Here are some excerpts from the work of Robert John which provides additional information via his work titled Behind the Balfour Declaration, Britain’s Great Pledge To Lord Rothschild posted on the Institute for Historical Review web site. This may be regarded as a confirmation and validation of Vadimir Moss’s article titled Bolshevism and the Jews, posted in the previous article.

Normally I would just make comment and then add the hyperlink for the body of work to be viewed directly from the web site but in this case there is so much reading required which precedes the paragraphs of particular interest that I thought it necessary to lift them out and place them directly on this page. Of course anybody wishing to read the whole content of Robert John’s work may do so from the hyperlink  and in fact it is the best way to read it because the way that paragraphs are separated and indented in the original do not copy well.

Here is a most pertinent quote from Robert John’s work considering this day of Remembrance for the fallen of the Great War of 1914-18, which was promised to be the war to end all wars, and those which have followed since:

Quote: ”Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann “somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919,” and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, “If they don’t,” he said, “we’ll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.”

In this context it is well to read the section on The Great War.

Behind the Balfour Declaration
Britain’s Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild
By Robert John

http://www.ihr.org/node/242

According to Lloyd George’s Memoirs of the Peace Conference, where, as planned many years before, the Zionists were strongly represented,

”There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavor to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V.J.O.D., [HH] was formed, and in January 1918, Talaat, the Turkish Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which “all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfillment.”
Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.

It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.[189]”

As for getting the support of Russian Jewry, Trotsky’s aims were to overthrow the Provisional Government and turn the imperialist war into a war of international revolution. In November 1917 the first aim was accomplished. Military factors primarily influenced Lenin to sign the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.

The Zionist sympathizers Churchill and George seemed never to lose an opportunity to tell the British people that they had an obligation to support the Zionists.

But what had the Zionists done for Britain?

Where was the documentation?

“Measured by British interests alone,” wrote the Oxford historian Elizabeth Monroe in 1963, the Balfour Declaration “was one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history!”
The Zionists had the Herzlian tradition — shall we call it — of Promises, “promises.” Considerable credit for the diplomacy which brought into existence the Jewish national home must go to Weizmann. A British official who came into contact with him summarized his diplomatic method in the following words:

”When (the First World War) began, his cause was hardly known to the principal statesman of the victors. It had many enemies, and some of the most formidable were amongst the most highly placed of his own people … He once told me that 2,000 interviews had gone into the making of the Balfour Declaration. With unerring skill he adapted his arguments to the special circumstances of each statesman. To the British and Americans he could use biblical language and awake a deep emotional undertone; to other nationalities he more often talked in terms of interest. Mr. Lloyd George was told that Palestine was a little mountainous country not unlike Wales; with Lord Balfour the philosophical background of Zionism could be surveyed; for Lord Cecil the problem was placed in the setting of a new world organization; while to Lord Milner the extension of imperial power could be vividly portrayed. To me, who dealt with these matters as a junior officer of the General Staff, he brought from many sources all the evidences that could be obtained of the importance of a Jewish national home to the strategical position of the British Empire, but he always indicated by a hundred shades and inflections of the voice that he believed that I could also appreciate better than my superiors other more subtle and recondite arguments.[190]”…………..

In the U.S., in July 1917, a special mission consisting of Henry Morgenthau, Sr., and Justice Brandeis’s nephew, Felix Frankfurter, was charged by President Wilson to proceed to Turkey, against which the United States did not declare war, to sound out the possibility of peace negotiations between Turkey and the Allies. In this, Wilson may have been particularly motivated by his passion to stop the massacres of Armenian and Greek Christians which were then taking place in Turkey and for whom he expressed immense solicitude On many occasions. Weizmann, however, accompanied by the French Zionist M. Weyl, forewarned, proceeded to intercept them at Gibraltar and persuaded them to return home.[147] During 1917 and 1918 more Christians were massacred in Turkey. Had Morgenthau and Frankfurter carried out their mission successfully, maybe this would have been avoided.
This account appears in William Yale’s book The Near East: A Modern History. He was a Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War. When I had dinner with him on 12 May 1970 at the Biltmore Hotel in New York, I asked him if Weizmann had told him how the special mission had been aborted. He replied that Weizmann said that the Governor of Gibraltar had held a special banquet in their honor, but at the end all the British officials withdrew discretely, leaving the four Jews alone. “Then,” said Weizmann, “we fixed it.”
The same evening, he told me something which he said he had never told anyone else, and which was in his secret papers which were only to be opened after his death. He later wrote to me, after he had read The Palestine Diary, saying that he would like me to deal with those papers.
One of Yale’s assignments was to follow Wilson’s preference for having private talks with key personalities capable of influencing the course of events. He did this with Lloyd George, General Allenby and Col. T.E. Lawrence, for example. Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann “somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919,” and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, “If they don’t,” he said, “we’ll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.”

