- (1994 -Official Website -FEBRUARY-PT4-2019-)--

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2019         FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019          FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 5-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 6-2019          FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-PAGE 2-2019

 ENGLISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ORG.UK.

FREEDOM-UNITY.

*

WHY I WANT

OUT OF THE EU

 

I want out because I fear that our

NATIONAL IDENTITY

OUR WAY OF LIFE

and tradition of liberal democracy are under

THREAT

from the EU's rules on the

FREE MOVEMENT of PEOPLE

and its

INSANE

HUMAN RIGHTS REGIME

I WANT OUT

because I believe that

BRUSSEL'S

attempts to impose

UNIFORMITY

on hugely diverse peoples are holding economies back, destroying livelihoods and breeding dangerous ill-feelings between

NATIONS.

I WANT OUT

so that we can regain the right to elect those who make our laws-and to

DISMISS THEM IF THEY FAIL US

I'm sick of seeing my country infantilised by an

UNSACKABLE NANNY STATE.

IN A WORD

I WANT OUT BECAUSE I WANT

BRITAIN

[ENGLAND]

TO BE FREE

*

Tom Utley for the Daily Mail

[We couldn't have put it better-Thank you!- Tom Utley.

TOM UTLEY: Oh dear. Is the fact my wife was a bus ... - Daily Mail-Friday, June 3,2016l

 

H.F.805

*

 
 

Don't Give In

To

The E U

 

WHY A UK COMPROMISE WITH BRUSSELS WILL CONFINE THEIR CAPTIVE NATION STATES EVEN TIGHTER TO ENSURE THERE CAN BE NO MORE DEFECTORS. WHILE A FIRM RESPONSE FOR A JUST SETTLEMENT FROM THE UK WILL GIVE HEART AND ASSISTANCE TO THOSE FREEDOM LOVING PATRIOTS PRISONERS OF HITLER'S PLANNED EU TO BAND TOGETHER TO FIGHT FOR THE RETURN OF THEIR ONCE FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATES.

WE SAY NO! TO COMPROMISE.

It is forgotten that an individual country which makes a decision affecting itself or others has the opportunity to remedy the situation. Whereas, in the EU this is not possible, unless ALL or the permitted number agree to the change and knowing the belligerence of Hitler's brainchild this could have serious and dangerous consequences.

Remember, the responsibility of the UK to assist those captive people's who wish to be

FREE

because it was the blood of British troops in the past that assisted the birth of many of the

FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATES in EUROPE.

BY STANDING FIRM FOR AN ORDERLY AND JUST EXIT FROM HITLER'S EU WE WILL RECOVER THAT RESPECT THAT OUR BROTHER NATIONS WHO SAW BRITAIN IN 1973 NEGLECT THEIR KIN AROUND THE WORLD FOR AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE WITH A COUNTRY

GERMANY

WHICH IN

TWO WORLD WARS

WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS  AND INJURIES OF MILLIONS AND VAST DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY...FOR WHICH THE LIKE THE WORLD WOULD NOT HAVE  PREVIOUSLY SEEN.

A FREE INDEPENDENT EUROPEAN UNION OF FREE PEOPLE'S WITHIN THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT NATION STATES.

YES!

THE PRESENT UNDEMOCRATIC-BULLYING EU.

NO!

The fault of our present situation is because of TREASON within the Tory Government of

Edward Heath

 A Nazi spy since 1938 reported to MI5 in 1938 by the Master of Balliol College, Oxford.

 Who in the 70's  and with previous administrations secretly conspired to lead the British people blindfolded into the Nazi-planned EU . It is therefore incumbent on the present Tory Government of Mrs May to bring the situation back to what it was before January 1973. The evidence of Tory wrong-doing has been on our website since 2005.

*

Compromise.

Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another,-too often ending in the loss of both,

- Tryon Edwards

*

From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned. I insist that this shall cease. The country needs repose after all its trials; it deserves repose. And repose can only be found in everlasting principles.-

Charles Sumner

*

A surrender to the Nazi-planned EU would not bring repose to the millions of patriots who wanted their country back. An unjust settlement instead of a Churchillian response will see the battle continue until victory is secured.

Victory

You ask, What is our aim?  I can answer in one word: Victory - victory at all costs, victory in spite of all the terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.

- Winston Churchill.

FOR THE MILLIONS WHO HAVE DIED IN THE PAST FOR THEIR FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE OF ENGLAND THEIR CAN BE NO SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED UNDEMOCRATIC CAPTIVE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN UNION.

*  *  *

THE END OF THE ENGLISH

BY

DAVID BROWN

INTRODUCTION

HOW IT ALL BEGAN 

 HOW IT ALL FITS TOGETHER

THE RESULTANT LUNACIES

HOW WE ARE CONTROLLED

 WHERE FREEDOM IS VANISHING

*

[THE MAJORITY OF YOU DID

NOTHING!]

 

*  *  *

 

 

292

Remember constantly that it was Hitler's intention to unite Europe. (Just as it had been the ambitions of Charlemagne, Charles V, Louis XIV, Napoleon and the Kaiser.)

Remember it was Adolf Hitler who first used the phrase

'The United States of Europe.

Remember  that it was Hitler who had the idea of establishing regions of Europe in order to

DESTROY NATIONAL IDENTITIES.

 

He wanted to break European nations  into regions so that they could be ruled from

BERLIN.

 

MORE!

LINKS to A1136/A1121/A1137/C33/B56/B103/C34/B17/A1086/CON30/B404/B308

(www.vernoncoleman.com)

 

 

 

 

 

 

*  *  *

 

 

The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States

OCTOBER-2005

 

 

 LIFE AND TIMES

OF

Christopher Story

 PATRIOT AND TRUTHSEEKER

2010

THIS COULD BE THE TIME FOR THOSE    MP'S in the SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVE PARTY  OR OTHERS TO FORM THEIR OWN PATRIOTIC PARTY OF THE CENTRE. TO ATTRACT ALL VOTERS WHO LOVE  THEIR COUNTRY AND UNIQUE -PRIZED CONSTITUTION. WHO WANT IT BACK AS IT STOOD BEFORE JANUARY,1973.

Rees-Mogg-Borris Johnson... TO LEAD THE WAY!

THE EDP WOULD OFFER ITS NAME AND WITHDRAW FROM THE POLITICAL SCENE TO SUCH PATRIOTIC INDIVIDUALS AND AT THE LEAST WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A PARTY.

IN PARLIAMENT WE FIND THERE ARE LOBBY GROUPS SUCH AS FRIENDS OF WHO EVER BUT THERE ARE NO FRIENDS OF ENGLAND .IT IS ABOUT TIME THERE IS A PATRIOTIC BLOCK TO STAND UP FOR ENGLAND AND ITS PAST AND FUTURE. WE HAVE BEEN WAITING TOO LONG FOR A RETURN OF OUR ENGLISH PARLIAMENT - IS LONG OVERDUE.

LETS DO IT!

*  *  *

EU

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS ALMOST BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/****  HOW HITLER'S ENABLING ACT OF 1933 WAS PASSED THROUGH YOUR WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT BY 8 VOTES****   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

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

 

 

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.

 

'Destroy [her] fib or sophestry. in vain

The creature's at [her] dirty work again.'

Pope

*

A CALL TO ARMS!

 

'Awake, arise, or be for ever fallen,'

JOHNJohn Milton

[before the Beast of Europe.]

*

The signs are that Mrs May's

PROMISE of BREXIT!

HAS INSTEAD AS MANY HAD ALREADY SUSPECTED YEARS AGO , AS A CONFIRMED REMAINER -SHE WOULD

BRUSSELS IT!

*

'Blest Isle, with matchless beauty crowned

And manly hearts to guard the fair:-

Rule Britannia! rule the waves!

Britons never will be slaves!'

J.THOMSON

[ With a Greater Remainer vote in Wales and Scotland the above verse is no more true,]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

NOVEMBER 14, 2018

*
 

 A DEMOCRACY OR A DICTATORSHIP?

 

[ON DECEMBER 11, 2018 -AFTER OVER TWO YEARS OF NEGOTIATIONS THE COMMONS WILL VOTE ON THE PRIME MINISTER'S' SO-CALLED BREXIT DEAL WHICH AS ALREADY SHOWN IS A SHAM TO PLEASE HER CLOSE FRIENDS IN THE EU. HER ORIGINAL COMMENT OUTSIDE NO10 THAT BREXIT MEANS BREXIT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN NOTHING OF THE SORT. SHE HAS SHOWN HERSELF TO BE A LIAR-PERJURER AND TRAITOR-IN THE IMAGE OF ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE PRIME MINISTER PRIME MINISTER  EDWARD HEATH A NAZI SPY FOR 60 YEARS UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 2005. ALMOST THE SAME TACTICS WERE USED-TO KEEP EVERYTHING IN HER HANDS  WITH THE HELP OF TRUSTED CIVIL SERVANTS. FELLOW CONSERVATIVES HAVE. IT APPEARS SHE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE VIEWS OF HER CABINET, OR ANY OTHER MP UNLESS THEY MIRROR HER OWN. IF HER BREXIT MINISTERS SHOW PROGRESS SHE SHOWS THEM THE DOOR. SHE ACTS LIKE A SOUTH AMERICAN DICTATOR RATHER THAN A PRIME MINISTER IN THE HOME OF MAGNA CARTA, WE HEAR THAT  INDUCEMENTS HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO MPS TO ENSURE HER VOTE IS PASSED IN THE HOME OF ENGLISH DEMOCRACY WHICH SHE AND OTHERS HAVE DONE MUCH TO DESTROY. SURELY IF A CONNECTION IS FOUND OF AN MP CHANGING THEIR VOTE BECAUSE OF INDUCEMENTS OFFERED THAT INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE SHOWN THE DOOR OF THE COMMONS.]

FRIDAY 28 NOVEMBER,2018

 

 

H.F.1676

*

 BROKEN PROMISE

The decision of the DAILY MAIL to no longer support

BREXIT

is analogous to a newspaper that supported

THE END OF SLAVERY

(and what are we in reality but slaves withi HITLER'S

so-called

 EUROPEAN UNION)

to no longer do so because their was a

CHANGE OF EDITOR

was not in keeping with ONE of THE watchfull responsibilities of

the

FOURTH ESTATE

of our

CONSTITUTION.

THE ISSUE IN BOTH INSTANCES IS ABOUT

FREEDOM

OF

PERSON and COUNTRY

 

What could be more important in the lives of a people with

MAGNA CARTA

PETITION OF RIGHT

HABEAS CORPU

TRIAL BY JURY...

IN ITS LONG ISLAND HISTORY IN THEIR ONCE

FREE INDEPENDENT  NATION STATE

OF

 
 ENGLAND

 IN OUR ISLAND HOME?

THANKFULLY , AT LEAST THE DAILY MAIL IS PERMITTING A SMALL BAND OF PATRIOTS TO CARRY ON THEIR ONCE CAMPAIGN  SUCH AS RICHARD LITTLEJOHN and others  who are UPHOLDING alone

OTHERS HAVE BROKEN

THE TRADITION OF A FREE PRESS AND AN IMPLIED PROMISE.

FREEDOM

'All we have of freedom-all we use or know - this our fathers bought for us, long and long ago.

Kipling. The Old Issue

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold.

Which Milton held.'

WORDSWORTH

*
 ENGLAND

All our past proclaims our future; Shakespeare's voice and Nelson's hand,

Milton's faith and Wordsworth's trust in this our chosen and chainless land,

Bear us witness; come the world

 [Hitler's EU]

against her

ENGLAND YET SHALL STAND.

SWINBURNE,

THERE IS STILL TIME FOR THE TRUE YEOMEN OF THE ENGLISH  SHIRES TO STAND STEADFAST TOGETHER   TO SAVE OUR PAST INHERITANCE AND RESECURE OUR FUTURE.

The so-called European Union is a BEAST of PREY sucking the entrails of its captive peoples in their once proud FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATES now only provinces governed by an arrogant elite who are looking forward to their increased lordom within a gorging Super-state.  The example shown by their utter contempt for negotiation on BREXIT has shown the true colours of that suffocating and monstrous COLLECTIVE the ENEMY of its BONDED PEOPLES.

*

DECEMBER  8,2018

hH.F.1770

*

 

DAILY TELEGRAPH

 

 

No self-respecting country would accept this deal-

MPs must vote it down

By DANIAL HANNAN

SUNDAY, MARCH 3,2019

 

The deal will come  before Parliament next week represents a devastating failure of

BRITISH STATECRAFT

It would keep most of the costs of EU membership while junking most of the benefits. It would require Britain to cede part of its territory to

FOREIGN JURISDICTION.

It would allow

 BRUSSELS

 to

CONTROL

OUR COMMERCE with NON-EU STATES

EVEN AFTER WE

LEAVE.

MPs

 who believe in parliamentary sovereignty

should

VOTE AGAINST IT.

*

MPs

 who believe in the

UNION

 should 

VOTE AGAINST IT .

*

MPs

WHO BELIEVE IN FREE TRADE

 should 

VOTE AGAINST IT .

*

MPs

who believe that there  is such a thing as

NATIONAL HONOUR

and who recognise that we are being treated in a calculatedly vindictive way should toss it out with especial force.

They should do so even if the alternative is a

DELAY

 IN

BREXIT.

