Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Labour is part of Rothschild communism

Recommended Posts

The new 'radicals' - protesting an Israel-born musician playing his music. Extraordinary and a must-watch to see the depths to which the fake 'pseudo-left' has descended






  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The power behind corbyn is the MOMENTUM group which is owned by jewish millionaire ZIONIST jon lansman. Jon lansman works with the zionist  jewish labour movement to control the discourse on the left


he has called for the FULL adoption of the international definition of anti-semitism so that people cannot say that the israeli state is a racist endevour. He has also called for an end to 'conspiracy theories' from labour members ie he doesn't want anyone discussing jewish power eg the influence of people like the rothschilds


In fact momentum released a video clip on their facebook page speaking specifically about the rothschilds and trying to play down their influence throughout history.


Meanwhile the labour party continues to purge any people who question zionist excesses or the role of jewish power in global affairs. Undercover al jazeera documentaries recently proved the role of jewish power in US and UK politics so no one should be under any illusion about that. Labour is clearly being steered by zionists. It should really rename itself the 'rothschild-communism (and zionism)' party so that its membership could make a more informed decision about what it is they are actually supporting


Labour Party investigates Electronic Intifada journalist

Ali Abunimah From the Editors 11 March 2019

Labour has initiated disciplinary proceedings against Asa Winstanley, a reporter with The Electronic Intifada who is also a member of the UK’s main opposition party.

The first person to report on this publicly was a journalist from the Jewish Chronicle, a right-wing newspaper with a stridently anti-Palestinian record.

New: It is understood that Asa Winstanley is suspended from Labour Party pending investigation.

— Rosa Doherty (@Rosa_Doherty) March 7, 2019

Winstanley wasn’t aware of this until seeing the Tweet.

He then checked his email account and saw a letter from the Labour Party informing him of an “investigation” into several of his tweets critical of Israel and its official ideology, Zionism.

The paper published an article which contained Winstanley’s personal information.

Winstanley has lodged a formal complaint with the Labour Party for a serious data protection breach and is considering referring the matter to the police.

Because a journalist was informed of Winstanley’s private matters, the Labour Party may be in breach of its legal obligations to protect a member’s sensitive data.

Leaking such personal data may be a criminal offense under the UK’s Data Protection Act of 2018.


  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour support staying in the EU customs union so that they can maintain freemovement of people. This is so that the EU can impose endless quotas of migrants onto member states until they are completely swamped and the national identities of the target populations are watered down and societal cohesion destroyed. This is so that the individual nations are then absorbed into the globalist EU which in turn will be absorbed into the UN at some point in the future


The rothschilds are pro-mass immigration which they euphemisticaly call 'multi-culturalism' to hide their true ideological intent which is to use mass immigration as aq weapon against nation states


How Immigration Destroys the Welfare State
March 10, 2019 by IWB

From The Democrat’s Dilemma:

The primary reason that mass immigration destroys the welfare state because immigrants receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

This is not true for every immigrant—some never collect government handouts—but it is true for the overall immigrant population. Studies from across the Western world prove this point.

A recent, and comprehensive study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that although immigration is (theoretically) revenue-neutral in America, not all immigrants are created equal. Half of all immigrants actually receive more in government assistance than they pay in taxes, but thankfully they are balanced out by the other half. Specifically, immigrants who came to America for family reasons, or arrived as refugees, cost a net present value of $170,000.

Net present value is how much money the government would need to invest today, at a yield of inflation plus three percent, to pay for said immigrant’s tax deficit over the course of their expected lifetime. Of course, the government does not do this—it spends only as it receives. Therefore, looking at net present value creates artificially low expectations.

According to the Heritage Foundation, each non-economic immigrant more realistically costs a net of $476,000 in welfare payouts. And of course this does not account for any increases in government programs. Applying this more realistic figure to the original study means that immigrants consume far more in government services than they pay for. In fact, if immigration levels remain unchanged, those arriving over the next decade will cost American taxpayers a net of $1.9 trillion over their lifetimes.
Related Posts:

The welfare state is already struggling: immigration will make a bad problem worse.

Another important study, conducted by Denmark’s Ministry of Finance, found that immigrants were a net drain on the nation’s welfare state. In fact, non-EU immigrants, and their descendants, consumed 59 percent of the tax surplus collected from native Danes. This is not surprising, since some 84 percent of all welfare recipients in Denmark are immigrants, or their descendants. The bottom line: immigration is a net burden on Denmark:

Likewise, a study conducted by Canada’s Fraser Institute, a think tank, found that mass immigration costs Canadian taxpayers some $24 billion per year—and this was using data from nearly a decade ago. The number has since increased significantly, as Canada has one of the highest immigration rates in the world.

Finally, a study from the University College of London found that immigrants consumed far more in welfare than they paid in taxes. Specifically, the study looked at the Labour government’s mass immigration push between 1995 and 2011. They found that immigrants from the European Economic Area made a small, but positive net contribution to the British economy of £4.4 billion during the period. However, during the same period non-European immigrants (primarily from South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa) cost the British economy a net £120 billion.

The origin-based economic differences are actually exacerbated by the UK’s generous welfare state: while European immigrants often left their extended families at home, to be cared for by their respective government, immigrants from the Third World generally brought their families with them, knowing that British taxpayers would care for them. From the immigrant’s perspective, this is a rational choice, but does it make sense for British taxpayers? No.

Together, these studies show that mass immigration won’t save the welfare state, instead it will hasten its insolvency. In the end, immigrants won’t pay for our pensions, we’ll pay for theirs.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Labour support alexandra cortez's 'green new deal' which is really a trojan horse for the United Nations Agenda 2030 and the building of a technocratic gulag that will be run by AI. It will make orwells big brother look like a boy scout because the technology available now to spy on and control the individual has far surpassed anything that orwell conceived of.


Labour to set out plans to decarbonise UK and fulfil green jobs pledge
Party says Labour government would tackle climate change by starting economic revolution
Matthew Taylor
Tue 12 Feb 2019 16.00 GMT

Labour is to set out how the UK can move swiftly to a decarbonised future to tackle the unfolding climate crisis and put “meat on the bones” of its promise to create hundreds of thousands of high-skilled, unionised green jobs.

Trade unionists and industry leaders will come together with academics, engineers and public institutions to build detailed regional plans setting out the challenges and opportunities ahead.

The proposal, due to be outlined on Wednesday by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, will involve a national call for evidence and a series of regional events to build “a detailed action plan” to maximise the benefits of moving to a zero-carbon future.
Labour’s pitch echoes the Green New Deal that is gaining ground in the US, backed by leftwing Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders.


How the AI run military ties into the fake-left, oligarch run 'green deal' push for technocracy

We heard that cortez spoke to corbyn on the phone and now we start hearing labour calling for their own green regime push for technocracy. Clearly this is a coordinated effort which i think we can also link to rothschild gofer macrons crack down on fossile fuels that has seen the yellow vests rise up

But something else is also going on in what looks like a coordinated fashion. Both the military in the US and the military in the UK are both announcing a step up in the use of autonomous military hardware and artificial intelligence and i strongly suggest that the Artificial Intelligence that is going to run the SMART cities of the fake-lefts green deal will be the same AI that will run the militaries autonomous weaponry

This is because the military robots and drones will ultimately be used to police the public and the manufactured threats such as the russia-scare tactics are all about creating an excuse under which the military can create these new AI run technologies

The cabal know that they can't get the soldiery to fight against their own people so they are building a drone and robot and autonomous vehicle army that will have no moral issues with gunning you down in the street if you don't comply with the technocracy

The AI run military will be the enforcer of the AI run technocracy to make sure that you do not resist their technological gulag system

Pentagon unveils 17-page strategy on artificial intelligence and says machines will 'impact every corner' of the military as it ramps up efforts in AI-arms race with Russia and China
The 17-page report marks the Pentagon's first official strategy for tackling AI
The DoD wants to focus on AI in order to keep pace with China and Russia
Details how AI can be worked into things like cyberattacks defense and training
By Associated Press and Annie Palmer For Dailymail.com
Published: 22:03, 12 February 2019 | Updated: 00:08, 14 February 2019
The U.S. military wants to expand its use of artificial intelligence in warfare, but says it will take care to deploy the technology in accordance with the nation's values. In a 17-page report, the Pentagon laid out how it plans to inject artificial intelligence into future military operations and how it will keep up with Russia and China's advancements in the futuristic technology. The report, titled 'Harnessing AI to Advance Our Security and Prosperity,' marks the first time the Pentagon has developed strategies around how it will respond to the rise of artificial intelligence.

UK will deploy drone squadron after Brexit, says defence secretary
Experts query how Gavin Williamson’s latest plan to increase UK’s ‘lethality’ will be funded
Dan Sabbagh
Mon 11 Feb 2019 15.15 GMT
The British defence secretary has revealed plans to invest £7m in a swarm squadron of drones theoretically capable of jamming enemy air defences, in a bellicose speech in which he spelled out how the UK could “enhance its lethality” after Brexit.
Gavin Williamson said he wanted the RAF to form a new “concept unit” composed of hundreds of small flying craft, although some experts in the field questioned whether the technology described existed yet.
Brexit 'can enhance UK's lethality', says defence secretary
The UK would “develop swarm squadrons of network-enabled drones capable of confusing and overwhelming enemy air defences”, Williamson said, and he promised to have them “ready to be deployed by the end of this year”.

Edited by muir

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour and the other NWO lackeys will use 'climate change' as the excuse to impose their AI run technocracy on us:


The Green new deal with the AI demon: Climate change and the transhuman tyranny
Posted on December 5, 2018 in A.I./TRANSHUMANISM

The 2018 UN climate change summit opened this week with a dire warning that today’s generation is the last that can prevent catastrophic human caused climate change, as well as the first to be suffering its impacts. No where does their statement mention that today’s generation is also the last that can prevent our catastrophic immersion and integration with Artificial Intelligence and 5G, despite the fact that a rogue AI catastrophe is more humanly devastating and above climate change in terms of extinction level threats. This is because both climate change and AI solutions are not about ‘saving’ humanity. They are about ‘improving’ humanity by controlling our minds and actions via AI implants (taking away our stupidity and what sovereignty remains) in the name of transitioning into a “modern” eco-friendly “smart” “green” global civilization.

Everyone agrees that humanity can be better, more just (even righteous). Everyone wants a zero carbon, zero poverty, and especially, zero point energy future and a healthy planet for our children and future generations. Leading scientists say we have 12 years to radically transform our economy and society to avoid climate disaster.

The question is, how do we go about it?

At the heart of climate change and transhumanism conversations/agendas is the understanding that humans and our “break shit” (Silicon Valley’s rallying cry) impulses are the problem on this planet.

There are too many of us and too many of us are using old and stupid technologies like fossil fuel powered cars. Governments could ban the old cars (along with plastic bottles and bags) tomorrow to save the planet. Why are they not doing it ?

Transhumanists believe Artificial Intelligence can fix us. We should replace the old corrupt, imperfect, out of control and ‘stupid’ humanity with a new technologically augmented, ‘smart’, controlled and perfected version.

In fact, as AI champions like Elon Musk say, in order to survive the AI “demon”, as he calls it, we will have to ‘get smart’ and merge with machines.

By ‘smart’ is meant wired to the Internet of Things through implanted technology laced together by 5G networks whose radiation is dangerous, if not lethal. I have discussed the potential deadly harm of 5G elsewhere.The connection speed it provides is mandatory for implantable devices like Musk’s Neural lace to work.

None of the ‘world leaders’ who are concerned about climate change seem to care about or grasp the significance of how man will harm every living thing on the planet by unleashing increasing levels of radiation via 5G and how potentially dangerous AI is for the bodies and soul of humanity.

In fact, these same leaders propose 5G and the implantation of Transhuman smart devices it allows as the solution to climate change!

Please don’t laugh. This is deadly serious.


The UN’s only concern about AI is how fast it can use it to implement its Agenda 2030.

Look it up. Depending on whose take you read Agenda 2030 is either a path to global enslavement or a path to freedom for the world’s enslaved in a socialist utopia.

Either way the transformation is forced. The UN intends for a socio-economic political movement that forcibly changes every aspect of human civilization through AI intervention and governmental control of everything via technology.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called artificial intelligence “a new frontier” with “advances moving at warp speed.”

“Artificial Intelligence has the potential to accelerate progress towards a dignified life, in peace and prosperity, for all people,” said Mr. Guterres. “The time has arrived for all of us – governments, industry and civil society – to consider how artificial intelligence will affect our future.”

He’s right. A very few of us are prepared for the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its blurring of our biological selves with our digital selves.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 Feb Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21
Posted at 13:59h in Environment, Featured, Property Rights, Sustainable Development
by Tom DeWeese

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!

For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals. They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Of course, such harsh terms had to be hidden from the American people if the plan was to be successfully imposed. They called it a “suggestion” for “voluntary” action – just in case a nation or community wanted to do something positive for mankind! However, while using such innocent-sounding language, the Agenda 21 shock troops lost no time pushing it into government policy. In 1992, just after its introduction at the Earth Summit, Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan into Congress. It’s interesting to note that she boldly called it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In 1993, new President, Bill Clinton ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land. Then the American Planning Association issued a newsletter in 1994, supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning. So much for a voluntary idea!

However, as we, the opponents started to gain some ground in exposing its true purpose and citizens began to storm city halls protesting local implementation, suddenly the once proud proponents lost their collective memories about Agenda 21. Never heard of it! “There are no blue-helmeted troops at city hall,” said one proponent, meaning policies being used to impose it were not UN driven, but just “local, local, local”. “Oh, you mean that innocuous 20 year-old document that has no enforcement capability? This isn’t that!” These were the excuses that rained down on us from the planners, NGOs and government agents as they scrambled to hide their true intentions.

I was attacked on the front page of the New York Times Sunday paper under the headline, “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) produced four separate reports on my efforts to stop it, calling our efforts an “Antigovernment Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory.” The Atlantic magazine ran a story entitled, “Is the UN Using Bike Paths to Achieve World Domination?” Attack articles appeared in the Washington Post, Esquire magazine, Wingnut Watch, Mother Jones, and Tree Hugger.com to name a few. All focused on labeling our opposition as tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs. Meanwhile, an alarmed American Planning Association (APA) created an “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts page on its web site to supposedly counter our claims. APA then organized a “Boot Camp” to retrain its planners to deal with us, using a “Glossary for the Public,” teaching them new ways to talk about planning. Said the opening line of the Glossary, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” The Glossary went on to list words not to use like “Public Visioning,” “Stakeholders,” “Density,” and “Smart Growth,” because such words make the “Critics see red”.

Local elected officials, backed by NGO groups and planners, began to deride local activists – sometimes denying them access to speak at public meetings, telling them that Agenda 21 conspiracy theory has “been debunked”. Most recently an irate city councilman answered a citizen who claimed local planning was part of Agenda 21 by saying “this is what’s “trending.” So, of course, if everyone is doing it is must be right!

Such has been our fight to stop this assault on our culture and Constitutional rights.

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

Take a good look, those of you who have heard my warnings about Agenda 21 over the years. Do you see the plan I have warned about being fully in place in this Green New Deal?

I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and were we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export and even breathe.
In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Stay alert. The next step will be to put a ban on the sale of new combustion engines by a specific date and then limiting the number of new vehicles to be sold. Bans on commercial truck shipping will follow. Then they will turn to airplanes, reducing their use. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on carbon heating systems, mandating they be turned off during certain hours. Heating oil devises will become illegal. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Those in the cities will be ordered to convert their gardens into food producers. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.

The Green New Deal will destroy the very concept of our Constitutional Republic, eliminating private property, locally elected representative government, free markets and individual freedom. All decisions in our lives will be made for us by the government – just to protect the environment of course. They haven’t forgotten how well that scheme works to keep the masses under control.

Though the label “Green New Deal” has been passing around globalist circles for a while, it’s interesting that its leaders have now handed it to a naïve, inexperienced little girl from New York who suddenly found herself rise from bartending to a national media sensation, almost over night. That doesn’t just happen and there is no miracle here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a created product. They probably needed her inexperienced enthusiasm to deliver the Green New Deal because no established politician would touch it. Now that it’s been introduced and she is set up to take the heat, the gates have swung open allowing forty-five members of Congress to co-sponsor it in the House of Representatives as established Senator Ed. Markey (D-MA) has sponsored it in the Senate. That doesn’t just happen either. Nothing has been left to chance.

Behind the sudden excitement and rush to support it are three radical groups each having direct ties to George Soros, including the Sunrise Movement – which markets itself as an “army of young people” seeking to make climate change a major priority. Justice Democrats – which finds and recruits progressive candidates, and New Consensus – organized to change how we think about issues. Leaders of these groups have connections with other Soros-backed movements including Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. According to The New Yorker magazine, the plan was written over a single weekend in December, 2018. Ocasio-Cortez was included in the effort, chosen to introduce it. This may be the single reason why she was able to appear out of nowhere to become the new darling of the radical left.

So there you have it — Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal. Progress in the world of Progressives! They warned us from the beginning that their plan was the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”. And so it is to be the total destruction of our way of life.

To all of those elected officials, local, state and federal, who have smirked at we who have tried to sound the alarm, look around you now, hot shots! You have denied, ignored, and yet, helped put these very plans into place. Are you prepared to accept what you have done? Will you allow your own homes and offices to be torn down – or will you be exempt as part of the elite or just useful idiots? Will you have to give up your car and ride your bike to work? Or is that just for we peasants?

Over these years you have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured you their plans were just environmental protection, just good policy for future generations. They have been lying to you to fulfill their own agenda! Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.

Now, our elected leaders have to ask real questions. As the Green New Deal is implemented, and all energy except worthless, unworkable wind and solar are put into place, are you ready for the energy curfews that you will be forced to impose, perhaps each night as the sun fades, forcing factories, restaurants, hospitals, and stores to close at dusk? How about all those folks forced to live in the stack and pack high-rises when the elevators don’t operate? What if they have an emergency?

How much energy will it take to rebuild those buildings that must be destroyed or retrofitted to maker them environmentally correct for your brave new world? Where will it come from after you have banned and destroyed all the workable sources of real energy? What are you counting on to provide you with food, shelter, and the ability to travel so you can continue to push this poison? Because – this is what’s trending — now! And how is it going to be financed when the entire economy crashes under its weight? Is it really the future you want for you, your family, and your constituents who elected you?

Every industry under attack by this lunacy should now join our efforts to stop it. Cattlemen, farmers, airlines, the auto industry, realtors, tourist industry, and many more, all will be put out of business – all should now take bold action to immediately kill this plan before it kills your industry. Stomp it so deeply into the ground that no politician will ever dare think about resurrecting it.

For years I’ve watched politicians smirk, roll their eyes, and sigh whenever the words Agenda 21 were uttered. As George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it”. Today I stand vindicated in my warnings of where Agenda 21 was truly headed, because it’s not longer me having to reveal the threat. They are telling you themselves. Here’s the naked truth – Socialism is for the stupid. The Green New Deal is pure Socialism. How far its perpetrators get in enforcing it depends entirely on how hard you are willing to fight for freedom. Kill it now or watch it die.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The elites long planned for technocracy explained by James Corbett:


Why Big Oil Conquered The World


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The European Union’s MANDATORY National Biometric ID Card Will Affect 512 Million People

March 12, 2019

By MassPrivateI

A recent European Union (EU) announcement about national IDs will destroy millions of people’s privacy and create a near-global biometric database.

An article in State Watch News revealed that the EU has agreed to create a MANDATORY national biometric ID card.

Measures being negotiated as part of the EU’s ‘Security Union’ are moving ahead swiftly, with the Council and Parliament reaching provisional agreements on new rules for immigration liaison officers, the EU’s Visa Code and the introduction of mandatory biometric national identity cards; and the Council agreeing its negotiating position on the new Frontex Regulation.

Earlier this week, the Nepal government announced their plans to roll out a national biometric ID card that will affect 30 million people.


Last month, I wrote an article warning people about the global effort to restrict everyone’s right to travel. But what is happening across Europe and Asia should send chills down everyone’s back.

If you combine what is happening in the EU with America’s national biometric ID card, Real-ID, it becomes painfully obvious that everyone’s right to travel freely is in jeopardy.

512 million people will be forced to give up their privacy

A European national biometric ID card is all but a certainty.

All the EU needs is for 28 ambassadors to say yes, and just like that 512.6 million citizens will be forced to give up their privacy if they want to travel.

Today, representatives of the Council Presidency and the European Parliament reached an informal agreement on a regulation to improve the functioning of the European network of immigration liaison officers. It will now be presented to EU ambassadors for confirmation on behalf of the Council.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Real Greens v Fake Greens (Part 1) – The truth about Money Creation & Banking

By Justin Walker

(Ecology/Green Party activist 1978-1992 and joint campaign co-ordinator for the New Chartist Movement)

The truth is definitely out there…but only when you’re a backbencher!

Researchers and campaigners for monetary reform and social justice are perplexed.  Something is very, very wrong indeed within the current Green and Progressive Movement!  Those of us who have been researching money creation and money supply in great detail know, with absolute certainty, that there is a very simple solution for swiftly eradicating austerity, poverty and unlawful debt…forever!

And, amazingly, so do Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell – they know exactly what has to be done to swiftly remove austerity, poverty and unlawful debt forever in ‘one fell swoop’!  Back in November 2013, as humble backbenchers with only a limited influence on events, they both supported and signed Early Day Motion 748 (2013) along with their recently departed friend, the late Paul Flynn.  This EDM reads as follows:

That this House notes that the hundredth anniversary of the Bradbury Pound on 7 August 2014 is a welcome reminder of the historic precedent for public credit [now called Sovereign National Credit] as the sound basis for debt-and interest-free Treasury money and therefore the sound alternative to the national debt and interest-bearing bank money... and urges HM Treasury to follow John Bradbury's model and address social, economic and political issues across party lines in one fell swoop and avoid wholly unnecessary austerity cuts.


It would seem that these two veteran Left and ‘awkward squad’ politicians viewed the restoration of the 1914 Treasury-issued Bradbury Pound as being a simple and common sense solution for tackling poverty, austerity and social injustice.  But, something very strange happened when they found themselves elected and promoted to the frontbench and appointed Privy Councillors.  In effect, they had both been quickly reined in to become good servants to the ‘Crown’…and that’s not just to Her Majesty the Queen but to the whole corporate and secretive set-up that we know as ‘The City of London’ or ‘The Square Mile’.  And every attempt in the last three years to communicate with Jeremy and John on this subject of the Bradbury Pound (or Sovereign National Credit as it is termed by money reformers; or Treasury M0 at 100% as it is termed by economists) has come to nought – both of them just don’t want to know any more about the Bradbury Pound and they certainly don’t want to risk discussing it in public. Why?

Read more JustinWalker_FakeGreens.pdf


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lisbon Treaty: 26 reasons why we must leave the EU before it is too late
John Brindley (Staff Author)

THE Democracy Defined Restoration Campaign has released devastating information on what they say will happen to the United Kingdom if it remains in the European Union when the Lisbon Treaty comes into force next year. Whilst some of this may well be disputed, this explains why public focus is currently being directed on the possible implications of Brexit and away from the Orwellian future being prepared for Britain should our politicians continue to cave in to pressure to ignore the 2016 referendum result. We suggest that you pour yourself a stiff drink before reading on. The following information is likely to lead to intense blood boiling throughout the nation.

1: The UK along with all existing members of the EU lose their abstention veto in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon Treaty when the system changes to that of majority acceptance with no abstentions or vetoes being allowed.
2: All member nations will become states of the new federal nation of the EU by 2022 as clearly laid out in the Lisbon Treaty with no exceptions or vetoes.
3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.

4: The London Stock Exchange will move to Frankfurt in 2020 and be integrated into the EU Stock Exchange, resulting in a loss of 200,000 plus jobs in the UK because of the relocation.
(This has already been pre-agreed and is only on a holding pattern due to the Brexit negotiations, which if Brexit does happen, the move is fully cancelled - but if not and the UK remains a member and it is full steam ahead for the move.)

5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.

6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the unelected EU Commission and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.

7: The UK will NOT be able to make its own trade deals.

8: The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade tariffs.

9 The UK will NOT be able to set its own trade quotas.

10: The UK loses control of its fishing rights

11: The UK loses control of its oil and gas rights

12: The UK loses control of its borders and enters the Schengen region by 2022 - as clearly laid down in the Lisbon treaty

13: The UK loses control of its Planning Legislation

14: The UK loses control of its armed forces including its nuclear deterrent

15: The UK loses full control of its taxation policy

16: The UK loses the ability to create its own laws and to implement them

17: The UK loses its standing in the Commonwealth

18: The UK loses control of any provinces or affiliated nations e.g.: Falklands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, etc

19: The UK loses control of its judicial system

20: The UK loses control of its international policy

21: The UK loses control of its national policy

22: The UK loses its right to call itself a nation in its own right.

23: The UK loses control of its space exploration program

24: The UK loses control of its Aviation and Sea lane jurisdiction

25: The UK loses its rebate in 2020 as laid down in the Lisbon treaty

26: The UK’s contribution to the EU is set to increase by an average of £1.2 billion pa and by £2.3 billion p.a. by 2020
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, muir said:

The new 'radicals' - protesting an Israel-born musician playing his music. Extraordinary and a must-watch to see the depths to which the fake 'pseudo-left' has descended







Gilad Atzmon, like David Icke has been targetted by the Campaign Against Anit-Semitism (CAA).


The CAA has questionable charity status. You can even donate to their Zionistic cause on (((Amazon))), but I hope you won´t!


The CAA have an agenda to conflate anti-semtism with those people who expose the crimes of the Israeli State, past and present.


The CAA have put pressure on venues to cancel David´s talks.






Edited by Golden Retriever
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Golden Retriever said:


Gilad Atzmon, like David Icke has been targetted by the Campaign Against Anit-Semitism (CAA).


I'm in the CART (campaign against rothschild tyranny)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Green New Deal Plagiarized From 2009 UN Environment Programme Report?

March 18, 2019

Op-Ed by Patrick Wood

In a stunning revelation from a 2009 UN document titled “Rethinking the Economic Recovery: A Global Green New Deal“, it is discovered that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ (AOC) Green New Deal is not a new movement of the people, but rather a crafty creation of a small group of global elite working through the United Nations.

This 144-page report was headed by Edward B. Barbier, a professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Wyoming at the time, but specifically prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

It was UNEP that sponsored the infamous 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro that catalyzed the doctrine of Sustainable Development and produced the Agenda 21 book labeled The Agenda for the 21st Century. UNEP has been at the root of every intellectually bankrupt scheme to flip the world into its resource-based economic system while driving a fatal nail into Capitalism and Free Enterprise. In my books Technocracy Rising and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, I have extensively documented that Sustainable Development is nothing more than warmed-over Technocracy from the 1930s.

Barbier credits a number of people as important contributors to his paper, but two in particular ring a loud bell: the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE).


Center for American Progress

CAP was founded by John Podesta, a prominent member and operative of the Trilateral Commission. Podesta was the principal architect for the U.S. environmental policy for well over 2 decades. He served as Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, Special Counselor to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Manager. In July 2002, the UN Secretary-General appointed him to the High-Level Panel On Post-2015 Development Agenda that created the text for the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.

The Board of Directors for CAP includes Sen. Tom Daschle (Chairman), Stacey Abrams, Donald Sussman, and California billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer.

Peterson Institute for International Economics

PIEE was founded by Peter G. Peterson (1926-2018), a principal member of the Trilateral Commission for decades. PIEE’s Board of Directors is a Who’s Who of the Trilateral Commission and includes Lawrence Summers, C. Fred Bergsten, Richard N. Cooper, Stanley Fischer, Robert Zoellick, Alan Greenspan, Carla A. Hills, George P. Schultz, Paul A. Volcker, and Ernesto Zedillo. The PIEE paper cited by Barbier was A Green Global Recovery? Assessing US Economic Stimulus and the Prospects for International Coordination


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour members launch Green New Deal inspired by US activists

Grassroots group calls on party to commit to decarbonising UK economy within a decade

Matthew Taylor

Fri 22 Mar 2019 00.01 GMT

Labour members have launched a grassroots campaign to push the party to adopt a radical Green New Deal to transform the UK economy, tackle inequality and address the escalating climate crisis.

The group, inspired by the success of the Sunrise Movement and the Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US, is calling on Labour to commit to radical action to decarbonise the UK economy within a decade.

Stu Melvin, an organiser with the group, called Labour for a Green New Deal, said: “Climate change is fundamentally about class, because it means chaos for the many while the few profit.

“We’re starting a campaign to put the labour movement at the forefront of a green transformation in Britain, and to build grassroots support for a Green New Deal within the Labour party.”

The campaign is calling for a region-specific green jobs guarantee, a significant expansion of public ownership and democratic control of industry, as well as mass investment in public infrastructure.

Last year, the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, told the Guardian a future Labour government would oversee an economic revolution to tackle the climate crisis, using the full power of the state to decarbonise the economy and create hundreds of thousands of green jobs in struggling towns and cities.

The group intends to put pressure on the party to fulfil those pledges in the run-up to the Labourconference in September. It is mobilising support through local party and trade union branches and said members in more than 70 constituency Labour parties are signed up.


Leading members of the group recently met Zack Exley, an adviser to Ocasio-Cortez and a co-founder of the progressive group the Justice Democrats, to learn from the success of the Green New Deal campaign in the US.

They are also in discussions with founding members of the Sunrise Movement, the youth-led group linked with Ocasio-Cortez that has been at the forefront of the US campaign for a Green New Deal.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

^ Zack Exley mentioned in the article above has ties to george soros. he was in soros funded 'move on' but was also an open society fellow


Soros is himself a rothschild agent so that's who labour is in bed with folks

Edited by muir

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys give kind of a taste of where all this 'progressive' crap is leading...


WTF A.I Facial Recognition Is Now Becoming SJW Inclusive


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Slightly off-topic, but a found a little gem of a quote from Brendan Cox, the widower of the alleged murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, in his book "JO COX, MORE IN COMMON"


Relating to his marriage celebration, he writes "We sang Jerusalem and also "the Red Flag" we didn´t mind that not everyone joined in with our leftist sing-song"


Let´s put the alleged murder of Jo Cox by an alleged "right wing crazy man" into some perspective with BREXIT.   I believe Thomas Mair is a patsie.


Both Jo Cox and her husband Brendan Cox were/are strong supporters of the EU.


Jo Cox MP we are told was murdered on the 16th June 2016,  just one week before the EU Referendum. The enormous vigil to Jo Cox in Trafalgar Square, London was just one day before the EU vote, and screened across the UK and the world.





I suggest her murder was a psyop, because TPTB knew they were losing a Remain in the EU vote and needed an emotional reaction from the British public to vote to stay.


It didn´t work



Edited by Golden Retriever
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, muir said:

^ Zack Exley mentioned in the article above [labour is supporting the Green new deal] has ties to george soros. he was in soros funded 'move on' but was also an open society fellow


Soros is himself a rothschild agent so that's who labour is in bed with folks


This also explains why Momentum released a video on their facebook page recently telling their activists not to discuss any 'conspiracy theories' about the rothschilds!


Its because the people at the top of moment are working for the rothschild agenda to enslave the world under a technocracy and the 'green new deal' is simply a trojan horse for the technocracy as it intends to micro-manage everyones lives under the pretext that it must control our energy useage to combat 'climate change'

  • Like 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Labour is looking to oust jackie walker who is a black jewish lady who quite correctly said that jewish people were the main financiers of the trans atlantic slave trade


Now when faced with a claim like that people should then ask ''is that true?'' and then investigate the information surrounding that to see if it is indeed true. They will likely find that it is true and that jewish merchants not only dominated the trade in slaves but that they also dominated the sugar processing which formed a key part of the triangular trade. Also only 6% of southerners in america owned slaves and they were the wealthy landowners. jewish people proportionately owned more slaves then white people in the south so they were no doubt instrumental in the cotton and tobacco production too


if this is all true then why shouldn't people like jackie walker be able to say that publically? Why is the reponse not further enquiry to seek the truth but rather a drive to silence her and marginalise her?


The reason lies in the protection of narratives. the narratives that the rothschild cabal want to push and which their assets in hollywood cultivate through their movies about the slave trade is that nasty white people were behind the slave trade. The reality is in fact that white christians abolished the slave trade and that jews have been involved in the trade of slaves for millenia


The other point jackie waler made which upset the engineers of perception who churn out and uphold the false narratives is that international holocaust day should be expanded to memorialise ALL people who have been genocided....an idea which i applaud


However the zionists want the world to believe that the jews alone have a monopoly on suffering because their holocaust industry is used to cloak their own genocidal behaviours towards the palestinean peoples


But if we take the two comments together we can make an interesting consideration. We can consider that the jews played a role in the holocaust of africans during the trans atlantic slave trade and if this was memorialised then the truth would become cogniscent to the wider public that the jews were largely behind that holocaust which would require the jews to self reflect on their own behaviour and its the belief of jews of the supremacist mindset that they are the chosen people and therefore the rest of humanity are their slaves anyway so they see no reason to self reflect on their own behavior


Its just a shame that Mrs Walker did not also speak about the role the jews played in the formation of the bolsheviks who then genocided over a million white christian russians in the terror that followed their revolution before then killing tens of millions more through their collectivisation meddling


And to think all of this happened BEFORE the nazi persecution of the jews and in fact may even have been part of the motivation of the nazis to detain jews as political prisoners because as the history books show the leaders of the communist uprisings in germany were jewish.


This then brings us to the comments of ken livingston who quite accurately pointed out that before the nazis were locking jews up as political prisoners they had sought to move jews out of germany and into israel as part of the havara agreement. This process was halted by the sparking of war in europe.


Zionist leader herzl even spoke about the need for 'anti-semites' to help motivate jews into leaving their comfortable lives in europe in order to get them to move to a new zionist homeland which he envisioned as being taken by force, which it was.


If we want to live in an open and transparent society where we as a society live in truth rather than founding our society on a shifting foundation of lies that threatens to see our society crumble at any moment under the weight of its own deceit then we should be able to freely discuss these matters and to let the information guide us. The labour party is clearly marking itself out as not only a zionist outpost but also as an unpholder of false narratives and lies. That is not an organisation that any person of conscience can associate themselves with


Shadow chancellor John McDonnell's 'anti-Semitic' ally must be expelled, or Labour 'has no future' MPs warn

  • Jackie Walker has been suspended twice over comments to Jewish people
  • John McDonnell has pledged to take up her case with Jeremy Corbyn
  • Dame Margaret Hodge said it was 'extraordinary' that her expulsion hearing had taken so long 
  • Ian Walker, who quit Labour last month, asked why she was still in the party

By Daniel Martin for the Daily Mail

Published: 23:30, 22 March 2019 | Updated: 00:32, 23 March 2019

Labour will have ‘no future’ if it does not expel a hard-Left ally of John McDonnell over alleged anti-Semitism next week, MPs have warned.

The shadow chancellor defended Jackie Walker last month, even though she has been suspended twice for making comments offensive to Jewish people.

He pledged to take up her case with Jeremy Corbyn and party general secretary Jennie Formby – in an apparent contravention of Labour’s claim that the leadership is not involved in disciplinary cases.




Edited by muir

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is israel a 'racist endevour'? Certainly their leader seems to be:


Netanyahu, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) display racist views

[email protected] March 22, 2019
Netanyahu: “Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the nation-state law we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people — and not anyone else.”

by Kathryn Shihadah, Palestine Home

How is the camel’s back not broken yet?

Fifty years of occupation, twelve years of blockade, 600,000 Israeli settlers, 250 dead unarmed Gazan protesters, three one-sided “wars” in which 3,500 Palestinians in Gaza (and about 150 Israelis) have been killed–that’s not a big enough deal for us to utter a word of reprimand or turn off the financial spigot to Israel.

The US is shelling out $10 million a day, $7,000 a minute in aid–not humanitarian, but military aid, mind you–to a country that last summer passed the openly racist Nation-State Law, that last month saw its prime minister create a coalition including disciples of a Jewish supremacist, that last week disqualified pro-Palestinian parties from even appearing on the election ballot, while welcoming an anti-Palestinian candidate who is a member of a Jewish terror group.

These outrageous acts did not outrage our politicians; Israel’s leaders are emboldened.

Israel for Jews only

Prime Minister Netanyahu went on record over the weekend in defense of that indefensible Nation-State Law.

On Sunday, when a TV personality dared to suggest that “Israel is a state of all its citizens and that all people were created equal,” he felt compelled to respond:

Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the nation-state law we passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people — and not anyone else.

And then:

[Arabs in Israel] have equal rights.

(Question: Equal to what? Answer: Equal to the rights of second-class citizens.)

Netanyahu’s next statement completely disassociated the Palestinian people from their own homeland:

The Arab citizens have 22 nation states around them and they do not need another.

This is something you can say when you call those people “Arabs” instead of “Palestinians.” Their centuries of constant connection to this particular land are invisible, irrelevant–all Arabs are the same, all Arab countries are the same. And the “Jewish State” is not for “Arabs” because Israel (which only came into existence a few decades ago) is calling the shots. “Pick an Arab state, any Arab state, and go there. Or if you want to stay in this non-Arab state, you’ve been warned: it’s not your state. It’s ours.”

This is bald-faced racism.

But have no fear! The Anti-Defamation League stepped in.

ADL: the voice of reason?

Director of the ADL’s Israel office, Carole Nuriel, “defended” the “Arabs”:

This anti-Arab rhetoric is a deeply troubling trend that, if continued, could undermine Israel’s vibrant democracy. The representation of Israeli Arabs in the Knesset has historically been a source of pride for Israel, highlighting its democratic character, despite the enduring conflict with its Arab neighbors, and attesting to its genuine efforts to include the Arab community as equal citizens.

It’s not really possible to be a “democracy” or to “include the Arab community as equal citizens” within the context of the Nation-State Law.

And the ADL’s conspicuous inability to use the word “Palestinian” when talking about Palestinians indicates the organization’s place on the Zionist continuum: Palestinian-ness is unthinkable. The very word “Palestinian” recalls non-Jewish historic ties to the land; only the monolithic term “Arab” will do. This puts the ADL only a step away from Netanyahu’s position that 22 “Arab states” is plenty.

ADL has never been an ally of Palestinians. It endorsed the US Embassy move to Jerusalem with all its anti-Palestinian baggage, it supports the Jewish-only “right of return” to the land that most Jews left 2,000 years ago, but Palestinians were exiled from only 70 years ago.

ADL’s language as it scolds Israel’s far-right government demonstrates how similar the two ideologies really are.

Is it time for outrage yet?

The United States–particularly its government–has looked the other way as Israel perpetrated atrocity after atrocity. Will the latest round of blatant racist, anti-Palestinian statements from Israel’s prime minister tip the scales?

Only if American civil society makes some noise. Contact your senator and representative. Tell them to denounce Netanyahu’s racist ideology; remind them that your tax dollars are subsidizing this nonsense.

Kathryn Shihadah is staff writer for If Americans Knew. She blogs at Palestine Home


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monday, 18 March 2019

UN Summit Seeks “New World Order” to “Transform the Way We Live”

Written by  Alex Newman


Under the guise of saving the planet from supposedly dangerous humans, plastics, and free markets, governments and dictators attending the Fourth United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, adopted declarations to hijack control of the global economy and “transform the way we live.” Among the key goals of the UN's “bold blueprint for change,” as the agreement was described, is a “new world order” that makes consumption and production “sustainable.” But in reality, as this magazine has documented extensively, the UN-backed ideology of “sustainable development” has less to do with protecting the environment and more to do with restricting the freedom of human beings. This global “green” new deal makes that clear, too.    

While UN globalists typically use opaque language to disguise the real agenda, in this case, UN bosses celebrated the emergence of a “new world order” in which the UN's ideology of “sustainability” will reign supreme. “We are delighted that the world has responded here in Nairobi with firm commitments to build a future where sustainability will be the overarching objective in everything we do,” said UN Environment’s Acting Executive Director Joyce Msuya. “If countries deliver on all that was agreed here and implement the resolutions, we could take a big step towards a new world order where we no longer grow at the expense of nature but instead see people and planet thrive together.”


The latest conference, held last week under the guidance of the UN, was based on the claim that the planet is in danger due to human activities. In particular, the summit revolved around a new report — conveniently produced by the same UN “environmental” agency hosting the gathering — claiming that environment is doomed unless humanity submits to global controls and regulation. All sorts of discredited hysteria and boogeymen such as predictions of “sea-level rise,” plastic pollution, and “climate crisis” were touted to justify the radical policies being advanced by governments and tyrants at the summit.

Leaders of the UN conference were hardly shy about revealing the scope of what is being proposed. “The world is at a crossroads but today we have chosen the way forward,” gushed Siim Kiisler, president of the Fourth UN Environment Assembly and the Estonian government's top environmental official. “We have decided to do things differently. From reducing our dependence on single-use plastics to placing sustainability at the heart of all future development, we will transform the way we live. We have the innovative solutions we need. Now we must adopt the policies that allow us to implement them.” (Emphasis added)

The controversial ideology of “sustainable development,” which underpins everything the UN Environment Assembly does, claims to be about preserving the planet for future generations. However, critics frequently refer to proponents of this ideology as “watermelons,” because they are “green on the outside, but red on the inside.” And indeed, the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro made this clear. In fact, it was literally chaired by a Red Chinese Communist. And it took place to promote what the UN and countless officials described as a “green” world order in which central planning and government control of the economy would be crucial.  

More recently, the UN's member governments and dictatorships agreed to the Agenda 2030 “Sustainable Development Goals.” Essentially, these goals would re-organize human society, with governments ordered to redistribute wealth within and among nations, indoctrinate all children into the “sustainable development” ideology, seize control of production and consumption, and much more. After the UN scheme was accepted by governments and dictators around the world, the mass-murdering Communist Chinese dictatorship boasted that it played a “crucial role” in creating the UN scheme. Fortunately, despite being signed by Barack Obama, it has never been ratified by the U.S. Senate.

read on here https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/31778-un-summit-seeks-new-world-order-to-transform-the-way-we-live

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

A chinese new world order being formed? Will china expand its social credit score beyond its borders and impose the technocracy on the world?


Germany wants Europe to join China's new Silk Road after criticizing Italy for doing the same

Published time: 26 Mar, 2019 13:09
The Chinese “Belt and Road” initiative is an important project, which European states would be glad to join, according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who stressed that cooperation should be based on reciprocity from Beijing.

“We, as Europeans, want to play an active part and that must lead to certain reciprocity and we are still wrangling over that a bit,” Merkel said, as quoted by Reuters.

The comment comes shortly after talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is currently paying a state visit to France.

The Chinese president came to France after his three-day visit to Italy. On Saturday, Rome and Beijing signed the memorandum of understanding on Italy’s joining of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The move had not been received well by European nations, particularly France and Germany. French President Emmanuel Macron had called for a more consolidated approach toward China among European allies, at the same time as Paris was signing multi-billion-euro contracts with Beijing.

The Belt and Road Initiative is expected to provide effective connectivity and boost China’s cooperation with more than 152 countries in Southeast and Central Asia, the Middle East, Europe, Latin America and Africa via various infrastructure projects, along the lines of the old Silk Road.

The project, proposed by Xi in 2013, promises to significantly boost global trade, cutting trading costs by half for the countries involved. China has heavily invested into the ambitious enterprise with a reported $900 billion having been spent on projects in partner countries. Most of the investment projects of the Belt and Road initiative have reportedly benefitted China’s state-owned corporations.



The Truth About the China World Order


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a news article today that the US is going to recognise Israeli sovereignty over the west bank. In thew light of the expanding chinese one belt one road initiative this got me wondering how much of the aggressive consolidation of israel is currently occuring as a counter to the chinese one belt one road scheme because israel sits at the end of the old silk road commanding as it does the eastern seaboard of the mediterranean sea


However Israel is forging links with china so the question is to what extent the US administration is genuinly in competition with china or whether at some level they are all in cahoots and simply laying the ground work for a global technocracy?


