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

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Independent on Blair regime's fanatical destruction of society

Well worth a read but doesn't go far enough. We are actually near a serious crisis point, and it was only just over a week ago that another judge noted that we are proceeding towards anarchy and a police state as the law is pulled to pieces, politicised and made worthless.

For me the police state is pretty much here already, all we are doing now is waiting for the UK's Tiananmen square. Sadly, a large chunk of the media and a good proportion of the British people will have themselves to blame for being appalling useless cowards.

From the Independent article, 'Blair laid bare':

"That compliance is what scares me the most. People are resigned to their fate. They've bought the Government's arguments for the public good. There is a generational failure of memory about individual rights. Whenever Government says that some intrusion is necessary in the public interest, an entire generation has no clue how to respond, not even intuitively And that is the great lesson that other countries must learn. The US must never lose sight of its traditions of individual freedom." Independent


"... Charles Moore, the former editor of The Daily Telegraph, now a columnist and the official biographer of Margaret Thatcher, believes that New Labour contains strands of rather sinister political DNA.

"My theory is that the Blairites are Marxist in process, though not in ideology - well, actually it is more Leninist." It is true that several senior ministers had socialist periods. Charles Clarke, John Reid, recently anointed Home Secretary, and Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, were all on the extreme left, if not self-declared Leninists. Moore's implication is that the sacred Blair project of modernising Britain has become a kind of ersatz ideology and that this is more important to Blair than any of the country's political or legal institutions"

It's funny really isn't it ? We don't let former pedophiles work in schools with kids, but we put (former-) communists into goverment.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

New York Times' Bill Keller letter

"[...] Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the president and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the president at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position - our job - is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff - but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements.

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.

And then the letter descends into a more kowtowed tone.

The NYT have a responsibility to publish what is actually going on, and Keller doesn't need to apologise or add disclaimers about what the New York Times is doing. What very few media outlets internationally wish to acknowledge is that there is no public consensus on 'the war on terror' and the backdrop it is providing, there is no uniform abiding flock of awestruck plebs, devotedly lining up to be stripped of their humanity, waving flags for the 'Clash of Civilizations', or 9/11 Commission director Philip Zelikow's 'post-cataclysmic terrorism' essay written in 1998.

The New York Times have been caught ignoring vital testimony, playing foolish war cheerleader and propaganda machine and indulging in alarming and highly visible self-censorship, perhaps to ensure their own interests, or that of their parent company are not overly threatened by being perceived as at odds with the prevailing political atmosphere.

They have displayed a recklessly casual attitude to the liberty of Americans, and in light of the fact that they deliberately sat on the NSA spying scandal for over a year 1 at the behest of the White House, one can only wonder what else the NYT is currently sitting on today.

From the point of view of someone in the UK like myself, it defies all reason that the New York Times is having to justify breaking stories about an ongoing and horrific coup against the American Constitution, the facts are that it is not breaking these stories enough, willingly enough or fast enough and has a great deal of redeeming to do.

Read entire letter here.

'Graffiti terror plot' panic

"PORT HUENEME, Calif. — Authorities sealed off a Southern California port Monday afternoon after a possible terrorist threat was found scrawled in a cargo ship's hold, a port official said.

Authorities closed off the Port Of Hueneme in Ventura County after a dockworker discovered the message scrawled in marker on a metal pillar in the hold of a ship carrying bananas from Guatemala, said Will Berg, the port's marketing director.

Berg said message read: "This nitro is for you Mr. George W. Bush and your Jewish cronies."

Federal authorities, including the FBI, as well as local officials were investigating, he said. About 20 people aboard the ship, a 30,000-ton refrigerated vessel that arrived from the Port of Quetzal in Guatemala, were evacuated, he said. Workers already outside the port were being kept out, though anyone inside was allowed to remain. The port is located northwest of Los Angeles"

Sunday, June 25, 2006

America under horrific neocon coup

"WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday vigorously defended a secret program that examines banking records of Americans and others in a vast international database, harshly criticizing the news media for disclosing an operation he called legal and "absolutely essential" to fighting terrorism. "What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Cheney said, in impromptu remarks at a fundraising luncheon for a Republican congressional candidate in Chicago" That offends me" Houston Chronicle (NYT)

Another secret programme, no wonder the Bush administration has been desperate to silence whistleblowers. You really get the impression everything is held together with sellotape.

Of course, it is very disturbing that some Americas wrongly feel their security is dependent on their being crushed under choking layers of tyranny and it's also destined to have a very very damaging effect on the rest of the world, particularly for impressionable sociopaths like Tony Blair, and a power-hungry Gordon Brown who earlier this year announced his intention for more spying on the private financial affairs of British citizens, selling it to them as 'Bletchley Park'.

Spyblog asked at the time, "Is Gordon Brown planning to snoop even more heavily on the financial transactions of the British public ? Is he also planning to attack the privacy and security of the world's financial networks ?"

Then there is this new 'Sears Tower plot' (a widely predicted target by alternative news sources for some time), perhaps designed to destract from the neocon's finanicial espionage:

"SEVEN men arrested in the US for planning to blow up America's tallest building and FBI offices were not Muslims and not linked to the US Islamic community, Islamic leaders insisted yesterday. The suspects - five Americans and two foreigners - arrested on Thursday after approaching an undercover FBI agent who they thought was an agent of al-Qaeda, were described as a cult. They were accused of trying to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago with help from al-Qaeda. But authorities said the men never actually made contact with the terrorist network and were instead caught in an FBI sting involving an informant who posed as an al-Qaeda operative [...]

The suspects were not Muslims, local Islamic leaders said.

"As far as we are concerned they have no relation with our community, their ideology has nothing in common with the ideology of Islam and they should not be called Muslim," said Ahmed Bedier, of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations [...]

Officials said that no weapons or explosives had been seized and there was no immediate threat in either Chicago or Miami."

Quite a timely diversion of another bogus plot. If you haven't yet, do read about the first World Trade Center bombing and the FBI.

Back on the financial spying, the BBC said, "Although there is no direct connection, the scheme has echoes of a recently revealed US surveillance programme in which millions of international and domestic phone calls and e-mails were monitored, correspondents say"

The BBC seem to enjoy being hopelessly naive, to everyone else the connection is 9/11 itself.

It certainly seems America is being savaged in a massive and cruel coup that began formally on 9/11. The misnamed Patriot Act, private phone records made into social networks for the NSA, financial transactions, it goes on and on. Last year Human Rights Watch noted that torture had become the official policy of the US goverment.

Cheney says these are 'tools in the war on terror', but a better explanation, especially (but not exclusively or dependently) for those with serious concerns about 9/11, is that these are tools of tyranny to keep a domestic population in check with enormous abuses of power while US troops are deployed in more and more diablolical wars for Cheney and the neocon cabal's machinations of world dominance 1.

Meanwhile, the war on terror is being consistently observed as, by and large, a cruel political myth to provide a hazy backdrop for this militarily-offensive foreign policy accompanied by domestic social re-engineering as well as a boundless catch-all soundbyte for anything and everything.

Perhaps we should also take note that US transport secretary Norman Mineta decided to quit effective 7/7. Normally someone like Mineta would attract about as much interest from the rest of the world as someone like Alistair Darling (now Douglas Alexander) would from Americans, i.e very little.

But Mineta has become well known in 9/11 circles for the striking testimony he gave to the 9/11 Commission, which strongly suggested Dick Cheney made the conscious decision to ensure at least one of the flights hit their target, believed to be the Pentagon (although what actually hit the Pentagon is also highly controversial) The time line presented by Mineta also gravely contradicted 2 the final report's timeline.

No doubt the New York Times will continue to dribble out horrifying scandal after horrifying scandal as they indeed should, but the question many will be asking is how much longer can the NYT continue to sit on 9/11 itself ?

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Chocolate oranges, gay marriage and Karl Marx

For Labour when they became New Labour, through the slithering machinations of Mandelson, Blair and bankrolled to power by Lord Michael Levy, things were all a little bit different.

Effectively ditching 'Clause IV' of the Labour party constitution to re-nationalise everything was hardly a sacrifice in practice (although if anyone had actually stopped and bothered to read the new version it's even more alarming: Blair's full-spectrum pledge of allegiance to socialism -I guess we'll return to this later).

Apparently, the Conservatives are looking for various, equivalent, mini symbolic proclamations and are unwittlingly doing themselves and people's ability to choose, enormous damage in the process:

"David Cameron is to cut one of the final ties with 'traditional' Tory values when he says that gay couples should receive tax breaks for getting married. In a move that will cause consternation among the traditional wing of the party, Cameron will say that although the party believes in marriage, it is any type of marriage - heterosexual or gay" Guardian

The last sentence is the worst and certainely feels like a shocking fluff-headed opportunistic grab for a few nods of the head from the political-correctness-raped factions and may well be interpretted as an outrageous wanton attack on values a lot of people hold in high esteem.

Cameron also says:

'This is the paradox of politics: politicians should not dictate how people choose to live their lives - but we cannot be indifferent to the choices that people make. The new politics works by persuasion, not by power"

What are you persuading people into Cameron ? That Tory fortunes rest on sounding more like Red Ken from the 1980s ? That there is some sort of insatiable public appetite to pick up where New Labour left off ?

This certainly has all the hallmarks of silly and dangerous crap that will inevitably offend a lot of people (and not just on the 'right wing' as the Guardian suggest) who really haven't got an ounce of time for the ongoing devaluation of marriage and assault on the family.

Moreover , it has become an enormous pronunciamento in the Guardian. Sure it's Cameron playing New Labour back at their own game, but it's difficult to read entirely as a strategic play for the elusive centre-ground when it's sounds a lot more like an appeal to the loony left. Cameron has gone way way way too far in his rhetoric with this. (See also this in the Daily Mail for how it gets worse still)

Meanwhile, the real issues of the day are not going away, but they are apparently too challenging and messy to take on for Cameron who is getting so lost in sinister periphery it's a wonder he can find his way out of the maze of fluff-like proclamations about Chocolate Oranges, rap lyrics, padded bras and gay marriage.

And in the end, if you keep skillfully avoiding the real problems then you're deliberately contributing to a massive problem. And we've got real massive problems all round: America is being strangled in a slow coup and Blair has effectively endorsed it, Blair wants the UN to be a neoconservative war machine in line with his ideologies, Iraq as a part-product of his self-indulgent social fanaticism is a shocking wanton ongoing bloodbath for all concerned that has cast shame on all who voted for it. Europe is looking more and more an utterly worthless, corrupt and dangerous socialist empire gobbling up more and more national soveriegnty and run by giggling globalists, while the ID slave grid and other horrific technologies are being prepared to re-engineer society itself.

So far the Tories have stubbornly refused to adequately express themselves on any of these issues, instead largely avoiding them altogether whilst presiding over the empty makeover of Cameron who's goal seems to be to follow firmly in the hollow pointless mirage of Tony Blair. The Conservatives have turned their back on conservatism in favour of grooming Cameron into Number 10 at any price, on an artificial and corrupt zeitgeist of Blairism and similar nauseating nonsense and that's something people need to be very very concerned about.

Indeed, Cameron and the Tories should be deeply truly ashamed. This is the time to be fighting for what you believe in, not in what you don't believe in and making the suffering of the UK immeasurably worse in the process.

What is ironic is that Labour already know they are in massive trouble, an article today in the Guardian entitled 'Brown aide: we will lose next election' says it all, and while this is very much Gordon Brown trying to speed up his smooth transition and rally his supporters, it's also actually true:

"At a fringe meeting during a weekend conference organised by Compass, a leftwing pressure group, Mr Wills claimed that at the last election "every single Labour MP on the doorstep reported profound disillusionment and disengagement. We scraped through. If 14,000 Labour voters had voted Tory in May 2005, we would have been in a hung parliament. That is all it took - that is how narrow it was" Guardian

(The same sentiments were also expressed by Michael Meacher today, "We have lost half of our members and four million voters since 1997. This is a very serious problem." 1 -Meacher has said in the past he doesn't support the coronation of Gordon Brown)

Wills continues: " We have got good messages and we are delivering on public services so why is it they don't listen any more? It is because they don't trust us...? [Goes on to talk about Iraq and presidential style of Blair]"

This is the problem for the Labour regime though, they will die wondering. Iraq, internment, uploading medical records to a goverment database, ID slave grid, CCTV everywhere, tracking car journeys, endless taxes, communist style land grabs, using the EU to log highly personal internet surfing, forcing additives into food as if the UK is their personal Stalinist laboratory, and now presiding over a glorious eugenics research programme of terminating embryos that don't meet up to the target criteria of the state, and which may presumbably lack the Animal Farm Boxer gene ensuring a plodding stupid proletariat awe of Blair, Brown and other New Labour grotesques as they dismantle society.

Labour have looked at every possible statistic to see where the toxic gas of goverment and the state can intervene for the sake of intervening itself with one worthless, unwanted, self-indulgent fantatical plan after another to humilate, oppress, dominate and dehumanise the individual and the best they can offer now is to manifest the Granita deal of the smooth and orderly coronaton of Gordon Brown who has sat on the sidelines waiting for power not lifting a finger to intervene on any of the above, lest it affect his chances for leadership.

One thing I didn't mention from a couple of days back was this extraordinary 22 page letter from Tony Blair to then Labour leader, Michael Foot, where Blair talks of his deep wonder at Marxism but finds it a tad 'stiffling'.

It's a fascinating read, of a young ambitious sociopath trying to charm a doomed Foot, indicating what would become Blair's final refined ideology: the diabolical third way (a term New Labour had to eventually bury with embarassment), which it should be noted, is not ambiguous or complex or difficult to define as some pundits suggest, it's big goverment+big business: socialism + corporate power and if it sounds a lot like Mussolini's fascism it should do, as Mussolini also described exactly the same objectives as the 'third way' 2.

A Telegraph article from 2003, reviewing Nicholas Farrell's biography of Mussolini notes:

"[The fascist] regime "was anything but a right-wing movement", and indeed Mussolini confusingly spoke of socialism and fascism as almost identical" 3

So the third way holds plenty of wide appeal to the New Labour cabal's shared values of top-down collectivism, as espoused by ex-communists like John Reid, Charles Clarke, and Peter Mandelson. (See also this article by comrade of the above characters, David Aaronovitch desperately trying to say there is no equivalence between Blair and Mussolini but strongly convincing the reader otherwise).

Anyway, in the letter Blair also says:

"It is a duty we owe to the people in our country, to save them from a cruel and bigoted government, that has made disaster and despair a fact of their everyday lives." Telegraph

Of course this sounds exactly like someone talking about New Labour today and is surely a massive stroke of irony, as this advice is exactly what opposition politicians need to take on board urgently now. But if the response is to be chocolate oranges, gay marriage, or from Labour, the swift coronation of Gordon Brown to fulfill the Blair-Brown Granita conspiracy then we are frankly pouring gasoline on the situation.

The UK is becoming a stark blueprint to the international community about how to thoroughly destroy a country through social tyranny.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Pentagon prepares Zarqawi successor

"BAGHDAD -- The U.S. military today released new information about Abu Musab Zarqawi's successor, quickly elevating the stature of the Egyptian militant who is said in Internet postings to be the new head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The U.S. military also announced today that the number of American military deaths in Iraq has reached 2,500, though the 24 killed so far this month has been relatively low [...]

At a press briefing in the Iraqi capital, the U.S. military showed reporters a previously classified picture of the Egyptian-born militant man who goes by the name Abu Ayyub Masri or Sheik Abu Hamza Muhajer, wearing traditional Arab headdress.

"It's important for the people of Iraq to know who this is," said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, spokesman for U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Caldwell said U.S. officials debated for days before deciding to release the photo and a brief biographical sketch of the alleged insurgent leader. They worried that bolstering his media profile would play into his hands. "Our intention is not to glorify him," Caldwell said"
LA Times

Let's rewind a litte bit to 17/4/06:

"In more than 3 years of war, there has never been a positive citing of alleged terror mastermind Abu Musab al Zarqawi. This has led many to believe that he is merely a creation of Pentagon propagandists working with their agents in the western press. Colonel Derek Harvey strengthened those suspicions last week when he admitted in a Washington Post article that the military intentionally “enlarged Zarqawi’s caricature” to create the impression that the ongoing struggle against occupation was really a fight against terrorism. But, that is not the case. As Harvey notes, “The long term threat is not Zarqawi or religious extremists, but former regime types and their friends" ICH

La Times continues:

"But by making Masri or Muhajer, whose two names mean "Egyptian" and "immigrant" in Arabic, the U.S. continues painting Iraq's Sunni Arab rebellion as driven by outsiders, even though foreign fighters make up a small portion of guerrillas fighting Americans and the Iraqi government"

See also ADE

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Forest Gate raid: political show by regime

"THE Prime Minister moved yesterday to defend Sir Ian Blair amid growing doubts about the future of Britain's top police officer. Sir Ian, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is under intense pressure over the shooting last year of an innocent Brazilian man and the high-profile anti-terror raid in Forest Gate, east London earlier this month.

Several members of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), which has the power to sack Sir Ian, have criticised him in recent days. Yesterday, the MPA demanded a report from Sir Ian into the Forest Gate raid, during which one man was shot and wounded. Two men were arrested, but both were released without charge at the end of last week"

I've been out of things for a bit, I needed another break from this but I've been watching this story like everyone else, and just trying to catch up with some of the finer details of it.

At the time, this raid left the overwhelming taste in the mouth of a political showpiece and the words 'Ian Blair' kept coming into my mind. 250+ police officers (Fox said closer to 300) to arrest 2 people, one shot and allegedly beaten can only be a show to keep the war on terror alive for the plebs, whilst demonstrating the power of the regime.

The intelligence (from a 'police informant') was clearly total garbage which the police effectively knew was garbage by all accounts, according to the Guardian on June 6th it was shuffled about between the Met and MI5 perhaps to give the veneer of legitimacy and consideration and at some point a decision must have been made to turn it into a public political spectacle. And lo and behold as I'm catching up on this story we see that:

"Press reports this weekend claimed that the Metropolitan Police had doubts over the intelligence suggesting that the brothers' house was being used as a bomb factory, but were told to go ahead with the raid by the Government's security and intelligence co-ordinator Sir Richard Mottram" Telegaph

Mottram being a senior civil servant is now Blair's personally appointed security coordinator; his Whitehall-Negroponte, responsible for 'helping to set priorities and budgets for MI5, MI6, and GCHQ'. Indeed, Mottram seems have quite a track record as an enforcer for the establishment 1 2 with a penchant for 'presenting unpalatable policy decisions to ministers'.

Now there is to be an inquiry into the bogus intelligence (presumbably carefully avoiding the political decision to act on it) which can inevitably be added to the the dustbin of false inquiries and internal regime whitewashes on matters like the Iraq intelligence:

"Intelligence failures leading to the raid in Forest Gate in east London are to be investigated by the Prime Minister's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). The committee, chaired by the former Northern Ireland secretary Paul Murphy, will question top intelligence officers in the coming weeks about the false information that led to a public relations disaster. Two brothers whose house was raided, one of whom was shot, were released without charge on Friday" Independent

As for Ian Blair in all this, well......realistically, it's quite a puzzling line of inquiry why Ian Blair is still in his job, as the guy is apparently quite ill and not able to carry out his duties. Normally we pity people like that and try to help them but we don't put them in charge of the Metropolitan police. Then again, we didn't. Ian Blair was a political appointment made by a fanatical regime obsessed by re-engineering society with the radical ID slave grid, a host of 'terror' laws and similar pathological crap. As such Ian Blair was a useful flawed character, a twitching sociopath occassionally hidden behind an equally concerning political correctness neurosis, Captain Queeg playing with his marbles and performing like a dancing seal for the tinpot New Labour regime to use as their toy and channel their manifesto through.

Whatever his role in this particular affair, as long as Ian Blair is in charge the more damage will be done to the police, and the more bad feeling will rub off on the Met. Indeed, sadly Ian Blair's continued presence under an ever-growing mountain of disasters will be interpreted as a stain on the police themselves, reflective of their institutional propensity for politicization, ideological debasement, and deviation from their designed noble goal set out by Robert Peel.

Now let's talk about Big Brother. Glamourizing a load of vacuous boy and girl attention-seeking bimbos, plebs and whorelets in the goldfish bowl of hundreds of cameras, selling the government's CCTV culture alongside a vacant, giggling, bitching stoned-paranoia of gossiping housemates. Actually at least they choose to put themselves in a goldfish bowl and might get something out of it, which is more than you do under the regime's cameras according to the Home Office's own funded study on CCTV. Nonetheless, let's provide some new cutting-edge intelligence on the next plan for Mottram, Ian Blair, Eliza-Manningham Buller and pals in the war on terror (see image at top).