All posts tagged Britain

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.


‘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.

Today, Saturday, 19 May 2018, is a rare day indeed.

It is a day when it is perfectly acceptable to fly the Union Flag.

As many as you want.

It is also perfectly acceptable to be English, or to be British and to be seen as being proud to be so.

It is also acceptable, even encouraged on this day, to promote British traditions, British Achievements and British History, and everything else that goes with being British, whatever that entails.

Including Patriotism.


Those privileges run out at midnight, because after that time, the mass media and the British establishment will revert to type, and their default setting of seeing you as, and will, without a doubt describe you as being:

‘Racist’, ‘Bigoted’, ‘Gammon’, ‘Far Right’, ‘Militant’, ‘Extremist’, ‘Nationalist’ ‘Xenophobes/Europhobes’ and of course …. ‘Nazis’.

Enjoy your day ….

Even if you have forgotten about the proven lies told by Tony Blair and the British and US Government’s about Saddam Hussein’s ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’.

Even if you have forgotten that on two occasions, the United States tried to frame Assad for “Gassing his own people” in 2013 and 2014.

Even if you have forgotten that President Assad actually surrendered all his chemical weapons some time ago, a FACT confirmed by both the Pentagon and the United Nations.

Would it therefore also be easy for you to forget the simple truth that Assad, on the verge of winning the bloody civil war in Syria, and gaining support from Donald Trump and other world leaders in the process – be so reckless, and so monumentally stupid to use chemical weapons (he has already surrendered), knowing only too well that it will lead to the invasion of his country and it’s ultimate destruction?

Is that the action of an intelligent man as Assad is known to be?

Or has the destruction of Damascus, and laying waste to the greater part of the Middle East have been the plan all along?

As was foretold 2700 years ago.


“I’m Gonna Keep Fightin’ for What I Believe Is Right”

Twelve years ago today, December 22nd 2002, I took a phone call that told me that Joe Strummer had passed away. 

He was just fifty years old and had died suddenly of a rare heart condition while at home with his family in Broomfield, Somerset.

I lost something that day, Joe had been a constant companion in my life since the late 1970’s when I first heard ‘White Riot’ played in anger, I became a fan and have remained so ever since. I played every 7″ Single and Album I could afford to buy, to destruction – often having to replace some that had become so worn and scratched, that the arm on my ageing Record Player used to dance about on the surface skipping between the tracks. I knew every word to every song on every record and cassette I owned, and voraciously absorbed the passionate and heavily political messages contained in the lyrics.

This was Thatcher’s Britain, I was in Care and was as rebellious as any other teenage lad, but while most kids my age were sniffing glue and pretending to be robots with their idiotic dancing, Joe’s music spoke my language and had narrated my life thus far. 

I became interested in and deeply involved in politician activites, usually of the more radical and militant kind, as complacency was not in my vocabulary even then. 

I read ferociously , I educated myself, disappearing for weeks inside the works of Marx and Engels (may God forgive me), and becoming ever more aware of the world around me.

This continued after leaving care, I began to travel around the country, settling in London for a decade, and grabbing life by the scruff of the neck and shaking the life out of it. 


I saw Joe and the Clash perform many, many times during those days, and I had the privilege of meeting him on three occasions. Twice while standing at the bar of the Marquee Club, and once when we briefly chatted as he was walking down Tottenham Court Road with his dog attached to the ubiquitous piece of string that served as a lead.

He always had time for people did Joe, always ready to give himself over while putting the world to rights over a drink or a spiff. He showed young people there were alternatives to the complacency, opportunism, greed and political apathy that dominated the culture of Britain. He was the face of rebellion, his resistance shone through in both his politics and his music and remains an enduring legacy to this day.

One song in particular, ‘Clampdown,’ affected me deeply. The song is a stark account of living and working in a capitalist society. It presents the contradictions that are made to make us believe that if only we work hard, don’t complain, and don’t rock the boat, we can get ahead. Look out for number one.

The song expressed the anxieties of working-class youth only fit for menial jobs, to become part of the state’s repressive apparatus, or to join one of the many extreme right-wing and ultra violent groups.

