of power to sexually abuse young boys.  In other cases, it is completely consensual.  Society needs to openly discuss this and figure out what sort of stance to take on this issue.

—BF

Justice for Brian Aberle

On behalf of Brian, thank you for reading about how the Ashe County Sheriff’s Office has been treating him:

https://guiltyuntilprovenwealthy.home.blog, some of which is copied below.  To follow links, please view that blog page.

Guilty Until Proven Wealthy

My name is Brian Aberle.  I am a chemist and plant medicine researcher.  I have professional experience in oncology with Siemens Medical and management-level experience in health care systems at Kaiser Permanente.  I research natural plant medicines that are alternatives to pharmaceutical anti-depressants.  I publish a website about my work:

http:\\SyrianRue.org\happy

I also research plant medicine to cure neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, which are generally treated with a class of medicine called Acetyl-Cholinesterase-Inhibitors (or AChI’s).  I published a Ph.D. level thesis outline titled “Neurodegenerative disease cure 2018” at ResearchGate.net where I publicly answer chemistry questions about my work.  I have posted answers about how to properly neutralize caustic mixtures for environmentally safe disposal, as well as more advanced questions about how to isolate individual alkaloids such as harmaline found in Syrian Rue.

Shortly after I relocated to Ashe County [North Carolina], deputies of the Ashe County Sheriff’s Office illegally searched my home and found marijuana.  Most of what they illegally seized had been decarboxylated, which makes it orally active and has been found to be the most effective form for cancer treatment or use as an AChI medicine.  Although it was discovered illegally, and their illegal case against me weak, I was placed on probation for possessing it.

I was assigned to a probation officer named Timothy Moretz.  When I introduced myself to Officer Moretz, I explained to him my work in chemistry and how I research the effects of plant medicines on neurotransmitter levels in the brain—how anti-depressants such as SSRI’s, SNRI’s, and MAOI’s work by raising serotonin and DMT levels, which exist naturally, or endogenously, in the human brain.  And that some plants such as Yopo contain both serotonin and DMT.  Timothy’s response to me was that “the world is overpopulated” and that “advancements in healthcare and medicine are to blame.”

After being on probation for about a month, my home was once again illegally raided and illegally searched.  On June 21, 2018, Timothy Moretz overstepped the law and, with nine other officers, came into my home unannounced and for two hours illegally searched my house.  One of the officers produced a small amount of mushrooms from within my freezer.  Officer Moretz presumed them to be hallucinogenic, whereupon he arrested me and had me charged with a felony.  For these fraudulent charges, the Ashe County District Court set my bond at $50,000.

I was then thrown into an isolation cell at the Ashe County Detention Center, and for 41 days I was deprived of phone access as well as the communication kiosk during my weekly trip to the shower.

Once Timothy Moretz had me falsely imprisoned, he returned to my home that very evening to trespass onto my property and continue his unlawful ransack of my papers, plants, my laboratory—my entire home.

Within a few days, state labs confirmed that the previously and illegally seized mushrooms were NOT hallucinogenic, but long before I would get out of involuntary solitary confinement—let alone released from these baseless charges—Timothy Moretz got a search warrant, absurdly based based on a statement I made to him about plants and urine containing DMT.  He returned ten days later with his absurd search warrant, and as Michael Sheron from the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation described it, a “fiasco” ensued.

Upon the execution of Timothy Moretz’s search warrant on June 26, no shortage of emergency services were summoned:  What Timothy presumed to be an explosive device turned out to be just an oil lamp and an incense burner—as confirmed by the bomb squad, who were there after being dispatched to respond to Moretz’s emergency situation.  Both fire departments from the city of Todd and Fleetwood were there, as well as the Ashe County Rescue Squad:  Timothy also presumed that my chemistry equipment was a meth lab, but when the NC Health Department got there to dismantle his meth lab, they could find none.  Andrew Blethen of the Department of Health stated that “under current decontamination laws, the local health department can only enforce cleanup of meth labs.”  And so the state did not (any further) dismantle my lab—thank God.  NCBIS was also on scene.

I had in my inventory many different legally-obtained plants, seeds, tree resins, chemicals, and equipment used for the making of medicine crucial to my research.  In total, 138 items were confiscated and destroyed.  For all of the Sheriff’s Office’s destruction, they claim to have found LESS than 1/10th of a gram of DMT with serotonin in it.

After Timothy’s fiasco on the 26th, and while I was still in isolation, he then had me falsely charged with three Class A felonies, this time for allegedly manufacturing and selling DMT—charges even more ridiculous than the first.  However, because Timothy had upped the ante with felony charges, my bond was then raised from the initial $50,000 to $300,000.

On August 23, 2018, WSOCTV.com reported on the evening news that the Ashe county Sheriff’s Office has been charged with “False Arrests” and “Malicious Prosecution,” amid other charges of misconduct, including forcing deputies to lie in statements.  I can personally testify that these allegations are only the beginning of the corruption within the Sheriff’s Office.

Please share this injustice with other medicine research groups or Internet groups concerned with human advancement, or truth and liberty.  The criminality going on in the Ashe County Sheriff’s Office must be exposed.

Thank you for reading, and God bless.  Call the District Attorney and ask about my case.

Again, the blog page with full links is at:
https://guiltyuntilprovenwealthy.home.blog

U.S. civil war stalemate to end soon; Next phase of planetary liberation to begin

The death, probably by execution, of the traitor John McCain, signals a new phase in the removal of the criminal cabal that has controlled the U.S. since 1913, Pentagon and agency sources agree.  “Traitor McCain may have been the first death penalty by military tribunal, allowed to die with honor like Rommel to protect the Navy’s reputation while spooking the deep state,” is how one Pentagon source described the situation.

The real battle, though, will begin after the U.S. branch of the cabal is removed and it will pit the U.S. military-industrial complex against a loose Eurasian alliance headquartered in Switzerland.

This battle will either end in a world war or a complete remake of post-war institutions like the UN, BIS, IMF, EU, etc.  The key is to target the complex of foundations (plus the Vatican Bank) used by the Khazarian mafia to camouflage their control of the privately owned central banks, the Fortune 500 corporations, and most so-called world leaders.

The fireworks should start in September and intensify in the run-up to the U.S. November midterm elections, where the U.S. branch of the Khazarian mafia is hoping to recover its power and remove U.S. President Donald Trump.

However, keep in mind that Trump so far has been only the lesser of two evils compared to Hillary Clinton.  He has yet to prove he is anything more than a Rothschild agent fighting against the U.S.-based Bush/Clinton/Rockefeller nexus.  Remember, the Trump regime has yet to expose the truth about crimes like 9/11 and Fukushima.  Nor have they tried anything remotely like a jubilee.

Former CIA and Marine intelligence officer Robert David Steele says “9/11 Truth is on the table.  The President promised to get to the bottom of it.  He is undecided about whether to do this before or after the elections, for fear that the crucifixion (cruci “fiction”?) of Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives working as agents of Zionist Israel would be one election too soon.”  A volume containing a collection of the presidential memoranda prepared by 28 top scholars, spies, and engineers is free online:
https://phibetaiota.net/2018/07/memorandums-for-the-president-on-9-11-experts-say-what-the-9-11-commission-was-too-corrupt-to-address/

The rabbit hole that runs even deeper than 9/11, of course, is the March 11, 2011 (3/11) Fukushima nuclear and tsunami mass-murder event.  On this front, the removal last week of Goldman Sachs Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia may lead to 3/11 truth coming out, according to two Australian Secret Intelligence Service agents who were involved with Fukushima.

These agents provided evidence to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2010 that a nuclear weapon stolen from…
 

The remainder of this article is only available to members of BenjaminFulford.net
Please Log In or Register to create an account.

 

Trustworthy intelligence

Ben,

Apparently SM, the author of the missive to you featured on your newsletter this week, doesn’t understand compartmented intelligence.  I will only go so far as to say that I do understand.  Certainly he should understand “need to know.”  He should also know that whatever level of high clearance he had/has, has an unknown and indefinite number of “slashes” at the highest levels.  Many levels have no knowledge of the others—that’s the point.  The probability of anyone with other than the topmost levels knowing anything about what you’re talking about is something a bit more than nil.

Meanwhile, though, your information comes from a source that you trust.  That’s a hard one for me to swallow sometimes, inasmuch as intelligence people make their livings lying.  There isn’t a concept of “trust” except in its worst form—a kind of “whether or not you’re being compromised by some force or another” as its measure.  Thus, I also hope you are careful in your qualification of your sources.  I trust that you are and tend to believe the reports that you make, especially since you accurately called the American elections when no one else did.

This whole period from 2001 to today—or perhaps even in consideration of my whole life—has really clarified my patriotism.  That is, I was never a “flag-waver” and have never easily adopted pledges and creeds.  That said, I firmly believe in the American Republic as conceived by its founders and as embodied in the Constitution of the United States and its corresponding Bill of Rights and Amendments.  To these I can say that I am 100% pledged.  To the extent that our leadership betrays the principles embodied there, they are most certainly traitors.

Unfortunately—as perhaps through all our history—their means and methods of deceit are more sophisticated than most of my fellow countrymen wish to acknowledge.  Goodhearted as most of us are, we are not—as criminals always are—so predisposed to see evil in others’ actions.  Thus acknowledging that a person like Hillary is an arch-criminal and that at minimum half the nation has been utterly duped to her wiles is not a pill the nation readily can swallow.  We are in some desperate shape here.

—Anon


You are right to note that agency folk have the bad habit of putting out disinformation.  They often use 90% real information to get you to swallow a 10% disinformation hook.  That is why I am very careful with my sources and make sure to inform my readers any time disinformation slips through my filters.

You are right about average, nice people being unable to understand the incredible criminality at the top of the power structure.  These people are able to do things like order the murder of millions because they think it is for “the greater good.”  That good, of course, means what is good for them, not for the rest of us Earth-dwellers.

—BF

 

H.F.1682

 

*  *  *

 

*  *  *

 [WE NEED THE SAME TENACITY OF PURPOSE AND DEVOTION TO OUR COUNTRY TODAY IN SEPTEMBER 2018 AS WAS SHOWN BY THE PATRIOT BELOW. WE FACE THE SAME ENEMY-HITLER'S PLANNED EU   UNDER GERMAN DOMINATION TO DESTROY NATION STATES AND PATRIOTISM. LENIN WOULD BE PROUD OF FRAU MERKEL THOUGH HER PEOPLE AND OTHERS IN THE CAPTIVE STATES ARE NOW AWAKING TO BE REMINDED OF THEIR ROOTS AS A FREE PEOPLE IN A FREE COUNTRY.]

A STORY OF SACRIFICE-THE SPITFIRE -ITS DESIGNER R. J. MITCHELL-A SAVIOUR OF THE SKIES OVER ENGLAND.

Its exactly 70 years [ 82 years in 2018] since the first Spitfire took to the air. But the plane that won the war almost didn’t make it. Its remarkable designer was fighting a tragic personal battle -and time was running out.

*

RACE FOR

THE SKIES

*

Daily Mail

Saturday, March 4-2006

by

 Tony Rennell

FOR THE many men in her life, it was love at first sight. ‘I was captivated by her sheer beauty,’ declared one of her eminent lovers, a government minister.

‘She was slimly built with a beautifully proportioned body and graceful curves just where they should be. She was every young man’s dream.

 

‘Mind you, she was what mother called a fast girl. I was advised to approach her gently. But once safely embraced in her arms, I found myself reaching heights of delight I had never before experienced.

 

IT WAS NOT A WOMEN that Captain Harold Balfour Under-Secretary of State in the pre-war Ministry of Air, was drooling over back in the thirties [The Gathering Storm years] after his first meeting with HER. It was the British fighter plane that would change the course of history -the

 

Spitfire

 

But for all his passion, even he could not have predicted what a battle-winner she would prove to be. Not that she would come to be the very icon of British guts and defiance. Nor that decades later -into the 21st century in fact-the sight of her flying over London on special anniversaries would bring tears to the eyes of grown men and women.

   

The promise of a Spitfire in the skies can still lure thousands to an Air Show, just for a glimpse of those elegant lines, the purr of that Rolls-Royce engine and all the history and glamour, death and glory, packed into her 31ft fuselage and 37ft wing-span.

 

TOMORROW

Sunday the 5th March 2006 is another historic anniversary.

It is 70 years [In March 2018-it will be 82 years ] to the day since the very first

 

Spitfire

  

Prototype climbed into the skies at

  

Eastleigh in Hampshire

 

-half its fuselage covered in a dirty yellowish-green wash, the rest rough and unpainted.

 

Captain ‘Mutt’ Summers, the Test Pilot, took her up to 3,000 ft and had her back on the ground in 8 minutes later. But in that short time in the air, the prototype won him over.

 

“the handling qualities of this machine are remarkably good “,

 

he wrote in the Test-Flight Log.

 

Destiny awaited. Two days later, on March 7-1936, the troops of a resurgent Germany under Chancellor Adolf Hitler marched over the border to reclaim the Rhineland it had been forced to give up after losing the World War I.

 

The first steps had been taken towards the conflict for which, in every sense, the SPITFIRE was made.

 

It is difficult to overstate her impact on events. The Spitfire’s revolutionary design with its extra edge of speed and manoeuvrability stopped the German Messerschmitts in 1940 that until then had had no match in the skies over Europe.

 

But what these brave men -and many among the generations who had followed -never realised was that the Spitfire so nearly didn’t make it to the drawing board. In a desperate race against time, its brilliant creator Reg. Mitchell was fighting cancer as he put the finishing touches to his design for the aircraft.

 

He lived to see his creation make it into the skies -but died in 1937, two years before the outbreak of the war and never having seen the leanest, meanest fighting machine of its age in combat.

 

He was just 42 years old.

 

Reg Mitchell, or ‘R J’ as he was known is a name generally lost on all but air aficionados these days. So who was he?

 

A new book by his son, Gordon Mitchell, gives a glimpse into the life of this little-known engineering genius.

 

He was a son of a headmaster in Stoke and from his earliest days delighted in making things. He even built his own lathe. He left school at 16, became an apprentice in a railway engineering works and soon graduated to the drawing office.

 

Here his outstanding inventiveness quickly became apparent. Wanting to spread his wings, as it were, he applied for a job at the Supermarine Aviation in Southampton, a firm setting out in the infant business of seaplanes and flying boats.

 

RJ had stumbled on his life’s work and the outlet for his considerable talent.

He shot up the hierarchy until, just 25; he was Chief Designer and Chief Engineer with the job of creating the fastest seaplanes in the world.

 Time and again Mitchell’s planes were entered for the Schneider Trophy, an International Flying Contest over water. His success rate was remarkable as he learned how to streamline an aircraft to get every last knot of speed out of her.

 

In between the wars, with the help of the expert team he built at Supermarine, he designed no fewer than 24 different aircraft. A shy man with a slight stammer, he never pushed himself forward for the headlines his Schneider successes were increasingly grabbing.

 

He gave that glory to the pilots whom he admired for their courage, the more so when two died in accidents in his experimental planes.

 

But if reserved in public, he was a martinet in the office, typically standing staring at his drawing board for hours puffing on his pipe as he worked out complex problems. It was a foolish employee who interrupted him deep in thought.

 

At home, son Gordon remembered flashes of temper, followed by long moody silences. ‘He had no time for anyone he considered a fool and could be rude if the individual concerned did not quickly get the message.

