The new Quisling

A Perennial Conflict of Interests

The miserable careerist and Atlanticist, Gordon Brown-nose-Bush, Prime Minister of the UK by the decree of erstwhile autocrat, the Bliar, visits his Führer in Washington and swears that "no quarter shall be given in the continuing battle against terror." Almost in the same breath he commits a pissed-off nation, Britain, to "even closer ties" with the new, totalitarian USA.

What is it about Brown-nose that nauseates me every time I see his picture or hear about his latest arse-licking of the madman in the White House?

Some of Brown-nose's close associates describes him as a Stalin, intolerant of anyone who crosses him. Now we can see how this Stalin works: not by prattling on in badly-formed sentences and non sequitor as did his predecessor but simply by quietly getting on with the job he sees to be done.

Despite his name, Brown-nose is essentially a grey, Ahrimanic bureaucrat with a grey, Ahrimanic vision of the future. His job is to finish off what the Bliar started in turning Britain into a full-blown police state while at the same time tying us even tighter in a strangle-hold, Anglo-Saxon death-pact with Amerikka.

Even the mild-mannered Mikhael Gorbachev has now been drawn to comment:

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accused the United Kingdom's government of creating problems for itself by trying to please only the United States at the expense of other partners.

Discussing the ongoing row between the U.K. and Russia over Moscow's refusal to extradite a murder suspect, Gorbachev said the British leadership "is trying to be a good partner only for the United States, and often ends up in situations for which it later finds it difficult to justify itself to its people."

What Gorby leaves out is why this should be happening.

The financial ties between British and US capital remain as strong as they have ever been. Why else would a distant America have allowed itself, twice, to be drawn into world war in order to save the Brits' bacon? The second time around the conditions laid down by Washington were that the British Empire would be subsumed into a new, American Empire and that the British government would become America's mercenary abroad. From the time of the Korean War this has proved to be so.

And what we hear coming out of the mouths of quislings like the Bliar and Brown-nose are the words of mercenaries who are so committed to pan-Atlantic capitalism that they will gladly sacrifice their people in that interest as did their predecessors who sent out the proles into the trenches in two killing sprees.

For it is always Capital who wins in war.

In his book, Vodka Cola, Charles Levinson describes how the US corporation, General Motors, contributed simultaneously to the war efforts of both the Allies and the Third Reich: in Britain as Vauxhall Motors, a GM subsidiary, and in Germany as Opel, also a GM subsidiary. After the war, GM successfully sued the US Government for reparations against the damage bombers, also built by GM, had wreaked on the Opel factories in Germany!

That is just one example of the Catch-22 of Capital's rules of the game. Levinson's book goes on to describe how similar double-dealing went on between the USA and the USSR right through the Cold War. "We are above petty national squabbles," declares a grand master of Capital, quoted by Levinson.

Nothing has changed, only moved on apace. The New World Order is in the making and its servants, Bushtler and Gordon Brown-nose, are simply helping to put together its building blocks. In that process both the Soviet Union and China have no place. The NWO is to remain predominantly Anglo-Saxon with the Mexicans added as cheap labour through the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA).

Brown-nose's job, no doubt, will be to steer Britain ever closer to NAFTA while at the same time trying to persuade the European Union free access to NAFTA into the European markets. To do so, he will rely on Merkel and Sarkozy who, though, will find themselves torn between the US and Russia, their more obvious trading partner. That is why the mild-mannered Gorbachev is quoted by Russia's news agencies over the recent cold-war initiatives taken by the Brown-nose regime on behalf of the USA:

"Russia sees this, and cannot encourage such an approach, but is ready to constructively resolve current problems," he told journalists in Moscow.

Gorbachev, 76, called for dialogue between Russian and British politicians to overcome the dispute.

"Our politicians should not be drawn into sharp statements, they need to bear in mind that Russia and Britain are linked by important ties ..."

This was only a mild ticking-off. If the cowardly minions led by Brown-nose choose to ignore it, things will get increasingly difficult for a Britain which is becoming heavily-dependent on Russia for energy supplies.

Gorbachev's observations underscore what lesser commentators, including myself, have been saying all along: British capital must choose between the traditional Anglo-Saxon Alliance with North America (and now NAFTA) or throw in its lot with the European Union and Russia. Clearly, it doesn't want to do that, hoping some kind of mutual pact can be obtained between NAFTA and Europe.

Brown-nose will use all his experience to try and bring this about. It's unlikely that he will succeed. Meantime, it will be the proles of that diabolic creation, the United Kingdom, who will continue to suffer as the mercenary UK's military spending will increase at the cost of its domestic needs.

Nothing's changed. After all, was there ever a time when the interests of the British people moved their politicians to serve on their behalf and not Capital's?

How Truth Slips Down the Memory Hole

by John Pilger, from Anti-War.com

One of the leaders of demonstrations in Gaza calling for the release of the BBC reporter Alan Johnston was a Palestinian news cameraman, Imad Ghanem. On 5 July, he was shot by Israeli soldiers as he filmed them invading Gaza. A Reuters video shows bullets hitting his body as he lay on the ground. An ambulance trying to reach him was also attacked. The Israelis described him as a "legitimate target." The International Federation of Journalists called the shooting "a vicious and brutal example of deliberate targeting of a journalist." At the age of 21, he has had both legs amputated. Dr. David Halpin, a British trauma surgeon who works with Palestinian children, emailed the BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen. "The BBC should report the alleged details about the shooting," he wrote. "It should honor Alan [Johnston] as a journalist by reporting the facts, uncomfortable as they might be to Israel." He received no reply. The atrocity was reported in two sentences on the BBC online. Along with 11 Palestinian civilians killed by the Israelis on the same day, Alan Johnston's now legless champion slipped into what George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four called the memory hole. (It was Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth to make disappear all facts embarrassing to Big Brother.) While Alan Johnston was being held, I was asked by the BBC World Service if I would say a few words of support for him. I readily agreed, and suggested I also mention the thousands of Palestinians abducted and held hostage. The answer was a polite no; and all the other hostages remained in the memory hole. Or, as Harold Pinter wrote of such unmentionables: "It never happened. Nothing ever happened... It didn't matter. It was of no interest." The media wailing over the BBC's royal photo-shoot fiasco and assorted misdemeanors provide the perfect straw man. They complement a self-serving BBC internal inquiry into news bias, which dutifully supplied the right-wing Daily Mail with hoary grist that the corporation is a left-wing plot. Such shenanigans would be funny were it not for the true story behind the facade of elite propaganda that presents humanity as useful or expendable, worthy or unworthy, and the Middle East as the Anglo-American crime that never happened, didn't matter, was of no interest. The other day, I turned on the BBC's Radio 4 and heard a cut-glass voice announce a program about Iraqi interpreters working for "the British coalition forces" and warning that "listeners might find certain descriptions of violence disturbing." Not a word referred to those of "us" directly and ultimately responsible for the violence. The program was called Face the Facts. Is satire that dead? Not yet. The Murdoch columnist David Aaronovitch, a warmonger, is to interview Blair in the BBC's "major retrospective" of the sociopath's rule. Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four lexicon of opposites pervades almost everything we see, hear and read now. The invaders and destroyers are "the British coalition forces," surely as benign as that British institution, St. John Ambulance, who are "bringing democracy" to Iraq. BBC television describes Israel as having "two hostile Palestinian entities on its borders," neatly inverting the truth that Israel is actually inside Palestinian borders. A study by Glasgow University says that young British viewers of TV news believe Israelis illegally colonizing Palestinian land are Palestinians: the victims are the invaders. "The great crimes against most of humanity," wrote the American cultural critic James Petras, "are justified by a corrosive debasement of language and thought... [that] have fabricated a linguistic world of terror, of demons and saviors, of axes of good and evil, of euphemisms" designed to disguise a state terror that is "a gross perversion" of democracy, liberation, reform, justice. In his reinauguration speech, George Bush mentioned all these words, whose meaning, for him, is the dictionary opposite. It is 80 years since Edward Bernays, the father of public relations, predicted a pervasive "invisible government" of corporate spin, suppression and silence as the true ruling power in the United States. That is true today on both sides of the Atlantic. How else could America and Britain go on such a spree of death and mayhem on the basis of stupendous lies about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, even a "mushroom cloud over New York"? When the BBC radio reporter Andrew Gilligan reported the truth, he was pilloried and sacked along with the BBC's director general, while Blair, the proven liar, was protected by the liberal wing of the media and given a standing ovation in parliament. The same is happening again over Iran, distracted, it is hoped, by spin that the new Foreign Secretary David Miliband is a "skeptic" about the crime in Iraq when, in fact, he has been an accomplice, and by unctuous Kennedy-quoting Foreign Office propaganda about Miliband's "new world order." "What do you think of Iran's complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra?" Miliband was asked by the Financial Times. Miliband: "Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death..." FT: "Just to be clear, there is evidence?" Miliband: "Well no, I chose my words carefully..." The coming war on Iran, including the possibility of a nuclear attack, has already begun as a war by journalism. Count the number of times "nuclear weapons program" and "nuclear threat" are spoken and written, yet neither exists, says the International Atomic Energy Agency. On 21 June, the New York Times went further and advertised an "urgent" poll, headed: "Should we bomb Iran?" The questions beneath referred to Iran being "a greater threat than Saddam Hussein" and asked: "Who should undertake military action against Iran first... ?" The choice was "US. Israel. Neither country." So tick your favorite bombers. The last British war to be fought without censorship and "embedded" journalists was the Crimea a century and a half ago. The bloodbath of the First World War and the Cold War might never have happened without their unpaid (and paid) propagandists. Today's invisible government is no less served, especially by those who censor by omission. However, there are major differences. Official disinformation now is often aimed at a critical public intelligence, a growing awareness in spite of the media. This "threat" from a public often held in contempt has been met by the insidious transfer of much of journalism to public relations. Some years ago, PR Week estimated that the amount of "PR-generated material" in the media is "50 per cent in a broadsheet newspaper in every section apart from sport. In the local press and the mid-market and tabloid nationals, the figure would undoubtedly be higher. Music and fashion journalists and PRs work hand in hand in the editorial process... PRs provide fodder, but the clever high-powered ones do a lot of the journalists' thinking for them." This is known today as "perception management." The most powerful are not the Max Cliffords but huge corporations such as Hill & Knowlton, which "sold" the slaughter known as the first Gulf war, and the Sawyer Miller Group, which sold hated, pro-Washington regimes in Colombia and Bolivia and whose operatives included Mark Malloch Brown, the new Foreign Office minister, currently being spun as anti-Washington. Hundreds of millions of dollars go to corporations spinning the carnage in Iraq as a sectarian war and covering up the truth: that an atrocious invasion is pinned down by a successful resistance while the oil is looted. The other major difference today is the abdication of cultural forces that once provided dissent outside journalism. Their silence has been devastating. "For almost the first time in two centuries," wrote the literary and cultural critic Terry Eagleton, "there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life." The lone, honorable exception is Harold Pinter. Eagleton listed writers and playwrights who once promised dissent and satire and instead became rich celebrities, ending the legacy of Shelley and Blake, Carlyle and Ruskin, Morris and Wilde, Wells and Shaw. He singled out Martin Amis, a writer given tombstones of column inches in which to air his pretensions, along with his attacks on Muslims. The following is from a recent article by Amis: Tony strolled over [to me] and said, "What have you been up to today?" "I've been feeling protective of my prime minister, since you ask." For some reason our acquaintanceship, at least on my part, is becoming mildly but deplorably flirtatious. What these elite, embedded voices share is their participation in an essentially class war, the long war of the rich against the poor. That they play their part in a broadcasting studio or in the clubbable pages of the review sections and that they think of themselves as liberals or conservatives is neither here nor there. They belong to the same crusade, waging the same battle for their enduring privilege. In The Serpent, Marc Karlin's dreamlike film about Rupert Murdoch, the narrator describes how easily Murdochism came to dominate the media and coerce the industry's liberal elite. There are clips from a keynote address that Murdoch gave at the Edinburgh Television Festival. The camera pans across the audience of TV executives, who listen in respectful silence as Murdoch flagellates them for suppressing the true voice of the people. They then applaud him. "This is the silence of the democrats," says the voice-over, "and the Dark Prince could bathe in their silence."

The BBC's Deceit and Lies to Continue

Listening to all the chest-beating currently emanating from a self-obsessed BBC anyone would think that nothing less than a revolution in broadcasting was going on. The BBC must not deceive the audience we are told by its Director General, Mark Thompson. In future, any programme makers who deceive the public will be shown the door, he promises.

And BBC staff are going to be trained in how to be honest!

Hurrah, at last the message has got through, you may think. The BBC is going to try to be objective about news reporting!

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Truth and a promise not to deceive concerns the BBC's phone-in programmes and how it reports on Mrs Windsor Marm. In no way will it affect the lying-machine which is the BBC News.

BBC reporter, Nick Highams, commented on how the public might feel that the BBC holds its audiences in contempt. This hasn't happened, he reassures us, and we must prevent it from happening.

Bollocks.

The manner in which this miserable organization, totally dependent on a licence-fee which the population is forced to pay, treats us its audience is nothing but contemptuous. The BBC is a conduit of State propaganda and in principle no different to any other, including those in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The only difference is in its veneer of totally false British, middle-class gentility.

The BBC's deceit and lies will continue and its apparatchiks will grow fatter at the public's expense.

A Look in the Mirror
Read it here and here

First There Was an Earthquake, then There Was no Earthquake
Monday, July 16th, 2007 will not be a date that will live in infamy. Not at least within the marbled corridors and high haunts of the British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) editorial board.

FEAR HYPE: Recycled terrorism hysteria
from MEDIA HELL

We were first alerted to a scaremongering BBC news report by its trailer. Shown an hour or so before the BBC1 Ten O'Clock News (23/1/07), the trailer boasted that the news would be featuring dramatic images of an alleged terrorist bombing plot.

This was indeed the headline story of the Ten O'Clock News, which began with the following announcement:

"Dramatic new images of the moment an alleged suicide bomber tried to blow up a train. [The images are shown together with the dramatic introductory music to the news] He's challenged by an off-duty fireman as a mother and young baby look on. Panic as the carriage empties within seconds, but a few passengers give chase. On the run, Ramzi Mohammed – he and five others deny conspiracy to murder".

Frightening and alarming stuff. Anyone watching at this point would be forgiven for thinking that some new terrorist atrocity had taken place. After all, it's headline news - it must be a fresh story?

It's not until a few minutes later that we hear what it's really about:

"The jury in the case of six men accused of plotting to bomb the London transport network has been shown dramatic new images of events on the 21st of July 2005."

In other words, the headline news story is that a court has been shown some 18-month-old images.

ITN's virtual news story

A similarly scaremongering approach was taken by ITN in its coverage (1/3/07) of the alleged "Birmingham terror plot", in which some people were alleged to be planning a kidnapping and (it's rumoured) a beheading. With nothing more substantial to go on than allegations and rumours (and government spin), ITN ran a headline story which took up most of its 30-minute 10.30pm News slot.

Every conceivable fear-raising device was used – old archive footage of terrorists and terrorist beheadings, gratuitous ruminations on the effects of such terrorist attacks becoming widespread in Britain, alarming but baseless speculations, more footage of terrorist executioners standing behind their blindfolded victims, wielding instruments suitable for decapitation, etc.

At one point a commentator stated that the terrorists didn't need to successfully carry out their plans – that their goals were accomplished simply by bringing fear to the country. He said this without any hint of irony in a "news" report which seemed to accomplish precisely this goal.

Complaints

If you notice any similar TV coverage, you might want to contact those responsible (eg see the following). We'd also be grateful if you could forward us the details.

Helen Boaden (Director, BBC news)
helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk

Craig Oliver (Editor, BBC1 Ten O'Clock News)
craig.oliver@bbc.co.uk

Jonathan Munro (Head of news, ITN)
jonathan.munro@itn.co.uk

Ian Rumsey (Editor, ITV News)
ian.rumsey@itn.co.uk

For a longer list of media contacts click here

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6315989.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/UK/6292139.stm

Blair applauds Brown giving the Salute

"Shared Values" means Joined at the Hip through Eternity

Today's announcement by Britain's new Zionist foreign secretary, David Milliband, of the expulsion of four Russian diplomats in retaliation for Russia's refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, alleged assassin of double-agent Boris Litvinenko, signals a watershed deterioration in relations between Russia and the Anglo-Saxon Alliance.

Russia has, quite properly, stated that it has no legal remit to extradite Lugovoi and has even offered to try him at home. This, however, was not acceptable to Britain. There is an interesting similarity between Britain's refusal to compromise on this issue and Bush's refusal to do the same regarding the recent Russian offer to run a joint Russo-American missile shield in exchange for the US dropping plans to install forward bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Thus, all the indications point to the Anglo-Saxon Alliance deliberately heightening tension between itself and Russia. Whilst Bush might see an opportunity in doing so to create a new Arms Race (for the exclusive profit of US corporations and the further empowering of its domestic Military-Industrial Complex) quite what Britain has to gain from it is a mystery. What it could lose, however, is much clearer.

Apart from billions in business-deals, Britain and continental Europe is ever more dependent on the importation of Russian gas. Upsetting the Russians, as the Germans would tell you, is therefore not a good thing. So why is Brown's new government determined to do exactly that?

Using my by-now well-known Remote Viewing techniques, I was able to home-in on a recent high-security telephone conversation between The Shrub and Mr Gordon Brown-nose-Bush:

_________________________________

Bush: Morning, Gordy, lissen' I need you to do me a favor.

Brown: Why yes, Mr President, anything you say Mr President. Another blow-job or would you prefer to shaft me?

Bush: Now quit assin' around, Gordy. You know that's all going to have to wait until our next Bohemian Grove convention. It's not you I need shafting, it's those Russkies.

Brown: Anything you say, grovel, grovel, delighted to be of service in any way, as always, grovel, grovel!

Bush: Right. Now, remember that Litvinenko poisoning we had your intelligence people organise and blame on the Russians? That was neat, so was your demanding the Russkies should hand over Lugovoi when you knew, all along, there wasn't a cat's chance in hell of that happening! Now I want you to up the ante --

Brown: Up the aunty? [mouth quivers] What the BBC again? But Tony's shafted them, already!

Bush: No, no, you've got a one-track mind, Gordy. Not the aunty, the ante ... I want you to up the stakes by creating a huge diplomatic row with the Russkies. Our MIC over here is howling at me to start another Arms Race, it's good for the US economy you know and even better for the Bush family corporate interests.

Brown: Certainly, Mr President, I'll give instructions to Foreign Secretary Milliband.

Bush: Oh, and while you're at it, all that stuff from Millipede about a new line from the Brown government, it's gone as far as we can allow it, so can you cut that crap and have him say something about 'shared values' between two great nations attached at the hip all the way to Armageddon? [puts down phone].

Brown: Jawohl, mein Führer! [salutes & collapses in chair, sits back, loosens his collar, sweating profusely].

_________________________________

When you hear Millipede, sorry Milliband, talking about 'shared values' you'll know what he really means. Britain and the USA are inseparably part of the same usurious, international extortion racket aimed at ensuring that Anglo-Saxon imperialism and 'values' remain in a blood-soaked ascendant, yea, unto the very end of the world.

The Show, and the Nightmare must go on. Anglo-Saxon values rule, ok?

Oh, and by the by. Remember how the Bliar refused to hold an investigation into the BAE/Saudi Bribes scandal? Now the US Department of Justice is demanding that Brown hands over all the incriminating data over to it. Blair's excuse for refusing an enquiry was that 'it would compromise national security.'

Bullshit, of course. Blair, like Bush, could never differentiate between his own interests and the nation's.

So what is Brown going to do, hand over the information? Because, as has been pointed out, if he does won't he be compromising Britain's national security? Oh, I forgot. Of course he won't, because 'shared values' means there's no difference between Britain's and US security and interests.

Joined at the hip through eternity, remember?

Deek Jackson on the BAE/Saudi Cover-Up



Link

Newz Esperanto



Link

Visit Deek Jackson's Circus Fantasticus.com

Editor, David Edwards
Media Lens: a very British Gatekeeper?

Medialens is a British website which aspires to view the British mainstream media with a critical eye and to monitor its output, "correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media," it claims.

For years now it has had a running exchange with the BBC about its heavily biased reporting, particularly on the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan.

From time to time, I have quoted Medialens on my blog and though I have no time for its editors, Messrs Cromwell and Edwards, the two Davids, with whom I have had differences, I have continued to support Medialens for its criticism of the Iraq war, its backing of Chávez and the South American revolution and its exposés of the blatantly propagandistic reportage of the BBC and other TV channels.

Over the last few days, Medialens and its subscribers have had a tremendous opportunity to launch an aggressive critique of the BBC over the recent nonsense of it's having to apologise to the Queen on reporting what to you and me was a pretty inconsequential matter (see article below). While the incident itself was a storm in a teacup the statements that have come out of the BBC and others, reported verbatim in my article, were certainly worthy of comment from Medialens and its subscribers.

The BBC's Head of News, Helen Boaden, a popular hate-figure of Medialens and its subscribers, has called for an in-house enquiry on earlier instances, going back to January 2005, where her staff feel that the BBC acted deceitfully. Ex-BBC Chairman and the present Chief Executive of Independent TV, Michael Grade, was widely reported as condemning recent practises by broadcasters and laying it on the line: the golden, cardinal rule, says Grade, is you don't deceive the listeners.

Too right, Michael. Any comments from Medialens, so far? Nope.

I was able to report verbatim the BBC's stramash in yesterday's article because I make a habit of recording the major newscasts of the day and monitoring them for exactly this kind of thing. I was myself once a Medialens contributor but the Editors seemed to have disapproved of my outspoken language, considered it bad for their image, and banned me twice.

My personal feeling is that they acted intolerantly and in an extremely heavy-handed manner. Far from the intemperate language I was accused of their real motive was always that of preserving, however falsely, an image of western Buddhist tolerance and non-violence. But the ends justified un-Buddhist means and, in order to maintain their public façade, they soon made me into a non-person. To this day, I remain 'radioactive' on their Message Board.

I knew that this tyranny would only get worse. Though tempted to retaliate on my blog and not to encourager les autres, I decided that there were more important issues to deal with and desisted. But I continued to keep an eye on their Message Board to see how others might be treated by these tyrants.

It wasn't surprising, therefore, to see that others too are being banned from their Message Board on the editors' whims. It seems that some good folk on the Board have now got so desperate that they are calling for a more democratic structure to replace the current regime of bullying.

Lost in their petty intrigues, the Editors of Medialens missed an excellent opportunity by not commenting on the recent BBC ruckus. More importantly, on Ms Boaden's decision to hold an in-house enquiry and on the significance of Michael Grade's comments. If I were still on their Message Board, it goes without saying I would have pointed this out. But I have no intention of creeping back in there under yet another pseudonym, only to experience the same sense of frustration and despair with what is, in the real world, nothing more than a talking-club of self-deluded, Oxbridge intellectuals.

Though I expect their intentions were honourable in first setting up such a media monitor, it is clear that it has never been more than a two-man operation with its subscribers giving it the semblance of appearing an open forum for discussion.

It is not.

The Medialens Message Board has its own peculiar tribalisms and a clear intolerance towards anything it might find to be politically incorrect. It is, sadly, more concerned with image and political expediencies than getting its hands dirty in the real world. In the USA, the owners of such an organisation would soon find themselves denounced as gate-keepers, i.e. a group deliberately set up to control and defuse controversies.

That is, in effect, what Medialens has become. However honourable were their early intentions, it is now a gate-keeper. And, in the case of 911, it has been not just a gate-keeper but, deciding the issue to be un-pc, has banned all discussion from its Message Boards.

How can anyone be expected to take such a group seriously when complacency and a pretentious tyranny are the order of the day?

There is a desperate need for groups who are committed to monitoring the lies of the mainstream media and attacking it when necessary. For, make no mistake about it, we are in the midst of a propaganda war in the West. A war which is an extension of the hot war being fought abroad by the same imperialists whose media-war we face daily at home.

If the editors of Medialens can't stand the heat then they should do the honest thing, admit to their subscribers that they've lost the plot and allow their subscribers the freedom to democratise and revamp Medialens.

If they cannnot countenance such humility, then they should shut shop. To continue as they are doing at present may pander to the egos of Messers Cromwell, Edwards and their apologists but, for the rest of us, Medialens is a deception which betrays all it supposedly stands for.

A Time to Remember Basic Values?

The British Broadcasting Conspiracy exposed by a Children's Programme and an Anachronism!

At last, the lying nature of the BBC propaganda machine has been exposed in the full glare of publicity. The event that has triggered this is, in my opinion, of very little consequence and by focusing on it and other petty issues it appears that, true to form, the BBC is trying desperately to distract our attention from the elephant in its living room.

Nevertheless, with the Controller of BBC 1, Peter Fincham, squirming and wringing his hands at the suggestion of his resignation, it has provided us all with an opportunity to see the BBC as simultaneously grovelling, pompous and in denial.

The BBC has been forced to apologise publicly for having made a promotional video of the Queen where she is seen to lose her rag and snap at a celebrity photographer, Annie Liebowitz, and storm out. It was later discovered that the scene of her storming out never took place and that the film clip was out of sequence.

Only in Britain! This incident has led to BBC reporters having to grovel in front of the TV cameras and make statements such as, "It's an image that goes completely against how the public sees Her Majesty ... hugely embarrassing for the BBC."

Image, what image? What assumptions the BBC makes on behalf of the British public! But then the BBC habitually makes assumptions about most things, especially regarding Britain's imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where never a day goes by without us hearing it tell us lies by government decree.

Whereas it is free to lie and brainwash us all about the wonderful job "our boys" are doing out there in the name of freedom 'n' democracy it really has to watch its p's and q's when reporting about royalty. Here are some of the statements I copied down from news recordings. While reading these I would invite the reader to bear in mind the relatively insignificant incidents they arose from and to contrast their pettiness with the farrago of lies, disinformation and misinformation the BBC produces daily over matters such as British military aggression.

"[An] apology was quick in coming and perhaps not surprisingly, given the issues of audience trust and confidence in broadcasting," after an incident where on a children's programme, Blue Peter, a fake winner was announced and the BBC was later fined £50,000.

If a lie of that gravity deemed a fine of fifty grand then I am left to ask what kind of fine should be meted out concerning the BBC's compulsive lies about almost a million killed in a war crime which it refuses to own up to? In that instance no fine would be large enough. Instead the BBC should be wound up and every reporter and manager complicit in lies about Britain's war crime should be tried at the Hague.

Returning to its recent misdemeanours:

"This is a hugely embarrassing affair for the BBC and while it's been quick to minimise the damage there has been which will no doubt prompt a great deal of internal soul-searching."

Soul searching? So the BBC has a soul, has it? Where has it been all this while when it has been enthusiastically acting as the conduit for Government propaganda in Britain's murdering, militaristic adventures abroad and in Ireland?

It has been all to do with trust, the news minions assure us, the audience's trust in broadcasting. Hugely embarrassing. Oh give over, how petty and mediocre these little cogs in the BBC's wheel are!

Yesterday's BBC lunchtime news was of slightly more interest. And, precisely because it was, not repeated later on in the day. It's reporter, Paul Sillitoe:

"Given that the BBC had to pay a fine for misleading the public over a Blue Peter programme, this latest event is deeply embarrassing and comes just as an enquiry is launched into when it [the BBC] has deceived the audience in any other programmes."

Deeply embarrassing, hugely embarrassing, a general squirming and wringing of hands, and then it slips out there is to be an enquiry into the BBC's credibility. Oh? And were we informed about this before this ridiculous incident? No.

BBC reporter, Nick Highams, from Buckingham Palace:

"This is particularly embarrassing for the BBC which has always set enormous store by not misleading the audience, by telling the audience that they can trust whatever the BBC broadcasts."

On which planet does Mr Highams live? Certainly not on mine where the BBC is on par with Big Brother and the former Soviet Union's controlled media. C'mon Mr Highams, you know that's bullshit you're getting paid to regurgitate. On the planet of privileged, highly-paid apparatchiks, have you no sense of shame?

"Now today the Director of News, Helen Boaden, has written to all her staff --this is apparently a BBC News only initiative at the moment-- asking them to to look into all programmes since January 2005 where they believe there is a risk that the audience may have been misled. And she wants to hear, even if it's only a hunch, about any programmes like that so she can take the appropriate action."

Now you're really asking for trouble Ms Boaden. I hope you've bitten off more than you can chew this time. I hope your staff have the courage to tell you the truth about the monstrous lying-machine that masquerades as the BBC News services. You won't like to be equated with Big Brother, Goebbels and the former Soviet Union but that is a widely-held view which is gathering, not losing, momentum both in Britain and elsewhere. You, Ms Boaden, have a long history of covering-up for the BBC as subscribers to investigators like Medialens know all too well. You and your cronies are responsible for having created a bubble of unreality in which, like all good apparatchiks, you have insulated yourselves from the real world. A bubble that has been burst by, not the forces of democracy, but by an age-old anachronism.

This is what the former Chairman and ITV's current Chief Executive, Michael Grade had to say:

"We're all in this together. I made a speech about this a couple of weeks ago, about trust in broadcasting: it's an issue for all of us. I am deeply concerned that there is a generation of programme-makers around the place, at the BBC, independent producers, in ITV who do not begin to understand the cardinal golden rule of broadcasting is do not ever deceive the audience."

Sillitoe again who claims that restoring trust is the BBC's Number One priority. We shall see, I'm not optimistic:

"This is not just a restoring of trust with the Palace but a wider issue between broadcasting and the public."

Today, the BBC together with its Controller, the squirming Peter Fincham, is fighting off calls for his and other resignations. If you think this is bad wait till the revolution, boy, we'll have you be a night soil carrier. Something which, in your present job, you already know how to do well.

Michael Grade again:

"This incident will only add to the public's distrust of broadcasters. What's of greater concern is that viewers' trust in broadcasting as a whole has been severely shaken, not just by what's happened on the BBC but on ITV, GMTV, Channel Five, Channel Four. There is a serious issue of trust. The values of British broadcasting have somehow got diluted with the new generation of programme-makers. We have to restore it with a policy of zero tolerance towards anybody who sets out deliberately to deceive."

Now here is an intelligent man who understands the need for the Establishment he represents to reform its ways. But will it, can it do so? One major reason for the deterioration of reporting standards has been directly caused by the subsuming of British foreign policy within Washington's. In every sense of the word, our reporters with a few honourable exceptions, are well and truly embedded in the US war machine. To get out of that deceitful and poisonous web is going to require nothing less than a peaceful revolution and this country's declaration of independence from the new King George and his successors. What chance is there of that happening?

Nina Nannar, ITV News:

"With recent incidents where viewers have been misled by faked competition results and scandals over phone-ins, whatever the BBC chooses to do about this latest incident it is clear that broadcasters as a whole are facing a serious issue that goes to their very core: how to maintain the trust of their viewers."

Well, Nina, you're a big girl now. You should know the score. Journalists and reporters are simply going to have to go back to the honourable old traditions of reporting news as objectively as humanly possible. We're all biased in different ways but there is a, perhaps unattainable, standard called Truth which in days gone by many of us were educated to try and maintain and never to cease striving for. It had something to do with a quality of humanity and a willingness to see the world as it really is, not as our rulers would have us see it. It was and is about the courage to stand up for one's beliefs and to risk having to pay the price for doing so in an increasingly corrupt and decadent society. And where possible to band together in solidarity in order to defend basic human values from being destroyed by rulers who don't give a damn for either us or them.

It's also about regaining our self respect and our refusal to become servile minions to a modern Moloch. Do you and your colleagues possess the courage to face that reality or will you continue to betray yourselves and your people to a false god?

The BBC has certainly tripped-up over a relatively insignificant issue. Who'd have thought its innate corruptness would end up exposed by a children's programme and an anachronism? So the Emperor has no clothes on and is facing a potential broadcasting revolution. Will it now succeed in stifling that revolution by continuing to distract us with trivia whilst ignoring the elephant which just won't go away?

Well, that's up to the BBC. Folk like me only watch it to record the lies so don't confuse our numbers in your audience ratings.

Meantime, we in the alternative media, the blogosphere, together with the upcoming truth reporters in places such as Independent World Television, Telesur and so on will carry on a revolution which, so far, has been little televised.

If you wish to complain about the BBC's disgraceful news reporting, send an email to HelenBoaden.Complaints@bbc.co.uk

The Search For Smeato - John Smeaton - Glasgow Airport Attack Hero

Glaswegian, John Smeaton has become an International hero.

On June 30th 2007 Smeato, as he is known now, assisted police in disabling (via the dreaded Glasgow Banjo punch-move) two

suspected bombers who had driven a flaming Jeep into the front entrance of Glasgow International Airport.

Two endeavoring, newly founded Smeato fans try to track down his upbringing, his schooling, his influences- try to work out what makes Smeato the man, the myth, the mighty hero. This film attempts to confirm facts as reported on johnsmeaton.com as well as gauge an official response from the police and the Home Office.

Check out http://www.johnsmeaton.com/ and pledge the man a pint ... he already has over 1000 waiting for him, but has thirsty Scottish friends ... go on add one yerself!

Digg it baby! And please help us get him more pints by rating the clip above 3 stars! The next part is on route .... the man and his pints!

"What's the score? I've got to get this sorted"

John Smeaton, Baggage Handler



Link

Günter Grass

War Crimes, USUK Hypocrisy & Collective Responsibility

On BBC Radio 4, I have been listening to an abridged version of Peeling the Onion, an autobiography by the German writer, Günter Grass.

Grass, famous for his satirical writings on Nazi Germany, will be remembered for his major works, The Tin Drum and Dog Years. When Peeling the Onion was published last year in Germany there was a lot of kerfuffle among literary circles about Grass having served, as a teenager, in the Waffen SS which was later condemned collectively for war crimes.

In his books, Grass spends a lot of time examining the case for the German population's joint responsibility for war crimes as well as his own. He also reminds us how the newly-formed German Federal Republic was prepared to accept the Allies' decision to reinstate many Nazis to positions of power and, in an index in Dog Years, lists companies like I.G.Farben which played an active role in the Nazi economy.

The Germans have anguished for over half a century over their collective responsibility for giving Hitler power. Even today it remains a sensitive issue.

But, in the light of more recent war crimes committed by the USA and Britain in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan I am forced to the conclusion that it is inevitably the victors in war who not only write the history books but who make and execute judicial judgements. As witness they did, through their Iraqi puppets, with Saddam Hussein.

If Germany had won the war it would have been the likes of Churchill who would have been deemed war criminals and led to the hangman's noose. It lost and paid the price. So did Iraq, though the comparison between a massively strong Third Reich and a weak, defenceless Iraq facing the combined imperial might of the USUK must end there.

We can now see the farce in how war crimes are judged. It was right and proper for Nazi war criminals to have faced trial. But the whole exercise deteriorated into a cosmetic when later we discovered just how many Nazi war criminals were, because it was convenient, reinstated by the Allies. And if that shameful business didn't underscore the manifest dishonesty of the judging of war criminality then Iraq most certainly has.

Apart from a few, unreported independent hearings, such as the Istanbul and Brussels Tribunals, no one in the Western establishment has dared to point to the war criminals who lied to and dragged their countries into war against a defenceless Iraq. Although there are plenty of them around, not one journalist has had the courage to admit to his or her collective responsibility in that war crime.

Aware of the blood on its hands, the BBC has done everything it can to hush-up its own responsibility and to not report on these embarrassing independent tribunals.

In for a penny, in for a pound, says the BBC, not only ignoring its criminality but going the whole way, steeping itself in even more guilt by enthusiastically joining in the fake "War on Terror", the hollow rationale of mediocre politicians like Bush and Blair which enshrouds the USUK's responsibility for more than a million unnecessary deaths in the Middle East.

By doing so, the war criminal politicians and their servile media have pushed themselves into a corner with no way out. All the war criminals like gutter journalists Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn and Christopher Hitchens can do now is to bang the war drums even harder every chance they get, hoping that the noise will distract us from their murderous nature.

And then there is the collective responsibility that each of us in the USUK must bear. Yes, right from the start, some of us marched against our criminal rulers and proclaimed, "Not in Our Name!" We were dragged into this war crime. Well, those of us who protested were. But what about the much greater majority who stayed silent and who, with us all, have allowed the war criminals to stay in power?

Ah, but you can't compare us to the Germans who didn't stop Hitler!

Didn't they, can't we?

What about all the German socialists and democrats who literally fought in the streets against Hitler's Brownshirts before being finally rounded up, murdered or committed to a slow death in concentration camps? And the German anti-war groups, however small, who continued to ridicule and condemn Hitler long after their fate was sealed?

Neither the USA or Britain ever experienced the horrors of a poverty-stricken, plague ridden Weimar Germany, bled to death by the vengeful allies of WWI, prior to the ascendancy of a strongman dictator.

No. Singularly preoccupied at the trough with its ongoing consumer binge, both the populations of the USA and Britain simply turned their backs on an unpleasant reality and allowed their war criminals the freedom to do whatever the hell they liked. Selfishness and greed came first and our collective responsibility for genocide was conveniently swept under the carpet.

Yet, the ultimate crime has been committed! And just as we judged post-war Germany guilty, we in the USUK are, in the eyes of truth and by our own erstwhile standards, collective war criminals now!

I have always admired Günter Grass for being prepared to examine both his and Germany's collective soul for the truth. So it is a small return that I perform here to emulate his example. It is time, now, for the Günter Grass' of the USA and Britain to begin to speak the truth about our own collective criminality.

An Archive created to catalogue the War Crimes committed by various parties in the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

Read it Here

Mindgames & BBC Breakfast TV

An old belief in the Soviet Union and east European countries was that if you wanted to know the truth about what was going on all you had to do was to believe the opposite of what the State media told you.

Although the BBC, in a typically middle class British manner, is less obvious hence far more underhand I find that the general principle still prevails. For when all is said and done either a piece of news reportage reflects the truth or it does not. Unfortunately for the likes of the BBC, the opportunity to tinker with facts is limited by what is actually going on in the real world and the people's received wisdom of same.

Of course, that doesn't stop it from trying to keep its masters in government and high places happy. Despite a snowball of increasing hysteria among its managers, matched only by another of despair among its staff (News Director, Helen Boaden, is quoted as saying she was aware that some staff felt "knackered and frustrated" because of their workload) the same old, mediocrities are daily trotted out to an increasingly jaded public.

Breakfast TV seems to be a good time to slip in a few subliminal messages into the communal subconscious. While folk are still half asleep, munching on toast and cornflakes, the verbal sleight of hand can have its maximum effect. Witness, for example, this morning's little foray into the land of BBC virtual reality.

With a burgeoning of CCTV spy cameras on every street corner, shop and motorway is Britain turning into a surveillance society? Now the answer to that should be obvious but that's precisely why the BBC is forced to treat the question. And treat it it does. Well, yes, but you see surveillance is really good for us because it cuts crime and terrorism, says the BBC, cashing in on a premium of fear, guilt and insecurity.

Although your data might be widely available to a score of agencies, don't worry, it's protected by the Data Protection Act. Besides which, the authorities aren't going to seek information on you unless you've done something bad.

Phew! You know, I was quite worried for a minute there. So that's all right, then, nothing to worry about. I can rest assured, knowing that my government is looking after my best interests. Big Brother is watching over me and Big Brother knows best.

And, hey, you know what? I'm comforted by a feeling that I believe in fairies at the bottom of my garden and Santa Claus too!

Notice how, in a manner Goebbels would have delighted in, the BBC uses moral guilt to hammer home the message: if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about in a surveillance society. It's the criminals and terrorists that ought to be worried. Now you're not a criminal or a terrorist are you? Are you?

Am I?

Well, I don't really know. You've got me feeling Kafkaesquely guilty now. Maybe I am a criminal and a terrorist and don't know it? Or at least maybe potentially I might be? What about all those pathological hateful thoughts I have when stuck in a traffic jam for hours? And, you know, there's times I've felt almost sympathy for those terrorists. After all, it's a fucked up world and we're all guilty of a degree of terrorism, aren't we, by allowing our governments to go on mass killing sprees abroad?

It's just so difficult to know who's innocent and who's guilty. Nothing's simple anymore so perhaps we all deserve to be constantly surveilled by all these spy cameras? And if it's reducing crime and terrorism then it's gotta be good, innit? After all, Aunty BBC like Big Brother, knows best.

(Photo: Thanks to Stef Zucconi)

ZEITGEIST: The Movie


Link

Zeitgeist: the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era

"We have been misled, away from the true and divine presence in the Universe that men have called God. I don't know what God is but I know what he isn't. And unless and until you are prepared to look at the whole truth, wherever it may go, whoever it may lead to ... if you want to look the other way or if you want to play favorites, then somewhere along the line you're going to find out you're messing with divine justice."

Who said this?:

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."

George W. Bush?

No, Adolf Hitler (when announcing the Gestapo to the people) ... same shit, different asshole.

"By having this war on terrorism, you can never win it. So you can always keep taking people's liberties away. The media can convince everybody that it's real. The goal is to get everybody in this world chipped with an RFID chip. Anyone who protests against us gets their chip switched off."

--Nicholas Rockefeller

"The most incredible aspect of all: these totalitarian elements will not be forced upon the people. The people will demand them. For the social manipulation of society through fear has completely detached humans from their sense of power and reality; a process which has been going on for centuries if not millennia."

"Religion, Patriotism, Race, Wealth, Class and every other form of arbitrary, separatist identification thus conceived has served to create a controlled population, utterly malleable in the hands of the few."

"Divide and Conquer is the motto and as long as people continue to see themselves as separate from everything else they lend themselves to be completely enslaved."

"The men behind the curtain know this and they also know that if people ever realize the truth of their relationship to nature and the truth of their personal power the entire manufactured zeitgeist they prey upon would collapse like a house of cards."

Part One: Religion as a traditional Control System

Part Two: The 'War on Terror' as a contemporary Control System

Part Three: The New World Order, the ultimate Control System

ZEITGEIST: the Website

Britain's new Sicherheitsminister, Sir Alan West
The Hitlerization of Britain

Quietly but insidiously, Gordon Brown's regime is working diligently to turn Britain into a full-blown police state, the kind which Hitler and Stalin would have been proud of.

Almost unannounced, Britain now has a Minister of Security, ex-Navy Admiral, Sir Alan West.

The creation of such a post is a disturbing sign of how advanced has become the politicization of the intelligence and police services in Britain and their servility to a foreign policy created, not in Britain, but in Washington, D.C. Britain's role as a vassal state has been underscored by the appointment of a political figure whose ultimate purpose is the repression of his own people.

He has already confirmed that by publicly calling for people to snitch on each other and report each other's activities to the police. Foreseeing the time required to further degrade social values along these lines, he recognizes that it might take up to fifteen years to create. To cynically and deliberately set out to create a society of psychosis, fear and terror is to do exactly what Hitler and Stalin did. It is also the act of a traitor who seeks to take away the last freedoms of his own people.

What, I wonder, would all those who, in the defence of freedom and democracy, went willingly to their deaths in WWII think of Sir Alan's ultimate act of treason? Is this the kind of society for which they laid down their lives?

Through this despicable appointment we can see Gordon Brown for what he really is. For all his hollow talk of promoting a 'sense of Britishness' Mr Brown-nose-Bush is nothing more than another traitor.

How long, I wonder, before the docile British public rise up against the likes of these? Its famous tolerance seems now to be entirely misplaced in that it appears to tolerate those who abuse their authority and condones intolerance against the very victims of that abuse.

Britain, like America, has descended into a mass psychosis where lies are believed simply to perpetuate a semblance of normality amongst destruction and chaos; that what is being done is right and proper by a government seeking 'to protect' its people against outside threats.

Meantime, those governments are not only daily committing mass-murder against others in our name; they are committing disguised acts of terror against their own people in order to gain a strangle-hold position of control. And if we remain passive, as we are presently doing, that strangle-hold will finally strangle us all.

Press Release from Scotland Against Criminalising Communities

8 July 2007

www.sacc.org.uk

SACC rejects "Snitchers culture"

Our new, unelected, Security Minister Alan West has got off to a flying start. Just as you'd expect from a security minister, he has announced that he wants a security state.

He says people must learn to "snitch" - his word - on friends, family and neighbours.

We hope people won't follow this advice. Under current anti-terrorism laws, you can be prosecuted on the basis of rumours, suspicions, or having the wrong friends. You can spend a long time in jail waiting for a court to weigh rumours and gossip in the balance. You might even be convicted for the offence of becoming a victim of suspicion. Even if you aren't convicted, you could still be electronically tagged, or placed under partial house arrest, or - if you are a foreign citizen - deported.

In these circumstances, snitching on your neighbours is very anti-social behaviour indeed.

SACC will continue to keep people informed of their right not to snitch and will continue to fight any legislative threat to that right. And we'll continue to remind people of the possible consequences of snitching.

Those consequences go a lot further than landing your friends in jail. A snitchers' culture will destroy community cohesion, destroy trust and destroy political activity. And then how will we stop our government spreading war and terror across the planet? And if we can't do that, how can we expect to live in peace at home?

Alan West says he doesn't like the phrase "war on terror". It's true that it's an ugly label. But the stuff inside the tin is a lot uglier. We don't really care if he wants to call this deadly mix of war and repression a banana. We just want it to change.

The "war on terror" - let's call it that until the re-branding is official - has brought apocalypse to Iraq. One reason why the carnage hasn't yet spread to Iran is that the US and British governments haven't yet stitched together the minimal level of public and inter-governmental acquiescence that they think a war would need.

If we are to prevent this catastrophe we need our freedom and we need it now. We need to build solidarity between the people of Britain and the people of the Middle East. We don't need a fake solidarity with the warmonger in Downing Street.

This is no time to throw away freedom and trust, however compelling the justification. To do it because of a small fire in the porch of Glasgow airport would make us the laughing stock of the world. It would be even sillier than giving Prince Charles a place on Scotland's Guardian group of top defenders against terror - a thing that actually happened last week.

There's a crumb of comfort in Alan West's comments. He says that it will take 10 or 15 years to turn Britain into the police state he wants. It's nice that he credits the British people with some capacity to resist tyranny. Let's hope we can do even better than that and resist tyranny for ever.

SACC, 8 July

News Flash: Chemical Weapon Terrorist Plot Thwarted in the UK!

by Chris Floyd

Written by Chris Floyd
Wednesday, 04 July 2007

British authorities thwarted a plot by UK-born extremists – including a medical professional – to manufacture chemical bombs to be used in fomenting a “civil war” between Muslims and Christians in the UK, the Guardian reports, and the alleged perpetrators are now on trial.

But why are we telling you this? Surely, it’s been splashed 24-7 across CNN and Fox News. You have doubtless seen every detail of the conspiracy and its nefarious plotters ricocheting around ABC, NBC and CBS. You have probably already devoured mountains of newsprint about the story served up by the New York Times, the Washington Post, AP and Reuters. And you have certainly been pixelated with thunderous on-line commentary from PowerLine, Drudge, Instapundit, Malkin, etc., about this sinister attempt to destroy our Western way of life and impose an alien ideology on a free people by force.

I mean, it’s not every day that you have a dramatic court session about a WMD plot by white neo-Nazis – what? You mean you haven’t heard about it? It wasn’t on CNN? Glenn Beck wasn’t raging about it? Michelle hasn’t jumped all over it like a duck on a june bug? George Bush hasn’t cited it as yet another reason to keep waging the “War on Terror” in Iraq?

But how can that be? I mean, look what we’ve got here: Chemical weapons. Violent extremists. Healers unmasked as haters. Devotees of Hitler, for God’s sake! (The real Hitler, not all the “new Hitlers” that pop up every time the Pentagon wants to go for an outing). Why isn’t news of this plot saturating the media, which is normally so ravenous for scaremongering terrorist copy?

Could it be because the alleged plotters are good and godly Anglo-Saxons, just like mother used to make?

Robert Cottage, 49, a member of the British National Party, is standing trial in Manchester for amassing material for chemical bombs – and instructions for making them — in his home. The prosecution said Cottage was acting on the instructions of a fellow BNP cadre, David Jackson, a respectable 62-year-old dentist from Lancashire. Cottage’s 29-year-old wife testified against him, having originally reported his alleged plans to test chemical bombs to a social worker – the tip that led to the men’s arrest.

Cottage had been an unsuccessful BNP candidate for his local town council – although many of his culture-war comrades have won seats in local governments throughout England. His failures didn’t damage his stature in the party, however; indeed, his wife said Cottage had risen through the ranks to become friends with the party’s leader, the Cambridge-educated Nick Griffin. (Griffin of Cambridge; Bush of Yale and Harvard: poster boys for the virtues of elitist education.)

Cottage and Jackson found common cause in their enthusiasm for the carefully muffled racism of the BNP, which has repackaged itself as the voice of the neglected working class – an opening given to them by the Labour Party’s cynical abandonment of working people in favor of corporate tycoons and private equity barons (the UK version of the DLC strategy, in other words). The BNP thus preys on genuine grievances in England’s equivalent of the “rust belt,” and has gained small footholds across the country, even in London. But while the media-savvy Griffin soft-pedals the party’s core racism for public consumption, the insiders know the real score. As Mrs. Cottage testified, her husband and Jackson were “’solid friends who met regularly to chat about politics, the BNP and Hitler,” the Guardian reports.

The two allegedly planned the chemical bomb attacks as part of a “war between the Asian culture and the White culture,” Mrs. Cottage testified. In the UK, “Asian” is used to denote those of Pakistani origin – overwhelmingly Muslim – and by extension most other Muslims of less-than-alabaster hue.

In private talks to party members, Griffin tells his followers that the BNP is “just one crisis away from power.” (Obviously, a few chemical bombs aimed at fomenting race war might constitute provoke a useful crisis.) And in fact, for all its pretensions at electorally representing the plight of neglected workers, the BNP is not really interested in politics or governance at all. Like some other rightwing parties we could mention, their only concern is grabbing power and imposing the views of their tiny, radical base on the nation as a whole.

Griffin — whose published Holocaust denial far outstrips that of, say, the Iranian president — spelled out the party’s true goals during a fundraising tour in the United States, as the Guardian reported last year. (The BNP gets a good deal of money from fellow travellers in the States – secret slush funneled through a front organization, as there are strict limits on British parties raising money overseas.) The Guardian’s Ian Cobain, who went undercover as a BNP activist for several months, heard a revealing tape of Griffin speaking in New Orleans – homeground of his American doppelganger, David Duke:

Then I heard a recording of a speech Nick Griffin gave to a closed conference of white supremacists in New Orleans last year. In it he spelled out the party’s strategy - and made clear that winning votes is not an end in itself.

After his almost-casual denigration of British Muslims - “the most appalling, insufferable people to have to live with” - Griffin revealed his belief that a period of prolonged recession was certain to engulf the developed world as a result of fuel shortages and global warming. This, he said, would happen soon but it would not be a disaster, rather “a once-in-200-years opportunity”.

Far-right parties needed to prepare for this moment of crisis by ensuring that enough people were aware of their policies and had discovered that they were “not crazy-eyed lunatics”, he said. If people had considered voting for the BNP, he argued, they would be more likely to turn to the party during a time of immense crisis.

“It will be the beginning of an age of scarcity, an age in which a well-organised nationalist party could really make an impact. And that’s the key word - organised. In Britain, we are almost there: we have got this solid 5% block [of support]. Other radical movements in the past, far left or far right, whatever, a couple of years before a crisis have had far less than 5%, so as far as I am concerned, that is fairly satisfactory.”

So there it is: the BNP’s leaders believe that the time will soon come when power will fall into the street, and at that moment, with significant sections of Britain’s white population cheering them on, they will be able to scoop it up.

While 5% support is a good starting point, Griffin told his audience, the Front National [of Jean-Marie Le Pen] has an 18%-strong block of support, and almost half the white voters in France had voted for the party at some time. If the BNP was to enjoy that level of support, it would not be consigned to the political margins for much longer. It would, Griffin said, be just “one crisis away from power”.

Now here we have a duly accredited political party — its members sitting in local governments, its leader often appearing on national television to debate the issues – whose activists are on trial for allegedly conspiring to use chemical bombs as part of a “culture war” to plunge society into crisis and take power. As such plots go, this one is far more credible than the “liquid explosive” scare last year that threw the entire global air travel system into panic and disarray. You think it might rate at least a mention somewhere in the terror-haunted house of horrors that is the American media.

Of course, it’s only natural that the recent Glasgow-London car-bomb incidents have drawn more headlines than the BNP chemical bomb trial. After all, those car bombs actually got built – albeit in such a slapdash fashion that they were scarcely workable – while the alleged BNP bombs were still in the planning stages. But the disparity in coverage between “Muslim” terrorism and “Christian” terrorism is remarkable (as Dave Neiwert continually notes at Orcinus). Yet a bomb launched by a white Christian is every bit as deadly as one set off by a swarthy Muslim; just ask the tens of thousands of Iraqis buried under George Bush’s bombs – or indeed the people of Britain, where white Christians from Ireland have claimed far more victims, including a member of the royal family, than “Asian” Muslims ever have.

NB: For unknown reasons, Chris Floyd's site, Empire Burlesque, is down or inaccesible. This article was copied from Dandelion Salad

Helpful Training Video for Glasgow Fire Brigade

Seeing as the Glasgow Fire Brigade was so clumsy (deliberately? god forbid!) in putting out the recent Glasgow Airport blaze with water hoses (petrol and water don't mix and using water hoses only spreads a fire) here's a useful video from Mendocino County on how to put out a fire from a propane tank.

The latest BBC propaganda is about what a brave lot of lads they were to prevent explosions and the rest of the airport burning down. Yup, with three water hoses.

No mention that propane gas bottles are built to be idiot-proof. If they do explode they explode downwards where the weld-points are weakest.

Now why didn't these dastardly terrorists time their event for November the Fifth with a stuffed effigy of George Brown as Guy Fawkes?



Link

India's PM to Brown: Do not Stereotype Indians

Sir Ian Blair on the Qui Vive
All Roads lead to the Dodgy Met

Another hilarious video I found on Stef Zucconi's Blog.

A message to my brothers in the Jihad, get a grip

Link

Just another thought about recent events: apart from the apparent determination of the local fire brigade to keep the Glasgow Airport blaze going for as long as possible, why was it necessary to send the miscreants down to London to be interrogated by the most corrupt police force in Britain, the Metropolitan?

Apparently, the Strathclyde police force in Scotland couldn't be entrusted with the job.

Oh, the excuse given was that both the London and Glasgow incidents were linked. That was convenient, wasn't it, and all we have is the word of the dodgy Met that this was so.

More likely, those who were responsible for this pathetic false flag were afraid that the Scottish police might have found out the truth who was really behind it ... as has been the case with the Lockerbie incident. Although, concerning the last, it's more likely that the recent 'revelations' have been timed to create further anti-Iranian sentiment prior to an attack on that country.

Curious, isn't it, that everything has to return to Sir Ian Blair and that den of corruption and politicised plods, the Met? It reminds me of how all the debris from 911 was quickly shipped out to other countries to get rid of the evidence.