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

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Blair wants UN to be neocon war factory

"Tony Blair ... called for wide-ranging reform of the UN, the IMF and the World Bank to foster a more effective response to global challenges such as poverty and terrorism.

The prime minister, speaking at Georgetown University in Washington, said change was needed to promote "global values" after the diplomatic fallout from the Iraq war, which left the international community "riven" by disputes. "To meet effectively the challenge that faces us, we must fashion an international community that both embodies and acts in pursuit of global values - liberty, democracy, tolerance, justice," he said"

It's a good job Blair is a decomposing lame duck, as at every possible juncture he seeks not to embolden those poor pleb victims who moronically mistakenly re-elected him in the UK for a third miserable term until the long-conspired smooth and orderly coronotion of his Granita-pact partner Gordon Brown, but the endless glorification of global quangos of elites dictating from above the lives of the world:

"British officials said Mr Blair would use his visit to appeal for greater American involvement in the UN, in return for reforms that could make the UN more responsive to American interests. These reforms would include an expansion of the Security Council to 25 members and the addition of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan as permanent members. The position of secretary general would no longer be rotated to give every continent a turn (it is Asia's turn next), but awarded instead to a high-powered international figure chosen from a global pool. He or she would have far greater powers over the budgets and staff of the UN agencies than Kofi Annan currently commands.

Mr Blair denied last night that he was seeking to write a job description for his own post-Downing Street years"

Worthless, twisted upside-down words for cowards to cling to, for Murdoch to sell newspapers by and to add support to the perverse mythologies and cloistered philosophies of an audience of anti-American Americans. To twist the meanings of liberty, freedom and democracy on their head, to make them meaningless and soiled, for a doomed Blair to drag them into his putrid pit of self-created destruction as he uses them to paper over the Bush/Cheney/Neocon cracks with this garbage, trying to pour legitimacy onto the Neoconservative programme to reorder the world itself with a new despotism, and for Blair to buy himself a future place in this New Dystopia by sacrificing the UK along the way.

"Mr Blair warned that the west would sometimes need to take pre-emptive military action abroad, even if it was not on the basis of definite information. The speech followed on from previous explanations of the so-called "Blair doctrine" - Mr Blair's concept of a foreign policy centred on "morally-based" military interventions abroad"

This is about as bad as it gets; actually trying to re-manufacture a mandate for arbitrary war without reason, justification or evidence but based on a personal perverse mythology hopelessly glued onto the coat tails of Neocon machinations, appealing only to the clueless Fox News watching plebs and appalling cowards who's only option is to pretend all is well and that they are somehow participating in it all.

Obviously, with such a prospectus based neither on necessity, nor any kind of 'shared values' (a meaningless term to round up the sheep, to manfucture a mandate, and about as appetising as a rotting dog carcas), the reality then actually appears to be about promoting the fear of being attacked arbitrarily. And I have never heard such a stream of poisonous excreta coming from a UK prime minister.

"Confronting his critics, the prime minister told the audience that the international community should bury its divisions over Iraq to support "a child of democracy struggling to be born"

Well do excuse me while I puke up towards this astonishing soundbyte of arrogance, this 'child of democracy' appears more a product of a long-established Neoconservative directive of US primacy, who's specific motivations seem to be a combination of permanent strategic military bases, better control of oil and according to at least one US official to 'protect Israel', foisted onto Iraq when the political circumstances just about permitted it against the backdrop of 9/11, an event that many now believe needs reinvestigating, and in any event, against the better judgement of the entire world.

An atmosphere for a pre-intended war spun by waves of lies was gratuitously forced onto a country already ravaged by previous wars and genocidal sanctions, and let's face it, Blair only glued himself onto the latest Iraq war because to take the correct position of saying no was just too much , so instead he took it as an opportunity to carve a new CV for himself out to impress those ideologues already long-committed to military action against Iraq.

Blair sought to steer the Neocon done-deal 1 2 3 of Iraq through the UN knowing fully such a pursuit was always a sham anyway, and in any event it would only give the forced-facade of legitimacy to something that was always wrong to begin with, yet Blair now sees the UN's future as effectively rubber-stamping a stream of new bloodsheds.

Like all of Blair's ideas, this option is exactly what the world doesn't need, and Blair's vision of the UN as a Neoconservative/Leninist war machine presumbably with him in control should send serious shivers down the spine.

Naturally, this is obscene and is like an unconvicted but guilty child-murderer saying the system is too weak to stop me, therefore it must be changed to legitimize my future planned killings instead. Of course, in the real world, such a killer does not disqualify themselves from punishment with such warped dillusions.

Meanwhile, it's hardly any surprise that George Galloway made the comments he did on Blair:

"...he was quoted as saying the Prime Minister's assassination would be "entirely logical and explicable". Speaking to GQ , the former Glasgow Labour MP said: "Yes, it would be morally justified" ...though he added: "I am not calling for it" 4

Galloway has taken some criticism, and although he was speaking in relation to Iraq, if one were actually to accept Blair's own garbage soundbyte thesis; his insane desire for arbitrary groundless war on a whim to bring about 'shared values', removing 'unstable dictatorships' and so on, then perhaps it is just as applicable to him too.

Maybe an increasingly neurotic and deranged Cherie, furious that she is not in the spotlight enough, will do the terrible deed, that is when she isn't immersed in her witchcraft of strange rituals of swinging pendulums over her husband's toenail clippings, spending over £7000.00 on her hair or autographing whitewashes designed to acquit her maniacal spouse to be auctioned off.

Maybe the UK military will have enough of the entire cabinet of fanatics and ex-communists who are telling them to sacrifice themselves for the next wretched war and who giggle and laugh while troops come home in body bags.

Sadly, the true implications of Galloway's words are likely to be missed: if you have politicians actually talking openly about killing the prime minister, then something has clearly gone catastrophically wrong, something has constitutionally collapsed and the direction of Blair and his worthless government is so dangerously partitioned from reality in a pursuit of self-indulgent wreckless fanaticism that it beggars belief how we got to this stage in the first place and is a clear sign we simply cannot go on like this any longer.

Of course, this is all the more reason to make sure Blair never gets his hooks into the UN.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation

Via 9/11 Blogger, "(PRWEB) - Utica, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2006 -- Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans' belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2~4 "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.

According to Janice Matthews, executive director of 911truth.org, "To those who have followed the mounting evidence for US government involvement in 9/11, these results are both heartening and frankly quite amazing, given the mainstream media's ongoing refusal to cover the most critical questions of that day. Our August 2004 Zogby poll of New Yorkers showed nearly half believe certain US officials 'consciously' allowed the attacks to happen and 66% want a fresh investigation, but these were people closest to the tragedy and most familiar with facts refuting the official account. This revelation that so many millions nationwide now also recognize a 9/11 cover up and the need for a new inquiry should be a wake up call for all 2006 political candidates hoping to turn this country around"
Yahoo News

For more coverage see 9/11 blogger.com

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Ian Blair in trouble again and dirty bombs

"Sir Ian Blair, the beleaguered Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, yesterday faced an unprecedented barrage of public criticism from rank-and-file officers in his force, who said they had "no confidence" in him". Speaking on behalf of the Met's 24,000 constables, Peter Smyth said a series of "well-publicised, embarrassing gaffes" by Sir Ian had undermined the force." Telegraph

Later yesterday Ian Blair responds.

One story I can't find on the internet but I thought was very interesting that was in yesterday's Daily Mail was this:

"SIR IAN BLAIR wrongly told the Prime Minister terrorists had launched a dirty bomb or chemical weapons attack in London during the second wave of bombings last July.

[...] Tony Blair said he was not convinced and ordered intelligence chiefs at the meeting of the Cobra crisis committee that morning not to repeat the claim outside the room.

[...] Sir Ian ministerpreted the fizzing of failed explosives on July 21, which killed no one, as devices designed to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Security chiefs wer aghast that he appeared to endorse the worst case scenario in front of the Prime Minister before it had been confirmed.

[...] The first thing he said was, "Prime Minister, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that is seems that there appear to be no serious casualties. The bad news is that it looks like a dirty bomb or chemical attack".' The Whitehall insider said: 'Jaws dropped to the desk'.

Sir Ian outlines how the description from the scene of the attacks' had been of small bangs and some bubbling noises'. There were reports of 'fizzing material falling out of bags'.

Intelligence experts at the meeting regarded the threat of a chemical or low level radiological bomb as 'highly improbable'. The source said: 'Anyone who knows about these things knows that the descriptions were consistent with badly-made explosives.'

'The Prime Minister said he was not convinced there was any evidence to suggest a dirty bomb or a chemical attack. He said he did not want the idea repeated outside the room.' (Daily Mail 17/5/06)

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Pentagon video

Just briefly on these new Pentagon videos: Exactly what happened at the Pentagon has long been an issue of enormous controversy and debate, but what is really astonishing is that circumstances alledgedly existed on 9/11/2001 for something to hit it at all (and in that manner and in the way the official stories claim), and you can't help feeling this new video which shows yet another frame of an indeterminate blob is really designed to deflect away from that and all the other really tough observations and questions on 9/11 and the particular way public regard towards 9/11 has evolved.

9/11 has taken on a distinctly new velocity this year, with some really impressive coverage in New York magazine, the Village Voice, Tokyo Journal, we've seen Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones on CNN in a ground-breaking presentation and 9/11 is being taken so seriously that MP Michael Meacher even arranged a Parliamentary screening of Loose Change 2 E to MPs:

He has organised a screening of Loose Change 2 at Parliament. It is now confirmed for June 14th. We will be showing it to an audience of up to 200 specially invited MP's, Members of the Lords, and lobby journalists.

Michael has made the following comments about the film: "It is a very formidable assembly of the evidence. It makes a very powerful case but it is a matter for people to make up their own minds."
1 2

Although there are some forum posts around suggesting he has apparently since yesterday changed his mind. With that, these new NSA spying allegations and various scandals trying to break through the surface in the US, and with all roads to these and other horrors leading directly to 9/11, it's not hard to see why the US goverment with a wretched puppet president plummeting into Nixon-level approval ratings might be getting just a little desperate.

For these reasons and others, Meacher should not be browbeaten by a 5 years later appearance of a new frame with a new blob, deliberately intended to frame 9/11 Truth around one highly controversial debate. Gordon 'smooth transition' Brown is planning on a tidal wave of propaganda based on fawning 9/11 reverence to build his coronation on and sell the UK into even more humiliating, thumb-scanned flag waving tyranny and Loose Change should remain essential viewing for British MPs.

Monday, May 08, 2006


Blair and Brown"...voters stay at home, party members resign or give up working for [Labour], and constituency Labour parties have become hollowed-out shells [...] Party members look on aghast at the antics of the small cliques around Blair and Brown vying for power [...] Decision-making is centralised, with policies handed down from on high that bear no relation to [...] the real world..." John McDonnell/Guardian

New Labour and Blair are in real political trouble. One only has to look at John Prescott, stripped of his portfolio of responsibilities (if he ever fulfilled them anyway) but still in place as a token figurehead, with public money being poured into keeping him in Jags, trollops and pizzas and presumbably kept close to the Prime Minister where he can do little damage. It's not hard to see the ever-fraying thread Blair is hanging on by.

Yesterday, in a softball interview with the BBC's Andrew Marr, and against the backdrop of 50 Labour MPs calling for an end to Blair's reign, Gordon Brown laid into his Faustian partner to call repeatedly for his 'stable and orderly transition' (a phrase the FT counted being mentioned 10 times) which he believes is owed him under their Granita blood-pact. I also counted around 17 mentions of 'security/terrorism' and many references to the wonders of globalisation.

At one point Brown mentioned 'security without an assault on civil liberties' (note 'civil liberties' ; in the Blair/Brown partitioned reality, liberty only exists as a directive sanctimoniously bestowed from the wonders of government or as an annoying series of trivial artifacts that can eventually be stamped out when technology catches up or the political circumstances allow), presumbably as an attack on Blair's police state. But this is an insulting lie and way too late in the day for Brown to opportunistically claim, as he now feverishly clammers for power, that it's all down to Blair.

If Brown really believes that then he would not have supported the government over the ID slave grid, nor voted for 90 day internment and a host of other political police-state measures. Instead he's chosen to support them so as not to rock the boat and mess up his grab for power later, where he can then sit back and say it was someone else's fault (same with Iraq). In any event, this idea of 'not attacking civil liberties' is directly contradicted by Brown's grandstanding ID-slave grid vote speech advocating unprecidented tyranny anyway.

More generally, Brown seems to be talking about security as a means to embarrass Blair over the recent prisoners scandal with Charles Clarke, but it's also fair to interpret Brown's words as representing the identical underlying doctrine as Blair himself.

Blair and Brown's case for government seem the same: the guano pile of forced globalisation and the Clash of Civilizations come first... everything else must be built on that prospectus, and with a gaggle of sycophantic worthless coward MPs who will actually vote for such perverted rubbish as the ID slave grid, it's hardly a surprise that the entire menu of Labour's worthless indulgent 'reforms', cooked up for no other reason than they can be, are only guaranteed to make the UK vomit.

A desperately hungry Gordon also admitted he has enjoyed various discusions about the smooth transition with Blair and very nervously admitted that he knew the details of the reshuffle before it was announced. He also seemed to refuse to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran.

One might well expect an ambitious Brown to be a strong advocate of his own coronation especially with Labour in massive trouble, but when we also frequently suffer many other Labour MPs seriously talking about this 'smooth and orderly transition', as if that appalling proposition is one the country should just fawningly accept, you can sense a lot of Labour itself is just as detached from reality.

And perhaps that is no surprise, as New Labour didn't begin and end with Blair, Brown and Mandelson. It is those Labour members who have accepted it, promoted it, Labour MPs who have voted for its policies 'handed down from on high that bear no relation to the problems of the real world' which are equally as culpable. And that's something Britain should never forget as it reflects on those who have voted for ID cards, wars, interment, choking statism and a host of fanatical indulgent rubbish.

The work of transforming the UK into their own miserable image of a compromised third-world police state of uneducated drunks, gambling addicts and iris-scanned Murdoch-reading proles, waving flags for the next 'progressive' war, is not the achievement of Blair and Brown alone, a point described last year by Tony Benn.

Years more of Blair would be unthinkable, yet similarly, the smooth and orderly coronation of Gordon Brown is an attack on democracy itself (or what remains of it) and may well guarantee Labour is even more hated than it is now.

If Labour overall had any guts and morals it would be getting signatures for the smooth and orderly impeachment of Blair over Iraq, not for a smooth and orderly transition to coronate the next appalling arrogant joker from New Labour's pack of cards who has a longstanding deal with Blair for just that, and who seems to be openly promising even more humiliating tyranny, appalling flag-waving oppression and out-of-touch grandstanding for the British people than Blair himself.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

9/11: Weaponization of Space

The Neocon PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defences famously advocated a 'New Pearl Harbour' that would provide the impetus to radically transform the US military including the domination of space and weaponizing space itself.

Yesterday's Sun of all places (via the NYT) is now reporting one part of that:

"AMERICA is secretly working on a RAY GUN to destroy enemy spacecraft, it was revealed yesterday. President Bush has given the go-ahead to create the weapon to zap satellites in orbit. Laser experiments are being carried out in the New Mexico desert [...]The US military is spending around £11million this year on the laser weapon research [...] Laser work has previously been hidden in a budget category that paid for a range of space activities. But it was revealed this year when moved to a new heading, “Advanced Weapons Technology”. In January 2001, a commission led by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that America faced a potential Pearl Harbour in space and called for an arsenal of space weapons."

Interesting that the Sun reminded us of Rumsfeld talking about Pearl Harbours as he is often speculated to have been part of making the last one happen, and although the Sun seems to be describing tests of ground based lasers (better report here), a great deal more has been spent on weapons with a space theme that the trivial $11 million Murdoch spins it as. The New York Times reported in terrifying detail a year ago that the drive to weaponize space itself was under way:

"With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them"

Friday, May 05, 2006

Labour's horror at election pounding

"Labour suffered disastrous results in last night's local elections in England and was today reeling from its worst share of the vote since the Falklands war in 1982. By 8am this morning, Labour were on a projected 26% of the vote, behind the Tories on 40% and the Liberal Democrats on 27%" (Guardian)

I sat up all last night to watch the Dimbleby punditry on the local elections, election coverage is always worth a watch to get a rare glimpse of political truth breaking through the fog.

New Labour recieved quite a kicking last night and the Conservatives did very well, signalling a refreshing comeback, even taking the 'magic seat' of Ealing, cited by Dimbleby and his pundits as a kind of mystical omen for winning the general election itself. However no Tory guest on the BBC's election coverage actually wanted to really tackle the reality of New Labour which is curious. The Lib Dem's Simon Hughes did mention Labour's shocking contempt for freedom in the UK.

Labour's Nick Brown gave a great performance to Dimbleby; a genuinely alarmed backbencher who described the failed New Labour project as a desperately 'out of touch political elite', infering that Blair and his coterie of fanatical asslicking buffoons around him needs to go like yesterday. This was one of those rare powerful pieces of television.

However the answer is not as Nick Brown thinks, in the smooth and orderly coronation of Gordon Brown, who is already displaying his appalling arrogance by talking up just that. Coronating an ambitious Brown, who in stomach-churching speeches this year wants people to wave flags as they get their thumb scanned to buy their frozen chicken is only guaranteed to make matters a whole lot worse. This seems to strongly suggest that even those Labour MPs who don't like what's happening still don't understand the depth and gravity of the very very serious problems the UK is in, thanks largely to them accepting the Blair-Brown Faustian pact to begin with.

The massive political misinterpretation about Labour's election beating being due to 2 weeks of bad headlines was made (perhaps willfully) by many including various Labour officials throughout the evening and then mirrored elsewhere the following morning. For instance, The Sun's George Pascoe-Watson, after presumbably getting instructions about what to write from Murdoch stated that it was the series of embarassing gaffs and stories about Prescott that had done the damage to Labour.

It may have contributed to it and lost them a couple of extra seats but overall this analysis is just painfully, willfully wrong. Interesting too that Murdoch made sure the Labour election fiasco was essentially not on the front page of the Sun.

One wonderful email sent in by a BBC viewer and read out by Dimbleby said in effect, "What's wrong with New Labour ? Why can't they just understand that everyone just wants them to go?"

This reality is one that is apparently unspeakable in polite political circles, although was strongly hinted towards by the BBC's Nick Robinson. Labour got a long-overdue kicking thanks to their unforgivable deliberate destruction of democracy, constitution and the rule of law in the UK which they eagerly sought to replace with a political police state and corporatist form of government. The fanatical New Labour elite and their cadre of financiers, worthless crony peers and corrupt placed puppets have merely received a response to that, proving that Blair/Brown/New Labourism must now be relegated into the historical dustbin of failed ideologies.

Perpetual wars initiated on a barrel of lies, the radical humiliating ID slave grid, exponential growth of government and the state, endless social engineering which nobody wants are far more likely culprits for Labour's results. You can't seriously glue yourself onto the back of geopolitical scorched-Earth world-reshaping aggression and feverishly create a domestic Orwellian police state and hope nobody notices too much. If anything, the 2 weeks of Prescott, Clarke, Hewitt etc. have merely reinforced what the regime is all about; a giggling, genocidally out-of-touch cabal which needs to be removed at all costs before it can do anymore damage.

In a planned emergency reshuffle, designed by the fanatical regime leader Blair to deflect attention away from the disastrous election results and more importantly from the systemic rot that has taken over thereby evading the real point that nobody wants New Labour period, Blair has finally sacked his most useful pet: the porcine fabricator Charles Clarke:

"Charles Clarke has said he does "not agree" with Tony Blair's decision to sack him as home secretary [...] Mr Clarke told the BBC he could have "carried through" the reforms needed to the Home Office following the furore over foreign criminals in the UK.

The prime minister had to make "hard judgements", Mr Clarke said, adding that he remained a supporter." BBC

In a bizarre response to this long-overdue sacking of the hog-wild liar, Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti got it all wrong in describing Clarke as some kind of statesman and hero who we all dotingly looked up to during the London bombings:

"His finest moment was hours after the London bombings last July. As frightened people hung on his every word, he made vital distinctions between distasteful speech and cold-blooded murder and admitted that ID cards would not have prevented the atrocity. He forgot party politics and demonstrated what a home secretary could and should be"

That's not how I remember it, I recall a grandstanding dungeon keeper telling the country how many civil liberties they needed to give up to win in the Clash of Civilizations. And who's Home Office was deliberately and maliciously leaking stories about de Menezes' visa to revise his death and then protecting the most flawed sociopathic cretin ever to head up the Met who tried to cover up the investigation and who misled the public about the state execution?

There's a time and place for measured language but this wasn't it, Chakrabarti is miles off course on this one. Clarke's finest moment was in getting sacked today and then squeeling like the wild boar he is as he realises he has no purpose outside of whatever slops Blair threw his way. Sadly he has been replaced by 'preventative war' advocate, bruiser and Labour attack dog John Reid.

Meanwhile, Prescott has been stripped of his duties, Jack Straw thankfully dragged off the international stage and given the humiliating job of Leader of the Commons, while the infatuated Blairite sycophant Geoff Hoon is even further demoted into permanent oblivion as European minister.

Many Labour councillors must be fuming that they are out of a job, and it's exactly what they deserve. They have themselves to blame for accepting the fanaticism of Blair and Brown which has sent the UK spiralling in all the wrong directions.

No reshuffle will suffice, no smooth transition arrangement to coronate an opportunistic ambitious prostitute like Gordon Brown will do, only the final and permanent removal of this horrific awful experiment in corporatism, despotism and sickly incestuous quangoism called New Labour will do the trick.