SORE LOSERS: ANTIFA MOB PROTESTS AGAINST RESULT OF A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION

Sore Losers: Antifa Mob Protests Against Result of a Democratic Election

Proving they’re the real fascists.

  – DECEMBER 13, 2019

A mob of Antifa thugs wearing black masks have descended on London to protest against the result of a democratic election.

Britain soundly rejected Labour and their hard left policies in yesterday’s national election, with the party suffering its worse result since 1935.

Video footage shows the group of radicals clashing with police while waving a huge Antifa flag near Downing Street.

Rejecting the result of a democratic election is a quintessentially fascist trait. Antifa have proven once again that it isn’t a cliche to say they are the real fascists.

“You either accept democracy, or you don’t,” commented Old Holborn. “Those who don’t tend to be Fascists. Even if they label themselves “anti Fascists.”

The mob also carried a banner which read ‘Power Beyond Parliament’ – illustrating how they have zero respect for democracy.

Antifa’s hateful and divisive message is being rejected across the west.

Time for them to home.

Fusion GPS Founders Blame Russian Interference as Tories Dominate UK Elections

Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch have no shame.

By Shane Trejo

As the Conservative Party dominates Labour in the general elections, the founders of Fusion GPS wrote an op/ed for The Guardian warning of Russian interference in British politics and calling for a Mueller-esque witch hunt in the country to defeat the evil Rooskies.

“The British political system has become thoroughly compromised by Russian influence. It’s high time its institutions – including the media – woke up to that fact,” wrote Fusion GPS founders Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch.

Although they did not explicitly blame Russian interference on the Tories domination of Labour in Thursday’s elections, they were not shy about casting doubt on the nation’s entire electoral process. They called for Russian hysteria in Britain in order to cast a shadow over their political system as it has in America since Trump was elected President.

“In 2016, both the United Kingdom and the United States were the targets of Russian efforts to swing their votes,” they wrote.

“The efforts in both countries had much in common. They were aided by a transatlantic cast of characters loosely organised around the Trump and Brexit campaigns. Many of them worked in concert and interacted with Russians close to the Kremlin. The outcome in both countries was also eerily similar,” they added.

They even had the nerve to brag about their work with Christopher Steele, the British spy who once headed up MI6’s Russia desk. Steele produced the discredited dossier that was used as the basis for the Russian collusion investigation and has ultimately made a complete farce of the intelligence community.

“Our Washington-based research firm, Fusion GPS, conducted much of the early investigations into Russia’s support of the Trump campaign, aided by our colleague Christopher Steele, the former head of MI6’s Russia desk,” Simpson and Fritsch wrote.

“While our initial focus was on Russian meddling in US politics, it has since become increasingly clear that Britain’s political system has also been deeply affected by Russian influence operations,” they added.

Simpson and Fritsch urge bureaucrats in the British government to leak information similar to what has been done by the U.S. deep state in order to create another neo-McCarthyist panic.

“Many US institutions have shown more backbone and independence than their UK counterparts,” they wrote. “Some of those who served in the Trump administration, such as the British-born Fiona Hill and Lt Col Alexander Vindman, have been willing to stand up in public and tell the truth, despite intimidation from the president and his allies. In the UK, the courageous whistleblowers needed to expose Russian influence have yet to emerge.”

They concluded with a warning that the evil Russian President Vladimir Putin may come for the conservatives next, so everyone must come together for a new senseless witch hunt in Britain.

“This is the biggest danger we face: that we cannot escape our partisanship long enough to face down our common enemy. Putin is not a Conservative; nor is he a Republican. The next time he interferes it could easily be in favour of their political opponents. Britain’s institutions must wake up to the Russian threat before Putin seriously damages the country’s centuries-old democracy,” Simpson and Fritsch wrote.

Editors for The Guardian should be ashamed of themselves for publishing this op/ed filled with asinine conspiracy theories written by these disgraced and disreputable political hacks.

Four Migrant Boats Caught Crossing English Channel in One Day

See the source image

By Dan Lyman

Four boats bearing dozens of migrants were intercepted crossing the English Channel on Sunday, according to reports.

A total of 39 migrants, all identifying themselves as Iranian nationals, were apprehended by authorities with U.K. Border Force and Kent Police.

“The first boat, which was stopped by the Border Force at 4.40am, contained nine people with the second incident happening at 6am – with five more people being detained in a rigid hulled inflatable boat (Rhib),” the Evening Standard reports.

