“Asylum Seekers” Hit Jackpot

A new analysis of benefit figures by BNP News has revealed that a newly-arrived (foreign & purported) “asylum seeker” with three children can claim MORE in benefits per month than a British pensioner.

If the “asylum seeker” or refugee has more dependents, the amount of benefits rises proportionally.

Currently, the basic state pension for a single British person is £95.25 a week. This rises to £152.30 for a couple. Whether they get this full amount depends on how many national insurance contribution years they have completed.

The basic pension is lower than the income support threshold, so if they have no other income, state pensioners can top up with income support. This comes in the form of a means-tested Pension Credit which brings the weekly amount up to £130 for a single person and £198.45 for a couple.

‘Asylum seekers’, on the other hand, get £40 per week for gas and electricity and another £35 per week per person towards food, clothing and toiletries.

This means that an ‘asylum seeker’ family of four gets £140 for food and another £40 for gas and electricity, bringing their total to £180 in one week.

This is not the end of the story. These grants to “asylum seekers” are topped up by access to the following benefits, as they might be applicable to the individual concerned:

Income Support

Income based Job Seekers Allowance

Housing Benefit

Council Tax Benefit

Social Fund

Disability Living Allowance

Attendance Allowances

Invalid Care Allowances

Service Disablement Allowances

Non-contributory Incapacity Benefit

Working Families’ Tax Credit

Disabled Person’s Tax Credit

Child Benefit

It is the CHILD benefit scheme which is the real GOLDMINE for “asylum seekers”.

“Asylum-seeker” lone parent benefits are £42.16 per week, with £50 per week per child. A single “asylum seeker” with three children will automatically qualify for cash payments of £192.16 ($289) PER WEEK… almost the same as a British pensioner couple (who worked for 30 or 40 years in their OWN country!).

This is, however, just the straight cash grant. In addition to this (free) money, (purported) “asylum seekers” with dependents also qualify for further subsidies as per the list above, which pushes their real income way above that given to British pensioners.

Finally, ‘asylum seekers’ are entitled to register with a local GP and receive services from the NHS, all courtesy of the taxpayer.  -Source-

ALSO READ:

Happily Un-employed Muslim Scrounger In Britain

Immigrants & Welfare

More Refugees To Support

Canadian Generosity Vs Stupidity

Foreign Seniors Displacing Canadians

Illegal ‘Immigrants’ Don’t Come Cheap

Africa – World’s Begging Bowl

Great Rift Valley

By Kevin Myers
Irish Independent News

No! It will not do.

Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again.

It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia’s (and Bob Geldof’s) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia’s population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.

So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn’t count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there.

The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.

It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O’Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously. So be it.

But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30%. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed, Hercules, Ethiopia’s population has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.

Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.

This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the next president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against infection.

Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.

Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa.

They are now — one way or another — virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.

Meanwhile, Africa’s peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177,000,000: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.

So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them? Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity. But that is not good enough.

For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.

It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates‘ programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.

If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts.

Oh good: then what? I know.

Let them all come here (or here). Yes, that’s an idea.   -Source-

…or, how about:

…Canada

…Australia

…Britain

…Ireland

…Sweden

…Italy

…or all of EUROPE

The exception is JAPAN.

 

ALSO READ:

Africa — NOT Our Problem

Ireland Fails To Deport Africans

Black IQ Differences

IQ And The Wealth of Nations

Related articles

• War and corruption are responsible for famines, not droughts – Globe and Mail (news.google.com)

The Right To Discriminate

Walter E. Williams

[...]

Should people have the right to discriminate by race, sex, religion and other attributes?

In a free society…. I say ‘yes’.

Let’s look at it. When I was selecting a marriage partner, I systematically discriminated against white women, Asian women and women of other ethnicities that I found less preferable.

The Nation of Islam discriminates against white members.

The Aryan Brotherhood discriminates against having black members.

The Ku Klux Klan discriminates against having Catholic and Jewish members.

