I remember the slimy BBZ doing a business report from India. That a poor man was able to set/have his own bus driving business was used to show what a great success the Indian economic model was. I remember my reaction to this story was one of puzzlement at how exactly this could be regardd as a success story because I think (I can’t remember exactly now as it was some time ago) the bus-driver had to work a huge number of hours per day, hence spent a long time away from his family, in order to service his loan. Frankly, it looked like the man was in a bit of a precarious position. If he was indeed working so long I didn’t see much chance of him being able to take on extra work and pay off his loan more quickly.
But it was classical BBZ, selectively choosing and talking up something that agrees with the agenda it serves – a capitalist dominated ‘usury is great‘ type outlook.
Anyway, the BBZ reporter hailed the bus-drivers case as a good example of the success of the ‘trickle down’ economy, which again I found to be a rather odd thing to say, people at the very end of the (fake)money pile only getting a trickle is good. Strangely enough, the program didn’t show any victims of the Bhopal disaster (or see the toxipedia website) mass death and even more mass injury thanks to those nice people at Dow Chemicals.
Neither did it show the huge quantities of Indian farmers who were dispossessed of THEIR ancient and ancestral pastoral lands as well as those who were forced to use Monsanto terminator seeds, all of which have lead to the thousands of farmers committing suicide over the years. Oh no! The BBC didn’t show any of this (again as far as I can recall).
Anyway, what triggered this rantlet was that I had just looked ay Xymorphia’s website and found this rather more accurate truism: “Trickles Down? No, Streams Offshore!“. That’s the full picture which the horrible BBZ newz and current affairs division just happens to conveniently forget to inform you of.
Sadly, I’m still unable to get the time to comment on my last two posts. I’ll repost them when I’ve commented. But I HAVE to comment on this.
That horrible Frank ‘Goebels’ Gardner is peddling his trade again.
see: h___ttp://www.b___bc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18015935 (remove the underscores)
Frank in my eyes, is the kind of creature I really don’t like. I have zero confidence that he isn’t part of a British establishment cum ‘intelligence’ [sic] ring placed in the media (like they so often are) just to spread propaganda.
Well here, the BBC allows its “security” correspondent (pfffff!) to trot out his own little conspiracy theory, that the Syrian regime is engaging in false flag operations against itself. The BBC allows this because it fits in nicely with whitey is mighty and white-knightly while darky is naughty and dark-knightly. Where’s your proof Pffffrank?
The weird Lyse Doucet plays the game too, reporting – without challenge: “The opposition says the attacks were carried out by the government itself to discredit rebel forces.”
Come on Frank, why not talk about 9-11 then you creep.
By the way, do you still keep miniature Qur’ans in your ass pocket?
Please note: It is actually entirely possible that Frank is actually onto something. I have no love for the Syrian tyranny, like many so called “Muslim” governments. Who seem to think torture, oppression and idol worship of the countries leader is one of the pillars of Islam. Well, maybe that’s a bit harsh. They are after all largely propped up by their pro-Zionist western masters, so what do you expect. However, the bare faced cheek of the BBC to only channel certain conspiracy theories is just vile.
And actually, Frank would know a thing or two about false flags, wouldn’t ya Frankie.
I’m pasting a home made transcript of the below interview with George Galloway and Paul Stott. Will comment on it later and boy is there a lot to say about it
–
Transcript:
GG: We’re going to talk to a man who I think will emerge in time as the principle debunker of the conspiracy theorists on 9-11. I had the privilege of interviewing today for my television show which goes out on Sunday night, and I immediately thought that we should him to a wider audience and that wider audience is you. Let me say right up top that I have never argued, never, and don’t now, that there are many things about 9-11 that we do not know. And I’m certainly not saying that there are not things that raise very serious question marks. And I’m not saying, I’m definitely not saying, that George W Bush and Dick Chaney are not capable of very nefarious deeds indeed. But I am saying and have always said, will continue to say until someone proves otherwise to me, that to allege, as many do, that this act of mass murder on 9-11 ten years ago was some kind of conspiracy by the Americans themselves, that it might not even been what we thought it was, that it might be for example that these planes were not planes or that these planes were empty, that the passengers were duped or stooges or agents or any of the other plethora of other conspiracy theories that I hear – I just don’t buy them. That doesn’t make me a part of the conspiracy – although many of you out there think I am. Most people listening will find this hard to believe, but there is a class of person on the internet that thinks I am an agent… for George W Bush. I’m not making that up. They think I’m covering for George W Bush. They think that the radicalism you hear from me most of the time, is actually a cover, that I’m a gate-keeper. So, I’ve decided to call in some expert witness and Paul Stott the editor of the 9-11 Cult-watch blog, who’s a distinguished academic, he’s my man. Paul., welcome to the show.
