British Press Gearing Up to Destroy Britain – #FakeNews Empidemic


Redwood John

John Redwood, a prominent and experienced Brexit MP, posted on his blog today ( about doing an interview on British Press:

The BBC wants to change the news, not report it

Yesterday I was phoned to be asked onto the BBC Radio 4 Today program this morning. They said they wanted me to answer questions about how the election would change the UK’s ability to negotiate a new, good relationship with the EU. I was happy to do so, and said I could make any time at their studio. It seemed like a good topic, and central to what the PM said about her reason for calling the election.

They then proceeded to ask me a series of questions all designed to get me to disagree with the UK negotiating position and Prime Minister. I explained that I supported the PM, agreed with her Brexit White Paper and stated aims, and suggested if all they wanted to do was to criticize her, they should approach the opposition parties. They continued to try to get me to disagree. They did not seem to have read the White Paper or the PM’s speech on the topic, so I had to tell them what was in them and why I agreed with them.

I explained again that their thesis that the leave supporting MPs were in disagreement with the PM and were “rebels” was simply untrue. We are not in disagreement with the PM and we have been strongly supporting the government’s statements and legislation on Brexit. She said she would get back to me about the invitation to go on, with the details.

She did not of course bother to, as it was clear I was unwilling to feed their view of what the news should be.

I then found that another Leave supporting Conservative MP had been given the same treatment, and he too had thought the BBC were trying to change the  news rather than report the position. When I came to do a live interview on some other BBC program, I was faced with the same stupid thesis and had to explain on air how wrong their idea was.

I do not know who is feeding the BBC this nonsense, but it is frustrating that they do not accept the truth from those whose views they claim to be reporting, and do not bother to get back and openly say they do not want you on because you won’t say what they want you to say.



House of Lords told to back Brexit bill or face being abolished ??


Downing Street is attempting to play down a warning that the House of Lords could be abolished if peers try to block the Brexit bill.

The bill, which gives the government the authority to activate Article 50, starting the formal process of leaving the EU, was approved by 494 votes to 122 in the Commons, keeping the government’s March timetable to trigger Brexit talks on track.

The bill, which was put forward by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government after the Supreme Court ruled she must consult Parliament before triggering Brexit negotiations, now moves to the House of Lords.

A government source told the BBC the Lords will face a call to be abolished if it opposes the bill. “If the Lords don’t want to face an overwhelming public call to be abolished they must get on and protect democracy and pass this bill,” the source said.

On Thursday, a Number 10 source distanced the government from that view, saying peers had an important duty in scrutinizing and debating the bill “and we welcome them exercising this role.”

Following Wednesday night’s vote, Brexit secretary David Davis called on peers to do their “patriotic duty.” He told unelected peers not to try and change the simple two-clause bill as it was passed by MPs unamended and “reflected the will of the people.”

Davis says the government had seen a series of attempts to alter the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill before MPs overwhelmingly voted in favor of passing it unchanged.

Asked by Sky whether the House of Lords would face recriminations if it amended the bill, he said: “The simple thing is the Lords is a very important institution.

“I expect it to do its job and to do its patriotic duty and actually give us the right to go on and negotiate that new relationship [with the EU].”

Speaking on the BBC’s Newsnight program, Tory MP Suella Fernandes said a refusal to pass the bill would “call into question the position of the House of Lords.”

Peter Hain, a Labour peer who was also appearing on the program, replied: “Bring it on.”

Hain says he will vote against the bill if the two amendments he is planning are rejected. The former Cabinet minister wants to maintain the open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, which he describes as “crucial to the peace process,” as well as keeping the UK’s membership of the single market.

“I was appointed by the Labour Party – two-thirds of Labour voters voted to remain within the European Union, they need to be respected.”

The bill will be debated in the House of Lords after peers return from recess on February 20.

If no changes are made, the bill will go straight to royal assent, allowing Article 50 to be triggered and starting the process of leaving the EU. If changes are made, peers will pass it back to the Commons.



By Seizing the Definition of ‘Populism,’ Reuters Warns Us of Chaos to Come


After Trump & Brexit, populist tsunami threatens European mainstream …  Back in May, when Donald’s Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election seemed the remotest of possibilities, a senior European official took to Twitter before a G7 summit in Tokyo to warn of a “horror scenario”.  Imagine, mused the official, if instead of Barack Obama, Francois Hollande, David Cameron and Matteo Renzi, next year’s meeting of the club of rich nations included Trump, Marine Le Pen, Boris Johnson and Beppe Grillo.  -Reuters

Back in June, we identified what has become an overarching elite meme: “populism versus globalism.”