The NFL discriminates against hiring female quarterbacks.

The NAACP National Board of Directors, at least according to the photo on their Web page, has no white members.

You say, “Williams, that’s different. It’s not like public transportation, restaurants and hotel service in which Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act “prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment.”

While there are many places that serve the public, it doesn’t change the fact that they are privately owned, and who is admitted, under what conditions, should be up to the owner.

If places of public accommodation were free to racially discriminate, how much racial discrimination would there be? In answering that question, we should acknowledge that just because a person is free to do something, it doesn’t follow that he will find it in his interest to do so.

An interesting example is found in an article by Dr. Jennifer Roback titled “The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars,” in Journal of Economic History (1986). During the late 1800s, private streetcar companies in Augusta, Houston, Jacksonville, Mobile, Montgomery and Memphis were not segregated…. but by the early 1900s, they were. Why? City ordinances forced them to segregate black and white passengers. Numerous Jim Crow laws ruled the day throughout the South mandating segregation in public accommodations.

When one sees a law on the books, he should suspect that the law is there because not everyone would voluntarily comply with the law’s specifications. Extra-legal measures, that included violence, backed up Jim Crow laws. When white solidarity is confronted by the specter of higher profits by serving blacks, it’s likely that profits will win. Thus, Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights represented government countering government-backed Jim Crow laws.

One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit racial or any other kind of discrimination by private parties.

Moreover, the true test of one’s commitment to freedom of association doesn’t come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems appropriate. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.  -Source-

ALSO READ:

Hate Crime Laws

The RACISM Ploy

The “RACIST” Label

“Racism” Is Not Sinful

Racial Differences ARE Real

Is Racial Separation Immoral?

To Recognize Racial Differences

ALL Whites Are Racist – University

RACISM – The New Witchcraft Hysteria

Related Articles

• Jim Webb on Affirmative Action and Race (volokh.com)

Phaedrus Speaks

Phaedrus

Many decades ago, the noted American author H.P. Lovecraft wrote:

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining it its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of disassociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”

This was the quotation that sprang into my horrified mind when I had the same dreadful Epiphany that many of you have also had: the involvement, assistance and active participation of the US government in the unspeakably vile 9/11 attacks.

It was thanks to – and only to – the Internet that this revelation has become common knowledge, and only through the “piecing together of dissociated knowledge” that Lovecraft refers to, through this new medium, that we have been able to establish the curious and otherwise inexplicable chain of events on that Evil day as unquestionable scientific fact. A “terrifying vista of reality and our frightful position within it” indeed. Thank you Lovecraft; precient words, if ever any such were ever spoken, were surely spoken by you.

When faced with truly monstrous evil which the normal, healthy, human mind cannot comprehend, we typically reject it for fear of our own sanity. That natural reaction is understandable, but it is also the guaranteed route to self-destruction. No one reading this survived being buried by those thousands of tons of WTC rubble back in 2001.

If we wish to avoid their fate, we need to wake up to the ugly, Luciferan truth about our so-called ‘leaders.’ It was Winston Churchill, I believe, who cogently observed: “One in a while, a person may stumble across the truth – but then quickly pick themselves up and hurry on their way as if nothing had happened.”

Phaedrus is not one of those kind of people and believes that since you are reading this, you are not one of them, either. You cannot fight evil by pretending it doesn’t exist. Evil is very real and a palpable threat to ordered society and decent people everywhere. Those who engage in it – particularly those in high office – must be exposed, rooted out, hunted down and destroyed.

One other thing in connection with the Lovecraft quotation above. Let this blogger give you some dots of your own to join up. Choose your favourite search engine (avoiding Google) and see if you can find a common denominator for this list of terms:

Freemasonry
Molech
Baphomet
Child disappearances
Talmudism
Ted Gunderson
Satanism
Fallen Angel in the Republican Party logo

There is only so much that original thinkers can spoon-feed to readers. Readers must take the initiative from time to time and do some work of their own.   Good luck!   –Source–

How To Colonize Britain

“Immigration: A Plan To Alter The Nation’s Soul” is a U.K. column written on February 13, 2010, about three months before May’s U.K. general election.

Its author, Janet Daley, describes how the Labour government set out over a decade ago to INCREASE IMMIGRATION in order to ALTER the composition of the UK’s population. By bringing in large numbers of immigrants, it wanted to create “a multicultural society which would have to reassess its own history, replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt.”

This policy “would require the wholesale de-construction of the country’s sense of its own identity.” In forming this policy, it did not consult with the UK public. Before implementing this policy, it did not ask the UK public to approve it.

The documents that describe this policy were [only] revealed early this year.

Ms. Daley rightly characterizes them as “political dynamite”. Undoubtedly, they contributed to the defeat of Gordon’ Brown’s Labour government. Ms. Daley writes from a partisan viewpoint, but she provides a number of interesting insights into why Labour introduced its high immigration policy.

Obviously, these objectives are very similar to those that are currently in practice in Canada. What is shocking is that all of the five main political parties in Canada support mass immigration which is bringing about the same result as that sought by the UK’s Labour Party. None of our federal parties has ever consulted with Canada’s public or asked its approval. -Immigration Watch Canada-

By Janet Daley
The Telegraph

So now we know what Labour’s immigration policy was really about. The “open door” was NOT simply held ajar in order to admit a fresh workforce that would help to fill gaps in the growing economy. NOR was it just a gesture of hospitality and goodwill to those who were fleeing from repressive or inhospitable regimes in order to seek a better life.

Both of those aims would have been credible ­ if controversial and not thought-through in all their consequences. And so would the longer-term view that dynamic, cosmopolitan societies are generally healthier and more productive than in-bred, isolated ones, or that immigrants who tend to be ambitious for themselves and their families could help to counter the passivity and defeatism that tend to be endemic in the British class system.

But as it turns out, the policy was motivated by something far more radical and fundamental than any of this. The full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit ­ the gist of which had already been made public by a former Labour adviser ­ was released last week under Freedom of Information rules. Properly understood, it is political dynamite. What it states quite unequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at least as much for “social objectives” as for economic ones. Migration was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the Labour government saw itself as representing.

Tony Blair’s “forces of conservatism” speech; his improbable presentation of Britain as a “young country”; the advocacy of a multicultural society which would have to reassess its own history, replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a large influx of migrants whose presence in the population would require the wholesale deconstruction of the country’s sense of its own identity.

This may all sound rather far-fetched now, but try to recall just how much hubris the New Labour tide brought with it in the beginning: the contempt for history and the Year Zero arrogance with which they set about “modernising” the nation’s institutions. It was, in this respect, a prime example of the new direction which Left-wing parties were forced to take in the wake of Marxism’s collapse. Having lost the great economic argument of the 20th century, the Left had to switch its focus to society itself: if humanity could not be transformed through the redistribution of wealth and the socialist command economy, then it would have to be transfigured by altering social relations.

The object of the exercise was still to produce, in the words of an old Left-wing protest song, a “new world” based on a “new man”. But now the new man (sorry, “person”) would be formed not by changes in the power of capital or the ownership of the means of production, but in cultural attitudes and behaviour. The revolution now had to be confined to what went on in people’s heads: to their values, their assumptions and their reactions to each other. -Full Article HERE.

ALSO READ:

Mogadishu On Our (British) Streets

So, This Is England 2009

How Britain Destroyed Itself

ChemTrails Are Poison Trails

[...]

For more than a decade, first the United States and then Canada’s citizens have been subjected to a 24/7/365 day aerosol assault over our heads made of a toxic brew of poisonous heavy metals, chemicals, and other dangerous ingredients.