PS: Good evening George, you’re all-right?
GG” Yes. Give me your top 5 will you? What’s your top 5 debunking facts?
PS: Well, I think the first thing to talk about really George it’s why people get these theories and why they believe in some of these theories and I’ve spent a lot of time going to 9-11 truth meetings, speaking to truthers, arguing with them on the internet, and I think very often they have a general… there looking for certainty, there looking for explanations from a world that’s lost a lot of its certainties and they don’t really seem to believe in anything anybody tells them anymore which is probably the fault of some of the politicians you mentioned earlier and they find their answers on the internet, they find their answers on you YouTube and once they start it just becomes a viscous circle really.
GG: Well when I hear people say “I’ve been doing a bit of research”, I know that they mean they’ve been on the Internet. And this assumption that exists that if because something is written on the internet, that it’s true, astounds me.
PS: Yeah I mean there was a time George that if you wanted to understand about American Foreign Policy you would read a book by Chomsky to read a criticism of it, or you read a book by one of the neo-Cons if you were a supporter of a that foreign policy. That period seems to have long gone now. It’s all about little snippets of information, little you know it’s a a sort of three minute culture almost and we’re actually all the poorer for that.
GG: Well it’s the old adage that a little knowledge is dangerous and when people have got that little knowledge from the internet, it’s particularly dangerous
PS: Yeah
GG: Now lets deal with some of the main arguments
PS: OK
GG: The argument that in fact these towers could not have fallen down with only two large passenger plane jets flying into them, that they therefore must have been dynamited down. Answer that.
PS: OK. Well, first thing to say there’s absolutely no evidence that anything other than planes hit. So that’s one of the, you know, you get these no plane theory guys. For people to have brought the towers down with explosives – I don’t know if you’ve ever attended a demolition of an old tower block in London or Glasgow,
GG: Yes, I have yes,
PS: Or wherever, there quite lengthy periods and an enormous amount of cabling has to be laid. Nobody has been seen laying any cabling in either of the twin towers, there was no evidence of any workers going in you know laying the thousands of yards of cabling that would have been needed and to be brutally honest, if your flying two planes into the towers at great speed, why do you actually need also lay explosives?
There is actually some rather interesting research being done that makes the point that for both of the twin towers the NY authorities revoked certain building regulations when the twin towers have been built so that they could be build cheaper so I’m afraid there’s probably some evidence that thy were Jerry build and weren’t as sturdy as they should have been. But we’ve all seen the planes hit. We haven’t’ seen anything of explosives in there.
GG: Now, seems to me that the official versions weakest point is building 7.
PS: Yes…. I think with building 7 the line you always get from thruthers is the focus on this line of ‘Lets pull it”, that one of the owner of WTC7, is alleged to have made. In a way exactly the same arguments apply to World Trade Centre 7 as to 1 and 2. Nobody has been seen placing any explosives in there. A considerable conspiracy of an extremely large number of people would have been needed. No whistle-blowers have come forward, Nobody has been cited up to anything they shouldn’t have been. So, there’s just no evidence as week as strong or as strong as the official story may be. That’s the best story we have until somebody comes up with something else. The line “Let’s pull it” – that’s pretty vague. It could mean let’s putt it down in the future.
GG: Yeah that’s not the main argument about building 7 though. The main argument is “How could it have fallen down?”
PS: Well you’ve just had two planes fly into tow neighboring buildings and those two building come down. You also have uncontrolled fires in that building. You’ve had the Jerry built nature arguably of some of the developments in the world trade centre complex. I think also there’s a background difficulty here George that what you get with 9-11 truthers is they set for everybody else the burdon of proof the prosecution., you know you’re expected to prove every single aspect of the story beyond all reasonable doubt whilst all they require themselves to do is to really play the role of a rather haphazard defence barrister, raising the odd doubt here and there and there’s enough. The world isn’t like that in practice.
GG: What about the Pentagon. They say that there’s no footage ever been released of an aeroplane striking the Pentagon. That the space that was destroyed in the façade of the building was not wide enough for it to have been the size of jet airliner it’s supposed to have been.
