Atticus Fox

Outsourcing War

The burdensome administrative task of recruiting members of the British Armed Forces has been outsourced to external companies, led by Serco (who appear to be the favoured partner of the UK Govt in every endeavour these days).

I can’t help but feel that the best organisations to recruit members of the British Armed Forces would be the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

The UK government’s eagerness to embrace Public-Private-Partnerships reminds me of Mussolini’s famous observation:

‘Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.’

There should be a healthy distance between govts and multinational corporations. That is no longer the case, instead we are seeing the merger of state and corporate power.

As we learnt with the Horizon Post Office scandal, govts are inclined to cover up corporate scandals that might cause embarrassment to themselves and their Preferred Partners (Fujitsu in this case)

See also Grenfell scandal (Alcoa, Kingspan), NHS tainted blood scandal (Alpha, Armour, Baxter, Bayer) and others.

Govts are there to keep multinationals honest, not become embroiled in corporate malfeasance.

‘…As members of ‘Team Serco’, Adecco and Akkodis will join a consortium of partners led by Serco, the international provider of critical government services and prime contractor for the contract. Together, they will deliver a comprehensive, end-to-end recruitment service, covering everything from candidate attraction and assessment to enlistment and onboarding onto initial training. The initiative will involve a blended workforce, including military personnel…’

https://www.theglobalrecruiter.com/armed-forces-sees-adecco-and-akkodis-partner-with-serco/

Is there nothing that can’t be outsourced? Perhaps Britain will outsource the messy business of fighting wars? To India, perhaps, as they have lots of people to spare.

After all, foreigners have already taken responsibility for Britain’s security staff. More and more security staff at venues and events are dominated by people with an ethnic background.

https://www.get-licensed.co.uk/get-daily/getting-started-in-uk-security-as-an-immigrant/

My Conversation With Hitler

There is a challenge that sometimes comes up at dinner parties, and such-like, at the point where the conversation is waning. The challenge is: if you could go back in time to any point, when would you go and why?

My answer has remained consistent for years, I would go back to Germany in 1939, where I would try to warn Hitler not to give Britain an excuse to declare war on Germany, thus starting WW2.

Everyone appreciates my attempt to stop WW2 but they think I’m just trying to stop 50 million deaths and the associated destruction of Europe. That is part of it but an equally large motivation is to stop the cultural and political movements that have emerged as a direct consequence of WW2.

To my mind, everything that is wrong with the West can be traced directly back to the aftermath of WW2:

• Nationalism has become a dirty word since WW2.

• Right-wing expression became (wrongly) associated with fascism and so became unacceptable.

• Feminism advanced in leaps and bounds, morphing into the angry, destructive manifestation we witness today.

• The unchecked advance of liberalism that has led to mass immigration; destruction of the family and promotion of any and every perversion and corruption.

• Govt overreach into every aspect of our lives in order to curtail our freedoms in the pursuit of improving our ‘safety’.

• The creation and rise of undemocratic Supranational bodies like the UN and EU that usurp sovereignty from national governments.

WW2 has left a huge footprint over all political and cultural discourse ever since. Not a day goes by without someone being called a fascist or another Hitler. We all know that the established order, as it now exists, is a screen behind which the authoritarian leftists continue their demolition of England. I don’t believe that much of this would have come to pass without WW2.

So, I desperately wish I had the chance to nip it all in the bud. All I would have to do is persuade Hitler not to sign a pact with Stalin. It is my belief that the Nazi-Soviet pact, signed in August 1939, and assuring mutual non-aggression between the two states, was the point at which Britain stopped the policy of appeasing Hitler and decided to oppose him instead.

Since Hitler came to power in 1933, Britain had been quite happy to accede to Hitler’s demands. First there was German re-arming from 1933 onwards which was waved on. That was followed by the reoccupation of the Rhineland-Palatinate in March 1936. Then there was the Anschluss with Austria in March 1938. Then there was the occupation of the Sudetenland in Czeckoslovakia in March 1939. All of these acts were forbidden under the terms of the Versailles Treaty that Germany’s leaders had signed at the end of WW1 yet all of these acts had received Britain’s blessing.

This was allowed to occur for two reasons:

1) the British Establishment shared a consensus viewpoint that the Versailles Treaty had been too harsh on Germany. There were concerns that the Treaty could become a focal point for German anger.

Hence, Anthony Eden’s told Ribbentrop during a meeting in London in 1937 that “People in England recognised that a closer connection between Germany and Austria would have to come about sometime”.

2) Furthermore, Britain wanted a strong Germany as a bulwark to the increasing power of Russia in the East. Hence, on 19 November, 1937 Lord Halifax praising Nazi Germany “as the bulwark of Europe against Bolshevism” during his meeting with Hitler.

Hitler’s motivations were to unite the German peoples: there were 6 million Germans in Austria, 3 million Germans in Czechoslovakia and 350,000 Germans in Danzig which was, since 1919, part of Poland (albeit a ‘Free City’ under an Autonomous Administration).

Hitler assumed the Nazi-Soviet Pact ‘had cleared the way for a diplomatic collapse on the part of the Western Powers’. (‘Origins of the Second World War’, AJP Taylor).

However, the last thing Britain wanted was for Germany and Russia to form an alliance. Yet, on 23 August 1939, that is exactly what happened when Hitler and Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet pact.

This changed everything. Germany’s industrial strength, paired with Russia’s abundance of resources was the worst possible challenge to Britain’s hegemony over Europe.

Thus, when Hitler’s tanks rolled into Poland on 1st September, 1939 – by way of resolving the Danzig issue – Britain could no longer turn the other cheek. Hitler had been led to believe by British diplomats and other sources that Britain accepted Germany’s claims in Poland. However, that was prior to the pact with Russia. Before the pact, Germany’s claims to former areas of Germany, stocked with Germanic peoples, that had been taken away from Germany in the Versailles Treaty were seen as valid. After the pact, Germany was seen as an aggressive, expansionist power that threatened the security of all of Europe. I think it is possible that Britain would not have declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland if there had not been a Nazi-Soviet pact in place. That would be the gist of my case to Hitler.

Britain felt they had no choice but to declare war, which they did on Sep 3, 1939. This came as a shock to Hitler. He did not want war with Britain. His main international objective at that time was to unite the German peoples by undoing the travesties to which Germany had been subjected by the Versailles Treaty. Hitler subsequently made two major, public, formal peace overtures directed at Britain (and, in the first case, also France):
6 October 1939: In a Reichstag speech after the rapid defeat of Poland. Britain (under Neville Chamberlain) rejected it;
19 July 1940: In another Reichstag speech (often called the “Appeal to Reason” or “Appeal for Peace and Sanity”) after the fall of France, Hitler appealed for an end to the war. The British government (now under Winston Churchill) rejected it.

Another factor at play was that on March 30, 1939, Chamberlain had, unilaterally, given Poland an assurance that in the event of any aggression by Germany, Britain and France would come to Poland’s aid.

After March 30, there was no diplomatic contact between Britain and Germany until mid-August, by which point Hitler had already selected Sep 1 as the date he would invade Poland. Hitler did not discuss with Chamberlain what his assurance to Poland meant, nor how it squared with earlier assurances to Hitler about Danzig.

As such, I would talk to Hitler as soon after March 30 as I could. I would provide two warnings:

Maintain diplomatic contact with Britain including extensive talks about German claims on Danzig. Ensure there are no misunderstandings nor conflicting signals.
Do not sign a pact with Stalin. It will panic Britain and force them to declare war on Germany.

While I wish that 10s of millions of White men had not been killed in a war that seemed easily avoidable, and would love to see London; Coventry; Dresden, Hamburg and countless other European cities without the ugliness imposed by post-war building programmes, I want to prevent 80 years of un-challenged liberal expression that has done so much damage to Western culture and freedoms.

A Beginners Guide to Virology

I don’t think the 2020 pandemic was real. I think it was an invention of the Establishment.

I have touched on how the Establishment could have gone about such a thing before.

One of the reasons I don’t think Covid19 exists is that I am not convinced by what I have learnt about virology since 2020. Virology seems to be built on very weak foundations and circular reasoning. I will describe what I have learnt and you can judge for yourselves.

My position is that modern virology is built on the assumption that viruses exist, rather than directly proving their existence. It seems that many laboratory techniques – including cell culture, electron microscopy, PCR, immunological assays, and metagenomic sequencing – are interpreted within a framework that already presupposes the presence of viruses.

A red flag is to be observed in cell culture experiments, where the same observation of cytopathic effects (CPE) – cell die-off in virus cultures – has been observed in virus-free cultures. Thus, there is a growing school of thought – of which, I am a member – that such CPE might be the result of the laboratory procedures themselves – such as reducing nutrients and adding antibiotics – rather than from viruses.

Furthermore, many published studies fail to include appropriate negative control experiments to distinguish between these possibilities.
My understanding of these criticisms come from a number of critics of mainstream virology, such as Mike Yeadon, Jamie Andrews, Mark Bailey, and Christine Massey. These authors argue that:

• Electron microscope images leverage prior assumptions and interpretation rather than providing direct proof of viruses.

• PCR testing depends on reference genomes that were themselves derived from cell-culture experiments, making the process circular.

• Standard “virus isolation” protocols involve mixing patient samples with cultured cells and other substances rather than physically purifying viral particles.

• Freedom of Information requests have failed to uncover records demonstrating purified viruses according to a strict definition of isolation.

The original rules of virology were based on Koch’s Postulates, a set of principles devised by Robert Koch, which required an infectious agent to be found, isolated, shown to cause disease, and found again.

Modern virology now refuses to abide by Koch’s Postulates because, they argue, viruses are too small and biologically different to satisfy the original postulates. Viruses are no longer required to be isolated as independent organisms.

Another red flag is that a virus has never been proven to cause disease in a healthy host. Instead, because of the proposed nature of viruses, it was accepted that viral causation can only be inferred.

In the UK, The Common Cold Unit in Salisbury produced 40 years worth of data that failed to demonstrate natural human contagion. In the early 20th century extensive testing was performed on US army bases to study the transmission of Spanish Flu. Transmission of the most deadly transmitted virus in human history proved to be impossible under lab conditions.

https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/spread-of-spanish-flu-was-never-experimentally-confirmed-9f91b37c4dd8

Finally, it is clear that virological evidence is circular: laboratory tests detect viruses based on assumptions and reference materials that themselves depend on earlier cell-culture methods. All of the above means that there is very little evidence proving that viruses exist. I would say viruses have never been conclusively demonstrated according to the criteria they consider necessary.

Most virologists argue that no single technique is relied upon in virus isolation; rather, evidence from multiple independent methods – including virus purification, electron microscopy, genome sequencing, infectivity studies, serology, and epidemiology – provides mutually reinforcing evidence for the existence and role of viruses. However, all of these methods pre-suppose the existence of viruses. To my mind, virologists have lots of clues that viruses might exist but no evidence so, instead, the virologists’ argument is that all the little clues add up to the evidence. I’m not convinced.

Let me take you through the process that virologists call ‘isolation’:

When virologists say they “isolate” a virus, they mean extracting the part of the sample that they think contains the virus and showing that it can replicate on its own in suitable cells and destroy those cells – create CPE – in the process. The process is methodical but conceptually straightforward. Here’s the typical workflow in plain language:

1. Collect a sample
Scientists start with material from an infected source, such as:
• Blood
• Nasal or throat swab
• Tissue sample
• Saliva or other bodily fluid
This sample contains many things: human cells, bacteria, debris, and possibly virus particles.
2. Remove larger contaminants
The sample is processed to get rid of larger material.
Common steps include:
• Filtering through very small filters (viruses are tiny, so they pass through while cells and bacteria are trapped).
• Centrifuging (spinning at high speed) so heavier debris settles out. Virologists agree how heavy viruses are so they only extract the material from the centrifuge that matches their pre-conceptions for viral mass.
After this step, the liquid should mainly contain very small particles, including any viruses. [AF: There’s an assumption here!]
3. Add the sample to living cells
Viruses cannot reproduce on their own – they must infect living cells. So researchers place the processed sample onto cultured cells in a laboratory dish. These might be:
• Monkey kidney cells
• Human lung cells
• Other cell lines that viruses commonly infect
The cells are kept alive in nutrient liquid inside incubators. The nutrient liquid is typically Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) which is a growth medium.

However, the protocols for Sars Cov2 isolation as stipulated by the European Center For Disease Control demonstrate that upon infection of the culture the nutrient medium to feed the Cell Line may be decreased from standard 10% Fetal Bovine Serum Growth medium to a starvation medium of 2%.

Virus replication is measured by observation of CPE. However, lowering the amounts of FBS – the growth medium – also causes CPE. So, they reduce the growth medium – the food – to ‘starvation’ levels and the cells die-off and virologists point and say “that is proof of a virus”.

Antibiotics – typically Penicillin and Streptomycin – will also be added at this stage. It is added to the culture medium to help prevent bacterial contamination. However, antibiotics also cause CPE.

4. Watch for signs of infection
If a virus is present and able to infect those cells, it will start multiplying.
Scientists look for cytopathic effects, meaning visible damage to the cells, such as:
Cells rounding up
Cells detaching from the dish
Cells dying in clusters
These changes ‘suggest’ a virus is replicating, according to virologists.