Another two vessels carrying 11 and 14 migrants, respectively, were located and stopped at 7 am and 7:30 am.

See the source image

“Border Force dealt with four incidents on November 17 after being alerted to small boats travelling across the Channel towards the U.K.,” a government spokeswoman said in a statement.

“The people from all boats were taken to Dover where they were medically assessed before being interviewed by immigration officials.”

The number of migrants crossing the English Channel has been steadily rising, with over 1,500 successfully completing the journey so far in 2019, a 500% increase from 2018.

In September, U.K. authorities intercepted 86 migrants illegally crossing the English Channel during a record-setting day.

British authorities revealed that migrants have become so emboldened by the lack of disciplinary action being taken against illegal crossers, some are simply calling police from their boats to arrange pick-up.

“Illegal migrants are ringing police to collect them from boats in the Channel because they are so sure of avoiding being returned to their countries, MPs have been told,” the London Times reported in February.

See the source image

Propaganda 101: The New York Times pumps another ‘evil Russia’ plot

CAP

By Finian Cunningham

The “newspaper of record” New York Times arguably holds the record for peddling anti-Russia scare stories. This week the NY Times delivered yet another classic spook tale dressed as serious news.

Among its splash articles, under the headline ‘Top Secret Russian Unit Seeks to Destabilize Europe, Security Officials Say’, readers were told of an elite Russian spy team which has, allegedly, only recently been discovered.

It’s called “Unit 29155” and purportedly directed by the Kremlin to “destabilize Europe” with “subversion, sabotage and assassination.”

According to the NY Times, this crack squad of Russia’s most ruthless military intelligence agents were involved in an attempted assassination of an arms dealer in Bulgaria in 2015; the destabilization of Moldova; a failed coup against the Montenegrin government; and the alleged poisoning of former double agent Sergei Skripal in England last year.

The article states: “Western security officials have now concluded that these operations, and potentially many others, are part of a coordinated and ongoing campaign to destabilize Europe, executed by an elite unit inside the Russian intelligence system skilled in subversion, sabotage and assassination.”

The NY Times adds: “The purpose of Unit 29155, which has not been previously reported, underscores the degree to which the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, is actively fighting the West with his brand of so-called hybrid warfare — a blend of propaganda, hacking attacks and disinformation — as well as open military confrontation.”

This is all because, the readers are told, “The Kremlin sees Russia as being at war with a Western liberal order that it views as an existential threat.”

In response, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed it as more of the “pulp fiction category” which Western news media have manufactured with seeming increasing intensity over recent years. Peskov pointed out that Moscow has repeatedly stated its desire to normalize relations with Western states and the European Union in particular, contradicting the theme of the NY Times’ piece.

Indeed, the Russian Embassy in Britain recently published a compilation of false articles peddled by Western media over the past four years. The NY Times features prominently as one of the main purveyors of scare stories about alleged malign Russian activities, from hacking into presidential elections, to targeting American power grids, to covert collusion with President Donald Trump.

For students of Propaganda 101, this week’s tale makes a case study of how disinformation is disseminated in the guise of “news reporting.”

First of all, the NY Times reporter, Michael Schwirtz, gives a meandering account of lurid dirty deeds performed in various international locations allegedly carried out by the supposed “elite” Kremlin hybrid warriors. But tellingly, there are no details evidencing Russian involvement. It’s all lurid speculation spiced with fear-mongering, which reads like a pallid John le Carré spy novel.

Then, the usual giveaway that the NY Times is engaging in disinformation, it quotes anonymous security officials for apparent verification of its claims about “Unit 29155”. This is tacit admission of who the real authors are: Western spooks.

READ MORE: Problem of NYT 1619 Project isn’t that it sees America through slavery, it’s that it tells untruths

Next, a neat effort to give the lame story some legs is to quote named public figures. But these sources don’t confirm the existence of the alleged Kremlin unit; they are merely invited to speculate on its existence and presumed malign purpose. One of those named sources is MI6 chief Alex Younger. Yes, that’s right, the paper of record is quoting British military intelligence as a reliable source for public information. Another named source is Peter Zwack, who is described as a former US military intelligence officer who worked at the American Embassy in Moscow. Zwack is quoted as describing Russians as “organically ruthless” (whatever that means), while the paper actually admits that “he was not aware of the unit’s existence.”

The purpose of throwing a few names into the reporting mix is to lend a veneer of credibility to the nebulous, unverifiable, scary stuff that the anonymous spooks feed the reporter.

A special mention must be given to a third named source quoted by the NY Times. He is Eerik-Niiles Kross, an Estonian lawmaker and former military intelligence chief in Tallinn. He styles himself as “Estonia’s James Bond,” and is known for his salacious Russophobic warnings of “imminent invasion of the Baltic states” – over the past three decades. Kross is quoted to speculate on the existence of the alleged Kremlin hybrid warfare unit. Of course, he dutifully serves up his notorious anti-Russian fear-mongering. But he is not confirming. His speculation is pseudo-validation of information that is essentially fictional.

All in all, the latest installment of anti-Russia propaganda from the NY Times this week is a damp squib among many previous baseless reports of alleged Kremlin malign activity. If it serves any purpose, it is perhaps a choice illustration of how disinformation is sneakily, insidiously presented as ‘news’. The fact that this should appear in a Pulitzer Prize-winning, supposedly premier, American newspaper is the disturbing part.

But it is no surprise to those who have long studied how the US corporate media has been under the control of state intelligence agencies for many decades, especially after the Second World War and during the subsequent Cold War against the Soviet Union.

In a seminal essay in 1977 for Rolling Stone magazine, award-winning journalist Carl Bernstein documented how the CIA systematically cultivated hundreds of reporters, columnists, editors, publishing executives and broadcast networks to function as conduits for disinformation – much of it directed at demonizing the Soviet Union.

“From the outset, the use of journalists was among the CIA’s most sensitive undertakings,” writes Bernstein.

He added: “By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.”

How the CIA goes about planting false stories in the American and European media is outlined in this candid interview by John Stockwell, who was former National Security Council coordinator for the agency during the 1970s. Stockwell also added: “Enemies are necessary for the wheels of the US military machine to turn.”

You may wonder, if the Cold War ended nearly 30 years ago when the Soviet Union dissolved, why then do the NY Times and other Western media outlets continue to pump out anti-Russian propaganda? But that assumes the Cold War was primarily about the US opposing the ideology of communism. It wasn’t. It was, and still is, all about imposing control over the masses so they don’t ever challenge the power structure that deprives them of full democratic rights and decent livelihoods.

In a recent interview, philosopher André Vitchek makes the point that Western politicians and media like the NY Times keep harping on Cold War scare stories about evil foreigners in order “to distract their citizens from thinking about their increasingly limited freedoms and diminishing standards of living.”

The Cold War continues, and anti-Russia hysteria is but a distraction, as was the anti-Soviet hysteria. The aim is to distract the public from the real Cold War which is a war by the elites against democracy ever being actually realized among the masses.

 

Who are Extinction Rebellion — the ‘eco-activists’ grounding planes & shutting down cities

CAP

Calling for civil disobedience in the face of climate change, Extinction Rebellion protesters have been remarkably successful in thrusting themselves into the headlines. But what is the movement all about? And who’s behind it?

Best known for shutting down the streets of London in April, Extinction Rebellion upped its game on Thursday, with a protester affiliated with the group grounding an Aer Lingus flight from London City Airport to Dublin. Another protester – Paralympian James Brown – clambered onto the roof of a British Airways plane and refused to budge, prompting police to eventually remove him.

The disruptions came as Extinction Rebellion threatened a “Hong Kong-style” occupation and shutdown of the airport, and as similar protests hit more than 60 cities worldwide.

“Ultimately, it is part of Extinction Rebellion’s aim to get people arrested,” read a flyer circulated by activists in Dublin. To that end, the group has been successful. More than 1,000 activists have been arrested in London alone this week, including 50 at London City Airport.

CAP

What do they want?

The group’s demands are threefold. First, they call on governments to “tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency,” a similar demand to that made by Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg at the UN Climate Action Summit in New York last month. A seemingly benign demand, but one that paints opponents as ‘anti-truth’.

Secondly, they demand that “government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.”  Finally, the group demands that government partner up with activists, and “create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.” 

While a ‘Citizens’ Assembly’ would draw on a cross-section of society, it would be government-created and guided by a collection of NGOs and academics, as was the case in Ireland when the government convened such an assembly to pave the way for referenda on gay marriage and abortion in recent years. Extinction Rebellion make no mention on whether NGOs with opposing views will be included in the deliberation.

CAP

At XR’s rallies, protesters have called for any number of ways of meeting these goals and more, including government bans on meat and private cars, abolishment of the airplane, boycotts of the fashion industry, and disbandment of the military. Disrupting commerce is fair game for making their points, as is disrupting vital services. As a cancer patient in London was forced to walk to hospital treatment due to XR’s roadblocks, spokesperson Savannah Lovelock told Sky News that while she was “really sorry,” such action is necessary for the good of the planet.

An appeal to authority

Central to all of the group’s demands is a radical expansion of state power. Reducing greenhouse gases to net zero – if a state-led effort – would give government the power to restrict or outright deny its citizens freedom of travel, freedom to choose their own diets, and freedom to build their homes however they want. In the US, drafttext of ‘Green New Deal’ legislation gives a sneak-peek at just how all-encompassing this would be, working wealth redistribution and reparations for “historic oppression” into the mix for good measure.

A potent illustration of the group’s appeal to authority came last November, when XR co-founder Gail Bradbrook marched on Buckingham Palace and read aloud a message to Queen Elizabeth “with great humility,” calling on the monarch to save the planet by royal decree.

“It isn’t enough to live a life of voluntary simplicity,” academic and XR campaigner Rupert Read wrote at the time. The implied meaning is clear: people will have to be coerced into complying.

Who’s behind it all?

Here’s where things get interesting. Exploding onto the scene with a recognizable logo, coherent imagery across multiple continents, a dominant social media presence and a slick website, the leaders of Extinction Rebellion are no rabble of bong-smoking malcontents.

CAP

Especially not Dr. Gail Bradbrook. The co-founder of the movement told the BBC that she came up with the idea after praying in a deep way” while under the influence of “psychedelic medicines” on a retreat last year.

In truth, Bradbrook has made a career out of activism, and has for two decades worked as a professional campaigner. Speaking at a talk in 2016, she admitted that this role is “mostly about securing your own paycheck.” As director of Citizens Online – a charity campaigning for “digital inclusion,” Bradbrook has worked with BT to lobby the British government.

Joining Bradshaw are former organic farmer Roger Hallam, and also involved are Occupy London veteran Tasmin Osmond – a granddaughter of British nobility – and ex-UN worker Laura Reeves.

Behind the movement is a bulwark of elite cash. Heiress Aileen Getty has kicked in nearly £500,000 of her family’s oil wealth to the group via the Climate Emergency Fund, claiming that “disruption” is necessary to take on climate change. According to its own data, Extinction Rebellion has raised just short of a million pounds in large donations since March, from groups like the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, set up by a hedge fund manager and run by a former vice-chairman of billionaire financier George SorosOpen Society Institute.

What has the group achieved?

CAP

Aside from annoying motorists and boosting superglue sales, Extinction Rebellion has achieved some of its aims. Eleven countries and dependencies, beginning with Britain and Ireland, have declared a state of “climate emergency,” even if Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar did say afterwards that the declaration was a “symbolic gesture.”

What Extinction Rebellion has also been successful in is pandering to the wishes of global financiers and the new captains of green industry. The group’s call for “net zero” carbon emissions is echoed by the World Bank, and a host of investment firms, including HSBC, JP Morgan Chase and Citi, that see “profits to be had” in “climate-related sectors.”

None of this is a bad thing on the surface, except that these groups – which have banded together to form the Climate Finance Partnership and Blended Finance Action Taskforce – want access to taxpayer money and pension funds to do this. This Western money, according to the groups, will be funnelled into projects in Africa, Asia, and South America.

Rarely do the demands of activists and the will of international finance line up, but not everyone is happy. In London, Police Commissioner Nick Ephgrave has warned that the current protests will hamper officers’ ability to tackle “street-based violence,” and leave the city more vulnerable to terrorism.

Street blockages and airport disruptions may put Extinction Rebellion at odds with the majority of the population, but majority support is unnecessary. XR co-founder Roger Hallam has repeatedly referenced Gene Sharp as an inspiration. An American political scientist, Sharp’s theory of nonviolent action – that only 3.5 percent of a population need to back a protest movement before it reaches critical mass and triggers change – has been adopted and put into practice by ‘color revolutionaries’ around the world, from US-sponsored student protesters in Serbia at the turn of the century, to Arab Spring revolutionaries more recently.

Celebrities have lined up to endorse Extinction Rebellion – from gloom-rockers Radiohead chipping in £300,000 to Benedict Cumberbatch joining protesters camped in Trafalgar Square. With elite cash and backing, as well as round the clock media coverage, Extinction Rebellion is well on its way to Sharp’s tipping point, and has well and truly glued itself to the public consciousness already.

UNIVERSITY BANS WHITE STUDENTS FROM ATTENDING ANTI-RACISM MEETING

University Bans White Students From Attending Anti-Racism Meeting

Oh, the irony.

  – OCTOBER 10, 2019

The University of Sheffield Student’s Union in the UK has banned white people from attending a meeting about anti-racism.

Yes, really.

The SU announced that it would hold focus groups on “how we can create an anti-racist Students’ Union” as part of an effort to shift from a “non-racist to an actively anti-racist” stance.

However, no white people are allowed to take part.

“Please note that these sessions are only open to black and minority ethnic (BME) students,” states the announcement.

Banning people from a meeting about racism because of their skin color is…what’s the word? Oh yeah, racist.

The controversy follows a similar farce at the University of Edinburgh where white people were banned from asking questions at an event called Resisting Whiteness.

“We will not be giving the microphone to white people during the Q&As, not because we don’t think white people have anything to offer to the discussion but because we want to amplify the voices of people of colour,” stated promotional material for the event.

 

UK school under fire for hosting ‘Resisting Whiteness’ event with rules discriminating against white people

CAP

The University of Edinburgh has allowed a ‘Resisting Whiteness 2019’ event to proceed at its venue, even though there was outrage over organizers’ rules, which limited white people’s access to a microphone and to certain rooms.

The conference, aimed at raising awareness about “the importance of anti-racist action in the UK”  took place at Pleasance Theater, owned by the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, on Saturday.

It was organized by a group tellingly named ‘The Resisting Whiteness Collective,’ which describes itself as a “not-for-profit grassroots organization of QTPOC [Queer and Trans People of Color] activists.” While touting the event, the group said that it wants to make it “as accessible as possible and therefore have free tickets available for those who would like to attend.”

READ MORE: Galloway blasts Lord Sugar for ‘sacrilegious mockery of Christian martyrs’, asks Pope to intervene

However, it seems not everybody was welcome. The rules published on the conference’s official website state that if an attendee is white, they will have no right to ask questions, at least publicly. The rule, introduced to “amplify the voices of people of color” said that “priority will be given to questions from people of color in the audience.”

“If you are a white person in the audience and you still have a question after the panel has ended, please feel free to share your questions with a member of the committee or our speakers then” 

While some argued that the attempt to muffle voices of a particular group, in this case white people, is tantamount to the racism that the “collective” so fervently opposes, another controversial rule sparked comparisons with segregation practices.

The “safe spaces” rule states that one of the two rooms “available to anyone who needs to remove themselves from the conference” due to anxiety issues or just to take a break is off-limits to white people.

“The Braid room is a safe space for only people of color, and the Cheviot room is available for anyone who needs it,” the rule states.

The controversial event was thrust into the national media spotlight earlier this week after outspoken media personality Katie Hopkins denounced the university’s decision to host the gathering on Twitter.

CAP

Her tweet has opened the floodgates to similar accusations against the university, with many arguing that by throwing its weight behind the event, the school is endorsing racism.

“You’re hosting ‘Resisting Whiteness,’ is that not similar to ‘resisting blackness?'” one commenter asked.

CAP

Another Twitter user suggested that the group has “a hidden agenda… [to] stoke race wars.”

CAP

Responding to the backlash, the university said that the organizers had agreed to revise the “safe spaces” policy to “ensure [the] event is compliant with our values.”

They did appear to have watered-down the wording of the mic-access rule that had originally stated: “We will not be giving the microphone to white people during the Q&As.” However, if there were changes to the “safe spaces” rule, they are not reflected on the event’s official webpage.

While many chided the organizers, others sided with the “collective,” arguing that “reverse racism” does not exist.

CAP

A bookshop that helped to arrange the event took a swipe at the critics, saying that they had “willfully misunderstood” the group’s intentions.

“Resisting whiteness is not about white individuals, it is about whiteness as a pervasive system of oppression – both social & political – a system that needs resisting & dismantling,” it wrote.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