Brandeis was in Washington during the summer of 1917 and conferred with Secretary of State Robert S. Lansing from time to time on Turkish-American relations and the treatment of Jews in Palestine.[148] He busied himself in particular with drafts of what later became the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine, and in obtaining American approval for them.[149] A considerable number of drafts were made in London and transmitted to the United States, through War Office channels, for the use of the American Zionist Political Committee. Some were detailed, but the British Government did not want to commit itself to more than a general statement of principles.

On 18 July, such a statement, approved in the United States, was forwarded by Lord Rothschild to Lord Balfour. It read as follows:

”His Majesty’s Government, after considering the aims of the Zionist Organization, accepts the principle of recognizing Palestine as the National Home [CC] of the Jewish people and the right of the Jewish people to build up its national life in Palestine under a protectorate to be established at the conclusion of peace following the successful issue of war.
His Majesty’s Government regards as essential for the realization of this principle the grant of internal autonomy to the Jewish nationality in Palestine, freedom of immigration for Jews, and the establishment of a Jewish national colonization corporation for the resettlement and economic development of the country.

The conditions and forms of the internal autonomy and a charter for the Jewish national colonizing corporation should, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, be elaborated in detail, and determined with the representatives of the Zionist Organization.[150]”

It seems possible that Balfour would have issued this declaration but strong representatives against it were made directly to the Cabinet by Lucien Wolf, Claude Montefiore Sir Mathew Nathan, Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu, [DD] and other non-Zionist Jews. It was significant they believed that “anti-semites are always very sympathetic to Zionism,” and though they would welcome the establishment in Palestine of a center of Jewish culture, some — like Philip Magnes — feared that a political declaration would antagonize other sections of the population in Palestine, and might result in the Turks dealing with the Jews as they had dealt with the Armenians.[154] The Jewish opposition was too important to ignore, and the preparation of a new draft was commenced. At about this time, Northcliffe and Reading [EE] visited Washington and had a discussion with Brandeis at which they undoubtedly discussed Zionism.[155]
Multiple pressures at key points led Lord Robert Cecil to telegraph to Col. E.M. House on 3 September 1917: “We are being pressed here for a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement and I should be very grateful if you felt able to ascertain unofficially if the President favours such a declaration. ” [156] House, who had performed services relating to Federal Reserve and currency legislation for Jacob W. Schiff and Paul Warburg, [157] and was Wilson’s closest adviser, relayed the message, but a week later Cecil was still without a reply.
On 11 September the Foreign Office had ready for dispatch the following message for Sir William Wiseman, [FF] head of the British Military Intelligence Service in the United States: “Has Colonel House been able to ascertain whether the President favours sympathy with Zionist aspirations as asked in my telegram of September 3rd? We should be most grateful for an early reply as September 17th is the Jewish New Year and announcement of sympathy by or on that date would have excellent effect.” But before it was sent, a telegram from Colonel House dated 11 September reached the Foreign Office.
Wilson had been approached as requested and had expressed the opinion that “the time was not opportune for any definite statement further, perhaps, than one of sympathy, provided it can be made without conveying any real commitment.” Presumably, a formal declaration would presuppose the expulsion of the Turks from Palestine, but the United States was not at war with Turkey, and a declaration implying annexation would exclude an early and separate peace with that country.[158]
In a widely publicized speech in Cincinnati on 21 May 1916, after temporarily relinquishing his appointment as Ambassador to Turkey in favor of a Jewish colleague, Henry Morgenthau had announced that he had recently suggested to the Turkish Government that Turkey should sell Palestine to the Zionists after the war. The proposal, he said, had been well received, but its publication caused anger in Turkey.[159]
Weizmann was “greatly astonished” at this news, especially as he had “wired to Brandeis requesting him to use his influence in our favour … But up to now I have heard nothing from Brandeis.” [161]
On 19 September Weizmann cabled to Brandeis:

”Following text declaration has been approved by Foreign Office and Prime Minister and submitted to War Cabinet:
1. H.M. Government accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people.
2. H.M. Government will use its best endeavours to secure the achievement of the object and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Zionist Organization.[162]”

Weizmann suggested that non-Zionist opposition should be forestalled, and in this it would “greatly help if President Wilson and yourself support the text. Matter most urgent.” [163] He followed this up with a telegram to two leading New York Zionists, asking them to “see Brandeis and Frankfurter to immediately discuss my last two telegrams with them,” adding that it might be necessary for him to come to the United States himself.[164]
Brandeis saw House on 23 September and drafted a message, sent the following day through the British War Office. It advised that presidential support would be facilitated if the French and Italians made inquiry about the White House attitude, but he followed this the same day with another cable stating that from previous talks with the President and in the opinion of his close advisers, he could safely say that Wilson would be in complete sympathy.[165]
Thus Brandeis had either persuaded Wilson that there was nothing in the draft (Rothschild) declaration of 19 September which could be interpreted as “conveying any real commitment,” which is difficult to believe, or he had induced the President to change his mind about the kind of declaration he could approve or was sure he and House could do so.[166]
On 7 February 1917, Stephen Wise had written to Brandeis: “I sent the memorandum to Colonel House covering our question, and he writes, ‘I hope the dream you have may soon become a reality.” [167] In October, after seeing House together with Wise, de Haas reported to Brandeis: ”He has told us that he was as interested in our success as ourselves.” To Wilson, House stated that “The Jews from every tribe descended in force, and they seem determined to break in with a jimmy, if they are not let in.” [168] A new draft declaration had been prepared; Wilson had to support it.
On 9 October 1917, Weizmann cabled again to Brandeis from London of difficulties from the “assimilants” Opposition: “They have found an excellent champion … in Mr. Edwin Montagu who is a member of the Government and has certainly made use of his position to injure the Zionist cause. ” [169]

Weizmann also telegraphed to Brandeis a new (Milner-Amery) formula. The same draft was cabled by Balfour to House in Washington on 14 October:

”His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish race and will use its best endeavours to facilitate achievement of this object; it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed in any other country by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship.[170]”

It was reinforced by a telegram from the U.S. Embassy in London direct to President Wilson (by-passing the State Department), stating that the “question of a message of sympathy with the (Zionist) movement” was being reconsidered by the British Cabinet “in view of reports that (the) German Government are making great efforts to capture (the) Zionist movement.” [171]
Brandeis and his associates found the draft unsatisfactory in two particulars. They disliked that part of the draft’s second safeguard clause which read, “by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship,” …………

That October 2017 happens to be the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution is timely, because it also throws into focus the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration which also took place in 1917. In fact it would seem not to be out of place to suggest that it could have been by design that these two events almost run in parallel from beginning to end. Not only that but could the instigation of the October Revolution be an event which was to function in much the same way that we see when an event in modern times is stated to be a good time to bury bad news, media wise.

The first Russian Revolution took place more organically in February of 1917 and a second Revolution which was to become a violent revolution in October of the same year was to set the mould of what was to become the ideology/methodology of brutal Communism at home in Russia and throughout conquered parts of the World.

This was the opening paragraph that I had written this morning in an effort to express my thoughts about this particular time regarding seeming parallels of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Balfour Declaration. This thought had been seeded in my mind a week or two ago and which has now been especially kicked into relevance with the breaking news that Prity Patel had held secret meetings in Israel without the knowledge of the Foreign Office. Could this in fact be a second parallel or even homage to the events of 100 years ago?

Looking at the timeline from various sources there was much detail of the ramifications of the running conflict between the Bolsheviks and Menshevik’s plus the other permutations in between, Kerensky and coalition government but there was no mention about the journey of Lenin to Russia, who was trapped in Switzerland because of raging WW1 in surrounding Countries, in a sealed train, with the agreement of the German government and $10 million in gold provided by German Banker Max Warburg. (Given a mention in None Dare Call it Conspiracy).

An excerpt from a book The Sealed Train states:
”In London that Week, Lenin’s proposed journey was brought to the notice of Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary. On April 5, in fact, two telegrams that had reached the Foreign Office were causing anxiety. From Berne, British Ambassador Sir Horace Rumbold reported that negotiations were in progress with the German government to obtain “safe conducts through Germany to Russia of Russian socialists and anarchists resident in Switzerland.” Since they were in favor of immediate peace with Germany, they would be commissioned to “make violent propaganda among the working classes in Russia and among troops at the front.”…..
The other telegram that arrived in London that day was received at the Admiralty. Six socialists had been removed by British naval authorities from the SS Christiania Fiord, which had called in at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on her way to Russia from New York. It had been reported that one of them, Trotsky, was “the leader of a movement to start a revolution against the present Russian Government, the funds being subscribed by socialists and Germans.”

Here is an excellent expose’:
BOLSHEVISM AND THE JEWS
Written by Vladimir Moss
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/371/bolshevism-jews/

The recent news to break is that Trump has released thousands JFK files, and blocked others under pressure. It is understandable why the FBI and CIA have exerted pressure on Trump to withhold for further scrutiny, redact further or even seal.

On the morning of 26th October BBC Radio 4 broadcast an interview with Clint Hill who is the Secret Agent who who can be seen jumping on the back of the Limousine the moment after the shots rang out. He maintains the official narrative that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin and debunks the so called ‘conspiracy theorists’.

Now the interesting point here is that he would have been in a prime position to be able to hear the direction of the shots which the majority of bystanders heard coming from the grassy knoll and who responded by ducking down whilst looking in the direction of the picket fence.

The interviewer asked ‘how did you know for sure that Kennedy was dead at that time’ and the response was words to the effect that ‘ Kennedy was slumped over and I could see that there was a large hole in the skull and that there was no brain matter left. Remember that the biggest hole is always from the exit wound and that the Agent was observing from behind and thoughts at that time during the interview was the possible use of dum dum bullets.

Now this is a personal experience of mine going back to 1985 while staying in a shared house on Middlebrook Pike in Knoxville Tennessee which had been used by students belonging to CARP and who had recently moved out.

Now here the bookshelf was full of political books which was something in keeping with the building’s use and one day I pulled out five books from the shelves in what would seem to be a random manner but I was soon to discover that each one was relevant in its own particular way. One of the books, which was also the largest, was an autobiography by Henry Kissinger called simply Kissinger with a black and white photograph of his face dominant on the front cover. I had no intention of reading this book from cover to cover because of its size but instead browsed through its pages. One particular passage jumped out at me which said words to the effect of ‘When a policy is being made, the best time to change it is before it goes through. Of course I understood this in the context of moulding policy to the will of such like the Trilateral Commission for example, but at the same time that sentence acted as a catalyst of thought that suggested to me that there was a thread or connection that made a link between the events of the Bay of Pigs, the assassination of J F Kennedy and Watergate.

I never ever stopped searching for more insights into both politics and religion for my inner self always told me that there was more to know than we are aware of. So I always took the opportunity to search and brows and while in Jackson Mississippi in particular focused on reading Watergate books to see what could be gleaned of relevance but found nothing in particular that would support my tri event theory.

As far as understanding where Kissinger was coming from, politically, I had already discovered a book called None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen during the tail end of 1980 in San Francisco while browsing a bookshop there. After an initial look around, I had decided it was time to leave but it seemed as if there was a hand on my shoulder keeping me there so I understood that I was to continue looking. Eventually on a white plastic wire carousel of paperbacks I picked out a book called None Dare Call it Conspiracy and as I browsed its contents realised that this was what I was supposed to find and that it was important that people should know about it. However, after buying it and having time to begin reading it through properly I began to wonder if this was just the product of the author’s fanciful imagination. I became separated from this book before completing it due to an unexpected trip to to New York for a three week seminar and expected to return but did not. I should have known better. (http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html)

That first stint in America lasted 14 months after which I unexpectedly returned to England but it was during the second trip which began 1984 thereabouts that one of the five volumes chosen was NDC but I had not recognised it at first until proceeding to read it and gradually I recognised the content and this time was convinced that what was written inside was true.

