Coronavirus: Pointing fingers -18 April 2020

Did Xi Jinping Deliberately Sicken The World?

Authored by Ben Lowsen via TheDiplomat.com,

PRC moral turpitude forces us to consider the unthinkable…

We often ascribe a basic level of humanity to even the cruelest leaders, but People’s Republic of China leader Xi Jinping’s actions have forced us to rethink this assumption. Although the emergence of the novel coronavirus now known as SARS-CoV-2 was probably not due to China’s actions, the emphasis that its authoritarian system places on hiding bad news likely gave the disease a sizable head start infecting the world. But most ominously, China’s obsession with image and Machtpolitik raises serious questions about its lack of moral limits.

At some point the Chinese Communist Party learned of the epidemic and made a decision to hide its existence, hoping it went away. Exposés in Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post and the Chinese mainland’s Caixin show that the information that did flow out of China early in the crisis did so only because of the courage of individual Chinese people in the face of government repression. People in the Wuhan epicenter, however, began to get wise — and scared (here and here) — by the end of December 2019, forcing their government to say something. The authorities gave the impression of a nontransmissible disease already under containment. We know now this was entirely false, likely designed more to ease civil unrest than protect the people.

The mayor of Wuhan even suggested that the central government prevented him from revealing details about the epidemic until January 20.

Considering the first public announcements came out of Wuhan on January 1, we can assume that Xi had a sense of the danger prior to that … Continue reading >>>

UK Govt Spent £16m on Two Million Chinese-Made Coronavirus Tests that Didn’t Work

The British government reportedly spent £16 million on two million coronavirus home test kits from two separate Chinese companies, none of which work.

The New York Times claimed on Friday that a laboratory at Oxford University found that the tests, intended to be rolled out as home kits, were insufficiently accurate at detecting antibodies. The American newspaper alleged that half a million from one company are now in storage and the other 1.5 million from the second Chinese firm have also gone unused. The tests were manufactured by AllTest Biotech and Wondfo Biotech, both of which claim that their products met European Union (EU) standards.

Following complaints from the British government that the tests were useless, both Chinese companies attempted to blame British officials for misunderstanding how the tests worked, with Wanfo Biotech claiming that the test for only to be used supplementarily for patients who already knew that they had the virus.

A spokesman from the Department of Health and Social Care told the newspaper that the government had ordered the smallest batch the vendors would sell, and it would seek to recuperate taxpayers’ money for the faulty medical equipment.

It is unclear if these tests are the very same batch of millions of faulty Chinese-made tests that the British government admitted to having bought at the beginning of this month … Continue reading >>>

 

The Timeline Of WHO’s Cover-Up Exposed

by Peter Svab via The Epoch Times,

The World Health Organization (WHO) is facing a flurry of criticism for its response to the CCP virus pandemic, and much of the problem can be attributed to the growing influence the communist regime in China has on the organization.

Critics mainly point out that the WHO was too slow to recommend travel restrictions and some other preventive measures, and also that the agency accepted information from China at face value, despite numerous red flags.

While China experts were sounding alarms about a coverup, the WHO continued to praise China’s response and never warned the world that data coming from the regime was suspect.

WHO, an agency of the United Nations, has long been swayed by Beijing’s political preferences. Its current head, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, is a former member of a Maoist group in Ethiopia.

As The Epoch Times previously documented, China has been increasing its power over U.N. institutions for years. Beijing’s clout has now gone so far, it undermines WHO’s basic functions, such as providing timely and accurate information about the world’s health situation.

Case in point: the CCP virus.

The CCP virus, commonly known as the novel coronavirus, broke out in the central Chinese city of Wuhan around November 2019, before spreading across China and the world.

As of April 14, there are some 2 million confirmed cases of the virus, which causes the disease COVID-19. Almost 130,000 deaths have since been attributed to the disease worldwide.

The WHO has said that Chinese authorities first informed it about the outbreak on Dec. 31, 2019. While that would have been a golden opportunity to mitigate the spread of the virus worldwide, the WHO conveyed none of its information to the world that day.

It appears that only one country had its ear close enough to the ground at that point to respond meaningfully—Taiwan.

By Dec. 31, the island nation off the coast of mainland China had already started monitoring travelers coming on flights from Wuhan. Taiwan authorities also told the WHO that day that Taiwanese doctors had learned from their mainland counterparts that health care workers had been falling ill with the mysterious new virus … Continue reading >>>

 

MORE ON A WORLD DESCENDING INTO CHAOS
Daily Stirrer March 2020
Daily Stirrer, February 2020
Daily Stirrer, January 2020

Shy Tories

by Ian

Once a nerd always a nerd, it is said and while I strenuously deny any similarity with Bill Gates, those weirdos who founded Google and Prof. Brian Cox, I did work in Information Technology for many years and sometimes I like to do a bit of programming for fun. On thing that always amuses me is recrunching the numbers from political polling to try and get a picture of what’s really going on.

And I can tell you the big factor in the outcome of this week’s UK general election is not Brexit, poverty, immigration or tax dodging billionaires. It is shy Tories.

Now OK I know you all think Tories are arrogant, braying posh boys with plangent voices, but polls show most Tory voters do not like to talk about their procilivities. It’s sad really that people feel ashamed of their choices, after all we live in a democracy and you should be able to support who you like without fear or shame.

But the situation is not as bad as in the USA where the most important demographic in the 2020 election will be the shy trumpers, people who are ashamed to admit they are trumpers. It was these people who swung the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton and who will decide the 2020 election.

When you think about this, it’s no wonder so many Americans look like hot air balloons if they’ve been holding in all that flatus since 2016

MORE  comedy and humour from Greenteeth Digital Publishing
Trump Takes On Fake News

Sacha Baron Cohen Blasts Facebook As Running The “Greatest Propaganda Machine In History”

After making a career out of trolling various public figures while in disguise, first as Ali G, then Borat and a host of other whacky characters and most recently in his US television series, “Who Is America,” which apparently led to a Georgia state lawmaker resigning his office in humiliation, Sacha Baron Cohen has made a rare appearance as himself, to attack Silicon Valley billionaires who, he claims, are endangering democracy and political stability.  The comedian singled out Facebook’s  Mark Zuckerberg as the worst culprit and “One of the six people who decide what information so much of the world sees….” Baron Cohen described Zuckerberg as one of the people who is ultimately responsible for propagandizing the masses.

In an acceptance speech while receiving the ADL International Leadership Award he launched a blistering attack against Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google and others, describing themthem as representing “the greatest propaganda machine in history”.

It’s a pity he didn’t think to mention the links all these companies have with the security agencies that make up “The Deep State.”

However he did say to a large audience in New York that while the content they publish reaches billions of people the internet social media giants only care about their bottom line as they propagate hate and lies and spread messages that “appeal to our baser instincts”.

“All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history,” he said.

“Think about it. Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others – they reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear.”

Addressing the long-running controversy that followed the 2016 US Presidential Election election, Baron Cohen further took Facebook to task  for running political advertisements from both sides without fact-checking, comparing some of the messages to propaganda used under the Third Reich.

“If you pay them, Facebook will run any ‘political’ ad you want, even if it’s a lie,” he said. “And they’ll even help you micro-target those lies to users most likely to be susceptible to the message, for maximum effect. Under this twisted logic, if Facebook were around in the 1930s, it would have allowed Hitler to post 30-second ads on his ‘solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem’.”

At one point he even suggested social media company CEOs who publish political propaganda on their platform as part of campaigns to influence election outcomes or even genocides in parts of the globe should be sent to jail.

He also attacked Mark Zuckerberg’s risible claims that Facebook is actually a bastion of “free expression”.

He said: “I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and paedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.” He also went after “holocaust-deniers” and others which he called anti-Semitic.

Internet companies can now be held responsible for paedophiles who use their sites to target children. I say, let’s also hold these companies responsible for those who use their sites to advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or religion. And maybe fines are not enough. Maybe it’s time to tell Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies: you already allowed one foreign power to interfere in our elections, you already facilitated one genocide in Myanmar, do it again and you go to jail

While obviously still believing the now debunked claim that Russia interfered in the US election, (it was actually a great power much closer to home – Google,) he is right in saying that Social Media companies must be held accountable for what they allow people to publish. Refuting Zuckerberg’s ‘freedom of expression’ defense for the hatred and bullying on Facebook, Cohen said further: “This is not about limiting anyone’s free speech. This is about giving people, including some of the most reprehensible people on earth, the biggest platform in history to reach a third of the planet. Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach. Sadly, there will always be racists, misogynists, anti-Semites and child abusers.”

“So here’s a good standard and practice: Facebook, start fact-checking political ads before you run them, stop micro-targeted lies immediately, and when the ads are false, give back the money and don’t publish them,” the comedian and satirist explained, though in a dead serious tone.

Baron Cohen saved his most cutting remarks for Zuckerberg however, one commentator, Adam Best, tweeted: Sacha Baron Cohen says the Silicon Six billionaires care “more about boosting their share price than about protecting democracy,” calls Zuck a modern Caesar and jokes that explains his haircut.

Watch the entire speech

RELATED POSTS:
EU Competition Commissioner: “Google And Facebook Are Sucking Up Data From Every Corner
Zuckerberg Admits Facebook Interfered In Irish Abortion Vote
Facebook’s Censorship Drive Backfires As Advertisrs Dump Platform
Digital Gangsters
Trump Warns Facebook, Twitter And Google To Tread Carefully
Google accused of intentionally breaking EU privacy laws

 

Report reveals Google’s manipulation of search results to influence outcomes.

by Arthur Foxake

The contributors to this blog are not the only people putting content online to have been called ‘conspiracy theorists’ for suggesting that Google has, for at least twenty years, been manipulating search results to its own benefit and the benefit of its clients. In the early days this was innocuous enough, organisations that paid to advertise of Google’s pages had their page links bumped up the search results table.

