LONDON MARCHES SATURDAY 11th

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE:

"Organisers of the demo have pledged to avoid the Whitehall area where the Cenotaph war memorial – the focus of national remembrance events – is located."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/met-police-mark-rowley-london-protesters-suella-braverman-b2440848.html

Timothy 1:7 KJV

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

DECLASSIFIED UK:

"We have submitted this article to the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT's investigation into Palestine.

It asks the ICC to investigate how Rishi Sunak, James Cleverly and Grant Shapps may be providing material aid to Israel's war crimes through the UK's military and intelligence assets."

https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-icc-must-investigate-british-ministers-for-gaza-war-crimes-heres-how/

Remembrance Day Rage - 11/11 - Don't Take The Bait
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fc9_SbUkv0

🇬🇧 I agree with David Kurten. Don't take the hate bait. It's a trap

Especially on Remembrance Week-End

Smells of a massive psy-op

Undercover agents may be very likely to deface the Cenotaph

In order to manipulate the public

In oder to crackdown on protests and liberties

But this does not mean that Ceasefire marches are not legitimate

Or that ANYBODY should call to shut them down

The organisers clearly said they will avoid Whitehall and the Cenotaph area

And the ceasefire march is planned the day before Remembrance Sunday, not on the same day

@RobinMG

https://t.me/robinmg/31513

Definitely part of the psyop?

Note: Armistice Day is NOT Remembrance Sunday. It's the day we remember the cessation of fighting, meaning PEACE.

The protests are asking for a ceasefire, which is an armistice:
"A temporary cessation of fighting by mutual consent; a truce"

Therefore the marches are entirely in-keeping with the spirit of Armistice Day. Sunak is baiting here.

An 11th hour offensive

"Concurrently, this situation will have the effect of furthering the cultural divide between Muslims and those supportive of them, and establishment Zionists, who are constantly trying to villainise Muslims and Palestine supporters, in order to drum up further support for Israel's ethnic cleansing programme - which has, in its latest iteration, killed around ten thousand people, including approximately 4,000 children (approximately 1,400 people have been killed in Israel in the same timeframe, and while all loss of innocent life is a tragedy, the Palestinian death toll is, as it has routinely been throughout the history of the conflict, much higher).

This inflammatory agitation also emanates from many individuals who have previously claimed to be part of 'the freedom movement', such as former Reclaim Party candidate, the ex-lads mag editor Martin Daubney, who has been busy trying to foment maximum frothing-at-the-mouth outrage with endless sensationalist soundbites, such as:

"Will the pro-Palestine mob desecrate Armistice Day? Should the protest be banned? Should we call in the Army? Is this a tipping point?"

With responses to Daubney including:

"Riot police should be on the streets."

"Of course it should be banned. How dare they... get the army in, this is disgraceful."

And:

"That will be a declaration of war. They will raise an army like never seen before."

So the baying public mob is being provoked to settle for nothing less than all-out mutiny on the streets, involving maximum state heavy-handedness, and that is what they will get - too gullible and myopic to realise that, if the police/army/other armed and violent agents of the state can turn on one variety of political protestors (in this case, pro-Palestine supporters), then they can turn on you, too, when you voice any political sympathies that displease the state.

As always, the masses are being baited into a trap by the media and its agents, and having their consent manufactured for maximal state overreach and quashing of the freedom of right to expression.

Yes, it's "insensitive" to have a pro-Palestine march on Remembrance Day. But it isn't illegal and nor should it be. Making insensitive behaviour punishable by violent law enforcement officers is, obviously, a very slippery slope indeed. People like Daubney might want to recall just how "insensitive" millions found it when we marched against lockdown, refused to wear masks, and declined the experimental injections.

The same hate-spittled rhetoric being spewed agains the pro-Palestine "mob" (intentional use of degrading, dehumanising language by highly experienced journalist Daubney there) now, can and will be turned against anti-lockdown protestors next time there's a fake pandemic, or anti-mandate demonstrators the next time the government tries to force inject us all. So it's quite plain and obvious where this is intended to go.

You can express your political disagreements with others without demanding armed militia patrol the streets to enforce your particular position, and you should, unless you happen to be congenitally insane or irretrievably stupid (or, even worse, in the employ of a mainstream media vehicle).

Martin Daubney, and other controlled assets like Laurence Fox, are tasked with manipulating you to cheer on the removal of your own freedoms, by cynically appealing to your own prejudices now - but this will all be turned on its head next time the political climate shifts, and there's something happening that you want to protest about. You'll be painted as a violent extremist, just as the pro-Palestine supporters are being depicted now (based on the behaviour of a minority few who are quite possibly agent provocateurs), and then you'll have to accept the army on the streets to prevent you marching, because you were so fawning and enthusiastic about it this time.

What's also noteworthy is another political development that has occurred in tandem (some might say, 'in lockstep') with all this, and with Kier Starmer's position on Israel alienating the Labour Party's many Muslim MPs, councillors, and supporters.

The Electoral Commission (the body responsible for registering and regulating political parties in the UK), has received an application for a new party called 'The Party of Islam'.

For now, the Electoral Commission (EC) has rejected the application, but that is completely normal. They're very fussy about particular details, and most new parties have their applications rejected two or three times before they finally get it right.

There's nothing to stop the putative Party of Islam amending their application as the EC has advised and resubmitting it, something they almost certainly will do.

It's worth watching Heritage Party leader David Kurten's short video on this situation, because David understands the internal machinations of politics and why this is likely a highly significant development. David says, and I agree with him, that in areas with large Muslim populations, this party could do extremely well indeed, especially at the council level.

All mainstream media focus where it comes to 'politics' is on Westminster - general elections, by-elections, and MPs - but in reality, it is local councils that wield much of the real power, as they are the instruments that central government relies on to enforce its agendas. Local MPs are often little more than ceremonial figure-heads - as most of us know only too well, few of them actually do anything - whereas it is local councils who, for example, were responsible for enforcing the Covid restrictions on the local populace.

If you didn't know (and I didn't until 2020), council representatives are elected by the public. Some areas (including Kirklees, where I reside) have council elections annually, where councillors for each council ward are elected, and some council wards have more than one. I (oh joy...) have three (you can find out who yours are here).

Council elections are far less high-profile than anything involving Westminster, and the press largely ignores them, which is by design, to stop too much "civilian" participation, which is not desirable for the Big Four (Con/Lib/Lab/Green), who like to think they run the show. I have participated in these elections as an independent, and it's almost comical how hostile they are to "outsiders", whilst all endlessly hobnobbing with, and congratulating, each other (they all cheer every time the Monster Raving Loony results are announced, knowing that this joke dead-end release valve for disaffected voters actually helps them. That's why the establishment is always invested in funding dead-end political release valves, like The Reclaim Party).

Despite the hostility from establishment candidates, council elections are actually far easier for "outsiders" to "infiltrate" than general elections are, as you don't need (as you do if standing as a parliamentary candidate) to pay a deposit. Anybody can have a go without parting with a penny. High-level, "glamorous" politics involving big-name MPs is essentially a closed shop, not least because of the £500 deposit and huge campaigning costs, but local council politics is not, and it was on this basis that the smaller pro-freedom parties were set up: that we can't use the electoral system to change things on the national level (Prime Ministers being selected, not elected. and so on), but we might be able to do it at the local level with the councils.

If enough pro-freedom candidates had stood for council and were elected, they would have had real sway at changing the local landscape where it came to, for example, opposing Covid restrictions. You can read more about this, and how and why standing as a council candidate is something that can be well worth doing, here.

The point is that it appears that the Party of Islam has realised this, too.

As David Kurten says in his video, in areas with large Muslim populations, this party would likely do very well at the council level, especially now so many Muslims will be feeling "politically homeless" after Kier Starmer's recent remarks regarding Israel.

This could, plausibly, lead to some local councils becoming overtly Islamic - that is to say, dominated by an explicitly religious political party - something that could have very concerning implications for a secular liberal democracy such as the UK.

This seems a very credible threat, especially because such large swathes of the population don't vote (especially at council elections, which many don't even know exist), including and especially people in the pro-freedom movement, who believe there's no point voting as "it's all rigged", etc. So, if at the next council election, there is a secular pro-freedom candidate (such as the types supported by the Vote Freedom Project) and a Party of Islam candidate, who do you think will get the more votes?

I can tell you easily, at least in areas like Kirklees, where I live, which has a large Muslim population. Specifically because, as I said, pro-freedom secular types overwhelmingly don't vote, whereas more religious people overwhelmingly do.

If you think voting in council elections doesn't matter/doesn't count/it's all rigged anyway, then you are seamlessly delivering the result into the hands of people who think differently - and while I agree at the very highest levels of politics like premiership elections (Prime Ministers/Presidents), it is rigged, having been involved in three local council elections now, and having seen the mechanisms from the inside, I am certain that council elections are not rigged - there isn't the budget and the organisation there to rig them, and too few people even know about them for it to be worth it.

The "rigging" is simply not giving them much media coverage, so ordinary people don't know they can participate - and cynically circulating the message that "your vote doesn't count, if voting mattered they wouldn't let you do it", etc. If you fall into the category of people that believes that, ask yourself this: honestly and without Googling, do you know how to submit an application to stand in the local council elections? Do you know how many nominations you need and how to get them? Do you know where your local council elections are held, and when?

If the answer to any of the aforementioned questions is 'no', then you must ask why that is. If the establishment wanted you to know about local politics and wanted you to participate in it, you would know. You would always have known, as they would teach it in schools (they are state, government-run schools, after all). They don't, because they don't want you involved, because it is actually an area where ordinary, genuinely independent and anti-establishment people can make a difference.

So in the present day, while the Party of Islam is busy rewriting its application to meet EC rules so they can become a formal political force, we continue to have the endless stream of "asylum seekers" (fighting-age men) from primarily Islamic countries flooding into our hotels, student flats, and military bases.

In addition, following the brutal police and army treatment that will undoubtedly be dished out to the pro-Palestine supporters on 11/11, we're going to have more angry Muslims and Muslim sympathisers than ever. And more bloodthirsty Zionists, baying for vengeance ("see, this is what they're like, this is why Israel has to come down hard on them in Palestine").

All these themes are building up to a crescendo of what will look like chaos, but is in reality all being expertly strategised and stage-managed behind the scenes.

"They" are planning an epic cultural clash on Remembrance Day, 11/11 - the day that marks the ritual global sacrificial ritual that was World War I - to set the stage for the third and final orchestrated ritual global sacrifice, World War III..

So, as always, our task remains to resist all propaganda and agitation for violent division and ultimately war (including and especially if that propaganda appears to be emanating from people allegedly "on our side"), and continue to keep focused on what is real and what is true."

https://miriaf.co.uk/an-11th-hour-offensive/

THIS IS A PSYOP

THIS IS A PSYOP

Meanwhile in France, a proposed law to sanction anti-Zionism