Iain Duncan Smith Should Be Sanctioned

Iain Duncan Smith should be sanctioned because it inconvenienced him to defend welfare cuts. He was avoiding his responsibilities after he turned up to a Commons debate, however, left his junior coworkers to field questions that he himself should have been doing.

Mr Duncan Smith should consequently be banished from the Parliamentary canteen to force him to a food bank where there is a range of delights he can have to eat. This appears to be the second time the secretary of state has failed to address the House when questions have been asked of his department.

He can’t just go around not turning up when he should be there, or else what’s the point of him even being employed in that particular profession, and if he can’t realise his responsibilities, then maybe he should stand down and give someone else a chance, maybe somebody that can in fact do the job well.

There were 600,000 people in the United Kingdom who were sanctioned by his last year, some for failing to turn up to a job interview, some because they were selling poppies, some because they were present at their father’s funeral, and one because they had a heart attack.

Someone should set upon Iain Duncan Smith for not showing up for work. Practice what you preach Mr Duncan Smith, and lead by example, if you can’t do that, then you are not at liberty, telling others what they can and can’t do, particularly when some of these people are dying at your very own hands.

The reality that the secretary of state can’t even be bothered to support his own pet project of Universal Credit, perhaps tells me that it’s all got too much for him, and he can’t be bothered with it any longer, and if he can’t come out to play with the big boys anymore, then maybe he should consider handing over his resignation. After all, you should never ask a child to do a man’s job!


Cuts To Sexual Health Services Will Usher Its Way To STI Eruptions

Cuts to sexual health services will steer to additional terminations of pregnancy, accidental pregnancies and a flare-up of sexually transmitted diseases. Talk about adding insult to injury, that’s precisely what the government wants – With more abortions, unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, we’re talking about adding death to the toll.

They’re not trying to keep us alive, they’re trying to kill us off, and in the operation of this, they’re making us suffer. The difficulty is their achieving this, and it’s not taking much elbow grease as they lower the population. Nevertheless, this should be a warning, since the government is gravely convinced that human life is polluting what they truthfully believe is their planet.

The tip-off comes as Labour states that local councils in England will spend as much as £40 million less than proposed this year, on services such as testing and treating infections such as herpes and syphilis as a result of George Osborne’s commitment to slash £200 million from the public health budget, now, there’s a way to kill off hundreds of helpless people, and assign the guilt onto spending cuts, when in fact they just want to kill off human beings because we’re not sustainable any longer.

Some councils have now begun to bring down their budget for testing people suspected to have contracted an infection such as chlamydia and gonorrhoea by as much as 36% when the government hasn’t even started to reduce the health budget, however, Chinese whispers have already got out and about, and councils are at present on the band wagon before anything has been actually decided.

Cutting funds from front-line NHS sexual health services are a hopeless false financial management, and you don’t have to be the brains of the outfit to foresee the outcome.

All you old fuddy-duddies lumbering along the last few laps of life, are you willing to make your transition as a sacrifice to the younger generation and taxpayers in general? Since it’s the intentionality of the government, not just to kill off the young, but the old alike, particularly the elderly.

And the rest of you, are you prepared to put your men, women and children to sleep like a displeasing dog or cat?

They’ll be getting rid of a hell of a lot of the elderly to reach their maximum planetary population of 500 million, however, they have numerous other ways of removing vast numbers of people, they make it look like a piece of cake.

Anything that comes out of the United Nations is not in the best interest of us ordinary folk.

They’re telling us what to think again, and they liberally sprinkle it with that favoured word ‘sustainability, ’ and they’re placing the seed of the concept in the minds of mankind hoping it will take root.

Agenda 21 isn’t only population control though, they have a long term plan already in progress for impounding land and restricting us to nominated regions that won’t be pleasant living quarters, everything will be controlled, absolutely everything.

All you wrinkly, middle aged has beens, are you ready to move over and let the next generation have your place on the planet? After all, you’ve lived an excellent life, and your ageing body is going to cost the taxpayers a lot more than the salt you think you’re worth. In other words, your return on investment isn’t looking so magnificent to the United Nations.

In case you haven’t heard, our minds are being shaped to look upon you as the encumbrance you are, and it’s time to see yourself that way too.

That’s right. The United Nations is promoting we euthanise our ageing parents, and it’s the harsh reality of Agenda 21, a very real global master plan to lessen the population in the years ahead. It reverberates like something out of a zombie movie, however, it’s been going on now for some years.

Camouflaged as environmental stewardship, Agenda 21 is nothing more than repackaged Socialism, with numerous heavy hitters with billions of dollars and global control that are behind it.

It’s draining to think that through the press and advertising, as well as government we’re dedicated to just force the elderly, as well as the young and frail to the assembly of death, so that government can have a one world nation, not so much different from Hitler really when you come to think of it.

The Holocaust was the structured, bureaucratic, state promoted victimisation and homicide of six million Jews by the Nazi government and its collaborators. This is the systematic, bureaucratic, state sponsored persecution of men, women, children, the elderly and disabled by a draconian government and its colluders.

Our government believes that it’s superior, and were considered inferior, and we’re an alien threat to the governmental community.

Even though Jews, whom the Nazis considered a prime concern of danger to Germany, where the main targets of Nazi racism, other victims comprised some 200,000 Roma (Gypsies). At least 200,000 mentally or physically disabled patients, mostly Germans, living in institutional settings, were exterminated in the so called Euthanasia Programme. Are you getting the picture?

The Pale of Settlement was first brought about by Catherine the Great in 1791, following various unsuccessful endeavours by her forerunners, notably the Empress Elizabeth, to remove Jews from Russia completely unless they converted to Russian Orthodoxy, the cause for its creation were first and foremost economic and nationalist.

Private property rights are under assault all across this country and across the world. The scrapping of private property is one of the principles of the UN Agenda 21 because they consider private property ownership, unless it’s them owning it, they believe it’s unfair. Are you still getting the picture?

The UN Conference on Human Settlements states:
‘Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice… The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of a society as a whole.’

The Western World has flourished because we had statutes which secured our property. Nearly all countries around the world lack those preservations, which are one of the reasons why they’ve never been able to lift themselves out of squalor, and they lack laws which keep their property rights safe.

Property rights begins the rule of law. What makes people fascinated in the rule of law, and the first thing they comprehend, is that everyone on this earth lives on a plot of land.

Our success must be equal to and redistributed to third world countries, however, the people driving UN Agenda 21 have no regard in raising the quality of living for all nations, their objective is to put an end to all first world standards, excluding them of course, and to produce a sea of slaves begging for a kernel of rice.

Part of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 is the scrapping of private property. Seizure of private property will be done under the disguise of sustainability. They will maintain that having a substantial plot of land is an ineffective use of the land, and that your land would be better used if it was expanded into something else, or not developed at all.

Maybe they’d sooner that a mass transit, light rail runs right through your property. So they will take your property over through eminent land, coercing you out of your own house and off your property to somewhere else where they have much more closely packed housing, and use the land that was formerly yours as they see fit.

These types of dictatorial actions are being implemented around the country at a local level. In California, there is a statute that’s awaiting a signature that would institute an agency at the county level that could snatch private property fundamentally on impulse and blame it on sustainability.

This is, of course, is nothing less than communism, they just don’t call it communism, they camouflage what they’re doing by calling it social justice.

Sustainable development is the key expression, showing that the underlings have been completely brainwashed into the UN agenda.

Social Justice, clean energy, sustainable agriculture, inclusive and equitable, gender equality, management of water (rationing), affordable and reliable energy (rationing again), sustainable economic growth, human settlements, core wilderness zones, sustainable consumption of food (another rationing programme), combat climate change, biodiversity.

If you ask any government official what these terms convey to the public, they will get annoyed, or they will ignore you by telling you to read their plans. In addition, they will tell you that the funding that the city badly requires will not come if they don’t use these items in their plan.

One of the objectives of Agenda 21 is to re wild over 50%, and an extra 10% for buffer zones around the re wilded zones. Out of necessity, this will force the human population off the rural lands and into, using Agenda 21 vocabulary, ‘Human settlements. ’

Once there, the behaviour of humans can be more simply observed and controlled, consequently creating sustainability.

Sustainability, as explained by the 1987 United Nations report is development that meets the requirements of today without compromising the potentiality of future generations to meet their own needs.

The consumption patterns of the well to do middle class, involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioners, and suburban housing are not sustainable.

In other words, for Agenda 21, Sustainable Development to be fully implemented, we must give up what we have and embrace the lifestyle imposed upon us by the radical leftist Sustainablists.

To construct sustainability in the human settlements, there will be regulations and rules to control the use of all resources, air, land, water, energy, and all resources underground. These regulations are incorporated beneath the category of Smart Growth.

Smart Growth rules fall first and foremost into three groups that are all planned to alter human behaviour.

There will be regulations to discourage travel and the ownership of automobiles, regulations to discourage you from having children, and regulations that will discourage you from using water, land, energy, and the consumption of using materials, whether it be toilet paper or materials to build a home.

There will be borders around the city and there will be prevention on expansion outside the boundary, which is a Smart Growth strategy. This generates a situation where land inside the human settlement is at a premium, while land outside the boundary has little if any value.

This in turn will cause land prices, land taxes, and overcrowding within the perimeter to increase, but a decrease in the size of homes and the number of children because smaller home and fewer children will also decrease energy usage.

One more Smart Growth master plan is to not increase the width or length of highways in an endeavour to generate congestion and an unpleasant driving experience. Permitting bikes to travel on these space highway systems will furthermore force the matter.

There will be regulations to stop the construction of garages on new homes. That will deter vehicle proprietorship and save on building materials.

The installation of Smart Meters is an especially controversial Smart Growth issue. Smart Meters can detect and or remotely turn off home devices when the utility company makes up its mind that the consumer is using too much energy.

Furthermore, the radio frequencies given off by these Smart Meters will be connected to a variety of health matters.

Limiting mining, drilling, refining, and or transporting of fossil fuels will expand the cost curve for electricity, petrol, natural gas et cetera, which will in turn force conservation by the users.

Smart Growth rules may remove from the market place all appliances excluding those that radically control energy and resources like water and electricity.

Everybody is familiar with low flow toilets which, while they may save water. Frequently function badly.

Occasionally, when regulations can’t generate the required change, grants and subsidies are used as an alternative. When the government steps in to manage change in this way, the free market is removed.

Since much of the land will be off limits to humans, it will require that humans be limited to procuring that which they need to survive from the land near to the human settlements, but not to fear, the Sustainabilists have this all planned out.

At all times remember the end game that is being sought by folks driving Agenda 21 is jurisdiction over humans and the Earth’s resources, with the environment being used as the excuse.

The concentration of people in these regions or zones will be made easy prey, and this will destroy whole populations, and cause sizeable property damage.

Schooling for the New World Order is what is developing before your eyes. The Common Core is that no child is left behind, however, what they’re really doing is brainwashing and indoctrinating our children to be complacent, obedient sheep who will not at anytime argue what they’ve been told, nor ever contemplate resisting the agenda.

The majority of people believe the term New World Order is just some meaningless drool some conspiracy theorist voiced. They think there is nothing to see or to fret about, that they should just disregard it, and that nothing could be further from the truth. Think again, there is something to see and something to worry about.

Indoctrination through education is the key to success in turning the world upside down. Ignorance is strength, and indeed it is. As our lack of knowledge gets bigger, so does their strength. The New World Order, also known as the moneychangers and their footmen, has been using education to build the chains of our slavery, one link at a time, for a really long time, and it’s hard to free fools from the shackles they respect.


Tory MP Says Sorry Over Uneducated And Really Insulting Remarks


A Tory MP has been forced into a humiliating climb-down after stating diabetes was completely preventable on Facebook. Derek Thomas, the Conservative MP for St Ives, aroused a cyclone of protest when he wrote that a doctor had told him the condition was easily dodged through good diet and exercise.

His post failed to identify the difference between type 1 diabetes, which is genetic, and type 2, which is frequently connected with your way of life, and can occasionally be treated through diet and exercise.

Facebook users swiftly circled on the Tory, branding his remarks as ignorant and very offensive, nevertheless, the post has since been removed.

Mr Thomas subsequently posted a correction, in which he said he was sorry for his previous declaration, and accurately explained the two different types of diabetes.

Mr Thomas expressed his gratitude to everyone who pointed out that he was incorrect to state that diabetes was preventable, and that he was genuinely sorry for getting his facts wrong.

What makes me chuckle the most is that one it’s none of his business on people’s behaviour and lifestyles. The other thing is this, has he even thought that the way people conduct their lifestyle is in fact down to the government anyhow.

All I have to do is mention Genetically Modified, and we’re in a whole new ball game. Genetically modified organisms are fundamentally genetically engineered foods, they’re foods that have had lab produced genes from plants, animals, or viruses added to the existing gene pool to make them better.

By better, I mean that this enhanced food might be more impervious, to say, disease, insects, drought, or heat – sounds like we’re expecting Armageddon.

The advantage of genetic engineering comprises a heartier crop, or a crop that is able to resist bacteria, viruses and fungi, so there will never be another potato famine, and no more harm from insects.

In addition, GMO foods can be more nourishing than their traditional equivalent, GMO rice grown in Asia contains more zinc and more iron than regular rice, and that’s great news for Third World countries if you want to pimp their paddy fields.

The US Department of Energy is on board with GMO foods, asserting that genetically engineered foods are environmentally friendly, as their production preserves energy and water, lowers pollution, and increases the productivity of crops. They also say that GMO technology can help make sure that striving countries are able to supply food for their inhabitants.

That’s why there are some 795 million people in the world that don’t have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That’s about one in nine people on earth. So, how are Genetically Modified foods, helping these people that are dying of hunger?

Funny that, Asia is the continent with the most hungry people, two thirds of the total. The percentage in southern Asia has fallen in recent years, but in western Asia it has increased a little, so where is this Genetically Modified food they’re talking about?

Not everybody is on board with GMO foods, however, as attractive as they may sound, GMO foods may not be as safe as we believe, and one of the concerns is that the health ramifications of GMO foods aren’t really known.

It’s a little unnerving to think that switching out and putting genes into our food chain might be doing to us. The testing hasn’t been done, and funding for this kind of research is sadly missing.

If the research on this hasn’t been done properly, does that mean that if there’s any huge consequences, and people are getting ill because of GMO foods, does that mean that there could also be a big legal action against the companies manufacturing these Genetically Modified foods that people are feeding their faces with?

The USDA and FDA face immense stress from biotech lobbyists, including lobbyists from the biotech giant Monsanto. Some research has uncovered that GMO foods fed to animals affected the size and function of their internal organs, affecting their immune systems, which may speed up the ageing process.

It appears that these companies have enough money to manufacture GMO foods, but not enough money to investigate these accurately before impacting them onto innocent human beings.

Of course, we have a choice, we don’t have to eat them – the trouble is, what foods are they in, and how much of it has been affected, and how long has this been going on, and is it too late for the people that have been eating them, better yet, if we have no concept how long GMO’s have been added to our food, how long before our children will be affected, that’s if they haven’t been affected already.

It appears that those that produce GMO foods have more money than sense with their faint smell of success, however, it’s not even about that. When the US government disregarded frequent dangers by its own scientists and permitted untested genetically modified crops into our habitat and food supply, it was a gamble of unparalleled proportions, and the health of all living things and all future generations were put at risk by an infant technology.

Following two decades, doctors and scientists have exposed a grave trend. Identical serious health difficulties established in lab animals, livestock, and pets that have been fed GM foods are now on the rise in the US population, and when people and animals stop eating genetically modified organisms, their health gets better.

A petition is circulating to convince three of the top infant formula labels in the US, Abbott Laboratories (Similac), Mead Johnson Nutrition (Enamil), and Nestle (Gerber Good Start), to stop using genetically modified ingredients in their baby production.

Each of these powdered formulas is full of corn and soy byproducts, along with sugar, which means they’re more than likely GM in nature and damaging our children.

A number of years ago, Natural News alerted readers to these menacing food products for tiny tots, pivoting specifically on Similac’s Go & Grow formula. The product, which is marketed for infants aged 9 to 24 months, which asserts it comprises healthy nourishment for older babies.

However, as pointed out, the product is almost half composed of corn syrup solids (sugar), with the residual fifty or so per cent composed of soybean oil, soy protein isolate, safflower oil and more sugar in the form of sucrose.

In addition to being a totally harmful product in general, based on these ingredients, Similac Go & Grow is a real freak of nature with all its display of GM ingredients, which are especially detrimental for growing youngsters.

GMO’s has been connected to hormone disruption, gut damage and other difficulties that, again, particularly in children, can lead to a lifetime of long standing health problems.

Nevertheless, Similac isn’t companionless, since almost every leading brand of commercial infant formula is composed mainly of corn, soy, and sugar ingredients, each of which is more than likely GM, owing to the reality that upwards of 90 percent of corn, soy and sugar beet crops planted in the US are GMO’s.

Because of the poisonous repercussions of herbicides, especially glyphosate, owing to its abundant use, as well as other organophosphates and genetically engineered food in non organic commercial formulas, these are not a choice for infant feeding.

In order to make sure the health of our infants and children is not compromised, there is no amount of passable herbicide or GMO that should be in their diets, and beyond just poisoning our children, Abbott, Mead Johnson and Nestle all want to keep this poisoning classified.

Each of these companies exhausted big bucks fighting California’s GMO labelling initiative, Proposition 37, which would have required that infant formulas include warnings about the GMO content.

It must have enraged the companies, and the people that run them – perhaps these mongrels had bitten off more than they can chew, however, the fact is, they clearly have no consideration for human life at all.

It’s an easy reminder that all we are to these companies is cannon fodder, and we’re certainly at the bottom of the food chain, however, we need to embrace the reality that they’re murdering our children, or making them really ill in the process of their fortuity, and money making tactics.

There is no announcement of culpability, and what they’re doing to our food is really iffy, and it’s making some of the public very agitated, however, that’s all it’s doing, without endeavour, nothing can be done about it, however, of course, they have us by the short and curlies, since we’re the buyers of their edibles, and they know we have to consume the food to remain alive.

However, are we surviving at all, or are we all in the process of elimination?

Monsanto among numerous other powerful companies in America is known for its hypocritical business model, and its illustrious past from helping to construct the first atomic bomb, and poisoning more than 5 million Vietnamese with Agent Orange which produced 400,00 deaths and disabilities to its monopoly, and total market control over the world’s foods and seeds.

Not long ago, Monsanto, among numerous other powerful companies, including the big banks and the giant oil companies has joined the so called World Business Council for Sustainable Development, pursuing the United Nations, so called Agenda 21.

The so called Agenda 21 is an Environmental Programme on sustainable development that exhibits concern about the unforeseen catastrophic changes in weather conditions and the environment.

Alongside the growth in the use of pesticides and chemicals that have led to those changes in the environment, Agenda 21 still pokes forward for a more internationalist and concentrated government.

The reviewers of Agenda 21, however, have further conveyed their concerns that Global Sustainability is only a trademark for consolidating power in the United Nations, and making the wealthy 1%, even wealthier at the cost of individual freedom, private property rights, and social and national sovereignty of nations.

However, what’s astonishing is, Monsanto, big banks and the giant oil companies are joining Agenda 21 for Global Sustainability, and its satirical how just a label or a name could have an effect on the hearts and minds of people.

For instance, there used to be a wealth tax in the early 20th century on the wealthiest 1%, and because they had the most affluence they had to pay taxes to preserve services. Then, since the second world war, the tax strain was moved towards the middle class and the working classes.

They used labels to alter and generate this shift of contributions from the super rich to the working class. For example, the inheritance tax was again and again reinforced by numerous people, in both of the chief parties in the United States.

Then the Republican party and the lobbyists for the billionaires came up with an idea, and that was to alter the name from inheritance tax to death tax, and overnight 88% of Americans were immediately against this tax because they thought this would include them whereas prior to this, inheritance usually applied only to really rich people.

Apart from the title death tax, nothing else, in the provisions of the tax law, had altered, only the name or the label of this tax, and that was all that was required to change the minds of nearly all Americans.

When they wanted to start the Iraqi war in 2003, once more, it was tagged as the Iraqi Freedom, and when they want to pass the law to lessen the rights of Americans and subject them to invasive wiretapping, they called it, the Patriot Act, because only non patriots would be opposed to this, seemingly.

So it appears labels are everything. The name is the most significant. The content, the code, the basic intent, and the inclination to manipulate and sway the crowd are beside the point, and they can pass it by people without Americans having time to evaluate and refuse it.

So a curious mind will wonder how the alliance of wicked Monsanto can fuse itself to the worldwide big business coalition, big businesses, NGO’s and shareholders of colossal businesses who control 43% of the nation’s riches, for driving the global sustainability itinerary for the greater good of the planet.

Nevertheless, the WBCSD coalition who clearly doesn’t think the same is celebrating that Monsanto is joining the global business alliance. In fact WBCSD points out how Monsanto, the leading global supplier of biotechnology and modern agriculture can enhance the efficiency, and food quality of the world.

Tell that to 250,000 Indian farmers who have taken their own lives in the last 10 years by drinking Monsanto’s insecticide, or one out of 5 children who are living in poverty in America, and one out of three kids who are suffering from obesity and type 2 diabetes, all thanks to businesses like Monsanto who are appreciated for their big business sense and accomplishments, even at the cost of polluting pesticide free crops with GMO’s, and fighting the will of 93% of Americans to put a label on GMO foods.

So, now we’re back to the Tory MP, he should be red faced following an assertion that diabetes was totally preventable – well, take GMO foods off our supermarket shelves, put an end to administering our cows with hormones, and then treating them with antibiotics to stop them from getting mastitis, which is then conveyed into our milk, and we won’t end up being diabetic.

No wonder antibiotics are no longer working, we take so much of it through the milk that we drink, but the worst thing of all, is that we accept what these corporations tell us.

Nevertheless, the whole thing is fake, it’s not the real McCoy, and these corporations are hypocritical and pretend to be something they’re not, and it’s a mixture of untruths that they harvest to the public.

The public attention is never-ending on the marketing of these commodities that Monsanto publicises. It’s splattered in front of us daily, on our television sets, where they pinpoint how good the products are that they’re offering for sale, and we’re not phased by this at all.

Welcome to the human condition, however, in order to live that human condition, we need to be conditioned, simply by the persons who think that they can personalise us, and the government does that without a blink of their eye.

Not only do they manufacture GMO’s, and put them into our provisions, but now they want to clone us, so that our conduct is such that we will do anything they want us to do.

New studies in cell research have brought up some frightening uncertainties regarding GMO’s, and one of them specifically makes liver failure or cancer seem like child’s play, in contrast to the harsh probabilities that come to light when we start looking at how genetically modified foods are anticipated to have an influence on our DNA.

All kinds of things can change our DNA, for the better or worse, however, it’s been shown that emotions can alter our DNA, and investigation has uncovered that even exercise or chemotherapy can change our DNA. Ancient cultures have known that sound can have an effect on our DNA, and the newest research states that we’re not relegated to a particular future because of our genes, however, it appears that our brains are being rewired through DNA to become new humans.

Our DNA comprises two strands of nucleotides that make up a stair like construction. Each nucleotide contains one of four foundations, adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, a phosphate group and a sugar molecule.

The bases contain nitrogen, which associate in a really fixed way. In one type, the way the four bases connect to each other is really different from how they will assemble in another.

In fact, double stranded RNA (dRNA) GMO produced by Monsanto can supposedly turn off certain gene signals and turn on others. Normally, if you put in a Roundup ready gene into a plant, it needs a protein that can make a Roundup ready plant that can withstand Roundup and still grow.

Nevertheless, the new dRNA can sustain itself without protein synthesis, this permits the dRNA to change the genes.

When mice were fed this dRNA, the liver totally altered its cell arrangement, and the mice grew strangely. The same results were found when the dRNA was attached to human cells.

Apparently, this GMO food can be turning on cancer causing genes, or quiet our immune systems. In other ways, the wheat we’re absorbing is so different from organic wheat that it’s causing us to be dependent on it.

Some are calling it bioterrorism.

GMO food plants make these new dRNA so that the gene formation is silenced or magnified in really precise ways. There are no assessments of dRNA, and how it will have an effect on our genes by the FDA, and Monsanto is working on dRNA technology, purchasing corporations that are expanding, so that it can be issued as the next round of GMO food they release unwittingly on us.

Researchers in Australia and New Zealand are exposing this matter, and inhalation of the GMO companies sprays can alter the way our bodies manufacture DNA and related proteins.

The most terrifying thing is that this dRNA can translate through the offspring of the people exposed to it. In Canada, new investigation is showing that pregnant women’s blood tests contained traces of toxins found in GMO foods.

Who knows what the long term consequences are of messing with our genetic structure, however, they can’t be good, bearing in mind the track record that Monsanto has so far.

The discovery that GE toxins and as well herbicide residues are being absorbed into consumers and embryonic baby’s blood, displays that organic and GE free foods should be the first choice for families and particularly expectant women.

There are schemes to launch this dRNA into our food, medicines, vaccines, and pesticide sprays. Unless you want to play a game of wait and see with your own genetic development, it might be time to go all organic until more investigation is looked into on the issue of GMO and DNA adjustment.

Nevertheless, how much of our organic is in fact organic?

When is USDA Organic not organic? More often than you probably comprehend.

The USDA keeps a National List of inorganic commodities that can legally go into foods marked as organic. Covers for those delicious USDA Organic sausages can come from conventionally raised animals that have been fed antibiotics.

The hops in your most liked organic beer can be showered with all manner of chemical pesticides and fertilisers. Strawberries can be marked as organic even if they had their start in a traditional nursery.

As stated by USDA regulations, if 95 percent of a commodity is made up of organic components, it can be called organic. If it’s 70 percent organic, the label can read as made with organic ingredients.

The Obama management has had a schizophrenic association with agriculture, on one hand, snuggling up to the likes of Monsanto, by supporting for GM crops, and on the other hand winning praise from small farm and organic promoters for programmes like – Know your farmer, now your food, and the White House organic garden.

Should we be frightened when somebody mentions the word sustainability, and is it a route that we should go down?

No, of course not. It’s a move by the government to have power over everything and everybody around them, and it stinks to high heaven. Their only motivation for sustainability is to have authority by design in an endeavour to take over the world, and that’s what they mean by sustainability.

This is actually a plan for changing us into a worldwide community, what it in fact means is that they will typically give each person with a new individuality in a global community, and that global community will come before your identity because you will no longer be a citizen of a specific country or place.

The concept will be that one’s individuality goes beyond geography or political borders, and that the planetary human community is interdependent and that the whole of humankind is essentially one, and we will enjoy popular social movements as a World Citizen movement – a One World Government, and they’ve started indoctrinating us already, and have been doing so for some time.

In education, the word that is most frequently used to illustrate a worldview, or a set of values on the way to which education is established. The phrase global society is occasionally used to demonstrate the global studies set of learning objectives for students to get them ready for global citizenship.

It’s a truly superb introduction to the most secretive strategy, cooked up by tyrannical aristocrats in the last century. To take total leadership of your future in this one.

At one time this was disparaged as too weird to be true. Now it’s painfully clear how serious they really are.

Agenda 21 is an all inclusive Orwellian proposal for your life, cooked up by industrious underlings at the United Nations – where you live, how you travel, what you may do for work, what sort of dwelling you call home – everything about your future has been defined.

Science fiction?

No – Agenda 21 is probably being implemented in and around your community right now.

Just ask your local or regional planning department, which most people pay no attention to, whether they center their planning for sustainable development – they most unquestionably do.

Nevertheless, what does this vague word sustainable really mean, and who said they have to plan around someone’s conception of sustainable? And who ends up interpreting what is sustainable, and what is not?

And are YOU and YOUR family sustainable?

Agenda 21 is a strategy for every facet of your life in the 21st century, where you work, what work you’re permitted to do, and how you get there, have all been planned in advance. Small towns will be got rid of, and returned to nature, where the common man is not permitted.

Everybody excluding the crème de la crème will be packed into beehive like mega cities, remote nature. This is the sustainable society of the future, and they’re doing this as we speak, why do you think people are being herded from London to Hull on the assumption that it’s because they can’t afford the rents, so being moved up North is a much better answer to the problem.

This is hardly science fiction, this is the face of the exceptionally nonfictional Agenda 21, carefully concealed from opinion until it’s too late to combat it, and yet, the United Nations has publicised it in an official manual, and it’s being implemented in regions all across the United States, and it’s in all likelihood being talked about and implemented to some level where you are right now.

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt was Senior Policy Advisor in the US Department of Education, and in the 1980’s she exposed government happenings held back from the public. Her inside expertise is a rare understanding into cunning, scheming of globalist elitists and their proposals for what lies ahead.

It reverberates like science fiction, but it’s not. It relates to the real life effects of an appalling plan which the United Nations and associated organisations are contriving within the United States, and this is all under the innocent camouflage of sustainable development, environmental protection, and endangered species protection.

Under this plan, you and your family will in due course be grouped into a beehive like, or sustainable apartments in large cities, and huge connecting swaths of the now occupied and farmed countryside are to be depopulated and made into human free zones.

What is described as sustainable is determined by unelected and unaccountable United Nations officials working at the instruction of robber barons and global corporations.

Where you may live, where and how you will work, where you may travel, all has already been carefully planned by anti-human Malthusian, would be autocrats and public servants. They work their skillfulness by working their way into the government at the local level, where their positions are normally unelected and unobserved by the majority of the public.

ICLEI is a United Nations associated organisation assigned with subordinating your property, liberty, agriculture, and transportation rights to global government. Members of your local board of directors may semi secretly belong to his treasonous administration.

ICLEI searches to implement Agenda 21, a scheme assembled by the United Nations to rule almost every facet of your life in the not too distant future.

AGENDA 21 is a plan for your life in the 21st century. It’s meant to surround almost every facet of life in one way or another.

It comprises elegant particulars about where you may live, how you may work, whether or not you can drive a car et cetera. It may sound like science fiction, however, it’s not.

Even though it was never asked for or elected on by you, it’s being implemented right now, and it’s mortally grim. The procedure used has been to get around elected officials for the most part.

Alternatively, unelected councils and substructures have silently slid their global plans to your local governments, telling them, this is what everybody is doing, and you too should be on the committee, and corruption, in the form of grants et cetera are normally also used to convince your local officials.

It might be called sustainable development to the general public, but to Marxists, it’s the new and dynamic way to slowly contrive Marxist totalitarianism into your family life, which is all dressed in green – Bright green environmentalism, which aims to give profitability in the eco sustainable way, through the use of new technologies and better design.

However, it’s in fact Green anarchism, which puts a specific importance on environmental issues. We are becoming an anarchist society between humans and non- humans.

Without alluding to it by name, I’m relating the ultimate intentional blossoming of neo-environmentalism and UN Agenda 21 into a autocratic global superstate, a neo-environmental Garden of Eden, where the corruptness of free enterprise and free choice will be wiped out.

In what lies ahead, you will have no choice but to live in a beehive like a planned community, where what you eat, how you work, and what you’re permitted to live in is all determined for you by the global dictatorship. Nature and man will be split into separate zones, where only the wealthy are permitted to cross.

The average man will at most be able to view nature from a distance, and your life will be planned to the smallest detail to make you, in their estimation, sustainable!

You may have impression that Communism and Marxism expired with the apparent abandonment of communist beliefs of China, and the slump of Marxism, Stalinism with the previous Soviet Socialist kingdom. Never mind that the most shocking and massive destruction of the planet in the history of humanity happened under the umbrella of Communism and Marxism.

I need only to refer to Chernobyl, and deforestation by acid rain to bring back those unearthly memories of Communist environmental disaster. The Communists are back, and this time they’re dressed in green.

This is a warning, a sign of things to come, and in the flash of an eye the environment that we know will be gone, hijacked by a totalitarian elite, and they will not relent until they have a New World Order.

For the first time ever, the unknown itinerary of the planet’s merciless super class has been exposed in crisp detail. This accounts how men of control and power have worked in secret for centuries to initiate a brutal world government.

You can absorb how this global oligarchy commands the population through drug trafficking. Money laundering, phased terror attacks, press advertising and debt. Lawbreaking controllers have successfully controlled the world, and are now in the last stages of strengthening their power.

It’s an unseen kingdom, a New World Order, and it’s defined as an incriminating indictment of the globalists through their own words, and documents. Global dictatorship isn’t coming. It’s already here.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s a conspiracy fact, and now the New World Order is out in the open, all official, and extraordinary living colour.

Unelected paper shufflers are setting up geographical mergers under one superstate. Observe their strategy for a worldwide tax, and a cashless surveillance society in which every man, woman and child will be micro chipped at birth.

It can’t be thought about as a conspiracy theory anymore, because it’s actually happening. We’re actually watching the world go up in smoke around us, and every day there is another new, thrilling development that only, in my mind anyhow, strengthens the notion that it’s all being done by design.

There are numerous single events that, at first glance, appear to be remote occurrences, however, in actuality, they’re all part of the mother conspiracy. But what is this mother conspiracy one might ask?

Many people identify it as the Illuminati, or the secret societies. Others refer to the colluders as the worldwide elite, or even their more familiar name, The Bilderberg Group.

Still others are convinced that these people are Communists who are carrying out the agenda of implanting a worldwide communist government. What they’re doing is working together to carry out their agenda of a one world government via the United Nations.

There have been many different questions driving many different discussions, however, there’s one in particular that merits special thought because it’s the one that may seal the destiny of the human race. This is the Global Warming debate, which is simply called climate change now.

There isn’t one problem that’s discussed with as much enthusiasm and disagreement as man made Global Warming, and too many people are convinced that the supposed eruption of extraordinary weather events are caused by man’s activities and use of fossil fuels, and because of this, they’re being led to believe that governments must take extreme endeavours to put a stop to it.

Denying that there is Global Warming, is now compared with being a Nazi, and in fact someone in fact called for the imprisonment of those who contradict the so called knowledge of global warming, and it’s astonishing how they can now cite us of being a Nazi, and intimidating us with imprisonment for opposing them.

There has been a huge push in education to persuade young people that the United States and its capitalistic network are the main cause of Global Warming.

People are being conditioned to believe that the only way to rescue the planet is if the human race gives up their individuality in favour of the collective, while permitting the government to control what is best for us.

Seemingly Global communism is the only answer for Global warming…

No, there’s no conspiracy here, they’re just telling us what they’re going to do, through the use of mental advertising. Trying to persuade a great many people that we are indeed accountable for Global Warming and we need to pay higher taxes, and that we need to give up our rights and allow the government to run our lives in order to stop it.

There is only one drawback with all of this, it’s all a trick designed to carry out their chief policy initiative – the human depopulation agenda, better known as Agenda 21.

This is the number one bone of contention motivating the global warming argument, because the left believes that there are far too many people on the planet and that humankind is just a cancer to the earth.

For those who may not be familiar with Agenda 21, it essentially involves every policy initiative that pushes the world towards entire UN control. It involves everything from gun control to parental rights.

The strategy is to strip all individuals of their rights to private property, driving us into closely packed population centres, and to lead us like livestock. They as well plan to drastically lessen the human population from its current number of about seven billion to about 500,000,000, because they fearful that human beings consume too much, and the population growth is too much for the planet to handle – hey presto, and you have Armageddon!

For those who refuse to entertain that anybody could think such a thing, let’s look at this quote from the Initiative for the United Nations, Eco 92 Earth Charter.

“The present vast over population, now far beyond the world carrying capacity cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilisation and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction in the numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary. ”

According to an authorised UN document regarding the agenda on fighting global warming, abortion and birth control, this was in fact part of the human depopulation agenda.

They have now determined that these methods are not effective enough, and more drastic measures must be taken to bring human population levels down. Does this also mean that the Ebola virus is a scourge that they have been putting upon people to also bring down the human population as well?

The Ebola virus mysteriously materialised in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1976, and has sporadically reappeared in the region without explanation ever since.

Accepted medical professionals consider that eating monkeys who are contaminated with Ebola is the starting method of transferral. Nevertheless, this is accepted speculation because the research-based populace agrees that the natural reservoir of the virus is uncertain and therefore knowledge of transmission is only hypothesized.

In July 2012, an unexpected eruption of the Ebola virus surfaced, eliminating 14 people. People were told to be watchful, to steer clear of shaking of hands, and not to bury those that had died of the virus, not so different from the plague in fact.

There are numerous substantial truths which we don’t challenge, and which still we don’t completely trust. In spite of publicity and frenzy, there is cause for concern.

What we’re not certain about is if the concern should be about Ebola, or other even more menacing concerns.

Ebola is an untreatable disease that is really a bio weapon that was produced in a CIA laboratory. Books and movies like ‘Outbreak’, are in fact predictive programming propaganda to draw out a reaction from the spectator that these things are fiction, and that they’re not factual.

Normally things that are in fact true are considered as false, and there are numerous other hidden messages and controls that are being waged when we’re viewing our television sets, read a magazine or watch movies, and music video’s.

In fact, predictive programming through mass media, cinema and television control your interpretation of the real world without you even being aware of it.

So, when something shocking like the Government producing a bio weapon that gets out and threatens to eliminate almost all of the world, you dismiss the content as fiction, because you saw it in a film, however, it’s not entirely fiction, far from it.

A further bio weapon predictive programming piece in the 1980’s star covered B movie Virus bomb shelled at the box office, however, hit the gold mine on the predictive propaganda Richter scale.

The movie was employed to subliminally spur vaccine propaganda after the 1976 Swine Flu fraud that alluded to generate a New World after the destruction of humankind by some kind of contagion, however, there are other appalling misogynist pieces of information and surprising facts.

In fact, cinema honestly does emulate life, in more ways than nearly all perceive, and the beautiful people divulge evidence. Like how movie Sovlent Green disclosed 1992’s Agenda 21 in 1973, and the truly evil concealed agenda, ’Sovlent Green is people. ’

What should be crying out is that the Club Of Rome and the United Nations killers are depopulating the world. That is the true real world big secret disclosed in Sovlent Green. The hidden agenda of the United Nations Agenda 21, which is all concealed in plain sight. Much truth is revealed. In fact viewed. Actual occurrences are invisible, yet in plain sight.

We believe movies are purely for pleasure. Inferior entertainment at that, as far as the movie ‘Virus’ is concerned. Movies, television, music, et cetera are all escapisms for our amusement, however, they’re not.

Whatever the ominous story line, we, the entertained spectator thinks that the government would never let anything like what happened in Virus, or Outbreak happen in real life.

The government would never produce a bio weapon and use it on its own people… right? No, wrong. They have and they are.

Sadly, the facts are truly far worse than any fiction, my friends.

Losing Your Mind Over A Carrier Bag


When the 5p carrier bag charge came into power in England, no one could have foreseen the total confusion it would cause. People have taken extreme measures to evade paying five pence for a plastic bag in their own supermarkets, from taking shopping home in trolleys, to thieving Bags for Life, people have appeared to have gone into total meltdown.

Here is the bizarre thing that has taken place with regards to the bag charge since it came into power in England. A man got banned from Asda for scrapping over a carrier bag charge.


An Asda patron felt like he was treated like a dog by employees who supposedly attempted to pressure him into paying for his plastic carrier bag. He maintained that while attempting to convey his shopping to his vehicle in a basket from the store, an employee emptied his merchandise onto the floor.

The man paid for his goods at a self service checkout at the store, however, did not want to spend out money for a bag. After the event, he was asked to depart from the store, and the next day was informed that he was banned for using disgusting language and being insulting towards staff.

Asda asserts the incident was the only one it had experienced over the 5p bag charge. A spokesperson for Asda stated that they don’t take decisions to ban customers from their stores lightly, and that following the mans visit to their store, their coworkers felt this was the proper option as a consequence of the man’s conduct towards colleagues, and not because of the carrier bag charge.

The majority of people aren’t in accord with the 5p charge for the carrier bags, and the situation that people are getting themselves into is becoming absurd. Most people are saving up their carrier bags and taking their own to Asda stores, and I’ve been hearing that some people are being thrown out of Asda for not having an Asda logo bag.

For those that agree with the introduction of payment for bags has clearly missed the sharpened end of the governments tail seeing as they’re paying for carrier bags, and the reuse of those bags four times over.

However, most people will merrily give away their 5p because as human beings we’re extremely compliant, and because people believe they have to do this. Well, you don’t, because you’ve already given payment for those things, in taxes, council tax, and sewage, and now the extra 5 pence.

At one time we certainly didn’t have to pay for our black bin bags, they were given without charge because we paid our taxes, and slowly but surely they’ve vanished from our doorsteps, and then councils made us pay for them, and like little drones we just did, but never questioned why we had to pay for them, when they were free prior to this because we paid our taxes.

All the money we pay out in taxes, council tax, and so forth, not all of it goes on what they state it does, nevertheless, because people believe what they read in black and white, they believe that’s how it should be, and they just dish money out, and go about their day without ever disputing what their hard earned money is really going on – just because it might say it on paper in black and white, doesn’t actually mean it’s true.

Does anybody really sit down and wonder where their hard earned cash is going?

I’m sure everybody has had a thought about it at one time or another, the thing is, no one wants to do anything about it, or they think they can’t do anything about it.

Nevertheless, paying your taxes is actually against the law.

I wonder how many people out there who pay their taxes know that it’s in fact illegal and unlawful.

In agreement with domestic law and international law, if you have a rational reason to suspect that HM Government is associated with criminal proceedings, you’re beholden by law to hold back any, and all forms of funding and support.


HM Government unlawfully and illegally sanctioned HM Armed Forces to invade Iraq, as well as Afghanistan and Libya, and murdered over 1.4 million people and counting, comprising over 450,000 children and counting.

They had no UN permission, no approval at all, yet, they committed and proceeded to carry out mass extermination, terrorism and unlawful acts against humanity completely, illegally and unlawfully.

This is not fiction. This is an acknowledged reality. Recognised as a truth by the UN itself, the Malaysian Capital’s War Crime Tribunal and the Foreign Affairs Office to name an extremely small few.

I strongly encourage and suggest that you spend a couple of hours or so on websites so you can arm yourself with the realities, and much required surrounding understanding, conviction that not only are war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and terrorism that is being committed in your name, however, also why holding back any, and all forms of funding and or support from HM Government is totally legal, and is the legal and conscionable thing to do.

By the time you’ve concluded perusing all the facts provided for you on the issue, you will be dazed and shocked at what you’ve learned – it will be the biggest rude awakening.

In law, it’s widely recognised all over the world that if you become conscious of, or have rational cause to suspect, that an organisation or person is associated in criminal activity, and yet you continue to fund and support the said organisation or person, then you’re culpable of carrying out a crime by association, often known as an accessory, or abettor, and perpetrating an ancillary crime.

The sanctioned explanation of terrorism as specified in the Terrorism Act 2000, and section 15 of the selfsame Act states extremely clearly that if a person knows or has rational cause to have a suspicion that money, funds or taxes will or may be used for the motive of terrorism, that they’re carrying out a crime by association.

So, all that’s necessary is a rational reason to have suspicions that taxes or any other funds will, or may be used to fund criminal activity, in this specific case terrorism.

The People of Britain, and the world are being swindled and lied to. That’s fraud, right? This is where it gets even more fascinating because as stated by the Fraud Act 2006 it would be safe to conclude that HM Government and HM Parliament are perpetual criminals on a daily basis.

So here goes; Section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006

Section 2 – Fraud by false representation

Section 3 – Fraud by failing to disclose information

Section 4 – Fraud by abuse of position

So conspiracy must have been committed right?

The crime of conspiracy, as stated by the Criminal Law Act 1977

And as stated by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and here

Suffice to say that if a person is aware, or has rational cause to suspect that funding, or any other support will, or may be used for the motive of terrorism, mass murder, offences against humanity, war crimes, fraudulence or conspiracy et cetera, the said person is certainly obliged both by law and moral sense to hold back any, and all forms of funding and, or support from the organisation or persons suspected of carrying out said offences.

So, let’s visualise that through your own investigations and conviction you have decided to give Notice to HM Government that you’re obliged by law and moral sense to hold back tax, owing to you having overwhelmingly reasonable cause to suspect that funds will or may be used to support criminal activity.

Firstly, you would require enough facts to show to yourself and others why and how you have rational cause to suspect criminal activity by HM Government, HM Armed Forces and HM Parliament may be taking place.

Let’s be explicit here, you don’t need to supply proof to show an offence beyond reasonable doubt as you would if you were the prosecutor in a criminal lawsuit. The only prerequisite in this instance is enough supporting evidence to show why you have reasonable cause to believe that an offence may be being committed, and that’s very simple to do in this case.

So visualise the following people, listed below had already gone before you and declared that they consider or have reasonable cause to suspect the Iraq war is illegal and unlawful:


Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations


All 27 lawyers of the Foreign Affairs Office – headed by Senior Legal Advisor Sir Michael Wood


Elizabeth Wilmshurst, former Deputy Legal Adviser


Independent enquiry lead by Dutch Supreme Court Judge Willibrord Davids


Lady Manningham-Buller, former MI5 Chief


Hans Blix, former United Nations chief arms inspector, former UK ambassador to the US

Major General Michael Laurie, former Head of the Defence Intelligence Staff

Dr David Kelly, former United Nations weapons inspector

Robin Cook, former Foreign Secretary, Leader of the House of Commons


Nick Clegg, current Deputy Prime Minister


Professor Philippe Sands QC Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals

Professor Robert Black QC, Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague

Professor Sean Murphy, Associate professor of law at George Washington University

Professor Vaughan Lowe Chichele Professor of Public International Law, All Souls College, Oxford

Professor James Crawford Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge

Professor Mary Kaldor Professor of global governance, London School of Economics

Professor Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics

Jan Kavan, the president of the UN General Assembly


Judge Abdul Kadar Sulaiman, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, Malaysia

Judge Salleh Buang, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, Malaysia

Judge Tunku Sofiah Jewa, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, Malaysia

Judge Alfred L. Webre, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, Malaysia

Judge Shad Saleem Faruqi, Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, Malaysia

Well, envisage no more, they already have, and this is not the complete list.

Once you have given Notice to the proper parties, that in good mind and conscience, and in agreement with the law you are obliged to hold back funding and support due to having reasonable cause to suspect that criminal activity has been committed, and given the proof you have, and the law that obligates you in this matter, then for any person to try to gather funds from you would be a criminal act, under both domestic and international law.

Any official that tries to intimidate, bully, pressure or provoke you to carry out a crime would need to be made mindful of the extremely serious crime they may be about to, or have just committed.  It’s quite clear to anybody who takes anything more than a casual look at this subject matter, that huge, abhorrent and wicked crimes have been and are continuing to be committed in our name, and with the tax from our sweat equity paying for it.  We’re prohibited by law and moral sense to continue to give funds to perpetrators of these most menacing and wicked crimes, and now you have the legislation to back you all the way.

Are you willing to let the following slide?

Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, terrorism, conspiracy, embezzlement, and the infliction of pain. Well, if you are, then continue to support and fund.

At present the government has brought in a 5p levy for carrier bags, and we’re now all wondering where our money is once again going, and it’s been hailed a wonderful move to cut refuse and injury to wildlife in England.

They don’t care about our wildlife. If they did, then fox hunting would be prohibited.  Nevertheless, they think nothing of killing for pleasure, and that’s contemplated as an okay thing to do, but then we have to reimburse them with 5p for a carrier bag because their troubled it will harm the wildlife of England.

If they’re so bothered it will harm the wildlife of England, why not replace plastic bags with paper bags, like they used to do in America, which worked extremely well for the Americans. After all, we appear to follow everything they do, because our government can’t seem to think for themselves – maybe they should be pursuing the sheep instead of the foxes!

If the government is that concerned that plastic bags will harm our wildlife, why don’t they just outlaw them altogether, along with plastic sandwich bags, and anything plastics because plastic bags never biodegrade, however, they do break down, however, as they do so, any toxic ingredients they comprise, including flame retardants, antimicrobials and plasticisers are set free into the habitat.

Many of these chemicals may disrupt the endocrine system, the delicately balanced set of hormones and glands that affect virtually every organ and cell in the bodies of humans and animals.

Nevertheless, they put chemicals in nearly everything that we deal with in daily life, particularly when it comes to genetically modified food, which is one more toxin that messes with the day to day life of humans and animals, along with fruit, which they genetically modify so they can get a faster turnover in yield and profit.

If plastics are dangerous to the habitat, then why not as an alternative make paper bags, which are biodegradable, instead of making us pay a levy on plastic bags, since at the end of the day, even by charging us, they are still replicating plastic bags that we can purchase, and they’re still damaging the environment, which totally defeats the object.

If they’re defeating the object, and plastic bags are still being reproduced, it can only mean that by charging us, it’s because of pecuniary gain, and nothing to do with the environment at all.

In truth anything that the government does, isn’t for the good of the wildlife at all, and they’re only acting on financial gain, and they’re just implementing something that will make us feel like we’re doing something good for the habitat, when in fact we’re doing something good for the pockets of our government.

You can dress it up as much as you like, you can swathe it up in as much cotton wool as you like, but there is a huge number of people out there that know different, and they’re out there trying to address the problem head on.

Nonetheless, there is a great deal of other people out there that are not willing to do anything about it, because they’re too frightened, and they’re scared that if they do, that they will be bullied by other high ranking officials.

However, we can’t be intimidated if we don’t fear them. Nevertheless, we fear that an adverse reaction to whatever we do, and we fear retribution, and at present the government is on their way to purging our society, when really we need to cleanse society of our government.

Most think that progress and growth is the best way to get on, and it’s all for the good of humanity, however, it’s a field that’s frequently disregarded because when it comes to government there’s no space for change, unless they’re changing it.

If we replaced plastic bags for paper bags, then that wouldn’t be as dangerous on the habitat, but then it would give the government another excuse to charge us for bags because they would then state that it was using up too much wood to pulp down for the bags, and that we’d have to pay a levy on that as well.

It’s just one tax after another, mostly because it gives the government additional money to front more wars on other nations, and it’s intoxicating, however, it doesn’t take that much expertise to pull the wool over the populace of Great Britain.

Nevertheless, the governments stratagem is really devious, and well played out, and we’re their theatre, their entry to do whatever they like.  Nonetheless, we do have a way out, and it could be a really magnificent one – we just have to say NO…

Free School Meals Could Be Cut

school meals

The government is looking into cutting free school meals for infants at lunchtime.


The Liberal Government of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman launched free school meals for children from poverty-stricken families in 1906, and by 1914 children were given free meals once a day.

Nourishment for school children is extremely crucial, the problem is, it’s costing the government too much money, and it disheartens me to think that in due course free school meals will be a thing of the past.

The scheme saves parents of reception, year one and year two pupils about £400 per child, per year, which is going to take its toll on a parent’s funds if free school meals are scrapped altogether.

It would be a catastrophe if the system was relinquished, and it will put a considerable strain on numerous parents that can’t pay for school meals because there’s not enough money, and a great deal of children will go hungry.

Bringing in free school meals for children was a significant step forward for a child’s well-being, and educational performance, as nearly all packed lunches don’t have nowhere near the nutritional value as school meals.

When a child doesn’t have enough to eat, in nearly all instances the student isn’t able to learn owing to poor nutrition or sufficient hydration.  Within the student’s brain, a biochemical process of learning is happening, by making connections, finding meaning, and working out problems that need lightening fast electrical impulses between areas of the brain.

The development of memory needs physical growth, and reshaping the matrix of brain cells. So that marvellous experience, when the light goes on, and the student says, “I get it!”, is a Neuro-chemical process, as well as an educational one, and by nourishing the brain with healthy food and water, it will optimise the inner environment, allowing a student to truly engage in the classroom environment, and attain their potential.

Nevertheless, they don’t want them to reach their potential, that’s the whole point of taking free school meals from the shelf.

Next they’ll be telling us that we in fact don’t need to send our children to school – no of course they won’t do that because they want our children to be regimented, because after all, education is run through a politically operated structure that’s designed to keep society, which starts with our children, so that they can dumb them down, lacking the ability of either creative or logical intelligence.

You don’t have to be a fortune teller to see that what we call education is really not intended to better the lives of the children, their families, or society in general.


The basis of education is to suppress society, to produce robotic clones that are purely cogs in the wheel, that only know how to do their little job that they’ve been given to do, and to stop people from having self determination.

The problem with governments is that they’re besotted with making a race of clones that they can have power over at any given time. It’s complete insanity, however, it’s been going on for such a long time now, that nearly all of the generation now have no clue of what’s going on because they, unbeknown to them, have already been cloned.

Looks like the “lights are on, but nobodies at home! ”

Jeremy Corbyn’s Parliamentary Sketch

I quite like Jeremy Corbyn’s Political sketch, however, on the other hand, I dare say it could in fact look a bit like a Punch a Judy show, even though David Cameron had to be on his best behaviour, and that I like even more.

It’s all about the people (men, women, children), the citizens of the United Kingdom, however, the government is a bit inclined to forget about the people of the United Kingdom, unless, of course, there Toffs like David Cameron, and his menagerie of animals he calls his cabinet.

I consider that the people should have their say, and be able to ask questions, instead of MP’s sitting in parliament talking over what and what not we should be entitled without any response from their constituents.


What was it George Orwell said. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. ”

Well, he wasn’t incorrect there.  It’s not about possessions, or the house that we live in, it’s about the quality of life we have while we’re here.

We’re an extraordinary race, and consequently the government should secure that, and make sure of that, instead of overpowering us. However, their behaviour isn’t without condemnation, and therefore it’s only right that the public should be permitted to respond to questions for the Prime Minister, and he should reply to them with good faith, and if he can’t do that, then maybe he should stand down as PM.

Sadly, man is the only real opponent that we have, because many of them are prejudiced, particularly those MP’s with their narrow mindedness, and their creative transactions.

Never listen when they tell you that we all have a shared interest, that the success of one is the prosperity of the others.  It’s all lies.  They’re abusers of the truth, and so are their accomplices, they just wish to draw the life out of you.

Man is your opponent, he has no compassion, he will not pity you, or even give you his acceptance.  The government is just a hindrance, however, they will make you think that you’re the obstacle.

It’s us human beings that are the thinkers, and the whole administration and planning of this nation should be upon us, not the government.  Day and night we should be watching over our well being.

The government just aggravates the situation that we’re in, and we need to take action, because the government we have at the moment need to be kicked from their seats.

The people in government don’t really work, all that they do is direct and oversee others, because with all their higher-level knowledge they think that they have, they just assume their leadership.

They have this huge congregation of people they call cabinet ministers, and they have this huge social event where they all sit in parliament where they condemn the people, and consider us as the parasites of this world.

They sit there and demolish our spirit to the point of no return, and when we object, we either get taken into custody for doing so because we have no power of speech any longer, however, who needs to speak eloquently when you have a pack of attack dogs biting your arse?

They’re just a manipulating pack of animals that sit in parliament and fabricate untruths, as well as promising things that they can’t really bring to the table, which brings them beneath condemnation.


Most of us work hard, but have to live frugally, unless you’re David Cameron, Iain Duncan Smith or George Osborne. It’s a lot easier to tell other people that they should be giving up their iPads and Starbucks lattes when you’ve just bought yourself a £2,000 Italian espresso machine.

To be honest, keeping up with the government regulations is much harder than remembering what we had to eat. They bring in new rules daily, and they hold us accountable for these new regulations, they never hold themselves responsible.

It all appears to come down to class distinction, however, you as an individual can select not to be defined by a category. This is difficult because people have an inclination to be a part of some club, even if it’s the club of losers.

We’re inclined to put things and people into conceptual boxes, and we classify. This produces categorial identity. Rationalising in terms of boxes is occasionally convenient, up to a point, but then we have a strong tendency to give an essence to that box.

People have a varied relationship with money. Some people gather their money, some people love to make money, some people love to squander money, and some people are afraid of it.

Treating everybody the same sources vast difficulties. On the other hand, it makes me unhappy when people believe they’re higher ranking because of their relationship with money.

I wouldn’t say that money is equivalent to affluence, however, it’s a bounty that comes at a considerable price, furthermore, it definitely doesn’t give us our well-being, however, people appear to salivate over these paper notes that we call money.

Nevertheless, what we salivate over is just paper, and we can splash the cash, and advertise on TV, commodities that will make people fritter away their money, however, what it obscures is suppressed conditioning of the mind.


It was an exceptional idea, that Mr Corbyn gave people a voice, because with that voice, it as well gave the person on the other end, the ability to voice their thoughts and concerns, and the idea was actually a well spun publicity stunt, that should be brought into parliament more frequently.

MPs routinely question Mr Cameron on behalf of their constituents, without making such a song and dance about it, and it was thoroughly cunning of Mr Corbyn to think of the idea, and an extremely clever idea it was as well.

It made sure that Mr Cameron couldn’t ridicule Mr Corbyn, or the voter who contributed the question. Mr Cameron had to be on his best behaviour, plus he had to answer without any reprisal.

Maybe this is a sign of things to come, and it shouldn’t be condemned, or thought of as rubbish.  The government is already a fiasco of negligence by their own omission.

Their principles are all about money, and perhaps now they should savour their own medicine, which should be given out on prescription on a daily basis. It might not make our government better, however, it definitely couldn’t make it any worse.

Insufferable Strategies


Thousands of young people could be blocked from claiming tax credits and housing benefit so the Tories don’t have to pay them to EU immigrants. The Government wants to put an end to people coming to the United Kingdom claiming welfare until they’ve lived in the country for four years.

However, EU regulations stop governments from discriminating against immigrants, so ministers are considering expanding the restrictions to British workers between 18 and 22.

It’s thought as many as 50,000 British workers will be affected, many of them young parents.

Labour forewarned the majority of people would find the restrictions unacceptable.


Shadow work and pensions minister Stephen Timms stated the Government should think about adopting the Opposition’s plan to limit access to benefits for new immigrants for two years rather than four years.

He said this would have an effect on fewer people if a lack of treaty alters throughout the renegotiation of the United Kingdom’s EU membership meant the restrictions also had to apply to Britons.

Without a treaty change, which British officials have formerly established may not be in place by the time of the in/out referendum, which they have pledged will be by the end of 2017. The Government has had to think about idea’s which would increase the embargo to Britons to stop direct discrimination.

The residency test plan would apply from the age of 18, and will not take into consideration if somebody has lived in the United Kingdom all their life.

It sounds like the discussions are not going well, and ministers are stirring from their sleep, and realising that they won’t be able to bring about the renegotiation vowed they would do.

The view has been that there is a good case for limiting benefits to new immigrants from somewhere else in the European Union. The policy statement insisted on a two year limitation, but the government has been proposing a four year constraint.

The larger part of people would take the view that it would not be reasonable for ordinary UK residents to be badly hit because the Government’s renegotiation attempts have not attained a favourable outcome.

Nevertheless, the outcome of such will clearly have such an unacceptable outcome for the people of the United Kingdom. We already have a social division that has dominated over our society, however, by clamping down on migrant benefits, it will also have an effect on most of the UK’s claimants, the government will then have full autonomy for everyone.

Our society has no independence, and it’s really sad that this is the way it has to be, or does it?

The problem is everyone appears to be perplexed by everything that’s going on, however, if there’s uncertainty in a person’s mind about what’s going on with the government, then clearly something is wrong, however, the response should be, what are we going to do about it?

It’s not about migrants being here, or the fact that our society is prejudice against them because they’re from another country, or a contrasting colour, or religion, it’s simply because we don’t have the headroom for them in the United Kingdom.


David Cameron is right, we shouldn’t take anymore refugees from war torn Middle East, we just don’t have the room, and it’s not because we’re uncaring racists.

It’s dreadful that this kind of thing is occurring, however, there is only so much that we can do, and as stated by our government we don’t have enough finances to keep our heads above water.

The government keeps bleating on about how much debt we’re in, and that the taxpayer has to put his hand in his pocket to lend a helping hand with the deficit, does that mean by bringing migrants to our country we have to put our hands in our pockets even more to help them as well?

We’re not accountable for everyone else, we’re a really small country that has hardly enough to sustain itself, let alone enough headroom to put these people, and there are numerous other larger nations that could take them in, but in all probability wouldn’t because they’re too occupied taking care of their own populace.

There’s nothing that can be achieved by taking more and more displaced people, and it’s tragic what’s happening, however, if we join the European wide settlement programme for refugees, then the United Kingdom would become involved in a larger scale scheme, acting as an attraction for other migrants, and it would be impossible to differentiate economic migrants from refugees.