5. Purify the virus
Once infection is confirmed, the virus-containing fluid is collected.
Further purification can include:
Repeated cell infection cycles (to amplify the virus)
Ultracentrifugation to concentrate virus particles
Density gradients that separate particles by weight. [AF: Again, assumptions about the weight of a virus come into play here].
At this stage, the ‘virus’ population becomes much cleaner.

‘I found that purification and identification elements of this technique relied on prior selection, and agreement with genomic and immunological models – meaning the images only make sense once those assumptions are already in place.’ – Jamie Andrews

6. Confirm the virus identity
Scientists then confirm what virus they have ‘found’ using several tools:
• Electron microscopy to see virus particles.
• PCR or sequencing to read viral genetic material.
• Antibody tests to see if known antibodies bind to it.
This verifies to virologists that the isolated agent is a specific virus.

‘I learned that the images we see in textbooks are cleaned up high contrast images, and what microscopists actually have to work with is a soup of variegated cell material. Areas of interest can be magnified to find particles that correspond to the size and shape of known viruses, and then this data is triangulated using other (model based) identification techniques.’ – Jamie Andrews

So, the tests suggest that a virus has been found. At this point, good lab practise would set up a control test: would the same steps NOT lead to CPE if started with a cell culture that was guaranteed to be virus free? If CPE is observed in the ‘virus’ sample but not in the ‘non-virus’ sample, then, clearly, something in the virus sample is causing CPE. Such a control experiment is standard when trying to prove cause and effect. I’ll quote Dr Mike Yeadon here as his incredulity comes across very well:

‘…the principal way of demonstrating the pathological properties of viruses rests entirely on a single technique. That is, addition of suspect samples to cells in culture, whereupon the cells begin to die, the so-called “cytopathic effect” or CPE. Cell die-off is presented as evidence of a virus in the culture. This next part is so unbelievable that I rejected it for over two years after I was told about it. CPE occurs not because a clinical sample, thought to contain a virus was added, but because the researchers, following a 70 year old recipe, radically reduce the growth factors necessary to keep the cells alive and add high concentrations of antibiotics (ostensibly to retain bacterial sterility). Antibiotics are known to cause cell die-off. You may be thinking “This cannot be right because, if it was, the control leg of such a study would report CPE even with no putative pathogen”. Here’s the shock. None of the papers reporting, for example, “The isolation of SARS-CoV-2” EVER include these controls. What this means is that, uniquely in “virology”, the scientific editors & peer reviewers have become accustomed to NOT expecting to see control legs and results. Obviously this is fraud. But, does it matter?’

‘Over the last couple of years, Jamie Andrews has gone back to the root of this central method in virology and, using Contract Research Organizations, performed the control studies above. In every case, when he looked at the cells after growth factor dilution and addition of antibiotics, he sees the cells begin to die off, that is, CPE occurs. He’s repeatedly confirmed that it’s the protocol and not the purported “virus” which causes cells to die. What this shows is that the most important technique for “confirming the cytotoxic effect of viruses” is deliberate fraud and has been since the first time it was reported on in the 1950s. On that occasion a Nobel Prize was awarded for this sloppy science.’

This piece from Jamie Andrews describe the control experiments he has run (warning: it’s quite technical) :

https://open.substack.com/pub/controlstudies/p/cell-culture-isolation-control-experiment?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1csxsa

Extract from Conclusion from above link:

‘The unanimous results in the breakdown of the Cell Line in the test cultures occurred at the same speed, to the same severity and included all of the distinguishing morphological features of CPE observed in the cross referenced papers. According to The American Society of Microbiology any CPE observed in <5days of incubation is indicative of viral presence and replication.’

Another article describing the work commissioned by Jamie Andrews to conduct, document and image a true Negative Control of the Cell Culture Isolation Protocol, this time for Sars Cov 2 virus:

https://open.substack.com/pub/controlstudies/p/controls2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1csxsa

Article contains this:

‘Cell Culture Isolation Protocol is the Gold Standard procedure for isolating viruses’. The protocols for Sars Cov 2 Isolation as stipulated by the European Centre for Disease Control: Standard laboratory protocols for Sars Cov 2 characterization demonstrate that on Infection of the culture the nutrient medium to feed the Cell Line may be decreased from standard 10% Fetal Bovine Serum Growth medium to a starvation medium of 2%. As underlined in the method above, color me shocked they followed the protocol of the WHO certified manual the CLSI M4A1 and starved the cells in 2% FBS and lied and called it “Maintenance Medium”. For new readers to the project I will point out this is the exact mechanism that we demonstrated unanimously in our control experiments which cause the Cytopathic Effect observed in a cell line which Virologists fraudulently claim is evidence of the presence of a pathogen.’

Also, this extract from the Conclusion:

‘It is clear from these comprehensive studies that the Gold Standard in viral Isolation is not a valid method and renders the downstream BioChemical assays used to indicate Viral presence as invalid given that no Purified or Isolated distinct Biological particle has been produced to benchmark against as a Gold Standard.’

More evidence disproving viruses from Jamie Andrews:

https://open.substack.com/pub/controlstudies/p/we-have-proved-viruses-dont-exist?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1csxsa

Some more information from virus-sceptics I have unearthed during my research that you might want to pursue:

Jamie Andrews on the renal toxins added to kidney cells: ‘They took what they believed to be “Isolated” virus : A completely unregulated concoction knowingly containing Monkey Kidney cells and Numerous Antibiotics such as Amphoterecin and Gentomicin (Known renal toxins). It could however have anything else in it as Trial “medicine” is given exemption for regulation.’ (My emphasis).

From p8 of ‘A Farewell to Virology’ by Dr Mark Bailey: ‘when virologists want to isolate a virus from a sample they’ll take the sample or some part of it and add it to some cells – usually ones that are relatively easy to grow in the lab – and then look to see if the cells die and/or if there are any virus particles released into the liquid nutrient bath the cells are growing in.
It is unclear if Wiles is implying that the “virus isolate” is established by: (a) the taking of the sample, (b) seeing some cells die in vitro, (c) the release of claimed “virus particles” in the tissue culture, or (d) all or some combination of these elements. However, nothing she
described requires the existence of viruses — it is a game of deception, whether realised or not. It simply involves the assertion that a virus was in the sample, blaming the breakdown of experimentally stressed cells in the test tube on the imagined virus, and then declaring that some of the vesicles (whose biological composition and function were not established) were the viruses.’

