By Dave Knight 22nd June 2014. Find Article & Video Here:-
Former Thatcher Home Secretary videoed at disgusting paedophile orgy
It is rumoured that former Home Secretary Leon Brittan has been questioned by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of engaging in sex with children. He has not, however, been arrested.
The Sunday Mirror reported that an ex-cabinet minister has been caught on video at a depraved orgy at the Elm Guest House, London. It involved under-age children. He was, and possibly still is, a member of a paedophile ring who not only organised sex parties with boys from children’s homes, but also made a snuff videos. In one video a little boy was gang raped and tortured until he died.
The Sunday Mirror did not name the pervert, but the rumour mill is naming Leon Brittan. The details of this crime are not an easy read. It has not been confirmed yet that it was Brittan at the party or that he was involved in the killing of children.
The MP whose book made sexual abuse allegations against the late Liberal politician Sir Cyril Smith is planning to use parliamentary privilege to make similar claims against a second, living, parliamentarian, next week.
Simon Danczuk, Labour MP for Rochdale, has told The Independent on Sunday that “if asked any question, I will feel obliged to answer that question” when he gives evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 1 July. An MP on the committee has confirmed that Mr Danczuk will indeed be asked about visitors to Elm Guest House in south-west London in the 1970s and 1980s where allegations of sexual abuse and grooming of children by politicians have been made.
It has long been known that a Paedophile ring operated with close links to Downing Street and that the ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher covered up their crimes. These paedophile perverts were in her government and had jobs supporting the Conservative Party (Tories). Thatcher’s Premiership replace Prime Minister Edward Heath who did torture and kill boys from the Jersey children’s home Haut de la Garenne. Thatcher hated him, and Brittan was his friend. These revelations may have brought down the Government then, and may do so now as the cover up continues.
The Metropolitan Police have questioned Brittan. What is clear is that a very senior politician was interviewed in December 2013, and again recently.
Paedophile Information Exchange
As Home Secretary Brittan, came under pressure to ban the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). PIE campaigned for the age of consent reduced to 4 years old. In other words, they wanted to legalise paedophilia. He ignored the pressure and created a policy, which actually protected the paedophiles and encouraged their infiltration into schools and children’s homes.
PIE had over 1000 members in the early 1980s. These people were prominent and powerful; the British Establishment tried to keep lid on whole thing. The secret service warned off police and journalists who threatened the “security of the state” by exposing paedophiles in government. The net is closing, however, and hopefully many prominent establishment figures will soon stand in the dock.
See Also:- Fellowship of Paedophiles-Cover Up
By Kit Daniels 17th January 2015.
What’s really going on?
Man-made “climate change” is largely a myth promoted by politicians to scare the public into accepting a vast expansion of government to supposedly stop “global warming.”
Global warming is a manufactured problem played up by the government to instigate a public reaction – fear – the government then exploits to offer a predetermined solution: the expansion of government at the public’s expense.
This strategy, now known as the Hegelian Dialectic, has been used successfully by politicians for millennia to expand government, which can only grow at the expense of individual liberties.
The Bush administration used the strategy successfully in 2003 when it gained enough public support for the invasion of Iraq by claiming the country had weapons of mass destruction, and the war ultimately expanded the military-industrial complex and America’s emerging police state.
Today “global warming” is used as the bogey man because it allows the United Nations to scare the world’s population into believing “man-made climate change” is too big of a threat for their country to handle alone and thus it can only be “defeated” through the expansion of the U.N. at the expense of their nation’s sovereignty.
And state-funded scientists are given thousands and even millions of dollars to help promote the myth of “global warming” by fitting their data into the fearmongering agenda.
“This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution – in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible,” G. Edward Griffin wrote in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. “Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare.”
“Accuracy in these predictions would not be important; their purpose would be to frighten, not inform.”
And the latest claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record certainly rejected accuracy in favor of fear.
“Any temperature claim of ‘hottest year’ based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous ‘hottest years,’” Marc Morano of Climate Depot reported. “This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges.”
“The claim of the ‘hottest year’ is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts; ‘hottest year’ claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18-plus-year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’ [in warming.]”
The standstill he refers to can be found in Remote Sensing Systems satellite data that shows there has been no significant rise in global temperature since Oct. 1996, which is more than half the 36-year satellite record.
And this pause in warming could last at least another decade.
“The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with ‘substantial confidence’ that the science was settled and the [climate change] debate over,” climate analyst Lord Christopher Monckton wrote. “Nature had other ideas.”
Duke of York to break his silence over allegations that he “sexually abused” 17-year-old Virginia Roberts, who has made her first sworn statement of the claims.
The Duke of York has arrived in Davos where he will make his first public statement about “sex abuse” allegations as it was claimed that he took part in an orgy with nine teenage girls.
Any hope the Duke may have had that he could put the allegations behind him with a speech at the World Economic Forum were dashed as his accuser, Virginia Roberts, made a series of lurid claims in her first sworn court statement.
She claimed the Duke had a “sexual interest in feet”, that she had sex with him while his police protection officers sat in a car outside and that his friend Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender, was “collecting private information” about the Queen’s son.
The Duke has categorically denied any form of sexual contact with Miss Roberts, now 31. She described the denial as “hurtful”.
The Duke is trying to carry on with business as usual at Davos by holding a series of meetings.
The Duke, who will make a brief on-camera reference to Miss Roberts’s claims when he addresses an event for entrepreneurs in Davos, Switzerland this evening, refused to comment on the latest developments as he left a chalet in the nearby resort of Klosters this morning.
He later arrived at the conference in Davos where he did his best to carry on with business as usual by holding a series of one-on-one meetings promoting British entrepreneurs, education and science and technology.
Miss Roberts, who now lives in Colorado with her husband and two children, claims to have had sex with the Duke on three occasions in 2001, when she was 17.
On January 19 she signed a sworn statement – the first time she has made the accusations about the Duke under oath – which was submitted to a court in Florida as part of an attempt to have a plea bargain agreement with Epstein overturned.
She said: “I have seen Buckingham Palace’s recent “emphatic” denial that Prince Andrew had sexual contact with me. That denial is false and hurtful to me.
“I did have sexual contact with him as I have described here – under oath. Given what he knows and has seen, I was hoping that he would simply voluntarily tell the truth about everything. I hope my attorneys can interview Prince Andrew under oath about the contacts and that he will tell the truth.”
In a separate development, lawyers have written to the Duke at Buckingham Palace to ask him to testify under oath about Miss Roberts’s claims. According to one report, the Palace refused to accept delivery of the letter.
Only the Sheeple Are Sane
This post is about an issue that is by now a bit dated (though the topic as such certainly isn’t), but we have only just become aware of it and it seemed to us worth rescuing it from the memory hole. In late 2013, the then newest issue of the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM for short) defined a new mental illness, the so-called “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.
As TheMindUnleashed.org informs us, the definition of this new mental illness essentially amounts to declaring any non-conformity and questioning of authority as a form of insanity. According to the manual, ODD is defined as:
[…] an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.
Every time a new issue of the DSM appears, the number of mental disorders grows – and this growth is exponential. A century ago there were essentially 7 disorders, 80 years ago there were 59, 50 years ago there were 130, and by 2010 there were 374 (77 of which were “found” in just seven years). A prominent critic of this over-diagnosing (and the associated over-medication trend) is psychologist Dr. Paula Caplan.
As MindUnleashed notes:
“Are we becoming sicker? Is it getting harder to be mentally healthy? Authors of the DSM-IV say that it’s because they’re better able to identify these illnesses today. Critics charge that it’s because they have too much time on their hands.
New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior. In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re diseases. And there are treatments available.”
Edward Abbey on what happens when no-one ever stirs things up
There is an obvious danger involved with such loose definitions such as the one employed in identifying the alleged illness of “ODD”. A chilling example was provided by the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s. In a 1959 speech, Nikita Khrushchev made the following remark:
“Can there be diseases, nervous diseases among certain people in the communist society? Evidently there can be. If that is so, then there also will be offenses which are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. To those who might start calling for opposition to communism on this ‘basis,’ we say that now, too, there are people who fight against communism, but clearly the mental state of such people is not normal.”
There are two ways to look at the alleged terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo
One is that in the English speaking world, or much of it, the satire would have been regarded as “hate speech,” and the satirists arrested. But in France Muslims are excluded from the privileged category, took offense at the satire, and retaliated.
Why would Muslims bother? By now Muslims must be accustomed to Western hypocrisy and double standards. Little doubt that Muslims are angry that they do not enjoy the protections other minorities receive, but why retaliate for satire but not for France’s participation in Washington’s wars against Muslims in which hundreds of thousands have died? Isn’t being killed more serious than being satirized?
Another way of seeing the attack is as an attack designed to shore up France’s vassal status to Washington. The suspects can be both guilty and patsies. Just remember all the terrorist plots created by the FBI that served to make the terrorism threat real to Americans.
France is suffering from the Washington-imposed sanctions against Russia. Shipyards are impacted from being unable to deliver Russian orders due to France’s vassalage status to Washington, and other aspects of the French economy are being adversely impacted by sanctions that Washington forced its NATO puppet states to apply to Russia.
