Hate is 80% of Left Wing Politics

Since my days as a candidate for the old Liberal Party in local and county council elections I have been struck by the hatred and loathing shown by candidates of left wing parties for anyone who opposes them. This ‘politics of hate’ trend started in the USA, now considered a county so politically polarised civil war is inevitable, but has become an integrat part of UK and European politics, with left wing groups routinely employing rent-a-mob thugs to silence opposition.

The Liberal Democrats fall into this category, having moved from the centre ground of the Liberal Party to the brainless groupthink of far left politics. Years ago I wrote an article on what I believe drives this rabid hatred. It appears that as usual I was years ahead of the crowd.

Corbyn’s Labour resounds with loathing

by Tanya Gold, Unherd

hat any functional Opposition party would consider an opportunity — current Conservative Party behaviour — Labour treats as another abyss to hurl themselves into. They cannot help it; all narcissists are, at heart, suicide merchants longing to be exposed.

This is, we are told throughout conference in Brighton, a new Labour: organised, united, filled with generous and effective policies — they have found dragon gold — repentant on anti-Semitism and ready to take the fight to the external, rather than the internal, enemy. None of this is true.

I read politics by detail, not spouted fantasies. At a small fringe meeting on the freighted subject of the abuse of women in public life – about 90% of attendees were female, of course, in this party of equality — delegates complained to Diane Abbott, one of the most abused women in public life, that they suffered misogynist abuse in their party.

How could they hope to change the world, one asked, if they could not change themselves? READ FULL ARTICLE >>>

RELATED POSTS:
Left class hate
far left hate and hypocrisy
liberal bigots
liberal hate driver

To Boldly Go – The Infinte Insanity Of The ‘Progressive Left’
‘Left-wing Intellectuals’ Are ‘Sneering at Ordinary People’

Parliament’s Problem With Brexit

The verdict of the Supreme Court, that Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament, NOT for the purpose of stopping pro EU factions from preventing the UK having a no strings break from the EU as a (long overdue) result of the 2016 referendum, and it’s result which surprised the elites and the citizens of our recently renamed capital city Wankeristan, has divided the country even more deeply than the brexit vote itself.

Answers given to this question posed on Quora.com reveal that above all, the pro EU side, while totally opposed to referenda which do not return the result they want, are quite happy with judges who overreach their judicial authority and usurp the lawmaking powers of parliament to their unelected selves, so long as their verdict is the one Remain supporters want.

What does it say about Boris Johnson when 11 senior judges unanimously call his prorogue unlawful and he still says they are wrong?

ME:

What does it say about the judiciary when 11 Supreme Court Justices ignore the law because they are determined to stitch up Boris Johnson. Article 9 of the Bill Of Rights (1689) clearly states that “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;”

The Supreme Court Justices, showing that they are corrupt rather than stupid although they may well be both, chose to pretend they believed proroguation was not part of the normal proceedings of parliament. In fact it is a routine process that must be performed in order that one parliamentary session can be ended and another one begun.

 

Mark Gallaway

You are incorrect. They determined in this case that no reason was given and no reasonable reason could be given for suspending Parliament for five weeks. They are saying the the PM does not have the right to suspend Parliament for no reason or for a length of time not consistent with the reasoning for the suspension.

If this had not been up held the Government could close Parliament indefinitely. That clearly should not be allowed.

I also notice that you are calling these judges corrupt with any evidence.

 

ME

I have plenty of evidence that the Supreme Justices are corrupt and repeatedly find in favour of certain interest groups, and that the Supreme Court is a politcal device created by Tony Blair to rule on constutional matters he could never hope to get past parliament, and that its members are not the most senior judges in the land but most of it is not relevant to this question, is far too long to summarise meaningfully in a comment and is being fully covered by online news and commentary sites like Unherd and Spiked.

The point people are missing here is that these court cases need not have happened had the combined opposition parties tabled a no confidence motion and brought down the government or supported one of the governments attempts to call an early election. Instead the opposition decided to put their political interests ahead of the national interest and leave us without an effective government rather than face the prospect of losing an election..

The opposition’s problem is while there is no majority in parliament for Leave means Leave, there is also no majority for Leave With Theresa May’s Deal or Remain, and the as long as parliament will not allow Leave With No Deal, the EU will not agree to renegotiate May’s withdrawal agreement.

Most of the comments on the Quora question above and the Supreme Court ruling on the proroguation of parliament (including my own I have to admit,) went with the respondant’s wider position on Brexit, but it is interesting to note that of the answers from people who claimed legal expertise, none mentioned this rather important fact:

via robertkariakides.wordpress.com
The eleven justices all made a single judgment; there was no dissenting opinion, which is odd considering that equally senior judges including the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Master of the Rolls already made a decision which was precisely the opposite of that of the Supreme Court decided.

Now clearly those Remain supporters who claimed that legally the Supreme Court judges are the most senior legal authorities in the land have far less knowledge of the judicial hierarchy than one would expect from legal professionals. Perhaps the fact that the Supreme Court is not an ancient and venerable institution but a recent politically innovation created at the behest of the traitor and war criminal Tony Blair and packed with New Labour political appointees (probably for the purpose of protecting Blair and his cronies from justice should their war crimes and acts of treason ever be prosecuted,) has something to do with it.

It is widely suggested that the whole of the judiciary has a pro – EU bias, ans the Supreme Court Justices are not the first to allow their political prejuduces to overrule their duty of impartiality.

The judge in the Robin Tilbrook case, in which the plaintiff argued that Theresa May had overreached her authority in agreeing an extension to Article 50 without putting it to parliament and therefore the UK had legally left the EU on March 19, 2019, in the words of Tlbrook’s case, ” wilfully deliberately knowingly and intentionally failed to declare his ‘conflicts of interest'” – which by the way mainstream media failed to inform the people about!

The MSM could not report honestly about the judge’s conflict of interest, because they would then have to explain what the case was about. What scant coverage it was given presented Tilbrook, a legal professional, as an obsessive nutcase driven by hatred of the European Union The Establishment are desperate to suppress any mention of the Tilbrook case, which is why there were been a total news blackout about it. If the Tilbrook case was generally known about, then there would be inexorable public pressure for Robin Tilbrook to at least be given a fair hearing. Any fair, impartial court would almost certainly find in Robin Tilbrook’s favour – and we would immediately be out of the EU. Hence the total news blackout. 

Judge LJ Hickinbottom ruled Tilbrook’s claim ‘Totally Without Merit’. Hickinbottom is a Fellow of the European Legal Institute and therefore sworn to promote EU law throughout the ‘Community’ as well as the recipent of many lucrative commissions by virtue of holding that position.
Biased, much?

The EU is of course a lawers’ wet dream, the giant bureaucracy produced swathes of new laws every week, most so arcane only an army of lawyers could interptret them in any meaningful way. The practice of Law mis certainly the fastest growing industry in the EU and given the collapse of manufacturing and agriculture due to the burden of bureaucratic law placed on producers might sooon be the largest industry.

The Daily Stirrer, September 2019 
British MEP Reveals Undemocratic EU Stitch Up Of Top Jobs
 

New Discoveries Undermine Global Warming Narrative


Picture: Armstrong economics

I have long been sceptical about the climate change / Anthropogenic Global warming narrative. The way it sprang up just as the general population were rejecting the cold war model of geopolitics was too convenient, it seemed, to someone whose social history studies had covered the way political establishments create bogeymen and use fear to control populations. And though I only reached a very mundane level of study in the natural sciences during my formal education, I learned enough to understand a lot of the claims made by the Global Warming lobby only made sense in terms of the science of research grant phishing.
Still, the sciencetits saw Global Warming as a nice little earner and the politicians sense it was a way to tighten their grip on power, justify punitive taxes on essential goods and keep the increasingly unruly population in line and so fiction became fact.

God to see there are still some honest scientists out there, willing to challenge the narrative.

New Discoveries Undermine Global Warming Narrative by Martin Armstrong

RELATED POSTS:
Climate lies
Science and Technology menu

 

BoJo To Go For Election Again On Monday After Chlorinated Corbyn Chickens Out

In spite of The Labour Party rejecting Boris Johnson’s offer of the opportunity to challenge him in an election, the Prime Minister’s team of advisers believes the general election campaign underway despite Wednesday’s failure to in the required majority enabling an early election. Sources in Whitehall say the government is expected to try again on Monday after first allowing the opposition to pass a law to prevent britain leaving the EU without a deal which would make our country a vassal state of The Brussels Fourth Reich.

Traditionally the government of the day could call a general election at will, but a law introduced by the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government in 2011 changed that arrangement, requiring a two-thirds majority in Parliament to bring an early election. With polling showing many anti-Brexit members of Parliament are likely to lose their seats when that vote comes, and Labour on track to be virtually anihilated outside Londonistan it is perhaps unsurprising the motion failed on Wednesday .

