Who murdered Jo Cox?

It is sometimes said that nothing happens by accident.  Nevertheless, we do not have to delve too far into history to find examples of events which appear not to have been orchestrated.  Consider two momentous events in the history of western Europe: the English reformation and the French revolution.

The English reformation began in 1534 when Henry VIII abandoned the Roman Catholic Church, and England officially adopted protestant christianity.  The main reason for this appears to have been the refusal of the Pope to allow Henry to divorce his wife.  Henry wanted to divorce his wife because she had failed to provide him with a male heir.  She was pregnant many times, but produced only one child that lived, and that one child was a girl.

The French Revolution describes a series of events which began in 1789.  It appears that there was a lot of political unrest in France in the years leading to the revolution, but it appears also that the main cause of the popular uprising of 1789 was a hail storm which destroyed crops in many parts of northern France, and particularly in the vicinity of Paris.  As a result, the citizens of Paris were short of food, and this shortage of food prompted many of them to rebel.

In short, a major event in European history took place because of one woman's reproductive difficulties, and another took place because of inclement weather.

As I write we are just two days away from the referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, and the major news story in the United Kingdom is the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox.  Jo was not well known, and I cannot recall having heard of her prior to her death.  She was however the mother of two young children.

It is hard to think of any MP whose murder would have affected the mood of the public in quite the same way, and it is not at all surprising that many people in the Remain camp are using her death as a political weapon.  The whole thing has been so convenient for the Remain vote that it is also not surprising that at least some political bloggers are arguing that her death was orchestrated.

It is still early days, and I don't want readers of this blog to leap to any conclusions, but consider these points:

• Early press reports suggested that Jo Cox was attacked after intervening in a fight between two men.  It was later reported that she was set upon by a lone man.
• At least one witness has reported that the killer repeatedly shouted the name of a political party, whereas at least one other witness has said that the killer did not yell anything.
• Jo Cox was supposedly shot three times, but at least one witness has denied hearing any gun shots.
• The man charged with her murder is supposed to have been an avid reader of political material, whereas not one person who knew him was aware of him having any political leanings.
• Video footage of the alleged killer being arrested does not show any blood splashes on either him or his clothing.

Successive governments in this country - whether Labour or Conservative or coalition - have shown quite substantial disregard for the sanctity of human life, and it would not surprise me at all if it transpires that the establishment sacrificed one of its own in a bid to influence the outcome of a critical referendum.

But then, successive governments in this country - whether Labour or Conservative or coalition - have also shown quite substantial disregard for the truth, and I wondered at an early stage whether or not Jo Cox had in fact died.

Please take some time to watch this video analysis of the murder:

Two more analytical videos can be found on these two links:
Were bankers involved?
Jo Cox murder false flag

Related previous posts include:
We can't trust chameleon Dave

Does the EU maintain peace?

As I write there is less than one week to go before Britain votes on whether or not to remain in the European Union.  Many years ago I read a profile of a man called Madron Seligman who at the time was a Member of the European Parliament for the evil Conservative Party.  He was also a close friend of Ted Heath, who was the Prime Minister who took Britain into what is now the European Union.

Seligman recounted how he and Heath had holidayed in Europe shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War.  They knew that war was imminent, and felt that something should be done to prevent the outbreak of another such war.  To cut a long story short, the European Union was viewed by many people as a way to ensure that there would never again be a war in Europe.  In addition, Germany passed a law banning any political party from associating itself with Hitler's regime.

I decided many years ago that the whole idea of the European Union preventing another war was absolute nonsense.  One of the main effects of the EU has been to undermine national identity.  This has had the effect of increasing what might be termed nationalist sentiment in many of the EU's member states.  This has been confirmed by a recent study by the University of Leipzig, which reports the following:

• One third of people in Germany think the country is dangerously overpopulated by foreigners.
• More than twenty percent think that Germany needs a single strong party which embodies the national community as a whole.
• Twelve percent believe that Germans are by nature superior to other people.
• Ten percent want Germany to be led by a fuhrer - the title adopted by Hitler while serving as both the president and chancellor of Germany.

None of the above implies that anyone in Germany wants another war in Europe - or does it?  I hope not, but I have been wrong before.

Related previous posts include:
Britain First and the fiction of a free country

Is holocaust denial a bad thing?

A national newspaper has reported on the Vote Leave campaign as follows: The campaign for Britain to leave the EU has been infiltrated by dozens of far-Right extremists with racist views.

I interpret the word infiltrate to imply deception, and the Merriam-Webster dictionary currently defines the word in terms of secrecy.  Therefore I fail to see how a young woman with a large swastika tattoo can be said to have infiltrated any organisation.

At the time of writing, the newspaper identifies Vote Leave campaigner Mark Collett as a senior BNP official, but earlier today I typed his surname into the search box on the BNP website, and it produced no results.

The newspaper also has an issue with another Vote Leave campaigner, Richard Edmonds, having attended a conference of holocaust deniers - that is, people who deny that Hitler's National Socialist regime deliberately exterminated millions of Jews.  This conference was reported on by the same newspaper, although with some subsequent modification.

Some readers might find it curious that many people in the press and on television seem to regard holocaust denial as a sign of bad character.  There are many academic disputes about supposed historical events, and we are not normally expected to demonise people who take one point of view rather than another.

I hope to write in more detail on this subject in future, but then I have said that before.  I will however draw the reader's attention to two quotes from the newspaper report:

Its underpinnings in the realm of historical fact are non-existent – no Hitler order, no plan, no budget, no gas chambers, no autopsies of gassed victims, no bones, no ashes, no skulls, no nothing.

I want the Jews and whoever else is spinning this story to answer certain questions concerning the technology.

I have two questions.  First, why are we expected to despise people who question a supposed historical event when the evidence to support it is lacking?  Second, is any national newspaper proposing at any point to answer the questions concerning the technology?

Related previous posts include:
The denial of Stalin's holocaust
Treason and hypocrisy
The Jews are afraid, but what about the rest of us?