England's Palmyra

ISIS use power tools to destroy 3000 year old monuments before blowing the entire site up.

ISIS use power tools to destroy 3000 year old monuments before
blowing the entire site up.

The recent events in Syria regarding the destruction of ancient Assyrian monuments, it is a terrible thing for the World to see and reflect upon. In videos shown across the world, images showed Islamists attacking the Assyrian city ruins which still contained priceless artifacts, some of which were over 3000 years old. Those taking part are apparently inspired by their prophet Mohammed's violent behavior as documented in the Quran, in tales where he is said to have torn down pagan idols in Mecca "with his bare hands". (I know right, this guy must have been strong, huh!)

The issue seems to be more widespread than just ISIS though, so this isn't an issue of just one group of extremists. It seems that there is an inherent issue within Islam over it's protection of historically important sites. In Saudi Arabia for example, the Government there has completely turned a blind eye to even Mecca's heritage, with one Time Magazine article saying as much as 98% of the heritage sites there have been bulldozed for modern development. 

There were even calls last month from ISIS and extremist Islamic preachers to destroy what is left of the Sphinx and the pyramids in Giza. Of course this wouldn't be the first time as the nose of the Sphinx and many statues across Palestine and Turkey were defaced (quite literally) by religious nutters throughout history. They weren't just Muslim though, as Iconoclasm has been used quite extensively across history as a method of erasing the cultural stamp of a previous civilization when conquering land or subjugating a group of people.

Whilst the practice has been used since the dawn of time, the main offenders across history have tended to be those from an Abrahamic religious persuasion, and although we might think of these acts as occurring in exotic locations in the middle-east or on some isolated Mediterranean island, it may shock some to hear that similar practices happened in England. And fairly recently too.

The religious extremism that occurred in England is fairly unheard of. The last large scale destruction of monuments started during the reign of Puritanism. From as far back as the late 1500's during Elizabeth I's reign, Puritans had tried to steer the Church of England in a certain direction. For around hundred and fifty years or so they pushed for extreme reform. Although they never appeared to achieve full domination of the religious and political fabric of the nation, they got pretty close to it with the Parliamentarian victory of the second Civil War. Cromwell was an unabated Puritan who even sought to ban Christmas celebrations. Because of histories bias towards Cromwell (the reasons of which must wait for another time,) most of this has been mostly forgotten.

Whilst the overall story of Puritans and English-come-British history is obviously a little too complex for a few paragraphs, the overall image is of a fragmented society split between three pillars of Traditionalism, 'Enlightenment' and Religious Extremism expressed by some elements in English society.

So what is it that I've dubbed "England's Palmyra"?

Well it sits approximately twenty-odd miles north of Stonehenge and despite being a World Heritage Site (and the entire area being in the region of twenty times the size of Stonehenge,) its actually fairly unheard of. Avebury: a neolithic monument of such epic proportions that it pretty much contains an entire village quite comfortably within its earthen banks.

Like Stonehenge, nobody is one hundred per cent sure of its purpose, but one thing that we do know is that throughout the medieval period, the huge sarsen stones were broken up for use in construction on farm walls and buildings. Now despite what I've suggested previously about the Puritans, the method of using the stones for building material was not something new, and this is obvious when you look at the villages architecture. However, the sites destruction seemed to accelerate around the late 1600's for a brief time.

That been said, a vast amount of damage had already been done to the monument through the 14th century when the population was more or less fully converted to Christianity. The population were brainwashed into associating the once sacred monuments with the Christian concept of Satan, and this is still evident today with many neolithic sites bearing a daemonic name. This ideological obsession (spurred on by the clergy) convinced men to go out and dig the stones foundations out, and bury or burn them. Fortunately (or perhaps with some divine influence from the land wights) one man taking part in the destruction of the henge was crushed under a falling stone and may have been the reason why the destruction stopped for some time. The tales told have it that the man who was buried under the stone was a barber by trade, and his death was seen as an omen by many, so the remaining sarsens were left alone. As it happens, an excavation in the early 20th century actually proved this old tale as being historically correct, when a skeleton was found under a buried sarsen with a coin dating to the 1300's, and with his barbers scissors still in a pouch. 

Today, a fair amount of the monument still exists, however the magnitude of its grandeur would not be possible today without the illustrations made by John Aubrey and by William Stukeley during the 17th and early 18th century. The full extent and size of the monument far exceeded what we see today, as much of the existing stone avenue was destroyed, along with two inner-rings and a large 'phallic' monolith which was destroyed apparently when Stukeley was present. Credit where it's due, there would be nothing there today at all had it not been for John Lubbock who purchased the estates in 1871 in an attempt to preserve the site, or had it not been for the efforts of Alexander Keiller during the 1930's to dig up and re-erect the buried stones. 

Artist impression of the henge in it's original state

One of the 'accepted views' about the destruction of this site during the 1600's is that this was not religious in nature, and was merely due to an increasing population in the village. They support the theory that in many cases, villagers wanted the stones removed in order to make ploughing fields easier, or to use the huge stones as building material for new homes. The main reason that I would object to this idea is because of Stukeley's own words which read:


Just before I visited this place... the inhabitants were fallen into the custom of demolishing the stones, chiefly out of covetousness of the little area of ground, each stood on. First they dug great pits in the earth, and buried them. The expence of digging the grave, was more than 30 years purchase of the spot they possessed, when standing. After this, they found out the kanck of burning them, which has made most miserable havock of this famous temple. One Tom Robinson the Herostratus of Abury,* is particularly eminent for this kind of execution, and he very much glories in it. The method is, to dig a pit by the side of the stone, till it falls down, then to burn many loads of straw under it. They draw lines of water along it when heated, and then with smart strokes of a great sledge hammer, its prodigious bulk is divided into many lesser parts. But this Atto de fe** commonly costs thirty shillings in fire and labour, sometimes twice as much. They own too 'tis excessive hard work, for these stones are often 18 foot long, 13 broad, and 6 thick, that their weight crushes the stones in pieces, which they lay under them to make them lie hollow for burning, and for this purpose they raise them with timbers of 20 foot long, and more, by the help of twenty men, but often the timbers were rent to pieces. 

Stukeley goes on to write that a single stone could provide enough pieces to build an ordinary house, but that because of the nature of the stone, but explain such a house:

 "is always moist and dewy in winter, which proves damp and unwholesome, and rots the furniture. The custom of thus destroying them is so late, that I could easily trace the obit of every stone; who did it, for what purpose, and when, and by what method, what house or wall was built out of it, and the like."

Now reading that passage, to me it looks like the method is out of date for even the 1600s. It is clearly labour intensive, expensive and produced homes of inferior quality which remained cold and damp. Religious reasons have to come into this in some way or another. Lets not forget that at the same time that this was occurring, we had issues with the puritans in Government and even the Witchfinder General wandering around the land in search of commission. They gained very little land in destroying the stones, and as Stukeley states, this has more to do with Tom Robinson's ideological beliefs than for any practical reasoning.

