Monday, 4 March 2019




Until quite recently no 'big picture' vision of our material reality existed that could explain the mind-boggling anomalies that necessarily arise from quantum physics theory. Even the creators of the theory, who could be fairly called geniuses, could not explain these phenomena.

The most familiar of these quantum effects are:
1) 'Entanglement' … whereby change imposed on one of a pair of 'entangled' particles causes instantaneous change in the other no matter how far apart the particles are at the time of the imposed change. This implies the (seemingly) impossible, that information travels from one particle to the other at effectively infinite speed (under all other circumstances nothing can travel faster than light [i.e. at more than 3 x 10^8 m/s]). To “understand” this problem students are introduced to the concept of “non-locality”, meaning that a particle is “somewhere” but not in the sense we usually imagine. A non-explanation that doesn't help at all.

2) The alternately 'particle-like' or wave-like' behaviour of photons or electrons in the Young's Slits experiment, depending on whether we are observing the particles or we are not.
Both behaviours present materialist-attuned minds with an impossible conundrum.
Although some of the great Physicists of the early 20th Century did sense a solution, they could not, at that time, extrapolate the basic idea into a credible and coherent overview. 

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” 

Max Planck

Today a model of reality exists that makes these phenomena comprehensible in a fairly straightforward manner. This model is called 'The Simulation Model'.


The universe we inhabit is a 'Virtual Reality', much like the ones we can now create ourselves only (obviously) much, much more powerful.
When you play a video game the street scene you engage with is not real, the jungle you are chased through is not real, the 'people' trying to shoot you are not real, the avatar you control is not real. 
All these things are simply data delivered to the interface with which you, the player, are engaging.

The only things that are real are your consciousness sending signals to the computer and the computer program that you are engaging with.

Similarly, according to the 'Simulation Model', only your consciousness and the consciousness of the 'creator' of the virtual reality are real. In this more sophisticated 'video game' you consciousness is embedded in your avatar (physical body). It must also be connected to the 'creator'.
By this model we realise that

The anomalies associated with quantum physics now disappear. There are no anomalies. The only reason these anomalies existed in the first place is because we thought that space and time are real.


If space and time are not real then the entangled particles are not separated by massive distances, they are separated by the illusion of distance and their identical behaviour has been fixed by the program at source at their moment of creation. Similarly for the Young's Slits particles it IS only the observation of the probability distribution (wave function of the 'particle') generated by the program that makes the particle an actual particle in the first place. Before it is observed the material universe is a FIELD OF POTENTIAL, a probability function, that only observation and (according to physicist Tom Campbell) its associated intention fix as a particular (virtual) reality.
...and isn't this what mystics have been telling us for millenia ? … that our “physical reality” is all an ILLUSION.
An illusion created for your consciousness to experience, for the best possible progress towards perfection of souls. One's intention plays a crucial role not only in one's own personal development but also in the development of our shared virtual reality.

This a pretty big idea but, for me it has got to be essentially true or, at the very least, the best model of reality we have yet invented. 
The simple reason for this is that this 'virtual reality' model accords with the best/most accurate Physics that is out there. Quantum theory. Given this reality we can now define what Physics is with clarity. PHYSICS IS THE RULE SET OF THIS VIRTUAL REALITY.


Because of our illusory environment we are forced to try and describe this 'virtual reality' in terms of time and space (which don't really exist), simply because we have no other language with which to imagine and express relationship. So here goes ...
If one calls one's conscious self the SOUL, then our soul collects data from OUTSIDE OURSELVES (the external world, including our body) via our 5 senses. Everything within that 'external' virtual reality, including our own avatar, is subject to the rules of Physics (and their much more complex chemical and biological extrapolations).
It is also clear from this model that our consciousness (soul) must also collect data continuously from the program to maintain the illusion that is the 'simulation'. WE MUST BE CONNECTED PERMANENTLY WITH SOURCE/THE PROGRAM or, as most of us prefer to call it … GOD.
Beyond this we must work things out for ourselves. The program allows us to operate within our virtual reality as though we were independent sources of thought, feeling,  spirit and action. Atheists will believe this as fact … that we are source … that there is nothing other than “me” and what I see outside myself.
Those who have had spiritual experiences of any kind tend towards a different view. For myself I have experienced the transcendent ecstasy the same as (I believe) 'Near Death' experiencers familiarly describe. I have also felt entities appear to crash into my body, I heard them laughing until they realised I could hear them. I heard one urgently say, “Shh, shh. He can hear us” before all went quiet. So neither the highest psychological authorities nor the Russian army will tell me that angels and demons do not exist.

