Are European Governments Schizophrenic?

I've been talking online recently about Europe and European governments and their inability to govern in the interests of their citizens. 

I've said previously that I thought our government were delusional. The signs are there, believing in a different reality than the reality we can see in front of our eyes.

I think I blogged about it a year ago, when a Labour MP went on question time and when asked about the small boats arriving, went on about how these boatloads of men women and children deserve our hospitality. And he was mortified when confronted with the fact that 90% of the immigrants were men. You could see on his face, that was not the reality he saw. 

I now think that I've come to understand our government and other European governments. They are Schizophrenic. 

The definition of Schizophrenia is:

Schizophrenia is a long-term mental health condition that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves, often causing them to lose touch with reality.

So far, so good. It seems to describe our government to a tee.

Lets have a look at the symptoms:

Symptoms are generally grouped into three main categories: positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and cognitive issues.

Okay, so there's a bit going on. But let's have a look at positive (in individuals) Symptoms.

Positive Symptoms (Experiences Added to Reality)

These involve a loss of touch with reality or new features not present before: Yeah, out of touch with reality. Sounds like a typical European cabinet, or the European Commission. Seeing families in boats that don't exist, diversity being a strength, immigrants not adding to crime. 

• Hallucinations: Sensing things that are not real. Hearing voices is the most common form, though people can also see, smell, taste, or feel things that are not there. I think I could substitute this for voices from outside government: the voices nudging the government to do the things they do. like "Just do this and I'll donate 10 Mil to the cause..." 

• Delusions: Strong, false beliefs that do not change even when shown clear evidence or facts. Examples include paranoia, feeling like someone is plotting against you, or believing you have special powers. Here's a good one: false beliefs. That would include Diversity is a strength, a man can be a woman, immigrants are a net benefit, immigrants don't need to assimilate, net zero isn't ruining the country to reduce global carbon by less than one percent. Special powers: how about believing you are a saint, and everyone else is a monster. Believing someone is plotting against you? Well, was a real fear if your name was Kier Starmer.

• Disorganised Thinking and Speech: Difficulty organizing thoughts, leading to jumbled speech, jumping between unrelated topics, or speech that is hard for others to understand ("word salad"). Aha! Word Salad. Has anyone hard a politican recently? Word Salad describes exactly the words that come out of their mouths as they deny reality and try to sound convinciing.

• Disorganised or Catatonic Behavior: Unpredictable movements, awkward body postures, or staying completely still for long periods Just two words here: Kier Starmer. Let me be clear, the son of a toolmaker was as catatonic when making speeches as he could possibly be. 

If that's the positive symptoms, what the hell are the negative ones? A propensity to press the nuclear launch button? Lock up people for tweeting opinions?

Negative Symptoms (Capabilities or Emotions Taken Away)

These represent a reduction or loss of normal functions and emotions:

• Flat Affect: Speaking in a dull tone, showing little facial expression, or seeming emotionless. Yep, we're back to Kier Starmer again, aren't we. 

• Social Withdrawal: Losing interest in spending time with friends, family, or social activities. Oh, come on! Stop with teh Starmer-bashing! He left for...reasons. Mainly because bully Burham was going to kick his butt 

• Avolition (Lack of Motivation): Trouble starting or finishing daily tasks, work, or goal-oriented activities. Now this could describe any Labour cabinet member videoed walking into number 10. None of them look particularly motivated. And none of them seem to stay in a job for any length of time and if they do, they're pretty piss-poor at the job. 

• Neglect of Personal Care: Difficulty maintaining hygiene, grooming, or everyday routines. Have you seen Angel Rayner? Looks like she's been on a bender for the last 18 months. And Burham has aged a decade in only 3 months. 

• Anhedonia: Inability to feel pleasure or joy in activities previously enjoyed. Well, as the Left now see jokes as hate speech, I'd say that symptom was spot on. 

Cognitive Symptoms Now it gets good. Just look at the list below and apply it to any Labour cabinet member. 

These affect mental processing and everyday functioning:

• Trouble concentrating or paying attention.

• Memory problems (difficulty with short-term or working memory).

• Difficulty making decisions, planning, or understanding everyday situations 

I'm afraid the diagnosis is clear. Schizophrenia. Our government is mentally ill. Literally mentally ill. 

It's pretty clear to me now that the whole political class of Europe is also just as mentally ill as the UK government. Except Poland. Hungary is in the early stages after the elections earlier this year.

For Hungary, look up the Schizophrenic Prodromal Phase.  

Unfortunately, I don't know how you treat group schizophrenia. I assume education, getting the patient to identify their condition and accept treatment for it. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, getting them to think correctly, and gradually bring them back to accept actual reality than some ideologically induced fantasy. 

Or you could just kick them out at the next election and induce a hard reset of government. 

Thoughts on France.

I'm watching the riots in France and especially Paris with some interest, mainly because I'm due to take a trip over there in the next few weeks.

Is this the start of the civil war we've been told is imminent? 

It certainly feels like the start of an "Arab Spring" style uprising. It always starts with teenagers throwing rocks and breaking stuff, setting fire to shit and then it escalates, because it's been planned in advance.

We've been told civil war is some way away, The experts cite some arbitrary critical mass like when migrants reach a majority, or significant minority.

Yet in every other country where the Muzzies have taken over, all they needed was a substantial minority, because they were aided by the useful idiots, the Socialists and Communists. Between them, they made up a significant minority and were able through force and violence to take control.

And then once they take power, the Muzzies eliminate the Socialists, because the Socialists don't expect their fraternal friends to turn on them. But they do, every single time.

This happens especially in a country where the majority neither had the expectation of civil war (due to the small minority of immigrants/anti Westerners), nor the means to defend themselves against it (no access to weapons for defence). I notice the French countryside is currently peaceful, mainly because the French countryside still have a lot of guns and hunters able to use them.

A substantial minority with weapons and the will to use them with force can quite easily take control of an unarmed majority. I suspect that we'll see French cities fall first, setting up anti-Western areas and road blocks, 

It all really depends on if the Muslim Brotherhood think the time is right to make a move. Or if this is just testing the water to see how useful the Socialists are and how far they can go without serious pushback from the French Government. 

Currently France is finding out they are really close to the limit of what is possible from the Muslim/Socialist alliance. And it's all thanks to French Socialist/Communist extremists and their ability without any sense of irony to join a cause that wants their extermination.

Thanks to the Socialists aiding the Muzzy minority Civil war is closer than you think here in the UK too. Thankfully not as close as France. Over there there are a huge number of socialists. Over here, not as many as you think, because our socialists used to grow up and become Capitalist adults.

Well they did, when they were locked into capitalism by buying a house, getting a well-paid job and having a family. These days, that's a lot less possible, so socialist students tend to stay embittered socialists well into adulthood. 

But you may think the antagonists in the UK don't have any weapons, how can they start and more importantly win a civil war?

Well, you don't think the traffickers just smuggle people, do you? Networks like that also smuggle drugs and weapons. It's just that they use the people smuggling dinghies to overwhelm the agencies tasked to fly over the channel in reconnaissance aircraft and check on the boats coming across. So the expensive fast boats carrying the good stuff get across unchallenged.

And yes, we do have aircraft flying over the channel almost 24/7. Border force are leasing a couple of De Haviland Canada Dash-8 ISR aircraft, and when they are done doing a 10 hour shift, we're getting Coastguard aircraft flying down from Yorkshire, Cumbria and Scotland to fill in, especially overnight.

Except the aircraft are grounded when there's too much of a swell and the dinghies stop crossing. But not the fast ribs...

It's virtually impossible to Police the channel while Border Force are busy being a taxi service. There are plenty of leisure craft that sail or motor from France to the UK unchallenged. 

If we did actually have a hot civil war, how would it be fought? 

The UK Army, the people trained in using guns measures some 70,000 people. But that's including the people that are not front-line personnel. That's the cooks, the logistics people, the transport drivers, dentists, nurses, doctors. Even the 70,000 number is surpassed just by the number of illegal immigrants. Let alone the extremist Muslims that are citizens of the UK and their Socialist friends. 

But which side would the Army be on? Because it's certainly clear that the Government and the Police are not friends of those that oppose immigration, so it could well be the people vs The Armed Forces, Police and all the agencies of Government that have a monopoly on violence alongside the Muslims and the weapons stashes they have in Mosques.

Whatever form the civil war takes, it won't be along the usual alliances or partitions. 

How many of the armed forces will defect and align with the people? The unarmed Police, probably first in the firing line will be irrelevant. The armed Police may side with the government. But their numbers are pitifully small and easily eliminated, after which we descend into lawlessness.

So it would be difficult at the moment to see what alliances would form and how they would pan out into the meaty part of the war, beyond the initial skirmishes.

I see three main groups. The mainly Christian majority (Aligned with anti-Muslim immigrants like Sikhs and Hindus) , the government and the Muslims. The Socialists may align with the government or the Muslims. I have a feeling the government would align with the Muslims against the Christian majority, just because that's where they will be told to align from their Gulf-State sponsors. 

Although you may break it down even further into two groups depending on their backers. The Muslims backed by Gulf money and the Christians backed (hopefully) by America. 

Anyhow, I'm getting ahead of myself. No civil war here. Yet.

I will watch France with interest. And possibly I'll have a front-row seat when I'm in Paris. 

Using A.I. for a little fun. The Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group.

Ok, I'm a fossil. Although I do understand A.I. and what it's all about, I don't tend to use it. I have enough nouse and intelligence to research things for myself. And I have contacts. 

But anyway, I've tried to give A.I. go got to try and research stuff. 

First off, let's try Google A.I. and lets investigate my old favourite the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group. 

Now you would think that JTRIG would be invested in manipulating answers provided by A.I. to obfuscate or mislead. An indication that it was in fact, manipulating A.I. If you get my drift. 

So, lets see what Google A.I. said to the question: 

"On the balance of probabilities, is there a relationship between JTRIG and hope not hate?"

Google's answer:

On the balance of probabilities, there is almost certainly no direct operational relationship or collaboration between JTRIG and HOPE not hate. So the initial response is "No".

However, looking at the wider ecosystem of British intelligence, there is a high probability of a parallel, overlapping relationship regarding the targets they track, as well as a historical "degrees of separation" connection through state intelligence agencies like MI5. Hang on. Could the "No" actually be a "Maybe"?

An assessment of the probabilities across different types of relationships reveals the following:

1. Direct Operational Collaboration (Highly Improbable) "Initial assessment is Highly Improbable"

• JTRIG is a military/signals cyber-warfare unit of GCHQ that deploys covert "Effects" (hacking, disinformation, honeytraps, and narrative manipulation).

• HOPE not hate is an independent advocacy group that uses undercover investigators to expose far-right extremists publicly.

• The Probability: It is highly unlikely that JTRIG coordinates with a public-facing political charity. British intelligence units are bound by strict secrecy, and collaborating with a civilian NGO poses massive operational security risks. It would also violate the strict legal frameworks that govern GCHQ's mandate.

2. Information Sharing via Third Parties (Moderately Probable) Then we go to "Moderately Probable"

• The Shared Target: Both JTRIG and HOPE not hate track the exact same digital ecosystems, specifically online radicalisation, neo-Nazi terror networks, and far-right Telegram and Discord hubs.

• The Intelligence Pipeline: HOPE not hate routinely hands its investigative dossiers on terror plots over to local police and MI5 (the UK's domestic counter-terrorism agency). In turn, MI5 coordinates directly with GCHQ (and by extension, units like JTRIG or the Counter-Disinformation Unit) to tackle national security threats.

• The Probability: On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that intelligence gathered by HOPE not hate eventually flows into data pools used by JTRIG analysts to map far-right networks, even if the two organisations never speak directly.

3. Historical and Institutional Connections (Documented Fact) 

While JTRIG itself is a modern, post-2000s cyber unit, HOPE not hate has deep institutional roots that do have documented connections to the British intelligence state:

• The Searchlight Precursor: HOPE not hate evolved out of Searchlight, an anti-fascist magazine founded in the 1960s and 1970s.

• The MI5 Nexus: Investigative journalists and historians have documented that Searchlight frequently maintained backchannel relationships with MI5 operatives during the Cold War. State intelligence used anti-fascist informants to keep tabs on both far-right and far-left radicals. Critics and alternative media outlets have occasionally argued that HOPE not hate inherits this dynamic, acting as an unintended civilian "cutout" for state monitoring.

Summary Checklist

• Direct alliance/Joint operations? No. (Highly Improbable)

• JTRIG targeting HOPE not hate? No evidence. (Improbable, as HOPE not hate's activities focus on anti-racism, not state disruption)

• Indirectly using each other's data? Yes. (Highly Probable via MI5/Police channels)

Are you trying to trace a specific leak, court case, or piece of investigative journalism that claimed a link between these two? Knowing the specific context can help us dig into whether it holds up against the evidence.

The initial response is No, but there are documented facts of a Nexus, an alignment of interests, that a normal human, on the balance of probabilities would definitely consider a relationship with a possibility of contact and interaction.

Okay, lets see what Google A.I. said to the question: 

"On the balance of probabilities, is there a relationship between JTRIG and the BBC?"

Google's answer:

On the balance of probabilities, there is no direct operational partnership or collusion between JTRIG and the BBC, but there is a highly documented relationship of strategic intersection. Here we go again. The initial response is "No". With a big pinch of salt I expect.

Rather than working hand-in-hand to manipulate public opinion, JTRIG uses the BBC's immense global reach as a vehicle for cyber-warfare operations, while the BBC serves its traditional role as a public broadcaster reporting on the intelligence community. Sorry, what's that? JTRIG uses the BBC's infrastructure... but no direct link? How?

An investigation into the balance of probabilities reveals three distinct ways these entities interact:

1. The Weaponisation of BBC Infrastructure (Documented Fact)

Edward Snowden’s leaks directly established that JTRIG does not ask the BBC for permission to use its platform; instead, it actively exploits the BBC's digital footprint to trick targets. [1]

• The "Phishing" Lures: In 2014, leaks revealed that JTRIG successfully unmasked and compromised a hacktivist named "P0ke" (linked to the Anonymous collective). [1]
• The Method: JTRIG operators sent the hacker a direct link to a real, live BBC News article titled "Who loves the hacktivists?". When the target clicked the seemingly benign BBC link, JTRIG bypassed his routing security, allowing GCHQ to steal his IP address and identify him. [1]
• Probability: 100%. JTRIG routinely uses the trusted brand of the BBC as operational cover to deploy spyware and tracking cookies against hostile targets, completely independent of the BBC’s knowledge.
  
  Ah, so JTRIG scrapes BBC website, creates fake link, then goes phishing.

2. The "State Media" vs. Editorial Independence Dynamic (Highly Improbable Collusion)

Critics of British foreign policy frequently question whether GCHQ directly feeds JTRIG propaganda to the BBC to broadcast to the British public.

• The Structure: The BBC operates under a Royal Charter that guarantees editorial independence from the government. It is funded by the public license fee, not directly by Whitehall’s defense budget. [1] A Royal Charter that by most human observers, has been ditched long ago. 
• The Reporting: When the Snowden leaks broke, the BBC aggressively reported on JTRIG’s unlawful hacking systems, "dirty tricks," and domestic overreach. A state-controlled propaganda wing would not actively expose its own cyber-warfare divisions. [1, 2] In the UK government, it's very probable that this is another arse vs elbow contest.
• Probability of Collusion: Highly Improbable. There is zero evidence that JTRIG dictates editorial direction to BBC journalists.

3. The "D-Notice" and National Security Ecosystem (Highly Probable Cooperation)

While direct collusion is unlikely, the BBC operates within the broader British establishment and complies with the DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory) system.

• This is a voluntary code where the UK government and intelligence agencies can ask British media organizations (like the BBC, The Guardian, or Sky News) to reduce specific details, omit names, or delay publishing stories if doing so would directly jeopardize ongoing operations or human lives.
• Probability: Highly Probable. If a BBC journalist accidentally stumbles upon an active, highly sensitive cyber operation being conducted by JTRIG against an adversary like Russia or Iran, the BBC would likely consult with the DSMA committee before airing the information. [1, 2]

Summary

If you are asking if the BBC is a secret front for JTRIG's public manipulation experiments, the answer is no. However, if you are asking if JTRIG leverages the reputation of the BBC to conduct international espionage, the answer is an absolute yes.

Finally, I asked Google the following question:

"On the balance of probabilities, is there a relationship between JTRIG and NGOs?"

The answer was:

On the balance of probabilities, there is a highly probable, dual-natured relationship between JTRIG and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Finally, make the question more general, the answer is yes.

Rather than a formal, friendly partnership, this relationship is sharply divided into two categories based on leaked intelligence documents: aggressive targeting and infiltration of adversarial NGOs, and the manipulation or exploitation of humanitarian NGOs for intelligence gathering. There's always an oppressor and an oppressed victim. Is Google A.I. a leftist?

An assessment of the probabilities across these distinct dynamics reveals the following:

1. Infiltration and Disruptive Targeting (Documented Fact)

Edward Snowden’s leaks explicitly proved that JTRIG does not view all NGOs as neutral entities. Instead, the unit treats certain political, human rights, and digital advocacy NGOs as national security threats.

• The "Effects" Playbook: Leaked GCHQ documents outline how JTRIG uses its cyber-warfare capabilities to "deny, degrade, disrupt, and deter" groups it deems extremist or hostile to UK interests. Including groups inside the UK, no doubt, especially those on the right, despite the huge number of Islamic terrorists here.

• Targeting Campaign Groups: Documents revealed that GCHQ monitored and targeted legal, non-violent activist networks and NGOs—such as climate change groups and digital rights organisations—treating them with the same cyber-disruption tactics used against hostile states. Hmm, most of those groups are singing from the same hymn sheet as the government, why would GCHQ identify them as a threat?

• Probability: 100%. JTRIG has actively targeted, monitored, and deployed psychological disruption operations against domestic and international NGOs that challenge British state policy. Oh, those poor feckless, unwitting victim NGOs....

2. Exploitation of Humanitarian Aid Organizations (Highly Probable)

In international conflict zones (such as the Middle East or Horn of Africa), human rights and humanitarian aid NGOs possess invaluable ground-level data, local trust, and communication networks.

• Social Engineering and Monitoring: JTRIG's core specialty is behavioral manipulation and "online covert action." To map out terrorist networks or hostile militias, JTRIG analysts routinely scrape public and semi-private data from aid workers, or create fake online personas (sockpuppets) pretending to be NGO employees to gain the trust of local targets.

• The "Cutout" Risk: Intelligence agencies historically use the neutral umbrella of humanitarian work as cover. While larger, reputable NGOs fiercely guard their neutrality, smaller or newly formed NGOs can be vulnerable to infiltration by intelligence operatives collecting human intelligence (HUMINT).

• Probability: Highly Probable. On the balance of probabilities, JTRIG utilizes the online presence, identities, or data footprints of humanitarian NGOs to conduct espionage and profile targets in foreign theaters.

3. Funding and Creating "Front" NGOs (Moderately Probable)

A classic strategy in information warfare is the creation of pseudo-NGOs—often called GONGOs (Government-Organised Non-Governmental Organisations)—to covertly shape public opinion under the guise of an independent charity or think tank.

• While the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) openly funds various democratic and media-development NGOs globally, JTRIG's mandate is specifically covert.

• Given JTRIG's documented tools for rigging online polls, boosting specific videos, and spreading mass propaganda, deploying these tactics through artificial, Western-aligned "civil society" fronts fits their exact operational model. Rigging online polls eh? Here in the UK I would imagine. 

• Probability: Moderately Probable. It is likely that JTRIG has constructed or amplified superficial, fake digital "NGOs" to act as trusted third-party voices in information operations targeting foreign adversaries. Again, no operations within the UK, no targeting institutions, organisations or individuals inside the UK. Pull the other one. I've seem it first hand.

Summary Checklist

• Are NGOs and JTRIG partners? No. (Highly Improbable; it would destroy an NGO's credibility and legal standing). Not if no-one finds out.

• Does JTRIG target and spy on NGOs? Yes. (Documented Fact; particularly digital rights, climate, and anti-war groups). Well, that's pretty obvious, Mr Google A.I.

• Does JTRIG weaponise NGO identities? Yes. (Highly Probable; using fake aid-worker profiles for online espionage and data gathering). Of course, the identities are fake. But what about real lefties in real organisations being given targets to character assassinate?

Are you looking into how JTRIG interacts with a specific type of NGO, such as environmental groups, digital privacy watchdogs, or international aid organizations? Let me know, and we can look closer at that specific sector.

Interesting that there's still denial from A.I. JTRIG does not work with third parties. Hmm, I'm declined not to agree. The timing and the similarity of relentless online attack waves tends to suggest they are coming from a central source. 

Maybe it's not JTRIG, but then who else would be doing dirty tricks online on behalf of the government?

And really, do all those lefties that follow the crowd know they are being manipulated by the very government and country they've been manipulated into hating? 

But then why would a government manipulate a section of the population to hate it and the country it governs?

Because they become useful idiots in fomenting agitation in order for the government then to do something about it and increase observation and control. It's a feedback loop that leads to tyranny.

UPDATE:

Playing around later, I tried a few free A.I. chat engines. It seems Grok is the closest to a free-thinking A.I. but it still fails to assess the wider picture, past evidence and relies too much on hard evidence like documents online before it will commit to confirming links between JTRIG and third party NGOs. Sadly the downside of a basic Large Language Model is it cannot make suppositions or extrapolate behaviour.