Here we go again: Brown's rampage of terror

I wasn't too sure what to write about over the last few days re: the glorious, and long-planned smooth transition of power, especially considering how much we have written about it already, suffice to say I had watched or read virtually none of the coverage of that in case I threw up.

In a Q&A article in the Independent this week, the grotesque Gordon Brown wallowing in his own installment was asked by a reader, what is worse 'Jihadi terrorists or global warming' ?

Brown (effectively): "We can have both"

Indeed, and so now we have the latest terrorist plot just after Brown is installed, which I am going to say, that I came very close here over the last week to writing as a prediction, very very close indeed. Such an event would have the effect of bolstering Brown's ridiculous position early on and laying the groundwork for yet more terror laws, and more intensity of policy across the board, which is exactly what he has been aiming for.

Of course, it also gets recent British losses in Iraq, headlines of which were squarely aimed at the remote loathsome Gordon who helped put them there, off the front pages. And as Kurt Nimmo notes, the Neoconservative press in the US were quick to point the finger at 'Al Qaeda', hey wait a minute, didn't they do the same within minutes of attacks on 9/11 ? Uh...

Now I was reminded today at WHR, that Brown in April, was presumably trying to assist his political future by flattering the "Labour Friends of Israel", perhaps with a view to yet more skewing British foreign policy at any cost, which according to former Panaroma and ITN correspondent Alan Hart in a lecture last year had already been 'Zionised' under Blair and Levy.

Oh no no, it's all "Islamofascism" or "Islamic Extremism" you see, I forgot, presumably the policy Brown is following is the same one described by Blair in an interview with Haaretz last year (read it all, it is quite staggering), Blair's views surmised by Haaretz as: "Western leaders are increasingly aware of the global nature of the struggle against Islamic extremism led by Iran, but within Western public opinion "there is a big battle to be won"

And that may well be what Gordon Brown's pursuit is now; winning hearts and minds for the next war, of which he said in the Independent there is 'no plan for'.

Of course, where the terrorism is not sanctioned, assisted or deliberately overcooked and overspun by ourselves (???), then it would be just unthinkable to consider that our terrible stupid murderous actions in the Middle East are something to do with it, whether it is Iraq, or in particular re the UK's destructive support for Israel's more deplorable policies.

In any event, back home, Brown's supporters at Trinity Mirror and foaming detached crackpots like Polly Toynbee in the Guardian should now be happy as Brown has been given his 'mandate to govern' through this new terror plot. Indeed there do seem to be two factions at work in British life, one is trying to repair the shredded vestiges of society, the rule of law and due process, and the other is actively continuing to destroy it.

And Brown's new cabinet perhaps constructed to pursue that very goal, is presumably little more than a dungeon of the foul creature's personal Brownite worshipers all ready to vote along with their backbench colleagues for absolutely anything all over again under the 'Ruthless Stalinist's' decade and a half plan of ruin.

The despicable wretch Hoon is resurrected as Chief Whip, Straw becomes Lord Chancellor, while self-described 'socialist' Miliband, installed as Brown's Foreign Office Commissar, said on his appointment to pledge "diplomacy that is patient as well as purposeful, which listens as well as leads".¹

Nice to see that New Labour under Brown have made sound bytes a thing of the past then.

One site also notes Brown "has appointed Israel apologists to key positions in his Cabinet, with arch-Zionist James Purnell heading the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has oversight responsibilities for the British media, including the BBC, and Douglas Alexander, a recipient of Labour Friends of Israel hospitality, taking over the Department for International Development.

In addition, Gordon Brown has appointed Simon McDonald, a former British ambassador to Israel and a man described by Israeli officials as "a true friend to Israel", as his chief foreign policy adviser"

The Labour Party truly, have learnt nothing from the last ten malignant years, establishing yet again, that it was never merely Brown and Blair that were the problem. Apart from their biggest supporters in the media, perhaps led by Rupert Murdoch and his gang of financial supporters, as well as the BBC and (now-) Trinity Mirror, it was the Labour party itself that gleefully accepted the grotesque private power-sharing deal with Brown and Blair warts and all, alongside the machinations of sinister and slithering Mr Fixits like Peter Mandelson and followed by a near-consistent agreement to a catastrophic set of policies in exchange for not being out of power.

No doubt, we shall see soon how crushing new laws and initiatives are introduced by the vane, egotistical war-stained ghoul and liberticidal fanatic Brown to clear up that annoying relic of the Middle Classes once and for all, that is if he can manage to pry himself away from tying the shattered UK into more disastrous foreign policy.