In any case, I think its safe to say that the monument at Avebury has received a second wind. It is now a vibrant place to visit with a deep spiritual and cultural connection for hundreds of thousands of people. It receives a huge number of visitors, and is a destination for a worldwide pagan pilgrimage, which is something we can only dream of for places like Nimrud and Palmyra which have been spectacularly blown up with plastic explosives in the last few months.

Avebury today.

Whilst there is a case to judge Islam and its more extreme elements for the damage done to historically invaluable monuments across the Middle East, we have to remember that it is only through the chance really that the same fate did not also befall some of Europe's most treasured sites. The true enemy of civilization and culture is unshakable religious dogma. It has been shown time and time again to turn back humanities development, and ISIS is just another reverberation of that repeating history. Avebury survived by the skin of its teeth and through the hard work of conservationists spanning a hundred years or more. It's new position as a culturally important destination today is merely good luck. Unfortunately, the sites in Syria luck had ran out.

Thing is, it's probably pertinent to point out the sites in England which didn't make it. Places like Stanton Drew which would have been as impressive as Avebury once upon a time, or a multitude of other sites which were deliberately targeted for being pagan sites by church builders like in Rudston for instance. 

Now ask yourselves this question. If ISIS and other other Islamic groups considered less 'extreme' were left to run amok throughout the English countryside, what do you think would happen to our beloved pagan sites? Our parish churches and cathedrals? Or our war monuments, or castles? They have no interest in even their own history, yet many in society which to import in hundreds of thousands of migrants from overseas.

If you've read my last post on the immigration situation you'll understand then that not only will our culture disappear under a overwhelmingly changing demographic, but Europeans will ultimately have the added kick in the face that there won't be anything left of us left behind either. To think that there are no formal checks to immigrants and refugees coming into Europe from places where there are extremists like ISIS is all a bit worrying. 

The Economic "Accident"

I honestly cannot find a single woman or child in this photo.

Sometimes conspiracy theories get too much. We've all heard the kind of outrageous stories you expect when people mention the term “conspiracy”, like the Moon being a hollow mind control device for instance. Or some other shit. However when events occur and are even reported in mainstream news that seem so obviously a part of an ongoing agenda, how can we not sit up and take notice?

There are two reactions you usually hear when people mention the term 'White genocide'. One is the predictable shouts of 'racist', the other is the mocking sound of laughter by those who don't fully appreciate the situation. Thing is, if it waddles, quacks and has feathers, it's probably a duck. If it comes up and eats bread out of your hand then we may as well do away with this analogy all together and accept that the concept has some traction.

So what's going on in the world that makes White genocide so obvious? Well there are a few reasons, all fairly self-explained by mass-media themselves. As I've explained before, with this blog I don't attempt to write without at least some degree of factual backing, but it has to be said that usually those who dismiss the idea of white genocide themselves are not paying enough attention. They'll accuse anyone who puts the idea forward as 'ignorant', despite the accusers inability to look at the evidence.

People in Europe today will be all too aware of the ongoing Mediterranean crisis that is happening right now. If you're in the UK you will have no doubt heard of the Calais crisis too, where thousands of migrants are attempting to make their way into Britain on a daily basis. The news has been full of heart-wrenching stories about how terrible it is that people are risking their lives, and that they're only coming here because of wars and persecution in their own countries. Every day we hear the Left saying that we should be doing more to help them, and that every death is a tragedy.

Lets just examine some things here though. If you haven't already read the post I made about Libya, then it may be worth having a read but if you haven't the time, you should realise that Gadaffi himself knew that his regime was what was preventing this kind of chaos in the Mediterranean sea. It is probably reasonable to presume that our wonderful leaders in Europe also knew the risks involved in removing Gaddafi. Unless they expect us to believe that their intelligence services are that diabolically run – which might explain why they're constantly trying to increase their budget. I joke, I joke.

Many of the migrants are also making their from Syria too and making their way into Europe via Turkey, which is obviously another crisis born of Western meddling in foreign affairs – most notably the US/EU/Israeli funding of ISIS via Saudi and Qatar. But that's neither here nor there. The situation has been created, and it's not showing any sign of de-escalating any time soon, so we need to deal with the problem now in one way or the other.

If you aren't colour blind though, you will have made one big realisation with many of these 'refugees' coming across the Mediterranean. Libya and Syria are Arabic, so you would expect most of these refugees to be, well.. Arabic. So why then are a great deal of these people making their way into Europe of African descent? All very strange right?

Consider this then. In Mali, and no doubt in other African countries, the EU has been setting up offices to give advice to Africans on moving to Europe. This is all because the EU has come to the conclusion that in order to basically prevent a total economic collapse due to falling birth rates across the continent, Europe needs 56 million immigrant workers by the year 2050. This news is five years old now, and was reported in mainstream news back in 2010. Fact is, Gadaffi himself even asked the EU for money (again in 2010) to try and keep African migrants from reaching European shores. Gaddafi is probably the world's most misrepresented person in our age, and his honesty and integrity when compared with other world leaders is one of the key reasons for his targeting by what can only be described as international pirates.

As I've already stated in the other post I made about Libya, the UN has effectively told the EU that it needs to“undermine national homogeneity” in Europe. That is essentially a nice way of effectively saying “commit white genocide” and import more people of other ethnicity.

So let us consider the problem then, economically speaking at least, with a falling birthrate. Europeans are today averaging below two children per family, and thus presumably we're worried about a Children of Men style crisis where there is a lack of new blood in the workforce. When there are more old people than young people services and manufacturing decline to a point where it cannot cope with workload. I have to admit, it is a problem, but its a problem which could have been resolved years ago with better management.

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in the UK there is not really fantastic support for married couples to have children. If they had wanted to solve the issue of a falling birthrate, they could have started giving tax breaks back in 2010, and the whole system would have begun self-rectifying by 2028. I'll let you ponder the obvious math for this situation – it really doesn't take a genius. It also would have been prudent not to over saturate work markets with cheap foreign labour so that wages did not become suppressed – if wages were worth more then parents could have afforded to have had more children. The trouble is economies today are based on short-term fluctuations and very rarely on a long-term basis. We have to conclude this is down to selfish greed of not only companies but also our own gutless leaders.

So instead of taking a slight twenty year slow-down in growth, they've opted instead to artificially keep the economy going by importing cheaper labour from abroad, and supplementing slumping European birthrates with non-European immigration. Clever, but reducing wages with migrant workers is likely to further discourage Europeans from having children because they feel they are unable to provide a good life for their offspring. Bringing in huge numbers of foreigners also causes friction in society. No one is saying that immigration has never happened in the past, but it probably has never occurred on such a huge scale before.

So how is this genocide? Well as above really. Unless our leaders are so helplessly thick that they cannot see these birthrate trends, then they seem quite happy to go ahead with their plans, regardless of how it effects communities, cultures or even (dare I say it) indigenous racial or ethnic survival. The fact that the UN's migration chief Peter Sutherland back in 2012 said that the EU should undermine its 'national homogeneity', it should tell us exactly what is going on here.

Now Peter Sutherland, if you like your conspiracy theories, is an interesting fellow. His family came to Scotland from Ireland, but as we find his name on the patron list of the Irish Jewish museum its likely he self-identifies as being Jewish, and therefore more than likely Zionist. He is a Jesuit educated, EU Commissioner, and previous head of the WTO (World Trade Organisation.) The bloke also served 13 years as a chairman of BP (a business which had massive interest with off-shore Libyan oil,) Goldman Sachs (don't forget Goldman Sachs effectively robbed Gaddafi's savings account) and other banks as well. He also is a part of the Trilataral Commision (which is a 'discussion' group set up by David Rockefeller) a UN spokeman for immigration, and a Bilderberg Group attendee. To top it off he holds sway in the British House of Lords too, and has a long list of Knighthoods from various 'Orders' from across Europe. If you think anyone will have a sway on international policy, it's probably this guy. Thing is, just because he's clearly an important man (or at least self important,) it doesn't mean he doesn't have blatantly obvious self-interest in driving profits for the super-rich. To ignore someone so high up in elite circles would be ridiculous. It is these kinds of people that drive policies, regardless of how much we believe we live in a democracy.

Now when you lay out the policy makers like Sutherland in full view, it's pretty easy to see why they simply do not care about the European peoples rights to their indigenous lands, their culture, or survival as a people. It's about maximising profits, and the quickest way to do that, at least in the foreseeable future is to constantly bring in more workers who will work for less than the natives. Why? Because to the newcomers it is better than what they had in their own countries, and they'll work hard for less money. The European families on the other hand will continue to have less children all the while their offspring are expected to have worse living conditions than their parents had. At the end of the day, nobody likes the thought that their child will live a life that was worse than theirs. It's a total mess, and it is totally unfair and it is absolutely evil.

So when you take into view this recent migrant/refugee "crisis", you have to consider something a bit, well, odd. As discussed already, many of those attempting to reach Europe are not from war-torn countries, they are simply coming to Europe as potential beneficiaries of a Western society. As we already learnt, they're not coming uninvited, the EU invited them back in 2010. This probably explains why in many photos of these crowded boats there are hardly any women or children (boats filled with Africans tend to be mostly men, Syrian refugees seem to be mostly families.) Many have paid thousands to reach Europe, and the traffickers are also making a fortune out of it. In fact it was only the other month that the media grew concerned about the potential number of immigrants funding Islamic extremists. Fact is, as already discussed previously in the Libya post, the fact that Qatar (a key US ally) was heavily involved in ISIS in the early days means that it is highly unlikely the globalist interest groups are interested in stopping this illicit trade. It benefits them in so many ways! And to stop them would be counter productive to that magic 50 million African migrants they want so badly.

This political or economic desire to ensure these migrants reach European shores also totally explains the West's odd decisions. Why are sending our warships out as a immigrant retrieval service? Logic tells me at least, that in order to minimize the amount of deaths of people trying to cross the Mediterranean, its actually better to do nothing. The more people you collect safely, the more will come. Again, the 'economic' argument explains why these people aren't just simply returned back to place of origin (which we would logically theorise, would prevent any further attempts by others.) But again, we now know why this is the current policy. Far from being about helping people, it's about profit margins.

However, there is a dark side to this too. Lets not forget that there really are victims in this, Syrians, Iraqis and Libyans effected by wars that our own Governments have caused, either directly or indirectly. We can't be completely blind to the plight of desperate people who are genuinely trying to get their families out of strife. I totally understand why some of these people are making these incredibly long journeys - and if I was put in their situation I too would probably at least consider doing the same. Even if I wasn't from a war-torn country. The images of the drowned little boy in the papers yesterday was deeply upsetting for everyone I'm sure. I have a daughter not much younger, and I have to say the thought of that situation happening to my little one makes me feel sick.

But. Lets not let emotion cloud our judgement here.

Grasp the fact that whilst I do not want hundreds of thousands of refugees and immigrants pouring into Europe, I do at least want to show some compassion to fellow human beings.

We should be assisting these families from the horrors they are enduring.

But!

This is what the UN is meant to be for!

Now consider another word from our friend Peter Sutherland again, who only the other day once again gave his opinion on the matter of refugees and immigrants. He calls on Europe to, once again, do more to assist these people, saying we need to 'rescue our integrity'. Bollocks we do! This person, and the other scum like him, sit back and do nothing to help the Worlds poorest people. Where is the UN on the Libyan coast? Where is the UN in Syria? Instead of renewing attempts for peace in the Middle East, this utter cretin demands that more immigrants and more refugees pour into Europe to benefit who? The World's richest, once again! To add insult to injury, the companies this turd has worked for pillaged at least one of the countries people are trying to flee from! Utter insanity.

The only saving grace in Syria is that Russia has finally decided to step in on the side of Assad against the Western backed Islamic nut-jobs.

So, the reasons why things aren't getting any better for anyone is clear:
This is a three way fuck up. 

• The EU (on the orders of the UN and other 'advisers') has made the literally insane decision to import African immigrants into Europe because it leads to slightly faster short-term economic growth instead of concentrating on increasing European birth rates. They can have literally no idea how this will pan-out long-term however, but I don't suppose they care.
• Syrian refugees are essentially being used in the same manor as what the African workers are. The UN and other international response refuses to act in conflict hot-spots because war is driving these people into Europe, and thus serving their purposes.
• The European population's demographic rate will likely decrease as they come into competition with these foreigners. The future for white Europeans is bleak, and whether deliberate or accidental, the conditions the EU and globalists have put upon the Europeans falls under sections C & D of Article II of the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide".
  
  At this point, considering the sheer insanity of those we entrust to lead the World with morality, I do not really know what can be done to counter these issues.
  
  As always, comments are always welcome. We would love and appreciate others opinions on this subject.
  
  Thank you for reading through this incredibly long and drawn out post/article.

Libya: Order Out of Chaos

(The following post was taken from a previous blog of mine, written back in June. It has since been updated to include links and information on the refugee crisis.)

This is the first part in what is hopefully to become a set of three or four articles about why the world's geopolitics are in such a mess. Admittedly, this I'm only going back as far as the fall of Gaddafi. To fully appreciate the full demise of the World into economic slavery you would have to go back centuries, but given that I haven't got six years to write a full and comprehensive re-write of popular history this will have to do.
I am also painfully aware that there may not be much time to write this for reasons that may become clear towards the end of the set of associated blog posts over the coming weeks. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope that by writing this that the mere act of doing so may bring about a change in the world's zeitgeist.

In any case, the reason why I've decided to write this is because the mainstream news point-blank refuses to do proper investigative journalism on the most important issues. One of the greatest geo-political problems, which I'm sure you'll agree, are the Islamist uprisings that have happened across the Middle East. The Libyan crisis was certainly not necessarily the starting point of ISIS and Islamic militancy, but it was the first glimpse into the problems which were to come.

