Saturday, 21 April 2018


"Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X"
by Francis Bacon 1953

Someone posted a link to an article entitled: "Charities delivering DWP’s work programme 'must promise not to attack McVey'" and asked me what I thought. Ref:

Our culture is perverted - in the sense of it being turned from its natural course.  Words are changing meaning and concepts are being transmogrified.  I read a blog the other day which said "Anti-Semitism in the Labour Party should be sanctioned."  The writer appears relatively young and I guess not well read.  For me, I had to re-read it, disentangle it, and finally assess what they most likely meant it to mean.  Of course sanctioning something is to give it official legitimacy but the 'officials' have perverted the word by using it to 'sanction' their own otherwise illegitimate breach of contracts.  The word has now become synonymous with punish.  Punish is a word that simply legitimises (or sanctions) torture.

In the case of charities I don't know for how long they have been an abusive corruption of the concept of 'charity' but I suspect for thousands of years.  Recently, in the last 20 years or so, they seem to have been used quite deliberately by governments and corporations as a form of manipulation and control.

In February of last year I contacted National Debtline via their web chat:
Me: "Here's a question that I would like an answer to: As a charity, where do you get your funding. I'll pre-empt you with a guess; You get it largely from corporations and government. If I am right do you consider there may be a "conflict of interest?"
Him: "We are funded by Government and various banks and fuel companies, we can assure you that our advice is free and independent and we will always look to give you the best advice that suits your needs."
Me: "Hmm. That was predictable. I will apologise in advance if I seem a little unfriendly but I am very cynical and have spent many years seeking help in what I feel is a collapsing culture. And thank you for your frank answer regarding funding. People sometimes try to hide the underbelly of their operations."
Him: "There would be no reason for us to hide this."

I suspect he believed what he said but there is a conflict of interest and the problem with 'conflict of interest' is it's not always conscious or obvious.  It is paradigm orientated.  So the way they think of "debt" (like "sanctions" and "punishment") means something quite different to them than it might to me and yet we will appear to be speaking the same language.

I attempted to get some help from the Citizens Advice Bureau regarding rent and Council Tax some time back and I did point out that they seemed to have a conflict of interest since they are now a registered charity and get the majority of funding from the Council.  They clearly had no idea what I was talking about.  They, of course, couldn't help me because they are largely a triage operation who points people to other charities.  They pointed me to P3 (a charity helping the community or something) and I researched their funding which was primarily the Council.  But I continued along this path and the guy that came regularly to 'help' was only helping me find my way through their (the Council's) labyrinthine, bureaucratic, form filling exercises.  In other words he was helping the Council smooth out the path to whatever demonic realms lie beneath these perverted institutionalised mechanisms.  Genuine help may have included researching, and/or having knowledge about, the actual legality of Council Tax or special sub clauses that allow me to claim all my rent from the Council and/or have all my past 'debt' to the Council from unpaid Council Tax wiped from the record.  But these things were both beyond his capabilities and way outside his sphere of understanding.  He, of course, was eking a meagre living below the minimum wage and probably based on 'expenses' by doing this task which should be the responsible and professional operation of the Council.  Eventually, since I felt I was only being 'helped' to jump through the hoops of the bureaucratic circus ring for their ends and at my expense I wrote them a two page letter explaining how their conflict of interest was doing me more harm than good and pointed out that the help they offered was not the help they delivered and so they had declined to help me.  That will have been tidily filed away to no consequence and the world carries on.

When Mike, my nephew, attempted to take his own life in March last year because of the malicious nature of the DWP and their subcontracted private operators like Atos and Maximus I contacted Sue Marsh.  Sue Marsh was a protagonist in a group fighting the government over their devastating disability program and who produced the Spartacus Report which momentarily hit the headlines.  At some point she was offered a well paid job by Maximus as their Head of Customer Relations and took it.  This is a complex issue and pretty well all her thousands of supporters called her a Judas and decried her for working for the other side.  I entirely understand their perspective.  I made my position and views very clear to her and suggested I wanted to discuss these convoluted mechanism and how they work and the effective role they play in society - but most of all I wanted help for Mike.  Within less than 24 hours his benefits had been reinstated and he has since moved away and, as far as I can tell, is at least in a financially secure situation.  Sue did not take up my invitation to discuss these matters and I understand that too.  The reason I mention this is to close the gap between how charities are working within the greater construct of governments which are essentially subservient arms of the global corporations and how this extends all the way through the system to corporations actively ameliorating the harm they do.  This is, in some sense, the Neoliberal perception in the extreme.  Sue Marsh has been enrolled in a 'charitable' function within the combine harvester of the corporation to assist in reducing the attention grabbing screams of the children they slaughter.