From Unbekoming: ‘The CDC names three methods by which Ebola is “isolated.” Method one: a crude human sample is mixed with monkey kidney cells (typically Vero cells, derived from African green monkey kidney) to see if the cells react. Method two: the sample is injected into the brains and abdomens of baby mice to see if it kills them. Method three: the sample is injected into the abdomens of young guinea pigs to see if it kills them. Each procedure adds material rather than separating it. The patient sample is combined with monkey kidney cells, broad-spectrum antibiotics (used to prevent bacterial contamination, often nephrotoxic to the very kidney cells being used), antifungals (often also kidney-toxic), fetal bovine serum, and trypsin. The mixture is then observed for what virologists call cytopathic effects — the breakdown of the cells — and the breakdown is attributed to a virus. The control experiment that would distinguish the supposed virus from the toxic effects of the procedure itself — performing the same steps with no patient sample, to see whether the cells break down anyway — is not standardly performed. When John Enders and Thomas Peebles performed an analogous control experiment in 1954 during their measles work, the control cells broke down indistinguishably from the inoculated cells. They admitted in their own paper that they could not distinguish the supposed virus from whatever cytopathic agent was already present in the culture. It has only been supplemented by PCR, a tool that detects short genetic sequences and is matched against a reference genome that was itself assembled from cell-culture material of the kind just described. The circle closes on itself. The virus is what the test detects. The test detects what the virus is said to contain. The actual particle, purified directly from a sick person’s bodily fluid and shown to cause disease in a healthy host through controlled experiment, has never been demonstrated.‘ (My emphasis).

(Enders, J., and Peebles, T., “Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 1954; see also Daniel Roytas, Can You Catch a Cold? and Tom Cowan, The Contagion Myth.)

The Canadian researcher Christine Massey has submitted Freedom of Information requests to government agencies around the world seeking records of the isolation and purification of various alleged viruses, with isolation defined as physical separation of the particle from other material sufficient to characterise it and demonstrate it causes disease.

In response to her March 2021 request, the CDC informed her that a search of its records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to her request regarding Ebola virus.¹ Seven other FOI requests to various national agencies have returned the same answer. No records exist. The Public Health Agency of Canada acknowledged in its response that the isolation of a virus cannot be completed without the use of another medium — that is, the agency cannot produce evidence of isolation in the conventional scientific sense because what virology calls isolation does not involve separating the virus from anything.²

The diagnostic methodology — Vero monkey kidney cell culture, antibody tests of admitted doubtful specificity, PCR matched to never-isolated reference material — is circular by the regulatory agencies’ own descriptions.

1. CDC FOIA response to Christine Massey, March 2021; archived at fluoridefreepeel.ca.

2. Public Health Agency of Canada FOIA response to Christine Massey, December 2021.

All of the above is why I am a ‘virus sceptic’.

Plus, think of how useful viruses are to the Establishment. C19 virus allowed them to lock us all down for 2 years.

Bird flu has enabled them to license all domestic and farm birds and performed controlled genocides from time to time.

Bovine TB has allowed further culls of animals.

Viruses have allowed for a massively increasing schedule of vaccinations in children.

They threaten us with other viruses on a regular basis – hantavirus; HPV; Ebola; Meningitis etc etc.

Too Many People Ask ‘But Why…?’

As an ‘Awake’ person, I often experience the problem of misplaced focus when I am trying to explain the Government’s plans to a Normie – more accurately these are Globalist’ plans that Governments are merely implementing but one has to take baby steps when explaining how things work to a Normie.

By ‘misplaced focus’ I am referring to the common reaction of ‘But why would they do that?’ when I explain what the government is doing and discuss the evidence that supports my case.

The Normie will ignore the ‘what’ and focus instead on the ‘why’.

Unless the Normie can make sense of ‘why’ the Govt are doing what they’re doing, they can’t appreciate the significance of the ‘what’.

The action must always be paired with the motivation in order to be appreciated.

The problem here is that if I then offer a possible reason ‘why’ the government is doing what they’re doing the Normie is extremely likely to dismiss this as unbelievable. ‘That’s a conspiracy theory’ or ‘that’s a right wing trope’. And, in many ways, this reaction is understandable: to someone who has complete faith in the mainstream propaganda on a particular subject – eg Covid19 or Climate Change or 9/11 – having some oik like me trying to disabuse them of everything they have been told by the BBC is a fool’s errand. It’s too much, too soon. It causes cognitive dissonance. Again, baby steps are required.

So, they dismiss the ‘why’ and because they have dismissed the ‘why’ they feel more comfortable dismissing the ‘what’. They comfort themselves with the thought that whatever they (the govt) are doing probably has a perfectly rational explanation which becomes the Normie’s shield against dangerous misinformation from a conspiracy theorist.

For this reason, I now answer the ‘But why would they do that?’ in a different way. I no longer provide a ‘why’. I am more abstract. I say something like ‘we don’t really know. There are lots of theories out there but a lot of it is just speculation at this stage’.

I just want to plant a seed. Maybe the Normie will research some of those ‘theories’ I referred to. Maybe one of those theories will trigger something in the Normie? The important thing is the Normie must remember the ‘what’. If they remember the ‘what’ they might discuss it with someone else and that someone else might give them a slightly different perspective. Or they might read something that repeats some of the ‘what’, further cementing it in the Normie’s brain. Don’t give the Normie an excuse to wipe the issue from their mind because they didn’t like your answer to “But why?”. It is far better to leave a Normie mulling over ‘why’ the govt might be doing the ‘what’.

Just don’t try to provide the ‘why’ unless you think the person is genuinely open to whatever idea you might present. Having said that, even Awake people can be very defensive when faced with challenges to things they hold dear.

I can provide evidence of a real-life example of a debate I had with an Awake person and even she displayed misplaced focus on the ‘why’ regarding a subject on which she was extremely closed-minded (illegal boat migrants).

I posted a video clip of a lorry picking up migrant dinghies from Dover before getting on the Eurostar (presumably to return the dinghies to France). The lorry was owned by a company that was part-owned by Blackrock. I shall refer to my counterpart in this debate as Spax. Spax was very supportive of all immigration into Britain.

Spax replied to my post as follows:
‘Have you looked at the red top newspapers? It’s certainly all on the news that I’ve seen, there were at least three stories I saw just now, a Jewish comedian, a Tory apologizing for talking about protests against immigrants in hotels and the other I didn’t read as it’s all the same as ever.
Yes these stories are there to scare us, being built up and scaring people. I’m hearing those who have no interest in politics but are now Tutting about these immigrants attacking women and taking up benefits. I honestly can’t say I’ve ever seen so much racism from unexpected sources.’

Spax did not appear to have watched the video. She though my post was merely immigrant-bashing
My response:
‘Did you watch MJ’s post?
We’re not talking about just another illegal immigrant story. We’re talking about the specific story posted by MJ that highlights the government’s role in supporting the illegal immigrants (aided and abetted by Blackrock).
This is a very different perspective on the illegal immigrant story: Govt as protagonist rather than govt as helpless bystander. As such, it’s a perspective that the MSM don’t want to touch.
When MSM are avoiding a story, that’s when things become interesting.
Truth-seekers are always in search of stories that reveal who is behind the curtain. This is one such story.’

Spax then responded ‘why would they do that. It makes no sense’

Classic ‘But why….?’

My further response:
‘With all due respect, ‘Why?’ is a very normie question. I heard it a lot during the lockdowns.
People would see evidence of a truth that contradicted Establishment lies but then refuse to accept that truth unless I could explain ‘why’ the governnent were taking the course of action they were. Normies need an explanation before they can latch on to the truth.
Awake people realise that the explanation is less important than knowing the truth. The explanation will reveal itself in time.
So, my advice to you is the same as my advice to all those normies: the explanation is not the important part. The truth that the govt has been implicated in people smuggling is the important part.
If you really want an explanation, apply some critical thinking and work some out for yourself. I have.

Spax:
‘I have not misunderstood at all. I see your bias and your need to feel you are right.
Oh one thing to ask when considering why, is why they would not just use a jet to bring them in quietly?
My own analysis? 😉😁 I don’t have enough of a belief in the material to warrant further investigation. We waste a lot of energy going into every piece of information and video on you tube etc.
Personally I’ve got a book to write that I know it’s going to be useful to people. I will of course be applying critical thinking but to increase the value of the information I will be including experience of myself and others. Anecdotal evidence can be used where there is little research carried out. But also in this society we do not use or value our own instinct and especially our own spiritual well being to medicine.
So as you can see, I have little interest in someone chasing three inflated dinghies across the channel. Whoever is doing that is wasting a hell of a lot of money and resources. Let them waste it on that and hope they’ve got a limited budget? 😂

Spax loved ‘anecdotal evidence’. She was infamous in our circle for bringing every argument back to something that happened to her in the 1980s.

My response:

‘Oh one thing to ask when considering why, is why they would not just use a jet to bring them in quietly?’

Just off the top of my head:

1) Jets are quiet?
2) I don’t think it would be a good idea to transport air-filled boats in an unpressurised hold of a Jet.
3) Many more links in chain: lorry to airport, unload, load onto plane, more paperwork (probably), unload, load on lorry to deliver to Calais

‘Whoever is doing that is wasting a hell of a lot of money and resources.’

Did you not read the bit about Blackrock? Money is not an issue!

Good luck with your book!’

Spax again:
‘I was obviously speaking figuratively regarding quiet jetting in. I used the word as I’m not disturbing those around.
Black rock have enough money to buy new dinghies offset the exorbitant fees paid by the passengers.
I’m not going into the diversion, you know full well that flying them in is much less visible.
Why they are here I suspect does have a lot more to do with black rock.
Off to get some stuff done.’

My response:
‘you know full well that flying them in is much less visible.’

Perhaps visibility wasn’t their primary concern?

Once again, you are fixated on the ‘Why?’ rather than the truth that Blackrock is transporting dinghies back to France.

#CriticalThinking’

In summary, don’t answer the ‘But why…?’ question. Encourage people to have a think about possible reasons and the issue will stay in their minds for longer.

Dropping Truthbombs on the National Grid

I received this flyer a few days ago:

They know they are lying but do we know they are lying?

The transmission link they are referring to is 180 miles of overhead power cables that will be erected to take energy from the North Sea to the Thames. All this is part of the UK’s commitment to ruining the environment in order to save the environment. I have provided suitable feedback to this plan in the past but the mendacious wording – highlighted – on this flyer prompted me to start bashing on my laptop keyboard once again.

I beseech you all to have your say by emailing National Grid at contact@n-t.nationalgrid.com. I’m sure the awkward punctuation of this email address is accidental and not a deliberate strategy to reduce responses.

Here is what I wrote:

‘I’ve received your flyer soliciting views from the public on the new transmission link from Norwich to Tilbury. Where do I start? Everything on your flyer is a lie.

This connection will NOT deliver more secure energy because renewable energy is not secure. It is intermittent which means the existing gas based energy system will need to be retained for back-up purposes. NESO have admitted this in one of their reports. Intermittent energy is not secure.

This connection will NOT deliver cleaner energy because renewable energy is not clean. You pretend it’s clean by ignoring all of the industrial processes that manufactured the wind turbines and the solar panels. You are also ignoring the CO2 used to transport these components half way around the world. You are also ignoring the strip-mining processes used to extract the rare earth minerals needed for renewable energy components. You are also ignoring the resources and industrial processes used to manufacture the pylons that you plan to install across 180 miles of English countryside when we already have a perfectly usable gas-based energy system. You are also ignoring the fact that solar panels and wind turbines need replacing every 15 to 20 years so this entire burden you are putting on the planet is not even a one-off but something that needs repeating 5 or 6 times per century. You are ignoring all of this, choosing instead to define ‘cleaner’ as applying from the point the entire infrastructure is up and running.

This connection will NOT deliver more affordable energy. Renewable energy is much more expensive than gas-based energy which is why renewable energy suppliers in the UK received £15 billion in govt subsidies in 2025. The strike prices for Renewable energy are much higher than gas-based energy prices with off-shore wind being the most expensive of all. Renewable energy is more expensive to produce than gas-based energy based on just the cost of building the solar farms and wind farms without even taking into account the cost of delivering the energy to where it is needed. This is why NESO estimated in 2025 that hitting their 2030 target for Renewable energy will cost about £40 to £45 billion per year in infrastructure upgrades, like the Norwich to Tilbury transmission link that you are currently promoting through a propaganda campaign loaded with deceit. Plus, because we will have to retain the gas energy infrastructure, gas-based energy will become more expensive because it will only be called upon when there is no Renewable energy yet maintanence costs will remain largely the same meaning higher costs per KWh of energy.
The UK has the highest energy prices, by far, in the industrialised world. Our energy prices have shot up in tandem with increased spending on Renewable energy. I know that you are aware of this correlation, you just pretend not to know so that you can parrot your lies about ‘more affordable energy’.

‘We’re seeking your views on how more than £30 million could be used to benefit your community’. Is that our pay-off? £30 million? To have our countryside spoiled for no good reason and pay higher energy costs to boot.

I would suggest you use that £30 million bung to make cash payments to everyone in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex that we can put towards our ever-increasing energy bills.

Have you ever researched Climate Change? Or do you just believe everything the higher ups tell you?

Regards,
Atticus Fox

Be Thankful for Starmer

Starmer is gone!

We can be very thankful that Starmer was such a bad politician. His blunt, tone deaf policies and public statements since he became Prime Minister in July 2024 have incensed people all across the country.

First he called all those angry about the murder of 3 girls in Southport ‘far right’. Then he hit pensioners by taking away their Winter fuel allowance. Then he imposed inheritance tax on family farms. He tried to pay Malaysia to take the Chagghos Islands. He gave the vote to 16 year olds in a blatant act of gerrymandering. He acted to remove most jury trials.

I have documented many of the worst acts by Starmer’s govt here.

He really hasn’t endeared himself to anyone and the daggers were out for him early. His approval rating tanked and he faced an uphill struggle throughout his premiership. Everyone was watching closely to see what he would do next. Starmer was so obviously anti-British that we learned to distrust everything he did or said.

Look at the contrast between Starmer and Blair. Blair was a master of sly and underhand machinations. Blair was a genius at pretending he was just a reasonable guy trying, in his own way, to make the country a bit more fair. He could hide his true intentions behind a smile.

It wasn’t until long after he had left office that we discovered that Blair had fucked the country. We had been duped by his wide toothy smile into believing that he posed no threat. (At this point, I want it to be recorded that I always thought he was an insincere little shitbag. However, I had no idea of the many insiduous ways by which he had circumvented the constitution such that the Britain of pre-1997 had been holed beneath the surface).

Blair had detonated a Smart Bomb that was so Smart that we didn’t notice the extent of the damage for years after Blair had safely left office and parachuted into his new role of global fixer.

Not for nothing is Blair known in some right wing circles as ‘The Dark Lord’. He worked in the shadows and we – the common people – merely nodded and let him get on with it.

My fear, prior to the 2024 UK general election, was that Starmer would be another Blair, a slick and sophisticated political operator that would dupe the majority of voters. After all, we were told that Blair was advising Starmer so it was easy to think that Starmer was unlikely to put a foot wrong with such a consummate politician providing advice.

How wrong I was!

I knew that Starmer would be hellbent on leveraging the climate change hoax by charging on with Net Zero and The Great Reset and Global Governance and Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals and all of the other anti-human fever dreams of the Globalist Cabal.

However, I had assumed he would be subtle about it. I thought he would be a master at hiding his objectives, and of sleight of hand deception whereby he made us believe he was on our side. Maybe even convincing us that he was carrying out our wishes.

What a relief, then, to realise that the man had all the political subtlety of Frankenstein’s monster. Not for him the feint and switch. No, this man just lurched onwards, in a straight line, screwing every aspect of the country with an obviousness that could not be misconstrued.

Starmer showed us every day that he hated Britain. Chagos; Juries; EU by stealth; censorship; 2 tier justice etc.

Every time a Jew or a Muslim was a victim of a crime, Starmer howled in pain and mobilised funds to protect these communities. Every time a white person was the victim, Starmer said nothing and called those whites angry about the crime to stop fueling hate and division.

This was good. The Starmer regime woke everyone up to the hostility that the governing class feels towards us. Coming hot on the heels of 14 years of treason by the Tories, the immediate stories of Labour not reading the room of British sentiment was the perfect proof to normies that none of the mainstream parties give a damn about us. Labour did not represent us any more than the Tories represented us.

People realised, as never before, that the parties did not seem to be answerable to the people. People started asking questions. People stopped being as politically partisan as they used to be. Lifelong Labour and Tory voters were both sick of their parties and started looking around for alternatives. Currently, the alternatives are the Greens and Reform. That won’t last. New parties will emerge to fill the void.

People scrutinised Starmer’s every action. They didn’t trust him. This comes off the back of people losing patience with the Tories over 14 years of their perfidy. This means both of the main parties have lost the trust and support of the bulk of the people for the first time in my lifetime.

We have had 4 PMs resign in less than 4 years – Johnson, Truss, Sunak and, now Starmer.

We’ve had 7 PMs in 10 years.

The public’s patience with our leaders has worn very thin in recent years. We’re very angry at our politicians. The next PM is not going to have a honeymoon period. Most of us know the next PM will shaft us, we’ll just be watching out for the first evidence. There’s no longer a ‘People’s Champion’ ready to step up and save the day. There are no popular Labour politicians who could step up and turn around Labour’s fortunes at this time. All of the Labour Old Guard who actually cared about improving the lot of the working class have died in recent years. Their replacements are Blairites.

I don’t what that means, or how it will play out. Something has to give. We can’t go on like this, can we? How long xan we continue with this huge disconnect between the people and the governing class?

I like to think it means the revolution is just days away. In reality, the example of Soviet Russia shows us that people can hate their government for decades without doing anything about it. At the very least, it is another death-blow to people’s trust in The Establishment. The disconnect between the Establishment and the people grows deeper and wider. People are thinking critically about why life in Britain is becoming ever more miserable and who are the architects of that misery.

But, today, let’s celebrate that one more Globalist has been forced to quit.

I predict Starmer will go the way of Gordon Brown, straight into obscurity. No global foundation for him, unless I’m much mistaken.

Starmer really was an unlikeable little turd of a man.

His replacement will be just as bad.

Life Without Google

I am attempting to have a life without using Google. Why? I dislike how Google is embedded into modern technology, forcing us to use Google products for seemingly no advantage to us. Example: We now have a Smart TV for which we have to be logged in to Google in order to access streaming services. (My wife logs in). Why? We have another TV where we access Prime, Netflix, Now etc without Google muscling in as an unwanted middleman. Endless ‘Logging In’ on digital devices can only make sense when thought of as a surveillance and monitoring protocol. We’ve all seen the winds of government control blowing in the direction of tracking and surveillance – CCTV; Facial recognition; Digital ID initiatives; ‘Backdoors’ implemented on encrypted messaging Apps; AI scanning emails…

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DX4XsXyScKs/?igsh=MnlxY2hmcnRscTdr

All designed to strip away all Privacy. All designed so that in the event that should our activities become of interest to The Establishment’s Eye Of Sauron, the State can access our digital footprints: recent movements, posts, comments, messages, financial transactions etc to determine if we need to answer for any infringement of State diktats.

As the State’s technology arm, Google is part of that surveillance structure. The more I feel the State views me as a potential criminal, the more I want to cover my tracks, leave no trace, wipe my (finger) prints. I feel that I am being kettled by the State and my natural inclination is to escape while I still can.

Over recent years I have reduced my reliance on Google. I stopped using Google Search and Google Chrome. I deleted the 3 Gmail accounts I used to have. (I created these accounts solely for the purpose of claiming my preferred alter ego names). Four months ago, I deleted Google Maps.

I want to see how little I can use Google. However, already I am finding that sacrifices are required. I used to use Maps a lot. Also, I have had 2 instances recently where I have not been able to participate in the opportunities that life brings due to my refusal to use Google products.

The first situation arose in early April (it is now June 2026). I had offered my assistance with a new political movement in my area. I was offered a role as ‘Organiser’ which involved emailing the other members of the group to arrange events. I then discovered that the central email account plus the list of contacts were all running on Gmail. I would have to use Google products to perform this role. I had to explain that Google is a surveillance and censorship engine working on behalf of the state and withdraw from the position.

In the second situation, I had arranged a software demo with a 3rd party company, and the link sent to access the demo was a ‘Google Meet’ link. I replied that I didn’t have a Google account. (I did click on the link, to see what happened. A pop-up informed me that I would need to login to my Google Account. I was pleased to see that my phone wasn’t already logged in from the last time I installed something from the Google Play Store). As an alternative, the company sent me a Teams link.

I do not have a ‘de-Googled’ phone which means my phone is riddled with Google Apps (Gmail; Google Search; Google Partner Setup; Google Play Services; Google Play Services for AR; Google WIFi Provisioner) and services (too many to list). Many of these Apps cannot be deleted from my phone. At best, I can merely disable some of the Apps. At worst, I have to keep some of the Apps active if I want my phone to work.

I have disabled the only three Apps that I am confident won’t stop my phone from working. (Gmail; Google; Google Play Services for AR).

I have researched the other Apps and discovered the following:

Google Partner Setup: It’s basically the glue that keeps Google services working properly across thousands of different Android devices.

Specifically, it is a configuration bridge between Google and my device manufacturer/carrier. It helps:
• Apply device-specific settings during setup (especially on first boot or after updates)
• Enable or configure Google services that depend on the phone model or network
• Support things like account sync defaults, backups, and service integrations
• Ensure Google Apps behave correctly on different brands of Android phones

ChatGPT told me that I gain almost nothing in performance or privacy by turning it off so I’ve left it on.

Google WIFi Provisioner: In plain English: it’s part of the plumbing that makes things like auto-connecting to hotspots, Wi-Fi calling setups, and carrier Wi-Fi networks work smoothly.

In effect, if I disable this service, I might need to manually connect to Wi-Fi more often. I will try this in the next few days and see how I get on.

Google Play Services:

This seems the most intrinsic of all. ChatGPT warns me that many Apps will crash or refuse to open if I disable this service.
‘You’ll see repeated “Google Play services has stopped” errors.
Notifications will stop working Other apps may fail, behave erratically or lose functionality.’

ChatGPT told me not to disable this ‘unless you deliberately want a “de-Googled” phone and know what you’re doing.’

Well, yes, I do want a de-Googled phone but, no, I don’t know what I’m doing. I might try this under controlled conditions (testing all frequently used Apps in the hour following disablement).

Play Services also has permissions to other Apps: Body sensors; Call log; Camera; Contacts; Files and Media; Microphone; Nearby devices; Phone; Physical activity; SMS

ChatGPT told me that it would be OK to deny access to Physical activity. However, my phone would not let me select ‘Do Not Allow ‘. I was able to disallow ‘Body Sensors’.

Update June 2026: I noticed that Google Play Services was taking up 1.35GB on my phone. I also noticed that ‘Location’ had appeared on list of Permissions. Location did not originally appear- see list above – and I had not changed the setting. It seems my phone had provided access. I’ll have to keep a check on this.

Why is this App using 1.35GB of data? Of this 10MB was ‘Cache’ which I deleted and 359MB was used by ‘Data’. When I go into ‘Manage Storage’, some info text tells me that:

‘This the the total storage data on your device used by Google Play services for searches, passwords saved to your device [I don’t have any] payment nethods in Wallet [I don’t have any stored payment methods] and other data.’

359MB saved for searches and other data? I cleared the data however, 103MB remained – why? So, Google Play is still using 1.1GB of space.

Google Services:

In the services part of my phone I’m looking good, I think.

Under ‘Connected devices and sharing’, everything is non-activated:

Cast Options; Chromebook; Cross device services; Devices (no scanning for devices); Nearby Connections; Quick Share (Link sharing history = ‘no shared links’); Thread Networks

Under ‘Privacy and Security’: all non-active.

Ads (I deleted the personalised ads ID); Location accuracy; Personalise using shared data;

Phone number verification – this was active. I switched it off. I haven’t noticed any changes as a result of this change.

System services – error message. See below. I don’t know what this means? That I need to be logged in?

Usage and diagnostics – inactive

Under ‘Autofill and Passwords’:

Autofill with Google – inactive However, later I went back into this via the ‘Recommended Services’ list and found that Autofill for ‘Samsung Pass’ was active. I de-activated it.

Passkeys and devices – no connected devices

Phone number sharing – inactive

Verification codes by SMS – inactive.

Under ‘Settings for Google Apps’:

Connected Apps – error msg ‘Finish signing in to continue’

Google Fit – same error as above.

Google Play Instant – inactive

Google Wallet – a new app opened on my phone. See below. However, upon clicking on it, it returned me to homepage.

Under ‘Backup and Restore’:

Backup: Front page indicated this function was ‘off’. However, upon clicking into the page, the next page showed backup of both Photos and Contacts were set to ‘on’. I de-activated them. See end of this post for more details on the Google Cloud.

Google Contacts Sync: Sync status appeared as ‘Trouble syncing. Try again later.’ Upon clicking into the status, I was taken to a second page where I could see that Contacts were set to Sync (covering 35 Contacts). Upon de-acticating this, warning message informed me that the 35 contacts would be deleted. There was no way to find which 35 Contacts were referred to. I assume most, if not all, of these 35 Contacts are also held on my phone. I left it active, for now. ‘Sync device and SIM status’ was inactive.

Restore Contacts – ‘Nothing to restore’

Set up nearby device – no settings

Under ‘Children and Family’:

Family Group – ‘Finish signing in to continue’

Parental control – not set up.

Under ‘Personal and device safety’:

Find Hub – this was active. I de-activated it.

Sensitive Content Warnings – inactive

Theft protection – all settings inactive.

Unknown tracker alerts – was active. I de-activated it.

Under ‘Driving’:

Silence notifications while Driving – inactive. I left ‘Use Bluetooth’ active so my phone connects to my car.

Under ‘Device Policy’:

Set up your work profile – no set up in place.

Google Cloud:

I have never knowingly saved any photos to any Cloud service operated by Google. (Although, I did find Photos set to backup in the backup section as part of this research. See above).

Yet, for the last 6 months I have been receiving regular emails from Google – ‘google-noreply@google.com’ – with the subject line appearing as follows:

‘Your Google Photos storage is 99% full’.

The email also tells me that I’ve almost used the 15GB of Google Account storage and I will no longer be able to back up photos.

There is no way to unsubscribe from this ‘mandatory email’. I assume that at some point, when I was signed into Google, there was a default setting that was automatically uploading my photos. Google wants me to do 2 things here:

1) Sign in to Google in order to check what photos have been uploaded

2) Pay to increase my Cloud storage area.

I’m not going to do either of these things. This seems like a phishing expedition. Once I’m logged in, I may not be able to logout and then Google will gain additional insight into my activity. I’m just going to have to continue receiving alert emails from Google every 7 to 9 days for the rest of my life.