 

Then again, he had great charm, his son recalled, and a sense of fun. When not preoccupied with work, his blue eyes shone and his smile was warm.

 

Mitchell was a very British genius, quiet, retiring, never personally pushy. Nor would he ever be rich, for all his exceptional talent and success.

 

At Supermarine (later part of Vickers), his pay as Chief Designer began at £1,200 a year rising by £100 every December until it reached £2,500.a handsome enough sum for those days and equivalent to £76,000 today.

 

Even after being appointed a Director, he would remain essentially a well-paid employee, in an era when results were not rewarded with share options and ‘fat cat’ bonuses. The patents for his inventions stayed with the company.

 

He brought a large detached house with peaceful gardens and a live in maid in the suburbs, played tennis and golf

And took family holidays at Bournemouth.

 

He was never one for the high life, despite the fast and wealthy international aviation set he sometimes dealt with. He preferred the company of his fellow workers, for whom he had great admiration. His best night out was with the lads at the drawing -room party.

 

His one indulgence was a Rolls Royce car, but since Sir Henry Royce was a fellow engineer and collaborator, that was not surprising.

But by 1933 Mitchell was harbouring a grim secret: He had been diagnosed with bowel cancer. He had a major operation and was fitted with a colostomy bag. Inventive man that he was, he even designed a better bag to conceal his disability.

 

A lesser man would have stopped work, but Mitchell was driven. By the mid-thirties, the world of peaceful international flying competitions began to change to one of more deadly and warlike rivalries. As a result, the Air Ministry in London sought tenders for a fast ‘killer’ fighter plane.

 

Mitchell’s first attempt was a flop. It had an open cockpit and a fixed undercarriage and could reach only 230 mph, 20mph short of the Ministry’s specification and a long way off his 400mph seaplanes.

 

Despite the terrible pain and distress of his illness, he stayed at his design desk as he smoothed out the Spitfire’s problems ahead of her first Test Flight.

 

In the next design, he retained just the name-

 

Spitfire

 

-suggested by the company’s chairman Sir Robert Mclean. It was what he called his feisty daughter, Ann.

 

Everything else changed. The shape of the wings went straight to elliptical. Against all conventional thinking, he also made the wings thin rather than thick. A sliding cockpit canopy gave the pilot al-round vision while reducing drag.

 

A Rolls Royce Merlin engine completed the transformation, and it was the prototype -K5054 - that flew that day 70 years ago.

 

Twelve weeks later, the RAF had its first go in the new fighter; Flight Lieutenant Humphrey Edwardes-Jones took her up at Martlesham Heath, the test aerodrome in Suffolk. He almost crashed her.

A revolutionary aspect of the

 Spitfire

-were wheels that retracted into the wings when in flight to make her more aerodynamic. As he came in to land he almost forgot to drop the undercarriage, and only just recovered in time.

His verdict, telephoned to the Air Ministry was that the Spitfire was

 

‘delightful to handle’

 

-and would be easy for the pilots to learn to fly-as long as they remembered to put the wheels down! Eight days later, the Ministry ordered 310 at a cost of £1.25 million (£38m at today’s prices.)

 

It was Mitchell’s triumph - and with that over, he turned his attention for designing a better, faster bomber for the RAF.

But he ran out of time. In February 1937, in exasperation, he told a visitor:

 

‘I who have so much to do, have only until June.’

 

The next month he finally stopped work.

 

Characteristically, he worried that he was letting people down by not being able to finish the job he had started. Letters from colleagues high and low assured him

 

he had done far more than most.

 

He made one last effort to live, flying by private plane to a cutting edge cancer clinic in Vienna. The treatment did not work.

 

After five weeks the doctors sent him home to die. He sat in his garden, often with the local vicar, and in June, the month he predicted, he died.

 

‘I just felt numb,’ his son, then aged 16, recalled, ‘but I could comprehend that at least he was no longer in pain’

 

Meanwhile, the Spitfire, one of the greatest single-seater fighters of all time was on its way into mass production. The first of more than 20,000 rolled of the production lines in 1938.

 

It would be another two years before it’s

 

FINEST HOUR

 

With Hawker Hurricanes, the other British fighter plane, Spitfires soared over Southern England.

 

In the summer of 1940

as

CHURCHILL’S

Acclaimed

‘FEW’

-fought and won that crucial confrontation with the Luftwaffe.

 The Spitfires took on the enemy Messerschmitt fighters that protected the German bomber formations. The slower Hurricanes then moved in to down the defenceless bombers.

It was a joint victory, but in truth, it was the

 

SPITFIRE

 

-that made the crucial difference and for which

Reg Mitchell

 -remains a largely forgotten hero.

His son, now 85, feels certain his father’s death robbed Britain of yet more world-beating inventions. That bomber, the project he never finished was one example. He was designing it to fly at top speed of 360mph, 25 per cent faster than the Lancaster and the Wellington.

 

How much quicker might Bomber Command have got on top of the Luftwaffe, if its crews had been flying Reg Mitchell’s creation?

 

How much sooner might the war have been won?

 The greatest tragedy of Reg Mitchell’s death at such a sadly early age was that thousands of other lives that given the chance, he might also have saved.

* *

‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.’

 

Speech on the Battle of Britain-

August 1940

by

Winston Churchill.

* * *

 

ADAPTED from:

R. J. Mitchell:

Schooldays to Spitfire

by

Gordon Mitchell

 

Published by Tempus at £12.99

 

To order a copy, telephone 01453 883300.

 

Tony Rennell is a military historian-His latest book is

'Tail -End Charlies'

* * *

 

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used-comments in brackets]

MARCH/06

 

*

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS ALMOST BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/****     REVEALED AFTER HIS DEATH THAT EDWARD HEATH AN AGENT OF NAZI INTERNATIONAL AND TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY FOR 60 YEAR/ ****     THE TERM DVD STANDS FOR GERMAN DEFENCE AGENCY OR SECRET SERVICE/ ****      FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT BY PAYOUTS/****     A TRAITOR FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY-WHY?/  ****   WHAT WERE THE DARK ACTORS PLAYING GAMES WHICH THE PATRIOT DR DAVID KELLY REFERRED  -[WAS IT AN ILLUMINATI  PLAN TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD BY 95%?GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN MADRID IN 1943 BY HEINRICH HIMMLER****     A PLAGUE OF TREACHERY -CORRUPTION AND SKULDUGGERY HAS TAKEN OVER ONCE PROUD DEMOCRACIES?/****     THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE/ ****  WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON/ ****  GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE/GERMANY AS  STRONGMAN OF EUROPE- GERMANISED EMPIRE IN THE MAKING/ ****  A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND/****    50 YEARS OF SURRENDER/ **** BRITAIN CAN LEAVE THE EU UNILATERALLY AND CEASE PAYMENT SAYS QUEEN'S COUNSEL.****NAZI PENETRATION OF GERMANY'S POST WAR STRUCTURES****WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED?****AN ABOLITION OF PARLIAMENT BILL? PART2****Former Nazi Bank Bank of International Settlements To Rule The Global Economy

H.F.1376

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

Brexit hardliner Rees-Mogg calls on Theresa May to 'chuck Chequers' and tells grassroots Tories the PM must stand up to EU threats

  • Rees-Mogg last night wrote strongly-worded letter to local Tory party
  • chairmen
  • He said Theresa May should stand up to Brussels bullies and 'believe in
  • Britain'
  • Letter came ahead of Raab's paper on how UK will cope if negotiations
  • collapse

537

View


comments

Hardliner Brexit campaigner Rees-Mogg tells grassroots Tories: Believe In Britain and stand up to the Brussels bullies.

Jacob Rees-Mogg last night called on the Prime Minister to ‘chuck Chequers’ as he told grassroots Tories the UK should not fear a no-deal Brexit.

In a strongly worded letter to the chairmen of local Conservative parties, he said Theresa May should stand up to ‘bullying’ from Brussels and ‘believe in Britain’.

Mr Rees-Mogg’s forthright message came just as Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab prepared to publish a series of papers on how Britain will cope if negotiations with the EU collapse.

 

Jacob Rees-Mogg (pictured) last night called on Theresa May to stand up to ‘bullying’ from Brussels and ‘believe in Britain’

Mr Raab will say today that he is confident a good withdrawal deal is ‘within our sights’ – while insisting ministers are ready if talks fail.

But in his letter last night, Mr Rees-Mogg, chairman of the pro-Brexit European Research Group of Tory MPs, said Britain had nothing to fear from a no deal because Brussels needs a deal more than we do.

This is because, if no deal is reached, the EU will not receive the £40billion ‘divorce settlement’ Britain has promised to pay.

Mr Rees-Mogg – seen as a Tory leadership candidate if Mrs May falters – called on her to ditch the Brexit plans agreed with her Cabinet at Chequers last month, writing: ‘It is time to face down vested interests in the establishment and put democracy first.

 

‘Yet most of all, it is time to chuck Chequers, respect the referendum, be out of Europe, take back control and believe in Britain.’

On what promises to be another dramatic day for Brexit:

 

North East Somerset MP Mr Rees-Mogg said Mrs May’s Chequers deal was the ‘wrong deal for Britain’ and does not ‘implement the will of the British people’, adding: ‘The white paper does not respect the result of the referendum and does not give us control of our borders, laws and money. Chequers will tie our economy and our future to the EU indefinitely.’

He wrote: ‘This is why the Prime Minister should “chuck Chequers” and instead seek a Canada style free trade agreement with the EU to make the most of the global opportunities that lie ahead.

‘The United Kingdom does not need to do a deal with the EU. The EU needs to do a deal with us at all costs. No deal means no divorce bill – handing a £40billion Brexit bonus to Brussels. It is time the Government realised that the EU stands to lose much from no deal being agreed and stopped being cowed by the EU’s threats.’

 

Mr Rees-Mogg’s letter came just as Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab (pictured) prepared to publish a series of papers on how Britain will cope if negotiations with the EU collapse

Mr Rees-Mogg concluded the letter to all Conservative Association chairmen by saying: ‘Please feel free to circulate this letter and briefing note to members and your constituents to assure them that the Prime Minister has alternatives, and that if the bullying stance of the EU continues we can leave on 29 March 2019 with either Canada or WTO terms.

We believe in Britain.’

As part of its no-deal planning, the Treasury will today commit to guarantee EU funding promised to poorer regions such as Cornwall and parts of northern England, as well as scientific research.

The plan is one of the ‘technical notices’ published today by Mr Raab, laying out how Britain will cope if talks with the EU collapse.

Mr Raab will also accuse Brussels of being irresponsible by refusing to work with the UK to prepare for a potential no-deal.

It is understood one of the papers will guarantee funding for scientific research under the ‘Horizon 2020’ scheme. And farm payments under the Common Agricultural Policy will also be maintained.

A source said: ‘The Government will commit to the Northern Powerhouse by maintaining the structural fund.’

Mr Raab will say the series of technical briefings will ensure the ‘smooth, continued functioning’ of the UK economy in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The Brexit Secretary will also say the Government will take ‘unilateral action’ to maintain continuity if negotiations break down.

In the event of a no-deal, the UK will ‘continue to behave as responsible European neighbours’.

In a speech, Mr Raab will state: ‘I remain confident a good deal is within our sights, and that remains our top, and overriding, priority. If the EU responds with the level of ambition and pragmatism, we will strike a strong deal that benefits both sides.

‘But, we must be ready to consider the alternative. We have a duty, as a responsible government, to plan for every eventuality.

‘These technical notices – and the ones that will follow – are a sensible, measured, and proportionate approach to minimising the impact of no-deal on British firms, citizens, charities and public bodies.’

Mr Raab will say the UK, in the event of a no-deal, would ‘diverge when we are ready, on our terms’ from the EU.

The Brexit Secretary will explain there have already been planning discussions between the Bank of England and the European Central Bank for no deal and called for talks to begin on data protection and between port authorities.

‘For our part, if the negotiations fail, we will continue to behave as responsible European neighbours, partners and allies,’ he will say.

Under current plans, the technical notices will be published in batches, starting today and running through September.

But Labour’s Brexit spokesman Sir Keir Starmer dismissed the documents as a distraction, saying a no-deal would be ‘catastrophic’. 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!

 

H.F.1678

*  *  *

 

Boris Johnson sparks fury by saying the burqa makes women look like 'bank robbers' and 'letter boxes'

  • Ex Foreign Secretary mocked the full face veils
  •  in his weekly newspaper column 
  • The intervention comes after a woman was fined in Denmark
  •  for wearing a
  • niqab 
  • Labour MP David Lammy said Mr Johnson was a 'pound-shop Donald Trump' 
 
 

*  *  *

 

 

Boris Johnson sparks fury by saying the burqa makes women look like 'bank robbers' and 'letter boxes'

  • Ex Foreign Secretary mocked the full face veils
  •  in his weekly newspaper column 
  • The intervention comes after a woman was fined in Denmark
  •  for wearing a
  • niqab 
  • Labour MP David Lammy said Mr Johnson was a 'pound-shop Donald Trump' 

*  *  *

 

TOLERATION

'Toleration is a giood thing in its place; but you cannot tolerate what will not tolerate you, and is trying to cut your throat.'

Froude

[Mrs May will not take advice from a senior Muslim Cleric who has urged for many years to successive governments to ban the  Niqab and Burka which are not mentioned in the Koran. With over 3,000,000 Muslims in our country with an estimated 60% unwilling to INTEGRATE   Mrs Mays dilatory and dangerous message must be received with huge delight.   Just as with BREXIT Theresa May can't avoid

BUT SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE.]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS]

 

H.F.1647

 

*  *  *

 

STEPHEN GLOVER: The most absurd thing about the Tories going soggy on crime is they're letting Corbyn's Labour look like the party of law and order

 

190

View
comments

 

 

When did the Tories stop being the party of law and order? Why did they jettison their reputation for being tough on crime?

When did the Tories stop being the party of law and order? Why did they jettison their reputation for being tough on crime?

Thirty years and more ago, Conservative conferences were dominated by the subject. 

In the early Eighties, Willie Whitelaw announced his 'short, sharp, shock' policy which led to young offenders being incarcerated in secure units.

In the Nineties, another Tory Home Secretary, Michael Howard, introduced a tougher penal policy which led to a sharp increase in the prison population — and a fall in the crime rate.

But in recent years, although rank-and-file Conservative Party members are as exercised by law and order as ever, the party hierarchy has become increasingly unconcerned.

The key moment came in 2010 when, as part its well-intentioned programme of reducing an out-of-control national deficit bequeathed by Labour, the Conservative-led Coalition began to cut back police and prison officer numbers savagely.

It's true that for a time this policy appeared to have no ill-effects. Indeed, many categories of crime continued to decline in the early years of the Coalition.

Those happy days are, however, long gone. Crime is soaring. And it is dawning on many people that the political party once most trusted with law and order is presiding over an almighty mess for which it is largely responsible.

The police are increasingly ineffectual, and clear-up rates are falling. If a criminal ever gets to court, he or she may well be let off, as the Mail has revealed this week in a series of shocking cases.

And the criminal who improbably ends up in jail could be exposed to appalling violence, squalor and brutality, as recent reports of the breakdown in Birmingham prison attest.

Many jails are academies of further criminality. The chances of rehabilitation for anyone sent to one of these anarchic institutions are fractionally above zero.

Money — or rather ill-focused cuts — is a big part of the problem. But there is also plenty of evidence that almost no one in the upper echelons of government cares much about rising crime — or has any idea of what to do about it.

 
 
 

The key moment came in 2010 when, as part its well-intentioned programme of reducing an out-of-control national deficit bequeathed by Labour, the Conservative-led Coalition began to cut back police and prison officer numbers savagely

Nor can it have helped that we now have our sixth Secretary of State for Justice since 2010. 

How can there be a properly worked out philosophy for crime and punishment if ministers responsible for our courts and prisons are too quickly shunted off to a different post?

And that brings me to another thought. In 2007, New Labour hived off the Justice ministry from the Home Office, which remained responsible for the police. It's hard to see how dividing responsibility for law and order between two departments has helped anyone apart from felons.

Let's follow the trail of dysfunctionality from crime to court to prison in order to try to understand what has gone so badly wrong, and suggest what ministers might do about it.

Why are police solving a decreasing proportion of crimes? According to official figures, last year they charged a suspect in a mere 9 per cent of reported crimes. Three years ago the figure was 15 per cent.

The chances of the police showing more than a modicum of interest if your house is burgled are practically nil. The burglary detection rate halved from a measly 6 per cent to a pathetic 3 per cent in England and Wales between 2013 and 2017. Last year, 4 per cent of robberies were solved, compared with 9 per cent four years earlier.

No doubt the cut in police numbers — 14 per cent down since 2010 — has something to do with this pitiful record. But the budget cuts can only explain a part of the worsening performance.

Isn't it likely that a more visible, hands-on police force could make more effective use of its reduced resources? But where is the senior government minister urging blinkered police chiefs to do so? Is the relatively new Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, on the case?

If only more politicians could grasp that burglary is a serious matter which can ruin the lives of victims. Yet the police have little or no answer to the new phenomenon of 'spree burglaries', when gangs of young men, sometimes foreign, target an area which they cruise around in high-powered cars.

Of course, those who commit burglaries and other crimes occasionally land up in court. But an audit of sentences imposed at 12 courts carried out by this newspaper suggests many offenders are getting off scot-free.

For example, one lout with 38 previous convictions, who broke an innocent man's jaw in an unprovoked street attack, was spared a custodial sentence by an accommodating judge.

Over the course of the past two weeks, judges have allowed a spate of serious offenders in the courts surveyed — including sex offenders and even kidnappers — to walk free.

As the Mail highlights today, sex offenders, violent thugs and recidivist burglars are among hundreds of thousands of criminals with more than ten convictions not jailed after committing another serious offence. Between 2012 and 2016, a staggering 625,000 of the country's most prolific offenders were spared a prison term.

In view of this mystifying indulgence of criminals, it is bizarre that the only voices emerging from the Justice Department should have been urging more leniency.

Earlier this year, Justice Secretary David Gauke urged courts only to use short sentences of under 12 months as a 'last resort' while his deputy, Rory Stewart, recently said that prison sentences of less than a year should be scrapped for all but the most serious offences.

Wouldn't justice be better served if hardened criminals feared being caught (which they usually have no reason to) as well as a stiff jail sentence (which they often need not)?

It's difficult to understand how ministers belonging to a party that once took a stern view of crime should seemingly be happy to watch while dangerous law-breakers are virtually let off.

The latest idiocy — please let this not be embraced by Messrs Gauke and Stewart — is a proposal by the chairman of the Magistrates' Association, John Bache, that more JPs with criminal records should be appointed so that those accused of crime can feel more at home. God help us.

And what happens to the criminal who is unusually caught by the police, and exceptionally sent to prison? Why, he or she may fester in a lawless, rat-infested, drug-possessed hell-hole where there is no possibility of rehabilitation.

Here one can say with confidence that government cuts to prison officer numbers (down from 29,660 in 2012 to 23,080 in 2016) were extremely ill-judged — in fact, morally contemptible during years in which the foreign aid budget was soaring by billions of pounds.

I don't believe the Tories have gone soft on crime as a result of being preoccupied with Brexit. They went soggy years ago when, embarking on a necessary period of austerity, they forgot that a few things should be sacrosanct.

The absurdity is that their errors have enabled a Corbynista Labour Party to present itself as a more dependable custodian of law and order, though I'm sure it would turn out to be even more tolerant of offenders.

There's no doubt that Tory members, and many ordinary voters, care about rising crime and shameless criminals. It's the party bigwigs who aren't listening. If they don't start doing so, they'll be punished.

 

STEPHEN GLOVER: The most absurd thing about the Tories going soggy on crime

 

H.F.1670

*  *  *

[ A BETRAYAL AND  A

SURRENDER!

TO A

EUROPEAN COURT

AND PRINCIPLE.

 

 

'NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL.']

 

PM will confront Boris over Brexit before Christmas: Theresa May prepares for Cabinet showdown as Gove warns her hard won deal could be ripped up at the next election

  • Theresa May has overcome a Brexit obstacle - but must now deal with Brexiteers
  • She has arranged a Cabinet meeting for December 19 to discuss BREXIT outcome
  • PM now keen to challenge Boris 'with realities of the next stage of negotiations'
  • Michael Gove, meanwhile, has said the British people will have their say on deal 

Prime Minister Theresa May has overcome her biggest Brexit obstacle so far by winning a deal with Brussels on future trade negotiations - but now she must face the Brexiteers.

She has arranged a Cabinet meeting for December 19 so her ministers can discuss what Britain's final relationship with the EU will look like. 

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Environment Secretary Michael Gove are among the leading Brexiteers she is now expected to confront. 

 
 

The PM and Jean-Claude Juncker were smiling as they shook hands for the cameras on the day the deal was agreed

 
 

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson (pictured left) and Environment Secretary Michael Gove (right) are among the leading Brexiteers she is now expected to confront

According to The Times, the prime minister has been 'buoyed' by her victory in securing a preliminary deal and is now keen to challenge Boris 'with the realities of the next stage of negotiations'.

The key concessions 

  • Britain must pay a 'divorce bill' of up to £39 billion under the terms of the withdrawal package
  • The European Court of Justice will oversee EU citizens' rights in the UK for eight years after Brexit
  • Three million EU citizens will be permitted to remain in the UK - and bring their families 
  • There will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland
  • The UK will stay in the single market and customs union until 2021 

It comes as Mr Gove explained yesterday that the public will have their say on the EU deal at the next general election - and stressed that Mrs May's deal might be changed by future governments. 

The Times also reports that the exact form of Britain's post-Brexit relationship with the EU will not be determined in the showdown Cabinet meeting, and that ministers will be permitted to put forward their own plans.

[BLACKMAIL!]

Mrs May, however, is said to believe that the reality of needing to gain access to EU markets will force hardline Brexiteers to soften their stance on regulatory compliance.

The environment secretary, one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, explained in The Telegraph that the UK will have 'full freedom to diverge' from the EU on the single market and customs union following the two-year post-Brexit transition. 

He also stressed that 'the British people will be in control' and, if they did not approve of a final Brexit deal, a future government will be allowed to 'diverge'.  

 

Prime Minister Theresa May and Brexit Secretary David Davis smiled alongside EU officials after securing a last-minute Brexit deal

 

Mrs May was pictured greeting EU President Jean-Claude Juncker after she arrived in Brussels just before 6am. Talks started almost immediately after

 

Brexit Secretary David Davis embraced EU President Juncker early on Friday just hours before the deal was struck

But Mr Gove - who alongside Boris has espoused a Brexit featuring freedom from EU regulation - also praised Mrs May's 'tenacity and skill' in the negotiation. 

 

Mrs May shook hands with the president of the European Council Donald Tusk before the meeting in Brussels yesterday

A senior official told The Telegraph that the 'real battle begins now' and that the 'heart and soul of Brexit is now at stake'.

Mr Gove added in his article that Britain will be free to spend more cash on the NHS and housing once the country has left the EU, as well as being at liberty to make trade deals abroad.

Mrs May celebrated yesterday after the European Commission cleared the way for negotiations on the future relationship after the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

Britain will pay a 'divorce bill' of up to £39 billion under the terms of a withdrawal package agreed with Brussels.

The breakthrough was hailed by Mrs May as 'a hard-won agreement in all our interests'.

Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said it represented 'sufficient progress' for negotiations to move on to their second phase, subject to approval by leaders of the remaining 27 EU states at a summit on December 14-15.

In dramatic pre-dawn scenes, Mrs May and Brexit Secretary David Davis flew to Brussels to confirm with Mr Juncker over breakfast the text of a joint document setting out proposals on the key withdrawal issues of citizens' rights, the Irish border and Britain's exit bill.

But the scene was set for further wrangling, as European Council president Donald Tusk set out guidelines for the next phase of talks, covering the transition to a post-Brexit relationship, which envisage the UK staying in the single market and customs union and observing all EU laws for around two years after the official withdrawal date in March 2019.

He said only 'exploratory talks' on a free trade agreement could begin at this stage, with the EU's chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier suggesting that 'real negotiations' on trade would get under way once a withdrawal treaty is finalised in October.

Mr Barnier also threw cold water on Mrs May's hopes for a 'deep and special' trading relationship with the EU.

He warned that her 'red lines' of taking the UK out of the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice left a free trade deal similar to Canada's as the only option open to Britain.

There was consternation among some Brexit-backers over provisions allowing the European Court of Justice a role in overseeing EU citizens' rights in the UK for eight years after Brexit.

However, Downing Street said they only expected around two or three cases a year to be referred voluntarily by UK judges to the Luxembourg court.

And a compromise on the Irish border - forged in intensive talks late on Thursday night after the Democratic Unionist Party blocked an earlier deal on Monday - states that if no trade deal is reached, the UK as a whole will maintain 'full alignment' with elements of the EU single market and customs union which support the economy of the island of Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement.

 

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson insisted the PM was determined to ensure the measure's 'compatibility with taking back control of our money, laws and borders'

 

Tory chief whip Julian Smith tweeted a photgraph of Mrs May apparently briefing Mr Johnson on the developments last night 

Tory former Brexit minister David Jones warned this could 'severely handicap' Britain's ability to enter free trade agreements covering areas like agriculture with countries outside the EU, like the US.

But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson insisted the PM was determined to ensure the measure's 'compatibility with taking back control of our money, laws and borders'.

Mr Johnson and fellow Cabinet Brexiteer Michael Gove gave their public blessing to the deal, with the Environment Secretary describing it as a 'significant personal political achievement for the Prime Minister' which would make more money available for the NHS.

The development was also welcomed by business leaders, who had warned that companies would begin activating plans to move staff and activities abroad if no progress was made by Christmas. The pound rose on the announcement.

In a Brussels press conference, Mrs May said the process of arriving at a withdrawal deal 'hasn't been easy for either side', but the agreement represented a 'significant improvement' on the text she was preparing to sign off on Monday.

Provisions on citizens' rights would allow EU nationals in the UK 'to go on living their lives as before'.

 

Mr Johnson, another senior Brexiteer who has been trying to toughen the government's stance, tweeted his support but made clear the process has only just started

Meanwhile, the financial settlement would be 'fair to the British taxpayer' and the agreement on Ireland would guarantee there would be 'no hard border' between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

'I very much welcome the prospect of moving ahead to the next phase, to talk about trade and security and to discuss the positive and ambitious future relationship that is in all of our interests,' said Mrs May.

Mr Juncker said Brexit was a 'sad' development, but added: 'Now we must start looking to the future, a future in which the UK will remain a close friend and ally.'

Friday's announcement came after late-night telephone conversations with DUP leader Arlene Foster, as the Prime Minister sought a formula which would resolve the party's concerns about Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of the UK.

As Number 10's staff Christmas party took place elsewhere in the building, Mrs May finalised a text shortly before midnight.

It specified that 'no new regulatory barriers' will be allowed between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and that the province's businesses will continue to have 'unfettered access' to the UK internal market.

Mrs Foster said 'substantial changes' to the text ensured there was 'no red line down the Irish Sea' and no 'special status' for Northern Ireland, but added that there was still further work to be done.

Irish premier Leo Varadkar, who held telephone talks with Mrs May on Thursday as the details of the deal were hammered out, said it was a 'significant day' for Ireland, which 'achieved all that we set out to achieve in phase one of these negotiations'.

The estimated Brexit bill - significantly lower than the £50 billion or more suggested by previous leaks - covers Britain's share of the EU's budget up to the end of 2020, as well as outstanding debts and liabilities for items such as the pensions of staff at European institutions.

It will be paid over several years and the exact figure is unlikely to be known for some time.

The financial settlement 'will be drawn up and paid in euro'.

Jeremy Corbyn said Mrs May had only managed to 'scrape through' the first phase of Brexit negotiations some 18 months after the referendum.

'Tory chaos and posturing has caused damaging delay and risked serious harm to our economy,' said the Labour leader.

'We need a much stronger and more constructive approach in crucial phase two.'

What has been agreed today?

Citizens' rights

The three million EU citizens in the UK and the one million UK citizens living in the EU can stay for their lifetime.

British courts will be able to refer issues about the rights of EU nationals to the European Court of Justice and have 'due regard' for the court's judgement in its decisions for eight years.

This means EU judges will still have some power over the UK after Brexit, but No10 believes this will only relate to 'two or three' cases a year. 

EU citizens in Britain and Northern Ireland will continue to have access to free healthcare and the benefits system after the UK cuts its ties with Brussels.

EU citizens with family outside the UK will also be able to bring them to the UK after Brexit. No 10 said there are no estimates for how many Europeans are expected to move to Britain under this bit of the deal.

Irish border

This was the main thorny issue which threatened to derail the talks after the DUP pulled the plug on initial plans for a deal amid fears it would break up the UK.

But six 'substantial changes' have been made to the deal which ensure Northern Ireland will keep the same rules as the rest of the UK and the border will not be pushed out to the Irish Sea.

It also rules out calls by Sinn Fein to give Northern Ireland 'special status' which would have seen it have different rules to the rest of the UK. 

And it spelled out in black and white that Northern Ireland will not be separated 'constitutionally, politically, economically or regulatory' from the rest of the UK.

And that the UK is committed to retaining its own internal market. 

The document also pledges to keep soft Irish border and to maintain the good Friday Agreement - ensuring Dublin's support for it.

But in a major concession which could spark opposition from Brexiteers, the UK said if it leaves the EU without a deal and does not come up with a plan to keep the border open then it 'will maintain full alignment' with the EU as a full back position.

Brexit bill

Britain has agreed to pay the EU between £35billion and £39billion as part of the divorce package.

Britain will pay the amount over many years to come - meaning Theresa May will not have to hand over a single fat cheque to foot the bill.

The document says: 'The UK will contribute its share of the financing of the budgetary commitments outstanding at 31 December 2020'.

Britain will get around 12 installments of 300m euros back from the European Investment Bank from 2020. 

Despite Philip Hammond insisting this week that the UK should pay whether or not there is a trade deal, the document makes clear the cash is contingent on a final agreement being reached. 

And Ukip's former leader Nigel Farage said the 17.4 million people who backed Leave last year 'did not vote for a large exit fee, the ECJ continuing to have a say over our country or a two-year transition', adding: 'This is not a deal, it's a capitulation.'

Arron Banks, the millionaire founder of the Leave.EU campaign, said the agreement amounted to a 'betrayal' of the country by a 'traitorous, lily-livered embarrassment of a prime minister'.

Mr Tusk warned that 'the most difficult challenge is still ahead'.

'We all know that breaking up is hard, but breaking up and building a new relation is much harder,' said the European Council president.

'Since the Brexit referendum, a year and a half has passed.

'So much time has been devoted to the easier part of the task, and now to negotiate the transition agreement and the framework for our future relationship we have de facto less than a year.'           

 

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5161623/May-needs-convince-Brexiteer-ministers-EU-deal.html#ixzz50lcOyJKj
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter |
DailyMail on Facebook

*  *  *

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H.F.1410-A BETRAYAL AND SURRENDER TO A EUROPEAN COURT AND PRINCIPLE.-

'NO Deal is Better Than A Bad Deal'

 

DECEMBER 9-2017

*  *  *

Tories truce over Brexit cracks over May's compromise | Daily Mail ...

Tory Brexit truce cracks: PM told to walk away from talks by her own Eurosceptic MPs over 'intolerable' demands as she cancels trip to Brussels today after failing to do deal with DUP leader

  • David Davis confirmed some UK economy sectors may have to align with the EU 
  • Eurosceptic ex-leader Iain Duncan Smith suggested it was time to walk away 
  • Cabinet ministers feel they are being kept in the dark about the compromises
  • The DUP have made it clear it would not accept the PM's current proposals

The Tory truce on Brexit was fracturing last night as MPs warned Theresa May they would not accept further compromises with Brussels.

The Prime Minister faced a backlash after David Davis confirmed some sectors of the UK economy could have to align with the EU after Brexit to resolve the Irish border issue.

Former leader Iain Duncan Smith – who has acted as a bridge between No 10 and Eurosceptic MPs until now – described the proposal as 'intolerable' and suggested it was time to walk away from the talks.

 

The Prime Minister had planned to return to Brussels today to try to complete a divorce deal with the EU, but this has been cancelled

Eurosceptic Cabinet ministers also complained they were being kept in the dark about the extent of the compromises, both on the Irish border and the European Court of Justice.

Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are said to be leading a revolt of Brexiteers who have a 'genuine fear' that Mrs May is going to push through a soft option.

The Foreign Secretary reportedly confronted the Prime Minister in a dramatic clash during Cabinet yesterday over her negotiating strategy.

A senior insider told The Sun: 'Cabinet is in the dark about what the PM is doing, which is a very strange state of affairs to be in.' 

 

Michael Gove and Boris Johnson are said to be leading a revolt of Brexiteers who have a 'genuine fear' that Mrs May is going to push through a soft option

Meanwhile the DUP, whose ten MPs prop up the Government, made it clear it would not accept the plans put forward by the Prime Minister on Monday to secure a breakthrough on a post-Brexit trade deal.

Talks with European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker stalled on Monday after DUP leader Arlene Foster vetoed plans for a compromise on the status of the Irish border.

The Prime Minister had planned to return to Brussels today to try to complete a divorce deal with the EU.

But the trip was cancelled last night after Mrs Foster said she would not accept plans to retain 'regulatory alignment' between Northern Ireland and the Republic after Brexit.

Government sources insisted that the proposal on the Irish border was only a 'backstop' designed to open the door to trade talks this month.

 

David Davis confirmed some sectors of the UK economy could have to align with the EU after Brexit to resolve the Irish border issue

A source said the proposal was limited to a few areas linked to the Good Friday Agreement, such as agriculture and energy.

But Mr Duncan Smith warned it could 'box in' the UK, making it a 'supplicant' to Brussels even after Brexit, and preventing the Government striking trade deals.

Mrs May began the day by telling the Cabinet she was 'very close to getting agreement' with the EU on a divorce deal, which she hopes could unlock the door to the start of trade talks. The PM told ministers there were 'only a small number of issues outstanding'.

But a Cabinet source said the detail of the plans had barely been discussed by Mrs May at a meeting of the Cabinet yesterday.

'There is not a lot of clarity here,' the source said. 'People want to be helpful to the PM in this, but they are befuddled by the approach she has taken. People want to see the detail and it is not forthcoming – that is a worry.' Whitehall sources last night revealed that even Mr Davis did not learn that the phrase 'regulatory alignment' had been inserted into a proposed agreement with Brussels until Sunday.

One former minister last night warned the crisis could shorten Mrs May's tenure in No 10, saying: 'The PM is in a very weak position and she needs to wake up to the fact. She is making her position less and less tenable.' One EU ambassador said: 'We cannot go on like this, with no idea what the UK wants. She just has to have the conversation with her own cabinet, and if that upsets someone, or someone resigns, so be it.'

 

Iain Duncan Smith – who has acted as a bridge between No 10 and Eurosceptic MPs until now – described the proposal as 'intolerable'

Tory Sir Bill Cash said any commitment to align all or part of the UK's laws with the EU would be 'massively difficult' to accept.

Former Brexit minister David Jones said the move would make it difficult to strike free trade deals with countries outside the EU. He called the idea 'dangerous', adding: 'If we are aligned with the EU on agriculture, for example, it would be impossible to conclude any meaningful free trade agreements with third countries.'

Jacob Rees-Mogg described the issue as an 'indelible red line' and voiced 'gratitude' to the DUP for vetoing the deal.

What's the truth about trade across the Irish border? 

Analysis by Jack Doyle 

Northern Ireland to Ireland

It might be assumed that trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic formed a very significant part of the province's economy.

But official data shows its economic relationship with the rest of the UK is much more significant. 

Around two thirds of Northern Ireland's turnover involves sales within the province. 

Exports to Great Britain make up 21 per cent, while those to the Republic are just five per cent and to the rest of the EU just three per cent.

 

DUP Sammy Wilson said Northern Irish trade with the UK is more important than with the Republic of Ireland and the rest of Europe

According to the Legatum Institute think tank, trade patterns from before the UK joined the EU in 1973 have proved 'remarkably resilient'.

DUP MP Sammy Wilson has said: 'Our main market is not the Irish Republic. It is not even the whole of the EU. Our main market is the UK, and the integrity of the single UK market is far more important to us, to people who work in Northern Ireland, than having some kind of regulatory convergence or continuance with the rest of Europe.'

Ireland to Great Britain

By contrast to the relatively small scale of its trade with Northern Ireland, the Republic has very significant trade links with Great Britain, its second biggest trading partner. More than 12 per cent of Irish exports go to Great Britain, and 18 per cent of services (compared to 1.6 per cent to Northern Ireland).

It also imports a huge amount from Great Britain, which accounts for 25 per cent of its imports. But because of the size of the two economies, the Republic has a lot more to lose in relative terms from the talks collapsing and no agreement being made on trade.

Estimates of the damage to Irish GDP from a collapse in talks suggest it could fall by up to 3 per cent. Henry Newman, of the Open Europe think tank, warns the Irish have the most to lose of any EU state from no trade deal, and are 'playing with fire'.

 

Walk away from Brexit talks unless the EU drops 'intolerable' demands, Iain Duncan Smith tells Theresa May 

Iain Duncan Smith last night urged Theresa May to abandon Brexit talks unless the EU agrees to back away from its 'intolerable' demands.

In an ominous move, the former Conservative leader went public about his growing concerns with the direction of the negotiations on a potential divorce deal.

Mr Duncan Smith said accepting the EU's demands would leave the UK a 'supplicant' nation after Brexit.

 

Iain Duncan Smith last night urged Theresa May to abandon Brexit talks unless the EU agrees to back away from its 'intolerable' demands

He said he had told the PM: 'We have reached the point where really these sets of demands are demands too far.'

He added that it was time to tell the EU: 'We're not prepared to go down this road any longer, this is not working, we will not box ourselves in.'

Mr Duncan Smith has acted as a bridge between No 10 and the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party, helping to persuade MPs to back Mrs May and avoid rocking the boat. His decision to speak out underlines the difficulty Mrs May now faces in persuading the Right of the party to back her approach to Brexit.

But last night Mr Duncan Smith said he could not accept plans to resolve the Irish border issue by signing up to a system of 'regulatory alignment' that could tie sectors of the whole UK economy to Brussels rules after Brexit.

He said it was 'not just the DUP' who were unhappy about a plan that would 'give away our status before we even get to the trade arrangements'. He said agreeing to the demand from Dublin and Brussels would 'box in' the UK's future options and limit our ability to negotiate future trade deals with other countries.

Mr Duncan Smith also voiced grave reservations about allowing any future role for the European Court of Justice, which Brussels is saying should continue to have jurisdiction over EU citizens' rights in Britain.

He told the BBC: 'We are beginning to stare at the edge of what is a price that we simply cannot afford to pay.' Mr Duncan Smith said the EU 'needs to budge'. He said the UK was 'reaching the point fairly fast' where it should just walk away and prepare to leave the EU without a trade deal.

He suggested no deal would be better than a 'wholly intolerable one that leaves us boxed in and unable to make the kind of arrangements with the US, Australia, India and all these other countries that we want to make arrangements with'.

 

Mr Duncan Smith's decision to speak out underlines the difficulty Mrs May now faces in persuading the Right of the party to back her approach to Brexit

And he warned there was a danger that 'we will end up being supplicants in this process rather than being equal partners.'

He added: 'I think the PM is recognising that. It's just becoming very clear that no matter what we say that we will help them with, there is another demand placed there and that stands in the way of trade.'

Signalling the tensions fracturing the Tory Party, former education secretary Nicky Morgan last night rounded on Mr Duncan Smith, saying: 'This is madness. Walking away when the Brexiteers encounter difficulties they never bothered to anticipate is not in the national interest.'



Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5149619/Tories-truce-Brexit-cracks-Mays-compromise.html#ixzz50yAGpK8j
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

DECEMBER 6,2017

*  *  *

H.F.1413 -[THERE MUST BE NO SURRENDER TO EU DEMANDS-ENGLAND MUST BE  FREE AS BEFORE TRAITORS WITHIN SOLD US TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU IN 1972 TO ENABLE GERMANY TO DOMINATE EUROPE IN THE PEACE. BRUSSELS IS A POODLE OF THE FOURTH REICH-THE REAL POWER IS IN BERLIN.]

*  *  *

Brought forward from 2009

Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU

The paper is aged and fragile, the typewritten letters slowly fading. But US Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128 is as chilling now as the day it was written in November 1944.

The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany's post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis' return to power and work for a 'strong German empire'. In other words: the Fourth Reich.

 
Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with I. G. Farben

Plotters: SS chief Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with Nazi-backed company I. G. Farben

The three-page, closely typed report, marked 'Secret', copied to British officials and sent by air pouch to Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of State, detailed how the industrialists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany's economy by sending money through Switzerland.

They would set up a network of secret front companies abroad. They would wait until conditions were right. And then they would take over Germany again.

The industrialists included representatives of Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmitt. Officials from the Navy and Ministry of Armaments were also at the meeting and, with incredible foresight, they decided together that the Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire - but not just German.

The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intelligence files, was the inspiration for my thriller The Budapest Protocol.

The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, during the election campaign for the first president of Europe. The European Union superstate is revealed as a front for a sinister conspiracy, one rooted in the last days of the Second World War.

But as I researched and wrote the novel, I realised that some of the Red House Report had become fact.

Nazi Germany did export massive amounts of capital through neutral countries. German businesses did set up a network of front companies abroad. The German economy did soon recover after 1945.

The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.

Is it possible that the Fourth Reich those Nazi industrialists foresaw has, in some part at least, come to pass?

The Red House Report was written by a French spy who was at the meeting in Strasbourg in 1944 - and it paints an extraordinary picture.

The industrialists gathered at the Maison Rouge Hotel waited expectantly as SS Obergruppenfuhrer Dr Scheid began the meeting. Scheid held one of the highest ranks in the SS, equivalent to Lieutenant General. He cut an imposing figure in his tailored grey-green uniform and high, peaked cap with silver braiding. Guards were posted outside and the room had been searched for microphones.

 
Auschwitz

Death camp: Auschwitz, where tens of thousands of slave labourers died working in a factory run by German firm I. G. Farben

There was a sharp intake of breath as he began to speak. German industry must realise that the war cannot be won, he declared. 'It must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign.' Such defeatist talk was treasonous - enough to earn a visit to the Gestapo's cellars, followed by a one-way trip to a concentration camp.

But Scheid had been given special licence to speak the truth – the future of the Reich was at stake. He ordered the industrialists to 'make contacts and alliances with foreign firms, but this must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion'.

The industrialists were to borrow substantial sums from foreign countries after the war.

They were especially to exploit the finances of those German firms that had already been used as fronts for economic penetration abroad, said Scheid, citing the American partners of the steel giant Krupp as well as Zeiss, Leica and the Hamburg-America Line shipping company.

But as most of the industrialists left the meeting, a handful were beckoned into another smaller gathering, presided over by Dr Bosse of the Armaments Ministry. There were secrets to be shared with the elite of the elite.

Bosse explained how, even though the Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was lost, resistance against the Allies would continue until a guarantee of German unity could be obtained. He then laid out the secret three-stage strategy for the Fourth Reich.

In stage one, the industrialists were to 'prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party, which would be forced to go underground as a Maquis', using the term for the French resistance.

Stage two would see the government allocating large sums to German industrialists to establish a 'secure post-war foundation in foreign countries', while 'existing financial reserves must be placed at the disposal of the party so that a strong German empire can be created after the defeat'.

In stage three, German businesses would set up a 'sleeper' network of agents abroad through front companies, which were to be covers for military research and intelligence, until the Nazis returned to power.

'The existence of these is to be known only by very few people in each industry and by chiefs of the Nazi Party,' Bosse announced.

'Each office will have a liaison agent with the party. As soon as the party becomes strong enough to re-establish its control over Germany, the industrialists will be paid for their effort and co-operation by concessions and orders.'

 
Enlarge   The 1944 Red House Report

Extraordinary revelations: The 1944 Red House Report, detailing 'plans of German industrialists to engage in underground activity'

The exported funds were to be channelled through two banks in Zurich, or via agencies in Switzerland which bought property in Switzerland for German concerns, for a five per cent commission.

The Nazis had been covertly sending funds through neutral countries for years.

Swiss banks, in particular the Swiss National Bank, accepted gold looted from the treasuries of Nazi-occupied countries. They accepted assets and property titles taken from Jewish businessmen in Germany and occupied countries, and supplied the foreign currency that the Nazis needed to buy vital war materials.

Swiss economic collaboration with the Nazis had been closely monitored by Allied intelligence.

The Red House Report's author notes: 'Previously, exports of capital by German industrialists to neutral countries had to be accomplished rather surreptitiously and by means of special influence.

'Now the Nazi Party stands behind the industrialists and urges them to save themselves by getting funds outside Germany and at the same time advance the party's plans for its post-war operations.'

The order to export foreign capital was technically illegal in Nazi Germany, but by the summer of 1944 the law did not matter.

More than two months after D-Day, the Nazis were being squeezed by the Allies from the west and the Soviets from the east. Hitler had been badly wounded in an assassination attempt. The Nazi leadership was nervous, fractious and quarrelling.

During the war years the SS had built up a gigantic economic empire, based on plunder and murder, and they planned to keep it.

A meeting such as that at the Maison Rouge would need the protection of the SS, according to Dr Adam Tooze of Cambridge University, author of Wages of Destruction: The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy.

He says: 'By 1944 any discussion of post-war planning was banned. It was extremely dangerous to do that in public. But the SS was thinking in the long-term. If you are trying to establish a workable coalition after the war, the only safe place to do it is under the auspices of the apparatus of terror.'

Shrewd SS leaders such as Otto Ohlendorf were already thinking ahead.

As commander of Einsatzgruppe D, which operated on the Eastern Front between 1941 and 1942, Ohlendorf was responsible for the murder of 90,000 men, women and children.

A highly educated, intelligent lawyer and economist, Ohlendorf showed great concern for the psychological welfare of his extermination squad's gunmen: he ordered that several of them should fire simultaneously at their victims, so as to avoid any feelings of personal responsibility.

By the winter of 1943 he was transferred to the Ministry of Economics. Ohlendorf's ostensible job was focusing on export trade, but his real priority was preserving the SS's massive pan-European economic empire after Germany's defeat.

Ohlendorf, who was later hanged at Nuremberg, took particular interest in the work of a German economist called Ludwig Erhard. Erhard had written a lengthy manuscript on the transition to a post-war economy after Germany's defeat. This was dangerous, especially as his name had been mentioned in connection with resistance groups.

But Ohlendorf, who was also chief of the SD, the Nazi domestic security service, protected Erhard as he agreed with his views on stabilising the post-war German economy. Ohlendorf himself was protected by Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS.

Ohlendorf and Erhard feared a bout of hyper-inflation, such as the one that had destroyed the German economy in the Twenties. Such a catastrophe would render the SS's economic empire almost worthless.

The two men agreed that the post-war priority was rapid monetary stabilisation through a stable currency unit, but they realised this would have to be enforced by a friendly occupying power, as no post-war German state would have enough legitimacy to introduce a currency that would have any value.

That unit would become the Deutschmark, which was introduced in 1948. It was an astonishing success and it kick-started the German economy. With a stable currency, Germany was once again an attractive trading partner.

The German industrial conglomerates could rapidly rebuild their economic empires across Europe.

War had been extraordinarily profitable for the German economy. By 1948 - despite six years of conflict, Allied bombing and post-war reparations payments - the capital stock of assets such as equipment and buildings was larger than in 1936, thanks mainly to the armaments boom.

Erhard pondered how German industry could expand its reach across the shattered European continent. The answer was through supranationalism - the voluntary surrender of national sovereignty to an international body.

Germany and France were the drivers behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Union. The ECSC was the first supranational organisation, established in April 1951 by six European states. It created a common market for coal and steel which it regulated. This set a vital precedent for the steady erosion of national sovereignty, a process that continues today.

But before the common market could be set up, the Nazi industrialists had to be pardoned, and Nazi bankers and officials reintegrated. In 1957, John J. McCloy, the American High Commissioner for Germany, issued an amnesty for industrialists convicted of war crimes.

The two most powerful Nazi industrialists, Alfried Krupp of Krupp Industries and Friedrich Flick, whose Flick Group eventually owned a 40 per cent stake in Daimler-Benz, were released from prison after serving barely three years.

Krupp and Flick had been central figures in the Nazi economy. Their companies used slave labourers like cattle, to be worked to death.

The Krupp company soon became one of Europe's leading industrial combines.

The Flick Group also quickly built up a new pan-European business empire. Friedrich Flick remained unrepentant about his wartime record and refused to pay a single Deutschmark in compensation until his death in July 1972 at the age of 90, when he left a fortune of more than $1billion, the equivalent of £400million at the time.

'For many leading industrial figures close to the Nazi regime, Europe became a cover for pursuing German national interests after the defeat of Hitler,' says historian Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an adviser to Jewish former slave labourers.

'The continuity of the economy of Germany and the economies of post-war Europe is striking. Some of the leading figures in the Nazi economy became leading builders of the European Union.'

Numerous household names had exploited slave and forced labourers including BMW, Siemens and Volkswagen, which produced munitions and the V1 rocket.

Slave labour was an integral part of the Nazi war machine. Many concentration camps were attached to dedicated factories where company officials worked hand-in-hand with the SS officers overseeing the camps.

Like Krupp and Flick, Hermann Abs, post-war Germany's most powerful banker, had prospered in the Third Reich. Dapper, elegant and diplomatic, Abs joined the board of Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest bank, in 1937. As the Nazi empire expanded, Deutsche Bank enthusiastically 'Aryanised' Austrian and Czechoslovak banks that were owned by Jews.

By 1942, Abs held 40 directorships, a quarter of which were in countries occupied by the Nazis. Many of these Aryanised companies used slave labour and by 1943 Deutsche Bank's wealth had quadrupled.

Abs also sat on the supervisory board of I.G. Farben, as Deutsche Bank's representative. I.G. Farben was one of Nazi Germany's most powerful companies, formed out of a union of BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and subsidiaries in the Twenties.

It was so deeply entwined with the SS and the Nazis that it ran its own slave labour camp at Auschwitz, known as Auschwitz III, where tens of thousands of Jews and other prisoners died producing artificial rubber.

When they could work no longer, or were verbraucht (used up) in the Nazis' chilling term, they were moved to Birkenau. There they were gassed using Zyklon B, the patent for which was owned by I.G. Farben.

But like all good businessmen, I.G. Farben's bosses hedged their bets.

During the war the company had financed Ludwig Erhard's research. After the war, 24 I.G. Farben executives were indicted for war crimes over Auschwitz III - but only twelve of the 24 were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms ranging from one-and-a-half to eight years. I.G. Farben got away with mass murder.

Abs was one of the most important figures in Germany's post-war reconstruction. It was largely thanks to him that, just as the Red House Report exhorted, a 'strong German empire' was indeed rebuilt, one which formed the basis of today's European Union.

Abs was put in charge of allocating Marshall Aid - reconstruction funds - to German industry. By 1948 he was effectively managing Germany's economic recovery.

Crucially, Abs was also a member of the European League for Economic Co-operation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market, the precursor of the European Union.

Its members included industrialists and financiers and it developed policies that are strikingly familiar today - on monetary integration and common transport, energy and welfare systems.

When Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of West Germany, took power in 1949, Abs was his most important financial adviser.

Behind the scenes Abs was working hard for Deutsche Bank to be allowed to reconstitute itself after decentralisation. In 1957 he succeeded and he returned to his former employer.

That same year the six members of the ECSC signed the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Economic Community. The treaty further liberalised trade and established increasingly powerful supranational institutions including the European Parliament and European Commission.

Like Abs, Ludwig Erhard flourished in post-war Germany. Adenauer made Erhard Germany's first post-war economics minister. In 1963 Erhard succeeded Adenauer as Chancellor for three years.

But the German economic miracle – so vital to the idea of a new Europe - was built on mass murder. The number of slave and forced labourers who died while employed by German companies in the Nazi era was 2,700,000.

Some sporadic compensation payments were made but German industry agreed a conclusive, global settlement only in 2000, with a £3billion compensation fund. There was no admission of legal liability and the individual compensation was paltry.

A slave labourer would receive 15,000 Deutschmarks (about £5,000), a forced labourer 5,000 (about £1,600). Any claimant accepting the deal had to undertake not to launch any further legal action.

To put this sum of money into perspective, in 2001 Volkswagen alone made profits of £1.8billion.

Next month, 27 European Union member states vote in the biggest transnational election in history. Europe now enjoys peace and stability. Germany is a democracy, once again home to a substantial Jewish community. The Holocaust is seared into national memory.

But the Red House Report is a bridge from a sunny present to a dark past. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, once said: 'In 50 years' time nobody will think of nation states.'

For now, the nation state endures. But these three typewritten pages are a reminder that today's drive towards a European federal state is inexorably tangled up with the plans of the SS and German industrialists for a Fourth Reich - an economic rather than military imperium.

• The Budapest Protocol, Adam LeBor's thriller inspired by the Red House Report, is published by Reportage Press.

Full ARTICLE


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich--EU.html#ixzz4oiNwdrtt
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

H.F.1270 -BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER

*  *  *

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

 
 
 

 

[IT HAD TO HAPPEN!

-'WE ARE

AFTER ALL

AN INSULAR  ISLAND PEOPLE']

 

*

 

Even Remainers now back a

'hard' Brexit:

 Most Brits ... - Daily Mail

 

. Even Remainers now back a 'hard' Brexit: Most Brits want to regain full control ...
By Claire Ellicott for the Daily Mail and Kate Ferguson For Mailonline ... a straight
choice between that and no deal, with 58 per cent backing it.

 

Most Brits want to regain full control of our borders and to become free of meddling EU judges, survey reveals

  • Most polled want the UK to become free of EU judges and full border control 

  • Two thirds said they would prefer 'no deal' rather than a soft Brexit, poll found

  • Findings boost for Theresa May who says no deal is better than a bad deal

Most Remain voters now back a Brexit that gives Britain a clean break from the EU and control back of our borders, a major study has found.

Many of those who voted to stay in the European Union also now believe the country should only pay a small ‘divorce bill’ and stop EU judges ruling over the UK.

The results are a major boost for Theresa May’s Brexit stategy - and suggest diehard Remainers, such as Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable and former prime minister Tony Blair, have overestimated support for backtracking on Brexit. 

Full artical


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4782712/Most-Brits-hard-Brexit-new-survey-finds.html#ixzz4pXWhGZDU
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

*

 

 FREEDOM!

 

.'..We cannot, I fear, falsify the pedigree of the fierce people, and persuade them that they are not sprung from a nation in whose veins the blood of freedom circulates.  The language in which they would hear you tell them this tale would detect the imposition; your speech would betray you

'An Englishman is the unfittest person on earth, to argue another Englishman into slavery'.

*

EDMUND BURKE

 

Conciliation with America-speech House of Commons

March 22,1775

 

*

1+2+3

+4+5+6+7+8+9+10

Soul of England

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 12-2017

H.F.1277 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

 
 
 
 
BREXIT

ANNOUNCEMENT

ARTICLE 50 LETTER

DELIVERED BY

'HER MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR

TO

BRUSSELS

ON

MARCH 29-2017

*

ON

THE FINAL STRETCH

 TO

 FREEDOM

OF THE

PEOPLE AND NATION STATE OF

 ENGLAND

[TIME ELAPSED SINCE REFERENDUM IN JUNE-2016

 12 MONTHS

 

JULY-2017- AUG-2019 (?)

JULY 23-2017.

*

 

[No 1]

 

    DAILY MAIL

     

    -MAY: EU MIGRANTS CAN STAY IN UK


    Daily Mail
    May says 3.2million EU citizens CAN stay in Britain after we leave
    Daily Mail - 14 hours ago
    May insists her offer to let three million EU citizens stay after Brexit is 'fair' ... All of
    the 3.2million EU nationals currently in the UK will be allowed to stay ..... in case
    there is a late surge of migrants arriving as Brexit approaches.

    JUNE 23,2017

H.F.1226 BREXIT SOONER THAN LATER!

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-June-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-June-PART-8-9-10-11-12 -13-14

BREXIT

BUT NOT OUT OF THE EU FOR 2/3 YEARS. IT IS A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. ALL EU TREATIES WERE OBTAINED BY BRIBERY AND TREASON  AND FRAUD WHICH

UNDER THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON TREATIES MAKES THEM.

NULL AND VOID.

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016

JULY 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

JULY 23 FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2016

*

AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-2016AUGUST 23-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2016

SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW PART 1-2016SEPTEMBER 23 FREEDOM NOW-2016

OCTOBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

NOVEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

DECEMBER 23-BREXIT NOW-2016

*

H.F.200A-FREEDOM NOW

 

PLEASE  NOTE: WE HAVE IN ADVANCE GIVEN BELOW THE BULLETIN FOR EACH MONTH FOR THE NEXT 30 MONTHS WHICH YOU CAN ENTER-IT WILL CONTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHER MONTHS FROM THE PAST AND THAT AVAILABLE AT THE SPECIFIED TIME.  WE ARE MAKING THIS ARRANGEMENT AS WE ARE UNABLE TO GIVE AN EXIT DATE FROM THE EU. AS YOU ARE AWARE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE IN OCTOBER 2003 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AVAILABLE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BRING THE EXIT FROM THE EU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT NOW THAT BREXIT IS SOON TO BE ENACTED BY PARLIAMENT THE DAY OF OUR DELIVERANCE WILL SOON BE AT HAND AND THE RETURN OF OUR INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND TOGETHER WITH OUR NEIGHBOURING NATION STATES OF WALES-SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN ISLAND.

MAY GOD GRANT US A SPEEDY EXIT FROM THE SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC -MAMMOTH MONSTROSITY OF THE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

 

 

MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 

 

The English People's

VoicE

WELCOME!

IMMIGRATION FILE

E U FILE

IRAQ/AFGHAN WAR

     9/11 AN INSIDE JOB

MAGNA CARTA

LONDON 7/7-AN INSIDE JOB

NAZI DVD

ENGLAND FILE

CRIMINAL EU

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND

SAY NO TO EU

UNDERSTANDING EASTER

EURO MUST FAIL

ROTTEN HEART OF EU

SOUL OF ENGLAND

100 REASONS TO LEAVE EU

TREASON A CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

ALFRED - KING OF THE ENGLISH

THE END OF THE ENGLISH

ENGLAND OUR ENGLAND

MOST EVERYTHING WHICH IS PRECIOUS IN OUR CIVILISATION HAS COME FROM SMALL INDEPENDENT NATION STATES

 by LORD PETER SHORE.

 

A NATION STATE HAS BEEN REBORN

 

ON the momentous day Theresa May said Britain WILL quit the single market, she put Cameron's feeble negotiations to shame with an ultimatum to Brussels that the UK will 'walk away from a bad deal-and make the EU pay' 

  • STEEL OF THE NEW
  • IRON LADY
  • The PM is hopeful of an EU-UK trade deal because of mutual economic interests 
  • She said Europe not making a deal with Britian would be 'calamitous self-harm'
  • It was confirmed that we will be leaving the single market and customs union
  • But the EU's chief negotiator called her show of defiance counter-productive
  • Her speech was criticised by the Lib Dems as Labour fought on how to respond 
  • Sterling rose 2.8 per cent against the Dollar and 1.8 per cent against the Euro


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130034/Theresa-s-Brexit-speech-puts-Cameron-shame.html#ixzz4W7pxZPm9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

PressReader - Daily Mail: 2017-01-18 - Europe split over May's ...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170118/281625305003771
Europe split over May's vision – but even Tusk calls it 'realistic'. Daily ... News -
From Mario Ledwith in Brussels and John Stevens in London.

 

*

POINT BY POINT, HER BLUEPRINT TO FREE BRITAIN FROM BRUSSELS
THERESA May delighted Eurosceptics yesterday with an ambitious road map for BREXIT. The PM extended the hand of friendship to the EU but threatened to walk away if BRUSSELS tried to impose a punitive deal. Jack DOYLE sets out her 12 objectives and analyses her chances of success.

1. CERTAINTY

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will provide certainty where we can. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after BREXIT, as they did before. And the Government will put the final deal to a vote in both houses of Parliament.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By keeping in place-at least initially-all EU laws, Mrs May will provide a degree of continuity and confidence for business. However, as she freely admits she cannot control the outcome of the negotiations. Parliament is highly likely to approve any deal because the alternative will be a chaotic BREXIT.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

2. OUR OWN LAWS

 WHAT SHE SAID

We will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Because we will not truly left the EU if we are not in control of our own laws

CAN SHE DELIVER

 Adopting the 'take back control' slogan of the Leave campaign, Mrs May repeated her promise to end rule by EU rule and judges in Luxembourg and restore power to Parliament and domestic courts. Without this there is no Brexit. A firm red line

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

3 A UNITED KINGDOM

 WHAT SHE SAID

A stronger Britain demands that we strengthen the precious union between the four nations of the UK.

