posted by Arthur Foxake
Distraction and diversion are always used to control the narrative. Look how quickly a news story that threatened the credibility of the political establishment and global elite has been swept under the carpet and forgotten. Makes you wonder what else is being hiddeen behind the smokescreen of war, civil unrest, humanitarian crises that never end or existential threats to civilization.

Source: Cyb3rpunk

from minds.com

Greenteeth Digital Publishing
The Daily Stirrer

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…