They should do so, indeed, even though such a delay might allow the Mandelsons and Blairs to step up their campaign for a

SECOND  REFERENDUM.

A postponement, undesirable as it is, is less damaging than accepting permanently

DISADVANTAGEOUS TERMS.

As Lord King,

the former Bank of England Governor

 put it

:There are arguments for remaining in the EU

and arguments for leaving.

But there is no case whatsoever for giving up the benefits of remaining without  obtaining the benefits of

LEAVING.

WE keep being told that unreasonable

Eurosceptics

are their own worst enemies and that, if

 BREXIT

 is now thwarted, it will somehow be their fault.

 

But it is hard to think of a more unreasonable proposition than that all that matters is coming back with something that can techically  be termed

BREXIT.

Even after 30 months. Leavers are still being subtly patronised. It is sassumed that the dim-witted oafs cannot possibly have weighed the costs and benefits before voting, and that all that the Government needs to do is to show them something that has BREXIT written on it in bright  , shiny letters.

In fact, Leave voters understand that some forms of Brexit are better than others. They understand too, that some are  so BAD that they would be worse than either

STAYING or LEAVING

The EU, of course, has understood this

 FROM THE START

[THE MERKEL-MAY CLOSE ASSOCIATION GOING BACK MANY DECADES.]

As Michel Barnier put it in 2016,

"I'll have done my job if, in the end, the exit terms are so bad that the British would rather stay in the EU."

Such an attitude on the part of Brussels was to be expected.

The readiness of our negotiators to go along with it was not.

Far from being uncompromising, the supposed hardliners in the ERG have accepted a series of CONCESSIONS, including a continuing role of the [MISCHIEVOUS]

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

AFTER WE LEAVE.

 

21 months of non-voting membership, an absurdly one-sided arbitration mechanism and a

30 BILLION

FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT.

THAT NO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATOR WOULD UPHOLD.

They have accepted all these things despite  the conspicuous absence of the trade deal that was supposed to be quid pro quo.

Eurosceptic Tories have dug in on only one point, namely the

BACKSTOP, and with good reason. No self respecting country would allow the regulatory annexation of part of its territory in exchange for... well,

FOR NOTHING AT ALL,

really since the promised

TRADE DEAL

HASN'T MATERIALISED.

At least EU membership, unlike the

BACKSTOP

comes with an exit mechanism.

We are thus being asked to replace a temporary arrangement with a permanent one

THAT ALONE IS ENOUGH TO REFUSE...

[ This is a lengthy article of which we are barely half way through which we will continue shortly. For many months now we have been unable to download articles from the Daily Mail-Daily Telegraph and others ,which therefore means resorting to fingers and in that we follow the action of our brave archers at Crecy and raise  two fingers aloft in their image to our enemy within who wish to sell out their once FREE INDEPENDENT NATION STATE-the burial grounds at home and abroad of our brave patriotic service men and women are no doubt in spirit with those today in their just fight for that which no one has a right to give away-the historic

" Freedom and Liberties of ENGLAND' "

which is in our TRUST for future generations to come.]-

TO BE CONTINUED.]

*

One thing, at any rate, ought to be beyond dispute, Britain should not sign a permanent treaty under duress.  The

WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT

 has been proposed in a

VENGEFUL SPIRIT

Eurocrats have understandably concluded that we have no bottom line, that the British are negotiating as Herman Van Rompuy, the former European Council president, reportedly put it last week,

"With their backs against a wall, the abyss in front of their eyes and a knife on their throat. WE are nearly there."

There was a time when that attitude would have been enough to convince us politely to decline the EU's TERMS and forge our own way.

are we still the nation we used to be?

[REGRETFULLY THE SIGNS ARE NEGATIVE!]

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS ARE OURS!]

SUNDAY, MARCH 3, 2019

 

 

H.F.1822

*

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

OV-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- IMMIGRATION-

ENGLAND FILE

 'Genocide - Eliminating The English' (pdf)

Multiculturalism As A Tool To Divide And Conquer: The Layman's ...-

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

BULLETIN FILE  ARCHIVE-  EU FILE   IMPORTED WAHHABISM-FOR ARMS  FOREIGN AID FILE

*  *  *

WHY I LOATHE  BRUSSELLS
 

 

They steal our fish, squander our cash and treat our views with contempt. For decades Labour's Grimsby

 MP Austin Mitchell passionately campaigned against the

E U.

On the second anniversary of the referendum, his cri de coeur will cheer the

HEART OF EVERY BREXITEER.

 

 

Why I loathe Brussels: They steal our fish, squander our cash and treat our views with contempt, writes AUSTIN MITCHELL

 

513

View
comments

 

Austin Mitchell was a backbench Labour MP for 40 years before stepping down in 2015. 

A self-confessed maverick who refused to toe the party line, he has always been fiercely opposed to Britain remaining in the EU. 

Here, on the second anniversary of the EU referendum, he delivers a powerful and timely reminder of why Brexit must be seen through.

 
 

My long-held and passionate attitude to the European Union is summed up in four words — three of which are ‘the European Union’, preceded by a commonly used four- letter verb of exhortation that the Oxford English Dictionary describes as ‘vulgar’.

I’ve always been a Eurosceptic, ever since I first stumbled across the Common Market, as the EU then called itself, in 1962. I was 28, Yorkshire born and bred, and, with my doctorate from Oxford, was teaching history at a university in New Zealand. A colleague gave a lecture on the Common Market — and, to my horror, he endorsed it as ‘a good thing’.

Incredible. Almost blasphemy. Britain led the Commonwealth. New Zealand, rich in dairy products, was its antipodean farm. Europe was there for us to defeat in war. How could an Englishman be so daft?

 

Austin Mitchell campaigning for fishermen in 1978. He was a backbench Labour MP for 40 years before stepping down in 2015

Fortunately General De Gaulle, the French president, agreed with me and dismissed British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s efforts to join a club he should never have applied for in the first place.

I was further comforted when a succession of British politicians came out to New Zealand to assure us that if Britain did join this alien institution then, scout’s honour, New Zealand’s access to the British market would be protected. The old relationship would carry on.

They lied. Albion can be perfidious and was particularly so when it betrayed New Zealand by joining in 1973 — egged on by Tory prime minister Ted Heath, who was so eager to get us into Europe that he did so on less than favourable terms. We were asking to be clobbered and duly were.

I was back in Britain and had switched jobs to become a journalist and a presenter on regional television when two years later Harold Wilson, the new Labour PM, called for a referendum to endorse or reject that decision. 

I voted ‘No’. But two-thirds of the country said ‘Yes’. We were staying in.

I was far from convinced this was the right decision, and my hostility increased when in 1977 I was elected Labour MP for Grimsby.

The town’s fishing industry had been ruined when the Europeans cunningly declared the seas around Britain common waters and gave other members, even landlocked Luxembourg, equal access. 

As a result, we got only a small proportion of our own fish.

I formed a Save Britain’s Fish campaign, which attracted support from all over the country.

Tory MP Edwina Currie pointed out that: ‘You don’t want to save Britain’s fish. You just want to eat them.’ Which was true, but far better for us to eat them than have them gobbled by undeserving Europeans who took our jobs and the processing industry with them.

 

Tory MP Edwina Currie pointed out that: ‘You don’t want to save Britain’s fish. You just want to eat them’

There was more to my scepticism about Europe than a lingering desire to catch our own fish, however. 

I believed then, and still do now, that the nation state is not only the best but the only way of advancing the cause of the people while maintaining their democratic control of the process.

There is nothing the EU can do for us that we can’t do better for ourselves. Europe is too big, amorphous, divided and powerless. 

It’s not a democracy but a plutocracy with a rootless bureaucracy, always pursuing an ever-closer union the people don’t want, yet never able to reach it.

As a concept it is a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense, a mirage.

The trouble was that the EU couldn’t break away from its original purpose of protecting French agriculture and boosting German industry. 

With these two states dominating, Europe embarked on a journey where few wanted to go, to an ever-closer union only the Brussels bureaucrats sought, imposing policies without democratic consent and ever prepared to overrule the people for their own good.

My basic reason for opposing membership was economic. The European Union drained Britain of jobs, money, demand and growth. 

It became a brake on our economy, not an accelerator. 

Being a deal between the interests of Germany, which needed a bigger market for its manufacturing, and France, which wanted agricultural protection for its food, the EU didn’t suit Britain, a net agricultural importer with a less modern and less well-invested industry.

The basis of British trade had been buying cheap food, particularly from Commonwealth countries, and sending them our manufactured goods in return.

That stopped after we joined. The Common Agricultural Policy required us to buy France’s more expensive food. Costs went up and every family of four lost £20 a week.

Meanwhile, Labour’s policy to boost jobs in the regions had to be scrapped because it was against the rules. What had been a surplus in our trade with Europe before we went in became a steadily growing deficit.

Our membership contributions — in effect, our payments for being damaged — went up year by year, siphoning off money to Europe, particularly to the powerful German economy, which generated ever-bigger surpluses at the expense of everyone else and particularly us.

To cap all this, Europe’s fast growth, which enthusiasts had claimed Britain would hitch up to, slowed substantially.

That’s why in my successful campaign in the 1979 General Election, I stood on a soapbox outside the Bird’s Eye frozen fish factory in Grimsby to denounce Brussels. And I’ve been doing so as vigorously as I can ever since.

But I’ve increasingly found myself out on a limb in a political class inexorably drawn to Brussels.

Europe is very attractive for those who don’t like Britain. 

For the liberal intellectuals and many of our elite, who saw themselves as cosmopolitan rather than nationalist, Europe was nicer than their brutal, xenophobic compatriots. 

Those suffering in Britain — the unions, local government and the Labour Party — came to love the beguiling hopes Europe held out for them.

They didn’t see that it had no ability to help lame dogs over stiles and that its handouts were really the nation’s own money coming back, but with the EU’s heavy costs deducted.

My views remained unchanged as the Common Market marched on, grandiosing into the European Community, then the European Union.

Major Labour figures from Roy Jenkins to Peter Mandelson went off to Brussels and found a bigger and better stage to strut on.

 

Brussels came up with the Exchange Rate Mechanism, to set in stone rates of exchange between the various European currencies. Tory Prime Minister John Major took us in briefly. It was a disaster

There, people actually listened to them rather than dismissing them out of hand. They came back to proclaim Europe’s benefits. 

Then Brussels came up with the Exchange Rate Mechanism, to set in stone rates of exchange between the various European currencies.

Tory Prime Minister John Major took us in briefly. It was a disaster. The whole system collapsed and Britain was humiliatingly forced out.

We sceptics heaved a sigh of relief, forgetting the propensity of dogs to return to their own vomit.

Instead of backing off, the EU went for an even stronger monetary union by creating the common currency, the euro.

Unable to get electoral support for ever-closer union, the EU bureaucracy tried to smuggle it in through the back door. 

A common currency, they hoped, would lead to convergence and develop the central institutions necessary to manage it.

By now Tony Blair was in Downing Street with his New Labour re-make. It wasn’t a respray job on the old jalopy but a total re-engineering.

Daft as a Liberal when it came to anything that would demonstrate his Euro-enthusiasm, he was passionately in favour of a single European currency.

Not understanding economics, he didn’t realise that Britain would be shackled by a fixed, and inevitably overvalued, exchange rate, with consequences ruinous for our weaker economy.

Fortunately, Gordon Brown, his Chancellor, saw the dangers and managed to think up five tests, failure in any of which would deny entry until the time was ripe. Which in my view it never would be.

Britain stayed out of the euro, thank heaven, leaving us peripheral to the Eurozone, the EU’s great adventure into the clouds. 

The Eurocrats persisted with monetary union, even though it forces deflation on weaker and less competitive partners. 

Britain would have been one of these if we had been foolish enough to join in.

Brussels showered money on the weaker European economies, then crippled them with unsustainable and unrepayable debt, as the Germans refused to underwrite it. Any grudging help went to save the banks, not the individual nation.

Increasingly the EU was losing its shine. Unemployment was high, with a quarter of its young people out of work.

Germany built up huge economic surpluses, which it didn’t spend or recycle to the less successful economies. 

To manage the euro, the EU needed the economic institutions of the nation state, but the Germans couldn’t accept that.

The EU could only move forward by greater federalism to create ‘ever-closer union’ but the members didn’t want this straitjacket. It was hit by the refugee crisis and couldn’t agree on what to do about it.

 

By now Tony Blair was in Downing Street with his New Labour re-make. It wasn’t a respray job on the old jalopy but a total re-engineering

It could possibly have conciliated British public opinion by delivering benefits to Britain, whose EU membership costs were spiralling all the time. 

But it wouldn’t and didn’t. It was deadlocked: rudderless and dominated by Mrs Merkel, the most cautious politician in Europe.

Yet still Britain clung to the edge of this rickety raft.

The public were told to be happy with this developing disaster, and a Euro-enthusiastic Tory-led coalition government did nothing about it.

That is, until an overconfident David Cameron buckled to pressure in his own party and announced that he would solve his party problems by renegotiating improved terms for our membership, to be endorsed by a referendum.

 

He asked Brussels for changes to make the EU more acceptable in Britain. He got nothing worth having but still embarked on what he confidently assumed would be an easy victory.

The battle of Brexit was a thrill for me. I had stood down from Parliament by the time of the referendum. I was into my 70s and had been an MP for nigh on 40 years.

Suddenly I was in demand again. 