I have come to believe that the nature of our engagement with our creator and with the eternal realms (that is the source of data arriving into our consciousness from WITHIN) operates according to a system very like the divinely-created system described by Emanuel Swedenborg over 200 years ago.

It is amazing to notice that some of Swedenborg's statements were very 'quantum-like' indeed ...

God occupies all space non-spatially and all time non-temporally.”from “Divine Love and Wisdom”

I have visited other earths within the universe and discussed many issues with the humans that inhabited those earths. This is possible because space and time are not as we imagine them but rather a matter of our inner condition.”from Other Planets”

Finally, we cannot help but notice that Physics is starting to look a lot like Theology. This is something that I hope all readers will find encouraging.

Most of the detailed 'virtual reality' information in this blog I learned from “My Big T.O.E.” (Theory of Everything) by Tom Campbell. His trilogy (in one compendium) is 850 pages long but easy reading for the layperson. I would also recommend trying one of his many YouTube talks to fill out more detail regarding 'The Simulation Model' and its implications.
I have talked with angels about the conjunction of heaven with the human race, and I said that, while the man of the Church declares that all good is from God, and that angels are with man, yet few believe that angels are conjoined to man, still less that they are in his thought and affection. To this the angels replied that they know that there is such a belief and even such a mode of speaking in the world, and especially, to their surprise, within the Church, where yet there is the Word to teach men about heaven and its conjunction with man.
Nevertheless, there IS such a conjunction that man is unable to think the least thing apart from the spirits adjoined to him, and on this his spiritual life depends. They said that the cause of ignorance of this matter is man's belief that he lives from himself, without a connection with the Creator of life; and that he does not know that this connection exists by means of the heavens; and yet if that connection were broken man would instantly fall down dead.
If man believed, as is really true, that all good is from the Lord and all evil from hell, he would not make the good in him a matter of merit nor would evil be imputed to him; for he would then look to the Lord in all the good he thinks and does, and all the evil that inflows would be cast down to hell whence it comes. But because man does not believe that there is any influx into him either from heaven or from hell, and so supposes that all the things that he thinks and wills are in himself, and therefore from himself, he appropriates the evil to himself, and the inflowing good he defiles with merit.”
Emanuel Swedenborg, ‘Heaven and Hell’ §302

PS  Another simple way that the material universe matches the 'virtual reality' model is this. In our own computer generated illusions (as seen on our computer screens) the minimum image width is one pixel and the minimum time interval for any image to exist in the screen is the "refresh time". Now, given that during a single refresh cycle a virtual particle on the screen can only occupy a single pixel, if we divide that pixel width by the refresh time we get distance/time = a MAXIMUM SPEED at which anything can possibly travel across the screen.
Similarly, in our own virtual reality all particles are constrained to a maximum velocity through the virtual reality, in our case, the speed of light. 
Most interestingly Rupert Sheldrake reveals here that over certain decades during the last century the value of this maximum speed has occasionally changed by discrete amounts from one constant value to another. This scientifically recorded reality suggests that there are conscious entities overseeing the technical aspects of our virtual reality(universe) and occasionally tweaking the value of this number ... presumably to improve performance of some important element within the system.





Natural Law encompasses those laws of the universe that govern us whether we like it or not.

The first principle of Natural law is that:


Regarding humankind's creations this is obvious. Everything we have made had to be imagined first. However, regarding the material universe, the idea that this too is the product of a creative consciousness is not necessarily universally accepted. The tendency in modern culture is such that we are urged to believe, often by distinguished professors, that the material world and even conscious life itself, just popped into existence as a consequence of purposeless convulsions and the random actions of an inanimate universe; that consciousness is only an epiphenomenon of electro-chemical activity in the brains of sentient beings. Beyond these neural signals there is no consciousness. Whatsoever.
Thus the most mysterious phenomenon in the universe is reduced to being a by-product of sodium and potassium ions acting across cell membranes and there we have it:

the dominant modern dogma; it is not consciousness that causes body chemistry, it is body chemistry that causes consciousness.

However hard one tries not to misrepresent this view of reality (that the material world creates consciousness rather than vice versa) it is difficult not to fall over laughing at the wild lunacy of such an idea. Finding certain books of the Old Testament morally reprehensible just will not do in making the case, Professor Dawkins, even though you may be right on many narrow (and irrelevant) points.


Given the weight of propaganda to which most people have been exposed denying God's existence, a case for God will be briefly stated below.



Firstly, the way that the 'Theory of Evolution' is delivered to the public mind is heavy with the implication that we no longer need the concept of a 'Creator' for life (and, therefore anything else) to exist.
Just yesterday morning (03/03/19) Nicky Campbell, host of the BBC's Sunday  public debate "Big Questions" (while boasting about the primacy of 'free speech' on his programme) said "there are only two debates that are closed here, 'Evolution' and 'Climate Change'." In Campbell's newspeak "evolution" does not mean 'evolution' in its true meaning but rather that all new species and life itself came in to being as a result of random genetic mutations.

It is important that we be reminded that The Theory of Evolution has NOTHING useful to say about the origin of life … as Darwin himself admitted. 'Evolution' applies only to future development within a particular species, as is quite obvious (the afflicted/lesser specimens tend not to get the girl). The fossil record demonstrates no convincing evidence (some scientists say no evidence at all) to support the idea that new species have been created by any kind of 'evolutionary'/genetic mutation process.

Given that there are roughly 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, this equates to a maximum of roughly 750MB of data storage capacity per DNA. There is (apparently) an amoeba with a gene set equivalent to 80GB. Genetic science remains poorly understood. However, the idea that anything remotely like this level of ordered self-replicating material could just “happen” via random collisions of inanimate particles is laughable. The presence of code in biological matter, as in everything else, surely requires a creative intelligence to produce it.
In the days before DNA and genes had been even heard of Darwin posited his theory about the 'survival of the fittest'; the adaptations to environment and developments within species that take place in the real world. His observations codify simple, and now fairly obvious, realities.
Many decades after the first presentation of Darwin's theory, random genetic mutations were suggested as the creative cause of entirely new species. There is little to zero fossil evidence supporting this. As a scientific statement it amounts to no more than speculation, as many professional scientists aver (see documentary below).
In fact, in 1988 it was demonstrated that the massive DNA molecule contains a program within itself that can create a cell's own genetic mutations and that these mutations are a response to information entering the cell from its environment either directly, via a cell’s detection of an external agent, or indirectly via the body's own chemical response to a perceived environmental change.
Variations within a species may be random but the evidence indicates that genetic mutations are not. Therefore this 'random mutation' argument is unsatisfactory as used when positing a theory of the 'origin of species' and random happenstance is entirely inappropriate when attempting to address the issue of the origin of life itself.
Darwin also said that proof of a 'Cambrian explosion' would prove fatal to this idea. Well, it has since been demonstrated that there was a 'Cambrian explosion'.
At the very least let it be admitted that there is much more going on during processes of creation than 'Darwinism' has ever and almost certainly ever will explain.
Those who believe otherwise subscribe to a religion in all but name; one founded, like some of those it seeks to replace, on the most meagre of physical evidence. 
It should be noted that even if it were proved that mutations (which never, in single instance, have been demonstrated to have increased [as ‘evolution’ demands] the information in a genome) have created the great diversity of species we find on earth then even that could not be presented as some kind of disproof of the need for a Creator because the greater issue is our difficulty in explaining the appearance of the original and first self-replicating genome.

It was interesting to see on UK News a few years ago, a professor, on finding a Neanderthal cave marking (that looked like a 'noughts and crosses' grid scored into a cave wall), remarking that this “exciting discovery” proves that Neanderthal man was “much more intelligent than we had imagined”.
If a noughts and crosses grid being (essentially) code or data, is a sign of high intelligence then of what does that make the approximately 1.5 Gbytes of data in human DNA a sign? Are we really expected to believe that some other idea like 'the survival of the fittest' or even merely 'the will of the material universe to exist' has driven creation? And is there not philosophical sleight-of-hand going on here; the 'will to survive' itself being surely, primarily, a kind of consciousness?

The above arguments relate merely to the creation of life. Apart from that most obvious and self-evident observation (.. that nothing comes from nothing ..), beyond this there are many other known facts that severely contradict the materialist 'random-happenstance' thesis of creation.

A) The Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe

Firstly, know that there are an estimated 1086 fundamental particles in the entire universe. This means if one were to select a particular proton, say, randomly out of all the particles anywhere in the universe then the odds against selecting that particular particle would be 1/1086.  (This is equivalent to buying a National Lottery ticket 12 weeks in a row at odds of 14-million-to-one-against and having THE ONLY winning ticket for every single one of the 12 weeks ...rather low odds, you must agree)

Bearing that in mind, here are just four examples of physical constants that, giving below the maximum deviation for the real/actual value quoted, would either prevent the universe from existing or make it unsuitable for any form of life.

The ratio of Electrons: Protons. It has been calculated that the existence of the material universe would be impossible were there to be a deviation from reality by a factor greater than 1 in 1037
  • Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1/1040
  • Expansion Rate of Universe 1/1055
  • Cosmological Constant1/10120 (this is 1 with 120 zeros after it, a number ten billion, trillion, trillion times greater than the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe)
The implication of this last ratio, if true, is staggering. Here, from a collaborator of Stephen Hawking and one of the world's most famous scientists in his own right:
What is the probability that, purely by chance, the Universe had an initial singularity looking even remotely as it does? The probability is less than one part in 10123. ...What does that say about the precision that must be involved in setting up the Big Bang? It is really very, very extraordinary. I have illustrated the probability in a cartoon of the Creator, finding a very tiny point in that phase space which represents the initial conditions from which our Universe must have evolved if it is to resemble remotely the one we live in. To find it, the Creator has to locate that point in phase space to an accuracy of one part in 10123. If I were to put one zero on each elementary particle in the Universe, I still could not write the number down in full. It is a stupendous number.
(from The Large, the Small and the Human Mind by Professor Roger Penrose 1997: 47, 48)
i.e. the probability against this level of precision occurring randomly is massively more than one part in the total number of subatomic particles in the universe (which is estimated at 1086).

 B) Protein Folding

Proteins are so hard to make that in nature they are never formed except in already living cells. Some scientists have asked how likely is it to find a protein by chance if there was a pre-biotic soup with all the necessary amino acids present and available for interacting with each other for billions of years?
An estimate of this probability is carried out here.* The estimated figure arrived at is 1 chance in 10164. Given this number no serious scientist could make the argument that this protein creation event happened by chance.
The only possible escape from these impossible numbers for the determined atheist is to resort to the 'infinite number of universes' theory … that there are an infinite number of universes in existence and infinity being an infinitely larger number than 10120 or 10164 means that these events will definitely occur somewhere and therefore we just happen to inhabit one (literally) incredibly fortunate universe.
It is interesting that the mathematical falsehoods slipped into “proofs” of false statements (1=2, for example) involve the use of the concept of 'infinity' (in this case when we 'divide both sides of the equation by zero').
Of course, no evidence for the existence of all these unimaginable squadrillions of pointless universes can ever possibly be produced. Yet numerous weighty documentaries have been produced by the BBC and others advancing this theory. The typical viewer will understand none of this but the accompanying commentary asserting that “we have no need for a Creator”, repeated (as it is) time after number, will inevitably settle as intended into the conscious or subconscious mind of the target audience. 

This author rejects the 'infinite universes' concept and accepts the simpler premise that there is, indeed, a Creator and first cause of our universe; a consciousness of unfathomable intelligence and power that has made all that is … that consciousness is primary and, extrapolating somewhat, that our own consciousness is somehow in intimate relationship with this Creator-consciousness; that, quite possibly, our own impartial observing consciousness is somehow a small part or replica of the great 'All', our Divine source. As a drop of seawater is to the ocean in which it moves are we to the Divine?

So, Natural Law is God's Law and ….. there IS a creative consciousness behind all that is, a (what we commonly call) God.

Whether the authority exercised within organised religions is a good idea or not is a different matter.

Furthermore since each of us, self-evidently, is possessed of an individual consciousness and since this consciousness is not merely reactive but also creative, it should be obvious that we must take full responsibility for its use in our comprehension of the world and its application in creating our own favoured reality.

If those in authority work hard at keeping us ill-informed and confused about important issues that impact on our destiny it is reasonable to conclude that this authority is using what it knows about consciousness and Natural Law in service of something other than the common good.

Please watch professional scientists deliver the arguments presented above at greater length and in more detail. This high-quality documentary was made by a follower of Islam. It is interesting to me that even when a YouTube search using this video's EXACT title is made the film link appears 12th in the search list. This indicates to me that someone is trying to bury this powerful documentary.

Watch it and arm yourselves with this information. The case for 'God' is overwhelming. The case against a tissue of .... as usual, unfortunately ... establishment lies!

Somebody obviously wants you to obey only external authorities rather than to trust the Divine Logos implanted by the Creator in your very heart. 

... and why on earth would anyone want you to do that?



Friday, 1 March 2019

BBC Audiences Vetted to Exclude "Extremists" (i.e. Resistance to the Globalist Revolution)


Under the headline "The Vetting Files: How the BBC Kept Out Subversives", the BBC, in April 2018, revealed how MI5 assisted 'Auntie' in keeping people with the wrong kind of ideas from gaining employment within the BBC

Excerpt 1:

" ...A memo from 1984 gives a run-down of organisations on the banned list. On the left, there were the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Socialist Workers Party, the Workers Revolutionary Party and the Militant Tendency. By this stage there were also concerns about movements on the right - the National Front and the British National Party.
A banned applicant did not need to be a member of these organisations - association was enough.
Excerpt 2:
" ... An interview given in 1968 by BBC director general Sir Hugh Greene shows the BBC's policy of denial and obfuscation in action.
To a reporter from The Sunday Times in February Greene blithely and misleadingly declared: "We have a staff of 23,000 and in that community we have people of all descriptions, including what you call pansies" - the word had apparently been used by the reporter - "and also communists. But that's none of my business. We don't conduct an inquisition on people who join the BBC.""

Thus 'extremists' from the right and left are out and 'centrists' are in, confirming that many decades ago the same system (that it took many of us so long to understand) was in operation. i.e. that those who accept the globalist revolution (with all its Corporatism and regime-change warmongering) is by definition the political "centre".

Given the massive advances in the ability of organisations like Google to collect data on the opinions and political activities of individuals it would appear that BBC "vetting" has been expanded to cover the audiences attending "public" debates, for example those of the long-running BBC flagship, "Question Time".
For evidence watch this (last night's show) from the 42 minute mark when Sarah Bruce asks the audience if there is anyone prepared to speak in support of Labour Minister Barry Gardiner's arguments in defence of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party regarding its current "anti-Semitism" crisis.
NOT ONE audience member spoke in support of Gardiner. NOT ONE.
For me, given that almost everybody I know recognises that the attacks against Corbyn on this front have been relentless from the moment he was elected leader in September 2015 and that this is a Jewish/media/establishment operation, it is simply staggering and a statistical impossibility that a room of two to three hundred people should contain no Corbyn sympathisers at all.
Staggering and, I believe, the strongest possible evidence that BBC audiences are intensively vetted and that BBC current affairs and news is pure Zionist propaganda.
Knowing that Margaret Hodge's daughter, Lizzie Watson, is currently employed as the BBC's deputy News editor, we can confidently predict the BBC's political position on absolutely everything.
We can also rest assured that the BBC will use every means at its disposal to propagandise the public at large into accepting their own revolutionary point of view.

During last night's show there was a "Palestinian" on the panel who (amazingly and comically) lambasted people who criticized "Israel" as 'anti-Semitic' because Israeli is a pluralist state comprising all kinds of different people. However it is acceptable and "not anti-Semitic" to criticise Netanyahu and his party.

Next we will be told we can criticise Netanyahu's brain but not his arms and legs. 

One hopes and prays that Labour itself will see sense and that the time will arrive when the party begins expelling people who make false accusations of anti-Semitism.
The good news for now is that for all the monopoly our rulers hold over mainstream discourse, their project is failing.

Saturday, 23 February 2019

LBC Goes Zionist Mental


* Louis B. Marshall, (1856-1929) the Counsel to bankers Kuhn Loeb, which represented the Rothschilds, said in a letter Sept. 26 1918, "Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan: it is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon." (what this means is that the globalist elite, who bow to Egyptian and Babylonian gods, don't give a shit about the Jewish people they hold so near to their bosoms. They use ordinary Jews. This elite is "those who say they are Jews but are not" referred to in 'Revelation 2:9').

Zionism is currently, along with control over the issuance of money, our rulers' primary instrument for forwarding their globalist agenda. 
These people hold the power to get what they want by bullying via, if necessary, destroying a person's finances, reputation or very life. 
But they are not bullies. A bully harms in order to inflate his or her sense of themselves. These people already think of themselves as Gods. 
They are psychopaths. Psychopaths harm to produce a desired outcome.

I live in the southernmost end of London and occasionally (well, quite often some days) tune into Zionist-owned LBC to keep myself aware of which thoughts Zionist propagandists at the broadcaster "Leading Britain's Conversation" want us to be having.

Today during every hour without exception the topic being "debated" has been 'Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party' and its anticipated demise.
LBC, in a manner somewhat like CNN "discussing" that (as they would have it) 'obviously deranged idiot' President Trump, has gone full-throttle looney in an absolute onslaught against Corbyn. This is rather amusing bearing in mind that CNN's 'impartial' coverage of the US president seems to have done more damage to CNN's own reputation than it has to Trump himself.

All day every day it goes like this ... "were the Eight resigning MP's right to leave Labour?" "Is Labour a sinking ship?" "Will Corbyn be replaced?" "Is this the end for Corbyn?" "How can Corbyn deal with his Party's anti-Semites?" "Why isn't the Labour Party doing better?" ... in such terms is the "question we are debating during this hour" couched.

Since Danny Finkelstein admitted last week that powerful Jews engage in secret political plotting, you and I will, of course, be free in future to assert this as an admitted fact without having to suffer the usual name-calling. Therefore, allow me to observe that for the past week LBC's odious James O'Brien has stood aside from his 3-hour morning slot to make way for a litany of 'resigners' to sell their message to the public. It is clear that a Zionist kite is being flown to test the waters in order that a new 'centrist' party can be created that might steal the next UK General Election in the manner of Macron in France. 
It is comical though that these "centrists" are, in reality, supporters and puppets of the world revolutionaries who provably funded WW1, WW2, The Bolshevik revolution, The French revolution, The British Empire, etc. 
What we laughably call "Centrists" (or "moderate", "reasonable" people in our parliaments) are willing instruments of the faux-humanitarian, globalist, warmongering, revolutionary banking Imperialists ... and here we have it ...

The new Globalist/Zionist (smoothie-Chuka-Umunna-style) political CENTRE tends to be in favour of ... in no particular order ...
1) The abolition by stealth of all nation states.
2) The destruction of the indiginous cultures of nation states via mass immigration.
3) The destruction of the culture of nation states via the effective take-over of those states by international Corporations that have already turned every high street in Europe into almost indistinguishable shopping malls and all the new-build Corporate-not-Council-built flats surrounding station hubs into small, identi-kit, hive-like dwellings that drown the lucky buyer in a lifetime's debt.
4) Foreign wars waged for the destablisation and, if necessary, the destruction of countries not under full globalist control using phoney 'humanitarian' pretexts endlessly broadcast by Zionist-owned, supine media operatives.
5) That our collective truth be established by repetition rather than by checkable facts subject to debate and critical thinking.
6) The supreme importance of protecting Israel's interests.
7) The idea that 'Climate Change' is caused by small percentage changes in the amount of an obviously dangerous atmospheric gas that all plants need to live and which constitutes only 1/250th of the earth's atmosphere to begin with ... that a change that amounts to, at worst, an increase of one part in a thousand of the atmosphere of this invisible killer gas (that we all exhale every time we breathe) will, more than likely, end all life on earth. Maybe future globalist policy will forbid humans from breathing in order to spare the earth?
Universities! Universities, for God's sake, propagandise this nonsense. They take no obvious comparative interest in the effects of changes in the jet stream or the sun, say, on our weather systems. One might wonder if the sun is an irrelevance in all this. Money makes us a weak and shameful species. Is there no one in the political/media orbit with an ounce of common sense, nor the courage to declare this scam for what it is ... a pretext for imposing a system of centralised global taxation.
8) Any other anti-human bullshit will be accepted as truth as 'Centrists' are so commanded ... and on ... and on ... ad infinitum.

The new political EXTREMIST tends to be in favour of, in no particular order:
1) An end to the destabilisation of foreign governments and our own country's involvement foreign wars.
2) Genuine cultural diversity, i.e. the maintenance of difference and particularity in culture. 
3) Debate and reform of the financial system that increasingly renders the majority of citizens within all nominally rich economies without property and without security.
4) An end to the dominance over all societies of international finance and its rackets, which itself produces ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF REAL VALUE but which concentrates production within ever fewer companies and concentrates wealth in ever fewer hands.
5) The idea that governments should primarily direct their energies towards improving the lives of their own citizens.
6) The idea that there are two sexes not 3,407 (so far)
7) Demanding that Israel obeys the same rules as the rest of us.
8) Governments enacting real, meaningful and do-able policies that will protect our environment and cleaning up serious historic pollution. Is it not a great mystery how certain governments can force compliance on almost every other country via the threat of force, yet cannot protect the Amazon rain forest?

So, in a nutshell ...

*The new 'CENTRE' = Zionist revolution . 

The new "EXTREMIST" = anyone who demands that politicians represent the interests of the people who elected them.

That's how crazy 'democracy' has become. 

What is also comical is that the harder the Zionist over-class try to mangle government to recoup its ongoing losses, the more (many millions of us now) are recognising this phoney system for what it is ... well, it makes me laugh, anyway.

Back in the LBC studio, callers supporting the 'centrist' agenda tend to get through. Strong critics of the revolutionary LBC line have probably (like me) had their phone number blocked. Accepted callers, opposing the implications of the question, tend to be overly polite and weak. Occasionally one will say something  pertinent and be told off by the interviewer ... as in the last caller I heard before making this post. A polite asian Londoner eventually offered words to the effect, "All these resigners have been Zionists for years and now they are just acting together, obeying their master's voice", to which the presenter, herself an asian, intervened, "Oh Abdul, you were doing so well until you said that."

I'm glad that today I find myself much less angered by such manipulative Zionist shenanigans. Rather, it is all good for a giggle until one remembers that these people are psychopaths capable of literally anything, provided there is no significant cost to themselves.

The rise of Corbyn, Brexit, the gilets jaunes, and even Trump (hopefully) should be seen as a win-win situation for anti-establishmentarians. If our rulers command their governments to crush or destroy these phenomena they will only multiply their own problems.

That Zionism is the prime manifestation of the problems of all those who live in western 'democracies' is becoming more and more obvious to more and more people. Furthermore, this trend is clearly irreversible.

We need to challenge Zionism ever more openly.

Demand debate about the political use and real nature of the 'anti-Semite' curse.

We should not fear to say that Jews are placed in the shop window of establishment power so that to criticise the establishment inevitably opens a person up to this charge. Thus our rulers are protected by a weaponised thought-form going by the name of 'The Jewish People'.

Why is debate about "The Holocaust" forbidden unless we accept Jewish assertions before any such debate begins?
Why does contradicting the official line result in arrest and imprisonment in many European countries? (In the UK a person merely loses their career and gets financially destroyed, as happened to my good friend Nick Kollerstrom.)

