Archive for the ‘America’s Unsavory Allies’ Category

Portonblimp Down Episode 2 – A Tale By Boris Johnson by Craig Murray

April 10, 2018

“Comrade Putin, we have successfully stockpiled novichoks in secret for ten years, and kept them hidden from the OPCW inspectors. We have also trained our agents in secret novichok assassination techniques. The programme has cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but now we are ready. Naturally, the first time we use it we will expose our secret and suffer massive international blowback. So who should be our first target? The head of a foreign intelligence agency? A leading jihadist rebel in Syria? A key nuclear scientist? Even a Head of State?”

“No, Tovarishch. There is this old retired guy I know living in Salisbury. We released him from jail years ago…”

“With respect Comrade Putin, are you sure he is the most important target to reveal a programme we have put so much resource into for ten years?”

“Yes. I sit here every day and I cannot concentrate on the affairs of Russia or the World as all the time am thinking of Sergei Skripal. I should never have let him out of jail to spend his life buying lottery tickets and eating in Zizzis. But you must make absolutely certain to kill him.”

“Don’t worry Comrade Putin, we have been training in secret novichok assassination techniques for ten years. We even have a detailed manual explaining our methods. We will spread the novichok on his outside door handle (fiendish laugh).”

“Are you sure comrade? Is there not a danger it will wash off or get diluted?”

“No Comrade Putin, it never rains in England.”

That is, genuinely, in every detail the official British government version of what happened in Salisbury, including the ten year programme and the secret assassination manual.

Despite this story being one of the most improbably wild conspiracy theories in human history, it is those who express any doubt at all as to its veracity who are smeared as “conspiracy theorists” or even “traitors”.

All copyright on this article is waived. Feel free to use, translate and republish as you wish.

Advertisements

WaPo: Shashi Tharoor: In Winston Churchill, Hollywood rewards a mass murderer

March 12, 2018

WaPo: Shashi Tharoor: In Winston Churchill, Hollywood rewards a mass murderer

Quote:

Shashi Tharoor is author of “Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India.” He chairs the Indian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee.

“History,” Winston Churchill said, “will be kind to me, for I intend to write it myself.” He needn’t have bothered. He was one of the great mass murderers of the 20th century, yet is the only one, unlike Hitler and Stalin, to have escaped historical odium in the West. He has been crowned with a Nobel Prize (for literature, no less), and now, an actor portraying him (Gary Oldman) has been awarded an Oscar.

As Hollywood confirms, Churchill’s reputation (as what Harold Evans has called “the British Lionheart on the ramparts of civilization”) rests almost entirely on his stirring rhetoric and his talent for a fine phrase during World War II. “We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. … We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets. … We shall never surrender.” (The revisionist British historian John Charmley dismissed this as “sublime nonsense.”)

Words, in the end, are all that Churchill admirers can point to. His actions are another matter altogether.

During World War II, Churchill declared himself in favor of “terror bombing.” He wrote that he wanted “absolutely devastating, exterminating attacks by very heavy bombers.” Horrors such as the firebombing of Dresden were the result.

In the fight for Irish independence, Churchill, in his capacity as secretary of state for war and air, was one of the few British officials in favor of bombing Irish protesters, suggesting in 1920 that airplanes should use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to scatter them.

Dealing with unrest in Mesopotamia in 1921, as secretary of state for the colonies, Churchill acted as a war criminal: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilised tribes; it would spread a lively terror.” He ordered large-scale bombing of Mesopotamia, with an entire village wiped out in 45 minutes.

In Afghanistan, Churchill declared that the Pashtuns “needed to recognise the superiority of [the British] race” and that “all who resist will be killed without quarter.” He wrote: “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation. … Every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once.”

In Kenya, Churchill either directed or was complicit in policies involving the forced relocation of local people from the fertile highlands to make way for white colonial settlers and the forcing of more than 150,000 people into concentration camps. Rape, castration, lit cigarettes on tender spots, and electric shocks were all used by the British authorities to torture Kenyans under Churchill’s rule.

But the principal victims of Winston Churchill were the Indians — “a beastly people with a beastly religion,” as he charmingly called them. He wanted to use chemical weapons in India but was shot down by his cabinet colleagues, whom he criticized for their “squeamishness,” declaring that “the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable.”

