A programmer colleague writes:

Civil Disobediance is the only answer. On a rather predictable note the eye scanning has been dropped as all the machines run Windows and keep crashing ! Laughably the Uk has based it’s whole IT policy on MS Software so none of it is likely to ever work properly, however I am ready to resist.

This is very insightful. If the Linux advocates had been more successful in convincing HMG to adopt GNU / Linux / Open Source, these absurd, immoral and draconian projects would be more likely to succeed, since the infrastructure would be robust.

A rare instance where its a good thing that Linux is not being adopted.

[…] Now the question that immediately comes to mind is which ‘officials’ (aka installed Bolshevik coup faction) within the Home Office ? Is it that radical foaming menagerie of creatures that good people tried for decades to keep away from power, often to the response of ‘conspiracy theorist’ etc.

Hell, well whatever. Sadly that effort just wasn’t enough and when you’re dealing with evil in its purest frorm, dealing with a total hatred of humanity, of society, of the most basic foundations of freedom, accompanied by a desire to topple that society, to destroy it, to create a dire hopeless world of technological, legal and constitutional permanent revolution where everyone is sufficiently plebified into a grey terrified goo, then we can afford to be, and need to be, a lot more aggressive.

You see this kind of story will be treated by its critics as something along the lines of a ‘concerning misunderstanding about relationship between individual and state’, an overreaction to crime and terrorism, but what makes me strongly believe it is not a misunderstanding and overreaction, but truly indicative of a deep-rooted palsied disorder, that manifests as a hatred of freedom and quite serious plot a to otherthrow society altogether is that this latest and most horrific of attacks is hardly in isolation.

Is this a state mistakenly doing all the wrong things, in a well intentioned way to try to keep the public ‘safe’ as some would have you think, or is it a state truly gone wrong ?

We’ve seen recently the bad breathed ever-angry (former-) communist John Reid, trying to inflict the worthless ID cards onto visitors working in the UK, and that unfortunately proves the point. There isn’t a UK anymore, there is no nation, it’s a just container, a cage to practice this crippling socialism protecting the world globalisation/banking hub.

The truth is this. All members of Parliament, all members of the civil service, all donors to political parties, all figureheads in the police, and people in the media who as far as Murdoch and the Sun go…well we’ll come onto that in another time, but anyway all those who are trying to do this are the enemy of the country and are an enemy of all people. There is no other way to say it and they going to have to be dealt with one way or another.

Additionally, I’m sorry to say the bumbling police officer carrying out politically-distorted duties, or the stupid contractror just installing X-ray cameras in lamp posts and elsewhere is inevitably making themselves a legitimate subject of reprisals, just as that pedophile who has been moved into the estate over the road from you is. It’s not enough to be just doing your job anymore, as good people like Craig Murray have said.

[…]

Jultra!

Thats the way we like it. The absolute truth said plainly and with some balls.

Here come some big lies:

Huge majority say civil liberty curbs a ‘price worth paying’ to fight
terror

Research finds most support compulsory ID cards, with phone tapping, curfews and tagging for suspects

John Carvel and Lucy Ward Wednesday January 24, 2007 The Guardian

An overwhelming majority of people in Britain are willing to surrender civil liberties to help tackle the threat of terrorism, the nation’s leading social research institute will disclose today. The survey found seven in every 10 people think compulsory identity cards for all adults would be “a price worth paying” to reduce the threat of terrorism. Eight in 10 say the authorities should be able to tap the phones of people suspected of involvement in terrorism, open their mail and impose electronic tagging or home curfews.

The findings come from the annual British Social Attitudes survey, based on interviews with a sample of 3,000 adults by the National Centre for Social Research

[…]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1997179,00.html

And a clever person on the FIPR saved me some typing:

would the replies have been different if the questions had been:

are you prepared to identify yourself every time you:

(a) take money out of the bank;
(b) want to enter a shopping mall/department store;
(c) [etc]; with those data being stored so the police, social security and your boss can check where you were and what you did at any time?

would you object to being detained for a week because an anonymous informer told the police that s/he thought you were up to no good – without the police giving you any further evidence and without you being able to challenge your detention?

people are always willing to give up freedoms if they think it’ll only affect “the other”, i.e. sinister people from “other cultures” (black, muslim, hoodie). as whatshername said, it’ll be too late if you wait until the [secret] police knocks on your door …

la lotta per la liberta (e gli liberti) continua!

John Carvel and Lucy Ward Wednesday are total scumbags.

They know perfectly well that biased and malformed questions are almost always used to generate this data; the fact that they did not publish the questions proves that they are culpable, or amongst the stupidest people in the country.

Everyone knows now that we are in the middle of a historic fight for the very soul of Britain. To let this sort of thing pass unchecked is simply CRIMINAL, especially since its appearing in the same paper that Henry Porter has been doing such good work in. They will know ABSOLUTELY that this report is totally bogus, because they work IN THE SAME TEAM AS HENRY PORTER. They will have read, without a doubt, the ‘Frances Stonor Saunders’ email. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING when they publish this without question and put their names to it.

Dirty filthy animals, against Britain, against freedom; LIARS LIARS LIARS, COWARDS COWARDS COWARDS lower than any dog, suicidal, imbecilic…

FUCKING DUMBASSES.

… and they don’t even have the brains to point out that none of the measures proposed will actually do what HMG says they are for. Even HMG admits that ID cards will do nothing to stop ‘terrorism’.

The question is, why on earth do the editors of The Guardian allow this evil drivel in their paper?

The proposed separation of the Home Office into two departments is being seen in most reports as an overdue necessity, I have my doubts, especially as the Prime Minister seemingly approves of the idea.

Firstly the creation of a separate department for ‘Security’ implies that the current problems have a set of solutions independent (or abstractable) from other Departments. This is entirely untrue, most of the bad feeling towards the UK is a direct result of bad foreign policy backed up by bad ‘defence’ policies (then to spice the mixture up a load of nonsensical national legislation). If anything a security minister should be a junior official at the Foreign Office.

Secondly this move doesn’t do anything to REDUCE Governmental tinkering, paranoia-mongering and legislative fluff. More than likely this will create a situation where two programmes of legislation relating to ‘law and order’ will be fed through the parliamentary sausage machine with even less scrutiny and more chance of being voted through according to party whipping. Yes MORE of the same ‘need to do something’ posturing but with even less ‘joined-up’ thinking!

Thirdly this change is going to be rushed through which means instead of one ‘not fit for purpose’ government department there will be two slapdash mini-me versions. Presumably in the confusion it will be more likely that serial killers, rapists, embarrassing paperwork will go missing.

Fourthly the proliferation of biometric & database security peddlers will have an extra outlet to lobby government, and government an extra mouthpiece to voice its desires for these.

What the government desparately needs to do is to re-evaluate its ‘need’ to legislate in the face of reason, to massively scale back its meddling control freakery etc. of course this is not going to happen until the day someone walks into Whitehall whose heart is sick to the core of government insidiousness and arrogance. Certainly not a politician.

The criminal coward George W. Bush:

“I didn’t want to see him go through the trap door”

Without even the stomach to see his mortal enemy receive ‘justice’.

You cant make stuff like this up!

And The Times says:

Bush’s admission of mistakes seen as weakness in Baghdad
Stephen Farrell in Baghdad

In a region where admission of error is rare among leaders fearful of appearing weak, President Bush’s candour has been trumpeted by his enemies as a statement of defeat.

Sunni insurgents contacted by The Times after Mr Bush’s surge strategy was announced gleefully seized upon his remark: “mistakes have been made”.

Abu Mo’ath, of the ’Islamic and Nationalist Front for the Liberation of Iraq, said: “This strategy is nothing new ….but the new thing about it is the defeated accent of the American President Bush who always worked hard to appear tough and strong, and rejected any sort of negotiations about Iraq’s problems.”

Abu Qutada, an anti-coalition fighter with the self-styled al-Rashideen Army, said: “It’s very clear that America failed completely in Iraq in all aspects, as their politicians are saying.

“But we say defeated, not just failed, and they are nowadays desperate to find a way out of their troubles here.”

In the wider Arab world Al-Khaleej newspaper in the United Arab Emirates dismissed Mr Bush, saying “he has no more credibility, either in his country or abroad….his military forces are headed for defeat.”

Ibrahim Aloush, a Jordanian political analyst, said: “Until a few months ago, Bush and the Neocons were acting so pompously about their policy in Iraq. So where’s that triumphant look now? It’s definitely not there any more.

“The guy looks tired, literally beaten. And he was beaten in Iraq. Even if the admission of mistakes came in the fom of ’We weren’t doing enough’ that still remains a testimony to the valiant efficiency of the Iraqi resistance on the ground.”

And Fathi Khataab, in Egypt’s Islamist opposition al-Ahrar newspaper, shared the opinion of many that Mr Bush’s ’admission’ of defeat boded ill for the prospects of stability in the Middle East: “No doubt that the admission of mistakes in Iraq is a victory for the Iraqi resistance and a clear failure of the American administration in Iraq,” he wrote.

“Bush’s plans to increase the troops is proof of his failure. Because of this failure in front of the Iraqi resistance he has started searching for a victory in the region in Iran and Syria.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

[…]

“The illogic of waste”….yes indeed.

Blair launches new drive to let officials share data on citizens

Tony Blair will today spearhead a fresh government initiative to persuade voters they have nothing to fear from consenting to a relaxation of “over-zealous” rules which stop Whitehall departments sharing information about individual citizens.

How are people going to give ‘informed consent’? Is it not more likely that officials will be told to assume consent has been given unless specifically denied (and how effective is this likely to be)? And how will all this be regulated?

But the exercise was denounced by opposition MPs as a further lurch towards a Big Brother state even before the prime minister announces the formation of five citizen panels, each with 100 members, to examine the merits of such a change.

Just examine the merits? will these ‘citizen panels’ be fed with the sort of half truths and incomplete information that Civil Servants/Select Committees would rightly reject?

Officials were keen to emphasise that talk of a “single massive database” is misconceived. What is at issue is allowing individual departmental systems to talk to each other.

What is at issue is the ability for an individual to limit/prevent the damage caused by disclosure of personal information to all and sundry.

One official derided the condemnation likely to come from civil liberty lobbies, insisting: “At present we have some ridiculously artificial demarcations in government when Tesco and the credit agencies know more about us all than government agencies which are there to help you.”

Tesco is not a monopoly service provider and the information it gathers can be controlled to an extent by Data Protection laws which help prevent it gaining third party information. In principle and to a large degree Tesco only gathers the information you supply it with or allow to be made public. YOU CAN OPT OUT OF SUPPLYING TESCO WITH INFORMATION especially by not shopping there. In addition a lot of information held by State controlled agencies is potentially more damaging than that held by Tesco et al. (and I don’t even include covertly gathered ‘intelligence’).
There is no comeback from not supplying Tesco with information – it can’t fine you for not having a clubcard, or for not having a TV License, it doesn’t have powers to curtail freedom of movement or protest. It’s a shop – it just sells things.

The first target of the reforms is bereavement, when families under stress are required to notify a range of agencies that they have lost a loved one.

Work is still under way to establish the technical changes that would be necessary to make reporting a death a one-stop call. It is claimed such changes would help “early identification” and thus give warning that a family is struggling.

Surely it is better to question why so many officials need to be informed of a death.

But the Tories and Liberal Democrats have brushed aside promised safeguards and denounce the change as “an excuse for bureaucrats to snoop”. The NO2ID campaign to resist government plans for universal ID cards calls the proposals “the abolition of privacy”.

Manifesto commitments to overturn this please, all else is hot air.

It reverses the historic presumption of confidentiality, the campaign argues, something ministers deny. But the office of the information commissioner, whose task is to promote public access to official data – and to protect personal data – is taking a more benign view. The government’s intentions have been debated within Whitehall and were signalled as part of the reform of public service delivery in the documents published as part of Gordon Brown’s pre-budget report in November. “Citizens should be able to access public services in relation to changes in their personal or family life events through a single point,” said a document which promised a delivery plan in 2007.

If public services were handled at a local level more then the burdens would be easier to bear on both sides

Inside Whitehall the lead department on the proposed change is work and pensions, whose secretary of state, John Hutton, yesterday used an interview on BBC1’s Politics Show to deny that the change were too intrusive. The potential benefits were considerable, he said. “The government already stores vast amounts of data about individual citizens [why??? – mm] but actually doesn’t share it terribly intelligently across various government agencies. I had a case in my department about a family where someone had unfortunately died in a road traffic accident, and over the space of six months, on 44 separate occasions, they were asked by elements of my department to confirm details of this terrible tragedy.”

This burdensome red tape is entirely because the government is already too involved in people’s lives.

[…]

Guardian

This all follows on from the relaxation of Data Protection controls last July and is most likely a prelude for the most questioning Census ever in 2011. It’s like a real version of the boogeyman stories about drugs, the soft stuff leads onto the hard stuff and BAM! you’re hooked.

Government intrusion? Just Say No!

—

Hmm, I was trying to ‘Detox’

Blair wants ‘super-Asbos’ for violent thugs
David Cracknell, Political Editor

TONY BLAIR is to mount a final assault on Britain’s thug culture by introducing restrictions that will curb potential yobs’ movements even before they have committed an offence.

After attempting to tackle antisocial behaviour, he is proposing to introduce a “violent offender order” (Voo) targeted at those whom police believe are likely to commit violence.

These new “super-Asbos” will be aimed not only at people who have a history of violent behaviour or who have just left prison but also those who may not yet have committed an offence.

According to a Home Office document outlining the plan, to be published next month, the measures will ban potential trouble-makers from certain areas or mixing with certain people, alert police when they move house and possibly force them to live in a named hostel, give details of vehicles they own and impose a curfew on them.

The orders will last for at least two years, with no upper limit. Any breach could lead to up to five years in jail. Ministers believe police will apply for 300 to 450 Voos each year.

The measures will be seen as a last-ditch attempt by Blair to rescue his legacy on law and order before he quits No 10 in the summer. Despite the prime minister’s boast that overall crime has been falling for the past decade, violent crime is rising.

A report out today, by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies in association with The Sunday Times, reveals that almost half of the offenders caught by police are getting away without a court punishment, robberies have risen and murders are up by a third. Street muggings remain stubbornly high.

The Voos are designed to be a “preventative measure”, according to the Home Office paper. “It would mean that, where an individual was known to be dangerous but had not committed a specific qualifying offence, restrictions could still be placed on their behaviour,” it says.

Like Asbos, the police or probation service would apply for the orders to the civil courts, where the threshold for proof is lower than in a criminal case. The document says the process will therefore be much quicker and hearsay evidence will be permitted to obtain an order against a suspect. Any breach of the order would be a criminal offence.

Unlike Asbos, which solely cover antisocial behaviour, Voos would be targeted at thugs who would be placed on the violent and sex offender register, a national database for intelligence on people deemed to be a serious risk to the public.

Ministers are concerned that the Asbo regime has failed to give police and the authorities enough powers to tackle potentially violent offenders.

The paper identifies a series of “risk factors” that could lead to a person being targeted for the new order. These include a person’s formative years and upbringing, “cognitive deficiencies”, “entrenched pro-criminal or antisocial attitudes,” “a history of substance abuse or mental health issues”.

Factors could also include a person’s domestic situation or relationship with their partner or family, as well as more obvious signs such as “possession of paraphernalia related to violent offending (eg, balaclava, baseball bat), or extremist material”.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the civil rights campaign group, said: “Haven’t we seen enough already with Asbos and control orders? This sounds like another incredibly broad power, with more legislation — another quick fix undermining natural justice and not making us any safer.”

[…]

Times Online

Yes indeed; they called it… ‘Pre-Crime’

Minority Report is the cause for all of our woes. I can guarantee you that the computer illiterate sub-human trash of the likes of Bliar had no idea of what was possible (maxing out the Totalitarian vibe-wise) until he saw the Hollywood blockbuster ‘Minority Report’ (heaven knows he would never have read the book) and then, turning to somoene in his black lair he would have asked, “Could we actually do this?” whereupon some consultant disguised in human form would have said, “Yes, but it would take time“.

It was probably as stupid as that.

The totally seductive idea of being able to prevent crime, not just murder, but all crime, Pre-Crime style, probably made Bliar wet his pants. Knowing that a precognitive mutant solution was not to hand, he did the next best thing: Legislation.

Read the comments here, in response to this BBQ article. Critical mass is approaching, make no mistake about it. People are slowly waking up.

We even have words like this, which are as the sweetest music to my ears:

Mr Cameron! Make it part of your manifesto that you will roll back all the infringements on my long-held & fought for British rights & way of life and you will have this life-long Labour supporter’s vote.

And thats a promise.

– Ian Fergey, Braintree, Essex

From this article, on the outsourcing of M|5’s bogus ‘terror’ alert ‘service’.

Let the runaway chain reaction begin.

Finally, ‘The country that brought you Hitler’ brings you ‘the Prum Treaty’:

Police across Europe to share DNA database

David Rose
Sunday January 14, 2007
The Observer

Police and security services in the European Union will share access to an unprecedented range of individuals’ personal data under a radical package of measures to be discussed by EU justice ministers this week. It allows agencies in different countries to search one another’s databases – DNA records, fingerprints, vehicle details – and other personal information. Even if someone has no criminal record and their DNA is not on a database, police can ask their foreign colleagues to collect a sample.

The measures, known as the Prum Treaty, after the German town where it was signed, are being championed by Germany, which holds the EU presidency. Documents obtained by The Observer show that the Germans are also holding secret talks with top US officials in an attempt to conclude a data-sharing agreement with America – first for Germany alone, then for the EU […]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989902,00.html

Almost everyone in the UK now knows reflexively why this is wrong.

At last, we are beginning to get results.

by Paul Craig Roberts

Bush’s “surge” speech is a hoax, but members of Congress and media commentators are discussing the surge as if it were real.

I invite the reader to examine the speech. The “surge” content consists of nonsensical propagandistic statements. The real content of the speech is toward the end where Bush mentions Iran and Syria.

Bush makes it clear that success in Iraq does not depend on the surge. Rather, “Succeeding in Iraq . . . begins with addressing Iran and Syria.”

Bush asserts that “these two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.”

Bush’s assertions are propagandistic lies.

The Iraq insurgency is Sunni. Iran is Shi’ite. If Iran is supporting anyone in Iraq it is the Shi’ites, who have not been part of the insurgency. Indeed, the Sunni and Shi’ites are engaged in a civil war within Iraq.

Does any intelligent person really believe that Iranian Shi’ites are going to arm Iraqi Sunnis who are killing Iraqi Shi’ites allied with Iran? Does anyone really believe that Iranian Shi’ites are going to provide sanctuary for Iraqi Sunnis?

Bush can tell blatant propagandistic lies, because Congress and the American people don’t know enough facts to realize the absurdity of Bush’s assertions.

Why is Bush telling these lies? Here is the answer: Bush says, “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

In those words, Bush states perfectly clearly that victory in Iraq requires US forces to attack Iran and Syria. Moreover, Bush says, “We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”

What do two US aircraft carrier attack groups in the Persian Gulf have to do with a guerrilla ground war in Iraq?

The “surge” is merely a tactic to buy time while war with Iran and Syria can be orchestrated. The neoconservative/Israeli cabal feared that the pressure that Congress, the public, and the American foreign policy establishment were putting on Bush to de-escalate in Iraq would terminate their plan to achieve hegemony in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq would mean the end of the neoconservatives’ influence. It would be impossible to start a new war with Iran after losing the war in Iraq.

The neoconservatives and the right-wing Israeli government have clearly stated their plans to overthrow Muslim governments throughout the region and to deracinate Islam. These plans existed long before 9/11.

Near the end of his “surge” speech, Bush adopts the neoconservative program as US policy. The struggle, Bush says, echoing the neoconservatives and the Israeli right-wing, goes far beyond Iraq. “The challenge,” Bush says, is “playing out across the broader Middle East. . . . It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.” America is pitted against “extremists” who “have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.” “The most realistic way to protect the American people,” Bush says, is “by advancing liberty across a troubled region.”

This, of course, is a massive duplicitous lie. We have brought no liberty to Iraq, but we have destroyed their way of life. Bush suggests that Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine are waiting and hoping for more invasions to free them of violence. Did Bush’s invasion free Iraq from violence or did it bring violence to Iraq?

It is extraordinary that anyone can listen to this blatant declaration of US aggression in the Middle East without demanding Bush’s immediate impeachment.

Republican US Senator Chuck Hagel declared Bush’s plan to be “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” In truth, it is far worse. It is naked aggression justified by transparent lies. No one has ever heard governments in Iraq, Syria, or Iran declare “their intention to destroy our way of life.” To the contrary, it is the United States and Israel that are trying to destroy the Muslim way of life.

The crystal clear truth is that fanatical neoconservatives and Israelis are using Bush to commit the United States to a catastrophic course.

[…]

Anti-War

We of course, know that bush doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims:

[…] The Iranian government doesn’t ’sponsor terrorism’. The entire cause of ‘terrorism’ is USUKs interference in other people’s countries. Look at this documentary to find out just how IGNORANT Bliar and Bu$h are; the killer part is where the presenter recounts the event where Bu$h took some Shias and Sunnis to the Super Bowl. They talked. Somehow, the discussion came round to Islam, and someone mentioned that Sunnis and Shias sometimes….’don’t get along’, whereupon The Great Satan said, “You mean that there is more than one kind of muslim?”. […]

BLOGDIAL

If americans (and by americans, i mean the 50% that don’t agree with fascism) need to ‘step up to the plate’ and DO SOMETHING about the preparations for an attack on Iran.

At the very minimum, they (the 50%) should stage a seven day national strike. Everyone and every business that is against expanded war close up shop for one solid week.

Thats not so hard is it?

Brown to end Blair’s terror strategy

[…]

Mr Brown, who backed the 2003 Iraq invasion, said he had since learned that only so much could be achieved against terrorists and religious fanatics by brute military force, intelligence, security work and policing. In terms that will appeal to many Labour supporters but anger Mr Blair — and some in Washington — he said the fight to stop “extremist terrorist activities” would only be won after world leaders triumphed in a peaceful battle for “hearts and minds”.

Suggesting that he would not follow Washington into any future military action against rogue nations such as Iran, Mr Brown said the kind of “cultural war” fought by the West against Communism in the 1940s and 1950s could be a “model” for the next chapter of the war on terror. […]

Telegraph

Gordon has no clue at all. Thats because he doesn’t understand the era that he is in.

There can be no ‘cultural war’ in this age, because of…The Internets.

All the people he is talking about waging a cultural war against are already completely immune from cultural attack; this is why they are in a state of unprecedented cultural cohesion and frictionless networking.

For example, have you ever noticed the insanely great music that accompanies the ‘Juba’ videos, or those ‘messages from the front’ where IEDs blow up armored vehicles? There is a huge culture of ‘Nasheeds‘ music made from only the human voice, which are:

Nasheeds (Arabic: ??????; also spelt Nasyid in Malaysia) are Islamic-oriented songs. Traditionally, they are sung a cappella, accompanied only by a daff. This musical style is used because many Muslim scholars interpret Islam as prohibiting the use of musical instruments except for some basic percussion. Despite what might be considered a handicap, Nasheeds are spreading across the music network as many people admire the purity and simplicity of the music.

Look at the guys in that nasheeds.com link. They are not going to swallow any propaganda, no matter how much it is sugared, and whats more, they are putting out their own thoughts ideas and music that outclasss and outperform anything that Gordon ‘The Grotesque’ Brown and his UK based PR scum-bags could ever come up with, the main reason being that they are on the side of righteousness.

The only way PM in waiting Gordon G. Brown can ever hope to take the UK off of the shit list is to REPENT and to totally disengage in the bogus ‘War on Terror’ and completely drop all of its hideous side effects. That means immediate withdrawl from all countries where this US led insanity is taking place, repealing all Bliar’s anti-terror legislation and measures, and promising never to follow The Great Satan into the abyss again. He might even consider paying reparations for the crimes that were committed by his government.

That is the only thing that will put it all right. You cannot tell one billion people that their religion is the new Communism that needs to be defeated, and then expect to win. Not only is Islam not analagous to Communism, but even if it was, the tools of any ‘cultural war’ are in the hands of everyone with a cellphone. Every blogger, email writer and text messager is a soldier in this war. There is no way that you can defeat that. To get a good understanding of what an insurmountable task this would be, should you be stupid enough to try it, read, ‘In the Shadow of the silent Majorities‘:

The whole chaotic constellation of the social revolves around that spongy reference, that opaque but equally translucent reality, that nothingness: the masses. A statistical crystal ball, the masses are ‘swirling with currents and flows,’ in the image of matter and the natural elements. So, at least, they are represented to us.

Written in 1978 and first published in English in 1983, In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities was the first postmodern response to the delusional strategies of terrorism. At a time when European terrorists were taking politics into their own hands, Baudrillard was the first to announce that the “critical mass” had stopped being critical of anything. Rather, the “masses” had become a place of absorption and implosion; hence the ending of the possibility of politics as will and representation.

The book marked the end of an era when silent majorities still factored into the democratic political process and were expected to respond positively to revolutionary messages. With the masses no longer “alienated” as Marx had described, but rather indifferent, this phenomenon made revolutionary explosion impossible, says Baudrillard.

The mass absorbs all the social energy, but no longer refracts it. It absorbs every sign and every meaning, but no longer reflects them… it never participates. It is a good conductor of information, but of any information. It is without truth and without reason. It is without conscience and without unconscious. Everybody questions it, but never as silence, always to make it speak. This silence is unbearable. It is the simulation chamber of the social.

As a mere shadow cast by power, the silent majority and its hyper-real conformity have no meaning and nothing to say to us. To that, terrorism responds by an equally hyper-real act equally caught up from the onset in concentric waves of media and of fascination.

It aims at the mass silence, the masses in their silence. It aims at the white magic of simulation, deterrence, of anonymous and random control, and by the black magic of a still greater, more anonymous, arbitrary and more hazardous abstraction; that of the terrorist act.

Remarkably prescient, Baudrillard’s meditation on terrorism throws light on post-September 11th delusional fears and political simulations. MIT Press

“A ‘cultural war’ fought by the West against Communism in the 1940s and 1950s” cannot and will not work in the 21st century. The Mass will not accept any message, as Baudrillard points out so cleanly for us. The Internets prevent any lie from taking hold for too long, and they (The Internets and the people who operate in them) are getting stronger and stronger and better and better at doing this job.

Gordon Brown is an idiot, an member of the murder Inc. cabal cabinet, a criminal, a liar, a man without any new ideas, a man without morals and a real threat to the UK if this is the best quality of his thinking. Anyway, a man guilty of mass murder has no place being in charge of this great country. But I digress.

Check out these websites, where you can get your own Nasheeds:

http://www.islamway.com/
There are some Nasheeds buried in there; good luck finding them!

http://www.anashed.net/anashed/ashretah/jwad_al_fjr.html
This site has ‘the one with the horses’, ‘Jawad Al Fijr’ that you hear in all the videos.

http://www.nsheed.com/sounds/sounds.php?mqtaa=24
For the ladies?

http://nasheed.worldofislam.info/
500 megz of nasheeds here. Leech away.

http://www.streetdawah.com/nasheeds.html
Collections on CD.

Lord Bush wants to bring back the draft.

Thanks to The Internets, all those young americans can get a foretaste of what they can expect if they are stupid enough to obey.

This guy has another idea about how they can get more cannon fodder. He’s not kidding either:

The government could perhaps grant citizenship to any illegal immigrant who was willing to serve for two years. The government could also grant amnesty to people in prisons throughout the country willing to serve for two or more years. Of the over 12 million illegal immigrants and the millions of Americans in the prison system, I believe we could easily fill the ranks of those servicemen who need to return home, especially those who have families to care for.

In all likelihood we will remain in Iraq indefinitely. Remember, we are still in all of the countries from all major wars since World War II. The only way we can leave Iraq is if they can defend themselves against Iran, as they have been enemies at war for years.

Having Saddam Hussein in Iraq kept Iran in check. We have altered the balance of power in that region and it is now our moral duty to defend Iraq. It is our fault that there is now civil war in Iraq and that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed.

Can you say, “Starship Troopers”?

its going to be ‘another one of those years’.

Britons to be scanned for FBI database
Anger over airport fingerprint plan; Terror tests to start this summer
Paul Harris in New York, Jamie Doward and Paul Gallagher

Sunday January 7, 2007

Millions of Britons who visit the United States are to have their fingerprints stored on the FBI database alongside those of criminals, in a move that has outraged civil rights groups. The Observer has established that under new plans to combat terrorism, the US government will demand that visitors have all 10 fingers scanned when they enter the country. The information will be shared with intelligence agencies, including the FBI, with no restrictions on their international use.

[…]

The Observer

You really don’t need that holiday in Florida that much, do you?

Middle Finger Print?

Guantanamo Bay of Pigs!

A new civil liberties controversy has flared up over the news that police chiefs are considering using high-powered microphones to “eavesdrop” – as critics will see it – on crowds at the London 2012 Olympics.

A high-ranking officer told the BBC the proposal to strengthen security by using microphones alongside closed-circuit TV involved “taking public surveillance to an entirely new level”.

But the former home secretary David Blunkett called publicly on the government to block the scheme.

He told BBC Radio Five Live’s Weekend News programme that the suggestion was “simply unacceptable”, and smacked of the “surveillance state”.

As you walk down the street you expect to be able to have a private conversation
David Blunkett

Mr Blunkett said the idea echoed the fictional authoritarian Brave New World of Aldous Huxley’s novel.

“As you walk down the street you expect to be able to have a private conversation,” he said.

“If you can’t guarantee that – and here is someone speaking who has been pretty tough in terms of what should be available to protect society – I believe we have slipped over the edge.”

As you walk down the street, you expect to be able to have a private conversation.

This simply CANNOT be real.

Does the subhuman adulterer actually think this? Is he joking? This is the very same loathsome David Blunkett that did all the evil that we railed against…..

But Mimi Majick chimes in:

Its because he is BLIND; sound to him is equivalent to sight for us. That is why he understands this. It shows you why you shouldn’t have somebody who is disabled in a position like Home Secretary, because they cannot represent us. He cannot possibly understand what having CCTV cameras in the street means, because he has no sight.

And I agree totally, and have said this before; a blind Home Secratary cannot judge what is obscene and what is not obscene because he cannot see porn.

But I digress.

This BASTARD now wants to defect from the dark side (no pun intended) and join the side of what is right?

What utter rubbish.

This proves yet again that the people behind the push for ID cards, biometrics and all that other hogwash simply don’t understand what it is that they are doing. They don’t understand the consequences, the ramifications, the results, and if it all gets rolled out, the police will be in charge and they will have the power to silence any politician that goes up against them because they will be able to see into every bedroom, every bank account and every nook and cranny of this great country. No one in any position of power will dare defy them because it means, as in the case of asshole Blunkett, that adulterous affairs will be exposed, and in the case of Bliar, bribery uncovered.

Told you so!

and this from Bruce’s November newsletter:

We can’t turn back technology; electronic communications are here to stay. But as technology makes our conversations less ephemeral, we need laws to step in and safeguard our privacy. We need a comprehensive data privacy law, protecting our data and communications regardless of where it is stored or how it is processed. We need laws forcing companies to keep it private and to delete it as soon as it is no longer needed.

And we need to remember, whenever we type and send, we’re being watched.

Foley is an anomaly. Most of us do not send instant messages in order to solicit sex with minors. Law enforcement might have a legitimate need to access Foley’s IMs, e-mails and cell phone calling logs, but that’s why there are warrants supported by probable cause–they help ensure that investigations are properly focused on suspected pedophiles, terrorists and other criminals. We saw this in the recent UK terrorist arrests; focused investigations on suspected terrorists foiled the plot, not broad surveillance of everyone without probable cause.

Without legal privacy protections, the world becomes one giant airport security area, where the slightest joke — or comment made years before — lands you in hot water. The world becomes one giant market-research study, where we are all life-long subjects. The world becomes a police state, where we all are assumed to be Foleys and terrorists in the eyes of the government.

http://tinyurl.com/ymmnee

Yes indeed. What you are describing is not a ‘giant airport security area’ but a Prison Planet.

Me too Me too!!!! :

Passengers at Heathrow had their fingerprints taken for the first time yesterday, in tests which could lead to routine biometric scanning at Britain’s airports.

A high-tech scanner was unveiled by the Government and eventually all passengers could be required to have iris and face scans.

Initially, passengers are being invited to have their fingerprints scanned in return for skipping boarding queues. If the scheme, known as miSense, proves succesful, it could be rolled out across the UK…

Telegraph

Copycat imbeciles!

It is hardly surprising to me that a report on how to tax driving written by an ex-chairman of British Airways favours ‘road pricing’ over a system based on fuel taxation. I’ve mentioned my views on fuel tax before (in the comments here)

[…] If fuel duties could be determined at regional level it would have a greater impact on congestion/road usage, it would also get rid of the complaints of rural users being disproportionately affected if Birmingham could increase fuel duty without affecting rural Warwickshire. And you wouldn’t need a network of electricity gobbling cameras […]

(I obviously don’t trust a centrally levied and collected tax to be used effectively)

In any case a report from a person who has been successful in an industry that enjoys minimal taxation is hardly likely to want to promote it anywhere else. I’m not pro-taxation per se, however ‘road pricing’ will have exactly the same economic effect as fuel taxation but be more costly to run, more intrusive to the driver (as it will depend on mass surveillance infrastructure), not easily linked to the actual performance of drivers and their cars, etc.

With fuel tax as high as it is anyway, there would obviously be no appetite for a higher rate (which is no doubt why Rod Eddington was appointed to return this sort of report) when the government is so obviously failing to spend such tax money effectively on transport infrastructure.

Blair to announce his ‘new tomorrow’ for ‘Slave Grid’

By George Jones, Political Editor (Telegraph)
Last Updated: 1:28am GMT 27/11/2006

Tony Blair will today announce his “new tomorrow” for Britain’s role in the Slave Grid but will stop short of issuing a full contract.

The Prime Minister’s personal recommendation comes as the Government prepares to set out its plans to complete the biometric grid next year as part of Britain’s decision to re-establish slavery.

John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, has been drawing up ideas for the March 25 ceremony including the possibility of a “statement of intent” for Britain’s involvement.

However, the Government has already ruled out a formal strategy despite pressure from some back-benchers and community leaders.

In remarks appearing in the Labour Party newspaper, NewSpeak, Mr Blair says: “It is hard to believe what would once have been a crime against liberty was enacted at this time.

“I believe the biometric database offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly useful the Slave Grid will be — how we will conform utterly under its existence and praise those who fought for its legislation — but also to express our deep sorrow that it may never have happened and rejoice at the better times we live in today.”

Government officials said the remarks were intended to set the tone for events to mark the inauguration, which will be set out in a written ministerial statement to Parliament this week.

Britain will the second big Slave-Gridding nation (after the U.S.A.) to implement the practice in 2007.

In February, the Church of England General Synod voted to pray for the souls of slaves.

Before the official start of the Grid, Britain spent more than £3bn on enrolling slaves a year on air-conditioned planes to the Americas. It legalised the Grid in 2006 as there were still huge profits to be made.

From the beginning of 2008, the Royal Navy will patrol off the coast of East Anglia searching for illicitly trading ferries, boarding them and ‘gridding’ new slaves.

—

Clearly Blair has no ‘authority’ to express his sorrow at the slave trade when he is simultaneously intent on eroding individual freedoms to a point where the UK is a grim termite mound full of drones existing simply to support and fuel a controlling State bureaucracy.

Slavery is a condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by violence or other forms of coercion. Slavery almost always occurs for the purpose of securing the labor of the person concerned. A specific form, known as chattel slavery, implies the legal ownership of a person or persons.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

All there is to say about The British US-dependent Nukular Deterroristent:

I’ve been meaning to tell you about Web Of Evil for ages. Well worth reading. Insightful, witty, and best of all, not an idiot. I think he works at Hansard or some governmental agency.

Too much Legislation? Dump it at once, urges minister

Tuesday November 14, 2006
The Guardian

Fed up with cctv cameras on black plastic trees? Tired of nosey community officers in tight-fitting plastic jackets? Have you had enough of fingerprinting in bars? Then, according to a government minister, you should ignore the offending legislation – and dump it at once.

Stakeholders were urged yesterday to take direct action to force Government to cut the excessive and wasteful legislation that intervenes directly in private life from the shop shelf to the household bin. The environment minister Ben Bradshaw advised good citizens to ignore excessive legislation at all costs and to report the Ministers’ double standards in an attempt to cut the amount of unnecessary laws enforced by police officers.

He said citizens were “bombarded” with excessive legislation and warned that he would consider a Motion to force ministers to repeal bills if they had not voluntarily made reductions by 2010.

His hardline approach was announced after a meeting with the UK’s 13 leading ministers to discover what progress they were making in cutting back. Mr Bradshaw said it was “unacceptable” that legislation had increased by 3000 acts between 1999 and 2005, and enforcement accounts for one-third of an average household’s total taxation.

The Opposition signed up to an agreement last year, called the Courtauld commitment, to slash legislative waste within five years and also to tackle the amount of tax that goes to war.

So far, the 13 ministers have only cut legislative wording by 35,000 words, according to figures from the government’s We Are Right Programme. However, the WARP target is for cutbacks of just 340,000 words by 2010.

Yesterday the Prime Minister’s Press Office confirmed that three of the biggest FEAR manufacturers – Blair, Reid and Brown – have aimed their sights at the Courtauld pledge.

Mr Bradshaw said it was important for citizens to be aware that registration [on governemnt databases] was not actually a good option. “[Form filling] is better than throwing information away, and registration [schemes] are worse still,” he said.

He illustrated his comments with examples of wasteful legislating – such as instant ASBOs, wrapped in good intentions and presented as community support – which cannot be enforced. He acknowledged that all the Government departments had come up with excessive legislation, but said: “We need to question the necessity of those schemes. We need to see quantifiable reductions.”

While saying he would like to see targets for State reduction spelled out in and included in annual reports, Mr Bradshaw also urged citizens to force the Government to move faster by taking direct action. After asserting their rights, citizens should scorn “excessive and unnecessary” laws and leave them behind.

[…]