“You grow up and you calm down
You’re working for the clampdown
You start wearing the blue and brown
You’re working for the clampdown
So you got someone to boss around
It makes you feel big now
You drift until you brutalize
You made your first kill now”

So, many, many thanks for the music and the memories Joe, and for giving this angry, aimlessly drifting young man the inspiration to find himself.

Rest In Perfect Peace Joe.

“Authority is supposedly grounded in wisdom, but I could see from a very early age that authority was only a system of control and it didn’t have any inherent wisdom. I quickly realised that you either became a power or you were crushed”

*Originally published on the Outlaw – December 22nd 2012*

I have been spending some time going through the work of historians Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett.

Among it, there was a reference to a story, that Jesus Christ may have survived the crucifixion, and been smuggled out of Jerusalem into Western Britain by Joseph of Arimathea and others, around AD 37

As Christianity is built entirely upon little or no physical evidence, it is notoriously, (or purposely) difficult to ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ that Jesus Christ the man, actually existed.

Controversial Bible scholar Joseph Atwill has a theory that the New Testament stories about the life of Jesus Christ were actually an attempt by the Romans to end a series of violent uprisings in first-century Israel.


Other stories have circulated over the years which contradict the version that is generally known and recorded in the New Testament, so that would be as good a place to start as any.

The New Testament – or the Greek Testament, as it is sometimes referred to, was sanctioned by the Church, in the form that it is now recognised by, during the fourth century.

But, the various works that that make up the New Testament were written long before that, so the immediate questions that must be asked are – when exactly were they written, and by whom?

The most important parts of the New Testament are I believe, the Four ‘Gospels’.

Within these, one can find large segments about the life and work of Jesus Christ, from his birth, right through to the crucifixion and his alleged ‘resurrection’.

The original narrators do attempt to chronicle Jesus’ life in detail, although they appear to focus mainly on the last year of his life, specifically, the last week.

Two of the Gospels, also provide descriptions of Mary’s pregnancy and the birth of Jesus.

These descriptions, at least the three that were written first, are so similar in content, that it is generally agreed that they are based on each other.

All four of the Gospels, with the possible exception of Matthew, were originally written in Greek.

Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, however.

So it is also generally agreed among scholars that the Bible as it is, was not written by Jesus or any of those closest to him.

The theory that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross, but faked his own death – has been around at least two hundred years, and has been argued about for at least as long.

In Germany, the theory was called ‘Die Scheintod-Hypothese’, (‘The Swoon Theory’) and was put forward by the German Theologian, H.E.G. Paulus, in three works published between 1800 and 1842.

Paulus believed that the simplest explanation was that Jesus never actually died on the cross, but was taken down alive, but unconscious.

This was not even a new theory, as two earlier works had presented a similar hypothesis.

Any theory regarding any person’s ability to survive crucifixion, would usually have to be based on contemporary witness statements or medical evidence, but in this case, actual evidence is understandably, impossible to source.

In fact, within the territories of the old Roman empire at that time, the remains of only one crucified person has ever been discovered, which appears to be the only solid evidence that crucifixion was actually practiced at all.

That was unearthed in 1968 within a bone chest, bearing the inscription ‘Yehohanan ben Hagakol’.

They contained the bones of a male who had obviously been crucified, between the years 1 and 70 CE.

His heels had been pierced with a nail, on which traces of wood were found and his legs had been broken.

No other finds from that period, and in that area have been discovered.

So that too, appears to be a dead end for researchers.

What about the actual practice of Crucifixion, would looking at that reveal any clues to back up any of these theories ?

“Crucifixion is one of the oldest forms of putting somebody to death, some theorists claim it was invented by the Persians and then adopted elsewhere fairly soon afterwards, around the sixth century BCE. The Romans may have learned about Crucifixion in Carthage, and made use of it to execute rebels, slaves who rose up against their masters, pirates, other non-Roman criminals, and particularly despised enemies. As a rule, Roman citizens did not run the risk of having to suffer this most degrading and cruel methods of execution.”

What made crucifixion so exceptionally cruel was the time it took for the crucified person to die. Generally, it took around twelve hours, but often lasted, two, three or even four days under almost unendurable pain. Opinions differ as to what was the actual cause of death, which ranged from suffocation to dehydration, coupled with other complications, such as being lashed beforehand. Shock, which was the result of blood loss, was also a factor, as, death was sometimes hastened by breaking the legs of the victim.

This was considered an act of mercy.

In some circumstances, the prisoner was nailed to the cross, sometimes they were tied and there were also different types of crosses used too. Some resembled the Christian cross, a long upright pole, with a horizontal bar a little way down from the top. A ‘Titulus,’ a sign with the condemned prisoners name was often fastened above her or his head. Sometimes the horizontal bar was fixed at the top of the pole, and some victims were set up on two poles that formed an X.

Crucifixion using a single pole has been described too, and this was probably the quickest method as it almost always led to suffocation, especially if the arms were stretched out above the head. The seat, (Sedile) which was often placed on the cross to take some of the weight off the arms, had no other function than to prolong the suffering and pain. Regardless of the construction, the idea behind crucifixion was maximum pain for the maximum time. The reason for this was to serve as a warning to the spectators and was very effective in pacifying them.

During the siege of Jerusalem, for instance, Roman soldiers tried to persuade the Jewish rebels to surrender by crucifying up to five hundred Jews every day along the walls of the city. Following the death of the victim, their bodies were left hanging and animals would often start to eat the corpse.

“Burial of crucifixion victims was not permitted. There do seem to have been exceptions, as (according to the versions that have survived) burial was so important to the Jews, sometimes the bodies were taken down before sunset and buried.”

Burial was not a common practice, however.

Even among the Romans, crucifixion was considered such a cruel form of execution that it was abandoned in the fourth century, during the rule of the Emperor Constantine.

So what really happened when Jesus of Nazareth was crucified?

Is there any evidence, written or otherwise that supports the theory that he survived, and went on to live out his life in virtual obscurity in another country altogether?

According to the Gospels, after Jesus was taunted, flogged and mocked, he then had the crown of thorns placed upon his head, and was dressed again before being taken out along the long walk along Via Delorosa to Golgotha.

It is here, that Jesus was relieved of his burden, the ‘patibulum’ (cross), by ‘a man called Simon, from Cyrene’, although why the accompanying soldiers forced a bystander to carry the horizontal bar is not explained.

The next bit is interesting, inasmuch as when the crucifixion party reach Golgotha, somebody gave Jesus “wine mixed with myrrh” (Mark), or “wine mixed with gall” (Matthew).

But “after tasting it, Jesus would not drink.”

So what was this drink ?

Was it an anaesthetic ?

It is recorded that when somebody was led out for execution, particularly Crucifixion, “he/she was given a goblet of wine containing a grain of Frankincense in order to be numb the senses.”

So why did Jesus refuse this drink ?

There is no mention of this in the Gospels, however, so again one can only speculate on why it was refused.

So how long was Jesus said to have hung on the cross ?

“It was nine in the morning when they crucified him…. At Midday a darkness fell over the whole land, which lasted until three in the afternoon; and at three in the afternoon Jesus cried aloud, ‘Eloï, Eloï, Lema sabachthani?’ Which means ‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me ?’ Hearing this, some of the bystanders said, ‘listen, he is calling Elijah.’ Someone ran and soaked a sponge in sour wine and held it to his lips on the end of a stick. ‘Let us see,’ he said, ‘if Elijah will come to take him down.’ Then Jesus gave a loud cry and died;”

The above verses are from the Gospel of Mark.

Which is the only one that gives both the time of crucifixion and the time of Jesus’ death, from which, one can determine that he hung for six hours on the cross before he died.

A lot less than the twenty-four, forty-eight and seventy-two hours that it normally took somebody to die from crucifixion.

The Gospel of Mark even points out how unusually quick this was; “Pilate was surprised to hear that he had died so soon, and sent for the Centurion to make sure he was already dead.”

