• The Narcissist And The Empath.

    I am an empath. I discovered I was an empath after I got involved in a very deep and highly destructive relationship with a narcissist.

    I am writing this article from the perspective of an empath, however, would love to read the view from the opposite side if there are any narcissists that would like to offer their perception on this.

    Through writing about the empath personality type I have connected with many other people who class themselves as an empath and time and again I have heard people tell me how they have also attracted relationships with narcissists. There is a link. So, I decided to explore it further.

    For a detailed explanation of both the narcissist and empathy personality types, please click here and here.

    This is my theory…

    From my own experience and studies on the narcissist personality type, there is always one core trait: A narcissist is wounded.

    Something, somewhere along the line, usually stemming from childhood causes a person to feel worthless and unvalued and, due to this, they will constantly and very desperately seek validation.

    Here comes the empath, the healer. An empath has the ability to sense and absorb other people's pain and often takes it on as though it were their own. If an empath is not consciously aware of boundaries and does not understand how to protect themselves, they will very easily and very quickly bond with the narcissist in order to try to fix and repair any damage and attempt to eradicate all their pain.

    What the empath fails to realise is that the narcissist is a taker. An energy sucker, a vampire so to speak. They will draw the life and soul out of anyone they come into contact with, given the chance. This is so that they can build up their own reserves and, in doing so, they can use the imbalance to their advantage.

    This dynamic will confuse and debilitate an empath, as if they do not have a full understanding of their own or other people's capabilities, they will fail to see that not everyone is like them. An empath will always put themselves into other people's shoes and experience the feelings, thoughts and emotions of others, while forgetting that other people may have an agenda very different to their own and that not everyone is sincere.

    The narcissist's agenda is one of manipulation, it is imperative they are in a position whereby they can rise above others and be in control. The empath's agenda is to love, heal and care. There is no balance and it is extremely unlikely there ever will be one. The more love and care an empath offers, the more powerful and in control a narcissist will become.

    The more powerful the narcissist becomes, the more likely the empath will retreat into a victim status. Then, there is a very big change—the empath will take on narcissistic traits as they too become wounded and are constantly triggered by the damage being in the company with a narcissist creates. Before long, an extremely vicious circle has begun to swirl.

    When a narcissist sees that an empath is wounded they will play on this and the main intention will be to keep the empath down. The lower down an empath becomes, the higher a narcissist will feel. An empath will begin to frantically seek love, validation, confirmation and acceptance from a narcissist and each cry for help as such will affirm to the narcissist what they are desperate to feel inside—worthy. A bitter battle can ensue.

    As an empath focuses solely on their pain, trauma and the destruction of their lives, they become self-obsessed and fail to see where the damage is coming from. Instead of looking outwards and seeing what is causing it, the empath will turn everything inward and blame themselves.

    An empath at this stage must realise the situation they are in and wake up to it, as anyone who is deeply in pain and has been hurt can then become a narcissist themselves as they turn their focus onto their own pain and look for others to make them feel okay again.

    Any attempt to communicate authentically with the narcissist will be futile as they will certainly not be looking to soothe and heal anyone else, Not only this, they are extremely charismatic and manipulative and have a powerful way of turning everything away from themselves and onto others. A narcissist will blame their own pain on an empath, plus they will also make sure the empath feels responsible for the pain they too are suffering.

    An empath will know that they are in a destructive relationship by this stage and will feel so insecure, unloved and unworthy and it can be easy to blame all of their destruction onto the narcissist.

    However, an empath should not be looking to blame anyone else. An empath has a choice, to remain the victim, a pawn in the narcissists game or to garner all strength they can muster and find a way out.

    Emotionally exhausted, lost, depleted and debilitated an empath will struggle to understand what has happened to the once loving, attentive and charismatic person they were attracted to.

    However we allow ourselves to be treated is a result of our own choices. If an empath chooses to stay in a relationship with a narcissist and refuses to take responsibility for the dynamic, they are choosing at some level what they believe they are worth on the inside. An empath cannot let their self-worth be determined by a narcissist. It is imperative they trust and believe in themselves enough to recognise that they are not deserving of the words and actions the narcissist delivers and to look for an escape.


    In an empath's eyes, all they searched and looked for was someone to take care of and love and to ultimately fix.” That is where the trouble began and that is the most profound part of this that an empath must realise.

    We are not here to fix anyone. We cannot fix anyone. Everyone is responsible for and capable of fixing themselves, but only if they so choose to.

    The more an empath can learn about the personality of a narcissist the sooner they will spot one and the less chance they have of developing a relationship with one. If a relationship is already underway, it is never to late to seek help, seek understanding and knowledge and to dig deep into one's soul and recognise our own strengths and capabilities and do everything we can to build the courage and confidence to see it for what it is and walk away—for good.

    The chance of a narcissist changing is highly unlikely, so we shouldn't stick around waiting for it to happen. If a narcissist wants to change, then great, but it should never happen at the expense of anyone else. They are not consciously aware of their behaviour and the damage it causes and in their game they will sacrifice anyone and anything for their own gain—regardless of what pretty lies and sweet nothings they try to whisper.

    An empath is authentic and is desperate to live true to their soul's purpose and will very likely find the whole relationship a huge lesson, a dodged bullet and painfully awakening.

    A narcissist will struggle to have any connection to their authentic self and will likely walk away from the relationship very easily once they realise they have lost their ability to control the empath. The game is no longer pleasurable if they are not having their ego constantly stroked, so they will seek out their next victim.

    The ability for these two types to bond is quite simply impossible. The narcissists heart is closed, an empath's is open—it is nothing short of a recipe for a huge disaster, and not a beautiful one.



  • UK Lord Justice Supporter Of PIE ?


    UK Lord Justice wanted age of consent to 4 years old — news blackout in America

    Lord Justice Fulford, pictured in his full legal regalia, actively campaigned to support a pedophile group that tried to legalize sex with children. 
    Photo courtesy of the UK Daily Mail.

    Read: High Court judge and the child sex ring: Adviser to Queen was founder of paedophile support group to keep offenders out of jail

    • Lord Justice Fulford was named last year as an adviser to the Queen
    • He was a key backer of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange 
    • Police suspect the group of abusing children on an ‘industrial scale’
    • He is revealed as a founder member of campaign to defend PIE
    • At the time it was calling for the age of consent to be lowered to just four

    I clashed with Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) global leaders at the Wales conference in Swansea in 1977.

    Tom O’Carroll is still accepted and active on a sexnet chat group of experts in “sexology” although he writes openly as a pedophile. And the scholarly organizers of the Swansea conference at the University were part of his efforts. Below a summary of my intro to him in my book, Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence, 2013. This academic pedophile lobby has continued and grown, training second generation and third generation supporters as “scholars” for pedophile equality and “rights.” In 1981 I realized they were global. See the B4UAct conference with Johns Hopkins keynoter, here and here.

    From my book:

    Another turning point came in 1977 when I went to Wales to deliver a research paper on women and pornography at the British Psychological Association International Conference on “Love and Attraction” at Swansea University. When I arrived in London, I heard that Tom O’Carroll, the leader of the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE), had been blanketing England on a public relations tour, promoting sex with children on his way to speak at my Swansea conference.

    All of England was in an uproar over the daily press reports describing the aims of PIE and O’Carroll. It was reported that PIE specialized in providing specific lists of places where pedophiles could locate and seduce children. When they heard O’Carroll was to speak from their college podium, the Swansea University housekeeping staff went on strike. He speaks and your beds will not be made, nor food cooked, nor clothes washed, they promised. They would not have the conference give place to a man promoting sex with their children.

    I brought eighty slides for my presentation as evidence supporting my findings of child pornography in Playboy and Penthouse. I had already clashed with an American professor, Larry Constantine, a Penthouse board member advocating child pornography in his paper on “The Sexual Rights of Children.” [Tulane University professor at the time]

    So, when Constantine sent out a harried bulletin for a meeting of conference speakers, I hastened to join the group. Constantine was urging all international attendees to sign a “free speech” petition demanding that PIE’s O’Carroll speak—and that our beds be made. I urged the group to reconsider. We were guests here and would leave in a few days, I reasoned. What right had we to leave behind a community undone by our having given place to a proselytizing child molester?  I was the only speaker to refuse to sign the petition. Ultimately, the Swansea University president ruled that O’Carroll was not credentialed to speak. Housekeeping service resumed.

    How and Why, I wondered… was the university’s domestic staff able to aggressively protect their children, while trained academicians remained apathetic, even sympathetic toward this pedophile, O’Carroll? My old dissatisfaction with the university community increased as these men and women exhibited such indifference to their hosts, contemptuous of what I saw as very legitimate public concerns for their children’s safety.

    41Esvd-DXoL._SY300_O’Carroll was whisked safely out of Wales. I was leaving for the London train when a Canadian psychologist took me quietly aside. Certainly I was right, he said. The images I screened of children in Playboy/ Penthouse would cause harmful sexual acting out on children. But if I was looking for the cause, he directed me not to neglect reading about Kinsey in The Sex Researchers, by Edward Brecher.

    “Why?” I asked. “I worked with Kinsey and Pomeroy,” he said. “ One is a pedophile and the other a homosexual.” Which is which, I asked? “Read and discover,” he replied. As I flew back to the States, I pondered the events of the last few weeks. Certainly, I now knew because I had witnessed it, that there was a growing and proselytizing “international academic pedophile movement” which was on record as wanting sexual access to children of all ages. I had stumbled right into their midst at the conference. Again I wondered what kind of academic training was producing such a coarsened and predatory intelligentsia?

    Taking up the Canadian psychologist’s charge, as soon as I got home I did read The Sex Researchers.

    Skipped to next section in my book…

    I was unsure which stunned me more at the time, Kinsey’s use of infants in sex experiments, or Brecher’s acceptance of their abuse as a research methodology. Speechless, I went back to Kinsey’s original book to check Brecher. Yes, he was quoting Kinsey accurately. Now I finally knew there was a “source,” an authority for children’s increasingly being viewed sexually. For me, personally, the question from years before was answered. My aunt and Carole somehow learned that “children were sexual from birth” from Kinsey and his modern disciples throughout the sex profession.

    In March 1981 I received a reply to my letter to The Kinsey Institute from Kinsey’s coauthor, Dr. Paul Gebhard. I had written to ask about the child data in Tables 30-34. Gebhard, who succeeded Dr. Kinsey as the Kinsey Institute Director, wrote to me that the children in Kinsey’s tables were obtained from parents, school teachers and male homosexuals, and that some of Kinsey’s men used “manual and oral techniques” to catalog how many “orgasms” infants and children could produce in a given amount of time.