Now the government will bring the vote for a second time on Monday, top Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg announced Thursday. It is not presently clear what the prime minister will be able to change in terms of voting numbers in four days, given he was over 100 votes short on Wednesday night. However Corbyn and other Labour leaders have gone on record as saying Labour will support the vote for an election providing their bill to make a ‘no – deal Brext’ legally impossible is passed before te vote to call an election is held.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn laid an obligation on his MPs to abstain on the vote for a snap election, an incongruous position given his long-standing demands for the country to hold fresh elections, claiming he would not back an election while a full no-deal Brexit was still a possibility.

The Labour leader has made the call for an election near-daily for nearly two years; indeed, a quick search of Mr Corbyn’s official Twitter account — managed on his behalf by staffers and sharing his main talking points daily — shows hundreds of messages calling for an election. As recently as Monday, Mr Corbyn wrote: “We are ready for a General Election, which will be a once in a generation chance for a real change of direction for our country.”

The Daily Telegraph confirmed claims made by the prime minister that Mr Corbyn has become the first opposition leader in British history to block a general election.

With his conditions for supporting an election, Mr Corbyn has attempted to lay a trap for the government. If Mr Johnson accepted the Labour leader’s demands of blocking Brexit before the vote, he would enter a general election without his greatest electoral trump card — the promise to deliver a Brexit “do or die” by the end of October. This shows incredible naivete or perhaps it is just stupid arrogance on the part of Labour strategists.

With a good result at the ballot box and a majority in Parliament, Mr Johnson would leave him capable of simply repealing the anti-Brexit legislation presently being pushed through the House.

MORE ON BREXIT

Death of Democracy

The Daily Stirrer

Greenteeth Digital Publishing

Not The Only One Who Thinks Airhead Actor Hugh Grant Is A Twat

Some stories never seem to go away, following the same trajectory for months, some like Brexit grow in the way trees grown, throwing out new branches in all directions. One of the main branches of the Brexit saga has been the way the wankerati of Luvvieland, the media and showbiz celebs who routinely echo the mainstream propaganda narrative, show how far out of touch with the people who make them rich and famous by telling us all we should not think for ourselves but meekly take up the opinions the elite tell us are right and proper.

A few days ago I reported on the insane response of has – been actor Hugh Grant to news that Boris Johnson had moved to stop fanatical Fourth Reich supporters in parliament from blocking a no – deal Brexit, by saying the Prime Minister should “fuck off” because every sane person in the UK thought we should stay in the EU, thus defining sanity as “agreeing with Hugh Grant.”

And my report was not complimentary to Mr. Grant because I have for decades believed we and all self respecting nations should free themselves of the EU and its ambitions to become The United States of Europe a.k.a. The Fourth Reich.

It turns out it is not just myself and other maverick bloggers who think Hugh Grant is an empty headed, ill – informed, privileged TWAT.

Entertainment

LITTLE T*AT: Piers Morgan SLAMS Hugh Grant Over Foul Mouthed Anti-Boris Rant

Amazonian wildfires threat to humanity is Fake News

After a few days break from posting and blogging at a time of year called the silly season by jouranalists of my Dear Old Dad’s generation because of a lack of news while many people, including politicians, are away on their summer holiday, just getting back into their stride after their holiday or counting the days until the schools are back in session and they can enjoy some time in their favourite resort while restaurants and attractions are less crowded (which is what my other half and I would be doing were she fit enough to travel,) I had to return temporarily to post a link to an article which exposes the current Amazonian rainforest wildfires threat to civilisation as FAKE NEWS.

This is not to suggest that there are no fires (obviously there are,) or that they have been started deliberately by environment activists, as some conspiracy theorists have claimed. There are fires and they have been started deliberately for wholly deliberate reasons. And a few of them have run out of control.

The other FAKE NEWS aspect of the story is the existential threat to humanity caused by the loss of this great oxygen producing mechanism. Using easily authenticated links the article exposes that as a complete lie. The fires have not been started deliberately by environment activists to get publicity for the supposed imminent climate change catastrophe as some conspiracy theorists have suggested, they have been started deliberately, for wholly legitimate reasons (not GOOD reasons but legitimate,) relating to corporate profits. The article also busts some of the lies that have been attached to this story by warmageddonist politicians whose aim in predicting perfectly normal climate variations  is to promote the World Government agenda.

The named author, Basil Hallward (a charcter in Oscar Wilde’s story is in fact me, Ian R Thorpe, founder of Boggart Blog, Greenteeth Digital Publishing and The Daily Stirrer.

Delingpole: The Amazon Fires Scare Is #FakeNews

All this week, the mainstream media have been trying to scare you with heartrending tales of burning Amazonia…

You Don’t Have To Be A Conspiracy Theorist To Find The Death Of Paedo Jeffrey Epstein Too Convenient

We contributors to this site often get called conspiracy theorists, when in fact we are not posting conspiracy theories by merely questioning the narratives promoted by western governments and mainstream media when those narratives simply do not make sense. The most recent example has been the sago of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s rearrest on charges relating to allegations of sex with minors, solicitimg minors for prostitution, trafficking minors for sex purposes and being a general arsehole.
Epstein has never been clear of such allegations since his first arrest in 2008, when in a complete travesty of justice he served a short sentence in a Florida USA jail for sex with a minor to escape far more serious federal charges. Many people have been concerned about the plea bargain that kept Epstein out of a very long stretch in a US Federal prison and saw an FBI investigation into his wider activities as a procurer and pimp to the rich and famous of under age girls. Hiss associates included Hollywood A listers, music industry and showbusiness stars, prominent business people and lawyers, politicians and at least one former US President and his (allegedly lesbian) wife.
The Epstein scandal re – emerged in 2016, when his name and his infamous parties on a private island in the Caribbean  and flights on the ‘Lolita Express’, the private jet used to fly his guests to and from the venue, came up in connection with a presidential candidate whose name was NOT Trump. The scandal has simmered on the back burner since then, overshadowed by the crazy and now completely discredited story of Trump’s collaboration with the Russian state to steal the election from Hillary Clinton and other efforts to remove him from office based on entirely unsubstantiated allegations and in some cases people simply deciding he should not be president because they don’t like him.
The death of the disgraced financier, pedophile and alleged blackmailer, who has been imprisoned and on suicide watch since his arrrest in June this year  came just a day after a batch of  court documents were unsealed, leading to speculation he may have been “suicided” to stop his case from going to trial.

Discussione with other bloggers of the Jeffrey Epstein have usually centred not on b”Is he innocent or guilty but  “When will he be found dead in his cell?” Nobody was willing to bet the case would ever get to court, there were too many names in Epstein’s Little Black Book who simply could not afford to be publicly associated with his activities.

And it wasn’t just the old cynics I associate with. It was quite impossible to find anybody who believed the Epstein case would be resolved with a public trial. The whole thing was quite uncanny. One name which came up again and again was that of the former US president whose name, it is now known, appeared many times on flight logs of the Lolita Express.

Let’s be honest: has there been a death of a high-profile prisoner whose expiration has been so unsurprising?

 

A suggestion last week that Epstein would never trial because too many rich and influential people would have their names dragged through the mud and their sexual peccadillos exposed to the world during the provceedings would have been subjected to ridicule by the usual suspects, the media pundits who would have us believe the government is our friend and would never do anything that is not in our best interests, that Russia is The Great Satan of Revelations and that Syria’s President Assad is a monster whose idea of fun is to gas his own people and that the child raping, sex slave taking, journalist baking head amputators of ISIS were the right people to liberate the midle east from tyranny,  and called a right wing nut job and a “conspiracy theorist.”

Well now who are looking like naive, stupid, left wing nut jobs?

Most so called conspiracy theories are nothing of the kind. To qualify as a conspiracy theory, a speculation must contain a claim that the proposer has evidence that, for example, the moon landings ere filmed in a redundant sound stage at Universal Studios and that Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were played by The Three Stooges . The author must then go on cite what he or she (but usually he,) believes is evidence of this.

There is not much point questioning the moon landing, but questioning the supposed chain of events surounding the death of President Kennedy, the World Trade Centre atrocity or the Las Vegas Shooting to cite three examples, should be seen as a good thing, because in each of those cases there were parts of the narrative that simply did not make sense.

Likewise why would Bashar Al Assad launch gas attacks against his own people when no only was he, with the help of his Russian and Iranian allies, winning the war but also, because whatever he may be he is not a stupid man, he must have known such actions would alienate many leaders sympathetic to his cause and would give the western coalition an excuse to launch direct attacks on his regime’s strongholds.

Such questioning of government narratives is a good thing because it encourages discussion. When it comes to conspiracy theories, there are three types of people apart from the media hacks who are paid to prop up the establishment propaganda. First there are the xself appointed ‘voices of reason’ who are quite determined to convince us the government and the global corporations are on our side, there is nothing untoward going on and we are told everything there is to know about every controversial issue. Believe that and you probably also believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.  T oices of reason are themselves no slouches at pushing conspiracy theories, look back at how they were happy to believe the ‘proof’ of the Trump campaign’s collaboration with Russian agents in 2016 was beyond reasonable doubt, when that ‘proof’ was nothing more that a few unsubstantiated allegations from some very dodgy individuals in the pay of Trump’s opponents, or the way they were absolutely sure the attempted hit on former Russian agent Sergei Skripal was the work of hit men sent by the Russian government, when the main evidence consisted of a photoshopped picture of two vaguely foreign looking guys window shopping in a street that might have been in Britain.

The voices of reason confine themselves to spreading conspiracy theories about “official enemies” like Russia and Iran or personas non grata such as Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinsion. The deadliest conspiracy theory so far this century was the story spread in 2003 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein  had at his disposal Weapons of Mass Destruction with which he could launch deadly attacks on the west within forty five minutes. This narrative, fabricated for the purpose of justifying war on Iraq was  propagated through mainstream print and broadcast news media and repeated by those who routinely scoff at conspiracy theorists and label them “cranks.” I was told in a comment from somebody who claimed to be a research fellow at one of our top universities on one of my early blogs that only an idiot would disbelieve the threat of Saddam’s WMDs and soon people would see what a gullible clown I am.Seventeen years later we are still looking for Saddam’s secret weapons.

The same people have since then become quick to blame Russia for just about everything bad that happens, regardless of the lack of hard evidence.

The second category are those who seem to believe everything – or at least almost everything – is a conspiracy. The world is run by a kabal of shape shifting reptillians called The Illuminati, the Freemasons and the Elders of Zion are trying to create a New World Order, the aforementioned Moon landings were a Stanley Kubric movie. Every terrorist attack is a “false-flag”. and every mass shooting in the USA is the work of government agents

The third category, the majority most of us will hope, accept that while not everything is a conspiracy, it’s actually quite daft to think conspiracies never occur, especially when people involved are very wealthy and powerful and in some cases criminally insane and the stakes are extremely high.

Did anyone really think, deep down, given who, who and what the people he had dirt on were and the extremely serious nature of the charges he faced that Epstein’s case would ever get to court? Be honest. I’d reckon about 90 percent, even though they might not publicly admit it, would have been willing to bet a substantial portion of their life savings that he wouldn’t. Speaking as the grandson of a bookie, I have to say I grandad would not have taken any bets on it.

Here’s something from Twitter that sums it up perfectly:

Abi Wilkinson

@AbiWilks

“I’m not a conspiracy theorist” is such a weird assertion when you think about it, the idea there’s a binary between believing all conspiracies and flat out rejecting the very concept of conspiracy in all circumstances”

You really don’t have to be paranoid or  a habitual tin-foil hat wearer to smell a rat in this one. And questioning a narrative that does not make sense does not make one a conspiracy theorist. Let’s review some ofg the questions raised by the official version of events.

It was reported Epstein tried to kill himself about three weeks ago although therewas some speculation as to how he managed to inflict the injuries he received on himself, so if it was a sucide bid, why was he taken off suicide watch six days later? Who made that seemingly baffling decision? If he was still on suicide watch and a source cited in the New York Times was wrong, why wasn’t his death prevented?

If the authorities knew, as they would have, that the first alleged suicide bid was as Epstein himself claimed, the result of an attack by another prisoner, why was Epstein not given special protection?

Once he was a known sex offender, how did he get away with doing the same things as he had once served time for for so long? Who was protecting him and how far would they be prepared to go to ensure what he knew never became public.

These are only a few of the many questions that need to be answered. What is particularly interesting is the kind of people demanding answers. It’s not just the “usual” suspects who are routinely labeled cranks by the gatekeepers. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has called Epstein’s death “way too convenient.”

“How many other millionaires and billionaires were part of the illegal activities that he was engaged in?” he asked. Even the UK establishment’s propaganda agency, The BBC website has as its heading of a news story today “Jeffrey Epstein: Questions raised over financier’s death.”

The FBI is reported to be investigating the case, which in view of their failure to prosecute any member of Hillary Clinton’s campaign team over breches of national security which came to light in 2016 does not fill one with confidence.

Perhaps Epstein did after all, kill himself – prisoners facing the prospect of 45 years in jail are quite likely to be depressed; moreover the sociopathic billionaire might even have relished evading justice and depriving his accusers of their days in court. But until more evidence of his suicide such as CCTV video,  comes to light, it is reasonable to think that some other explanation for his sudden death.