CAN SHE DELIVER

By consulting devolved administrations, Mrs May is seeking to reassure voters in the nations of the UK which didn't vote for Brexit that she is listening to their concerns, and avoid Nicola Sturgeon calling for a second independence vote.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

4. THE IRISH BORDER

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic, while protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom's immigration system.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Both countries want to maintain the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic without opening a back door into Britain. Likely to mean UK border checks at Irish ports and airports.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

5. CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: BREXIT must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver

CAN SHE DELIVER

Ending free movement is a  RED LINE, but Mrs May left open when it will end, what system will replace it and details of any transition deal. The PM wants highly skilled EU migrants, doctors and nurses, but will she compromise on unskilled migrants to get a better trade deal

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

 6.  EU NATIONALS AND BRITISH EXPATS

 

WHAT SHE SAID

We  want to guarantee the right of EU citizens who are already living here in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Likely to agreed early on, as long as the EU doesn't want to haggle. Last year Mrs May offered to settle on the rights of three million EU nationals in the UK, and 1.2million Brits on the continent in advance of formals talks- but Angela Merkel refused.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*
7.WORKER'S RIGHTS

 WHAT SHE SAID

Not only will the government protect the rights of workers' set out in European legislation, we will build on them.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May is determined to at least preserve protections for workers on low and middle incomes-many of whom voted for BREXIT. Could come under threat if there is no deal., and Britain slashes taxes and regulation to attract business.

DEAL OR NO DEAL? 3/5

*

8. TRADE WITH EUROPE

WHAT SHE SAID

As a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU. This should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services. But I want to make it clear. It cannot mean membership of the single market

CAN SHE DELIVER

The crux of the negotiation. Britain will leave the single market, and with it EU laws and free movement. Instead Mrs May wants a tariff-free trade and customs agreement to stop goods being held up at ports. She ruled out ' vast contributions' to the EU budget, and the only money going to Brussels will be for particular programmes and agencies like Europol. Her huge gamble is to threaten to walk away if the EU attempts to punish Britain

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

9. GLOBAL TRADE

 WHAT SHE SAID

A global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries outside the EU too. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants deals with non-EU countries including the US. That would be impossible from inside the customs union, which imposes a uniform tariff on all non-EU countries. It would also make trade Secretary Liam Fox's job redundant.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 4/5

*

10. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION

 WHAT SHE SAID

WE have a proud history of leading and supporting cutting -edge research and innovation. So we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research, and technology initiatives.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Unlikely to be an obstacle to any deal. Much collaboration between academics takes place outside formal EU structures and will continue unimpeded.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

11. CRIME AND TERRORISM

 WHAT SHE SAID

All of us in Europe face the challenge of cross-border crime, a deadly terrorist threat, and the dangers presented by hostile states.  All of us share interests and values in common, values we want to see projected around the world.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Security and intelligence cooperation and defence cooperation cannot be a formal bargaining chip, but without making it one, Mrs May reminds EU allies of Britain's importance as an ally in fighting terrorism and important status as a military power.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 5/5

*

12.  A SMOOTH EXIT

 WHAT SHE SAID

It is in no one's interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the European Union.

CAN SHE DELIVER

Mrs May wants tranitional arrangements to smooth the process of leaving the EU with specific deals on budget contributions, immigration, trade and customs lasting different periods of time. Securing this as well as securing a final deal within two years is a huge task.

DEAL OR NO DEAL 3/5

*

[THERE IS EVERY LIKELIHOOD THAT OTHER EU MEMBER STATES WILL BE GREATLY ENCOURAGED BY BREXIT TO LEAVE THAT SOVIETISED-COLLECTIVIST-UNDEMOCRATIC SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHICH SHOULD MAKE A NUMBER OF EU STATES TO CO-OPERATE FULLY WITH THE UK OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR UNFRIENDLY ATTITUDE AT A LATER DATE.

AS THE GREAT PRIME MINISTER - WILLIAM PITT -  (1759-1806) ANNOUNCED IN NOVEMBER 9-1805 SHORTLY AFTER  NELSON'S VICTORY OVER THE FRENCH AND SPANISH FLEETS AT TRAFALGAR.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

The blueprint of a Free and Prosperous United Kingdom should be the blueprint of a future Free Europe and the world at large. Our past still lives in the hearts of FREE PEOPLES everywhere and soon we will rejoin that sacred past which we left over 43 years ago because of traitorous politicians and others who couldn't see the dangers ,for the gross lies and deceit in their path.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18-2017

H.F.1092 BREXIT NOW

 

 DAILY MAIL

COMMENT

FEBRUARY 2, 2017

 

AT LAST, IT IS ALL CLEAR FOR

 BREXIT'S

LIFT-OFF

 

YESTERDAY  was a HISTORIC DAY for OUR COUNTRY. BY a RESOUNDING MAJORITY of 384, the COMMONS swept away [our  past 45 years of tutelage within an undemocratic-unaccountable-unbearable-corrupt-expensive- strait-jacket Europe.]

 

THIS was a historic day for our country. At 7.30pm yesterday by a resounding majority of 384, the Commons swept away the last serious obstacle to freeing Britain from the chains that have bound us to an unelected, unaccountable Brussels for 45 YEARS.

True, we can still expect dirty tricks from the 114 who, to their shame, voted  against implementing the

PEOPLE'S WILL.

Of these , this newspaper will not waste ink on cursing SNP members, whose fantasies of SCOTLAND as an independent EU nation state gave them a spurious excuse for defying the UK majority.

AS for the rest, no criticism is too harsh for those Labour MPs who represent solidly Brexiteer constituencies, but voted to

REMAIN.

They deserve everything coming to them at the next election.

So, too, do the creeps who in 2015 backed the call for a binding referendum, but voted last night against implementing its result.

Among these, none can beat the monstrous hypocrisy of

NICK CLEGG

-that flip-flopping representative of the moneyed elite, suckled on the [thirsty] breast of Brussels.

IN 2008, it was he who led demands for an in/out referendum on Europe (as we demonstrate on the opposite page-

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

H F 1101-AT LONG LAST-FREEDOM AWAITS! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brought-forward from August 2003

[THE WAY AHEAD TO RECLAIM OUR SACRED INHERITANCE.]

Faced with the possible imposition (illegally) of a E. U. Constitution this  article contemplating our own U.K. Constitution (English Constitution), is especially topical.

J. Bingley

Constitutional Principles of Power and Remedy.

The Constitution is specifically intended, indeed designed to limit the powers of the state with respect to the people. The Constitution sets a standard upon which the performance of governance may be measured and contested and to provide remedy if abused.

The whole constitution originates its authority from

COMMON LAW

Supremacy resides in the

LAW and PEOPLE

NOT THE

CROWN or PARLIAMENT.

It is a matter of constitutional principle and legal fact that,

THE LAW IS SUPREME

The rule of law is the antithesis of arbitrary power. Integral with this, is the system of jury trial. It places the power of law enforcement in the

HANDS of the PEOPLE.

This the most vital safeguard against DESPOTISM.

The English Constitution's function is to

PROTECT the

"RIGHTS and LIBERTIES

 of ENGLISHMEN".

These are the 'BIRTHRIGHT' of the PEOPLE'

[In 2016 one can see how successive governments have by gradualism watered down these rights with even attempts to replace jury trial by trial by judge only on the grounds of speed and saving resources. The people in the main have been, amiss in not being vigilant to the protection of THEIR CONSTITUTION. In just a few weeks on the 23 June,2016 they have a choice whether to vote to leave the EU and regain THEIR LAW-THEIR CONSTITUTION-THEIR FREE COUNTRY. or REMAIN in an ALIEN COLLECTIVIST AND CORRUPT UNDEMOCRATIC EU with NO PROTECTION of MAGNA CARTA of 1215 and BILL OF RIGHTS of 1688 and NO ENGLISHMAN'S ' RIGHTS and LIBERTIES' to be passed on to FUTURE GENERATIONS.]

The fundamental rights and liberties are listed in the preamble of the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 which declares that  the oath is taken for the purpose of

" Maintaining our spiritual and civil rights and properties"

It is a contract with the people which makes it the permanent duty of the CROWN, and the CROWN in both GOVERNMENT and PARLIAMENT.

This contracts the Monarch to govern only according to the STATUTE, COMMON LAW, and the CUSTOM and to 'CAUSE LAW and JUSTICE with MERCY to be used in all JUDGEMENTS'.

All power of governance is vested in the CROWN.

The two Houses of Parliament may upon their concurrence offer bills for ROYAL ASSENT.

A BILL is not ENACTED until it has been authorised by the SOVEREIGN POWER.

Whilst the enacting power (a royal prerogative) of Royal Assent is entirely vested with the monarch it is contracted ONLY TO BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  This is a limitation and essential safeguard to protect the people from any over mighty governance  [such as Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's NEW LABOUR and since DAVE'S PARTY]

 It was used  to defeat the Divine Right of Kings; a claim of absolute power by the Stuart monarchs.  The OATH ascertains the SUPREMACY of the LAW, not the supremacy of CROWN or of PARLIAMENT.

There is certainly no Divine Right of Politicians.

The Coronation contract is of the Crown owing allegiance to the Constitution. The PEOPLE give ALLEGIANCE to the CROWN.

Here is a system of mutual protection for there is a constitutional interdependence.

The MAGNA CARTA

made provision for the PEOPLE to use ANY MEANS including FORCE if the CROWN is found to be in BREACH.

[THE CROWN IS IN BREACH!]

THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE IS THE ULTIMATE REMEDY...

That which constitutionally binds the Monarch is a restriction upon Her Majesty, Her Government and all Parliamentary power.  The Monarch may do no wrong, but should she refuse by her negative power( the right to withhold assent) to

'LET WRONG BE DONE.'

[Millions of patriots have been waiting over four decades for:-

'Right to be Done!']

Sir William Blackstone confirms this. Whilst the monarch accepts the advice of ministers, they must only advise to do that which COMPLIES with the CONSTITUTION.  Plainly NO MONARCH is FREE to ASSENT to ADVICE that CONFLICTS with the CONSTITUTION in FORCE.

There is no authority in Parliament to pass any power of governance in England to those who hold or owe no allegiance. [such as the EU]

 There is no constitutional authority for Parliament to deliberately breach the constitutional laws by new   conflicting enactment.

 There is a natural duty resulting from the logic of our constitutional law to debate and resolve conflicts, if necessary by prior repeal.

 We must put an end to this form of 'legal' abuse, particularly through the misapplication of party politics.

 Most but not all of our constitution is written:- the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Acts of Union etc. It has evolved over centuries with the expenditure of much blood. It has been abused and corrected many times. It was finally settled by the Glorious Revolution of 1688/9.

The Judicial function is to be the independent arbiter between party and party or party and government under the terms of our constitutional law.  The courts are bound to declare upon the constitutionality of an Act where it may prove to be an action of unconstitutional governance. The great examples of the Magna Carta, the Petition 1628, the Declaration & the Bill of Rights 1688/9 make this duty of the court utterly plain.

Judgement may only be given in accordance with the constraints of constitutional laws in force.  At all times the presumption of law and justice in mercy be upheld and used  in all judgements. This is the trust sand the pre-eminent public policy reposed in the judiciary.

The right of petition to the Monarch is an appeal direct to the source of power, the Monarch is under OATH and at LAW, bound to provide REMEDY. Where there are RIGHTS there are REMEDIES. Politicians and Parliament must abide by the terms of reference and DUTY to the CONSTITUTION.

A fixed and certain standard with protection and remedy are the true purpose of the Constitution.

WE MUST RECLAIM OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW FROM THE SUPPOSED DIVINE RIGHT OF OUR POLITICIANS.

John Bingley-AUGUST 2003

*

[We ask how did it come to pass that the JUDICIARY did not PROTECT the CONSTITUTION from the illegal actions of PARLIAMENT and the Crown with the disclosures in 2001 under the 30 year rule from the Public Record Office at

 KEW-LONDON

 which revealed the CONSPIRACY of the FOREIGN OFFICE to prevent the PEOPLE from hearing the TRUTH of their TREACHERY and BETRAYAL. Under the 1969 THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION on the  LAW of TREATIES  there are two key provisions which authorise a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice.

1. Where corruption has been demonstrated in respect of pro curing the treaty in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation, the European Commission (EC) permits and is associated with corruption on a monumental scale, which the EU authorities have tried to cover up with declining success.

". Where there has been a material change of circumstances. A material change of circumstances has surfaced into the daylight (September 2005), to begin with, following the death of

Edward Heath.

. It has been revealed that he was an agent of a foreign power (NAZI-GERMANY-since 1938), accepted corrupt payment for his services, and lied to the British people concerning the nature of the geopolitical trap into which he had been instructed by his handlers to lead them-and that he did all this on behalf of a foreign power which has all along disguised its continuing Nazi orientation.

[Massive payouts were given to the signatories of the  EEC which in reality was in effect the road to the corrupt-collectivist-undemocratic

FEDERAL STATE of the EUROPEAN UNION.]

*

[THE QUEEN FAILED IN HER SOLEMN DUTY TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AND THEIR UNIQUE WORLD RENOWNED FREE PARLIAMENTARY INHERITANCE

AND APART FROM SIGNING ILLEGALLY 6 EU TREATIES CONTRARY TO HER CORONATION OATH-IN 1998 SIGNED TONY BLAIR'S SECRET AMENDMENT BILL  FOR TREASON FROM THE DEATH PENALTY TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE-OBVIOUSLY THEY BOTH HAD REASONS  FOR FEARING A FUTURE IMPEACHMENT BY PARLIAMENT.

 

More!

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS}

MAY 30-2016

H.F.800

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
A FREE PRESS!

It's finest expression had already been given in

MILTON'S

AREOPAGITICA.

Milton boldly proclaimed two principles of profound importance.

One was the immunity of the religious life from political regulation. The other was that doctrine which has been the strength of the best thought of individualism from his day to the present, to wit that the well-being of society requires the natural diversity of its members, and that coercive uniformity of morals and manners would spell the ruin and degradation of any people.

*

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

More!

 

 

 

 

 
THOUGHT OF THE DAY!

WE DO NOT KNOW WHY EMPIRES FALL AND STATES DECAY;  BUT WE CAN AT ANY RATE CONJECTURE, WITH NO LITTLE JUSTICE,   THAT A DISTURBANCE OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE WAS ONE GREAT CAUSE OF ITS FALL.  RIGHT LAWS AND SOUND MORALS FORM THE STRONGEST SAFEGUARD OF EVERY NATIONAL STATE; BUT A SOUND RACIAL BASIS IS ALSO NECESSARY.   A NATION MAY BE ENRICHED BY THE  VARIED CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOREIGN  IMMIGRATION; BUT IF THE STREAM OF IMMIGRATION GROWS UNCHECKED INTO THE VOLUME OF A GREAT RIVER,  A NATION MAY LOSE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SOLID CORE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ITS TRADITION  AND THE NATION WHICH LOSES ITS TRADITIONS HAS LOST ITS VERY SELF.

[Earnest Barker-NATIONAL CHARACTER-1927]

*

A BETRAYAL OF OUR PAST OVER 50 YEARS

 (1959-2016)

 

 

 

THE SPIRIT OF A PEOPLE

THE FIRST TASK of any politics that could be really scientific was to relate authority to its principle source, to show its dependence on the whole social fabric, the customs and traditions, the modes of thought and the standards of life that prevail among a people.  ...the work of Montesquieu.   He really sought to understand society, to show the influence of underlying  conditions ,climatic, geographical, economic, to show that custom and institutions neither are made nor can be changed by fiat, to show that there is in every people a spirit of character which their law must reveal

THE MODERN STATE by R. M MacIVER-1950

THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

NEW AGE

OF

 INTOLERANCE

 

A.N. WILSON on the new dark age of intolerance: You must believe in gay marriage, you can't question abortion and as for transgender rights...

The great French writer Voltaire famously said: 'I disapprove of what you say and would defend to the death your right to say it'. In this way, he encapsulated what it meant to be an enlightened human being — someone prepared to consider all points of view.

But in recent years the principle of freedom of speech, sacred since Voltaire's 18th century, has been lost, and this is surely one of the most sinister features of our times. It is as if we are entering a new Dark Age of Intolerance.

The irony is that this intolerance has come about as a result of what were initially good intentions. One of the things which makes me happy as I grow older is the thought that during my lifetime we have all tried to become a kinder society.

When I was a boy and a young man, for example, racist jokes were the norm on radio and TV. Now they would be unthinkable. Mockery of homosexuals, and the equation of being gay with being limp-wristed and camp, were absolute norms of comedy when I was growing up. Now no longer.

Such jokes have gone the way of boarding-houses which used to put 'NO BLACKS. NO DOGS. NO IRISH in the window'. Obviously, all civilised people feel pleased by this.

But somehow those initial good intentions — to be kinder to and more tolerant of others — have morphed into a political correctness that has had the very opposite effect.

Two notorious recent examples of this concerned the treatment of a Christian baker in Northern Ireland, and some Christian bed and breakfast owners in Berkshire. The baker had not wanted to make a wedding cake for a gay couple who were getting married. The B&B owners had refused to let a gay couple share the same room in their establishment. In each case they were successfully sued for unlawful discrimination.

Now, a gay activist would no doubt say this was a good thing, arguing that the baker and bed and breakfast owners' behaviour was comparable to the racism of the past. Yet this is surely getting things wholly out of proportion.

The baker was not persecuting homosexuals, as Hitler did. He was not saying they should be put in prison, as all Home Secretaries in Britain did until the Sixties. He was merely saying that, as a Christian, he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that two chaps tying the knot were doing something rather different, which is contrary to traditional Christian teaching.

Whatever you think about this matter, the Northern Irish baker and the B&B couple were merely holding on to Christian beliefs.

I don't happen to share their views myself, and think that if two people are rash enough to promise to live together for the rest of their lives, good luck to them, whether they are gay, straight, trans or anything else. But surely you can understand both sides of this dilemma, can't you?

Well, the answer, more and more in our intolerant society, is 'No'. My concern here is not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage, transgender rights, our colonial history, or any of the other emotive issues that are subject to endless debate in the modern age.

It is about freedom of thought and speech; freedom to disagree in a liberal society; freedom to have thoughts which are different from the current orthodoxy.

What began as our very decent desire not to be nasty to those of a different ethnicity, or sexual proclivity, from ourselves, has turned into a world as intolerant as monkish Christianity in the days of the Dark Ages, when any freedom of thought is questioned.

Tim Farron, leader of the Lib Dems during the General Election, was asked repeatedly about his views on gay marriage. As a fairly old-fashioned Christian, he did not believe it was possible — marriage should be between a man and a woman.

As the leader of a modern political party, he knew that it would be political death to admit this. He was finally forced to resign.

This was a signal to the world that if you want to succeed in modern politics, it is simply not allowed to hold views which, until a very short time ago, were the consensus among the great majority of people in the Western world.

I use the words 'not allowed' advisedly. What is sinister about living in the new Dark Ages, however, is that it is by no means clear who is doing the allowing and not allowing. In Mao's China, it was obvious: thought crimes were ideas which contradicted the supreme leader.

In Britain today, however, it seems an army of self-appointed censors — from internet trolls to angry students, lobby groups, town hall officials, craven politicians and lawyers and Establishment figures, as well as a host of other sanctimonious and often bilious busy-bodies — have taken it upon themselves to police what we can and cannot think or say.

Not believing in abortion, like not believing in gay marriage, is now, unquestionably, a thought crime. It was hardly surprising that the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg recently said he did not believe in abortion, because he is a man of conviction as well as a Roman Catholic, and this is the teaching of his Church. Yet his view was treated with incredulity and disdain by everyone from trolls and women's groups to the higher echelons of the political Establishment.

As in the case of abortion, debate is no longer allowed on transgender issues. There was a BBC2 Horizon Programme last Tuesday night called Being Transgender. The close-up shots of transgender surgery in a Californian hospital will not easily leave the mind.

We met a number of nice people who had decided for one reason or another that they were not the gender which they had once supposed. They were all undergoing some form of transformative medical treatment, either taking hormones or having surgery.

What made the programme strange as a piece of journalism was the fact that it did not contain one dissenting voice. Not one psychiatrist or doctor who said they doubted the wisdom of some of these procedures, especially in the very young.

Still less was there anyone like the redoubtable feminist and academic Dr Germaine Greer who once expressed her view that a man did not become a woman just because he had undergone transgender surgery — and was, as a result, decried from the rooftops with everything from petitions launched to stop her from speaking at university campuses to death threats.

Dr Greer had also been bold enough to say 'a great many women' shared her view, which is obviously true — a great many women do not think that transgender people have really changed sex. What has changed is that it is no longer permitted to say so.

A friend of mine who likes bathing in the women's pond on Hampstead Heath in London says that at least one person now uses the female changing rooms who is obviously in a stage of transition from man to woman, and is simply a hairy man wearing lipstick.

However uncomfortable this makes the women feel, they know that they cannot say anything.

There was an ugly incident lately at Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, which used to be the place where anyone could go and stand on a soap-box and hold any opinion they liked.

Speakers' Corner was a symbol of British Freedom of Speech. As a schoolboy, I had a Jewish friend whose grandfather used to take us there to listen to people proclaiming that the earth was flat, preachers praising Hitler, Stalin, and others saying whatever they liked. It was the freedom to do so, said the old man who had escaped Hitler's Germany, which made the very air of Britain so refreshing to him.

What would he have thought had he witnessed the scene earlier this month at Speakers' Corner when a 60-year-old woman called Maria was smacked in the face, allegedly by a transgender fanatic, while listening to a talk on planned reforms to the Gender Recognition Act. Reforms which would allow men to 'self-identify' as female, and enter women's changing rooms or refuges unchallenged.

For Maria, as for the intimidated women of Hampstead swimming pool, and for Germaine Greer, it is by no means clear that transgender people have changed their sex.

Transgender activists have labelled women like Maria TERFS — Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. When news of the assault on her reached the internet — ie instantaneously — the trolls began baying, like the bloodthirsty mob during the guillotine-executions of the French Revolution. 'Burn in a fire, TERF'. 'I want to f*** some TERFS up, they are no better than fascists'.

The use of the word 'fascist' is commonplace in our new Dark Age for anyone with whom you happen to disagree. You hear it all the time in the Brexit arguments which rage all around us and which I dread. As it happens, I voted Remain. But I do not regard Brexiteers as 'fascists', and many of their arguments — wanting to reclaim the power to make our own laws and control our own borders — are evidently sensible.

Yet I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Remainers say that Brexiteers are fascists. As a matter of historical fact, many of the keenest supporters of a united European superstate were actual fascists.

The only British politician who campaigned on the ticket of Europe A Nation during the Fifties was Sir Oswald Mosley who was leader of the British Union of Fascists. But then, today's PC censors don't let facts get in their way of bigotry.

Branding anyone you disagree with a fascist; hitting people in the face; tweeting and blogging abuse behind the cowardly anonymity of the internet — these are the ugly weapons used to stifle any sort of debate. And it is often in the very places where ideas should be exchanged and examined that the bigotry is at its worst: our universities.

This week on the Radio 4's Today programme, we heard James Caspian, a quietly-spoken, kindly psychotherapist, describing what has become a cause celebre at Bath Spa University.

He has been working for some years with people who for one reason or another have begun the process of gender-transition, and then come to regret it.

Caspian is evidently not a judgmental man. He wanted to write a thesis on this subject from a sympathetic and dispassionate point of view.

What makes people feel so uncomfortable with their own apparent gender that they wish to undergo painful and invasive surgery to change it? What makes people then come to reassess their first idea? These are surely legitimate questions about a subject many of us can't quite comprehend.

I have two friends who started out as men, and decided in mid-life that they were really women, or wanted to become women, which is what they have done. I do not really understand what has happened to them, even though they have tried to explain it to me.

Surely a man like James Caspian, who has worked with transgender men and women, should be encouraged by a university to explain this area of medicine or psychology?

But no. The university, having initially approved of his idea for a thesis, then turned down his application. 'The fundamental reason given was that it might cause criticism of the research on social media, and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university,' he told Radio 4 listeners. 'They also added it's better not to offend people.'

This is all of a piece with students at Oxford wanting to pull down the statue of 19th century imperialist Cecil Rhodes from his old college, Oriel, on the grounds that he was racist.

Rather than having a reasoned debate weighing the evils of racist colonialism against Rhodes's benevolence, the student at the forefront of the movement — who had actually accepted a £40,000 Rhodes scholarship funded by the fortune the colonialist gave to Oxford — wanted to pull down the statue.

This is the same attitude of mind as that which led monks in the Dark Ages to destroy the statues of pagan gods and goddesses, or the Taliban to do the same to age-old Buddhist artefacts.

Reason, debate, seeing more than one side to an argument, surely these are the foundations of all that has fashioned the great values of the West since the Enlightenment started in the 18th century with an explosion of new ideas in science, philosophy, literature, and modern rational thought that ushered in the Age of Reason.

Realising that human actions and ideas are often mixtures of good and bad — isn't this what it means to have a grown-up mind? Surely we should be allowed to discuss matters without being accused of thought crime?

In universities, as at Speakers' Corner and in the public at large, there used to be the robust sense that sticks and stones may break our bones but words can never hurt us. Now, the 'hurt-feelings' card is regularly played to stifle any debate.

Little by little, we are allowing the Dark Ages of intolerance to come again. We should not be letting this happen.

We should be able to say: 'We disapprove of your views — on Europe, on Transgender Issues, on Islam, on absolutely anything, but we defend to the death your right to express them'.


 

Full article

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4935418/A-N-WILSON-new-dark-age-intolerance.html#ixzz4uAFieZ6T
Follow us:
@MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[COMMENTS-HIGHLIGHTING - ARE OURS!]

 

SEPTEMBER 30-2017

H.F.1329

*  *  *

HOME

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM? THAT IS YOUR CHOICE

by

Andrew Alexander

COLUMN

[Daily Mail-June 27,2008]

DEMOCRACY and freedom. It is a fine sounding phrase-rarely off the lips of President Bush as he blunders around the Middle East.

Why do we readily accept that democracy and freedom are natural partners? There is scant historical evidence for it. Often it is a case of

DEMOCRACY or FREEDOM: even DEMOCRACY versus FREEDOM.

Consider two examples.  the United States is the only country to have banned alcohol by public demand. Contrast this with Hong Kong. Until shortly before being handed back by

BRITAIN to BEIJING

 it had

NO DEMOCRACY

at all: It was ruled by a colonial governor. Yet enjoyed enviable freedom with one of the least intrusive governments -and flourished wonderfully.

Our own experience also has much to tell us.

BEING A DEMOCRACY HAS NOT PROMOTED PERSONAL LIBERTY.

QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

More than

3000

 NEW OFFENCES

have been created since 1997, and officialdom revels in nearly

300 POWERS OF ENTRY.

Much of this is due to the

EUROPEAN UNION

whose

DIRECTIVES

are rarely scrutinised, let alone debated , by our supposedly democratic representatives.

WHAT we may SAY, WRITE or DO, or whom WE EMPLOY has been increasingly limited. The Government has passed legislation which can make assisting your son's football team

AN OFFENCE.

Another side of our

'democracy'

demonstrates painfully how the public will is constantly flouted. Take the brazen example of voters being

PROMISED REFERENDUM

on

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES

resulting from the

LISBON TREATY

The unscrupulous machinery of government has been deployed to

FRUSTRATE THE PUBLIC WILL.

I am not making a party point.

FOR OVER 40 YEARS, GOVERNMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN RESISTING AN OVERWHELMING PUBLIC DEMAND FOR CURBS ON

IMMIGRATION.

especially from the

NEW COMMONWEALTH.

 While successive governments have made a show of meeting public demand, they have, quite consciously

REFUSED TO ADDRESS IT

throwing occasional tit-bits to the voters in the hope

THAT THIS WILL KEEP THEM QUIET.

Consider, also, the strong public demand for

CRIMINALS TO BE PROPERLY PUNISHED.

Successive governments, including Mrs Thatcher's have come under the sway of the

'PRISON REFORM'

people -with the result that

CRIMINALS RECEIVE VERY MODEST SENTENCES.

What is more, if they serve a sentence at all, it is in the softest conditions.

IF LYING ON YOUR BED AND WATCHING TV FOR A FEW MONTHS IS THE WORST THAT THE LAW WILL INFLICT

(and that's if you are even caught)

then

CRIME IS WORTH THE RISK

AND

PUBLIC OUTRAGE IS IGNORED.

The explanation is quite logical. Politicians are typically driven by

TWO THINGS.

THE FIRST is the PURSUIT OF POWER

the most exciting thing in the world, or even some say, the first.  If this urge is not there when they start their political careers

THEN IT SOON TAKES OVER.

THEIR SECOND MOTIVATION -to give our politicians their due - is the DESIRE FOR REFORM, IMPROVE the condition of the PEOPLE.

But the catch here is that most politicians

 THINK THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE FAR BETTER THAN THEMSELVES.

THEY FORM AN ELITE

WHICH LISTENS TO

OTHER ELITES

Or perhaps, since the word elite sounds flattering, we should say

THEY FORM A CASTE.

 

Politicians do not wake each morning wondering whether they are meeting the public will.  They turn to the media to learn what is said about them in newspapers and on the radio by other members of the

NATIONAL ELITE

- the selectorate, the clattering classes, the scribblers, the intellectually fashionable, call them what you will.

 

For elites to be out of touch is not unusual, even inevitable. The desire to be 'in' with the 'right' people is common with politicians; their weakness is for approval (and fame).

Of course, there is one moment when public opinion cannot be ignored -and that is at an

ELECTION

As Rousseau observed, voters are truly free

ONLY

 ON

ELECTION DAY.

But , by then, all the issues are jumbled up, and the voter finds himself choosing between

TWO COMPLEX and CONFUSING MENUS.

And while it is clearly advantageous for a party to offer the public

WHAT IT WANTS, the fact that both main parties say MUCH THE SAME THING..

-and make similar insincere

PROMISES

makes a mockery of any claim to be driven by

PUBLIC WILL.

 

BUT  the ALTERNATIVE to our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM politicians say in horror, would be GOVERNMENT by REFERENDUMS. With 'horror' because it would take power from THEM and give it to THE PEOPLE.

BUT WHY NOT?

The Swiss have made a suburb success of it. Referendums are required on national and local issues if enough voters petition for them and they often do. As a result, the Federal Government, like  the local CANTON administrations, proceeds with CAUTION in case its plans are overturned by a PUBLIC VOTE. . .

To acknowledge that our PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, which has developed over the centuries, NO LONGER WORKS -MAY BE PAINFUL. But if you put that to a REFERENDUM,

MOST VOTERS WOULD HEARTILY AGREE.

 

*

[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining Used-Comment in Brackets]

 

Ten EU truths we must tell the public
 

 *

HOME

[brought forward from June-2008

AUGUST-2008

*

[ 'IN JANUARY 2018 we can look back over 10 years and see that the situation with regard to many matters mentioned above has got progressively WORSE! Whether it is IMMIGRATION-POLICING-LAWS...The only GOOD NEWS is that we are only just over a year away from leaving the monstrous soon to be containment camp know as the EU SUPER-STATE a plan of ADOLF-HITLER in 1940 for GERMANY to dominate Europe in the PEACE .]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

[brought forward from June-2008

H.F.1449

 

 

*  *  *

 

 
 

A REMINDER!

WHAT YOU ARE ESCAPING FROM SINCE TRAITORS IN YOUR PARLIAMENT SIGNED YOUR COUNTRY OF ENGLAND

AWAY IN

1972

AND IN LATER TREATIES UNTIL YOU SPOKE YOUR MIND ON

 JUNE 23-2016

 A DATE IN HISTORY WHICH WILL BE ALWAYS REMEMBERED

BY ALL TRUE ENGLISHMEN.

 

*  *  *

HOW IT CAME ABOUT!

Mr Macmillan and 1961

Mr Heath and 1970

Mrs Thatcher and 1985

From Major to Blair, Maastricht to Nice

The Price We Have PAid

 

*  *  *

 

H.F.1100 FREEDOM AWAITS

 
NEW SERIES

*

WHY WE VOTED TO LEAVE

THE

UNDEMOCRATIC-UNACCOUNTABLE-COLLECTIVIST-CORRUPT-WASTEFUL-GODLESS

SO-CALLED

EUROPEAN UNION

[WE WILL SELECT INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AUTHORITIVE SOURCES CONCERNING THE ILLEGALITY OF THE EU TREATIES AND THOSE WHO LIED FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND POWER AND OTHER SUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION COLLECTED OVER THE 20 YEARS SINCE WE COMMENCED OUR BULLETIN FILE AFTER STANDING FOR ELECTION IN THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION AND THE 1999 EUROPEAN ELECTION. MANY WHO VOTED TO REMAIN IN THE EU WOULD SURELY HAVE RECONSIDERED IF THEY HAD BEEN DISINTERESTED OBSERVERS-DECIDING ON THE FACTS AND PUTTING NATIONAL INTERESTS  OF FREEDOM  and NATIONHOOD OUTLINED IN MAGNA CARTA AND OTHER PRIZED DOCUMENTS HELD IN TRUST-SACRED HEIRLOOMS - FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, BEFORE THEIR OWN COMFORT ZONE.  FORTUNATELY, THE GODS, WERE WITH ENGLAND-AND THE SOON RETURN OF

 A FREE LAND AND FREE PEOPLE.

OUR ENSLAVEMENT IN 1972 INTO HITLER'S PLAN FOR GERMAN EXPANSION AND POWER IN PEACE-TIME EUROPE WILL SOON BE AT AN END. AS A UNITED PEOPLE IT WILL BE SOONER THAN LATER. LET US WORK TOGETHER AS  AN EXAMPLE TO OTHER ONCE FREE PEOPLES WITHIN THE CAPTIVE EU WHO WILL SURELY FOLLOW. IF THE SHIP IS NOT ON AN EVEN KEEL IT CANNOT HELP OTHERS WHO WILL NEED OUR STURDY STEADY HAND.

'England has saved herself by her exertions; and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.'

William Pitt.

 [Speech, 9th Nov, after Nelson's VICTORY at THE Battle of Trafalgar-with the destruction of the French and Spanish Fleets-Oct 21-1805]

MARCH 1-2017

 
A FAMILIAR WARNING FROM HISTORY - WE MUST NOT IGNORE!

'It is quite true that, in my opinion the waters which we have to navigate are likely to be stormy, and that the anti-social ferments within the nation are unusually malignant. But just a a healthy body generates anti-toxins to combat any virulent infection, so our nation

ENGLAND

 may be vigorous enough to neutralize the poisons which now threaten our civilization with death. Nothing but good can be done by calling attention to perils which really exist, and which may easily escape due attention amid the bottomless insincerity of modern politics and political journalism.

DANGERS OF PREDICTION

However , the dangers of prediction have been so often illustrated that those who are naturally disposed to optimism may be excused for rejecting the anticipations of coming CALAMITY, which  are now  [as in 2016/7] widely felt, though not so often expressed.

In the Victorian age we had  our profits of woe [and doom], who vociferated warnings about "shooting Niagara" when the country was more prosperous than it had ever been before. [As yet again in 2016/7].

Even on the morrow of our victory in 1815, " as soon as Waterloo was fought," says Sir Walter Besant, "the continental professors, historians, and others began with one accord to prophesy the approaching downfall of Great Britain," which they liked to compare with Carthage.

They emphasised the condition of Ireland, the decay of trade, our huge debt, our wasteful expenditure, our corrupting poor laws, the ignorance and drunkenness of the masses. Nor was this pessimistic forecast confined to our jealous neighbours.  In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent as follows:

" Distress and misery are no longer limited to one portion of the Empire, and under their irresistible pressure the commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing interests are rapidly sinking.   We can ,Sir no longer support out of our dilapidated resources the overwhelming load of taxation.  Our grievances are the natural result of rash and ruinous wars, unjustly commenced and pertinaciously persisted in, where no rational object was to be attained; of immense subsidies to foreign Powers to defend their own territories  or to commit aggressions on those of our neighbours;  of a delusive paper currency; of an unconstitutional and unprecedented military force in time of peace;   of the unexampled and increasing magnitude of the Civil List ;  of the enormous sums paid for unmerited pensions and sinecures;   and of a long course of the most lavish and improvident expenditure of the public money throughout every branch of Government."

In December 1816, the Common Council of the City of London addressed the Prince Regent with the above statement.

Sounds familiar in 2017-Don't you think?

 

[EPILOGUE-William Ralph Inge -Dean of St Pauls ENGLAND-1938] -(1860-1954)

 

We endorse the final paragraph which states:

 

" I have laid bare my hopes and fears for the country I love.  This much I can avow, that never, even when the storm clouds appear blackest, have I been tempted to wish that I was other than an Englishman."

*

[We appear to have learned NOTHING! since this speech  in 1816 as the multiple evils are still with us today August 6, 2011. The reason is OBVIOUS! because the SAME! once invisible GLOBAL CONSPIRATORS are  STILL in CHARGE! and  are now in the OPEN!

If the ECONOMY has a DISEASE and FAILS to take the CORRECT MEDICINE then the END RESULT is OBVIOUS.

TOTAL CHAOS!

*

WHY DO WE TRUST THESES DISCREDITED DOOM-MONGERS?

By Alex Brummer - City Editor-Daily Mail-Monday, August 8,2011

 

 [EXTRACT]

...and the answer is that the CREDIT RATING AGENCIES are now seen as the ONLY arbiters prepared to spell out just how SERIOUS the GLOBAL DEBT CRISIS really IS.... After all, the very same AGENCIES were still providing the US. energy company ENRON with TOP RATING up to THREE DAYS before IT COLLAPSED in the world's BIGGEST INDUSTRIAL BANKRUPTCY...  They also gave a CLEAN BILL of HEALTH to FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC -semi-official, but privately owned U. S bodies set up to expand the HOME OWNERSHIP and the availability of MORTGAGES-despite WARNINGS from the LEGENDARY American investor -WARREN BUFFETT -THAT they were BROKE... S&P's downgrade may look like a poke in the eye for the UNITED STATES. But with luck, it could in the end DAMAGE the FUTURE CREDIBILITY of the CREDIT-RATING AGENCIES - they are in MORE URGENT NEED of REFORM than AMERICA.

 

 

THE AMERICAN DREAM IS OVER!

 

h

 

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS almost BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/ ****    REVEALED AFTER HIS DEATH THAT EDWARD HEATH AN AGENT OF NAZI INTERNATIONAL AND TRAITOR TO HIS COUNTRY FOR 60 YEAR/ ****    THE TERM DVD STANDS FOR GERMAN DEFENCE AGENCY OR SECRET SERVICE/ ****       FOREIGN POWERS DIRECT OUR GOVERNMENT BY PAYOUTS/  ****   A TRAITOR FULL OF HONOURS FROM HIS COUNTRY-WHY?/  ****   WHAT WERE THE DARK ACTORS PLAYING GAMES WHICH THE PATRIOT DR DAVID KELLY REFERRED  -[WAS IT AN ILLUMINATI  PLAN TO USE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS TO REDUCE THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD BY 95%?     **** GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN MADRID IN 1943 BY HEINRICH HIMMLER/  ****    A PLAGUE OF TREACHERY -CORRUPTION AND SKULDUGGERY HAS TAKEN OVER ONCE PROUD DEMOCRACIES? ****   THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE/   WARNING FROM OUR MAN IN WASHINGTON/ ****  GERMAN-NAZI-GEOPOLITICAL CENTRE/  ****   GERMANY AS  STRONGMAN OF EUROPE- GERMANISED EMPIRE IN THE MAKING/ ****  A WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND****   50 YEARS OF SURRENDER***AN INTERVIEW WITH FORMER SOVIET DISSIDENT VLADIMIR BUKOVSKY WARNS OF EU DICTATORSHIP.**** WILFUL BLINDNESS AND COWARDNESS OF POLITICIANS****THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED.

DAVID CAMERON'S PLAN TO CLAW BACK POWERS FROM EU ARE DOOMED SAYS EU CHIEF IN OCTOBER-2013

*

THE HISTORY OF THE SATANIC COLLECTIVIST EUROPEAN UNION

***

HITLER'S+PLAN+FOR+A+

GERMAN+CONTROLLED

+EUROPEAN+UNION

***

TREASON

***

 

 

 

ENGLAND

 

 Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?**** BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS ENGLAND AND ENGLISH-NOT BRITISH****NEW LABOUR'S LEGACY-THE GHETTOSIZATION OF ENGLAND****UNLESS WE TAKE CONTROL OF OUR LIVES WE WILL LOSE OUR FREEDOM AND IDENTITY****.OUR PAST IS EMBEDDED IN OUR NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS -IT ASKS WERE WE CAME FROM AND WHO WE ARE .****.THE ENGLISH WITH OTHER GERMANIC TRIBES CAME TO BRITAIN OVER YEARS AGO - THE STREAM OF TEUTONIC INFLUENCE  HAS DECIDED THE FUTURE OF EUROPE****THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 1/ ****  THE SOUL OF ENGLAND PT 2/ ****    WHY ARE WE ENGLISH MADE TO FEEL GUILTY/****  DON'T LET THEM DESTROY OUR IDENTITY/ ****   NOR SHALL MY SWORD/****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT1-/ ****  WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ENGLISH-PT2/****   ENGLAND IS WHERE THE MAJORITY VIEWS ARE IGNORED AND MINORITIES RULE AT THEIR EXPENSE IN POLITICALLY -CORRECT BROWNDOM/****    ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT1- /****   ALFRED - CHRISTIAN KING OF THE ENGLISH-PT2/****    ENGLISHMEN AS OTHERS SEE US BEYOND OUR ONCE OAK WALL./****   WHY OUR ENGLISH SELF-GOVERNMENT IS UNIQUE IN EUROPE AND THE WORLD****.ENGLAND ARISE! - TODAY WE CLAIM OUR RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION/ ****  KISS GOOD BYE TO YOUR SOVEREIGNTY AND COUNTRY****  THE DAY A NATION STATE WAS DOOMED? **** ST GEORGE'S DAY-ENGLAND'S DAY/**** ST GEORGE'S DAY - 23APRIL - RAISE A FLAG ONSHAKESPEARE'S' BIRTHDAY****NAZI SPY RING REVEALED BY THE MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE IN 1938 . IT INCLUDED THE LATE EX PRIME MINISTER EDWARD HEATH AND MINISTERS GEOFFREY RIPPON AND ROY JENKINS.* * * *AN OBITUARY TO YOUR COUNTRY WHICH NEED NOT HAVE HAPPENED****   EU WIPES ENGLAND OFF THE MAP**** THE ENGLISH DID NOT MOVE THEMSELVES SO ARE NOW SLAVES IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP EUROPE****"...What kind of people do they think we are?" by WINSTON CHURCHILL****THE SPIRIT OF ENGLAND BY WINSTON CHURCHILL.

 For more details go to :http://eutruth.org.uk

 

‘THE MAKING OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION’****

OUR CONSTITUTION OF OVER A THOUSAND YEARS – WHY DOES BLAIR MEAN TO DESTROY IT?****

OUR DISCREDITED DEMOCRACY OR IRAQ DICTATORSHIP****OUR LOYALTY TO OUR INSTITUTIONS AND COUNTRY?****Liberties of Parliament- Birthright of Subjects of England.****LOSS of TRUST in NEW LABOUR****New England’s Tears for Old England’s fears?****The House of Commons has a need of members dedicated to their Country-not time wasters.****English Constitution, by it they lived, for it they died****CABINET GOVERNMENT IS NOW A DICTATORSHIP****MESSAGE FROM AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THE CROWN****THE FINAL BETRAYAL - Part 1-5****House of Lords legal Whistleblower – Speaks Out in Defence of OUR  Law & Constitution****SAY ‘NO’ TO EUROPE! – SAYS RODNEY ATKINSON****The Rotten Heart of Europe - by Bernard Connolly-Part 1-5****THE CLUB IS MIGHTIER THAN THE HANDBAG****WHY you should Vote at Elections to protect YOUR Democracy****The sole legitimate function of Government- is to Protect The Rights of its Citizens****So You Thought You Were Free****A DREAM TO REMEMBER- NEW LABOUR POLICY -2004?****NO SUPPORT IN HOUSE OF LORDS FOR INQUIRY INTO EU BY TORY WHIP**** Could England Survive Outside The EU?  -YES!****COST OF DEVOLUTION –N’IRELAND, SCOTLAND AND WALES LONDON +BRUSSELS****European Arrest Warrant – What Price Our Freedom Now?****Government Obsession With Spending Itself out of Trouble**** Bill of Rights of 1688 –Outlaws European Constitution****OUR UNREPRESENTATIVE VOTING SYSTEM= BREEDS TREASON -
BETRAYAL OF COUNTRY
****Impeachment of Ministers of the Crown – Why Now?****New European Constitution – Concessions Fudge.****The Judiciary – A Defence of English Freedom?****
New European Constitution – A ‘Bridge’ Too Far?**** Our way forward to Kinship in Liberty****OUR HISTORIC HOUSE OF LORDS MUST REMAIN – TO PREVENT TYRANNY****  Scottish Independence – Have No need of Union flag and Anthem****Misuse of Prerogative Powers by Tony Blair****A BETRAYAL OF OUR NATION –CONSPIRATORS NAME  PARTS 1-5****

 

 

H.F.1099 FREEDOM AWAITS

 
 
 
MAR-17 APR-17 MAY-17 JUN-17 JUL-17 AUG-17 SEP-17 OCT-17 NOV-17 DEC-17
JAN-18 FEB-18 MAR-18

APL-18

MAY-18

JUN-18

JUL-18

AUG-18

SEP-18

OCT-18

NOV-18

DEC-18

JAN-19

FEB-19

MAR-19

APR-19

MAY-19

JUN-19

JUL-19

AUG-19

 

 

 

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012

SEPTEMBER-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2018