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

Saturday, April 29, 2006

New Labour, who cares it's a failed regime

So the tinpot New Labour regime got chastised over their pet gargoyle Patricia Hewitt with the NHS, John Prescott who managed to have an affair with someone 20 years younger and porcine liar Charles Clarke, who while he was much more interested doing his master's bidding on the radical human ID slave grid and trying to bring back internment, let over a thousand foreign criminals on the loose.

The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh went over all of this and describes his blog as 'The Blog Politicians Fear' which, as a megaphone to the followers of mulitnational Murdoch's power in the UK probably has some truth in it, although Kavanagh ain't gonna start making politicans sweat if it means steering Murdoch's blimp off course. That said he did write a good piece about Europe though, so presumbably Murdoch isn't buying into that bucket of horrors. Just a shame then he didn't bother to actually tell his buddy Blair at the time of the UK EU Presidency instead of just telling Kavanagh.

It's interesting the mainstream 'popular' media like the Sun and the BBC are all over Labour's recent blunders, but did nothing about the ID slave grid and a host of other crap and have more or less given a thumbs-up to an attack on Iran.

With these local elections one would suppose that Blair would actually care, but of course he doesn't, as Blair, like the sociopathic genocidal crackpot he is within his own reality, apparently believes all is well as Britain ever crumbles into a third world despotic failed state urgently needing regime change thanks to him.

Because of this total and complete constitutional meltdown in the UK as the tinpot New Labour regime gratuitously concocts more and more indulgent, radical and fanatical plans totally remote and partitioned from anyone's reality, the media are apparently trying to push the BNP; perhaps a sign that the wheels of establishment are keen to create new flawed choices to keep you far enough away from where you want to be. Thanks to New Labour, the UK is now more than ever officially one of the 'unstable dictatorships' that Blair grandstands about, while the BNP, although their response is different to it, have come to mirror the same underlying doctrine Blair has: the global Clash of Civilizations and there's still capital in that angle.

The papers all say the BNP will take advantage of the disenfranchised working class vote. It seems to me the mainstream media are wielding the BNP to appeal to the fears of 'Middle England' as well, who, viewing the world through the glittery fog of the Daily Mail and Evening Standard, when they are not reading about the Da Vinci Code, have been made terrified of dirty bombs and shadowy terrorists in every nook and cranny thanks to Blair's propaganda machine and his most revered perpetual 'good/progressive' war policy. Maybe then a BNP vote is paying homage to that same mainstream media-machine-gone wrong that swallowed the Blair Noble Lie and assisted in the complete collapse of Parliament, democracy and politics in the UK and that refused to deal properly with Blair itself.

Meanwhile Gordon 'smooth transition' Brown must be furious that Blair still won't let him come out of his box...is he behind some or all of this, or at least pleased at revelations that Peter Hain was allegedly offering an independent MP a peerage if he refused to stand in the last election?

However you vote in the local elections: against the backdrop of the horror in Iraq, the psychotic threats being made to Iran, a world torture programme and a domestic humiliating police state including the radical dehumanizing ID slave grid in the UK, make sure it's not Labour.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Latest Bin Laden tape: LIHOP or MIHOP ?

Not blowing my own trumpet, but post Sheen, this blog predicted a new Bin Laden tape just under a month ago, of course it wasn't difficult. This latest tape was reported to 'believed to be authentic' by the White House which of course, under the great Noble Lie of 'creating your own reality' doctrine means it's politically advantageous. And a Bin Laden appearance is always quite advantageous, a convenient distraction to remind the rabble and ignoramous classes of the world of why perpetual war and a global police state is good for them.

It is quite sad to read in various mainstream news outlets how 'clever' Bin Laden in, and it seems very strange that there is no greater participant of Samuel P. Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' 1 than Bin Laden himself. Although that said, this new alleged Bin Laden tape is mild in content, and many will find themselves not really in disagreement with it, after all a false 'Judeo-Christian' (Pat Robertson ?) vs 'Islam' war has essentially been deliberately manufactured for the purposes of political empire. However it does seem odd that Bin Laden doesn't mention Iran, perhaps because he was reported recently by Curt Weldon to have died there. Again. Like Zarqawi he dies a lot.

Naturally, he can be depended upon to reanimate himself back to life just when Bush and co need him, and now with something of a long overdue military revolt at least implied against torturer Rumsfeld who is being called to resign, Dick 'Of course the order still stands, have you heard anything to the contrary?' Cheney being called to resign, a great deal of scrutiny on 9/11 and Bush's poll ratings slipping into minus numbers, another fix of Bin Laden is needed. It gets addictive, like certain painkillers. Only the other day Rumsfeld was saying:

"the terrorists, Zarqawi and bin Laden and Zawahiri, those people have media committees. They are actively out there trying to manipulate the press in the United States. They are very good at it. They're much better at managing those kinds of things than we are' are manipulating the media which is extraordinarily ironic"

Indeed it is amazing how Bin Laden and friends have manipulated the media into covering up 9/11, pushing the world into endless wars in the Middle East, making them print pictures of US torture and so on. It is also extraordinarily ironic, as Colonel Derek Harvey had already let the cat out of the bag conceding that Zarqawi is a propaganda caricature for a US audience to "create the impression that the ongoing struggle against occupation was really a fight against terrorism. ICH

With that in mind, if Bin Laden is alive (which is controversial) is he being either looked after in a foreign intel safehouse or allowed to carry on his business from a distance where senior CIA brass know pretty much where he is ?

The CIA's executive director Buzzy Krongard, having just stepped down and who's company has been frequently implicated in those mysterious put options on UAL, said last year they don't want to catch him, which seems to be consistent with Bush's overall determined policy of making sure Bin Laden remains at large, which is strange, after all, look what he did to the WTC and Pentagon. And do you remember Blair's document on Bin Laden ?

Occassionally they will lob a few missiles here and there in the Afghan/Pakistan border to make it look like they are doing something, there will be a couple of reports saying an 'Al Qaeda number 3' was killed which later turn out to be a couple of innocent familes, but, obviously, the number one goal of the hijacked-US regime is to keep Bin Laden alive as their most revered propaganda asset to maintain the Noble Lie.

However, you can't help wondering if even this thinking is now a little antiquated.

If on 9/11, one moves from a LIHOP to a MIHOP* position as tends to be the strong trend, then it follows that it is at least a possibility that Bin Laden's audio statements could be considered not so much 'they are letting him escape and therefore he can make new tapes', but actually they are just making the tapes up or at least a proportion of them as they go along.

*Let it Happen on Purpose/Make it Happen on Purpose

If Bin Laden is dead, as many, including experts on Bin Laden, have strongly suggested there probably isn't another option.

Perhaps this comes out of something along the lines of the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence which Rumsfeld said they closed down but didn't really. This is easy to justify internally too, especially in the light of their many wonderful initatives, all of which the Pentagon openly brag about, in a sense one can maintain that the propaganda is not intended for your domestic US audience but for the 'enemy'. Then of course there is the little matter of Bush regime's obsession with fake news both at home and abroad, and the fact that some of Bin Laden's tapes have been viewed with great skepticism to put it politely in the past.

But indeed, Bin Laden is a clever guy, apparently he managed to wire the WTC complex including Building 7 with military-grade Thermite and RDX, quite an accomplishment 1.

As the case for that is deemed by many to be so highly compelling, the only thing preventing it creating a another revolution in the US is that it is so horrifying, shocking and unthinkable an act to openly accept, and when you will lie your country into a war of conquest and empire, torture is your official policy and you are getting ready to drop nukes on Iran, a few cobbled-together Bin Laden tapes to distract everybody are hardly going to dent your moral compass who's needle is already jammed; polarized towards an eternity in Hades.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

San Francisco Chronicle targets 9/11 Truth

One school of journalism dictates that:

1. 9/11 inquiry is a bunch of conspiracy theories

2. Such inquiry is the pursuit of lunatics, anti-Semites and weirdos.

3. Use name calling to silence opponents

A problem with this doctrine is that one can end up pulling two thirds of their 9/11 articles and blame weeks, if not months, of editorial policy on their cat, (while at the same time conceding that Lee Harvey Osward didn't kill John F. Kennedy)

Capitol Hill Blue were so obsessed by the pursuit of point 2, in a response to blogger Kurt Nimmo, CHB wrote a rebutal 1 of sorts to criticism in which they stated "[journalism] requires training and hard work, two items we find lacking in those who claim to know more than us about our chosen profession", but which, like two thirds of their recent 9/11 articles they had to pull as well, the rebutal made the allegation:

"For example, over at HaloScan.Com, one of those anti-Semitic web sites where anti-Jewish propaganda flies like lightning bugs in spring..."

I kid you not. Haloscan is of course a comments service for blogs.

Yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle decided to have an attempt at this too, with essentially yet another piece of off-the-shelf propaganda, where 9/11 inquiry can be squashed with name calling and finger pointng, and that even included the assertion that the 'country saw the plane hit the Pentagon' , a point which they then had to retract 2.

The problem with these kind of articles is, they are all the same:

They don't tackle the issues at hand and go to great lengths to attack those presenting them.

With the mainstream media psychosis over 9/11 briefly shattered by Charlie Sheen in recent weeks, the reality is, and here's the crux of the point which the SFC author Cinnamon Stillwell misses and Doug Thompson missed: there is just no public rally behind 9/11 scholasticism.

And it doesn't matter how painstakingly you try and infer the search for 9/11 Truth as largely or solely the preoccupation, product or badge of fruitcakes and Nazis, the only thing made clear in doing so is your intention to silence the debate.

Stillwell says:

The underlying factors likely have more to do with psychology. Indeed, it is often said that conspiracy theories are born out of a sense of powerlessness

All Americans were affected by such fears. But instead of facing the daunting truth, the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists chose the path of denial.

I'm sure for many it's not a path of denial as in a choice because it's more cool, perhaps it's more a case of the data not being perceived compelling enough, and too contradicted with too many controversies to sustain unquestioning public support behind the official line.

Yet Stillwell makes the same mistake Doug Thompson did of trying to frame the intentions of 9/11 inquiry as essentially the goals of Nazis and crackpots, but this description is so dangerously incorrect now and equates to nothing more than 'I don't like what I'm hearing so I'm going to try to descredit it'

Indeed no one likes what they are hearing, that's why the world has to continue to push for answers to the difficult questions on 9/11 rather than attacking those trying to do that. It is not satisfactory to waste your time writing smear pieces hoping that if you keep littering your articles with terms like 'anti-Semitism', 'Neo-Nazi', 'denial' that eventually those difficult questions will just magically be buried underneath inflammatory name calling.

Equally, It's no good citing 'debunking' articles from Popular Mechanics; they simply don't address the real problems and essentially create a handpicked collection of issues of great controversy that can be safely ridiculed while ignoring others.

Stillwell inadvertantly answers this dilemma in her piece: The debunking articles and documentaries didn't persude, now 9/11 Truth is one of the burgeoning issues of our times.

She also notes that the US Government point to tapes of Bin Laden confessing. On this she concludes,

"It would be comforting to think that such information would have an impact on the Sept. 11 conspiracists -- but, alas, true believers are rarely moved by facts that contradict their preconceived notion"

But of course, this assertion is not entirely compelling, because exactly the same argument can be made from the opposing point of view.

I encounter this kind of thinking in the form of feverish e-mails from readers insisting that if I just "knew the truth" I too would understand what's behind it all. And no doubt I'll receive more than a few in response to this column. But I've looked into the abyss and I have yet to see or hear anything to validate such fantasies.

Then again, I could be part of the conspiracy, too.

Well more part of a trend. Part of trend of being allowed to write articles on 9/11 Truth as long as they are written in a disparaging light so as not to offend government or advertisers. Part of a trend to uncomfortably look over your shoulder, twitch the net curtains and attack those trying to do the hard work. And as the mainstream media can no longer so easily maintain the self-induced autism on 9/11 it once did, part of a trend to waste it's resources in trying to rubbish those raising concerns, instead of doing some serious investigative journalism on the topic.

Did Stillwell's article tell us the Truth about 9/11 Conspiracy theories as it's title stated ?

No, it just poured on the denial, although as it was so copiously linked to sites trying to make people aware of the issues perhaps partly to try to discredit them, to lump them together, I detect more than a hint of a concerned piece buried inside a hit-piece. But that is no excuse. It would be much better for Cinnamon to drop the fluff, and at least say yes I am concerned about this and America, and it's allies and the world now deserve better answers. Indeed, skeptics should welcome such a drive insteading of trying to resist it.

The real truth is, irrespective of whether one feels it is a good thing or a bad thing, sanitised, unquestioning serfdom towards 9/11 orthodoxy has became as effectively evaporated as sections of the steel members of the WTC 7 were reported to be by the New York Times.

Again skeptics should vigourously debate the issues, but predominantly, that's not what Stillwell is doing, it's not what Doug was doing, instead she's presenting a case to attack 9/11 inquiry itself, and her article is sadly just another hodgepodge of name calling and willfull denial of the problems at hand, and whatever you personally feel about 9/11, about conspiracy theories, about anything, that just isn't good enough anymore.

Please sign the petition over at Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Sunday, April 16, 2006

Doug Thompson pulls 9/11 article

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Doug Thompson attacks 9/11 research again

The pressure appears to be getting to US political commentator and well-known, anti-Bush journalist/blogger Doug Thompson who has launched yet another extraordinary unprovoked attack on 9/11 research.

In this, his third recent assault on the topic, Thompson dispenses with any actual debate or argument and seeks to frame the search for 9/11 truth as solely the preoccupation of lunatics and con artists and is now even prepared to resort to arbitrarily screaming anti-Semitism towards sites he doesn't agree with on the matter.

According to Thompson's revelatory hypothesis, 9/11 research is essentially to be truncated into 'wild 9/11 Conspiracy theory' (which I guess is code for ideas Thompson doesn't agree with) and Thompson is enriching our primitive minds with juxtaposing '9/11 Conspiracy' (whatever that means) and his desire to throw about the term 'Holocaust denial'.

If all else fails scream that at your opponents, and Thompson through his own tirades has identified himself as a denier of inquiry who will resort to insults and ad hominem attacks, and denying that there is just simply no broad international rally behind 9/11 scholasticism.

One wonders, does he feel this same sliver of contempt for the familes of victims of 9/11, many of whom have criticized the 9/11 Commission ? And let us not forget the firefighters and paramedics at the World Trade Center who testified unambiguously and repeatedly that explosions were going off, and who's testimony was not allowed to be included in the Kean/Hamilton 9/11 quango. Are these people, in Doug's eyes, by throwing doubt on both the official narrative and it's investigation, fair game to be lumped into Thompson's worldview ?

Thompson also attacks what he percieves as 'conspiracy sites asking for money' and tries to paint interest in 9/11 (which is enormous even according to 9/11 conformists such as National Geographic's Nicole Rittenmeyer) as some kind of curious crackpot cult to which he is but a learned onlooker dishing out sanctimous finger-wagging reprimands from aloft:

Check out the web sites that promote the various, and ridiculous conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and you will find that just about all of them ask for money. The same is true for the so-called "news" sites that support these outlandish conspiracy fantasies.

Which web sites ? Does this include sites like Prisonplanet and Rense both of whom his articles appear on, or is Doug's latest outburst because many sites may have now turned their back on him, or at least heavily crticised him for his diatribes about 9/11 ?

Thompson's attacks are ironic, as apparently the illegitimacy of asking for money from alternative news excludes Doug Thompson himself who's site is plastered with click ads for Dell laptop batteries, cable TV, 'intimate dating sites', constipation and diarrhea medicine, car insurance and various spyware screen savers.

Because Doug's latest article is so utterly stupid and inflammatory one may be strongly inclined to believe he wrote it only to get more visits to his site and clicks on his ads.

Well it's no surprise. To many, Thompson has successfully dented his image as a reporter of conscience with his ear to the ground of US politics, and transformed himself overnight into a book-burning establishment buffoon gliding en pointe to the music of political correctness and the tune of the Zelikow/Kean/Hamiliton quango ensemble.

Doug says of these sites which he doesn't name:

All link to the same, discredited "sources" for their claims.

Can you give an example Doug ?

Do you think 911research.wtc7.net is a such a source ? It seems a fairly straightforward site to me offering a wealth of background info on the WTC as well as essays on the official theories. I would call it essential reading for everyone interested in 9/11 no matter what their personal view or theory on 9/11 is.

Is Cooperative Research such a source ? Which presents detailed timelines on 9/11 all from mainstream sources and on a range of other issues ? Which Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline inspired Professor David Ray Griffin to write his books ? Again, I would call it essential reading on the topic.

Is the New York Times which managed to get the oral histories released recounting multiple eyewitness accounts of explosive demolition a 'discredited source' ?

Are CNN, Fox Radio and MTV which all recently gave platforms to Alex Jones to talk about 9/11 in the same class ?

What is a 'discredited source' and who's doing the discrediting, is it Doug ? It must be right then...

Our government failed on many levels to respond to information that might have prevented the attacks but incompetence does not prove a conspiracy. America has a long, tainted history of getting caught with its pants down.

The failure theory is certainly a common one, yet such enormous destructive failure has been met with not one formal reprimand or dismisal according to Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton. Only a drugged, electrocuted and insane Moussaoui is on trial to kick start the 9/11 Hollywood season, yet neither Bush nor Cheney would even testify under oath 1 or permit a transcript recorded for the 9/11 Quango, which should be noted, was directed by someone who years before 9/11 wrote the script and political atmosphere for 'cataclysmic terror' as well as Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine later on.

Those who prey on fear and paranoia to promote their kooky conspiracy theories dishonor those passengers on Flight 93. They dishonor the innocent victims who died on that day and the first responders who lost their lives trying to save those victims.

How does it do that ? For many it's not even automatically a case of they know what happened, a lot of people will claim they don't know which Doug himself might err-towards instead of trying to defecate on 9/11 inquiry as matter of principle and elevate the rationale for endless war and the rewriting of society with his latest aritcle in doing so. Surely, some of the people who have abused the memory of the victims of 9/11 are those who have used it as a mandate for perpetual conflict and despotism.

Of course, it's not that Doug Thompson isn't entitled to his firmly held view on 9/11, it's that he is so obsessed with childishly, blindly and deficiently attacking those who are not at all satisfied about the official accounts(s) of events, indeed who are deeply concerned by them that is so observable. Doug's position is in wrongly assuming that those who hold a different position on 9/11 are automatically of mal-intent and dubious character obsessed by nonsense, and that is a massive flaw in Thompson's prospectus. The reality is many are deeply motivated, based on what they feel are grave anomalies and questions unanswerable within 9/11 orthodoxy to prevent a repeat of it.

In writing yet another of these unprovoked vitriolic pieces, Doug is giving succor and sanctury to those, who in his words, regard the US Constituition as 'just a piece of paper' and will cling onto 9/11 to wield hijacked-American might to inflict death, destruction, torture, pain and misery around the world, misleading troops into a war for CFR/PNAC dreams of empire/Halliburton/defence manufacturer and oil company coffers, and according to Philip Zelikow of the 9/11 Commission to 'protect Israel' 3, while simultaneously exporting police state despotism and exploitation to allies like the UK.

Doug Thompson can and should vigourously disagree with others on 9/11 if that's truly how he feels but the way he is doing it, he has become the best friend Bush, Cheney and the Neocons could ever have and is alienating many people who once admired his work in doing so.

Update: Doug Thompson has since 'pulled' the article, first blaming it on his cat who was ill, now he's replaced it with one about Bush and the White House by a different author. I'm very sorry about his cat.

The original article is on letsroll911

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

'15 years of Gordon Brown'

Gordon Brown"GORDON Brown wants to stay in power until he is 70 - but may have wait another two years before getting the keys to No10. The Chancellor, 55, has insisted he is planning for the next 15 years, including two election victories. But sources close to Tony Blair hinted again yesterday the Prime Minister will stay on until at least 2008 to see through NHS and pension reform.

That will disappoint Mr Brown who wants him to announce a departure date later this year ahead of a smooth leadership handover to him in 2007 [...]

On his return from Africa, where he met former South African president Nelson Mandela, he said he was planning major policies for the environment, world finance and the economic threat from China and India. (more breakdown of the middle class and more corporatism and more of a slave economy ?)

He added: "If Nelson Mandela as an 86-year-old can be talking about education changes over the next 10 years then I, as Chancellor, should be thinking about all the changes that will affect our country and our wider neighbourhood over the next 10, 15 years"

I would rather drown myself in a bucket of cat crap than take 15 years of this ambitious, war-mongering, boring, soiled, cowardly little whore.

Have you noticed something ? Gordon Brown is insulating himself in a little fantasy bubble where he creates his own reality. He thinks everyone loves him and is just waiting for him to be shoe-horned into power where will take Britain further into hell. Actually, it may be worse than that; he is assuming a Kim Jong Il/Chairman Mao type power of a crushed population cowering in fear while he grandstands, irrespective of the truth on the ground and whatever anyone actually feels. Brown is demonstrationg that he is about as far out of touch with reality as can be.

Monday, April 10, 2006

The New Labour monster: time to slay it

Some days back, Conservative peers decided to capitulate and claim the radical and dehumanizing ID slave grid as an election issue by voting for a compromise after 5 times defeating the government on the issue.

They claimed it would delay the symbolic forcing of taking an ID card with a new passport, but you would still have to be inserted into the slave database on application, so this amounted to a gain of absolutely nothing yet Conservative peers apparently thought that they could win the next election on this point.

That's the theory and how the Sun and Mirror treated it on the day and then Labour let the cat of out the bag to say yes full compuslion is the plan.

It's an interesting idea and some may well say will create pressure to axe the scheme altogether, the problem of course it is assumes 1 or more of the following:

1) The Conservatives will win the next election and will actually axe the scheme

2) Gordon Brown will axe the scheme

3) There will be an election.

The truth is this was an unexpected disaster, from the Pro-slavery wing of the regime it falls right into their plans allowing a more graded introduction to the modern world of slavery which the tinpot regime, amid a massive, lying and pathetic propaganda campaign will claim as 'consent'. Perhaps this worthless delay 'won' by the Lords on ID cards could be interpreted as nothing more than a symbolic wink to the middle classes to now leave the UK entirely, 'we don't want you', 'if you have self worth then you're not welcome, we only want plebs and slaves and idiots forever dependent and in awe of the state and it's corporate friends'.

Blair sees the plan for endless war and the war on terror. He agrees with it. Blair sees globalisation. He agrees with it. Blair sees biometric passports from America as a result of 9/11. He agrees with it and ID cards. Blair sees the EU asking for more investment for nothing in return. He agrees with it. Blair is lobbied by the gambling and alcohol industry. He agrees with what they want. Blair is lobbied by the supermarket monopoly. He agrees with what they want.

Do you see a pattern here ? Every single rancid notion that comes up out the drain of power, Blair automatically agrees with and describes it as the 'modern world'. There is no dissent, no controversy, just this endless buying into, then repackaging of the issues as 'modern' and 'right'.

The eradication of the middle class to replaced with a slave class. The abolition of: parliament, the rule of law, the upper chamber. The formal and visible establishment of a new global corporatist ruling class. Endless war, abolition of self-determination in favour of global corporatism. Globalisation as the new basis for all society. Forcing more people into the criminal justice system.

All essential principles vigourously pursued by a fanatical Blair and his corrupt useless lapdogs like Charles Clarke to make Britian fit for the 21st century.

One wonders if the real reason Blair has been so 'successful', is very little to do with 'connecting with the electorate' as the compromised BBC would have you believe, but because he is never in disagreement with anything anybody in real power wants and will not only do it, but repaint it as his own and glorify it. If you just agree with everything then you can never really loose.

And as Britain is being destroyed, what is Cameron's approach ?

Agree with Blair.

Apparently, he seems to feel the need to build his case on the layers of worthless lies already constructed by Blair and the chunks of cowardly, doting controlled media still under the spell of Blair's personality cult. According to Cameron, Conservative fortunes are dependent on appearing more shallow, more degenerate, more worthless than even Blair himself as some symbol of 'modernity', either that or Cameron is deliberately planning to throw the election.

From Cameron's point of view if you really can't win an election in the face of Iraq, Afghanistan, possibly Iran, a world torture programme, the end of Parliament and the rule of law, a [police/nanny] state out of control, an ID slave grid, a coronated Brown, Labour membership in decline, wealthy donors leaving Labour in shame, endless stealth taxation etc etc etc then there is a real fundemental problem here.

Reuters says Cameron is 'seeking to transform the party of Margaret Thatcher into a modern and compassionate party'

What does 'modern' mean, what is modern really code for ? All _something_ shortlists ? Pro ID slave grid ? Pro targets in the NHS ? Pro bureaucracy ? Pro enormous taxation ? Pro giant government ? Pro bird flu ? Pro the undemocratic Bilderberg-selected quango of the European Commission ?

Or is modern actually nothing to do with any public perception of the Conservatives, but yet more code for don't stand in the way of convergence of financial and politcal power, globalisation, war and suppression of the population?

If Cameron actually gave a hoot about the destruction of the United Kingdom, he would stop flapping about, wrestling with fake nebulous rubbish handed to him by the media, and start pulling this government to pieces with hard truths, that he isn't doing so is cause for grave concern.

That said, it's not all gloomy. A few days ago, the Guardian ran a piece called 'Blair's inner circle and it's ferocious grab for power' describing this destruction of society and how New Labour are undermining democracy and turning the UK into a living prision as they ever claw for more and more control.

Well I hate to say I told you so, but well duh...yes and when you see members of the Lords likening Blair's ID slave grid database to a Nazi one, when senior judges and lawyers are likening Blair's undermining of the independence of the courts as having frightening parallels to Nazi germany (and these were all last year), you really can't ignore that kind of opinion.

The reality in the UK is very very very serious indeed, nonetheless, there are are still some wide sections of the more popular media who broadly want their audience to accept (if not actually believe) the garbage that comes out of Blair and Brown. That is very worrying.

Now of course, New Labour are trying to make it so they can change laws by order on a whim without Parliament at all, and they are now trying to effectively remove the upper chamber altogether. Yes your country is being destroyed, you are being put into tyranny.

Myself, as I've committed to, I won't be taking the card, and I won't be going into the slave database, whether I leave or stay and fight I don't know at this stage, but this country is in real trouble and Britain needs to start facing up to it's problems and pretty fast, this monster called New Labour needs slaying. No ifs, no buts.

I wouldn't worry though, there isn't really a rule of law here these days, it's been replaced by a quasi-political /technological /parastatal/corporate condition of supression as Blair, Brown, Levy and friends prepare to take the country into more wars, so don't worry about getting on the DNA or terrorist database as you react instinctively and violently to being dragged into the ID slave grid, it literally just doesn't mean anything anymore.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Response to Sheen: 9/11 Commission & CFR threaten America with Nuclear 9/12 ?

After the bravery of Charlie Sheen for thrusting 9/11 back into the spotlight, vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton said:

"I am sure that the terrorists will strike again. We know what their intent is. ... It is very simple: They want to kill as many of us as they can." Lexington Herald

Similarly we also have Chairman Thomas Kean setting the stage for a nuclear attack,

"repeating over and over again that the biggest threat right now is small nuclear devices being smuggled in across our completely unsecured borders and setting off the next escalation of the so-called war on terror (so be sure to start being afraid of that soon). The source of the material to make these fearsome nuclear devices would be none other than the former Soviet Union." Infowars

And then there is the Council on Foreign Relations, which is the famous and influential private oligarch/political elite think-tank and often described as the US arm of the UK's Royal Institute of International affairs saying on that,

"the United States hasn't mounted the high-priority effort needed against the most devastating threat it faces — nuclear terrorism. Stealing a nuclear device is tough, the author found, but not impossible" USA Today

But it gets a lot worse in the next paragraph:

"The same day, government officials testified that undercover investigators slipped through security at the Canadian and Mexican borders with enough radioactive material to make two small "dirty bombs." Border agents were fooled by counterfeit documents, according to the Government Accountability Office"

The nuclear/dirty bomb drills are extremely alarming, as there has been a well-noted parallel between recent and 'pivotal' acts of terrorism and such exercises. And one wonders, who are these undercover investigators working for ? The CFR or the actual government ?

Are we to interpret this theme as a veiled threat in response to Sheen: "Back off or it will be 9/12" ?

Despite it sometimes being called the 'Kean Commission' reflecting chairman Thomas Kean, Philip Zelikow 1 2 3 was the real head of the 9/11 commission, and according to David Ray Griffin he also wrote Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine, but it gets worse. Zelikow (along with the then just-retired and disgraced CIA head) co-wrote the entire blueprint via the Council on Foreign Relations' journal Foreign Affairs for what amounts to the domestic War on Terror and the political atmosphere we see today. But it gets worse still. He didn't write it after September 11th 2001, he wrote it in December 1998:

"In the November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.” Wikipedia


"Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene" Foreign Affairs
...it also describes the Pearl Harbour event as laid out in the Project for the New American Century, and noted by CFR'er Zbigniew Brzezinski* who described the need for a new threat to enable empirialism

*Brzezinski was also noted for his role in the formation of the pre-cursor to 'Al Qaeda'

Anyone see a problem here ?