We’ve never fully defined populism, and this Reuters article gives us an opportunity to examine the word and the context in which it is being used.

With Trump’s triumph over his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, the populist tsunami that seemed outlandish a few months ago is becoming reality, and the consequences for Europe’s own political landscape are potentially huge.

In 2017, voters in the Netherlands, France and Germany – and possibly in Italy and Britain too – will vote in elections that could be colored by the triumphs of Trump and Brexit, and the toxic politics that drove those campaigns.

The lessons will not be lost on continental Europe’s populist parties, who hailed Trump’s victory on Wednesday as a body blow for the political mainstream.  “Politics will never be the same,” said Geert Wilders of the far-right Dutch Freedom Party. “What happened in America can happen in Europe and the Netherlands as well.”

We can see from these excerpts that “populism” is not seen by Reuters as positive description. In fact, the synonym in the above excerpt is “toxic.”

“Populism” is contrasted to the “political mainstream” as well. This informs us that populism is irregular, even aberrant. We are living through unusual times and populism is the result.

Watching the “populism versus globalism” meme advance is fascinating because it is such a significant positioning of propaganda.

We can see clearly that in many  ways mainstream media around the world is not at all hesitant to reveal the basic organizational structure behind it.

There is no way that populism – and, contrastingly, globalism – would appear ubiquitously in so many arenas without considerable unity among supposedly disparate media.

In other words, the organization behind this is formidable. It’s not just this one example either that provokes our observations. The powers-that-be were not shy about illustrating the essential linkages between publications during Trump’s election.

The mainstream sounded as one when it came to Trump. And top-down control was obviously evident, and commented on as well.

The emergence of “populism versus globalism” doesn’t just provide us with evidence of editorial control. Even more importantly it shows us how those who secretly run our societies find this sort of meme-making to be a priority because it anticipates trends and reinterprets them.

By beginning to disseminate the meme in the summer, elite media shapers were able to position fall’s narrative – Trump’s win in particular – within the larger context they’d already defined.

We would suggest that the wave of “populism” sweeping over the US and Europe is at heart a resurgence of a yearning for freedom that is obviously slipping away – not that there was much of it to begin with.

But the Internet has raised people’s consciousness about what they are losing, and why. As a result, more than ever, people are coming to understand the globalist narrative and are registering their disgust.

But this is NOT going to be how the mainstream media interprets what is going on. We can already see that people’s determination to shake off political, monetary and military control is going to be interpreted as essentially greedy and selfish.

We could see this interpretation emerge within the context of Trump’s increasing appeal. Over and over we were told that his support was “rural” and “white” – and that these individuals were flocking to Trump because they were feeling “left out” of the current prosperity and thus resentful.

Of course, one can interpret this trend much differently. Our perspective is that globalism is at fault here. Initiated and expanded by a tiny group of banking interests, globalism seeks to consolidate worldwide power with a tiny group of massive corporations, governments and technocratic leaders.

No wonder why so many people in the West feel left out. This vision provides them no room  to grow or prosper. In fact they are not – but their emotion at what’s occurring is perfectly reasonable and logical. We wouldn’t characterize it as resentment so much as rightful anger and frustration.

But Reuters and the other mainstream media have gotten here first and are busily redefining what’s taking place.

We’ve pointed out that the mainstream may be actively enhancing the meme now that they have gotten control of it.

The idea is to marry this emergent propaganda with “directed history” and create a series of economic and political disasters that can be directly (if illegitimately) linked to “populism.”

As populism is denigrated, globalism, in our view, will be uplifted. We’ll be subject to considerable contrasts between “toxic” populism and erudite – “mainstream” – globalism.

We’ve already indicated that we believe this meme is a cultivated one. We don’t believe that the sudden emergence of populism throughout the West is simply coincidental or even evolutionary.

We think this meme is being deliberately cultivated and that it is part of a larger Hegelian dialectic that is intended to reinforce globalism in the long-term. You can see some additional speculation here.

Here at DB we analyze elite memes, their significance and impact. It’s clear to us that the mainstream media is “out front” when it comes to defining “populism” and that there are forces urging it on.

The conclusion of the meme will probably involve a series of catastrophes that will further cultivate and expand globalism. It’s happened before, especially after the 20th century’s world wars. There is no real reason to think the playbook  has been significantly adjusted.

Conclusion: This meme is not only of the utmost importance, it is clearly warning us of considerable distress to come.


UK: LSE academics ‘barred’ from advising on Brexit

Al Jazeera

The Foreign Office has told the LSE that non-UK academics should not do advisory work for the government on Brexit.

One of Britain’s most prestigious universities has accused the government of barring leading academics from acting as advisers on Brexit because they are not UK citizens.

The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) said it was told by the Foreign Office that non-British nationals were not allowed to work on projects about leaving the EU.

Sara Hagemann, one of nine LSE experts who have already been advising the UK government about Brexit has revealed via social media that she has been summarily dropped as a government adviser. She said the Foreign Office dropped her as an expert adviser on the grounds of her Danish nationality.

The LSE said in a statement that they believe their academics, including non-UK nationals, “have hugely valuable expertise which will be vital in this time of uncertainty around the UK’s relationship with Europe and the rest of the world”.

The public statement was followed by an internal email to staff, saying: “We will continue to stand by our colleagues and we strongly value the work you all do.”

“The government’s decision has been criticised as ‘baffling’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘xenophobic’,” said Al Jazeera’s Paul Brennan, reporting from London.

“And it is particularly strange since less than a month ago, Dr Sara Hagemann was one of three LSE experts asked to give a detailed media briefing on Brexit – the organiser of that briefing was the UK Foreign Office.”

The Foreign Office, on the other hand, has denied the claims, saying that the university has misunderstood its guidance and that it has not changed its policy.

“It has always been the case that anyone working in the Foreign Office may require security clearance … Britain is an outward-looking nation and we will continue to take advice from the best and brightest minds regardless of nationality,” it said in a statement.

Steve Peers, a professor of European Union law, told Al Jazeera that he would be more inclined to believe the LSE, because academic institutions are very precise.

“We can’t be absolutely sure, but governments and civil servants are in an awkward position politically and they always need to cover themselves if anything embarrassing comes out.

“University administrations, on the other hand, tend to be very precise, when they send the staff an email about their jobs, they try to make sure it is absolutely correct.”

LSE is one of the world’s top universities, which counts financier George Soros, Rolling Stones singer Mick Jagger and former US president John Kennedy among its alumni.

With around 9,600 full-time students from 140 countries, the LSE is one of Britain’s most internationally diverse universities. It says over 100 languages are spoken on its campus in central London.

The row with LSE added spice to a tumultuous week for British politics which saw Theresa May, the UK prime minister, announce a date for triggering Brexit , a sterling plunge and a senior minister propose firms to disclose what percentage of their workforce was non-British.

“The Foreign Office is explaining it away as a misunderstanding,” said our correspondent. “Meanwhile, the London School of Economics has pledged to stand firm to its principles of academic independence.”

Source: Al Jazeera News


LSE – Socialists Breeding Ground

One of the primary institutions that received patronage from some of the largest financial interests was – and is – the London School of Economics (LSE). It should be recalled that the LSE was founded by Fabian Socialists, with Sidney Webb playing a particularly significant role. Among the original patrons of the LSE was Sir Ernest Cassel, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb and Co., and in the armaments firm of Basil Zaharof, Vickers. Cassel, whose humanitarianism might be open to suspicion, nonetheless backed the LSE as a means of training a “socialist bureaucracy.” Prof. J H Morgan K.C., wrote of Cassel’s support for the LSE



#CFR member calls on the elites to rise against the people

LOL! …as they lose control by the day, they’re relentless in their fight to charge their dead batteries. Its a futile effort of course as the batteries life cycles have ended.


Wealthy heir to Bloomingdale’s chain sneers at populist voters who cherish “values and tradition”


In a column for Foreign Policy Magazine, Council on Foreign Relations member James Traub argues that the elite need to “rise up” against the “mindlessly angry” ignorant masses in order to prevent globalization from being derailed by the populist revolt that led to Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump.

Concerned that, “Today’s citizen revolt — in the United States, Britain, and Europe — may upend politics as nothing else has in my lifetime,” Traub notes that Brexit was an “utter repudiation of….bankers and economists” and an example of how “extremism has gone mainstream”.

Citing the potential for Trump to split the Republican Party even if he loses and the increasing unpopularity of France’s socialist government, Traub argues that establishment political parties in major western countries must “combine forces to keep out the nationalists”.

“With prospects of flat growth in Europe and minimal income growth in the United States, voters are rebelling against their dismal long-term prospects,” writes Traub. “And globalization means culture as well as economics: Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites.”

Traub’s tone is so contemptuous, he even describes the pro-Trump Republican base as “know nothing” voters and sneers at voters in Poland for being concerned about “values and tradition,” while stressing that the push for further globalization will pit “poor and non-white and marginal citizens” against “working-class and middle-class whites,” whom he describes as angry “fist-shakers”.

Traub admits that his outlook is “elitist” but that, “It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them.”

Reaction to the article was piercingly vitriolic, with one respondent commenting, “If you’ve ever wondered what the conversations between aristocrats were like as the peasants were storming the Bastille, I suspect some of them were a lot like this Foreign Policy article.”

The piece is yet another stunning example of how disconnected elites are to the people whom they insult and wish to rule over.

Traub, a Harvard graduate from a super-wealthy family that owns the Bloomingdale’s chain of luxury department stores, has no idea whatsoever how things like mass uncontrolled immigration, deindustrialization and globalization impact ordinary working westerners.

His sneering pomposity is precisely why many Brits voted for Brexit and why many Americans will vote for Donald Trump.

In refusing to listen to or understand the concerns of hundreds of millions of people who have been disenfranchised by globalism, and instead arrogantly doubling down on his chutzpah, Traub is only ensuring that more people will join the populist revolt that led to Brexit in the first place.



Abundance squeezed through the controllers’ taps

Scarcity is an illusion brought about by sycophants.

Its a device for control.

Mother Earth is a plane full of abundance able to sustain ALL living creatures including human beings through eternity with her built-in recycling system.

A handful of marauding psychopathic bank$ter$ grabbed and claimed ownerships on all and every resources available from Earth, tapped  and then channelled it to humans for consumption at a (hefty) price.

They then taught the humans about economics based on their fanciful supply & demand theory.

‘Money’ had to be invented of course, to become the necessary medium of ‘exchange’ for the scarce resources, and developed into what is now a huge fraudulent system…a slavery system.

That’s the true big picture of scarcity. 


Putin: Rivalry for world’s resources increasing, some try to disregard all rules

The world is seeing ever-stronger competition for resources, and some players try to disregard all the rules, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said, adding that potential for conflict is growing worldwide. – RT


Brexit, a Step in the Right Direction: The Optimistic View

June 29, 2016

Charles Hugh Smith

Brexit can be constructively viewed as a systemic step towards solving existing scarcities.

In the conventional narrative, Brexit is about immigration, escaping the EU’s bureaucrats of Brussels, class war or political theater. It may be about all of these, but beneath these surface issues lies a deeper dynamic: a recognition that the entire system is broken and a new arrangement of power, responsibility and risk is required.

In this view, Brexit is a positive step in the right direction, away from centralization and central planning and towards decentralized arrangements that enable more dynamic, localized solutions.

Longtime readers know that I focus on scarcity as the source of value creation: what’s scarce generates value, profits and high wages, and what’s abundant declines in value due to supply and demand.

Correspondent Ron G. views Brexit as a systemic step towards solving existing scarcities. Scarcity is not limited to goods and services; agency and autonomy can be scarce; responsibility that connects risk and return can be scarce; level playing fields can be scarce; rule of law can be scarce; opportunity can be scarce; entrepreneurial drive can be scarce; self-reliance can be scarce; social innovation can be scarce; social capital can be scarce, and the willingness to accept losses and the risks required to change the power structure can be scarce.

Political expediency can be over-abundant, as can protected privilege.

Ron submitted this photo and commentary on Brexit and scarcity:


Here are Ron’s comments:

“Mankind’s fundamental quest is to survive and prosper by solving scarcity.

BREXIT is simply a modern example of an old pattern of behavior that seeks to resolve scarcity, (the shrinking pie of economic opportunity and ownership), through reconfiguration of relationships to reallocate resources to enable more equitable equilibrium in supply and demand.

As a prelude to BREXIT, housing in Britain, in particular, had become out of reach for those that have labored under the assumption that hard work, education, and a good job would lead to an ability to own a home, which many young Britons now find economically out of their reach; many Britons blame the government’s monetary policy of zero percent interest rates for inflation and unaffordable housing

In another sign of frustration, a few years ago a graffiti sign expressed a sentiment of the youth in Britain, one of them posted at Bell Lane near Liverpool St. Station, it read: ‘Sorry, the lifestyle you ordered is out of stock.’

The Bank of England has continued policies that have contributed to the exasperation expressed through the referendum, this along with the burdens of having an open country and economy that increased labor supply which in turn increased demand for housing and available credit to driving the asset bubble.

This type of scarcity, being seen in Britain, is very common throughout history and is generally driven by the confluence of interests that connects and drives centralized, unified policies between bankers, merchants (in today’s world global corporations) and governments.

Turning back the clock a bit, I would like to include a couple of quotes by an amazingly brilliant and eloquent commentator in economics, Fredic Bastiat in his writings from 1850:
“I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law – by force – and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.”

“Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing. But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others.”

While old tools based in centralized control have held the power bases together, and have been useful to the management of empires, they have have become outdated and are an inadequate means of resolving the complexities of bringing equilibrium in supply and demand and the distribution of power.

New forms of social connection for production and consumption have emerged and are replacing centralized models; distributed models, even in formally centralized systems of energy and water, are coming online at a rapid pace.

These systems are fueled by the realization of democratic economy and autonomy, connected through a digital technology template; more distributed and socially self-aligning, this combination of digital conduits and marketplace opportunity fit lock and key into humanity’s biological need for autonomy and dignity of choice.

To those like me who have been compelled to study foundations and dynamics in human systems as a means to understanding better choices, BREXIT is not a surprise but simply an the most recent public demand to bring about a more acceptable outcome.

BREXIT is a symptom of an inadequate system for meeting human needs, driven by many converging factors, factors shared by all modern economies: underlying complexities growing due to connections to a more globalized world, and an inability to resolve scarcities through centralized systems of management and control. This underlying complexity will only continue to grow.

Centralized control by any domain keeper are but a delusion, as I believe there will be no wresting back control from the decentralized solutions that are growing in a scale and complexity beyond their toolsets and bandwidth.

I believe we have entered a critical but wonderful age, the age of reemergence of decentralization and decentralized governance; may we preserve this opportunity for the gift that it is to life, liberty and property.”

Thank you, Ron, for placing Brexit in a more expansive and insightful context.


Post #Brexit – UKIP’s Nigel Farage to EU Parliament – “Listen, just listen!”

... touché … Mr Farage


Nigel Farage’s post-Brexit speech to the European Parliament – full transcript

The Ukip leader taunted his political opponents in the transnational assembly


Below is Nigel Farage’s full speech to the European Parliament on 28 June 2016 after Britain voted to leave the European Union

Isn’t it funny? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me – well I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you? The reason you’re so upset, you’re so angry, has been perfectly clear, from all the angry exchanges this morning.

You as a political project are in denial. You’re in denial that your currency is failing. Just look at the Mediterranean! As a policy to impose poverty on Greece and the Mediterranean you’ve done very well.

You’re in denial over Mrs. Merkel’s call for as many people as possible to cross the Mediterranean – which has led to massive divisions between within countries and between countries.

The biggest problem you’ve got and the main reason the UK voted the way it did is because you have by stealth and deception, and without telling the truth to the rest of the peoples of Europe, you have imposed upon them a political union. When the people in 2005 in the Netherlands and France voted against that political union and rejected the constitution you simply ignored them and brought the Lisbon treaty in through the back door.

What happened last Thursday was a remarkable result – it was a seismic result. Not just for British politics, for European politics, but perhaps even for global politics too.

Because what the little people did, what the ordinary people did – what the people who’d been oppressed over the last few years who’d seen their living standards go down did – was they rejected the multinationals, they rejected the merchant banks, they rejected big politics and they said actually, we want our country back, we want our fishing waters back, we want our borders back.

We want to be an independent, self-governing, normal nation. That is what we have done and that is what must happen. In doing so we now offer a beacon of hope to democrats across the rest of the European continent. I’ll make one prediction this morning: the United Kingdom will not be the last member state to leave the European Union.

The question is what do we do next? It is up to the British government to invoke article 50 and I don’t think we should spend too long in doing it. I totally agree that the British people have voted, we need to make sure that it happens.

What I’d like to see is a grownup and sensible attitude to how we negotiate a different relationship. I know that virtually none of you have never done a proper job in your lives, or worked in business, or worked in trade, or indeed ever created a job. But listen, just listen.

You’re quite right Mr Schultz – Ukip used to protest against the establishment and now the establishment protests against Ukip. Something has happened here. Let us listen to some simple pragmatic economics – my country and your country, between us we do an enormous amount of business in goods and services. That trade is mutually beneficial to both of us, that trade matters. If you were to cut off your noses to spite your faces and reject any idea of a sensible trade deal the consequences would be far worse for you than it would be for us.

[Laughter from MEPs]

Even no deal is better for the United Kingdom is better than the current rotten deal that we’ve got. But if we were to move to a position where tariffs were reintroduced on products like motorcars then hundreds of thousands of German works would risk losing their jobs.

Why don’t we be grown up, pragmatic, sensible, realistic and let’s cut between us a sensible tariff-free deal and thereafter recognise that the United Kingdom will be your friend, that we will trade with you, cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world. Do that, do it sensibly, and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future.