Gordon Brown terrorism London car bombs

EU: 'a monster that must be destroyed'

A couple of days ago via Kurt Nimmo:

"It takes a victim of sovietism to recognize a likewise process in Europe. “Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union,” writes Paul Belien for the Brussels Journal. “In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr. Bukovsky called the EU a ‘monster’ that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.”

“In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified and still are even now, for 30 years,” Bukovksy declared in a speech delivered at a Polish restaurant opposite the European Parliament. “These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our ‘common European home.’”

Bukovsky fingers the usual globalist suspects:

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr. President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen—probably within 15 years—but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

For Bukovsky, the European Parliament resembles “the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo…. If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union.”

The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up."

Continued...


EU European Union

Global warming: Freedom, not climate, is at risk

Via our friends at Irdial, and originally from the FT from same days ago, very interesting article about Global Warming :

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning"

Well worth a read.

global warming

Legacy of a monster and the Churchill hoax

It's perturbing to see this '24 hour global media' that Blair always justified his murderous personal spin machine with, now seek to construct a deliberate concoction of putrid lies to pour highly inappropriate reverence on perhaps the world's most putrid liar.

You don't really know where to start it's all so ridiculous, but let's just look at the BBC, who are today speculating about what Blair is going to do next. In the article, and consistent with our ongoing thesis here, former Tory cabinet minister Ken Clarke is reported as saying, "I think [Blair's next job] will be trying to govern the world and advise all the other political leaders how to run things"

And then there is:

"According to one of Blair's closest advisers: "Tony is obsessed with the idea of becoming a roving envoy who would seek to reconcile the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam"

More and more Blair's next job is becoming a terrifying check list of the New World Order; with Blair the head of the world government and trying to institute a one world religion.

Let's hope and pray that the world can put a stop to Mr. Blair once and for all.

Additionally, in this piece by Michael Cockerell, the BBC is trying to surreptitiously imply this new notion that well yes, we had this kind of a spat between this 'media' chattering class at the BBC over Iraq, but that isn't representative and Mr. Blair's place in history is somehow different to all that. And in doing so, they have dug up, incredibly, the Churchill hoax again, as if re-projecting this hopeless old piece of war-spin one more time, which didn't work when it was tried previously, will suddenly, magically rehabilitate all of Blair's atrocities, and the UK's insane support of this mess.

Now this page even has a link to a slightly older article where they somehow, out of millions of people in this country, managed to find three essentially pro-Blair perspectives to summarize for the plebling minds how they need to be thinking about their outgoing prime minister.

While ignoring virtually all of Blair's horrendous crimes against his own country, these 'experts' as the BBC describe them then proceed to cherry-pick their favorite worthless policies like the minimum wage and feebly criticize others to give a veneer of some kind of meaningful commentary and evaluation.

But it couldn't be more meaningless, and the article is replete with ridiculous passages like "Under the sincere impression that Saddam Hussein of Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - a view shared by the intelligence services of every major country in the world, (as well as by the United Nations' own weapons inspectors - he appreciated the importance of overthrowing the Baathist regime as soon as the Taleban regime was deposed in Afghanistan"

It makes you wonder, as back in the real world, outside of the fluffy unbiased Beeb; stuck in its awe of government, the state, 'multiculturalism' and its own Vicar of Dibley, there is now a red line of rational debate on this for everyone else as the evidence has amassed so fully to the contrary as to render this kind of hopeless bullshit not even worth the briefest of reflection anymore.

Look, on Afghanistan: I'm no fan of the Taliban, but the world's most advanced and powerful nation under the grip of murderous re-branded Trotskyites, with Mr. Blair desperately trying to attach himself to them, dropping bombs on one of the worlds poorest and most backward nations, then rewarding yourself with 'War on Terror' medals can hardly be re-spun as some kind of heroic accomplishment for mankind.

The funny thing is the Churchill Hoax (or rather the Churchill Deliberate Stumbling Block) in particular, that appeared immediately after Blair's speech on 9/11, was not coming from the shocked public who this latest digest of slops from the BBC is now aimed at as a final outrageous attempt to sell this sicko.

As I recall it was firmly coming from pundits at places like the BBC and Neoconservative opinionists in the global media, hungry to sell this war to the UK and cheered on by various well meaning, but gullible conservative elements who hadn't understood then what Neoconservatism was on either side of the Atlantic.

