One point that is not raised enough is the utter failure of workers and trade unions to lift even a finger in solidarity with the Palestinians, whose General Federation of Trade Unions has twice issued a call for international assistance from Western comrades. It's an exposure and indictment of Western trade unions' role in imperialism: they will never do anything to reduce profits. Individual workers in UK arms companies & suppliers, too, are doing nothing.
But it doesn't matter. The form of Naziism called Labour has done its job. Whether it gets elected next time or another Nazi party gets elected doesn't matter. The government, whether, Labour, Reform, or Conservative, is still Nazi.
The F-95 will stop itself and the genocide will continue merrily onward without it. The Zionists are hell bent on obliterating every living goyem in Gaza. It does not require "high tech" weapons to kill innocent civilians, this has been well proven throughout history. After all, there was nothing high tech about the NAZI killing machine.
There was quite a lot of high tech in the Holocaust, as evidenced by the notorious role played by IBM: "By the time the Holocaust began in earnest in 1941, the Nazis tattooed concentration camp prisoners with identification numbers so that administrators could track that prisoner’s punch card throughout the system.
IBM’s machines were perfect for this, and for tracking the train traffic coming into the concentration camps. Indeed, the Nazis soon placed tabulating machines made by IBM’s German subsidiary, Dehomag, in every train depot and every concentration camp."
('How IBM Helped The Nazis Carry Out The Holocaust', All That's Interesting, 17 November 2016)
The NAZIS only tattooed the individuals who were able to work in war production or to become human guinea pigs. Otherwise, the “useless eaters” (women, small children, elderly or disabled) were killed straightaway, no tattoo required. These individuals were reduced to a journal entry of the number who were “processed for Special treatment”, no name, no number, just a tick mark on a ledger. There were no tattoos on the victims at Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka (except perhaps among the Sonderkommandos and perhaps a few others).
The prisoner number, first applied on the clothing, and later on the forearm as a tattoo. This started in 1940 at Auschwitz and the other forced labor camps. With the ever increasing numbers of people processed and the reuse of prisoner clothing; the prisoner numbers being applied to the clothing proved impractical. The tattoo was more efficient means of tracking the prisoners and charging for their labor, with fewer “accounting errors” when the prisoner finally succumbed to starvation and overwork. This was a simple accounting method the SS and the Reich used to track the “labor rental” of these prisoners by the various German companies. Accurate accounting was particularly important around Auschwitz, where German Industrial giants built huge factories and took advantage of the cheap and plentiful prisoner labor.
Do you actually believe that without the IBM computers, the NAZIS simply would have called off their genocide? I think not. High tech can and often does make genocide more efficient, but high tech is not essential. Thus my point about the F-35. The Zionists can effectively kill the goyem just as quickly and efficiently with a bomb dropped from a “cheap” and “more reliable” F-16. In fact, they could likely pull any number of WW2 aircraft out of museums and do the same thing. The only thing necessary for this to continue is the desire of the Zionists to kill and the West to continue to ignore or deny the actions of these monsters. Where there is a will, there certainly is a way. The NAZIS proved this in a spectacular manner. High tech is certainly optional.
Hopefully, contemporary guys & gals have the gumption to clearly recognize the freaking similarities between what you so well described and the luring real ID, CBDCs, smart-cities, lawfare, etc., etc. ...
The genocide would continue without F-35s, but by banning transfer of parts for planes destined for Israel, the UK would be complying with international law, not to mention human decency.
They are already using starvation as a weapon of war. They think nothing of starving babies and little children to death, never mind their parents and grandparents who have not participated in any violent action. The Israelis are mass murderers. They cannot now whine about the Holocaust as they have learned all they are doing from the Nazis.
Ah yes! But they are "our" mass murderers. I am sick to death to hear them squeal about "the Holocaust", when they are doing exactly the same thing that the NAZIS did. Not on the same scale, but with equal brutality and inhumanity. Small genocide or Large genocide, it makes no difference to the victim.
Hi Ricky. I see things the same as you do, but differently, even using the same information you cite (I'll trust you're right).
Laws are not all the same. They all arise from what's called a "mischief" - something that's wrong and about which something needs to be done. But the thing that's "wrong" can in fact be a hoped-for goal. So, some laws prohibit things, and some permit them (enabling acts, they're called). Some govern the civil domain, others the criminal domain. But what laws govern the body that makes laws, the state itself?
You'd think that, because they're written, laws should be easy for anyone, citizen or government, to read and understand. There was once a law in England that provided for the death penalty for anyone who harmed Westminster Bridge in London. I don't think anyone was ever executed on that ground. In fact, I don't think anyone has ever harmed Westminster Bridge, and I'm not sure whether the existence of that statute is the reason. The obvious answer to the problem of harm caused to a bridge is insurance. What decreeing the death penalty for such harm does is elevate the importance in which the protected object is held, not by the people in whose name the law is enacted, but by the state. The Russian laws against defaming the army are another example.
The UK's terrorism legislation is - I understand - under review following the Southport riots last year. It is believed that the culprit for the initial murders at the dance school was not motivated by any political aim. He simply did a bad thing. The intention of the review is to extend the terrorism legislation to "acts not motivated by ideology." Tell me, what is an act of terrorism if it is not an act motivated by ideology?
Some laws are passed even though the criminal offence is already prohibited (the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1977 itself supplements the laws against setting off explosives and discharging firearms. The laws passed in the 1970s and 1980s against child molestation generally prohibited matters that had been widely prohibited under the common law and legacy legislation for centuries. Ditto AML. So, the enactment of legislation does not per se mean anything: it is a publicity shout-out, to say the government is "acting", but, so far as its own acts are concerned, the best legislation can do is to keep at a neutral level the acts that the state cannot do. Not what it can do: sovereign parliament can do anything. That is the law. It is what it cannot do that is desirable for some citizens, and undesirable for others, and for the state itself.
I'm interested by what the export regulations say, the operative word being "might". Arms "might" be used to commit acts of genocide etc. Well, that's right. They all might. How do you read those regulations in order to know intuitively which of them "might" and which "might not"? Yes, it's vague. It sounds like a principled stance, but it's fluff.
What about the filing of the warrants against Israeli politicians and the ICJ case? Well, as we know, in law, filing a complaint is not winning a court case. Here, we must remind ourselves of the principle of innocence until guilt be proved. So, are we more concerned that Starmer will not breach that principle or that he won't admit it's bloody obvious that Netanyahu is a criminal? We, you and I, have the luxury of bending our principles (whichever of the two we choose). It is not that the government doesn't have that luxury. But what it does have is the ability to ignore principles with - increasingly -impunity. And if you have impunity for your acts, and you are the rule maker, what, tell me, will ever still your ardour for the outrageous?
The answer to that used to be, USED TO, mind you, the prospect of an election, sooner or later. And now elections don't really matter. You don't like Reform? Then you may vote for Reform under some other guise, like Labour or Tory. No, they're not all exactly the same, but we are approaching a state where it's little more than the colour of the rosette that tells us the difference.
We hear much about "establishing the rule of law". That's an interesting phrase. What people mean with it is generally "that the law as existing in my civilised corner of the world should be strictly kept to and applied." But that's not what "the rule of law" means. It means the law shall rule. You can pretty much argue that the rule of law is a salient feature of life in North Korea. It is not a legal system I'd like to live under myself, but they nevertheless have a rule of law. However, the rule of law everywhere is being edged out. Oh, have no fear, the phrase is still in everyday use (with its many everyday interpretations: no state loves a catchphrase more than one that means nothing). But we now have a new catchphrase, one that no government has - to my knowledge - yet stood up to announce as its brave new world: the primacy of politics or "the rule of politics'", if you like); and, if you'd like to read more about this new principle which governs all our lives from east to west and top to bottom, you can: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/the-primacy-of-politics.
jews havemarried heavily into the into the elite class of Britain so there is one will and purpose regarding Israel.... jews have great power and this shows that
Why should this come as a surprise? Look what the BBC reported today: "Ex-UK Special Forces break silence on 'war crimes' by colleagues." Here's an excerpt:
<< Giving their accounts publicly for the first time, the veterans described seeing members of the SAS murder unarmed people in their sleep and execute handcuffed detainees, including children. >> Article url: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3j5gxgz0do
It's good to know that the UK, like the USA, has its priorities in order. We Americans bought the Dubbya Bush lie about "weapons of mass destruction," and estimates range from 655,000 to over 3 million Iraqis lost their lives.
{...The government knows this and is choosing not to act...} Of course NOT !!!
The "government" never acts against its own long-term interests.
Israel is 100% a British project currently "under construction" to regain power and control in the ME, a strategically very important region, full of natural resources and trade routes, unfortnately inhabited by Goys of wrong skin-complexion ...
Well analysed. It is very depressing.
This article is as true, and succinct, and precise as possible.
This is serious evil, I am totally ashamed and could say a lot more about Starmer..but will not give him my time.
One point that is not raised enough is the utter failure of workers and trade unions to lift even a finger in solidarity with the Palestinians, whose General Federation of Trade Unions has twice issued a call for international assistance from Western comrades. It's an exposure and indictment of Western trade unions' role in imperialism: they will never do anything to reduce profits. Individual workers in UK arms companies & suppliers, too, are doing nothing.
Norway show the way how unions have impact ...
Let's hope others follow.
It depends on the Zionist lobby's domestic "strength" only, which surprise, surprise correlates to the corruptness of local politicians ...
As a burglar, I can now argue that "having the nice stuff I saw through the window" is more important than obeying laws against burglary.
Labour are so done for 😔😔
But it doesn't matter. The form of Naziism called Labour has done its job. Whether it gets elected next time or another Nazi party gets elected doesn't matter. The government, whether, Labour, Reform, or Conservative, is still Nazi.
The F-95 will stop itself and the genocide will continue merrily onward without it. The Zionists are hell bent on obliterating every living goyem in Gaza. It does not require "high tech" weapons to kill innocent civilians, this has been well proven throughout history. After all, there was nothing high tech about the NAZI killing machine.
There was quite a lot of high tech in the Holocaust, as evidenced by the notorious role played by IBM: "By the time the Holocaust began in earnest in 1941, the Nazis tattooed concentration camp prisoners with identification numbers so that administrators could track that prisoner’s punch card throughout the system.
IBM’s machines were perfect for this, and for tracking the train traffic coming into the concentration camps. Indeed, the Nazis soon placed tabulating machines made by IBM’s German subsidiary, Dehomag, in every train depot and every concentration camp."
('How IBM Helped The Nazis Carry Out The Holocaust', All That's Interesting, 17 November 2016)
The NAZIS only tattooed the individuals who were able to work in war production or to become human guinea pigs. Otherwise, the “useless eaters” (women, small children, elderly or disabled) were killed straightaway, no tattoo required. These individuals were reduced to a journal entry of the number who were “processed for Special treatment”, no name, no number, just a tick mark on a ledger. There were no tattoos on the victims at Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka (except perhaps among the Sonderkommandos and perhaps a few others).
The prisoner number, first applied on the clothing, and later on the forearm as a tattoo. This started in 1940 at Auschwitz and the other forced labor camps. With the ever increasing numbers of people processed and the reuse of prisoner clothing; the prisoner numbers being applied to the clothing proved impractical. The tattoo was more efficient means of tracking the prisoners and charging for their labor, with fewer “accounting errors” when the prisoner finally succumbed to starvation and overwork. This was a simple accounting method the SS and the Reich used to track the “labor rental” of these prisoners by the various German companies. Accurate accounting was particularly important around Auschwitz, where German Industrial giants built huge factories and took advantage of the cheap and plentiful prisoner labor.
Do you actually believe that without the IBM computers, the NAZIS simply would have called off their genocide? I think not. High tech can and often does make genocide more efficient, but high tech is not essential. Thus my point about the F-35. The Zionists can effectively kill the goyem just as quickly and efficiently with a bomb dropped from a “cheap” and “more reliable” F-16. In fact, they could likely pull any number of WW2 aircraft out of museums and do the same thing. The only thing necessary for this to continue is the desire of the Zionists to kill and the West to continue to ignore or deny the actions of these monsters. Where there is a will, there certainly is a way. The NAZIS proved this in a spectacular manner. High tech is certainly optional.
My point was not that the Nazis needed the tech, but that US capitalism was part of the genocide. As it is today.
Thanks for your reply.👍👍👍
Hopefully, contemporary guys & gals have the gumption to clearly recognize the freaking similarities between what you so well described and the luring real ID, CBDCs, smart-cities, lawfare, etc., etc. ...
The genocide would continue without F-35s, but by banning transfer of parts for planes destined for Israel, the UK would be complying with international law, not to mention human decency.
They are already using starvation as a weapon of war. They think nothing of starving babies and little children to death, never mind their parents and grandparents who have not participated in any violent action. The Israelis are mass murderers. They cannot now whine about the Holocaust as they have learned all they are doing from the Nazis.
Ah yes! But they are "our" mass murderers. I am sick to death to hear them squeal about "the Holocaust", when they are doing exactly the same thing that the NAZIS did. Not on the same scale, but with equal brutality and inhumanity. Small genocide or Large genocide, it makes no difference to the victim.
I wrote something about this in the part regarding the UK intervention in the ICJ case in my latest post.
https://mywisdom.substack.com/p/from-gaza-the-light-on-the-path-to
“If you can survive my typos”
Thank you for sharing Ricky
The world just keeps getting worse by the second.
Hi Ricky. I see things the same as you do, but differently, even using the same information you cite (I'll trust you're right).
Laws are not all the same. They all arise from what's called a "mischief" - something that's wrong and about which something needs to be done. But the thing that's "wrong" can in fact be a hoped-for goal. So, some laws prohibit things, and some permit them (enabling acts, they're called). Some govern the civil domain, others the criminal domain. But what laws govern the body that makes laws, the state itself?
You'd think that, because they're written, laws should be easy for anyone, citizen or government, to read and understand. There was once a law in England that provided for the death penalty for anyone who harmed Westminster Bridge in London. I don't think anyone was ever executed on that ground. In fact, I don't think anyone has ever harmed Westminster Bridge, and I'm not sure whether the existence of that statute is the reason. The obvious answer to the problem of harm caused to a bridge is insurance. What decreeing the death penalty for such harm does is elevate the importance in which the protected object is held, not by the people in whose name the law is enacted, but by the state. The Russian laws against defaming the army are another example.
The UK's terrorism legislation is - I understand - under review following the Southport riots last year. It is believed that the culprit for the initial murders at the dance school was not motivated by any political aim. He simply did a bad thing. The intention of the review is to extend the terrorism legislation to "acts not motivated by ideology." Tell me, what is an act of terrorism if it is not an act motivated by ideology?
Some laws are passed even though the criminal offence is already prohibited (the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1977 itself supplements the laws against setting off explosives and discharging firearms. The laws passed in the 1970s and 1980s against child molestation generally prohibited matters that had been widely prohibited under the common law and legacy legislation for centuries. Ditto AML. So, the enactment of legislation does not per se mean anything: it is a publicity shout-out, to say the government is "acting", but, so far as its own acts are concerned, the best legislation can do is to keep at a neutral level the acts that the state cannot do. Not what it can do: sovereign parliament can do anything. That is the law. It is what it cannot do that is desirable for some citizens, and undesirable for others, and for the state itself.
I'm interested by what the export regulations say, the operative word being "might". Arms "might" be used to commit acts of genocide etc. Well, that's right. They all might. How do you read those regulations in order to know intuitively which of them "might" and which "might not"? Yes, it's vague. It sounds like a principled stance, but it's fluff.
What about the filing of the warrants against Israeli politicians and the ICJ case? Well, as we know, in law, filing a complaint is not winning a court case. Here, we must remind ourselves of the principle of innocence until guilt be proved. So, are we more concerned that Starmer will not breach that principle or that he won't admit it's bloody obvious that Netanyahu is a criminal? We, you and I, have the luxury of bending our principles (whichever of the two we choose). It is not that the government doesn't have that luxury. But what it does have is the ability to ignore principles with - increasingly -impunity. And if you have impunity for your acts, and you are the rule maker, what, tell me, will ever still your ardour for the outrageous?
The answer to that used to be, USED TO, mind you, the prospect of an election, sooner or later. And now elections don't really matter. You don't like Reform? Then you may vote for Reform under some other guise, like Labour or Tory. No, they're not all exactly the same, but we are approaching a state where it's little more than the colour of the rosette that tells us the difference.
We hear much about "establishing the rule of law". That's an interesting phrase. What people mean with it is generally "that the law as existing in my civilised corner of the world should be strictly kept to and applied." But that's not what "the rule of law" means. It means the law shall rule. You can pretty much argue that the rule of law is a salient feature of life in North Korea. It is not a legal system I'd like to live under myself, but they nevertheless have a rule of law. However, the rule of law everywhere is being edged out. Oh, have no fear, the phrase is still in everyday use (with its many everyday interpretations: no state loves a catchphrase more than one that means nothing). But we now have a new catchphrase, one that no government has - to my knowledge - yet stood up to announce as its brave new world: the primacy of politics or "the rule of politics'", if you like); and, if you'd like to read more about this new principle which governs all our lives from east to west and top to bottom, you can: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/the-primacy-of-politics.
Spot on
jews havemarried heavily into the into the elite class of Britain so there is one will and purpose regarding Israel.... jews have great power and this shows that
Why should this come as a surprise? Look what the BBC reported today: "Ex-UK Special Forces break silence on 'war crimes' by colleagues." Here's an excerpt:
<< Giving their accounts publicly for the first time, the veterans described seeing members of the SAS murder unarmed people in their sleep and execute handcuffed detainees, including children. >> Article url: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj3j5gxgz0do
It's good to know that the UK, like the USA, has its priorities in order. We Americans bought the Dubbya Bush lie about "weapons of mass destruction," and estimates range from 655,000 to over 3 million Iraqis lost their lives.
"...the government will argue in court this week that the F-35 fighter jet program takes priority over trying to prevent a genocide. "
Read the tea£eaves...your 'government' is BAE's bottom £ine.
Stalin was never the only one with show tria£$. Nuremberg was theatre with tokenism.
The UK government is BAE.
Don't you recall that general barking that Corbyn would not be PM on his watch?
Thanks for your today's post !!! 👍👍👍 🔥🔥🔥
{...The government knows this and is choosing not to act...} Of course NOT !!!
The "government" never acts against its own long-term interests.
Israel is 100% a British project currently "under construction" to regain power and control in the ME, a strategically very important region, full of natural resources and trade routes, unfortnately inhabited by Goys of wrong skin-complexion ...