Jultra Truth. Freedom. Oh and the end of New Labour and Tony Blair, Ian Blair, ID cards, terror laws and the NWO and their lies

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

'140 senior police officers want Ian Blair out'

Ian Blair"Scotland Yard has said Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair has their full backing amid reports 140 senior officers want him to resign.

The Met's Deputy Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, has denied there is any talk of plans to oust Sir Ian within the ranks.

And Scotland Yard has also denied that there is any concern for Sir Ian's future at the Home Office - it has refuted reports of a meeting with Charles Clarke yesterday. It comes after a senior police officer claimed in a newspaper that officials believe Sir Ian is too removed for the job.

He said: "There is a serious issue over the confidence of the force in Sir Ian and his ability to lead it.

"Many of us think he has been too damaged by his own blunders to go on and that he should resign immediately. A view is building momentum that Sir Ian is now holed below the waterline."

He added: "He is seen to be out of touch with the realities of being Britain's most important police officer."
Chn 4

That's a polite phrase.

Why is Ian Blair in his job anyway ? Answer: because he is sufficiently nuts and political and flawed enough of a person, which makes him ideal for this government to channel they crap through.

That's why he's there. That's presumably why he's still there. You can pity him in some ways.

You see, even the fact this guy keeps coming up again and again and again and comes on TV having to defend himself saying 'I'm not nuts, people do like me, really...' shows something is enormously wrong.

They should stop messing around and just get rid of this clown. Ian Blair belongs in a padded cell with a straight-jacket, instead of this ridiculous life of spectacle and shame spent impersonating a police officer.

See also Evening Standard

Sunday, January 29, 2006

'Bush and Blair conspired on war/UN sham'

"Tony Blair knew that George Bush was only "going through the motions" of offering support for a second UN resolution in the run-up to the Iraq war, it was claimed last night.

According to reports in The Mail on Sunday, the Prime Minister and the US President decided to go to war regardless of whether they obtained UN backing. The allegations will undermine claims that the final decision to go to war was not made until MPs voted in the Commons a day before military action. It will also bolster claims that the President and Mr Blair decided to go to war months before military action began.

An updated edition of a book by Philippe Sands QC, a leading human rights barrister and Professor of Law at London University, to be published in Britain this week, is expected to strengthen claims that President Bush decided to go to war with or without UN backing, and that he had Mr Blair's support.

The book is expected to produce fresh evidence that President Bush only went through the motions of giving a wholehearted endorsement to Mr Blair's attempts to gain full UN approval for military action.

At a meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Bush at the White House on 31 January 2003, Mr Blair urged the President to try to obtain a second UN resolution giving specific backing for the war. Mr Bush gave qualified support for going down the UN route. But, according to The Mail on Sunday, President Bush was only going through the motions - and, the paper adds: "Mr Blair not only knew it, but went along with it..."

Cover up claims in de Menezes shooting

"Fresh claims have emerged of a cover up by police involved in the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

According to a report in The News Of The World, undercover police tried to change a surveillance log to hide the fact they had mistakenly identified the 27-year-old electrician as a suspected suicide bomber.

As a result blame for the tragedy would have been shifted to senior Scotland Yard commanders or the armed police who pulled the trigger.

Mr de Menezes was repeatedly shot in the head as he tried to jump on to a train at Stockwell Tube station in south London in the aftermath of the abortive July 21 attacks.

The claimed leak of the IPCC report - handed over to the Crown Prosecution Service 10 days ago - revealed de Menezes was only shot after he was wrongly identified as suspected suicide bomber Hussein Osman by an undercover Special Branch team.

However, once they realised their fatal error, officers altered the log to show that no positive identification had been made.

A "Whitehall source" is quoted as saying: "It says the log was actually tampered with in a major way.

"In particular the words AND and NOT were inserted about the Osman ID, so it read 'and it was not Osman' rather than 'it was Osman'."

The log was apparently tampered with at a debriefing meeting 10 hours after the shooting..."

Thursday, January 26, 2006

ID slave grid: suffers many defeats in Lords

I'm a bit behind the news at the moment as I've been busy the last couple of days but ID cards have taken a number of defeats in the Lords.

That should be an end to it but apparently New Labour want to press ahead with their totalitarian monster anyway.

No doubt at all, the kind of debate and description of ID cards is wrong. This is all about the creation of a biometric slave grid, about unprecidented data gathering. sharing, assessing and unprecidented levels of subjugation, via this attempt to quantize the actions and life of the entire UK population. It is about breaking down of the middle class in the UK to be replaced with a slave-class.

What people try and do is seek to ignore the reality, and try and justify in their mind what is happening or pretend it isn't happening at all. This is what Blair uses to force his tyranny onto the country; the fact that people will put up their own mental barrier to it and enter into a denial. He then calls that 'consent'.

Things are about as serious as they could be and indeed it is a difficult thing to accept that government has gone completely bad, completely rogue and only wants to hurt you, but the longer we don't accept that, the more danger we are all in.

Monday, January 23, 2006

'International Terrorism Does Not Exist'

"General Leonid Ivashov was the Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the September 11, 2001, attacks took place. This military man, who lived the events from the inside, offers an analysis which is very different to that of his American colleagues. As he did during the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, he now explains that international terrorism does not exist and that the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them. He affirms that, instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce that kind of attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens..."
Read the full article

An interesting view by General Leonid Ivashov.

The UK Police state

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Parliament misled over CIA torture flights

" Pressure over the use of British airports for secret CIA torture flights increased dramatically yesterday after it emerged that a Foreign Office minister misled Parliament over a meeting between the UN and UK civil servants about the issue.