Later it became more sinister, when you understand that among Google’s clients were organisations including political parties, governments (of some very nasty dictatorships as well as the so – called democracies,) state security agencies, NGOs (non government organisations) promoting and assisting the mass migration of illiterate, unskilled third world males to the developed nations for the purpose of destabilising societies, and other organisations and corporate enterprises pursuing a globalist political agenda.

Yes, the proof is out there that Google (and other internet tech giants,) rather than ‘hostile foreign powers’ have been meddling in elections and manipulating public opinion on certain issues.

ABC’s ‘Epstein coverup’ exposed by ‘pissed’ news anchor in Project Veritas leak

In a revelation that has parallels with the way UK’s  fundtaxpayered broadcaster The BBC covered up the paedophile activities of two of its stars, Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile, a whistleblower has claimed US Television News channel ABC News knew the full extent of paedophile pimp and procurer to the rich and famous, Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes three years ago, but a combination of orders from above and threats from the aforementioned rich and famous who Epstein could have taken down with him if he was taken down implicated killed the story before it ever got to air, leaked footage shows.
‘We had Clinton, we had everything’: ABC’s ‘Epstein coverup’ exposed by ‘p***ed’ news anchor in Project Veritas leakJeffrey Epstein; (R) Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) © Reuters / New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and Shannon Stapleton

In a video clip released by news website Project Veritas on Tuesday (11/05/2019), ABC News anchor Amy Robach is caught on a “hot mic” telling colleagues at the news desk that she had been contacted by Virginia Roberts (Giuffre), who alleges Epstein used her as a sex slave, and pimped her out to his powerful friends, including Britain’s Prince Andrew.

“I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts…we would not put it on the air,” Robach says on camera. “First of all, I was told ‘who’s Jeffrey Epstein.’ Then [Buckingham] Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.” 

Former President Bill Clinton was, as has been widely alleged, among those who traveled multiple times on Epstein’s private jet, dubbed the “Lolita Express.” As well as Clinton and Prince Andrew, Robach named lawyer Alan Dershowitz as one of those implicated in Roberts’ testimony. Robach says that she tried to persuade channel bosses to run her story for three years, but “to no avail.” 

“And now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new revelations, and I freaking had all of it. What we had was unreal.”

Epstein was found dead in his cell in New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Center in August, where he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide, with the city’s chief medical examiner determining the sex offender hung himself from his bunk bed in the cell.

Reports that Epstein had been taken off suicide watch two days earlier, and that the guards on watch left him unsupervised for longer than usual fuelled rumors that foul play was afoot. Epstein’s connections to high profile political and business figures led many to speculate that the mogul was murdered.

When New York’s former chief medical examiner, Dr. Michael Baden, claimed last month that Epstein’s wounds were more consistent with “homicidal strangulation” than suicide, the mystery was revived again, and the internet was flooded with “Epstein didn’t kill himself” memes and comments.

READ FULL ARTICLE at RT

RELATED:

You Don’t Have To Be A Conspiracy Theorist To Find The Death Of Paedo Jeffrey Epstein Too Convenient
The ‘sex slave’ scandal that lifted the lid on billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s elitist paedophile ring
More on elitist child abusers

 

Stories The Media Ignored While Worshipping Greta Thunberg

Authored by Matt Agorist via ActivistPost.com,

The term pedophrasty is a relatively new word – not currently accepted by an official dictionary – but that has a powerful meaning in today’s political and media environment. Pedophrasty is an “argument involving children to prop up a rationalization and make the opponent look like an asshole, as people are defenseless and suspend all skepticism in front of suffering children: nobody has the heart to question the authenticity or source of the reporting. Often done with the aid of pictures.” We have seen this tactic employed by both the left and the right sides of the political spectrum and it is, unfortunately, highly effective.

If you turned on your television last week, you likely saw 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg. No one here at the Free Thought Project are climate scientists, so we will abstain from commenting on her agenda. However, neither is she. But I digress. The political and mainstream media machine’s exploitation of Thunberg is a perfect example of pedophrasty.

If Thunberg’s activism actually wakes people up to pollution and incites a peaceful and a voluntarily implemented environmental benefit — without ushering in a tyrannical climate change police state — we fully support her endeavors. Wanting to save the world is a noble cause and if children want to try to do that, by all means, have at it—just don’t take away anyone’s life or liberty in the process.

The subsequent sh*t storm that was sparked online by Thunberg’s coverage — entailing both support and hatred — however, is a different story.

It served as a perfect distraction to things that actually matter in our lives. As videos of Thunberg meeting with Barack Obama went viral (I’ll get to that irony in just a second), extremely important events unfolded around us, which were entirely ignored by the mainstream media.

Before I list these major stories passed over by the media, I would be remiss if I failed to point out the irony of the Obama/Thunberg meeting. Sorry.

