Archive for the 'spin' Category



Whose racism is it anyway?

In addition to trampling around the world stealing peoples resources and slaughtering millions of people, The British are also accomplished at kicking up a fuss about nothing, and because the world in their eyes revolves around them, they often say the most amazing of ignorant things.

There’s a case in progress as I type: Regarding Liverpool Football Club player Luis Suarez. Apparently people who know him would not call him a racist (actually I think everyone is racist to a degree – especially if you are really honest about the definition of racism – i.e. treating people differently because of their racial traits, but what I mean is that Suarez (probably) does not believe in  or conduct spiteful/hateful/ugly/intimidating racism), but those who don’t know him say he is a racist. Hummm.

Suarez is said to have called the Manchester United player Patrice Evra, ‘negro‘ many times in a football match a few months ago.

Apparently, in Uruguay, the term ‘negro’ is not offensive, but it is (supposed to be) here in the UK, and as we know, the world must conform to white, pretty-hollow-in-sincerity, feel-good British political correctness.

I’m pretty crap with names myself, and I see no reason why Suarez must know Evra’s name to address him by. Is it a compulsion that a footballer must know all the names of all the professional footballers in any particular nation du jour? Remember the frequency of meeting a fellow professional footballer is probably going to be about a usual 180 minutes per year (2 football matches bonding most teams together in a home and away fixture). OK, I guess he could have asked or could have looked at the back of his shirt even!

The BBZ is loving all this racist pantomime. It reports lord Ouseley as saying…

“…all we have heard are denials and denigration of Evra..” – source: h ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16424487.stm

That’s absolute crap. All we’ve heard about is Suarez’s alleged racism and the manufactured outrage – like Ouseley’s

Ouseley is practically given a soap-box by the BBC and goes on to say:

“…Liverpool’s vitriol has increased.” – Although Ouseley may fantasise Liverpool doing that, they haven’t. Ousely is just talking bollocks!

Going on even more, Ouseley, WHO HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS, says

“…This was a dreadful knee-jerk reaction because it stirs things up.”

Ouseley I think, should engage in a wee spot of self-analysis.

Windbag Ouseley, having deflated himself, leaves the BBZ on the prowl for some other stirrer to try and keep the anthropogenic storm-in-a-tea-cup on the move.  Such behaviour by the BBZ is far from uncommon. Every time the US brews up a ‘terror’ incident, the BBZ wheels out some idiot who takes themselves far too seriously, such as that spine chilling creep Frank Gobeles Gardner – the aptly branded terrorism expert(!) – to say all the ‘right’ things of ‘Al Qaeda hallmarks and sources say this and sources say that…. etc etc etc *yawn*…

The BBZ plummets for Piara Powar. Yeah, Piara Powar. Come on, you know… P i a r a  P o w a r.

The BBZ reports Powar as saying:

“Liverpool have constantly undermined the investigation and its outcome,” he told BBC Sport.

The BBZ doesn’t say whether Powar’s view was solicited or that Powar took it upon himself to contact the BBZ, but I have my suspicions as to what went on there.

More bollocks. Liverpool FC did NOT undermine the investigation. It simply showed support for one of it’s employees which it felt (with natural vested interest of course) had not engaged in racism.

Oh, by the way, did you know Powar’s wife, Assmah Mir was a BBC Five Live (radio) presenter. Funny coincidence that, hey?

Power rattles on…

“They have been disrespectful to the FA and questioned its integrity and neutrality. “

Yeah, The only reason therefore that the FA have taken NO action against Dalglish or Liverpool FC, is because the cat ate the charge sheet and the only reason Liverpool have decided to challenge the ban & fine…. NOT, but Powar obviously thinks acceptance of the punishment isn’t relevant.

But the BBZ isn’t finished yet, not by a long chalk. It makes a story about the PFA

h ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16424872.stm

It reports Blackburn striker Jason Roberts (who doubtless like Ouseley and Powar pro-actively contacted the BBC Sport department and weren’t solicited for their views by the BBZ) as saying this…

“If you’re going to come and play in the Premier League and live in our society it’s important that you understand the rules we abide by.”

One remembers BBC Radio legend, Alistair Cooke (RIP) and his “Letter from America” program telling us how the term ‘African-American’ was actually thought of as racist in the US, in Cookes era. With this revelation and an appeal for you to ponder what, in reciprocity, cultural education should be given to European footballers on the naming of African players should they ply their profession in Uruguay, cements perfectly my opening paragraph.

Advertisements

Are you a MF’er?

i.e. did you invest in MF Global?

If you did, then to me, you deserve to have lost your money. In my eyes it’s not much different from investing in Goldman Sachs, or getting financially involved with the IMF.

Watch this.
FBI Probes Trading Firm MF Global’s Sudden Collapse

“MF Global invested in the Debt of Italy Spain Portugal and Ireland. leveraged by 40:1”

So here we have a leech company living off the debt difficulties of others.

And guess what, Gereld Celente, that ‘Knight of the little people”, had investments in this company. So Gerald, your lovely man of the people’s image – rather like your rather questionable investment – has crumbled.

haha.

I don’t give a monkey’s if you say Farmers invest in futures. That sounds like spin to me. Don’t try and put yourself in with Farmers. Somehow, just somehow, I doubt it’s the same kind of futures your investment with MF Global involved.

Gerald was/is a MF’er

Gerald admits his loss:
Gerald Celente: Don’t be next in line to get M-Effed – MF Global. http://12160.info/video/geraldcelente-don-t-be-next-in-line-to-get-m-effed-let-me-break-i

[KR213] Keiser Report – ‘First Call’ For The Big, Blonde Hair & Shiny Teeth
http://maxkeiser.com/2011/11/23/kr213-keiser-report-first-call-for-the-big-blonde-hair-shiny-teeth/

Futures are gambling and phony usurious economics.

Like all gamblers, they smile when their gambling pays off, but weep when it fails.

Shame on you.

7-7 Researcher Tom Secker – On the Edge

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.

http://www.   youtube   .com/watch?v=ql59RPRL4v0

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.”

Too big to fail met with too stupid to succeed

While these riots – which I feel the media is massively hyping up – may have been initiated by the cold blooded killing (with with it seems, the common ‘post-incident-cover-up) of Mark Duggan, and later assault on a young girl by a gang of police thugs by another name, there’s a pretty good chance that resentment against the post 9-11 modus operandi of the fascist democratic State, along with that of a very dirty Metropolitan Police Force, has built up over the years to the point that the riots were pretty much inevitable.

The obsequiousness of the State towards the rich along with its mass-murder based foreign policy are horrid enough, and that these riots are doing noting at all to change that and actually hurt the ‘ordinary folk’, deserve nothing less than the fiery grave they are currently inflicting on some to right now.

Yeah, the lamentable media is – for the sake of its own rotten agenda – publishing these “See, the common fold are paying a price” stories, but nobody could argue that such stories should NOT appear.

It is simply wrong that the real centres of power and money – which are responsible for imposing the massive financial debacle upon us all – are NOT the target of peoples anger.

Where is the mass invasion of Westminster? Where are the citizens arrests of Police officers? Where is the sacking of the courts that fear to uphold the smallest moral law against butchers bLiar, Brown, Cameron ‘n his ventriloquists Dummy Nick Clegg et al? Where are the crowds throwing the ‘royal’ family out into the streets and handing the gold plated rooms of Buckingham palace to the homeless and hungry? Where are the massive  withdrawls of money from the banks? Where is the pathetic ‘organised anti-war’ movement calls for non-payment of tax?

It’s no bloody where, that’s where.

This riot is just going to ‘achieve’ one thing and one thing alone, and that is to knife in the back, the energy needed for the real and utterly necessary overthrow of the establishment.

Oh how the filthy rich (a title usually deserved) must be raising their champagne glasses to these riots.

 

Dear white Europeans

“Dear white Europeans, please come out in mass protests condemning the terrorist attack in Oslo, don’t be silent, the moderates amongst you must reject him. If you don’t, how do we know you don’t all agree?”

Craig Murray also put up a good post entitled “Islamophobia Run Wild” about the BBC (and other Corporate MSM) on this terrorist attack.-

 

Oh those Grima Wormtongue’s

A video I posted in the comments of my last post, just wouldn’t allow me to let it lie.

Here’s the vid again:


_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POjorjwfnZ0

1m18s :

“Nothing can be further from the case”

– strangely, the correct word, ‘truth’, escaped him. Who’d have thought.

1m38:

“It is absolutely essential for parliamentarians that they should have a sense of security that they’ll not going to be pursued by the police for dong their job. Without that our democratic institutions are going to be jeopardised.

This isn’t about some “special” status for form MP’s. It’s about providing them with the protection under the law which should be extended to every citizen but it is recognising that members of parliament have a special role to play in holding the government  to account.

That’s our intention.

Typical beguiling establishment slime; this convenient police raid (Dec2008) certainly wasn’t because someone was ‘doing his job’. What trickery pokery.

Our allegedly ‘democratic’ institutions are rotten to the core and practically non-functional. There are not in ‘jeopardy’ at all. Unless he meant they are in jeopardy of improving. Yes, that’s it. To feel good about a supposed police raid on an MP is in jeopardy of perturbing the Westminster slop.

It most certainly is about special cases for MP’s. Dominic Grieve, Shadow(y) Home secretary at the time, says this because there are some people that will think it is exactly about a special case. They thought that way because it certainly was about a special case.

‘should be extended to every citizen’ – SHOULD BE!. i.e. isn’t currently, and one suspects the wormtongue would be happy it it was ‘on paper only’!

I think that pixie-dust “opposition/accountability” point no longer washes.  when have opposition MP’s held the govt to account and most importantly, when have they held the govt to account on issues that matter. E.g. Gulf war and saddling the people with billions of pounds of debt.

‘But it is about…’ – Ah, here comes the admission that it certainly was about a ‘special case for MP’s’ and what’s to follow is about the spin/PR on how to sell it.

All shoe-scraping stuff.

“That’s out intention” – That has as much integrity as a pre-election pledge.

Here’s a juicy conspiracy theory for you.

Updated

Statement: Unless we experience personal involvement, unfortunately we are hostage to what information others decide to reveal. End statement.

The official version of 9-11 is something only a moron would believe. Yes, there are many people who believe it, but there are many who don’t.

The number of people who didn’t buy 911 was deemed unacceptable, they posed a real danger to maintaining the belief the bulk morons held.

‘Unfortunately’, it’s quite difficult to pull off a false flag (FF), because to hood-wink an increasingly aware, discontent, sceptical and WWW empowered population, you simply must make (or synthesise) credible strings-of-involvement/culpability to those you wish to blame, i.e. people who really, had nothing to do with it.

Use of patsies/stooges is perhaps the most powerful and basic way to create these strings – be the patsies aware [via Radicalisation manipulation; =difficult] of what’s going to go down or not [engage them in a oover story; =much easier] of what they were really being asked to do.

And so an ‘effect multiplier’ idea was born to try and maximise success at pulling off a FF.

As part of your FF, you deliberately incorporate questionable issues into the initial event.
This has a number of advantages, only some of which are mentioned here.

1a) It muddies the waters disguising the real event of that day.

1b) People spend large amounts of time chasing these deliberate inconsistencies – some ending stranded in a field of ambiguity.

2) It allows you to create a ‘truther’ group to gain ‘trust’ amongst other would-be dangerous ‘truthers’, people who may actually uncover your can of worms.

Through your group, you can dribble information – via official channels – according to your requirements, and whether you set up your ‘truther’ group or not, you can achieve the same effect by cleverly laying the same decoy trail of crumbs that you’re pretty sure will be picked up and followed along the path you so desire.

In relation to 2), there’s probably times when you need to silence ‘truther competitors’ out of the way. This can be achieved in a number of ways, e.g. by making fake truther competition groups simply for the purpose of being knocked down – when necessary, hence raising the stature of your chosen (owned or guided) truther group.

You can also set up people whose character is questionable, get them to parrot some line (probably along with some of the truth mixed in with it) destroy their character and the truth they were actually saying {although this is dangerous, you don’t really want any truth to come out at all} is destroyed with them in the process. Kill the messenger to kill the message.

Overall, The most successful way to get away with a FF, is, after the event takes place, to continue to drip more false trails into the mix to hook even more people, ‘truthers’, into a false trail.

Also, as time rolls on, you have the option of destroying some of these false trails simultaneously with the REAL version of events of course – better still only <i>parts</i> of the REAL story!.

Few of the (already)few would notice REAL events of the FF being thrown in the bin, obscured by the adjacent other versions/elements speeding their way into the garbage bin.

So you don’t actually ‘fix’ the narrative. A narrative is necessary, and it pacifies most of the aforementioned believers, but the narrative itself is deliberately false to allow for this incredibly empowering FF management dynamic, while using the minimum number of people to keep the whole thing under wraps.

Most in the establishment will of course follow the official narrative, no matter what crap it is. the real trick lies with the non-official ‘truthers’ and is where attention is naturally focused.

Update: Oh, and on 7/7, I have to say, it seems the ‘truth’ movement is rather split along two lines: One where mention and question of Israyhells role in 7/7 gets a good venting, and the second, pro-Israyhell camp, that launches tricks, tactics and ad hominen attacks on those probing the Israyhelli line, or indeed, anyone else who has given criticism of those who genocided and stole their way into Palestine.

It’s also quite telling that these attacks are practically a one way street, and are hardly reciprocated by those putting  attention on Israyhell.

All these instances add up, and they will do so for a reason.


Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!

JUST:

JUST - International Movement for a Just World

ICH:

Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
August 2019
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
Advertisements