When a person can be destroyed for uttering HERESY we are, in terms of freedom of speech, living in a medieval society. Nothing has changed in principle for hundreds of years.

Furthermore, if LAWS OF HERESY are required to defend a narrative then that narrative cannot be fairly called 'history' at all, 'The Holocaust' is clearly a religion.

One day, sooner than we might expect, ordinary Jews will themselves recognise that they have been set up as a 'human shield' for the topmost ruling class. They will understand that, even more than the gentiles they have been educated into seeing as 'other', they have been brainwashed into a suicidal servitude and fake unity by people that will sacrifice them any time it serves their purpose (as the banking classes did to Jewish 'Schnorrers' in Europe during WW2).  

The utterly treacherous Jewish leadership is the same people that the true Messiah of the Jewish people, Jesus Christ, identified as being "Liars!", "Of Satan!". Their character is the character of our rulers. Bullying psychopaths who run from argument because they know fair debate can destroy them ...

... that familiar combination ... boundless tyranny and utter cowardice.

As for evidence of those lies, I would recommend the following as points effectively debunking the new jewel in the crown of the lying, Satanic, Talmudic religion that has held Jews in bondage for so many centuries:

Regarding Auschwitz:

1) The corpses of people who have died from cyanide (Zyklon gas) poisoning are bright pink/red.
Sorry to post this horrible image but this is a FACT; what any corpse killed by cyanide poisoning must look like to some degree or other. There is not one single "eyewitness", prisoner nor guard, who reported seeing such corpses in Auschwitz in spite of the fact that there should have been one million+ of them in transit through the camp if we accept the narrative. Furthermore the very few eyewitnesses whose testimony has been published report seeing the "blue" bodies of the gas chamber victims. That alone proves that these "eyewitnesses" are liars.
2) The real gas chamber at Auschwitz (which still exists but 'tourists' are not shown) was small (10m^3) and used for killing the lice on clothes that spread typhoid amongst the inmates (typhus killed about 60,000 inmates during outbreaks in the late summers of '42 and '43). 
So we are supposed to believe that there was one gas chamber for killing inmates and another for keeping them healthy.
3) The ferrocyanide level in the real (hygenic) gas chamber is 5000 parts per million. The walls of this chamber are turquoise to this very day. The chemical evidence persists. The walls of the alleged "human gas chamber" contains 2/3 ppm, the same as dormitories and kitchens. this has been measured by serious professional chemists. In fact young Jewish researcher, David Cole, forced the Auschwitz museum director to admit that the "human gas chamber" had been built between 1946 and 1948 by the Soviets. i.e. AFTER the war.
4) Carlo Mottagno, an Italian researcher examined the coke delivery records at Auschwitz and, because the amount of coke required to incinerate a body in a crematorium is known, he worked out how many corpses could have been cremated by this volume of coke. His results showed approximate equivalence (no contradiction) between the possible numbers and the numbers of cremations/deaths recorded in the OFFICIAL Auschwitz records. (bodies could not be buried because Auschwitz is at the confluence of three rivers and the water table is very high so the bodies would have polluted water supplies). 
5) The Head of the British Secret Services, one Mr. Cavendish-Bentinck, wrote to the BBC in 1943 asking them to stop broadcasting the "human gas chambers" war propaganda for which "there is no evidence" because this horror story was undermining propaganda relating to real German atrocities that the Secret Services were broadcasting.
The Letter:
6) There is NOT ONE SINGLE document or material fact that supports the nightmare "human gas chambers" narrative as "Holocaust" world-expert Raul Hilberg admitted in a Toronto courtroom during the trial of denier Ernst Zundel. (link below provided by  Jewish "denier" [i.e. truthteller] Paul Eisen, a brave, entirely decent and most honourable man, ex-Head of English at a North London Comprehensive, 
7) There are no contradictions between the official Auschwitz records, the Red Cross records (allowed into camps, including Auscwitz) and the Bletchley Park intercepts that interrupted communications between the camps and the German High Command during the relevant period. If such contradictions occurred we would know all about them, you must surely agree. (Bletchley Park records are available for reading in Russell Square)
8) David Cole (Jewish researcher) Auschwitz Documentary 1991: