Lascaux cave art

Lascaux cave art

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Proposal that Terrorists 'Returning' to the United Kingdom Should not be Prosecuted

Whilst Amber Augusta Rudd, the (rather sour faced) Home Secretary plans draconian legislation to outlaw people from accessing "far-right propaganda" on the Internet with threats of up to 15 years in prison for what amounts to Thought Crime, Max Hill, QC, "the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation" has made the absolutely potty suggestion that 'Britons' (read Asian muslims) should not necessarily be prosecuted for terrorism offences if they return to the United Kingdom. You could not make this nonsense up and it would not surprise me in the least if his proposal was adopted by the government as it would appear that committing real acts of terrorism is less serious than reading my blogs! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/19/naive-disillusioned-britons-returning-syria-should-not-prosecuted/

If Mr Hill's proposal were to be adopted then we would have hundreds of lunatic islamists roaming the streets of this country when instead they should be barred from ever returning. This proposal strangely comes at the very same time that Andrew Parker, the Director General of MI5 is saying that the United Kingdom faces a bigger threat from terrorism than at any other time before. http://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/uk-facing-most-severe-terror-threat-ever-warns-mi5-chief/article68380.html

It would also appear from Mr Hill's comments that of the terrorists who have returned to the United Kingdom only a handful have ever been prosecuted. This surely beggars belief that real islamist terrorists can be free to roam our streets and their supporters are permitted to demonstrate with inflammatory placards, shouting their demands that unbelievers should be murdered and not a bloody thing is done about it and yet if you say some 'naughty' things on social media then you can expect the full force of the 'Counter Terrorism' Police, not knocking on your door but knocking it down, to be followed by a prison sentence. This is the lunacy of modern Britain.

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Marxist Scottish Government to Outlaw Parents' Rights to Discipline their Children

It has been announced today that the Marxist government of Scotland is to back a private member's bill which outlaws the physical correction of children. It is rare for private members' bills to become law but sometimes governments may give such bills an easy ride through the parliamentary process if it lacks the balls to directly introduce legislation themselves. There has been some debate as to whether this move could cause similar legislation to be introduced in other parts of the United Kingdom. In my opinion I do not think that it is likely, not with a Conservative administration but one can never really tell. Scotland is certainly the most Marxist part of the United Kingdom so it should not be inferred that the British, Welsh and Northern Irish administrations would necessarily follow their lead. What it will do however is put the issue into the public arena in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Marxist social engineers will attempt to apply pressure for similar laws to be introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Marxist social scientists (who are unable to obtain real jobs) will argue that smacking 'damages' children which is absolute nonsense. Most people of my age and older will recall occasions when we were caned at school and given the odd clip around the ear and I do not know of any case where mild correction lovingly administered has ever caused any 'damage', physical or psychological. They will no doubt also assert that children should have the same rights as adults. This is of course patent nonsense to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. We do not and never have as a society accorded the same rights and privileges to children as we do to adults and there is solid thinking behind this. A child that is left to itself and never disciplined will become feral and out of control. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that children, especially boys who do not have a father living in their home are likely to get out of control as in Aryan societies discipline is the role of the father rather than the mother although of course mothers can and do discipline their children when the need arises. Most of my readers of a certain age will recall the childhood warnings of their mothers: "wait til your father gets home!" This would be enough to enforce improved behaviour in the naughty child because the child traditionally views the father as the disciplinarian and rightly so in a traditional society. In my case that warning was enough and although nothing ever happened when my father arrived home from work the warning always worked!

Marxist social scientists (it is a Marxist discipline) have for decades gradually eroded the family unit and they have done this by undermining the role of the man of the house who should ultimately be the master of his hearth. That does not imply abuse or cruelty but the father's domestic role should be that of a leader. However this traditional and Aryan concept does not meet with the approval of the belligerent feminist harridans who seem to dominate the media and public life and have done everything in their power to emasculate men, most especially Aryan men as there is very little outcry from these ogresses when Asian and African men systematically sexually abuse young Aryan girls and women for to point out these racially motivated attacks would be regarded as 'racist', another Marxist invention. Where was the feminist outcry in Rotherham or Köln? The silence of the feminist harpies was deafening!