The Independent on Sunday has learnt that Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, misled peers when he told the House of Lords that no such meeting had ever occurred [...]

MPs and peers yesterday tightened the screw over rendition and said ministers will be summoned before a parliamentary committee to state whether they have been "wilfully ignorant" about CIA flights through UK airports.

Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs minister, is to be called before the influential Joint Committee on Human Rights to explain whether the US has covertly flown people to states where torture or cruel and degrading treatment is used, via UK airports. The Government will also come under pressure this week from the human rights group Liberty which is to write to Mr Straw urging him to cooperate with a promised inquiry by Michael Todd, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester police.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, accused the Government of "bending over backwards not to ask questions" about rendition and said there needed to be a "positive investigation" into CIA flights which may have passed through the UK without official government permission.

The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee is considering summoning the Foreign Secretary to answer questions about whether Whitehall knew about the "torture flights".

In a report last year, the committee accused the Government of failing to answer questions about extraordinary rendition "with the transparency and accountability required on so serious an issue". The report called on the Government to "end its policy of obfuscation and that it give straight answers" to questions posed by MPs."

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Professor says Bin Laden tape a fake

" A Duke professor says he is doubtful about Thursday's audiotape from Osama bin Laden. Bruce Lawrence has just published Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden, a book translating bin Laden's writing. He is skeptical of Thursday's message. It was like a voice from the grave, Lawrence said. He thinks bin Laden is dead and has doubts about the tape. Lawrence recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews of the al Qaida leader for his book. He says the new message is missing several key elements [...]

Lawrence believes faulty Pakistani intelligence led to the strike and the civilian deaths, and the tape was leaked by Pakistani authorities to divert attention from their mistake."
PrisonPlanet (ABC)

Friday, January 20, 2006

Dead Bin Laden helps Bush and Blair

"A terrorism expert says he has seen evidence showing al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is either seriously ill or dead. Dr Clive Williams, director of terrorism studies at the Australian National University, says documents provided by an Indian colleague suggested bin Laden died of massive organ failure in April last year" The Age (Jan 16th 2006)

And today of course, "...there are searching questions to ask about the authenticity and timing of the al-Qaida leader's latest tape before the rest of the world can make a balanced judgment about Bin Laden's message [..] ...there is no disputing that this was another audacious media and political coup of a high order" Guardian

"CIA analysts verified the recording as bin Laden's voice. They offered no details about how they reached that conclusion, but in the past the agency has verified authenticity in part by comparing new recordings to earlier messages" Forbes

"...the most immediate political effect will probably be a boost in support for President George W Bush. The commander-in-chief (what a joke -j) has been under intense pressure in recent weeks, accused of trampling on civil liberties in pursuit of terror suspects." BBC

Which is no surprise as that was the same plan before (1), and heck, the Republican Party even said it would be just great to have another terror attack or catch Bin Laden to boost Bush's ratings, and in January 2005, the beginning of the year of the silent Bin Laden the CIA didn't want to catch him at all. Then a couple of days ago before his tape, and a day after the Austrialian expert pronounced him dead, a US terror aficionado said, we 'have no intelligence or evidence that indicates that he is dead' , which is a strange thing to say, as by the sounds of it they didn't have a lot of evidence that he was alive.

Confused ? Smell a rat ? If they knew he was alive did they know where he was all the time and just kept him on the loose until Bush's poll rating's had collapsed ? Have they been looking after him at a CIA safehouse ? Or has he actually just been plain dead for quite some time, leaving little option but to fake up another audio tape ? It's handy of the tape to offer both a truce and more attacks.. Keep your options open, that's what I say. Or is it to cause a backlash against the anti-slave world rebels ? Bin Laden from beyond the grave declares a truce, then those suitcase nukes go off, or maybe just another Silverstein building collapses into a neat pile of controlled-demolitioned rubble for someone to scoop up and ship off to China or bury beneath the ground. Bush then says 'look, I told you people. You stopped us being tough on terror, forget my lies, forget about Iraq and yellowcake and torture and let's go git Iran and have more choking slavery and...' I have to stop there it's just too terrifying for words.

Let's look what's on the agenda, and why this tape is so handy now. We'll start with the main hub and victim of the world Globalisation slave project...


ID cards suffer triple defeat in Lords
'Glorification of terror' defeated in Lords
More torture memos appear showing UK government complicity and intention to cover it up and deny knowledge.
Scottish airports rendition flights via CIA shell companies exposed
MPs giving pedophiles jobs with children, Kelly's job looking precarious which would hurt Blair immensely (and Wade/Murdoch/Blair caught cooking up a plot to help and to give an icon of crushing of dissent) (see also this)
Blunkett back in the news over DNA bioscences lobbying scandal tape


Human Rights Watch note torture is an official and chosen policy of the US Neocon government.
Global forces desperate to attack Iran, will it be Israel or the US used as the whore ?
Yet another botched hit on Al-Qaeda number 'x' resulting in outrage in Pakistan,
Bush's support crumbling,
NSA Spying scandal
Thousands of US troops sent to the deaths and maimed for life on a gigantic shocking pack of lies.
The forged intelligence and pre-war lies that just won't go away
Countless other corruption scandals
Talk of impeachment
Cheney ill

A sign of enormous trouble to come was Condi visiting Europe to promote the New World Order torture programme (something 'good cop' Europe has been pretty complicit in anyway it would seem), and after all Rice says 'Europe is helping it take terrorists out of circulation'.

Think. If they are so in your face with it, so unrepentant, so unconcerned about their future, don't you think it is just a little scary what they have up their sleeve ?

You get the impression something horrendous is being prepared, and it's not from the ghost of Bin Laden. The depraved Neocons ideally have to come up with something before they hit Iran (unless this tape is it), and US headlines are proclaiming 'we need to go after their nukes'. But what 'nukes' ? They mean their reactor. Think. Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear power or nuclear weapons anyway ?

There is a nasty feeling that, Heaven-forbid, a new terror attack could be created, perhaps specifically to help their minion Blair with their ID cards and to make sellable an Iran hit within the US, and goodness knows what else.

But don't worry. Back in globalization-tyranny Island (once called the UK), your ID slave grid, 'Glorification of terror' law, CCTV Orbs dangling from every lamp post, hotwired into the facial tracking grid and all of the other layers of the Panopticon slave pit, will make you safe from whatever Bush, Blair and their puppet masters have decided.

Update: Professor says tape is a fake leaked by Pakistanis

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Human Rights Watch: torture is official policy

"Washington, D.C, January 18, 2006) – New evidence demonstrated in 2005 that torture and mistreatment have been a deliberate part of the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy, undermining the global defense of human rights, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its World Report 2006.

The evidence showed that abusive interrogation cannot be reduced to the misdeeds of a few low-ranking soldiers, but was a conscious policy choice by senior U.S. government officials"

Well tell us what we don't know. Also a lot in there about Britain's investment in the worldwide torture syndicate.

Another Day in the Empire returns

UK torture strategy: deny knowledge

"The government is secretly trying to stifle attempts by MPs to find out what it knows about CIA "torture flights" and privately admits that people captured by British forces could have been sent illegally to interrogation centres, the Guardian can reveal. A hidden strategy aimed at suppressing a debate about rendition - the US practice of transporting detainees to secret centres where they are at risk of being tortured - is revealed in a briefing paper sent by the Foreign Office to No 10." Guardian

"The document shows that the government has been aware of secret interrogation centres, despite ministers' denials. It admits that the government has no idea whether individuals seized by British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan have been sent to the secret centres.

Dated December 7 last year, the document is a note from Irfan Siddiq, of the foreign secretary's private office, to Grace Cassy in Tony Blair's office. It was obtained by the New Statesman magazine, whose latest issue is published today.

It was drawn up in response to a Downing Street request for advice "on substance and handling" of the controversy over CIA rendition flights and allegations of Britain's connivance in the practice.

"We should try to avoid getting drawn on detail", Mr Siddiq writes, "and to try to move the debate on, in as front foot a way we can, underlining all the time the strong anti-terrorist rationale for close cooperation with the US, within our legal obligations."

'avoid getting drawn on detail'. 'Move the debate on' Resell it as 'tough on terrorism' etc...

"The document advises the government to rely on a statement by Condoleezza Rice last month when the US secretary of state said America did not transport anyone to a country where it believed they would be tortured and that, "where appropriate", Washington would seek assurances.

The document notes: "We would not want to cast doubt on the principle of such government-to-government assurances, not least given our own attempts to secure these from countries to which we wish to deport their nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism: Algeria etc."

The document says that in the most common use of the term - namely, involving real risk of torture - rendition could never be legal. It also says that the US emphasised torture but not "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment", which binds Britain under the European convention on human rights. British courts have adopted a lower threshold of what constitutes torture than the US has."

Assuming memo is real, the Guardian's report confirms what we already know:

1. Invest in the worldwide torture syndicate

2. Redefine torture

3. Torture people

4. Deny torture is happening (just keep lying)

5a. Rely on the fudge about definition and intention of others like Condi Rice.

5b. Say "We completely oppose torture" but "if it accidentallywently hwappens when we accidentallywently send them to tworture regimes which we accidentallywently might not know is happening and they accidentallywently give us some infwormation then we might jwust accidentallywently use it"

6a. Sell torture as cool and chic on TV shows

6b. Promote your implicit nudge-nudge wink-wink torture programme that everyone knows is happening (but that you don't describe as torture) as 'tough on terror' to Rupert Murdoch and your placed minions like torture-fan Stephen Sackur at the BBC

6c. Sit back and enjoy the terror inflicted on your population, who know you invest in torture, and will be hopefully made scared enough to not step out of line, implying the next torture victim could be them.

7. Go about your business as if everything is perfectly normal, talking about schools, hosptials, crime etc.

8. Carry on with world torture programme

Blair son plot: government/Murdoch hoax

Rupert Murdoch"...Some believe more overt police interest has led to the emergence of a new, extreme fringe, a sort of "Provisional Fathers 4 Justice". Telegraph

Hmmmmmmm. That's a coincidence.

"However, no one has been arrested and police sources suggest that the chatter never really reached the level of a "plot" - in the sense of a conspiracy to commit a criminal act [...]"

What a surprise.

"It is clear that Special Branch, which is charged with protecting the Prime Minister, did not believe even the most driven members of Fathers 4 Justice were capable of pulling off such an outrageous crime.

The Sun claimed the plan was to hold Leo for a short period as a "symbolic gesture", though some are wondering if the symbolic gesture was really the story itself.

Rebekah Wade, the paper's editor, has long resented her failure to win industry awards and is understood to be keen to get more exclusive, hard-hitting stories. After all, how does a story about a few men having a chat in the pub become a front page "world exclusive" about a kidnap plot?

It would not be the first time that a tabloid newspaper has over-egged a crime story as the News of the World was accused of doing over a supposed plot to kidnap David Beckham's family.

But in this case, Miss Wade is a good friend of the Blairs and it seems inconceivable that she would not have contacted them before publication to check the story.

It also seems difficult to believe that she would have published the story if they had comprehensively rubbished it. And why wouldn't they, given their often professed desire to protect their children's privacy?

Unless, perhaps, someone in the Government wanted to dislodge the embarrassing coverage of sex-offender teachers from the top of the news agenda. Downing Street sources made clear their view yesterday, that it was not a political leak and the Scotland Yard insiders said the same."

Suuuurrrrrre it wasn't. The Blair/Murdoch team are at it again. This was another story that stunk like hell, mysteriously appearing at a difficult time for the government. Bit like that one about Wade attacking her husband Ross Kemp:

"It was a tale rich with ironies, helped on by a rich cast of supporting characters including David Blunkett, Rupert Murdoch (Rebekah Wade's ultimate boss) and the celebrity PR man Matthew Freud and his wife Elisabeth (Mr Murdoch's daughter). She is thought to have spent part of the evening with all of them before the alleged assault on her husband"

And then of course, coincidentally Steve McFadden started getting hit by his partner.

Update: it gets even worse, read this and here's a quote from it:

"In the febrile world of Westminster gossip, there have been dark mutterings about collusion between No 10 and The Sun over the leaking of the story during a week of embarrassing headlines for the Government over health and education. Fuel was added to the fire by reports that Dave Hill, the Prime Minister's communications director, had been involved in lengthy discussions with the editor of The Sun, Rebekah Wade, before the story broke. But when the political editor of Sky News, Adam Boulton, implied as much, he received a dressing down from No 10."

So it's the same MO again and again.

That's it Wade, just keep making up the news to help the government and global junta why don't you ? And now, with heavy solemnity, as if they were the IRA, Fathers 4 Justice have announced they are 'disbanding', and that point, based on a this false plot that never really happened is being pumped out around the world in all of Murdoch's media. This is about helping Blair out of a difficult situation with his MP's endorsing pedophile-school-teachers on the one hand, on the other, more worryingly, it's all about crushing anti-Blair dissent, making 'terrorists' out of nobodies, so as to send a message to the slave population of the UK (and the rest of the world).

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Britain's destruction by Blair's Globalism

Blair has set policies of a domestic and limitless police state, the intention of an ID-slave grid, where your slave identity can be trafficked out to Europe and the world, the sacrifice of British self-determination to the pounding neo-Stalinist jackboot of the EU and to establish Britain as a target of anger and hatred across the world by participating in fraudulently-started wars of global domination against countries which are not submitting to this new empire that Blair is an ambassador for. Keep repainting the above as 'the freedom to be safe from x,y or z' or 'the modern world' to your hopefully clueless electorate or political opponents and well, you get the idea.

Of course, Blair is being prepared for the Carlyle Group, who already own a huge chunk of British defense R&D, and which more is to be sold off. The established pattern for ex-politicians who join the club is:

"You set the policies, leave office, then profit from those policies." ICH

And well we've seen the policies above set, yet one doesn't suspect Blair's ambitions are personally financial, more they are ideological, fanatical and egotistical, he has made the choice not to fight this Illuminati junta but to actually try to ensure himself a future position within this empire hegemony by serving them the ritual slaughter of the UK itself.

Whether his reward is a position within the Carlyle Group or worse the UN, it doesn't really matter. Seduced by the power of the globalists, Blair is always, overtly, 110% in agreement with the plot, and has sworn himself in to become a full time evangelical (dis)honourable Member for the New World Order, which is now the only constituency he serves.

And what is that plot, this one maybe ?

"The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission - founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller - and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens."
(Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, former German defense ministry official/NATO advisor 2001) 1

Or this one ?

"The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities."
(Z. Brzezinski CFR/Trilateral Commission) 2

Sound familiar?

Blair's hatred for parliament, and peripheral half-hour cabinet meetings where his paid clowns nod their heads, his debasing of every UK institution with corrupt puppets, his creation of a domestic shadow government of cronies and donors, and his obsession for extracurricular bodies like the EU, the UN (who Clinton is supporting a Blair SG candidacy for), the Bilderberg Group (who Blair was an attendee at, as well as commercial/political interests like the Carlyle Group (who Blair is being prepped for), along with the horrific polices set out, illustrate Blair's fundementalist adherence to eradicating any future threat from a free Britain to the global junta he serves by oppressing and re-engineering the entire UK population on behalf of his masters via sidestepping the framework of democracy in the UK itself. As Michael Meacher noted in an interview last September:

"In the UK there has been a centralization of power around the executive, particularly around the Prime Minister to a degree that I don't think we have probably known over the last century"

And in October 2005 we had:

"A powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians has warned that the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany" Prison Planet

I would say the police state is clearly already here, also as evidenced by the political thumbs-ups given to it by the likes of (often cited as a subsidiary and courier of the Illuminist agenda), who's posters are asking "Do we really need free speech ? Isn't it like not always a good thing ?" (I hope you people are still complaining about this campaign)

Clearly, a strong, independent free Britain is not in the interests of the geo-political cabal Blair religiously works for. But a corrupt, identityless, crippled, dominated globalised Britain, run by degrading dehumanizing instruments of mass control, billions in personal debt, endless social re-engineering, along with a hijacked UK military being manipulated into prostitution to help fight a war for the profits and empire of these global financial interests, and so as to provide a gift to ensure Blair's future within that in doing so, is.

And while UK forces are in Iraq on a pack of manufactured lies, the country they thought they were serving is effectively being destroyed in that time and sold. They can look forward to coming home to a UK that is herding it's people into a new, terrified and stupified slave-class for the peace-of-mind and well-being of the globalist elite.

The feeling is palpable in the UK; speaking to people, they know what is happening and they are aware and angry, ashamed and scared. They know about 9/11. The world knows what is going on, all the mainstream media can do is largely pretend it isn't happening, meanwhile one senses the global forces that own Blair are getting desperate and impatient for the next stage.

Kurt Nimmo's blog silenced by death threats

This is such an incredible story I found on Rense, and indeed it seems to be true, and Kurt has stopped his blog. This is a huge loss. Kurt has been writing brilliant and forensic analysis of the twisted Neocon regime for some time, his work was incredibly well respected and appreciated. Truly a celebrity of blogging.

What it shows clearly though is that Kurt was extremely successful in unraveling the lies and hurting these people badly, enough for them to threaten him and his family. Hopefully this will create 10000 new Kurt Nimmos! Kurt's blog will be very missed, I really hope he reconsiders.

Update: apparently Kurt is going to continue with a mailing list.

Monday, January 16, 2006

ID cards suffer twin defeats in Lords

I vow to never have an ID card"The government has suffered two defeats in the Lords over its ID cards scheme. Ministers say the scheme's cost cannot be revealed as it will make it hard to get a good deal, but peers voted to block it until full costs were known.

Ian Angell, head of the LSE Department of Information Systems, said: "Contradictions, guesswork and wishful thinking on the part of the Home Office make a mockery of any pretence that this scheme is based on serious reasoning.

Conservative leader David Cameron vowed on Sunday to oppose the ID card plans, calling them "un-British".

"I don't like the idea that you have to have this bit of paper just for existing," he told BBC's Sunday AM. "

Well good. But look, the cost debate is in my opinion not the issue, and what happened to the ambush to make it voluntary ? Of course it is going to cost a lot of money, but the real point is that to seek to actually create this human slave grid in the first place, is something nobody should accept.

I'll say this again so there is no ambiguity on the issue:

I will never take a UK ID card, an EU ID card or a global ID card so as to be absorbed into this serf-subjugation grid. Going along with this is not an option, and is actually more dangerous than not doing so. People have to take a stand, it's that simple.

ID cards, ID database, ID grid. They all need to die.

Update: actually it was a triple defeat that ID cards suffered, and ammendments to take out gluing it onto passports are apparently coming too. Check out NO2ID's front page for more details.


Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Blair: 'Respect my political police state'

"Tony Blair today launched his flagship third-term social policy, the "respect action plan", which will see a national parenting academy, possible temporary evictions of troublesome families, and greater powers to involve the police on community issues. More than a dozen ministers are launching the plan nationwide, after the PM gave a breakfast time speech in Downing Street and a series of TV interviews to unveil the 40-page programme of incentives and punishments across housing, schooling, the judicial system and parenting." Guardian

I'm lost, why does Blair think he has any entitlement to be calling for respect ? Worse still, the Labour party have put up a petition asking you to 'sign up' to this 'respect' agenda, truly underlying it's entirely political motivation and premise and the desire to manufacture consent and legitimacy by presenting you with yet another false choice. (A bit like that AOL ad huh ?)

As for what Blair says about it, it's the same sound-bytes and doublespeak again and again and again:

Doublespeak: "My view is very clear - their freedom to be safe from fear comes first"

Yet there is no such thing as "freedom to be safe from fear", which is a bizarre double-layered oxymoron and an offensive meaningless nonsense, designed to divert you away from the the destruction of your real freedom. It's like saying there is a 'freedom' to be safe from getting a cold, or a 'freedom' not to fall down the stairs. That isn't a freedom and is an offensive misuse of the word.

But then how can you be 'free' to be 'safe' from anything anyway ?

Of course, endlessly developing the UK police-state by stripping actual freedom away, and calling the result 'freedom', is an unbearable defilement of freedom itself and an intolerable condition not worth having.

It is astonishing that Blair thinks that if he keeps refering to this choking tyranny and despotic globalism as 'freedom' and 'liberty' then that will somehow magically make it so.

Doublespeak: "We need a radical new approach if we are to restore the liberty of the law-abiding citizen"

We certainely need a radical new approach to doublespeak, and the use of this type of phraseology by politicians.

Reality: The liberty of all citizens has been quietly massacred and raped by Blair, under a quarter of a billion pounds worth of CCTV cameras (some systems with facial recognition, more intended), a political shoot-to-kill police force who are told to re-educate the public politically and who make investigation of 'people who question whether two homosexual men should raise a child' a 'priority issue' 1. The same police who under the enthusiasm of the Home Office are creating a DNA stockpile of the population that is set to reach for 4.2 million people 2 in 2 years time. and who can now arrest people for anything, and photograph them. Where people can get pre-emptive life sentences for setting fire to wheelie bins 3. Where medical records are uploaded to a massive government database, where your internet surfing will be retained for up to 2 years, where the intention is to force you into the biometric slave-grid (ID cards), or lock you up for 1-3 months or put you under house arrest. Or now there is 'ABSO TV' where you can pay to subscribe to CCTV feeds, a truly disgusting attempt to legitimize and make people feel part of the nauseating tyranny that is being deployed. How on Earth can you talk about respect when people's lives are to be paraded as part of a humilating citizen spying campaign ? It's just sickening to me.

Restoring liberty first means removing all of the above.

Under the Blair regime here has been a deliberate and unrelenting pursuit toward blurring the distinction between freedom and captivity as if this gap between the two were the obstacle to everything including traffic congestion, healthcare, 'fighting crime' and now 'restoring respect'.

The resulting abnormal mess is neither life nor liberty, but a sickening, intolerable political police state constructed entirely by exploiting loopholes in people's expectation, good will and experience, as well as feeble or non-existent legal guarantees of privacy, enormous sums spent on technology, twisting the debate away from what is happening and hoping no one will notice along with the endlesss manufacturing of consent, the results of which should shame every single person in the Unitied Kingdom.

And what's more, they do. Just speak to people. No one supports what is happening. People with any grain of reality are appalled and terrified and angered by it.

Sound-byte: "Britain was fighting 21st crime with 19th-century methods"

Unsurprisingly, this is a widely used international sound-byte that keeps coming up, often used to fabricate necessity for new assaults on your freedom. Replace blanks with whatever you wish:

We are fighting 21st century _____ with 19th/20th-century methods

The actual reality is, Britain and the world are fighting 21st century corruption and tyranny with 20th-century expectations of how to deal with it. People simply were not geared up toward dealing with the threat, particularly technological, posed by the elite and their pet project which has help formed basis of the new tyranny: globalism.

"If his father or grandfather were brought forward in time to see the society of the 21st century, they would marvel at the technological advances and new freedoms, said Mr Blair "

What new freedoms ? The 'freedom' to be watched and recorded and monitored by CCTV cameras and microphones ? The 'freedom' to have your car journey tracked across the country 4 ? The 'freedom' to have your DNA (the blueprint for you physically) permanently stockpiled within a government police-state database ? The 'freedom' to be made to have and carry an ID card ? The 'freedom' to be pre-emptively assimilated into the ID-slave grid ?

But don't worry. You are all equal slaves on this political technological plantation, your day to day life, your experiences, your interactions are the property of this political police state, and if we keep refering to this nouveau-slavery as freedom, if we keep saying it's just all part of the hustle and bustle of modern world you will believe it.

Remember: it is communities that defeat tyranny.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

More on AOL bad propaganda

According to brand republic, AOL are spending £15 million in the first quarter alone on their political book burning rebranding exercise, which is "intended to encourage consumers to see AOL in a different light as it attempts to banish perceptions of being 'too American' and the 'safe option'"

"The ads, created by Grey London, use the strapline 'What do you think?' Running across TV, outdoor, press, cinema and online, the work is part of a broader brand overhaul that AOL hopes will help attract a new type of consumer over the next 18 months."

One would expect the only type of customer that to be attracted would be the same as the previous demographic for AOL: those who know nothing about the internet to begin with and who presumbably don't know a great deal about AOL ( 1 2 3)

"Broadband is growing faster than ever, and nearly 60% of the UK is connected to the internet via broadband, according to the Office for National Statistics. In light of this, AOL is aiming to differentiate itself from the competition by not positioning solely on speed and price, says chief marketing officer Tobin Ireland*."

*(The same Tobin Ireland who was "Commercial Director at Sky Interactive")

There is good reason why ISPs (or any businesses) don't do what AOL are doing, and it's because they have the sense not to put themselves into the intensely political position (especially a pre-sales position) of propagandizing an inherently political as well as false, misleading and inflammatory debate.

'We have seen a massive focus on price and speed, but not on some of the serious issues raised by the internet,' he says. 'There is a substantial debate about the internet's impact on people's lives, which is being missed."

AOL have decided to manufacture their own political debate, inventing and exploiting a false and misleading and deliberately constructed artifical scenario that uses deeply political ideas, icons and a selected mis-sold combination of dangerous and fraudulent assumptions to create an outrageous hodgepodge of shameful garbage to inflame people enough to visit their website.

What is worse, it sounds like they haven't even really got a new product to sell, so it is a rebranding excerise that relies on fearmongering and the abysmal and extraordinarly strained and degenerate politics of the day to re-peddle essentially the same old gatekeeper drivel that have made AOL the laughing stock of the internet for over a decade.

AOL's campaign is £15 millon worth of gratuitous, inflammatory, misleading, and entirely political garbage.

Big thanks to Prison Planet, RINF and anyone else who linked to or mirrored the previous article.

Advertising Standards Authority (For TV ad)

Mid City Place
71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2222
Textphone 020 7242 8159
Fax 020 7242 3696

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

AOL oversteps the mark

I don't know what AOL think they are doing with this campaign, but you may have seen it on TV. Some consultancy company has come up with a shameful scaremongering and misleading scheme at AOL's behest, about how good or bad the internet is, and invites you to discuss that topic, unsurprisingly, on AOL's own site. There are a good couple of breakdowns of it on Infowars and Prison Planet respectively.

I guess the strategy of years of spamming everyone to death with their CDs, and being rightfully regarded as a joke by all serious internet users just wasn't enough for AOL. But what they are doing now is both extremely disingenuous and monumentally dangerous, in effect, trying to manufacture the premise for, invoke and then preside over, a hazardously political book-burning scenario.

Their pernicious and inflammatory cloth-headed campaign sets up a series of false debates intended to agitate you into participation on their website, thereby validating their pantomime and AOL's assumptions about your intelligence as a future customer. Meanwhile on their page, in their 'internet is bad' video, images of Big Brotheresque body scans are juxtaposed between footage of Osama Bin Laden and the Ku Klux Klan. (I swiftly filtered out this entire garbage with adblock before I even finished watching it).

Of course you have to provide an email address in order to participate in this enlightening 'discussion' they have kindly set up for you, and in doing so, no doubt, they will be contacting you after you leave your furious but inconsequential (to them) comment to send you another one of their crappy worthless CDs.

AOL, who have been gleefully exploiting their net newbie racket for well over a decade (and way longer than that), have now suddenly proposed that the net has just appeared and is indoctrinating you and your kids with porn, 'hate', and 'terror', whilst encouraging the 'dark desires of man', visualized (shock horror) as a pretty blonde woman.

On their discussion page, a spurious shopping list of negatives are presented, then on the other side of the screen, they have a box saying how wonderful it is that children can learn from the internet. Both 'good' and 'bad' are disingenuously littered with enough false information and bogus arguments to sustain the deception just long enough to grab some email addresses, and shove a bucket-load of cookies into the machines of their victims. They then repeat that formula for 'ID theft', privacy (a massive problem for AOL users 1 2) and other similar political and contentious issues to ensure you will remain wound up enough to stay sufficently unaware of the monstrous scam.

In reality of course, the 'discussion' is a fraud and utterly worthless, a mere tool to get you to their site. And after all, no informed one way or the other view could possibily be debated or derived from the calculated false choices AOL have presented, a point which AOL well know. It's like saying cars are good/bad, or food is good/bad, although when AOL start asking questions like 'is freedom of speech good or bad', then we know the whole plot they have constructed is very bad indeed. I suspect the 'discuss' bit is just laying the groundwork for their 'solution' (yawn), which will form the next stage of the campaign, and it provides a TV-internet response statistic as well tricking some casualties into signing up for an AOL account.

Bizarrely, 21% of AOL's visitors to their 'discussion' site (according their poll there) think the internet is 'bad'. Perhaps that 21% use AOL, but in any event we should not forget that AOL's core market has always been people who know nothing about the internet to begin with. And no doubt, AOL will use this scam to profit from the remaining handful of clueless idiots out there who haven't yet recieved a CD or whatever they do these days, so that they may subscribe to AOL's proprietary spying, monitoring and filters that will save them from this debauched post-9/11 pandemonium of the internet.

The really sinister aspect of all this, and why I think this kind of commercial advertising, with this kind of message, that starts on TV shouldn't really be broadcast at all, is that AOL's campaign is inherently political in nature. Furthermore, it uses an extraordinarily arrogant and fraudulent vocabulary of concepts to create this distinctly artificial message, and that is all enormously worrying.

It trades off of the political war on terror mania to fear monger. Worse, AOL deliberately and knowingly mislead, frequently presenting good points as bad points and vice versa to create a big swirling mess of lies and nonsense so as to guarantee your reaction. The internet, of all things, is painted as the Orwellian 'Big Brother' threat to you (a double or triple layered lie), when nothing could be further from the truth. The internet is about the only place left where you have a huge measure of control over your privacy and power to easily exercise your inalienable right of freedom of speech. Everywhere else, that inalienable right has been subverted and distorted and suppressed while Tony Blair grandstands about 'terrorism', 'tolerance' or some other fraudulent token by which to disguise his hatred of liberty. So it is all the more disturbing that AOL's campaign, has more than a hint of endorsement toward the gross, abnormal and dehumanizing results of the purely political choices going on within the UK as a means of selling it's brand to it's core market of cretins.

Worst of all, this campaign, astonishingly, horrendously, mirrors exactly the same kind of corrupt fraudulent options put forward by the political establishment that has made the world such a grotesque mess and that we use the internet to help escape from, and re-educate ourselves against.

More generally, this kind of appalling scaremongering with the internet died a death about 5 years ago, rendering this drivel both preposterously regressive, and staggeringly redundant.

I wouldn't sign up and comment in anger on their 'discussions' (that is falling into the trap they have set, although it might be great fun to torment them), instead I would contact them here to complain:

Address: AOL (UK) Ltd, 80 Hammersmith Road, London W14 8UD

Switchboard: 020 7348 8000 | Web site: www.aol.co.uk | Fax: 020 7348 8002

AOL Advertising (probably for companies advertising on AOL but still)

Lou Chamberlain, who can direct you to the appropriate category specialist on:

Phone: 020 7348 8401 | Email: lchamberlainlc@aol.com | Fax: 020 7348 8002

If you are unlucky enough to be a customer, you can terminate your account now and send a written complaint about the advert as a reason:

c/o AOL Customer Services
PO BOX 2401

You should also file a complaint about AOL's TV ad with the Advertising Standards Authority, your milage may vary as they have their own criteria,

Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place
71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2222
Textphone 020 7242 8159
Fax 020 7242 3696

Also try the Trading Standards Office

Monday, January 02, 2006

Who runs Britain ?

This is a real gem and I'm literally in tears of laughter and joy.
At last. Finally people are starting to get it.

BBC Radio 4 have been running a poll called 'Who runs Britain ?', a top list of the most powerful people in the country. And well well well "European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has been voted Britain's most powerful man"

"Mr Barroso, who is unelected, received 22% of the vote in the BBC Radio 4 shortlist which included Rupert Murdoch and internet search engine Google. Prime Minister Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Parliament were deemed less influential but still made the top 10

BBC political editor Nick Robinson says voters may be using the poll to say Europe has too much power."

You damn f*cking right. The only bits I disagree with in this poll are 3. Parliament and 4. The British people. It's nice that they are there and that could be interpreted as good sign of hope and intention, although Parliament has been largely tossed out of the window by Blair and the people ignored. I really wish Shami Chakrabarti was in the top 10 of most influential people, it certainly doesn't seem like that.

Murdoch, the head of Tesco, and the top civil servant are certainly along the right lines. What would have made it even more hilarious and perfect would be to have the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the list.

Google is probably a very good sign in this context.

Well done Britain, the most truthfully inclined healthy poll I've ever seen.

"Commenting on the Who Runs Britain? poll, Roger Knapman, leader of the UK Independence Party, congratulated those who voted for Mr Barroso.

"Of course it is the only chance you'll get to vote for him or for that matter against him," he said.

"He is now a bureaucrat perceived as the most important man in this country and that is quite shocking."

But former Europe Minister Dennis McShane said it was "an urban myth" to suggest that Britain's laws were decided by Europe. "

Nice try McShane. ROTFLMFAO. Again well done Britain!!!

Faustian deal: Gordon Brown's political legacy

Gordon Brown"One of the Prime Minister's closest allies yesterday accused Gordon Brown's supporters of a deluded 'Alice in Wonderland' plan to force Tony Blair out of Downing Street. In an attack which signalled the end of the Blair-Brown truce sealed in last year's election campaign, he said the Chancellor's camp would drag Labour back into the past, even though Brown made 'phone calls to trusted editors saying he's in favour of New Labour reforms" Observer

Hilarious, isn't it ? Brown wants desperately to be let out of his box. He's getting anxious and afraid as he sees the ruin Blair has done to the country and the Labour party which are set to obliterate his own chances. And what exactly is 'democratic' about Gordon Brown wanting his 'smooth transition', expecting it in the first place ? What an obscene arrogant joke. The Observer article displays the gory hunger and desperation setting in. Blair, of course, should have been out of a job ages ago, but Brown as his accomplice, who sold his soul deserves never to taste the power he thinks is due.

"In comments that will anger Brown, who hates being portrayed as an obstacle to change, the former cabinet minister said that instead of uniting behind New Labour reforms and fighting Cameron for Britain's political centre ground, the Chancellor's supporters 'want Blair to leave, and argue that Blair, by being Blair, is dividing the party."

Meanwhile David Cameron said:

"I find [him] awful because it's just like listening to a speak-your-weight machine on propaganda." [...] He called the chancellor "extreme", "awful" and a "creature of the past" in an interview with the Sunday Times.

Poor Gordon. It may be rather doubtful that Brown will ever be prime minister, well for longer that a few minutes. He was sold as the left's reward for years of Blair, and as kind of steadying vaguely 'grass roots' factor that might somehow temper the more radical ideologies of his pact-partner.

But no doubt, Blair merely rode the Labour donkey whilst dangling out a carrot on a string in the shape of Gordon Brown, who has amounted to nothing but a used pawn and useful ornament to fool old school Labour leanings and thereby sacrificing them to Blair in doing so...

Brown only has himself to blame. He stood by while Blair relished in the blood of his invasion of Iraq, after he had literally been caught cooking up evidence for it and repeatedly lying about the pretext for his war, presiding over and participating in a world torture programme and creating a domestic dehumanizing police state which have guaranteed Brown his place in history as the appalling coward and used, manipulated buffoon that never was, unable to challenge his master for fear of upsetting his own strategic leadership goals.

That is Gordon Brown's legacy. It is a fitting one for a compromised prostitute who ultimately put his personal ego and vanity and gain above all other values, and simultaneously let himself be used as a token trinket to distract many in the Labour party for almost a decade.

Brown's own cowardice, monstrous ego and hunger for future power resulted in him becoming the docile accessory and consistent enabler to Blair's unprecedented reign of horror. It would appear Brown essentially and unconditionally sold his soul to Blair right at the outset for a future promise of power over that intimate dinner at the Granita restaurant, an event which Brown has never denied. Demonstrably, only Brown's total and unrestricted oath of passivity and restraint, no matter what Blair did, would permit his ascendancy. It doesn't get any worse.

As the Guardian back in Sept 2004 reported:

"A minister who quit over the invasion of Iraq yesterday said swapping Gordon Brown for Tony Blair was not the way to improve the government's popularity because he too backed the war on Iraq. [..] the former Home Office minister John Denham said it was an "illusion" to think the government's problems could be solved "by changing someone at the top" because members of the cabinet were equally responsible"

Ironically though, other reports indicate Brown keeping his head down, and shuffling around with his own paperwork during cabinet meetings leading up to the war. The cabinet itself has also been utterly vestigal under Blair, decisions were not taken via the cabinet, who mostly consist of paid yes-men and clueless dimwitted bimbos who don't have a view or worthwhile contribution themselves. Blair has always and deliberately maintained an extremely weak cabinet.

Inevitably, the various and trivial Blair-Brown differences on other issues could ultimately be used to give the impression of debate, thereby actually helping the Blair-fronted regime to manufacture legitimacy for whatever they wanted.

In the case of the war, perhaps he also thought it politically advantageous to let Blair go ahead, hoping that the prime minister may be politically damaged enough to be ousted. Well that happened, but grotesquely Blair is still there. And now Brown is getting desperate, anxiously and monstrously spinning to the press that he will solve the enormous constitutional crisis that his own docility, fear, bought silence and democracy-subverting power-sharing-pact helped create.

Gordon Brown would be fortunate if he were merely to be forgotten as an historical stain on the wall. But he will forever be perceived as a political whore, and a used pawn, who's ego, vanity and ambition made him easy to manipulate. Someone who compromised everything, who spent a decade in office serving as a trinket distraction to placate sections of the Labour party with, and never rocking the boat, even endorsing and funding the murder of thousands on a pack of lies, so as not to upset his awaited moment of glory.

Meanwhile, he masturbated his own ego and unquestionably rubber-stamped every part of the exploding decay that has now taken over the political establishment and the country as a whole for his own personal gain. When people look back on this dreadful era, this Chancellor's name will be there.

That is how history will judge Gordon Brown. It is a cruel joke played on a man to one day promise him power, but it is a distinct possibility that Brown sold everything he had, including his judgement, his integrity and his very soul to the devil in this faustian pact and fittingly, he will end up with nothing as a result. And whether it was Brown's own political cowardice and greed, or his unwillingness to break this unholy treaty, that is exactly what he deserves.