This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
UK PM David Cameron Proclaims: It’s Not Enough To Follow The Law, You Must Love Big Brother
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
It’s not just those domestic extremists and crazy “conspiracy theory” kooks who took serious issue with UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent overtly fascist language when it comes to freedom of expression in Great Britain. For example, in a post published today, the UK Independent describes the quote below as “the creepiest thing David Cameron has ever said.”
This statement, and others like it, are a huge deal. This isn’t how the leader of a major civilized Western so-called “democracy” speaks to the citizenry. It is how a master talks to his slaves. How a ruler addresses his subjects. I think the following tweet by Glenn Greenwald earlier today sums up David Cameron’s attitude perfectly well:
This is really the mentality of Her Majesty's Government RT @akaSassinak But now it is not enough to obey. You must LOVE BIG BROTHER.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 14, 2015
Those of us who are in disbelief over David Cameron’s recent language, don’t have to just point to the quote above. There’s a lot more to it than a simple quote. For example, the Guardian reports:
The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.
A “risk of public disorder,” or a “risk of harassment alarm or distress.” Think about that for a second. Pretty much 90% of all speech could be classified as posing a risk to all of those things. It’s basically banning any criticism the government doesn’t like. Truly remarkable. Now here’s how the magnificent “democracy” of Great Britain plans on dealing with such “extremists.”
They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organizations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.
Although I’m not a British citizen and have never lived in the UK, I have spent some time writing about the disturbing trends happening across the pond due to the historic, cultural, geopolitical and linguistic ties between the U.S. and Great Britain. I warned all about these dangerous trends last fall in the post, The UK’s Conservative Party Declares War on YouTube, Twitter, Free Speech and Common Sense. Here are a few excerpts:
Teresa May wants to “ban non-violent extremist groups that fall short of the current threshold for being banned as terrorist-related organizations.” Think about that very closely. Essentially, she is saying non-violent groups that are currently not breaking any laws should be criminalized by creating new laws. Once this process begins, it will continue to be expanded and expanded until pretty much every form of expression other than government propaganda will be banned.
Secondly, she notes that the new laws are necessary to combat groups that undertake activities “for the purpose of overthrowing democracy.” Considering that the U.S. government changes the meanings of words at a moment’s notice, such as claiming that “imminent” doesn’t really mean “imminent,” I argue that an official government definition of democracy is necessary. Moreover, what if the UK is like the U.S., a state that claims to be a democracy, but in reality is an oligarchy? What are the rules about calling for the removal of an oligarchy?
Have fun mates.
»
- 125472 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Check your white privilege.
Nothing more needs to be said in Amerika. Typing in the cybersphere is waiting for whatever end befalls us collectively and individually. Most of us know what is necessary, but 99% of us will never do it, no matter the provocation.
"It is how a master talks to his slaves. How a ruler addresses his subjects."
I blame the people for this! For too long they have voted for these guys! And what do people of Britain expect? You have allowed Zionism to take full control of Britain. Your spies are in service of Zion, all they do is for someone out there not British. If the people let Zionists like Cameron rule them, then they should expect to be treated like slaves. Cameron is the figure head for Zionist Bankers and Israeli agents who infest all the security and spy services. The corporate and government zionists own Britain and Cameron is simply their agent.
Either revolt against Zionist rule, or live with it. Look at you people! You fucking just elected this guys party to rule you! Whose fault is it them?
amazing the power they have in the anglo countries, not to mention france, ukraine, russia, hungary...
and everywhere, it is forbidden to discuss that power - sometimes it is, absurdly, a criminal offense - literally nothing more but noting the disproportionate-by-%-of-population power.
You would have to be hopelessly naive, or dishonest, to not suppose these hundreds of Jewish and Zio organizations aren't in communication with one another - what is the world jewish congress but the overt organ of that communication.
What was the rape of Russia under Yeltsin?
http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Pseudoscience/harvard_mafia.shtml
Why, if you see a critic of Putin or Russia, is the speaker or writer Jewish far, far more than 2.5% of the time?
Of course - here's the thing, the old Anglo-Saxon families [and I am a British mutt myself mostly] are cunts as well - the British Empire destroyed whole peoples. They are no better.
But you can talk about that.
Sometimes, it is a struggle to see what is right in front of one's nose.
Bear all of this in mind after the EMP.
I can’t wait.
It is the implication of Mr.Cameron's statement that is the most troubling.
What more can a government require of its citizens than that they obey the law?
It's what that statement DOESN'T say that is disturbing.
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/06/camerons-torah-government/
Funny Tyler didn't submit the actual story, but quoted the usual Goebbels-Mohammaden sources.
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/this-is-the-creepiest-thing-david-...
Today in politicians say the creepiest things, David Cameron is actually going to tell his National Security Council this as he announces plans to crack down on radicalisation.
According to a briefing, Cameron is expected to say:
Yes, really.
He will say Britons believe in “certain values”, adding: “To belong here is to believe in these things. And it means confronting head-on the poisonous Islamist extremist ideology. Whether they are violent in their means or not, we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed.”
It’s expected Cameron will introduce a counter-extremism bill in his Queen’s Speech later in May. Planned measures include introducing new orders to ban extremist organisations and restrict people who seek to radicalise youngsters.
The new package is expected to include:
The introduction of banning orders for extremist organisations who use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of proscription.
New Extremism Disruption Orders to restrict people who seek to radicalise young people;
Additional reporting by the Press Association and HT to Adam Bienkov
The bait and switch is
let us protect you from scary extremists
ok, what is the definition of extremist btw?
don't worry your little head about that, just sign here
hey your definition of extremist is someone who doesn't want to be ruled by the banking mafia!
muhahaha
So "extremism" is the new bogeyman, most likely replacing "racism" as the go to smear when Jebillary is "elected". My extremist hero died years ago, but not before he uttered the most important words coming from the mouth of a politician in the 20th century:
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
I agree. The Tyler article, imo, was intentionally misleading as to what was posted in the original source article. What I don't trust from the English GOP is their capitulation to the Muslims under the guise of tolerance.
I can't deny the fear that any such legislation will likely push the envelope against legitimate political dissent. Wow! Just called myself out, nevermind ;0
Extremism defined:
1. Supporting Boycott, Divest, Sanction of Israel
2. Any stories, comments or blog posts supporting Putin or the Rebels in Donetsk
The Brits are doomed. There will be no revolution, no overthrow, no escape. The last group that did rebel successfully made America and now America itself is in a similar trend to doom too, though it took a while.
“for the purpose of overthrowing democracy.”
since the UK cannot really be called a democracy... this shouldn't be a problem.... :")
on the otherhand being able to throw out a government is exactly what democracy is about isn't it ?
Tyranny summed up in one statement by a Zionist tool and psychopath.
Now the why of his statement:
"Government is nothing more than a criminal syndicate of theft and violence backed by a lie."
You cannot be left alone because they want your shit, and need to maintain the lie.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
"The best way to Rob a Bank is to Own One"
It is not legal. It is Accounting Control Fraud, but London and Wall Street are not Prosecuted or Monitored for this kind of White Collar Crime.
- The Data is Even Scrubbed through Bailouts
Failures of all Institutions for the United States and Other Areas, 2013: 22 Number of Institutions (1989 showed 531 total as the FBI, FDIC, and others cleaned up, 2008 is 25 Total, 2009 140 Total, 2010 157 Total, 2011 92 Total, 2012 51 Total, 2013 22 Total), Annual, Not Seasonally Adjusted, BKFTTLA641N, Updated: 2013-09-20
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BKFTTLA641N
The Corporate Bailouts have forever Skewed the Statistics and Skewed the Reputation of US Banks.
Basically the Data is Useless for 2008 - 2013.
Can't stand the bankster mouthpiece myself and none of the other 650 traitors in the house of commons neither. Don't worry I don't vote and managed to get myself off the electoral register because I am tired of all the lies and bullshit this kind speak then are never held accountable for all the broken promisesand theft in this minority controlled democracy.
PS:- If you vote you give them the right under THEIR RULES TO KICK YOU and by not giving such permission as I certainly do not I do not reinforce their entitled power to destroy life.
Hey if he don't like it I don't mind, wearing the NVE T-shirt is a privilige in my mind.
The British election choice is somewhat similar to the former Soviet system where only one name appears on the ballot.
When the choice for Brits is among a guaranteed tax increase from the Labour Party, a banker-conservative party with loss of freedoms on the horizon, and the Independent Party's Nigel Farage who may have been blackmailed into throwing his election by denouncing church weddings while supporting same sex marriage, the voters were bound to select Cameron rather than a tax increase, along with Labour’s customary baggage.
The deepening corruption of political parties appears to be spreading from the American disaster across the European Union. Such is the power of central banks.
That is creepy.
Our governments and their bankster handlers have been propping up fascist regimes all over the 3rd and 2nd world for decades, probably centuries, and let us share in the spoils.
We'll get what is coming to us, so stop crying or grow a pair.
Stop blaming everyone, but the one who is the problem: Americans from every walk of life.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/news05/north-country-residents-have-m...
Israel firster ziopath pukes like you, and dually loyal jews in the us gov, and shabbas goy warmongers like mccain - are a major, leading part of the problem.
Sick, phuck...lick my boot.
you will atone.
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
when will seek_truth seek facts?>
http://ehrmanblog.org/historical-problems-with-the-hebrew-bible-the-conquest-of-canaan/
When considering the historicity of the narratives of Joshua, the first thing to re-emphasize is that these are not accounts written by eyewitnesses or by anyone who knew an eyewitness. They were written some 600 years later, and were based on oral traditions that had been in circulation among people in Israel during all those intervening centuries. Moreover, they are clearly molded according to theological assumptions and perspectives. Biblical scholars have long noted that there is almost nothing in the accounts that suggest that the author is trying to be purely descriptive of things that really happened. He is writing an account that appears to be guided by his religious agenda, not by purely historical interests. That is why, when read closely, one finds so many problems with the narratives.
And what kind of verification do we actually get for the narratives of Joshua? The answer appears to be: none of the above. There are no references in any other ancient source to a massive destruction of the cities of Canaan. Archaeologists have discovered that few of the places mentioned were walled towns at the time. Many of the specific cities cited as places of conquest apparently did not even exist as cities at the time. This includes, most notably, Jericho, which was not inhabited in the late 13th century BCE, as archaeologists have decisively shown (see box 4.2). The same thing applies to Ai and Heshbon. These cities were neither occupied, nor conquered, nor re-inhabited in the days of Joshua. Moreover, there is no evidence of major shifts in cultural patterns taking place at the end of the 13th century in Canaan. There are, to be sure, some indications that some towns in Canaan were destroyed at about that time (two of the twenty places mentioned as being destroyed by Joshua were wiped out at about the right time: Hazor and Bethel) But that is true of virtually every time in antiquity: occasionally towns were destroyed by other towns or burned or otherwise abandoned.
We are left, then, with a very big problem. The accounts in Joshua appear to be non-historical in many respects. This creates a dilemma for historians, since two things are perfectly clear: (a) eventually there was a nation Israel living in the land of Canaan; but (b) there is no evidence that it got there by entering in from the East and destroying all the major cities in a series of violent military campaigns. Where then did Israel come from?
----
oops!
Cameron made a "name" for himself - someone who could be "trusted" with "Matters" of State - as the personal secretary of serial boy-buggerer Leon Brittan (homo Home Secretary back in the Thatcher Imperium).
The Zio-SCUMMM* have "the goods" on this puffy, preposterous, pantywaist poltroon. That's ALL you need to know, folks.
(SCUMMM* - Satanic Cabal Underwriting Mass-Murder & Mayhem)
LOL. +1
I didn't realise Leon Brittan's proclivities towards young boys were so well known. It was that which explains why he had to make a fast exit to Brussels when the heat was turned on.
We need Malcolm Tucker to sort him out.
For the last 100 years, the US has been ready, willing and able to send our troops to foreign countries to free them. It's time we used our military might to free England.
At the rate we're going, they might do better with Russia. At least they'll have some really cool parades.
They're insane. Every last one of them.
So, our revolution against Great Britain has, after all, only bought us about a five year reprieve. We have the same politicians and "experts" here that are hell bent on placing us on the same road.
The UK has their new dictator and we already have ours. Gonna be interesting for the next couple of years.
What's the alternative to being "passively tolerant"? Being actively intolerant?
29th scroll, sixth verse, of Ape Law
'Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport, or lust, or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.'
Fuck you Cameron. I invite you to come to Charleston, SC. Let's see how your rhetoric plays out.
Tropic Of Cancer - A Color (at Room 205)http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jeB3-x_zAyY
They will have a tougher time fucking with the Scottish independent vote next time. which is why they willwork hard to avoid one.
I would have thought, well, scottish independence, at least, is one thing which zionism and jews will not have anyting to say about.
A google search of 'jews and "scottish independence"' disabused me of that notion.
The fucking arrogance and hypocrisy is boundless.
Agreed, it will be interesting. Still waiting for dust to settle.
love to hear what the junkers honestly think
probably something like - jews have a right to live anywhere they please, and oppose the wishes of the host society. they also have an *exclusive* right to live in Israel, and may ethnically cleanse and murder the natives to do it.
And most of all, neither Israel nor wildly disproportionate Jewish power in Britain, or France, or the US - can be discussed at all.
Fuck.
You.
The world is changing, and the old gods rising.
tick tock.
From the people who brought you concentration camps (Boer Wars), the Malaya counterinsurgency and "clean kills"....
Irish War: British DiseaseTony Geraghty 17.09.2000
Or, how Big Brother overcame liberty at home as well as "across the water".In 1968 the world's oldest guerrilla movement renewed its war against the world's shrewdest, most experienced colonial army. An earlier round of this match - the IRA v. the British Army - had been played from 1916 to 1921 and resulted in a clear victory for the Irish, politically as well as militarily. Out of 32 counties, 26 were granted independent statehood outside British jurisdiction. The remaining, Protestant-dominated Six Counties of Northern Ireland, were still part of the UK. It was a poor compromise but the best that could be achieved after three centuries of creeping warfare, terrorism and counter-terror in which the British took hostages, shot them and burned the houses of innocent civilians as a reprisal for Irish atrocities.
The year of sixty-eight was an auspicious one for revolution. In Paris, Les Evenements almost toppled De Gaulle. In the US, Kent State University radicalised a generation of young people already disenchanted with the war in Vietnam. In Czechoslovakia, a doomed resistance movement made its poetic, hopeless gesture of defiance against the Soviets. In Africa, the minority Ibo fought their failed campaign for independence from Nigeria. Not since 1956 (Hungary, Suez) had resistance enjoyed such chic.
The IRA had an opportunity in keeping with the age. A civil rights movement, discarding the worn-out old verities of nationalism (or so it seemed) snapped at the heels of the Protestant jackboot like a terrier. The jackboot obligingly kicked the dog with excessive force. Television cameras recorded the police batons, the broken heads of unarmed demonstrators. It was a brilliant exercise in victimology and agitpropaganda which discredited, at a stroke, the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The age of war-by-perception had arrived. If it were immoral - as Western governments asserted - for Soviet tanks to crush legitimate protest in Prague, then how could London justify the use of police armoured cars and machine guns in Belfast, where they killed a nine-year-old as he huddled fearfully inside his own bedroom?
In August 1969, a Labour government grudgingly permitted the soldiers to move in as peacemakers, foolishly believing they would be withdrawn by Christmas. The IRA rapidly rearmed but as yet it did not enjoy the popular support any successful guerrilla army needs to survive. Then one of its arsenals, in a grimy terraced house in Belfast, was raided by British soldiers. A riot began. The affair escalated. A British general imposed an illegal curfew on the district as a wholesale gun battle began between the IRA and soldiers who had never experienced urban warfare and did not know the city. In the darkness, some British soldiers fired at other British soldiers. By the end of that weekend, and the removal of the curfew, Catholic opinion had hardened against the old enemy and the IRA had the political base it needed to renew the war in earnest.
The British High Command did not, as yet, comprehend the problem it faced. In Malaya, in the fifties, it had fought a successful war against Communist guerrillas which had come to be regarded as a model for future campaigns. The strategy was known as The Briggs Plan, after the general who devised it, Harold Briggs. It welded years of experience of irregular warfare into a doctrine, which he expressed as follows:
"The problem of clearing Communist bandits from Malaya was similar to that of eradicating malaria from a country. Flit guns and mosquito nets, in the form of military and police, though giving some very local security if continuously maintained, effected no permanent cure. Such a permanent cure entailed the closing of all the breeding areas."
So it was that The Briggs Plan required the movement of half a million Chinese peasants from "squatter" camps along the jungle fringe, for these were the "breeding areas" for revolution. They were forced into "protected" villages so that the areas thus "cleared" became zones in which soldiers could use lethal force, on sight, if that seemed right. Resettlement became the key to British counter-insurgency. In Vietnam, the American high command followed the same formula. In Algeria, the French used the strategy, backed by the torture of terrorist captives, to separate the civilians from the armed enemy disguised as civilians.
The policy broke down in Ireland. The use of British paratroopers at Bloody Sunday - 30 January 1972 - to massacre fourteen demonstrators merely suspected of acting as a cover for IRA gunmen was the political and public relations disaster that obliged the soldiers to devise a new strategy. In time, what they evolved was an invisible form of the protected village: an electronic cage in which large numbers of people would lose their privacy in order that lethal force, when used, killed the "right" people in brief contacts that led to a "clean kill." The unwritten rules of this new form of warfare required the terrorist to be caught in the act, gun in hand when he was shot before he had a chance to appreciate that he, not his intended victim, was the target.
The clean-kill strategy got off to a bad start in 1978. A farmer's son, aged 16, ferreting about in a disused cemetery, discovered an Armalite rifle and other IRA stores. His father alerted the police, who called in the Special Air Service. Two SAS soldiers sat and waited, until someone came to retrieve the weapons. Then they shot him. As it turned out, the person they shot was the farmer's son. The boy was prompted by adolescent curiosity to come back for another look.
In the years that followed, however, an elaborate machine that combined surveillance with intelligence analysis was constructed to avoid mistakes of that sort. The Army put together a series of secret groups - the Mobile Reconnaissance Force (MRF); 14 Intelligence Company and their Detachments - trained by the SAS to do nothing else but stalk IRA suspects, day and night. From the Intelligence Corps was created yet another team - the FRU (Field, or Force, Reconnaissance Unit) - whose job is to control informers inside both the IRA and Protestant terror groups.
An Intelligence and Security Group - also headed by SAS officers - tried to co-ordinate this increasingly autonomous series of special units as they grew and operated secretly as part of a fast-growing empire of unconventional warfare, outside the normal rules.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary, learning from the Army, created its own special teams. One of these riddled a car with 109 bullets in 1982, killing the unarmed occupants, who were terrorist suspects. The British police team that tried to delve into this was itself compromised on a pretext of security. In a separate case, a double-agent run by the FRU, used military intelligence files to set up Irish republicans for assassination by their Protestant enemies.
Slowly but surely, the Irish War was becoming a dirty war, Britain's Algeria. The conflict was also revolutionising the techniques of surveillance, techniques that would be turned upon a wider, civilian public in Britain and Ireland with dangerous political implications for the day when - if ever - the Irish conflict were resolved.
Some techniques were as old as war itself, though the use of concealed observation posts by special agents was given a new twist by the SAS soldier who remained hidden under a farmyard dung heap for several days, insulated within a diver's wet suit for the purpose. The use of optics of all kinds was enhanced as microcircuits shrank to the size of a pinhead. Flexible fibre optic ("bootlace") lenses, developed for endoscopic medical examinations - were adapted by special forces to be used in two London terrorist sieges, those at Balcombe Street, 1975 and at the Iranian Embassy five years later. The images were soon being transmitted from the target area by microwave beams (the sort that carry telephone messages) to a relay, or booster station concealed, in its turn, in a small van for onward transmission.
The British developed their systems in Germany as well as Ireland during the Cold War years. In the former DDR, a military spy team camouflaged as a diplomatic mission sent teams into the countryside to record the movements of Warsaw Pact tanks and aircraft. The team, known as "BRIXMIS", was probably the first to use video cameras for military espionage. By 1994, the video camera was small enough to fit inside an electric light switch in the home of a man suspected of a racial murder. It filmed and sound-recorded a suspect, as one report put it, "toying with knives, stabbing walls, windows and furniture as well as pretending to stab a friend in the neck with an overarm blow" as he shouted racial abuse.
Surveillance of moving traffic was given total priority by the British government after April 1992, when a huge lorry bomb shredded two office tower blocks in the financial heart of London, the City. These were the Baltic Exchange, home of world's leading shipping market, and the Commercial Union building. The commercial insurance industry was staggered when the bill of this damage was presented: almost £800 million.
An attack on Manchester's retail shopping centre four years later cost around £400 millions. A few months later, the IRA hit London's financial centre with a 1,000lb bomb causing damage estimated at £1 billion. Yet another lorry bomb, wrecking newspaper offices at Canary Wharf, ending a seventeen-month terrorist ceasefire, cost £80 millions. The British government now began negotiations with the Irish rebels. As one newspaper put it:
"Not since Hiroshima has a single bomb achieved the dramatic political effect of the IRA's strike against London's docklands."
By this time, the London police had investigated more than 1,300 bombings over a 27-year period. The capital, and the approaches to it, were coming under continuous camera watch from automatic recorders fitted to motorway bridges and other vantage points. The driver of the Canary Wharf bomb, James McArdle, aged twenty-nine, from Crossmaglen - a de facto IRA Republic in South Armagh - was convicted as a result of this and an obsessive search for forensic evidence.
Yet in spite of these advances one element was still missing if new and old technologies, from aerial photography to human shadows, were to come together as a convincing foil to terrorists in this new style of conflict. The missing ingredient was co-ordination and analysis of masses of raw data. Of thousands of tourists passing Harrods department store in Kensington each day, which was the bomber? Whose discarded bag of rubbish was a bomb? The mechanism that fused sources of data and became the central nervous system of the New Intelligence network was the computer.
As early as 1974 the British Army in Northern Ireland had introduced the first computerised means of reading vehicle number plates. The system, named VENGEFUL, enabled checkpoints on the Irish border to identify vehicle ownership within thirty seconds. Soon, the system was swamped by an excess of data and by 1977 it was focused on suspect vehicles only. The process rapidly gathered momentum as the "electronic cage", replacing the fortified village of Malaya, became the Army's principal means of controlling civilians. A new computer, named CRUCIBLE, was put into the hands of 125 Intelligence Section in 1987. As the defence journalist Mark Urban noted:
"Crucible does not only store information on people and incidents but also contains data on the ImovementsI of individuals, fed in from dozens of terminals in the intelligence cells of [military] units around Ulster. The introduction of the new computer brought some complaints from intelligence officers who resented the amount of time which their men had to spend feeding information into it...Computerization ..can compound mistakes and the consequences - being detained at roadlblocks or having homes searched - for people entered erroneously in the computer as terrorist suspects are potentially damaging to the security forces."
There was assuredly scope for human error. By the time I was engaged in research for my book, The Irish War, in 1996 approximately one million individuals were logged into the computers of one security agency or another in Northern Ireland: that is, two thirds of the population. Most of them were innocent of any crime except, perhaps, that of thinking ill of the government. As of 1994, for example, the Army had no fewer than thirty-seven separate computer programmes trained on terrorists, their families, their friends, neighbours and "associates" (that is, someone who happened to be observed speaking to them, if only to ask the time of day).
This explosive growth was rendered less omniscient than it might have been thanks to the continued rivalries among separate intelligence agencies, unwilling as ever to share their knowledge, and the fact that the respective computer programmes were incompatible with one another. An independent expert brought in to study the problem in the late nineties found that his reforms were less than welcome to some of the intelligence mandarins, whose secret - and probably illegal - activities in their now almost private war, might have been compromised by shared knowledge in the interests of efficiency. What was missing, as ever in a dirty war, was accountability. The spooks' problem was that technical efficiency carried with it a greater degree of transparency, a shaft of light penetrating into an hermetic culture from which even other soldiers are excluded.
Before examining the impact of this evolution upon British liberty across the board, it has to be acknowledged that as a strategy to meet an elusive, disciplined guerrilla and terrorist, the British Army's machine, in spite of its imperfections, is the most successful and - when wanted - most lethal so far. Since the mid-1980s, UK special forces have gone for the kill at the moment the terrrorists were about to strike, justifying the "clean kill" morality of this conflict and international law. Even the shooting of three IRA terrorist in Gibraltar in 1988, when they were unarmed, did not incur the outright condemnation of the European Court (though it did find that the Gibraltar Three had a legal right to life that was unlawfully breached). A year earlier, in a less contentious but spectacular episode, eight IRA men were shot dead at Loughgall as they attacked a police station. There were many similar cases.
Combined with the leakage from Army sources of personal data about suspected terrorists and their families to Loyalist death squads, a highly effective, precisely directed campaign of counter-violence and counter-terror had been run when the IRA called its ceasefire in 1997. By that time, it was taking a sufficiently large number of casualties to provoke the need of a breathing space.
Throughout the thirty years of the conflict the British, bombs in London, Manchester and elsewhere permitting, averted their eyes from what are euphemistically called "The Troubles", (a word as anodyne as its French equivalent, "Evenements".) Britain, a profoundly materialist society dedicated to consumerism, did not wish to understand the consuming passion of Irish revolution. Meanwhile, a basic British freedom - privacy - was stolen by a burgeoning official intelligence network using the tools of the Irish war in pursuit of paedophiles, drug barons and other outlaws: a process which made the loss of freedom acceptable to all right-thinking people.
In May 1999, the British Home Secretary Jack Straw reminded a London audience that there were now an estimated one million security cameras keeping watch over stations, streets and shopping centres. On an average day in the big city, most people would be filmed by more than 300 cameras linked to 30 separate CCTV networks. In his eyes, this loss of privacy was "a price worth paying" for greater security.
There is a fallacy in this claim as big as London's Millenium Dome. The British, unlike most modern people, are not citizens of the country where they are born, with the rights that status implies. They are not free men and women, but subjects of the Crown, exposed to the caprice and legal exceptions to be imposed by government whenever it chooses. Evidence can be cooked, withheld or exposed only to a judge, in private, if it suits the executive. This bizarre state of affairs - covered by the anodyne phrase, the Crown Prerogative - exists because the British, unlike most other modern nations, do not have the legal protection of a written constitution. There is no US First Amendment; no Gallic-style Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertes; none of the basic rights as laid down so earnestly in the postwar Bonn constitution. Instead, the English - this is an essentially English dimension - work according to an unwritten "separation of powers", spread around Parliament, Government, Judiciary and Crown, all governed by usually unwritten "conventions", "understandings" and precedents. In certain circumstances this situation might become a life-or-death issue. Patrick McAuslan, Professor of Public Law at the London School of Economics suggested in 1988 that "officers of the security services could even be empowered to kill their fellow citizens, for one aspect of the royal prerogative is the defence of the realm..."
Like any ambiguous, undefined system, it is open to abuse, particularly on the part of a control-freak administration of the sort now reigning in London. Ireland has encouraged not only the evolution of intrusive intelligence into the lives of ordinary people, justified by a war morality, but also a distorted legal process and, ultimately, an invisible licence by special military units to cut legal corners, using anything from blackmail and burglary - how do those concealed cameras get into your home in the first place ? - to homicide to achieve a short term success. (The results are not always what is expected. In Belfast, military intelligence officers watched an IRA man as he ordered a new sofa at a department store. Before it was delivered, they broke into the store and wired the sofa for sound, with a built-in transmitter. Next day, the terrorist's wife changed her mind about the furniture. She did not like the colour. It was promptly bought by someone of no interest to British spies).
The end result of this repressive culture, in which agents of the State are above the law, is that the British are now the most densely controlled and covertly surveilled industrialised nation on earth, living in a condition of material affluence and zero privacy. To add to the million CCTV cameras about which Jack Straw boasts we should add the knowledge that approximately half of the UK's workforce is now under the eye of hidden cameras in the workplace. A critical comment about the boss, made during a visit to the toilet, will probably be recorded for use in a later dismissal hearing. (Things could get worse and probably will: Japan has to be credited with a particularly invasive innovation: the employee who visits the office toilet is not merely recorded. The material he deposits in the pan is then automatically analysed for traces of illegal drugs).
Foreign tourists visiting Britain should be aware of what awaits them. Military intelligence cameras are up and running at most ports of entry. Some of these might be linked to the latest, state-of-the-art "face recognition" systems that make comparison with suspects with photographs already on an official database. The practice of intruding on a French citizen's right in this way, as he travelled through the Channel Tunnel, has already provoked angry comment from Le Monde, as a result of which London has agreed to destroy visitors' records (on request) after three months.
Unguarded conversation is a dangerous practice in Britain. Laser-carried eavesdrop devices, linked to voice-identification programmes, pointed at the office window can pick out and magnify conversations. As an alternative, a hidden microphone linked to the right sort of computer will identify one voice out of forty in the same room. (The second of these requires careful preparation: a pre-recorded sample of the target's voice, its analysis to obtain a "voice print" and the calibration of that on the computer). The use of such devices in Britain, at worst, is no more than a minor case for a civil, not criminal action.
Americans, fierce in defence of their right to express ideas freely across the Internet, are already critical of the limitations they will face when a new British law - to pass through Parliament in 2000 - giving the Government, the police, or even local town councils - the right to eavesdrop on e-mail. If this personal data is encrypted, then the new law (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) will empower those authorities to demand the keys so as to decode the secrets concealed within, however personal. To refuse access can lead to a two-year prison sentence.
Some of us wonder why the UK government is taking such trouble. For years, the Anglo-American Echelon programme - a satellite-based, worldwide eavesdrop system - has worked as a vacuum cleaner on behalf of intelligence agencies such as GCHQ in Britain and the National Security Agency in America. The new law will merely widen the application of what is already happening, giving to local officials the godlike powers now limited to government spooks.
Those powers, thanks to the moral corrosion arising from the Irish conflict, are not always wisely exercised. At one extreme is that form of murder described by Amnesty International in anodyne form as "extra-judicial execution". A woman soldier named Jackie George served for several years with an undercover surveillance team known as 14 Intelligence Company. In a book about her experience she says that the Royal Ulster Constabulary "seemed to believe that they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it. The sad truth was that they probably could...They could even arrange for you to die if it suited their purpose."
As yet, critics of Big Brother are not yet targeted for assassination in Britain. They are, however, targeted for intense official harrassment, a process in which the resources of the State are pitched against those of a single individual with the intention of paralysing his efforts to earn a living. This is what happened in my case. In the summer of 1998 an official government censor - a retired Rear Admiral - scanned publishers' lists of forthcoming books and started to take an interest in my upcoming history, THE IRISH WAR. After I had refused to co-operate, my home was raided by six detectives from a police force controlled by the Defence Ministry. After a seven-hour search, my computer, floppy disks and files were seized and I was taken to a police station for a five-hour interrogation. Later I was charged with a breach of the Official Secrets Act, a crime carrying a two-year sentence on conviction. The charge was dropped without apology - though my legal costs were paid by the government - after more than a year of stress, harrassment and stalking.
The overflow of Big Brother's morality, as well as his techniques, into civil society now touches almost every aspect of life in the UK. The sales representative's company car is tracked by the same satellite/computer system as that used by British intelligence against the Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams at a pivotal point in the Irish peace process. While Adams was being bugged and tracked, a leading car fleet operator - GECapital, providing 9,300 cars for British firms - was fitting the "Fleet Command" tracker (one of many available) to its vehicles. The size of a small chocolate box, the device can be hidden at any of eight different places. The Automobile Association, with English understatement, described this development as "not pleasant."
In the office meanwhile, as well as pinhole cameras, employers now check typists' efficiency with the Psychic Watcher, a covert means of logging the number of key strokes typed in any given period. (Intelligence services can do it better: they can decode, remotely, what is being typed).
The unemployed, meanwhile, now come under the scrutiny of SAS-trained agents to confirm that their social welfare benefits are not abused. ("Abuse" in Britain may include cohabitation by an unmarried mother, who is deemed to be receiving economic support from her sexual partner. This law is a charter for neighbours to snoop on the most intimate secrets of others, a process of which the Stasi would have been proud). As the Daily Telegraph newspaper reported:
"Former SAS soldiers are training social security fraud investigators in surveillance techniques as part of a Government move against benefit cheats...One investigator on the training course said: 'They treated us like we were in the Army. The women were treated exactly the same as the men. We are going to be out there 'getting' people left, right and centre."
Already, by 1996, there were 5,000 of these undercover agents at large. One was the diminutive Fiona McAlpine, carrying - as one report put it - "a range of equipment of which James Bond would be proud...A microphone hidden in her handbag strap allows her to communicate with headquarters as she tails suspects. The handbag also has a small hole in the side for a video camera to poke through, while male colleagues have mini-cameras hidden on tie-pins."
Where Britain leads, others follow. All governments have an authoritarian streak in them: it is a necessary muscle, when not misused. Such influential states as Saudi Arabia and others in the Gulf, as well as the UK's malodorous customers in such places as Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigera and Colombia will be glad to pay for the expertise as well as the hardware. The disease spreads further. One correspondent wrote to me after my (highly publicised) arrest: "I work in the computer industry on networks and what I see coming down the line in the way of people-surveillance on and through the Internet scares the hell out of me. Cameras, voice, data, word matching, personality profiles, e-mail surveillance..If Hitler had had this sort of control in 1938 we would all be speaking high German right now." The correspondent concerned is based in Australia.
Is there a solution to the new British Disease? Paradoxically, the spirit of freedom represented by the anarchy of the Internet will prove - already proves - that government attempts to stifle a free flow of information about what it does, is already a deterrent to tyrrany. For the Brits, the only hope of legal protection, however, must lie in the European Court of Human Rights, whose Convention, embodied in a new UK law (the Human Rights Act) was to have been put into effect in October 2000. Perhaps that explains why so many influential people in Britain are so opposed to a closer integration of their country with their more civilised neighbours.
Can you tell what it is yet?
LEARN HOW TO USE LINKS YOU CONTEMPTIBLE TWAT!!!
Learn to use lower case posts. Expand your short term attention span.
/Wanker
all my posts but for that were not upper case.
Yes dickhead - because everyone should post multiple page length copy paste jobs.
Fuck you, ya cunt.
or should I say
suck a bag of
dicks?
Your comment is longer than the article you idiot
Because it's a very important article that predicted the revelations of Snowden 14 years before they emerged. It outlines a methodology of
placing entire domestic populations within "invisible electronic cages", which is precisely what is happening in the UK & US, whether legally or
not.
There's much more to this but, frankly, I can't be bothered to go into detail. If you and the other schmuck can't understand the significance of the above article then,
some time in the coming decade or two, assuming you are still around, you and yours are going to suffer dearly, regardless of whether you live in the US or the UK.
"Former SAS soldiers are training social security fraud investigators in surveillance techniques as part of a Government move against benefit cheats...One investigator on the training course said: 'They treated us like we were in the Army. The women were treated exactly the same as the men. We are going to be out there 'getting' people left, right and centre."
wow, pity the peons think they are free.
Snowden was an exercise in backdoor publicity - "Look at all this spying going on, and at everybody, phew! Who knew?"
However, nothing sensitive released, no changes of behaviour planned, so what is it all about...
"We are watching you 24/7, so you'd better watch what you do and say, or else!"
Snowden is nothing more than the backdoor publicity stunt, advertising a dictator-state threat to ordinary people who thought they were free.
.."“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance."...d.c.
.
all i can say is, this is rancid linguistic "coleslaw", no, worse;
undercover, sigmund freudish, hitler mimmicry is more like it.
.
or, dirty ass rock and roll.
.
John Cale Dirty Ass Rock 'n' Roll (Old Waldorf, SF, 20.6.81)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXk3Olc-iI0
Where's a F*#king Cromwell when you need one.
One of the main (and silliest) shill tactics these days is to fall back on the old "nobody can do anything, you are all lazy and bad" meme. Why do they bother? What is going to happen will happen regardless of the silly little programs put out there to stop it. Despite centuries of trying, governments have never stopped revolutions and will collapse on schedule when their time has come.
Nothing lives forever, especially not the criminal conspiracies of the State.
This is yet another prime example of tptb moving the bar. After the TP and Occupy gathered up steam thru non violent protests that tptb crushed. They changed the rules again. Heven forbid anyone should start an accountability movement or an anti corruption movement. They can ignore questions from any one of us. But if we all started asking the good questions?
Cant have that. Imagine if tptb actually had to answer questions truthfully and provide proof. So no they are simply changing the rules to suit the moment.
Scary Shit
Just to underline how much Cameron is in the grip of the Tribe I see has decided not to appoint an elected politician as UK Pensions Minister. Instead, he will appoint Ros Altmann (former Goldman Sachs - just like Mark Carney) and to do this, he will make her a peer in the House of Lords.
I'm sure the Squid will do everything in their power to maximize the return for British pensioners and not be tempted to play free and loose with the £ trillions under their control.
A vote of 37% gave Cameron the confidence to continue his Zionist network.
In 2013, crowed The Times of Israel: "There are so many Jews at the top of Britain’s Conservative party, Prime Minister David Cameron once quipped, that it should be known as the Torah party rather than the Tory party.”
Two years ago, Stuart Littlewood wrote in the article (Cameron's 'Torah' Government) cited above by Counterpunch:
EXCERPTS (2013)
Ten years ago Tam Dalyell, the 'Father of the House' (i.e. the most senior member of the House of Commons in the British Parliament), sparked a huge row by accusing the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, of "being unduly influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers" .
In an interview with Vanity Fair, Dalyell named Lord Levy (Blair's personal envoy on the Middle East), Peter Mandelson (whose father was Jewish), and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary (who has Jewish ancestry), as three of the leading figures who had influenced Blair's policies on the Middle East. He told The Telegraph: "If it is a question of launching an assault on Syria or Iran…. then one has to be candid."
Blair, he said, was also indirectly influenced by Jewish people in the Bush administration, including Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, and Ari Fleischer, the President's press secretary. …
Dalyell also told The Scotsman on Sunday http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/dalyell-zionist-cabal-runs-policy-on-israel-1-1385178 : "Blair and Straw have become far too close to these people and Lord Levy, who is an unaccountable ambassador in the Middle East, is part of this group. They are acting on an extremely Zionist, Likud-nik agenda. In particular I am concerned that some of them are pushing for an attack on Syria, for reasons of Israeli security. " …
Next day the Guardian reported that Dalyell could face an investigation for inciting racial hatred http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/may/05/iraq.politics. Eric Moonman, president of the Zionist Federation, was seeking advice on whether there was a case for referral. "I believe there is," he said.
Today it is obvious that old Tam was neither nutty nor misguided. He joined the dots and saw the danger, as did many others. ...
(Moving on to Cameron, Littlewood writes:)
Meanwhile the Jewish cabal flourishes. A week ago Ian Livingston was handpicked by prime minister David Cameron for the trade minister job. Cameron, who had previously broken with traditional wisdom and appointed the first Jewish ambassador to Israel, was reported by an ecstatic Times of Israel as having now decided to bring into the government possibly its most committed Jew yet, and certainly its most outspoken supporter of Israel, which Livingston called “the most amazing state in the world.”
Livingston is not elected. He’s appointed… and created a Lord to make it look kosher.
The newspaper went on to name other top Jewish figures in the Conservative party such as co-chairs Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps MP, senior treasurer Howard Leigh, a member of the Jewish Leadership Council; and former party treasurers Richard Harrington MP and Lord Fink, another member of the JLC. …
And to make the Prime Minister feel thoroughly at home in his Torah party a Jewish scholar, after tracing Cameron’s ancestry, claimed he could be “a direct descendant of Moses or, at least, a cousin”. …
The Jewish Chronicle, in its 2006 special report ‘Team Cameron’s big Jewish backers’, revealed the support that enabled Cameron to suddenly burst into the political limelight, almost unknown, to take the Conservative leadership. With no significant achievement under his belt he was then able to manoeuvre, with the help of his backers, into Britain’s PM slot.
He is also a self-declared Zionist and voted for the war in Iraq, so how trustworthy does that make him? In a speech to Jewish fundraisers in London last year he declared: "There is no contradiction between being a proud Jew, a committed Zionist and a loyal British citizen." …
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/06/camerons-torah-government/
Jews are 0.5% of the population
Why should there be so many from such a small group at the top [indeed, chairing] the ruling party?
It is axiomatic that if one group is wildly over-represented, other minorities are under-represented, to say nothing of the majority - you know - the white British natives.
Whither diversity?
Zion preaches it, but in media, government, education... it does the opposite.
Hi
Let me spell out the enormity of the election farce we have just had in the UK.
1 in 7 of the English voted UKIP and got 1 seat.
The Tories didn't even triple that vote and got 331.
Britain is a representative democracy.
How representative is that?
I voted UKIP - as did nearly 4,000,000 others - where are my elected representatives?
Another 82 of them by count.
Under Tory backsides in a fraudulent system that would make a third world dictator blush.
Its obvious that the Tories and the Scottish SNP colluded at some level to break Labour - to the mutual benefit of each.
Cameron wanted a bogeyman to scare the Tories back into the fold and got it in spades with Sturgeon in an oscar winning performance.
Sturgeon needed a dreaded Tory government to either screw or to terrorise the Scots into a quick exit from the Union.
A marriage made in hell.
And Cameron is already up there offering her the planet at the expense of the English - as usual.
Cameron has 36.9% of the vote.
He actually only has a fifth of the population backing him.
But because of the disgraceful system of electoral practice in a British General elections he is able to dominate over the other 63.1% of the people combined and four fifths of the people.
It is electoral corruption to make Mugabe blush.
And has given Cameron - who is a lying sh*t what amounts to virtually dictatorial powers over the country.
Look at Britain and what we have and weep.
And its for another five God forsaken years - including the islamification of the country - the Tories are actually happy with
And thank the british media hacks and presstitutes of the Tory press - who vilified and lied across the whole election campaign aiding and a betting what is an election farce, fraud and travesty.
UK is constitutional monarchy not a representative democracy.
davie will probably lose scotland and wales during his time.
and it sounds like northern england would like to join the scots.
the falklands are next.
the uk will be britain again.
a lump of rock in an angry sea.
how are the padeophile investigations going? lmao
Semantics.
Being a monarchy makes not the slightest difference to it being a representative democracy.
Yes Cameron is protecting all the dirty little establishment and parliamentary paedos can't call them rats - it insults rats. - even child murder has been alleged..
Particularly one outed member of the tribe.
Too ill we are told to be put on trial but perfectly well enough to screw the British taxpayers £300 quid a day in the House of Lords.
Cameron who describes himself as heir to Blair and is believe me - there is a tissue between them - war criminals both - is also sitting on the Chilcot report and has for a long time now.
And its still not coming out.
Chilcot!!!!
Probably one of the most explosive reports ever written in Britain.
The investigation into government, parliamentary, intel and even military involvement in the illegal attack on Iraq and the lies, cover up and fraud that preceded it.
An abuse of power in a country that now has lost all pretense of being a democracy after this last farce we have just had to witness - called an election.
The U.S. Senate would give this prick a standing ovation.
Birds of a feather flock together.
the brits elected him.
just like the amis elected the bushes-clintons-bushes-obamas-bushes/clintons.
what comes around goes around.
doomed
tic toc
70 years ago this was called a fascist.
Let me fill you in on some post election news.
Nigel Farage was the candidate for Thanet.
An area which has just also at the same time elected 33 new Councillors and taken overwhelming control of Thanet council.
So with that massive UKIP vote and the polls clearly showing Farage leading - he sudeenly goes down to a Tory by nearly 3000 votes.
Then the stories emerge
The ballot papers went missing for 6 and a half hours.
Thanet usually declares about 3-4 am in the morning.
But after midnight the establishment were claiming Farage had lost.
No what was lost were the ballot papers.
For six and a half hours.
The count did not start until 8.30 am when most seats had been declared.
No explanation for that either.
They finally declared last of all at something after 11 am.
Unknown members of the public complained to the police and Kent police started an investiagtion.
Here it is.
An interview with the returning officer - who could be up to his ears with the missing papers - and he assured everything was hunky dory.
So that was it,
Investigation dropped.
No answers - not a dickey bird of explanation as to where the papers were.
Of course the Tory Candidate who was a hypocrite even beyond your average Tory was - trumpets blow here!!!
Craig McKinley was elected Police and Crime Commissioner in Kent 2012
So there you have it.
Corruption within the police that takes your breath away.
And bear in mind this wasn't just your ordinary constituency election.
This was to get the superman, the one man the establishment hates - right into the House of Commons where he belongs.
They stopped him and this is how.
All the intel services - and it had to be - needed was a duplicate set of the numbered ballot papers. Easy peasy.
The boxes of ballots - which they clearly had and for 6 and a half hours - unexplained.
They sorted out the Farage votes - noted the number and replaced hem with the same numbered duplicates with a Tory cross.
The votes are all there.
All numbered.
Only, missing for 6 and a half hours.
No matter -the Kent police are on hand to stop any investigation of their chief.
The media are certainly not asking a single question. Farage loses by a stunning and frankly iunbelievable margin - they whipped too many of his votes - and thats that other than the fact they couldn't count them until the boxes were returned at 8.30.
Britain and its media is now so corrupt, so bogus it would make the old USSR stuff look good.
Not one investigative journalist - not one paper wants to know.
They only wanted to destroy UKIP and particularly Nigel Farage.
To stop him - and thats how it was done.
nice info Mog, thanks. makes sense.... UKIP got 12.9% of the national vote & only 1MP,... SNP got about the same number of votes and got 56 MPs. That's showbiz democracy.
Worse.
Much worse.
Ukip got just on 4,000,000 votes including 1 vote in 7 in England.
And one seat.
Scottish Nats got 1,500,000 and 56 seats.
Whats more thats a fraud - Scottish seats are half the size of the English in general so a Scottish vote is worth double an English one.
Thats real democracy - NOT.
And if anyone doubts the collusion between the Nats and |Tories follow the development right before you now as Cameron is Offering Sturgeon the family silver with knobs on.
Thats why she wanted a Tory government and he needed a bogey woman to scare the timid.
And unless you had personally seen the scaring of Sturgeon as she dumped on Labour with tales of how Labour would be her puppets and she would rule England.....
It was a mega performance - used by Cameron to create a totally bogus threat to hit Labour - which of course it did.
What theatre and they ot away with it because the Britis media ia corrupt to the last proof reader.
Pay off time now Nicola lots of goodies coming your way.
Mog I'm feeling' for you. I watched the run up to the vote and the developments of UKIP for months and can see how u were railroaded from way across the pond. There are obviously greater forces at work. Elections are a mere formality. I attended a recent local election vote counting process and saw mind boggling ballot stuffing right in front of party leadership eyes. I'm afraid we are all stuck with evil perverse twisted fascist political processes now. Don't expect anything to change. Great leaders like Mr Farage get assigned to the dust bin of history regularly. The deluded voting public are either mind numbingly ignorant or in denial.
Ron Paul - same thing. Its why I don't donate, watch, care, capaign for anything political. Democracy is dead.
Paul Dennis, who stood for the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition in Rainham North, Kent, insisted the result was wrong because he had “definitely” voted for himself. He got 0 votes.
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/election-candidate-who-got-no-votes-...
and . . . it's gone. Your freedom that is.
to herr Cameron: sieg heil!
It's how our system works in the UK, Cameron was chosen many years before he got elected.
"On the day a young unknown called David Cameron was due to attend a job interview at Conservative Central Office, a curious phone call was received from Buckingham Palace.
'I understand you are to see David Cameron,'said a man with a grand voice. 'I've tried everything I can to dissuade him from wasting his time on politics but I have failed.
'I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man.'
This testimonial - of which Cameron was unaware - was an early intimation of how the ambitious Etonian was helped by well-placed friends and family."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442913/The-faces-Mr-Cameron.html
Democracy is just a word that's used as an excuse to invade other countries.
Rise up Britons! Rise with your kitchen knives and swallowed indignation!
Is 'V for Vendetta' fiction or non-fiction?
Non fiction in a fiction wrapper.
They are slowly forcing those of us who refuse to be cattle or robots to become like V.
Is it worth your life?
You won't know till after it is over.....
both.
in the story the bad guys were right wing nationalists so "V for Vendetta" was itself part of the NWO propaganda even though it accurately portrayed the gulag future the NWO are trying to create.
fascism is socialism.
Without a Second Amendment the First can never be guaranteed.
Without a First Amendment the Second can never be guaranteed.
But without a population willing to defend either, freedom can never be guaranteed.
Maybe they'll all be arrested as soon as it becomes "law".
It's over for the UK. Soon to be totally swallowed up and consumed by mindless Marxist EU visionaries. The Brits had a slight chance in this election but don't stand a glance now with the results. A sad and pathetic history unfolding before our eyes.
Democracy is turning out to be a joke. On you.
Like in the Charlie Brown cartoon when that little bitch holds the football for Charlie to kick then pulls the ball away at the last moment. Ya thats how democracy works. For them. Its just a giant chain yank.
Yes they are laughing at us all.
Basic logic leads me to think it has been going on for a very long time. Looking at the history books its been non stop lies. A fiction from day 1.
What to do about it? Well it starts by calling BULLSHIT on it. They want us to buy into the lies and accept the losses well. The thing is we prolly did not lose. We won is my guess. They just changed the rules without telling us. Because thats how they roll. They move the bar to just out of our reach.
The truth is hard to spot. But I have a little bit of good news for ya. We dont need to know the truth. We can simply call them lies and let them prove they are not. Extrordinary claims demand proof, real proof that must stand up to all questions. Its called accountability. Honest folks like accountability. Our leaders not so much.
Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four views the tribe as the victims of the government and make a tribesman the hero of those opposing the government. It therefore presents a very inaccurate view of what we see today. Maurice Bardèche's Nuremberg or the Promised Land presents a much more accurate view: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/07/maurice-bardeches-vision-of-the-future-part-1/
In 1949, one year after the publication of Nuremberg or the Promised Land, another prophetic book was published, George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In it Orwell describes a scary future in which there is a single party dictatorship, living conditions are drab, food is scarce, people’s thoughts are openly controlled by Big Brother, their words and actions are monitored through “telescreens” which they cannot turn off, they are given no choice over what they view on these screens, there is only one channel on the “telescreens” and one film (always a war film) in the theatres, in one such film refugees trying to escape are shot to the delight of the audience, some of these refugees are Jewish, “the Enemy of the People” is a Jew, Emmanuel Goldstein, who is condemned for “advocating freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought,” people are openly taught to hate him and his followers during “Two Minutes Hate” and “Hate Week,” sex is discouraged through a “Junior Anti-Sex League,” the Inner Party is called the “Inner Party,” thoughtcrime is called “thoughtcrime,” Thought Police are called “Thought Police,” the media propagate obvious, self-contradictory lies such as: “War Is Peace,” “Freedom Is Slavery,” “Ignorance Is Strength,” people are told that democracy is “impossible” (although the Party is said to be its “guardian”), capitalism is viewed as a barbarity that has “vanished.”
The world described in 1984 little resembles that in the Occident today. We live in multi-party democracies. Our mainstream media tell us not only that democracy is possible and a very good thing, but that its triumph everywhere is virtually inevitable, an inevitability which we should make every effort to encourage. Living conditions are generally good, food is abundant. Capitalism is alive and well and is promoted as an economic panacea. Our politicians advocate the same things as does Emmanuel Goldstein. Our media propagate obvious lies such as: “Diversity is our strength,” but they at least avoid flagrant self-contradictions (some kinds of diversity may indeed be a source of strength, although certainly not the radical ethnic diversity that our media promote). Refugees do not flee our societies, but rather risk their lives trying to get into them. We are not taught to hate, but to tolerate. Sex is not generally discouraged, even among the young. With our multi-channel televisions and the internet we are free to see, hear, read, and discuss almost anything, if not everywhere. Freedom reigns. Yet to some that freedom seems, if not illusory, useless. It is useless because people’s thoughts and actions are monitored and controlled not by anything outside themselves but by their own warped consciences, consciences deliberately warped by our mainstream media, consciences closely resembling Bardèche’s “universal conscience.”
Orwell’s and Bardèche’s books have had quite different careers in the Occident. Orwell’s, although formerly banned in the Soviet Union, has been widely read and praised; Bardèche’s is still banned in France and is generally unknown elsewhere. 1984 has served to warn us against the dangers of Communism, and for that deserves acclaim. But one cannot help but wonder if its general acclaim today is not also an index to its irrelevance. We have escaped the dreadful future envisioned by Orwell in 1984. We have not escaped the dreadful future envisioned by Bardèche in 1948.
Bardèche’s book is a classic. It is of interest today primarily because of what it says about the future. Throughout the first three quarters of the book the discussion of the trial is interlaced with somber warnings and ominous admonitions to the reader: “One is proposing a future to us, one does so by condemning the past. It is into this future also that we want to see clearly. It is these principles that we would like to look at directly. For we already foresee that these new ethics refer to a strange universe, a universe with something sick about it, an elastic universe where our eyes no longer recognize things.”
Bardèche has examined the transcript of the Nuremberg Trial and now, like an ancient prophet after examining the entrails of a sacrifice, he has bad news to deliver and knows that others will not want to hear him. Indeed, very few have been willing to hear him. The last quarter of the book is devoted entirely to an exposition of what the future will bring. That anyone in 1948 could have foreseen so accurately our modern world is to me astounding. Bardèche recognized that the judicial travesty at Nuremberg was not simply an act of vengeance by victors against the vanquished and that what was on trial there was not just the particular German defendants, nor the German nation, nor even National Socialism, but rather nationalism itself: the idea that a people own the land that they have long lived in and have the right to live in it as they wish and to exclude others from living in it if they so wish. It is nationalism in any form which was condemned at Nuremberg.
With amazing prescience Bardèche foresaw in its condemnation the coming of an international system which is first and foremost economic, not political or governmental. Its purpose is to protect an international economic élite, not ordinary persons, or peoples or nations. It offers the latter lots of rights but no guarantees that these rights will be respected. Its laws are unclear (unlike those of a prince) and broadly unenforceable, but the system does not attempt to enforce them broadly but only selectively. For selected victims punishments are severe. Victims are selected not so much because they have broken laws but because they have offended the “universal conscience,” the conscience created and fostered in us all by the media (Bardèche’s “radio”). Bardèche clearly foresaw the system which we today call “globalism,” although he nowhere uses that term. He also foresaw at least implicitly many other aspects of our world: Third World immigration, the irrational glorification of democracy, loss of sovereignty, humanitarian wars and interference, hate crimes, affirmative action, racial miscegenation and replacement, etc.: “At the bottom of the sanctuary there sits a Negro god. You have all the rights, except to speak evil of the god.” “And, from one end of the world to the other, in perfectly similar cities . . . there will live under similar laws a bastard population, a race of indefinable and gloomy slaves, without genius, without instinct, without voice. . . But this will be the promised land.”
http://www.lulu.com/shop/search.ep?keyWords=nuremberg+or+the+promised+la...
For too long, we the free people's of the western world have been tolerant of evil, globalist control freaks and the inimical decisions of the political elite often excusing this to stupidity on their part, when their actions are caluclated and methodical with a deliberate goal, this is the goal.
We will tolerate your plans no longer, we will suffer political fools no longer, not your false flag attacks or your puppet army's of fascist fuckwit psychopaths!
We will NOT obey you and We will resist you very step, at least I will.
FUCK BIG BROTHER, FUCK YOU MR. CAMERON AND THE GLOBALIST AGENDA, YOU FUCKING COWARDS
The UK Conservatives are even more of a joke than US Republicans. They promise *not* to cut taxes, they promise to fix the NHS and education by throwing more money at them, etc. If anyone gets censored by these new speech codes, it will be those who point out how much better England was before it had socialism, gun control, and mass immigration.
Time to round up all these extremist politicians and jail them for treason.
We're done!
Fuck jail
Lawmakers can make it up as they go along.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084535/UK-Government-quietly-re...
Luckily for Britons, none of this will matter, as within the next ten to twenty years the place will be the dominion of Muslims. Sharia will be the law of the land.