This information is missing from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

*Mark portrays this soldier as being very sympathetic towards Jesus, quoting his words as; “This man must have been the son of God” a portrayal which is echoed in the other Gospels, although according to Luke, the Centurions words were “Beyond all doubt, this man was innocent”… Strange words from a man who was responsible for his crucifixion, would you agree ?*

So what exactly happened when Jesus died ?

When Jesus Cried out, almost at a given signal, ‘somebody’ (who?) runs off and fills a sponge with sour wine and puts it against Jesus’ lips.

Immediately after this, Jesus stopped breathing.

This was, by all accounts, not a typical death from Crucifixion.

The fact that someone can cry out at all just before he died is also remarkable, and that aspect alone has caused scholars to comment that he actually died from a ‘ruptured heart’, caused by the heart muscle being weakened by a heart attack.

All of this is entirely possible, but is it probable ?

What ALL the advocates of Die Scheintod Hypothese claim, however, is that there was something in the liquid that Jesus drank just before he ‘died’.

Something that made him lose consciousness but not his life.

The Gospels do not furnish any clues as to the identity of the person who gave Jesus this mysterious liquid, apart from the mention of “the bystanders” in the Gospel of Matthew.

The Gospel of John also adds something else:

“Because it was the eve of the Sabbath, the Jews were anxious that the bodies should not remain on the crosses, since that sabbath was a day of great solemnity; so they requested Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. The soldiers accordingly came to the men crucified with Jesus and broke the legs of each in turn, but when they came to Jesus and found he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers thrust a lance into his side, and at once there was a flow of blood and water. This is vouched for by an eyewitness, who’s evidence us to be trusted. He knows that he speaks the truth, so they you too may believe.”

So if that account is accurate, it means that if Jesus was still alive, he would have been in a better position to survive as he had not had his legs broken like the others.

It is neither probable that a dead person would start to bleed to any great amount after having their side pierced by a lance, as a stopped heart does not pump blood around the body.

So it appears that there is a great deal that is not typical about how Jesus reportedly died on the cross – it happens far too quickly – he is far too physically strong just before the moment of death, being capable of talking as well as crying out.

It is also odd that three out the four Gospel writers, find reason to mention that Jesus accepted a drink just before the moment of his death.

How likely is it that someone can survive a Crucifixion, albeit one that has been interrupted ?

It has happened.

Flavius Josephus gave an example from his own life:

“And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealius, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, on order to know whether it were a place for a camp, as I came back, I saw many slaves crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went away with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them: so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to accomplish their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.”

What happened after the Romans have judged Jesus to be dead, is of interest too.

A new person is introduced into the story, one that the Gospel writers give limited information about, so very little is known about him.

This man, described in the Gospel of Matthew as ‘a rich man,’ played an important role in what happened to the body of Jesus after the Crucifiction, asking Pilate for Jesus’ body, wrapping it in a sheet and laying it in a tomb cut out of rock and rolling a large stone across the entrance.

This man also plays a central role in the theory introduced by Alan Wilson, Barum Blackett and others, who believe that Jesus did not die on the cross as the Bible states.

The Bible does refer to this new person by name, however.

Joseph of Arimathea….

Adapted by the Outlaw
From ‘The Jesus Mystery’ by Lena Einhorn (2007)




Others who have put forward the ‘Swoon Theory’: George Moore, Frank Harris, Ernest brougham Docker, D. H. Lawrence, Robert Graves, and Joshua Podro, Hugh J. Schonfield, Donovan Joyce, J. D. M. Derrett, Holger Kersten and Elmar R. Gruber, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, Barbara Theiring, Gérald Messadié, and Helmer Linderholm.

Diego Garcia seems to have been very prominent in the news recently.

The location was allegedly programmed into the flight simulator that was removed from the home of Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, the pilot of the missing Malaysian Airliner MH-370.

Theories are flying around the internet that the airliner was somehow diverted to this location and is being held for some, as yet undisclosed purpose.

It’s certainly appears to be large enough to accommodate an airliner of this size.

So what is the significance, if any, of this remote location in the Indian Ocean?

It certainly holds strategic importance to the US Military, and has seen the involvement of the British Foreign Office, the then Labour Government and even the Queen, who have all played a role in ensuring the location remains under strict Military control.

The following article offers an insight into the secret history of Diego Garcia, and also demonstrates the hypocrisy shown by both the American and the British Governments over their current foot stamping over Russia’s involvement in Crimea.

Could there be a connection between these events?

In the current climate it would be foolhardy to dismiss anything.


John Pilger

“Stealing A Nation’ (2004) is an extraordinary film about the plight of the Chagos Islands, whose indigenous population was secretly and brutally expelled by British Governments in the late 1960s and early 1970s to make way for an American military base.

The tragedy, which falls within the remit of the International Criminal Court as “a crime against humanity”, is told by Islanders who were dumped in the slums of Mauritius and by British officials who left behind a damning trail of Foreign Office documents.

Before the Americans came, more than 2,000 people lived on the islands in the Indian Ocean, many with roots back to the late 18th century.

There were thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a railway and an undisturbed way of life. The islands were, and still are, a British crown colony.

In the 1960s, the government of Harold Wilson struck a secret deal with the United States to hand over the main island of Diego Garcia.

The Americans demanded that the surrounding islands be “swept” and “sanitized”.

Unknown to Parliament and to the US Congress and in breach of the United Nations Charter, the British Government plotted with Washington to expel the entire population.

After demonstrating on the streets of Mauritius in 1982, the exiled islanders were given the derisory compensation of less than £3,000 per person by the British government.

In the film, former inhabitants Rita Bancoult and Charlesia Alexis tell of how, in accepting the money, they were tricked into signing away their right to return home: “It was entirely improper, unethical, dictatorial to have the Chagossian put their thumbprint on an English legal, drafted document, where the Chagossian, who doesn’t read, know or speak any English, let alone any legal English, is made to renounce basically all his rights as a human being.”

Today, the main island of Diego Garcia is America’s largest military base in the world, outside the US.

There are more than 4,000 troops, two bomber runways, thirty warships and a satellite spy station.

The Pentagon calls it an “indispensable platform” for policing the world.

It was used as a launch pad for the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The truth about the removal of the Chagossians and the Whitehall conspiracy to deny there was an indigenous population did not emerge for another twenty years, when files were unearthed at the Public Record Office, in Kew, by the historian Mark Curtis, John Pilger and lawyers for the former inhabitants of the coral archipelago, who were campaigning for a return to their homeland.

John Pilger first become aware of the plight of the Chagossians in 1982, during the Falklands War: “It was pointed out to me that Britain had sent a fleet to go and save two thousand Falkland Islanders at the other end of the world while two thousand British citizens in islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean had been expelled by British governments and the only difference was that one lot were white and the others were black.

The other difference was that the United States wanted the Chagos Islands – and especially Diego Garcia – as a major base.

So nothing was said, which tells us something about the ruthlessness of governments, especially imperial governments.”

In June 2004, shortly before Stealing a Nation’s television screening, the British Government had issued an order-in-council, a royal decree using archaic powers invested in the Queen, bypassing Parliament and the High Court, to ban the Islanders from ever returning home.

“The Queen rubber-stamps what in many cases politicians know they can’t get away with democratically,” said Pilger.

“Dictators do this, but without the quaint ritual.”

In May 2006, the High Court finally ruled that the Chagossians were entitled to return to their homeland.

However, in the summer of 2008, David Miliband and the Foreign Office began another appeal, to the Law Lords, against the High Court’s judgements.

They found in favour of the Government.

In April 2010, the British Government established a marine nature reserve around the Chagos Islands.

Several months later, WikiLeaks published a US Embassy diplomatic cable from 2009 which read as follows: “Establishing a marine reserve might indeed, as the FCO’s [Colin] Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands’ former inhabitants or descendants from resettling in the [British Indian Ocean Territory].”

In the film, John Pilger concludes: “Why do we continue to allow our governments to treat people in small countries as either useful or expendable? Why do we accept specious reasons for the unacceptable?

The High Court issued one of the most damning indictments of a British government. It said the secret expulsion of the Chagos Islanders was wrong.