Do you remember how the consortium of British, French and American air forces were called in to impose a no-fly zone in order to stop the nasty Gaddafi from killing innocent civilians?

Sounds all very noble doesn't it. The image portrayed of us in the media, of riding in on silvery flying steeds firing laser guided bombs of justice, is not only wrong though, its an insult to every free thinking person on the globe.
I'll try and explain why, but bare in mind that this is very in depth. I'm not asking you to believe me on all of this, but I do ask that you check out the claims yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Everyone seems to accept that originally, the reason why the civil war in Libya began was because of protesters against Gaddafi's rule were being killed or brutalised by the Libyan armed forces. Now I don't dispute that there probably was genuine protests which saw innocents being killed or injured, but one thing that is clear is that it didn't take long for these 'protesters' to become well armed. I remember it quite well, (although worryingly it was quite a few years ago now!) one week the BBC et al were discussing how civilians were being murdered by Gaddafi's regime, the next week we saw videos of Toyota Hilux trucks with heavy weapons welded on their flatbeds parading through towns and engaging in full combat with the Libyan state. One of the reasons for the rapid military ability of those 'rebels' is attributed to Qatar who are said to have funded the initial uprising, supplied weapons for the 'rebels' and later, was even prepared to do business with local leaders who were selling crude oil before the war was even over. 

In fact, Qatar have been funding Islamist's all over the region for reasons unknown (although we can certain have our suspicions.) This started with Libya, but also spread to include support for Syrian 'rebels' too, and presumably also those operating in ISIS now. But more on that in a minute. Just to give you some kind of insight into the workings going on here, Qatar has even admitted that in actual fact, it had sent it's own military personnel into Libya to assist the Islamist's in capturing Tripoli. 

At this point you're probably thinking, "hey, why did the rest of the world sit idle whilst Qatar destabilised an entire region". This is real question. America in actual fact is a major ally of Qatar and whilst it's hard to believe, America houses it's U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center in the country. Interestingly, even as far back as 2012, there were alarm calls that a lot of the weapons going to rebels in Libya from Qatar were falling into the hands of Islamists. In fact, despite this concern, America still approved Qatar sending US made weapons into the region. Read here if you don't believe me. Ironically, Gaddafi himself even claimed that those rebels he was fighting were terrorists. The claim originally was met with laughter in our main media, but as we later found out, the guy was right!
Even more mind blowing is the fact that despite Qatar's obvious influence in inflaming the situation in the middle east, just last year in 2014 the US signed an $11bn arms deal with the gulf state.
So whats going on here?!
I don't have all the answers. I mean so far, ( and nor am I going to) I've not said anything which has not come out of the media. The main point though is that these news stories come and they go. They are forgotten very quickly, and very rarely is it that the general public get to really scrutinize long-term news trends in a way that reveals a true agenda. The evidence is there, clear as day, it's not hidden, but the way in which it is reported in broken chunks fails to educate a busy public into truly understanding about what is at stake.

So in Libya's case, violent protests broke out which turned into armed conflict, armed indirectly by the United States and it's key allies. Why? Well Libya was not an Islamist state. It was a relatively free society by the Arab world's standards. Women were educated and held property. There was state healthcare for example. Whilst I certainly don't think he is the model leader for a free society, I think we can all agree that he was certainly the only kind of leader that is capable of keeping a nation in that region from falling into mayhem. Like it has.

The real reason one assumes is really rather simple. Money. In 2007, Tony Blair attended a special envoy to meet Gaddafi in a yurt, in the middle of the desert to do a business deal. In that business meeting there were a few things worthy of note:

• BP was to be granted drilling rights to oil wells off the coast of Libya. BP themselves stated that it was "BP's single biggest exploration commitment" and "a welcome return to the country for BP after more than 30 years".

• Blair introduced Gaddafi to US bankers, and got an investment plan underway with Goldman Sachs. Within 12 months, following the financial crash, 98% of the investment fund Libya had deposited had been "lost".

• Libya was to give up all NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) weapons to peacekeepers, in return British special forces were to train the Libyan Army, and it also seems that as an added sweetener deal, Libya would become the UK's terrorist interrogation service.

Following the financial crash where Gaddafi's investments moneys 'disappeared' it was clear that there was a change in tact from Libya's leader. He obviously realised in hindsight that he'd done a deal with the devil and gotten himself bitten, so in retaliation for this act of financial sabotage, Gaddafi campaigned for a new currency across the African continent named the Gold Dinar, and the rejection of US dollar for trade. By the way, Libya had a lot of gold pre-invasion. Some estimates had the stockpile of the precious metal as up to $6bn worth. Which is a huge amount if you consider the size of the country and its population.
Without going into the details of why, the short explanation is that if a gold backed currency had taken off across Africa (and there were a few nations that were quite keen on the idea) then it would have damaged the World's dollar backed economy, and badly too. The proxy US led invasion then was nothing more than the US protecting it's own interests, at the same time as making a mint in military deals, re-contruction works (like Iraq was) and as it seems, they must have begun purchasing the oil off of 'rebels' and the newly formed puppet Government for a fraction of what the original agreements were.
So these essentially are the reasons why the Anglo-Franc alliance bombarded Libyan forces and assisted in an Islamist overthrow. And by the way, despite the 'no boots on the ground' assertion by our leaders, our own special forces teams were all over Libya like a rash directing and providing reconnaissance for Allied bomber aircraft. (You know, they had to make sure that their weapons investment was going to pay off.) It meant bigger profits for corporate interests in that region, but has had absolutely no pay off for those living in the region.

The legacy of our intervention in Libya is that:

• Taking Gaddafi out of the equation has caused such a power vacuum that now, even the leaders appointed by Allied interventionists have been ousted by Islamists. As early as a few weeks after the capture of Tripoli, the black Islamist flag was seen flying over a major buildings. Ironically, rather than thank the US for their hand in assisting with an overthrow, the US embassy was attacked, and a number of US diplomats were killed in the process.

• The corporate rape of Libya has bankrupted the Libyan people and left only anarchy in its wake. The general population in Libya has in no way benefited from the expulsion of Gaddafi. 

• The likely case that the golden nest egg Libya had been sitting on has been raided. News reports stated back during the intervention, that in order to pay for staff during the war, Gaddafi was forced to use 20% of the gold reserves. I suspect that this was just the initial take home from the 'liberators'. I've tried to look for figures of gold stocks in Libya today but to no avail, but my bet is that it's non-existent now.

• The 'rebel' fighters who had been operating in Libya later left to go and fight in Syria, and have in many cases had a direct hand in creating ISIS. Even in an official capacity, the new Government of Libya, only a few weeks old at this point, was doing arms deals with Syrian insurgents. In actual fact, even the US started doing it openly, with Qatar once again offering military services.

• With things so bad in the region due to deliberate destabilisation, thousands of refugees are attempting to claim asylum within the European Union.

On the subject on asylum seekers, it's clear now that Gaddafi's prediction of Libya and the Mediterranean becoming a refugee nightmare have come totally true. Destabilizing Libya has opened up access to the Mediterranean sea to refugees from all over Africa who are pouring into the sea on the understanding that our leaders will pluck them from the water and give them EU citizenship. Why?

On the issue of the refugees, (or the so-called refugees) do not let the liberal bleeding hearts trick you. Many of these people crossing the sea are not as poverty stricken as some may tell us, many are spending thousands on getting transport out to sea where our tax-paid EU navies are ready to rescue them. The funniest thing is that these people are paying good money to militant Islamists who are using these funds to buy weapons and proliferate acts of barbarism across the rest of the Middle East and Central Africa.

With these illegal migrants passing through Italy and France now desperate to reach the UK in Calais, Britain is now suddenly accepting that it has a "migrant crisis" (despite having had one for many, many years.) The truth is we have no idea how many of these people making their way into Europe have criminal records, or whether they are returning combatants from ISIS and other Islamist groups. If you've read this far into the article you will probably accept that ISIS themselves are rather suspicious with their connections to various international elements.

Finally, mass immigration into Europe is an act of warfare by the forces of international Globalism on European national identities, culture and ethnicities. They do not want a Europe identifiable as Greek, or Danish or English. Their goal is to create such chaos that Europe ceases to be a collection of traditional sovereign states. It is genocide. Or Ethnocide. Whatever you call it, it is certainly putting the future of the white population in Europe in danger. If you doubt this, there was an article back in 2012 by the BBC which highlighted the UN's battleplan to Europe, informing the European Union that they had to "undermine national homogeneity". Which translated means"undermine national race". By using an 'aging population' as an excuse, (like they are now trying to do with Japan,) they hope to encourage ever greater numbers of immigrants. Thing is, the markets could quite easily be reworked in order to work for European families, so that they themselves would be more inclined to have more kids, but one of the added bonuses to immigration is wage suppression.

All these points bring us to the last fact that ties it all together. The reason why Allied forces have not stamped out the more extreme elements within Libya's Government and bring about stability is because the situation at the moment favours destabilisation. They have engineered this crisis. Order out of chaos.

For more on the refugee crisis, you can read the next post entitled "The Economic Accident".

Battle Of Britain: Unnecessary Death and Destruction?

So this year has marked the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain, and as per usual when it regards things of a historical nature, the general public suffers from a grotesque form of collective amnesia. When we consider the second world war though, you can expect that the hive-mind delusion will be multiplied by at least a factor of ten. 

The Battle of Britain is a strange one. As a country we romanticise the idea of a few Spitfires holding back an entire invasion. We perpetuate the tale of us good-guy underdog British beating the evil Germans on our own turf, and whilst it was the British that won it, the true reasons for why we won are not always revealed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means belittling the role of the airmen and ground-crew responsible for defending Britain during WWII. Nor am I however prepared to call the Germans evil for their role in the war either, it is what it is at the end of the day, but the Allied war-time propaganda needs to be dispelled, and the mentality of our leadership (Churchill included) at the time of war needs to be exposed. I have no doubt in my mind that if modern day international law is applied, we could quite easily have put the RAF Bomber Command and many of the War Cabinet on charge for crimes against humanity for reasons which will be explained. 

This is a difficult one for me to write about. I love aviation, and like for most English people, the image of a Spitfire or Hurricane has a huge emotive response for me. They're much less a flying machine, and more like Nationalistic art-pieces. It's Britain's version of what the Longboat must have been like to a Norse peoples, it's almost in our blood. When you start reading into WWII though, and the intricate details of why certain things happened, the sound of Rolls Royce Merlin engines becomes more of a swan song for the hundreds of thousands that needlessly lost their lives, rather than a National Anthem I once knew it as.

So what is 'the truth' regarding this air war? Well here is where it becomes fairly difficult to pin point exactly where to start writing from. Do I write from the fall of France? Or do I write about the circumstances that led to the invasion of Poland? Or perhaps international finance's outrage at Germany's economic miracle as Hitler led the country out of crippling debt? You could in theory even go back a hundred years ago previous to give a truer detailing of why certain events were happening. In order to keep this post short enough to read in one sitting though, I think we must take the Battle of Britain at face value.

It's fairly prudent to point out though that before the Battle of Britain Hitler had twice offered peace to Churchill which obviously wasn't taken up on. So the entire war by 1940 was totally needless.

So why was the Battle of Britain won by the British? What was the cost of that victory? If you know any of your history you'll understand that the first stage of the battle was Germany's plan to attack the merchant fleet supplying food, fuel and munitions from America and Canada.

The second stage involved the Luftwaffe bombing airfields and factories relevant to the on-going British war effort. It's often stated that had Germany not stopped its tactical bombing of genuine military targets, then the RAF would have been neutralized and Britain would have had to have launched fresh peace-talks with Germany. Arguably it would have been the best outcome that would have saved the lives of millions on both sides of the conflict.

The third stage of the Battle of Britain though is now so ingrained in the psyche of the English, that it makes impartiality rather difficult. Especially for those English who's family lived in London like mine. People tell the tale about the Luftwaffe suddenly stopping its bombing of airfields and aircraft factories, and instead begun the now infamous Blitz of London. The suffering of the British civilians therefore became a turning point for the war because it did two things. First, it took the strain off of the battle-weary Fighter Command and secondly, it silenced the anti-war lobby in Britain and gave Churchill and the War Cabinet justification for perpetuating a war which the politicians were so keen to wage.

So why did the Germans start bombing English cities then?
At the start of the campaign against Britain, Hitler had at first wanted to prevent as much destruction to civilian property as was feasibly possible. His original orders were:

The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces ... The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population. 

~Adolf Hitler

Officially, the British had also had the same rules of engagement initially, but the the disastrous day-time bombing results early in the war with out of date aircraft like the Bristol Blenheim had meant that indiscriminate night bombing raids were the only option left to Bomber command. It is clear that British propaganda at the time tried its utmost to justify all future operations against Germany's civilian population by manufacturing outrage in the British public.

The 'gloves came off'  in regards to Britain's bomber targets when Germany had sought control of the strategic city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, shortly after the fall of much of France. The British war cabinet used the German bombing of Rotterdam and the death of Dutch civilians to justify the deliberate bombing of German cities later on, but the facts about the German assault on the city were totally twisted by the World media.

In reality, Germany had wanted to take Rotterdam without the need of any unnecessary violence, but the Dutch leadership at the time refused to hand the city over or accept surrender, despite having no anti-aircraft capabilities, fighter aircraft or armoured fighting vehicles to defend the city from the German forces. The Dutch were asked a second time on the 14th of May 1940, and given an ultimatum, but due to a communication break-down, a squadron of He.111's bombed the city earlier than what they should have (some of the bombers had received a stand-down message and returned, whilst others didn't.) All in all, 900 dutch civilians and armed forces were killed in the bombing. The World media however deliberately gave false reports on the bombing, claiming that 30,000 civilians had died when in fact most of the civilians had already fled days before any bombs fell anywhere near the city. Whilst 900 deaths is a tragedy, it is a far-cry from the carnage that had been reported in the news.