And that reminds us about Ian Duncan Smith, who was basically a good decent man, but naive and who took the bait about Bin Laden, the cave and the laptop like a fish on a hook and started croaking out terrible speeches about "terrorists skulking in caves" and so on.

Politically, it would have been difficult for him to do much else to be fair, but that shouldn't have been an excuse, especially in the light of the terrible public report (which a lot of people forgot about when it was later upstaged by the utterly breathtaking collection of hoaxes about Iraq) cooked up by Blair regarding Afghanistan (when the US couldn't do it themselves) but which had no intelligence in it at all, and was highly criticized by those with a clue and some courage at the time who spotted something awry.

But I think it's very telling about the unhealthy, cloistered detachment of the BBC from those forced to pay for its sickly propaganda, when they are trying so hard to resurrect the wrong and monstrous notion of Blair as some kind of wartime hero and make an analogy so ridiculous, so hopelessly wrong and upside down that it beggars belief that one would even try. And because of the timing and intensity of this crap in the article, it is not Afghanistan they are really trying to associate it with now, in presenting this nonsense today as he is about to go, it is as if it is trying to convert all of Blair's terrible crimes in retrospect into 'tough choices' in a righteous war.

Now Blair and the BBC are not the only ones to do this, inspired by Blair and presumably by the Bush criminals and Neoconservative Fifth Columnists in America, many others in the New Labour nightmare are guilty of this too: Gordon Brown with his 'Bletchely Park' garbage and John Reid in various speeches.

And when the entire rational world knows this man Blair is a war criminal and murderer as well as a traitor and monster, it speaks to a failure of the BBC to be able to deal with this topic at all.

And if we are talking about Blair's record on foreign policy, none of the three 'experts' (which include 1) a crackpot war fanatic, 2) Blair's own biographer and 3) a well known war historian who although does criticise Iraq, is only there to add weight to this misleading Churchill analogy) mention Blair's endorsement of the appalling attack on Lebanon endorsed by Blair which sickened the world last year, while ongoing Israel/Palestine catastrophe, supposedly once 'important to Blair' is condensed into a mention about the 'Arab-Israeli' conflict.

Nor do one of these 'experts' mention the crushing domestic police state created under Blair, and a brutal attempt to rewrite society at all, presumably they believe it won't affect them.

Now, I'm no expert on Churchill himself, but that isn't really so important in this context, as it's really all about trying to periodically and deliberately pour new life, legitimacy and gravitas into Britain's soiled role in this disaster, by falsely claiming that there is some sort of analogy between World War II and the 'War on Terror', and this constitutes a staggering failure by the BBC to regurgitate this rubbish.

Blair

BBC: report finds what everybody already knows

Well well well. Look what we have today (now yesterday) in the Daily Mail, but I'm not going to quote from their website on this as the real juicy wording and commentary is in their print edition, of which some parts I will just cite now:

"THE BBC is criticised for its 'Liberal' ('' are mine -j) leanings in an official report published today, leading to claims that the corporation is institutionally biased. BBC executives have been attacked for not reflecting a 'broader range of views; and not thinking outside its Left-leaning comfort zone'.

The report, commissioned by the BBC, also attacks the way the corporation has pandered to politically motivated celebrities such as Bob Geldof (perhaps once a genuine guy, now a figure for 'global poverty' branded internationism? -j) and allowed schedules...(now listen very carefully to this -j)..to be hijacked by special interest groups [...]

As part of the report's investigation, senior figures at the corporation were forced to admit it was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment.

It was also suggested that the BBC is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.

[...] John Whittingdale, Tory chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, added (and again, this is pretty important -j):

"The bias is not necessarily party political - it is the BBC view of the world, and the BBC has always found it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world.

The report, which has been in preparation since 2005, raises concerns that across comedy, drama and entertainment shows, the BBC has allowed itself to be used by some campaign groups. (We talked about this a little while back re: adoption agencies/gay people etc we'll come back to this another time because this is very significant to unravel -j)

[...]The report follows a speech by Paul Dacre, editor-in cheif of Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail, at the beginning of the year about the BBC's failure to reflect the broader views of British people.

What follows is from earlier in the year, which I wasn't aware of at the time, but is very important commentary:

Delivering the Hugh Cudlipp Memorial lecture in January, Mr Dacre said: 'What really disturbs me is that the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small "c" which just happens to be the values held by millions of Britons.

It is hostile to conservatism and the traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euroscepticism, capitalism and big business, the country-side, Christianity and family values.

Conversly, it is sympathetic to Labour, European Federalism, the State and State spending , mass immigration, minority rights, multiculturalism, alternative lifestyles, abortion and progressiveness in the education and justice systems.

During last October's impartiality summit, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a Bible being thrown away but would not do the same for the Koran.

The BBC denied the report found any evidence of institutional bias of evidence of Left-leaning output"

I don't really know what to say at the moment, other than I disagree with the part of the report, which I don't think I quoted here which said BBC news itself isn't biased. I disagree with that, it is. But I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Do comment and be as candid you like.

BBC report

Where can Blair be installed to do the most damage ?

Contrary to what some people may think, no one wants to make horrible predictions that seem to be edging towards the truth, especially in their more terrifying, more outlandish sounding, and more 'conspiracy'-themed moments.

Well, I hate to say I told you so, really I do, but for some time I've been effectively warning about this kind of scenario which is now being presented to the public re: Blair. It was utterly inevitable in my book.

"Tony Blair has been accused of 'knifing' Gordon Brown by holding secret discussions about a job as the first ever President of the European Union. The Prime Minister was entertained in Paris by new French president Nicolas Sarkozy at an upmarket restaurant called Thiou, where they agreed a joint agenda on Europe. French political sources have confirmed that President Sarkozy is keen for Mr Blair to take on a full-time paid role as the 'face' of the EU after he quits Downing Street

[..] Mr Blair's private dinner with Mr Sarkozy and his wife Cecilia at the Thai restaurant on the banks of the Seine has echoes of a previous restaurant encounter where Mr Brown was outmanoeuvred. In 1994, at Granita in Islington, Mr Blair is said to have made a deal to hand over power to Mr Brown during his second term, leading to later accusations of betrayal. The Paris meal, revealed here for the first time, took place on May 11, days after Mr Sarkozy's presidential victory and hours after Mr Blair publicly confirmed his retirement date" ^{(Daily Mail)}

As I've tried to say on my blog, and as far as I am concerned pretty much confirmed by this piece, and other stories from last year, I think it's best not to look at Mr Blair as an individual, but as a conduit or gateway for a set of inherently international interests that, to a greater or lesser extent, perhaps loosely or directly, manifest their will through him, or at least are in full agreement with him.

A lot of people believe, understandably, that Blair is a kind of poodle of Bush and US power, myself I just never quite believed that to be true. I don't believe Blair has any admiration of Bush, has any love or understanding of America at all, other than as, today, a vast military might under a neocon coup that has corrupted the country into destroying Iraq, trying to lay the groundwork to attack Iran, while creating some pretty horrendous dictatorship laws domestically and exporting torture globally.

And certainly, Blair's actions both foreign and domestic simply cannot be fully explained in the normal expectations and flow of British politics.

Instead, I always believed that there was a reward inferred for Blair if he did what he did, and that's what I think you are looking at here, and there is the possibility that Blair has effectively been told he can have a significant chunk of power, in a different future order.

And this would explain why there has been a great difficulty in directly trying to get rid of Blair, because he is essentially being protected and groomed. To put it simply they are not done with Mr Blair yet.

And the plan seems to be to try to fit Blair in where he can do the most damage as an effective President of the World figure. The Carlyle Group, speculated about early on, didn't really cut it properly and Blair has no understanding of business. The UN, which a lot of good people have many reservations and concerns about, is simply not enough under the control of whatever you want to call this trend or axis...indeed the UN has come under enormous criticism (including from Blair) that it simply isn't war-mongering enough and is too sympathetic to Palestinians...or too sympathetic to terrorist states etc, indeed, particularly in the US you may have read some other articles about 'how we need a new UN', 'how it's out of control'...now you understand those kind of articles.

But the EU presidency would be ideal, as apparently this is where a significant chunk of pretty horrific intention congeals itself, and would effectively allow the Blair-gateway to destroy the nations of Europe in a way they haven't been yet.

One would hope it would be fairly obvious that this Sarkozy character is seriously bad news. Sarkozy's endorsement of Blair who has feverishly been destroying his own country as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon should be an enormous warning to the French that they are now in serious trouble with Sarkozy.

And one would also hope this would finally put to rest the idea that the quango of the EU via Sarkozy, seeking to endorse a known war criminal and traitor and destroyer of society, utterly despised by his own UK population, as its new permanent leader, can ever be seen as some sort of world 'good cop'.

EU President Blair Sarkozy

USS Liberty

I wasn't too sure what to talk about today, but you know, something we've never talked about on here, and something, the magnitude of which I only properly became aware of last year (or was it the year before?) through Alex Jones' Terrorstorm video was the attack on the USS Liberty.

Now sure, I had heard of it, heard people talking about it before but, I am ashamed to say, was not properly aware of exactly what it was about and its enormous implications until then. And while it's still not a subject I at all claim to be particularly fluent on, it's a gravely important one which people do need to be aware of.

This year of course has marked the 40th anniversary since the horrific attack on The Liberty and there has been a lot of articles on sites and blogs, and discussion about this on internet radio and so on.

One article in particular from some days ago that many people were linking to was an extremely candid one that refers to this directly by former US Congressman Paul Findley, who wrote the book They Dare to Speak Out. Findley is under no doubt about what happened that day:

"It all started 40 years ago. On June 8, 1967, the U.S. commander in chief, President Lyndon B. Johnson, turned his back on the crew of a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Liberty, despite the fact that the ship was under deadly assault by Israel’s air and sea forces. The Israelis were engaged in an ugly scheme to lure America into their war against Arab states. They tried to destroy the Liberty and its entire crew, then pin the blame on the Arabs. This, they reasoned, would outrage the American people and immediately lead the United States to join Israel’s battle against Arabs. (to effectively create an early version of the 'War on Terror' to quote a recent radio programme I was listening to -j)

The scheme almost worked. It failed because, despite the carefully planned multipronged assault, the Liberty crew managed to broadcast an SOS over a makeshift antenna. When the appeal reached U.S. aircraft carriers nearby, the commanders immediately launched fighter planes to defend the ship. Informed of the launch, President Johnson ordered the rescue planes to turn back immediately.

For the first time in history, forces of the U.S. Navy were denied the right to defend a Navy ship under attack. Johnson said, “I don’t care if the ship sinks, I am not going to embarrass an ally.” Those were his exact words, heard by Navy personnel listening to radio relays.

The ally Johnson refused to embarrass was Israel. When the SOS reached the top military commanders in Israel, they immediately canceled the assault, claiming it was a case of mistaken identity. At the White House, Johnson accepted Israel’s claim, even though he knew it was a lie. Then Johnson magnified the day’s infamy by ordering a coverup of the truth. Liberty survivors were sworn to secrecy. Even those in hospital beds and badly wounded were threatened with court martial if they told anyone what actually happened. The coverup has been continued by every administration since Johnson’s."

Now as you may have been reading, something else has happened recently, a US Navy veteran, and major figure with a special interest in the USS Liberty and as I understand it, a source for a book called Operation Cyanide, as well as a BBC documentary, Richard Thompson was tragically killed in a car accident ¹, leading to some speculation about the exact nature of that considering, again as I understand it, he was about to go forth with some new significant information regarding the Liberty affair.

USS Liberty Richard Thompson Paul Findley US Israel

War criminal Blair's attack on the alternative media.

Let's just quickly look at this: Blair's recent attack effectively on blogs like this. I guess that means we have won the arguments then.

The speech contains the usual obvious soundbytes to set the tone like 'changing context' and '21st century' (see this) and so on.

Although Blair starts with the mainstream media, naturally, none of this is aimed at the BBC, or the Daily Mail, or the 'Independent' (who Blair duplicitously pretends to complain about) all of whom by far on balance, carry out the will of the same consituency Blair represents pretty much most of the time.

The mainstream media is either so utterly impotent or so totally complicit that it poses no threat at all and can usually be relied upon to comformatably blindly report spin from the government as news or fudge the issues of the day into crap like 'Germans put bugs in our wheelie bins'. It can be relied upon to be pro ID-cards (BBC), pro CCTV (BBC), pro European world government (BBC) and so on, pro 'War on Terror' (Telegraph, BBC) etc. It can't quite be too overtly pro- Iraq war these days, although privately, with the exception of ITN and perhaps one or 2 other outlets, the integrity of the MSM's 'anti-warness' has to be questioned.

So this whole stream of waffle by Blair is aimed squarely at the alternative media, and what Blair is trying to do is blame everyone else for the correctly appalled response to his vile crimes, the crimes of his party and supporters and backers.
Blair says:

"The damage saps the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.''

Sure, so you can get a nice compliant green light to drop bombs on Iran ? So you can get guillable British citizens to line up to join the quantized human pleb grid. So no one questions what happens when a 'terrorist event' occurs and all dotingly rally behind the government and start worshipping it again ?

But it is the country, not some nebulous desirable 'relationship between media and public life' that is wholly damaged, and it is Blair and his vile supporters that have willfully and with enormous and giddy glee caused that damage to the country and to its institutions. None of that is an accident, or some misunderstanding, on the contrary it's all quite deliberate.

It's not the alternative media that decided to declare War on Iraq, and it feverishly trying to create a conflict with Iran. It is not the alternative media that is obsessed with enslaving its population into a quantized grid, or uploading medical records and then sharing them council workers, installing CCTV netwoeks in every nook and crannie and putting bugs in wheelie bins, or trying to use the mini world government of the EU to collect people's private internet data. It's not the alternative media that gave a thumbs up to the bombing of Lebanon, or to the torture of people in Uzbekistan.

The alternative media is an appropriate response to that damage that Blair, Brown, Clarke, Reid, Milliband, Falconer, Hoon, Levy, Campbell, Mandelson and many others have caused.

And the only remedy for this terrible damage is in the alternative media, not in the ghoulish grotesque ambition of the stained Gordon Brown ever sweatily fumbling for power and trying to distance himself from the attrocities in Iraq when it is politically expedient to do so, or the outgoing speeches of a vile disgraced sociopath like Blair, or the hopeless projection of worthless ideas from various pro-regime Guardian columnists onto the rotting goverment.

The country is badly badly damaged as I've said here for a long time now, there's no point arguing about it, or denying it. It's just the reality, and a dangerously reality where it is becoming altogether undesirable to live here at all or even be associated with this country.

It is a really serious situation. The rule of law is badly damaged, the meaning of the state is enormously damaged, and the governement is irrepairrably damaged because of its own horrendous actions and it is so seriously compromised as an entity now, that quite honestly it is difficult to see what point there is in contributing to this mess anymore.

It should come as no surprise that such a rotting demonic monster, this conduit of global evil Mr Blair (with the approval of Mr Murdoch and buddies) instead still has the sheer audacity to try to spin it all around and blame everyone else for his own sickening behaviour and crimes against the world and this country. And again this should serve as an another reminder of why Blair is either so corrupted personally by forces acting on him, or who's own judgement is so monstrously flawed and distorted that he is basically incapable of making a judgement at all.

Therefore the only other thing that 'saps the country's confidence and self-belief... and...reduces our capacity to take the right decisions' is the attrocious fact that Blair and his cabinet, and large swathes of his party and financial supporters and supporters in the media have been permitted to carry on as long as they have by everyone else, when they should have been forcibly removed if neccessary long ago.

Tony Blair

The disgraced grotesque monster Gordon Brown: not fit for office

Ok I'm back. Let's talk about a few things briefly, let's start with Gordon Brown from Monday:

I personally find it extraordinary and vile that Gordon Brown is trying to distance himself from the Iraq war. Let's go back in time and see what Brown said about Iraq then: (see also this)

"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"

Ok, and now he is saying this, quoted from commentary in The Spectator:

"The fact that Gordon Brown has asked a civil servant to ensure that in future intelligence reports remain independent from the political process implies that they are not independent now. In other words, they are and have been open to manipulation, exaggeration, overstatement and distortion by the government. Further, Brown’s aspiration that such security analysis should be independent in future and that ‘mistakes were made’ in this context by the government suggests that this — or something like it — is precisely what he accepts happened in the lead-up to the war against Iraq.

The grotesque irony is that in truth, Gordon Brown cares not a hoot about the catastrophy inflicted on Iraq by his party, by himself, by many of his supporters, as well as Blair, Brown cares about power. It's that Brown has no choice politically but to do this at all, to make this ironic, cheap opporunistic shot to distance himself from Iraq which he can only do now while Blair is at his weakest and ready to leave almost immediately. This is another example by Gordon Brown, another warning about the attrocious levels this subhuman ghoul will readily go to.

Let's be serious. If Brown had any sense of integrity, any sense of justice, any sense of humanity at all, he would have said this at the time, or even in a moment of reflection at the horrific thing he had helped commit any time between 2003 and now.

But of course, the deal and the glorious promise of power was too important to Brown.

I've said it before here, and I'll gladly say it again and I'll keep saying it: Gordon Brown is not fit for office.

Gordon Brown New Labour Iraq