    Armed with Gebhard’s letter and admissions, on July 23, 1981, I created an uproar in Jerusalem at the Fifth World Congress of Sexology when I lectured on Dr. Kinsey and his child data. I was confident my sexology colleagues would be as outraged as was I by these tables and the child data describing Kinsey’s reliance on pedophiles as his child sex experimenters. Perhaps worst of all for me, as a scholar and a mother were pages 160 and 161 where Kinsey claimed his data came from “interviews.” How could he say 196 little children— some as young as two months of age—enjoyed “fainting,” “screaming,” “weeping,” and “convulsing”? How could he call these children’s responses evidence of their sexual pleasure and “climax”? I called it evidence of terror, of pain, as well as criminal.

    One of us was very, very sexually mixed up.

    I was positive that the international, educated, sexuality community would react as I did. Certainly this revelation about Kinsey, his team, and all of these infant and child data would electrify a conference of global Ph.Ds, and many would agree to my call for an investigation of Kinsey. The human sexuality brain trust worldwide was in attendance at the Jerusalem conference: Great Britain,the United States, France, Denmark, Israel, Norway, Canada, Scotland, Holland, Sweden and scores of other nations were represented. All attendees knew of my paper. It had been the talk of the convention, receiving even more notice than Xaviera Hollanders’ (“the Happy Hooker”) address on “Out of Touch With Sex.” People were abuzz about the issue of Kinsey’s children during the entire conference.

    My paper, titled, “The Scientist as A Contributing Agent To Child Sexual Abuse; A Preliminary Consideration of Possible Ethics Violations,” had been released in the Abstracts. The result was no less than I expected—a standing-room only session. I was gratified that so many people were as concerned as I was. After screening my slides of Tables 30 to 34 which described Kinsey’s report of rates and speeds of ‘orgasms” of at least 317 infants and children (again, the youngest a mere two-months old), I rested my case and looked out over the audience. The room was totally silent. Finally, a tall, blond, Nordic type who had been standing near the podium stepped forward and fairly shouted at the audience:

    I am a Swedish reporter and I never have spoken out at a conference. That is not my role. But, what is the matter with all of you? This woman has just dropped an atomic bomb in this very room and you have nothing to ask? Nothing to say?

    That broke the ice, and hands shot up to speak. Although a Kinsey Institute representative protested that none of this was true, and comments from those in attendance were limited by the conference moderator, (there was a tacit agreement that an investigation would take place). The reaction in the room was heavy: it was numbing for some, discomforting for others. Later, the director of sex education for Sweden approached to tell me she was shocked that children were used without consent. However, she hastened to assure me that children could be sexually stimulated by adults, even parents, were this for strictly therapeutic reasons, of course. Late that afternoon my young assistant from Haifa University returned from lunch visibly shaken.

    She had dined at a private table with the international executives of the conference. My paper was hotly contested and largely condemned, since everyone at her table of about twelve men and women wholeheartedly agreed that children could, indeed, have “loving” sex with adults.

    I began to realize that the entire field of sex research therapy and education relied on Kinsey’s human sexuality model for authority, and I was there to tell his key disciples Kinsey was a fraud. While I was very disappointed to witness the fear and protectionism of the attendees, with so many international agencies present with vested economic and emotional interests in Kinsey’s credibility, I understood why the promised investigation of Kinsey never would take place.

  • Relating The Saga ? 18 Bloody Years.


    The participants.
    The players.
    The extras.

    The liars, nonces and abusers,eh ?

    Summers here.

  • Parental/Family Alienation.


    Professor #AdamFairclough #Leiden #AmericanHistory

    #AlisonGelfand of #Merrick

    and others...

    You were just thinking of yourselves tut.

  • Another Paedophile Cult Operating In #Hampstead ?

    British author, Chris Everard, has exposed yet another Hampstead school which concealed an active Pedo-ring since the 1970s - this ring of bastards not only bedded young boys, but bussed them up and down Britain where they worked like unpaid slaves delivering leaflets which were promoting LORD JANNER - he invited the Pedo teachers to bring boys to Parliament - Janner's own son was educated at the UCS in Hampstead, whose nursery school is called 'The Phoenix' and is a school which has a 'Statutory Ban on all Religion'.

    A British author, brother to the well known WILL SELF, has published a book in which a whole chapter is dedicated to exposing the PHOENIX SCHOOL for nursery & primary schoolboys in Hampstead. The Phoenix UCS school is – just like the Hampstead Whistleblower kids claimed – is yet another nursery/primary school in which teachers formed a sex abuse pedo-ring and systematically had sex with the pupils. The UCS Phoenix School is round the corner from Lord Janner's home who himself is now being put on trial reluctantly by the British Government for sex crimes against children.

    The Hampstead Whistleblower kids clearly told Barnet Police in September 2014 ‘that other schools are involved in having sex with children' – and we now have corroborative evidence of this…

    The UCS Phoenix School and its adjacent primary school are a member of the Eton Group – the place where our present-day Prime Minister and many of his fellow buddies from the Bullingdon Club were educated. The UCS Phoenix School maintains affiliated links with a number of other schools in north and west London, including South Hampstead High School and Westminster Academy. It also has strong ties with Equatorial College School in Uganda – and – if you remember, the Hampstead WHistleblower kids claimed that babies from third world countries were shipped in TNT and DHL boxes to Hampstead for the abusive ritual sacrifices which were performed on a regular basis.

    The details of the pedo-ring at UCS are difficult to obtain because school records were destroyed by fire or left to rot by a headmaster, C.S. Walton who believed "that tradition began with him”.

    The ‘tradition' of the UCS is that there is a statutory ban on all religion – something which, in a Christian country – would most probably be of interest to Satanists.

    LORD JANNER was elected to parliament in 1970 - mainly due to the efforts of schoolboys who delivered leaflets for his parliamentary campaign. Pedo teachers bussed kids to Janner's office. Janner is former director of the board for British Jews. His disgusting 40+year career as a pedophile has been covered-up by the Crown Prosecution Service, and even the Police admit that they have had sufficient evidence to bust Janner many times over since the 1980s.

    Originally, there were no compulsory subjects and no rigid form system. Most boys learnt Latin and many learnt German – Latin is the official language of Vatican City which has paid $1billion in settlement claims for pedo sex crimes, and German – which also has a Jewish dialect known as Yiddish – was a most rare and unusual language subject to teach boys in London at the time – just up the road there is a German-Yiddish community, and many of the pupils came from families who preferred their children to be taught in a ‘non-religious' environment). There was no religious teaching.

    Lord Janner is linked to the UCS Hampstead paedophile ring through his son: We now know for sure that at least four paedophile teachers abused boys at University College School, led by politics teacher Michael Densham. The son of Lord Janner attended the school along with other famous alumni who include executives at the Newsnight BBC TV programme – this is the show which censored and suppressed the expose about Jimmy Savile. Are you now begining to see the light?

    Former pupils are known as ‘Old Gowers', and there is a statutory ban on religious education and a refusal to acknowledge, in any formal way, differences of ethnic or cultural background.

    The roster of pupils have included the offspring of many Labour grandees, including both sons of the party's former Prime Minister, Harold Wilson.
    UCS educated Tristram Hunt, the son of a Labour peer (and now Shadow Education Secretary), Jonathan Freedland, the Left-wing commentator, and Ian Katz, a former Guardian journalist who is the new editor of BBC2's Newsnight.

    The UCS staff room was home to AT LEAST four paedophile teachers, which were sensationally exposed in 2004 by the writer and entrepreneur Jonathan Self, who had attended the school with his brother, Will, the novelist. In an autobiography titled Self Abuse, Jonathan revealed that he had ‘suffered repeated sexual abuse by two of the masters at UCS senior school for most of the three years I spent there'. He said it began on a school trip when he was ‘barely 13 years old' and a teacher plied him with alcohol until he was ‘vomiting drunk'. Of course, this is identical to what the Hampstead children have been alleging regarding their father – who they claim gave them alcohol and also powder drugs to snort – but the police failed utterly to ask the father even one simple question about these allegations.

    ‘He begged me to take off all my clothes and get into bed with him,' Self recalled. ‘What started as, effectively, a rape continued much in the manner of an illicit affair.' The teacher, then in his 30s, would typically take his victim to ‘restaurants, pubs and a gay club in the Finchley Road', before ending their liaisons by forcing him to have sex in his car (‘short and hurried') or in a bedroom of his home in Ealing, ‘a drawn-out business' Self found ‘abhorrent'.

    Over the course of the abusive relationship, Self says that Densham introduced him to several other paedophiles connected to UCS, including former pupil Basil Moss, who ‘was always kissing me and pinching my bottom', and two teachers from the UCS junior school ‘who made a similar nuisance of themselves'. This evidence proves that former pupils, once groomed and placed into society, then become abusers in their own right.

    Self was then raped by yet another professional associate of Densham's called Tony Ford, a UCS art teacher, who ‘became so insistent I have sex with him that in the end I gave in'. ‘I wouldn't keep harassing you,' Self recalled Ford saying on the day he finally consented. ‘But I know you have done it with Mike and it just isn't fair that you won't do it with me.'

    BBC NewsNight covered up the Jimmy Savile scandal – and now has a new boss – a newspaper editor called IAN KATZ who does not come from the world of television.
    This troubling saga generated a smattering of ugly headlines when Self's book was published, just over a decade ago. Yet, perhaps due to the fact that Densham and Ford were no longer around (one disappeared, one committed suicide, in murky circumstances) no proper police investigation was conducted. That's right – unlike the celebrity arrests of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall – it seems that the leafy suburban streets of Hampstead are a haven for pedo cults who have PROTECTION FROM PROSECUTION.

    Lord Greville Janner will now be placed on trial [though not personally] via a kangaroo court which has been set up because of the successful Social Media campaign led by Chris Everard and the Hampstead bloggers…

    Janner is a multi millionaire 86-year-old peer, who is described as a flamboyant ‘amateur magician' and was ennobled by Tony Blair. Indeed, Blair himself has come under the spotlight of an anonymous smear campaign to induce the public to look into a criminal conviction for public lewd ‘cottaging' by a man who has Tony Blair's middle names – the memes circulating on Facebook suggest that this man was indeed Blair himself.

    Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders announced in April that the police had sufficient evidence to charge Lord Janner with 22 paedophile offences, including 16 indecent assaults and six acts of buggery. She added, however, that Lord Janner would not face trial on a single one of the charges, involving nine separate children from 1969 to 1988, on the grounds that he is suffering ‘dementia'. No proof of this dementia and no doctor has come forward to corroborate these claims. WHat is more, just as we see with the UCS pedo ring – the POLICE HAVE DELIBERATELY FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND TAKE ACTION WHICH WILL LEAD TO A PROSECUTION.

    Hampstead: Head of the Snake is just one of many documentaries now screening on THE ENIGMA CHANNEL which reveal that similar Satanic pedo cults in the USA and Australia have existed for decades – Sign-up for a viewing account and enjoy being part of a global audience who enjoy uncensored documentaries in multiple languages – click here

  • Tory Britain - Where No Public Official Does Their Job.

    What is wrong with this country and its public servants ?

    My partner and I have been told 'no - not possible' for months now.

    Last friday, we threatened solicitors and by monday we are told 'yes - of course'.

    Is this how the country works now ?

    People are told lies...until the writ hits their desks.

    If anyone else tells me their sorry grrr.

  • Breaking Rocks In The Hot Sun.

    Sunday afternoon was spent wielding a pickaxe and a sledgehammer at a pile of concrete in a friends garden.

    It was dirty, tiring and a little painful.
    My soft hands blistered.
    My back and shoulders ached and my pectoral muscles whined in disbelief.

    Two hours later the pile was either bagged or in the car to be taken to the tip.
    A job well done.

    Today, my shoulders are screaming and my back...shudder.

    I hate cement.

  • Is Israel The Reason For The Wars ? #Syria

    In an interview with the French TV station LCP, former French minister for Foreign Affairs Roland Dumas said:

    ‘' I'm going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria.

    This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.

    Naturally, I refused, I said I'm French, that doesn't interest me.''

    Dumas went on give the audience a quick lesson on the real reason for the war that has now claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people.

    ‘'This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned… in the region it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance.

    Consequently, everything that moves in the region- and I have this from the former Israeli prime minister who told me ‘we'll try to get on with our neighbours but those who don't agree with us will be destroyed.

    It's a type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But one should know about it.''

    Dumas is a retired French foreign minister who is obliged to use discretion when revealing secrets which could affect French foreign policy. That is why he made the statement ‘I am French, that doesn't interest me'. He could not reveal France's role in the British plan as he would be exposing himself to prosecution for revealing state secrets.

    There have been many disinformation agents in the British and French press, many of them well known ‘leftist' war correspondents and commentators, who have tried to pretend that Israel secretly supports Assad. Those who make such arguments are either stupid, ignorant or deliberate disinformation agents of NATO and Israel.

    Israel's support for Al Qaeda militants in Syria has even been admitted by the mainstream press. For example, Germany's Die Welt newspaper published a report on June 12th on Israel's medical treatment of the Al Qaeda fighters.

    Israel planned this war of annihilation years ago in accordance with the Yinon Plan, which advocates balkanization of all states that pose a threat to Israel. The Zionist entity is using Britain and France to goad the reluctant Obama administration into sending more American troops to their death in Syria on behalf of Tel Aviv.

    Of all the aggressor states against Syria, Israel has been the quietest from the start. That is because Laurent Fabius, Francois Holland, William Hague and David Cameron are doing their bidding by attempting to drag Israel's American Leviathan into another ruinous war so that Israel can get control of the Middle East's energy reserves, eventually replacing the United States as the ruling state in the world. It has also been necessary for Tel Aviv to remain silent so as not to expose their role in the ‘revolutions', given the fact that the Jihadist fanatics don't realize they are fighting for Israel.

    This is the ideology of Zionism which cares no more for Jews than it does for its perceived enemies. The Jewish colony is determined to become a ruling state in the Middle East in the insane delusion that this will enable it to replace the United States as a global hegemon, once the US collapses fighting Israel's wars.

    Israeli Prime Minister once told American talk show host Bill Maher that the reason why Israel always wins short conflicts, while the United States gets bogged down in endless wars. ‘' The secret is that we have America'', he said.

    But Israel is itself slowly collapsing. If one excludes the enslaved Palestinian population, the Jewish state still has the highest level of poverty in the developed world with more and more Jews choosing to leave the ‘promised' land, a garrison state led by mad men, an anti-Semitic entity threatening to engulf the world in war and destruction. Israel cares no more about its own working class Jews than any other ethnic community.

    In fact, if the Likudnik crooks running the Israeli colony get their way, working class Israelis will be among the first to pay as they are conscripted to fight terrorists created by their own government. With orthodox Jews protesting in the streets of New York against Israel and Haredi Jewish minority opposing Israel's rampant militarism, Zionism is coming under increased attack from Jewish religious authorities and non-Zionist Jews both inside and outside of the occupied territories.

    This is not the first time that Roland Dumas has spoken out against wars of aggression waged by successive French regimes. In 2011 he revealed that he had been asked by the United States when he was foreign minister in the Mitterrand administration to organize the bombing of Libya. On that occasion the French refused to cooperate. Dumas, a lawyer by profession, offered to defend Colonel Gaddafi, at the International Criminal Court in the event of his arrest by Nato.

    Dumas was also vocal in condemning France's brutal neo-colonial bombing of the Ivory Coast earlier in 2011, were death squads and terrorists similar to those later deployed in Libya and Syria were unleashed upon the Ivoirian population in order to install a IMF puppet dictator Alassane Quattara in power. Gbagbo was described as one of the greatest African leaders of the past 20 years by Jean Ziegler, sociologist and former member of the Advisory Committee of the UN Human Rights Council.

    Gbagbo had plans to nationalize banks and wrest control of the country's currency from the colonial finance institutions in Paris. He also wanted to roll back many of the worst effects of IMF restructuring by nationalizing industries and creating a functioning, universal free health service. All of this threatened the interests of French corporations in the former French colony. So, the Parisian oligarchy went to work to find a suitable replacement as caretaker of their Ivoirian colony.

    They sent in armed terrorist gangs, or ‘rebel's in the doublespeak of imperialism, who murdered all before them while the French media blamed president Gbagbo for the violence that ensued. Gbagbo and Gaddafi had opposed Africom, the Pentagon's plan to recolonize Africa. That was another reason for the 2011 bombing of their two African countries.

    The formula is always the same. Imperialism backs ‘rebels', whenever its interests are threatened by regimes that love their country more than foreign corporations. One should not forgot that during the Spanish Civil War of 1936, General Franco and his cronies were also ‘rebels' and they, like their counterparts in Libya in 2011, were bombed to power by foreign powers, replacing a progressive, republican administration with fascism.

    There are pro-Israeli fanatics in France who have used the analogy of the Spanish Civil War as justification for intervention in Libya and Syria. The pseudo-philosopher Henry Bernard Levy is one of them. Of course, the ignoramus Levy doesn't realize that the reason France, England and the USA did not officially intervene in the Spanish Civil War is because they were covertly helping the ‘rebels' from the start. They enabled arms shipments to the Francoist ‘rebels' while preventing arms deliveries to the Spanish government, who, like Syria today, were helped by Moscow. Anyone who has studied the Spanish Civil War knows that all the imperialist countries wanted Franco as a bulwark against communism.

    There is nothing imperialism loves more than a rebel without a cause. What imperialism hates, however, are revolutionaries. That is why the ‘rebels' which imperialism sends into other countries to colonize them on behalf of foreign banks and corporations, have to be marketed as ‘revolutionaries' in order to assure the support of the Monty Python brigade of petty-bourgeois, ‘ leftist' dupes such as Democracy Now! and their ilk.

    Dumas is not the only top French official to denounce the New World Order. Former French ambassador to Syria Michel Raimbaud wrote a book in 2012 entitled ‘Le Soudan dans tous les états', where he revealed how Israel planned and instigated a civil war in South Sudan in order to balkanize a country led by a pro-Palestinian government. He also exposed the pro-Israeli media groups and ‘human rights' NGOS who created the ‘humanitarian' narrative calling for military intervention by the United States in the conflict.

    The subject was covered extensively by African investigative journalist Charles Onana in his 2009 book, Al-Bashir & Darfour LA CONTRE ENQUÊTE.

    There are many more retired French officials who are speaking out about the ruinous policies of this French government, including the former head of French domestic intelligence Yves Bonnet. There have also been reports of dissent in the French armed forces and intelligence apparatus.

    After the assassination of Colonel Gaddafi in October 2011, the former French ambassador to Libya Christian Graeff told French radio station France Culture that it was responsible for the diffusion of lies and war propaganda on behalf of Nato throughout the war. Graeff also warned the broadcasters that such disinformation could only work on the minds of serfs but not in a country of free minds.

    The power of the Israeli lobby in France is a subject rarely discussed in polite circles. In France there is a law against questioning or denial of the holocaust. However, denial of the Korean holocaust, Guatemalan holocaust, Palestinian holocaust, Indonesian holocaust and the dozens of other US/Israeli supported genocides is not only perfectly legal but is the respectable norm.

    The same lobby which introduced the Loi Gayssot in 1990, effectively ending freedom of expression in France, would also like to ban any independent investigations of genocides whose narratives they have written, such as the Rwanda genocide, where Israel played a key role in supporting the ‘rebels' led by Paul Kagame, who invaded Rwanda from Uganda from 1991 to 1994, leading to the genocide of both Tutus and Tutsis. Many serious scholars have written about the Rwandan genocide, which the Israel lobby repeatedly uses as a case study to justify ‘humanitarian' intervention by Western powers. The Zionist thought police would like to see such authors prosecuted for ‘negating' imperialism's disgusting lies on African conflicts.

    Now, the Israeli Lobby is forcing the (their) French government to prosecute twitter messages which the lobby deems ‘anti-Semitic'. This is one further step towards the creation of a totalitarian state where any criticism of imperialism, foreign wars, racism, oppression, perhaps eventually capitalism itself could fall under the rubric of ‘anti-Semitism'.

    These people are sick, and those who cow down to them are sicker. Perhaps the etymology of sickness, a word cognate with the German Sicherheit (security) according to, is not a coincidence. For what is particularly sick about our society is the cult of security, endless surveillance, ubiquitous cameras, the cult of the all seeing eye, the prurient gaze as part of the incessant discourse on terrorism by those who specialize in the training of the very terrorists they claim to be protecting us from. Whether or not the words security and sickness are linguistically related, they are certainly cognate in a philosophical sense.

    Roland Dumas and others like him should be highly commended for having to guts to say what so many others are too morally corrupt, too weak and cowardly to admit.

    As the French government and its media agencies drum up hysteria for war on Syria, Roland Dumas, now in the twilight of his years, is warning people of the consequences of not understanding where Israel is leading the world. Will enough people heed the warning?

  • Why does the legal definition of homelessness matter? Shelter.

    Local councils have a legal duty to help certain people if they ask a council for help when they are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The help may be with providing housing or with advice and assistance to help resolve a housing problem.

    If a council decides that you are legally homeless or threatened with homelessness, it may eventually have to help you by providing you with settled accommodation. If it decides you are not homeless, you aren't given the same level of help.




    Rate This


    Who is legally classed as homeless?

    You should be considered homeless if you have no home in the UK or anywhere else in the world available for you to occupy. You don't have to be sleeping on the streets to be considered homeless.

    If you apply to a local council for homelessness help, the council has to look at any accommodation you have access to. In many cases, it will be easy for a council to see that you may be homeless or likely to become homeless in the near future, for example if you are a tenant being evicted from rented accommodation or a home-owner being repossessed by your mortgage lender.

    The council may decide you have a home if you are:

    • living with friends or family who consent to you staying and haven't asked you to leave
    • you have 'home rights' giving you the right to stay in your home because you are married to or in a civil partnership with the tenant or home-owner

    In many situations, if you are entitled to have a court order before you are required to leave, you won't be considered homeless until the day that bailiffs come to evict. But the council can still decide that you are 'threatened with homelessness'.

    Other situations can be more complicated. The council has to look at your situation as a whole before deciding whether you are homeless. For example, even if you have accommodation that you have a legal right to live in and no one is trying to get you out, it may not be reasonable for you to stay there. This would be the case if you are experiencingviolence or abuse or harassment, or if the condition of your home is damaging your health.

    Read Shelter's guide Homeless? Read this for more information on being homeless.

    Can you be homeless if you have accommodation?

    Even if you have somewhere to stay, a local council may still consider you to be homeless.

    Examples of situations where the council should consider you to be homeless even though you have accommodation include:

    • you have no home where you can live together with your immediate family
    • you can only stay where you are on a very temporary basis
    • you don't have permission to live where you are
    • you have been locked out of home and you aren't allowed back
    • you can't live at home because of violence or abuse or threats of violence or abuse, which are likely to be carried out against you or someone else in your household
    • it isn't reasonable for you to stay in your home for any reason (for example, if your home is in very poor condition)
    • you can't afford to stay where you are
    • you live in a vehicle or boat and you have nowhere to put it

    There may be other reasons why you should be considered homeless. Even if you don't fit into one of these categories you may be able to argue you are homeless because you can't stay where you are.

    Get advice if you are not sure of your rights. In most cases, you should not leave your accommodation until the council accepts that you are homeless. If you do, the council may decide that you made yourself homeless intentionally.

    Use Shelter's advice services directory to find a face-to-face adviser near you.

    If you have no home where you and your immediate family can live together

    The council should consider you to be homeless if you can't live in your accommodation with everyone who normally lives with you.

    The council should also consider you to be homeless if there is someone who could be expected to live with you but who is not able to at present. For example, your accommodation could be too small or your landlord may not allow children.

    If your accommodation is very temporary

    The council should consider you to be homeless if you:

    • only have basic shelter or accommodation of a very temporary nature such as a hostel
    • are staying with friends or family temporarily but they can only put you up for a short time

    If you stay in a women's refuge, in most cases you are considered to be homeless.


    The council should consider you to be homeless if you don't have permission to live in the accommodation you are living in, for example because you are squatting.

    You can't get into your accommodation

    The council should consider you to be homeless if you are unable to get into your accommodation. This could be because your landlord or someone you live with has changed the locks and won't let you back in.

    If your landord has changed the locks it may be an illegal eviction and the council may be able to help you in other ways.

    Is there a risk of violence in your home?

    It is not reasonable to be expected to stay somewhere if you are experiencing violence or threats which are likely to be carried out against anyone in your household. This includesdomestic abuse or violence from people outside your home.

    The council should consider you to be homeless if you are in this situation. You will be asked to provide details and dates of any violent incidents. You don't have to press charges against the violent person or provide police reports, but any evidence you can provide is helpful.

    Is your accommodation in a poor condition?

    If your home is of a much poorer standard than most other housing in the area, the council may consider you to be homeless because it is not reasonable for you to stay there. However, your accommodation would have to be in a very poor state of repair (for example, so bad that it is damaging your health) for this to be the case.

    You can't afford to stay where you are

    The council should consider you to be homeless because it is not reasonable for you to live in your accommodation if you can't afford to keep living there without depriving yourself of basic essentials such as food or heating. This also applies if you haven't got enough money to be able to return to accommodation that is still available for you.

    In this situation the council may offer to pay for you to return rather than provide you with alternative accommodation.

    There's nowhere to put your houseboat or caravan

    The council should consider you to be homeless if you live in a moveable structure such as a houseboat or caravan and there is no place where you are allowed to keep it or live in it.

    Are you classed as threatened with homelessness?

    The council should consider you to be threatened with homelessness if you are likely to become homeless within 28 days. For example, this applies if your landlord gets a court order to evict you and you have to leave within 28 days.

    The council should give you advice about whether you have a right to stay where you are. It may be able to help you to stay in your current home by helping you to negotiate with your landlord.

    If it is unlikely that you can stop your landlord from evicting you, the council has a duty to help you as if you were already homeless. It should not wait until you are evicted before looking into your situation.

    What can you do if the council decides you are not homeless?

    The council has to inform you in writing if it decides that you are not homeless or threatened with homelessness.

    The decision letter must explain the reasons why the council has come to that decision. It must also inform you that you have a right to request a review of the decision within 21 days.

    If you are not homeless or threatened with homelessness, the council only has to give you advice and assistance about finding somewhere else to live. If you are already in emergency accommodation provided by the council, you will probably be asked to leave.

    If you think the council's decision is wrong, contact a local advice centre that is independent of the council as soon as you can.

    Use Shelter's advice services directory to find a face-to-face adviser near you.

    You can also contact Civil Legal Advice. Their advisers can advise on the council's housing duties. You may be able to get help from their legal advisers if you qualify for legal aid. Be prepared to answer questions about your income and savings so the helpline adviser can tell you if you qualify.

    An adviser may be able to:

    • look into the reasons for the decision and help you work out whether you have a good chance of getting the council to change its decision
    • help you put together the information you need to provide for the review
    • convince the council to provide accommodation until the review is completed
    • help you to appeal further if the council still refuses to help you
    • help you find other emergency accommodation if the council won't accept that you are homeless

    Last updated: 8 October 2014


    In June 2012, John Vickers who headed the Independent Commission on Banking was very upset that some of his recommendations were rejected by the Chancellor, George Osborne. Was it just his hurt pride? Or does he spot another rip-off being pulled over our heads while we aren't comprehending?


    The most important recommendation rejected by Osborne was:
    "All ring-fenced banks with a RWAs-to-UK GDP ratio of 1% or more should have their minimum leverage ratio increased on a sliding scale (to a maximum of 4.06% at a RWAs-to-UK GDP ratio of 3%)."
    (RWA - Risk Weighted Assets)

    What this means in practice:

    Never forget, the Credit Crisis was caused by banks borrowing too much. This leverage ratio refers to the ratio of how much a bank can borrow (and then lend on to its customers, or play with in the banking casino) relative to its Tier1 Core Capital. The higher the permitted leverage multiple the more the bank can borrow.

    The banking industry claims that setting the higher requirement would be bad for the economy - higher prices and lower growth. The Bank of England, in a report from April 2011 (see later), says this isn't true. Who should Osborne believe? The City which provides 50% of Tory party funding, or the Bank of England which doesn't?

    The Future of Banking Commission, set up after the Credit Crisis hit, reported in 2010 that bank executives have every reason to maximise the money they can borrow as it boosts the return on equity and net revenue. Page 60 of the report (scenario: banks can borrow at 4% and lend at 5%) provides some figures illustrated on this graph:

    "The FSA has noted that prior to the financial crisis, many investment banks calculated net revenue and then determined the total size of their employees' bonuses by reference to a compensation ratio (typically between 40% and 50%). As Sir Martin Taylor has noted,
    'Paying out 50% of revenues to staff had become the rule, even when [because of accounting rules] the ‘revenues’ did not actually consist of money.'"

    The “Tier1 Core Capital” is money held by a bank that nobody has the right to take away.

    This includes
    -         Retained profits
    -         Equity capital.

    Retained profits are those profits that are not paid out as bonuses to staff or as dividends to shareholders. Retained profits belong to the bank, held as reserves. 

    Equity capital is the money raised by the bank by selling its own shares. A shareholder has no right to demand his money back from the bank itself. All a shareholder can do to get his money is sell his shares to someone else. He can’t force the bank to give him his money back in exchange for the shares.

    Osborne accepted the recommendation for 'ring-fencing' banks. We explained what a 'ring-fenced bank' is in more detail in an earlier post. For now we focus on the amount these banks do and how much they can borrow.

    Independent Commission on Banks

    What a ring-fenced bank is for: Simply put, the bank borrows money from one group of people, and lends it to another group of people.

    The people who lend money to the bank (including us: our bank deposits are effectively loans from us to the bank) expect
    a)      some kind of interest payment (generally ranging between paltry and piffling).
    b)      to be able to get our money back when we want it
    The people who borrow money from the banks (including us, in the form of mortgages, credit card loans, business loans, etc.) expect to pay interest (generally ranging between excessive and extortionate). These borrowers are expected
    a)      to make their interest payments on time
    b)      eventually to pay back the loan
    The bank makes its profit by paying interest on the money it borrows at a lower rate than it receives on the money it lends. The profit comes from this margin between the rates.
    Shareholders: A bank has shareholders investing their money. This money is used as a buffer in case some of the borrowers can’t pay back their loans. If this happens, the shareholders’ money can be used to pay back the people who lend money to the bank. Shareholders expect
    a)      to receive dividend payments for their shares
    b)      to see the value of their shares grow as the bank grows
    c)      to be able to sell their shares to someone

    The profits of a bank are shared between
    a)     the shareholders, in the form of dividends
    b)     kept by the bank, to boost its buffer of reserves
    c)     the bankers, in the form of bonuses

    From the nation’s point of view
    a)      Shareholders take the risk of losing their money, in return for the hope of earning dividends and capital gains.
    b)      The more shareholders funds being held by the bank, the less likely the bank will run out of money and need a rescue.
    c)      If a rescue is needed, then the taxpayer is forced to bail out the banks. So the bigger the shareholder buffer the safer we are.
    d)      A bail-out was what happened in 2008 and continues to this day. That’s why the economy crashed.

    From the bankers point of view

    a)      Shareholders are a drain on profits, which should be paid to them in bonuses.
    b)      Shareholders' money is easily replaced by cheaper borrowing (e.g. pay our depositors 0.1% interest, or less!), so long as the government lets us get away with it.
    c)      Shareholders are unnecessary, because the nation will bail the bank out when required – as is happening now.
    d)      Erm.  That’s it.
    Bankers claim that increasing the capital ratio will make borrowing more expensive for us Britons and will generally be bad for the British Economy. However, the Bank of England, in a report from April 2011, stated

    "We conclude that even proportionally large increases in bank capital are likely to result in a small long-run impact on the borrowing costs faced by bank customers. Even if the amount of bank capital doubles our estimates suggest that the average cost of bank funding will increase by only around 10-40bps [1bps =0.01%].  (A doubling in capital would still mean that banks were financing more than 90% of their assets with debt).  But substantially higher capital requirements could create very large benefits by reducing the probability of systemic banking crises."
    Banks pretend that the prosperity of the nation depends on the banks being highly leveraged. The graph below from the Bank of England’s report shows that historically there is no link between how much the banks are leveraged (how much they borrow compared to core capital) and how fast the British economy grows. In spite of massive increases in bank borrowing the trend line for GDP growth has been flat.


    From the politician’s point of view – Tory and Labour alike – the priorities are:
    a)      Do what is necessary to get elected
    b)      To get elected you need funding from friends with spare cash to donate
    c)      Make friends, ensure they have plenty of spare cash to donate
    d)      Then run the country.
About me
RSS Feed
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0


The content of this website belongs to a private person, is not responsible for the content of this website.

"Integrate the javascript code between and : Integrate the javascript code in the part :