Alexander Litvinenko - a British cover up

As the Russian Federation had asked for Boris Berezovsky's return to the Russian Federation, Tony Blair's government could not give him up. After all Boris Berezovsky had facilitated the transit of American and British troops into Afghanistan and was an actual CIA asset.

The fact the Alexander Litvinenko was Boris Berezovsky's second in command was for the Russian Federation exactly what they needed to compromise the British government and force the British government to either return Boris Berezovsky to the Russian Federation or face a gigantic scandal as the man Tony Blair was protecting was acting as a double agent by supporting Czechen Rebels allied to the men that were killing British and American soldiers in Afghanistan and to do so had links with Latin American drug cartels.

Andrei Lugovoi was sent to London to negotiate with Alexander Litvinenko safe passafe for him and his family to the Russian Federation. All sins would be forgiven in exchange for compromising evidence against Boris Berezovsky and against the British government.

When the British got news of the coming of Andrei Lugovoi, they decided in a rush to get rid of Alexander Litvinenko to prevent a scandal and it was fairly easy to blame an innocent called Andrei Lugovoi. After all, the public has been trained to believe that whatever ever bad happens might be the fault of the Russian Federation. War Criminal Tony Blair was not going to stop at anything. After all, he had fabricated a case for war based on fabricated evidence.

I worked for a team supporting Andrei Lugovoi's innocence. The so called radioactive material is fabricated by Britain and was fabricated by Britain at a time when a weapons merchant called Sergei Skrypal, a traitor and a criminal, and other people were targetted.

The time came when without Alexander Litvinenko's help, the Russian Federation could still get to Boris Berezovsky who by then had lost strategic value. Knowing that the British decided to kill Boris Berezovky and other operators close to him. As they could not trust that Roman Abramovich would not reveal the plot, they decided to prevent Roman Abramovich from returning to the United Kingdom.

 

SO15: Myth and Reality

 

SO15: Myth and Reality

Every night, when we go to bed to gather our energies at the end of a hard day, we are confronted by the harsh reality of who we are. We are vulnerable individuals caught up in the net of our own uncertainties and weaknesses. The adrenaline that kept as going during the day seems to be gone and we are down to our individuality, away from the trials and tribulations, from the challenges that we face, from the doubts and hesitations.

Even the most frightful organisations are no more than a collection of vulnerable individuals very much like ourselves. SO15 has been designated as an anti-terrorism tool, but how much of an anti-terrorism tool any organisation can be without proper information and without the proper tools to analize and to arrive at the right conclusions that will allow it to achieve its aims is a fundamental question. I am no spring chicken. As a child, as a teenager, as a young man, I watched World War Two movies and I usually complained about being born too late to actually have been a protagonist in World War Two. I felt that after World War Two, whatever happened afterwards would have insignificant. Here we are living in times when much of the present day politics is described using as a reference World War Two. When we talk about politics, we used words like Nazi, Fascist, Stalinist, and so forth. It feels like whatever happened 70 or so years ago is still with us and is very much relevant to us.

I look at and listen to youngsters today who are frightfully oblivious to what happen in my young man's years in Latin America, for example. In the movie The Two Popes - Jonathan Pryce plays Pope Francis. Pope Francis tells Pope Benedict played by Anthony Hopkins about the death flights that took place in the River Plate Region. Most people, including SO15, MI5, MI6, would be totally unaware of the methods used in those days that rivalled what was done during World War Two. What were the death flights? Political detainees, after being tortured and drugged, were loaded onto airforce planes, flown over the sea and thrown while still alive into the sea. You can imagine that when their bodies touched the sea the water would have the consistency of concrete. Bones would be crashed and faces disfigured to the point of making them unrecognizable. This and other methods were used during the 1970 and 1980. 

I lived in the River Plate region at that time and I can tell you here and now that there was a lot more than that and, when it comes to terror, what has happened in Britain compared to what happened in Latin America is no more than peanuts. Talking about doing something is nothing. The real issue is doing it and much of what was done and is still being done in Latin America beggars belief because it surpasses in more ways than one what happened in World War Two in terms of levels of perfection of cruelty.

Politics and geopolitics have come together as one, but security services are failing to grasp the extent of the ongoing changes. Today, it is about movements more than political parties, movements that have links across national borders, share resources and for which ordinary political processes like elections are just a means to an end and getting elected representatives might not be the main purpose. Today's security services are about 'Far Right' at a national level and are totally oblivious to the dimensions of what they call Far Right. Anybody without a real political agenda ends up being called Far Right or Extremist or the like. The game has changed but politicians, mass media and commentators have failed to grasp the fact of how much things have changed. I confess that I now rarely read the pages of newspapers like The Independent. So called political commentators don't seem to have a clue of what is really going on. The likes of Tommy Robinson, Jack Renshaw, and others are classified as Far Right, something that they are not in any way, shape or form. Misguided? Perhaps. But the aforementioned could not be Far Right, not in a million years. Terrorists? Really? There has to be a long term ideology. There has to be a plan. There has to be a set of objectives depicting a new reality that they try to create.

If all Jack Renshaw thought about was about killing one Member of Parliament, where is the ideology? Where is the long term plan? Where are the long term objectives? A Member of Parliament can be replaced by another Member of Parliament who will have the same or similar views. Threatening somebody is a criminal act, but  what would then be achieved? What real change would then be achieved? Absolutely nothing. One individual is replaced by another individual and it is business as usual. People can lament Jo Cox's death or David Amess's death. What did the culprits actually achieve? Absolutely nothing. Did killing or maming people on July 7th 2005 achieve anything? Corpses everywhere. Lives of passers-by lost. What did killing an unarmed Police Officer right in front of the gates of the House of Commons actually achieve? And what about the incident in London Bridge or in Manchester? What about those killed Lee Rigby? Such actions are the actions of deranged individuals very much like the one who went along the high street street in Streatham in South London trying to stab pedestrians achieved nothing.

When politicians, security forces, mass media and members of the public continue to think about such acts as acts of terrorism, they are taking their eyes away from the ball. We have not had real acts of terrorism and if we continue to misuse anti-legislation using anti-terror legislation for political ends we are going to lose everything worth living for. The real danger is hidden and for such danger we are totally unprepared.

When a politician, that could be a Member of the Cabinet, threatens another country - even without knowing that he or she is threatening another country - the danger grows. When the present Foreign Secretary Liz Truss spoke about a 'no fly zone', she obviously was not aware of that imposing a 'no fly zone' was a declaration of war. When she promoted the idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine, she obviously was not aware of the fact that mercenaries are not protected by the Geneva Convention. Now, those captured in Ukraine face the death penalty.

When General Patrick Sanders speaks about British forces that should be prepared to fight on the continent, what he says goes against what the Defense Secretary Ben Wallace MP is promoting. You don't fight long wars with commando units. So General Patrick Sanders wants Britain to go in one direction and the Defense Secretary is moving Britain in another direction and the two things are totally incompatible. Fighting long wars means more manpower, not less manpower and you need to get used to the fact that there will be a huge number of casualties along the way and you need to accept there would be retaliation and that the British mainland would be targetted. No one cares to explain to the British public the true meaning of what is being talked about. War in Europe will not be like recents wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Instead of compartmentalised actions in terms of national security, Britain will have to think about an integral approach based on the idea that national politics and geopolitics go hand in hand. There are clear examples of how disastrous such compartmentalised actions can be. For many years, the Royal Navy, the Army and the Air Force operated as separate entities. There are tragic examples to show how misguided such actions were. Two British ships sent to Asia to confront Japan were sunk by Japanese torpedo airplanes. The assault against Narvik was yet another example of how foolish such actions were. Without air cover, the Royal Navy was a sitting duck. Integration is the way forward because the next war will be fought both at home and abroad.  

Britain is committing suicide

The announcement in the House of Commons that Britain is going to proceed to disarm itself coincides with increases of numbers and combat readines in China, in Russia and elsewhere. What the announcement made by Ben Wallace MP - Secretary of Defense - shows is that Britain has failed to recruit enough numbers. In a desperate effort to increase conscription, there was an attempt to contract forces from overseas to beef up the numbers in the United Kingdom. It also failed and now to try and hide the fact that not enough able men and women show any interest in joining British Armed Forces or are physically fit to join British Armed Forces, the Secretary of State brought to the House of Commons a bill that is nothing more than the official acceptance of the fact that Britain is in trouble. 

Immigration does not provide Britain the right candidates for its Armed Forces. There is an inherent risk of bringing into the Armed Forces individuals whose values, religion and ideology together with the fact that they have roots in countries Britain could be forced to engage in wars make them a liability.

As events in Manchester, in London and in other cities have proven, even those born and bred in Britain show no allegiance to Britain. They even choose to travel abroad to join the enemies of Britain.

In 1982, Margaret Thatcher made a mistake that proved to be catastrophic in spite of the fact that Britain managed to expel Argentinian forces from the South Atlantic islands. It came at a huge cost. Deprived of enough airpower, Britain sent British troops to their death to be killed before they even landed on the islands. Argentina was not a major player. It was not a naval power, its armed forces were made up mainly of conscripts that joined at a late hour and only had its Airforce as a major asset with missiles provided by Israel and France.

Today, the dangers are much greater. Britain's enemies very well know Britain's weaknesses. Whether there is Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen - of all places, Britain can only play second fiddle to American forces and American capabilities.

Ben Wallace MP's idea is basically wars by proxy using elements on the ground or supporting elements on the ground. No one rational would think that you can face the world in a real conflict with merely 70,000 men and women under flag. Lower number of men and women under flag dramatically increases the risk of a rising number of casualties should a real conflict occur. Ben Wallace MP also underestimates the risk of internal operations in Britain by individuals acting as proxy forces for foreign countries. What are the potential targets? British nuclear reactors, Communications and Transport to name a few. 

Some time ago, Dame Stella Rimmington, then head of MI5 stated loudly and clearly that the Security Services didn't have the necessary manpower to follow every lead and that people who were potential risks for Britain were going under the radar. In real war, Britain used commandos with relative success. The actions of foreign commandos in the United Kingdom is not unthinkable in a world with very open borders. In a then European Union with extremely porous borders and easy access to passports in which people could travel across the continent without any controls, it was reasonable to expect that potential aggressors would go easily undetected.

But even today, with Britain out of the EU, the danger is considerable. For the moment, attacks have been against civilians by individuals driven by hatred and a desire for revenge or trying to make a point. Britain still has to face a deliberately planned military attack from within against key targets. If terrorists had targetted, for example, the London Underground by flooding tunnels, instead of tens of victims, we would be potentially talking about hundreds of thousands dead on a busy day. Such kind of attack is not inconceivable given the fact that despite permanent efforts, the underground system is prone to flooding.

Ben Wallace MP's approach to defense is extremely short-sighted. Let's be reminded of the words of Sergei Ivanov, once again.: wars in Europe will be carried out with conventional weapons. The use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable because it would involve mass destruction of all sides. 

The build up of military capabilities in the Sea of China is not about nuclear weapons. It is about conventional forces. Any aggression would become a fait accompli because Western Nations couldn't possibly commit enough forces to prevent or to reverse any aggression. This is why in recent years, we only hear about economic sanctions and counter economic sanctions and a war of words. 

Dear Ben Wallace MP,

You might think that reducing the number of troops make good sense because you intend to carry on waging wars by proxy using local combatants or guerrillas to do the job and you might think that this strategy can be maintained for ever and ever. But in the real world it doesn’t work.

You might be too young to remember what happened in 1982, right before the Argentine invasion. Margaret Thatcher was mothballing the British Armed Forces. In a panic, Britain had to rethink the strategy overnight and had not been the for the Harrier Jump Jets Britain would have lost the war in the South Atlantic because after Argentina captured the one and only airstrip on the islands there were no available airstrips to provide British forces the crucial air cover that they needed. Now again, you are making the same mistake and there is talk again of potential trouble in the South Atlantic. How are you going to react if you don’t have the means to do the job? In a few years, Britain lost about 30,000 troops after successive reductions. How are you going to manage in a real conflict?

I know you have been having trouble recruiting new personnel. Most of those who come forward to join the Armed Forces are not fit for purpose. This is why the Conservative government launched a scheme aimed at recruiting personnel from overseas. It hasn’t worked either. Now, you talk about reducing then level of British Armed Forces by natural wastage – you were asked in Parliament about redundancies and you said that redundancies were going to be avoided by depending only on natural wastage when people leave the Armed Forces without being pushed out.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently announced an increase of 44% of  nuclear missiles, but this doesn’t change the reality that nuclear missiles are a weapon that will only be used when everything else has failed. I bring to your attention the words of Sergei Ivanov who said that any conflict in Europe – and presumably elsewhere – will still be fought with conventional forces. You know as well as I know that nothing is won until the ground is secured. Lack of enough manpower leads to bigger casualty numbers and lack of effectiveness.

You talk about standing up to China. How are you going to do that when China mobilizes its military machine? Talk about the Sea of China and the territorial disputes between China and India related to rich oil deposits. Talk about the Philippines that recently expressed alarm when vast numbers of Chinese ships got closer to their shores as part of a Chinese effort to assert its predominance in the region? Drones? Un-manned aircraft? Nuclear missiles?

When we came out of the EU, you and your colleagues spoke about enforcing Britain’s rights in British territorial waters? How are you going to do that? Do you have enough ships to patrol British waters?

For years and years, the Conservative Party has had a tendency to cut down while talking about increasing investment to keep up with NATO quotas.

You only have to look at the trends in the East to understand that you are saving the penny and losing the pound and you are doing it in a way that will cost lives.

They say that Keir Starmer is failing as Labour Party leader because he is not offering effective Opposition. I am copying this message to Helen Hayes and to Keir Starmer as Leader of the Opposition. You are living Britain wide open. You don’t face real conflicts with commandos or elite troops only.  It is said that Britain is less prepared today than Britain was prepared on the eve of World War Two.

When it comes to other issues, like the movement towards independence in Scotland, the wave of discontent in Scotland has something to do with Conservative policies in Scotland regarding defence. It was called the amalgamation of British regiments when regiments that were the pride and honour of Scotland and had a long record in history books were wiped out by Margaret Thatcher. Once, again, saving the penny and losing the pound and threatening to partition the United Kingdom. It was David Cameron that moved military contracts from Portsmouth to Scotland to try to push away the danger of a successful vote for independence in Scotland.

You are barely 50 years of age. You have no real memories of the process that led to rising votes in favour of Scottish independence. You have no real memories of the conflict in the South Atlantic and about the disadvantages that the British fleet faced in the South Atlantic. Do you know why British troops were killed before they ever set foot on the islands? Lack of air cover.

Helen Hayes might not be aware of it. I saw it when it happened. The Sir Galahad and other ships were easy prey of the Argentine Airforce because there was no air cover available. This brings memories of another military disaster that took place under a Conservative government. Have you about the history of the Royal Navy and the sinking of the Prince of Wales by the Japanese air force that used torpedo planes against British ships that went to war without air cover?

Have you read about what happened in Narvik, Norway? Are you aware of why it happened? It happened because British troops went to Norway without air cover and without artillery. They were attacked by the Wermacht from the sea, on land and from the air. This led to the downfall of Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister. If anything happens in the South Atlantic or elsewhere that is remotely similar to what happened in Narvik, you will only have yourself to blame.

Don’t play with British lives. Don’t risk British lives by reducing British military capabilities.

 

The Independent: actively promoting civil disobedience

 

The Independent newspaper has been for quite a while a digital newspaper that often allows comments made by readers, but it has a very pecular moderation style allowing comments that actively promote civil disobedience and acts of aggression. Today, The Indepent reported that the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had indicated that the national flag should be seen in all public buildings. The moderators of the Independent publicly allowed comments that implied that Britain is now National Socialist Germany and Boris Johnson is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler simply because he asked for British flags in public buildings, something that is the norm worldwide and nobody has been saying that the USA is National Socialist Germany because US flags appear on public buildings. 

The Independent allows comments of individuals that call Police officers in charge of enforcing legislation introduced for the common good to protect peoples' health 'bastards',. For several days, there have been disturbances in London and in other cities. In Bristol, Police officers were attacked, Police vehicles torched, Police buildings damaged and glass windows broken by individuals who have found a home on the pages of The Independent. 

The Independent, as well as other newspapers including Metro and Evening Standard and London Live - a television channel - are owned by a former KGB agent that also happens to be a Russian oligarch called Alexander Lebedev and his son Evgeny Lebedev. His son passes as a charitable man and socialite, but the tone of media he owns is decidedly anti-British. Paradoxically, the son of a former KGB agent was made a Member of the House of Lords.

Alexander Lebedev

 

Evgeny Lebedev

You can draw whichever conclussions you might draw about the state of Britain and of some British media. This is happening in the United Kingdom.

National Action: I have said all along that National Action is very much part of the Armed Forces

National Action is very much part of the British Armed Forces

Quite a few times I mentioned to my own Member of Parliament and to members of the British Cabinet that serving soldiers and veterans were training paramilitaries in the United Kingdom. Nobody listened.

I also said that if lower ranks were involved medium ranks were fully aware of their political affiliations and inclinations. Nobody listened.

My Member of Parliament asked me if I was willing to talk to Member of the Security Services about it. I declined. Why? Because I don't trust British Security Services. I don't trust them because of their record in certain matters and I don't trust them because of evident levels of sheer incompetence.
There is no fear. For serving soldiers fully aware of the implications of showing themselves shooting at a picture of Jeremy Corbyn to do what they did is a clear hint of what could certainly happen and of the mood within the British Armed Forces.

General Election? Is it wise? Jeremy Corbyn could go the way Salvador Allende went and Parliament could become a thing of the past.

Project Fear: Jayda Fransen arrested at Gatwick Airport today

Jayda Fransen arrested at Gatwick Airport today and more examples of Police Incompetence

Police officers arrest Jayda Fransen at Gatwick Airport today

From my own research into British Security Services, I know about the lack of coordination between Security Services. Britain is spending vast amounts of money and authorities want to make you believe that you are protected. Protected from what? 

They knew the culprits of July 7th 2005. How many people died or lost limbs because of the incompetence of the Security Services? They knew the men who killed Lee Rigby. Lee Rigby was beheaded in plain view of passers by. They knew the identity of the culprit that detonated explosives in Manchester at a music concert. What happened? Men, women and children were killed.

Ladies and gentlemen, you are not protected at all. Dwindling numbers of officers of  Security Services are being used in political persecution, harassing and playing a role in what is no more than pretence. Numbers of Police officers are falling across the United Kingdom and mismanagement is all too obvious.

Those sent to Gatwick Airport today asked Jayda Fransen for her passport. She explained that she couldn't produce a passport because her passport had been taken by another branch of the Security Services. Later on they got into a frenzy when one of the officers accused her of trying to reach his gun. A grown-up man behaving like an idiot. How can we trust individuals that show such levels of incompetence?

In the face of danger, Britain is naked. The only reason Britain is not brought down to its knees is that those seeking to harm Britain have not decided to launch a lethal attack.

While Ministers in charge of the Defence of the Realm kiss each other and congratulate themselves for the good work that they are blatantly incompetent to do, the Armed Forces are also facing a crisis. The gates have been opened to those coming from the Commonwealth who would like to join the British Armed Forces but, wait a minute, many of those coming from the Commonwealth are Muslims. So now Muslims who might have the intent to harm Britain are going to be trained and armed by the British Armed Forces. What a diabolic idea!

Brexit: December 11th 2018 House of Commons

Brexit: December 11th 2018 House of Commons

One month after the 11th of November 2018, the anniversary of Armistice Day comes the vote in the House of Commons of the deal proposed by Prime Minister Theresa May that according to UK's Attorney General and main legal adviser of the British government is a legal trap that will transform the United Kingdom into a colony of a foreign power.

Once in there is every change that Britain will be never out transforming what Theresa May categorised as a deal to comply with the decision made by the British Electorate in the EU Membership Referendum of 2016 into a trap that will leave Britain in a much worse position both politically and economically.

It has been said that Theresa May who campaigned to remain in the European Union has deliberately plotted to keep the United Kingdom inside the European Union and that without caring for the United Kingdom she broke a deal that will actually enslave an entire country and subject to the designs of the European Union.

But there is much worse to come. Sources from within the British Armed Forces have indicated that in secret meetings the British Prime Minister has agreed to surrender the British Armed Forces and British Security Services including MI5 an MI6 to the European Union.

If what many fear becomes a reality, Britain will be faced with a political crisis of major proportions comparable to the British Civil War, a Charles I/Oliver Cromwell moment, in which heads will be chopped.

Tuesday, December 11th 2018 is also a crucial deal for all political parties involved. The Status Quo might no longer be an option and political fragmentation is in the cards.

Jayda Fransen: going through hell for the sake of the truth

Jayda Fransen: going through hell for the sake of the truth

This is Jayda Fransen using one of the most powerful weapons known to man: a microphone. Why? To tell things as they are, not as the Political Establishment wants the public to believe that they are.

Marxist Wikipedia calls her a Fascist. Well, if denouncing gang rape of British children ignored for a very long time by politicians and Police forces for fear of being called Racists is Fascism we should all be Fascists.

In Rotherham and in many other cities across the United Kingdom gangs mostly made up of Pakistani Muslims terrorised thousands of children that were drugged, plied with alcohol and pass around to satisfy the sexual needs of individuals some of whom are now being arrested, put on trial and convicted as it is vox populi because their names and image has been publicised by mass media and the press.

Denoncing crime and expressing rejection of crime is not a crime but it seems to have become a crime when individuals like Jayda Fransen are persecuted, harassed, arrested and jailed for daring to speak the truth. No sooner Jayda Fransen was released draconian bail conditions were imposed including Jayda Fransen being forced to live in a hostel sharing space with drug addicts, pedophiles and other common criminals -just a continuation of what she had to endure when she was in jail surrounded by Muslim criminals.

The fact the Probation Service involved didn't allow her to live in her own home speaks volumes about the way processes are being used for political persecution against those the Political Establishment doesn't like because they remind the Political Establishment of the failures of the Political Establishment.

Jayda Fransen is forced to live in fear because any excuse - even the most ridiculous and irrational reason - can be used by the Probation Service to demand her arrest for her to be sent to jail.

When you stand for the truth, when you stand for justice, you automatically become a marked person as I myself experienced on my way to Moscow, Russian Federation, on a family trip and a few days later, once again, in my own home when I was subjected to political interrogation. Unfortunately for the MI5 agents sent to talk to me, I have no political involvement. I am a researcher in the areas of politics, data gathering and military strategy and tactics.

I referred the matter to a Member of Parliament that did the proper enquiries but the government was less than candid about MI5 political involvement in the United Kingdom. I am not talking about counter-terrorism. I am talking about using British Security Services for political persecution - when laws and procedures can be bent for political purposes and Police Forces become Political Police.

  

Britain's recipes for disaster: Policing in crisis via irrational budget cuts

Britain's recipes for disaster: Policing in crisis via irrational budget cuts

The news that local communities are having to step in to replace absent Police Forces that have been cut to the bone to the point that they have become ineffective is not the image a successful country can offer to the world. The news that Britain doesn't have enough Border Police resources to patrol its own coast to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country is not the image a successful country can offer to the world.

We can build very expensive aircraft carriers. We can have a Nuclear Deterrent. We can invest billions in Defence. But if we don't have the minimum resources to deal with vital areas of public security and public safety, we are doomed as a country.

Neither Conservatives, nor Labour, nor Liberal Democrats, none of the so called mainstream political parties have the vision that is need to keep Britain safe and this is why we need National Socialism to deal with public security and public safety, to ensure that everybody is safe without the stupidity promoted by Political Correctness.

When prisons are drugs and violence safe heavens, when we are not safe in our streets and in our own homes, when criminals known to Security Forces can carry out murderous attacks because we don't have neither the resources nor the intelligence to deal with threats we are doomed as a country.

For all the speeches about 'lessons will be learnt', Security Services in this country are not fit for purpose and the Political Establishment and the Mass Media are very much to blame for this nightmare.

MI5: Political Correctness is compromising National Security

MI5: Political Correctness is compromising National Security

Using MI5 for political purposes due to Political Correctness is an absurdity. The damming report that came to light today about the fact that the Security Services failed to protect members of the public because they did not track down the Muslim Terrorist that killed scores of innocent people at a public arena in Manchester says it all. Dame Stella Rimington spoke loudly and clearly about the fact that the Security Services do not have the manpower necessary to follow every lead and track down every Muslim Terrorist in the United Kingdom.

Why then using MI5 for the purposes of political persecution and harassment against individuals who are not a terrorist threat? Well, you need to read the pages of Hope Not Hate, UAF and some pages of so called mainstream newspapers where individuals like Lizzie Dearden divert attention from the real threats by constantly attacking individuals who are not a terrorist threat but are classified as a terrorist threat because it serves the purposes of malign left-wing journalists and malign left-wing and liberal politicians.

If because of left-wing mental retards the Security Services are forced to divert resources away from where they are really needed then you have to conclude that people like Lizzie Dearden and others are promoting terrorism and have blood in their hands when stressed Security Services cannot track down the real threats.

Legislation meant to be used to tackle Muslim Terrorism is now being used to persecute and/or harass and/or imprison British Nationalists who campaign against the Islamic Terrorist Threat as Paul Golding, Jayda Fransen and other know very well because of their own experiences. 

Is Tommy Robinson a Security Threat? No, he isn't. Is Paul Golding a Security Threat? No, he isn't. Is Jayda Fransen a Security Threat? No, she isn't. In spite of this, they are constantly persecuted, defamed and subjected to all kinds of ill treatment.

As long as Political Correctness is the driving force behind many of the actions undertaken by Security Services, the lives of ordinary Britons will be in danger and as it happened in Manchester lives will be lost. Left-Wing Journalism has become a disease. Left-Wing Journalism has made itself a National Security Threat. 

Britain secretly planning to attack Syria under false pretenses

Britain secretly planning to attack Syria under false pretenses

Once again, the British government headed by Theresa May is secretly planning to launch an unprovoked attack against Syria, revealing the true colours of the British government that is supporting terrorists abroad while publicly emphasising its role in routing terrorism in the United Kingdom.

While those who raise the alert about Islamic terrorism in the United Kingdom are persecuted and jailed, Theresa May is deliberately launching attacks against the Syrian government that has been winning in the fight against terrorism and regaining control of Syria's sovereign territory.

Despite calls in the House of Commons, Theresa May would once again bypass Parliament to use force against a sovereign country that is not at war with Britain. As this is happening, the voices asking for suspension of diplomatic relations with Britain are rising in the Russian Federation, country that supports Syrian sovereignty against foreign aggression.

But as it happened before, the real objective is not Syria. The real purpose is to continue the process of attacking and eroding countries that are seen close to the Russian Federation The military build-up along the borders of the Russian Federation is significant, so significant that it eclipses the military build-up of the Wehrmacht of National Socialist Germany right before the start of Unternehmen Barbarossa on June 22 1941.

Given the American reaction in 1962 to the positioning of missiles in Cuba, the patience shown by the Russian Federation is much more than remarkable. The Russian Federation has been stoic and has acted responsibly to avoid piling up pressure that could lead to war in Europe.

Unlike the Russian Federation, the British government has shown its determination to bring war to Europe and continues its hostile campaign based on ideology rather than facts. Even today, in the House of Commons, a Conservative MP talked about more expulsions of diplomats. What next? Next is the suspension of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation.

Germany: Political Persecution on the rise

Germany: Rising Political Persecution

In 1994, there were 5,982 cases of political persecution. In 2016, the number had risen to 327,711 and things keep getting worse as the ruling elites feel increasingly threatened and they seek to ban, exclude or discriminate against anybody who can challenge their power.

Attempts to ban NPD Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutshclands are ongoing and they would go against AfD Alternative für Deutschland had not been that AfD is now the official opposition in Parliament and replaced CDU/CSU in places like Saxony and CSU segments are becoming very close to AfD.

Britain is playing catch up using anti-Terror laws for political persecution, threats and intimidation and the powers of MI5 and Police authorities are also being increased but looking at what is happening in Germany it is plainly visible that in Germany political persecution has reached epidemic proportions.

People are being persecuted and imprisoned and books are being burnt. Even waving the present German Flag can be considered a crime. Copies of books and publications are confiscated and burnt and most of it is done secretly because should this become widely known it would destroy the image people have about Germany being a democracy. Thinking - not just talking, writing and publishing - is considered a crime.

There are currently more political prisoners in Germany than in the now former German Democratic Republic DDR.

The Great Spying Assault (Großer Lauschangriff) has been in full swing since the 1990s, legalizing constant residential surveillance with microphones and cameras and prosecutions are carrried out against both German and Foreign Nationals. When in court, defense attorneys are deprived of the right to present evidence to prove innocence, making a mockery of the judicial process. To add to injustice, no records are kept thus depriving those who are accused of mounting an appeal. Whatever is said in court is not recorded and if accused a person is guaranteed to be convicted because the outcome of the trial is determined before the trial even begins in what is known as 'Chambers of State Protection'.

Conservative Party fails to explain why it is accepting money from criminals

Conservative Party fails to explay why it is accepting money from criminals

The anti-Russian hysteria came to a climax in Britain, in a country that produces chemical weapons in Porton Down close to populated areas.

In the process, the Prime Minister failed to explain why the Conservative Party is being funded by criminals who hate President Putinn and hate the Russian Federation.

A whole chapter of fabrications was once again mentioned. Alexander Litvinenko was killed by MI5 when Andrei Lugovoi came to offer Litvinenko safe passage in exchange for compromising evidence against Boris Berezovsky at a time when Berezovsky was supporting Chechen rebels allied to AlQaeda and Taliban when British soldiers were fighting in Afghanistan.

After Alexander Litvinenko's death, I was asked to gather evidence against Boris Berezovsky but Berezovsky was killed by MI5 to tie up loose ends and put an end to the whole saga that was deeply damaging for the British government.

What a shambolic government and what a shambolic Parliament. Jeremy Corbyn was absolutely right to ask Conservatives why they are accepting monies from Mafia but Conservatives refused to return monies from criminals.

Manchester attack was a masterpiece

Manchester attack was a masterpiece

The terrorist attack in Manchester was carefully planned and a true masterpiece. To begin with the choice of venue, the occasion and the political background - during a General Election Campaign - everything was done for maximum effect, ensuring that there would be massive repercussions and international mass media coverage.

Whoever organised it is a true genius and we should give him, her, them credit for that. It was a despicable murderous attack but it was carried out with absolute efficiency. We shouldn't underestimate the people we are standing against. They have the brainpower to organise this kinds of attacks for maximum effect.

It was a low-cost operation, requiring not so much technical expertise and requiring limited manpower that minimised loss of human resources, therefore making it practicably undetectable. The Security Services due to lack of manpower usually focus on operations requiring big amounts of money, technical expertise and manpower because this is what usually allows early detection. They Security Services are not equipped to deal with operations like the Manchester operation.

Islamic State quickly make sure that it quickly capitalise on the political repercussions and it must have been a huge morale boost for its embattled troops in Iraq and in Syria.

These people are not cowards, they are not crazy and they are extremely intelligent. They know exactly what they are doing. The aftermath of the Manchester attack and the fact that alert levels have now been raised to Critical with the deployment of the army is certainly a huge success for Islamic State.

Muslim Kamikazes are not cowards and are not crazy

Muslim Kamikazes are not cowards and are not crazy

Because I had the life experience of confronting some of these people, I know that the political establishment, the Police and the mass media and people in general are making a serious mistake.

We are dealing with individuals who do not want to divide us. The couldn't care less if we are united or not.

They are not cowards. No one willing to lose his or her own life could possibly be called a coward.

They are not crazy. They truly believe that they are fighting for a right cause and they could be more rational and more logical than anybody else.

The constant speeches about 'we stand together and they will not divide us' is sheer rubbish. We are confronting an enemy who doesn't cares about our lives or our values. They purely and simply want to destroy us and in so doing wipe out everything we stand for.

Everybody talks about how awful it is that they target children. They target everybody regardless of sex, age and gender. In their minds, children will grow up to become what we are and therefore they just kill them to stop them from growing and becoming what we are.

We are at war with an enemy that is very much living around us, in our own environment and who will attack whenever they feel that they can achieve their objectives.

We could organise ten thousand Cobra meetings. It will not make a heck of a difference. We cannot use Nuclear weapons against them. We cannot used force against them. We cannot predict when they will attack. We are totally and utterly defenceless. They have total access to our technology. They have total access to every part of our social and defensive structures. They can strike anytime and they have the time to be selective in order to make the greatest impact.

The Police cannot protect us against them. MI5 and MI6 cannot protect us against them. The attack in Manchester could not be foreseen as the killing of Lee Rigby came out of the blue.

I know that the Prime Minister and various other politicians and broadcasters would like to be reassuring to soothe people who are suffering because of the atrocity Manchester suffered in the last few hours. They have good intentions but their good intentions will not help us avoid the next atrocity and there will be more atrocities.

Karl Hohenstauffen