As the article above points out the EU seems to be climbing aboard the chinese technocracy and we certainly see some authoritarian developments within the EU not least the pushing of this new copyright law that is aimed hamstringing the independent media:


David Icke Talks About Article 13 & The EU


EU plan to fit cars with speed limiters could be UNSAFE: AA issues warning over plan to fit all new cars with technology that will force you to stick to EVERY speed limit from 2022

  • New models sold in the EU will feature Intelligent Speed Assistance limiters
  • European Parliament, Council and Commission approved legislation for them
  • Vehicles will be slowed in accordance with speed limits using GPS and traffic sign recognition cameras
  • The bill includes a raft of new safety measures that are now subject to the formal approval of the European Parliament and EU member states in September 
  • Models sold in the UK are likely to have the same technology after the Vehicle Certification Agency said it would mirror EU rules post-Brexit
  • AA president Edmund King blasted the proposals claiming they could make some driving scenarios, such as overtaking tractors, less safe 

By Rob Hull For Thisismoney.co.uk

Published: 13:02, 26 March 2019 | Updated: 08:00, 27 March 2019


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone really believe that there is not social engineering going on at the cultural level for example through the tavistock institute network?


Or is it just that some people don't think it should be linked to the jewish, marxist frankfurt school? Well i'm sorry folks but the frankfurt school DID exist and they WERE jewish marxists so.....face reality and deal with it


Facing reality doesn't mean you have to turn into a rabid nazi it just means that you acknowledge that society is being socially engineered on a cultural level. Once you acknowledge this you can then start to objectively explore which groups are doing that and why. Then you can decide if you agree with their vision for society but consider this....if their ideas are so righteous why would it all have to be done by subterfuge?


Also consider this: if the left is supposed to represent the interests of the workers then why is all this social engineering coming down from above through governments, corporations and the education system? Even the military pushes social engineering. So clearly its coming through the establishment and are you seriously believing that the establishment is working in the best interests of the workers?


Its all being imposed on the workers from above by the capitalist oligarchs who are using the apparatus of the state to impose it on society


Phrase ‘cultural Marxism’ only antisemitic if you research it, Tories confirm

On 26 March, Tory MP Suella Braverman said:

As Conservatives, we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism.

The phrase ‘cultural Marxism’ is historically a conspiracy theory that Western culture is being undermined by sinister Jewish academics. It was also used by the far-right mass-murderer Anders Breivik.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is ‘Cultural Marxism’ so offensive?

By Gilad Atzmon

Earlier this week former Brexit minister Suella Braverman referred to ‘Cultural Marxism’ in a speech. All hell broke loose immediately. The former minister was attacked by the usual Jewish and Zionist pressure groups, ranging from The Board of Deputies (BOD) to Hope not Hate to the usual compromised Labour politicians. However, unlike our caricature of an opposition leader who grovels on demand, Mrs Braverman kept her dignity intact. She didn’t see any point to retract, apologise or promise not to repeat the phrase as the BOD demanded.

One may wonder why ‘Cultural Marxism’ is so offensive to some?

Because ‘Cultural Marxism’ is obviously truthful and precise in its capacity to encapsulate a crucial and disastrous transition in the evolvement of 20th century Left thinking.

As opposed to traditional Marxism that theorizes over the necessary condition toward social change by means of class struggle, ‘Cultural Marxism’ aims to introduce a change by cultural shift. At a certain stage some (neo) marxists and socialists were clever and honest enough to accept that the revolution wasn’t going to happen. The working class couldn’t be bothered and even if they could, they were too busy attending their jobs. The revolution had to be facilitated by different means.

Antonio Gramsci, probably the father figure of cultural Marxist thought, contended that bourgeois hegemony was reproduced in cultural life through the media, academia and religious institutions to ‘manufacture consent’ and legitimacy. The proletarian struggle for control of the means of production, according to Gramsci, could only succeed once an alternative culture replaces the bourgeois cultural hegemony. For Gramsci it was a ‘counter-hegemonic’ struggle – advancing alternatives to dominant ideas of what is normal and legitimate.

Gramsci didn’t see his desired cultural shift materialising. He died prematurely, jailed in Mussolini’s Italy. However, Gramsci’s ideas were adopted and developed by a list of thinkers including Wilhelm Reich and the Frankfurt School’s leading icons: Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm and others. As it seems, these thinkers who have had a tremendous impact on contemporary Left and progressive thinking have something in common: they were Jews of Germanic origin.

By now the picture starts to become clear. The contemporary Left is dominated by a Jewish-influenced school of thought that preaches a constant struggle against hegemonic discourses such as traditional family values, the church, the male, the ‘white’ and so on. This school of thought also advocates against elementary liberties such as freedom of speech, evidenced by the popularity of no-platforming. It is hardly a secret that the above school of thought is a complete dismissal of every conservative value and Mrs Braverman was both astute and correct in calling a spade a spade: “as Conservatives, we are engaged in a battle against cultural Marxism…”

Mrs Braverman was accused of ‘anti-Semitism,’ despite the fact that she didn’t refer to Jews. By their unwitty actions, once again, Jewish pressure groups actually admitted that ‘Cultural Marxism is indeed a Jewish-influenced school of thought, otherwise it is impossible to conceive what was anti-Semitic in Braverman’s statement. Braverman was also blamed for repeating a ‘phrase used by mass murderer Anders Breivik,” as if referring to a term used by a mass murderer is an approval of a murderous act.

I guess that this is the right point to introduce a twist into this entire saga. It is crucial to mention that the right-wing thinkers who popularised the usage of ‘Cultural Marxism’ were actually Jewish and even ultra-Zionists. The first amongst them is Andrew Breitbart, who was dedicated to the exposing of the Neo-Marxist menace. Not far behind him in his attack is the horrid right wing ultra-Zionist David Horowitz. It is not exactly a secret that in his manifesto Breivik refers to David Horowitz’s Freedom Centre. For those who fail to remember, Breivik also quoted Jewish writer Melanie Philips’ criticism of Neo Marxist’s attitude to immigration: "It (immigration) was a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country (Britain). It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions." (Melanie Phillips, as quoted by mass murderer, Anders Breivik, in his manifesto).


Andrew Breitbart is the man who popularised the phrase ‘cultural marxism.’

I didn’t see Jewish pressure groups, the BOD, Hope not Hate or Labour MPs trying to silence Andrew Breitbart, David Horowitz or Melanie Philips. I guess that Jews and Zionists controlling the opposition and criticising Cultural Marxism must be a kosher adventure.

In Being in Time I argue that it isn’t totally surprising that Jews often dominate the dissent to Jewish cultural and ideological symptoms. If choseness, for instance, is a Jewish political/cultural symptom, it may as well be possible that self-hatred and even universalism are just metaphysical antibodies. If Cultural Marxism is a Jewish-influenced school of thought, it shouldn’t take us by complete surprise that it is also Jewish writers such as Horowitz, Philips and Breitbart who bring the anti antidotes to light.'



  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this