UK

If what has happened since 2016, is in any way a yardstick by which to measure the current social and/or political climate in this country, then I predict that 2020, will be known to history as the ‘Year of  the Triggering’.

The complete and utter rout of the political left, following December’s General Election, and the Labour Party’s worst defeat since the 1930s, will live long in the memory, but not for what I believe to be wholly obvious reasons.

The total rejection of the Labour Party’s hard-left rhetoric by the British electorate, has unleashed a virtual Tsunami of vitriolic spite, and violent anger, among sections of the population, the likes of which, has not been previously witnessed.

At least in my lifetime.

The reasons for this collective outrage, can be attributed to any number of things, but in my opinion, it is clearly underpinned by a pernicious and destructive belief structure, and one which, until very recently, has not made itself so clearly visible, but is now impossible to ignore any longer.

This belief structure, this virulent, noxious and poisonous ideology, which has infected a large part of the population on both sides of the Atlantic, being continually stoked by the mainstream media for the last decade, is not even a recent thing, although there are those who will tell you otherwise.

It has taken a little over a century for it to become embedded in Western society, to the point where millions of people, from the youngest, right through to those, who frankly, should know better, have become contaminated by it’s teachings, and we are now witnessing the fallout.

Social media is where the outrage appears to be at its most acute, and Twitter, Youtube and Facebook, most specifically, where the outpouring of the pure, unadulterated hatred emanating from the left of the political arena, has been simply breathtaking.

Thankfully, most of the hatred has been confined mainly to the online world, and has, as yet, not spilled over onto the streets, and into our everyday lives, although, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this will continue to be the case.

If what I have been watching on social media, the undermining, de-platforming and sabotaging of any opposing, or dissenting viewpoints, the rabble-rousing, the streams of insults and continual threats of violence, emanating overwhelmingly from left wing media outlets, Shillabers, ‘Activists’ and social commentators, continues, and/or increases to any degree, then all bets are off.

But I digress.

The 2019 General Election was not only a thumping victory for the Conservative & Unionist Party, but by completely crushing the very real threat, posed by the hard-left lunatics that have infiltrated, and taken total control of the Labour Party, was a win for common sense, sanity, and the democratic process itself.

I have spent the last couple of days, looking for articles and texts which would outline what I believe to be the root cause of this malaise, and to be honest, I have struggled to find anything online which encapsulates most of what I have been trying to illustrate.

However, I did find something, but as the author of the following article, as I understand it, is not known, I am unable to credit the writer, or link to an online source where the original can be found.

I am also unsure as to the date it was written.

I discovered it initially a few years ago, amongst some unrelated documents I was going through, and have tried, but failed to discover the identity of the writer.

But he/she is/was an American.

That aside, I cannot stress how important I believe this piece of writing to be, and if only for that reason, I am going to republish it here, albeit with a few [minor] adjustments to the text, which will bring it right up to date, and include the use of any current terminology.

It’s a fairly long read, and I accept that it may be difficult to digest in one sitting, but it contains one hell of a lot of information in regard to what I believe has happened in this country, (and America) to this country (and to America) and is still happening.

THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS….

‘Have you ever wondered, where all this stuff that you are hearing pretty much everywhere at the moment – the LGBTQ rights movement, the fabricated statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the incessant demands, the sense of entitlement and victimhood, and the rest of it – comes from?

For the first time in history, people in the west have to be fearful of everything they say, of what they write about, and even of what they think.

They have grown terrified of using the wrong word, or words, lest those words are rounded on and violently denounced on all sides as offensive, or insensitive, over critical, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or anti-semitic or Islamaphobic, or Transphobic.

We have stood idly by, and watched other countries where this has happened, and we have regarded those countries with a mixture of pity, and sometimes with amusement, because we were simply dumbfounded, that supposedly intelligent people, would have allowed such a situation to arise around them.

A situation where they would suddenly become afraid of what words they can use.

But now, we have that situation here.

Emerging initially on University campuses in the United States, Britain and Europe, and spreading with what appears to be indecent haste, to the point where, it has infected the whole country.

So, where does it come from?

And what exactly is it?

We know it as “Political Correctness.” Which is a term that began as something of a joke, literally in an American comic strip, and many people still cannot grasp how serious it is. It is deadly serious. It has become a disease that has reached pandemic proportions since the beginning of this century, and is a sickness that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, and around the world.

It is the disease of ideology.

Political Correctness is not funny.

Political Correctness is serious…. deadly serious.

If we choose to analyse it, or if we look at it from a historical aspect, it becomes clear exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. it is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, and the hippies and the peace movement, it goes back a lot further, fifty years in fact, to the Great War of 1914-1918.

If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism, the parallels become obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than in Universities and Colleges, many of which, to all intents and purpose, are little more than miniature North Korea’s, where the student who dares to cross any of the invisible lines set by up by the gender feminists or the LGBTQ rights activists, or the local ‘minority’ groups, or any other of the sainted “victims” groups that Political Correctness revolves around, quickly finds themselves in a world of trouble.

Within the small legal system of each university, they can face formal charges – some star chamber proceeding – and ultimately, punishment.  Take that as a look into the future that Political Correctness intends for any nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole history of our culture, is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality directly contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they, also naturally, use their own ears and eyes to look around and say, “wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see for myself that it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie.

That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Secondly, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.

Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over all other groups.

Nothing else matters.

All politically correct literature is about that. Everything that has gone before is about that one thing.

Thirdly, just as in classical economic Marxism, certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.

In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, certain groups are good – radical feminists, (but only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) people of colour, LGBTQ people and a few others, are determined to be “victims”, and as such are automatically deemed to be good, regardless of whatever they say, or indeed, do.

Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie economic Marxism.

Fourthly, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation.

When the classical Marxists, the Communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, taking away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a university in favour of a person of colour, who isn’t as well qualified, the unfortunate white student is expropriated.

As indeed, affirmative action, in our society today, is a system of expropriation.

Companies owned by white people don’t get a particular contract because said contract is reserved exclusively for companies owned by people of colour, or women.

So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both forms of Marxism have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers that are required. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction.

Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it, and re-inserts any meaning that is required. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender and little else. All of these texts become simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.”

So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we are familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today in the the form of Political Correctness.

Those parallels are not accidental, however, the similarities did not appear out of thin air. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much older than many people appear to be aware of, outside of a small, select group of academics who have studied it.

The history goes back, as I said earlier, to World War I, as do many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, our heritage, our culture, and even our identities, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries, than they had in common with the bourgeois and the ruling class in their own country.

Of course, as we know, 1914 came and went, and that did not happen.

Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to try and kill each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany, and said that there are no political parties now, there were only Germans. And this was repeated throughout Europe,

So obviously, something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it could not be the theory. In 1917, they finally got their coup in Russia, and it did look as though their theory was working, but it stalled once more. It did not spread following the war as the Marxist’s hoped, despite the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers did not support them.

So it appeared that the Marxist’s had a problem. And two Marxist theorists set to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukas in Hungary.

Gramsci said that the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christianity – that they were blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukas, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “who will save us from Western Civilisation?”

He also theorised that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilisation itself.

Lukas gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home-grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government was established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did, was to introduce sex education into the Hungarian school system. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, the workers, as well as everybody else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing”.

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank was established that took on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates what we know today as Political Correctness.

Essentially, the basis for it was created by the end of the 1930s.

It came about because a very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil had become a Marxist, and had a lot of money to spend. He grew ever more disturbed by the divisions that existed among the Marxists, so he sponsored something that became known as the Marxist Work Week, into which, he brought Lukas and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

He said, “what we need is a think-tank.”

Washington and London is today filled with think tanks, and we think of them as being a very modern invention, when in fact they go back more than ninety years.

Felix Weil endowed an Institute in 1923, associated with Frankfurt University, that was originally going to be known as the ‘Institute for Marxism’. But the people behind it, had decided at the start that it was not going to be to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxists. The last thing Political Correctness wants, is for people to work out that it is in reality, a branch of Marxism. So instead, the name ‘Institute for Social Studies’ was decided upon.