The Rotterdam raid had given the British War Cabinet the justification needed to launch an offensive bombing campaign against the German mainland. Since daylight bombing operations had proved unsuccessful during initial attacks 1939 and early 1940, Bomber command instead concentrated on night attacks. On the 15th of May 1940, a day after the bombing of Rotterdam, 99 bomber aircraft, most likely a large component of Hampden bombers, started the first of many night-time raids on Germany. This initial raid saw the RAF striking industrial regions in the Ruhr area, but due to the difficulties acquiring targets in the dark, many of the bombs that would have been dropped would have failed to have hit anything of military value. The lack of aiming capabilities would have seen a great deal of civilian collateral damage. The RAF that night were given orders to return home by flying over Rotterdam, presumably to drive home the"30,000 deaths" propaganda to the bomber crews and to avoid the RAF aircrews from feeling guilty about their own hand in killing German civilians. Fires were still visible in many areas of Rotterdam for a few days after the raid, and would have left and impression on those young men.

‘The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war.’

~The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds, p. 122. Dennis Richards, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

As you look at the raiding timeline for both countries throughout the battle of Britain, a pattern emerges.

The RAF dropped bombs in a totally haphazard way in pitch black, often inflicting civilian deaths in Kiel, Wilshelmhaven, Dortmund, Bremen, Gelsenkirchen, Kassel, Dusseldorf, Wismar, Hamm, Soest and Essen. These raids all occurred before the 1st of August 1940, happening before the blitz on civilian targets like those on London and Coventry. The Germans did not start deliberate attacks on civilian targets arguably until 24th of August, and not in earnest until the 7th of September when the Luftwaffe swapped over completely to night-time city raids like it's RAF opponent.

The problem is, whilst it would be easy to say that the British establishment regretted the deaths of German civilians, the truth is actually rather more insidious. Rather than the German civilian deaths being regrettable, it was actually mostly the War Cabinets ultimate goal.

Whilst the Luftwaffe for the most part used day-time raids for accurate attacks on legitimate targets like airfields, shipping and radar towers, the RAF were bombing in the dead of night on highly populated areas, albeit in the pursuit of hitting legitimate targets. As the weeks went on however, the losses the Luftwaffe was suffering with did mean some bombing operations were now taking place at night. In the early hours of the 24th of August, a small number of German bombers dropped their bombs over a London suburb killing a number of civilians. There are still debates about whether or not this attack was accidental or not, but judging by the small number of bombs dropped, it seems unlikely that Londoners were the deliberate target. This situation seems to have been the catalyst that enabled the British war cabinet to unleash attacks on Berlin without any real consideration for, or premise of finding legitimate targets once over Germany. On the 25th of August, the RAF sent around a 100 aircraft to bomb Berlin in retaliation for the handful of He111s which had dropped bombs on London the day before. 

Despite the Luftwaffe's attempts to minimise civilian casualties, the RAF bomber command had a totally different strategy up until that point in late August 1940. Granted, civilian deaths had taken place on both sides of the conflict, but you have to consider the fact that it was the German forces that were launching day-light raids throughout most of the Battle of Britain whilst the RAF had launched attacks inefficiently at night-time. You cannot really compare the daylight carpet bombing of an airfield, or a precision strike from a Stuka on a radar base with that of random night-time raid over a populated area.

Although the plan adopted by the Luftwaffe early September had mentioned attacks on the population of large cities, detailed records of the raids made during the autumn and the winter of 1940–41 does not suggest that indiscriminate bombing of the civilians was intended. The points of aim selected were largely factories and docks. Other objectives specifically allotted to bomber-crews included the City of London and the governmental quarter round Whitehall.

~Basil Collier

Churchill and his advisers like Frederick Lindemann became blood thirsty in their vendetta against not the National Socialist state, but the German people themselves. The tactic for Allied bombing was not to directly bomb the enemy factories, but instead to bomb the residential area where the factory worker lived, thus creating not only disruption to the factory but also a psychological element against the local communities, and the disruption caused by the need to dig out and relocate the survivors from such attacks.

‘I am in full agreement [with terror bombing]. I am all for the bombing of working class areas in German cities. I am a Cromwellian – I believe in slaying in the name of the Lord!’


~Sir Archibald Sinclair, Secretary for Air.

Beliefs like Sinclair's were not uncommon in the War Cabinet and bomber command, and the process of wiping out entire residential areas by Allied bombers only got more prolific and efficient throughout the war.Throughout the Battle of Britain, the British Government went out of their way to create a situation where civilians on both sides of the war paid the price for the ineptitude of their statesmanship. Over the course of three months, they eventually goaded Germany into retaliating with indiscriminate attacks on London and other English cities for two reasons. Firstly, to create a war-frenzy in the British people and in sympathetic countries such as America and secondly, to use British civilians as a form of shield for the RAF and war factories. It it often quipped that had the Luftwaffe continued its campaign against key military targets instead of swapping to 'the blitz', that the Royal Air Force would have been defeated and Operation Sealion a legitimate concern the UK.

‘Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones... Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany... there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany... We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland... Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves.’ 


~J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated.

The real cynical realisation is that the good vs evil mantra portrayed by mainstream history, media and even the education system is still totally falsified. We believe we won the Battle of Britain through grit and determination, the underdog succeeding on its own merit where little hope remained, but if the truth about the mentality of our leaders at the time ever became known by the majority, 75 years of propaganda would could come crashing down under the weight of the truth.

Whilst the war was totally avoidable, the civilian losses incurred by both sides in the war (and it has to be said, the German's losses far exceed our own) were even easier to negate had both sides been capable of restraint and diplomacy. The reasons why our own Bomber campaign during the Battle of Britain is seldom mentioned, and the role Fighter Command romanticised beyond all comprehension is merely to keep up the victim mentality. This victim complex to this day still brainwashes the World into believing'reprisal' attacks like those committed against Dresden and Berlin were justified, when in reality such actions could never in any way be considered morally defensible.

Once again, in writing this it is not my intention to belittle the efforts of those RAF servicemen who gave or risked their lives in defence of their country. Or even those bomber crews who no doubt were tricked into believing that what they were doing was justified. My intention is to put the record straight, to point out that Governments lie and also to point out just how powerful propaganda can be even several decades later.

Zio-Feudalism

It seems the UK has been utterly and undeniably flanked on all sides by globalist interests, wealthy banking families and corrupt politicians. We are well and truly hemmed in, and if I'm allowed to be completely pessimistic, it seems like there is going to be no escape from the increasing rot that has gripped an entire global civilisation.
Now, you may be thinking I'm being paranoid, thinking negatively or spouting a load of old shit, but you only have to look at the world around us to see that this is no longer a case of 'if' we become a dystopian society, but to what degree that we do. 
Increasing food prices, reduction of state pensions (whilst increasing how long we work for.) Reduction in wages, (when you take into account relative loss to inflation) attack on liberties, attack on judicial process, the attack on the right to protest, constant attacks against firearm and weapon ownership. The list goes on and on.

Put simply, I would say that the UK and all of the other Western nations are at the end of their lifespan as a free society. Even the notion of true sovereign Governments is clearly at risk now, you only need look at what happens when a nation goes against globalists interests (like Gaddafi's Libya) to see that this is the case. Put simply, we are approaching Neo-feudalism. A technocratic form of global Government that seeks to micro-manage every aspect of our lives. Cleverly disguising itself as a free society, when in actual fact the rampant consumer society is the very product of our domination. If you break down society with a Marxist doctrine whilst the public are distracted by mindless entertainment, you can slip in messages that counter traditional values whilst making it appear 'fun' and common until it does indeed become the 'pop-culture', the modern day hive-mind.
It would be easy to call this new system fascist, but fascism generally supports its own citizens. It's certainly elitist, and when you can no longer ignore the fact that this domination is overwhelmingly coming via usury debt, there is only one answer. This domination is the result of Zionism. A truly racist and elitist philosophy which has swayed British and American politics for at least the good part of one and half centuries. 

Suppression of the Proletariat

McDonalds' is now in the top ten companies
 to workfor in the UK.Desperate times!

If you are lucky enough to have a half decent job, chances are high that over
the past few years you have received a relative pay-cut when you take into consideration rising inflation. Seems very few people have received a substantial pay rise since the 2008 financial crises because of the uncertain markets. Of course if you are on minimum wage, it does occasionally go up, but this only has a knock on effect that increases the inflation rate - and thus the pay rise is worth less within a year or so. As the inflation rate increases, and less people are getting pay rises, what is happening is a strange concertina effect where more and more people end up on the minimum wage. 
In the UK the Government has recently announced that they are cutting tax, cutting social support and increasing minimum wage up to £9 per hour. The current minimum wage is £6.50. Whilst this may seem brilliant for those already working on minimum wage, the draw back is that if you're currently on £9 an hour for doing something semi-skilled, you run the risk of being on the same wage as someone who works in McDonalds. Then there is the feedback loop, if you like, whereby the inflation pushes those wages down anyway, and without the income support which the Government wants to get rid of, it means a larger portion of the population end up in poverty. The cut backs to social care is often to referred to as 'austerity', which is basically Newspeak (look it up if you don't understand) which means to create more poverty, and maximise revenue for bankers and corporations.
 
If you're middle class, you're already being hammered from both sides, with 50% tax rate on the one side, and minimum wages increasing on the other, that decent job you aspired too and went to college for ends up paying less and less. Its the irony that in many cases there is literally no incentive (financial at least) for trying to better yourself. The only positive behind the current Government plans is that it prompts those who are quite happy to sit and contribute nothing to society to go and find work. The draw back being that the corporations which guide Government policy do not want everybody employed. Keeping a surplus in the labour market helps create work market competition, and like any market, saturation reduces its net worth. This is why our Governments have pushed immigration (or are seemingly reluctant to act on.)
Of course, in the UK and indeed most of the Western Civilisation, the soft touch towards immigration control has been supported by both the hardline socialists, and centre-right conservatives and has had a knock on effect with regards to the jobs and labour markets.
The liberals are useful idiots in regards to immigration. They are used through proxy organisations (like Common Purpose for instance) to fuel a wider push towards globalisation, which the capitalist center-right then use to make huge amounts of money off of. Easy peasy, order from chaos. The far-left motive is about breaking down the national indigenous culture or any form of traditional value, it is some form of utopian agenda which seeks to wipe out all notions of race or culture. Ironically they do it under the pseudonym of 'diversity', despite actively fighting for the amalgamation of all cultures into one indefinable mess.

Again what is ironic about the whole Marxist attitude is that they generally say that they're against corporate globalists, but they seem totally blind to the fact that they are themselves being used by them. Immigration is what globalisation looks like in the West. Its a part of the same global agenda that oversees the mineral pillage in Africa, or the industrialisation of China. A society with no identifiable culture (or race) is easier to control, and easier to isolate individuals away from traditional support networks. This is another reason why the idea of the nuclear family is under constant attack. In this new world, they want the state as your family, and your community.
The whole idea that immigration was 'good for our economy' was of course complete bullshit.  Flooding a country with thousands of workers who will do a days wage the rest of us wouldn't entertain forced us into the situation where today people will fight for a job flipping burgers. Neither does it address the long-term strategic view of housing or the costs of infrastructure with an ever increasing population. In the UK we now stand at a precipice where all public infrastructure looks to be collapsing under our feet. I think it's fair to ask at this point whether we can say stability can ever be reached again.
There is yet another reason for wage suppression though, which again, the liberals would have a field day at me for even daring to mention. That is Feminism. Now I'm not saying it's wrong for women to have the same legal

Feminism was originally
meant to expand materialism
out to the women, and promote
women employment.

rights as men, this isn't what I mean, but there is a negative argument in the belief that all women should be working. It was back in the 1920's that the idea of feminism was promoted by corporate powers, especially in America. They saw that most of the spending was only coming from men, and they realised they could extract more money out of the public if the women also had their own disposable income. After WWI, and later on after WWII, the labour potential in women working in factories became obvious. So whilst Rockefeller and others promoted and funded organisations working for women's rights, they also began targeting women with advertising, one of the most obvious being tobacco ads. Fast forward to today and its safe to say that the vast majority of advertising is aimed at women, and is interesting to note that through general attitude changes since the 1950s, it is generally the women now who are in control of the household finances.

Today in most households, women no longer work for some pocket money, but out of necessity. Like the effect of immigration, a society where both partners go out to work has created a relative wage decline to the point where the couple both work for what would previously have been equal to one person's wage. To make things worse, the modern third wave feminists who push the idea that to be a mother and homemaker is somehow derogatory, have ironically destroyed femininity itself and made society more hostile to womanhood and therefore are themselves unwittingly supporting corporate or financial institutions interests, not to mention the Fabianesque cultural Marxist directives.

Finally on this point of suppression of workers, we have to question the very act of financial lending. Why is it that credit cards became such an integral part of our lives? Why are loans so easy to get? Why is store credit even easier to get? Lending is so attractive to this modern system because it takes away the power of your money from you and gives it to financial institutions. For many people, because of low wages, it becomes nigh impossible to save for anything, therefore instead of always being in the black, you are constantly in the red - and therefore you continually pursue the hamster wheel mentality of working for a better life that you unfortunately are unlikely to ever have. This ties in totally with the consumer based, entertainment society. The old maxim of 'bread and circuses' certainly becomes apparent. You want new stuff? That's fine, you can have it, but your penance is that you have to work two jobs just to survive and own that new set of furniture. Or that new iPad. If we just realised that actually, most of the time the stuff we want is not actually needed we could pay off all our debts and live relatively stress-free, albeit without the newest iPhone.

Unfortunately marketing has gotten so good now at programming our brains, that it convinces us that we need utter shite to be happy in life.  General theme then is:

Inflation rates makes us poorer whilst it influences firms to pay unfair wages. This ultimately leads to a worker class which is happy just to have found work, no matter how degrading the place is to their staff or how chronically awful their wage packets are at the end of the month. This is exacerbated by immigrant work forces who will work for less, and thus drag down wages for everyone.
 
If you're a 'high' earner, earning over forty-odd thousand, you are hammered by a 50% tax rate, yet if you're a multi-millionaire who knows how to, and can afford to play the system, you essentially pay less tax percentage wise than anyone else in society. If you're born into a working or middle class family, unless you get lucky it seems there is little chance of ever really bettering yourself, or at least ever getting rich. What is worse is that with the long-term upward creep of minimum wage and a saturated work market, it is meaning that the middle class is getting hammered more than anyone, and the whole system is aimed at keeping the general public down whilst protecting the wealth of the elite. It is a scheme which amounts to a form of modern day slavery, but one which has the illusion of freedom because we can still choose who we work for, where we live and what car we want to drive.

Legal Rights

Obviously, if you know anything about the EU, you will know what its European system of law is currently doing to our British Common Law based legal system. Well, it's essentially destroyed it.

Our legal system in the UK was arguably the jewel of our society, our Bill of Rights influenced the American Constitution and was the major base for all other Anglo-Saxon freedoms. Or at least perceived freedoms. It was the basic promise that a subject would not be subjected to threats of intimidation or charged without fair trial. England even banned the use of torture in 1640 because it understood that it brings about false confessions for instance, which for the time was pretty outstanding. 
With the European system marching in over the years we now have fixed penalty notes, on-the-spot fines, trials without jury, kangaroo family courts, and daily threats coming from all forms of authority both in person and in state propaganda. The outrage here is that there is apparently no presumption of innocence anymore with any criminal case. Add into the mix that in the UK they've recently cut back on legal aid and citizens advice for the public, and you really do get a sense of the broader picture. The worker class is the new serfdom.

If you're a serf, you can't have opinions that counter the zeitgeist of the political landscape either. People are being arrested and tried for saying things or posting their opinions online everyday. Fortunately it's something that I've somehow avoided so far. Generally though, society seems to think these arrests are justified. Probably because the media has gotten so good at twisting things and providing top class propaganda that the mentally weak don't presume some form of agenda on the Governments behalf.

Do I agree with posting up sick videos on facebook? No. Do I think someone should have to do a five year stretch because it may offend someone? Erm, no definitely not. It takes all sorts in life, and just because someone seems to have an unhealthy obsession with gore, I should hope a judge would not see fit to ruin someones life for it. So called "Racist, sexist or homophobic" people now seem to be the new witches to throw on the pyre in the name of modern society - the irony that these people are now being discriminated against is conveniently ignored.

Another big one in the UK especially, is that it is practically illegal to defend yourself, your loved ones or your property, and even more 'wrong' to use a firearm to those ends. It is interesting to note that in Anglo-Saxon times, any freeman or woman were allowed to carry with them a Seax (short-sword) at all times. Only those people who were considered slaves could not own a weapon and the punishment for a non-freeman owning or possessing a weapon was usually a public beating. These days we are slightly more 'cultured', so we no longer have to endure the public beating, but we do still suffer the abuse of a society which places the rights of criminals above the right of citizens to defend themselves and their homes. What is worse is the criminal conviction merely for possessing a knife or weapon. 

I tend to hold the view that the Government does actually see us all as Serfs these days, and therefore being common peasants we are not given the rights to defend ourselves and property because, well because quite frankly in the broad scheme of things we don't own anything. We merely borrow it from the Government for a while, and the Government's wealth is intrinsically linked now to the Zionist banking interests. (Look up who actually owns your car and who gets an estate if no one leaves a will after death, etc.) 

I'm not going to argue gun crime statistics and whether they should or should not be in the hands of civilians, that is far from the remit of this article - but ask yourself, in a free society would you have to justify why you needed a pen knife in your pocket if you were stopped and searched by your local Bobby? One of the biggest ones that we should all be concerned with though, is the banning of protests. What kind of free society dictates that in order to protest against the state, you must organise it... with the state. Its bizarre that people think this is totally normal.

Corporo-Marxism

You maybe wondering how on Earth rampant capitalism-turned-corporatocracy and social Marxism are combined. And what it has to do with Zionism? When you think of capitalism and communism, you would naturally consider the two systems diametrically opposed, however these two systems have inter-woven to create the current situation, and are walking side by side to form what is essentially a technocratic World Government.

If we boil it all down, Zionism is a a form of Supremacy. It uses something which they've always been good at (finance) to buy their way up Western civilization to the point now where they own the vast majority of world markets. Rockefeller, Rothschild etc, these international bankers use their financial power to pull strings and fund organisations across the World to use for their own ends.

Just to make the point, not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews, but, generally as a rule it is the Talmudic philosophy of control and domination of 'Goyim' (a derogatory word for non-Jews) which pushes this agenda forward. 
The Social Marxism comes in when we consider the other things we've just discussed, like wage suppression and so-on. The break down of traditional values, of family, of race, makes it easier and easier to dominate the population and control through media and financial means. The "utopian" world view of the lefties "post-racial, post-gender, anti-natural-order" is not about making mankind stronger, it's about making an even weaker coffee coloured serf race, with no definable culture or tradition - which makes it easy to control. The only nation which it seems does not get called out for for not taking in immigrants, or for not having an active 'progressive' policy is Israel. Because it is the Zionist state. If you question how much power Zionism has as an ideology, you need only look at how the very financial elites which Western leaders sucked up to, and made British and American politicians agree to the partition of Palestine, and the creation of the Zionist nation in the first place.
To be fair, in the case of Britain this Zionist, financial power has existed since the time of William the Conqueror, and the various attempts to rid England and later Britain of this has been undone a few times such as with the Parliamentarian Cromwell. As of Napoleonic times, the international banker has held huge amounts of power in Britain and subsequently across the commonwealth.

The future is not utopian under this regime. It is dystopian. This power, this entity, has managed to get its tentacles all the way into the UN, and it is now making international policies, like the global gay rights agenda and disarmament of civilians etc, all under the directive of Agenda 21 (that is, the UN's set agenda for the 21st century.) Right now it seems through the TTIP, they are merging North America with Europe, and assigning Corporations more political control. And this is just the start, this will spread across the globe and get worse and worse.

Whilst this has been written largely from the British perspective, the same mechanisms, albeit sometimes under different names, is at work in every developed nation right now. As corporations gain more power, the people will lose theirs - but under the newspeak lies of the media it will be packaged as something brilliant. There is in progress the creation of a hivemind, and with it comes the danger that all of this really is an endgame from which no-one can escape from. But we must at least try. Until enough people understand the communistic and capitalist systems are equally to blame for this situation, there is little hope of change.