The Laukev7 Report

Anthony Beevor's Orwellian Hit Piece on 9/11

2009-01-19T16:50:00.004-05:00

Link to hit piece

As Anthony Beevor says in his hit piece, the threat of totalitarianism comes from within. In fact, it comes from within the government that subverts the democratic and republican institutions of the country in concert with demagogues such as Beevor who use newspapers and television to subvert the truth and propagate their nonsense.

That “over the past dozen or so years, television and movie-makers have managed to blur the border between fact and fiction to an unprecedented degree” is to put it mildly. In fact, this has been ongoing for decades and the government-private monopoly on public influence was only broken in the past dozen or so years. The problem that Beevor and his fellow propagandists have with this is that unlike Hollywood, those newly-empowered film lack the backing and funding of DoD and military-industrial complex-owned corporations like NBC.

According to Anthony Beevor and Damian Thompson, any information that contradicts the government-backed official doctrine is 'counter-knowledge'. This would include 9/11, effectively dismissing the omission of WTC7 from the original 9/11 Commission report as a 'minor discrepancy', as if the collapse of an entire building were just a minor detail.

Beevor pins this phenomenon on the 'dramatic decline of traditional moderate forms of religion', despite the fact that Loose Change was made in the United States, a country where religion is hardly on the decline. The pseudo-psychological notion that conspiracy is a 'belief' used to fill a void is addressed as Myth #12 and others. Aside from that, his statement implies a spiritual 'need' when that same 'Wikipedia age' has led to the unprecedented propagation of atheist ideas and questioning of religion, especially Christian doctrine.

In the next paragraph, Beevor makes the remarkable claim that Russian presenters and their audience debated over a film that they accepted as 'completely true'. Far from being 'historically illiterate', if there is any people who have lived through totalitarianism, it is the Russians, which casts suspicion on the idea that they were suspending their disbelief. After all, their own former president, Vladimir Putin, was involved in an FSB false flag operation prior to his election which started the Second Chechen War.

Beevor claims that 'studies of internet sites' (without naming which sites or studies) reveal an 'unholy alliance between left-wing 9/11 conspiracy theorists, right-wing Holocaust deniers and Islamic fundamentalists'. He supports his theory by linking the 9/11 Truth Movement to 'American creationists' and 'Islamic websites'. Anyone who actually 'studies' internet sites will find out that the 9/11 Truth Movement has a broad base of support which has nothing to do with left or right, which includes hundreds of credible professionals. Examples of professional organisations supporting 9/11 truth include Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars For 9/11 Truth And Justice, as well and dozens of international and local activist organisations, which can be found on 911Blogger.com.

Without a hint of irony, Beevor concludes that the 9/11 Truth Movement could 'become an article of faith tomorrow', unless every citizen and historian 'fight all attempts to exploit the ignorance and gullibility of audiences'. This is exactly what the 9/11 Truth Movement is about, Mr. Beevor, and you and your fellow charlatans will be exposed. Heliocentrism was proven by Galileo after centuries of cover-ups by the Catholic Church, and like Biblical geocentrism, the official 9/11 religion will be exposed as the fraud it is.

Why neither Obama nor Hillary will save you

2008-03-29T22:32:00.006-04:00

Obama is a controlled puppet. So is Hillary.

The corruption in which the Clintons were involved is well documented. This includes a laundry list of political assassinations, including Vincent Foster. They are not strangers to false flag operations; the above link provides extensive documentation on how the Oklahoma City bombing was staged just like 9/11, which explains the confrontations of Hillary's husband with the 9/11 Truthers and his forceful denials.

Bill Clinton attended the well-known elitist Bilderberg group, as admitted by Hillary, although she denied insider reports that she attended in 2006. Bill Clinton is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The CFR acts as a politburo for the Republicrats and pushes for world government and the North American Union, whilst AIPAC keeps US foreign policy favourable to Israel. And although I am not a fan of Chomsky since he dismissed the 9/11 Truth Movement, he documents very well in this article the ideology of the Trilateral Commission. And of course, Clinton voted for both the war in Iraq and the USA PATRIOT Act and voted for its reauthorisation in 2006.

Obama's record, contrarily to the claims of his fawning admirators, is hardly better. Despite his vote against the war in Iraq, Obama is not anti-war. He advocated surgical missile strikes on Iran, as pointed out in the Antiwar article. He advocated invading Pakistan on two occasions -- in 2004, in the event that 'violent Islamic extremists' take over, and recently, to strike Al CIAda on Pakistani territory, in violation of Pakistan's national sovereignty.

Like Clinton, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and panders to AIPAC, both of which pre-select US candidates and have a stranglehold on US foreign policy. Clearly, given the track record of Israel, supporting it in any way automatically disqualifies someone from any claim to being anti-war.

In addition Obama is supported by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who founded the Trilateral Commission and was responsible for funding the Mujahedeen (known today as Al CIAda) against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Notwithstanding the inconvenient truths listed above, common sense would dictate that one should avoid the candidates who owe their popularity to being forced down people's throats by the media, the same media that sold the war in Iraq for the Bush regime and still promotes the official 9/11 propaganda in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. The same media, also, which has used the dirtiest of tactics to censor non-anointed candidates like Ron Paul by rigging polls, as proven by this recording, and by making him disappear from graphs when he wins third place. The same media that achieved the Orwellian distinction of entertaining almost simultaneously the idea that Obama is both a radical Muslim and a racist black Christian. The convergence of interests between both allegedly independent parties and the corporate media became even more blatant when it was announced that Rupert Murdoch would raise funds for Clinton's campaign.

Now that no other candidates than Hillary, Obama and McCain have any chance of winning (as was predetermined since the beginning), those staged elections should be boycotted; doing otherwise will legitimise the control of the self-appointed elite and its facade democracy.

William Gibson Slams the 9/11 Truth Movement

2007-10-20T20:35:00.000-04:00

As good points as Gibson makes on how 9/11 affected American society, his stance on the 9/11 Truth Movement unfortunately reads like a n official textbook of propaganda.

Contrarily to his pseudoscientific psychological analysis, a government that would be ready to sacrifice the lives of its fellow citizens as an excuse to massacre more people in wars is nothing to be reassured about. It is a threat far closer to home than terrorists living in a cave on the other side of the planet. If anything, this would make people avoid the theory like the plague because it is far too discomforting regardless of how simplistic it supposedly is.

Although the US government certainly got the results it wanted from the crime it committed, it was by no means competent in covering it up, as the onslaught of evidence and the explosion of the 9/11 Truth Movement coming out every week will tell.

If the 9/11 events were so complicated as claimed by Gibson, then why would a group of 19 Arabs, far less competent and without state resources, have been succesful where a government wouldn't have been? On the other hand, if allegations that the attacks were sponsored by the government were so simplistic, then why would the US government have been incapable of it?

Anyone who would study the non-official theories of 9/11 would find that it involves many complexities, such as compartmentalisation of the actors involved in the conspiracy, and explanations of why the media has been complicit with government, not only for 9/11 but also for the war in Iraq, and in promoting a war against Iran.

Is it not far more simplistic, on the other hand, to claim that 19 arabs would plot in a backwards country to smash airplanes in buildings because 'they hate our freedoms'?

Gibson's comments on conspiracy theories have nothing original about them; those are propaganda talking points repeated over and over by the US media. Gibson should have known better than blindly believing those assumptions. I am the co-author of an article that addresses them, many of which originate directly from a CIA memo:

For a more detailed analysis of anti-conspiracy propaganda:

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

Gatecreepers

2007-09-27T23:02:00.000-04:00

I, I-Am-Wolfman and The-Owl are pleased to announce the opening of our new site!

http://www.gatecreepers.com/

Our masterpiece is our article Debunking Conspiracy Myths:

http://www.gatecreepers.com/entries/exclusive-debunking-myths-on-conspiracy-theorie/

Honouring the victims of 9/11

2007-09-11T00:48:00.000-04:00

This is a tribute to the victims of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, for the occasion of the 6th anniversary of the event.

In the post-9/11 era, we are all victims, for all of us are losing our liberties in the hands of governments exploiting the deaths of the 3000 people murdered for political purposes.

The hundreds of thousands of people of Afghanistan and Iraq who died in the wars following 9/11 are furher casualties of the event, and were slaughtered by the hands of the same murderers who carried out 9/11.

The true mass murderers are running at large and controlling our political institutions, watching our every movements in return for security, whilst at the same time stabbing us, gagging us, and robbing us blind behind our backs.

It is our duty to all the victims of 9/11 to bring them justice by investigating and pursuing the true perpetrators of the event, in spite of the official lie promoted by the controlled media. We shall not be abashed, and shall not allow our endeavours to be stopped by their attempts to defame us.

The truth shall prevail.

We got published!

2007-07-16T22:16:00.000-04:00

I am pleased to announce that our Debunking BBC article, written by I-Am-Wolfman and yours truly, has been published in the current issue of Global Outlook!

Here are scans of the relevant pages:

On Globalism and the Convergence of Political Parties

2007-04-22T15:26:00.000-04:00

Another post in the series of my material translated from French:

http://lequebecois.actifforum.com/Elections-2007-f10/Nous-on-vote-pas-t3059-60.htm

I took this number somewhere on this forum. Whatever the case, I doubt that laziness is one of the primary reasons behind voter abstention. One thing is clear, there is an increasing number of people who do not see a real difference between the opposing parties, and for whom votes no longer count.

This is not an isolated problem. It is a tendency which can be seen everywhere in the Western world, whether in the UK, in France, in Australia and at the federal level in Canada, and even more so in the United States whose two main parties practically form a single party system. I do not believe,also, that this is a coincidence.

In all those countries, there is a convergence of parties towards neoliberalism. This is not a coincidence, either, but the result of collusions on a global scale, through international summits and think tanks, such as the Trilateral Commission, the Davos forum, the Bilderberg Group, and many others.

The latter, whose existence was long known but only recently admitted in the media, regroups ever year CEOs and media magnates with heads of states and political parties from throughout the world. Lucien Bouchard himself took part in that meeting in 1971 (CORRECTION: Lucien Bouchard did not take part in the 1971 Bilderberg meeting, this was a confusion with another document as pointed out later by a forum member), with Robert Bourassa and Pierre-Elliott Trudeau at the same meeting (and that is only after a Google search...). Same story at the federal level: Stephen Harper and Paul Martin have both taken part to one Bilderberg meeting or another; Stéphane Dion as well, Brian Mulroney, Conrad Black, etc. And the cherry on the sundae: add to that David Rockefeller and Paul Démarais (ADDENDUM: well-known Canadian oligarch who owns Power Corporation). Do a Goole search if you don't believe me...

People will have different opinions regarding the Bilderberg Group; some will say that it's a conspiracy, others will say that it's only meetings. Be it as it may, it comes to no surprise that people complain that all parties look the same.

By the way, i would like to warn that one of the results leads to federalist propaganda which attempts to smear the Quebec sovereignty movement as a globalist agenda. However, the page is an article from a book, and the site that hosts it takes no position on Quebec.

My follow-up, in answer to the Suzanne Lachance's remark that one almost needs to be part of those organisations to be Prime Minister:

You would be surprised at how accurately you put it. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair took part in those meetings even before they became known; it was only after that they started climbing in the ranks. An article by Reuters even made the admission that "Invited as speakers, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were groomed at Bilderberg meetings before rising to fame as U.S. President and British Prime Minister respectively.".

A memo from the British House of Commons revealed that Kenneth Clarke took part in the same meeting as Tony Blair as a representative of the opposition party without having declared this to Parliament as required (which Tony Blair did), however.

In the United States, it's a real joke. The Bush family now considers Bill Clinton their "surrogate son". Bush Jr. and Kerry were both members of the same Yale fraternity, known as the Skull and Bones. The United States even have their own internal version of the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, of which all major American politicians are members, as well as the heads of the national banks, media magnates and CEOs. This could practically be called the American equivalent of the Soviet politburo.

Our own politicians are not excluded. Brian Mulroney is a friend of Bush Sr. and both have been members of the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm with numerous ties with the American military-industrial complex, as well as Bush Jr., former British Prime Minister ohn Major, Canadian ambassadors Allan Gotlieb and Frank McKenna, and former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed. And guess who? Paul Desmarais!

More on anarchism and technology

2007-04-22T15:12:00.000-04:00

I wrote those forum posts a while back on a Quebec sovereigntist forum. I also wrote some posts on elitist groups, which I will make available in a separate post.

The original thread (in French) can be found here:

http://lequebecois.actifforum.com/Elections-2007-f10/Nous-on-vote-pas-t3059-0.htm

First, on the justification for the state:

Original post by Suzanne Lachance:

[quote="Laukev7"]I don't see why people here make such a fuss about anarchists. It's a perfectly legitimate political movement based on political theories.[/quote]

Agreed.

Theories which are however very utopian, founded on the imagined goodness of mankind. As if humans could lose their inherent nature...

They're romantics!

I know some of them, and they get pissed off when I tell them that... Some others concede that I'm right, while remaining attached to those theories, which represent an ideal that they will never attain. A sort of lost paradise.

Fallen angels...

----------------------------------------

My response:

quote]Theories which are however very utopian, founded on the imagined goodness of mankind. As if humans could lose their inherent nature...[/quote]

Governments themselves were created in the assumption that elected officials were inherently good. The theory that politicians govern for the common good of the population comes from Plato, a very utopian philosopher, so much that he advocated totalitarianism. Aristotle, the successor of Plato, was more down-to-earth and prefered democracy, but he also justified the existence of government on the achievement of the common good. He claimed, amongst other things, that the state is a natural evolution of society.

To be more precise, Plato's theory stated that society should be led by the best men and women (Plato was a feminist) in order to optimise its productivity. According to him, the best state is that in which each works on the single task at which he is the best. Therefore, according to him, leaders had to be philosophers and have total control, whereas the others should not get involved in politics.

Today, the theory behind the state changed quite a bit after the philosophers of the Enlightenement, who reexamined the Ancient Greek and Roman political theories, and invented their own models based on republican ideals, the separation of powers and the protection of individual liberties. It is thus now assumed that governments which are elected will govern for the good of the people (ADDENDUM: provided that people keep their government in check). However, the justification for the state remains the same.

But when we see today our corrupt governments, working at the behest of corporations and subservient to foreign powers, send thousants and millions of people to their deaths in unjustified wars, even though they are supposedly elected and accountable to the people, one needs to wonder whether it is really more utopian to live in a stateless society than to have a state, to pretend that it is a 'realistic' solution to improve our lives.

From what I have read about anarchists, what they promote is not an utopian society, but mainly a society without a central government. It is obvious that such a society would not be without its own problems, but it does not mean that all alternaties to the state need to be utopian.

In my opinion, whether one thinks good or bad of anarchism, one day or anther the state will have to be dismantled. Not only for the utopian reason that technology would permit this, but aslo because of the dystopian reason that modern technology, especially Big Brother technology which are evolving exponentially and are being adopted in seeral countries to keep the population under surveillance and control, would become so advanced that legal and constitutional protections would become insufficient to protect people's privacy. We will have no choice, then, but to increasingly decentralise powers in order to protect our individual freedoms from the governments and the corporations, in the hands of which technology would give them intolerable powers.

(Whew! why do I have to write such long posts!)

The following is my post clarifying how technology will eventually lead to the rejection of the state:

When I talk about technology, I refer not only to communication technology which could allow decentralised governance (it is not only, like Raymi says, a question of increasing productivity).

The first article in the Toronto Star (unfortunately no longer available, I asked someone who saved it to send it to me) (ADDENDUM: article mirrored in my previous Laukev7 Report post), discusses the possibility of a society where the compulsory implanting of microchips would become the standard, probably and fittingly under cover of increasing productivity. The second article, which is still available, reports that it would possible to record an entire life on a cube-sized computer.

In the beginning of history, hierarchical systems were necessary because there were no technologies available to substitute manual labour, nor to allow the common people to inform themselves, or to meet together and make decisions. As technologies developped, societies have become more democratic.

But at the same time, technologies make it possible for dictatorships to increase their control over their populations. The first modern totalitarian regimes only started in the 20th century with the USSR and Nazi Germany, when the press, radio, television, telephones and other tools could be used by the state to infiltrate every aspect of people's lives in a way they could not ever before.

Coercion is a fundamental aspect of hierarchical systems. The current system, while democratic, remains a hierarchical system, both on the political and the economic sides (capitalism, corporatism, etc). In older days it may have been a benign price to pay, but while technology will allow the political system to become democratic, it will on the other hand multiply tenfold the control exerted by hierarchies, to the point where only a slight amount of authoritarianism will become unbearable, leading the population to increase demands for constitutional protection and decentralisation of powers, on pain of devolving into dictatorship. Even if legal protections were sufficient, democracy can be eroded and devolve into an authoritarian regime (a process currently taking place in the United States), in the hands of which the technologies would become extremely dangerous, not only to freedom but for the survival of humanity (right now the neocons in the US are pushing for space armament...).

One can look at the current situation in the UK to come to my conclusions. Even though the governments are ostensibly elected, real control rests in the hands of corporations (a situation even worse in the US) and of technocracy; surveillance cameras litter the streets in the UK, many of them equipped with speakers which scold passer-bys when they spit their gum or order them to walk on the sidewalk.

Admitting the fact that people will always come up with technologies to counter the evils of other technologies, power resources are concentrated in hierarchical institutions, namely corporations and governments. The average people only have limited resources to resist or protect themselves from the state and the corporations.

Lost Toronto Star article

2007-03-21T17:13:00.000-04:00

This is an article I had linked to in a previous post ('Will Anarchism Soon Become a Necessity?). Unfortunately, it is no longer available, but I believe it is important enough to be worth saving.

Many thanks to Uncertain for having saved the article and sent it to me.

Article mirrored here:

http://laukev7.dreamhosters.com/mirrors/CAN'T%20SAY%20WE%20WEREN'T%20WARNED.htm

A generation is all they need

One day we will all happily be implanted with microchips, and our every move will be monitored. The technology exists; the only barrier is society's resistance to the loss of privacy

Dec. 10, 2006. 08:46 AM

KEVIN HAGGERTY

SPECIAL TO THE STAR

By the time my four-year-old son is swathed in the soft flesh of old age, he will likely find it unremarkable that he and almost everyone he knows will be permanently implanted with a microchip. Automatically tracking his location in real time, it will connect him with databases monitoring and recording his smallest behavioural traits.

Most people anticipate such a prospect with a sense of horrified disbelief, dismissing it as a science-fiction fantasy. The technology, however, already exists. For years humane societies have implanted all the pets that leave their premises with a small identifying microchip. As well, millions of consumer goods are now traced with tiny radio frequency identification chips that allow satellites to reveal their exact location.

A select group of people are already "chipped" with devices that automatically open doors, turn on lights, and perform other low-level miracles. Prominent among such individuals is researcher Kevin Warwick of Reading University in England; Warwick is a leading proponent of the almost limitless potential uses for such chips.

Other users include the patrons of the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona, many of whom have paid about $150 (U.S.) for the privilege of being implanted with an identifying chip that allows them to bypass lengthy club queues and purchase drinks by being scanned. These individuals are the advance guard of an effort to expand the technology as widely as possible.

From this point forward, microchips will become progressively smaller, less invasive, and easier to deploy. Thus, any realistic barrier to the wholesale "chipping" of Western citizens is not technological but cultural. It relies upon the visceral reaction against the prospect of being personally marked as one component in a massive human inventory.

Today we might strongly hold such beliefs, but sensibilities can, and probably will, change. How this remarkable attitudinal transformation is likely to occur is clear to anyone who has paid attention to privacy issues over the past quarter-century. There will be no 3 a.m. knock on the door by storm troopers come to force implants into our bodies. The process will be more subtle and cumulative, couched in the unassailable language of progress and social betterment, and mimicking many of the processes that have contributed to the expansion of closed-circuit television cameras and the corporate market in personal data.

A series of tried and tested strategies will be marshalled to familiarize citizens with the technology. These will be coupled with efforts to pressure tainted social groups and entice the remainder of the population into being chipped.

This, then, is how the next generation will come to be microchipped.

It starts in distant countries. Having tested the technology on guinea pigs, both human and animal, the first widespread use of human implanting will occur in nations at the periphery of the Western world. Such developments are important in their own right, but their international significance pertains to how they familiarize a global audience with the technology and habituate them to the idea that chipping represents a potential future.

An increasing array of hypothetical chipping scenarios will also be depicted in entertainment media, furthering the familiarization process.

In the West, chips will first be implanted in members of stigmatized groups. Pedophiles are the leading candidate for this distinction, although it could start with terrorists, drug dealers, or whatever happens to be that year's most vilified criminals. Short-lived promises will be made that the technology will only be used on the "worst of the worst." In fact, the wholesale chipping of incarcerated individuals will quickly ensue, encompassing people on probation and on parole.

Even accused individuals will be tagged, a measure justified on the grounds that it would stop them from fleeing justice. Many prisoners will welcome this development, since only chipped inmates will be eligible for parole, weekend release, or community sentences. From the prison system will emerge an evocative vocabulary distinguishing chippers from non-chippers.

Although the chips will be justified as a way to reduce fraud and other crimes, criminals will almost immediately develop techniques to simulate other people's chip codes and manipulate their data.

The comparatively small size of the incarcerated population, however, means that prisons would be simply a brief stopover on a longer voyage. Commercial success is contingent on making serious inroads into tagging the larger population of law-abiding citizens. Other stigmatized groups will therefore be targeted. This will undoubtedly entail monitoring welfare recipients, a move justified to reduce fraud, enhance efficiency, and ensure that the poor do not receive "undeserved" benefits.

Once e-commerce is sufficiently advanced, welfare recipients will receive their benefits as electronic vouchers stored on their microchips, a policy that will be tinged with a sense of righteousness, as it will help ensure that clients can only purchase government-approved goods from select merchants, reducing the always disconcerting prospect that poor people might use their limited funds to purchase alcohol or tobacco.

Civil libertarians will try to foster a debate on these developments. Their attempts to prohibit chipping will be handicapped by the inherent difficulty in animating public sympathy for criminals and welfare recipients — groups that many citizens are only too happy to see subjected to tighter regulation. Indeed, the lesser public concern for such groups is an inherent part of the unarticulated rationale for why coerced chipping will be disproportionately directed at the stigmatized.

The official privacy arm of the government will now take up the issue. Mandated to determine the legality of such initiatives, privacy commissioners and Senate Committees will produce a forest of reports presented at an archipelago of international conferences. Hampered by lengthy research and publication timelines, their findings will be delivered long after the widespread adoption of chipping is effectively a fait accompli. The research conclusions on the effectiveness of such technologies will be mixed and open to interpretation.

Officials will vociferously reassure the chipping industry that they do not oppose chipping itself, which has fast become a growing commercial sector. Instead, they are simply seeking to ensure that the technology is used fairly and that data on the chips is not misused. New policies will be drafted.

What might Hitler, Mao or Milosevic have accomplished if their citizens were chipped, coded, and remotely monitored?

Employers will start to expect implants as a condition of getting a job. The U.S. military will lead the way, requiring chips for all soldiers as a means to enhance battlefield command and control — and to identify human remains. From cooks to commandos, every one of the more than one million U.S. military personnel will see microchips replace their dog tags.

Following quickly behind will be the massive security sector. Security guards, police officers, and correctional workers will all be expected to have a chip. Individuals with sensitive jobs will find themselves in the same position.

The first signs of this stage are already apparent. In 2004, the Mexican attorney general's office started implanting employees to restrict access to secure areas. The category of "sensitive occupation" will be expansive to the point that anyone with a job that requires keys, a password, security clearance, or identification badge will have those replaced by a chip.

Judges hearing cases on the constitutionality of these measures will conclude that chipping policies are within legal limits. The thin veneer of "voluntariness" coating many of these programs will allow the judiciary to maintain that individuals are not being coerced into using the technology.I

n situations where the chips are clearly forced on people, the judgments will deem them to be undeniable infringements of the right to privacy. However, they will then invoke the nebulous and historically shifting standard of "reasonableness" to pronounce coerced chipping a reasonable infringement on privacy rights in a context of demands for governmental efficiency and the pressing need to enhance security in light of the still ongoing wars on terror, drugs, and crime.

At this juncture, an unfortunately common tragedy of modern life will occur: A small child, likely a photogenic toddler, will be murdered or horrifically abused. It will happen in one of the media capitals of the Western world, thereby ensuring non-stop breathless coverage. Chip manufactures will recognize this as the opportunity they have been anticipating for years. With their technology now largely bug-free, familiar to most citizens and comparatively inexpensive, manufacturers will partner with the police to launch a high-profile campaign encouraging parents to implant their children "to ensure your own peace of mind."

Special deals will be offered. Implants will be free, providing the family registers for monitoring services. Loving but unnerved parents will be reassured by the ability to integrate tagging with other functions on their PDA so they can see their child any time from any place.

Paralleling these developments will be initiatives that employ the logic of convenience to entice the increasingly small group of holdouts to embrace the now common practice of being tagged. At first, such convenience tagging will be reserved for the highest echelon of Western society, allowing the elite to move unencumbered through the physical and informational corridors of power. Such practices will spread more widely as the benefits of being chipped become more prosaic. Chipped individuals will, for example, move more rapidly through customs.

Indeed, it will ultimately become a condition of using mass-transit systems that officials be allowed to monitor your chip. Companies will offer discounts to individuals who pay by using funds stored on their embedded chip, on the small-print condition that the merchant can access large swaths of their personal data. These "discounts" are effectively punitive pricing schemes, charging unchipped individuals more as a way to encourage them to submit to monitoring. Corporations will seek out the personal data in hopes of producing ever more fine-grained customer profiles for marketing purposes, and to sell to other institutions.

By this point all major organizations will be looking for opportunities to capitalize on the possibilities inherent in an almost universally chipped population. The uses of chips proliferate, as do the types of discounts. Each new generation of household technology becomes configured to operate by interacting with a person's chip.

Finding a computer or appliance that will run though old-fashioned "hands-on"' interactions becomes progressively more difficult and costly. Patients in hospitals and community care will be routinely chipped, allowing medical staff — or, more accurately, remote computers — to monitor their biological systems in real time.

Eager to reduce the health costs associated with a largely docile citizenry, authorities will provide tax incentives to individuals who exercise regularly. Personal chips will be remotely monitored to ensure that their heart rate is consistent with an exercise regime.

By now, the actual process of "chipping" for many individuals will simply involve activating certain functions of their existing chip. Any prospect of removing the chip will become increasingly untenable, as having a chip will be a precondition for engaging in the main dynamics of modern life, such as shopping, voting, and driving.

The remaining holdouts will grow increasingly weary of Luddite jokes and subtle accusations that they have something to hide. Exasperated at repeatedly watching neighbours bypass them in "chipped" lines while they remain subject to the delays, inconveniences, and costs reserved for the unchipped, they too will choose the path of least resistance and get an implant.

In one generation, then, the cultural distaste many might see as an innate reaction to the prospect of having our bodies marked like those of an inmate in a concentration camp will likely fade.

In the coming years some of the most powerful institutional actors in society will start to align themselves to entice, coerce, and occasionally compel the next generation to get an implant.

Now, therefore, is the time to contemplate the unprecedented dangers of this scenario. The most serious of these concern how even comparatively stable modern societies will, in times of fear, embrace treacherous promises. How would the prejudices of a Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, or of southern Klansmen — all of whom were deeply integrated into the American political establishment — have manifest themselves in such a world? What might Hitler, Mao or Milosevic have accomplished if their citizens were chipped, coded, and remotely monitored?

Choirs of testimonials will soon start to sing the virtues of implants. Calm reassurances will be forthcoming about democratic traditions, the rule of law, and privacy rights. History, unfortunately, shows that things can go disastrously wrong, and that this happens with disconcerting regularity. Little in the way of international agreements, legality, or democratic sensibilities has proved capable of thwarting single-minded ruthlessness.

"It can't happen here" has become the whispered swan song of the disappeared. Best to contemplate these dystopian potentials before we proffer the tender forearms of our sons and daughters. While we cannot anticipate all of the positive advantages that might be derived from this technology, the negative prospects are almost too terrifying to contemplate.

Whew!

2007-02-23T11:35:00.000-05:00

Well, that's a lot of BBC bashing in so little time.

As I posted in the comments section, I will have to work on my October Crisis essay. I will not be able to afford more of this until after March 5, when my essay is due. You might want to stay tuned; I will post it online. It's a very interesting part of Quebec history, with some parallels to the 9/11 event (including some false flag operations by the RCMP).

Thanks to Prison Planet and Whatreallyhappened for linking to my rants. This has encouraged me to post more. I will hopefully be back soon.

Do give credit to my friend I-Am-Wolfman, who contributed a LOT to the Debunking-BBC article (in fact, more than I did).

BBC: "Conspiracy on conspiracy"

2007-02-22T16:53:00.000-05:00

Isn't it funny how the more Rudin tries to deny there is a conspiracy, the guilter he appears.

I suppose it had to happen. First we’re accused of being spies. Then we’re told we’re getting our orders from others.

For someone who isn't a spy, he sure is giving a very good impression of one.

But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy.

Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, claimed last Friday that a source had told him that we were in a “in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air”.

He alleged: ”One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.”

And the story was picked up on the Alex Jones’ website Prison Planet with the headline “BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?”

Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.

It's a shame it's just a conspiracy theory, Rudin. If you did have another version of the documentary, you could have released it to save your credibility. According to you and your ilk, conspiracy theorists love to engage in wishful thinking, and you just shattered their hopes that BBC might not be a totally inept propaganda mouthpiece as your documentary has revealed it to be.

Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldn’t run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Gee, I wonder where people get such ideas? Maybe it has something to do with your 'documentary' trying to smear us by showing to the public theories that neither Alex Jones nor 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK actually endorse, and that have been discredited inside the movement years ago.

First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story.

We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.

You missed another opportunity to save your arse, Rudin. Conspiracy mongers as we are, we had some hopes that maybe you're just being ordered to make up that bilge for public consumption, but you're telling us that you're just an incompetent on your own.

Too bad for you, Rudin. Even we conspiracy theorists are coincidence theorists at heart, and we would love to believe that you're just so inept that you can't do enough research to find our real arguments. But you're starting to look too suspicious for your own good.

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that in the programme, together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

You're so full of shit. Your documentary didn't mention anything about the 'New Pearl Harbor' quote in the document of the Project for a New American Century, which you could at least have attempted to spin into meaning that the neocons didn't plan but just 'wanted' a New Pearl Harbor. It made no mention of Larry Silverstein's 'Pull it' quote, which you could have attempted to spin into meaning that he 'pulled the firefighters' out of the building. Your documentary repeated the assertions made by the NIST report, called Popular Mechanics a 'no-nonsense' magazine, despite having been repeatedly debunked and being owned owned by Hearst, and used an animation of the 'truss' theory that was long debunked. Anyone who does basic 9/11 research will find out about those essential facts. In addition to that, Alex Jones went on the record saying that he showed those documents to your colleague.

Instead, you tried to link us to anti-Semitism by taking the Odigo story out of context and claiming that we still believe in the missing 4000 Jewish employees rumour. You pitted three 9/11 opponents against thirteen supporters of the official story, while showing Alex Jones for only five minutes and portraying him as a cult leader, and falsely calling Dylan Avery a 'college dropout'. And on top of that, you undermined their image with manipulative camera work. Naturally, we're expected to believe that you're doing all this by coincidence, and I bet you will answer that all just imagining those conspiracies on top of the other layer of conspiracies (oh yeah, and makes the conspiracy more complicated, even though it's supposed to simplify the world for us).

I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And it’s great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.

Hmm, let's see, you're smearing us as a bunch of people who believe in conspiracies because we like to make up fantasies, calling us cult members and college dropouts and implying that we're anti-Semites, all this on British public television reaching to the entire world. Maybe there's a reason why we might want to defend ourselves.

However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:

“Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”

Leaving aside your insinuation (or shall I call it a 'conspiracy theory'?) that we're part of a fake grassroots campaign, and the fact that our numbers have nothing to do with whether our theories are true or not, anyone who took a research methodology class in college can tell that this question is blatantly leading. The phrase 'it is generally accepted' adds a heavy bias to the question. This has an especially exacerbating effect when carried out on the phone, where the respondent will tend to vote with the majority for fear of judgement from the person taking the poll, and have little time to think about the question before answering.

16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.

Gee, I wonder why?

However, as we pointed out in Debunking BBC, other polls, scientific or online, consistently show high levels of support for the 9/11 Truth Movement:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/310804zogbypoll.htm

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506Zogby.htm

Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/240306supportsheen.htm

Despite the best efforts of the now whimpering attack poodles of the mainstream media, an online CNN poll shows that over four-fifths, or 82 per cent, agree with actor Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906_b_Poll.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/110906insidejob.htm

Documentary film maker and radio host Alex Jones, coordinating today's 9/11 truth movement events in downtown New York City, says that the atmosphere around ground zero has dramatically changed, with the majority of firefighters and police officers now sympathetic to the claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/111104cnnpoll.htm

Official BBC propagandist concludes:

In fact our opinion poll found much more widespread doubts of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure.
And this Sunday, The Conspiracy Files series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.

Aww, mister Rudin throws us a lolly to prove us that he's not a government agent. Nice try.

George Monbiot responds, calls us 'conspiracy idiots'

2007-02-20T09:19:00.000-05:00

George Monbiot really has gone the way of Doug Thompson.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2017005,00.html

These conspiracy idiots are a boon for Bush and Blair as they destroy the movements some of us have spent years building

Aww, poor Monbiot whines because people want to indict Bush and Blair for their real crimes and won't listen to establishment opposition like Monbiot anymore. But as Chomsky said, who cares?

'You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the new world order ... bought and paid for." "Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and special branch recruit agents?" "Shill, traitor, sleeper", "leftwing gatekeeper", "accessory after the fact", "political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all".

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the United States government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my leftwing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I've blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

I might add that you're also a drama queen and a phony intellectual who thinks that calling people disagreeing with the official story 'conspiracy idiots' is a 'measured response', even though it plays into the same line of logic as the Bushists who call criticism of Bush and his wars 'anti-patriotic' and 'anti-American', the Zionists who call criticism of Israel 'anti-Semitic', and the Democrats who tell people that calling Bush out for his fraudulent elections and demanding his impeachment would 'hurt the progressive movement' and 'scare the voters'.

You've blown your credibility, deservedly, because after years of professional journalism, you wrote a poorly researched article full of stupidities, ad hominem attacks, strawman attacks and repeated the canned pseudoscience fed to the public over and over again about the alleged psychological motivations of 'conspiracy theorists', with the expectation to detract people superficial enough to swallow your tripe from our research. And that, with the purpose of getting people to ignore those important issues, is what makes you an 'accessory after the fact'.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But you couldn't believe that those people ruthless enough to send more than 3000 people to their deaths in a war based on lies would have the nerve to kill their own citizens. And obviously, the fact that they stated the need for a 'New Pearl Harbor' one year before 9/11 merely meant that they took advantage of 9/11, but couldn't possibly have been complicit.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.

The planting of explosives in the towers didn't attract attention? Never mind the testimony of Scott Forbes who witnessed power downs and an entire floor being shut down and strangers walking around the building with cables, amongst other things.

As for the other points, they are already addressed in my comments that I contributed to the Debunking-BBC article.

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

Monbiot restates again the old, tired line that conspirators have to be 'all-powerful' to carry out conspiracies. Apparently it's not enough for him that this point was already addressed in his previous hit piece, and addressed over and over again in response to dozens of other propaganda pieces.

Again, the fact that their conspiracy is falling apart and being exposed left and right is testimony to the fact that the Bush cabal is not 'all-seeing and all-powerful', as were nor the Soviets and Nazi Germany.

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

Have you ever thought about the possibility that you're the one destroying the movement by limiting inquiry about the extent of their crimes and controlling the opposition? You really think that exposing a government, supported by that same corporate elite, that murders almost 3,000 people to justify an imperial agenda, and raising awareness about the fact that governments have been pulling off such tricks since the beginning of times, is less important than climate change and the Iraq war? You really think that the deaths of 3,000 people and their grieving families are unworthy of a true investigation because you would rather focus on vague issues such as 'nuclear proliferation' and 'inequality'?

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.

A group that has been snowballing for the past few years, exposing hundreds of anomalies with the official 9/11 story, composing dozens of documentary films and started hundreds of sites, and gets poll approvals of over a third of Americans and higher in other countries, to the point that you feel the obligation to write two incensed articles filled with personal attacks and (deservedly) get hundreds of vitriolic emails in response, is what you think sees itself as 'powerless'?

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on the Guardian Comment is Free website, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467. On the same day the Guardian published my article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE Systems. It drew 60 responses. The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they had been, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

And I suppose that the thousands of people who have been protesting in New York and London facing police with machine guns is what you call doing nothing?

Poor Monbiot, nobody reads your articles anymore because you won't cover about the real issues, so you have to pen hit pieces bashing our investigations and calling us a 'cult' to get attention. Maybe people haven't looked at your story for the simple reasons that the public already knows about corporate espionage, especially Bush and Blair's wiretaps and elsewhere, and about the corruption of arms manufacturers. That particular incident also did not directly result in the deaths of thousands of people, and justified the casualties of millions of people in imperial wars.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

A laughably hypocritical accusation, given your own whitewash of the 9/11 issue in favour of your other pet issues which are already being discussed at length by establishment academics. Apparently it doesn't occur to you that a government willing to kill 3,000 of its own people might be a far scarier, more urgent and dangerous problem than 'inequality', which has been a problem since the beginning of civilisation.

By the way, false flag operations is one of the tools used by the elite to maintain their positions of power; if we are to combat 'inequality' and the war in Iraq, then it might be a good idea to address some of the root. But you don't really care about that, do you, because you're not the one holding signs and facing armed police officers and putting your credibility and reputation at stake; you hate us because you're more interested in holding on to your cushy job penning establishment-approved articles than finding the truth, and you're complaining because we're taking your spotlight instead of playing along.

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC's film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists' case. They urge us instead to visit websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net and 911scholars.org, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E Jones.

Thanks for pointing out to us that BBC demolished Loose Change. Too bad it got exposed as a poorly researched hit piece by three or four articles (including our own) a day after and even before the film went on air. Guy Smith, the producer of the show, had to defend himself on Alex Jones' show and got his ass handed to him.

Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact, rumour and confusion transformed into evidence, selective editing, the citation of fake experts, the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.

Apparently those dozens of professors and government insiders, including the top Bin Laden expert who now publicly states that the Osama confession video was a fake. But only the ones supporting your biases towards the 9/11 events, apparently, are 'real' experts.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?)

Actually, we don't ignore Popular Mechanics because it's a government front, but because it's been debunked over and over again.

Benjamin may say all he wants that he doesn't believe he's related to Michael Chertoff, but his mother doesn't agree with him.

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the new world order, I would say that, wouldn't I? It's all part of the plot.

Whatever the Levellers and the alleged 'millenarian fantasies' were, contrarily to your chicken little scare tactics, it does not look like the 9/11 truth movement is ready to die soon, considering that the numbers of sites debunking the 9/11 official story are growing exponentially and far surpass the number of sites supporting it.

We don't need you to sarcastically admit to being an agent of the New World Order, because not merely your support of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, but also the sophistic nature of your hit piece, exposes you as a propagandist. But we would say that, wouldn't we, because after all we're just a bunch of 'conspiracy idiots'.

EDIT: it turns out that Monbiot had a rather different opinion of the 9/11 events in 2001:

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2007/02/monbiot-and-9-11.html

"The more evidence US intelligence presents...the less credible the story becomes.

"First there was the car. A man had informed the police, we were told, that he'd had a furious argument with some suspicious looking Moslems in the parking lot at Boston airport. He led the investigators to the car, in which they found a copy of the Koran and a flight manual in Arabic (Flight manuals are 'always' in English), showing that these were the fundamentalists who had hijacked the planes.

"Now flying an aeroplane is not one of these things you learn in the back of a car on the way to the airport. Either you know how to do it or you don't.
"Leaving the Koran unattended, a Moslem friend tells me, is considered sinful.

"And if you were about to perpetrate one of the biggest terrorist outrages the world has ever seen, would you draw attention to yourself by arguing over a parking place?

"Then there is the passport. The security services claim that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was extracted from the rubble of the World Trade Centre. This definitive identification might help them to track the rest of the network.

"We are being asked to believe that a paper document from the cockpit of the first plane - the epicentre of an inferno which vapourised steel - survived the fireball and fell to the ground almost intact."When presented with material like this, I can't help suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it...

"I think WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CAUSE TO REGARD THE NEW EVIDENCE AGAINST BIN LADEN WITH A MEASURE OF SCEPTICISM."

So this, Monbiot, makes you worse than a New World Order asset or an accessory after the fact, but a coward, a traitor and a collaborator. Like Doug Thompson and Noam Chomsky, you have now lost your credibility and you have deserved it. When the New World Order gets toppled (because unlike you, we are not cowards), you will be held to account for aiding the Bush and Blair regimes.

Debunking the BBC's 9-11 Conspiracy Files

2007-02-19T16:13:00.000-05:00

Following up BBC's 'questionnaire' branding people believing in government conspiracies as paranoid sociopaths, BBC released yesterday, sharply breaking with its reputation of neutrality and balanced journalism, an astounding piece of propaganda that defamed the investigative efforts of thousands of people questioning the government-sanctioned version of the events of 9/11.

In order to counter this shameful, ridiculous spectacle of journalistic monstrosity, I-Am-Wolfman and I have spent some evenings to put together an analysis to address this filthy litany of disinformation:

http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/

To give you an idea of this monumental farce of a hit piece, here is a lengthy excerpt of the analysis, courtesy of my trusty colleague:

The programme began with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'.

The programme shows us bent WTC steel columns and damaged vehicles in a warehouse, then proceeds onto the official story, whilst showing the alleged hijackers on CCTV at an unnamed airport. Then casualties were discussed, videos of shocked people were shown, and emotional phonecalls were aired. This is all emotional manipulation, and it is not related to pure theory, as it does not prove or disprove anything. This did not dissuade the BBC however.

There were scientists used to support the official story, but no counter-scientists shown, such as Professor Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin PhD and others [19]. It was continually stated that blaming the government was scapegoating, yet it is precisely that act which was carried out by the mainstream media and the authorities when blaming Bin Laden.

When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points.

Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change. Avery is shown saying he does not care what the debunkers say - we believe this clip to be out of context, and that Avery was disagreeing with something else.

Fetzer was always pictured close-up when talking, to make the viewer uncomfortable and to ensure his gestures were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable - a technique that could be used to subliminally turn the viewers off him. There was no explanation made of Fetzer's conflicts with other prominent members of the truth movement regarding his more unusual theories.

Avery and Fetzer were used the most. Alex Jones was not, despite the fact that Alex Jones is one of the more eloquent, respected, and knowledgeable people on these matters.

It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism.

Contrarily to the libelous claims of the Blair Broadcasting Corporation, it is the BBC that befouled the memory of the 9/11 victims by endorsing a demonstrably fraudulent account of the events, disculpating and protecting whom half of the victims consider to be the prime suspects, with strawmen known to be strawmen and omissions admitted to be omissions, as demonstrated by their refusal to cover real evidence despite having been presented it by their interviewee Alex Jones, making themselves accessories after the fact of a sinister hoax. Needless to say, we are not impressed by the insults of the BBC, nor by their treasonous behaviour and their hypocritical accusations towards us and the 9/11 Truth community.

Official BBC moron Mike Rudin responds to accusations of being a government agent:

Oh and by the way, in answer to one comment, no I am not and have never been a spy.

Those assurances aside, it remains all the same that a government con artist would not have operated otherwise.

By the way, we also shamelessly admit to being the authors behind Debunking Maddox. If you don't believe me, you can check the signature of the post; I tried to edit it and Google forced me to upgrade the Blogger account, which I was unable to do without transferring it to my own account.

More articles dealing with BBC's drivel:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/180207smearbegins.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/180207smearcontinues.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/190207Files.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/190207whitewash.htm

George Monbiot joins the anti-9/11 truthers

2007-02-06T19:37:00.000-05:00

It never ceases to amaze me how often I keep seeing the same anti-conspiracy canards over and over again, be they about 9/11 or JFK or any other topic. The wording and the logic is so repetitive it makes me wonder whether the people penning those articles really are part of a conspiracy as they claim to be believed by the people they call 'conspiracy theorists'.

The fact of the matter is that notwithstanding the sighs heaved by the people who believe that espousing a different theory than that promoted by the government is a symptom of mass delusion, the logic that they believe ought to quiet the dissenting voices does not stand up to close examination.

So thus I must address this logic which falls amazingly short of the usual level of intelligence of a professional journalist:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2006831,00.html

There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the US, the strain reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight, it has become an epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me.

Monbiot starts right off with propaganda tactics and ad hominem attacks. The 'virus' analogy is supposed to spin the snowball effect of the 9/11 truth movement as a mass delusion, a black hole to which people are being helplessly and irresistibly attracted. According to Monbiot, opponents to the Bush regime are irrational thinkers who would accept anything to fuel their hatred, a talking point familiar for being overused by Bush worshippers, especially to deny now proven facts such as US torture and CIA prison camps in Europe. Of course, such a point of view leaves totally out of the question that people may be able to think for themselves; apparently they need to be saved from 'bad' ideas by expert thinkers like George Monbiot.

The disease is called Loose Change. It is a film made by three young men that airs most of the standard conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11 2001. Unlike the other 9/11 conspiracy films, Loose Change is sharp and swift, with a thumping soundtrack, slick graphics and a calm and authoritative voiceover. Its makers claim that it has now been watched by 100 million people.

It would interesting to know what Monbiot defines as 'standard' conspiracy theories about 9/11. Theories can hardly be anything other than 'standard' because they are conclusions based on available evidence, not some sort of science fiction movies. Unless by 'standard' he means the ones promoting discredited theories such as the 'no-plane' and the 'missile pod' theories.

Even if you have seen or read no other accounts of 9/11, and your brain has not yet been liquidised, a few problems must occur to you. The first is the complete absence of scientific advice. At one point, the presenter asks: "So what brought down the twin towers? Let's ask the experts." But they don't ask the experts. The film-makers take some old quotes, edit them to remove any contradictions, then denounce all subsequent retractions as further evidence of conspiracy.

Note the hypocrisy of that last statement. In the same sentence, Monbiot claims that it's normal for officials to retract statements, but that the absence of contradictions means they were 'edited out'. In other words, 9/11 truthers conspire to falsify evidence, but saying that officials were pressured to retract their statements is conspiracy thinking.

Despite the known flaws of Loose Change, which are addressed in the linked article, there is no shortage of experts who believe that 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy (and contrarily to Monbiot's claims, they do not only include philosophy and theology professors).

The only people they interview are a janitor, a group of firemen, and a flight instructor. They let the janitor speak at length, but cut the firemen off in mid-sentence. The flight instructor speaks in short clips, which give the impression that his pupil, the hijacker Hani Hanjour, was incapable of hitting the Pentagon. Elsewhere he has said the opposite: he had "no doubt" that Hanjour could have done it.

Actually, Loose Change did not 'interview' those people, but used clips that were already available. On the other hand, it is not only Loose Change which is accused of manipulation. Firefighter Lou Cacchioli reportedly said in an interview that the 9/11 Commission twisted his words. That, coupled with the firefighters dying of asbestos poisoning after being lied about the safety of the air, might be the reason why despite the apparent mistake in Loose Change, there is vast support from the firefighters for the 9/11 truth movement.

To address Monbiot's comments about the comments of the flight instructor Marcel Bernard, here is the full quote:

There’s no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.

This alone, however, is not sufficient to invalidate the argument based on Hanjour's inability to fly an aircraft. There is more involved than getting Flight 77 going:

However, on 9/11, in piloting Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to do much more than simply point the plane at a target. Because Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level... Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm...” [Washington Post, 9/12/2001]

It seems that for someone who fancies himself as the anti-conspiracy thought police, he has not done much research.

The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens of thousands of people. It could not have been executed without the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble.

Yet another use of the 'tens of thousands of people involved' canard. Apparently it takes tens of thousands of people for a government with virtually unlimited resources to carry an attack on its own soil, but only 19 Arabs to bypass layers and layers of security.

Actually, there is no need for the entire personel of organisations to be directly involved. Scenario 404 is an example of a possible operation that would only have required a handful of people to carry out. For a short summary, only the top operatives giving orders or infiltrators are aware of the actual operation, where the people taking orders are compartmentalised. An example of this that Monbiot fails to mention is the military exercises that were conducted during the 9/11 attacks, which would provide sufficient cover to confuse the pilots and prevent them from stopping the attacks.

If there is one universal American characteristic, it is a confessional culture that permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut. People appear on the Jerry Springer Show to admit to carnal relations with their tractors. Yet none of the participants in this monumental crime has sought to blow the whistle - before, during or after the attacks. No one has volunteered to tell the greatest story ever told.

More propaganda, this time equating theories about 9/11 with rubbishy entertainment. Again, the underlying premise is based on the assumption that tens of thousands of people were involved, which is addressed above. Another problem, however, is that there are people who have been trying to blow the whistle, and hundreds of them. Unfortunately, the media is just as complacent when it comes to 9/11 as they were when the neocons were telling lies to sell the war in Iraq.

Read some conflicting accounts, and Loose Change's case crumbles faster than the twin towers. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Because it collided with one of the world's best-defended buildings at full speed, the plane was pulverised - even so, plane parts and body parts were in fact recovered. The wings and tail disintegrated when they hit the wall, which is why the holes weren't bigger.

The 'conflicting accounts' prove that a plane did crash into the Pentagon. They do not prove, however, that the people responsible were the alleged 19 hijackers.

The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel structures. As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapsing top stories generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest. Puffs of smoke were blown out of the structure by compression as the building fell.

The NIST report has been found to be deeply flawed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert - an aerospace and mechanical engineer - to test the official findings. He shows that the institute must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7 collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded. Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions.

The Counterpunch article was debunked by Kevin Ryan. If Monbiot had done research, he would have found that the Popular Mechanics article is well-known in the 9/11 truth movement to be a strawman and has been debunked by many independent researchers.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

So the critics - even Counterpunch - are labelled co-conspirators, and the plot expands until it comes to involve a substantial part of the world's population. There is no reasoning with this madness. People believe Loose Change because it proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable, small. Despite the great evil that runs it, it is more companionable than the chaos that really governs our lives, a world without destination or purpose. This neat story draws campaigners away from real issues - global warming, the Iraq war, nuclear weapons, privatisation, inequality - while permanently wrecking their credibility. Bush did capitalise on the attacks, and he did follow a pre-existing agenda, spelt out, as Loose Change says, by the Project for the New American Century. But by drowning this truth in an ocean of nonsense, the conspiracists ensure that it can never again be taken seriously.

As I said at the beginning of the article, the people the mainstream media likes to call 'conspiracy theorists' are accused of lumping anyone who disagree with them with the conspirators, which would supposedly increase the number of people involved with the conspiracy. Never mind the fact that most critics believe that the media is being an accessory after the fact; this assumes a free media, when in fact they are owned by a very small number of corporations with military interests. It would hardly be far-fetched to think that editorialists might be just a little encouraged to publish attacks on the 9/11 truth movement, since it is already admitted that the media was paid by the White House to publish pre-packaged government propaganda.

But wait! It looks like reporters DO collaborate with the CIA!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

Monbiot makes the bizarre assertion that Loose Change proposes a 'closed world'. It puzzles me how a conspiracy that supposedly involved 'thousands' of people and would imply questioning the nature of the government and the introduction of theories of manipulation and power structures would be more 'comprehensible' than the one implying 19 hijackers who crash airplanes into buildings because they hate our freedoms. Supposedly, only operations involving Arabs would involve chaos, whereas a conspiracy that was so sloppily conducted that it is being exposed left and right would imply that the government controls everything. A claim that even Sovietologists would not have made.

Monbiot apparently does not believe that doing a real investigation of the 9/11 events and giving real answers to people, or that nearly 3,000 people being murdered by the government for an imperial agenda is a 'real' issue. Furthermore, his statement on the PNAC following a 'pre-existing' agenda fails to mention that their document had spelt out their intent to exploit a 'New Pearl Harbor' event a year before 9/11.

The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change.

The bromide that 'conspiracy theorists would be dead' is so unoriginal that even Maddox came up with it before Monbiot. I even wrote an article about this. Either as I said it means that the ACTP has a talking points list, or Monbiot is plagiarising Maddox.

More political humour

2006-12-23T21:45:00.000-05:00

Question: What do you call an American journalist with two bullets in the head?

Answer: A suicide.

Question: What do you call an American who says the journalist was assassinated?

Answer: A conspiracy theorist.

A joke for you

2006-12-21T02:45:00.000-05:00

What do Bush and Sharon have in common?

Answer: They're both braindead.

Will anarchism soon become a necessity?

2006-12-16T19:34:00.000-05:00

A post I made on Stumbleupon.

I read two disturbing articles about the implications of the evolution of surveillance technology this week:

Toronto Star

Telegraph

I have attempted to find ways to design a better form of constitutional, legal and economic system within the state model to address the problems of concentration of power that plague the state and corporate systems. I have found that this can be addressed by decentralising power and increasing separation of power and guaranteed civil rights. I have since encountered anarchism and found that abolishing the state altogether is an even more elegant solution.

However, I have tried to find ways within the state system to protect people's rights against the increasingly invasive technology, and I have not found any. Constitutional guarantees will not work because they will be ignored, or eroded by corporate interests and authoritarian elements by using false flag terrorism and other excuses. Forbidding or regulating technology will not work because the elites will develop it in secret and use it without public knowledge, if they haven't already. Developping other technology to counter it will not work because technology depends on resources, and the elites will always have the upper hand as long as the wealth remains concentrated.

Sooner or later, the current system is doomed to a form of totalitarianism surpassing anything ever heard of in history. It already makes little difference who is elected, because the leaders are vetted before their elections by corporate globalist elites, and they have been concentrating power and curtailing our civil liberties. But now the elites are pushing for a post-Westphalian system where all the states will be integrated into regional blocs, eventually a single one (often referred to as 'new world order'), controlled by corporations, and where democratic institutions will be but hollow shells.

Assuming the above doesn't happen, and that the elites fail in their globalist schemes it will make no difference for the people whether countries are separate and leaders are really elected or not, because in the end every aspect of life will be monitored and controlled, be it a global or a regional state.

Therefore, it is indeed true that all forms of coercion and inequality have to be eliminated, as an urgent necessity, because their effects coupled with the technology to come will be multiplied tenfold. Someone predicted that a time would come when the battle would be between anarchism and statism, and it appears that it's going to be soon.

BBC joins the anti-conspiracy propaganda

2006-12-09T17:36:00.000-05:00

Yes, I feel particularly vindictive towards the propagandists these days.

(Another one brought to you by Prison Planet.)

Yet again, the establishment is trying to pathologise unorthodox beliefs with their phoney psychological pseudoscience. Notice how the questions deliberately conflate paranoia with distrust of the governmen, such as these:

"7) My closest friends are very unpredictable. I never know how they are going to act from one day to the next. "

"8) When I am with my closest friends, I feel secure in facing unknown new situations."

"10) I feel very uncomfortable when my closest friends have to make decisions which will affect me personally."

"13) I am certain that my closest friends would not lie to me, even if the opportunity arose and there was no chance that they would get caught."

"14) I can rely on my closest friends to keep the promises they make to me."

Of course, it doesn't matter how you answer those questions, because they only make five questions out of a total of fifteen and are counted in the same total. That means that even if you trust your friends far more than you trust the government (what a radical concept), you will get a response like this:

Your responses suggest you have a high level of belief in conspiracy theories. You might have reason not to trust others, even people close to you. You may also feel that you are an outsider in terms of society and the political and business decisions that large organisations make.

Apparently Dr. Patrick Leman think that you're a paranoid person with antisocial problems in need of a psychologist if you think that the government doesn't have your interests at heart and shouldn't be treated like your friends. Never mind the fact that the beliefs enumerated by the article are widespread enough to design that poll, it must mean we live in a sick world of paranoid people who need to be 'reeducated'.

Ooooooh, conspiracy bashers!

2006-12-05T00:37:00.000-05:00

Oh, looky what I just found on Prison Planet.

Historians agree that imperial Japan, hoping to cripple United States forces in the Pacific, scored a major – although fatally incomplete – victory 65 years ago this week at Pearl Harbor.

But there's a version of the tale you won't find in textbooks. In this alternative history, Dec. 7, 1941, was also President Franklin Roosevelt's triumph. He had withheld information that would have warned the Pacific Fleet, willingly sacrificing a dozen ships and more than 2,400 Americans to achieve his goal.

FDR had dragged America into World War II.

That's the gist of the “backdoor to war” conspiracy theory, originally championed by Roosevelt's right-wing foes in the 1940s. This revisionist view of Pearl Harbor was dying when Sept. 11, 2001, cast it in a new light. The notion that an American president would welcome a surprise attack as a pretext for war was taken up anew. This time, though, the argument came from leftist commentators.

Here is yet another article that repeats the tired 'conspiracy' canards we've been hearing about over and over again from the American corporate media. Let's look at how they try to 'prove' that conspiracies don't happen, it's just people who have been imagining them for centuries.

Underground, unofficial versions of history have flourished in most countries. In fact, some Japanese conservatives advance their own “backdoor to war” theory. In one Tokyo museum, photos, charts and texts “prove” that American actions in Asia and the Pacific had left Japan with no choice short of hostilities.

Apparently the Americans hold a monopoly on what constitutes the 'official' versions of history. Clearly, the authors of the article have not heard of the declassified McCollum memos which explicitly admitted that they tried to push Japan into war. (Even Wikipedia carries an article on this). But that's not good enough, because facts aren't enough to 'prove' theories that aren't government approved.

By the way, this is a response typical of Turkish government officials who still deny to this day the Armenian genocide.

In the United States, it's increasingly a mainstream view that secret forces with mysterious aims shape our destiny. In 1998, CBS News found that three out of four Americans believe that the truth behind John F. Kennedy's assassination has been covered up. This summer, a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that more than one out of three Americans believe it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials planned 9/11 or at least did nothing to stop the attacks.

Political assassinations only happen in South America, there are no coup d'états in the good ol'US of A! (Never mind that the people being accused of assassinating Kennedy were the ones who themselves carried out the Latin American coup d'états!)

Oh, and only the Soviet Union would have covered up Stalin's Ukrainian genocide for over fifty years until Gorbatchev allowed the media to speak only, and only the Turks would cover up their own genocide for almost a century. The US of A would never do something like that!

Why people embrace conspiracy theories is a complex topic, touching on ideology and psychology.

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that governments DO conspire, would it? Oh, wait, they only exist in people's imagination.

In our time, two factors have made these tales more pervasive:

The Internet accelerates the pace at which isolated mutterings can become national phenomena, exposed to a potential audience of billions. Video clips and documents, real and manufactured, zip through the ether and buttress tales that might otherwise be dismissed as cockamamie speculation.

Oh my gawd! People are starting to think for themselves! And, (gasp), they're backing up their speculation with FACTS!

From the Pentagon Papers to Watergate, late 20th-century scandals proved that the official version of events can be a smoke screen hiding a more sinister and more accurate story.

Translation: because governments do conspire.

“Americans tend to be particularly receptive to anti-government conspiracy theories,” said Kathryn Olmsted, a University of California Davis history professor who is writing a book on this subject.

Now we're getting into the meat of the pseudopsychological theories. Firstly, the claim that Americans are 'receptive' to conspiracy theories more than other people is baseless. Daniel Pipes has claimed that the Arab world is receptive to conspiracy theories, while similar claims were made about the French when Thierry Meyssan released his books on 9/11, and the British when doubts arised about Princess Diana's assassination (this same article even accuse the Japanese of believing in conspiracy theories, whatever that means).

The difference is that the term 'conspiracy theory' is not popular in other languages as in English, as they are usually almost literal and awkward translations (such as in French 'théorie du complot' or in German 'Verschwörungstheorie'. The reason is because the stereotype of 'conspiracy theories' as fantasies similar to belief in UFOs is an American cultural concept, originally used to dismiss non-official explanations of JFK's assassination.

In short, this is a spin of the fact that people are open to the idea that governments abuse their power.

Secondly, anyone who has tried to expose the 9/11 coverups will tell you that Americans actually have greater difficulty than other people to accept that governments do commit conspiracies, in part because of the smear campaign led by establishment media and dubious publications such as this one, but also of pride based on national myths such as being a beacon for democracy and having transparent government, making it difficult to believe that the government would be able to commit atrocities. In fact, that 9/11 and the JFK assassination were a cover up are facts accepted by a far wider (in the latter case, vast majority) of populations outside the United States. In 2003,19% of Germans already believed that 9/11 was an inside job (this number is likely higher today).

But as Washington's power grew, conspiracy theorists “found” more masterminds – past and present – within the federal government. In 1937, a book titled “Why Was Lincoln Murdered?” gave a startling answer. The Great Emancipator, author Otto Eisenschiml argued, fell victim to a plot cooked up by his secretary of war, Edwin Stanton.

“That attracted a lot of attention at the time,” noted William Hanchett, history professor emeritus at San Diego State University and an authority on Lincoln's assassination. “But it's been completely discredited.”

Many conspiracy theories meet a similar fate – they rise on the hot air of controversy; wobble as experts poke holes in their fragile underpinnings; and then drop into oblivion.

Of course, left unmentioned are the conspiracy 'theories' that were actually validated, such as Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which had been dismissed for years before being admitted in 2005).

Unfortunately, there is reason for such rhetoric. In 1990, a New York Times/WCBS-TV poll found that black Americans most apt to embrace conspiracies were also most familiar with U.S. history. They knew that the FBI had infiltrated the civil-rights movement in the 1960s and that the U.S. Public Health Service had withheld effective treatment from black men in the Tuskegee syphilis study of 1932-72.

Hey, nice doublethink. They admit that conspiracies do happen, but you shouldn't believe them! Apparently truth is no defence in the sham court of the anti-conspiratorial police.

For Americans of all races and backgrounds, well-documented government scandals have diminished faith in “the official story.” At the same time, though, even the most elaborate conspiracy theory can offer an odd sort of comfort.

“There is a natural tendency when a tragedy or catastrophe happens to try to make it comprehensible,” Olmsted said. (Full disclosure: Olmsted is married to Bill Ainsworth, a Union-Tribune reporter.)

People often reduce complicated issues to a single cause – the bigger the issue, the bigger the cause, said Patrick Leman, a British psychologist who studies the origins of conspiracy theories.

This is more pseudoscience repeated by establishment 'researchers'. Most 9/11 researchers noticed that it is usually the non-official theory that is more difficult for Americans to accept because it requires them to realise that the government would do them harm to further their own agendas. The reason why government official theories don't stand is because sooner or later people find out that the facts that contradict it, often in spite of themselves violently rejecting them at first in favour of a simplistic story packaged by the government.

Leman's research also indicates that people who are inclined to believe conspiracy theories are also inclined to discard facts that run counter to those theories.

“It's called confirmatory bias,” said Michael Shermer, author of “Why People Believe Weird Things” and executive director of the Skeptics Society. “People tend to look for or recognize evidence that supports their ideas and ignore everything else.”

Speaking of bias, note that it is not said whether this phenomenon also occurs with people who believe and want to validate the official story. Another example of one-sided argumentation that is pervasive in this hit piece.

Case in point: Olmsted notes that every war that the United States has fought since 1900 has spawned a conspiracy theory, often inspired by the conviction that Americans love peace.

And the reason for this is that most of the wars fought by the United States were justified by the government with conspiracy theories to begin with. Such as the Japanese Pearl Harbor conspiracy, the alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the theory that 19 hijackers drove planes into the WTC because they 'hate our freedoms'.

“Opponents of war, at the time or often later, argue that this is basically a peaceful country,” she said. “If everyone had known all the facts, we wouldn't have gone to war.”

I have yet to find an American war opponent claim that the United States is basically 'peaceful'. Most of the people who say this are Democrats and phony progressives who originally supported the war for 'humanitarian' purposes and need to justify their choice on the grounds of having been mistaken. Those people are some of the least likely to accept to accept a non-official theory because they 'discredit the anti-war movement'.

Conversely, more commonplace, non-conspiratorial explanations can shake our faith in order and reason. Rosenberg cites the “clutter and noise” view, that catastrophes sometimes happen because authorities are distracted or incompetent. This can be a difficult, if not intolerable, reminder of chance's role in life.

This is a bizarre explanation for the Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks if I've seen one. Apparently the Japanese and the Arabs decided to randomly plunge airplanes and accidentally hit Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center. Oh, such coincidences!

(Essentially, 'chance's role' is a polite way of saying that conspiracies do exist, but all of them are committed by foreign governments against the United States, so that means that Americans need to obey their government so they can protect them. 'Clutter and noise' means something like 'oops sorry you got your ass gang-raped, I left your cell door open and walked away somewhere, but it was an accident I promise. What do you mean, the guy with the mask on his face looked like me???'.

Again, researchers who actually talk to people will say that when confronted with evidence contradicting the official reports, they will violently reject it either because they want to believe their government is on their side, or because they do not want to be seen as 'conspiracy theorists'. The fear factor of an oppressive government is far greater than chance, because such regime require massive mobilisations and far more effort to combat than external threats that can be fought by siding with the government.

Finally, the article concludes with the following:

Unbelievable or not, this backdoor has moved. Once a staple of the far right, it is now attached to the extreme left.

The article explains nowhere how believing that the government would do something wrong is somehow 'extremist', nor what is 'extremist' about Roosevelt's opponents and the anti-Iraq war movement. Are Mr. Rowe and LaFee implying that Bush and Roosevelt's opponents were authoritarian fascists or communists?

In other words, any disagreement with status quo and enshrined beliefs, whether left or right, constitutes extremism and should be cast aside, no matter facts, individual reasoning and common sense. Facts are for experts to deal with, so trust them, don't ask questions and just accept their version of history.

No exit polls for the 2006 election

2006-11-01T13:53:00.000-05:00

The good news is that many Americans have woken up to the fraudulent elections that have taken place during and since Bush's takeover. There has been speculation that so many people would vote against the Republicans that even the Diebold machines would be unable to cover up the fraud.

Well, it looks like the neocons solved that problem.

1. There are no network/AP exit polls in House races on Election Day.

That pretty much guarantees that the election is going to be fraudulent, since there will be no way to verify the results, no matter how skewed they are.

Obviously, though, the nice people who wrote up this list don't understand the implications:

8. Every case of malfunctioning voting machines or voter fraud is a serious matter, but not every case of malfunctioning voting machines or voter fraud is part of a conspiracy directed by trial lawyers or Karl Rove.

Sure they aren't. That every voteing machine error in Florida leaned towards Bush in the 2004 election, and that all the major companies that produce the voting machines are headed by explicitly pro-Bush CEOs (need I remind you that the CEOs of Diebold and ES&S are brothers, and that one of them promised to deliver Ohio to the Republicans), and that all the ATMs made by Diebold are perfectly secure and have paper trail?

Peter King: "We'll take care of the counting"?

Nope. That's gotta be a coincidence.

Technorati

2006-10-10T21:25:00.000-04:00

Just subscibed!

Technorati Profile

Watch TerrorStorm

2006-10-09T22:18:00.000-04:00

NOW!

Debunking Maddox

2006-10-09T09:39:00.000-04:00

Debunking Maddox

Finally, an article to respond to Maddox' hit piece on 9/11 researchers.

Frankly, Maddox' article was rather weak. The argument that conspiracy theorists would be dead if what they say is true is neither new nor original; it's one of the canned lines repeated over and over again by media hit pieces. As the German laws banning Holocaust denial have shown, political repression against people holding differing opinions, whether valid or not, only serve to give them more legitimacy, because it portrays the government as trying to hide a truth they desperately do not want to hear. Therefore, governments only resort to assassinations sparsely, and only against whistleblowers that have smoking gun evidence and have not yet come out with their story.

Such a case has happened at least once: Hunter S. Thompson's sudden demise came as he was working on a WTC collapse story, after he had warned that he would get 'suicided'. This incident in itself served to fuel more suspicion towards the official story of 9/11.

Don't get me wrong, I used to like reading Maddox' articles. This is not meant to bash him. But fighting for the truth takes priority over a popular guy with a website, and I can no longer endorse someone who uses his wit for the service of the establishment.

Bush's dictatorial trifecta

2006-09-29T17:27:00.000-04:00

With the passing through both houses of the so-called 'compromise' bill with the help of neocon quisling John McCain, we need a picture to recap what the American legislature has turned into:

Now with the hard facts about the Military Commission Act of 2006, as my previous post was not enough:

The Bush regime can declare anyone who criticises them 'unlawful enemy combattant' without judicial review
The Bush regime can deny Habeas Corpus from anyone, US citizen or not, and detain them indefinitely in secret prisons
The Bush regime gets retroactive immunity from prosecution for their torturing of detainees

Actually, that's more than a trifecta. That's five aces in the same hand. Which, like Bush's elections, can only be obtained by cheating.

They're fucking doing it

2006-09-28T18:30:00.003-04:00

Remember my warnings back half a year ago?

Well, they're fucking doing it.

Attorneys for the Center for Constitutional Rights claim that what appears to be the final version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 could allow the government to detain the attorneys themselves as 'enemy combatants.' CCR Legal Director Bill Goodman said: "This bill makes a mockery of the rule of law."

The current version of the Military Commissions redefines an "unlawful enemy combatant" so broadly that it could include anyone who organizes a march against the war in Iraq. The bill defines a UEC as "a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or anyone who "has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense of the United States." The definition makes no reference to citizenship and therefore could be read to include any number of individuals, including:

In Australia, an anti-terrorism bill was passed reaffirming the disused anti-sedition law, threatning dissenters with up to seven years of jail, and Britain passed legislation in March 2006 that bans "glorification of terrorism".

Back then, I predicted that this would be be used in the United States as a precedent for passing similar legislation, regardless of theoretical constitutional protections of freedom of speech. And it appears that the American legislation surpasses its British and Australian equivalents, as it would potentially land the accused in the same situation as José Padilla, with no access to a lawyer and detained indefinitely without charges, at the whim of the president of the United States, merely for expressing "hostilities' against the United States (read: pretty much any opinion that the Bush regime doesn't like).

Not good at all.

Chavez was right

2006-09-24T10:17:00.000-04:00

Bush really is the devil!

Proof:

His disciples:

Bush with a halo, proving that he's the Anti-Christ:

So, what does all this mean for the world?

Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush

2006-09-21T18:26:00.000-04:00

"Because we want to do the same thing when we get elected!"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two of President Bush's staunchest domestic critics leapt to his defense Thursday, a day after one of his fiercest foreign foes called him "the devil" in a scorching speech before the United Nations.

"You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, scolded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez."

Is this the kind of opposition party anyone wants as an alternative to the Bush regime? An opposition party that not only can't criticise the elected president properly, but doesn't tolerate that anyone else does? An opposition party that does the dirty work for the ruling party by picking a quote out of context and ignoring all the other valid points that Chavez made about the behaviour of the US on the international scene?

But no, if you're not an American, you can't criticise the President (and if you are, you're an insurgent):

"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.

"I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president: Don't come to the United States and think, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state," Rangel said.

Translation: we can invade and bomb Middle Eastern countries, we can topple democratic leaders and prop up puppets all over South America, steal the Mexican elections, and support a military coup against you, but how dare you come to our country to criticise us!

In any country that has a semblance of democracy, this would have been a grandiose opportunity for a real opposition party to point out how the country's image is suffering from the ruling party's imperial practices and bring new ideas to redress those grievances as part of an electoral platform.

Who needs a single-party system with opposition like that?

By the way, since the media refuses to give any real coverage of Chavez' speech, here's the full text.

UPDATE: Here's a video of Hagel's comments.

And Chavez' speech.

Oh, another thing: the Democrats conveniently ignore the part of Chavez' speech where he says he wants the UN out of the United States. Presumably, it means that he doesn't want to have to go to the US to voice his opinions about Bush So what is all the complaining about?

What do Gitmo and Auschwitz have in common?

2006-09-17T11:35:00.000-04:00

They're both vacation resorts! Really!

At least according to Rush Limbaugh. But don't take his word for it! Guantanamo just released a fun facts list:

1. The detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility include bin Laden's bodyguards, bomb makers, terrorist trainers and facilitators, and other suspected terrorists.

2. More money is spent on meals for detainees than on the U.S. troops stationed there. Detainees are offered up to 4,200 calories a day. The average weight gain per detainee is 20 pounds.

3. The Muslim call to prayer sounds five times a day. Arrows point detainees toward the holy city of Mecca.

4. Detainees receive medical, dental, psychiatric, and optometric care at U.S. taxpayers' expense. In 2005, there were 35 teeth cleanings, 91 cavities filled, and 174 pairs of glasses issued.

5. The International Committee of the Red Cross visits detainees at the facility every few months. More than 20,000 messages between detainees and their families have been exchanged.

6. Recreation activities include basketball, volleyball, soccer, pingpong, and board games. High-top sneakers are provided.

7. Departing detainees receive a Koran, a jean jacket, a white T-shirt, a pair of blue jeans, high-top sneakers, a gym bag of toiletries, and a pillow and blanket for the flight home.

8. Entertainment includes Arabic language TV shows, including World Cup soccer games. The library has 3,500 volumes available in 13 languages -- the most requested book is "Harry Potter."

9. Guantanamo is the most transparent detention facility in the history of warfare. The Joint Task Force has hosted more than 1,000 journalists from more than 40 countries.

10. In 2005, Amnesty International stated that "the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times."

Now, just for fun, let's compare this list with an Auschwitz fact list from a Holocaust skeptic:

RED CROSS VISITS!

Supposedly the most dreaded of German camps, Auschwitz was repeatedly visited by Red Cross inspection teams who were allowed to speak to prisoner representatives alone,in order to hear first-hand of any mistreatment, chicanery, interruption of mail and parcel delivery, health concerns, food and ration matters etc.

DENTAL FACILITIES!

Camp dental facilities,,attended by camp inmate dentists and nurses to deal with the inmates' dental problems - before the war there 43% of Germany's dentists were Jewish -

MEDICAL CARE!

Camp sick barracks ,attended by camp inmate doctors and nurses to deal with the inmates' health problems - much like the now common walk-in clinics in modern US communities - A camp hospital to which expert surgeons even from the famous Berlin "Charité" Surgical Clinic were dispatched to deal with difficult cases -

HIGH CALORIE MEALS!

Camp kitchen -one of the largest service buildings in Auschwitz, with state-of-the-art cooking facilities. There were twelve of these throughout the camp.

* The caloric content of the diet was carefully monitored by camp and Red Cross delegates. It only deteriorated in Auschwitz and other camps towards the end of the war when German railroads and the entire transport system collapsed under constant aerial attacks -

RECREATION ACTIVITIES!

A camp theater where live plays could be performed by camp inmate actors -

Camp sculture class conducted for interested, talented inmates by professional sculptors

Camp art classes for inmates

Camp university with lectures on every topic under the sun, from health, the arts, philosophy, science, economic issues etc.

A camp cinema - where every week different, mainly cultural and non-political films were shown -

And last, but not least, RELIGIOUS FACILITIES!

Camp religious facilities made available on a rotating basis to every denomination for religious services -

Don't listen to the Bush people who say that it's insulting to compare Bush to Hitler! Take it as a compliment! THEY'RE BOTH SUCH NICE PEOPLE FOR BEING SO GENEROUS TOWARDS THEIR PRISONERS!

Impeach.

2006-08-31T22:55:00.000-04:00

Sent to me by a Palestinian

2006-08-21T00:17:00.000-04:00

Thanks, coyturtle.

Are the neocons trying to set up Alex Jones?

2006-08-20T02:28:00.000-04:00

FOX News reports Alex Jones' false flag operation prediction.

Then Alex Jones' interview with Alan Colmes.

The more I think about it, the more I find this suspicious:

Immediately after Alex Jones made his warning, FOX News announced it briefly, without attempting to spin it or discredit it, except to make out his statements as 'claims'.

Then Alan Colmes, a commentator at the SAME channel, gives airspace to Alex Jones, and gives him a relatively free pass.

So FOX News, the most blatent US propaganda channel, reports his statements TWICE, by TWO different people, without trying to discredit him, while no other network give any coverage to his statements.

Does anyone else feel that this is too good to be true?

EDIT: Here's some background, since I tend to comment following my inspiration rather than the sequence of events:

Alex Jones predicted the 9/11 attacks two months before they happened.

Alex Jones' second prediction, that there is likely to be a major false flag operation in the next few months. If only for sheer entertainment, please listen to this audio clip, it's good to hear Alex Jones angry!

US government refuses to authenticate bin Laden "confession video"

2006-08-18T01:26:00.000-04:00

The fat-nosed Bin Laden gets disavowed:

In response to the July 10, 2006 Freedom of Information Act request made by the Muckraker Report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the authenticity of the December 13, 2001 Osama bin Laden "confession video" in which Osama bin Laden allegedly confesses his involvement and masterminding of 9/11, the FBI said:

"The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b)(7)(A)."

Not only has the confession video been proven by the German media to have been mistranslated, but it has been shown to be a fraud altogether. Yet this video was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan as well as to reinforce the official story of 9/11.

Since this video has been used both by government apologists and 9/11 skeptics to discredit each other's theories, surely it would have been a simple matter for the government to confirm the authenticity of the video to settle the issue once and for all. Yet it has not only failed to respond for almost five years after the attacks, but refused to do so at a direct request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Why is that?

Oh, wait! Even the FBI admits there's no solid link between Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks!

Remember, you're an anti-semite if you think Israel controls the US media

2006-08-15T22:25:00.000-04:00

Yet another treasure from the WRH reader letters...

READER: Re: Sex ring employed 240 call girls

Earlier today, the title of that article was "Israelis emplyed 240 call girls, cop says"

Here's the screenshot of the title change in my rss news reader:

WRH: Imagine my shock.

Testing with Flock

2006-08-11T03:16:00.000-04:00

Yay! Now blogging will be easier and faster!

Send pizza to the IDF!

2006-08-05T12:11:00.000-04:00

With bacon, ham and extra pepperoni, please. >:->

Hear Our Cry! Enough Is Enough!

2006-07-24T16:24:00.000-04:00

Posted in the WRH reader letters:

I am a citizen of Lebanon living in this biblical land. Currently being one of those who is living and witnessing the ongoing horror in my beautiful country, I am enraged, angered, sad, distressed and confused as to what to do. I am sick and tired of people taking advantage of my country, carrying out their own wars on my land, cleaning up their dirty laundry at the cost of my fellow citizens. I am not a supporter of any political party; I am with the land of "Milk and Honey" as the Bible states. My rage is against Israel, Hezbollah, Bush's USA, Iran, Syria and the previous Lebanese government.

How dare they, under selfish pretexts, which I do not even wish to discern, exploit our country to settle their horrendous accounts.

Hezbollah claims to be defending its land. I used to admire that group during the years when Israel had occupied the South, being the only ones to defend the land. After the occupation, they should have joined the Lebanese Army if they really intended to defend this land. They have no right to compel the people of Lebanon to pay the price for their selfish moves!

Bush (yes, Bush, not even Mr. Bush!) has declared himself as nothing short of the next Messiah who has taken under his 'wings' the duty of bringing justice to the world, stopping terror from the globe!!! What a noble and kindred spirit! Shame on him! What right does he have to violate the privacies of other countries? Before meddling internationally, one should clean up the national disorder. What about the homeless in the USA? What about the educational standards in a number of public schools? What about the crime rates in the states? What about substance abuse rates? What about tempered rights of children? What about the youth landing home in coffins from Iraq?

Israel! Shame on you for using "God's Chosen People" as a slogan for every inhumane action in the world! God's chosen people should be setting examples for the rest of the world, not violating every single humanitarian decree! What will you tell God about the innocent children whose lifeless bodies are hanging out from their parents' cars as they are fleeing your bombs? What will you tell the children whose parents are lying dead in front of them with their intestines bulging out of their bodies in front of their tiny innocent eyes? What will you tell students when they find their schools completely destroyed and leveled to the ground? How can you justify bombing ambulances and humanitarian workers when they are selflessly and nobly trying to fulfill their missions of evacuating people and caring for the wounded? How can you hit homes and not allow people to remove their dead from under the rubble? THEIR DEAD! You took their lives, at least leave their dead bodies to their families!

Syria and Iran! It pains my heart to see those two beautiful countries who have throughout the history of mankind been pioneers in almost every aspect of existence (long before the Western world had even woken up) now taking a back seat in the vehicle of modernizing the world. There exist noble people in those countries who have now been classified as terrorists because of the dark leadership ruling them. If that is the way they want their countries governed, they have every right to do so! But keep Lebanon out of it!

We are not savages, we are not beasts! We are a civilized nation. We do not accept to have others recklessly run our country. It is time that we have a strong governing body that prioritizes the needs of its nation above others.

What we are facing today is Hurricane Katrina and the last Tsunami combined and then multiplied! Yes modern world, that is what we have! There are around half a million refugees all around Lebanon having taken shelter in schools, and yes, even on so-called safe "streets" sleeping on sidewalks. Do we really understand what that means? 500,000 people sleeping on the icy ground, with no blankets, no mattresses, nothing to eat but a bite of bread once a day! Do we really know what it means to have 200 people use 4 toilets and not have a single drop of water to flush it? Do we? Let's just face the bare facts for a moment. We read and hear the media say "war" and "refugees". Now, picture one of our local schools with your entire family in it, with your newborn baby crying for milk, with your young son shaking from fear not grasping why he is sitting on the floor while his father or mother is bleeding to death in front of him and the ambulance is not coming!

What would you do? Wouldn't you spit at the face of this unjust world?

Enough is enough! The Lebanese are a proud and noble nation, who after 30 years of destructive war caught up with the rest of the world and proved to everybody that they can be the best in any professional domain.

Let us be, let us help the world with our potentials, allow us to our basic human rights so we can live and be able to welcome you on our biblical land and share with you the "Milk and Honey" that God has bestowed upon us.

XXXXXXXXXXX
School Director

Who supports an immediate ceasefire?

2006-07-22T23:52:00.000-04:00

Speaking of dictators...

2006-07-12T13:32:00.000-04:00

Let's not forget that Russia has its own problems, too. Here's a great quote I just read:

President Vladimir Putin's fiercest domestic critics and political challengers have defied the Kremlin and held an alternative G8 summit in Moscow, four days before the real thing.

The "anti-summit" was an attempt to persuade the West to get tough with the Russian leader. Speaker after speaker complained about the state of democracy and urged G8 leaders to stop treating Mr Putin as a democrat.

Great idea! Now, why won't people follow the same advice for Bush?

Busholini is always right

2006-07-12T13:11:00.000-04:00

The neocons' latest innovation in cult of personality.

LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he’s said it to our European allies, he’s waiting for the Supreme Court decision to tell him whether or not he was supposed to close Guantanamo or not. After, he said it upheld his position on Guantanamo, and in fact it said neither. Where did he get that impression? The President’s not a lawyer, you are, the Justice Department advised him. Did you give him such a cockamamie idea or what?

BRADBURY: Well, I try not to give anybody cockamamie ideas.

LEAHY: Well, where’d he get the idea?

BRADBURY: The Hamdan decision, senator, does implicitly recognize we’re in a war, that the President’s war powers were triggered by the attacks on the country, and that law of war paradigm applies. That’s what the whole case —

LEAHY: I don’t think the President was talking about the nuances of the law of war paradigm, he was saying this was going to tell him that he could keep Guantanamo open or not, after it said he could.

BRADBURY: Well, it’s not —

LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong?

BRABURY: It’s under the law of war –

LEAHY: Was the President right or was he wrong?

BRADBURY: The President is always right.

Video available.

What was that old fascist saying? It went something like 'Mussolini ha sempre ragione'.

Forget the Supreme Leader title, Il Duce will do just fine.

July 1st and 4th

2006-07-04T00:18:00.000-04:00

Here's to Canada...

And here's to our American neighbours...

Let us celebrate the independence of both our countries, while we can do so.

Because if certain people have their way, it will not last.

Down with the North American Union and the New World Order! If a union there must be, then let us be united against the people who want to enslave us!

EDIT: And while we're at it, let's mourn Mexico, for its election was stolen by the neocons two days ago:

Neocons plan to steal Mexico

2006-07-03T16:48:00.000-04:00

BushCo is at it again.

Linky linky.

Friday, June 30 — GEORGE Bush’s operatives have plans to jigger with the upcoming elections. I’m not talking about the November ‘06 vote in the USA (though they have plans for that, too). I’m talking about the election this Sunday in Mexico for their Presidency.

It begins with an FBI document marked, “Counterterrorism” and “Foreign Intelligence Collection” and “Secret.” Date: “9/17/2001,” six days after the attack on the World Trade towers. It’s nice to know the feds got right on the ball, if a little late.

What does this have to do with jiggering Mexico’s election? Hold that thought.

Hunting for Terrorists in Latin AmericaThis document is what’s called a “guidance” memo for using a private contractor to provide databases on dangerous foreigners. Good idea. We know the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf Emirates. So you’d think the “Intelligence Collection” would be aimed at getting info on the guys in the Gulf.

No so. When we received the document, we obtained as well its classified appendix. The target nations for “foreign counterterrorism investigation” were nowhere near the Persian Gulf. Every one was in Latin America — Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico and a handful of others.

Latin America?! Was there a terror cell about to cross into San Diego with exploding enchiladas?

All the target nations had one thing in common besides a lack of terrorists: each had a left-leaning presidential candidate or a left-leaning president in office. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, bete noir of the Bush Administration, was facing a recall vote. In Mexico, the anti-Bush Mayor of Mexico City, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was (and is) leading the race for the Presidency.

You see, rigging elections and staging coups d'étsts in Latin American countries, especially those with left-leaning governments, is a well-known American tradition. However, there seems to be more to BushCo's relation with Mexico than the sundry imperial antics pulled off by the CIA:

Most provocative is the contractor to whom this no-bid contract was handed: ChoicePoint Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia. ChoicePoint is the database company that created a list for Governor Jeb Bush of Florida of voters to scrub from voter rolls before the 2000 election. ChoicePoint’s list (94,000 names in all) contained few felons. Most of those on the list were guilty of no crime except Voting While Black. The disenfranchisement of these voters cost Al Gore the presidency.

Having chosen our President for us, our President’s men chose ChoicePoint for this sweet War on Terror database gathering. The use of the Venezuela’s and Mexico’s voter registry files to fight terror is not visible — but the use of the lists to manipulate elections is as obvious as the make-up on Katherine Harris’ cheeks.

In Venezuela, leading up to the August 2004 vote on whether to re-call President Chavez, I saw his opposition pouring over the voter rolls in laptops, claiming the right to challenge voters as Jeb’s crew did to voters in Florida. It turns out this operation was partly funded by the International Republican Institute of Washington, an arm of the GOP. Where did they get the voter info from?

In that case, access to Venezuela’s voter rolls didn’t help the Republican-assisted drive against Chavez, who won by a crushing plurality.

In Mexico this Sunday, we can expect to see the same: challenges of Obrador voters in a race, the polls say, is too close to call. Not that Mexico’s rulers need lessons from the Bush Administration on how to mess with elections.

In 1988, the candidate for Obrador’s Party of the Democratic Revolution (PDR), who opinion polls showed as a certain winner, somehow came up short against the incumbent party of the ruling elite. Some of the electoral tricks were far from subtle. In the state of Guerrero, the PDR was leading on official tally sheets by 359,369. Oddly, the official final count was 309,202 for the ruling party, only 182,874 for the PDR. Challenging the vote would have been dangerous. Two top officials of Obrador’s party were assassinated during the campaign.

Crucial to the surprise victory of the ruling party was the introduction of computer voting machines and the centralization of voter databases. Observer Andrew Reding of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs reported that ruling party operatives had special access codes denied the opposition.

It looks like the Bush regime has had plenty of practice rigging elections against political candidates who don't like them. I encourage the readers to read the rest of the article, as it gives an enlightening perspective on the democratic woes faced by South American countries.

Greg Palast expounds on the relationship between BushCo's choice (no pun intended) of ChoicePoint for the 2000 elections riggings and the rigging of elections in Mexico, all of course in the name of fighting terror (a similar excuse was also used during the Cold War).

But here is where things get interesting. Prison Planet reported the following in December 2005:

In late December 2005, Mexican President Vicente Fox hired a lobbying firm to sweeten political sentiment in the US towards Mexicans and the immigration issue. The same PR expert and GOP political consultant helped George W. Bush defeat Ann Richards for the governorship of Texas in 1994 and worked on both Bush's presidential campaigns.

Rob Allyn of Rob Allyn & Co. secretly engineered Fox's 2000 presidential victory and is closely tied with George W. Bush.

Is it therefore a stretch to suggest that Allyn, with the blessing of George W. Bush, is the architect of the mass immigration protests that were themselves an inorganic construct of the Spanish language media?

Various publications reporting on the Mexican elections described it as a referendum on Fox's neoliberal open market policies. If Fox's signature of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (better known as the North American Union) serves as an example of Fox's open market policies, then this would suggest that the Bush regime has a vested interest in promoting a successor that would endorse those same policies.

When is this going to end? And this raises an important question. Did the neocons play any role in Canada's election of Stephen Harper as well?

UPDATE: Sure enough, the Mexican election is being disputed, with both candidates claiming victory with a razor thin margin. Gee, I wonder why?

Conspiracy tyranny

2006-06-29T11:52:00.000-04:00

I really should have posted about the Bilderberg meetings in Ottawa, since this was an event so close to home. This story got a lot of coverage, but I wasn't particularly inspired to write an article about it (and I was busy doing other things). I even read about how Alex Jones was detained for 14 hours by our immigration services.

But I was floored when I read this article.

"A military-grade task force involving local police, RCMP and members of the “Integrated National Security Enforcement Team” descended around the rental vehicle with weapons pointed at Mr. McCormick. He was abruptly and forcibly taken into custody from his vehicle, thrown to the ground and kicked in head."

After approaching the vehicle, Burd and his friend Crystal Slack were also grabbed and kidnapped, taken to a RCMP holding facility, detained without charges, harassed and interrogated for hours about their connections to the "insurgent" and "threat to national security" Alex Jones, who himself had been detained and interrogated for 15 hours at the hands of Canadian immigration the previous day.

They were the lucky ones.

McCormick was taken to a secret high security facility where he was brutally interrogated without charge and mentally tortured for six hours. He was accused of wanting to blow up the Brookestreet Hotel, as the interrogators threatened to "cut off his arms" warning him that they also "had his friends" in custody. This is the very definition of psychological torture, the threat of physical harm and dismemberment.zvw'

McCormick's anguish at the hands of the Canadian Gestapo didn't end there.

Interrogators told McCormick that he “would never be alone again” and to “watch his back” - as he began to fear he would become the latest victim of the worldwide rendition policy, and be taken to an Eastern European gulag for further torture.

McCormick was so stricken by the horror of his nightmare that many of the details of what happened remained bottled up, partly from threatened fear of reprisals if he told anyone what had occurred.

Finally being released and returning home the next day, McCormick became delirious and had to be rushed to hospital after he collapsed. He was diagnosed with severe dehydration and mental fatigue due to his experiences in Ottawa. McCormick had to be sedated to help him sleep as he babbled about having his arms cut off and interrogators threatening to harm his friends.

From the experiences of Alex Jones during his 15 hour ordeal with Canadian immigration officials, it was learned that the order to impede Jones' party came directly from the Bilderberg Group itself. With this knowledge in hand, it is by no means a stretch to assume that the hellish treatment of Burd, McCormick and Slack was also a mandate of the Bilderberg elitists.

You know, I've been covering so many events going on in other countries, many of which I have friends living in and it's been saddening to look at them being turned into dictatorships by the various neocons / globalists in charge.

But as much as I knew it would happen in Canada eventually and was prepared for it, there is nothing more shocking than the realisation that those things are going on in my own country. The significance of this is that it is not only American visitors like Alex Jones, but now our own citizens, at home, who are being harrassed and threatened to get their arms cut off and be sent to torture camps abroad for speaking out against the globalist dictators. This confirms that the far-reacing powers grabbed by the neocons in the name of fighting terrorism are no longer theoretical; they are now a concrete threat against democracy and freedom of speech. This is getting serious.

The media tells us that the Bilderberg Group is just fodder for conspiracy buffs. Oddly enough, the government pays an awful lot of attention to what the media spins as entertainment for fringe groups.

The Bilderberg Group isn't conspiracy theory, folks. It's conspiracy tyranny.

Trouble on Heated Debates

2006-06-19T20:58:00.000-04:00

I've been trying to get two people to join my forum, and both of them have been unable to connect (connexion timeout). Now a regular member of my forum is unable to get on (server not found).

Apologies to anyone who tried to connect. Does anyone have an idea what could be going on? I have no problems connecting, and neither do many posters. Any help would be appreciated.

OK, back to business.

2006-06-19T20:06:00.000-04:00

So, now we're supposed to believe that the PNAC is shutting down.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Just like the Total Information Awareness programme that was supposedly shut down in 2003, right? Actually, it's still alive and well. Just like the 2004 Draft bill that was spectacularly defeated and magically sprung back in 2006, the School of Americas that was renamed to WHINSEC in 2001 to pretend it no longer existed, reminescent of the whole charade of Philip Morris changing its name to Altria, and McCain's farcical torture ban which was nothing more than a 'good cop' tactic from the former president of the PNAC-affiliated New Citizenship Project.

So, we sre supposed to believe that an organisation that evolved from the Israeli 'Clean Break' doctrine, whose supporters have an enormous stake in furthering an extremist agenda for Israel and have been doing so for years, would suddenly decide to shut down, right when they are currently pushing for a war in Iran?

If anyone believes that, I have some of Saddam's nukes to sell them.

Just wanted to let you know...

2006-06-16T20:50:00.000-04:00

... that I turn 21 today.

(And I have to post more updates.)

Bill Kristol: 'Maybe Bush will become Supreme Leader..."

2006-06-05T16:00:00.000-04:00

PNAC leader Bill Kristol reveals his fascist fantasies.

Bill Kristol was discussing recent comments made by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khameni -- then, in mid-comment, Kristol stopped himself and said, with no hint of irony, "Maybe we should have Supreme Leader Bush. I kind of like the sound of that."

It has become so obvious that the neocons have been wanting to turn the US into a dictatorship that they aren't even attempting to hide it anymore.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator."

I'm on vacation!

2006-05-23T16:17:00.000-04:00

YAY!

This means I'm back to business. Expect some updates shortly.

Australian government shuts down spoof site

2006-03-18T13:07:00.000-05:00

Chinese-style censorship coming to a country near you!

This is what happens in countries without a Bill of Rights.

A spoof John Howard website that featured a soul searching "apology" speech for the Iraq war has been shut down under orders from the Australian Government.

Richard Neville, an Australian futurist and social commentator was "mystified" to discover his satirical website johnhowardpm.org had been blocked on Tuesday with no explanation from either his web hosting company, Yahoo or the domain name registrar, Melbourne IT.

He said that after two days of silence, a customer service representative from Melbourne IT today informed him by telephone that the site had "been closed on the advice from the Australian Government".

Mr Neville's satirical "apology" speech ran on a mocked-up version of a spoof website that resembled Mr Howard's own, and after going live on Monday, received 10,500 visits within 24 hours.

Bruce Tonkin, the chief technology officer at Melbourne IT, said the site had been shut down in response to a request from the Prime Minister's office on basis that it looked too similar to its own site.

"If we receive a complaint from an intellectual property basis claiming that a website directly infringes the rights of another site we would check it, and if it is a direct copy we would suspend the site," he said.

He said the issue of whether or not the content was satirical was of no consequence to Melbourne IT. "To us it looks like a phishing site," he said.

Mr Neville contests that there are any similarities between a satirical website and a phishing operation, which would typically carry an intent of data or financial theft.

"I don't see how you can make judgements that ignore the content or intention of the site. To give the satire more impact it was important to make it look like an official speech. Obviously there was no hacking of the original site, and I did not choose to make it too close to the actual design, and my name and address were readily accessible," he said.

He added that one of the reasons he had chosen Yahoo's hosting service was because it did not have any obvious policies that restricted the nature of content that could be published.

"If there were objections to the content on the site, isn't there a democratic tradition that I be informed of it," he said.

Mr Neville describes the parody as an act of satire and culture jamming, and is now running a link to a PDF copy of the speech on his website.

He has been involved in satirical publishing since the 1960's when he edited Oz magazine, which covered contentious issues of the time. However some of the subject matter led to obsenity charges for him and his colleagues, that were later overturned.

You can now see the results of Australia's draconian anti-terrorism legislation of 2005, which reaffirms and expands the disused, yet unrepealed Australian sedition law and effectively prohibits anti-government dissent.

Please support the NSWCCL campaign for an Australian Bill of Rights now!

EDIT: Now the tendency is spreading out to the United States

In an unusual and little-known case, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office has seized four computer hard drives from a Lancaster newspaper as part of a statewide grand-jury investigation into leaks to reporters.

The dispute pits the government's desire to solve an alleged felony - computer hacking - against the news media's fear that taking the computers circumvents the First Amendment and the state Shield Law.

The state Supreme Court declined last week to take the case, allowing agents to begin analyzing the data.

"This is horrifying, an editor's worst nightmare," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Washington. "For the government to actually physically have those hard drives from a newsroom is amazing. I'm just flabbergasted to hear of this."

The precedent has been set. As I've predicted before, repression used in foreign countries will be used to justify repressions conducted in your own country, Bill of Rights or not. This is why constitutional documents can no longer be assumed to protect people just because they exist. They must be upheld, and the government must be confronted with its violation, or else it is nothing but a piece of paper (as Bush put it quite eloquently).

For people in countries without a Bill of Rights, you must act as if one were in effect, and clamour for the government to uphold the values of a free and democratic society. You might think it's too late or impractical at this point to implement a Bill of Rights, but the simple action of campaigning for it establishes its legitimacy. Rights are not guaranteed by legal documents; they are guaranteed when they are recognised and demanded by the people.

Bush signs bill without Congress approval

2006-03-18T02:42:00.000-05:00

This story is so incredible, it needs two articles.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.

Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Second article.

In an amazing development that has received almost no media attention, mainstream or alternative, President Bush again placed himself above the law and wilfully violated the Constitution by signing into law a bill that didn't pass both Houses of Congress.

According to representative Henry Waxman, Bush signed into law a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that didn't pass Congress. The discrepancy between the version Bush signed and the actual bill that passed equates to a value of $2 billion.

Bush knew he was directly violating the Constitution and effectively acting as a despot because he received a call from the Speaker of the House before signing the bill, warning him that it had not been passed.

This is a travesty of rule of law unseen before in modern history. What's especially frightening is that two days later, only two publications have written an article about that letter. Bush is openly putting himself above the law, and no mainstream publication has reported about this. Not even a denial or an attempt to dispel the story as a rumour to reassure what should be a very concerned population, who instead remains blissfully ignorant.

If you think this is an inocuous law being passed without congressional review, think of it as the neocons testing the waters. That means that Bush could pass any authoritarian legislation peddled by his neocon masters, including PATRIOT Act provisions that are not approved by Congress or even present in the bill approved by both houses.

Compare this to the bill being introduced in the UK, which if passed would turn British Parliament into a rubberstamp that can be overridden by ministers at any time; in other words, where the executive could pass any laws they want without parliamentary review. Even though it got little attention in Parliament compared to the hotly debated national ID cards, at least it got the attention of the mainstream UK media.

The closest recent precedent to this ridiculously cavalier attitude towards constitutional law was when Australia passed its Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005, which even in spite of the notorious absence of Bill of Rights, violates the constitutional separations of powers of Australia.

It is getting increasingly obvious that those legislations are incremental attempts to push all those countries away from democracy and rule of law towards authoritarianism and despotism. This is especially worrying given the recent election of Stephen Harper in Canada, who is notorious for his support of the neocon regimes.

UPDATE: Bush does it again...

I predicted that Bush would push the wedge further and do the same with the PATRIOT Act as he did with the previous bill, and he did exactly that.

What's going to be next, rule by decree?

Canada joins the ranks of the imperialists

2006-03-13T22:58:00.000-05:00

Thanks a lot, Tories.

Canadian troops in Afghanistan are complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity because of their new aggressive role in support of the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and should be immediately pulled out of the war zone and returned to Canada or risk facing possible future criminal charges, according to a decorated Vietnam war veteran now turned Canadian peace activist.

This was the message sent directly to Canadian troops in Afghanistan Tuesday, Feb. 28, via a government website message board at the same time it was sent to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, all members of Parliament, and Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean, who serves as Commander-in-Chief of Canadian forces. It came from military veteran John McNamer, 58, of Kamloops, British Columbia. McNamer was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his service with the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division in Vietnam and he is the author of a newly-released research brief examining the legality of Canada's role in Afghanistan.

Attached to a letter to Harper is the five-page brief with 46 footnoted references documenting "criminal actions" resulting from ongoing Coalition procedures and actions in Afghanistan. The documentation relies primarily on published news accounts from mainstream media reports over the past several years, as well as the 2005 "Report of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan" to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Yes, my friends, Canada's interventionist antics are no longer limited to rigging election in Haiti. As if it weren't enough for us to be covering the arses of the United States while they leave us to rot to invade yet another country, our dear new Prime Minister Harper is carving us a nice new position amongst imperialists extraordinaire United States and Britain.

When it's not to take care of the US-manufactured Taleban and Al CIAda operatives, we as good Canadians are expected to assist the wardens of dangerous 12-year old boys, whose idea of child psychology is to torture them in front of their parents to find out essential information such as the contents of the food they use on their chicken farms (Hey, you gotta stop them, maybe they're the ones spreading Bird Flu on purpose!)

But enough of my sarcasm. Just read the letter, and weep at how our supposedly peaceful Stephen Martin government is supporting the atrocities of a brutal and undemocratic regime, and how the Tories want to kiss the arse of the United States even more.

Britain: Europe's next dictatorship?

2006-03-06T11:55:00.000-05:00

And you thought Belarus was the last.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is hardly an aerodynamic title; it doesn't fly from the lips. People have difficulty remembering the order of the words and what exactly will be the effect of this apparently dull piece of lawmaking.
But in the dusty cradle of Committee A, a monster has been stirring and will, in due course, take flight to join the other measures in the government's attack on parliamentary democracy and the rights of the people. The 'reform' in the title allows ministers to make laws without the scrutiny of parliament and, in some cases, to delegate that power to unelected officials. In every word, dot and comma, it bears the imprint of New Labour's authoritarian paternity.

Yes, my British readers. Whilst your comrades are reading about the latest celebrity scandal on The Sun and reminescing about George Galloway making a complete idiot out of himself on Big Brother two months ago, your leaders are rolling back centuries of legal traditions and political progress to turn your parliament into a rubberstamp legislature with power concentrated in an executive capable of doing whatever they damn please, including trashing the English Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus and even Parliament altogether.

But don't you worry, the benevolent European Union will take care of you and replace all that archaic nonsense with a Soviet-style bureaucratic apparatus, courtesy of David Rockefeller and his Trilateral Commission cronies. Within the all-mighty European Union, you will be reenfranchised with powers to decide on important matters like the regulation of the nutritional content of food products, under the leadership of an unelected executive led by members of one of the same think tanks that made the United States the imperialist superpower supposed to be countered by the European Union.

Fast Food Ice Dirtier Than Toilet Water!

2006-03-01T14:58:00.000-05:00

I'm bored with real news, so here's some MSM for a change.

The results: In four of the five restaurants, the ice that came from the self-service machines had more bacteria than the toilet water, reports Tampa Bay Online. Three of the five cups of ice from the drive-through windows had more bacteria than the toilet water. The bacteria in the ice included fecal coliform or E. coli, which can only come from the feces of warm-blooded animals.

Hmm, so that would explain why fast food tastes like shit.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Jobs

2006-02-24T12:35:00.000-05:00

Rivero interviewed on the manufactured caricature scandal

2006-02-14T10:05:00.000-05:00

Yay! Two of my favourite pundits together!

An interview with Michael Rivero by Alex Jones on the manufactured caricature scandal.

Miss Brownshirt strikes again...

2006-02-13T12:49:00.000-05:00

Fun with fascist slogans.

"I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" (This declaration prompted a boisterous ovation.)

Airhead talks tough, rattleheads make noise.

The media spins the spying scandal

2006-02-10T18:34:00.000-05:00

Karl Rove must be paying them overtime.

I suspect that both US political parties are doing their own polling right now to see how this issue resonates with potential voters. Regardless of what they find out, intelligence gathering will remain a permanent part of modern life, and that fact is what makes me wonder if I'm ever going to be in the president's Daily Brief.

"Hey, the gummint is spying on you, and there's nothing you can do about it! NYAH NYAH NYAH!"

UPDATE: A satirical comment posted by a reader reminded me of this Liberty News TV broadcast:

"NOTHING TO HIDE"

A picture is worth a thousand words

2006-02-10T18:27:00.000-05:00

Any questions?

Comparing Apples To Rocks

2006-02-10T10:43:00.000-05:00

While searching for a link about the destruction of Arab villages for my previous post, I found a heartwarming account by a young Jewish truth seeker about how he lost his innocence with politics and discovered the atrocities of Zionism. Please read this article to the end:

http://www.jerusalemites.org/articles/english/2006/24.htm

To those who might have ambiguous interpretations of my highly sarcastic comments: it cannot be stressed enough that speaking out against the Apartheid policies of Israel (of which my previous post shows a prime example) is not meant to disparage a cultural or religious group, but to expose a deeply racist ideology, for the same reasons we must expose all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism. Zionists hide behind the Jewish community to legitimise their crimes by labelling criticism of their actions 'anti-Semitic', which is a crass, cowardly and anti-intellectual tactic. Jews who speak out against Zionism need all our support, and should be applauded for their efforts, because they face intense pressure from their own community.

Israel plans to build 'museum of tolerance' on Muslim graves

2006-02-10T09:50:00.000-05:00

You can't get more cynical than that.

Skeletons are being removed from the site of an ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem to make way for a $150m (£86m) "museum of tolerance" being built for the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

Palestinians have launched a legal battle to stop the work at what was the city's main Muslim cemetery. The work is to prepare for the construction of a museum which seeks the promotion of "unity and respect among Jews and between people of all faiths".

Israeli archaeologists and developers have continued excavating the remains of people buried at the site - which was a cemetery for at least 1,000 years - despite a temporary ban on work granted by the Islamic Court, a division of Israel's justice system. Police have been taking legal advice on whether the order is legally binding. The Israeli High Court is to hear a separate case brought by the Al Aqsa Association of the Islamic Movement in Israel next week.

Ah, yes, nothing like the good old sense of humour you inherited from your former oppressors. I bet your grandparents who laughed at the slogan 'Work makes you free' at Auschwitz are going to split their sides over this one!

Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israel Antiquities Authority, which is carrying out the excavations, said it was common in Jerusalem to build on cemeteries. Adding that in such cases the bones were reburied, she said: "Israel is more crowded with ancient artefacts than any other country in the world. If we didn't build on former cemeteries, we would never build."

Nope, nothing to do with ethnic cleansing at all. Nothing to do with how hundreds of Arab villages were wiped out, depopulated and renamed half a century ago.

If you have so many old cemetaries, then why don't you build on your own?

Muslim riots: A staged psyops?

2006-02-08T19:10:00.000-05:00

Based on a recent forum post on StumbleUpon.

At first, I decided that for the last time, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the official story. I decided to believe that maybe it is possible that the Muslim world was overreacting to the cartoons, if only to give myself a sense of balance, that I am not biased towards Muslims and do not seek to justify them.

Sure enough, it turns out that the neoconservatives once again at the root of the problem. It turns out that the editor of the Jylland Posten is a neocon affiliated with Daniel Pipes. It also turns out that depictions of Mohammed, unflattering or not, have been in circulation many times in the past without much ado.

The article from Prison Planet mentions that imams sent fake caricatures along with the real ones to the Muslim world. It also points out that Western secret services have been known to use religious figures to manipulate the masses and radicalise anyone they wish to vilify to the eyes of whom they need support for their wars. And it is also a fact that the United States has a history of circulating paraphernalia to incite racial tensions and creating front groups to control their opposition (as Ann Coulter, of all people, revealed in a rare moment of candour).

A Danish blogger on StumbleUpon told me in a personal message that never before did the media question freedom of the press in Scandinavian countries (and I can myself confirm that according to Reporters Without Borders, they have the freeest press in the world).

And now, a Russian MP recently claimed that the Muslim riots were psychological operation to justify a war on Iran. Again, who benefits from those religious conflicts?

For the last time, I had decided to take the pro-West of the story for the sake of countering potential biases. Now I decide that I will never again take at face value any anti-Muslim propaganda, for it is nothing but propaganda spread out by the neocons, be it one way or from one source or another.

I've had enough of the lies and the anti-Arab propaganda. I have had enough of people calling any version of the story not approved by the media 'conspiracy theory'. I will not take it anymore. I have come to the conclusion that the real terrorists are the neocons and the zionists, and that the Muslims are the new scapegoats, the new Jews. It is time to focus on the real enemies, and that is the elites who control the United States and many other countries.

UPDATE: Well, what do you know. Some pundits have asked how the rioters could have gotten all those flags to burn. An interesting question, indeed! Well, look no further:

The Rendon Group's work in Kuwait continued after the war itself had ended. "If any of you either participated in the liberation of Kuwait City ... or if you watched it on television, you would have seen hundreds of Kuwaitis waving small American flags," John Rendon said in his speech to the NSC. "Did you ever stop to wonder how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American flags? And for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries? Well, you now know the answer. That was one of my jobs."

I rest my case.

Support the Freemasons' CHIP program

2006-02-06T10:52:00.000-05:00

Yes, you read that right.

Contrarily to what were probably your first impressions, this is not a global identification scheme. It is a program to help find abducted children which does not involve RFID implants, and allows the parents to keep the DNA samples and the fingerprints, which are only given to the authorities in case of emergency and with their consent, while the foundation only collects a permission slip. Finally, biometrics that respect privacy and parental authority!

The name almost sounds like it was deliberately chosen to directly compete with VeriChip's child 'protection' scheme. Who knows, maybe the Freemasons are rebelling against the New World Order?

UPDATE: a reader of my other blog expressed her disagreement with my viewpoint (Thanks, The-Lone-Yoni). I have to agree because ideally, there should be no identification programme at all in a time when governments become authoritarian. I can imagine a scenario where the government could seize the permission slips and collect the data at every house. There is also the problem that this could start a slippery slope towards the intended agenda.

The reason why I wrote this was because I found an article that claimed that the Freemasons were promoting implant RFID chips for children in an ostensible attempt to trace them back in case of abduction. However, upon looking at the websites, I found nothing to indicate the CHIP program had anything to do with RFID chips, despite its somewhat misleading name. And upon seeing their emphasis on preserving privacy, I thought I would break the anti-Masonic tradition by showing them in a positive light.

Nevertheless, this cannot necessarily be construed as a global identification programme unless anyone can provide me further information that would indicate so.

Remember the FEMA concentration camps?

2006-02-05T20:29:00.000-05:00

It's not conspiracy theory anymore.

February 4, 2006, NY Times
Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers
By RACHEL L. SWARNS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been criticized for overcharging the Pentagon for its work in Iraq.
KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space, company executives said. KBR, which announced the contract last month, had a similar contract with immigration agencies from 2000 to last year.

The contract with the Corps of Engineers runs one year, with four optional one-year extensions. Officials of the corps said that they had solicited bids and that KBR was the lone responder. A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jamie Zuieback, said KBR would build the centers only in an emergency like the one when thousands of Cubans floated on rafts to the United States. She emphasized that the centers might never be built if such an emergency did not arise. "It's the type of contract that could be used in some kind of mass migration," Ms. Zuieback said.
A spokesman for the corps, Clayton Church, said that the centers could be at unused military sites or temporary structures and that each one would hold up to 5,000 people.
"When there's a large influx of people into the United States, how are we going to feed, house and protect them?" Mr. Church asked. "That's why these kinds of contracts are there." Mr. Church said that KBR did not end up creating immigration centers under its previous contract, but that it did build temporary shelters for Hurricane Katrina evacuees. Federal auditors rebuked the company for unsubstantiated billing in its Iraq reconstruction contracts, and it has been criticized because of accusations that Halliburton, led by Dick Cheney before he became vice president, was aided by connections in obtaining contracts. Halliburton executives denied that they charged excessively for the work in Iraq. Mr. Church said concerns about the Iraq contracts did not affect the awarding of the new contract. Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, who has monitored the company, called the contract worrisome. "With Halliburton's ever expanding track record of overcharging, it's hard to believe that the administration has decided to entrust Halliburton with even more taxpayer dollars," Mr. Waxman said. "With each new contract, the need for real oversight grows." In recent months, the Homeland Security Department has promised to increase bed space in its detention centers to hold thousands of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation. In the first quarter of the 2006 fiscal year, nearly 60 percent of the illegal immigrants apprehended from countries other than Mexico were released on their own recognizance.
Domestic security officials have promised to end the releases by increasing the number of detention beds. Last week, domestic security officials announced that they would expand detaining and swiftly deporting illegal immigrants to include those seized near the Canadian border.
Advocates for immigrants said they feared that the new contract was another indication that the government planned to expand the detention of illegal immigrants, including those seeking asylum.
"It's pretty obvious that the intent of the government is to detain more and more people and to expedite their removal," said Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center in Miami. Ms. Zuieback said the KBR contract was not intended for that.
"It's not part of any day-to-day enforcement," she said.
She added that she could not provide additional information about the company's statement that the contract was also meant to support the rapid development of new programs.
Halliburton executives, who announced the contract last week, said they were pleased.
"We are especially gratified to be awarded this contract," an executive vice president, Bruce Stanski, said in a statement, "because it builds on our extremely strong track record in the arena of emergency management support."

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

How long is it going to take you people to realise that yes, the United States and other countries like Britain and Australia are led by dictators? How many 'conspiracy theories' are going to turn true before protesting against them becomes altogether illegal? No matter what the governments claim, if they ever use those prison camps, it's not going to be for illegal immigrants.

If you are still naive enough to think that the government would never dare ban freedom of speech, and that only paranoids would be afraid of being silenced, I might point out that this has already happened in Australia: the Australian Anti-Terrorism Bill 2005 reaffirms and expands the Sedition Act of 1918, effectively outlawing protest as a result of the vague definitions and making it punishable by seven years of imprisonment. The law is so extreme that it goes as far as violate the constitution, even despite its lack of Bill of Rights. Taking into consideration the sheer illegality of this bill and the widespread wiretaps that go on in the United States in violation of rule of law, it can no longer be taken for granted that a Bill of Rights will protect established democracies from turning into dictatorships.

Now I'm talking to you, Canadians who voted for Harper, do you really think this kind of shit is not going to leak to Canada and other countries eventually? Are you proud of having voted for a pro-Bush neocon who wants to put soldiers in every city? I don't care what you say about the pathetic Liberal Party advertisement campaign or if you say it's anti-troop scaremongering; the fact is that if they are trained to serve a leader with that kind of pro-war agenda, they are not going to act like cuddly stuffed animals.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against spending for our army; in fact I would be in favour of it. Compared to the United States, we are at the complete opposite of the spectrum, having to depend on a superpower with a world domination agenda for our national defence. But wouldn't it be even worse if we spend tax money on beefing up our military only to have them sent and slaughtered in the neocons' wars of conquest? Can you imagine actually supporting such initiatives with your hard-earned money? How does it sound like to build our own police state with the money that is supposed to defend us from the dictatorship that is growing next door?

Remember, the last time an entire people was in denial about its fate was seven years before they invaded Poland and started World War II. Even the Jews were in denial, according to their own testimonies. Today, the United States is trying to find every possible excuse to invade Iran. Right as we speak, Iran is forging alliances with Russia, China and Syria. Also, seeing the threat that the United States poses to the world, Russia and China are discussing joint military exercises in 2006. Do you see where this is leading?

I'll give you a hint: google 'Triple Alliance' and 'Triple Entente'.

I'm sick of this.

2006-02-05T03:08:00.000-05:00

This is the second time I almost lost three of my best articles after writing a new article in an old firefox cache. Good thing I could retrieve them by copying and pasting from previous pages, but this pisses me off. Now I got them all archived in a special file, but next time this happens I'm going to spill oil barrels in Google's basement so that Bush bombs the fucking building.

This is all I have to say.

Army to troops: 'Avoid Marrying a Jerk'

2006-02-05T01:30:00.000-05:00

You couldn't make this shit up, folks.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- They are the Pentagon's new "rules of engagement" - the diamond ring kind. U.S. Army chaplains are trying to teach troops how to pick the right spouse, through a program called "How To Avoid Marrying a Jerk."

[...]

"Being in the military certainly raises the stakes when you choose a mate," said Lt. Col. Peter Frederich, head of family issues in the Pentagon's chaplain office.

Translation: 'We brainwash our soldiers so much that they are no longer capable of deciding for themselves who is the right spouse for them, so we will spend American tax money on Nazi-style family planning while they keep on scavenging for scraps of metal to protect their vehicles.'

Never mind that this is an idea that might have been directly copied from the Wehrmacht, as WRH points out, this is the latest event in the series of Pentagon antics in their endeavour to solve the family problems of their troops. A few weeks earlier, the relatives of deceased soldiers were told to prance around like penguins in a distastefully clownish attempt to make them forget that their loved one perished in a war of conquest waged by megalomaniac bureaucrats. It seems that the Pentagon has nothing better to do with their time than making utter prats out of themselves.

As if the concept of marital councelling being taught by the same people who drill and condition recruits to military life isn't disturbing enough to the average person, the details of the program speak for themselves:

The "no jerks" program is also called "P.I.C.K. a Partner," for Premarital Interpersonal Choices and Knowledge.

It advises the marriage-bound to study a partner's F.A.C.E.S. - family background, attitudes, compatibility, experiences in previous relationships and skills they'd bring to the union.

It teaches the lovestruck to pace themselves with a R.A.M. chart - the Relationship Attachment Model - which basically says don't let your sexual involvement exceed your level of commitment or level of knowledge about the other person.

Never mind outdated concepts like love, since soldiers don't have feelings like other people, and they don't need that kind of crap anyway. It's all about sex and skills and statistical correlations.

Now, I'm not an expert on military affairs, but it would seem like common sense to me that keeping US soldiers alive by giving them proper protection would do far more to save their marital relations than cramming into their minds quasi-mathematical state-approved models of the ideal significant other.

And as if to reassure us, they tell us it's all perfectly normal:

Though the acronyms and salute make it sound like something the Pentagon would come up with, the program was created by former minister John Van Epp of Ohio, who has a doctorate in psychology and a private counseling practice. He teaches it to Army chaplains, who in turn teach it to troops.

It also is used by social service agencies, prisons, churches and other civilian groups.

In the minds of some psychologists, it must be perfectly reasonable for ordinary people's marital councelling to involve having their sexual lives measured and calculated like a company's projected quarterly profit and to be told to do background checks to determine who would be the most 'compatible'. Like in the good old fascist regimes, everything has to be run like in the army.

And with that kind of mentality about marriage being pushed upon American soldiers, they wonder why so many of them divorce?

The Internet in the People's Republic of America

2006-02-04T02:56:00.000-05:00

Get ready for the Great Firewall.

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online.

Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to-peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out.

Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received.

Better dig up those old 33600 baud modems, because you can bet that the new system will be used by the Bush regime next door to silence anti-government websites (that will mean no more Bush bashing for us Canadians, because we all know how good we are at resisting American trends!). And if they are going to shut out p2p, then freenet will be completely useless. Being slow already as it is, even if it's just relegated to a slow lane it will be unusable.

And right at the same time, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are kissing China's collective arse (as if Microsoft's 'trusted computing' initiative isn't going to be enough of a nightmare as it is).

And not to be outdone, AOL launched a propaganda campaign in the UK against the freedom of the internet a few months ago:

'Oh, the internet is bad cuz it has dirty stuff on it, but we make lots of money by ripp... I mean selling you shitty connection and spamming you with CDs. Hey, I know, let's censor it to protect your kids from that evil anti-government info!'

Or hey, who needs AOL, here's a brand new internet for you, it's all nice and fast and clean and approved by the US government! None of all those dirty 9/11 conspiracy theories to corrupt the minds of your children, ma'am!

In Soviet America, 911 dials YOU!

2006-02-04T02:51:00.000-05:00

It's for your security!

Mind some dumb-ass questions about cell phone location technology and policy for something I'm writing? I'm having trouble finding a site on the Web that talks about this at a sufficient level of ignorance.

I understand that by 2005, 95% of cell phones in the US need to be able to broadcast their location with an accuracy of 50-150m. This is part of the FCC's e911 ("Enhanced 911") act. Here's what I don't understand:

1. The wireless carriers are required to track that information only if you make a 911 call. But will my cell phone be broadcasting its location continuously, or only when I make a 911 call?

2. I'm confused about the tech used by cell phones to determine location. Is it GPS? (If so, what happens when I'm indoors or in an urban canyon? And, if so, a GPS device receives; it doesn't transmit. So does the location information just get encoded as a header or something in a 911 call? In all calls?) If it's not GPS, what is it?

I'd ask smarter questions if I could. And, of course, please feel free to correct the part that I think I understand, too.

Ah, don't you just love the warm and fuzzy feeling of having the state track your every movements?

UPDATE: In response to a reader's comment, I would like to clarify a few things. Yes, the technology used by recent cell phones is GPS, at least in the United States, as was ordered by the FCC. And if accorcding to the article, this would benefit several companies, it is unlikely that tracking will be exclusive to 911 calls.

War in Iraq was planned in advance

2006-02-03T15:57:00.000-05:00

Yet another memo that tells us what we had known all along.

London - United States President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were ready to go to war against Iraq with or without a second United Nations resolution, said reports on Thursday.

The allegation was based on a White House memo - which the programme said it had seen - after a meeting between the two men in Washington on January 31 2003.

In the memo Bush was alleged to have said that military action against former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein would start on March 10 2003. The war actually started 10 days later on March 20.

In other news, the sun rised yesterday morning, Mr. Chimp and Phony Bliar have still not been impeached, and now they are pushing for war in Iran, expecting people to be stupid enough to actually believe their propaganda again.

Ah, but here is an interesting twist:

During their discussion at the White House, Bush was alleged to have said that the US thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq painted in UN colours", explaining that "if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach".

According to a high-ranking UN source cited on condition of anonymity by the reports, it was perfectly possible to fly planes out of range of Iraqi missiles.

He said: "Talks of Saddam firing on them suggest to some that the US was almost willing Saddam to strike out on the plane."

Oh, a false flag operation! Just the kind of evidence we need after Operation Northwoods was planned to attack Cuba, Operation Gladio in Italy, and the Tonkin Bay hoax that led to the war in Vietnam, not to mention the Nazis attacking their own radio stations, to convince people that the US government will lie to go to war, and attack themselves and even kill their own people to manufacture a pretext.

But this can all be excused by the war on terror, right? The US government would never have carried out the 9/11 attacks against their own people to justify a perpetual war, right?

Or would they?

Would you tattoo a barcode on your arm?

2006-02-02T17:27:00.000-05:00

Or how about a nice number, courtesy of Auschwitz and IBM computers?

No? Then why would you plant a microchip in your hand?

Trend whore dumbasses.

WILLIAM DONELSON'S left hand gripped the paper-covered arm of an antique barber chair at a tattoo and piercing shop in Cambridge, Ontario. His feet bounced gently on the chrome footrest as he waited for his implant.

The piercer — whose day is usually spent inserting rings into the eyebrows and navels of teenage girls — snapped on purple latex gloves and lifted a four-millimeter-wide sterilized needle to Mr. Donelson's hand.

As if it doesn't matter to the globalist peeping toms that identity cards are being rejected in the UK, here goes VeriChip peddling their new microgadgets with obvious astroturf campaigns (you know, like the guys the PR companies hire to wear fashion clothes and show them to their friends to make them 'cool'). One can already imagine how much the spammers and the insurance companies are going to love these! Not to mention the phishers who are going to make loads of profits just by pointing a scanner at you and selling the data (hey, it takes high tech to spy on you, so it must be cool, right?).

If you think planting a microchip in your body is going to protect your car from theft, guess again. If the thief with the machette wants the microchip in your hand, it's a very expensive implant you're going to need.

Seriously, is it so much to fumble with your keys or pocket change in comparison to the loss of privacy and potential misuses that being tagged like cattle entails?

And, to finish, with a quote from the article:

"I'm set," Mr. Donelson said with a deep breath. He watched as the needle pierced the fleshy webbing between his thumb and forefinger and a microchip was slid under his skin. At last he would be able to do what he had long imagined: enhance his body's powers through technology.

Yeah, I'm sure you're going to feel very powerful when the government decides to add GPS capability and other neat features to those chips to track all your movements, like they're already doing with the cars in Britain. What's next on the agenda, brain chips?

Oh, wait, they're already here.

UPDATE: Hah, how prophetic. As a reader just pointed out (thanks, I-Am-Wolfman), someone has already been able to clone the chips. What a piece of junk.

FEMA concentration camps in the USA?

2006-01-19T16:30:00.000-05:00

Those reports may have been around on the internet for a long time, but in light of the scandals surrounding the secret CIA prisons established in Eastern Europe, their validity are worth reexamining, however disturbing their implications may be.

http://www.sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/105692.shtml

Many people have felt my reports of the probable use of concentration camps are ludicrous. These are charges I not have made in haste or frivolously. I have seen quite a few of these facilities and have been sent photos and locations of many others. I have warned of these camps for TEN YEARS!

Congressman Henry Gonzales a democrat from my home state of Texas revealed many years ago in an interview, which I have a copy of on video, plans of Rex 84 which former colonel Ollie North helped design. The late Representative Jack Brooks also of Texas brought this concentration camp and internment program as well as the Continuity of Government Program to light during the Iran Contra hearing. The chairman refused to let North even talk about them in open hearings under "National Security." Mr. Gonzales stated these camps and plans were for the detention of AMERICANS, especially those who refused to surrender their weapons.

If FEMA being used for political repression sounds far-fetched, it is worth noting that in East Germany, the same police division (called the Bereitschaftspolizei) that was used to manage floods and big car accidents was also used to break up anti-communist demonstrations.

Not too long ago, the notion that millions of American citizens would be wiretapped would have been dismissed as ludicrous. Bush openly admitted that he would use the military to quarantine victims of the Bird Flu in case of an epidemic. The Katrina debacle was a preview of how the Bush government manages crises, and it included use of private militia and gun confiscation. In short, the government has been engaging in repressive activities in blatent disregard of the US constitution.

Sianews reports that those concentration camps were set up as part of a programme called Rex 84, which was purpoted to deal with an eventual mass exodus of illegal Mexican immigrants. It is likely, however, that those camps will be used as Guantanamo-style prison in the event that the Bush regime sets up martial law, as Tommy Frank suggested would be the response to a post-9/11 crisis. Sianews notes that the mechanisms to set up martial law have already been established 30 years ago in a series of executive orders.

In addition, a letter from Congress in response from a citizen's request for information admitted the existence of a military programme concerning the establishment of civilian labour camps:

Will the American people once again give their government the benefit of doubt? Or will an end be brought to media-manufactured labels like 'conspiracy theory', and freedom of thought be restored?

UK MPs to be wiretapped

2006-01-15T18:09:00.000-05:00

This gives a whole new meaning to party discipline...

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article338691.ece

Obviously, the intent is more to keep the MPs in line with the state than to hunt terrorists. This tactic would find its place in Egypt, where Mubarak controls the secret services and terrorises all his political opponents.

The New American Flag...

2006-01-14T15:14:00.000-05:00

...or the flag of the PNAC's New World Order?

They might as well cover the whole flag with stars, but eventually there won't be any blue space or stripes left. Just a big white flag, which they're going to have to raise once their empire gets too stretched out!

Made by Tookietoo. Brilliant idea!

Pentagon to families: Go ahead, laugh

2006-01-13T15:07:00.000-05:00

No, this is not from The Onion.

When the stress of the war in Iraq becomes too severe, the Pentagon has a suggestion for military families: Learn how to laugh.

With help from the Pentagon's chief laughter instructor, families of National Guard members are learning to walk like a penguin, laugh like a lion and blurt "ha, ha, hee, hee and ho, ho."

I am at loss for words.

Stephen Harper: the next neocon threat?

2006-01-13T04:33:00.000-05:00

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20051201-081526-4938r.htm

Why does President Bush hope Christmas comes a little late this year? Because on Jan. 23, Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. Move over Tony Blair: If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader.

And, imagine my surprise, Harper is another neocon:

Stephen Harper said that he would use the Notwithstanding Clause to forbid gay marriage, which was upheld as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Supreme court, after giving a so-called 'free vote' to Parliament. The clause, which allows Parliament to pass laws that bypass certain clauses of the Charter if given a sunset of five years, has never been used at the federal level, and simply mentioning it causes political firestorms.

(BTW, I don't want to hear anyone from the US whine about how their constitution doesn't allow exceptions; the Bush regime very happily bypasses it altogether without rising too many eyebrows; after all, it's just a goddamned piece of paper).

In case anyone still has any ideas, if Stephen Harper get elected here, you can expect Canada to join the ranks of the global dictatorship movement. If Harper would use the clause to infringe on homosexuals' rights, then he will gladly use it to please his neocon overlords. All that would be needed would be a convenient 'terrorist' attack. We know what's happening in the US, as well as Australia under John Howard and Britain under Blair, two of which have no Bill of Rights and the other where it's altogether ignored, where amongst other things mass surveillance and wiretaps, even against the law, are rampant.

After all, we're talking about a dormant neoconservative movement that has been attacking the Charter of Rights:

Two of their students, Ted Morton and Rainer Knopff, went to the University of Calgary where they specialize in attacking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They claim the charter is the result of a conspiracy foisted on the Canadian people by "special interests." These nasty people are feminists, gays and lesbians, the poor, prisoners and refugee-rights groups who are advancing their own interests through the courts at the expense of the general public, these Straussians allege.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Party, notorious for its corruption, and having just emerged from a series of scandals, is promising to abolish the Notwithstanding Clause to prevent Harper from using it. It shows how desperate they are to stay in power, if they are willing to go as far as sacrifice Parliamentary powers. But then, given the litany of lies that came from Martin and his ilk, no one will take them seriously.

I'm fucking tired of both parties selling out my country to foreign interests. Both the leaders of the Liberal and the Conservative Party are members of the Bilderberg group, and both parties have signed treaties that relinquish our national sovereignty bits by bits, like NAFTA by Brian Mulroney and recently, the Deep Integration project.

I really wish Canadians would get around to vote NDP this time. As for me, I will probably vote for the Bloc, just so that I can get the option to pull Quebec out of the country if it heads towards an Orwellian hellhole like the other countries. As for the English speakers, there's always New Zealand.

An (ahem) 'preview' of Windows Vista.

2006-01-09T11:31:00.000-05:00

Bill Gates presents the 'groundbreaking' features of his upcoming operating system:

*snicker*

Thanks to Duo for sending me this. BW, visit his Mac forum:

http://www.themacforum.net/forum/

My new Powerbook

2006-01-06T12:30:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to post that I just LOVE my new Mac! Here's a screenshot:

Note that this is an actual screensaver running in the background, not a still image. It's called Marine Aquarium 2, and the software that enables this little trick, BackLight, can be downloaded here.

Ann Coulter being an annoying whiny bitch as usual.

2005-12-31T12:29:00.000-05:00

It was an annoying enough experience to be regaled with the ridiculous 'Merry Christmas' vs 'Happy Holidays' debate. Especially tiresome was the scare mongering from the religious grouches who squawk that the Liberal Grinch is trying to steal Christmas. If they were were willing to listen to the French rather than bash them at every opportunity, they would find out that they have been wishing each other 'Happy Holidays' for decades, more as a convenient way to wish both Merry Christmas and Happy New Years rather than out of so-called 'political correctness'.

As if that weren't enough to sour the festivities, Ann Coulter, who never stops at the usual anti-PC rhetoric or the repeated claims that ethnic minorities force their celebrations on the majority, felt the need to push ethnocentrism further and slam an ethnic celebration simply because Bush wasn't being Christian enough for her taste. Of all places, that fascistic diatribe had to be published on Yahoo News, to spoil the celebrations of people from every race and colour.

If you don't want to spoil your holiday, then don't click here.

President Bush's 2005 Kwanzaa message began with the patently absurd statement:

"African-Americans and people around the world reflect on African heritage during Kwanzaa."

I believe more African-Americans spent this season reflecting on the birth of Christ than some phony non-Christian holiday invented a few decades ago by an
FBI stooge. Kwanzaa is a holiday for white liberals, not blacks.

It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI stooge, Ron Karenga, aka Dr. Maulana Karenga. Karenga was a founder of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers and a dupe of the FBI.

Never mind the fact that Christmas was not originally a Christian holiday, but a pagan celebration that was co-opted by the Roman Catholic Church to convert them to their own religion. They even went as far as create the myth that Jesus was born on December 25th to coincide with the celebration of the Winter Solstice, even though biblical accounts (as if those weren't mythical enough) indicate that he was allegedly born in the spring. To thus claim that the Christian version of the holiday is any less 'phony' than Kwanzaa reeks of hypocrisy.

Case in point, Hebrew is a language that''s been mostly revived and reconstructed from Arabic ethymology by Zionist nationalists. Before Zionism became a mainstream ideology, most European Jews spoke either Yiddish or the local language (or a dialect thereof), and Hebrew was used for religious purposes only. Does that make Hebrew a 'phony' language?

Even without disputing the facts of her allegations, it is obvious that Coulter's intent is more to vilify certain groups of people (especially Liberals) than to make a point about multiculturalism. It is not enough for her to criticise Liberals for their 'unbounded capacity to respect any faith but Christianity'; she evidently feels the need to disrespect any faith but her own, which is a far more bigoted stance. She might point out that her faith 'proclaims that we are all equal before God', but anyone who reads her articles will find out that she obviously does not follow that precept of her own religion.

On a side note, Ann Coulter does, in her attempt to smear the Liberals and multiculturalism, unwittingly provide unusually candid insight into the true nature of how the US government operates. Indeed, she actually admits that the government deliberately uses operatives to build up tensions in racial minorities to further its own agenda. What does that say about the fake Al Qaeda groups that keep popping up at convenient times, and the fact that Osana Bin Laden is a long-time CIA asset once known as Tim Osman?

This is my second post.

2005-12-11T02:51:00.000-05:00

This is my second post.

Lorem Ipsum, etc.

Test.

2005-12-09T21:28:00.000-05:00

Hello. This is Kevin, and I am writing this first message to inform you that Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper are complete idiots. Also, George W. Bush has the IQ of a rotten eggplant, and Tony Blair is a snivelling poodle. By extraordinary coincidence, all of them are members of the Bilderberg club except for Bush, who was never really elected anyway.