UPDATE:
The media frenzy surrounding this pathetic attack is just ridiculous. 24 hour non-stop political wet dream of fearmongering and disinformation.
A burned out car does not in anyway justify the massively over the top orgy of terrorism tv. Please could they just report, for once, on what has actually happened? You know, just for once, please? And not on mindless, brain-dead, speculation on top of propaganda on top of blatant lies.
The mainstream media is screwing its own reputation more and more by the minute.
the fact is we have a burned out car and two arrests of "Asian" looking people.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
If these pathetic and useless so called terr0rists actually pull off a real attack, then report it. until then, GET A FUCKING CLUE!!!
The media is a fucking joke!
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Is that it? I am not giving up my liberties for these pillocks.
So, all the liberty removing laws. The constant hysteria in the media for years, the total consumation of fear that drives political media in this nation, warning of deadly attacks, attacks so severe that laws MUST be implemented that remove our freedom and liberty for our own good. A threat far far worse than anything Hitler, or the IRA could subject us to, A threat unlike anything we have ever seen before.
Well they are half right. This is a threat unlike anything we have faced before as this is a threat that is far, far more pathetic than anything we have ever faced before.
The attack at Glasgow airport is the first that has happened that has no Government link or clear attribution to the security services.
If this is all these so called terrorists can achieve over here then they can fuck off. There are home grown hooligan kids on council estates far far worse and more dangerous than these fuckwits.
I am not giving up my liberties for these pillocks.
I have just heard the police mention 911 and all the other so called "low tech" terrorist attacks to imprint fear. These attacks are so pathetically, rediculously inept that they could not scare a small child, so the specter of 911 must be mentioned to link the two. When the attacks are so lame, that they have to mention other intelligence sponsored attacks in order to subliminally increase the impact of these useless and woefully inept attacks, you know they are in trouble.
"Oh look, we are being attacked! You are in DANGER!" But this is pathetic, I will not fear this! "Oh but 911 was committed with box cutters and this could have been just as bad"
WHAT UTTER BOLLOCKS!
So anyone buying gas cannisters for their home barbequeues or their patio heaters will now be a target for the police.
This is all a sick joke.
Well they are half right. This is a threat unlike anything we have faced before as this is a threat that is far, far more pathetic than anything we have ever faced before.
The attack at Glasgow airport is the first that has happened that has no Government link or clear attribution to the security services.
If this is all these so called terrorists can achieve over here then they can fuck off. There are home grown hooligan kids on council estates far far worse and more dangerous than these fuckwits.
I am not giving up my liberties for these pillocks.
I have just heard the police mention 911 and all the other so called "low tech" terrorist attacks to imprint fear. These attacks are so pathetically, rediculously inept that they could not scare a small child, so the specter of 911 must be mentioned to link the two. When the attacks are so lame, that they have to mention other intelligence sponsored attacks in order to subliminally increase the impact of these useless and woefully inept attacks, you know they are in trouble.
"Oh look, we are being attacked! You are in DANGER!" But this is pathetic, I will not fear this! "Oh but 911 was committed with box cutters and this could have been just as bad"
WHAT UTTER BOLLOCKS!
So anyone buying gas cannisters for their home barbequeues or their patio heaters will now be a target for the police.
This is all a sick joke.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
WTF?
In Foreign Affairs, the publication issued by the CFR, Mitt Romney pens the following:
There is not one jot of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, let alone a relentless one and Iran has never uttered any genocidal threats against Israel, they have only called for regime change (something America and Israel do regularly BTW) and the current administration know this, yet, as with Iraq's non existant WMD's, these brain dead religious extremist tools of a zionist entity continue to spout blatant and known lies for all they are worth.
Ahmadinejad has no military power, he is not head of the Iranian armed forces and has never called for war with Isreal, for more of what Ahmedinejad actually has said, look here.
So you know that with Mitt Romney there will be many more needless wars of choice based on lies, more of the American taxpayers (yours) money and the blood of American youth being overtly sacrifed on the alter of political cowardice and supine submission to a foreign entity.
If you want to cast a pro American vote, then Mitt Romney is not a viable candidate. I would suggest Ron Paul.
There is no path to peace, peace IS the path. Vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.
