"The CIA owns everyone in major media"

So are you going to ignore former CIA agents, and pretty siginficant ones at that, when they write:

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
- William Colby, former Director of the CIA.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." Almost everything you read or see in your newspaper or on TV is false information, mostly CIA disinformation which is "leaked." You have been conned by professional main stream press and CIA disinformation artists." - again, former CIA director William Colby.

"The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisers. In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting 'intelligence' justifying those activities. It shapes its intelligence, even in such critical areas as Soviet nuclear weapons capability, to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target of its lies." - Ralph McGehee, former CIA intelligence analyst "Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA".

I just happened upon these today, but it isn't too much of a surprise. This is why independent journalism is so important. Stop swallowing what you see on teevee about some CIA report that is being banded about as justification for government or military action (specifically I am thinking about the reports that basically say "OH NO! TERRORISTS UNDER YOUR BED!")

"Torture Will Test Obama's Idealism"

MSM, narrowing your world. Should be a new slogan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4550138/The-use-of-torture-will-test-Barack-Obamas-idealism.html

Premise 1: Obama is an idealist 'good guy'.
Premise 2: Obama is stopping torture.
Premise 3: Torture is effective.
Premise 4: Torture is necessary.
Premise 5: Terrorism is not secret service/government-sponsored.

All of the above is of course false. Obama is no idealist. Torture is continuing, only not at Guantanamo. Torture was abandoned centuries ago because it didn't yield anything worthwhile. Thus, even if there was a real outside terrorist threat torture would not be necessary or useful. Most of the terrorism in the West has been government-sponsored.

But, do you see the false debate this article creates in your mind? Do you even realise it programs you to consider arguments for and against torture, when governments pre-9/11 had abandoned torture because it is useless? (Not just this article or this paper, the entire MSM, especially TV news; but this is a good example of 'psych-warfare'.)

And, since you are thinking about whether torture is right or wrong (lol), you aren't thinking about who benefited from 9/11, or whether empire-building should continue, or whether the criminal central banks should control the issue of money, or whether the banking mafias are setting up a one world police state.

So, is the writer idealistic, or just a globalist new world order shill? Take your pick.

The Grand Chessboard War Continues

"Kyrgyzstan To Shut Key US Base":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7868586.stm

(Image: Ready for takeoff at the US Air Force base in Kyrgyzstan.)

"Kyrgyzstan's president has said his government is closing a key US air base on its territory.
Kurmanbek Bakiyev made the announcement in Moscow, where he was promised more than $2bn (£1.4bn) in aid by Russia. "

Looks like someone just defected to the Soviet Union!

After the US-NATO backed Georgian invasion of Ossetia, the diplomatic quasi-war between the US and Russia persists. The 90s were notable for the encirclement of Russia; but the 00s have seen a Russian fightback of sorts, culminating in the Russian military response to Georgia's aggression.

As an aside, the Western media coverage of this conflict, compared to the hard fact that Georgia struck first, was what ultimately caused me to realise that even the BBC was not a reliable news source. Thanks, globalist firestarters, for helping wake me up!

The closure will also affect US operations in Afghanistan.

But the real blow is to the American neo-con geopolitical objectives.

It's All Happening Too Fast

For me to blog Big Brother's latest moves.

"School Children Complain of Obama Worship During Lessons"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/school-children-complain-of-obama-worship-during-lessons.html

"Taking Photos of Police Officers Could be Considered a Crime"
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836646

"Plans Target Digital Britain Push"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7857402.stm

"Every aspect of our lives...will be dependent on the services that the digital network provides" - Gordon [never elected] Brown, PM

Yes he did say 'dependent'.

"Chemicals 'may reduce fertility'"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7855323.stm

What the report doesn't say is that the chemicals in food, water and air, are serving population reductive purposes by sterilising us, giving us cancer and other diseases, and that this is no accident.

BBC Propaganda: Today's Highlights

We must be dumb here in the UK, because we pay the government to spoon-feed us with propaganda. So, in the spirit of sheepleness, here are some of my favourites from today's BBC reports:


(Image: BBCone's graphic design. They have circles. But if they reported on it, they may try to convince you those were squares)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7852628.stm

Global Warming is Irreversible! Oh no!

Of course it's irreversible, because we cannot have such a great impact on forces, like climate, which are beyond our control! We didn't cause warming, and we definitely can't undo it (but the Sun will).

It's interesting that the study which claims warming is irreversible, was funded by the US Dept of Energy and the Obama administration (cough-the prospect of carbon taxation represents a conflict of interest-cough)

Classic "Problem, Reaction, Solution" in action. In fact all three of these stories are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7853254.stm

Because profit is indeed a dirty word.

OK, so short selling is hardly a 'moral' way to make money. But the entirety of the stock market and all those abstract 'assets' is one big casino/Ponzi scheme. So, some people win and others lose. Too bad.

But the solution to the problem is...not sound money or getting rid of the central bank...but more government and global financial restrictions! The cause of the problem shall now be the solution!

If you were prescribed drugs and they made you ill, chances are unless the doctor is Dr Mengele, you will not be told to increase the dosage. But that is exactly what we are told about globalism, private central banking and government financial restrictions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7852640.stm

Yay, parents who don't pay child support will lose their passports! Except, this already happens. Just through proper legal means - you know, a COURT OF LAW. But now, government can remove someone's passport and driver's licence WITHOUT going through legal processes! What a triumph for liberty.

Oh, and I love the justification for this - that this is "faster, simpler and easier for the taxpayer". Simpler in that it gives more power to the authorities. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a helluva lot easier." - George W Bush

And the horrible irony of Labour party members and their 'quangos' talking about lightening the burden on taxpayers. Priceless.

Trailer for "The Obama Deception"

An Alex Jones film you can watch without being labelled a conspiracy nut!

(Caution: Downside is you will instead be labelled by Obamanoids as a right-wing white-trash racist. Even if you're black.)

Definitely one I am looking forward to. I was a sucker for the Obama-ganda at first, but I woke up pretty sharpish when it was obvious nothing was changing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The danger is, this 'new boss' has such a cultish following that fascism and globalism all of a sudden seem so...appealing...must go to sleep and be a sheep...must OBEY.

If you are still on the Kool-Aid. Please do us all a favour and wake up. Now not later, when it's too late and America becomes the HQ of the fascist globalist 'new world order'.

Just Watched 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

Dishing out a few inconvenient truths to those who advocate a carbon tax.



Just to clarify what I think, I am not an anti-environmentalist. In fact I am very much for anything which truly benefits humanity and the world we live in.

I believe we need alternative energy, especially geothermal (and nuclear in the short term), not because fossil fuels are 'warming the planet' but because it is an empirical fact they will run out eventually. I challenge you to google 'peak oil'.

This CO2 nutjob frenzy, however, is not about the environment. The government and scientists have a conflict of interest in skewing the evidence. Carbon taxation would make for even bigger government than we have now, and scientists receive government/UN approval and funding if they toe the line.

And worse, biofuel development done in the name of combating 'climate change' is a disaster for world food production. Food prices up, output down:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3500954.ece
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BCEEA783C-6A19-432E-B857-CFD14F2C9452%7D)&language=EN
Food rioting and shortages:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7331921.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1584515/Food-riots-could-spread,-UN-chief-warns.html

I don't like to complain about alarmists. The way I see it, at least some people give a damn about something enough to shout about it. What bothers me more is the vast numbers of people out there who either don't care or understand about anything substantial.

However, the global warming-carbon hypothesis is just as over-extended as the 1960s panic over global cooling being related to coal burning. And the fear-mongering is rife - terrible weather disasters, polar bears getting used to swimming, maybe even the end of humanity.

The persecution of so-called 'deniers' shows the ignorance of the climate change crowd; this 'disdain for intellectualism' is one of the 14 defining characteristics of fascism.

"They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."-G. Massey, Egyptologist

Gaza-Israel: Conflict in Review

It's back to normal, whatever that means, for Gaza and Israel. The burial of the dead and the recovery of the wounded can go on in Gaza City, without the same risk of being the next innocent victim of the F16s. In Sderot, there will probably be no such let-up, and the sirens will continue to sound.


(Image: Sderot, after a rocket impact - nobody injured, but you try telling these folks it's not something to be bothered about...)

(Image: On the other hand, this is in Gaza. Obviously, there was a Hamas rocket set up on the roof...right? The dead women and children were stupid to let Hamas use their buliding, and that was why they were killed, right? Some Israel apologists really think like that too - shameful.)

The ceasefire has come in this conflict, just in time for OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA...and it will all be forgotten. Well, not by the Gazans, or the residents of Sderot, of course. Hamas fired six rockets, allegedly, after the ceasefire. What a surprise - as if the operations would halt rocket fire; they don't work as we've seen before with the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war.


(Image: This conflict revealed the true nature of the incoming Obama administration - more Neo-Con hawks willing to support Israel unconditionally. The man is 'Change' like the USA Patriot Act was 'Change'.)

SOLUTIONS to the frankly childish situation we have:

1st...Israel must BACK THE HELL OFF of Gaza and Palestine. That does not just mean militarily. They have to get out of their settlements they have built illicitly in what is now designated Palestine.

2nd...The criminal and inflammatory trade restrictions and blockades MUST STOP. Gaza has been turned into an even more empoverished area than when Israel first invaded it. Stopping 'terrrorism' is not reason enough to seal off a neighbour, especially from the sea.

3rd...If Hamas continues to fire rockets on places like the beseiged Sderot, Israel or a UN, NATO etc. security force (the possibility of which should be discussed) should respond on a specific, individual basis. In other words, not waiting ten years to get all riled up then roll in the tanks. That was stupid. Instead, individual air strikes on REAL militant targets and not UN schools, which should be recorded and shown to the UN, the media etc. for utmost transparency.

The above three measures will restore Israel's 'good guy' image PROPERLY to the rest of the world (in other words, not through lies, but through truth and actions).

4th...The existence and validity of the state of Israel needs to be discussed. It is not anti-Semitic to do so, nor is it 'what the terrorists want'. Israel was a nation founded on military expansion, and it is doing what it has always done - fight, and talk about the Holocaust to make people feel guilty. What we now have is an 'apartheid' situation as described by UN officials, where racial segregation occurs, freedom of movement and opportunity for peaceful co-existence do not.

In the long term, do we go down the route of 'more segregation' and have the current two-state borders? Or one Palestine, in which Jews and Muslims could form a democratic government? The last seems far-fetched or optimistic, but so did the possibility of devolution in Northern Ireland - and look how far that has come in two decades!

Of course, we will go down neither, continue to worship Israel, and another conflict will erupt in two more years' time that the Western powers could have prevented.


(Image: Let's not be harsh on the individuals in the IDF, but the Israeli government? Hell yes, they do seem to think like this!)

We need to take down the myths surrounding this conflict. So, in review:

- Israel broke the ceasefire FIRST, killing 6 Gazans on November 4, the day of the US Presidential Election.

-Hamas responded with a resumption of the rocket fire which had essentially stopped during the ceasefire. Note here, the absence of significant rocket attacks until Israel's Election Night incursion. Followed up by a return to early 2008 levels of intensity.

- Israel used White Phosphorous, and regardless of the supposed way in which it was used, it burned people (ever seen We Were Soldiers?) For more info on the effects of WP Oh, and Israel used WP in Lebanon too = serial war criminals

- Proportionality: 10 Israeli soldiers, 3 civilians killed since the end of the truce. On the Gazan side, a minimum of 765 dead civilians and according to the IDF a minimum of 400 dead Hamas militants. Take those figures not quite at face value though, nobody will ever know the exact number of Gaza's dead.

- Israel has lied on several occasions that have not been discussed sufficiently. 1. An early air strike 2. Actually about 10 things at MPAC UK 3. 'They lie about everything!'

- Media have not been biased against Israel, because of the proportionality of their retaliation and their status as a vastly stronger military power Israel should have more responsibility than their neighbours. BTW more people die in road accidents in Israel than die from rockets.

- US media in particular has been biased in favour of Israel, citing their self-defence as justification for every war crime committed.

- People complaining about lack of coverage of Sderot and rocket attacks earlier, need to stop whining. The truth is that it isn't a big story in the eyes of corporate media. US and coalition troops were being killed regularly in Iraq in 2007, but reporting in US media (and UK media, imo) was almost non-existent. Does that mean the media was biased against their own troops? Naaaaaah.


Never forget the humanity, loss, persecution, subjugation, humiliation, and stealth genocide of the people of Gaza.

9/11: Freudian Slip #3

Rumsfeld said that Flight 93 was 'shot down', Bush said that the terrorists planted explosives in the WTC, now Tim Roemer of the 9/11 Commission can't decide whether the Pentagon was struck by a plane or a 'missile'.

The first 30 seconds are of Roemer on CNN. What follows are 'wtf' sayings of Bush, Rumsfeld, a clip of four 9/11 First Responders discussing the collapse of the WTC, and a Fox News interview at (according to the official story) the crash site of Flight 93.



Whoops! You're supposed to toe the official line, guys! It's unacceptable to lend credance to the 'outrageous conspiracy theories' which Bush says we must not tolerate...

What I think should also have been included was the Fox News clip in which the reporter says that the surrounding area following the Pentagon strike smelt of cordite - the signature component of military ordnance. That is part of Loose Change: Final Cut.

Also, if there is tons of other footage available of the Pentagon impact, why not release it and prove your point, Powers That Be? Unless you have something to hide, of course...

One thing I agree with the 'debunkers' of 9/11 alternetive theories on, is the incompetence of the Bush administration. I mean, no matter what the truth is about 9/11, these quotes demonstrate either blind stupidity, a Freudian slip, or an insult to the intelligence of the people.

Defining 'Liberal'

Yes, it's the second part of my thoughts on how language is manipulated.

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

Liberal originally was derived from the Latin 'liber', meaning 'free, not slave'. Now, you wouldn't get many partisan tribalists using that definition today, from the left as well as the right. And that's just the thing - the word 'liberal' originally was used to designate what we now call libertarians.

(Image: Is Canada really that 'liberal'? Because it seems more of you voted Conservative in your election, than for any other party, right?)

If you were a 'classical liberal', you were neither from the right nor left. The Nolan chart explains the concept of this 2-D spectrum best.

(Image: THIS IS NOT MINE but this is what results from The World's Smallest Political Quiz look like. My results are very similar though, (done this a few times) usually Personal 80-100, Economic 40-60 depending on how I answer that day.)

The main split between free-market liberalism and social liberalism seems to have occurred around the Great Depression, and the New Deal in America, along with many other intervention policies during the first half of the 20th Century. Some liberals, such as Roosevelt, favoured these policies; others, such as Milton Friedman and the Austrian School of economics (the influence of which is evident in Ron Paul's views) see intervention as the cause of the problem, not the solution.

In the 1940s and 50s, Social Democracy and Socialism became the dominant ideology in Western Europe, in varying degrees from country to country. Parties today are not afraid to call themselves socialist or social democratic, either in their name (SDP in Sweden, or Socialist party in France), or their description (the UK Labour party calls itself social democratic).

However, across the Atlantic, the word 'socialism' or 'socialist' was and is a political taboo, presumably because it sounds like the evil Red enemy. But the same kind of policies being taken up by western Europe, were also being embraced - maybe not as much, but still - by America and Canada. The word taken to mean left-wing, therefore, was 'liberal'.

Thus, a whole new culture of interpretation and misinterpretation was born. Sometimes, I laugh when I hear, in the US, liberals being described as 'anti-American' as I did during the 2008 election campaign. This is not because I am a partisan lefty (I am not), but it is because the Founding Fathers were liberals! (by the old definition I guess.)

(Image: I think the definition of 'liberal' might have changed over time. What do you think, Abraham Lincoln?)

The term 'liberal' is today both ambiguous and essentially meaningless here in Britain; it's definition is inconsistent, between the old 'libertarian' type of meaning, and the Americanism which means 'left-wing'.

I thought I had better explain why I happily refer to myself as a 'liberal' then. It's because my beliefs fall somewhere between the left, and the libertarians. Ergo, whatever definition is used, it works out ok.

P-C

Terror vs Shock 'n' Awe

Part 1 of today's lesson on the English language and how it is manipulated.

"One often hears, for example, that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

The term "terrorism" was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible," said Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. (Source: Wikipedia: Terrorism)

(Image: Between 18,000 and 40,000 people were guillotined during the French Revolution, during which the Jacobin Club operated.)

The term "terrorism" comes from Latin terrere, "to frighten." (Source: Wikipeia: Definition of Terrorism)

Now, from the Wikipedia article on Shock and Awe:

"[The doctrine will] impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on."

The doctrine of Rapid Dominance (aka Shock and Awe) also includes disrupting "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure."

The water supply? Food production? Sounds...terrorist? Yeah, SHOCK AND AWE those dang Mooslims!!! They won't be laughing when we drop all this sh** in their wells...

(Image: Apparently this was stuck on the gates of the White House. It was probably the work of some America-hating Liberal Terrorist sympathiser...)

Okay so I may be getting a little carried away. But 'terrorist' is indeed a very subjective word. And the Western media will use it in one way, Middle Eastern media in another, etc etc and it lacks real meaning because its use is inconsistent. So, what is a terrorist?

“A terrorist is someone who has a bomb, but doesn't have an air force” - William Blum

Israel Using Depleted Uranium?

I disapprove of Israel's actions in Gaza for three reasons:

- It's disproportionate. Many times more Gazans have been killed in a few days than Israelis killed in a decade.

- It's a humanitarian crisis, and Israel isn't helping themselves: this will radicalise another generation of Palestinians into being committed to resisting Israel, and they know it.

- Israel fails to acknowledge their part in provoking this bloodbath: they have laid siege to Gaza (by proxy, through roadblocks, trade restrictions etc) for decades. Why do people keep fighting Israel? It's not just hatred of Israel or hatred of Jews.

(Image: There ya go! It's not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel.)

People forget that Palestine was once an entirely Arab country, with a Jewish minority, and that people were forcibly moved or killed in the process of forming Israel. That doesn't mean I am anti-Israel; overall, it's for the best historically that the Jews get their own homeland to avoid the centuries of persecution they did receive, culminating in the Holocaust; however, punishing the innocent Palestinians by taking most of their land hardly set a good precedent for the aggressive military rulers of Israel. The reality is that the long-term aim of Israel's activity in Palestine is to force the Arabs to leave, by making their life as miserable as possible.

(Image: Ain't no Katyusha could have done this. Dead Hamas Police Officers in Gaza.)

Press TV is reporting that traces of depleted uranium have been found by Norwegian medics, in some of the bodies of the wounded in Gaza. It's 'alpha-radiation' is highly dangerous when it is extremely close to human tissue.

Now, bear in mind Press TV is Iranian, and would have motive to report a negative story about Israel. However, since Western media is so anti-Palestine (they refuse to acknowledge Israel's blockade/siege of Gaza, and its part in starting the conflict), I don't trust that DU hasn't been used, just because they aren't reporting it.

Excellent Guardian article on the humanity of Gazan civilians

Richard Gage Makes The Case

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage, back in April, making his case in a Vancover TV interview. He explains scientific evidence for the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 being flawed, and why a new investigation is needed.

http://www.ae911truth.org/omnitv_interview.htm

I also can't emphasise enough the need, regardless of your views on 9/11, to read the AE9/11Truth slideshow presenting its evidence. If you're a Truther, it will give you valuable ammunition; if not, it might just convince you. It certainly worked for me.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php

Look Away, Deniers.

Because here is indisputable evidence that there ARE prominent people who want One World Government. Is that a problem with you? Or will it bring 'world peace'?

http://www.aquarianonline.com/Values/Worldgov.html

http://www.greaterthings.com/WorldGov/ChristianBeast.htm

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/12/and-now-for-a-world-government/

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

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/newworldindex.htm

http://mailstar.net/baruch-plan.html

http://www.midnight-emissary.com/belief.htm

I find it quite funny that people doubt the existence of the desire among some of the elite of this world, to establish a World Government. Surely we should be disagreeing as to how this will be formed, and what the end result will be, as opposed to whether it exists.

My concerns are that power would be even more thickly concentrated than it already is, in the hands of banking families and politicians. And that, if we get a rogue, authoritarian leader, who will act as counterbalance to them if there is only one government? Are those issues not legitimate reasons to doubt the Globalist ideal?

Heads out of the sand please.

Blueprint For Global Enslavement

You must see the film Endgame: Blueprint For Global Enslavement, before you dismiss this NWO 'Conspiracy' (which in English, just means 'plan', by the way, not 'crazy nutjob idea').

And yes, it's 2hrs long, if that's a problem then you can use Google video search and there are lots of ~10min sections of the film available.



It documents:
- The Bilderberg Group, who attends, and their influence on our world
- A history of banking cartels, war, and who gained from war
- An insight into the theories of Eugenics that dominate the mindset of the elite
- A background on government endorsed, non-consentual scientific 'research' on the public, which is not confined to history but continues today
- The lies about Global Warming, and how they are exploited
- The use of drugs to control populations
- History and documentation of the North American Union, and comparisons with the European Union
- Details of the alleged plan (or, 'conspiracy theory', if you want to use misleading language) to enslave humanity.

It would be bigoted of me to pass judgement on the validity of this film and its claims; I have not 'done the research', as people constantly tell each other during internet disagreements. But a lot of this does seem to add up, and of course that is extremely concerning. I would urge you to give the film a look, and make of it what you will.

PROMOTING New World Order?

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=92845

Seems the Catholic Church really loves the idea of Globalisation, which realistically would entail giving even more unchecked power to the bankers who run the West at the moment. I still haven't figured out how a 'new world order' would be 'worthy of human beings' unless they mean we will get what we deserve for our ignorance in allowing globalisation to happen...

Just Watched Zeitgeist: Addendum

I've been getting round to watching this for some time now, as I saw the first Zeitgeist film about a year ago, but I finally devoted two hours of my time to the second instalment of this very 'alternative' documentary.


I particularly liked the first half of the film, which goes into greater detail about the fractional reserve banking system, and central banks. It describes how the money you hold is actually debt, and says that, ultimately, centralised banking systems are akin to slavery.




(Image: The European Central Bank, Frankfurt, Germany. The HQ of money control in Europe.)



The film goes on to document the Venus project, an anarchistic (don't misunderstand that term, see real anarchists here) vision of how free society could rebuild itself in future. And that not religion, money or politics, but technology, is what progresses society.



If you haven't seen the first film, it's in three parts:

- An alternative explanation of religion, focusing on Christianity as an extension of solar myth

- A 9/11 expose (not another one!), which is pretty effective

- A history of the Federal Reserve and the abolition of gold standards for money (the basis for the later expansion in Addendum)


Altogether very compelling viewing, which has produced an underground movement and much debate. And yet I'm not certain. Not about the critique of centralised money, or 9/11, or the possibilities surrounding the origin of Christianity. (I have seen better 9/11 documantaries, my favourite is Loose Change)

(Image: This is near Brighton in southern England. The 9/11 truth movement is largely 'underground', if you get what I mean - outside of the mainstream media society - and thus is easy to marginalise based on stereotypes, as the uploader of this photo did. But the factual discrepancies of the US government's 9/11 conspiracy theory refuse to disappear.)

They are all valid possibilities. But the idea of abolishing money itself...it's more than just 'outside the box'. It's difficult to envisage how society would work in anarchy (which has so many negative associations with it, but what it really means is the opposite to 'hierachy', that exists now).


Anyway, good stuff.

A Thank-You to Hideo Kojima

Much is said about the dangers, or problems, caused by TV, videogames, and what can happen when people, especially children, are exposed to them for too long. I would agree that they are overall damaging to critical and independent thought.


But I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the moments when those in the multimedia entertainment field produce something original and intelligent.

(Image: Hideo's Metal Gear franchise ended in 2008 after 20 years of successful releases.)

For those who don't know, Hideo Kojima is a Japanese game developer who is best known for the Metal Gear series. I first played Metal Gear Solid 2 aged about thirteen, and what I remember most is not the game itself, but the admittedly very heavy plot.

(Image: MGS2 cover.)

It all centres around a secret, all-powerful organisation called The Patriots, who have designed and are implementing a digital information censorship program by which unnecessary information will be removed. They have staged false flag 'terror' attacks, including the sinking of a tanker and a staged attempt at environmental terrorism on an offshore cleanup unit.


And in the meantime, all the public see is the mainstream politics 'puppet show'. President James Johnson is nothing more than a figurehead put in place by The Patriots through the illusion of democracy.


I also enjoyed MGS 3 and 4, the latter of which is set in 'the not-too-distant future' in which endless war is perpetuated for the given purpose of 'national security', but actually no threat exists except that which was created by the puppet-masters. In this near-future environment, "War has become to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th. The central pillar of the global economy." The military is entirely operated by private companies, who cause and extend war to profit from being able to provide a solution.




(Image: PMC soldiers in the game MGS4. They think they are defending freedom, but are actually just generating profit for the war economy in wars created for that purpose. Never forget the Henry Kissinger quote: "[Soldiers are] dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." Reveals what the establishment thinks of the military - then they have the gall to accuse ordinary people of not supporting the troops.)


People are regulated by complex network systems, and nanomachines (which in reality do already exist in simple forms), in order to make them obey and conform to society. Some people, including soldiers, are also enhanced by nanomachines, which for example reduces combat stress and fear, which (during a memorable part of the story) is all felt and let out at once by the soldiers when the system is turned off, leading to them killing each other and themselves in delusion and madness.


Take a second look at some of the things mentioned above. How many are relevant to today's society? Of course, it's just a fictional story, but it is laced with intent - the intent to encourage people to perceive the world in a different way, to 'dig deeper' under the surface of things as they seem.


This is not indoctrination, far from it in fact - this is de-indoctrination, encouraging peoples' minds to break free of the shallow dumbness of mainstream society that has overtaken the young through state education and popular culture.


Playing MGS2 was the first time I had broken free of the childish myth that our political figureheads are servants of the people, elected through an informed decision by the people, and that those who do reach high office are 'of' the people (and not there because of who they know).


So Thank You Hideo Kojima, for encouraging people to think for themselves in an entertainment medium which is often as lamentably brainless as the young people our education systems churn out. One word people - THINK.

P-C

CNN doesn't cover entirety of KBR story

Whereas every internet report gives the full details of the most recent KBR lawsuit and its allegations (see previous post for links), CNN has fallen short in my opinion.

Their coverage of this story focuses only on the allegations of chemical exposure.

Not to say this isn't the worst offence - it is expected to cause cancer in some of the soldiers in later life - and that this is awful.

CNN's report, however, failed to mention the ice which had been transported in mortuary trucks, or the open-air burn pit where medical waste was dumped and dogs ran around with human limbs.

(Photo: Nothing against the soldier here, he's just doing his job, but how much longer are we going to continue this pointless war?)

Why? If you give them the benefit of the doubt, you could say that it was because these elements of the story were a bit graphic for the audience, and the report covers the central allegation.

I'm not going to, though. CNN has a duty to report the full story, especially when it comes to mistreatment of its' own country's troops by corporate corner-cutters.

Also, and most importantly, I got the impression that the details of the secondary allegations, such as the dog running around holding a limb, or the shrapnel in the food, were the most repugnant.

To quote 'Flags Of Our Fathers', "One photo can win or lose a war." Not that there were any photos of these incidents to speak of. But the point is that it's the detail that counts. The details of this story are disgusting enough to potentially turn another few percentiles of the populus against privatised military/the Iraq War, but CNN didn't show them to the people.

To me, the details are more disgusting because KBR has no excuse. With the chemical contamination, they could claim they didn't know. Or that, when the nosebleeds started (CNN didn't mention this either), they were in denial. The open pit of waste and the gory ice, however, were both obvious and preventable problems.


However, to the person who pays little attention to the news (the people who, I would estimate, form two-thirds of public opinion), it's not the preventability of the events which would light a fire under them.

It's the simple, gross, gory imagery that penetrate the average Joe's thick political skin; that is why images win or lose wars. They provide a low-investment way to learn about the war, for people not prepared to invest further or pay attention. Not because they're stupid, or ignorant; just because they choose not to take interest.

That is why the photo of the napalmed girl running down a road is one of the memorable images of Vietnam. Children before her and after her had been napalmed too, but did people 'back home' care about that (even if they knew)? No, they just remember being forced to confront the reality via a photo.

(Photo: The horrors of war. The photographer, Kim Phuc, won a Pulitzer Prize for this iconic image)

It would be misleading to say people should base their opinion on an entire war because of small details. But lots of people always have, and lots of people always will, and that shouldn't in any way affect reporting of the details by supposedly reputable news sources.

This is just one example of Iraq reporting lacking details. I thought the coverage of, particularly, Fallujah in 2004 was abysmal. I only found out it all started with four hanged PMCs followed by retaliatory American aggression last month. A whole city provoked, deserted and laid to waste for the actions of a few guerillas - not really 'counter-insurgency' in my opinion.


(Photo: Hanged private contractors, Fallujah. Am I responsible for not knowing the context of the Fallujah battles?; also, how many people know the full context and detail of this bloody confrontation, in which over 100 Americans were killed and over 600 wounded?)

By failing to force the populus to confront the reality of the Iraq War, the mainstream media has both failed in its job to report what people need to know, and helped the US govt retain some support for the war.

Oh, and the Army Times covered all the details (that one surprised me). The ironic thing is, at the top of the page when I was reading this, there was an Army Strong recruitment advert. Props to them for reporting the details when the motive to water it down was there.