Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

Featured

George Galloway the Unmentionable - But Not Unelectable!

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1070

2024-03-05

Both Tory and Labour parties were not only trounced by George Galloway (12,335 votes and now inevitably, with the possible exception of Andrew Bridgen, every MP's favourite bogey man) but also by a virtually unknown independent in second place, David Anthony Tully (6,638 votes) - ie: 18,973 taken together - against 6,133 for both Tories and Labour combined.

That is a result that absolutely defies the usual lofty glossing over and dismissal.

Of course it's a "protest vote". It's also a "collapse of stout parties" vote.

It says "NO NO NO" by a margin of 3 to 1 against the combined main parties, behind whom came the LibDems and Reform (the parties that we are supposed to turn to when dissatisfied with the main parties) with a mere 4,132 between them.

And trailing behind them, in the far "also ran" distance, came the Green candidate with a risible 436. 

Anybody who thinks that this is any kind of endorsement of the UN's "green" agendas, so assiduously promoted by the main UK body politic, needs some serious remedial lessons in arithmetic.

OK, this was a by-election, so maybe we can't expect the same sort of result at the national level at the next general election, but maybe it comes close to showing what the Great British voters really think of our politicians.

But it also demonstrates that we need not fear voting for the candidate whom we really prefer.

Voting tactically to keep out the main party that we don't want, by giving our support to another main party that we actually also don't want, is simply to surrender our vote to "the establishment".

If we don't want "the establishment" to continue in power, then we can't vote for any party of "the establishment" - doing that doesn't just waste our vote, it actually negates the vote of somebody who did vote for our preferred candidate. It is truly to vote against our own interests, and that makes no sense.

Likewise if we don't want any candidate on the ballot sheet, then either don't vote, or spoil your paper by writing "None of the above" - the latter is a clear expression of rejection, whereas the former is readily interpreted as disinterest, which is not the case. Numbers of spoilt papers are (or should be) reported.

If we all voted according to our conscience, we would certainly surprise ourselves, and we might even usher in a new parliamentary paradigm where our representatives actually represent their constituents' views rather than the globalist UN-WEF views.

Wouldn't that be something?

(14 minutes)

 

Like / Dislike this video here.

 

Deep State on the Run? Fulford on Monday 4 March 2024

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1206

2024-03-04

Hold onto your hats!

Ben's report this week points up a great deal of activity that does not augur well for the New World Order, AKA the Deep State, epitomised by the UN-WEF "partnership".

"This ultimatum ... comes in the wake of a comprehensive purge of high-level Khazarian Mafia leaders and military defeat in Ukraine"

" ... However, the battle is not over yet" 

Modest subscription required.

 

NATO's War on Russia, Germany Spills the Beans

Details
Category: Defence
Hits: 1032

2024-03-04

"Everyone involved is therefore aware that they are waging war against Russia, i.e. the NATO-Russia war is already a reality. This means that Russia is also entitled to attack NATO targets. The fact that the Russian government has not (yet) done so indicates once again that Russia is pursuing a de-escalating course, while the West is fully committed to escalation"

Well, that just about sums it up - we are waging an undeclared war on Russia, and trying to hide behind Ukraine. Russia knows it and has known it for some time, but has tired of pretending that it doesn't know.

The only reason we can now say that we know is that Russia herself has published the proof, hinting that she may also know a great deal more about NATO's war planning that she is keeping to herself - after all, why give away all her secrets to the enemy? 

We do know that Russia has been far better prepared to defend herself in terms of battlefield logistics than NATO has been to attack. It would be a very surprising omission if she were not also far better prepared than NATO in terms of access to information about her enemy's plans.

" 50 or even 100 Taurus would be delivered, but that these would have no influence on the course of the war. The question arises as to why this is even being considered – the answer is clear: marketing and politics and the absolute will to escalate"

So on the face of it this is simply war for war's sake.

All I can say is that this lunacy can only be calculated to provoke Russia into escalation, to attack the concerned NATO countries directly. Then they can claim that Russia has attacked the UK and that we must fight them to the death.

Problem - reaction - solution.

Hope and pray that Russia doesn't fall for it.

Parliament Debates Excess Deaths, Heart Disease (But not Cancer etc)

Details
Category: Free Citizen
Hits: 1135

2024-03-03

The link (if any) between roll out of the jabs and increased levels of death by heart and circulatory disease was (perhaps somewhat grudgingly) debated, but no mention of excess deaths from other causes (such as cancer) which have been reported, and only a ministerial response to "write to" the MPs who raised specific queries.

At this rate of progress we had better all start briefing our kids to ask for the full response "in due course" because we will all be deceased long before those in authority deem it necessary to actually produce the information requested.

The Daily Sceptic reports.

 

Ukraine - Deal or No Deal?

Details
Category: Defence
Hits: 1218

2024-03-02

With talk of nuclear escalation much in the news these days, ZeroHedge reminds us that a Ukraine-Russia peace plan was reportedly substantially agreed within months of the initial Russian incursion, but that initial agreement was supposedly vetoed by Boris Johnson. Although what it had to do with him isn't at all obvious, it does tend to indicate that Ukraine is not its own master. 

It doesn't say much for Boris Johnson either, although in fairness despite various reports to that effect, I have no proof of his involvement (but why wasn't he involved in facilitating a peace deal?).

Add in widely reported US involvement in the 2014 Maidan revolution, and readers may draw their own conclusions.

Since then, according to retired military experts Colonel Macgregor and Scott Ritter, "the West" has done its best to keep the hostilities in place, even to attempt to break through the Russian defences, leading to approaching half a million additional Ukrainians now dead.

There are now credible (but unproven to my knowledge) reports that troops from NATO nations are in Ukraine operating or providing active support for the operation of the complex weaponry already delivered, such as Storm Shadow, which have reportedly been used to sink Russian ships and attack Russian infrastructure, even targets within Russia itself. 

If these reports are true (and in the circumstances it's not hard to believe them) then the gap between the UK being at peace and being at war with Russia seems now to be cigarette paper thin. 

And US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is reported as saying that if Ukraine falls, he really believes NATO will be in a fight with Russia.

Personally, I don't find any of the above at all reassuring.

ZeroHedge reports.

 

Page 279 of 390