"Today's challenges are daunting. They include the conflict in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban, and global terrorist networks made even more menacing by the threat of nuclear proliferation. While Iran's leaders relentlessly pursue nuclear weapons capabilities and spout genocidal threats against Israel" {my emphasis}WTF? This utterly abysmal paragraph, devoid of fact and yet utterly dripping with propagandistic venom is but one of the many reasons why I support Ron Paul.
There is not one jot of evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, let alone a relentless one and Iran has never uttered any genocidal threats against Israel, they have only called for regime change (something America and Israel do regularly BTW) and the current administration know this, yet, as with Iraq's non existant WMD's, these brain dead religious extremist tools of a zionist entity continue to spout blatant and known lies for all they are worth.
Ahmadinejad has no military power, he is not head of the Iranian armed forces and has never called for war with Isreal, for more of what Ahmedinejad actually has said, look here.
So you know that with Mitt Romney there will be many more needless wars of choice based on lies, more of the American taxpayers (yours) money and the blood of American youth being overtly sacrifed on the alter of political cowardice and supine submission to a foreign entity.
If you want to cast a pro American vote, then Mitt Romney is not a viable candidate. I would suggest Ron Paul.
There is no path to peace, peace IS the path. Vote for Ron Paul in the primaries.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
It is unrealistic to elect Ron Paul.
This is one response to the video linked to the title of this post, that it is unrealistic to support Ron Paul and hope he wins the Presidency.
That said, I believe that we can achieve the election of Ron Paul. We need belief and energy. Belief is the engine that helps tranform energy into matter. We can create this future of our dreams. We need belief and action.
Educate everyone. Spread the Ron Paul message. Get everyone to contribute and volunteer as much as they are able and even more.
A truly worthwhile revolution requires revolutionary and unrealistic levels of energy. Demand that people are unreasonable in their efforts.
Meanwhile we should all be unreasonable.
Is it reasonable to accept global perpetual war?
Is it reasonable to force fake democracies onto other nations at gunpoint?
Is it reasonable to accept the federal reserve creating money out of thin air and then charging interest upon it? (The interest that is charged is never loaned into circulation, so can NEVER be repaid. So the national debt gets bigger and bigger by design, that is why taxes always go up!)
Is it reasonable to pay unconstitutional taxes on your labour that is exchanged for cash? (income tax)
Is it reasonable to accept being subservient to the Government by the issuance of ID cards in a FREE COUNTRY?
Is it reasonable to give up your freedom and liberty to gain the false pretence of security?
Is it reasonable to live under a self declared dictatorship and the tyranny that is generated therfrom?
It is time to be unreasonable and unrealistic and to take unreasonable action to achieve the unrealistic aims of PEACEFULLY retaking the Constitutional republic of the United States and reinstating it as a beacon of freedom and liberty for the world to see and emulate.
It will take an unreasonable amount of effort to achieve the unrealistic goal of a Ron Paul Presidency, but is it worth it? I say it is. We shall unreasonably promote Ron Paul's message endlessly, to be heard everywere, and I say we do it and keep doing it and never tire of doing it until we succeed.
The whole world cannot afford for us to fail and that is the most unreasonable thing of all.
Ken Hall.
That said, I believe that we can achieve the election of Ron Paul. We need belief and energy. Belief is the engine that helps tranform energy into matter. We can create this future of our dreams. We need belief and action.
Educate everyone. Spread the Ron Paul message. Get everyone to contribute and volunteer as much as they are able and even more.
A truly worthwhile revolution requires revolutionary and unrealistic levels of energy. Demand that people are unreasonable in their efforts.
Meanwhile we should all be unreasonable.
Is it reasonable to accept global perpetual war?
Is it reasonable to force fake democracies onto other nations at gunpoint?
Is it reasonable to accept the federal reserve creating money out of thin air and then charging interest upon it? (The interest that is charged is never loaned into circulation, so can NEVER be repaid. So the national debt gets bigger and bigger by design, that is why taxes always go up!)
Is it reasonable to pay unconstitutional taxes on your labour that is exchanged for cash? (income tax)
Is it reasonable to accept being subservient to the Government by the issuance of ID cards in a FREE COUNTRY?
Is it reasonable to give up your freedom and liberty to gain the false pretence of security?
Is it reasonable to live under a self declared dictatorship and the tyranny that is generated therfrom?
It is time to be unreasonable and unrealistic and to take unreasonable action to achieve the unrealistic aims of PEACEFULLY retaking the Constitutional republic of the United States and reinstating it as a beacon of freedom and liberty for the world to see and emulate.
It will take an unreasonable amount of effort to achieve the unrealistic goal of a Ron Paul Presidency, but is it worth it? I say it is. We shall unreasonably promote Ron Paul's message endlessly, to be heard everywere, and I say we do it and keep doing it and never tire of doing it until we succeed.
The whole world cannot afford for us to fail and that is the most unreasonable thing of all.
Ken Hall.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Another letter to the BBC.
Here is another letter I have submitted to the BBC that I expect will not be published. I am disgusted at the blatant way in which the BBC and other media have been trying to show Brown in a new light. As if they are trying to trick us into forgetting the last 10 years.
Actually the Daily Mail are even worse. They berate Blair and almost everything he has presided over, including the stealth taxes and all the policies pushed forward and funded by Brown, they are delighted to see the Back of Blair, yet they too are trying to push this new broom bullshit.
The whole, Brown has changed and is going to be a good Prime Minister who will listen and stop the spin and yadda yadda yadda Bullshit is completely, laughably and totally unbelieveable.
If ever there was a more blatant display of the media exposing themselves as the whores of the hidden rulers behind the new world order, then I have yet to see it.
here's my letter:
I understand that Blair has ruined the elitist agenda that the people who selected him put him in power to implement. He has lost the support of the nation, so that agenda is in peril, so Brown has to put up a different 'front' to get that agenda back on track. I also understand that as the mouthpiece for the 'establishment' the BBC has to help promote that agenda by helping promote a more acceptable image of Brown, but it really will not wash.
So long as a political leader pushes an agenda of an expanding EU, more globalisation, and every stepping stone to a "new world order" or "unipolar world order", then they get a favourable press. When they turn against that agenda, (like Thatcher did late in her premiership), or if they become a liability through their own ineptitude (like Blair) then they lose the support of the media and are replaced.
Name one British political leader, in the last 40 years, who was more Eurosceptic OR had a greater desire to move away from a unipolar world order, than the discredited leader they replaced? Why is the more expansionist leader popular? They are given the more favourable press, every time.
This is the same duplicitous Brown we have come to know and dislike for 10 years. The only change, perhaps, is that he has become more blatant in his lies as he knows he will not be called out on any of them by a supine media that's pushing the same NWO agenda.
That is why the media is despearately trying to push a false idea that he genuinely has changed, no really, this time he really really has, honest. Would we lie to you? OK forget the WMD in Iraq thing, this time we mean it.
The media's desparation is palpable.
Like a freshly beaten wife on the morning after listening to an abusive alcoholic husband declaring this time he really has changed, I do not believe a word of it.
And shame on the BBC for pushing this rubbish.
Instead of pandering to his blatant lies about being closer to the people, giving Parliament a greater say, listening more and being more open etc etc, perhaps you might try, for once, to hold him to account for his words and his actions being 180 degrees different. The restrictions on the freedom of information act, the referendum on the just signed EU treaty would be 2 very good places to be holding his feet to the fire over for a start.
I won't hold my breath however.
Actually the Daily Mail are even worse. They berate Blair and almost everything he has presided over, including the stealth taxes and all the policies pushed forward and funded by Brown, they are delighted to see the Back of Blair, yet they too are trying to push this new broom bullshit.
The whole, Brown has changed and is going to be a good Prime Minister who will listen and stop the spin and yadda yadda yadda Bullshit is completely, laughably and totally unbelieveable.
If ever there was a more blatant display of the media exposing themselves as the whores of the hidden rulers behind the new world order, then I have yet to see it.
here's my letter:
I understand that Blair has ruined the elitist agenda that the people who selected him put him in power to implement. He has lost the support of the nation, so that agenda is in peril, so Brown has to put up a different 'front' to get that agenda back on track. I also understand that as the mouthpiece for the 'establishment' the BBC has to help promote that agenda by helping promote a more acceptable image of Brown, but it really will not wash.
So long as a political leader pushes an agenda of an expanding EU, more globalisation, and every stepping stone to a "new world order" or "unipolar world order", then they get a favourable press. When they turn against that agenda, (like Thatcher did late in her premiership), or if they become a liability through their own ineptitude (like Blair) then they lose the support of the media and are replaced.
Name one British political leader, in the last 40 years, who was more Eurosceptic OR had a greater desire to move away from a unipolar world order, than the discredited leader they replaced? Why is the more expansionist leader popular? They are given the more favourable press, every time.
This is the same duplicitous Brown we have come to know and dislike for 10 years. The only change, perhaps, is that he has become more blatant in his lies as he knows he will not be called out on any of them by a supine media that's pushing the same NWO agenda.
That is why the media is despearately trying to push a false idea that he genuinely has changed, no really, this time he really really has, honest. Would we lie to you? OK forget the WMD in Iraq thing, this time we mean it.
The media's desparation is palpable.
Like a freshly beaten wife on the morning after listening to an abusive alcoholic husband declaring this time he really has changed, I do not believe a word of it.
And shame on the BBC for pushing this rubbish.
Instead of pandering to his blatant lies about being closer to the people, giving Parliament a greater say, listening more and being more open etc etc, perhaps you might try, for once, to hold him to account for his words and his actions being 180 degrees different. The restrictions on the freedom of information act, the referendum on the just signed EU treaty would be 2 very good places to be holding his feet to the fire over for a start.
I won't hold my breath however.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Cameron supports war crimes.
The tories have permanently lost my support. Cameron voted for war in Iraq. Cameron has stated that he still believes that it was the right thing to do. That means he beleives that a pre-emptive invasion against a nation that is no threat is just peach to him. Now I know why.
According to the report linked to this, he is a declared zionist.
Put the UK first or lose my support forever.
Vote UKIP!
According to the report linked to this, he is a declared zionist.
Put the UK first or lose my support forever.
Vote UKIP!
Sunday, June 10, 2007
WOOHOO!!! Outstanding drive from Hamilton
Anthony Hamilton has just won the incident packed Canadian Grand Prix. He was the class of the field and, in only 6 races, has raised the bar for the other formula one drivers. As a rookie, he has finished on the podium on every race in his career. He is showing himself to be an outstanding driver, possibly even better than Michael Schumacher himself.
Well Done Anthony Hamilton.
Well Done Anthony Hamilton.
Friday, June 08, 2007
My take on the BB8 racism row (UK)
I am at a loss to understand why Big Brother allowed a contestant to shamelessly utter a disgusting racist word without any sanction whatsoever.
I refer to Charley calling herself a "nigger".
Emily was (rightly and appropriately) cast out of the house for her use of that word. Charley also used that word (more often than Emily did) and was not reprimanded at all. It seems that the ONLY reason for this is that Charley has a different colour of skin from Emily. In this case the rules are being interpreted and applied in a racially discriminatory fashion. This is appalling behaviour and is totally unacceptable to me.
This word, according to Channel four's own definition, was so foul that no housemate should utter it under any circumstances or in any context whatsoever.
According to channel four's big brother website:
"In the wake of Celebrity Big Brother we must consider the potential offence to viewers regardless of Emily's intentions and her housemates' response. The word nigger is clearly racially offensive and there was no justification for its use."
And
"Unacceptable behaviour includes: behaving in a way that could cause serious offence to either their fellow housemates or members of the viewing public including serious offence based on the grounds of race. Housemates who act in a way that is seriously unacceptable will be evicted."
Charley breached this very serious rule.
Here is an excerpt from the transcript:
"Emily: (referring to Charley dancing/ pushing her hips forward) You pushing it out you nigger.
Nicky: (shocked laughter) Em, I can't believe you said that.
Charley: You are in trouble.
Emily: Don't make a big thing out of it then. I was joking.
Charley: I know you were... but that's some serious shit, sorry.
Emily: Why?
Charley: Oh my god. I'm not even saying it.
Nicky: Just don't talk about it anymore.
Emily: I was joking.
Charley: Do you know how many viewers would watch that?
Nicky: Okay, don't make a big deal out of it.
Charley: Fancy you saying that. I can't believe you said that.
Emily: Somebody has already used that word in this house.
Charley: No way. (Pause) Yeah, me. I'm a niggerr.
Charley: I am one. Fancy you saying it. I know maybe you see it in a rap song. Maybe you and your friends sit there saying it."
I cannot understand why Charley is still in the Big Brother house and has NOT faced ANY sanction whatsoever.
Rules are rules. Either it is acceptable to use this word in a non-malicious fashion, (as BOTH girls did, and as accepted by channel four and the producers of this program), or it is not acceptable.
The serious sanction, and subsequent adverse media attention, that Emily suffered was not equally given to Charley. They both committed exactly the same offensive behaviour. The ONLY difference is the colour of their skin. If one human punishes, or prohibits the actions of another human based SOLELY on the colour of their skin, then that IS racially motivited discrimination.
I am also appalled that the media is editing and cutting their coverage of this programme to deliberately exclude Charley's use of this word.
Everyone I know who has fought racism, as I have, for many many years and who saw the episode last night are equally appalled.
It is this kind of blatant racial discrimination that feeds the evil popularity of the BNP. This could set back race relations for decades.
The Big Brother executives and the Channel four executives (and much of the mainstream media on screen and in print) are using edited and dishonest footage in such a way as to play the race card for all they are worth and are doing so in a blatantly racially discriminatory manner.
I am appalled.
I refer to Charley calling herself a "nigger".
Emily was (rightly and appropriately) cast out of the house for her use of that word. Charley also used that word (more often than Emily did) and was not reprimanded at all. It seems that the ONLY reason for this is that Charley has a different colour of skin from Emily. In this case the rules are being interpreted and applied in a racially discriminatory fashion. This is appalling behaviour and is totally unacceptable to me.
This word, according to Channel four's own definition, was so foul that no housemate should utter it under any circumstances or in any context whatsoever.
According to channel four's big brother website:
"In the wake of Celebrity Big Brother we must consider the potential offence to viewers regardless of Emily's intentions and her housemates' response. The word nigger is clearly racially offensive and there was no justification for its use."
And
"Unacceptable behaviour includes: behaving in a way that could cause serious offence to either their fellow housemates or members of the viewing public including serious offence based on the grounds of race. Housemates who act in a way that is seriously unacceptable will be evicted."
Charley breached this very serious rule.
Here is an excerpt from the transcript:
"Emily: (referring to Charley dancing/ pushing her hips forward) You pushing it out you nigger.
Nicky: (shocked laughter) Em, I can't believe you said that.
Charley: You are in trouble.
Emily: Don't make a big thing out of it then. I was joking.
Charley: I know you were... but that's some serious shit, sorry.
Emily: Why?
Charley: Oh my god. I'm not even saying it.
Nicky: Just don't talk about it anymore.
Emily: I was joking.
Charley: Do you know how many viewers would watch that?
Nicky: Okay, don't make a big deal out of it.
Charley: Fancy you saying that. I can't believe you said that.
Emily: Somebody has already used that word in this house.
Charley: No way. (Pause) Yeah, me. I'm a niggerr.
Charley: I am one. Fancy you saying it. I know maybe you see it in a rap song. Maybe you and your friends sit there saying it."
I cannot understand why Charley is still in the Big Brother house and has NOT faced ANY sanction whatsoever.
Rules are rules. Either it is acceptable to use this word in a non-malicious fashion, (as BOTH girls did, and as accepted by channel four and the producers of this program), or it is not acceptable.
The serious sanction, and subsequent adverse media attention, that Emily suffered was not equally given to Charley. They both committed exactly the same offensive behaviour. The ONLY difference is the colour of their skin. If one human punishes, or prohibits the actions of another human based SOLELY on the colour of their skin, then that IS racially motivited discrimination.
I am also appalled that the media is editing and cutting their coverage of this programme to deliberately exclude Charley's use of this word.
Everyone I know who has fought racism, as I have, for many many years and who saw the episode last night are equally appalled.
It is this kind of blatant racial discrimination that feeds the evil popularity of the BNP. This could set back race relations for decades.
The Big Brother executives and the Channel four executives (and much of the mainstream media on screen and in print) are using edited and dishonest footage in such a way as to play the race card for all they are worth and are doing so in a blatantly racially discriminatory manner.
I am appalled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)