Churchill’s beatification as an apostle of freedom seems all the more preposterous given his 1941 declaration that the Atlantic Charter’s principles would not apply to India and the colored colonies. He refused to see people of color as entitled to the same rights as himself. “Gandhi-ism and all it stands for,” he declared, “will, sooner or later, have to be grappled with and finally crushed.”

In such matters, Churchill was the most reactionary of Englishmen, with views so extreme they cannot be excused as being reflective of their times. Even his own secretary of state for India, Leopold Amery, confessed that he could see very little difference between Churchill’s attitude and Adolf Hitler’s.

Thanks to Churchill, some 4 million Bengalis starved to death in a 1943 famine. Churchill ordered the diversion of food from starving Indian civilians to well-supplied British soldiers and even to top up European stockpiles in Greece and elsewhere. When reminded of the suffering of his Indian victims, his response was that the famine was their own fault, he said, for “breeding like rabbits.”

Madhusree Mukerjee’s searing account of Churchill’s role in the Bengal famine, “Churchill’s Secret War,” documents that while Indians starved, prices for foodgrains were inflated by British purchases and India’s own surplus grains were exported, while Australian ships laden with wheat were not allowed to unload their cargo at Calcutta (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets). Instead, Churchill ordered that grain be shipped to storage depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans to increase the buffer stocks for a possible future invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia. European warehouses filled up as Bengalis died.

This week’s Oscar rewards yet another hagiography of this odious man. To the Iraqis whom Churchill advocated gassing, the Greek protesters on the streets of Athens who were mowed down on Churchill’s orders in 1944, sundry Pashtuns and Irish, as well as to Indians like myself, it will always be a mystery why a few bombastic speeches have been enough to wash the bloodstains off Churchill’s racist hands.

Many of us will remember Churchill as a war criminal and an enemy of decency and humanity, a blinkered imperialist untroubled by the oppression of non-white peoples. Ultimately, his great failure — his long darkest hour — was his constant effort to deny us freedom.

Is US or UK Behind False-Flag Sarin Attack in Syria?

April 9, 2017

The timing is suspicious.

No motive can be ascribed to President Assad.

The only ones that are benefiting are anti-Assads and hard-core Western terrorism-inciting and funding governments like those of the US and UK in particular.

It has never been shown conclusively that Assad’s forces ever committed any chemical attack in Syria.

In fact, in 2013 when the last red-line Sarin attack took place, Carla Del Ponte, a UN official, said on record that victims’ accounts rather pointed to the rebels’ involvement.

So is the US or the UK orchestrated the appalling gas attack?

I think, the impulse definitely came from somewhere in the bowels of the Trump administration but it was likely the British government that physically committed the heinous act in Idlib Province, Syria, through its agents there by launching a chemical Sarin gas attack as a result of which 100 people, including 21 children, died.

The attack has all the hallmarks of a US-ordered and British-executed atrocity.

We have seen it before, including during this ongoing tragic civil war in Syria which is only benefiting those who want to put down and bleed the entire Arab world (aka the US and Britain, also some in the EU).

My analysis of limited and heavily distorted information as well MSM decoding implicates the British government, its secret services and local agents, including so called White Helmets and British sponsored rebels and other British agents, in this attack.

The attack follows the similar pattern of previous false-flag chemical attacks in Syria apparently carried out by British government agents where they deployed chemical agents on a number of occasions targeting own civilians in rebel-controlled territories and then quickly publicized said attacks using fake social media accounts, puppet paid bloggers and twitter users on the ground and around the world and bogus groups like the London-based so-called “Syrian Observatory” which was set up and is curated by MI6.

However Britain could be double-dealing here and this attack also appears to be the latest step in the British government’s month-long campaign to undermine President Trump personally (probably in cahoots with some forces in the Trump administration itself and larger political establishment in Washington, D.C., aka the “swamp”) by making it impossible for him to carry out his pre-election promises which included a possible deal with Assad.

While making out as if taking and obeying orders from the US, the British government secretly also wants to involve the United States in another lengthy and preferably bloody war to shift attention from itself hoping that terrorists will then target US rather than British interests.

British Children Describe Abuse

February 8, 2015

British children describe sick abuse

 

***

Business as usual: UK arms factories ‘profit’ from Palestinian bloodshed — RT

August 18, 2014

Business as usual: UK arms factories ‘profit’ from Palestinian bloodshed — RT UK

Britain Run by Homo Pedophiles

July 8, 2014

From the BBC:

20 top UK figures are abusers

Former child protection manager Peter McKelvie says at least 20 prominent figures – including former MPs and government ministers – have abused children for “decades”.

 

Abuse of underage boys is common amongst the British ruling elite, many of whose members went through public (i.e. private) boarding schools, where such behavior is institutionalized both staff to students and students to students, where younger (and weaker) boys are routinely sexually abused or outright raped by older boys, their stronger peers and by teachers and other members of school staff.

MI5 Did It

July 7, 2013
Culpable: MI5

Culpable: MI5

Que bono?

Investigations into the 7/7 atrocity were completed but produced no evidence whatsoever of any terrorist involvement.

Instead, to a thinking person, they showed plenty of sign that the regime designated “terrorists” were shadowed at the time — no, even led on by MI5 — Britain’s internal secret state police modeled on Nazi Germany’s Gestapo but more ruthless and unprincipled.

MI5 needed a major boost in funding at the time and was facing a post-Cold war identity crisis and really could use a couple of spectacular bombings — preferably with multiple casualties, to say nothing of the fact that the “bombers” turned out to be MI5 agents themselves, whether rogue or otherwise, doesn’t really matter from the viewpoint of establishing and proving MI5 culpability.

7/7 was a masterstroke – a stroke of (evil) genius on the part of MI5. It got funding, elevated status, more rights and powers, assured future as a government agency; it got the chance to blame Muslims, to get rid of its troublesome agents, and some within MI5 ranks got medals, promotions and pay increases, even as the victims were still being treated in hospitals.

Que bono?

Only MI5 bono.

Paedophile Rings … And 10 Downing Street – FULL ARTICLE – David Icke Website

November 22, 2012

Paedophile Rings … And 10 Downing Street – FULL ARTICLE – David Icke Website.

David Icke: “If the truth comes out it will bring down the Establishment across all three parties and the monarchy will be history…”

London, Global Capital of Money Laundering

November 20, 2012
London is the money-laundering capital of the world, according to a special six-page investigation published in a recent issue of Private Eye and reports in the blogosphere.

Richard Brooks, a former tax inspector responsible for Private Eye’s groundbreaking exposés of corporate tax avoidance, turns his attention to the dirty money flowing through Britain’s banks and tax havens and to proceeds of crime being laundered there.

Weeks after a US senate committee slammed Britain’s biggest bank, HSBC, for facilitating vast money-laundering operations, including washing money from Mexican drug cartels, he finds that light-touch banking regulation and a thriving network of tax havens, have made Britain the center of an embezzlement industry that steals billions from the world’s poor and underprivileged and is the largest contributor to Britain’s national budget.

Brooks has spent months tracking high-profile corruption cases as they make their way through British courts. He zeroes in on one of the most outrageous cases, that of James Ibori, former governor of the Delta State in Nigeria, who between 1999 and 2007, funnelled £200m of pounds of state money through British banks to fund an outrageously lavish lifestyle.

While many Nigerians went without basic education and social care, Ibori spent stolen loot on a Bentley, private school fees for his children, properties in Hampstead, a fleet of armoured Range Rovers and dozens of gambling trips to Las Vegas.

With the help of a British solicitor, Bhadresh Gohil, Ibori managed to sneak Nigerian wealth out of the country and launder it through HSBC and Barclays bank accounts, apparently in collusion with Britain’s secret services and senior government officials who all got their cut too.

It’s a complex story, in which dirty money zips between secretive tax havens, obscure front companies, and British high street banks. But, as Sasha Wass QC told the jury at Ibori’s eventual trial, ‘If you’re confused by this … that is exactly the idea.’

It was only when the eight police officers who make up the Met’s Proceeds of Corruption unit painstakingly followed the money that they managed to piece together what Judge Pitts, who sentenced James Ibori to 13 years at Southwark Crown Court in April this year, called ‘one of the biggest money laundering cases ever seen’.

But despite Ibori’s long sentence, the British banks who facilitated his crimes and so many others like it, have not seen the inside of a court room and are unlikely to any time soon.

Britain’s regulation-free tax havens, such the City of London; Guernsey; Jersey; Cardiff, Wales; Isle of Man and many others where stolen loot is stashed and the bankers who wash the money are still a long way from proper regulation.

Private Eye points out that Lord Green, a current trade minister and member of the Treasury team deciding how to reform Britain’s banks, was chief executive of HSBC during the years it was turning over hundreds of millions of pounds of dirty money. Which bodes well for the reformation of Britain’s corrupt mafia-run banks, doesn’t it?

