About that hammer and sickle on the Russian Army flag

About that hammer and sickle on the Russian Army flag


by Don Hank

Someone recently asked me why the Russian military has reverted to the hammer and sickle on their flag. I explained that this symbol antedated the Russian Revolution and did not necessarily denote communism. In fact the revolution itself was supported by a people who never dreamed it would turn communist. The hammer and sickle was rather used as a symbol of independence from the West and a kind of warning against Western meddling.

I think the fact that the symbol is back in place is a sign of just how angry and frustrated Russians are at the Western introduction of terror in Russia.

Just imagine how you would feel if another country introduced terrorist killers into the US and they occupied a school, as they did in Breslan, and started killing child hostages. Can you imagine a greater affront? Actually, the Saudis did something like this, killing 2-3000 Americans and our government covered up for them.

Meanwhile, the Russian intelligence services, including their ex chief Putin, knew the US was behind these atrocities and kept silent for 2 decades, as reported here.

You should be struck not that the Russian army has reinstated the old symbol of independence that affronts Americans, but that they sat silent for 2 decades nursing their pain from the death of those children and other atrocities committed by the US-backed and trained terrorists.

I personally have not a single doubt that everything a person or a country does to harm another will eventually come back to harm the offender. I have seen it happen too often to doubt it. It happens right around the time people wake up and recognize the treachery behind the event.

The EU bosses used trickery to induce the Brits to join them, but now, decades later, Britain has left the EU and the bosses are rightfully worried sick that another major player will leave. If Italy were to leave, for example, the EU could be crippled fatally. That’s the kind of justice I am talking about. It is divine and cosmic and it is unstoppable.

The US government lied about trade agreements for years, and now, Europe and Japan have stopped believing. Thus TTIP is all but dead. This is how it works.

In the early 70s the US made a dirty deal with the bloody Satanic Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, whereby the US would fight all Saudi wars for them in exchange for the Saudis propping up the US dollar. The wars intentionally took the lives of innocents, including many Christians, and destabilized country after country in ways that ushered in groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. But despite the plot to save the dollar, last year already, almost all US allies joined the Chinese investment bank AIIB, despite desperate pleas from Obama not to join.

In compliance with unknown terms of the petrodollar agreement, Washington founded and funded, together with the Saudi Rat Pack, at least 3 major terror groups, all of which came back to bite us. Worst of all, our evil government is no longer trusted anywhere. And despite the desperate measure to prop up the dollar with murder, the plan is backfiring. The same Saudis who plotted with Washington are now grinding down the dollar with rock bottom oil prices. There is no honor among thieves they say.

Washington’s power is being drained little by little.

What went around came around.

And all the silly Neocons can talk about is a symbol on a flag. And yet, US embassies all around the world are flying the rainbow flag, no less an affront to good hard working traditional people everywhere and no Neocon utters a peep.

Hypocrites all of them!




Who’s the REAL demagogue? Trump or the Establishment?

Who’s the REAL demagogue? Trump or the Establishment?

by Don Hank

A British writer who does not like Donald Trump recently expressed publicly:


“Mr Trump’s rallies increasingly attract violence – by his opponents and his supporters.”

In a three-way conversation in which I was included, a mutual friend reminded him that it is not fair to blame a person who is attacked for being attacked. The mutual friend asserted that it is a well-known trick of the left to blame the attackee for being attacked.


The Trump detractor, undeterred, then called Trump a mountebank who made “demagogic outbursts.”


demagogism, demagoguism, demagogy

the art and practice of gaining power and popularity by arousing the emotions, 

passions, and prejudices of the people.


It must be noted that in Europe, especially the UK, when someone accuses someone else of being a demagogue, the purpose of the accusation is generally not to adhere to a standard definition of the word but rather to stealthily create an association in the mind of the audience between the person thus impugned and Adolf Hitler. The implication is an appeal to emotion intended to stop the discussion before it can get started – often because the accuser lacks the skill and/or the supporting facts to continue the discussion. That may not have been the case in the above-referenced discussion and I don’t intend to imply that. Note, however, that, particularly in Europe, the accusation of demagoguery is in itself a kind of subtle soft demagoguery because it is intended to evoke emotional images of the last war that caused so much suffering in Europe. Good patriots generally bow reflexively to the person who conjures up this image, no matter how irrelevant it may be. While it is true that Trump, like all the other candidates, appeals to emotion and can thus technically be accused of demagoguery, the content and purpose of Trump’s utterances is the diametric opposite of Hitler’s. In fact, I will go so far as to say that, ironically, the Hitler analogy is more applicable to the Establishments in Europe and the US, which oppose Trump.

In the case of Adolf Hitler, the ultimate goal was war, a racist war that would force Germanism on the rest of the world and even eliminate many non-Germans.

During the GOP debates, almost all of Trump’s opponents expressed the idea that Russia was the number one enemy, on the assumption that the American people would reflexively agree with this assessment, forgetting that Russia had never declared jihad on anyone. Some, like Ohio Governor John Kasich, even went so far as to say that if he were president, he would “punch Russia in the nose.” Ohio Governor Chris Christie said he would also do so if the Russians violated a US-imposed no-fly zone, and Carly Fiorina agreed with both demagogues. Hillary, for her part, has compared Putin with Hitler, and her choice of pro-war cabinet members has led a number of scholars to predict that a Hillary presidency would lead to a nuclear war.

Now why do I call this war rhetoric demagoguery? I do so because it is clear that these Neocon warmongers firmly believe that most Americans are still generally imbued with Cold War fervor. Of course, they are wrong, because if that were true, Donald Trump – who bravely said in his campaign, “I think I can get along with Putin” – would not be as popular as he is. In fact, it is safe to say that Americans are inexorably turning against the Neocons whose whole raison d’être is centered around the kind of senseless war that has caused untold suffering throughout the world for over a half-century. The same rejection of the Establishment is being seen in Europe.

Now the demagoguery of both parties’ elites is almost identical with Hitler’s but is potentially more dangerous because we now are looking at the possibility of a nuclear confrontation, and numerous warnings are being issued by officials in relevant positions such as former generals and foreign ministers, eg, here, here, here, here, and that is barely scratching the surface.

Everywhere in the West, the elites have used nothing less than demagoguery to keep the masses in check. Every time a politician, like Angela Merkel, accuses her opponents of being the “far right,” she is in fact attempting to conjure up images of the Third Reich, when in fact, the EU and Establishment regimes are nothing but an extension of that regime, as ably demonstrated by Rodney Atkinson, for example, in this video, and by our colleague Edward Spalton, eg, here.

Yet the demagogues who want war continue to call the peacemakers demagogues.

But the threadbare ruse can only last until the people see through it, and the time is just about up.

Those identified as supporting the Establishment could soon lose all credibility. The good news: it is not to late to adjust one’s message accordingly.

A word to the wise.

News item:


Looks like these terrorists are trying to get Trump elected. (Yea, I know, they are just stupid!)

Don Hank

Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: http://laiglesforum.com/so-youre-fond-of-nato-eh-mr-cruz-check-out-these-videos-of-nato-in-kosovo/3690.htm and http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm), Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.

Elitists shocked: Same identical experiment fails again

Global elites shocked: Same identical experiment fails again


by Don Hank

I am hearing from a number of people who say that the elites are allowing terror acts in order to have an excuse to declare martial law. In other words, the elitists are omnipotent and all-wise and everything that happens these days is a result of elitist machinations. While it is true that Belgium was in lockdown for a few days after the Paris attacks and transport was shut down for a short time after the recent Brussels attacks, these were necessary measures and not necessarily a sign that the elites wanted martial law.

The real truth of the matter is that the global elites do not believe in controlling their subjects by physical force. Like the early communist theorists, they believe that once the people are conditioned properly under the tutelage of superior beings like themselves, the state will melt away and the populace will not longer require external control. But now these elites are being blindsided thanks to their naïve belief in an unworkable ideology, which includes the notion that a non-Muslim or Christian country can accommodate unlimited numbers of Muslim immigrants, and all of them will learn to get along fine as long as certain elitist principles are followed — ie,  once their superior education system and media have completely eliminated any undesirable thoughts from among the populace and successfully implanted correct thoughts in their charges, thoughts that will reproduce themselves from here to eternity in the Utopia of their creation. Here is a typical example reflecting this notion:

QUOTE from http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-24/jihad-brussels

“Islam belongs in Europe…. I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture.” — Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The terminally naive Angela Merkel had said almost the exact same words: Islam belongs in Germany – before, that is, scores of German women were assaulted sexually in Cologne last New Year’s eve by the beneficiaries of Merkel’s invitation to the tired and poor of the Muslim world. Merkel’s subsequent attitude and statements were classic deer in the headlights reactions. She could not think of anything coherent enough to say to stave off a catastrophic loss by her party in the regional elections. Things had clearly spun out of her control, at variance with the popular narrative that the elites control everything. In fact, the consequences of their actions are more often unintended and that is just the opposite of control.

It is clear that these people naively believed that if they applied “European principles” and stuck to their “European values” (including a Pollyanna view that everyone, even devout Muslims, would automatically accept the Western concept of “democracy” and “freedom” (two words that globalist GW Bush used ad nauseam referring to the Iraq fiasco), once they had seen these superior concepts in action in real life.

The reaction of these Western “leaders” to the hard fact that Muslims will never accept “Western values” – with many preferring instead to massacre their naïve liberal hosts – shows that these elitists were not just pretending in order to usher in martial law. They actually believed in their hearts that their “values” (which, as I pointed out here, are not values at all) would be universally accepted, even by Muslims, once they were displayed vividly enough for all to see in action. But in every venue in which this experiment has been tried, “Western values” (called “European values” in Europe) have in fact failed to attract the general public. This is because of something called culture, whose existence the global elites refuse to acknowledge (because they despise the very concept, as I showed here), let alone accommodate it in their public policies. A fatal flaw for them and an opportunity for We the People.

Following the Brussels attacks, the same Mogherini mentioned above broke into tears and could not give a scheduled news conference, as shown in this video. What does this prove? It proves that the naïve Italian girl who had swallowed the elitist notion that everyone would assimilate in Europe and accept European values once exposed to them, was not only wrong, but she was in fact stunned by the failure of her ideology. She was totally unprepared for reality because, like all elitists, she did not believe even in the existence of culture as a political force and could not believe that the Muslim culture would make Muslims behave differently from Europeans once they had been exposed to the far superior European culture (did you catch the racism?).

A similar phenomenon was observed when the US elitists were unable to throw enough money and propaganda at the Jeb Bush campaign to sweep their pathetically incompetent candidate into the presidency.

This refusal to accept reality does not give the elitists power, as many of you believe. It robs them of their power by setting them up for a string of unpleasant surprise upsets, which include the rise to power of anti-Establishment politicians throughout the West:

Donald Trump in the US

Nigel Farage in the UK

Marine LePen in France

Geert Wilders in Holland

Viktor Orban in Hungary

and a host of lesser but rising political figures throughout Europe.

The Islamic jihadists are the catalyst in a rapidly evolving unstoppable but unintended vicious cycle:

The more naively and blindly the elitists behave, for example, by inviting hordes of “refugees” into Western countries, the more terror occurs throughout the West. The more terror occurs, the more powerful the anti-Establishment movement becomes.

If the terror seems unstoppable, the growth of opposition to the elites is also becoming unstoppable at the same time, creating the conditions for a perfect storm of civil unrest and perhaps war.

The reactions of the elitists, as described above, clearly show that things are not going according to plan for them.

The fact of the matter is that WE are in control if we can acquire the essential ingredients for freeing ourselves of slavery, namely, wisdom and knowledge.

To acquire these, we all need to study harder to learn the skills of proper personal and individual analysis, and to rely less on the herd instinct that betrays us in our quest for freedom.

Rodney Atkinson’s visit to Russia

Our colleague Rodney Atkinson is an entrepreneur, prolific author (visit Amazon and search his name), academician and more. He has been variously a lecturer at the University of Mainz in Germany but has also lectured before the UK Parliament.

He recently returned from Krasnodar in Russia, where he was lecturing, as described in his article below. None of what he says about Russia surprises me but it might surprise some of you. For example, did you know that the absurd sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and by the EU under pressure from the US are hurting Europe much more than they are Russia and are forcing Russia into the arms of China, where oil sales are now settled in rmb (Chinese yuan), leaving the USD high and dry in Asia. I had written about this phenomenon here based on my translation (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141219) of an interview given by China’s top monetary expert, Chen Yulu. Mr. Chen’s prediction that the rmb would become the third most widely used currency in the world has come true but a lot earlier than he had predicted! One important reason for this is the US economic sanctions against Russia, which thus wound up hurting the dollar as well as the European economy, as Mr. Atkinson shows below. Thus Mr. Chen had stated that the use of a given currency in world trade is a key factor in the value of that currency. Though very few people read my article and translation, Washington decision makers would have done well to heed Mr. Chen’s warning.


So all in all Russia is well on the way to being a successful, open, democratic, (genuine) capitalist and free nation state – while the US and EU become a sclerotic, corporatist, anti democratic, supranational authoritarian mess. Only the idiocy of western aggression by the kind of politicians and corporate apparatchiks whom the people of Europe and America now despise (witness the chaotic revolutions from Corbyn to Syriza to Podemus to AfD to Trump) could turn Russia, this potential land of peace and plenty, into a new battlefield for world conflict.

Information on Krasnodar, located in the southwest of Russia:



Rodney Atkinson’s article:



Just Back From Russia – Prosperous, Capitalist, Nationist, Democratic, Christian

Posted By: Rodney Atkinsonon: March 16, 2016In: Uncategorized

Print Email

If the average Westerner could see the modern Russia he would see something of his long lost past – before fatuous American neocons, social imperialist Obama democons, Islamophile anti-Christians, imperialist German Europe and men without history in London began the West’s gravest ever geopolitical mistake.

I have just been in Russia – in Krasnodar where I gave a couple of  2 hour lectures with discussion at the Kuban University. The staff and students were very supportive of my analysis of a western political class pursuing, at best out of ignorance, at worst with deliberate malice, the kind of corporatist imperialist behaviour which led to the Second World War – except that so disastrous are the politicians in London and Washington that we now find ourselves on the wrong side, pushing reform minded and friendly Russians (who genuinely seek to imitate western democratic capitalism) towards communist and imperialist China.

All the important geopolitical analysts of the past 50 years – Egon Bahr, who drove Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik, Henry Kissinger, George Kennan – were horrified at the dangerously ignorant US/EU aggression against Russia and the supine “me too” attitude of the poodle Cameron. (Boris Johnson’s attack on Obama for his support for the internally collapsing but aggressive nation-destroying European Union is at least the quality of intellectual argument which might be capable of discussion with Vladimir Putin)

There are few more obnoxious spokesmen for the neocon and EU aggression around the world than George Soros, the classic corporatist leftist (the true left by contrast recognise European fascism and the dangers of US aggression). When he was asked what he appreciates about Merkel’s Ostpolitik, he said that “without Merkel there would be no sanctions against Russia” – nor, we might add, the destructive mass migrations into a bankrupt Europe without democracies, nations and borders!

Russia Making Remarkable Progress 

So what does the Russia I visited look like? It looks a lot more prosperous than most of the United Kingdom – apart from the centre of the new ideology, London (where State corporatism drains both wealth and democracy from the rest of the country).

Read more here: http://freenations.net/just-back-from-russia/

Anarchists and frightened police face off in London

Bobbies learn spoiled kids are holy terrors 

by Don Hank

The UK newspaper Daily Mail reported today on a riot by anarchists in the UK, which broke out as part of an anti-cuts demonstration. They number in the thousands, have done a lot of damage and have also scared the beejeebers out of the police, who have become accustomed to fear over years of facing Muslim demonstrations against Western values (which make Muslims uncomfortable and never seem to quite go away no matter how many Europeans they terrorize in an effort to gently convert them–or else).

While many Americans still believe that the main source of economic benefits is a combination of work, ingenuity and risk taking, along with simple notions of supply and demand (commonly known as free market principles—once believed extinct until live specimens were recently found in China), Europeans have been taught since about the end of WW II that the government is where all money, jobs and benefits come from. Some of them also reportedly believe government is where babies come from and where people go when they die.

They pray thusly: Our Government, who art in heaven, give us this day our dole of bread, lest we blast your stuff to kingdom come. For mine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen and to the barricades.

Sadly, the anarchists featured in the Daily Mail story are protesting something that practically no longer exists: capitalism.

Today’s Western economy is based on a system that can charitably be called corporatism, or, if you are mean, fascism, which has replaced the free market system so gradually that most have not noticed and don’t even know it is there.

We can all agree that the present system is impoverishing us and eliminating the middle class, while enriching the oligarchs.

However, since it is a hybrid between corrupt Big Government (essentially socialism) and corrupt business interests, conservatives (on both sides of the pond) hate it but only see the Big Government side of it, which is corrupt — while socialists / anarchists (on both sides of the pond) hate it but only see the capitalist side of it, which is corrupt.

It’s like the 4 blind men and the elephant. There aren’t enough people yet who see the system for the many-tentacled hybrid that it is, and herein lies the tragic inability to solve the problem. Indeed, if you don’t understand what you are up against, then it is hard to fight effectively. A friend of mine has likened problem solving of this sort to buttoning a shirt: If you start wrong at the top, you wind up wrong at the bottom.

Many, including the above-referenced anarchists, believe all of their problems can be solved by a government willing to cooperate with their hedonistic whims. That’s because not nearly enough understand that the EU is a dictatorship that looks out only for its own interests (as elegantly explained by Sonya Porter) and has been controlling the corrupt government side of the economy (by teaching young people fairly tales about climate change and social justice), while most of the capitalists have joined forces with this same government and together they have a jolly good time robbing all of us poor blokes down at the bottom of the food chain.

If young people can be made to understand this, then, once they outgrow their Pampers, they can help us rebuild the West, now that we have all managed to muck it up.

So what do you say? Let’s teach them.

That should work a lot better than sending teams of frightened bobbies after them.

How Europe can restore its freedom

Europe: Restore Christianity, restore freedom

 by Don Hank

 Christians in Europe are under direct attack. Many are losing their employment for speaking out, just as they did in the Soviet Union. And yet, despite the extreme hard times for Christians in Europe, the direct targeting of Christians and the demonization of their faith has an unintended consequence for the Ruling Class (Oligarchy) that represses them, and this could eventually unravel the progress they have made so far:

It raises nagging questions in everyone’s mind:

–Who is this Jesus Christ that makes the most powerful men in the world fear Him so?

–What is it about the Bible that makes it so fearsome to the Oligarchs who normally rely on the stealth (Fabian) approach to win hearts and minds of the public to its side?

If this book is really so fearsome that they must drop their stealthy approach and directly ban Christian or Biblical speech, then that blows their cover and reveals their agenda in a way that leaves them exposed and naked.

For them to do such a thing means that they perceive something in the message of that book.

Europe has slumbered for decades through a massive power grab on the part of the Ruling Class in national governments (what is left of them) and has largely sided with this class, despite the abuse it has heaped on them by robbing them of national governments and shoving EU law down their throats.

In one area in particular, the people have agreed to a large extent with their masters, namely, in regard to Christianity.

The Ruling Class throughout Europe has put out the message that Christianity is largely responsible for Hitler’s rise to power, for example.

Yet recent research shows that it was in fact the erosion of biblical viewpoint that contributed most to preparing the hearts and minds of Germans to accept the Folkish propaganda that helped popularize the notion of Germans as the super race.

The popular anti-Christianity is passed off as a natural grassroots phenomenon. It is not. It is the result of a clever propaganda campaign that has led to the subjugation of the peoples of Europe.

German language version of the above-linked article:


Christian Concern:


How the EU parliament works

The EU is the progressives’ dream. It is headed by the unelected European Commission, which is the only body entitled to propose legislation. Further, the public at large and their elected MEPs (Members of European Parliament) are thereby shut out of all meaningful decision making. The Commission does not consult with the voters but only with interest groups, and the details are ironed out by committees, which could be referred to as technocrats.

The national governments (called “local”) are obliged to adopt – or harmonize – EU legislation, so they are puppets of the regime.

We see the outlines of this system in our American “democracy,” where interest groups rule over the majority and the majority likes it or lumps it.

What you read here presumably is what a North American Union would look like. You will recall that in the latter days of his administration, GW Bush — whose father chattered a lot about the New World Order — was in fact toying with just such a supranational scheme, called the Security and Prosperity Partnership. A secret meeting held in Canada would have laid the groundwork for implementation of the scheme. Fortunately, the plot was outed and the plan was scrapped — temporarily or permanently, who knows?

Some GOP “moderates” now want to draft Jeb Bush for president in 2012.

Don Hank


“Before these are drawn up, the Commission consults a wide range of interest groups and advisory bodies and having drawn up such proposals it will consult experts via various committees and groups to get the technical details right.”

Sonya Jay Porter is an Englishwoman, a free-lance writer and a member of the UK Independence Party which is working to get Britain out of a political alliance with the European Union.   In the article below she tells us why.


                                      …And it’s not like Britain’s

by Sonya Jay Porter

Many people throughout Europe and the rest of the world still think that the parliament of the European Union is democratic.

Compared to that in Britain, It isn’t.

To begin with, the Members of the European parliament (MEPs) are not elected as in Britain, on a ‘first past the post’ system but by a multi-member type of proportional representation.  There is currently a total of 732 seats in the EU parliament and these are allocated to each member state on the basis of population, Germany having the largest number and Luxembourg the fewest.  Britain now has 72 seats, or about 9.8% of the total. Once elected, MEPs then sit, not in national blocks but in seven Europe-wide political groups.  As stated in the EU’s Guide to its Institution (2005), ‘between them, they represent all views on European integration, from the strongly pro-federalist to the openly Eurosceptic’.  You will notice the use of the word ‘openly’.  But so far, so democratic.

It is important to realise that unlike the British Parliament (which we know by its place-name as ‘Westminster’), the European parliament does not consist of a proposing Chamber, such as the House of Commons, and a scrutinizing Chamber like the House of Lords.  

Decision-making at European Union level involves various European institutions, in particular:

The European Commission

The European Parliament

The Council of the European Union

According to The Guide, The European Commission, which now consists of 27 members, is independent of national governments and its job is solely to represent and uphold the interests of the EU as a whole.   The Commission alone is responsible for drawing up proposals for new European legislation which it then presents to the Council and the parliament and it is here that democracy begins to falter, for the Commissioners are not elected but appointed. 

A new Commission is set up every five years within six months of the parliamentary elections and it is the member state Governments which agree together who is to be the new Commission President.  The President then, in discussions with the member state Governments, chooses the other Members of the Commission who will all have held political positions in their own countries but are neither MEPs (Members of Parliament) nor have been elected to this position by the populations of the EU member states.

It is the Commission alone which is responsible for drafting proposals for new European legislation.  Before these are drawn up, the Commission consults a wide range of interest groups and advisory bodies and having drawn up such proposals it will consult experts via various committees and groups to get the technical details right.

However, the European Council is the EU’s main decision-making body with its first duty being to pass European laws, in many cases, but not all, jointly with the European parliament.   In some fields, the Council alone legislates but has to consult parliament.   The Council, which consists of ministers from the member states, will discuss, behind closed doors and away from the media, the proposals put forward by the Commission.   Which ministers attend which meetings depends on what subjects are on the agenda.  For instance, Environment Ministers will attend a meeting on the environment and Finance Ministers will attend a meeting on financial matters.   If then agreed, the proposal may then be put to the chamber of the European parliament.

And it is in the European parliament that democracy really breaks down.

Before being voted on, the proposals will go to various Committees of MEPs for possible amendment after which the chamber will be given perhaps 24 hours’ notice of the coming vote in which to study these amended proposals.  Discussion will also take place as to who will speak for each group and for how long on which measure.   At this stage in Westminster, there would be an active debate in the House of Commons, often taking a considerable time, but in the European parliament speaking time is allocated amongst the Parliamentary Groups on the basis of size, and most MEPs will get around just one minute to speak.  Nor are these are not what would be recognised in the British Parliament as debates but just short talks, mainly designed for the media.

After these speeches come the votes.  But once again, although a proposal can be won or lost on 51% of those voting, the method of counting votes is quite different from that at Westminster.  No ‘ayes to the right’ and ‘noes to the left’.   Instead, most votes go through merely on a show of hands.  Bearing in mind that scores of proposals and their amendments can be brought forward for voting on in one day, and that there are nearly 800 possible voters, it is not surprising that there can be some spectacular mistakes.   The UK Independence Party, which sits with the European Freedom and Democracy Group, has formally requested that all votes be taken electronically but this was refused by the parliamentary authorities. In spite of this, should any vote be lost, this is not the end of the matter.   It then goes to ‘Conciliation’, after which in most cases, the proposal goes through into EU law.

In Britain these EU laws (known as either directives or regulations) go through Parliament in the sense that committees have a short debate where they are asked to ‘take note’ of a particular directive or regulation.   Note that there is no option to reject them and although there is a vote on ‘taking note’, this is academic since unless we have an appropriate veto, Britain has no choice but to accept these EU laws which now comprise some 84% of all British legislation.

Which means that whatever the unelected European Commission puts forward as a proposal will become law in Britain and the other EU states because there is virtually no way of stopping it.  And that means the countries of the European Union are ruled not by democracy but by a form of dictatorship known as an oligarchy, dictatorship not by one but by a group.  

But a dictatorship none the less.

Supranationalism leads to war

by Don Hank

Herman Van Rompuy, the head of the European Council, is still propagating an ancient myth, the house of cards on which the EU’s acceptance by the masses is based. He recently trotted out the old platitude once more:

The biggest enemy of Europe today is fear. Fear leads to egotism, egotism leads to nationalism and nationalism leads to war.

If Europeans ever see through this thinly veiled propaganda, they will throw off the yoke of the EU – including the failed “Euro Zone” – that binds and gradually impoverishes them. More and more Europeans are waking up to the fact that, at variance with Rompuy’s pronouncement, neither fear nor egotism, nor nationalism lead to war.

Far from egotism, it is in fact a selfless obedience to ideals expressed by ambitious men portraying themselves as solicitous of their subjects that leads young men to put their lives on the line in battle.

Further, it is not fear but rather misplaced trust that leads to war. Neville Chamberlain foolishly trusted Hitler, signing a non-aggression pact and telling his countrymen not to fear Hitler.

And it was trust in the Soviet Union that led Churchill and FDR to entrust the administration of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union, in turn leading to the Cold War and the military occupation of those nations and to violent invasions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union had adopted as its slogan: “Proletarians of the world unite!” (they did not say “proletarians of Russia”) and as its anthem the stirring antithesis of a national anthem titled “L’Internationale.”  

American nationalist Ronald Reagan played the key role in ending this warlike foreign domination.

As for nationalism, if the French revolutionaries had been nationalists, they would not have chosen a young Corsican to lead them.

Further, if Bonaparte had been a nationalist, as he was in his youth when he hated the French, it would never have occurred to him to lead that nation. Nor would he have married an Austrian woman. The fact is, the truly nationalistic French were the pre-revolution French whose loyalty was to the Bourbons – a family whom the young Bonaparte hated. It was not until Napoleon saw the French overthrow their nobility that he cast his lot with the revolution and helped them defeat the rest of Europe – not in the name of France but in the name of the revolution, which he saw as an international — and specifically, a supranational — ideal, which had in fact been shaped by not only French but also German, Italian, American and British thinkers.

For the French themselves, it was also this revolutionary idea, a longing for a borderless Europe united by the revolution, that united them around Napoleon and lured them into the most deadly wars mankind had ever known.

Far from causing the Napoleonic wars, the nationalists of the day – the Prussians, the Russians, the Austrians, the Spaniards, the Italians and the British – each individually solicitous of their own individual nations’ safety and welfare – resisted Bonaparte, ended the wars and made Europe safe once more.

Ah, but what about Hitler, you say?

If WW II had been between Hitler on the one hand and the Allies on the other, a case could have been made for nationalism as the primary motive for the war. However, except for Germany, none of the Axis powers or collaborators – from the Japanese to the Mufti and Franco to the Italians – was fighting to further the cause of the Vaterland. None of the nations that sympathized with Hitler (including Russia at the beginning of Hitler’s reign) would ever have agreed to adopt German customs, teach German in their schools and subjugate their people to the German government.

The war Europeans see brewing with Islam on their streets is born of the same old borderless, supranationalist ideology, with EU zealots ramming unlimited immigration down their throats to enforce it. The war that many foresee occurring between Americans and millions of illegal immigrants including a disproportionate number of violent criminals and drug lords, is another example of violence ascribed to the top-down assertion of a supranational ideal that is antithetical to nationalism.

Today’s main enemy is in fact anti-nationalism, or what the Germans teasingly call Multikulti, which is warping our cultures, values and Western civilization itself and bringing Westerners into increasingly violent conflict with their Islamic “guests” who refuse to integrate.

The startling fact of the matter is that, despite the relentless propaganda to the contrary from Western media, universities, churches and schools (and in Europe, from officialdom), nationalism itself has never led to a single major modern war. If the Germans had been more nationalistic, they would never have let an Austrian take over their country. It was a lack of confidence in their true roots in the form of Christianity (the pernicious belief that Christianity causes wars) — that misled Germany. Since the 1800s, German theologians had taught a perverted gospel teaching that Jesus was the bastard son of a German mercenary. Today, there is a pervasive myth that Christianity – which in fact opposed Soviet aggression and Hitler’s violence – causes wars. Anti-Christian propaganda was actually heavily involved in the major conflicts of the 20th century.

Clearly, far from nationalism, the seeds from which the very deadliest of modern wars sprang are the ideology of supranationalism, i.e., the foisting of a one-world government on a grassroots who reject the idea, and the eradication of traditional Christian values and beliefs in favor of Marxist dogma.

The story of modern war is the story of supranationalist tyrants invading the territory of peaceful nationalists. The European grassroots witnessed this history with their own eyes.

When will they learn to interpret it with those same eyes, and not through the eyes of elitist tyrants with an obvious agenda?

This just in from a reader (looks like “Multikulti” is on its way out):


And half of UK citizens want out of the EU:


Further reading:






The rotten fruits of the “carbon credit” scam

The notion of “global warming” has been used to introduce perhaps the biggest tax in history, and one of the avenues for this tax was so-called “carbon offsets” or “carbon credits.”

Fortunately, the American people have not completely fallen for this scam as yet. But the UK, which has long labored under the heavy hand of two essentially foreign governments — their “own” out-of-touch “leaders” and the EU — has had little choice. Almost none of the elected leaders in the UK there are in touch with the people, who are increasingly aware that they are being scammed on a grand scale. (While serving as the head of state, Tony Blair was also the head of the Fabian Socitey, whose avowed purpose is to undermine democracy and introduce Marxism — Karl Marx’s sister was one of the founders).

Now please pay attention: America now faces the same choices as they once did: either we go it alone as the exceptional nation we have been or we take that same turn into oblivion and let the “elites” take us over. So far we have done a terrible job of maintaining our sovereignty and our representative government. Many “conservatives” and even the somewhat more enlightened Tea Party people have fallen for the RINO neocon scam in MA, where Scott Brown was presented as a “conservative”. CPAC portrayed Scott, Mitt Romney and other RINOs the same way, although, to the credit of the attendees, in a poll taken by CPAC, Romney lost to Ron Paul — a sign that the leadership of groups like this is no longer calling the shots.  A McCain loss in his Senate campaign in Arizona would be a further sign that even without any higher-up leadership, the grassroots can now make up its own mind.

Our heads are very slowly emerging from the sand, but there are a lot of GOP die-hards out there who keep longing for the “good old days” of the globalist, open-borders GW Bush administration. They haven’t quite figured it out yet.

The press release appearing below is one of the most amazing but likewise, one if the saddest, pieces  of news Laigle’s Forum has ever received from an independent source.

It is in fact the fulfillment of what WND’s Jerome Corsi had foreseen and written about earlier (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118953). It shows not only the extent of the criminal activity of the world elites but also the extent to which they will go to hush up their activities.

The sender, the assistant to Nigel Farage, founder of the UK Independent Party (UKIP), one of the most outspoken voices in Europe and a man who has consistently opposed the European Union dictatorship — even from his position as a Member of Parliament in the EU, sent out the press release immediately after dictating it, showing the outrageous consequences of “carbon credits.”

To sum it up, 1 billion pounds sterling  in carbon credits were given to an Indian-owned UK steelworks so that the plant could be closed down — ostensibly to save the world from the emissions caused by this plant — leaving 1,700 workers jobless. And here is the rub: in Robin-Hood fashion, the cool billion of UK taxpayer money will be invested in steel plants in India, where no one believes in the “carbon offset” schemes and where the emissions will continue unabated, with nothing of the stated goal being accomplished.  The net result is an enormous transfer of wealth by Fabian-style stealth from a “rich” (but soon to be poor if the elites have their way) country to a developing country. I hope you understand that the end game of the elites is to “spread the wealth around” as Obama told Joe the Plumber he would do. It has nothing whatsoever to do with saving the planet or anything else. It is like Chicago-style power politics on a world scale.

It is vitally important for us to be aware that all globalists and globablist organizations (like the CFR) want only to spread the wealth, Marxist style. They do not want prosperity for you or your children and, as evidenced hereinbelow, they could care less about the environment or “global warming.”  And here is the smoking gun in Mr. Nigel Farage’s press release, as dictated to his secretary.

Don Hank


Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesborough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (“mothballed” is the euphemism)  It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.

Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India.   Recently, Tata received “EU-carbon-credits” worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU’s “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.  By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any “carbon-emissions” – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers’ money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.

There’s more.  The EU’s “emissions-trading-scheme” (ETS) is modelled on instructions from the “International Panel on Climate-Change” (IPCC) of the United Nations Organisation. The Chairman of the IPCC is one Dr Rajendra K.Pachauri, a former railway-engineer, who obtained this post by virtue of his being Chairman of the “Tata Energy-Research Institute” – set up by Tata Steel.

UKIP’s leader in the EU’s “parliament”, Nigel Farage, revealed these data in a speech at Strasbourg, on 10th February, and was due to appear in the BBC’s “Question-Time” programme, from Middlesborough, on 18th February, where the closure of the Redcar-plant was inevitably discussed.  Almost at the last minute, his invitation to join the “Question-Time” panel was cancelled, without explanation.

An article, on the subject, by Neil Hamilton, which was due to appear in this week’s Sunday Express, has also been “pulled”.

 Yours etc


On another note, please let us know what you think of the below-linked post “Enjoy the internet while you can.” For example, is there anything offensive in the way it is written? Please let us know either by sending us a note at zoilandon@msn.com or by adding a comment at the bottom of this latest post “The rotten fruits of…”

Thank you!


Further reading 

Climate change hoax:




European Union as dictatorship:



Freedom threatened: