Beullogeo's

Media moguls rediscover scepticism:

Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp, said the business outlook for the next three to five years was “unanimously bearish”.

Deal talk, once the sport of choice, was nowhere to be found among the gathered media moguls at the conference, which is sponsored by Allen & Co. It was replaced by hand-wringing and cynicism over social media, an interesting but revenue-challenged section of the business.

“A lot of people are doing very well making very little money,” quipped Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony, speaking of social media. “It’s not a club I want to join.”

Twitter, the extremely popular online service that allows users to broadcast short text messages, was forecast to be the belle of the ball.

But any chatter about the micro-blogging service, which played a pivotal role in the dissemination of news in the recent Iran elections, soon turned to how it was unlikely to make money in the near future.

“Everyone is talking about it. I don’t know if it is monetisable,” said John Malone, chairman of Liberty Media. His sentiment was echoed by a panel of media executives that included Barry Diller, chief executive of IAC, the internet group.

Evan Williams, chief executive of Twitter, sat quietly as executives puzzled over the financial future of his company, and shied away from reporters for most of the week.

When Mr Murdoch, the consummate dealmaker whose 2005 purchase of MySpace helped burnish his image among the digerati, was asked whether he would be interested in Twitter, he had a one-word answer.

He said: “No.”

It would be bad enough if one group of influential people saw economic prospects are bleak and will be for some time, while another saw "green shoots" everywhere. Here we can see that many of the former employ or lend a megaphone to many of the latter. Something to keep in mind the next time a talking head tells you that now is a great time to buy.

The poor media moguls must be pickled with envy when they look at the financial moguls at Goldman Sachs. In the middle of the "failure" of the financial "industry" that got "fixed" by a bum rush bailout that put taxpayers on the hook for multiple trillions of dollars, Goldman Sachs partners somehow ended up swimming in money from selling stock (at bargain prices, because they, like their media mogul cousins, don't swallow the "green shoots" swill) and awarding themselves record bonuses (because otherwise they'd be tempted to leave and use their big brains to wreak havoc in another "industry").

So what's keeping the media moguls, especially in their current desperation, from succumbing to the temptation to exploit the "monetisable" popular resentment that even the finance moguls recognize?

It's jewish "social justice".

New Labor Leaders Take a Page From History, from The Jewish Daily Forward:

Washington — If you want to see the movers and shakers behind the tumult in today’s labor movement, the place to be is Stephen Lerner and Marilyn Sneiderman’s modest home in Washington after sunset concludes Judaism’s holiest day of the year.

Last year’s dinner had an air of momentous imminence, coming, as it did, on the eve of Barack Obama’s election as president, amid a world economic crisis that recalled the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism in the 1930s. The labor movement itself was approaching the end of a year in which it would record an uptick in union membership for the second time in a row after decades of decline. Lerner began the evening by telling his guests, “The months and years ahead are our chance, our moment to be part of making history.”

Lerner and the other Break Fast attendees are at the core of a resurgence of Jewish involvement in the labor movement. Like the legendary Jewish labor leaders of the ’30s, the folks at Lerner’s house by no means represent a majority of union leaders. But like those earlier leaders, they are exerting an outsized influence, working at the front end of some of the most innovative, and occasionally divisive, union campaigns of today.

“When you are there, you physically experience the number of Jews in Washington who are in the labor movement — but also the larger passion for social justice that is driving that,” Lerner told the Forward.

There is, of course, a firm precedent for this quiet, mostly unacknowledged trend. Before World War II, an explicitly Jewish labor movement was an engine of change for the broader American society. Morris Hillquit helped found the United Hebrew Trades labor federation in 1888, and in the ’30s this body morphed into the Jewish Labor Committee, which was one of the most powerful Jewish organizations in America. At that time, the heads of the heavily Jewish garment unions — men like David Dubinsky and Sidney Hillman — helped pass the legislation that created America’s social safety net and labor protections. These were Eastern European immigrants who had risen from the factory floors and moved easily among the labor community, the Jewish community and the leftist political world.

The current moment shares many similarities with the ’30s, due to the election of a president friendly to labor, the plunge in the stock market, and the resulting openness to new economic models and social reforms. The Employee Free Choice Act, which is currently moving slowly through Congress, is said to be the most significant labor legislation since the ’30s.

But the labor leaders of today are a very different breed from those of the ’30s. Jewish union leaders such as Stern of the SEIU and Booth of AFSCME — along with Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America; Randi Weingarten, head of the American Federation of Teachers, and Bruce Raynor, general president of Unite-Here — did not rise up from the working class. They have college degrees and are part of a new, sophisticated leadership that has come to the fore over the past decade and devised innovative tactics to battle the labor movement’s long decline.

“You really have the leaders of some of the largest unions — certainly some of the most progressive unions — being Jews,” said Simon Greer, a former labor activist and the current president of the Jewish Funds for Justice. “That comes out of history — and it ties back to the history.”

Unlike in the ’30s, many of the Jews involved in the labor movement today have little affiliation with the organized Jewish community — and the presence of Jews in the labor movement can be an uncomfortable topic at times, because of the relative paucity of Jews in the rank and file of union membership. But for many inside the labor movement, the Jewish presence — not just in leadership roles, but also throughout the professional staff — occasionally becomes so obvious that it cannot be ignored.

“One night last Passover, I was here trying to finish something just before Seder, and people were like, why are you here?” said Jessica Champagne, a young researcher at the SEIU. “There are just those moments where you realize that whether or not people are observant, there are a lot of Jewish folks who have found their way here.”

- - -

Despite some continuity between the earlier generation of Jewish labor leaders and the current one, the two are not connected by a simple unbroken line.

While the Jewish garment unions were national players before World War II, their political clout afterward began to fade. Then, it was industrial unions, like the steel workers, autoworkers and teamsters, that became the face of the union movement. These tended to have few Jewish members. Because many of these unions had a policy of taking leaders from the rank and file, there ended up being few big Jewish labor leaders.

“Labor was not particularly welcoming” back then, recalled Marshall Ganz, the son of a rabbi who got involved in social movements in the 1960s.

When he left the Cesar Chavez-run United Farm Workers — a progressive and open labor group — Ganz said: “For me to go work for a [conventional] union would have been a strange thing. The unions had to be reopened to a certain extent.”

This was the situation when one of the most prominent labor leaders of today, Stern, became involved. Stern joined his union of government social workers in 1972 after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school. Sitting recently at the SEIU’s sleek new headquarters in Washington, Stern told the Forward that back then, “my vision of unions was Teamster white guys and construction workers.”

Stern himself had become a social activist through his involvement in protests against the Vietnam War. But under AFL-CIO chief George Meany, a staunch anti-communist, the big unions had lined up in support of the war.

“The first thing I learned about unions was not a very good one,” said Stern. “In 1968 or 9, I was watching construction workers beat up anti-war protesters.”

But then, after Stern was elected to lead his local union, he attended the meetings of the local labor council in Philadelphia. There, he ran into a number of holdouts from the Jewish garment unions, and other Jewish union activists who “had a kind of ethical, cultural set of values that I understood better than people who had grown up in a more working-class — in many cases, Catholic — background.”

“I had never thought of the union movement as a place of Jewish activism in my growing up,” Stern said. His father had been a lawyer for small businesses in suburban New Jersey. But, Stern said, he saw at the Philadelphia labor council that “there was really a disproportionate number of labor leaders who were Jewish in major positions — and a lot of them were ones that were more involved in, I would say, the more progressive side of the labor movement.”

This was not true in many other parts of the country — and in many parts of the labor movement at that time. Stern said he sometimes thinks back on the serendipity of where he got his start.

“I always think, what would have happened if I had started my union career in, say, Ohio?” Stern said. “I don’t know what would have happened if there hadn’t been a lot of Jewish leaders. It just didn’t seem odd where I was to be a labor leader and be Jewish.”

- - -

The progressive tradition that Stern noticed was legendary in an earlier era. Tony Michels, a professor of Jewish and labor history at the University of Wisconsin, said that in the ’30s, labeling a union as Jewish was often a shorthand way of describing its socialist politics. A number were further to the left, which is to say, communist.

The two most powerful Jewish unions were the ones for workers in the men’s and women’s garment industries in New York City — the largest unions in the city at that time. It was no coincidence that both unions had close ties to the nation’s largest Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Daily Forward, with executives moving frequently between the publishing offices and the union halls. The head of the women’s garment union, Dubinsky, and the head of the men’s garment union, Hillman, were both immigrants from Eastern Europe who spoke with Yiddish accents. Together they helped found the socialist American Labor Party. Their socialist politics also shaped the unique structure and aims of the garment unions.

“The view of the Jewish socialists was that unions should be a vehicle for social change — not just a defense of narrow interests like wages and hours,” said Michels, who wrote the book “A Fire in Their Hearts: Yiddish Socialists in New York.” “They were involved in cooperative housing, and educational programming and culture. Other unions just weren’t doing that.”

The Jewish labor movement itself was divided internally for decades by a bitter feud between socialists and communists. The socialists originally coalesced between 1897 and 1900 around the Socialist Party founded by Hillquit and Eugene V. Debs. The Forward, founded in 1897, was established originally as an organ for their more moderate views. The communists, who split off from the Socialist Party after the 1917 Russian Revolution, favored a more militant, confrontational approach in the workplace and in politics. The two groups battled for decades over control of union locals, newspapers and even Yiddish schools, until communists were expelled en masse from the major unions in 1948.

Historians and labor activists have given a number of explanations for the distinctive character of the Jewish garment unions. Ray Scannell, a labor researcher and historian, said that unlike many other immigrant groups, Jewish immigrants had already been isolated minorities in the places from which they had migrated. As a result, they were well practiced in banding together to protect their own rights.

“When you go back, one of the interesting things about the history of the Jewish labor movement is that they have these common organizational roots,” said Scannell, who has taught a class on Jewish labor history at the Washington, D.C. Jewish Community Center. “Whether it’s in Vilna or Warsaw, or the Lower East Side, the poor and the oppressed in the community know how to organize themselves to protect themselves.”

Scannell, director of research at the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union, has watched these dynamics play out in his own life. He is from an Irish Catholic family in New York, but his wife and children are Jewish, and he has been fascinated to see the lingering influences of history in families like his own.

“It’s such an interesting story, because as Jews in America become more assimilated, nonetheless they continue this idea, that is frankly not as well rooted in the white Protestant community, of community self-help and organization,” Scannell said. “Even as they moved out to the suburbs and married the non-Jews, there was a continuation of these ideals of social justice that connected them back with community traditions that they might not have been entirely aware of.”

- - -

By the 1980s, as Stern was beginning to rise through the SEIU, the progressive spirit in the labor movement had all but disappeared. Union membership was in a tailspin. Federal law had made it more difficult to organize workers, and most of the big unions were committing few resources to organizing new members.

In order to combat the decline, a few peripheral unions began looking to new, more sophisticated strategies to win new members and stop the decline. Both the hotel workers and the SEIU led the charge in hiring college graduates to serve in research departments that had the task of developing elaborate organizing campaigns. Stern and Lerner were both brought into the SEIU leadership during this period by Sweeney, an Irish Catholic labor leader who had gotten his own start in the New York garment unions before becoming the SEIU chief.

A major turning point came when the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of national unions, decided to open up the Organizing Institute, which was designed to provide college graduates a direct entry point into unions so that they would not have to first pass through the rank and file. The institute was founded in 1989 by a young Jew from Kentucky, Richard Bensinger, who had been recruited into the union movement by Richard Rothstein, a Jewish labor organizer and activist at one of the garment unions.

Bensinger, who is a labor consultant today, remembers when his team began looking over applications from college students who wanted to attend the institute.

“It used to be almost a joke. They would all say, ‘I’m interested because my grandmother or my grandfather was in one of the garment unions,’” Bensinger told the Forward. “It was incredible how many people who came to the institute came out of families that were involved with that union. It was application after application.”

Amy Dean, who was the head of the labor council in California’s Silicon Valley during the 1990s, said that in the years after the Organizing Institute was founded, when Sweeney won the presidency of the AFL-CIO, she saw the first steps of a process that brought a “huge influx of Jews coming to the table and wanting to be a part of the labor movement.”

“It was exciting to be in there,” said Dean, who is currently finishing a book on the modern labor movement. “We were looking outward for the first time in many years.”

Dean herself had decided to join the labor movement rather than attend graduate school at the University of Chicago. A number of the other major labor leaders of today came into their unions after law school. This sort of influx has not happened at every union; many unions have maintained old policies of promoting leaders and organizers from the rank and file only. But it has been unions that took people from the outside, such as the SEIU and the hotel workers union, that have experienced the fastest growth. The SEIU, for example, has grown to more than 2 million today under Stern, from 625,000 members in 1980, when Sweeny took its reins.

But there is a potential downside: Stern and others in the new generation of union leadership have been criticized by more traditional union leaders for giving union jobs to people who did not get their start in the working class. The generation of college-educated leaders have also been involved in a number of recent fights that have divided the labor movement (see sidebar). Paul Buhle, a labor historian at Brown University, said that in the current era, when unions are largely trying to organize black and Latino populations, the presence of so many educated Jewish leaders can be an “embarrassing detail.”

“Not to be the rank and file is embarrassing — because Jews are giving orders even in progressive unions,” Buhle said. “It comes back to a conspiratorial view of Jews in American life.”

- - -

The labor movement is, of course, not the only progressive movement that has drawn well-educated Jews, but many progressive Jewish activists say that the labor movement has a different character to it.

On a practical level, the labor movement is one of the few progressive causes offering young people both steady work and a reliable institutional structure — in short, a career. Michael Perry, who works for the AFSCME in Illinois, observed: “These are kids like me, who grew up in middle-class life. They won’t go back and work minimum wage. They want to do justice. But I still have a middle-class job here — with decent wages and benefits.”

But Perry and others also point to the unique historical connection.

“The labor connection is more than 100 years old,” Greer noted. “This puts it in another category than other progressive causes.”

Even with the history, though, the current demographic gap between union membership and leadership has, at times, required some negotiating.

Lerner’s first job was in North Carolina, organizing workers for the garment union. During that campaign, Lerner said, one of the local newspapers wrote an article implying that the organizers were a bunch of “northern Jews and rabble rousers.” Lerner recalled what happened when the organizers next met: “After we all got indignant, we looked around the room, and there really were so many Jews in the room.”

It is no coincidence that the two most prominent films about unions in recent times have both been about the cultural exchanges that happened when a Jewish organizer pushed to organize non-Jewish workers. In the 1979 movie “Norma Rae,” the Northerner is Reuben Warshowsky, who is said to be a composite of a number of Jewish organizers who worked for the textile unions. The more recent movie, “Bread and Roses,” is based on a Jewish organizer, Jono Schaffer, who worked on Lerner’s Justice for Janitors campaign.

While the current generation of Jewish labor leaders has risen up in a largely non-Jewish labor movement, their work has nevertheless helped some of them find their Jewish roots.

Greer got his start at a campaign that was being run by Cohen, who is now the head of the Communication Workers of America. Greer said that at the campaign, known as Jobs With Justice, “I really came into my Jewish identity in noticing that among all these people I was working with, there was a disproportionate number of Jews.”

Greer said it made him want to explore “what led me in my background and what led them in their backgrounds to want to be in this kind of work.”

Outside of organizations like Greer’s, though, the connection is seldom made so explicitly and with such pride. Many Jewish labor leaders see few reasons to connect their labor work and their ethnic heritage, at least as they have experienced the latter. Most Jewish organizations today have not made labor a central theme in their political platforms. The Jewish Labor Committee, which has served as a meeting point between organized Jewish community and organized labor, is a fraction of the size it was when Dubinsky and Hillman founded it in the ’30s.

There are efforts underway to change that. Stuart Applebaum, president of the Jewish Labor Committee, says he sees a greater willingness among labor leaders to identify with the Jewish community.

“There is a renewal now,” Applebaum told the Forward. “You find that the Jewish leaders have not run away from their Jewishness as they once did.”

Sneiderman, a longtime official at the AFL-CIO and wife of Lerner, said that the idea of the couple’s Yom Kippur Break Fast event is part of a “conscious effort to try to make the link for people who work in the labor movement and are Jewish, so that they see that it’s not by accident that they are doing this work — and that is tied to their roots and values.”

“We’ve lost a lot of our history,” said Sneiderman, who recently left the labor world to take a job at the Jewish youth group BBYO as chief field officer.

For his part, Stern said that he recently looked back through a family scrapbook to try to recover some of his own history.

“You do wonder how you get here — you know, what were my parents teaching me?” Stern said. Stern had a Jewish education; he became a bar mitzvah at a Reform synagogue in northern New Jersey. But at the dinner table, labor was never a subject for discussion. In his scrapbook, though, Stern found the project he had done for his synagogue confirmation. It was an ethical will that went into depth “about being ethical, and trying to use your life to help other people.”

“Clearly, the values that had been instilled in me by my parents had been much more of service than of success in a traditional sense,” Stern said, looking back.

“Underneath kind of a very normal middle-class, New Jersey life, they did actually teach me some things,” he said.

After a pause, he added, with a laugh, “I’m praying it’s true for my son.”

Via a comment by Lucius Vorenus on Sailer's "Amnesty: Our betters are back at it".

SEIU - Service Employees International Union home page. SEIU on immigration.

Today, 7/7/9, marks the 4th anniversary of the murder in London of 52 ordinary men, women and children by the Ashkenazi establishment, which falsely labels itself British.

The murders were blamed on Muslims living in Britain, and were used as a reason for the introduction of a range of measures that purport to lessen the threat of terrorism. The only way to lessen the threat is to remove the terrorists from positions of authority in the City of London, and in their playhouse of Westminster.

Note that today is the fourth anniversary. It is customary for events to be commemorated when they reach the 5th, 10th, 25th, 50th and 100th anniversaries. It is therefore somewhat odd that the establishment have chosen this year for the erection of a memorial.

According to Carmody Groarke, the designers of the memorial, “This unique civilian memorial marks the 52 lives lost in the four terrorist bombings in London in 2005. It will offer the opportunity for a sense of closure to the bereaved families as well as a public place of remembrance for all that were affected by the bombings.”


Is this memorial unique? Certainly it has been unveiled on an unusual anniversary, but architecturally it follows the model of another memorial to the lies of the criminal elite who mis-rule our land – the Holyhoax Memorial in Berlin.

Both Memorials are set out in the manner of graveyards, with the intention being for the viewer to walk amongst the sculptures. Appropriately, the Hyde Park Memorial to the victims of the establishment is comprised of 52 obelisks, each representing one of the people slain by the agents of the Zionist-controlled Government. The obelisk is a symbol of Illuminised Freemasonry and hides in plain site who the architects of this atrocity really are.

The official story of a small gang of Muslim terrorists evading detection by MI5 and simultaneously detonating four bombs across London is adequately torn apart for the farce that it is, in the video ‘7/7 The Ripple Effect’


The establishment organised and carried out the bombings in London, just as their counterparts did in the atrocities in Bali, Madrid, and the New York World Trade Centre. MI5 has had years of practice killing British civilians in their playground of operations in the North of Ireland. The Omagh bombing, for example, which was blamed on Irish separatists was a 100% State operation. The Irish Separatists / Republicans / Nationalists involved were bought and paid for by the London and Dublin branches of the Zionist Establishment. Just as in Ireland, the London murders were organised by the ruling power, and used to justify the implementation of more draconian oppression upon the people of the British Isles.

The timing of the unveiling of the memorial is to suit the elite. They wish to allow those who presided over the murders to gloat. It is possible that in a year’s time, puppets from the Conservative faction of the Party that the establishment use to push their agenda, will govern the British people. Prince Charles and his adulteress he lives with, represented the British Royal Family at the unveiling in one of their own Royal Parks. Who better than the man who had the mother of his son and half-son murdered in cold blood in another ritual murder to the God of the Monarchy – Jahbulon/Satan? This was to give the official seal of approval to those who implemented the murders which provided the excuse needed to ratchet up the Police State.

Why was the finger of blame pointed at Islamic extremists? Simply to divert attention away from the religion of the actual culprits. The rulers of Britain are not Muslim, or Christian. They are not even Jewish in the official sense. The establishment is controlled by people who are Ashkenazi in blood, and Sabatean (Satanist) by religion. What better way to hide their crimes than to blame the Muslim population who were brought into this country to disrupt its Cultural-Religious unity and are not popular with the indigenous population to begin with? When people fall for the bait and speak out against the Muslim presence, the establishment have their lackeys in Westminster enact legislation to criminalise religious hatred (which neatly protects the Judaic religion they perversely use as a shield). Our enemy is not stupid. Evil certainly. Stupid no.

Remember those who the establishment murdered this day four years ago. Realise that the tyranny we live under, the surveillance, the intrusion, the abolition of privacy, the wars of aggression which are killing our people as well as innocent foreigners, all stems from the 7th July murders Don’t be a Union Jack waving Royalist and support your owners. Refuse to play their twisted game. Demand the abolition of the Monarchy, the expulsion of the Ashkenazim from whom the rulers sprang, the re-establishment of the cultural homogeneity of the British Isles, and a just freedom for the people to whom these islands truly belong.

Incidentally, the 11th September bombing of the World Trade Centre, written in Roman numbers reads XI/IX (or IX/XI for those who write in the American date sequence). Look into numerology. It may not seem important to the uninitiated, but it seriously matters to them…

A Bill (HR 875) is entering the US Congress with the stated aim

‘To establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes’

This sounds innocuous enough until one reads the Bill and finds it is nothing short of the banning of Organic Farming, and the implementation of GM food as the only available source.

The entire Bill is filed at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h875ih.txt.pdf

The advice from Infowars is to pay special attention to:
* Section 3 which is the definitions portion of the bill-read in it’s entirety.
* section 103, 206 and 207- read in it’s entirety.
What it Does:
* Legally binds state agriculture departments to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.
* Effectively criminalises organic farming but doesn’t actually use the word organic.
* Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
* Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.
* Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.
* Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?
* Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.
* Section 207 requires that the state’s agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.

If this Bill passes (which it will), food production in the USA will be GM only. The seeds only last a year so this will mean that Monsanto will dominate the growing of food and will control agriculture. Through cross-pollination, these Frankenstein seeds are likely to contaminate all natural vegetation they are exposed to. If this legislation is adopted in other nations, and implemented by war or treaty across the world, then food will be weaponised, with any nations that don't obey the orders of the Globalists having seed embargoes placed upon them.

Imagine the impact of food embargoes when it is impossible to produce any natural food? This will result in millions starving to death, forcing the ordinary people to revolt against their governments, even when they support the positions they take. This is the ultimate in tyranny – forcing people to comply with their own servitude or die of hunger.

The Globalists have openly stated they wish to maintain the population of the Earth at 500 million in perpetuity. This means that circa 7,000 million people must be culled by various means. We are witnessing a rise in artificially manufactured diseases, in killer vaccines, in wars against civilians, in sterilisations/birth control through homosexuality, and in environmental disasters caused by weather modification (the South Asian Tsunami of 2004, the New Orleans flood etc). Manipulating the food supply would work very effectively in reducing the population.

It could be argued that the rulers of the world wouldn’t kill millions of people en masse. This is very naïve. Look at the planned starvations by the Soviets in the Ukraine, and in Communist China. These starvations killed tens of millions. The Rothschilds who sponsored these regimes now have far greater power and technology than they had in the twentieth century. They have killed vast numbers before, and won’t hesitate to do so again.

Monsanto is a criminal organisation, which is attempting to gain control over our food supply. We must not let this happen. I would not normally advocate violence, but in this case I can see no alternative. Firstly the Bill must not be allowed into Law. But ultimately, Monsanto must be destroyed completely – leaving no single GM seed intact. The entire stocks of this evil corporation must be annihilated, and the research facilities to rebuild, irreparably smashed. We must remain ever vigilant that we are never again put at the mercy of food servitude.

Either Monsanto is destroyed or we accept our position as property of the Rothschilds and their Sabatean-Zionist co-criminals.

Ant mega-colony takes over world, reported by the BBC:

In short, they acted as if they all belonged to the same colony, despite living on different continents separated by vast oceans.

The most plausible explanation is that ants from these three super-colonies are indeed family, and are all genetically related, say the researchers.

They're just doing what's good for the super-colony.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196586/Police-chief-charge-Menezes-shooting-handed-ANOTHER-promotion.html

The establishment press have feebly commented on how a state murderess has been promoted to become the highest ranking female copper in Britain. No cries of indignation from the lackeys of the ruling regime, but rather a forced whimper of discontent as a sop to the outraged readers of what passes for 'news'papers in England.

The Daily Mail's Stephen Wright hand-ringingly writes:


'The police chief who oversaw the bungled operation which resulted in the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was yesterday made the third most powerful officer at Scotland Yard.'

Cressida Dick, 48, who was severely criticised over her role in the death of the innocent 27-year-old Brazilian, was appointed an assistant commissioner.

She will be charge of the Met's Specialist Crimes Directorate, which includes murder squads and elite detective units, including the one investigating MPs over alleged expenses fraud.
It is her second promotion since Mr de Menezes was mistakenly gunned down by anti-terror police at Stockwell Tube station in South London four years ago.

Her new job, equivalent in rank to a provincial chief constable, carries a salary of £180,000 - double what Oxford- educated Miss Dick was earning as a Met commander when the tragedy occurred.

Last night, diversity campaigners welcomed Miss Dick's latest promotion, which will make her the first woman to hold the rank of assistant commissioner on a permanent basis.
However, the move has angered relatives of Mr de Menezes, who believe she and other officers should have faced criminal charges over the shooting.

A spokesman for the Justice for Jean campaign said: 'Nobody has been held to account for Jean's death. Those in charge on the day have been rewarded.

Miss Dick's promotion has angered relatives of Mr de Menezes, who they called for her to face criminal charges over his death

'No wonder more and more of the public have lost confidence in the senior levels of the Met. Like MPs, they simply refuse to accept that they have done anything wrong.'

However, Yard insiders insisted last night that Miss Dick, one of the Met's most popular senior officers, had been given the post because she was 'head and shoulders' above her two rivals


Well, lets have a look at this propaganda without the prism of establishment distortion. The article states that Cressida Dick, the Stockwell Slayer, was severely criticised for her role in the ritual murder of Jean Charles Menezez. So that makes everything ok? An ordinary man is murdered in cold blood by Police assassins, and the officer in charge is promoted to become the highest ranking female Police Officer in the land, but she was criticised along the way! A life for a few words! Is that what it has come to in England? The State can murder as it sees fit, and no-one will be called to account.

Diversity campaigners have welcomed the promotion of the murderess? Is this because butchers are under-represented in the London Metropolitan Police? It cannot possibly be because there aren't enough mindless officers in the Met who will obey any order, no matter how sick! Apparently, Miss Dick was head and shoulders above her rivals - what kind of sub-human life forms was she up against?

Tellingly, Stephen Wright states

"She will be (in) charge of the Met's Specialist Crimes Directorate, which includes murder squads" - How appropriate. No change there then!

In our Orwellian prison where up is down, and wrong ids right, healthcare has become a byword for the destruction of health. How has this come about? Traditional remedies have been pushed into the arena of the obscure, scorned and ridiculed by the controlled media. Homeopaths are increasingly on the retreat as the Allopaths reassert their domination of what laughingly calls itself the Health Care business.

Allopaths are basically drug dealers and butchers. They prescribe whatever the drug cartels are pushing, and their solution to cancer isn't to heal the malignant cells, but to obliterate them. The complete domination of allopaths in the medical industry has been to the detriment of patients. The drugs manufactured by the Pharmaceutical companies are synthetic replications of health-promoting substances found in nature. However, the drugs are compounds containing preservatives, stabilisers, and many other ingredients which are hazardous to health.

Before the crusade against natural medicines, the homeopaths were able to treat their patients with herbs and plants, in very carefully measured doses. These remedies were very inexpensive as the practitioners grew their own. As business couldn't profit by this, and the Government couldn't extract taxes, the Homeopaths were libelled as being 'Witches' and were persecuted - often being put to death. The 'Witch trials' were nothing to do with stopping evil people cursing others - they were entirely to uphold the power of Government and to protect vested interests. The persecutions were about enforcing financial and political control amongst those who had managed to evade the growing might of the tyrannical state.

Cancer is a result of a combination of factors - poor diet, vitamin deficiencies, damage to cells through ingesting toxins in food and the environment (pollution, smoke etc), and other factors. Treating cancer by cutting out cells (which rarely halts the spread, especially if they are in the lymphatic system), or by bombarding all cells (cancerous AND healthy) with radiation and/or chemotherapy, is brutal and causes much harm to the patient, often killing him/her. Stress is a factor in disease (dis-ease), which the Allopathic approach contributes to.

Rather than treating the results of cancer through butchery and poisoning, traditional therapies treat the causes. A Homeopathis approach looks at removing the harmful influences on the patient (as far as is practicable), and boosting the immune system by improving the general health of the patient by providing nutrients are deficient in the diet. Allopaths damage the immune system with their quackery. The reason these harbingers of death dominate Western (Allopathic) Medicine is that they have the financial might to demonise real medicine through their corrupt accomplices in the Media and Government.

The British Medical Association is currently campaigning to make vaccinations the 'right of the child', rather than a choice for the parent. This will benefit the pharmaceutical companies and cause great harm to the general public. The unscrupulous corporations will use children as guinea pigs to test their new drugs on. By claiming it is the right of the child to be pumped full of toxins, the BMA is aiding the corporations in making people into the property of industry, to do with as they see fit, with full legal consequences for those who resist. This is nothing short of slavery.

The medical establishment are criminals acting in the interest of business against the people. Through the implementation of Codex Alimentarius (which classifies vitamins as toxins), they are taking away any choice to have access to real healthcare. Those who claim that the Alternative Research Community is full of paranoid conspiracy theorists need to look at what the medical mafia are doing. They think they have a right to do with our bodies as they will. They think they own us. This is not acceptable in any respect.