I find it ironic that politicians have no problem with police officers using their truncheons or tasers on people who resist arrest and yet it is not deemed acceptable for a parent to smack a naughty child's arse! So it would appear that STATE SANCTIONED VIOLENCE IS OK but a parent cannot discipline their own child! What this therefore amounts to is yet more state control over the individual. Big Brother truly has established itself in every aspect of our lives today and the masses by and large allow it to happen so long as they are given their 'bread and circuses'. If such a law were ever to be introduced in England then the state would be the owner of the child and not the parent-a truly hideous prospect.

The British Government Wants to Steal Your Bodily Organs

This issue appeared in the news a couple of weeks ago. See http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/862537/uk-theresa-may-organ-transplant-jeremy-corbyn-conservative-labour-medical-association

The British government has announced an intention to change the law regarding organ donations. The current situation in England is that organs may only be taken if there is clear consent from the donor and this tends to only happen if the dead person's relatives do not express objections. The government is now intending to reverse the situation so that unless a person opts out of the scheme it will be presumed that they have given consent! This is of course a form of legalised theft by the state. It is no different to me stealing flowers from somebody's garden and saying that the owner of the garden gave his 'implied consent' by not announcing beforehand that he was opposed to the theft of his flowers! The state seems to think that it is above all norms of behaviour which it expects of its citizens. So before long your body will become the property of the state! Shades of Burke and Hare!

My position on organ donation is that the whole thing seems to be taken straight from a novel by Mary Shelley! It is contrary to the laws of nature. When a person's organs begin to fail either through old age or the abuse of drugs, nicotine or alcohol then it is time "shuffle off this mortal coil". The very fact that the recipients of other people's organs then need drugs for the rest of their lives to combat their own body's rejection of the organ implant should be enough of an indication that the whole process and concept is unnatural. Instead of engaging in Frankenstein operations and so-called 'sex changes' the focus of the NHS should be the curing of the sick using natural means. As for those who think that they have been 'born into the wrong sex' then a long spell in a psychiatric hospital should rid them of what is after all a mental illness.

It was also announced recently by Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer for England that Britain will soon face a "post-antibiotic apocalypse" due to the overuse of antibiotics to fight sickness. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/13/britain-could-face-post-antibiotic-apocalypse-warns-top-doctor/ The answer to both these man-made 'problems' is surely obvious. The NHS should cease carrying out these unnatural Frankenstein operations and return again to the herbal lore of our ancestors who possessed a wide body of knowledge regarding the treatment of sickness which is not dependant upon man-made drugs or Frankenstein transplants. Rather than fear death we should begin to view this as an inevitable and welcome stage in the life cycle. However as society has become increasingly materialistic the human body is no longer viewed as a psycho-physical complex but just pure matter and thus the modern obsession with delaying the aging process and inevitable death. It also needs to be recognised that death itself is a natural process and a lasting cure for all our ailments.

Wotans Krieger Recommends: Snouts in the Trough Blog

My readers may be interested in a blog which I discovered today: http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Why You Must Disable Webcams

For many years GCHQ, one of the British intelligence agencies has been spying on the population of the United Kingdom and this should come as no surprise to anyone. I would also add that the mass surveillance of the population without warrant was and STILL IS illegal. However who is going to prosecute the state for offences when its intelligence agencies which are supposedly part of law enforcement are committing these crimes? The British government appears to be above the law but that does not make its actions either right or legal. Although the government introduced The Investigatory Powers Act in December 2016 it has been ruled in the European Court of Justice that this legislation is in fact illegal! Of course this never stopped the government from engaging in illegal mass surveillance prior to December 2016 and I dare say that they are still carrying out their nefarious activities, demonstrating once again that they are the enemy of the people.  The following is from The Guardian accessed via this link http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-27/yes-government-spying-you-through-your-webcam-–-another-“conspiracy-theory”-proven-t

"Britain’s surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.
GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.
In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally."

One of the ways that GCHQ spies on British citizens is through webcams on laptop computers and also via smart phones. If you do not need a camera on your laptop the easiest and least technological way to block it is to place some duct tape over the aperture. Switching off is not enough as it can be enabled at any time by GCHQ. I tried to uninstall my camera via 'add/remove' programmes but on Windows 10 (which was forced upon us) it does not allow you to uninstall it-no surprises there! However there is a way that this can be done. I have followed the advice on this website: https://www.itsupportguides.com/knowledge-base/windows-10/windows-10-how-to-completely-disable-your-webcam-camera/

In addition to the intelligence services obviously other people involved in criminal activities can also use the camera to discover your passwords and hack into email accounts, online bank accounts and any other accounts that you may have passwords for so it is vital to disable completely the Big Brother on your computer. As far as smart phones are concerned-destroy the damn thing. Nobody really needs such a device anyway. Smart phones are intended for dumb people and this is why the likes of Amber Rudd want you to have one! It makes mass surveillance so much easier and don't forget in addition to governments and other criminals global corporations such as Google are also spying on you. Get rid of the smart phone and replace it with a very basic pay as you go mobile phone that is actually a phone! Do not register the phone and do not purchase a phone that automatically registers you on the National Mobile Property Register as this is for the benefit of the Police and intelligence services, not the public! I have already noticed that some market place sellers of phones for sale on Amazon.UK register you automatically WITHOUT your consent.


Friday, October 06, 2017

Amber Rudd, Encryption & another Threat to our Civil Liberties by HM Government

Amber Rudd, the British Home Secretary (the one that resembles a 1960s schoolmistress) famously remarked this week that she doesn't understand encryption but pledges to quash it anyway.

"I don't need to understand how encryption works to understand how it's helping the criminals," Rudd said during a fringe event at the Conservative party conference this week (2 October). "I will engage with the security services to find the best way to combat that." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/amber-rudd-doesnt-understand-how-strong-encryption-works-pledges-break-it-anyway-1641658

I am not sure which is worse-Rudd's arrogance that despite being ignorant of how encryption works she is determined to break it anyway or the fact that this is yet one more attack by Amber Rudd on our civil liberties. In this respect she is continuing in the 'proud' tradition of her predecessor Teresa May, the Prime Minister (a position currently being coveted by Rudd-the Gods help us if this woman is ever successful in achieving her aims!) Rudd fails to understand that without encryption every single person who uses the Internet would be vulnerable to hacking, attacks by criminals and fraud. Apparently catching at the most one or two enemies (if she is lucky) of the state is more important to her than the safety of millions of British Internet users.

"Rudd is proposing to make the public safer from terrorists – with no proof that removing encryption will have an impact – while leaving them at the mercy of cybercriminals."

According to Rudd:


" Rudd wrote that "real people" are not interested in secure end-to-end encryption on messaging services in an article in The Telegraph, arguing that its one billion daily users are more interested in its ease of use.
"Who uses WhatsApp because it is end-to-end encrypted, rather than because it is an incredibly user-friendly and cheap way of staying in touch with friends and family?" she wrote, arguing that secure encryption isn't a must-have for regular users.
"Companies are constantly making trade-offs between security and 'usability', and it is here where our experts believe opportunities may lie," she said. "Real people often prefer ease of use and a multitude of features to perfect, unbreakable security." http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/29148/amber-rudd-claims-real-people-arent-interested-in-encryption

I am unclear as to who Rudd has in mind when she says "real people". She is inferring that people at large do not care if their privacy and safety from both criminal and government snooping (sometimes these two are the same thing) is compromised so long as they have ease of communications. If these be "real people" then they must by interpretation be idiots. Perhaps in true elitist fashion she really means the "little people".

Thursday, October 05, 2017

More German War Heroes Hounded in their Old Age

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4933940/Suspected-SS-guard-95-confronted-WW2-claims.html

In a saner and more just world these German reporters would be kissing these men's boots not hounding them for fighting for Germany in WWII. The backlash will come and this madness will be at an end.

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

Amber Rudd, Thought Crime and the Coming Clampdown on National Socialism

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary who appears to have a perpetual scowl on a miserable and harsh looking face has announced a new crackdown not just on real terrorist online literature but anything that SHE deems to be 'extremist'. Let me quote relevant excerpts from her speech at the Conservative Party conference:

"Violent and non-violent extremism in all its forms – Anti-Semitism, neo-Nazism, Islamophobia, intolerance of women’s rights – these, and others, cannot be permitted to fester.  Our values are far, far better than this. And we owe it to ourselves to root this hatred out wherever it emerges."

My readers will note how she singles out "Anti-Semitism", "neo-Nazism" and "Islamophobia" for special mention. Not a single reference to the violent anti-fa or Islamism, just worldviews that she would regard as being 'far right'. Who gets to determine what is 'extremist' and then.....what? There are currently NO laws on the statute book in England that outlaws any one of the aforementioned world views. Given that the Conservative Party are now a minority government she may indeed struggle to pass any legislation to give teeth to her intentions.

We have seen over the last year how the British government has adopted  a new international definition of 'Anti-Semitism' which includes:

"In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits."

So now under the new definition of 'Anti-Semitism' even legitimate criticism of the illegal and apartheid practices of the state of Israel and its crimes is 'Anti-Semitism'! One wonders what punishments they will create for those who persist in exposing Israel?  Even exposing Jewish influence in the media and global capitalism is now 'Anti-Semitism':

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."

According to this definition even accusations of "real wrongdoing" is 'Anti-Semitism':

" Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews."

Nationalists, White Nationalists and National Socialists all have differing views on the 'holocaust'. Some accept the claims of a 6,000,000 genocide as being real and historic, some accept that it took place but disagree with the figures whilst other deny it in its entirety. As with any historical or debatable historic 'fact' it should not be exempt from both analysis and debate or we are making a secular religion out of it. (This has already happened) Regardless of where one stands on this issue one should be free in a truly democratic country to debate it. However powerful Jewish bodies both within and outside the United Kingdom manage to place a stranglehold on any public debate and attempt to censor the sale of perfectly legal literature that calls their version of history into question.https://www.thejc.com/news/world/under-pressure-amazon-stops-selling-holocaust-denial-books-1.433963

In the United Kingdom it is not illegal to question any aspect of the 'holocaust' and this is one of the few precious freedoms that we still have left.

Which western countries currently don't have holocaust denial laws on the statute book? The United States, the United Kingdom,  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Italy, Jersey, Ireland, Macedonia, Malta, Ireland, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Ukraine and the Vatican City! So still a majority of countries both within and outside the western world do not have such pernicious legislation. By contrast the countries which have explicit or implicit legislation are: Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland,  Romania, Greece, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Russia. The Netherlands is an interesting case for 'holocaust denial' is not explicitly illegal but the unjust courts interpret such denial as a form of 'spreading hatred' and thus an offence. Clearly the Dutch courts are heavily politicised for surely it is the Legislature that is supposed to formulate laws? It is the responsibility of the courts to make judgements on those who contravene the law but NOT to create laws. This is hardly 'democracy'.

However according to the new definition accepted by the British government analysing the 'holocaust' from an impartial perspective is now 'Anti-Semitism'

"Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust."

So there you have it according to the British government examination or questioning of any aspect of the 'holocaust' is 'Anti-Semitism'. We cannot even question an individual Jew's loyalty to the United Kingdom even when evidence is found to support this:

"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."

Even though we all know that the state of Israel has an immigration policy that only permits Jews to emigrate to Israel and receive Israeli nationality it is 'Anti-Semitism' to point this out. The system of Apartheid in Israel, its openly racist hostility towards Palestinian and Israeli Arabs and Israel's lack of an open door refugee policy if applied to a western country would be described as racist but to point out these inconvenient facts is regarded by the British government as 'Anti-Semitism':

 "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour."

In fact comparing Israel's hypocrisy in the matter of the Palestinians against the treatment of Jews in the Third Reich also constitutes 'Anti-Semitism':

" Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

Israel is truly now beyond reproach and her influence and power increases each day. We should not be surprised by this for this is what Zionism is all about. The Old Testament is full of 'prophecies' concerning the plans of the Jewish desert tribal god to set up Jerusalem as the capital of the world and that all nations will serve Israel. Zionism is inextricably linked to these desires and plans for global domination. In the words of the first modern Prime Minister of Israel David Ben-Gurion:

""With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah."

In any other person, in any other people this conceit and self-deceit would be diagnosed as a psychosis. Indeed a thorough examination of the Bible, most especially the books of the Old Testament make this collective psychosis very clear. If you want to know what plans the state of Israel has in store for the world all you have to do is study their own writings and QUOTE them-there is nothing 'Anti-Semitic' in doing exactly that.

The following makes for uneasy reading for it advocates genocide against non-Jews already dwelling in Palestine:
"
1When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
7The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: 8But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; 10And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face. 11Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them." (Deuteronomy 7:1-11, AV)

By any reasonable standards Deuteronomy 7 is HATE literature and these passages more than any other give us an insight into both Judaism, Zionism and the disturbing psychopathic mind of 'god'. If this was Wotan talking about the German people imagine what the outcry would be! When I refer to Zionism by extension I also include most Christian denominations under that category for it is possible of course to be non-Jewish and a Zionist and to be both Jewish and anti-Zionist.

Going back to Rudd's speech she is seeking to not only outlaw terrorist political activity (which is understandable and I am not criticising this) but the READING of anything which is contrary to the state. I am not even talking about reading things which advocate illegal acts but the reading of things which do not. She is referring to "non-violent extremism in all its forms". So according to this anything which questions the political status-quo, that advocates an alternative political system to neo-liberalism "cannot be permitted to fester". She includes National Socialism in that. What is she going to do? Outlaw an idea? Outlaw a concept? When will people like her realise that this does not work and is ultimately counterproductive? Particularly interesting is that she seems to imply that even criticism of feminism should not be "permitted to fester" either! This amounts to the Orwellian concept of 'Thought Crime'. Not content with monitoring, censoring and punishing us for our words they now come after our thoughts as well! What a nightmarish Orwellian world she is seeking to impose upon us all!

How is Rudd going to put her agenda into action? She is proposing the establishment of a Commission on Countering Extremism.

"The commission would be established as a statutory body, legally compelled to identify extremism in communities where it threatens to undermine British values." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-conservative-manchester-attack-general-election-2017-commission-countering-extremism-a7759486.html

There you go again yet another reference to the rather vacuous term "British values". Rudd threatens to imprison people for viewing terrorist material online but it is not clear from the wording of her statement whether this also applies to 'non-violent' political material which is deemed by her to be 'extremist'.  In addition to the quango commission that has been proposed it is clear that there will be yet more spying on the citizens of the United Kingdom online and possibly a beefing up of the STASI like 'Prevent' strategy which involves teachers spying on schoolchildren for any signs of political deviance including you guessed it, National Socialism!







Tuesday, October 03, 2017

UK to 'Celebrate' 100 Years of Israel

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170915-uk-pm-israel-is-a-remarkable-country/


British Prime Minister Teresa May at a cosy dinner party last month for specially 'chosen' guests and cabinet ministers in celebration of the Balfour Declaration referred to the rogue state of Israel as a "remarkable country" and her fellow cabinet minister Sajid Javid who is Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (a very minor position) made a remark at the World Jewish Congress that "the UK would celebrate the upcoming anniversary with pride." He is of course referring to the infamous Balfour Decleration of November 1917. Count me out Javid!

May also describes Israel as "diverse". I am sure that the oppressed Palestinian Arabs will be relieved to hear that. http://5pillarsuk.com/2017/10/03/theresa-may-says-she-will-celebrate-the-balfour-declaration-with-pride/

From the very beginning the United Kingdom has been manipulated into first creating the illegal Zionist state and is now one of its main supporters. Who knows perhaps this 'Communities' Minister is planning street parties?

Teresa May wants all the sheeple of Britain to be proud of its shameful role in creating the rogue state:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/balfour-declaration-israel-palestine-theresa-may-government-centenary-arabs-jewish-settlements-a7607491.html

Age Now Just a 'Social Construct'

This is an article that I have been contemplating writing for some time now. It should be apparent to anyone that here in the 'West' we live in a youth culture, a society that prizes youth above all else and has done for quite some time. When this started to happen is difficult to detect but certainly it has been in existence since at least the early 1940s with the rise of popular music, crooners such as Frank Sinatra who in status and popularity would be the equivalent of Elvis Presley a decade later. In terms of popular youth culture the 1940s Jazz music and 'Zoot Suiters' were the origins of the 1950s Teddy Boy culture which led of course to the Rockers of the 1960s. I am not going to go into detail about these cultures in this article as it is unnecessary but suffice it to say that capitalism began to view young people as a growing market to sell their goods to, most especially music, clothes, cars and motorcycles. This is when the rot set in.

Gradually over the decades new and more diverse youth cultures were created (often artificially-such as 'Punk Rock') for the marketing and sale of merchandise. It is often (and incorrectly said) that the 'Baby Boomers' were responsible for this phenomena but this is incorrect for the oldest of this generation were not born until immediately after WWII. Youth culture was already in existence by the early 1940s. What is true though is that some of those who aligned to the youth culture of their day never grew up, still walking around in the attire of their youth, refusing to admit the encroachment of age. It is not unusual to see OAP Teddy Boys for instance. The vast majority did outgrow their youthful affiliations but nevertheless because of the indoctrination that 'young is best' refuse to acknowledge the aging process. Since the 1940s at least aging is frowned upon in western society despite the fact that most of us do get old eventually. This is an inevitable process of nature and should not be feared, frowned upon or ignored. Indeed my argument is that we should embrace it.

Most people alive today in 2017 would have been exposed to some form of youth culture when they were young and are therefore still susceptible to the lie that 'young is best' but often will be totally oblivious to the fact that they have been indoctrinated for it is so engrained in the collective psyche. This has certainly become more obvious in the last 10 years as the oldest of the 'Baby Boomers' started to reach old age. So accustomed to the trappings of a youth culture and the fake 'validity' that such associations bring many if not most deny the fact that they are old as if this were something to be ashamed of. Over recent years we have started to hear ridiculous and vacuous statements that "60 is the new 50", then "60 is the new 40", then "60 is the new 30" and now would you credit it "60 is the new 20!" Makes you wonder what 20 is, minus 40 perhaps? It is meaningless, it is vacuous and it is marketing crap. Nothing has happened to human DNA in the 20th century onwards to explain this rather strange phenomena so let's treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

Apart from the pernicious influence of marketing from globalist capitalist corporations much of this propaganda (which is exactly what it is) is encouraged by western governments because of their concern over an 'aging' population. Alongside these aforementioned stupid statements we have governments now peddling the lie that "we are all getting older". This is patently not true. With the exception of my father who died at the grand age of 103 in 2015 most people I know and those I am related to died in their 50s, 60s and 70s. Some in their 40s and 20s. People are not getting older. It is just that the population has grown and thus more old people are alive. Also once the Baby Boomer generation (which includes me) is dead and gone any imbalances in population demographics will automatically right itself and balance out again. So if there were any truth to their propaganda it is merely a temporary state of affairs which will correct itself within 20 years at the most. Governments are using this as an excuse to increase pension ages thus creating greater competition for jobs and this has the effect of driving wages down. This should show us clearly what side the British government is on-not the British working man but global corporations who prop them up. Basically the British government like ALL western governments exists as the political front man and enforcer of the faceless, rootless, cosmopolitan tribe which controls international finance and national economies.

Indeed this sense of rootlessness is encouraged in the young who are indoctrinated to think of themselves as 'global citizens' and that they should treat the entire world as a labour market that they can just emigrate to. Loyalty to nation, race and homeland is discouraged and viewed as being 'racist', 'hateful' and 'neo-nazi'. It is in the interests of global capitalism that people no longer see their identity in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality or gender but should be one coffee-coloured, genderless and ageless mix-a one size suits all society to make global marketing child's play. By encouraging the elderly to continue to slog their guts out until they die they are in effect creating a global serfdom, NOT a workforce.

By deceiving older people in to believing themselves to be younger than they are they causing people to accept the notion that 'young is good' and 'old is bad'. This is untraditional. This concept (for the time being) exists only in the 'West' and is alien to those cultures who are still holding onto their roots. In such societies when one reaches the age of 60 for instance one is revered and sought out for advice and wisdom. In the 'West' instead the young are encouraged not to seek out their elders but instead spend 30 minutes on the Internet to get all the 'wisdom' that they need. In recent years government departments have instructed their staff not to refer to old people as the 'elderly', 'old' or 'aged' but as 'older' in case it causes 'offence'. This is ostensibly the reason but in my view this is pernicious propaganda designed as an Orwellian attempt to rewrite the English dictionary. By avoiding the use of a word they foolishly think that they can eradicate the reality of aging. Patent nonsense but western governments are no longer rooted in the real world but are totally culturally Marxist. Orwell referred to this process as 'Newspeak'. I have long said that if you control a person's vocabulary you control their thoughts and if you control their thoughts you ultimately control their actions. This is the essence of 'political correctness'. The following article discusses avoiding 'ageist' language in the media http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4596139/Elderly-no-longer-acceptable-word-for-older-people.html My English readers should note that in the USA anyone over 50 can be described as elderly whilst in this country it is traditionally reserved for people over 60. That should be taken into consideration when viewing the Daily Telegraph article.

Here is another example of batshit insanity:

"
As people live longer, the boundaries of what constitutes middle and old age are ever shifting. 
And now one of the UK's leading social scientists has called for an end to the term 'old age', saying that people in their 60s, 70s and 80s should be referred to as 'active adults'.
Sarah Harper, a gerontologist who is director of the Oxford Institute of Ageing told the Hay Festival that people shouldn't be considered old until they reach a stage where they're very feeble and nearing death. 
Therefore even someone in their 90s may not be considered old if they're still living an active life." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4559172/Ageing-expert-calls-word-old-BANNED.html

So there you go by banishing the word 'old' you eliminate old age over night, something which the alchemists of old would have given their forearm for! In the minds of the 'social scientists' (a meaningless discipline) age like race and gender are just 'social constructs'. We should see this for the Marxist lie that it undoubtedly is. According to these wizards of political correctness each hour we are alive we gain an extra 15 minutes! I wonder where the scientific formula is to substantiate this childish nonsense? A further claim of the article author is that "some may not inherit from grandparents until they are in their 80s." That would seem to suggest that people will be living to 120-150 years of age. These fools never once question whether it is DESIREABLE to reach extreme old age!

The other consequence of desiring that people live longer is that if they are successful we will further contribute to global overpopulation of the planet and the strain on Mother Nature's precious resources but it is however 'good for business' with a global serfdom and a raceless, genderless, ageless consumership. So there you go you are not 'old' until you are near death and thus you should be a work slave!

Age is devalued by the NWO because it is threatening to its propaganda. The older you are the more that you realise that there is something drastically wrong with the world and how it is governed compared to when one was young and this recognition increases with age. This is threatening to the propaganda put out by the NWO which is more easily swallowed by the young. It is a scientific fact that the younger you are the more uncritical you are of what you are told. Educationalists realise this and take the opportunity to brainwash children whilst they are young. By devaluing the concept of age-related wisdom they are seeking to prevent the young from listening to and learning from the elders which was traditional in ancient Aryan societies and is still the case in many non-western societies today. They prefer that the young receive their 'wisdom' instantly from the www (666) and thus they control the flow of information and thus what the young may be exposed to. A consistent message is therefore conveyed and it is interesting to see how western governments are introducing laws to control what is 'news' on the Internet and political dissent on the Internet particularly of a nationalist nature is shortly to be banned by Amber Rudd, the not so friendly face of the NWO. More on this shortly.

The push by capitalist corporations that everybody should have a smartphone (a message that the young are particularly susceptible to) is to enable a consistent flow of propaganda in the form of 'news'. This is an unholy partnership with national governments who will shortly be legislating what may be viewed upon the Internet and will ban any unauthorised interpretation of the news. The Internet over recent years has certainly been useful to those of us engaged in the struggle to free our folk but the end of our current very limited freedoms is in sight so we need to develop alternative methods of reaching the masses if at all possible.