As one of the few survivors of that rare breed, the Labour Eurosceptic, I was hauled into debates to provide a balance to overconfident Euro-enthusiasts who couldn’t believe anyone would be insane enough to want to leave the Franco-German condominium.

It was the best fun I’d had for years. It was marvellous to harangue large audiences who were with me, for a change, rather than sitting there in stony-faced silence as Labour audiences had.

Even more wonderfully, the campaign ended in triumph. To the amazement of Cameron and the rest of Britain’s elite, he lost. The British electorate, two-thirds of whom had voted to stay in 1975, had changed its mind.

Victory was a strange new phenomenon. It had never happened to me before. I was as euphoric as any politician is ever allowed to be.

What happened, though, was in fact a peasants’ revolt rather than a triumph for my arguments.

 

The people, angered by cuts, stagnant living standards, de-industrialisation and austerity, used this unaccustomed power to express their unhappiness not just at Europe but at three decades of neo-liberal politics and globalisation which had done little or nothing for them.

The educated and the liberal middle classes had come to identify with Europe as part of their privileged way of life, and supported a union that they saw as the symbol of enlightened internationalism and civilised (ie their own) values. 

The less well-off, the less educated and the people who’d been left behind felt differently.

Britain’s elite were shocked by the nation’s rejection of their wisdom and advice. George Orwell once remarked that ‘England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality’. 

That remained true of the liberal intellectuals, who’d given up on Britain and saw Europe as the future.

For the people to reject the EU just showed how irredeemable the British were.

It was, as they saw it, a surrender to racism, xenophobia, insularity and everything liberal intellectuals dislike in their own people.

On the other hand, Eurosceptics like me saw the vote as the result of a 40-year learning experience.

For me, the referendum result was the turning point I’d hoped for since 1979. The people had achieved what the politicians had failed to do. 

It’s a shame it took so long and that so much damage was done before it came. Winning is rare in the political game. But it’s nice.

It has not, though, led to any belated acclaim coming my way. After the referendum, invitations to speak dried up as if I’d been a personal friend of Jimmy Savile. 

The Guardian lost every article I sent them (as it had before, but now without explanation or reply).

The BBC, which had used me as a tame Brexiteer throughout the campaign, once it was over immediately replaced me with a Muslim to keep up their other diversity targets.

As for what lies ahead of us, the EU’s intransigence and the weakness of an insecure Government in negotiating are making withdrawal messy and difficult. 

The Remainers don’t help. 

They denounce the vote as the result of fear, ignorance, even Russian deceit, and have unleashed another, even bigger tide of fear about the consequences.

They do everything they can to discredit the British case for withdrawal, to shackle, soften and weaken the Government’s negotiating position and to collude with the EU to resist it, in the hope that eventually the people will give up their foolishness and stay, unhappily or not, in the promised land.

The Brexiteers, in contrast, can only wait and see, hoping for a good outcome which can’t emerge until negotiations end.

The British Government has been weakened by its second election and Remain’s long rearguard action.

The EU Commission, struggling to keep its rickety show on the road and facing unmanageable difficulties in Eastern Europe and Italy, wants to punish Britain pour décourager les autres.

These are the symptoms of an impossible negotiation. I fear that the account by the former Greek minister of finance, Yanis Varoufakis, of the way the EU crushed his country’s aspirations may well be an omen of what’s to come.

Intransigence, delay and simple bloody-mindedness were their weapons — and clearly still are.

Those who believe they have a divine right to rule don’t give up easily. Nor must we.

  • Extracted from Confessions Of A Political Maverick by Austin Mitchell, to be published by Biteback on July 3 at £20. © Austin Mitchell 2018. To order a copy for £15 (25% discount), call 0844 571 0640 or go tomailshop.co.uk/books. P&P is free on orders over £15. Offer available until July 9, 2018.

 

*  *  *

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM DECEMBER 2004

 

A Message to Members of ALL Eurosceptic Parties- WE NEED YOU NOW!

 

The People of our nation are now in a final battle to save their Ancient Constitution which can only be successful if all members of all other euro-sceptic parties of what ever its position whether to the Right or Left of the political scene to put their own full weight behind the UKIP at the General Election in May 2005.

 

Only those who are interested in ‘empire building’ will seek to contest the forthcoming General Election in 2005.  All we are asking is that on this critical time in the life of our nation we need all hands to the wheel to show all politicians that their cosy game of power politics will take second place to the People’s right to claim back their inheritance before the so-called Democratic parties have the opportunity to finally sell us –and our Country.  

 

Those eurosceptic parties who put their own ambitions first before the safety of the Constitution which has enabled them to participate in the political arena will have themselves to blame if because of their obstinacy that all is undone and their ability to contest further elections will be placed in jeopardy by Brussels.

 

We hope that there will be a spontaneous resolve by all members of other eurosceptic parties to work together to achieve what we all want-an Independent Nation-State with control of our Borders and our Defence and the return of our Fishing Fields and so much more which will be within our grasp if we for this crucial time in our long history we think of ourselves as Britons and Unite Together for the Country we all Love.

 

Let us all show the politicians who over 33 years have drip–fed our ‘Rights and Liberties’ to Brussels that we now say ‘Enough is Enough’ and we now demand back that which has been taken from us by Deceit and Lies.

We are aware also of our DUTY to our Ancient Constitution and Country    

                         12/04

 

Don’t let your children and their children down –but protect their Inheritance- in trust from the past.

 

*

 

‘We fight not for glory nor for wealth nor for honour but for that freedom which no good man will surrender but with his life.’

 

(From the Arbroath Manifesto sent by the Nobles and Commons of Scotland to the Pope in 1320)

*

TO PROTECT YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR CONSTITUTION

 

VOTE

UKIP

 

THE PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO LEAVE THE EU

 

 

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM DECEMBER 2004

[ADDITIONS ARE OURS!]

 

H.F.1583

BULLETINS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD

 

Weekly Geo-Political News and Analysis

by Benjamin Fulford

 

Secret war centers on SWIFT after George Bush Sr. is executed

 

Since the death of Nazi Fourth Reich Fuhrer George Bush Sr., the battle for control of the world’s financial system, and thus of the process of deciding humanity’s future, is now centering on control of the SWIFT international interbank electronic transfer system.

A final battle is taking place between the 13 bloodlines which have traditionally controlled the planet, and the meritocratic Gnostic Illuminati who control the U.S. military-industrial complex, multiple sources agree.  The battle is heading for a climax of sorts now that George Bush Senior has been “executed,” as confirmed by both Pentagon and CIA sources.

Here is what a CIA source had to say:

“I have been told by two sources that G.H.W. Scherff (Bush) was actually indicted on September 10, 2018 for crimes against humanity, child trafficking, sedition, and treason.  He allegedly plea-bargained a deal with the military tribunal hearing his case, to be executed/suicided to keep his legacy intact for his family and the sheeple.  Trump signed the death order.  So was it a clone that was executed, since we also have intel that he died in June (another clone).  I think Bush/Scherff actually died in January 1992, choking on sushi and then finished off by Barbara Bush with a poisoned cloth (as seen in the video posted last week).  Military tribunals are set to begin on January 2, 2019.”

Pentagon sources, for their part, said U.S. President Donald “Trump was careful not give Bush 41 a state funeral, as this executed criminal was denied a horse and caisson like Reagan got.”

“To the victor belong the spoils, for Trump picked former Bush Attorney General Bill Parr as his next AG and he chose ‘the day that will live in infamy,’ December 7th [the Pearl Harbor anniversary] to do it,” the Pentagon source added.

The CIA source also wondered if Barr made “a deal to avoid military tribunals and then be ‘McCained’? (the term being used lately for execution/suicide).  Maybe he flipped like Senator Lindsey Graham?”

The death of Bush, the former U.S. Ambassador to China whose brother handed over U.S. military secrets to that country (as did Hillary and Bill Clinton), means that the U.S. and China are also heading to a showdown as bloodline families seek Chinese protection, according to secret society sources.

Pentagon sources say the arrest of Chinese conglomerate Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou “is aimed to …
 

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

 

Previous JCS Chairman

Ben:  Enjoy your weekly newsletters and I put more credence in you than any other source.  I’m curious about your comment in last newsletter, “as the previous JCS Chairman was Army.”  I believe you’ll find that Gen. Joseph Dunford was a United States Marine.  Means a lot to us former active duty Marines!  Have a great day.
I was referring to his predecessor Mike Dempsey, since Dunford is still JCS Chairman for now.
–BF

 

Queensland fire twisters: a naturally occurring phenomenon

Greetings from Australia, Ben:

Thank you so much for the narrative you provide us with on a weekly basis and for your direct involvement in the demise of “malevolents” by attempting to bring equality to those presently incarnated on this beautiful planet.

The pictures below are of a naturally occurring phenomenon that usually occurs at the end of the dry season, when the atmosphere is all but devoid of humidity.

I

  I know them as “willie-willies” and have also heard them called “dust-devils.”  They are most commonly seen on the flatter country in their dust form and will also form very readily when fire is present.

It is my belief that these are not the result of leo, DEW platforms, unlike what has been perpetrated on the populations of the West Coast of the not-so-United-States-of-America.

I have no problem, though, with the notion that a majority of the fires are being “started” and enhanced by the obvious weather manipulations that have been and still are perpetrated upon this continent (Australia) and our neighbour New Zealand for many years now.

Please keep up the excellent work you are doing, and may the tyranny that has held sway on this planet for so long be replaced by a more universally beneficial alternative way of being in the very near future.

—IH


Thanks for the information;  I will let my readers know.

—BF

In historic move, P2 Freemasons—the Black Sun worshipers—sue for peace

In what future historians will look back on as a huge watershed event, the P2 Freemasons—worshipers of the Black Sun and creators of both fascism and communism—are suing for peace, White Dragon Society sources say.  This, coming with the removal of the Rothschild family from control of central banks, means the world is about to enter uncharted historical waters.

The P2 Freemasons are proposing that the world “be led by a triumvirate of the sons of the Black Sun, the sons of big Horus, and sons of the Dragon,” according to the proposal conveyed by Vincenzo Mazzara, a cavalier of the Teutonic Knights and the most senior P2 member to contact the WDS.

The “sons of the Black Sun” refers to the P2 Freemasons, who give orders to the Pope and the world’s 1.5 million or so Catholics.  The “sons of big Horus” refers to the eye at the top of the pyramid on the U.S. one-dollar bill, presumably referring to non-P2 Freemasons such as the Scottish Rite and Grand Orient who control much of the English- and French-speaking world.  The “sons of the Dragon” refers to Asian secret societies who control most of East Asia.

At this point, most readers are probably, and rightly so, appalled at the idea of three secret societies colluding in order to continue to rule in secret.  The WDS, of course, wants everything to be open and with full public participation.  Nonetheless, the P2 are powerful;  they told us in advance they were going to fire Pope “Maledict” (Benedict XVI) and they did so.  The P2 also bragged to the WDS that they were the ones responsible for staging the March 11, 2011 Fukushima tsunami and nuclear mass-murder terror incident.  Thus, the fact that they are now suing for peace means they know the dragnet is finally closing in on them.

This move is also intimately related to the announcement that Nazi Fourth Reich Fuhrer George H.W. Scherff (Bush) is dead.  As Pentagon sources put it, “While the G20 was prepping the world for a global currency reset, 41st President Bush Sr. expired on 11/30 because 11+30=41.”  In fact, Bush Sr. died in June, but the announcement was delayed until all the preparations were made to arrest senior Nazionist (Khazarian mafia) underlings like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the sources say.

This is why U.S. President Donald Trump retweeted this famous image on November 27th with the label, “Now that Russia collusion is a proven lie, when do the trials for treason begin?”

The answer to that question, Pentagon sources say is that …
 

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

 

Emergency alert: North Koreans warn of Zionist plan to start WWIII in Korea and Crimea

November 27, 2018:  Manchu royal family members called today to warn of a Zionist plot to start World War III by provoking incidents in Korea and Crimea.  “The people behind [French President Emmanuel] Macron are doing this,” the sources say.

So it appears that the Zionists, fearful of imminent mass arrests for crimes against humanity, are attempting a Hail Mary maneuver to start their long-planned artificial end-times war between Gog and Magog, or Russia and China versus the G7.

Asian secret society sources also hinted last week that some sort of military confrontation was “needed in order to stimulate necessary changes.”  It appears the Chinese have been offered control of all of Asia, including Japan, if they go along with this plot.

The Manchus say some sort of Chinese military incursion into North Korea is imminent and will take place simultaneously with a Russian invasion of the Ukraine in order to provoke World War III.

The events in the Ukraine have already started with a military provocation against Russia ordered by the highest levels of the Ukrainian government, as can be seen from multiple news reports.  The Ukrainian government has also declared martial law and started a general mobilization.

This attempt can be prevented by keeping calm and making pinpoint arrests of the government officials and high-level financiers who are seen visibly stoking the flames of war.  Officials who need to be removed as soon as possible include Macron, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, and any senior Chinese officials who are seen pushing for an invasion of North Korea.

The Russians also need to be allowed to enter the Ukraine and clean up the Nazionist filth there without any Western military intervention.

 

 

H.F.1765

 

 

 

BROUGHT FORWARD FROM 2008/9

 

[IN THE NICK OF TIME?-A LAST CHANCE APPEAL!]

Despotism and the origins of the European Union

by Don Briggs

Don Briggs finds that Alexis de Tocqueville has much to teach us about freedom

Peter Mullen, concerned about our feebleness today [Winter-2008/9], expressed bafflement at how the British people coped with casualty levels such as the death toll of 2,614 in one night in 1941.

It was a mystery to A.L.Rowse. In his  'The use of History '(Hodder & Stoughton, 1946) Rowse attributed it to the fact that

 "Germany was a strong state with a weak people. Britain was a week state with a strong people."

As regards the origins of the European Union, which Philip Warren believes days back to the 1920's, they could be earlier.

In the wake of the French Revolution of 1789, which shook the world, Edmund Burke said to the French:  " You wish to correct the abuses of your government, but why not return to your old traditions? Why not confine yourself to ma resumption of your ancient liberties? Or, if not possible to recover the obliterated features of your original constitution why not  look towards England." There you would have found the ancient common law of Europe.

Burke was chided by a wise Frenchman for failing to understand the true meaning of the revolution.  In his L'ancien regime et la revolution, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

" Burke did not see that what was taking place before his eyes was a revolution whose aim was precisely to abolish the 'ancient common law of Europe' and that there could be no question of putting the clock back."

In a version published by Doubleday Anchor in 1955, written three years before his death in 1859. De Tocqueville lamented that his countrymen had abandoned the original ideal of the Revolution and turned their backs on freedom to " acquiesce in an equality of servitude under the master of all Europe" (sounds familiar).

In place of the old regime they had created and accepted an all-powerful government, stronger and more autocratic than the one they had destroyed, and which " suppressed our dearly-bought liberties and replaced them by a mere pretence of freedom.  France's tamed Assemblies were there now only to give meaningless assent in servility and silence." (familiar?)

"Thus was the nation deprived both of means of self-government and of the chief guarantee of its rights, that is the freedom of speech, thought and literature which ranked among the most valuable achievements of the revolution."

Despotic government had made France the sick man of Europe, wrote de Tocqueville because it had virtually extinguished all those virtues which were so vital to a nation: a spirit of healthy independence, high ambitions, faith in oneself and in a cause, he said. (familiar?) De Tocqueville stated three facts with certainty about the future.

1. All his contemporaries were driven by a force which might have checked or curbed but which they could not stop; the headlong destruction of the aristocracy.

"Freedom alone is capable of lifting men's minds above mammon worship."

2.  Those peoples whose constitutions make it most difficult to get rid of despotic government for any considerable period, were those where aristocracy had ceased to exist.

3. Nowhere was despotism calculated to produce such evil effects as in social groups as these where ties of family, of caste, of class and craft fraternities no longer exist, people became self-seekers, think only of their own interests, narrow individualists caring nothing for the public good.  despotism encourages these vices, and money becomes the sole criteria of a social status, changing hands incessantly, raising and lowering the status of individuals and families.  Feelings for others' welfare cools; despotic government freezes them.

" love of gain, a fondness for business careers, the desire to get rich al all costs, a craving for material comfort and easy living become ruling passions under a despotic government... and tend to lower the moral standards...(familiar?)

" Lowering as they do the national morale, they are despotism's safeguard since they divert men's attention from public affairs and make them shudder at the mere thought of a revolution.

" Despotism alone can provide that atmosphere of secrecy which favours crooked dealings and enables the freebooters of finance to make illicit fortunes."  Despotism gave these vices free rein.  " Freedom and freedom alone can extirpate these vices, for only freedom can deliver the members of a community from that isolation which is the lot of the individual left to his own devices..."

And " Freedom alone is capable of lifting men's minds above mere mammon worship."

Societies must be democratic, and Christian too, but if they were not free, " I make bold to say, never shall we find under such conditions a great citizen, still less a great nation; indeed I would...maintain that where equality and tyranny co exist, a steady deterioration of the mental and moral standards of a nation is inevitable." wrote de Tocqueville.

In July 1971, Edward Heath, as Conservative Prime Minister, promised a government White paper, Britain and Europe:

" The British safeguards of habeas corpus and trial by jury will remain intact. So will the principle that a man is innocent until proved guilty."

" The common law will remain the basis of our legal system."

As we watch habeas corpus and the common law go out of the window today along with our other freedoms, it is worth recalling what Winston Churchill; once said about the alternatives if we abandoned our parliamentary democracy:

:" there is really only one, namely Dictatorship."  And of its many forms, " rule by a caucus of political secretaries driven by bigoted conviction" was one of them.

That too sounds familiar.

 

MAGNA CARTA

 

[We chanced on this article with others a few days ago and realised that they had to be included in the Christmas message because as our heading above we have little time left to make a stand in the true Winstonian spirit to reclaim what is ours by RIGHT! and was in trust for future generations. What was the point of our people fighting in the past TWO WORLD WARS with such huge casualties and cost to let what we had held in trust to be given away by our own representatives. This is your last chance to make amends and show the greater number of your supposed protectors of your accustomed

" RIGHTS and LIBERTIES of ENGLISHMAN"

 

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS  AND HIGHLIGHTING AND CAPS ARE OURS!]

THE ABOVE ARTICLE BY DON BRIGGS-FREEDOM TODAY-Winter-2008/9

 

DECEMBER-2013

B.564

H.F.1805

 

DID YOU KNOW?

No 31

(Christopher Story of International Currency Review)

THE MODERN TOWER OF BABEL

A poster published by the Council of Europe: 

The Tower of Babel is taken from the famous painting by the 16th Century Flemish artist Breughel, showing the well-know scene from the Book of Genesis.  The Bible says that for their arrogant behaviour , God divided and confused the builders of this monstrosity by causing them to babble at each other in different languages.  The choice of this to symbolise 'the building of Europe' shows that, as one would expect, the secular designers of this poster were either ignorant or sceptical of the moral of the Biblical story.

However ,in 1993, shortly after the Author first republished this illustration in one of our intelligence serials, and pointed its irony, the POSTER WAS SUDDENLY WITHDRAWN.    The inverted stars are intended to replicate the 'stars' of the European symbol, which have remained 12 in number - the number of the Apostles, and also the number of stars itemised in Revelation 12, verse 1, which depicts 'a women clothed with the sun...and  upon her head a crown of twelve stars', an image extensively used by the European Union:

The stars mimic the upside-down pentagram used in occult contexts. The expanding EU's retention of 12 stars' and there used upside - down here ( one being obscured), conveys a conscious yet subliminal occultic message

 Bernard Connolly, who was the senior Brussels official formally in charge of the European Monetary System, refers in his book

'The Rotten Heart of Europe'

[Faber and Faber, London, 1995]

to 'the sinister motives and back-to-front reasoning' of Euro-ideologues and 'the builders of Europe'. 'Back to-frontness' and upside-downness' are characteristic of EVIL.  No doubt the poster was withdrawn because of fear or suerstition that 'the European edifice' may well suffer the same fate as the Tower of Babel.  Since there is no place for GOD in Lenin's 'Common European Home', which the deluded European elites are 'building', this is a certainty. They forget that ' except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain to build it'

[Psalm of Soloman 127, verse 1].

TO BE CONTINUED

[More background information will be available in the near future but why wait - order your copy - contact the under-mentioned website]

[This is a new series of single statements from

THE EUROPEAN UNION

COLLECTIVE

IS THE

Enemy of its Member State

www.edwardharle.com

www.worldreports.org

*

THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE

*

[Each underlined word/words has a separate bulletin]

JANUARY-2009

 

 
 
 

 

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

PART-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-July-1994-EDP-Official Website-2016-July-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 BritAIN 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

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

WE HEAR THAT 80% OF CONSERVATIVE MPs ARE COMMITTED FRIENDS OF ISRAEL- DAILY MAIL THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9,2017.

 WE HAVE ASKED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS OVER THE PAST WHY OUR GOVERNMENTS WERE NOT

FRIENDS OF ENGLAND

BECAUSE IT HAS TAKEN 45 YEARS SINCE WE VOTED NO! IN 1975 FOR THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY WHO LIED ABOUT OUR TRUE COMMITMENT TO HITLER'S PLAN DOMINANCE OF EUROPE IN THE PEACE.

TO HAVE A REFERENDUM AND ONLY WHEN THE ELITE TORIES THOUGHT IT WOULD GO THEIR WAY TO A DEEPER ENMESHMENT INTO THE EU SUPER-STATE. THEY MISJUDGED THE TRUE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND-AS IT WAS SHE WHO SAVED THE UNION.

WE CAN HOPE NO BETTER WITH THE LABOUR PARTY WITH THEIR FRIENDS OF ISRAEL BODY THOUGH DECRIED MUCH LATELY IS STILL IN ACTION . ALAS! THE TRUE LABOUR PARTY OF THE SHIRES DIED DECADES AGO AS WITNESSED BY THE HUGE BREXIT VOTE.

OUR SUPPOSED CLOSEST ALLY THE USA WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN OUR ENTERING THE EU TO GIVE GERMANY A HAND .IT IS COMPLETELY UNDER THE ISRAELI LOBBY-HAS BEEN FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS.

AS WE HAVE STATED OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD ENDEAVOUR TO BE ON FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH ALL GOVERNMENTS -AS

WINSTON CHURCHILL

HAD STATED MOST VOCIFEROUSLY IN THE PAST:

 JAW JAW NOT WAR WAR!

News for DAILY MAIL-OUT OF THE SHADOWS THE POWERFUL FIXER BEHIND HER DOWNFALL by Andrew Pierce


Daily Mail
Andrew Pierce profiles the influential Lord Polak
Daily Mail - 13 hours ago
Out of the shadows, the powerful fixer behind Priti Patel's downfall: ANDREW
PIERCE profiles ... By Andrew Pierce for the Daily Mail ... He was also with her in
the two further undisclosed meetings in New York and Parliament 
 

 

[As on many other occasions over the past decades when we have shown details of Israeli intelligence and the connection with F O I . we have received many visits from their obedient servants who do not hide their NATIONAL identity.

 But this is ENGLAND

and such individuals should know their place and do their work without waving their FLAG!-MI5 need to keep them in place or is there nothing they can do-or must it be as CS1 WHERE ISRAEL REIGNS?]

 

 

JEW WATCH

 

 

 

H.F.1373 FRIENDS TO ALL- BUT COMMITTED TO NONE!

 

WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT WITH NO HEART AND NO SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY

 

-WHY SHOULD IT BE OTHERWISE WHEN THE PEOPLE  GAVE UP THE PRETENCE OF SO-CALLED DEMOCRACY DECADES AGO. OUR PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IS A FARCE AND THE MAJORITY OF ITS INCUMBENTS GAVE US THE 'V' SIGN USED AT CRECY BY OUR OUTNUMBERED ARCHERS TO THE OVERWHELMING FRENCH FORCES ON 26 AUGUST 1346. 

 NOW OUR SO-CALLED REPRESENTATIVES HAVE GIVEN THE SIGN TO US AND  THEY ARE SMILING AT SUCH A LACK LUSTRE RESPONSE TO THEIR INTENT TO ENSLAVE  A ONCE PROUD PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING DEPRIVED  OF THEIR FREEDOMS AS SHEEP WHO ARE WAITING TO BE  SHORN BEFORE THEIR SLAUGHTER WITHIN A FEW MONTHS. THE WORLD MUST BE LOOKING ON WITH WONDER -  WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ESPECIALLY ONE WHICH ONCE RULED A QUARTER OF THE WORLD'S SURFACE AND WHICH HAS SAVED EUROPE TWICE IN THE 20th CENTURY AT SUCH A GREAT COST TO ITSELF IN LIVES AND TREASURE COULD ALLOW THEIR NATIONHOOD TO BE TAKEN FROM THEM WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A  WHIMPER..

IF THAT WASN'T ENOUGH THEY TREAT OUR ARMED FORCES AND THEIR FAMILIES WITH CONTEMPT AND NEGLECT .   THEY TREAT MANY PENSIONERS IN POVERTY WITH GROSS INDIFFERENCE AND RATHER THAN CHANGE THE SYSTEM THEY ALLOW THOUSANDS OF PENSIONERS TO DIE.     WE ARE TOLD THAT THEY HAVE LOST COMPUTER DISCS WITH THE PRIVATE INFORMATION OF 25 MILLION FAMILIES AFTER HAVING NOT TIGHTENED THEIR SECURITY AFTER FIVE OTHER CASES HAD PREVIOUSLY COME TO LIGHT.   THEY CAN PAY THEMSELVES WHATEVER THEY NEED AND DRAIN THE PURSE STRINGS OF THE NATION FOR THEIR CRAZY SCHEMES WHETHER ID CARDS OR WHATEVER.    THEY TREAT THE TREASURY AS A LOTTERY WITH THEMSELVES AND THEIR HANGERS - ON IN QUANGOS AND OTHERS TOEING THE GOVERNMENT LINE AS THE ONLY WINNERS.   THE SO-CALLED OPPOSITION PARTIES ARE FULL OF INVECTIVE BUT THEY HAVE BEEN PROVED TO BE NOT MUCH BETTER THAN THE OTHER LOT BECAUSE THEY ALL WISH TO BE AMONG THE NEW ELITE IN THE EU SUPER-STATE. THE LOSERS WILL BE THE MASS OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN  SO BUSY WITH THEIR LIVES NOT TO REALISE  THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR A LONG RIDE AND MANY ARE ONLY NOW AWARE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS IN MORE WAYS THAN THEY IMAGINE.    NEVER HAS A PEOPLE BEEN BLED OF ITS CASH IN SO MANY WAYS BY SO FEW AND STILL REMAINED SO CALM.     WE KNOW MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE ON STATINS BUT ONE WONDERS IF THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE FOOD THAT HAS TRANSFIXED THE POPULATION AT LARGE.    WE LIVE IN ONE OF THE MOST OVERCROWDED POPULATIONS IN EUROPE WITH OVER 3,000,000 NEW ARRIVALS WITH POSSIBLY AT LEAST  2 MILLION WHO HAVE NO INTENTION OF INTEGRATING AND MANY OPENLY STATING THAT THEY WISH THEIR FAITH TO BE THE STATE RELIGION.   WE NOW EVEN HAVE THE FORMER CHIEF OF THE RACE INDUSTRY STATE HIS CONCERN OVER THE MATTER.    WE HAVE OUR POLICE FORCE REPLACING THE RACE /EQUALITY COMMISSION TO CURB FREE SPEECH AND PURSUE INNOCENT CITIZENS IN ORDER TO SHOW THEIR ZEAL WHILE AT THE SAME TIME TELL THE VICTIMS OF CRIME WE ARE BUSY AT THE MOMENT COULD YOU CALL BACK LATER.    IT IS SAID A PEOPLE  DESERVE THE GOVERNMENT THEY HAVE GOT AND AFTER THREE ELECTIONS AND THE MESS THEY HAVE MADE OF THE COUNTRY WHO COULD DOUBT IT.