NONE of this was reported by any mainstream media. The US Department of Defense [DOD] and military have been systematically blanketing all our skies with what are known as Chemtrails (also known as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering). (2) These differ vastly from the usual plane contrails that evaporate rather quickly in the sky.  Chemtrails do not dissipate. Rather, planes (fitted with special nozzles) release aerosols “lines” in the sky that do not evaporate.

Multiple planes are deployed, flying parallel (or often “checkerboard” patterns) overhead; and soon the sky is blanketed with many grayish-white lines [miles and miles long, although this is changing]. At first, these lines are thin; but soon they expand and, in a short time, merge together. Our once-blue sky has vanished and has been replaced by a grayish-white toxic haze that blots out and greatly diminishes our usual sunshine.

Military and commercial planes are involved in more than 60 secret operations. Last year, when I flew across the country, I saw a United Airlines jet (flying below us at about 37,000 feet) spraying a black aerosol that went for miles and miles across the sky. This clandestine program now includes aerosol-spraying planes in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand [all NATO countries].

Hundreds (if not thousands) of people have called and written their public officials to get answers. Replies from US and Canadian officials are not forthcoming; or, if they do reply, queries are dismissed. This remains an ongoing, deliberate cover-up. No one is held accountable, while we continued to be poisoned daily. This is not the first time, however, that citizens are being used as experimental laboratory test subjects. The US government and its military have a very long and sordid history of using us, without informed consent, in this illegal manner. As Carole Pellatt notes:

‘The U.S. military has been spraying chemical and biological weapons in open air testing over civilian populations since the 1940’s. They are called “vulnerability tests”. This is not a controversial statement. The military has admitted to this practice on many occasions and there’s plenty of documentation from the government to corroborate it. There is also documentation of intentional, experimental releases of radiation on civilian populations. Unfortunately, this information tends to surface long after it could have saved lives, or eased the suffering of victims.’

[...]

Numerous tests have been done to verify that these poisons are off the scale in their toxicity. They are documented in our water, in our soil, and in our air. For more than 10 years, researcher Clifford Carnicom has been valiantly and systematically reporting on the various detrimental aspects of these aerosols –and what they are doing to our entire environment, as well as our blood.(6) Various “sky watch” groups also have been carefully documenting and diligently reporting about these daily assaults.(7)

With all these poisons surrounding our every breath, it is not surprising to see a dramatic increase in illnesses. There are numerous reports of the increase in cardiac deaths and upper respiratory illnesses (asthma, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, and often multiple chronic illnesses). Chemtrails toxicity has already dramatically affected our deteriorating “collective health.” The significant increase in heart disease and various upper respiratory illnesses has been linked to a vast increase in “particulate matter” in our air.  -To Full Report

ALSO READ:

German TV Exposes Chemtrails

Chemtrails Are Poisoning Our Sky

Chemtrails – Spraying Our Sky

Military Cover-Up

Australia Panders To Foreign Invaders

On 7th of June, 2010 the invasion of Leonora (Western Australia) began with the arrival of two planes containing 86 so-called asylum seekers who were the first to land on Australian soil before being cleared since offshore processing began under the Howard government.

[See: This American Town's Experience With Somalia Refugees]

This is the first of at least two hundred (300? 500?) illegals who will be heading to the town over the coming weeks. It proves that no matter where you live, the results of the open border policies of the Fabian Marxist Chairman Rudd (Australian Prime Minister) will find you. There is no longer any place where you can hide from the multiracial hell-hole that is engulfing Australia.

[See: Destroying OUR Nation /// British Indentity Crisis Deepens]

Do you think that the locals will feel enriched as they see millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money spent on people who shouldn’t be in the country, while they [Australian citizens] get absolutely nothing? Do you think they will be happy when their homes are broken into and their families are harassed by unwelcome visitors?

[See: Canadian Border Madness

More Refugees To Support

High Cost Of Illegal Aliens (U.S.)