Barack Obama advocated for, approved, and oversaw eight wars in various different countries which brought death and destruction to millions of innocent people. Under his watch, tens of thousands of warheads fell all over the Middle East ensuring a lifetime of pollution and suffering for the people who managed not to be blown up by them. What’s more, under his (and yes, Trump’s too) presidency, the US military contributed more pollution to the planet than 140 countries, combined. This has made the United States military the largest polluter on the planet. But, by all means, he fist-bumped Greta, so, all good man.

Back to the point.

FIND OUT which stories Saint Greta kept out of your news

RELATED POSTS:

Macron Threatens G20 On Climate Then Backs Off
France’s boy president and current climate scaremonger in chief and leading European federalist Emmanuel Macron arrived in Japan for the G-20 summit full of sound and fury, which like the stuff of Macbeth’s soliloquy in Shakespeare’s play turned out to signify nothing.France’s boy president and current climate scaremonger in chief and leading European federalist Emmanuel Macron arrived in Japan for the G-20 summit full of sound and fury, which like the stuff of Macbeth’s soliloquy in Shakespeare’s play turned out to signify nothing.
Climate change catalogue
Climate lies composite

War and Politics Behind Mass Displacement in Africa, Not Climate Change – UCL
A report from a new study conducted by University College London’s may cause a stir in the climate scaremongering industry. The report challenges the academic establishment’s standard narrative of mass displacement in Africa being principally responsible for the creation of refugees in Africa and casts doubt on a number of other assumptions about global problems.

Hurricane Harvey Climate Catastrophe Man Made?As we reported last week the Hurricane Harvey disaster which has hit the U.S. states of Texas and Louisiana has shown characteristics never before observed in any hurricane or tropical storm since records began. Meteorological depressions (because that is what hurricanes, typhoons and other intense storms are,) move and once over land quickly weaken as air pressures become normalised. Harvey has stayed in the same area, dumping massive amounts of rain on the heavily populated coastal strip and causing $$$billionsworth of damage through flooding and high winds.

Trump Announces US To Quit The Paris Climate Accord
Fulfilling another campaign pledge, US President Donald Trump yesterday announced the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate pact and that he will work to renegotiate the international agreement in a way that treats American workers better. “So we are getting out, but we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can …

German Scientist Confims Climate Change Ia A Politically Motivated Scam
Even as the inbred idiot Prince Charles was babbling to a hand picked audience about the skid marks in his underpants being caused by Climate Change, a somewhat more scientifically literate person, Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert, a retired geologist and data computation expert, has confirmed what those of us dubbed ‘climate deniers’ have been telling you for years …

German Scientist Confims Climate Change Ia A Politically Motivated Scam
Even as the inbred idiot Prince Charles was babbling to a hand picked audience about the skid marks in his underpants being caused by Climate Change, a somewhat more scientifically literate person, Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert, a retired geologist and data computation expert, has confirmed what those of us dubbed ‘climate deniers’ have been telling …

Obama’s Climate Change Hypocrisy – The Arrogance Of The New Patricians
It is customary for US Presidents, when they leave office either having served two terms, been defeated in an election, or of their own volition, to fade quietly into the background. This is largely good manners, for an ex President to appear to be trying to intervene on political issues and influence events or public …

Big Business Joins Climate Change Scaremongers
The Paris summit on climate change approasches, which means the tree hugging fascist tendency are turning up the volume to eleven again. Trouble is they cannot produce a shed of evidence to back up their wild claims of imminent catastrophe because global warming only exists in their mathematical models, in the real world it is not happening/

Confusion Reigns As Paris Climate Conference Draws Near
The carbon dioxide driven climate change scam is back on the agenda as yet another monstrously expensive and fossil fulel gobbling jolly for politicians, scientists, freeloaders and general wankers gather to eat, drink, talk a lot and do nothing about a problem that exists in mathematical models but not in the real world.

Volkswagen Emissions Scandal – Is It The Tip Of The Iceberg?
The real problem here is that, driven by the hysterical warnings of self interested pseudo-scientists, politicians have set unachievable targets for reducing emissions while demanding that national economies keep growing.

 

Chloinated Corbyn & Co Are Shafting The Electorate

Boris Johnson and Jeremy corbyn

Boris Johnson calls Jeremy Corbyn a chlorinated chicken after the Labour leader ducks an election. (Picture: Metro )

Let’s face facts; Corbyn and the rest of the Remain crew in Parliament, Labour, SNP and Lib Dem MPs, are trying to shaft the electorate by overturning the result of a democratic vote and preventing us leaving the European Union as it careers towards the long term goal of the bureaucratic dictatorship that runs the organisation, by turning itself into a pan – European empire, effectively a Fourth Reich.

What triggered Johnson’s insult was Corbyn and his party of cowards after voting down the government’s  propsals to prepare for leaving the EU “without a deal,” the Labour leaders then instructed his party to abstain on a vote to dissolve parliament and hold a General Election. Thus Corbyn became the first opposition leader in the history of British politics to refuse the chance to beat the government in an election. Labour also chickened out of calling for a vote of no confidence to force the government to resign.  The far left party’s positions on Brexit and immigration and their decades long flirtation with anti – Semitism and support for Islamic extremist groups has made the party highly unpopular with working class voters in the core constituencies of the industrial areas. While ducking an election which Labour would almost certainly lose is understandable, Boris has actually painted Corbyn into a corner.

Ducking a fight will almost certainly backfire on Labour when the inevitable election is held.

The people of the UK voted in a democratic process to leave the EU (what is known now as No Deal). We have been told ad nauseum by politicians who wanted to keep us in the corrupt, failing organisation known as the European Union, that we did not know what we were voting for. That is blatantly untrue, nobody I have ever heard or seen speaking or writing in support of the EU referred to “only leaving with a deal,” staying in a customs union (and thus continuing to accept EU law as superior to UK law,) or delaying our leaving indefinitely until a solution to the (entirely imaginary,) Irish border question is resolved. Neither did any of those Leave supporters claim leaving would not cause significant economic and social upheaval. But faced with the prospect of leaving or seeing our nation surrender more and more sovereignty to an authoritarian committee of unelected bureaucrats, we felt the possible difficulties were worth enduring.

The only possible area of dispute here is whether or not the people knew that they were voting for no-deal. And they did. Of course they did. We had a leaflet campaign. This adressed what “leave” meant. The leaflet even took the liberty of advising us how to vote. Vote “remain” is what it advised.

On top of that we had the political campaigns. We had the USA’s cocksucker president Barack Obama lecture us on our duty to advance the causees of globalism and neoliberalism. The BBC ensured that we knew what a Leave vote meant: disaster, catastrophe, death , destruction, economic collapse, mass unemployment, a apate of biblical placgues and more television shows fronted by Prof. Brian Cox. And even the prospective horror of the latter did not put us off voting Leave.

Some time ago last year, I predicted that Parliament would attempt to outlaw a no-deal Brexit (known as Hard Brexit at that stage). I predicted that they would hold try to force another referendum offering the choices Remain, leave with a deal or leave with a customs union. and hope voters were too stupid to notice the absence of their original choice of simply voting to leave, from the first referendum. And as has happened so many times when I have forecast a course of events or an outcome only to be called a conspiracy theorist or a crazy right wing extremist I have been proved broadly correct again.

The result of the 2016 referendum was to Leave The European Union This was rebranded as Brexit which was then split into hard and soft. Hard Brexit was rebranded as No Deal. And now an unholy alliance of Socialist, Liberals, Nationalists and Save-the-two-toed-toad cranks have conspired to ensure that what we voted for, simply to LEAVE, no strings attached, is off the menu.

Well the political, academic and media classes couldn’t let that stand could they, after all, as they have never tired of pointing out, the Leave campaign lied to us (they did, so did the Remain campaign, that is the nature of political campaigns. But while the main lie Remainers have fussed about has now been shown in a court of law to have been not a lie but merely a statement that while true lacked clarity, there also seems some confusion on the facts among Remainers. Nobody ever said that all the £350 million (approx) the UK sends to Brussels would go to the National Health Service, merely that some of it would be available to fund the NHS.

In fact the £350 million is a gross amount, so while Remain supporters tried to claim citing that amount was a lie, it was technically true. A significant amounto of that money comes back to us to pay for EU funded projects, but it has more strings attached than a puppet show. Most people who voted Leave were aware of that, most Remain supporters apparently were not.

As evidence that “the people don’t know what they voted for” media commentators like to cite alleged assurances made by the leave campaign that a deal would be easy. I’d like to remind those people that a Withdrawal Agreement and any future “deal” are two separate things. The Withdrawal Agreement should have been easy and would have been had the EU not insisted on imposing many unacceptable conditions on UK negotiators before they would allow negotiations to begin

EU policy is that on a nation triggering Article 50, negotiations would begin. But it also defied its policy in a very subtle but effective manner by demanding first a “divorce” settlement before negotiations could begin.

But again, the withdrawal agreement is not a trade deal. The trade deal cannot be negotiated whilst the UK is an EU member.

Another point which a surprising number of Remainers do not seem aware of: We cannot negotiate a trade deal with the EU until we have left. That’s the policy of the EU. The UK cannot negotiate a trade deal whilst a member of the EU. Seperate thing. The links you’ve sent are about trade deals.

The withdrawal agreement is a whole other topic. The default is No Deal. Very simple. Those who voted, voted for No Deal. This is the default. We cannot negotiate a deal until we’ve left.

The withdrawal agreement is an attempt to smooth over the No Deal process. It’s a bonus. Something the soft – handed pen pushers and back room deal makers have had three years to sort out. In the withdrawal terms and conditions forced on the negotiating team of Theresa May’s government, and which that government did little to resist, the EU inserted a non – negotiable clause that would tie the UK to the Customs Union. unless te UK was prepared to cede Northern Ireland to The Republic. In doing that, the EU would tie the UK to the law that states that it can’t negotiate trade deals whilst a member of the EU.”

So the so – called Withdrawal Agreement is not a Withdrawal Agreement, it is a surrender document and the traitors who signed it were prepared to turn the UK from an equal member of the EU, along with 27 other participating nations, into a vassal state, subject to EU law and political policies but with not input into shaping those laws or policies.

And Remain supporters think that is an acceptable state of affairs, the snivelling little shit – eaters.

MORE ON BREXIT:
Index of Brexit Posts

Macron nightmare as production plummets in France in threat to euro
British MEP Reveals Undemocratic EU Stitch Up Of Top Jobs

US Democrat Presidential Hopeful Attacks Big Tech Censorship

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has released a new video calling for Americans from both sides of the aisle to unite and fight political censorship by the Big Tech monopolies.

Rep. Gabbard recently filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google for censoring her campaign’s ability to buy ads following the first Democratic primary debate when she was the most searched candidate.

“Join me in this fight to end big tech monopolies power to censor & undermine Americans’ freedom of speech—because whether we are progressives or conservatives, left or right, if we do not stand united to protect our freedoms, we all lose,” Rep. Gabbard tweeted.

READ ALL at Gateway Pundit

One Of The best Arguments For Leaving The EU

 

It is not often we look to the dear old Daily Express to keep us informed of the true left wing position on current issues but as the possibility of Britain  leaving the EU without a formal withdrawal agreement becomes a probability, and those Labour loony lefties, confuddled Conservatives and limp dicked Lib Dems  who led the Remain campaign and are still convinced that in a parallel universe they won continue to plot and scheme to thwart Brexit the arguments are becoming more toxic.

Yesterday I read a few paragraphs by someone claiming a no – deal break with Brussels with Brussels would result in all commercial arrangements currently in place between Britain and the bloc ceasing at 11pm on October 31. Well that’s wrongr but its an arguable case, but when the writer went a step further (a step beyond reality,) by claiming we would then be unable to trade with anybody I had to give up.

As Britain is now stuck in  Brexit limbo, with only Nigel Farage to argue against the threats and lies of the Brussels bureaucratic dictatorship until a new Conservative leader and bt tradition Prime Minister is elected, it was refreshing to hear on You Tube today a brilliant speech made by an anti EU Labour MP, Peter Shore. Unfortunately Shore died in 2001 and his anti EU speech was made over 40 years ago in an address to The Oxford Union (which in those days was so revolutionary it believed in free speech.

At the time, while Labour was, as ever, split on the question of EU membership it was the left, led by Tony Benn, with Shore among his closest associates, who saw the undemocratic, authoritarian and elitist nature of the EU. Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath had taken Britain into the European Economic Community – the precursor of the EU – in 1973, but his Labour successor, Harold Wilson, was forced to call a referendum on the country’s membership after only two years.

The vote saw the country divided into Yes and No campaigns, as opposed to 2016’s “Leave” and “Remain”.

autoplay_video, brexit news, brexit latest, brexit, theresa may, theresa may news, european union, eu, eu news, eu referendum, no deal,

Testicularly deficient bureaucrats Jean Claude Juncker (left) who has said Britain must be made to pay for its decision to leave the EU and former Labour MP Peter Shore who warned us 40 years ago of the danger posed by the inward looking, authoritarian bloc.

Labour MP for Stepney Peter Shore was leading the No campaign’s debate alongside the most prominent eurosceptic figure in his party, the then Secretary of State for Industry Tony Benn when, just before the referendum, the prestigious Oxford Union and addressed issues which still exist today.

Winding up his speech Shore made a brilliant argument on why Britain should not stay in an exclusive  trading bloc that would restrict our ability to trade with the rest of the world.

He said: “We should put to ourselves the facts that the eight countries of Western Europe, important as they are, are not even half of Western Europe itself, let alone the whole of the continent of Europe.

(The EEC then had only nine members including Britain, but the point is still valid, the 27 current members only account for around 12% of the world’s sovereign nations with only Germany sneaking into the top twenty most populous nations at number nineteen. More significant, all those nations above Germany are growing economically, while EU economies are stagnant.)

Shore’s speech continued …

“Nor for that matter should we ignore the fact that there exist outside the continent of Europe altogether more European people or people of European origin? And that [there are more people] in the great continents of North America, Latin America and Australasia that exists in the whole common market put together?

autoplay_video, brexit news, brexit latest, brexit, theresa may, theresa may news, european union, eu, eu news, eu referendum, no deal,  autoplay_vide

Peter Shore at the Oxford Union in 1975 (Image: Oxford Union)

“Beyond that we should recall the fact that our horizon and the concerns that we have in the world as a country and as people are not limited to eight nations and 200million people in Western Europe, but to the 3000million people and 140 nations that exist in the six continents of the world

“The policies that we praise as a Government, the causes that we follow as people, the concerns that we have, are not confined and limited to this narrow area across the channel.”

Mr Shore concluded: “For that to happen to Britain it will be a contraction and a reduction of all the things with we have been concerned

“It is the world we belong to and it is mankind of which we are part, so let us hear.”

He was absolutely correct, while the European trading bloc confined its ambitions to being a free trade area which would enable its members to simplify the bureaucracy involved in international trade, being a member was a good idea. However when the EEC, or EC as it had become, morphed from a trade association to a political entity heading towards the absorption of its sovereign member states into a federal superstate it became a bad idea for the people of those member states, an idea that would only ever benefit the elites.

Shore, Benn and their colleagues in the campaign to take us out of the EEC were aware of the federalist ambition. And in those distant days most people in the Labour Party clung to the rather quaint belief that working class people were of equal worth with the professional, managerial and academic classes and the wealthy elitists of industry, commerce and finance and the insufferable luvvies of the mass entertainment media.

 

 

How Much Does The UK Actually Send To The EU

Big kerfuffle this week over Conservative leadership contender Boris Johnson facing trial for his claim, during the EU Referendum campaign, that Britain sends £350million a week to Brussels. Originally the Remainers claimed somebody in the Leave camp had said all the money would go to the NHS. Nobody actually said that but if fanatics want something to be true, they can easily convince themselves it is.

The claim is in fact true but misleading. If the amount paid into the EU budget is taken, then it is close to £350million a week. Our net contribution (i.e. after the amount paid by the EU to fund various EU supported projects means the net amount we contribute to the EU is somewhat less. However that £350million is not the full story:

Little Donny Tusk The Polish Has-Been Tells Britain How To Vote.

Donald Tusk, who is the President of the European Council and was the centre-right Europhile Prime Minister of Poland from 2007 to 2014 made the remarks in support of his former Deputy Prime Minister, Anglo-Pole Jan-Vincent Rostowski who is standing as a Change UK candidate in London for Thursday’s election.

Farage Shredded By Welsh Ministry Of Truth Newsman?
An obscure far – left website https://inktank.fi reported that while campaigning for the European Parliament elections in Wales, Nigel Farage was confronted by a BBC Wales reporter, Arwyn Jones, who asked him a question about Brexit, which you’d expect would be easy to answer: Farage didn’t answer, how could anyone answer such a stupid question posed by an idiotic reporter working for an ogranisation tasked by The Fourth Reich’s ruling bureaucracy in Brussels and their puppets in Westminster with presenting pro – EU propaganda as news …

Farage Says New Brexit Party Will Spark “A Political Revolution” And Terrify The Tories

Nigel Farage, who led the successful Brexit campaign, warned backsliding elitist politicians on Tuesday that his brexit Party would spark a political “revolution” – a cliched line but appropriate given the mood of the country – and strike fear into the hearts of ineffectual Tories who have so far failed to deliver on the promise of the Brexit referendum if the UK is forced to contest EU Parliament elections as part of Prime Minister Theresa May’s, the Sun newspaper reports … MORE>>> .


There are sheeple who want to remain in the EU at any price, and then there are people who understand the EU

I am not sure people really are up for reading EU related documents or a whole load more people would be less excited about the EU. If people read the chequers plan and the political declaration they would know the only people who leave the EU are the financial sector. Everyone else stays in without a vote or veto for two years whilst we negotiate the long term deal…

EU’s Top Eurofederalist admits EU wants an empire

The leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE) told CNN that plans to reform the EU and devolve power from Brussels back to the nation-state proposed by the populist paries that have spring up in member states, and led by Matteo Salvin’s Lega (League) in Italy, Marine le Pen and her Rassemblement National in France and Hungary’s Victor Orban, leader of the Fidesz party would mean that the bloc “will die inside.”

Harold MacMillan’s EU warning revealed

Harold MacMillan, British Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963 gave us a chilling warning about the EEC – (European Economic Community) – before Britain joined the bloc, claiming that Germany had planned on using the trading bloc, as an instrument to assert its supremacy across the continent once more. On Wednesday, 3 April, 2019 The House of Commons voted in favour of legislation which forces the Government to request another extension for ‘Brexit’, giving our current Prime Minister Theresa May more time to show us the comtempt the ruling elite have for the principles of democracy.

Eurosleaze:May’s Top Brexit Bureaucrat Offered Millions by Big Banks

London’s Future?

This article, by Theodore Dalrymple, first published in Law and Liberty is reproduced by this Not For Profit site under fair use terms in the public interest, as the chaotic failure of our government to deliver the democratic decision to leave the European Union (Brexit) has revealed the chasm that has opened between the ruling elite and the nation they govern is now insurmountable.

I Have Seen London’s Future and It Is Caracas

 

Important (for good or evil) as Brexit may be to the future of Britain, it is not without its importance for the European Union. Indeed, it was always essential for the Union that Britain’s departure should be an economic disaster for Britain: for if it were not, why have a union at all?

