The news on Monday 26th March 2018 seemed to be a watershed of component parts, of issues which may take the World in a direction not wanted by general population but by those who have access to the reigns of power Internationally.
There is a relentless attack against Donald Trump despite the fact that during the Inaugural Dinner he basically forgave Hillary Clinton for her security breach of running her own email server used for government matters and putting National Security in danger. He could have pursued her with the weight of his office behind him but did not. This attitude has not been reciprocated the other way from those who are peeved about losing the election to him as well as deep state manipulators who no doubt regard Trump as an outsider.
When Jesus said Let those without sin cast the first stone to those who were about to stone to death a woman accused of adultery, this reflected a truth that persists to this day and the saying that when a finger is pointed towards others there are three pointing back.
The question that comes to mind is, has Donald Trump ever attended the goings on at Bohemian Grove or been a participant of Skull and Bones rituals. Probably not.
In a similar way we are witnessing an attack on Jeremy Corbyn, in this case via the Jewish Leadership Council. There have been calls for an organisation like the American Anti Defamation League in Britain but during the 1980s criticism was made of it, by those who were critical of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, of the nature of their activities. You can take a look at how the ADL presents itself on its own web site and compare it to this article made in 2013:
Question: what is the definition of an anti-Semite? Would it be enough to simply question the unjust and cruel treatment of Palestinians in their own, confiscated, national homeland by the Jewish state?
Like Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, as the leader of the Labour Party, has been relentlessly attacked from the beginning of his leadership. Had it not been for the Alternative Vote, a system of voting rejected in a referendum by the population as an answer to the ‘first pass the post’ system used in General Elections, then the recognised favourite David Milliband would most likely have not been beaten by his brother Ed. In a sense it was a fortunate outcome and although David would have been the most capable in the role of leadership of NewLabour, his allegiances are made clear by the associations connected to his job in America in much the same way as that of Tony Blair. All would have been hunky dory.
So the similarities between Trump and Corbyn have not been lost on the media, resulting in the mode of constant disparaging. Fortunately we did not get a Blairite in the Labour Party and Hillary Clinton’s reputation as a potential warmonger, and the possibility that Jeb Bush may have also filled that position was no doubt recognised as undesirable by the general population and could quite possibly have been a large contributory factor in their defeat (Jeb Bush saw the writing on the wall and backed out. He was the Governor of Florida during the 2000 Presidential election that saw Al Gore, who was convinced that he had won, defeated as a result of multiple recounts which resulted in Jeb’s brother George W taking office and Kicking off the so called War on Terror. Perhaps what we know now it should be renamed the war by terror, beginning with 911.).
To continue on a theme, it looks like the World is headed in an enforced confrontation with Russia as a result of an issue that has not been conclusively proven that Russia was the culprit. It is only by the association with circumstantial evidence from the past, which can be used to incriminate those who may be completely innocent and it does not bode well that International due process has been disregarded let alone the principles on which the British legal system has been based on for centuries, with the beginnings going back as far as 10th century Saxon England but which Teresa May felt fit to cast aside and demand that Russia provide proof that it did not commit the crime in Salisbury with consequential repercussions within 24 hours if it declined to do so. This is quite an insult to a sovereign nation. In traditional UK law there is an assumption of innocence until proven guilty but this is reversed in European, Napoleon code law, exactly as Teresa May has used. Her sincerity of moving away from the control of the Supranational block of the EU must be put into question.
To be continued. Possibly.
Here is the continuation of the promised continuation, most of which was writen down in longhand while travelling on the bus while I was in the ”Mode”. Refinement and proofs had to be added today and had to make the effort to do so which is difficult to get back into once stopped:
Continuation of A Watershed of Component parts
Of course the relationship between the EU and Putin was very different in 2010, being based on a deal signed towards the end of 2010, eight months after the Smolensk air crash which decimated the complete polish government who had opposed such an agreement.
Donald Tusk was happy to maintain the investigation at arms length from the Polish people by allowing Russia exclusive control over the evidence pertaining to the investigation and is also on record of insisting that it was pilot error which was the cause of the crash.