In short, I’ve done what I can to de-Google myself but there are still Google Apps on my phone that I have no choice but to use. I assume these Apps provide the necessary Backdoor for all of my activities to be known.

I will have to log into my Google Account if I want to download anything from the App Store. However, I rarely load new apps these days and, if I do, I go direct to the company’s website and see if I can download the App from there.

One last point, my phone’s Homescreen shows my the current temperature in my hometown, with the name of my hometown underneath – despite my location tracking being inactive. When I click on this, the following text appears:

I don’t fully understand this. I read it as my WiFi connections are revealing my location. So, the key is to turn-off WiFi connectivity when you are out and about.

I am surprised that Googke products are so embedded in my phone. Why don’t Android phone makers use their own proprietary software to manage their phones? I wonder if Google is embedded within Apple phones.

Some Observations On Ebola

Diagrammatic produced by Jamie Andrews of The Virology Controls Study Project

On 16 May 2026, the World Health Organization declared the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo a ‘public health emergency of international concern.’ Eighty-two confirmed cases. Two hundred thirty-six suspected cases. At least one hundred eighty-six deaths. The epicentre: Ituri Province, with cases reported in and around the gold-mining towns of Mongbwalu and Rwampara.

The first Ebola outbreaks occurred in 1976 in the DRC (then Zaire). Other African countries in which Ebola has been detected are:
Guinea; Liberia; Sierra Leone; Uganda; Gabon; South Sudan; Ivory Coast; Nigeria; Mali; Senegal; Republic of the Congo.

It can be seen that Ebola is most prevalent in Central and West Africa. These areas are rife with unregulated mining activities where human life is cheap and unthinkable amounts of toxic sludge run-off into rivers and underground water. All of these countries contain mining activities in search of rare earth minerals such as gold, cobalt, lithium, manganese, bauxite, nickel, diamonds, copper, iron ore.

Yes, there is a high correlation between Ebola outbreaks and mining zones. A very high correlation.

The WHO’s own document on artisanal gold mining acknowledges that miners are exposed to mercury used to amalgamate the gold, cyanide used to extract gold from tailings, and other chemicals contained in dust and processing fumes.

A full breakdown of the toxins involved:

Arsenic exposure is often a side-product of these mining activities as this toxin is often found in gold and copper ores.

Acute Arsenic Poisoning causes severe gastrointestinal distress, including vomiting, abdominal pain, and bloody diarrhea, leading to dehydration, shock, and potentially death.
Chronic Exposure leads to skin lesions (hyperkeratosis, pigmentation changes), peripheral neuropathy (numbness/tingling), and increased risks of skin, lung, bladder, and liver cancers.

Cadmium, which damages kidneys and lungs, is often found in zinc and copper deposits.

Silica dust is produced when drilling, blasting or crushing rock and causes silicosis, a lung disease.

Mercury is commonly used in artisanal and small-scale gold mining. Mercury damages the nervous system and kidneys.

Lead exposure occurs through dust inhalation and contaminated water. Causes neurological, kidney, and cardiovascular damage.

Radon is a radioactive gas released from underground rock which can accumulate in poorly ventilated mines and causes lung cancer.

Cyanide is used in industrial gold extraction. Not only are workers at risk from exposure but toxic run-off into waterways and ground water affect nearby populations.

Then there’s the exposure to particulate matter from coal-mines and the diesel engines used in mines which also lead to respiratory diseases.

My Candidate Interview With The Brexit Party

In the summer of 2019, I applied to be a Parliamentary candidate for the Brexit Party for my constituency.

Selection would mean I would be representing the Brexit Party to become a Member of Parliament when the next General Election was called (which was expected to be soon).

I was invited to attend an interview in London. In advance of the interview I was asked to prepare a 2 minute speech on ‘Why the Brexit Party is needed’. I was to give this speech at my interview.

Here is the transcript of my speech:

‘I’m here to talk about consensus, specifically political consensus. Political consensus is bad. Political consensus stifles debate. It prevents continuous assessment of our position. Political consensus denies the electorate a voice. Political consensus on the EU is what we have had in the UK for many years and that is why the UK so desperately needs the Brexit Party.

The referendum result shocked politicians because no one knew the strength of the electorate’s feelings on the EU. General elections had come and gone without the EU being discussed. EU treaties taking us ever further into Federalism had been signed with scarcely a thought that the electorate might have a different view on the matter. Politicians assumed that the electorate shared the same view as them (or could be cajoled into the same view by unleashing ‘Project Fear’).

What became apparent during the referendum is that politicians cannot adopt a cross-party consensus and fail to consult the electorate on a major element of policy for 40 years and then expect no divergence to have occurred.

Divergence between politicians and electorates combined with political consensus means that the electorate is no longer represented.

And that is why we need the Brexit Party: to break the political consensus so that voters can be represented.
And, by doing so, we can keep politicians true to the result of the referendum that took place 3 years ago.

The majority of politicians are trying to subvert that result because they can’t break out of the political consensus they’ve grown so comfortable with.
We need The Brexit Party to hold them to account. And to give 17.4m voters hope – and confidence – that democracy is alive and well in the UK. If we want Brexit, we need the Brexit Party.’

A couple of weeks later I received a phone call informing me that I had been chosen to represent the Brexit Party as a Parliamentary candidate. A week after that I replied that I was unable to accept the position. My reasoning was that the atmosphere in the UK was so febrile on the subject of Brexit that I didn’t want to put myself in the position of being doxed or harassed by hoards of unstable Remainers. It was all moot anyway as, by the time of the election, Johnson was PM and Farage agreed a deal whereby the Brexit Party would not stand any candidates in Tory-held constituencies (which included my own constituency).

The Asset Stripping of Britain

As Starmer continues to ‘reset’ Britain’s relationship with the EU – aka rejoin the EU via the back door – let’s remind ourselves of the economic and industrial harm the EU did to Britain prior to Brexit. The EU asset stripped the UK for years prior to Brexit. Here are some examples.

● Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.

● Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.

● Jaguar Land Rover built a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds.

● Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.

● Major components of British Army’s new Ajax fighting vehicles built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.

● Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.

● Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.

● M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan. Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents, all with EU grants.

● Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.

● Texas Instruments, Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.

● Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone to Poland with EU grant.

● Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.

● Hoover Merthyr Tydfil factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company, Candy, with EU backing.

● ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs.

● Boots sold to Italian Stefano Pessina who based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.

● JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU ‘regeneration’ grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax- payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.

● UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.

● Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.

● Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.

● The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap
Chinese steel that has
catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

● Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it’s Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways
manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.

● 39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign Companies many of them in the EU.

● Minis are now built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria.

● Raleigh bikes are now owned by a Dutch firm and made in the far east.