I suspect it is impossible to do charitable work in any other way than a one to one activity nowadays.  If you acquire funds to operate a charity then you have to declare it and register as a charity.  As soon as you do that you become embroiled in the tangled web of the bureaucratic governmental establishment.  And there lies the inevitability of corruption.  They do not administer their hierarchical control at a loss - they couldn't.  And so not only does much of the money one acquires end up in the hands of the establishment, but one now has an inbuilt conflict of interest.  You might recall that the government introduced the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act in 2014 motivated by the desire to silenced the likes of the Trussell Trust and Oxfam regarding the massive increase in food banks in the UK in anticipation of the 2015 General Election.  Then there was the Anti-Advocacy Clause proposed for 2016 which I cannot establish whether it was enacted or transformed and disguised as something else but clearly a contentious piece of proposed legislation.  Now this latest obfuscated attempt to control and constrain charities into contractual straitjackets for the purposes of subcontracting what should be governmental activities in the first place.

It is far too complex and convoluted to attempt to clarify or comprehend without extensive, and probably impractical, research.  But the Government takes taxes to perform functions which it fails to perform and then manages and controls 'non-profit' (and that is virtually meaningless) 'charities', who collect more money from the public, to perform the functions for which they originally taxed the public.  To add to the complexity of this demonic fabrication the government doesn't actually 'collect' taxes it simply prints more money.  The national debt is essentially a record of the money printed and, as such, is not a 'debt' at all.

Charity is a laudable concept but organised charities are an abuse of people's good will and desire to help.  Governments manufacture poverty as a commodity they can monetise via charities they control.

Saturday, 14 April 2018


Mr. Creosote from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.

My first impression of this attack on Syria is that it is a desperate attempt to muddy the waters to spoil any evidence, or lack of it, of the purported chemical attack in Douma.  Given that Syria has been working with the OPCW to destroy or dispose of all chemical weapons capabilities or stockpiles then the likes of the CIA and MI5 will be fully aware of any chemical plants that exist and what they contain.

I don't know if that scenario is accurate.  But it is crystal clear that they don't want the wider world to know what is going on.  We are expected to believe that they are serious minded people dealing with complex world problems and that they are doing what is best.  All of my life experience informs me that our culture and the majority of people go along with that manner of perception.  We are endlessly told by parents and teachers and politicians to not worry about the details and to just 'believe' them.  I don't mind doing that to an extent but my mind remains open and I continue to wonder and even ask questions.

Of course all of the troubles in the Middle East are complex and nothing that happens occurs for simple singular reasons.  Issues as different as world economics and individuals' personal pragmatic attempts to survive impact on each and every event.  No one could possibly understand exactly what is going on or how it all comes to pass.  But it is clear to me that this behaviour of the UK (in cahoots with so many other actors like the US, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and who knows who else) is clearly wrong.

It is wrong for several reasons.  To start with it is violent when there were alternatives.  It is also self contradictory on many levels not least of which being the espoused morality of violence being wrong.  The UK is laughably a Christian country which is clearly contradictory since Christianity, regardless of Augustine's nonsense, is non-violent.  It is contradictory that evidence is needed prior to a conviction and yet, in the midst of current concerns about fake news, the government decides to use a most ridiculously inconclusive video that arrived from their pals in Syria (their 'terrorist' pals) as conclusive evidence of whatever they want to conclude.  There was no evidence of a chemical attack in that video.  It was an interpretation placed on it.  Had there been a chemical attack the individuals with the cameras would have had the opportunity to film far more conclusive scenes.  And there is the nonsensical claim that in the very days Assad is taking control of the area he decided to attack it with chemical weapons.