That judgement must be upheld and the people of a group of beautiful, once peaceful islands must be helped to go home and compensated fully and without delay for their suffering. Anything less diminishes the rest of us.”

Further Reading.


There are times when it’s almost impossible to use the truth alone to crack a lie, even an obvious one, head-on.

You have to try and get behind it, to try and fight it in a different way.

When it comes to writing about events in Israel for example, it’s nearly impossible to be even the slightest bit critical without attracting abuse, threats and getting labelled as often quoted, ‘Anti-Semite‘ or even ‘Jew Hating Nazi.’

*Oddly, the dictionary defines a Semite as ‘an inhabitant of the Middle East and most of the Ashkenazi Jews are Eastern European’ – therefore the only peoples of true Semitic origin in Israel are in fact, the Palestinians!*

Unfortunately, this argument falls on deaf ears with the masses, it’s too difficult to get them to see past their conditioning.

There are other strategies that you can develop however.

“How can you trust a State that poisons its own people & food supply with nuclear waste?”

A fact that has been verified many times, including from ‘official’ bodies.

So that could give you the genuine argument “I would never buy anything from Israel simply because it’s contaminated.”

Which would be seen as a fact-based criticism, which would be easier understood than saying, “I’m not eating anything grown by a racist, apartheid state that has systematically attempted genocide on their near neighbours”.

You could also ask some valid, unthreatening questions, such as:

“How many British citizens died in WWII?”

“How many Americans?”

“How many Russians?”

“How many Jews?”

Most people can answer the last question, it’s easy, but very few would know the correct answer to the previous three.

That tells me that there Is something fundamentally wrong with an education system that doesn’t even teach it’s own children how many of their countrymen died in the second world war.

Those questions could, in turn lead to a reference to the fact that if 300,000 British soldiers hadn’t died in the war with Germany, then a great deal more than the set-in-stone figure of ‘6 Million’ Jews, would have perished.

So even an acknowledgement of our country’s sacrifice would be a starting point.

But that is never going to happen is it?

Simply because that, if you have to pass laws throughout the world to make it a criminal offence to even question the inaccuracies regarding the Holocaust, leaving no room whatsoever for a fair and open discussion of the recorded events, there is something very suspicious going on.

If the World knew the truth, there would be outrage – which may be why Israel, using it’s donated billions from both Britain and the United States, has felt the need to arm itself with the most potentially devastating weapons on earth.

They aren’t going to stop any time soon either.

So maybe it’s about time to turn their propaganda back against them, in new and novel ways that haven’t been thought about…. Yet.

Is there a medically, or clinically, recognised diagnosis of ‘False Memory Syndrome’?

The concept was invented in the USA by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), a group of ‘accused parents’ – mainly fathers – whose adult daughters had confronted them about sexual abuse in childhood.

Having created this fictional concept of ‘false memory’ to defend themselves against these allegations, this group then went on to sell it to the media.

The concept was imported to Britain from the US by Roger Scotford. Scotford set up the UK based False Memory Syndrome Society, in response to being accused independently by two of his adult daughters of sexually abusing them.

The British group also gained enormous coverage and support in the media.

The media’s role has been crucial in enabling the FMSF, and its fellow organisations in other countries, to promote this invented ‘syndrome’ and to introduce it into public debate.

For the media, the ‘syndrome’ provided a new spin on sexual abuse and journalists have played a critical part in giving credence to this pseudo medical/ psychological term, as with the term ‘road rage’.

An American study found that between 1992 and 1994, following the founding of the FMSF, 85% of articles on child sexual abuse in leading magazines focused on false memories and false accusations.

This contrasts with only 7% of articles during 1982-4.

Alongside the invention of ‘FMS’, those who promote it have also introduced the concepts of ‘recovered memory therapy’ and the ‘recovered memory movement’ neither of which exist.

The origins of both can be found in ‘Making Monsters’ (Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters, 1995).

This text links disparate researchers, therapists and writers into spurious unity of purpose and perspective, despite the fact that they are not part of any organisation and express a diversity of views.

The only thing that is common is that they all believe it is possible to FORGET traumatic experiences.

Who coined the term ‘False Memory Syndrome’?

Ralph Underwager, one of the founders of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, is credited with having coined the term. In 1993, he gave an interview with the Dutch paedophile magazine, Paedika, in which he was reported as saying that paedophilia could be a responsible choice and that having sex with children could be seen as ‘part of God’s will’.

The other co-founders of the FMSF were Pamela and Peter Freyd, whose adult daughter made accusations of childhood sexual abuse.

The American media gave them almost unquestioning support until their daughter, psychology Professor Jennifer Freyd, felt obliged to speak out publicly, to stop the damage that she felt her parents and their organisation were doing to abuse survivors.

Other early promoters of false memory syndrome in the US were Paul and Shirley Erberle.

In the 1970s, when child pornography laws were less rigid, they edited a magazine called Finger in which there were explicit illustrations of children involved in sexual acts with adults, with features entitled ‘Sexpot at Five’, ‘My First Rape, She Was Only Thirteen’ and ‘Toilet Training’.

Another key figure is Felicity Goodyear-Smith, author of ‘First Do No Harm’ (1993).

Felicity Goodyear-Smith admits to a personal as well as professional involvement in the issue.

Her husband and parents-in-law were imprisoned for sexual abuse offences, having been members of the New Zealand community, CentrePoint, that encouraged sexual intimacy amongst its members, including the children.

Although the adults involved were prosecuted for these acts, including public sex with children, Goodyear-Smith claims that this was simply ‘childhood sexual experimentation’ and quotes studies that claim to show that adult-child sex can be harmless.


Further Reading.

Mental Wellness

Admin’s Note: I personally think that False Memory Syndrome does not exist in the way that it is being portrayed by ill-informed bloggers, and in the mainstream media. I do believe however, that certain memories can be ‘implanted’ by various means, including Hypnosis, in vulnerable people with the intention that they can be manipulated in a particular way. Perhaps to fit in with a story that needs to be disseminated among the wider population for example.

The Partition of India was the last act of the British Raj.

It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, but it was not the worst disaster to hit India in the 1940s.

That dubious honour goes to the Bengal Famine of 1942-4, which left over a million dead.

It was a famine that happened with full knowledge of Britain and directly disputes the claim by the British that their ‘rule’ had eliminated famine from India.

In 1942, a war boom in Calcutta had driven up the price of food, pricing the poor out of the market. When the harvest failed for two years running, the British rulers on the spot called for aid from London.

In response to the desperate pleas from the Viceroy and the Army, some was given, but more was withheld.

It appeared that Churchill’s War Cabinet did not want to slow down the prosecution of the war.

When Indians asked for help, guns were the preferred choice over food.

Yet in 1940-41, at a crisis in the Battle of Atlantic, the UK had faced the same choice.

Then, Churchill had ruled that feeding the people of Britain took priority. Indians, noting the failure of the Raj to respond to their crisis, were reinforced in their desire to be rid of it as soon as possible.

The Bengal Famine, the largest single loss of life in the British Empire in World War II, was promptly forgotten.

Churchill repeatedly ignored pleas for emergency food aid for millions in Bengal, who were left to starve as their rice paddies were turned over to jute for sandbag production and the supplies of rice from Burma had stopped after Japanese occupation.

Between one and three million died of hunger in 1943.

The wartime leader said Britain could not spare the ships to transport emergency supplies as the streets of Calcutta filled with emaciated villagers from the surrounding countryside, but author Madhusree Mukerjee has unearthed new documents which challenge his claim.

In her book, Churchill’s Secret War, she cites ministry records and personal papers which reveal ships carrying cereals from Australia were bypassed India on their way to the Mediterranean where supplies were already abundant.

It wasn’t a question of Churchill being inept: “sending relief to Bengal was raised repeatedly and he and his close associates thwarted every effort,”the author said.

“The United States and Australia offered to send help but couldn’t because the war cabinet was not willing to release ships. And when the US offered to send grain on its own ships, that offer was not followed up by the British,”she added.

The man-made famine and the contrast between the plight of starving Indians and well-fed British officers dining in the city’s many colonial clubs, has been described as one of the darkest chapters in British rule on the Indian subcontinent.

Miss Mukerjee blames Churchill’s ‘racism’ for his refusal to intervene.

He derided Gandhi as a “half-naked holy man” and once said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

Churchill was known to favour Islam over Hinduism.

“Winston’s racist hatred was due to his loving the empire in the way a jealous husband loves his trophy wife…. he would rather destroy it than let it go.”

Further Reading.



The Truth is offensive!

If you tell the truth, you are offensive.

Fortunately, many people now are slowly becoming offensive themselves.

But how long do you think it will be before being offensive may mean becoming “an enemy of the state”?

Throughout history those who have told the truth have suffered, while law courts and history writers prospered.

It is much the same today.

If you tell people what is really going on, they want to know why you can’t be more ‘positive’.

Why are you telling them that there are bad things happening that can’t be fixed?

The ancient Greeks understood this well.

In Greek mythology, Cassandra was the prophetess who no one believed despite her 100 percent record of being right.

Telling the truth to British people can be just as damaging as telling the truth to the Greeks in ancient mythology.

In Britain and everywhere else in the Western world it now seems, telling the truth is becoming more unpopular than ever.

Telling the truth has now even been criminalised in the United States.

Look at Bradley Manning, held for two years in prison without bail and without a trial in violation of the US Constitution, tortured for one year of his illegal confinement in violation of US and international law, and now put on trial by corrupt prosecutors for aiding “enemies of the US” by revealing the truth, as required of him by the US military code.

US soldiers are required to report war crimes. When Bradley Manning’s superiors showed themselves to be indifferent to war crimes, Manning reported the crimes via WikiLeaks.

What else does a soldier with a sense of duty and a moral conscience do when the chain of command is corrupt?

Julian Assange is another example. WikiLeaks has taken up the reporting function that the Western media has abandoned.

Remember, the New York Times did publish the Pentagon Papers in 1971, which undermined the lies Washington had told both to the public and to Congress to justify the costly Vietnam War?

But today no newspaper or TV channel has the courage nor the ability to be allowed to truthfully inform the public.

Julian Assange stepped into the vacuum and was immediately demonised, not merely by Washington but also by left-wing and right-wing mainstream media, and that included the Internet.

It was a combination of jealousy, ignorance, and the fear of attracting Washington’s wrath.

Without WikiLeaks and Assange the world would know essentially nothing.

So the order went out to destroy Julian Assange.

It is amazing how many people and Internet sites actually obeyed Washington’s command.

Assange has been so demonised that even though he has been granted political asylum by Ecuador, the British government, obeying its Washington masters, refuses to allow him safe passage out of the London Ecuadorian Embassy.

Is Assange destined to live out his life inside the Ecuadorian Embassy?

Will Assange be a facsimile of Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty who on November the 4th 1956, sought asylum in the US embassy in Budapest as Soviet tanks poured into Hungary to put down the anti-communist revolution?

Cardinal Mindszenty lived for 15 years in the US embassy.

Today it is Britain & America that is copying Soviet practices during the cold war.

In contrast with the US and the UK, the “authoritarian,” “communist,” “oppressive” Chinese government when confronted with Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng’s defection to the US embassy in Beijing, simply let him go.

It is an upside down world when America and the British refuse to obey international law, but the Chinese communists uphold international law.

Europeans and Americans are not bothered in the slightest that alleged terrorists are tortured, held indefinitely in prison without charges, and executed on the whim of some executive branch official without due process of law.

Most Americans prefer to remain oblivious to the unaccountable murder, torture, and detention without evidence, which proclaims their gullibility to the entire world.

There has never in history been a population as unaware as the American people.

The world is amazed that such a hoodwinked and blinkered people ever became, if only for a short time, a superpower.

The world needs intelligence and leadership in order to avoid catastrophe, but America can provide neither intelligence nor leadership.

America is a lost land where nuclear weapons are in the hands of those who are concerned only with their own power.

Washington is the enemy of the entire world and encompasses the largest concentration of evil on the planet.

Is there nobody of any substance left to rise up against the evil?