WHY DID SOUTH CAROLINA SECEDE?

The following is the text verbatim of the cause for their secession by South Carolina:

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.
In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.


Adopted December 24, 1860

You see, it was all about slavery and fugitive slaves. South Carolina wanted to keep slavery and the return of their 'property', fugitive slaves. The north wanted to destroy slavery.

Note the day on which this was adopted: Christmas Eve!!!

How very 'christian' of those nice, decent warmhearted folk in South Carolina, the first state to secede!! Peace and goodwill to all men, and all that.

Forget that! They wanted slavery, with all its inhumanity and brutality. But rather than see this inhumanity and brutality, and change to eradicate it, as you would have thought good christian folk would do, they seceded and went to war in order to protect their freedom to keep slaves.

And now there is an attempt to whitewash this with claims of tariffs and Lincoln was a hypocrite.

The truth is that the British and their Scottish Rite Freemasonry drove a wedge into America using the issue of slavery. As a consequence a generation of American youth was not quite destroyed but damaged.

BRITISH BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN SYRIA

Is this the end game in Syria?

British Special Forces are there already, as they were in Libya (and look how great that turned out!)

British boots on the ground in Syria, to 'defeat' Islamic State (that we created), but once on the ground they will never leave, at least not easily or quickly, until they have assisted the 'moderate' rebels, i.e. al Qaeda and Jabhat al Nusra, in defeating President Bashar al Assad?

There is a mission creep in Syria. We know why. The NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers want Assad ousted so they can build a pipeline from the Pars gas field from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, with a branch to Israel, and onwards to Europe to threaten Russia's business with Europe. Assad wants a pipeline from the Pars gas field from Iran through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, avoiding Israel, and onwards to Europe but without threatening Russia's business with Europe.

This is what all the fuss is about in Syria.

But that fuss is actually NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers unleashing the nastiest international cutthroat Jihadis onto Syrian children, but that failed, so they ran a false flag using chemical weapons to provoke a war on Syria, but that failed too, so they facilitated the rise of Islamic State, and...BINGO!! They can now openly interfere in Syria.

But the NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers don't do anything altruistic, out of the goodness of their hearts.

They worship money and power, and money and power alone.

They speak to snakes.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INVESTIGATION AND A TRIBUNAL?

An investigation produces evidence. A tribunal judges that evidence.

But if only a handful of countries, who have a vested interest in guaranteeing a particular outcome, control that investigation, and there is a secret agreement between those nations that withholds evidence to bring about that desired outcome, then what use is a tribunal based on that investigation?

The tribunal would see just one version of events.

Is that justice?

So I am in favour of a fully independent international investigation into MH17. What we have had to date is The Netherlands (founders of NATO who want Ukraine in NATO) running an investigation with Ukraine (who want to be in NATO) into the crash of a civilian passenger jet in an area of Ukraine, when the airspace over Ukraine should really have been closed to all civilian air traffic.

The fix is in.

HOW INACCURATE IS PASTOR CHUCK BALDWIN?

In The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered, Pastor Chuck Baldwin writes:

Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out.

Really?

As I understand it, Robert E Lee did not possess that many slaves as such (who he did not free before the war, contrary to Baldwin's claim), but as executor of a will he was given control over many slaves after the death of his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, in 1857. Custis' will stipulated that the slaves should be set free within five years of his death. Lee did not free these slaves before the war started (again, contrary to Baldwin's claim) and in many cases not until the last minute in 1862. So how did Lee treat those slaves? Pretty badly. Many ran away, and those that were returned were beaten, including women. He went to court 3 times during the civil war to gain permission to sell the slaves but lost each time. So he hired the slaves out instead. But he was apparently legally able to sell the children of those slaves, and did so.

This is the true Confederate General Robert E Lee, the man who decided to protect slavery when he refused command over the Union Army in favour of his beloved slaveholding Virginia.

I'm telling you people. There is an operation to ressurect the Confederacy.

And I think it might be part of an attempt to start a race war.

THOUGHT FOR T'DAY ON KAREN DANCZUK'S TITS

Where are they?

I haven't seen a new photo of them for nearly a week!

Have they retired?

Are their public appearances now under control to reduce embarrassment for everyone: herself; her children; her ex-husband; the campaign to expose the powerful paedos who rape and murder children?

Or are their public appearances merely being minimised for contractual reasons?

TTS INAPPROPRIATE SONG OF THE DAY

The O'Jays "Now That We Found Love"

THOUGHT FOR BEDTIME

How many former slaves have recommended slavery?

And how many pro-Confederate chumps have ever been a slave?

William Tecumseh Sherman is credited with saying: War is all hell.

Well, so is slavery. That's why slaves were brutally beaten and tortured.

And why the Confederate states were so concerned about fugitive slaves proving to other slaves that they could be free that the Confederacy went to war over the issue!!

YO! PRIME MINISTER DAVE! YOU FORGET TO MENTION THE COVENANT OF SECURITY, THE REDIRECTION AND GENERAL WESLEY CLARK!