And who, reading this, is aware that 8,000 civilians, all known to the Syrian government and the UN, have gone missing from Douma?  Jaish al-Islam (the ill-defined conglomerate of ideological 'terrorists' supported by the West) were holding Douma where the alleged chemical attack took place.  They had informed the Syrian authorities years ago of at least 8,000 named and identified hostages in Douma.  The various authorities like the UN are apparently aware of this information as are Western governments.  There was an agreement in place that the terrorists could have safe passage out of the area in exchange for the hostages.

As far as I can piece this together only a day or so before the exchange the terrorists fired missiles from Douma into greater Damascus and the Syrian forces fired back at two known sources.  It appears one building was hit and there were civilian casualties which were taken to the 'field hospital' where the video was sourced.  This is where at least one cameraman entered the hospital and shouted out that it was a chemical attack and began filming the scene which then included people dousing themselves and some children with water.  There were also people applying breathing masks to children.  This video was then supplied instantly to the Western governments who have asserted it is proof of a pointless and meaningless act of a James Bond style evil madman to murder children with frightening 'chemical weapons'.

Soon after this relatively insignificant event (relative to the current murder and mayhem around the world) the terrorists were given safe passage out of Douma but it then transpired there were less than a hundred of the hostages left.  In all likelihood the hostages have been starved and murdered by the Western terrorists because they needed food and water which was in short supply for the terrorists.  The White Helmets (who always appear well fed) have been embedded with these 'friendly' terrorists for years but have never managed to get any news out of the 8,000 people being starved and murdered.  They have had nothing to say about what was going on in Douma except to report a few real or alleged attacks by Assad.

When I think on these things I imagine myself as a terrorist in Douma.  Not a nasty terrorist but someone caught up in events and siding with people who are now engaged in violent resistance and revolution.  It's not hard to imagine given that if there were a civil war in the UK I would end up on the wrong side because I would be opposing the Tory government and they have all the power and weapons.  It really is not hard to imagine how, trapped in a suburb for years with very little food and water and with only hostages to stop the government flattening the place, that the hostages would be the first to go.

Most of us, when we are being honest with ourselves, recall moments in life where we have ended up doing something we felt was wrong because at the time we were desperate and could see no other way.  It takes a certain perspective to allow someone to hit you because you claim your own autonomy and will not be drawn into a fight.  Many people, when forced to act against the paradigms and conceptual constraints of our culture, cannot put the pieces together either before or after the event and end up feeling bewildered and wracked with what feels like unjust guilt.  This is because they conscribed to the rationale and moral framework of society by way of cooperating and co-existing with the people around them.  When they break these rules they still have the moral framework in their brain and they know they are 'wrong' but they know it was not their fault.  In extreme cases this can lead to attempted suicide and eventually the death of either themselves or someone else who appears to them to embody the malevolence of the social paradigms that are constantly constricting their ability to be autonomous.  We are all subject to these forces.

It is not too hard to understand that the terrorists would kill off the hostages on account of their belief that they would die otherwise.  They are so embedded in the wrong behaviour that a little more must seem par for the course.  And, importantly, they could not tell anyone since once they had killed the hostages there would be nothing to stop their enemy obliterating them.

It seems quite plausible that the supporters of these terrorists would be in cahoots with them to dispose of, or obfuscate, the evidence and run.  The UK, with all their other gang members, have done everything in their power to prevent the fall of Douma and, in the event of Syria liberating it, they have repeatedly tried to distract attention by pointing the finger at Russia and Assad with what they know will provoke outcry or, when that is failing, to resist and oppose any and every attempt to have a proper investigation.

It doesn't matter if my analysis of one aspect of this disastrous affair is correct or not, only that it is entirely consistent with events, it is plausible, and the UK government has done everything in their power to prevent anyone from ascertaining if this could be the case or not.  So whatever is going on it is at least as malevolent as this or worse.  But it is certainly not better.

And who, in the lower echelons of wealth in the UK, who is watching what is going on, can be in any doubt that the same mode of operation is being applied by the Tory government on the population of Britain.  We are literally their hostages and they are in the process of killing us off.  The dismantling of the welfare state and the health service along with public services and education are all destroying society in Britain.  This is without looking for specific references to numerous reports from various organisations naming and numbering the people actually killed as a direct result of the Tories actions.

The behaviour of the West is psychotic.  Psychosis is loosely defined as a person perceiving or interpreting events differently from the reality of the events around them.  We all suffer some degree of psychosis - we couldn't do otherwise - but it becomes a problem when the divide between perception and reality becomes severe and harmful.  It is typical behaviour based on unresolved historical events.  Western culture has, for hundreds of years (but rooted in thousands of years) focused on an egocentric interpretation of reality.  I don't mean the Freudian ego so much as 'central to the observer'.  We have so assumed the validity and importance of 'me' the observer that our entire cultural, scientific, religious, and philosophical frameworks assumes us to be real and alive and meaningful in an unreal, dead, and meaningless universe.  This has brought us in the West, not only to personal existential crises, but to a collective and cultural existential crisis too.

The powers that be are simply echoing the distorted interpretation of the culture.  That is why their overtly incorrect behaviour is supported by so many that they get away with it.  The population, along with various dynamics of conceptual interpretation of the world including cultural Stockholm Syndrome and cultural Cognitive Dissonance, are interpreting events in a way that seem more in line with their current paradigms.  Those paradigms are false and deviating at an ever increasing rate from the actual reality.  The existential crisis will cause the West to destroy the world rather than face the fact they don't exist.  Of course they do exist but not according to their distorted egocentric interpretation of the world.  The West is imploding and liable to explode.  China, Russia, and a few other observers are sitting on the sidelines hoping the catastrophic failure will not harm them too much.

The West is like Mr Creosote just about to eat that last wafer thin mint with Russia, Iran, and China looking on nervously from the next table.

Sunday, 8 April 2018


Once upon a time I was living in Oxfordshire developing noxious gas analysis software for a company that rents it to power stations and other exhaust emitting industrial plants.  I am meticulous and consequently slower than most, hence why I was only earning about £12,000 per annum.  My software is, however, superior and exceptionally bug free.

15 years pass by and I have endured an unbelievable divorce that makes the Skripal Novichok affair look like child's play.  I have been a single parent and spent 18 months struggling to defend my daughter, my nephew, and myself from a hideous eviction orchestrated by my erstwhile siblings (four harpies and a Napoleonic pretender) who cruelly coerced my mother to sign the most disgusting toxic narrative for their solicitor to present in court.

The three of us eventually landed in rented accommodation that we cannot afford sitting precariously in every respect on the banks of the Haven in Lincolnshire.  The stress and anxiety, caused primarily by the Tory's destruction of the fabric of society, proved unendurable for my nephew who attempted to take his own life before being whisked off to Wales.  This left my daughter and me rattling around this house, unemployed, disorientated, and ostracised by society.

For over a year now we have taken to strolling along the banks of the Haven which is tidal and fed through a sluice from the River Witham.  The Haven meanders its way out to the mud flats and sand banks of the Wash before finally reaching the North Sea.  Part of our walk takes us round an odorous sewage works and along a littered path called the Havenside Country Park.  From here we have been watching the construction of some monstrous industrial plant on the other side of the river.  Yesterday it started belching toxic exhaust and I assume someone is very happy to see their investment burst into life.

A search on the internet reveals the new cathedral for modern man to be a multifuel gasification plant.  Apparently these gasification plants process wood, industrial waste, and sometimes human body parts.  So I expect we will soon be able to fill our lungs with the slightly smoked aroma of charred foetuses and gangrenous toes.

And I ponder the intricate harmony of the complex circles of life that bring me to being near destitute whilst staring across a cold bleak river watching body parts incinerated for profit and belching noxious exhaust which is most likely being monitored by sophisticated software that I wrote all those years ago.

Tuesday, 3 April 2018


See below for video.

Craig Murray once again clarifies some of the deliberate obfuscation surrounding the Novichok incident.  To be really pedantic I don't believe the government, or even Boris Johnson, have ever categorically stated that they have proof the Novichok was manufactured in, or even delivered by, Russia.  But they have attempted to imply that assertion so strongly that they have definitely got too close to the fire.

In fact they are being hoist on their own petard in this respect.  They attempt to treat the British public, and indeed the rest of the world, as so stupid that they will fall for the intended effect of allusion and implication as if it were the facts.  In other words they have relied on people's reasonable need to have the truth summed up fairly and correctly.  They have abused their privileged positions as ostensibly 'respectable' and 'honourable' Members of Parliament.  The ever increasingly fine lines being used to divide the truth from deception are becoming fractured and meaningless.  The actual effect of these deliberate deceptions is that the public are getting fed up by the relentless lies.

Of this interview Craig Murray says: "Here is some hard truth. And to those who criticise RT as a medium, I should be delighted to tell this on BBC, Sky or ITN but they do not allow people with credible experience telling truths which run counter to the propaganda."

Monday, 2 April 2018


Israeli chemical drone warfare 30 March 2018

Israel joined the United Nations 11 May 1949.  The OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) is one of a number of Specialised Agencies within the UN.  There has been a Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) since 1675 when France and Germany agreed to prohibit the use of poisoned bullets.  The current UN OPCW CWC was agreed and entered into force on 29 April 1997.

There are two notable anomalies relating to this convention.  The first being that Tear Gas, or lachrymators in general, are prohibited from being mass produced, stored, and/or used in warfare but not for internal State use for the purposes of crowd control.  Had it prohibited internal State use then the Convention would likely never have been ratified.  The second anomaly is that although Israel has signed the CWC they have not ratified it.  This essentially means it is one of a very few countries who will not accede to inspections or verification by the UN OPCW.

On Monday 12 March 2018 a report appeared in The Times of Israel claiming that an unmanned aerial vehicle UAV (a quad copter or drone in common parlance) had been used on Friday 9 March 2018 to drop Tear Gas on protesting civilians in Gaza.  That was the first known use of this technology for chemical attacks on civilians.  A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces said the UAV was not operated by the army but by the Border Police.  The Border Police declined to answer any questions.

It is now widely reported that on Friday 30 March 2018 Israel has again used UAVs to drop Tear Gas on protesting civilians in Gaza.  Not only is Israel crossing a very dangerous line in terms of a general consensus of good and bad behaviour but they are clearly in breach of International Law.  It seems, on the surface, a mere convenient distraction that it is the Border Police as opposed to the Israeli Army that is operating these drones.  It is tantamount to a blatant admission of the seriousness of their breach of International Law by attempting to imply this is an internal matter involving the police rather than the army.

However, Gaza is not within the State of Israel.  For all the deliberate ambiguity about the international status of Palestine as a sovereign entity it is certainly not part of Israel.  It follows that Israel have launched chemical attacks outside of their own country which is an act of War.  According to the UN OPCW CWC this is a grave breach of International Law.  Israel's hope that they can defend themselves by claiming this act is internal and therefore not prohibited by the CWC is entirely incorrect.  Although Israel have not agreed to allow UN inspectors to examine their chemical production or stock pile they are, as signatories to the CWC, still bound by its prohibition of the use of Chemical Weapons in War.

For many years it has been understood by those who look into these matters that Israel develops a range of sophisticated methods for population control and oppression.  It is also interpreted that they use Palestine as a kind of laboratory for practical experimentation and to prove the efficacy of their products.  It is well understood within interested circles that weapons sell significantly better when proven in the field of operation.  Israel's market invariably grows each time they provide evidence of the successful application of their products.  One most dreadful case (amongst many) was their use of flechette missiles against children in UN protected hospitals in Gaza in 2014.

Israel is the world leader in drone development.  US and UK police and military regularly attend training and education courses in Israel run by the IDF.  US & UK finance Israel to a ridiculous level and although on the surface it is said to be to help them 'defend' themselves from external threats and terrorists it can also be seen as a research and development budget for population control products.  It is a strange thing that for all the rampaging of ISIS over the last few years they were never any kind of a threat to Israel.

The profound warning for the UK and US populations is that as Western economies are collapsing the powers that be are very concerned to impoverish and control the now redundant population.  Not only is Israel in breach of International Law and this is dangerous on the global stage but this technology has to be sold to someone and the biggest investors to date are the US and the UK.

Israel is indulging in chemical warfare.