Uponnothing.co.uk

I was in conversation yesterday with a colleague about the merits of religion and one phrase that consistently crops up is “Religion causes war and if it was banned there would be no war”

Without using insulting terms of reference , I think that this phrase shows the intellectual bankruptcy that exists in so called educated people who think that because they’ve heard John Lennon’s Imagine on the radio then they can pass comment on how to make the world a better place. I mean, John Lennon was one of the biggest hypocrites of recent years – while he was preaching peace and sympathy for the dispossessed, he had a fleet of Rolls Royces and several mansions across the world.

How anyone could suggest that banning religion would result in a lessening of conflict and suffering is beyond me. How then can these idiots explain that some of the biggest killers in history have been atheists – men like Stalin and Mao Zedong? But you don’t hear the secularists mention this in their daily attacks on religion. I can understand why people would view religion as a bad influence especially when you consider the numbskull monkey that currently resides in the White House who claims he’s on a mission from God. But equally, there are many religious figures who’ve protested against the terrorist warmongering emanating from the bowels of Washington. Men such as Pope John Paul, Archbishop Rowan Williams and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have consistently rejected the policies of George W Bush and Tony Blair.

Let me give you an analogy – Before you drive, you have to pass a driving test. One of the criteria is to observe the rules of the Highway Code. If you follow this then you will drive correctly and the roads will be reasonably safe. But if you don’t then the chances are an accident will occur. So by the arguments of the anti religious crowd, would you then dispense with the rules and the Highway Code because someone didn’t follow the rules. No. So why is religion attacked in the same way?

After all to anyone who has studied history and military history in particular, such as myself, most wars occur due to several factor based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs – i.e the needs of shelter, consumables etc as well as the base human emotions of greed and jealousy. Religion (as well as nationalism and ideology) is merely an excuse to go to war. So by removing it, would the stupid fools not see that war and violence would simply use other excuses?

I mean, come on now, can’t anybody see that the latest excuse to going to war is now about Spreading Democracy? Democracy is the new religion for the neo-con warmongering dogs and they are anything but democratic. So stop blaming religion for the wars that have occurred – rather blame humanity for being a bunch of fuck-ups.

Even where so-called wars of religion have been fought, there has always been an element of land grabbing or materialism. Look at the Palestinian/Israeli situation – that’s about land. Northern Ireland – it’s about land. Essentially what I’m trying to explain is that all things being equal, if you have 2 countries side by side, both with adequate resources and thriving economies, and the only difference is religion, would there really be a war based on an abstraction? Whereas if one of the 2 countries had need of resources and was willing to go to war for it, then they would use religion to justify it – such as in the Crusades. So rather than picking an easy target to denigrate, try looking at your own goddamn faults. After all, if it wasn’t for religion, Humanity would not have got to where it is today. This is because religion allowed us to think in abstractions and thus set us on the path to culture – some of the first buildings ever erected were temples – and from temples grew cities.

It reminds me of the saying: a bad workman always blames his tools.

“War is the ultimate profession for the ultimate practitioner - man”
(Anon)

As if the introduction of ID cards in the UK wasn’t
a bad enough proposal already, The
Independent has today reported that the US wants to be able to access
these ID cards. It is a worrying development in the physical bonds
between citizens in the UK and the US government, spearheaded by Tony
Blair’s special (meaning = sycophantic) relationship with George Bush.
That this should even be considered by Britain is symptomatic of the
position that Tony Blair has placed the country in, it seems that we are
rapidly becoming the 51^st state, almost solely because of the
delusional relationship of two leaders. That Tony Blair feels the need to
praise America and Bush for their moral crusade is a sign of just how out
of touch he is with reality; and that he drags Britain with him into his
personal delusions should be enough to see him face criminal proceedings.
If Tony Blair was brought before a court it could be realistic that he
could plead insanity, and be believed. For how else can he be so ignorant
of reality?

To allow the US access to Britons’ ID cards under
the sentiment that it is purely to help track terrorists, or suspected
terrorists (which nowadays means anyone) is another step towards a
totalitarian future. The line between identifying dangerous individuals,
and tracking anybody who has opposing views (dissidents) has become
dangerously - and perhaps following recent government moves (PARTIOT
ACT and Britain’s Civil
Contingencies Bill) permanently – blurred. If ID cards are
introduced, and we then have to pay £93 for the pleasure of having our
movements tracked to an even greater extent than they already our, then
Tony Blair will be taking another step towards becoming a dictator in all
but name.

On the 25^th May the BBC reported that
Britain would be sending a further 400 troops to Iraq, taking the total to
around 8500. So far the UK forces in Iraq have suffered 87 servicemen
dead, with still no realistic timescale for withdrawal. The sending of
further troops is part of the long-term view of training the Iraqi
military to take over the reigns. However, with the
proposed construction of the large American bases in Iraq it is clear
that the policy in Iraq will be to maintain a permanent presence of troops
and military bases to provide a quick reaction force that further
increases America’s influence in the Middle East. Any permanent erection
of bases in Iraq will make it crystal clear to the resistance fighters –
and potential resistance fighters – that their land is being occupied as
part of the larger American agenda in the Middle East. The training of the
Iraqi military and police force will serve as providing a ready supply of
cannon fodder to be consumed by the resistance force, with American
military losses vastly reduced by maintaining a presence behind heavily
armed bases outside of the cities.

This is the larger picture that Britain is part off,
they train Iraqis to take the place of British and American troops, aware
that they will be under great danger, even
when queuing to sign-up for the Iraqi military. The death tolls of
Iraqis in comparison to British and US death rates is substantial, and it
can be assumed that this disparity will only widen once the Iraqi forces
are left to police the country by themselves. However, the fact is that no
full withdrawal of American troops seems realistic; the construction of
the bases in Iraq – complete
with biometric access cards - will also insure that Britain can
maintain a presence in the Middle East as a reward for their participation
in the war. This will ensure that Iraqis will continue to view the new
Iraqi government as merely a puppet regime installed by Washington, and
will make any
reduction of resistance fighters futile.

If the occupation continues - in any sense - then any
hope of genuine progress for the Iraqi people is lost, and the Iraqi
resistance fighters will receive absolute legitimacy to defend Iraq from
Foreign occupation. As the invasion and subsequent occupation had no UN
resolution, and was therefore outside of international law then surely the
Iraqi resistance fighters also have a firm legal basis to appeal to the UN
against the illegal occupation. If the situation was followed to its
logical conclusion surely international law would require the UN to offer
assistance to the Iraqi nation as the struggle against this legal
occupation?  As this seems
increasingly unlikely – even unbelievable – in the current political
climate, then the green light has been given by the UN - and other
countries that try to abide by international law - for America, and their
British ally, to continue acting outside of international law.

The lack of physical opposition to the Iraq war has
sent a strong signal that as much as countries all across the globe
disliked the invasion, no unified military resistance was undertaken. This
is maybe because of America’s status as a hyper-power, or maybe for the
simple fact that as Britain and America are – incredibly – permanent
members on the UN security council, they could in effect veto any action
against themselves. Or, imagine the scenario, the UN takes action against
America and Britain, and as part of Britain and America’s obligations to
the UN they have to send troops as well, who then be required to fight
fellow troops. Obviously the UN charter would ensure that this would never
happen, and Britain and America would not have to submit troops under such
circumstances.

However, if they did, it would be the first time for
a long time that British and America would be fighting for real freedom
from terrorism; it’s a complete condemnation of both countries that to
do so they would have to go to war against themselves.[1]

The Editor 27/05/05

After a brief spell of the runs that lasted a few days, I’m now back and fighting fit for another installment of my rebellion against the Evil Empire, chavs, call centres and the cult of the celebrity amongst other things.

While contemplating life, the Universe and disemboweling neo-con Republicans (not the best thoughts to be pondering whilst evacuating a watery mass the size of the Exxon Valdez oil slick into my toilet bowl), it suddenly occurred to me that although we never forget the horrors of WWII and the genocides that took place, we seem to forget other horrific episodes in the course of history. Some may and indeed do argue that as it is still relatively recent, therefore it is not out of our collective psyche as yet.

But surely by that rationale, we should then be hearing a lot more about more recent genocides such as Pol Pot in Cambodia (which resulted in the deaths of around 3 million people by the Khmer Rouge) or the massacre of a million Tutsi in Rwanda.

However it occurred to me that one of the reasons this occurs is the reason why we are told never to forget the victims of 9/11 as opposed to the thousands more who died in Afghanistan and Iraq – they are not westerners.

Some could argue that the massive outpouring of sympathy generated in the wake of the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 would discredit this argument. But I think that some important distinctions can be made here. Firstly, this was a natural disaster, not a consequence of direct human activity. Therefore as no one is to blame, our sympathy doesn’t really extend to guilt as it does with regards to the Holocaust. I ask myself, will we still be holding a minute’s silence 5 years from now for the victims of the tsunami? I doubt it very much. But you can bet your ass some neo-con pro US shitrag like the Sun newspaper* will be clamouring to remember 9/11.

Secondly, there was no real sense of identification with the victims of the tsunami unlike that of 9/11,where even French President Jacques Chirac said “We are all Americans” now (something that most red-necked hillbilly hicks seemed to have conveniently forgot a year and a half later). This seems to illustrate the idea of westerners valued more than non westerners.

Finally, the media exposure of the tsunami, while extensive, was still far less than that of the Twin Towers falling and the fact that it happened in the US ensured the event was still in the news 3 months later – indicating perhaps our morbid fascination with human violence.

The fact of the matter is that we are very selective in our morals and emotions if and when it suits us. Take for example the sudden concern of apologists and supporters of the Iraq war. Only when it became apparent that no WMD were discovered did they then turn to clamouring for the thousands killed as a result of Saddam’s guns and gassings. Yet men like Rumsfeld were the very ones selling him these weapons . He’s even got the handshake to prove it!! Likewise, when those poor kids were killed at Beslan last year, quite rightly the world condemned it, yet how many more kids were killed in Chechnya as a result of Russian forces prior to this. Who’s mourning them?

In this respect, until we learn to value equally all human life, not based on self interest, selective amnesia and xenophobia, we will be seeing a lot more hate and suffering. Hitler once said that no one will remember the slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks. He was right there but didn’t realise that his own personal genocide would open up a can of worms that is still impacting today.

Never has the quote from George Orwell’s Animal Farm seemed more appropriate: “All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.”

* I must at this point mention that this shitrag can only be compared to Julius Streicher’s Der Sturmer in its poisonous views and thus wholeheartedly advocate the mass extermination of all Sun readers.

So Charles Clarke is ready to present the new proposal for the introduction of compulsory identity cards, supposedly to combat identity theft. I wonder how long they have actually spent thinking about this scheme, as surely identity theft will be far easier when we all have our existence reduced to a single card. A central database of ID’s on a computer will lead to a nightmare for many, computers are not reliable enough to be responsible for our existence – and even if they were there are serious moral implications. With the introduction of ID cards we will experience the ultimate expression of a totalitarian state, a complete lack of anonymity, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide from the state.

Imagine the scenario: it is 2010 and citizen 59712 walks into their bank to withdraw some money, but due to a system error they no longer exist as their ID card is not accepted - ‘computer says no’. They are then sent to their local government ‘unpeople’ detention centre where people live until their existence can be determined. If they cannot be traced they will be put into (new) labour camps until they earn the requisite points to be given a new identity. The lucky ones who manage to escape will be able to buy back their original identity on the black market; which - since the cards were introduced in 2006 - is replete with stolen identities due to constant hacking of the government database.

By 2020 the government have managed to crack down on any form of terror, apart from state terror, which exists daily in random arrests, known as ‘Tagging’. Tagging is where the government suspects someone of terrorist or criminal intentions and to pre-empt any action by that citizen they add some ‘Tags’ to their ID cards. These Tags can be anything from a parking offence to murder, depending on how quickly they want the suspect to be arrested. The worst Tag available is to be marked as ‘Terrorist’, if this happens to your card (even in error as is often the case) then it immediately alerts the nearest ‘CI’ (Citizen Informant) who will track you and inform the Terror Police; who are usually on the scene in minutes. Rumours abound that many of these ‘Terrorists’ were in fact innocent, and had been incorrectly linked to the Underground movement that was trying to bring down the government, by trying to destroy the government database.

The Underground movement were in existence from the very beginning of the ID card launch, but are also responsible for pursuing other civil liberties, such as a free press, and freedom of expression. Intellectuals and popular musicians, who were classed as dangerous citizens and officially gagged for the protection of Britain’s Democracy in 2008, frequented the Underground, and were often absorbed by it. There was a series of large protests against the government shortly before the 2009 election, but the government claimed these were terrorist acts. They began a sustained propaganda campaign through the state-controlled media, and managed to arrest the protest leaders. Within weeks fake videos were issued by the state news Terror department, showing these leaders confessing to being involved in a terrorist plot to overthrow the government, and steal democracy from Britain. Tony Blair subsequently decided that in order to protect British Democracy from terrorism he would have to suspend the elections until order could be restored. Due to the ongoing ‘War on Terror’, it has not been safe to hold elections since…

ID cards are being presented now, in 2005, as simply a way of cracking down on identity fraud, and that the information held on such cards would not be ‘substantial’. However, what trust can we put in a government that has consistently lied to its electorate since its election in 1997? What is to say that once they manage to introduce these ‘basic’ cards they will not in future make amendments to them, that they will not see fit to increase the information and importance of cards due to increased (and false) security threats? The government have proved themselves unaccountable to the public, and they always have been, we only know what they allow us to know; so what is to stop them from secretly holding vast amounts of information of these cards in order to better control us? Senior backbencher Gwyneth Dunwoody said some Labour MPs were uneasy about the scheme:

‘The history of police forces or governments holding every element of information about people’s lives is not that they are always used responsibly, but used in some instances by governments for the worst possible reasons’

If you think that Britain as a totalitarian state is a ridiculous notion, then look around you. We have taken several steps towards this future already, and unless we stop to open our eyes and look around, we will keep walking blindly towards this future, until it is too late.

According to MSNBC today the 8 American soldiers that have died so far in Iraq this week has taken the total loss to at least 1,641. That figure seems to be incessantly rising towards the 3000 plus victims that actually died in 9/11 – the licence to kill that allowed the war in Iraq to take place. So how has the American public let grief create grief, and suffering breed suffering? The figures of American dead pale in comparison to those dead in Iraq and Afghanistan – currently the two principle victims of the licence to kill – with Iraqi deaths estimated at over 100,000. These individuals, these human beings, who had lives, relations, wives, husbands, and children, are the real cost of war. However, they are also the most dispensable. In the last century millions suffered a similar fate, dying without reason, and without hope, because of wars they had no part to play in, except as a victim. They became numbers, written in books of statistics, and consequently forgotten. Only recently the Second World War was commemorated for the 60th Year, a war that is supposedly never to be forgotten. Yet it seems strange that we remember the war, but not the lessons it has taught us – apart from how to use propaganda to turn supposed democracies into totalitarian states. The amount of literature – fact and fiction – films, documentaries, websites, and generally vast amounts of information that is still part of our everyday lives makes escaping the enormity and tragedy of what happened virtually inescapable.

Yet we find ourselves again sending people to die, a long way from home, in Iraq. The Second World War could be considered one of the few just wars – without realising that it’s conclusion meant most of Europe was ruled by Stalin, instead of Hitler – so ‘victory’ for the allies was for many a hollow irrelevance. However, it was a war fought against a tangible evil, Hitler’s Nazi Germany, who actually justified military action through their military action – not to mention the final solution. There has always been an aura surrounding the Second World War that gave those who fought in it – whether they lived or died – a special status. The generation that sacrificed themselves (or were sacrificed by their governments) for the sake of this conflict were seen as hero’s - not necessarily for how they fought or died - but simply because they did. This is perhaps why we can popularise the Second World War within culture, as it does not threaten the values of the elite, nor offend the values of the masses. For the elite the sacrifice has been used to justify aggression since the end of the conflict, and features prominently even today with the situation in Iraq in the rhetoric of war leaders justifying why they are at war; they are simply upholding the same values as they did during the Second World War.

However, these are half-truths, the reality of World War Two has become amalgamated with the myth, to such an extent that they can no longer be easily separated. As we lose the last remaining veterans – the ones who really knew the cost of war – we lose one of our most important links to the reality of the War; and in doing so become further detached from the reality of what we do today under the weight of its myth. We think we understand the cost of the Second World War, we think that by watching Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers we can experience the pain and suffering caused by nations that go to war. But we don’t, we view the suffering as unique to that generation, that they sacrificed their lives for our own freedom and prosperity. If we could really understand then surely we would notice that our freedom is being taken away, that suffering did not end in 1945, but is perpetually perpetrated by the nations we live in, and the governments we vote for. We say we will never forget, but that is only because we never really knew in the first place.

Last night I had I had a phone call advising that I switch over to channel 4 to their Dispatches program, as it was a documentary on New Labour’s recent election campaign. I immediately turned over and began watching through grainy camera work what was happening behind the scenes of New Labour’s victorious campaign, and I wasn’t shocked. Instead I felt vindicated in my distrust of New Labour and in particular Tony Blair. Most people know that political parties use any tactics to gain votes, and that ‘dirty’ tactics are generally accepted as simply part of politics. However, I feel that few people are aware of the extent of dirty tactics used by New Labour, simply because New Labour have turned propaganda into an art form. New Labour – like any modern organisation – places its roots firmly in the lessons learnt from the past, and New Labour have modelled themselves very firmly on the emerging dictatorships of the 1930’s. The 1930’s was an era when ‘propaganda became part of the air, something that everybody breathed in’, and so it is again today. When Tony Blair first came to power in 1997 senior civil servants in Whitehall were shocked at the swift centralisation of power, and the introduction of press officers at almost every level – dictating what could and could not be said, and by whom. Blair detached himself from the party and instead surrounded himself by a trusted ‘elite’ with whom he discussed policy, and directed the country, thus the majority of Labour MP’s were merely nodding stooges – often uncertain as to why they nodded.

Tony Blair’s centralisation of power, his creation of an elite few within the party – including elite spin-doctors – made New Labour concerned more with propaganda than progress. The arrogance of New Labour stems from the traditional belief that, quite simply, when it comes to politics: the public do not have the right to know. What they have instead is a system of indoctrination, and although this has always been the case, New Labour have become zealous and righteous in their production of propaganda and control of the media. Tony Blair exemplifies this attitude; he is forever preaching his morals - and using his ‘higher purpose’ - as an excuse to create a totalitarian state – in which we do live. The press has ashamedly failed to comment enough (if at all) on just how far from reality New Labour’s preaching’s are. If we analysis Tony Blair’s main discussion points:

· His promotion of human rights
· His dedication to ‘doing the right thing’ through military intervention
· His pride over the Kosovo conflict
· His pride over Iraq
· His dedication to the ‘War on Terror’
· His creation of a better Britain

As we can see very little actually relates to Britain, Tony Blair for all his promises on changing Britain dramatically, has in fact wasted 8 years with targets and attempted easy fixes. What Britain needed was a serious assessment and real change to develop as a nation, and New Labour in its third term should surely be completing its program. However, instead Tony Blair and his elite circle have turned their back on Britain in favour of supporting America’s global agenda, which consists principally of: military intervention outside of international law; and a rabid pursuit of global trade liberalisation. Both of these pursuits only aid the government in long-term strategic power goals, and corporations (the elite) in gaining more power and wealth. If you look at the above bullet points it becomes clear that Tony Blair is consistently lying not just to his electorate, but also to himself. That he can even mutter the phrase ‘human rights’ beggars belief. This is a man that leads Britain, the worlds second largest arms exporter, a nation that has consistently imported arms into countries that the UN has expressly requested arms embargos to be enforced. This is a man who has formed close relationships with Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon, men responsible for invasion of other countries, countless deaths, whilst Tony Blair sympathises with their battle against ‘terrorists’. Tony Blair also gives his support through arms exports, military training, and diplomatic assistance to many extreme regimes across the globe, all of which view human rights abuse as policy. Tony Blair’s illegal wars in Kosovo and Iraq – supposedly carried out to protect human rights – have in fact been humanitarian disasters; yet he still believes he did the ‘right thing’.

Tony Blair’s only attention to Britain seems to be tightening security, issuing threats of terrorism and spreading fear to ensure that he can pass more Orwellian legislation designed at quelling dissenters. Throughout all of this Tony Blair still tries to portray himself as a peoples man, a politician who listens to the public, and works for them. Subsequently channel 4’s documentary attempts to shed the reality of how New Labour successfully produces propaganda to create this false perception amongst the electorate. New Labour are not for the people, but their propaganda is – and it works. New Labour – and other parties - fought the election with a continued influence of American strategies, and confirmed the UK as simply little brother to big brother: America. America is - as the UK is - imitating the dictators of the 1930’s, producing fear through propaganda, and conflict through doctrine. Neo-Conservatives are imitating Nazi’s, whilst New Labour are imitating the Italian Fascists, Tony Blair is Mussolini to George Bush’s Hitler.

In history books and amongst historians it’s been said that the 19th century belonged to Britain and the 21st Century was America’s. The question now is who will exert the most influence internationally in the 21st century. Within the next 20-30 years what we are going to witness is going to change the western world as we know it. Currently there is still only one super power, namely America, but there are many would be pretenders to that throne, chief amongst them are India and China.

In order to become a superpower that possesses an overwhelming political and military strength internationally a country needs simply gigantic financial resources. America has always been able to use the carrot and stick approach over the last one hundred years when acting on the International stage. On one hand its vastly superior military has twice intervened to end world wars, as well being the first to develop important weapons of deterrence - the thermonuclear weapons of the 50’s and 60’s for example. No state has ever matched this. Russia (then known as the U.S.S.R) is still recovering from its attempt to build a military force as powerful as the Americans; quite simply Russia bankrolled its army without having anywhere near the resources the Americans had and thus there was ever only going to be one winner in the cold war. On the other hand where military intervention would prove too risky or too expensive America can use its ultimate weapon by imposing economic sanctions against their would be adversaries, such as has been witnessed with Cuba. But let’s look a little closer at how powerful an economic force America really is.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the sum of the entire final production obtained in a year by a country. GDP in short measures the economic power of a given country. In 2001, the World GDP was close to $31 billion. The world economy relied on three principal democratic centres of the planet, the U.S.A ($10 Billion), the E.U ($8 billion) and Japan ($4 Billion). The world economic power has been highly concentrated in America’s favour for the last hundred years, however times are changing. Despite some comments, the E.U, even if Russia GDP was added, would still lag far behind the U.S in terms of financial clout. History books reveal that every so often, the global economy experiences a shift in its centre of gravity from one country or continent to another, the Greeks to the Romans, the British to the Americans. Right now in Europe we are experiencing one of the greatest flights of manufacturing jobs in history, the last time possibly being when the textile industry in the U.K was uprooted and moved to India in the 18th Century. Where are these European manufacturing jobs going and more precisely why are they going?

First one must ask the more important question how did a country such as America come to economically dominate the world when its only been in existence for over 200 years? The British Empire surely had a few hundred-year head start? The comparisons between the U.S then and China now are striking. The growth of America in the 19th century was achieved largely through exporting to Europe huge volumes of cheap agriculture produce – wheat and cotton amongst others. This was cheaply produced (slavery was only on the verge of being abolished) using vast, and cheap, arable land - in stark contrast to the high cost of land and labour the Europeans had to deal with. In this economic battle, there was only ever going to be one winner. This ultimately led to mass recession in Europe resulting in emigration to the U.S, poor rural areas largely dependent on agriculture were the worst affected such as in Ireland. Ultimately this gradual recession in Europe resulted in increasing urbanisation and centralisation of labour in Europe which would eventually result in the rise of socialism and communism. Today, China is exerting the same influence through its increasing dominance in manufacturing, and it is arguable that the global political ramifications will be just as monumental.

Already there have been calls both in Europe and America for governments to protect local manufacturing jobs from China and technology jobs from India; it was even made into an election issue by John Kerry when running for President. How can any country compete with college-educated workers working for a mere fraction of western costs? In addition China and India’s unquenchable demand for more oil in order to fuel their growth is a major concern with oil suppliers already finding it difficult to meet demand.

The emergence of new potential super powers such as China and India is a worrying development, not merely the fact there could be a clash but rather the questions that they are asking us in the western world. The chief question being how far are we in the western world willing to enter into cost cutting battles which are ultimately detrimental to the well being and prosperity of our own citizens. The stand off between Russia and America during the cold war was based purely on which side could obtain military superiority; it was an ideological clash based on who had the most military might. The methods chosen in order to develop this military might by both sides were entirely different; the Americans relied on capitalism, the Russians on communism. The Chinese and the Indians have learned from the mistakes of the Russians and have chosen capitalism (China has clearly embraced the economics of capitalism in the last decade).

Remember that, although from 1880 to 1914, the world experienced a golden age of free trade and the US became the world’s largest economy, the rest of the world reacted with war, mayhem and protectionism that lasted from 1914 to 1954.Would you bet against some similar upheaval happening again? Would you bet that millions of manufacturing and technology workers worldwide will just lie down in the face of redundancy and accept peacefully the ascendancy of China and India? Would you?

Guest Article submitted by James O’Leary.

The article ‘Emerging Super Powers’ by James O’Leary raises some interesting points on how the balance of power seems to be shifting from the West, and identifies India and China as being the nations most likely to become super-powers. When we identify what it takes to become a super-power the most obvious attribute seems to be sheer landmass – something that America, China and India all have (as did the U.S.S.R.). When Britain was at it’s height of power it had control of one of the largest empires the world had ever known, and essentially it’s power came from claiming the GDP of all the nations within their empire – including (ironically) India. Now that the age of empires (in the traditional sense) has passed, Europe is paying the price of reliance on empires to accrue wealth; not to mention their essential self-destruction during two world wars. However, to be worried about China and India’s growing prominence as financial powers is hypocrisy in the extreme. India spent years as the jewel in the British Empire and was significantly modernised with the creation of the railway network by the British, and in many important ways the British attempt to modernise India simply gave it all the tools to become fully independent.

Large companies in Britain who have recently taken advantage of cheap (and well educated) Indian labour to move the majority of their call centres abroad, saving money and increasing profit margins, have taken advantage of the fundamental principles of capitalism. No outcry was raised then at the loss of jobs, nor has it been constantly pointed out that most large manufacturers in Europe and America produce most of their goods in countries where the labour is cheapest. Now it seems that the real threat raised by India and China is that they will use their own labour forces for their own profit, rather than for the profit of Western companies abusing their labour force. For America and Britain, both champions of the global liberalisation of trade, to call for action to prevent local manufacturing jobs falling prey to perfectly legal capitalism is complete hypocrisy. Much rumour has abounded that America is considering a conflict at some stage with China, simply because they are increasing their wealth and sphere of influence, is staggering. America have for years done everything they can to make money, as has most of Europe; in the pursuit of wealth and influence they have fought countless wars. America and Britain in particular (but not alone) have supported/installed countless regimes, and privatised industries in poor countries under the evil influence of the criminal organisations of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

America and Britain have abused capitalism for as long as they have existed, and they will continue doing so, without morals for as long as the world lasts (another 50 years maybe?). Their real concern is not the loss of a few jobs in Europe or America, but the loss of a cheap labour force, as independent nations employ their own citizens for their own profit – rather than simply working to line the pockets of a few rich westerners. To state that ‘from 1880 to 1914, the world experienced a golden age of free trade’ is to imply that the rich British and French empires, along with America, profiteering from slavery and repression of entire races and nations; was somehow good. From 1880-1914 the West had a golden age, built as usual on violent opportunism, along with inhuman slavery and Imperialism, but the world experienced the same inhumanity and injustice as any other period in time.

If you want to predict a reaction from America this time to a threat to their control of world wealth, then you just need to look at their reactions over the last 50 years; where any threat to profit has been met with military force, staggering hypocrisy, and crusading zeal.

So, the Americans are now getting serious about putting weapons in space. Is nowhere sacred; is nowhere safe from the militant paranoia of the ignorant American race? It seems unbelievable that Space exploration has been reduced to virtually nothing in modern times – due to expense, lack of interest, and a lack of any real belief that we have the technology to actually achieve anything tangible at the present moment. Yet, when you look at it, the challenge of creating a global network of space weapons is surely as difficult as it would be to establish a colony on the moon for instance? It seems that Americans are only happy to fund far-fetched schemes when the outcome is even more expensive and destructive weaponry than has ever been created before - America would be happy to put a building on the moon, but only if that building is a military outpost. The insanity of America’s desire to put weapons in space is best summed up by the sheer cost of the venture. A figure of $130 billion has been quoted as the cost of America’s missile defence system, and a space missile system would be inordinately more expensive to implement. For a country that justifies it’s ridiculous arms spending on its need to protect it’s civilians, it does not seem to realise that spending the majority of public money year after year on the military has led to a harsh degradation of the quality of life for the American public. If the funding of outrageous arms systems – protection against an invisible enemy – had been spent wisely American citizens could instead benefit from a Public health service, and a lot more American lives would be protected from real dangers.

It is the US Air Force that is now pushing the agenda for Space Weapons to be implemented, advising that space must be ‘secured’ in order to protect the nation. Well who better to appeal to than George Bush? His one brain cell is busy thinking about Iraq and wondering why all those people keep dying violent deaths, they must be the most ungrateful nation America has ever ‘liberated’. But even if Bush’s one malfunctioning brain cell addressed the problem - and someone read out the proposal replacing any complicated words with monkey noises - Bush would still be the best President to ask. After all this is the man that is happily spending money that America does not have, and cannot afford, funding his personal ‘War on Terror’, something as indefinable and limitless as Bush’s stupidity.

In January 2001, a commission led by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the newly nominated defense secretary, recommended that the military should “ensure that the president will have the option to deploy weapons in space.” If George Bush was falling from a plane from 10,000 feet, his military – the ones being forced to kill and be killed in the futile war in Iraq – should ensure he does not even have the option of deploying a parachute. It was back in 2002 that Bush withdrew from a 30-year-old Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which banned space-based weapons; and the US Air Force have understood this as a sign that they can now start to address the possibilities of a space weapons program. Gen. Lance Lord (surely the surname is some kind of prophetic joke?) leads the Air Force Space Command and in a recent report to congress stated: ‘Simply put, it’s the American way of fighting.’ This comment reminds me of Apocalypse Now, one of the greatest indictments of American foreign policy, and the scene where Lieutenant Kilgore’s helicopter lands during a battle and a skull and crossbones is marked on the front above the text ‘Death from Above’. If three words could sum up the contribution of America to the world since 1940 (‘the American way of fighting’) it would be these three. From the first and only military use of Nuclear Bombs in Japan, the saturation Napalm bombing of Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the Kosovo War, and the War in Afghanistan through to the present war in Iraq, ‘Death from Above’ has been the staple diet of American Foreign policy. Air Force doctrine defines space superiority as “freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack” in space; but in reality it is simply the ultimate reckoning of ‘Death from Above’.

Some information taken from:

Air Force Seeks Bush’s Approval for Space Weapons Programs By TIM WEINER

Published: May 18, 2005

“Almost every new democracy has gone through a period of challenge and confusion, Democratic change and free elections are exhilarating events. Yet we know from experience that they can be followed by moments of uncertainty.” George Bush speaking during his recent visit to Europe.

We certainly do know from experience that ‘democratic’ change can be followed by ‘moments of uncertainty’; the two elections that Bush ‘won’ for example, or realising here in the UK that Tony Blair had been re-elected by less than 20% of the voters. Democracy seems to have noticeably failed the UK and the US recently, but this is not a modern phenomenon, the UK and US are not new democracies, instead they are archaic systems lurching between elite parties for executive control over a system that ostensibly never changes. The clearest indication that people realise the futility of democracy in the UK and US is the sheer number of people that do not vote; and voter apathy is easy to understand and justify.

After his re-election Tony Blair very humbly stated that he would take on board the message of the electorate and admitted ‘We have got to listen to the people and respond wisely and sensibly’. Very gracious of Tony to consider that as Prime Minister he should perhaps take on board the desires of the electorate, he must be commended on understanding this in just 8 years and 3 elections. Perhaps the reduced majority was a message that was clearly received by Tony Blair, as he seemed not to notice the largest anti-war march in history caused by his decision to invade Iraq. Tony Blair was not alone in his moment of enlightenment, Gordon Brown, his natural successor: ‘I promise that we will listen and we will learn so that we can serve our country and our communities even better in the years to come’ – presumably by ousting Blair at the first opportunity. However, do we not hear this after every election? The same formulaic speech, a thank you to the electorate, a show of humility with a hint of servitude, polite smiling, wave to the crowd, before disappearing – grinning - back into the unaccountability of 10 Downing Street for another four years before repeating the process.

To add insult to injury Tony Blair not only endorses the system in the UK, he is so chuffed with it he wants the entire world to experience this sham dictatorship. He’s not alone either; Mr Bush, who had kindly guided Tony into Iraq, is now trying to make Tony realise that Iran is in need of a change, in need of the holy grail of flawed democracy. Those of you in doubt of Bush’s intention to enforce democracy upon nations should take heed of the lessons that he is learning in Iraq. Bush has admitted that Iraqi’s are experiencing ‘a period of challenge and confusion’ along with ‘moments of uncertainty’, a rather quaint way of referring to the 400 violent deaths in Iraq since the new Iraqi government was named late last month. Subsequently in a speech to the International Republican Institute Bush attributed the problems in Iraq to a lack of US Government Civilians being ready for deployment into newly conquered lands. So to remedy this problem in future Bush is going to create a corps of trained civilians who could be deployed on short notice to help in crises caused by war or revolution. Do I understand this correctly? Bush has made remarks to the International Republican Institute - a body that has been created to ‘promote democracy’ worldwide – stating that for future invasions he will have a special civilian force ready to parachute in and takeover the running of the country?

Lessons should have been learnt by both the US and the UK during the Iraq war, but not lessons about how they can conduct future wars of ‘democracy’ with more efficiency. Blair and Bush through the leaked memo in the Independent should be brought before the international courts and tried for war crimes. Even without the memo they still took their countries to war without UN authorisation, without a solid legal base, with extremely limited intelligence – which appears more than ever to have been invented to justify an unjustifiable invasion. Since the invasion no weapons of mass destruction have been found, which destroys any remnants of a flawed legal argument for invasion; over a 100,000 Iraqi’s have been killed, the same people the invasion was supposedly designed to save from the hands of Saddam Hussain, thus any moral justification has been lost. All of these realities are ignored by the political systems in the UK and the US, and for good reason, for they cannot hold themselves accountable without having to face demand for a complete restructuring of the whole political system – something that those in power cannot allow to happen. The ignorance is well documented, but not well known, or well believed, the truth is available but is often almost politely ignored by individuals as to question the legitimacy of government is to call into question their whole basis of life as a citizen of that country. With Iraq it is known that the UK and US installed Saddam Hussain into power, gave him military supplies, gave him the technology to create chemical weapons, gave him the licence to use these weapons on his own population without international outcry. All this was designed to aid the stability of the Middle East – stability not in the sense of making the Middle East a safe place to live, but the stability of keeping Iraq oil firmly under the control of the US/UK. Only when Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait – threatening other oil supplies – did the US/UK reluctantly go after Saddam as a naughty school child who had disobeyed his masters.

After this conflict Iraq was subject to horrific sanctions, sanctions which succeeded in killing over 500,000 Iraqi children between the end of the first Iraq war and the start of the second. That’s over 497,000 more people than died in 9/11. So how can we as individuals know that Saddam Hussain was a creation of the UK/US, know that his weapons capabilities came from the UK/US, know that his worst atrocities – used by Blair and Bush as justifying the Iraq war – came as a direct result of the UK/US support for Saddam, know all this yet we did not laugh Tony Blair out of office as soon as he tried to build the moral argument for war in Iraq? How long can this level of ignorance exist in the United Kingdom? How long can we live each day with this knowledge before we rise up and hold our government to account – not just for the Iraq war, not just for the support for Saddam in the 1980’s, but for all the deaths that the UK has been complicit in over the last 50 years due to our horrific foreign policy. The US and UK are on a crusade to spread democracy, when as nations their democracy is fundamentally flawed. The US and UK are on a crusade to liberate and spread peace, when they are the top two arms exporters in the world. The US and UK leaders talk about morality as if they alone were the inventors of, and now sole purveyors of it, when in fact they are the two largest terrorist organisations operating (without morals) in the world today.

It is a crime against humanity that the Governments in the United Kingdom and the United States of America are allowed to pursue this insane moral crusade against the rest of the world. That they claim to be doing so out of a moral obligation to the greater good is laughable, that the majority of the public in both countries accept the moral arguments is a chilling indictment of the largely servile press that exists. Bush has made it clear that he expects to act again in a similar manner to the Iraq invasion, this cannot be allowed to happen. He must be brought, along with the rest of the government, and his loyal assistant Tony Blair, to account for his actions before it is too late. Truth has become a teardrop in a thunderstorm of propaganda, and unless we act soon, the thunderstorm will drown us all.

remember the afternoon when I sat with my then current girlfriend and best friend when we switched on the TV to find every channel dedicated to two burning towers in New York. The twin towers of the world trade centre, the very epitome of American Global capitalism was up in flames, and collapsed before my eyes. My mobile rang and my Dad was making sure I knew what was happening; ‘This is big, this could really be the end of a lot of things’, he warned. He was right, but it has taken a long time for the real outcome of 9/11 to be realised, for America was too cynical to respond emotionally; it instead chose to hold tight and make sure that 9/11 would be a licence to kill for decades. So we witness war in Afghanistan, followed by war in Iraq, followed by preparations for strikes in Iran, the licence to kill is being extended everyday. The abuse of the emotion generated by 9/11 is a far bigger tragedy than those that lost their lives in the terrorist attack, an attack in itself has never been put into a realistic context. 9/11 although it cannot be condoned, was not the worst act of terrorism ever committed, and it was in the great scheme of human tragedy, a small event. In human terms it cost the lives of around 3000 people, for comparison the current war in Iraq has cost the lives of around 100,000. However, the ignorance of the West allows Iraqi civilians to be reduced to figures, and as numbers they cease to exist in the conscience of the Western world and count for nothing. In the Western mindset only the 3000 Westerners killed actually exist; we cannot even bring ourselves to consider the Iraqi’s of Afghans killed in the initial actions in the ‘War on Terror’ as people. If we could we would surely not allow it to happen, but somehow in our Western-centric mindset we ignore any other suffering than our own, we can view all the atrocities caused by 9/11 Licence to kill as somehow different to the death of the 3000 Westerners in the original terrorist act. 9/11 should have been a time for reflection on the way that America acts globally, 9/11 was not a random bombing of a shopping centre or a gas attack on a subway; it was a direct attack on the American system. It attacked American Militarism – the pentagon, it attacked the American Corporations – the World Trade Centre, and it tried to attack the heart of the American system – the White house. It attacked the very instruments that have been part of American State terror for decades, and although the attack cannot be condoned, it can also be viewed as a strategic strike, much as the Americans viewed their strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq as strategic. What is the difference between Al Qaida striking against the terrorism of America with strategic strikes achieving minimal lose of life, but maximum statement; and the American attacks on strategic targets against the ‘War on Terror’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, often with loss of human lives completely unrelated to any justifiable military target.

Make no mistake on this point, America and Britain are rogue terrorist states, and individually they are responsible for more loss of life through terrorism than any other country in the world in the last 50 years. To fight a ‘War on Terror’ regardless of the human cost, as is happening today across the world through direct and indirect conflict sponsored by America and Britain; in response to a direct attack on American terrorism is a dangerous application of complete moral hypocrisy. I am sorry that the lives of other 3000 people were lost as a result of terrorism in America on September 11, 2001, but I am appalled at the millions of innocent people that have died at the hands of America and Britain in the last 50 years. Furthermore I am appalled that these deaths that are never referred to as terrorism – because they are terrorist atrocities beyond anything even dreamt of by Al-Qaida. What is even more galling is the misuse of the word ‘terrorist’ with regards to the war in Iraq – under UN law people have the right to resist occupation through military means. Although civilians have been killed, these casualties have occurred due to collateral damage, where the targets themselves were military and the civilians unfortunate victims. Most of the resistance attacks were preceded by statements warning civilians to stay away from these targets – something more than the US and UK managed during their mass terrorism in 2003. Yet this isn’t widely reported as the US/UK coalition does not want to legitimise the resistance to their war of ‘liberation’.

America have no moral right to feel sorrow for the death of 3000 at the hands of external terror, if they cannot feel sorrow or remorse for the death of millions in the course of their own state terror. They have given themselves a licence to kill, but they also given their largely innocent citizens licence to be killed in further terrorist retaliations against continued - and escalating - American state terror.

Last night, I was watching a very insightful documentary titled “The Fog of War”, focusing on the experiences of former US defence secretary Robert S. McNamara during the cold war. There was one scene that really struck a chord with me and started to get my blood boiling and wanting to go out and kill right wing American scum and their British lackeys.

The scene was where he reduced the impact of aerial bombing to a numbers game when responding to the question of the reasons why as a Lt Col in the USAAF, he advocated increasing the bombing loads and quantity of planes over German cities in 1944-45. His response was chilling to say the least – saying that it wasn’t a matter of killing more people but simply responding to the necessities of war.

I sat there thinking, what is the difference here between Osama bin Laden and McNamara? Just because one is dark skinned, bearded and has no state to back his authority, does that make the white skinned, suited government official any less complicit in a war crime? Some may argue that WWII wasn’t started by the Americans and they responded in kind. But then that’s the argument that Bin Laden has used in his justification of 9/11 – saying that America is complicit in the murder of thousands of Muslims across the globe. Of course, what Bin Laden did is abhorrent and no right-minded person can condone what he did, but why is it the same standards of morality do not apply to the West? Many millions of people around the world are 100% justified in viewing the “leaders of the free world” as nothing more than hypocritical criminals that have been directly or indirectly responsible for more loss of innocent lives than “terrorists” ever have.

But what else really struck me was the idea of numbers and statistics determining policy objectives (in the above case the continued bombing of German cities) rather than relying on intelligence and logic. Rather like the Vietnam war in which McNamara played a pivotal role, the use of body counts and numbers of bombs dropped, villages destroyed, and VC cells neutralised all contributed to the illusion that the US was winning the war. But this attention to figures and numbers at the expense of reality doesn’t appear to have been dimmed with the passage of time. When you add today’s spin doctoring it becomes even more apparent that reality has thrown in the towel when policymaking decisions are formulated. We are now a number driven society where the mighty digit determines who lives, dies, gets rich or lives poor. Numbers are everywhere, governing every aspect of your life from pin numbers to payslips – yet who sees the human face in all this? IT MAKES ME SOOOO MAAAD!!!! Listening to some half-wit retard telling me I don’t OFFICIALLY exist because they can’t seem to find any of my bank details, birth certificate or utility bill account. Yet you translate this to politics and it becomes even more apparent that our so called leaders have decided to focus on targets and stats to then say yes, we’re winning the war on drugs, health, social issues etc (have you ever noticed that since 9/11, everything is a war these days?) Who are they trying to kid? This is all about the pursuit of their ultimate objective – power. By drowning us in numbers, stats and minutiae the powers that be hope to overload us with information to such an extent that we can’t see the trees for the forest anymore. It also gives incompetent fools the ability to stay in powerful positions as no one can then ultimately prove if someone is performing poorly as the said individual can rattle office meaningless stats saying “Well the figures clearly show……”

My solution? An end to this reliance on targets and the re-establishment of common sense in public affairs. Yes, stats are important but they must not be held as gospel. They must always be backed up by on-site intelligence and information from the arena which the statistics relate to. So, for example, if figures are released that seem to show that crime levels are falling yet the ordinary person on the street knows differently, then re-check the stats and if necessary take active measures by looking at the grassroots level. If crime is still falling but the perception of crime is not – then address the specific issues raised (e.g have more beat policemen on foot) – not issue knee jerk responses such as “we’ll put another billion pounds of investment in the Police” as these are meaningless phrases to ordinary members of the public and amount to naught.

But then if these solutions sound obvious, then surely by now I would be living in a crime free paradise and could walk the streets late at night without being confronted by some lower species of life form wallowing in their own vomit as they claim to be my best friend shortly before I skewer his (or her) eyeball with a Phillips screwdriver and then turn in for the night…..Sorry, I digress.

But the point I’m making is that those in power don’t want to see obvious solutions as the way forward as then we would easily be able to see if they are performing or not and then hold them to account. They want power – not responsibility.

“Tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today, by learning the lessons of yesterday”
(attributed to Malcolm X)

America and their faithful 51^st state
Britain are reaching new levels of hypocrisy each time they increasingly
turn towards the Iran ‘problem’. Reported last week by Mo Magrey (Good
Day to Bury Bad News) was the increasing expectation of armed conflict
with Iraq, and today several articles on Antiwar.com
do nothing to calm fears. Gordon Prather’s article ‘Bush’s
Nutty Referral’ pinpoints the sheer insanity of accusations being
made by Washington, and more worryingly being reverberated around Europe
by Britain, France, and Germany. Prather refers to the idiot notion that
talks have ‘broken down’ because of evil Iranian intentions, whereas
this is far from the case; as he succinctly illustrates in an important
article. However, what is really worrying is that although the accusations
are ridiculous, the case for war or pre-emptive air strikes absurd, all we
have to do is remember that we invaded Iraq recently. The parallels are
clear, America and Britain makes links between falsities, in the Iraq war
it was links between the September 11^th attackers and Iraq,
where no link existed, In Iran it is linking the desire for nuclear energy
with the desire for Nuclear weapons, when Iran has been complying
voluntarily in discussions with the EU member states above. In Iraq a
false dossier on weapons of mass destruction was produced, In Iran it is
the false reasoning on a breakdown of ‘talks’ between Iran and the EU
– nothing to do with America. Yet the outcome is the same, America and
Britain take the hypocritical moral high ground and begin appealing to the
UN for licence to take action in Iran. To have America and Britain, the
worlds largest and most consistent rogue states, purveyors of
international terror on an unprecedented scale, claim that Iran should not
be allowed to develop Nuclear Arms is ludicrous. Jude Wanniski’s article ‘Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr’ refers to a Fox news Breaking Point Investigation, Sunday April 24, 2005. In this discussion Senator Biden states:

To have a despotic theocracy in possession of a
nuclear weapon creates a much greater danger than having a democratically
elected government in control of a nuclear weapon.

Well, the last time I checked Americans were reeling
from two dodgy elections with a President considered by many to be
illegitimate, whilst Britain has just ‘elected’ Tony Blair to power
with only a third of voters actually wanting him to lead Britain; so
Britain and America should certainly not have the right to possess nuclear
weapons – let alone act as moral adjudicators over who else should be
allowed them. The West is taking another step towards the complete
alienation of the Middle East, and is providing fuel for the terrorism
that they claim to be fighting. With each passing day the Middle East
nations gain more legitimacy in their hatred of the West, for they are
perfectly justified in questioning the moral authority laid down by such
hypocrites; and with each threat of armed action by America and Britain
the need for them to acquire nuclear weapons is increased. President Bush
during the same Fox News program stated:

I believe that the Iranian people ought to be
allowed to freely discuss opinions, read a free press, have free votes, be
able to choose among political parties, I believe Iran should adopt
democracy, that’s what I believe

But the reality is that in America and the UK -
democracies in name - we can honestly say that this statement does not
describe the situation for the individual; and ironically the war on
terror has only served to lesson the democratic process in both countries.
We export democracy abroad, whilst we restrict it even further at home, an
unpleasant irony highlighted by an unpleasant man.

Reading the papers today, one needs to look at what the headlines of today actually cover up in order to forecast what the headlines of tomorrow will be.

A case in point is today’s edition of the Independent – currently campaigning for vote reform (can’t say that I blame them when an incompetent fraud is elected on a minority of the vote). But it was on page 34 of the paper that a small article tucked away at the bottom that really gave me a taste of things to come

Titled “Blair issues ultimatum to Iran over its uranium enrichment”, the article outlines the fact that the arch war criminal has acted in accordance with his master across the water and threatened to refer Iran to the Security Council if they don’t cease production of nuclear material. He then goes on to say “nobody is talking about invasions or military actions against Iran”

My point here is that doesn’t all this sound familiar? If not, THEN WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN THESE PAST TWO YEARS!!!!!

All it takes is for people to be hoodwinked is a diet of dumbed down programming and media crassness that caters to the base emotions of lust and greed in order to stop questioning what our governments are doing or will be doing in our name.

If those terrorist bastards in Downing St and the White House are gearing up for another invasion of a sovereign country then I hope to God that the Iranians strike a blow at these hypocritical bastards before they strike. That way they can use the same justification as the goons that went ahead with the invasion of Iraq.

If I was an Iranian now, I would want nuclear weapons – look at the difference in treatment between North Korea and Iraq. One was obliterated and occupied while the other is being treated with kid gloves. WHO GAVE THE FUCKING YANKEE BASTARDS AND THEIR BRITISH BITCHES THE RIGHT TO DICTATE TO THE WORLD HOW AND WHEN THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES!!!!

As far as this situation is going, there is no hope. This is a sign of the last days, when wrong is right, peace means war and freedom means oppression. Welcome to the world of 1984. If all you morons out there had bothered to educate yourselves about the real issues that affect humanity and demanded greater input into the democratic processes of your governments and pushed for real change, then none of these lying criminal whores could have gotten away with so much. But instead you choose to bury your heads in the sands of ignorance. I say to all you out there, in the words of George Orwell: The war can and must never end”

Remember this next time our leaders talk of peace and justice. Who’s really pulling their strings? Certainly not you or I.

“War is the terrorism of the rich and terrorism is the war of the poor”
(Attributed to Sir Peter Ustinov)