When the so called ‘Berlin Wall came down’, I could not help but be suspicious that a plan was underway for the infiltration of Europe but eventually put it aside and moved on and with regards to the content of None Dare Call it Conspiracy I put that aside as well because those whom I spoke to about it did not believe and regarded it as an inside joke.

It was during browsing on the internet in 2007 that the answer came regarding the link between the events of the Bay of Pigs, JFk assassination and Watergate and it came in the form of the death bed confession of E Howard Hunt to his son named St. John. It seemed that St John had already had suspicions of his father’s whereabouts on the day of the assassination and recognised the similarity of his father to one of those masquerading as tramps seen behind the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll, and that he also had his hand in both the Bay of Pigs and Watergate. (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-last-confession-of-e-howard-hunt-20070405)

In this context it also comes to mind a question surrounding the observation of the extent of President Kennedy’s fatal wound.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Confession_of_Howard_Hunt.html

1). Brexit, we want to exit, but we may or may not I am afraid.
Strong and stable, like a two legged table, a £100 billion forfeit may be made.

Remainers want to stay and don’t mind to have to pay and give the EU cart blanch to have their way.

2). Freedom, we want our freedom, to trade with whom we like without restraint.

There is Junker in his bunker,which will only make us hunker, hunker down and not be bullied in any way.

3). The remainers, are complainers, who cannot accept the referendum vote,
For if they had won instead, it would be quickly put to bed, with no hope to have a second vote.

4).Brexit, we want to exit, we may or may not I am afraid.

The Remainers want the EU but we say that we will see you, for its freedom in the end we really want, and we think we are negotiating instead we are procrastinating, will we ever actually leave.

5). Brexit, we want to exit, we may or may not I am afraid.

Last Friday the 20th October, while travelling to work by bus, having already travelled three quarters of the journey, a lady got on board and sat in the seat right behind me. She was sneezing, coughing and spluttering and immediately I could feel the peppery feeling in my nose and during the short walk to my destination I could already feel the throat beginning to become sore. I was surprised about how quickly the symptoms of what may be a cold established itself but I was also aware that I had already had a cold which began with a bout of sneezing on the 22nd of September and which had passed by eight days although I took some days off work to recover.

With this in mind I was hopeful that this would soon pass and it seemed that nothing had become of it. On Monday morning, now yesterday, I awoke with thoughts of writing about the experience in relationship to the unusual symptoms that I had earlier in the year, with the premiss that what I had then was what had found its way to Australia and mutated and which is now about to return.

Also I would like to add that my daughter Clara had sent me a text on Sunday morning to say that she was quite ill at the moment and would be staying home. I decided to call her on the phone to ask what what she had and I could hear her coughing and sneezing, just like the lady on the bus, while trying to explain. Luckily it is half term so she would be able to remain in bed and not miss any lessons.

So Monday morning it seemed that nothing had come of it and felt that I should write but as usual there are so many points that come to mind that it is off putting because of the task of representing it
as it comes to mind because the thought just come flooding in almost abstract and to represent them on the page is more linear, and then it becomes a case of where to start.

By Monday, 23rd October in the evening I began to get mild headache just as I did in January but during the recent cold in September I had normal symptoms for what must have been the common cold and did not have a headache at all. So this tends to confirm my theory about the mutating form of that virus returning to the Northern Hemisphere for our winter season. The headache seems to serve as a tell tale sign. I do remember speaking to a young man who was probably in his mid twenties who was working to install new central heating for my next door neighbour and I brought up the subject of the virus and he said that he had had it and that it was terrible.

Initially back in January I wanted to know if what I had was the common cold or the flue and at that time there was no clear explanation and in fact there was no news at all. Therefore we had gone from October 2016 to January 2017 with no information on the virulence of the flu virus and the only the only report I could find at that time was one from a hospital in Canada which reported of providing more beds and funding it themselves in preparation, so they were aware of the situation, and the common reported situation around the World was a shortage of beds in hospitals.

The situation of reporting is very different now because there have been ample warnings of the Australian variant which I had suspected was a mutation of what we had during the 2016-17 flue season. It was at this time that I was drawn to try understand what is meant by the A (not subtyped) variant and also here there was no clear information that I could find, although it is most likely known to health professionals. It was notable that this was the most prominent proportion/type in the Northern Hemisphere at the time, and a recent observation of its strength during the period coming out of the flu season, from the WHO charts, was that it remained the strongest and least affected by the natural decline, meaning that it maintained its resiliance.