This week the French president said that the sanctions against Russia should end (so did the German vice-chancellor).
This is too much foreign policy independence on France’s part for Washington. Has Washington resurrected “Operation Gladio,” which consisted of CIA bombing attacks against Europeans during the post-WW II era that Washington blamed on communists and used to destroy communist influence in European elections? Just as the world was led to believe that communists were behind Operation Gladio’s terrorist attacks, Muslims are blamed for the attacks on the French satirical magazine.
The Roman question is always: Who benefits? The answer is: Not France, not Muslims, but US world hegemony. US hegemony over the world is what the CIA supports. US world hegemony is the neoconservative-imposed foreign policy of the US.
According to National Public Radio, Charlie Hebdo is about free speech. The US has free speech, claim NPR’s pundits, but terrorists have taken it away from the French.
Just how does the US have free speech when NY Times reporter James Risen was psychologically put on the rack to force him to reveal his source, despite the fact that Risen and his source are protected by the US Constitution and whistleblower protections. Clearly, in the US “national security” has trumped everything else.
“National security” has nothing to do with national security. It has only to do with protecting the criminals in the US government from accountability for their crimes. Every time you hear Washington invoke “national security,” you know for a 100% fact that the government has committed yet another crime. National security is the cloak for Washington’s criminal operations. “National security” prevents the government’s crimes from coming to light and, thereby, protects government from accountability.
One wonders what role “national security” will play in the trial of alleged Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Tsarnaev has been in custody since April 2013 and under indictment since April 22, 2013. Yet jury selection is only now beginning in January 2015. Why this long delay? The guarantee of a speedy trial no longer means anything, but with all sorts of charges in addition to the bombing for which the government claims eye witnesses and confessions and with the Tsarnaev brothers already convicted in the media, the long delay is a puzzle. Yet, we have not heard from Dzhokhar Tsarnaey himself. It is difficult to push away the thought that Dzhokhar’s trial has been delayed in order to compete his conditioning and acceptance of his guilt and in order for the many questions raised by alternative media to be forgotten.
The print and TV media have dished up the government’s explanation without investigation. However, the alternative media have taken great exception to every aspect of the case. As the US government has taught us since the Clinton regime, the safest assumption is that everything the government says is a lie.
The most suspicious aspect of the event was the speed with which an army of 10,000 heavily armed troops consisting of police from various jurisdictions and National Guard soldiers outfitted in military gear and provided with tanks or armored personnel carriers were on the streets of Boston. Never before has such a massive force equipped with military heavy equipment been employed in a manhunt, much less for one wounded, unarmed, 19-year old kid.
For such a force to be assembled and deployed so quickly suggests pre-planning. What was presented as a manhunt for one badly wounded suspect looks more like a test case and precedent for locking down one of America’s largest cities, while squads of troops evicted US citizens from their homes at gunpoint and conducted indiscriminate searches of houses that contributed nothing to apprehending the alleged suspect. The chances are zero that any household would have harbored a badly wounded unarmed fugitive dying from the lack of medical care.
Not only was Boston and its suburbs locked down, the Federal Aviation Administration restricted airspace over Boston and issued a “ground stop” for Logan airport. Why?
Several other cities in Massachusetts and even some other states put their police forces on alert. Why?
On the scene were the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, the CIA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the National Counterterrorism Center. The US Attorney General committed the full resources of the US Department of Justice.Why?
The only plausible answer is to raise the fear level in order to gain the public’s acceptance of the lockdown of Boston and police invasions of citizens’ homes. It makes no sense that danger from a badly wounded unarmed 19 year-old could possibly justify such expense and trampling of constitutional rights of citizens.
A non-gullible person must wonder if the bombing was an orchestrated event for the purpose of coordinating state, local, and federal governments in the lockdown of a major city. A poll of Bostonians last July found that 42 percent harbored doubts about the official version of events.
The gullible always say that if a conspiracy existed someone would have talked. But people do talk. It just doesn’t do any good. For example, during George W. Bush’s first term a NSA whistleblower leaked to the New York Times that the NSA was bypassing the FISA Court and spying on American citizens without warrants. Under US law, NSA was in a conspiracy with the Bush regime to commit serious felonies (possibly for the purpose of blackmail), but the New York Times spiked the story for one year until George W. Bush was re-elected and the regime had time to ex post facto legalize the felonies.
Operation Gladio was a conspiracy kept secret for decades until a President of Italy revealed it.
The Northwoods Project was kept secret until years afterward when the second Kennedy Commission revealed it.
More than one hundred first responder police and firemen report hearing and personally experiencing multiple explosions floor by floor and even in the sub-basements of the World Trade Center twin towers, and these testimonies had no effect whatsoever.
