Uponnothing.co.uk

16.8.05

War + Terrorism = Hypocrisy

Greetings fellow humanoids!!

With the recent commemoration of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the controversy generated as to whether it was justified or not, a sickly stench of hypocrisy seems to have pervaded the discourse of those who have consistently sought to justify it – saying it would save an even greater amount of lives.

Perhaps that might be true (and as a student of Military History, I have studied the plans of the invasion of Japan – titled Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet). Yet I feel the main issue is being sidetracked as to whether it was right to drop on specifically a civilian target as opposed to a military target or even off Tokyo bay so as to give a demonstration of its power and force the Japanese to consider surrender. Personally, I believe that one of the alternative options should have been followed.

But what I’m really interested in is that under the definition of terrorism, the bombs would have been classed as an act of terror – yet the very same people who castigate others for terrorist actions are themselves promoting and glorifying it by refusing to condemn the dropping of the bombs. If Al-Qaida had set off nukes in New York, that would have been terrorism on a massive scale, but when the West engage in it, it is classed as WAR.

Likewise, the “insurgents” in Iraq are described as terrorists despite the fact they wish to see an end to the occupation of their homeland – in which I believe the Iraq “war” was the greatest act of terrorism in this century so far. So to extend my analogy, if the insurgents managed to detonate a nuke in London or New York, would that be an act of terror, or an act of war?

And then you hear people say well look at what the Japanese soldiers did – mass beheadings and squalid and brutal treatment in camps - those bombs needed to be dropped. My answer is so why drop it on civilians? After all we say the same things to terrorists who bomb civilians – why target us?

With the recent push in new anti terror laws which make it a crime to glorify terrorism, will we see people arrested for justifying the use of atomic bombs on civilian targets? Somehow, I don’t think so….

A sad day for many Londoners, in which category I class myself as having lived there for 8 years and had the best times of my life there. Needless to say the scum that orchestrated this attack on the world’s greatest city will meet their maker, of that I have no doubt.

But then the sentiments I am expressing are no different to someone in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, Gaza, the West Bank, Tel Aviv, New York or anywhere else that has suffered terrorism, both state sponsored or otherwise.

So the question that should be on everyone’s lips should be “why?”

Forget about all the drivel that gushes from the mouths of political idiots like Blair, Straw, Portillo, Clarke and others. Phrases like “they hate our freedoms” are meaningless as it tries to forestall any spirit of inquiry as to the political message these attacks represent. Rather it tries to imply that these people have no message and love killing for the sake of it.

Quite simply, Blair wishes to sweep under the cover any linkage to the war in Iraq and his now sadly mistaken assurance that the world is a better and safer place after their “war” in Iraq. The radicals’ statement has already made that clear. Yet many fools have come on TV and said they would have attacked us anyway. The oft-repeated mantra of 9/11 has been expressed and thrown around willy nilly with no real explanation as to why we are in the situation we are in.

My response to this is as follows.

The war on terror did not start on 9/11, but had been underway for several years prior – indeed well within the period we now call the Cold War. 9/11 was the most outrageous attack undertaken by a non-state entity. But the acts of terror undertaken by both nations and organisations had been taking place well before this. 9/11 represented a culmination in the ongoing war and led to a change of political direction.

Surely then, one would have asked, why aren’t we really looking at the causes and our own actions in all this? For a time it seemed that this was happening after 9/11. But when the decision to invade Iraq on a lie was undertaken, the direction was changed and the momentum against the war on terror suffered a devastating blow. For we handed to the terrorists another excuse to kill our innocents and increase their recruitment.

If I was a leader of the UK, surely the last thing I’d want to do is to shoot myself in the foot by following some half wit’s war on a country that had played no part in 9/11. Because now, nations with abysmal human rights records can kill their own people and say “it’s all part of the war on terror” Indeed, the US and UK have outsourced many of their prisoners to these very regimes.

So when idiots spout their bullshit of “9/11 terror terror, they hate our way of life” etc, the very things they are accusing the terrorists, we are doing a thousand fold every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then we wonder why it comes out and bites us in the ass? Yet the ones who suffer, like in Iraq, are the innocents while the leaders are protected 24/7 by their bodyguards, fleets of armour plated cars and constant surveillance.

Is it really surprising that many Iraqis, when interviewed about the attacks in London, did not express sympathy and condolences? Many had said “ Now you know what we go through every day” or “After allowing your Governments to kill our children, this is a consequence of your support” Yet this attitude is exactly what extremists on both sides want – as it provides an endless supply of willing recruits to murder more innocents.

How can we defeat this? Firstly we must address our double standards, which is a sore point with millions in the third world, where different rules are applied between the rich and poor. If we continue to adopt supercilious and arrogant attitudes then we are inviting a response. Perhaps the recent G8 summit will do something to address this. Only time will tell.

More importantly, rather than responding to any of Bin Laden’s pronouncements, governments should not engage in pre-emptive invasions and wars to suit their own interests but to seriously address the issues that are inflaming the world’s trouble spots. That is not to say we should negotiate with al-Qaida as such – but to cut the support he has from many in the Islamic world. By resolving Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir and other areas that burn deeply in Muslim consciousness, it throws the ball into Bin Laden’s court and shows potential supporters that solutions can be addressed fairly without recourse to extremism. Thus Bin Laden’s message of violence no longer has the attraction of the masses. Just as advertisers target the masses into buying their products rather than others, we must target the masses of the Muslim world by addressing their concerns and providing a “product” that then diverts them from their competitors (extremism). For extremism to survive, it requires as Mao put it, a swamp of support to swim in. So drain the swamp and watch the terrorists flounder.

But by then rattling their sabres at countries that have nothing to do with this (as is currently happening with Iran) and drawing up plans to invade the next axis of evil, then you consign yourselves to what George Orwell called “the never-ending war”

I will close this article by dedicating it to those who lost their lives in London, in the hope that leaders will finally realise that thoughtful and measured actions are required rather than knee jerk actions, so that we do not have more dates like 9/11 and 7/7 to enter our vocabulary and engender more hatred in the world.

“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” – Mahatma Gandhi

09.07.05

A Realspeak guide to Bushspeak

So yet again the spawn of Satan has managed to blow away any sense of credulity in his address to the nation at Fort Bragg concerning the war that won’t go away – Iraq

Mentioning the phrase 9/11 no less than 5 times, I feel it necessary to provide a commentary on his speech and the real meaning behind his words.

Let’s begin:

Bushspeak (BS): The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful and so is your commander in chief.

Realspeak (RS): The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to ensure us rich white folks don’t serve on the frontline and continue to drive our $50,000 SUVs

BS: Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and exporting terror.
RS: Our aim is to remake the Middle East in our own image of tyranny and oppression by supporting dictatorships that toe our line and allow us to import Shock and Awe to those fucking Ay-rabs.

BS: Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.
RS: But you can bet your ass Eye-ran is next!!

BS: Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror.
RS: Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the resistance. We are forcing Iraqis to build a puppet nation that will do as we say.

BS: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed.
RS: The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. That’s why your sons and daughters are there and mine aren’t.

BS: And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.
RS: And when the Middle East grows in hatred, the terrorists will increase their support, gain more recruits and expand their plans for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world – thus giving us another excuse to kill more Ay-rabs.
BS: We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul.
RS: We also bomb civilians, hospitals and mosques, but we’re Americans and therefore the good guys, so it’s ok.

BS: The terrorists, both foreign and Iraqi, failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war.
RS: The terrorists failed to stop the installation of our puppets. They’ve failed to incite a civil war because they’re all fighting us.

BS: And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.
RS: And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy, despite the number of infiltrators and those who run away at the first shot.

BS: In the past year, we have made significant progress.
RS: We’ve opened a MacDonalds and Starbucks in Baghdad.

BS: We are improving roads and schools and health clinics and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.
RS: We’re building bases, oil pipelines and bunkers, while privatising the Iraqi infrastructure to our companies – making me and my buddies even more rich.

BS: Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organisations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction.
RS: While we spend the same amount in a month blowing them up.

BS: Iraqi forces have fought bravely helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul.
RS: Only for us to lose those cities to the insurgency.

BS: And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents.
RS: Who cares if half of them are old men and kids that have never fired a gun in their lives?

BS: Our coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task.
RS: Yep, that draft is coming real soon.

BS: We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed and not a day longer.
RS: Until the oil runs out.

BS: Before our coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
RS: Despite the fact Gaddaffi had already stopped any such programmes in 2002.

BS: Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom.
RS: From US sponsored regimes

BS: In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon.
RS: Many of whom hate us more than the Iraqis do.

BS: Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working.
RS: So my bestest friend Professor Liebstraum tells me when he tucks me in bed.

BS: They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality.
RS: And we don’t give a shit about the UN.

BS: America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women.
RS: As long as it’s you out there and not me.
BS: To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our nation.
RS: While I cut Veterans Administration funding even further.

BS: I have met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon.
RS: Ok, maybe a couple, and only if I know they voted Republican.

BS: And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces.
RS: To protect people like me and the top 5% of the wealthy in America.

BS: Our enemies are brutal, but they are no match for the United States of America and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.
RS: Despite the fact we ain’t got a clue where they are.

BS: Thank you. And may God bless America.
RS: And rain hellfire on the rest of the world.

Need I say more………?

“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

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

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

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)

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.

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)

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)

So a new election has been fought and won by his most serene and exalted infallible Leader Tony Blair (albeit with a reduced majority). The question on everyone’s lips is will he or won’t he (no I’m not referring as to whether he will consummate his relationship to his husband and master across the water).

If he had any sense inside that warped organ inside that head of his he would do the honourable thing and quit. But only today, he said he’ll carry on for a full third term

I know some animals such as donkeys are said to be stubborn, but the difference between Blair and an ass is that an ass is a beast of burden. Whereas Blair is quite simply a burden. Under him, this country has turned into the 51st state, with awful practices imported from the nation that represents a cancer on the surface of the planet. For example we are now becoming a more litigious society where I’m sure in the next few years, if you so much as shake someone’s hand to greet them, you will be sued for actual bodily harm by some half bit chav wanting to find funds for his next set of wheel rims or fake gold jewelry. But why stop there? Pretty soon I’ll be able to sue my friend Ross for missing out on evolution and the stress that has caused me.

Blair I’m sure will someday institute the correct method of greeting one’s fellow citizen and the way in which we should talk to them. I can just imagine how this might go…..
Scene: President Blair recreational arena (Formerly known as Hyde Park)
Two friends meet:

Citizen 8512: Hail Blair Fellow citizen

Citizen 2564: Hail Blair Fellow citizen

8512: How is your person doing on this fine third day of the week

2564: All is well due to the munificence of our esteemed leader’s policies as I have now finally managed to rent a small dwelling space in the locality of Greyfriars

8512: Greyfriars – didn’t that used to be called Blackfriars years ago?

2564: Citizen 8512 I must warn you that you are contravening the Political Correctness act of 2017 buy your use of that negatively connotative description. You must cease and desist in any further use of that word or I will be forced to submit your ID to the Re-education and Re-intergration department

8512: Many apologies fellow citizen. I will not use that word again

2564: All is well then. I will visualise you later then

8512: Godspeed then

2564: POLICE POLICE!!! VIOLATION IN PROGRESS!!!!!!

Ok just a bit on the extreme side but isn’t all this happening today with all the PC bullshit that’s ongoing?

So why do we elect a warmongering fraud who in all likelihood will send us on this road?

It’s quite simple, whether you know it or not, our lot hasn’t changed one bit from the days of the Roman Empire where people were so enslaved to the system that their main concern was money, and if things were bad why then bread and circuses and the odd war thrown in would distract them from what essentially was the core failings of their empire. Just as today, we spend more time on mindless “reality” shows, celebrities and living to work. Our collective brain is now so enslaved we don’t even know it. I suppose we really do deserve the leaders we elect.

As someone once said: “There are none so blind as those who will not see”
Free your mind!!