PS: Well the, first of all the Pentagon is a military building. By in large you don’t get a lot of footage being released of what’s going on inside all that military buildings. So I’m not hugely surprised we’ve not have every single camera shot of every single angle. The footage you had of the plane going in – you may have seen some news footage of it – the most likely explanation which you see a little bit of I think in the footage, the plane goes through and the wings have followed through, the debris of the wings has gone through behind the planes. It’s also worth noting that with the Pentagon that with the sort the truthers big theory on that emerges from a French guy, Theirry Maison. who wrote the book ‘The big lie’. Not unusually in 9-11 circles, that was actually a work of fiction that eventually got turned into a work of fact. Its’ the same with the film Loose Change. There’s a strong correlation in a way, a strong over-cross between fact and fiction in these circles.
GG: And lastly flight 93. What happened to it? Was it shot down or brought down but the passengers trying to lead a revolt?
PS: I think that’s a harder one. I think at the time of 9-11, America was battered, was humilated and was humbled.
GG: Needed some heroes.
PS: And so I thing that’s the only part of the sort of questions you’ve asked, I can see a little bit on both sides, George. I think we certainly know Bush had given instructions that any additional planes were to be shot down. You’ve got the whole sort of mythology of “Let’s Roll” and what have you. We’ll see on that, really. I’m open perhaps on discussion on that than anything else personally.
GG: Now, how do people follow your Cult Watch blog. What’s the website.
PS: Well, it’s my name, Paul Stott dot typepad dot com and then slash 9-11 Cultwatch or you can just Google my name, go onto the 9-11 Cultwatch blog. The reason really we talk about is from arguing and debating with some truth activists here in London. And you know the use of these terms ‘gatekeeper’, I mean I’m an academic Gatekeeper keeper, Chomsky’s a left gatekeeper, You’re no doubt a media gatekeeper now. And I’m afraid it’s was rather reminiscent from talking to people from Cults, there’s very little, very little you can do to get through to people.
GG: Yeah, there are serious people with serious questions but there’s undoubtedly also a cult around this developed. Undoubtedly.
PS: Yes, yes, and I’m afraid I don’t really see that changing in the short term because obviously the more serious analysts, if you like, or those who’ve perhaps got more interesting arguments to say, there eventually gonna tire of the more you know wacko elements I’m afraid.
GG: That’s Paul Stott, S-T-O-T-T. Paul Stott if you Google him, you’ll end up on the cult watch blog. And it’s worth doing I can tell ya.
The sexual pressure has gotten too much. It’s been too long since Zionist Israyhellis last masturbated over the bodies of dead Palestinians. So to get their sexual catharsis, they’re once again killing more kids and innocent adults whose crime has been to be born on land the Ziofreaks decided to steal. All fully supported by fellow necrophiliacs Obama and Cameron, like all US and UK ‘leaders’ before them.
The real modern axis of evil USUKZ simply cannot stop. It’s love of slaughtering people seems insatiable.
And of course the shitty BBC/BBZ is talking about it as there are no instigators and no victims – other than the poor Israyhellis of course. As usual when the BBZ can be bothered to talk about the killing of a Palestinian, then that Palestinian is ‘Militant’ as though the accused was on some operation in progress with just seconds left before Israyhell came to a fiery end. The BBZ is a real nasty piece of work – a perfect companion to lick the hand of who it loyally serves. It simply cannot and will not report things as they are regarding to the genocide against the Palestinians. It always counters the MASSIVE, instigation of force and bombs (supplied by US with full support of the UK) with some mysterious and totally inapplicable and sickly laughable notion of balance, reducing the eye for an eyelash to equality.
Just imagine them applying their Israyhelli methodology to Cambodia.
I hope and pray the BBZ’s lies and deceptions are easily sen through by the people, and I think they may well.
I seriously look forward to the day the BBC makes it’s last rotten broadcast.
Is Al Jazeera English (AJE) deliberately using the wording “pull” to normalise or numbify peoples minds against this ‘9-11 loaded’ word’? – i.e. the pull word used in the infamous Larry Silverstein interview in which he mentioned watching WTC7’s collapse?
The AJE article in question says “Israel pulls envoy after embassy attack “. Isn’t the usual way to report these things like this: ABC withdraws envoy/ambassador? Isn’t AJE’s title an unusual one? I think what AJE says is grammatically incorrect. The article was written by “Al Jazeera and sources ” – Well, at least the “Last Modified: 10 Sep 2011 07:45” version is.
A friend of mine said Silversteins famous “pull” comment was similarly grammatically incorrect either (in context of getting firemen out of WTC7)
WTC 7 – Pull It By Larry Silverstein
by the way, the alledged comment to firemen was challenged by a “We Are Change” activist:
Larry Silverstein no response to WTC 7 lies
“…the slang in those terms is related the a certain aspect of English, its an adjective. You do not say “pull it ” to bring out people”
If my friend is correct, it is even more pucluar that AJE are also doing it. So I’m even more suspicious of AJE. And dear AJE fans, don’t bother writing in to me to tell me how AJE is good on XYZ and tht reporter PQR is what a journalist should be. I’m NOT talking about individuals here, I’m taking about the whole ethos of AJ and AJE.
Well the mainstream media have done an absolutely pathetic job at bringing up many – or perhaps more accurately: ANY questionalbe points of the events of 9-11.
How far down the inescapable hole have we gone I wonder? Just what are we going to find at the very bottom of it I wonder.
I’ve had some free time to catch up on some videos downloaded some time ago, and I’ve just finished watching a program called On the Edge with guest Tom Secker.
Tom, creator of the claimed 7/7: Seeds of Deconstruction, was recommended to the program by J7T, i.e. the July 7 truth campaign. J7T are a small group of people – and they can get extremely agitated when shitty Israyhell gets a mention, they have poo-pooed “Zionist” connections not so long after 7/7 despite today J7T claiming We don’t have a clue what happened that day – but if you’ll excuse the liberty: We are pretty sure Zionist Israyhell is not involved . It’s not that surprising that Tom was recommended by them because Tom pushes the same ambiguity that J7T do, but in a reasoned and respectable way devoid of non-sequiturs, diversions and/or false accusations.
Tom is asked about the report of the supposed shootings at Canary Wharf (CW). He avoids discussion on that. Well, actually, he does and he doesn’t avoid discussion of that issue. He ‘discusses’ it in so far as he mentions it in terms of other non-CW events.
In the interview, (28:48 start) Tom is asked about “the question of who was shot at Canary Wharf ” Note: The host “alex:g” should have added “media reports of…”.
Tom says
28:59
“One of the various things that came out in the reporting on the day of 7/7, was this notion that there had been some kind of police operation at CW, and there was even this rumour that suicide bombers had been shot there by police marksman.” Now that may or may not have happened.”
29:19
“I’m dubious [about the reports] to be honest…”
“…there’s a lot of different rumours going around on 7/7…”
“..Again, it’s a possibility [the shootings], but it’s something we have to have more solid evidence to go on than simply a few media reports saying this way or that”.
Was that a discussion of the possible shootings?
It didn’t look like it to me. It appeared that Tom was trying to ascribe the ‘CW shootings’ to rumour. Fine, but there is no way he can say for certain the reports were actually a rumour. And immediately after this, the discussion moves onto the return tickets. Tom himself says there’s a contradiction here mentioning the governments narrative binging up ONE report in The Mirror about the ‘return tickets’. He then goes on to elaborate on the ‘problem’ talking about the tickets as factual. Now as far as I remember, I’ve read people claiming the CW ‘shootings’ were mentioned on TV and they appeared in one or more newspapers. Tom discusses this one lone report as if it is factual giving credence to The Mirror’s return tickets, but unevenly didn’t apply this to the more reported CW shootings.
You know what?
It doesn’t really matter. Tom’s an individual. He is free to make his own judgements on what he thinks is strong evidence and what he thinks is something to be avoided. He exercises this liberty here regarding the CW ‘shootings, and makes the personal call that it’s something he finds not productive to discuss. OK. That’s a reasonable position to adopt. People shouldn’t throw horrible slander and lies against him if he says something others don’t happen to agree with.
34:44
“Obviously I have a suspicion that 7/7 was some kind of black-op. Otherwise I wouldn’t have made that film”
Here we see J7T being uneven. They recommended Tom who openly admits he has suspicions (see also 2:31 later) , but J7T fiercely attack and repeatedly libel other who have suspicions, one summised because they are suspicions+Israyhell.
Tom goes on to warn (in an advisory capacity) that independently formulated alternative narratives ‘need to know what covert-op looks like’. This is curious. Who has proposed an alternative conspiratorial narrative and doesn’t know the history of black-ops? It seems likely to me that anyone concluding 7/7 is a black-op/false-flag, then they would almost certainly have read up on other things like the Reichstag fire, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Nero’s Rome etc. I have extreme doubts someone would compose a narrative of 7/7 with only knowledge of 7/7. Perhaps Tom was alluding to something else, because what he said here isn’t particularly logical.
Tom mentions ‘people have pushed the connection between 9/11 and 7/7 for various reasons’ (???)… ” I wonder what reasons Tom knows of ?, anyway…
36:02
“…Particularly with the 7/7 story, what’s so obvious to me, is the number of red herrings there are {I’ve seen that line almost verbatim elsewhere}..Number of things that just been taken down a particular path and it’s then turned out to be untrue.
Well Tom, I seriously doubt you know of any ‘red-herrings in progress’ but it would be nice of you would share them. A other ‘truthers’ have asserted this red herring thing but of course don’t know of any red herrings in progress or have zero proof (other than a reasonable sense of suspicion). But it makes them look smart by pretending they do KNOW these red herrings. What’s more, by asserting red-herrings are part of the 7/7 narrative, Tom is really strengthening his own suspicions that 7/7 was a black-op’ as red-herrings are deliberate acts. And that’s ok. As a thinking human being, he has the perfect right to have those feelings. It would be wise to wonder who, why and how all ‘those’ red herrings are put in place.
Tom continues:
“and the CCTV is a great example of that. You mentioned the conspiracy files and what you there is they got Nick Kollerstrom (NK) who is one of the people who thinks 7/7 was an inside job, was a covert op, and he’d spent three years basically going around saying there is no CCTV from London…”
Excuse me Tom. While I’m not that up to speed with what exactly NK did in those three years, I suspect it was a lot more than ‘just going around saying’ words which perhaps conjure up some homeless man making wild suggestions. Perhaps this would be a bit more accurate(?): “He’d spent three years personally researching, interviewing, gathering evidence and wirting on the subject in the belief there was no CCTV from London – which given none was released for years, wasn’t such an unreasonable thing to do.” – or “going around saying there is no CCTV from London” If you want to stick to Toms description.
“…those four guys weren’t even in london that day, and claiming that one frame we’d seen from Lution was a fake. So what did they do? They roll out CCTV from Luton showing a nice long stretch of action so, kind of proving that it’s authentic, I mean I suppose the whole thing could be faked, but taking it at face value, and then they show him CCTV of these four guys walking through Kings Cross and he’s flabbergasted, ‘cos he’s been rolled down a cerain path only for them to cut him off.”
Kind of proving it’s authentic? huh? Is it authentic or not? Tom himself later allows for the possiblity that it wasn’t authentic. So Tom, you should really have said perhaps “suggesting the the audience that it was authentic”. Tom again is taking something at face value, which is what NK did before the footage was released – i.e. at face value there wasn’t going to be any footage. And Tom does say various people had requested that exact footage. Tom is impaling himself on his own sword somewhat. To the best of my recollection, the Luton video DOES NOT show the alleged ‘4 bombers’. If you can make them out to me and prove the tape is genuine, then ok, your words make sense.
As for the single frame, MANY people inc some in J7 made statements suggesting the single still frame outside Luton train station was fake, what with bars going through bodies and strange leg dirextions and no distinguishable faces, or if you prefer Toms description again “[NK] claimed the photos were fake” – which by the way there isn’t any proof that they are not fakes!
Maybe Nick did make a boob on the CCTV in London thing. Like any serious investigation, the leading model can then under improvement to fit the known evidence. But of course to those ‘loving liberal’ truthers who hate NK and wouldn’t hesitate to fling muck at him [Nick suspects Israyhelli connections] would use that to dismiss everything NK has ever done or said re 7/7.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it Tom. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that what you find ‘strange’ will eventually be given a palusible explaination. Don’t worry, I’m sure J7T won’t hate you, after all, you don’t mention the “I” word. So readers will have to excuse me for thinking that it wasn’t unreasonable to think there was going to be no CCTV footage. I’d hazard a guess that this crossed almost everyone’s mind at some stage. (c.f. 9/11, pentagon, hotel camera)
The ambiguous approach does have it’s merits, but as I’ve pointed out a couple of times before, it itself is limiting. An alternative narrative based on the facts is inherently closer to the real truth than some amorphous ‘blurr all’ ambiguity. Of course, alternative narratives (subject to human prejudice and biases) can fall foul of information in the hands of people(government) who themselves have an interest in trying to de-rail truth seekers, should the govt be involved with the deliberate killing of civilians. That said, it is mightily peculiar that those in possession of such material (which independent researchers can only scratch and scrape for) can only deliver a narrative that is less plausible than those independent researchers.
It tirns out that Nick probably made a mistake going on a BBC program intent to scorn independent narratives (while glossing over the govt’s Swiss cheese narrative) and J7 didn’t do this to their credit (one wonders why the BBC didn’t take the liberty of picking up on J7’s alternative narratives anyhow). My guess is Nick though he could publicise the problems with the govt’s narrative and show people there was an alternate explanation. But still, we all make mistakes.
Note: If someone proposing a ‘shitty Israyhell’ connection of 7/7 had a name like “alex:g” I can imagine the stinking ridicule that would flow their way from some quarters. Such an “Israyhell’s involved” researcher would also have suspicions flung at him for appearing on the mainstream media.
This interview shows clearly the rank hypocrisy amongst some who call for the truth, oops, I mean the truth(which doesn’t involve Israyhell).
2:31
“When 7/7 happened I instantly felt that this was something that didn’t really didn’t add up, that what what we were being told probably wasn’t true.”
Well done Tom for being honest and humanly flawed like the rest of us and acting on feelings. It matters not what points I make here. Your effort to advance the truth emerging from that day is applauded.
Tom based his documentary on what he said was:
“the reported facts, at least what it is we’ve been told what reports say the media has said”
{Don’t forget the CW shootings folks}
–
Finally, that Jaguar, surely that’s a deliberate plant. Surely! I can’t believe the police(?) pouring over that CCTV and scruitinising it for month upon month, would not have ‘seen’ the issue of the Jag.
And what do you know, A car which appreas to be a Jag AMAZINGLY appears what also amazingly looks like a blue micra parked in Luton train station, in a helpful “visual aid” for readers see: J7T picture contained in the post A Nissan Micra Tardis?
Here’s some more of Tom’s words:
“When 7/7 happened I instantly [my emphasis] felt that this was something that didn’t really didn’t add up, that what what we were being told probably wwasn’t true.”
I’m a movie buff and in the last few years, Scandinavian movies have shouted out, drawing deserved attention to themselves.
As a youngster, Ingmar Bergman of course was well known, but he was all that was Scandanavian cinema, at least in my eyes anyway, but as I said, that perception changed in the alst few years. Now, I like to try and hunt out these kinds of movies. Note: European cinema in general usually provides the best cinema as opposed to US, hedonistic cinema.
Hence, I was rather pleased to unexpectedly come across this:
Time Shift – Nordic Noir: The Story of Scandinavian Crime Fiction
h_ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiwObVhyoc8
A bonus is that it’s narrated by Mariella Frostrup – who I’ve always had a bit of a ‘thing’ about!
This documentary, given the recent massacre of about 90 pro-Palestinian youths by Anders Behring Breivik on that Island, is made all the more interesting as it shows ‘signs’ that a Breivik style incident was quite possible. Hindsight of course, does have that property which often makes past thinking (present at the time) look rather dismal, but you must admit, that here, for example what happened to Steig Larsson, does rather force one to think that some kind of attention should have been paid to the these far right groups, be that initiated or strengthened.
The Scandinavian countries seem to have had relatively humanistic governments (although that statement could legitimately be challenged with regards to the odd action by the said governments in the recent past) and they have seemed quite open to take in refugees and so on. An USan Dr. of Philosophy Dr. Samuel Embo who I’ve had the pleasure of chatting with a couple of times did a study of anti-Islamic sentiment amongst Sweeds and his findings also make me think that the authorities should have noticed the growth of this ‘hot-spot’ issue, with its potentially lethal concequences, consequences which these unchecked pro-Nazi (hence pro-Zionist) bunch of thugs have made materialise.
Anyway, back to the movies. The documentary gives a simple possible explanation as to why Scandinavian crime fiction has grown more popular, but they left out a very important point, which most people leave out when they talk about good movies, and that is, the thing that makes these movies very good (can be found in other usually lower budget – read less computer manipulation – movies) is that of the HUMAN element. When the human elements (emotions, experiences, hard times etc) are strong, it really strengthens the movie. That US Hollywood movies focus on SFX shows why they tend to be, in general. much more shallow. That isn’t to say all SFX movies are automatically more lame, Avatar without CGI (which still looks synthetic, although the least irritatingly synthetic CGI I’ve seen) cannot really escape it but was still an OK movie overall… but of course it hid behind a ‘human’ element, without which it would have sucked.
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
Recent Comments