It only took one high school physics professor to shoot down NIST’s account of the collapse of WTC 7. The fact that it has been conclusively proven that this building was brought down by controlled demolition has had no effect on the official story.
The co-chairmen and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission published books in which they say that information was withheld from the Commission, that the US Military lied to the Commission, and that the Commission “was set up to fail.” Neither Congress, the media, nor the US public had any interest in investigating why information was withheld, why the military lied, and why the Commission was set up to fail. These extraordinary statements by the leaders of the official investigation had no impact whatsoever.
Even today a majority of the US population believes Washington’s propaganda that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed some provinces. Neither judgement nor intelligence are strongpoints of the American public and juries.
Government tells Americans whatever story the government puts together and sits and laughs at the gullibility of the public.
Today the US public is divided between those who rely on the “mainstream media” and those who rely on the alternative Internet media. Only the latter have any clue as to what is really happening.
The stories of Charlie Hebdo and the Tsarnaev brothers will be based not on facts but on the interests of government. As in the past, the government’s interest will prevail over the facts.
By Gilad Atzmon 8th January 2015. Find Article Here:-
The massacre in France was a devastating crime against freedom and the right to laugh.
But was it really executed by a bunch of lunatic irrational Muslims who to decided to kill mercilessly because their prophet was mocked?
French people should be asking what led members of their society to commit such cold blood murders against their fellow citizens.
France should ask itself why it has been dropping bombs on Muslims. Who enthusiastically advocated these ‘interventionist’ wars? What was the role of Bernard-Henri Lévy, the prime advocate of the war against Libya for instance?
What was all this French fuss about the burka? Who led this war on Muslims at the heart of Europe? Was it really in the name of tolerance?
Freedom and laughter are precious indeed, but isn’t it the French ‘socialist’ government that has been harassing and banning the best and most successful comedian in France, Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, because he satirized the Holocaust religion? Who pushed the French government to take such harsh actions against an artist; wasn’t it the Jewish lobby group CRIF?
If Europe wants to live in peace, it might consider letting other nations live in peace. By following the whims of The Lobby we have destined Paris to the fate of Aleppo, God forbidden.
But there is an alternative narrative that turns our perception of this disastrous Paris massacre on its head.
This morning 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, suspected to be one of the three terrorists involved in yesterday’s attack, handed himself in to the police in Charleville-Mezieres. He reportedly surrendered peacefully after hearing his name on the news. And he claims that he had nothing to do with yesterday’s event. Bizarre isn’t it? Not really.
While every anti terror expert has agreed that the attack on Charlie Hebdo yesterday was a professional job, it seems pretty amateurish for a ‘highly trained terrorist’ to leave his ID behind. And since when does a terrorist take his ID on an operation? One possible explanation is that the so-called terrorists needed a few extra hours to leave France or disappear. They had to fool the French police and intelligence into searching the wrong places and the wrong people. Is it possible that they simply planted a stolen or forged ID card in the car they left behind?
If this was the scenario, it is possible that the attack yesterday had nothing to do with ‘Jihadi terrorism.’ It is quite probable that this was another false flag operation. Who could be behind it? Use your imagination…
We’ve bought the idea that Islamic terrorists are genuinely outraged by satirical cartoons. But maybe we’re playing into their hands.
Here’s a theory. Terrorists aren’t offended by cartoons. Not even cartoons that satirise the Prophet Muhammad. They don’t care about satire. For all I know they may not even care about the Prophet Muhammad.
Instead, they merely pretend to be offended by cartoons, in order to give themselves a pretext to commit murder. Murder so horrifying, on a pretext so unWestern, that non-Muslims – blinded by grief and rage – turn on Muslims. Blame them. Persecute them. Burn their book, attack their mosques, threaten them in the street, demand their expulsion from Western societies. Actions that, in turn, scare Western Muslims, isolate them, alienate them. And thus drive some of them to support – and even become – terrorists.
Result: terrorists swell their ranks for a civil war they long to provoke non-Muslims into starting.
In our angry innocence, however, we persist in thinking this is somehow about cartoons. In thinking that the terrorists “win” if we don’t reproduce those cartoons, and “lose” if we do. As if, at this very moment, terrorist leaders across the West are privately wailing in anguished disbelief because satirical cartoons have been reproduced this morning in several European newspapers.(“Disaster! Our plan has backfired in a way we couldn’t possibly have foreseen! Ink really does beat Kalashnikovs! Satire defeats us once again!”)
On the whole, I’m not sure that’s very likely. I don’t think the terrorists “win” if we fail to reproduce cartoons. I think the terrorists “win” if we leap up, gulp down their bait – and hate Muslims.
This is not about satire. This is beyond satire.