Weil was very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of the definitive book about the ‘Frankfurt School’, as the Institute for Social Research becomes informally known as, and wrote: “I wanted the Institute to become known, perhaps even famous, due to its contributions to Marxism,”

He was successful. The first director of the institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930, it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the population of the school, are also renegade Marxists. They are still very much very much Marxist in their thinking, but they are effectively run out of the party. Moscow looked at what they were doing, and said, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we are not going to support this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes: “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

A lot of the stuff we have been hearing about the last few years – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the LGBTQ studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory.

What the Frankfurt School essentially does, is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s, to create this thing known as Critical Theory.

The term is ingenious because one is tempted to ask, ‘What is this theory?”

The theory, in simple terms, is to criticise.

That’s it.

The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture, and the (established) capitalist order, is not to lay down an alternative.

They explicitly refuse to do do that.

They simply say it can’t be done, that we cannot imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we are living under repression – the repression of a capitalist economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it.

What Critical Theory is about is criticising.

It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, and is designed to bring the current established order down. And, of course, when we hear from feminists, that the whole of society is just out to get women, and so on, that type of criticism is just another derivative of Critical Theory. And it comes from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, who, in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphic perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create.

Marcuse in particular by the 1930s, is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute.

So do most of the themes we see in Political correctness, again in the early 1930s.

In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part, socially determined,”

Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism.

“Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulating dominating attitude towards nature.” That was Horkheimer writing in 1933 in Materialisms und Moral. ‘The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, “was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.

“Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishisation of labour, (here’s where they are obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkheimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marqis de Sade, favourably, for his “protest…. against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all this stuff still flood in here?

How does it flood into our universities and colleges, and indeed into our everyday lives today?

The members of the Frankfurt School are of course, Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933, the National Socialists came to power in Germany, and not unsurprisingly, they immediately shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members subsequently fled, and scattered.

They fled to New York City, and the Institute was re-established there in 1933, with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually, through the 1930s, although many of them writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German Society, and destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed towards the destruction of American society.

There was another very important transition when the war came. some of the Institute’s members go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War.

But the student rebels needed theory of some kind. They couldn’t just go out one day and shout “Hell no, we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation to explain their actions.

Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital.

Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 1960s were none too deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for America, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Germany after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls for the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained in America, saw the 1960s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 1960s. That book was ‘Eros and Civilisation.’ Marcuse argues  in that book, that under a capitalist order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, a Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order, and that gives us the person that Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his/her sexual instincts are repressed.

We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do your own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will be no longer work, only play.

What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-1960s!

They are students, they are baby-boomers, and they have grown up never having to worry about anything, except eventually having to find a job. And here is a guy writing in a way that they can easily follow. He does not require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “do your own thing, if it feels good, do it,” and “you never have to go to work.”

By the way, Marcuse is also the man who created the phrase, “Make Love, Not War.”

Coming back to the situation people face on university campuses, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the political Right and tolerance for anything, and I mean anything, that comes from the Left.

In conclusion, both America and Britain today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in their history. We are becoming ideological states, and countries with official state ideologies, enforced by the might and power of the state itself.

In “Hate crimes” we now have have people serving prison sentences for political thoughts and ideas. And its going to go a lot further, and that category is going to be expanded even further.

Affirmative Action is only part of it.

The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness in universities is also part of it. Its exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in China, in Italy and now it’s here.

And we still fail to recognise it because we see it as just Political Correctness and simply laugh it off.

My message to you today, is that its not funny, its here, its growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy everything that we have ever defined as our freedom, and our culture.

Rotherham’s Labour MP, Sarah Champion, has suggested that by 2015, there may have been ‘up to a Million young girls that have been raped by gangs of men of mainly Pakistani ‘Asian’ origin’.

I am sure that anyone with a modicum of common sense, would agree that those numbers are simply staggering; a scandal on a level which should be unthinkable in a civilised society, and something which we, as a nation – should be thoroughly ashamed of.

If the following article is only partly correct, we have learned absolutely nothing, as this is still going on, and shows no visible signs of slowing down.

Grooming ‘epidemic’ as almost 19,000 children identified as sexual exploitation victims in England.

by Lizzie Dearden.

Almost 19,000 children have been sexually groomed in England in the past year, according to official figures that have prompted warnings of an ‘epidemic’. Campaigners say the true figure is far higher and accused the government of failing to tackle child sexual exploitation, despite promises made after high-profile cases in Rotherham and Rochdale.

More than 18,700 suspected victims of child sexual exploitation were identified by local authorities in 2018-19, up from 3,300 five years before. Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, said that figures show that grooming “remains one of the largest forms of child abuse in this country”.

Read More: THE INDEPENDENT

I am in no doubt whatsoever, that the blame for what has happened to these girls and young women, should sit firmly upon the shoulders of all of those who have turned a blind eye, and on those who have continually denied this problem even exists, and have smeared anyone who has been brave enough to stand up and speak out, as ‘racists’.

You know who you are……

 

There are not many people, who by now, are not aware of the image published on the Mirror website, which pictured a four-year-old child, with suspected pneumonia, lying on top of a pile of coats, upon the floor of a side room in Leeds General Infirmary.

The Mirror, then switches to the real purpose of its article:

Jack shows the human cost of the harshest ever financial squeeze on the NHS, a damning indictment of the Tories’ criminal neglect.

No wonder Jack’s mother is switching from the Tories to Labour on Thursday.

This article is then picked up with what appears to be indecent haste, and within hours, is being paraded around the mass media by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and a small – but disturbingly fanatical – army of online activists and cheerleaders.

The article continues:

The staff are blameless, performing miracles despite the cuts. As are hard-pressed managers, coping best they can with the bad hands dealt them by successive Conservative regimes.

I am not going into the obvious issues with the NHS here, nor why it has reached what seems to be critical mass, there is plenty of source material available online, which explains in finite detail the real reasons behind that, and who is ultimately responsible.

What I am going to do is focus on is the image, and how it has been shamelessly weaponised by the Labour Party.

The image in question, has itself become the focus of claims as to its authenticity, and its context, inasmuch as a viral post on Facebook, which claims that the image was staged, has been gaining traction in the mass media.

The response to this online, is that the Facebook post, is of course, complete fiction, and is being circulated by, wait for it, ‘Right Wing Bots’.

One source of that claim, is a blogger calling himself ‘Tom Pride’, who has, for the last few years, been pumping hard-left propaganda focussing on the UK, and attacking anyone who does not support Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, from his base in Poland.

[Which of course does not mean that there is any suspicion whatsoever, of any ‘foreign interference’ in the electoral process, a claim that politicians and the mass media, on both sides of the Atlantic love to talk about.]

The truth of this, I am sure will emerge in the fullness of time, but the fact remains that using a distressed child as a political tool with which to attack political enemies, is a despicable thing to do.

It’s beneath contempt.

Neither side of the political divide are blameless in this, and it was not so long ago,  that the Grenfell fire tragedy was being utilised by both sides, in their attempts to point the finger of blame at each other.

Is it worth mentioning, that one of the reasons why many people believe that picture was ‘staged’ for the media, is because it’s not the first time that the Labour Party have posted faked and/or staged images for political gain?

Remember this one?

That doctored image, led to the party being investigated for spreading fake news, and were slammed by the NHS itself, as they had not sought permission to use its logo.

This image may be familiar too.

A blatant example of the use of a staged photograph of Jeremy Corbyn, sitting with a despondent look on his face, on the floor of a train, in a crass attempt to highlight the overcrowding on that particular railway network.

He was accused of ‘Hypocrisy’ and ‘spin’ by the Telegraph, after CCTV revealed that he did in fact have a seat, despite claiming that the train was so ‘ram packed’ he had to sit on the floor!

This post is not ‘Pro’ or ‘Anti’ anybody, I am on the whole, pretty much disgusted by the behaviour of all the political parties, who are scrabbling in the gutter, and clawing and biting and spitting bile at each other in their attempts to reach the moral high ground first.

They have all failed miserably on that score in my opinion.

There are, however, many positives to take from this, as it must now appear glaringly obvious to anyone, that politicians and political parties, of all colours; lie, cheat, mislead, spread fake news, stage photo opportunities, and above all of that, have shown utter contempt for the very people they claim to represent.

It’s little wonder that this country has become a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world, and going on what is currently happening, and shows no sign of going away any time soon, the political class do not actually give a damn.


UPDATE: 

The campaign leading up to the 2019 General Election, or as many people view it, the ‘Brexit Election,’ has been one of the most vicious, propaganda-filled, mistruth littered, and ultimately damaging, this country has witnessed in living memory.

Every one of the main political parties have lied, to varying degrees, and have mislead the electorate on a number of important issues, but by far the most pernicious, (and grossly inaccurate) claim, made by Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, is that Boris Johnson and the Conservative and Unionist Party, are ‘going to sell the InterNational Health Service to Donald Trump and the Americans’.

This claim was wholly predictable, however, and the Labour Party’s election campaign has focussed upon, and revolved entirely around this one issue, and it appears to be the only thing they have been able to effectively weaponise.

Your NHS.

On the surface, this untested, and unsubstantiated claim has had a remarkable effect, inasmuch as if more floating voters decide to fall for it, this country could be heading towards a hung parliament; which could mean that the hard-left socialists Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, could obtain the keys to Downing Street, if, and only if, they are supported by an unholy alliance comprising of the Liberal Democrats, The Green Party, and the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists.

Which would, in the light of day, also mean at least four more years of public confusion, electoral chaos, in all possibility the economy crashing,  Brexit being put on hold, or scrapped altogether, which spits in the face of 17.4 Million of the electorate, and years more hardship and misery for millions of people who can least endure it.

So with that in mind, I would like to share the following video with you.

A video which, in my opinion, demolishes Jeremy Corbyn’s claim about the NHS entirely, and should, at the very least, make any person who cares about the truth, (and has grown sick and tired of the sheer arrogance and patronising attitudes shown to them by the current crop of politicians) think long and hard about who they really want – and ultimately trust – to take this once great country forward.

Over the last few days, I have been attempting to find a definitive link between the Bryn Estyn estate in Wrexham, and the virtually unknown ‘other’ Bryn Estyn estate, which was built at New Norfolk, Tasmania, by Lieutenant Henry Lloyd during 1840.

After a lot of digging, I have now found that link, (the details of which will appear in the book I am currently writing) and upon discovering what I needed, I happened upon an article , ‘The Life of Artist Henry Grant Lloyd (1830-1904) and his December 1857 Illawarra Watercolours’, by Dr. Joseph Davis B. A. (Hons), Dip. Ed., PhD and published on the academia.edu website in April this year.

Academia.edu, according to it’s ‘about’ page: ‘is a platform for academics to share research papers. The company’s mission is to accelerate the world’s research. Academics use Academia.edu to share their research, monitor deep analytics around the impact of their research, and track the research of academics they follow. Over 96 million academics have signed up to Academia.edu, adding 23 million papers. Academia.edu attracts over 62 million unique visitors a month.’

Now those numbers by anyone’s reckoning, are staggering, wouldn’t you agree? and if true, would give anyone who’s work appears on the site, a massive platform on which to present their research to the wider world of academia.

So with that in mind, I was somewhat perplexed when parts of Dr Davis’ article seemed very familiar to me, in fact, I could have written them myself.

This paragraph for example, which on first reading only stood out because I had noticed that the name ‘William Middleton Massie Lloyd’ was not one I had encountered before, and for good reason, as Dr Davis appears to have made an error in his identification of ‘Richard Myddleton Massie Lloyd’ (1751-1814), who actually commissioned Joseph Turner to build the first “Bryn Estyn Hall”.

I must admit, it did have me scratching my head at first, and thought the name mix-up was a simple error, or typo, but the paragraph’s wording, and it’s familiarity was something I simply could not ignore, as it was too similar to a paragraph that I had written for my book, which has not yet been published.

The above excerpt, from my book ‘Investiture Hill’ is indeed similar in its wording, but not markedly so, but when you consider that what is going to appear in the book is a more polished version of what I originally wrote, then things will hopefully become clearer.

Reading through the rest of Dr Davis’ paper, I noticed that he had also included a number of images that were also very familiar to me, two of which are freely available on the internet, and therefore could have any number of sources, but one image Dr Davis has used – pictured below – I can state, with all confidence, has only one source.

That source is me.

I can state this because I created the image myself for inclusion in my book, in order to highlight the true location of the original Bryn Estyn Hall, and its proximity to other buildings in the parish, using an 1840 map of Beiston.

So where had Dr Davis, obtained the image?

At first, I admit I could not answer that question, but then I remembered a video I had uploaded to Youtube during July 2018, ‘The Forgotten History of the Bryn Estyn Estate – A Photographic Journey (1620-2018)’, which contained the image in question.

There is another image in that video, which left me in no doubt whatsoever, that Dr Davis has used information from my video to include in his paper, (which has appeared on academia.edu), because due to an typing error on my part, was also the source of his error in using ‘William’ (Middleton Massie Lloyd), instead of Richard, which I mentioned at the start of this article.

I have no objection whatsoever to anybody quoting my research in order to add something to an article or paper or book they have published, however, when an ‘academic’ publishes part of that work to a well-respected academic website with a readership of millions each month, and does not include the source of said information, i.e: myself – then that is an entirely different matter.

There is really no excuse not to quote the source of the information that Dr Davis has used, as my name was clearly stated below the Youtube video, but on the plus side, I had not previously noticed my error, and as a consequence have now removed the video.

So in conclusion, my original typographical error, has fortuiously proved that some ‘academics’, however qualified they may appear, are not only reluctant to quote the source of some of their research, but fail to cross-reference the information they use, and ultimately publish.

I have purposely held back from posting anything on this site, in regard to the very recent ‘Nick,’ or Carl Beech trial and subsequent conviction, but I have, however, been watching very carefully the reactions in certain corners of the internet.

Twitter especially, has as expected, been positively brimming with activity over this case, with two distinct and very prominent echo chambers emerging, at odds with each other, the #ibelievenick stalwarts, and the other side, who have celebrated the guilty verdict (and 18-year sentence) with a glee that borders on the obscene.

For posterity, I have saved a few of the more prominent examples from both camps, and as was to be expected, those who been the most vocal in voicing their disbelief and faux horror at what they claim was a ‘stitch-up’, and ‘travesty of justice’, have historically, also been very supportive of almost every crackpot claim that has emerged on the internet over the last decade.

Their main focus of attention, however, is of course their shared belief in the alleged ‘wickedness in high places’ that needs exposing at every opportunity.

They are relentless in their pursuit of ‘justice’, and it would appear to the casual observer, that they have little interest in anything, apart from exposing child abuse and paedophilia they claim exists in every level of British Society.

But that is not strictly accurate, if one was to step back and look at the bigger picture, as most of these people, if the truth is told, have very little interest in seeking justice for genuine survivors of child abuse, nor do they care about instances of child abuse and sexual exploitation that is happening right now, throughout the length of this country.

They only cases they are interested in, are those that involve ‘Prominent People’, especially politicians and those in the public eye.

I have yet to see one of these online ‘activists’ post a single syllable in condemnation of the grooming and rape gangs that have been operating in this country, mostly under the radar for decades, and which have virtually destroyed the lives of thousands of girls, some of who, were just 11 years of age.

Nor do they show any support towards genuine survivors of child abuse, many of whom have suffered at the hands of paedophiles who are serving long prison sentences, and if what I have been witnessing is an indication, they are more inclined to attack rather than show support, to any CSA survivor, who has not named anyone on their list of approved ‘Targets’.

The Journalist Eileen Fairweather pretty much sums up what a growing number of people believe may be the reason for this.

As to Mrs Fairweather’s observation above, it should be noted that this site, was among the first to call out Mr. Beechs claims as being horseshit, and was also among the first, if not the first site that expressed doubts about the claims of Christopher Fay, and was roundly attacked by the Needleblog, and other outlets who had hosted and promoted Fay’s ludicrous claims as being ‘credible and true’.

Which begs the question as to why the Needleblog, after lying dormant for many, many months has suddenly re-emerged, (albeit without any input from Gojam) specifically to report on the Beech conviction.

It is also my belief that there are indeed groups online, which have been assembled and funded for one purpose, which is to throw up a smoke screen, and to create as much white noise as possible, to silence, distract, discredit, instil fear and cause complete chaos among genuine CSA survivors, targeting them singly or in groups.

A number of these agitators also pose as survivors of child abuse themselves, but let me reassure you, I am in contact with a number of survivors, some of whom I converse with on a daily basis, and they are appalled at the behaviour of these people, and have themselves been targeted and attacked by them, simply for voicing even the slightest doubt about the claims of Carl Beech, or Melanie Shaw, or Esther Baker or those of the Hampstead Satanic Ritual Abuse believers and pushers.

 

What I have outlined above was to be expected, however, and should come as no surprise to see any or all of the above, continuing the same way, day in, day out.

For the foreseeable future.

My only advice would be, is to totally ignore it, and hope that legislation is introduced at some point, which will make these people answerable for their claims, as well as their online behaviour, via the courts.

That being said, I will now venture a personal opinion (which is also what any or all of the above should be viewed as) of those on the ‘other side,’ many of whom appear to be commenting in a professional or a well-informed (legal) capacity, and who also co-exist within their own Twitter echo chamber, where they share each others opinions, and articles they have written, with each other.

There are four or possibly five of those, who should be considered as having a vested interest in all of this, (I am not going to name names here, as I have no desire, nor the appetite to be hauled into my local police station yet again, to defend myself against any more vexatious claims that I, or anyone who has commented here, is ‘harassing’ them) and who have published thousands upon thousands of words about the Carl Beech case, via Tweets and articles both prior to, and following Carl Beech’s conviction.

Some of these have also claimed that they are in part, responsible for the conviction of Carl Beech, which is complete nonsense, as Beech’s claims began to unravel very quickly following a BBC Panorama programme, and the due diligence shown by the Northumbria Police who thoroughly investigated the anomalies that were highlighted.

Another thing that should be considered, is that lurking right in the middle of these professional commentators, in plain sight of everyone who has been following this story, is someone who appears to have been welcomed with open arms, and viewed as a ‘credible’ source in regard to false allegations of child abuse.

He has also been very busy in his attempts to wipe every trace of his previous, and altogether vile persona from the internet, and will attack anybody who has drawn attention to it.

Fortunately, there are those who have been saving and archiving all of his past activity, and posting it back online as fast as it’s being removed.

For some reason, known only to himself, he seems to have re-invented himself as what could be described as a righteous zealot, who devotes all his time to exposing online ‘trolls,’ and those who make (what he believes are) false allegations – so would it be at all fair to ask why that would be the case?

You don’t have to look very hard these days, to find examples of how the mainstream media can twist things to suit whatever narrative they are pushing at any particular moment in time.

Only yesterday for example, the Guardian newspaper published an article, in regard to the claim that Tommy Robinson has launched a public appeal to request that US President Donald Trump, grant him ‘Political Asylum’, because of fears that he may be murdered if sent to prison, after recently being convicted on a contempt charge.

The Guardian, as expected, goes with the headline ‘Tommy Robinson Begs Donald Trump to grant him political asylum in US’, and the journalist goes on to state in the article [in their usual smug and self-righteous manner] that Robinson also ‘alleges’ that ‘British Prisons are controlled by jihadi gangs’.

Upon reading that article, many people would come to the conclusion that Tommy Robinson, is somewhat delusional, and has plucked his claim out of the sky, with little to support it apart from his paranoia, [which is entirely understandable] if that article was taken at face value, which, if I had to guess, is its main and only intention.

So where would Tommy Robinson get the idea that British Prisons are filled with Islamist extremists, who would attempt to kill him should they be given the opportunity?

Apart from the evidence of his own most recent experience of entering the prison system that is?

“A review of Islamist extremism in prisons, probation and youth justice that was commissioned by the government in 2015 found it was a “growing problem”.

Perhaps it could have been from articles like this, published only last year, which the above quote was taken from, and were published in a number of newspapers, including the Guardian, and strangely enough, was written by the same journalist.

In 2015, Islamic Extremism was shown to be a ‘growing problem within British prisons’, and as no contrary reports have emerged in the mainstream media or elsewhere, since then, would it be fair to assume that this particular issue is still a cause for concern for people like Tommy Robinson – or for that matter, anybody who has publicly identified problems in this country, that the left-wing media are desperately trying to deflect the public’s attention from ?

The New International Version (NIV), is arguably the most popular ‘version’ of the Bible. It reportedly holds a 45% market share of all bibles sold throughout the world.

The NIV is a ‘version’ of the King James Version, which is the mainstay of the Christian faith, and to millions of people, is the most faithful representation of God’s word.

When I say ‘version’ I am referring to something known as ‘Dynamic Equivalence’, which in this case, would be an ‘interpretation’ only, or a ‘corruption’ of the original text of the bible. This is evident when you realise that the NIV has 64,098 fewer words than the KJV, which equates to a 10% loss of text, and a little over 160 pages if one was to count.

So what does the KJV say about tampering with the word of God?

‘For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city and from the things that are written in this book: Revelation 22:18-19

The NIV is published by Zondervan, who’s parent Company is Harper Collins, which is in turn owned by NewsCorp, and the exclusive rights of the NVI are owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Harper Collins, the aforementioned parent company of Zondervan, also publishes Anton LeVey’s ‘Satanic Bible’, and for those who may not be aware, LaVey was the Founder of the Church of Satan.

Both Books are available for purchase on Harper Collin’s Website.

‘Can two walk together, except they be agreed’: AMOS 3:3

Time Magazine once referred to Rupert Murdoch as being ‘among the four most powerful people in the world’, and they have good reason for saying this, especially when you consider that he has a worldwide media empire, which includes television providers, newspapers, television and satellite stations, which covers Europe, Asia and the Americas.

In addition, Murdoch holds the title of ‘Knight Commander of St. Gregory’, an honour bestowed on him by the Pope, ‘for promoting the interests of the Catholic Church’.

He also, as is shown above, the owner and distributor of the world’s most popular version of the Bible, which, by leaving out such vast swathes of text, is not a true depiction of the original.

It’s little wonder that those who inhabit the upper echelons of the mass media see themselves as Gods, when they totally control not only what people see on Television and Cinema Screens and in printed and online media, but also what many believe to be the word of God (and Satan for that matter).


SOURCES:

The KVJ

‘The Greatest Lie on Earth’ – Edward Hendrie (2016).  ISBN: 978-1-943056-01-9

Until this morning, it would have been difficult to think of anything that would cast a darker shadow over the mainstream media in Britain, than what currently exists.

For anyone out there who still believes that the media is not completely skewed, is not agenda-driven, and does not relentlessly push leftish, liberal propaganda, then there really is no hope for them.

The following two images are what would have greeted anyone who was unfortunate enough to have tuned into SkyNews and the BBC over the last couple of days, while covering the State Visit to the UK by US President Donald J. Trump and his family.

May I assure the American readers of this site, that this is NOT something that the normal, right-minded folk of this great country condone or celebrate.

We see it as nothing more than media-driven, state sponsored hate-peddling, entirely abhorrent, and behaviour which is mortally embarrassing to every decent man, woman and child who resides on these islands.

May a plague fall upon all the houses of those who are responsible.

Now that the final results of the European Election are in, it should not come as a surprise to hear and read in the mainstream media – and from the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, Vince Cable, Caroline Lucas and their troops of flying monkeys – that on top of everything else we (the Great British public) are incapable of doing – it appears that we cannot even do basic maths now.

Since the results were announced, the left wing attack dogs and the Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable, have not been backward in coming forward, gleefully announcing that the result is a clear indication that there is more support for remaining in the European Union, than there is for Brexit.

They appear to be saying that if all the votes for the Remain parties are added together, they show greater numbers than those who were registered as voting for the groups who have campaigned to leave.

Now I don’t know about any of you, but maths is not my strong point, but I can do basic mathematics, and as every smartphone and personal computer has a calculator application, there really is no excuse nowadays.

As the majority of politicians have had the benefit of a private education, and purveyors of the news via any number of mainstream sources have undoubtably attended university, it is somewhat puzzling to ordinary mortals like me, how they have arrived at that conclusion.

If you take a look at the BBC’s own figures, for example, it shows that a little over 2.9 million more votes were cast for leave parties and individuals, and even when you add all the remain figures together, it shows an even larger percentage than the one they lost by in 2016.

Or am I missing something?