WE NEED A REVOLUTION NOW!

WILL YOU JOIN US?

*

DECEMBER, 2007

 

*

 

 

  JUDGE FOR YOURSELF IF ANY REAL PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE 2003

All information here is an amalgamation of the :  

 ENGLAND MATTERS FILE   IRAQ FILE    EU FILE

H.F.1319

 

 

 

 

Debacle of a “Great Game”: The Islamic State (IS) and America’s War on Iraq and Syria

 
 
 
ISIS controlled regions of Syria and Iraq

Introductory Note

This essay puts the present focus on the crisis in Iraq caused by the ISIS insurgency in the context of the historical and contemporary forces that have shaped and are still shaping the conflict in Iraq and the MENA (Middle East and North Africa).

It falls in line with a policy overseen by the United States which is predicated on the re-drawing of the Middle Eastern map i.e. balkanization and of ‘managing’ a series of manufactured conflicts which are ultimately designed to protect America’s access to the natural resources of the region.

This overarching policy accommodates a confluence of interests that cater to the hegemonic aspirations of the state of Israel, Saudi Arabia & the Sunni Gulf States and Turkey. It pits the United States and these allies against the Shia Crescent led by Iran whose allies are Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Two key points contended here are:

1.The present crisis derives from the decision to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein on a false premise and that the overriding motivation of the influential neo-conservative group within the Bush administration was to destroy Iraq to benefit the state of Israel.

2.The present crisis is an extension of the war against the Syrian government of Bashar Assad which was manufactured by outside powers for the following ends:

  • To destroy a government with an anti-Israel stance.
  • To replace the minority Alawite government of Assad with a Sunni one which would comply with Saudi, Qatari and Turkish plans to build a natural gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey which would supply Europe with natural gas.
  • Destroying Alawite power in Syria would weaken Iran (and break its link with Hezbollah in Lebanon); the Iranians being the current existential threat to the Israeli state that Saddam and Nasser once were. The Shi’ite Iranians are the chief competitors of the Sunni Saudis for influence in the Middle East and of course the Iranians do not follow the dictates of Washington.

Evidence is provided of Israel’s historical and continuing motivation to break up Arab states and to stimulate turmoil via the policies of David Ben-Gurion and successive Israeli leaders as well as by reference to policy papers such as the ‘Yinon Plan’(1982) and the ‘Clean Break Document (1996).

Evidence is provided of the United States motive in fomenting sectarian conflicts and supporting extreme Islamic group as has occurred in Libya, Syria and Iraq. It is based on maintaining American economic and military hegemony and is outlined in a policy paper funded by the US Army and produced by the RAND Corporation entitled ‘Unfolding the Future of the Long War: Motivations, Prospects and Implications for the U.S. Army’ (2008).

*    *    *

The declaration on 29thJune, the first day of the holy month of Ramadan, of an Islamic Caliphate by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of al-Dawlah Al-Islamiyah fi al-Iraq wa-al-Sham –the jihadist organisation known also as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) – marks a watershed of sorts since the commencement of what used to be commonly termed as the ‘Clash of Civilizations’.

For in the post-Cold War era, even before the ‘catalyzing event’ that was September the 11th of 2001, the avowed goal of the Osama Bin Laden-led al-Qaeda movement was to create a Sunni-led Caliphate.

It has been the dream not only of the Islamic zealot but also, perhaps, the latent hope of many ordinary Muslims to have a unity of Mohammedans in a political state on a scale at least equalling those which existed in succeeding epochs during what may be referred to as the golden age of Islamic civilization.

At the helm of such an entity would be a caliph who would command a global empire of the Ummah or believers stretching from the western part of North Africa and even the Iberian Peninsula through the Middle East and south Asia and on to the Indonesian archipelago.

To many Jihadists, the re-creation of the borders of previous Caliphates such as those presided over by the Rashiduns, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids and Ottomans would be an unambitious delimitation of what they feel should ideally cover all areas of the globe.

The ever changing name of the organisation first known the Islamic State in Iraq then as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or the Levant and as of August 2014 simply the Islamic State has seemingly reflected its geographic aspirations and its latest perhaps reflective of its resolve to escape the limitation to identifiable, colonially national imposed borders.

Certainly, the historical record of the Caliphate is redolent of an irresistible need to expand as far as possible by means of conquest. It was, for instance, the goal of the Sokoto Caliphate located in modern Nigeria and extending to a vast range of West Africa to expand the frontiers of Islam further south in order, the euphemism went, for its warriors to ‘dip’ the Holy Koran into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean.

The June rampage of ISIS in a murderous Blitzkrieg starting from the eastern borders of strife-ridden Syria through the northern part of Iraq caught the attention of the world. Amid stories of Iraqi army commanders apparently deserting their posts, cities such as Tikrit, Fallujah and Mosul fell.

These startling events along with evidence of wanton violence perpetrated against civilian populations saw media outlets reflect the American government’s projection of the insurgents as an extreme species of Islamic fanaticism surpassing even that of al-Qaeda which had to be stopped at all costs.

Such ‘cost’, it was claimed, would even countenance an alliance of sorts with the Iranian state, the arch-enemy consigned to the infamous status of an ‘Axis of Evil’ nation and presently subjected to the most punitive measures of economic sanctions mounted against any nation-state in recent years.

The crisis of ISIS is, of course, not an isolated, self-incubated phenomenon but rather is the latest installment in a chain of events that goes back to the decision of the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 in order to effect the removal of the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.

It is also an episode which on closer examination may bear the hallmarks of precise direction and manipulation by foreign powers. It appeared deeply suspicious to some who noted the speed by which the Iraqi army’s resistance to ISIS penetration crumbled.

How could an army with vastly superior numbers and equipment be overrun so quickly? Why did the commanders in Mosul and Tikrit reportedly desert their posts and instruct soldiers to leave?

The implication is that they may have been bribed to do so. Of this proposition, no concrete evidence has materialised, although the alternative proposition, that a lack of professionalism and cohesion within a dysfunctional army that is the product of a dysfunctional state suddenly confronted by hordes of battle-hardened and ideologically motivated fanatics is a compelling one.

Many Shia soldiers are reportedly unwilling to fight for the Iraqi state.

Still, there are some analysts who believe that it is a situation which has been manufactured with the specific aim of applying pressure on the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and that it has a medium-term endeavour of reversing the fast dissipating fortunes of the intervention which deliberately fomented a war within the borders of Syria which itself is part of a longer-term objective of redrawing the borders of the Middle East.

The instability that has in recent times befallen Iraq and Syria and which at any time could conceivably combust into a full-blown regional war represents a confluence of interests; a merger in fact of the imperial designs of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel.

It is a state of affairs underpinned by the active collaboration of the United States but finds resistance from counter-measures employed by the Islamic Republic of Iran which seeks to preserve the ‘Shia Crescent’ which extends from the Persian Gulf to the eastern Mediterranean.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which serves as the custodian of the sacred relics of Islam is concerned with asserting Sunni hegemony throughout the region while the Zionist state of Israel has consistently fostered an agenda of balkanisation as a guarantee of its survival.

The motivations of Turkey under the ‘soft-Islamist’ government of Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, ostensibly, are less clear-cut given Turkey’s longstanding ‘Zero Problems with Neighbours’ policy. Not least are the implications of what a large-scale amendment to the borders of the region could have on Kurdish nationalist aspirations.

Nonetheless, if the frequently bandied descriptions of Turkish neo-Ottoman pretensions sound banal and analytically lazy, the projection of Turkish influence in the region is clearly at the heart of Erdogan’s recalibrations in his relations with both Syria and Iraq.

The United States for its part has largely been concerned with overthrowing regimes which do not toe the line; those of Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muamar Gaddafi being the prime examples along with the attempt to unseat Bashar Assad in Syria.

While a general impression of disengagement from the region is being given by the policies of the Obama administration which has overseen the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the overall direction and underpinning rationale of United States policy is to continue the decades-long intrigues which have been geared towards weakening the power of Iran; and if possible, to effect the overthrow of the Islamic system of government which has been in place since the abdication of the US-backed Shah in 1979.

Notwithstanding the rapprochement of sorts which has followed the change of leadership and that is primarily evidenced by the continuing talks over its nuclear developing capacity, the sanctions against that country remain as draconian as ever.

Further, the recent announcement by the Obama administration of plans to go to Congress to raise monies for the anti-Assad opposition, confirm the on-going stratagem of attempting to permanently cut off the supply routes from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The demarcation between ‘friendly’ and ‘hostile’ nations in the Middle Eastern and North African world is long established regardless of administration, although the most overt expression given to a long term plan remains the document formulated by the neo-Conservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in the 1990s.

This called for the systematic overthrow of a select number of regimes adjudged to be hostile to the “interests and values” of the United States.

The removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq formed the initial phase and this was to be followed by countries including Sudan, Libya and Syria, with Iran serving as the finale.

While the neo-Conservative influence on the administration of George W. Bush favoured intervention using the direct resources of the United States military, the present administration favours the path of effecting destabilisation through a technique of supporting a cast of dissidents involved in the prosecution of asymmetric warfare.

These belligerents ironically have tended to consist of Sunni extremists cut out of the same cloth as al-Qaeda; of which ISIS is.

Is ISIS the latest actor on a stage involving militarized Islamist groups who have done the bidding of the United States; effectively functioning as what has been cynically termed a foreign legion of America?

There is evidence pointing to the answer being firmly in the affirmative.

As is well documented, the United States through its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supported the Mujahedin during its guerrilla campaign against the forces of the Soviet Union when they occupied Afghanistan.

Prior to this, the United States had developed a complex but enduring relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood which dated back to the 1950s during the Eisenhower-era. The aim was largely to influence the brotherhood in the context of containing the spread of communism.

Among the band of kindred Islamists waging the anti-Soviet insurgency with huge inputs of United States funding and training was Osama Bin Laden who of course later formed al-Qaeda.

The protestations by official CIA historians that aid was only directed at indigenous Afghan insurgents is reminiscent of the disingenuous distinction postulated in the present Syrian crisis between so-called ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ elements of the militias opposing Bashar Assad.

In any case, both native Afghan and foreign fighters shared the same Islamist sentiments. While they were fighting for nationalistic reasons as well as for Islamic aims which were to remove the foreign and ‘atheist’ invader from Afghan soil, they were also unknowingly fighting to fulfil an American foreign policy agenda; namely that of weakening the Cold War-era Soviet foe.

The attack of September 11th 2001 to which responsibility was affixed on Bin Laden’s group has not precluded a resumption of similar mutually beneficial relationships.

A “re-configuration” of American foreign policy priorities according to the Pulitzer award winning writer Seymour Hirsch occurred about five years later during the second tenure of the administration of President George W. Bush. This involved aiding pro-Saudi Sunni militants in the Lebanon against the Iranian supported Shia militia group, Hezbollah.

With the dawning of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, protests against the regime of Muamar Gaddafi transmogrified into a full blown insurrection in the city of Benghazi from where militant Islamists including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group emerged to fight pitched battles against Gaddafi’s forces until he was overthrown.

This would not have been possible but for the use of NATO’s airpower as well as the logistical and instructional help such as that provided by the special forces of the United Kingdom.

The United States aided by its NATO allies were again involved in fomenting a military opposition against Bashar Assad’s government in Syria. And as confirmed in June of 2013 by the former foreign minister of France, Roland Dumas, this intervention was conceived and prepared for at least two years in advance of the commencement of the insurgency which developed a few months after what appeared to be genuine protests occurred in cities such as Damascus and Aleppo.

The rebels were given staging posts in the US-allied surrounding nations of Turkey and Jordan to serve as training quarters and to mount raids.

And as reported by both the UK Daily Telegraph and the New York Times in March of last year, a large cache of arms and equipment was airlifted to the rebels in a transaction co-ordinated by the CIA and paid for by the Saudis.

But who are the Syrian rebels and what ideological underpinnings do they have?

During the early period of the uprising, much reference was made to an organisation with the designation of ‘Free Syrian Army’. The background to this ‘body’ suggested that it had a unified command structure with a solid amount of numbers which would continue to grow as it would absorb an envisaged amount of defections from the army of Assad.

The germ of the FSA was created by a Syrian army colonel defector who, along with a number of commanders and foot soldiers, was based at Apaydin Camp in Turkey.

Despite headlined press reports of assassinations and defections of several high-level military officers, this scenario failed to materialise. Indeed, a compelling argument was made with little or no disputation that the Free Syrian Army did not exist and has never come into existence.

Instead, the name was used in reference to a range of anti-government militias fighting in different regions of Syria. Most appear to have a Salafist agenda and cannot be objectively described as being ‘secular’ or ‘moderate’. Prominent among them are the Islamic movement of Ahara Al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, Suqour al-Sham Brigade, Liwa al-Twhid and Liwa al-Yarmouk.

Indeed, a report by the Times of Israel in June of 2014 quotes the Israeli Defence Force’s head of Military Intelligence Research and Analysis Division as estimating that over eighty percent of the opposition fighters “have a clear Islamist agenda”.

After the initial barrage of reports on the FSA, the genuinely powerhouse opponents to Assad’s regime began to be acknowledged in the Western press. These militias composed largely of foreigners included the Jabhat al-Nusra Front and ISIS; both well-funded and more effective than the local ones.

It is hard not to conclude that weapons earmarked for rebels under the auspices of the CIA and Saudis would get into the hands of the Islamist groups, along with the benefits of the training they have received.

It is a scenario which was painted by Michael J. Morell, a former deputy CIA director who in a CBS interview stated that the battlefield effectiveness of the Islamist factions drew the so-called moderates to their camps. In his words:

Because they’re so good at fighting the Syrians, some of the moderate members of the opposition joined forces with them.

A proxy war of the sort fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union has been apparent for some time, and the United States is at the heart of it. It would appear that the United States is pliant to the goal of a fragmentation of the Middle East, although, of course, such a policy has never been publicly averred to.

Nonetheless, some have referred to a map prepared by a retired army colonel of the United States War Academy and which was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June of 2006 as evidence of a US-NATO objective of reconstituting the map of the Middle East.

Among the significant alterations to the Sykes-Picot agreement which created the modern nation states of the Middle East as we know them today are an Arab Shia state, a Sunni state and a Free Kurdistan being carved out of Iraq with the Kurdish state acquiring territory from Syria, Turkey and Iran.

Balkanisation has clearly been at the heart of the policy of assuring the survival of Israel. Indeed, it was a pre-condition of the emergence of the Zionist state that the Ottoman Empire be broken up and that the succeeding power in the region of Palestine, the British, would then take the steps which would lead to the establishment of what was initially termed a Jewish homeland.

Early Israeli policy under its first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, was geared towards bolstering the power of the Christian community in the Lebanon. It involved employing cynical strategies aimed at fomenting inter-communal strife among the Christian and Muslim groups in that country and even a plan to acquire territory up to the Litani River.

Indeed, the diaries of Moshe Sharett, an Israeli premier during the 1950s record Moshe Dayan declaring that Israel needed a Christian military officer to promulgate a Christian state which would then cede Lebanon south of the Litani River to Israel.

Both Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann, the early Zionist leader, had proposed this northern boundary in an early map depicting a state of Israel which was presented to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference after the First World War.

The strategy of balkanisation in the Arab and Muslim world has a simple rationale. Israel has always been wary of the emergence of any nation from these lands which is nationalist in outlook, that possess a high degree of social cohesion along with an economic and military capacity which could be directed against it.

While Gamal Nasser’s Egypt and his Pan-Arabist philosophy presented the earliest visible form of what Israel perceived to be an existential threat before destroying it in the war of 1967; Ben-Gurion’s vehement opposition to Charles de Gaulle’s decision to grant Algeria independence provided ample proof of this permanent quality of sensitivity.

After Nasser, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq emerged as the threat, and following the 2003 invasion, Iran is viewed as the pre-eminent Muslim nation which poses the greatest menace.

When in the early part of 2003 the Bush administration was preparing for the invasion of Iraq, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon called on the Americans to also “disarm Iran, Libya and Syria”.

This long time strategy is encapsulated within a policy document produced in 1982 by Oded Yinon, a journalist who had once been attached to Israel’s foreign ministry.

Formally titled A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties’ the ‘Yinon Plan’ is predicated on Israel achieving regional military and economic hegemony while working towards the division of its neighbours into ethnic and sectarian based mini-states.

The “far reaching opportunities” referred to in the document alluded to the range of weaknesses and stress points in the various countries on its borders and further afield which could be exploited by Israel so as to ensure their weakening and eventual fracture. These included religious, ethnic and sectarian rivalries as well as economic grievances among the population.

Iraq was a priority with the desired outcome being a three-state division into Kurdish, Sunni and Shite states. Egypt would in the best scenario be split into “geographically distinct regions” encompassing a Coptic Christian state and a range of other Muslim states while Syria was identified as been essentially vulnerable because it “is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it”.

For Yinon, Lebanon formed the template for the fracture of Arab states and as the paper continued:

Syria will fall apart in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbour and the Druzes will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan.

Such a state of affairs Yinon was convinced would serve as “the guarantee for peace and stability in the area in the long run”.

While Yinon’s work has often been quoted in recent years in relation to the contemporary wars in the region, it is not the only document of record offering an authentic account of such a strategy being at the heart of Israeli strategic policy.

For instance, Livia Rokach’s Israel’s Sacred Terrorism published in 1980 relates Moshe Sharett’s diary recollections of the machinations of both David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan during the 1950s in regard to a range of tactics and policies designed to acquire territory as well as to sow the seeds of discord within Arab nations.

An updated version of this formula forms the explicit rationale underlying what is known as the ‘Clean Break Document’.

In 1996, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm was produced during the first premiership of Benjamin Netanyahu by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli political think tank.

Led by Richard Perle, a key contributor to the aforementioned Project for the New American Century, the document put forward the argument that Israel should renounce all intentions towards achieving a comprehensive peace settlement with Arab nations and instead should work together with Turkey and Jordan to “contain, destabilize and roll-back” those states which pose as threats to all three.

And as with the PNAC document, Syria features as a state in regard to which Israeli policy should be geared towards “weakening, controlling and even rolling back”.

The means by which such destabilisation and containment would occur were not always explicitly addressed in the paper, but in practical terms it is clear that these goals are effected through a panoply of methods including Israel’s use of direct military action, its support for actors in proxy wars, and its use of the military resources of the United States through the huge influence wielded in that country by the Israel-Jewish lobby.

There is of course sensitivity attached to the terminology used in this regard and a debate in regards to the true scope of power American Jewish groups possess in terms of influencing United States foreign policy.

Yet the war declared on Saddam’s Iraq, the effects of which have led to the present crisis involving ISIS and the threat of a permanent dismemberment, was influenced by the likes of the aforementioned Richard Perle, as well as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.

All are designated as neo-conservative in political outlook and were signatories to a letter written by members of PNAC to the incumbent President Bill Clinton calling for the military overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein.

The Israeli state lies at the heart of any serious analysis of the reasons why America declared war on Saddam’s Iraq as well as the later war manufactured by external powers in Syria.

In the year before the US attack on Iraq, the Guardian newspaper quoted the retired US Four-Star General Wesley Clark as saying that the so-called ‘hawks’ within the Bush administration who were lobbying for the war had been doing so well before the events of September 11th 2001 and privately acknowledged that the regime of Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to America.

“But”, said Clark, “they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.”

Carl Bernstein, the veteran journalist and himself Jewish when referring to what he termed the “insane war” in Iraq, asserted in 2013 that it had been started by what he described as “Jewish neo-cons who wanted to remake the world (for Israel)”.

The ‘reconfiguration’ of American policy as alluded to by Seymour Hersh has at its heart the state of Israel. According to Hersh:

The Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashar Assad of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations.

In a continuation of his revelation of the preconception of the anti-Assad revolt, Roland Dumas provided the following:

In the region (i.e. the Middle East) it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance…and I have this from the former Israeli prime minister who told me “we’ll try to get on with our neighbours, but those who don’t agree with us will be destroyed”.

The pretence of Israeli non-involvement in the present war in Syria or even its purported interest in maintaining the status quo with Assad remaining in power is belied by actions and pronouncements.

A report last year in Debka, a website staffed by Israeli journalists providing news on intelligence and security issues, revealed that senior IDF officers had criticised Moshe Ya’alon, the defence minister for misleading the Knesset when he gave an estimate that President Assad’s forces controlled far less territory than it actually did and as a consequence, the Israeli armed forces were acting on the basis of inaccurate intelligence.

“Erroneous assessments…must lead to faulty decision-making” the report concluded.

An explicit statement from a government insider concerning Israel’s attitude toward the Assad government came from Michael Oren last September. He said the following to the Jerusalem Post when leaving his post as Israeli ambassador to the United States:

The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.

Publicly disclosed operations such as those involving the bombing of pro-Assad storage depots and convoys claimed to be part of a logistical trail leading to Hezbollah in Lebanon, while portrayed as surgical in nature were likely made with the overall desire of weakening Assad’s forces in his campaign against the insurgents.

For instance, in June of 2014, when a missile fired from Syrian territory killed an Israeli citizen on the Golan Heights, the Israeli Air Force responded by mounting sorties on nine positions belonging to the Syrian Army including a regional command centre.

This mission was undertaken, a Times of Israel report noted, despite the fact that “some Israeli (intelligence) experts said the area from which the anti-tank rocket was fired is under the control of Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime”.

The present crisis generated by the gains of ISIS in Iraq and speculation as to whether the United States should intervene on the side of the Maliki government revealed the age long thinking and strategy of Israel’s leaders and policymakers.

Speaking on NBC TV’s Meet the Press in June, Benjamin Netanyahu’s stated that “We must weaken both”. “Both” of course was referring to the Sunni and Shia divide.

When your enemies are fighting each other, don’t strengthen either of them, weaken both.

Furthermore, Netanyahu has recently called for the establishment of a Kurdish state.

But the conceptualisation of a reformatted Middle East is not solely the concern of the Americans and the Israelis. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has for long harboured ambitions to be the undisputed leader of the Arab and Muslim world, and to this end battled with the secular, pan-Arab philosophy as espoused by Gamal Abdel Nasser for the soul of the Arabs, and, in more recent times, it is contending with the Shi’ite bastion of Iran for regional influence.

Saudi Arabia along with its Gulf emirate neighbours, most notably Qatar, have been involved in the financing and organising of the revolts against the secular regimes of Colonel Gaddafi and President Assad, and the stripe of the beneficiaries such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the Jabhat al-Nusra Brigade and ISIS is clearly Islamist.

It is a history which goes back some time and includes providing funds to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980s which many historians would argue provided the germ for the development of al Qaeda and now ISIS which is a more extreme offshoot of the former.

But quite apart from pinpointing the instances of the documented funding of groups such as al-Nusra and ISIS is the responsibility arguably borne by the Saudi state for the rise of Islamic extremism in modern times.

The pivotal moment in history, according to the case compellingly put by the Middle East affairs journalist Yaroslav Trofimov, was the siege of Mecca in 1979. On November the 20th, which was the first day of a new Muslim century, a large group of gunmen numbering in the hundreds seized control of Mecca’s Grand Mosque, the holiest shrine in Islam.

Led by a preacher named Juhayman al Uteybi, the insurgents declared that the Mahdi or “redeemer of Islam” had arrived in the form of one Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani.

The insurgents also had the objective of overthrowing the House of Saud on the grounds that they had compromised the strict tenets of the Wahhabi creed originally imposed on the country after it had been formed by Muhammad Ibn Saud.

The grievance stemmed largely from the policy of Westernization and amongst several demands, Uteybi’s insurgents called for the expulsion of Westerners, the abolition of television and the ending of education for women.

The two-week siege was ended after the Saudis obtained the blessing of Wahhabi clerics to storm the Mosque with the aid of French Special Forces and flush out the rebels.

But this came at a price. The Saudis clamped down in areas where ‘liberalisation’ had strayed such as the media and the school curriculum.

The decision was also made at the behest of the powerful fundamentalist clerics for the Saudis to pump money into the coffers of Sunni missionary organisations to spread of the ideas of the Wahhabi strain in Islamic universities and madrassas around the Muslim world. This purist brand of Islam lays particular focus on Jihadist sentiment.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan provided the opportunity for both the United States and Saudi Arabia to tap into the Saudis rededication to Wahhabism.

President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, saw in the Soviet move a chance to exploit outrage in the Muslim world, and the Saudis, following a fatwa declared by Abdelaziz Bin Baz, later the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, provided funding for the local Mujahidin as well as the bands of non-Afghan Jihadis who became the template for the contemporary multi-national Jihadis operating in both Syria and Iraq.

The aforementioned airlift of arms from the Balkans at the direction of the CIA which was paid for by the Saudis follows a mutually agreeable pattern for both nations.

A key player in Saudi strategy in its power play with Iran and the manipulation of Islamist militias in both Iraq and Syria has been Prince Bander Bin Saud, until recently the chief of Saudi intelligence as well as the head of the Saudi National Security Council.

So far as funding ISIS is concerned, there are reports that Prince Abdul Rahman Faisal, a son of the late King Faisal and a graduate of Sandhurst Royal Military College, serves as the conduit through which Saudi policy is driven and that he even influences the tactics of the group.

The prince is the brother of Prince Saud al Faisal, long-time foreign minister and Prince Turki al Faisal, ambassador to the UK and the US. However, this specific allegation has yet to be officially corroborated.

One clue as to the inclinations of the Saudi state towards this marauding army of homicidal Jihadists may have been their issuing of a statement calling on the United States not to begin a bombing campaign in ISIS.

The Iraqi government has publically accused the Saudis of supporting ISIS and Prime Minister Maliki has saddled them with the responsibility for what he describes as the “crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of the Iraqi state institutions and historic religious sites”.

Aside from the sectarian-ideological motivations which lie behind the decision to attempt to unseat the Assad regime in Syria is one with a specifically economic dimension.

This relates to the decision of the Assad government to reject a proposed pipeline project through which natural gas would be pumped from Qatar to Turkey via Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria.

The reason Assad is said to have turned down the plan is that such a pipeline, which by extension would be able to supply European markets, would undermine the interests of Syria’s ally Russia which is the premier supplier of natural gas to Europe.

Instead, he pursued an alternative pipeline project which would emanate from Iran and run to Syria via Iraq.

This would explain the volte force on the part of the purportedly neutral Turk’s after initially cultivating cordial relations with Assad. Turkey cherishes the idea of serving as what has been described as the “ultimate energy bridge between east and west.”

It also explains Turkey’s use of a crucial natural resource as a weapon of specific retaliation and one that it will continue to use as a source of leverage in his dealings with Assad in Syria and the Iraqi government of Maliki: water.

This increasingly globally scarce resource in regard to which the Turks sit on one of the world’s largest reserves has of course formed a very underplayed yet significant backdrop to a number of conflicts including the seizure of the West Bank by Israel in 1967 and the overthrown of Gaddafi in 2011.

In May of 2014, the Turkish government cut off the water supply to the River Euphrates having started a process of a gradual reduction in the pumping of the river. It has led to a drastic shrinkage in the water levels of the man-made Lake Assad and is causing hardship to communities.

The rationale for the United States overseeing a sectarian based war in Syria and Iraq also has a basis in terms of accessing the natural resources of the Middle East on which the West remains reliant for its energy needs.

The need to foment such conflict; what in fact was described as a “long war” was bluntly put in a United States Army funded report by the RAND Corporation in 2008.

Entitled, Unfolding the Future of the Long War: Motivations, Prospects and Implications for the U.S. Army, the paper crucially identifies the geographic area of proven oil reserves as coinciding with what it terms as “the powerbase of the Salafi-Jihadist network”.

“This”, it continues, “creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized”.

The following more detailed excerpt explains how sectarian fault lines can be exploited in order to serve the interests of the West:

Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare and support to indigenous security forces…the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace…US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the ‘Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict’ trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shi’ite empowerment movements in against the Muslim world…possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.

The report is clear about the need for the United States to simultaneously shore up the regimes which it classifies as ‘friendly’ to its interests such as Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia while working to weaken the influence of Iran; a strategy which it admits could serve to strengthen Jihadi groups, but which at the same time would bog them down in sectarian conflicts that would divert their energies from targeting the West:

One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations.

The document is certainly prescient so far as developments in terms of the Syrian uprising and the tumult in Iraq are concerned.

At the same time, it is worth noting that the fomenting of sectarian antagonism in order to fulfil an objective for the United States is not new to the region; a specific example being the use made of Shi’ite death squads made up of personnel recruited from militias such as the Badhr Organisation and the Mahdi Army to nullify a Sunni-led insurgency which had been claiming the lives of a great many American soldiers.

Thus the bolstering of Islamist groups such as the al-Nusra Brigade and later ISIS in a series of pre-conceived US military intelligence operations that are pursuant to America’s long-term geo-strategic interests is not merely plausible but is actual reality.

It fits into reports during the early stages of the Syrian conflict of claims that British and French military advisers were stationed at the borders of Syria and offering Syrian rebels as well as prospective insurgents including those arriving from abroad military training.

The existence of training camps run by NATO officials and well as by former US Special Forces mercenaries who operate private security consultancies in the Gulf has been alluded to in reports via the mainstream press including the German Der Spiegel.

In March of 2013, it reported that around 200 men had received training over the previous three months in Jordan and that the Americans planned to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps; one in the south and the other in the eastern part of the country.

While unsure as to whether the American trainers were serving US Army personnel or were working under the auspices of private firms, the magazine did note that some organisers wore service uniforms.

A report by the British Guardian newspaper, also in March 2013, confirmed the presence of US, British and French military advisers who were giving Syrian rebels what was termed “logistical and other advice in some form”.

While the article claimed that such training was been given to elements described as being “secular” so that an effective military militia would serve as a bulwark against Islamic extremist brigades, such a claim cannot be taken at face value.

The report alluded to the presence of CIA-led training camps in deeper locations within Jordan, and just how the Western operatives can distinguish between those who on the one hand are “secular” and those who on the other are “Islamist” remains unclear.

Given what is known about US policy via the RAND report and the actions of NATO in aiding Salafists in the Libyan uprising against Colonel Gaddafi, such professed distinctions are likely disingenuous especially when the accepted view is that the overwhelming majority of Syrian and foreign insurgents view the fight against the ‘apostate’ Alawite government of Assad as a Sunni crusade.

And so far as the training of ISIS is concerned, several news outlets are disseminating claims from Jordanian officials that members of ISIS were among those insurgents who received training from Western military advisers.

Even if it was accepted that prospective insurgents were not specifically coloured by an ideological allegiance to militias bearing an overtly Islamist agenda, and they were being readied to serve in the ranks of the putative Free Syrian Army, it is quite clear that as argued above, such an entity is non-existent.

After all its purported commander, General Salim Idris, whose organisation represented the supposed counter-weight to the Al Nusra Brigade and ISIS, relocated to Qatar in February 2014, his right hand man to Sweden and the number three figure is apparently residing in the Netherlands.

It is also more likely the case that a person nominally trained as a vetted FSA candidate guerrilla would leave for one of the better funded Islamist groups who offer their fighters more remuneration thanks to the largesse of wealthy donors from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait.

All of this is done with the apparent acquiescence of the United States and is in line with the thinking behind the report conducted by the RAND Corporation.

What also falls into sync with the series of rationales behind that report is the role played by former American internees in conflicts involving Islamist insurgents.

Many of these figures, incarcerated in the context of the so-called ‘War on Terror’, did not turn to the business of perpetuating acts of terror against Western military or civilian targets but involved themselves in insurrections which happened to be mutually beneficial to the Islamist causes and the United States.

Consider for instance the case of Abu Sufian bin Qumu. Qumu was renditioned from Pakistan to Camp Guantanamo Bay sometime after the NATO conquest of Afghanistan.  He was released from US custody despite the conclusion of analysts that he represented a “medium to high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests and its allies”.

He was transferred to a Libyan jail in 2007 at the time when the US and its allies were cooperating with the Gaddafi regime in a policy aimed at containing Islamists but released in 2010 under an amnesty.

However, when the insurrection against the Gaddafi regime commenced in 2011, Qumu, in the words of the New York Times article in April of that year had somewhat perversely become “a U.S. ally of sorts”.

Another Libyan figure Abdelhakim Bel Hadj, like Qumu was renditioned by the United States government and under the auspices of the British MI6 was placed in the detention regime of the security services of the Gaddafi regime.

As with Qumu, he was released under the 2010 amnesty by the Libyan government but joined the militias which with the help of NATO overthrew Gaddafi.

The head of ISIS and proclaimed caliph of the declared Islamic State, Baghdadi, was himself held in US detention between 2004 and 2009 at Camp Bucca in Iraq.

He, like the others, represents the ‘re-direction of energies’ thesis postulated in the context of the “long war” predicted by the aforementioned paper.

It might be going too far without any incontrovertible evidence to suggest that men such as Qumu, Bel Hadj and Baghdadi are double agents ‘turned’ by US intelligence during their periods of detention.

But it is worth noting that that the dark arts as practised by intelligence agencies including that of NATO military intelligence in its Cold War-era manipulations of terrorist organisations of the extreme political Left and Right in Italy are capable of refinement and readjustment.

During that period, the techniques of infiltrating the leadership positions of political terror groups and steering them toward pursuing certain course of actions, as detailed in the infamous manual produced by Yves Guerin-Serac’s Aginter Press, were successfully practised.

These Islamist figures have effectively had ‘presented’ to them a series of conflicts which have been tailor-made to assure the active participation of men of their ideological disposition.

The emergence of ISIS, barbaric acts and medieval-like edicts including the announcing of the institution of the dhimmi system notwithstanding, plays towards the prescribed US agenda in promoting its short and long-term goals.

It is also not unconnected with the turning of the tide gains made in the Syrian conflict by the forces loyal to President Assad and their foreign allies, namely Russia, as well as their co-denominational brethren from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanese Hezbollah.

The war against Assad has defied the expectation that his minority-led government would be toppled in a short period of time as had happened with the Gaddafi regime.

The covert strategies devised by General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Quds Force which is often described as been analogous to a combined CIA and Special Forces, has succeeded in stabilising the a situation which for a time was looking very dire from the perspective of the Assad regime.

The shoring up of this ‘Axis of Resistance’ against America and its Middle East allies, most notably, the Sunni powers, has been critical given the high stakes suggested by these words in a speech delivered by an Iranian cleric:

If we lose Syria, we cannot keep Tehran.

The stabilization of the Syrian front has been interpreted as a defeat by the Sunni powers and the surgent ISIS in Iraq presents an opportunity for the Americans in its continuing quest to weaken Iran.

After all, bombing ISIS targets in Iraq could conceivably lead to bombing parts of Syria under the pretext that such operations are being directed at ISIS. It could provide a back door opportunity to carry out the bombing of Assad’s forces which in the wake of the chemical attack at Ghouta last August had been the intended course of action.

The motivation behind the calls by made by ‘hawks such as senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for the United States to bomb ISIS likely matches this.

These men after all must be aware of the overwhelmingly Islamist stripe of the vast majority of rebels fighting in Syria who were the eventual beneficiaries of the monies released by the US Congress in bills which both have strenuously championed.

This support, including their calls for President Obama to bomb and weaken the military capability of the Assad government last August, is designed to create the circumstances which would lead to his overthrow and the creation of a vacuum which, as happened in Libya, can only be filled by those who would be chosen by the likes of the al-Nusra Brigade and ISIS.

Yet, the policymakers and the engineers of the covert operations enabling the continuation of this ‘Long War’ must have in their calculations the possibility, even inevitability, of what is termed ‘blowback’.

This is the suspected backdrop to the murder by Islamists of American personnel at the Benghazi ‘consulate’ which allegedly served as a conduit for the shipment of weapons to anti-Assad jihadis via Turkey.

For some time now, security officials from the Western European nations whose radicalised Muslim citizens are participants in the wars in Syria and Iraq have warned that returning jihadis would pose significant threats to peace and order.

President Obama himself admitted in June that the spread of ISIS-led conflicts to neighbouring states could pose a “medium to long-term threat” to the United States.

The sponsors of the ISIS such as Saudi Arabia could also be imperilling their long-term survival.

Like a frankensteinian creation, an independent and emboldened Islamic State with pretensions to controlling a Caliphate which does not recognise national borders would not stop at Iraq and Syria but could attempt to overthrow the Saudi regime on the basis that the Caliph is by Islamic tradition the designated Custodian of the two holiest mosques in Islam: the Al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca and the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi in Medina.

Certainly the threat to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan appears to be the more immediate. A video posted on Youtube in April of 2014 described King Abdullah as “despotic” and a “worshipper of the English” and vowed to “slaughter” him.

While President Obama has in August of 2014 finally caved into pressure to order air strikes against ISIS positions, sight must not be lost of the greater picture; that of a ‘Great Game’ and a ‘Long War’ in which the United States is bound to continue its long-term strategy of protecting what it perceives as it national interests including maintaining its access to the natural resources of the region.

Its continuation was evident in Obama’s recent request for $500 dollars from the US Congress to train the so-called “Syrian Opposition”.  According to the Washington Post, “money for the assistance would expand a CIA covert operation’s training program”.

Developments within the context of this long-term foreign policy objective continue to present obstacles and also opportunities for the United States to exercise leverage.

So even if the recent gains of ISIS were not deliberately manufactured by Washington’s covert arm, it nonetheless provides an opportunity for the United States to put pressure on Prime Minister Maliki who the Americans view as being largely compliant to the dictates of Tehran and even to effect his removal in favour of someone who would follow the American line more willingly.

Some analysts suspect that the United States does exercise an undisclosed covert influence on ISIS; with even the suggestion that they are directed at field level by Western mercenaries or Special Forces embedded within their ranks much in the manner as members of Britain’s Special Forces were among the rebels who overthrew Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi.

And that because the Americans created the political structures presently governing Iraq including the supply of military weapons, that they are effectively controlling both actors in the crisis.

If this is the truth or at least close to the truth, it is fulfilling the template of the “long war” outlined in the RAND Corporation’s policy document. The United States will then seek to ‘manage’ this situation for as long as it can.

The ability of outsiders to effect instability of the Middle East owes much to the arbitrary border demarcations of imperial draughtsmen as represented by the Sykes-Picot agreement, the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia, the miscellaneous tribal affiliations of its peoples along with the relative economic and environmental fortunes of its sub-regions.

Oded Yinon was being far from off-handed when pointing out in his paper that the Arab Muslim world was “astonishingly self-destructive”.

The latent fault lines cutting across the swathe of lands from North Africa to the Persian Gulf have been exploited by non-Arabs who have enabled the Arab nations to be willing accomplices in the coups, insurrections and wars which have brought havoc.

Very few can fail to see that the present crisis as being causally linked to the overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein by a war of aggression waged by the administration of George W. Bush which was based on a false premise.

And as General Sir Michael Rose, a retired British soldier put it earlier this year, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is self-deluded and “remains in complete denial over the disaster he inflicted not only on the people of Iraq, but also on many millions throughout the Middle East as a result of the 2003 invasion”.

Further, despite the protestations of Richard Perle made last month about the use of the term ‘neo-cons’ as what he emotively described as a “hateful” word directed at Jewish Americans, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the invasion had at the heart of the motivation of its principal proponents the destruction of an Arab state which presented a modicum of a military threat to the regional hegemony of the state of Israel.

It is also disingenuous to deny the fragmenting of Iraq as a state, whether by peaceful or strife-ridden circumstances as been the inevitable consequence of the invasion.

Few who understand the historical foundations of the policy of the Zionist state cannot fail to appreciate the requirement that its survival has always been predicated on the weakening and balkanization of its neighbours.

Also, few who are aware of the policy agenda of the United States in promoting and ‘managing’ sectarian conflict as a means of assuring its continued access to the natural resources of the Middle East will fall into a constricted analysis of ISIS as a stand-alone phenomenon unrelated to the cynical quality which underlies American strategy in the region.

It is but merely one troublesome episode within a wider saga; that of a twenty-first century version of the “Great Game”.

Adeyinka Makinde is a Lecturer in Law with a research interest in Intelligence and Security matters. He is based in London, England.


 
 904
Articles by: Adeyinka Makinde
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca

*

[HIGHLIGHTING OF SOME TEXT IS OURS!]I

 

H F 215

 

 

 

DAILY MAIL

Democracy?

 No, Britain's now a judicial-dictatorship and it's time for

REVOLUTION

-writes-

RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN

 

EXTRACT

...We may kid ourselves that we live in a democracy, but the reality is that we are ultimately governed by a

JUDICIAL DICTATORSHIP, ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE

with its power base in

STRASBOURG.

Its bad enough when government policy is

RE-WRITTEN by

UNELECTED JURISTS

from countries such as the former SOVIET satellite states.wiyth no distinguished history of respect for genuine human rights.

But increasingly, British judges are flexing their muscles, too. Lord Neuberger, president of

BRITAIN'S SUPREME COURT

-a typical Blairite, European-style institution- has admitted that the

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

has given the courts a blank cheque to

MAKE UP LAWS AS THEY GO ALONG...

More!

 

*

A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

[THE EXCELLENT AND TIMELY ARTICLE ABOVE SHOWS IN DETAIL THE DANGERS TO OUR ONCE FREE DEMOCRACY AND THE WILLINGNESS OF THE TRAITOROUS JUDICIARY TO FORGET THE ILLEGALITIES AND CORRUPTION THAT AROSE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1972 ACCESSION TREATY WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST 1973 AND SUBSEQUENT TREATIES WHICH ARE ILLEGAL UNDER THE

1969 VIENNA  TREATY ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

 WHICH MAKES ALL SUCH TREATIES NULL AND VOID. THE ATTITUDE OF OUR JUDGES IS SHOWN IN THE MANNER OF THE SCALES OF JUSTICE-THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES TO THE TRUTH. IN OUR LONG HISTORY THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAPPENED TO SUCH TRAITORS AND HOPEFULLY THE DAY WILL DAWN WHEN THEY AND OTHERS WHO HAVE SOILED THE ONCE GOOD NAME OF ENGLAND WILL RECEIVE THEIR JUST AND RIGHT PUNISHMENT. ]

 

[COMMENTS IN BRACKETS AND CAPS ARE OURS]

 

AUGUST 13-2014

H F 216

 

 
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.

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 A MATTER OF FACT!

On October 11-2017 15 months after the PEOPLE had voted to LEAVE the EU  the Daily Mail in its COMMENT column stated the FOLLOWING:

'YES, the Mail would have preferred a quicker and cleaner BREXIT but how foolish of Eurosceptic MPs to kick up a fuss about the planned TWO-YEAR TRANSITION PERIOD. After 45 years of subjection to EUROPEAN JUDGES, another couple will be a mere blink in HISTORY'S EYE. The great thing is that BREXIT is GOING AHEAD and barring REMOANER'S TREACHERY, SEPARATION WILL BE COMPLETE BEFORE THE NEXT ELECTION.'

STATEMENT!

[We and no doubt the majority who voted to LEAVE the EU, knowing the following true facts will no doubt NOT AGREE! with that COMMENT.

 What is FORGOTTEN is the MANNER in which the PEOPLE were DECEIVED by the TORY GOVERNMENT in 1972 and the LEGAL consequences of THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIONS as clearly indicated in numerous BULLETINS on our EDP website over the past 12 years. To call our DEPARTURE from the EU  a DIVORCE is a PERVERSION of the FACTS!  - A MARRIAGE if we are to call it THAT is INVALID if its DOCUMENTATION is  FALSE or obtained by BRIBERY and /or FRAUD.

  NO-MARRIAGE-NO CONTRACT-NO COMPENSATION

FOR THE EU TO EXPECT A GOLDEN HANDSHAKE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO REWARD THEM FOR THE WICKED; ATROCIOUS; DREADFUL; INFAMOUS; OUTRAGEOUS; PERVERSE; SINISTER; VILLAINOUS; EVIL; AND WASTEFUL CONDUCT OF MANY POLITICIANS WITHIN THE EU, SOME AS MENTIONED BELOW.

*

 

Below we have shown details of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and other relevant information which will clearly show that the UK could EXIT THE EU in MONTHS NOT YEARS. Obviously, there has been a COVER-UP of MAJOR PROPORTIONS by the POLITICAL CLASS in GENERAL because how can one explain the SILENCE! even FROM our FREE PRESS the FOURTH ESTATE in the land which we look too to PROTECT OUR  over a thousand year ENGLISH  RIGHTS  and LIBERTIES . Possibly the reason could be that there would be a REVOLUTION if the PEOPLE knew the TRUE FACTS?

 Added OCTOBER 11-2017

IN JULY 2016 AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL BREXIT VOTE WE ARE TOLD BY OUR NEW PRIME MINISTER MRS MAY THAT IT COULD BE YEARS BEFORE WE ARE FREE OF THE CORRUPT-_COLLECTIVIST- UNDEMOCRATIC EU WHICH DEVOURS MILLIONS OF OUR NEEDED POUNDS EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. 

OUR MESSAGE TO FRAU MERKEL AND HER ROBBER BAND

IS

'GO TO HELL'

BUT

MRS MAY APPEARS TO HAVE A DIFFERENT MESSAGE EVEN THOUGH HER OWN WORDS WERE

"BREXIT MEANS BREXIT.

The following article was put on our website in October,2005 shortly after we received this most revealing information from

CHRISTOPHER STORY

 WHO GAVE HIS LIFE

FOR

TRUTH AND PATRIOTISM

 

FROM

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY REVIEW-

SEPTEMBER-2005

*

 

EUROPEAN PAYROLA SYSTEM

 

THE BUDGET FOR THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION WAS $5.0 BILLION

 

An account held by Credit Suisse in Zurich, labelled the ‘SBC’ Charcol Account, held a total of some $470 billion when last reviewed by sources.  These funds were originally derived from Nazi funds and assets, are routinely used to pay top politicians and officials to sign successive European Collective treaties- the latest being the so-called ‘European Constitution’.

The budget set aside from the ‘SBC’Charcol Account and to be distributed from the Credit Suisse disbursement account for the latest ‘update’ of the ‘rolling  European Collective Treaty’ was $5.0billion- $2.5 billion being payable in Euros to the participants from the 25 EU countries.

On the finalisation of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), which framed the text of the Treaty, and a further $2.5 billion payable in Euros on ratification.  This tranche is currently the subject of much dissension.

For each national cadre of key negotiator, therefore, the total set aside  was $100 million per tranche.  The chief negotiators of each EU country, plus selected officials were each to be paid from the national pot of $ 100 million, whish equates to roughly $75 million per corrupted European Union country.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, was allegedly initially offered $50 million.  being an extremely wealthy man, he departed for the weekend in question in July 2004, following conclusion of the IGC, having indicated to those concerned that he was insulted by such a figure, and that $100million would be nearer the mark.  In the event, following an allowance for his wife, he was allegedly paid $75 million, according to sources.

Tony Blair allegedly received $75 million, which was paid into an offshore bank account held in Belize, the former British Honduras.  There, official eyebrows were naturally raised at the Central bank of Belize, where we notice that all of a sudden, the official reserves of foreign exchange jumped from $49.72 million in February 2005, to $164.53 million in March [2005]

Since the corrupt payment ‘due’ at the completion of the IGC will have been remitted in or about July 2004, this may suggest that the funds have subsequently (in March 2005) been taken into the foreign exchange reserves of the local central bank, so that their actual ownership can be disguised, a ‘new form’ of money-laundering: through a central bank!

 

WE ARE RELIABLY ADVISED THAT THIS CORRUPT PAYOLA SYSTEM IS THE NORM.

 

This means that the European Union’s Treaties

 are null and void,

as they have been obtained by fraud. 

 

That applies to the original EU Accession Treaty signed on behalf of the UK Government by [Nazi] agents Edward Heath and Geoffrey Rippon, agents of German intelligence, who were both recruited at Balliol College Oxford as discussed in this analysis.

 

It applies also to the Maastricht Treaty, signed by

 

John Major

 

Who allegedly received at least one corrupt payment for his services.  And it applies to the latest fiasco of the EU Collective.

 

THESE CORRUPT PAYOLA PAYMENTS

ARE ‘NON-REFUNDABLE’.

 

The second tranches of  $100 Million per country for the [New European Constitution] new treaty are payable on ratification, but following their referenda, the Netherlands and France cannot ratify.

 

*          *

International Currency Review

 

(Vol 30- No 4)

*

 

 

www.worldreports.org

 

*          *          *

 

[Font altered-bolding & underlining used –comments

in brackets]

 

OCT/05

 

THE VIENNA TREATY CONVENTION

Under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the

Law of Treaties

there are two key provisions which authorize a signatory power to abrogate a bilateral or multilateral treaty unilaterally, without giving the stipulated notice:

WHERE corruption has been demonstrated in respect of procuring the

TREATY

in the first place, or in respect of any dimension of its implementation.

AS the next section will show, 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.

2. Where there has been a material change of circumstances.

 

A material change of circumstances has surfaced into daylight, to begin with, following the death of Sir Edward Heath. It has been revealed that he was an agent for a foreign power, accepted corrupt payments 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

As even more disturbing material change of circumstances has arisen as a consequence of the bombing of the London Underground and a bus , which took place on 7th July 2005, and the attempted explosions perpetuated two weeks later. We understand that the situation is so serious that the Civil Contingencies Secretariat has been in the process of drafting, or has drafted, legislation providing for the British Government to abrogate its putative international treaty [sic] 'obligations' towards the European Union.

ARE YOU STILL THERE MR HAGUE?

This development reflects the knowledge in certain UK intelligence circles that the attacks amounted to an

ACT of WAR

against the United Kingdom, and that the foreign powers behind this activity are ultimately controlled by the DVD from Dachau -( the same area of the World War II notorious concentration camp) which is the successor organization to the Abwehr, Nazi Germany's main external intelligence administration.

It was the Abwehr that first established , as a means of undermining British influence in the Middle East, the Muslim Brotherhood, from which ALL subsequent Islamic terror groups, without exception, originate. Al Qaeda, a descendant ultimately of the German-founded

Muslim Brotherhood,

is a controlled cut-out operation of international intelligence.

The Nazi regime and its Stalinist dialectical counterpart, were both Black Illuminati regimes. The Al Qaeda operation is an extension of the Black tradition, and is ultimately controlled, like the IRA (until very recently) by the DVD out of Dachau.

near Munich

For confirmation of the above and further information consult our bulletin board or contact

E-mail: cstory@ worldreports.org

Website:

www.worldreports.org

*

The European Union Collective:
Enemy of Its Member States

EU

 

HITLER'S 1940 BLUEPRINT FOR A GERMAN DOMINATED EUROPEAN UNION  COLLECTIVE HAS ALMOST BEEN COMPLETED ****EUROPEAN UNION EXPOSED-A CRIMINALISED ORGANISATION/****  HOW HITLER'S ENABLING ACT OF 1933 WAS PASSED THROUGH YOUR WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENT BY 8 VOTES****   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

OCTOBER-2005

 

 

H.F.1335/1-BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT SURRENDER TO HITLER'S PLANNED EU

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

 

 

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 1-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 2-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 3-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 4-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 5-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-PART 6-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-2019

FEBRUARY-FREEDOM NOW-NEW-HOME-PAGE 2-2019

THANK YOU FOR CALLING!

 

TOP OF PAGE

 

CLICK HERE FOR PREVIOUS FRONT PAGE-2012