Illegal ‘Immigrants’ Don’t Come Cheap (California)

If the councillors thought that the people of Leonora were going to put up with the invasion of their town by queue-jumping illegals they were sadly mistaken. The opposition to the occupation of the town by people who have no right to be in the country in the first place, has only just begun. I am certain that in the coming days and weeks the councilors will be made fully aware of how unpopular their decision to sell out the town for their own financial benefit is.  –Hat Tip to http://austnewnation.org/

UPDATE: An Australian worker has been forced to resign from her volunteer job at St John’s Ambulance after 13 years because she spoke out in protest to the media when referring to the foreign invaders. More HERE.

ALSO READ:

Australian View On Canada’s Multi-Culti

Australia & Canada Have Limited Land Space

Australia’s “Adventure” With Multi-Culti

An Australian Integrity Test

RACE Diversity – But WHY??

Racial Diversity – The CON Game

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

Taboo News: Mass Immigration

The Rakovsky Interrogation Before WWII

“(Just before WWII) the Stalin purges were in full swing, and Rothschild agent Christian G. Rakovsky (a top level Communist, Freemason, and international Jew) was fighting for his life. His death sentence had already been pronounced. He basically said to Stalin’s men: ‘. . . if you interview me tonight, you will not kill me’.

In light of Rakovsky’s powerful connections, Stalin was intrigued enough to order his chief interrogator, Gavriil G. Kusmin, to interview Rakovsky and see what he had to say.

Rakovsky explains that the reason for the attempt to overthrow Stalin was that the international bankers (who Rakovsky refuses to identify by pretending ignorance of their names, only referring to the top bankers as “they” and “them”) were furious with Stalin for his “bonapartism.” This meant that, just as Napoleon Bonaparte had diverted the French Revolution from its original goal and stolen it from the Rothschild banker faction who had helped him up to power, Stalin had now done the same thing to the Communist Revolution of 1917. Both men tried to become “top dogs” and throw off the bankers who had financed them to power.

[...]

The banksters likewise looked at Stalin as having stolen the energy of the Communist Revolution in Russia and kept it primarily a Russian phenomenon, instead of spreading it to all of Europe more quickly as was the original intent.

Unable to arrange an internal coup against Stalin by the late 1920s, the banksters were considering what options were available to oust Stalin by an external attack. Rakovsky explains that, looking around Europe, there was no country that could hope to muster the munitions and will to attack Stalinist Russia — except Germany under the right leader.

Rakovsky explained how Germany had been deliberately saddled with impossible debt and other conditions at Versailles after World War I, with the hope that in time the Germans in desperation would turn to Communism.

But, he said, “thanks to the existence of Stalin at the head of the USSR and the Internationale, the [Communist Revolution] in Germany did not succeed.” The top bankers than waited “in expectation that meanwhile the [Ed: Trotzkyite Communists, i.e. the banker’s agents like Rakovsky himself] would come to power in Russia … but that, too, did not happen.”

By the late 1920’s the bankers realized that a path was opening to finance the rising leader in Germany who was threatening openly in his speeches to rid Europe of Communism.

Rakovsky explains,

On the horizon of a hungry Germany there sparkled the meteor of Hitler. A pair of penetrating eyes fixed their attention on it. The world was witness to his lightning rise. I shall not say that all of it was the work of our hands, no. His rise, uninterruptedly increasing in extent, took place as the result of the Revolutionary-Communist economy of Versailles … But even more was needed:

In 1929, when the National-Socialist Party began to experience a crisis of growth and it had insufficient financial resources, “They” sent their [front man] there … In direct negotiations with Hitler “they” agreed as to the financing of the National Socialist Party, and the latter received in a couple of years millions of dollars, sent to it from Wall Street, and millions of marks from German financiers through Schacht; the upkeep of the S.A. and S.S. and also the financing of the elections which took place, which gave Hitler power, are done on the Dollars and Marks sent by “Them.”

Hitler at a Nazi meeting in the 1930s

We must pause here to remark that Rakovsky’s assertions that “They” financed Hitler was confirmed many years later, and almost a decade after the Rakovsky interview appeared in English in 1968 through the independent research efforts of James Poole in Who Financed Hitler and Dr. Anthony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.

Rakovsky explains to a somewhat bewildered Kusmin that Hitler, like Stalin, also tried to throw off the Rothschild bankers after he attained power. Furthermore, Hitler had now become MORE dangerous to the Top Insiders than Stalin, because he was issuing his own (German) money, which was the ultimate disaster for the Rothschild bankers.

Rakovsky explains that the bankers were not even using the newspapers they owned in the west to attack Hitler for issuing his own money, because they didn’t want to call attention to it for fear that other nations would get the same idea.

Rakovsky finally comes to the punchline. He tells Kusmin that the Rothschild bankers are so desperate to rid the landscape of Hitler, that they are willing to put their feud with Stalin on hold, and make an alliance with him against Hitler.

Rakovsky knows that Stalin is always hurting for many kinds of material goods and resources. He tells Kusmin that, if Stalin wants help from “Them” again, he can win favor by putting out feelers to Hitler for a Hitler-Stalin pact, a part of which will consist of a joint invasion and partitioning of Poland.

At this point Rakovsky explains to Kusmin, how his boss Stalin can suddenly get all kinds of help from the United States, and from many other unexpected sources, if he puts out feelers for a Hitler-Stalin pact to divide up Poland.

Kusmin expresses some doubt about the power, or perhaps even the existence, of “them” — at which juncture Rakovsky becomes threatening (quite extraordinary for a prisoner facing the death penalty):

‘Well, if you do not want to believe that ‘They’ are able to achieve that which they had already achieved, then prepare to observe an invasion of the USSR and liquidation of Stalin within a year. You think this is a miracle or an accident, well then prepare to see and experience that …’

Kusmin then asks him what conditions would accompany such help from “Them.” Rakovsky speaks confidently:

‘This is not difficult to assume. The first condition will be the ending of the executions of the Communists, that means the Trotzkyists (i.e. Rakovsky), as you call them. . . There will be mutual concessions for mutual help … You will see for example the paradoxical phenomenon that a whole crowd of people, enemies of Stalin, will help him … There will appear influential persons at all levels of society, even very high ones, who will help [Stalin] … Have you understood me’?

Rakovsky explains that when Hitler takes the bait and invades Poland, that will provide a pretext for the democracies to declare war on Hitler, thus hopefully knocking Hitler out without a German attack on Russia.

(In fact, Hitler realized what was happening when the entire western press, including that of the USA, England, and France started beating the war drums against Germany after the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, but said nothing when Stalin did the same thing a short time (two weeks) later. Hitler shortly thereafter attacked Stalin [1941] in what he hoped would be a pre-emptive strike..)

Rakovsky summarized this way:

Here is a scheme: 1) A pact with Hitler for the division between us (USSR) of … Poland; 2) Hitler will accept . . .; 3) The democracies will attack Hitler and not Stalin; they will tell the people that although both are guilty of aggression and partition, but strategical and logical reasons force them to defeat them one by one: first Hitler and then Stalin.

Rakovsky further intimated that in the confusion of the war, “They” would allow Stalin to take over Europe. (In fact, Stalin was allowed to take over half of Europe after World War II.)

Eisenhower stopped the Allied troops against General George Patton’ s (photo) objections to allow Stalin to take the portion of Europe that he was being allotted.)” -Full article HERE.

ALSO READ:

Pawns In The Game

Operation Keelhaul

Wars By Design

KOREAN WAR Was A Sham

Former Canadian PM – A Communist Spy

Recognizing Media Dis-Information

 

Joël van der Reijden

About a year ago something began to dawn on me, and that is the fact that many people don’t recognize media bias or disinformation very well.

You’d be surprised at how many people can read an article about any given conspiracy topic and not recognize it when facts are being selectively presented, or when the conspiracy point-of-view is discouraged with jokes, personal attacks or unrealistic counter-arguments. This needs to change.

Below, you will find 26 tactics that can, and have, been used by the media against people advocating conspiracies. I’ve been gathering them over the course of a year by paying attention to newspaper, magazine and TV reports about controversial issues.

The purpose of this article is two-fold:

1. It will allow anyone to better recognize media bias and media disinformation;
2. It provides people with a checklist they can use to prepare themselves in case they are invited for an interview and suspect ridicule.

As for the second argument, think of the ever increasing amount of bloggers, conspiracy-website owners (this author has been contacted, for example) and political activists. Other examples are upcoming investigative authors, potential whistleblowers and basically anyone prominent who thinks about speaking out in support of a certain conspiracy.

1. Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by questioning the mental state of conspiracy advocates and pretending they are outcasts of society whose opinions nobody cares about.
2. Put the word “theory” behind the word “conspiracy”, no matter how great the evidence, and preferably do this several times in the article to make the (supposedly) theoretical nature of the conspiracy really sink in.
3. Imply that conspiracy theories are literally made up out of thin air and that there never was any significant  evidence to support any of them.
4. Present different pieces of the same conspiracy as independently made up and conflicting conspiracy theories.
5. Carefully select the evidence that is to be presented. Leave out anything that cannot be explained. Focus on evidence that is easy to discredit, or at the very least, inconclusive.
6. As a talk-show host, don’t let any person arguing in favor of a conspiracy speak uninterrupted for even one minute.
7. For interviews, preferably pick prominent individuals from the conspiracy movement who either have no credentials or irrelevant credentials. Place these conspiracy theorists against academics and other experts who have impeccable credentials.
8. During video interviews, allow the skeptics to present themselves more properly than the conspiracy advocates.
9. Quote from generally respected government investigating committees and present their conclusions as gospel.
10. Automatically dismiss articles from conspiracy advocates as “unreliable”, no matter how well-sourced these articles are.
11. Always question the motives of conspiracy theorists.
12. Make the well known claim that everybody is in on the conspiracy.
13. Make a few jokes, usually involving little green men, Elvis, the grassy knoll, and aliens. Then there also is the classic “out to get you” comment.
14. Ask if the conspiracy advocate believes in any other (unrelated) conspiracies.
15. Make the claim that governments can’t keep secrets.
16. Repeat the claim that we have free press because scandals are regularly exposed.
17. As soon as a conspiracy theorist brings up witness testimony, counter with the standard argument that eyewitness testimony is “notoriously unreliable”.
18. When aspects of the permanent government have slowly been exposed over the years, oversimplify by stating this or that conspiracy theory “has had its best time”.
19. Start out with, or only report, conclusions, and leave out most, if not all, evidence that this conclusion has been based on. Also leave out all nuances brought up by the person that has been interviewed.
20. Oversimplify by stating that the official head of state must have been directly involved in planning and overseeing the conspiracy. Don’t allow the subject to explain the transnational, largely privatized, permanent government in any coherent way.
21. Claim that the internet is responsible for the recent increase in conspiracy theories, because frothing conspiracy theorists are hyping each other up in chat rooms and message boards.
22. Have a conspiracy theorist argue with a victim of a conspiracy who actually doesn’t believe in the conspiracy. Even better, the victim is disabled and dying.
23. When covering demonstrations, mainly focus on the eccentric and the violent. Ignore all the presentable, calm and intelligent demonstrators.
24. Don’t write about the topics conspiracy theorists bring up. Instead, write about conspiracy theorists.
25. See if you can link credible writers to not-so-credible writers.
26. See if you can dig up some dirt on a prominent conspiracy advocate.

FULL explanations for each of the above… click HERE.

ALSO READ:

 

Slanted// MSM News

“News” Vs Propaganda

Turn Your Television OFF

Mass Media: Smoke & Mirrors

Publisher’s Memo On Immigration

Smear Tactics By Mainstream Media