During this honeymoon period Bill Clinton had expressed, in a communication to Tony Blair, that Putin is an intelligent and trustworthy partner and that they could work with him. This is what Bill Clinton had to say about Putin in 2014.
From Politico [Quote] However, Clinton, citing his own dealings with Putin, said the Russian president was never misleading.
“The one thing I will say about him is he was always pretty transparent. He never pretended to be what he wasn’t and I found in dealing with him—and by the way, with most other leaders with whom I had differences—that it was best to be brutal with him in private and be honest because they respected you if you were, and then as long as you could, to avoid embarrassing them in public,” Clinton said.
“You can normally work with someone like that and I just hope and pray this thing is not going to spin out of hand,” he said.
Eventually this relationship was soon to sour because Putin also had independent ambitions for the the betterment of Russia.
There was the convolution of Russia’s intent to create a trading block in Eurasia, separate from the EU initially and America’s intent to prevent it. Notice the date of 6th May 2012. Putin also had the intent of moving away from the US dollar for dealing in oil, and then the later development of BRICKS.
I remember reading about Angela Merkel being very enthusiastic in doing business with Russia about this time, possibly 2011, even at the expense of the EU, this was suspected but of course all of this changed with the annexation of the Crimea and the American driven sanctions over the matter and of course there was the shooting down of the airliner with a BUK missile of which there was dispute over which side actually fired it, the Ukrainians or Russia.
Russia also entered the Syrian conflict as the only country legally permitted to do so, after years of looking on in 2015 but the question is when was the decision made to separate from the West’s shenanigans in the Middle East? The Arab Spring began in 2011 but plans were already in place to invade Syria in 2010, a year before the induced riots and protests there in 2011 and Assad is the only one able to resist over time which was something that I had felt he would do and expressed it in a roundabout way ending with ‘If ever’ .
It was my immediate opinion, at the time of the annexation of Crimea, that this pattern of modus operandi was too clear to see and when the coup de tate in the Ukraine to oust an elected leader took place, then it was too close to home, and for geostrategic reasons it was essential to regain possession of the Crimea.
The Crimea was successfully taken back into the Russian field of influence, obviously for strategic reasons, and this was achieved with the consent of the population by a referendum and given the approval of the population, although MSM reports would have us believe a different scenario.
Also mentioned on the news of 26th Match was the election in Egypt with comments couched in disparaging language towards ??? Sisi. This small but significant mention in the style that it was, was also something that I had been anticipating since the time when everything cooled down in Egypt so when Sisi arrived in London in 2015 and shook hands with David Cameron, the prime question then was how long would it be when Sisi begins to receive the Sadam Hussain, Mohamar Gadhaffi and Assad treatment? Just like Putin they had their own plans for their country, they were also strong men when required and as necessary, and this is proved by the chaotic state of those countries as a result of their planned removal.
One important element of the Egyptian revolution is that the Army took a stance to protect the population from Hosni mubarack’s military police who had responded with over the top aggressiveness towards militant protestors but of course the general population got caught up in it as well because they were encouraged to participate, quite rightly so, to air their grievances, though in a peaceful manner. Employment was sparse for educated people in much the same way here in the UK but which seems to be accepted as part of austerity. The devaluation of Egyptian currency and other aspects which are accepted as part and parcel of our own economy were presented by msm with emotive language against Sisi. As it is said, when there is a finger pointing with accusation there are three pointing back and this is where the hypocrisy needs to be pointed out when it is used as justification for military intervention which looks like it will eventually be on the cards.
When MSM states that SiSi deposed the first democratically elected president, Morsi, they conveniently forgot that the Military, who had presided as an interim government, allowed free elections which also included the Muslim Brotherhood who had been banned as a matter of course in Egypt for countless decades previously. Their win was accepted as promised but it came to an end when there was an attempt to change the Egyptian Constitution as well as other issues of concern voiced by the general population. Just found an article that explains in a nutshell.
Also, as observed at the time of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, was that Elbaradi was trying to insert himself into the mix and it was apparent by his activities and associations that he was Washington’s man but had not managed to gain any influence on outcomes and was basically ignored.