It was therefore entirely predictable that the Union should drive a hard bargain with Britain, even a bargain economically harmful to itself, provided only that it was worse for Britain: for the self-preservation of the European political class is at stake. In the European Union politics always trumps economics.

In Britain too, political considerations were uppermost in the minds of those who voted for Brexit. They saw in the European Union a Yugoslavia in the making, led by a megalomaniac class without effective checks or balances. But now they are increasingly apprehensive of the economic costs of Brexit.

And the economic auguries for Britain are indeed poor, though not only, or even principally, because of the European Union’s hostility. The fact is that Britain is unlikely to be able to take any advantage of life outside the European straitjacket because its own political class is itself in favour of straitjackets that are no better, and quite possibly worse than, the European ones. The present Prime Minister, Theresa May, is very much a statist, indistinguishable from European social democrats, and the leader of the opposition, Mr Corbyn, who might well be the next Prime Minister, is an unapologetic admirer of Hugo Chavez. It is hardly to be expected that foreign investors will place much trust or confidence in an isolated country whose next government might very well weaken property rights, impose capital controls and increase corporate taxation in favour of supposed social justice. It would not take very long to turn Britain into a northern Venezuela: a Venezuela without the oil or the tropical climate.

Moreover, Britain already has many weaknesses and few strengths. It has a huge and persistent trade imbalance, because it does not produce enough of what the world wants and cannot easily be made to do so; it has a large national debt, about the same size as that of France, but without a highly functioning infrastructure such as France’s to show for it; its household debt is among the highest in the world. For many years, its economic policy might as well have been presided over by Mr Madoff; its social policy has been to smash up all forms of social solidarity or support for the vulnerable that do not pass through the state. The destruction of the little platoons has been very thorough: most large ‘charities’ in Britain are now dependent on government rather than on private funding, and hence are in effect departments of state.

As if this were not enough, Britain has enormous cultural problems, perhaps only to be expected in a country in which more than fifty per cent of children are born out of wedlock and twenty per cent do not eat a meal with another member of their household more than once every two weeks. A dangerously high and perhaps unsustainable proportion of the population is unfitted for productive life in a modern economy, having attained an abysmally low educational level despite (or because of?) considerable state expenditure. This section of the population is not merely indifferent to refinement of any kind – intellectual, aesthetic or of manners – but actively hostile to it. Similarly, it is not merely not anxious to learn, it is anxious not to learn.

This explains why Britain has persistently imported labour from Eastern Europe to perform tasks in its service industries that ordinarily one might have expected its large fund of indigenous non-employed people to perform. The fact is, however, that though these tasks require no special skills, they did require certain personal qualities such as reliability, politeness, and willingness to adapt: and these the eligible local population lack entirely. No hotel-keeper, for example, would consider using British labour if he could get foreign.

Perhaps nothing captures the levels of personal incompetence and lack of self-respect in Britain than the fact that young men of the lowest social class are about half as likely to die in prison as they are if left at liberty. In prison, though adult, they are looked after, at least in a basic way, and told what to do. They are no longer free to pursue their dangerous and crudely self-indulgent lifestyle, in which distraction is the main occupation. In prison they receive the health care that, though it is free to them under the National Health Service, they are not responsible enough to seek when at liberty. In short, they do not know, because they have never been taught, how to live in a minimally constructive fashion, though they were certainly not born ineducable.

No doubt other comparable countries have similar problems, but none (at least, none known to me) has them to anything like the same extent. These problems do not originate from Britain’s membership of the European Union, nor will they be solved by exit from the Union. They can be solved only by something more resembling a religious revival than by any likely government action. But expecting a population to bethink itself while simultaneously being offered political solutions that require no effortful cultural change is unreasonably optimistic. And politicians are unlikely to be frank about the problem for two reasons: first because alluding to the deficiencies of their electorate is probably not the best way to get elected, and second because it downgrades the providential role of politics, which politicians are understandable reluctant to do.

As if this were not quite enough, the hold on the country’s intelligentsia of statist solutions to practically all problems is still immensely strong. Nowhere is this more evident than in its attitude to the National Health Service, the establishment of which it almost universally regards as having been a great achievement, perhaps Britain’s only great achievement of the twentieth century. This is despite all the evidence that it has not been egalitarian in its effect, as it was originally supposed to be, or that almost all Western European health systems are superior to it. The fact that all Western Europeans regard it with at least disdain, and more usually with absolute horror, does nothing to shake the British intelligentsia’s faith in the essential goodness of the National Health Service. The only perceived problem with it is that it underfunded: the same problem as with all other government services. In the struggle between rhetoric and reality, rhetoric always wins.

The population by and large follows the intelligentsia, and the politicians follow the population; but the only economic advantages to Brexit would be the possibility of a nimbler, less regulated and bureaucratic economy. There is now no prospect of this. Therefore, I have seen the future of London, and it is Caracas – or very might be.