Uponnothing.co.uk

War. A three letter word that carries the weight of untold deaths, a word that best describes the 20th century madness. As a civilian there can be nothing that compares to the experience of going into combat, to realise that there are people who you have never met - and will in all likelihood never know - wanting to kill you. Before they can kill you, you have to kill them, anyway you could, there are no rules in warfare, morality simply vanishes in the face of imminent death. It is estimated that around 188 million people died during the wars of the 20th century, a great deal of those in the two wars that shaped the century; the First and Second World Wars. They have left a legacy of experience that allows us almost complete insight into the tragedy of how wars are created, and how they are fought and by whom. Generations of young have had themselves sacrificed by governments, and have known horrors that very few people will ever experience.

Each generation involved in major conflicts learn the reality of war, and they try to impart the tragedy of war on the next generation, but the lessons are never learned until they to have suffered the follies of war. The bloodiest century in the history of the world has now passed, but already the 21st Century has been plunged into war by another generation that believes violence is the only answer to social problems. The 21st Century has heralded the beginning of a new era of warfare, a new crusade in the pursuit of a flawed ideology. No lessons have been learnt from the millions of war dead, instead a new generation are being told that violence and warfare is the way to spread peace and prosperity. Once again the young are being killed because of the foolish pursuits of government, once again bloodshed proves that it is not - nor will it ever be - the answer to the worlds problems.

America and Britain dish out ‘democracy’ at gunpoint, whilst selling the victim arms to fight back with, perpetuating a new century of conflict. The lies of governments serve to send thousands of people - civilians and soldiers alike - to an early grave, in the purest pursuit of power and wealth. In the cases of America and Britain the reality is that war is being waged by a few elite people, for whom the reality of war would never reach - namely George Bush and Tony Blair, along with their elite circle. Once again whole continents are being classed as enemies of the Western World, needing to be conquered by the civilised West with bombs and bullets. The war on terror is designed to provide a new excuse for the pursuit of national interest through state terror - in this case the war on terror will create the very terror it is supposed to be fighting. So the new century took just one year - September 11 2001 - to take a tragedy and create an eternal conflict.

The examples of war solving nothing can be laid before us, the lessons of those that lived and died in wars are all around us - in print, in film, in our very conscience, yet we repress them in order to pursue a ‘better war’. War has now become sanitised and acceptable, a myth perpetuates through modern warfare that civilians are no longer at threat from the war itself, they are merely injured as collateral damages by ‘accidents’. However, the media cannot hide the truth, just because the American public are not shown the coffins being flown back to America, does not mean it does not exist. In the same way the lack of coverage of modern conflicts does not mean that the suffering has decreased, it is just not discussed, the media rarely has the courage to pursue suffering in times of conflict, and instead has become statistical rather than humanitarian in their reporting.

It seems only when the conflict is over does humanity have the nerve to assess exactly what it is that they had participated in, it is only then that the realities of suffering can become known. This is the importance of the forgotten dead, for they have left their testimonies against war, they have provided us with all the horror of warfare in order that we learn from it, not glorify or repeat it. When we consider the lies that brought about the war in Iraq, and the lies that permeate the war against terror, we should consider those that died before in conflict, and understand the cost of war in human terms. People across the world are dying the same death as thousands have before them; the result of ignoring the past, and the lessons that the dead tried to teach us. Ours is a new century, begun with new hope, destroyed by the same ignorant belief as the last that war was a solution to problems, not the main contributory factor. We have 95 years to avoid making the new century a repeat of the last, and with each year past thousands more will add their names to the list of the war dead.

Why, against all hope, do people write against the system? People have always rebelled against corrupt systems of control; have always made good arguments, often with the justification of truth and history with them, yet the system remains. Not only does the system still exist, it is today more powerful than ever. The rise of globalisation - taken to mean in this instance the communication revolution that has lessened the significance of physical borders, and enabled global systems of control and influence to flourish outside of traditional Nation states - has enabled this. Corporations are able to spread their influence across the globe through various forms of virtually instantaneous media, gaining vast power and wealth in the process as effectively they have become bigger than the nations in which they physically operate.

Governments have been careful to ensure they are not trapped within their own borders when large businesses can act outside of them, so they to have increased their influence outside of their own borders. British security forces have been undergoing a revolution, no longer are they concerned with defence of the realm, they are now designed to be a quick reaction task force, able to be deployed around the world on short notice, and in multiple locations. This is the most important part of Tony Blair’s ‘New Britain’, the ability to spread political will more effectively by having a better-designed army to enforce that will. Britain has always been a nation to promote influence through the real fear of violence (’Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves’) but in modern society it is not deemed polite or acceptable to use force unless you have justification for doing so, so this is the second main part of New Labour: concerted propaganda concerning the New Labour crusade against ‘terror’.

That is the beauty of being a government, if you need a justification, you can just create one, the public do not need to know the truth, they just need to know enough to endorse their policy. The UK have used their close relationship with the US to use 9/11 as the new justification for using violence to spread policy and influence. After the difficulties posed by the end of the Cold War, a new easy to roll out excuse is available to lazy governments who want to embark on violence to pursue elite interests. Who better to take advantage of this situation than New Labour, the ‘Sultans of Spin’, so successful are they that people have renamed the fear-inducing word ‘propaganda’ with the innocent connotations of ’spin’. New Labour have used spin to have us believe that the way they handle the media is not lying, or concerted propaganda, but merely spin - merely a polished form of the truth.

New Labour have a long and distinguished track record of the lying, and their desperate attempts to control the media (which has sadly been very successful) speaks volumes of how far from the truth Tony Blair’s utopian statements of a New Britain really are. Yet through it all little has changed, New Labour lie, a few voices speak out, uncovering the truth, ridiculing the lies, but the rest of the world is too busy watching TV and listening to the drivel fed to the media by the New Labour PR machine to care, or believe.

But is this a reason to stop? Should truth be abandoned because the majority like to believe in myths, rather than face the changes that need to be made in the world? Or should people continue to write, to speak out, to protest, to record truth against all the odds? Even if it takes a hundred years before a historian uncovers the truth about British politics 1997-2020, the truth will out, and it will vindicate those brave enough to speak out, and will uncover those who lied, those who manipulated the media to pursue elite aims, those who started wars based on lies. Tony Blair will have his wish, he will be recorded in the annuls of history, but only as a delusional fraud who lied to a nation in pursuit of a fatally flawed dream.

“We will stand with the people of Iran for they love freedom and the United States does not forget those who call for it”
- George W. Bush, June 2005.

Yet again the US has condemned Iran for its shortcomings and lack of democratic processes. It’s getting rather tiresome, rather like a broken record player, but something which I feel deserves closer scrutiny.

The history between the state of Iran and the US is one that stretches back over half a century back to the days of the Shah, when the democratically elected Dr Mossadegh was overthrown by a CIA/MI6 inspired pro-Shah coup d’etat. When the Shah was ousted in 1979, he presided over a regime that was was one of the most repressive in the region yet backed by the United States and the UK - just like today where the West give continued support to Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. When the Islamic Revolution took place, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, the US immediately had a new bogeyman in the region.

Later that year, students stormed the US Embassy and took over 100 hostages in a long drawn out episode, only resolved on the day Reagan took office. Yet it is instrumental to point out that in the run-up to the election of 1980, the Reagan campaign team had negotiated with the Iranians for the delaying of the release of the hostages at exactly the same time as the Carter administration was trying to release them. Quite apart from being illegal under US law, the Reagan team also promised to honour arms contracts awarded under the Carter administration. You may ask why did the Republicans act in such a manner. The simple reason is that Carter was beginning to make a strong showing in the polls and the Republican campaign wanted to prevent an “October Surprise” - so called for the month in which Carter began to claw back in the polls. Thus by delaying the release, it would show Carter as incompetent in the face of the enemy (especially after his failed rescue attempt in 1980) and thus lose him potential votes. In the event, the hostages were released on the day that Reagan took the oath on the lawn of the White House.

The events of 1980 ultimately led to the Irangate affair, where the same people initiated high level contacts with the Iranians to sell Hawk missile batteries and other weaponry from which the proceeds would fund the Contra rebel terrorist groups in Nicaragua. Yet in the senate hearings, Reagan, Bush and other senior administration figures were absolved of any blame while Col Ollie North took the rap. Interestingly, he seems to have been rehabilitated under the present Bush regime - serving as an unofficial adviser in the one of many subcommittees devoted to the war on terror.

So for the Bushites to claim that Iran is the enemy of peace and a supporter of terror is a clear case of hypocrisy when the fates of Iran and the US are more intertwined than people think.

But even discounting this, when Bush and his lapdog Blair criticise the Iranian government for its lack of democracy, the stupidity of these men reaches new levels of incredulity. It’s worth examining the actual system used in Iran and comparing it to the US and British models of government.

Firstly, one cannot disagree (unless you happen to be a filthy neo-con pro American toady) that Iran uses the democratic method of electing leaders in that direct elections are held to pick the candidates - just as the electorate pick the leader in the US and UK. However one can argue that the Iranian system is better as it allows the people to directly elect the leader whereas the electoral system in the US and the first past the post system in the UK often result in a minority electing the leader.

Secondly, while the Iranian system has shortcomings in the sense that the Consultative Council can bar candidates from standing, one can argue how different is this to the Western model where the political/electoral system is so heavily weighted against candidates outside of the two main parties? At least one can in theory disband the council, whereas when both major parties in the US and UK favour keeping the status quo, it is much more difficult to instigate change.

Also, the House of Lords in the UK is an unelected body that has power in delaying legislation - yet one can argue that the council in Iran serves a similar purpose. However, while the council has more power than the Lords, by reforming the Lords as Blair wants to, there would be a situation whereby Blairite loyalists would be appointed to act as yes men to merely rubber-stamp legislation. Such is the hypocrisy of modern Western democracy.

Finally, a word about the so called free press in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK. Many idiots are under the impression that Iran’s press is merely a mouthpiece for the state - yet look at the press in America today where the spirit of inquiry has been expunged as the corporate owners have towed the government line. Essentially, in the US, state ownership of the press has been outsourced to corporations - yet the result is the same. But if you look at papers and blogs from Iran, one can see critical articles of the government despite some newspapers being closed down.

To conclude, one must remind oneself that the differences between Iran and the US/UK are not as great as our leaders would have us believe (and certainly not worth fighting a war for) and when you examine the history shared between Iran and the West it is one that should always be borne in mind when listening to the latest pronouncements from the Great Satan Bush and his little imp Tony Blair.

“Let not the speck of dust in thine neighbours eye blind you to the mote in your own” - The Bible

During the last election Tony Blair - thanks to the ‘first past the post’ electoral system - secured 55% of the seats in parliament, a majority reduced from 161 seats to 67. New Labour achieved this with the lowest share of the vote in modern times, holding only 35% of the vote, with the Conservatives holding 32%, and the Liberal Democrats 22%. Therefore considering that only around 61% of the electorate voted, New Labour’s victorious 35% share of the vote equates to only around 22% of the total electorate. In the 2001 election around 50% of young people under 25 in the UK voted, yet 10 million people, mostly under 25, managed to vote in the Big Brother reality TV show. How has voting for people in ‘reality’ TV programs become more pressing than the election of our governments?

When you look at Big Brother it is classed as ‘reality’ TV as it deals with ‘real’ people, put in ‘real’ situations, reacting naturally with complete exposure to the public. With Big Brother people have their voyeurism rewarded with a kind of truth, they have access to the people on screen for 24 hours a day, and can view their every action and hear their every word. When people have this access they are able to untangle the motives behind the people in the show, and are even spoon-fed such information by psychologists who frequent the show, analysing what the actions and interactions mean. Through personal perception, and professional analysis, viewers are able to make an informed choice as to whom they want to win, and because they have done so, they will vote in support of that person.

Politics has similarities, but with crucial differences. With politics we have the same kind of interaction - albeit perhaps reduced to election campaigns - where politicians will try and convince viewers that they are the ones to vote for. Like Big Brother analysis of politicians will be made, motives examined (ironically not usually in as much detail as the house mates are), and people will be asked to vote for whom they believe in (or believe full stop). Politicians and contestants alike are out to win; they each form alliances, produce manifestos, and generally try to convince the public to like them. However, politicians will never become accountable in the way that Big Brother contestants are.

Politicians offer nothing more than front, the public have become unconvinced by spin, lies, propaganda, PR, and personal assaults on opposition campaigners - all the things employed by politicians during election campaigns. What the public want is to know who is lying, what people really mean, what the truth is behind that public front - who is worthy of their vote? Big Brother gives them this, it gives them unparalleled access to the reality of those they vote for, the contestants are accountable to the public, and can be caught out on live TV by the public. This interaction makes voting on Big Brother a more powerful experience than voting in an election, and a more pressing issue for the public in many cases. To be motivated to do something people have to believe in it, they have to be sure of what they are voting for. In politics the public know that they are voting for whoever has hired the best PR company, or the person who has lied the most convincingly. More importantly they are aware that the reality of whom they have actually voted for will only become apparent once the time to vote has past - as it has with phoney Tony. The truth will eventually out, but they are powerless until the next round of PR begins at the start of the next election - four years after they cast the initial vote. This is the perfect recipe for apathy.

Big Brother motivates people because they can view the spin and the reality simultaneously - and in many ways subconsciously - and are empowered by the experience of knowing the truth. Even politicians on TV for 24 hours a day would slip-up, especially when dealing with the isolated sensation within the house and the provision of alcohol. Imagine if Tony Blair was on TV 24 hours a day, the public would be in no doubt then what the truth is behind the war in Iraq, and there would have been a lot more people voting during the last election if that was the case. So in order to get people politically motivated again requires accountability from the government, in England the government are barely held to account on any matter. To be a politician is to purposely avoid answering any direct question, how can this be allowed to happen? It is now blindingly obvious that Tony Blair lied consistently over Iraq, yet he has denied it completely ever since, he knows he is lying, and we know he is lying, and it is a damning indictment of British society that the prime minister is unaccountable to truth and the word of law. He lies, but it is of no consequence, other than mild embarrassment.

If anyone else was in the same situation then they would be in court and prosecuted, they would not be able to simply deny the accusations and make those lies truth merely by their utterance. How can anyone in this country possibly take any word of British law seriously when the prime minister of the country can break any laws he wishes, be discovered, yet still deny the truth? It is an insult to everybody who has to live in the UK and abide by the rule of law set down by the government - particularly when you consider the new anti-terror laws rushed through by Tony Blair. How can we abide by rules set out by a collection of frauds acting outside of the law? Or more importantly why should we?

If I commit murder I would be facing life imprisonment, if a prime minister commits mass murder he faces re-election and a lifetime of after dinner speeches and titles. Tony Blair is the epitome of hypocrisy, a murderer so mentally disillusioned that he thinks his actions are actually saving life, and saving humanity. His very existence makes a mockery of any idea that we live in a country of law, or moral values; it makes a mockery of any lingering hope that we actually live in a democracy. It is an insult that this ignorant, corrupt, power-hungry fraud can stand in public and lie repeatedly to his electorate, and will never face a jury simply because he is a politician.

It is Tony Blair’s biggest worry that he will not be remembered in the history books of the future; what he does not seem to realise is that eventually history only records facts, not propaganda, and he will be remembered as Britain’s Mussolini; a murdering fraud who believed his own propaganda, when everyone else knew it to be false.

BBC News has reported that the UK has stopped aid to Ethiopia due to the recent widespread violence during the elections - during which 36 people died. Tony Blair was so concerned by the shootings that he made a phone call to Mr Meles - a member of Blair’s African commission - on Sunday. I wonder if Tony Blair is as keen to stop the sale of arms to Ethiopia, as they are the supply of aid. Currently there are no specific arms sanctions against Ethiopia, so only the general ‘export control restrictions’ apply - which looking at the horrendous records of arms exports made by the UK are not worth the paper they are written on.

A few days previously the Observer reported that the UK arms sales to Africa have reached the £1 billion mark, analysis of official figures shows annual weapons sales almost quadrupled between 1999 and 2004. The exports included licences for military exports granted to Ethiopia. This was reported on Sunday, and has received relatively little attention in the light of Tony Blair’s recent crusade on Africa in the build up to the G8 summit. It highlights the reality behind the propaganda produced by New Labour on their moral intentions; any kind of debt relief in Africa is futile without addressing the bigger problems.

New Labour have not addressed the problem of bloody conflicts in the regions, but have instead actively facilitated them. The £1.5 billion BAE-South African Air Force deal (12 Hawk fighter trainer jets at £0.5 billion and a £1 billion partnership with SAAB over Gripen fighters) for instance was arranged when Tony Blair led a delegation to South Africa to lobby for the BAE bid, shortly before it was awarded in 1999. Not long after this deal was struck the 2000 UK defence exhibition was described by Maj. Gen. Julius Kriel (South African Air Force) as ‘very much a show for Africa.’

So it is hardly surprising that arms exports have quadrupled in just 5 years under the careful stewardship of New Labour - demonstrating the combination of New Labour’s two biggest interests: military development and pandering to big business. When we continue to be saturated by New Labour propaganda regarding Tony Blair’s obsession to be remembered in history for doing something worthwhile which - after his lies in Iraq have been exposed, and the war has been another humanitarian disaster - has now turned towards the Africa ‘problem’. Tony Blair believes that he can drive forward a program to eliminate poverty in Africa, and he is now relying on this to rescue his tattered reputation in the history books.

He is not promoting the African agenda for the good of Africans, but only to promote and distort his own position in world history. He must not be allowed to gloss over the truth about New Labour’s real policy pursued in Africa - under his direct leadership - and the blood that is on his hands. It’s OK to take action in Ethiopia, as long at it is only aid, but no doubt the New Labour warmongers will be licking their lips at the chance to pump more arms into a poor and troubled country. Who knows, with a little luck and the right weapons they could even turn it into a lucrative civil war.

So, Michael Jackson has escaped prison, he remains free but the result of the trial has hardly left him innocent in the eyes of millions who have been subjected to the media hype that surrounded the trial - which made hearing the verdict almost impossible to avoid. So what did proving his innocence really achieve? He has now been blighted throughout his life by very serious allegations of child molestation, allegations of almost complete facial reconstruction, and being in ridiculous debt despite being insanely rich. Rumours circulate and conclude that Jackson has a severe detachment from reality, enabling him to believe that he is Peter Pan in Never land, and because of this he sees no harm in forging close relationships with young boys, including sharing a bed with them.

The result of his trial has supposedly put to rest any accusations that anything untoward happened with the children he slept with, but it wont stop the public perception that there is no smoke without fire. Reading the comment page in the Independent it is almost impossible not to snigger at certain phrases: ‘When Jackson returned home he went straight to bed’ - we presume he was at least alone this time. This is the easy route to take, as a celebrity he is seen as someone to be ridiculed. So people either ridicule him, or take him for a ride by making supposedly false accusations in order to get a slice of his wealth. Surely if Michael Jackson was an ordinary person, he would be locked up as clinically insane, rather than being classed as merely rich and eccentric. Instead he remains surrounded by people who seem to be unable to point out to him that perhaps he needs to seek professional help, he needs a slap around the face, not a collection of sycophants cynically sucking up the last of his credit.

America locks up people without trial for being dark-skinned and in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet Michael Jackson exists beyond all help despite his quite public displays of disturbing behaviour, surely the jury could have at least forced him to seek counselling? Perhaps the fact that Jackson is ‘rich’, suffers severe illusions, and has made himself white enables him to join the same elite club as the other rich madmen currently running (ruining) America.

All this hoo-haa in the press about the recent no votes in France and Holland has made very little impression on me despite the blaring and crowing of the neo-con media gloating at the defeat of the EU constitution. What has been of interest is the fact that no one seems to cotton on to the fact our sovereignty has already been compromised by our slavish devotion to all things American and the filtration of American trends into the society as a whole. When will parties such as the UK Independence Party make a stand against the creeping Americanisation of our life rather than flog the dead horse of the threats posed by the EU superstate? When the pope converts to Islam, most likely.

The creep of American influence is reflected not only in matters relating to the media, such as trashy TV shows like Big Brother and Jerry Springer, and also the film industry in general, but also in more mundane environments such as the workplace. For example the reliance on targets and business oriented practices in public services, together with the adoption of free market privatisation has resulted in costlier and poorer standards of services. Yet the epitome of Americanisation can be found in the business call centres. Here, the soul destroying and continuous pressure to meet ever increasing targets takes its toll on the work force, while the fat cats reap the rewards. The result is a workforce who are essentially zombies, slaves to the phones, and little more than assets rather than people.

The adoption of US work practices has seen a massive increase in depression, suicides and mental health problems. Yet the solution to this is to penalise the employee if he goes off sick - causing even more depression. is it any wonder why countries that have adopted American practices have a high suicide rate?

Yet despite this, the people are so brainwashed into hating the EU, who have passed laws protecting the workforce, that they fail to see that while the EU is not perfect, it would be vastly preferable to becoming a vassal 51st state where everyone is a commodity to be used and then spat out.

In other areas as well, we are slowly losing our identity - the increased use of American slang and phrases like for example the phrase “to achieve closure” or “touch base.” I absolutely detest these words as they seem to be words that have grown out of the repetition of shows like Ricki Lake or Jerry Springer where members of the studio audience stand up and spout off meaningless psychobabble using any stupid phrase that jumps into their pea sized brains.

In terms of health as well, the UK is rapidly becoming the world’s second fattest nation with a massive plethora of fat oversized slobs who guzzle down coke by the gallon and could polish off a meal that even Jesus would have problems distributing to the feeding of the 5000. This has an effect on the NHS, which is slowly deteriorating as less money is poured in and private health care is improving. It’s almost like a government plan to remove the NHS by swamping it with slobs - this giving them a reason to disband it altogether and then focusing on purely private healthcare. This would then create a society of haves and have nots which would be no different to the days of the Roman Empire. Yet no one seems to have a problem with this, it’s as if any sense of responsibility to our fellow citizens has decided to take a hike or to curl up and die.

This leads neatly on to my next example of creeping - that of the explosion of the selfish me, me, me attitude that pervades modern society. Every day, without fail, you will come across an advert for claim or compensation companies that will promise you a payout for something as simple as tripping on the pavement. This attitude, together with the welfare state as it currently is, is dissolving any sense of personal responsibility in people. No doubt this will have an effect on our kids as they turn into homicidal dysfunctional maniacs. I’m very pro welfare state, but along the Scandinavian model, where it is seen as the last resort, rather than the first port of call.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of creeping Americanisation and hegemonous sterile culture is how we as a nation are losing our spirit of inquiry and knowledge to the extent that many people nowadays focus on celebrity and gossip without questioning the big issues of the day. It seems that more people would be concerned about Rebecca Loos wanking off a pig or Abi Titmuss shagging some half wit neanderthal ex-footballer than looking at issues like debt relief for Africa, or the lies that led us to war in Iraq. Personally, I would like Al-Qaida to fly a hit squad into the Celebrity Love Island, just so I could watch the results and then vote to choose which twat would be executed live.

So next time you hear someone mouthing off about Europeans and sovereignty and independence, think of the situation we’re already in and fucking DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!

“For evil to triumph it is only necessary that good men do nothing”
Attributed to Edmund Burke

So, MI5 have decided that it is now safe to downgrade the ‘terror threat’ to UK businesses. Well thank goodness for that, I guess it must be down to the reduction of terrorist activity in the UK since 2001, but wait, what reduction? Since 2001 there has been no terrorist attack in the UK, yet at all times we have been at a very heightened state of ‘alert’. The explanation lies, as it always does in this kind of situation, with information that the government assures us that it has, but that information cannot be made public.

The irony since 2001 and the 9/11 is that the UK government has stepped up its own terror campaigns around the world, most notably in support for American outrages. This tends to highlight the complete falsity of government claims that they have intelligence of terrorist activity significant enough to have UK businesses exist in a state of constant alert towards terrorism. The logic of the argument here is simple. The intelligence has now deemed it fit to lower the state of alert - albeit only from ’severe general’ (whatever that means) to ’substantial’ - when surely intelligence should reflect on the fact that Tony Blair’s illegal war on Iraq, coupled with his complete obedience and support for George Bush should have heightened threats, not reduced them. As reported in the Guardian, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has realised that in order to avoid Malaysia becoming a terrorist target it was essential not to be associated with the US. ‘We are doing everyone a favour by not having the Americans here. They are a lightning rod. They attract terrorists.’ Perhaps Tony Blair should think about the validity of that statement very carefully.

9/11 could be vilified as an unjustified random act of terror – ignoring its targets, and the reality that America is global super-terrorist – but any new attacks will be a response to our terror, and will be far harder to vilify in the way that 9/11 was. I’m sure if I was an Iraqi and had just witnessed my family shot dead at a checkpoint, or blown up by a ‘shock and awe’ display (the only time weapons of mass destruction were seen in Iraq), then I’d want Tony Blair to experience the reality of his policies with retaliation.

However, the difficulty is that how would that poor man differentiate between the actions of Tony Blair, and the actions of the UK public. Would he copy the response of the UK and America after 9/11 and use his pain to justify attacking anyone he wishes - as his suffering is so great that surely any white person is to blame. Or would he distinguish between the UK government and the UK public, as if he did he could justifiably bomb Tony Blair, responding - as set out in the UN charter - to a direct attack on his own country. Reality dictates that the sheer logistics involved in carrying out an attack on those deserve it, such as George Bush and Tony Blair, make it likely that the man (or woman) would face two choices: accept it as impossible and do nothing, or instead instigate a random attack on any white person they suspect of belonging to the UK or US.

Either way Tony Blair and George Bush are bringing problems, to other nations, or to the populations of their own nations. What is certain is that the terror alerts have previously formed part of the propaganda campaign by Tony Blair to allow him full powers in the war on terror by forcing agreement through fear. This myth has enabled him to wage illegal wars, pass legislation reducing the liberties of the British public, and above all bring the media even further into line by appealing to them to respect a national threat. It remains for the general public - as ever - to bare the brunt of future generations of ‘terrorists’ whose first memories in life are their parents slaughtered by the western rogue states. It may not be happening yet, but a new generation are being moulded on the bloody streets of Iraq and occupation will always bring violent resistance.

Philip Stevens in his Biography of Tony Blair states: ‘His politics - inextricably bound to a deep Christian faith - told him that civilised nations had the right and duty to confront suffering beyond their boundaries.’(Philip Stevens, Tony Blair: The Price of Leadership (Politico’s, 2004), page 6.) He uses this as an explanation for Blair’s intervention in other countries, such as his bombing campaign in Kosovo, and commitment of troops to end the civil war in the West African state of Sierra Leone:- ‘It was as much a matter of enlightened self-interest as morality.’(Ibid, Page 5.) According to Stevens ‘He has always been impatient of the strategic doctrine that says governments should turn their backs on tyranny and injustice in the world unless their narrow interests are threatened.’(Ibid, page 5-6.)

As a consequence of the faith* that Tony Blair holds in his own moral/religious crusade, he devised the lies, propaganda, and campaign of misinformation that led to Britain’s joining America in its illegal invasion of Iraq. The dust had barely settled in Iraq, and the bodies of innocent civilians had yet to be buried, when it became clear that Tony Blair had led Britain into the war using fraudulent claims. No weapons of mass destruction had ever been found, the evidence available to the prime minister had been studied, and it is clear to see the ways in which the prime minister and his propaganda ministers had altered the intelligence in order to justify the war.

So Tony Blair, in response to his exposed lies, did what he does best, lie. As usual his lies were a consequence of faith, so in fact they are not actually lies to Tony Blair (or those who purport to understand him), but the genuine beliefs of someone who has traded reality for fiction. For Tony Blair always returns to his moral rhetoric when reality starts to ask awkward questions about his actions. In Iraq his lies that took the nation to war are irrelevant, as the net result was that an evil dictator had been removed from power. The ignorance of Tony Blair and his desire to always move on, move forward, skip past awkward questions in the pursuit of some distant reality, serves to devalue history and truth in relation to his morals. If Tony Blair was not quite so keen to move on, he would have to assess how Saddam Hussain came to power, under whose supervision and support he carried out his worst atrocities, under what sanctions had Iraq been crippled by and an estimated 500,000 children died under?(Carol Bellamy, UNICEF Executive Director, 12 August 1999, http://www.unicef.org/reseval/iraqr.html) In removing Saddam Hussain from power another 100,000 Iraqis are estimated to have died, Tony Blair continues to argue that his removal is worth the human cost involved, and that he cannot apologise as he did the right thing.

His faith in his role of saviour of humanity precludes him from assessing the situation in real terms; the reality is that Saddam Hussain was raised into power by America and the UK. Saddam was supported through atrocities and massacres by America and the UK, his sanctions were enacted by the UN, but in reality they were almost entirely the product of America and the UK. So his removal by America and the UK simply completed a vast circle of human rights abuses, for which America and the UK are wholly accountable for.

However, Tony Blair is not alone in this situation, this is an collective, cultural ignorance, maintained by a complete lack of discussion or exposure in the mainstream media or political debate. You will never hear an opposition party questions such fundamental abuses carried out by a British government, and the unaccountably lies largely in the continuation of the same foreign policies and goals from government to government. Tony Blair has shaped New Labour as something different, as a leader he likes to think that he transcends traditional party boundaries, however, he only does so to further his own interests and power. Tony Blair is a fraud, concerned not with changing Britain, or British government for the sake of the British, or for the wider world; but simply concerned with shaping the system around his own flawed and ignorant faith. The faith starts with Tony Blair, and ends with Tony Blair, questions or discussion are not permitted; not because Tony Blair is a dictator of course, but simply because Tony Blair is always right, and therefore dissent is a waste of time.

Tony Blair has lived by his faith, whilst using it as a firm basis for policy, and basing life and death decisions around it. This is facilitated by his centralisation of power to his elite group of followers (classic dictator behaviour when you think about it), who produce the propaganda and information to support Tony Blair’s desires - as we saw in Iraq. When decisions are made in such a way - essentially being made at the will of one person - you have the reality of such ‘humanitarian intervention’ being vastly different.

Blair’s personal agenda leads him to become the evil dictator that he is supposedly out to stop in the first place - just as Anakin’s descent to Darth Vader in Star Wars is triggered by a desire to become powerful enough to do more good than the Jedi counsel, who waste their time debating policy - sounds so familiar. Look at his ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Kosovo, ‘undertaken without UN authorisation and complete with the targeting of civilian infrastructure and the use of cluster bombs.’( Mark Curtis, Blair’s Jaw Jaw means War War, October 2002, http://www.markcurtis.info/article3.html) Two weeks into the Bombing in April 1999 Tony Blair stated: ‘We will carry on pounding day after day after day, until our objectives are secured’, something that fits the ‘government’s definition of terrorism - revealed the brutal reality of NATO’s supposedly “humanitarian war” over Kosovo.’(Ibid.)

The ‘British policy towards Iraq is a microcosm of foreign policy… contempt for international law, support for US aggression, a gung-ho military interventionism, with the public viewed as a threat, whose opinion needs to be managed by concerted propaganda.’(Ibid) This is the result of Tony Blair’s crusade, which unless checked will lead to more deaths. After September 11 the prime minister would often say it had ‘changed the psychology of America’ but ‘it should have changed the psychology of the whole world.’(Philip Stevens, page 5) It would have certainly made the Crusade of Bush and Blair far easier if it had. However, the other side of this is that after Iraq, and the discovery of the concerted lies from both Tony Blair and George Bush, the psychology of the whole world should have changed. Instead it is left to a few to speak out, before New Labour extinguishes all dissent in order for Tony Blair to complete his divine mission.

*When this article refers to ‘faith’ it does so not necessarily in a religious way, instead it refers to faith as a general system of belief held by a person. This incorporates religion, but also personal experience, and subsequently personal beliefs and faith are generated, giving the ‘faith’ referred to above.

‘At Pilckem Ridge I can still see the bewilderment and fear on the men’s faces when we went over the top… All over the battlefield the wounded were lying down, English and German all asking for help. We weren’t like the Good Samaritan in the Bible, we were the robbers who passed by and left them. You couldn’t help them. I came across a Cornishman, ripped from shoulder to waist with shrapnel, his stomach on the ground beside him in a pool of blood. As I got to him he said, “Shoot me,” he was beyond all human aid. Before we could even draw a revolver he had died. He just said “Mother.” I will never forget it.’

Private Harry Patch, Cornwall’s Light Infantry.

That was a survivor from the ‘Great’ War - surely an insulting oxymoron - taken from the recordings at the Imperial War Musuem and brought back to immediacy in Forgotten Voices Of The Great War by Max Arthur. The idea of rememberance, and the promise that we would never forget, ring hollow, and have done ever since the end of the First World War. The ‘peace’ that was arranged sowed the seeds for the Second World War, and that war led to the ceding of most of Europe to the tyranny of Communist Russia. This led to the Cold War, which caused countless invasions of innocent countries by America - and Britain - under the guise that they were fighting ‘communism’, the end of the cold war led to a period of supposed peace. Each of these conflicts has led to mass grief, untold losses of life, and a new generation of innocence stripped away - and each new generation vows that they to would never to forget.

But we forget, we move on, those who experienced the reality of war gradually die away until they are nothing more than words on a page. After the Cold War the West lost its main cover for the relentless pursuit of wealth through foreign intervention, they could no longer invade to combat ‘communism’; so the corporations and governments needed a new reason. Then along came retaliation by a small group of people, retaliation at the greed, violence, and relentless pursuit of ideological, military, and financial domination sought by America (aided by Britain). The attack was aimed at the core of the American Evil: the Pentagon, the ‘World’ Trade Centre, and the failed attempt at the White House.

America had been given a licence to kill, and they seized it as the perfect replacement for the virtually unlimited scope of the war on communism; they created a ‘war on terror’. And so the circle repeats, and a new generation will get to know the horrors of war. Politicians today do everything they can to forget about the First World War, for it was the very worst kind of war, it was one purely in their interests, it was a war of empire, not morals. The millions who died caked in the mud of France, or on the cliffs of Gallipoli, died without purpose, without the moral justification that we like to attach to modern warfare.

It is the moral purpose behind a conflict that makes our culture want to remember or forget. That is why in a century of war the most enduring conflict is the Second World War, as it is something that we are in encouraged to remember, because in our culture it is seen as a moral war. The century of war revolves around Nazi Germany and Communist Russia; we are encouraged to forget any other conflicts as almost irrelevant to our national conscience. However, we must never forget any conflict, for the lessons in every war are the same, from the mud of the Somme, to the Jungles of Vietnam, and into the Desert of Iraq - war is suffering, war is the ultimate failure of ‘democracy’.

So when we consider the war on terror, a war fought in the complete disregard for morals or humanity, a war built on lies, greed and personal crusades; we must see that suffering is being continued for reasons as sordid as any that have been used for previous wars. The war on terror is nearly a hundred years on from the outbreak of World War 1 at the start of the 20th Century, but the results will be exactly the same. The rich will survive and prosper, whilst the poor will be forced to into doing the unthinkable, and treat it as normal.

‘While the Prince Regent of Bavaria launched an attack on Neuve Chapelle on January the 25th [1915], this was only a feint to get the enemy to concentrate in the wrong area. Our attack was launched against the French and British trenches on the south of the Aire-La Bassée canal.

Why was it that we soldiers stabbed each other, strangled each other, went for each other like mad dogs? Why was it that we who had nothing against each other personally fought to the very death? We were civilised people after all, but I felt that the thin lacquer of civilisation of which both sides had so much, chipped off immediately. To fire at each other from a distance, to drop bombs, is something impersonal, but to see the white of a man’s eyes and then to run a bayonet into him - that was against my comprehension.’

Sergeant Stefan Westmann, 29th Division, German Army.

The above extracts are taken from this moving book, which offers an immediate link to the reality of not just the First World War, but the reality of all conflict. I strongly recommend that you read this book.

‘It’s absurd. It’s an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world.’ President George Bush

‘Frankly, I was offended by it, for Amnesty international to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator if human rights, I frankly just don’t take them seriously.’ Vice President Dick Cheney

These statements of unbelievable ignorance have been made in response to Amnesty Internationals criticisms of America’s prison camp for terror ’suspects’ at Guantanamo Bay. That they have been made - and backed up in the general media response - shows just how arrogant the administration has become; but the real tragedy is that this arrogance is born out of experience. The large majority of the American public are so stupid, so utterly brainwashed by the neo-conservative bile vomited by the media, that they will take these comments at face value - and probably join in the condemnation of the report without even knowing who Amnesty International are.

As much as I despise the United States, and what it represents, I realise that a lot of Americans are not like this, and I do not wish to tar them with the same brush. Furthermore, nor do I wish to continue the myth that somehow, Britain and the British are any different. The current American imperialism through ‘humanitarian’ intervention is being mirrored and supported by Blair, and the nature of maintaining a financial empire through military intervention is as British as Sunday cricket. Similarly the ignorance of reality is also a very British problem, and many problems we highlight with the American Media are true with our own media.

Britain has long been able to blame America’s cultural imperialism for anything from rising obesity rates, to the increased obsession with celebrity and reality programs in the UK. However, blame - regardless of whether it is right or wrong - is not going to make any difference to the reality of the situation, and the reality is that we in Britain have become largely an ignorant and despicable society. We have for many years revelled in the myth that we are a nation who won the Second World War for the sake of a better world, and consoled ourselves with the illusion that we have been supporting the same principles since then. These delusions are as powerful and destructive as those delusions spouted by Bush and Cheney, so if we want to be able to criticise them, then we have to also recognise our own delusions. It will be interesting to see if Tony Blair passes any comment on the Amnesty International report, as we can only imagine that he would condemn the report, as he seems to clearly believe in the American cause - and has of course increased his own powers over the public here in the UK.

Amnesty International’s report must be taken seriously, and it must raise some sensible discussion within the political bodies in America and the UK. We cannot allow Bush and Cheney to get away with their outrageous dismissals of the report, their arrogance and ignorance must be highlighted by a real discussion of a report that only really adds to the general knowledge that to hold someone without trial, for an indefinite period is an abuse of their human rights. Tony Blair and George Bush justify these prisons as essential to the war on terror and maintain that those held pose a serious threat to our societies; yet surely if this was true then bringing them to trial would lead to conviction, satisfying their desire to imprison these people, and our desire that they should face trial. It seems to be the case that increasing numbers of people - in the US and the UK - are being held without any evidence whatsoever, and thereby they cannot face trial as they would be released by any sane court. It seems a gross failure of justice that in this situation criminal proceedings have not been brought in any case, not against the majority of those held in Guantanamo Bay, nor against George Bush and Tony Blair, those responsible for the illegal holding of those ‘suspects’.

As George Bush himself highlighted in an incredible statement not long after the above comments on the Russian trial of former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky: ‘Here, you’re innocent until proven guilty and it appeared to us, at least people in my administration, that he had been ajudged guilty prior to having a fair trial.’ Well then George, I guess the hundreds of people locked in Guantanamo Bay must have slipped your mind.

Recently, the editor was on a trip with his girlfriend when he was followed by a police van that was tailgating him. As the editor was quite pissed off he decided to take a picture in order to put a complaint in to his local police station. However, the police pulled him over and cautioned him, saying the now immemorial phrase “due to the current atmosphere, you shouldn’t take pictures of police vehicles, as we cannot be sure of your intentions’. Needless to say, when I was informed, I immediately vowed death and destruction to the neo-cons and their spineless allies in Downing St. When I calmed down and stopped foaming at the mouth, I immediately thought of other farcical situations where this phrase would be use to further curtail our liberties in the name of the war on terror. So here goes:

Due to the current atmosphere…

You cannot ask for directions if you are lost as this could be interpreted as gathering intelligence for furtherance of terrorist activities

You must hold conversations at a decibel level equivalent to that of football fans chanting at a match so as to discourage conspiracies in fomenting terrorist actions

You must immediately inform your nearest police station if you see a group of more than 2 people loitering in one area for more than 5 minutes (and inform the armed forces if they are dark skinned)

You have the right to note down the number plate of any dark skinned person seen in a vehicle

You do not have the right to insult or defame the character of our Glorious President Tony Blair or his Esteemed Ally in the War on Terror George W Bush

You cannot read material (books or otherwise) that contains the words “USA is a threat to world peace” or similar derogatory comments against the Saviour of the Free World

You must inform the necessary authorities if your family members express any doubts as to the righteousness of our cause

You cannot pass wind except at your place of residence as this could be misinterpreted as a chemical attack

There could be countless more pointless directives issued in the name of the War on Terror, but the point I’m making is that we should all be vigilant in the face of this assault on our liberties or one day you will wake up to find a jackboot stamping on your face, forever….

“Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither”
Thomas Jefferson