I had finally come to the conclusion that the none subtyped variants pertain to the Human whereas all others have their origins in animals, such as Swine Flu or Bird Flu. Again, looking at the make up of the Australian flue virus types, it is notable that the A (not subtyped) virus has been reduced as a proportion of all of the known variants for the Australian flu season but at the same time there is a strain which has become more dangerous so therefore I concluded that what had taken place is that it had mutated into the animal variants and on checking on my journey home, Monday evening found that this has been reported to be the case. The same proportion of flue variants found in Australia are now shown to be identical in the USA according to the present WHO charts.

This is what was written in longhand this morning (Monday) when I made a start but did not finish it.

As explained in January, the virus was not normal and would change the form of its symptoms as time progressed in a topsy turvy manner. It took just under six weeks to subside.

I believe that what I had in January this year was the beginnings of what had made its way to Australia, mutated, and is now returning to the Northern Hemisphere for our winter flu season.

I initially caught the virus from my sister Angela who always has her annual flu jab, and I was not concerned when she told me that she had the bug.

So looking back and reflecting on what is being said or advised now, is that the only defence is to have the flu jab, and this has been very prominent, but which also comes with the advisory that it may not be effective to protect against the Australian Flu.

The A(not subtyped) was quite a large constituent of the over all influenza picture, and was mirrored in the US, Canada and Northern Europe. I suspect that this has cross mutated into the other strains which are animal bases in origin and so have become more virulent and potent. Thus it can be seen that the A(not specified has become less of the proportion in Australia and this is mirrored by what can be seen in the current WHO diagrams for America.
RGH

A week ago today words came to what was to be song, with its rhythm and rhyme, but it fizzled out and cannot add more to it so thought just to post as is.

The Brexit Song: Words

Brexit, we want to exit,but we may or may not I am afraid.

Strong and stable, like a two legged table, a £100 billion forfeit may be made.

Remainers want the EU but we say that ‘we will see you’ for it’s freedom in the end we really want.

Freedom, we want our freedom,to trade with whom we like without restraint,

We think we are negotiating, instead we are procrastinating, will we ever actually leave?

The Remainers want to stay, and don’t mind to have to pay, and give the EU cart blanch to have their way.

The EU has been so persistent in insisting that the UK pays for projects they  claim that we pledged to support before the Brexit Referendum vote and even those which have not started yet.

On the EU side, as soon as the result of the Brexit Referendum was known, the attitude of the EU was to bar UK MEPs from certain meetings even though we had not yet formerly left. Therefore we can know the attitude of the EU towards Britain because they have clearly demonstrated it.

Right from the beginning I could not help holding the perception that perhaps private/ secret discussions were underway on how to ”manage” us and held the concept that they would mix and match the way that each remaining member will, in turn, frustrate progress of negotiations because it has been made clear that any agreement has to be agreed on by all member states.

So, the deal should be that if they want us to pay for projects that we will never benefit from in the future, including those that we have already paid for in the past, then it would only be fair for us to charged the EU rent for one twenty eighth portion of any properties that we have paid into in the past as well as in the future, for perpetuity.

The UK must be part owner of any real estate that has been built for EU purposes as we were equal partners footing a substantial part of the bill and even though Mrs Thatcher won a decent rebate, EU lover Tony Blair gave a large part of it back for nothing in return.

To most right thinking people it is totally incorrect to have a huge financial demand as a prerequisite for negotiations to begin independently of other issues. It is a manner of conduct that would not be out of place being made by the Mafia. So perhaps it is reasonable to lease our portion of assets to the political structure which is the EU, a supranational political structure which has not signed off its accounts for 23 years.

A month ago I had a conservation with a Facebook friend regarding what people send on the social media without getting a very effective result of their intellectual efforts. I used a simile as “putting so many bricks on top of each other without building a monument” that can remain and resist the constant attack of time through the gales of oblivion. Waves come and hit them to the cliffs of “being in a remote past” and crush ideas into the realm of nihilia.

This friend liked my proposition to try to create a place and starting to put bricks, stones and mortars into a toil that synergises somehow into some effect, though modicum.