Could we have expected little else than a pile of bullshit?

Roots of the problem

It begins – it must begin – by understanding the threat we face and why we face it. What we are fighting, in Islamist extremism, is an ideology. It is an extreme doctrine.

And like any extreme doctrine, it is subversive. At its furthest end it seeks to destroy nation-states to invent its own barbaric realm. And it often backs violence to achieve this aim – mostly violence against fellow Muslims – who don’t subscribe to its sick worldview.

But you don’t have to support violence to subscribe to certain intolerant ideas which create a climate in which extremists can flourish.

ideas which are hostile to basic liberal values such as democracy, freedom and sexual equality.

Ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation.

Ideas – like those of the despicable far right – which privilege one identity to the detriment of the rights and freedoms of others.

And ideas also based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam. In this warped worldview, such conclusions are reached – that 9/11 was actually inspired by Mossad to provoke the invasion of Afghanistan; that British security services knew about 7/7, but didn’t do anything about it because they wanted to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash.

And like so many ideologies that have existed before – whether fascist or communist – many people, especially young people, are being drawn to it. We need to understand why it is proving so attractive.

Some argue it’s because of historic injustices and recent wars, or because of poverty and hardship. This argument, what I call the grievance justification, must be challenged.

So when people say “it’s because of the involvement in the Iraq War that people are attacking the West”, we should remind them: 9/11 – the biggest loss of life of British citizens in a terrorist attack – happened before the Iraq War.

When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let’s remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacres – it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.

Now others might say: it’s because terrorists are driven to their actions by poverty. But that ignores the fact that many of these terrorists have had the full advantages of prosperous families or a Western university education.

[source : Extremism: PM speech, Number 10, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/extremism-pm-speech, 20th July 2015]

The clown! He forgot to mention The Covenant of Security!

Without this covenant many Islamist extremist organisations would not have been able to survive and thus propagate their extremism.

The clown! He forgot to mention General Wesley Clark!

9/11 was used to trigger a series of seven wars in North Africa and the Middle East that were supposed to take just 5 years. But by 2007 that plan was seriously behind schedule. So the Redirection was implemented.

The clown! He forgot to mention The Redirection!

The redirection was an agreement reached between the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia that the latter would unleash international cutthroat Jihadis onto Syria, Lebanon and Iran. This is why the 'rebels' in Syria are Saudi, French, British, American. We have been allowing, and even encouraging Muslims via preachers like Michael Adebalajo, potential jihadis to go to Syria to join Islamic State.

THOUGHT FOR T'DAY ON THE RESSURECTION OF THE CONFEDERACY

I watched this morning:

Proof Abe Lincoln Was A Racist


So who is Pastor Chuck Baldwin?

BALDWIN IS A SUPPORTER OF THE CONFEDERACY!!

And yet there he is on Infowars stating that the Confederate battle flag should be raised!?

Does anyone else find this a bit...weird?

Here is what Baldwin wrote just a few days before this appearance on Infowars: The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered


Baldwin pushes the states rights argument.

But the reasons for engineering, and the engineers, of the American Civil War can be found in Treason in America by Anton Chaitkin. It was Anglophile Boston families in league with British agent Giuseppe Mazzini who over a period of 2 decades drove a wedge between the north and the south over slavery. The purpose was to break the USA, i.e. the Union. Lincoln saw this and was prepared to preserve the union by any means. Now, Baldwin states that Lincoln offered an amendment to the south guaranteeing the preservation of slavery if the South did not secede. I assume that Baldwin is talking about the Corwin Amendment. The text of the amendment quoted by Baldwin is:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

This text can be found verbatim with 2 references on Wikipedia, one of which is the House of Representatives archives.

The order of secession from the Union was:
South Carolina: December 20, 1860

Mississippi: January 9, 1861

Florida: January 10, 1861

Alabama: January 11, 1861

Georgia: January 19, 1861

Louisiana: January 26, 1861

Texas: February 1, 1861

Virginia: April 17, 1861

Arkansas: May 6, 1861

North Carolina: May 20, 1861

Tennessee: June 8, 1861

Kentucky: Ordinance passed by people in 1861

Missouri: Ordinance passed, but not presented to people

The Corwin Amendment was passed on the 4th March 1861 and was sent out to the states for ratification. By that date seven states had already seceded. And those seven states who had already seceded did not vote to ratify the amendment!

Yet when you read the causes that those seven states gave for their secession, and the Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union you will find that they primarily and explicitly refer to slavery, the fourth article Section 2 Paragraph 3) of the Constitution of the United States, and fugitive slaves.

There is rarely any mention of tariffs, which is the reason DiLorenzo gives as the prime reason why the Confederate state seceded.

Here is what Baldwin asks:

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

OK. But before the Corwin Amendment had been passed seven of the Confederate states had already seceded...and they all gave slavery, not tariffs, as the reason they seceded!!

The truth is that the south was controlled by a British/Freemasonic conspiracy to try to split the Union and it was going to go to war no matter what. It was they who fell for the use of slavery as the cause, it was they who did not ratify the Corwin Amendment, and it was they who first fired on Fort Sumter, thus starting the war, a war they stood no chance in winning: they were outnumbered 5 to 1; they had a rural economy and relied on imports of military hardware much more than the north did; they were therefore at the mercy of a blockade; and Russia helped enforce that blockade, an act that would lead to decades of violent British intrigue against the Russian monarchy after the war, culminating in the Bolshevik revolution when the British Hofjuden infiltrated Trotsky and Lenin into Russia to kill the Romanovs.

But I am a little concerned that Infowars:
1. was (maybe still is) so pro-Andrew Jackson, when he was actually a treasonous, large scale slaveholding scumbag;
2. has taken up the cause of the Confederate battle flag by bringing on an inaccurate biased pro-Confederate to provide reasons why the Confederate battle flag should be raised, not lowered.

THOUGHT FOR T'DAY ON RESPONSIBILITY

If you are a member of a Nazi junta and you have provoked a civil war in your country, and you are using planes to bomb the anti-Nazi revolutionaries, and you know or strongly suspect that the anti-Nazi revolutionaries have anti-aircraft missiles that can easily strike a civilian passenger jet flying at 33000 feet, do you:
1. leave the airspace open to civilian traffic and hope nothing accidental happens while raking in the much needed transit fees?
2. close the airspace for everyone except your own military to continue bombing civilians, but this at least removes the possibility of a civilian passenger jet being shot down?

But this works both ways.

If you are a nation with a border with that nation in which the aforementioned Nazi junta is bombing civilians, do you:
1. provide the anti-Nazi revolutionaries with anti-aircraft missiles that can easily hit a civilian passenger plane flying at 33000 feet, and not tell the Nazi junta?
2. provide the anti-Nazi revolutionaries with anti-aircraft missiles that cannot hit a civilian passenger plane flying at 33000 feet but can easily strike a military aircraft flying at lower altitudes?
3. not provide the anti-Nazi revolutionaries with any anti-aircraft missiles at all and allow the Nazi junta to blow civilians to pieces without any resistance?

But let's go back to this question again: why is there a war in the first place?

The war occured because a violent neo-Nazi coup was engineered by NATO, who then handpicked the new leader of the junta, who then packed the junta with violent neo-Nazis, which then provoked an anti-Nazi counter-revolution against the Nazi junta, which the Nazi junta decided to put down with extreme prejudice, using Nazi thugs, troops, artillery and aircraft.

So why was there a violent neo-Nazi coup engineered by NATO?

Because Putin:
1. (with help from Ed Miliband) had stopped a war on Syria (which the NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers so desperately wanted after Prince Bandar's false flag of 21st August 2013);
2. had agreed a deal with Ukraine which would have firmly placed Ukraine within Russia's sphere of influence;
3. is the figurehead of a movement called BRICS which is forming to offer an alternative the bloodsucking IMF/Federal Reserve system run by the Anglo-American Establishment which has kept nations underdeveloped for decades while extracting and placing the wealth of those underdeveloped nations into secret Swiss bank accounts.

In other words, Putin was getting too big for his boots, so in the eyes of the NATO/Zionist/Gulf/Anglo-American Establishment had to be brought down.

And a coup in Ukraine would do very nicely, thank you very much!

NATO ignored its own claims that it was formed to eradicate extreme nationalism, and in Ukraine in 2014 supported extreme nationalists, such as Svoboda and Right Sector (who have strong Nazi sympathies), and pissed on the graves of all those soldiers (Russian, British, American, French and other nationalities) who died fighting the Nazis in WW2, as the neo-Nazis shot Kiev police and protestors to provoke a violent revolution and overthrow a legitimately elected government.

The propaganda from both sides regarding MH17 is relentless. Both sides have valid points and evidence, but both sides also have questions to answer.

For example, of Ukraine, what was the Ukraine Air Force doing on 17th July 2014, and what evidence of separatists possessing BUKs did Ukraine have before 17th July 2014?

And of Russia, if separatists were given BUKs, then who took the decision to supply the BUKs, and when were they given?

So the thought for t'day is: if you knew or strongly suspected that someone you are fighting possesses missiles that can easily strike civilian passenger planes flying at 33000 feet, do you shut down the airspace, or hope that nothing accidental happens while raking in the fees?

I EXPRESSED MY SCEPTICISM ABOUT TSIPRAS OVER THREE YEARS AGO

On 19th May 2012 I posted WHY ARE MEDIA BARELY MENTIONING THE COMMUNIST BACKGROUND OF ALEXIS TSIPRAS? in which I analysed media coverage of Tsipras at the time, stating in that post:

Even the New York Times whitewashes the red history of Tsipras, and gives the impression to me that Tsipras is being prepared for power. Who else in Greece is being given so much media time and space?

Even then Tsipras was placing the European Union over the people of Greece. A few days before that post Tsipras had told CNN:

“We will do whatever we could do in this direction, to keep Greece inside the euro zone and inside Europe.”

15TH SEPTEMBER 1912

15th September 1912 was the day on which the prophecy that Arch Duke Ferdinand would be assassinated by Freemasonry was made in Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secretes.

1912.

Not 1914.

Not 1915.

1912.

Almost two years before his assassination.

Then on 28th June 1914 Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated by a gang who claimed to be Freemasons (though not all), and the assassins claimed that they had received weapons and encouragement from Freemasons abroad.

And we all know who runs Freemasonry, don't we?

And we all know who benefited the most from World War One, don't we?

Ciganovic appears to be the man who was the main Freemason of the group. In Dedijer's book The Road to Sarajevo there is a whole chapter dedicated to the theory that Freemasonry was behind the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. In that chapter there is a paragraph in which two members of the assassination squad claim that the statements from the assassins at their trial regarding Freemasonry were made up the night before they gave their testimony by communicating to each other in their cells through a series of knocks on the wall. Apparently they had a system in which each letter of the alphabet had a pattern of knocks, similar but different to Morse code.

At the trial Cabrinovic stated that it was Ciganovic who told them that Freemasonry had condemned Ferdinand to death over a year before.

And Count Czernin stated that Ferdinand told him that Ferdinand knew that Freemasonry had condemned him to death.

Now, it is possible that both Ciganovic and Ferdinand knew of the revelations made on 15th September 1912, but so far there is no evidence to support this.

However, can we believe this claim from two minor members of the assassination squad claim that the prison guards allowed the prisoners, assassins of Ferdinand, to communicate with each other by banging on the walls or tapping on pipes all night?

But why would these two minor members make such claims? Were they under threat?

What we have for certain is a prophecy made almost two years before the event that Arch Duke Ferdinand had been condemned to death by Freemasonry.

And we also know for certain that Jovanovic-Cupa, who created Ujedinjenje ili smrt! (Black Hand), was a Freemason, but he died on 25th June 1913.

We have to ask why Freemasonry hated Ferdinand so much to condemn him to death.

But are we to believe that Ciganovic had read or heard about this Freemasonic condemnation of Ferdinand, then decided the night before the assassins gave their testimony to tell his fellow assassins about this by tapping on walls and pipes, telling them to blame Freemasonry, and the prison guards did nothing to stop the prisoners communicating in this way?

How much communication using their system of communication would be required so they could all get their stories straight and consistent, without arousing the suspicions of the guards?

STEW IN YOUR OWN FILTH

You can all stew in your own filth for a few weeks while I catch up on some reading and research.

I think something is planned for August, to increase international tension, maybe destabilision for war, but until then...

ps And by filth I mean, just look at the state of the world:
1. neo-Nazis who, contrary to their three main principles, were initially supported by NATO are now openly threatening to execute the President of Ukraine because he is not Nazi enough;
2. British foreign policy has led to the rise of Islamic State in the very nations we invaded, allegedly to implement democracy: Iraq, Syria and Libya;
3. Islamic State is being cited as the reason why we should cede all our privacy rights;
4. the recent Tory budget has placed enormous burdens on the poor and disabled, while the rich, eg Liz, get millions more every year. But to top it all off, it was the British monarchy who engineered WW1 and WW2!!

You all created this shit.

ENJOY!!!!

ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE BIASED JOURNALISM

I can't believe I've just seen read these two consecutive tweets:

Separatist communications discussing the Buk intercepted by the SBU https://t.co/221X1ALFMV pic.twitter.com/cgWPI8sWZX

— MH17 Live (@MH17Live) July 17, 2015

Never let it be forgotten that the Russian government's official reaction to #MH17 was to lie and fake evidence https://t.co/D7xT5I1rEn

— Eliot Higgins (@EliotHiggins) July 17, 2015

Ukraine has stated that:
1. it was not flying any fighter jets on 17th July 2014, yet the first/top tweet, allegedly a transcript from an alleged intercepted phone call on 17th July 2014, suggests that the separatists had shot down 2 Su's on 17th July 2014;
2. suspiciously quickly after MH17 was reported as down, Ukraine published a video on Youtube which they said proved 100% beyond doubt that Cossacks at Chernukino had shot down MH17.

And on 17th July 2014 Ukraine held a press conference, which occured virtually as MH17 was crashing, at which Ukraine stated that they had videos of the separatists with BUKs. So if they knew that the separatists had BUKs then why did Ukraine not close the airspace over East Ukraine?

So let it never be forgotten that Ukraine's official reaction to MH17 was to lie and fake evidence.

IS THE BRITISH MONARCHY PUSHING FOR A GREXIT?

Here are two pieces of evidence that the British monarchy (engineers of WW1 and WW2) are pushing for a Grexit.

Item 1:

LPAC are reporting that after Queen Liz II made a rare visit to Germany in June, Germany increased the severity of its demands of Greece.

The Greek debt negotiations had been proceeding in June. Germany's demands against Greece were much more moderate at that time, according to an AP wire of today carried in the New York Times. But then, those negotiations were adjourned on June 26, to await the results of the Greek referendum which was held on July 5. (In that referendum, Greeks overwhelmingly rejected the austerity demands of Germany and the Eurozone countries.)

Now during just the same period the negotiations were interrupted, Britain's Queen Elizabeth made a rare state visit to Germany over June 23-25, and met there with Chancellor Angela Merkel, among others. It is not known at this time whether she also met with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble. But on June 25, the last day of the Queen's visit, Chancellor Merkel complained that Greek negotiations had "lost ground," and Schaeuble warned that the sides were moving apart.

Then, last Saturday, July 11, on the eve of the summit which resumed the broken-off negotiations, Schaeuble and the German delegation showed up with new demands, the "toughest ever," which even their allies said "came out of the blue," AP reports. One summit participant
"said that the extra demands were immediately perceived as provocative."
Schaeuble had received and carried out the Queen's orders. He even demanded that Greece be thrown out of the eurozone. Although Greece was not thrown out at that time, the violations of sovereignty and genocidal conditions were so brutal that they amounted to Greece's murder.

[source : British Queen Ordered Schaeuble's Greek Crackdown; Here are Her Next Orders for Obama, LPAC, https://larouchepac.com/20150716/british-queen-ordered-schaeubles-greek-crackdown-here-are-her-next-orders-obama, 16th July 2015]

Item 2:

The FT is reporting that Schaeuble has put the Grexit back on the table, even though the Greek Parliament (not the people) agreed to accept the harsh bailout conditions despite the IMF chief Lagarde stating that the terms of the bailout will do nothing to decrease the debt, implying that the conditions would be pointless, raising the question as to why Greece should vote for such flagellation if it wasn't going to reduce the debt.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail.

Days after Greece appeared to escape crashing out of the euro, hawkish German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble has put Grexit back on the political agenda, raising tensions in Berlin and across the EU.

Speaking before a key Bundestag vote on Friday, Mr Schäuble said voluntary departure from the eurozone “could perhaps be a better way” for Greece than a proposed €86bn bailout package, which was painfully assembled at a marathon eurozone summit in Brussels over the weekend.

Despite his misgivings, the 72-year-old German minister said he would still personally put the package to parliament. His hollow-sounding pledge was eerily familiar to one from Athens this week, where Greek premier Alexis Tsipras presented the same plan to Greece’s parliament while admitting he did not believe in it.

Mr Schäuble’s manoeuvre makes clear he is leaving open a Grexit option, even as he is formally backing the latest rescue plan to keep Greece in the eurozone.

[source : Germany’s Wolfgang Schäuble puts Grexit back on the agenda, FT, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4bb34e4e-2bcf-11e5-8613-e7aedbb7bdb7.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3g7vnxLmV, 16th July 2015]

So even though the Greek parliament accepted the severe austerity, Schäuble still proposes a Grexit. Why is he doing that?

It is interesting that the Queen makes a rare visit to Germany and then Germany increases the severity of its demands. But are the two directly linked? Is this just an assumption without hard evidence?

Well, I think the theory is supported by Christine Lagarde's statement, just before the Greek parliament voted on the bailout, that the harsh conditions would do little if anything to reduce the debt.

And what happened to the bailin? Maybe that will come later.

MH17 : J'ACCUSE NATO

Read this report:

Never-before-seen footage reveals Russian-backed rebels arriving at the wreckage of MH17 http://t.co/h4BApdaMp2

— Eliot Higgins (@EliotHiggins) July 16, 2015

The reporters claim to have seen a 17 minute video of separatists arriving at the crash scene of MH17. NATO media are pushing the idea that the separatists shot down MH17 by mistake. This report, based on separatist video, supports that claim, but it also shows that the separatists believed that MH17 was a SU-25.

Now, the Ukraine military says that it was not flying that day. If this is the case then how could the separatists mistake a civilian passenger plane for a military jet? One possibility is that NATO exercises ongoing at the time were able to spoof the separatist BUks into thinking MH17 was a SU25.

Or that the operators of the BUK were not highly trained Russian operators but amateur separatists.

But all this theorising about who is to blame misses the whole point: why was there a war in Ukraine in the first place?

And not only that, if Ukraine knew that the separatists had BUKs, as revealed at a press conference which occured virtually just as MH17 was shot down, then why did Ukraine not shut down the airspace over East Ukraine?

Take a look at this image from the above report:


When it was shot down, MH17 was flying well below the maximum operating height of a BUK missile!!

So I'll ask again: if Ukraine knew that the separatists had BUKs, and at a press conference on 17th July 2014 they stated they had videos of them, then why did they not shut down the airspace over East Ukraine?

But back to this question: why was there a war in East Ukraine in the first place?

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 NATO promised Russia that it would not expand one inch east. However, this was only a spoken promise, a Gentleman's Agreement, if you will, and was not binding. One wonders why Gorbachev did not get this 'promise' in writing.

But still, a promise is a promise, particularly between such huge geopolitical powers like Russia and NATO.

Ukraine has been a key geopolitical prize for NATO for decades. In 2004 Ukraine experienced The Orange Revolution, prepared in the years previous by George Soros and the National Endowment for Democracy, among other NATO organisations.

In April 2008 at a NATO summit NATO stated that Ukraine would, at some time later, become a member of NATO. But at that same summit Putin spoke, and he drew a red line at Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. I assume Putin expected a little respect because Russia had been allowing NATO transit across Russia to and from Afghanistan (on NATO's bogus hunt for an already dead bin Laden).

In August 2013 there was a terrible event on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria. I believe that this was a false flag run by Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia designed to provoke war by NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers on Syria because Assad had been (and still is) holding up their plan for war and regime change in seven countries that was originally planned to take 5 years after 9/11. Putin (and Ed Miliband) stopped the war, with Putin arranging for Syria to relinquish its chemical weapons.

In late 2013 Yanukovich agreed a deal with Putin, rejecting a deal with the EU and IMF. The deal would have firmly placed Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence.

This was too much for the Kagans and their masters. Robert Kagan had co-created PNAC which was behind all the wars after 9/11, including that in Syria. With Putin supporting Assad, and now stealing Ukraine from the IMF, Robert Kagan's wife Victoria (Nuland) ran a coup in Ukraine.

The coup culminated with extreme violence after neo-Nazis shot protestors and police from The Observatory and other buildings in Kiev. These shootings drove the Maidan protestors into a rabid frenzy, which the neo-Nazis then used to invade government buildings and chase the legitimately elected government away.

During the confusion Victoria Kagan-Nuland discussed with the US Ambasador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, who should become the next leader of Ukraine. They agreed that it should be Arseny Yastenyuk. Lo, and behold! Yatsenyuk became the new PM. Yats was selected due to his allegiance to NATO and Wall Street. Yats runs a foundation called Open Ukraine Foundation, which is funded by Soros, the US Embassy in Kiev, Chatham House, NED and...NATO!

So who did Yats pack his junta with? Bona fide violent neo-Nazis.

Not surprisingly, the people of East Ukraine, who have significant historical links to and with Russia, not least due to the Nazi invasion of Ukraine during WW2, decided they did not want to live under a Nazi junta, and thus rebelled.

So what did the NATO/neo-Nazi junta do? They decided to send their neo-Nazi thugs into East Ukraine and bomb the East Ukraine civilians, with artillery and missiles from the Ukraine Air Force.

This is why there is a war in East Ukraine.

And without the war the separatists would not have decided to fight for the independence and they would not have had BUKs.

And it was during this unnecessary war, provoked by NATO, that MH17 was shot down.

Now, whether the separatists shot down MH17 or not? I don't know.

But I do know that if the likes of the Kagans and their masters had not decided that enough was enough and Putin needing taking down a peg or two then there would have been no Maidan, no NATO-supported neo-Nazis shooting protestors to provoke a violent revolution, no hand-picked NATO-sponosored Prime Minister, no neo-Nazi junta, no revolution in East Ukraine, no counter-revolution by the neo-Nazi junta, no civil war, and thus no MH17 disaster.

So, j'accuse NATO.

A BRILLIANT WHITEWASH BY BUTCHER AND CLARK OF ROLE OF FREEMASONRY IN STARTING WORLD WAR ONE

I KNEW IT!!

I KNEW IT!!

I just bought the Kindle versions of Tim Butcher's The Trigger and 'Professor' Chris Clark's Sleepwalkers, and both completely avoid the role that freemasonry played in starting World War One.

'Professor' Chris Clark's only reference to Freemasonry is during a discussion on another secret society, Ujedinjenje ili smrt!. According to Clark members were inducted into Ujedinjenje ili smrt! through a ceremony devised by a guy called Jovanovic-Cupa, who had founded Ujedinjenje ili smrt! but was also a Freemason.

And that's the only mention of Freemasonry from Christopher Clark, Professor History at Cambridge University, whose boss may well be Emma Rothschild of THE Rothschild banking family, who now claim self-proclaimed maverick Zac Goldsmith MP as one of its newest members.

Butcher also mentions freemasonry just once.

On Ciganovic, Butcher states that Ciganovic was a Freemason and that it was he who provided the assassination squad with the weapons for the assassination. But Butcher then goes on to state:

Ciganovic was a Freemason, a discovery that led the Austro-Hungarian authorities at the trial following the assassination to suggest that the plot to kill the Archduke might have been hatched by the Freemasons, a theory that has since been discounted.

Really? Discounted by whom? Clark? Is that why Clark is 'Professor' of History at Cambridge University?

What evidence does Butcher provide to support that statement?

Butcher does use Clark as a source.

The simple and plain facts of the explicit role of Freemasonry are that:
1. Freemasonry had condemned Ferdinand to death in 1912;
2. Freemasonry was looking for willing assassins to carry out this death sentence but had not found them;
3. As stated by Butcher, Ciganovic was a Freemason, and that it was Ciganovic who provided the weapons;
4. But what Butcher fails to state is that Ciganovic was given those weapons by Freemasons abroad.

And we all know who runs Freemasonry don't we?

And not forgetting that Great Britain had created The Balkan Committee to manipulate tension in the Balkans.

And as stated multiple times, after the assassination, the King of the most powerful nation on earth at the time, Great Britain, told Germany that Great Britain was not going to get involved in any subsequent war, but at the same time was telling his Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey to get Great Britain into any subsequent war. This apparent position of neutrality of Great Britain encouraged Germany and Russia to mobilise for war. And when Germany invaded Belgium, Grey cited the Treaty of London 1839 to defend Belgium, even though Grey had explicitly written that Belgium was unimportant and Great Britain did not need to enforce the Treaty of London unilaterally.

When the war got going Germany was surrounded due to the series of treaties that Grand Master of the UGLE (ugly) King Edward VII began to engineer, and concluded by Grey.

World War One was designed to create a world government that the British monarchy would control as the ultimate form of empire. They framed Germany.

ANOTHER PROBABLE WHITEWASH OF THE BRITISH ENGINEERING OF WORLD WAR ONE

There are two key pieces of evidence that the new book by Tim Butcher, entitled The Trigger, is another whitewash of the British engineering of World War One. These are:
1. the book is being promoted by The Guardian;
2. the book is praised by Professor Christopher Clark at Cambridge University.

Butcher has written in The Guardian today promoting The Trigger. Apparently we have been getting it all wrong. When I read the title of the article I thought what Butcher had to say about The Trigger would begin a revolution. But then I thought, "Hang on. This is The Guardian".

How the first world war began is just too important to get wrong. The millions of deaths, the world order realigned, the unleashing of nationalistic chauvinism, all remain of such cardinal importance that the historical record must be sound. Or so I thought.

So legion are the mistakes in the reckoning of the moment that sparked the fighting – the 1914 Sarajevo assassination of the Archduke – that I felt driven to act.

For a century, people have been getting it wrong, from the first hawkish Habsburg investigators prone to political prejudice, to sloppy BBC documentary research. A recent account of the assassination by Max Hastings (and God strike me down for pointing out mistakes by a man who once gave me a job in journalism) is holey with errors.

So a drive to put this right was one of the forces behind my latest book The Trigger –The Hunt for Gavrilo Princip: The Assassin Who Brought the World to War. Off to the archives I went, panning for nuggets of verifiable fact, sluicing away inconsistency and occasionally uncovering gleaming new material.

[source : Tim Butcher: 'For a century, people have been getting the first world war wrong', The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/14/tim-butcher-first-world-war-began-the-trigger-hunting-the-assassin-who-brought-the-world-to-war, 14th July 2015]

And here is Clark praising the book well over a year ago!!

By contrast, the links with Belgrade are largely excluded from the field of vision. Butcher has surprisingly little to say about Princip and his comrades' long sojourn in Belgrade, where they came into contact with the Serbian nationalist networks that would later supply them with their pistols and bombs. Yet there is good reason to suppose that it was in Belgrade that Princip and his comrades were radicalised: "After he came to Belgrade," Princip later said of one his fellow assassins, "he too took up the same principles". Butcher touches on the role played by "Apis", the notorious head of Serbian military intelligence, but dismisses as implausible Apis's own written claim to have coordinated the plot to kill the archduke. Sundered from their broader Serbian context, the assassinations become a problem the Austrians created for themselves. And Princip's act of murder becomes – as the Yugoslav words on the plaque commemorating the assassination in Sarajevo used to say – the "first step into Yugoslav liberty".

Whether or not one shares Butcher's view of these issues – and given the complexity and secrecy of the groups involved and the paucity of reliable sources, there will always be room for debate – this book is a tour de force. Butcher is a humane but unsentimental observer who creates space for the voices of other travellers who walked these paths before him. No account since Dedijer's The Road to Sarajevo has so vividly evoked the world and inner life of the "undersized, emaciated, sallow, sharp-featured" young man who found himself sitting opposite an Austrian judge on the afternoon of 28 June 1914. And few have captured so thoughtfully the relationship between terrain and history in a country fraught by conflict. Princip is the focal point of Butcher's book, but its true protagonist is a Bosnian memoryscape that shimmers between past and present.

[source : Christopher Clark, The Trigger: Hunting the Assassin Who Brought the World to War – review, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/30/trigger-hunting-assassin-war-tim-butcher-review-masterpiece, 30th April 2014]

Neither reviews mention the facts that the assassins of Ferdinand were freemasons and had received the material and encouragement from freemasons abroad, and that freemasonry had condemned Ferdinand to death two years earlier and had been looking for willing assassins to carry out their death sentence but had not found them, until Princip and his gang volunteered. And behind all that is the British monarchy engineering the Triple Entente to surround Germany. And when the assassination was successful and nations began to take sides, it was the King of the most militarily powerful nation in the world, Great Britain, who at first indicated to Germany that Britain was going to stay out of the war, while at the same time ordering Sir Edward Grey to get Great Britain in to the war no matter what. This is why Grey cited the 1839 Treaty of London in order to defend Belgium, thus tricking Germany, Russia and France into mobilising for war. Before the war Grey had explicitly written that Belgium was of little concern and unimportant. But as soon as Germany invaded Belgium Grey cited the Treaty of London which Britain was not legally bound to enforce unilaterally.

World War One was engineered to produce the first attempt at a world government, called The League of Nations, that the British monarchy would control as the ultimate form of empire.

But the USA voted not to join. This decision led to the British monarchy and their anglophile Wall Street Hofjuden engineering of WW2 to produce another attempt at world government, The United Nations.

History is dead easy...if you can be arsed. At school I wasn't arsed because we studied the possible murder of two young privileged boys centuries ago. Yeah, dead interesting that. If there was anything to turn you off studying history it would be that.

THOUGHT FOR T'DAY ON A GREEK TRAGEDY

There's got to be a Greek tragedy written millenia ago foretelling the character of Tsipras.

Is the betrayal by Ephialtes of Trachis, which gave the Persians a victory, comparable?

Whatever, it does not look genuine to me.

PROSECUTING THE RAPE VICTIM FOR A FEW CRUMBS FROM THE SOROS TABLE OF PLENTY

That's what the BellingCat mercenaries do.

BellingCat are cooperating with NATO, George Soros and the CIA:
1. through a project with the OCCRP, which is funded by USAID (CIA) and Soros;
2. through PutinAtWar with The Atlantic Council (created by the creators of NATO), as if the USA has never, ever, ever been at war.

There are two main international conflicts occuring at the moment. BellingCat have taken sides and are being promoted in the NATO media.

The two conflicts are:

The war in Syria: it's blatantly clear that the war on Syria was planned in the 1990s, executed shortly after 9/11 as one of seven wars in five years as revealed by General Wesley Clark, but this initial plan failed, so cutthroat Jihadis were unleashed by Saudi Arabia with the agreement with the NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers, but that failed too, so a false flag was run by Prince Bandar on 21st August 2013 to try to provoke a war on Syria, but that failed too, so Islamic State was allowed to rise to power to give those same NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers the excuse to openly interfere in Syria and guide the 'civil' war to reach their desired outcome: the removal of President Bashar al Assad. For resisting the illegal and bloodthirsty policies of the NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers, BellingCat's role is to focus your attention on the Syrian regime allegedly using barrel bombs in Aleppo and trying to pin 21st August 2013 on Assad rather than the much more criminal war planned in the 1990s and the unleashing of cutthroat Jihadis by NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers.

The war in Ukraine: in late 2013, after Putin had averted the war on Syria by NATO/Zionist/Gulf powers, trouble began to brew in Ukraine over a deal that Yanukovich had reached with Putin. So throughout 2014, NATO pissed on the graves of all those who fought and died fighting the Nazis in WW2 and allowed neo-Nazis to oust a legitimately elected government and then install their puppet, Yatseniuk, who proceeded to pack his junta with the violent neo-Nazis, who began to crush a rebellion in East Ukraine against their neo-Nazi coup with extreme prejudice, resulting in the deaths of 7000 civilians in East Ukraine and the the disaster of MH17. BellingCat's role is to focus your attention on MH17 so that you ignore the horrible fact that NATO ignored their raison d'etre (to destroy nationalism, promote stability), and pissed on the graves of all those who died at the hands of the Nazis, and used extreme nationalist neo-Nazis to oust a legitimately elected government to install their puppets (Ukraine PM and Finance Minister), and leading to the deaths of 7000 civilians of East Ukraine, causing massive instability in East Europe.

In the eyes of the likes of Rothschild agent Soros, nobody is allowed to resist. Any resistance must be crushed. Hence, Soros finances projects with BellingCat and the CIA to blame Putin for all crimes across the world (as if Soros is an angel), and to provide a platform for writers to write propaganda against Russia through projects like Runet Echo.

But little do these servants of the demon Soros know that Soros is a servant of Satan himself: the kiddie-fiddling British monarchy.

If BellingCat were lawyers they would prosecute the rape victim for defending themselves against the rapist.

But hey! At least it's all worth it. Eliot Higgins gets to wear a snazzy tie on yet another warmongering freebie on the NATO White Wine Train, this time in Kiev! Choo chooo! Choo Choooo! All aboard!

Watch our press statement ahead of our address at the #Rada on #PutinAtWar @UAcrisis center https://t.co/xJPHDkiRq0 pic.twitter.com/pQrDlT1TqE

— Maks Czuperski (@MaksCzuperski) July 13, 2015