London, Global Capital of Money Laundering

Was Roosevelt Poisoned by Churchill?

July 6, 2012

New Theory Claims Founder of America’s Modern Nation State was Bumped Off by British Rival
Roosevelt was being slowly poisoned with arsenic and then dispatched with a single dose of rat poison containing Thallium by British agents operating inside the White House

The founder of the US’ modern nation state Franklin D. Roosevelt died after being poisoned by his fierce political rival and enemy British PM Winston Churchill, one theory sensationally claims.

While Roosevelt was already in poor health, paralyzed from waist down, crippled by an attack of polio, Winston Churchill may have been slowly poisoning him for a lengthy period of time and then finished him off through his many agents in the State Department and even in the White House itself – after a bitter feud between the two Western leaders relating to the post-war fate of the British Empire which FDR aimed to dismantle.

Roosevelt, who ostensibly supported Churchill in his fight against Germany, in actual fact was as much or even more interested in fighting the British Empire. He wanted to make sure that there would be no return to the British colonial system after the war.

While the majority of the American and British political elites at the time were only too well aware of a bitter dispute between the two leaders, a different history has been supplanted since: a mass of lies and half-truths about a so-called “special relationship” between Britain and the United States, based on common ideals, supposedly supported by both Churchill and Roosevelt, and intended to last into the next millennium. This rewriting of history began almost immediately with FDR’s unnatural death in April 1945, and has continued to this day.

Although himself coming from a privileged Anglo-centric background, Roosevelt developed later in life very different views on Britain, and these views placed him firmly within a faction of American patriots, whose interests were opposed to British imperialism and Britain’s minions in the American financial and political establishment, centered around the Wall Street investment bankers, such as the Morgans, and in the State Department.

At that time already emerging as a spokesman for the British supremacists and imperialists was one Winston Churchill, a conservative politician, the archetypical “Colonel Blimp”. Churchill, who had an American mother, nevertheless hated everything American and especially the American people.

Churchill had planted scores of agents in the American government who liaised with him through the British ambassador, Lord Halifax, who on more than one occasion openly called Roosevelt a “liar” and “no friend of the British”.

Churchill had a very good reason to be fearful.

Behind Churchill’s back, Roosevelt discussed his anti-colonial strategy with Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov when the latter visited Washington in late 1942. He told Molotov that he felt that after the war it was going to be necessary to take colonial possessions away from Britain, “for their own protection”. Molotov gave him to understand that he was certain that Stalin would agree to these ideas, as he was favorable to other American proposals for the postwar world.

Churchill, meanwhile, was initially prepared to stall. FDR suffered from serious heart problems and hypertension, although his own physicians thought that he could survive through a fourth term. By late 1944, Churchill was in receipt of a secret briefing on the President’s health by Churchill’s personal physician Lord Moran: Roosevelt had only several months to live, at worst, perhaps a year. However, Churchill could not just wait for Roosevelt to die as he loathed uncertainty.

It was at this juncture that the British decided to move and thus had a direct hand in the President’s death according to the new theory. First, Churchill attempted to cause strain and to wear our Roosevelt through his insistence on two summits in Canada during the height of the campaign, and his delay of the proposed summit with Stalin until it required a precarious, 12,000-mile mid-winter trip to Yalta. When this plan didn’t work, Churchill took matters in his own hands altogether.

It is alleged that, on Churchill’s orders, FDR’s wife, Eleanor Roosevelt (who was a Lesbian and was recruited and blackmailed into obedience by the British) had fed him his morning porridge laced with rat poison (containing Thallium). Before that British agents had been trying to cause as much pain and suffering to Roosevelt as possible and to undermine his health and to impede his faculties by feeding him small doses of arsenic over a prolonged period of time – their preferred method of dealing with powerful foreign leaders, with whom they were not openly at war but whom they had reason to fear.

On April 12, 1945 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States, patriot, and enemy of the British Empire, died of poisoning at the hands of the British whilst the official cause of death was craftily put down to “a cerebral hemorrhage”. Almost immediately, British agents moved to obliterate Roosevelt’s anti-British anti-Imperialist policies and his postwar plans whilst shamelessly and cynically laying down the foundations for the myth of a “special relationship”.

Extra-Havanna fuer Churchill — one fat cigar for Churchill to suck on

Winston Churchill, he murdered Franklin D. Roosevelt…. and some 23 million other people

Further reading: the Churchill gang


%d bloggers like this: