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, August 17, 2006

Crisis (hint: it's not because of terrorists)

"Biometric testing is set to be introduced at European airports under plans for stringent new security measures revealed yesterday in the wake of last week's alleged terror plot. Passengers would have their fingerprint or iris scanned under the measures proposed by EU interior ministers, which would also use passenger profiling to try to identify potential terrorists" Scotsman

What plot indeed ? It hasn't been tested in court (if it ever will be), and no one has been convicted, and according to deputy prime minister John Prescott it is known already that some will not even face charges.

The plot is being widely regarded as little more than a story fed out by a wretched hated government to a press that has turned against them while deliberately inflicting a stupid pointless catastrophe on airports to ensure the fiasco is wrapped in sufficient gravitas to get the twin coup factions in both the US and UK out of serious political trouble.

Yet as a result of the 'plot' we are led to believe, more intolerable, dehumanizing, police-state biometric drivel is entitled to be just pronounced out of thin air. Except it's not out of thin air as the Guardian reports:

"It demonstrated that detailed work had been going on behind the scenes on the strategy that was proposed by Britain in the wake of last year's London bombings, when the UK held the EU presidency." And let's not forget that Brussels has recently been concocting secret plans to attack your children too: "Under laws being drawn up behind closed doors by the European Commission's 'Article Six' committee, which is composed of representatives of the European Union's 25 member states, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport by June 2009 at the latest" Observer

We will come back to this in a minute, but the Scotsman, along with some other publications are also promoting the concept of John Reid as a new Labour leader:

"Reid reaction to terror has seen his public profile soar as Blair's successor"

This is nonsense. Reid, who amazingly, foolishly started this so-called campaign off the back of this garbage the day before it went live and actually changed his speech entirely from immigration to terrorism , while essentially talking about an imminent threat as a pretext to declare traditional freedoms 'old fashioned' has about as much chance as a snowflake in hell.

To put it bluntly: Reid is too nuts, too communist, too violent, too bald, and let's face it, is giving Scottish people a bad name everywhere as being crazed militant Marxists. There is simply no chance of him being Prime Minister. Indeed, the Daily Mail says on Reid:

"Reid has, in fact, dramatically reduced [his chances as leader]. For the spectacle of this sinister old Marxist seizing control is enough to make most of us feel like taking to the hills" (If only they would apply the same reasoning to Gordon Brown who hides it better, while promising the same or worse)

The Scotsman continues:

"Yesterday, Mr Reid said Europe would not allow terrorists to undermine the "common European values that bind our societies together"

New Labour's and the European Commission's plans for 'binding society together' center are more along the lines of binding people to the state with chains and straps; making permanent slaves and victims of everyone including children.

Under this regime, society is no longer society, but a political dungeon, and as such these 'common European values' seem more akin to a re-emergence of old European values like fascism and communism dusted off and made palatable once again, which would explain why they are so coveted by a vile UK regime obsessed with enslaving it's population.

Reid said: 'The proponents of terror "would abuse our open societies, would misuse our freedoms and adapt the latest technology to their evil intent and have no regard for human life or for human rights".

The people we consistently observe who "abuse our open societies, misuse our freedoms and adapt the latest technology to their evil intent and have no regard for human life or for human rights" are people like Reid, Blair, Brown, Clarke and the eurocrats festering within the self-inflicted monstrous carbuncle of the European Commission.

And of course, the regime with Reid as it's Home Secretary, is trying to make society so open, that all your private affairs will be an open book in one public database for the government and corporations to paw over as they see fit.

"As we face the threat of mass murder, we have to accept that the rights of the individual that we enjoy must, and will be, balanced with the collective right of security and the protection of life and limb that our citizens demand," he added.

Uh uh. Not so fast. No we don't, and proclaiming it doesn't make such sweeping twaddle so. Firstly, I'm not so sure that there is such a thing as a 'collective right' outside of the padded cells of the Home for the Communistically Deranged, so it's not surprising such a deluded fantasy finds a home in John Reid's filthy communist imagination along with pornographic hallucinations of Stalin, Lenin, and a lap dancing Mao Zedong. And why does this 'collective right' self-delusion, time and time and time again, form a backdrop to a morbid obsession with biometrically branding everybody including children to chain them into a slave system that will document and evaluate their entire life ? This should be a clue.

Secondly, what has biometrics and humiliating passenger profiling really got to do with 'facing the threat of mass murder' ? It seems to me not a lot, and that correlation simply can't be seriously made. In the end you're advocating passenger profiling because you want passenger profiling for the sake of passenger profiling, not because it is seriously going to make anyone safer from the government's next terror plot performance.

Thirdly, how is rubber-stamping torturing people to death in Uzbekistan, waging disastrous wars off the back of sexed-up old student essays and other assorted hoaxes which has slain thousands upon thousands as well as at least 115 British troops while putting the country under an increased risk of reprisals, shooting innocent victims umpteen times in the head on the tube whilst making a career out of putting people back into slavery a "protection of life and limb that our citizens demand" ?

Oh we should mention that 'balanced' is New Labour's favourite term which really means inflicted against all common sense and reality by people trying to find a way to engrave their unwanted vile ideologies onto society itself.

And it's also worth remembering that a lot of bad police state stuff like data retention has to be inflicted via the EU, which is now a backdoor clearing house for some New Labour's more ambitious totalitarian projets.

"Meanwhile, a YouGov poll out today reveals that more than half of people in the UK questioned wanted a "more aggressive" foreign policy.

Sure they do. Like they did in March this year, when a Yougov poll showed correctly a dismal 33% of people thought the war against Iraq was the 'right thing'.

Blair's green-lighting of the carnage in Lebanon is essentially another foreign policy decision, and consistent with all other foreign policy decisions, which funny enough, YouGov conducted another poll on last month, of which the Times concluded, "...that only 17 per cent of those surveyed believed that Israel had made an “appropriate and proportional” response to the kidnapping of its soldiers" Times

In March 2004, Yougov conducted (surprise surprise) another poll which showed:

"An obvious question concerns whether people think the Anglo-American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have made a terrorist attack on Britain more or less likely. Predictably, a large majority, 77 per cent, do believe that the two invasions have increased the chances that the terrorists will attack"

A position famously shared by even the UK's own highly stained intelligence services.

So they don't like Iraq, they don't like Lebanon, they see Afghanistan and Iraq as strongly contributing to terrorism but they want 'a more aggressive foreign policy' at a time when you have an extremely aggressive one that has contributed to the slaughter of thousands in Iraq alone and brought the United Kingdom into international disgrace.

Do the respondents actually understand what a foreign policy is, or do they think it means a 'domestic policy toward foreigners' ? It really makes you wonder about the integrity of these polls and the ability of those being polled to make anything even approaching an informed rational decision at all as they clearly are not in grasp of the essential issues.

Also, from this latest YouGov poll:

"Six out of ten believe government is not exaggerating the terrorism threat while 55 per cent supported passenger profiling at airports"

The far more significant statistic therefore is that 40% are not convinced at all. Although this is a completely pointless excercise, let's just pretend for a second this terrorist plot is what the goverment say it is and that we all want to run around in a stupid flapping panic worshipping the government after they have saved us. What, in reality, is forced biometric screening and profiling going to acheive ?

A huge expense poured down the drain into a humiliating crushing ritual that will quickly deteriorate into people with bad credit, embarrassing medical conditions and those who put out rubbish on the wrong days not being able to fly. Which, by the way is exactly the intention of people like Gordon Brown who, obsessed by neoconservative writings, literally regard the human ID slave grid as exactly that; a means to inflict unprecedented control on society by serving up his personal menu of political punishments based on your lifestyle data as stored and analysed on a centralised government database.

If 55% of the population actually want that, then that is 55% of the population who need serious urgent re-education (or deserve what they get depending on your point of view), but considering their views on everything else are completely contradictory nonsense I think this can be safely be ignored. Also neither the airlines nor airport businesses want it either.

Meanwhile any terrorist is free to attack any other target. So this is not so much about airports, but about introducing thumbscans and iris scans complete with your RFID'd ID card being automatically read to enter railway stations, the underground, buses, hospitals, schools, heck...cinemas, supermarkets, to get in your car (Which Gordon Brown is proposing) and in the end, to leave your house.

Yeah hold on, they told you were under attack from terrorists.

"Other measures agreed include a commitment to stamping out radicalism by stricter policing of the internet, replacing extremism with a "European" model of Islam, a 250 million research project into liquid explosives and a meeting of security services across Europe this month"

This has all the hallmarks of a grand mess in the making as it kind of implies that Islam, if left to it's own devices in Europe will inevitably collapse into extremism. It tends to suggest that Islamic identity is pretty much represented by US propaganda assets like Osama Bin Laden, and the many times killed Al-Zarqawi which, when you think about it, is much like saying European Jewry is tied into veneration of Richard Perle or William Kristol, or like saying George Bush is representative of Christian identity.

Nonetheless, one could only imagine the outrage if the state tried to impose a 'European permitted version' of Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. This should perhaps serve as a reminder to people who, in their desperation at the current global calamity, mistakenly turn to the idea that a tyrannical EU of half-baked federal social fascism should be some sort of 'good cop' counterbalance to the US.

I've said before: if you take the war on terror at face value, then the terrorists have won and you have lost. And your loss is a terrible one; an infinite and ongoing haemorrhage of your very humanity under grotesques like Blair, Brown and Reid, the collapse of society into an appalling political and technological police-state, the end of the rule of law, and inevitably, the total disintegration of the state itself into pockets of anarchy and civil war, that is, if the state can't maintain sufficient order with politically engineered 'terror busts' or if things get bad enough for it: it's very own Tiananmen Squares (hint: look out for this in Parliament Square soon perhaps in protest to a nuclear attack on Iran, hint2: "the rights of the massacred protesters had to be balanced with the rights of the tanks")

In a twisted way, people like Blair, Reid and Brown are right when they say the world has changed, as it is they themselves who are making the changes and it should be an enormous warning sign that this 'plot', before it has even been established, has been jumped on immediately to ram through radical politically unpalatable policies.

It is simply impossible to maintain that terrorists either homegrown or in a cave are making this nightmare happen and it is time to take a stand and say, enough is enough.

Judge Rules NSA Eavesdropping Program Unconstitutional

DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly taping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Another ex-CIA official joins 9/11 truth chorus

Via 911blogger, refering to an article by former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis Bill Christison:

"It is a charge that we should not sweep under the rug because what is happening in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and Iran seems more pressing and overwhelming.

It is a charge that is more important because it is related to all of the areas just mentioned -- after all, the events of 9/11 have been used by the administration to justify every single aspect of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since September 11.

It is a charge that is more important also because it affects the very core of our entire political system. If proven, it is a conspiracy, so far successful, not only against the people of the United States, but against the entire world"

Monday, August 14, 2006

Bush 'helped Israeli attack on Lebanon'

Guardian: The US government was closely involved in planning the Israeli campaign in Lebanon, even before Hizbullah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross border raids in July. American and Israeli officials met in the spring, discussing plans on how to tackle Hizbullah, according to a report published yesterday.

The veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh writes in the current issue of the New Yorker magazine that Israeli government officials travelled to the US in May to share plans for attacking Hizbullah.

Quoting a US government consultant, Hersh said: "Earlier this summer ... several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, 'to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear'."

The Israeli action, current and former government officials told Hersh, chimed with the Bush administration's desire to reduce the threat of possible Hizbullah retaliation against Israel should the US launch a military strike against Iran.

"A successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign ... could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations," sources told Hersh.

Yesterday Mr Hersh told CNN: "July was a pretext for a major offensive that had been in the works for a long time. Israel's attack was going to be a model for the attack they really want to do. They really want to go after Iran."

An unnamed Pentagon consultant told Hersh: "It was our intention to have Hizbullah diminished and now we have someone else doing it."

Friday, August 11, 2006

Gordon Brown uses 'plot' to further aims

Guardian: "The Bank of England named and froze the assets of 19 of the 24 air terror suspects today. Acting under the instruction of the chancellor, Gordon Brown, and on the advice of the police and security services, the bank froze the assets of 19 of those arrested yesterday in connection with an alleged plot to blow up passenger jets..."

You have to ask, who exactly is Gordon Brown to be freezing assets ? Gordon Brown is a politician ravenous for power he ill-believes is owed him based on a deal in 1994. And naturally that is exactly why he has ensured his name is tacked onto this exhibition to impress War on Terror propagandist Rupert Murdoch and friends as he now feverishly reaches for position.

And this is nothing new, Brown has been making speeches about the role of the Treasury in 'security 'matters for some time to 'track terrorist finance' as he desperately wants some of the gloss and drama of the Clash of Civilizations to rub off on him.

Of course, correspondingly it is vital to put Labour's own money trail firmly under the spotlight, ensuring that cash-for-coups from Blair's 'brother' Levy and a collection of corrupt businessmen buying peerages for secret loans is not allowed to inflict anymore catastrophe on this country or others, and that potential investors in the Blair/Brown Labour nightmare are firmly warded off.

Recent revelations in the Telegraph that Brown is a devotee of neoconservatism (perhaps better described in the US as Jacobinism), particuarly the works of 'Gertrude Himmelfarb, the wife of the godfather of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol' (and mother to PNAC William) should come as little surprise, and accordingly he plans to "reconfigure the United Kingdom, harnessing the power of the state".

As such, Brown has been readily adopting the politics of fear and security to manufacture his mandate for power, and to lay the groundwork for inflicting an unsellable set of his personal ruinous policies.

Terror plot may aid Rep' Political Strategy


"The unraveling of a terrorist plot in London may bolster the Republican political strategy of presenting their party as best equipped to confront a dangerous world if the issue persists for the next three months.

The arrests of 24 suspected terrorists in London are "a stark reminder that this is a nation at war," President George W. Bush said yesterday in Green Bay, Wisconsin, where a planned talk about the economy was overtaken by the incident.

Bush's biggest political liabilities are Iraq and rising gasoline prices, and public dissatisfaction with the president is threatening to drag down his Republican Party in the November congressional elections, polls show. The Republican political strategy has been to link the Iraq war with the battle against terrorism and to portray Democrats as weak on both counts.

The foiled British plot may help Republicans, said Joe Gaylord, former executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

National security "is our one remaining strength," Gaylord said. "Every time you have one of these incidents it forces back up into everyone's minds everything from 9/11"

James Lucier, senior political analyst at Prudential Equity Group in Washington, said the effects may not last until voters go to the polls on Nov. 7.

"Is this particular incident going to help Republicans for more than a couple of days?" Lucier asked. "Perhaps not"

The announcement of the U.K. arrests came a day after White House and Republican officials undertook a coordinated effort to portray Democrats as being weak on national security following the defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman in a Democratic primary in Connecticut. Among congressional Democrats, Lieberman has been the most vocal defender of the war in Iraq and its link to the battle against terrorism.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that Bush and other U.S. officials had been extensively briefed on the U.K. terrorism investigation since at least the weekend. He denied that the remarks about the Connecticut primary were made with the pending British announcement in mind"

Thursday, August 10, 2006

New Labour New Airport PR stunt

It should be a cause for concern that only hours before the latest greatest 'foiled terror plot' (a dusted-off rehash of Operation Bojinka), Home Secretary John Reid was proclaiming in another speech to Labour think-tank Demos, that traditional liberty was old fashioned and had to make way for whatever fanatical social realignment Gordon Brown and Blair desired.

To add a dash of New Labour-flavoured pretext to this dangerous nonsense, was the statement that another terrorist plot was effectively imminent:

"The hyperactive home secretary - who will mark 100 days in the job this Friday - confirmed that a terrorist attack on the UK was "highly likely", as signalled by the current "severe" warning on official government websites" Guardian

Could it be that former-communist Reid, one of Blair's favourite multi-purpose attack dogs, reshuffled into position as Home Secretary, swapping out former-communist Clarke after Labour's rightly disastrous May council elections, was not clairvoyant put merely refering to the political/security timetable, arranging his speech (or adjusting the content of it) just pre-arrests and resulting kerfuffle at airports accordingly to an operation he knew was imminent ?

As Home Secretary, it seems difficult to imagine that Reid would not have been aware of what was behind the 'severe' warning (which had been fed out into the press in recent days).

Today "..Reid, said such an attack could have caused civilian casualties on an "unprecedented scale".

Indeed, but it seems it was quite under control:

"A decision was made to move suddenly following months of surveillance [...] There were no firm indications of plans for an attack to have been carried out today, but the US homeland security secretary, Michael Chertoff, said it was a "well advanced" scheme. He said the plot was based in Britain but was "international in scope".

So let's get this straight. A well advanced 'plot' which had been under surveillence for months, and which there are no firm indications it was being enacted today, is rounded up the day after Reid's speech telling people to give up their liberty because another terrorist event was imminent.

"The decision to take action was made with the "full knowledge" of Tony Blair, the prime minister, who is abroad on holiday but has been in constant contact with ministers about the unfolding events and spoke to president Bush overnight about the situation"

As such, the event has been spectacularly successful in wiping Israel's now escalating ground invasion of Lebanon, rubber-stamped by a vacationing Blair, off the front pages.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The Gordon Brown problem

Ruthlessly engineered on top of a mountain of lies so Blair, supported by his 'cabal of ministers', could superglue himself onto the barbarous plans of the US neocons, the war in Iraq is an ongoing bloody catastrophe which should never have happened.

Growing critique over 9/11 means grave questions must be asked about Afghanistan too, while today, the carnage in Lebanon, speculated to be laying the groundwork for a forthcoming attack on Iran and rubber-stamped by Blair who now rewards himself with a holiday in Cliff Richard's villa, has appalled the world.

At home the situation is a dire miserable reflection of, and artifical justification for, the UK's Bush-friendly degenerate foreign policy. Society is being viciously liquidated into a fetid mush under a self-declared pronunciamento of 'global values' by a sub-Nixon-rated Prime Minister. Senior judges, lawyers and other professionals regularly protest the rule of law being melted down in a political furnace of half-baked social tyranny, which for New Labour can be explained by their 'sinister Leninist political DNA' as described by former Telegraph editor and Margaret Thatcher biographer, Charles Moore.

Consequently, after Labour's disastrous 2006 council election results, Labour MPs quickly circulated a letter appropriately demanding Blair's departure but it was initiated by a former Brown aide, and calamitously, called for the dreaded 'orderly transition of power'; aka the cultish mantra of the moronic, which now represents a new self-inflicted albatross for Labour, being as it is, code for replacing one problem with another even more perverse.

In the Observer on Sunday, as if already installed, or ascended like Kim Jong Il as leader, Gordon Brown proclaimed his plans not to scrap the horrendous human ID slave grid system as had previously been mendaciously and repeatedly nudged into the press that he would, something frequently referred to by MPs, where it was a common talking point, but to actually extend it into even more of a humanity-stripping abomination.

One might think this no real surprise after Brown's outrageous gut-wrenching speech pre the ID cards vote earlier this year, effectively sponsored by the biometrics industry, which Blair purportedly was unable to attend.

But based on the stories widely circulated and never directly contradicted by Brown, there remained a good possibility that this was a favour to an absent Blair, and that Brown would nonetheless still deep-six the 5-times rejected monstrosity when coronated, especially as every other party will correctly be fighting the next election on abolishing it.

Another signal to this effect was in May, when a hungry-for-power Brown, cashing in on Labour's rightly terrible local election results, jumped at every TV opportunity to promote himself as their saviour, including a softball (bordering on liquidball) interview with the BBC's Andrew Marr, where he seemed to implicitly criticise the dire status quo by talking about 'security without an assault on civil liberties'.

Of course, this had to be more stupid nonsense spewed from Brown as every Orwellian police state diktat gratuitously and fanatically spawned by the tinpot regime and foisted onto a society drowning in them, including 28 day internment and the ludicrous 'glorification of terror' has Brown's sweaty paws all over them, which, if he becomes leader, he fully intends to wield alongside his gruesome state programme of flag-waving to support New Labour's wars, panopticon and plebification strategies.

But there is something of a pattern here. In an article for the Guardian last year, former Conservative leader Ian Duncan Smith surmised that:

"Brown and Blair are not honest alternatives. Their personal relations may have been difficult, but for eight years they have cohabited in every major decision. The anti-war left is encouraged to vote for Brown as if he had nothing to do with the overthrow of Saddam. He may have absented himself from the pre-war PR campaign, but as chancellor he found the money to pay for Britain's contribution"

On Iraq, Gordon Brown himself had this to say:

"This was the most difficult decision a Cabinet can make but the decision was made in an honest, principled and clear way with the evidence before them," said Mr Brown, who has been campaigning alongside Mr Blair. When asked if he would have done exactly the same, he said simply: "Yes". "I not only trust Tony Blair but I respect Tony Blair for the way he went about that decision"

And when you think about, it is often reported that "Brown makes 'phone calls to trusted editors saying he's in favour of New Labour reforms", while in April Brown, who is already the longest serving chancellor for 177 years while he waits to cash in his Granita deal, presumptuously proclaimed his intention to "stay in power until he is 70 [and] has insisted he is planning for the next 15 years, including two election victories.", which translates to a quarter of a century of misery under Brown.

Brown's image has been one of a rancorous political prostitute, obsessed with keeping quiet on monstrous policies so as not to upset the delicate apple-cart which promises the power he believes is owed him from the infamous Blair-Brown pact hatched in 1994. Obviously this private arrangement itself should be cause for considerable concern as Brown now reaches for power.

As a result of the deal, Brown has been dangled as a dull somber bauble to the left; it's reward for years of Blair, that along the way might even be tempering the more radical ideologies of his pact-partner. But this analysis, which I myself have been misled by, is just plain wrong, and while Brown has tolerated, even cultivated, a stuffy boring depiction based on his long, waffling dreary speeches, it belies the vain, ambitious and grotesque ideologue that he now increasingly has trouble keeping under wraps.

Brown has demonstrated that, far from being at odds with Blair on all the major choices that are causing carnage across the world and devastating the United Kingdom he has actually been either participating in them, or in full support of them, while simultaneously, and disingenuously, trying to distance himself from them at times of his choosing, so the flak may be absorbed by Blair.

Indeed, as Brown represents not so much a smooth transition, but a smooth escalation of every horrendous crippling policy seen under Blair and the monumental problems they are inflicting, it is all the more alarming that quite a number of Labour MPs furious at the shattering devastation Blair continues to piss all over them, stupidly dangerously believe their fortunes, and those of the country rest with Brown shoehorned into position so that he may pick up where his Granita co-conspirator left off.

Clearly, this is a scandal. As Blair's continued rotting reign is fittingly a terrible indictment of the Labour party and indelible stain on them, the crushing prospect of an indistinguishably malignant Brown, coronated to power under a blind cultish following agitated by his own allies and former aides, so he can preside over wars he thoroughly supports, even initiating new ones while declaring people wave flags as they get their retina scanned is simply obscene and must be met with zero-tolerance.

Lieberman beaten in Conn. Primary

AP/ABC: "HARTFORD, Conn. Aug 8, 2006 (AP) — Sen. Joe Lieberman, crippled by his support for the Iraq war, lost the Democratic nomination for a fourth term Tuesday to a political newcomer who portrayed him as an apologist for the Bush administration. Lieberman vowed to run as an independent in November. His loss to Ned Lamont just six years after his party made him its vice presidential candidate made him only the fourth incumbent senator to lose a primary since 1980"

Monday, August 07, 2006


Tony Blair described the Israel/Lebanon conflict as a 'tragic crisis', so why indeed has Blair's position been at odds with the immediate crisis? Blair's position while hundreds are being killed is that he is calling for a lasting ceasefire, when a long-term solution isn't what is immediately required to address the immediate crisis.

Of course, this is hardly rocket science, Blair's rationale is like saying "we'll send food to the starving only when people understand the dangers of over-eating", and naturally Blair has effectively greenlighted weeks of ongoing carnage while proclaiming a search for an inappropriate solution.

But as I've said recently, there's nothing unusual about this at all. It is fully consistent across the board with the kind of upside-down, twisted anti-morality that Blair and New Labour have become known for.

As Labour's time in office has dragged on, policies have become more radical, depraved and seperated from reality. Blair, with the approval of Brown, knowingly led Britain into a disastrous conflict in Iraq on utterly false and misleading intelligence molded around the shape of a policy already decided on, and long coveted, by neoconservatives in the US. Iraq is a now an ongoing bloodbath and officials in the US and UK both agree on the road to full-scale civil war and ethnic balkanization.

From internment, to local goverment stealing homes that are thought to be unoccupied, to a radical human ID slave grid that will rewrite society and reconfigure people's very existence as never before seen in human history, things have continued to get worse and worse.

Attacks on the rule of law in the UK have been so great that last year, it prompted a "powerful coalition of judges, senior lawyers and politicians to warn that "the Government is undermining freedoms citizens have taken for granted for centuries and that Britain risks drifting towards a police state. One of the country's most eminent judges has said that undermining the independence of the courts has frightening parallels with Nazi Germany" 1

But this is now commonplace, with warnings often coming from the judicary and other experts and professionals that things are not well and this path needs to stop.

In the Guardian last week Neil Lawson, argued that Blair is a kind of enforcer for Neo-liberalism (aggressive forced markets, privatisation, IMF, worldbank, globalisation etc that tends to favour the Western powers, broadly something Thatcher was associated with), and there's certainly a truth there.

However it's worth remembering that for Blair, a backdrop of neo-liberalism has been accompanied by an endless fountain of radical 'reforms', swathes of legislation and regulation including on finance, unprecedented attacks on the liberty of the individual and the rule of law, on historic constitutional law and expectations, a vast infliction of social engineering through technology and legislation and an active pursuit of, and participation in, a disastrous series of fraudulently engineered international conflicts ultimately contributed to by large and ongoing increases in taxation (by stealth, to give a hazy impression to the middle classes that taxation isn't going up). The premise offered by Blair of course to many of these policies is that they are not national, but 'global issues' and 'global values'.

A US/UK neo-liberal backdrop alone, cannot alone explain a great many of these policies. Blair has declared a (his) political/social will on top of out-of-control forced globalisation, indeed where he sees no seperation between the two and declared that mix the theme of the age that nothing must be allowed to challenge. But we must not forget these are all choices.

And the manifestion and effects of these choices are also interesting. For instance, we hear a great deal about immigration, which as Robert Rawthorn writing in the Telegraph reported is being deployed on an unprecedented scale, and yet which "all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative".

One statistic we don't hear a lot about is emigration, where the BBC reported that record numbers of people are leaving the UK, and for those who want to leave in the near future, 12% say 'They didn't like what the UK had become". You can hardly blame them.

Meanwhile Blair himself, always seems to be struggling with his arguments, as if he is in constant battle with some hidden invisible enemy that is resisting his will, which is curious as his entire programme has often been allowed to go effectively unchallenged by his own party (or other parties).

Perhaps one reason this has been so is because something of a personality cult surrounding Blair and you may recall Tessa Jowell famously saying she would "jump under a bus for the Tony Blair" 2 If that is not a personality cult then I don't know what is.

But that is not the full story as we know. Last week in the Guardian, Michael Meacher said:

"When Tony Blair abruptly overturns his own 2003 energy white paper and announces that Britain will go nuclear "with a vengeance", even before the energy review he himself set up has reported, is policy-making now a matter of personal diktat? [...]

Power is now more centralised in Britain than at any time since the second world war. Within Whitehall power has been sucked upwards to No 10, and at the same time it has drained away from the cabinet, the parliamentary Labour party and the national executive and funnelled towards more presidential rule from the centre [...] The division of powers, on which the unwritten constitution of Britain has depended for centuries, is being eroded. The checks and balances have all but collapsed."

Others have said the same, "..in Tony Blair's government...decision-making is centered around him and Gordon Brown, and the Cabinet is no longer used for decision making. Former ministers such as Clare Short and Chris Smith have criticised the total lack of decision-making in Cabinet. On her resignation, Short denounced "the centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers". The Butler Review of 2004 condemned Blair's style of "sofa government" 3

This seems to indicate that there is an intensity of policy that can't be deployed otherwise, that a backdrop of neo-liberalism alone is insufficent to cultivate. Policies, the like of which as Labour's John McDonnel observed, are "handed on down from on high that bear no relation [...] to the real world".

And if they bear no relation to the real world then it suggests they have no place in the real world.

Consequently, Blair's appropriately dreadful approval ratings 4 speak of a serious problem: A fundemental psychosis in Blair's (and Brown's) behaviour about what people are prepared to tolerate and how much war, degredation, state interference, dehumanization and misery, along with a declared urgent geo-political/social fiction to deploy them will be put up with. The public, and the good people of Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel as well as British soldiers snatched of their lives and limbs have all been victims of a grand utopian hallucination of 'global values' only Blair can see, and which is routienly killing, maiming and enslaving everyone else.

On domestic issues, there is a deliberate miscalculation that the UK is a radical country, and that Blair has been bestowed to deploy vicious radical policies, despite the fact as concluded from the last general election 5 he simply has no mandate to perform them.

Furthermore we don't have elections in the UK to nominate a dictator to be grandstanding about 'global values', but about the political future of the country itself, reflecting the long established national values. And sadly, the values of the UK, dramatically mishapen by the government are now considerably different than they were in 1997, a point reflected in the BBC poll on emigration.

Similarly, there is a miscalculation that a highly controversial 'War on Terror', heavily propangandized by Blair's good friend Rupert Murdoch can be relied upon as a motor across the board of government to inflict an intensity of policy otherwise politically impossible or at least extremely difficult. The human ID slave grid comes to mind here, as does basically every policy post 9/11, which is an absolutely pivotal juncture for Blair as he frequently states.

Yet astonishingly, Blair himself says he 'worries he hasn't been radical enough', which underlines a staggering and unreconcilable chasm between his position and that of the rest of reality, including many in his own party and in even in his handpicked cabinet of Blairite loyalists, which as Clare Short said do not actually contribute to decision making anyway.

Blair's distorted position on a host of domestic issues as well as on issues like Iraq is also unquestionably severely damaging and undermining the Labour party (as reflected in crushing results in the council elections) as well as the country, indeed it is having a catastrophic effect as Labour MP Frank Dobson writes:

"[Party] membership has collapsed, with fewer than half the members we had in 1997 - and few of those remaining are active at election time, let alone between elections. We now have debts of more than £20m. The row about loans and peerages has put off potential large donors" (I would say that is a very good thing, potential large donors should be put off the Labour party)

Labour's continued poor poll ratings are an appropriate response to the proclamation of perpetual war and enslaving people under a centralised edict of terrifying subjugation for some horrific private vision. Blair, and increasingly Gordon Brown are correctly identified as the main protagonists of this agenda.

Indeed policy upon policy for the Blair regime has been a disaster, again Labour's Frank Dobson could only really be enthusiastic about a largely symbolic minimum wage and a complex series of tax credits, everything else effectively being a catastrophe:

"Some legacy! A legacy is supposed to involve handing down something valuable. A legacy also often gives the recipients a freedom of action previously denied them. But the way things have been going recently, the prime minister's legacy looks likely to fail on both counts, with him handing over more liabilities than assets and restricting the actions of his successors. A new New Labour concept - the negative legacy"

But again, this is nothing new. Blair had become such a burden upon the Labour party that in the last general election Labour MP's openly declared him as a 'liability', and Labour even encouraged MPs to keep him out of their campaign literature as it would loose them votes.

Blair is repeatedly doing things that are damaging the country and the world and at an exponential rate and that he has no mandate to do. To do them Blair has centered power around himself, Brown and a few advisors loyal to one or the other, bypassing the commons and even the cabinet which is essentially peripheral, meanwhile corrupting the Lords by flooding it with cronies and degenerate businesmen, some apparently willing to provide secret cash described as loans in exchange.

He has declared a 'world changed' (inspired by the US -which is kind of Philip Zelikow's 1998 essay in Foreign Affairs written to be the template post (a) 9/11) to inflict unimaginable policies, and an outrageous and dangerous level of dialogue otherwise simply not sustainable.

Professional and stark criticism of horrific and destructive policies is routinely ignored. And indeed it is worth noting that a stream of whitewashes that garner no public confidence are periodically required to mop up afterwards and absolve Blair and his cadre of wrongdoing.

Far less importantly, but significantly Blair (and Brown) are doing irreversible damage to the Labour party, which is well deserved, as this point is well known within the Labour party and very openly discussed, yet Blair (and the threat of his successor Brown being coronated in on the back of a private arrangement) continues to be tolerated despite the enormous injury being inflicted on the UK because of it.

In Blair's recent speech to Murdoch executives, he said 'tribal politics had come to and end', yet tribal politics (of the Labour party) can be the only explanation as to what has kept him in position and allowed this misery to rot on, presumbably as the short term embarassing kerfuffle of getting rid of him may give some advantage to the other parties as well as asking questions about why it wasn't done sooner. It would also force the Labour party to acknowledge there was a really serious problem.

But there is a really serious problem and the Labour party are frequently talking about it, so all this is of course, a terrible reflection on, and indictment of, the Labour party itself, who would rather tolerate a rotting, out-of-control and sociopathic dictator (with another being prepared on the conveyor belt in the form of Gordon Brown) who they have no sway over, who has approval ratings 5, lower than US President Richard Nixon's during Watergate 6, and is not only damaging them greatly, but catastrophically mutiliating the country itself.

It seems, effectively, we don't have a legitimate government anymore and that is now something people should constantly be aware of, instead a revolutionary coup faction manufacturing a means to deploy horrific policies under the pretext of 'global values' is decimating far more important national values and has installed itself in the UK in the form of Blair/Brown/Levy/Falconer and various advisers.

One way or another this constitutional crisis has to be dealt with.

Biometric passports cracked


"Hi-tech biometric passports used by Britain and other countries have been hacked by a computer expert, throwing into doubt fundamental parts of the UK's £415m scheme to load passports with information such as fingerprints, facial scans and iris patterns.

Speaking at the Defcon security conference in Las Vegas, Lukas Grunwald, a consultant with a German security company, said he had discovered a method for cloning the information stored in the new passports. Data can be transferred onto blank chips, which could then be implanted in fake passports, a flaw which he said undermined the project"

This is a feature not a flaw and I'm not being sarcastic. This has been designed in from the world go.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Gordon Brown to expand human ID slave grid


"Gordon Brown is planning a massive expansion of the ID cards project that would widen surveillance of everyday life by allowing high-street businesses to share confidential information with police databases.

Far from intending to dump ID cards once he is in Downing Street, Brown is quietly studying how biometric technology - identifying people by unique markers such as fingerprints and iris patterns - could be expanded over the next 20 years to fight crime.

Police could be alerted instantly when a wanted person used a cash machine or supermarket loyalty card. Cars could be fingerprint-activated, making driving bans much harder to disobey.

The plan would make the ID cards scheme cheaper, since companies would pay for access to the national identity register - a government database of biometric information being compiled for the ID cards programme. Brown's plans belie reports that the Treasury, concerned about the cost of ID cards, would ditch them when he became Prime Minister. 'It's almost the opposite - Gordon's thinking about ID cards is that it's part of the answer but there's a much wider picture,' said a source close to him..."

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Thousands to march in support of immediate ceasefire


'The largest peace march since before the Iraq invasion is expected to descend upon Downing Street today demanding that Tony Blair calls for an unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East.

In a powerful demonstration of the groundswell of opinion across Britain, as many as 100,000 people are predicted to take to the streets around Parliament Square.

As Mr Blair was this week forced to concede that even members of his cabinet had "doubts" over his handling of the situation, protesters will deliver children's shoes to his London home to represent those whose lives have been lost in the 24-day conflict.

A letter bearing 40,000 signatures will also be handed in, calling on Mr Blair to work towards ending the "bloodshed and destruction unfolding daily"...'